A Treatise of Justification
§. VII. Besides these places of Scripture, Bellarmine saith, many other very weighty arguments might be brought; but he hath already produced them in his first book De Baptismo, cap. 13. which when they shall call come to be weighed, will be found light enough. For those places, which speak of the efficacy of Baptism, in washing, cleansing and taking away our sins, prove not, that in justification sins are utterly abolished. For in Baptism is sealed to them that are Baptized, yea, and conferred to the faithful, the benefits, not only of justification, but also of sanctification. And therefore as it is the Sacrament of remission of sin, and the seal of that righteousness which is by faith: so it is called the Laver of regeneration, wherein we are Baptized into the similitude of Christ his death and resurrection. And therefore, though in Baptism sin were wholly taken away, as well in respect of the corruption, as of the guilt: yet it would not follow, that in justification there is a Total deletion of sin. But neither in Baptism is there a total abolition of sin; seeing it is manifest, that original sin, which is called the flesh, the old man, and evil concupiscence, remaineth in all the faithful, though in some measure mortified, yet never fully and altogether extinguished in this life. And although the Papists for maintenance of their several errors, viz. of justification by inherent righteousness, of the perfect fulfilling of the Law, of merit, of works of supererogation, do maintain, that concupiscence, remaining in the faithful after Baptism, is not a sin; and the Council of Trent hath denounced Anathemà against them that shall say it is a sin: yet it is manifest, not only by the testimony of antiquity, and evident reasons, which I could produce, if I would run into another controversy; but also by the doctrine of the Apostle; who doth not only in many places expressly call it a sin, and describeth it as a sin, but also setteth it forth as the mother of sin, the sinning sin; which because it taketh occasion by the Commandment forbidding lust, to work in men all manner of evil concupiscence, is not only convinced to be a sin, but also to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , exceedingly sinful.
§. VIII. And not only habitual concupiscence in general which is the body of sin, and the body of death (in respect of which sin, the body of the faithful is said to be dead, Rom. 8. 10.) is sin: but also the several members and branches thereof, which remain even in the best, are so many habitual sins: as a spice at the least of pride, selfelove, carnal security, infidelity, hypocrisy, envy, worldly and carnal love of pleasure, profit, preferment and glory in this world, &c. Which, though they be not imputed to the faithful, yet in themselves are sins, as being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , swervings from the Law of God; not only as defects of righteousness (which were enough to make them sins) but as positive vices. Neither is it to be doubted, but that as the acts of pride and other habitual vices remaining even in the best are sins; so, much more the vices themselves, from which they proceed, are sins, and are by the same Commandment of the Law forbidden. Now whatsoever is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sin: For as every sin is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so every 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a sin, that being a perfect definition of sin, as Bellarmine himself confesseth, Non potuit rectius & brevius definiri peccatum, quàm ut à S. Ioanne fuit definitum illis verbis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But all evil concupiscence, both habitual and actual; both in general the body of sin, and in particular the several branches, being so many habitual sins, in whomsoever they are found, even in the most regenerate, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , aberrations from the law of God. Therefore all evil concupiscence whatsoever, in whomsoever remaining, is a sin.
§. IX. Yea, but concupiscence is no sin unless the Will consent unto it. Then, say I, not a sin in infants not baptized. But the Law doth not say, non consenties concupiscentiis, sed omnino non concupisces: thou shalt not consent to concupiscences, but thou shalt not have any evil concupiscence at all. And it is most evident, that the concupiscence forbidden in the tenth Commandment, is such as goeth before the consent of will. For it is such, as Saint Paul himself had not known to be sin, if the Law had not said, Non concupisces, thou shalt not covet. But such concupiscences, as have the consent of the will, the very Heathen knew to be sins. And the Papists themselves must acknowledge them to be forbidden in the former Commandments, unless they will deny the Law of God to be spiritual and prefer the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , corrupt interpretations of the Elders of the Jews before the exposition of the Lawgiver himself, Matth. 5. True therefore is that, which some Writers cite out of Augustine, that Original sin is remitted in Baptism, not that it be not, but that it be not imputed unto sin. Here Bellarmine takes on, and saith, that Luther first falsified this testimony of Augustine, and that all who have followed him, have continued the same fault, though they have been told of it. A great accusation, if true. Augustine's words in answer to an objection, (which the Papists cannot answer) how can original sin be transmitted from regenerate parents, if in Baptism it be wholly taken from them, are these: I answer, saith he, dimitti concupiscentiam in baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum non imputetur. Where Augustine speaking of the traduction of original sin, calleth it (as his manner is) Concupiscence, instead whereof, some of our Writers have said sin, both Augustine and they meaning nothing else, but original. Now, that Augustine by that which he calleth Concupiscence, meant sin, hereby appeareth; first, he saith it is remitted in Baptism, and remission is of debts only, and of sins, as debts; secondly, because he saith it is remitted, not that it should not be any longer, but that (though it be a sin, yet) it should not be imputed unto sin; for nothing is wont to be imputed unto sin by God, but that which is sin. Where by the way we may observe, that in Augustine's judgment remission of sin is not the utter deletion of it, that it be no more, but the not imputing of it. For whereas the Papists for a poor shift and evasion say, that Concupiscence is called sin, not because it is a sin, sed quia expeccato est, & ad peccatum inclinat; this hindereth not its being a sin, but rather setteth forth the greatness of this evil, as having all the respects of evil in it: being both a sin, and a punishment of sin, and the cause of all other sins, a •… Augustine saith, Concupiscentia carnis adversus quam bonus concupiscit Spiritus (sc. in renatis) & peccatum est, & poena peccati, & causa pecca •… i.
§. X. But howsoever Bellarmine letteth pass (as well he might) his other arguments alleged in his Book of Baptism, as impertinent to this present question; yet one of them he hath thought good not to omit, as being in his conceit unanswerable; which notwithstanding I have not only answered elsewhere , but also have used it as an invincible argument to prove justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness, viz. the argument taken from the antithesis of Adam to Christ, Rom. 5. 19. which Bellarmine here straineth beyond the extent of the antithesis made by the Apostle. In other places Bellarmine hath thus argued: As through Adams disobedience we were made sinners, so through Christ's obedience we are made righteous: but through Adams disobedience we were made truly sinners, namely by unrighteousness inherent, and not only by imputation. Therefore through the obedience of Christ we are made truly righteous, namely by righteousness inherent. But here, to serve his present turn, he altereth both the assumption and the conclusion. The assumption; for where before he said, not only by imputation, here he saith, not by imputation. The conclusion: for first, instead of concluding, that we are by the obedience of Christ made inherently just, which we confess, though not intended by the Apostle in that place; he concludeth, that the obedience of Christ hath truly taken away and wiped out or abolished all our sins. And secondly, that he hath taken away our sins non imputa •… ive, sed vere, not by imputation, but truly. His former argument I retorted after this manner:
As through Adams disobedience we were made sinners, that is, guilty of death and damnation: so by Christ's obedience we are made just, that is, absolved from that guilt, and accepted as righteous unto eternal life.
But by imputation of Adams disobedience we were made sinners.
Therefore by imputation of Christ's obedience we are made righteous.
The assumption, that we were made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience, I proved, as by other arguments, so by Bellarmine's own confession in other places. Secondly, I have acknowledged it to be true, that as we are made truly sinners through Adams disobedience, not only by imputation of Adams sin, but also by transfusion of both that privative and positive corruption, which by that disobedi- ence he contracted: so we are made truly just through the obedience of Christ, not only by imputation of his obedience, but also by infusion of righteousness from him. But though we be truly made just by righteousness inherent yet it followeth not, that we are in this life made perfectly just. Neither doth it follow, that because Christ doth free us from the dominion of sin, we are therefore freed wholly from the being of sin in us: neither, that if we be freed from sin by imputation, we are not freed truly. For the Apostle useth these terms promiscuously, remitting of sin and not imputing of sin, justifying and imputing righteousness. And as Christ was truly and really made a sacrifice for sin in our behalf: so we are truly and indeed made the righteousness of God in him.
Thus have I proved, that neither remission of sin is the abolishing of sin, nor justification all one with sanctification: and that the Papists by confounding justification and sanctification, and of these two making but one, have utterly taken away and abolished out of their Divinity, that great benefit of our justification.
A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION.
THE THIRD BOOKE: Concerning Justification or saving Grace.
CAP. I. What is meant by the word Grace in the Question of Justification.
§. I.
T HE second Capitall error of the Papists in the Article of justification, is concerning justifying and saving grace. For when as the holy Ghost would note unto us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first moving cause or motive in God, the principium or primary cause (which some call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of our justification, he saith, that we are justified by the grace of God, Rom. 3. 24. Tit. 3. 7. that we are saved by his grace, Ephes. 2. 8. meaning thereby the gracious favor of God in Christ, whereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he hath graciously accepted and embraced us in his beloved: They, most absurdly and wickedly, that they may place the matter of their justification, and merit of their salvation in themselves, do by grace understand the gifts of grace, and namely and especially that of Charity, habitually inherent in us. For so they teach, justifying grace to be a divine quality inherent in the soul per modum habitus, a supernatural habit infused of God: and that, not really distinct from Charity. And in like manner, what in this kind is said of the Love of God, they understand it commonly, not of God's Love, whereby he loveth us; but of our love; whereby we love God.
§ II. For the better understanding of this point, we are to distinguish the divers acceptions of God's grace. For either it signifieth the favor of God in himself, or the gifts of grace in us. The former is the proper signification: for the grace of God, properly understood, is one of God's attributes; whereby he is signified to be gracious, and is referred to his goodness, Exod. 33. 19. cum 34. 6. unto which also his love and mercy are referred; but with this distinction. For God's goodness is considered either as he is good in himself, yea goodness it self; or as he is good to his creatures, which is his bounty, which, being referred to his creatures, either as having goodness communicated to them, is his love; or as being in misery, is his mercy, or as having deserved no good thing at the hands of God, but the contrary, is his Grace. The latter signification is unproper and metonymicall, the word Grace being taken for the effects of his grace, viz. his free and undeserved gifts and benefits proceeding from his grace and favor: which are not properly called the grace and favor of God, but his graces and favors, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the grace, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gifts of grace, Rom. 11. 28. 1 Cor. 1. 7. 12. 4. 31. And in both senses it is either more largely taken for any favor or favors of God though common, as both his favor and love in creating, preserving and governing his creatures; and also the fruits thereof, which are his common favors, as the gifts of nature (in which sense Pelagius did call bonum naturae, and namely free-will, the grace of God) and the gifts dispensed by his providence, as his temporal blessings which he graciously bestoweth upon both good and bad, Matth. 5. 45. In which respect he is not only said to be channun, gracious, Exod. 22. 27. and graciously to bestow such gifts, Gen. 33. 5. 11. Isaiah. •… 6. 10. but also to be the Savior of all men, 1 Tim. 4. 10. yea to save both man and beast, Psalm. 36. 6. Or else it is used more specially to signify the peculiar favor and favors of God vouchsafed to his peculiar people, viz. the Church, tending to the salvation of it and of the members thereof, which is the usual acception of the word in the Scripture.
§ III. This by the Schoolmen is very unfitly distinguished into gratia gratum faciens, & gratia gratis da •… a: for first, out of this distinction, that, which chiefly and properly is to be called grace, viz. the gracious love and favor of God in Christ, is left out. Secondly, whereas by gratia gratum faciens, the justifying, and saving grace, they mean grace infused, and namely the habit of Charity, they oppose it to gratia gratis data, to grace freely given, as if the grace infused were not also freely given. But they might have learned either from their Master a better distinction of Grace, though he do but lightly touch upon it, that Grace is either gratia gratis Dans, gratia gratis Data, or a better exposition of that distinction, which they have propounded, according to the Scriptures: that by Gratia gratum faciens is meant the gracious favor of God in himself, whereby he graciously accepteth us in his Beloved; and by gratia gratis data, the gifts of grace freely bestowed upon us: for so the Apostle seemeth to distinguish Rom. 5. 15. that it is either
- 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the grace of God in himself:
- 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or as he speaketh, Ephes. 3. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gift of grace in us:
Or as elsewhere,
- 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the grace of God:
- 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gifts of grace.
The former, is the gracious favor of God, and is in God the giver of all good gifts, as the fountain of all graces: the latter, are the gifts of grace, and are in the receivers as streams derived from that fountain.
Now these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or gifts of grace, are either sanctifying graces , tending to the salvation of him who is endued with them, as faith, hope, charity, the fear of God, &c. or edifying graces, which are given for the salvation of others: and those, either ordinary, as the gifts of the ministry; or extraordinary, as the gifts of prophecy, of tongues, of working miracles, which the Schoolmen called gratias gratis datas.
§. IV. These 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , these gifts of grace, whether you understand those edifying, or those sanctifying graces, may everyone of them by a metonymy be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a grace, or by special relatiō to some peculiar grace, vouchsafed to some particular person, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this or that grace, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this or that gi •… t of grace; yet none of them can absolutely and properly be called the grace of God, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the saving grace of God or gratia gratum faciens; of which this question is understood, to wit, whether this justifying and saving grace of God be in •… erent in us, as a quality or habit, or be out of us in God, as being one of his attributes. The Papists say, it is inherent in us, per modum habitus, after the manner of an habit infused into us; and so is the matter of justification, considered as an action of God, as we conceive of justification; or the form, as they say, speaking of justification passively, and confounding it with sanctification. But we, though we do confess, that in the gifts of saving grace, as faith, hope, charity, &c. concurring in us, our inward or habitual sanctification doth consist: yet we deny them, or any one of them to be either the matter or form of justification. But contrariwise we constantly affirm, that the justifying and saving grace of God, or, as they speak, gratia gratum faciens, is the gracious favor of God in Christ, which is out of us in him, concurring to our justification, neither as the matter nor form, but as the efficient cause thereof. Against which assertion the accursed Council of Trent hath denounced Anathema, If any man shall say, that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favor of God, let him be accursed. But first I will produce our proofs; and then answer their objections.
CAP. II. Our proofs, that by the Grace of God, by which we are justified, is meant the gracious favor of God in Christ.
§. I.
T He Papists, for all their cursing, are not able to produce any one pregnant testimony to prove, that the grace, whereby we are justified, is inherent in us. But, that Grace doth signify that favor of God, we are able out of the New Testament to allege above fifty testimonies, whereof some shall hereafter be cited. And as for the Old Testament, it is evident, that the Hebrew words which signify the grace of God, and are to be translated by the word grace, do always signify favor, and never grace inherent. As, if I have found grace in thy sight, Gen. 18. 3. Ex. 33. 13. 17. God gave Joseph grace in the sight of the keeper, Gen. 39. 21. and the people of Israel grace in the sight of the Egyptians, Exod. 3. 21. In which sense the blessed Virgin is said to have found grace with God, Luk. 1. 30. and our Savior to have increased in grace with God and man, Luk. 2. 52.
§. II. Secondly, that grace whereby the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gratos fecit, made us gracious or graciously accepted us in his beloved, is gratia gratum faciens, that is, the justifying and saving grace.
By the gracions love and favor of God in Christ, which is out of us in him, the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath made us gracious, or graciously accepted us in his beloved, and not by any gift of grace inherent in us.
Therefore the gracious love and favor of God in Christ is gratia gratum faciens, that is, the justifying and saving grace, and not any gift of grace inherent in us.
The proposition is in it solfe evident. The assumption is proved out of Eph. 1. Blessed be God, who hath blessed us in Christ with all spiritual blessings—according as he hath elected us in him before the foundation of the world—having predestinated us unto the adoption of children—to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein or whereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est, gratos fecit, he hath made us accepted in his beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood even forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, verse 3, 4, 5, 6. 7. For by or in that grace, to the glorious praise whereof the Lord elected us before the foundation of the world, and according to the riches whereof we are redeemed by Christ, the Lord hath graciously accepted us in his beloved. But it were very absurd to say, that God hath elected us to the praise of the glory of our Charity, or that we are redeemed according to the riches of our charity. But we were elected to the praise of the glory of his grace, that is, of his gracious love and bounty in Christ, which grace was given unto us in Christ before all secular times: and according to the riches of this grace he hath redeemed us by Christ. Wherefore gratia gratum faciens, the grace, by which we are justified, is not any gift of grace inherent in us, but the eternal grace and favor of God vouchsafed unto us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, and before all secular times.
§. III. In respect of this grace, whereby the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 graciously accepted the blessed Virgin, she, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luk. 1. 28. graciously accepted or graced, or as it is expounded verse 30. that she had found grace and favor with God. And so may all the elect and faithful children of God be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; as in many places of the Old Testament they are in the very same sense, called chasidim passively understood. Especially, where that word is read with the Affix or Pronoun betokening God, to signify his chasidim the favorites of God: and thus it is read with the Affix of th •… first Person, when God is the speaker, calling them Chasidai, my favorites: or of the second whenthe speech is directed unto God, and then they are called in the plural Chasideica, thy favorits, Psal. 52. 9. 79. 2. 132. 9. 145. 10. and in the singular Chasideca thy favourite, Deut. 33. 8. Psal. 16. 10. 89. 19. or of the third person in the singular Chasido, his favourite, or Chasidso, Psal. 4. 3. and in the plural Chasidain, his favorites. Psal. 31. 24. 85. 9. 97. 10. 116. 15. 149. 9. that is, as not only Tremellius and Junius, but also Vatablus interpret it, quos benignitate prosequitur, those whom God doth specially favor, those who have found grace with God; which commonly are translated Saints, and so are all the faithful usually called, even in the New Testament as the translation of the Hebrew chasidim: sanctity not being the cause of God's favor, which is eternal, but the proper badge and cognizance of those, who are the favorites of God, by which they are known.
And further out of the same place, Eph. 1. 6. where it is said that by this grace he hath made us gracious in his beloved it is plainly proved, that by it is meant the gracious favor of God towards us in Christ, in which respect it is also called the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Act. 15. 11. So Rom. 16. 20. 1 Cor. 16. 23. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Gal. 1. 6. 6. 18. Phi. 4. 23. 1 Thess. 5. 28. 2 Thess. 3. 18. Philem. 25. Apoc. 22. 21. and to the same effect it is called the love of Christ, Rom. 8. 35. that is, as it is expressed verse. 39. the love of God which is in Christ. Which places cannot without absurdity be understood of that grace of God, or of that love of God, which is in us, that is to say of our love of God.
§. IV. Thirdly, by what grace of God we are elected, called, redeemed, reconciled, adopted, saved, by the same we are justified.
