is to say justified so also by infusion that is sanctified For the justifying faith being a lively and effectuall faith purifieth the heart and worketh by love and may be demonstrated by good works And where is not inherent righteousnesse concurring with faith there is no justifying faith at all But although sanctification doe alwaies accompany justification yet wee are not justified by the righteousnesse of sanctification which is inherent because it is unperfect and wee are sanctified but in part whiles we have the flesh that is the body of sinne remaining in us Neither was there ever any man since the fall absolute or perfect in respect of inherent righteousnesse Christ onely excepted § X. Yea but saith Bellarmine the Scripture acknowledgeth some men to have beene perfect Gen. 6. 9. immaculate Psal. 119. 1. just before God Luke 1. 6. I answere that this perfection is not legall as being a perfect conformity with the Law which is the perfect rule of righteousnesse but evangelical as being one of the properties of our new obedience which is not to bee measured by the perfect performance but by the sincere and upright desire and purpose of the heart For this uprightnesse goeth under the name of perfection and what is done with an upright heart is said to be done with a perfect heart and with the whole that is entire heart And likewise those men who were upright are said to have been perfect And yet notwithstanding all those men who are said in the Scriptures to have been perfect and to have walked before God with a perfect heart as Noah Iacob Iob David Ezâ—…kias c. had their imperfections Ezekias is said to have been a perfect man and to have served God with a perfect heart notwithstanding when God left him a little to try him he discovered his imperfections 2 Chr. 32. 25. 31. Of Asa it is said 2 Chron. 15. 17. that his heart was perfect all the dayes of his life and yet in the very next chapter there are three faults of his recorded where Zachary is said to have beene just before God and to have walked in all the Commandements and Ordinances of God blamelesse in the same chapter his incredulity is registred for which hee was stricken with dumbnesse and deafnesse for the space of tenne moneths So that all that are sincere and upright that is to say no hypocrits are notwithstanding their imperfections called perfect and so the word which is translated immaculate Psal. 119. 1. signifieth upright and to be righteous before God is all one with upright Thus the holy Ghost teacheth us to expound the word which is translated perfect viz. thamin and tham that to be upright is to walke before God is to walke before God and to walke before God is to be perfect Gen. 17. 1. Let perfection and uprightnesse preserve me Psal. 25. 21. Psal. 37. 37. Observe the perfect man and behold the upright for the end of that man is peace § XI Yea but Bellarmine will prove that these men which are in the Scriptures called just were endued with inherent righteousnesse because they brought forth good workes which were the fruits and effects of their inward righteousnesse for he that doth righteousnesse is righteous whom doth he now confute wee doe not deny them who are commended in the Scriptures for righteous persons to have been endued with righteousnesse inherent but wee deny that they or any of them were justified before God thereby As for example Abraham who abounded with good workes was justified by faith without workes Rom. 4. 2 3. and as hee was justified so are all the faithfull Rom. 4. 23 24. David though a man according to Gods own heart walking before him in truth and righteousnes and uprightnesse of heart yet professeth that neither he nor any man living could be justified if God should enter into judgement with them and therefore placeth his happinesse and justification notin his vertues or good works but in the not imputing of sin and imputation of righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4. 6. Paul though hee knew nothing by himselfe yet professeth that hee was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. Yea in the question of justification hee esteemeth his owne righteousnesse of no worth Phil. 3 8 9. But as wee doe not deny the faithfull to bee endued with inherent righteousnesse so we affirme that whosoever is justified by imputative righteousnesse is also sanctified in some measure with righteousnesse infused and inherent In respect whereof though they bee also sinnes in themselves by reason of their habituall corruptions and actuall transgressions being in part carnall and sold under sinne and by the Law which is in the members led captive to the Law of sinne yet they have their denomination from the better part Even as a wedge of metall wherein much drosse is mingled with Gold is called a wedge of Gold though not of pure Gold and an heape of Corne wherein is as much chaffe as Wheate is called an heape of Wheate though not of pure Wheate So the faithfull man in whom there is the flesh and body of sinne as well as the Spirit and regenerate part is called of the better part a righteous man though not perfectly absolutely purely just in respect of his righteousnesse inherent Indeed every true beleever so soone as he is indeed with a true justifying faith is perfectly just by righteousnesse imputed but at the best he is sanctified onely in part § XII His sixth testimony is taken out of Rom. 8. 29. and 1 Cor. 15. 49. where it is said that the just are conformable to the image of Christ and doe beare the image of the second Adam as they have borne the image of the first Adam from whence hee collecteth three reasons The first As Christ was just so are wee and as hee was not just so â—…re not we But Christ was just by inhâ—…rent rightâ—…ousnesse and not by imputatiâ—…n Therefore we are just by inherent righteâ—…usnesse and not by impâ—…tation The proposition he proveth by the places alleaged First I answer to the proofe of the proposition that the places alleaged are impertiâ—…ent For the question being of the righteousnesse of â—…ustification never any understood the Apostâ—…e in these places to speake thereof But either of filiation as Chrysostome and others understand the former plate because as Christ is the Sonne of God so also are wee or of afflictions because whom God hath predestinated to bee like his Sonne in glory they shall bee conformable to the image of his Sonne in bearing the Crosse which sence is given by our Writeâ—…s and is agreeable to the scope of the Apostle in that place to the Romans or of Glory that when he shall appeare wee shall bee like him in glory of which as Ambrose Sedulius and others understand Rom. 8. â—…9 fo the other place being read in the future as it ought to bee in
walke with God is for a man to behave himselfe as in his pâ—…esence and to walke before God is to behave a mans selfe in his sight that is uprightly Thus Henâ—…ch Gen. 5. 22. 24. Noâ—…h Gen. 6. 9. Abraham and Isâ—…ack Gen. 48. 15. David and others are said to have walked before God Of David it is said that hee walked before God in truth and righteousnesse and uprightnesse of heart 1 Kin. 3. 6 of Ezekias 2 King 20. 3. that hee walked before God in truth with a perfect that is an upright heart For you are not so to understand it as if Ezekias had no imperfections For when the Lord left him a little unto himselfe that he might try him and know that is make knowne unto him what was in his heart he rendred not againe according to the benefits done to him but hâ—…s heart was lifted up with pride 2 Chron. 32. 24 25 31. From this example of Ezechias as it were from the lesse Bellarmine inferreth If Ezechias walked before God with a perfect heart who will deny it to Abraham to whom it was said walke before me and be perfâ—…ct Answ. I doubt not but Abraham did walke before God that is to say was perfect or upright For so much the Scriptures testifie of him Gen. 24. 40. 26. 5. 48. 15. and that hee was the friend of God 2 Chrâ—… 20. 7. Esai 41. 8. Iam. 2. 23. But Bellarmines proofe is very slender that Abraham was such because hee was required so to be For so the whole people of Israel which for the uprightnesse required in them was called Ieshâ—…run Deut. 32. 15. 33. 5 26. are exhorted Deut. 18. 13. thou shalt be perfect that is upright with the Lord thy God Ios. 24. 14. serve him in perfection and in truth 1 Sam. 12. 24. In truth with all your heart And thus it appeareth that the termes of perfect heart and whole heart in the places before mentioned doe not import any legall perfection but uprightnesse and integrity of hearâ—… which though it be but a perfection inchoated or begun being only a perfection in respect of the parâ—…s and not of the degrees towards which notwithstanding it aspireth yet neverthelesse it is the Evangelicall the Christian and the best perfâ—…ction which we can attaine unto this life § XVII These were his proofes out of the Scriptures Now he will prâ—…ve out of the Fathers that the Law of God is not impossible he shoâ—…ld say for so he propounded the state of the question absolutely posâ—…ble But â—…he Fathers may be distinguished into two rankes For either they weâ—… such as wrote before Pelagius spred his errour or after Those whâ—…h wrote before did as Augustine saith write more carelesly of thee things insomuch that 〈◊〉 would seeme to father his errours upâ—… them Those who wrote after hee had broached his heresies as naâ—…ely Hierome in his latter dayes and Augustine had the like controvere though not altogether the same with Pelagius that we have with the â—…apists For both doe hold the same assertion that the Law is possiblâ—… both doe use the like arguments and both doe abuse the same Testâ—…onies of Scripture to confirme their errour § XVIII There are I confesse two seeming differences betweene the Pâ—…agians and the Papists The one that the Pâ—…lagians held that a man â—…y strength of nature might fulfill the Commandements of God which â—…e Papists deny The other that a man might so fulfill the Law of God as that he might live without siâ—… which the Papists also deny But if it 〈◊〉 considered that the Pelagiaâ—…s did call the power of nature Gods gracâ—… and did acknowledge that the direction and instruction which men haâ—…e by the Word and Law of God was to bee ascribed to Gods grace aâ—…d that the grâ—…ce of God doth helpe men more easily to obey the Law oâ—… God iâ—… will appeare that there is no such great differencâ—… in the foâ—…er respect as is pretendâ—…d Againe the 〈◊〉 betweene the Pelagians and Papists is not in respect of 〈◊〉 or impossibility but in respect of greater or lesse difficulty For the Papists doâ—… not aâ—…knowledge that men by natâ—…re are dead in sinne â—…d utterly deprived of the Spirituall life but that they are sicke and weake and â—…yed with the bands of sinne so that they cannot fulfill the Law of God unlesse they 〈◊〉 â—…olpen and loosed by grace but being holpen by grace then the fulfilling of the Commandements is easie to them The Pelagians likewise confesse that by the grace of God which they call bonum naturae or the power or possibility of nature they were enabled by the grace of God vouchsafed in his Word and Law guided and directed by the justifying grace of God freed from the bond of their sinnes and by the Sanctifying grace of God holpen with more ease to fulfill the Commandements of God So that the Papists although they doe not with the Pelagians deny originall sinne or the necessity of saving grace yet they doe extenuate the originall corruption and so magnifie the strength of nature that they differ not much from them For whereas originall corruption is both a privation of the habit of originall righteousnesse and also an evill and wicked disposition and pronenesse to all manner oâ—… sinne infecting all the parts and faculties of the soule they make the â—…rivation to be of the act onely and not of the habit or power as if it were not a meere impotencie to that which is spiritually good but a dfficulty the evill disposition either they altogether deny saying that â—…iginall sinne is onely carentia justitiae debit ae in esse the want of originall â—…ighteousnesse or else they so extenuate it that they make it to be lese than any veniall sinne and in the regenerate no sinne at all But Auâ—…ustine doth truly teach against both Pelagians and Papists that man by â—…nne lost both bonum possibilitatis and also possibilitatem non peccandi as I vill hereafter shew And as touching the other differenceâ—… though the Papists hold â—…at a man cannot bee altogether without sinne for any long time thoâ—…h for some short time in which short time if he shall say he hath no sine he shall make Saint Ioâ—…n and not himselfe a lyar 1 Ioh. 1. 8. yet â—…ey say they may be without all siâ—…nes excepting those which they do â—…all veniall which they doe so extenuate that indeed they make theâ—… no sinnes as being no anomies or transgressions of the Law comâ—…tted against the Law or repugnant to Charity but onely besides the â—…aw such as may well stand together with perfect inherent righteoâ—…esse For they say he onely is a righteous man in whom there is no siâ—…e and yet that there is no man so righteous as that he liveth without â—…ese veniall sinnes But if they be 〈◊〉 and not contrary to the Lw then they are neither commanded nor forbidden and so no sinnes â—…t
in everlasting righteousnesse Dan. 9. 24. § VII Inst. III. If we bee justified by Christ his fulfilling of the Law then wee are justified by a legall righteousnesse but wee are not justified by a legall justice but by such a righteousnesse as without the Law is revealed in the Gospell Answ. The same righteousnesse by which we are justified is both legall and Evangelicall in divers respects Legall in respect of Christ who being made under the Law that hee might redeeme us who were under the Law perfectly fulfilled the Law for us Evangelicall in respect of us unto whom his fulfilling of the Law is imputed And herein standeth the maine both agreement and difference betweene the Law and the Gospell The agreement that both unto justification require the perfect fulfilling of the Law the difference that the Law requireth to justification perfect obedience to be performed in our owne persons The Gospell propoundeth to justification the righteousnesse of God that is the perfect righteousnesse of Christ who is God performed for us and accepted in the behalfe of them that beleeve as if it had been performed in their own persons § VIII Our second reason As by the disobedience of the first Adam by which he transgressed the Law men were made sinners his disobedience being imputed to them so by the obedience of the second Adam whereby hee fulfilled the Law men are made righteous his obedience being imputed to them In answer to this argument two novelties are broached the former that as wee were made sinners by one act of disobedience committed by one man and that but once so we are justified by one act of obedience performed by one and that but once which was that oblation of Christ whereby hee but once offered himselfe Whereunto I reply first that betweene sinne whereby the Law is broken and obedience whereby the Law is fulfilled there is great ods The Law is broken by any one act of sinne for hee that offendeth in any one is guilty of all But the Law is not fulfilled by any one act of obedience but by a totall perfect and perpetuall observation of the Law for by the sentence of the Law hee is accursed whosoever doth not continue in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them But in no one act of obedience there neither is nor can bee a continuance in doing all the things that are commanded Secondly that although the obedience by which we are justified was but of one man yet it was not one act but as the Apostle calleth it in the verse going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all that the Law requireth to justification The second Novelty is that neither Adam in sinning transgressed the Law nor our Saviour in his obedience to death obeyed the Law For neitheâ—… the commandement given to the first Adam concerning the forbidden fruit nor the commandement given to the second Adam concerning his suffering of death for us was any commandement of the Law no more than the commandement given to Abraham for the sacrificing of his sonne or to the Israelites for the spoiling of the Aegyptians but a speciall commandement Whereto I reply that although every thing which God commandeth in particular be not expressed in the Law yet wee have a generall commandement expressed in the Law that whatsoever God commandeth we must doe and if we doe it not we sinne and every sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a transgression of the Law § IX Our third reason If Christ by his conformity to the Law fulfilled the Law for us then his obedience in fulfilling of the Law is accepted of God in our behalfe as if wee had fulfilled it in our owne persons but Christ by his conformity to the Law fulfilled the Law for us therefore his obedience in fulfilling of the Law is accepted of God in our behalfe as if wee had fulfilled it in our owne persons that is to say both his habituall and actuall righteousnesse is imputed to us The consequence of the proposition is necessary for if hee performed obedience for us and in our behalfe he performed it in vaine if it be not accepted for us and in our behalfe The assumption also is of necessary truth for first that Christ did fulfill the Law it is evident for himselfe professeth that he came to fulfill the Law Matth. 5. 17. that it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse Matth. 3. 15. that he did alwayes those things which please God Ioh. 8. 29. and the Scripture testifieth that not for himselfe but for us hee fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever the Law requireth to justification that his whole life was a perpetuall course of obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even untill his death which he performed not for himselfe for as hee was incarnate not for himselfe but for us men and for our salvation for it was the exinanition of himselfe so being incarnate he sanctificed himselfe for us and was made under the Law not for himselfe for that was a farther degree of humiliation that being man hee humbled himselfe to bee obedient even untill his death and therein also humbled himselfe to undergoe the death of the crosse The Apostle Rom. 10. 4. teacheth that Christ is thâ—… end that is the perfection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greeke Fathers speake that is complement of the Law to all that beleeve unto righteousnesse that is that hee hath fulfilled the Law for all beleevers in so much that all who truely beleeve have in Christ fulfilled the Law Upon which place Remigius writing saith Christus finâ—…â—…gis in completio legis Christ the end of the Law that is the fulfilling of the Law Theodoret. He that beleeveth in our Lord Christ hee hath fulfilled the scope of the Law and what that is Chrysostome sheweth For saith hee What did the Law intend To make a man just but it was not able for never any fulfilled it but this end our Saviour Christ hath more amply accomplished through faith if therefore thou beleevest in Christ thâ—… hast not onely fulfilled the Law but much more than it commanded for thou hast received a farre greater righteousnesse and what can that be but the righteousnesse of Christ And Photias whosoever therefore saith the Apostle beleeveth in Christ hee fulfilleth the Law Sedulius likewise hee hath the perfection of the Law who beleeveth in Christ. This therefore doth plainely prove that Christs obedience in fulfilling the Law is imputed to all that beleeve unto righteousnesse as if themselves had fulfilled it And this is the conceived doctrine of the Church of England that Christ satisfied the justice of God and redeemed us not onely by the oblation of his body and shedding of his blood but also by the full and perfect fulfilling of the
imputed as a full satisfaction for sinne the other by imputation of Christs perfect obedience as a sufficient merit of eternall life by the former we are freed from hell by the latter we are entituled to the kingdome of heaven Of them both the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5. that we are justified that is absolved from our sinne by the bloud of Christ. v. 9. and that wee are justified that is constituted just by his obedience vers 19. To this argument they answere by denying the antecedent saying that there are no parts of justification but that it wholly consisteth in remission of sinnes Indeed if it were the onely matter of justification as some of them teach and the entire formall cause of justification as others avouch of whom we shall speake in the next Chapter I say if both these opinions were true then I would confesse that the whole nature of justification doth consist in forgivenesse of sinne but whiles it is either but the matter as some say or but the forme as others or neither of both as I avouch it is a manifest errour to say that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sinnes Againe in every mutation though it be but relative we must of necessity acknowledge two termes tâ—…rminum à quo terminum ad quem the denomination being taken commonly from the terminus ad quem As in justification there is a motion or mutation from sinne to justice from which terme justification hath its name from a state of death and damnation to a state of life and Salvation But if justification be nothing else but bare remission of sinne then is there in it onely a not imputing of sinne but no acceptation as righteous a freedome from hell but no title to heaven To this they answere that to whom sinne is not imputed righteousnesse is imputed and they who are freed from hell are admitted to heaven I doe grant that these things doe alwayes concurre but yet they are not to bee confounded for they differ in themselves and in their causes and in their effects in themselves for it is one thing to bee acquitted from the guilt of sinne another thing to be made righteous as wee see daily in the pardons of malefactors in their causes for remission of sinne is to be attributed to Christs satisfactory sufferings the acceptation as righteous unto life to Christs meritorious obedience In their effects for by remission of sinne wee are freed from hell and by imputation of Christs obedience we have right unto heaven § XVII If unto justification there be required besides remission of sinne Imputation of righteousnesse then there are two formall causes of justification Answ. It followeth not for although there bee two tâ—…rmini in this mutation yet there is but one action and this one action is the onely forme of justification viz. imputation of Christs righteousnesse of which are two effects which also be the two parts of justification remission of sinne and acceptation as righteous as I said in the definition that justification is an action of God wherein hee imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to a beleeving sinner doth not onely absolve him from his sinnes but also accepteth of him as righteous and as an heire of eternall life § XVIII Notwithstanding this so evident truth some of the Divines of whom we spake when they would prove justification by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely take this position for granted that justification is nothing but remission of sinne and hereupon inferre that seeing wee have remission of sinne onely by the bloud of Christ we are justified by his bloud onely And to this purpose they alleage many testimonies of Scriptures affirming that by the bloud of Christ and by his death and passion wee have remission of sinne to all which we readily subscribe But if there be any other places that seeme to ascribe unto the sufferings of Christ more than remission of sinnes as entrance into heaven and salvation c. such places are to be understood by a Synecdoche putting the chieâ—…e and most eminent part of his obedience for the whole Others labour to prove this assertion that justification is nothing but remission of sinne by testimonies and by reasons and to this purpose collect a multitude of testimonies of Protestant Divines who against the Papists have maintained that justification confisteth in remission of sinnes onely But this assertion as hereafter I shall shew is to be understood as spoken in opposition to the Papists who unto justification besides remission of sinnes require inward renovation or sanctification and therefore their meaning was to exclude from justification not imputation of righteousnesse which alwayes concurreth in the same act with remission of sinne and without which there can be no remission for by the same act of imputation of Christs whole and entire righteousnesse we have both remission of sinnes and acceptation unto life but to exclude renovation à ratione justificationis from the proper nature of justification as if they had said wee are not justified both by remission and renovation as the Papists teach but by remission without renovation that is in their meaning by remission onely and this is acknowledged by Bellarmine himselfe as hereafter shall bee shewed And forasmuch as by remission of sinne wee have an imputative righteousnesse for to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne to him he imputeth righteousnesse without workes as the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. 6 7. therefore when it is said that we are justified by remission onely and not by renovation it is all one as if wee said that wee are justified by imputation onely and not by infusion of righteousnesse § XIX Their chiefe argument to prove their assertion is this Remission is as well of the sinnes of omission as of commission As therefore he whose sinnes of commission are remitted is reputed as if hee had done nothing forbidden so whose sinnes of omission are remitted is reputed as if hee had left undone nothing that is commanded Now hee that is reputed as if hee had neither done any thing forbidden nor left undone any thing that is commanded hee is reputed as if hee had fulfilled the whole Law I answer by distinction if they consider remission of sinnes barely without imputation of righteousnesse as they must if they will make good their assertion then hee that hath onely remission of the sins both of commission and omission is freed from the guilt of both but not from the fault For notwithstanding such remission of his sinnes he is a sinner as having both committed what is forbidden and also omitted what is commanded Yet by remission or not imputation of sinne hee is freed from the punishment and a râ—…atu poenae from the guilt binding over to punishment as if hee had neither committed any thing forbidden nor omitted any thing commanded Hee therefore that hâ—…th remission is reputed as having neither committed any evill nor omitted any good not simply
because the hebrew word which signifieth to justifie doth never signifie to make righteous by infusion of righteousnesse § I. HAving thus briefely set downe the true Doctrine of Iustification according to the Word of God we are now to confute the erroneous doctrine of of the Papists There are six maine and capitall errours which the Papists most obstinately hold and maintaine concerning justification and consequently so many principall heads of controversie betweene us whereunto divers other particular questions are to be reduced The first concerning the name whether justification and sanctification are to bee confounded The second concerning the moving cause which is the justifying and saving Grace of God which they call gratia gratum faciens The third concerning the matter of justification The fourth concerning the forme The fifth concerning the instrumentall cause which is Faith The sixth concerning the fruits of faith and consequents of justification which are good workes concerning which are two maine questions First whether they doe justifie a man before God Secondly whether they doe merit Eternall Life § II. The first capitall errour of the Papists is that they confound justification and sanctification and by confounding of them and of two benefits making but one they utterly abolish as shall be shewed the benefit of justification which notwithstanding is the principall benefit which we have by Christ in this life by which wee are freed from hell and entituled to the Kingdome of Heaven And this they doe in two respects for first they hold that to justifie in this question signifieth to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent or by infusion of righteousnesse that is to sanctifie Secondly they make remission of sinne not to be the pardoning and forgiving of sinne but the utter deletion or expulsion of sinne by infusion of righteousnèsse Thus they make justification wholly to consist in the parts of sanctification For whereas Sanctification is partly privative which is the taking away of sinne which we according to the Scriptures call mortification and partly positive which we call vivification and is partly inward or habituall consisting in the habits of Grace infused and partly actuall which is our new obedience and practice of good workes all these and onely these they make to concurre to justification which with them is partly privative which they call remission of sinne whereby they understand the utter deletion or extinction of sinne wrought by infusion of perfect righteousnesse which is an higher degree of mortification than we can attaine unto in this life and partly positive and that either habituall which they call their first justification wherein a man of a sinner is made righteous by infusion of the habits of Grace which is indeed regeneration and partly actuall which they call their second justification wherein a righteous man is made more just by the practice of good works whereby they merit not onely the increase of righteousnesse but also the Crowne of Eternall Life § III. Of this first controversie therefore are two questions First whether to justifie doth signifie to make righteous by infusion of righteousnesse which is to sanctifie Secondly whether remission of sinne be the utter deletion and abolition of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse In both the Papists hold the affirmative The former which is a most pernicious errour they ground upon the like notation of the Latine words to justifie and to sanctifie That as to sanctifie is to make holy by holinesse inherent so to justifie is to make just by infusion of righteousnesse But though the notation of the Latine words were to be respected yet no more could be inforced from thence but that to justifie is to make just And that is all which Bellarmine goeth about to prove Now God maketh men just two wayes by imputation as he justifieth by infusion as he sanctifieth them For if a man may bee made just not only inwardly by obtaining righteousnesse but also outwardly by declaration as Bellarmine himselfe saith then much more by imputation even as we were made sinners by Adams actuall transgression and as Christ was made sinne that is a sinner for us For even as by Adams disobedience wee were made sinners and guilty of damnation his transgression being imputed to us so are wee made just by the obedience of Christ imputed to us And as Christ who knew no sinne was made a sinner by imputation of our sinnes to him so we are made the righteousnesse of God in him that is righteous in him by the imputation of his righteousnesse who is God unto us But indeed the force of the Latine words is to be respected no further than as they are the true translation of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament and of the Greeke in the New § IV. The Hebrew root Tsadaq from whence those verbs do spring which signifie to justifie is by the Septuagint translated sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be just blamelesse or pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be just as Iob 9. 2. 15. 20. 10. 15. 15. 14. 25. 4. 33. 12. 34. 5. 35. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be blamelesse as Iob 22. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be pure as Iob 4. 17. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense to be just as being a translation not of a passive but of a Neuter as Gen. 38. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thamar is more just than I. So Psal. 19. 10. jâ—…dicia Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 51. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Rom. 3. 4. Psal. 143. 2. Esai 43. 9. cum 41. 26. Ezek. 16. 52. In Ecclus. 18. 1. Deus solus justificabitur the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be reputed just as Iob 11. 2. 13. 18. 40. 3. Sometimes to be justified and absolved from sinne to bee pronounced and accepted as righteous as Esai 43. â—…6 Let us plead together declare thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first thine iniquities that thou maist bee justified Esai 45. 25. in the Lord all the seed of Israel shall be justified The passive is onely once used Dan. 8. 14. where it is said that the sanctuary after 2300. dayes shall bee justified that is expiated or purged In the second conjugation it signifieth to justifie but not as the word is used in the doctrine of justification but as it signifieth either to arrogate righteousnesse to a mans selfe as Iob 32. 2. or to attribute or ascribe it to others as Iobâ—…3 â—…3 32. or to shew himselfe or others righteous as Ier. 3. 11. Ezek. 16. 51 52. In the third conjugation it signifieth to justifie in that sense that the question of justification And it is verbum forense a judiciall word used in Courts of judgement which usually is opposed to condemning And it signifieth to absolve and to acquit from guilt and accepting a man as righteous to pronounce him just
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 flâ—…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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
ought not too much to discourage us knowing that his grace is sufficient for us and that his strength is made perfect in our weakenesse § VIII His seventh testimony is taken from those places which teach that the workes of the righteous doe please God Mat. 3. 4. Sap. 9. 1. 2 Act. 10. 35. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Phil. 4. 18. But nothing can please God but that which is truly good and pure from all vice as Calvin himselfe confesseth Iust. l. 3. c. 12. § 1. Answ. As God hath made two covenants with men the one of works the other of grace so himselfe may bee considered either as a severe judge judging according to the Law which is the covenant of workes beholding men as they are in themselves or as a mercifull father in Christ dealing with us according to the covenant of Grace â—…eholding us in his beloved As he is a Iudge judging according to the Law no obedience can satisfie or please him but that which is pure and perfect as Calvin truely saith As hee is the father of the faithfull in Christ judging according to the covenant of Grace he dealeth with us as a loving father with his children Malach. 3. 17. Psalm 103. 13. accepting the upright though weake and unperfect endevours of his children in lieu of perfect performance Hence in the Scriptures to be upright or to walke with God is to please God Gen. 5. 24 cum Heb. 11. 5. and they who are upright are his delight Pro. 11. 20. Not that either they or their actions are perfect or accepted of God in and for themselves as being pure from sinne but that being covered with the righteousnesse of Christ they are accepted in him and not onely accepted but also graciously rewarded Then belike saith Bellarmine the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed not onely to the sinners themselves but to their sinnes also making them an acceptable sacrifice to God Answ. Wee speake not of the sinnes of the faithfull as hee maliciously cavilleth as if we made no difference betwixt their good workes and their sinnes but of their good workes which though unperfect and stained with the flesh the Lord accepteth in Christ as truly good not imputing to the faithfull their wants but covering them with the perfect obedience of Christ. § IX His eighth testimony is from those places which absolutely call the workes of the righteous good workes as Mat. 5. 16. 1 Tim 6. 17. Tit. 3. 8. Eph. 2. 10. Answ. where he saith that the workes of the faithfull are called absolutely good workes there is an ambiguity to bee cleared For though the Scriptures absolutely call the works of the righteous good workes yet they doe not say that they are absolutely good All good workes and vertues being considered in the abstract as they are in themselves according to their kinde and as they are prescribed in the word of God are absolutely good but considered as it were in the concrete as they bee in us or performed by us mixed with imperfections and stained with the flesh they are not absolutely purely and perfectly good Prayer in it selfe and â—…s it is prescribed in the word of God is a worke absolutely good but as it is performed by us it may bee truely good if performed in truth and with an upright heart but it is not absolutely and purely good by reason of those imperfections which concurre there with So faith and love and all other graces considered in the abstract are absolutely good but considered as they bee in us they are truly but not purely and absolutely good by reason of the impersections and defects which alwayes accompany them But saith Bellarmine out of Dionysiâ—…s Areopagita that worke is to be called evill in which there is any defect but it is not to be called good unlesse it be entirely and wholly good which is true according to the rigour of the Law from which our Saviour Christ hath freed the faithfull and in that sence all the good workes of the Papists themselves even their prayers in which they so much trust are sins Or if they deny any defect to be in their prayers or other their supposed good works they speake lyes in hypocâ—…isie having cauterized consciences But here againe let the Reader observe the desperate doctrine of the Papists who as they account no man justified in whom there is any sinne so they teach all workes to bee absolutely sinnes in which is any defect whereupon the accusation which they falsly lay to our charge will bee verified of them viz. that all the best workes of the faithfull are sinnes For wee deny them to bee sinnes though they have some defects but they affirme them absolutely to bee sinnes if there be any defect in them as undoubtedly there alwayes is as I have alrâ—…ady proved § X. These were his testimonies of holy Scriptures in the next place hee produceth other witnesses viz. Ambrose Hierome Augâ—…stine Gregory and Bernard who testifie nothing against our assertion but against the malicious misconceit of the Papists who conceive or at least report of us that wee put no difference betwixt good workes and sins From which wee are so farre that wee willingly subscribe to that conclusion which hee would prove out of the fathers and is the title of his chapter Opera bona non esse peccata sed verè bona that good workes are not sinnes but truly good § XI Now follow his reasons which if they served to prove no more than the same question which againe is propounded to bee proved wee would not gaine say But his first reason is brought to prove that the good workes of the righteous are no way vitiated corrupted or defiled and consequently that they are not onely truely but also purely good For if they were contaminated saith hee that would arise either from our inbred concupiscence or from the defect of love towards God or from the mixture of veniall sinnes concurring with them But from none of these For neither is that concupiscence a sinne in the regeneratâ—… nor is the want of the love of God a sinne in them nor veniall sinnes such sinnes as are contrary to the Law of God or unto charity Thus for the confirmation of one error Bellarminâ—… broacheth three more But if concupiscence bee a sinne if the want of Gods love bee a sinne if those which the Papists call veniall sinnes bee sinnes indeede then must it bee confessed that the good workes which are stayned with the flesh which proceed from a defective love of God and our brethren that are mixed with divers imperfections and corruptions are notpurely good § XII As for concupiscence of the flesh which remaineth in the regenerate it hath possessed and defiled all the parts and faculties of the soule which as they are in the regenerate partly spirit so they are also partly flesh And these two are opposite one to the other the Spirit lusting against 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 thâ—…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 conclâ—…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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 rēluctation 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
prove our glosse to bee repugnant to the Apostle unlesse he imagine that wee hold the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to a beleever to bee not reall but imaginary And then by the same reason let him say that the imputation of our sinnes to Christ for which he really suffered and the imputation of Adams transgression to his posterity for which they are really punished was but imaginary Howbeit there is a difference in the manner of imputing a reward to him that worketh and of righteousnesse to him that beleeveth for that is ex debito this ex gratia § IV. Our ninth argument Hee that is justified not by his owne righteousnesse but by the righteousnesse of another is justified by righteousnesse imputed But all the faithfull are justified not by their owne righteousnesse Phil. 3. 8 9. Rom. 10. 3. but by the righteousnesse of another this was fully proved and maintained in the whole third controversie for that which is but one mans righteousnesse cannot be every faithfull mans owne by inherencie but onely by imputation The righteousnesse by which wee are justified is but the righteousnesse of one Rom. 5. 18 19. § V. Our tenth argument There is the same matter whereby infants are justified and others But infants are not justified by righteousnesse inherent for neither have they habituall righteousnesse which consisteth in the habits of faith hope and charity of which they are not capable whiles they want the use of reason nor actuall as all confesse but by the righteousnesse of Christ and that imputed And therefore Berâ—…d saith they want no merits because they have the merits of Christ. § VI. Our eleventh argument As Abraham was justified so are wee Rom. 4. 23 24. Abraham was justified by imputation Rom. 4. 3. 22. and not by inherent righteousnesse though hee did excell therein Therefore wee are justified by imputation and not by inherent righteousnesse § VII Our twelfth argument To those that are justified by faith righteousnesse in their justification is imputed without workes that is without respect of righteousnesse inherâ—…nt Rom. 4. 5 6. All the faithfull are justified by faith Esai 53. 11. Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 2. 16. Therefore to all the faithfull in their justification righteousnesse is imputed without respect of inherent righteousnesse § VIII Our thirteenth argument whose sinnes are remitted by imputation of Christs satisfaction unto them they are justified by imputation for to be absolved from sinne is to be justified Act. 13. 38 39. where to have remission of sinne is to bee justified from sinne So Rom. 4. 6 7 8. where the Apostle sheweth that whose iniquities are forgiven whoâ—…e sinnes are covered to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne to them hee imputeth righteousnesse without workes where the Apostle saith Bellarmine ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae from the not imputing of sinne hee gathereth the imputation of righteousnesse them he justifieth them he maketh blessed So Luk. 18. 13 14. when our Saviour would signifie that the Lord had heaâ—…d the prayer of the Publican who had prayed for the remission of his sinne hee saith he went home justified But the sinnes of the faithfull are remitted by imputation of Christs satisfaction to them This the Papists themselves cannot deny Or if they did the whole Doctrine of the Gospell would confute them which teacheth that Christ dyed for our sinnes that hee hath redeemed us from all our iniquities that hee gave himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full price of ransome for us 1 Tim. 2. 6. that hee gave himself for us an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor Ephes. 5. 2. that in him God is well pleased and reconciled unto us forgiving our sinnes 2 Cor. 5. 19. that hee is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Iohn 2. 2. that hee bare our iniquities Esai 53. 12. that in his ownâ—… body hee bare our sinnes upon the Tree 1 Pet. 2. 24. that by him wee have redemption that is remission of sinnes that we are justified by his bloud Rom. 5. 9. and by his obedience verse 19. that God is just in justifying a beleeving sinner and therefore forgiveth no sinne for which his justice is not satisfied And his justice cannot be satisfied for our sinnes being an infinite offence as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth but by a price or satisfaction of infinit valew which can be no other but the perfect and al-sufficient satisfaction of Christ which the Lord accepteth in behalfe of all those that beleeve in him which is nothing else but to impute it to them for if God should not accept of Christs satisfaction in the behalfe of those that beleeve then in vaine had Christ dyed or satisfied for us Therefore the faithfull are justified by imputation § IX Hereunto the Papists have nothing to oppose but their owne erroneous assertion which is hereby confuted that remission of sinne is an utter abolition extinction deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse But as in the Law two things are to bee considered the precept it selfe and the sanction thereof denouncing punishment to the transgressout so in sinne there are two things to be considered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it selfe which is the transgression of the precept and the guilt which bindeth over the sinner to punishment The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is twofold for it is partly transient which is the sinfull act or transgression it selfe and partly immanent in the soule of the offendor which is that macula or labes the blemish spot or pollution which the act doth leave behind it in respect whereof as Bellarmine teacheth the transgressour after the act is gone remaineth formally a sinner The guilt also is twofold for it is either reatus culpae the guilt of offence or of offending God and reatus paenae which is the binding over of the sinner unto punishment Now God doth take away the sinnes of the faithfull both in respect of the fault and also of the guilt of punishment but not after one manner He taketh away the guilt by remission of sinne for in regard of the guilt our sinnes are debts which debts God doth forgive when hee remitteth the punishment and taketh away the guilt which did bind us over to punishment by imputation of Christs sufferings unto us who as our surety did pay our debts for us And because our Saviour fully satisfied our debt therefore our sinnes in respect of the guilt of death are in our justification wholly taken away and in that respect there is an utter deletion of them as there useth to be of debts â—…out of debt bookes when they are satisfied But when the Lord doth justifie a man he doth impute unto him not onely the suffering of Christ to free him a paena reatu paenae but also his obedience that he may be constituted righteous and so freed also a culpâ—… reatu 〈◊〉 For as touching the fault whether you meane the sinfull act which is
