A Treatise of Justification
§. X. But against this assumption divers things are objected: first, they fear not to say (which I fear to relate,) that Christ obeyed the Law not for us, but for himself: for they say, that Christ, as he was man, was bound to obey the Law for himself; which assertion detracteth from the merit of his obedience, from the bounty of his Grace, from the dignity of his person. From his merit; for if his obedience were of duty, then were it not meritorious, as himself teacheth, Luk. 17. 10. for Debitum non est meritum. And if this be true, that Christ's obedience is not meritorious, than have we no title to heaven. From his bounty; if what he did indeed for us, and not for himself, he should be thought to have done for himself, and not for us. From the dignity of his pe •… son; as if either he needed to obey for himself, or by his obedience he were any way bettered in himself or improved. But these men should have remembered, that the person, who (as both of us confess) did obey the Law, was and is not only man but God also, and therefore, as his blood was God's blood, so his obedience was the obedience of God; and consequently was performed not of duty, nor for himself. For if of duty, then had God been a debtor to the Law: Neither needed the human nature, being by personal union united to the divine, to obey, or to merit for it self; seeing from the first moment of the conception thereof, it was personally united to the Deity of the Son of God, in whose person it subsisting was, from the beginning of the being thereof, most happy, and enjoying the beatifical vision, being at that time, as the Schoolmen speak both viator & comprehensor. Neither did the human nature, which doth not subsist by it self, work anything by it self in the work of our redemption, but God manifested in the flesh, did in and by it both obey and suffer for us. And as the eternal Son of God, being God coequal with the Father, assumed the human nature and became man, not for himself, for his incarnation was an abasing of himself, as it were, to nothing (for man compared to God is as nothing, if not as less than nothing) but for us men and for our salvation: so being man, whatsoever he did or suffered in obedience to God, was not for himself (for it was a further debasing of himself) but for us: and as for us he sanctified himself, John 17. 17. so for us he performed all righteousness, Matth. 3. 15. and fulfilled the Law for us, Matth. 5. 17. that whatsoever the Law requireth to justification might be fulfilled in it, Rom. 8. 4.
§. XI. But here the Papists object, that our Savior Christ by his humiliation did merit his exaltation; because the Apostle saith, that therefore God exalted him, Phil. 2. 9. Answer. In every aetiologie the reason, which is rendered, is in a large sense called the cause, though it may be any other argument, which is not the cause of the Consequent, but of the consequence; as here, humiliation was not the cause, but the way to exaltation: and exaltation not the effect; but the consequent, as it is said, Luk. 24. 26. ought not Christ to suffer these things and so to enter to his glory? And this appeareth by the scope of the Apostle in that place; which is to exhort us to the imitation of our Savior Christ his charity and humility. Of his charity, in that he being God, for our sakes became man; and being man humbled himself further, and became obedient until his death, even the death of the cross. Of his humility, in that it was the way to his glory. For before honor is humility, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. But humiliation is so far from being the cause of exaltation, that it is the contrary to it; even as corruption to generation, and loss to recovery, yet because recovery presupposeth loss, and the generation of one the corruption of another, and the exaltation of the Son of God, his foregoing humiliation: therefore each of these may be said to be causa sine qua non, as all necessary forerunners may, though they be no causes: Even as Fabius, when Livius Salinator bad him remember, that by his means he had recovered 〈◊〉 ; Why should I not remember it, saith he, I had never recovered it, unless thou hadd •… st lost it, Cic. 2. de Oratore.
And further I add, that the exaltation of Christ, whereof the Apostle speaketh, was not the exaltation of him to be the Son of God; for that he was from all eternity, but the manifestation thereof. For although in respect of Christ's resurrection, especially it be said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; yet was not Christ then first begotten, whose generation is eternal; but then he was mightily declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection, Rom. 1. 4. and this was that name above all names, which God did give unto him after his humiliation, his manifesting and declaring him by his resurrection to be the Son of God. So the Apostle saith, Heb. 1. 4, 5. that Christ hath obtained a more excellent name than the Angels: For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee? This exaltation was a necessary consequent of his humiliation, and that in two respects; first, for avoiding the scandal of the cross, for having taken upon him the form of a servant, and therein having humbled himself to become obedient until death, and to the death of the cross; it was necessary, lest men should take offense at his great humiliation, and refuse to believe in a man that had been crucified, that he should mightily be declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection, ascension, and sitting at the right hand of his Father; secondly, this declaration of Christ to be the Son of God was to follow his humiliation as a necessary stay of our faith in Christ, for if Christ had not risen again; then had our faith been vain, and we had remained in our sins. But by his resurrection and exaltation, whereby he was powerfully declared to be the eternal Son of God; we understand, that the obedience, which he had performed, and the suffering which he sustained for us, were not the obedience and sufferings of m •… re a man, but of him that is God; for which cause Saint Peter saith, that God did raise him and give him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God.
§. XII. If they will needs with the Arians understand the place of Christ's exaltation it self, which is his filliation, and not of the declaration thereof; thereupon it will follow, that Christ by his obedience and sufferings in the human nature, had merited to be God; but this he had not by purchase, but by nature, and therefore himself prayed a little before his death, John. 17. 5. And now Father glorify me with the glory, (not which I have merited by my death, but with that glory) which I had with thee before the world wa •… . And it is evident, that the glory whereunto Christ in this place is said to be exalted, is proper to God himself, Isaiah 45. 22. And this may suffice for this point, for I will not trouble the Reader with those two other allegations of our Rhemists, the one out of Apoc. 5. 12. that the Lamb which was slain, was worthy to receive power and (as they read) Divinity: from whence they should prove, if they prove anything, that Christ by his sufferings in his humanity, merited his Divinity. The other, Heb. 2. 9. that Christ, because of the passion of death, was crowned with glory and honor: where the words are thus to be construed, according to the distinction and interpretation of the Fathers: we see Jesus crowned with glory and honor, who for a shor •… time was made less than the Angels ( viz. by hi •… incarna •… ion) for the suffering of death (that is,) that he might suffer death; or as the Apostle speaketh, that by the grace of God he might ( viz. in the human nature assumed,) taste of death for all.
§. XIII. Object. 3. If Christ obeyed the Law for us that by his obedience we might be justified, then shall not we need to obey the Law: but the consequent is absurd, therefore the antecedent. I answer; that we need not to obey the Law to that end that we may thereby be justified, for from that yoke of most miserable bondage excluding us from 〈◊〉 ; if we do no •… perfectly fulfill the Law in our own persons, our Savior Christ hath freed us; the condition, which the Law requireth to justification, being utterly impossible to us by reason of the flesh. But howsoever we cannot perfectly fulfill the Law, that we must think ourselves bound sincerely to keep it: that is, we must have an 〈◊〉 desire, an unsained purpose, a serious care, an upright endeavor to walk in the obedience of God's commandments, in this study and practice of piety consisteth our new obedience, which we must be careful to perform, not to be justified thereby, but to glorify God, to obey his will, to restifie our thankfulness towards him, to edify our brethren; to gather sound testimonies to ourselves and assurance of our justification; and so to make our calling and our election sure.
§. XIV. Object. 4. If we be justified by the obedience of Christ's life, what needed he to die for us? Answ. the chiefest part of his obedience was to be performed at his death: His total obedience was his fulfilling of the whole Law for us. The Law since the fall is fulfilled, neither by an obedience conformable to the commandments alone, because we are all sinners, nor by suffering the punishment alone, but by both. And therefore Christ performed both for us, that by both we might be justified. But this objection I will requite with
§ XV. Our fourth reason. If we be justified altogether by the death and passion of Christ only, to what end and purpose serveth his habitual righteousness and actual obedience, by which he was obedient to the Law in the whole course of his life, doing always those things which are pleasing to God, performing all righteousness, fulfilling the Law, and whatsoever the Law requireth to justification? These things, as I shown before, he did not for himself, therefore for us and in our stead. To this some of our aforesaid Divines do answer, that Christ indeed fulfilled the Law for our sakes: but they put a difference between pro and propter, saying, that Christ obeyed the Law pro se, not pro nobis, sed propter nos, that is, for our sakes, but not for us, or in our stead, which some express thus, that he might be sanctus Pon •… ifex, and sacra Victima, an holy Priest and an holy Sacrifice. Others thus, that these things are required in Christ, that in his blood he may be righteousness unto us. Answ. 1. That there is no such distinction in the Scriptures, but the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in this very point of Christ's doing or suffering for us, are used indifferently: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 8. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , John. 17. 19. Rom. 5. 8. Luk. 22. 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 26. 28. Mark. 14. 24. 1 John. 2. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 20. 28. Mark. 10. 45. Neither is this distinction acknowledged by the Fathers, who acknowledge that Christ obeyed pro nobis. Cyril. de rect â fide, ad Reginam Theodoret. therapeut. 10. pag. 148. that he was baptized pro nobis: Aug. tract. 4. in John. & tract. 111. that he who died for us, liveth pro nobis. Cyril. Thesaur. lib. 9. cap. 2. That he was made a Priest pro nobis. Idem in John. lib. 2. cap. 1. pro omnibus mortuus, pro omnibus resurrexit, &c. Answ. 2. This to me seemeth but a shallow conceit. For who is the Priest, and what is the Sacrifice? Was not the Priest the Son of God, both God and Man? Was not the Sacrifice the flesh or human nature of the Son of God? Surely, if Christ had never submitted himself to obey the Law, yet he being God, had been a most holy Priest; his body and blood being the body and blood of God, had been a most holy and all-sufficient Sacrifice. Neither was it the holiness of the humanity that sanctified the sacrifice, or gave the virtue of satisfaction unto it; but the dignity of the person, and the virtue of the Godhead, which made the righteousness of the Man Christ, as well active as passive, to be meritorious and satisfactory for others. Jesus Christ therefore being both God and Man, was and is our high Priest, who offered the sacrifice of his humanity upon the altar of his Deity, which sanctified the sacrifice and made it an all-sufficient satisfaction for the sins of all that believe. It is the Spirit, saith our Savior Christ, that giveth life, the flesh (by it self) profiteth nothing, John. 6. 63. the sufferings or obedience of Christ, as he is Man, considered apart from the Godhead, are neither satisfactory nor meritorious for others; but being the sufferings of God, they are a sufficient price of ransom to free us from hell; and being the obedience of God, is of sufficient merit to entitle us unto the kingdom of heaven.
§. XVI. Our fifth reason. There are two parts of justification, the one, the absolving from the guilt of sin and damnation; the other, the accepting of a believing sinner, as righteous unto life: the former, is wrought by the sufferings of Christ imputed, as a full satisfaction for sin; the other, by imputation of Christ's perfect obedience, as a sufficient merit of eternal life: by the former we are freed from hell, by the latter we are entitled to the kingdom of heaven. Of them both the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 5. that we are justified, that is, absolved from our sin, by the blood of Christ. v. 9. and that we are justified, that is, constituted just by his obedience, verse. 19. To this argument they answer by denying the antecedent; saying, that there are no parts of justification, but that it wholly consisteth in remission of sins. Indeed if it were the only matter of justification, as some of them teach, and the entire formal cause of justification, as others avouch, of whom we shall speak in the next Chapter; I say, if both these opinions were true, then I would confess, that the whole nature of justification doth consist in forgiveness of sin; but whiles it is either, but the matter, as some say; or but the form, as others; or neither of both, as I avouch: it is a manifest error to say, that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sins. Again, in every mutation, though it be but relative, we must of necessity acknowledge two terms; t •… rminum à quo, & terminum ad quem; the denomination being taken commonly from the terminus ad quem. As in justification there is a motion or mutation from sin to justice, (from which term justification hath its name) from a state of death and damnation, to a state of life and Salvation. But if justification be nothing else but bare remission of sin, then is there in it only a not imputing of sin; but no acceptation as righteous: a freedom from hell, but no title to heaven. To this they answer; that to whom sin is not imputed, righteousness is imputed; and they who are freed from hell, are admitted to heaven. I do grant, that these things do always concur; but yet they are not to be confounded, for they differ in themselves, and in their causes, and in their effects: in themselves, for it is one thing to be acquitted from the guilt of sin, another thing to be made righteous; as we see daily in the pardons of malefactors: in their causes, for remission of sin is to be attributed to Christ's satisfactory, sufferings; the acceptation as righteous unto life, to Christ's meritorious obedience. In their effects, for by remission of sin we are freed from hell; and by imputation of Christ's obedience, we have right unto heaven.
§. XVII. If unto justification there be required besides remission of sin, Imputation of righteousness; then there are two formal causes; of justification. Answ. It followeth not, for although there be two t •… rmini in this mutation, yet there is but one action; and this one action is the only form of justification, viz. imputation of Christ's righteousness; of which are two effects, which also be the two parts of justification, remission of sin, and acceptation as righteous; as I said in the definition, that justification is an action of God, wherein he imputing the righteousness of Christ to a believing sinner, doth not only absolve him from his sins, but also accepteth of him as righteous, and as an heir of eternal life.
§. XVIII. Notwithstanding this so evident truth, some of the Divines, of whom we spake, when they would prove justification by the passive righteousness of Christ only, take this position for granted, that justification is nothing but remission of sin, and hereupon infer, that seeing we have remission of sin only by the blood of Christ, we are justified by his blood only: And to this purpose they allege many testimonies of Scriptures, affirming that by the blood of Christ and by his death and passion we have remission of sin; to all which we readily subscribe. But if there be any other places that seem to ascribe unto the sufferings of Christ more than remission of sins, as entrance into heaven and salvation, &c. such places are to be understood by a Synecdoche, putting the chie •… e and most eminent part of his obedience for the whole. Others labor to prove this assertion, that justification is nothing but remission of sin, by testimonies, and by reasons; and to this purpose collect a multitude of testimonies of Protestant Divines, who against the Papists have maintained, that justification confisteth in remission of sins only. But this assertion, as hereafter I shall show, is to be understood as spoken in opposition to the Papists, who unto justification, besides remission of sins, require inward renovation or sanctification; and therefore their meaning was to exclude from justification, not imputation of righteousness, which always concurreth in the same act with remission of sin, and without which there can be no remission; for by the same act of imputation of Christ's whole and entire righteousness, we have both remission of sins, and acceptation unto life; but to exclude renovation à ration justificationis, from the proper nature of justification; as if they had said, we are not justified both by remission and renovation, as the Papists teach, but by remission without renovation; that is, in their meaning, by remission only: and this is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself, as hereafter shall be shown. And forasmuch as by remission of sin we have an imputative righteousness, for to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, to him he imputeth righteousness without works, as the Apostle proveth, Rom. 4. 6, 7. therefore, when it is said, that we are justified by remission only, and not by renovation; it is all one, as if we said, that we are justified by imputation only, and not by infusion of righteousness.
§ XIX. Their chief argument to prove their assertion is this. Remission is as well of the sins of omission as of commission. As therefore he, whose sins of commission are remitted, is reputed, as if he had done nothing forbidden: so whose sins of omission are remitted, is reputed, as if he had left undone nothing that is commanded. Now he that is reputed as if he had neither done anything forbidden, nor left undone anything that is commanded; he is reputed, as if he had fulfilled the whole Law.
I answer by distinction, if they consider remission of sins barely without imputation of righteousness (as they must, if they will make good their assertion) then he that hath only remission of the sins both of commission and omission, is freed from the guilt of both, but not from the fault. For notwithstanding such remission of his sins, he is a sinner, as having both committed what is forbidden, and also omitted what is commanded. Yet by remission or not imputation of sin he is freed from the punishment, and a r •… atu poenae, from the guilt binding over to punishment, as if he had neither committed anything forbidden, nor omitted anything commanded. He therefore that h •… th remission is reputed, as having neither committed any evil, nor omitted any good; not simply or absolutely, but in respect of the punishment, and the guilt which bindeth over to punishment. As for example, a male •… actour being convicted of Felony, is by the Kings pardon acquitted both from the punishment and the guilt binding him over to punishment; but yet notwithstanding his fault remaineth, •… nd for all his pardon he is a thief. But if they conceive of remission of sin •… , as having the imputation of righteousness concurring with it, as always it happeneth in God's justification of a sinner; then it is true, that he •… to whom his sins are remitted, that is, to whom sin is not imputed, and righteousness is imputed, is reputed simply and absolutely, as if he had neither committed anything forbidden, nor omitted anything commanded, but as if he had fulfilled the whole Law. For it is not in God's pardon as it is in men's: A man by his pardon may remit the punishment and the guilt binding over to punishment; but he cannot take away the fault, neither can he by his pardon, make the offender just. But whom God doth justify, he maketh them righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness, whereby he doth not only free them from the guilt of sin and damnation; but also covering their fault he accepteth, ye •… constituteth them righteous and heirs of eternal life. For God's judgment is according to truth, and therefore he justifieth none but such as are just, though not by righteousness inherent, for so none are or can be justified, yet by righteousness imputed. Justification therefore is not only an acqui •… ing of a sinner from punishment by the not imputing of sin, but also an acc •… pting of him to life by imputation of perfect righteousness: not only a freeing of a man from hell, but also the entitling of him to 〈◊〉 : not only a forgiving of our debt, which Christ our surety hath paid for us, but also an enriching of us with the inestimabl •… 〈◊〉 of Christ's most p •… fect righteousness.
§ XX. To this argument some do add a second not unlike, whosoever are innocent they are just; by remission of sins men are innocent; therefore by remission of sins men are just. Answ. The proposition is not generally and necessarily true, for we may conceive a man to be innocent, who is not just: for innocence is but an absence of sin, not importing a presence of righteousness. Infants if they were clear from original sin, were innocent, but not just. To the assumption, I answer, that by the bare remission of sins without imputation of righteousness men are not innocent: for bare remission is like to a Kings pardon, which taketh away the punishment, but not the fault. But if they speak of remission of sin accompanied with imputation of Christ's righteousness, then I will confess, that by remission of sin men are made both innocent and just. But that righteousness imputed which shall make a man just, must not stand in suffering only, but in an universal conformity with the Law of God. You have heard our arguments, and their answers: now let us examine their proofs.
§ XXI. The principal author of this Novelty hath three arguments. The first is this; Whereby we have entrance into heaven, thereby alone we are justified: by the blood of Christ we have entrance into heaven; therefore by the blood of Christ alone we are justified. Answ. The proposition if it had been propounded thus, by what we have entrance into heaven, by that we are justified; or thus, by what alone we have entrance into heaven, by that alone we are justified, had been true; but as it is propounded, it is false: for we have entrance into heaven by his resurrection, ascension, and intercession, (not to speak of his obedience, by which notwithstanding we are as the Apostle saith, justified, and entitled to heaven) yet we are not justified by any of these alone. If his meaning be that by the blood alone of Christ we have entrance into heaven, the assumption also is false, unless he either by a Synecdoche do under one principal include all the merits of Christ, or exclude all other means out of Christ, who is our only Savior.
