A Treatise of Justification

CAP. II. Containing eight other proofs that we are justified by impu •… ation of Christ's righteousness.

§. I.

M Y sixth proof shall be out of Rom. 5. 19. As by the first Adams disobedience, which we call his fall, we were made sinners, that is guilty of sin and obnoxious to death and damnation: so by the obedience of the second Adam we are made just or justified, that is acquitted from our sin and condemnation, and accepted in Christ as righteous unto life.

The proposition is the Apostles. The assumption is in divers places confessed by Bellarmine as I have shown heretofore, though sometimes to serve his present turn he do deny it. But it is easily proved: For if both the guilt of Adams sin be communicated unto us, and also the punishment thereof be inflicted upon us, which is both our original corruption, and death it self besides many other calamities, then is it to be presupposed that the sin it self is imputed to us. For if the sin it self had not been imputed, then as Bellarmine himself somewhere argues , neither the guilt, nor the corruption had belonged unto us. Again, things that are transient, when they are once past and gone, cannot be communicated otherwise than by imputation. That transgression of Adam, as all other actions was transient, and therefore if it be demanded how it being so long past and gone can be communicated to us, Bellarmine truly answereth, it is communicated unto us by generation, eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit, nimir •… m per imputationem: in that manner according to which that may be communicated which is transient and gone, to wit, by imputation. If it be objected (which was Bellarmi •… es prime argument for inherent righteousness) that through the disobedience of the first Adam we were made sinners, by inherent unjustice: and therefore by the like reason through the obedience of the second Adam we are made just by righteousness inherent. I answer, that from Christ we have both justification and sanctification, the former answering to the guilt of Adams transgression imputed, the latter answerable to the original corruption by generation derived, but though we have them both from Christ, yet not after one manner: the former we have by imputation, the latter by infusion. But of this place I have spoken heretofore at large.

§. II. Our seventh argument. Whosoever is a sinner in himself, and so continueth whiles he remaineth in this life, cannot be justified otherwise than by imputation. This I take to be a most certain and undeniable truth.

Or thus; The justification of a sinner is imputative, for to a sinner the Lord when he justifieth him, imputing not sin, imputeth righteousness without works, Rom. 4. 6. 8. The justification of every Christian is the justification of a sinner, and so is called of all writers, bo •… h old and new, both Protestants and Papists.

Therefore the justification of every Christian is imputative.

The assumption of the former syllogism is denied by the Papists, but against the testimony of their own Conscience, and against the common experience of all men, in all times and places. But this I prove it briefly. All that sometimes do sin, or have sin abiding in them, are sinners, all men sometimes do sin, and have sin remaining in them, therefore all men are sinners, the assumption is proved by James the just, and by the holy beloved Apostle; including themselves in many things we offend all of us, and if we say, we have no sin we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us. But that all mortal men are sinners, I have sufficiently proved before . Unless therefore the Papists will say, they are no sinners, and that in them there is no sin (which if they do say, we may be bold to tell them that there is no truth in them) they must confess justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness.

§. III. Our eight argument: To whom faith is imputed unto righteousness, without works, he is not justified by works, that is, by righteousness inherent, but by imputation of Christ's righteousness.

The former part of the proposition is proved by opposition of faith to works in the question of justify •… tion, and by the testimony of the the Apostle, Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The latter part is proved by the former: for if not by inherent righteousness, then by imputed: and if by faith and yet not by inherent righteousness, then not by faith in respect o •… it self, as it is an habit inherent in us, but in respect of the object, which it apprehendeth. Of which that is verified properly, (which by a trope, viz. a Metonimy, is ascribed to faith: namely, that it justifieth and saveth, that by it we have remission of sin, and the inheritance, &c. that is, Christ received by faith doth justify and save, &c.

The assumption in exp •… esse terms is delivered, Rom. 4. 3. 5, 6. 22, 23

Here Bellarmine confesseth, that faith indeed is imputed unto righteousness, and that is our righteousness (which confession doth not well agree with his assertions elsewhere, that faith doth but dispose unto justification, and that our formal righteousness is our charity, that faith is an habit of the Understanding, but justice is an habit of the Will) But our gloss he doth not allow; when we say, by faith, that is, by Christ's righteousness apprehended by faith, because it is repugnant to the Apostle for two causes. For first he doth not say, Christ's righteousness; but faith is imputed. Now faith is not Christ's righteousness, but ours by God's gift. Which notwithstanding is the main doctrine of the Gospel, revealing the righteousness of God, that is, of Christ, who is God, from faith to faith, the righteousness of God by faith, that is, which is apprehended by faith. For faith it self is not the righteousness of God which doth justify or save us, but the instrument to receive God's righteousness: and therefore doth not justify or save properly, but relatively in respect of the object which it doth receive, that is to say, the righteousness of Christ, which doth justify and save those which receive it by faith: and therefore when it is said in the Gospel more than once, thy faith hath saved thee, the meaning is, that Christ received by faith hath saved those which did believe in him, Act. 3. 16 it is said that faith in Christ had cured the lame man, but it is thus to be understood, that the name of Christ, by faith in his name did cure him. For we are justified and saved by a perfect righteousness, which is of infinite value and merit, which is, not faith nor any other grace or graces inherent, but only the righteousness of Christ. And yet because by faith we are united to Christ, and by it are made partakers of his benefits; therefore all the benefits which we receive from Christ are attributed to faith, as elsewhere I have shown: To faith, metonimically: but properly to Christ himself. His second reason: because the word imputare in this place, doth not signify a bare reputing, but a reputing unto which the truth is answer able in the thing it self, as is plain by these words, Ei qui operatur, merces imputatur, &c. for it is certain, that to him that worketh, not only in opinion and conceit, but truly and indeed the reward is due. Answ. This reason doth not prove our gloss to be repugnant to the Apostle, unless he imagine, that we hold the imputation of Christ's righteousness to a believer to be not real, but imaginary. And then by the same reason let him say, that the imputation of our sins to Christ, for which he really suffered and the imputation of Adams transgression to his posterity for which they are really punished, was but imaginary. Howbeit there is a difference in the manner of imputing a reward to him that worketh, and of righteousness to him that believeth for that, is ex debito: this ex gratia.

§. IV. Our ninth argument; He that is justified not by his own righteousness but by the righteousness of another, is justified by righteousness imputed. But all the faithful are justified not by their own righteousness, Phil. 3. 8, 9. Rom. 10. 3. but by the righteousness of another, this was fully proved and maintained in the whole third controversy: for that which is but one man's righteousness cannot be every faithful man's own by inherency, but only by imputation. The righteousness by which we are justified is but the righteousness of one, Rom. 5. 18, 19.

§. V. Our tenth argument. There is the same matter whereby infants are justified and others. But infants are not justified by righteousness inherent: for neither have they habitual righteousness, which consisteth in the habits of faith, hope, and charity, of which they are not capable, whiles they want the use of reason: nor actual, as all confess, but by the righteousness of Christ, and that imputed. And therefore Ber •… d saith, they want no merits, because they have the merits of Christ.

§. VI. Our eleventh argument. As Abraham was justified; so are we, Rom. 4. 23, 24.

§. VII. Our twelfth argument: To those that are justified by faith righteousness in their justification is imputed without works, that is, without respect of righteousness inher •… nt, Rom. 4. 5, 6.

§. VIII. Our thirteenth argument: whose sins are remitted by imputation of Christ's satisfaction unto them, they are justified by imputation: for to be absolved from sin is to be justified, Act. 13. 38, 39. where to have remission of sin is to be justified from sin. So Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. where the Apostle showeth, that whose iniquities are forgiven, who •… e sins are covered, to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, to them he imputeth righteousness without works, (where the Apostle, saith Bellarmine, ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae from the not imputing of sin he gathereth the imputation of righteousness,) them he justifieth, them he maketh blessed. So Luk. 18. 13, 14. when our Savior would signify, that the Lord had he •… d the prayer of the Publican who had prayed for the remission of his sin he saith, he went home justified. But the sins of the faithful are remitted by imputation of Christ's satisfaction to them. This the Papists themselves cannot deny. Or if they did, the whole Doctrine of the Gospel would confute them: which teacheth that Christ died for our sins, that he hath redeemed us from all our iniquities, that he gave himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a full price of ransom for us, 1 Tim. 2. 6. that he gave himself for us an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor, Ephes. 5. 2. that in him God is well pleased and reconciled unto us forgiving our sins, 2 Cor. 5. 19. that he is the propitiation for our sins, 1 John 2. 2. that he bare our iniquities, Isaiah 53. 12. that in his own •… body he bare our sins upon the Tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. that by him we have redemption, that is, remission of sins, that we are justified by his blood, Rom. 5. 9. and by his obedience, verse 19. that God is just in justifying a believing sinner and therefore forgiveth no sin for which his justice is not satisfied. And his justice cannot be satisfied for our sins, being an infinite offense, as Bellarmine himself confesseth, but by a price or satisfaction of infinite value, which can be no other but the perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction of Christ, which the Lord accepteth in behalf of all those that believe in him, which is nothing else but to impute it to them: for if God should not accept of Christ's satisfaction in the behalf of those that believe, then in vain had Christ died or satisfied for us. Therefore the faithful are justified by imputation.

§. IX. Hereunto the Papists have nothing to oppose but their own erroneous assertion, (which is hereby confuted) that remission of sin is an utter abolition, extinction, deletion of sin by infusion of righteousness.

But as in the Law two things are to be considered, the precept it self, and the sanction thereof denouncing punishment to the transgressout: so in sin there are two things to be considered, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it self which is the transgression of the precept, and the guilt which bindeth over the sinner to punishment. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is twofold: for it is partly transient, which is the sinful act or transgression it self; and partly immanent in the soul of the offender, which is that macula or labes, the blemish, spot or pollution, which the act doth leave behind it: in respect whereof, as Bellarmine teacheth, the transgressor after the act is gone remaineth formally a sinner. The guilt also is twofold; for it is either reatus culpae the guilt of offense or of offending God; and reatus paenae, which is the binding over of the sinner unto punishment. Now, God doth take away the sins of the faithful both in respect of the fault and also of the guilt of punishment but not after one manner. He taketh away the guilt by remission of sin: for in regard of the guilt our sins are debts, which debts God doth forgive when he remitteth the punishment, and taketh away the guilt, which did bind us over to punishment, by imputation of Christ's sufferings unto us: who as our surety did pay our debts for us. And because our Savior fully satisfied our debt, therefore our sins, in respect of the guilt of death, are in our justification wholly taken away, and in that respect there is an utter deletion of them, as there useth to be of debts, •… out of debt books when they are satisfied. But when the Lord doth justify a man, he doth impute unto him not only the suffering of Christ to free him a paena & reatu paenae, but also his obedience, that he may be constituted righteous and so freed also a culp •… & reatu 〈◊〉 . For as touching the fault whether you mean the sinful act which is transient, or the sinful blemish remaining in the soul, which is a vicious disposition and proneness to sin, left as the remainder of original sin, and increased by our own actual transgressions, as it is a fault and the offense of God bringging with it reatum culpae, to a believer and is not imputed to whom Christ's obedience is imputed, but covered with the robe of Chris •… s righteousness, by imputation whereof he is not only freed from the guilt both of the punishment and of the fault, but also accepted as righteous in Christ: but as the macul •… is an habitual sin, or sinful disposition polluting the soul as a remainder of original sin increased by our actual transgressions, it is not wholly abolished in this life, and much less at once, but it is mortified by degrees in those that repent of their sins, who day by day are renewed in the innerman. As for those places, which Bellarmine allegeth to prove remission of sin to be the total abolition of sin. I have fully answered heretofore in the second question of the first controversy, showing that divers of them are to be understood in respect of the guilt, which in remission is totally abolished. The other which are to be expounded of the corruption, are understood of the cleansing and purging of our souls from them, either begun in this life, or finished at the end of this life. For the death of the body bringeth with it in the children of God, the death and utter extinction of sin. And therefore death which was brought in as a punishment of sin becometh a remedy to extinguish sin. For whiles we live in the mortal body, sin liveth in us: but when the body dieth, sin is extinguished.

CAP. III. Containing our two last Arguments.

§. I.

O VR fourteenth Argument. If redemption, reconciliation, and adoption be imputative, then justification also is by imputation. For I have shown heretofore, that these three in substance differ not from justification, for as all these three benefits are comprised under justification, so in them the whole nature of justification doth consist. For what is it to be redeemed and reconciled, but to have our sins remitted or not imputed by the imputation of Christ's sufferings (which is the first part of justification) and what is it to be adopted but to be accepted in the beloved as righteous and as an heir of eternal life by imputation of Christ's obedience? which is the second part of justification. But those three benefits are imputative, all of them wrought by the not imputing of sin, which had made us the bond-slaves of sin and Satan, enemies to God, and children of the devil; and by the imputation of Christ's merits, whereby of the slaves of sin and Satan, we are made God's servants; of enemies, his favorites; of the children of the devil, the sons of God.

§. II. Our fifteenth Argument, out of Psalm. 32. and Rom. 4. If the Holy Ghost describe justification to be the forgiving of iniquities, the covering of sin, the not imputing of sin to the sinner, the imputing of righteousness not to him that worketh, but to him that believeth in Christ, or imputing of righteousness without works: then justification standeth not in deletion of sin by infusion of righteousness, but in imputation of Christ's righteousness, by which the sinner is both freed from his sin, and also accepted as righteous.

But the Holy Ghost doth so describe justification, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. •… x Psalm. 32. 1, 2.

To both parts Bellarmine doth answer. The assumption he first denieth, and then cavils with it. For first whereas Calvin, as he saith, demandeth, whether this be a full definition of justification, or but half? he likewise demandeth, when either the 〈◊〉 saith, Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, and Blessed are they who f are upright in the way: or when our Savior saith, Blessed are the poor in Spirit, blessed are the meek, &c. whether each of these be a perfect definition. For if it be, where is then remission of sin? Secondly, he saith, that Paul allegeth this testim •… ny out of the Psalm, not that he might thereby define fully justification, but only to prove, that true justification is the gift of God, and not gotten by our own strength. And that he fitly proveth from thence, that David calleth him blessed whose sins God remitteth, that is, wh •… by the gift a •… d grace of God is justified.

§. III. To the former I reply: that there is not the like reason, between these places cited by us, and those alleged by him. For those contain but certain notes and marks of Blessedness (though the Papists absurdly make eight beatitudes of the eight notes of one and the same blessedness, Matth. 5.) But here the Apostle out of Psalm. 32. showeth that blessedness it self (whereby as appeareth by the former verse, he meaneth justification, which is the only 〈◊〉 viae, because by it we are intitled to the eternal happiness, which is beatitudo patriae, all other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being but notes and signs of this) is so defined or described. For so much those words import, David doth describe the blessedness, as our translation fitly rendereth the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in this place.

The second is a mere depravation of the Apostles meaning, and inten •… ion; which was, not to prove that justification is the gift of God, which he had already taught to be a gracious action of God freely justifying by his grace, those that believe in Christ: but by a new supply of Arguments to prove the same question, which in the former Chapters he had disputed: concluding that a man is justified by faith and not by works, which question here he proveth by the example of Abraham, and by the testimony of David. The Argument drawn from Abrah •… ms example, is an excellent proof, which Chrysostom well observed, as Cardinal T •… let doth acknowledge. For Abraham had both faith and works, and yet he was justified not by his works but by his faith. If Abraham had had no works, or not such notable works, it might have been said; that he was justified by faith without works, because he wanted works. But seeing he abounded with store of excellent works, and yet was not justified by them, but only by faith: this is an invincible argument to prove that a man is justified by faith, and not by works. For Abraham though he had works, yet was justified by faith without works. Likewise David describeth (or if you will) declareth the blessedness of the man, that is, that a man is blessed, that is to say, justified, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works.

§. IV. This was his denial of the assumption. But now he cavilleth, that it may be, that in these words is contained the full definition of justification implicit. For there cannot be remission of sin, (in Bellarmine's sense, that is deletion of sin) unless righteousness be inf •… sed: as darkness is not driven away, unless light come in place. And this, saith he, The Apostle manifestly showeth, when he saith, David explaineth the blessedness of a man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, Bl •… ssed are they whose sins are forgiven. Vbi (saith Bellarmine ) ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae where the Apostle from the not imputing of sin gathereth the imputing of justice: which is very true, and proveth that here is a full definition of justification containing these two parts, the not imputing of sin to the believer, and imputing of righteousness, or accepting of him as righteous. But where is either the popish deletion of sin, or infusion of righteousness? unless as they have turned remission into deletion, so also imputation be converted into infusion.

§. V. To the proposition also Bellarmine answereth in part: and first to the word covering, that although to cover and not to impute sins, is not; if you respect the force of the word, to abolish or to extinguish sin, yet if they be referred to God, the sense importeth so much. For nothing can be bid from God, unless it be •… tterly taken away: for all things are naked and open before his eyes. Reply, Nothing can be hid from God, which he would not have hid. But if it please God to cover our sins, that he will not behold them, Psalm. 85. 2. or to hide his face from them, Psal. 51. 9. to cast them behind his back, Isaiah. 38. 17. not to mark what is done amiss, Psalm. 130. 3. then he is said not to see them, because he taketh no notice of them, but passeth by them, Mic. 7. 18. In which sense Charity is said to cover sins, Prov. 10. 12.

