Trent which in that whole and large Session of Iustification not once mentioneth Credere in Christum as is aboue noted As also his fellow-Commenter Soto hath not in all his Commentaries vpon this same Session of Trent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the least mention of Credere in Christum Let vs a little take a second suruey of St. Augustines former speech wherein he plainely setteth down a three-fold kinde of beleeuing all which are necessary to saluation as concurring in euery true beleeuer yet so as the two inferiour kindes of beleeuing are common also to the vngodly and the Diuels themselues as to beleeue that God is and that he is true in his Word But that faith whereby a man beleeues in God is the highest kinde of faith and proper only to those that are saued and common to none else whatsoeuer Wee cannot better demonstrate the true difference betweene these three distinct kindes of faith than by paralleling or comparing them with those three kindes of soules which the Philosopher setteth downe the first and lowest kinde of soules is that which is in plants and trees called anima vegetatiua a soule which hath life without sense the second kind of soules is that which is in the bruite beast and is called anima sensitiua or the sensitie soule which hath life and sense but is voyde of reason the third kinde of soules which is the highest and noblest is that which is in man called anima rationalis or the reasonable soule which hath not only life and sense but also reason So there is one kinde of soule in the plant another in the buite another in man And as the sensitiue soule of the beast which containeth also life in it which is the soule of the plant is but one soule and differeth in species and kinde from the soule that is said to bee in the plant so the reasonable soule of man containing in it both life and sense the one common with the plant the other common also with the beast is but one soule and differeth in specie or kinde from the two other kinds So it is in the three kindes of faith which St. Augustine differenceth in their distinct species or kindes by three distinct phrases of speech Credere Deum credere Deo credere in Deum Credere Deum To beleeue that God is is the lowest kinde of faith and is in the very Diuels Credere Deo or to beleeue God is the second kinde of faith containing also and implying the former to wit to beleeue that God is for a man cannot beleeue God vnlesse he beleeue that God is and this faith is in wicked and godlesse men But credere in Deum to beleeue in God which is the true sauing and iustifying Faith containing also and implying in it the other two of beleeuing God and beleeuing that God is is the highest kinde of Faith and proper onely to the elect Saints and seruants of God A◠the same Augustine saith Si creditis in eum creditis eum non si creditis eum creditis in eum If ye beleeue in him ye beleeue him not if ye beleeue him ye beleeue in him As therefore the soule of man is not the same in kinde with the soule of the beast and the soule of the plant though each be called anima or soule so sauing faith which is to beleeue in God is not the same in kinde with the faith of Deuils and wicked men And as the soule of the beast though it haue both vegetation which is the soule of the plant and sense also proper to it selfe yet is but one soule and mans reasonable soule although it haue both vegetation and sense ioyned with reason yet is but one intire soule vegetation sense and reason being three distinct faculties of one and the same soule in man So the faith of wicked men although it containe the faith of Deuils yet is but one faith in them and sauing faith in the godly is in kinde but one sauing faith although it containe in it all the kindes of faith which concurring in the Saints of God are so many distinct faculties or properties of one and the same sauing and iustifying faith And as the vegetable soule or life of the plant as it is considered alone in the plant is a distinct kinde from the other soules as of the beast and of man but being considered as it is in the beast ceaseth to be a distinct kinde of soule being now only a faculty or property of the soule of the beast and as the sensitiue soule of the beast is distinct in kinde from other soules as it is the soule of the beast but being considered as it is in man ceaseth to be a distinct kinde of soule being now onely a faculty or property of the reasonable soule of man So credere Deum or credere Deo to beleeue God or that God is are distinct kindes of faith in the Deuils and wicked men distinct also in kinde from credere in Deum to beleeue in God which onely Gods Saints doe but credere Deum and credere Deo concurring with credere in Deum in Gods Saints are not now distinct kindes but faculties and properties of one and the same sauing faith distinct in kinde from that of Deuils and wicked men and proper only to Gods Saints Thus haue we as plainly as we can illustrated by a similitude the three distinct kindes of faith in Deuils in the Damned and in the Saints proued and confirmed by Scriptures and Fathers but mainly against all reason and sense impugned by the Church of Rome a cruell and vniust step-dame to sauing and iustifying faith But say the Pontificians this faith of theirs which at the best is Credere Deo to beleeue God is the onely Catholicke Faith as that Faith whose obiect is the whole Word of God in generall written and vnwritten written verities and vnwritten traditions and that according to the sense and interpretation of the Church of Rome or which is the summe of all the Pope We are not ignorant of the deepnesse of Satan herein But as they cannot abide credere in Deum which they could heartily wish were put out of their Creed as in effect they haue already done so neither can they indure that the promises of God in Christ reuealed in the Gospell should be the speciall and prime obiect of Faith Onely they allow it a roome in the crowd of all other things reuealed in the whole Word of God written and vnwritten c. But it is so crowded into a narrow corner as they haue in a manner quite choaked it for as their Champion and interpreter Soto saith Eadem vniuersorum fides est cuius vna eademque perexigua particula est de promissionibus There is one faith of all which hath one particle that a very small one concerning the promises Alas what a poore diminution is here Particula non pars is not