His second argument, Sablata privatione ponitur habitus, therefore sin being remitted and taken away, justice followeth of its own accord. To which I answer briefly, that neither the punishment, nor the guilt, which only (as themselves teach) are taken away in justification, are privations, nor the justice which is acquired is an habit in the party justified: and therefore that Logical Axiom doth not serve his turn.
His third argument; If we are justified only by remission of sins, then not by that righteousness which is in Christ: but we are justified only by remission of sins. Answ. The consequence of the proposition is unsound, for although we were justified by remission of sins alone; yet we were justified by imputation of Christ's passive obedience, at the least, unto remission of sins. The assumption he proveth, first, by this reason; because otherwise our sins being remitted, we should still remain accursed. Answ. It followeth not, for together with remission of sins by imputation of Christ's sufferings, concurreth acceptation unto life by imputation of Christ's obedience, without which we could not be said to have fulfilled the Law in Christ. Secondly, by the authority of Calvin, whom in this case these men abuse worse than the Papists. For Bellarmine , though he object against Calvin, as these men do, that he placeth justification only in remission of sins; yet he consesseth , that his meaning thereby was not to exclude imputation of Christ's righteousness, but renovation or sanctification. And he citeth these words out of Calvin's institutions, that he placeth justification in peccatorum remission, & justitiae Christi imputatione, in the remission of sins, and imputation of Christ's righteousness. And again , that God, when he doth justify us, he doth absolve us by imputation of righteousness, that in Christ we may be accepted as just, who in ourselves are not. Wherefore, saith he, when Calvin in the same Chapter, §. 21. and 22. and in his Antidote unto the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. doth contend, that justification consisteth only in remission of sins; he doth not exclude the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but inward renovation and sanctification. The same Bellarmine confesseth , that those whom he calleth Lutherans. (who indeed are very sound in this point) do all of them place justification in the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which assertion of theirs is most true, because by imputation of Christ's righteousness we have not only remission o •… sins, but also acceptation unto life, as being righteous in Christ; not only freedom from hell, but also right and title to the Kingdom of Heaven.
§ XXII. Another treating of this point, affirmeth, that Christ is the matter of our justification, and is made righteousness unto us in his passive obedience only; and yet confesseth, that both the holiness of his person and the obedience of his life are necessarily required, that he might be meet to become our righteousness in his sufferings. But this is frivolous: because, as I noted before, he being perfect God, as well as perfect man, had been in his sufferings an All-sufficient satisfaction for our sins, though he had never submitted himself to the obedience of the Law. But the divine Nature of the Son of God, and the dignity of his person, as it made his sufferings all-sufficiently satisfactory for our sins, to redeem us from hell, because they were the sufferings of God, the blood of God, &c. so it made his obedience all-sufficiently meritorious to constitute and make us righteous, and to make us Heirs of Eternal life; because it was the obedience or righteousness of God. For the Son of God was made under the Law, that he might not only redeem us, who were under the Law, by his sufferings; but also that by his meritorious obedience we might receive the Adoption of sons. But he proveth Christ to be our righteousness only in his passive obedience, because it only was both prefigured in the types and figures of the Law, and also represented in the sacraments. As touching the types and figures of the Law which prefigured Christ; they were either figures of his person and office, or they represented his benefits, as namely and especially justification or •… anctification. And those, which figured his benefit of justification, either represented the remission of sin by his sufferings; or acceptation with God by his obedience, or both. The ceremony of changing their clothes, when they were to come before God, did import that those who desired to please God, must be clothed with Christ's righteousness, which is also signified by the wedding garment, and the holy attire, wherein the Priests were to appear before God The high Priests wearing of the golden plate with this inscription Holiness of the Lord, (who is Jehovah our righteousness) was to this end, that the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel should hallow, in all their holy gifts, being taken away, they might be accepted before the Lord. The high Priests offering of incense upon the golden Altar, resembled the pleasing obedience of Christ in his life and death, and his intercession for us. The Ark of the Covenant was a Type of Christ the Mediator; the cover upon it, of his propitiation; the tables of Covenant within it, of his fulfilling the Law for us. The sanctification of the first fruits, which were a type of Christ (who is the first fruits of all that shall be saved, 1 Cor. 15. 23.) was imputed to the whole increase or store, Rom. 11. 16. So •… aith Athanasius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; That the fulfilling of the Law performed by the first fruits (so he calleth the flesh of Christ) is imputed to the whole lump, &c.
§ XXIII. But come we to the Sacraments, which he truly saith are the souls of that righteousness which is by Faith. And yet, saith he, Baptism signifieth only the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ; the Eucharist representeth only his body broken, and his blood shed for our sins. Answ. Though some parts only of the benefits of Christ are represented in the several Sacraments; yet the substance of each Sacrament is the participation of Christ wholly with all his merits and benefits. Thus in Baptism we are incorporated into Christ, and in it we put on Christ, who is our righteousness. And it is the Sacrament, not only of remission of sin and of justification, but also of regeneration and sanctification, we being therein conformed to his death and resurrection, Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5. In the Lord's Supper we have communion with Christ, being not only united to him as bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh; but also have communion with him both in his merits by imputation, and in his graces by influence from him as our head. Other arguments are used by the same author; but because in them he taketh two things for granted, which he cannot prove; the one, that justification consisteth only in remission of sin; the other, that we ascribe remission of sin to Christ's active obedience, I will not trouble the Reader with them. Only let him call to mind the errors which the Authors of this opinion do run into for the defense thereof. First, that remission of sins is the matter of justification which is imputed to us. Secondly, that the Law is fully satisfied by bearing the penalty alone. Thirdly, that by one act of obedience we are made just, as we were by one act of disobedience made sinners. Fourthly, that neither by his disobedience Ad •… m did transgress the Law, nor Christ by his obedience unto death, obey it. Fifthly, that Christ obeyed the law not for us, but for himself. Sixthly, that justification consisteth wholly and only in remission of sins. Which being for the most part consequents of this opinion, do prove the antecedent to be false.
CAP. V. That the formal cause of Justification is the imputation of Christ's Righteousness.
§. I.
Y Ou have heard the private opinions of some of our Divines concerning the matter of justification: now let us examine the unsound opinions of some others concerning the form. For as the former made remission of sins the matter, which is imputed to justification; so these make it the form. And as the former teach, that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sin, so do these. And yet the former hold it to be but the matter; and these, but the form. Indeed if it were both the matter and the form, they might well say, that justification doth wholly consist therein. But being, according to their own conceit, but the one, or the other, and according to the truth, neither of both, but an effect of the true form (for by imputation of righteousness we have remission of sin) their opinion must needs be unsound. But the thing wherein chiefly they err is, that with Socinu •… the heretic they deny the imputation of Christ's Righteousness; and consequently do hold, that neither the active nor passive obedience of Christ is that, which is imputed to us for righteousness. What then? forsooth the act of faith. Of these men's error I shall not need to say much in this place: because, besides that, which hath already been delivered in the third Chapter, I have plentifully and fully proved in my whole fourth book, that the righteousness of Christ, is the matter which is imputed to justification; and in my whole fifth book, that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is the form of justification. Only I will note their depravation of our Doctrine, and point at their errors.
§ II. As touching the former: when we say, that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is the formal cause of justification, because by imputation of Christ's righteousness God doth justify us: they will needs, with the Papists, make us hold, that we are formally righteous by that righteousness, which is not in us, but out of us in Christ; which is absurd: for as themselves expound the phrase , Formal justice consisteth either in the qualities of the soul, or in good actions (that is, it is either habitual or actual) so that it cannot stand in imputation; by which we can no more be just formally, than wife, rich, alive, by imputation of wisdom, riches, and life. Wherefore I marvel how they could be so absurd, as to conceive so absurdly of us. But we teach, that Christ's righteousness, both habitual and actual, by which he was formally just, is the matter; and the imputation thereof is the form of justification. And so those very Authors, upon whom they would father this assertion, in express terms do teach; affirming, that Christ's obedience, or fulfilling of the Law is the material cause of justification; and the application or imputation thereof, is the formal cause of justification. We say then, that the righteousness of Christ it self is not the formal cause of justification, or that by which we are formally just; but the imputation of it; it self being the matter of justification; that is to say, that thing, which unto justification is imputed. Wherefore I shall not need to answer, in defense of our assertion, the arguments, either of those Veteratores, the Papists, or these Novatores, who both agree in this calumniation against us, all tending to prove, that we are not formally ju •… by that righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him: which we do not hold. For the righteousness, whereby a man is forma •… lie just, is inherent in himself: for what is more intrinsical than the form? But Christ's righteousness is not inherent in us, no more than our sin was inherent in him. And yet, as he was made sin or a sinner by our sins, not formally, (God forbid!) but by imputation: so we are made righteous by his righteousness, not formally (as we are justified) or in ourselves, but in him, viz. by imputation. And again, as by Adams actual transgr •… ssion, which was transient, and now hath no being, we are made sinners, that is, guilty of sin and damnation by imputation of his disobedience: so likewise by Christ's obedience, which he performed in the days of his flesh, and was proper to his own person, we are justified, that is, not only freed from the guilt of sin and damnation, but also constituted just, and entitled to the Kingdom of Heaven. And yet we deny not, but that, as they to whom the guilt of Adams transgression is imputed, are also by sin inherent transfused from him by carnal generation formally made sinners: so they, to whom the obedience of Christ is imputed unto justification, are also made formally just by an inchoated righteousness received by influence from Christ, and infused by his spirit in their spiritual regeneration.
§ III. In their opinion it self denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness to justification they err more dangerously than the Papists, who are forced to confess the imputation of Christ's satisfaction: for the maintenance of this main error they hold six others. First, that remission of sin is the entire form or formal cause of justification. Secondly, that justification is nothing else but remission of sin. Thirdly, that no other righteousness concurreth to justification besides the remission of sin, no not the righteousness of Christ, otherwise than it doth merit remission of sin. Fourthly, that the righteousness, by which we are justified, is not the righteousness of Christ it self, but a righteousness purchased by the death of Christ, viz. remission of sin. Fifthly, that not the obedience of Christ it self is imputed whether active or passive, but the merit thereof. Sixthly, that not the righteousness of Christ, but the act of faith is imputed for righteousness. All which before I saw the book wherein these errors are broached, I had plainly and fully confuted in this Treatise.
§ IV. For as touching the two first, and the main error it self; I have proved, both in the third Chapter of this book briefly, and in the whole fifth book at large, that the form of justification is the imputation of Christ's righteousness; by which we are both absolved from our sins, and also are in Christ accepted and made righteous; and consequently, that these two are the essential parts of justification, viz. the not imputing or remission of sin, which God doth grant by imputation of Christ's sufferings, in respect whereof we are said to be justified by his blood; that is, freed from the guilt of sin and damnation; and the imputation of Christ's obedience; by which we are made or constituted righteous, and are entitled to the kingdom of Heaven. So that remission of sin is not the form, and much less the entire form of justification, considered as an action of God; but an effect of the form, because by imputation of Christ's righteousness we have remission of sin. Neither is it the whole benefit of justification, but a part thereof. For although many of our Divines, as hath been said, have taught, that unto justification remission of sins is only required: yet their assertion, as hath also been shown, is to be understood (as Bellarmine himself understandeth Calvin ) as spoken in opposition to the Papists; who say, that to justification concur, not only remission of sins, but also inward renovation or sanctification. To contradict them, our Divines have said, that we are justified by remission only or not imputing of sin, (wherewith always concurreth imputation of righteousness,) and not by renovation or sanctification. Their meaning therefore by the exclusive particle only, was to exclude, not imputation of righteousness, which inseparably accompanieth the not imputing of sin, as Saint Paul proveth, Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellarmine himself confesseth; but infusion of righteousness or renovation.
§ V. The third is the same in effect with that which I fully confuted, Cap. 4. and contradicteth their own assertion, who teach with us, that we are justified by the whole course of Christ's obedience: for remission of sin is properly ascribed to Christ's sufferings or his blood which cleanseth us from all our sins; and not to his active obedience. And justification is nothing, as they say, but remission of sin: whereupon it would follow, that we are justified only by Chri •… ts passive obedience, which I have already disproved.
§ VI. The fourth, denying the righteousness of Christ it self to be our righteousness, I have fully confuted in the fourth book: besides that, which hath already been alleged in the third chapter of this book that which is added concerning a righteousness purchased by the death of Christ, is the same with that which I confuted, Chap. 4. §. 1. for our righteousness is not remission of sin, but that by which we have remission; not justification it self, but that by which we are justified. For remission of sin, as well as justification it self, is an action of God, not imputing sin and imputing righteousness; and therefore is not that righteousness which is imputed. Thus therefore I argue; By what we have remission of sin, by that we are justified, and by what we are justified, that is, our righteousness by the blood of Christ we have remission of sin, and not by that righteousness which is purchased by his blood, viz. remission of sin, for that to say were very ridiculous. Wherefore by the blood of Christ we are justified; and consequently, that with the res •… of his obedience is our righteousness.
§. VII. To the fifth I answer, that the meritorious obedience of Christ both active and passive are the merits of Christ. If therefore the merit of Christ be imputed, then his meritorious obedience: Neither can the merit of Christ's obedience be imputed to us, unless the obedience it self be imputed, and by imputation accepted of God for us, as performed by ourselves.
For as the guilt of Adams transgression could not be imputed to us, unless the transgression it self were first imputed, and made ours; by imputation whereof we are made sinners, that is, guilty of his sin unto condemnation: so the merit of Christ's obedience cannot be imputed, unless the obedience it self be imputed, and made ours; by imputation whereof we are freed from the guilt of sin and damnation, and are accepted as righteous, and as heirs of eternal life. And as it may truly be said of them, to whom Adams disobedience is imputed, that they sinned in Adam: so of them, to whom Christ's obedience is imputed, it may no less truly be said, that in Christ they have satisfied the justice of God, in Christ they have fulfilled the Law; the Lord accepting of the obedience of Christ in their behalf, as if they had performed it in their own persons. For Christ is the end, the perfection and complement of the Law to all that believe. So that whosoever truly believeth in Christ, hath in him fulfilled the Law, as the Greek expositors expound that place, Rom. 10. 4.
§. VIII. But, say they, we were not so in Christ, when he obeyed, as we were in Adam, when he sinned. Neither are we members of Christ until we actually believe. And therefore, neither could we be said to have satisfied the justice of God for our sins, nor to have fulfilled the Law in him, as we are truly said to have sinned in Adam. Or if it could be said, that in Christ we satisfied God's justice for our sins, then should we need no pardon. Neither can punishment and pardon stand together if we have borne the punishment, then are we not pardoned. A •… sw. The first Adam was a type of the second, and both were heads and roots of mankind. Adam, of those that shall be condemned; Christ, of those that shall be saved. For as in Adam all die, that die eternally; so in Christ all live, that live eternally. And as in Adam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, all that shall be condemned were constituted sinners, his disobedience being imputed to them, because in him they sinned: so in Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all that shall be saved, shall be constituted just, his obedience being imputed to them, because in him, as their head, they have satisfied and fulfilled the Law. Neither are we more truly derived from Adam in respect of the life natural, than we are from Christ in respect of the life spiritual. Therefore if Adams disobedience were imputed to condemnation, much more Christ's obedience is imputed unto justification of life, as the Apostle argueth Rom. 5. and from thence Bernard; Cur non aliunde justitia cum aliunde reatus? alius qui peccatorem constituit; alius qui justificat à peccato. Alter in semine, alter in sanguine. An peccatum in semine peccatoris, & non justitia in Christi sanguine?
§. IX. Yea but then (say they) when Christ obeyed, we were not his members: No more (say I) were we the branches of the first Adam, when he disobeied. Actually, we are neither branches of the first Adam, until we partake the human nature by generation; nor members of the second Adam, until we be made partakers of the Divine nature by regeneration, and yet it is most true, which Bernard avoucheth in the place even now cited, satisfecit ergo Caput pro membris, &c. the head therefore satisfied for his members, &c.
§. X. Yea but our faith relieth upon Christ, as having already redeemed us.
Ans. Christ is the Lamb of God slain from the beginning of the world. The virtue of whose obedience is extended, not only to them that come after Christ; but also to all the faithful that went before from the beginning of the world, who were members of Christ as much as we are now. And for them, as well as for us, Christ obeyed the Law, and suffered death; and to them (so many as believed) was the obedience of Christ imputed, as well as to us. They all did eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed, and that Rock was Christ.
§. XI. But if in Christ, say they, we satisfied the punishment, then we need no pardon.
Answ. When we say, that in Christ we satisfied and fulfilled the Law, our meaning is, that his satisfaction and obedience is imputed to us; that is, it is accepted of God in our behalf, as if we had performed the same in our own persons. Neither should it seem strange, that satisfaction and pardon may stand together, seeing God pardoneth no sin, for which his justice is not satisfied. But it is Christ that satisfied, & bare the punishment; and we are they who are pardoned by imputation of his satisfaction unto us. Here therefore especially mercy and justice met together: justice, executed upon Christ's mercy, exhibited to us; who are justified by the grace of God freely, in respect of us, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: and therefore not freely in respect of him, who paid so great a price. For him God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, &c. But that the righteousness of Christ is the only thing, which properly is imputed to justification, I have at large disputed, Lib. 4. & 5.
§. XII. The sixth I have already refuted Lib. 1. Cap. 2. §. 7. Whereunto I now add; that these men, confessing the truth with us, that faith is the instrumental cause of justification, confute themselves. For if it be the instrument to receive that which is imputed, then is it not the thing it self which is imputed properly; though relatively it may in respect of the object, which it, as the instrument or hand, doth receive to justification: and that is the righteousness of Christ. And for this cause, as hereafter shall be declared, the same benefits, which we have from Christ properly, are attributed to faith; not absolutely, in regard of it self; but relatively in respect of that righteousness, which it doth apprehend. If it be said, that faith as the instrument receiveth remission of sin, because by it we are assured thereof: I answer, that by faith receiving Christ we have remission of sins and justification, before we can by special faith be assured of it. And it is a great absurdity, as elsewhere I have shown, to teach, that men must believe, and be assured of the remission of their sins, to the end that they may be remitted.
