iustos facit To conclude the onely formal cause is the iustice of God not that with which himself is iust but with which he maketh vs iust This decree is quite contrarie to my conclusion they learned it of Aquinas their angelicall doctour whose direction they followe in all theologicall questions Thus doth Aquinas write Gratia non dicitur facere gratum effectiuè sed formaliter quia per hanc homo iustificatur dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus secundum illud Colos. 1. vers 12. dignos nos fecit in partem sortis fanctorum in lumine Grace doth not make one acceptable effectiuely but formally because man is iustified by grace and is made worthie to be accepted of god according to that which the apâ—stle saith He hath made vs worthie of the fellowship of saints in light Thus writeth Aquinas whose opinion being once confuted al other papists shalbe confuted in him I therfore say first that Aquinas was deceiued with the popish vulgar latin translation called vulgata editio which for al that the late disholy synode of Trent hath wonderfully magnified extolled aboue the starrie skies For where their vulgata editio hath worthie there the greeke and original hath meete or fit these are the very words of the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Giuing thanks to god euen the father who hath made vs meete to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light I say secondly that since his foundation was a false translation his conclusion inferred thereupon must of necessitie bee false also And therefore wee may not reade as Aquinas did who hath made vs worthie but who hath made vs meete or fitte for the fellowshippe of Saintes and so their owne linquist Arias Montanus doth interpret it to their confusion And because the verie life of this question standeth wholly in this if there be any forme or qualitie inherent in man by which hee is worthy of glory and eternall life I will prooue pithily and succinctly that man neither hath in him nor can haue any such qualitie at all but that the formall cause of mans iustification is in Christ Iesus not in himselfe The first argument No infinite accident can be in any finite subiect but the grace of iustification is infinite Ergo it cannot be in man a finite subiect The argument is in forme the proposition is graunted of all as well Philosophers as Diuines and the assumtion is manifest because the transgression was infinite as is prooued in the third conclusion The second argument Being iustified freely by his grace saith the Apostle thorough redemption which is in Christ Iesus Where we must obserue first y t when the apostle saith freely hee doth exclude all workes and all qualities in man We must obserue secondly that when he saith by his grace he giueth vs to vnderstand that the grace of iustification is in Christ and not in our selues For otherwise he would haue termed it our grace and not his grace because that which is inherent in our selues is properly ours We must obserue thirdly that when hee concludeth the period thus which is in Christ Iesus the word which hath no lesse relation to grace then to redemption and so thone must be in Christ aswel as the other The 3. argument Being therfore iustified by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ through whom we haue accesse by faith into this grace in which wee stand In which wordes of the Apostle wee are taught three thinges First that our iustification is by faith Secondly that our iustification giueth vs peace with God Thirdly that by faith we haue accesse to the grace of iustification and consequently that this grace of iustification is not in our selues For vnproperly are wee saide to haue accesse to a thing inherent in our selues The 4. argument Not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ euen the righteousnesse which is of God through faith In which wordes the Apostle teacheth vs two thinges First that the formal cause of our iustification is not our owne in these wordes not hauing mine owne righteousnesse for if our iustice or righteousnesse were inherent in our selues it should be our owne Secondly that our iustice is through faith and in faith and consequently that the formall iustice of the papists is not that true christian iustice whereof Saint Paul speaketh for they say that charitie which is the chiefest part of their formall inherent iustice is neither through faith nor in faith but aboue faith and the forme of faith The fift argument He that knewe no sinne suffered the paine due for sinne for our sakes that wee might be made the iustice of God in him In which wordes the apostle teacheth vs two thinges First that Christ died for our iustification Secondly that this iustification is the application of the iustice of God in Christ. But doubtlesse the iustice of God cannot be our inherent iustice For first Gods iustice is infinite but ours is finite Secondly Gods iustice is perfite but ours is vnperfit Thirdly Gods iustice is absolute but ours is relatiue The 6. argument For they being ignorant of the righteousnesse of God and going about to stablishe their owne righteousnesse haue not submitted themselues to the