But by the gracious favor of God, by which he hath graciously accepted of us in his beloved, and not by anything in us, we were elected according to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of his will to the praise of the glory of his grace, Eph. 1. 5, 6 for which cause our election unto life is called the election of grace, Rom. 11. 5. By grace we are effectually called, according to his purpose. For God hath called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose of grace, which (grace) was given us in Christ Jesus, before all secular times, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior, 2 Tim. 1. 9. By his gracious favor in Christ, God hath redeemed us, reconciled us unto himself adopted us, and not by our charity, or anything in us. And finally, by his gracious favor we are saved through faith, and not of works or of any grace or righteousness iuherent in us, that he might show the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness towards us through Jesus Christ, Eph. 2. 7, 8. Therefore by the gracious favor of God in Christ, and not by any grace inherent in us, the Lord doth justify us: and therefore the sacred fathers of Trent must take home to themselves (according to the censure of the Apostle, Gal. 1. 8. 9.) that Anathema, which they denounce against those, who say, that the grace whereby we are justified is only the gracions favor of God in Christ.
§. V. Against the proposition if it be objected, that the grace of election is eternal, but the benefit of vocation and the rest is temporal, and therefore not the same: I answer, that although the benefit of vocation and of the rest be given us in time yet the grace, by which we are called, justified, and saved, is eternal, 2 Tim. 1. 9. And therefore Bellarmine's distinction of grace into eternal, by which we were elected; and temporary, by which we are called, and justified, is idle and to no purpose.
§. VI. If again it be objected, that by what grace we are sanctified, by the same we are justified: by inherent grace we are sanctified, therefore by inherent grace we are justified: I answer by distinction of the phrase by grace: for if thereby be meant the efficient cause, then I confess the proposition, to wit, that by what grace we are sanctified, we are also justified. For the same gracious favor of God is the efficient cause as well of our sanctification, as of our justification; and I deny the assumption. But if by that phrase be meant the essential c •… use, that is, the matter or the form of our sanctification: then I confess the assumption, and deny the proposition: For by the inherent graces (wherein our habitual sanctification consisteth) we are sanctified: but we are justified not by any grace inherent, but only by the righteousness of Christ: as I have shown before, and hereafter shall fully prove in its due place. For we are justified by the grace, that is, the gracious favor of God in Christ, gratis in respect of us, that is, without any cause or desert in us, through the redemption which is in Christ, without the works of the Law, that is, without respect of any obedience performed by us, or righteousness inherent in us, that is prescribed in the Law, which is the perfect rule of all inherent righteousness.
§. VII. If in the third place it be objected, that faith is a grace inherent but we are justified by faith. Or thus, faith doth justify, faith is a grace inherent, therefore some grace inherent doth justify. I answer again, by distinction, that faith doth not justify, as it is a grace or quality inherent, or as it is a part of our inherent righteousness; but relatively, as it is the instrument, as hath been said before, to receive Christ who is our righteousness: neither doth faith properly, but the object thereof, which it apprehendeth, justify. As it is the alms properly, which releeveth the poor man, not the hand which receiveth it. For when we say that a man is justified by faith without works, or by faith alone, our meaning is, that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ alone, which is apprehended by faith only, without respect of any righteousness inherent in us, or obedieuce performed by us.
§. VIII. Fourthly, the justifying and saving grace is expressed many times by other words of like signification to the gracious favor of God, which cannot be drawn to signify our charity, or any grace inherent in us. As appeareth both by such synonyma, as are joined with it in the same places, as grace and love, 2 Cor. 13. 14. Grace and mercy, 1 Tim. 1. 2. 2 Tim. 1. 2. Tit. 1. 4. 2 John 3. and also by parallelling other places, as where it is said, Tit. 2. 11. When the grace of God appeared, the same is expressed thus, chap. 3. 4. When the kindness of God and his love towards man appeared. And where in some places it is said, that we are justified or saved by his grace, or according to his grace: in others it is said, according to his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his good will and pleasure, Eph. 1. 5. 9. Phil. 2. 13. according to his mercy, Tit. 3. in which place these four words are used as Synonyma, signifying the same thing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , kindness or bounty, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , love of mankind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mercy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 grace This grace of God is notably expressed, Eph. 2. 4. 5. 7. 8. by divers words of the like signification. God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, hath when we were dead in our sins quickened us together with Christ (by grace you are saved) that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Jesus Christ: for by grace ye are saved through faith, &c. here is the riches of his mercy, the exceeding riches of his grace, his greatlove wherewith he loved us, his bounty towards us in Christ, and all to set forth his saving grace. So in the Old Testament, mercy and grace are used as words of the like signification. Exo. 33. 19. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy; which text the Apostle rendereth thus, Rom. 9. 15. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion of whom I will have compassion. Exod. 34. 6. where the Lord proclaiming his goodness or bounty before Moses as he had promised chap. 33. 19. expresseth it in these terms. The Lord, the Lord God, merciful, and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in chesed ve emeth, in bounty and truth (which in the New Testament are translated grace and truth) keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, &c. So Psal. 86. 15. Thou O Lord art a God full of compassion and gracious, long suffering and plenteous in mercy and truth. Likewise Psal. 130. 8. 2 King. 13. 3. So also Psal. 145. 8, 9. the Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger, and of great mercy, the Lord is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works. And in like manner, Nehem. 9. 17. thou art a God of condonations, that is ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, sl •… w to anger, and of great bounty.
§. IX. Fifthly, if justifying grace were inherent, there would be no such opposition, as the Apostle maketh in the question of justification, between grace and works; as that if we be justified by the one, we cannot be justified by the other: but they might as well stand together, as the first justification of the Papists, which is habitual, consisting in the habits of grace infused, with the second which is actual consisting in works, or rather the one would infer the other: because we cannot be justified by the one, (I speak of adulti ) without the other: for if we be justified by inherent righteousness, that righteousness must be total and perfect, and therefore both habitual, and actual, and both must concur unto justification: for neither without the other is perfect. Object. Yea, but the Apostle, when he saith, that faith doth justify without works, he speaketh of the first ju •… ification, unto which works do not concur: and when he opposeth grace to works; he meaneth the works of the Law, done before faith, without grace, by the power of nature. Answ. This is all that the Papists have to excuse themselves, that they do not openly contradict the Apostle, who so often and so peremptorily concludeth, that we are justified by grace and not by works, by faith without the works of the Law. But it is evident, that by the works of the Law is meant, all that obedience and righteousness, that is prescribed in the Law, which is the perfect rule of all inherent righteousness. And therefore, when the works of the Law are rejected, all inherent righteousness is excluded from justification. It is also manifest, that the holy Ghost speaketh generally of all men, whether in the state of nature, or in the state of grace; and of all works, whether going before, or following after faith; insomuch that the works which we have done in righteousness, Tit: 3. 5. are excluded; yea the works of faithful Abraham are denied to have justified him before God. And therefore those who have both faith and works are justified by faith without works. But these objectiots I shall fully satisfy in their due place.
§. X. Sixthly, whereas the Papists say, that justifying grace is the same with charity, I argue thus:
Charity is the fulfilling of the Law in our own persons:
But we are not justified by our fulfilling of the Law in our own persons, Gal. 2. 16. 3. 10, 11.
Therefore we are not justified by our charity, and consequently not by grace inherent.
§. XI. Seventhly, that the Apostle by grace in the articles of justification and salvation understood the gracious favor of God in Christ and not inherent grace, appeareth both by his assention, Rom. 5. 20. that where sin abounded, God's grace did much more abound; and by his question, Rom. 6. 1. shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? for it were a strange conceit, that where sin aboundeth, inherent righteousness should abound so much the more. And to these we may add those places which speak of going to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace, Heb. 4. 16. of the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us through Jesus Christ, for by grace we are saved, Eph. 2. 7. 8. of the grace of God, and the gift of grace distinguished one from the other, Rom. 5. 15. of those that believe by the grace of God, Act. 18. 27. of commending men to the grace of God, Act. 14. 26. 15. 40. of the word of his grace, Act. 14. 3. 20. 32. of the Gospel of his grace, Act. 20. 24. of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who being rich became poor for us, 2 Cor. 8. 9. of our predestination to the praise of the glory of his grace Eph. 1. 5, 6. of the election of grace, Rom. 11. 5. of the appearing of the grace of God which bringeth salvation, Tit. 2. 11. of Christ his tasting of death for us by the grace of God, Heb. 2. 9. of the reward not imputed of grace to him that worketh, Rom. 4. 4. of turning the grace of God into wantonness, Iud. 4. &c.
§. XII. Lastly, so clear is this truth, which we deliver according to the scriptures concerning justifying grace, that Albertus Pighius, a famous divine among the Papists doth confess, that what the Schoolmen teach concerning justifying grace, that it is a quality in our souls infused of God, and there remaining after the manner of an habit; and that it is the same in substance with the habit of charity, &c. are mere devises of men, having no warrant in the Scriptures. Thomas Aquinas also writing on Tit. 2. 11. it is to be known, saith he, that grace signifieth mercy—and mercy always was in God: yet, in respect of men, in times past it lay hid—but when Christ the Son of God appeared grace appeared—and it may be said that in the Nativity of Christ grace appeared two ways: the former, because by the greatest grace of God he was given unto us—and upon this grace in the second place followed the instruction of mankind—whereupon he saith, teachingus, &c. Whereunto we may add, that those few places, which Bellarmine allegeth for inherent grace, are by some of their own writers understood of the gracious favor of God, as we shall show in the particulars which now we are to examine.
CHAP. III. Bellarmine's allegation for grace inherent out of Rom. 3. 24. proved to make against himself.
§. I.
B Vt before I propound them, I am to advertise the Reader, that we do not deny, that there are divers graces of sanctification, and those also necessary to salvation, as faith, hope, charity, the fear of God, &c. inherent in the souls of the faithful, as divine qualities, residing there per modum habitus. So that Bellarmine in his book de gratia & lib. arbitr. might well have spared his labor, whereby he endeavoreth to prove such grace or graces to be inherent in the soul; which never any of us denied. But we deny that gratia gratum faciens, or justifying grace is inherent in us. This therefore Bellarmine laboreth to prove, lib. 2. de justif. cap. 3. unto which in the other place he doth refer us: alleging Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, &c. Answ. It cannot be denied, but that the popish cause, in this particular, is very desperate, when for the defense thereof they are able to allege one only place, where grace is mentioned; and that such a one, as is a most pregnant testimony to prove free justification by faith only, without respect of any righteousness or grace inherent in us.
§. II. And this is proved, first, by the context, or coherence of these words, with those which go before. For thus the Apostle reasoneth:
Those that be in themselves sinners, and by their sin obnoxious to the judgment of God, are not justified by righteousness inherent, all which is prescribed in the Law; but of necessity must be justified by a righteousness, which without the Law is revealed in the Gospel, even the righteousness of God, that is, of Christ, who is God, apprehended by faith.
But all men, without exception, both Jews and Gentiles are in themselves sinners, and by their sin obnoxious to the judgment of God.
Therefore, seeing all have sinned, and are fallen short of the glory of God, that is, excluded from eternal glory, they are not justified by righteousness inherent which is prescribed in the Law; but they are justified by a righteousness, which without the Law is revealed in the Gospel, to wit, the righteousness of God, that is, of Christ, who is God, apprehended by faith. And that is it which is said in this text, that those who have sinned, and are fallen short of God's glory, and from their title to heaven, are justified, that is, acquitted from their sins, and entitled unto the Kingdom of heaven, freely, without respect of any grace or righteousness in themselves, by the mere gracious favor of God, when they had deserved the contrary, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, &c.
To the same purpose the Apostle disputeth, Gal. 3. as hereafter we shall hear.
§ III. Secondly, it is proved by the words of the text alleged: the first whereof is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being justified. Now the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as I have proved heretofore, doth never in all the Scriptures signify to make righteous by infusion of righteousness, and therefore here it is not meant, that we are justified by grace infused. Neither doth justification import a real or positive change in the subject, but relative and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as hath been shown. And we must remember, that as it is called, so it is justificatio impii , the justification of a sinner; not only because before justification men are sinners, but also because being justified, they still remain sinners in themselves, though in Christ they are made righteous. And we are to conceive of justification as a continued act of God from our vocation to our glorification, whereby he doth accept of a believing sinner, as righteous in Christ, not only at his first conversion, but also afterwards, whiles he believeth in Christ: though still in himself he be a sinner. And to that end doth our Savior make continual intercession for us, that the merit of his obedience may be •… continually imputed unto us.
As for the Papists, they being in their own conceit justified, as they all are after they have been either baptized in their infancy, or absolved when they come to years; they are no sinners, neither is there anything in them which God hateth, or which may properly be called sin. But justification being of sinners, and they being no sinners, but •… aying they have no sin, and avouching, that he only is a just man in whom there is no sin; hereby it appeareth, that neither are they justified, neither is there any truth in them.
§ IV. The next word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is an exclusive particle, excluding the false causes of justification, and signifying, that we are justified without any desert or worthiness in ourselves, without works, without respect of any righteousness inherent in us: which directly overthroweth the assertion of the Papists, for proof whereof this place was alleged.
§ V. The third word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by his grace: that is, by the gracious favor of God in Christ, which is out of us in him, as hath been proved, that is, by his love of us, and not by our love of him. Neither is there any show of reason, why it should in this place, above all others signify as it never doth, an habit of justifying grace inherent in us: especially, if that be true, which hereafter I shall plainly demonstrate, that we are not justified by that which is inherent. And thus Saint Ambrose expoundeth these words, gratia Dei gratis; justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt, dono Dei: they are justified freely, because neither working (before their justification) nor rendering any recompense (after their justification) they are by faith only justified by the grace, that is, (as he expoundeth it) the gift of God. And on those words by the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus; he testifieth (saith he) that the grace of God is in Christ, (but not in us) because by the will of God we were redeemed by Christ. Pererius likewise a learned Jesuit, The name of Grace, saith he, when it is here said, justified freely by his grace, though it may signify, that supernatural and divine quality infused into the soul of man, and inherent therein: yet rather it seemeth in this place to signify gratuitam Dei b •… nitatem & benignitatem erga hominem, the free or gracious goodness and bounty of God towards man. Grace therefore doth not signify, either the matter, or the form, but the efficient cause of our justification.
§. VI. The fourth word is, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whereby is meant Christ's whole satisfaction made to the Law, both in respect of the precept, and of the penalty; by which, being as the Papists themselves confess, imputed unto us, we are redeemed and justified, as being the matter and merit of justification.
§. VII. The fifth word is by faith, whereby is noted the instrument, by which we apprehend and receive that satisfaction or righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified; which is indeed out of us in him, but imputed to those that believe. The righteousness therefore, by which we are justified, is the righteousness of faith, that is, the righteousness of God, or of Christ apprehended by faith.
§. VIII. The sixth and last is the end, why God did give his Son to be a propitiation for our sins; to show forth his righteousness for the remission of sins, and that he might be just, and the justifier of him, which believeth in Jesus. For in the work of our redemption and justification God's justice is declared to be such, that he forgiveth no sins, but those only, for which his justice is satisfied by Christ: neither doth he justify any, but those, whom by communication of Christ's righteousness unto them, he maketh just. But how should the satisfaction of Christ, that is, his obedience and sufferings being transient, and so long ago performed, be communicated unto us for our justification, otherwise but by imputation? And if we be justified by imputation of Christ's righteousness, then not by inherent grace, or infused righteousness.
CAP. IV. Bellarmine's dispute out of Rom. 3. 24. refuted.
§. I.
N Ow let us see what Bellarmine inferreth upon this place. Here (saith he) all the causes almost of justification are set forth together. The efficient cause is noted in the word gratis, freely, importing the liberality of God: the formal cause, in the word Grace: the meritorious cause, in the word redemption: the disposing cause, in the word faith: all of them almost depraved or misapplied by Bellarmine. For neither is the true efficient cause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (which he calleth, vocabulo nimis diluto, God's liberality) signified by the word gratis; but the false 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or meritorious cause is by this word excluded, and the true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ which is the merit of Christ, included in the word redemption. As if he had said, we are justified grat •… s in respect of us, that is, without any cause or desert in us, without any worthiness of ours: but not gratis in respect of Christ, by whose precious death and merits we are justified. Neither by Grace is meant justice given and infused of God, which, he saith, is the formal cause of justification: but the grace of God, as I have shown, signifieth the gracious favor of God; which is not the formal cause of justification, but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the efficient or moving cause. Neither is redemption, passively understood, the meritorious cause of our justification: for that, as well as reconciliation or justification it self, is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the fruit and effect of Christ his death and obedience: which, as they are the matter and meritorious cause of our justification, so also the price and merit of our redemption. How then are we said to be justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus? either by a metonymy of the effect for the cause, redemption being put for Christ's satisfaction, or paying of a price of ransom for us, by which we were redeemed: or else we are said to be justified by his redemption, as we may be said to be justified by remission of sins. For by Christ we have redemption, that is, remission of sins, Col. 1. 7. Ephes. 1. 14. and so Occumenius expoundeth these words by the redemption, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But how is he justified? by the forgiveness of sins which we obtain in Christ Jesus. Neither is faith the disposing cause, as he saith, (for then a man might have a true, lively, justifying faith, and not be actually justified, which is contrary to the Scriptures, Act. 13. 39. John. 5. 24. 6. 47. but the instrumental cause: which is therefore said to justify, because the object, which it receiveth, doth justify: in which sense the same benefits which we receive from Christ, are ascribed to faith. Now the object of faith being the righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him; it is evident, that when we are said to be justified by faith, it is meant, that we are not justified by righteousness inherent, but by that righteousness which faith doth apprehend.
§. II. Yea, but Bellarmine will prove by divers arguments, that Grace in this place doth not signify the gracious favor of God: first, because the favor of God was sufficiently signified by the word gratis. For he that justifieth freely doth it out of good will and liberality: therefore that addition, by grace, doth not signify the favor it self, but something else, that is to say, the effect of that favor. I answer, that the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Hebrew Chinnam, is a particle exclusive of any cause, price, worth or desert in us, which may be shown by many examples. Where it signifieth, first, without cause or desert: As where it is said, they hated me 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, without any cause in me or desert of mine, John. 15. 25. ex Psalm. 35. 19. and verse. 7. where Symmachus readeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Psalm. 69. 4. So Ezech. 14. 23. 1 Sam. 19. 5. 25. 31. 1 King. 2. 32. Psalm. 109. 3. 119. 161. Lam. 3. 52. Secondly, freely, without paying any price, as Exod. 21. 11. Numb. 11. 5. 2 Sam. 24. 24. Isaiah. 52. 3. 5. Mat. 10. 8. Apoc. 21. 6. 22. 17. So that this exclusive particle was inserted, not to set down the true cause of justification, but to exclude the false: that we are justified freely without any cause in us, or desert of ours, or price paid by us, merely by the grace of God, through the redemption which is in Jesus Christ. And thus is the word expounded by all Writers almost, both Old and New, and those as well Papists as Protestants. Ambrose, as you heard, gratis, saith he, quia nihil operantes, nec vicem reddentes sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei: freely, because working nothing, nor making any recompense, they are justified through faith alone, by the gift of God. Augustine, Prorsus gratis das, gratis salvas, qui nihil invenis unde salves, & multum invenis unde damns: Altogether freely thou givest, and freely thou savest, because thou findest nothing for which thou shouldest save, and thou findest much for which thou mayest condemn. Oecumenius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , freely, that is, without any good deeds of thine thou art saved: and again, as bringing nothing else but faith, and after, because all have sinned, therefore all that believe in Christ are justified freely, bringing only faith to their justification. Hugo Cardinalis; glossa interlin. gratis, i. sine meritis. So Thomas Aguinas, and other Popish Writers; yea, Bellarmine himself, to be justified freely is to be justified without merit, without works. This particle therefore showeth not by, or for what we are justified: but by or for what we are not justified.