§. XIII. I shall not need therefore to say anymore in this place, unless it be to give a Caveat to all young Divines, that they give no credit to these Novelties, which either affirm that we are justified by the passive righteousness of Christ only; or deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ at all, as the matter of our justification. By Matter I understand that very thing, which is imputed as our only righteousness; by which we stand perfectly righteous before God; by imputation whereof, we are both freed from hell, and also entitled to the kingdom of heaven. And let all men take notice, that these opinions, howsoever to some they seem matters of small importance, are notwithstanding very dangerous, if not pernicious; seeing they concern our very title to the kingdom of heaven, and seeing all •… o I have proved in this Treatise, that without imputation of Christ's righteousness there can be no justification, nor salvation. For all will confess, that without Christ's obedience and sufferings none can be justified or saved; and that they justify or save none, but them only to whom they are communicated and applied. But they cannot be communicated otherwise than by imputation, whereby God accepteth them in our behalf, as if we had in our own persons performed them for ourselves. Again, these four assertions I hold for undoubted truths: first, that what Christ our blessed Savior in the days of his flesh did or suffered in obedience to God, he did and suffered, not for himself, but for us: secondly, that whatsoever he did and suffered for us that believe, that the Lord accepteth in the behalf of all that believe: thirdly, that what he accepteth in our behalf that he imputeth unto us, for by imputation we mean nothing else: fourthly, to say, that what Christ did and suffered for us God doth not accept in our behalf, is both blasphemous against Christ the wisdom of his Father, as if he did and suffered those things, which he did and suffered in vain: and also pernicious unto us, for if Christ's doings and sufferings for us be in vain, as they are if they be not imputed to us; then is our faith vain, and we remain in our sins, and in the woeful state of damnation.
§. XIV. But some will say; it is sufficient to believe, that by the merits of Christ we have remission of sin, and that having remission of sins we shall be saved by him. Answ. Yea, but God forgiveth no sins, for which his justice is not fully satisfied. For as he is merciful, so he is just in forgiving our sins. But no such satisfaction can be imagined, but that of Christ. For we ourselves are not able to satisfy for our sins, but by eternal punishment. And how shall we have remission by Christ's satisfaction, if it be not applied and communicated unto us? how can it be communicated and made ours, but by imputation? And that the very papists themselves are at length forced to confess. And where they say, that having remission of sins they shall be saved: I confess it is true, because with God's remission of sins there doth always concur imputation of righteousness. But the bare remission of sin without imputation of righteousness, which only freeth a man from the guilt of sin and damnation, doth not entitle him or give him right to the kingdom of heaven. It is one thing to have by faith remission of sins, and another to have by faith inheritance among them that be sanctified, Act. 26. 18. Eternal life is not to be had without perfect fulfilling of the Law, which is nowhere to be found but only in Christ. And therefore by the only meritorious obedience of Christ, by which he hath merited and purchased salvation for us, we are saved. But how should we be saved by his obedience, if it be not communicated unto us, and made ours for ourselves? how can it be made ours, but by imputation? wherefore no imputation of Christ's obedience, no salvation.
CAP. VI. The end or final cause, the essential parts, the fruits and consequents of justification.
§. I.
T HE final cause or end, for which God doth justify a sinner by imputation of Christ's righteousness, is either supreme, or subordinate. The supreme, is the manifestation of the glory, both of his mercy, and of his justice (as is noted in the definition) which as they do concur in all the work of God, Psalm. 145. 17. so especially in the work of redemption and justification. For therein the mercy of God appeareth to be so great, that rather than he would suffer us most miserable sinners to perish in our sins, he hath sent his own and his only begotten Son, that we might be justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in his beloved. His justice also such, that rather than he would suffer the sins of his own elect to go unpunished, or forgive them without due satisfaction; he hath punished them in his own Son, and exacted from him a full satisfaction for them: having set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness through the forgiveness of sins, which are past, by the sufferance of God; to demonstrate, I say, his righteousness at this time, that he might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. Not unto us therefore, not unto us, as if we were justified by our own righteousness or worthiness; but to the name of God all glory is due for his mercy and for his righteousness sake; who doth justify us, not of works lest we should glory in ourselves: but of his grace, freely, without any desert or cause in ourselves, through the redemption wrought by Christ; who is of God made righteousness unto us, that he which glorieth may glory in the Lord.
§. II. The subordinate end is our salvation, and the way unto it, which is our new obedience or sanctification. Salvation, though it be our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , our particular supreme end and chief good, unto which both justification and sanctification is referred; yet it is subordinate to the glory of God, as to the sovereign and universal end. For such is God's goodness towards his elect, that he hath subordinated our salvation to his own glory; as he hath our justification and sanctification to both. And therefore, as we are first above all things to desire, that God may be glorified; so, that he may be glorified, we are first among those things, which we desire for our own good, to seek his Kingdom, and his righteousness; that his Kingdom of glory, and the Kingdom of Grace, which consisteth in the righteousness of justification, and the two companions thereof peace and joy in the holy Ghost; may come upon us; and next, that his will may be done upon earth, as it is in heaven, by our new obedience: for this is the will of God , even our sanctification. Salvation, I say, is the end both of our justification and sanctification: for being made free from sin▪ and become servants to God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. The end of our faith by which we are justified, is the salvation of our souls, unto which by justification we are entitled, and saved in hope that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to, hope of eternal life: for all that be justified, shall be glorified. And this also I noted in the definition, when I said, that those whom the Lord doth justify by imputation of Christ's righteousness, he accepteth as righteous in Christ, and as heirs of eternal life: for by faith we have remission of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified.
§ III. But we are justified by faith, not only, that in the end we may be saved; but also, that in the mean time our salvation being of Grace, might be certain and sure: and that being justified by faith we might have peace and joy in the holy Ghost: Whereas, if it depended upon our works or worthiness, it would be uncertain. For the promise of this inheritance was not made to Abraham, and his seed through the Law, in respect of any righteousness therein prescribed, but through the righteousness of Faith. And therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, Rom. 4. 13. 16.
§ IV. The other end, which is subordinate not only to God's glory, but also to our Salvation, is our sanctification, as being the way to eternal life: for though we be saved by grace through faith, and not of works; yet we are the workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them: We are therefore justified, First, that God may be glorified. Secondly, that we may be saved in the life to come. Thirdly, that in this world we may lead a godly life. See Luk. 1. 74, 75. 1 Pet. 2. 24. Tit. 2. 11, 12, 13. So much of the causes.
§ V. There remain the essential parts of justification, which I expressed in the definition, when I said, that God doth justify a believing sinner, when imputing unto him the righteousness of Christ, he doth absolve him from his sins, and accepteth of him in Christ as righteous, and as an Heir of Eternal Life.
The parts therefore of justification are two, absolution from sin, and acceptation as righteous in Christ; both which the Lord granteth by imputation of the full and perfect satisfaction of Christ, whereby he fully satisfied the Law, both in respect of the penalty, which he satisfied by his sufferings; and also in respect of the precept, which he satisfied 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 by his perfect righteousness, both habitual and actual. As therefore there were two branches of the Law to be satisfied, the commination and the Commandment; and two parts of Christ's satisfaction answerable thereunto: so there are two parts of justification, absolution from the curse of the Law, by imputation of Christ's sufferings, wherein he became a curse for us; and acceptation as righteous in Christ by imputation of Christ's most perfect righteousness both habitual & actual: in respect of both which parts of his satisfaction, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness , that is, doth justify all that truly believe in him.
§ VI. And hereby it may appear, that those three benefits of Redemption, Reconciliation, and Adoption, are all comprehended under this main benefit of justification; the two former, being all one in substance with the former part: for as touching the former, In Christ we have Redemption through his blood , even remission of sins, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. And as touching the latter; God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto them, or remitting their sins, 2 Cor. 5. 19. and therefore all three, Remission of sins, Redemption, and Reconciliation are ascribed to the blood and to the death of Christ. The third is all one in substance with the second part: For what is it to be adopted, but to be accepted of God in his beloved as righteous, and as an Heir of Eternal Life? and this is ascribed to the righteousness and obedience of Christ both in his life and death. For therefore was the Son of God made under the Law, namely to obey, and to fulfill, and to satisfy it; that he redeeming us from the yoke of the Law requiring perfect obedience in us to justification, we might receive the Adoption of sons.
§ VII. Now follow the consequents and fruits of justification, which are the Grace of Sanctification and the parts thereof, consisting partly in righteousness inherent, and partly in outward obedience called good works: which I do the rather mention in this place; because the Papists though they cannot deny, that they are the effects and fruits of justification, which as they use to allege out of Augustine, Non praecedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum, not go before as causes, but follow as effects, yet notwithstanding most absurdly contend, that they concur with faith unto justification, as the causes thereof: we acknowledge them to be necessary in the subject, that is, the party that is justified, and to be saved necessitate praesentiae, as the necessary fruits and consequents of justification, and as necessary antecedents to glorification: but we deny their necessity of efficiency, as causes concurring to the act of justification, or merit of salvation: We acknowledge them as the necessary fruits of Redemption and Justification, as the marks and cognizances of them that shall be saved, the necessary forerunners of glorification, the only true way to our heavenly country, the evidence according to which we shall be judged at the last day; yet we are not justified by them, nor saved for them (as hereafter I shall plainly and plentifully prove) but only by and for the righteousness and merits of Christ apprehended by Faith.
A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION.
THE SECOND BOOKE: That Justification and Sanctification are not to be confounded.
CAP. I. Setting down the heads of the Controversies: the first whereof is, that Justification and Sanctification are not to be confounded. The first proof, because the hebrew word, which signifieth to justify, doth never signify to make righteous by infusion of righteousness.
§. I.
H Aving thus briefly set down the true Doctrine of Justification according to the Word of God: we are now to confute the erroneous doctrine of of the Papists. There are six main and capital errors, which the Papists most obstinately hold and maintain concerning justification; and consequently so many principal heads of controversy between us, whereunto divers other particular questions are to be reduced. The first concerning the name; whether justification and sanctification are to be confounded. The second concerning the moving cause, which is the justifying and saving Grace of God, which they call gratia gratum faciens. The third concerning the matter of justification. The fourth concerning the form. The fifth concerning the instrumental cause, which is Faith. The sixth concerning the fruits of faith and consequents of justification, which are good works; concerning which are two main questions. First, whether they do justify a man before God. Secondly, whether they do merit Eternal Life.
§ II. The first capital error of the Papists is, that they confound justification and sanctification, and by confounding of them, and of two benefits making but one, they utterly abolish, as shall be shown, the benefit of justification; which notwithstanding is the principal benefit, which we have by Christ in this life, by which we are freed from hell, and entitled to the Kingdom of Heaven. And this they do in two respects: for first, they hold, that to justify in this question signifieth to make righteous by righteousness inherent, or by infusion of righteousness, that is, to sanctify. Secondly, they make remission of sin, not to be the pardoning and forgiving of sin, but the utter deletion or expulsion of sin by infusion of righteousness. Thus they make justification wholly to consist in the parts of sanctification. For whereas Sanctification is partly privative, which is the taking away of sin, which we, according to the Scriptures call mortification; and partly positive, which we call vivification; and is partly inward or habitual, consisting in the habits of Grace infused, and partly actual which is our new obedience, and practice of good works: all these, and only these they make to concur to justification: which with them is partly privative, which they call remission of sin, whereby they understand the utter deletion or extinction of sin, wrought by infusion of perfect righteousness, which is an higher degree of mortification, than we can attain unto in this life: and partly positive, and that either habitual, which they call their first justification, wherein a man of a sinner is made righteous by infusion of the habits of Grace, which is indeed regeneration: and partly actual, which they call their second justification, wherein a righteous man is made more just by the practice of good works, whereby they merit not only the increase of righteousness, but also the Crown of Eternal Life.
§ III. Of this first controversy therefore are two questions: First, whether to justify doth signify to make righteous by infusion of righteousness, which is to sanctify. Secondly, whether remission of sin be the utter deletion and abolition of sin by infusion of righteousness. In both the Papists hold the affirmative. The former, which is a most pernicious error, they ground upon the like notation of the Latin words to justify and to sanctify. That as to sanctify is to make holy by holiness inherent; so to justify is to make just by infusion of righteousness. But though the notation of the Latin words were to be respected; yet no more could be enforced from thence, but that to justify is to make just. And that is all, which Bellarmine goeth about to prove. Now God maketh men just two ways: by imputation, as he justifieth: by infusion, as he sanctifieth them. For if a man may be made just, not only inwardly by obtaining righteousness, but also outwardly by declaration, as Bellarmine himself saith; then much more by imputation: even as we were made sinners by Adams actual transgression, and as Christ was made sin, that is, a sinner for us. For even as by Adams disobedience we were made sinners and guilty of damnation, his transgression being imputed to us: so are we made just by the obedience of Christ imputed to us. And as Christ, who knew no sin, was made a sinner by imputation of our sins to him; so we are made the righteousness of God in him, that is, righteous in him by the imputation of his righteousness, who is God unto us. But indeed the force of the Latin words is to be respected no further, than as they are the true translation of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament, and of the Greek in the New.
§. IV. The Hebrew root Tsadaq, from whence those verbs do spring, which signify to justify, is by the Septuagint translated, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be just, blameless or pure. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be just, as Job 9. 2. 15. 20. 10. 15. 15. 14. 25. 4. 33. 12. 34. 5. 35. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be blameless, as Job 22. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be pure, as Job 4. 17. sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same sense, to be just, as being a translation not of a passive, but of a Neuter, as Gen. 38. 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tamar is more just than I. So Psal. 19. 10. j •… dicia Dei, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Psal. 51. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ and so Rom. 3. 4. Psal. 143. 2. Isaiah. 43. 9. cum 41. 26. Ezek. 16. 52. In Ecclus. 18. 1. Deus solus justificabitur, the Greek is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be reputed just, as Job 11. 2. 13. 18. 40. 3. Sometimes to be justified and absolved from sin, to be pronounced and accepted as righteous, as Isaiah. 43. •… 6. Let us plead together, declare thou 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 first thine iniquities, that thou mayest be justified, Isaiah. 45. 25. in the Lord all the seed of Israel shall be justified.
The passive is only once used Dan. 8. 14. where it is said that the sanctuary after 2300. days shall be justified, that is expiated or purged.
In the second conjugation it signifieth to justify, but not as the word is used in the doctrine of justification: but as it signifieth either to arrogate righteousness to a man's self, as Job 32. 2. or to attribute or ascribe it to others, as Job •… 3. 32. or to show himself or others righteous, as Ier. 3. 11. Ezek. 16. 51, 52.
In the third conjugation it signifieth to justify in that sense that the question of justification: And it is verbum forense, a judicial word used in Courts of judgment, which usually is opposed to condemning. And it signifieth to absolve and to acquit from guilt, and accepting a man as righteous, to pronounce him just, or to give sentence with him. Deut. 25. 1. If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment that the Judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord: and so the word is used, 2 Sam. 15. 4. Psal. 82. 3. Job 27. 5. Isaiah. 5. 23.
§. V. From the Courts of men and from human Judges this word is translated to spiritual judgments, and is attributed to God the Judge to Christ our Mediator, and Advocate; to Preachers, as they are the Ambassadors of God in Christ his stead. God is said to justify, when he absolveth a man from sin or guilt, and pronounceth him just, Exod. 23. 7. I will not justify a wicked man, I will not absolve or acquit him, or hold him guiltless. 1 King. 8. 32. and 2 Chron. 6. 23. Solomon desireth the Lord that he would judge his servants, condemning the wicked to b •… ing his way upon his head, and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness. Isaiah. 50. 8. Christ for the comfort of his members argueth, as the Apostle doth to the like purpose, Rom. 8. he is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me—who is mine adversary—who shall condemn me? Christ our Savior is also said to justify, both as our Mediator and surety paying our debt, Isaiah. 53. 11. (my righteous servant agni •… one sui, that is, by faith in him shall justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities) and also as our intercessor and advocate, to plead for us sinners appealing from the tribunal of justice to the throne of grace, 1 John. 2. 2. Rom. 8. 34. Preachers also are said to justify, Dan. 12. 3. both as they are the instruments of the holy Ghost to beget faith in the souls of the Elect, by which they are justified in the Court of heaven: and also as they are Ambassadors and Ministers of God to pronounce remission of sins to them that believe and repent, and so to justify them in the court of their own Conscience.
There remaineth the fourth Conjugation importing a reciprocal signification, in which the word is once only used, Gen. 44. 16. how shall we justify ourselves?
§. VI. These are all the places wherein I fi •… de this word to be used in the Old Testament. By all which it doth evidently appear that the Hebrew word, which signifieth to justify, doth never signify to make righteous by infusion of righteousness, or by righteousness inherent: the which will more clearly appear by the countrary; for as to condemn is to make wicked; so to justify, is to make just. The word Rashah signifieth to be wicked, as Tsadaq doth signify to be just, so Hirshiah, which signifieth to make wicked, is to condemn, as Hitsdiq, which signifieth to make just, is to justify. As therefore they, who are condemned, are said to be made wicked, or unjust, namely by sentence: so they, who are justified, are said to be made just, viz. by sentence. But he that condemneth the wicked, whether it be God or man, though he be said, according to the force of the word, to make him wicked; yet doth not make him wicked formally, or by infusion of wickedness inherent. Therefore, he that justifieth a man, whether he be God or man, though he be said, according to the Etymology of the word, to make him just: yet quatenus justificat, he doth not make him just, as he justifieth him, by righteousness inherent. No more than he that condemneth the just doth make him formally wicked; nor he that justifieth the wicked doth make him formally just; which if a man should do, it would be no abomination to God, as by he sentence of Solomon to justify the wicked is, but the contrary, I am. 5. 19, 20. Da •… . 12. 3
§. VII. And not unlike hereunto is the phrase of cleansing or polluting, that is, making clean or unclean, attributed to the priest in the Law when he was to judge of the Leprosy either in persons or things; which he was said to make clean or unclean, when he did but judge or pronounce them so to be. And further, this is to be noted, as a thing usual in the Hebrew tongue, that the third Conjugation doth seem to make that quality or thing, which is implied in the signification of the first Conjugation, not always really and formally, but many times in word only, or judgment, sentence, or conceit. Thus Gadal signifieth to be great, Higdil to make great or to magnify, which is in words to extol, in which sense we are said to magnify God, &c. So Aman signifieth to be true, Heemin to make true, that is, to believe, as contrariwise not to believe a man is to make him a liar , and yet a man may believe a lie, which he cannot make true. Thus Rashah signifieth to be wicked, Hirshuah to make wicked by sentence; and so Tsadaq signifieth to be just, and Hitsdiq to make just, namely by sentence. And such is the ordinary use of divers Latin and English words of the like composition, as to glorify, magnify, vilify, nullify (as Herod did Christ) and so to justify: for as we are said to justify God, when we ascribe righteousness unto him, to justify other men, to justify ourselves: So God is said to justify men, when he ascribeth or imputeth righteousness unto them.
