A Treatise of Justification

CAP. VI. Our fifth •… argument, containing four branches: By that w •… e are justified, by which we are absolved, redeemed, reconciled, and for which we shall be saved.

§. I. T He fifth argument. By what righteousness we are justified, by it we are absolved from our sins, redeemed from our iniquities, reconciled unto God, and for it we shall be saved: And again by what righteousness we are absolved, redeemed, reconciled, and for which we shall be saved, by it we are justified.

By that righteousness which is inherent in ourselves, we are not absolved from our sins, nor redeemed from our iniquities, nor reconciled unto God, nor for it shall be saved: But by the righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, we are absolved from our sins, redeemed from our iniquities, &c.

Therefore we are not justified by that righteousness which is inherent in ourselves, but by that righteousness which is out of us in Christ.

The proposition in both the parts thereof containeth four branches. The first, by what righteousness we are justified, we are by it absolved from our sins: and a converso, by what righteousness we are absolved from our sins, by that we are justified. This is proved from the signification of the word justify, as being a judicial word opposed to condemnation, which I have at large proved before . For this doth invincibly demonstrate, that by what we are justified, by that we are acquitted and absolved: and by what we are absolved, by that we are justified. But more specially it may be proved out of Act. 13. 38, 39. where, as I have shown before, not only the word justification and remission of sins are promiscuously used, but the phrase also of being justified from sin signifieth plainly to be absolved from sin: where also the main question itself is concluded. Be it known unto you saith S. Paul to his brethren the Jews who feared God, that through Jesus Christ is preached unto you forgiveness of sins. And by him all that believe are justified from all those things (meaning sins) from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. From our sins therefore we are justified or, absolved by the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, from which we could out be acquitted by any obedience, which we could perform to the Law.

§. II. But of this place we are further to speak in defense of Calvin's allegation thereof against Bellarmine's cavils. Calvin, proving that God doth justify us, when he absolveth us from our sins, and accepteth of us in Christ, allegeth this place. Through this man, that is, Christ, is preached unto you remission of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. You see, saith Calvin, that justification is here set after remission of sins by way of interpretation ^r you see plainly, that it is taken for absolution: you see, that it is denied to the works of the Law: you see, it is merely the benefit of Christ: you see, that it is received by faith: and finally you see, that there is a satisfaction interposed, where he saith, that through Christ we are justified from our sins.

Bellarmine pretending to answer this argument, relateth it thus, as if Calvin had said; First, By this man, that is, by Christ we are justified, and not by any virtues or qualities of ours: Secondly, is preached, that signifieth, that the very preaching or declaring of the promise, if it be apprehended by faith, doth justify, for so the Apostle presently expoundeth himself, by him everyone that believeth is justified. Thirdly, forgiveness of sins: that signifieth that justification consisteth in nothing else, but in remission of sins wherefore t •… e inward renovation is not the other part of justication: for that renovation is not so much justifica •… ion, as an effect thereof. And lastly, these words, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses, do signify, that justification doth not consist in the observation of the Law, but only, as hath been said, in remission of sins for or through the righteousness of Christ imputed, Thus, as you see, he maketh Calvin speak what he pleaseth. But because the things, which he enforceth in Calvin's name upon this place, be for the most part our assertions, it shall not be amiss to weigh the answers which he maketh to them.

And first, where it is said per hunc, by this man, he saith, this doth not exclude our virtues or qualities infused of God. For by Christ we are justified as the efficient, which is signified by the preposition per: by virtues and qualities infused, as the formal cause. Now if Christ or his righteousness be the efficient cause, then it cannot be the formal cause; for the form is the effect of the efficient; nor can the same thing be the cause and effect of the same thing. Neither may they say as they are wont, that this is a mystery of faith, that reason cannot attain unto. For mysteries though they surmount reason, yet are notrepugnant to reason. Neither ought we to fain mysteries (as the Papists use to do) where the Scriptures have an easy and perspicuous meaning. R •… ply. This were a good caveat to the papists. As for us, we faineno such mysteries, neither do we say, that Christ or his righteousness is both the efficient and formal cause of our justification. But this we say, that the righteousness of Christ, is both the matter of our justification, and also the merit both of our justification and salvation: and that Christ himself as he is Mediator is the secondary efficient of our justification, affording unto it both the matter thereof and the merit.

§. IV. That word is preached doth not signify, saith he, that by the only preaching of Scriptures apprehended by faith men are justified. For then Peter would not have said, Act. 2. 38. Do pe •… ance, and be everyone of you baptized for remission of sins. But it signifieth, that remission of sins is preached to all that believe in Christ, as they ought, that is, in doing whatsoever he comma •… death to be done, according to that Mat. 28. 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. In this sense everyone that b •… leeveth is justified, that is, whosoever believeth as he ought, namely by fulfilling all things, which faith doth declare ought to be fulfilled. For not he that believeth a Physician, though he be never so skillful, and one that infallibly cur •… th, is healed, unless he receive such medicines as he doth appoint.

Reply. We do not say, that preaching alone apprehended by faith doth justify: but we say, that a true and a lively faith, which is begotten by the preaching of the Word, doth justify a man before God: and that, wicked is that aphorisine collected out of Bellarmine , that by the preaching of the Word of God faith is stirred up, and so sins are forgiven, is a fiction of the heretics of our time. Nay, we say more, that by the preaching of the Word, faith is not only excited, where it was before; but that it is first wrought ordinarily, and begotten by the ministry of the Gospel. The Papists ascribe the begetting of faith to the Sacraments, and the stirring of it up to the Word. As if faith infused in Baptism did lie a sleep until it be excited and awakened by the word, But the Scripture teacheth us, that faith cometh by hearing the Word, that Preachers are Ministers by whom you do believe, that without a preacher men cannot ordinarily believe, Rom. 10. 14. that men are begotten to God by the preaching of the Word, 1 Cor. 4. 15. that therefore preachers are their Fathers in the faith, that they justify men, Dan. 12. 3. because they are the instruments of the holy Ghost to beget faith in them, whereby they are justified. Why then doth Peter require them to whom he had preached, to repent and to be baptized? I answer, that the holy Ghost by Peters sermon had wrought the grace of faith in the hearers before they were baptized, Act. 2. 41. as by Paul's preaching, Act. 13. 48. in so many of the hearers as were ordained unto life, in Lydia, Act. 16. 14, 15. By Philip's preaching in the Eunuch, Act. 8. 38. by Peters preaching in Cornelius and his company, Act. 10. 43. 44. and by this faith they were justified before God before they were baptized, even as Abraham was before he was circumcised, Rom. 4. 11. But that they might be justified also in the Court of their own Conscience, and much more that they might be saved; many other things, as repentance and a godly life, with the use of the Sacraments, and of all other good means are required besides that faith, whereby alone they are justified before God. And to this end did Peter require them to repent and to be baptized: not that Baptism properly doth justify, and much less that it begetteth •… aith, for, in all these faith was wrought before they were baptized, but because it is a seal of that righteousness which is by faith to them that are baptized, not only at the time of Baptism, but whensoever or how long soever they believe. And whereas he saith, that remission of sins is preached to those that believe as they ought: I confess it is true, that remission is not promised to an idle dead or counterfeit faith, but to the true, lively and effectual faith, which in some measure purifieth the heart, and worketh by love; causing a man, though not to fulfill all things that are commanded, as Bellarmine speaketh; yet to will, to desire, and to endeavor that he may perform all things commanded, according to the measure of grace received. But though obedience be a necessary consequent of faith: yet it is very absurd to confound it with faith, as Bellarmine here seemeth to do.

§. V. As for his similitude of the Physician, I answer: the only means to be cured of the wounds of our souls, which are our sins, by our spiritual Physician which is Christ, is to believe in him; and the only plasters to be applied are his sufferings and merits: for by his stripes we are healed Esa. 53. 5. and the only means, on our part, to apply them is faith. For even as Moses lifted up the brazen Serpent in the Wilderness, that those who were bitten by the fiery serpents might by looking upon that, which was but a figure of Christ, be healed: even so our Savior Christ was lifted up upon the Cross, that whosoever being stung, as we all are, by the old Serpent, and made subject to e •… all death, shall look upon him with the eye of a true faith, shall be saved. To which remedy alone all true physicians of men's souls do use to direct the wounded Conscience: when the Jailor, Act. 16. 30, 31. in great consternation of mind came trembling: and falling down before Paul and Silas, demanded of them what he might do that he might be saved: they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. And this remedy •… in curing miraculously corporal discases was used sometimes with good success, Mat. 9. 21. 22. 14. 36. and was by our Savior himself prescribed as the only receipt, Mar. 5. 36. Luk. 8. 50.

§. VI. Thirdly, where the Apostle in this place nameth only remission of sins, he saith, it hindereth not, but that just •… fication may be understood to consist in remission of sins, and infusion of righteousness. For as we have not once shown saith he, remission of sins is not only the pard •… ning of the punishment, but also the washing away and cleansing of the fault, which is not done but by the cleanness of grace and comeliness of justice coming in the place: which the name of justification pretendeth being named from justice. Reply. Not once, but very oft hath he said, that remission of sin is the utter deletion and extinction of sin, and that it is not a distinct act from infusion of righteousness, because by infusion of justice sin is expelled: as by the accession of heat and light cold and darkness is expelled. But as for condonation and pardon of the guilt and punishment, that he hath utterly excluded from justification. For the pardoning of the guilt and punishment is not done by infusion of righteousness, (which, as he teacheth, is the only act of justification, whereof there is but one formal cause, which is righteousness insu •… ed, as the Council of Trent hath defined) but by imputation of the satisfaction of Christ. For righteousness infused, , as Bellarmine hath confessed, doth not, or cannot, satisfy for our sins. Now if there be but one formal cause of justification (as indeed there is but one) and that one be not the imputation, but the infusion of justice, or, as they rather use to speak, the justice infused, which expelleth sin, which expulsion or deletion they call the remission, yea, the true remission of sin: then the forgiveness of the guilt and punishment belongeth not to justification. But if the forgiving of the guilt and punishment, be the not imputing of sin, which necessarily bringeth with it imputation of righteousness, as Bellarmine confesseth, and the Apostle proveth, Rom. 4. viz. that the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, when he imputeth not sin: then it will necessarily follow, that imputation of Christ's satisfaction or righteousness is the only formal cause of justification; whereby, we being absolved from sin are accepted as just, yea constituted righteous in Christ. And that infusion of righteousness expelling sin, is another thing, which the Scriptures call Sanctification. And this I take to be a manifest truth: which being granted, we have obtained the whole cause.

§. VII. Fourthly, again (saith he) although there were mention made in this place of justification only from sins: yet in many other places there is mention made of Sanctification, of cleansing, of washing, and renewing, which show the other part of justification. Reply, we doubt not, but the Scriptures make mention of both these benefits sometimes severally, and sometimes jointly: which though in use and practice they always go together; yet they must be carefully distinguished. And howsoever the Scriptures often make mention of Sanctification, as well as of justification: yet nowhere do they make Sanctification a part of justification. This Bellarmine should have proved and not have craved. Neither is it to be doubted, but that if forgiveness of the guilt and punishment concur unto justification as a part thereof, renovation or infusion of righteousness being the other part as Bellarmine here affirmeth, the •… e are two actions and two formal causes of justification, which themselves utterly deny. And therefore they must be forced to acknowledge these two actions having distinct forms to be justification, whose form is imputation and sanctification, whose form is infusion of righteousness.

§. VIII. Finally saith he, from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses, signifieth, that the observation of the Law, neither by the strength of nature, nor by help of the Law alone presumed, doth justify: not because the true observation of the Law is not righteousness, but because before remission of sin, the Law cannot be kept. Reply, By the observation of Law is meant, all obedience and righteousness inherent whatsoever prescribed in the Law, whether it go before faith and justification, or follow after. For before, as Bellarmine truly saith, the Law cannot be fulfilled, neither can there be any true righteousness. And that obedience, which is performed after, though it be a righteousness begun in us, and be not only accepted in Christ, but also graciously rewarded: yet it cannot satisfy for our former sins, nor justify us from them. That, which Bellarmine addeth, I admit with some small qualification, as making for us. For God, saith he, when by the merits of Christ he reconcileth any man, he doth withal forgive his sins, (so saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 19. which is all one, as if Bellarmine had said, when God justifieth a man not imputing his sin, and accepting of him as righteous in Christ) then he infuseth charity, by which he may keep the Law, which is all one as if he had said, when God hath justified a man he doth also Sanctify him. This, saith he, is that which Saint Augustine so often repeateth (and wholly maketh for us) opera non pr •… cedere justificandum, that works go not before, (as causes of justification) sed sequi justificatum, but follow after as effects and fruits thereof. And this Augustine speaketh, not of such works as perfectly fulfill the Commandments, for such there are none whiles they are stained with the flesh: but of all good works, which notwithstanding their defectivenesse, are accepted of God in Christ, that which he addeth out of Rom. 8. 4. I have discussed elsewhere.

§. IX. But to return to the proof of my proposition: to that place of the Acts, I add for the further proof of the first branch, Rom. 4. verse. 5, 6, 7, 8. where the Apostle useth these words promiscuously, justification and blessedness, and proveth out of Psal. 32. 1. that this blessedness consisteth in remission of sin, or, as he also speaketh, in the not imputing of sin, and imputation of righteousness without works: from whence this is proved; by what righteousness we have remission of sin, by that we are justified: and by what we are justified we have remission of sin. The second branch; by what righteousness we are redeemed, by that we are justified, and e converso, by what we are justified, by that we are redeemed. The benefit of redemption is explained by the Apostle, Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. to be remission of sin, and expressed by the phrase of redeeming from all iniquttie, Tit. 2. 14. Psalm. 133. 8. The third branch, by what righteousness we are reconciled to God, by it we are justified, and by what we are justified we are reconciled. The Apostle Rom. 5. 9, 10. useth these words promiscuously, to be justified by the blood of Christ, and to be reconciled to God by the death of his Son, and 2 Cor 5. 19. God is said to reconcile men unto him in Christ, when he doth not impute untio them their sins, but imputeth unto them righteousness, even the righteousness of God, that is, of Christ, that they only may be made the righteousness of God in him, verse. 21. The fourth branch: for what righteousness we are saved, by that we are justified, and e converso: that which is the matter of justification is the merit of salvation: for which cause justification and to be justified is many times expressed, by salvation or to be saved: for they that are justified are saved in hope ; and by what they are justified, by that they are entitled to salvation, and by what we receive remission of sins, by that also we receive our inheritance. Justification may be compared to the institution of a Minister unto a benefice which giveth jus ad rem; glorification to induction which giveth possession, and jus in re.

§. X. I come to the assumption: the first branch whereof is, that we are absolved from our sins by the righteousness of Christ, and not by any righteousness inherent in us •… both wich are plainly averred, Act. 3. 38, 39. The former also is everywhere testified: that the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins, and that it doth cleanse us from all our sins, that he is the propitiation for our sins, &c. The latter is also evident, that we cannot be absolved from our sins by righteousness inherent: first, because it cannot satisfy for our sins: secondly, because it cannot stand in judgment. If we should plead it before God, we could not be justified thereby, Psal. 143. 2. Neither are we able to answer him one of a thousand, Io •… 9. 3. Thirdly, because our obedience, though it were total (as it is never in this life) yet it were a debt and we cannot be absolved from one debt, by the payment of another, when ye shall have done all things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do, Luk. 17. 10. The second branch, that we are redeemed by the merits of Christ, and not by our own righteousness, needeth no proof, neither in respect of the affirmative, that by his blood we have redemption even the remission of our sins, that he gave himself to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a full price of ransom to redeem us from all iniquity. Nor in respect of the Negative; unless it may be thought, that we, who were held captives under sin and Satan to do his will, could deliver ourselves, which God doth swear to be his gift, Luk. 1. 73, 74. Neither could we be delivered out of the hands of the strong man, but by him that is stronger than he. The third branch also is manifest, both in respect of the affirmative, that we are reconciled unto God by the death of his Son, Rom. 5. 10. Col. 1. 21, 22, and also of the negative. For we were enemies, when we were reconciled, and such enemies, as whatsoever we minded was enmity against God, Rom. 8. 7. Lastly, the fourth branch needeth no proof, neither in respect of the affirmative, unless it may be thought needful to prove, that we are saved by the merits of Christ: nor in respect of the negative, the Scriptures so often testifying that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, no not by any works of righteousness that we have done. So much of this argument, which if I should strive for number might stand for eight, four for the affirmative and four against the negative.

CAP. VII. Containing six other arguments, proving jointly that we are justified by Christ's righteousness, and not by ours.

§. I.

T He sixth argument: The righteousness, by which we are justified, is the righteousness of faith, and not of works, as Saint Paul constantly teacheth.

The righteousness which is out of us in Christ is the righteousness of faith; or the righteousness which we receive and have by faith, or the righteousness of God by faith: The righteousness inherent is of works. By that justice therefore we are justified, and not by this.

§. 2. The seventh: The righteousness of God, by which we are justified, is not prescribed in the Law to justification, but without the Law is revealed in the Gospel, Rom. 3. 21.

The righteousness which is out of us in Christ was not prescribed in the Law to justification, but without the Law is revealed in the Gospel: righteousness inherent is prescribed in the Law to justification, which in the question of justification is renounced in the doctrine of the Gospel. This being the main difference between the Law and the Gospel, that the Law to justification requireth perfect obedience to be performed in our own persons: the Gospel propoundeth the obedience of Christ which he performed for us, to be accepted in their behalf who believe in him. Wherefore let him be held accursed, though he were an Apostle, though an Angel from heaven, who shall reach justification by the legal righteousness, and not by the evangelical. Again, the Law was given as the Apostle saith four hundred and thirty years after the covenant of Grace, and promise of justification by faith in Christ, was made to Abraham: and therefore cannot disannul that covenant which was before confirmed in Christ, that it should make the promise of none effect, which it would, if the promise of justification were made upon condition of fulfilling the Law.