righteousnesse of God For Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse vnto euery one that beleeueth In these wordes of the apostle wee are taught two thinges First that to ascribe anie righteousnesse to our selues is flatly to fall from the iustice of God Which certes could not be so if y t iustice by which we are iustified were inherent in our selues Againe that Christes righteousnesse is applied to euery one by faith Which thing shalbe yet more plaine by the next conclusion The 5. conclusion Man is iustified by sole and only faith that is to say faith onely is the instrument by which man applieth to himselfe the righteousnesse of God in Christ Iesus This conclusion containeth three thinges First that Gods righteousnesse is that iustice which we present for our iustification Secondly that it is ours for the merites of Christ Iesus Thirdly that we apprehend and take hold vpon it by faith only and so we haue the explication howe sole faith doth iustifie Which because the papistes so bitterly impugne I will prooue it both by y e scriptures and the fathers If Abraham saith S. Paule were iustified by works he hath wherin to reioyce but not with God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse Thus saith the Apostle Out of which wordes I note first that workes did not iustifie Abraham before God I note secondly that that iustice by which man standeth cleere before God is only imputatiue and not really inherent in himselfe Which imputatiue iustice the Apostle doth often inculcate
reprobate and not of the elect and godly sort but after he had pondered the text deeply he altered his opinion This is confirmed in these words of the selfe same chapter but I see another law in my meÌ„bers rebelling against the law of my mind leading me captiue vnto the law of sin which is in my members By these words of Paul it is euident that albeit he were the childe of God yet could he not merite any thing in Gods sight but rather in rigor of iustice prouoke his heauy displeasure against him For where or what could be his merite who was prisoner to the law of sinne Againe it is confirmed in these words For I doe not the good thing which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. Thus saiâ—h saint Paul and doubtlesse since hee did the euill which he would not he sinned though he were regenerate and because he sinned he was worthie of condemnation for that death is the stipend of sinne Againe it is confirmed in these words For the law is spirituall but I am carnal sould vnder sinne Thus saith S. Paul of himselfe and yet is it true that one vnder sin can merit nothing saue hel fire and eternal paine Againe it is confirmed in these words Nowe if I do that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in mee Thus saith Saint Paul of himselfe and yet because sin abode in him and did that that was offensiue in gods sight he could neither merite grace nor eternal life as is already proued Further then this no man liueth without sinne as the papists grant and yet is euerie sinne mortall as I haue prooued elsewhere The first obiection Saint Paul speaketh of originall concupiscence which remaineth euen in the regenerate after baptisme but is no sinne at all For he onely calleth it sinne because it prouoketh a man to sin as a mans writing is called his hand for that it is written with his hand which exposition S. Austen approueth in sundrie places of his works The answere I say first that to say against the flat text of scripture without scripture is no reason at all I say secondly that S. Paul doth not onely call concupiscence sin but he proueth it by many reasons For first it striueth against the law of the minde Againe it leadeth one captiue into the law of sinne thirdly it doth that which is not good but euil I say thirdly that Saint Austen doth vndoubtedly iudge it to be sin neither shal any papist in the world euer be able to proue the contrarie howsoeuer they bare the world in hand I wil onely alleage a few places out of S. Austen make effectuall application of the same to which when anie either Rhemist or Romist shall answere sufficiently I promise to become his bondman The first place of Austen Concupiscentia carnis aduersus quam bonus concupiscit spiritus peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccata est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis The concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit striueth is sinne because it is disobedient against the dominion of the mind and it is the punishmeÌ„t of sin bicause it is inflicted for the deserts of disobedient Adam and it is the cause of sinne either by the default of him that consenteth or by the contagion of the child that is borne Thus saith S. Austen In which words he expresseth three things precisely first that concupiscence in the regenerate is the paine or punishment of sinne secondly that it is the cause of sinne thirdly that it is sin it selfe which three he doth not only distinguish but withall hee yeeldeth seueral reasons for the same And therfore most impudent are the papists who auouch with open mouthes that saint Austen onely calleth it sin because it is the