CAP. II. The use of the Greek Words signifying to justify, or justification, never importing inherent justice.
§. I.
T HE Greek words, which signify to justify and to be justified, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; from whence are derived, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth justification, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which sometimes also signifieth justification. And of these I am now to speak. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are not in use among the authors of the Greek tongue, in the sense of justifying or making just. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith Soudas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it signifieth two things; to punish (as being derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which sometimes signifieth punishment) and to think right or meet: sometimes, both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do signify to condemn, in the contrary sense to the sacred use of the words: sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth only to think, to judge or suppose, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometime to be righted in judgment. From profane authors therefore we are not to setch the true meaning of the words, but from the Septuagint's, who translating the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, do render the Hebrew words, which I spake of, importing justification, by these Greek words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And from them not only the son of Sirach, and other Ecclesiastical authors writing in Greek, but also the holy Apostles and Evangelists have received the same. And therefore these words are no otherwise to be understood, than as the translations of the said Hebrew words, signifying no other thing, than what the Hebrew words import: which (as I have shown) do never signify to make or to be made righteous by inherent righteousness.
§. II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used by the Apostle and by the Evangelist Luke, sometimes as the translation of Tsiddiq in Piel, as Luk. 7. 29. the people and Publicans 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , justified God. The Lawyer, Luk. 10. 29. willing to justify himself. The Pharisees, Luk. 16. 15. justified themselves before men. And so is the word used sometimes by the son of Sirach, as Ecclus. 10. 29. who will justify him that sinneth against his own soul? Cap. 13. 26. alias 22. A rich man speaketh things not to be spoken, and yet men justify him. Sometimes the Apostle useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the translation of Hitsdiq, as always he doth in the question of justification, and always as the action of God: as Rom. 3. 26. who justifieth him that believeth in Jesus; how? verse. 24. gratis, without any cause or desert of justification in the party, without works, that is, without respect of any righteousness inherent in him, or performed by him, verse. 28. who justifieth the Circumcision and uncircumcision, that is, both Jews and Gentiles, not of works or by inherent justice, but by and through faith, verse. 30. who justifieth the ungodly, that is, the believing sinner, that worketh not, Rom. 4. 5. and therefore not by inherent righteousness: how then? by imputing righteousness without works, verse. 6. who Rom. 8. 30. whom he calleth he justifieth, namely by faith, and whom he justifieth he also glorifieth, using the word in the same sense, verse. 33. who can lay anything to the charge of God's elect? it is God that justifieth, who shall condemn? where most manifestly the word is used as a judicial word, opposed to accusing and condemning. Neither can any color of reason be alleged why the word in these places should signify contrary to the perpetual use both of it self, and of the H •… brew word, whereof it is a translation, to make righteous by righteousness inherent.
§. III. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used sometimes as the translation not of the passive verb, but as of the Neuter in Cal, as I have shown before out of the Greek translation of the 〈◊〉 . So Ecclus. 7. 5. be not just before God, not wise before the king; or as it is usually translated, do not justify thyself before God. So also in the New Testament. Rom. 3. 4. cited out of Psalm. 51. 6. where the Hebrew word is not a passive, but a neuter. And so Apoc. 22. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 let him that is just, be just still. As the translation of the passive it is often used. But as it never signifieth to be made just by inherent justice (as I will show, when I come to answer the objections of the Papists:) so it always signifieth, either to be declared or pronounced just, or to be absolved and made jus •… by imputation. In the former sense, wisdom is said to be justified of her Children: Luk. 7. 37. who, verse. 29. justified God. Christ, who is God, was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, 1 Tim. 3. 16. Thus by our words we shall be justi •… ed, not made just formally or by inherent righteousness, but in the sense opposed to condemnation. For as by thy words thou shalt be justified, so by thy words thou shalt be condemned, Matth. 12. 37. Thus not the hearers alone, but the doers of the Law shall be justified, that is, pronounced just, Rom. 2. 13. and in this sense the faithful are justified by works, that is, declared, approved, and known to be just. James 2. 21, 23. 24, 25. cum Genes. 22. 12. •… n the latter sense, Ecclesiast. 1. 28. alias 22. the famous man, Chap. 31. 5. The lover of Gold, Chap. 23. 14. alias 11. The rash swearer shall not be justified, that is, as it is in the Commination of the third Commandment, shall not be held guitlesse; but most plainly, Chap. 26. the last verse, the huckster shall not be justified from sin, that is, not absolved from sin nor accepted as righteous. So Act. 13. 38, 39. where most plainly, to be •… ustified from sin, doth signify to be absolved or freed from the guilt of sin, and is used promiscuously with remission of sin. And this sense o •… freedom from the guilt, is •… ometimes extended to signify a total freedom, as Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified (that i •… , as Chrysostom and O •… umenius expound it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is freed) from sin. As these places are plainly repugnant to the Popish sense: so none of the rest, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, doth favor it. For either they import remission of sins, and acceptation as righteo •… s, as Luk. 18. 14. The Publican who had humbled himself and craved pardon, went home justified, that is, obtained pardon, and was accepted as righteous, rather than the Pharisee, who had justified himself: or distinguish between justification and sanctification, as 1 Cor. 6. 11. or exclude justification by inherent righteousness, as Rom. 3. 20. Rom. 4. 2. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Gal. 5. 4. Or imply imputation, as where we are said to be justified either by his blood, as Rom. 5. 9. Or by faith, as Rom. 5. 1. Gal. 3. 24. Or by grace, as Ti •… . 3. 7 Or both exclude the one and imply the other, as Rom. 3. 24. 28. Gal. 2. 16, 17. 3. 11.
§ IV. There remain these two words, which I mentioned before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used only in two plac •… s, Rom. 4. 25. & 5. 18. In the former it is said, that Christ was delivered (to death) for our sins, and was raised again for our justify •… tion, to whom, as it is in the precedent verse, righteousness shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead: for as our Savior by his death, and obedience unt •… ll death merited for us remission of sins, and the right to eternal life; so by the acts of Christ restored to life, as namely by his resurrection, his merits are effectually applied and imputed to our justification. For if Christ had not risen again, we had been still in our sins, 1 Cor. 15. 17. In the latter place, justification is in direct terms opposed to condemnation. For as by the offense or transgression of one, viz. the first Adam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the guilt (which is to be supplied out of the sixteenth verse) came upon all men, the offspring of the first Adam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto condemnation: so by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of one, whereby he fulfilled the Law, viz. the second Adam, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or free gift opposite to the guilt of damnation, which is our title and right to the kingdom of heaven, cometh to all men (that belong to the second Adam ) unto justification of life.
§ V. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is divers •… y used, both in the plural number, and in the singular. In the plural, it hath three significations; for first, it signifieth Iura, the Laws or Commandments of God, either in general and indefinitely, as namely where no other word of the like signi •… cation is joined with it, as Psalm. 119. 8, 12. Rom. 2. 26. Or more particularly the precepts of the ceremonial Law. And this sense is most usual, when it is joined with words signifying other laws or precepts. For the whole Law, which is called mishmereth Jehovah, the observation of the Lord, that is, all that the Lord requireth to be observed, is often distinguished into three parts: Mitsvoth, whi •… h the Septuagint translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Commandments of the moral Law: Mishpatim, which they translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the precepts of the judicial Law: Chuqqim, which they translate sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the statutes and ordinances of the Ceremonial Law. Insomuch that the vulgar Latin for Chuqqim, rendereth many times, even where the 72. have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ceremonias, as Gen. 26. 5. Deut. 4. 8, 14, 45. 5. 1, 31. 6. 1. 17. 8. 11. 10. 13. 11. 1. &c. The Apostle Rom. 9. 4. calleth the Moral Law 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Judicial 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Ceremonial 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and accordingly the precepts of the Ceremonial Law are called Heb. 9. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The ordinances of divine service, and because they were but external observations, verse. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , carnal ordinances. Secondly, it signifieth the judgments of God, Apoc. 15. 4. which by the vulgar Latin and others is translated Iudicia. And as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifieth the just works of God which are the acts of his justice, so in the last place some expound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Apoc. 19. 8. to be the just works of the Saints; and as the author of the Homilies in Saint Augustine, justa facta, or juste facta; as the Greek writers sometimes use the word; which the Papists will needs translate justifications, meaning thereby just works, and hoping thereby to prove that men are justified by them: which we deny not in that sense wherein Saint James saith we are justified, that is, declared, and known to be just by them. But if justifications be the true translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in that place, then we are thereby to understand the merits of Christ, by which the Saints are justified; which are more fitly resembled by a garment, than either inherent righteousness or righteous works. And is indeed called Matth. 22. 11, 12. the wedding garment, which garment is put on by a true faith, by which the faithful, as they are exhorted, Rom. 13. 14. put on Christ. Whereof Baptism is a seal, Gal. 5. 27. And this is that white garment, which is to be had from Christ to cover our nakedness, Apoc. 3. 18. Sometimes indeed the white robes do signify the glorious and happy estate promised to the faithful, as Apoc. 3. 4. 6. 11. 7. 9. which is purchased by the merits of Christ, for which cause their robes are said to be made white in the blood of the Lamb. But here the holy Ghost expoundeth the fine linen, wherewith the Saints are arrayed, to be the justifications of the Saints; which, as I said, are the merits and obedience of Christ put on by a true faith: which being without us, as garments use to be, and yet being applied unto us and put on by faith, do cover our nakedness, and therefore are more fitly resembled by fine linen pure and shining, than our own righteousness; which neither is without us, as a garment, nor yet pure, but Christ's righteousness imputed is both as a garment pure and perfect in it self, and shineth forth by the light of good works, Mat. 5. 16.
§. VI. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a verbal derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , either as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to be just, in which sense the precepts of God are said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Psalm. 19. 10. or as it signifieth to be justified. In the former sense 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth that which is just, either as the Law of God prescribing righteousness, (so the Law of nature written in the hearts of men is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rom. 1. 32.) or as the whole righteousness which in the Law is prescribed, and so it is used, Rom. 5. 18. For as by the transgression of one, ( viz. the first Adam ) whereby the whole Law was violated, guilt came upon all men (that were in him) unto condemnation: so by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of one, the second Adam, whereby he fulfilled the whole Law, the free gift, which is our right and title to heaven came upon all men (who are in him) unto justification of life, and Rom. 8. 4. God sent his Son (the Law being impossible to be fulfilled by us) in the likeness of sinful flesh, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , all that the Law requireth to justification, might in our nature be performed and fulfilled. In the latter sense it is once only used, viz. Rom. 5. 16. in the same signification with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, justification, verse. 18. both of them being opposed to condemnation. If therefore the words which the holy Ghost doth use to express the benefit of justification, do never signify justification by inherent righteousness, but the contrary, as hath been •… hewed: then that justification, which the Papists teach, is not that which is taught in the holy Scriptures, but contrary to it.
§. VII. And the same is proved by these two reasons: first, because the Apostles, when they express the benefit of justification in other terms, they do signify the same, not by such words as import infusion of righteousness; but by such, as plainly signify, either absolution from sin, which is the not imputing of sin, or imputation of righteousness, Rom. 4. these phrases are used to signify one and the same thing: to justify, to impute righteousness without works verse. 6. to remit sin, to cover sins, verse. 7. not •… o impute sin, verse. 8. to be justified and to be blessed; and to be blessed is to have their sins remitted or covered, verse. 6. Rom. 5. 9, 10. to be justified by the blood of Christ, and to be reconciled unto God by his death all one, 2 Cor. 5. 19. to reconcile us unto himself, not imputing our offenses unto us, and verse. 21. to make us the righteousness of God in Christ, as he was made sin for us, Act. 26. 18. that by faith we may have remission of sins, and inheritance, that is, that we may be heirs of the heavenly inheritance among them that are sanctified, John. 3. 18. He that believeth in Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not condemned, that is, as Paul speaketh Act. 13. 39. is justified: but he that believeth not him is condemned already. That, which Paul affirmeth Rom. 3. 21, 22. now without the Law is manifested the righteousness of God, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that belee •… e; Saint Peter more plainly expresseth, Act. 10. 43. unto him all the Prophets bear witness, that everyone, which believeth in him, receiveth remission of sins through his name.
§. VIII. Because the whole process of the justification of a sinner is judicial, Rom. 8. 33 34., For the sinner summoning himself before the judgment seat of God, as everyone must do that would be justified; his own conscience, being rightly informed by the paedagogie of the Law, accuseth him, the devil pleadeth against him, the Law convicteth him, and maketh him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , subject to the sentence of condemnation, if God should judge him according to his Law. But the sinner being instructed in the Gospel, and the holy Ghost having opened his heart to believe, appealeth from the sentence of the Law to the promise of the Gospel, and from the tribunal of justice to the throne of Grace, humbly entreating the Lord for Christ's sake to pardon his sins, and to accept of the merits and obedience of Christ, as a full satisfaction for them. Our Savior sitting at the right hand of his Father maketh intercession , and as an advocate pleadeth for him that forasmuch as he himself hath paid the debt, and satisfied God's justice for the believing sinner; therefore the Lord, not only in mercy, but also in justice is to remit his sin, and to accept of him in Christ. The Lord, as a gracious and righteous judge imputing to the believer the merits and righteousness of Christ, absolveth him from his sins, and accepteth of him as righteous in Christ, that is to say, justifieth him. The believing sinner being thus justified in the Court of heaven, is not at the first justified in the Court of his own conscience, that is to say, is not yet persuaded and assured of his justification; until the holy Ghost, by the ministry of the Gospel pronouncing remission of sins and justification to everyone that believeth, teacheth him to apply the promises of the Gospel unto himself, which he sealeth unto him by the Sacraments. The believer being thus persuaded, and in some measure assured of his justification, giveth diligence by practicing the duties of repentance and sanctification, to confirm and increase that assurance more and more unto the end of his life, laboring by all good means to make sure his election, his vocation and his justification: and so proceedeth from faith to faith. The believer having thus been justified in this life, both in the court of heaven, and in the court of his own conscience; after this life, namely at the day of judgment, when our Savior will judge of men's faiths according to the evidence of their works, shall be justified, that is, pronounced happy and blessed. These three degrees of God's most gracious proceeding with the faithful, I have set down, not that there are so many degrees of justification, so properly called. For the first degree only is that justification, whereof we treat, which admitteth no degrees. The other are degrees of the declaration thereof; the former, privately to the conscience of the faithful; the other, publicly to the whole world.
CAP. III. The allegations of the Papists concerning the word justification: the two first significations thereof assigned by Bellarmine.
§. I.
H Aving thus explained the true sense and meaning of these words, which in the holy Scriptures are used to signify justification: let us now examine the allegations of the Papists concerning the same. Bellarmine therefore saith that the word justification (meaning the Latin word) is used four ways in the holy Scriptures, meaning the vulgar Latin edition, when as indeed neither the Latin edition it self, nor the Latin word is in this question further to be respected, than as it is a true translation of the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and of the Greek in the New. First, saith he, it is taken for the Law which teacheth righteousness, and so is used, Psal. 119. 8. I will keep thy justifications: and verse. 12. teach me thy justifications, &c. This Bellarmine barely expoundeth, without any further enforcing: but Gregory Martin , and our Rhemists urge it as a principal argument: that the precepts of the Law are therefore called justifications, because the observation of them doth justify us, and therefore exclaim against us, that in our translations, we, instead of justifications, do read statutes or ordinances. As though in translating the holy Scriptures we did profess to translate the Latin edition, and not the Original Text. Now the word, which in the Old Testament is by the vulgar Latin interpreted justificationes, and by the 72. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is Chuqqim▪ which when it is used alone, signifieth undefinitely any of the precepts, statutes or commandments of God: but being used with other words of the like signification, from which it is distinguished, signifieth the statutes and ordinances of the Ceremonial Law: insomuch that the vulgar Latin in many places, even where the Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rendereth Ceremonias, a as I shown before ; which though the Latins sometimes call justificationes, yet by the confession of the Papists themselves do not justify. And the like is to be said of Luk. 1. 6. where Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to have walked in all the Commandments and justifications of the Lord: where the Greek word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the translation of Chuqqim, and signifieth the statutes of the ceremonial Law, as being distinguished from the Commandments of the moral Law; but of the Greek word I have spoken sufficiently before, Chap. 2. §. 5. If therefore the force of the Latin word justificationes be urged, I answer, that the observation of the moral Law can justify no man that is a sinner, and much less the observation of the ceremonial. And the conclusion, which they infer from the force of the word, that the precepts of the Law are called justifications, because by the observation of them men are justified, is directly contrary to that of the Apostle, that by the works of the Law no man living is, or can be justified.
§ II. But if they be justifications, whose are they? For so they argue: If good works, say they, be the justifications of the Saints, then they justify the Saints. So may I say, if the precepts of the Law be the justifications of the Lord, then belike they justify him, but neither are fitly called justifications; (though the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may not unfitly be given both to the Law of God, as the rule of justice, and to the judgments of God, as the acts of justice, and to the good deeds of the Saints as works of justice; and also to the merits of Christ, which notwithstanding do not justify him, but us) unless they mean, that as by good works the faithful, so by righteous commandments and just judgments God is declared and manifested to be just. And farther, the law of Nature known to the Gentiles, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which notwithstanding doth not justify either him or them, and is by the Latin interpreter unfitly translated, the justice of God. And moreover Bellarmine himself, as we have heard, noteth that the Law is called justification, because it teacheth righteousness, and yet not that righteousness by which we are justified; for that without the Law is manifested in the Gospel, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe. But to conclude; Bellarmine had no reason to make this the first signification of the word in the Scriptures, for the Hebrew word, which the vulgar Latin translateth sometimes iustificationes, and sometimes ceremonias in the same sense, doth signify no such matter: and the Greek, which twice at the most in the Scriptures signifieth justification, doth usually signify the Law of God, and his statutes and ordinances, but more especially those of the ceremonial Law, which if they be anywhere called justifications, it is to be imputed to the corrupt translation; and not to the original truth.