§. III. Eighthly, By what righteousness we are justified, the justice of God is fully satisfied. God being so merciful in forgiving sins that he remaineth just, Rom. 3. 25, 26. For though he proclaim himself merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin: yet he protesteth, that absolving he will not absolve, that is, by no means will absolve such as ought not to be absolved, that is, such as for whom his justice is not satisfied. Neither doth he indeed forgive any sin, for which his justice is not satisfied. But as every sin deserveth death, so it is punished with death, either with the death of the party, for whom he hath no other satisfaction: or with the death of Christ, who hath satisfied the justice of God for the sins of all that truly believe in him.

By the righteousness of Christ which is out of us in him, the justice of God is fully satisfied (as Bellarmine himself proveth, g and therefore professeth that in him he is well pleased. Finally, saith Bellarmine, Nothing more frequently doth all the Scripture testify than that the passion and death of Christ was a full and perfect satisfaction for sins. He made the atonement between God and us, giving himself an offering and sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savor.

But by that righteousness which it inherent in us, the justice of God is not satisfied, as Bellarmine confesseth. Therefore we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, which is out us in him, and not by righteousness inherent in us.

And here I will make bold, with Bellarmine to borrow a speech from him, (which he borrowed as it seems from our Writers) to the confusion of himself and all other Popish Iustitiaries. For where Osiander had argued, that God accepteth for a satisfaction no justice, but that which is infinite, and consequently none but his own uncreated and essential righteousness, Bellarmine answereth: God indeed doth not accept as a true satisfaction for sin, any justice, but that which is infinite, because sin is an infinite offense. But that some justice may be finite, that is, of infinite price and valor, it is not necessary that it should be the essential justice of God, but it is sufficient that it be the justice of an infinite person, such as Christ is, God and man. Therefore the obedience, the passion and death of the Son of God, though in it self and essentially it was a created justice and finite, notwithstanding in regard of the person, who obeyed, suffered, and died, it was infinite, and in the true rigor of justice it was a propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins alone, but for the sins of the whole world. From whence I argue thus, that justice, which is of infinite value, the Lord accepteth as a true satisfaction for sin, and that which is not of infinite value he doth not accept; for the offense of sin is infinite. But the righteousness of Christ only is of infinite value, ours is not: therefore the Lord accepteth Christ's righteousness, and not ours, as a true satisfaction for sin.

§. IV. Ninthly, they that cannot be justified without remission of sin, are justified neither by inherent righteousness, because they are sinners, nor without the righteousness of Christ imputed; without which, as there can be no satisfaction for sin, so no remission of sin.

But no man can be justified without remission of sin. Therefore no man is justified by righteousness inherent, but only by the righteousness of Christ.

§. V. The tenth, that is to be esteemed the true doctrine of justification, which doth minister sound comfort to the distressed conscience of the faithful; and that false, which is a rack to the conscience of God's children, when they are humbled under the hand of God.

The doctrine of justification by the merits and obedience of Christ imputed, ministereth singular comfort to the distressed conscience of the faithful, even in the agony of death: assuring the believing sinner, that howsoever the devil accuseth, the Law convicteth, the conscience confesseth his demerits: yet notwithstanding, if he truly believe in Christ, he shall be accepted of God as righteous in Christ, and as an heir of eternal life; Christ's sufferings and obedience being imputed unto him, and accepted of God in his behalf, as if he had suffered and performed the same in his own person.

But the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness, is, as it were, a rack to men's consciences. For when a man being summoned to appear before the judgment seat of God, shall seriously consider with himself, what he shall oppose to the accusations of Satan, to the conviction of the Law, to the Testimony of his own Conscience, confessing himself to be a most wretched sinner, to the judgment of God, the most righteous judge: If he look back to his own conversation, as having nothing to trust to, but his own righteousness, he shall find sufficient matter of despair. He may say with Anselm, Terret me vita mea, &c. my life doth terrify me: for being diligently examined, my whole life almost appeareth either to be sin or barrenness: and if there seem to be any fruit therein, it is either so counterfeit, or imperfect, or some way or other corrupted, as that it can do no other, but either not please, or displease God. And summoning himself before the judgment seat of God, he findeth himself to be in great straits. On this side, saith he, will be accusing sins, on that side terrifying justice: under, will lie open the horrible gulf of hell; above, an angry Judge; within, a burning conscience, without, a flaming world—where shall I be hid, how shall I appear? to be hid is impossible, to appear is intolerable. To avoid these straits, there is no way but to renounce the doctrine of justification by works or inherent righteousness, and to fly to the doctrine of the Gospel teaching justification by the grace of God, freely without respect of works through the merits of Christ received by faith: and to appeal from the tribunal of God's justice to the throne of his mercy. For whiles a man retaineth this opinion, that he can be no otherwise justified than by his own good works, or inherent righteousness, he can never be soundly persuaded, that his righteousness is sufficient for that purpose, but ever hath just caufe not only of doubting but also of despair. And this is the cause of that Popish opinion, that no man without special revelation can be assured of the remission of his sins, or of salvation.

§. VI. The eleventh and last argument shall be taken from experience. For when men seriously considering of their justification before God, as a judicial act of God (as the word it self importeth) shall sincerely, and in the fear of God, set themselves before his judgment seat, where they must receive the sentence either of absolution or condemnation; and shall bethink themselves, what, they being accused of Satan, and convicted by the testimony of their own Conscience, have to oppose to the just judgment of God, why sentence of condemnation should not pass against them; they would utterly disclaim their own righteousness. For as Augustine, and other of the Fathers observe, as before I have noted, out of the eight and nine verses of Prov. 20. joined together, cum Rex justus sederit in solio, quis potest dicere mundum est cor meum, when the righteous King shall sit upon his throne, who can say, my heart is clean? yea, the best of the Papists, when By deadly sickness •… e, as God's messenger, they have been summoned to come before God's judgment, they have been forced to leave their school-tricks, and sophistical distinctions; and plainly renouncing their own righteousness, to rest wholly upon the mercies of God and the merits of Christ. Insomuch that many who have lived Papists, have in this most weighty point died reformed Catholics. And to this purpose there is extant among them in divers Books a form of visiting the sick, wherein both the Pastor is directed what to say, and the sick person is instructed what to answer. The Pastor therefore having demanded these questions, Brother dost thou rejoice that thou shalt die in the faith? doest thou confess that thou hast not lived so well as thou ought? Doth it repent thee? hast thou a will to amend, if thou hadd'st space of life? Dost thou believe that our Lord Jesus Christ died for thee? doest thou believe that thou canst not be saved but by his death? and having received affirmative answers to every question, he inferreth this exhortation; that whiles his soul remaineth in him, he should place his whole affiance in the death of Christ, and in no other thing: and that if God will judge him, if he shall say unto him thou art a sinner, that thou hast deserved damnation, that he is angry with thee; he should say, O Lord I interpose the death of thy Son between me and thy judgment, between my sins, and thee, between me and my bad deserts, between me and thine anger. In the edition printed at Venice, there are these two questions, dost thou believe that thou shalt come to glory not by thine own merits but by the virtue and merit of Christ's passion? And a little after, dost thou believe that our Lord Jesus Christ died for our Salvation, and that no man can be saved by his own merits, or by any other means, but by the merit of his passion? unto both which an affirmative answer was made: but both blotted out in the Index expurgatorius set forth by Cardinal Quiroga.

CAP. VIII. The disproof of the Popish assertion affirming, that we are not justified by righteousness inherent.

§. I. N Ow we are severally to disprove the Popish assertion and to prove ours. As touching the former, that we are not justified by righteousness inherent. Our first argument may be this. That righteousness of God, by which we are justified, is not prescribed in the Law, as before hath been proved, Rom. 3. 21. nor is that righteousness which is of the Law, Phil. 3. 9.

All inherent righteousness is prescribed in the Law, and is that which is of the Law:

Therefore inherent righteousness is not that righteousness of God, by which we are justified.

That all inherent righteousness is prescribed in the Law, it is manifest: first, because the Law is a perfect rule of all inherent righteousness, whether habitual or actual: secondly, because charity, wherein they place their inherent righteousness, even that charity, whereby they are to love God withal their souls, and their neighbor as themselves: that charity, which proceedeth from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from faith unfeigned is prescribed in the Law, as the sum and complement thereof, Matth. 22. 37. 39, 40. 1 Tim. 1. 5.

§. II. To avoid this most evident truth, Bellarmine bringeth a frivolous distinction, as he applieth it; to wit, that there is, justitia legis, and justitia in lege or exlege: The justice of the Law, the justice in the Law or of the Law. The justice of the Law is that very justice which the Law prescribeth, or that justice which is described in the Law, and is not rejected by the Apostle but commended. That justice which is in, of, or by the Law, is that, which men without faith and without grace do perform by the strength of nature, only holpen by the knowledge of the Law. And this, saith he, the Apostle doth reject as unprofitable, and opposeth it to the righteousness of faith. h. e. saith he, operibus bonis quae fiunt ex gratia & fide, that is, to good works which are done by grace and by faith. So that justitia fidei, the righteousness of faith, is now in Bellarmine's divinity, become justi •… ia operum, the justice of works. Pererius to the same purpose bringeth a threefold distinction of justice, that it is Legis, ex lege, & Dei: and inveigheth against Calvin, for that he took no notice of it, being so plainly, as he saith, taught by the Apostle, Rom. 9. 31. 10. 3. 5.

§. III. Answ. 1. This distinction cannot be collected out of the writings of Saint Paul, who nowhere mentioneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the righteousness of the Law, and much less distinguisheth it from that which is of, in, or by the Law (though the vulgar Latin hath justitias legis, where the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ro. 2. 26. and justificatio legis, Rom. 8. 4. where the Greek is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but useth these terms to express our inherent righteousness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 10. 5. Phil. 3. 9. or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Phil. 3. 6. that which is of, in, or by the Law: which terms the righteousness of the Law, or that which is of, in, or by the Law, do no more differ than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 4. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 9. 30. 10. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Phil. 3. 9. the righteousness of faith, or that which is of, by or through faith. Secondly, the righteousness of the Law is that, which the Law prescribeth, as themselves define it: and what doth that differ from that, which is prescribed in the Law? Thirdly, of the righteousness of the Law our Savior speaketh, saith Pererius, Matth. 19. 17. If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. Of that, which is of or by the Law, Moses speaketh that he which doth those things (that are commanded) shall live in them: betwixt which two speeches of Christ and Moses there is no difference. Fourthly, if the righteousness prescribed in the Law could be performed, then would the Law give life, according to that legal promise, he that doth these things shall live thereby, Levite. 18. 5. Ezek. 20. 11. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. Rom. 2. 13. and if there had been a Law given which could have given life then there should have been righteousness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of, or by the Law, Gal. 3. 21. and therefore that perfect righteousness justifying and giving life, should be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the righteousness which is of, or by the Law. Fifthly, the righteousness of the Law is, as they teach, necessarily required of all that shall be saved, and cannot be performed without grace and without faith: and therefore, according to their doctrine, differeth not at all from the righteousness of faith, hoc est, saith Bellarmine, operibus bonis quaefiunt ex gratia & fide, that is, from good works, which are done by grace and faith. So that by this goodly distinction, the Law and the Gospel, the Law of works and the Law of faith, the righteousness of the Law, and the righteousness of faith are confounded. For the righteousness of the Law is charity proceeding from grace and from faith, 1 Tim. 1. 5. and the righteousness of faith as Bellarmine here teacheth are good works proceeding from grace and faith. And yet I deny not, but that great difference is to be made between the seeming obedience performed by carnal men without faith & without grace, (which cannot truly be called righteousness) and the new obedience of men spiritual and regenerate proceeding from faith working by love, as the fruits of the Spirit. But neither the one, nor the other, is the righteousness of Faith. The new obedience of the faithful is indeed a righteousness begun, and performed in some measure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the Law, Act. 22. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the Commandments, 2 John 6. but the righteousness of faith is this, that he who believeth in Christ, in that he believeth, fulfilleth the Law. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he that believeth in Christ fulfilleth the Law, saith Photios , and likewise Primasius , qui in Christo credit, ipse perficit legem, for to him Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the end and complement of the Law, Rom. 10. 4. and in him by Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which the Law requireth to justification is fulfilled, Rom. 8. 4. Chrysostom , the end of the Law, saith he, was that a man might be justified: but this end, Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more amply performed by faith: fear not therefore (saith he) because thou art a transgressor of the Law, seeing thou art come to faith. For then doest thou transgress the Law, when by reason of it thou doest not believe in Christ: but if thou doest believe in him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thou hast also fulfilled the Law, and much more than it commanded: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for thou hast received a much greater righteousness, viz. the righteousness of Christ, which is the righteousness of faith.

§. IV. Yea, but Augustine hath this distinction, denying those who have justitiam in lege or ex lege in or by the Law, to fulfill justitiam legis the righteousness of the Law. I answer, that Augustine disputing against the Pelagians, who held that men might fulfill the righteousness of the Law by the strength of nature, saith, that they might have a kind of righteousness in the Law or by it, which notwithstanding did not fulfill the righteousness of the Law, which could not be done without the grace of the Spirit. By the justice of the Law, Augustine meaneth that which the Apostle calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for otherwise Paul never so much as nameth the righteousness of the Law) that is, whatsoever the Law requireth to justification. This justice of the Law, Augustine considereth in the Abstract, as Bellarmine also himselse doth in his first book, for that righteousness of the Law, as it is described in the book of the Law, being perfect and complete: which Bellarmine saith is properly called the justice of the Law, of which he saith, justitia legis est in libris, the justice of the Law is in books; even as habitual righteousness is in the heart; and actual, in the hands. The justice in and by the Law he considereth in the concrete, with relation to the subject in whom it is, viz. for that righteousness which men attain unto by their observation of the Law written. And he proveth against the Pelagians, that the righteousness, which they seemed to have in lege, or ex lege, in or by the Law, did not fulfill justitiam legis the righteousness of the Law: unto which we may add against the Papists, that all the righteousness, even of the faithful also and regenerate, (though endeavoring to live according to the Law, and according to the Commandments), which they have in or by the Law, doth not fulfill the righteousness of the Law, which Paul calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Christ only fulfilled for us: by whose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he being but one, we are justified, Rom. 5. 18. For as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or guilt by the fall of one man came upon all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to condemnation; so by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the righteousness of one whereby he fulfilled the Law▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the grace of absolution and of God's acceptation redounded upon all unto justification of life. And thus this distinction maketh against the Papists. For justitia legis the justice of the Law considered in the abstract, as it is described in the book of the Law, being most perfect, is never fulfilled by that righteousness of the concrete in or by the Law, which men not only carnal but spiritual also attain unto by their observation of the Law, being always imperfect in this life and stained with the flesh. For even as it may be said of all other graces, which being considered in the abstract, are perfect, and are so defined: but considered in the concrete as they be in men, who have received but the first fruits of the Spirit, according to the measure of the donation of Christ, they are imperfect: So the righteousness of the Law, as it is taught in the Law, and as it was performed by Christ, is perfect; but as it is in all mortal men, it is imperfect. Therefore righteousness inherent in us is not that righteousness of God by which we are justified.

§. V. Our second argument. That doctrine, which confoundeth the righteousness of the Law and of the Gospel, and by confounding them maketh void the Covenant of grace, is false and Antichristian.

The Popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness, confoundeth the righteousness of the Law and of the Gospel, and maketh void the covenant of grace.

Therefore it is false and Antichristian.

The assumption is thus proved: whosoever maketh the condition of justification to be the perfect fulfilling of the Law in our own persons, confoundeth the Gospel with the Law. For the righteousness of the Law is, the man that doth these things (which are prescribed in the Law) shall live by them: but the true condition of the Gospel is, believe in Christ, and thou shalt be saved. He also maketh void the Covenant of grace. For if justification be promised upon condition of perfect obedience or righteousness, which condition is impossible by reason of the flesh, then is the promise void and of none effect. But the Papists make the condition of justification to be the perfect fulfilling of the Law in our own persons, or perfect righteousness inherent. Again, whosoever are made debtors to the whole Law, to them not only the covenant of grace is void, but Christ himself is of none effect, as the Apostle teacheth, Gal. 5. 2, 3. But they who must be justified by inherent righteousness are made debrours to the whole Law, which they must perfectly fulfill, else they cannot be justified. But of this more hereafter.

§. VI. Our third argument, That doctrine, which depriveth Christians of the chief part of that Christian liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, is false and Antichristian. The popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness depriveth Christians of the chief part of that Christian liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free: the chief part of our liberty is, that, which we have by justification, wherein we are freed from hell, and intitled to heaven. And that is a freedom from a double yoke of most grievous bondage, wherein all are held that are under the Law: the former in respect of the curse, under which all are, who in the least degree at any time transgress the Law, Gal. 3. 10. which all do both oft and grievously: the other in respect of the rigor of the Law, excluding all men from justification and salvation, who do not perfectly fulfill it: which by reason of the flesh is unpossible. But by the popish doctrine the benefit of justification it self is taken away, as I have shown, and with it, the liberty, which we have by it. For if we cannot be justified but by perfect inherent righ •… eousnes, then are we subject to the curse, then are we excluded from all possibility of justification and salvation as being sinners in ourselves, wherefore all those, who will stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, must abhor the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness, which entangleth the imbracers of it with this double yoke of bondage, whereby they are subjected to the curse and damnation, and are excluded from heaven and salvation.

§. VII. Our fourth Argument, No sinners, whiles they remain sinners, are justified by righteousness inherent.

This seemeth to be the Apostle argument in the three first Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans: whosoever are sinners, they are not justified by the works of the Law, that is to say, by no righteousness inherent in themselves or performed by themselves.

