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
have fulfilled the Law Such is not ours for being sinners in our selves wee cannot stand before God as righteous by justice inherent neither can wee oppose it to Gods judgement or interpose it betwixt Gods justice and our sinnes or plead it as a full satis faction But the best of us must pray with David Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord for no flesh shall bee righteous in thy sight namely if thou enter into judgement with him and againe if thou Lord shalt marke iniquity O Lord who shall stand but there is forgivenesse with thee that thou mayst be feared Augustine on those words Quis sustinebit Non dixit ego non sustinebo sed quis sustinebit vidit n. propè totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suis accusari omnes conscientias cogitationibus sâ—…is non inveniri cor castum praesumens de sua justitia Si ergo cor castum non potest inveniri quod praesumat de sua justitia praesumat omnium cor de misericordia Dei dicat Deo Si iniquitates observaveris Domine Domine quis fustinebit quae a. spes est quoniam apud te propitiatio est quae est ista propitiatio nisi sacrificium quod est sacrificium nifi quod pro nobis oblatum est Sanguis innocens fusus delevit omnia peccata nocentium Ergo est apud te propitiatio Nam si non esset apud te propitiatio si judex solum esse velles misericors esse nolles observares omnes iniquitates nostras quaeâ—…eres eas quis sustineret quis staret in judicio tuo Spes ergo una est quoniam est apud te propitiatio Againe Augustine and some others doe use to joyne in coherence the 8. and 9. verses of the 20. Chapter of the Proverbs when the righteous King shall sit on his throne who can say my heart is cleane wee deny not that there is a righteousnesse inherent in the faithfull that it is accepted of God in Christ that it is graciously rewarded but we deny that we are justified thereby This is not it in which wee can stand in judgement before the righteous King sitting on his throne § VIII Our third argument By that righteousnesse of man which onely is perfect wee are justified and not by that which is unperfect The righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him is the onely righteousnesse of man which is perfect and all our inherent righteousnesse in this life is unperfect Therefore wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him and not by any righteousnesse inherent in our selves The proposition needeth no proofe for that justice which is not perfect cannot stand in judgement before God and is so farre from justifying that it selfe is sinfull every imperfection and defect being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law and consequently a sinne So long saith Augustine as charity may be increased assuredly that which is lesse than it ought to bee is vicious and againe more plainely peccatum est cum charitas minor est quà m debet it a sinne when charity is lesse than it ought to-be I doe not say that the habit of grace as faith or charity or a worke of grace as prayer or almes giving is a sinne and much lesse a mortall sinne as our adversaries charge us but I say that the imperfection or defect of the habit or the worke is a sinne and in respect thereof neither the habit nor the worke though good is purely and perfectly good but sinfull and stained with the flesh which staine to them who are in Christ Iesus is veniall and it notwithstanding both the habit and the worke of grace are cum venia with favour and indulgence through the merits and intercession of our Saviour in him accepted the want and imperfection being by his perfect righteousnesse and obedience covered That the righteousnesse of Christ is perfect is also manifest And that it is the onely righteousnesse of man which in this life is perfect is evidently proved because all the righteousnesse of all meere and mortall men is unperfect And that I prove by these reasons § IX First no sinners have perfect righteousnesse inherent in them All mortall men are sinners Therefore no mortall man hath perfect righteousnesse inherent in him The proposition is manifest for whiles men bee sinners they cannot be perfectly righteous The assumption viz. that all men are sinners it is proved by the common experience of all men in all ages Secondly it is grounded upon most plaine and undeniable testimonies of holy Scriptures which have concluded all men whatsoever under sinne Gal. 3. 22. Rom. 3. 23. 1 King 8. 46. Eccl. 7. 20. Thirdly it is a confessed and received truth which therefore the Apostle in his Enthymeme Gal. 3. 10. taketh for granted For thus the Apostle argueth Every one that is a transgressour of the Law is accursed therefore All men whatsoever even those who seeke by their obedience of the Law to be justified are accursed If any man should deny the consequence of this Enthymeme it is to bee made good by adding the assumption which the Apostle left out as a thing presupposed and taken for granted thus Whosoever is a transgressour of the Law is by the Law accursed which the Apostle expresseth in these termes Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them But all men without exception even those which seeke to be justified by the Law are transgressours of the Law Never any man continued in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them that is never any meere and morall man hath so abstained from all evill forbidden as that he hath also done the things commanded that he hath done all that hee hath ever continued in doing all Thus Chrysostome understandeth the Apostle to argue No man is justified by the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all have sinned and are under the curse and saith that the Apostle by testimony proveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no man hath fulfilled the Law and Oecumenius likewise in Gal. 3. that the Apostle proveth that even those who seeke to be justified by the Law are under the Curse why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because no man saith he fulfilleth the Law Therefore all men without exception even those which seeke to bee justified by the Law are by the Law accursed which conclusion is of no force if it bee not granted that all men are transgressours of the Law Fourthly all they who are to pray to God for the forgivenesse of their sinnes are sinners But all even the best of men are to pray to God for the forgivenesse of their sinnes Pro hac that is for remission of sinnes or abit ad te omnis
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
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
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
For all they who have true faith are borne of God 1 Iohn 5. 1. Iohn 1. 12 13. And those who are once borne of God are never unborne againe but being made sonnes by faith as all the faithfull are Gal. 3. 26. they are also made heires of God and coheires with Christ Rom. 8. 17. As faith therefore is never utterly lost no more is justification For so long as wee have faith so long wee are justified But the habit of faith wee never lose though perhaps some act of faith may sometimes bee interrupted Therefore our justification is but one continued act and in that sense we are justified but once § VIII Now whereas we have defined and defended according to the Scriptures that justification is an action of God and such an action as is without us and a continued act hence we may conclude against the Papists first that neither their first nor second justification is that justification which is taught in the Scriptures Not the second for that is not Gods action but their owne who being justified before by habituall righteousnesse infused from God doe themselves as they â—…each by practising of good workes increase their righteousnesse that is justifie themselves by actuall righteousnesse as the merit of their second justification Not that wee deny that inherent righteousnesse is by practise of good workes increased but that wee hold that justification is not our owne act neither that we are justified by any righteousnesse inherent in our selves or performed by our selves nor that the righteousnesse of justification which is indeed the righteousnesse of Christ can be increased and therefore no degrees of justification Not the first which they make to bee an action of God within us working in us a reall change or positive mutation by infusion of the habits of grace and specially of charitie and confound it with habituall sanctification from which notwithstanding it is necessarily to be distinguished Secondly justification being an action of God is not to bee confounded with justification passively understood and much lesse with justice it selfe But the Papists not onely understand it passively but also confound it with inherent Iustice. Thirdly they doe not hold justification to bee one continued act from our vocation to our glorification But such an act as may not onely be interrupted ostentimes and lost for a time as they say it is by every mortall sinne and againe be renewed so oft as they goe to shrift but also that it may totally and finally bee lost Which error I have confuted at large in my Treatise of perseverance CAP. II. The efficient causes of Iustification § I. BUt in this definition besides the Genus not onely all the causes of Iustification but also the essentiall parts thereof are briefly comprised which I will now distinctly propound The causes because in the knowledge of them standeth the science of every thing the essentiall parts because in them justification it selfe consisteth The causes of justification as of all other things are foure The Efficient the Matter the Forme the End The Efficieâ—…t causes are of two sorts either principall or instrumentall The principall is God which I noted in the definition when I said it is an action of God For it is God that justifieth as the Scriptures in many places doe testifie as namely Rom. 3. 26 30. 4. 5 6. 8. 30 33. Gal. 3. 8. God I say the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost For it being an outward action of God or as the Schoolemen speake ad extra respecting the Creatures it is the common action of the whole Trinity And thus God alone as the Iudge doth justifie For he alone is the Lawgiver who hath power over our soules against whom wee sinne and by our sinne become his debtours when we transgresse his law And therefore he alone properly forgiveth sinnes as himselfe professeth Esay 43. 25. and as the Scribes and Pharisees confesse as a received truth Luk. 5. 21. For who may take upon him to remit those debts which wee owe to God It is he who reconcileth us unto himselfe in Christ not imputing our sinnes 2 Cor. 5. 19. and accepting of us in his beloved Ephes. 1. 6. It is he alone that forgiving our sinnes freeth us from hell and giveth us right to his heaveâ—…ly kingdome Which doctrine serveth first for our direction and instruction where to seeke and to sue for justification and remission of sinnes Not to any creature but to God alone in the name and mediation of Christ to whom alone our Saviour directeth us to sue for pardon Secondly it ministreth strong consolation to all the faithfull For seeing it is God that justifieth them who shall lay any thing to their charge Who shall condemne c Thirdly it sâ—…rveth for the confutation or rather condemnation of the Pope and all popish priests who take upon them power not as Ministers of the Gospell to declare and pronounce remission of sinnes but as Iudges to remit them it being a proper attribute of God Exod. 34. 7. which he appropriateth to himselfe Esay 43. 25. and which no meere man can without blasphemy arrogate to himselfe Mark 2. 7. § II. With the principall cause we are to joyne the consideration of the motives or moving causes both without God which of some are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also within himselfe which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are indeed principia agendi The former are mans misery which though it be not properly a cause but the object of mercy yet is said to bee a motive and is used as a reason to move to mercy and thence misericordia hath its name and Christs merits which properly are the procatarcticke cause of our justification besides which there is no other merit The moving causes within God are his Mercy and his Iustice which I signified in the definition when I said that justification is a most grâ—…cious and rightâ—… action os God For as in many if not in all the workes of God his mercy and justice meet together so especially in the worke of our Iustification and redemption which Cardinall Câ—…jetan e well observed The holy Scripture saith he doth not say that we are justified by grace alone but by grace and justice together but both of God that is by the grace of God and by the justice of God and not by the righteousnesse of men By grace I understand the gracious love and favour of God in Christ vouchsafed unto us in him before all secular times 2 Tim. 1. 9. in which he hath graciously accepted us in his beloved by which as we are elected and called and shall be saved so by the same we are justified and that freely without any cause in us Rom. 3. 24. Now the Lord is said to justifie us by his grace first because of his free-grace hee gave his owne Sonne to
