the first beast or Heathen Rome and I know not wherein one can be like the other more then in erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image-worship and in persecuting the gainsayers that will not receive the mark or worship the beast So that this Author and those of his communion may be concerned in this prophesie more then they are aware of I am sure they can have no advantage from hence for their image-worship I will but adde this one thing had this image-worship been used in Irenaeus his dayes and thought tending to Christs honour then would those Hereticks he speaks of who held our Saviour not to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament that made the world and gave the Law have had a fair plea for how should they think him his Son if allowing and taking it for honour what was so cautioned against and abominated by God in the old Testament and for which the Jews still do abominate Christian Religion viz. the use of images in religious worship It is a great piece of cunning in the Dragon or Devil to induce men to believe that this service of images and creatures so strictly forbidden by Moses Law is authorized by the Gospel allowed by Christ CHAP. IV. Of Justification by Works HAving set down the Trent decree against Justification by works before grace Merit of congruity and against the merit of them he challenges the 13. Article of our Church for charging the School-Authors with the merit of congruity in such works which he denies any of them to have held and is something passionate against the composers of the Articles pa. 138. and 139. But what need such anger here Seeing the Article determines the same truth as to this doctrine that the Trent decree doth it might have so far pacified him as to allow that parenthesis in the Article as the School-Authors say such a candid interpretation as it is capable of for it may refer to their expressing of the doctrine by that phrase of their invention deserve grace of congruity not to their holding of that doctrine for thus the words stand in the Article neither do they works done before grace make men meet to receive grace or as the School-Authors say deserve grace of congruity do but for say put in express or phrase it and you have that sense plainly But suppose the Article had directly said the School-Authors held that doctrine will Mr. Spencer hazard his credit and call it a great untruth and say none can be produced that held it It seems He is acquainted only with Thomists for though their Angelical Doctor did not approve it yet their Seraphical Bonaventure does not account it such an honour no more does Scotus and they were not without their followers Yea since the Council of Trent the two * Trigosius and Fr. Longus à Coriolano Commentators or Epitomizers of Bonaventure acknowledge it may be defended and do answer the objections from the Trent Decrees And as they say it may be defended and do defend it so I think to defend it is as little or less to Gods dishonour then their merit of condignity in works after grace which besides its own untruth is attended in that Church by more corruptions both of Error and Practice then the other is possibly capable of Of the seven Particulars which he draws out of the Trent Definitions pa. State of the question 142 143. he should have told us which he opposes to Protestant doctrine for not any one of them can be framed into a just Controversie Only he tells us that in the last chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works pa. 143. See then what that last particular is and mark what this great noise they make of Justification by works comes to His last particular or collection out of the Trent decrees stands thus Being freely justified we may do good works and by them accepted through Christs merits become more and more just in the sight of God To fix it upon the second Justification is to yeild the Gause Wherein chiefly consists the Roman doctrine of Justification by works He might have added wherein we yeild up the cause to the Protestants for this is the second Justification as they call it and he knows unless he will grosly mistake that when we say justified by faith and not by works we mean their first Justification which indeed and properly is Justification and from which they themselves exclude works as the words above also do imply Being Justified we may do good works they follow Justification As for that which they make the second justification and is thus described by the Council of Trent Being therefore thus justified and made the friends of God there 's the first or true and proper justification going on from virtue to virtue they are renewed from day to day and using those armes of justice to sanctification you have Mr. Spencers words by the observance of the Commandments of God and the Church their faith co-operating with their good works they increase in the justice they have received and are justified more and more as it is written he who is just let him be justified still Revel 22. Now if this be their second Justification and they intend no more by it then is here expressed in the Trent decree viz. renovation day by day and yeilding up our members as weapons of righteousness to sanctification and increase in righteousness We have no cause to quarrel at the thing but only that they will call that Justification which indeed is Sanctification But if under this their Justification they intend also a meriting of remission by good works or a redeeming of sins done after grace by the merit of good works which neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer mentions but their earnest contending for Justification by works and some arguments their writers use