saying that free-will is altogether lost and extinguished by Adams fall The praise which Vega their Interpreter giues to Richardus learned saying as he cals it of free-will wee also with its proper limitation admit of When thou hearest saith he that free-will is a captiue vnderstand nothing else but that it is weake and depriued of the vertue of its natiue power Being thus weake then how should it dispose it selfe to receiue grace No saith the Councell as also their Schoole-men Free-will being weake it must be stirred vp moued and helped by grace and then it disposeth it selfe freely to receiue the grace of iustification So free-will as the God Baal being asleepe must bee awakened and stirred vp by Gods grace Well but what grace of God is this I pray you that thus moueth mans free-will as the waight that sets the wheele a going Surely I can learne no more from the Councels own mouth who knowes full well how to temper her words but that this mouing grace of God is some sound in the eare whereby Popish faith is conceiued Or else when God toucheth mans heart by the illumination of the Holy Ghost according to that of Gabriel Biel who saith that the will in the acts of it doth presuppose the acts of the vnderstanding and the vnderstanding wee know must be informed by hearing or by speciall illumination But in generall this grace they call the first grace or a grace that is freely giuen differing from the second grace which they call a grace that makes a man gracious and acceptable They say this first grace is freely giuen because no merit goes before it neither is this any sauing grace because as they confesse all men are alike capable of it and many receiue it that neuer come to saluation This is that grace which Arminius cals his sufficient grace But Aquinas saith plainly that this first grace is not the grace of the Holy Ghost for to the grace of the Holy Ghost hee attributeth the merit of Condignity but to that grace whereby the will disposeth it selfe the merit only of Congruitie But this first grace being once receiued and entertained by free-wil cooperating with it a man disposeth prepareth himselfe to merit the second grace by way of Congruity And yet Aquinas speaking of this grace saith Deus non dat gratiam nisi dignis c. God giues not grace but to the worthy yet saith hee not so as being first worthy but because hee by grace makes them worthy O miserable perplexity If God giue grace to none but to the worthy then they were worthy before hee gaue them grace but if they were not worthy before he gaue them grace how doth he giue grace to none but to the worthie But whatsoeuer this first grace is wherby the will is first moued Aquinas tels vs what it is not namely that it is not the grace of the Holy Ghost for the merit that proceedeth of the grace of the Holy Ghost is of Condignity but the merit that proceedeth from free-will moued by the first grace is onely the merit of Congruity farre inferiour to that of Condignitie But that we may not lose our selues in this Maze let Vega and Soto tell vs the Counsels minde in this point as being themselues most prinie to it Onely the worst is wee finde them two of opposite opinions in this point of merit by Congruitie Vega admitteth merit of Congruity after the first grace disposing a man to the grace of iustification But it is pretty to note the vafrous and subtile elusion and euasion that he findeth against the streame of Fathers and especially of St. Augustine in this point For whereas they as himselfe confesseth shut out all kind of merit from iustification teaching that it is freely giuen to all Vega turnes the Cat in the pan and saith Loquuntur de gratia iustificationis c. They speake saith he of the grace of iustification as it comprehends all the gifts of God belonging to our iustification whereof in that proposition a little before hee makes the first grace to be one And so take iustification as it comprehends the first grace in it it excludes all merit because no merit goes before the first grace as the most of them teach but taking the grace of iustification alone by it selfe which is the gratia gratum faciens the grace that makes a man accepted it may bee questioned saith he whether that may not fall vnder the merit at least of Congruitie Whereupon hee inferreth his fourth proposition which is That faith and other good workes whereby wee are disposed vnto the second grace by which wee are formally iustified and made acceptable to God doe by Congruitie merit such grace and our iustification Yea Vega ibid. saith Alia sunt merita ex congruo quae in peccatoribus reperiuntur quae nullo praemiâ— digna sunt quia fiunt ab hominibus Deo ingratis exoâ—is sed tamen eiusmodi ex se sunt vt Congruum sit diuinam bonitatem condeceat ea ex liberalitate benignitate sua acceptare vt trahat peccatores ad suam gratiam Of another sort are those merits of Congruitie found in sinners which are worthy of no reward as being done by men not liked nor beloued of God but yet of themselues they are such that it is Congruous and meete and beseeming the diuine goodnesse out of his liberalitie and bountie to accept them that hee may draw sinners to his grace But Soto on the other side shutteth out all manner of merit of Congruity going before iustification Pergimus pro ingenio nostro constituere c. Wee proceede saith Soto according to our capacitie to define that before iustification which is wrought by that grace that makes a man accepted there is in mans workes no merit either of Condignitie or of Congruitie But a little after hee makes a full amends for it saying Cum autem quis c. When a man begins once to be in the state of grace to wit of iustification then may hee merit both for himselfe by Condignitie and for others by Congruitie Other merit of Congruity going before the grace of iustification Soto confesseth he findes no foundation of any vnlesse that of St. Augustine alleadged by Thomas Fides meretur iustificationem that faith meriteth iustification But Soto would haue this put among St. Augustines retractations whereas by Merit in that place is meant not either any Congruity or Condignity termes vnknowne to the ancient Fathers in any such sense but onely the meanes or instrument to procure or acquire grace And as Soto himselfe a little after acknowledgeth St. Augustines meaning expressed by himselfe by the word Impetrare iustificationem That whereas he saith Faith doth merit iustification his meaning is faith obtaineth iustification sine aliqua ratione meriti without any respect of merit Here let mee insert by the way a worthy annotation
vsum experientiae terminos Disce id habere certiùs id tutiùs sequi quod illa suaserit Noli me tangere nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum nam tangi à fide voluit Touch me not saith Christ that is dis-wont thy selfe with this seducible sense rest on the Word acquaint thy selfe with faith faith that knowes not how to bee deceiued faith that comprehendeth things inuisible doth not feele the want of sense For it transcendeth the bounds euen of humane reason the vse of nature and the limits of experience Learne to account that for more certaine to follow that more safely which faith shall perswade thee of Touch mee not for I am not yet ascended to my Father is as if he had said he would then be touched by faith Besides the sure and viue testimony of faith we haue the attestation of Gods holy Spirit the testimony whereof is no lesse infallible than it is most euident in the heart of euery true beleeuer This holy Spirit assureth all those that beleeue in Christ and belong to him both of their election and perseuerance This Spirit witnesseth to our spirits that wee are the Sonnes of God that 's for our election and adoption and the Apostle addes If sonnes then also heires yea coheires with Christ of his Kingdome that 's for our perseuerance This Spirit sealeth all beleeuers and is the earnest of our inheritance Till when Euen vntill the redemption of the purchased possession vnto the praise of his glory that is vntill the consummation of all our blessednesse in and with Christ. Therefore is the Holy Ghost the seale and earnest euen of our perseuerance vnto glory This Spirit is that Annointing whereof Saint Iohn speaketh The annointing which yee haue receiued