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
have true faith have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them by which Christ dwelleth in them and those which have not the Spirit of Christ are none of his Rom. 8. 9 Faith is the proper worke of the Spirit who is therefore called the Spâ—…rit of faith 2 Cor. 4. 13. And therfore those who are endued with true faith have the Spirit by both which Christ dwelleth in us Againe all that are the sonnes of â—…od have the Spirit of Christ Gal. 4. 6. all that truly beleeve are the sonnes of God as hath been shewed All that be Christs they have his Spirit for those that have not his Spirit are none of his Rom. 8. 9. All that truely beleeve are Christs 1 Cor. 3. 23. both because God hath given them unto him Iohn 6. 37. 17. 9 24. and because he hath bought them with a great price 1 Cor. 6. 19. and because by faith they are engrafted and united unto him as his members Therefore all that have true faith are endued with Charity and other graces § III. Thirdly all that are sanctified are endued with Charity and other graces for in them our sanctification doth consist All that have true faith are sanctified For first by faith the heart is purified Acts 15. 9. and true faith worketh by love Galathians 5. 6. Secondly because all that are justified are also sanctified All that have a true faith are justified therefore all that have a true faith are sanctified The proposition can in no sort be denied by the Papists who confound justification and sanctification But though they must necessarily be distinguished yet they may not they cannot be severed They are such unseparablecompanions that whosoever hath the one hath the other and whosoever hath not both hath neither whosoever is in Christ as all the faithfull are is a new creature 2 Cor. 5. 17. he liveth not after the flesh but after the Spirit Rom. 8. 1. He crucifieâ—…h the flesh with the lusts thereof Gal. 5. 24. This truth is confirmed by the oth of God whereby he hath promised in the covenant of grace that to all the faithfull the sonnes of Abraham he will give them redemption and justification and being redeemed hee will give them grace to worship him in holinesse and righteousnesse before him all the dayes of their life Those therefore whom God doth justifie by faith he doth sanctifie by his Spirit But all that have a true justifying faith are justified and by their justification have right or are entituled to the Kingdome of heaven Act. 13. 38 39. yea the Gospell teacheth not onely that they which truely beleeve shall bee saved but also that they are translated from death to life and that they have eternall life Ioh. 5. 24. 6. 47. 1 Ioh. 5. 11. 13. § IV. Fourthly all true disciples of Christ are endued with charity Ioh. 13. 35. All that truly beleeve in Christ are his true disciples therefore c. Fifthly that which worketh by Charity is not without it True faith worketh by Charity Gal. 5. 6. Sixthly The formed faith is not severed from Charity as the Papists themselves teach True justifying faith is the formed faith for that which is without forme is neither atrue nor justifying but a dead and counterfeit faith Seventhly If faith without Charity doe not justifie then a true justifying faith is not without Charity But the former is true for that faith which is without Charity profiteth nothing 1 Cor. 13. 2. therefore the later Eighthly out of 1 Iohn 4. 8. hee that beleeveth knoweth God they that love not know not God ergo they that love not beleeve not § V. To these eight arguments wee will adde seven more out of the Epistle of S. Iames Chapter 2. beginning at the 14. verse where he doth not goe about to prove that a true justifying faith doth not justifie alone but that that faith which is alone without Charity without good workes doth neither justifie alone nor at all And that hee proveth by these reasons First verse 14. True faith doth justifie and save a man that faith which is in profession onely being void of Charity or as Saint Iames speaketh when a man saith he hatâ—… faith and hath not workes doth not justifie or save a man and therefore is not a true faith Secondly à pari verse 15 16 17. Charity which is onely in words and profession and not indeed and truth is unprofitable and vaine so pari ratione faith which is onely in profession being alone void of Charity and of good workes is dead Thirdly verse 18. True faith may be demonstrated by good workes but that faith which is in profession onely and void of Charity cannot be demonstrated by good workes therefore it is not a true faith Fourthly ver 19. that faith which is common to devils is no true justifying faith for they beleeve that which they abhorre whereupon Augustine saith Fides Christiani cum dilectione est daemonis autem sine dilectione Fifthly vers 20. the dead faith of a vaine man is not a justifying faith that faith which is without charity is the dead faith of a vaine man therefore not a justifying faith Sixthly ver 21. 22. 23. 24 25. True justifying faith is such a faith as was that of Abrâ—…ham or at least as was that of Rahab that is fruitfull of good workes but that which is without Charity and without good workes is not such a faith as that of Abraham or of Rahab Seventhly vers 26. â—… simili as the body without spirit is dead so that faith which is without good workes is dead Vpon these arguments of Saint Iames it doth inevitably follow that seeing that faith which is severed from Charity and destitute of good workes is not a true justifying faith therefore a true justifying faith is not severed from Charity nor destitute of good workes § VI. These fifteene Arguments are as I suppose without exception Those which Bellarmine thought he could best answere hee hath propounded as our best Arguments and cavilled with them they are in number six the first out of 1 Tim. 5. 8. That for want whereof a man declareth himselfe to be without true faith and to be worse than an infidell cannot be separated from a true faith For want of Charity yea for want of one branch thereof which is to provide for a mans owne especially those of his owne house whom the very insidels are wont to provide for a man declareth himselfe to be without true faith that is in Saint Paules phrase hath denyed the faith and is worse than an infidell in that particular therefore Charity cannot be separated from true faith To this Bellarmine frameth an answere against himselfe that as Chrysostome and other interpreters doe witnesse the Apostle speaketh of such who are said to deny the faith because they doe not live as faith doth teach men to live as none doe who have not Charity and therefore
to be made partakers of him and in our wils by resolving both to acknowledge him to be our Saviour and also to rest upon him for salvation Having this lively assent which is the condition of the promise we are to apply the promise to our selves as belonging to us By the former degree we are justified before God in foro coelesti by the latter we are justified in foro conscientiae in the court of our owne conscience By the former we are justified properly by the latter we are not properly justified but are in some measure assured of our justification By the former I doe effectually beleeve that Iesus is the Saviour by the latter I doe truely beleeve that hee is my Saviour That faith therefore which doth justifie doth specially apprehend and apply Christ and the proper object of faith as it justifieth is Christ or the promise of salvation by Christ and therefore is often called faith in Christ or the faith of Christ. For although by that faith which justifieth I beleeve all the articles of Christian religion and every truth revealed by God in his word yet I am not justified properly by beleeving any other truth but onely by beleeving the truth neither is the promise of justification and salvation made to any other beleefe but onely to faith in Christ. § IX Thirdly by this faith apprehending and receiving Christ we are not prepared onely and disposed to justification as the Papists absurdly teach affirming that faith doth justifie even as servile feare doth by preparing onely and disposing for then a man indued with justifying faith might be as farre from justification as he that is possessed with servile feare But how can these two assertions be reconciled that faith doth justifie by disposing onely as a preparative diâ—…position and yet that it justifieth formally as an habit infused and as a part of inherent â—…ustice But the truth is that by a true justifying faith we are not prepared onely but wee are actually justified For no sooner doth a man beleeve by a true justifying faith but he is justified and entitled unto the kingdome of heaven As soone as he doth beleeve he is translated from death to life yea so soone he hath eternall life that is hee hath jus right unto the heavenly kingdome § X. Fourthly when wee say that faith doth justifie wee doe not meane that it justifieth absolutely or in respect of its owne worth and dignity and much lesse that it doth merit justification either as it is an habit or as it is an act but relatively in respect of the object which it doth apprehend that is Christ who is our righteousnesse For seeing faith doth receive Christ and make us partakers of him therefore all those benefits which wee receive from Christ are attributed in the holy Scriptures to Faith as to justifie to save c. not that these effects are to bee ascribed to the vertue of faith absolutely but relatively in respect of the object So when it was said to the woman thy faith hath saved thee the meaning is Christ received by faith hath saved thee Thus by the faith of Peter and Iohn the Creeple was cured Act. 3. 6. yet not by any power or holinesse of theirs vers 12. But the name of Christ that is Christ himselfe by faith in his name as the instrument did cure him vers 16. so the name of Christ by faith in his name doth justifie and save Act. 10. 43. Iohn 20. 31. And that faith doth not justifie in respect of its owne worth appeareth by this evidence because the faith of divers men though unequall in degrees doth justifie alike and therefore is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equall value as Saint Peter speaketh of all the faithfull to whom he writeth 2 Pet. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as the Latine interpreter translateth to them that have obtained coequall faith with us in the righteousnesse of our God and Saviour Iesus Christ. For it is not faith properly which doth justifie but the righteousnesse of Christ received by faith The almes received by a weake hand releeveth the party as well as that which is received by a strong hand because it is not the hand properly which releeveth but the almes And for the same cause the righteousnesse of justification is equall in all that are justified neither doth it in the same persons admit of degrees For it is the most perfect righteousnesse of Christ to which considered as created and finite nothing can bee added § XI Fifthly from hence we learne the true meaning of that question whether we be justified by faith or by workes not as opposing the inward grace of faith to the outward acts of obedience which indeed are the fruits of faith but as opposing the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith to that righteousnesse which is inherent in our selves and performed by our selves § XII Sixthly when we say that faith doth justifie alone two things are implyed First that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ alone apprehended by faith and not by any righteousnesse in herent in us Secondly that this righteousnesse of Christ by which alone wee are justified is apprehended by faith onely Not that justifying faith is or can bee alone but because there being many graces in the faithfull which all have their severall commendations yet none of them serveth to apprehend Christs righteousnesse but faith onely and yet that faith which is alone severed from all other inward graces and outward obedience doth not justifie either alone or at all because it is not a true and â—… lively but a counterfeit and a dead faith For even as the eye among all the parts of the body which all have their severall uses hath onely the faculty of seeing and yet that eye which is separated from the rest of the parts doth see neither alone nor at all because it is but the carcase of an eye So among all the graces of the soule it is the office of faith alone as the eye of the soule to looke upon him that was figured by the brazen Serpent yet if it should bee severed from the rest it were dead For as Saint Iames saith that faith which is alone and by it selfe is dead And as the eye in respect of being is not alone yet in respect of seeing it is alone so faith which is not alone doth justifie alone § XIII Seventhly and lastly when we say that faith doth justifie alone wee were never so absurd as the Papists absurdly charge us as if wee meant that faith alone doth sanctifie For although nothing in us doth conferre with faith to the act of justification as any cause thereof in which sense wee say it justifieth alone yet in the subject that is the party justified many graces doe concurre with faith as the necessary fruits thereof wherein as also in
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