§. VIII. Our fifth argument: None that are accursed by the Law, are justified by their obedience to the Law, for to be justified is to be blessed, Rom. 4. 6.

§. IX. Our sixth argument: whosoever is justified by inherent righteousness fulfilleth the Law.

But no mortal man doth fulfill the Law, as I have elsewhere defended and proved at large. And thus Chrysostom argueth.

To this argument add a seventh as being a Consectary thereof: whosoever is justified by inherent righteousness, and namely by charity, he is justified by his own fulfilling of the Law. For charity is the fulfilling of the Law, but no man is or can be justified by his own fulfilling of the Law, for none can fulfill it: therefore none are justified by inherent righteousness.

§. X. Our eighth argument: we are not justified before God: both by faith and by works, by God's righteousness and our own, by that righteousness which is out of us in Christ, and by that which is inherent in ourselves. For the holy Ghost maketh such an opposition between these, as that they cannot stand together, Rom. 3. 28. 4. 4, 5. 9. 30, 31, 32. 11. 5, 6. Phil. 3. 9. Gal. 2. 16. 3. 11. Eph. 2. 8, 9. But we are justified by faith, by the righteousness of God through faith, by Christ's righteousness which is out of us in him. viz. by his sufferings and by his obedience, as besides the places even now quoted appeareth, Rom. 5. 9. 19.

Therefore we are not justified by righteousness inherent in ourselves.

§. XI. Our ninth argument: Imputative righteousness is not inherent, as being not ours, nor in us, but communicated to us by imputation.

The righteousness by which we are justified is imputative: that

I prove, first, by testimony, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8, 23, 24. for then is God said to justify, when not imputing sin, he imputeth righteousness without works. Secondly, by reason. The personal righteousness of Christ is inherent in him and not in us, being proper to his person, though by imputation communicated unto us. The righteousness of God, by which we are justified, is the personal righteousness of Christ, 2 Pet. 11. viz. his passive and active righteousness, Rom. 5. 9. 19. And that it is his personal righteousness, appeareth evidently, because it is the righteousness and obedience of one only, whereas if it were a righteousness from him in us, it would be the justice of so many as are justified: so saith the Council of Trent, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam.

§. XII. Our tenth argument. That justification which the Scripture teacheth, taketh away all matter of boasting, Rom. 3. 27. Epbes. 2. 9.

But justification by works or by inherent righteousness doth not take away all matter of boasting, Rom. 3. 27. 4. 2. Eph. 2. 9.

Therefore justification by works or inherent righteousness is not that which the Scriptures teach, we must therefore say with Ambrose, that is profitable to me, that we are not justified by the works of the Law: wherefore I have not whereof to glory in my works, I have not whereof to boast. And therefore I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I am just, but I will glory, because I am redeemed. I will glory, not that I am without sin, but because my sins are forgiven me. I will not glory because I have been profitable, or because any other hath profited me, but because Christ is an Advocate for me with the Father, and because his blood was shed for me.

§. XIII. Our eleventh argument: If there be no justification but by righteousness inherent, and that also perfect and pure, then is justification promised upon an impossible condition, and so consequently the promise should be void and of none effect. But far be it from us to think, that the promise of justification by Christ is void and of none effect. Therefore we are not justified by works, or by righteousness inherent, but by faith, that the promise might be sure to all the seed, as the Apostle reasoneth, Rom. 4. 13, 14, 15, 16.

§. XIV. Our twelfth argument: because unto justification concurreth remission of sins, as a necessary part thereof: from whence three arguments arise, First, true justification is not without remission of sin. The popish justification by infusion of perfect righteousness is without remission of sin. For although they pretend that to their justification concurreth remission of sin: yet by remission they not understanding the pardoning or forgiving, but the extinction and abolition of sin, have utterly excluded from justification the forgiveness of sin, as I have shown before. Secondly, unto true justification necessarily concurreth remission of sin. And where is remission of sin, there is imputation of righteousness without works. But in the popish justification there needeth no imputation of righteousness; and that for two reasons, which Bellarmine doth prosecute at large in his dispute against imputation. The one, because in justification by infusion of righteousness, sin is fully expelled, and therefore no need of imputation. And secondly, because the righteousness which is infused is perfect of it self without imputation of any other righteousness. Thirdly, if our justification and blessedness doth consist in the forgiveness of our sins, as it doth Rom. 4. 6, 7. ex Psal. 32. 1. then not in perfect inherent righteousness: for where is need of the forgiveness of sin, there is no perfect righteousness inherent. And where perfect righteousness is infused, there needeth not imputation of righteousness.

§. XV. Our thirteenth argument. If Abraham, David, and Paul were not justified by righteousness inherent, then much less any of us, who are so far inferior to any of them.

Not Abraham, whose example was a samplar in this behalf, Rom. 4. 23, 24. For as Abraham the father of the faithful was justified, so are we Abraham though he were a mirror of piety abounding with good works; yet was not justified thereby. As the Apostle proveth, Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5. For to whom righteousness is imputed of grace through faith, he is not justified by works before God: And contrariwise whosoever is justified by works, to him the reward of righteousness is not imputed of grace, but rendered as a due and deserved debt, ver. 4. To Abraham righteousness was imputed of grace through faith, verse. 3. and 5. and therefore though he abounded with works, yet he was not justified by works, verse 2. or inherent righteousness, but by faith without works.

Not David: for he though a man according to God's own heart, walking before God in truth and righteousness and in uprightness of heart: yet he desireth the Lord that he would not enter into judgment with him, for if he did, not only himself, but no man living could be justified: for himself, he maketh this confession, as Augustine understandeth him, nam me invenies reum, si in judicium intraveris mecum, for thou shalt find me guilty, if thou shalt enter into judgment with me. And therefore he places his blessedness or justification, in the not imputing of sin, and imputing of righteousness without works, Psal. 32. 1, 2. Rom. 4. 6, 7. and professeth, Psal. 71. 16. I will remember thy righteousness only.

Not Paul: for he, though he knew nothing by himself, yet professeth that he was not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4. 4. though he had lived after his conversion in all good conscience before God, Act. 23. 1. though herein he did exercise himself to have always his conscience 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , clear and without offense towards God and man: yet in the question of justification he renounceth all his righteousness inherent, that he might be found in Christ endued with his righteousness. And •… o these we might add, Job, Isaiah, and Daniel, who, as well as the former, had that righteousness which is à Domino, I mean, righteousness inherent, but were not justified thereby, see Job, 9. 2, 3. 15. 20. 10. 15. 42. 6. Isaiah. 6. 1. 5. Dan. 6. 7. 18.

§. XVI. Our fourteenth argument: The righteousness by which we are justified, is the righteousness and obedience of one, and but of one, Rom. 5. 18, 19. Inherent righteousness is not of one, but of so many as are endued therewith. Therefore inherent righteousness is not that whereby we are justified.

CAP. IX. The several proof of our assertion, that we are justified by that righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him.

§. I.

_ •… Ow I am to prove severally our assertion: that we are justified by Christ's righteousness. And first, I prove it by that argument, which Bellarmine's useth against Osiander, what righteousness God accepteth in our behalf, by that we are justified: The righteousness of Christ which he performed for us in the days of his flesh, God accepteth in our behalf: otherwise, saith he, why did the Son of God take our flesh upon him, why did he humble himself to become obedient until death, &c. Therefore by the righteousness of Christ performed in his manhood, we are justified, &c.

§. II. Hereunto I add a second out of the same place for Bellarmine, though he holdeth against Osiander, that we are not justified by the essential righteousness of the Godhead: yet he confesseth that the Lord accepteth of no righteousness as a satisfaction for sin, but that which is of infinite value: such is the righteousness of Christ only in regard of the dignity of his Person, being the true God, the great God, God above all, blessed for ev •… rmore; therefore by his righteousness only we are justified: but of this see more in the seventh Chapter here I argue thus: what righteousness the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sins, by that we are justified:

By Christ's righteousness, I say, imputed, and accepted of God in our behalf. The assumption is thus proved. What righteousness is of i •… finite value, that, and that alone the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sins.

§. III. My third argument shall be from those places, wherein either it is said, that our righteousness is in Christ, Isaiah. 45. 24, 25. and that we are righteous in him, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 8, 9. or our Savior Christ himself is said to be our righteousness. Jeremiah prophesying of the Messias the righteous Branch, whom God would raise to David, saith; In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell sasely: and this is the name whereby he shall be called, JEHOVAH our righteousness, Ier. 23. 6. and the very same prophecy is repeated, I •… r. 33. 16. that the Branch of righteousness should grow up to David, in whose days Judah should be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and he who shall call her, that is, Jerusalem his Church (for so it ought to be read) is JEHOVAH our righteousness, 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him ye are in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption; where Christ is said to be made our righteo •… snesse. To this Bellarmine answereth: that Christ is rightly called our righteousness, for two causes: first, because he is the efficient cause of our justice. For as God in the Psalms is called our strength and our Salvation, because it is God that strengtheneth and saveth us, and in this place, as Christ is said to be made our wisdom and redemption, because he maketh us wise and redeemeth us: So Christ is called our right •… ousnesse, because he maketh us just, viz. by infusion of righteousness.

§. IV. Reply, It is true, that Christ, when he doth sanctify us by his Spirit, is the Author of inherent righteousness in us: but this is that which followeth in the text, that he is our Sanctification. These two benefits, as they are here distinguished, so they ought not to be confounded. Bernard in a Sermon of his doth oftentimes very elegan •… lie go over these four unctions, as he calleth them, distinguishing justification and sanctification, as we do: Christ, saith he, was made unto us wisdom, in preaching; justice, in absolution of sins; sanctification, in his conversation; redemption, in his passion—the shadow of thine ignorance he hath driven away with the light of his wisdom, and by that righteousness which is of faith he hath loosed the cords of sin, freely justifying the sinner: by his godly conversation he hath given a form of life, and by his death he hath given a price of satisfaction—he freeth from error (by his wisdom) he covereth faults (by his righteousness) he giveth merits (that is ability of working well) by his life, and rewards by his death—enlighten mine eyes O Lord that I may be wise, remember not the sins of my youth and mine ignorances, and I am just: lead me O Lord in the way, and I am holy: but unless thy blood mediate for me I am not safe—he was made unto us of God wisdom, teaching prudence; justice, forgiving sins, &c. They only are wise who are instructed by his doctrine, they only just who of his mercy have obtained pardon of sin, those only temperate or holy, who study to imitate his life; they only valiant, who imitate his patience.

§. V. And that they are here to be distinguished, appeareth by this consideration: that in this text all the benefits, which we have by Christ besides our election, which is also noted in the first words (of him ye are in Christ) are reduced unto four heads. For of God we were elected in Christ, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, in our vocation; righteousness, in our justification; holiness in our Sanctification; full redemption in our glorification: that so we may learn not to boast in ourselves , but to ascribe the whole glory of our salvation and of all the degrees thereof, to Jesus Christ our alone and perfect Savior. To the like purpose Theophylact observeth the order here used by the Apostle: first, he exempteth from error, and making men wise instructeth them to the knowledge of God: then he giveth the pardon of sins: and by his holy Spirit indueth them with holiness: and then granteth perfect deliverance from all evils, which he calleth redemption, as Chrysostom also and O •… cumenius who observe the same order. And likewise Theoderet, he gave you true wisdom, he gave unto you remission of sins, vouchsafing unto you righteousness, and he made you holy, and delivered from the tyranny of the Devil. All these four benefits are the fruits of Christ's office of mediation, as he is our Prophet, our Priest, and our King. For as our Prophet, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, he calleth us by the Gospel, his doctrine being our wisdom, and making us wise unto salvation: as our holy Priest he justifieth us, his sacrifice and his obedience, being our righteousness: as our gracious and glorious King, being ascended on high to prepare a place for us, he giveth the graces of his holy Spirit to his members, whereby they being sanctified are fitted and prepared for his kingdom: and being gone to prepare a place for us, and us for it, he will come again to bring us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the redemption of possession or our full redemption, which is also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Thes. 5. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 2 Thes. 2. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Heb. 10. 39. the obtaining of salvation, the obtaining of glory, and the saving of the Soul, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the redemption of the body, Rom. 8. 23. Christ therefore is of God made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption or salvation: because his wisdom is communicated unto us by instruction in our vocation, his righteousness is communicated unto us by imputation in our justification; his sanctifying graces by infusion in our sanctification, his glory by possession or fruition, in our glorification.

§. VI. In rendering the second cause, he confesseth the truth: whereof I desire the Reader to take special notice. That Christ is called our righteousness, because he satisfied his Father for us: which his satisfaction he doth so give and communicate unto us, when he doth justify us, that it may be called our satisfaction and our righteousness. For although by justice inherent in us we be truly called and are righteous: notwithstanding we do not by it satisfy God for our faults and for eternal punishment—And thus, saith he, it were not absurd to say, that Christ's righteousness and merits are imputed unto us, when they are given and applied, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. And to that purpose he citeth Bernard who saith, that Christ died for all, ut viz. satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur, that the satisfaction of one may be imputed to all but addeth this needless caution, modo non negetur, saith Bellarmine, esse in nobis preterea justitium inherentem •… ámque veram, so it be not denied that there is in us besides a justice inherent and that true: which, if Bellarmine would stay there, we would yield unto. For we do not deny, that there is a righteousness inherent in those that are justified, and that also a true, though not a pure, a perfect and absolute righteousness: only we deny that we are thereby justified. We are indeed just, but by Christ's righteousness, as Bernard saith in the same place: justum me dixerim, sed illius justitiâ.

§. VII. This confession of Bellarmine dissolveth the very frame of his own doctrine of justification: whereunto he hath taught, that nothing concurreth but deletion of sin, and infusion of righteousness. And these, not as two acts, but as one act, viz. the infusion of righteousness expelling sin. As for imputation of Christ's righteousness, he and his fellows deride and scorn it. But here he confesseth, (which needs must be confessed) that in justification the satisfaction of Christ is imputed unto us, and accepted of God in our behalf, as if we ourselves had satisfied God: and that, for that cause he is truly called our righteousness. And this imputation he acknowledgeth to be necessary, because by righteousness inherent we do not satisfy for our sins and eternal punishment: We say the same: only we add that this satisfaction made by Christ in our behalf, is not only his death and sufferings whereby he satisfied the penalty of the Law, and delivered us from the curse, himself being made a curse for us: but also the holiness of his person, and the obedience of his life, whereby he perfectly satisfied the justice of God infulfilling the commandments. Now God's acceptation of Christ's satisfaction in our behalf, whereby he absolveth us from the guilt of sin and damnation by imputation of Christ's sufferings, and his acceptation of us as righteous in Christ, by imputation of his most perfect righteousness and obedience, is that very thing, which we, according to the Scriptures, do call justification, which distinct benefit of Christ not to be confounded with sanctification, the Papists must learn to acknowledge, if they would be saved.

§. VIII. To these I add other as plain testimonies, where it is said, that we are justified by the blood of Christ, and his obedience. From whence I argue thus:

If we be justifi •… d by the blood and obedience of Christ, that is, by his passive and active righteousness, then are we justified by the personal righteousness of Christ, which being proper to his person, is out of us in him. But we are justified by the blood and by the obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 9. 19. therefore by his personal righteousness.

§. IX. Our fifth argument: By what righteousness our sins are covered, as with a garment, and by which we, being endued therewith, appear righteous before God, that is the matter of our justification. For he is justified whose sins are covered, Psal. 32. 1.

By the righteousness of Christ, as a most precious robe of righteousness, and as our wedding garment, our sins are covered. (For as Justin Martyr truly saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for what other thing was able to cover our sins, but his righteousness?) and we being clothed therewith appear righteous before God. Therefore by the righteousness of Christ we are justified. Bellarmine having, as it were, in our name objected to himself, Eph. 4. 22. 24. (which none of us, that I know of, do object, for we acknowledge the place to be understood of sanctification, which consist •… h in the putting off the old man, and putting on the new) he saith, that we argue from the similitude of a garment, as more fitly resembling imputed justice than inherent: and that we confirm it by the example of Jacob, who being clothed with the raiment of his elder brother, obtained the blessing.

§. X. To this Bellarmine shapeth two answers. First, that the similitude of a garment may fitly agree to inherent righteousness, which I will not deny: for in the Scriptures theterme of clothing or putting on, is of a large extent: so that he will confess, that the Hebrew Labash and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , properly signifying to cloth or to put on apparel, which is not inherent in the body, but adherent, is more fitly by a metaphor applied to signify outward, than inward endowments. And therefore that I may come to the proof of my assumption, those phrases of putting on Christ and his righteousness, figured by Jacob his putting on of his elder brothers apparel, Gen. 27. of the wedding garment, Mat. 22. 11. of the first or chief robe, Luke. 15, 22. of the white garment promised by Christ, Apoc. 3. 18. of the fine linen clean and shining, which is the righteousness of the Saints. Apoc. 19. 8. (of which place I have spoken before) are most fitly understood of the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, and put on as it were by faith.