§ III. So much of the first signification. The two next, whereof there is no example in the Scriptures, he hath coined to fit their newfound distinction of justification it self, which they distinguish into the first and the second. The first, when a man of a sinner, is made just by infusion of habitual righteousness. The second, when a just man is made more just by practice of good works. Accordingly justification, saith Bellarmine, in the second place signifieth acquisition of righteousness, viz. inherent, which is their first justification; and in the third place incrementum justitiae, the increase of justice, which is their second justification: which distinction, if it were applied to sanctification, were not to be rejected. For that, which they call their first justification, is the first act of our sanctification, which the Scriptures call •… eration: in which the holy Ghost doth ingenerate in the soul of the Elect the grace of faith, and with it, and by it, other sanctifying graces, wherein their justification, which is habitual, consisteth. And that which they call their second justification being actual, is our new obedience, by which our sanctification is continued and increased. But to justification it cannot truly be applied; for first, justification is an action of God, for it is God that doth justify. Their second justification is their own act, whereby they being just already make themselves more just. Secondly, justification, as hath been said, is an action of God without us, not implying a real mutation in us, but relative, such as is wrought by the sentence of a Judge, and is opposed to condemnation. Thirdly, because it is the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified, which is a perfect righteousness, whereunto nothing can be added. Therefore of justification it self there are no degrees, though of the assurance thereof there are degrees according to the measure of our faith.
§ IV. But let us see how Bellarmine proveth his second signification. To that purpose he alledgeth three testimonies of Scripture, which prove nothing else but that the Papists have no sound proof for their erroneous conceit. The first is taken out of 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified. Where indeed the word is used, but in a sense distinguished from sanctification. The scope and intendment, the Apostle is to exhort the Corinthians, being now Christians, to abstain from those sins whereunto they were addicted, whiles they lived in Gentilism. Such you were then, saith the Apostle, but now since you gave your names to Christ, you were baptized into his Name, and in your Baptism were washed from those sins, being sanctified from the corruption of them by the Spirit of God, and justified from the guilt of them in the Name of Jesus Christ, that is, by faith in his Name. Thus therefore these three words are to be distinguished. The washing of the soul, which is represented by the washing of the body, is the general word whereby the purging of the soul from sin is generally signified, Act. 22. 16. But as in sin there are two things from which we had need to be purged, that is, the guilt of sin, and the corruption thereof: so this ablution or washing of the soul hath two parts, ablution from the guilt of sin, which is our justification; ablution from the corruption of sin, which is our sanctification. Both which are represented and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptism, wherein, as the outward washing of the body doth represent the inward washing of the soul, both from the guilt and corruption of sin: so the Element of water, whereby the body is washed or sprinkled, is a sign of the water and blood which issued out of Christ's side, whereby the soul is washed; that is to say, the blood of redemption, and the water of sanctification: for by the blood, that is, the merits of Christ, we are freed from the guilt of sin; and by the water, that is, the Spirit of sanctification, we are freed in some measure from the corruption. And both these, as I said, are signified in Baptism. For we are baptized into the remission of sins, Act. 2. 38. Mar. 1. 4. Our souls being washed with the blood of Christ, according to that in the Nicene Creed, I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins: and we are baptized unto the mortification of sin, and rising unto holiness of life, Rom. 6. 3, 4. our souls being washed by the water of the holy Ghost. For we are baptized into the death of Christ and similitude of his resurrection; that as Christ died and rose again, so we that are baptized should die unto sin, and rise to newness of life: for which cause Baptism also is called the Laver of regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. This then is the sum and effect of the Apostles exhortation: that seeing they having given their names unto Christ, had been baptized into his Name, and were therefore Sacramentally at the least washed, and consequently both in their own profession and opinion of others, judging according to charity, sanctified from the corruption of sin, and justified from the guilt of the same: therefore they should take heed, lest they should again be polluted with those sins from which they were sanctified; or made guilty of those crimes, from which they were justified.
§ V. His second testimony is Rom. 8. 30. Whom he hath called, them he hath justified. Answ. The Context doth show, that the word in the 30. verse is used in the same sense as verse 33. For having shown, that whom the Lord calleth, he doth justify, and whom he doth justify, them also he doth glorify: from thence he inferreth this consolation, who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, as was said, verse 30. who shall condemn, &c. Where justifying most plainly is used, as a judicial word, signifying by sentence to justify (as Chrysostom and O •… cumenius on this place do note) as opposed to accusing and condemning, and cannot with any show of reason be drawn to signify contrary to the perpetual use of the word, infusion of righteousness. But here it may be objected, that in this place, where the Apostle setteth down the degrees of salvation, sanctification is either included in justification, or left our. Answ. It is left out: for the Apostle setting down the chain of the causes of salvation, in the degrees whereof every former being the cause of the latter, left out sanctification, as being no cause of salvation, but the way unto it, and the cognizance of them that are saved. And these degrees are so set down, Act. 26. 18. where the end of the ministry is expressed: first, Vocation that men should be called, and thereby brought to believe: secondly, Justification, that by faith they may receive remission of sins: thirdly, Glorification, that by faith they may receive the inheritance among them that are sanctified: where sanctification is mentioned only as the cognizance of them that are saved. Again, sanctification is left out, because it is included, in respect of the beginning thereof, which is our conversion or regeneration, in vocation: and in respect of the consummation, in glorification: for as sanctification is gloria inchoata, so glorification is gratia consummata.
§. VI. His third testimony is Rom. 4. 5. to him that believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly. Ans. he should have done well to have made up the sentence; his faith is imputed for righteousness: which place is so far srom favoring the Popish conceit, that it plainly confutes it: first, it is called the justification of the ungodly, that is, of one who is a sinner in himself: for he that is a sinner in himself by inherent sin, and so remaineth, cannot be justified by righteousness inherent: secondly, because to him that believeth in Christ, faith, relatively understood, that is, the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, is imputed for righteousness: thirdly, because in this place justification is expressed by these terms, not imputing sin, remitting or covering of sin, imputing righteousness without works, imputing faith for righteousness to him that worketh not, (that is, that seeketh not to be justified by his own righteousness) but believeth in him that justifieth a sinner.
CAP. IIII. The third and fourth signification of the word justification assigned by Bellarmine.
§. I.
T Hirdly, saith Bellarmine, justification is taken for increase of justice: for even as he is said to be heated, not only who of cold is màde hot, but also who of hot is made hotter: even so he is said to be justified, who not only of a sinner is made just, but also of just is made more just▪ Ans. In this comparison of like there is a great unlikeness: for calefaction implieth a real mutation and a positive change in the subject from cold to hot: but in justification the change is not real, but relative, as before hath been shown. Bellarmine therefore must prove, that to justify doth signify to make righteous formally by righteousness inherent, before he can prove that it signifieth the increase of inherent justice. But if the former cannot be proved, much less the latter. But yet he bringeth three proofs, such as they be.
§. II. The first Ecclus. 18. 21. Ne verearis usque ad mortem justificari, qu •… niam merces Domini manet in aeternum: fear not to be justified until death for the reward of the Lord adideth forever. Answ. To omit, that the book is Apocryphal, which ought not to be alleged in controversies of faith: the testimony it self is vilely depraved. The words in the Original are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, stay not until death to be justified; or as their own interlinear translation readeth it, ne expectes usque ad mortem justificari, wait not until death to be justified: where it is evident, that he speaketh of justification in our first conversion, which he would not have deferred until the time of death, and not of the continuance or increase of it: for then the sentence would bear a contrary, and indeed an ungodly sense: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , abide not or continue not to be justified, or to be just until thy death. And the words, until death, are not to be joined with the last word justified, but with the first, stay not until death. And their translation of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whether as Bellarmine here readeth, ne verearis, or as some editions have ne veteris, hath no affinity with the Original. But our interpretation, as it agreeth with the words of the Text, so it is confirmed by the context. Use Physic before thou be sick, before judgment prepare thyself,—humble thyself before thou be sick, and in the time of sins (that is, whiles thou mayest yet sin) show thy conversion; let nothing hinder thee to pay thy vows in due season, and defer not until death to be justified, or to become just.
§ III. But this testimony Bellarmine urgeth again in another place, showing that the place is to be understood of continuing and proceeding in justice, and the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are as much as cease not. And this he would prove by that which goeth before, be not hindered to pray always: where the wise man admonisheth us to increase our justice by continual prayer: and also by that which immediately followeth, because the reward of the Lord endureth forever: for reward agreeth not to the first justification of the wicked, but indulgence. Answ. This interpretation of Bellarmine may then be admitted, when it shall be proved: first, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to cease: secondly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to pray: thirdly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always: fourthly, that those words, but the reward of the Lord endureth forever, are found in the Original Text. But if Bellarmine knew, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth stay not, or wait not, and not cease not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to render the vow and not to pray; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in due season and without delay, and not always; and that the clause concerning the reward of the Lord is not in the Greek Text; then can it not be denied, but that Bellarmine endeavored against his own conscience to father his error upon the Son of Sirach: howbeit the reason which he rendereth is Pharisaical: For unto the first justification, saith he, of sinners, not reward, but indulgence agreeth, as though there were any reward of our righteousness, (which always in this life is impure and imperfect, Isaiah. 64. 6.) but by indulgence. If thou Lord shouldest mark what is amiss, O Lord, who shall stand? but with thee there is mercy or indulgence, that thou mayest be feared, Psal. 130. 3, 4. To them that love God, and keep his Commandments, the Lord showeth mercy, Exod. 20.6. To thee Lord mercy, for thou reward'st a man, (meaning the godly man) according to his works, Psalm. 62. 12. which plainly showeth, that the reward of good works is to be ascribed to God's mercy and indulgence, and not to our defect: for it is great mercy that he pardoneth the imperfection and iniquity of our good works; greater, that he accepteth of them in Christ; but greatest, that he graciously rewardeth them: and who knoweth not that eternal life it self, which is the reward that endureth forever, is the free and undeserved gift of God, not rendered to our merits, but given of his free grace.
§ IV. His second testimony is, I am. 2.24. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Answ. Of this place we are hereafter to treat more fully. Now we are only to clear the signification of the word, which in this place most evidently signifieth, not to be justified before God or made just, but to be approved or declared just. In which sense the Schoolmen themselves do teach, that good works do justify declarative. But here it may be objected, that Saint James in this place speaketh of that justification whereunto faith concurreth with good works, and good works with faith. But to declare a man to be justified, faith being an inward and hidden grace of the heart, hath no use or efficacy; but it self is to be declared and manifested by works, as it is verse 18. Answ. The Apostle doth not speak of justifying faith it self, but of the profession thereof, or of saith professed only, as appeareth by the fourteenth verse, where the question is propounded; What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man shall say he hath faith, and have not works, can that faith, which is in profession only, save him? Now to the justification of a man before men, and declaration of him to be a man justified before God, two things are requisite; the profession of the true faith, and a godly conversation answerable to that profession. For neither good workss declare a man to be justified, if they be not joined with the profession of the true faith: neither doth the profession of faith justify a man before men, if his faith cannot be demonstrated by good works. And in this sense it is said, that a man is justified, that is, known to be just by works, and not by faith only.
§ V. His third testimony is, Apoc. 22.11. Qui justus est justificetur adhuc, he that is just let him be justified still. Answ. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this place doth not signify to be justified, but to be just, as the word is often used not only in the translation of the Septuagint's, but also in the New Testament, as I have shown before, as being the translation not of the passive, but of tsadaq the verb neuter in Cal, which signifieth not to be justified, but to be just. And this exposition is confirmed, first, by the words going before; He that doth wrong let him do wrong still, he that is filthy let him be filthy still; and so, he that is just let him be just still. Secondly, by the authority of the Complutensis editio, of the Kings Bible, of Andraeas Caesariensis, and of Arethas in Apoc. who instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let him work righteousness; of some Latin editions of the vulgar translation, which instead of justificetur, read justitiam faciat; and lastly of Cyprian, who rendereth the place thus, justus adhuc justiora faciat. This place therefore doth not speak of the increase of our justification before God which cannot be increased, and much less are we exhorted unto it (for as soon as a man is justified, he standeth righteous before God in the most perfect righteousness of CHRIST, which admitteth no increase) but of perseverance in righteousness. Moreover, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 still, doth not signify increase, but continuance.
§ VI. And these were Bellarmine his three first significations of the word justification, whereof not any one can be proved out of the word of God. Fourthly, saith he, It is taken for the declaration of justice after a judicial manner, in which sense he •… s said to be justified, who when he had been by the accuser made guilty of some iniquity, is by the sentence of the Judge declared just and absolved. And to this purpose he allegeth not only Prov. 17. 15. he that justifieth the wicked and condemneth the just, &c. And Isaiah 5. 23. But (which are not so pertinent) Luk. 7. 35. and Luk. 10. 29. Now, saith he, of the four acceptions of the word our adversaries teach this fourth to be most proper. As for the •… econd, and the third which ariseth from the second, they say it is improper, and not to be found in any approved Authors. But of this matter, saith he, we will discourse Libro 2. Cap. 3. whether we will follow him. In the mean time let it be observed, that the Papists who cannot approve their own acceptions of the word by any one place of Scripture, do nevertheless acknowledge that use of the word which we do maintain. But whereas he doth insinuate, that we do therefore reject the second and third significations, because the word is not so used in approved Authors: I answer, if he speak of the Latin word (as he doth) that it is not used of the Authors of the Latin tongue at all; and in the Latin edition of the Scriptures, and from thence in other Ecclesiastical writers, it is used as the translation of the Hebrew and the Greek, and must accordingly be understood. And if of the Greek, that it is not used indeed of the Authors of the Greek tongue in the Popish sense. But that is not the reason why we reject those senses, but because they are not to be found in the holy Scriptures.
CAP. V. Bellarmine's discourse concerning the signification of the word justification, de Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 3. examined.
§. I.
B VT let us examine Bellarmine's disputation concerning the signification of the word Lib. 2. Cap. 3. where alleging 〈◊〉 . 5. 17, 18, 19. to prove justification by inherent righteousness, he affirmeth, that to be justified by Christ in that place, doth signify to be made just by obtaining righteousness 〈◊〉 . And this he would prove by two reasons: first, out of those words j •… sti constistuentur multi, many shall be constituted or made just: From whence he argueth thus:
- To be constituted just is to be made just by inherent righteousness:
- To be justified is to be constituted just, Rom. 5. 19. Therefore to be constituted just is to be made just by righteousness inherent.
Answ. We confess, that whosoever is justified is constituted, yea, is made just: but the question is concerning the manner: whether by infusion of righteousness, or by imputation. The assumption therefore is granted by us. But the proposition is false, and hath no ground in the Scriptures. Yea, the contrary may be proved out of the place alleged; where justification, or making righteous is opposed, not to the corruption of sin, but to guilt and condemnation, verse. 16. and 18. And therefore he is said in this place to be justified, or constituted righteous, who being absolved and acquitted from the guilt of sin, and from condemnation, is accepted as righteous unto life: for as in the former part of the 19. verse, many are said to be constituted sinners, that is, as the Greek interpreters do expound it, and as appeareth by the former verses, guilty of sin, and obnoxious to condemnation by the disobedience of Ada •… , meaning that one offense of his which we cal his fall; which cannot be otherwise understood but by imputation: so in the latter part, many are said to be constituted just, by the obedience of the second Adam, that is, absolved from the guilt of sin and condemnation, and accepted as righteous in Christ, his obedience being communicated to them; which cannot be by any other means, but by imputation. Neither can any reason be given why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be constituted just, should not be a judicial word, as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be justified. In all other places, this verb, whether it be used in the good sense or in the bad, signifieth no such thing, as Bellarmine inferreth upon it. For as in the bad it signifieth to convince or condemn, as Gal. 2. 18. I am. 4. 4. so in the good, to approve or commend, as Rom. 5. 8. 2 Cor. 4. 2. 6. 4. 7. 11. And accordingly the meaning of this place may be this: as by the disobedience of the first Adam many were convicted and condemned as sinners, that is, guilty of sin and damnation: so by the obedience of the second Adam many shall be approved and accepted as righteous.
His reason is from the antithesis of Adam to Christ: which as I shall hereafter in his due place prove, maketh wholly against him: for if by the actual disobedience of Adam imputed unto us we were made sinners; then by the obedience of Christ imputed unto us we are made righteous: but the former is true, therefore the latter. Of this antithesis I am hereafter to speak more at large: in the mean time this may suffice to maintain and justify our exposition of the word against Bellarmine's cavils.
§. II. But here Bellarmine frameth to himself a fourfold Objection of Calvin and Chemnitz, proving that to justify is a judicial word, signifying to absolve and to pronounce just. Their first reason is, because the Apostle opposeth justifying to condemning, as Rom. 5. 16. 18. 8. 33. Therefore as God is said to condemn, when he doth not acquit a man, but pronouncing him guilty deputeth him unto punishment: so on the contrary, he is said to justify, when he acquitteth and absolveth a man from guilt, and pronouncing him just accepteth of him in Christ as righteous unto eternal life. To this Bellarmine shapeth two answers: first, That justification is rightly opposed to condemnation; but is not therefore always a judicial word: for even condemnation it self sometimes is the act of a Judge appointing him to punishment, who in judgment was found guilty: and sometimes it is the effect of a fault, which hath deserved punishment. And so Adam hath condemned us, and God condemneth: but Adam hath not condemned us by judging us after a judicial manner, but by imprinting in us Original sin. After the same manner, saith he, justification sometimes is the act of a Judge, sometimes the effect of grace. And both ways doth Christ justify us: first, as the second Adam by deletion of sin, and infusion of grace: secondly, in the day of judgment by declaring them just, whom before he had made just.
Reply: Justification in this question, and in the places alleged, is considered as an action of God, and being referred to God, it signifieth, not to make just by infusion of righteousness; but by sentence after the manner of a Judge, to absolve from sin and to pronounce and accept as righteous, as being opposed to condemning, which being referred to God, signifieth not to make sinful, but by sentence after the manner of a Judge to pronounce the offender guilty, and to award him punishment. But what either justifying or condemning may signify, being referred to other either persons or things, it is not material; so that it be confessed, (which cannot be denied) that justifying, being ascribed to God, signifieth not to make righteous by infusion, no more than condemning, being attributed to God, signifieth to make wicked by infusion; but both are to be understood as the actions of a judge, who either pronouncing a man just absolveth him from guilt; or pronouncing him guilty appointeth him to punishment. This therefore was an impertinent shift of a subtle sophister having nothing to say to the purpose, for whereas he applieth his distinction of condemning and justifying to the first and second Adam, as pertinent to the places alleged: I answer, first, that neither is considered, as the act of the first or second Adam, but as Bellarmine confesseth in his second answer, as the actions of God the Judge: secondly, that although in some sense the first Adam may be said to have condemned us, as the second Adam is truly said, Isaiah. 53. 11. to justify us: yet both is to be understood of the guilt of sin, brought upon us by the one, and taken away by the other. For as the first Adam by his transgression may be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to have condemned us, because he hath inwrapped us in the guilt of his sin, and so made us guilty of death and obnoxious to the •… entence of condemnation, that transgression of his being imputed us, being in him as the root: so the second Adam may truly be said to justify us (who are in him) both as a surety in taking upon him our guilt, and paying our debt for us, Isaiah. 53. 11. and also as our intercessor and advocate pleading for us, that by imputation of his righteousness we may be absolved from our sins, and accepted as righteous in him.