of him abideth in you And againe Hereby wee know that hee abideth in vs by the Spirit which he hath giuen vs. And againe Hereby wee know that wee dwell in him and bee in vs because hee hath giuen vs of his Spirit The Pontificians and Vega by name being consciously conuict and pressed with these cleare euidences are faine to flye to most miserable shifts and euasions Forsitan c. saith Vega Perhaps it appeareth more probable that eyther Saint Iohn spake these things of himselfe onely and his fellow-Apostles or else that hee speakes not here of the mansion and habitation of the Spirit in some particular persons but of his generall residence in the Church Yea moreouer saith hee that testimony whereby Paul proueth that the faithfull doe not vnfitly call God Father as wee call him in the Lords Prayer is not any inward testimony whereby the Holy Ghost doth testifie to euerie righteous man that hee is absolutely the Sonne of God by grace but this testimony forsooth is that glorious and most excellent testimony whereby the Holy Ghost by admirable signes and wonders and peculiarly by his visible descending Acts 2. hath openly testified to all the world that they are the Sonnes of God which did receiue the Faith of Christ and his Baptisme But to assay to answer these Pontifician Peraduentures and seeming Probabilities what were it else but to goe about to shape a coate for the Moone Such lunaticke interpretations such miserable tergiuersations such slye euasions such absurd and senselesse shifts such false and profane glosses deserue no other answer than to be hissed and exploded out of euery common Schoole yea whipped also and lashed out of Gods Sanctuary for such their monstrous and shamelesse profanation of the sacred Truth FINIS Bellarmin de Iustif. l. 1. c. 4. Act. 19. Hist. Concil Trid. lib. 2. Concil Trid. Sess. 6. Proem cap. 2. 5. 7. Bern. Serm. ad Clerum Et super Cant. Serm. 33. See Bulla Pii 4 super confirmatione Conc. Trid. super Forma iuramenti professinis fidei a Luke 22. 31. Amb. de fide l. 1. c. 8. Hier. ad Ctesiph de libero arbitr contra Pelag. Ep. 3. Concil Trid. Ses. 6. cap. 5. Ibid. cap. 6. Free-will the mother of Romes preparatory workes Vega lib. 6. de preparatione adultorum ad Iustif. cap. 12. * Per â—am paenitentiam Which I translate Penance according to the vsuall and vulgar language of their Rhemes Testament nor haue they any other repentance but Penance Can. 1. â—â—el â—ist 14. lib. â— quaest 2. Aqu. 12. qu. 114 art 3. c. â— c. Aqu. 12 qu. 1â—4 a. 6. c. quian homo c. The vanity and incongruitie of Popish preparation Concil Trid. Ses. 6. cap. 6. Aqu. 12. quaest â— 14. art 7. c. * This Councell speakes of a former and later grace but names them not Ses. 4. cap. 5. Concil Trin. Ses. 6. Can. 5. a Doctè Richardus de statu inter hom cap. â—2 Cum audis liberum arbitrium esse captiuum nihil aliud intellige quà m infirmum natiuae potestatis virtute priuatum Andr. Vega lib. 15. de vera sicta iustiâ— cap. â— Concil Trin. Ses. 6. cap. 5. Prima gratia seu gratia gratis data secunda gratia seu gratia gratum saciens Romes first and second grace Aqu. 12. qu. 114 art 3. 6. Aqu. 12. qu. 114 art 5. ad 2. Aqu. 12. qu. 114 art 3. c. Vega de meritis ex Congruo iustif cap. 7. Ibid. propos 3. A notable Pontifician shift Ibid propos 4. Fides alia bona opera quil us disponimur ad gratiam gratum facientem qua â—orâ— aliter iustificamur simus accepti Deo meritoria sunt ex Congruo eiusmodi gratiae nostra iustificationis Soto de nat grat lib. 2. cap. 4 de merito ex congruo What the ancient Fathers vnderstood by the word Merit August Aug de tempore ser. 35. * Greg. in Fuang hom 34. * See Histor. Concil Trid. lib. 2. Pontificians can with facility reconcile flat contradictions Si quis dixerit hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam siant absque diâ—ina per Iesum Christum gratia possè iustificari coram Deo Anathema sit Can. 1. Ioh. Sarisbury in Polychron lib. 6 cap. 4. Greg. Past. Curae pars 3. admon 33. Qui morbum suum nescit quomodo medicum quaerit maior enim quò citius quia sit culpa agnoscitur co etiam celeriùs emendatur minor verò dum quasi nulla creditur cò peiùs securiùs in vsu retinetur a Rom. 7. 18. b Gen. 6. c Rom. 7. 13. Seâ— 6. Caâ— 7. Si quis dixerit opera omnia quae ante iustificationem fiunt quacunque ratione facta sunt verè esse peccata vel odium Dei mereri c. Anathema sit a Pelagians Pontificians compared together b Aug. contra Pelagianos lib. 3. in fine tom 7. Aug. contra Iul. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 3. tom 7. Obiection Answer Why Romes doctrine of preparation is hereticall antichristian To receiue Christ is to beleeue in him Vega de meritis ex congruo
of George Cassander vpon the word Mereri or Merit in his second Scholia vpon his Ecclesiasticke hymnes printed at Paris 1616 for in other later impressions haply you shall finde this Scholia is quite purged out by the Index Expurgatorius composed by the commandement of the Catholike King Philip the second and by the aduice also of the Duke of Albany the copy whereof was printed at Strasburgh The words of the Index are these Scholium incipiens Vocabulum merendi apud veteres c. deleatur totum The Scholium of George Cassander beginning thus c. Let it be wholly cancelled But being notwithstanding preserued from this Purgatory fire let vs note it Vocabulum merendi apud veteres Ecclesiasticos Scriptores ferè idem valet quod consequi seu aptum idoneumque fieri ad consequendum Id quodinter caetera vel ex vno Cypriani loco apparet Nam quod Paultu inquit 1. Tim. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod vulgò dicitur Misericordiam consecutus sum vel vt Erasmus veriit Misericordiam adeptus sum id Cyprianus ad Iubaianum legit Misericordiam merui Et multa loca sunt in Ecclesiasticis officijs precibus vbi hoc vocabulum hoc intellectu accipi debeat Quae vocis notio si retineatur multa quae duriùs dici videntur mitiora commodiora apparebunt The word Merit saith Cassander among ancient Ecclesiasticall Writers doth commonly import as much as to attaine or to be made apt and fit to attaine or obtaine That which among others doth appeare out of one place of Cyprian For that which Paul saith 1. Tim. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the vulgar latine rendreth But I obtained mercie or as Erasmus rendreth it I got or receiued mercie The same doth Cyprian to Iubaianus reade I merited mercie And many other places saith hee there are in the Ecclesiasticall offices and prayers where this word Merit ought to bee taken in this sense Which sense of the word if it bee retained many things which seeme to be spoken harshly will appear more gentle and accommodate Thus Cassander But this among sundry other sayings of Cassander being condemned by the Index to bee purged out of his workes doth plainly shew what opinion the Pontificians haue of Merit aduancing it to a sense of a higher straine than the ancient Fathers of the Church were euer acquainted withall Or let the Pontificians themselues interpret vnto vs the meaning of this word Merit vsed by St. Augustine speaking of the sinne of our first Parents Foelix culpa quae tale◠meruit Redemptorem Will they say that Adams sinne merited either by Congruity or by Condignity Christ the Redeemer And againe where hee saith Nemo de sui peccati dimissione desperet quando illi veniam meruerunt qui