of Christ through fâ—…ith then are we not justified by workes But the first I have demonstrated by many undeniable arguments therefore the second must be granted 4. If we be justified by imputative righteousnesse that is to say by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to them that beleeve the Lord imputing righteousnesse unto them without workes then it is evident that wee are not justified by workes but that is most true as hath plentifully beene proved therefore this 5. If we be justified by faith alone then not by workes But we are justified by faith alone as hath beene proved therefore not by workes The arguments reduced to these five heads which were very many and impregnable might satisfie any reasonable man who is not wilfully addicted to his owne erroneous conceits though I should adde no more but because wee have to deale with men unreasonable I will adde some § III. And first out of Rom. 4. 4 5 6. He that worketh not is not justified by workes he that beleeveth worketh not as the Apostle there sheweth And againe to whom faith is impured unto righteousnesse without workes they are not justified by workes to all the faithfull faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes therefore none of the faithfull are justified by workes The assumption is thus proved If to Abraham his faith was imputed for righteousnesse without works then are all the faithfull justified without workes for Abraham is by the Apostle propounded as a patterne therefore as he was justified so are we Rom. 4. 22 23. 24. But to Abraham his faith was imputed for righteousnesse as the Apo stle teacheth Rom. 4. 3 4 5. Therefore all the faithfull are justified without workes 2. The true doctrine of justification is taught in the Scriptures justification by workes is not taught in the Scriptures for the justification taught in the Scriptures is an action of God justifying a sinner but this by workes is neither an action of God neither is it the justification of a sinner but the action of the justitiary himselfe who by the exercise and practise of good workes increaseth his inherent justice or fanctification which hath no affinity with that justification which is taught in the Scriptures 3. None that are justified by faith are justified by workes all the faithfull are justified by faith therefore none of the faithfull are justified by workes The proposition is evidently proved by that opposition which the Apostle constantly maketh betweene faith and workes in the question of justification asfirming that men though abounding with works of grace are justified by faith without workes and saved by faith and not by workes Rom. 3. 28. 4. 3 4 5. Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. 4. If any be justified by workes then either the regenerate man or the unregenerate but neither the unregenerate as the Papists confesse nor the regenerate for they are justified already Neither doe the Scriptures acknowledge any sorts or degrees of justification before God § IV. 5. All that are justified by workes are justified by that obedience which they performe to the Law But none are justified by the obedience which they performe to the Law therefore none are justified by workes The proposition is manifest Because the Law being a perfect rule of all inherent righteousnes there neither are nor can be any good works which are not prescribed in the Law Yea whatsoever worke is not conmable to the Law is sinne The assumpâ—…ion may bee proved by many undeniable arguments First by all those places which plainely testifie that by the workes of the Law that is by obedience done to the Law no man living shall be justified Rom. 3. 20 28. Gal. 2. 16. For by the workes of the Law wee understand all duties prescibed and all that obedience which is required in the Law 2. Those that are accursed by the Law are not justified by their obedience of it For to bee justified is to bee blessed Rom. 4. 6. and therefore to be justified and to be accursed are things repugnant But all men whatsoever even those which seeke to bee justified by their obedience to the Law are by the Law accursed Therefore no man is justified by his obedience performed to the Law And this is the Apostles argument Gal. 3. 10. as I have shewed before All transgressours of the Law are by the Law accursed All men since the fall are transgressours of the Law Christ onely 〈◊〉 excepted this assumption the Apostle omitteth because hee taketh it for granted as being a truth received among the faithfull in those times though in these dayes denied by the justitiaries of Rome but elsewhere it is by the Apostle expressed as Rom. 3. 23. all have sinned Wherefore as God hath concluded all under sinne Rom. 11. 32. Gal. 3. 22. so the Law hath concluded them under the curse 3. All that are justified by their obedience to the Law doe perfectly fulfill it by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience for he that doth not so fulfill it by doing the things commanded though he did nothing that is forbidden by doing all though he did the most by continuing in doing all and in that measure and degree which the Law requireth though he sinned but once in all his life and that either by omission or comming short of his duety is a transgressour of the Law and therefore subject to the curse of the Law because hee hath not continued in all things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them And he that offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2. 10. To whom the perfect fulfilling of the Law is impossible by reason of the flesh they cannot be justified by their obedience performed to it To all even the most regenerate the perfect fulfilling of the Law is impossible by reason of the flesh Rom. 8. 3. Gal. 5. 17. as elsewhere I prove at large Therefore none though regenerate can bee justified by their obedience performed to the Law § V. Sixthly That Doctrine which is repugnant to the Scriptures is false The Doctrine of justification by workes is repugnant to the Scriptures Therefore it is false The assumption is thus proved because the Scriptures in all places where they treat of justification before God doe from the act of justification exclude workes The places of Scripture which we produce to this end Bellarmine reciteth at least some of them with purpose to answere them Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what Law Of workes No but by the Law of faith Verse 28. Therefore wee conclude that a man is justified by faith without the workes of the Law to which hee might have added verse 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified Rom. 4. 2. If Abraham were justified by workes he hath whereof to glory but not before God To which he might have added vers 5. 6. To him that worketh not but
those words of the Apostle Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. To avoid this evident truth Bellarmine coyneth a twofold distinction First that the word gratis may bee understood as opposed to merits of condignity going before justification and so it excludeth not the dispositions and preparations which the Papists teach goe before justification which according to their doctrine are but merits of congruity But it is evident that not onely merits of condignity but all merit whatsoever yea and all respect of our owne worthinesse and well doing is excluded so that gratis is as much as without any cause in us or any desert of ours or worthines in our selves And thus the councill of Trent it selfe expoundeth this word We are therefore said to be justified gratis freely because none of those things which goe before justification whether faith for workes deserve the grace of justification for if it be grace then is it not of workes for iâ—… it were of workes then grace were not grace as the same Apostle saith Secondly saith he it may bee understood as opposed to our owne merits or good workes done without grace for those that proceed from grace are not opposed to grace and therfore not excluded Whereunto I reply we cannot have any good thing but by gift from God and what good thing we have from God that is called ours as our faith our Charity our Hope our good â—…orkes Neither can wee without grace merit any thing but punishment It is therefore absurd to understand the Apostle as excluding merits without grace when as if we should doe all that is commanded which cannot be done without grace we must confesse that we deserve not so much as thanks because we have done but what was our duty to doe Neither can wee bee said to be justified gratis if there be any meritoriâ—…us cause of justification in our selves though received from God In regard of our selves indeed wee are justified gratis but it is not gratis in nor without paying a great price in respect of Christ. And therefore to those words justified freely by his grace is added through the redemption whiâ—…h is in or by Christ. By the word gratis therefore the Apostle signifieth thaâ—… in us there is no materiall cause no merit of justification but onely in Christ. And where he saith that grace cannot bee opposed to grace I say it may as in that opposition which is of relatives as of the cause and the effect For the effect cannot be the cause of its owne cause and therfore works which are the fruits and effects of justification cannot bee the causes thereof The other argument is from the word grace For if our justification be of grace then not of workes as the Apostle teacheth Rom. 11. 6. and if of workes then not of grace So Ephes. 2. 8 9. you are saved by grace not of workes For to him that worketh the reward that is justification or salvation is not imputed of grace but it is rendred as of debt but to him that worketh not but onely beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed namely of grace to righteousnesse Rom. 4. 4 5. Even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without workes verse 6. CHAP. IV. Bellarmines arguments proving the necessity of good workes and first from the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Secondly from the Doctrine of Christian liberty § I. NOW I come to Bellarmines arguments concerning good works which when he should prove they concurre to justification as causes thereof hee proveth them to be consequents thereof rather than causes And having little to say to the question it selfe he intermingleth many impertinent discourses Impertinent I say to the question though not to his purpose which was to calumniate us as though we held all those assertions which he laboureth to confute In his fourth booke therefore which is de justitia operum he propoundeth two maine questions to be disputed unto which divers others are coincident The former concerning the necessity of good workes the other concerning the truth of them As if we either denied that good workes are necessary or that they are truely good To the former hee referreth three questions the first whether the faithfull are bound to keepe the Law of God as though wee taught they were not the second concerning the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell as if we taught that the difference standeth in this that by the Law good workes are necessary by the Gospell not The third concerning Christian liberty as though we taught that the faithfull in their conscience and before God are subject to no Law Concerning the truth of the righâ—…eousnesse of good works after hee hath disputed the question whether the Law be possible whether the workes of the righteous bee sinnes he commeth at length to handle the controversie it selfe whether good workes doe justifie or not Concerning the former questions it shall suffice to shew what our tenet is in every of them and to defend our assertions against his cavils â—…o farre as concerneth this present controversie of justification by workes passing by the rest as impertinent As touching therefore the first principall question which concerneth the necessity of good works the Reader will beare me witnes by that which before I have delivered that we hold good workes necessary in many respects and that we urge the necessity of them by better arguments than the Romish doctrine doth afford we confesse that they are necessary necessitate presentiae for persons come to yeeres that are already justified and are to bee saved as necessary consequents of justification and as necessary forerunners of Salvation onely we deny them to be necessary necessitate efficientiae as causes either of justification or Salvation § II. That good workes are necessary to Salvation which we deny not Bellarmine greatly busied himselfe to prove but that they are necessary to justification as causes thereof which is the question betweene us for ought that I can discerne he goes not about to prove in his whole discourse of the necessity of good workes wherein he spendeth nine Chapters For after he had in the first Chapter calumniated us as if wee denied good workes to bee necessary to Salvation in the Chapters following hee proveth they bee necessary because as hee propoundeth his proofes in the Argument of his booke we are bound to keepe the Law of God And that he proveth by discussing the other two questions concerning the difference betwixt the Law and the Gospell and concerning Christian liberty But by these arguments Bellarmine neither proveth his owne assertion nor disproveth ours His assertion is that good workes doe concurre unto justification as a cause thereof which we deny He argueth they be causes why because they are necessary As if every thing that is necessary were a cause But whereto are they necessary to salvation saith Bellarmine Why
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 coâ—…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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Oâ—…nia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the Commandements are esteemed as done when that whâ—…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 Yeaâ—…zechias â—…zechias professâ—…th that he had walked before the Lord in truth and with a perfect heart And if Ezechias walked before God with a perfâ—…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 abâ—…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 Tâ—…min and Shalem which signifâ—…e perfect or perfection are synonyma or words of the same sence with â—…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 aâ—…e the same with the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 preserve mee Iosh. 24. 14. Where Thamin and Emâ—…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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect is by them reâ—…dred Esay 38. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 â—…he soule 2 King 23. 3. Psal. 119. 34 69. to turne unto the Lord with all the heart Ioâ—…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 praiâ—…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
for the absolute possibility of fulfilling the Law but rather against it For those who are not at all times so willing as they ought to be to fulfill the Law they cannot allwaies fulfill it But no man is at all times so willing as he ought to be to fullfill the Law Augustine averreth Nâ—…minem esse qui tantum velit 〈◊〉 res exigit therfore no man is able allwaies to fulfill it For although perhaps he could if hee would which as even now I said is not generally true of the regenerate themselves yet whiles hee will not hee cannot For the will of obeying is the chiefe part of obedience The meaning therfore of those Fathers is that the impossibility of the Law is not to be ascribed to the Law as if it were not possible but to the will of man who will not obey it § XXII Now that the Fathers who deny the Law to be impossible doe not meane that it is absolutely possible to be perfectly fulfilled appeareth by these reasons First because they yeelded so farre to the objection of the Pelagians as not to deny it to be possible to the unregenerate as I noted before Secondly because they held that all men are sinners and that no man in this mortall life can live without sinne and consequently without transgressing the Law Now it is manifest that hee who transgresseth thâ—… Law doth not fulfill it But when we thus argue Bellarmine saith we confound two questions which ought not to be confounded whether the Commandements may be kept and whether a man may live without sinne which questions are so different that to the former â—…gustine allwayes answered affirmatively to which purpose â—…ee citeth Dâ—… peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 3. 6. De Nâ—…tur gratia c. 69. De gratia lib. arbitr c. 16. in Psal. 56. And to the latter negatively to which purpose hee quoteth Lib. de Natur. gratia cap. 34. De spiritu litera cap. ult contr 2. Epistolas Pelag. c. 14. Epist. 89. 95. and the whole booke de perfectione justitiâ—… Aâ—…sw This say I is a plaine evidence that Augustine when hee saith which wee also say that a man may keepe the Commandements meaneth not the perfect fulfilling of the Law For if the question be propounded concerning the perfect fulfilling of the Law it is the same in effect with the other For hee that perfectly fulfilleth the Law doth undoubtedly live without â—…nne and hee that doth not live without sinne doth not perfectly fulfill the Law Wherefore the affirmation of the one question understood of perfect fulfilling and the Negation of the other doth imply a contradiction Thirdly Because the fathers explane their meaning when they say that the Law is possible and that a man may keepe the commandements not in respect of the perfect fulfilling but partly in respect of the sinceâ—…e study and upright endevour to performe and partly in respect of Gods mercie in Christ pardoning what is wanting in their obedience So saith Augustine hîc studium pracepta servandi gratia Dei tribuit quâ—… si quid etiam in eis prâ—…ceptis minus servâ—…tur ignoscit Here the grace of God bestoweth the study of keeping the precepts which also if any thing in those precepts be not kept it pardoneth which I cited before all the commandements are reputed to be done when whatsoever is not done is pardoned And elsewhere hee saith that our righteousâ—…esse in this life doth consist rather in remission of sins than in perfection of virtues For as touching perfection he saith Vâ—…rtutem quae nuâ—… est in homine justo perfectam hactenus nominare ut ad ejus perfectionem pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis in veritate agnitio in humilitate confessio that the virtue which now is in a just man is â—…o farre forth called perfect that to the perfection thereof appertaineth both the acknowledgment of the imperfection there of in truth and the confâ—…ssion of it in humilily § XXIII But heâ—…e Bellarmine holdeth a strange paraâ—…oxe That although a man cannot live without sin yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God The absurdity whereof hee hopeth to salve with the distinction of sinnes into veniall and mortall because veniall sinnes without which none are in this life doe not hinder the fulfilling of the Law But this distinction will not serve his turne unlesse hee can prove that veniall sinnes are no sinnes For if they be sinnes they are transgressions of the Law And if they be transgâ—…essions of the Law as undoubtedly thâ—…y are or else they be no sinnes then hee that cannot live witâ—…out them cannot live without transgression of the Law and hee thâ—…t cannot live without transgression of the Law cannot perfectly fulfill it I will not enter into the full discussing of this question at this time because it is another controversy onely for the clearing of the point in hand I doe avouch according to the Sâ—…riptures that the wages of sinne or stipend Rom. 6. 23. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the just recompence of reward Heb. 2. 2. is death and that the least sinne according to the sentence of the Law if it be a sinne maketh a man subjâ—…ct to the curse of God Gal. 3. 10. And that as every sinne deserveth death and therefore in it self is mortall so every sinne is punishâ—…d with death either with the death of the party who hath no part in Christ to whom all sinnes are mortall or with the death of Christ as the sinnes of those who are his members to whom their sinnes which in their owne nature are mortall become veniall as being allready punished in Christ and the justice of God satisfied for them by the satisfaction given by Christ whose bloud doth cleanse us from all our sinnes both great and small none being so small but that it is of sufficient weight to presse down the sinner to hell being of infinit guilt committed against infinite justice deserving infinite punishment for which the justice of God cannot be satisfyed but by a propitiation of infinite value Thus therefore I reason That sinnâ—… which is punished with the death of Christ is in it selfe mortall all and every even â—…he least sinne of the faithfull is punished with the death of Christ therfore all and every even the least sinne of the faithfull is in it selfe mortall But Bellarmine hath a conceipt that veniall sinnes are not simply siâ—…nes nor against the Law but besides it I answere First that which is besides the Law is an aberration from it and a declination from it â—…ither to the right hand or to the left and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is absolutely forbidden Secondly to doe that which is besides the Law is not to doe that which is commanded but hee that doth not the thing commanded that doth not all that doth not continue in doing all is subject to the
curse Thirdly Whatsoever is not agreeable or conformable to the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a sinne But that which is besides the Law is not conformable unto it therefore it is a sinne and a transgression of the Law which whosoever committeth hee doth not fulfill the Law Fourthly Things forbidden in the Law are against the Law Those which they call veniall sinnes are forbidden in the Law For either they are forbidden or commanded or neither forbidden nor commanded If they be commanded then are they duetyes and not sinners if neither commanded nor forbidden then are they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things indifferent it remayneth therefore that they are forbidden § XXIV Now because the proofe of this point that the fulfilling of the Law is not possible unto us is a matter of great consequence for thereby the popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse in generall and by workes in particular is evidently confuted I will to those arguments heretofore used adde the testimonies of antiquity in requitall of Bellarmines allegations out of the Fathers First Therefore Iustin Martyr saith that never any man did accurately performe all the things that are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Eusebius Caesariensis demonstrates that things required in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all men impossible Thirdly Ambrose Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea so great things are commanded that it is impossible they should be kept whence Peter in the Acts of the Apostles saith why doe you impose a yoke upon the brethren which neither our fathers nor we were able to beare Fourthly Chrysostome what did the Law intend to make a man just but it was not able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for no man did fulfill it 2. No man could be justified by the Law unlesse hee fulfilled all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this was not possible to any man therfore that righteousnesse it self is quashit 3. That the Apostle by Testimony cited out of Deut. proveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no man hath fulfilled the Law Hierome and Augustine in this point deliver the same things against the Pelagians which wee doe against the Papists Fifthly Quoniam a. saith Hierome nemo potest implere legem that no man can fulfill the Law and doe all things that are commanded the Apostle testifieth also elsewhere For that which was impossible of the Law in that it was weake through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. c. 2. This is the onely perfection of men if they know themselves to be unperfect And you saith hee when you have done all say wee are unprofitable servants wee have done what was our duety to doe If hee be unprofitable who hath done all what is to be said of him who was not able to fulfill 3. And againe thou saist the Commandements of God are easie tamen nullum proferre potes qui universa compleverit and yet canst bring forth none that hath fulfilled them all 4. God saith the Pelagian hath given possible Commandements and who denyeth this but how this sentence is to bee understood the vessell of election most plainely teacheth that which was impossible of the Law in that it was weak through the flesh c that is that the Law is not simply impossible but by reason of the flesh that which was possible before the fall is since the fall impossible by reason of mans coruption 5. When the Pelagians said that although no man bee without sinne yet he might be without sinne what kinde of arguing saith he is this posse esse quod nunquam fuerit that that may be which never was posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris that that may be done which your selfe testifie never any man did and to attribute that I know not to whom which you can never prove to have beene in the Patriarches or Prophets or Apostles 6. That which our Saviour Christ saith if thou wilt be perfect is said to him who could not yea would not and therefore could not 7. Then are we just when we confesse our selves to be sinners and our righteousnesse consisteth not of our owne merit but of Gods mercie 8. If wee doe not that which we would but worke that which wee would not how say ye that a man may be without sinne if he will Behold the Apostle and all beleevers are not able to accomplish what they would 9. Having cited many testimonies to prove that no man is justified by the workes of the Law all these saith he I runne through ut ostendam a nullo legem esse imâ—…letam that I might shew that the Law is fulfilled of none meaning by the Law all the Commandements which are contained in the Law 10. If you can shew the man who hath fulfilled all then may you shew a man who needeth not Gods mercie 11. The Law is made weake quoniam nemo potest iâ—…plere eam nisi Dominus because none but our Lord can fulfill it VI. Augustine saith that to that immortall life appertaineth that precept thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart with all thy soule and with all thy might but to this life let not sinne reigne in your mortall bodies to obey the lusts thereof to that life thou shalt not lust to this thou shalt not goe after thy lusts 2. God doth so worke righteousnesse in his Saints labouring under the temptation of this life that notwithstanding there remaineth both what he may largely adde to them when they aske and also what he may mercifully forgive when they confesse 3. In the same chapter hee had said that the two Commandements of loving God with all our heart and our neighbours as our selves wee shall fulfill when we shall see face to face But saith he the same is now commanded us ut admoneremur quid fide exposcere quò spem praemittere ut oblivisâ—…endo quaeretro sunt in quae anteriâ—…ra nos extendere debeamus that wee might be admonished what by faith to desire whether to send before our hope unto what things which are before we should preasse forward forgetting what is behind 4. That the virtue which now is in a just man is so farre to be called perfect that to the perfection thereof there belongeth the acknowledgment of its imperfection in verity and the confession thereof in humility for then this petite justice is according to its small measure infirmely perfect when it understandeth what is wanting to it selfe And therefore the Apostle saith both that he is unperfect and that hee is perfect unperfect considering how much he wanted unto justice the fulnesse whereof he did as yet hunger after and thirst perfect both because he is not ashaâ—…ed to confesse his imperfections and goeth forward well that he may attaine unto it 5. Surely hee that is renewed from day to day which is the cause
state of perfection or supererogation as that it is for the most part a sinnefull state and that in three respects First in respect of making the vow For it is sinne to vow that which a man doth not know to be lawfull or not in his owne power then doth hee sinne with an high hand not onely resolving but also vowing to sinne and to continue therein Secondly in respect of the performing the vow when the thing vowed viz. continencie in single life doth appeare not to be in their power and yet to performe their vow of single life live in incontinency and uncleanenesse Many times it falleth out that a man at the first doth not know the thing vowed to be either not lawfull or not in his power yet because he doth not know it to be lawfull and in his power he sinneth by rash vowing but when afterwards it doth appeare to be either unlawfull or not in his power he is not bound to keepe that vow which rashly he made but hee is bound to breake it for by performing it he addeth sinne to sinne and many times a greater sinne to a lesse that is to the rashnesse of his vow the incontinencie of his life And this is perpetuall among the Popish votaries who never dissolve their vow though the performance of it bee never so wicked Thirdly because the vowed single life among the Papists being for the most part so filthy and abominable that all the world cryeth shame upon them for their filthinesse yet by them is obtruded unto God as a matter not onely of religion and satisfaction but also of merit of perfection and supererogation And the like might be said of their vow of blinde obedience For simple and absolute obedience is onely to bee vowed and performed to God But to vow the like towards any sinfull man who either doth or at least may command that which is unlawfull as sometimes they doe to murther Princes or to attempt other traiterous practises c. and to thinke that in so doing he doth merit and supererogate it is to forsake God § VII His second reason If the Commandements were impossible they would binde no man And so the precepts should bee no precepts for it cannot bee imagined how any man should sinne in that which hee cannot avoid c. His reason is thus to be framed To that which is impossible no man is tyed To the Commandements all men are tyed Therefore the Commandements are not impossible The assumption which no man denyeth he proveth because if they did not binde they were no precepts neither were the transgression of them a sinne The proposition he proveth because it cannot bee imagined how a man should sinne in that which he cannot avoid I answere as heretofore by distinction That the Commandements are said to be impossible either simply or by accident If therefore the meaning of his conclusion be that the Commandements bee not simply and absolutely impossible then I grant all for wee never held that the Commandements are simply impossible for to man both before his fall and after his resurrection they were and shall be absolutely possible But since the fall they are impossible in respect of the perfect performance in and by our selves not simply but by reason of the flesh that is to say through our owne default For if wee would not have sinned in Adam the Law had beene possible unto us but by our voluntary sinne we lost both 〈◊〉 possibilitatis and also possibilitatem non peccandâ—… Now it were absurd to imagine that our fault should free us from obedience Howbeit even after the fall there is a distinction to be held betweene men unregenerate in the corrupt state of nature and the regenerate in the state of grace To the unregenerate the Law is impossible through their owne default which doth not lessen their sinne for they sinne voluntarily and many times of malice as the devils also doe who though they have brought upon themselâ—…es a necessity of sinning so that they can doe no other but sinne yet this doth not as I said extenuate their sinne for they commit sinne with greedinesse but rather aggravate their finfulnesse Those that are habituated in sinne in whom custome is become as it were another nature they can no more of themselves ceasse from sinning than a Black-moore can wash away his blackenesse Ier. 13. 23. § VIII Yea but saith Bellarmine It cannot bee imagined how a man should sinne in that which hee cannot avoid Answ. That seemeth to be true in respect of the liberty of contradiction but not in respect of the liberty of contrariety In respect of a sinfull action a man hath liberty to doe it or not to doe it which wee call the liberty of contradiction But he hath not liberty to doe that which is good his naturall will enabling him onely to sinne So that although a naturall man may abstaine from this or that sinfull act yet he sinneth in whatsoever he doth neither can he doe any other but sinne If therefore they doe not sin who are not able to fulfill the Law then all Infidels yea all naturall men who câ—…n doe nothing but sinne should be exempted from sinning which is absurd To the regenerate man as I said before the Law is possible both in respect of his faith For he that truely beleeveth in Christ hath fulfilled the Law in Christ. Secondly in regard of his new obedience and that in three respects For first his new obedience though it be not compleat yet it is obedientia inchoata and though it be not a fulfilling of the Law yet it is an acceptable keeping thereof Secondly though it be unperfect and stayned with the flesh yet being â—…ntyre that is sincere and upright it is in Christ accepted as perfect Thirdly because the imperfection thereof being covered with Christs perfect obedience and cured by his intercession is remitted Now all is esteemed done when that which is not done is remitted § IX His third reason If God should command things impossible he should be more cruell horresco referens and more foolish than any tyrant in exacting atribute from his owne friends which none were able to pay and making such Lawes which he knew none were able to performe But the Consequent is blasphemous therefore the antecedent To the proposition I answere as before by distinction That if God should command things simply impossible there would besome colour for his blasphemous consequence But the Lord commandeth nothing but what to man in his first creation was absolutely possible neither doth he exact any tribute which he did not make us able to pay nor make any law which we were not able to observe And although now wee cannot in our selves fulfill it yet God was not tyed to accommodate his Law like a Lesbian rule to our weakenesse contracted by our owne default but it became him to propound such Lawes as were answerable to our first integrity describing
2 3. â—… ad 8. As bee was justified so are we lib. 5. cap. 2. § 6. Adam Whether his sinne bee imputed lib. 4. cap. 10. § 1 2. Whether originall sinne bee traduced from â—…im l. 4. c. 10. § 3. Whether the transgression and the corruption bee communicated after the same manner ibid. § 4. The comparison betweene the first and the second Adam ibid. § 5. Adoption That it is true lib. 4. cap. 10. § 18. Such as is our adoption such is our justification ibid. § 19. Adoption according to Bellarmiâ—…es 〈◊〉 is twofold of the soulâ—… and of the body ibid. § 20. No reall change in adoption but it is relative and imputative ibid. § 21. Affiance Whether it be faith lib. 6. cap. 4. § 9. 11. Assent It being firâ—…e lively and effectuall is faith l. 6. c. 1. 2. § c. 4. § 10. B Bellarmine His contradictions l. 3. c. 4. § 3. â—… 3. l. 4. c. 2. § 5. ad literam o l. 4. c. 9. § 7. l. 4. c. 10. § 1 2. l 5. c. 6. § 7. l. 5 c. 8. § 2. in fine l. 6. c. 3. § 7. â—… 6. c. 8. § 7. â—… 4. l. 6. c 9. sub finem ad literam * l. 6. c. 10. § 11 l. 6. c. 15. § 10. l. 8. c. 2. § 11. l. 8. c. 9. § 3. â—… 2. § 4. C Causall particles Not alwayes nor for the most part notes of causes l. 8. c. 5. § 14. 16. 17. Cause The Causes of iustification l. 1. c. 2. The Causes efficient principall God l. 1. c. 2. § 1. The Father § 4. the Sonne the holy Ghost ibid. The moving Causes l. 1. c. 2. § 2. The instrumentall Causes lib. 1. c. 2. § 5. c. The essentiall Causes l. 1. c. 3. The matter lib. 1. cap. 3. 1 c. ad 7. l. 4. The forme lib. 1. cap. 3. § 7 c. l. 5. The finall cause lib. 1. cap. 6. § 1 2 3 4. Charity That it doth not justifie as well as faith l. 4. c. 11. § 2 c. That it is not the forme of â—…aith lib. 4. cap. 11. § 5. Whether perfect in this life l. 5. cap. 7. CHRIST The mericorious cause of justification l. 1. â—… 2. § 4. Whether hee obeyed the Law for himselfe or for us l. 1. c. 4. § 10. Whether he merited for himselfe lib. 1. c. 4. § 11. Christs exaltation Phil. 2. 9. was his declaration to be the Sonne of God lib. 1. c. 4. § 11. 12. How many wayes hee is said to justifie us lib. 2. c 5. § 8. The righteousnesse of Christ is Gods righteousnesse l. 4. c. 2 § 2 3 4. Christs rightâ—…ousnesse the materiâ—…ll cause of justification l. 1. c. 3 4. vide Materiall and Matter Christs righteousnesse both the matter and merit of our iustification lib. 1. cap. 3. § 1. Concupiscence In the regenerate a sinne lib. 2. cap. 8. § 7 8. 9. lib. 4. cap. 4. § 12. lib. 7. cap. 6. § 14. Concupiscence going before consent a finnenne lib. 2. c. 8 9. Counsells The Counsell of voluntary poverty l. 7. c. 7. § 4. The counsell of single life lib. 7. cap. 7. § 5 6. D David Not iustified by inherent righteousnesse lib. 4. c. 8. § 15. Definition Of Iustification lib. 1. cap. 1. § 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. cap. 2. § 1 2. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 3. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 5. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 6. Dispositions Seven alleaged by Bellarmine to disprove justification by faith alone lib. 6. cap. 10 11 12. Whether any dispositioâ—…s bee indeed required by the Papists lib. 6. c. 10. § 4. Whether faith hope love as they bee dispositions bee graces lib. 6. cap. 12. § 6 7. E Efficient The efficient principall of justification God lib. 1. c. 2. § 1. The motives grace and iustice ib. § 2. The actions of the Father the Sonne the holy Ghost distinguâ—…shed ibid. § 4. End The end or fiâ—…ll cause of iustification both supreme the glory of God lib. 1. c. 6. § 1. and also subordinate viz. salvation § 2. certainety of salvation § 2. sanctification § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How to be understood Gal. 5. 6. l. 4. c. 11. § 3. 4. F Faith The instrument on oâ—…r 〈◊〉 of iustification lib. 1. cap. 2. § 7. Concerning it seven things considered 1. Thâ—… it iustifieth not as it is an habit or act in us but as the hand to receive Christs righteousnesse ibid. lib. 1. cap. 5. § 12. 2. It must therefore be such a faith as doth specially apprehend Christ. lib. 1. cap. 2. § 8. 3. It doth not prepare onely and dispose to iustification but it doth actually iustifie § 9. l. 6. c. 7. § 1 2. 4. It doth not iustifiâ—… absolutely in respect of its ownâ—… worth but relatively in respect of the object § 10. 5. The meaning of the question whether we be justified by faith or by workes § 11. 6. How faith is said to iustifie alone § 12. 7. That faith doth not sanctifie alone § 12. Whether the act of faith properly be imputed â—…torighteousnesse l. 1. cap. 2. § 7. cap. 5. § 12. That charity is not the formâ—… of faith l. 4. cap. 11. § 5. Of the distinction of saith that it is either formata or informis § 6. That faith is perfect Bellarmine produceth sixe reasons which are answered l. 5. c. 6. The full discourse of faith l. 6. The Popish 〈◊〉 concerning faith l. 6. c. 1. § 1. What faith is cap. 1. § 2. That it is not without knowledge § 3. against implicite faith lib. 6. cap. 1. § 3. c. The doctrine of implicit faith both falsâ—… for many reasons § 4. and absurd in that they say it may better bee defined by ignorance than by knowledge § 5. Bellarm. allegations out of the Scriptures for implicite faith § 6 of Fathers § 7. Testimonies of Fathers against it § 13. Bellarmines reason § 14. The doctrine of implicite faith wicked as being an egregious coozâ—…nage § 15 16 17. and pernicious to the people § 18. True justifying â—…aith cannot be severed from charity lib. 6. cap. 2. Our reasons I. Because hee that hath true faith is regenerate § 1. II. Because hee hath the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him § 2. III. Because hee is sanctified â—… 3. IV. Because hee is the true Disciple of Christ. § 4. V. Because true faith worketh by charity ibid. VI. Because true faith is formata ibid. VII Because if it be without charity it doth not iustifie VIII Because they who love not know not God ibid. 7. Other arguments out of Iames 2. § 5. 6. Other arguments defended against Bellarmine § 6. c. Testimonies of Fathers lib. 6. cap. 2. § 12. Bellarmines proofes that
Greeke Fathers § 2. and eleven of the Latine Fathers § 3. The authority of foure Councils § 4. Bellarmines reasons to prove merits § 5. Other questions concerning merits discussed l. 8. c. 7. whether trust is to bee reposed in merit § 2. De intuitu mercedis § 3 4 whether it bee lawfull to doe a good worke with intent to merit thereby lib. 8. cap. 7. § 5. The seven conditions required in merit l. 8. c. 8. whereof three are not contrâ—…verted § 1. The fourth that it bee liberum § 2. Fifthly that it be the worke of a man in state of grace § 3. Sixthly that it have the promise of God § 4. Seventhly that it proceed from charity § 5. All these conditions concurring doe not make a worke meritorious lib. 8. c. 8. § 6. Bellarmines dispute that good workes are condignely meritorious non solum ratione pacti but also ratione operis examined l. 8. c. 9. His seven arguments to prove condigne merits ratione operis l. 8. c. 9. § 5. c. What things may be merited l. 8. c. 9. § 13. N Necessity of good workes urged by us l. 7. c. 1. By Bellarmine c. 4. O Obiect of Faith Lib. 6. cap. 6. The proper obiect of iustifying faith is CHRIST § 2. The obiect of Abrahams faith § 3 4 5. Christ the proper obiect of faith in two respects § 6. Bellarmines dispute first that the obiect of faith is not speciall § 7. By virtue of the iustifying faith all other articles may become the obiect of speciall faith l. 6. c. 6. § 7. Whether every man is bound to beleeve that he is elected c. § 8. Secondly whether a man may be iustified without speciall faith § 9. Thirdly whether a man is iustified by speciall faith l. 6. c. 6. § 10. Osiander His errour that the righteousnesse of God by which we are iustified is the righteousnesse of the Godhead dwelling in us l. 1. c. 3. § 2. P Papists They take away iustification l. 1. c. 1. § 1. l. 2. c. 6. § 22. From iustification they exclude remission or forgivenesse of sinnes lib. 2. cap. 7. § 2. They confound the Law and the Gospell and make void the covenant of grace l. 4. c. 8. § 5. They deprive Christians of the chiefe part of their christian liberty § 6. They are fallen from grace lib. 7. c. 3. § 9 10 11 12. Their maine errours in the article of iustification l. 2. c. 1. § 1. Paritie Parity of righteousnesse l. 4. c. 13. Parts of iustification Lib. 1. c. 4. § 16 17. c. 6. § 5. Passive righteousnesse of Christ. Whether we be iustified by it onely l. 1. cap. 4. Paul Not iustified by inherent righteousnesse l. 4. c. 8. § 15. Pelagians Their errours concerning grace lib. 3. cap. 6. § 2. Perfect Whether any such lib. 4. c. 10. § 10 11. l. 7. c. 6. § 15. 16. Penitencie Bellarmines fifth disposition to iustification l. 6. c. 12. § 9 10. Purpose to receive the Sacrament Bellarmines sixth disposition to iustification l. 6. c. 12. § 11. Purpose of a new life Bellar. 7th disposition l. 6. c. 12. § 12. R. Remission of sinne is not that onely thing wherein iustification consisteth lib. 1. cap. 4. § 16. 17. 18 21. n. 3. Obiect It is as well of the sinnes of omission as of commission lib. 1. cap. 4. § 19. Obiect 2. By it men are made innocent therefore iust § 20. Three arguments of I. P. § 21. of I. F. § 22. 23. Some make remission the entire forme of iustification lib. 1. cap. 5. § 1. 4. It is not that righteousnesse which is imputed lib. 1. cap. 4. § 1. cap. 5. § 5. 6. Remission of sinne and acceptation as righteous the two parts of iustification lib. 1. cap. 6. § 5. Remission of sinne is by the Papists excluded from iustification lib. 2. cap. 7. § 1. 2. Remission of sinne is not the utter extinction of it lib. 2. cap. 7. § 3. It is as the forgiving of a debt § 4. What it signifieth in the Scriptures ibid. Three questions I. What that is which is remitted § 5. whether the Macula § 6. 7. II. The bookes out of which God doth wipe or blot our sinnes § 8. III. By what act of God are our sins remitted § 9. The utter deletion or extinction not granted in this life § 10. The guilt and punishment not taken away by infusion of righteousnesse § 11. Remission doth not worke a reall change § 12. Absurdities which follow this assertion that remission is the utter extinction of sinne § 13. and are necessary consequents of their doctrine of iustification by inherent righteousnesse § 14. lib. 5. cap. 5. § 6. 7 8. Bellarmines proofes out of the Scripture that remission of sin is the utter abolition of it lib. 2. cap. 8. those places of Scripture mention either the taking away of sinne § 2. or the blotting out of sinne § 3. or the purging of sinne § 4. or the not being of it § 5. or the perfection of righteousnesse § 6. Other arguments from the efficacie of Baptisme § 7. 8. his unanswereable argument out of Rom. 5. 19. answered lib. 2. c. 8. § 10. See more of this question lib. 5. cap. 5. § 6 7 8. Reward Reward merces is either gratuita free or debita due l. 8. c. 5. § 3. 4. 5. The reward of eternall life equall but not of glory l 4. c. 13. § 2. How farre foorth good workes are rewarded l. 8. c. 9. § 12. VVhether good workes may bee done with an eye to the reward l. 8. c. 7. § 3. 4. VVhether they may bee done with intent to merit § 5. Righteousnesse The righteousnesse of God a moving cause of iustification l. 1. c. 2. § 2 3. Righteousnesse of Christians twofold l. 1. c. 1. § 2. Bellarmines distinction of righteousnesse of the Law and in or by it l. 4. c. 8. § 2. 3 4. l 7. c. 2. § 8. The righteousnesse of God is the matter of iustification not the righteousnesse of the Godhead lib. 1. c. 3. § 2. But the righteousnesse of the Mediator the man CHRIST IESVS § 3. His whole righteousnâ—…sse both negative and also possitive § 3 4. Which is truely called the righteousnesse of God § 5. The comfort arising out of this doctrine § 6. Righteousnesse inherent Not perfect l. 4. c. 2. § 8 c. and c. 3. Reasons proving the works of the faithfull not to be purely and perfectly good I. Out of Esai 64. 6. Lib. 4. cap. 3. § 4 c. ad 11. II. Because there is a mixture in them of sinne out of Exod. 28. 36 38. § 11. Eccles. 7. 20. § 12. III. The fruâ—…t is as the tree § 13. IV. Actions purely good may stand in iudgâ—…ment § 14. an instance in prayer § 15. Testimonies of Fathers § 16. Bellarmines proofes I. Allegation of Scriptures And I. Iob 1. 22. l. 4. c. 4. § 1 2. II.