VII Yea but it is a gift given by Christ. It is very true for in and by Christ all grace and favour is vouchsafed unto us for in him hee hath graciously accepted us And therefore as it is called the grace of God so in many places it is called the grace of Christ not onely because in and by him it is granted to us but also because he doth bestow it But doth it hereof follow that this grace is inherent what spirituall favour or grace tending to salvation hath God vouchsafed unto us otherwise than in and by Christ In him he vouchsafed us grace in generall and in particular the grace of election for in him wee were chosen Ephes. 1. 4. The grace of vocation and salvation given us in Christ. 2 Tim. 1. 9. the grace of adoption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Iesus Christ Ephes. 1. 5. The grace of reconciliation in and by Christ Rom. 5. 1. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 19. Col. 1. 20. The grace of redemption by Christ Rom. 3. 24. Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. The grace of justification by Christ Rom. 5. 9. 17 18 19. And how is this proved which no man doubteth of that grace is given by Christ because it is said Ioh. 1. 17. Gratia veritas per Iesum Christum facta est grace and verity was made by Iâ—…sus Christ where leaving his hold that it is given he urgeth as if he had forgot himselfe the phrase facta est is made for saith he it is not well said that the favour and benevolence of God is made § VIII Answ. The word in the Originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not alwayes signifie was made but many times is expressed by the Verbe substantive fuit or extitit as Mark. 1. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 11. 26. 26. 6. Iohn 1. 6. sometimes by the Verbe became as Ioh. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word became flesh so Mark. 1. 17. 1 Cor. 9. 20. 13. 1. and sometimes by the Verbe came and that in the sense either of happening Rom. 11. 25. 2 Tim. 3. 11. or of growing Matth. 21. 19. 1 Tim. 6. 4. or of being present Ioh. 6 21. 25. Act. 21. 17. 35. 27. 7. Now the sense of the word varying it is to be fitted to the place wherein it is used but the sense that grace and truth was made by Christ fitteth not But either we are to say extitit it was by Christ as Valla and sometimes Beza translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that it came by him as our translation readeth or that it was exhibited or given by Christ as the law both morall shewing sinne and denouncing the curse opposed to grace and also ceremoniall consisting of shadowes and types opposed to truth was given by Moses And thus Bellarmine himselfe understood this place for to prove that grace was given by Christ he alleaged this text But though grace and truth were given by Christ doth it follow that therefore grace doth signifie grace inherent or if it did that that inherent grace is justifying grace Howbeit the true meaning of the word is either according to the proper signification which is most usuall especially when these two Chased and Emeth grace and truth goe together or because grace and truth given by Christ are opposed to the Law given by Moses by grace and truth wee may understand the doctrine of grace and truth For as the doctrine of grace that is to say the Gospell which is the word of grace and the Gospell of Gods grace especially when it is opposed to the Law is termed grace Rom. 6. 14 15. Gal. 5. 4. Ephes. 3. 2. 1 Pet. 5. 12. so also the doctrine of salvation by Christ which is the word of truth Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Tim. 2. 15. Iam. 1. 18. the truth of the Gospell Gal. 2. 5. 14. or the word of the truth of the Gospell Col. 1. 5. is oftentimes called the truth Iohn 5. 33. and in many other places as hereafter shall be shewed § IX Fourthly he alleageth that this grace is given by measure from Christ himselfe Ephes. 4. 7. To every one of us grace is given according to the measure of the donation of Christ. But the favour of God saith hee is not given by measure nor by Christ. Answ. This place is not understood of justifying grace which is the gracious favour of God in Christ which is out of us in him but of the severall gifts of grace in us which by a Metonymy are called graces but properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Oecumenius upon that place hath well observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every one is given grace that is a gift of grace whether they bee the graces of sanctification which are the proper fruits of saving grace or those which by the Schoolemen are called gratiae gratis datae of which the Apostle seemeth to speake in that place as hee explaineth himselfe in the verses following vers 8. 11 12. In which sense the Apostle Peter useth the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 4. 10. As every one hath received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a gift of grace even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God Of these gifts of grace it is true which Bellarmine saith that they are given by Christ and that they are given by measure But will hee from thence prove that what grace is either given by Christ or in measure is not Gods favour I had thought that the saving grace of God according to his last allegation out of Ioh. 1. 17. had beene given by Christ and that it is from the Father through the Sonne by the Holy Ghost And therefore as it is called the grace of God who is the God of all grace 1 Pet. 5. 10. so also the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ and the grace of the holy Spirit who is the Spirit of grace Heb. 10. 29. And I had also thought that the favour of God though not that which justifieth is in divers degrees vouchsafed unto his creatures God loveth and favoureth all his creatures hee is good to all and his mercies aâ—… over all his workes Psal. 145. 9. giving all things to all Act. 17. 25. yet among the bodily creatures hee respecteth and favoureth men chiefely 1 Cor. 9. 9. Psal. 8. 4. Mat. 6. 26. 30. Prov. 8. 31. for which cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 love of mankind is attributed to him Among men he favoureth the faithfull more than the rest 1 Tim. 4. 10. who are therefore called the favourites of God as I have shewed before Among them the Lord especially favoureth Ministers and Magistrates Psal. 105. 15. who are also called the favourits of God not onely in respect of justifying grace which is â—…quall in all to whom it is vouchsafed but also in respect of their functions
instruments of justice to God where by righteousnesse saith hee is understood something that is inherent c. and that hee goeth about to prove which no man doubteth of when indeed hee should prove not that there is a righteousnesse inherent in the faithfull for that wee freely confesse but that the righteousnesse which is inherent is that by which wee are justified But it is evident that the Apostle speaketh not heere of the righteousnesse of justification but of the righteousnesse of sanctification whereunto in this Chapter hee doth exhort as to a necessary and unseparable consequent of justification Neither doth the Apostle heere or elsewhere as before I observed in setting downe the differences betweene justification and sanctification exhort us to the righteousnesse of justification or the parts thereof which bee not our duties but Gods gracious favours for that were to exhort us to remission of sinne and acceptation to life But to the righteousnesse of sanctification and the parts mortification and renovation and to the particular duties thereof hee doth both here and in many other places exhort as namely in his sixth testimony cited oâ—…t of Eph. 4. 23 24. from which hee would prove which no man doth deny that our renovaâ—…ion according to the image of God standeth in righteousnesse and holinesse inherent § VII His fourth allegation had need to be a good one for this is the third time that hee hath cited and recited and as it were recocted it out of Rom. 8. 10. The Spirit liveth because of justification or as it is in the Greeke the Spirit is life because of justice For justification or justice which maketh us to live and thereby to worke cannot be onely remission of sin but something inward inherent Answ. In this place vers 10. 11. as I shewed before the Apostle setteth down a double priviledge of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit freeing them from the Law of death The one in respect of the soule vers 10. that howsoever the body bee dead that is as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth mortall or appointed to death by reason of sin which the first Adam brought in and by it death his sinne being imputed to all yet the soule for so the word Spirit is taken when it is opposed to the body is life that is as the Antithesis requireth designed unto life by reason of that righteousnes of the second Adam by imputation whereof all the faithfull are entituled unto everlasting life For as in the former part of the Antithesis is not meant the spirituall death of men dead in sinne for that is the death of the soule and not of the body and the Apostle speaketh of those in whom Christ dwelleth but the corporall death unto which they also in whom Christ dwelleth are subject so in the latter is meant not the life of grace or of righteousnesse but the life of glory The other priviledge respecteth the body vers 11. that after it hath beene dead and turned into dust the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from death dwelling in us shall raise unto life eternall our mortall bodies § VIII His fifth testimony Gal. 3. 21. where when the Apostle saith If there had been a Law given which could give life or justifie as the Rhemists translate the word vivificare then in very deed justice should be of Law hee doth plainely saith he demonstrate that justice from whence justification is named is something which giveth life to the soule and hee doth place the same in motion and action Answ. If from this proposition propounded by the Apostle Bellarmine could have assumed the antecedent that so hee might conclude the consequent then might hee strongly have concluded against us that wee are justified by inherent righteousnesse But seeing the Apostle doth tollere antecedenâ—… that is intendeth to contradict that antecedent what reason hath Bellarmine to argue as hee doth It is very true that if the Law could have given us life that is as Chrysostome and Oâ—…umenius expound could have saved us according to that legall promise Hocfac vives doe this and thou shalt live or as the Rhemists translate could have justified us then undoubtedly wee might have beene justified by inherent righteousnesse But forasmuch as it was impossible for the Law to justifie and save us because it neither was noâ—… is possible for us by reason of the flesh to performe the condition and forasmuch as God therefore sent his Sonne to performe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that the Law requireth unto justification that wee who could not bee justified nor saved by any inherent righteousnesse of our owne prescribed in the Law and therefore not by a justice consisting in our actions or motions might bee justified and saved by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us what can Bellarmine gather from hence with any shew or colour of reason to prove justification by such a righteousnesse as is inherent and consisteth in motion and action § IX The sixth I have already answered with the third As for his testimonies collected out of Augustine a briefe anâ—…were may serve that hee not considering the force of the Hebrew and Greeke words which never in all the Scriptures are used in the signification of making righteous by inherent or infused righteousnesse but resting as it seemeth upon the notation and composition of the Latine word justificare as not differing in respect thereof from the Verbe sanctificare doth sometimes more largely extend the signification of the word justification than the Scriptures use it as including the benefit of sanctification But it is a most certaine truth that the word justificare being used in the Scriptures translated into Latine as the translation of the Hebrew Hitsdiq and of the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood to signifie no other thing if it bee a true translation than what is meant by the Hebrew and the Greeke which as I have shewed before doe never in all the Scriptures signifie to make just by infusion of righteousnesse And therefore it cannot be denied but that it is and was an oversight in them who using the word as mentioned in the Scriptures and from thence borrowing it extend it to another signification than that of the originall wherof it is a translation I say againe as I have said before that the fotce of the Latine word in this controversie is no further to be respected than as it is a translation of the Hebrew and the Greek and as it is a true translation it must bee understood no otherwise than according to the meaning of the originall if it be understood otherwise then is it not a true translation neither is the sence of the word divine but humane Howbeit Augustine differeth from Bellarmine as touching the use of this word in two things first that hee doth not alwaies so use the word as for example when hee teacheth as hee and the rest of the Fathers often doe