conscience of the faithfull in the assumption according to Gods Word contained in the proposition therefore I have remission of sinnes therefore I shall be saved And in this sense Ministers are said to remit sinnes Ioh. 20. 23. and consequently to justifie when they doe pronounce remission of sinnes to them that beleeve and repent And whatsoever they doe in this behalfe upon earth according to the Word is ratified in heaven § VI. As touching the Sacraments in them first the benefit of the Messias is represented before our eyes by the outward signes whereupon the Sacrament is called Verbum visibile Secondly such is the Sacramentall union betweene the signe and the thing signified that together with the signe the thing signified that is Christ with all his merits is offered in the lawfull use of the Sacrament Thirdly the benefit of the Messias is not only offered in the lawfull use together with the signe but also conferd and given to every faithfull and worthy receiver And hereof the Sacrament is a pledge given to the beleever to assure him that as the Minister doth give unto him the signe so the Lord doth give unto him the thing signified And in this sense every Sacrament is a seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith Rom. 4. 11. annexed to the promise of the Gospell which by delivery of the Sacrament is particularly applyed to every faithfull receiver to assure him in particular of his justification and salvation by Christ. Thus the ministery of the Gospell is the meanes to beget faith and the Sacraments the instruments to confirme the same But the Papists deny both for that faith is begotten in the ministery of the Word and that so men attaine to remission of sinnes and justification they say it is a fiction of the heretikes of these times Neither doe they grant that Sacraments are seales of righteousnesse or that they were ordained to seale the promises unto us But they hold them to bee such effectuall instruments as doe by vertue inherent in themselves conferre justifying grace which they call gratiam gratum facientem ex opere operatâ—… By which doctrine a they have turned Religion into a meere outward formality according to the prophecy of them 2 Tim. 3. 5. ascribing all the degrees of salvation to be atchieved in this life viz. Vocation Iustification Sanctification to the externall use of the Sacraments so they have made their doctrine of justification to bee an idle speculation whereof in their practice there is little or no use For to what purpose doe they dispute of justification by vertuous preparations and gracious dispositions when they teach that the Sacraments doe ex opere operato that is by the very performance of the outward act justifie the receiver requiring in him neither any vertuous preparation or gracious disposition for without them hee is justified Onely this caution they doe interpose that hee doe not ponere obicem mortalis peccati that hee put not the obstacle of mortall sinne For if those things should necessarily be required then the Sacraments should conferre grace not ex opere operato as they stifly hold but ex opere operantis So much of the hand of the giver § VII The instrument on our part which is as it were manus accipientis the hand of the receiver is the grace of justifying faith which I noted in the definition when I said that the Lord imputeth the righteousnesse of Christ to a beleeving sinner Now as touching saith divers things are to be considered For first it is said to justifie not as it is a qualitie or habite in us as the Papists teach ipsa fides saith g Bellarmine censetur esse justitia faith it selfe is accounted to be justice and it â—…elfe is imputed unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. 5. for so it is a part of sanctification but as it is the instrument and as it were the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousnesse For if we should be justified by faith as it is an habit in us properly then we should be justified by habituall and inherent righteousnesse which hereafter I shall fully disproveAnd if we be not justified by it as it is an habit then much lesse as it is an act as 〈◊〉 and his followers teach as though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum credere did properly justifie Which opinion is worse than the other For faith doth justifie as hereaster shall be proved as the instrument only but it is the instrument not as it is an act but as it is an habit producing that act and therefore it is said that we are justified by faith and that faith is imputed unto righteousnesse But if wee should bee justified by it as it is an act then we should be justified by our owne workes which hereafter is also to be confuted and further if we were justified by it as it is an act then we should be no longer justified actually than we doe actually beleeve 〈◊〉 so there should bee an intercision of justification which I proved before to be a continued act so ost as there is an intermission of the act of faith which is ridiculous Againe if wee should be justified by faith either as it is an habit or an act in sensu proprio as they speake and not relatively or metonymically then should we be justified by one habit alone or by the act of one habit and consequently by a partiall and most unperfect righteousnesse When it is certaine that all the habits and acts of grace which are in the best concurring together are not sufficient to justifie a man before God for the reasons hereafter to be delivered lib. 4. 7. It is true that faith is imputed for righteousnesse and is accepted of God as the perfect performance of the whole law but this is to bee understood relatively in respect of the object received by faith that is Christ who is the end and complement of the Law to all that beleeve insomuch that whosoever truly beleeveth in Christ hath fulfilled the Law § VIII 2. is the consequent of the former For if faith doth justifie onely as it is an hand or instrument to apprehend and receive Christ then justifying faith must be such a faith as doth apprehend receive and embrace Christ which is not done neither by the implicite nor the unformed nor the bare historical and generall faith of the Papists but it is done first by a lively and effectuall assent to the speciall doctrine concerning justification and salvation by Christ which is the condition of the Evangelicall promise and then by a sound application of the promise to our selves as having that condition For by a lively and effectuall beleefe we receive and embrace Christ not only in our judgements by a willing and firme assent being undoubtedly perswaded and assured thathe is the Saviour of all that truly beleeve in him but also in our hearts by an hungring desire
condemnation and justification some where signifie the action of the Iudge as in the place cited Rom. 5. 16. yet notwithstanding when God doth justifie a sinner by dâ—…claring him just he doth also make him just because the judgement of God is according to the truth And therefore Christ whether he justifieth us by his obedience or by his judgement he alwayes maketh just And thus Augustine saith he understood this place Reply That God maketh just whom he pronounceth just we freely confesse but the question still is of the manner for in justification when he pronounceth a man just he maketh him just and that perfectly just not by infusion of inherent righteousnesse but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse And whom hee justifieth that is maketh just by imputation of righteousnesse them hee also sanctifieth that is maketh just in some measure by infusion of grace For to use Bellarmines owne words when God doth justifie a sinner by declaring him righteous it is plaine that in himselfe hee is a sinner who by God is declared to bee just and therefore that hee is not justified by inherent justice for in himselfe he is a sinner as wee all are How then shall the judgement of God bee according to the truth when hee declareth a sinner to bee just To a sinner beleeving in Christ the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith is imputed for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 5. and this we shall hereafter shew to be an argument unanswerable None remaining sinners in themselves can truely bee declared or pronounced just in respect of righteousnesse inherent All mortall men even the most righteous of them meraine sinners in themselves 1 Ioh. 1. 8. Ecclus 7. 20. Therefore No mortall man can truly be declared or pronounced just in respect of inherent righteousnesse and consequently none are or can bee justified by righteousnesse inherent § IIII. The testimony of Augustine is falsified For disputing against the errour of the Pelagians who imagined that originall sinne was not propagated from Adam but that imitation onely maketh sinners by Adam hee inferreth that then by the same reason onely imitation maketh just by Christ. As though either Adam had done no more against us or Christ for us than that they had been prime examples and precedents the one of sinne the other of righteousnesse But Augustine sheweth out of Rom. 5. that as those who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ obtaine remission of sinnes and inward grace so those who come from Adam by naturall generation are made guilty of his sinne unto condemnation and also receive corruption from him by propagation all which we teach But that Augustine pleadeth not for justification by inherent justice appeareth by the antithesis which in that place hee maketh betwixt our condemnation by Adam and our justification by Christ. First that whereas to condemnation there concurres our owne voluntary transgression besides Adams sinne yet to our justification there doth not concurre any righteoufnesse besides Christ. Secondly which difference Saint Paul also noteth Rom. 5. 15 16 because in the carnall generation originall sinne onely is contracted but in the spirituall regeneration there is remission not onely of originall but also of voluntary sinnes § V. The second reason of Calvin and Chemnitius which Bellarmine taketh upon him to confute is this because the Apostle writing of justification did no doubt imitate the Hebrew phrase though he wrote in Greeke But the Hebrew word signifying to justifie hath the judiciall signification The argument may thus be propounded Such as is the signification of the Hebrew hitsdiq in the old Testament the same is the signification of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the edition of the Septuagints as being the translation thereof and in the new Testament which in this point retaineth the translation of the Septuagints But the Hebrew hitsdiq is meerely a judiciall word opposed to condemnation as I have proved heretofore by induction of examples as Deut. 25. 