§ III. His second reason: because the preposition per, when it is said, per gratiam, being not a note, as he saith, of the efficient cause, is not rightly applied to the favor or good will of God, which is the efficient cause, but either to the formal cause, or to the meritorious cause, or to the instrument. For we could not well say, that God doth justify us per favorem aut per suam benevolentiam, by his favor or by his good will: but we say well by grace inherent (though not very well by his grace inherent, for that which is inherent is ours, though from him) by the merit of his son, by faith, by the sacraments.
First, I answer, that the preposition is not in the original text, where the Apostle doth not say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as noting in Bellarmine's conceit the formal cause, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as noting the antecedent or moving cause, which is principium actionis, as is usual in the like actions, which (the efficients working per se ) are done naturâ, art, consilio or voluntate, &c. in which we do not say, per naturam, per artem, &c. And therefore this objection is very frivolous. Secondly, I answer, that per in Latin, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, are very often applied to the efficient cause: whereof, even in the New Testament, there are, as I suppose, more examples than there be leaves: whereof some are attributed to God, as Rom. 11. 36. Gal. 1. 1. Heb. 7. 21. to the Son, John. 1. 3. Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 6, &c. to the holy Ghost, Rom. 5. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9. And to omit other examples, which are innumerable, to the attributes of God, which are the prime motive causes of all his actions: as by the will of God, 1 Cor. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 1. Col. 1. 1. Rom. 5. 32. 2 Cor. 8. 5. by the grace of Jesus Christ we shall be saved, Act. 15. 11. who believed by Grace, Act. 18. 27. called by his grace, Galath. 1. 15. by the tender mercies of our God, Luk. 1. 78.
Thirdly, to Bellarmine in this place denying the preposition per to be rightly applied to the efficient cause, I oppose Bellarmine in the twelfth chapter of the same book, affirming, that the particle per doth signify the cause efficient, as Pro. 8. per me Reges regnant, &c.
His third argument. The good will of God cannot be in vain, but always performeth and worketh that good, which he willeth to any. For whatsoever he willeth that he doth, Psal. 115. 3, &c. Answ. All this is true in respect of his will decreeing anything, which is absolute, and is called voluntas beneplaciti; but not in respect of his will prescribing or requiring anything, which is conditional, and is called voluntas signi: of which will the Apostle speaketh in the place cited by Bellarmine, 1 Th. 4. 3. This is the will of God even your sanctification. Otherwise, by Bellarmine's argument all men should be holy, because, as he saith, God would have them truly just and holy. Therefore, saith he, if justifying grace be the favor and goodwill of God, and God doth not favor nor wish well in vain, but maketh us holy, and blameless, such as he would have us to be, then it followeth, that to be justified by grace, is not only to be reputed just, and not to be so, but to be truly just, holy, and blameless. Answ. This argument doth not prove the particular point, for which it is brought, namely, that by grace is meant grace inherent, and not the gracious favor of God. But if it were ought worth, it would serve to prove the main question: that although grace did signify the favor of God, when it is said, that we are justified by his grace: yet this place would prove, that we are also made just by grace inherent. For whom the Lord favoreth and wisheth well unto, his benevolence is not in vain to him: but to whom he willeth good he worketh it, making them truly just and holy, whom by his grace he justifieth. For he hath elected us that we might be holy, Eph. 1. 4. and this is his will, our •… anctification. All this we freely confess, that whom God justifieth, he maketh just; first, by imputation, and truly and perfectly, as he justifieth: secondly, by infusion, as he sanctifieth. But the Papists must at length learn to distinguish betwixt justification and sanctification. For as we have said before, we are justified by grace, as it signifieth the gracious favor of God only: but we are sanctified not only by his gracious favor as the efficient, but also by his graces infused and inherent in us, as the matter.
§. V. His fourth argument consisteth of six slender proofs put together, which are scarce worth the answering. That justifying grace, •… aith he, is not only the favor of God, but a gift inherent in the soul, it may be understood by the divers attributes and names thereof. As first, that it is called a gift, a gift which we receive, a gift given by Christ, a gift given by measure. Secondly, that it is compared to essence. Thirdly, that it is compared to light.
To the first, I answer, that the gracious love and favor of God is said in the scriptures to be given, that is vouchsafed unto us, even the grace whereby we were elected and predestinated to the adoption of children, according to the good pleasure of his will, by which we are called, justified, and saved, 2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath saved and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which (grace) was given us in Christ Jesus before secular times, having thereby graciously accepted us in his beloved, Eph. 1. 6. Behold, saith Saint John, how great love the Father hath given us, that we should be called the children of God, 1 John. 3. 1. For to so many as received Christ, he gave power to be the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name, John. 1. 12.
§. VI. Yea, but it is such a gift as we do receive. Very like: for giving and receiving are relatives; and therefore what God giveth us we do receive, namely as he giveth it: but he doth not give all things by infusion, and therefore hereof it doth not follow, that what we receive in inherent, but that only, which he giveth by way of infusion. Now he hath vouchsafed us his grace, whereby he elected, redeemed, adopted, justified us, not by infusion, but by acceptation in Christ, which grace we receive by the hand of faith, and whom he hath graciously accepted in his beloved, they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made partakers of that grace, which notwithstanding is in God, and not in them. But let us consider his proof, Rom. 5. 11. receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift os righteousness. Answ. By grace here is meant gracious favor, neither doth the Apostle here say the gift of grace, but the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness. For where these two are joined together, grace and gift, grace signifieth gracious favor: the gift of grace the fruit and effect of that favor, being some benefit bestowed, whether real or relative. The former is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the grace of God, the latter is properly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And this is proved out of the 15. verse, where is mention both of the grace of God, and of the gift by grace: and that which is here called the abundance of grace, and verse. 15. the abounding grace, is elsewhere called the superabundant riches of his grace, Ephes. 2. 7. that is, of his gracious favor: which in the same Chapter to the Romans, verse. 20. is said to have superabounded, where sin did abound: which, without great absurdity, cannot be understood of grace inherent. Neither is the gift of grace, or of righteousness here mentioned, inherent: but this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which came upon us to justification, is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 guilt, which came upon all men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto condemnation; that is to say, the merit of Christ's obedience, opposed to the guilt of Adams fall▪ as the whole context doth prove. But as we were made sinners by Adams fall, the guilt thereof being imputed unto us: so we are made righteous by Christ's obedience, the merit thereof being imputed unto us.
§. VII. Yea, but it is a gift given by Christ. It is very true, for in and by Christ all grace and favor is vouchsafed unto us: for in him he hath graciously accepted us. And therefore, as it is called the grace of God, so in many places it is called the grace of Christ; not only because in and by him it is granted to us, but also, because he doth bestow it. But doth it hereof follow, that this grace is inherent? what spiritual favor or grace tending to salvation hath God vouchsafed unto us, otherwise than in and by Christ? In him he vouchsafed us grace in general, and in particular the grace of election: for in him we were chosen, Ephes. 1. 4. The grace of vocation, and salvation given us in Christ. 2 Tim. 1. 9. the grace of adoption, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by Jesus Christ, Ephes. 1. 5. The grace of reconciliation in and by Christ, Rom. 5. 1. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 19. Col. 1. 20. The grace of redemption by Christ, Rom. 3. 24. Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. The grace of justification by Christ, Rom. 5. 9. 17, 18, 19. And how is this proved, which no man doubteth of, that grace is given by Christ? because it is said, John. 1. 17. Gratia & veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, grace and verity was made by I •… sus Christ, where, leaving his hold, that it is given; he urgeth, as if he had forgot himself, the phrase, facta est, is made; for, saith he, it is not well said that the favor and benevolence of God is made.
§. VIII. Answ. The word in the Original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which doth not always signify was made, but many times is expressed by the Verbe substantive fuit, or extitit, as Mark. 1. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 11. 26. 26. 6. John 1. 6. sometimes by the Verbe became, as John. 1. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word became flesh, so Mark. 1. 17. 1 Cor. 9. 20. 13. 1. and sometimes by the Verbe came, and that in the sense either of happening, Rom. 11. 25. 2 Tim. 3. 11. or of growing, Matth. 21. 19. 1 Tim. 6. 4. or of being present, John. 6▪ 21. 25. Act. 21. 17. 35. 27. 7. Now the sense of the word varying, it is to be fitted to the place, wherein it is used, but the sense, that grace and truth was made by Christ, fitteth not. But either we are to say, extitit, it was by Christ, as Valla and sometimes Beza translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or that it came by him, as our translation readeth, or that it was exhibited or given by Christ, as the law both moral (showing sin and denouncing the curse) opposed to grace, and also ceremonial (consisting of shadows and types) opposed to truth, was given by Moses. And thus Bellarmine himself understood this place: for to prove, that grace was given by Christ, he alleged this text. But though grace and truth were given by Christ, doth it follow, that therefore grace doth signify grace inherent? or if it did, that, that inherent grace is justifying grace? Howbeit the true meaning of the word, is either according to the proper signification, which is most usual, especially when these two Chased and Emeth, grace and truth go together: or because grace and truth given by Christ are opposed to the Law given by Moses; by grace and truth we may understand the doctrine of grace and truth. For as the doctrine of grace, that is to say, the Gospel (which is the word of grace and the Gospel of God's grace) especially, when it is opposed to the Law, is termed grace, Rom. 6. 14, 15. Gal. 5. 4. Ephes. 3. 2. 1 Pet. 5. 12. so also the doctrine of salvation by Christ, which is the word of truth, Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Tim. 2. 15. I am. 1. 18. the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 5. 14. or the word of the truth of the Gospel, Col. 1. 5. is oftentimes called the truth, John 5. 33. and in many other places, as hereafter shall be shown.
§. IX. Fourthly, he allegeth that this grace is given by measure from Christ himself, Ephes. 4. 7. To everyone of us grace is given according to the measure of the donation of Christ. But the favor of God, saith he, is not given by measure, nor by Christ. Answ. This place is not understood of justifying grace, which is the gracious favor of God in Christ, which is out of us in him; but of the several gifts of grace in us, which by a Metonymy are called graces, but properly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (as Oecumenius upon that place hath well observed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to everyone is given grace, that is, a gift of grace) whether they be the graces of sanctification, which are the proper fruits of saving grace, or those which by the Schoolmen are called gratiae gratis datae, of which the Apostle seemeth to speak in that place; as he explaineth himself in the verses following, verse. 8. 11, 12. In which sense the Apostle Peter useth the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Pet. 4. 10. As everyone hath received 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a gift of grace, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Of these gifts of grace it is true, which Bellarmine saith, that they are given by Christ, and that they are given by measure. But will he from thence prove, that what grace is either given by Christ, or in measure, is not God's favor? I had thought, that the saving grace of God, according to his last allegation out of John. 1. 17. had been given by Christ, and that it is from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Ghost. And therefore as it is called the grace of God, who is the God of all grace, 1 Pet. 5. 10. so also the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ , and the grace of the holy Spirit who is the Spirit of grace. Heb. 10. 29. And I had also thought, that the favor of God (though not that which justifieth) is in divers degrees vouchsafed unto his creatures. God loveth and favoreth all his creatures, he is good to all, and his mercies a •… over all his works, Psal. 145. 9. giving all things to all, Act. 17. 25. yet among the bodily creatures he respecteth and favoreth men chiefly, 1 Cor. 9. 9. Psal. 8. 4. Mat. 6. 26. 30. Prov. 8. 31. for which cause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (love of mankind) is attributed to him. Among men he favoreth the faithful more than the rest, 1 Tim. 4. 10. who are therefore called the favorites of God, as I have shown before. Among them the Lord especially favoreth Ministers and Magistrates, Psal. 105. 15. who are also called the favorites of God, not only in respect of justifying grace (which is •… quall in all to whom it is vouchsafed) but also in respect of their functions, and the gifts of grace bestowed on them for the good of others, De •… t. 33. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 41. Psal. 4 4. 132. 6. 16. To which purpose 〈◊〉 saith well, God loveth all things which he hath made; and among them he loveth more the reasonable creatures; and among them he loveth more amply those, who are the members of his only begotten Son; and much more his only begotten himself, the son of his love. And generally, by how much the better any man is than others, it is an evidence, that he is so much graced and favored of God: the grace and favor of God being the cause of their goodness, and consequently the greater favor of greater goodness.
§. X. Fifthly, it is, saith he, compared to essence, which is given by creation, hence it is, that we are said to be created in Christ, Eph. 2. 10. and to be a new creature, Gal. 6. 15. But that, by which we are called creatures, is inward and inherent in us. Answ. That, whereby we are created anew according to the image of God in true holiness and righteousness, is the grace, not of justification (for we are created to good works, which in the same place are opposed to grace and are excluded from justification) but of regeneration and sanctification, which we acknowledge to be inwardly wrought by the holy Spirit in those that are justified by the gracious favor of God through faith. But who would think, that the Papists were so blinded with malice, as either to persuade themselves, or to go about to persuade others, that we deny the graces of sanctification to be inherent, and affirm, that we are sanctified by such a righteousness or holiness, as is without us.
§. XI. Finally, saith he, it is compared to light, 2 Cor. 6. 14. What followship hath light with darkness? Eph. 5. 8. Ye were sometimes darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. 1 John. 2. 9. He that saith, that he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness. But light doth not make a body lucidum, unless it be inherent: neither doth it suffer darkness with it. How then 〈◊〉 , a justified man be said not only to be •… ucidus lightsome, but also light in the Lord, whereas before he was dark, if still the darkness of sin be inherent i •… him, and the light of grace abide without. Answ. We are called light in the abstract by a metonymy; either because we are in the light (which is not inherent in us, being either God, or the favor of God, which is the state of grace) or because of that light which is in us: which is the grace not of justification, but of regeneration; and is compared to light, both in respect of the inward illumination of the soul, and also of the external sanctification of the life shining forth to others, of which our Savior speaketh, Mat. 5. 16. Let your light, viz. of your godly conversation, so shine before men, that they seeing your good works may glorify your Father that is in heaven. But where he saith, there can be no darkness in him that is light, it is as much as if he should say, that there can be no sin in him that is sanctified. But he should remember, that God alone is light in whom there is no darkness, 1 John. 1. 5. and that in the best of us there is darkness, that is, the flesh, even a body of sin and of death, as well as light, that is, the Spirit, Gal. 5. 17. Rom. 7. 14, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25. and that he who saith, he hath no sin (which is the case of all justified, yea of all baptized, and of all absolved and absolute Papists) he is a Iyar, and there is no truth in him. 1 John. 1. 8. And this was his fourth argument containing six petite proofs.
CHAP. V. His fifth argument from Rom. 5. 5. answered.
§. I.
F Or having no more places where grace is named to prove justifying grace to be inherent, he flieth to Rom. 5. 5. where not grace but the love of God is mentioned. That grace, saith he, whereby the Apostle saith we are justified, is said also to be charity diffused in our hearts by the holy Ghost, which is given unto us. The words are, because the love of God, or God's love, is effused or poured forth, &c. But here now the question is, first, whether by the love of God in this place is meant the love, whereby God loveth us: or that love whereby we love God. And secondly, if that love of God whereby we love him should be meant, how is it proved, that that love of ours is God's justifying grace? For this latter, though we constantly deny it, Bellarmine goeth not about to prove, but taketh for granted, it being the main point in question, which cannot be proved out of this, or any other place. As touching the former, our Divines do hold, that by God's love in this place is meant that love, whereby God loveth us, and not that whereby we love God: The Papists hold the contrary, which Bellarmine endeavoreth to prove by the testimony of Augustine and two weak proofs out of Rom. 8.
§. II. The testimony of Augustine he urgeth very sophistically, as if we had no better proof to oppose to the testimony of Saint Augustine, than the authority of our own writers: or as if we might not differ from Augustine in expounding some place of Scriptures, unless we will prefer ourselves before him, when notwithstanding the Popish writers in expounding the Scriptures differ from Augustine, as oft as we. But to the Testimony of Augustine, who saith, that the love, which is said to be shed in our hearts, is not that love whereby God loveth us, but that whereby we love God; we oppose first, the authority of those Writers, who understand this place of the love of God, both actively wherewith he loveth us (which is the same with his saving grace) and also passively, whereby he is loved of us, (which is a notable fruit of his saving grace) or of either of them both indifferently: as Orig •… n, Sedulius, Haymo, Anselmus, Remigius, Bruno, Thomas Aquinas, Dominicus à Soto, Pererius Dispute. 2. in Rom. 5. Cornelius à Lapide: Secondly, the authority of those, who understand this love to be that, wherewith God loveth us. As of Ambrose, who saith, we have the pledge of God's love in us by the holy Ghost given unto us—for that the promise is faithful, the holy Ghost given to the Apostles, and to us, doth prove, and doth confirm our hope, and that he might commend the love of God in us, that because it is impossible that those who are beloved should be deceived, he might make us secure concerning the promise, because both it is God who hath promised, and they are dear to him to whom he hath promised. Of Chrysostom, who saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whom Theophylact followeth, from that love which God sherved towards us. Of Oecumenius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of the love of God alone wherewith he loved us: of Jerome •… and likewise of Primatius, Quomodo nos Deus diligat ex hoc cognoscinous, how God doth love us hereby we know. To these, from among the Popish Writers we may add Cardinal Cajetan, who saith, the Apostle manifesteth the solid foundation of hope from the love of God towards us: and again, whereby it appeareth that he setteth forth the love of God towards us, as the chief foundation of hope. Cardinal Tolet, charitatem Dei appellate qua diligit nos Deus, he calleth it the love of God wherewith he loveth us. Arias Montanus, that our hope is rooted in that love wherewith God hath loved us. B. Iustitian, who expoundeth the words thus, because that divine charity wherewith God embraced us is shed into our hearts.
