over-rule all is in so dangerous a condition This will appear if they consider First that through the pretended infallibility of their Head they can have no certain ground-work or Reason of their belief but are in a way to lose all true Faith For let the Cardinal make the Proposition If the Pope could Erre or turn Heretick then would the Church be bound to this Absurdity or inconveniency of taking Vice for Vertue Error for Truth This he plainly laies down in his 4. Book de Pontifice and its good Doctrine in Italy and Spain Then let the Gallican Church and more Moderate Papists make the Assumption But the Pope may turn Heretick what can the Conclusion speak but the hazard of that Church which will be under such a pretended infallible Head Secondly That by being of that Communion they are taught to appropriate to themselves the Name of Catholick and thereby bound to an uncharitable condemning of all other Christians and to a necessity of proving many Novel Errors to be ancient Catholick Doctrine We do not envie them the Title of Catholicks that they should enjoy it together withall other Chrictians who are baptized into the Catholick Faith and do profess it without any destructive Heresie but the appropriating of that Title to themselves and that in regard of those special superadded Articles of Faith proper to that Church implies all other Christians to be no better then Hereticks and excludes all conditions of Peace unless they will come in as the Israelites to Naash with their right eyes put out 1 Sam. 10. Whereas upon due trial we may confidently affirm it will appear that no Church of known and ancient denomination as Greek Asian African British doth less deserve to be called Catholick or has more forfeited that Name because none so much falsified her trust whether we consider the Errors entertained or the Imposing them as Catholick and Christian Faith The three great concernments of Religion and so of the Church are the Faith professed the Worship practised the Sacraments administred all which are dangerously violated in that Church For first How have they kept the Faith undefiled which the Athanasian Creed so severely enjoyns that have mixed it with such New superadded Articles and lay the foundation of their belief upon the uncertain perswasion of a pretended Infallibility Secondly The Worship of God is there violated by the performing it in an unknown tongue for without understanding the people cannot say Amen The prayer on their parts is but a sacrifice of fools not a reasonable service Again Violated in yielding to the Creature an undue religious service as may appear by what is said in the three first Chapters of this Book Lastly Sacraments violated by addition of New ones and those properly so called A great invasion it is upon Gods property if any man or Church hold out that for the Sacramental Sign and Instrument of Grace which God who is the only Author of Grace has not appointed to be so Again upon that which our Saviour did undoubtedly institute a great invasion is made by first taking away the substance from the outward Elements and then taking away from the people half of that which remains Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it Mat. 26.27 The Church of Rome saith Ye shall not all Drink of it Nay None of you shall but the Priest only Add to this the Impossibility they put themselves upon as I said to prove all their New Articles of belief for which they will be the only Caâ—holicks to be the Ancient Faith and Catholick Doctrine of the Church They will hardly be brought to say The Church may make New Articles of Faith but rather The Church may declare what was before but implicitly believed This is true if duly explained yet will it not excuse the boldness of that Church For when the Church declares any thing as of Faith which was not expresly taught before it is such a Truth as was necessarily conteined and couched in the confessed Articles of the Creed and by immediate consequence clearly thence deduceable as the Consubstantiality of the Son declared against the Arrians the two Wills in Christ against the Monothelites the continuance of the Humanity in its own nature and substance against the Eutychians This is that which Vincentius saith in his 32. chap. What else did the Church endeavour in the Decrees of Councils but that what before was simply believed might afterward be more diligently and explicitly believed And to shew that the Articles of faith do not increase in Number but in the dilatation of more ample knowledge He aptly uses the similitude of the several parts of the Natural body which are as many in a childe as in a grown man no addition made of new parts for that would render the body monstrous but each part is dilated and augmented by degrees To this purpose he in his 29. chap. When therefore the Romanists can shew their Novel Articles by immediate and necessary consequence deduceable from the confessed Truthes of that Creed into which we are baptized then and not till then can we excuse this boldness in adding to the Christian Faith this uncharitable Pride in boasting themselves the only Catholicks III. May they consider how their Masters being engaged in such necessity of making good the pretended Catholick Doctrine of that Church are often forced to wink at the light and