1. 1 King 32. 8. Prov. 17. 15. Esai 5. 23. and never signifieth to make righteous by infusion or to endue with righteousnesse inherent Therefore the Greeke word also hath the same signification To the assumption Bellarmine answereth that the Hebrew word properly signifieth to make just but because a man may bee made just both inwardly by obtaining of justice and outwardly by declaration hence it is that the word admitteth these divers significations Reply In this answer we are to take his confession of the truth both that we may be made just outwardly by declaration and also that the Verbe sometimes doth signifie so much In vaine therefore doe the Papists urge against us the signification of the Latine word justificare as signifying justum facere seeing by our exposition it signifieth justum facere also not onely by declaration as Bellarmine heere speaketh but much more by imputation But though he confesseth the signification of the Verbe urged by us yet wee may not acknowledge the signification so much urged by the Papists yea wee confidently deny that the Hebrew hitsdiq doth any where in the Scriptures signifie to endùe with righteousnesse inherent § VI. This therefore hee endevoureth to prove by induction of examples and first out of Dan. 12. 3. Qui adjustitiam erudiunt multos who instruct many to righteousnesse The Hebrew word is matsdiqim where the Prophet speaking of the great glory which shall bee of Teachers who justifie many the vulgar Latine which is the onely authentique Text among the Papists doth not translate the word making righteous by infusion or enduing with righteousnesse inherent which is the worke of God alone and not of the Teacher but instructing unto righteousnesse or as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth by teaching to bring men to righteousnesse which is done by bringing them to beleeve and therefore this allegation proveth not the Popish signification of the word Yea but it disproveth saith Bellarmine the judiciall signification so much urged by you For Teachers doe not justifie after the maner of â—…udges howbeit the Popish Priests dot in their absolutions as themselves doe teach Reply But this is nothing but a cavill For where wee say that to justifie in this doctrine of justification is verbum forense a word taken from Courts having a judiciall signification as namely to absolve from sinne or to give sentence with a man after the maner of a Iudge our meaning is that this word being attributed to God as it is God alone that justifieth and so wee consider justification as an action of God it alwaies hath this judiciall signification and never signifieth to endue with righteousnesse inherent But wee doe not say that it being attributed to any other as it is to divers others both perâ—…ons and things it is to bee expounded as the act of the Iudge though otherwise the justice implyed in the signification of the word bee after the judiciall sense not inherent but imputative Thus as I
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good works but that wherby he loveth us § V. Now let us come to the words which follow which as Cornelius à Lapide confesseth Valde favent doe very much favour our exposition wherein the Apostle sheweth how this love of God whereon our hope c. is grounded is both manifested and assured unto us It is manifested by this verse 6. that when wee were of no strength yea dead in our sinnes the Son of God dyed for us for so saith the Apostle Eph. 2. 4 5. God who is rich in mercie for his great love wherewith he loved us even when wee were dead in our sinnes hath quickened us together with Christ by whose grace wee are saved which wonderfully setteth forth the love of God towards us for scarcely as it is vers 7. for a righteous man will one dye And greater love no man hath than this that a man lay downe his life for his friend Ioh. 15. 13. But God saith the Apostle vers 8. commendeth his love towards us even that love mentioned verse 5. in that whiles wee were yet sinners and by our sinnes his enemies Christ dyed for us It is assured by an argument from the lesse to the greater For if when we were sinners we were redeemed and justified by the bloud of Christ much more being justified wee shall be saved from wrath through him For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall bee saved by his life I conclude therefore that notwithstanding the testimony of Augustine which as himselfe confesseth deserveth no credit further than it is warranted by the authority of Gods word or sound reason by the love of God in this place is meant Gods love towards us I come to his two other arguments § VI. The former which is a very weake one is by paralleling that place with Rom. 8. 15. For saith hee the same Apostle speaking of the same spirit given unto us saith You have received the Spirit of adoption of sonnes by which we cry Abba Father Now saith hee wee cry Abba Father by that charity whereby we love God not by that whereby he loveth us Which reason if it bee reduced into a syllogisme will not conclude his assertion but the erroneous opinion of Lombard the master of sentences which Bellarmine himselfe elsewhere confuteth namely that the charity whereby wee love God is the holy Ghost That whereby wee cry in our hearts Abba Father is the holy Ghost By that charity wherewith wee love God we cry in our hearts Abba Father Therefore that Charity wherewith wee love God is the holy Ghost This conclusion Bellarmine knoweth to bee false Therefore either the proposition is false or the assumption for it is impossible that a false conclusion should bee inferred from true premisses in a formall syllogisme as this is But the proposition is the Apostles both Rom. 8. 15. and Gal. 4. 6. therefore the assumption is false Neither is charity that fruit of the holy Ghost whereby the Spirit of adoption causeth us to cry Abba Father but faith For although by charity wee may bee declared or knowne to bee the sonnes of God yet wee become the sonnes of God not by charity but by faith Ioh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. And consequently not by charity but by faith wrought in us by the Spirit of adoption testifying with our Spirits that wee are the sonnes of God the said spirit maketh us to cry in our hearts Abba Father § VII His second proofe is out of Rom. 8. 10. where it is said that by justifying grace we doe live The body indeed is dead by reason of sinne Spiritus autem vivit propter justificationem as the vulgar Latine readeth but the Spirit liveth because of justification But wee cannot well be said to live by the externall favour of God seeing nothing is more inward than life Answ. In this argument nothing is sound for first it proveth not the point for which it is brought viz. that by the love of God Rom. 5. 5. is meant our love of God Neither is it said Rom. 8. 10. that wee live by justifying grace for neither is justifying grace mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justice neither is it said that we live by it though it bee true that by justifying faith we live but that the Spirit is life propter justificationem for or by reason of righteousnesse And further it is well said that our Spirit liveth the spirituall and eternall life by the gracious favour of God which is out of us in him by which wee are saved as also for and by reason of the righteousnesse and merits of Christ which also are out of us in him Neither doth it follow that because life is inward that therefore it propter quod for which or by reason whereof wee doe live should also be inward § VIII But to let passe his impertinent allegation of this place and to explaine the true meaning thereof which is to set downe in this verse and that which followeth two priviledges of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit the one in respect of the soule vers 10. that howsoever by reason of sinne the body is dead that is mortall or subject to death yet the soule is life that is designed unto life by reason of righteousnesse The other in respect of the body vers 11. that if Christ dwell in us by his Spirit then hee which raised up Christ from the dead shall also by the same Spirit quicken that is raise up unto life eternall our mortall bodies Now as our bodie is dead that is subject to death by reason of Adams sinne in whom as the roote all sinned so our soule is life or intituled to life by reason of Christs righteousnesse in whom as our head wee satisfied the justice of God The sinne of the first Adam and the righteousnesse of the second being both communicated unto us by imputation And this is all that Bellarmine hath alleaged to prove that justifying grace is inherent all which is as good as nothing CAP. VI. The use of the word Grace in the writings of the Fathers § I. HAving shewed how the word grace is used in the Scriptures something is to be added concerning the use thereof in the writings of the Fathers whose authority the Papists are wont to object against us Howbeit as in the Scriptures so also in the Fathers there are two principall significations of the word Grace the one proper signifying the gracious favour of God in Christ by which they acknowledge us to be elected called justified and saved The other metonymicall signifying the gift of grace and namely the grace of regeneration or sanctification which in the Scriptures is called the Spirit opposed to the flesh and the new Man or new creature which is renewed and as it were recreated according to the Image of God
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
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
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
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