for it too plainly shews they are concerned in it I say if they intend so and would speak it we would think our selves more concerned in the cause Now as Mr. Spencer thought good to premise seven collections he made out of their Council the better as he conceived to shew wherein the Roman doctrine of Justification by works did consist so I shall take leave before I come to examine his confused labour and impertinencies in the defence of that pretended doctrine to set down some particulars the better to shew wherein the true Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith doth consist I. Albeit good works do not justify but follow Justification Preparatory works to justification yet are there many works or workings of the soul required in and to justification what the Council of Trent saith Can. 9. pronouncing Anathema to him that shall say a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he mean there is nothing else required which may co-operate to the obtaining of the grace of Justification nor that it is necessary he be prepared
justified and in grace were concerned to acknowledge If God would be extreme to mark what is done amiss who could abide it or stand Psal 130. and to pray Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal 143.2 that is if thou in strict judgment wilt examine what he does The latter part of the verse is sometimes thus repeated by the Apostle No flesh can be justified Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2. v. 16. which word flesh Mr. Spencer vainly takes hold on as implying one not yet spiritual but carnal under the guilt of sin and corruption of nature So pa. 158. But David speaks it in relation to himself No man can be justified not thy servant by his own doings So that still upon the same reason no man under the Gospel can be justified in the sight of God by what he does because the Law convinces him of sin and to the same purpose it is said We make God a Liar if we say we have not sin 1 Io. 1.10 So that if God enter with him into judgment he cannot be justified if the Lord mark what is done amiss he cannot abide it What he saith to Gal. 2.16 as to the works of the Law is the same he said above to Rom. 3.28 and needs no farther reply But that which is the main exception and will ease us of farther trouble in this controversie is his limiting of the word Justify in those and the other places of S. Paul's Epistles acknowledging they speak every where of the first justification which is not by works So then the Protestant position as he calls it of justification by faith only stands good as they intend it by faith only i. e. not by works and this also shews their exception against the word only is needless and therefore the mistake he fastens on us pa. 148. groundless the word only being but exclusive to works which he and his Council exclude from the first justification Now for his Second Justification to which he retires from the force of all that S. Paul saith of justification Sanctification and increase of grace and righteousness it is not worth our contending about as to proper speech which controversies require for we acknowledge all that he or his Council speaks of this second justification to be done in sanctification and to be properly so called viz. the renovation and increase of that grace and sanctification received and that such increase is made by works or acting Philosophy teaches it is so in ordinary habits much more in these which have also the influence and assistance of Gods spirit for their increase But if he would have said any thing to purpose whereby this Increase of righteousness by works should seem to deserve to bear any sense of justification he should have resolved us as I noted above whether a man in grace may by good works merit the remission of his sin into which he is fall'n as David and as he granted pa. 142. that the first justification could not be merited by works so he should have told us plainly whether remission and restauration of a justified person after his fall which may be called in some sort a second justification can by any works of that person be merited They sometimes pretend to this when they urge Daniels saying to Nebuchadnezzar Redeem break off thy sins by righteousness c. 4.27 Where let the Translation go as they would have it by the word redeem yet must they confess this remission of sins to Nebuchadnezzar would have been the first justification and not to be acquired by works in like manner they must acknowledge their impertinency when by Luc. 7.47 for she loved much they endeavour to prove that her love was the cause of her forgiveness when this was her first justification But thus do they confound their first and second justification in their proofs of justification by works and being pressed by argument they retire for answer to their second Justification That which they cite out of Revel 22. justificetur adhuc let him be justified still is all the pretence they have for this second justification where we accord with them that by the justificetur is meant a progress and increase of righteousness but it s their mistake to make this which is sanctification to be justification which stands in remission of sins That part of the Trent decree which pretends to this justification by the increase of righteousness Exhibendo arma justitiae in Sanclificationem cap. 10 de justific saith by yeilding up our members weapons of righteousness unto sanctification and thereby confesseth it is sanctification rather then justification And therefore it is to little purpose that he saith pa. 154. If Protestants would conclude any thing against us they must produce a Text which saith good works of such as are justified