go on blindfold Their Masters acknowledg and so does their Trent Council that the worship of Saints and Angels Invocation of them Adoration of Images is not commanded but commended as profitable Why then should Scripture be so oft alledged to deceive the unwary why are they retained as profitable when Experience shews what a scandal is thereby given to Jews and Turks what offence to so many Christians as protest against them what a stumbling block to their own people exposed thereby to the danger of Idolatry They acknowlege that our Saviour instituted the Sacrament and administred it in both kindes and that it was so from the beginning received and practised in the whole Church yet will not the Court of Rome suffer the people so to receive it And in their defence of this half Communion they acknowledge if the Church alter any thing in or about the Sacraments yet it must be Salvâ illorum substantia saving their substance Concil Trid. ses 21. c. 2. which notwithstanding they can take away the whole substance of the Elements and defraud the people of the half of what is left and notwithstanding our Saviours Institution and the Custom of the whole Church for so many ages This custom must be held for a Law which none may contrary as that Council decrees in the same chap. They acknowledge it is fit the people communicate with the Priest in every Mass i.e. they acknowledge it is fit there should be no private Masses and they wish it were so and yet decree the contrary cap. 6. de Missa So
and disposed by the motion of his will It implies that which I said and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justification by faith alone for it condemns him that saith a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he means there is none of these required II. These works or workings of the soul are preparatory and dispositive to Justification for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before desire fear love sorrow purposes which may be call'd Initials upon the ministry of the word the threatnings and the promises as before child-bearing many throws so in the travail of the soul for the second birth Faith it self rises by degrees of persuasions for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith till it come to that last act that believing with the whole heart immediately requisite to Justification Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence for it gives beginning to them for by the persuasions that faith has of those threats and promises in the Gospel Preeminence of faith in them and of all the truths of Christs performances and merits arise desires and fears sorrow love the motions of the heart or will and these Initials advance and gather strength according to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and perswasions for this the Trent Council acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of mans salvation the foundation and root of Justification Chap. 8. this is well said in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works had they but given to it its due in the act of Justification that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the apprehending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification Christ and his righteousness Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will dispose himself to justification the Trent Council condemns such doctrine Can. 3. III. There are other acts and works also besides faith Conditions and qualifications in Justification which according to their measure are required in Justification as conditions of receiving remission of sins so repentance and the act of charity in forgiving others But Faith here also has the preeminence no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul as those of Repentance and Charity according to their measure be required as conditions of receiving the benefit Preeminence of faith which is remission of sins or as qualifications of the subject that receives it yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritorious cause of justification and remission as faith is for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith IIII. As for that infused inherent Righteousness Inherent Righteousness which the Church of Rome laies so much upon in the point of our Justification seeing it is the Work of God as they acknowledge it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification as a necessary qualification of the person Justified A needless dispute it is what should be the formal cause of our Justification seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other then Christs righteousness as imputed Formal Cause and by faith apprehended and made ours for that phrase of the Apostle he is made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 and we made the righteousness of God in him sounds something to a formal cause not inherent but by way of imputation and account not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it but that for his righteousness performed for us he not only forgives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith but accounts of them receives them as righteous Therefore instead of asking after the formal cause in us more proper it is to enquire according to the Apostles expression Ro. 4.13 it was counted to him for