occiderunt Christum Let none despaire of the pardon of his sinne when as they merited pardon which killed Christ. Will they therefore say that they which murthered Christ merited pardon either Congruously or Condignly Or what meant Gregory firnamed the Great Bishop of Rome when he vsed the word Merit to Sauls persecuting the Church of Christ saying Illi dictum est Quid me persequeris Iste verò audire meruit Dimissum est tibi peccatum tuum To him it was said Why do est thou persecute me But he merited to heare Thy sinne is forgiuen thee What merit was this trow we And the same Gregory speaking of the theefe vpon the Crosse saith Latro cruentis manibus audire meruit c. The theefe with his bloudy hands merited to heare This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise What merit was in his bloudy hands But thus we see the meaning of the word Merit in these purer and ancient times vsed for to obtaine or such like But to returne whence we digressed we see Vega and Soto two grand Captaines in the Trent Councell one directly opposite to the other in the matter of merit of Congruity But the Councell through the dexterity of Sancti Crucij hath so composed the decrees and namely this of preparation as that by profound equiuocations euen flat contradictions are reconciled But the conclusion is that merit of Congruitie is ratified by the Councell in the necessity of preparatorie workes to iustification but inuolued in such generall termes that Soto and his side holding the contrary may not take offence at it but be made to beleeue that the Councell is for them In so much as Soto in his three bookes de Natura Gratia which he writes as a Commentary of this Session of the Councell sets downe all the Decrees and Canons of the same as the ground and text of his Commentary Take one notable instance of their egregious equiuocation in the first Canon of this Session before alleadged If any man shall say that a man may bee iustified before God by his owne workes which are done either by the power of mans nature or by the doctrine of the law without diuine grace by Iesus Christ let him be accursed Note here what variety of senses this Canon is full charged withall Would Vega and his side haue their merit of Congruity decreed Here is a Canon leueld against all those that shall say that a man by his own works may be iustified before God without the grace of God implying that by and with the grace of God assisting a man he may be iustified before God by his owne works done by the power of nature as his free-will or by the doctrine of the law Yea but thus Soto may feare that the Anathema the deadly bullet of this Canon will hit himselfe for denying all merit of Congruity done by the power of nature assisted by grace going before iustification Then let Soto but view ouer the Canon againe hee shall see it turned and leuelled against the Pelagians who taught that a man by his owne workes done by the power of nature may be iustified before God without diuine grace by Iesus Christ. Or against the vnbeleeuing Iewes who thought to be iustified before God by the obseruation of Moses law sauing onely that the Councell hath cautelously and correctedly expressed this vnder the name of the letter of Moses law Chapt. 1. as here vnder the name of the doctrine of the law lest as the History of the Trent-Councell hath well obserued if it had passed as at the first draught in these words per legem Mosis by Moses law then exception might haue beene taken in the behalfe of Circumcision to which some ascribing remission of sinnes this Canon or that Decree might haue been a preiudice to their opinion Thus all parties euen the contrary factions of that Councell were well satisfied while one side conceiued the Decree made expresly for them and the other side that it made not against them The Decrees being not vnlike an artificiall indented picturetable which to him that lookes full vpon it presents one kinde of forme or
of iustitification by faith not of faith disposing or preparing a man to iustification But of this more hereafter In the third place saith he the name of iustification is further vsed to signifie the absoluing of a guiltie person in iudgement and pronouncing of him to bee quit For which he alleageth Prou. 17. 15. and Deut. 25. 1. But this saith he is not much different from the first acception of the word but rather altogether of neere affinity to it Yet this third signification saith Soto is no where in Paul nor in the Scripture where any mention is made of our iustification by Christ. See this crafty shuffler how hee can packe this close to the first kinde of acception of this word iustification as if it were all one with it or neere a-kinne vnto it and yet he can say of this last that it is not to be found in Paul although he could finde the first to be in Paul at least in his owne strained sense But is not the word Iustifie as it is taken in the last sense to wit to absolue or acquit as it were in iudgement vsed by Paul yea and that also where mention is made of our iustification by Christ What meaneth then that which the Apostle saith Rom. 8. 33. 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that iustifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that dyed or rather that is risen againe who is euen at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for vs. Note the Apostle vseth here the termes of a iudiciall triall Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect who shall accuse them who shall bring in euidence against them It is God that iustifieth And if God the Iudge do iustifie who shall condemne Yea but how shall God iustifie a sinner It is Christ that dyed He dyed for our sinnes Rom 4. 25. or rather which is risen againe And He rose againe for our iustification Rom. 4. 25. c. So you see here is iustifying taken for absoluing in iudgement and it is in Paul and that where mention is made of our iustification by Christ. Therefore Soto bewrayes eyther grosse ignorance in denying or egregious malice in dissembling such a cleare truth And no maruell if he cannot or will not finde iustification vsed for absolution iudiciall in Paul or in the Scripture where mention is made of our iustification by Christ. For indeed iustification in this sense is the condemnation and confusion of Popish iustification as we shall see in the due place Vega also another Champion in this Councell he speakes the same language of Babylon and saith there is a twofold iustification as Doctors meaning the Schoole-men say The first and second The first iustification when a man of vniust is made iust The second when of iust a man becomes more iust The first he defineth thus The first iustification is a certaine supernaturall change whereby a man of vniust is made iust The second thus It is a supernaturall change whereby a man of iust is made more iust And these also are either actiue or passiue actiue in regard of God working this iustification first and second in vs and passiue in regard of man himselfe who is changed from bad to good and from good to better But for the actiue iustification as it is wrought by God and so proues derogatory from mans excellency Vega sleights it as rather obscuring than clearing his definitions But as for the third kinde of iustification which is iudiciall to be pronounced and accounted iust before the Tribunall seate of iustice Vega giues it no better entertainment than his brother Soto saying That the Doctors intermit and let passe this kinde of iustification as impertinent to the purpose And so it is indeede very impertinent to their Pontifician purpose and very incommodious as the wicked complaine that the righteous man is not for their profit sith contrary to their waies Wisd. 2. 