§. XI. In his second answer Bellarmine confesseth, that this similitude of garments and that example of the Patriarch Jacob, may after a sound manner be accommodated to righteousness imputed, if it shall be said, that it behooveth us to put on, or to be clothed with the merits of Christ: that, being after a sort covered with them, we may ask of God pardon of our sins: for as I have said before (saith he) Christ alone was able to satisfy for our sins, and indeed in justice did satisfy: and that satisfaction is given and applied to us, and reputed ours, when wear reconciled unto God and justified. That example therefore being referred to the righteousness of satisfaction for the fault, it may be admitted. But if it be referred to that righteousness, whereby we are formally justified, when of sinners and wicked men we are made just and godly, it is by all means to be rejected; seeing it is manifestly repugnant, to the Scriptures, to the Fathers, and to reason it self. For that one man should satisfi •… for another, it may easily be conceived: but that one man should be just, because another is just, was never heard of, and is not only above, but also against reason,

§. XII. Here, as you see, Bellarmine maketh a distinction betwixt the righteousness of satisfaction, and that by which we are formally made just. But what is that righteousness of satisfaction? No doubt, that whereby our Savior satisfied the Law for us; which he was to satisfy, as I have shown before, not only in respect of the penalty threatened, by his sufferings; but also in respect of the Commandment, by his perfect obedience fulfilling the condition of the promise, Do this and live. To this, Bellarmine acknowledgeth the similitude of garments and the example of the Patriarch Jacob may fitly be applied: which is as much as we desire. For this is the whole righteousness of justification, wherein the Lord imputing to a believer the sufferings of Christ, covereth, or not imputeth or forgiveth his sins and the punishment thereunto belonging; and imputing unto him the perfect obedience of Christ, accepteth of him as righteousness in Christ. For it is most certain, that to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, them he accepteth as righteous: and that he imputeth righteousness, to whom he imputeth not sin, Rom. 4. 6, 7. For as Bellarmine himself confesseth, the not imputing of sin bringeth with it the imputing of righteousness. Neither is it to be doubted, but that the Lord accepteth as well the merits of his obedience, as of his sufferings. And what is that justice, whereby he saith we are formally made just? no doubt inherent justice, or the righteousness of sanctification, by infusion where of sin is expelled. To this, saith Bellarmine, the similitude of apparel and the example of Jacob cannot be applied. For though one may satisfy for another: yet one cannot be formally just by the righteousness of another: which never any of us (to my knowledge) affirmed. The more absurd was Bellarmine in thinking so absurdly of us. For because he confoundeth justification and sanctification, he would needs bear the world in hand, that we confounding them also, do teach, that we are formally made just by the righteousness of another, which is out of us in him. But if justification and sanctification are to be distinguished, as I have proved they must of necessity be distinguished: then it will appear manifestly, that, that which Bellarmine calleth the justice of satisfaction, is the whole righteousness of justification: and that, by which he saith we are formally made righteous, is the righteousness of sanctification. Now we are well content, that the righteousness whereby we are sanctified, or formally made righteous, should not be imputative: so that they will confess, that the righteousness of Christ's whole satisfaction, whereby we are justified before God, is imputed unto us: which they must confess, or else they cannot be saved. Here therefore we may sing the triumph, and say; Magna est veritas & praevalet.

And thus have I abundantly proved, that the righteousness of God, whereby we are justified, is not any righteousness inherent in us or performed by us: but only the righteousness of Christ our Savior, which is out of us in him, as being proper to his person; though by imputation communicated to all that truly believe in him.

CHAP. X. Bellarmine's eight allegations to prove justification by inherent righteousness, answered.

§. I.

N Ow I am to examine Bellarmine's proofs. And first he allegeth Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19. out of which place he would prove, that to be justified by Christ is not to be accounted or pronounced just, but to be truly made and constituted just by obtaining inherent righteousness; and that, a righteousness not imperfect, but absolute and perfect: for, that to justify, in this place, is to makejust, and not to pronounce just, appeareth; first, out of those words, verse 19. many shall be constituted or made just, unto which allegation I have heretofore answered in his due place so much as concerneth the signification of the word, and have maintained the exceptions of Calvin and Chemnitz, against his cavils. His second reason is from the Antithesis of Adam unto Christ. For thus, saith he, the Apostle writeth. As we are made unjust through the disobedience of Adam, so we are made just through the obedience of Christ.

But it is certain, that through Adams disobedience we are made unjust by injustice inherent, and not imputed:

Therefore through the obedience of Christ we are made just by righteousness inherent, and not imputed.

Answ. We confess, that as from the first Adam we receive inherent corruption in our carnal generation: so from the second Adam we receive inherent grace in our spiritual regeneration, but this is not our justification, but our sanctification, whereof the Apostle speaketh not in this place, whereas therefore he assumeth, that we are made unjust through Adams disobedience by inherent injustice only not imputed, I deny the assumption, and return the argument upon the Adversary.

As we are made sinners, that is, guilty of sin and damnation by Adams disobedience or transgression: so we are justified, that is, not only absolved from the guilt of sin, and damnation, but also accepted as righteous u •… to salvation, by the obedience of Christ.

But we are made sinners, that is guilty of sin and damnation by imputation of Adams disobedience, or transg •… ession:

Therefore we are justified, that is, not only absolved from the guilt of sin, but also accepted as righteous, by imputation of Christ's obedience.

As touching the proposition: that the word sinners doth in this place signify guilty of sin, and obnoxious to condemnation; it is testified by Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what then is the word sinners in this place? it seemeth to me, that it is to be subject or obnoxious to punishment, and condemned to death: by Oecumenius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and by Theophylact likewise, sinners; that is obnoxious to punishments and guilty of death, which exposition is plainly confirmed by the verses going before, where the same opposition between the first and second Adam being made, the •… ormer part is expressed in these words, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or guilt of Adams transgression came upon his posterity 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto condemnation, especially, verse. 16. and 18.

§. II. The assumption, though gain-said by Bellarmine in this place yet is taught not only by other Papists, who fully contradict Bellarmine's Assumption but elsewhere also by Bellarmine himself. For Durand, Pighius, Catharinus, do hold original sin to be nothing else, but the guilt of Adams fall, or the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us, which opinion also Occam professeth, that he would hold, if he were not hindered by the authority of the Fathers. Yea, saith Bellarmine it seemeth to have been the opinion of some of the ancient, as Peter Lombard, reporteth. I •… refuting this opinion Bellarmine justly findeth fault with them, that they held original sin to be nothing else, but the guilt of Adams disobedience imputed, it being also the depravation of our nature following thereupon. But in that they say, original sin is the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us, that he doth approve. For Adam alone did ind •… ed commit that sin by actual will. but to us it is communicated by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit, nimirum per imputationem, after that manner whereby that may be communicated which is transcient and gone, to wit by imputation. Omnibus enim imputatur, &c. for it is imputed to all who are borne of Adam, because we all being then in the loins of Adam, when he sinned, in him and by him we sinned. Yea, and farther he rightly disputeth, that if Adams sin were not ours by imputation, neither the guilt of it, nor the corruption following upon it, had belonged to us. ▪This assertion of Bellarmine confirmeth our assumption and contradicteth his own, alleging that we are made sinners through the disobedience of Adam by injustice inherent, and not imputed: which also he contradicteth in other places. For he granteth the sin of Adam so to be imputed to all his posterity, as if they all had committed that sin, and to the same purpose citeth Bernard . Ours is Adams fault, because though in another, yet we sinned; and to us it was imputed by the just, though secret judgment of God. And again, taking upon him to prove that the propagation of sin may be defended without maintaining the propagation or traduction of the soul: he saith, that nothing else is required to the traduction of sin, but that a man be descended from Adam by true and ordinary generation. For generation not being of a part, but of the person, or whole man (for homo generat hominem ) therefore the person descending from Adam (though his soul be from God) was in the loins of Adam, and being in him originally, as in the root, in him, and with him he sinned; the actual sin of Adam being communicated unto him by imputatio •… . For as Augustine saith, definita est seutentia, &c. it is a resolved case by the Apostle, that in Adam we all sinned.

§. III. But what shall we say to the inherent corruption, which Adam by his transgression contracted? By this assertion, it seemeth not to be traducted otherwise, than as the fruit and consequent of the actual disobedience: which was the opinion of Pighius and Catharinus For as Adam by his first transgression, which was the sin of mankind, contracted not only the guilt of death, but also the corruption of his nature, being both a privation of original righteousness, and also an evil disposition and proneness to all manner of sin, which is that macula peccati remaining in the sinner after the act is gone: so we having sinned in Adam are not only made guilty of death, and void of original righteousness; but also are defiled with that habitual disposition and proneness to all manner of sin. So that, according to this assertion, it may be defended, that nothing in our generation is communicated unto us with the human nature but the disobedience of Adam, which is communicated by imputation. As for the guilt of death and the inherent corruption, they are not derived from Adam, but contracted by our sinning in him. And hereunto we may apply Bellarmine's distinction of sin so properly called: that it is either a voluntary transgression, or that blemish which remaineth in the soul, caused and contracted by the transgression, being of the same nature with it, diffe •… ing no otherwise from it, than as heat from the act of heating. For in the former sense original sin is the voluntary transgression of Adam imputed unto us, and is one and the same in all men; in Adam actual and personal, in us original. For only he by actual will committed it, but to us it is communicated, after that manner, by which, that which is past and gone, may be communicated, to wit, by imputation. In the latter sense it is the corruption inherent contracted and caused, as in Adam by his personal sin, so in us by our sinning originally in him, which though it be alike and equal in all, yet it is every man's own.

§. IV. But supposing original sin, according to the received opinion, to be wholly communicated unto us from Adam in our generation: yet we must distinguish betwixt Adams first transgression or actual disobedience, which we call his •… all; and the corruption or depravation of his nature, which thereupon followed. For though we be partakers of both, yet not after the same manner. Of the transgression we can be no otherwise partakers than by imputation. For Adams transgression being an action, and actions continuing, or having a being, no longer than they are in doing, cannot be traducted or transmitted from Adam to his posterity. But the corruption being habitual, is derivable by propagation. Now the Apostle, Rom. 5. speaketh of Adams actual disobedience once committed by him, by which he saith we are made sinners, that sin of his being communicated unto us by imputation; and not of the corruption thereupon following. So by the like reason we are made just by the obedience of Christ, which he performed for us in the days of his flesh, which can no otherwise be communicated unto us, than by imputation.

Object, Yea, but we are truly made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, and truly made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Answ. As we are truly made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience; so we are as truly made righteous by imputation of Christ's obedience. Just. Yea, but we are made sinners by injustice inherent through Adams disobedience, and therefore we are made just by inherent justice, through •… he obedience of Christ. Answ. We are not made sinners in respect of inherent justice by Adams disobedience formally, as Bellarmine saith, ( Inobedientia Adami nos cons •… ituit peccatores, non formaliter sed 〈◊〉 ) for that only is imputed, but by the corruption which followeth and is caused by that transgression, committed by Adam, and imputed to us. In like manner, we are not made just in respect of inherent justice, by the obedience of Christ, whether active or passive formally, for that is only imputed; but by the graces of the Spirit merited by the obedience of Christ, performed by him, and imputed to us.

§. V. Thus then standeth the comparison betwixt the first and the second Adam. As by the actual disobedience or transgression of the first Adam all his off spring were made guilty of sin, and subject to death, his disobedience being not inherent in them, but imputed to them, as if it were their own, because they were in him originally: so by the obedience of the second Adam all his off spring are or shall be justified from sin and accepted to life, his obedience not being inherent in them, but imputed to them, as if it were their own, because by faith they are in him. And this is our justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness. And further as Adams fall deserved, as a just punishment, the defacing of God's image by inherent corruption in all his posterity, to whom the same corruption is by natural generation transfused: so the obedience of Christ merited, as a just reward, the restoring of God's image in us by inherent righteousness in all the faithful, into whom the said righteousness is in their Spiritual regeneration infused. And this is our Sanctification by the Spirit of Christ, of which the Apostle speaketh not until the next Chapter, where he showeth, that our justification is always accompanied with Sanctification. In a word from either of the two Adams we receive two things, which are contrary each to other. From the first Adam, his disobedience is communicated unto us by imputation, whereby we are made sinners, that is, guilty of sin and damnation; which guilt is opposite to justification, and secondly the corruption, which he contracted, is transfused unto us by carnal generation, which corruption is contrary to sanctification. From the second Adam, his obedience is communicated to us by imputation, whereby we are constituted just, that is, absolved from the guilt of sin and damnation, and accepted in Christ as righteous and as heirs of eternal life which is the benefit of justification, and secondly, the graces of his holy Spirit, which he received without measure, are in some measure as it were by influence infused into us by our spiritual regeneration.

§. VI. Whereas therefore he would prove out of this place, that justification is the obtaining of righteousness inherent. I answer, first, that to be constituted sinners by Adams disobedience, is to be made guilty of sin and subject to death and damnation: and so contrariwise, to be constituted just or justified by Christ's obedience, is to be acquitted from the guilt of sin and damnation, and to be accepted unto life: secondly, that we are constituted sinners by Adams personal sin, which is not inherent in us, but once, and that long since committed by him: so we are justified by Christ's personal obedience, which is not inherent in us, but long since performed by him: thirdly, that as we are truly made sinners by imputation of Adams transgression which is not inherent in us: so we are truly made just by imputation of Christ's obedience, which is not inherent in us: fourthly, that the disobedience of the first Adam is imputed to all his children, because they were in him originally, as the root; so in him they sinned, and therefore when he did fall, they fell: so the second Adams obedience is imputed to all the sons of God, because by faith they are in him, as his members, the head and the members making but one body. This place therefore alleged by Bellarmine, maketh wholly against him. Neither doth that, which he addeth concerning perfect, absolute and abundant righteousness communicated unto us by Christ, agree to that righteousness, which is in herent in us, imperfect and but begun, as being the first fruits of the Spirit; but to the absolute and most perfect righteousness of Christ communicated unto us by imputation. On this place I have insisted the longer, because, though Bellarmine allege it as a prime place to prove his purpose; is notwithstanding a most pregnant testimony to prove justification by impu •… ation of Christ's righteousness, as hereafter shall further appear.

§. VII. His second Testimony is, Rom. 3. 24 which I have also heretofore fully proved to make wholly against him, Lib. 3. Cap. 3. & 4.

His third allegation is out of •… Cor. 6. 11. to which also have I answered before I where acknowledged the benefit of baptism to be here described, according to that which here he allegeth out of Chrys •… st. Ambrose, Theophylact and others which is noted first, generally in the word washed, and then particularly in the words Sanctified, and Justified; the former, signifying the cleansing of the Soul from the pollution of sin; the latter, from the guilt of sin: the former wrought by the Spirit of our God; the latter, by faith in the name of the Lord Jesus. And these two distinct benefits the Scriptures ascribe to Baptism, viz. remission of sins, and regeneration, as I shown before. And therefore these benefits which the Holy Ghost hath accurately distinguished, ought not to be either ignorantly or Sophistically confounded. And whereas he saith, that these benefits (as here it is noted) are wrought by the invocation of the name of Christ, and by the power of his Spirit, neither of which is needful to justification, by declaration or imputation: he saith, he knoweth not what. For to justification (as we conceive of it) to be granted and sealed in Baptism, both these are as needful; as to Sanctification. For to the obtaining of the remission of sins to be sealed unto us in Baptism, invocation of the name of God is required, Act. 22. 16. and it is the Spirit of Adoption, which by Baptism sealeth unto us the remission of our sins.

§. VIII. His fourth testimony is Tit. 3. 1. 6, 7. whence he argueth to this effect:

The proposition, which no man denieth, he laboreth to prove by three arguments, which he might very well have spared; but that he would have the world to think, that we deny sanctification to be inherent. The assumption (which do we deny) he proveth by his own authority; alleging, that in the fifth and the sixth verses, The Apostle describeth justification (which indeed he doth not) to be regeneration and ren •… vation wrough •… in us out of the bounty of God by the laver of Baptism, and effusion of the holy Ghost. This we deny: first, because the word justify, never in the whole Scriptures is used in that sense: secondly, here the Apostle in plain terms saith, that we are justified and saved not by works of righteousness, whereby is excluded all justice inherent, but by God's grace. How then doth he prove it? because in these words, verse. 7, that being justified by his grace we might be heirs in hope of eternal life, the Apostle rendereth a reason, why God by the laver, and by the Holy Ghost did regenerate and renew us, and saith the cause was, that being justified, that is, saith he, that being by that regeneration and renovation justified, we might deserve to be made heirs of the kingdom, and of life everlasting. Answ. This gloss, maketh the Apostle not like himself, but like a popish merit-monger, corrupteth the text, which indeed doth parallel that, 1 Cor. 6. 11. showing how men converted from Gentilism to Christianity should be exhorted to the performance of Christian duties. For howsoever whiles they were Gentiles, they were addicted to many vices and sins: yet after they were called (which the Apostle expresseth thus; after that the bounty and humanity of God was manifested, viz. by the preaching of the Gospel) God, not out of any desert of theirs, but out of his mere mercy, saved them by Baptism (as Saint Peter also speaketh) that is, justified them, for that is the salvation we have here, to be intitled to salvation, or saved in hope; that being justified by his grace, that is, (as he said before) by his undeserved mercy, they should be made heirs, according to hope of eternal life, that is, they might be saved in hope. Of this sentence therefore stripped of its amplifications, as it were its garments, the naked substance is this. But after we were called, God by Baptism justified us, that being justified by his grace, we might be saved in hope. The amplifications which are added, are to set forth and describe Baptism unto us: which as he had noted to be the seal of that righteousness which is by faith, when he saith, that God justified or saved us by it: so he calleth it the laver of regeneration and of the renovation wrought by the Spirit, which God hath plentifully bestowed upon us. So that these words are not a description of justification, as Bellarmine dreameth waking, but of Baptism. And they are added according to the purpose of the Apostle in this place, as arguments to move men to Christian duties. Why? Because Baptism, as it was a seal unto them of their justification; so also a Sacrament of their regeneration and renovation of the Spirit; which Spirit God hath poured forth plentifully upon the faithful: which he speaketh to this end, that the faithful which are Baptized, should make this use of their Baptism, not only as of a seal to assure them of their justification and salvation: but also to be a Sacrament, token, memorial of their regeneration and renovation wrought by the Spirit plentifully poured upon them. (To which purpose the Apostle telleth the Romans, that so many as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into the similitude of Christ's death and resurrection) whereupon the Apostle inferreth in the next words verse. 8. this is a faithful saying, and these things I will thou shouldest affirm and confirm, that they which have believed in God, ought to be careful precedents of good works. The Apos •… le therefore doth not say (as Bellarmine maketh him speak) that we are justified, or saved, or made heirs of salvation by regeneration or renovation, and much less that thereby we merit our inheritance: but that God hath justified, or saved us Sacramentally by Baptism, which as it is the seal of our justification and salvation; so it is also the laver of regeneration and renovation wrought by the Spirit, that being justified by his grace we might, according to hope, be made heirs of eternal life. For howsoever we are neither justified nor saved, nor made heirs of eternal life, by our Sanctification: yet Sanctification is, both the way, wherein from our justification we are to walk unto glorification. For God hath chosen us to salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit, 2 Thes. 2. 13. and therefore sanctification, as it is a necessary consequent of our justification, so it is a necessary fore-runner of glorification, a necessary mark and cognizance of all that are justified and to be saved. And therefore ou •… Savior saith, that by faith in him we receive remission of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified and so the Apostle also, Act. 20. 32.