Psalm 7. 4 9. c. § 3. III. Matth. 6. 22. § 4. IV. 1 Cor. 3. 12. § 5. V. Iam. 3. 2. § 6. VI. Psalm 4. 4. Esai 1. 16. Ioh. 5. 14. in which wee are exborted not to sinne § 7. VII From those places which teach that the workes of the faithfull doe please God § 8. VIII From these places which absolutely call them good § 9. Two Testimonies of Fathers § 10. Three Reasons I. If good workes are impure then either by reason of concupiscence l. 4. c. 4. § 12. or for want of charity § 13. or because of veniall sinnes concurring § 14. II. From six absurdities § 15 16. By righteousnesse inherent the Law is not fulfilled l. 4. c. 5. § 3. 4. 4. None are able to fulfill the Law first because all are transgressours § â—… Secondly because none can be iustified by it § 7. Thirdly because none can fulfill the first and the last Commandements § 8. Fourthly out of Act. 15. 10. § 9. Fiftly out of Rom. 7. 18. § 10. Sixthly Rom. 8. 3 § 11. By righteousnesse inherent we are not iustified proved by foureteene reasons l. 4. c. 8. vid. matter of iustification S Sacraments They are seales of iustification l. â—… c. 2. § 6. l. 6. c. 14. 8. Whether they iustifie ex opere operato l. 6. c. 10. § 3. The purpose and desire to receive the Sacrament Bellarmines sixâ—…h disposition to iustification l 6. c. 12. § 7. Satisfaction The imputation of Christs satisfaction acknowledged by the Papists l. 1. c. 3. § 8. Sanctification Not to be confounded with iustification l. 2. per totum How it is distinguished from iustification l. 2. c. 6. Sinners All men are sinners l. 4. c. 2. § 9. c. 8. § 7. l. 5. c. 2. § 2. Subject of faith Viz. the party to whom it belongeth lib. 6. c. 5. § 1. and the parts of the soule wherein it is sealed § 2. viz. the minde that is both the understanding and the will proved by Testimonies § 3. 4. 5. Whether the â—…nderstanding be commanded by the will to beleeve lib. 6. c. 5. § 6. T Truth The doctrine of iustification and Salvation by faith in Christ is called the Truth lib. 1 cap. 1. § 1. lib. 6. cap. 6. § 2. V Veniall Whether veniall sinnes doe contaminate the good works of the iust lib. 4. cap. 4. § 14. VVhether they doe â—…inder the fulfilling of the Law l. 7. c. 6. § 23. Whether they be onely besides the Law and not against it ibid. Vprightnesse It goeth under the name of perfection and upright men are called perfect lib. 4. c. 10. § 10. W. Word The word an instrumentall cause of iustification l. 1. c. 2. § 5. Workes Good workâ—…s â—…re the fruites and effects not causes of 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 6. § 7. The necessiâ—… of gâ—…od works urged of us by better 〈◊〉 than the Popish doctrine doth 〈◊〉 c. 1. In what 〈◊〉 we deny good workes to iustifie l. 7. c. â—… § 1. That good workes doe noâ—… iustifie men before God prove by all the five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. â—… 2. § 2. by foure other reasons § 3. 〈◊〉 thâ—…se that are iustified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their owne obedience of the Law § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is 〈◊〉 to the Scriptures § 5. Bellarmines preamble to his answere in which hee considereth three things first what is meant by the Law of workes and by the Law of faith lib. 7. cap. 2. § 6 7. Secondly the differences betweene the iustice of the Law and in or by the Law § 8. Thirdly what is meant by workes which are excluded from iustification whether the workes of the Ceremoniall Law § 9. 10. or also of the morall and whether all or onely those which goe before faith § 11. Bellarmines proofes that those onely 〈◊〉 before or without faith are excluded l. 7. c. 2. § 13. Bellarmines dispute concerning the necessity of good workes l. 7. c. 4. his method § 1. He proveth them necessary not to iuâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 2. His first proofe is from the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell § 3. c. ad 19. Eight differences by hire propounded l. 7. c. 4. § 19 20 21 22. His second proofe from the doctrine of Christian liberty l. 7. c. 4. § 23. That good workes are necessary by way of efficacie Bellarmine proveth by three sorts of arguments first from Scriptures I. Testimoniâ—… Heb. 10. 36. lib. 7. c. 5. § 3. II. 1 Tim. 2. 14 15. l. 7. c. 5. § 4. III. Phil. 2. 12. § 5. IV. 2 Cor. 7. 10. § 6. V. 2 Cor. 4. 17. § 7. VI. Rom. 8. 13. § 8. VII Rom. 8. 16 17. § 9. VIII Rom. 10. 10. § 10. IX Matth. 25. 34 35. § 11. X. Iam. 1. 25. 2. 14. § 12. XI The Epistles of Peter Iames Iohn and Iude. l. 7. c. 5. § 13. Secondly from testimonies of Fathers § 14. Thirdly from reason § 19. because faith dâ—…th not save alone lib. 7. c. 5. § 16. 17. Of the verity of the â—…ustice of good workes l. 7. c. 6. § 1. VVhether they be sinnes l. 7. c. 7. § 17. That they be sinnes it followes upon the doctrine of the Papists lib. 4. c. 4. § 9. in fine 21. Bellarmines proofes that good workes doe iustifie l. 7. c. 8. The first Iam. 2. 24. lib. 7. c. 8. § 2. c. ad 19. Sixe other testimonies I. Eccl. 18. 21. § 19. vide l. 2. c. 4. § 2. 3. II. Rom. 6. 19. l. 7. c. 8. § 19. III. 2 Cor. 7. 1. l. 7. c. 8. § 20. IV. 2 Cor. 9. 10. § 21. V. Iohn 14. 23. § 22. VI. Apâ—…c 22. 11. § 23. The Papists high opinion of their works l. 8. c. 9. § 14. Our estimations of them § 15. Y Yoke Christs yoke easie lib. 7. cap. 6. § 4 5 6 7. FINIS Errata Page 2. line 20 even our juâ—…if p. 4. l. 9. â—…sadiq p. 6 â—… antepen speciall p. 9. marg l. 2. â—… 〈◊〉 2. 1. 2. l. 15. justificaâ—…i p. 13. l. a fin 19. VIII 〈◊〉 second p 15 l â—… 〈◊〉 6. concur l. penulâ—… standeth 〈◊〉 p. 16. marg l. 6. lib 1 cap. 2 p. 17. l. af 11. herâ—… l. 〈◊〉 7. men p. 18 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 28. 〈◊〉 is p. 19 l 1. breake l. 15 16. dele So the righteousnesse of our Meâ—…iator who is God p. 21 marg l 2. Ier 23 6. l af 5. dele sect p. 22. l. af 14. then he intendeth p 24. l. 6 〈◊〉 l. 11 partam l. 18. nothing else p. 26. l af 8 we are p. 27. l af 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no p. 28. l. 20 and sâ—…condly l. af 13. id eâ—…t compl p. 29. l. 1. receivâ—…d l. af 4. in us p. 31. l. 3. 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 l. af 12. yâ—…t we p. 32 l. 26. ad 〈◊〉 p. 38. l. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 22. scales p. 43. l. antep upon Christ 〈◊〉
say they Christs righteousnesse and merits whereby hee redeemeth and saveth men should bee imputed unto us then should we thereby become Saviours and redeemers of others but this latter is false therefore the former Answere I deny the consequence of the proposition for first when we say that we are justified by imputation of Christs righteousnesse our meaning is this that the Lord accepteth for us and in our behalfe the obedience and mâ—…rits of Christ as if we had performed the same for our selves in our owne persons For as the merit of Christ is the common price of redemption sufficient for the salvation of all universally so it is the price for every particular and so is applyed to every particular not as the common price redeeming all but as the price of those soules in particular to whom it is particularly applyed Secondly the efficacie or effect of imputation dependeth upon the will of the imputer and therefore the force of it cannot be extended further than he extendeth it which is the justification of the parties to whom it is imputed but no further Thirdly the consequence of the proposition doth no more follow than if I should argue thus If by imputation of Adams transgression others are made guilty of sinne and damnation then they to whom Adams transgression is imputed are made the cause and fountaine of sinne and damnation in all others but of the first and second Adam we should conceive not as of private men but the first Adam is to be considered as the root of mankind in whom when he fell all sinned The second as the head of all that shall be saâ—…ed in whom as the head communicating his merits to his members all the faithfull have as his members fulfilled the Law and satisfied the justice of God for themselves The head and the body saith Thomas Aquinas are as it were one mysticall person and therefore the satisfaction of Christ belongeth to all the faithfull as to his members the Lord accepting in their behalfe the obedience and Merits of Christ as if they had performed the same in their owne persons not for others but for themselves And therefore by imputation of Christs righteousnesse they are not redeemers but redeemed For though Christ who is the Saviour of his body communicate to his members his obedience yet not his Headship nor his Mediatorship in respect whereof hee was and is both God and man Man to doe and suffer God to give infinite value and worth to that which his Person did or suffered for the justification and salvation of all those to whom his righteousnesse should bee communicated and imputed but not to make them redeemers and Saviours of others The righteousnesse of the head is of sufficient vertue to justifie and redeeme all the members to whom it is imputed but being imputed the merit thereof extendeth no further than to what end it is imputed that is to save the member not to make it a Saviour nor to confound the members with the head nor to take away the proportion that is and ought bee betweene the head and the members Fourthly to the Papists who confesse Christs satisfaction to be imputed unto us I returne the like argument If Christs satisfaction whereby he redeemed mankind bee imputed unto us then are we also redeemers of mankind But they will not not cannot inferre that therefore we are redeemers but that wee among others are redeemed § X. But that we are justified onely by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse I shall by the helpe of God fully prove hereafter in my whole fifth booke Here onely for a tast I will but point at two argumenss the former out of Rom. 4. 5. 6. 11. the basis or ground whereof is this that whom the Lord justifieth to them he imputeth righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse is either the parties owne or of another Not their owne for they are sinners and being sinners they cannot bee justified by righteousnesse inherent but righteousnesse is imputed to them without workes that is without respect of any obedience performed by themselves Therefore it is the righteousnesse of another That other is no other nor can be any other but Christ onely therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse we are justified The second shall bee out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sinne for us so are wee made the righteousnesse of God in him By imputation of our sinne to him Christ who knew no sinne was made sinne and a sinner for us therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse which here is called the righteousnesse of God we who are sinners in our selves are made righteous not in our selves but in him CAP. IV. Whether wee are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ only § I. NOw I come to the private opinions of some of our Divines concerning the matter and some of our justification For some as touching the matter doe hold that we are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely Of these men some doe not hold the matter of justification to bee the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse morte Christi partuÌ„ purchased by the death of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof viz. remission of sinnes which they not without absurdity say is imputed to us For what is remission of sinne but the not imputing of it If therefore wee bee justified by imputation of the remission of sinne then are we justified by the imputation of the not imputing of sinne Againe the authors of this opinion confound justice with justification for they say that remission of sinne is our justice and that justification is nothing also but remission when indeed neither the one nor the other is justice but an action of God imputing righteousnesse and not imputing sinne unto us Others hold that by the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe meaning thereby his death and passion we are justified as by the onely matter of justification imputed to us But that wee are not justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ alone it may appeare by these reasons § II. By what alone the Law is fully satisfied by that we are justified and by what alone the Law is not fully satisfied by that alone wee are not justified By the whole righteousnesse of Christ that is to say the righteousnesse of his person that is his holinesse or habituall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his life which was his obedience or actuall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his death and passion which is obedientia crucis or his passive righteousnesse the Law was fully satisfied or fulfilled but by the passive obedience alone of Christ the Law was not fulfilled therefore by the whole righteousnesse of Christ and not by the passive onely we are justified The proposition is thus proved there is no justification before God without perfect and compleat righteousnesse for without that no man can stand in judgement before God and to imagine that
that righteousnesse which is not in us but out of us in Christ which is absurd for as themselves expound the phrase Formall justice consisteth either in the qualities of the soule or in good actions that is it is either habituall or actuall so that it cannot stand in imputation by which wee can no more be just formally than wife rich alive by imputation of wisedome riches and life Wherefore I marvell how they could be so absurd as to conceive so absurdly of us But wee teach that Christs righteousnesse both habituall and actuall by which he was formally just is the matter and the imputation thereof is the forme of justification And so those very Authors upon whom they would father this assertion in expresse termes doe teach affirming that Christs obedience or fulfilling of the Law is the materiall cause of justification and the application or imputation thereof is the formall cause of justification We say then that the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe is not the formall cause of justification or that by which we are formally just but the imputation of it it selfe being the matter of justification that is to say that thing which unto justification is imputed Wherefore I shall not need to answere in defence of our assertion the arguments either of those Veteratores the Papists or these Novatores who both agree in this calumniation against us all tending to prove that wee are not formally juâ—… by that righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him which we doe not hold For the righteousnesse whereby a man is formaâ—…ly just is inherent in himselfe for what is more intrinsecall than the forme But Christs righteousnesse is not inherent in us no more than our sinne was inherent in him And yet as he was made sinne or a sinner by our sinnes not formally God forbid but by imputation so wee are made righteous by his righteousnesse not formally as we are justified or in our selves but in him viz. by imputation And againe as by Adams actuall transgrâ—…ssion which was transient and now hath no being we are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation by imputation of his disobedience so likewise by Christs obedience which hee performed in the daies of his flesh and was proper to his owne person we are justified that is not onely freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation but also constituted just and entituled to the Kingdome of Heaven And yet we deny not but that as they to whom the guilt of Adams transgression is imputed are also by sinne inherent transfused from him by carnall generation formally made sinners so they to whom the obedience of Christ is imputed unto justification are also made formally just by an inchoated righteousnesse received by influence from Christ and infused by his spirit in their spirituall regeneration § III. In their opinion it selfe denying the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to justification they erre more dangerously than the Papists who are forced to confesse the imputation of Christs satisfaction for the maintenance of this maine errour they hold sixe others First that remission of sinne is the entire forme or formall cause of justification Secondly that justification is nothing else but remission of sinne Thirdly that no other righteousnesse concurreth to justification besides the remission of sinne no not the righteousnesse of Christ otherwise than it doth merit remission of sinne Fourthly that the righteousnesse by which we are justified is not the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse purchased by the death of Christ viz. remission of sinne Fifthly that not the obedience of Christ it selfe is imputed whether active or passive but the merit therof Sixthly that not the righteousnesse of Christ but the act of faith is imputed for righteousnesse All which before I saw the booke wherein these errours are broached I had plainely and fully confuted in this Treatise § IV. For as touching the two first and the maine errour it selfe I have proved both in the third Chapter of this booke briefly and in the whole fifth booke at large that the forme of justification is the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by which we are both absolved from our sinnes and also are in Christ accepted and made righteous and consequently that these two are the essentiall parts of justification viz. the not imputing or remission of sinne which God doth grant by imputation of Christs sufferings in respect whereof wee are said to be justified by his blood that is freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and the imputation of Christs obedience by which wee are made or constituted righteous and are entituled to the kingdome of Heaven So that remission of sinne is not the forme and much lesse the entire forme of justification considered as an action of God but an effect of the forme because by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we have remission of sinne Neither is it the whole benefit of justification but a part thereof For although many of our Divines as hath beene said have taught that unto justification remission of sinnes is onely required yet their assertion as hath also beene shewed is to be understood as Bellarmine himselfe understandeth Calvin as spoken in opposition to the Papists who say that to justification concurre not onely remission of sinnes but also inward renovation or sanctification To contradict them our Divines have said that wee are justified by remission onely or not imputing of sinne wherewith alwayes concurreth imputation of righteousnesse and not by renovation or sanctification Their meaning therefore by the exclusive particle onely was to exclude not imputation of righteousnesse which unseparably accompanieth the not imputing of sinne as Saint Paul proveth Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth but infusion of righteousnesse or renovation § V. The third is the same in effect with that which I fully confuted Cap. 4. and contradicteth their owne assertion who teach with us that we are justified by the whole course of Christs obedience for remission of sin is properly ascribed to Christs sufferings or his blood which cleanseth us from all our sinnes and not to his active obedience And justification is nothing as they say but remission of sinne whereupon it would follow that we are justified onely by Chriâ—…ts passive obedience which I have already disproved § VI. The fourth denying the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe to be our righteousnesse I have fully confuted in the fourth booke besides that which hath already beene alledged in the third chapter of this book that which is added concerning a righteousnesse purchased by the death of Christ is the same with that which I confuted Chap. 4. § 1. for our righteousnesse is not remission of sinne but that by which wee have remission not justification it selfe but that by which wee are justified For remission of sinne as well as justification it selfe is an action of God not imputing sinne and imputing righteousnesse
writing in Greeke but also the holy Apostles and Evangelists have received the same And therefore these words are no otherwise to be understood than as the translations of the said Hebrew words signifying no other thing than what the Hebrew words import which as I have shewed doe never signifie to make or to be made righteous by inherent righteousnesse § II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Apostle and by the Evangelist Luke sometimes as the translation of Tsiddiq in Piel as Luk. 7. 29. the people and Publicans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justified God The Lawyer Luk. 10. 29. willing to justifie himselfe The Pharisies Luk. 16. 15. justified themselves before men And so is the word used sometimes by the sonne of Sirach as Ecclus. 10. 29. who will justifie him that sinneth against his owne soule Cap. 13. 26. alias 22. A rich man speaketh things not to be spoken and yet men justifie him Sometimes the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the translation of Hitsdiq as alwaies he doth in the question of justification and alwayes as the action of God as Rom. 3. 26. who justifieth him that beleeveth in Iesus how vers 24. gratis without any cause or desert of justification in the party without workes that is without respect of any righteousnesse inherent in him or performed by him vers 28. who justifieth the Circumcision and uncircumcision that is both Iewes and Gentiles not of workes or by inherent justice but by and through faith vers 30. who justifieth the ungodly that is the beleeving sinner that worketh not Rom. 4. 5. and therefore not by inherent righteousnesse how then by imputing righteousnesse without workes vers 6. who Rom. 8. 30. whom he calleth he justifieth namely by faith and whom he justifieth hee also glorifieth using the word in the same sense vers 33. who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect it is God that justifieth who shall condemne where most manifestly the word is used as a judiciall word opposed to accusing and condemning Neither can any colour of reason be alleaged why the word in these places should signifie contrary to the perpetuall use both of it selfe and of the Hâ—…brew word whereof it is a translation to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent § III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used sometimes as the translation not of the passive verbe but as of the Neuter in Cal as I have shewed before out of the Greeke translation of the 〈◊〉 So Ecclus. 7. 5. bee not just before God not wise before the king or as it is usually translated doe not justifie thy selfe before God So also in the new Testament Rom. 3. 4. cited out of Psalm 51. 6. where the Hebrew word is not a passive but a neuter And so Apoc. 22. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him that is just be just still As the translation of the passive it is often used But as it never signifieth to be made just by inherent justice as I will shew when I come to answere the objections of the Papists so it alwayes signifieth either to be declared or pronounced just or to bee absolved and made jusâ—… by imputation In the former sense wisedome is said to bee justified of her Children Luk. 7. 37. who vers 29. justified God Christ who is God was manifested in the flesh justified in the Spirit 1 Tim. 3. 16. Thus by our words we shall bee justiâ—…ed not made just formally or by inherent righteousnesse but in the sense opposed to condemnation For as by thy words thou shalt bee justified so by thy words thou shalt be condemned Matth. 12. 37. Thus not the hearers alone but the doers of the Law shall bee justified that is pronounced just Rom. 2. 13. and in this sense the faithfull are justified by workes that is declared approved and knowne to bee just Iames 2. 21 23. 24 25. cum Genes 22. 12. â—…n the latter sense Ecclesiast 1. 28. alias 22. the famous man Chap. 31. 5. The lover of Gold Chap. 23. 14. alias 11. The rash swearer shall not bee justified that is as it is in the Commination of the third Commandement shall not bee held guitlesse but most plainely Chap. 26. the last verse the huckster shall not bee justified from sinne that is not absolved from sinne nor accepted as righteous So Act. 13. 38 39. where most plainely to be â—…ustified from sinne doth signifie to be absolved or freed from the guilt of sinne and is used promiscuously with remission of sinne And this sense oâ—… freedome from the guilt is â—…ometimes extended to signifie a totall freedome as Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified that iâ—… as Chrysostome and Oâ—…umenius expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is freed from sinne As these places are plainely repugnant to the Popish sense so none of the rest where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used doth favour it For either they import remission of sinnes and acceptation as righteoâ—…s as Luk. 18. 14. The Publican who had humbled himselfe and craved pardon went home justified that is obtained pardon and was accepted as righteous rather than the Pharisee who had justified himselfe or distinguish betweene justification and sanctification as 1 Cor. 6. 11. or exclude justification by inherent righteousnesse as Rom. 3. 20. Rom. 4. 2. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Gal. 5. 4. Or imply imputation as where we are said to be justified either by his blood as Rom. 5. 9. Or by faith as Rom. 5. 1. Gal. 3. 24. Or by grace as Tiâ—… 3. 7 Or both exclude the one and imply the other as Rom. 3. 24. 28. Gal. 2. 16 17. 3. 11. § IV. There remaine these two words which I mentioned before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used onely in two placâ—…s Rom. 4. 25. 5. 18. In the former it is said that Christ was delivered to death for our sinnes and was raised againe for our justificâ—…tion to whom as it is in the precedent verse righteousnesse shall bee imputed if wee beleeve on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead for as our Saviour by his death and obedience untâ—…ll death merited for us remission of sinnes and the right to eternall life so by the acts of Christ restored to life as namely by his resurrection his merits are effectually applied and imputed to our justification For if Christ had not risen againe wee had beene still in our sinnes 1 Cor. 15. 17. In the latter place justification is in direct termes opposed to condemnation For as by the offence or transgression of one viz. the first Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the guilt which is to be supplied out of the sixteenth verse came upon all men the offspring of the first Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation so by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
justification by inherent righteousnesse he affirmeth that to be justified by Christ in that place doth signifie to bee made just by obtaining righteousnesse 〈◊〉 And this hee would prove by two reasons first out of those words jâ—…sti constistuentur multi many shall be constituted or made just From whence he argueth thus To bee constituted just is to bee made just by inherent righteousnesse To bee justified is to bee constituted just Rom. 5. 19. Therefore to bee constituted just is to bee made just by righteousnesse inherent Answ. Wee confesse that whosoever is justified is constituted yea is made just but the question is concerning the manner whether by infusion of righteousnesse or by imputation The assumption therefore is granted by us But the proposition is false and hath no ground in the Scriptures Yea the contrary may bee proved out of the place alleaged where justification or making righteous is opposed not to the corruption of sinne but to guilt and condemnation vers 16. and 18. And therefore he is said in this place to be justified or constituted righteous who being absolved and acquitted from the guilt of sinne and from condemnation is accepted as righteous unto life for as in the former part of the 19. verse many are said to be constituted sinners that is as the Greeke interpreters doe expound it and as appeareth by the former verses guilty of sin and obnoxious to condemnation by the disobedience of Adaâ—… meaning that one offence of his which we cal his fal which cannot be otherwise understood but by imputation so in the latter part many are said to be constituted just by the obedience of the second Adam that is absolved from the guilt of sinne and condemnation and accepted as righteous in Christ his obedience being communicated to them which cannot be by any other meanes but by imputation Neither can any reason be given why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee constituted just should not be a judiciall word as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be justified In all other places this verbe whether it bee used in the good sense or in the bad signifieth no such thing as Bellarmine inferreth upon it For as in the bad it signifieth to convince or condemne as Gal. 2. 18. Iam. 4. 4. so in the good to approve or commend as Rom. 5. 8. 2 Cor. 4. 2. 6. 4. 7. 11. And accordingly the meaning of this place may be this as by the disobedience of the first Adam many were convicted and condemned as sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation so by the obedience of the second Adam many shall bee approved and accepted as righteous His reason is from the antithesis of Adam to Christ which as I shall hereafter in his due place prove maketh wholly against him for if by the actuall disobedience of Adam imputed unto us wee were made sinners then by the obedience of Christ imputed unto us we are made righteous but the former is true therefore the latter Of this antithesis I am hereafter to speake more at large in the meane time this may suffice to maintaine and justifie our exposition of the word against Bellarmines cavils § II. But here Bellarmine frameth to himselfe a fourefold Objection of Calvin and Chemnitius proving that to justifie is a judiciall word signifying to absolve and to pronounce just Their first reason is because the Apostle opposeth justifying to condemning as Rom. 5. 16. 18. 8. 33. Therefore as God is said to condemne when he doth not acquit a man but pronouncing him guilty deputeth him unto punishment so on the contrary he is said to justifie when hee acquitteth and absolveth a man from guilt and pronouncing him just accepteth of him in Christ as righteous unto eternall life To this Bellarmine shapeth two answeres first That justification is rightly opposed to condemnation but is not therefore alwayes a judiciall word for even condemnation it selfe sometimes is the act of a Iudge appointing him to punishment who in judgement was found guilty and sometimes it is the effect of a fault which hath deserved punishment And so Adam hath condemned us and God condemneth but Adam hath not condemned us by judging us after a judiciall manner but by imprinting in us Originall sinne After the same manner saith hee justification sometimes is the act of a Iudge sometimes the effect of grace And both wayes doth Christ justifie us first as the second Adam by deletion of sinne and infusion of grace secondly in the day of judgment by declaring them just whom before he had made just Reply Iustification in this question and in the places alleaged is considered as an action of God and being referred to God it signifieth not to make just by infusion of righteousnesse but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge to absolve from sinne and to pronounce and accept as righteous as being opposed to condemning which being referred to God signifieth not to make sinfull but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge to pronounce the offendour guilty and to award him punishment But what either justifying or condemning may signifie being referred to other either persons or things it is not materiall so that it be confessed which cannot be denied that justifying being ascribed to God signifieth not to make righteous by infusion no more than condemning being attributed to God signifieth to make wicked by infusion but both are to bee understood as the actions of a judge who either pronouncing a man just absolveth him from guilt or pronouncing him guilty appointeth him to punishment This therefore was an impertinent shift of a subtle sophister having nothing to say to the purpose for whereas he applyeth his distinction of condemning and justifying to the first and second Adam as pertinent to the places alleaged I answer first that neither is considered as the act of the first or second Adam but as Bellarmine confesseth in his second answer as the actions of God the Iudge secondly that although in some sense the first Adam may bee said to have condemned us as the second Adam is truely said Esai 53. 11. to justifie us yet both is to bee understood of the guilt of sinne brought upon us by the one and taken away by the other For as the first Adam by his transgression may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have condemned us because hee hath inwrapped us in the guilt of his sinne and so made us guilty of death and obnoxious to the â—…entence of condemnation that transgression of his being imputed us being in him as the root so the second Adam may truely be said to justifie us who are in him both as a surety in taking upon him our guilt and paying our debt for us Esai 53. 11. and also as our intercessour and advocate pleading for us that by imputation of his righteousnesse we may be absolved from our sinnes and accepted as righteous in him § III. His second answer is that although
debt Matth. 6. 12. The subject where it remaineth are the bookes of Gods providence and of our own consciences The act of God in remitting our debts is the wiping them out of his remembrance as it were his debt-bookes The debt is the sinne it selfe which maketh us debtors unto God And therefore sinnes are called debts and sinners debtors Matth. 6. 12. cum Luk. 11. 4. Matth. 23. 16 18. Luk. 13. 4. cum 2. which also appeareth by the parables of the debtors Luk. 7. 41. Matth. 18. 23 35. and therefore sinners are called debtors because for their sinnes they owe punishment unto which by the just ordination of God they are obliged This obligation whereby sinners are bound over to punishment is called reatus that is guilt When as therefore God remitteth sins he forgiveth the debt hee remitteth or releaseth the punishment hee taketh away the guilt whereby we were bound over to punishment And è converso when God forgiveth the debt releaseth the punishment taketh away the guilt he is said to remit sinne Now sinnes are either habituall or actuall An habituall sinne God doth remit when hee doth take away the guilt of it and cover the Anomy of it not that it should not be at all but that it should not bee imputed as Augustine saith of concupiscence or originall sinne whereof all particular habituall â—… sinnes are members and branches Actuall sinnes God doth remit when he doth forgive the sinfull act it selfe and the guilt also which remaineth after the act is past and gone § VI. But here the Papists have found out a new devise to confirme their error in confounding justification and sanctification that whereas there are two things which as themselves doe teach remaine in the soule after the act of sinne hath been committed viz. reatus macula the guilt and the blemish or spot they teach against sense that it is properly the macula which is remitted in justification But then say I what becometh of the punishment the guilt binding over to punishment It is certaine that the infusion of righteousnesse doth not take away the guilt nor free us from punishment Neither can we be freed either â—…rom the one or the other but only by the satisfaction of Christ imputed unto us Hence therfore they should have learned to distinguish between justification and sanctification rather than to confound them that whereas there are two things remaining after sinne committed the guilt and the pollution the guilt is taken away by imputation of Christs righteousnesse in our justification the pollution is in some measure cleansed in our sanctification § VII And how soever that which they say of the macula or pollution remaining is true in respect of Originall sinne wherein upon the guilt of Adams transgression imputed there followeth an universall macula or corruption consisting of two parts the privation of Originall righteousnesse and an evill disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne by which twofold corruption all the parts and faculties of the soule are defiled yet it seemeth not to be altogether true in regard of mens personall sinnes in respect of either part for as touching the former part which is the privation neither are the unregenerate by their actuall sinnes deprived of grace or righteousnesse infused which they had not before they sinned neither are the regenerate utterly deprived of grace by such sinnes as they commit as I have elsewhere proved and as touching the latter part which is the evill disposition this macula whereof they speake is no new evill disposition making him a sinner who before was not but an evill disposition remaining of the old man which by committing of actuall sinnes is increased Insomuch as where the same actuall sinne is often committed and reiterated that evill disposition groweth to bee an habit For all evill dispositions or habituall sinnes which are in men are either the reliquia or remnants of originall sinne in some measure mortified or the increments thereof when by the committing of actuall sinnes they receive increase And such a thing is that macula whereof they speake which remaining in the soule per modum habitus is to bee taken away as all other habituall sinnes are as they are pollutions by the mortification of them which is a part of sanctification and not of justification Neither is the mortification of sinne a totall deletion or abolition thereof in this life as if no sinne or corruption remained in the party justified or sanctified for though in the forgiving or remitting of originall sinne the guilt bee wholly taken away yet the corruption which is called concupiscence remaineth more or lesse mortified § VIII Now followeth the subject where that which is to bee remitted doth remaine and from whence when it is remitted it is wiped or blotted out that is Gods remembrance and our conscience which are as it were the Lords debt-bookes according to which bookes he will judge Apoc. 20. 12. the former is the booke of Gods providence Psalm 56. 8. 139. 15. wherein all offences are written and wherein they remaine upon record Hos. 7. 2. 8. 13. Ier. 17. 1. The other is the booke of our conscience which is as it were the Lords atturney indicting us of sinne In regard whereof David saith Psalm 51. 3. I doe know or am conscious to my transgressions and my sinne is ever before mee Out of the former booke the Lord doth wipe out sinnes when he justifieth us in the Court of Heaven out of the latter when we are justified in the Court of our owne Conscience § IX And hereby the third thing appeareth namely by what act of God our sinnes are remitted For if that which is remitted be a debt which is recorded in Gods booke then this debt is remitted not by any act of God within us either really wiping the pollution out of our soules or infusing grace into them both which are done in some measure after the debt is remitted in our sanctification but by an act of God without us wiping our sinnes out of his booke blotting them out of his remembrance Esai 43. 25. casting them behinde his backe Esai 38. 17. turning his face from them Psalm 51. 9. not remembring Ier. 31. 34. nor imputing them Rom. 4. 8. ex Psal. 32. 2. but forgiving and forgetting them and accepting of Christs satisfaction for them in the behalfe of all that truely beleeve in Christ Rom. 3. 24 25. § X. Our fifth argument may be this The utter deletion of sinne is not granted in this life Remission of sinne is granted to the faithfull in this life Therefore remission of sinne is not the utter deletion of it The proposition is certaine For during this life sinne remaineth in the best Rom. 7. 17. 20. 1 Ioh. 1. 8. The assumption is undeniable as being an Article of our faith testified in many places of Scripture Or thus If in justification there
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
the gifts of grace bestowed on them for the good of others Deâ—…t 33. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 41. Psal. 4 4. 132. 6. 16. To which purpose 〈◊〉 saith wel God loveth all things which he hath made and among them he loveth more the reasonable creatures and among them hee loveth more amply those who are the members of his onely begotten Sonne and much more his onely begotten himselfe the sonne of his love And generally by how much the better any man is than others it is an evidence that hee is so much graced and favoured of God the grace and favour of God being the cause of their goodnesse and consequently the greater favour of greater goodnesse § X. Fifthly it is saith he compared to essence which is given by creation hence it is that we are said to be created in Christ Eph. 2. 10. and to be a new creature Gal. 6. 15. But that by which we are called creatures is inward and inherent in us Answ. That whereby wee are created anew according to the image of God in true holinesse and righteousnesse is the grace not of justification for wee are created to good workes which in the same place are opposed to grace and are excluded from justification but of regeneration and sanctification which we acknowledge to be inwardly wrought by the holy Spirit in those that are justified by the gracious favour of God through faith But who would thinke that the Papists were so blinded with malice as either to perswade themselves or to goe about to perswade others that wee deny the graces of sanctification to bee inherent and affirme that wee are sanctified by such a righteousnesse or holinesse as is without us § XI Finally saith he it is compared to light 2 Cor. 6. 14. What followship hath light with darkenesse Eph. 5. 8. Ye were sometimes darkenesse but now you are light in the Lord. 1 Ioh. 2. 9. He that saith that hee is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkenesse But light doth not make a body lucidum unlesse it be inherent neither doth it suffer darkenesse with it How then 〈◊〉 a justified man bee said not onely to be â—…ucidus lightsome but also light in the Lord whereas before he was darke if still the darkenesse of sinne be inherent iâ—… him and the light of grace abide without Answ. Wee are called light in the abstract by a metonymie either because we are in the light which is not inherent in us being either God or the favor of God which is the state of grace or because of that light which is in us which is the grace not of justification but of regeneration and is compared to light both in respect of the inward illumination of the soule and also of the externall sanctification of the life shining forth to others of which our Saviour speaketh Mat. 5. 16. Let your light viz. of your godly conversation so shine before men that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father that is in heaven But where he saith there can be no darkenesse in him that is light it is as much as if hee should say that there can be no sinne in him that is sanctified But he should remember that God alone is light in whom there is no darkenesse 1 Ioh. 1. 5. and that in the best of us there is darkenesse that is the flesh even a body of sin and of death as well as light that is the Spirit Gal. 5. 17. Rom. 7. 14 17 20 23 24 25. and that hee who saith hee hath no sinne which is the case of all justified yea of all baptized and of all absolved and absolute Papists he is a Iyar and there is no truth in him 1 Ioh. 1. 8. And this was his fourth argument containing sixe petite proofes CHAP. V. His fifth argument from Rom. 5. 5. answered § I. FOr having no more places where grace is named to proove justifying grace to bee inherent hee flyeth to Rom. 5. 5. where not grace but the love of God is mentioned That grace saith he wherby the Apostle saith wee are justified is said also to be charity diffused in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is given unto us The words are because the love of God or Gods love is effused or powred forth c. But here now the question is first whether by the love of God in this place is meant the love whereby God loveth us or that love whereby wee love God And secondly if that love of God whereby wee love him should be meant how is it proved that that love of ours is Gods justifying grace For this latter though wee constantly deny it Bellarmine goeth not about to prove but taketh for granted it being the maine point in question which cannot be proved out of this or any other place As touching the former our Divines doe hold that by Gods love in this place is meant that love whereby God loveth us and not that whereby wee love God The Papists hold the contrary which Bellarmine endeavoreth to proove by the testimony of Augustine and two weake proofes out of Rom. 8. § II. The testimony of Augustine hee urgeth very sophistically as if wee had no better proofe to oppose to the testimony of Saint Augustine than the authority of our owne writers or as if we might not differ from Augustine in expounding some place of Scriptures unlesse we will preferre our selves before him when notwithstanding the Popish writers in expounding the Scriptures differ from Augustine as oft as wee But to the Testimony of Augustine who saith that the love which is said to bee shed in our hearts is not that love whereby God loveth us but that whereby we love God we oppose first the authority of those Writers who understand this place of the love of God both actively wherewith he loveth us which is the same with his saving grace and also passively whereby he is loved of us which is a notable fruit of his saving grace or of either of them both indifferently as Origâ—…n Sedulius Haymo Anselmus Remigius Bruno Thomas Aquinas Dominicus à Soto Pererius Disput. 2. in Rom. 5. Cornelius à Lapide Secondly the authority of those who understand this love to be that wherewith God loveth us As of Ambrose who saith wee have the pledge of Gods love in us by the holy Ghost given unto us for that the promise is faithfull the holy Ghost given to the Apostles and to us doth prove and doth confirme our hope and that he might commend the love of God in us that because it is impossible that those who are beloved should be deceived he might make us secure concerning the promise because both it is God who hath promised and they are deare to him to whom he hath promised Of Chrysostome who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom Theophylact followeth from that love which God sherved towards us Of Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
confesse our selves to be sinners But the pharisaicall Papist if he be once justified as by their doctrine all are for a time at the least who either are baptized or absolved hee must thinke that in him there is no sinne nothing that God can justly hate And therefore farre bee it from him to make such a confession as this or to cry out with the Apostle Wretched man that I am who shal deliver me from this body of death Rom. 7. 24. § IX His second reason to prove this allegation to bee imperitnent is this Because although Esay should speake of all that is of that whole people yet hee doth not speake of all at all times but onely of the people of the Iewes at that time who for their extreme wickednesse were delivered into captivity as appeareth by the words following verse 10. Zion is a wildernesse Ierusalem a desolation the Temple burnt c. Answ. These words doe prove that the Prophet in this place doth not speake in the person of the wicked Iewes that lived in his time before the desolation of Ierusalem but of the remnant of the faithfull and penitent Iewes who being in captivity bewaile their sinnes and lament the desolation of the Temple and City And therefore what is said of them may be extended to the faithfull in all times being as these were humbled before God for their sinnes as penitent suppliants § X. His third reason because the Prophet speaking onely of the wicked of that time meaneth not all their workes as though all were sinnes for then Bellarmine must confesse that the best workes of the unregenerate are but splendida peccata but such as they accounted to bee their righteousnesse as their sacrifice and new-moones and other ceremoniall observatious wherein they placed their righteousnesse which because they were not 〈◊〉 with a good intention nor as they ought are worthily compared but not by them to a menstruous cloth and are rejected by God Esa. 1. 11. Answ. Here Bellarmine taketh for granted that the Prophet speaketh of the workes of the wicked onely of that time which I have disproved Or if hee had spoken of the wicked it were more probable either that they should place their righteousnesse in morall workes if they had any rather than in ceremoniall or if they placed the top of their righteousnesse as hypocrites many times doe in ceremoniall observations that they would compare those things which they so highly esteemed to menstruous clouts But hee speaketh of all the persons All wee and therefore including the righteous if there were any at all among them as some there were both before the captivity and in it and of all their righteousnesses and therefore not of their ceremonials onely but also of their morals Neither might they performe the chiefe of their ceremonials during their captivity being in a forraine land § XI Secondly that the good workes of the faithfull in this life are not purely and perfectly good I prove because in all our best actions there is a mixture of evill either by the absence or defect of some good thing which ought to bee therein or by the presence of some fault or corruption which ought not to be in them And this I prove first out of Exod. 28. 36. 38. where the high Priest who was the figure of Christ is appointed to weare on his forehead a plate of pure gold which is also called an holy coronet Exod. 29. 6. Levit. 8. 9. engraven with this inscription Holinesse of the Lord and so the 72. translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Lord that is of Christ who is the Lord our righteousnesse The end wherefore he was to weare it was that Aaron might beare the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel should hallow in all their holy gifts And it was alwaies to be on his forehead that they the holy gifts might be accepted before the Lord where we are plainly taught that in all our best actions and holy services which wee performe to God there is iniquity which must bee taken away by the holinesse and righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us otherwise they cannot in themselves be accepted of God § XII Secondly out of Eccl. 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the earth that doth good and sinneth not that is who in doing good sinneth not For if the meaning were onely thus as Bellarmine would have it that none are so just but that sometimes they sinne according to that 1 King 8. 46. those words that doth good were superfluous for there is no just man that doth not good But his meaning is that there is no just man upon earth who doing good sinneth not that is which doth good so purely and perfectly as that hee doth not sinne therein For to the perfecting of a good worke many things must concur the want of any whereof is a sinne The truth of this doth best appeare in the particulars Prayer is a good worke and so is the hearing of the word c. but there is no man doth so pray or so heare the word but that when hee hath done he hath just cause to pray unto God to forgive his defects and defaults both in the one and the other And in this sense Luther did truly hold that justus in omni opere bono peccat that a just man sinneth in every good worke Not that the worke in respect of its kind or per se is a sinne as if wee said that prayer c. is a sinne but per accidens because in that good worke there happeneth a defect which defect is a sinne not mortall to them who are in Christ but veniall And thus Augustine also seemeth to understand this place For speaking of the imperfection of charity in this life hee saith that so long as it may be increased profectò illud quod minus est quà m debet ex vitio est ex quo vitio non est justus in terra qui faciat bonum non peccet assuredly that which is lesse than it ought to be is out of vice by reason of which vice there is not a just man upon earth who doth good and sinneth not by reason of which vice no living man shall bee justified before God and in another place more plainely hee saith peccatum est cum charitas minor est quà m esse debet it is a sinne when charity is lesse than it ought to bee § XIII Thirdly such as is the tree such is the fruit The tree is corrupt in part For even in the best there is the Old man and the New the flesh and the Spirit betwixt which there is a perpetuall conflict so that wee cannot doe the things wee would and much lesse as we would but all even our best actions are stained with the flesh which is such a law in us that when wee would doe good evill is present with us