12. But for other distinctions of iustification Vega is very liberall in summing them vp together as Iustitia Christiana Mosaica politica oeconomica legalis moralis particularis actualis habitualis acquisita insusa inharens imputata externa interna fidei operum practica theologica pharisaica sincera philosophica supernaturalis and so in infinitum But enough of such blundring distinctions So then the iustification of the Church of Rome is properly to make one iust that was vniust and to make one of iust more iust Yet here it will be worth our noting to obserue the legierdemaine of the Councell of Trent and the Pontificians in their distinction of first and second righteousnesse or iustification For the Scriptures speaking of a twofold iustification one by faith another by workes vpon which ground the ancient Fathers also do distinguish a two-fold righteousnesse one in the sight of God the other in the sight of men the Pontificians also that they may seeme to speake the same language they haue their distinction too of a first and second righteousnesse yet so as destroying the nature of the first iustification by faith whereby we stand iust in Gods sight they so qualifie the matter as either they make nothing at all of their first righteousnesse or they doe altogether confound it with their second righteousnesse inherent and so by their distinguishing they make iustification and sanctification all one But the learned Cardinall Contarenus writing a little before the Councell of Trent and was afterwards one of the Councell in his tract of iustification speaking of these two iustifications saith That by the one to wit the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith we are iustified before God by the other which is inherent we are iustified before men But Babylon confounds all together iustification and sanctification In the next place let vs consider how they vnderstand this making iust This iustification saith the Councell consists partly of remission of sinnes partly of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and partly of sanctification and renouation of the inner man and so of inherent righteousnesse Now here lies the knot of the mysterie to be resolued first it were well if the Chuch of Rome did meane truely and sincerely in naming remission of sins and imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the point of iustification Secondly if at the best they did vnderstand them aright yet to ioyne vnto them inherent righteousnesse of our owne will be found no iust dealing But to allow of no iustification at all saue that which is inherent in vs bewrayes deepe deceit and double hypocrisie in once naming remission of sins and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse which they vtterly shut out from hauing any society with inherent righteousnesse in the worke of iustification as a little before we premonished Now concerning the imputation of Christs righteousness what do they understand by it The Councell it selfe tels vs chap 7. where speaking of the
which ioynes the merits of Christ vnto vs and makes them ours after a sort in as much as for his merits sake hee giueth vs righteousnesse whereby wee are righteous Cum enim per iustitiam Christi c. For seeing by the righteousnesse of Christ mankinde hath satisfied for their sinnes and by it is reconciled to God and the gates of Paradise are thereby vnlocked and all that are iustified or satisfie or merit at Gods hand seeing by his merits they are iustified and reconciled to God and satisfie for themselues and merit increase of grace and blessednesse surely it cannot be denied but that to mankinde and all so iustified Christs righteousnesse is or may be imputed to satisfaction and merit So Vega. I neede passe no other censure vpon this Romane-Catholicke doctrine than that of Gregory Deo maledicunt cum se ab illo accepisse vires intelligunt sed tamen de eius muneribus propriam laudem quaerunt They blaspheme God when they acknowledge they haue receiued strength from him and yet from his gifts seeke their owne praise And St. Augustine in his Soliloquies saith sweetly Vnde gloriabitur omnis caro Nunquid de malo Haec non est gloria sed miseria sed nunquid gloriabitur de bono nunquid de alieno Tuum Domine est bonum tua est gloria Qui enim de bono tuo gloriam sibi quaerit non tibi quaerit hic fur est latro similis est diabolo qui voluit furari gloriam tuam Qui enim laudari vult de tuo dono non quaerit in illo gloriam tuam sed suam hic licet propter tuum donum laudatur ab hominibus ◠te tamen vituperatur quia de dono tuo non tuam sed suam gloriam quaesiuit Qui autem ab hominibus laudatur vituperante te non defendetur ab hominibus iudicante te ne◠liberabitur condemnante te Whereof shall all flesh reioyce Of euill This is not glory but misery But shall hee glory of good What of anothers good Thine O Lord is the good thine is the glory For he who of thy good seekes glory to himselfe and not to thee hee is a theefe and a robber and like the deuill who would haue robbed thee of thy glory For he that would be praised for thy gift and doth not therein seeke thy glory but his owne this man though for thy gift hee be praised of men yet hee is dispraised of thee because of thy gift he sought not thine but his owne glory But hee that is praised of men being disallowed of thee shall not be defended of men when hee shall be iudged of thee nor absolued when condemned of thee I haue been the more copious in citing these two authors Vega and Soto because both they were grand-Sticklers in the Councell and vndertooke to write these things as Commentaries vpon this sixt Session of Iustification as we haue sufficiently noted before So that what the Councell hath couched in the Text in fewer words these haue amplified and expressed more at large to the end that no man might mistake the Councels minde and meaning no not in the middest of her mistie and cloudy equiuocations Thus they haue learned to doe with imputation the very name whereof had so startled the Councell for the time as men doe with the Serpent The Serpent with her very aspect at first affrights the beholder but being taken and her teeth pulled out men are then not affraide to carry her in their bosomes So the imputation of Christs righteousnesse was at the first sight terrible to the Church of Rome assembled in the Councell of Trent no lesse than the gastly Owle was to the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Councell of Lateran which appeared to them in steede of their holy Ghost but finding meanes to take Christ the Antitype of that health-giuing brasen Serpent and to pull out his teeth to wit the truth of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse whereby sinne and death are bitten and stung to death lest it should bite and sting all their merits to death they dare now freely and familiarly carry the Serpent in the bosome of their bookes handling imputation at their pleasure without any perill at all to