already done by virtue of the grace of Christ do not justify that is augment and increase that righteousness already received and make us more just for we must tell them this is sanctification and no text of Scripture uses the word justify in that sense unless that place of Revel c. 22. be so translated and we need not fear it should be seeing the word there is to signify no more then a continuance in the state of justification or an increase of righteousness which we grant to good works yea we grant them more the increase of the favour of God if they will put that also into their second justification for the more good works a justified person doth the more he is accepted of God But such a person if he fall into sin as David did must come unto remission of sins Justification by Faith by the same way as he did in his first justification viz. by faith and repentance And albeit repentance has its works or workings and charity also in the first justification or remission of sins as Iona 3. ult God saw their works i. e. of repentance in turning from their evil way and our Saviour saw the works of repentance and love in Mary Magdalen Luc. 7. yet it is faith that properly justifies because they are required according to their measure as conditions present but it is faith from whose apprehensions the acts of repentance and charity do arise and take their advance its faith which has a proper efficacy in laying hold upon and bringing in its hand as it were the meritorious cause for justification and so that only and properly on our part said to justifie To conclude that other mistake which he would fasten on us Justifying Faith in regard of the word faith pa. 153. is needless we must understand saith he a faith vivificated informed animated by charity and other Christian virtues joyned with it The impropriety I may say absurdity of his speech in saying faith is informed and vivificated by charity and other vertues we noted * Nu. 6. above where he said it was vivificated
honours him whose Image it is he that contemns the Emperours Statue seems to do him injury c. Thus the Cardinal and no more thinking every one would imagine the application of this concerned the Images of Christ and the Saints that the honour or contempt done to the Image would redound to the Prototype but the words before and after plainly shew that the Fathers intent there is to apply it not to material but living Images poor men especially to whom if any do wrong God takes it as done to himself as if do good to them Christ takes it as done to himself as Mat. 25.40 and to stir them up to charity Quot inter Imagines Christi ambulamus Ambr. ibid. how many Images of Christ saith he do we daily walk among and so have opportunity of doing good But it is usual with the Romanists where ever they meet with this Instance of honour redounding to Emperors or Kings when done to their Statues or with that General saying the honour done to the Image redounds to the Prototype they lay hold on it as an argument for Image-worship This they learn from their Nicone Council which after the Seventh Age laid the foundation of this Image-worship There besides many misapplications of Scripture and Fathers this is one And Athanasius Basil and Chrysost ancient and learned Fathers pretended who did indeed in proving the Son to be worshiped with the Father because he was his express Image use that Instance of honour done to the Emperors Image and that General saying of honour done to the Image redounding to the Prototype as most plainly appears in St. Basil Bas de Spiritu Sanct. cap. 18. Now what boldness is this to transfer to the worship of material Images that which the Fathers spake of Christ the Image of the Father because to the illustrating of it they took instance from the Civil worship One place more I must take notice of which the Cardinal alledges and truly out of St. Bel. l. 2. de Imag. c. 12. Prostrata ante Crucem quasi pendentem Dominum cerneret adorabat Hierom concerning Paula That lying prostrate before the Cross as if she had seen the Lord hanging there she adored We must consider Paula is here visiting those very places at Jerusalem where our Saviour suffered and was buried and if she was more then ordinarily affected and made such outward expressions of it as St. Hierom relates of her it is not much to be marvelled at Ingressa sepulchrum osculabatur ore Lambebat Hieronym in vita Paulae Going into the Sepulchre she kissed the stone which the Angel had removed and licked the place where our Saviours body laid So before the Cross she lay prostrate adoring the Lord that hung upon it This may be done without giving the Cross it self any Worship as above noted in the like place out of St. Gregory If Paula transported in affection did exceed she is not therein an example to us St. Hierom doth not say she gave worship to the Cross or that it was her practise thus in her devotions to lie prostrate before the sign but only tels us how she was affected in those very places I will conclude with the dangerous inconveniences of this Image-worship Complaints of the inconveniences of this Romish practise which even their own Authors complain of Images at first brought in for better remembrance of the History and to teach ignorant people what they could not read after once they began to be worshiped became ill Teachers of those rude Scholars who could not well distinguish what and how they worshiped Polydore speaking of it complains thus To such a madness is it come Many of the Ruder and ignorant sort Polyd de Invent. Rerum l. 6. c. 13. Eò insaniae de ventum est Permulti rudiores stultitiâ stultitiam cumulantes Illi qui talem proventum metunt so worship that they trust in them more then in Christ or the Saints represented by them And adding folly to folly they offer gold and silver unto the Images And that they may be the better enticed to do it They that reap the profit by it the cunning Priests hang up some of those Gifts and offerings to be seen * Cassand in Artic. 