§. III. Thirdly, we oppose evident reasons from the whole context, that is, not only from the words of the text it self, but also from those, which either go before, or follow after. For, first touching the words of the Text: By the holy Spirit is meant the Spirit of Adoption, as Bellarmine confesseth in his next proof, viz. that the Apostle speaking, Rom. 8. 15. de hoc ipso Spiritu, of this self same Spirit, saith, you have received the Spirit of Adoption; who is then said to shed abroad God's love in our hearts, when he doth persuade our souls of God's love towards us in Christ, testifying with our Spirits that we are the sons of God, and making us to cry in our hearts Abba Father, with whom being the Spirit of promise, and the earnest of our inheritance, so many as believe are sealed unto the day of our •… ull redemption. Thus by sealing unto our souls the assurance of God's love, he is said to shed abroad the love of God in our hearts: Secondly, that love of God which he sheddeth abroad in our hearts and sealeth unto us, as the ground whereupon our sound hope, which never maketh ashamed, is founded, is God's eternal and immutable love; from the assurance whereof sealed unto us by the Holy Ghost our assured hope doth flow. And therefore if we speak, as the Apostle here doth, of such a love of God, as is both the Object of our faith, and the ground of our hope: we must say with Saint John, herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. For that is it, whereby especially God hath commended this his love towards us, as it is here said, verse. 8. and as Saint John also saith in the same place, 1 John. 4. 9. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. As for us, we love God, because he loved us first, 1 John. 4. 19. For when we are by the holy Ghost shedding abroad the love of God in our hearts persuaded of God's love towards us in Christ; then, and never till then our hearts are inflamed to love God again, and our neighbor for God's sake. But why is this love of God said to be shed forth in our hearts? (for this some do urge.) I answer, either in respect of the knowledge and assurance thereof wrought in us by the holy Ghost, as I have said (for therefore the holy Ghost is given unto us, that we might know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the things freely given or vouchsafed unto us of God, among which the principal is his love:) or as those of the Church of Rome, who consent with us in this point, do speak; it is said to be effused, either as the cause is said to be effused by the effects, which are the gifts proceeding from God's love, the chief whereof is the Spirit, which is given unto us, even the Spirit of adoption, which as Chrysostom saith upon this place, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the greatest gift: or as the bounty of a Prince is shed abroad by his Almoner distributing the princes goods: for even so the love and gracious bounty of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit of grace the dispenser of God's gifts unto us, 1 Cor. 12. 11.
§. IV. In the words going before the Apostle setteth down the fruits of justification by faith; first, that being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; secondly, by him we have through faith access into this grace wherein we stand, or as the Apostle speaketh, Ephes. 3. 12. by him we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in him; thirdly, joy in the holy Ghost, rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. And in these three the kingdom of grace consisteth, viz. in righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. And this joy the Apostle amplifieth, because we glory and rejoice in hope of glory, not only when all things go with us according to our minds, but also in affliction and tribulation. Knowing that affliction being sanctified to them who have peace with God, worketh patience, and patience worketh probation ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) that is, as Chrysostom very well expoundeth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it maketh him approved who is tried: for by patient bearing of afflictions, which are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , trials, a man is by experience found to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, a sound and upright Christian, as Saint James saith, and when he is so found, he shall receive the Crown of life. And therefore hath cause to hope, as Saint Paul here saith, that probation worketh hope, and the hope of him that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 maketh not ashamed: whereas contrariwise the hope of the hypocrite maketh him ashamed, but what is the ground of all this? how come we to have this peace, this confidence, this joy, this undaunted hope? Can we have it by the bare assent of faith without application or desire thereof, which is the only faith which the Papists acknowledge? Can we have it by our own charity, when we cannot know, as the Papists teach, that we have charity? Nothing less, but the ground and foundation of all our peace and comfort is this, because the spirit of God, teaching those that believe to apply the promises of the Gospel to themselves (which cannot be done without special faith) the love of God is shed forth into their hearts that is, by the Spirit of adoption sealing those that do believe, they are persuaded, & in some measure assured of the eternal love of God towards them in Christ, upon which do follow peace of conscience, access with confidence and joy in the holy Ghost. I conclude with Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith he, the Apostle having said, that hope maketh not ashamed, he ascribeth all this not to our good works, but to the love of God; not that whereby we love him, for that is our chief 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (good works) but that whereby he loveth us.
§. V. Now let us come to the words which follow, which as Cornelius à Lapide confesseth, Valde favent, do very much favor our exposition: wherein the Apostle showeth, how this love of God, whereon our hope, &c. is grounded, is both manifested and assured unto us. It is manifested by this, verse 6. that when we were of no strength, yea dead in our sins, the Son of God died for us: for so saith the Apostle, Eph. 2. 4, 5. God who is rich in mercy, for his great love, wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in our sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by whose grace we are saved: which wonderfully setteth forth the love of God towards us: for scarcely as it is verse. 7. for a righteous man will one die. And greater love no man hath than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend, John. 15. 13. But God (saith the Apostle verse. 8.) commendeth his love towards us (even that love mentioned verse 5.) in that, whiles we were yet sinners, and by our sins his enemies, Christ died for us. It is assured, by an argument from the less to the greater. For if when we were sinners we were redeemed and justified by the blood of Christ, much more being justified, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life. I conclude therefore, that notwithstanding the testimony of Augustine, (which as himself confesseth deserveth no credit further than it is warranted by the authority of God's word, or sound reason) by the love of God in this place is meant God's love towards us. I come to his two other arguments.
§. VI. The former, (which is a very weak one) is by paralleling that place with Rom. 8. 15. For, saith he, the same Apostle speaking of the same spirit given unto us, saith, You have received the Spirit of adoption of sons, by which we cry Abba Father. Now, saith he, we cry Abba Father by that charity, whereby we love God, not by that whereby he loveth us. Which reason, if it be reduced into a syllogism, will not conclude his assertion, but the erroneous opinion of Lombard the master of sentences, which Bellarmine himself elsewhere confuteth, namely, that the charity whereby we love God, is the holy Ghost.
That whereby we cry in our hearts Abba Father is the holy Ghost.
By that charity wherewith we love God we cry in our hearts Abba Father:
Therefore that Charity wherewith we love God is the holy Ghost.
This conclusion Bellarmine knoweth to be false. Therefore either the proposition is false, or the assumption: for it is impossible, that a false conclusion should be inferred from true premisses in a formal syllogism, as this is. But the proposition is the Apostles, both Rom. 8. 15. and Gal. 4. 6. therefore the assumption is false. Neither is charity that fruit of the holy Ghost, whereby the Spirit of adoption causeth us to cry Abba Father, but faith. For although by charity we may be declared or known to be the sons of God: yet we become the sons of God, not by charity, but by faith, John. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. And consequently not by charity, but by faith wrought in us by the Spirit of adoption, testifying with our Spirits that we are the sons of God, the said spirit maketh us to cry in our hearts, Abba Father.
§. VII. His second proof is out of Rom. 8. 10. where it is said, that by justifying grace we do live. The body indeed is dead by reason of sin, Spiritus autem vivit propter justificationem, as the vulgar Latin readeth: but the Spirit liveth because of justification. But we cannot well be said to live by the external favor of God, seeing nothing is more inward than life. Answ. In this argument nothing is sound, for first it proveth not the point for which it is brought, viz. that by the love of God, Rom. 5. 5. is meant our love of God. Neither is it said, Rom. 8. 10. that we live by justifying grace, for neither is justifying grace mentioned, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , justice; neither is it said, that we live by it, (though it be true that by justifying faith we live) but that the Spirit is life propter justificationem, for or by reason of righteousness. And further it is well said, that our Spirit liveth the spiritual and eternal life by the gracious favor of God, which is out of us in him, by which we are saved: as also for and by reason of the righteousness and merits of Christ, which also are out of us in him. Neither doth it follow, that because life is inward, that therefore it propter quod for which or by reason whereof we do live, should also be inward.
§. VIII. But to let pass his impertinent allegation of this place, and to explain the true meaning thereof: which is to set down in this verse and that which followeth two privileges of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit, the one in respect of the soul, verse. 10. that howsoever by reason of sin the body is dead, that is, mortal or subject to death: yet the soul is life, that is, designed unto life, by reason of righteousness. The other, in respect of the body, verse. 11. that if Christ dwell in us by his Spirit; then he which raised up Christ from the dead, shall also by the same Spirit quicken, that is, raise up unto life eternal our mortal bodies. Now, as our body is dead, that is, subject to death by reason of Adams sin, in whom, as the root, all sinned: so our soul is life, or entitled to life, by reason of Christ's righteousness; in whom, as our head, we satisfied the justice of God: The sin of the first Adam, and the righteousness of the second, being both communicated unto us by imputation. And this is all that Bellarmine hath alleged to prove that justifying grace is inherent: all which is as good as nothing.
CAP. VI. The use of the word Grace in the writings of the Fathers.
§. I. H Aving shown how the word grace is used in the Scriptures, something is to be added concerning the use thereof in the writings of the Fathers, whose authority the Papists are wont to object against us. Howbeit as in the Scriptures, so also in the Fathers, there are two principal significations of the word Grace: the one, proper, signifying the gracious favor of God in Christ, by which they acknowledge us to be elected, called, justified and saved. The other, metonymicall, signifying the gift of grace, and namely the grace of regeneration or sanctification, which in the Scriptures is called the Spirit, opposed to the flesh, and the new Man, or new creature, which is renewed, and as it were recreated according to the Image of God in true holiness and righteousness.
Of this grace of sanctification there is more frequent mention in the Fathers, who wrote against the Pelagians than of the other. Because the Pelagians acknowledging the grace of God in forgiving sins, which is indeed the justifying and saving grace: they had not the like occasion to insist upon the declaration and proof thereof, as they had of the other, which the Pelagians denied.
§. II. Of whose errors in this point there were four degrees. For first, they acknowledge no other inward grace of God but bonum naturae, the possibility of nature and the power of free-will: which because it is freely given of God without any precedent merits of ours, they acknowledged to be God's grace. In the second place they acknowledged the grace, that is, the gracious favor of God in forgiving sins: but the inward virtue, avoid sins and to walk in obedience, they ascribed to the power of nature. Thirdly, for our direction and instruction, how and what sins to avoid, and how and what duties to perform; they acknowledged God's grace in teaching and instructing us by his word and by his law. Fourthly, they acknowledged, after a sort, the help of grace for the more easy performance of their duties; but they denied the necessity thereof, because without grace they being directed by the word, were able of themselves, though not so easily, to fulfill the Law.
§. III. These three latter degrees are condemned by so many decrees of the Council of Milevis, among which this is one, denouncing Anathema against such, as shall say, that the grace of God, whereby we are justified through our Lord Jesus Christ, doth avail only to remission of sins, which are already committed, and not for a help that we may not commit them: unto which rightly understood we do subscribe, acknowledging, that by the same grace of God, by which we were elected, redeemed, called, reconciled, adopted, justified, we are also sanctified: For we profess that our blessed Savior was given unto us of God, not only to be our justification and redemption, but also to be our Sanctification. And we do acknowledge, that in the Covenant of grace the Lord hath not only promised remission of sins to those that believe in Christ; but he hath also sworn, that he will give us, being redeemed and having remission of sin, to worship him in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life. And therefore we do also willingly subscribe to those sentences of Augustine which Gratian hath transcribed into the third part of his decree. No man taketh away sins but Christ alone, who is the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world—Now he taketh them away both by forgiving those that are already committed (among which original sin is contained) and also by helping that they be not committed, and by bringing us unto life where they cannot be committed at all. And again, the grace which by our Lord Jesus Christ is given, is neither the knowledge of the divine Law, neither nature, nor remission of sins alone: but itself also causeth, that the Law be fulfilled, that nature be freed, that sin reign not. And this, I presume, is as much as can truly be alleged out of the Fathers: For seeing they do hold, as we shall hereafter show, justification by faith only; it cannot be imagined, that they held justification, properly understood, by inherent graces, unless we can imagine, that they thought there is no inherent grace but faith only.
§. IV. But howsoever the Fathers may be excused, who opposing the errors of the Pelagians, which oppugned the sanctifying grace, did much insist upon the declaration, the proof, and the amplification thereof, oftener speaking of this gift of grace, which was oppugned, than of the gracious favor of God in forgiving of sins, which the Pelagians did confess: yet the backsliding posterity cannot be excused, and that in three respects. For first, they leave out altogether the proper signification of grace, which is most frequent in the holy Scriptures, as if there were no other grace to be acknowledged, but that which is inherent. Secondly, they take away that grace of remission, which the Pelagians did confess, and in the room thereof they have brought in an utter deletion or abolition of sin, caused by the infusion of grace. Thirdly, that grace which they would seem so much to magnify, is not much better acknowledged by them, than it was by the Pelagians. For first they do not acknowledge it to be a quickening and reviving grace to them that are dead: but an healing grace to the sick, and a helping grace to the weak. And by how much they extol the power of nature, and lessen the foulness of original sin: so much they extenuat the benefit of grace, and are as well as the Pelagians, worthily termed the enemies of God's grace: Secondly, there seemeth to be little or no difference between the Pelagians bonum Naturae, which they acknowledged to be God's grace, and that sufficient grace, which the Papists hold to be common to all. Thirdly, neither is there any great difference between them in respect of that grace whereby men are called. For the Pelagians acknowledged the great grace of God in revealing his will unto us, and in directing us what to do and what to believe; and withal confessed, that God doth work in us to will by revealing his will to us. And what do the Papists acknowldge more? but that God having called us by his word, and moved us to turn unto him, it is in the power of our free-will either to accept God's effectual grace, or to refuse it. But this belongeth to another controversy.
A TREATISE OF IV STIFICATION.
THE FOURTH BOOKE: Of the Matter of Justification.
CAP. I. The state of the question concerning the matter of justification, it being the principal point in controversy.
§. I. T HE third Capitall error of the Papists in the question of justification, is concerning that righteousness whereby we are justified: where, for prevention of Popish calumniations, I must desire the Reader to remember three things: First, that the controversy is not concerning our Sanctification, but concerning our Justification: For we confess, that our habitual sanctification consisteth in our righteousness inherent; and actual, in our new obedience. Secondly, that the question is not of our justification before men, but before God. For we acknowledge, that we are justified, that is, declared and known to be just, not only by profession of the faith, but also by good works, as Saint James teacheth. Thirdly, that we do not deny, that there is a righteousness in the faithful, as Bellarmine falsely chargeth us. For we profess, that there is no faithful or justified man, in whom there is not inherent righteousness, more or less, according to the measure of grace received. And further we profess, that this righteousness which we have from God, and is inherent in us, is graciously both accepted of him, and rewarded by him; but we deny, that any man is justified by it. This question therefore is concerning the matter of justification. For whereas justification, considered as an action of God is his making or constituting a man righteous, either by Christ's righteousness imputed (as we teach according to the Scriptures) or by righteousness infused as the Papists hold: It is therefore apparent, that as according to our Doctrine, the righteousness of Christ is the matter, and the imputation thereof the form of justification: so according to their doctrine, inherent righteousness should be the matter of justification, and the infusion of it, the form. But howsoever we differ in respect of logical terms in setting down the state of this controversy, because they against reason make inherent righteousness the form of justification: yet the true state of the controversy between them and us is this, whether we be justified before God by Christ's righteousness, which is out of us in him, imputed to us: or by that righteousness, which being infused of God is inherent in us: whether it be the righteousness of God, as the Apostle calleth it, that is, of Christ who is God, inherent in him; or a righteousness from God inherent in us: we hold the former; the Papists the latter.
§. II. Now this is the principal point of difference between them and us in this whole controversy, and that in two respects: First, because the righteousness of God whereby we are justified, is the principal matter contained or revealed in the Gospel, Rom. 1. 16, 17. For which cause we, who maintain justification by that righteousness of God which is taught in the Gospel, which the Pápists oppugn, are worthily called the professors of the Gospel, whereof the Papists are professed enemies. Secondly, because upon this all the other points of difference do depend. For if we were justified by righteousness inherent, then it would follow. First, that to justify were to make just by infusion of righteousness inherent. Secondly, that we are justified by the grace of God, or rather graces inherent in us. Thirdly, that the form of justification were infusion of righteousness. Fourthly, that faith doth justify as a part of inherent and habitual righteousness; and therefore also that it doth not justify alone. Fifthly, that works justify as our actual righteousness. But on the contrary, if we be justified by that righteousness, which is not inherent in us, but out of us in Christ: then it followeth, first, that to justify doth not signify making righteous by justice inherent. Secondly, that we are not justified by inherent grace, but by the gracious favor of God accepting us in Christ. Thirdly, that we are not justified by infusion, but by imputation of righteousness. Fourthly, that faith doth not justify as a part of inherent righteousness, but as the hand to receive Christ, who is our righteousness. Fifthly, that works do not justify as causes to work, but as fruits and signs to declare and manifest our justification.
§. III. And as the proof of this inferreth the rest: so the rest being proved, are so many proofs of this. For first, if to justify do never in the Scriptures signify to make righteous by infusion of righteousness, then we are not justified by inherent righteousness; neither is justification by inherent righteousness, that justification which the Scriptures teach. Secondly, if we be not justified by grace inherent then not by habitual or inherent righteousness, if by the gracious favor of God freely without respect of any cause of justification in us, then not by works or inherent righteousness. Thirdly, if by imputàtion of Christ's righteousness, then not by infusion of inherent justice. Fourthly, if by faith as it is the hand to receive Christ's righteousness, then not by righteousness inherent. Fifthly, if not by works as any cause, then not by inherent righteousness. But the two first I have fully and clearly proved already; the first in the second book; and the second, in the third. And the rest I shall by the grace of God demonstrate in their due place.
§. IV. That, which hath already been said, both here, and heretofore, together with that which shall hereafter be produced to prove the other three points remaining to be proved, might be a sufficient demonstration of this point. But because the proof of this point, being the principal, doth prove all the rest, as I have shown; therefore I will not only bring a supply of divers arguments, by disproving the popish assertion, and proving our own, but also answer the cavils and objections of the Papists. And first, I will prove our assertion and disprove theirs jointly and together: and then severally I will disprove their assertion, viz. that we are justified by righteousness inherent in ourselves; and prove ours, to wit, that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him.
CHAP. II. That we are justified by Christ's righteousness, and not by that which is inherent in us, proved jointly by three arguments.
§. I. F Irst therefore; That righteousness whereby we are justied is God's righteousness, and not ours; The righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, is God's righteousness, that which is inherent in us, is ours:
Therefore we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, and not by that which is inherent in ourselves.
The former part of the proposition is proved out of Rom. 1. 17. and 3. 21. Thus:
The righteousness, which there is said to be revealed in the Gospel, is that righteousness, by which we are justified. This proposition is confessed of all.
The righteousness of God is that righteousness, which is revealed in the Gospel. Rom. 1. 17. In the Gospel is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, as it is written, the just by faith shall live, Rom. 3. 21. The righteousness of God is without the Law manifested ( viz. in the Gospel) even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all that believe:
Therefore the righteousness of God is that righteousness by which we are justified.