§. IX. His fifth testimony is, Heb. 11. and some other places of the Scripture, which do give testimony to some men, that they were truly, and perfectly just, and that not by an imputative justice, but inherent: his reason is, because the Scriptures would not call them absolutely just, if they were not absolutely just. Answ. To omit, that it is one thing to be absolutely called just, and another to be just absolutely and perfectly: I answer, that the faithful, who are commended in the Scriptures for righteous, were righteous, by a twofold justice, both imputative and inherent. The former, being the righteousness of justification; the latter, of sanctification: the former, absolute and perfect; the latter, inchoated and imperfect. By the former they were justified before God: in respect of the latter, though they were also called just, yet they were not justified thereby: that is, they were neither absolved thereby from their sins past, nor intitled to the kingdom of heaven; as may appear by all those Arguments which before I produced against justification by inherent righteousness. As for those examples, which he allegeth out of Heb. 11. (which is the Chapter of saith,) namely of Abel, verse. 4. and Noah, verse. 7. &c. it is evident, that they were justified by the righteousness which is of faith (as is expressly said of Noah, verse. 7. ) that is, by the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, and imputed to them that believe: for the righteousnefse, which is of faith, is imputative, Rom. 4. 5. And when it is said, that without faith they could not possibly have pleased God, it is plainly intimated that by faith they pleased God, and that they being before justified by faith, brought forth the fruits of faith acceptable unto God. by which their faith was approved. But as they were just by imputation, that is to say, justified; so also by infusion, that is, sanctified. For the justifying faith, being a lively and effectual faith, purifieth the heart, and worketh by love and may be demonstrated by good works. And where is not inherent righteousness concurring with faith, there is no justifying faith at all. But although sanctification do always accompany justification; yet we are not justified by the righteousness of sanctification, which is inherent: because it is imperfect, and we are sanctified but in part, whiles we have the flesh, that is, the body of sin remaining in us. Neither was there ever any man since the fall absolute or perfect in respect of inherent righteousness, Christ only excepted.

§. X. Yea; but saith Bellarmine the Scripture acknowledgeth some men to have been perfect, Gen. 6. 9. immaculate, Psal. 119. 1. just before God, Luke 1. 6.

I answer, that this perfection is not legal, as being a perfect conformity with the Law, which is the perfect rule of righteousness; but evangelical, as being one of the properties of our new obedience, which is not▪ to be measured by the perfect performance, but by the sincere and upright desire and purpose of the heart. For this uprightness goeth under the name of perfection; and what is done with an upright heart, is said to be done with a perfect heart, and with the whole, that is entire heart. And likewise those men who were upright, are said to have been perfect. And yet notwithstanding all those men, who are said in the Scriptures to have been perfect and to have walked before God with a perfect heart, as Noah, Jacob, Job, David, Ez •… kias, &c. had their imperfections▪ Hezekiah is said to have been a perfect man, and to have served God with a perfect heart: notwithstanding when God left him a little to try him he discovered his imperfections, 2 Chr. 32. 25. 31. Of Asa it is said, 2 Chron. 15. 17. that his heart was perfect all the days of his life, and yet in the very next chapter there are three faults of his recorded; where Zacharias is said to have been just before God, and to have walked in all the Commandments and Ordinances of God blameless: in the same chapter his incredulity is registered, for which he was stricken with dumbness and deafness for the space of ten months. So that all that are sincere and upright, that is to say, no hypocrites, are notwithstanding their imperfections called perfect, and so the word which is translated immaculate, Psal. 119. 1. signifieth upright; and to be righteous before God is all one with upright. Thus the holy Ghost teacheth us to expound the word, which is translated perfect, viz. thamin and tham, that to be upright is to walk before God is to walk before God and to walk before God is to be perfect, Gen. 17. 1. Let perfection and uprightness preserve me, Psal. 25. 21. Psal. 37. 37. Observe the perfect man, and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace.

§. XI. Yea but Bellarmine will prove, that these men which are in the Scriptures called just, were endued with inherent righteousness, because they brought forth good works, which were the fruits and effects of their inward righteousness: for he that doth righteousness is righteous: whom doth he now confute? we do not deny them, who are commended in the Scriptures for righteous persons, to have been endued with righteousness inherent: but we deny, that they, or any of them, were justified before God thereby. As for example, Abraham, who abounded with good works, was justified by faith without works, Rom. 4. 2, 3. and as he was justified, so are all the faithful. Rom. 4. 23, 24. David, though a man according to God's own heart, walking before him in truth, and righteousness, and uprightness of heart; yet professeth, that neither he, nor any man living, could be justified, if God should enter into judgment with them, and therefore placeth his happiness and justification, notin his virtues or good works, but in the not imputing of sin, and imputation of righteousness without works, Rom. 4. 6. Paul, though he knew nothing by himself, yet professeth, that he was not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4. 4. Yea, in the question of justification, he esteemeth his own righteousness of no worth, Phil. 3, 8, 9. But as we do not deny the faithful to be endued with inherent righteousness; so we affirm, that whosoever is justified by imputative righteousness, is also sanctified in some measure with righteousness infused and inherent. In respect whereof, though they be also sins in themselves, by reason of their habitual corruptions, and actual transgressions, being in part carnal and sold under sin, and by the Law, which is in the members, led captive to the Law of sin: yet they have their denomination from the better part. Even as a wedge of metal, wherein much dross is mingled with Gold, is called a wedge of Gold, though not of pure Gold▪ and an heap of Corn, wherein is as much chaff as Wheat, is called an heap of Wheat, though not of pure Wheat: So the faithful man in whom there is the flesh and body of sin, as well as the Spirit and regenerate part, is called of the better part a righteous man, though not perfectly, absolutely, purely, just in respect of his righteousness inherent. Indeed every true believer, so soon as he is indeed with a true justifying faith, is perfectly just, by righteousness imputed; but at the best he is sanctified only in part.

§. XII. His sixth testimony is taken out of Rom. 8. 29. and 1 Cor. 15. 49. where it is said, that the just are conformable to the image of Christ, and do bear the image of the second Adam, as they have borne the image of the first Adam, from whence he collecteth three reasons: The first,

The proposition he proveth by the places alleged.

First I answer to the proof of the proposition; that the places alleged are imperti •… ent: For the question being of the righteousness of •… ustification, never any understood the Apost •… e in these places to speak thereof: But either of filliation, as Chrysostom and others understand the former plate, because as Christ is the Son of God, so also are we: or of afflictions, because whom God hath predestinated to be like his Son in glory, they shall be conformable to the image of his Son in bearing the Cross (which sense is given by our Write •… s and is agreeable to the scope of the Apostle in that place to the Romans ) or of Glory, that when he shall appear we shall be like him in glory: of which as Ambrose, Sedulius and others understand, Rom. 8. •… 9. fo the other place being read in the future, as it ought to be in the latter branch (as we have borne the image of the earthy, so we shall bear the image of the heavenly) is necessarily to be understood. Or of holiness as Oecumenius understandeth that place, that as he is holy, so we should be holy also. Neither is it to be doubted, but that the image of God, according to which we are renewed, consisteth in true holiness and righteousness but that is the righteousness of sanctification, whereby we resemble the image of Christ in true righteousness & holiness. But the righteousness of justification is Christ's righteousness itself, not the image of it.

§. XIII. As touching the proposition it self; we must distinguish betwixt the thing, and the manner. In respect of the thing, it is true, that Christ is righteous, and so are all his members. But in respect of the manner▪ it is not true, neither generally, nor adequate or reciprocally, as Bellarmine understandeth it: who from thence argueth negatively, as well as affirmatively. For things that be like are not like all •… ogether, and in all respects: as may appear by other resemblances, in respect whereof we are said to bear the image of Christ. As first in respect of filliation. Christ is the Son of God, and so are we. True, in respect of the thing, but not true in respect of the manner. For he is the Son of God by nature, and by eternal generation: but we are the Sons of God in him by grace of regeneration and adoption. Secondly, in regard of the Cross. Christ did bear the Cross, and so do we. True in respect of the thing, but not true in respect of the manner. For Christ's sufferings were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the price of ransom which he as our Redeemer laid down for us. But we do not suffer as redeemers, neither are our sufferings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a price of ransom, but either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 chastisements for sin, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 trials for our good, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 our sufferings for Christ, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is such chastisements or corrections as the Lord layeth upon his children having scandalously offended, to vindicate his own honor. Thirdly, in respect of glory; Christ is glorified, and so shall we, who bear his image, true in respect of the thing, but not in respect of the manner: for he as the head, we as the members, according to our proportion. Fourthly, in respect of holiness or sanctification. Christ was holy, and so are we, true in respect of the thing, for whosoever is in Christ he is a new creature, renewed according to his image in true holiness, but not in respect of the manner. Christ was holy from his conception, and originally, so are not we. Christ in himself was perfectly just and holy without blemish of sin, so are not we.

§. XIV. But as touching the righteousness of justification, we are not said to bear Christ's image. Neither can Christ be said truly and properly to be justified as we are. For justification properly is of a sinner, and it consisteth partly in remission of sin. But if in respect thereof we did bear Christ's image, then in imitation of Bellarmine we might conclude: As Christ was not just, nor made just, so neither are we. But Christ was not just, nor made just by the benefit of justification; in like manner neithetare we just or made just by the benefit of justification, which is evidently false. But in respect of our justification we may rather use that similitude of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sin or a sinner for us, so we are made righteous with the righteousness of God in him. Christ was made a sinner for us, not by inherency (God forbid!) but by imputation of our sin. Therefore we are made righteous in our justification, not by inherency, but by imputation of his righteousness.

§. XV. Secondly, he reasoneth thus: If we be not just by iuberent righteousness, but by imputation only, or as he speaketh (like a cavilling Sophister) putative, and not indeed, being indeed unjust, then do we bear the image of the Devil rather than of Christ. For more rightly have we our denomination from that which we are, than from that which we are only supp •… sed to be. I answer, first, that whosoever is just by imputation, be is not putative only just, but truly and indeed. For though he be a sinner in himself (as all but Papists are) yet he is righteous, or as the Apostle speaketh the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 4. 21. Secondly, that the faithful are just, not only by righteousness imputed, which is the righteousness of justification: but also in respect of justice inherent, which is the righteousness of sanctification, in regard whereof all the faithful are called Saints, as Rom. 1. 7, &c. Thirdly, although the faithful be sinners in themselves, yet being regenerate and sanctified in part, they have their denomination from their better part, and are called just, though not purely and perfectly just, as I have shown before.

§. XVI. His third reason: Of the earthy Adam, who was a sinner, we have borne the true image; because sin was not in us putative but truly and indeed: so the true image of Christ we shall bear, if justice be inherent in us not putative; but truly and indeed.

Answer. As we receive two things from the first Adam, viz. the guilt of his sin communicated, as Bellarmine himself confesseth, by imputation, by which we were truly made sinners, and truly obnoxious to death and damnation, which is opposite to justification, and by it is taken away: and secondly, the corruption of his nature which he drew upon himself, being propagated by carnal generation, which is opposite to sanctification, and by it in some measure, and by degrees is taken away: so from the second Adam we receive also two things, the merits of Christ's sufferings and obedience communicated by imputation, by which we are truly made just, and heirs of eternal life; and the virtue of his death and resurrection derived unto us by spiritual regeneration; by which we bear the image of the second Adam, as truly, though not so fully in this life, as by carnal generation we did bear the image of the first Adam. But this withal is to be observed, that as we do bear the image of the first Adam in respect of the corruption derived unto us by generation, and not in respect of the participation of his transgression, for in him we sinned and were guilty of the same transgression with him, it being communicated unto us by imputation: so we do bear the image of the second Adam in respect of holiness and righteousness derived unto us from him in our regeneration, by which we are renewed according to his image in true righteousness and holiness) and not in respect of our justification, wherein the same righteousness and obedience which he performed in the days of his flesh is communicated unto us by imputation, and accepted of God in our behalf as if we had performed the same in our own persons. To conclude therefore, it is not the image of Christ's righteousness and obedience by which we are justified: But we are justified by the righteousness and obedience of Christ it self.

§. XVII. His seventh Allegation of Rom. 6. 4. 6. is scarce worth the answering, wherein he proveth, which no man denieth, that the godly do truly, and not putative die unto sin, and rise unto righteousness; even as Christ whose death and resurrection is represented in Baptism, did truly die and rise again.

For this dying unto sin, and rising unto righteousness are the two parts of our sanctification; which never any denied to be inherent. But that justification and sanctification are not to be confounded, I have before proved at large. If he would have said anything to the purpose, he should have said anything to the purpose, he should have proved, that our justification consisteth in our mortification and vivification: and then might he well have concluded, that we are not justified by imputation, but by inherent righteousness. But I cannot sufficiently wonder at the blind malice of these men, who either would persuade themselves, or would go about to persuade others, that we hold the righteousness of sanctification and the parts thereof, which we acknowledge to be wrought in us by the holy Spirit, not to be inherent, but imputative. As for these words verse. 7. he that is dead is justified from sin: the meaning is, as I have shown before, that he is freed from sin, as our translation readeth, and as Chrysostom and Oecumenius expound it: the special sense of freeing from guilt opposed to condemnation, which is the proper sense of the word, Act. 13. 38, 39. extended to the general signification of freedom: he that is dead is freed from committing of sin, according to that place of Peter, 1 Epist. 4. 1. which Bellarmine paralelleth with this, he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.

§. XVIII. In his eighth allegation he patcheth divers places of Scripture together, as it were invita Minerva, out of which nothing can be concluded, but that the Papists have not one found Argument to prove their justification by inherent righteousness. The places which he patcheth together are these, Rom. 8. 15. That we now by Christ have received the Spirit of Adoption of the sons of God, quoad animam, saith he, in respect of the Soul, the which, as it is there said, (viz. verse. 10.) liveth by reason of justification, although the body be dead, (that is, be mortal as yet) by reason of sin. But (saith he) •… little after, (viz. verse. 23. he addeth, that we having the first fruits of the Spirit, do groan within ourselves, expecting the adoption of the sons of God, even the redemption of our body. For as the same Apostle saith Phil. 3. 20. 21. we expect our Savior who shall reform the body of our humility, configured to the body of his glory. But the adoption of sons, which we expect in the redemption of the body shall be most true and inherent in the body it self, that is to say immortality and impossibility, not putative, but true. Therefore the adoption, which now we have in the spirit by justification, must also be true, not putative, otherwise as we expect the redemption of the body, so also we should expect the redemption of the soul. Answ. See what poor shifts so learned a man is put unto, according to the ancient profession of Sophistres noted by Plato, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to make good a bad cause. This is Bellarmine's whole dispute word for word: where with much travel he hath brought forth this conclusion that our adoption, which now we have by justification is true, and not in conceit only: which we freely confess. For whoever denied, that our adoption is as true, as our justification? But doth it from hence follow, that we are justified by inherent righteousness? A good syllogism concluding that assertion from those premisses had been worth his labor. The most that can be said in this matter, as I suppose, is this. That when our gracious God by his holy Spirit doth regenerate us, he doth beget in us the grace of faith. As soon as faith is wrought in us, we are engrafted into Christ: to us being in Christ, the Lord communicateth the merits of his Son; by imputation of whose righteousness unto us, he, remitting our sins, doth not only accept of us, as righteous in Christ; but also in him he adopteth us to be his Sons and heirs of eternal life.

§. XIX. Let this proposition then tanquam commune principium be agreed upon between us. Such as is our adoption, such is our justification: and let us see, what either of us can infer thereupon. Bellarmine assumeth thus: but our adoption is not imputative, for that I suppose is his meaning by that odious word putative, as though if it were imputative, it were but putative, which is most false. For he that either is a sinner by imputation of Adams transgression, is as truly a sinner, as by transfusion of the corruption: yea, if he had not been truly a sinner by imputation of Adams guilt, he should never have been punished, either with the transfusion of the co •… ruption, or with death, unto which by the guilt he was bound over: or he that is righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness, is as truly righteous before God; yea, more truly, than by infusion of inherent righteousness. For that is perfect; this is stained with the flesh, and therefore is but a sinful righteousness, which cannot stand in judgment before God, judging according to the sentence of his Law. But Bellarmine assumption, as I was saying, is this. Our adoption is not imputative, but by grace inherent: therefore our justification is not imputative, but by righteousness inherent. The assumption, which is utterly false, he endevoreth to prove, because the Apostle, Rom. 8. 15. saith, that now by Christ we ha •… e received the Adoption of the sons of God, quoad animam, (saith Bellarmine, that he might patch with it, verse. 10.) in respect of the soul, which, as it is there said, liveth pr •… pter justificationem, although the body be dead, that is to say, mortal, by reason of sin. These places Bel •… mine alleged before, to prove that the grace by which we are justified is inherent, and namely charity: because charity is that, by which we cry in our hearts Abba Father. Secondly, because it is said, that the Spirit liveth by reason of justification, though the body be dead by reason of sin: to both which I have before answered.