Papall satisfaction Bellarmine hath also learned to play with the word imputation Homo iustificatus non egit imputatione alienae iustitiae qua iniustitia propria inhaerens tegatur A man iustified needeth not the imputation of anothers righteousnesse whereby his owne inherent vnrighteousnesse may be couered And in the tenth Chapter of the same booke Christus nostra iustitia non quòd iusti simus ea iustitia quae est in Christo nobis imputata Christ is our righteousnesse not that we are iust by the righteousnesse which is in Christ imputed vnto vs Sic igitur nobis imputatur iustitia eius quoad satisfactionem quam pro nobis praestitit sed non propterea nos iusti id est mundi immaculati haberi possumus si verè in nobis peccatorum macula sordes inhaereant So therefore is Christs righteousnesse imputed to vs in regard of satisfaction which he performed for vs but for all that we cannot bee holden for iust to wit cleane and immaculate if the spots and staines of sinne by yet truely inherent in vs. So this is the generall voyce of the Councell of Trent and the Church of Rome to allow of no other imputation of Christs righteousnesse but such as by his merits wee haue an infusion of grace whereby we merit and satisfie God in our iustification And so they admit of no other formall cause of iustification but an inherent righteousnesse in themselues and out of Christ. Thus we haue seene what the Romane-Catholike faith is touching Iustification and the formall cause of it CHAP. V. The Catholike Faith concerning iustification and of the terme and forme of Iustification NOw to know the true nature of Iustification it much imports vs to consider in what sense this word Iustification is to be vsed and taken in the iustification of a sinner The Pontificians or Papists would restraine the sense of it to the etymologie of the Latine word Iustificare as much say they as Iustum facere from whence they would conclude their inherencie of selfe-iustification wherein they doe as some Lawyers that by the mistaking or misapplying of a word can ouerthrow the whole right of a mans cause Indeede St. Augustine saith Quid est aliud iustificati quà m iusti facti ab illo scilicet qui iustificat impium vt ex impio fiat iustus Aut certè it a dictum est iustificabuntur ac si diceretur Iusti habebuntur iusti deputabuntur What else is it to be iustified but to be made iust namely of him who iustifieth the vngodly that of impious he may be made righteous Or surely it is so said They shall be iustified as if it were said
They shall bee accounted iust they shall be reputed iust So he Thus we see though St. Augustine following the etymologie of the word take iustificare to iustifie or make iust yet hee meaneth nothing else but the accounting or reputing iust and not the infusing of grace whereby to be made iust And Bernard also saith Adde huc vt credas quod per ipsum tibi peccata donantur Hoc est testimonium quod perhibet in corde nostro Spiritus sanctus dicens Dimissa sunt tibi peccata Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus Gratis iustificari hominem per fidem Adde to this that thou beleeue that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost beareth in our heart saying Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee For so the Apostle concludeth That a man is iustified freely by faith But let vs heare from the holy Ghosts own mouth in the Scriptures he will leade vs into all truth To iustifie in Scripture is vsually taken in a iudiciall sense as beeing properly a iudiciall word iustification beeing opposed to condemnation The Hebrewes haue one word which signifies to iustifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is still applyed to such a iustification as a man stands vpon in a iudiciall tryall As Genesis 44. 16. Mah nits tadhac how shall wee iustifie our selues said Iudah to his brother Ioseph in regard of the cup found in Beniamins sacke which seemed now to be brought to aiudiciall Tryall So 2. Sam. 15. 4. Absolon wisheth hee were Iudge of the Land that hee might doe euery man iustice or iustifie him Reade also for this purpose Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 51. 4. 1 Kings 8. 32. Pro. 17. 15. Esay 5. 23. 43. 26. Matth. 12. 37. 1. Cor. 4. 4. and many other places in Scripture to this purpose doe plainely shew how this word Iustifie is properly taken namely to acquit or cleere to pronounce or declare one iust by the sentence of the Iudge This sense of iustification the Church of Rome cannot endure they smother or at least smooth it ouer by slight of hand as a matter of no moment Whereas indeede there is nothing that will more directly leade vs to the true vnderstanding of the nature of iustification than the consideration of this word taken in a iudiciall sense wherein the holy Ghost doth vse it namely to acquit and absolue a man and pronounce him iust by sentence of iudgement This sheweth that the point of iustification of a sinner is not so light a matter as Papists and profane persons would make it No it is a Case to be tried at the barre of Gods iudgement-seate in whose sight shall no man liuing bee iustified Holy Iob while hee pleaded with his opposite friends hee wanted not matter for his iustification but when once the Lord God summons him out of the whirle-winde before his throne and bids him girde vp his loynes like a man Iob stands not now vpon his vprightnesse but confesseth I am vile what shall I answer thee I will lay my hand vpon my mouth c. Iob 40. 4. and 42. 5. I haue heard of thee by the hearing of the eare but now mine eye seeth thee Wherefore I abhorre my selfe and repent in dust and ashes Yea hee had said before Chap. 9. 15. Whom though I were righteous yet would I not answer but I would make supplication to my Iudge for God is a righteous and seuere iudge and who may stand in his sight when he is angry when hee sits to iudge For the heauens are not cleane in his sight how much more abominable and filthie is man which drinketh iniquitie like water Iob 15. 16. If therefore our iustification be such as must proceede from Gods iudgement seate and must be sentenced by Gods owne mouth it neerely concernes euery Mothers Sonne to bee well aduised vpon what ground we stand what euidence wee can bring to cleare ourselues to satisfie our vnpartiall Consciences to stop the mouth of the accusing Diuell and to abide the fierietriall of that Iudge who is euen a consuming fire and will condemne euen the least sinne to the pit of hell But that wee may not mistake the true acception of iustification we are to consider iustification in a two-fold relation or respect either as it hath relation to God or to man before whom also we are said to be iustified but in a different yea opposite respect whereof we shall haue occasion to speake hereafter Here wee speake of Iustification in the first relation Now this iustification of a sinner in the sight of God whereof wee speake proceedeth from a iudiciall tryall In this sense it is vsed by the holy Ghost Rom. 8. 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect It is God that iustifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe c. This iustification the Lord Iesus doth oppose to condemnation Iohn 5. 