righteousnesse of God in this place we understand the divine justice which is in Christ which wee willingly embrace as a confession of that truth which we professe For by these words he must understand either the essentiall and uncreated justice of the Deitie in Christ or the righteousnesse of our Mediator the man Christ which notwithstanding is called the righteousnesse of God because it is the righteousnesse of that person who is God which righteousnesse saith he we are said to be not in our selves but in him because he is our head or as Sedulius before expounded those words in him Quasi membra in capite as members in the head Not that either we are formally just saith Bellarmine by Christs righteousnesse or Christ formally a siâ—…ner by our iniquitie but because we are his members For there is such a communion betweene the head and the members that the righteousnesse of the head is imputed to the members and the sinne of the members to the heâ—…d as appeareth also by the places alleaged by Bellarmine Esay 53. 6. posuit in eâ—… iniquitatem omnium nostâ—…ûm he laid upon him that is hee imputed unto him the iniquity of us all and Psal. â—…1 Christ himselfe saith farre from my health are the words delictorum meorum of mine offences Here therfore the Reader is to observe a double confession which the evidence of truth hath wrung from Bellarmine For as in the next precedent section hee confessed the satisfaction of Christ to bee imputed to us so here hee acknowledgeth that wee are the righteousnesse of God which is in Christ as being the members of that body whereof hee is the head and consequently partakers of that righteousnesse which is in him which therefore hee calleth divine or Gods righteousnesse because the person whose righteousnesse it is is God § X. His second exposition is that by the righteousnesse of God is understood righteousnesse inherent in us which is called Gods because it is given us of God But this exposition cannot stand because the righteousnesse of Godof which the Apostle speaketh is neither ours but Gods nor in us in Christ as the Fathers have testified But inherent righteousnesse but though bestowed of God as all other good things which we have received from God is ours and not inherent in Christ but in ourselves for as the parts of inherent righteousnesse or sanctification though given of God are said to bee ours as our faith our hope our charity so the whole righteousnesse which is inherent in us or sanctification is called ours as I have shewed heretofore â—… Neither are wee in this place called righteousnesse in respect of righteonsnesse inherent no more then Christ is called sinne in respect of any inherent sinnefulnesse Neither are wee by Gods righteousnesse said to bee righteous in our selves but in Christ. Neither doth Saint Chrisostome whom hee citeth understand this place of righteousnesse inherent as though such a perfect righteousnesse inherent were given by Christ in this life as that in the justified no spot of sinne were left as Bellarmine dreameth for the contrary is rather to bee gathered from the words of Chrisostome For it is Gods righteousnesse saith hee when wee are justified not of workes that is not by righteousnesse inherent and why so because in that righteousnesse by which wee are justified there may no spot bee found noting as I understand him that in our workes and in our inherent righteousnesse spots are to bee fouud whereas that justice in respect whereof wee are said to bee the righteousnesse of God in Christ is without spot § XI His third exposition that by righteousnesse of God is meant inherent righteousnesse which is so called because it is the image of Gods righteousnesse For as Christ by a trope is called sinne because hee tooke the similitude of sinnefull flesh that hee might becometa sacrifice for sinne so wee by a trope are called Gods righteousnesse because our righteousnesse inherent is like the justice of God And hereupon he inferreth that as Christ truely and not imputatively tooke the likenesse of sinful flesh and truely and not imputatively was made a sacrifice for sinne so we not imputatively but truly are made righteous in our justification by righteousnesse inherent Answere In this discourse nothing is sound nothing almost worth the answering For first in the Scriptures there is an Antithesis betwixt our righteousnesse and Gods righteousnesse in the question of justification but our righteousnesse is that which is inherent Gods righteousnesse is that which is out of us in Christ. Secondly by inherent righteousnesse we are righteous in our selves but by the righteousnesse of God wee are righteous not in our selves but in Christ. Thirdly if by a trope wee are said to be righteousnesse as Christ by a trope was said to be sinne undoubtedly it is to bee understood of the same trope which is a metonymy the abstract being put for the concrete Neither is there the like trope of Christ being called sinne and of us being called the righteousnesse of God in him if by sinne in this place be meant a sacrifice for sinne Fourthly neither is it true either that Christ in this place is called sinne because he tooke upon him the similitude of sinfull flesh as though the Apostle compared our justification whereby we become righteous to Christs incarnation wherein he tooke upon him our nature and not to his condemnation wherein he tooke upon him our sinne or that wee are called the righteousnesse of God in Christ because we have some likenesse of his justice neither would it follow from hence that wee in our sâ—…lves are just unlesse it should follow also which were blasphemous to averre that Christ in himselfe was a sinner For so are we made righteous as hâ—…e was made sinne Fifthly neither is that true that Christ was not made a sacrifice by imputation For when he was made a sacrifice for us our sinne was laid upon him and imputed to him as hath beene said that his righteousnesse in like manner might be imputed to us CAP. II. Containing eight other proofes that wee are justified by impuâ—…ation of Christs righteousnesse § I. MY sixth proofe shall bee out of Rom. 5. 19. As by the first Adams disobedience which wee call his fall we were made sinners that is guilty of sinne and obnoxious to death and damnation so by the obedience of the second Adam we are made just or justified that is acquitted from our sinne and condemnation and accepted in Christ as righteous unto life But wee were made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience Therefore by imputation of Christ obedience we are justified The proposition is the Apostles The assumption is in divers places confessed by Bellarmine as I have shewed heretofore though sometimes to serve his present turne he doe deny it But it is easily proved For if both the guilt of Adams sinne be communicated unto us and also
the punishment thereof be inflicted upon us which is both our originall corruption and death it selfe besides many other calamityes then is it to be presupposed that the sin it selfe is imputed to us For if the sin it selfe had not been imputed then as Bellarmine himselfe somewhere argues neither the guilt nor the corruption had belong'd unto us Again things that are transient when they are once past and gone cannot bee communicated otherwise than by imputation That transgression of Adam as all other actions was transient and therefore if it be demanded how it being so long past and gone can bee communicated to us Bellarmine truly answeareth it is communicated unto us by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirâ—…m per imputationem in that manner according to which that may be communicated which is transient and gone to wit by imputation If it be objected which was Bellarmiâ—…es prime argument for inherent righteousnesse that through the disobedience of the first Adam wee were made sinners by inherent unjustice and therefore by the like reason through the obedience of the second Adam wee are made just by righteousnesse inherent I answere that from Christ we have both justification and sanctification the former answering to the guilt of Adams transgression imputed the latter answerable to the originall corruption by generation derived but though wee have them both from Christ yet not after one manner the former wee have by imputation the latter by infusion But of this place I have spoken heretofore at large § II. Our seventh argument Whosoever is a sinner in himselfe and so continueth whiles he remaineth in this life cannot bee justified otherwise than by imputation This I take to bee a most certaine and undeniable truth But every many whatsoever Christ onely excepted is in himselfe a sinner and so continueth whiles hee remaineth in this life Therefore no man whatsoever can othervise bee justified but by imputation Or thus The justification of a sinner is imputative for to a sinner the Lord when hee justifieth him imputing not sinne imputeth righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4. 6. 8. The justification of every Christian is the justification of a sinner and so is called of all writers boâ—…h old and new both Protestants and Papists Therefore the justification of every Christian is imputative The assumption of the former syllogisme is denyed by the Papists but against the testimony of their owne Conscience and against the common experience of all men in all times and places But this I prove it briefly All that sometimes doe sinne or have sinne abiding in them are sinners all men sometimes do sinne and have sinne remaining in them therefore all men are sinners the assumption is proved by Iames the just and by the holy beloved Apostle including themselves in many things wee offend all of us and if wee say wee have no sinne wee deceive our selves and there is no truth in us But that all mortall men are sinners I have sufficiently proved before Vnlesse therefore the Papists will say they are no sinners and that in them there is no sinne which if they doe say wee may bee bold to tell them that there is no truth in them they must confesse justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse § III. Our eigth argument To whom faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes hee is not justified by workes that is by righteousnesse inherent but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse To Abraham and all the faithfull faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes Therefore they are not justified by workes but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse The former part of the proposition is proved by opposition of faith to workes in the question of justificâ—…tion and by the testimony of the the Apostle Rom. 4. 3 4 5 6 7 8. The latter part is proved by the former for if not by inherent righteousnesse then by imputed and if by faith and yet not by inherent righteousnesse then not by faith in respect oâ—… it selfe as it is an habit inherent in us but in respect of the object which it apprehendeth Of which that is verified properly which by a trope viz. a Metonimy is ascribed to faith namely that it justifieth and saveth that by it wee have remission of sinne and the inheritance c. that is Christ received by faith doth justifie and save c. The assumption in expâ—…esse termes is delivered Rom. 4. 3. 5 6. 22 23 Here Bellarmine confesseth that faith indeed is imputed unto righteousnesse and that is our righteousnesse which confession doth not well agree with his assertions elsewhere that faith doth but dispose unto justification and that our formall righteousnesse is our charity that faith is an habit of the Vnderstanding but justice is an habit of the Will But our glosse hee doth not allow when wee say by faith that is by Christs righteousnesse apprehended by faith because it is repugnant to the Apostle for two causes For first hee doth not say Christs righteousnesse but faith is imputed Now faith is not Christs righteousnesse but ours by Gods gift Which notwithstanding is the maine doctrine of the Gospell revealing the righteousnesse of God that is of Christ who is God from faith to faith the righteousnesse of God by faith that is which is apprehended by faith For faith it selfe is not the righteousnesse of God which doth justifie or save us but the instrument to receive Gods righteousnesse and therefore doth not justifie or save properly but relatively in respect of the object which it doth receive that is to say the righteousnesse of Christ which doth justifie and save those which receive it by faith and therefore when it is said in the Gospell more than once thy faith hath saved thee the meaning is that Christ received by faith hath saved those which did beleeve in him Act. 3. 16 it is said that faith in Christ had cured the lame man but it is thus to be understood that the name of Christ by faith in his name did cure him For we are justified and saved by a perfect righteousnes which is of infinite value and merit which is not faith nor any other grace or graces inherent but onely the righteousnesse of Christ. And yet because by faith wee are united to Christ and by it are made partakers of his benefits therefore all the benefits which wee receive from Christ are attributed to faith as elsewhere I have shewed To faith metonimically but properly to Christ himself His second reason because the word imputare in this place doth not signifie a bare reputing but a reputing unto which the truth is answer able in the thing it selfe as is plaine by these words Ei qui operatur merces imputatur c. for it is certaine that to him that worketh not onely in opinion and conceipt but truely and indeed the reward is due Answ. This reason doth not
about to prove imputation of righteousnesse as though by no other meanes we could bee simply and absolutely just I answere though in some part of our life after wee have beene good proficients in Christianity wee might seeme to attaine to that perfection whereof hee dreameth yet this would not prove that wee are justified by a perfect righteousnesse inherent For that which Papists call their first justification being the justification of a sinner whereof this question is to bee understood is of Incipients such as bee infants in age or at least in religion who are farre from the perfection of inherent justice But if in no part of this life wee cannot attaine to the perfection of justice then must the imputation of Christs righteousnesse bee acknowledged to bee so necessary to justification as that without it wee cannot bee justified CAP. VIII The rest of Bellarmines arguments against imputation of Christs righteousnesse answered § I. IN the fourth argument Bellarmine whiles hee fighteth with an idle fancie which like a man of straw hee hath set up against himselfe hee yeeldeth such is the force of ever-prevailing verity to the truth The man of straw is that Christs righteousnesse is so imputed to imputed to us as that thereby wee are formally righteous which never any of us for ought I know affirmed who hold it an absurdiâ—…y that the righteousnesse whereby we are formally and by consequent inherenâ—…ly just should be without us as indeed the imputed righteousnesse of Christ is out of us in him But against this larva Bellarmine fighteth that if we being formally unjust by inherent unrighteousnesse should also be formally just by Imputation of that righteousnesse which is without us there wee ought not to bee called just but unjust as an Ethiopian clothed with white is to be called blacke because the denomination is to be taken from the inward forme rather then from the outward I answere that so many as are justified are also sanctified and that so many as are justified and sanctified are neither to be termed formally unjust by the remnants of originall sinne remaining in us nor formally just by Christs righteousnesse imputed For though it be true that in respect of sinne remaining and inhabiting in us wee are according to the sentence and rigour of the Law sinners yet we are according to the doctrine