est si divinitùs districtè 〈◊〉 and in the conclusion of his worke lib. 35. cap. 26. wherein as hee professeth that hee sought chiefly to please God so hee confesseth that this intention was accompanied with other worse intentions and sinister respects as seeking to please men and affecting their praise whereupon hee inferreth Si autem de his divinitùs districtè discutimur quis inter ista remanet salutis locus quando mala nostra pura mala sunt bona quae nos 〈◊〉 crediâ—…s pura bona esse nequaquam possunt the evill things saith he which we have are purely and meerely evill but the good things which we suppose our selves to have are not nor can in any wise be purely good and so said Bernard Nostra siquâ—… est humilis justitia recta forsan sed non pura whence it followeth necessarily that none of the workes of the faithfull are pure and consequently that their very best workes are impure This which hath been said may suffice to a conscience not cauterized neither shall I need to say any more in this needlesse argument For though it should bee granted that some of the works of the faithfull were purely good as they are not yet so long as any of their works are sinfull as in many things we faile all insomuch that the righteous as Bellarmine himselfe doth cite the place doth fall seven times a day they cannot be justified by their workes but are by the sentence of the Law in themselves accursed because they doe not continue in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them and because the breach of any one commandement maketh them guilty of all I conclude against the Papists as Epiphâ—…ius did censure the Catharists these men professing themselves pure by this supposition make themselves unpure for whosoever pronounceth himselfe to be pure therein he doth utterly condemne himselfe to be impure CAP. IV. Bellarmines arguments answered § I. THis was our third argument taken from the imperfection of our obedience and righteousnesse which I have defended against Bellarmines cavils before I proceed to the fourth I hold it needfull to answere his arguments in propounding whereof hee falleth short of his projects as I noted before for hee that would prove that men are justified by their workes had need to prove that all the workes of all the faithfull are purely and perfectly good which is impossible to bee proved but hee neither concludeth of all works nor of all the faithfull And yet it is most certaine that if the faithfull be justified by their works then all the works of all the faithfull are purely and perfectly good His proofes are of three sorts authority of Scriptures Testimonies of Fathers and other reasons Out of the Scripture he citeth eight testimonies The first out of Iob 1. 22. In all these things Iob sinned not with his lips And that we may not answere with some of the Rabbins that though he sinned not with his lips yet hee might sinne in his heart hee telleth us that in the next Chapter God giveth him this testimonie that still he retained his innocency and therefore sinned neither in his tongue nor in his heart Againe whereas Satan sought by so many temptations to bring Iob to sinne and God on the other side permitted all those temptations that the patience and vertue of that holy man should bee manifested if Iob should have sinned God should after a sort have beene over come by the devill wherfore it is certaine that that worke of Iobs patience was not stained with any sinne and that the Lutherans which say the contrary take part with the devill against God § II. Answ. Those temptations were permitted by God as tyrals of Iob not perfection but integrity For that is Gods end that they who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sound and upright may be knowne 1 Cor. 11. 19. and this end was atchieved Cap. 2. vers 3. for still Iob retained his integrity But Satans intention was to prove him to be an hypocrite and to move him not onely to fall but to fall away from God and to blaspheme him to his face and so much hee undertooke both Cap. 1. 11. and Cap. 2. 5. howbeit hee failed in his enterprize And so much is signified in both the places alleaged by Bellarmine that Iob was so farre either from blaspheming God to his face which Satan undertooke he should that he offended not with his lippes nor charged God foolishly or from being discovered to be an hypocrite that by Gods owne testimony he retained his integrity as that word signifieth which Bellarmine according to the vulgar Latine calleth innocencie But Iob though hee were upright and sincere yet he was not perfect nor without sinne as appeareth by his manifold imperfections which afterwards he discovered Cap. 3. c. and also by his free confession of his sinfulnesse Cap. 9. 20. 33. and lastly by his feare and jelousie which hee had over his best actions lest he had sinned in them for as Gregory writing on those words of Iob Verebar omnia opera mea understandeth it to be an humble confession as if he had said quae apertè egerim video sed quid in his latenter pertulerim ignoro what overtly I performed I see but what covertly I suffered therein I know not But here may be objected which Bellarmine in the next Chapter alleageth out of the said Gregory Bonarum mentium est ibi etiam aliquo modo culpam agnoscere ubi culpa non est it is the property of good minds even there to acknowledge a fault where nofault is wherto I answere that Gregory speaketh in regard of humane infirmities which were laid upon man after his fall and namely of the monthly infirmity of women which though they bee not inflicted upon a man for his personall offences yet it is the property of good minds to esteeme them as laid upon them for their sinnes Thus Iob though his afflictions were not inflicted upon him as corrections for his sinnes but as tryals of his vertue yet he imputeth them to his sinnes Iob 13. 26. § III. In the second place he allegeth diverse testimonies out of the Psalmes wherein David pleadeth his owne innocencie and appealeth unto God to be judged according to his owne righteousnesse Psalm 7. 4. 9. 16. 1 2 3. 18. 2. 1. 26. 1. 119. 121. Answ. In some of these places David pleadeth the justice of his particular cause against his adversaries not the absolute innocencie of his person The rest are to be understood of his uprighttnesse and integrity For otherwise no man was more forward to confesse and to deplore his manifold sinnes than David was none more ready to implore Gods mercy none more fearefull that God should enter into strict judgement with him § IV. His third testimony is Matth. 6. 22. If thine eye be single the
performed as well as we can because commanded knowing that God will accept of our upright though weake indevour § XXI The sixth and the last who seeth not that these words good workes are mortall sinnes imply a contradiction for they shall be good and not good c. Answ. We doe not affirme that good workes are mortall sinnes neither doe we deny them to be truly good Onely we deny them to bee purely and perfectly good And we acknowledge the impurity and imperfection concurring with them to bee a sinne and consequently that the good workes of the faithfull are good per se as being commanded as being the fruits of the Spirit and of faith working by love but sinfull per accidens as being stained with the flesh yea but saith Bellarmine Bonum non existit nisi ex integra causa malum verò ex quolibet vitio that is that is not to bee accounted a good worke whereunto all things doe not concurre which are requisite but that is evill wherein there is any defect therefore if there be any defect or imperfection to bee found in any worke that worke is not to be accounted good but evill Answ. that rule of Diony sius is true according to the rigour of the Law which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which our Saviour hath delivered us but it is not true according to the covenant of grace wherein the Lord accepteth the sincere and upright indevours of his children though defective and unperfect for perfect performance their wants being not imputed unto them but covered with the robe of Christs perfect righteousnesse As therefore their persons though in themselves sinners are in Christ accepted as righteous so their actions though in themselves defective are acceptable in Christ. Here therefore wee may justly retort both the accusation it selfe and all these absurdities upon the Papists who be necessary consequence are proved to hold that all the workes of the righteous are simply evill and so absolutely to be called sinnes Those works wherein is found any defect or imperfection are not good but absolutely they are to bee called sinnes as the Papists teach But in all even the best works of the righteous there is to be found some defect imperfection or blemish as being stained with the flesh This assumption is plainely taught in the holy Scriptures as I have proved heretofore Therefore all even the best actions of the righteous are absolutely to be called sinnes as the Papists teach Here then let all men againe take notice of the Popish pharisaisme or pharisaicall hypocrisie of Papists with whom no man is just or justified in whom is any sinne no action good but simply evill in which is any defect and yet their persons are just and their actions not onely good but also meritorious and that ex condigno and that ratione operis of eternall life CHAP. V. Our fourth Argument that the righteousnesse by which wee are justified satisfieth the Law so doth Christs righteousnesse so doth not that which is inherent in us § I. NOw I returne to our owne proofes The fourth argument therefore to prove joyntly that we are justified by Christs righteousnesse and not by ours may be this By that righteousnesse alone and by no other we are justified by which the Law is fully satisfied By the righteousnesse of Christ alone the Law is fully satisfied and not by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us Therefore wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ alone and not by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us For the proofe of the proposition three things are to be acknowledged first that whosoever is justified is made just by some righteousnesse for as I have shewed heretofore to thinke that a man should be justified without justice is as absurd as to imagine a man to be clothed without apparell secondly that all true righteousnesse is a conformity to the law of God which is the perfect rule of righteousnesse insomuch as what is not conformable to the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is iniquity and sinne thirdly that there can be no justification without the Law be fulfilled either by our selves or by another for us For our Saviour when he came to justifie us and save us protested that hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill it and professeth that not one jot or tittle of the Law should passe unfulfilled Matth. 5. 17 18. Saint Paul likewise avoucheth that by the doctrine of justification by faith the Law is not made void but established Rom. 3. 31. The proposition therefore is undenyable The assumption hath two parts the former affirmative that by the righteousnesse of Christ the Law is fully satisfied the other negative that by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us the Law neither is nor can be fully satisfied For the clearing of the assumption in both the parts wee are to understand that to the full satisfying of the Law since the fall of Adam two things are required the one in respect of the penalty unto the suffering whereof sinne hath made us debtours the other in respect of the precept to the doing wherof the Law doth bind us The former to free us from hell and damnation the other to entitle us to heaven and salvation according to the sanction of the Law If thou dost not that which is commanded thou art accursed if thoudoest it thou shalt be saved In respect of the former the Law cannot be satisfied in the behalf of him who hath oncetransgressed it but by eternal punishment or that which is equivalent in respect of the latter it is not satisfied but by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience § II. Now our Saviour Christ hath fully satisfied the Law for all them that truly beleeve in him in both respects For hee hath superabundantly satisfied the penalty of the Law for us by his sufferings and by his death and he hath perfectly fulfilled the Law for us by performing all righteousnesse in obeying his Father in all things even unto death and by them both he hath justified us freeing us from hell by his sufferings and entituling of us unto heaven by his obedience And therefore the holy Ghost affirmeth that wee are justified by his bloud Rom. 5. 9. and by his obedience verse 19. For his sufferings were the sufferings of God in which respect they who put him to death are said to have killed the Author of life Act. 3. 15. and to have crucified the Lord of glory 1 Cor. 2. 8 and for the same cause the bloud by which we are redeemed is called the bloud of God Act. 20. 28. or which is all one the bloud of the Sonne of God 1 Iohn 17. His obedience likewise was the obedience of God For Iesus Christ the word that is the second person in Trinity being in the forme of God God coequall with his Father for our sakes became
flesh that is abased himselfe to become man which before hee was not but not ceasing to bee that which hee was before namely the true and the great God God above all blessed for evermore in our nature being perfect God and perfect man hee farther humbled himselfe and became obedient untill death even to the death of the crosâ—…e And therefore the righteousnesse of Christ both habituall inherent in his person and that which was performed by him both active and passive being the righteousnesse of God as it is often called Rom. cap. 1. 3. 10. the righteousnesse of God and our Saviour 2 Pet. 1. 1. who was given to us of God to be our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1. 30. that wee beleeving in him might bee the righteousnesse of God in him 2 Cor. 5. 21 is therefore called Iehovah our righteousuesse Ier 23. 6. I say his passive righteousnesse being the righteousnesse of God the bloud of God it is a price of infinite valew and superabundantly sufficient to satisfie for the sinnes not onely of the faithfull but of all the world and not onely of this one world but of more if there were more And this habituall and actuall righteousnesse being the righteousnesse and obedience of God is of infinite and alâ—…-sufficient merit to entitle all those that beleeve in him were they never so many to the kingdome of heaven These things if the Papists should deny It would deny them to be Christians The former part therefore of the assumption is of undoubted truth § III. Come wee then to the other part Is there any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us that can fully satisfie the Law Nothing lesse For first in respect of the penalty which is due unto us for our sinnes wee cannot possibly fatisfie it but by enduring everlasting torment which though wee should endure for a million of millions of yeares yet wee could not bee said to have satisfied the Law which cannot be satisfied but by endlesse punishment or that which is equivalent but there is nothing equivalent but the precious death and sufferings of the eternall Son of God who gave himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full price of ransome countervailing in respect of the dignity of his person the eternall pains of hel which all the elect should have suffered Therefore there is no possibility for us to escape hell the just guerdon of our sinnes unlesse the Lord impute our siâ—…s to our Saviour Christ and his sufferings to us accepting them in our behalfe as if we had sustained them in our owne persons For although wee should for the time to come performe a totall and perfect obedience to the Law yet that would not free us from the punishment already deserved by us But the Law must be satisfied both in respect of the penalty to be borne and in respect of perpetuall and perfect obedience to bee performed through out our whole life Neither may we thinke by the payment of one debt to satisfie another The obedience which wee hope to performe for the time to come though it were totall and perfect is a debt and duty which wee owe unto God Luk. 17. 10. and therefore cannot discharge us of the penalty which is another debt which wee owe for our sinnes past for wee were sinners from the wombe yea in the wombe and to the guilt of Adams transgression in whom wee sinned and to that originall corruption which we have received from him for which though wee had no other sinnes wee were worthily subject to eternall damnation wee have added in the former part of our life innumerable personall transgressions all deserving death and damnation which if wee be not delivered therefrom by the death and merits of Christ wee must make account to suffer in our owne persons neither can our future intended obedience satisfie for our sinnes as Bellarmine confesseth God is just in forgiving sinnes neither doth he forgive any sinne for which his justice is not fully satisfied § IV. Neither can our righteousnesâ—…e â—…atisfie the Law in respect of the precept by fulfilling it for whosoever hath not continued in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them but hath at any time transgressed the Law hee hath not fulfilled it Therefore it is most certaine that we cannot satisfie the Law in respect of the precept because wee have already broken it and by our breach of it have made our selves subject to the curse of the Law so farre are we from being justified by it Neither are wee able by our obedience to satisfie the Law for the time to come § V. Against this branch of our argument which by us is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as over measure Bellarmine taketh exception alleaging that the faithfull and regenerate are able to fulfill the Law and entreth into a large dispute to prove that the Law is possible which disputation I have fully examined in his due place and confuted Here let the Reader take notice that Bellarmine disputeth sophistically in diverse respects for first hee will needs be actor when indeed hee is reus and that hee might get the better end of the staffe pretendeth to confute our errours when indeed he laboureth to defend his owne Secondly hee answereth but a piece of our argument and such a piece as might be spared as being added mantisae loco by way of advantage for thus we reason no man can satisfie the Law because hee hath already broken it yea hee is so farre from satisfying the Law in respect of the time past that for the time to come hee is not able to fullfill it Thirdly where hee should prove that all those who are to bee justified doe fulfill the Law for else how should they by fulfilling of the Law be justified all that he endevoureth to prove is that it is possible for them that are already justified to fullfill it disputing as wee say a posse ad esse Fourthly where hee should prove that all who are justified doe fulfill the Law for else how should they be justified by fulfilling it hee endeavoureth to prove that some rare men have fulfilled it not caring what becomes of the rest Fifthly where hee argueth that if men shall fulfill the Law they shall be justified his consequence doth not hold in respect of them who at any time heretofore have broken it as all meere men without exception have done though they should perfectly fulfill the Law for the time to come Sixthly he would prove that some doe fulfill the Law and yet cannot deny but that even those some doe sinne many times yea seven times a day and that they have need daily to pray for the forgivenesse of their sinnes and therefore faileth in the proofe of that also as I have made manifest in answering his arguments § VI. Now to make good this part of our reason
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 â—…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 eâ—…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 â—…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 justâ—…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 pardâ—…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 insuâ—…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
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
indowments And therefore that I may come to the proofe of my assumption those phrases of putting on Christ and his righteousnesse figured by Iacob his putting on of his elder brothers apparell Gen. 27. of the wedding garment Mat. 22. 11. of the first or chiefe robe Luke 15 22. of the white garment promised by Christ Apoc. 3. 18. of the fine linnen cleane and shining which is the righteousnesse of the Saints Apoc. 19. 8. of which place I have spoken before are most fitly understood of the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us and put on as it were by faith § XI In his second answere Bellarmine confesseth that this similitude of garments and that example of the Patriarch Iacob may after a sound manner bee accommodated to righteousnesse imputed if it shall bee said that it behoueth us to put on or to be clothed with the merits of Christ that being after a sort covered with them we may aske of God pardon of our sinnes for as I have said before saith he Christ alone was able to satisfie for our sins and indeed in justice did satisfie and that satisfaction is given and applyed to us and reputed ours when weare reconciled unto God and justified That example therefore being referred to the righteousnesse of satisfaction for the fault it may be admitted But if it be referred to that righteousnesse whereby wee are formally justified when of sinners and wicked men we are made just and godly it is by all meanes to be rejected seeing it is manifestly repugnant to the Scriptures to the Fathers and to reason it selfe For that one man should satisfiâ—… for another it may easily be conceived but that one man should be just because another is just was never heard of and is not onely above but also against reason § XII Here as you see Bellarmine maketh a distinction betwixt the righteousnesse of satisfaction and that by which wee are formally made just But what is that righteousnesse of satisfaction No doubt that whereby our Saviour satisfied the Law for us which he was to satisfie as I have shewed before not onely in respect of the penalty threatened by his sufferings but also in respect of the Commandement by his perfect obedience fulfilling the condition of the promise Doe this and live To this Bellarmine acknowledgeth the similitude of garments and the example of the Patriarch Iacob may fitly be applied which is as much as wee desire For this is the whole righteousnesse of justification wherein the Lord imputing to a beleever the sufferings of Christ covereth or not imputeth or forgiveth his sinnes and the punishment thereunto belonging and imputing unto him the perfect obedience of Christ accepteth of him as righteousnesse in Christ. For it is most certaine that to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne them hee accepteth as righteous and that hee imputeth righteousnesse to whom hee imputeth not sinne Rom. 4. 6 7. For as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth the not imputing of sinne bringeth with it the imputing of righteousnesse Neither is it to be doubted but that the Lord accepteth as well the merits of his obedience as of his sufferings And what is that justice whereby he saith we are formally made just no doubt inherent justice or the righteousnesse of sanctification by infusion where of sinne is expelled To this saith Bellarmine the similitude of apparell and the example of Iacob cannot be applyed For though one may satisfie for another yet one cannot be formally just by the righteousnesse of another which never any of us to my knowledge affirmed The more absurd was Bellarmine in thinking so absurdly of us For because hee confoundeth justification and sanctification hee would needs beare the world in hand that wee confounding them also doe teach that wee are formally made just by the righteousnesse of another which is out of us in him But if justification and sanctification are to be distinguished as I have proved they must of necessity bee distinguished then it will appeare manifestly that that which Bellarmine calleth the justice of satisfaction is the whole righteousnesse of justification and that by which hee saith wee are formally made righteous is the righteousnesse of sanctification Now wee are well content that the righteousnesse whereby wee are sanctified or formally made righteous should not be imputative so that they will confesse that the righteousnesse of Christs whole satisfaction whereby wee are justified before God is imputed unto us which they must confesse or else they cannot bee saved Here therefore we may sing the triumph and say Magna est veritas praevalet And thus have I aboundantly proved that the righteousnesse of God whereby wee are justified is not any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us but onely the righteousnesse of Christ our Saviour which is out of us in him as being proper to his person though by imputation communicated to all that truly beleeve in him CHAP. X. Bellarmines eight allegations to prove justification by inherent righteousnesse answered § I. NOw I am to examine Bellarmines proofes And first hee alleageth Rom. 5. 17 18 19. out of which place he would prove that to bee justified by Christ is not to be accounted or pronounced just but to be truly made and constituted just by obtaining inherent righteousnesse and that a righteousnesse not unperfect but absolute and perfect for that to justifie in this place is to makejust and not to pronounce just appeareth first out of those words verse 19. many shall be constituted or made just unto which allegation I have heretofore answered in his due place so much as concerneth the signification of the word and have maintained the exceptions of Calvin and Chemnitius against his cavils His second reason is from the Antithesis of Adam unto Christ. For thus saith he the Apostle writeth As we are made unjust through the disobedience of Adam so we are made just through the obedience of Christ. But it is certaine that through Adams disobedience we are made unjust by injustice inherent and not imputed Therefore through the obedience of Christ we are made just by righteousnesse inherent and not imputed Answ. Wee confesse that as from the first Adam we receive inherent corruption in our carnall generation so from the second Adam wee receive inherent grace in our spirituall regeneration but this is not our justification but our sanctification whereof the Apostle speaketh not in this place whereas therefore he assumeth that wee are made unjust through Adams disobedience by inherent injustice onely not imputed I deny the assumption and returne the argument upon the Adversary As we are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation by Adams disobedience or transgression so wee are justified that is not onely absolved from the guilt of sinne and damnation but also accepted as righteous uâ—…to salvation by the obedience of Christ. But wee are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation by imputation of
Adams disobedience or transgâ—…ession Therefore wee are justified that is not onely absolved from the guilt of sinne but also accepted as righteous by imputation of Christs obedience As touching the proposition that the word sinners doth in this place signifie guilty of sinne and obnoxious to condemnation it is testified by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then is the word sinners in this place it seemeth to mee that it is to be subject or obnoxious to punishment and condemned to death by Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Theophylact likewise sinners that is obnoxious to punishments and guilty of death which exposition is plainely confirmed by the verses going before where the same opposition betweene the first and second Adam being made the â—…ormer part is expressed in these words that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or guilt of Adams transgression came upon his posterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation especially vers 16. and 18. § II. The assumption though gaine-said by Bellarmine in this place yet is taught not only by other Papists who fully contradict Bellarmines Assumption but elsewhere also by Bellarmine himselfe For Durandus Pighius Catharinus doe hold originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams fall or the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us which opinion also Occam professeth that he would hold if he were not hindered by the authority of the Fathers Yea saith Bellarmine it seemeth to have beene the opinion of some of the ancient as Peter Lombard reporteth Iâ—… refuting this opinion Bellarmine justly findeth fault with them that they held originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams disobedience imputed it being also the depravation of our nature following thereupon But in that they say originall sinne is the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us that he doth approve For Adam alone did indâ—…ed commit that sinne by actuall will but to us it is communicated by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirum per imputationem after that manner whereby that may be communicated which is transcient and gone to wit by imputation Omnibus enim imputatur c. for it is imputed to all who are borne of Adam because wee all being then in the loynes of Adam when hee sinned in him and by him wee sinned Yea and farther hee rightly disputeth that if Adams sinne were not ours by imputation neither the guilt of it nor the corruption following upon it had belonged to us This assertion of Bellarmine confirmeth our assumption and contradicteth his own alleaging that wee are made sinners through the disobedience of Adam by injustice inherent and not imputed which also he contradicteth in other places For he granteth the sinne of Adam so to be imputed to all his posterity as if they all had committed that sinne and to the same purpose citeth Bernard Ours is Adams fault because though in another yet we sinned and to us it was imputed by the just though secret judgement of God And againe taking upon him to prove that the propagation of sinne may bee defended without maintaining the propagation or traduction of the soule he saith that nothing else is required to the traduction of sinne but that a man be descended from Adam by true and ordinary generation For generation not being of a part but of the person or whole man for homo generat hominem therefore the person descending from Adam though his soule be from God was in the loynes of Adam and being in him originally as in the roote in him and with him hee sinned the actuall sinne of Adam being communicated unto him by imputatioâ—… For as Augustine saith definita est seutentia c. it is a resolved case by the Apostle that in Adam we all sinned § III. But what shall wee say to the inherent corruption which Adam by his transgression contracted By this assertion it seemeth not to be traducted otherwise than as the fruit and consequent of the actuall disobedience which was the opinion of Pighius and Catharinus For as Adam by his first transgression which was the sinne of mankind contracted not onely the guilt of death but also the corruption of his nature being both a privation of originall righteousnesse and also an evill disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne which is that macula peccati remaining in the sinner after the act is gone so wee having sinned in Adam are not onely made guilty of death and void of originall righteousnesse but also are defiled with that habituall disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne So that according to this assertion it may be defended that nothing in our generation is communicated unto us with the humane nature but the disobedience of Adam which is communicated by imputation As for the guilt of death and the inherent coruption they are not derived from Adam but contracted by our sinning in him And hereunto we may apply Bellarmines distinction of sinne so properly called that it is either a voluntary transgression or that blemish which remaineth in the soule caused and contracted by the transgression being of the same nature with it diffeâ—…ing no otherwise from it than as heat from the act of heating For in the former sense originall sinne is the voluntary trangression of Adam imputed unto us and is one and the same in all men in Adam actuall and personall in us originall For onely he by actuall will committed it but to us it is communicated after that manner by which that which is past and gone may bee communicated to wit by imputation In the latter sense it is the corruption inherent contracted and caused as in Adam by his personall sinne so in us by our sinning originally in him which though it bee alike and equall in all yet it is every mans owne § IV. But supposing originall sinne according to the received opinion to be wholly communicated unto us from Adam in our generation yet we must distinguish betwixt Adams first transgression or actuall disobedience which we call his â—…all and the corruption or depravation of his nature which thereupon followed For though we be partakers of both yet not after the same manner Of the transgression we can be no otherwise partakers than by imputation For Adams transgression being an action and actions continuing or having a being no longer than they are in doing cannot bee traducted or transmitted from Adam to his posterity But the corruption being habituall is derivable by propagation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. speaketh of Adams actuall disobedience once committed by him by which he saith we are made sinners that sinne of his being communicated unto us by imputation and not of the corruption thereupon following So by the like reason we are made just by the obedience of Christ which hee performed for us in the daies of his flesh which can
no otherwise be communicated unto us than by imputation Object Yea but wee are truly made sinners by the disobedience of Adam and truly made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Answ. As we are truly made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience so we are as truly made righteous by imputation of Christs obedience Iust. Yea but we are made sinners by injustice inherent through Adams disobedience and therefore wee are made just by inherent justice through â—…he obedience of Christ. Answ. We are not made sinners in respect of inherent justice by Adams disobedience formally as Bellarmine saith Inobedientia Adami nos consâ—…ituit peccatores non formaliter sed 〈◊〉 for that only is imputed but by the corruption which followeth and is caused by that transgression committed by Adam and imputed to us In like manner wee are not made just in respect of inherent justice by the obedience of Christ whether active or passive formally for that is onely imputed but by the graces of the Spirit merited by the obedience of Christ performed by him and imputed to us § V. Thus then standeth the comparison betwixt the first and the second Adam As by the actuall disobedience or transgression of the first Adam all his off spring were made guilty of sinne and subject to death his disobedience being not inherent in them but imputed to them as if it were their owne because they were in him originally so by the obedience of the second Adam all his off spring are or shall be justified from sinne and accepted to life his obedience not being inherent in them but imputed to them as if it were their owne because by faith they are in him And this is our justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse And further as Adams fall deserved as a just punishment the defacing of Gods image by inherent corruption in all his posterity to whom the same corruption is by naturall generation transfused so the obedience of Christ merited as a just reward the restoring of Gods image in us by inherent righteousnesse in all the faithfull into whom the said righteousnesse is in their Spirituall regeneration infused And this is our Sanctification by the Spirit of Christ of which the Apostle speaketh not untill the next Chapter where he sheweth that our justification is alwayes accompanied with Sanctification In a word from either of the two Adams we receive two things which are contrary each to other From the first Adam his disobedience is communicated unto us by imputation whereby wee are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation which guilt is opposite to justification and secondly the corruption which he contracted is transfused unto us by carnall generation which corruption is contrary to sanctification From the second Adam his obedience is communicated to us by imputation whereby wee are constituted just that is absolved from the guilt of sinne and damnation and accepted in Christ as righteous and as heires of eternall life which is the benefit of justification and secondly the graces of his holy Spirit which hee received without measure are in some measure as it were by influence infused into us by our spirituall regeneration § VI. Whereas therefore hee would prove out of this place that justification is the obtayning of righteousnesse inherent I answer first that to be constituted sinners by Adams disobedience is to be made guilty of sinne and subject to death and damnation and so contrariwise to be constituted just or justified by Christs obedience is to be acquitted from the guilt of sinne and damnation and to bee accepted unto life secondly that wee are constituted sinners by Adams personall sinne which is not inherent in us but once and that long since committed by him so we are justified by Christs personall obedience which is not inherent in us but long since performed by him thirdly that as wee are truely made sinners by imputation of Adams transgression which is not inherent in us so we are truly made just by imputation of Christs obedience which is not inherent in us fourthly that the disobedience of the first Adam is imputed to all his children because they were in him originally as the root so in him they sinned and therefore when he did fall they fell so the second Adams obedience is imputed to all the sonnes of God because by faith they are in him as his members the head and the members making but one body This place therefore alleaged by Bellarmine maketh wholly against him Neither doth that which he addeth concerning persect absolute and abundant righteousnesse communicated unto us by Christ agree to that righteousnesse which is in herent in us unperfect and but begunne as being the first fruits of the Spirit but to the absolute and most perfect righteousnesse of Christ communicated unto us by imputation On this place I have insisted the longer because though Bellarmine alleage it as a prime place to prove his purpose is notwithstanding a most pregnant testimony to prove justification by impuâ—…ation of Christs righteousnesse as hereafter shall further appeare § VII His second Testimony is Rom. 3. 24 which I have also heretofore fully proved to make wholly against him Lib. 3. Cap. 3. 4. His third allegation is out of â—… Cor. 6. 11. to which also have I answered before I where acknowledged the benefit of baptisme to be here described according to that which here he alleageth out of Chrysâ—…st Ambrose Theophylact and others which is noted first generally in the word washed and then particularly in the words Sanctified and Iustified the former signifying the cleansing of the Soule from the pollution of sinne the latter from the guilt of sinne the former wrought by the Spirit of our God the latter by faith in the name of the Lord Iesus And these two distinct benefits the Scriptures ascribe to Baptisme viz. remission of sinnes and regeneration as I shewed before And therefore these benefits which the Holy Ghost hath accurately distinguished ought not to be either ignorantly or Sophistically confounded And whereas he saith that these benefits as here it is noted are wrought by the invocation of the name of Christ and by the power of his Spirit neither of which is needfull to justification by declaration or imputation he saith he knoweth not what For to justification as we conceive of it to be granted and sealed in Baptisme both these are as needfull as to Sanctification For to the obtayning of the remission of sinnes to be sealed unto us in Baptisme invocation of the name of God is required Act. 22. 16. and it is the Spirit of Adoption which by Baptisme sealeth unto us the remission of our sinnes § VIII His fourth testimony is Tit. 3. 1. 6 7. whence hee argueth to this effect Regeâ—…ration â—…r renâ—…vation is formally wrought by some inherent gift Iustisication according to the Apostle in this place is regeneration â—…r renovation Thâ—…refore justification is formally wrought
say it doth The exclusive particle used by some of our Divines doth exclude infusion not imputation of righteousnesse as Bellarmine confesseth For wee doe hold though all perhaps have not so plainely expressed their meaning and some few have delivered their private opinions that remission of sinne is but a part of justification and that by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we are both absolved from our sinnes and also accepted as righteous in Christ and as heires of eternall life But Bellarmine howsoever he would seeme to acknowledge the concurrence of remission of sinne unto justification yet indeed excludeth it For by remission of sinne concurring to justification hee doth not understand the not imputing or forgiving of sinne but the extinction and abolition thereof wrought by the infusion of habituall righteousnesse which expelleth its contrary as heat doth cold and light darkenesse And howsoever there bee duo termini two termes in this motion or mutation as he conceiveth of justification as being a passage b or change from sinne to righteousnesse yet there be not two causes nor yet two distinct actions but the onely cause is justice infused and the action is but one and the same the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne Even as in creation which is transitâ—…s à non esse ad esse in illumination which is transitâ—…s à tenebris ad lâ—…cem in calefaction which is a passage from cold to heat But if this be all that is required in the Popish justification as undoubtedly it is the whole and onely forme thereof being infused of righteousnesse or as they love rather to speake righteousnesse infused their justification also not differing from that which the Scriptures call sanctification saving that they dreame of a totall mortification or deletion of sinne and of a perfect renovation then what is become of the absolving of â—…â—…tom the guilt of sinne by which wee are freed from hell and the acceptation of us as righteous in Christ by we are intitled to the kingdome of heaven Both which are wrought by imputation of Christs righteousnesse in which true justification doth consist For infused righteousnesse though it were perfect could not discharge us from our former debts and being unperfect as their owne consciences cannot but tell them it cannot entitle them to the kingdome of heaven Wherefore if they will be saved they must of necessity flee to the righteousnesse or satisfaction of Christ who hath fully satisfied the Law both in respect of the penalty by his sufferings and also in regard of the commandement by his obedience which obedience and sufferings being transient and gone so long since can no otherwise bee communicated unto them but by imputation Now if they can be content to acknowledge the imputation of Christs satisfaction which sometimes they doe and must doe if they will bee saved for there is no other meanes either to escape hell or to come to heaven then let them according to the Scriptures acknowledge this imputation of Christs satisfaction by which they are to bee acquitted and freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and also accepted as righteous in Christ and heires of eternall life to be their justification As for the mortification of sinne and the renovation of us according to the image of God in true holinesse and righteousnesse both which are but in part and by degrees wrought in us by the Spirit of regeneration let them bee acknowledged to bee the two parts of our sanctification § II. But Bellarmine will needs have our renovation to be the righteousnesse of justification And this he indevoureth to prove by Testimonies of Scripture by the authority of Saint Augustine and by reason The texts of Scripture which he citeth are six The first Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered up for our sinâ—…es and rose for our justification From whence Bellarmine argueth thus to what the Apostle giveth the name of justification in that justification consisteth rather than in that unto which hee doth not give the name But to renovation in this place the Apostle doth give the name of justification and not to remission of sinne Therefore justification consisteth rather in renovation than in remission of sinne Before I answere I thinke good to advertise the reader againe that Bellarmine here by remission of sinne doth not understand the not imputing of sinne or as we in plaine English call it forgivenesse of sinne but the utter deletion the extinction the totall mortification of sinne And that hee doth foure times at the least signifie in this one passage Now I answer by denying his assumption because the Apostle in this place doth give the name of justification neither to remission nor yet to renovation which is not mentioned so much as once in all the Chapter Indeed in some other places the Apostle and his Disciple Saint Luke doe give the name to remission of sinnes that is to the not imputing of sinne or to the absolving and acquitting from sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. 〈◊〉 13. 38 39. but never to renovation § III. His assumption Bellarmine proveth because it cannot be doubtâ—…d but that the Apostles meaning was that Christ his death was a samplar or patterne of the death of sin that is saith he of remission or deletion of sins and that his resurrection was a samplar or patterne of our renovation and inward regeneration by which we walke in newnesse of life And is this the meaning of the Apostle Then be like wee are justified by imitation and not by imputation of Christs death and by imitation of his resurrection and then also by the same reason we are made sinners by imitation and not imputation of Adams transgression But indeed in this place the Apostle doth not propound by way of exhortation the death and resurrection of Christ as an example to bee followed in dying to sinne and rising to righteousnesse represented in Baptisme as hee doth in the sixth to the Romans where he exhorteth to sanctification as an inseparable consequent and companion of justification but by way of Doctrine hee speaketh of the death and resurrection of Christ as the cause of our justification of which he had spoken in the whole Chapter and even in the verses next going before that righteousnesse shall bee imputed to us as well as to Abraham if wee beleeve in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead who was given by his father and by himselfe to us and for us that by the obedience of his life untill death but especially at his death he might satisfie for our sinnes and was raised from the dead that we might be justified and saved by his life which he liveth after his death Christ by his death and obedience did satisfie for our sinnes paying a full ransome for them and so did justifie us meritoriously and in that sense we are said to bee justified by his bloud and by his obedience both as the matter
by imputation of his obedience properly wee are entituled to the kingdome of heaven as I have shewed heretofore But in the popish justification there is neither remission of sinnes properly to free them from hell nor donation of such juâ—…tice as may entitle them to heaven For neither the abolition or extinction of sinne present by infusion of righteousnesse though it were compleate as it is not can satisfie for their former sinnes nor can their righteousnesse being unperfect give them right to heaven But it is the onely satisfaction of Christ by his righteousnesse and obedience both Passive and Active which being communicated unto beleevers by imputation doth both free them from hell and giveth them a Title and Right to the Heavenly Kingdome His proofe taken from the courts of men I admit as good against them who holding that wee are justified onely by the Passive righteousnesse of Christ doe make justification to bee nothing else but remission of sinnes For they whom being guilty in themselves as we all aâ—…e before God a judge doth justifie are freed indeed from punishment but they doe not thereby obtaine new rewards Howbeit there is a great dissimilitude betweene Gods justification of men and that of humane Iudges For a judge by his absolution though he doth free the guilty and indeed faulty parson from punishment and from the guilt binding him over to punishment and thereby perhaps bewrayeth his owne unjustice yet he doth not free him from the fault nor doth he make him righteous and much lesse doth hee indow him with new priviledges But when God doth justifie a beleeving sinner hee doth not onely free him from hell and from the guilt binding him over to condemnation by imputation of Christ sufferings but also by imputation of Christ obedience he maketh him righteous and an heire of eternall life And in thus justifying a beleeving sinner he is just because Christ by his sufferings hath fully satisfied for his sinnes and by his obedience hath merited for him eternall life § XIII His third reason justification of enemies maketh us Gods friends children beloved Citizens of Heaven the Domesticks of God heires of his kingdome as the Scriptures every where speake therefore it doth not stand onely in remission of sinnes Thus farre we agree with him But as it is a good argument against those who hold justification to bee nothing else but remission of sinne so it maketh not for him who holdeth justification by infusion of righteousnesse but against him For whereas the Scriptures testifie that God when he justifieth men hee doth of enemies make them his beloved friends and his children c. It is to be confessed that here is a very great change but is it reall or relative by infusion or by imputation Surely when God reconcileth men unto himselfe and of enemies maketh them his favourites when he adopteth men and of the children of the devill maketh them his owne children when justifying men hee doth of foes make them his beloved friends of bondslaves not onely freemen but also Citizens of heaven of alients his Domesticks of men obnoxious to damnation heires of his Kingdome hee doth not these things by infusion of any reall or positive qualities into them but these are externall favours which God vouchsafeth unto them when forgiving their sinnes and imputing unto them the righteousnesse of his Sonne hee doth in him accept them for such yea and in respect of his relation unto them maketh them such as before they were not And when he hath made men such by imputation he also maketh them such by infusion of such qualities and dispositions as are answerable to that which they are called as I shewed in the beginning whom God receiveth into his grace and favour them hee endueth with grace whom hee redeemeth from the servitude of sinne and Satan hee maketh them his faithfull servants they who are the sonnes of God by adoption are also his sonnes by regeneration and finally those whom God doth justifie them also he doth sanctifie § XIV And this is all which Bellarmine hath brought for the proofes of justification by inherent and infused righteousnesse either from the Scriptures or from naturall reason Afterwards indeed in his eighth Chapter hee produceth the testimonies of Augustine and some others which he calleh the tradition of the ancient Fathers as if they did agree with the doctrine of the present Church of Rome which they doe not For first though some of the Latine Fathers led by the notation of the Latine word which was not to be respected it being bnt the translation of the Hebrew and Greeke did under the name of justification include the benefit of sanctification whereof there is no example in the Scriptures yet they did not exclude that which the Scriptures call justification as â—…the Papists doe For they acknowledged that justification containeth remission of sinnes and that it standeth chiefly in remission of sinnes that being our happinesse and therefore implying besides the not imputing of sinne acceptation unto life The Papists also talke of remission but their remission is not that which the Scriptures and Fathers speake of for the Scriptures and Fathers and all ancient Writers whatsoever by remission understand veniam pardon condonation forgiving not imputing of sinne absolving from it which is a distinct action of God from infusion of righteousnesse that being a worke of God without us working no reall or positive change within us and herein wee have the consent of all antiquity The Papists by remission of sinne understand the expulsion or extinction the utter deletion or abolition of sinne which is not a distinct action as they teach from infusion of righteousnesse but one and the same action which is the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne And is an action of God not without us as the other but within us working in us a reall and possitive change And therefore remission of sinne in the Popish sense belongeth not to justification but to perfect sanctification as being a totall mortification of sinne which none attaine unto in this life but of this point I have already treated in the second question of the first controversie Secondly the fathers oftentimes use the word justification in the same sense that wee doe according to the Scriptures as implying the forgivenesse of sinnes and acceptation unto life by the satisfaction and merits of Christ communicated unto us As namely when they teach as very oft they doe that we are justified by faith alone which they could not have taught if by justifying they had meant sanctifying for we are not sanctified by faith alone as all confesse Thirdly the Fathers did not looke to bee justified before God by any righteousnesse inherent in themselves or performed by them but renounced it as being unperfect and stained with the flesh And therefore where they speake of justification by inherent righteousnesse they meant sanctification and not justification before God whereof our question
the punishment thereof be inflicted upon us which is both our originall corruption and death it selfe besides many other calamityes then is it to be presupposed that the sin it selfe is imputed to us For if the sin it selfe had not been imputed then as Bellarmine himselfe somewhere argues neither the guilt nor the corruption had belong'd unto us Again things that are transient when they are once past and gone cannot bee communicated otherwise than by imputation That transgression of Adam as all other actions was transient and therefore if it be demanded how it being so long past and gone can bee communicated to us Bellarmine truly answeareth it is communicated unto us by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirâ—…m per imputationem in that manner according to which that may be communicated which is transient and gone to wit by imputation If it be objected which was Bellarmiâ—…es prime argument for inherent righteousnesse that through the disobedience of the first Adam wee were made sinners by inherent unjustice and therefore by the like reason through the obedience of the second Adam wee are made just by righteousnesse inherent I answere that from Christ we have both justification and sanctification the former answering to the guilt of Adams transgression imputed the latter answerable to the originall corruption by generation derived but though wee have them both from Christ yet not after one manner the former wee have by imputation the latter by infusion But of this place I have spoken heretofore at large § II. Our seventh argument Whosoever is a sinner in himselfe and so continueth whiles he remaineth in this life cannot bee justified otherwise than by imputation This I take to bee a most certaine and undeniable truth But every many whatsoever Christ onely excepted is in himselfe a sinner and so continueth whiles hee remaineth in this life Therefore no man whatsoever can othervise bee justified but by imputation Or thus The justification of a sinner is imputative for to a sinner the Lord when hee justifieth him imputing not sinne imputeth righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4. 6. 8. The justification of every Christian is the justification of a sinner and so is called of all writers boâ—…h old and new both Protestants and Papists Therefore the justification of every Christian is imputative The assumption of the former syllogisme is denyed by the Papists but against the testimony of their owne Conscience and against the common experience of all men in all times and places But this I prove it briefly All that sometimes doe sinne or have sinne abiding in them are sinners all men sometimes do sinne and have sinne remaining in them therefore all men are sinners the assumption is proved by Iames the just and by the holy beloved Apostle including themselves in many things wee offend all of us and if wee say wee have no sinne wee deceive our selves and there is no truth in us But that all mortall men are sinners I have sufficiently proved before Vnlesse therefore the Papists will say they are no sinners and that in them there is no sinne which if they doe say wee may bee bold to tell them that there is no truth in them they must confesse justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse § III. Our eigth argument To whom faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes hee is not justified by workes that is by righteousnesse inherent but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse To Abraham and all the faithfull faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes Therefore they are not justified by workes but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse The former part of the proposition is proved by opposition of faith to workes in the question of justificâ—…tion and by the testimony of the the Apostle Rom. 4. 3 4 5 6 7 8. The latter part is proved by the former for if not by inherent righteousnesse then by imputed and if by faith and yet not by inherent righteousnesse then not by faith in respect oâ—… it selfe as it is an habit inherent in us but in respect of the object which it apprehendeth Of which that is verified properly which by a trope viz. a Metonimy is ascribed to faith namely that it justifieth and saveth that by it wee have remission of sinne and the inheritance c. that is Christ received by faith doth justifie and save c. The assumption in expâ—…esse termes is delivered Rom. 4. 3. 5 6. 22 23 Here Bellarmine confesseth that faith indeed is imputed unto righteousnesse and that is our righteousnesse which confession doth not well agree with his assertions elsewhere that faith doth but dispose unto justification and that our formall righteousnesse is our charity that faith is an habit of the Vnderstanding but justice is an habit of the Will But our glosse hee doth not allow when wee say by faith that is by Christs righteousnesse apprehended by faith because it is repugnant to the Apostle for two causes For first hee doth not say Christs righteousnesse but faith is imputed Now faith is not Christs righteousnesse but ours by Gods gift Which notwithstanding is the maine doctrine of the Gospell revealing the righteousnesse of God that is of Christ who is God from faith to faith the righteousnesse of God by faith that is which is apprehended by faith For faith it selfe is not the righteousnesse of God which doth justifie or save us but the instrument to receive Gods righteousnesse and therefore doth not justifie or save properly but relatively in respect of the object which it doth receive that is to say the righteousnesse of Christ which doth justifie and save those which receive it by faith and therefore when it is said in the Gospell more than once thy faith hath saved thee the meaning is that Christ received by faith hath saved those which did beleeve in him Act. 3. 16 it is said that faith in Christ had cured the lame man but it is thus to be understood that the name of Christ by faith in his name did cure him For we are justified and saved by a perfect righteousnes which is of infinite value and merit which is not faith nor any other grace or graces inherent but onely the righteousnesse of Christ. And yet because by faith wee are united to Christ and by it are made partakers of his benefits therefore all the benefits which wee receive from Christ are attributed to faith as elsewhere I have shewed To faith metonimically but properly to Christ himself His second reason because the word imputare in this place doth not signifie a bare reputing but a reputing unto which the truth is answer able in the thing it selfe as is plaine by these words Ei qui operatur merces imputatur c. for it is certaine that to him that worketh not onely in opinion and conceipt but truely and indeed the reward is due Answ. This reason doth not