§. III. His second answer is, that although condemnation and justification some where signify the action of the Judge, as in the place cited, Rom. 5. 16. yet notwithstanding when God doth justify a sinner by d •… claring him just, he doth also make him just, because the judgment of God is according to the truth. And therefore Christ, whether he justifieth us by his obedience, or by his judgment, he always maketh just. And thus Augustine (saith he) understood this place.
Reply: That God maketh just, whom he pronounceth just, we freely confess: 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 righteousness, but by imputation of Christ's righteousness. And whom he justifieth, that is, maketh just by imputation of righteousness; them he also sanctifieth, that is, maketh just in some measure by infusion of grace. For to use Bellarmine's own words, when God doth justify a sinner by declaring him righteous, it is plain, that in himself he is a sinner, who by God is declared to be just: and therefore, that he is not justified by inherent justice, for in himself he is a sinner, as we all are. How then shall the judgment of God be according to the truth, when he declareth a sinner to be just? To a sinner believing in Christ, the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith is imputed for righteousness, Rom. 4. 5. and this we shall hereafter show to be an argument unanswerable.
None, remaining sinners in themselves, can truly be declared or pronounced just in respect of righteousness inherent.
All mortal men, even the most righteous of them, meraine sinners in themselves, 1 John. 1. 8. Ecclus 7. 20. Therefore
No mortal man can truly be declared or pronounced just in respect of inherent righteousness, and consequently none are or can be justified by righteousness inherent.
§ IIII. The testimony of Augustine is falsified. For disputing against the error of the Pelagians, who imagined that original sin was not propagated from Adam, but that imitation only maketh sinners by Adam: he inferreth, that then by the same reason only 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 sin, the other of righteousness. But Augustine showeth out of Rom. 5. that as those who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, obtain remission of sins and inward grace: so those who come from Adam by natural generation, are made guilty of his sin 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 he maketh betwixt our condemnation by Adam, and our justification by Christ. First, that whereas to condemnation there concurs our own voluntary transgression besides Adams sin: yet to our justification there doth not concur any righteoufnesse besides Christ. Secondly, (which difference Saint Paul also noteth Rom. 5. 15, 16) because in the carnal generation original sin only is contracted; but in the spiritual regeneration there is remission not only of original, but also of voluntary sins.
§ V. The second reason of Calvin and Chemnitz, 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 Greek. But the Hebrew word signifying to justify, hath the judicial 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 Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both in the edition of the Septuagint's, as being the translation thereof, and in the New Testament, which in this point retaineth the translation of the Septuagint's:
But the Hebrew hitsdiq is merely a judicial word, opposed to condemnation, as I have proved heretofore by induction of examples, as Deut. 25. 1. 1 King. 32. 8. Prov. 17. 15. Isaiah 5. 23. and never signifieth to make righteous by infusion, or to endue with righteousness inherent:
Therefore the Greek 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 be 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 signify so much. In vain therefore do the Papists urge against us the signification of the Latin word justificare, as signifying justum facere. seeing by our exposition it signifieth justum facere also, not only by declaration, as Bellarmine here speaketh, but much more by imputation. But though he confesseth the signification of the Verbe urged by us: yet we may not acknowledge the signification so much urged by the Papists: yea we confidently deny, that the Hebrew hitsdiq doth anywhere in the Scriptures signify to endùe with righteousness inherent.
§ VI. This therefore he endeavoreth to prove by induction of examples, and first out of Dan. 12. 3. Qui adjustitiam erudiunt multos, who instruct many to righteousness. The Hebrew word is matsdiqim, where the Prophet speaking of the great glory which shall be of Teachers, who justify many, the vulgar Latin (which is the only authentic Text among the Papists) doth not translate the word making righteous by infusion, or enduing with righteousness inherent, which is the work of God alone, and not of the Teacher; but instructing unto righteousness, or as Bellarmine himself expoundeth, by teaching to bring men to righteousness; which is done by bringing them to believe, and therefore this allegation proveth not the Popish signification of the word. Yea, but it disproveth, saith Bellarmine, the judicial signification so much urged by you. For Teachers do not justify after the manner of •… udges, (howbeit the Popish Priests dot in their absolutions as themselves do teach.)
Reply. But this is nothing but a cavil. For where we say, that to justify, in this doctrine of justification, is verbum forense, a word taken from Courts, having a judicial signification, as namely to absolve from sin, or to give sentence with a man after the manner of a Judge: our meaning is, that this word being attributed to God, as it is God alone that justifieth, (and so we consider justification as an action of God) it always hath this judicial signification, and never signifieth to endue with righteousness inherent. But we do not say, that it being attributed to any other, as it is to divers others both per •… ons and things, it is to be expounded as the act of the Judge; though otherwise the justice implied in the signification of the word, be after the judicial sense, not inherent, but imputative. Thus (as I have said before) Christ justifieth, not only as he is our Judge, but also as our Surety paying our debt, and as our Advocate pleading for us. The holy Ghost justifieth, both as he is the Spirit of regeneration working in us the grace of faith; and as the Spirit of adoption, by applying unto us the merits of Christ, assuring us of our justification and adoption. The Ministers of the Gospel justify (as they are also said to forgive sins, to beget men unto God, and to save them) ministerially, as the Ambassadors of Christ, whose office it is to reconcile men unto God, to preach and to pronounce remission of sins to them that believe, and also instrumentally, as the instruments of the holy Ghost, to work in them the grace of faith, by which they are justified: for faith cometh by hearing Rom. 10. 14, 17. and Preachers are said to be Ministers by whom you believe, 1 Cor. 3. 5. Sacraments do justify as seals of that righteousness which is by faith, Rom. 4. 11. And as the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments do justify ut manus dantis, as the hand of God giving and applying Christ and his righteousness to the faithful receiver: so faith is manus accipie •… tis, the hand of the believer receiving Christ and his righteousness unto justification.
§ VII. But the second place is in his conceit more clear, viz. Isaiah. 53. 11. where the Lord speaking by his Prophet concerning Christ, saith, My righteous servant shall by his knowledge justify many, and he sh •… ll bear their sins, where the verb is in Hiphil Iatsdiq, which signifieth shall make just: Chemnitz indeed, saith he, goeth about to wrest this place also to the judicial signification: But in vain, for there are four words which are manifestly repugnant to his interpretation. But before we speak of those four words, let us hear what Chemnitz saith, Whereas Andradius (saith he) wresteth that sentence of Isaiah to prove, that to justify is to endue the mind with the quality of inherent justice, it is great impudency for there is presently added an exposition, how that justification is to be understood, because he shall, saith Isaiah, bear their iniquities: where Chemnitz doth not so much as mention the judicial signification of the word, justifying, after the manner of a Judge, but rather signifieth, that Christ at his first coming, did not justify the Elect after the manner of a Judge, but as a surety in taking upon himself our debt and bearing our iniquities, and as a Redeemer paying our ransom, and so di charging us from our debt and from our bondage. Neither doth it follow, that it is not a judicial word, because in that place it signifieth not to justify as a Judge, for besides the Judge there are other parties also who do justify in a judicial sense, as namely sureties and advocates.
§. VIII. Now let us examine those four words, all which serve to prove that Christ in that place is not said to justify after the manner of a Judge, which no man affirmeth, and therefore Bellarmine fighteth with his own shadow. For we doubt not, but that Christ may be said to justify divers ways: first, by his doctrine, as our Prophet and Teacher▪ in which sense Teachers are said to justify, Dan. 12. 3. secondly, as our Priest, both by his satisfaction and sacrifice propitiatory, as Isaiah. 53. 11. for so he saith, and he shall bear their iniquities; so Heb. 9. 26, 28. and also by his intercession, as our Advocate, 1 John. 2. 2. Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 9. 24. thirdly, by his sentence, as our king and judge at the last day, Matth. 25. 34. The first word is by his knowledge, that is, as he expoundeth it out of Jerome, by his doctrine. Answ. We deny not, but that Christ by his doctrine did justify many, working in them the grace of faith, for even other Teachers, who are but his Ministers, do also justify others, as Daniel speaketh, not by infusion of righteousness, but as the instruments of the holy Ghost to beget faith in the hearers, or being, as Saint Paul speaketh, Ministers by whom they do believe, and believing are justified in the judicial sense. But Isaiah speaketh not of his doctrine, but of his knowledge, and that passively understood; not, for that knowledge whereby he knoweth all things, but whereby he is acknowledged to be the Messias, that is to say, faith; and so Pagnine, Vatablus, and Tremellius read, scientia sui, or agnitione sui, that is, by faith in him (for so is faith often termed, as 2 Pet. 1. 2, 3. and 1 Tim. 2. 4. &c. by which, as it is said in this place of Isaiah, he doth justify La rabbim, that is as Paul speaketh Rom. 5. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the multitude of the Elect, who believe in him: how? by bearing their iniquiti •… s, that is, the punishment due for their sins, his sufferings being imputed to them: if therefore justifying by faith do prove justification by works or by inherent righteousness, then this word proveth it.
§. IX. The second word is ipse justus: by which word, saith he, is signified that Christ doth justify not only by teaching, but also by just working, and by imparting his righteousness unto us. Answ. Christ his obedience or just working is proper to his person, and inherent in him, and therefore that righteousness, which he performed in his own person, being both active, and therefore transient, and proper to his person, and therefore without us, cannot be imparted to us otherwise than by imputation. To what purpose then doth he urge this word, seeing Christ is just in justifying us, as well by imputation, as by infusion? Forsooth, to show, that Christ by his obedience and sufferings doth not justify after the manner of a Judge: which no man affirmeth. But what is his reason? because it is not required to justifying after a judicial manner, that he, who justifieth others, should himself be just: as if he should say, it is not required that a Judge should be just: contrary to that Gen. 18. 25. But God doth justify us after the judicial manner, as a Judge, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and by forgiveness of sins, and that to this end to show forth his justice that he might be just▪ and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3. 25, 26. But this might better have been objected against his own exposition of the former word; seeing he, who is not just himself, may by his doctrine justify others. Notwithstanding, that which Bellarmine here áffirmeth concerning Christ, is most true: that it was necessary, that he who should justify others by his obedience should be just himself: howbeit he impertinently allegeth, Rom. 3. 26. which speaketh of God justifying us, not as a Mediator by his obedience, but as a Judge by his sentence. But the true reason, why the Prophet useth this word, is in respect of the words following, to signify that Jesus Christ the righteous was made a propitiation for our sins, 1 John. 2. 2. and that Christ, who was just and knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him, as the Apostle speaketh, 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Isaiah. 53. 5, 6, 6.
§. X. The third word is my servant: which signifieth that Christ did serve his Father in the work of justification, and consequently did justify men, not by judging, but by ministering, as himself saith, Matth. 20. 28. and is therefore called the Minister of Circumcision; that is, of the Jews. The fourth word and he shall bear their iniquities: which signifieth the manner how Christ by ministering doth justify; that is, by bearing the burden of our sins upon his shoulders; that is, by suffering the punishment due for our sins. Answ. The thing which he indevoureth to prove, viz. that Christ, as he performed the office of Mediation in the days of his flesh, did not justify us a •… ter the manner of a Judge, is true. But his reasons are not sufficient. Not the former, for he might be God's Minister or servant, as all Kings or Judges are, and yet our Judge. Not the second; for although he were our Priest to offer himself for us, and by his obedience and sufferings to justify us; yet is he also our King and our Judge, who by his sentence will justify us at the last day. But although Christ did not justify us after the manner of a Judge: yet it followeth not either that the word doth signify infusion of justice, to which purpose Andradius alleged this place, or that it is not a judicial word. For it is a judicial word as it is attributed not only to Judges, but also to sureties and advocates. Christ, as our Advocate, justifieth by pleading for us as asurety, by bearing the punishment judicially imposed upon us. And whereas Bellarmine would prove out of 1 Pet. 2. 24. that inherent righteousness is an effect of Christ's satisfaction, or bearing our iniquities, he proveth nothing but what we teach, viz. that the fruits and end of our justification and redemption by Christ is our sanctification, Luk. 1. 74, 75. Rom. 6. 22. Tit. 2. 14. And consequently that our sanctification or inherent righteousness, being the fruit and effect of our justification, cannot be the cause thereof, no more than it is the cause of redemption. For
- By what righteousness we are redeemed, by the same we are justified: for redemption and justification in substance differ not, Rom. 4. 6. 7. 3. 24. 25. Col. 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7.
- By the righteousness of Christ we are redeemed, which is out of us in him, and not by righteousness inherent. Therefore
- By that righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, we are justified, and not by righteousness inherent.
His third place is Apoc. 22. 11. which I have fully answered before: and is here impertinently recited to prove the signification of the Hebrew word, being not sufficient to clear the Greek. Seeing their own best editions instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as I have shown before.
§. II. The third and fourth reason, which Bellarmine allegeth out of Calvin and Chemnitz, and answereth them together, are concerning the signification and composition of the Latin word justificare: which indeed are not used as arguments to prove the true signification of the word in this controversy, but as just exceptions against the arguments of the Papists, who rely too much upon the signification and composition of the Latin word: wherein they were justly reproved by Chemnitz; first, because the controversy being, what is the use and signification of the word in the Scriptures, it is not material, what the Latin word doth signify in other authors; but what is the signification of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament, and of the Greek in the New, whereof the Latin is merely a Translation. And therefore the Latin, if it be a right Translation, must in this controversy be understood to signify the self same thing with the Hebrew and the Greek: the use and signification whereof in the Scriptures is judicial, and is never used in the Popish sense: wherefore though the use of the word in other authors did favor the Popish conceit, yet would it not disadvantage us: secondly, though the Latin words do signific to make just, (which is all that can be enforced from the signification and composition thereof) and be so expounded by Augustine, whom Bellarmine to that purpose allegeth, yet this maketh nothing against us. Not only because Bellarmine hath confessed, men may be made just, either inwardly by obtaining of righteousness inherent, or outwardly after a judicial manner; but also because we freely profess that whom God doth justify, he maketh righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness. It is true indeed, that some of our Divines deny the word to signify making righteous: but their denial is to be understood according to the meaning of the Papists, viz. by infusion: thirdly, the Latin word justificare, and so the English, as in the translation of the Scriptures it hath always the judicial signification, and never signifieth to endue with righteousness inherent, no more than the Hebrew and the Greek whereof it is a translation: so oftentimes in the Fathers, and many times in the Popish writers, and always almost in the common use of speech, it signifieth to clear from guilt, to free from imputation of fault, to approve, to declare, or pronounce just. Or if at any time it be used in the sense of induing with righteousness inherent, it is contrary to the use of the Scriptures, which in the doctrine of justification is to be retained.
§. XII. Yea, but the Fathers interpret justifying to be making righteous, whom to refuse in an ecclesiastical question, and to appeal to the judgment of the Latin authors as Tully and Terence, is a great importunity, saith Bellarmine, especially seeing the Apostle hath taught, that to be justified, is to be constituted or made just, according to the composition of the word. Answ. That which is said of the Authors of the Latin tongue is a mere calumniation, for in them the word is not used at all. The interpretation of the Fathers, according to the doctrine of Saint Paul we approve; acknowledging, that whom God doth justify, he maketh them just, by imputation of Christ's righteousness. Yea but, say they, the Fathers mean by inherent justice. Answ. Though some of the Latin Fathers, who were ignorant of the Hebrew, and not skillful in the Greek, sometimes under the term of justification include the benefit also of sanctification, being led thereunto by the notation of the Latin word; yet sometimes they exclude it; as first, when they place justification in remission of sins, as many times they do: secondly, when according to the Scriptures they oppose it to condemnation: thirdly, and especially, when with one consent they plainly teach, that we are justified by faith alone, as hereafter shall be shown: which cannot be understood of justification by inherent righteousness. For it were very absurd to affirm (which the Papists would fain father upon us) that to justification by inherent righteousness nothing is required but faith only. Again, Bellarmine objecteth, which in the ninth Chapter (where he confesseth justification to be often taken in the Scriptures for declaration of righteousness) he more plainly expresseth, although to justify were everywhere taken for to pronounce just, yet that were no advantage to us. For a sinner cannot truly be pronounced just, unless he who pronounceth him just, do withal make him just, which God only can do. And therefore he alone is said to justify a sinner, and by absolving him to make him truly just. Answer. Whom God pronounceth just, them he maketh just: but still the question is of the manner: for to justify by absolving, is to make righteous by the not imputing of sin, and imputing of righteousness, and not by infusion of righteousness: for that is not to justify, but to sanctify. Howbeit we freely confess, that whom God justifieth, he also sanctifieth, and that whosoever is in CHRIST JESUS, he is a new Creature. But howsoever these graces do always concur, insomuch that whosoever hath the one hath the other, and whosoever hath not both, hath neither: yet notwithstanding they must carefully be distinguished. And that is it which hitherto I have endeavored to prove.
CAP. VI. H •… w Justification and Sanctification are to be distinguished.
§. I.
N Ow let us consider how they are distinguished. And first the difference of them may appear by their contraries. The contrary to justifying is condemning: the contrary to sanctifying is polluting or defiling with sin: first therefore the word, which signifieth to condemn, if you respect the force of the word, signifieth to make wicked, even as the Verbe which signifieth to justify doth; if you respect the force of the word, it signifieth to make just: As God therefore, when he condemneth, is said to make wicked, not by infusion of wickedness, but by his sentence, pronouncing the party guilty, and deputing him to punishment: so when he justifieth, he maketh just by his sentence, not by infusion of righteousness, quatenus justificat: but by imputation of Christ's righteousness he absolveth the party from guilt and punishment, and accepteth of him as righteous in Christ, and as an heir of eternal life: secondly, the contrary to sanctifying, which is to make holy, is polluting or defiling with sin, which is to make unholy and unclean. What difference therefore is between condemning and polluting, the like is between justifying and sanctifying. And as condemning and polluting are by no means to be confounded, no more can justifying and sanctifying.