of the Gospell to bee called just and that by a twofold justice First and principally by the perfect righteousnesse of Christ imputed by which we are justified and doe stand perfectly righteous before God in Christ being made as the Apostle speaketh the righteousnesse of God in him Secondly by a righteousnesse begun by which we are not justified but in some measure sanctified which though it be unperfect by reason of the flesh ever accompanying it for the best of us are but partly Spirit and partly flesh yet from it the denomination is to be taken as from the better part and so the Scriptures call Iob and others just who notwithstanding acknowledged themselves to be sinners And indeed the more righteous a man is the more doth he acknowledge and feele his owne sinfulnesse which is a truth confessed by some of the Papists themselves as I shewed before out of Cardinall Contarenus § II. Now let us see what Bellarmine yeeldeth If they did not hold saith he that we are formally righteous by Christs righteousnesse but their meaning onely were that Christs merits are imputed to us because they are given unto us of God and we may offer them to God for our sins because Christ tooke upon him the burden of satisfying for us and of reconciling us to God recta esset eorum sententia they should hold that which is right Now I assume but we doe not hold that wee are formally righteous by Christs righteousnesse imputed but our meaning only is that Christs merits as namely his sufferings and obedience are imputed unto us and that they are given and communicated unto us of God namely by imputation the Lord accepting of them in our behalfe as if we had performed the same in our owne persons c. I conclude therefore that by Bellarmines owne confession wee hold the right And yet this is that which he doth mainely oppugne in his whole disputation by all the rest of his arguments If the Papists would sincerely and constantly hold themselves to that which Bellarmine here yeeldeth there should not need to bee any controversie betweene us in this behalfe For as they would confesse that wee are justified by the merits of Christ imputed so wee would professe that by righteousnesse inherent received from Christ we are in some measure sanctified But what soever confession the truth hath expressed from Bellarmine here and in some other places yet hee and all the rest of them mainely oppose the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and wickedly deride it stifly maintaining that they are justified by righteousnesse inherent by which also they hope to merit eternall life § III. In this fifth argument he doth againe deprave our assertion as though wee held that Christs righteousnesse were so imputed to justification as if it were our inward and formall righteousnesse and thereupon inferreth that if that be true then ought we to be held and esteemed as righteous as Christ himselfe and therefore 〈◊〉 ought to be called redeemers and Saviours of the world and such like Answ. Wee doe not hold that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ as our formall justice neither doth it follow upon our assertion that we are as righteous as Christ hâ—…mselfe and much lesse that wee are redeemers and Saviours of the world For wee doe acknowledge a great difference and disproportion betweene the Head who is absolutely just of in and by himselfe and the members who are not just either of in or by themselves but by his righteousnesse freely and undeservedly communicated to them being sinners in themselves who being justified and redeemed by imputation of Christs righteousnesse are thereby proved not to be redeemers but the redeemed of the Lord. But of this argument I have spoken sufficiently heretofore § IV. His sixth argument is thus frâ—…med what we lost in Adam we receive in Christ which he proveth out of Iâ—…enaeus and Augustine Imputed righteousnesse wee did not lose in Adam but that inward righteousnesse in which we are created according to Gods image in holinesse and righteousnesse Therefore imputed righteouâ—…nesse wee doe not receive by Christ but righteousnesse inherent Answ. This Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme the assumption thereof being negative in the firâ—…t figure as they call it As if I should argue thus Every good Logician is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reasonable creature Bellarmine is not a good Logician because in the first figure hee assumeth negatively therefore hee is not a reasonable creature But if hee would argue thus what Adam lost wee receive in and by Christ and what Adam lost not
fifth Capitall errour of the Papists in the Article of justification is concerning justifying faith which hath many branches 1. Concerning the nature of it viz. what it is and therein also they erre diversly 2. Concerning the subject of it both â—… and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the parties whose it is and the parts of the man wherein it is 3. Concerning the object of Faith 4. Concerning the act or effect of it which is to justifie where are three questions the first concerning the act it selfe whether it doth indeed justifie or onely dispose to justification the other two concerning the manner how it justifieth the former whether instrumentally as the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousnesse or formally as part of inherent righteousnesse The other whether faith doth justifie alone § II. As touching the first what faith is they hold justifying faith to be but a bare assent to all or any truth revealed by God which as it is in their opinion without speciall apprehension of Christ so it may be void of knowledge and severed from charity as they teach That faith in generall is an assent and that it may be defined to bee a firme and willing assent to every truth revealed by God grounded on the authority of God revealing it we willingly agree For hereby faith is distinguished from all other acts or habits of our minde And first from doubting in that it is an assent for in doubting the assent is withheld which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as contrariwise to assent is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that faith is assent it is evident because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith is a perswasion derived from the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to bee perswaded or to beleeve and a man is said to assent unto or to beleeve that of the truth whereof he is perswaded hence it is that the act of faith which is to beleeve is expressed sometimes by the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 4. 27. 11. Heb. 11. 13. but most plainely Act. 28. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some beleeved the things which are spoken but some beleeved not Secondly from opinion in that faith is a firme assent or as Basil speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an undoubted assent for he that beleeveth the truth of God hath as it were put his seale unto it But opinion is the judgement of things contingent which may happen to bee false Sed fidei falsum subesse non potest but the subject of faith cannot be false Thirdly in that it is a willing assent from the forced beliefe of Devils and some desperate wicked men who beleeve that which they abhorre or as Saint Iames speaketh beleeve and tremble Iam. 2. 19. Mat. 8. 29. Fourthly from all other knowledge in that it is an assent to truth revealed or related by God and grounded upon the authority of God speaking in his Word for faith commeth by the hearing of the word So saith Saint Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith therefore is an undoubted assent of things heard in the assured perswasion of things preached by the grace of God And that is it which Bellarmine citeth out of Augustine quòd intelligimus aliquid rationi debemus quòd autem credimus authoritati that we understand any thing we owe to reason but that wee beleeve to authority All other firme assent is given to things either in themselves evident to sense or reason or to such as are manifested by discourse But the object of faith is not discerned by sence nor sounded by reason such as is the mystery of the holy Trinity and of the incarnation of Christ c. neither is faith of things seene Eye hath not seene nor Eare heard neither have entred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him And wheras the certainty of all other knowledge is grounded upon sence or experience and reason the certainty of this knowledge is grounded upon the authority of God speaking in his word For which cause the certainty of faith is greater than of any other knowledge For howsoever sense and reason may be deceived yet the ground of faith is unfallible which is the authority of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that cannot lye a God of truth yea truth it selfe whereupon Clemens Alexandrinus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore it selfe is a firme demonstration because truth accompanieth Faith those things which are delivered God and Basill what is the property of faith an undoubted plerophorie or full perswasion of the truth of the words inspired of God which is not shaken with any reasoning either induced from naturall necessity or formed to piety And such is the certainety of faith that the Apostle defineth it that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the subsistence which giveth a being to things which now have not a being which is nothing but an assured beleefe as the word is used 2 Cor. 9. 4. 11. 17. Heb. 3. 14. and the evidence of things not appearing or not seene which the Greeke Sholiast in mine opinion very well explaneth Faith it selfe is the subsistence or substance of things hoped for For because those things which are in hope are without subsistence as yet not extant faith becommeth the substance and subsistence of them making them after a sort to exist and to be present because it doth beleeve they are Faith also is the evidence and demonstration of things not seene And faith sheweth things to be visible which are not seene How in the minde and in hope beholding things which doe not appeare § III. But howsoever faith is an assent and is in generall so to be defined as I have said yet justifying faith is not a bare assent either destitute of knowledge or severed from charity or without speciall apprehension and application for these are three errors of the Papists now in order to be confuted As touching the first The Papists doe not onely hold that justifying faith may be without knowledge but that also it may better bee defined by ignorance than by knowledge This faith which is without knowledge they call implicite faith because they beleeving some one common principle as namely I beleeve the bâ—…ly Catholicke Church doe thereby beleeve implicitè whatsoever is to be beleeved that is whatsoever the Catholicke Church beleeveth and propoundeth to bee beleeved And therefore this they call also an entire faith because thereby a man doth not onely beleeve the written word but also unwritten verities which are the traditions of the Church of Rome and both of them not for themselves but for the authority of the Church propounding them to bee beleeved Now they teach that not only for Lay men it is sufficient to beleeve as the Church beleeveth which was
by that faith it selfe whereby he doth beleeve he is healed that hee may understand greater matters our understanding therefore proficit ad intelligenda qua credat fides proficit ad credenda quae intelligat eadem ipsa ut magis magisque intelligantur in ipso intellectu profioit mens profiteth or is a proficient to understand what it may beleeve and our faith profiteth to beleeve those things which it may understand and that the same things may more and more bee understood in the understanding it selfe the minde profiteth 5. Cyril Faith what is it else but the true knowledge of God 6. In the second tome of Athanasius there is a discourse against those who bidding men not to search the Scriptures but to bâ—… content with that faith which is among themselves which is the very case of the Papists at this day shall I saith the author of that discourse neglect the Scriptures whence then shall I have knowledge shall I abandon knowledge whence then shall I have Faith Paul cryeth out how shall they beleeve if they doe not heaâ—…e and againe faâ—…th is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God therefore heâ—… that forbiddeth the Word stoppeth up hearing and expelleth faith But saith hee a little after they who goe about to establish their owne opinions restraine men from the Scriptures in pretence that they would not have them to be so bold to have accesse to them which are unacce â—…ible but in very truth that they may avoid the conâ—…utation of their wicked doctrine out of them 7. Fulgentius fides vera quod credit non nescit etiamsi nondum potest videre quod iper at credit True faith is not ignorant of that which it beleeveth although as yet it is not able to see that which it doth hope and beleeve 8. The master of the sentences Fides non potest esse de eo quod omnino ignoratur Faith cannot be of that whereof a man is altogether ignorant Neither can a man beleeve in God unlesse hee understand somwhat seeing faith commeth by hearing the Word preached Nec â—…a quae prâ—…us creduntur quà m intelliguntur penitus ignorantur cum fides sit ex auditu Ignorantur tamen ex parte quia non sciuntur Neither are those things which are beleeved before they bee understood altogether unknowne seeing faith commeth of hearing yet in part men are ignorant of them because they have not the science of them 9. To these wee may adde the authority of the Creed it selfe that is as the Papists themselves doe teach of all the Apostles consenting together wherein they thought it not sufficient to teach men to professe their beleefe in that one article I beleeve the holy Catholike Church but in all necessary points that are to bee beleeved first concerning God both in Himselfe and in his Works in Himselfe both in respect of the nature of the Deity and of the three persons in Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost in his Workes of creation and government and of redemption Then concerning the Church and the severall prerogatives thereof viz. the Communion of Saints the forgivenesse of sinnes the resurrection of the body and life everlasting And further teach every particular Christian to say and that with Christian resolution Credo I beleeve these particulars which cannot be done either with truth if indeed he doe not beleeve each particular or with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or confidence which is meet unlesse a man doth not onely beleeve all those particulars but also knowe that hee doth beleeve them And lastly by this forme of profession I beleeve they teach and confirme that of Habac. 