The whole proposition in both the parts is proved out of Rom. 10. 3. where it is not only signified, that we are justified by God's righteousness and not by our own; but there is also such an opposition made betwixt God's righteousness and ours in the point of justification; that whosoever seek to be justified by their own rig •… teousnesse, cannot be justified by the righteousness of God. Wherefore Paul, in the question of his own justification, renounceth his own righteousness, desiring to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, which is of the Law (as all inherent righteousness is) but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, Phil. 3. 9.
§. 2. The assumption in respect of the former part, viz. that the righteousness of Christ is God's righteousness, is easily proved: first, because Christ is God, who as •… eremy prophesied, should be called •… ebovah our righteousness, •… er. 23. 6. Now his righteousness is called God's righteousness, as hath been said▪ not because it is the righteousness of the Godhead; but because it is the righteousness of him that is God. For as the blood of Christ, by which we are redeemed, is God's blood, Act. 20 28. so the righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified, is the righteousness of God, and is so called, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Rom. 1. 17. 3. 21. 10. 3. and most plainly, 2 Pet. 1. 1. where it is called the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ; which is an excellent testimony to prove the Deity of our Savior, like to that, Ti •… . 2. •… 3. for it is not said of God, & of our Savior, as noting two persons , but of God and our Savior, as betokening one. Secondly, because it is that very righteousness of God whereof the Apostle speaketh in the places even now mentioned, where it is so called, neither because it is the essential righteousness of God, as I have shown before against Osiander; nor because it is a righteousness in us from God, for that is perfectly described in the Law, as this is not, Rom. 3. 21. and because that (as I shall show in the proof of the second part of the assumption) is not called God's, but ours: but because it is the righteousness of that person who is God: which, that we should not think to be anything in us, is called sometimes his blood, Rom. 5. 9. sometimes his obedien •… e , that is, both his passive and active righteousness, by imputation whereof those that truly believe are made the righteousness of God, not in themselves, but in Christ: even as he by imputation of our sins, was made sin for us.
§. III. 3. Because divers of the Fathers, to whose judgment some of the popish Doctors subscribe, by the righteousness of God mentioned in the first, third, and tenth chapters to the Romans, understand Christ and his righteousness. Origen in Rom. 3. therefore this righteousness of God, quae est Christus, which is Christ, is manifested without the Law, and so in Rom. 10. 3. Ambrose in Rom. 10. 3. Not knowing the justice of God, that is (as he expoundeth) ignorantes •… uncesse Christum; the Jews being ignorant that this is the Christ, whom God had promised, said, another was to be expected, preferring their own righteousness, which they had by the Law, before him who is the righteousness of God by faith; justitia n. ipse est, for he himself is the righteousness: which words we find also in Sedulius in Rom. 10. 3. Anselmus in R •… . 10. 3. they are not subject Justiciae Dei, id est, Christo, to the righteousness of God, that is, to Christ. Remigius in Ro. 10. 3. Ignorantes Dei justitiam, non quo ipse justus est essentialiter, sed Christm, &c. They being ignoran •… of the justice of God, not that whereby he is just essentially, but Christ—they would not submit their necks justitiae Dei, id est, Christ •… , to the justice of God, that is, to Christ, and in Rom. 3. 21. possumus ipsam justitiam Dei Patris, id est, Filium intelligere, we may understand the very righteousness of God the Father, that is to say, the Son from whom and by whom we are justified— ipse Christus justitia nostra, Christ himself our righteousness hath testimony from the Law and the Prophets Some to the same purpose understand the righteousness of faith. Theophilact in Ro. •… 10. 3. and Oecumenius likewise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the faith in Christ he calleth the righteousness of God. Anselmus in Roman. 1. 17. the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, that is, the righteousness of faith, which was covered in the Law, for the righteousness of God is that, by which he freely justifieth a sinner (through faith without the works of the Law, Sedulius in Rom. 1. 17. the righteousness of God) because it was just, that as Abraham believing was justified by faith only, so all others imitating his faith should be saved. Augustine speaking of those words, Rom. 3. 21. (the righteousness of God is manifested) he did not say (saith he) the righteousness of man, or the righteousness of our own will, but the righteousness of God; not whereby God himself is just, sed q •… induit hominem, but wherewith he endueth a man (which is a metaphor taken from garments) when he justifieth a sinner: where, if Augustine had by righteousness understood inherent, he should have been confuted out of the very place, which saith this righteousness is revealed without the Law which cannot be verified of inherent righteousness. And again, this is the righteousness of God, quae testamento veteri velata, in 〈◊〉 revelata, which having been covered in the Old Testament (which cannot be said of righteousness inherent, for all that righteousness which is from God in us, whether it be habitual consisting in the habit of charity, or actual which is obedience, is exactly, prescribed in the Law, which is the perfect rule of all inherent righteousness) is discovered in the New: which is therefore called the righteousness of God, because by imparting it he maketh men righteous.
§. IV. But most agreeable to the words and meaning of the Apostle is the exposition of Theodore •… , as it is related by Cardinal Tolet, and Pererius the Jesuit. That by the righteousness of God is meant the righteousness of Christ, who is both God and man, which he performed for the redemption of Mankind▪ thereby fully satisfying the justice of God for us. I conclude with Pererius, and Cardinal Cajetan. The justice of God is a justice satisfactory to God for the sins of Mankind by the death (I add, and obedience) of Christ. And this is called the justice of God, the justice of faith, or the justice which is by fa •… th, Rom. 10. 6. Cajetan in Rom. 10. 3. The justice of God is a justice of satisfaction to God for mankind by the death of Christ: and in 2 Cor. 5. 21. the righteousness of God in Christ is the merit of Christ sufficient even to satisfy for us, and to justify us—which is called God's both because it is the righteousness of God personally, and also because before the tribunal of God it is true righteousness, differing from our righteousness, which before the judgment seat of God are as the cloth of a menstruous woman: when therefore the merit of Christ is communicated unto us, then are we made the righteousness of God in Christ, because we are made just not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of God communicated unto us in Christ: for we are made just before God, by the merit, by the satisfaction, by the reconciliation made by Christ: and again in Rom. 3. 24. The redemption wrought by Christ, is God's righteousness, not ours, because Jesus Christ himself is true God.
This righteousness of Christ, which is called the righteousness of God, by which we are justified; the Papists (even Bellarmine himself) sometimes confess to be a plenary satisfaction to God, and by him imputed to them that believe: and that this righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification, and that by the merit of Christ's righteousness we are justified: and yet they cannot abide to hear, that it is the matter of justification: when as we by the matter of justification understand nothing, but that righteousness, which is imputed to justification. Now it is certain, that the righteousness of Christ, neither active nor passive, which were transient, nor the merit thereof, can otherwise be communicated to us, but by imputation. Even as the actual transgression of Adam, and the guilt thereof, were by imputation communicated to us. Neither could inherent righteousness be merited for us unto our sanctification, unless his righteousness it self and the merit thereof were first imputed to us unto justification: no more than the actual sin of Adam could have infected us with original corruption, if his sin and the guilt thereof had not first been imputed to us.
§. V. The fecond part of the assumption was, that the righteousness inherent in us, is our righteousness: which, one would think should need no proof. For though we receive it from God, as we do all other good things which we have, yet it, as well as all other good things, even our daily bread, which we have received from God, is to be called ours. All good things which we have, are God's gifts, and yet they are not called his, but ours. As our bodies, our souls, our life, our liberty, our learning, our wisdom, our charity, our temperance, our piety, &c. and so our righteousness. The Papists, and some others do teach, that, that righteousness is called God's righteousness, which we shall have from God▪ and that ours, which we have from ourselves, and by the strength of nature: whereto I answer, first, there can be no righteousness, which is not the gift of God, from whom all gifts do come. Neither is it credible, that the Jews, who were instructed in God's word, should ever look to be justified by a righteousness not received from God. The Pharisee himself, who trusted unto his own righteousness, and thought, as the Apostle speaketh of the Jews, to be justified by his own righteousness, acknowledged it to be the gift of God, and therefore thanked him for it. And hereunto Bellarmine elsewhere accordeth, endeavoring by the example of the Pharisee (who trusted in himself, as being righteous) to prove that men are not justified by special faith, or by affiance in God's special mercy. And lest any should object, that he trusted to a righteousness which he had of himself, he addeth: Neither can it be said, that the Pharisee had faith or affiance of God's benevolence by reason of his own merits, as though he •… eleeved that he had his righteousness from himself. Nam agebat gratias Deo de sua justitia, proinde à Deo eam se habere credebat: for he gave God thanks for his righteousness, and therefore believed that he had it from God. Secondly, the righteousness of God, by which we are justified, is without the Law revealed in the Gospel: but all that righteousness which is from God within us, is fully and perfectly described in the Law.
§. VI. Thirdly, as the several parts of inherent righteousness, though received from God, as being his gifts of grace, are notwithstanding called ours, as our faith, Matth. 9. 2, 22. Rom. 1. 8. Hab. 2. 4. •… am. 1. 3. Our charity, 2 Cor. 8. 8, 24. 1 Cor. 16. 24. Philem. 1. and 7. Our hope, Phil. 1. 20. 1 Thess. 2. 19. Our good works, Mat. 5. 16. Apoc. 2. 2. Our patience, Luk. 21. 19. 2 Thess. 1. 4. Apoc. 2. 2. 3. 10. 13. 10. So righteousness inherent is in very many places of Scripture called ours, whereof I will quote some, Gen. 30. 33. 1 Sam. 26. 23. 2 Sam. 22. 21, 25. 1 King. 8. 32. Job 33. 26. Psalm. 7. 8. 18. 20, 24. 35. 27. 112. 3, 9. Prov. 11. 5, 6. Eccl. 7. 16. Esa. 5. 23. 64. 6. Ezech. in his 3. 4. 18. and 33. chapters, fourteen times. Matth. 5. 20. and 6. 1. according to the Latin, 2 Cor. 9. 9, 10. but there are two which are most remarkable, Psalm. 4. 1. where David thus calleth upon the Lord, O God of my righteousness, that is, saith Bellarmine, à quo est omnis me •… justitia, acknowledging all his righteousness to be from God, and yet calleth it his own righteousness. Esa. 54. 17. their righteousness is from me, saith the Lord, from God, but yet theirs. If it be objected out of Augustine, that it is called the righteousness of God, non qua justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, not whereby he is just, but whereby he maketh us just. I answer, that Christ's righteousness both habitual and actual, both active and passive is such, for it is not that whereby God, that is the Godhead is just, but that whereby he maketh us just.
Fourthly, whereas the Papists will needs have the righteousness of God, by which we are justified, and which is the principal matter taught in the Gospel to be inherent in us, though from God: they confound God's righ teousnes and ours, and thereby confound the Law and the Gospel, and by confounding them abolish the righteousness of God: as before, by confounding justification with sanctification they abolished the benefit of justification, and evacuate the Gospel, or at least with the false Apostles, Gal. 1. teach another Gospel whiles they teach another righteousness whereby to be justified, than the righteousness of God: which whosoever doth, though he were an Apostle, though an Angel from heaven, he ought to be held accursed.
§. VII. Our second argument: That is the matter of our justification before God, by which we being sinners in ourselves (for that justification, which the Scriptures teach, is the justification of a sinner) do stand righteous before God; which we being sinners may oppose to the judgment of God, why he should not condemn us; which we being sinners may interpose betwixt God's justice and us; and which we may plead as a full satisfaction to God for us. Such is the righteousness of Christ: for being sinners in ourselves, yet believing in Christ, we are in him accepted and constituted righteous. The righteousness of Christ is that, which we being sinners in ourselves may oppose to God's judgment, or interpose betwixt God's justice and us, which we may plead as a full satisfaction made in our behalf. For though by our sins we have deserved to be condemned, and to be excluded from heaven: yet if we believe in Christ, his sufferings are accepted in our behalf to free us from hell, and his obedience to entitle us unto heaven. In him we have borne the penalty, in him we have fulfilled the Law. Such is not ours: for being sinners in ourselves we cannot stand before God as righteous by justice inherent, neither can we oppose it to God's judgment, or interpose it betwixt God's justice and our sins, or plead it as a full satis faction. But the best of us must pray with David, Enter not into judgment with thy servant O Lord, for no flesh shall be righteous in thy sight, namely, if thou enter into judgment with him: and again, if thou Lord shalt mark iniquity, O Lord who shall stand, but there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayst be feared. Augustine on those words, Quis sustinebit? Non dixit, ego non sustinebo, sed, quis sustinebit? vidit n. prope totam vitam humanam circumlatrari peccatis suis, accusari omnes conscientias cogitationibus s •… is, non inveniri cor castum praesumens de sua justitia. Si ergo cor castum non potest inveniri, quod praesumat de sua justitia, praesumat omnium cor de misericordia Dei, & dicat Deo, Si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine quis fustinebit? quae a.spes est? quoniam apud te propitiatio est: & quae est ista propitiatio, nisi sacrificium? & quod est sacrificium, nifi quod pro nobis oblatum est? Sanguis innocens fusus delevit omnia peccata nocentium——Ergo est apud te propitiatio. Nam si non esset apud te propitiatio, si judex solum esse velles, & misericors esse nolles, observares omnes iniquitates nostras, & quae •… eres, ease, quis sustineret?—quis staret in judicio tuo? Spes ergo una est, quoniam est apud te propitiatio. Again, Augustine and some others do use to join in coherence the 8. and 9. verses of the 20. Chapter of the Proverbs: when the righteous King shall sit on his throne, who can say my heart is clean? we deny not that there is a righteousness inherent in the faithful, that it is accepted of God in Christ, that it is graciously rewarded; but we deny that we are justified thereby. This is not it, in which we can stand in judgment before the righteous King sitting on his throne.
§. VIII. Our third argument: By that righteousness of man, which only is perfect, we are justified, and not by that which is imperfect.
The righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, is the only righteousness of man which is perfect, and all our inherent righteousness in this life is imperfect.
Therefore we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, and not by any righteousness inherent in ourselves.
The proposition needeth no proof; for that justice, which is not perfect, cannot stand in judgment before God, and is so far from justifying, that it self is sinful, every imperfection and defect being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a transgression of the Law, and consequently a sin. So long, saith Augustine , as charity may be increased, assuredly that, which is less than it ought to be, is vicious: and again more plainly, peccatum est, cum charitas minor est quàm debet, it a sin when charity is less than it ought to-be. I do not say, that the habit of grace, as faith or charity, or a work of grace, as prayer, or alms giving is a sin, and much less a mortal sin, as our adversaries charge us: but I say, that the imperfection or defect of the habit or the work is a sin: and in respect thereof neither the habit, nor the work, though good, is purely and perfectly good, but sinful and stained with the flesh: which stain to them, who are in Christ Jesus, is venial, and it notwithstanding, both the habit and the work of grace are cum venia, with favor and indulgence through the merits and intercession of our Savior in him accepted: the want and imperfection being by his perfect righteousness and obedience covered. That the righteousness of Christ is perfect, is also manifest: And that it is the only righteousness of man which in this life is perfect, is evidently proved, because all the righteousness of all mere and mortal men is imperfect. And that I prove by these reasons:
§. IX. First, no sinners have perfect righteousness inherent in them.
All mortal men are sinners.
Therefore no mortal man hath perfect righteousness inherent in him.
The proposition is manifest: for whiles men be sinners, they cannot be perfectly righteous. The assumption, viz. that all men are sinners, it is proved by the common experience of all men in all ages. Secondly, it is grounded upon most plain and undeniable testimonies of holy Scriptures, which have concluded all men whatsoever under sin. Gal. 3. 22. Rom. 3. 23. 1 King. 8. 46. Eccl. 7. 20. Thirdly, it is a confessed and received truth: which therefore the Apostle in his Enthymeme, Gal. 3. 10. taketh for granted. For thus the Apostle argueth;
Everyone that is a transgressor of the Law, is accursed, therefore
All men whatsoever, even those, who seek by their obedience of the Law to be justified, are accursed. If any man should deny the consequence of this Enthymeme, it is to be made good by adding the assumption (which the Apostle left out as a thing presupposed and taken for granted) thus,
Whosoever is a transgressor of the Law, is by the Law accursed; which the Apostle expresseth in these terms, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all the things which are written in the book of the Law to do them.
But all men without exception, even those which seek to be justified by the Law, are transgressors of the Law: Never any man continued in all the things which are written in the book of the Law to do them, that is, never any mere and moral man hath so abstained from all evil forbidden, as that he hath also done the things commanded, that he hath done all, that he hath ever continued in doing all. Thus Chrysostom understandeth the Apostle to argue. No man is justified by the Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for all have sinned and are under the curse; and saith, that the Apostle by testimony proveth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that no man hath fulfilled the Law: and Oecumenius likewise in Gal. 3. that the Apostle proveth, that even those who seek to be justified by the Law are under the Curse, why? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because no man, saith he, fulfilleth the Law.
Therefore all men without exception, even those which seek to be justified by the Law, are by the Law accursed: which conclusion is of no force if it be not granted, that all men are transgressors of the Law. Fourthly, all they who are to pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins, are sinners: But all, even the best of men are to pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Pro hac (that is, for remission of sins) or abit ad te omnis sanctus, every godly man shall pray unto thee. Our Savior taught his own Apostles and all other Christians, to pray daily for remission of sin. Everyone saith Cyprian is taught peccare se quotidie, dum quotidie per peccatis jubetur orare, that he sinneth daily, seeing he is commanded to pray daily for his sins. Therefore all, even the best of us are sinners: Fifthly, whosoever doth that evil which he would not, and doth not that good which he would, is a sinner, both in respect of commission and omission: but such is the condition of the best, even of the Apostle •… himself, Rom. 7. 15. 19. for so he saith, verse. 25▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I myself.
Sixthly, whosoever hath sin is a sinner; All men have sin: and that I prove thus;
Whosoever is a liar himself, and maketh God a liar, that saith he hath no sin, he undoubtedly is a sinner.
But every man, though he were as holy as the beloved Apostle and Evangelist Saint John, is a liar himself, and maketh God a liar, that saith he hath no sin: for if we (saith he, including himself) say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1 John 1. 8. if we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar, and his word is not in us, verse. 10. Therefore every man, though he be as holy as Saint John himself, is a sinner.
Seventhly, whosoever is free from sin is also free from death: No mortal man is free from death: Therefore no mortal man is free from sin.
CHAP. III. The question concerning the imperfection of inherent righteousness further discussed.