I will not content my selfe to have answered elsewhere all his objections againstit but I will here also briefly propound some of our arguments to prove that wee I meane all mortall men neither doe nor can by our righteousnesse and obedience fulfill and so even in that respect cannot satisfie the Law And first I prove it by this most plaine reason No transgressours of the Law doe fulfill it All men without exception of any but Christ are transgressours of the Law not onely the unregenerate but the regenerate also Therefore no man whatsoever Christ excepted doth fulfill it The proposition needeth no proofe the assumption I have proved before and every mans Conscience giveth testimony to it for himself Or thus Whosoever is a fulfiller of the Law is without sinne No mortall man is or can bee without sinne Therefore no mortall man is or can bee a fulfiller of the Law § VII Secondly If any man could fulfill the Law he might bee justified thereby Rom. 2. 13. Gal. 3. 12. But no man whatsoever can be justified by the Law Gal. 2. 16. 3. 10 11. Rom. 3. 20. Therefore no man can fulfill it § VIII Thirdly Those who cannot fulfill the first commandement of the two and the last of the ten cannot fulfill the whole Law But no mortall man is able to fulfill the first and last commandements Therefore no mortall man is able to fulfill the whole Law The first which is the great commandement injoyneth us to love the Lord our God with all our soules c. which being legally understood no mortall man is able to fulfill For whosoever are in all the parts and faculties of the soule partly flesh and but partly Spirit they cannot love God with all their soules The most regenerate in this life are partly flesh and but partly Spirit in all the parts and faculties of the soule Therefore the most regenerate in this life cannot love God with all their soules that phrase being legally understood The last commandement forbiddeth all evill concupiscence whether habituall with which all men generally are infected or actuall from which none are free and those not such as are joyned with consent of the wil which are passions of lust for those are forbidden in the former commandements but such as goe before consent which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which all men without exception doe abound Neither is the commandement thou shalt not consent to lust but thou shalt not lust that is thou shalt have no evill concupiscence which as Augustine saith ought not to be bridled onely but not to be for hee that hath concupiscences though he doth not goe after them doth not fulfill the Law thou shalt not coveâ—… § IX Fourthly by the testimony of Saint Peter Act. 15. 10. that the observation of the Law is not to be imposed upon Christians as necessary to justification as being a yoke which neither the Apostles nor their forefathers the Patriarches and Prophets were able to beare but that we are to be justified and saved by the grace of God through a lively faith which purifieth the heart Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle speaketh of the ceremoniall Law which wee doe not altogether deny But from hence wee argue as from the lesse If the ceremoniall Law were an unsupportable yoke how much more the morall For the ceremoniall Law in it selfe considered was not unsupportable nor required any thing exceeding the power of man For not onely the godly did performe it but hypocrites also who many times were more precise in observing the ceremonies than the godly themselves but as it was an appendice of the Law morall As for example Circumcision in it selfe though the most painefull ceremony might well bee borne But as by it men were made debtors to the whole Law in such sort as they could not be justified but were under the curse if they did not observe the whole Law it was a yoke unsupportable For in that sense the Apostle speaketh when he protesteth to the Galathians that if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing And in that sense as it seemeth it was urged by the beleeving Pharisees that it was needfull that the disciples meaning all the Christians of that time as well Gentiles as Iewes should bee circumcised and so required to keepe the Law otherwise they could not be justified nor saved And to that purpose tendeth Saint Peters speech That it was not needfull to require the beleeving Gentiles to be circumcised seeing it was well knowne that the Gentiles were first called by his ministery had truly beleeved and had received the holy Ghost who had purified their hearts by a lively faith by which without circumcision or other observations of the Law they were justified as well as the beleeving Iewes the Iewes also themselves expecting to bee justified and saved by the grace of the Lord Iesus Christ even as the Gentiles were without the workes of the Law as Paul also reasoneth Gal. 2. 15 16. § X. Fifthly by the testimony of Saint Paul and his experience in himselfe Rom. 7. 18. c. From whence I reason thus whosoever are not able to performe that which is good though by the grace of God they are willing to performe it they are not able to fulfill the Law But the faithfull and regenerate are not able to performe that which is good though by the grace of God â—…hey be willing thereunto Therefore they are not able to fulfill the Law The assumption is proved from the example of Saint Paul as it were an argument from the greater For if Saint Paul himselfe who in sanctity farre excelled any man now living did not finde in himselfe ability to performe that which was good but was so hindered by the flesh that the good which he would he did not how sholl those who are farre inferiour unto him bee able to doe it being the common condition of all the regenerate that by reason of the reluctation of the flesh they cannot doe those things they would Gal. 5. 17. § XI Sixthly the Apostle Rom. 8. 3. doth acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the impossibility of the Law namely to justifie us The reason whereof is not any defect in the Law it selfe but our impotencie to fulfill it by reason of the flesh for if it were possible for us to fulfill the Law it were possible to the Law to justifie us but it is not possible to the Law to justifie us by reason of the flesh and therefore by reason of the flesh it is not possible for us to fulfill the Law whiles the flesh remaineth in us as it alwayes doth remaine even untill death To these arguments if you shall adde the testimonies of the Fathers which in handling the sixth question I doe plentifully alleage you will acknowledge that besides the authority of Scriptures and evidence of reason we have the consent of antiquity that no mortall man is
flesh is communicated unto us by imputation and accepted of God in our behalfe as if we had performed the same in our own persons To conclude therefore it is not the image of Christs righteousnesse and obedience by which we are justified But we are justified by the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ it selfe § XVII His seventh Allegation of Rom. 6. 4. 6. is scarce worth the answering wherein hee proveth which no man denieth that the godly doe truly and not putativè dye unto sinne and rise unto righteousnesse even as Christ whose death and resurrection is represented in Baptisme did truly dye and rise againe For this dying unto sinne and rising unto righteousnesse are the two parts of our sanctification which never any denied to bee inherent But that justification and sanctification are not to bee confounded I have before proved at large If hee would have said any thing to the purpose he should have said any thing to the purpose hee should have proved that our justification consisteth in our mortification and vivification and then might he well have concluded that we are not justified by imputation but by inherent righteousnesse But I cannot sufficiently wonder at the blind malice of these men who either would perswade themselves or would goe about to perswade others that we hold the righteousnesse of sanctification and the parts thereof which we acknowledge to be wrought in us by the holy Spirit not to bee inherent but imputative As for these words vers 7. he that is dead is justified from sinne the meaning is as I have shewed before that he is freed from sinne as our translation readeth and as Chrysostome and Oecumenius expound it the speciall sense of freeing from guilt opposed to condemnation which is the proper sense of the word Act. 13. 38 39. extended to the generall signification of freedome he that is dead is freed from committing of sinne according to that place of Peter 1 Epist. 4. 1. which Bellarmine paralelleth with this he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sinne § XVIII In his eighth allegation hee patcheth divers places of Scripture together as it were invita Minerva out of which nothing can be concluded but that the Papists have not one found Argument to prove their justification by inherent righteousnesse The places which he patcheth together are these Rom. 8. 15. That wee now by Christ have received the Spirit of Adoption of the sonnes of God quoad animam saith he in respect of the Soule the which as it is there said viz. vers 10. liveth by reason of justification although the body be dead that is be mortall as yet by reason of sinne But saith he â—… little after viz. vers 23. he addeth that wee having the first fruits of the Spirit doe groane within our selves expecting the adoption of the sonnes of God even the redemption of our body For as the same Apostle saith Phil. 3. 20. 21. wee expect our Saviour who shall reforme the body of our humility configured to the body of his glory But the adoption of sonnes which wee expect in the redemption of the body shall be most true and inherent in the body it selfe that is to say immortality and impossibility not putative but true Therefore the adoption which now we have in the spirit by justification must also be true not putative otherwise as we expect the redemption of the body so also wee should expect the redemption of the soule Answ. See what poore shifts so learned a man is put unto according to the ancient profession of Sophistres noted by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make good a bad cause This is Bellarmines whole dispute word for word where with much travell he hath brought forth this conclusion that our adoption which now we have by justification is true and not in conceit onely which we freely confesse For whoever denied that our adoption is as true as our justification But doth it from hence follow that wee are justified by inherent righteousnesse A good syllogisme concluding that assertion from those premisses had beene worth his labour The most that can bee said in this matter as I suppose is this That when our gracious God by his holy Spirit doth regenerate us he doth beget in us the grace of faith As soone as faith is wrought in us wee are engrafted into Christ to us being in Christ the Lord communicateth the merits of his Sonne by imputation of whose righteousnesse unto us hee remitting our sinnes doth not onely accept of us as righteous in Christ but also in him hee adopteth us to bee his Sons and heires of eternall life § XIX Let this proposition then tanquam commune principium bee agreed upon betweene us Such as is our adoption such is our justification and let us see what either of us can inferre thereupon Bellarmine assumeth thus but our adoption is not imputative for that I suppose is his meaning by that odious word putative as though if it were imputative it were but putative which is most false For he that either is a sinner by imputation of Adams transgression is as truely a sinner as by transfusion of the corruption yea if he had not beene truely a sinner by imputation of Adams guilt hee should never have beene punished either with the transfusion of the coâ—…ruption or with death unto which by the guilt he was bound over or hee that is righteous by imputation of Christs righteousnesse is as truely righteous before God yea more truely than by infusion of inherent righteousnesse For that is perfect this is stained with the flesh and therefore is but a sinnefull righteousnesse which cannot stand in judgement before God judging according to the sentence of his Law But Bellarmine assumption as I was saying is this Our adoption is not imputative but by grace inherent therefore our justification is not imputative but by righteousnesse inherent The assumption which is utterly false hee endevoreth to prove because the Apostle Rom. 8. 15. saith that now by Christ wee haâ—…e received the Adoption of the sonnes of God quoad animam saith Bellarmine that he might patch with it vers 10. in respect of the soule which as it is there said liveth prâ—…pter justificationem although the body bee dead that is to say mortall by reason of sinne These places Belâ—…mine alleaged before to prove that the grace by which wee are justified is inherent and namely charity because charity is that by which wee cry in our hearts Abba Father Secondly because it is said that the Spirit liveth by reason of justification though the body bee dead by reason of sinne to both which I have before answered § XX. But here Bellarmine maketh a twofold Adoption the one of the soule patched out of Rom. 8. 10. 15. the other of the body pieced out of Rom. 8. 23. and Phil. 3. 20 21. when as indeed Adoption is not of either part but of