2. 4. that the just shall live by his owne faith and not by the faith of others § XIV Now I come to Bellarmines reason although I have already answered it in part In him that beleeveth saith he there are two things apprehension and judgement or assent Apprehension goeth before faith and is not knowledge unlesse it be distinct and plaine and that is not needefull to faith Now the judgement or assent saith he is twofold for either it followeth reason and the evidence of the thing and is called knowledge or else the authority of the prâ—…pounder and is called Faith Therefore saith he the mysteries of faith which surpasse reason we doe beleeve we doe not understand And therefore faith is distinguished against science and is better defined by ignorance than by knowledge Answ. This discourse is to prove that faith may be without knowledge for whereas two things concurre to faith apprehension and assent knowledge is required in neither c. But I answere that these things are not well distinguished by Bellarmine For first apprehension or conceiving of the object is the common act of the understanding going before all judgement of the understanding whatsoever For it is not possible that the understanding should judge of that which it hath not apprehended or conceived And yet behold implicite faith is so farre from being a true justifying faith that it hath not so much as this first and common act of the understanding in it For it doth not so much as apprehend or conceive the particular things to be beleeved Secondly judgement and assent are not to bee confounded For judgement is more generall and belongeth to those things that wee doe not assent unto as well as to those which wee doe For when wee have in our mind apprehended conceived or understood any proposition or thing propounded then wee judge of it either as false and then wee dissent from it or as doubtfull and then wee withhold our assent and suspend our judgement or as true and then wee assent to it But this assent thirdly is not to be confounded with faith because it is more generall For either we assent to a proposition faintly imagining that perhaps it may be otherwise as in contingent propositions which so are true as that they may bee false And then our judgement of them and assent to them is called opinion or wee assent firmely as being perswaded that it cannot be otherwise and this is called knowledge Now a man knoweth a proposition to be true and is assured that it cannot be otherwise being perswaded thereunto either by the evidence of the thing or by the infallible authority of the propounder Of the thing being either manifest in it selfe to sense and experience or to reason and then it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or intelligentia whereby without discourse men know things so to be which is noeticall or axiomaâ—…icall judgement of a proposition in it selfe manifest or else manifested by discourse as of questions syllogistically concluded and this judgment or knowledg is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the science of conclusions which we know cannot possibly be false the premisses being true But when a thing is neither manifest in it selfe to sense
that was their meaning As for affiance though it be not of the proper nature and essence of faith yet it is an unseparable fruit of speciall faith in so much that sometimes it seemeth to be implyed in the signification of beleeving in Christ For hee that doth beleeve in Christ doth first by a lively assent acknowledge him to bee the Saviour of all that truely beleeve in him and secondly so beleeving hee is perswaded that he is a Saviour to him and thirdly beleeving Christ to be his Saviour doth therefore repose his affiance and trust in him for salvation But howsoever so much sometimes is implyed in the phrase of beleeving in Christ yet in the most ordinary and usuall acception of the Word in the Scriptures of the New Testament no more is signified than the lively assent and acknowledging of Christ yea sometimes the phrase is used of those who did not so much as give a lively assent or beleeved with their heart Howsoever being convicted by the evidence of truth sealed by miracles they assented to the truth and acknowledged Christ to be the Messias Such were those Ioh. 2. 23. who are said to have beleeved on his name when they saw the miracles which hee did to whom notwithstanding our Saviour would give no credit because hee knew what was in them Such a beleever was Simâ—… Magus who being convinced by the evidence of truth confirmed by miracles assented in his judgement but beleeved not with his heart for his heart was not right within him Act. 8. 13. 21. And such a one was Iudas Ioh. 6. 64. who though he beleeved as being a Disciple yea an Apostle of Christ yet beleeved not in deed and in truth § X. But that the phrase is used ordinarily of those which received Christ by a true and lively assent I could prove by multitude of testimonies divers whereof I have elsewhere mentioned But I will content my selfe with two instances of the Samaritanes and of the Eunuch Of the Samaritanes it is said Iohn 4. 39. That many of them beleeved in Christ for the saying of the woman who could beleeve no more than she had told them which at the most was that hee was Christ. And after when they professed that they beleeved because of his owne word all that they beleeved was this that he was indeed the Châ—…ist the Saviour of the world verse 41. 42. The Eunuch when Philip told him that hee might bee baptized if hee beleeved with his whole heart maketh this profession of his faith I beleeve that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God § XI Now that affiance is not faith I briefely shew thus First because it is a fruit and effect of faith For by faith wee have affiance Ephes. 3. 12. Faith therefore is the cause affiance the effect and the same thing cannot be both the cause and the effect For whereas some deny this consequence trusting to an unlike example for say they as naturall Philosophy is the science of naturall things and yet by it wee attaine to the science of naturall things so though affiance be faith and faith affiance yet by faith wee attaine to affiance I answere that there is an homonymie in the word science which in the former part of the example signifieth the art or doctrine which is a comprehension of precepts in the latter the habit of the knowledge of naturall things which by the doctrine holpen with the gifts of nature and confirmed by exercise we attaine unto Secondly because faith is an habit of the minde affiance an affection of the heart and so also differ in the subject For faith being a perswasion is seated in the minde though working upon the heart affiance or trust being an affection is seated in the heart though proceeding from the perswasion of the minde Thirdly because they differ not onely in the Subject but also in the Object The Object of faith is verum that which is true the Object of affiance is bonum that which is good Yea but say some the Promise is good and therefore the Object of â—…aith is good I answer the thâ—…ng promised is good and therefore I conceive affiance or hope which two in respect of the time to come differ not But be the thing promised never so good yet I beleeve not the promise unlesse I bee perswaded that it is true Faith therefore layeth hold on the Promise as being true affiance or hope expect the thing promised as being good Those therefore who hold that affiance properly so called is faith or faith affiance are not to bee defended Those which by affiance understand assurance and say that justifying faith is affiance doe speake the truth if they understand by faith not that by which we are justified before God but that by which we are justified that is assured of our justification in our own conscience Concerning which there needs not to be any other controversie betweene us and the Papists than this whether there bee any such certaintie or assurance to be had But that is a different question not pertinent to the poynt in hand which I have elsewhere cleared And so much of the nature of justifying faith CHAP. V. Of the Subject of justifying Faith § I. NOw I come to the Subject that is both the parties to whom it belongeth and the part of the Soule wherein it is As touching the parties in whom it is the Papists hold First that it is common to the godly with the wicked Secondly that it is common to the Elect with the reprobate The former is the same in substance with that which I have already handled whether true faith may be severed from charity and other graces the negative part of which question I have proved and consequently of this that justifying faith is not common to the godly with the wicked As touching the second whether it bee common to the Elect with the Reprobate Bellarmine propoundeth the Romish tenet to be this fidem justitiam non esse propriam electorâ—…m semel habitam amitti posse that faith and justice is not proper to the Elect and that it being once had it may be lost which is the very question of perseverance whereof I have written a full treatise against Bellarmine proving that true justifying faith is proper to the Elect and that being once had it is never lost either totally or finally § II. Now as touching the part of the soule wherein justifying faith is seated Bellarmine and many other Papistâ—… hold that it is seated in the understanding onely and of us they report that we hold it to be seated in the will onely which they doe report against their owne knowledge knowing that wee hold faith to bee a perswasion of the minde and an assent and finding fault with Calvin for defining faith to be a kinde of knowledge as it is indeed that kind of knowledge which we have by report or relation from
with which many come to baptisme and to shew that faith which justifieth is commanded by the will to note the difference of forced faith such as is in Devils and was in those men who beleeved in Christ compelled by the miracles but Christ did not concredit himselfe to them for such a faith doth not justifie For as science is begotten by virtue of demonstrative reason so faith is not demonstrated but is undertaken by the virtue or power of the will captivating the understanding unto the obedience of Christ who doth infuse it wherefore Augustine tract 26. in Ioan. other things saith hee a man may doe against his will but none can beleeve but he that is willing § VI. Thus have I proved against Bellarmine that to beleeve is an act of the will as well as of the understanding and that the seat of faith is neither the understanding alone nor the will alone but the mind which comprehendeth both Howbeit I cannot altogether subscribe to the judgement of the Schoole-men and other learned men whether Protestants or Papists who teach that the understanding is commanded by the will to assent unto divine truthes and that it doth credere ex imperio voluntatis For I doe not conceive how the will which is intellectus extensus and followeth the judgement of the practike understanding in so much that it willeth nothing but what the understanding approveth and judgeth to be willed how it I say should command the understanding Neither doth their reason satisfie which is this that the understanding of man in matters pertaining to Science is determined to one thing by the evidence of the thing or necessity of reason not by the Will but the understanding of man in matters belonging to faith which sometimes surpasse the capacity of humane reason cannot be determined to any particular either by the evidence of the thing or by necessity of reason both which are wanting in the objects of faith which are things hoped for and things not seene And therefore say they there can no assent bee given unlesse the understanding be commanded by the will to assent But I answere as the ground of knowing things by Science is the evidence of the thing or necessity of reason so the ground of beleeving things is the authority of God speaking in his word which is infallible and in certainty surpasseth the grounds of Science and by it the understanding is determined to such particulars as it conceiveth to be revealed of God As therefore in things of science which the understanding doth judge to bee evident and of necessary truth the will doth readily embrace them following therin the judgment of the understanding and so the mind which containeth both faculties doth willingly and yet necessarily assent therto moved therunto by the evidence of necessary truth so in matters of faith which the understanding though it comprehends them not yet doth judge infallibly true moved thereto by the authority of God revealing those truthes the Will as I conceive being captivated by the understanding and submitting it selfe to the judgement thereof the mind doth willingly and yet necessarily assent to such truthes revealed by God moved thereunto by the infallible authority of God speaking in his Word Which in certainty of truth doth farre surmount all grounds of science and doth captivate the understanding and it the Will Why therefore the assent to divine truthes which are grounded upon a most certaine and inâ—…allible soundation which perswadeth the understanding should more proceed from the Will than the assent to humane sciences I cannot conceive or why the Will should command the understanding in them more than in matters of science CAP. VI. Of the object of justifying faith § I. SO much of the subject now wee come to the object of justifying â—…aith where the question ought not to be made