24. where speaking of iudgement vers 22. he inferreth Verily Verily I say vnto you Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth on him that sent me hath euerlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death vnto life And like as Iesus Christ was condemned by a iudiciall proceeding Pilate giuing sentence though according to such euidence as was most vntrue in it selfe so all those for whom Christ was thus iudicially condemned shall be iudicially iustified and acquitted But this wil appear more clearly in setting down the formall cause of our iustification To speake to the capacity of the simple By formall cause is meant that which giues a being to iustification as forma dat esse the forme of a thing giues being vnto it That therefore which makes a man perfectly iust is called the formall cause of his iustification Now the Pontificians would hence conclude That inherent qualities must be the formall cause of iustification alledging the authority of Philosophers who say That the formall cause is the thing or quality which is in the subiect as the soule of man is in the body And therefore they exclude the righteousnesse of Christ whereby he is formally iust from being the formall cause of our iustification because say they Christs righteousnesse is in himselfe not in vs. But no maruaile if these Pontificians doe wrest the Maximes of Philosophers from their natiue sense when they dare so familiarly force the Scriptures themselues The Philosophers speake of a physicall formality but the holy Scriptures speake of the iustification of a sinner in the sight of God the forme whereof is relatiue and not physically inherent in vs. But be it so that the formall cause must alwayes be in the subiect to which it giues a being the formall cause then of iustification must be inherent Wherein must it bee inherent In vs No but in iustification which is the subiect of this inherent formall cause For if inherent grace bee the formall cause of iustification then
and his Church by one and the same name and such a name as implyeth the imputation of his righteousnesse vnto vs For Ier. 23. 6. Christ the righteous branch and the iust King by whom Iudah shall bee saued and Israel shall dwell safely to wit the whole Israel of God as Rom. 11. 26. elect Iewes and Gentiles this is his name whereby hee shall be called The Lord our righteousnesse And â—er 33. 16. speaking of the saluation of the same Iudah and Ierusalem he saith And this is the name wherewith she shall be called The Lord our righteousnesse O what a glorious name is this for vs to be called The LORD Our Righteousnesse What tongues of men or Angels can with greater eloquence expresse that sweete communion that is betweene Christ and his Church wherein the Church and euery beleeuer is so inuested in the righteousnesse of Christ as to be called the Lord our righteousnesse Indeede the vulgar latine hath much dimmed and diminished the life of those places in Ieremy translating in stead of Dominus iustitia nostra Dominus iustus noster as much to say as our righteous Lord yet the interlineary Glosse vpon it saith Qui factus est nobis sapientia à Deo iustitia who is made vnto vs of God wisedome and righteousnesse the same in effect that Christ is the Lord our righteousnesse Thus are wee Iudah saued by the Lord our righteousnesse and by grace are wee saued through faith Ephes. 2. 30. The new Testament makes vp the testimony of the Law and Prophets fully 1. Cor. 1. 30. Of him are yee in Christ Iesus who of God is made vnto vs wisedome and righteousnesse and sanctification and redemption Thus Christ is wholly ours by imputation This the same Apostle doth excellently demonstrate and conclude 2. Cor. 5. 21. where hauing spoken of our reconciliation with God by Iesus Christ which reconciliation standeth in the not imputing of our sinnes vnto vs vers 19. he addes the reason vers 21. For he hath made him to be sin for vs who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Now how are we made the righteousnesse of God in Christ by any inherent righteousnesse in vs although deriued from the merit of Christs righteousnesse imputed in the Popish sense Surely wee are no otherwise made the righteousnesse of God in Christ than as Christ was made sinne for vs. How is that Was Christ made sinne for vs by hauing our sinnes inherent in him or infused into him God forbid for hee knew no sinne But if sinne had been inherent in him or infused into him hee had knowne sinne yet hee was made sinne for vs that is by the imputation of our sinne Note here also Christ is not said here simply to be sinne for vs but to bee Made sinne for vs and that wee simply are not but are made the righteousnesse of God in him implying a passiuenesse in both both of Christ made sinne and of vs made righteousnesse made that is not of or in our selues but extrinsically from without from another As therefore our sinne being imputed to Christ made him become sinne for vs euen so are we made the righteousnesse of God in him that is by the imputation of his righteousnesse which righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs is no more inherent in vs to our iustification than our sinne imputed to Christ was inherent in him to his condemnation Whereupon St. Augustine saith Ipse peccatum vt nos iustitia nec nostra sed Dei sumus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum He was made sin that we might be made righteousnesse not our owne righteousnesse but the righteousnesse of God nor in vs but in him euen as he wa made sin not his owne but ours not in himselfe but in vs. And Bernard excellently to this purpose Homo qui debuit homo qui soluit Nam si vnus pro omnibus mortuus est ergo omnes mortui sunt vt videlicet satisfactio vnius omnibus imputetur sicut omnium peccata vnus ille portauit It was man that owed the debt and man that paid it For if one dyed for all therefore are all dead that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all as hee alone bore the sine of all We are then made the righteousness of God in Christ as Christ was made sinne for vs. But Christ was made sinne for vs by the imputation of our sinnes vnto him not by infusion of them into him Therefore we are iustified or made the righteousnesse of God in Christ by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs not by inherency or infusion of righteousnesse into vs. This is such an vnmoueable Rocke of truth as the gates of Hell can neuer preuaile against it Here all Popish arguments are put to silence no Romish sophistrie or schoole-subtilty can inuent any probability or seeming-reason to oppose this cleer and inuincible truth But perhaps they wil find some glosse vpon this scripture that shal make another sense of it Indeed they want not their glosses But mala glossa quae corrumpit Textum It is an ill glosse that corrupts the Text. Indeede the ordinary glosse vpon these words Hee was made sinne for vs vnderstands by sinne eyther the sacrifice of sinne according to the Hebrew phrase in the old Testament as Hos. 4. 8. or else the similitude of sinnefull flesh as Rom. 8. 3. So the glosse is vncertaine it pitcheth vpon no one sense But the Scripture hath one prime and proper sense Now that the Apostle should not simply meane by sin the sacrifice of sinne as being an obscure Hebrew phrase is more than probable because he writes this Epistle not to the Hebrewes to whom writing his Epistle is full of Legall types and termes a language which they well vnderstood but to the Romanes who were not acquainted with the Law-terms But the maine reason why the Apostle cannot meane here by sinne barely the sacrifice of sinne is in regard of the Antithesis or relatiue opposition here betweene sinne and righteousnesse For sinne and righteousnesse stand here as termes opposite one to the other looke therefore how righteousnesse is here vnderstood namely properly as opposite to sinne So sinne is to bee vnderstood properly as opposite to righteousnesse Christ then was so made sinne for vs as we are made the righteousnesse of God in him and wee are so made the righteousnesse of God in him as hee was made sinne for vs. Againe Christ who knew no sinne was made sinne for vs So are we made the righteousnesse of God in him euen wee who knew no righteousnesse that is who had no righteousnesse of our owne but as the Apostle elegantly saith were while in the state of sinne free from righteousnesse Christ therfore was so made sinne for vs as that he was reputed yea and