transient or the sinfull blemish remaining in the soule which is a vicious disposition and pronenesse to sinne left as the remainder of originall sinne and increased by our owne actuall transgressions as it is a fault and the offence of God bringging with it reatum culpae to a beleever and is not imputed to whom Christs obedience is imputed but covered with the robe of Chrisâ—…s righteousnesse by imputation wherof he is not only freed from the guilt both of the punishment and of the fault but also accepted as righteous in Christ but as the maculâ—… is an habituall sinne or sinfull disposition polluting the soule as a remainder of originall sinne increased by our actuall transgressions it is not wholly abolish'd in this life and much lesse at once but it is mortified by degrees in those that repent of their sinnes who day by day are renewed in the innerman As for those places which Bellarmine alleageth to prove remission of sinne to be the totall abolition of sinne I have fully answered heretofore in the second question of the first controversie shewing that divers of them are to be understood in respect of the guilt which in remission is totally abolished The other which are to bee expounded of the corruption are understood of the cleansing and purging of our soules from them either begunne in this life or finished at the end of this life For the death of the body bringeth with it in the children of God the death and utter extinction of sinne And therefore death which was brought in as a punishment of sinne becommeth a remedy to extinguish sinne For whiles we live in the mortall body sinne liveth in us but when the body dyeth sinne is extinguished CAP. III. Containing our two last Arguments § I. OVR foureteenth Argument If redemption reconciliation and adoption be imputative then justification also is by imputation For I have shewed heretofore that these three in substance differ not from justification for as all these three benefits are comprised under justification so in them the whole nature of justification doth consist For what is it to be redeemed and reconciled but to have our sins remitted or not imputed by the imputation of Christs sufferings which is the first part of justification and what is it to be adopted but to bee accepted in the beloved as righteous and as an heire of eternall life by imputation of Christs obedience which is the second part of justification But those three benefits are imputative all of them wrought by the not imputing of sinne which had made us the bond-slaves of sinne and Satan enemies to God and children of the devill and by the imputation of Christs merits whereby of the slaves of sinne and Satan wee are made Gods servants of enemies his favourites of the children of the devill the sonnes of God § II. Our fifteenth Argument out of Psalm 32. and Rom. 4. If the Holy Ghost describe justification to bee the forgiving of iniquities the covering of sinne the not imputing of sinne to the sinner the imputing of righteousnesse not to him that worketh but to him that beleeveth in Christ or imputing of righteousnesse without workes then justification standeth not in deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse but in imputation of Christs righteousnesse by which the sinner is both freed from his sinne and also accepted as righteous But the Holy Ghost doth so describe justification Rom. 4. 6 7 8. â—…x Psalm 32. 1 2. To both parts Bellarmine doth answere The assumption hee first denieth and then cavills with it For first whereas Calvin as he saith demandeth whether this bee a full definition of justification or but halfe he likewise demandeth when either the 〈◊〉 saith Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord and Blessed are they who f are upright in the way or when our Saviour saith Blessed are the poore in Spirit blessed are the meeke c. whether each of these bee a perfect definition For if it be where is then remission of sinne Secondly he saith that Paul alleageth this testimâ—…ny out of the Psalme not that hee might thereby define fully justification but onely to prove that true justification is the gift of God and not gotten by our owne strength And that hee fitly proveth from thence that David calleth him blessed whose sinnes God remitteth that is whâ—… by the gift aâ—…d grace of God is justified § III. To the former I reply that there is not the like reason betweene these places cited by us and those alleaged by him For those containe but certaine notes and markes of Blessednesse though the Papists absurdly make eight beatitudes of the eight notes of one and the same blessednesse Matth. 5. But here the Apostle out of Psalm 32. sheweth that blessednesse it selfe whereby as appeareth by the former verse he meaneth justification which is the onely 〈◊〉 viae because by it we are intitled to the eternall happinesse which is beatitudo patriae all other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but notes and signes of this is so defined or described For somuch those words import David doth describe the blessednesse as our translation fitly rendreth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place The second is a meere depravation of the Apostles meaning and intenâ—…ion which was not to prove that justification is the gift of God which he had already taught to be a gracious action of God freely justifying by his grace those that beleeve in Christ but by a new supply of Arguments to prove the same question which in the former Chapters hee had disputed concluding that a man is justified by faith and not by workes which question here hee proveth by the example of Abraham and by the testimony of David The Argument drawne from Abrahâ—…ms example is an excellent proofe which Chrysostome well observed as Cardinall Tâ—…let doth acknowledge For Abraham had both faith and workes and yet he was justified not by his workes but by his faith If Abraham had had no workes or not such notable workes it might have beene said that he was justified by faith without workes because he wanted workes But seeing he abounded with store of excellent works and yet was not justified by them but onely by faith this is an invincible argument to prove that a man is justified by faith and not by workes For Abraham though hee had works yet was justified by faith without workes Likewise David describeth or if you will declareth the blessednesse of the man that is that a man is blessed that is to say justified to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes § IV. This was his denyall of the assumption But now he cavilleth that it may bee that in these words is contained the full definition of justification implicitè For there cannot be remission of sinne in Bellarmines sense that is deletion of sinne unlesse righteousnesse be infâ—…sed as darkenesse is not driven
away unlesse light come in place And this saith he The Apostle manifestly sheweth when he saith David explaineth the blessednesse of a man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes Blâ—…ssed are they whose sinnes are forgiven Vbi saith Bellarmine ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae where the Apostle from the not imputing of sin gathereth the imputing of justice which is very true and proveth that here is a full definition of justification containing these two parts the not imputing of sinne to the beleever and imputing of righteousnesse or accepting of him as righteous But where is either the popish deletion of sinne or infusion of righteousnesse unlesse as they have turned remission into deletion so also imputation bee converted into infusion § V. To the proposition also Bellarmine answereth in part and first to the word covering that although to cover and not to impute sinnes is not if you respect the force of the word to abolish or to extinguish sinne yet if they be referred to God the sense importeth so much For nothing can bee bid from God unlesse it bee â—…tterly taken away for all things are naked and open before his eyes Reply Nothing can bee hid from God which hee would not have hid But if it please God to cover our sinnes that hee will not behold them Psalm 85. 2. or to hide his face from them Psal. 51. 9. to cast them behinde his backe Esai 38. 17. not to marke what is done amisse Psalm 130. 3. then hee is said not to see them because he taketh no notice of them but passeth by them Mic. 7. 18. In which sense Charity is said to cover sinnes Prov. 10. 12. § VI. To the word not imputing he saith that God cannot but impute sinne to him that remaâ—…neth a sinner neither can hee repute him righteous unlesse he be made righteous therefore â—…he not imputing of sinne draweth with it veram peccati remissionem that is the extinction of sinne and infusion of righteousnesse Reply he should have said as he said before the not imputing of sinne draweth with it imputing of righteousnesse or the acceptation of a man as righteous both which alwayes goe together because both are wrought together by imputation of Christs righteousnesse whereas therefore hee saith that God cannot but impute sinne where sinne still remaineth it is true of unbeleevers and impenitent sinners who are out of Christ but for them that bee in Christ that is to say beleeving and repentant sinners for whose sinnes Christ hath fully satisfied and whom though in themselves sinners hee hath accepted as righteous in Christ and for whom our Saviour maketh intercession that their sinnes may not be imputed to them hee cannot truly be said to impute sinne unto them It is true also that the Lord reputeth none righteous but such as he maketh righteous both by imputation of Christs righteousnesse and also by regeneration by imputation perfectly and at once by regeneration in part and by degrâ—…s they being not onely Spirit but flesh also in regard whereof though they be righteous in Christ yet in themselves they are sinners by reason of sinne remaining in them though in some measure mortified and not at all imputed So that a regenerate man in divers respects is both a righteous man and a sinner righteous not onely in Christ by imputation of his perfect righteousnesse but also in himselfe by inherent righteousnesse begun in him from which as is from the better part 〈◊〉 hath his denomination in the Scriptures a sinner also in himselfe both in respect of habituall sinnes remaining in him as the remnants of originall sinne and also in respect of actuall transgressions both of commission and of omission whereinto hee doth dayly fall § VII And whereas he saith that these phrases almost alwaies goe together and to that purpose citeth Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 51. 9 85. 2 and so Psal. 32. 1 2. I answere that deletion of sinne covering of sinne forgiving of sinne and the not imputing of it are used as synonima that is as words of the same signification and that in all such places deletion of sin doth signifie the blotting of them our of Gods remembrance which is as it were his record or debt booke Out of which when God forgiveth sinnes he blotteth or wipeth them out Thus to forgive sins is not to remember them Esai 43. 25. I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine owne sake and wil not remember thy sinnes Ier. 31. 34. I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sinne no more And to remember them is not to forgive them Ps. 109. 14. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembred with the Lord and let not the sinne of his Mother bee blotted out namely of remembrance that is let it not bee forgotten So Neh. 4. 5. Cover not their iniquity and let not their sin be blotted out before thee Ps 51. 9. hide thy face from my sins and blot out all mine iniquities and to the same purpose Psal. 85. 2. forgiving and covering are used in the same fence Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people thou hast covered all theiâ—… sinne and so Psal. 32. 1. 2. forgiving covering not imputing Deletion therefore of sinnes according to the Scriptures is the blotting of them out of the Booke of Gods remembrance In this sense many things are said deleri to bee blotted out or wiped away by oblivion whose memory is wiped out as it is said of the Amalekites Exod. 17. 14. and according to the vulgar Latine translation Deut. 31. 21. nulla delebit oblivio Esth. 9. 28. Eccl. 6. 4. Ierem. 20. 11. 23. 40. 50. 5. So that non imputare is all one with ignoscere 2 Tim. 4. 16. So Iob 42. 8. according to the vulgar Latine 2 Cbro 30. 19. Ezek. 33. 16. § VIII Now if not to impute sinne bee as Bellarmine sâ—…ith to expell sinne by infusion of righteousnesse for according to his concelt infusion of righteousnesse is not a consequent of the expulsion of sinne as here for a poore evasion he saith but expulsion of sinne is a consequent of infusion of righteousnesse for according to his assertion by infusion of righteousnesse sinne is expelled as by accession of light and heat cold and darkenesse is expelled I say if not to impute sinne bee to expell sinne by infusion of justice then by the rule of contraries which is Contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia to impute sinne shall bee to expell righteousnesse by infusion of sinne as it was well objected by Chemnitius To him Bellarmine objecteth want of Logicke for calling those contraria which are contradicentia Where by Bellarmines Logick adversa onely are contraria whereof notwithstanding there are foure sorts for if contraries bee such opposits as are opposed one to one onely then besides adversa as Tully termeth those which Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are three
other sorts of contraries that is to say relata which Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privantia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as privation and habit contradicentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are opposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as affirmation and negation which Tully calleth velde contraria Thus if Bellarmines Logick be good there are no opposits but contraries nor any contraries but adversa when it is acknowledged by better Logicians than himselfe that of all opposites the most contrary are those which are opposed as affirmation and negation which are called contradicentia as imputare non imputare which are so immediately opposed as the one of them is alwayes true quidlibet affirmare negare verum but cannot both bee true together for that implyeth a contradiction And therefore Chemnitius objection standeth still in force § IX Againe if the holy Ghost in this place had meant by remission of sinne the deletion or abolition of it hee would not have called it remitting covering or hiding or not imputing of it For nothing is either remitted covered or not imputed but that which is And things are hid not that they should not bee but that they should not bee seene Tecta ergo peccata quare dixit saith Augustine ut non viderentur As a prudent man hideth his knowledge Prov. 12. 23. and an hypocrite his sinne we know this saith Bellarmine but withall we know that somethings are covered that they may bee preserved and some things that they may be abolished As wounds are covered with a plaister the most ordinary end and perpetuall consequent of hiding any thing hee leaveth out which is that it may not be seene and so God hideth our sinnes when hee hideth his face from them § X. But for our learning Bellarmine will shew us the expositions of the Fathers that wee may know how farre we swarve from the meaning of the ancient and Orthodox Church And first hee citeth Iustin Martyr who alleadging Psal. 32. 2. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sinne that is saith he that a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repenting of his sinnes receiveth from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the forgivenesse of his sinne where hee expounderh the not imputing of sinnes to bee the forgivenesse thereof But saith he not as you deceive your selves and others like you in this point who say that although they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not those which have sinne but such as the Scripture calleth sinners that is to say impenitent sinners so that they know God the Lord will not impute sinne unto them though they doe not repent wherein we wholly agree with Iustin though the Papists doe not who deceive themselves and others whom they perswade though they live in sinne if they observe the outward formality of doing penance which all of them do once a yeare though they neither have faith nor repentance which very few if any of them have they have absolution from their sinne § XI In the next place he citeth Origen and Hierome both which doe make three degrees of the three phrases wherein as they conceive David ascendeth from the lesse to the greater when as notwithstanding it is apparant that if those phrases did signifie divers things the first were the greatest and the middle the least according to the variety of the words whereby sinne in this place is signified Origen setteth them downe not as the gifts of God as Bellarmine beareth us in hand but as a mans owne merits for because saith hee the beginning of the conversion of the soule is to forsake evill from this hee deserveth which the Papists themselves deny to receive remission of sinne But when hee shall beginne to doe good as it were covering over his former evils with new good things he is said to cover sinnes But when he shall come to a perfect man insomuch that from the soule the very roote of all wickednesse is cut off in so much that no footstep of wickednesse can bee found therein which never happeneth in this life for concupiscence which remayneth in all is both a footstep of sinne at the least and the very roote of all iniquity Iam. 1. 14. where now the summe of perfect blessednesse is promised then God cannot impute any sinne which was a private and unsound conceit as there are many more of Origen from which though we dissent wee cannot justly bee said to swarve from the doctrine of the Primitive Orthodox Church § XII Hierome if yet it be Hierome mentioneth three degrees but all of remission of sinne for so hee saith quibus modis remittuntur peccata tribus by what wayes are sinnes remitted by three They are remitted by Baptisme they are covered by Charity they are not imputed by Martyrdome which assertion also is unsound both because according to this conceipt to no man is sinne not imputed but onely to Martyrs and also because by Charity hee seemeth to understand not Gods love but ours when notwithstanding it is euident though our charity cover other mens sinnes Prov. 12. 10. yet our sinnes are to bee covered by the love and mercie of God in Christ. Howbeit in that which followeth he is moresound and agreeth with us quod tegitur non videtur quod non videtur non imputatur quod non imputatur nec punietur what is covered is not seene what is not seene is not imputed what is not imputed shall not be punished where he plainely sheweth that the covering and not imputing of sinne is the not punishing of it But this distinction of the words into three degrees is rejected by Saint Ambrose who saith that to remit cover and not impute are all of one sense and meaning Indeed hee saith that divers names of sinnes are here mentioned whereby wee may gather the variety of sinnes but the Verbes bee of one signification quia cum tegit remittit cum remittit non imputat because when hee covereth he remitteth and when hee remitteth hee doth not impute And this exposition is most agreeable â—…to that of Saint Paul who by all these three understandeth one and the same thing which is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes For it is the manner of the men of God in their Psalmes and Hymnes recorded in the Word of God for their greater comfort as it were by way of exultation to dwell upon those things wherein they rejoyce by expressing the same in divers and sundry â—…ermes whereby the selse same thing is repeated which Rhetoricians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § XIII In the last place hee citeth two testimonies against us which he calleth out of Augustines exposition of these words which being intirely cited agreeth wholly with us For to omit his exposition of these words a little before set downe quorum tecta sunt peccata whose sins are
Lord in every Chapter almost of his story renew and repeat his promises unto him Why did hee confirme them by oath Why did he seale them by the Sacrament of Circumcision which is the seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith How came it to passe if Abrahams faith was altogether perfect that twice he used that unlawfull shift which proceeded out of distrustfull feare calling his wife his sister whom to save his owne life he exposeth to danger for perfect faith expelleth feare and distrust § VI. His fifth reason is besides the purpose For whereas hee should prove that the faith of all the faithfull is in their justification perfect hee proveth that the faith of some speciall men who are highly commended in the Scriptures as rare examples of a strong faith was after they had beene justified not a weake and a languishing but a strong and valiant faith to which purpose hee alleadgeth Heb. 11. 33. 1 Iohn 5. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 9. Ephes. 6. 16. and thereupon inferreth Surely that faith which can overcome the world resist the Devill and repell all his fiery darts must not be a weake or languishing but a strong and valiant faith All which we grant But yet deny either that it was so strong when they were first justified thereby or that when it was at the strongest it was perfect But here by the way I would faine know of Bellarmine and his consorts whether this strong faith so much commended in the Scriptures bee onely a bare assent to the truth of the word and promises of God or rather an assurance which wee call speciall faith grounded on the word and promises applyed to our selves In his last reason he urgeth againe the force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Heb. 10. 22. signifying as he saith with our consent a most full and most perfect perswasion We acknowledge that it signifieth a full perswasion which wee call assurance which is so farre from being in all the Papists when they are justified as that none of them have it at all without speciall revelation which they will confesse is very rare But yet of this assurance there are degrees all aspiring in this life but none attaining to perfection for when wee have attained to some assurance wee must still labour to increase it striving toward perfection So much of Faith § VII As touching Hope saith he the testimony of the Apostle Heb. 6. 19. may suffice for there he saith that our hope must be the anchor as it were of our soule safe and sure Answ. This argueth the assurance of Hope in some of Gods children after they have beene justified but not the perfection Sound Hope is safe and sure because it never confoundeth or maketh ashamed Rom. 5. 5. where by the way also I would gladly learne if there may be such a full assurance of Faith and Hope as here Bellarmine affirmeth and that without speciall revelation why there may not be the like assurance of Salvation and of perseverance to Salvation which elsewhere hee stoutly denieth and by his denyall confuteth his owne assertion in this place for if there cannot bee assurance of Salvation much lesse can there bee perfection of Faith and Hope CHAP. VII Bellarmines proofes that Chà rity is perfect disproved § I. THere remaineth Charity which he would prove to bee perfect not in all and that in their first justification which he ought to prove or else he proveth nothing but in som men in some part of their life after their first justification and this he proveth first by the testimonies of Augustine and after by authority of Scripture Out of Augustines booke de natura gratia hee citeth two testimonies the former in these words ipsa charitas est verissima plenissima perfectissimáque justitia which Augustine doth not speake of Charity when it is infused in the act of justification nor of Charity in generall but of that perfect Charity whereunto nothing may bee added which hee confesseth to bee the truest the fullest the perfectest justice The latter in these words perfecta Charitas perfecta justitia est perfect Charity is perfect righteousnesse which wee deny not But that no man in this life doth attaine to perfect Charity Augustine though he would not in that booke dispute of the possibility thereof because God if he please is able to bestow perfect justice and to make men free from all sinne yet in other places hee doth plainely and fully teach as first Charity in some is greater in some lesse and therefore not perfect in all that are jusâ—…ified in others none at all but the most full and compleat which now cannot be increased is in no man so long as hee liveth here Now so long as it may be increased assuredly that which is lesse than it ought to be is a fault By reason of which default there is not a righteous man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not for which default no man living shall be justified before God for which if we shall say that we have not sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us for which though we be never so good proficients we must of necessity say forgive us our debts And in another place In part there is liberty in part bondage as yet no entire no pure no full liberty And after let not sinne reigne in your mortall bodyes c. he doth not say let it not be but let it not reigne As long as thou livest sinne must needs be in thy members onely let the kingdome be taken from it § II. To this purpose a multitude of Testimonies might bee cited out his Booke De perfectione justitiae which hee wrote against Caelestius the Pelagian who held that men may attaine to perfection in this life I will content my self with a few Tunc erit plena justitia quando plena sanitas quando plena charitas plenitudo enim legis charitas Tunc autem plena charitas quando videbimus cum sicuiâ—… est Charitas plena perfecta tunc erit cum videbimus facie ad faciem The righteousnesse which we have here in our pilgrimage is to hunger and thirst after righteousnesse that hereafter we may be filled Quotquot ergo perfecti hoc sapiamus id est quotquot perfectè currimus hoc sapiamus quòd nondum perfecti sumus ut illic perficiamur quo perfectè adhuc currimus ut cum venerit quod perfectum est quod ex parte est destruatur id est non jam ex parte sit sed toto quia fidei spei res ipsa non quae credatur speretur sed quae videatur teneaturque succedet charitas a. quae in his tribus major est non auferatur sed augeatur impleatur contemplata quod credebat quod sperabat indepta In qua plenitudine charitatis praeceptum illud implebitur Diliges
Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde c. Nam cùm est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae quod vel continendo frenetur non omnimodò ex tota anima diligitur Deus So much of Augustine § III. Divine Testimonies saith he we meet with every where For first our Lord saith Greater charity hath no man than this that a man lay downe his life for his friends Ioh. 15. 13. but it is evident that very many that is to say all the Martyrs haue attained to this perfection of charity Answ. So to lay downe a mans life for others as Christ did lay down his for us is the perfection of Charity But the love of Martyrs though great commeth farre short of this perfection For as Cardinall Tolet hath well observed upon this text the quantity or measure of charity may bee considered three wayes By way of Estimation or appreciation Intension Extension In all which respects the love of Christ doth farre surpasse the love of Martyrs First by way of appreciation because he gave that for us which is more and of greater value than what is given by Martyrs First because of the dignity of his person For hee being the great God and our Saviour gave himselfe for us and therefore gave for us a greater gift than all the Martyrs put together can give Secondly because where Martyrs give their bodies only that they may save their owne soules Christ gave himselfe that is both body and soule for us that hee might redeeme both our bodies and soules which both hee did assume that hee might give both for us not onely in his body suffering death even the death of the Crosse but in his soule undergoing as our surety the wrath of God for us the feare whereof brought him into that agony which made him sweat drops of bloud and the sence of it upon the Crosse made him cry out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me being for a time in his owne sence as a man separated from God which separation from God is the death of the soule Now that Christ did thus farre give his soule as well as his body for us divers of the Fathers especially those which confute the heresie of the Apollinarists who denied that Christ had an humane soule doe teach Cyrill saith that Christ gave his flesh a price of ransome for the flesh of all and his soule likewise a price of ransome for the soules of all Theodoret the good Shepheard gave his body and soule for his sheep who have both body and soule And againe the nature of men consisteth of body and soule both which being lost by sinne our Lord having taken upon him both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our bodies hee gave his body and for our soules also his soule Irenaeus that Christ redeeming us by his bloud that is by the sufferings of his manhood gave his soule for our soules and his flesh for our our flesh Ambrose the Divinity of the Word was not offered in sacrifice for that which hee had put on he offered in himselfe and hee put on that which before hee had not that is his whole manhood For Christ our Priest both God and man upon the Altar of his Deity for it is the Altar which sanctifieth the sacrifice did offer his whole manhood consisting both of body and soule as a whole burnt offering for us Wheras therefore in the Doctrine of redemption mention is made either of his body alone as Col. 1.22 1 Pet. 2.24 or of his soule onely as Esa. 53. 10 that his soule was made an offering for sinne and in this place Ioh. 15. 12. greater love hath no man than this that a man lay downe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animam suam his soule for his friends wee are by a Synechdoche to understand the whole manhood that is himselfe as hee was man Now it is a greater love for a man to give both body and soule for another than to give his body onely § IV. Secondly in respect of intension it argueth greater love when a man is willing of his owne accord and desirous to lay downe his life for others than when necessity is laid upon him Christ was willing of his owne accord yea and earnestly desirous for so he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lay downe his life for us Martyrs doe not yea ought not ordinaâ—…ily offer themselves to death for quâ—… amat periculum peribit in eo and our Saviour hath taught them when they are persecuted in one city to flee to another But they are and ought to bee willing to lay down their lives rather than deny The Truth Our Saviour prophecying of Saint Peters Martyrdome Iohn 21. 18. saith when thou wast young thou diddest gird thy selfe and walke whither thou wouldest but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not Againe when a man doth lay downe his life freely as Christ did without either tye of duty or expectation of recompence it argueth greater love than what is so done out of duety as that if hee did it not hee should sinne and so lose his soule by seeking to save his life or out of love to himselfe to lay downe his life to save his owne soule which is the common case of Martyâ—…s § V. Thirdly in respect of extension his love is greater that layeth downe his life not onely for his friends and well willers and such as have beene good unto him for peâ—…adventure for such as the Apostle saith Rom. 5. 7. some though hardly would adventure to dye and some few examples in that kind wee read of but also for sinners and for his enemies who though they doe not love him yet are beloved of him and therefore in respect of his affection are his friends as beloved of him though in respect of their affection enemies Thus our Saviour having loved us commendeth his love towards us Rom. 5. that when we were sinners verse 8. and by our sinnes enemies vers 10. hee dyed for us But Martyrs when they dye for others they lay downe their lives not for their enemies but for their brethren in Christ 1 Iohn 3. 16. § VI. His second proofe is out of 1 Ioh. 2. 5. Hee that keepeth the Word of God in him verily the love of God is perfected But that the Word of God may be kept the same Apostle in the same Epistle teacheth 1 Ioh. 5. 3. and his Commandements are not grievous unto us Answ. The keeping of the Commandements being an effect and fruit of Love Charity is said to bee perfected by it that is perfectly knowne as a good Tree by his fruit and as Faith is said Iam. 2. 22. to bee made perfect by good workes and as Gods strength is perfected in our weakenesse for hereby men are knowne to love God if they
wee doe not receive by Christ Adam lost inherent righteousnesse and not imputed Therefore by Christ wee receive inherent righteousnesse and not imputed Then would I deny the latter part of the proposition for wee doe receive by Christ more than we lost â—…n Adam Adam was mutable and the graces which he had were not without repentance But Christ maketh the faithfull inseparabiles id est usque in finem perseverantes and the saving graces which wee receive by him are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est saith Augustine sine mutatione stabiliter fixa Adam lost an earthly Paradise but by Christ we receive an inheritance in heaven Adam stood righteous before God in his owne righteoâ—…snesse but wee stand righteous before God in the righteousnesse of Christ which farre surpasseth the righteousnesse of Adam c. § V. Hâ—…s seventh argument If by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us we may truly be said to be just and the sonnes of God then by our sinne imputed to Christ hee may in like manner bee trâ—…ly called a sinner and which is horrible to thinke the sonne of the devill but the latter is blasphemous therefore the former Answ. The proposition containeth a double consequence which is to be distinguished The first if by the righteousnesse of Châ—…ist imputed to us wee may truly bee said to bee righteous then Christ by imputation of our sinne may truly though not formally bee called a sinner but the consequent is falâ—…e therefore the antecedent This proposition I grant as being firmely grounded on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and I doe confesse that Christ was so made sinne that is a sinner for us as wee are made in him the righteousnesse of God that is righteous by the righteousnesse of him who is God that is to say by imputation But the assumption I doe deny For it is most trâ—…e and no dishonour to Christ our Blessed Saviour but that which wonderfully setteth forth his unspeakable goodnesse and love towards us that hee which knew no sinne but was in himselfe most holy and righteous and blessed for evermore by taking upon him our sinne and by undertaking as our surety our debt was content to bee reputed and by imputation made a sinner that is guilty of sinne and accursed and accordingly punished as a sinner that we might be made righteous and happy in him Thus the Hebrewes call them that are punished sinners 1 King 1. 21. and that those are freed from punishment innocent Gen. 44. 10. But the other part of the consequence if we by imputation of Christs righteousnesse become the sonnes God then which I abhorre to speake Christ by imputation of our sinnes should bee made the Sonne of the devill I utterly deny For though to bee made the childe of God is a consequent of being made righteous by imputation adoption going alwayes with justification yet to become the childe of the devill is no consequent of being made a sinner by imputation in respect of him who is most righteous and holy in himselfe For to undertake the burden of others mens sinnes and to bee willing to have them imputed to him being himselfe most righteous is the property of the immaculate Lambe of God who tooke upon him the sin of the world and for that cause is most worthy to be accounted just and to bee acknowledged the Sonne of God For hee that satisfieth for others is most just saith Bellarmine § VI. Vpon this Syllogisme Bellarmine inferreth another If therfore Christ saith he because in himselfe hee was holy was called not a sinner but just though our sinne was imputed to him then by the like reason we iâ—… after our justification we were indeed sinners and uncleane in our selves should not be called just but unjust though Christs righteousnesse be imputed to us But the Scriptures after the lâ—…ver of regeneratiâ—…n hee might better have said after regeneration it selfe calleth us righteous and holy and the sonnâ—…s of God as appeareth by many places These are the premisses The conclusion should be this Therfore after our justification we are not indeed sinners and uncleane in our selves But in stead of that Pharisaicall conclusion he concludeth thus therefore we are not justified by imputation of Christs rightâ—…ousnesse but by that righteousnesse it selfe which is inherent and abiding in us which conclusion is neither it selfe deduced from these premisses neither is it a consectary of that which ought to have beene the conclusion For although after our justification wee be as before we were not righteous and that by righteousnesse inherent as Abraham was and all the faithfull are yet it doth not follow that wee are justified thereby For our inherent righteousnesse is a consequent of our justification and not a cause thereof not going before justificandos but following justificatos But to this Syllogisme first I returne the like If Christ though most righteous in himselfe was not onely accounted but really punished as a sinner yea made a sinner and a curse for us by taking upon him our sinne which as our debt was laid upon him as our surety and imputed to him then by the like reason wee though sinners in our selves are by imputation of his righteousnesse made righteous before God in him as before hath evidently beene proved out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. § VII Secondly as Christ though ouâ—… sinnes were imputed to him was called holy and just because hee was so in himselfe So wee though Adams transgression was imputed unto us and the corruption which hee contracted was derived unto us and ever dwelleth in our mortall bodies yet being once justified by Christ are notwithstanding that habituall sinne inhabiting in us and these actuall transgâ—…essions which through humane frailty we daily commit in regard whereof we are by the verdict of the Law sinners we are I say termed just and that in two respects first and principally in respect of our justification wherâ—…in we were made just by imputation of Christs righteousnesse secondly in respect of our regeneration whereby inherent righteousnesse is begun in us And howsoever in the regenerate man there is both the flesh and the Spirit the Old man and the New in regard whereof he may in divers respects be termed either a sinner in respect of the flesh and the fruits thereof according to the sentence of the Law or a righteous man in respect of the Spirit and the fruits thereof according to the doctrine of the Gospell yet the denomination is taken from the better part as an heape of wheat and chaffe wherein perhaps is more chaffe than wheat is called an heape of wheat and a wedge of gold wherein perhaps there is more drosse than pure mettall is called a wedge of gold as I have said And whereas upon his premisses this conclusion is inferr'd therfore after the laver of regeneration we are not verè and indeed sinners nor uncleane in our selves you may see
most worthy to be urged and beat upon as being that thing which above all other things in this world is to be desired and laboured for according to the â—…xhortation of the Apostle Peter Give diligence to make your calling and election sure But this speciall faith the Papists above all things deridâ—… and detesâ—… â—…thereby discovering themselves to bee as I have elsewhere shewed voide of all truth and power of Religion It being as I have said and proved a thing most profitable most comfortable most necessary without which no Christian can have any true pâ—…ce or sound comforâ—… or ougâ—… to have contentment in his present estate untill â—…e have â—…tained unto it in some measure And when hee 〈◊〉 attained to some measure he must endevour more and moâ—…e to increase it But hereof I have treated in another place wherâ—…unto I referre the Christian Reader CAP. VII Of the acts or effects of faith and first whether faith doth justifie or only dispose to justification Secondly whether it doth justifie formally § I. THe next controversie is concerning that act or effect of justifying faith in respect whereof it is called justifying faith Of this there are three Questions the first whether Faith doth indeed justifie or onely dispose a man to justification Secondly whether it justifie formally as part of inherent righteousnesse or instrumentally as the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousâ—…esse Thirdly whether it justifie alone The assertions of the Papists in the two former questions doe not seeme to â—…ang well together For if faith goe before justification disposing a man thereto how doth it justifie formally as part of that righteousnesse whereby a man is as they speake formally just And if no dispositions bâ—…e required to justification to what purpose doe they tell us that a man must be disposed and prepared by faith and other virtues For howsoever in their speculations they require preparative dispositions to justification yet in their practise they seeme to require 〈◊〉 For their justification which is in fact and in deed is restrained to their Sacraments as namely to Bapâ—… And their Sacraments justifie ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore without necessity of any foregoing dispositions For if any virtuous or good disposition were required then should their Sacraments justifie not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onely they require that he who is by the Sacrament to be justified doe not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…lis 〈◊〉 that is interpose the obstacls of some mortall sinne And what be these dispositions which must goe before justification § II. Forsooth there are seven which according to the decree of the Councell of Trent Bellarmine reckoneth De justif lib. 1. ca. 13. to prove that faith doth not justifie alone because the other sixe also doe dispose men thereunto The seven are faith feare hope love penitencie a purpose and desire to receive the Sacrament a purpose of amendment of life All which doe but prepare and dispose a man But it is the Sacrament as namely of Baptisme that doth actually justifie and without which no man is justified But I would gladly know whether these seven preparatives be fruits of grace or works of nature Not of grace for as they teach no man hath grace before Iustification What then they are the fruits of nature holpen I wot not by what grace which if it were true would not onely prove the maine assertion of the Pelagians Gratiam secundùm merita dari or as in other words it is expressed in the Councell of Trent Secundùm propriam cajusque dispositionem operationem For though according to their doctrine these preparations are not merits of condignity as they say yet they bee of congruity but also disprove the doctrine of the Apostle that we are justified freely by his grace But this seemeth to me absurd that men should have one justifying faith and so one hope and one love c. going before justification and another infused in our justification and that by the one justifying faith going before we should be prepared to justification and by the other infused in our justification we should in part be formally justified But this is certaine that that faith which in order of time goeth before justification is no true justifying faith For that which goeth before justification goeth also before regeneration and what goeth before regeneration is of nature and not of Grace But faith in order of time goeth not before justification though in order of nature it doth for so soone as a man beleeveth he is justified as Hierome saith Talis est ille qui in Christum credidit die qua credidit qualis ille qui universam legem implevit Such a one is hee that beleeveth in Christ the very day that hee beleeveth as hee that hath fulfilled the whole Law nor in order of nature before regeneration for in our regeneration it is wrought As therefore no man hath faith who is not regenerated so no man hath faith who is not thereby justified The Scripture is plaine that in Christ whosoever beleeveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is justified Act. 13. 39. He that beleeveth in Christ is passed from death to life Ioh. 5. 24. 6. 54. which passage from death to life is justification whereby as themselves teach a man is translated from the state of death and damnation into a state of Grace and Salvation Faith therefore actually justifieth and not disposeth onely to justification § III. The other question is whether faith doth justifie formally as they speake as being a part of inherent righteousnesse or instrumentally only as the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousnesse The Romane Catholikes hold â—…he former the true Catholikes the latter But the former I have sufficiently disproved before and proved the latter For if we be not justified by any grace or righteousnesse inherent in our selves or performed by our selves which I have before by many undeniable arguments demonstrated then it followeth necessarily that we are not justified by faith as it is a gift or grace an act or habit or quality inherent in us or performed by us And if we be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ onely which being out of us in him is imputed to those who receive it by faith which also before I invincibly proved then also it followeth by necessary consequence that wee are justified by faith onely as it is the instrument or hand to apprehend or receive Christ who is our righteousnesse Wherefore where faith is said to justifie or to bee imputed to righteousnesse it must of necessity be understood relatively and in respect of the object to which purpose both justification and all other benefits which we receive by Christ are attributed to faith as I have shewed before Not that faith it selfe worketh these things but because by it wee receive Christ and with him all his merits and benefits And for the same cause the
upon it be cured And although their eye could not properly bee said to cure them yet because it was the onely instrument to apprehend that object which God had ordained as the onely remedy to salve them it is truely said that by onely looking upon that object they were cured Even so our Saviour Christ was lifted up upon the Crosse it is his owne similitude Ioh. 3. 14 15. that whosoever being stung by the old serpent doth but looke upon him with the eye of faith Ioh. 6. 40. may be justified and saved for although this eye of the of the soule which is faith cannot be said properly to justifie them who are sinners yet because it is â—…he onely instrument to apprehend that object which God hath ordained as the onely remedy and propitiation for our sinne it is truely said that by beleeving onely in Christ we are Iustified § IV Secondly whereas faith it selfe doth not justifie properly but the object which it doth apprehend which is Christ and his righteousnesse our meaning therefore when wee say that faith alone doth justifie can be no other but this that the righteousnesse of Christ alone which is onely apprehended by faith doth justifie us And forasmuch as this is a necessary disjunction that wee are justified either by that righteousnesse which is inherent in our selves or by that which is out of us in Christ for by some righteousnesse wee are justified and a third cannot be named it followeth therefore necessarily that if we be not justified by inherent righteousnesse then by Christs righteousnesse alone because a third righteousnesse by which we should bee justified cannot be named § V. Thirdly where wee say that Christs righteousnesse alone which is apprehended by faith alone doth justifie wee doe not meane absolutely that nothing else doth justifie but nothing in that kind viz. that the righteousnesse of Christ is the only matter of our justification and faith the onely instrument on our part by which wee are justified For otherwise as hath before beene shewed wee confesse that many things else doe justifie viz. God as the Author and principall efficient of our justification who imputethunto us the righteousnesse of his Son The holy Ghost also doth justifie us by working in us the grace of faith hy which he applyeth Christs righteousnesse unto us The Ministers also doe justifie as the instruments of the holy Ghost both by the ministry of the Gospell by which faith is begotten in us and of the Sacraments whereby the promises of the Gospell are sealed unto us And lastly good workes doe justifie as the signes and evidences whereby our faith and justification is manifested But as the matter nothing doth justifie but Christs righteousnesse and as the instrument on our part nothing but faith And in this sense wee doe constantly affirme that by Christs righteousnesse alone apprehended by faith alone wee are justified § VI. For the demonstration of our assertion I shall not need to bring many new proofes seeing that all those arguments which before I have produced but especially those which concerne the matter and forme of justification doe invincibly prove that wee are justified by the righteousnes of Christ alone being apprehended by faith alone and imputed to them that beleeve For if we be justified by the imputed righteousnesse of Christ alone and if in us there bee nothing which receiveth or maketh us partakers of Christs righteousnesse but faith onely then there is nothing in us by which we are justified but onely faith But because the Papists object heresie and novelty against us in this point I will besides some few places of Scripture and some other reasons briefly propounded produce the testimonies of the Fathers and others who have in all ages lived in the Church before these times § VII First therefore Rom. 3. 24. the word gratis freely being an exclusive particle doth import that we are justified by the grace of God and merits of Christ through faith without righteousnesse in us and therefore by faith alone Secondly Gal. 2. 16. We know that by the workes of the Law that is the righteousnesse and obedience prescribed in the Law in which all inherent righteousnesse is fully and perfectly described a man is not iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no otherwise but by faith non nisi per fidem as Bishop Iustinian or by faith onely as Henry Steven who well understood the Greek translateth it sed tantùm per fidem Thirdly Rom. 4. 5. the exclusive is implyed To him that worketh nor but hath beleeved that is hath onely beleeved in him who justifieth sinners his faith is imputed unto righteousnesse and so the Syriack Paraphrast readeth but hath onely beleeved Fourthly Mar. 5. 36. Luk. 8. 50. Onely beleeve To this Bellarmine answeareth That Christ speaketh of the miraculous raising of a dead body and not of the justification of a sinner for as for the obtaining of a miraculous cure he confesseth that faith doth suffice alone Thus Bellarmine in that place to serve his present tume But in the seventeenth Chapter of the same booke where hee would prove that faith doth justifie not relatively in respect of the Object but by its owne efficacie hee alleageth that the woman of Canaan procured her daughters health by the efficacie of her faith and rejecteth his owne answere in the other place Neither may it bee answered saith he that it is one thing to speake of justification and another of the curing of a bodily disease For our Lord by the very same words attributeth Vtramque sanitatem the health both of the body and the soule to faith For as he said to the woman who was a sinner Luk. 7. 50. thy faith hath saved thee so to the woman which had the bloudy issue Mat. 9. 22. thy faith hath saved thee and to the blinde man whom he restored to sight Mar. 10. 52. thy faith hath saved thee And further it is to bee thought that our Saviour when he telleth them whom he cured that their faith had saved them that is himselfe through faith had saved them looked higher than to the cure of their bodies as Mat. 9. 2. sonne be of good cheere thy sinnes are forgiven thee for sinne being the cause of their maladies the Lord to cure them tooke away the cause thereof which was the guilt of sinne § VIII All those places which exclude workes from justification doe by necessary consequence teach justification by faith alone For that we are justified by some righteousnesse is confessed of all This righteousnesse is either the righteousnesse of faith or of workes that is either the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith and that is the righteousnesse of God which without the Law is revealed in the Gospell or that righteousnesse which is inherent in our selves prescribed in the Law For neither can a third righteousnesse bee named by which we should be justified neither can wee be justified by both