§. VI. To the word not imputing, he saith, that God cannot but impute sin to him that rema •… neth a sinner: neither can he repute him righteous, unless he be made righteous: therefore •… he not imputing of sin draweth with it, veram peccati remissionem, that is the extinction of sin, and infusion of righteousness. Reply, he should have said, as he said before; the not imputing of sin draweth with it imputing of righteousness, or the acceptation of a man as righteous: both which always go together, because both are wrought together by imputation of Christ's righteousness: whereas therefore he saith, that God cannot but impute sin, where sin still remaineth: it is true of unbelievers and impenitent sinners, who are out of Christ; but for them that be in Christ, that is to say, believing and repentant sinners, for whose sins Christ hath fully satisfied, and whom though in themselves sinners, he hath accepted as righteous in Christ? and for whom our Savior maketh intercession, that their sins may not be imputed to them: he cannot truly be said to impute sin unto them. It is true also that the Lord reputeth none righteous, but such as he maketh righteous, both by imputation of Christ's righteousness, and also by regeneration: by imputation perfectly, and at once; by regeneration in part and by degr •… s, they being not only Spirit but flesh also: in regard whereof though they be righteous in Christ; yet in themselves they are sinners, by reason of sin remaining in them, though in some measure mortified, and not at all imputed. So that a regenerate man in divers respects is both a righteous man and a sinner: righteous, not only in Christ by imputation of his perfect righteousness, but also in himself by inherent righteousness begun in him, from which, as is from the better part, 〈◊〉 hath his denomination in the Scriptures: a sinner also in himself, both in respect of habitual sins remaining in him as the remnants of original sin, and also in respect of actual transgressions, both of commission and of omission, whereinto he doth daily fall.

§. VII. And whereas he saith, that these phrases almost always go together, and to that purpose citeth, Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 51. 9, 85. 2 and so Psal. 32. 1, 2. I answer that deletion of sin, covering of sin, forgiving of sin and the not imputing of it, are used as synonima, that is, as words of the same signification: and that in all such places deletion of sin doth signify the blotting of them our of God's remembrance which is, as it were his record or debt book. Out of which, when God forgiveth sins, he blotteth or wipeth them out. Thus, to forgive sins is not to remember them, Isaiah 43. 25. I, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins, Ier. 31. 34. I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. And to remember them is not to forgive them. Ps. 109. 14. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord, and let not the sin of his Mother be blotted out, namely of remembrance, that is, let it not be forgotten: So Neh. 4. 5. Cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out before thee. Ps 51. 9. hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities: and to the same purpose, Psal. 85. 2. forgiving and covering are used in the same fence. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all thei •… sin, and so Psal. 32. 1. 2. forgiving, covering, not imputing. Deletion therefore of sins according to the Scriptures is the blotting of them out of the Book of God's remembrance. In this sense many things are said deleri to be blotted out, or wiped away by oblivion, whose memory is wiped out, as it is said of the Amalekites, Exod. 17. 14. and according to the vulgar Latin translation, Deut. 31. 21. nulla delebit oblivio, Esth. 9. 28. Eccl. 6. 4. Ierem. 20. 11. 23. 40. 50. 5. So that non imputare is all one with ignoscere, 2 Tim. 4. 16. So Job 42. 8. according to the vulgar Latin. 2 Cbro. 30. 19. Ezek. 33. 16.

§. VIII. Now, if not to impute sin be, as Bellarmine s •… ith, to expel sin by infusion of righteousness (for, according to his concelt infusion of righteousness is not a consequent of the expulsion of sin, as here for a poor evasion he saith, but expulsion of sin is a consequent of infusion of righteousness: for, according to his assertion, by infusion of righteousness sin is expelled as by accession of light and heat, cold and darkness is expelled) I say, if not to impute sin be to expel sin, by infusion of justice; then by the rule of contraries, which is, Contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia, to impute sin shall be to expel righteousness by infusion of sin, as it was well objected by Chemnitz. To him Bellarmine objecteth want of Logic, for calling those contraria, which are contradicentia. Where by Bellarmine's Logic adversa only are contraria, whereof notwithstanding there are four sorts: for if contraries be such opposites as are opposed one to one only, then besides adversa as Tully termeth those which Aristotle calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there are three other sorts of contraries, that is to say relata, which Aristotle calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , privantia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as privation and habit, contradicentia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as affirmation and negation, which Tully calleth velde contraria. Thus if Bellarmine's Logic be good, there are no opposites but contraries, nor any contraries but adversa, when it is acknowledged by better Logicians than himself, that of all opposites the most contrary are those which are opposed as affirmation and negation which are called contradicentia, as imputare non imputare, which are so immediately opposed, as the one of them is always true, quidlibet affirmare & negare verum, but cannot both be true together, for that implieth a contradiction. And therefore Chemnitz objection standeth still in force.

§. IX. Again if the holy Ghost in this place had meant by remission of sin, the deletion or abolition of it, he would not have called it, remitting, covering, or hiding, or not imputing of it. For nothing is either remitted, covered or not imputed, but that, which is. And things are hid, not that they should not be, but that they should not be seen. Tecta ergo peccata quare dixit? saith Augustine, ut non viderentur. As a prudent man hideth his knowledge, Prov. 12. 23. and an hypocrite his sin, we know this, saith Bellarmine, but withal we know, that some things are covered that they may be preserved; and some things, that they may be abolished. As wounds are covered with a plaster: the most ordinary end, and perpetual consequent of hiding anything he leaveth out; which is, that it may not be seen, and so God hideth our sins, when he hideth his face from them.

§. X. But for our learning, Bellarmine will show us the expositions of the Fathers, that we may know how far we swerve from the meaning of the ancient and Orthodox Church. And first, he citeth Justin Martyr, who alleging, Psal. 32. 2. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sin, that is saith he, that a man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 repenting of his sins receiveth from God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the forgiveness of his sin, (where he expounderh the not imputing of sins, to be the forgiveness thereof.) But saith he, not as you deceive yourselves and others, like you in this point, who say, that although they be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (that is, not those which have sin, but such as the Scripture calleth sinners, that is to say, impenitent sinners) so that they know God, the Lord will not impute sin unto them, though they do not repent, wherein we wholly agree with Justin, though the Papists do not: who deceive themselves and others; whom they persuade though they live in sin, if they observe the outward formality of doing penance, which all of them do once a year, though they neither have faith nor repentance, (which very few, if any of them have,) they have absolution from their sin.

§. XI. In the next place he citeth Origen and Jerome, both which do make three degrees of the three phrases; wherein, as they conceive David ascendeth from the less to the greater: when as notwithstanding it is apparent, that if those phrases did signify divers things, the first were the greatest, and the middle the least, according to the variety of the words whereby sin in this place is signified. Origen setteth them down not as the gifts of God, as Bellarmine beareth us in hand, but as a man's own merits: for because, saith he, the beginning of the conversion of the soul is to forsake evil, from this he deserveth (which the Papists themselves deny) to receive remission of sin. But when he shall begin to do good, as it were, covering over his former evils with new good things—he is said to cover sins. But when he shall come to a perfect man, insomuch that from the soul the very root of all wickedness is cut off, in so much, that no footstep of wickedness can be found therein (which never happeneth in this life, for concupiscence which remaineth in all, is both a footstep of sin at the least, and the very root of all iniquity, I am. 1. 14. ) where now the sum of perfect blessedness is promised, then God cannot impute any sin, which was a private and unsound conceit, as there are many more of Origen: from which though we dissent, we cannot justly be said to swerve from the doctrine of the Primitive Orthodox Church.

§. XII. Jerome, (if yet it be Jerome ) mentioneth three degrees but all of remission of sin, for so he saith: quibus modis remittuntur peccata? tribus: by what ways are sins remitted? by three. They are remitted by Baptism, they are covered by Charity, they are not imputed by Martyrdom: which assertion also is unsound: both because according to this conceit, to no man is sin not imputed, but only to Martyrs: and also because by Charity he seemeth to understand, not God's love, but ours, when notwithstanding it is evident, though our charity cover other men's sins, Prov. 12. 10. yet our sins are to be covered by the love and mercy of God in Christ. Howbeit in that which followeth, he is moresound, and agreeth with us, quod tegitur, non videtur: quod non videtur, non imputatur: quod non imputatur, nec punietur what is covered, is not seen: what is not seen, is not imputed: what is not imputed shall not be punished: where he plainly showeth that the covering and not imputing of sin, is the not punishing of it. But this distinction of the words into three degrees is rejected by Saint Ambrose, who saith, that to remit, cover, and not impute, are all of one sense and meaning. Indeed he saith, that divers names of sins are here mentioned, whereby we may gather the variety of sins, but the Verbes be of one signification, quia & cum tegit, remittit: & cum remittit, non imputat. because when he covereth, he remitteth; and when he remitteth, he doth not impute. And this exposition is most agreeable •… to that of Saint Paul, who by all these three understandeth one and the same thing, which is the imputation of righteousness without works. For it is the manner of the men of God in their Psalms and Hymns recorded in the Word of God; for their greater comfort, as it were by way of exultation, to dwell upon those things wherein they rejoice, by expressing the same in divers and sundry •… ermes, whereby the self same thing is repeated; which Rhetoricians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

§. XIII. In the last place he citeth two testimonies against us which he calleth out of Augustine's exposition of these words, which being entirely cited agreeth wholly with us. For, to omit his exposition of these words a little before set down, quorum tecta sunt peccata, whose sins are covered, that is, saith he, quorum peccata in oblivionē ducta sunt, whose sins are brought into oblivion: in the place quoted by Bellarmine, he hath these words. Blessed—are they whose sins are covered: he doth not say in whom no sins are found, but whose sins are covered. The sins are covered and hid, they are abolished or blotted out (by oblivion, according to his own former exposition even now alleged.) If God covered sins, he would not have an eye to them nor animadvert them, if he would not animadvert them, neither would he punish them Noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere; he would not take notice of them, he would rather pardon them. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered: then follow the words cited by Bellarmine. Ne sic intelligatis, do not sounderstand, what he saith, whose sins are covered, as though they were there, and lived, unmortified and unrepented of. For that they be there still, though mortified, appeareth both by the words before, that they may be found there, though covered; and by his next words, tecta ergo peccata quare dixit? ut non viderentur: why then did he say that sins are covered? not, that they be not at all, but, that they may not be seen. Quid enim erat Dei videre peccata, nisi punire peccata? for what is God's seeing of sin, but his punishing of sin? and so on the other side, what is his not seeing or covering of sin, but his not punishing or pardoning it? Afterwards, making way for the exposition of verse 3. he saith, that no man is without sin, and that no man can boast that he is clean from sins. And that therefore men, if they would have their sins cured, they must not hide them, like the Pharisee, who be ing in the Temple, as it were, in station medici, did show his sound parts, and hid his wounds. Deus ergo tegat vulnera, noli tu: let God therefore cover thy wounds, do not thou. For if thou being ashamed wilt cover thy wounds, the Physician will not cure it: then follow the words cited by Bellarmine in the second place, Medicus tegat & curet; emplastro enim tegit. Let the Physician cover and cure: for with a plaster he covereth: then followeth: under the cover of the Physician the wound is healed: under the cover of him that is wounded, the wound is concealed. From whom doest thou conceal it? from him that knoweth all things. Therefore brethren see what he saith quum tacut, &c. because I held my peace my bones are waxen old, &c. where August. doth not expound these words, whose sins are covered, but showeth that if we would have them healed we should not cover them, but confess them to our Spiritual Physician, that he covering them with an emplaister, may cure them: all which we confess: so that he needed not to quote the two Gregory's to prove, that God doth, as it were, with a plaster cover and cure our sins. But withal we would know of Bellarmine, what this plaster is. Is it our inherent righteousness, as the Papists teach? or is it not the righteousness and satisfaction of Christ, by whose stripes we are healed? for as I shall show presently out of Justin Martyr, whom here to no purpose Bellarmine did allege in the first place, nothing could cover our sins, but only the righteousness of Christ, by whom the iniquity of many is hid or covered.

§. XIV. Diverse other arguments Bellarmine mentioneth, as cited out of Calvin's Institutions, Lib. 3. c. 11. in answering whereof, besides some of those which I have produced, he spendeth six whole Chapters, which notwithstanding, for the most part, are not there to be found: but seem at least some of them to have been devised of his own brain, and by him framed and fitted to his own strength: that, having overcome these counterfeit enemies, he might seem to have refuted us. But these arguments, which I have produced, are sufficient for the proof of the point in question; and them I have defended against his cavils. If any man desire to see the defense of the rest, that is, to see Bellarmine's objections, devised for us, maintained against himself, he may have recourse to the answer of David Pareus, who hath in so many Chapters answered Bellarmine's exceptions, Lib. 2. de justif. Cap. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Now I proceed to the testimonies of the Fathers, and of other later Writers.

CAP. IV. Testimonies of Writers both Old and New, proving justification by righteousness imputed.

§. I.

I Begin, as Bellarmine did, with Justin Martyr. For what other thing, saith he, could hide or cover our sins, but the righteousness of the Son of God? In whom was it possible, that we sinners and ungodly should be justified, but in the only Son of God? O sweet commutation—that the iniquity of many should be hid in one just person, and that the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!

2. Athanasius, affirmeth that the fulfilling of the Law wrought by the first fruits (whereby he meaneth the flesh of Christ) is imputed to the whole lump.

3. Gregory Nyssene, marvel not (saith the Spouse) that uprightness hath loved me: but that being black by reason of my sin, and by my works drawing near to darkness, he hath made me beautiful by his love, making an exchange of his beauty with my blackness. For having translated the filthiness of my sins unto himself, he hath made me partaker of his purity, communicating unto me his own beauty.

4. Chrysostom, here the Apostle showeth that there is but one righteousness, and that that (of the Law) is recapitulated or reduced to this (of faith.) And that he which hath gotten this which is by faith, hath also fulfilled that: but he that despiseth this, he falleth from that together with this: and a little after •… if thou believest in Christ, thou hast fulfilled the Law and hast performed much more, than the Law commanded. For thou hast received a far greater righteousness. For as he had said in the words going before, that Christ hath justified us by faith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , more amply, than we would have been justified by the Law. This greater, this more ample righteousness must needs be understood of Christ's righteousness imputed unto us.

5. Ambrose, he that confesseth his sins to God is justified, that is, obtaineth remission of sin, which is also testified by S John 1 John. 1. 9. and is verified in David, Psalm. 32. 5. and in the Publican, Luk. 18. 14. But he that is justified by remission of sin, is also justified by imputation of righteousness: for as Bellarmine confesseth, the not imputing of sin bringeth with it imputation of righteousness.

6. Jerome, to the like purpose, then are we just, when we confess ourselves to be sinners: and our righteousness consisteth not in our own merit, but in God's mercy.

7. Augustine, omnes qui per Christum justificati, j •… sti non in se, sed in illo. All that are justified by Christ, are just, not in themselves, but in him. And thereunto add the testimonies before cited out of Jerome, Augustine, S •… dulius, and Anselmus, who all have taught, that we when we are justified, are made righteous, not in ourselves, but in Christ.

Again, Augustine teacheth that our justice in this life doth stand rather in the remission of sins, than in perfection of virtues. That is, as I understand him, that our chief righteousness in this life, is that of justification, and not of sanctification: for that is perfect, and so is not this: by that we are justified before God and intitled unto heaven, so are we not by this. Here Bellarmine would seem to acknowledge that remission of sin concurreth to justification: but his constant and perpetual doctrine is, that justification consisteth wholly, in the infusion of righteousness expelling sin, in so much that remission of sin and infusion of righteousness are not two actions but one, &c. which assertion supposed, how could Augustine say, that our righteoufnesse is such in this life that it consisteth rather in the forgiveness of sin, than in the perfection of virtues, seeing virtue infused is the force of justification, and expelleth sin, and is all in all, and if that assertion of the utter deletion of sin, when it is remitted were true, most vain were that boasting of Ambrose, who saith, gloriabor, non quia vacuus peccati sum, sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata. Maximus Taurinensis, when God doth remit sin, indulgentia facit innocentem, by his indulgence he maketh the party innocent.

8. Among the latter Writers I will give the first place to Bernard, who saith death by the death of Christ is put to flight, & Christi nobis justitia imputatur, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.

• 2. What could man do of himself to recover his righteousn •… sse once lost, being the servant of sin and the bondman of the devil? Assignata est ei proinde aliena justitia, qui caruit suâ: therefore •… nother man's righteousness was assigned unto him, who wanted his own.
• 3. One died sor all, ut viz. satisfactiounius omnibus imputetur: that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all.
• 3. If he shall say thy father ( Adam ) made thee guilty: I will answer that my brother hath redeemed me •… : Why not righteousness from another, seeing guilt is from another?
• 5. He will not condemn the just, who had mercy on a sinner. I may call myself just, sed illius justitiâ, but by his righteousness, and what is that? Christ the end of the Law unto righteousness to everyone that believeth, Finally, who of God the Father was made righteousness unto us. Is not that therefore my righteousness which was made righteousness unto me?
• 6. Lord I will mention thy righteousness only: for that is mine also: for thou of God was made righteousness to me: should I fear, that it being but one, should not suffice us both? It is not a short cloak, which is not able, according to the Prophet, to cover two. Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness: What is longer than Eternity? Thy eternal and large righteousness it will cover largely both thee and me: And in me truly it covereth a mul •… itude of sins: but in thee, Lord, what doth it cover but the treasures of piety: and riches of bounty? which testimony doth plainly prove against Bellarmine, that Bernard by Christ's righteousness which he saith is made ours, doth not mean that righteousn •… sse which is inhe •… ent in us, but that which is out of us in Christ, And the same is evidently proved by those testimonies before alleged, that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ, not ours but his, not in ourselves but in him: even as Christ was made sin, not his, but ours; not in himself, but in us.