cause of sinne The second place of Saint Austen Neque enim nulla est iniquitas cum in vno homine vel superiora inferioribus tur piter seruiunt vel inferiora superioribus contumaciter reluctantur etiamsi vincere non sinantur For it is some iniquitie when in one man either the superiour parts shamefully serue the inferiour or the inferiour parts stubbornly striue against the superiour although they be not suffered to preuaile Thus saith S. Austen whose words are so plaine as the papists can not possibly inuent any euasion at all For hee saith in expresse tearmes that the rebellion which is betweene the flesh and the spirit is sinne euen when it is resisted and cannot preuaile at which time and in which respect the papists wil haue it to be merite and no sinne at all The third place of Saint Austen Virtus est charitas qua id quod diligendum est diligitur haec in alijs maior in alijs minor in alijs nulla est plenissima vero quae iam non possit augeri quamdiu hic homo viuit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est iustus in terra qui faciat bonum non peccet Ex quo vitio non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis viuens Propter quod vitium si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus nosmetipsos seducimus veretas in nobis non est Propter quodetiam quantumlibet profecerimus necessarium est nobis dicere dimitte nobis debita nostra cum iam omnia in baptismo dicta facta cogitata dimissa sint Charitie is a vertue with which we loue that that ought to be loued This in some is more in other lesse in others none at all but the perfect charitie which can not bee increased while a man here liueth is found in none so long as it can be increased that doubtlesse which is lesse then it shoulde bee proceedeth of sinne by reason of which sin there is not one iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by reason of which vice none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight by reason of which vice if we say we haue no sin we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs by reason of which sin how much soeuer we profit yet must we say of necessitie Forgiue vs our trespasses euen after that al our thoughts words and works are forgiuen in baptisme Thus saith saint Austen Out of whose most golden words I note sundrie things to the euerlasting confusion of all impenitent papists For first Saint Austen saith that no man can haue charity in that perfite degree which the law requireth Secondly that the want thereof proceedeth of this concupiscence Thirdly that by reason of this concupiscence euerie man is a sinner Fourthly that by reason therof none liuing can be iustified in Gods sight
non sunt sine peccato quia iam non ipsi operantur iniquitatem sed quod habitat in eis peccatum Behold howe they that walke in the waies of the Lord doe not sinne and yet are they not without sinne because now not they work iniquitie but the sinne that dwelleth in them I say thirdly that it is one thing to be blessed in the worke another thing to be blessed for the worke And so when the regenerate become not vaine hearers of Gods worde but bring forth the worthie fruites thereof in holy life they shall doubtlesse be blessed in so doing yet not for the worthinesse of their workes but of Gods meere mercie for his promise sake Thus doth S. Iames expound himselfe in the same chapter when hee saith Blessed is the man that endureth temptation for when he is tried he shall receiue the crowne of life which the Lord hath promised to them that loue him The 4. obiection S. Luke saith that Zacharias and Elizabeth were iust before God not only before men and that they walked in all the commandements of the Lord without reproofe The answere I say first that if Zacharias and Elizabeth had kept y e law exactly in all pointes then Christ needed not to haue died for them or to haue risen again for their iustification For the perfite fulling of the law giueth life to the doer thereof I say secondly that they were of that number of whom S. Iohn saith if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and there is no trueth in vs. And of whom S. Paule saith There is none righteous no not one they haue all gone out of the way there is none that doth good no not one And of whom the Psalmâ—graphe saith for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified And of whom S. Austen saith Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum si remota misericordia discutias eam Woe euen to the best liuers on earth if thou extend not thy mercie towards them I say thirdly that they were iust before God as were Dauid Peter Paul and others not for that they were perfitly iust and without sinne but because God reputed them so perfitly iust as if they had neuer sinned and of his great mercie thorough the merites of Christ Iesus did not impute the breach of his law vnto them according to this saying of the scripture Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sins are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne The fift obiection The regenerate liue without sinne and so may they iustly merite heauen For we reade that Noah was iust and perfite and