§. XX. But here Bellarmine maketh a twofold Adoption; the one of the soul, patched out of Rom. 8. 10. 15. the other of the body pieced out of Rom. 8. 23. and Phil. 3. 20, 21. when as indeed Adoption is not of either part, but of the person or of the whole man, who is Adopted to be the son of God. Neither doth the Apostle speak of the adoption of the soul, nor yet of the adoption of the body, but of the redemption of the body from the servitude of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, which is not the adoption of the body, but the fruit of the adoption of the whole man, which here by a Metonymy is called adoption. The former he proveth by the latter not to be imputative, but inherent. The adoption of sons which we expect in the redemption of the body, shall be most true and inherent in the body it self, that is to say, immortality and impassibility not putative but true: therefore the adoption which now we have in the spirit by justification, is also true, not putative but inherent. Ans. In this similitude he should rather have said, that as the adoption of sons which we do expect at the redemption of our bodies, that is, at the resurrection, is the everlasting inheritance whereunto we were adopted as sons, which a true and glorious inheritance, though not inherent, in the body but enjoyed by the whole man as adherent unto him: so the adoption which we now have in the Spirit by justification, which is the entitling of us to this inheritance, is a true adoption, though not inherent, but wrought by imputation of Christ's merits unto us. But suppose the adoption of the body as he calleth it, were inherent: how doth it follow, that the adoption of the soul, as he calleth it, should also be inherent? he saith, it must be so: Otherwise, saith he, as we expect the redemption of the body: so also we should expect the redemption of the soul (which the Papists had need to do whose souls shall be in purgatory at the last day, but from thence to be delivered at that day by a jail-delivery) but I say, it followeth not; for the adoption which is imputative is a most true adoption: and we need no other, but the accomplishment thereof, which is our full redemption. As for that adoption, which he supposeth to be inherent, it is a mere fancy.

§. XXI. Now let us see, what may from that proposition, which was agreed upon between us, be truly inferred on our part. Such as is our adoption, such is our justification: but our Adoption is imputative, and not by inherency. For as I have shown heretofore these four benefits, reconciliation, redemption, justification and adoption do not import any real mutation in the subject but relative and imputative: for when God imputing to a believer the merits of his Son forgiveth his sins, which made him an enemy to God, a bondslave of sin and Satan, guilty of sin and damnation, the child of the Devil; and receiveth him into his favor, maketh him Christ's freeman, accepteth of his as righteous, admitteth him to be his son: he is said to reconcile, to redeem, to justify, and to adopt him, not by working any real or positive change in the party, but relative, or in respect of relation. To be a father, and to be a son are relatives: when a man therefore hath first a son, he becometh a father, which he was not before, not by any real change in himself, but by a new relation, which before he had not. When a man is adopted, he becometh the son of another man, whose son he was not before; not by any real mutation, but only in regard of relation. For if the party adopted by God should by adoption be really changed, then God, who adopteth should also seem to be really changed, which is impossible, because he is immutable. For as he which is adopted becometh the son of God, which he was not before: so God, when he first adopteth any man, becometh his father, which he was not before. Here therefore seemeth to be a change as well in God adopting, as in the party adopted: not real, for that is not possible, but relative only, which is a manifest evidence, that as our Adoption, so our justification is not any real change wrought in us by infusion of any inherent quality, but a relative change wrought without us by imputation of Christ's righteousness.

CAP. XI. Bellarmine's arguments, proving oblique or indirectly justification by inherent righteousness, and first because faith is not the integral and only formal cause of justification.

§. I.

A Nd these were all the arguments, which Bellarmine hath produced to prove di •… ectly his assertion concerning justification by inherent righteousness: now follow two other ranks, of proofs▪ whereby he doth oblique, indirectly, and by consequence prove the same; by disproving two assertions which it pleaseth him to father upon us. The one, that faith is the only formal cause of justification; the other, that justification consisteth only in remission of sins. For if faith be not the integral cause formal of our justification, but that with it charity and other graces do concur, by which as well as by faith we are justified formally; then it followeth, that we are justified by inherent and habitual righteousness, which consisteth in the habits of faith and charity, and other graces. And if justification doth consist, not only in remission of sins, by which our souls are cleansed from sin, but also in the renewing of us according to God's image by infusion of righteousness, by which our souls are not only purged from sin, but also adorned and beautified with grace; then it followeth, that we are justified by inherent righteousness.

The former question he disputeth lib. 2. de justif. c. 4. the title whereof is, fidem non esse integram formalem caussam justificationis, that faith is not the whole formal cause of justification. This opinion, he confesseth none of us do now hold, though falsely he would lay it upon Luther and Melancthon; for we deny faith to be the formal cause of justification at all: and yet this is it, which he, and all of his side evermore object unto us, to make us odious to the world, as though we required nothing to make us formally and inherently righteous, but only faith. And for this cause, though we hold not this assertion, yet he thinks good to confute it, as if we held it.

§. II. Of his proofs, only the first serveth to prove, that, with faith, charity doth concur unto justification. It is taken out of Gal. 5. 5. 6. the fifth verse containing the latter part of the Antithesis between justitiaries (who were apostates from the doctrine of grace) and the true prosessours of the Gospel. For the former looked to be justified by the Law, that is, by obedience performed to the Law, and so were fallen from grace: but the latter looked not to be justified by the Law, but by faith, that is, by Christ's righteousness apprehended by faith. Of this Antithesis the latter part agreeth to us; the former, to the Papists And therefore I marvel to what purpose he alleged the fifth verse, unless it were to confute himself. Now in the sixth verse the Apostle showeth, what manner of faith that is, which justifieth; viz. not a dead or a counterfeit, but a lively and effectual faith: a faith, which is effectual, or effectually worketh by love: a faith, which, as Saint James saith, is not without works, but is demonstrable by good works.

§. III. But these words Bellarmine doth willfully deprave. For in other places he readeth and understandeth the words as we do, following the vulgar Latin translation, unto which he is tied by the decree of the Council of Trent, reading, fides quae per charitatem operatur, faith that worketh by charity, as our English Rhemists also translate the words. And to seek no further, in the very beginning of the next chapter, where he confuteth the erroneous opinion of Osiander, who held, that the righteousness of Christ, whereby we are justified, is the essential righteousness of the Deity dwelling in us: saith, that this error is manifestly refuted by the Apostle, Rom. 4. proving the righteousness by which we are justified, to be faith, vivam, viz. & per dilectionem operantem, to wit a lively faith and working by love, and likewise, Gal. 5. 5, 6. we by faith expect the hope of righteousness, for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. Whereupon he inferreth, quod si fides per dilectionem operans, &c. but if faith working by charity be that righteousness &c. But here for a poor shift, and to serve his present turn, he interpreteth the Greek Participle of the middle voice, as if it were passive, fides quae agitur, faith which is acted, moved, formed, and as it were animated by love. And thereupon inferreth, that charity isthe form of faith, and that faith justifieth formally, as it is formed by charity, and not otherwise: and consequently, that charity justifieth much more, and hereupon also he buildeth afterwards that distinction of faith, that it is either formata, when it is acted by charity; or informis when it is severed from it: where also to help out the matter, he saith that the Latin word operatur is passively understood (whereof, as I suppose, no example can be given) thereby making the translation barbarous, and understanding it, as never any before him understood i •… .

§ IV. But to begin with the last: it were a strange speech, if a man signify, that the matter is acted by the form, or that the body is acted by the soul, should say, corpus per animam operatur. And no doubt, if the old interpreter had meant so, he would have said agitur and not operatur. As for the G •… eeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it signifieth effectual, or effectually working, and so both the Verbe and the Participle, which are used nine times at the least in the New Testament, are or ought to be effectual, namely in it self, or effectual to work according to the twofold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or act, whereof the Philosophers and Schoolmen use to speak; to wit the first and the second, &c. which distinction may be applied to habits of grace, or gracious habits. The first act, which is the form of faith, or of any other grace, is that Tushijah that essence or entity whereof Solomon speaketh, whereby any grace is that, which it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed and in truth, which is the integrity of it, and so saith Thomas, actus primus est forma & integritas rei, in respect whereof faith, and so every other grace, is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unfeigned. This is that principium agendi, that inward act or efficacy, whereby faith or any other grace is effectual in it self, lively, active, operative, apt to produce operations according to their several kinds, without which, faith, or any other grace is dead and counterfeit, and not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed and in truth, whereof it beareth the name; but aequivoce, even as the counterfeit of any man is called by his name. The second act of faith or of any other grace is the actual working thereof, actus secundus, saith Thomas est operatio. And these acts are either immediate and eliciti, as the Schoolmen speak, or mediate and imperati. As for example, the immediate or elicit acts of justifying faith, are first, to believe truly and effectually and by a lively assent, that Jesus the Son of the blessed Virgin is the eternal Son of God, the Messias and the Savior of all that believe in him. Secondly, because I so believe in Christ, to believe that he is my Savior. Thirdly, by these acts, faith receiving Christ, who is our righteousness, doth justify. The mediate acts, which are called imperati, are these acts which the immediate acts do produce mediantibus aliis virtutibus, by the mediation of other virtues. For if I believe, that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of all that believe in him, and consequently, that he is my Savior: hereupon, I shall be moved to trust in him, as my Savior; which is the act of affiance, but commanded by faith: and to expect salvation from him, which is the act of hope, but commanded by faith; and likewise to love him, and by love to obey him, which are the acts of charity, but commanded by faith, as here it is said: faith working by love.

§. V. Now those graces, by which faith worketh, as namely charity, have not the respect of the formal cause unto faith, but rather of the instrumental: Neither doth faith work by them as its form, but as its instruments; as the soul by the body and the members thereof. But that charity is not indeed the form of faith, whereby it is acted and formed, it may appear evidently by these reasons. First, because those, which hold it to be the form of faith, deny it to be the inward and intrinsical form, whereby faith is that which it is, which only is the formal cause, and as it were the soul of faith; but extrinsical, whereby, as they imagine, the acts of faith are informed and so they make it by a strange kind of Logic, the form of all virtues, as well as of faith. Secondly, because one habit disparated from another (as the three Theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity, being also, as themselves say, seated in diverse subjects, as the seat of faith is the mind, of love the heart) cannot possibly be the form of the other. Thirdly; that habit, which proceedeth from another, as the fruit and effect thereof, cannot be the form of that other. But charity, which is the fulfilling of the Law, proceedeth from faith unfeigned, 1 Tim. 1. 5. For therefore do we love God, and our neighbor for his sake, because by faith we are pe •… swaded of his love towards us: and therefore do we love him, because he loved us first, 1 John. 4. 19 Fourthly, if charity be the form of faith, then faith is the matter of charity; for the mater is that, which is formed, and as it were animated by the form: but the consequent is absurd; therefore the antecedent. And again, howsoever faith worketh those acts, which I called mediate or imperatos, by means of other graces, which acts do tend to sanctification, (for which cause, faith doth not sanctify alone): yet the actus eliciti, or immediate acts of faith which are to believe in Christ, and by believing, to receive, and by receiving him, who is our righteousness, to justify; faith worketh neiby charity, nor by any other grace; and therefore it justifieth alone.

§. VI. Yea, but without charity, faith is informis, & with it, it is formata.

Answ. This distinction of faith, that it is either formata, or informis in a right sense may be admitted; as namely, if by form be understood, the integrity, or inward efficacy; and if that be called formata, which is sound, unfeigned, lively and effectual; and that informis, which i •… ineffectual, dead and counterfeit. For that distinction is intimated by the Apostle, when he speaketh, either of faith unfeigned, or contrariwise of a dead faith, for in the former, it is implied that there is also a feigned and a counterfeit faith: and in the latter, that there is also a lively faith. And so we admit this distinction that faith is either

• Formata, which is lively and unfeigned.
• Informis, which is dead and counterfeit.

But in the popish sense it is to be rejected, and that in three respects. First, because they propound this distinction, as agreeing to a true justifying faith, as if a true faith might be without form: when as that, which is without form is dead and counterfeit, and no more to be called a true justifying faith, than the carcase, or counterfeit of a man is to be called a man. For howsoever such a faith may perhaps be true in respect of the object, because it is of the truth: yet it is not true in respect of the integrity, efficacy, and soundness thereof, and that which is not truly faith, is not faith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or indeed. He that saith, either that he believeth that there is a God, and in deeds doth deny him: and that he is just, and feareth not to offend him; or good, and doth not love him; or omnipr •… sent and omniscient, and feareth not to play the hypocrite before him &c. such a one doth not indeed and in truth believe that, which he pro •… esseth himself to believe. He that saith, he knoweth Christ, that is, believeth in him, and hath not a desire and care to keep his Commandments, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him. That faith which is dead and counterfeit cannot justify or save a man, as Saint James showeth. For howsoever faith alone doth justify; yet that faith which is alone doth not justify; neither alone nor at all, becauseit is not a true and lively, but a dead and counterfeit faith. Neithercan that be a true justifying faith which is common to the wicked, both men and Angels. Neither may we omit Bellarmine's confession in this place. Here, saith he, the Apostle to prevent occasion of error, explaineth what manner of faith, that is, that justifieth, non quaecunque fides, sed quae per dilectionem operatur, not every faith, but that which worketh by love.

§. VII. Secondly, this distinction is to be rejected being understood in the popish sense, wherein it is implied, that charity is the form, and as it were the soul of faith: which opinion I have already confuted. Neither can they ground it upon James 2. 26. As the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. For if the habit of charity cannot be the form of faith, as I have shown, then much less can good works, which are the outward fruits both of faith and of charity, be the soul of faith it self. Of the profession indeed of faith a godly life is, as it were, the soul, and without which it is dead: but of faith it self it is not anima the soul, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the breath, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to breath, doth properly fignifie, in which sense it is often used, being called the Spirit of the mouth, the spirit of the nostrils. And in this sense it may be said, that as the body without breathing is judged to be dead; so faith without works, which are as it were the breathing of a lively faith, is also judged to be dead; not because it ever had lived, but because it wanteth life.

§. VIII. Thirdly, this distinction is to be rejected, because, as Bellarmine saith, it is to be understood of one and the same faith, which being informis may become formata; and being formata, may become informis again, remaining still the same: But fides informis is not of the same kind with that, which is formata, or justifying faith: as things which be without life, are not of the same kind with those that are living: or as counterfeits are not of the same kind with those things which they do resemble. Besides, justifying faith is divine, the informis is human: that, infusa, infused and supernatural; this, acquisita, required by the strength of nature in the use of means: that, a grace of regeneration proper to the Elect; this, a gift of illumination only common to the reprobate: that, is vera being truly that whereof it beareth the name; this, simulata, not being that truly which it is called, but aequivoce: that doth so believe in Christ, that it doth embrace him, and willeth and desireth, at the least, to apply him to the believer: this, so believeth Christ, that either it is joined with horror, as in the Devils and desperate sinners, or is severed from any will or desire of application: this, is without fruit and root, and therefore is temporary; that hath both root and fruit, and never faileth. And howsoever that which is informis may by God's grace be changed into formatam; yet that which is formata can never be informis. No more than he, who is once borne of God, can be unborne again.

The rest of his arguments serve to prove, that faith is not the whole formal cause of justification, that is, as we speak according to the Scriptures, of sanctification, which we deny not: for we do acknowledge a concurrence of many graces with faith unto sanctification. As for justification, we deny faith, either in whole or in part to be the formal cause thereof. Neither doth any other of his arguments prove, that either charity, or any other grace doth with faith concur unto justification.

CAP. XII. That justification doth n •… t c •… nsist in ren •… vation.

§. I.

H Is second rank of arguments proving indirectly justification by righteousness inherent is propounded in his sixth Chapter, the title whereof is this, That o •… r justification doth not consist in the remission of sins alone. Neither do we say, it doth. The exclusive particle used by some of our Divines doth exclude infusion, not imputation of righteousness, as Bellarmine confesseth. For we do hold (though all perhaps have not so plainly expressed their meaning and some few have delivered their private opinions) that remission of sin is but a part of justification: and that by imputation of Christ's righteousness we are both absolved from our sins, and also accepted as righteous in Christ and as heirs of eternal life. But Bellarmine, howsoever he would seem to acknowledge the concurrence of remission of sin unto justification, yet indeed excludeth it. For by remission of sin concurring to justification, he doth not understand the not imputing or forgiving of sin, but the extinction and abolition thereof, wrought by the infusion of habitual righteousness, which expelleth its contrary, as heat doth cold, and light darkness. And howsoever there be duo termini two terms in this motion or mutation, as he conceiveth of justification, as being a passage ^b or change from sin to righteousness: yet there be not two causes, nor yet two distinct actions, but the only cause is justice infused; and the action is but one and the same, the infusion of righteousness expelling sin. Even as in creation, which is transit •… s à non esse ad esse: in illumination, which is transit •… s à tenebris ad l •… cem; in calefaction, which is a passage from cold to heat. But if this be all that is required in the Popish justification, as undoubtedly it is, the whole and only form thereof being infused of righteousness, or as they love rather to speak, righteousness infused, their justification also not differing from that which the Scriptures call sanctification, saving that they dream of a total mortification or deletion of sin, and of a perfect renovation: then what is become of the absolving of •… •… tom the guilt of sin, by which we are freed from hell; and the acceptation of us as righteous in Christ, by we are intitled to the kingdom of heaven? Both which are wrought by imputation of Christ's righteousness, in which true justification doth consist. For infused righteousness, though it were perfect, could not discharge us from our former debts; and being imperfect, as their own consciences cannot but tell them, it cannot entitle them to the kingdom of heaven. Wherefore if they will be saved, they must of necessity flee to the righteousness or satisfaction of Christ, who hath fully satisfied the Law, both in respect of the penalty, by his sufferings, and also in regard of the commandment, by his obedience: which obedience and sufferings, being transient and gone so long since, can no otherwise be communicated unto them, but by imputation. Now, if they can be content to acknowledge the imputation of Christ's satisfaction (which sometimes they do, and must do if they will be saved; for there is no other means, either to escape hell, or to come to heaven) then let them, according to the Scriptures, acknowledge this imputation of Christ's satisfaction, by which they are to be acquitted and freed from the guilt of sin and damnation, and also accepted as righteous in Christ, and heirs of eternal life, to be their justification. As for the mortification of sin, and the renovation of us according to the image of God in true holiness and righteousness, both which are but in part, and by degrees wrought in us by the Spirit of regeneration, let them be acknowledged to be the two parts of our sanctification.