9. Cardinal Contarenus , in a treatise of justification which he wrote Anno. 1541. testifieth that God with his Spirit giveth Christ unto us, and doth freely of his mercy make all Christ's righteousness to be ours, and imputeth it to us, who put on Christ. That by faith we do attain to a double righteousness: the one, inherent in us, by which we begin to be just, and are made partakers of the divine nature, and have charity diffused in our hearts: the other, not inherent, but given unto us with Christ. I mean (saith he) the righteousness of Christ and all his merits, both which are in time given together. Now saith he, forasmuch as I have said, that by faith we attain to a twofold righteousness, the one, inherent in us, viz. charity, or that grace by which we are made partakers of the divine nature: the other being the righteousness of Christ given and imputed to us, because we are engrafted into Christ; and have put on Christ,: It remaineth we should inquire on whether of them we ought to rely, and to think ourselves justified before God, that is, to beheld or esteemed holy and just: I mean by such a righteousness which may beseem God's children, and satisfy the eyes of God? Ego prorsus existimo. I do utterly think, that it may be godlily and Christianly said, that we ought to rely, I say, to rely, as upon a sure thing, which doth assuredly sustain us, on the righteousness of Christ given unto us, and not on that holiness and grace which is inherent in us. For this our righteousness is but begun and imperfect, which cannot safeguard us, but that in many things we offend, and daily do offend; and have need to pray daily, that our debts may be forgiven us: wherefore in the sight of God we cannot for this justice be accounted just and good, as it would become the sons of God to be good and holy. But the righteousness of Christ which is given unto us, is true •… and perfect justice, which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God, in which there is nothing which may offend God, or which doth not highly please him: upon this therefore being certain and sure we are to rely, and for it alone to believe, that we are justified, that is, to be held and pronounced just. This is that precious treasure of Christians, who so findeth, selleth all he hath, that he may buy it. This is that precious pearl, which who findeth, leaveth all, that he may have it. The Apostle Paul saith, I esteemed all other things loss, that I might gain Christ, not having mine own righteousness, but that which is by the faith of Christ And a little after he saith, that the more holy any men are, so much the more they understand themselves to stand in need of Christ and his righteousness vouchsafed to them: and therefore forsaking themselves rest upon Christ alone, &c.

Albertus Pighius, having shown that all men are sinners and subject to the Curse from thence inferreth, that most miserable had been our estate, if God had not most mercifully fuccoured us in his Son, & nostrâ justitiâ vacuos, ejus involvisset justitia: and being void of our own righteousness, had inwrapped us in his righteousness: and a little after, nisi ipse sua impartiretur justitia, qui nostra plane destituimur, quae nostram iniquitatem & injustitiam tegeret—David doth not say the man is blessed who hath not committed sin, nor done iniquity: but blessed are they whose iniquities are mercifully forgiven of God, whose sins he doth cover and hide with his justice. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, which he can scarcely be without, or at least never is without, and again; In illo, &c. in Christ therefore we are justified before God, not in ourselves, not with our righteousness but with his, which now is imputed to us having communion with him: wanting righteousness in ourselves we are taught extra nos in illo justitiam quaerere, to seek for righteousness out of ourselves in him.—Now saith he that our righteousness standeth in Christ's obedience, hence it is, because we being incorporated into him, it is accepted of God in our behalf as if it were ours, insomuch that by it self we are held just. And even as Jacob when not being the first borne, but hiding himself under the habit of his brother, and clothed with his garment, which sent forth a fragrant smell, obtained the blessing from his Father: so we, that we may obtain the blessing of righteousness from our heavenly Father, it behooveth us to lie hid under the precious purity of our eldest Brother, to smell sweet with his odour, and to have our sins covered with his perfection. And finally he saith, that if we speak formally, and properly we are justified neither by faith nor charity, but by the only righteousness of God in Christ by the only righteousness of Christ communicated to us, and by the only mercy of God forgiving our sins, which, saith he, I have before made evident.

11. Conradus Clingius maketh justification to be either imputative, which we call justification: or active, which we call sanctification: the righteousness of the former, being wholly in Christ: of the latter, in us: so that he differeth but in terms from us.

12. The Au •… hors of the Book called Antididagm . Coloniens. say, that the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, is the principal and ch •… efe cause of our justification, upon which chiefly we ought to rely and trust.

13. To these we may add the confession of our adversaries, who cannot deny, but that Christ his satisfaction is imputed to all that are justified, or shall be saved, as I have shown before. Ye •… this is the confession of all Christians, who profess Christ to be our Savior, that the Lord accepteth the merits of Christ, that is, his obedience and sufferings in their behalf, as if they had performed the same in their own persons. And what is this but to impute the obedience of Christ and his sufferings unto us? Doth not God accept Christ's righteousness for us, or did he not thereby satisfy for us? To what end then, as Bellarmine well inferreth, did Christ take upon him our nature? to what end and purpose did he humble himself to do and to suffer so great things for us? For this confession I argue thus. What righteousness and obedience of another the Lord accepteth for us, that he imputeth to us for righteousness, for by imputation we mean nothing else.

CHAP. V. The objections of the Papists against imputation.

§. I.

F Irst they cavil at the word, and that in divers respects, for first they say it is new. Secondly they deride it calliug it justitiam putatitiam an imaginary justice. Thirdly, they say, this assertion, that we are justified by imputation of Christ's righteousness, is nowhere to be found. To the first concerning novelty, I answer, that the word is used ten times: Rom. 4. and in the same sense, that we do use it, for accepting a man as righteous, who in himself is a sinner, verse 5. or imputing to a man righteousness, that worketh not verse. 5. or without works, verse. 6. that is, without respect of any righteousness inherent in him or performed by him; besides other places of the Scriptures, both in the Old Testament, and in the New: where the Hebrew Chashab is read with Lamed, or the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with a dative of the person, whether in the Greek translation of the Old Testament or in the Greek Text of the New. Examples of the Old Testament both in the Hebrew text and in the Greek translation may be these, Gen. 15. 6. Levite. 7. 18. 17. 4. N •… m. 18. 27. 30. 2 Sam. 19. 19. Hebr. Psal. 32. 2. 105. 31. Prov. 17. 28. Graec. Examples of the New Testament, besides those in the Epistle to the Romans, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Gal. 3, 6. 2 Tim. 4. 16. I am. 2. 23. In the Latin vulgar translation, not only the Verbe imputare and imputari are used in the same sense, as 2 Chron. 30. 19. Job 42. 8. Psalm. 32. 2. Sap. 12. 1 •… . E •… ek. 33. 16. Rom. 4. 4. 8. 5. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Philem. 18. but also reputure and r •… putari construed with a dative, as Gen. 15. 6. Numb. 18. 27. 30. Deut. 21. 8. •… bsque dativo. Deut. 23. 21. 24. 15. Iud. 4. 9. 2 Sam. 19. 19. 1 Chron. 21. 3. Psal. 106. 31. 1 Mac. 2. 52. Rom. 4. 3. 5. 9. 10. 11. 22. 24. Galath. 3. 6. I am. 2. 23. But, say they, the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a simple Verbe, and the Hebrew chashab doth signify p •… rare, not imputar •… , to think, esteem or account, not to impute. I answer, when the Hebrew Verbe is read with Lamed, or the Greek with the dative of the person, it signifieth properly to impute, (as in the places even now quoted) and is all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which word also is used by the Apostle, Rom. 5. 13. Phile. 18. or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Vari •… us doth expound it producing this example, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The sins of the children of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Fathers, that is, imputeth, or layeth them to their charge, and so the vulgar Latin translateth the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Latin imputare, as Rom. 4, 4. 8. or reputare with a dative, as Rom. 4. 3. 5, &c. or accepta ferre, as Rom, 4. 6. which are all one, even in the opinion of that Latin interpeter.

Neither should this act of imputation seem strange seeing the practice thereof is usual among men. For as when the debtor being not able to make payment, if the surety shall pay the whole sum or satisfy for the debt, the sureties payment or satisfaction is imputed to the debtor, and accepted in his behalf, as if himself had discharged the debt. Even so we being debtors to God, both in respect of the penalty due for our sins past, and also of obedience which we owe for the time to come, and being altogether unable either to satisfy the one or perform the other: Christ as our surety fatisfieth both these debts for us, and his satisfaction is imputed unto us, and accepted in our behalf, as if we in our own persons had discharged our debt.

§. II. Whereas in the second place they deride imputed justice, calling it putatitiam, as if it were an imaginary righteousness only: which also, they say, doth both derogate from the glory of God, to whom it were more honorable to make a man truly righteous, than to repute him righteous, who in himself is wicked; and also detract from the honor of Christ's Spouse, who is only arrayed with her Husbands righteousness, as it were a Garment, being in herself deformed. I answer first, whom •… the Lord doth justify, he doth indeed and in truth constitute and make them righteous by imputing unto them the righteousness of Christ, no less truly and really, than either Adams sin was imputed to us, or our sins to Christ, for which he really suffered. Secondly, whom God justifieth or maketh righteous by imputation, them also he sanctifieth, or maketh righteous by infusion of a righteousness begun in this life, and to be perfected when this mortal life is ended. And further, that it is much more for the glory both of God's justice and of his mercy, when he justifieth sinners, both to make them pe •… fectly righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness: and also having freed them from hell by the perfect s •… tisfaction of his Son, and entitled them to the Kingdom of Heaven by his perfect obedience; to prepare and to fit them for his own Kingdom, by beginning a righteousness inherent in them, which by degrees groweth towards perfection in this life, and shall be fully perfected so soon as this life is ended, rather than to justify, or to speak more properly to sanctify them only by a righteousness which is imperfect and but begun, which in justice can neither satisfy for their sins, nor merit eternal life. And as for the Spouse of Christ, as it is most honorable for her to stand righteous before God, not in her own imperfect righteousness, but in the most perfect and absolute righteousness of Christ the eternal Son of God, which far surpasseth the righteousness of all men and Angels: so it is both profitable to her, and honorable to God whiles she is to continue he •… warfare and pilgrimage in this world, to be subject to insirmities and imperfections; whereby she being humbled in her self, is taught to rely upon the power and goodness of God whose grace is sufficient for her, and whose power is seen in her weakness; especially considering, that though her obedience be imperfect, yet, it being upright, it is not only accepted in Christ, by whose perfect obedience imputed her wants are covered, but also graciously rewarded: and also considering, that the remainders of sin are left ad agonem, that having maintained a spiritual warfare against them, and the other enemies of her salvation, and having overcome them, she may receive the Crown promised to them which overcome.

§. III. As touching the third, which is Bellarmine's first objection in this place, that it is nowhere read, that Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us, or that we are justified by Christ's righteousness imputed. I answer, that as in many other controversies the assertion of neither part is in so many words and syllables expressed in the Scriptures: so neither in this. For where do the Papists read, either in Scriptures, or Fathers, that our righteousness inherent is the formal cause of our justification before God? The contrary whereof, in substance, is so often read, as it is said, that we are not justified by our works, or by our own righteousness, nor in ourselves, nor by a righteousness prescribed in the Law in which all inherent righteousness is fully and perfectly described. But the substance of our assertion is often read, as namely, First, that when God doth justify a finner he imputeth righteousness unto him without works, that is, without respect of any righteousness inherent in or performed by himself, Rom. 4. 4, 5, 6. Secondly, that he justifieth him, not by the parties own righteousness, or by making him righteous in himself, but by the righteoufnesse of another, viz. Christ, in whom he is made righteous. Thirdly, that we are justified by the blood and by the ^e obedience, that is the personal righteousness of Christ, which neither it self, nor yet the merit thereof (without communication whereof no man can be saved) is or can be communicated unto us otherwise than by imputation. From whence we may argue thus.

Therefore the righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us. Fourthly, that as by the disobedience of Adam we were made •… inners, namely, by the imputation thereof unto us, (for neither the guilt, nor the corruption, nor the punishment, which is death, had belonged to us, if the sin it self had not been imputed unto us,) so by the obedience of Christ we are justified, which, if it were not imputed to us, we could by it neither be freed from hell, nor entitled to heaven, nor made inherently just by it. Fifthly, that we are so made the righteousness of God in Christ, as he was made sin for us, that is, by imputation. Sixthly, and lastly (to omit other proofs) when the Papists do confess that Christ's satisfaction is imputed unto us: they confess as much as we teach, if it be rightly understood. For his satisfaction for us is either in respect of the penalty of the Law, to free us from hell; or in respect of the Commandment, to entitle us to heaven. The penalty he hath satisfied by his sufferings, which is obedientia crucis his obedience of the Cross: the Commandment, by the perfect fulfilling thereof, which is obedientia Legis, his obedience of the Law. Now Bellarmine, as I have heretofore shown, teacheth in his fifth chapter of his second book that God accepteth in our behalf the righteousness of Christ, whereby he satisfied for us. And in the tenth chapter, that not ou •… righteousness doth satisfy for our sins, but the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us: and to that purpose citeth Bernard. For if one, faith he, died for all; then all were dead, that the satisfaction of that one might be imputed to all, as he bare the sins of all.

§. IV. Bellarmine his second and third argument both tend to prove that for the justification of a sinner there is no need of imputation of Christ's righteousness: where, in mine opinion, he might as well have alleged, that there is no need of a Savior. For if there be need of a Savior, it is to free us from the danger of damna ion, and to entitle us to the Kingdom of heaven: both which benefits are implied in justification. But how should we, who are sinners, and consequently by sin obnoxious to damnation, and excluded from heaven, be either acquitted from hell, or made heirs of heaven? For neither by ourselves nor by any other means in the world can we be freed from hell or have right to heaven, but only by the death and merits of Christ our only Savior, which is so clear a truth, that the Papists themselves cannot deny it. But how can we be freed from hell by Christ's sufferings, or entitled to heaven by his obedience, if the Lord do not accept of his sufferings and obedience in our •… ehalfe, as if we had suffered and done the same in our own persons? If God do not accept them in the behalf of the faithful, for whose sake he did obey and suff •… r: then all that Christ did and suffered for us was in vain; and in vain did he take our nature and our sins upon him If the Lord do accept in our behalf the fufferings and merits of Christ, then doth he impute them unto us. For by imputation, as I have said, we mean nothing else. Neither can the sufferings and obedience of Christ, being transient, as I have also shown before, be otherwise communicated unto us, but by imputation.

§. V. But come we to his second argument: for if, saith he, imputation be necessary, it is chiefly for this cause, because a man after remission of sin remaineth still a sinner, his sin being covered and not abolished. But when sins are remitted, they are not only covered, but utterly abolished. But here Bellarmine grossly mistaketh our assertion, as if we held, that sins are first forgiven, and then, after the forgiveness of sins, righteousness is imputed. But we hold, that by imputation of Christ's righteousness or satisfaction we have remission of sin, and not otherwise: and therefore that to remission it •… self imputation is absolutely necessary. For God forgiveth no sin, nor remitteth the guilt of punishment for which his justice is not fully satisfied. But we are not able ourselves to satisfy for our sins but by eternal punishment. Therefore it is impossible (salva Dei justitia) that our sins should be forgiven, unless Christ's satisfaction be imputed unto us.

§. VI. And whereas still he harpeth on that string that remission of sin is the utter deletion or abolition of it, to wit, by infusion of righteousness, and that therefore imputation of Christ's righteousness is needless; I answer, first, that in sin two things are considered, the guilt, and the corruption. That in remission of sin the guilt is fully taken away by imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness; but the corruption or pollution is not taken away by remission, but by mortification; and that not fully and at once, but by degrees. And howsoever these two benefits do always concur, remission of sin and mortification of sin, (for whosoever are freed from the guilt of sin are also freed from the dominion of sin; and to whom the Lord granteth remission, to them he granteth repentance, God's forgiving and man's forgoing or forsaking of sin going always together) notwithstanding they are by no means to be confounded. I confess that both of them are wrought by the blood of Christ, and by his death; but in a divers respect. For by the blood of Christ is meant all that which issued out of his blessed side, which was both blood and water, John. 19. 34. which Saint John •… verse. 35. noteth as a thing most remarkable; and accordingly in his first Epistle, Chapter 5. verse. 6. urgeth it. This is he that came by water and blood (even Christ Jesus) not by water only, but by water and blood. The blood of redemption, to redeem us from the guilt of sin; and the water of ablution, to purge us from the pollution of sin. The death also of Christ may be considered, either in respect of the merit thereof, as it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . a price or ransom apprehended by faith, to redeem us from the guilt of sin: or in respect of the virtue and efficacy, as it is a medicine or plaster applied by the Holy Ghost to cure us of the malady of sin. Both Christ worketh by his blood and by his death: but the former is done without us, and (in respect of sins past, at once, as when a debt is fully satisfied) the later is wrought in us, as when a disease is cured by degrees.