righteousnes v. 23. it shall be imputed to us what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness i. e. upon which being performed on our part God receives accounts of us as righteous We finde by the Apostle it is our believing for it was so with Abraham He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness not the Tò Credere the very act of believing but more concretely considered with that which it apprehends the receiving of what is offered in the promise Christ and his righteousness V. Lastly as for those that are commonly call'd good works which being done in the state of grace are more perfect then the former such as were preparatory and dispositive to justification or according to their measure required in Justification as Conditional to the remission of sins given in it Those good works I say are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works yet is not the first justification by these works for they follow it Our Adversaries when put to it do grant it and draw the whole dispute as we see by this Author to that which they call the second Justification of which if they will make no more then as I hinted above their Council makes of it we might here sit down having the cause yeilded up to us but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people Justified by works and in their disputes for it to confound the first and second Justification using places of Scripture which treat of the first or true and proper Justification as we shall see in examining of them This Author begins with S. James 2.24 which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position that Faith only does not Justify where it is our turn now to observe his mistakes Should we therefore demand what justification is this that S. James treats of first or second he must confess his impertinency for the Apostle here treats of the first the true and proper Justification and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free and not by works now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justification which S. James and S. Paul treats of and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3 Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness But it is plain that S. Paul every where treats of the first and proper Justification The other example also that S. James makes use of viz. of Rahab plainly speaks the first Justification And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men to prove that S. James speaks
whether the book be forged or no and the story of Justina true or false yet Nazienzen approves the fact or practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We answer that he tels us she betook her self to God for help and to Christ that she strengthened her self with the Examples of Susanna Daniel c. then follows having considered these things she also supplicated the Virgin Mary that she would help a Virgin now in danger and so he leaves the story neither commendig this practise nor reproving it We have seen what Testi monies the Romanists alledge out of the Fathers and how faithfully it is done especially by the Cardinal One Argument remains which all of them make from the success they found who applyed themselves to the Martyrs whereby it is evident that God did approve the practise But this is a fallacious Argument à non Causa making their invocation of the Martyr to be the Cause or motive of Gods hearing and granting success It is certain in History that many were heard who resorted to the monuments of Martyrs and prayed to God there yea many that prayed there to God with reference to the Intercession which the Martyr and all other Saints made for the Church below but if some were heard that did directly invocate or pray to the Martyr of which Examples cannot certainly be given we may say God overlooked the Excess or the voluntaries of their mouth as St. August Aug. Confess l. 9. c. 13. Voluntaria oris mei call'd his Excesses or breakings out in his praying for his mother whom he believed to be in bliss hoping that God would pardon the extravagance And as the same Father insinuates God overlooked and pardoned the infirmities of the Midwives not speaking altogether according to truth Aug. Qu. 12 in Exod. non potuit ad laudem sed ad Veniam pertinere and rewarded their good will Exod. 1.20 Their untruth could not deserve praise might obtain pardon So when the Romanists urge the miracles which Augustine sent hither by Greg. the first is said to work as Gods witness to the Truth of all the Doctrines he brought from Rome we say those Miracles supposing them to be wrought were Gods witnesses to the Catholick Faith which Austin preached and planted here not to all that he taught God in mercy overlooking those lesser errors and vanities when he was pleased and saw it fit to give testimony by those Miracles to the Faith of Christ But this may suffice for the former Argument If therefore we be asked why we do not conform in this practise to the Ancient Church it may be answered Because we see what the more Ancient Church held and practised and we find by St. Aug. conFaust l. 20. c. 21. Alind est quod docemus aliud quod sustinemusEt donec emendemus to lerare compellimur Aug. that many things were done at the Martyrs Tombs but not by the better sort of Christians as we noted above