coneeming the object of faith at large but of that object which is proper to faith as it justifieth For we doe freely confesâ—…e that the object of faith is all and every truth revealed unto us by God and that the word of God is objectum fidei adaquatum the even object of â—…aith that is we are bound to beleeve whatsoever is contained in the word but what is not contained in the word of God we are not to beleeve it as a matter of â—…aith And that therefore by the â—…ame faith by which we are justified we beleeve whatsoever is contained in the written word of God whether expressely or by necessary consequence So that Bellarmine might have saved a great deale of labour idlely spent in proving that which we confesse that by faith we beleeve the creation and all other truths revealed in the word yea we professe him to have no true justifying faith who denieth credit to any thing which hee findeth revealed by God Howbeit the Papiâ—… extend this object not onely to the Canoâ—…icall Scriptures but also to those which we according to all almost antiquitieâ—… call Apocryphall and not onely to the written word but also to their unwritten verities as they call the traditions of the Church of Rome that is such doctrines and ordinances as that Church doth teach and observe having no ground nor warrant in the Scriptures The which notwithstanding whiles they doe not onely match but also preferre them before the written word doe evidently prove the Pope who by their doctrine is above the Church and the Church above the Scriptures to bee Antichrist But this is another controversie whereinto I may not now make an excuâ—…sion Onely I desire the Reader to take notice of this marke among others of the Catholike Apostaâ—…ie of the Romane Church which hath not onely departed from the ancient doctrine and rule of faith which is the Scriptures but also have set up a new rule the last resolution of their faith being into the infallible judgement and irrefragable authority of the Bishop of Rome and to this purpose let him consider these two testimonies of Saint Bâ—…sil it is a manifest falling away from the faith and conviction of pride either to reject any of those things that are written or to bring in any of those things that are not written The other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that is without the Scripture inspired of God being not of faith is sinne § II. But howsoever by that faith which justifieth wee beleeve all and every truth revealed by God yet the proper and formall Object of justifying faith quatâ—…nus justificat and by beleeving whereof it doth justifie is not every truth but that onely which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Truth that is Christ with all his merits Ioh. 14. 6. or the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ or the Promises of the Gospell concerning justification and salvation by Christ which often times in the Scripture is called the Truth as Ioh. 1. 17. 5. 33. 8. 31 32. and as some thinke Ioh. 8. 44. and by Christâ—… owne
Exposition Ioh. 17. 17. so Ioh. 18. 37. Rom. 2. 8. â—…al 3. 1. 5. 7. Eph. 4. 21. 2 Thess. 2. 10 12. 1 Tim. 2. 4. 4. 3. 2 Tim. 2. 18. cum 1 Tim. 1. 19. 2 Tim. 3. 8. Heb. 10. 26 1 Pet. 1. 22. 1 Ioh. 2. 21. 2 Iob. 1. 2. Sometimes the word of Truth or of the truth Eph. 1. 13. 2 Tim. 2. 15. Iam. 1. 18. sometimes the truth of the Gospell Gal. 2. 5. 14. or the word of the truth of the Gospell Col. 1. 5. The 〈◊〉 whereof is Christ crucified 1 Cor. 1. 23. 2. 2. For this cause justifying faith is called oftentimes the faith of Christ because he is the proper Object thereof as Rom. 3. 22 26. Gal. 2. 16. 20. 3. 22. Phil. 3. 9. and faith in Christ as Act. 20. 21. 24. 24. 26. 18. Gal. 3. 26. Faith in the blood of Christ Rom. 3. 25. that faith which is in Christ Iesus 2 Tiâ—… 3. 15. sometimes the faith of the Gospell Phil. 1. 27. and which is all one the faith of the truth 2 Thess. 2. 13. Thus therfore I reason That to the beliâ—…e whereof alone and not of other things remission of sinnes justification and salvation is promised that I say is the proper object of justifying faith But to the beliefe in Christ or in the Doctrine and promises of the Gospell concerning salvation by Christ remission of sins justification and salvation is promised and not to the beliefe of other things Therefore that is the proper object of justifying faith That the Promise is made to beliefe in Christ and in the Gospell the Scriptures every whâ—…re â—…each as Ioh. 3. 15 16. 18. 36. 8. 24. 11. 25 26. â—…2 46. 20. 31. Act. 10. 43. 13. 38 39. 16 31. 26. 18. Rom. 10. 9 11. c. But not to the beliefe of other things is the promise made as of the Law or of the story of the Bible or of predictions excepting those stories and propheâ—…ies which concerne Christ. For howsoever a man cannot have a justifying faith who denieth credit to any of those other things which he findeth to be revealed by God yet not by beleeving of them but by beleeving in Christ â—…hee is justified § III. But here it may be objected that the faith whereby Abraham was justified had no relation to the promise of salvation by Christ but to the promises of God concerning his seed Whereunto I answere First that Abraham and all the rest of the faithfull before Christ beleeved in the promised seed which was the Messias to come and by that faith as the Papists themselves confesse were justifyed Secondly the promises which concerned his seed were either the same with the promise of the Gospell or it was implyed in them The maine promise was that in Abraham that is in his seed all Nations that is the faithfull in all Nations should be blessed For Abraham did not conceive that in himselfe all Nations should be blessed as if himselfe should be the foundation of Happinesse unto All but in his seed And so the Lord himselfe explaneth in Gen. 22. 18. and in thy seed that is in Christ all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed And so Zacharie Luk. 1. 68. 69 73. and Peter Act. 3. 25. This promise made to Abraham is the very same with the promise of the Gospell For as the Apostle saith the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preached before the Gospell to Abraham saying in thee that is in thy seed shall all nations be blessed Which promise as it had beene formerly made to our first parents concerning the promised seed so was it after renewed to Isaac Gen. 26. 4. and to Iacob Gen. 28. 14. and in effect to David whose sonne according to the flesh Messias was to be who is therefore called the sonne of David and the branch of David In this promised seed Abraham and all other the faithfull beleeved and by beleeving in Him were justified § IV. The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that hee should bee Father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that hee would be a God to him and his seed hee doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3. 16. that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12. 12. containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Iewes and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all nations should be blessed and in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many nations that is of the faithfull of all nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 3. 7. 29. and for the same cause hee received the Sacrament of Circumcision as a seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith Rom. 4. 11. And that in this promise of the multiplication of his seed the promise of the Gospell was included appeareth because his faith in this promise was imputed to him for righteousnesse not for the the approbation or justifying of that act as it happened in the zealous act of Phineas Psal. 106. 30. but for the justification of his person which could not be justified but by faith in Christ. Which the Papists themselves cannot denie The chiefe thing which Abraham apprehended in the promise concerning his seed was that although he were an hundred yeere old and Sarah past child-bearing yet he should have seed by her and in that seed himselfe and all the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed § V. The latter is that they should possesse the land of promise by which as by a type was signified the heavenly Canaan under which to all the faithfull was promised the Kingdome of heaven which was the Countrey which they professing themselves Pilgrimes did seeke Heb. 11. 13 14 15 16. and into which eternall rest Iesus was to bring them who beleâ—…ve even as Ioshua the type of Christ who also is called Iesus brought the Israelites after their peregrinations into that land of rest So that in the latter Promises concerning his seed and the land of promise the former was implyed concerning the promised seed and blessednesse by him as the principall object of Abrahams faith for which chiefly hee did so much affect and desire seed Insomuch that when the Lord had promised him to bee his buckler and his exceeding great reward Abraham replied Lord God what wilt thou give mee seeing I goe childlesse As Abraham therefore who rejoyced to see our Saviour Christs day and as he and the rest of the faithfull having not received the promises concerning the promised seed but having seene them a farre off were perswaded of them
viz. if wee be not justified by good workes nor saved for them are they therefore to be neglected No saith the Apostle they that are justified are the workemanship of God created unto good workes which God hath prepared that we being justified and regenerated should walke in them And therefore the Apostle speaketh manifestly not of workes going before grace but of such good workes as are consequents of our justification and fruits of our regeneration wherein we being regenerated and justified are to walke as in the way to our glorification § XIV The next place viz. Tit. 3. 5. which is like to the former Bellarmine shifteth off with the like common answere that it speaketh of workes going before faith But hee may not carry it so For the Apostle having as hee had done Eph. 2. signified that all of us before our conversion lived in all manner of sinne But after that the kindnesse and love of God our Saviour to man appeared not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee have done but according to his mercie hee saved us c. Where as in the former place he useth the phrase of saving unto which as I said Bellarmines distinction cannot bee fitted And secondly the workes which he excludeth hee doth expressely call the works of righteousnesse which terme cannot agree to the works of such men as the Apostle describeth vers 3. and such are all men unregenerate § XV. The sixth and last testimony whereunto Bellarmine answereth is Phil. 3. 8 9. Where the Apostle in the question of justification renouncing his owne inherent righteousnesse which not onely hee had in his Pharisaisme but which then hee had according to the Law desireth to bee found in Christ having that righteousnesse which is through the faith of Christ. Bellarmine answereth according to his distinction formerly used that by the righteousnesse which is of the Law are meant workes done through the knowledge of the Law by the onely strength of nature which I have before confuted Neither would Paul make any question of his justification by his works done before his conversion For before his conversion notwithstanding his Pharisaicall proâ—…ession of righteousnesse hee doth confesse that he was a blasphemer and injurious and of all sinners the chiefe 1 Tim. 1. 13 15. And whereas Chemnitius objecteth that Paul rejecteth not onely his workes before his conversion which he siâ—…nifieth speaking in the time past ver 7. but what things were gaine unto me I counted losse for Christ but also the workes of his present condition which hee noteth speaking in the present tence and using particles of amplification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea doubtlesse and â—… doe count all things but losse c. As if he should have said nay more than that I even now doe count all things as losse and I doe count all but as dung c. Bellarmine answereth that as the Apostle in the beginning of his conversion had counted them losse so hee did still But if the Apostle had spoken of the same workes whereof he spake ver 7. the amplification used vers 8. would have been but an idle repetition and the exposition which we give was long since delivered by Chrysostome The Apostle saith hee having said these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I counted losse for Christ he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea that which is more I doe count all things losse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said all both past long since and also present § XVI But here Bellarmine thinketh he hath Chemnitius at a great advantage as if hee had spoken blasphemy for saying that the Apostle calleth his workes done after his calling which were the fruits of the Spirit and for which he expected a reward 2 Tim. 4. 7. even a Crowne of righteousnesse c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dung Whereunto I reply in the question of sanctification wee doe highly esteeme of good workes but in the question of justification if they shall be obtruded as the matter by which wee stand just before God by which we are both freed from hell and entituled to heaven if affiance or trust be put in them for our justification before God then seeme they never so glorious they are to bee esteemed as things of no worth yea as losse And in the like cause as hath beene shewed the godly have compared their most righteous works to menstâ—…uous clouts And in this sense Chemnitius speaketh that the Apostle quod attinet ad articulum justificationis did thus speake of his workes done after his renovation Immo saith he si fiducâ—… justitiae cor am Deo ad vitam aeternam illis operibus assuaâ—…ur pronunciat ille esse stercora detrimenta But if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by the vulgar Latine stercora offend Bellarmine hee may translate it quisquilias as Hierome doth meaning thereby things of no value such things as use to be cast to Dogges or Swine according to the notation of the word For as Suidas saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is cast to swine And from hence is the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to bee rejected as a thing of no worth Chrysostome and Theophylact upon the place by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaffe Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 straw or stubble But Heâ—…ychius expoundeth it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dung I conclude as Bellarmine doth against Chemnitius Eat nunc Bellarminus queratur c. Let him complaine that wee are enemies to good workes because in the question of justification when men trust to them to bee justified before God by them and so make Idols of them which the holy Ghost calleth Deos stercoreos wee esteeme them not onely as things of no â—…alew but also as losse § XVII To these testimonies I added others out of the same Chapters or Epistles no lesse pregnant than these unto which more might bee adjoyned as Rom. 3. 24. being justified freely by his grace which text affordeth two arguments from the words gratis and gratia From the former I argue thus Those that are justified freely gratis are justified without workes All the faithfull are justified gratis freely Therefore all the faithfull are justified without workes The assumption is proved out of the text The proposition because the word gratis is so expounded by all sorâ—…s of Writers both old and new both protestants and Papists gratis id est siâ—…e â—…ueribus sine meritis as I have shewed heretofore Gratis saith 〈◊〉 quia nihil â—…perantes nec vicem reddentes sola fide justificati sunt dâ—…ne Dei by which words hee excludeth all workes as well following after as going before Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou art saved freely without any good workes of thine which words exclude all merits as well from salvation as from justification And so doe