§. I. T O contradict this argument, that we are not justified by righteousness inherent, because it is imperfect; Bellarmine endeavoreth to prove that it is perfect both in respect of habitual, and actual righteousness. But in both he useth to dispute Sophistically: in the first, because some men have been endued with perfect righteousness: in the second, because some good works of the just are purely and perfectly good. For though both these assertions were true, as they are not, yet would they not conclude justification by inherent righteousness. For first, as touching the persons, the question is not, whether some choice men in some part of their life, after they have been good and long proficience, do attain to some perfection; but whether they, and all others, when they are first justified, are endued with perfect justice: for if they be not then endued with perfect inherent righteousness, they are not justified by it. Now justification by habitual righteousness, which they call their first justification, is incipientium, of incipients: and themselves distinguish Christians into three ranks, that some are incipients, some proficience, some perfect. But incipients are such as be infants and babes, either in respect of age, when being baptized in their infancy, are, as they teach, justified; or in respect of religion, being new converts. But to imagine, that either infants, which have not so much as the use of reason, nor are as yet capable of the habits of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and much less are able to produce the Acts, to Believe, to Hope, to Love; or new converts, who are like Babes to be fed with Milk, are endued with perfect righteousness, is a great absurdity.
§. II. Yea but, saith Bellarmine, the works of God are perfect, Deut. 32. 4. habitual righteousness is the work of God, therefore it is perfect. Answ. The works of God are either immediate, and such as he worketh at once; or else mediate, which he worketh by degrees. The former are perfect at the first, according to their kind: as were the works of creation. The latter are not perfect at the first, but by degrees are brought to perfection: as the work of procreation or carnal generation, and of Spiritual Re-creation or Regeneration. Adam was the immediate Work of GOD created at once: and therefore perfect in his kind at the first. Seth also was the Work of GOD, not immediate by creation, but mediate by Procreation, being first begotten by his parents and conceived, then formed in the womb, then borne, then growing from age to age, until he came to be a perfect man. So it is in the Spiritual Re-creation. For we are the workmanship of God created unto good works: but we are not perfect Christians at the first. For we are first begotten by the incorruptible seed of God's Word, receiving, as it were, the seeds of God's graces at the first, being but as Embryons in the womb until Christ be formed in us. And when we are borne a new, we are at the first but as new borne Babes, who are to desire the sincere milk of the work, that we may grow thereby: and afterwards stronger meats, that we may grow more and more: and then, not contenting ourselves with that measure of growth, which we have attained unto, must still strive towards perfection, being from day today renewed in the inner man until we come to be adult, grown men, or, as the Apostle speaketh, perfecti; and when we are such, (because always in this life we are in our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or growing age, receiving only the first fruits of the Spirit) we must imitate the Apostle Paul; who, though he far excelled the most perfect among us, acknowledged, that he had not attained to perfection, but did strive towards it: exhorting all others, who are perfect, that is, adulti or grown men, to be of his mind; that is, that they should acknowledging their imperfection still more and more strive towards perfection.
§. III. As touching actual righteousness, he dealeth also Sophistically: for first, where he should prove, that the works of the faithful are perfect, or purely and absolutely good, he proveth that they are truly good, and not sins: but especially, when he should prove, that all the works of the faithful or righteous, are purely and perfectly good; he proveth, that some are. As though a man who is not only guilty of many sins, and infected with manifold corruptions and infirmities, but also in respect of his former sins obnoxious to damnation; could be justified by some good works among many not good. But this is a most erroneous conceit of the Papists, who hold, that every good work, proceeding from charity, doth absolutely deserve heaven; even as well as any evil work committed against charity deserveth hell. As though by one act of charity the whole Law were fulfilled, as well as by one act committed against charity the whole Law is broken. He that transgresseth one Commandment, though it be but once, is guilty of all. But he doth not fulfill the Law, and much less can be justified by his obedience, whose obedience is not total, perfect, and perpetual. It is true, that a faithful man may be justified, that is, declared and approved to be just by someone or more good works, as Abraham by offering his son Isaac, and Rahab by her entertaining and delivering of the Espies; but no man can be justified before God by his works, who is guilty of any sin. For if Paul who was not conscious to himself of any sin, was not thereby justified: how can he that is guilty of any, or rather many sins be justified? For whosoever is justified before God is blessed, but cursed is everyone that continueth not in all the things, which are written in the book of the Law▪ to do them.
§. IV. But if it shall evidently appear, that none of the works of the faithful are purely and perfectly good, how far then are the Papists from proving justification by works. And this I will prove by divers arguments, which I will also maintain against the cavils of the Papists. And first out of Esa. 64. 6. We are all as an unclean person, or thing, all our righteousnesses are as a menstruous cloth. Where the Church doth freely confess her self and all her members to be unclean, and all their righteousnesses, that is, all their most righteous works, to be as polluted clouts: which, though it be a most pregnant testimony, wherein we have just cause to triumph; yet Bellarmine saith it is impertinent, and that for three reasons: First, because without doubt the Prophet speaketh not of just men, but of notorious sinners, for whose sins the City of Jerusalem and people of the Jews was to be delivered into the hands of the King of Babylon. And that the prophet speaketh in the person of such wicked men, he endeavoreth also to prove by three arguments: First, because he a little before had said, because thou art angry and we have sinned, that is, as Cyril expoundeth it, because thou art angry, thou hast forsaken us. But neither is God angry with the just, neither doth he forsake them. I answer no less confidently, but upon better grounds, that without doubt the prophet speaketh in the person of the Church, and namely of the faithful, who living after the desolation of Jerusalem in the captivity of Babylon, should bewail their own sins and of the whole people of the Jews, which had drawn upon them those fearful judgments. For these words are part of that prayer of the Church of the Jews, which from the seventh verse of the 63. chapter is continued to the end of the 64. And in token of this continuation, the latter part of the last verse of the former chapter in the hebrew, is the beginning of this chapter in the Greek, Latin, and other translations. Now in the former chapter, the same persons, which here confess their sins, after they had magnified God's mercies towards them, verse 7. &c. do say unto God, verse 16. doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel know us not: thou O Lord art our Father and our Redeemer. And in this chapter, as they bewail in this verse their sinfulness with aggravation: so they desire the Lord (whom they call their Father) not to remember their iniquities, because they are his people, verse 8. 9. professing their hope of salvation, verse 5. which is not the manner of notorious and impenitent sinners, but of those that are penitent, and faithful. And further, that which Isaiah here foretelleth, is accordingly performed: First, by Daniel, chap. 9. from the fourth verse to the twentieth, who in like manner in the name and behalf of the desolate Church of the Jews, prayeth unto God, confessing his own sins and of the people of Israel, as he speaketh, verse 20. Secondly, by the Church in captivity, which send the like prayer written by Baruch to the priest and people, who then were at Jerusalem. Baruch 1. from the 15. verse of the first chapter to the end of the third.
§. V. This then is the confession of the Church, which according to Tertullian's rule, is to be extended▪ unto the faithful in all times: and so it is understood by Origen who saith, that no man may glory of his own righteousness, seeing here it is said, that all our righteousness is as the cloth of a menstruous woman: by Jerome , we shall be saved only by thy mercy, who of ourselves are unclean. And what righteousness soever we seem to have, is compared to a cloth of a menstruous woman. By Augustine, all our righteousness compared with divine justice is accounted like the cloth of a menstruous woman, as the Prophet Isaiah saith, &c. and again, whatsoever an unclean person toucheth shall be unclean: but all we are as the cloth of a menstruous woman, coming from a corrupt mass and unclean, we bear in our foreheads the spot of our uncleanness, which we cannot conceal, at least from thee, who seest all things. By Bernard in divers places? First, for our humble righteousness, if we have any, is perhaps right but not pure: unless peradventure we believe ourselves to be better than our forefathers, who no less truly than humbly said, all our righteousness is like the cloth of a menstruous woman: for how can there be pure justice, where as yet fault cannot be wanting. And again, what can all our righteousness be before God? shall it not, according to the Prophet, be reputed as the cloth of a menstruous woman? and all our righteousness, if it be straitly judged, will it not be found unjust and defective? What then will become of our sins, seeing our righteousness cannot answer for it self? wherefore crying earnestly with the Prophet, Enter not into judgment with thy servant O Lord, let us in all humility have recourse to mercy, which alone can save our souls. Thirdly, if I shall be just, I will not lift up my head, for all my righteousnesses before him are as the cloth of a menstruous woman. Fourthly, it is perfect and secure glorying, when we fear all our works, as blessed Job testifieth of himself, and when we acknowledge with the prophet Isaiah, that all our righteousnesses are to be reputed no other, than the cloth of a menstruous woman. Fifthly, surely if all our righteousnesses being viewed at the light of truth shall be found like a menstruous cloth, what then shall our unrighteousnesses be found to be? And to the like purpose I might allege Dionys. Carthus. in Psal. 142. Gerson. tom. 3. de Consolat. lib. 4. pros. 1. & tom. 4. tr. de sign. Cajetan. in 2 Cor. 5. 21. Jacob. Clict. in Canonem apud Cassandrum consult. art. 6. Stella in Luk. 17. Ferus in Matth. lib. 3. cap. •… 0. Andreas Vega opusc. de justif. qu. 1. propos. 4. Adrianus de Traject▪ , afterwards Pope in quartum sentent. Quasi pannus menstruat •… sunt omnes justitiae nostrae: jugiter igitur super pannum bonae vitae, quem justitiae operibus teximus, stillamus saniem diversorum criminum; all our righteousnesses are like the clothe of a menstruous woman: wherefore continually upon the cloth of a good life, which we weave by the works of righteousness, we drop the filthy matter of divers crimes.
§. VI. But let us briefly examine Bellarmine's proofs, where to omit Cyril, who understandeth the place, contrary to Bellarmine's conceit, of the wicked Jews, who, after they had crucified Christ, persisted in their infidelity: his first reason is from the words going before, because God is not angry with the just, nor forsaketh them, but according to our doctrine (forsooth) he covereth their sins, and imputeth them not. I answer, first, that when the children of God do •… sin, God is angry, as the Prophet here saith; behold, when we sin thou art angry. God was angry with Moses, Exod. 4. 14. Deut. 1. 37. with Aaron, Deut. 9. 20. with David, 3 Sam. 11. 27. Psalm. 38. 3. 88. 16. with Solomon, 1 King. 11. 9. with his people, Psalm. 85. 4, 5. Isaiah. 47. 6. with the sheep of his pasture, Psalm. 74. 1. with his faithful servants, Isaiah. 12. 1. Secondly, that by their sins they provoke God's judgments, the fruits of his anger: from which they are so far from being exempted, that judgment beginneth at the house of God. Thirdly, that if they meet not the Lord in his judgments, and do not judge themselves, then are they sure to be judged of the Lord▪ For though he doth not hate them, nor execute upon them the fruits of his eternal anger: yet he is angry with his children when they sin, (for to sin against him is to offend him) and for their sins he doth many times judge and correct them: but our comfort is, when we are judged, we are chastized of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Fourthly, that they are patiently to bear the anger of God, because they have deserved it, Lam. 3. 39. Mic. 7. 9. I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him. And as touching God's forsaking of his Children (whereof notwithstanding there is no mention in this place) it is certain, that although he doth never utterly or finally forsake his children, Psalm. 37. 25. 28. Heb. 13. 5. Psal. 89. 33. 2 Cor. 4. 9. yet sometimes they are subject to spiritual and temporal desertions for a time, wherein God is said to hide his face from them, as it is here said, verse. 7. see Deut. 31. 17, 18. Job 13. 24. Psalm. 22. 1. 88. 14. 2 Chron. 32. 31. Isaiah. 8. 17. 54. 8. Ier. 39. 24. 29. Iud. 6. 13. Psal. 77. 7. Es •… i. 49. 14. and 62. 4. Howbeit that is verified of them, which the Lord professeth to his Church by his Prophet Isaiah. c. 44. 7, 8. for a small moment have I forsaken thee, but in great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy redeemer.
§. VII. His second proof is from the words following, verse. 7. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, nor standeth up to take hold of thee. But the just do call upon God: therefore the prophet doth not speak in the person of the just. Answ. Ordinarily the godly do give themselves to prayer: though sometimes, when they are left unto themselves, they do neglect it. But as ordinarily they do not neglect this duty; so when they have neglected it, their manner is, as in this place, to complain of the neglect thereof. For according to this prophecy, Daniel and the remnant of Judah which were in captivity, in whom it was fulfilled, use the very same complaint in their prayer, Dan. 9. 13. Baruch 2. 8.
§. VIII. His third proof is out of the words themselves: where the righteousness of them that make this prayer is compared to a menstruous cloth, and therefore, saith he, he speaketh not in the person of the just whose good works in the Scriptures are highly commended. Ans. It is not likely, that the hypocrites, who use to trust in their own righteousness, and to boast of it, would complain of the defectivenesse thereof. But howsoever the godly, though weak indevors of the faithful are graciously accepted of God in Christ, and freely rewarded; yet the children of God, when they are humbled under the hand of God, or do summon and present themselves before the judgment seat of the Lord, or in their souls do exercise judgment according to the testimony of their own conscience; they do use to judge and condemn themselves, and to speak as basely of themselves and of their works, as the faithful do in this place, we are as an unclean person (that is, as a Leper, who according to the Law was to cry out, I am unclean, I am unclean, Levite. 13. 45.) and all our best actions are stained with the flesh like a polluted cloth, or as Dan. cap. 9. and the remnant of Judah, Baruch c. 1. 2, 3. in whom this prophecy was fulfilled; who speak most basely of themselves, and of their actions. Yea, the more godly a man is, the more sensible he is of his corruption, and the more ready with aggravation to confess it. Quanto, saith Gregory, ad Deum veriùs per bona opera surgimus, tanto subtiliùs vitae nostrae sordes agnoscimus, by how much more truly we arise to God by good works, by so much the more exquisitely we acknowledge the pollutions of our life: and again, with how great cleanness soever holy men do shine, notwithstanding by reason of this body, wherein they are, which is corrupted, they judge themselves abominable, and by reason of the filth of concupiscences, without which they are not, they repute themselves unclean: and to the like purpose Cardinal Cont. Godly men, saith he, by how much the more they profit in godliness, by so much the less they please themselves: Especially, when they are summoned, or do summon themselves to appear before God, as everyone ought to do, who would be justified, either before God, or in the Court of his own Conscience. Job the most holy and righteous in his time, when he stood before God, abhorred himself, repenting in dust and ashes. The holy Prophet Isaiah, when in a vision he beheld God sitting on a throne attended by the Seraphin proclaiming Holy , Holy, Holy, the Lord God of hosts; exclaimeth, Woe is me, I am undone, for I am a man of polluted lips and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, Esa. 6. 5. The faithful are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , beggars in spirit, who acknowledging that there is nothing in them whereby they might hope to be justified or saved; as beggars, rely wholly upon the mercies of God and merits of Christ, renouncing their own merits, and in the question of justification deresting them as polluted clouts, as dung, as loss, and acknowledging themselves in themselves, to be wretched sinners: for as Herome saith, Tunc ergo iusti sumus quando nos peccatores fatemur, then are we just when we confess ourselves to be sinners. But the pharisaical Papist, if he be once justified, as by their doctrine all are, for a time at the least, who either are baptized or absolved; he must think that in him there is no sin, nothing that God can justly hate. And therefore far be it from him to make such a confession as this, or to cry out with the Apostle, Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? Rom. 7. 24.
§. IX. His second reason to prove this allegation to be imperitnent is this: Because although Isaiah should speak of all, that is, of that whole people: yet he doth not speak of all, at all times, but only of the people of the Jews at that time, who for their extreme wickedness were delivered into captivity, as appeareth by the words following, verse 10. Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation, the Temple burnt, &c. Answ. These words do prove that the Prophet in this place doth not speak in the person of the wicked Jews that lived in his time before the desolation of Jerusalem, but of the remnant of the faithful and penitent Jews, who being in captivity bewail their sins, and lament the desolation of the Temple and City. And therefore what is said of them, may be extended to the faithful in all times, being, as these were, humbled before God for their sins, as penitent suppliants.
§. X. His third reason, because the Prophet speaking only of the wicked of that time, meaneth not all their works, as though all were sins (for then Bellarmine must confess that the best works of the unregenerate are but splendida peccata) but such as they accounted to be their righteousness, as their sacrifice, and new-moons, and other ceremonial observatious wherein they placed their righteousness, which, because they were not 〈◊〉 with a good intention, nor as they ought, are worthily compared (but not by them) to a menstruous cloth, and are rejected by God, Esa. 1. 11. Answ. Here Bellarmine taketh for granted, that the Prophet speaketh of the works of the wicked only of that time, which I have disproved. Or if he had spoken of the wicked, it were more probable either that they should place their righteousness in moral works, if they had any, rather than in ceremonial, or if they placed the top of their righteousness (as hypocrites many times do) in ceremonial observations, that they would compare those things, which they so highly esteemed, to menstruous clouts. But he speaketh of all the persons, All we, and therefore including the righteous, if there were any at all among them, as some there were both before the captivity and in it, and of all their righteousnesses, and therefore not of their ceremonials only, but also of their morals. Neither might they perform the chief of their ceremonials during their captivity being in a foreign land.
§. XI. Secondly, that the good works of the faithful in this life are not purely and perfectly good, I prove, because in all our best actions there is a mixture of evil, either by the absence or defect of some good thing which ought to be therein, or by the presence of some fault or corruption, which ought not to be in them. And this I prove: first, out of Exod. 28. 36. 38. where the high Priest, who was the figure of Christ, is appointed to wear on his forehead a plate of pure gold, which is also called an holy coronet, Exod. 29. 6. Levite. 8. 9. engraven with this inscription, Holiness of the Lord; and so the 72. translate it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Lord, that is, of Christ, who is the Lord our righteousness. The end wherefore he was to wear it, was, that Aaron might bear the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel should hallow, in all their holy gifts. And it was always to be on his forehead, that they (the holy gifts) might be accepted before the Lord: where we are plainly taught, that in all our best actions and holy services which we perform to God, there is iniquity, which must be taken away by the holiness and righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, otherwise they cannot in themselves be accepted of God.
§. XII. Secondly, out of Eccl. 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the earth, that doth good, and sinneth not; that is, who in doing good sinneth not. For if the meaning were only thus, as Bellarmine would have it, that none are so just, but that sometimes they sin, according to that, 1 King. 8. 46. those words, that doth good were superfluous: for there is no just man that doth not good. But his meaning is, that there is no just man upon earth, who doing good sinneth not, that is, which doth good so purely and perfectly, as that he doth not sin therein. For to the perfecting of a good work many things must concur, the want of any whereof is a sin. The truth of this doth best appear in the particulars; Prayer is a good work, and so is the hearing of the word, &c. but there is no man doth so pray, or so hear the word, but that when he hath done, he hath just cause to pray unto God to forgive his defects and defaults, both in the one and the other. And in this sense Luther did truly hold, that justus in omni opere bono peccat, that a just man sinneth in every good work. Not that the work in respect of its kind, or per se, is a sin, as if we said that prayer, &c. is a sin, but per accidens, because in that good work, there happeneth a defect, which defect is a sin, not mortal to them who are in Christ, but venial. And thus Augustine also seemeth to understand this place. For speaking of the imperfection of charity in this life, he saith, that so long as it may be increased profecto illud quod minus est quàm debet, ex vitio est, ex quo vitio non est justus in terra qui faciat bonum & non peccet; assuredly that which is less than it ought to be, is out of vice; by reason of which vice there is not a just man upon earth, who doth good and sinneth not, by reason of which vice no living man shall be justified before God: and in another place, more plainly, he saith, peccatum est cum charitas minor est quàm esse debet, it is a sin when charity is less than it ought to be.