§. VII. Secondly, if remission of sin be an utter deletion, or a total abolition of sin, then no man's sin is forgiven in whom any sin remaineth, which is a most desperate doctrine, as heretofore I have shown: for where is that mortal man in whom no sin remaineth? If the Papists say they have no sin, Saint John will tell them, that there is no truth in them. Thirdly, in the Scriptures, to remit sin is not to abolish it but to pardon, and to forgive it, or not to impute it. And further, God is said so to forgive our sins, as we forgive the offenses of others: which we do, when by charity we cover them; when we do not remember them with any desire or purpose to revenge them: when we are reconciled to them that offended us. The difference is, that God forgiveth not only in mercy, but in justice also; forgiving no sins but those for which his justice is fully satisfied. He forgiveth therefore those sins, for which Christ hath satisfied, he remitteth the punishment to us, which Christ hath borne for us; he covereth them, but with the robe of Christ's righteousness: he is reconciled unto us, but it is Christ, for whose sake he doth forgive our sins. Thus therefore I argue, If remission of sin be not the deletion of the sin it self by infusion of righteousness, but the not imputing or covering of it, the taking away of the guilt by imputation of Christ's satisfaction; then we are justified not by infusion but by imputation: but the former is true; therefore the later.

Yea but •… aith Bellarmine the Scripture by remission of sin understandeth the utter abolishing of sin, and to that purpose useth all manner of words, which could be devised to express the utter deletion of sin: to which purpose he allegeth many testimonies, all which I have answered heretofore.

§. VIII. Fourthly, if there be a total deletion of sin in our justification by the infusion of righteousness; then that righteousness which in our justification is infused, is perfect: for the infusion of righteousness which is imperfect, cannot cause a total abolition of sin. Nay, the imperfection it self is a sin. But it is absurd to imagine, that the righteousness which is infused in the first imaginary justification of the Papists; or, as we speak, in our first regeneration is perfect, seeing in our best estate in this life we receive but the first fruits of the Spirit: and in our first regeneration, which is, as it were, our conception, we receive but the seeds, as it were, of God's graces. And therefore to imagine, that in Infants newly Baptized, having not so much as the use of reason, there is perfection or full growth of Faith, Hope, and Charity, when actually they neither can believe, hope, or love, surpasseth all absurdity. Especially when they acknowledge a great difference, not only between viatores, which are in via, that is, the faithful in this life; and comprehensores, which are in pa •… ria, that is, the Saints in heaven; but also among viatores themselves, whom they distinguish into three degrees; incipientes, which are as infants; proficientes, which are as adolescentes; and perfecti, which are as adulti, among whom none are so perfect, but that still something may and ought to be added; their inner man being renewed from day today: 2 Cor. 4. 16. until they come to full pe •… fection, which is not to be attained unto in this life. Shall then not only other viatores be perfect, but incipientes also? Now it is apparent that their justification is incipientium, even of infants in Baptism: in whom if there be a total deletion of sin by infusion of righteousness; then that righteousness which in Baptism is infused, is perfect, neither can anything be added to their Fa •… th Hope, and Charity. But that there is no perfect inherent righteousness in this li •… e in any mere man whatsoever, may thus briefly be proved. In whomsoever is sin in them is not perfect righteousness: for perfect righteousness and sin cannot stand together. But in all mortal men there is sin, therefore in no mere or mortal man is perfect righteousness inherent.

CAP. VI. Bellarmine's third argument, that because the righteousness infused in justification is perfect, refuted.

§. I.

B ELLARMINE his third argument, whereby in the second place he would prove the imputation of Christ's righteousness to be needless unto justification, is because the righteousness which in justification is infused, is perfect. But his argument is insufficient, and his disputation is •… ophisticall. Vnsufficient, for although our righteousness for the time to come should be perfect: yet for the temission of sins past, wherein in justification partly consisteth, the imputat •… on of Christ's satisfaction is absolutely necessary. His disputation is Sophisticall; wherein he argueth à posse ad esse: and worse than so: for where he ought to prove, that the righteousness infused in our justification is perfect in all that are justified, and so soon as they are justified; he proveth, that in some men whom he accounteth perfect, it may in some part of their life, after they have been good proficience, be perfect. But that is not the question: but whether the righteousness which in the justification of a sinner is infused, which they call their first justification, be perfect, or not: for if it be imperfect and but begun •… it cannot possibly justify a sinner before God; but for all it, the imputation of Christ's righteousness will be most necessary. But let us follow him in his proof, such as it is. Inherent righteousness, saith he, •… onsisteth in these three especially, faith, hope & charity: if therefore these may be perfect in this life, then o •… r inherent righteousness may be perfect. Here again he disputeth sophistically: First, because, when he should prove, that these habits of grace, when they are infused to justify men (as namely in baptism) are perfect, and therefore that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is needless: he proveth, that they may be perfect in some men, in some part of their life: secondly, whiles he proveth severally the perfection, or rather the possibility of the perfection of this or that virtue: for perfection of inherent righteousness is not proved by the perfection of any of these severally, but of them and of all others jointly. For if there be imperfection in any of those virtues or graces wherein inherent righteousness consisteth, then is not the inherent righteousness perfect. But let us see, how he proveth them severally. And first, for Faith: which he proveth may be perfect in this life: what it may be in some choice men, and in some part of their life, it is not here questioned, but whether it be perfect, when men are first justified thereby. The Apostles in some part of their life had a great and a strong faith, yet for some time, even after they were justified, were, by the censure of our Savior, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 men of little faith.

§. II. But yet let us see how he proveth it may be perfect in this life. This he endeavoreth to prove by six arguments, his first proof is this. If faith cannot be perfect in this life, then it can never be perfect, but it is not to be believed, that so excellent a virtue shall never be perfect. The consesequence of the proposition he proveth; because in the life to come it shall not be perfected, but evacuated, or made void. I answer, first, to the prosyl. logisme, or proof of the proposition: for first, that, which he calleth the evacuating of faith, is the perfecting of it. It is eternal life to kn •… w God: but in this life we know him by faith, in the life to come by vision: here, as it were in a looking-glass, and obscurely; there, face to face: here we are in our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or growing age, wherein we must still grow towards perfection: there we come to our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and perfection: here we lead a mortal life; there an immortal. As therefore our mortal life is swallowed up of immortality, whereby it is perfected, and our growing years by perfect age, our obscure knowledge, and as it were in a glass, by intuitive aspect: so our faith in the life to come is to be swallowed up in vision, and our hope in fruition. For faith and hope are not of things seen and enjoyed. But when the things believed are seen, and the things hoped for enjoyed; then are faith & hope brought to their consumm •… tion and perfection. Secondly, if our faith shall be evacuated, as he speaketh, in the life to come, that is an evidence that in this life it is imperfect. The Apostle 1 Cor. 13. 8. saith, that our knowledge, meaning the knowledge of faith, shall be evacuated, or made void and of no further use; for we know, saith he, in part, verse 9. and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be evacuated; that is, saith Augustine, ut 〈◊〉 jam ex parte sit sed ex toto: when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I reasoned as a child: but when I became a man, I evacuated childish things: for now, to wit, by faith we see and know as it were, in or by a looking-glass, and as it were in a riddle or in a d •… rke speech; but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know, even as also I am known. If therefore faith shall be perfected by vision, the consequence of the proposition with the proof thereof is to be denied: and the evacuating of it by vision is a pregnant proof, that in this life it is but in part. As touching the assumption I say, that faith, which is the evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for, shall never be perfected, until the things which are believed shall be seen, and the things hoped for shall be enjoyed.

§, III. His second reason to prove that faith may be perfect in this life is this: because, that faith, which hath been tried in the for •… ace of temptation, is perfect, whereto if he assume, that the faith which in justification is first infused, either in infants when they are baptized, or in others in their first justification, hath been tried in the Fornace of temptation, he shall be ridiculous: for it must be, before by trial it be approved. but supposing him to speak of the faith of men being adulti and already justified: his impertinent proof standeth thus. That faith, which is more precious than gold tried in the fire, is perfect: That faith, which hath been tried and approved by temptation, is more precious than gold tried in the fire, witness Saint Peter, 1 Epist. 1. 7. therefore that faith is perfect. Answ. The proposition is to be denied. For temptations and afflictions are trials, not of the perfection, but of the soundness and unfainednesse of faith. All faith, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, true and unfeigned, though not perfect, endureth temptations. Heresies are trials, whereby 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not the perfect but the sound and upright Christians may be known. Affliction worketh patience, and patience worketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 probation, that is showeth them to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is sound and approved, who patiently bear afflictions. Wherefore blessed is the man that endureth temptation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because when he shall be found 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, not a perfect, but a sound and approved Christian, he shall receive the Crown of life. Temptation therefore is fitly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the trial of our faith, because it trieth those who profess the faith, whether they be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sound and upright Christians, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, hypocrites. But not all that be not perfect, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor any perfect though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but all those that are not upright are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is to say hypocrites.

§. IV. His third reason: whosoever believe with all their heart, or their whole heart their faith is perfect: some do believe with their whole heart, as namely, the Eunuch, Act. 8. 37. therefore the faith of some is perfect. To help him, I will confess, that not only some, but all, who have faith unfeigned, believe with their whole heart. But the proposition is to be denied. For to believe with the whole heart, being not legally but evang •… lically understood, is to believe not with an heart and an heart: that is an heart divided, but with an entire and upright heart, wherein there is no guile, that is hypocrisy. So that he which believeth integro cord with an upright heart, or with faith unfeigned, is said according to the scriptures, to believe with his whole heart; which proveth not the perfection, but the soundness of faith. Neither is it credible either that Philip would require perfect faith in men before they be baptized, for to such Baptism were needless; or that the faith of the Eunuch, being a new convert, not yet baptized, was at that time perfect: For what I pray you was his faith? Was it not this, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: which is the very first degree of justifying faith.

§. V. His fourth reason, because the faith of Abraham was altogether perfect. What will he from thence infer? Ergo, the faith of all, when they are first justified, is perfect? but he cometh far short of that conclusion. All that can be concluded, if the premisses were true, is this. Abraham had perfect faith; Abraham was justified, therefore some justified person hath a perfect faith The proposition he proveth out of Rom. 4. 19. 20. where it is said that he was not weak in faith (as many are, who notwithstanding are justified) neither staggered at the promise of God through unbelief (as Zacharias did Luk. 1. 20. who notwithstanding his imperfect faith was a man justified) but was strong in faith, being fully persuaded and therefore had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fidei the full persuasion of faith, (which few or none have when they are first justified.) Now saith he, this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is the perfection of faith. Answ. first to the proposition, that Abraham's faith when he was first justified, was not perfect, whatsoever it was afterwards: secondly, to the proof of it out of Rom. 4. 20. 21. from which testimony it is indeed proved, that the faith of Abraham, after he had been for a long time justified, was strong, but not perfect. Neither is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or full persuasion of this point, that God is omnipotent, which here is adscribed to Abraham, the perfection of faith; nor yet every full persuasion of the truth of God concerning Christ. For first there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a full persuasion of assent to any truth of God, but especially to the truth, that Jesus the Son of the Virgin Mary is the eternal Son of God and the Savior of all that truly believe in him: which, though it justify if it be a lively and effectual assent, joined with an earnest desire and settled resolution of application; yet is far from the perfection of faith. For there is also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the full persuasion of special faith, (which goeth beyond the ordinary faith of all Papists,) when thou certainly believest, not only that Christ is the Savior of all the faithful, but also that he is thy Savior, and that by him thou shalt be saved. Now every assurance or assured persuasion is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of which there are many degrees, through which we must strive, proceeding from faith to faith, towards a full assurance: which yet is never so full, but that still more and more may and ought to be added to it. As for Abraham, though his faith were strong and excellent, yet was it not perfect: which appeareth by many signs. For if his faith had been perfect, then it had not needed to have been strengthened and confirmed. Why then did the Lord in every Chapter almost of his story renew and repeat his promises unto him? Why did he confirm them by oath? Why did he seal them by the Sacrament of Circumcision, which is the seal of that righteousness which is by faith. How came it to pass, if Abraham's faith was altogether perfect, that twice he used that unlawful shift, which proceeded out of distrustful fear: calling his wife, his sister; whom, to save his own life, he exposeth to danger: for perfect faith expelleth fear and distrust.

§. VI. His fifth reason is besides the purpose. For whereas he should prove, that the faith of all the faithful is in their justification perfect; he proveth, that the faith of some special men, who are highly commended in the Scriptures, as rare examples of a strong faith, was after they had been justified, not a weak and a languishing, but a strong and valiant faith: to which purpose he allegeth. Heb. 11. 33. 1 John 5. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 9. Ephes. 6. 16. and thereupon inferreth: Surely that faith which can overcome the world, resist the Devil, and repel all his fiery darts, must not be a weak or languishing, but a strong and valiant faith. All which we grant. But yet deny, either that it was so strong when they were first justified thereby, or that, when it was at the strongest, it was perfect. But here, by the way, I would fain know of Bellarmine and his consorts, whether this strong faith so much commended in the Scriptures, be only a bare assent to the truth of the word and promises of God, or rather an assurance, which we call special faith grounded on the word and promises applied to ourselves? In his last reason, he urgeth again the force of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Heb. 10. 22. signifying, as he saith, with our consent, a most full and most perfect persuasion. We acknowledge that it signifieth a full persuasion, which we call assurance, which is so far from being in all the Papists, when they are justified, as that none of them have it at all without special revelation, which, they will confess, is very rare. But yet of this assurance there are degrees; all aspiring in this life, but none attaining to perfection: for when we have attained to some assurance, we must still labor to increase it, striving toward perfection. So much of Faith.

§. VII. As touching Hope, (saith he) the testimony of the Apostle, Heb. 6. 19. may suffice: for there he saith, that our hope must be the anchor, as it were, of our soul, safe and sure. Answ. This argueth the assurance of Hope in some of God's children after they have been justified, but not the perfection. Sound Hope is safe and sure; because it never confoundeth or maketh ashamed, Rom. 5. 5. where, by the way also, I would gladly learn, if there may be such a full assurance of Faith and Hope, (as here Bellarmine affirmeth) and that without special revelation; why there may not be the like assurance of Salvation, and of perseverance to Salvation, which elsewhere he stoutly denieth, and by his denial confuteth his own assertion in this place: for if there cannot be assurance of Salvation, much less can there be perfection of Faith and Hope.

CHAP. VII. Bellarmine's proofs, that Chàrity is perfect, disproved.

§. I.

T Here remaineth Charity, which he would prove to be perfect, not in all, and that in their first justification (which he ought to prove, or else he proveth nothing) but in some men in some part of their life after their first justification: and this he proveth, first by the testimonies of Augustine, and after by authority of Scripture Out of Augustine's book de natura & gratia , he citeth two testimonies; the former in these words, ipsa charitas est verissima, plenissima, perfectissimáque justitia: which Augustine doth not speak of Charity when it is infused in the act of justification, nor of Charity in general, but of that perfect Charity whereunto nothing may be added which he confesseth to be the truest, the fullest, the perfectest justice. The latter in these words, perfecta Charitas, perfecta justitia est: perfect Charity is perfect righteousness; which we deny not. But that no man in this life doth attain to perfect Charity; Augustine, though he would not in that book dispute of the possibility thereof (because God if he please is able to bestow perfect justice, and to make men free from all sin) yet in other places he doth plainly and fully teach: as first Charity in some is greater, in some less (and therefore not perfect in all that are jus •… ified) in others none at all, but the most full and complete which now cannot be increased, is in no man so long as he liveth here. Now, so long as it may be increased, assuredly that which is less than it ought to be, is a fault. By reason of which default, there is not a righteous man upon the earth that doeth good and sinneth not: for which default no man living shall be justified before God: for which, if we shall say that we have not sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us: for which, though we be never so good proficience, we must of necessity say, forgive us our debts. And in another place: In part there is liberty, in part bondage: as yet, no entire, no pure, no full liberty. And after; let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, &c. he doth not say let it not be, but let it not reign. As long as thou livest, sin must needs be in thy members, only let the kingdom be taken from it.

§. II. To this purpose a multitude of Testimonies might be cited out his Book, De perfection justitiae, which he wrote against Caelestius the Pelagian, who held that men may attain to perfection in this life. I will content myself with a few. Tunc erit plena justitia, quando plena sanitas, quando plena charitas, plenitudo enim legis charitas. Tunc autem plena charitas, quando videbimus cum sicui •… est.—Charitas plena & perfecta tunc erit, cum videbimus facie ad faciem. The righteousness which we have here in our pilgrimage is to hunger and thirst after righteousness, that hereafter we may be filled.— Quotquot ergo perfecti hoc sapiamus. id est, quotquot perfect currimus hoc sapiamus, quod nondum perfecti sumus, ut illic perficiamur quo perfect adhuc currimus: ut cum venerit quod perfectum est, quod ex parte est destruatur, id est, non jam ex parte sit sed toto. quia fidei & spei res ipsa, non quae credatur, & speretur, sed quae videatur teneaturque succedet: charitas a. quae in his tribus major est, non auferatur sed augeatur & impleatur, contemplata quod credebat, & quod sperabat indepta. In qua plenitudine charitatis praeceptum illud implebitur, Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto cord, &c. Nam cùm est adhuc aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae, quod vel continendo frenetur, non omnimodo ex tota anima diligitur Deus. So much of Augustine.

§. III. Divine Testimonies (saith he) we meet with everywhere. For first, our Lord saith. Greater charity hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends, John. 15. 13. but it is evident, that very many, that is, to say, all the Martyrs, have attained to this perfection of charity.