of justice to God where by righteousnesse saith hee is understood something that is inherent c. and that hee goeth about to prove which no man doubteth of when indeed hee should prove not that there is a righteousnesse inherent in the faithfull for that wee freely confesse but that the righteousnesse which is inherent is that by which wee are justified But it is evident that the Apostle speaketh not heere of the righteousnesse of justification but of the righteousnesse of sanctification whereunto in this Chapter hee doth exhort as to a necessary and unseparable consequent of justification Neither doth the Apostle heere or elsewhere as before I observed in setting downe the differences betweene justification and sanctification exhort us to the righteousnesse of justification or the parts thereof which bee not our duties but Gods gracious favours for that were to exhort us to remission of sinne and acceptation to life But to the righteousnesse of sanctification and the parts mortification and renovation and to the particular duties thereof hee doth both here and in many other places exhort as namely in his sixth testimony cited oâ—…t of Eph. 4. 23 24. from which hee would prove which no man doth deny that our renovaâ—…ion according to the image of God standeth in righteousnesse and holinesse inherent § VII His fourth allegation had need to be a good one for this is the third time that hee hath cited and recited and as it were recocted it out of Rom. 8. 10. The Spirit liveth because of justification or as it is in the Greeke the Spirit is life because of justice For justification or justice which maketh us to live and thereby to worke cannot be onely remission of sin but something inward inherent Answ. In this place vers 10. 11. as I shewed before the Apostle setteth down a double priviledge of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit freeing them from the Law of death The one in respect of the soule vers 10. that howsoever the body bee dead that is as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth mortall or appointed to death by reason of sin which the first Adam brought in and by it death his sinne being imputed to all yet the soule for so the word Spirit is taken when it is opposed to the body is life that is as the Antithesis requireth designed unto life by reason of that righteousnes of the second Adam by imputation whereof all the faithfull are entituled unto everlasting life For as in the former part of the Antithesis is not meant the spirituall death of men dead in sinne for that is the death of the soule and not of the body and the Apostle speaketh of those in whom Christ dwelleth but the corporall death unto which they also in whom Christ dwelleth are subject so in the latter is meant not the life of grace or of righteousnesse but the life of glory The other priviledge respecteth the body vers 11. that after it hath beene dead and turned into dust the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from death dwelling in us shall raise unto life eternall our mortall bodies § VIII His fifth testimony Gal. 3. 21. where when the Apostle saith If there had been a Law given which could give life or justifie as the Rhemists translate the word vivificare then in very deed justice should be of Law hee doth plainely saith he demonstrate that justice from whence justification is named is something which giveth life to the soule and hee doth place the same in motion and action Answ. If from this proposition propounded by the Apostle Bellarmine could have assumed the antecedent that so hee might conclude the consequent then might hee strongly have concluded against us that wee are justified by inherent righteousnesse But seeing the Apostle doth tollere antecedenâ—… that is intendeth to contradict that antecedent what reason hath Bellarmine to argue as hee doth It is very true that if the Law could have given us life that is as Chrysostome and Oâ—…umenius expound could have saved us according to that legall promise Hocfac vives doe this and thou shalt live or as the Rhemists translate could have justified us then undoubtedly wee might have beene justified by inherent righteousnesse But forasmuch as it was impossible for the Law to justifie and save us because it neither was noâ—… is possible for us by reason of the flesh to performe the condition and forasmuch as God therefore sent his Sonne to performe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that the Law requireth unto justification that wee who could not bee justified nor saved by any inherent righteousnesse of our owne prescribed in the Law and therefore not by a justice consisting in our actions or motions might bee justified and saved by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us what can Bellarmine gather from hence with any shew or colour of reason to prove justification by such a righteousnesse as is inherent and consisteth in motion and action § IX The sixth I have already answered with the third As for his testimonies collected out of Augustine a briefe anâ—…were may serve that hee not considering the force of the Hebrew and Greeke words which never in all the Scriptures are used in the signification of making righteous by inherent or infused righteousnesse but resting as it seemeth upon the notation and composition of the Latine word justificare as not differing in respect thereof from the Verbe sanctificare doth sometimes more largely extend the signification of the word justification than the Scriptures use it as including the benefit of sanctification But it is a most certaine truth that the word justificare being used in the Scriptures translated into Latine as the translation of the Hebrew Hitsdiq and of the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood to signifie no other thing if it bee a true translation than what is meant by the Hebrew and the Greeke which as I have shewed before doe never in all the Scriptures signifie to make just by infusion of righteousnesse And therefore it cannot be denied but that it is and was an oversight in them who using the word as mentioned in the Scriptures and from thence borrowing it extend it to another signification than that of the originall wherof it is a translation I say againe as I have said before that the fotce of the Latine word in this controversie is no further to be respected than as it is a translation of the Hebrew and the Greek and as it is a true translation it must bee understood no otherwise than according to the meaning of the originall if it be understood otherwise then is it not a true translation neither is the sence of the word divine but humane Howbeit Augustine differeth from Bellarmine as touching the use of this word in two things first that hee doth not alwaies so use the word as for example when hee teacheth as hee and the rest of the Fathers often doe
hee voluntarily undertooke our debt so by and for his satisfaction which hee performed for us and which the Lord accepteth in our behalfe as if we had performed the same in our owne persons wee are justified And yet though our sinnes being imputed to him he was reputed and as it were made a sinner and though his righteousnesse being imputed to us wee are made righteous in him yet this hindreth not but that hee in himselfe was just and wee in our selves sinners Yea this argueth that hee in himselfe was just and we in our selves sinners § VII Now that Christ was made a sinner for us that is was condemned and crucified as if hee had beene a sinner the Greeke expositours with one consent doe teach Chrysostome him that knew no sin saith the Apostle him who was righteousnesse it selfe he made sin that is he suffer'd him to be condemn'd as a sinner and to dye as one accursed and againe more plainely for him that was righteous saith the Apostle he made a sinner that those which bee sinners he might make righteous But saith he the Apostle saith more him he made sinne and us hee made righteous The like have Decumenius his Sonne being righteousnesse and holinesse he made sinne that is hee suffered him to bee crucified as a sinner and as a guilty person and againe he made sinne that is to bee condemned as a sinner and elsewhere very plainely for now the father sent him making him sinne for Christ was very much a sinner as having 〈◊〉 upon him the sinnes â—…f the whole world and â—…ade them his owne for that Christ was a sinner here saith he him that knew no sinne â—…e made sinne for us that were in very deed sinne And also Theophylact his Sonne who knew not sinne that is who himselfe was righteousnesse he made to dye for us as if he had beene a sinner and malefactor For cursed saith he is he who hangeth on a tree and hee was numbred among the transgressours Theodoret likewise being free from sinne he did undergoe the death of sinners that hee might take away the sinne of men and being called that which we are that is a sinner he made us that which he was that is righteous To the like purpose Augustine interpreting those words of Psalme 22. vers 1. according to the translation of the Septuagints and the vulgar Latine verba delictorum meorum the words of my sinnes of what sinnes saith he of whom it is said that he did no sinne neither was any guile found in his mouth how then doth he say of my sinnes but that hee prayeth for our sinnes and our sinnes he hath made his owne sinnes that his righteousnesse he might make our righteousnesse Hierome upon the same words Verbâ—… delictorum meorâ—… quia nostra peccâ—…ta sua reputat he saith the words of my sinne because our sinnes hee reputeth to bee his owne and againe on those words Psalm 38. 7. because mine iniquity for â—…s he was made subject to the curse that he might deliver us from the curse of the Law so he professeth himselfe a sinner who bare our sinnes and on these words Cogitabâ—… pro peccaâ—… meo Christs sinnes are the sinnes of mankinde Peccata Christi humani delicta sunt generis VIII Thirdly Bishop and other Papists commonly by sinne in this place understand a sacrifice for sinne according to the interpretation of some of the ancient acknowledged by Oecumeniâ—…s in which sense not onely the word Ascham is often used as Leviâ—… 5. 6. 16. 18 19. 7. 1 2. Numb 5. 7. but also Chattath Exod. 30. 10. Levit. 7. 7. 37. Levit. 4. 3. 8. 14. 20. 24. 9. 7. Ezek. 44. 27. 45. 19. 23. Hos. 4. 8. they eate the sinne of my people Answere This exposition maketh wholly for us For if God did make Christ a sacrifice for sinne he imputed our sinnes unto him or as the Prophet Esay speaketh he laid on him the iniquity of us all Esai 53. 6. Neither can it bee conceived how he should be made a sacrifice for our sinne unlesse our sinne were imputed unto him In sacrifices for sinne all which were types of Christ his sacrifice the manner was that the party who offered the sacrifice for sinne should lay his hand upon the head of the sacrifice the meaning of which ceremony is fully explained Lev. 16. 21 22. Where Aaron is required in the name of all the Congregation to lay his hands upon the head of the Scape-Goat which the Hebrews call Azazel the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latines Emissarium and confesse over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins putting them upon the head of the Goate and the Goate shall beare upon him all their iniquities So it is said of our Saviour Christ that when his soule shall be made an offering for sinne the Lord would lay upon him the iniquities of us all and that he should beare our sinnes And as our sinnes are imputed to him so his sufferings are imputed to us and accepted for us and in our behalfe as a full satisfaction and propitiation for our sinnes Ephes. 5. 2. 1 Ioh. 2. 2. which is also said of those Sacrifices which were but types and figures of his sacrifice Levit. 1. 4. and whereas Bellarmine saith that we cannot by Christs satisfaction imputed to us bee accounted just that is saith he cleane and without spot if the spots and defilements of sinne be truely inherent in us I answere If none bee justified in whom remaine any spots of sinne then no mortall man is justified But as Christ was reputed a sinner and was punished as a sinner because our sinne that is our debt which hee as our surety undertooke was imputed to him though in him was no spot of sinne even so we are by Christs satisfaction imputed to us reputed and rewarded as just and that by such a justice in which as Chrysostome saith there is no spot or blemish and is therefore called Gods righteousnesse though in us doe remaine some spots and blemishes of sinne For here it is said not that wee are made righteous but righteousnesse yea Gods righteousnesse and that not in our selves but in him For that is Gods righteousnesse when we are not justified by workes that is by righteousnesse inherent seeing it is necessary that no spot bee found as Chrysostome saith The like have Oecumenius and Theophylact. Hee did not say that wee might be made righteous saith Oecumenius but righteousnesse it selfe which is more and the righteousnesse of God Now Gods righteousnesse is to bee justified not by workes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by indulgence in him and by him § IX Bellarmine having rejected our exposition which is indeed the exposition of the Fathers as hath been shewed he saith it may be expounded three waies first that by the