§. XIII. Thirdly, such as is the tree, such is the fruit. The tree is corrupt in part: For even in the best there is the Old man and the New, the flesh and the Spirit, betwixt which there is a perpetual conflict, so that we cannot do the things we would, and much less as we would, but all, even our best actions are stained with the flesh: which is such a law in us, that when we would do good, evil is present with us.
§. XIV. Fourthly, actions absolutely good may stand in judgment before God. But our works cannot stand in judgment. The best of us have need to pray with him, who had less need than we: Enter not into judgment with thy servant O Lord. If thou Lord shouldest mark what is amiss, even in our best actions, who should be able to stand? Noliergo intrare mecum in judicium Domine Deus meus: wherefore enter not into judgment with me O Lord my God: Quantumlibet rectus mihi videar, producis tu de the sauro tuoregulam, coaptas me adeam, & pravas invenior. For though I seem to myself never so right, thou bringest forth of thy treasury a rule, thou examinest me by it, and I am found wicked. This which David, and Augustine expounding him, speak in respect of the person, may be applied to his best actions; as namely to his prayer, unto which more specially David in both places doth seem to have relation. Lord hear my prayer, &c. and enter not into judgment with thy servant. Lord hear my voice, &c. if thou shouldest mark what is amiss, who should stand? For though my prayer (may the best of us say) seem to myself never so godly, yet thou hast a rule, according to which if thou shouldest exactly examine my prayer, it would be found sinful. Alas, Lord, I do not pray with that humility in respect of mine unworthiness, nor with that feeling of my want, nor with that reverence of thy great and glorious Majesty, nor with that attention of mind, nor with that devotion and fervency of Spirit, nor with that assurance of faith, &c. that I ought to do. Therefore I come unto thee, not in any conceit of mine own righteousness, or of the worthiness of my prayer; but I come unto thee in the name and mediation of Christ, appealing from thy tribunal of justice to the throne of thy grace, desiring and believing, that the incense of my prayers, being perfumed with the odors of his merits, may and shall be acceptable unto thee.
§. XV. But if any popish pharisee doth think, that he needeth not thus to pray, I shall desire his Conscience thus to speak unto him: Doest thou think, that for the worthiness of thy prayer thou shalt be heard, and that if the Lord should enter into judgment with thee according to his exact rule, he could find no fault with thy prayer? Alas, besides those blemishes and imperfections even now mentioned, whereof the most godly have just cause to complain: thou directest thy prayer not to God alone, but to Saints and Angels, and so committest horrible idolatry: and when thou dost direct thy prayer unto God, thou dost conceive of him under some bodily shape, whereby thou doest circumscribe him, and make him finite, and so no God, but an idol of thine own brain. Thou doest not come unto God, in the name and mediation of Christ alone, who is the only mediator betwixt God and man, but in the mediation of many others, by whose merits and intercession thou hopest and desirest to be heard. Thou cravest not the help of the Holy Ghost the Spirit of grace and supplication, whose help thou findest not thyself to need for such a prayer as thou doest make. Thy prayer is but a formal recital of a certain task of words, uttered for the most part without understanding, without feeling, without devotion, without faith. Thou, if unlearned, as the most are, thou prayest in an unknown language, speaking like a Parrot thou knowest not what, thy prayer is a mere lip-labor, thou hopest by the multitude of thy words, and the often repetitions of thy Ave-maries, thy Pater-nosters and thy Creeds, most ridiculously and odiously reiterated upon thy Beads by most superstitious Battology. And notwithstanding all this, wilt thou be so wickedly impudent, as to obtrude thy orisons unto God, not only as an acceptable service, wherewith, though he should enter into judgment with thee, he could find no fault, but also impetratory of thy desires, satisfactory for thy sins, and meritorious of eternal life? Nay, I assure thee, that thy prayer to God with the opinion of satisfaction and merit, though it were otherwise well qualified (as it is far from it, there being nothing almost performed in it which is required in prayer) it were abominable in the sight of God: what shall I say more? The acceptable and effectual prayer is the prayer of faith, I am. 5. 16. whereby a man doth specially believe, that his requests are or shall be granted to him, as namely for remission of sins and eternal life: but thou (I speak to the best and most learned of the Papists) thou I say dost scorn and detest this special faith, and so thy prayer, wanting faith, besides all other the abominations thereof, is turned into sin.
§. XVI. So in like manner in respect of the rest of our actions, though seeming laudable unto us; we must pray, that the Lord will not enter into judgment with us. To which purpose manifold testimonies of the Fathers might be alleged. These few may serve, Hilary what living man can be justified in the sight of God? In whom there is a mixture of anger, of sorrow, of concupiscence, of ignorance, of forgetfulness, of casualty, of necessity happening either through the nature of the body, or the motion of the soul always wavering.
Ambrose , he that thinketh he hath gold hath lead, and he who thinketh himself to have the grain of Wheat, hath chaff which may be burnt.
Augustine , woe to the very laudable life of men, if mercy being removed thou dost examine it. Gregory in many places of his Morals, lib. 5. c. 7. quia s •… pe ipsa justitia nostra ad examen divinae justitiae deducta, injustitia est, & sordet in districtione judicis, quod inestimatione sulget operantis, lib. 5. cap. 18. ipsa nostra perfectio culpâ non caret, nisi hanc severus judex in subtili lance examinis misericorditer penset, Lib. 9. cap. 1. Sancti viri omne meritum vitium est, si ab aeterno arbitri •… district judicetur, Lib. 9. cap. 2. omne virtutis nostrae meritum esse vitium, lib. 9. c. 11. Si remota pietate discutitur, in illo examine etiam justorum vita succumbit, & cap. 14. on those words of Job. Si habuero quippiam justum, non respondebo, he saith, ut enim sape diximus omnis humana justitia injustitia esse convincitur, si district judicetur, prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat, ex sola judicis pietate convalescat, lib. 1. cap. 27. Si remota pietate discutimur, opus nostrum poen •… dignum est, quod remunerari praemiis prestolamur, & cap 28. quousque poena corruptionis astringimur, quamlibet rectis operibus insudemus, veram munditiem nequaquem apprehendimus, sed •… mur, lib. 27. cap. 15. Sciunt Sancti, quia omnis humana justitia injustitia est, si divinitùs district 〈◊〉 : and in the conclusion of his work, lib. 35. cap. 26. wherein as he professeth that he sought chiefly to please God, so he confesseth, that this intention was accompanied with other worse intentions and sinister respects as seeking to please men, and affecting their praise: whereupon he inferreth, Si autem de his divinitùs, district discutimur, quis inter ista remanet salutis locus: quando & mala nostra pura mala sunt, & bona, quae nos 〈◊〉 credi •… s, pura bona esse nequaquam possunt: the evil things, saith he, which we have, are purely and merely evil, but the good things which we suppose ourselves to have, are not, nor can in any wise be purely good, and so said Bernard, Nostra siqu •… est humilis justitia, recta forsan, sed non pura: whence it followeth necessarily that none of the works of the faithful are pure, and consequently that their very best works are impure.
This which hath been said may suffice to a conscience not cauterized; neither shall I need to say anymore in this needless argument. For though it should be granted that some of the works of the faithful were purely good, (as they are not) yet so long as any of their works are sinful, as in many things we fail all, insomuch that the righteous (as Bellarmine himself doth cite the place) doth fall seven times a day, they cannot be justified by their works, but are by the sentence of the Law in themselves accursed: because they do not continue in all the things which are written in the book of the Law to do them: and because the breach of any one commandment maketh them guilty of all. I conclude against the Papists as Epiph •… ius did censure the Catharists, these men professing themselves pure, by this supposition make themselves unpure, for whosoever pronounceth himself to be pure, therein he doth utterly condemn himself to be impure.
CAP. IV. Bellarmine's arguments answered.
§. I. T His was our third argument taken from the imperfection of our obedience and righteousness, which I have defended against Bellarmine's cavils: before I proceed to the fourth, I hold it needful to answer his arguments in propounding whereof he falleth short of his projects: as I noted before, for he that would prove that men are justified by their works; had need to prove, that all the works of all the faithful, are purely and perfectly good, which is impossible to be proved: but he neither concludeth of all works nor of all the faithful. And yet it is most certain, that if the faithful be justified by their works, then all the works of all the faithful are purely and perfectly good. His proofs are of three sorts: authority of Scriptures, Testimonies of Fathers, and other reasons. Out of the Scripture he citeth eight testimonies The first out of Job 1. 22. In all these things Job sinned not with his lips: And that we may not answer with some of the Rabbins, that though he sinned not with his lips, yet he might sin in his heart: he telleth us, that in the next Chapter, God giveth him this testimony, that still he retained his innocence; and therefore sinned neither in his tongue, nor in his heart. Again, whereas Satan sought by so many temptations to bring Job to sin, and God on the other side permitted all those temptations, that the patience and virtue of that holy man should be manifested; if Job should have sinned, God should after a sort have been over come by the devil: wherefor it is certain, that that work of Job's patience was not stained with any sin; and that the Lutherans, which say the contrary, take part with the devil against God.
§. II. Answ. Those temptations were permitted by God, as tyrals of Job, not perfection, but integrity. For that is God's end, that they who are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sound and upright may be known, 1 Cor. 11. 19. and this end was achieved, Cap. 2. verse. 3. for still Job retained his integrity. But Satan's intention was to prove him to be an hypocrite, and to move him not only to fall, but to fall away from God, and to blaspheme him to his face and so much he undertook both Cap. 1. 11. and Cap. 2. 5. howbeit he failed in his enterprize. And so much is signified in both the places alleged by Bellarmine: that Job was so far, either from blaspheming God to his face, which Satan undertook he should, that he offended not with his lips, nor charged God foolishly; or, from being discovered to be an hypocrite, that by God's own testimony he retained his integrity, as that word signifieth which Bellarmine, according to the vulgar Latin, calleth innocence. But Job though he were upright and sincere, yet he was not perfect, nor without sin; as appeareth by his manifold imperfections, which afterwards he discovered Cap. 3. &c. and also by his free confession of his sinfulness, Cap. 9. 20. 33. and lastly by his fear and jealousy, which he had over his best actions lest he had sinned in them: for as Gregory writing on those words of Job, Verebar omnia opera mea, understandeth it to be an humble confession, as if he had said, quae aperte egerim video, sed quid in his latenter pertulerim, ignoro, what overtly I performed, I see: but what covertly I suffered therein, I know not. But here may be objected, which Bellarmine in the next Chapter allegeth out of the said Gregory, Bonarum mentium est, ibi etiam aliquo modo culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est, it is the property of good minds even there to acknowledge a fault, where nofault is, whereto I answer, that Gregory speaketh in regard of human infirmities which were laid upon man after his fall, (and namely of the monthly infirmity of women) which though they be not inflicted upon a man for his personal offenses: yet it is the property of good minds to esteem them as laid upon them for their sins. Thus Job, though his afflictions were not inflicted upon him, as corrections for his sins, but as trials of his virtue; yet he imputeth them to his sins, Job 13. 26.
§. III. In the second place he allegeth diverse testimonies out of the Psalms wherein David pleadeth his own innocence, and appealeth unto God to be judged according to his own righteousness Psalm. 7. 4. 9. 16. 1, 2, 3. 18. 2. 1. 26. 1. 119. 121. Answ. In some of these places David pleadeth the justice of his particular cause against his adversaries, not the absolute innocence of his person. The rest are to be understood of his uprighttnesse and integrity. For otherwise, no man was more forward to confess and to deplore his manifold sins, than David was; none more ready to implore God's mercy, none more fearful that God should enter into strict judgment with him.
§. IV. His third testimony is Matth. 6. 22. If thine eye be single, the whole body shall be lightsome: where Bellarmine, without any probability, by the body understandeth a good work, and by the single eye, a right intention: for who knoweth not, that many times works are done with good intentions that are not good. This place in Matthew is diversely expounded, and may be applied to many purposes. But the proper true meaning may be gathered out of the coherence, as I have shown elsewhere for in the latter part of that Chapter our Savior showeth, both what in our judgments we should esteem out chief good, verse. 19. &c. and consequently, what in our afflictions and endeavors we should chiefly desire and labor for, verse. 25. &c. 33. As touching the former, he exhorteth us not to lay up our treasure upon earth, but in heaven; that is, that we should place our happiness, not in earthly, but in heavenly things. For where our treasure is, there will our heart be also. That is, whatsoever we esteem our chiese good, upon that our hearts and affections will be set. This judgment, concerning our chief good, is by our Savior compared to the eye; whereunto, whether it be right or wrong, the whole corps or course of our conversation, which he compareth to the body, will be suitable. If we repose our happiness in heaven, our conversation will be religious and heavenly, but if we place our paradise on earth, our conversation will be answerable. As for example, if pleasure be our chief good, our conversation will be voluptuous; if profit, it will be covetous; if honor, it will be ambitious. Such therefore as our judgment is concerning happiness, such will be our desires, our endeavors, and in a word, such will be our whole conversation. But as his allegation is to no purpose, so his conclusion is besides the question, as if we held that good works were in their own nature mortal sins: when notwithstanding we acknowledge them to be good, per se, and in their kind; as namely prayer, and alms-giving, but sinful by accident, as being stained with the fl •… sh.
§. V. His fourth testimony is, 1 Cor. 3. 12. If any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, stones of price, &c. where he supposeth by gold and silver good works are understood, &c. Answ. If they were, they might be good, and yet not purely good. Even as a wedge of gold or of silver, is truly called gold or silver, though there be some dross therein. But the Apostle speaketh not of works, but of doctrines: for he comparing himself and other preachers of the Gospel to builders, saith, that he, as a master-builder had laid the foundation, whereon others did build, either sound and profitable doctrines, which he compareth to gold and silver, &c. or unsound and unprofitable, compared to hay and stubble.
§. VI. His fifth testimony is, I am. 3. 2. In many things we offend all; Why I pray; saith he, doth he not say, in all things we offend all: for if all the works of the righteous be sins, then not only in many things, but in all we offend. But Saint James knew what to say, for in the second chapter he had distinguished good works from sins. If you perform the royal Law according to the Scriptures, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, you do well: but if you accept persons, you commit sin, and are reproved of the Law as transgressors. Answ. The advise of Saint James in this place is, that we should not be many Masters, that is, Censurers of our brethren; knowing, that by censuring and judging of others we shall receive the greater judgment, according to Matth. 7. 1. Rom. 2. 1. For he that will take upon him to censure other men's offenses, had need to be free from offense. But we, saith Saints James, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we all of us offend many ways, we are subject to manifold sins and corruptions. For the Apostle doth not speak of the singular individual acts, but of the divers sorts of sin. As sins against God, our neighbor, or ourselves: sins of omission, and commission: sins in deed, in thought, and in word: which last kind being the fault of Censurers, is as he noteth in the next words, most hard to be refrained: when as the Apostle therefore speaking of all, and including himself, though he were worthily called James the just, saith, that many ways we offend all; he signifieth, that even the best of us are subject to manifold corruptions, causing us many ways to offend according t •… the several kinds thereof: which is a manifest evidence, that we, being sinners, cannot be justified by inherent righteousness, especially, if that be added, that as we sin many ways according to the several kinds of sin; so in our good works, which are good in their kind, as in prayer, alms giving, &c. we offend by reason of the flesh, which polluteth all our best actions. But howsoever we say, that our righteousnesses are stained with the flesh: yet we distinguish them from our unrighteousnesses, and with Saint James we distinguish good works from sins; things commanded from things forbidden; things according to their kind good, but by accident sinful, from things which according to their kind are absolutely evil.
§. VII. His sixth testimony is from those places which exhort us not to sin, as Psalm. 4. 4. Esa. 1. 16. John 5. 14. 2 Pet. 1. 10. 1 John 2. 1. For to what purpose serve these exhortations or admonitions, if in every good work we cannot but sin.
Answ. These exhortations do not show, what we are able to do, but what we ought to do. Neither are they to no purpose,▪ for first, they restrain men and especially the children of God from many particular sins. Secondly, though they exhort us to those things, which in this corrupt estate we are not able perfectly to perform, as generally to abstain from all manner of sin, and to avoid all imperfectionsand defects, which are incident unto our best actions; yet they are to very good purpose. For they serve to discover unto us our imperfections, and to show that perfection whereunto we ought to aspire; to moveus not to perform our duties perfunctorily, but to walk 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accurately, making conscience of all our ways; to admonish us not to rely upon our own righteousness, which is so imperfect; but to bewail our imperfections, and to crave pardon; to teach us what need we have of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and of his intercession for us: and lastly, to move us with an upright endeavor to keep all God's Commandments with our whole heart, and to strive towards that perfection which in this life we cannot attain unto, which if we do, our labor shall not be vain in the Lord. For the Lord in his children accepteth of the will for the deed, and of their upright endeavors for perfect performance. So long therefore as we are upright before God, our imperfections ought not too much to discourage us; knowing, that his grace is sufficient for us, and that his strength is made perfect in our weakness.
§. VIII. His seventh testimony is taken from those places which teach that the works of the righteous do please God, Mat. 3. 4. Sap. 9. 1. 2 Act. 10. 35. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Phil. 4. 18. But nothing can please God, but that which is truly good and pure from all vice, as Calvin himself confesseth, Just. l. 3. c. 12. §. 1.
Answ. As God hath made two covenants with men, the one of works the other of grace: so himself may be considered, either as a severe judge, judging according to the Law, which is the covenant of works, beholding men as they are in themselves: or, as a merciful father in Christ, dealing with us according to the covenant of Grace, •… eholding us in his beloved. As he is a Judge judging according to the Law, no obedience can satisfy or please him, but that which is pure and perfect, as Calvin truly saith. As he is the father of the faithful in Christ, judging according to the covenant of Grace, he dealeth with us as a loving father with his children, Malachi. 3. 17. Psalm. 103. 13. accepting the upright, though weak and imperfect▪ endeavors of his children, in lieu of perfect performance. Hence in the Scriptures to be upright, or, to walk with God, is to please God, Gen. 5. 24, cum Heb. 11. 5. and they, who are upright are his delight, Pro. 11. 20. Not, that either they, or, their actions are perfect, or accepted of God in and for themselves, as being pure from sin; but that being covered with the righteousness of Christ, they are accepted in him: and not only accepted, but also graciously rewarded. Then belike saith Bellarmine, the righteousness of Christ is imputed not only to the sinners themselves, but to their sins also making them an acceptable sacrifice to God. Answ. We speak not of the sins of the faithful, as he maliciously cavilleth, as if we made no difference betwixt their good works and their sins; but of their good works, which, though imperfect and stained with the flesh, the Lord accepteth in Christ, as truly good, not imputing to the faithful their wants, but covering them with the perfect obedience of Christ.