Answ. So to lay down a man's life for others, as Christ did lay down his for us, is the perfection of Charity, But the love of Martyrs, though great, cometh far short of this perfection. For as Cardinal Tolet hath well observed upon this text, the quantity or measure of charity may be considered three ways;

By way of

• Estimation or appreciation.
• Intension.
• Extension.

In all which respects the love of Christ doth far surpass the love of Martyrs. First, by way of appreciation: because he gave that for us, which is more and of greater value, than what is given by Martyrs. First, because of the dignity of his person. For he being the great God and our Savior gave himself for us, and therefore gave for us a greater gift, than all the Martyrs put together can give. Secondly, because where Martyrs give their bodies only, that they may save their own souls: Christ gave himself, that is both body and soul for us, that he might redeem both our bodies and souls: which both he did assume, that he might give both for us: not only in his body suffering death even the death of the Cross, but in his soul undergoing, as our surety, the wrath of God for us; the fear whereof brought him into that agony which made him sweat drops of blood, and the sense of it upon the Cross made him cry out, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me? being for a time, in his own sense, as a man separated from God, which separation from God is the death of the soul. Now that Christ did thus far give his soul as well as his body for us, divers of the Fathers, especially those which confute the heresy of the Apollinarists (who denied that Christ had an human soul) do teach. Cyril saith, that Christ gave his flesh a price of ransom for the flesh of all, and his soul likewise a price of ransom for the souls of all. Theodoret, the good Shepherd gave his body and soul for his sheep, who have both body and soul. And again, the nature of men consisteth of body and soul, both which being lost by sin our Lord having taken upon him both, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for our bodies he gave his body, and for our souls also his soul. Irenaeus, that Christ redeeming us by his blood, that is, by the sufferings of his manhood, gave his soul for our souls, and his flesh for our our flesh: Ambrose the Divinity of the Word was not offered in sacrifice for that which he had put on: he offered in himself▪ and he put on that which before he had not, that is, his whole manhood. For Christ our Priest both God and man upon the Altar of his Deity (for it is the Altar which sanctifieth the sacrifice) did offer his whole manhood consisting both of body and soul as a whole burnt offering for us. Whereas therefore in the Doctrine of redemption mention is made either of his body alone▪ as Col. 1.22. 1 Pet. 2.24. or of his soul only, as Esa. 53. 10, that his soul was made an offering for sin, and in this place, John. 15. 12. greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , animam suam, his soul for his friends: we are, by a Synecdoche, to understand the whole manhood, that is, himself, as he was man. Now it is a greater love for a man to give both body and soul for another, than to give his body only.

§. IV. Secondly, in respect of intension, it argueth greater love, when a man is willing, of his own accord, and desirous to lay down his life for others: than when necessity is laid upon him. Christ was willing of his own accord yea and earnestly desirous (for so he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) to lay down his life for us. Martyrs do not, yea ought not, ordina •… ily, offer themselves to death, for, qu •… amat periculum peribit in eo; and our Savior hath taught them, when they are persecuted in one city to flee to another. But they are and ought to be willing to lay down their lives rather than deny The Truth. Our Savior prophesying of Saint Peters Martyrdom, John 21. 18. saith, when thou wast young, thou diddest gird thyself and walk whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. Again, when a man doth lay down his life freely, as Christ did, without either tie of duty, or expectation of recompense, it argueth greater love, than what is so done out of duty, as that if he did it not, he should sin; and so lose his soul by seeking to save his life; or out of love to himself, to lay down his life to save his own soul, which is the common case of Marty •… s.

§. V. Thirdly, in respect of extension: his love is greater that layeth down his life not only for his friends and well willers, and such as have been good unto him: for pe •… adventure for such, as the Apostle saith. Rom. 5. 7. some, though hardly, would adventure to die, (and some few examples in that kind we read of) but also for sinners and for his enemies, who though they do not love him, yet are beloved of him, and therefore in respect of his affection are his friends, as beloved of him, though in respect of their affection, enemies. Thus our Savior having loved us, commendeth his love towards us, Rom. 5. that when we were sinners, verse 8. and by our sins enemies, verse. 10. he died for us. But Martyrs when they die for others, they lay down their lives not for their enemies but for their brethren in Christ, 1 John 3. 16.

§. VI. His second proof is out of 1 John. 2. 5. He that keepeth the Word of God, in him verily the love of God is perfected. But that the Word of God may be kept, the same Apostle in the same Epistle teacheth, 1 John. 5. 3. and his Commandments are not grievous unto us. Answ. The keeping of the Commandments being an effect and fruit of Love, Charity is said to be perfected by it, that is, perfectly known, as a good Tree by his fruit▪ and as Faith is said, I am. 2. 22. to be made perfect by good works: and as God's strength is perfected in our weakness for hereby men are known to love God, if they keep his Commandments, Exod. 20. 6. John 14. 15. 1 John. 5. 3. If any man say he loveth God, and keepeth not his Commandments, he is a liar, that is to say an hypocrite, whose love is not sincere and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but feigned and counterfeit. Now they are said to keep God's Commandments, not who perfectly fulfill them, for such keepers of the Law are nowhere to be found; but such as keep them with their soul, Psal. 119. 167. or with their whole heart, Psal. 119. 34. that is with a sincere and upright heart. They therefore who have an upright desire, an unfeigned purpose, a sincere endeavor to walk in the obedience of all God's Commandments, are said to keep them. This studium piet •… tis is the perfection of a Christian in this life; which whosoever hath attained unto, is most willing and ready to acknowledge his imperfection.

§. VII. His third proof is out of such places as speak of performing of duties, as namely of loving God, with the whole heart, as Ec •… l. 47. 8 David praised the Lord with his whole heart, and loved him that made him. Deut. 30. 6. this perfection of Charity is promised: the Lord will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed, that thou mayest love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul. Answ. By that phrase, as I have said, nothing else is meant, but the integriry and uprightness of heart. David praised God with his whole heart, that is Psal. 119. 7. with uprightness of heart: he served God with his whole heart, that is, he walked before him in truth and uprightness of heart, 1 King. 3. 6.

§. VIII. In the fourth and last place he produceth those places wherein mention is made of perfection, as Mat. 5. 48. Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. The Apostle acknowledgeth himself and some others to be perfect. 1 Cor. 2. 6. we speak wisdom among those that are perfect. Phil. 3. 15. so many of us therefore as are perfect, &c. Now saith he, it is evident that perfection 〈◊〉 in Ch •… rity, for as much as it is the bond of perfection. Col. 3. 14. Answ. First, in general to all such places, by distinguishing perfection: for there is a perfection in respect of parts, and so an infant having all his parts, is a perfect man. And such are all upright persons, who walk in all God's Commandments, making Conscience of all their ways: and there is a perfection in respect of degree, which no man attaineth unto in this life. Again, there is an absolute perfection, which none attain unto here; and a relative perfection in relation and comparison to others: so those who are adulti grown men in religion, are called perfecti, in respect of babes. Thirdly, there is a perfection legal, which in respect both of parts and degrees is absolutely conformable to the Law, which is the perfect rule of righteousness. Of this, there is no example, but Christ himself: and there is a perfection evangelical, commended in the covenant of Grace, which consisteth not in the perfect and total performance, but in the integrity and uprightness of the heart, that is, in the sincere desire, unfeigned purpose and upright endeavor aspiring towards perfection, which in the Scriptures in many places goeth under the name of perfection, as I have shown else where; so that what is done with an upright heart, is said to be done with a perfect heart, and with the whole heart, and the man who is upright, though subject to many imperfectious, is called perfect.

§. IX. To the places in particular I answer, and first to that Matth. 5. verse last: which, according to the wicked Doctrine of the Papists, is not a precept of Charity, but a counsel of perfection; which doth not belong to all that are justified, bu •… is peculiar to those, who profess themselves to live in a state of perfection. I call it wicked, because as appeareth, verse 45. our Savior requireth this perfection, as a necessary duty to be performed of all the Sons of God, who are to imitate the impartial bounty of God their heavenly Father in do •… ng good both to good and bad, which in this conclusion, in Matthew is termed to be perfect, and in Luk. 6. 36. to be merciful, as our Father is merciful. But though we imitate this impartial bounty of God; yet it doth not thereupon follow, that we have attained to the perfection thereof.

§. X, In the other two places, by men perfect are understood adul •… i grown men, opposed to younglings and infants: who must be sedde with milk, being not capable of strong meat: for everyone that useth milk is unexpert in the word of righteousness, for he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a babe: but strong meat (which 1 Cor. 2. 6. is called wisdom) belongeth to them that are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adulti, who are come to years of difcretion, evensuch as by reason of use have their senses excercised to discern both good and bad, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are opposed: so 1 Cor. 14. 20. be not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 children in understanding, howbeit in malice be ye 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but in understadning be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, adulti, such as are come to years of discretion & understanding. Not that any in this life (wherein we are always in our 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, our growing age, wherein we are to be renewed from day today) do attain to that ripeness of age and stature, or to that perfection of growth, as that we should not need to grow anymore. For, as the Apostle showeth in the next place, viz. Phil. 3. 15. which Bellarmine had cited against himself, if he had recited the whole verse, and much more if the whole context: wherein the Apostle confesseth of himself, that he had not attained to perfection, but that he did strive and preasse towards it: and thereupon inferreth, verse 15. Let us therefore, so many as are perfect, be thus minded, that is, as we heard before out of Augustine, let us be of this mind, that we are not yet perfect, but still should strive towards perfection. And whereas the Apostle, Col. 3. 14. calleth charity the bond of perfection; his meaning is, that it is the most perfect bond, which is among men to unite them together: for according to the Hebrew phrase (which is usual in the writings of the Apostle) vi •… culum perfectionis is vinculum perfectissimum, qu •… plures inter se colligantur: for it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, as Cajetan speaketh vinculum conjungens amantes, or as B. Justinian, perfectissimum quoddam vinculum.

§. XI. From these weak premises Bellarmine inferreth a stout conclusion. If, saith he, we may have perfect Faith, Hope, and Charity, and consequently perfect inherent justice; in vain d •… the heretics g •… e about to prove imputation of righteousness, as though by no other means we could be simply and absolutely just. I answer, though in some part of our life, after we have been good proficience in Christianity, we might seem to attain to that perfection whereof he dreameth; yet this would not prove that we are justified by a perfect righteousness inherent. For that which Papists call their first justification, being the justification, of a sinner (whereof this question is to be understood) is of Incipients, such as be infants in age, or at least in religion who are far from the perfection of inherent justice. But if in no part of this life we cannot attain to the perfection of justice, then must the imputation of Christ's righteousness be acknowledged to be so necessary to justification, as that without it we cannot be justified.

CAP. VIII. The rest of Bellarmine's arguments against imputation of Christ's righteousness, answered.

§. I.

I N the fourth argument, Bellarmine, whiles he fighteth with an idle fancy, which like a man of straw he hath set up against himself, he yieldeth, (such is the force of ever-prevailing verity) to the truth. The man of straw is, that Christ's righteousness is so imputed to imputed to us, as that thereby we are formally righteous: which never any of us (for ought I know) affirmed, who hold it an absurdi •… y, that the righteousness, whereby we are formally and by consequent inheren •… lie just, should be without us; as (indeed) the imputed righteousness of Christ is out of us in him. But against this larva Bellarmine fighteth, that if we being formally unjust by inherent unrighteousness, should also be formally just by Imputation of that righteousness which is without us: there we ought not to be called just, but unjust: as an Ethiopian clothed with white is to be called black: because the denomination is to be taken from the inward form, rather then from the outward. I answer, that so many as are justified, are also sanctified: and that so many as are justified and sanctified are neither to be termed formally unjust by the remnants of original sin remaining in us, nor formally just by Christ's righteousness imputed. For though it be true, that in respect of sin remaining and inhabiting in us, we are according to the sentence and rigor of the Law, sinners: yet we are, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, to be called just, and that by a twofold justice. First and principally, by the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed, by which we are justified and do stand perfectly righteous before God in Christ, being made, as the Apostle speaketh, the righteousness of God in him. Secondly, by a righteousness begun, by which we are, not justified, but in some measure sanctified: which, though it be imperfect by reason of the flesh ever accompanying it (for the best of us are but partly Spirit, and partly flesh:) yet from it the denomination is to be taken, as from the better part: and so the Scriptures call Job, and others just, who notwithstanding acknowledged themselves to be sinners. And indeed the more righteous a man is, the more doth he acknowledge and feel his own sinfulness: which is a truth confessed by some of the Papists themselves, as I shown before out of Cardinal Contarenus.

§. II. Now let us see what Bellarmine yieldeth. If they did not hold, saith he, that we are formally righteous by Christ's righteousness, but their meaning only were, that Christ's merits are imputed to us, because they are given unto us of God, and we may offer them to God for our sins, because Christ took upon him the burden of satisfying for us, and of reconciling us to God, recta esset eorum sententia, they should hold that which is right: Now I assume, but we do not hold that we are formally righteous by Christ's righteousness imputed: but our meaning only is, that Christ's merits, as namely his sufferings and obedience are imputed unto us, and that they are given and communicated unto us of God, namely by imputation, the Lord accepting of them in our behalf, as if we had performed the same in our own persons, &c. I conclude therefore, that by Bellarmine's own confession, we hold the right. And yet, this is that, which he doth mainly oppugn in his whole disputation, by all the rest of his arguments. If the Papists would sincerely and constantly hold themselves to that, which Bellarmine here yieldeth, there should not need to be any controversy between us in this behalf. For as they would confess, that we are justified by the merits of Christ imputed: so we would profess, that by righteousness inherent received from Christ we are in some measure sanctified. But whatsoever confession the truth hath expressed from Bellarmine here, and in some other places: yet he and all the rest of them mainly oppose the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and wickedly deride it, stiffly maintaining, that they are justified by righteousness inherent, by which also they hope to merit eternal life.

§. III. In this fifth argument he doth again deprave our assertion, as though we held, that Christ's righteousness were so imputed to justification, as if it were our inward and formal righteousness: and thereupon inferreth, that, if that be true, then ought we to be held and esteemed as righteous, as Christ himself: and therefore 〈◊〉 , ought to be called redeemers and Savior's of the world: and such like. Answ. We do not hold that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ as our formal justice: neither doth it follow upon our assertion, that we are as righteous as Christ h •… mselfe, and much less that we are redeemers and Savior's of the world. For we do acknowledge a great difference and disproportion between the Head, who is absolutely just of, in, and by himself, and the members, who are not just either of, in, or by themselves, but by his righteousness freely and undeservedly communicated to them, being sinners in themselves; who being justified and redeemed by imputation of Christ's righteousness, are thereby proved not to be redeemers, but the redeemed of the Lord. But of this argument I have spoken sufficiently heretofore.

§. IV. His sixth argument is thus fr •… med: what we lost in Adam we receive in Christ: which he proveth out of I •… enaeus and Augustine.

Imputed righteousness we did not lose in Adam, but that inward righteousness in which we are created according to God's image in holiness and righteousness:

Therefore imputed righteou •… nesse we do not receive by Christ, but righteousness inherent.

Answ. This Syllogism is a mere Paralogisme, the assumption thereof being negative in the fir •… t figure, as they call it. As if I should argue thus: Every good Logician is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a reasonable creature:

Bellarmine is not a good Logician, because in the first figure he assumeth negatively, therefore he is not a reasonable creature:

But if he would argue thus: what Adam lost we receive in and by Christ, and what Adam lost not, we do not receive by Christ: Adam lost inherent righteousness, and not imputed: Therefore by Christ we receive inherent righteousness and not imputed: Then would I deny the latter part of the proposition: for we do receive by Christ more than we lost •… n Adam.

Adam was mutable, and the graces, which he had, were not without repentance: But Christ maketh the faithful inseparabiles, id est, usque in finem perseverantes, and the saving graces which we receive by him are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hoc est, saith Augustine, sine mutatione stabiliter fixa. Adam lost an earthly Paradise, but by Christ we receive an inheritance in heaven. Adam stood righteous before God in his own righteo •… snesse; but we stand righteous before God in the righteousness of Christ, which far surpasseth the righteousness of Adam, &c.

§. V. H •… s seventh argument: If by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us we may truly be said to be just, and the sons of God▪ then by our sin imputed to Christ, he may in like manner be tr •… lie called a sinner, and, which is horrible to think, the son of the devil: but the latter is blasphemous, therefore the former. Answ. The proposition containeth a double consequence: which is to be distinguished. The first, if by the righteousness of Ch •… ist imputed to us, we may truly be said to be righteous, then Christ by imputation of our sin, may truly, though not formally be called a sinner: but the consequent is fall •… e, therefore the antecedent This proposition I grant, as being firmly grounded on, 2 Cor. 5. 21. and I do confess, that Christ was so made sin, that is, a sinner for us, as we are made in him the righteousness of God; that is, righteous by the righteousness of him, who is God, that is to say, by imputation. But the assumption I do deny. For it is most tr •… e, and no dishonor to Christ our Blessed Savior, but that which wonderfully setteth forth his unspeakable goodness and love towards us▪ that he, which knew no sin, but was in himself most holy and righteous and blessed for evermore; by taking upon him our sin, and by undertaking, as our surety, our debt, was content to be reputed, and by imputation made a sinner, that is, guilty of sin, and accursed, and accordingly punished as a sinner, that we might be made righteous and happy in him. Thus the Hebrews call them, that are punished, sinners, 1 King. 1. 21. and that those are freed from punishment, innocent, Gen. 44. 10. But the other part of the consequence (if we by imputation of Christ's righteousness become the sons God, then, which I abhor to speak, Christ by imputation of our sins should be made the Son of the devil) I utterly deny. For though to be made the child of God, is a consequent of being made righteous by imputation, adoption going always with justification: yet to become the child of the devil is no consequent of being made a sinner by imputation, in respect of him who is most righteous and holy in himself. For to undertake the burden of others men's sins, and to be willing to have them imputed to him, being himself most righteous, is the property of the immaculate Lamb of God who took upon him the sin of the world; and for that cause is most worthy to be accounted just, and to be acknowledged the Son of God. For he that satisfieth for others, is most just, saith Bellarmine.