theefe upon the crosse Repl. But it evident that as S. Paul so also Origen speaketh of workes in generall and that in the penitent theese and in that penitent woman good workes were not wanting For the theeâ—…e reproâ—…eth his fellow confesseth his sinne acknowledgeth Christs innocencie professeth Christ in his most despicable eâ—…ate when his owne Disciples â—…ed prayeth unto Christ to remember him when he should come to his Kingdome The woman brought an Alabaster box of ointment stood behinde Christ weeping washed his feeâ—… with her teares wiped them with the haires of her head kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment by which actions shee tâ—…tified her faith in Christ her repentance for her â—…innes her love to her Saviour acknowledged by Christ himselfe to have beene great Yet not by these good workes but onely by their faith were those two persons justified And no marvell For even Abraham himselfe though he abounded with good workes yet he was not justified by them but by faith onely Yea but saith Bellarmine Origen doth not exclude love and repenâ—…nce Repl. No mâ—…re doe we from the subject that is the partie justified but from the act of justification For although they doe not concurre with faith to the act of justification as any cause thereof yet they must eoncurre in the subject that is the partie justified as necessary fruits of faith and unseparable companions of justification V. Cyprian Fidem tantùm prodesse or as Pamelius will have it iâ—… 〈◊〉 faith onely or whâ—…lly profitetâ—… VI. Eusebius Casariensis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore that faith doth suffice us to salvation which maketh us to know God the Father Almighty and to subscribe or assent that his onely begotten Sonne is the Saviour VII Hilariâ—… it 〈◊〉 the Scribes that sinne should be forgiven by a man for they saw no more in Christ but a man and that to bee remitted by him which the law could not release for faith onely justifieth And againe Qâ—…ia 〈◊〉 sola justificat and yet againe Hac sola fides confessâ—… Christum Dei filium omnium beatitudinâ—…m glâ—…riam merâ—…it in Petrâ—… This faith alone confessed that Christ is the Sonne of God obtained in Peter the glory of all blessednesse To the first Bâ—…llarmine answereth that the particle alone excludeth onely the law which 〈◊〉 hath no place in the other two But if the law be excluded which iâ—… the rule of all inherent righteousnesse it proveth justification only by faith For if men be justified either by the legall righteousnesse or by thâ—… Evangelicall and a third cannot be named then it followeth that if men have not nor can have remission of sinnes and justification by the law that is by inherent righteousnesse which is prescribed in the law thâ—…n they must have it according to the Gospell that is by the righteousnesse of Christ received by faith onely but the former is true Act. 13. 38 39. therefore the latter VIII S. â—…asill This is perfect and entire glorying in God when a mâ—…n being not lifted up for his ownâ—… righteousnesse knoweth indeed himselfe to want true justice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to bee justified by faith alonâ—… in Christ. 〈◊〉 answereth that Basil excludeth onely workes done without faith or the grace of God Reply But Basill mentioneth not workes going before Grace but speaketh of a man already justified who then doth intirely glory in God when being not lifted up with a conceit of that righteousnesse which is in himselfe but being conscious to himselfe of his defectivenesse in respect of inherent righteousnesse acknowledgeth himselfe to be justified onely by faith in Christ. IX Gregory Nazianzene speaking of those words Rom. 10. 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is righteousnesse to beleeve onely X. Saint Ambrose or whosoever else as ancient as he was the Authour of the Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul whom the Papists use to cite under the name of Saint Ambrose and of Bishop Ambrâ—…se when they meet with any thing that seemeth to make for them Sixâ—…us Senensis doth not only acknowledge them to be Ambrose his Commentaries but also commendeth them as being breves quidem in verbis sed sententiarum pondere graves He in very many places ascribeth justification to faith alone â—…ellarmine saith he excludeth the workes of the ceremâ—…niall Law or the necessity of externall workes which may serve perhaps for a poore shift to avoid some few places but not the most As first in Rom. 3. 24. They are justified saith he gratis that is freely because nihil operantes neque vicem redentes sola fide justificati sunt donâ—… Dei that is without workes either going before or following after they are through the gift of God justified by faith only Secondly In Rom. 4. how can the Iewes who looke to be justified by the workes of the Law thinke that they are justified with the justification of Abraham cum videant Abraham non ex operibus legis sed sola fide justificatum when they see Abraham to have beene justified not by the workes of the Law but onely by faith Non ergâ—…â—…pus est lege quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum There is no need therefore of the Law seeing a sinner is justified before God by faith alone Thirdly and on those words of thâ—… fifth 〈◊〉 according to the Latine secundum propositum 〈◊〉 sic decâ—…etum dicit à Deo ut cessante lege solam fidem 〈◊〉 Dei pâ—…sceret ad salâ—…tem Fourthly He pronounceth them blessed whom God hath ordained that without any labour or observation solâ—… fide justificantur apud Deâ—… they should be justified before God by faith alone Fifthly There being nothing required of them but onely that thâ—…y beleeve Sixthly In Rom. 9. Sola fides posita est ad salutem Seventhly in Rom. 10. Nullum opus dicit legis sed solam fidem 〈◊〉 in causa Chrâ—…sti Eighthly In 1 Cor. 1 this is ordained of God that whosoever beleeveth in Christ be safe or saved sine operâ—… solâ—… fide gratis recipiens remissionem peccatorum without worke receiving freely remission of sins by faith alone Ninthly In 2 Cor. 3. hac lex scil spiritus dâ—…t libertatem solam fidem poscens the Law of the Spirit which is the covenant of grace giveth â—…liberty requiring faith onely Tenthly In Gal. 3. 18. he noteth the improvident presumption of the Iewes who thought that men cannot be justified without the workes of the Law cum sciant Abraham qui forma ejus rei est sine operibus legis per solam fidem justificatum when themselves know that Abraham who is the patterne or samplar of that matter to have been justified by faith alone without the workes of the Law Eleventhly In Gal. 3. 22. that hee comming who was promised to Abraham fidem solam ab ijs posceret should require of them faith onely
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he which adhereth to faith alone is blessed Seventhly In Ephes. 2. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith alone hee saved Eightly In Col. 1. 27. For at once to bring men more senselesse than stones to the dignity of Angels simply by bare words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by faith alone without all difficulty it is indeed the glory and riches of the mystery Ninthly In Tit. 1. 13. For if thou doest give credit to thy faith why doest thou bring in other things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if faith were not sufficient to justifie Bellarmine by other things understandeth the ceremonies of the Law When Chrysostome indeed rejecteth al other things because faith it selfe is sufficient to justifie Tenthly There is a notable testimony cited by Bishop Iustinian out of Chrysostome in Psal. 14. which doth not only conclude this question against the Papists but also putteth a manifest difference betwixt sanctification which consisteth of many virtues and justification unto which faith onely is required Iustitia conflatur ex multis virtutibus â—…na virtus activa non facit justitiaâ—… quemadmodum nec una tabula perficit navigium nec unus lapis domum Vna sola virtus justificat fides quae est virtutum fastigium Righteousnesse is compounded of many virtues and one active virtue maketh not righteousnesse Even as one planke doth not make a ship nor one stone an house onely virtue justifieth namely faith which is the top of all virtues 11. Serm. de fide lege naturae Without faith no man hath aâ—…tained to life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the thiefe on the Crosse beleeving onely was justified and afterwards twice he affirmeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith by it selfe saved Bellarmine answereth that Chrysostome teacheth that sometimes faith alone that is without externall workes doth suffice which cannot be applyed to the penitent thiefe who as I shewed before wanted not for the time externall workes and yet not by them but by faith alone he was justified XIII Hesychius in Leviticum Grace is given out of mercie and compassion and is apprehended by faith alone fide comprehenditur solâ—… not out of works as the Apostle saith for then grace shall not be grace XIV Augustine Nam sine bonorum operum meritis per sidem justificatur impius quidem solam For without the merits of good workes a sinner is justified and that by faith alone 2. Apud Gratianum this is the faith which worketh by love huic duntaxat remissio delictorum promittitur to this onely remission of sins is promised cui soli venia promitoitu to which alone parâ—…on is promised quâ solâ peccata relaxantur by which alone sinnes are released 3 In Psal. 88. conc 2. sola fides Christi mundat The faith of Christ doth cleanse alone 4. Serm de tempore 68 Abraham beleeved God and it was accounted to him for righteousnesse Ecce sine opere justificatur exfide quicquid illi legali posset observatione conferri totum credulitas sola dâ—…navit Behold without workes he is justified by faith and whatsoever might bee conferred upon him by the observation of the Law all that faith alone bestowed 5. In Ioan. 8. On those words you heare not because you are not of God this was spoken to them who where not onely vicious by sinne but also foreknowne that they were not to beleeve ea fide qua solâ possent à peccatorum obligatione liberari with that faith by which alone they might be delivered from the bond of their sinnes 6. Out of his sermons De verbis Domini this testimony is usually cited Medicina animae omnium vulnerum una propitiatio pro delictâ—…s credere in Christum The medicine for all wounds of the soule and the onely propitiation for all sinnes is to beleeve in Christ. 7. Ad duas Epistolas Pelag. quantaelibet fuisse virtutis â—…ntiquos praedices justos non eos salvos fecit nisi fides mediatoris qui in remissionem peccatorum sanguine fudit Bellarmiâ—…e answereth that in this place are excluded onely Nature and the Law of Moses Reply But the place is plaine that though the virtue of the ancient Fathers were never so great yet neither it nor any thing else could save them but onely faith in Christ. 8. Lib. 83. quaest If any when hee hath beleeved shall presently depart out of this life the justification of faith abideth with him neither for his precedent good workes because not by merit but by grace hee came unto it nor for the subsequent because he is not suffered to remaine in this life And therefore say we by faith alone To this Bâ—…llrrmine answereth that Augustine speaketh of a lively faith as though wee spake of any other for Augustine there saith that a man is justified without workes going before faith but that justifying faith is such a faith as worketh by love Bellarmine then confesseth that a lively faith which worketh by love doth justifie alone As for that which is not lively nor accompanied with charity we teach that it justifieth neither alone nor at all Thus hath hee indevoured in vaine to answere some allegations out of six of the Fathers The rest either of the same Authors or of others either before named or now to bee cited remaine unanswered saving foure others which because he would have men thinke we want Testimonies of Antiquity hee hath afforded us out of his owne store Which wee will examine in their due place And in stead of the first which hee citâ—…th out of XV Cyrill of Alexandria being to no purpose and yet falsified by him for Cyrill doth not say hominem per solam fidem inhaerere Christo as Bellarmine citeth him and being also false in that sense for which indeed our prevaricator doth alleadge him that a man may abide in Christ by faith and yet want love and perish But in stead of this I will requite him with another of the same Authour in the same Commentaries upon Iohn on those words Ioh. 14. 1. Ye beleeve in God beleeve also in me per fidem namque saith he non aliter servamur by faith we are saved and not otherwise that is by faith alone XVI To Cyrill we adjoyne Sedulius as being of the same time as Bellarmine following Trithemius supposeth hee wrote saith Bellarmine an explanation upon all the Epistles of Saint Paul taken out of Origen Ambrose Hierome and Augustine meaning those Commentaries of Ambrose and Hierome which before I cited Whereby it may appeare that those Commentaries in the time of Sedulius were of good esteeme for out of those very Commentaries of Hierome he hath collected many briefe passages as in other matters so in this particular As Hierome therefore had said in Rom. 1. 16. so saith hee almost in the same words justiâ—…ia Dei est quod
which are a few testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers impertinentâ—…y alleaged His first testimony is Prov. 28. 25. qui sperat in Domino sanabitur The second Psal. 37. 40. Salvabit eos quia speraverunt in eo The third Psal. 91. 14. quoniam in me speravit liberabo eum Answ. None of these three places doe speake either of justification or preparation thereunto nor of hope otherwise than as it is included in affiance which as it hath reference to the future time is all one with hope nor of hope or affiance as it goeth before but as it followeth justifying faith what therefore could be more impertinently alleaged The first place according to the originall is but he that trusteth in the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be made fat The Latine in the next verse translateth the same words thus qui confidit and the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second Psalm 37. 40. the word chasah is translated sometimes confidere to trust sometimes and as I take it in that place onely sperare to hope in the same sense of affiance those that thus trust or hope in God he delivereth them from the wicked and saveth them But before they can either be saved or trust in God they must be justified by faith And therefore this hope or affâ—…ance is no forerunner of justification but a follower thereof The third Psalm 91. 14. the Hebrew chashak which by some is translated sperare by others valde or vehementer amare amore in aliquem propendere and might better have beene alleaged for love than for hope both which are consequents of justifying faith The words then are because he hath set his love upon me therefore I will deliver him he doth not say I will justifie him But let us heare Bellarmines commenting upon this place the Hebrew word saith he doth signifie to adhere to love to please therefore not every hope but that affiance which proceedeth out of a good conscience and out of Love and filiall adhering to God doth deliver a man c. § VIII His fourth testimony Matth. 9. 2. confide fili have a good heart sonne so the Rhemists translate thy sinnes are forgiven thee For our Lord faith Bellarmine did not as some falsely teach justifie the man who had the palsey before he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of good courage my sonne but contrariwise as the Councell of Trent very learnedly signifieth first he saith be confident my sonne and when he saw him raised up in hope of health hee added thy sinnes remittuntur tibi are forgiven thee Whereby Bellarmine would signifie that by this hope or affiance the man was prepared for justification Answ. First the party and those that brought him had faith as all the three Evangelists note Matth. 9. 2. Mark 2. 5. Luk. 5. 20. and therefore was justified before God for if they who brought him had faith much more he who no doubt desired them to bring him and had already his sins forgiven Secondly the Verbe is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the time past and ought to be translated not as Bellarm. readeth remittuntur are now forgiven or in forgiving but remissasunt they are already forgiven And by that argument our Saviour putteth him in comfort that hee should be cured because his sinnes which were the meritorious cause of his sicknesse were forgiven By which glad tydings hee would have him to be assured by speciall saith of the remission of his sinnes and in that assurance to be confident So that although the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be confident were uttered first yet the words following containe the cause of that confidence And therefore not onely remission of sinnes but assurance thereof by speciall revelation went before his confidence which therefore could be no preparative disposition thereunto And this is usuall in such consolations first to bid the party to be confident or not to feare and then to set downe the cause thereof as Genes 15. 1. Feare not Abraham I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward Esai 43. 1. Feare not Israel for I have redeemed thee In the same ninth of Matthew verse 22. Daughter be of good comfort thy faith hath made thee whole Luk. 1. 30. Feare not Mary for thou hast found grace or favour with God Luk. 2. 10. Feare not for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy and so in other places And these were his testimonies of Scriptures in which he hath found no releefe § IX Let us see what helpe the Fathers will afford him No man saith Ambrose can well repent him of his sinnes who doth not hope for pardon Answ. Hope of pardon is a motive to repentance and to the use of other good meanes whereby wee may through Gods grace attaine both to justification and to sanctification Howbeit repentance belongeth to sanctification and not to justification Augustine whatsoever thou declarest so declare it that hee to whom thou speakest by hearing may beleeve by beleeving may hope by hoping may love From whence nothing can be gathered but that as faith by which we are justified commeth by the hearing of the word as the Apostle also teacheth so from faith proceedeth hope and from both faith and hope love So that here hope which is a fruit of justifying faith and a consequent of justification is made a disposition not to justification but to love Cyprian to those who had fallen in time of persecution giveth this advice that they should acknowledge their grievous crime neither despairing of the Lords mercy nor as yet challenging pardon viz. untill they had truely repented thereof which was indeed wholesome counsell For no man can be assured of the pardon of any crime untill he have truly repented of it Vpon which words of Cyprian Bel. larmine though he can gather nothing out of them for his purpose but that those who desire pardon must not despaire of Gods mercy yet as a notable bragger he insulteth over us as if he had us at some advantage when God knoweth hee hath scarce brought any thing worth the answering By which words saith he our adversaries are plainely refuted who begin not to repent before they are fully assured that they are highly in Gods favour and are confident that they are to be ranked with the Cherubin and Seraphin which is an impudent and yet a witlesse slander as though wee were either so arrogant as the Papists who assume to themselves perfection which we doe not or so senselesse that we should teach that men are tyed to begin their repentance when they have attained to perfection and not till then If it be said that wee make repentance to be the fruit of faith which we define to be a full assurance of Gods favour c. I answere that that definition agreeth onely to speciall faith Not that all speciall faith is a full assurance but that every virtue is to be defined
that justified her but her faith our Saviour who had so highly commended her love doth in expresse termes testifie thy faith hath saved thee goe in peace upon which wordes of our Saviour shee who was formerly justified before God by a true justifying faith which our Saviour professeth and which shee testified by her love and by her repentance departed home justified in the Court of her owne conscience by speciall faith and being justified by faith had peace with God 4. As for his allegation out of Gal. 5. 6 that faith worketh by love it hath no colour of proofe that love disposeth unto justification but rather the contrary For he that is indued with faith working by love is already justified § IV. The Councell of Aurenge hee alleageth against himselfe For if God doe first inspire faith and love it speaketh of those who are adultâ—… that wee may faithfully require the sacrament of Baptisme then are we first justified by faith and afterwards receive the sacrament as Abraham did circumcision as the sacâ—…ament and sealâ—… of justification by faith And this is generally to be understood of Sacraments received by them who are come to yeares of discretion that they must be endued with justifying faith when they come to receive the Sacraments otherwise they receive no benefit by them For as touching Baptisme our Saviour saith hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but hee that beleeveth not whether hee be baptized or not baptiâ—…ed he shall bee condemned And as touching the Eucharist it is certaine that no man can receive Christ therein without faith which is both the hand of the soule to receive him and as it were the mouth of the soule to eat his body and to drinke his bloud And further Sacraments are seales anneâ—…ed to the letters patents of Gods promises in the Gospell and therefore confirme or assure nothing but what is contained in the promise and upon the same conditions The condition is faith Obiect But you will say if a man must be justified before he receive the Sacrament to what end doth hee then receive it Answ. that hee who is justified before God by the former degree of faith may by speciall faith confirmed by the Sacrament bee justified in his owne conscience that is that hee may in some measure be assured thereof § V. Bellarmine having produced his owne arguments hee commeth now to answer such as he saith are ours The first out of 1 Ioh. 4. 19. wee love God because he first loved us Now God loveth no man actually whom hee doth not justifie and reconcile unto himselfe in Christ for untill then wee are in the state of enemies Neither doth any that is not justified nor reconciled to God in Christ love him or if hee doe then doth hee love God before God loveth him Gods love therefore goeth before our justification and our justification goeth before our love of God Neither is this onely true that God loveth us before wee love him but before wee can love him aright wee must bee perswaded of his love towards us which perswasion is faith from which love proceedeth 1 Tim. 1. 5. Bellarmine answereth that God indeed loveth men first and by loving them maketh them just but by little and little and by certaine meanes For whom hee loveth hee first calleth to faith then he inspireth into them hope and feare and love inchoated lastly he justifieth and infuseth perfect charity Reply First that which he speaketh of making just by little and little may agree to sanctification but to justification it agreeth not for thereof there are no degrees Secondly It would bee knowne whether this beginning of charity which he saith goeth before justification bee the same which in justification is infused differing only in degree If it be not the same how is it charitas inchoata and if it be not infused as well as that in the act of justification why doth he say it is inspired If it bee the same then gratia gratum faciens is inspired before regeneration before which wee are nothing but flesh and in our flesh there is no good thing And by this reason justification shall bee nothing else but the perfecting of that charity which before was begun neither can a man bee truely said to bee justified by charity who is not enduâ—…d with perfect charity perfectly and fully expelling all sin which in this life is never perfect much lesse in incipients nor ever doth so expell sinne but that allwayes whiles wee are in our mortall bodies sinne remaineth in us Wherefore the Papists doe never attaine to that which they call justification which indeed is not justification but the perfection of sanctification Or if they say they doe attaine unto it and that they have no sinne they are lyars and there is no truth in them § VI. Our second argument no man can love God in any acceptable measure unlesse hee have the Spirit of God dwelling in him for love is a fruit of the Spirit Gal. 5. 22. to this purpose hee citeth for us Rom. 5. 5. which allegation hee cannot answere because he understandeth the place of our love of God which is shed abroad into our harâ—…s by the holy Ghost Now no men have the Spirit of God but they who are regenerated and justified for the Spirit of truth the world cannot receive Ioh. 14. 27. Bellarmine saith this is true of perfect love but imperfect love and inchoated which even now out of the Counsel of Aureng he confessed to be inspired of the holy Spirit may be had without the Spirit but not without Gods speciall helpe Which words discover unto us one of the depthes of Satan in the mystery of iniquity For the Papists as they doe wonderfully extenuate originall sinne so doe they use to magnifie the strength of nature corrupted They doe not acknowledge that which the Scriptures plainely teach that by nature wee are dead in sinne onely they say that we are diseased with sinne and entangled and bound with the chaines of sinne so that if wee bee not holpen of God wee are not able to doe that which is good But if God doe afford uâ—… his speciall helpe then we can have faith and feare and hope and love and the other preparations And further the privative corruption which they cannot deny to be in originall sinne they confesse by the halves or not so much for the privation which is in originall sinne is not onely of the act which they doe not wholly confesse but of the power and the habit it selfe So that in us by nature there is a meere impotencie to that which is spiritually good in respect whereof wee have lost bonum possibilitatis as Augustine teacheth Wherefore that wee may bee enabled to beleeve to hope to love to feare God to purpose amendment of life c. it is necessary that wee should bee not holpen or loosed but renewed regenerated created a new and raised from the
of sinnes and his obedience for the acceptation unto life of us who receiving him by faith desire to be made partakers of his merits to our justification For as in our mindes we receive Christ by a lively assent or beleefe as hath beene shewed so in our hearts we receive him by an earnest desire expressed in our prayers to be made partakers of him and his merits Neither doth it follow that if by faith we impâ—…trate or obtaine remission of sinnes that therefore faith is the meritorious cause of justification unlesse it bee understood relatively in respect of Christ who is the onely meritorious cause both of our justification and salvation whom faith as the instrument doth apprehend § XV. His fifth and last reason is out of Heb. 11. Where the Apostle by many examples teacheth that by faith men doe please God and consequently that faith is of great price and merit with God Answ. That faith doth please God and is of high account with God I meane a true lively justifying faith not the faith of Papists hypocrites and Devils wee freely acknowledge to the honour of God the giver of it and to the shame of the Papists who for all their saire pretences here doe much vilifie it Howbeit merit wee ascribe none to it unlesse it be relatively by apprehending Christs merits to our justification and salvation That Abel Henoch and others mentioned Heb. 11. did please God by faith doth not disprove our justification relatively but proves it For God is pleased with none but in Christ in whom he is well pleased He is pleased with none in Christ but with them only that by faith receive him § XVI To these places of Scripture Bellarmine addeth tenne testimonies out of Augustine nine whereof doe testifie that by faith righteousnesse is impetrated that is by request obtayned and the righteousnesse which hee speaketh of is not the righteousnesse of justification but of sanctification Neither doe they prove any thing in this point but what wee confesse that by faith which purifieth the heart and worketh by love wee obtaine for that Augustine meaneth by merits both the graces that is the habits and the fruits that is the acts of sanctification which we call good workes The testimonies are these fides inchoat meritum ut per munus Dei bene operâ—…tur where by merit he understandeth the grace of living well that faith doth merit that is obtaine the grace of working well Lex adducit ad fidem fides impetrat Spiritum largiorem diffundit Spiritus charitatem charitas implet legem Quod factorum lex minando imperat hoc fidei lex credendo impetrat Per legem cognitio peccati per fidem impetratio gratiae contra peccatum per gratiam sanatio animae Violentia fidei Spiritus sanctus impetratur per quem diffusa charitate in cordibus nostris lex non timore poenae sed justitiae a more completur In novâ—… testamento fides impetrat charitatem Ex fide ideo dicit Apostolus justificari hominem non ex operibus quia ipsa prima datur ex qua impetrentur caetera quae proprie opera nuncupantur in quibus justè vivitur Fidès non potita conceditur ut ei potenti alia concedantur His tenth testimony which in order is the second Nec ipsa remissio peccatorum sine aliquo merito est si fides hanc impetrat neither is the remission of sinnes it selfe without any merit if faith doe obtaine it Neither is there no merit of faith by which faith hee said O God bee mercifull to mee a sinner and worthily did that faithfull man being humbled goe home justified because hee that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted Where Augustine abusively useth as other Latine Fathers often doe the word merit in the sence of obtaining and that by request and that appeareth by Bellarmines owne confession that Augustine doth use to call merit any good worke in respect whereof we obtaine some other thing and by the place it selfe In which sence hee saith the Publican by his humble and faithfull prayer having obtained remission of sinnes went home justified For if merit properly so called did goe before remission of siune then men should merit before they bee in state of grace which Bellarmine denyeth then should wee not bee justified either gratis that is as all even Bellarmine himselfe expound it sine meritis or by the grace that is the gracious and undeserved favour of God when wee deserved the contrary Againe beâ—…ore remission of sinnes and justification all men bee sinners and unjust Now as Augustine saith in the very next words going before quid habere boni meriti possunt peccatores What good merit can sinners have and a little before that meritis impii non grattam sed poena debetur To the merits of a wicked man not grace but punishment is due Finally the Papists themselves ordinarily confesse that their first justification cannot be merited which is grace onely and not reward Though some of them sometimes doe talke of merits of congruity which properly are no merits or if they be Pelagius his maine errour must take place gratiam secundum merita dari that grace is given according to merits Bellarmine here saith that hee hath proved elsewhere that faith and contrition and other dispositions doe merit the grace of justification which the Councill of Trent expressely denieth § XVII His fifth principall argument to prove that faith alone doth not justifie consisteth of two arguments drawne from two principles which he will but point at now but hereafter demonstrate The one is from the formall cause of justification the other from the necessity of good workes unto salvation For if the formall cause of our justification bee a righteonsnessâ—… infused and really inherent in us and not the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith then faith alone doth not justifie but the former is true therefore the latter The consequence of the proposition we grant for unto sanctification faith alone doth not suffice but there must be a concurrence not onely of other habituall graces thereunto but also of actuall obedience But justification is not to be confounded with sanctification Neither doe we say that the righteousnesse of Christ is the formall cause of justification but the matter by imputation whereof we are justified The assumption namely that we are justified by a righteousnesse infused and really inherent in us he saith hee will fully prove in the next booke But all his proofes I have already fully answered and confuted in the third and fourth controversies concerning the matter and forme of justification and have by necessary arguments both disproved the negative to wit that wee are not justified by any righteousnesse inherent in us or infused into us and proved the affirmative viz. that we are justified onely by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us
From whence I have also demonstrated the truth of this assertion that we are justified by faith alone that is by the righteousnesse of Christ alone apprehended onely by Faith A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION THE SEVENTH BOOKE Concerning good Workes CAHP. I. To avoid Popish calumniations it is shewed that we doe hold the necessity of good works and doe urge the same by better arguments than the Popish religion doth afford § I. AS touching his last argument which he bringeth to prove that faith doth not justifie alone drawne from the necessity of good works I am now to treat For this is the sixth capitall Errour of the Papists in the controversie of justification in that they stiffely hold that good workes are necessarily required unto justification as causes thereof and to salvation as the merit thereof But before I dispute the question I am to meet with some calumniations of the Papists The first that wee by denying the necessity of good workes as being neither causes of justification nor merits of Salvation doe disâ—…ourage the people from wel doing and by teaching that by saith alone we are justified and saved doe animate and encourage them to the practise of all sinne and iniquity I answere that we doe not deny the necessity of good workes and that wâ—… use better arguments to deter the people from sin and to encourage them to well doing than the Papists by their doctrine can doe For to teach men to do good works with an opinion either of satisfaction propitiation or of merits which are the three chiefe arguments of the Papists that they are satisfactory propitiatory and meritorious is to teach men to mar good works rather than to make them Because a good work undertaken with an opinion either of satisfaction or justification by them or of merit though otherwise it were good becomes abominable unto God as derâ—…gating from â—…he alone and al-sufficient merit and satisfaction of Christ. Neither can they encourage men to well doing by these arguments that by their good workes they are justified and for them shall be saved whiles tâ—…eir conscience must needs tell them that besides the guilt of their manifold sinnes their good workes are impure and that they can merit nothing at the hands of God but punishment These therefore who have just cause to doubt or rather to despaire of justification by their workes and of salvation by their merits cannot by these arguments receive true encouragement to well doing but rather discouragement there from But although wee deny good workes to be either causes of justification or merits of Salvation yet we affirme them to be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good and profitable but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary The which I will shew to prevent both the malitious slanders of the Papists and also the prophane abuse of carnall Gospellers who turne the grace of God into wantonnesse Good I say as being commended and commanded of God and therefore to be ensued Phil. 4. 8. Rom. 12. 17. Psalm 34. 13. Profitable as being rewaâ—…ded both beatitudine vice with the blessednesse of this life and beatitudine patriae with the blessednesse of the life to come 1 Tim. 4. 8. § II. Necessary though not necessitate efficientiae as causes yet necessitate presentiae as necessary consequents of justification and as necessary antecedents of glorification They are necessary I say by a necessity not onely privative if I may so speake but also positive Privative because without them the profession of faith is not onely vaine and unprofitable but also hurtfull and pernicious Vaine because such a â—…aith is dead and counterâ—…eit justifying neither alone nor at all Hurtfull because being planted in the vineyard of God that wee might become trees of righteousnesse if we bring not foorth good fruit wee must looke to be cut downe or stocked up or like the figtree which having greene leaves but no fruit Christ accursed Such professours are like the barren ground which receiving the raine often falling upon it and bringiâ—…g forth thornes and bryars is rejected and nigh unto cursing whose end is to be burned Like to the foolish Virgins who having a lampe of an externall profession but wanting the oyle of saving grace when the Bridegroome commeth are to be shut out Like the chaffe in the floore which is to be winnowed from the wheat Like goates in Christs flocke which are to bee separated from the sheepe Like bondservants in Gods house which are not there to abide but with the bondwoman and her sonne are to bee cast out who having a formall profession of religion but denying the power of it which is the faith of hypocrits must looke to have their portion with hypocrits where is weeping and gnashing of teeth § III. They are necessary also by a positive necessity and that manifold As first by the necessity of infallibility in respect of Gods Decree Word Oath In respect of of his decree For whom God hath predestinated to salvation hee hath predestinated unto sanctification that they may be conformable to the image of his Sonne And therefore whosoever doth hope to become like unto Christ in glory he must endeavour in some measure to resemble him in grace We exhort therefore our hearers that they doe not abase the doctrine of predestination with those who were called predestinatiani as to thinke that either because they suppose they are elected they shall be saved howsoever they live or because they thinke that they are not elected they cannot be saved though they should live never so godly as if godlinesse if they be elect were needlesse or if not bootlesse But forbearing to prye into Gods secret counsels which are to be adored and not searched into to have recourse to Gods word For the secret things belong unto the Lord our God but the revealed things to us that wee may doe them For there we shall finde these two things first that where God hath ordained the end hee hath also ordained the meanes And therefore as it is necessary that the end should be accomplished because decreed by God so it is as necessary in respect of the same decree that the end should be atchieved by the same meanes which God hath preordained Now whom God hath elected them he calleth whom he calleth according to his purpose them he justifieth by faith whom hee justifieth by faith them he sanctifieth by his Spirit whom hee calleth justifieth and sanctifieth them and no other he glorifieth Therefore as it is necessary in respect of Gods decree that those who are elected shall be saved so it is as necessâ—…ry in respect of the same decree that they should attaine to salvation by these degrees that is first they must be called and converted unto God they must bee justified by a true faith they must in some measure be sanctified by the holy Spirit
The second thing is that in the word the Lord revealeth his purpose concerning those that live well or ill Thou thinkest because thou hast a conceit that thou art elected thou canst not be damned though thou live never so wickedly But be not deceived for God hath revealed his purpose concerning impenitent sinners who live and dye in sinne unrepented of that there is no inheritance for them in the kingdome of God As for example thou art a drunkard and wilt not be reclaimed from this sinne and yet presumest that thou shalt be saved because thou hast a conceit that thou art elected But be not deceived no drunkards shall inherit the kingdome of God On the other side thou hast a conceit that because thou art not elected thou canst not be saved though thou shouldest live never so godly But the Scripture is plaine that whosoever truely beleeveth in Christ whosoever unfainedly repenteth him of his sinnes whosoever walketh uprightly before God making Conscience of his wayes hee shall bee saved Therefore whatsoever thy concâ—…it may bee concerning thine election or not election if thou doest truely beleeve in Christ and repenting of thy sinnes doest endevour to lead a good life as sure as God is true thou shalt be saved § IV. Secondly in respect of Gods Word which is infallibly true Now the word plainely testifieth that whosoever is in Christ is a new creature that those who are in Christ live not after the flesh but after the Spirit that they who are Christs doe crucifie the flesh with â—…he lusts thereof that Christ was made unto us not onely righteousnesse and redemption but also sanctification that Christ came not with water alone or bloud alone but with water and blood the bloud of redemption to cleanse us from the guilt of sinne and the water of ablution to purge us from the pollution of sinne that in whom Christ dwelleth by faith hee dwelleth in them by his Spirit and that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his that faith being a fruit of the Spirit and a grace of regeneration it cannot bee where the Spirit of grace and regeneration is not and that unlesse men bee regenerate and borne a-new they cannot see the Kingdome of God § V. Thirdly in respect of Gods Oath in which it is impossible that he should lye Now God hath sworne that whom he redeemeth from the hand of their spirituall enimies he will give them to worship him in holinesse and righteousnesse before him all the dayes of their life For redemption is as well from the dominion of sinne as from the guilt of it As for those who commit sinne that is in whom sinne raigneth they are the servants of sinne and therefore not actually redeemed by Christ for whom the Sonne freeth they are free indeed Those that are freed from sinne become the servants of righteousnesse Those that are delivered from the hand that is the power of their spirituall enemies are ipso facto made the servants of God whose service is true freedome Thus much of the necessity of infallibility § VI. Secondly they are necessary necessitate pracepti imposing a necessity of duety towards God Our Neighbour Our Selves Towards God that wee may bee not onely obedient obsequious and well pleasing unto him but also which ought to be the chiefe respect of all our actions that wee may shew our selves thankefull unto him who hath been so gracious unto us First by loving him againe who hath lovedus first For when the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by his spirit that is when by faith wrought in us by his spirit we are perswaded of Gods infinite and unspeakable love towards us it cannot be but that our hearts should reflect some love towards him which is to be shewed in a willing observation of his Commandements Secondly in bringing forth those fruits which God expecteth and in atchieving that end which God propoundeth to himselfe in all his benefits bestowed upon us This is the will of God even our sanctification that fruit which he expecteth that end whâ—…ch hee aimeth at in all his blessings This is the end of our elâ—…ction that we may bee holy of our vocation 1 Thess. 4. 7. of our redemption 1 Pet. 2. 24. Tit. 2. 14. Ephes. 5. 26 27. Of our reconciliation Col. 1. 21 22. Of our regeneration Ephes. 2. 10. Of all his temporall benefits Psal. 105. 45 Thirdly by adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour Tit. 2. 10. Fourthly and principally by glorifying God who hath been so good unto us and propounding his glory unto us in all things For herein God is glorified if we bring forth much fruit Ioh. 15. 8. § VII Secondly towards our Neighbour first for avoiding of offence 1 Cor. 10. 32 Phil. 1. 10. making straight pathes unto our feet that others treading in our steppes need not stumble or fall providing things honest in the sight of all men labouring and endevouring to have a good conâ—…cience void of offence towards God and towards men Secondly that wee may edifie our neighbours by a godly example and provoke them to good workes and winne them unto Christ 1 Pet. 3. 1. Thirdly that wee may stoppe the mouthes of the adversaries which otherwise would bee open to blasphemâ—… the truth Tit. 2. 5. Fourthly that wee may cause them also to glorifie God Matth. 5. 16. Fifthly that wee may doe them good in exercising judgment and in practising the dueties of charity and mercie towards them Thirdly towards our Selves First that wee may avoid those judgements which are threatned against all sinnes both of omission and commission Deut. 28. 15 c. Matth. 3. 10 25. 41 42. Secondly that wee may be made partakers of those blessings which are promised to those who aâ—…e obedient to the will of God Psal. 84. 11. § VIII Thirdly they are necessary necessitate signi as necessary signes and evidences whereby wee are to gather assurance to our selves of our justification whereby our faith is to bee demonstrated whereby wee are to make our calling and our election sure Our election can not bee knowne à priori by any foregoing thiâ—…gs but à posteriori and namely by the fruits of sanctification which are also the fruits of our election For by a godly life our faith and justification is manifested 1 Ioh. 3. 7. â—…n respect wherof the faithfull are said to be justified by their workes Iam. 2. 21 25. being justified it is certaine that they are called according to his purpose and iâ—… so called then elected are they elected then undoubtedly they shall bee saved They are the cognizances of them that are to bee saved for by faith wee receive the inheritance among them that are sanctified They are the evidences by
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 faiâ—…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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 underâ—…tand workes done before or without faith by the strength of nature not workes proceeding from faith or workes of grace The absurdity of whâ—…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
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
from faith secondly hee perverteth the question as if the Apostle disputed that Abraham was not justified by workes without faith or not proceeding from the grace of faith as they forsooth thought who to their owne strength attributed righteousnesse As though either Abraham had any good workes which did not proceed from grace or the Apostle would busie himselfe to prove that he was not justified by such as he had not or as if the justitiaries among the Iewes did attribute righteousnesse to their owne strength when the Pharisee himselfe Luk. 18. 11. gave thankes to God for it or as if they thought that Abrahams righteousnesse proceeded from his naturall strength when they knew that God did chuse Abraham and by his preventing grace called him out of Ur of the Caldeans where they served other gods Thirdly hee doth againe contradict the Apostle in saying that Abraham had glory with God which the Apostle plainely denieth the word in the originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth not glory but glorying or boasting If Abraham saith the Apostle was justified by works then had he wherof to glory or to boast but he had no cause to glory or to boast before God Fourthly his contradicting of the Apostle maketh against himselfe For if Abraham had beene justified by workes done without grace hee had more cause to glory and that before God than if his workes proceeded from grace For in that case it might have beene said to him what hast thou which thou hast not received And if thou hast received it why dost thou glory or boast as if thou hadst not received it wheras therfore the Apostle denyeth that Abraham had whereof to glory before God he is to be understood as speaking of his workes proceeding from grace by which if Abraham had beene justified he had whereof to glory but not before God But being justified by faith without workes all matter of glorying was taken away By what Law of workes No but by the Law of Faith Rom. 3. 27. For by grace we are justified and saved not by workes lest any man should boast Ephes. 2. 8 9. And that this contradiction maketh against himselfe appeareth further by that which himselfe saith in the same Chapter out of Rom. 4. 4. But unto him that worketh the reward is not imputed according to grace but according to debt Whence he proveth that by workes which the Apostle excludeth from justification he meaneth such workes whereto not grace is given but wages rendred And such are onely those saith hee which are wrought by the onely strength of free-will For to the workes which are wrought by grace that which is rendred is not simply merces wages but it is also grace yea grace rather than wages If therefore Abraham had beene justified by workes done by the power of his owne free-will and not by grace hee might have gloried that he had made God a debtour unto him But to Abraham his faith was imputed unto righteousnesse and therefore his reward was of grace and not of debt For to him that worketh that is fulfilleth the Law of God the wages is not reckoned of grace but of debt as being due ratione pacti in respect of the covenant Doe this and thou shalt live But to him that worketh not that is that fulfilleth not the Law which the Apostle maketh to have beene Abrahams case but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 4 5. § VII And this also confuteth the doctrine of the Papists concerning the merit of good workes proceeding from grace unto which Bellarmine here saith the reward is not rendred as of debt but onely to such as are wrought by strength of nature But he and his fellowes when they treat of merit ascribe to works of grace merit of condignity In respect whereof the reward of eternall life is due unto them in justice not onely in respect of Gods promise or covenant but even in respect of the workes themselves For every good worke proceeding from charity absolutely deserveth as they teach eternall life insomuch that heaven is no lesse due to the good workes of the faithfull than hell to the sinnes of the wicked § VIII As to the example of Abraham so to these three places Gal. 2. 16. Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. wherein all workes of all men are generally excluded from the act of justification Bellarmine answereth that in them all those workes onely are excluded which are done before faith But we will speake of them severally And first to that Gal. 2. 16. Bellarmine saith that in that Epistle there are two questions handled the former speciall whether the ceremonies of the Law doe belong to Christians so that without them they cannot be saved The other generall whether by the Law and strength of Nature justification can happen to any man without grace and without the faith of Iesus Christ. Vnto both which the Apostle answereth negatively And afterwards he saith that the state of the Question in that Epistle is whether workes doe justifie without faith Whereunto I reply that no such question is mentioned in that Epistle nor the contrary concluded as being altogether heterogeneous and besides the purpose of the Apostle which was to reclaime the Galathians from their errour who thought that besides faith the workes of the Law must concurre to justification For both the false teachers who seduced them were Christians who lest they should suffer persecution for the Crosse of Christ perswaded them to bee circumcised Gal. 6. 12. and the Galathians themselves who were seduced did not cease to bee Christians neither were they perswaded to renounce the faith of Christ but were made to beleeve that unto their faith in Christ they were necessarily to joyne the workes of the Law that by them both they might be justified Against this assertion the Apostle disputeth directly proving that a man is justified by faith and not by the workes of the Law But if he had disputed against the other that workes without faith in Christ doe justifie or that workes done by the knowledge of the Law only by the strength of nature doe justifie without faith in Christ his disputation had beene to no purpose For the Galathians and their Teachers would in their owne defence have answered that they did not from justification exclude faith in Christ God forbid but did adde unto faith the observation of the Law desiring as the Papists now doe to bee justified not by faith alone but both by faith and workes together And therefore as in the Epistle to the Romanes so here the question is not whether wee bee justified by workes without faith in Christ which asserâ—…ion never any Christian held but whether by faith without workes which the Galathians and their teachers would have with faith to concurre unto the act of justification To which purpose call to minde the words in the very place