those words of the Apostle Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. To avoid this evident truth Bellarmine coyneth a twofold distinction First that the word gratis may bee understood as opposed to merits of condignity going before justification and so it excludeth not the dispositions and preparations which the Papists teach goe before justification which according to their doctrine are but merits of congruity But it is evident that not onely merits of condignity but all merit whatsoever yea and all respect of our owne worthinesse and well doing is excluded so that gratis is as much as without any cause in us or any desert of ours or worthines in our selves And thus the councill of Trent it selfe expoundeth this word We are therefore said to be justified gratis freely because none of those things which goe before justification whether faith for workes deserve the grace of justification for if it be grace then is it not of workes for iâ—… it were of workes then grace were not grace as the same Apostle saith Secondly saith he it may bee understood as opposed to our owne merits or good workes done without grace for those that proceed from grace are not opposed to grace and therfore not excluded Whereunto I reply we cannot have any good thing but by gift from God and what good thing we have from God that is called ours as our faith our Charity our Hope our good â—…orkes Neither can wee without grace merit any thing but punishment It is therefore absurd to understand the Apostle as excluding merits without grace when as if we should doe all that is commanded which cannot be done without grace we must confesse that we deserve not so much as thanks because we have done but what was our duty to doe Neither can wee bee said to be justified gratis if there be any meritoriâ—…us cause of justification in our selves though received from God In regard of our selves indeed wee are justified gratis but it is not gratis in nor without paying a great price in respect of Christ. And therefore to those words justified freely by his grace is added through the redemption whiâ—…h is in or by Christ. By the word gratis therefore the Apostle signifieth thaâ—… in us there is no materiall cause no merit of justification but onely in Christ. And where he saith that grace cannot bee opposed to grace I say it may as in that opposition which is of relatives as of the cause and the effect For the effect cannot be the cause of its owne cause and therfore works which are the fruits and effects of justification cannot bee the causes thereof The other argument is from the word grace For if our justification be of grace then not of workes as the Apostle teacheth Rom. 11. 6. and if of workes then not of grace So Ephes. 2. 8 9. you are saved by grace not of workes For to him that worketh the reward that is justification or salvation is not imputed of grace but it is rendred as of debt but to him that worketh not but onely beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed namely of grace to righteousnesse Rom. 4. 4 5. Even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without workes verse 6. CHAP. IV. Bellarmines arguments proving the necessity of good workes and first from the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Secondly from the Doctrine of Christian liberty § I. NOW I come to Bellarmines arguments concerning good works which when he should prove they concurre to justification as causes thereof hee proveth them to be consequents thereof rather than causes And having little to say to the question it selfe he intermingleth many impertinent discourses Impertinent I say to the question though not to his purpose which was to calumniate us as though we held all those assertions which he laboureth to confute In his fourth booke therefore which is de justitia operum he propoundeth two maine questions to be disputed unto which divers others are coincident The former concerning the necessity of good workes the other concerning the truth of them As if we either denied that good workes are necessary or that they are truely good To the former hee referreth three questions the first whether the faithfull are bound to keepe the Law of God as though wee taught they were not the second concerning the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell as if we taught that the difference standeth in this that by the Law good workes are necessary by the Gospell not The third concerning Christian liberty as though we taught that the faithfull in their conscience and before God are subject to no Law Concerning the truth of the righâ—…eousnesse of good works after hee hath disputed the question whether the Law be possible whether the workes of the righteous bee sinnes he commeth at length to handle the controversie it selfe whether good workes doe justifie or not Concerning the former questions it shall suffice to shew what our tenet is in every of them and to defend our assertions against his cavils â—…o farre as concerneth this present controversie of justification by workes passing by the rest as impertinent As touching therefore the first principall question which concerneth the necessity of good works the Reader will beare me witnes by that which before I have delivered that we hold good workes necessary in many respects and that we urge the necessity of them by better arguments than the Romish doctrine doth afford we confesse that they are necessary necessitate presentiae for persons come to yeeres that are already justified and are to bee saved as necessary consequents of justification and as necessary forerunners of Salvation onely we deny them to be necessary necessitate efficientiae as causes either of justification or Salvation § II. That good workes are necessary to Salvation which we deny not Bellarmine greatly busied himselfe to prove but that they are necessary to justification as causes thereof which is the question betweene us for ought that I can discerne he goes not about to prove in his whole discourse of the necessity of good workes wherein he spendeth nine Chapters For after he had in the first Chapter calumniated us as if wee denied good workes to bee necessary to Salvation in the Chapters following hee proveth they bee necessary because as hee propoundeth his proofes in the Argument of his booke we are bound to keepe the Law of God And that he proveth by discussing the other two questions concerning the difference betwixt the Law and the Gospell and concerning Christian liberty But by these arguments Bellarmine neither proveth his owne assertion nor disproveth ours His assertion is that good workes doe concurre unto justification as a cause thereof which we deny He argueth they be causes why because they are necessary As if every thing that is necessary were a cause But whereto are they necessary to salvation saith Bellarmine Why
that which is lesse than it ought to be is faulty or vicious By reason of which vice there is not a righteous man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not By reason of which vice no man living shall be justified before God By reason of which vice if we shall say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us And for which though we be never so good proficients we must of necessity say forgive us our debts c. § XI Secondly hee replyeth that the Law which prescribeth love requireth no more but that we should love with our whole heart But that this not onely may be done but also should be done in the new Testament the Scripture doth witnesse Deuâ—… 30. 6. Answ. The Phrase of loving with the whole heart being legally understood according to the perfection prescribed in the Law doth signifie as it soundeth neither can be performed by any mortall man though regenerate because he is partly flesh and partly Spirit Neither can more than the Law requireth in this behalfe be performed in our Country For as August saith in the life to come our love shal be not only above that which here we have but also far above that which we either aske or think Notwithstanding it can be no more than what the Law requireth with all our heart with all our soule and with all our minde For there doth not remaine in us any thing which may be added ad totum to that which is all for if any thing remaine which might bee added then it is not totum all But the phrase is many times Evangelically understood as in the place quoted to signifie not absolute or legall perfection but the integrity and uprightnesse of the heart which is the Evangelicall perfection as I have shewed elsewhere and shall againe ere long declare § XII Thirdly he replyeth that the Scriptures teach that men may bee perfect in this life And to this purpose alleâ—…geth Gen. 6. 9. 17. 1. Matth. 5. 48. 19. 17. Phil. 3. 15. 1 Iohâ—… 2. 5. The use of the word in these and some other places is to bee distinguished For in the most of them it is not opposed to imperfection and so many places are impertinently alleaged but either to hypocrisie and so it signifieth up right and sincere as Gen. 6. 9. 17. 1. Or to partiality when wee are good to some but not to others as Matth. 5. 48. Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect doing good to men of all sorts both good and bad both friends and foes or to infancy and childhood and so it signifieth adultus a growne man and so it is used 1 Cor. 14. 20. Heb. 5. 14. and so in the place cited Phil. 3. 15. Where the Apostle acknowledging that he had not attained to perfection but still labouring to bee a good proficient exhorteth so many as are perfect to be of the same minde with him that is to strive towards perfection as having not yet attained to iâ—… In 1 Iohn 2. 5. the phrase is varied In him that keepeth Gods word the love of God is perfected that is perfectly knowne hereby we know that we are in him And so is the word used Iam. 2. 22. 2 Cor. 12. 9. There remaineth onely the answere of Christ to the justitiary Matth. 19. 17. If thou wilt bee perfect c. Which as I have shewed before our Saviour fitteth to the disposition of that justitiary whom having a great conceit of himselfe that he had kept all the commandements of God from his youth he thought good to discover and unmaske by a commandement of tryall If thou wilt saith hee bee perfect that is If thou wilt approve thy selfe to be a perfect observer of the Law as thou pretendest goe and sell that thou hast and give to the poore and thou shalt have treasure in heaven and come and follow mee For if thou refusest so to doe thou shalt bewray thy selfe to bee a meere wordling preferring the love of the world besore the love of God and desiring to retaine thy earthly wealth rather than to obtaine the heavenly treasure § XIII His third sort of testimonies is of such as doe testifie that some have kept the Commandements of God and namely those of loving with the whole heart and of not coveting And to to this purpose he alleageth the examples of David of Iosiah of Asa and his people of Iosuah and others whom hee doth but name of Zachary and Elizabeth of the Apostles and namely of Paul and in conclusion of Ezechias and of Abraham Answ. All these were sincere and upright keepers and observers of the Law but none of them were perfect and perpetuall fulfillers of it none of them wâ—…re wâ—…thout sinne David was a man according to Gods owne heart in respect of his uprightnesse and integrity 1 King 3. 6. and for that and not for any absolute perfection he is commended in the places alleaged Psal. 119. 10. 1 King 14. 8. Act. 13. 22. 1 King 15. 5. And yet for all this David was a sinner and in many of his Psalmes bewayleth his manifold sinnes desiring the Lord not to enter into judgement with him for if hee should neither he nor any other could be just in his sight placing his justification in the remission of his sinnes and in Gods acceptation of him imputing unto him righteousnesse without workes Iosias also was a godly and upright king but yet not without fault in that hee harkened not unto the Words of Necho from the mouth of God but presumptuously fought against him 2 Chron. 35. 22. Of the people under Asa no more can be gathered but that with upright hearts and willing minds they entred into a covenant to seeke the Lord in sincerity and truth Of Asa himselfe the Scripture indeed doth testifie that his heart was perfect that is upright before the Lord all his dayes Notwithstanding in the same place it is said that the high places were not taken away and in the next Chapter three sinnes of his are recorded that hee had relied on the King of Syria and not on the Lord that being reproved therefore by the Prophet Hanani he committed the Prophet to prison that in his sickenesse he sought not to the Lord but to the Physitians That which is said of 〈◊〉 doth not concerne the observation of the Morall Law but those politicke precepts which the Lord had given to Moses and Moses to Iosuâ—…h concerning the utter destruction of the Canaanites whom the Lord had delivered into his hands Of Zachary and Elizabeth it is said first that they were just before God that is upright and secondly that they walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord blamelesse which latter they might doe and yet bee farre from that perfection which the Law requireth For Paul professeth of himselfe that even before