§. VI. Upon this Syllogism Bellarmine inferreth another. If therefore Christ, saith he, because in himself he was holy, was called not a sinner but just, though our sin was imputed to him: then by the like reason we, i •… after our justification we were indeed sinners and unclean in ourselves, should not be called just, but unjust, though Christ's righteousness be imputed to us. But the Scriptures after the l •… ver of regenerati •… n (he might better have said after regeneration it self) calleth us righteous and holy and the son •… s of God, as appeareth by many places. These are the premisses. The conclusion should be this; Therefore after our justification we are not indeed sinners and unclean in ourselves. But instead of that Pharisaical conclusion, he concludeth thus: therefore we are not justified by imputation of Christ's right •… ousnesse, but by that righteousness it self which is inherent and abiding in us: which conclusion is neither it self deduced from these premisses, neither is it a consectary of that which ought to have been the conclusion. For although, after our justification we be, as before we were not, righteous, and that by righteousness inherent, as Abraham was, and all the faithful are; yet it doth not follow, that we are justified thereby. For our inherent righteousness is a consequent of our justification, and not a cause thereof, not going before justificandos, but following justificatos. But to this Syllogism, first, I return the like. If Christ, though most righteous in himself, was not only accounted, but really punished as a sinner, yea made a sinner and a curse for us, by taking upon him our sin, which as our debt was laid upon him, as our surety, and imputed to him: then by the like reason we, though sinners in ourselves, are by imputation of his righteousness made righteous before God in him: as before hath evidently been proved out of 2 Cor. 5. 21.

§. VII. Secondly, as Christ, though ou •… sins were imputed to him, was called holy and just, because he was so in himself: So we though Adams transgression was imputed unto us, and the corruption, which he contracted was derived unto us, and ever dwelleth in our mortal bodies: yet being once justified by Christ, are notwithstanding that habitual sin inhabiting in us, and these actual transg •… essions which through human frailty we daily commit, in regard whereof we are by the verdict of the Law, sinners; we are, I say, termed just, and that in two respects: first, and principally in respect of our justification, where •… in we were made just by imputation of Christ's righteousness: secondly, in respect of our regeneration, whereby inherent righteousness is begun in us. And howsoever in the regenerate man there is both the flesh and the Spirit, the Old man and the New, in regard whereof he may in divers respects be termed, either a sinner in respect of the flesh and the fruits thereof, according to the sentence of the Law, or a righteous man in respect of the Spirit and the fruits thereof, according to the doctrine of the Gospel: yet the denomination is taken from the better part, as an heap of wheat and chaff, wherein perhaps is more chaff than wheat, is called an heap of wheat; and a wedge of gold, wherein perhaps there is more dross than pure metal, is called a wedge of gold, as I have said. And whereas upon his premisses this conclusion is infer'd, therefore after the laver of regeneration we are not vere and indeed sinners, nor unclean in ourselves, you may see what Pharisaical conceit the Papists have of themselves, that being once ex opere operato justified by their Sacraments, though they neither have knowledge, nor faith, nor repentance, nor any sanctifying grace in them: yet they are not truly and indeed sinners in themselves, neither is there any sin in them. And therefore, unless they will play the hypocrites and dally with God, they ought not to pray, as Christ taught his own Apostles to pray, forgive us our sins. But by saying there is no sin in themselves, it is evident, that there is no truth in them, 1 loh. 1. 8.

§. VIII. His eighth argument is taken out of the Canticles, where Christ is compared to the Husband or Bridegroom, the Church or justified soul to the Spouse: which Spouse is said to be most fair and beautiful, yea, tota pulchra, viz. by beauty inhere •… t in her self, and not by the beauty of her Husband imputed to her. Answ. From allegorical Scriptures no sound argument can be drawn; especially, when they are not understood. But be it, that by the Spouse is meant the Church of Christ. Is it the Church triumphant, as it mayseeme, when she is said to be tota pulchra? then is it to no purpose alleged. As for the Church militant, that commendation cannot be verified of it, by reason of many deformed members, which be always in the visible Church, besides which the Papists acknowledge no other. But if the Church militant be meant, then of what time? for it may not be thought, that what is spoken in the Canticles doth agree to the Church at all times. The Spouse, which sometimes is said to be tota pulchra, in other places is said to be black: sometimes She enjoyethher Beloved, sometimes She is at a loss: sometimes she adhereth to her Love, sometimes She neglecteth him. But suppose, she be always and altogether beautiful, (which me thinks should hardly be verified of the Church of Rome, besides which they acknowledge no other true Church; especially, when the visible Head thereof, the Popes, have been monsters of men, their Clergy Sodomitical, their Laity void of all truth and power of Religion, their whole Church in respect of her faith heretical, in regard of her religion idolatrous, and in respect of both, apostatical,) but suppose, I say, the true universal Church, which is the company of the elect, to be wholly beautiful? This total beauty cannot be understood of her inherent righteousness which is stained and imperfect, but of that righteousness which her husband hath imputed and imparted to her, as we heard before out of Gregory Nyssen.

§. IX. Yea, but Bellarmine will prove that this beauty is inherent, first, because her beauty is described as that which is proper to women; and his as that which is proper to men: and therefore that his beauty is one, and hers another. Secondly, because it is absurd to imagine (he absurdly chargeth us) that the Spouse of Christ is deformed in herself, being on •… lie adorned outwardly with her Husbands garment. But this labor Bellarmine might have spared. For we do acknowledge, that the true Church is beautiful, and that by a twofold beauty; the one, the perfect beauty of her Husband communicated to her by imputation; the other imperfect and inherent; which being but begun in this life is to be perfected in the life to come: but howsoever this inward beauty be imperfect, yet because it is upright, her Husband is delighted therewith, and in regard of this inward uprightness and integrity, she is said to be glorious within. In which respect the Tabernacle of the Congregation was a fit type of the Church militant, which in outward appearance is black and brown like the tents of Kedar, but within, fair and beautiful like the hangings of Solomon; even as the tabernacle, which outwardly made but a homely show, being covered with Rams skins and Badgers skins, was inwardly glorious: we acknowledge therefore, that there is inherent righteousness in the true Church and in all the true and lively mem •… ers thereof. In regard whereof, in the Creed we profess ourselves to believe, that she is holy, and that the communion of her members among themselves, and with their head, is the communion of Saints. But that by this inherent righteousness, either the Church or any member thereof is justified before God, we do utterly deny.

§. X. His ninth and tenth arguments I will put together: because one answer may serve for both. His ninth reason is this: by justification the heart is cleansed, that it may be prepared for the vision of God; for until it be clean, it cannot see God. The tenth, Christ suffered and gave himself for his Church, that he might sanctify it, Heb. 13. 12. Ephes. 5. 26. Tit. 2. 14. loh. 17. 19. which is not done by imputation, &c.

Both those objections arise from the willful ignorance of the Papists, who will not distinguish justification from sanctification. The righteousness of sanctification, of which these places speak, we acknowledge to be inherent, though that of justification be imputed: and that, (which I have shown heretofore) as we are by justification entitled to the kingdom of heaven; so by sanctification we are fitted and prepared for it. We confess, that the heart must be clean and pure before it can see God: and that by sanctification begun in this life the heart is prepared, but never fully cleansed until it come to see God: we acknowledge, that our sanctification is the end, not only of our redemption, but also of our Election, Ephes. 1. 4. of our creation, and recreation according to God's image, Ephes. 4. 24. of our vocation 1 Thes. 4. 7. of our justification and reconciliation, Col. 1. 22. Luk. 1. 74. 75. That sanctification is the way wherein men being elected, called, justified, are to walk to their glorification. But though it be via regni, yet it is not causa regnandi: that our Savior by his Spirit, doth truly, really, and inherently work the work of sanctification in all those that are justified. But I beseech you what is the force of both these arguments? Our hearts must be cleansed by inherent purity; therefore we are not justified by imputed righteousness. Christ died and gave himself for us, that we might be sanctified with true inherent grace: therefore we are not justified by righteousness imputed. Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem and justify us, that being reedeemed and justified we might worship him in holiness and righteousness before him.

Finally, Bellarmine telleth us, that many other arguments might be produced; but these, he saith, were the principal, which notwithstanding for the most part were such as deserved with scome to be rejected, rather than to be in good earnest refuted: which nevertheless argueth not the insufficiency of the disputant, but the badness of the cause, which admitteth no better proofs.

CAP. I. What Faith is; and that it is not without knowledge.

§. I.

T H •… fifth Capitall error of the Papists in the Article of justification, is concerning justifying faith: which hath many branches.

• 1. Concerning the nature of it, viz. what it is: and therein also they err diversely.
• 2. Concerning the subject of it, both •… , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is the parties whose it is, and the parts of the man, wherein it is.
• 3. Concerning the object of Faith.
• 4. Concerning the act or effect of it, which is to justify: where are three questions: the first, concerning the act it self, whether it doth indeed justify, or only dispose to justification; the other two, concerning the manner how it justifieth: the former, whether instrumentally, as the hand to receive Christ, who is our righteousness; or formally, as part of inherent righteousness. The other whether faith doth justify alone.

§. II. As touching the first, what faith is; they hold justifying faith to be but a bare assent, to all or any truth revealed by God: which, as it is, in their opinion, without special apprehension of Christ▪ so it may be void of knowledge, and severed from charity, as they teach.

That faith in general is an assent, and that it may be defined, to be a firm and willing assent to every truth revealed by God, grounded on the authority of God revealing it, we willingly agree. For hereby faith is distinguished from all other acts or habits of our mind. And first, from doubting, in that it is an assent: for in doubting the assent is withheld, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from whence is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as contrariwise to assent is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And that faith is assent, it is evident, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (faith) is a persuasion, derived from the Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth to be persuaded or to believe, and a man is said to assent unto, or to believe that, of the truth whereof he is persuaded: hence it is, that the act of faith, which is to believe, is expressed sometimes by the Verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 17. 4. 27. 11. Heb. 11. 13. but most plainly, Act. 28. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . some believed the things which are spoken, but some believed not. Secondly, from opinion: in that faith is a firm assent, or, as Basil speaketh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an undoubted assent: for he that believeth the truth of God, hath (as it were) put his seal unto it. But opinion is the judgment of things contingent, which may happen to be false. Sed fidei falsum subesse non potest: but the subject of faith cannot be false. Thirdly, in that it is a willing assent, from the forced belief of Devils, and some desperate wicked men, who believe that which they abhor, or as Saint James speaketh believe and tremble, I am. 2. 19. Mat. 8. 29. Fourthly, from all other knowledge, in that it is an assent to truth revealed or related by God, and grounded upon the authority of God speaking in his Word, for faith cometh by the hearing of the word. So saith Saint Basil 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Faith therefore is an undoubted assent of things heard in the assured persuasion of things preached by the grace of God. And that is it which Bellarmine citeth out of Augustine quod intelligimus aliquid, rationi debemus: quod autem credimus, authoritati: that we understand anything we owe to reason; but that we believe, to authority. All other firm assent is given to things, either in themselves evident to sense or reason, or to such as are manifested by discourse. But the object of faith is not discerned by sense, nor sounded by reason (such as is the mystery of the holy Trinity, and of the incarnation of Christ &c.) neither is faith of things seen. Eye hath not seen nor Eare heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. And whereas the certainty of all other knowledge is grounded upon sense or experience, and reason: the certainty of this knowledge is grounded upon the authority of God speaking in his word. For which cause the certainty of faith is greater than of any other knowledge: For howsoever sense and reason may be deceived: yet the ground of faith is unfallible, which is the authority of God, who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one that cannot lie, a God of truth, yea truth it self: whereupon Clemens Alexandrinus saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Therefore it self is a firm demonstration, because truth accompanieth Faith those things which are delivered God, and Basel what is the property of faith? an undoubted plerophorie or full persuasion of the truth of the words inspired of God, which is not shaken with any reasoning either induced from natural necessity, or formed to piety. And such is the certainty of faith, that the Apostle defineth it that it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . the subsistence, which giveth a being, to things which now have not a being, (which is nothing but an assured belief as the word is used, 2 Cor. 9. 4. 11. 17. Heb. 3. 14.) and the evidence of things not appearing, or not seen: which the Greek Sholiast, in mine opinion, very well explaneth. Faith it self is the subsistence or substance of things hoped for. For because those things which are in hope are without subsistence, as yet not extant, faith becometh the substance and subsistence of them, making them after a sort to exist and to be present, because it doth believe they are. Faith also is the evidence and demonstration of things not seen. And faith showeth things to be visible which are not seen: How? in the mind and in hope beholding things which do not appear.

§. III. But howsoever faith is an assent, and is in general so to be defined, as I have said: yet justifying faith is not a bare assent, either destitute of knowledge, or severed from charity, or without special apprehension and application: for these are three errors of the Papists now in order to be confuted. As touching the first: The Papists do not only hold, that justifying faith may be without knowledge, but that also it may better be defined by ignorance than by knowledge. This faith, which is without knowledge, they call implicit faith: because they believing someone common principle, as namely, I believe the b •… lie Catholic Church, do thereby believe implicit, whatsoever is to be believed, that is, whatsoever the Catholic Church believeth and propoundeth to be believed. And therefore this they call also an entire faith; because thereby, a man doth not only believe the written word but also unwritten verities, which are the traditions of the Church of Rome, and both of them, not for themselves, but for the authority of the Church propounding them to be believed. Now they teach, that not only for Lay men it is sufficient to believe as the Church believeth which was the Colliars faith so much commended by Cardinal Hosius and others (for he being examined by a learned man, what he believed, answered: I believe that which the Church believeth; and being asked what the Church believeth, answered again, that which I believe: and so in a round, that he believed what the Church believed; and that the Church believed as he believed) but also that it is the safest for all, even for those that are learned, to rest in this faith. Especially, when they are assaulted by Satan: with whom they say it is not safe to contend by Scriptures, but rather to oppose that only article against him. As the said learned man, who had opposed the Collyar, found by experience. For he being afterwards assaulted by Satan, when he was deadly sick, and being not able to defend himself by Scriptures, he was fain to b •… ache himself to the Colliars faith, which no doubt is the readiest way for them, who profess a faith not conformable to the Scriptures to put the Devil to silence, who will rest well content with such an answer: whereas if they should stand to the Scriptures the Devil would be able to confute them. As he did Luther (whiles he was a Papist) in the question concerning the private Mass, which he did, not to teach him the truth, but by true accusations to bring him to despair.

§. IV. This doctrine of the Papists concerning implicit faith, is both absurdly false, and notoriously wicked. False, in diverse respects. First, in that they say, justifying faith may be without knowledge: when as, first of all, faith it self is a kind of knowledge; yea a kind of certain knowledge: yea, of all others the most certain knowledge: as I have already shown; proving, that it is that knowledge which we have by Divine relation or report, grounded on the authority of God speaking in his word. Secondly, because faith oftentimes in the scriptures is called knowledge, or acknowledgment: as John. 17. 3. This is eternal life to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Now, we know God in the life to come by vision, in this life by faith, as their own writers testify. Maldonado on that place: what is the cause saith he, that he seemeth to place eternal life in knowledge alone, that is in faith only? And Ianseni •… s vita aeterna inchoative & imperfecte hic habetur cognoscendo Deum per fidem: habetur autem in 〈◊〉 perfect cognoscendo Deum per visionem. Isaiah. 53. 11. My righteous servant by his knowledge or acknowledgement, that is, by faith in him shall justify many. So 2 Pet. 1. 2, 3. Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 10. & 2. 2. 1 Tim. 2. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 25. 3. 7. Tit. 1. 1. where, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the knowledge or acknowledgement of Christ and his truth, is meant nothing else but faith, 1 John. 2. 3, 4. hereby we do know, that we do know him, that is, believe in him, if we do keep his Commandments: he that saith he knoweth him, namely, by faith, and keepeth not his Commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. Heb. 11. 3. By faith we understand or know, that the worlds were formed by the Word of God: where the act of faith is expressed by this term of understanding that which we believe, 2 Cor. 5. 1. we know, (that is, we believe, for otherwise it cannot be known but by faith) that after the dissolution of our earthly tabemacle, we have an eternal habitation in heaven. Thirdly, because in the Scriptures faith and knowledge are so linked together, that what we acknowledge we believe; & what we believe we know, John. 6. 69. we believe and know that thou art that Christ, John. 10. 38. that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him. John. 17. 8. they have known surely, that I came out from thee (saith Christ unto his Father) and they have believed, that thou didst send me. Eph. 4. 13. till we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. 1 Tim. 4. 3. to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth, 1 John. 4. 16. we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. Fourthly it is not possible that a man should believe, acknowledge, or assent firmly to that which he doth not know so much as by relation or hearsay, how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and by hearing known, Rom. 10. 14. And who knoweth not, that the assent of faith determineth the judgment to that particular which is believed? As for example, if I believe the resurrection, my judgment actually assenteth to that particular. But if I never have so much as heard or understood that God hath revealed such a thing that there shall be a resurrection, how can I possibly believe it, or actually assent unto it. And therefore implicit faith is so far from being a justifying faith that it is not so good as the bare historical faith, which not only wicked men but the Devils themselves have. For historical faith hath in it an actual assent, and implieth a knowledge (at least by relation) of that which is believed. But implicit faith hath neither. Fifthly, to the implicit faith, the definition offaith: Heb. 11. 1. doth in no sort agree: for as it is so far from being the substance of things hoped for, that it doth not so much as know what are the things hoped for, so it is further from being an evidence of things not seen, which implieth a certain knowledge of things by relation which are not seen or known by sense or reason. Sixthly, that which implieth a contradiction is false and absurd: but the profession of the implicit faith made by a simple man, viz. that he believeth whatsoever the Catholic Church believeth, implieth a contradiction: not only because he doth not believe every, yea scarce any particular, but also through his ignorance sometimes doth actually believe that which the Church doth not believe; or doth deny credit to that, which the Church believeth. But here now is the special privilege of implicit faith: that although a man believe an error, as that God the Father is greater than the Son, or ancienter than he, or that the persons of the Trinity are divided by local distance one from another, it is no offense, so long as he thinketh, the Church believeth so: and so saith Gabriel himself. If any man do believe thinking that the Church doth so believe; though it be erroneous he sinneth not, so that he do not obstinately adhere to his error, as was said before, notab. 2. Yea, saith he, that which is more, this faith is meritorious: for such an one should not only not sin, but also by so believing that which is false he should merit. Thus not only he is said to believe who indeed doth not believe, nor give assent to the truth; but also he who dissenteth from the truth, even from that which the Church doth hold.