§. II. In justification we are freed from the guilt of sin: in sanctification, from the corruption or pollution of sin. For God is then said to justify us, when he absolveth us from the guilt of sin by imputation of Christ's righteousness: and he is then said to sanctify us, when by his Spirit he mortifieth sin in us, and freeth us in some measure from the corruption thereof.
§. II. Justification is an action of God without us, as also are redemption, reconciliation, and adoption, which three benefits in substance differ not from justification, but are all comprehended under it: the second first being the same in effect with the former part of justification, viz. remission of sins; and the last being all one with the second part of justification, which is acceptation of the believer as righteousness in Christ, and as an heir of eternal life, as I have shown heretofore: for then are we said to have redemption, when we have remission of sins, then is God said to reconcile us unto himself, when he doth not impute our sins unto us: then he is said to adopt us, when he accepteth of us in Christ as righteous and as heirs of eternal life. None of these actions doth work a Real change in the party, but importeth a new relation between God and them, as hath been shown. But sanctification is an action of God's Spirit within us, working in us a real change, by mortification of sin within us, and infusion of Grace and righteousness into us.
§. IV. Of justification the matter is the righteousness of Christ, which is in him as the subject, but imputed to us: the matter of sanctification is a righteousness derived from Christ, but inherent in us. The matter therefore of our justification is perfect, but not inherent, to wit, the most perfect righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him. The matter of our sanctification is inherent, but not perfect, to wit, justitia inchoata, a righteousness which is but begun in us, and that new obedience, which though it be sincere and unfeigned, is with great infirmity performed by us; recta forsan, sed non pura justitia, as Bernard saith.
§. V. Hereupon it followeth, that of justification it self, whereby we are justified before God, there are no degrees; (though óf the assurance thereof there be, which are the degrees of special faith) because to the most perfect righteousness of Christ, by which we are even in our first conversion justified, nothing can be added; and therefore, as I have said, the faith of all the faithful though different in degrees, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of equal worth in the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ: even as the hands of divers men though unequal in strength, yet are of equal efficacy in respect of the alms received thereby. But of sanctification there are degrees according to the measure of grace received.
§. VI. The form of justification considered as an action of God, is imputation of Christ's righteousness: of sanctification, the infusion of righteousness. For God by imputation of Christ's righteousness doth justify us: and he doth sanctify by infusion of righteousness.
§. VII. The parts of justification, are remission or not imputing of sin unto condemnation, and acceptation as righteous unto life, both wrought by imputation of Christ's righteousness unto us. The parts of sanctification are mortification, whereby we die unto sin, and vivification whereby we live unto righteousness, rising from the grave of sin, unto newness of life; and is therefore called the first resurrection; both wrought in us by the Spirit of sanctification.
§. VIII. We are justified by faith, not as it is a grace or habit in us, that is to say, as it is a part of inherent righteousness: but as the hand or instrument receiving the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to them that believe: but we are sanctified by faith, as it is a part of that righteousness, which is inherent in us. And therefore we are justified by faith alone, because no other grace doth concur with it to the act of justification, none of them serving to receive the righteousness of Christ, but faith only: but we are not sanctified by faith alone, because with it concur not only all other inward graces, but also our outward obedience.
§. IX. The righteousness, by which we are justified, is not prescribed in the Law, but without the Law is revealed in the Gospel, the righteousness of God, that is to say, of Christ, who is God, apprehended by faith. For the Law to justification requireth perfect and perpetual obedience to be performed by him in his own person, that should be justified thereby; which since the fall of Adam hath been, and is by reason of the flesh impossible to all men, who are descended from Adam by ordinary generation. But the Gospel assureth justification without respect of works to all that truly believe in Christ, teaching that we are justified by faith, that is, by the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, without the works of the Law, that is, without respect of any obedience prescribed in the Law and performed by us. But the righteousness, by which we are sanctified, is prescribed in the Law, which is a most perfect rule of all righteousness inherent.
§. X. Unto the act of justification our own righteousness and obedience do not concur as any cause thereof, but follow in the subject, that is, the party justified, as necessary fruits of our redemption and justification. Yea, in the question of justification, wherein is considered, what that is by which we are justified and saved in hope; our own righteousness and obedience, if it should be obtruded as the matter of our justification, is to be esteemed as dung, that we may be found in Christ, not having our own righteousness, which is prescribed in the Law; but that, which is through the faith of Christ. But in the question of sanctification, that righteousness, which is inherent in us, and that obedience which is performed by us, is all in all, as being both that habitual and also actual righteousness and holiness wherein our sanctification doth consist.
§. XI. By our justification we are entitled to God's kingdom, that is, saved in hope: by our sanctification we are fitted and prepared for God's kingdom, into which no unclean thing can enter. Justification therefore is the right of God's children to their inheritance. Sanctification is the cognizance and mark of those that shall be saved, wherefore our Savior saith, that by faith we have remission of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified.
§. XII. The righteousness by which we are justified, is the meritorious cause of our salvation. But the righteousness by which we are sanctified, is a fruit of our justification, but no cause of our salvation; unless you will call it causam sine quâ non, which is no cause, for we are neither saved by it, nor for it, but only by and for the merits of Christ apprehended by faith. But though it be not the cause by or for which we are justified or saved: yet it is the way wherein we being once justified, are to walk towards our country in heaven, Ephes. 2. 10. as Bernard well saith, via regni, non causa regnandi, the way which leadeth to the kingdom, but not the cause of coming unto it.
§. XIII. By our justification we have our right and title to the kingdom of heaven, but according to the duties of sanctification, as the evidence, shall the sentence of salvation be pronounced at the last day.
§. XIV. We are justified by the grace of God, as it signifieth only his gracious love and favor in Christ. But we are sanctified by God's grace, not only as it signifieth the favor of God in himself, but also as it signifieth the graces or gifts of grace infused into us, and inherent in us.
§. XV. In justification and in the parts thereof we are merely patients: but in the duties of sanctification we are also agents, who being acted by the holy Ghost, do cooperate with him. For which cause the holy Ghost in the Scriptures doth never exhort us to justification or the parts thereof, viz. remission of sin and acceptation of the believer as righteous unto life, as being the actions of God: but to sanctification and the parts thereof he useth to exhort, as to mortification, Col. 3. 5. to vivification, Ephes. 4.23,24. to both, Ezek. 18.31.
§. XVI. The acts of faith are of two sorts, some tending to justification, some to sanctification. The former are immediate, which are called actus eliciti, which it bringeth forth of it self, without the mediation of any other grace; that is, to believe in Christ, by believing to receive him, and by receiving him to justify the believer: and therefore faith doth justify alone. The other mediate, which it bringeth forth by the means of other graces, which are called actus imporati, and are the fruits of faith working by love, and other graces, tending to sanctification. Thus faith by love worketh obedience: and therefore it dtoh not sanctify alone.
§. XVII. Of justification the Apostle treateth in the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, of sanctification in the sixth and seventh.
§. XVIII. Our Savior Christ, the blessed Angels, Adam in his integrity were sanctified, but not justified properly. For justification only is of sinners, and consisteth partly in remission of sins.
§. XIX. Of this difference between justification and sanctification the Papists will by no means take notice, though it be manifold and manifest. But will needs understand justification to be that, which we, according to the Scriptures, call sanctification. And this is the very ground, both of their malicious calumniations against us; and also of their own damnable errors concerning justification. For as if we also did confound justification and sanctification, they charge us, as if we taught that we are sanctified by faith alone, that we are formally made just or sanctified by a righteousness, which is without us, &c.
But if we did hold, that justification were to be confounded with sanctification, we would acknowledge, that the most things, which the Papists affirm concerning justification, are true, because they are true of sanctification. As namely that we are not sanctified by faith alone, that we are sanctified by a righteousness inherent in us and performed by us; that it is partly habitual, consisting in the habits of grace, as faith, hope, charity, &c. and partly actual, which is our new obedience consisting in good works; which are the fruits and effects of our faith, and charity, and other inward graces. That of sanctification there are degrees, and that by exercise and practice of the duties of holiness and righteousness, our sanctification is increased, &c.
§. XX. What then? Is the difference between us and the Papists in this great controvefie only in words? Nothing less. For as their confounding of justification and sanctification is the ground of their calumniations against us, so of their own errors. For confounding justification and sanctification, first they confound the Law and the Gospel, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace; as if the Gospel did unto justification require inherent, and that a more perfect righteousness, than the Law requireth. And consequently, with the false Apostles and teachers of the Galatians, do teach another Gospel than that which the Apostle taught; which, whosoever doth, he is accursed. Wherefore the samethings, which the Apostle objecteth against the Galatians, who were seduced by their false Teachers, are verified of the Papists: who seekng to be justified by the works of the Law are under the curse: they are fallen from grace, to them the promise is of no effect, to them Christ died in vain, then Christ profiteth nothing, as hereafter I shall show. For whosoever seeketh to be justified by the works of the Law, he is a debtor to the whole Law, and to him, who is a debtor to the whole Law, (that is, to be subject to the curse, if he transgress it, and to be excluded from justification and salvation, if he do not perfectly fulfill it) Christ profiteth nothing. For whereas they distinguish the works, which they make the condition of both the Covenants, that the one are the works of Nature, the other of grace; it is evident, that all good works and all inherent righteousness is prescribed in the Law, which is the most perfect rule of all inherent righteousness. Secondly, that inherent righteousness is not the condition of the covenant of grace, but is the thing promised to all that truly believe. For the better understanding whereof, we are to know, that the covenant of works was made with all mankind in Adam; the Covenant of Grace with the heirs of promise in Christ. The former promiseth justification to these, who in their own persons perform perfect obedience; that perfect obedience being the condition of the Covenant. The latter, that to us the sons of Abraham being redeemed and justified by faith, the Lord will give grace to worship him in holiness and righteousness before him, in which our new obedience consisteth; which, (as I said) is not the condition of the promise, but the thing promised.
§. XXI. Secondly, by confounding justification and sanctification they teach men to place the matter of justification and merit of salvation in themselves. For the matter of sanctification is inherent: and that, which is the matter of justification, is the merit of salvation. Again, that which is inherent, is both prescribed in the Law, and is also our own, though received from God: which the Pharisee. himself confessed, when he thanked God for it. But the holy Ghost doth teach us, that we are neither justified by the obedience or righteousness which is taught in the Law, nor by that which is ours. And in regard of this very difference betwixt the Papists and us, we are not unworthily called Evangelici the professors of the Gospel; and they, the enemies thereof: who seeking to establish their own righteousness, do with scorn reject the righteousness of Christ imputed: which is that righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel from faith to faith. This being the main doctrine of the Gospel, that we are justified, not by any righteousness inherent in ourselves, or performed by ourselves, but by the righteousness of Christ alone apprehended by faith.
§. XXII. By confounding justification and sanctification, and so of two benefits making but one, they do abolish and take away that main benefit of the Messias, by which we are not only freed from hell, but also entitled unto the kingdom of heaven which the Scriptures distinctly call our justification, without which there can be no salvation. For whom God doth justify, all them, and only them he doth glorify. And that they do wholly take away the benefit of justification, it shall further appear in handling the second question of this first controverfie, whereof I am now to speak.
CAP. VII. That the Papists exclude remission of sin from Justification, and instead thereof have put expulsion and extinction of sin by infusion of righteousness; and that they foully err therein.
§. I.
B VT hear it will be objected, that so long as the Papists acknowledge remission of sin to concur unto justification, they cannot be said wholly to take away the benefit of justification: but rather to follow the judgment of some of the Latin fathers, who sometimes comprehending the benefit of sanctification under the name of justification, seemed to make justification to consist in remission of sin and sanctification. Whereunto I answer, that indeed the Papists pretend so much. For the Council of Trent in express terms saith, that justification is not remission of sins alone, but also sanctification and renovation of the inner man: and to the like purpose Bellarmine disputeth, that justification doth not consist in the remission of sins alone, but also in inward renovation. And yet all this is but a mere colorable pretence: For as they exclude from justification the imputation of Christ's righteousness, by which only we have remission of sin: so they do indeed and in truth exclude remission it self. And as instead of imputation of righteousness they have brought in infusion of justice: so instead of remission of sin by imputation of Christ's righteousness, they have brought in the utter expulsion, extinction, deletion of sin by infusion of righteousness. And for this they have some show of reason: For if they should hold, that justification consisteth partly in remission, that is, in the forgiveness, or not imputation of sin, and partly in renovation or sanctification; then they must confess, that there are two formal causes of justification, which Calvin objected against the Council of Trent, (and may truly be objected against such of the Fathers as held justification to consist, partly in remission, and partly in renovation) and consequently should be forced to acknowledge two ways of making men just, by one and the same act of justification: the one, by imputation of that righteousness, by which being without us we have remission of sin; the other, by infusion of righteousness inherent, by which sin is expelled. But the Council of Trent doth steadfastly hold, that there is but one formal cause of justification, and that is infusion of justice, whereby sin is expelled. What then becometh of remission of sin, which according both to Scriptures and Fathers concurreth to justification? I say of it, as of justification; the name is retained, but the thing is taken away.
§. II. Here therefore I am to show two things; first, that the Papists from justification exclude remission of sin, by putting into the room thereof the expulsion and extinction of sin, which belongeth not to justification, but to sanctification, and consequently do wholly abolish by their doctrine the benefit of justification. Secondly, that remission of sin is not the utter extinction or deletion thereof. As touching the former, when Calvin objected against the Council of Trent, that it made two formal causes of justification: Bellarmine answereth thus, the Council of Trent in express terms said, that there is but one only formal cause of justification. Yea but, say we, the Council seemeth to make two, viz. remission of sins and renovation. But, saith he, when the Council maketh mention severally of remission of sin, and of infusion of grace, it did it not to signify, that there is a twofold formal cause of justification; but to declare, that there are two terms of that motion which is called justification, or two effects of the same cause. For there cannot be that mutation or translation, which the Council noteth to be in justification, unless by remission of sin a man cease to be wicked, and by infusion of justice begin to be godly. But, saith he, as the air, when it is enlightened of the Sun, by the same light, which it receiveth, ceaseth to be dark, and beginneth to be lightsome. So a man by the same justice given and infused by the Sun of righteousness ceaseth to be unjust, the light of grace expelling the darkness of sin; and beginneth to be just, the light of grace succeeding the darkness of sin. And as in calefaction, which similitude he useth elsewhere, the access of heat expelleth cold; so in justification, the infusion of justice expelleth sin. This then is the doctrine of the new Church of Rome; that in this mutation called justification which they define to be a passage from sin to righteousness; though there be, as in all other motions, duo termini, viz. sin, which is terminus à quo, and righteousness, which is terminus ad quem; yet there are not two distinct actions concurring, viz. remission or expulsion of sin, and infusion of righteousness; but one and the same action, which is the infusion of justice expelling sin, even as in calefaction, though there be two terms cold and hot, yet there are not two actions, for the same action of fire which bringeth in heat, expelleth cold; and so in illumination, there are two terms, darkness and light, but not two actions; for one and the same act of the Sun, which bringeth light, driveth away darkness. Whereby it is evident, that by remission of sin the Papists do not understand, as all men from the beginning of the world have understood, pardoning, forgiving, not imputing sin; but the utter deletion, expulsion, abolition of it: which Bellarmine calleth veram remissionem, true remission, as if the pardoning of the offense and taking away the guilt were not true remission: but this true remission they hold to be such, that in a man who is justified, and hath remission of sin, there is no sin remaining, and he only is to be held a just man, in whom there is no sin. Thus then remission of sin is by the Papists excluded from justification, and that brought in the room of it, which belongeth to that perfection of sanctification, whereunto none attain in this life.
§. III. Now, that the Papists grossly err in making remission of sin to be the utter abolition or expulsion of it by infusion of righteousness, may appear by these arguments: First, whereas in sin there are two things to be considered, the guilt and the corruption, or Anomy thereof; it is evident, that the guilt of sins past is taken away by remission wholly and at once: the corruption is taken away by mortification thereof, not wholly in this life, and at once, but by degrees, we being day by day renewed in the inner man. The latter is the work of God's Spirit within us. The former is an action of God without us, such as is that of the Creditor in remitting or forgiving a debt. And so the Scriptures conceive of remission. For our sins are debts in respect of the guilt binding us over to punishment, which we owe for them. When as God therefore remitteth the debt, releaseth this obligation, forgiveth the punishment, he is said, to remit our sins. This our Savior taught by the parables of the creditors and debtors, Matth. 18. 23. Luk. 7. 41. And thus he hath taught us to pray, Matth. 6. 12. Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. How do we forgive? By not revenging the offense, but laying aside all desire and purpose of revenge, by passing by it, and as it were forgetting it, by covering it with charity, by not imputing it, by being reconciled unto the party who hath offended us; not by a real taking away of the sin from the offender, but a wiping of it out of our remembrance; not by expelling the offense out of the offender, but out of our thoughts.
§. IV. Thus in the Scriptures, to remit sin is not to abolish and extinguish the sin it self, but to absolve from the guilt of sin, to pardon and to forgive the debt, and to remit the punishment, to cover a man's sin and not to impute it. And this plainly appeareth by these manifold phrases which are used in the Scriptures to signify remission of sin, all which import the taking away of the guilt, but none the utter abolishing of the corruption. As first the Hebrew Salach, Exod. 34. 9. Numb. 14. 19, 20. 30. 6. Deut. 29. 19. Psal. 103. 3. Isaiah 55. 7. Ier. 31. 34. Dan. 9. 20. signifieth parcere, remittere, ignoscere, condonare, propitium esse. Kasah, to hide, to spare, to forgive, Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 32. 1. 85. 2. Joel 2. 17. Deut. 13. 8. Kaphar also is to cover, to pardon, to be propitious, Deut. 21. 8. Psal. 65. 4. 78. 38. 79. 9. Isaiah. 22. 14. Nasa, to spare, to forgive, to take away the guilt, Gen. 18. 24, 26. 50. 17. Exod. 32. 32. Numb. 14. 19. Psalm. 32. 1. cum Rom. 4. 7. Isaiah 33. 24. Psalm. 25. 18. Habar, to pass by an offense, Mic. 7. 18. and Hehebir to cause it to pass, 2 Sam. 12. 13. 24. 10. Zech. 3. 4. Machah, to wipe, or to blot out of remembrance the sins of men, as it were out of a book, to blot them out from before his face, Nehem. 4. 5. Psalm. 51. 9. Ier. 18. 23. Hesir, to remove, Isaiah 27. 9. Lo chashab not to impute, Psal. 32. 2.