his conversion he was touching the righteousnes which is in the Law blamelesse Phil. 3. 6. They were blamelesse before men but not faultles before God For Zacharias did use to sacrifice for his owne sinnes as well as for others as Augustine saith in his answere to this argument alleaged by the Pelagians And who knoweth not that for the sinne of incredulity hee was both deafe and dumbe for a time As touching the Apostles before the resurrection of Christ though our Saviour call them his friends and giveth them this testimony that they had kept his word yet who can bee ignorant how farre they were at that time from perfection and with how great imperfections they kept his word But it is strange that he should alleage the example of S. Paul Rom. 7. as one that had kept the Commandement forbidding concupiscence when in that chapter hee doth not onely confesse that by that Commandement hee was convicted to bee a sinner in that hee had concupiscence but also that that habituall concupiscence might appeare exceedingly sinnefull it did take occasion by the Law to worke in him all manner of actuall concupiscence § XIV But Bellarmines conceit is that concupiscence in the Apostle was no sinne because he did not consent to it Whereto I answere first that as he was carnall he did consent unto it but not as he was spirituall for so hee saith I delight in the Law of God after the inward man but I see another Law in my members warring against the Law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the Law of sin which is in my members Whereupon he cryeth out v. 24. O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death meaning therby the flesh or the body of sin Secondly though the Apostle had not consented to concupiscence yet both the habituall concupiscence it self remainning in him after his regeneration and the actual concupiscences going before coâ—…sent arising from thence were sins The habituall is often called by the Apostle a sin and is noted to be the sinning sin which taking occasion by the Law to send forth evill concupiscences namely which the Law forbiddeth was exceedingly sinfull As for those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first motions of sinne in the thought or affections going before consent and arising from our owne concupiscence they are those very sinnes which are directly forbidden in the tenth Commandement for those which are joyned with consent are forbidden in the former Commandements Neither could Paul who had beene trayned up in the Law bee ignorant of that which the very heathen knew by the light of nature that evill concupiscence accompanyed with consent was a sinne But that which is forbidden in the tenth commandement the Apostle had not knowne to bee a sinne except the Law had said thou shalt not lust or thou shalt not have any evill concupiscence Hence Bellarmine concludeth that because the Law hath beene kept by many it is possible Neither doe we deny it to bee kept by the faithfull in respect of their upright walking in all the Commandements of God but wee deny it to be perfectly fulfilled by them Their new obedience which they performe with upright hearts and willing mindes hath the title of perfection given unto it and is a perfection begunne in respect of the parts for even an infant that is formed in the wombe is perfect in respect of his parts and is accepted of God in Christ the Lord not imputing to the faithfull their imperfections And it is a good saying of Augustine Oâ—…nia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the Commandements are esteemed as done when that whâ—…ch is not done is pardoned § XV. But this answere concerning perfection of obedience begunne and the imperfections remitted will not serve the turne saith Yeaâ—…zechias â—…zechias professâ—…th that he had walked before the Lord in truth and with a perfect heart And if Ezechias walked before God with a perfâ—…ct heart who will deny it to Abraham to whom it was said walke before me and be perfect Answ. Wee doe read that the faithfull did keepe the Law but wee never read that they did abâ—…olutely fulfill it but that all of them had their imperfections and their sinnes And although many oâ—… them abounded with good workes yet their justification consisted in the remission of their sinnes and Gods acceptation of them in Christ imputing righteousnesse unto them without workes And where as it is said that they obeyed God with their whole heart and with a perfect heart this is to be understood of an entire or upright heart The hebrew words Tham Thom Tâ—…min and Shalem which signifâ—…e perfect or perfection are synonyma or words of the same sence with â—…ashar Iosher and Emeth that is upright uprightnesse and truth or sincerity and are signified by the phrase of walking with God or be fore God and aâ—…e the same with the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all of them opposed not to imperfection but to hypocrisie For Thom Tham and Thamin consider these places Psal. 35. 21. where Thom and Iosher are used as synonima the latter being the exposition of the former Let perfection and 〈◊〉 preserve mee Iosh. 24. 14. Where Thamin and Emâ—…th are used promiscuously serve the Lord in perfection and in truth Psal. 37. 37. where Tham and Iashar are put for the same observe the perfect man and behold the upright for the end of that man is peace So Iob is commended to have been Ish Thâ—… Vejashar a perfect and upright man The word Shalem which in the same speech of Ezechias 2 King 20. 3. is by the 72. translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect is by them reâ—…dred Esay 38. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true heart as an upright heart is called Heb. 10. 22. § XVI The phrase of performing dueties with the whole heart Deut. 26. 16 as to seeke God with all the heart Deut. 4. 29. Psal. 119. â—… 10. to keepe his Commandements with all the heart and with all â—…he soule 2 King 23. 3. Psal. 119. 34 69. to turne unto the Lord with all the heart Ioâ—…l 2. 12. importeth nothing else where it is not legally understood but an entyre or upright heart that is not an heart and an heart as hypocrites use to speake Psal. 12. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 33. the phrase not with an heart and an heart is expounded vers 38. to be a perfect or upright heart Thus to serve the Lord in truth is to serve him with the whole heart 1 Sam. 12. 24. and to praise God with the whole heart Psal. 9. 1. 111. 1. is to praiâ—…e him with uprightnesse of heart Psal. 119. 7. Thus to walke with God or before God is to bee perfect or upright Gen. 17. 1. and to bee perfect or upright is to walke with God or before him for to
soever wee doe is profitable to our selves but not to God Reply Beda giveth two reasons though Bellarmine conceale the better why we doing that which is commanded are notwithstanding called unprofitable servants The former quia Dominus bonorum nostrorum non indiget because the Lord hath no need of our good things Which though true yet doth neither so well fit the comparison wherein the servant though usefull to his master both abroad and at home could not by all his endevour deserve to himselfe so much as thankes neither agreeable to the reason which our Saviour rendreth because we have â—…one what is our duty to doe The latter we are unprofitable servants because saith he Non sunt condignae c. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be reavealed that is because we cannot deserve the reward of eternall life by our service But as it is elswhere said saith he who crowneth thee in mercie and loving kindenesse hee doth not say in thy merits and workes because by whose mercie wee are prevented that we may in humility serve God by his gift we are crowned that in sublimity we may reigne with him So Bede § XI The third exposition he saith is Augustines viz. That we may be called unprofitable servants when we have kept all Gods Commandements because we doe no more than our duty which indeed is the reason which Christ himselfe doth render neither can wee from thence demand any just reward unlesse God had made a liberall Covenant with us For by our condition we are the bond-servants of God and if he will he may bind us to performe all manner of workes as it pleaseth him without reward This our condition Christ for the preservation of humility would have us to acknowledge Howbeit by his gracious covenant we may expect reward 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. Matth. 20. 13. Which God in his great bounty hath promised to this end that thereby he might draw us to performance of our duety as Augustine teacheth Replpy This answere of Bellaamine is worthy to be observed or rather admired first for the impudencie of it in that he fathereth this exposition upon Augustine who in the place by him quoted doth not once mention this Text of Luk. 17. 10. nor hath one word to that purpose for which this exposition is alleaged excepting the clause of Gods bounty which as it proveth this to bee that very testimony of Augustine which he quoteth so doth it evidently exclude merit Secondly for the force of truth which forceth him to contradict his owne assertions both here and in other places For first hee confesseth that hee which doth no more but his duty doth not merit and that wee doe no more but our duty Whereupon it followeth that we doe not merit Secondly where hee confesseth that wee can doe no more than our duty he renounceth all workes of supererrogation And thirdly in that he confesseth that for the same cause wee are unprofitable servants he taketh away all merit of condignity Fourthly he confesseth that without Gods gracious promise we could expect no reward Which proveth that the reward is due onely ratione pacti and not ratione ipsius operis which afterward he denyeth Fifthly he confesseth that such is the bounty and goodnesse of God that to allure us to the performance of our duty hee doth freely promise a reward Now what God doth freely promise to give he giveth freely and without desert For eternall life which in his word hee hath promised as a reward in his eternall counsell hee purposed freely without any respect of our worthynesse to bestow upon us and what in mercy hee either purposed or promised Christ by his merit hath purchased for us So that we attaine to heaven by a threefold right By Gods free donation electing us in Christ as his free gift Secondly by Christs merit as our inheritance Thirdly by Gods free promise as his gracious reward whereby he crowneth not our merits but his owne gifts and graces in us God indeed hath promised freely to reward our workes but that our workes should merit the reward he hath no where promised or taught § XII His fourth exposition is of Chrysostome that the Lord doth not say ye are unprofitable servants but biddeth them say so which is true But what will Bellarmine inferre therefrom that therefore they were not so God forbid For then our Saviour should have taught his Disciples to lye Neither doth God allow of counterfeit humility But the meaning of our Saviour was to teach his Disciples in humility to confesse the truth that because they had but done their duty if they had done all that is commanded they should not bee lifted up with a proud conceite that thereby they had merited but should no lesse truly than humbly confesse that they were unprofitable servants who by doing no more than their duty could not merit of God And this objection is also answered by Bernard Sed hoc inquies propter humilitatem monuit omne dicendum Planè propter humilitatem numquid contra veritatem But you will say that for humility sake hee admonisheth them thus to say No doubt for humilitie But did hee bid them speake against verity And the same is taught by Chrysostome elsewhere No man saith hee doth shew foorth such a conversation as to be worthy of the kingdome but it is wholly of his gift therefore hee saith when you shall doe all that is commanded say we are unprofitable servants we have done what is our duty to doe And againe in another place where he sheweth that what the Sonne of God did for us hee did not of duty but what good we doe wee doe it of duty Wherefore himselfe said when you shall have done all say ye are unprofitable servants for wee have done what was our duty to doe If therefore wee shew foorth love if we give our goods to the poore we performe our duty c. Object Yea but the servants which imployed their Talents well were commended as profitable servants Answ. They were commended as good servants and faithfull to their master And of him because they profitably imployed their Talents were graciouslie rewarded But of their merit nothing is said If they had not imployed their Talents well they should have beene punished And in that they did imploy them well they did but their duty and that also by assistance of Gods grace who both gave them the Talents and grace to imploy them well and therefore though they had reward yet they did not merit it § XIII Our fourth Testimonie is Rom. 6. 23. For the stipend of sinne is death but the free gift of God is eternall life through IESVS CHRIST our LORD where is an antitheâ—…is or opposition betweene death meaning eternall death the reward of sinne and eternall life the reward of righteousnesse that death is the stipend of sinne justly merited by it but