we our selues had suffered But yet let vs see a little further into the language of the Fathers concerning this point Onely by the way seeing Vega cannot finde the word Imputation once mentioned among the ancient Fathers let him looke but St. Augustines Epist. 106. to Bonifacius or as some copies haue it to Paulinus and there hee shall finde these words Cur meritis praeueniri gratia perhibetur quae gratia non esset si secundum meritum imputaretur Why is grace said to be preuented by merits which should not be grace if it were imputed according to merit Yea how often doth Augustine mention the Apostles words where he saith Fides imputaretur ad iustitiam Faith is imputed vnto righteousnesse But let vs contend not so much for the word as for the thing it selfe which wee shall finde the Fathers to abound in St. Ambrose writing vpon the 39. Psalme saith Totus ex persona Christi iste Psalmus est Iustitiam meam dicit licet non arroganter homo dicere possit Iustitiam suam qui Deo credit fidem suam sibi reputarâ— ad iustitiam confitetur This whole Psalme is of the person of Christ therefore hee saith My righteousnesse though also a man that beleeues in God and confesseth that his faith is reputed to him for righteousnesse may without arrogancy say his righteousnesse Now although Ambrose say speaking of Christ Iustitiam meam in stead of Iustitiam tuam as it is in the originall and also in the vulgar Latine he following some other copy yet hereby wee may see his vnderstanding in the mysterie of Christ namely how Christs righteousnesse comes to bee our righteousnesse our faith being imputed to vs for righteousnesse as the Scripture saith Sauing that Ambrose vseth the word Reputing for Imputing differing very little in the sound but nothing at all in the sense The same Ambrose writing vpon the Epistle to the Galatians where hee opposeth the righteousnesse of the Law and that of Christ one against the other vpon these words for if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen life verily righteousnesse had beene by the Law saith Iustitiam hanc dicit quae apud Deum imputatur iustitia id est fidei quia lex habuit iustitiam sed ad praesens quia non iustificaret apud Deum remittere enim peccata non potuit vt de peccatoribus faceret iustos he saith that righteousnesse which of God is imputed to wit the righteousnesse of faith sith the Law also had a kinde of righteousnesse but temporary that could not iustifie with God for it could not forgiue sinnes and so of sinners make men to bee iust So that here is another ancient Father vsing the very word Imputation And a little after vpon these words As many as haue beene baptized into Iesus Christ haue put on Christ saith Hoc dicit quia credentes dum immutantur Christum induunt quando hoc appellantur quod credunt This he saith because beleeuers while they are changed doe put on Christ when they are called that which they beleeue So that by St. Ambrose his doctrine our iustification is by imputation of grace by faith in the putting on of Christ. And St. Austine besides the former alledged place where he defineth iustification to be a making of one iust by accounting him so or by deputing reckoning him iust saith in Psa. 32. Nolo vos interrogare de iustitia vestra sortassis autem nemo vestrum audeat mihi respondere iustus sum sed interrogo vos de fide vestra Sicut nemo vestrum audet dicere Iustus sum sic nemo non audet dicere Fidelis sum Nondum quaero quid viuas sed quaero quid credas responsuruses credere te in Christum Non audisti Apostolum Iustus ex fide viuit fides tua iustitia tua I will not aske you of your righteousnesse for haply none of you dare answer me I am righteous but I aske you of your faith As none of you dare say I am iust so you dare not but say I am a beleeuer I demand not yet how thou liuest but how thou beleeuest thou wilt answer me thou beleeuest in Christ. Hast thou not heard the Apostle The iust shall liue by faith Thy faith is thy righteousnesse And vpon the 30. Psalme the same Father doth further cleare his minde touching imputatiue righteousnesse vpon these words of the Psalme Rid mee and deliuer mee in thy righteousnesse Nam si attendas ad iustitiam meam damnas me In tua iustitia â—rue me est enim iustitia Dei quae nostra fit cum donatur nobis Ideo autem Dei iustitia dicitur ne homo se putet à seipso habere iustitiam For if thou lookest vpon my righteousnesse thou condemnest mee In thy righteousnesse deliuer me for it is the righteousnesse of God which is made also ours when it is giuen vnto vs. And therefore is it called Gods righteousnesse lest man should thinke that he hath righteousnesse of himselfe Now what righteousnesse doth this holy man meane here The righteousnesse of God made ours by infusion of grace into vs So I know the Pontificians would be ready to interpret this place But let St. Augustine be his owne interpreter who addeth in the very next words Sic enim dicit Apostolus Paulus Credenti in eum qui iustificat impium So saith the Apostle Paul To him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly Quid est Qui iustificat impium Qui ex impio facit iustum deputatur sides eius ad iustitiam What is that Which iustifieth the vngodly Who of vngodly and wicked makes iust his faith is deputed for righteousnesse Yea this holy man is so farre from ascribing the least part of iustification to any inherent righteousnesse in vs as that he excludes euen faith it selfe as it is a worke from being any meritorious cause of our iustification For elsewhere speaking of Gods election and vocation of grace and not of workes alledging the examples of lacob and Esau the one loued the other hated euen in the wombe before either of them had done good or euill c. that the election of God might stand not of workes c. Si autem verum est quod non ex operibus inde hoc probat quia de nondum natis nondumque aliquid operatis dictum est vnde nec ex side quae in nondum natis similiter nondum erat And if it be true that it is not of works and from thence he proues it because it was said of them before they were borne and before they had done any thing whereupon neither was it in respect of faith which likewise as a worke was not as yet in them being yet vnborne And againe Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius ne fides ipsa superba sit Nec dicat sibi quis si ex fide quomodo gratis quod enim fides meretur cur