him our Saviour fitteth his answere and first to confute his errour and to let him understand that no man living who is but a meere man can be justified by inherent righteousnesse he telleth him that no man is good that is purely and perfectly just and therefore reproveth him for that hee thinking our Saviour to bee but a meere man as others were did call him good But in the second place to answere his question hee telleth him that if by his owne workes hee did hope to bee saved hee must doe those workes which God himselfe had commanded and so referreth him to the Coâ—…mandements of the Law of which God himselfe had said doe this and thou shall live which is the legall promise Levit. 18. 5. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. Thus our Saviour fiâ—…teth according to the Law his answere to the disposition of the party who was a justitiary But otâ—…erwise when our Saviour and his Apostles were a ked the like qâ—…estion they made answere according to he doctrine of the Goâ—…pell For our â—…aviour being asked Ioh. 6. 28. what shall wee doe that we may doe the workes of God answered vers 29. This is the worke of God that which he esteemeth in stead of all workes that ye beleeâ—…e in him whom hee hath sent for he that beleeveth hath fulfilled the Law Christ being the â—…nd of the Law to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10. 4. And the Apostle Paul being demanded of the Iaylour what must I doe to bee saved answereth beleeve on the Lord Iesus Christ and thou shalt bee saved Act. 16. 30 31. § XVI In the third place he alleageth testimonies out of the doctrine of the Apostles viz. Rom. 8. 13 17. 2 Tim. 2. 11 12. Iam. 2. 8. 2 Pet. 1. 11. 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Apoc. 3 21. Answ. The place cited out of S. Iames is no promise but a commendation if you fulfill the royall law ye doe well Of Rom. 8. 13 17 and 2 Tim. 2. 11 12. I spake before But concerning them and all others that are or may be alleaged there is a distinction of conditions to be held that either they import the cause of the thing promised which is salâ—…ation or happinesse or the proper markes and cognizances of such as shall be saved or are happy which doe not shew propter quid 〈◊〉 sunt vel servandi sed qualâ—…s beats sunt quales servandi Christ our alone Saviour is the onely cause of salvation and the onely foundation of our happinesse He is eternall life and whosoever hath him hath life eternall Faith is the only instrument whereby we receive Christ and therfore to it also is salvation ascribed in respect of the object which it doth receive As when it is said thy faith hath saved thee it is to be understood as if it were said Christ received by faith hath saved thee A condition therfore of receiving Christ by faith or of Christ received by faith betokeneth the cause but all other coâ—…ditions either of graces or of works doe not signifie the cause of salvation but the proper markes and cognizances of those which shall be saved And therfore prove that the markes aâ—…e or may be necessary by the necessity of presâ—…nce but not by necessity of efficiencie § XVII And this also may seâ—…ve to answere his fouâ—…th and fifth arguments His fourth is fetched from the Doctrine of the Prophets Ezek. â—…8 21 If the wicked shall turne from all his sins that he hath committed and shall keepe all my statutes and doe that which is lawfull and right he shall surely live That is if he shall turne from the wrong way into the right and goe on therein as sinne is an aberration and the errour of his way hee shall come to the end of his way which is salvation So that this condition is not the cause but the way Yea but saith Bellarmine in the same place to turne from righteousnesse and to breake the Commandements of God is a condition upon which dependeth the commination of death for if a righteous man turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity he shall surely die Therefore as the turning from righteousnesse unto sinne is the cause of death â—…o the turning from sinne to righteousnesse is the cause of life I answere that there is not par ratio there is no equality be tweene the sinne of the wicked and the righteousnesse of the godly Death is the due wages of sinne and sinne is the meritorious cause of death But eternall life is the free gift of God and not merited by our righteousnesse Sinne is of infinite demerit and so deserveth death eternall But not the obedience of any man but onely of Christ if it did merit at all â—…s or can be of infinite merit to deserve eternall life The sinnes of â—…he wicked are purely and perfectly evill but the righteousnesse of the reâ—…enerate is not purely and perfectly good The sinnes of the wicked are their owne workes wholly proceeding from themselves and to themselves the wages thereof is wholly and properly to be ascribed and imputed the good workes of the regenerate proceed from Gods free grace and therefore when they are rewarded God crowneth his owne graces in them and not their merits That which he babbleth concerning promises absolute and conditionall as if we held all the promises of the Gospell to bee absolute is a shamlesse and senselesse cavill Wee are so farre from saying that they be all aâ—…solute as if indifferently and without condition they promised salvation to all that we rather say they are all conditionall But we distinguish of conditions that some are from the cause as where the condition of faith is interposed and such conditions wee doe hold to bee necessary necessitate efficientiae some from other arguments and such are necessary onely necessitate presentiae § XVIII His fifth argument is taken from the condition of faith which we doe not deny to bee contained in the Evangelicall promise Now saith he by what words the Scripture requireth the condition of faith by the same or more cleare it teacheth the condition of fulfilling the Law to be required Answ. The condition of fulfilling the Law is required no where but in legall promises and is a condition by reason of the flesh impossible But in all these promises which hee citeth excepting that Matth. 19. 17. not the condition of fulfilling the whole Law is required but of some speciall duties betweene which and the condition of faith is great odds For faith relatively understood that is Christ received by faith saveth alone it alone entituleth us and giveth us right to salvation Aske of any particular duty to which salvation is promised will invocâ—…tion Rom. 10. 13 will suffering Rom. 8. 17 will any other duty or grace save a man or entitle him to salvation No one part of righteousnesse though it may be a proper marke of them that shall be saved can save a man
the necessity of good workes though they bee impertinent to the maine Question because they prove not that which is in controversie betwixt us yet are not impertinent to his purpose which was to calumniate us and to beare the world in hand that wee are such as deny the necessity of good workes But if the question were tryed by voices of the Fathers innumerable testimonies might bee produced out of their writings wherein they teach that wee are justified by faith and not by workes yea in direct termes affirming that which is the question betweene us that we are justified by faith alone But that workes are necessary as causes either to salvation or which is the question to justification not any one pregnant testimony out of the ancient Fathers is or as I suppose can bee produced But to prove the necessity of good workes by way of presence I shall not need to recite the severall testimonies seeing I have my selfe delivered more to prove and to urge the necessity of good workes than can be gathered out of all these testimonies put together § XV. In the third and last place he bringeth a reason like to that which he framed l. 1. cap. 14. that faith alone doth not justifie But doth he not dispute the same question here did he not propound five principall arguments to prove that faith doth not justifie alone the fifth and last wherof was from the necessity of good works the handling whereof hee put off to this place Should he not then from the necessity of good workes prove that faith doth not justifie alone But in stead of proving that hee endevoureth to prove that faith doth not save alone Thus craftily hee glydeth from one question to another for his owne advantage because hee knew that more is required to salvation than was required to justification For sanctification commeth betwixt justification and salvation And although we are justified without works going before justification yet we are not saved without workes going before salvation they being the way which God hath prepared for them that are justified to walke in towards their glorification I might therefore according to the Lawes of disputation hold him to the question or refuse to give him answere But he is so farre from proving that faith doth not justifie alone that hee is not able to prove that it doth not save alone disputing in that sence according to which we doe hold that faith doth justifie alone Now for the understanding of our sence and meaning certaine distinctions heretofore propounded must for avoiding of calumniations bee here repeated First that wee doe not meane that faith is the onely grace which doth sanctifie as the Papists will needes misunderstand us but that to sanctification not only other graces doe concurre with faith but good workes also And consequently that besides faith the said graces and good workes be forerunners of our salvation Secondly when wee say faith alone wee doe not meane that faith which is alone being a solitary an idle a counterfeit and dead faith severed from charity and other graces and destitute of goodworks but we meane a true and lively â—…aith which purifieth the heart and worketh by love which cannot be severed from charity and other graces as I have heretofore proved And therefore wee hold that although in respect of the act of justifying or saving it alone yet in respect of the being thereof it never is nor if it be a true justifying and savingfaith can be alone Thirdly when we doe say that faith alone justifieth and saveth wee speake with relation to the object or relatively meaning that the object which faith alone receiveth doth justifie and save us when wee say therefore that we are justified or saved by faith alone our meaning is that we are justified only by the righteousnesse of Christ which is apprehended by faith alone and not by our owne righteousnesse and that wee are saved by the merits of Christ alone received by faith and not by our owne workes or merits and consequently that Christ received by faith is the onely meritorious cause of our salvation § XVI Now let us heare Bellarmines dispute Iffaith alone did save and that workes were not otherwise â—…ecessary than in respect of presence as the fruits and signes of faith then it would follow that faith could save though it wanted all maner of good workes and were joyned with all maner of vices and sinnes but the consequent is false therfore saith hee faith alone doth not save and good workes are necessary not onely in regard of presence but also of some efficiencie To the proposition I answere first that it is senselesse and implyeth a contradiction For if good workes must necessarily be present with saving faith which hee confesseth wee doe hold how can it be supposed without implying a contradiction that it can save being not onely destitute of all good workes but also accompanied with all maner of sinne this is sufficient to overthrowe his whole dispute Secondly I deny the consequence of his proposition For justifieing and saving faith though it justifie and save alone yet it never is nor can be alone Even as the eye in respect of his being cannot if it be a true living eye be alone severed from other parts of the body yet in respect of the act of seeing unto which no other part doth concurre it seeth alone Even so faith which is the spirituall eye of the soule in respect of its being cannot if it be a true lively faith be alone severed from the other graces which are with it fellow members of sanctification but yet in respect of the Act of justifying and saving unto which no other graces concurre with it as any causes therof it justifyeth and saveth alone because it alone and no other grace doth receive Christ unto justification and salvation Thirdly we do not say that the presence of good workes is necessary to salvation onely as they are the fruits and signes of faith but also as necessary forerunners as causa sine qua non as the way to salvation and as the evidence according to which the sentence shall be pronounced Which consideration disproveth the proofe of his consequence which is that according to our doctrine good workes are required to the act of saving onely by accident whose presence addeth nothing to the virtue of faith in justifying and saving and so their absence detracteth nothing from it and therefore being taken away faith never the lesse saveth Answ. Things whose presence is necessary cannot be said to bee present by accident For such may be present or absent but that which is necessary cannot be otherwise the thing being safe But we hold the presence of workes not to be contingent but necessary both in respect of salvation as the way to it and as Causa sine qua non and of faith as the unseparable fruits of it without which it is said to be dead
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 alleâ—…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 wâ—…re wâ—…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 〈◊〉 doth not concerne the observation of the Morall Law but those politicke precepts which the Lord had given to Moses and Moses to Iosuâ—…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
all but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things indifferent § XIX But let us examine his testimonies two whâ—…reof are scarce worth the examining the one out of Origâ—…n the othâ—…r out of Cyrill and yet both of them so little to his purpoâ—… as theâ—…seeme to make against him rather than for him Origâ—… compareth â—…to women such men as say they are not able to observe certaine pâ—…epts of Christ which the Papists doe not call precepts but Counèlls and therefore belong not at all as they teach but to those who would be thought to live in a state of perfection Besides which notorioâ—…s hypocrites all in the Church of Rome are by this testimony to be â—…ompared to women who not onely say they cannot but also thinke â—…hey need not to observe them as to sell all that a man hath and give it to the poore which indeed is neither a commandemenâ—… nor counsell given by Christ unto all but a precept of tryall to that one wealthy justitiary to him that striketh thee on the one cheeke turne to him the other also blesse him that curseth thee pray for him that persecuteth thee and such like which are indeed precepts given to all the faithfull and not counsailes directed onely to such as are or would seeme to be perfect Cyrill saith hee affirmeth that the precept it self thou shalt not lust which is noted to be most difficâ—…lt may through grace be fulfilled Answ. That place of Cyrill as it is translated into Latine is in a maner without sence neither can any thing be soundly inferred from it Heâ—… seemeth to say that Christ restoring mans nature to his originall perfection which is but begunne in this life said To them of old it was said thou shalt not commit adultery but I say unto you thou shalt not lust quamvis res sit ut â—…pinor ad quâ—…m pertingi nequeat though it be a thing as I suppose which cannot be attained unto namely in this life yet to this perfection Christ hath reformed or restored us viz. inchoative in this life and perfectly in the life to come § XX. The rest of the testimonyes are of â—…wo sorts for either they deny the commandements of God to be impossible as Bâ—…sil orat in illud attende tibi Deut. 15. 9. Hierâ—…e â—…dvers Pelag. lib. 3. in Matth. 5. 〈◊〉 de Natura gratia Cap 43. c. or else they affirme that they are possible if men would as Câ—…ncil Arâ—…sican 2. Can. ult Hilâ—…ru in Psalm 118. Chrysâ—…stom in Matth â—…om 39. in Hebr. homil 16. c. Answ. To preserve these fathers from contradicting themselves certaine distinctions are to be admitted For the same men who deâ—…y the law to be impossible doe conâ—…esse that God commandeth some things which wee cannot doe aâ—…d that never any since the fall of Adam did or could fulfill the whole law of God and that there is no man that liveth without sinne Their meaning therfore is that although no man can fulfill the law yet it is not impossible The first distinction is that which I mentioneâ—… before bâ—…twixt the perfect fulfilling and the upright keeping of Gods commandments for although they cannot in this life be fulfilled in thâ—…t pâ—…rfection which the law requireth yet they may and usually are kept of the faithfull in sincerity and uprightâ—…esse which the Lord in the covenant of grace acceptech The second is conserâ—…ing impossibility For when it is said that the law is impossible to be fulfilled pâ—…ctly it is either understood simply per se as the fathers understood it as it is impossible saith Basil for the eye of a man to see his owne backe or conditionally and per accidens in respect of mans condition or estate For the law was possible to man in his integrity when he was in the earth by Paradise before his fall and shall be possible againe when hee shall be fully renewed in the heavenly Paradise But to man being fallen into the state of disobedience the fulfilling of the law is impossible by accident For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fleshly disposition of our corrupt nature is not subject to the law of God neither can it be The third distinction is in respect of the persons for men are either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unregenerate or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regenerate The regenerate man by the grace of God is both willing and able to keepe the law according to the measure of grace received The unregenerate man is not able to keepe the law because hee will not the very frame of his will being enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. Gen. 6. 5. 8. 21. And here it is to be observed that those fathers which had to doe with the Pelagians who held that men by strength of nature were able to fulfill the Law of God or else the Lord commandiug them unpossible things should be unjust neither should the fault be in men who cannot obey but in God who enjoyneth impossible things did grant unto them that God did not command impossibilityes yet they did hold which the Papists also confesse that no man without grace could performe them For indeed to an unregenerate man who is dead in sinne it is as unpossiâ—…le to fulfill the wâ—…ole law of God which is spirituall as it is for a dead man to perfâ—…rme the actions of the naturall life For as I said before out of Augustine man by his sinne hath lost not onely bonum possibilitatis so that â—…ee can doe no good but also possibilitatem non peccandi so that hee cannot but sinne though hee sinne most freely For this is the freedome of a man not regenerate quâ potest peccare non potest non peccare 〈◊〉 dam nabiliur saith the Master of the sentences whereby hee is able to sinne and can doe no other but sinne and that damnably § XXI And further to those testimonies which affirme that men may fulfill the commandements if they will I answeare that nothing can be inferred from thence uâ—…lesse it be proved that men at all times are willing to fulfill them For if they be not willing they are not able and much lesse doe they actually performe them Thus therefore they must argue To them that are allwaies willing to keepe the commandements the Law is not impossible But all men are alwaies willing to keepe the Commandements Therefore to no man is the Law impossible The proposition is not generally true in respect of the regenerate themselves unto whom to will is oftentimes present when how to performe that which is good they find not Râ—…m 7. 18. For the good that they would they doe not and the evill which they would not that they doe v. 19. But the assumption is manifestly false and the contrary is generally true No man is allwaies willing c. And therefore from those Testimonyes wherein the condition of the will is interposed nothing can be concluded
to the glory of God to the good of our selves or of our brethren wee shall doe more than is commanded in respect of the particular thing it selfe which is simply neither commanded nor forbidden but not more in respect of the generall lawes of piety and charity which as they command us to love God with all our soules and our neighbour as our selves and forbid the contrary vices so they command all the meanes and helpes which may bee used for the pâ—…formance of these duties of piety and charity and forbid both all impediments of the dueties commanded and also all provocations to the evils forbidden Now in these things which are neither simply commanded nor forbidden counsels have place either for the using or refusing of them as shall bee most for Gods glory the benefit of our brethren and our owne spirituall good which counsels as it is a vertue to obey so to disobey them is a sinne and consequently the observer of them doth no more than hee ought to doe And therefore the Papists whiles they enjoyne the observation of the counsels onely to them who would seeme to live in a state of perfection they teach all others to sinne by disobeying them as not being tyed to the observation of them As for example not to sweare in ordinary communication not to revenge nor to resist evill to blesse them that curse us to pray for them that persecute us and many such like among which they reckon the eigth beatitudes Matth. 5. 3. c. In which a good part of the power of Religion consisteth So that to sweare ordinarily in common talke to seeke private revenge and such like are no sinnes with the Papists § III. But let us come to his proofes The first whereof is Mat. 19. 21. If thou wilt bee perfect Goe and sell all that thou hast c. upon which place they ground their counsell of voluntary poverty But it is evident by that which before I have said that this was not a precept or counsell given to all that would aspire towards perfection which is the duety and property of all true Christians but a precept of triall directed in speciall to that rich Iustitiary to discover unto him his owne imperfectionâ—… Or if it had been but a counsell according to the popish coâ—…ruction given to one that had already fulfilled all the Commaâ—…ements which no man can bee said to have fulfilled untill he â—…ave fulfilled his course then had it been no sinne for him not to obey this counsell nor any hinderance to his salvation For having fulfilled all the Commandements as the Papists conceive of him he might enter into life though he did not this which here hee is advised unto But he sinned in disobeying this precept of triall which if he had obeyed hee had done no more than in duety he was bound to doe having received a speciall Commandement to that purpose Neither had hee fulfilled those Commandements which hee saith hee had kept from his youth otherwise than according to the interpretation of the Scribes and Pharisees and consequently according to their righteousnesse which whosoever doth not exceed shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven and much lesse had he fulfilled all the Commandements of God For by disobeying this Commandement of Christ he plainely bewrayed himselfe to be a transgressour of the first and last Commandements yea that he did not truely affect and prize his owne salvation but being a meere worldling preferred the love of his pelfe to the love of God and desired rather to enjoy his worldly wealth for a short time than to obtaine and for ever to enjoy the heavenly treasures which Christ promised him if hee would follow Him And for this his sinne in disobeying Christ his entrance into heaven was hindered Insomuch that of him and all such as he was our Saviour giveth this censure that it is easier for a Camell to goe through the eye of a needle than for a rich man that setteth his heart upon riches as this man did to enter into the kingdome of God § IV. As for their counsell and vow of voluntary poverty though I will not insist thereupon it being another controversie yet thus much briefly will I say First that it hath no ground in the Scriptures and therefore being obtruded as a matter of Religion it is meere will-worship which is neither acceptable to God nor availeable to themselves Secondly as it is practised among the Papists it is nothing worth being done neither out of the love of God nor of their neighbour but out of a Pharisaicall conceit by their works of supererogation to make God their debtour For as the Apostle saith If I should bestow all my goods to â—…eed the poore and have not charity it would profit me nothing 1 Cor. 13. 3. Thirdly it is repugnant to the Scriptures and namely to the eigth the fifth and second Commandement In the eigth Commandement as I could shew there is required a moderate desire of temporall blessings avoiding the contrary extremes of coveâ—…ing too much or of affecting voluntary poverty And accordingly wee are to frame our prayers and our practice Our prayer as our Saviour hath taught us to begge of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that portion of temporall blessings which God in his wisedome doth know to bee expedient for us that is as Agur prayeth Prov. 30 8. Give mee neither poverty or beggary as the Latine rendreth it nor riches feed mee with food convenient for me Where Lechem châ—…qqi is the very same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our practice not to live idlely upon the sweat of other mens browes as Friars mendicants and other lusty beggars doe but every mans duety is to worke with his hands the thing that is good that is to earne his living by the lawfull workes of his lawfull calling not onely that hee may eate his owne bread which our Saviour teacheth us to begge of God and the Apostle to labour for that we may eat our owne bread 2 Thes. 3. 12. And the Psalmist promiseth as a blessing to him that feareth God Psal. 128. 2. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine owne hands but also that hee may have to give to others Ephes. 4. 28. Therefore the Apostle Act. 20. 34 35. exhorteth the faithfull by labouring in their lawfull callings to support the impotent and to remember the words of our Lord Iesus for though the Papists esteeme them to live in a state of perfection who live in voluntary beggary yet our Saviour was wont to say it is a more blessed thing to give than to receive And therefore a more blessed estate it is to be able to give than to live upon the almes of others The fifth Commandement teacheth us to honour our private and our publike parents in the Church and common wealth and the common mother of us all that is our Country all which we are to honour with
the servants of sinne in whom sin reigneth yet they are penitent and beleeving sinners in whom sinne remainteh who often sinne through humane frailty There is no man that sinneth not saith Salomon yea there is not a righteous man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not in many things we saith Iames the just doe offend all If we say that wee have not sinned or that wee have no sinne saith the most holy Apostle Saint Iohn wee deceive our selves we make him a lyer and there is no truth in us And therefore desperate againe is Bellarmines assertion that whosoever is justified or regenerated sinneth not that is never sinneth and on the other side whosoever sinneth is not a man regenerate nor justified which is to exclude all men from Iustification and consequently from Salvation § XVI And thus have I answered Bellarmines arguments concerning the possibility of the Law Now it may be expected that I should propound and mainetaine ours But this taske I have already performed in handling the third question of this controversie concerning the matter of our justification where among many other arguments proving that we are not justified by any righteousnes inherent in us or performed by us but onely by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him we used this for one By what righteousnesse we are justified the Law is satisfied By Christs righteousnesse alone the Law is satisfied and not by that which is inherent in us or performed by us And this assumption wee prove because wee are not able to sati fie the Law neither in respect of the Commandement it being by reason of the flesh impossible unto us nor in respect of the penalty which cannot be satisfied by us but with endlesse torment So that as I said before all this discourse of the possibilitie of the Law is nothing but a defence against a piece of one of our arguments Now I should follow him to the second point which hee propounded to prove that the workes of the righteous are simply and absolutely just and after their manner perfect Which may also seeme to be an answere to another piece of our argument For that righteousnesse by which wee are justified is perfect such onely is the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him such is not that which is inherent in us as the habituall or performed by us as the actuall Bellarmine therefore in opposition to that breach concerning perfect actuall righteousnesse propounded the proofe of this point But that our best righteousnesse is unperfect and stained with the flesh I have fully proved before and have answered all the arguments which Bellarmine produceth here in my fourth Booke whereunto I referre the reader Here onely I signifie againe that Bellarmine falleth very short in his proofes for where he should prove that the workes of the faithfull are simply and absolutely just and perfect as hee propounded the question hee now seemeth to prove this that the good workes of the righteous are truely good which we deny not § XVII Yes but you Protestants will they say doe teach that the best workes of the faithfull are sinnes c. Ans. We doe not say that their good workes as namely their prayer or their almes c. are sinnes but that in them they being otherwise good there are some imperfections and staines which are sinnes in respect whereof the faithfull man in doing that which is good sinneth according to that Eccl. 7. 20. We doe confesse that the duties which the faithfull performe are good workes and so called in the Scriptures though not purely and perfectly good but having their imperfections and being stained with the flesh Even as we call a man regenerated a just or a good man though he be not perfectly just being partly flesh and partly spirit Thus a vessell wherein there is wax mixed with hony before it be clarified is truly called a vessell of hony though not sinceri mellis of pure or sincere honey A cup of wine wherein is a mixture of some water with wine is truely called a cup of wine though not vini meraci of pure wine In like manner a wedge of gold wherein there is some drosse is truely called a wedge of gold though not of pure gold An heape of corne in the floore wherein there is perhaps as much chaffe as wheat is truly called an heape of wheat A field wherein are tares and other weeds as well as corne is notwithstanding called a corne field the denomination being taken from the better part Verily whiles we live in this world we are as gold wherein there is much drosse and never are fully refined untill wee are to bee translated into the celestiall house of God Whiles we are in the Church militant as it were in Gods floore we are mingled with much chaffe and are never perfectly cleansed from the chaffe of our corruptions untill we are to be translated into the Lords Granaries And such as wee are such also are our actions such as the tree is such is the fruit But if hee will prove that men are justified by their workes hee must prove not onely that they are truely good but also purely and perfectly good and not onely that some of their workes are truely and purely good but that all their workes are truely and perfectly and not that onely but also perpetually good For if any of his workes bee sinnes he cannot be justified by his workes But this can never be proved Neither doth hee goe about to prove that all the actions of justified men are good but some onely and these not purely and perfectly but truely good To which purpose he spendeth three whole Chapters which I have fully answered in my fourth Booke CHAP. VIII Whether good Workes doe justifie Bellarmines proofe but especially that Testimony of Saint Iames Chapter 2. fully discussed and clared § I. AFter so many wandrings Bellarmine at length commeth to make good his fifth Argument which he propounded to prove that faith alone doth not justifie because good workes doe also justifie though here as I have noted this Argument is brought in to prove the truth of actuall righteousnesse The Title of this Chapter is that good workes are not onely just but that also they doe justifie In stead whereof he presently propoundeth this assertion to be proved that by good workes a just man is more justified and made more just But this is not the Question For we doe confesse that a man already justified before God by the practise of good works increaseth in righteousnesse inherent and is made more holy and just The thing which we deny is this that good workes doe not concurre with faith unto the act of iustification before God as any cause thereof Against this assertion he ought to have disputed if he would seeme to contradict us But he hath altered the question because he is not able to
thou hast all Although faith he a man may perhaps seeme to render more to his neighbour than hee oweth yet never any man reâ—…dreth to God all that hee oweth Aristotle said well that to God and ouâ—… Parents wee cannot render as they deserve of us especially to God For as Pereriâ—…s a learned Iesuire saith Besides the debâ—…s or duties of thankefâ—…lnesse which none can sufficiently render unto God those debts also which by Gods Commandements we are bound to discharge no man perfectly dischargeth Wee therefore being no way able to render what is due to God but on the contrary by our â—…innes making our â—…elves debtours to him owing unto him deserved punishment is it any lesse than antichristian insolencie or rather blasphâ—…my for â—…infull men to professe themselves aâ—…le to merit any good thing at the hands of God and to make him their debtour Neither can I â—…ufficiently wonder how men whose conscience if it be not cauterized doth tell them that they sinne daily against God and by sinne provoke his judgements can speake or thinke of meriting any thing injustice at the hand of God but punishment For as Augustine faith Si Deus velleâ—… prâ—… meritis agere non inveniret â—…isi quos damâ—…aret i. If God would deale according to merits he should finde none but whom he should condemne § X. If it be said that the Lord by promising any thing maketh himselfe a debtour for the performance of it I answer first with Augustine he is become a debtour not by receiving any thing of us but by promising what hee pleased and therefore no debtour to us For God is not debtour to any not so much as by covenant for hee covenanteth Non de debitâ—… sed de gratuiâ—… not for rendring a due debt but for freely bestowing his owne free gift nor according to debt but according to grace To whom â—…hen should he be a debtour by his promise I answer in the second place with Thomas that the Lord who is faithfull and just in performing his promises maketh himselfe a debtor not to us but to himselfe for the gracious performance of his free and undeserved reward which hee had freely and graciously promised Thirdly with Bonaventâ—…re he hath made himself a debtor not to men to whom he could owe nothing but to himselfe that he might bee faithfull in his promises For if God be a debtour to man then Debet dare ei vitam aeternam then hee ought to give him eternall life But Hoc verbum debet veneâ—…m hâ—…bet saith the Master of the sentences therefore saith hee Ratio debiti secundùm quod obligationem dicit propriè in Deo non cadiâ—… Some famous Writers saith Cassaâ—…der among whom is Duranduâ—… deny that God by his promise is bound to us Fourthly Gods fidelity and justice in giving the reward according to his promise that is to say freely doth not argue our merit but Gods trueth who â—…annot lie nor deny himselfe Fifthly that reward which is due onely ratione pacti is not deserved â—…x ratione operis and that which is rendred Non redditur ex debito operis sed ex promissione And therefore as it was freely promised so it is freely and undeservedly given § XI Secondly in the party that is to merit it is requisite that he should be his owne man aâ—…d not the other parties man of whom he would merit For if he be his â—…ond-servant all that hee can doe is duety not merit Nay as hee is not his owne man but his Lords so his workes are not his owne and for his owne advantage but for his Master Et quicquid suo labore acquirit saith Bellarmine Domino suo acquirit non sibi and whatsoever he getteth by his labour he getteth it for his Lord not for himselfe But wee are all the servâ—…nts of the Lord not onely by right of creation but also of redemption in regard whereof wee are not our owne men but his that bought us 1 Cor. 6. 19 20. And therefore a servant when hee hath done his duety deserveth not so much as thankes of his Lord Luke 17. 9 10. Even so when we have done all that is commanded which wee are never able to doe but our Saviour speaketh by way of supposition wee must confesse that wee are unprofitable servants we have done but what our duety was to doe and indeed not so much § XII Thirdly the thing by which a man should merit ought to bee thus qualified First that which meriteth quatenus meretur it must be our owne and from our selves and not his nor from him of whom wee would merit But all our good workes as they are good and 〈◊〉 as the Papists hold them and all those virtues and graces which we have with their uses are not our owne as from our selves but they are the free gifts and graces of God Moritò debetur merces to merit wages is due saith Bellarmine Debitum autem non oritur nisi ex â—…o quòd unus dat alteri quod suâ—…m eraâ—… Nam si rem non suam sed alienam daret nihil ei deberetuâ—… Now debt ariseâ—…h not but from this that one man giveth to another that which is his owne for if he should give any thing which is not his owne but the other mans nothing should be due unto him Origen Vix mihi suadeo ullum opus esse posse quod ex debito remunerationem Dei depâ—…scat cum etiam hoc ipsum quod agere aliquid possumus vel cogitare vel proloqui ipsius dono largitione faciamus I can hardly perswade my selfe that there can bee any workes which can require as debt a reward from God seeing also even this that wee can doe or thinke or speake any thing we doe it by his gift and bounty Dona Dei non merentur apud Deum Gods gifts doe not merit of God By them perhaps we may merit of others but not of him who gave them for it is against sense that the doer should by the gift received from the doner merit of him All the good that a man hath is from God and by consequent God cannot owe any thing to man Gods gifts are his merits of us not ours of him It is strange that by his gifts hee should bee obliged to give more As if by the receit or use of an hundred pounds we should merit a thousand Non talia sunt hominum merita saith Bernard ut propter â—…a vita â—…erna debeatur ex jure Nam merita omnia Dei dona sunt it a homo magis propter ipsa Dâ—…o debiâ—…or est quà m Deus homini Anastatius Scinaita for when we shall offer all the good things whatsoever we have he doth not owe to us a reward for all are his But no man receiving his owne things is a debtor to give a reward to them who offer unto him
the same Whereunto I will adde that of Durandus both that which wâ—…e are and that also which we have whether they be good acts or good habits or uses all is in us from the liberality of God freely giving and conserving And because by a free gift none is bound to give more but the receiver rather is more bound to the giver wherefore by the good habits good acts and uses given unto â—…s of God God is not obliged to us out of any debt of justice to give more as if he did not give he should be unjust but we rather are obliged to God And it is a rash or blasphemous thing to thinke or speake the contrary If it be said that by the good use of Gods gifts wee may deserve greater I answere that as the good gift it selfe so the good use of it is also the free gift of God which if God reward hee doth not reward our merits but crowne his owne gifts as Aâ—…gustine often speaketh § XIII Secondly that which meriteth is free not onely from the necessity of coaction which condition the Papists acknowledge but also of duety for Quod est debitum non est meritum that which is duâ—…ty is not merit In rendring that which is due wee may satisfie perhaps our debt but not merit reward This is a certaine trueth if the worke bee due the reward is not due ratione operis for the workes sake Quid meriti apud Deum poterimus obtrudere qui debemus omnia How can wee plead merit before God who owe him all things Of that which we doe owe we are not owners the money which is owed is Aes alienum nihil propriè nostrum est nisi quod pro arbitrio possumus facere vel omittere saith Bellarmine Nothing is properly our owne but that which we can upon free choise doe or omit All the good things which wee can doe are due from us to God Luk. 17. 10. So that if we should doe all that is commanded we were but unprofitable servants because we have but done that which was our duety to doe But indeed wee doe not nor cannot performe all that is due so farre are we from merit Againe there is no good thing which wee can doe but it is commanded of God and therefore due Not to doe it is a sinne to doe it is not merit but duety Saint Bernard doth demonstrate for many causes that all our good workes are due unto God saith Bellarminâ—… so that he may exact them all though he would give no reward O if thou didst know saith Bernard how many things and to how many thou doest owe thou shouldst see how they are nothing which thou doest and how not to bee reckoned among the least in comparison of thy debts All that thou art thou owest to him from whom thou hast all And after who then will grumble any more saying Wee labour too much wee fast too much wee watch too much when hee is not able to answere the thousand yea not the least part of his debts Object But it will be said Doth not he well that payeth his debt Answ. In not paying it hee should sinne but in paying hee satisfieth onely his debt he doth not merit a new reward § XIV Thirdly that worke which meriteth must bee pure and perfect and not stained with any corruptions and imperfections for otherwise it will not so much as satisfie our debt but rather make us obnoxious unto punishment every defect and imperfection being a sinne and much lesse will it merit at the hands of God eternall life But all our best obedience is unperfect and stained with the flesh as I have heretofore proved at large all our righteousnesses being as polluted cloutes Gregory saith Omne virtutis nostrae meritum esse vitium Object 1. Yea but the imperfection is taken away by the bloud of Christ. Answ. Where is remission of sinne there can bee no merit of condignity Object 2. Veniall sinnes may stand with perfect righteousnesse Answ. True in respect of imputed righteousnesse by which sinnes are made veniall but in regard of inherent righteousnesse it is absurd Fourthly that which meriteth is more than is due for Debitum non est meritum for debt is not merit but all that we can performe is lesse than that which is due § XV. The thing that we are to merit that is to say the reward first it must bee proportionable to the merit For justice standeth in equality But betweene the best works or sufferings of this life yea martyrdome it selfe and eternall life there is no proportion For the one is finite the other infinite as being the everlasting fruition of God the infinite and chiefe good Wherefore Bernard Quid sunt saith he omnia merita ad tantam gloriam What are all merits to so great glory And Augustin How great labor is that rest worthy of which hath no end If you will make a true comparison and judge truely Eternall rest is rightly bought with eternall labour for eternall rest eternall labor should have been undertaken Thou who art to receive eternall happinesse thou oughtest to beare eternall sufferings Though our labour and tribulations were for a thousand yeares weigh a thousand yeares with eternity Why doest thou weigh that which is infinite with a thing that is finite be it never so great Non valent vitae praesentis obsequia aeternae vitâ—… gaudiis comparari Tantum ubi gratiae divinae retributionis exuberat ut incomparabiliter ineffabiliter â—…mne meritum qâ—…vis bonâ—… ex Deo datae humanae voluntatis operationis excedat Secondly it should bee due upon just desert and not bee given of grace Rom. 4. 4. The day-peny given to the worke of one houre is from bounty Matth. 20. 15. But eternall life is given freely by Gods grace Rom. 6. 23. Of the wicked Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these are justly punished but of the godly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they are crowned according to grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For although they should performe ten thousand workes it is the munificence of grace that for such small and vile workes such an heaven and kingdome and so great an honour should be given them Thirdly the rule by which rewardis rendred to condigne merits is not meere grace but justice and that either commutativè which standeth in equality or distributivè which respecteth dignity the former observing an arithmeticall the other a geometricall proportion But neither is their equality betweene â—…he merit and the reward neither are the things which wee doe or suffer condigne or any way comparable to the glory that shall bee revealed But the reward of eternall life is given of meere grace in respect of us Rom. 6. 23. According to the good pleasure of God Luke 12. 32. Who crowneâ—…h us with mercies Psal. 103. 4. For by grace
quia debetur quia dignè retribuitur quia meritâ—… redditur Deinde ne justitiâ—… de humanose extolleret 〈◊〉 sicut humanum meritum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum non à contraâ—… retulit dicens â—…ipendium justitiae vita â—…terna haec ne praeter Mediatorem aliqua alia via quaereretur adjecit in Christo Iesu Domino nostro tanquam diceret Auditâ—… quod stipâ—…ndium peccaâ—…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 dâ—…bitum stipendium flagitare Quaprâ—…pter O homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam justitiae quidem stipendium est sed tibi gratia est cui gratia ipsa justitia Tibi enim tanquam dâ—…bita reddereâ—…ur si ex tetibi esset justitiâ—… cui debetâ—…r Nunc igitur de plenitudine ejus accepimus non sâ—…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 bâ—…na merita esse Dei munera quibus cum vita aeternae redditur Quid â—…isi gratia pro gratia redditur Vita bona nostra nihil aliud est quam Dei gratia sine dubiâ—… vita eteÅ•na quae bonae vitae reà ditur Dei gratia est Et ipsa enim gratis datur quia gratis data est illa câ—…i datur Sed illa cui datur tantummodâ—… gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quâ—…niam praemium ejus est grâ—…tia est prâ—…gratia tanquam merces pro justiâ—…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 thâ—…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 hâ—…c autem quâ—…d nos monitioni illius consentimus qui tamen dissentire pâ—…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 â—…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 mâ—…rs Donativum autem Dei vita aeterna in Christâ—… Iesu Domino nostro Origen Benè autem Metaphâ—…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 Nâ—…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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wages of your good deeds but the free gift of God shewing that they were not delivered of themselves nor received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a due debt nor retribution or remuneration of their labours but that all things came to them by grace Theodoret worthily he called death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Phoâ—…ius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 â—…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
bloud which he shed for us was the bloud of God Act. 20. 28. and therefore of infinite and all sufficient value and merit both to satisfie for our sinnes and to merit for us eternall life Whereas our obedience and our sufferings are the sufferings and obedience of sinnefull men And therefore if they will not still bee Antichristians they must acknowledge that to satisfâ—…e sor the punishment of hel and to merit heaven are priviledges and prerogatives peculiar to Christ our head whose sufferings and obedience by reason of the dignity of his person are of infinit valew and worth not to satisfie or merit for himselfe sor that needed not seeing the man Christ by reason of the hypostaticall union was in the dayes of his flesh as the Papists themselves teach both Viator and Comprehensor enjoying from the first instant of his conception the beatificall vision but for the world and for more worlds if there were more But here Bellarmine doth instance first that as the passion of Christ was much shorter than the paines of hell yet because of the dignity of the person which suffered was most worthy to be esteemed a ful satisfaction so though the passions of this time be short and that glory be eternall notwithstanding betweene these sufferings and that glory there is a proportion by reason of the dignity of charity whence they proceed And this seemeth to have beene the meaning of Bellarmines distinction that the Apostle denyeth the sufferings of this life to be equall to the future glory in respect of the substance of the worke and considered in â—…hemselves as they are humane as they are short and light they are no way equall to the future glory yet as they are as it were divine proceeding from the divine grace of charity they have an equall and as hee calleth it an absolute proportion Thus they make an idoll of charity as if it being not onely finite but also unperfect and but begunne were of sufficient worth and dignity to merit an infinite reward And yet the Apostle speaking of the sufferings of the faithfull who as it was said in the verses going before are the sonnes and heires of God endued with the Spirit yea of Martyrs who are endued with a great measure of charity denyeth them to be condigne to the glory which shall be revealed His second instance is by comparison taken from the delights of sin which are incomparably lesse than the torments of hell yet because of the contempt of God they are worthy to bee punished with those torments Reply Whatsoever the delights of sinne be the guilt of sinne is infinite and cannot be taken away but by an infinite satisfaction The third instance is of an unlike sâ—…militude of seed compared to the Tree as though the tree were merited by the seed betweene which though very unequall there is a proportion Reply Betweene all things that are finite there may be a proportion though not an equall proportion which must be between the merit and the reward betweene that which is finite and that which is infinite there is no proportion at all § XXI But letting passe all other proofes Bellarmine will needes make the Apostle contradict himselfe as if elsewhere he did teach that the sufferings of this present time are worthy or meritorious of eternall glory Because he saith 2 Cor. 4. 17. For that our tribulation which presently is momentany and light worketh above measure exceedingly an eternall weight of glory in us Worketh saith he non physicè sed moraliter id est non efficienter sed meritoriè not naturally but morally that is not efficiently but meritoriously et per hoc dignas esse passiones hujus temporis quibus gloria illajusto judicio tribuatur and consequently that the sufferings of this time are worthy that in just judgement that glory should be given unto them which is the direct contradiction of this place But this allegation I fully answered before it being his fifth testimony whereby he would prove good workes to be necessary to salvation by the necessity of efficiencie Here it shall be sufficient to shew that merit cannot hence be proved Yea but saith hee afflictions are said to worke this weight of glory which must not bee understood physically that is efficiently but morally that is meritoriously whereto I reply that a meritorious cause is an efficient cause and that which worketh meritoriously worketh efficiently though not contrariwise And therfore although from hence sufficiency were proved yet merit is not For I pray what is here said to worke Tribulation But though tribulation worke as it and all things else doe worke together for the good of Gods children Rom. 8. 28. yet doth tribulation merit Then is it a meritorious thing to be afflicted and punished For affliction is malum poenae the evill of punishment merited by sinne Doth affliction then worke salvation Surely no more then the afflicter who is the instrument of our affliction and seeketh our destruction Doth not the afflicter merit no more doth the affliction there may be some efficiency both in the afflicter and in the affliction but meanes there can be none in either The efficiency may be shewed thus Affliction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worketh patience not meritoriously but by another kind of efficiencie and that not of it selfe and in it owne nature which being evill moveth rather to impatience but by accident and occasionally the holy Ghost using it as a meanes to exercise our faith and to worke patience in us and therefore in this and such like places the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieâ—…h no more than occasioneth Patience worketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 probation viz. declarativè for bearing afflictions patiently a man is knowne to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iam. 1. 12. that is a sound and approved Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or probation worketh efficiently or produceth hope and in spe in hope though not in re we are saved This working therefore is not by way of merit But what manner of thing is that which is here said to worke and what manner of thing is that which is here said to bee wrought that which worketh is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the momentany lightnesse of our affliction the thing wrought is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is more emphaticall and hyperbolicall to signifie the infinitenes of that glory than I am able to expresse There being then no proportion betwixt the momentany lightnes of affliction and the more than hyperbolicall exceedingly exceeding weight of glory eternall how can thâ—…re be merit To that which hath beene said concerning this place Rom. 8. 18. three other considerations may be added the two former out of Hierome id est that a man could not suffer any thing worthy the eternall glory though it were such as this present life is The other is that all he can suffer is not more but a great deale lesse than by his sinne