In like manner the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to remit, or forgive, Mat. 6. 12, 14, 15. 18. 27, 32. whence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , remission, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , forgiveness, as Hesychii •… s expoundeth it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , condonare, to forgive, Luk. 7. 42. 2 Cor. 2. 10. Ephes. 4. 33. Col. 2. 13. 3. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to impute, Rom. 4. 8. 2 Cor. 5. 19. So the Latin, remittere, dimittere, ignoscere, condonare, donare, veniam dare, parcere, propitium esse; and the English to remit, to pardon, to forgive.
§. V. For the farther clearing of this point, let us consider these three things; first, what that is which is remitted. Secondly, where it remaineth until it be remitted. Thirdly, by what act of God it is remitted. The thing remitted is our debt, Matth. 6. 12. The subject where it remaineth are the books of God's providence and of our own consciences. The act of God in remitting our debts is the wiping them out of his remembrance, as it were, his debt-books The debt is the sin it self, which maketh us debtors unto God. And therefore sins are called debts, and sinners debtors, Matth. 6. 12. cum Luk. 11. 4. Matth. 23. 16, 18. Luk. 13. 4. cum 2. which also appeareth by the parables of the debtors, Luk. 7. 41. Matth. 18. 23, 35. and therefore sinners are called debtors, because for their sins they owe punishment, unto which by the just ordination of God they are obliged. This obligation, whereby sinners are bound over to punishment, is called reatus, that is, guilt. When as therefore God remitteth sins, he forgiveth the debt, he remitteth or releaseth the punishment, he taketh away the guilt, whereby we were bound over to punishment. And e converso, when God forgiveth the debt, releaseth the punishment, taketh away the guilt, he is said to remit sin. Now sins are either habitual or actual: An habitual sin God doth remit, when he doth take away the guilt of it, and cover the Anomy of it, not that it should not be at all, but that it should not be imputed, as Augustine saith of concupiscence or original sin, whereof all particular habitual •… sins are members and branches. Actual sins God doth remit, when he doth forgive the sinful act it self, and the guilt also which remaineth after the act is past and gone.
§. VI. But here the Papists have found out a new devise, to confirm their error in confounding justification and sanctification; that whereas there are two things, which as themselves do teach, remain in the soul after the act of sin hath been committed, viz. reatus & macula, the guilt and the blemish or spot; they teach against sense that it is properly the macula which is remitted in justification. But then say I, what becometh of the punishment, & the guilt binding over to punishment? It is certain, that the infusion of righteousness doth not take away the guilt, nor free us from punishment. Neither can we be freed either •… rom the one or the other, but only by the satisfaction of Christ imputed unto us. Hence therefore they should have learned to distinguish between justification and sanctification, rather than to confound them, that whereas there are two things remaining after sin committed, the guilt, and the pollution; the guilt is taken away by imputation of Christ's righteousness in our justification; the pollution is in some measure cleansed in our sanctification.
§. VII. And how soever that, which they say of the macula or pollution remaining, is true in respect of Original sin, wherein, upon the guilt of Adams transgression imputed, there followeth an universal macula or corruption, consisting of two parts, the privation of Original righteousness, and an evil disposition and proneness to all manner of sin, by which twofold corruption all the parts and faculties of the soul are defiled: yet it seemeth not to be altogether true in regard of men's personal sins, in respect of either part: for as touching the former part, which is the privation; neither are the unregenerate by their actual sins deprived of grace or righteousness infused, which they had not before they sinned: neither are the regenerate utterly deprived of grace by such sins as they commit, as I have elsewhere proved: and as touching the latter part, which is the evil disposition; this macula, whereof they speak, is no new evil disposition making him a sinner who before was not, but an evil disposition remaining of the old man, which by committing of actual sins is increased. Insomuch as where the same actual sin is often committed and reiterated, that evil disposition groweth to be an habit. For all evil dispositions or habitual sins, which are in men, are either the reliquia or remnants of original sin in some measure mortified, or the increments thereof, when by the committing of actual sins they receive increase. And such a thing is that macula, whereof they speak: which remaining in the soul per modum habitus, is to be taken away, as all other habitual sins are, as they are pollutions, by the mortification of them; which is a part of sanctification and not of justification. Neither is the mortification of sin a total deletion or abolition thereof in this life, as if no sin or corruption remained in the party justified or sanctified: for though in the forgiving or remitting of original sin, the guilt be wholly taken away; yet the corruption, which is called concupiscence, remaineth more or less mortified.
§. VIII. Now followeth the subject, where that, which is to be remitted, doth remain; and from whence, when it is remitted, it is wiped or blotted out, that is, God's remembrance and our conscience, which are as it were the Lord's debt-books, according to which books he will judge, Apoc. 20. 12. the former is the book of God's providence, Psalm. 56. 8. 139. 15. wherein all offenses are written, and wherein they remain upon record, Hos. 7. 2. 8. 13. Ier. 17. 1. The other is the book of our conscience, which is, as it were, the Lord's atturney indicting us of sin. In regard whereof David saith, Psalm. 51. 3. I do know, or am conscious to my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Out of the former book the Lord doth wipe out sins, when he justifieth us in the Court of Heaven: out of the latter, when we are justified in the Court of our own Conscience.
§. IX. And hereby the third thing appeareth: namely, by what act of God our sins are remitted. For if that which is remitted be a debt, which is recorded in God's book: then this debt is remitted not by any act of God within us, either really wiping the pollution out of our souls, or infusing grace into them (both which are done in some measure after the debt is remitted, in our sanctification) but by an act of God without us, wiping our sins out of his book, blotting them out of his remembrance, Isaiah. 43. 25. casting them behind his back, Isaiah. 38. 17. turning his face from them, Psalm. 51. 9. not remembering, Ier. 31. 34. nor imputing them, Rom. 4. 8. ex Psal. 32. 2. but forgiving and forgetting them, and accepting of Christ's satisfaction for them in the behalf of all that truly believe in Christ, Rom. 3. 24, 25.
§. X. Our fifth argument may be this: The utter deletion of sin is not granted in this life: Remission of sin is granted to the faithful in this life: Therefore remission of sin is not the utter deletion of it.
The proposition is certain: For during this life sin remaineth in the best, Rom. 7. 17. 20. 1 John. 1. 8.
The assumption is undeniable, as being an Article of our faith testified in many places of Scripture.
Or thus: If in justification there were an utter deletion or abolition of sin, then in those, that are justified, there is no sin.
But there is no mortal man, though justified, in whom there is no sin.
Therefore in justification there is not a Total deletion of sin.
§. XI. Sixthly, if remission of sin be an utter deletion of the corruption by infusion of righteousness, and nothing else concur to justification, but infusion of righteousness expelling sin; what then becometh of the guilt of sin and the punishment? how is our debt satisfied? The justice infused, though it should utterly expel the corruption; yet it neither doth nor can satisfy for the punishment, as Bellarmine himself confesseth. Neither is there any other satisfaction or propitiation for our sins, whereby God's justice may be satisfied, our debt discharged, ourselves freed from hell and damnation, but only the satisfaction of Christ, without imputation whereof there is no justification nor salvation: but none of this is done by righteousness infused expelling sin. Wherefore the Papists, if they will be saved, must acknowledge, besides the benefit of the infusion of righteousness expelling the corruption of sin, which they call justification, but is indeed sanctification, another greater benefit, whereby we are both freed from hell, and entitled to heaven, by imputation of Christ's satisfaction, called in the Scriptures justification, which they by their Antichristian doctrine have utterly abolished.
§. XII. Seventhly, that which worketh no real change in the party doth not really take away and expel all sin from him by infusion of righteousness, for that cannot be done without a real, yea and a great change in the party. True remission of sin doth not work a real change in the party. Therefore the true remission of sin doth not really take away and expel all sin by infusion of righteousness. The assumption is thus proved: first, the forgiving of a debt worketh no real change in the debtor, but relative. The true remission of sin is the forgiving of our debt, therefore the true remission doth not work a real change in the party. Secondly, that which is imputative doth not work a real change in the party but is an act wrought without the party. True remission of sin is imputative, as the Apostle teacheth, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. consisting in the not imputing of sin, presupposing the imputing of righteousness without works, therefore it worketh not a real change.
§. XIII. My eighth argument is from theabsurdities which follow upon this Popish Doctrine. First, Necessity of despairing, not only to the tender conscience laboring under the burden of sin: but also to all not cauterized consciences, which have any sense of their own estate. For if remission of sin be the utter deletion of sin, then have not they, neither can they have remission of sin, in whom any sin remaineth: and those, that neither have, nor can have remission of sin in this life, because sin doth ever remain in them, what remaineth to them but despair? Secondly, that there is no necessity of the imputation of Christ's righteousness for justification, because there is in them both a total deletion of sin, and an infusion of perfect righteousness, whereby sin is wholly expelled. And these, as you shall hear hereafter are two of Bellarmine's principal Arguments to prove the imputation of Christ's righteousness to be needless, both because, when our sins are remitted they are utterly abolished; so that whosoever is justified is no longer a sinner in himself, nor hath any sin remaining in him; and also because in justification there is an infusion of perfect righteousness. The third, that to remission of sin there needeth no favor or indulgence for pardon or forgiveness: for if remission of sin be a total deletion of sin by infusion of perfect righteousness, then without any accession of favor the one contrary is necessarily expelled by the other. And this doth Vasques profess in express terms, Mihi semper necessarium visum fuit asserere, maculam peccati ipsa justitia inherente tanquam forma contraria nullo accedente favore & condo natione deleri.
§. XIV. These absurdities do necessarily follow upon their Antichristian doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness: For if a man be justified before God by inherent righteousness, then is he not a sinner in himself, and consequently hath no sin in him. And if by infusion of righteousness there be a total deletion of sin, then must that righteousness, which is infused, be perfect. For that which is imperfect cannot wholly expel sin, the imperfection being of it self a sin; and if upon infusion of perfect righteousness there doth necessarily and of its own accord follow a total deletion of sin, then to remission of sin favor and condonation is needless. And yet we have not done with their absurdities: For to dream that men who are but infants in Christianity, yea infants in age, before they have the use of reason, or are capable of habits, are endued. and that ordinarily, with perfect righteousness in their first imaginary justification, which is inciptentium of such as be but incipients, whereunto the best proficience do not in this life attain, is a monstrous absurdity.
CAP. VIII. Bellarmine's dispute, that remission of sin is the utter deletion of it, confuted.
§. I.
B VT how absurd soever their assertion is, Bellarmine will maintain it, and set a good face upon it: telling us first, that we may not deny it, unless we will deny the Scriptures. For the Scripture, saith he, useth all manner of words to express the true remission of sin; so that if a man would of purpose seek words to signify the utter abolition of sin, he could not devise any which the Scripture hath not already used. And to this purpose citeth eighteen Testimonies, nine out of the Old Testament, viz. 1 Chron. 21. 8. Isaiah. 44. 22. Ezek. 36. 25. Psalm. 51. 7. Prov. 15. 27. alias, 16. 6. Psalm. 103. 12. Mic. 7. 19. Psalm. 10. 15. Cant. 4. 7. And nine out of the New, John. 1. 29. Act. 3. 19. 1 John. 1. 7. Act. 22. 16. Heb. 1. 3. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ephes. 5. 8. and 27.
§. II. Answ. These places are to be distinguished: for either they are alleged to prove the abolition of sin, or perfection of righteousness: the former mention, either the taking away of sin or the wiping or blotting of it out, or the purging of it, or the not being of it. For the taking away of sin, these are brought, 1 Chron. 21. 8. Psalm. 103. 12. Mic. 7. 19: John. 1. 29. Heb. 9. 28. In 1 Chron. 21. 8. the word is Hahaber, transire fac, cause it to pass, that is, remove it out of thy sight; not that it be not at all, but that it be not punished, or which is all one, take away the guilt: and so the word seemeth to be expounded, 2 Sam. 12. 13. where Nathan saith to David, the Lord hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Psalm. 103. 12. how far the East is distant from the West, so far hath he made our sins to be distant from us: which is not understood of the corruption extinguished, but of the guilt removed or taken away. Mic. 7. 19. thou wilt cast all their sins into the depth of the Sea, that is, he will cast them out of his sight or remembrance, he will cast them behind his back, he will bury them in oblivion, that they should not be seen or remembered. John. 1. 29. The Lamb of God which taketh away, or taketh upon him the sin of the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the translation of Nose: and the Verbe Nasa having reference to finn •… , when it is attributed to God, it signifieth to forgive, as hath before been shown; and likewise when it is attributed to men, who have been offended, Gen. 50. 17. 1 Sam. 15. 25. 25. 28. when it is attributed to Christ our redeemer, as in the place alleged, it signifieth, that he taketh away our sins by taking them upon him, or bearing them: as it is said of the scape Goat, the figure of Christ, Levite. 16. 22. and so that place, John. 1. 29. is to be understood. Nasa, saith one, sometimes doth signify tollere, that is to take up, and to bear, (as when we are commanded tollere crucem, to take up our cross) or to take upon him, which Saint John the Evangelist rendereth by the Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and this is fully expressed by the Prophet, Isaiah 53. 12. that Christ Nasa did bear the sin of many: as before verse 4. that he hath borne (the Verbe is Nasa ) our griefs, and carried our forrowes, and verse. 11. he shall bear their iniquities. Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offered ad multorum exhaurienda peccata, that is, as our Rhemists translate, to exhaust the sin of many. The word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to take up and to bear: the meaning is, that Christ was offered upon the cross, that he might take •… up and bear our sins, even as S. Peter speaketh to the like effect, 1 Epist. 2. 24. who himself did bear our sins in his own body upon the tree, that is, the Cross: where the same Verbe is used, and is by the Latin interpreted pertulit, and by the Rhemists, bear our sins.
§. III. Other places are alleged, which mention the deletion, that is, the wiping or blotting out of sin, Psal. 51. 1. 9. Act. 3. 19. Esa. 44. 22. But I ask, from whence? Delere, saith Vatablus, est metaphora ab iis qui delent, qui prius in rations scripserant, to wipe out is a metaphor from those, who wipe out such things, as before they had written upon their account, or in their debt-books. The book is God's remembrance, out of which those things are wiped which are forgotten: and thus deletion is often ascribed to oblivion. For God's wiping out of sins is his blotting them out of his remembrance: and so it is expounded, Es. 43. 25. his not remembering them. Psal. 25. 7. 79. 8. Ier. 31. 34. as contrariwise, his not blotting them out, is his remembering of them, his not forgiving them. Ier. 18. 23. forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight. Psal. 109. 14. Let the iniquity of his father be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out, ( ne deleatur, id est, non tradatur oblivioni, ) but let them be before the Lord continually, verse 15. And thus David prayeth, Psal. 51. 9. hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities, namely out of thy remembrance: and no more can be gathered out of Act. 3. 19. that your sins may be blotted out (of God's book) where Tremellius noteth it to be a metaphor taken from those who keep books of account, &c. Howsoever, it is not to be doubted, but that before the day of judgment, whereof Saint Peter there speaketh, there shall be a total deletion of the sins of the faithfu •… l, both in respect of the guilt, and also of the pollution. As for Es. 44. 22. the Lord professeth his reconciliation with Israel in taking away their sins, which as a cloud, yea as a thick cloud had hid his face from them: the guilt whereof being taken away, the light of his countenance did shine upon them. Howbeit Tremellius and Innius read, Deleo ut densa nubes defectiones tuas, according to which reading, that place hath affinity with those, which mention washing, cleansing, purging; of which •… am now to speak.
§. IV. Of these, some are to be understood of justification and taking away the guilt of sin, as all the first part of the 51. Psalm, which is a prayer for the pardon of sin; out of which are cited verse 2. and 7. where David prayeth, that God would wash him, and cleanse him from his sin, namely by the blood of Christ: for that is it which cleanseth us from all our sins. Purge me with hyssop which was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (wherewith they used to sprinkle the blood upon those which were cleansed) that is, sprinkle me with the blood of that eternal sacrifice of Christ prefigured in the Law, without which blood being shed, there was no remission. And there is no doubt but the blood of Christ was shod for the remission of sins, Mat. 26. 29. and that our conscienc •… s (the seat of guiltiness) might be purged from dead works. The words following, and I shall be whiter than snow, do plainly argue the purity, not of sanctification (for to such a degree thereof we never attain in this life) but of justification: in respect whereof our souls being perfectly just, are whiter than snow. Some are to be understood of sanctification, as Ezek. 36. 25. Some of both, as 1 Cor. 6. 11. Act. 22. 16. 1 John. 1. 7. Heb. 1. 3. but with this difference, that we are cleansed and purged from the guilt of sin past, wholly and at once: but from the corruption in part, and by degrees in this life, wherein we are to be renewed in the inner man from day today. The Corinthians, to whom the Apostle giveth this testimony, that they were washed, &c. were far from perfection of inherent righteousness, as appeareth by that Epistle; wherein he calleth them carnal, and reproveth them both for their errors in judgment, and for their misdemeanors in their conversation. That which he citeth out of Pro. 15. per mifericordiam & fidem purgantur peccata, is found in the Latin, v. 27. but not in the original: the like sentence is found Pro. 16. 6. but there the Verbe purgatur, for which the Text is alleged, is not used in the Latin.
§. V. For the not being of sin, he allegeth, Psalm. 10. 15. aliàs 9. 35. quaeretur peccatum illius, & non inveniatur, against the true meaning of the place, it being not a prayer for the justification or sanctification of the wicked, that his sin may be no more, as Bellarmine absurdly expoundeth it; dicet peccatum fuisse & non esse: but is a prophetical imprecation against the wicked, that God would break their arm, that is, their power and strength: and that when he, as a judge, should inquire into their wickedness, they should not be found (according to that Prov. 10. 25. he shall be no more, that is, as Augustine expoundeth it, that the wicked, when he is judged, shall perish for his sin. And so Vatabius, make inquiry into his sin, thou shalt not find him, neither doth the Psalmist say, non invenietur ipsum, scil. peccatum, sed non invenietur ipse, scilicet peccator, not it, but he shall not be found.
§. VI. For the perfection of righteousness he allegeth three places, two out of Ephes. 5. verse. 8. Ye were sometimes darkness, but now light in the Lord; where the abstract Light is put for the concrete