§. II. But Bellarmine will needs have our renovation to be the righteousness of justification. And this he indevoureth to prove by Testimonies of Scripture, by the authority of Saint Augustine, and by reason. The texts of Scripture, which he citeth, are six. The first, Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered up for our sin •… es, and rose for our justification. From whence Bellarmine argueth thus: to what the Apostle giveth the name of justification, in that justification consisteth, rather than in that, unto which he doth not give the name: But to renovation in this place the Apostle doth give the name of justification, and not to remission of sin: Therefore justification consisteth rather in renovation, than in remission of sin.

Before I answer, I think good to advertise the reader again, that Bellarmine here by remission of sin doth not understand the not imputing of sin, or as we in plain English call it, forgiveness of sin: but the utter deletion, the extinction, the total mortification of sin. And that he doth four times at the least signify in this one passage. Now I answer, by denying his assumption; because the Apostle in this place doth give the name of justification, neither to remission, nor yet to renovation, which is not mentioned so much as once in all the Chapter. Indeed in some other places the Apostle and his Disciple Saint Luke do give the name to remission of sins, that is, to the not imputing of sin, or to the absolving and acquitting from sin, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. 〈◊〉 . 13. 38, 39. but never to renovation.

§. III. His assumption Bellarmine proveth, because it cannot be doubt •… d, but that the Apostles meaning was, that Christ his death was a samplar or pattern of the death of sin, that is (saith he) of remission or deletion of sins: and that his resurrection was a samplar or pattern of our renovation, and inward regeneration, by which we walk in newness of life. And is this the meaning of the Apostle? Then be like we are justified by imitation, and not by imputation of Christ's death; and by imitation of his resurrection, and then also by the same reason we are made sinners by imitation and not imputation of Adams transgression. But indeed in this place the Apostle doth not propound, by way of exhortation, the death and resurrection of Christ as an example to be followed in dying to sin, and rising to righteousness represented in Baptism, as he doth in the sixth to the Romans, where he exhorteth to sanctification as an inseparable consequent and companion of justification: but by way of Doctrine he speaketh of the death and resurrection of Christ, as the cause of our justification, of which he had spoken in the whole Chapter, and even in the verses next going before: that righteousness shall be imputed to us, as well as to Abraham, if we believe in him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was given by his father and by himself to us and for us, that by the obedience of his life until death, but especially at his death he might satisfy for our sins: and was raised from the dead, that we might be justified and saved by his life which he liveth after his death: Christ by his death and obedience did satisfy for our sins paying a full ransom for them, and so did justify us meritoriously: and in that sense we are said to be justified by his blood and by his obedience, both as the matter and merit of our justification. But neither his death nor obedience had been effectual to our justification, if he had not risen from the dead. As the Apostle showeth 1 Cor. 15▪ 17. If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins. For if Christ had not risen again, it had been an evid •… nce, that he was not the Son of God: and then could not his obedience or sufferings have been meritorious for us. But by his resurrection he was mightily declared to be the Son of God, in regard whereof it was said, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee: and being God, his obedience and sufferings, are of infinite and all sufficient merit and value, virtue and efficacy for the justification and salvation of all that believe in him. And again what benefits Christ merited for us by his obedience even until death, the same being risen he applieth and giveth to those that believe. God having raised him and exalted him with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. Christ therefore was given unto death, that he might by his sufferings satisfy for our sins the penalty thereunto belonging: and he did rise again, that by application of his merits we might be justified. Righteousness therefore shall be imputed to those that believe in the resurrection of Christ, or rather in Christ raised again: who as he gave himself to be a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or price of ransom for our sins; so he did arise again, that by effectual application of his merits we might be justified. So that whom by his death and obedience he redeemed meritoriously, then he doth effectually justify and save by his life and the several actions thereof, viz. his resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of his Father as our King and Priest, his coming again to judgment: who therefore shall lay anything to the charge of God's children? it is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intorcession for us?

§. IV. In the words following Bellarmine answereth a secret objection: if remission of sins be ascribed to Christ's death: and renovation to his resurrection, then belike remission and renovation be two several actions proceeding from divers causes, contrary to that which hath been delivered. For prevention whereof he saith, It is to be noted, that the death of Christ, which is the price of our redemption, was not only the cause of the remission of sin, but also of internal renovation. And the like, as he saith afterwards, may be said of the re •… urrection. For according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, these two cannot be severed: f •… rasmuch as one and the same grace (viz. charity,) being through the merit of Christ infused and inherent in us, doth both blot out or extinguish our sins, and also adorneth the soul with righteousness, wherefore though the Apostle might have ascribed both remission and renovation, either to Christ's death, or to his resurrection: yet he chose rather distinctly to attribute remission to his death, and renovation to his resurrection, propter similitudinem, because of the likeness which the extinction of sin hath with the death of the body: and spiritual renovation with the resurrection of the body: whereunto I answer briefly; first, that though the death and resurrection of Christ, in respect of their efficacy, though remission and renovation always goission and renovation, then in justification there are two actions proceeding from two causes: secondly, that these four distinct benefits, remission of sin, and acceptation of us as righteous in Christ, (which are the parts of justification, wrought both of them by imputation of Christ's righteousness, which is the one and only form of justification:) likewise the dying unto sin or mortification, and the rising of the Sonle from the grave of sin, which is our first resurrection, or vivification, which are the two parts of sanctification, those four actions I say proceed from two causes, and that in twofold respects. For remission of sin is procured by the merit of Christ's death; and dying unto sin is ascribed to the virtue of his death: the imputation of Christ's merits, whereby we are both absolved from sin and accepted as righteous, is ascribed to his resurrection, whereby his merits are applied unto us for our justification; and the grace of rising from the grave of sin, to the virtue of his resurrection: for by the same power, whereby Christ did rise again, are we raised from sin to newness of life.

§. V. His second allegation is Rom. 5. 21. That as sin reigned unto death, so grace may reign by justice to life everlasting through Jesus Christ our Lord: where by justice opposed to sin, he saith, is meant inward renovation. Ans. 1. We deny not, but that in all the faithful there is a twofold righteousness: the one, imputed, which is the righteousness of justification: the other, infused and inherent, which is the righteousness of sanctification, which he calleth renovation. If therefore the Apostle did speak here of righteousness inherent, yet this place would make nothing against us. For we confess, that as sin reigneth in the children of disobedience by producing the works of iniquity: so the grace of God, or the Spirit of grace doth reign in the faithful by bringing forth the fruits of righteousness. But this is not the righteousness of justification, but that wherein our sanctification doth consist. But indeed the Apostle here doth not speak, either only, or chiefly, if at all, of inherent righteousness. Neither doth he in this place make an opposition or antithesis between sin and righteousness, to which supposition Bellarmine's argument is grounded; but between the kingdom of sin reigning unto death; and the kingdom of grace reigning by righteousness unto everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now the righteousness, wherein the kingdom of grace especially consisteth, is the righteousness of justification by faith, whereupon followeth peace of conscience, and joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. compared with Rom. 5. 1. 2. which being not our righteousness (as all inherent justice is) but the righteousness of God, is chiefly, yea in the cause of justification is only to be sought after, Phil. 3. 8, 9. Rom. 10. 3. Secondly, as in all the chapter from the twelfth verse to the end, the opposition which is made is of Adams sin to Christ's obedience: so in this place, as the sin of Adam was the cause of death, so Christ's obedience, of life: the opposition is not of inherent righteousness to inherent sin, but of Christ's righteousness to Adams sin.

§. VI. His third allegation is out of Rom. 6. 13. Do not ye exhibit your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but exhibit yourselves to God, as of dead men alive, and your members instruments of justice to God; where, by righteousness, saith he, is understood, something that is inherent, &c. and that he goeth about to prove, which no man doubteth of, when indeed he should prove, not, that there is a righteousness inherent in the faithful, for that we freely confess; but that the righteousness, which is inherent, is that, by which we are justified. But it is evident, that the Apostle speaketh not here of the righteousness of justification, but of the righteousness of sanctification, whereunto in this Chapter he doth exhort as to a necessary and inseparable consequent of justification. Neither doth the Apostle here, or elsewhere, (as before I observed in setting down the differences between justification and sanctification) exhort us to the righteousness of justification or the parts thereof, which be not our duties, but God's gracious favors: for that were to exhort us to remission of sin, and acceptation to life. But to the righteousness of sanctification, and the parts mortification and renovation, and to the particular duties thereof, he doth, both here and in many other places exhort, as namely in his sixth testimony cited o •… t of Eph. 4. 23, 24. from which he would prove (which no man doth deny) that our renova •… ion, according to the image of God, standeth in righteousness and holiness inherent.

§. VII. His fourth allegation had need to be a good one: for this is the third time that he hath cited, and recited, and as it were recocted it, out of Rom. 8. 10. The Spirit liveth, because of justification, or as it is in the Greek, the Spirit is life because of justice. For justification or justice which maketh us to live, and thereby to work, cannot be only remission of sin, but something inward inherent. Answ. In this place, verse. 10. 11. as I shown before, the Apostle setteth down a double privilege of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit, freeing them from the Law of death. The one, in respect of the soul, verse. 10. that howsoever the body be dead, that is, (as Bellarmine himself expoundeth) mortal, or appointed to death by reason of sin, which the first Adam brought in, and by it death, his sin being imputed to all: yet the soul, (for so the word Spirit is taken when it is opposed to the body) is life, that is, as the Antithesis requireth, designed unto life, by reason of that righteousness of the second Adam, by imputation whereof all the faithful are entitled unto everlasting life, For as in the former part of the Antithesis is not meant the spiritual death of men dead in sin, (for that is the death of the soul and not of the body, and the Apostle speaketh of those in whom Christ dwelleth) but the corporal death, unto which they also, in whom Christ dwelleth, are subject: so in the latter is meant, not the life of grace or of righteousness, but the life of glory. The other privilege respecteth the body, verse. 11. that after it hath been dead and turned into dust, the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from death, dwelling in us shall raise unto life eternal our mortal bodies.

§. VIII. His fifth testimony, Gal. 3. 21. where, when the Apostle saith If there had been a Law given which could give life, or justify (as the Rhemists translate the word vivificare ) then in very deed, justice should be of Law: he doth plainly (saith he) demonstrate, that justice from whence justification is named, is something, which giveth life to the soul, and he doth place the same in motion and action. Answ. If from this proposition propounded by the Apostle, Bellarmine could have assumed the antecedent that so he might conclude the consequent: then might he strongly have concluded against us, that we are justified by inherent righteousness. But seeing the Apostle doth tollere anteceden •… , that is, intendeth to contradict that antecedent; what reason hath Bellarmine to argue as he doth? It is very true, that if the Law could have given us life, that is, as Chrysostom and O •… umenius expound, could have saved us, according to that legal promise, Hocfac & vives, do this and thou shalt live, or as the Rhemists translate, could have justified us: then undoubtedly we might have been justified by inherent righteousness. But forasmuch as it was impossible for the Law to justify and save us, because it neither was, no •… is possible for us, by reason of the flesh, to perform the condition: and forasmuch as God therefore sent his Son to perform 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all that the Law requireth unto justification that we, who could not be justified, nor saved by any inherent righteousness of our own prescribed in the Law, and therefore not by a justice consisting in our actions or motions, might be justified and saved by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us: what can Bellarmine gather from hence with any show or color of reason, to prove justification by such a righteousness, as is inherent, and consisteth in motion and action?

§. IX. The sixth I have already answered with the third.

As for his testimonies collected out of Augustine, a brief an •… were may serve: that he, not considering the force of the Hebrew and Greek words, which never in all the Scriptures are used in the signification of making righteous by inherent or infused righteousness: but resting, as it seemeth, upon the notation and composition of the Latin word justificare as not differing in respect thereof from the Verbe sanctificare; doth sometimes more largely extend the signification of the word justification, than the Scriptures use it, as including the benefit of sanctification. But it is a most certain truth, that the word justificare being used in the Scriptures translated into Latin as the translation of the Hebrew Hitsdiq and of the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be understood to signify no other thing (if it be a true translation) than what is meant by the Hebrew and the Greek; which, as I have shown before, do never in all the Scriptures signify to make just by infusion of righteousness. And therefore it cannot be denied, but that it is, and was an oversight in them, who using the word as mentioned in the Scriptures, and from thence borrowing it, extend it to another signification, than that of the original, whereof it is a translation. I say again, as I have said before, that the fotce of the Latin word, in this controversy, is no further to be respected, than as it is a translation of the Hebrew and the Greek; and as it is a true translation, it must be understood no otherwise, than according to the meaning of the original: if it be understood otherwise, then is it not a true translation, neither is the sense of the word divine, but human. Howbeit; Augustine differeth from Bellarmine, as touching the use of this word, in two things, first, that he doth not always so use the word; as for example, when he teacheth, as he, and the rest of the Fathers often do) that we are justified by faith alone, as hereafter shall be shown, they could not mean, that we are sanctified by faith alone. Secondly, remission of sin, which is the not imputing or forgiving of sin, is by Augustine included in the signification of the word, which by Bellarmine is excluded; who, instead of remission, hath substituted the extinction and abolition of sin. So that although he retain the name, which he confoundeth with sanctification: yet the thing thereby signified, which is the main benefit, which we receive from Christ, by which we are both delivered from hell, and entitled to heaven, he hath taken away, as I have heretofore declared. If this answer do not content the Papists, let them understand; that when the use of any word in the Fathers borrowed from the Scriptures, differeth from the perpetual use thereof in the Scriptures: we are bound to follow the infall •… ble authority of God's Word, rather than the testimony of any man, or men whatsoever. And for this we have Augustine's own warrant, who challengeth liberty to reject in other men's writings, though never so learned andholy, what is not agreeable to the Scriptures. Talis ego sum saith he, in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellector •… s meorum.

§. X. I come to his reasons, which are three. The first, in every motion, or mutation there are two termini, a quo, and ad quem, the name being taken from the latter, as in illumination there is a change from darkness to light; in calesaction from cold to heat. Iustistcation is a mutation or change, Therefore in justification there are two termini, a quo, sc. peccatum; ad quem, justitia, from which it hath his denomination, and therefore besides remisston of sin, there must accrue righteousness. I answer, that mutations are either real or relative. If he speak of real mutations, I deny the assumption, for I have proved before, that justification is no such mutation. If he speak of relative mutations, I grant the syllogism, for even in such there are two termini, as in liberation, terminus a quo, is bondage, ad quem is freedom, in marrying, the change is from being a Bachelor to be a Husband, from being a Maid to be a Wife; so in Reconciliation, Redemption, Adoption; and so also in justification there is a change from guilt of sin to righteousness imputed: from being guilty of sin and damnation, to be accepted as righteous unto life: from being the bondslave of sin and Satan, and obnoxious to hell and condemnation; to be not only made a free-man but also a Citizen of Heaven. In all these are great changes, yet not real or positive, whereby any inherent form, either going before, is abolished, or new acquired; but only relative.

§. XI. His second reason may thus be framed: If justification be given to us of God, not only that we may escape the pains of hell, but also, that we may obtain the rewards of the heavenly life: then justification doth not consist only in the remission of sins, which only freeth from punishment; but giveth not glory: but the former is true: therefore the latter. Ans. All this we freely confess: but first, the thing principally intended, that to justification besides remission of sins renovation concurreth, he doth not go about to prove. Only he proveth that justification doth not consist in remission only, in which we agree with him, though not in the other thing which is to be added; for we add making righteous by imputation; he, by infusion or renovation. Secondly, the proofs of his assumption we do not approve. The first, Rom. 6. 22. ye have your fruit unto sanctification, but the end everlasting life. The whole verse is this: But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, (that is, being redeemed or justified) ye have your fruit unto holiness (that is, the fruit of your justification is your sanctification) and the end of both is glorification, or everlasting life. For this text doth neither prove, that justification is not remission of sin only; not that it is to be confounded with sanctification, which is here made the fruit of it; nor that it conferreth everlasting life. For if the holy Ghost, speaking of justification, had mentioned only remission of sin without mentioning any other thing concurring thereunto (as sometimes he doth Act. 13. 38, 39. 26. 18. Rom. 4. 7, 8.) his meaning might be, that being freed from sin and mancipated to God, that is, redeemed, (for manu capti and servati are mancipia and servi, and to be redeemed is to have remission of sins, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14.) ye have the fruit of your redemption unto sanctification, according to that, Luk. 1. 73, 74, 75. and the end both of your redemption and sanctification, everlasting life, his second proof is Rom, 8. 30, whom he hath justified he hath glorified, for so might I say, to whom he hath given remission of sins, to them he giveth the inheritance, Act. 26. 18. them he maketh blessed, Psal. 32. 1. them he justifieth, Rom. 4. 6, 7. Act. 13. 38, 39. and them he glorifieth. And whereas he saith, that in that order of causes set down in that place, every latter is the effect of the former, as glorification of justification, justification of vocation, vocation of predestination: that may be a reason, why in that serie causarum, sanctification is left out: because it is not the cause, but the way to glorification, Eph. 2. 10. and the cognizance and character of them that shall be glorified. Act. 20. 32. 26. 18. his third proof out of 2 Tim. 4. 8. there is a Crown of righteousness laid up for me, is nothing to the purpose. For as Augustine saith donando delicta fecit se Coronae debitorem, by pardoning offenses he oweth the Crown, and Bernard, there is a Crown of righteousness, which Paul expecteth, sed justitiae Dei, non suae, but of God's righteousness, not of his, for it is just he should render what he oweth and he oweth what he hath promised.