§. IX. His eighth testimony is from those places which absolutely call the works of the righteous, good works, as Mat. 5. 16. 1 Tim 6. 17. Tit. 3. 8. Eph. 2. 10.
Answ. where he saith that the works of the faithful are called absolutely good works, there is an ambiguity to be cleared. For though the Scriptures absolutely call the works of the righteous good works: yet they do not say that they▪ are absolutely good. All good works and virtues being considered in the abstract, as they are in themselves according to their kind, and as they are prescribed in the word of God, are absolutely good: but considered, as it were in the concrete, as they be in us, or, performed by us, mixed with imperfections, and stained with the flesh, they are not absolutely, purely, and perfectly good. Prayer in it self, and •… s it is prescribed in the word of God, is a work absolutely good: but as it is performed by us, it may be truly good, if performed in truth, and with an upright heart; but it is not absolutely and purely good, by reason of those imperfections which concur there. with. So faith and love, and all other graces considered in the abstract, are absolutely good, but considered as they be in us, they are truly, but not purely and absolutely good by reason of the impersections and defects which always accompany them,
But saith Bellarmine out of Dionysi •… s Areopagita, that work is to be called evil, in which there is any defect: but it is not to be called good, unless it be entirely and wholly good: which is true according to the rigor of the Law, from which our Savior Christ hath freed the faithful: and in that sense all the good works of the Papists themselves, even their prayers in which they so much trust, are sins. Or, if they deny any defect to be in their prayers, or, other their supposed good works, they speak lies in hypoc •… isie, having cauterized consciences. But here again let the Reader observe the desperate doctrine of the Papists; who as they account no man justified in whom there is any sin, so they teach all works to be absolutely sins, in which is any defect: whereupon the accusation which they falsely lay to our charge, will be verified of them, viz. that all the best works of the faithful are sins. For we deny them to be sins though they have some defects; but they affirm them absolutely to be sins, if there be any defect in them, as undoubtedly there always is, as I have alr •… ady proved.
§. X. These were his testimonies of holy Scriptures: in the next place he produceth other witnesses, viz. Ambrose, Jerome, Aug •… stine, Gregory and Bernard: who testify nothing against our assertion, but against the malicious misconceit of the Papists, who conceive, or, at least report of us, that we put no difference betwixt good works and sins. From which we are so far, that we willingly, subscribe to that conclusion, which he would prove out of the fathers, and is the title of his chapter, Opera bona non esse peccata, sed vere bona, that good works are not sins, but truly good.
§. XI. Now follow his reasons; which if they served to prove no more, than the same question, which again, is propounded to be proved, we would not gain say. But his first reason is brought to prove, that the good works of the righteous are no way vitiated, corrupted, or defiled: and consequently that they are not only truly, but also purely good. For if they were contaminated, saith he, that would arise, either from our inbred concupiscence; or, from the defect of love towards God, or, from the mixture of venial sins concurring with them. But from none of these. For neither is that concupiscence a sin in the regenerate •… , nor is the want of the love of God a sin in them, nor venial sins such sins, as are contrary to the Law of God, or unto charity.
Thus, for the confirmation of one error Bellarmine •… broacheth three more. But if concupiscence be a sin, if the want of God's love be a sin, if those, which the Papists call venial sins, be sins indeed: then must it be confessed, that the good works which are stained with the flesh, which proceed from a defective love of God and our brethren that are mixed with divers imperfections and corruptions, are notpurely good.
§. XII. As for concupiscence of the flesh, which remaineth in the regenerate, it hath possessed and defiled all the parts and faculties of the soul, which as they are in the regenerate partly spirit, so they are also partly flesh. And these two are opposite one to the other, the Spirit lusting against the Flesh, and the Flesh lusting against the Spirit. So that though Will be present with us, that we cannot do what we would and much less after what manner we would, that is, with our whole souls, with our whole mind, heart, and affections. For what good we mind or will as we are Spirit, the same we will as we are Flesh. This concupiscence the Apostle had not known to be a sin, had not the Law said, non concupisces, that is, thou shalt have none evil concupiscence, neither habitual nor actual. Neither is it only a sin, as the Apostle oftentimes doth cal it, but also it is the mother-sin, I am. 1. 13 Rom. 7. 17. which taking occasion by the Law, to produce ill concupiscences therein forbidden, is convinced, not only to be a sin, but exceedingly sinful, Rom. 7. 13. But of this I have spoken before, and proved by the testimony of Augustine, that concupiscence against which the good Spirit lusteth, (viz. in the regenerate, for in the unregenerate the Spirit is not) is both a sin, and the cause of sin, and a punishment sin.
§. XIII. And as touching the second: the sum of the Law is, that we should love God with all our heart, and with all our soul, &c. but where is any defect of love, there God is not loved with all the heart, &c. it being legally understood: and therefore every defect is an aberration from the Law, and consequently a sin. I have also proved out of Augustine, that it is a fault where love is less than it ought to be, from which fault it is, that there is not a righteous man upon earth which doth good, and sinneth not. For which also though we be never so good proficience, we must of necessity say, forgive us our debts. Therefore every defect is a debt, that is, a sin, whereunto we may add that of the same Augustine. It is a sin, either when there is not charity where it ought to be, or is less than it ought to be, whether this may or may not be avoided by the Will.
§. XIV. And as to the third: If those, which the Papists call venial sins be not contrary to the Law, then they are not forbidden in the Law: and without doubt they are not commanded therein. Now if neither they be commanded nor forbidden, then they are things indifferent:. but that is absurd: yea but (saith he) venial sins hinder not justice, And the Scripture absolutely calleth some men just and perfect, notwithstanding their venial sins. I answer, they hinder not imputative justice, nor evangelical perfection which is uprightenesse: for to them that believe and repent they are not imputed. Neither can it be denied, but that the most upright men have their imperfections, infirmities and slips, which though in themselves and according to the Law are mortal sins (for if they should not be forgiven, they would, as Bellarmine himself confesseth, exclude men from heaven:) yet to them that are in Christ Jesus th •… y become venial by the mercy of God, through the merits and intercession of Christ.
§. XV. His second reason is taken from divers absurdities, which he conceiveth do follow upon our assertion: when as indeed they follow not upon our doctrine, but upon his malicious misconceiving and misreport thereof; as if we held, that all, even the best works of the righteous are mortal sins. But we acknowledge, that the good works of men regenerate are truly good, and so to be called, notwithstanding the imperfection thereof. Only we deny them to be purely good: wherein we have the consent of holy Scriptures and of the ancient Fathers, some whereof I before alleged, to whom I added Gregory and Bernard. Gregory in the concl •… sion of his Moralls saith thus, Mala nostra pura mala sunt, & bona quae nos habere credimus, pura bona esse uequaquā possunt: Our evil things are purely evil, and the good things which we suppose ourselves to have, can by no means be purely good. Bernard, t Our lowly justice (if we have any,) is perhaps true, but not pure. Unless peradventure we believe ourselves to be better than our forefathers, who said no less truly, than humbly, all our righteousnesses are as it were the cloth of a menstruous woman; we do not say that the good works of the faithful are sins, and much less mortal sins: For we hold, that the sins of the faithful become to them venial. But this we say with Solomon, that there is not a righteous man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not, which in effect is the same with that assertion of Luther, Iustus in omni opere bono peccat.
§. XVI. Now let us examine the absurdities, which he absurdly, upon his own malicious misconceit, objecteth against us. In all which it is supposed, that we call the good works of the righteous sins, yea mortal sins. The first: if all the works of the faithful be sins, then the work of faith, whereby we are justified, and that prayer whereby we beg remission of sin, should be sins.
Answ. The work of faith and the act of prayer are good, but not purely and perfectly good. Neither are we justified by the worthiness or by the work of our faith, but by the Object which it doth receive; nor obtain our desires by the merit of our prayer, but by the mediation and intercession of Christ our Savior. Our faith is such, that we have need always to pray, Lord increase our faith, Lord I believe, help mine unbelief: and our prayer such, that when we have performed it in the best manner we can, we have need to pray, that the wants and imperfections of our prayer may be forgiven us.
§. XVII. The second: If all the works of the righteous be sins, with what face could the Apostle say, that h •… knew nothing by himself? And what boldness was that, for his good works, that is, for his mortal sins, to expect a Crown of righteousness? Answ. Though the Apostle had no doubt sometimes offended after his conversion; yet he was not conscious to himself in particular of any actual sin or crime committed by him: for as the Psalmist saith, who can understand his errors? No man, saith Basil, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , free from sin but God; for of those many things wherein we offend, the most we understand not: for which cause the Apostle saith, I know nothing by myself, but in that I am not justified: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, in many things I offend, and doc not perceive whence also the Prophet saith, who understandeth his trespasses? But though he was not conscious to himself of his slips and oversights; yet he was not ignorent of his own corruptious and infirmities: against which when he had prayed to God, he received this answer; My grace is sufficient for thee, and in weakness my power is made perfect. Neither did the Apostle expect the reward for the merit of his works, but for the truth and fidelity of God, who is just in keeping his promise made to the upright, though imperfect indeavers of his servants. And therefore the reward, whereby God doth crown his own gifts in us, is called a crown of righteousness, not of ours, but of God's righteousness, as Bernard saith.
§. XVIII. The third: If all the works of the righteous were mortal sins, then God himself should sin mortally, because it is God that worketh in us, when we do any good works, Phil. 1. and 2. Answ. If all good works were absolutely sins, yea mortal sins, as they maliciously charge us to hold: then indeed, God, who is the author of them, might perhaps be said, though not to sin, and much less to sin mortally (for he is not subject to the precept of the Law and much less to the curse of it) yet to be the author of sin. But we hold, that the good works of the faithful are truly good, though not purely good: and that what goodness is in them is the work of God, and what impurity is in them, it is from the flesh, which staineth the works of grace in us. Neither are the defects of the secondary causes to be imputed to the first cause. That which God worketh in us, no doubt is good, but this good work he hath but begun in us, as in the place by him quoted, Philippians 1. 6. for our in regeneration we are not wholly renewed, and at once, for then we should be wholly spirit and no flesh. Neither doth the leaven of grace season the whole lump at once, but the inward man is renewed day by day: And what is not yet renewed is a remainer of the old man, and what is not Spirit, is flesh. Now between these two there is a perpetual conflict, the spirit lusting against the flesh, and the flesh lusting against the Spirit. So that a man regenerate cannot with full consent of will do either good or evil, there being a reluctance of the Spirit against the evil, which the flesh affecteth; and a rēluctation of the flesh against that good, which is willed by the Spirit. By reason of this conflict it comes to pass, that as the sins of the faithful are sins of infirmity more or less, and not willful sins committed of mere malice: so the good works of the faithful are not purely good, but stained with the flesh.
§. XIX. The 4. that our assertion is greatly injurious to our Redeemer, who as the Apostle saith, gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, & might purge unto himself an acceptable people, zealous of goodworks: For neither should he truly have redeemed us from any iniquity, nor truly cleansed his people, nor made them zealous of works truly good, but of mortal sins, namely if all their good works be mortal sins, (which we utterly deny)
But I answer, Our Savior Christ gave himself for us, both that he might justify us by redeeming us from all iniquity, and also that he might sanctify, or as the Apostle speaketh, that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous or studious of good works. The iniquity from which he redeemeth us, is not only of those transgressions, which are absolutely sins, but also of those imperfect and defective works, which we endeavor to perform in obedience to God. And herein, as I have said, the high Priest was a notable type of our Savior Christ, who did wear in the forefront of his Miter a plate of gold, in which was engraven this inscription Holiness of the Lord, meaning of Jehovah our righteousness, which he was appointed to wear, that he might bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the Children of Israel should hallow in all their holy gifts, that notwithstanding the iniquity of them they might be accepted before the Lord, by imputation of his holiness, who is Jehovah our righteousness. And the like is to be said of the incense of the Saints upon earth, that is, of their prayers, and all other their good works: which have need to be perfumed with the odors of Christ's sacrifice; that so being defective in themselves, they may be accepted of God in Christ. As for our sanctification, it is true, that Christ gave himself to sanctify us. But this sanctification is but begun, and in part in this life, and is to be perfected in the life to come. So saith the Apostle, Ephcs. 5. that Christ loved his Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself ( viz. at the marriage of the Lamb) a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish: which last words, as I have shown out of Augustine, are to be understood not of the Church militant on earth, but of the Church triumphant in heaven. The works, which we are to be studious of, are works not only truly, but also, as much as is possible, purely good. For though we cannot in this life attain to full purity and perfection: yet we must aspire towards it, affecting and desiring to perform good works in a better manner and measure, than we can indeed attain unto. Howbeit we must say with the Apostle to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not, for the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do, and lest it should be said, that the Apostle speaketh all these things in the perof a carnal man, he concludeth thus: so then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , even I myself, with the mind, that is, the Spirit serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the Law of sin.
§. XX. The fifth, If all good works are mortal sins, then some mortal sins are good works: and then we may conclude thus. All good works are to be done: some mortal sins are good works; therefore some mortal sins are to be done. Again, no mortal sin is to be done; all good works are mortal sins; therefore no good work is to be done. Conclusions worthy of the Lutherans, that some mortal sins are to be done, and that no good work is to be done. Answ. we deny good works to be mortal sins. though in every good work the most righteous do sin. The work it self is good, though the defect or imperfection, which goeth with it, is evil. The good work therefore is to be done: the defect we are to strive and to pray against, and to crave pardon for it. To which deprecation we are to expect this answer or the like, My grace is sufficient for thee, and in thy weakness my power is perfected. Again, we must distinguish betwixt works, which are sins absolutely and per se: and those which are only by accident. For those which are good per se, are to be performed as well as we can, because commanded, knowing that God will accept of our upright though weak endeavor.
§. XXI. The sixth and the last, who seeth not, that these words, good works are mortal sins, imply a contradiction, for they shall be good and not good, &c.
Answ. We do not affirm that good works are mortal sins, neither do we deny them to be truly good. Only we deny them to be purely and perfectly good. And we acknowledge the impurity and imperfection concurring with them to be a sin: and consequently, that the good works of the faithful are good per se, as being commanded, as being the fruits of the Spirit, and of faith working by love; but sinful per accidens, as being stained with the flesh, yea, but saith Bellarmine, Bonum non existit nisi ex integra causa, malum vero ex quolibet vitio: that is, that is not to be accounted a good work whereunto all things do not concur which are requisite, but that is evil wherein there is any defect: therefore if there be any defect or imperfection to be found in any work, that work is not to be accounted good but evil. Answ. that rule of Diony sius, is true, according to the rigor of the Law, which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from which our Savior hath delivered us; but it is not true according to the covenant of grace, wherein the Lord accepteth the sincere and upright endeavors of his children. though defective and imperfect, for perfect performance, their wants being not imputed unto them, but covered with the robe of Christ's perfect righteousness. As therefore their persons, though in themselves sinners, are in Christ accepted as righteous; so their actions, though in themselves defective, are acceptable in Christ. Here therefore we may justly retort both the accusation it self, and all these absurdities upon the Papists, who be necessary consequence are proved to hold, that all the works of the righteous are simply evil and so absolutely to be called sins.
Those works wherein is found any defect or imperfection are not good, but absolutely they are to be called sins, as the Papists teach:
But in all even the best works of the righteous there is to be found some defect, imperfection, or blemish, as being stained with the flesh. This assumption is plainly taught in the holy Scriptures as I have proved heretofore:
Therefore all, even the best actions of the righteous, are absolutely to be called sins, as the Papists teach.
Here then let all men again take notice of the Popish pharisaisme, or pharisaical hypocrisy of Papists, with whom no man is just or justified, in whom is any sin: no action good, but simply evil, in which is any defect: and yet their persons are just, and their actions not only good, but also meritorious, and that ex condigno, and that ration operis, of eternal life.
CHAP. V. Our fourth Argument, that the righteousness by which we are justified, satisfieth the Law: so doth Christ's righteousness, so doth not that, which is inherent in us.
§. I. N Ow I return to our own proofs. The fourth argument therefore to prove jointly that we are justified by Christ's righteousness and not by ours, may be this.
By that righteousness alone and by no other we are justified by which the Law is fully satisfied; By the righteousness of Christ alone the Law is fully satisfied, and not by any righteousness inherent in us or performed by us:
Therefore we are justified by the righteousness of Christ alone, and not by any righteousness inherent in us, or performed by us.
For the proof of the proposition, three things are to be acknowledged: first, that whosoever is justified is made just, by some righteousness: for as I have shown heretofore, to think that a man should be justified without justice, is as absurd, as to imagine a man to be clothed without apparel: secondly, that all true righteousness is a conformity to the law of God, which is the perfect rule of righteousness, insomuch as what is not conformable to the Law, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is iniquity and sin: thirdly, that there can be no justification without the Law be fulfilled, either by ourselves, or by another for us. For our Savior, when he came to justify us and save us, protested, that he came not to break the Law but to fulfill it: and professeth that not one jot or tittle of the Law should pass unfulfilled, Matth. 5. 17, 18. Saint Paul likewise avoucheth, that by the doctrine of justification by faith, the Law is not made void, but established, Rom. 3. 31. The proposition therefore is undeniable. The assumption hath two parts: the former, affirmative, that by the righteousness of Christ the Law is fully satisfied: the other, negative, that by any righteousness inherent in us, or performed by us, the Law neither is, nor can be fully satisfied. For the clearing of the assumption in both the parts, we are to understand, that to the full satisfying of the Law, since the fall of Adam two things are required, the one, in respect of the penalty, unto the suffering whereof sin hath made us debtors: the other, in respect of the precept, to the doing whereof the Law doth bind us. The former, to free us from hell and damnation; the other to entitle us to heaven and salvation: according to the sanction of the Law, If thou dost not that which is commanded, thou art accursed: if thoudoest it, thou shalt be saved. In respect of the former, the Law cannot be satisfied in the behalf of him, who hath oncetransgressed it, but by eternal punishment, or, that which is equivalent: in respect of the latter, it is not satisfied, but by a total, perfect and perpetual obedience.
§. II. Now our Savior Christ hath fully satisfied the Law for all them that truly believe in him, in both respects. For he hath superabundantly satisfied the penalty of the Law for us by his sufferings and by his death: and he hath perfectly fulfilled the Law for us, by performing all righteousness, in obeying his Father in all things, even unto death: and by them both he hath justified us, freeing us from hell by his sufferings and entitling of us unto heaven by his obedience. And therefore the holy Ghost affirmeth that we are justified by his blood,