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
of imputation of Christs righteousnesse where in mine opinion hee might as well have alleaged that there is no need of a Saviour For if there bee need of a Saviour it is to free us from the danger of damna ion and to entitle us to the Kingdome of heaven both which benefits are implyed in justification But how should we who are sinners and consequently by sinne obnoxious to damnation and excluded from heaven bee either acquitted from hell or made heires of heaven For neither by our selves nor by any other meanes in the world can we bee freed from hell or have right to heaven but onely by the death and merits of Christ our onely Saviour which is so cleare a truth that the Papists themselves cannot deny it But how can wee bee freed from hell by Christs sufferings or entitled to heaven by his obedience if the Lord doe not accept of his sufferings and obedience in our â—…ehalfe as if we had suffered and done the same in our owne persons If God doe not accept them in the behalfe of the faithfull for whose sake hee did obey and suffâ—…r then all that Christ did and suffered for us was in vaine and in vaine did he take our nature and our sinnes upon him If the Lord doe accept in our behalfe the fufferings and merits of Christ then doth he impute them unto us For by imputation as I haue said wee meane nothing else Neither can the sufferings and obedience of Christ being transient as I have also shewed before bee otherwise communicated unto us but by imputation § V. But come we to his second argument for if saith he imputation bee necessary it is chiefly for this cause because a man after remission of sinne remaineth still a sinner his sinne being covered and not abolished But when sinnes are remitted they are not onely covered but utterly abolished But here Bellarmine grossely mistaketh our assertion as if we held that sins are first forgiven and then after the forgivenesse of sinnes righteousnesse is imputed But wee hold that by imputation of Christs righteousnesse or satisfaction we have remission of sinne and not otherwise and therefore that to remission it â—…selfe imputation is absolutely necessary For God forgiveth no sinne nor remitteth the guilt of punishment for which his justice is not fully satisfied But wee are not able our selves to satisfie for our sinnes but by eternall punishment Therefore it is impossible salva Dei justitia that our sinnes should bee forgiven unlesse Christs satisfaction be imputed unto us § VI. And whereas still he harpeth on that string that remission of sinne is the utter deletion or abolition of it to wit by infusion of righteousnesse and that therefore imputation of Christs righteousnesse is needlesse I answere first that in sinne two things are considered the guilt and the corruption That in remission of sinne the guilt is fully taken away by imputation of Christs perfect righteousnesse but the corruption or pollution is not taken away by remission but by mortification and that not fully and at once but by degrees And howsoever these two benefits doe alwayes concurre remission of sinne and mortification of sinne for whosoever are freed from the guilt of sinne are also freed from the dominion of sinne and to whom the Lord granteth remission to them hee granteth repentance Gods forgiving and mans forgoing or forsaking of sinne going alwayes together notwithstanding they are by no meanes to be confounded I confesse that both of them are wrought by the bloud of Christ and by his death but in a divers respect For by the bloud of Christ is meant all that which issued out of his blessed side which was both bloud and water Ioh. 19. 34. which Saint Iohâ—… vers 35. noteth as a thing most remarkable and accordingly in his first Epistle Chapter 5. vers 6. urgeth it This is he that came by water and bloud even Christ Iesus not by water onely but by water and bloud The bloud of redemption to redeeme us from the guilt of sinne and the water of ablution to purge us from the pollution of sinne The death also of Christ may be considered either in respect of the merit thereof as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price or ransome apprehended by faith to redeeme us from the guilt of sinne or in respect of the vertue and efficacy as it is a medicine or plaister applyed by the Holy Ghost to cure us of the malady of sinne Both Christ worketh by his bloud and by his death but the former is done without us and in respect of sinnes past at once as when a debt is fully satisfied the later is wrought in us as when a disease is cured by degrees § VII Secondly if remission of sinne bee an utter deletion or a totall abolition of sinne then no mans sinne is forgiven in whom any sinne remaineth which is a most desperate doctrine as heretofore I have shewed for where is that mortall man in whom no sinne remaineth If the Papists say they have no sinne Saint Iohn will tell them that there is no truth in them Thirdly in the Scriptures to remit sinne is not to abolish it but to pardon and to forgive it or not to impute it And further God is said so to forgive our sinnes as wee forgive the offences of others which wee doe when by charity we cover them when we do not remember them with any desire or purpose to revenge them when we are reconciled to them that offended us The difference is that God forgiveth not onely in mercy but in justice also forgiving no sinnes but those for which his justice is fully satisfied He forgiveth therefore those sinnes for which Christ hath satisfied he remitteth the punishment to us which Christ hath borne for us he covereth them but with the robe of Christs righteousnesse hee is reconciled unto us but it is Christ for whose sake he doth forgive our sinnes Thus therefore I argue If remission of sinne bee not the deletion of the sinne it selfe by infusion of righteousnesse but the not imputing or covering of it the taking away of the guilt by imputation of Christs satisfaction then we are justified not by infusion but by imputation but the former is true therefore the later Yea but â—…aith Bellarmine the Scripture by remission of sinne understandeth the utter abolishing of sinne and to that purpose useth all manner of words which could be devised to expresse the utter deletion of sinne to which purpose he alleageth many testimonies all which I have answered heretofore § VIII Fourthly if there be a totall deletion of sin in our justification by the infusion of righteousnesse then that righteousnesse which in our justification is infused is perfect for the infusion of righteousnesse which is unperfect cannot cause a totall abolition of sinne Nay the imperfection it selfe is a sinne But it is absurd to imagine that the righteousnesse which is infused
in the first imaginary justification of the Papists or as we speake in our first regeneration is perfect seeing in our best estate in this life wee receive but the first fruits of the Spirit and in our first regeneration which is as it were our conception wee receive but the seeds as it were of Gods graces And therefore to imagine that in Infants newly Baptized having not so much as the use of reason there is perfection or full growth of Faith Hope and Charity when actually they neither can beleeve hope or love surpasseth all absurdity Especially when they acknowledge a great difference not onely betweene viatores which are in via that is the faithfull in this life and comprehensores which are in paâ—…ria that is the Saints in heaven but also among viatores themselves whom they distinguish into three degrees incipientes which are as infants proficientes which are as adolescentes and perfecti which are as adulti among whom none are so perfect but that still something may and ought to bee added their inner man being renewed from day to day 2 Cor. 4. 16. untill they come to full peâ—…fection which is not to bee attained unto in this life Shall then not onely other viatores be perfect but incipientes also Now it is apparant that their justification is incipientium even of infants in Baptisme in whom if there be a totall deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse then that righteousnesse which in Baptisme is infused is perfect neither can any thing be added to their Faâ—…th Hope and Charity But that there is no perfect inherent righteousnesse in this liâ—…e in any meere man whatsoever may thus briefly be proved In whomsoever is sinne in them is not perfect righteousnesse for perfect righteousnesse and sinne cannot stand together But in all mortall men there is sinne therefore in no meere or mortall man is perfect righteousnesse inherent CAP. VI. Bellarmines third argument that because the righteousnesse infused in iustification is perfect refuted § I. BELLARMINE his third argument whereby in the second place hee would prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to bee needlesse unto justification is because the righteousnesse which in justification is infused is perfect But his argument is unsufficient and his disputation is â—…ophisticall Vnsufficient for although our righteousnesse for the time to come should be perfect yet for the temission of sinnes past wherein in justification partly consisteth the imputatâ—…on of Christs satisfaction is absolutely necessary His disputation is Sophisticall wherin he argueth à posse ad esse and worse than so for where he ought to prove that the righteousnesse infused in our justification is perfect in all that are justified and so soone as they are justified hee proveth that in some men whom he accounteth perfect it may in some part of their life after thay have been good proficients be perfect But that is not the question but whether the righteousnesse which in the justification of a sinner is infused which they call their first justification be perfect or not for if it be unperfect and but begunâ—… it cannot possibly justifie a sinner before God but for all it the imputation of Christs righteousnesse will be most necessary But let us follow him in his proofe such as it is Inherent righteousnes saith he â—…onsisteth in these three especially faith hope charity if therefore these may be perfect in this life then oâ—…r inherent righteousnesse may be perfect Here againe he disputeth sophistically First because when he should prove that these habits of grace when they are infused to justify men as namely in baptisme are