§. XII. But the assumption, though not proved by him, is approved and granted by us, as agreeing with that justification, which we teach: and disagreeing from that, which is taught by the Papists. For we teach that in justification, by imputation of Christ's righteousness, we are both freed from the guilt of sin and damnation, and also are in Christ accepted as righteous, and as heirs of eternal life. And further we teach, that howsoever the parts of justification, viz. remission of sin and acceptation unto life, in the faithful; and the causes thereof in Christ, that is to say, his blood and his obedience, do always concu •… re, for whosoever hath remission of sins is also accepted unto life, and contrariwise, and our Savior in his obeying suffered, and in his sufferings obeyed: yet the causes in Christ, and effects unto the faithful are to be distinguished. For by imputation of his sufferings properly we are freed from punishment; and by imputation of his obedience properly we are entitled to the kingdom of heaven, as I have shown heretofore. But in the popish justification there is neither remission of sins properly to free them from hell: nor donation of such ju •… tice, as may entitle them to heaven. For neither the abolition or extinction of sin present by infusion of righteousness, though it were complete (as it is not) can satisfy for their former sins, nor can their righteousness, being imperfect, give them right to heaven. But it is the only satisfaction of Christ by his righteousness and obedience, both Passive and Active, which being communicated unto believers by imputation, doth both free them from hell, and giveth them a Title and Right to the Heavenly Kingdom. His proof taken from the courts of men, I admit as good against them, who holding, that we are justified only by the Passive righteousness of Christ, do make justification to be nothing else but remission of sins. For they whom being guilty in themselves (as we all a •… e before God) a judge doth justify, are freed indeed from punishment, but they do not thereby obtain new rewards. Howbeit there is a great dissimilitude between God's justification of men, and that of human Judges. For a judge by his absolution, though he doth free the guilty, and indeed faulty parson from punishment, and from the guilt binding him over to punishment, and thereby perhaps bewrayeth his own unjustice: yet he doth not free him from the fault, nor doth he make him righteous, and much less doth he indow him with new privileges. But when God doth justify a believing sinner, he doth not only free him from hell, and from the guilt binding him over to condemnation, by imputation of Christ sufferings: but also by imputation of Christ obedience he maketh him righteous and an heir of eternal life. And in thus justifying a believing sinner, he is just, because Christ by his sufferings hath fully satisfied for his sins, and by his obedience hath merited for him eternal life.

§. XIII. His third reason: justification, of enemies maketh us God's friends, children, beloved Citizens of Heaven, the Domesticks of God, heirs of his kingdom, as the Scriptures everywhere speak: therefore it doth not stand only in remission of sins, Thus far we agree with him. But as it is a good argument against those who hold justification to be nothing else but remission of sin: so it maketh not for him, who holdeth justification by infusion of righteousness, but against him. For whereas the Scriptures testify, that God, when he justifieth men, he doth of enemies make them his beloved friends, and his children, &c. It is to be confessed, that here is a very great change: but is it real, or relative? by infusion, or by imputation? Surely, when God reconcileth men unto himself and of enemies maketh them his favorites; when he adopteth men, and of the children of the devil, maketh them his own children; when justifying men he doth of foes make them his beloved friends, of bondslaves not only freemen, but also Citizens of heaven; of alients, his Domesticks; of men obnoxious to damnation, heirs of his Kingdom, he doth not these things by infusion of any real or positive qualities into them: but these are external favors, which God vouchsafeth unto them, when forgiving their sins and imputing unto them the righteousness of his Son, he doth in him accept them for such, yea, and in respect of his relation unto them, maketh them such, as before they were not. And when he hath made men such by imputation, he also maketh them such by infusion of such qualities and dispositions, as are answerable to that which they are called, as I shown in the beginning: whom God receiveth into his grace and favor, them he endueth with grace; whom he redeemeth from the servitude of sin and Satan, he maketh them his faithful servants; they, who are the sons of God by adoption, are also his sons by regeneration, and finally, those whom God doth justify, them also he doth sanctify.

§. XIV. And this is all which Bellarmine hath brought for the proofs of justification by inherent and infused righteousness, either from the Scriptures or from natural reason. Afterwards indeed in his eighth Chapter he produceth the testimonies of Augustine and some others, which he calleh the tradition of the ancient Fathers, as if they did agree with the doctrine of the present Church of Rome; which they do not. For first, though some of the Latin Fathers, led by the notation of the Latin word, which was not to be respected, it being bnt the translation of the Hebrew and Greek; did under the name of justification include the benefit of sanctification, whereof there is no example in the Scriptures; yet they did not exclude that, which the Scriptures call justification, as •… the Papists do. For they acknowledged, that justification containeth remission of sins, and that it standeth chiefly in remission of sins; that being our happiness, and therefore implying, besides the not imputing of sin, acceptation unto life. The Papists also talk of remission, but their remission is not that, which the Scriptures and Fathers speak of, for the Scriptures and Fathers and all ancient Writers whatsoever by remission understand veniam, pardon, condonation, forgiving, not imputing of sin, absolving from it; which is a distinct action of God from infusion of righteousness; that, being a work of God without us working no real or positive change within us: and herein we have the consent of all antiquity. The Papists by remission of sin understand the expulsion or extinction, the utter deletion or abolition of sin, which is not a distinct action (as they teach) from infusion of righteousness, but one and the same action, which is the infusion of righteousness expelling sin; And is an action of God not without us as the other, but within us working in us a real and possitive change. And therefore remission of sin in the Popish sense belongeth not to justification, but to perfect sanctification, as being a total mortification of sin, which none attain unto in this life: but of this point I have already treated in the second question of the first controversy. Secondly, the fathers oftentimes use the word justification in the same sense that we do according to the Scriptures, as implying the forgiveness of sins, and acceptation unto life by the satisfaction and merits of Christ communicated unto us▪ As namely when they teach, as very oft they do, that we are justified by faith alone: which they could not have taught, if by justifying they had meant sanctifying: for we are not sanctified by faith alone as all confess. Thirdly, the Fathers did not look to be justified before God by any righteousness inherent in themselves or performed by them, but renounced it as being imperfect and stained with the flesh. And therefore where they speak of justification by inherent righteousness, they meant sanctification: and not justification before God, whereof our question is. For they profess that by inherent righteousness no man living can be justified in God's sight, as I have shown in this third controversy, and in the fifth and sixth.

CAP. XIII. An appendice to this third controversy, concerning the parity of justice.

§. I.

V Pon this controversy concerning the matter of justification dependeth another; which is scarce worth the mentioning, but only to show the blinded malice of the Papists in propounding it, and to vindicate ourselves from their calumniations. Bellarmine therefore de justif. l. 3. c. 16. propoundeth the question de paritate justitia, of the parity or equality of justice; whether all just men be in justice equal among themselves. For fain would he have the world to think, that we are like to Iovinian, or the Stoiks, calumniating us against the light of his own conscience. For he cannot be ignorant, but that we do acknowledge degrees of righteousness inherent and of the graces of sanctification, not only in divers men according to the measure of grace bestowed upon them, some being incipients, some proficience, and some grown men: but also in the same men, every man being bound to labor, that they may grow in grace, and proceed from Faith to Faith, until he come to a perfect man in Christ.

§. II. Indeed if the question be concerning righteousness imputed, we do teach, that in respect thereof all the faithful are equally just. Because, as they are justified, they stand just before God in the most perfect righteousness of Christ; by which the weak Christian is justified as well as the strong. And in this regard, the faith of God's children though unequal in degrees, in some weaker, in some stronger, in some more, and in some less, is said by the Apostle Peter to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a like precious 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, that is, in that righteousness of God, by which we are justified. And as the merit of Christ is equally imputed to all that believe; so the reward in respect of the substance, which is eternal life, shall be equally given to all that believe: yet I doubt not, but that whom God in this life hath adomed with greater graces, he will in them crown his greater graces with greater glory. And therefore as Saint Ambrose faith, he giveth •… qualem mercedem vitae, •… on gloriae, the equal reward of life, but not of glory: and 〈◊〉 unus denarius non est unum pr •… mium, sed una vita, & una de g •… enna liber •… tio: and Gregory there be many mansions with the father, and yet unequal laborers receive the same penny, because unto all there shall be one equal blesseduesse of joyfulness, though the sublimity of life be not one and the same to all.

§. III. But Bellarmine, though he confesseth, that we do not hold, that either virtues, or sins are equal, and that we do not deny, but that both the same men may and ought to increase, in faith, hope, and charity, and in other virtues: and that also divers men may be more just than others in respect of such virtues as be in them; but that we hold, that men being not justified before God by these virtues, but only by the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, we are in respect of this righteousness, by which we are justified, equally just. Yet all his proofs are to prove the inequality and degrees of sanctity or inherent righteousness; as though we denied the same, or held that paradox, which may in respect of habitual righteousness more justly be imputed to the Papists. For if incipients in Religion, yea, infants in age, be justified or made just, as they teach, with perfect righteousness infused, what difference shall there be betwixt Baptized infants and the greatest Proficients among them (who dream of perfection) in regard of habitual righteousness? saving that the infants justice may seem to be more pure from actual concupiscences. But of this question more hath been said than enough.

CAP. I. Containing five proofs, that we are justified by imputation of Christ's righteousness.

§. I.

T HE fourth grand error of the Papists in the article of justification, is concerning that, which we call the form thereof. For they denying, and deriding the imputation of Christ's righteousness (without which notwithstanding no man can be saved) do hold, that men are justified by infusion, and not by imputation of righteousness: we on the contrary do hold, according to the Scriptures, that we are justified before God only by imputation of Christ's righteousness, and not by infusion. And our meaning when we say, that God imputeth Christ's righteousness unto us, is nothing else but this; that he graciously accepteth for us, and in our behalf the righteousness of Christ, both active, that is, his obedience, which in the days of his flesh he performed for us; and passive, that is, his sufferings, which he sustained for us, as if we had in our own persons both performed and suffered the same for ourselves. Howbeit we confess, that the Lord doth infuse righteousness into the faithful; yet not as he justifieth; but as he sanctifieth them: and consequently we acknowledge, that in all the faithful there is true righteousness inherent, but we deny that they are justified by it. How I am first to prove our assertion, and to maintain our proofs against the exceptions and cavils of the Papists; And then will I answer their allegations.

§. II. My three first proofs shall be taken from those things, which have already been proved. And first, those reasons, which before I alleged to prove the formal cause of our justification, to be the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

Secondly, If to justify in the Scriptures doth never signify to make righteous by infusion of righteousness: or to make a man righteous formally by inherent righteousness: then it is evident, that the justification, which the Scriptures teach, is not by infusion of righteousness. And if not by infusion, then by imputation; for a third thing cannot be named. But the former I have most evidently proved; therefore the latter cannot be denied.

Thirdly, If we be justified by the righteousness of Christ, which is out of us in him, and not by any righteousness infused or inherent in us: then it is evident, that we are justified, not by infusion of righteousness, but by imputation. But the former I have fully demonstrated: therefore the latter must be confessed. For we are justified, either by inherent righteousness, or imputed, not by inherent, as hath been shown, therefore by righteousness imputed.

§. III. My fourth proof shall be taken from the confession of our Adversaries: who do confess that Christ his satisfaction is imputed unto us; which they understand but of the one half of his satisfaction, and not all that, viz. in respect only of the everlasting punishment, and the guilt of eternal death. As for the temporal punishment, which they say remaineth after absolution from the eternal, they must satisfy otherwise. And as for satisfaction to the commandments, the performance whereof is the condition of the legal promise Do this and live, by which performance Christ merited for us eternal life: they say, that Christ's satisfaction and merit is not imputed, but we ourselves are to merit eternal life. But by the same reason, whereby they have been forced to acknowledge the necessity of that part of Christ's satisfaction made by his sufferings to be imputed to free us from hell, they shall be compelled to confess the necessity of the imputation of the other part of his satisfaction, which is his obedience to be imputed to us, to merit heaven for us. The reason, why of necessity Christ's satisfaction by his death and sufferings must be imputed to us to free us from hell, is this: because nothing can satisfy for our sins which infinitely offend God and deserve an infinite punishment, but that only which is of infinite value. By the same reason, nothing can give us right and title to the kingdom of heaven, which is no less an infinite reward, being the eternal fruition of the infinite good (for God as he gave his Son in pretium, so he hath reserved himself in pr •… mium ) but that only which is of infinite worth and value; and that is only the merit of Christ who is Jehovah our righteousness.

§. IIII. My fifth proof shall be taken out of that most pregnant place, and most worthy to be insisted upon, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Him ( viz. Christ the just) who knew no sin, God made sin for us; that we (who are sinners in ourselves) might be made the righteousness of God in him. Where these two words sin, and righteousness need some explanation. But the explication of the latter, will clear the former. There being a fit analogy between Christ's being made sin, and our being made righteousness. But it is evident, that we are said to be made righteousness, in the abstract, when we are made righteous in the concrete. And therefore by analogy, when Christ is said to be made sin for us, the meaning is, that he was made a sinner for us. Some, because it seemeth an harsh speech to call Christ a sinner (though not so harsh, when it is said withal, that he was without sin) do rather by sin understand a sacrifice for sin, as the word sin sometimes is taken, which I acknowledge to be a godly sense; but not so agreeable to the analogy, which is between the parts of this text. From this analogy I argue thus.

§. V. Against both the premisses, the Papists cavil diversely. Doctor Bishop writing against Master Perkins, shutteth his eyes against the truth, saying, that there is not in this text any similitude implied between Christ's being made sin, and our being made just: & so denieth the proposition as containing this comparison: that we are so made the righteousness of God in Christ, as he was made sin for us. But this analogy is acknowledged by their Saint Anselm of Canterbury writing upon this text: whom when Master Perkins alleged, as expounding these words and recited his exposition; all Bishops answer is, that Anselm shall be answered when the place is quoted: when as Master Perkins, not only quoteth him, as expounding the place, but also citeth his words. He is made sin, as we are made justice, not ours, but God's; not in us, but in him: as he is made sin, not his own, but ours; not in himself •… but in us: which words he borrowed from Saint Augustine, who saith •… ipse ergo peccatum, ut n •… s justitia; nec nostra, sed Dei, nec in nobis sed in ipso: sicut ipse peccatum, non suum, sed nostrum; nec in se, sed in nobis, &c, Both of them plainly expressing this analogy, that Christ was sin as we are righteousness, not ours but God's, no •… in ourselves but in him: even as he was made sin, not his, but ours, nor in himself but in us: which analogy being granted, as it cannot be denied, doth invincibly prove, that as Christ was made sin by imputation of our sin; so we are justified not by any righteousness of ours, but by imputation of God's righteousness, that is, of Christ who is God, and that not in us, but in him. And so Jerome also expoundeth this place: Christ ^h being offered for our sins, received the name of sin, that we might be made the justice of God in him, not our own, nor in ourselves. And Sedulius, that we might be made the righteousness of God not ours, nor in ourselves, but in him, that is, in Christ, as the members in the head: And Augustine again, all that are justified by Christ, are just, not in themselves, but in him.

§. VI. Secondly, they cavil at our exposition of those words both in the proposition and assumption, him who knew no sin, he made sin that is, a sinner for us: for first, Bellarmine, though our sins, saith he, were imputed unto Christ, and his satisfaction to us: yet neither would it follow, that he was thereby made a sinner, nor we righteous. For our sins are imputed to him, not as though he had committed them, or could be held unjust: But they are only imputed to him in respect of the due debt of satisfying, which he willingly undertook: for which he deserveth not to be called a sinner, but righteous, for he that satisfieth for another is most just. So therefore his righteousness is also imputed to us quoad satisfactionem, so far forth as it is a satisfaction which he performed for us. But not therefore can we be held just, that is clean and without spot, if the spots and defilements of sin be truly inherent in us.

Answ. How could our sins be imputed unto Christ, and he not be counted a sinner? and how could his satisfaction whereby he fully satisfied both the Commandment by obeying, and the penalty by suffering, be imputed unto us, and we not reputed righteous? For by imputation, as our sins were made his: so his righteousness was made ours. And as for and by our sins he was condemned, as if he had been a debtor, that is, a sinner; because as our surety he voluntarily undertook our debt: so by and for his satisfaction, which he performed for us, and which the Lord accepteth in our behalf, as if we had performed the same in our own persons, we are justified. And yet though our sins being imputed to him, he was reputed and as it were made a sinner; and though his righteousness being imputed to us we are made righteous in him: yet this hindereth not, but that he in himself was just, and we in ourselves sinners. Yea, this argueth, that he in himself was just, and we in ourselves, sinners.

§. VII. Now that Christ was made a sinner for us, that is, was condemned and crucified, as if he had been a sinner, the Greek expositors with one consent do teach. Chrysostom him that knew no sin, saith the Apostle, him who was righteousness it self, he made sin, that is, he suffered him to be condemned as a sinner, and to die as one accursed, and again more plainly: for him that was righteous saith the Apostle, he made a sinner, that those which be sinners he might make righteous. But, saith he, the Apostle saith more: him, he made sin, and us, he made righteous. The like have Decumenius, his Son being righteousness and holiness, he made sin, that is, he suffered him to be crucified as a sinner, and as a guilty person: and again he made sin, that is, to be condemned