Tim. 4. Heb. 6. I shall answere in their due place Unto this Testimony Bellarmine might have added another out of the same Sermon It is necessary first of all to beleeve that thou canst not have remission of sinnes but by the indulgence of God then that thou canst have no good worke unlesse he also give it lastly that by no good workes thou canst merit that is obtaine eternall life unlesse it also be freely given thee nisi gratis detur illa § VII The other three places are these First Totum hominis meritum est si totam spem suam ponat in eo qui totum hominem salvum facit Secondly Proinde meritum meum miseratio Domini Thirdly Fateor non sum dignus ego I confesse I am not worthy neither can I by mine owne merits obtaine the Kingdome of heaven But my Lord possessing it by a double right the inheritance of his Father and the merit of his passion contenting him selfe with the one hee giveth mee the other To these three together Bellarmine frameth two mis-shapen answeres First that Bernards meaning was that our merits are not of our selves but from Gods mercy and that hee would prove out of his 68. Sermon on the Canticles Merita habere cures habita data noveris And therefore say I his meaning was that our good workes doe not merit For being his free gifts they make us indebted to God as he teacheth and not him to us But indeed Bernard doth not speake of our workes or merits either as from us or as in us but of the mercy of God in pardoning our sinnes for the merit of his Sonne And therefore whiles God aboundeth with mercies in Christ he saith hee cannot want merits For mans justice is Gods indulgence and therefore blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne O solus verè beatus cuinon imputavit Dominus peecatum omnes enim peccaverunt sufficit mihi ad omnem justitiam solum habere propitium cui soli peccavi Omne quod mihi ipse non imputare decreverit sic est quasi non fuerit Nâ—…npeccare Dei justitia est hominis justitia indulgentia Dei His second answere is conjecturall that perhaps Bernard out of humility and perhaps not was ignorant of his merits and out of the uncertainty of his owne grace did not trust in his merits but in the mercie of God alone Reply He knew that he had no merits but Gods mercies in Christ because he was not ignorant that he had many sins which notwithstanding he was confident in the mercies of God and merits of Christ. Neither was he so uncertaine of such inherent righteousnesse in himselfe as whereby he might hope to be justified and saved as hee was certaine of the contrary As for his allegation out of the 68. serm in Cantic It is evident thâ—… Bernard by merits understandeth nothing but good workes and not merits properly so called as appeareth by that before alleaged ex serm 1. de annunciat and out of the same 68. serm in cantic Non est quod jam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona presertim cum andias apud Prophetam Non propter vos sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus which is no lesse than to deny merits and in one of the places by Bellarmine cited Meum proinde meritum miseratio Domini Non planè sum meriti inops quandiu ille miserationum non fuerit quòd si misericordiae Dei multae multâ—…s nihilominusâ—… ego in meritis sum But that famous Testimony of his I may not omit though I have mentioned it before in the end of his booke Degratia l. arbitr where he distinguishing the gifts of God into merita and praemia and therefore speaking of merits as proceeding from grace hee saith those things which wee call our merits that is to say good workes spei quaedam sunt seminaria charitatis incentiva occulta praedestinationis indicia suturae faelicitatis prâ—…sagia viâ—… regni non causâ—… regnandi they are certaine seminaries of hope motives of Charity tokens of secret predistination presages of future felicity the way of the kingdome not the cause of reigning and therefore no meritorious cause of salvation § VIII And these were all the Testimonies which Bellarmine taketh notice of as alleaged by us out of the Fathers But I have not so done with them For as in the question of justification by faith alone I produced a multitude of Testimonies to proveâ—… the consent of the ancient Church with us So in this place that good workes are not truely meritorious of eternall life I doe prove not onely by all those Testimonies for if we be not justified by them wee are not saved for them but also by a new supply of Testimonies which by divers learned men have been collected but chiefly by our most learned Primate whereof I will recite so many as his adversary hath meddled with that I may briefly and as it were in transcursu vindicate them from his cavils Of these the first is Origen I can hardly perswade my selfe that there can be any worke which may of duty or debt require the remuneration of God Seeing even that that we are able to doe to thinke or to speake wee doe it by his gift and bounty What debt then shall there be of his whose grace hath gone before from whence I reason thus To no gifts of his God is a debtour or oweth reward as due All our good workes are his gifts therefore to none of our good workes is God a debtour or oweth reward as due Wherof the reason being because they are the gifts of God proceeding from his grace which precedeth our good workes hee is proved to bee ridiculum caput who answereth that Origen speaketh of such workes as are done by the sole power of mans free will without grace § IX Hilarie writing upon the parable of the Workemen Matth. 20. having said that the Gentiles who upon the preaching of the Gospell were to bee saved by the justification of faith were meant by those who being called at the eleventh houre were the first that in the evening received the gift of the wages appointed for the labour of the whole day he addeth these words Merces quidem ex dono nulla est quia debetur ex opere sed gratuitam Deus omnibus ex fidei justificatione donavit Wages indeed by gift there is none because by the worke it is due but to all by the justification of faith God hath given the same free Whence I argue No wages is of free gift Why because it is due to the worke Eternall life is of free gift which God giveth to all that beleeve by the justification of faith Therefore eternall life is not wages Mat. Yea but Hilarie elsewhere saith that the kingdome of God is the wages of such as live well Answ. It is merces indeed non
reward of their labours who are Gods workemen vers 9. labouring for him and not for themselves is the blessing of increase which God giveth thereunto Even as the harvest is the reward of the earing not to be asscribed to the merit of earing but to the blessing of God And so it is here plainely said though the Planter and the Waterer shall have their owne rewards yet their reward is not to bee asscribed to the merit of their labour but to the blessing of God I have planted saith Paul and Apollâ—… hath watered but God gave the increase So then neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth but God that giveth the increase Or if the place should generally be understood oâ—… all workes both good and bad the meaning would be that the reward would be answerable either good or bad That of the Psalmist Psal. 62. 12. To thee Lord mercie for thou rendrest to every man according to his worke is not generally to be understood of the workes of all men both good and bad for the bad works of the wicked hee doth not reward in mercie but judgement without mercie shall bee executed upon them but of the good workes of the godly onely which though they bee good and acceptable to God in Christ yet he rewardeth them not according to merit but according to his mercie The place Apâ—…c 22. 12. may be an exposition of the rest For whereas in the rest it is said that God will judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their dâ—…eds here Christ saith he will render to every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his worke shall be viz. good or bad But here the Papists would seeme to bring a reason à pari that as the wicked are damned prâ—…pter peccata for their evill workes so the godly are saved propter opera bona for their good workes And as â—…vill workes merit hell so good workes pari ratione merit heaven Answ. it is impar ratio there is no equality in the comparison For first the Scripture plainely teacheth that by and for their evill works men are condemned and as plainely denieth that by or for good workes men are saved Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. Secondly any one sinne meriteth death because it is a breach of the Law yea of the whole law Iam. 2. 10. but not any one good worke can merit heaven because it is not the fulfilling of the whole law for there must be a concurrence of all duties In so much that if a man should performe all the Commandements and faile in one the breach of that one maketh him guilty of all Thirdly evill workes are purely and perfectly evill and therefore absolutely deserve death but the good workes are not purely and perfectly good as I have heretofore prooved therefore death is the due stipend of sinne but eternall life is the free gift of God Fourthly sinne is absolutely meritorious of damnation but so is not our obedience of Salvation For though we could performe all the commandements by a totall perpetuall and perfect obedience yet wee must acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants and much lesse could we merit thereby because we have done but our duety and where is no more but duety there can bee no merit Debitum non est meritum § XIIII His third argument is taken from those places which do so testifie eternall life to be rendred to good workes that they place the very reason why eternall life is given in good workes The places bee these Matth. 25. 34 35. Come ye blessed of my Father possesse the kingdome prepared fâ—…r you from the beginning of the world For I was hungry and you gave mee meat c. and in the same chapter vers 21. because thou hast beene faithfull in few things c. Apoc. 7. 14. These are they who came out of great tribulation c. therefore they are before the Throne of God In which places the particles enim quia ideo for because therfore are all causall His reason standeth thus To what things the causall particles are applied they are causes of that to which they have relation as namely of Salvation To workes of charity the causall particles are applied Therefore workes of charity are causes of Salvation To the proposition I answere that causall particles doe not alwaies nor for the most part signifie causes so properly called For that is a grosse erâ—…our of the Papists as I noted before The word cause sometimes is used properly to signifie that argument which hath relation onely to its effect by virtue whereof the effect hath its being either as from the efficient or as of the matter or as by the forme or as for the end Sometimes it is used generally to signifie any argument or reason whatsoever which is not the cause of the thing or of the being of that whereof it is said to bee a cause but of the consequence or conclusion and thus the rendring of any reason is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rendring of the cause though perhaps it bee from the effect or any other argument And forasmuch as persons are discerned and knowne by their effects for as our Saviour saith By their fruits you shall know them therefore it is usuall in the Scriptures from the effect to argue and declare the cause As thus God is mercifull for hee rewardeth the godly according to their workes God is just for hee rewardeth the wicked according to their sinnes This man is elect because he truely beleeveth and repenteth this man truely beleeveth because hee is fruitfull of good workes This is a good tree for it bringeth forth good fruite To the woman that was a sinner much was forgiven for shee loved much In those and infinite more examples the cause or reason which is rendred is from the effect Therefore the proposition is false § XV. Now let us consider the places of Scriptnre which hee alleageth and first Matth. 25. 35. for when I was hungry c. This reason which is alleaged is not from the cause as if good workes were the meritorious cause of our inheriting the kingdome of heaven but from the effect to prove the cause which is expressed Verse 34. as I have shewed before For for what cause are men to be saved First because they are blessed of the Father that is justified and therefore entituled to this kingdome Secondly because they are elected and therefore this kingdome was prepared for them from the beginning Thirdly because they arâ—… the heires of God for whom our Saviour purchased this inheritance noted in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ—…rit But how shall it appeare who they are that are blessed and justified for whom this kingdome is prepared for whom this inheritance is purchased By the fruits of justification election redemption and namely by the workes of mercy and chariâ—…y towards the poore members of Christ according to which as the evidence our Saviour
so called gratia non â—…b aliud nisi quia gratis datur as I have shewed before As for the other three Popish Councels viz. Lateranense Florentinum Tridentinum they are not to bee accepted as witnesses but to be excepted against as parties § V. Wee have heard Bellarmines testimonies both of Scriptures and Fathers now wee should heare his reason but that wee have heard and confuted it before In the last place saith hee there may bee added one evident reason from those things which were prooved in the former booke For it hath beene demonstrated that the good workes of the just are truely just that they satisfie the Law of God that they justifie a man whereupon it followeth that they are truely meritorious Whereunto I retâ—…rne this answere First to the Antecedent that it hath beene sufficiently demonstrated that the worke of just or justified men though they may bee said to bee truely good yet they are not purâ—…ly good that they doe not satisfie the Law of God that they doe not justifie a man before God so farre are they from being truely meritorious Secondly to the consequence that although they were truely good although by them men did satisfie the law of God by doing all that is commanded yet so long as men do but their duety they must confesse themselves to bee but unprofitable servants neither doe they merit any thing at the hands of God For Debitum non est meritum that which is debt is not merit And if they could which they cannot by their obedience satisfie the commandement for the time to come yet how shall they satisfie the penalty for their sinnes past wherefore a servant is well apaied as Theophylact said if he escape the whippe though hee cannot deserve so much as thankes which is but a verball reward But hee prooveth the consequence because the chiefe reason why wee poore heretikes deny merits is because wee thiâ—…ke that no worke in this life is truely just or doth satisfie the law but that all our workes are mortall sinnes in their owne nature c. Answ. Though wee were heretickes which hee with all his complices shall never bee able to prove yet would it not become him to belie us For neither doe wee denie the good workes of the faithfull to bee truely just neither doe wee say that they are sinnes and much lesse mortall sinnes neither is that the chiefe reason why wee deny them to bee meritorious as you may perceive by the reasons before alleaged neither if that reason doe as it doth prove them not to bee meritorious doth it follow that therefore the contrary doth prove them to bee meritorious at the hands of God For though they were not onely truely but also purely good though they were not sinfull nor stayned with the flesh as all are yet so long as they are our duties so long as they are Gods free gifts so long as there is no proportion betweene them and the reward so long as they are accompanied with manifold sinnes and infirmities and so long as all the reasons before alleaged against merits stand in force it followeth necessarily that we neither doe or can by all the workes wee can performe merit any good thing and much lesse the eternall reward at the hands of God CHAP. VII Other Questions concerning merits discussed as of trust in merits and of an eye to the reward § I. ANd yet here is not an end For still ac ording to his Methode such as it is hee hath certaine quâ—…stions to discusse In mine opinion hee being to dispute of merits if hee had meant to deale plainely and sincerely should first have shewed what merit is and what is required to a meritorious worke Secondly what sorts of merits there are and what thereby is merited Thirdly whether the good workes of the faithfull bee meritorious or not and if they be how farre forth and then in the last place the two questions might have beene propounded â—…s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that seeing as hee teacheth good workes doe merit reward whether it bee lawfull to doe a good worke having an eye to the reward Secondly whether men may trust in their merits But he first disputeth against us that the good workes of the faithfull bee truely meritorious of eternall life which hitherto hee hath endevoured to prove in his first sixt chapters In the second place hee disputeth the tâ—…o accessary questions the one whether and how farre forth men may trust in their merits cap. 7. the other whether it bee lawfull in doing good workes to have an eye to the eternall reward cap. 8 9. Then hee commeth to shew against some learned men of their owne side among whom there is great dissention in this question of merit First what is required to make a worke meritorious and sheweth that to a merit seven conditions are required cap. 10 11 12 13 14 15. Secondly how farre forth good workes are either meritorious or rewarded Meritorious whether ex condignâ—… cap. 16. and if so whether in respect of the promise onely or also in regard of the worke it selfe cap. 17 18. And as touching the reward whether GOD doth reward good workes supra condignum cap. 19. In the last place what those things are that are merited ex condigno viz. eternall life c. 20. and the increase of justice but not the grace of justification cap. 21. nor reparation after a fall nor perseverance to the end which three are merited ex congruo as he saith cap. 22. § II. His discourse concerning trust and affiance whether it be to bee reposed in merits and how farre forth serveth to no other purpose but to answere one of our arguments and therefore I handled this question so farre as was needfull in our eleventh argument Neither shall it now bee needfull to insist thereupon first because having as I hope sufficiently prooved that wee have no merits it is needlesse to prove that wee are not to trust in them Secondly because Bellarmine confesseth that by reason of the uncertainety of oâ—…r owne righteousnesse and danger of vaine-glory for how can a man trust in his owne merits when he knoweth not whether hee hath any or not which is the condition of all Papists or how is it possible that a man who is guilty to himselfe of sinne should without pharisaicall pride trust to bee saved in his owne merits and therefore to say it is lawfull to trust in our merits modo superbiâ—… caveatur is as if I should say it is lawfull to worship idols with divine worship modò idâ—…lolatria caveatur it is most safe to repose our whole affiance in the mercie and bounty of God whereunto hee might have added the merits of Christ by trusting in which wee are taught also to rerepose affiance not onely in the Mercie but also in the justice of God And if our whole affiance be to be reposed in Gods goodnesse then no part thereof is
then our merits need not or if they need then Christ his merit is not sufficient for us We are therefore in the performance of good workes to have an â—…ye to the eternall reward they being the way wherein we are to walke towards it and the meanes whereby we may gather assurance to our selves that wee shall obtaine it But we are noâ—… to doe good workes to that end that by them we may merit eternall life which is purchased by the alone merit of Christ. CAP. VIII Questions which Bellarmine disputeth against other Papists concerning merits And first concerning the conditions of Merit § I. HItherto Bellarmine hath opposed the true Catholikes whom he calleth heretickes Now because merit as the Papists conceive of it is a fiction which hath no ground either in the Canonicall Scriptures or in the writings of the ancient Fathers it is not to be marvelled if in this question which is de non Ente they be miserably divided among themselves Bellarmine therfore in the Chaptâ—…rs following maintaineth that doctrine which he hath delivered against us as the received doctrine of their Church against the private opinions of some learned men among themselves who in some particulars either agree with us or at least disagree from the common tenes of the Papists And first against Holkot and a Doctor of Lovaine whose private opinions were censured and condemned by Pius the fifth and Guilielmus Alâ—…isiodorensis concerning the conditions required to a meritorious worke Which as Bellarmine saith are seven The first condition is that the worke be good For if it bee bad it meriteth nothing but punishment I suppose hee meaneth materially good as being a thing commanded or good ex genere suo in respect of his kinde as prayer almes c. For to a worke formally good he requireth all the conditions following Secondly that it be done in obedience to God and out of a desire to please him for so much the phrase in obsequium Dei seemeth to import otherwise we cannot expect a reward from him This as it is evident in the duties which immediately we performe unto God so it is true in those which we performe immediately to man and mediately to God whom we are to serve not onely in holines but in righteousnes also Thirdly the good works whereunto reward is promised are the works of men living in this world who are called viatores to whom alone as the commandeâ—…nts are directed so the promises are made For of those who are in heaven the question cannot bee understood seeing they are comprehensores who have already obtayned the reward These three are as he saith agreed upon the other foure are questioned § II. The fourth condition therefore is that it bee liberum free disputed against Robert Holkot This is indeed a proper condition if by liberum be meant indebitum For if it be debitum it is not meritâ—…m Luk. 17. 10. But by liberum Bellarmine understandeth that which is willingly performed meaning no more but that to merit is required free-will without which condition the worke indeed cannot bee so much as morally good for such proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from election and muchlesse meritorious But though without this condition a worke cannot merit yet neither it nor all the rest which he nameth are sufficient to make a worke truely meritorious of eternall life Howbeit Bellarmine should have done well to expresse himselfe whether hee speake of liberum à coactione or ab obligatione or necessitate officii and if the former whether he speake of arbitrium liberum or liberatum whether free by nature or freed by grace For if the good worke proceed from Gods grace it cannot merit at Gods hand as I have shewed before And it is the opinion of some Papists as it was of the Pelagians that the virtue of meriting which they conceive to bee in their workes proceedeth from the power of their owne free-will as I have shewed before Neither needed Bellarmine to have heaped up Testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers to prove that free-will is required to good workes unlesse hee dispute of free-will by nature For that all good workes doe proceed from the will free by grace and are voluntarily performed by the faithfull there is no doubt to be made § III. The fifth condition that he who must be thought to merit be in the state of grace and the childe of God by regeneration and adoption which he proveth against the aforesaid Doctor of Lovaine This condition is also necessarily required to every good worke not onely meritorious of heaven for how should he attaine to the inheritance of heaven who is not the sonne and heire of God but also good and acceptable unto God For without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. and without it whatsoever is done is sinne Rom. 14. 23. And it is certaine that untill the person be accepted his actions cannot bee acceptable Neither whiles the treâ—… is bad can the fruit be good Neither can a man doe any thing that is good and acceptable to God who is not in Christ as a branch cannot be fruitfull that is not in the vine Neither is any man in Christ but he that is endued with a true faith whereby he abideth in Christ and Christ in him And this we hold both against the Papists that no works of men not regenerate are good and with the Papists against the Pelagians that they are not meritorious which point good leave hath he had at large to dispute against the Pelagians and so I proceed to the sixth § IV. The sixt condition proved against the said Doctor of Lovaine that to the merit of eternall life is required the free and and gracious promise of God which condition I acknowledge to be required unto every rewardable worke For first seeing God is our absolute Lord to whom wee owe our selves and all that we have or can doe who may exact from us what he pleaseth without any reward we could not expect any remuneration from him unlesse it had pleased him for our encouragement unto well doing to promise a reward unto us But we must remember that his promise is not de debito but de gratuito not of rendring a debt but of giving a free reward for he needed not to make a promise for doing those things which he commandeth which without a promise we are bound to doe and therefore in that he promiseth a reward it is of his free grace and when according to his promise hee giveth the reward it is wholly of his grace and not of our merit Secondly when there is no proportion of equality betweene the worke and the reward but the reward incomparably exceedeth the worke it is evident that such a reward promised to such a worke can no way be due to the worke as merited thereby but is wholly to be ascribed to the bounty of the
Lord who freelygiveth what he had freely promised Thirdly when a superaboundant reward is promised to a small worke and the party to whom it is promised is no way able either to doe or so much as to will the performance of it but receiveth wholly his will and ability to performe it from his Lord the thing promised cannot be ascribed to his merit but to the gracious bounty of his Lord. § V. The seventh and last condition is that a meritorious work must proceed from charity which we acknowledg to be required in every good worke But in the proofe hereof he falleth into a nice dispute proving against Guihielmus 〈◊〉 that the vertue of meriting is to be ascribed more principally to Charity than to faith And although this bee but an idle dispute seeing neither faith nor charity doth truely and properly merit yet I durst be bold to affirme that if to either merit were to be ascribed that it were rather to bee attributed to faith For by faith the merits of Christ are applyed unto us and not by charity By faith we are entitled to Gods Kingdome by 〈◊〉 wee are not By faith wee obtaine the inheritance which by charity we doe not By faith we are saved and not by charity Faith is the condition of the covenant of grace upon which and no other grace salvaâ—…ion is promised Those that truly love are also saved it being the proper cognizance and as Basiâ—… speaketh the character of the faithfull and none are saved without it but yet they are not saved by it nor for it but onely by the merits of Christ which are apprehended by faith alone Salvation which is purchased by the merits of Christ is promised to faith as that whereby we are made partakers of Christs merits and are therefore said to be justified and saved by faith alone but charity and the fruits thereof are the evidence according to which God will save us Christ is the foundation of our happinesse yea he is eternall life Faith is the onely instrument wherby wee are made partakers of Christ all other graces are but notes and signes of our union which we have with Christ and of happinesse by him By faith we have this inheritance but it is had among those that are sanctified When it is said happy is shee that beleeved there the cause of happinesse is noted but when it is said happy is he that loved orfeared not the cause of happinesse is signified but a note or signe of it Both faith and charity must concurre to every good act for as a worke without charity is not good so without faith it is sin But if you compare the graces together it is certaine that charity proceedeth from faith 1 Tim. 1. 5. and according to the measure of our faith such is the measure of our love for faith is the Mother-grace from which charity and all other graces as from the root and fountaine doe spring and flow It may seeme indeed that sanctification and inherent righteousnesse doth more principally consist in love because charity is the fulfilling of the Law yet sanctification it selfe doth flow from faith which purifieth the heart and worketh by love But as for the grace of justification whereunto merit if wee had any ought to bee referred for justification is the entitling of us to the kingdome of heaven neither charity nor any other grace in us doth concurre unto it but faith is all in all I will not follow him in his idle dispute I confesse the point that to every rewardable or as he calleth it meritorious worke charity is required § VI. Now let us recapitulate his seven conditions And because he shall not finde me refractary I doe confesse that all and every of these conditions are required to every rewardable worke For first it must be good Secondly it must be done in obeysance to God Thirdly it must be done by men in this world Fourthly it must bee voluntary and not forced Fifthly it must bee performed by a man who is in the state of grace Sixthly the expectation of the reward is to bee grounded on Gods promise And lastly it must proceed from charity But now say I that not any one of these conditions nor all of them put together can make a worke meritorious of eternall life before God They are common notes and markes of all good workes whatsoever but the proper notes of merits are such as I set downe in the beginning of this discourse concerning merits For workes are not therefore meritorious because they are materially good nor because they are in obeysance to God for that is our duty and debt which wee owe to God nor for that they are performed by such as are viatores and pilgrims in this world nor because they are wrought by men in state of grace nor because the expectation of the reward is grounded on Gods promise which is of a free reward and not of wages merited by us nor lastly because they proceed from charity For our charity by reason of the imperfection thereof cannot stand in judgement to satisfie the justice of God and much lesse to merit And whatsoever or how great soever it is it is not only a duety which we owe to God but the onely debt which wee owe or ought to owe to our brethren and that for Gods sake to omit that we receive it as a free gift from God and therefore by it we cannot merit of him CHAP. IX Bellarmines dispute that good workes are meritorious ex condigno not onely ratione pacti but also ratione operis examined § I. IN the fourth place Bellarmine discourfeth how farre forth good workes are either meritorious or are rewarded Meritorious whether ex condigno and if so whether ratione pacti solum or ratione operis also That good workes are meritorious ex condigno which is the matter that hitherto hee hath proved hee now maintaineth against Durandus affirming that his Assertion as it is refuted by the common consent of all almost Divines so also by all the arguments which formerly hee hath used against us to prove that the workes of the godly are truely and properly meritorious which I desire the Reader to take notice of because some draw-backs who notwithstanding would seeme stiffe defenders of merits doe beare the simple in hand that it is but a Schoole-point to say that workes are meritorious either ex condigno or ex congruo When as in very trueth it is the received Doctrine of that Church that the good workes of the godly are truely and properly meritorious of everlasting life Now it is evident that meritum ex congruo is not truely and properly meritorious § II. In the next place Bellarmiâ—…e now taking it for granted that good workes are meritorious ex condigno hee disputeth whether they bee so ratione pacti tantum or ratione operis tantum or ratione utriusque whereunto I answere that
by ours Rom. 1. 17. The righteousnesse of Christ is Gods righteousnesse Iâ—…r 23 6. 2 Pet. 1. 1. a Not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Rom. 1. 17. 3. 21. 10. 3. 2 Cor. 5 21. 2 â—…et 1. 1. c Rom. 5. 19. The Fathers by the righâ—…eousnesse of God undâ—…rstand Christ and his righteousnesse d 2 Cor. 5. 21. e Salmero B. Iustinian f De Spiritu litera cap. 9. g Ibid. cap. 11. The exposition of 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 of Papistâ—… h in Rom. 1. 17. i 〈◊〉 Rom. 1. Dispuâ—… 7. k Quod de Deo tum quia est Deo 〈◊〉 tuÌ„ quia â—…st apud divinum tribunal vera â—…stitia ad diffâ—…rentiam 〈◊〉 nostrarum quia apud divinum tribunâ—…l sâ—…nt velut pannus menstruaâ—…ae c. The righteousnesse inherent is ours l Matth. 6. 11. m Jam. 1. 17. n Rom. 10. 3. o De 〈◊〉 l. â—… c. 8 The severall parts of righteousnesse inherent â—…re called ours p in Psal. 4. q Gal. 1. 8. Our second argument By Christs righteousnesse we stand righteous before God and not by righteousnesse inherent r Rom. 4. 5. 5. 8. 10. s 2 Cor. 5. 21. Rom. 5. 19. t Rom. 10. 4. u Psal. 143. 2. * Psal. 130. 3. 4. x August in Psal. 1 29. y Contr. Crescon lib. 4. Prov. 20. 8. 9. The third argument because Christs righteousnesse is perfect and not ours z Epist. 29. ad Hieron quamdiu augeri potest charitas 〈◊〉 illud quod minus est ex vitio est a Lib. de perf justis ad 15. b Esai 64. 6. The righteousnesse of all mortall men is unperfect first because all are sinners 2 3 c Gal. 3. 10. 4 d Psal. 32. 6. e De oratione dominica 5 Bellarmines proofes that inherent righteousnesse is perfect De Iustif l. 2. c. 7. § Tertio fidem spem charitatem in hac vita posse esse perfectam a Heb. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 3. 2. b De Justis l. 2. cap. 14. §. respondâ—…o Bellarmines argument for habituall righteousnesse because the works of God are perfect c Ephes. 2. 10. d 1 Pet. 1. 23. e Gal 4. 19. f 1 Pet. 2. 1. g 2 Cor. 4. 16. h Phil. 3. 15. i Rom. 8. 23. k Phil. 3. 12 13 14 15. Bellarmines argument for actuall righteousnesse l Iam. 2. 10. m Gal. 3. 10. n Iam. 2. 21 25. o 1 Cor. 4 4. p Rom. 4 6. q Gal. 3. 10. Reasons proving that the workes of the faithfull are not purely and perfectly good and first Esa. 64. 6. r De justiâ—… l. 4. c. 20. §. Quarto That in Esa. 64. 6. to be the confession of the faithfull proved by testimonies s in Rom. 3. lib. 3. t in locum u De tempore serm 43. * Tom. 9. soliloq c. 28. x De verbis Esaiâ—… Nostra n. si qua est bumilis institâ—…a recta for sitan sed non pura c. y In festo omnium Sanctorum serm 1. z De verbis Origenis a De verbisâ—… Apostoli 1 Cor. 1. 31. b De decic Ecclesia serm 5. c Pag. 25. d Apud Casandr Consult art 6. Answer to Bellar miâ—…es proofe first from the words going before e V. 5. f 1 Cor. 11. 29 30. g 1 Pet. 4. 17. h Am. 4. 12. 1 Cor. 11. 30 31. Psal. 32. 4. i 1 Cor. 11. 32. His second proofe from the words following Psal. 109. 4. His third proofe from the words of the text k Moral lib. 9. cap. 28. l Ibid. in summario m De Iustisicat Uiri sancti quanto magis in sanctitate pro siciunt tanto minus sin placent n Iob 42. 5 6. o Esa. 6. 3 5. p Mat. 5. 3. q Phil. 3. 8 9. * Advers Pelag. dial 1. His second reason that this testimony of Esay is impertinent His third reason Our second reason that the worke of the faithful are not purely and perfectly good because there is in them a mixture of sin proved sirst out of Exo. 3. 28. 36. 38. s Ier. 23 6. Secondly out of Eccl. 7. 10. Quisecerit bonum non poccârit t Episto la. 29. u De perfect iustitia respâ—…ad 15. Thirdly such as is the tree such is the fruit o Gal. 5. 17. p Ro. 7. 18 19. 21 Actions purely good maystand in iudgement q Psal. 143. 2. r Psal. 130. 3. s August in Psa. 142. Appeale to the conscience of the Papists t Matth. 6. 7. u Matth. 6. 7. * Matth. 21. 22. Mark 11. 24. Iam. 1. 6 7. Testimonies of Fathers * In Psal. 142. y In Psal. 118. Serm. 20. z Confess l. 9. c. 13. vae etiam laudabili vitae hominuÌ„ si remota misericordia disculias cam a De verb. Esaiae serâ—… 5. b Iam. 3. 2. c Pro. 24. 1â—… c Hares 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His first testimony Job 1. 22 a De Iustif. lib. 4 cap. 15. Non peccavit Iob labiis suis. b Iob 2. 3. Answere to his allegation out of Iob 1. 22. c Tummath d Moral lib. 9. c. 2 262 e Iob 9. 28. f Epist. ad August resp 10. Two alegations out of the Psalmes answered His third testimony Matth. 6. 22. g Serm. in Mat. 6. 33. His fourth Testimonie 1 Cor. 3. 12. His fifth Testimony Iam. 3. 2. Sixthly from those places which exhort us not to sinne h Eph. 5. 15. l 1 Cor. 15. 58. k 2 Cor. 8. 12. l 2 Cor. 12. 9. Seventhly from those places which testifie that the workes of just men doe please God m 1 Pet. 2. 5. Testimony 8. from those places which call the workes of the faithfull good workes n 1 Tim. 4. 2. De iustif l. 4. c. 1â—… Testimonies of Fathers De iustif l 4. c. 17 Reasons first the workes of the iust are not conteminated Not with concupiscence Concupiscence in the regenerate a sinne o Rom. 7. 18. Gal. 5. 17. p Rom. 7. 7. Secondly nor with want of charity q Epist. 29. illud quod minus est qudm debet exvitio est 1 De persect iustie resp adul Peccatumest vel cum non est charitas quae esse debetvel minor est quà m debet sive hocvoluntate vitari possit sive non possit Thirdly nor with veniall sinnes His second reason from sixe absurdities which he putteth upon us Moral l 35. c. 26. Deveâ—…bis Esaiae serm 5. recta for sitan sed in pura u Eccl. 7. 20. The second absurditie thâ—…t then the worke of faith and of pray er were a sinne Secâ—…nd absurd * 1 Cor. 4. 4. x 2 Tim. 4. 8. y Psal. 19. 13. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rom. 7. 24. b â—… Cor. 12. 9. c De gratia lib. arbit in fine The third absurdity d 2 Cor. 4. 16. e Gal. 5. 17. The fourth absurdity f Exod. 28 36. 38. g Ier. 23. 6. h Apoc. 8. 3. 4. i Ephes. 5. 2. k 1 Pet. 2. 5. l Ephes. 5. 25 26 27. m Rom. 7. 18. The
by offering his sonne Isaac and Rahab by her entertaining and delivering of the Espies but no man can bee justified before God by his works who is guilty of any sinne For if Paul who was not conscious to himselfe of any sinne was not thereby justified how can he that is guilty of any or rather many sinnes be justified For whosoever is justified before God is blessed but cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them § IV. But if it shall evidently appeare that none of the workes of the faithfull are purely and perfectly good how farre then are the Papists from proving justification by workes And this I will prove by divers arguments which I will also maintaine against the cavils of the Papists And first out of Esa. 64. 6. We are all as an uncleane person or thing all our righteousnesses are as a menstruous cloth Where the Church doth freely confesse her selfe and all her members to bee uncleane and all their righteousnesses that is all their most righteous workes to bee as polluted clouts which though it be a most pregnant testimony wherein wee have just cause to triumph yet Bellarmine saith it is impertinent and that for three reasons First because without doubt the Prophet speaketh not of just men but of notorious sinners for whose sinnes the City of Ierusalem and people of the Iewes was to be delivered into the hands of the King of Babylon And that the prophet speaketh in the person of such wicked men he endeavoureth also to prove by three arguments First because he a little before had said because thou art angry and wee have sinned that is as Cyrill expoundeth it because thou art angry thou hast forsaken us But neither is God angry with the just neither doth hee forsake them I answere no lesse confidently but upon better grounds that without doubt the prophet speaketh in the person of the Church and namely of the faithfull who living after the desolation of Ierusalem in the captivity of Babylon should bewaile their owne sinnes and of the whole people of the Iewes which had drawne upon them those fearefull judgements For these words are part of that prayer of the Church of the Iewes which from the seventh verse of the 63. chapter is continued to the end of the 64. And in token of this continuation the latter part of the last verse of the former chapter in the hebrew is the beginning of this chapter in the Greeke Latine and other translations Now in the former chapter the same persons which here confesse their sinnes after they had magnified Gods mercies towards them verse 7. c. doe say unto God verse 16. doubtlesse thou art our Father though Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel know us not thou O Lord art our Father and our Redeemer And in this chapter as they bewaile in this verse their sinnefulnesse with aggravation so they desire the Lord whom they call their Father not to remember their iniquities because they are his people verse 8. 9. professing their hope of salvation verse 5. which is not the manner of notorious and impenitent sinners but of those that are penitent and faithfull And further that which Esay here foretelleth is accordingly performed First by Daniel chap. 9. from the fourth verse to the twentieth who in like manner in the name and behalfe of the desolate Church of the Iewes prayeth unto God confessing his owne sinnes and of the people of Israel as he speaketh verse 20. Secondly by the Church in captivity which send the like prayer written by Baruch to the priest and people who then were at Ierusalem Baruch 1. from the 15. verse of the first chapter to the end of the third § V. This then is the confession of the Church which according to Tertullians rule is to bee extended unto the faithfull in all times and so it is understood by Origen who saith that no man may glory of his owne righteousnesse seeing here it is said that all our righteousnesse is as the cloth of a menstruous woman by Hierome wee shall bee saved onely by thy mercie who of our selves are uncleane And what righteousnesse soever wee seeme to have is compared to a cloth of a menstruous woman By Augustine all our righteousnesse compared with divine justice is accounted like the cloth of a menstruous woman as the Prophet Esay saith c. and again whatsoever an uncleane person toucheth shall bee uncleane but all wee are as the cloth of a menstruous woman comming from a corrupt masse and uncleane we beare in our foreheads the spot of our uncleannesse which wee cannot conceale at least from thee who seest all things By Bernard in divers places First for our humble righteousnesse if wee have any is perhaps right but not pure unlesse peradventure wee beleeve our selves to be better than our forefathers who no lesse truely than humbly said all our righteousnesse is like the cloth of a menstruous woman for how can there be pure justice where as yet fault cannot bee wanting And againe what can all our righteousnesse bee before God shall it not according to the Prophet be reputed as the cloth of a menstruous woman and all our righteousnesse if it bee straitly judged will it not be found unjust and defective What then will become of our sinnes seeing our righteousnesse cannot answere for it selfe wherefore crying earnestly with the Prophet Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord let us in all humility have recourse to mercie which alone can save our soules Thirdly if I shall bee just I will not lift up my head for all my righteousnesses before him are as the cloth of a menstruous woman Fourthly it is perfect and secure glorying when wee feare all our workes as blessed Iob testifieth of himselfe and when wee acknowledge with the prophet Esay that all our righteousnesses are to bee reputed no other than the cloth of a menstruous woman Fifthly surely if all our righteousnesses being viewed at the light of truth shall bee found like a menstruous cloth what then shall our unrighteousnesses bee found to bee And to the like purpose I might alleage Dionys. Carthus in Psal. 142. Gerson tom 3. de Consolat lib. 4. pros 1. tom 4. tr de sign Cajetan in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Iacob Clict in Canonem apud Cassandrum consult art 6. Stella in Luk. 17. Ferus in Matth. lib. 3. cap. â—…0 Andreas Vega opusc de justif qu. 1. propos 4. Adrianus de Traject afterwards Pope in quartum sentent Quasi pannus menstruatâ—… sunt omnes justitiae nostrae jugiter igitur super pannum bonae vitae quem justitiae operibus teximus stillamus saniem diversorum criminum all our righteousnesses are like the cloath of a menstruous woman wherefore continually upon the cloth of a good life which we
God then are they fooles who repose affiance in their owne workes And no doubt but they are fooles who trust in their owne heart as Salomon saith Prov. 28. 26. For as Adrian saith who after was Pope Our merits are like astaffe of reed which not onely breaketh when it is leaned upon but also pierceth the hand of him that leaneth on it To trust in a mans owne righteousnessâ—… is the property of a proud Iustitiary and hypocrite Ezec. 33. 13. Luke 18. 9. and of one that is accursed because hee removeth his heart â—…rom God and putteth his trust in man that is to say hâ—…mselfe for as Bernard well faith for a man to trust in himselfe Non fidei sed per â—…dem est nec confidentiae sed diffidentiae magis in semetipso habere fiduciam But the true and upright Christian renouncing all confidence in his owne righteousnesse as being a beggar in spirit Matth. 5. 3. resteth wholly on the mercies of God and merits of Christ Psal. 130. 3 4. 143. 2. Dan. 9. 18. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Phil. 3. 8 9. according to the advice of our Saviour Luk. 17. 10. If it be objected that the godly in many places of Scripture doe alleage their owne innocency and integrity as seeming to put some affiance therein 2 King 20. 3. Nehem. 5. 19. Psal. 18. 21 24. 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. I answere first it is one thing to place affiance in our good works as causes of our salvation as merit-mongers use to doe another from our good workes as tokens and signes of our election vocation justification and as presages of our glorification to gather comfort assâ—…rance and hope to our selves of our justification and salvation which the faithfull use to doe and to that end are they commanded to practise good workes that they make their calling and election sure 2 Pâ—…t 1. 10. This distinction is acknowledged by Bellarmine Sciendum est saith hee aliud esse fidâ—…ciam nasci ex 〈◊〉 aliâ—…d fiduciam esse ponendam in meritis It is one thing out of our good workes to gather assurance and affiance in God which the faithfull doe as they are exhorted in the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1. 10. Iob 11. 15. Rom. 5. 4. Probation worketh hope 1 Ioh. 3. 21. If our heart condemne us not then have wee confidence towards God and it is another thing to place affiance in our merits which none but proud Iustitiaries and Pharisaicall Hypocrites use to doe Secondly we must distinguish betwixt the innocency and justice of a mans cause and the innocency and justice of his person For the same men in the Scripture who for the justification of their persons desire the Lord not to enter into judgement with them for the justification of their cause have not feared to appeale to Gods judgement § XIII Our sixth reason those who cannot fully discharge their duety much lesse can they merit For they that merit must doe more than their duety For they that doe but their duety though they doe all that is commanded must acknowledge themselves to be unprofitable servants But if they faile in their duety and come short of that which is commanded then can they merit nothing but punishment at the hands of God But no mortall man is able fully to satisfie his duety Our duety is to abstaine from all sinne yea to be 〈◊〉 from all sinne and to doe the things commanded to doe all and to continue in doing all and that in that manner and measure which the Law requireth But those things no mortall man is able to doe as hath beene proved heretofore So farre is every mortall man from meriting any thing but punishment at the hands of God Our seventh reason If good workes doe merit salvation then wee are saved by them but we are not saved by good workes Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. therefore they doe not merit salvation Eightly the last reason The heavenly Canaan is a land of promise as the earthly Canaan was which the Lord gave to the Israelites not because of their merits Deut. 9. 5. Nor for the merit of their forefathers Iosh. 24. 2. but because he loved them and that for no other cause but because hee loved them Deut. 7. 7 8. In which love as hee freely promised it so in the same undeâ—…erved love he did freely bestow it And yet hee was just in giving it because hee had promised it Nehem. 9. 8. The same wee are to conceive of the heavenly Canaan whereof the other was a Type that it is a land of promise and noâ—… of merit freely promised and freely bestowed on the heires of promise CAP. IIII. Testimonies of Fathers disproving merits and first those which Bellarmine hath sought to answere and then others § I. TO the former testimonies and proofes I will adjoyne the testimonies of Fathers and other writers And first those which Bellarmine hath endeavoured to answere of which Hilarie is the first Spes in misericordia Dei in sâ—…culum in seculum seculi est Non enim illa ipsa justitiae opera sufficient ad perfectâ—… beatitudinis meritum nisi misericordia Dei etiam in hac justiâ—…ae voluntate hâ—…manarum demutationum motuum vitia non reputet hinc illud Prophetae dictum est melior est misericordia tua super vitam In tantum misericordia Dei muneratur ut miserans justitia voluntatem aeternitatis quoque suae justum quemque tribuat esse participem His intendement is that the hope of salvation is to bee placed in Gods mercy which is better than our righteous life For the workes of righteousnesse without Gods mercy in forgiving of sinnes will not suffice to obtaine the reward of blessednesse which the mercy of God pitying our will of righteousnesse bestoweth on the just But Bellâ—…mine maketh him speake what pleaseth him for to omit that for sufficient hee readeth Sufficerent Hilary saith hee doth teach that with our goodworkes are mingled certaine sinnes which though they make not a man unjust as being light â—…nd veniâ—…ll yet they need pardon and mercy because nothing that is defiled can enter into the kingdome of heaven Bellarâ—…ines meaning is that at the day of judgement the faithfull shall need Gods mercy for the pardoning of veniall sinnes as heretofore â—…ee hath taught But there is no such matter in Hilary neither is it tâ—…ue as I have shewed beforâ—… that at the day of â—…udgement the faithfull shall need remission of veniall or any other sinnes neither doth Hilary say that the sinnes which are forgiven by the mercy of God are light and such as the Papists call veniall Neither is it true that there bee any sinnes which doe not make them sinners in whom they are seeing Bellarmine here confesseth that men are so defiled by them that they being not remitted exclude them from heaven neither doth hee say with good merits are mingled sinâ—…es neither doth he
call those workes which are mingled with sinnes good merits for that implyeth a contradiction but hee saith they doe not suffice to merit or obtaine the reward of blessednesse and therefore indeed denyeth the workes of righteousnesse to merit eternall life § II. The second is Basil Maneâ—… sempiternâ—… requies illos qui in hac vitalegitimè certaverunt non ob eorum merita factorum sed de munificentissimi Dei gratia in quem sperârunt which is a pregnant testimony But Bellarm taking advantage at the Printers fault in the old Edition of Basil leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which since hath bin supplyed answereththat Chemnitius did not rightly translate the words of Basil for in the Greeke neither the words Non ob eorum merita are found nor the word Gratiâ—… The words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is propounded an eveâ—…lasting â—…est to them who lawfully strive in this life not rendred according to the debt or due of works but according to the grace of the most bountifull God in whom they have trusted where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it were not expressed is of necessity to be understood and the rather because he seemeth by allusion to invert the words of the Apostle Rom. 4 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For with Bellarmine in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repeate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had said according to the duety or debt of the most bountifull God or great giver it is absurd gift and debt being contrary And also by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debt or duâ—…ty to understand as hee doth measure which becommeth the bounty of God that is much greater than is due to the workes is no lesse absurd For neither doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 siignifie measure neither is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repeated in the latter clause which signifieth rendred but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is exhibited which Bellarmine leaveth out Neither doth hee say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bellarmine absurdly understandeth him to speake for there is no debt or duety of God Neither would it hinder our cause if the word rendred were repeated in the latter clause for what is promised is to bee rendred But in plaine termes Basil saith that eternall rest to them that live well is not rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the merit of their workes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the grace of the munifiâ—…nt God exhibited But his second Evasion is more grosse that Basil speaketh of the reward as rendred not according to the merit of workes which men have done by their owne strength but such as are done by grace Repl Basil plainely speaketh of those who fought a good fight in this life and have trusted in God and saith that the eternall rest is laid up for them and that it is rendied not according to the merit of works but given according to the gâ—…ace of God the great Giver Neither doth he speake of naturall or gâ—…acelesse men of whom he never dreamed that the eternall rest is pâ—…epared for them but of godly men such as David was whose woâ—…ds Returne unto thy rest O my soule were the occasion of this speech Besides if the rewâ—…rd bee rendred as Bellarmine saith Supra condignum how is it merited â—…x condignâ—… Or if it be merâ—…ted ex condigno how is it supra condignum § III. The third is Saint Augustines out of whom hâ—… reciteth onely three places as â—…ited by us the firlâ—… 〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉 Dei sunt The sinnes are thine the merits are Gods Supplicium tibi debetur cum praemium vâ—…nerit â—…ua dona corâ—…abit non meriâ—…a 〈◊〉 Punishment is due to thee And when the reward shall come hee will crowne his owne gifts not thy merits 2. Pro nihilo salvos facies illos nihil invenies unde salves multum invenis vnde damnes thou wilt save them for nothing thou findest nothing for which to save and thou findest much for which to condemne 3. Maluit dicere gratia Dei vita â—…terna ut intelligeremus non pro meritis nostr is Deum nos ad aeternam vitam sed pro sua miseratione perducere he chose rather to say that life eternall is the grace of God that wee might understand that not for our merits but for his owne mercie hee doth bring us unto eternall life Which are most plaine and pregnant testimonies Bellarmine answereth in grosse wheresoever Augustine condemneth merits he speaketh of such merits as be in us from our selves that is to say without the grace of God And to this purpose he quoteth August Epist. 105. ad Sixtum in two places and his Book de gratia lib. arbitr c. 6. 7. 8. Reply Augustine by merits understandeth good workes which hee considereth either as going before grace wrought by the strength of our owne free will which against the Pelagians he denyeth tâ—… merit either grace or glory or he speaketh of them as proceeding from grace which he acknowledgeth to be rewarded with eternall life But these though he call them merits because they are to be rewarded yet every where he saith that the reward is given to them not as to our merits deserving it but as to the free gifts of God And therfore that the reward it selfe is called gratia both because it is freely given and because those workes to which it is given are wholly to bee ascribed to Gods grace and consequently that the Lord when he rewardeth our workes with eternall life doth not reward them as our merits but as his owne gifts Than which what can be spoken more effectually against the merits of condignity For if our good works be not our owne as from our selves how can â—…hey merit of him whose gifts they are If they were our owne and from our selves and were also perfect as they are not then perhaps it might be said that when God rewardeth them he rewardeth our merits but not being from our selves but meerely by his gift when he rewardeth them hee doth not reward our merits but crowne his owne gifts It is plaine therfore that whereas August considereth good works two wayes either as our merits or as Gods gifts he both constantly denyeth eternall life to be rendred unto them as to our merits and also affirmeth that it is given to them freely as to the free gifts of God And this is proved out of those very places which Bellarmine alleageth in the first place he saith Cùm Deuâ—… coronat merita nostra nihil aliud coronat quam muner a sâ—…a When God doth crowne our merits so hee calleth good works he crowneth nothing else but his owne gifts and in another place Ergo coronat te quia dona sua coronat non merita tâ—…a and againe in the same epistle he saith that howsowever eternall life is rendred to our good workes which hee therefore