§. V, Secondly, they are absurd, in saying, that faith may better be defined by ignorance than by knowledge, For notitia (knowledge) is the genus both of faith and of science, whereas ignorance is a privation of knowledge. It were therefore very strange, if faith, which is an habit of the mind, should be defined by a privation, and namely of that habit, which is the genus of it.

Yea, but (saith Bellarmine ) faith is opposed to science, and therefore better to be defined by ignorance, than by knowledge. I answer, it is opposed to science, not as a privation, that it should be defined by ignorance, but as a species of the same kind 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contra divided. for notitia as the genus is divided into science and faith, the former, being a knowledge of things, either manifest in themselves, which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; or made manifest by discourse of reason, which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the latter being a knowledge of things neither manifest to sense nor reason, but known only by relation from God: where, by the way, you are to observe that the knowledge required in faith is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the cause, such as is in science, but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is to believe the relation to be true, and that whatsoever God revealeth is infallibly true. And therefore by faith our judgments are captivated to yield assent to divine revelations, though either they may be above reason, or may seem to be against sense or reason. For though sense and reason may be deceived: yet the ground of our faith, which is the authority of God, cannot be deceived, nec fidei falsum subesse potest: neither can the subject of faith be false. As for example: the mysteries of the Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Savior be above our reason; the articles of the creation of all things from nothing, and of the resurrection of the body seem contrary to reason, the article of eternal life containeth such things, as never eye did see nor ear hear, neither did they ever enter into the heart of man: and so of other articles of Christian religion; which notwithstanding we do firmly believe, and undoubtedly know to be true, as God hath revealed the same, grounding this our faith and knowledge on the authority of God speaking in his Word. This distinction of knowledge being acknowledged, that the knowledge of faith is neither the certain intelligence of things in themselves manifest to sense or reason, nor that science which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the causes; or attained by discourse of reason; but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the things revealed by God are infallibly true by reason of his authority, who is Truth it self; might serve as a sufficient answer to so many of Bellarmine's arguments and allegations as seem worth the answering. But I will briefly examine his proofs, which are allegation of Scriptures, reason, and testimonies of Fathers.

§. VI. As for his allegation of Scripture: the first place alleged out of Esa. 7. 9. is not, as Bellarmine allegeth it, unless you believe you shall not understand; but, if you believe not, you shall not be established or as the vulgar Latin (which Bellarmine ought to stand to) non perm •… nebitis: as contrariwise, 2 Chron. 20. 20. if you believe in the Lord you shall be established; or, as the Latin, securieritis. Neither doth it follow, that faith is not knowledge, because without faith we cannot come to the certain intelligence of that which we believe. For, as knowledge of the thing revealed goeth before faith; so faith goeth before the exact understanding and comprehension. In the two next places, 1 Cor. 13. 2. & 12. 9. where faith, as he saith, is distinguished as a several gift from knowledge: by faith is not meant justifying faith, but the faith of miracles, as I have else where shown. Neither do we deny, but that knowledge may be a distinct gift from faith. As that knowledge which is either principiorum or conclusionum, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Neither is knowledge always joined with acknowledgement which is faith: though acknowledgement implieth knowledge always. Knowledge therefore may be without faith, but faith cannot be without knowledge. To the fourth out of 2 Cor. 10. 5. that where knowledge is, there needs no captivating of the understanding. I answer, that faith being only notitia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and giving firm assent to that whereof it knoweth no reason, yea though perhaps it seem above or against reason, subjecteth or captivateth the understanding to the authority of God. The last is from those places wherein the obedience of faith is mentioned. For, saith he, obedience in believing were not needful, if by faith knowledge were given to men. I answer, that in those places faith doth signify the doctrine of faith, that is the Gospel, the truth, which men are then said to obey, Rom. 10. 16. Gal. 3. 1. Act. 6. 7. when they believe and profess it. As contrariwise those who do not believe are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to disobey, and that in opposition to belief, John. 3. 36. Act. 14. 2. & 17. 5. & 19. 9. Rom. 11. 30, 31, 32. & 15. 31. Heb. 3. 18, 19. 1 Pet. 2. 7. Neither should it seem strange to Bellarmine, that by faith men attain to knowledge, I mean to greater knowledge, when he urging even now that place, Isaiah. 7. 9. said, faith is a degree and way to knowledge.

§. VII. To the Testimony of Irenaeus, if it were entirely cited, I would subscribe. For speaking of those words, 1 Cor. 8. Scientia inflat, dilectio autem adificat, and having thereupon inferred, that it were better to know but a little, and to love God, than in a conceit of great knowledge to be found blasphemous against God; he repeateth the same again, Melius itáque est sicuti predixi, nihil omnio scientem quempia •… , ne quidem unam causam cujusllbet eorum quae facta sunt, cur factum, & credere Deo, & persevere are in ejus dilection quae honorem vivificat, nec aliud inquirere adscientiam, nisi I •… SVM Christum filium Dei; qui pro nobis crucifix •… s est, quàm per quaestionum subtilitates & multiloquium in impietatem cadere. Where first observe, that the knowledge whereof he speaketh, is that whereby the causes or reasons of things are known. And we do confess that a man may and ought simply to believe God without such knowledge: and secondly, that he speaketh by way of comparison, that it is better for a man to content himself with the knowledge of Christ alone joined with love (which is not to be accounted implicit faith, for the Apostle himself determined to know nothing among the Corinthians, but Christ and him crucified) than affecting the knowledge of subtle and curious questions, to fall into impiety.

§. VIII. The place in Clemens Alexandrinus maketh wholly against the ignorance of implicit Faith. For whereas one there excuseth his ignorance (as many now a days do) because he was not book-learned, he answereth; though thou hast not learned to read, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . for hearing thou canst not be excused, because it is not to be taught. Now, saith he, in the words which Bellarmine citeth, faith is a thing belonging to the wise, not according to the world, but according to God (such as are taught of God) and it is learned without letters. Faith therefore is to be learned, namely by hearing, and therefore is a knowledge, and they attain unto it, who are not worldly wise, but such as are wise according to God, and therefore such as have knowledge. Neither can men, as he saith, excuse their ignorance or their want of faith, because they are not book learned, for though they cannot read, yet they may hear, and by hearing faith cometh.

§. IX Hilary inquiring how we should so be one in the Father and in the Son, as the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, saith; that in such mysteries habet non tam veniam, quàm premium, ignorare, (that is, non intelliger •… ) quod credas, quia maximum stipendium fidei est sperare quae nescias, it hath not so much pardon as reward, not to know what thou believest. For, it is the greatest stipend of faith to hope for those things which thou understandest not. For as the Apostle saith, they never entered into the heart of man the things •… hich God hath prepared for us. And no doubt, but it is a great commendation of faith, when a man giveth glory to God, undoubtedly believing that to be true, which God in •… he greatest mysteries hath revealed though he doth not comprehend the reason thereof. The thing r •… vealed he believeth to be true and •… o knoweth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though he do not distinctly, exactly and clearly comprehend 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the reason thereof, which he findeth to be incomprehensible.: What then, saith Hilary, is there no office of faith, if nothing can be comprehended? Imo hoc officium fides profiteatur, id quod creed •… incomprehensibile sibi esse, se scire; yea, saith he, let faith profess this offic •… , that it knoweth that thing to be incomprehensible to it self, which it believeth.

§. X. Out of Augustine he citeth five places, wherein he teacheth nothing but what we freely confess, that the faithful (for he speaketh not particularly of the ignorant, but of all the faithful) believe those things which they do not comprehend: or as he speaketh in the first place quae certa intelligentia non possunt discernere, which by certain intelligence they are not able to discern, which in the second place he calleth intelligendi vivacita •… em, in the third intelligentiam mysteriorum, which in the fourth place he showeth not to go before, but to follow after Faith. For first by rel •… tion we know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what God revealeth, then we assent thereto, and having assented we come afterwards more dist •… nctly to understand it. But he who seeketh not only to know the thing but the reason thereof, may as he saith in the fifth plac •… , be called rationals, that is a quaerist: whereas a faithful man should say Nescio q •… od credo, I understand not that which I believe. Vis scire▪ saith he, Naturam Dei, hoc scito quod nescias, wilt thou know the nature of God? know this that thou knowest it not. For as elsewhere he saith, debemus credere, quod intelligere nondum valeamus, quàm verissime dictum est per Prophetam nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. And in the Sermon even now alleged. Nobis sufficiat: Let it suffice us to know concerning the Trinity, what God hath vouchsafed to explain—what Christ hath been willing to show, that only I know: when a thought shall arise and propound this question, what is God, and what is the reason, that is, the proper nature of the Trinity, let it suffice us to believe, that it is, (that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not rashly seek the reason of the Trinity.

§. XI. That which he citeth out of Prosper, and is the same which even now I recited out of Augustine, is true, that faith goeth before clear understanding, and men must believe, that they may understand more clearly. For, as he truly citeth out of the Philosopher, addiscentem oportet credere, the learner must believe: And as Augustine saith of unbelievers, non possunt discere, quia nolunt credere, they cannot learn, because they will not believe; and as the Apostle of the unbelieving Israelites, that the hearing of the word did not profit them, because it was not mingled with faith. All this notwithstanding, no man can be said to have learned that, which he did not first conceive and in some measure understand as it is taught, (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is to learn, doth also signify to understand) and then believeth that it is so: and so believing what is taught, groweth more distinctly and clearly to understand what he did believe. But they which have but implicit faith, do not so much as know the particulars of the Catholic faith, which are to be believed; so far are they from either learning or believing them.

§. XII. The brutish argument which he borroweth from Gregory's allegory of the Oxen and Asses feeding together, Job 1. besides that it is to no purpose, (because allegories, specially such as far fetched, and not intended by the holy Ghost, prove nothing) is also depraved. For Gregory doth not say that by the Oxen are meant the learned, by the Asses feeding by them, men unskillful and unlearned, who simply believing do rest in the understanding of their betters: but that the Asses are said to feed with the Oxen; because the more simple and dull, who are not capable of high points, meant by the Asses; conversing with the prudent meant by the Oxen, are fed with their knowledge or understanding.

§. XIII. To these few and weak authorities, many pregnant testimonies of the Fathers might be opposed, if it were needful. These few may suffice.

• 1. Hilary: Nec enim quisquam quod non sapit loquitur, nec quod loqui non potest, potest credere. Neither doth any man speak what he doth not conceive, neither can he believe that which he is not able to utter.
• 2. Jerome; quae est ista simplicitas, nescire quae credas? What silliness is this, not to know the things which thou doest believe?
• 3. Chrysostom; having recited very many heads of Christian religion; all these, saith he, and many more a Christian must know, and of all these he must be able to render a reason to them that ask it.
• 4. Augustine; although no man can believe in God unless he understand somewhat concerning God, notwithstanding by that faith it self whereby he doth believe, he is healed, that he may understand greater matters—our understanding therefore, proficit ad intelligenda qua credat, & fides proficit ad credenda quae intelligat, & eadem ipsa ut magis magisque intelligantur, in ipso intellectu profioit men's: profiteth or is a proficient to understand what it may believe, and our faith profiteth to believe those things which it may understand, and that the same things may more and more be understood, in the understanding it self the mind profiteth.
• 5. Cyril: Faith, what is it else, but the true knowledge of God?
• 6. In the second tome of Athanasius there is a discourse against those, who bidding men not to search the Scriptures, but to b •… content with that faith which is among themselves (which is the very case of the Papists at this day) shall I (saith the author of that discourse) neglect the Scriptures? whence then shall I have knowledge? shall I abandon knowledge? whence then shall I have Faith? Paul crieth out, how shall they believe, if they do not he •… e? and again, fa •… th is by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God: therefore he •… that forbiddeth the Word ; stoppeth up hearing, and expelleth faith. But, saith he, a little after, they who go about to establish their own opinions restrain men from the Scriptures, in pretence that they would not have them to be so bold to have access to them which are unacce •… ible, but in very truth, that they may avoid the con •… utation of their wicked doctrine out of them.
• 7. Fulgentius: fides vera quod credit non nescit, etiamsi nondum potest videre quod iper at & credit. True faith is not ignorant of that which it believeth, although as yet it is not able to see that which it doth hope and believe.
• 8. The master of the sentences: Fides non potest esse de eo quod omnino ignoratur. Faith cannot be of that whereof a man is altogether ignorant.—Neither can a man believe in God unless he understand somewhat, seeing faith cometh by hearing the Word preached. Nec •… a quae pr •… us creduntur quàm intelliguntur penitus ignorantur, cum fides sit ex auditu. Ignorantur tamen ex parte quia non sciuntur. Neither are those things, which are believed before they be understood, altogether unknown, seeing faith cometh of hearing: yet in part men are ignorant of them, because they have not the science of them.
• 9. To these we may add the authority of the Creed it self, that is, as the Papists themselves do teach, of all the Apostles consenting together: wherein they thought it not sufficient to teach men to profess their belief in that one article; I believe the holy Catholic Church, but in all necessary points that are to be believed▪ first, concerning God, both in Himself, and in his Works: in Himself; both in respect of the nature of the Deity, and of the three persons in Trinity, the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost: in his Works; of creation and government, and of redemption. Then, concerning the Church and the several prerogatives thereof, viz. the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting And further teach every particular Christian to say, and that with Christian resolution, Credo I believe these particulars, which cannot be done either with truth, if indeed he do not believe each particular; or with that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or confidence which is meet, unless a man doth not only believe all those particulars, but also know that he doth believe them. And lastly, by this form of profession, I believe, they teach and confirm that of Habac. 2. 4. that the just shall live by his own faith, and not by the faith of others.

§. XIV. Now I come to Bellarmine's reason, although I have already answered it in part. In him that believeth, saith he, there are two things, apprehension, and judgment or assent. Apprehension goeth before faith and is not knowledge, unless it be distinct and plain, and that is not needful to faith. Now the judgment or assent, saith he, is twofold: for either it followeth reason and the evidence of the thing, and is called knowledge, or else the authority of the pr •… pounder, and is called Faith. Therefore, saith he, the mysteries of faith, which surpass reason, we do believe, we do not understand. And therefore faith is distinguished against science, and is better defined by ignorance than by knowledge. Answ. This discourse is to prove that faith may be without knowledge: for whereas two things concur to faith, apprehension and assent, knowledge is required in neither, &c. But I answer, that these things are not well distinguished by Bellarmine. For first, apprehension or conceiving of the object is the common act of the understanding, going before all judgment of the understanding whatsoever. For it is not possible, that the understanding should judge of that, which it hath not apprehended or conceived. And yet, behold, implicit faith is so far from being a true justifying faith, that it hath not so much as this first and common act of the understanding in it. For it doth not so much as apprehend or conceive the particular things to be believed▪ Secondly, judgment and assent are not to be confounded. For judgment is more general, and belongeth to those things that we do not assent unto, as well as to those which we do. For when we have in our mind apprehended, conceived, or understood any proposition, or thing propounded; then we judge of it, either as false, and then we dissent from it; or as doubtful, and then we withhold our assent, and suspend our judgment; or as true, and then we assent to it. But this assent, thirdly, is not to be confounded with faith, because it is more general. For either we assent to a proposition faintly, imagining that perhaps it may be otherwise, as in contingent propositions, which so are true as that they may be false. And then our judgment of them, and assent to them, is called opinion: or we assent firmly, as being persuaded, that it cannot be otherwise, and this is called knowledge Now, a man knoweth a proposition to be true, and is assured that it cannot be otherwise, being persuaded thereunto, either by the evidence of the thing or by the infallible authority of the propounder. Of the thing, being either manifest in it self to sense and experience, or to reason, and then it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or intelligentia, whereby without discourse men know things so to be, which is noeticall or axioma •… icall judgment of a proposition in it self manifest: or else manifested by discourse, as of questions syllogistically concluded, and this judgment or knowledge is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is the science of conclusions, which we know cannot possibly be false, the premisses being true. But when a thing is neither manifest in it self to sense or reason, nor manifested by discourse; and yet we do know and are undoubtedly persuaded of the necessary and infallible truth thereof, moved the •… unto by the divine authority of the propounder, which is the Spirit of truth: that is called faith, which is, as you heard out of Basil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an undoubted assent or full persuasion, or assurance eui falsum subesse non potest, the subject whereof cannot be false. Where fourthly, you see indeed that faith is distinguished against Science and evident intelligence, but as a special under the same general, which is notitia knowledge. And therefore the mysteries of saith, which surpass our reason, though we do not understand them by that knowledge, which is of propositions either manif •… st in themselves, or manifested by discourse: yet we know them to be undoubtedly true, because of the authority of the propounder, knowing whom we do believe. And therefore fifthly, very absurd was he who said, that faith may better be defined by ignorance, than by knowledge.