Sect. 1. nu 6. and that in his answer to Faustus about the worship or honour given to Martyrs he concludes thus It is one thing that we teach another thing which we bear with and we are compelled to tolerate it till we can amend it Therefore because we saw much deflexion in the Romish practise from the Primitive Verity when we had opportunity and power to amend it the thing St. Aug. desired we did it and with good Reason allowing in this point what may consist with Catholick Doctrine such we count the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wish of having benefit by those prayers which the Saints above make for the members of the Church militant and labouring below yea such we may account the indirect Invocation which begs of God that benefit or effect of those Prayers but we cannot account the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or direct Invocation to consist with Catholick Doctrine when it is made to Saints and that by way of Religious address as the Church of Rome practiseth it in her offices which practise none of the Ancients knew SECT III. Of Image-worship HOw the Romanists labour in this point to stand against Scripture which so forcibly encounters them Romanists altogether forsaken here of Scripture and Antiquity we saw above Chap. III. and there was answered what they bring from Ps 99.5 to worship his footstool and the Images of the Cherubins upon the Ark This is the best and only plea they can make from Scripture yet so weak and ungrounded that their own Authors give it over as impertinent and raised upon a false supposal that the Jewish Church had any Images for worship as abovesaid Ch. 3. nu 10. Now let us see how they strive to bear up against the universal consent of Antiquity which with a strong Current for 700 years runs contrary unto them Our first evidence against this Image-worship The first Evidence Had there been any such thing amongst Christians those Ancient Apologists and Defenders of Christian Religion against Heathens Justin Clemens Tertullian Minutius Lactantius Arnobius Eusebius would have mentioned it when they give account of the worship used in their assemblies Nay they could not have declined it when they set themselves to refute the Heathen Image-worship And therefore Tertul. Tert. Apol. c. 12. Igitur si statuas imagines frigidas mortuorum suorum simillimas non adoramus quas milvi araneae intelligunt nonne laudem in his Apologetick professes and defends their not worshiping of Images If therefore saith he we do not worship Statues and cold Images like indeed to the Dead whom they represent and which Birds and Spiders understand well enough it deserves praise rather then punishment See how he not only denies the worship but vilifies them as unfit for worship cold and like the Dead and that the Birds understand them and therefore fear not to dung upon them Minutius Faelix answering Cecilius a Heathen that objected against the Christians their having no Temples no Images gives reasons wherefore they had not or not used them in worship Clemens Alexandr as he denies the Jewish Church had any Images to worship saying * Clem. strom 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses set no statue or figure in the Temple to be worshiped so is he very severe against Images among Christians insomuch that he scarce allowes the Art of painting or of making Images as we may see in his Protreptic Origen had to do with Celsus about worship and Invocation and to answer why the Christians gave it not to Angels whom they acknowledged to be ministring Spirits sent of God as they the Heathen gave it to their Daemons of which in the two former Sections But he was also put to satisfie Celsus why the Christians did not use Images and for which he compares them to Scythians Barbarians that had no Temples and Images because they knew not what the Gods or Heroes were How does Origen answer by saying as a Romanist
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual
utramque attingimus por fidem and saith we attain to both sorts of Righteousness by faith Then he puts the question Vpon which of these righteousnesses we ought to relye or hold our selves justified before God and accounted righteous He concludes Justitiâ Christi nobis donatâ non autem Sanctitate gratiâ nobis inhaerente ibid. it must be upon the righteousness of Christ given us not upon the Sanctity or Grace inherent in us and adds the Reason Inchoata imperfecta quae tueri nos non potest quin in multis offendamus assidue peccemus because that which is in us is but inchoate and imperfect which cannot keep us from offending often Idcircò in conspectu Dei non possumus ob hanc Est vera perfecia justitia quaeomnino placet oculis Dei in qua nihil est quod Deum offendit and sinning daily and therefore have daily need to say Forgive us our Debts therefore we cannot be accounted just in the sight of God for this our righteousness but the righteousness of Christ given to us is the only true and perfect righteousness which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God and in which there is nothing that offends him Unto this the same Author applies Phil. 3.9 Not having mine own righteousness but the Righteousness which is through Faith He gives us withall a good lesson It is found by experience saith he that holy men * quantò