perfect and therefore that the imputation of Christs righteousnesse is needlesse hee proveth that they may bee perfect in some men in some part of their life secondly whiles hee proveth severally the perfection or rather the possibility of the perfection of this or that vertue for perfection of inherent righteousnesse is not proved by the perfection of any of these severally but of them and of all others joyntly For if there bee imperfection in any of those vertues or graces wherein inherent righteousnesse consisteth then is not the inherent righteousnesse perfect But let us see how he proveth them severally And first for Faith which he proveth may bee perfect in this life what it may bee in some choise men and in some part of their life it is not here questioned but whether it be perfect when men are first justified thereby The Apostles in some part of their life had a great and a strong faith yet for some time even after they were justified were by the censure of our Saviour but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of little faith § II. But yet let us see how he proveth it may be perfect in this life This he endevoureth to prove by sixe arguments his first proofe is this If faith cannot be perfect in this life then it can never be perfect but it is not to be beleeved that so excellent a vertue shall never be perfect The consesequence of the proposition he proveth because in the life to come it shall not be perfected but evacuated or made void I answer first to the prosyl logisme or proofe of the proposition for first that which hee calleth the evacuating of faith is the perfecting of it It is eternall life to knâ—…w God but in this life wee know him by faith in the life to come by vision here as it were in a looking-glasse and obscurely there face to face here wee are in our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or growing age wherein wee must still grow towards perfection there we come to our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and perfection here wee lead a mortall life there an immortall As therefore our mortall life is swallowed up of immortality wherby it is perfected and our growing yeeres by perfect age our obscure knowledge and as it were in a glasse by intuitive aspect so our faith in the life to come is to bee swallowed up in vision and our hope in fruition For faith and hope are not of things seen and enjoyed But when the things beleeved are seen and the things hoped for enjoyed then are faith hope broght to their consummâ—…tion and perfection Secondly if our faith shall be evacuated as hee speaketh in the life to come that is an evidence that in this life it is unperfect The Apostle 1 Cor. 13. 8. saith that our knowledge meaning the knowledge of faith shall bee evacuated or made void and of no further use for wee know saith hee in part verse 9. and wee prophesie in part but when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be evacuated that is saith Augustine ut 〈◊〉 jam ex parte sit sed ex toto when I was a child I spake as a childe I understood as a child I reasoned as a child but when I became a man I evacuated
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
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
not the faith of Abraham nor yet of Rabaâ—… Thirdly Saint Iames there concludeth yee see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only but a 〈◊〉 faith which Calvin calleth umbram fidei justifieth neither alone nor at all Ans. As I said before out of ver 14. by faith we are here to understand faith professed or the profession of faith And to be justified is here understood declarativè Now to declare a man before men to be justified before God two things are required the profession of the faith and a Christian life answerable to his profession and thus faith professed cooperateth with workes to declare a man to bee justified For neither works alone without the profession of the faith will doe it for workes without faith are dead nor the profession of the faith without workes for such a profession is also dead but both must goe together Fourthly saith he this is proved by two comparisons which hee calleth examples The former vers 15. 16. which hee doth very sorrily expresse first saith he he compareth a man having faith without workes to him who seeing the poore wanting food and rayment is content with that knowledge and giveth them no almes For even as it profiteth nothing the poore that the rich know their want although it be a most true knowledge unlesse according to that knowledge they bestow upon them necessaries so true faith 〈◊〉 nothing unlesse a man doe study and endeavour to live according to it Frigidè admodum dilutè For where doth Saint Iames compare true faith to these rich mens idle knowledge But the comparison plainely standeth thus As the profession of charity in giving good words to the poore that want food and raiment depart in peace be ye warmed and filled is vaine and unprofitable if men do not accordingly give them somewhat to supply their necessities so the profession of faith without workes is dead As therefore that charity which is in word and not in deed as Saint Iohn speaketh is counterfeit so that faith which is in profession only severed from good workes is counterfeit and dead Secondly saith he Saint Iames compareth faith without works to a body without Spirit which certainely is a true body though it be dead Answ. this also is contrary to the intendment of Saint Iames who therefore pâ—…oveth that faith which is without works to be no true justifying faith because it is dead For the profession of faith without workes is like to a mans body that is without Spirit yea but saith Bellarmine a dead body is a true body and a dead faith is a true faith I answere as before A dead carcase though it bee a true body in respect of his three dimensions and of his composition of the Elements yet it is not the true originall body of a man for a man is a living creature no more than a dead branch or bough is a true member of a living Tree § VI. His fourth argument is taken from those testimonies which teach that in the Church there are both good and bad in the floore both Wheate and chaffe in the net fishes both good and bad in the flocke sheepe and goats c. His reason standeth thus Some in the Church are wicked and void of Charity and other graces But all in the Church have faith Therefore some that have faith are void of Charity Answ. The assumption is most false for not all that professe faith who from thence are called fideles in opposition to Infidels are endued with true justifying faith which is not of all but of the Elect neither be all of the Church that be in it 1 Ioh. 2. 19. Non existimo quenquam ita desipere saith Augustine ut credat ad Eccesiae pertinere unitatem eum qui non habet charitatem But saith Bellarmine if the wicked who are in the Church did want trut faith then should they chiefly bee reprehended for their unbeleefe but they are reprehended non de amissione fidei sed de omissione operum not for the amission or losse of faith but for the omission of good workes Ans. when their want of faith doth appeare they are reprehended for it But because that is many times hidden and we are in the judgement of Charity to judg them faithfull who professe the faith untill the contrary appeare therfore hypocrites escape reprehension which open sinners do incur Bellarm. conclusion that true justifying faith may in the same party concur with sin and that it may be found in sinners none deny but pharisaicall Papists who hold themselves being after their fashion as namely by Baptisme or absolution justified to be no sinners professing that there is no sin in them nor any thing that God can hate And wheras Bellarmine taketh it for granted that all in the Church have faith and that none want it but such as have lost it as it is lost they say by every act of infidelity hereby is discovered the most pernicious doctrine of the Church of Rome whereby innumerable soules are nuzzled in ignorance infidelity and impenitencio to their utter ruine and perdition For they teach that all that are baptized are ex opere operato justified by infusion of Faith Hope and Charity in which estate they remaine untill they commit some mortall sinne then indeed they lose their charity and their justification but they retaine their faith which was infused in Baptisme and still are to be accounted faithfull men and women though they know nothing nor actually beleeve any thing unlesse to their Baptisme be added popish education by which for the most part they are taught to beleeve as their Church beleeveth that being the safest course which faith disposeth them to justification directing them after the losse of their charity wherein their justification consisted to seeke to the Sacrament of penance that thereby they may recover their justification Once a yeere therefore they goe to their priest to him they formally confesse their grosser sinnes formally they professe themselves sorry for them the priest absolveth them from eternall punishment enjoyning them some petite penance whereby they are to satisfie for the temporall penalty which remaineth after their absolution from the eternall by the priests absolution they all stand actually justified the priest refusing none though in truth they neither have knowledge nor faith nor Repentance or amendment of life nor any other Grace without which for all their sacramentall justifications and other they have none they live and die in a most wofull state of damnation § VII His fifth argument is taken from the proper nature of faith and charitie for saith he if faith and charitie cannot be disjoyned either it is because one is of the nature of the other or else because one necessarily ariseth or springeth from the other but neither of these may be said therfore faith and charitie may be severed Ans. First I deny the disjunctive
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
doth not justifie alone first because it doth not dispose alone to justification there being seven dispositions whereof faith is but one and namely the first § I. NOw let us see what arguments Bellarmine doth bring to prove that we are not justified by faith alone Which question in his opinion may bee disputed three wayes either with relation to the time going before justification or to the time of justification or to the time following our justification In respect of the first the question which he maketh is whether faith doth justifie alone by way of disposing unto justification In respect of the second whether faith be the onely formall cause of our justification In respect of the third whether for the retaining and preserving of righteousnesse good workes be not required but faith onely sufficeth The first he disputeth De justif l. 1. c. 12. and in the twelve chapters following to the end of that booke The second that faith is not the onely and entire formall cause of justification he disputeth in the second booke The third he disputeth in the fourth booke Chap. 18. 19. where he endevoureth to prove that good workes doe justifie But in mine opinion hee should rather have disputed this question whether faith doth justifie at all or not For whereas they make two justifications the first habituall whereby of a sinner a man is made just the second actuall whereby a man of just is made more just by their doctrine faith doth not justifie as a part either of the one or the other but is required as a necessary companion and as it were causa sine qua non which is no cause For they make the formall cause of their first justification which they say truely is but one to be charity and the meritorious cause of the second to be good workes Onely that charity and those good workes must not be without faith All which they ascribe to faith is that they make it the beginning of justification and a disposition to it Neither doe we deny but that true faith is the beginning and the root of sanctification and of all inherent righteousnesse insomuch that from it both charity it selfe 1 Tim. 1. 