§ XV. Thus have we seen the salshood of the popish doctrine concerning implicit faith: now let us show the wickedness of it; which consisteth in this, that it is an horrible cozenage of the people to their perdition. Here therefore two things are to be shown: first, that it is an egregious imposture and cozenage. Secondly, that it is extremely pernicious to the people. Their cozenage stands in this: that when they say, that the faith required iu a lay man, as sufficient to his justification, is to believe or rather to profess himself to believe whatsoever the Catholic Church believeth, though in particular he know not what the Church believeth: their meaning is, that the church of Rome, and therein the Pope is not only the whole materi •… ll object, but also the formal object of their faith. I say the whole material object. For they teach that whatsoever is to be believed is reduced to this one article of the Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church, and that this faith is a more 〈◊〉 faith, than if a man should say, I believe the whole Scriptures. For he that believeth the Catholic Church, believe •… th whatsoever the Catholic Church propoundeth to be believed. Now their Church propoundeth to be believed, not only though whole written word, both Apocryphal and Canonical, but the unwritten also, which are the traditions of the Church. They make the Church also the formal object of saith, not only which we believe; but also for which w •… believe, whatsoever is to be believed, and so make the Church to be the rule and the principium or principle of their faith. These are the grounds of their imposture. But their cozenage especially consisteth in this▪ that whatsoever excellency they ascribe to the Catholic Church, that they attribute wholly and only to the Church of Rome, and therein to the Pope. For th •… s they expound that Article in their new Creed. I believe the holy, Catholic, Apostolical Church of Rome the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches, out of which there is no salvation. So excluding from salvation all those that have been, are, or shall be who live not in communion with, and subjection to the Church and Pope of Rome. This is the principal N •… t whereby the greatest number of silly souls are cony •… ch'd.

§. XVI. No doubt the Apostle by Catholic understood the Universal, and not any particular Church, fuch as the Church of Rome, which was not then extant, when the Creed was made, as themselves do •… each. And there •… ore the Apostles themselves, when they made the Creed, were not of that Church. And by holy Universal Church being an object of faith, and therefore not seen, they understand the universal company of the Elect: which is the body of Christ, containing not only the Militant Church, but also the Triumphant: and not only the Church after the asc •… ion of Christ, but also before from the beginning of the world. And not only those who were or are under the Pope, but also •… hose who never acknowledged any subjection to the See of Rome: such as were the Churches under the other four Patriar •… es of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; and such as are the greatest part of Christ •… at this day. But if by Universal must be meant particular, and if by Catholic must be understood Roman, then, by their doctrine, from the company of them that are and shall be saved, are excluded; first, the Church Triumphant; secondly, the Church which was from the beginning until the Church of Rome was plan •… d, thirdly the four 〈◊〉 Churches, and others, which acknowledged no subjection to the See of Rome, in which were many Holy Martyr •… , and the most of the godly and learned Fathers. In all which time the Bishop of Rome was, at the most, but a Patriarch, as others were, until 〈◊〉 , that barbarous Tyra •… t, in the year of our Lord 607. made him Universal Bishop, and Head of the Universal Church, the proper tit •… of Antichrist; fourthly, all those Churches which since that time, and at this day acknowledge •… •… o subjection to the Pope, as their Head, which is the greater and better part of Christendom. Now what a 〈◊〉 is this, to persuade men, that there is no salvation for those, who do not acknowledge the Pope to be their head, that is, who are not limbs and members of Antichrist •… especially when the Scriptures teach, that Antichrist prevail •… in them only •… that perish.

§. XVII. But although this be a grand imposture, as a right reverend learned man hath shown, to teach men to believe that the Church of Rome alone is the Catholic Church out of which no •… e can be saved▪ yet this is but half of their cozenage. For 〈◊〉 article of the Church they expound as if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , I believe that there is a Church; as, when it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. I believe the comm •… ion of Saints, there mission of •… nnes, &c. but as if it were said eredo Ecol •… sia, o •… rather in Ecclesiam. I believe the Church, or in the Church as that which cannot 〈◊〉 and consequently believe, whatso •… er the Church teacheth or propoundeth to be believed: making th •… Church 〈◊〉 formal object of their faith, and principal rule or principle into which their faith is last resolved, for which they give credit to the Scriptures themselves; which receive their credit and authority from the Church. Now by this Church they mean not the universal company of Catholics, for they are compared to Job's Asses, but the Prelates of the Church of Rome, and among them the Pope, who virtually is the Church, in whom alone the prerogative of not erring resideth. For a general or Ecumenical counsel, which is the whole Church representative, they say without the Pope may err: but the Pope himself alone without a council cannot err. And therefore the authority of a general council and of the Pope together is no more than of the Pope alone. It is the Pope therefore alone that cannot err, who hath an heavenly and infallible judgment, who is the supreme Judge in all controversies, the chief and only authentical interpreter of the Scriptures, so that no point of religion is to be held for truth but what he determineth, no text of Scripture to be held the word of God, in any other sense than he holdeth: yea, that a text of Scripture urged against them in another sense, than he holdeth, is not the word of God, but rather of the devil. By which means the Pope is stepped into the room of Christ and and is undoubtedly become Antichrist. So that the implicit faith of the Papists, whereby they profess themselves to believe what is propounded by the Church, meaning especially the See of Rome, that is to say the Pope, to be believed; and consequently whereby they profess themselves to believe in the Pope as the principal rule, principle and foundation of their faith, is the very character and mark of the Beast, whereby men are branded to destruction.

§. XVIII. The which doth also prove the other point, viz. how pernicious the doctrine of implicit faith is, as tending to the perdition of the seduced people, which I will also prove by other reasons. For under the name of implicit faith they commend unto the Laity damnable ignorance; that, having blindfolded them, they may lead them, as it were, by the nose, whither it pleaseth them. To them it is sufficient to believe what the Church believeth, though they know little or nothing of the Churches belief. If one of them be called before the Commissioners, he shall say enough and defend himself sufficiently when he answereth that he is a Catholic, and that he will live and die in that faith which the Catholic Church doth teach, and that this Church can give them a reason of all those things which they demand. And thus according to Christ's promise, Luk. 12. 12. the holy Ghost (for sooth) teacheth every unlearned Catholic to give sufficient reason of his faith. But it is evident, that those who live in ignorance, do live in a state of damnation, or, as the Scripture speaketh, do sit in darkness and in the shadow of death. First, because they live without God, as it were Atheists in this world. For they that know not God, have not God. Secondly, because they are void of all grace whereby they might hope to be saved. For knowledge being the first of all graces, where that is wanting, all the rest are absent. Again, without faith there is no saving grace, for faith is the mother and root of all other graces; and without knowledge there is no faith, as I have already shown. For how can ^t they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and by hearing known? Knowledge is, as it were, the first step towards faith and all other graces; and therefore he that hath not that in some measure, hath not made one step in the way that leadeth to eternal life. Thirdly, because they are not Christ's sheep, nor God's children. For I, saith our Savior, know mine, and I am known of mine, John. 10. 14. They shall know me everyone of them saith the Lord, from the greatest to the least of them, Ier. 31. 34. All God's children shall be taught of God, Isaiah. 54. 13. John. 6. 45. everyone therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father cometh to me, saith our Savior, and none else. All God's children have the unction from the holy One, and they know all needful things, 1 John. 2. 20. 27. John. 16. 13. Fourthly, because it hath all the respects of evil in it. For it is not one lie a sin, but the cause of all sin and error, a punishment and the cause of punishment, both in this life and in the world to come. A sin, rep •… oved and condemned, Ier. 4. 22. &. 9. 3. Hos. 4. 1. •… Cor. 15. 34. For it, a sacrifice was ordained, Levite. 4. 2. yea, all the sins, for which sacrifices were offered, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , •… that is ignorances, Heb. 9. 7. The cause of sin: Errant qui operantur mulum. They err that sin, and none err but by ignorance as Augustine saith, Non erratur nisi per ignorantiam, whence sinners are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , such as are ignorant and do err, Heb. 5. 3. Ignorance is the mother of all errors. Regnum ignorantiae, saith Augustine, regnum erroris. Ignorance also is a fearful punishment •… when God doth punish men with blindness of heart, Isaiah. 6. 9, 10. and sendeth upon them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the efficacy of error, 2 Th •… s. 2. 11. It is also the cause of punishment (for the people that understandeth not shall be punished, Hos. 4. 14.) as of captivity •… Isaiah.. 5. 13. of destruction, Hos. 4. 6. it maketh men subject to the curse of God, Psal. 79. 6. Ier. 10. 25. and to eternal damnation, 2. Thes. 1. 8. If our Gospel be hid, saith the Apostle, it is hid to them that perish, 2 Cor. 4. 3. For if it be eternal life to know God and Christ our Savior, then not to know God and our Savior is to miss of eternal life. Qui ea qu •… sunt Domini nesciunt a Domino nesciuntur, saith Gregory, Paulo attestante, qui ait, si quis autem ignorat, ignorabitur. The Council of Reims denieth that they can be saved, who do not understand the Creed and the Lord's Prayer. And again, no man can be saved without faith, and no man can believe that which he doth not know nor hath heard. Augustine ipsa ignorantia in ets, qui intelligere noluerunt, sine dubitatione pe •… catum •… st: in eis autem qui non potuerunt p •… na pec •… ati. Ergo in utrisque non •… st justa excusatio, sed justa damnatio. Jerome: Ignoratio Scripturarum, ignoratio Christi. Origen •… aith, the Devils possess all those that live in ignorance.

§. XIX. All this notwithstanding, the popish Impostors detain the people in ignorance, they have taken away the Key of knowledge, and shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against their followers: for neither they go in themselves, neither suffer them, that fain would enter, to go in. They forbid them to read the Scriptures which are able to make them wise to salvation, 2 Tim. 3. 15. which our Savior therefore commandeth them to search, John. 5. 39. They suffer them not to hear them, nor yet the divine service, otherwise than in an unknowen tongue, contrary to the rule of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. and wherefore all this? partly, that their errors and abominations should not be seen; for he that evil doeth hateth the light, and (as thieves by night) wish the light of God's Word to be put out, or at least to be hid under a Bushel: and partly that they may be Lord's over the people's faith, and may make them believe what they list, that they may rule them at their pleasure, that they may lead them whither they please. For he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth, may as easily be led up and down, as Sampson after his eyes were put out. But those that are of God do wish that the people of God may increase in knowledge of God, 1 Thes. 1. 10. that they may be perfect in understanding, 1 Cor. 14. 20. that they may abound more and more in knowledge, Phil. 1. 9. (For not to be proficience in knowledge they esteem a great fault. Heb. 5. 11, 12. 2 Tim. 3. 7.) that the Word of Christ may dwell in them richly in all Wisdom, Col. 2. 2. & 3. 16. that they may be able and ready to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of that hope that is in them, 1 Pet. 3. 15. (for where men of all other professions can give a reason of that which they do profess, it is a great absurdity, as Chrysostom testifieth, for a man professing himself a Christian, not to be able to give an account of his faith) that they may try all things and hold fast that which is good, 1 Thes. 5. 21. that Husbands may be able to instruct their Wives, and householders their families, Deut. 6. 7. & 11. 19. Yea Moses the Man of God wished, that all the Lord's people were Prophets, Num. 11. 29.

§. XX. And as the godly have wished, so the Lord hath promised that in the Church of Christ there should be plenty of knowledge, Esa. 11. 9. Ier. 31. 34. and that all the faithful should be taught of God, Isaiah. 54. 13. And this was verified in times past in the primitive Churches, and is at this day in all true Churches, and where it is not in some measure verified (as it is not in the Church of Rome) that is not a true Church. Not to speak of the present times, I will produce one Testimony of the ancient Churches. In which it was usual to be seen that the points of Christian Religion were known not only to the Teachers of the Church, but also to all manner of artificers and handicrafts men, of women likewise, not only such as were lettered, but those of the meanest sort, even servants and handmaids: and not only Citizens but also Country people, as Husband-men and laborers had this knowledge, who might be found conferring of the Divine Trinity, of the Creation of all things, and having better knowledge of the nature of man, than Plato or Arist •… tle.

Finally, the Papists by their doctrine of implicit faith, do bereave the faithful of their chief rejoicing. For thus saith the Lord: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord, which exercise loving kindness, judgment and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight saith the Lord. So much of the first question.

CAP. II. Pr •… ving that a true justifying faith cannot be severed from Charity and other graces.

§. I.

T HE second question concerning the nature of faith is, whether a true justifying faith may be severed from Charity and from all other graces of Sanctification. The Papists hold the affirmative, we the negative.

The reasons of our assertion, that true justifying faith is ever accompanied with Charity and other graces, and cannot indeed be severed from them, are manifold and manifest.

My first reason is this: All that are regenerate and borne of God have Charity, and other graces of sanctification.

All that truly believe in Christ, or, which is all one, that have a true justifying faith are regenerate and borne of God.

Therefore all that truly believe in Christ, have charity and other graces of sanctification.

The proposition is thus proved. Regeneration consisteth in the infusion of graces of sanctification, and therefore they, who are regenerate, are endued with those graces.

Seondly, regeneration is the renewing of a man according to the image of God in true holiness and righteousness, Ephes. 4. 24. both which are comprehended in Charity. The former, being the love of God; the other, of our neighbor.

Thirdly, the Papists themselves do teach, that when men are regenerated in baptism, there is with faith infused Charity.

Fourthly, as he that hath Charity is borne of God and knoweth him: so he that hath not Charity knoweth not God, and much less is borne of him. 1 John. 4. 8..

The assumption: All that have a true justifying faith are regenerate and borne of God. For first, whosoever believeth, that I •… •… us is the Christ, is bome of God, 1 John.. 5. 1. Secondly, as many as receive Christ (by faith) to them he gave this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this privilege or prerogatiye to be the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, who are borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John. 1. 12. 13. Thirdly, All that do truly believe are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3. 26. Fourthly, Faith is a grace of regeneration, which the holy Ghost doth ingenerate and infuse, when he doth regenerate as the Papists themselves confess. Neither is it of nature, or from ourselves, but it is the special gift of God, Ephes 2, 8. for no man can truly say, that is, with a lively and unfeigned assent of the heart, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12. 3. To believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, flesh and blood hath not revealed to any man, but God the Father, who is in heaven, Matth. 16. 16, 17. No man, saith our Savior can come to me, that is, believe in me, ( John. 6. 35.) except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him, John 6. 44. and except it be given unto him by my Father, verse. 65. and how given? as a proper fruit of election. For justifying faith is the faith of the elect, 7 〈◊〉 . 1. 1 given unto us when we are called, according to the purpose of God and his grace given unto us in Christ before all secular times, 2 Tim. 1. 9. For those, whom God giveth to Christ by election, they come unto him by faith, John. 6. 37. and so many as are ordained to eternal life, believe, Act. 13. 48.

§. II. Secondly, Whosoever •… have the Spirit of Christ, dwelling in them are •… udued with Charity and other graces, which all are the fruits of the Spirit. who is the Spirit of grace; and contrariwise they who have not Charity, have not the Spirit of Christ. For the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of love: God is love, and he that abideth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him, 1 John 4. 16. but he that loveth not, knoweth not God and much less dwelleth in him, verse. 8.

All that have true faith have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, by which Christ dwelleth in them, and those which have not the Spirit of Christ are none of his, Rom. 8. 9 Faith is the proper work of the Spirit who is therefore called the Sp •… rit of faith, 2 Cor. 4. 13. And therefore those, who are endued with true faith, have the Spirit, by both which Christ dwelleth in us. Again, all that are the sons of •… od have the Spirit of Christ, Gal. 4. 6. all that truly believe are the sons of God; as hath been shown. All that be Christ's they have his Spirit, for those that have not his Spirit are none of his, Rom. 8. 9. All that truly believe are Christ's, 1 Cor. 3. 23. both because God hath given them unto him, John 6. 37. & 17. 9, 24. and because he hath bought them with a great price, 1 Cor. 6. 19. and because by faith they are engrafted and united unto him as his members.

Therefore all that have true faith, are endued with Charity and other graces.

§. III. Thirdly, all that are sanctified are endued with Charity and other graces, for in them our sanctification doth consist.

All that have true faith are sanctified. For first, by faith the heart is purified, Acts 15. 9. and true faith worketh by love,