magis in sanclitate proficiunt tanto minùs sibi placere tanto magìs intelligunt se indigere Christo justitia Christi sibi donata ideóque se relinquunt soli Christo incumbunt Contar. ibid. the more they advance in Sanctity the less are they pleasing to themselves and the more do they understand how they stand in need of Christ and his Righteousness given unto them therefore they forsake themselves and relie upon Christ only He answers also to some places of Scripture objected as that the Psalmist saith often Judge me O Lord according to my righteousness and the Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness for I have kept the waies of the Lord Ps 18.20 21. If David had said and meant this so it à ut putasset se propterea justificatum esse coram Deo as to think himself therefore justified before God he had spoken as arrogantly as the Pharisee Luc. Scd essent mera mendacia 18. Nay he had spoken mere lies All this was spoken in regard of his Enemies especially Saul and Absalom of whom he had deserved well and not in regard of his righteousness before God Also to that place of Deut. 6.25 It shall be our righteousness if we observe all these Commandments he answers * Justitia nostra Legalis est custedire omniâ— sed quia nullus servet omnia praecepta Legis ergò sub maledicto omnes ideoque omnes indigemus Christo Our legal righteousness is to observe all but because there is none that keeps all the precepts of the Law therefore all lye under the curse or condemnation and all stand in need of Christ and his righteousness Thus that Cardinal was convinced of the Truth of the Protestant Doctrine in this point or question between imputed and inhaerent righteousness acknowledging the imperfection of the Inhaerent as to its effect of Justifying and that the imputed was to be relied on We might to these add what the Colen Divines in their Antididagma Antidida gma Tit. Justific or book opposed to the reformation endeavoured by Hermannus the Archbishop do acknowledge speaking of the Causes of Justification Nobis imputatur ad justitiam dum fide apprehenditur That the righteousness of Christ as it is apprehended by Faith is imputed to us for righteousness and more to like purpose Hitherto we have shewen by the foregoing witnesses that this Romish Doctrine of inhaerent Righteousness has not been Catholick within that Church not so generally held among themselves as they pretend It is now time to look higher and briesily examine what they bring from Scripture and Antiquity to make it seem according to Vincentius Rule Catholick Romanists destiture of Scripture in this point And by this trial it will still appear less worthy of that name The Cardinal brings * Bell. l. 2. de Justif c. 3. eight places of Scripture for justification by inhaerent righteousness Which might all be answered with this one exception They may prove that there is an inhaerent righteousness but not that there is Justification by it To instance in the chief of them His first place is Rom. 5.19 Made sinners really inhaerently We grant it true and answerably made righteous by Christ but were we made sinners only so by Adams disobedience were we not also made so by imputation the Cardinal himself acknowledges it Bell. de Aâ— miss gâ—a l. 5. c. 17. sect itaque and then are we not also made righteous by imputation of the second Adams obedience The Cardinal as we saw * Nu. 4. above in three places acknowledges the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits for freeing us from the offence of sin and and the guilt of eternal death and therefore from that condemnation under which we are by the first Adams disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That condemnation the Apostle here vers 18. sets against Justification and so in this Antithesis vers 19. between made sixners and made righteous must first stand good in regard of Condemnation and Justification taken properly then between the inhaerent depravation and the inhaerent Righteousness Take what the Ancient Commentators here say is meant by made sinners Chrys in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost and after him Occumenius and Theophylact to the like purpose expounds it made subject to punishment and condemned to death that 's the first sense of made sinners and unto that is Justification in the first and proper sense opposed The Cardinals second Testimony is Rom. Bel. quo suprá 3.24 Here he would finde all the Causes of Justification and in the word Grace taken for inherent righteousness he fixes the Formal Cause Of Grace and Gratis That it is taken for the gift of Grace inhaerent and not for the favour of God he would prove by the word gratis freely which was enough to set out the favour of God and his love to Mankinde But the Cardinal here also is impertinent and his argument inconsequent For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratis freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not put here to set forth the true Cause of our Justification viz. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods gracious favour so much as to exclude the false Causes viz. any cause desert motive on mans part Freely that is without any price paid by us without any Cause given by us or any worth in us Thus gratis is taken in Scripture and though it consequently