5. and all other both internall graces and externall obedience doe spring but the act of justification neither in the first nor second doe they ascribe to faith Onely unto the first justification they require it as a preparative disposition for the habit of grace to bee infused which doth not differ from Charity and when it is infused to be a companion thereof And to the second as causa sine qua non without which workes doe not justifie § II. But to come to Bellarmines large discourse the greatest part thereof seemeth to bee impertinent and besides the purpose But to make all seeme pertinent he maliciously calumniateth us as if we held all those assertions which hee with such eagernesse doth confute But if we doe hold that faith doth not justifie by way of disposing either alone or at all and that it is not the formall cause of justification either alone as the entire cause or at all as any part thereof and that it is not a consequent of justification at all as works indeed are to what end doth all this dispute serve unlesse it be to make their seduced Catholiks who never are permitted to read any of our writings to beleeve that he hath doughtily confuted us § III. And that faith doth not justifie alone by way of disposing he endeavoureth to prove by five sorts of arguments The first from those seven dispositions required by the Councell of Trent to justification among which he reckoneth faith for one Whereunto in generall I answere that this whole discourse besides that it is impertinent for wee doe not hold as I have said that faith doth justifie by way of disposition either alone or at all it is also an idle speculation disagreeing from their practicke theologie and that in two respects First to their speculative justification they require foregoing preparations and dispositions but to the obtayning of justification in deed and in practise no such things are required For the efficacie of justifying a sinner they ascribe to their Sacraments which they say doe conferre gratiam gratum facientem that is justifie ex opere operato requiring as I conceive no preceding preparation or disposition in the party to be justified so hee doe not interpose the obstacle of any mortall sinne For if foregoing dispositions were required before the Sacraments then they should not justifie as I have said before ex opere operato but ex opere operantis Secondly they doe teach that in their first justification Charity and with it Faith and Hope are infused whereby a man that before was a sinner is made righteous And that therefore a man is first justified when these are infused and that these are first infused when a man is justified and yet they tell us of a true Faith true Hope true Love going before justification Which by their doctrine though they goe together I meane Faith Hope and Charity accompanied with other good dispositions are neither graces nor gifts of grace infused For before or without the Sacrament there is no justification which they have tyed to the Sacrament and before justification as themselves say there is no grace For if they were graces indeed as no doubt but they are where they are true and goe together accompanied with other good dispositions then men might be justified before the receit of the Sacrament as Abraham was and then the Sacrament to men so qualified should not conserre grace but seale it Thus to mainetaine their pernicious errour concerning the efficacie of the Sacraments justifying ex opere operato whereby they have turned religion into an outward formality that Faith that Hope that Charity which goe before the Sacrament as namely in Cornelius before his baptisme should be no true graces because all true justifying and saving grace is insused in the administration of the Sacrament and this infusion of grace is that which they call justification By their doctrine therefore justifying faith is that which in the very act of justification is infused and being infused doth justifie not by way of disposing but formally it selfe being informed by Charity And therefore according to their owne doctrine that faith which disposeth to justification is not justifying Faith And consequently all this discourse concerning six other preparative dispositions concurring with faith to prove that we are not justified by faith alone is besides the purpose For that faith which they make their first preparative disposition is not justisying faith neither doth justifie otherwise by Bellarmines owne confession than its next companion viz servile feare doth But wee when we say that faith alone doth justifie speake not of a bare and naked assent which is common to the wicked which cannot justifie either alone or at all but of a true
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
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
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
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
become of that which is written And thou shalt render to every one according to his workes If it be rendred according to works how shall it be accounted mercie Whereunto he giveth two answeres both of them making against merit The first Sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa operareddere It is one thing to render according to workes another to render for the workes themselves for in that which is said according to workes the quality of the workes is meant that whose workes shall appeare to be good his retribution may be glorious according to workes therefore is according to the quality of them whether good or evill For if good then he will reward them with blisse if evill then will he condemne them For to that blessed life saith he wherein we live with God and of God no labour can bee matched no works can be compared especially seeing the Apoâ—…tle saiâ—…h the sufferings of this life are not condigne to the future glory which shall be revealed in us His other answere howbeit in this respect also it may be called mercie because it is given for such workes as no man can attaine unto without mercie It is evident therefore saith hee that to whom God in mercie giveth grace to worke well in this life to them in greater mercie he granteth that in eternall blisse they shall be rewarded with an hundred fold this is that grace which for grace the Apostle saith shall bee given to the Saints of God that unto whom in this life the grace of sanctification is given of God to them the grace of eternall happinesse is given in the life to come which also maketh strongly against merits both because eternall life is a free gift and also because that righteousnesse to which it is given is a free gift and because greater mercie is shewed in giving glory than in giving gracc § III. The second exposition which he assigneth to Augustine is a fiction of his owne braine viz. that in the crowning of the Saints mercie is necessary for the remission of veniall sinnes Not that thâ—…s mercie saith hee is the Crowne of life but because it doth accompany it the Crowne of life being given to their merits and the remission granted to their venial offences which fiction as it is falsely fathered upon Aug. so it is not agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of Rome nor consonant to the truth it self For seeing in the faithful sin according to the truth both in respect of the guilt and also of the corruption is wholly taken away in the end of this life or according to the Church of Romes doctrine is purged and taken away by the fire of Purgatory it is a greaâ—… absurdity to imagine that the faithful whose soules before the resurrection enjoy as they also teach the beatifical vision should after the resurrection need remission of venial sins § IV. For our second argument Bellarmine propoundeth in our behalfe two object out of Esa. 55. 1. and Dan. 9. 18. which he saith might be made The former wherof is availeable against the merit of grace not only the first which he confesseth but the second also and not onely against merit of grace but of glory for that also is promised without price the later against affiance reposed in our own merits For if we are not to trust in them for the obtaining of temporall benefits wherof Bellar understands the Prophet to speak then much lesse eternall between which and our supposed merits there is a farre gâ—…eater disproportion § V. Our third argument is â—…aken out of Luk. 17. 7 8. 9. 10. Which of you having a servant plowing or feeding cattell will say unto him by and by when he is come from the field Goe and sitdown to meat and wil not rather say unto him make ready wherwith I may sup and gird thy selfe and serve me till I have eaten and drunken and afterwards thou shalt eate and drink Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him I â—…row not So likewise you when you shal hâ—…ve done all these things which are commanded you which is spoken by supposition and is all one with this connexive If you shall doe all things which are commanded you say we are unprofitable servants wee have done that which was our duety to doe Which place affordeth three unanswerable arguments against the merit of condignity taken from three of those conditions required in merits which before were mentioned The first in respect of God who is our absolute Lord. The second in respect of us who are his bondservants the third in respect of our workes because all that we can doe though we should doe all that is commanded is but our duety § VI. For the first if earthly Masters who with their servants are fellow servants to one heavenly Master doe not owe so much as thanks to their servants for doeing that which they command then much lesse our heavenly Master who is our absolutâ—… Lord doth owe the heavenly reward to his servants when they doâ—… that which hee commandeth though they should doe all that is commanded which they are never able to doe For the second Iâ—… bondservants who are not their owne but their masters men for a servant as the Philosopher saith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and altogether his man another mans man doe owe themselves and all that they can doe to their master and cannot deserve so much as thankes at his hands for doing what hee commandeth though they doe all that is commanded and although their service be profitable to their master and finally though they receive not from him either the will or power of yeelding obedience to him but all that they can desire or expect by their uttermost endevour is to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wâ—…ll pleasing to their master when if their service be any way defective are wel apayed if they escape the whip as Theophylact speaketh how much lesâ—…e wee who are the Lords mancipia and bondservants both by the right of creation and by the right of redemption being in regard thereof servi quia servati and consequently not our owne men but his who hath made and redeemed us and therefore doe owe our selves and all yea more than all we can doe doe wee or can we deserve at the hands of God the reward of eternall life by doing what he commandeth though we should doe all that is commanded which we never doe Especially seeing and also seeming that wee doe not all that is commanded and lastly seeing that our service bringâ—…th him no profit Iob. 22. 2 3. 35. 7. for that which we doe wee receive both the will and power from him Wherefore all that in reason we can desire or expect in regard of our obedience is that wee may bee well pleasing unto him Yea forasmuch as our service is alwayes defective and unperfect
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