vpright and walked with God Remember saith Dauid howe I haue walked before thee in trueth and with a perfite heart and haue done that which is good in thy sight Wee speake wisedome saith the apostle among them that are perfite and it is written of king Asa y t his heart was perfite all his daies In another place y e prophet saith that he hath not swarued from Gods lawe In another place hee requireth God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse The answere I say first that as the Prophet Dauid in one place required God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse so did he desire God in another place not to enter into iudgment with him because none liuing coulde be iustified in his â—â—ght So then his meaning is not to oppose his owne righteousnesse to the iust iugement of God at which hee euer trembled and neuer durst abide it as he saith in another place but only to shew his own innocent dealing in respect of the malicious and wicked practises of his enemies although the papistes to establish their pharisaical iustice would haue it to be vnderstood of Dauids own merites I say secondly that the perfitnesse which the scripture ascribeth to Gods children is not absolute but relatiue that is to say it is not perfite in respect of Gods law but by reason of imputation of Christes iustice vnto them who hath simply and perfitly answered the law or in respect of the weaker sort who want many degrees of their though imperfect iustice For S. Paule denied himselfe to be perfite Not as though I had alreadie attained to it saith he either were already perfit To which purpose holy Bernard writeth excelleÌ„tly in these words Nostra enim si qua est humilis iustitia recta forâ—itan sed non pura Nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quam patres nostros qui non minus veraciter quam humiliter aiebant omnes iustitiae nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris For our base iustice if we haue any is perchance right but not pure or perfitâ— vnlesse perhaps we beleeue that we are better then our fathers were who spake as truly as humbly All our righteousnesse is as filthy clouts But Christ as the apostle saith is our iustice in him we are perfect and consummate I say thirdly that the regenerate are said to liue perfectly and without sin in that they striue against sin and do not suffer sin to raigne in them thogh they cannot be without it And this hath the same Bernard wel obserued and vttered in this maner Quomodo enim pura iustitia vbi adhuc non potest culpa dâ—esse recta proinde interim videri potest iustitiae hominum si tamen peccato non consentiant vt non regnet in eorum mortali corpore For how can their iustice be pure who cannot be without sinne yet may the iustice of men be right if they consent not to sinne nor suffer it to reigne in their mortall bodies In which respect S. Iohn saith that the faithfull sin not because they suffer not sinne to raigne in them The replie If the regenerate cannot fulfill and keepe the lawe exactly then is it giuen in vain and without cause are we charged with the obedience thereof The answere I say first that Adam might haue kept the law perfitly and in him al his posteritie might haue done the same I say secondly that wee may yet keep the law in a certaine measure and therefore must we striue against sinne and studie to increase our sanctification from day to day I say thirdly that by the law we know our owne nakednesse sinnes and miserie and are thereby excited to seeke for remission of our sinnes and to be clad with the righteousnesse of Christ Iesus The replie The apostle saith in one place that the iust are not vnder the law but vnder grace And in another place hee saith y t there is no law for the iust man but where there is no law there can be no transgression and consequently no sinne at all The answere I answere that the iust are free from the coaction curse and condemnation of the law as the apostle witnesseth in another place but yet are they
vnder the obedience of the law bound to frame their liues according to the prescript rule thereof as other scripture maketh mention The replie How can any man frame his life after the prescription of the law if none liuing can keepe the law as you defend The answere I answere that if yee were well studied in your owne doctors and should marke well what they write yee coulde not be ignorant of this point Harken therefore what your owne Bernard saith and after you haue heard him remember well his words and neuer forget his holy instruction Thus writeth he in one place Cupiebat dissolui cum Christo esse sciens quòd peccatum separans inter nos deum penitùs auferri non poterit donec liberemur à corpore Sequitur itaque dico vobis genus illud peccati quod toties conturbat nos concupiscentias loquor desideria mala reprimi quidem debet potest per gratiam dei vt non regnet in nobis nec demus membra nostra arma iniquitatis peccato sic nulla damnatio esthis qui sunt in Christo Iesu sed non eiicitur nisi in morte quando sic discerpimur vt anima sepaietur à corpore The Apostle did couet to be dissolued and to be with Christ knowing that sinne which maketh a diuision betweene God and vs cannot wholy bee taken away while we remaine in this bodie I therefore say vnto you this kind of sin which so often troubleth vs I speake of concupiscence and euill desires ought may be repressed by the grace of God so as it raigne nâ—t in vs nor we giue our members to be weapons of iniquitie vnto sinne and so there is no damnation to those that are in Christ Iesus but it is not cast out saue only in death when wee are so torne that the soule is diuided from the body Thus he saith in another place Sit ergo in corde iustitia iustitia quae ex fide est Haec enim sola habet gloriam apud deum Sit etiam in ore confessio ad salutem securus iam suscipe eum qui in Bethlehem Iudae nascitur Iesum Christum filium Dei Let righteousnes therefore be in thine heart euen that iustice which is of faith for onely that righteousnesse or iustice hath glorie with God howsoeuer righteousnes be esteemed among men Haue also confession in thy mouth vnto saluation and then receiue him with security that is borne in Bethlehem of Iuda Iesus Christ the sonne of God Thus he saith in the third place Omne quod natum est ex Deo non peccat sed hoc dictum est de praedestinatis ad vitam non quòd omnino non peccent sed quòd peccatum ipsis non imputetur All that is borne of god sinneth not but this is spoken of the predestinate to life not because they sin not at al but for that sin is not imputed to them Thus doth he say in the fourth place Vtique quod factum est non potest non fieri ipso tamen non imputante erit quasi non fuerit Quod propheta quoque considerans ait Beatus vir cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum The sinne doubtlesse that is done can not be vndone yet for that God doth not impute sin vnto vs we shal be as if we had not sinned which the prophet considering saith Blessed is the man to whome God shall not impute sinne Out of these foure places conteining most comfortable and christian doctrine I note first that concupiscence remaineth in the regenerate euen vnto death I note secondly that it is properly sinne euen in the regenerate which being vttered by their owne deere Bernard giueth a deadly wound to the papists For he saith that that concupiscence which remaineth to death doth separate vs from God Which effect nothing but that which is properly sinne can possibly worke in man I note thirdly that although this concupiscence can not be taken awaie from the regenerate vntil death yet may it be so repressed by Gods spirite as it shall not raigne in them or haue dominion ouer them I note fourthly that it bringeth not damnation to the regenerate who striue against it and that because God doth not impute it to sinne I note fiftly that the regenerate are saide not to sinne not because they sinne not or haue no sinne indeede but because God of his meere mercie accepting their faith through the merits of Christ Iesus doth not impute sinne vnto them I note sixtly that no iustice but that which is of faith is or can be acceptable in Gods sight Ioyne these sayings of saint Bernard to the testimonie of saint Austen cited in the answer to the first obiection in the seuenth conclusion and that done a mightie article of popish doctrine will be vtterlie ouerthrowne The sixt obiection Wherefore saith S. Peter labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election Therefore good workes are a meane for vs to attaine to the effect of Gods predestination that is to life euerlasting as whose certainetie if the apostle say truelie is procured by mans freewil and good workes The answer I say first that God did elect and predestinate vs without regard of our works For as the apostle saith he chose vs in Christ before y e foundatioÌ„ of the world not bicause we were holy but that we should be holy I say secoÌ„dly that the words by good works are not in the originall Greek text but only in the popish latin vulgata editio For which like respects your late Tridentine council hath so magnified the same I say thirdly that good works are the proper effects of predestinatioÌ„ electioÌ„ and therfore are a sure testificaton therof in y e sight iudgement of man And if your translation be admitted wherin I wil not contend because y e sense is not much different yet can there no more be inferred vpon y e words vnlesse some wil say that the effect can go before the cause that which foloweth be the cause of that that went before But both their owne doctour Aquinas and their double glossa interlinialis and ordinaria doe giue the same exposition with mee to wit that the apostle willeth vs to make knowne our eleccion by doing of good works as which yeeld to man a morall certitude thereof The seauenth obiection Saint Paul willeth the Philippians to worke their saluation with feare and trembling but doubtlesse he that can worke his saluation may by his works merite heauen The answere I say first with the selfesame apostle in the next verse following that we are so far from meriting heauen by our works that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede euen of his good pleasure Yea as he saith in another place we are saued by grace through faith that neither of our selues nor yet