21. Cassander gives us many other complaints made by Gerson and Gabriel Biel of the poor simple people led on hereby to superstitious if not Idololatrical misconceits and practises But enough of this SECT IV. Of Justification BY that which was said above Chap. IV. Romanists make a confused work of this doctrine It may in some measure appear what a confused work the Romanists make of this doctrine of Justification and with what difference from St. Pauls meaning and from his way of handling it For first to settle the Justification of a Sinner upon inhaerent righteousness they confound Justification and Sanctification Decret c. 7. Non est sola remissio peccaâ—orum sed etiam Sanctificatio The Trent Decree saith It is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification Justification indeed and Sanctification go together yet are they to be distinguished as very different Acts and communications of divine grace the Apostle distinguished them expresly saying * 1 Cor. 6.11 1 Cor. 1.30 but ye are sanctified but ye are justified and who is made unto us Righteousness and Sanctification Secondly Remission delotion of sin They deny not that Remission of Sin is Justification but confound that Remission which according to Scripture and Fathers stands in the forgiveness of the offence and punishment with the actual deletion or expunging of the stain and corruption of sin that is in us which is another thing from Remission and forgiveness And when Scripture expresseth Remission by blotting out or deletion as Isa 43.25 Psal 51.9 it is the blotting our sins out of Gods Book of remembrance not out of the tables of our heart It is as much as God will remember them no more no more impute or lay them to our charge As for the blotting or purging the stain and corruption of Sin out of the Soul though it be not done by Remission but by another act of grace yet we grant it is done with Remission in the justifying of a sinner and inhaerent Righteousness by which that stain of sin is done out and the dominion of sin broken is wrought in the Soul together with the righteousness of Justification Thirdly The first and second Justification Having made a distinction of their Justification into First and Second That by inhaerent habitual Righteousness This by actual or continuance in well-doing they usually confound their first second Justification in the proving or commending their doctrine of Justification by Works And when they are put to it in plain terms to speak what they mean by Justification by works they restrain it to that which they call the second Justification in the explaining whereof the Council of
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual
and disposed by the motion of his will It implies that which I said and that such preparatory works are not excluded by every meaning of Justification by faith alone for it condemns him that saith a wicked man to be justified by faith alone so that he means there is none of these required II. These works or workings of the soul are preparatory and dispositive to Justification for there are many acts and motions of the will that go before desire fear love sorrow purposes which may be call'd Initials upon the ministry of the word the threatnings and the promises as before child-bearing many throws so in the travail of the soul for the second birth Faith it self rises by degrees of persuasions for there are divers acts and persuasions of faith till it come to that last act that believing with the whole heart immediately requisite to Justification Now faith in all those preparatory motions has the preeminence for it gives beginning to them for by the persuasions that faith has of those threats and promises in the Gospel Preeminence of faith in them and of all the truths of Christs performances and merits arise desires and fears sorrow love the motions of the heart or will and these Initials advance and gather strength according to the advance that faith has in its apprehensions and perswasions for this the Trent Council acknowledges Faith to be the beginning of mans salvation the foundation and root of Justification Chap. 8. this is well said in regard of faith's preeminence and efficacy in the preparatory works had they but given to it its due in the act of Justification that singular efficacy and property it has above all other graces in the apprehending and receiving of the meritorious cause of our Justification Christ and his righteousness Now let not any think these preparatory acts or workings to be without grace preventing as if a man did of himself and by the proper motion of his own will dispose himself to justification the Trent Council condemns such doctrine Can. 3. III. There are other acts and works also besides faith Conditions and qualifications in Justification which according to their measure are required in Justification as conditions of receiving remission of sins so repentance and the act of charity in forgiving others But Faith here also has the preeminence no other act or work of the soul having the capacity or efficacy to apprehend the meritorious cause and so notwithstanding that other workings of the soul as those of Repentance and Charity according to their measure be required as conditions of receiving the benefit Preeminence of faith which is remission of sins or as qualifications of the subject that receives it yet not as Instrument of receiving and apprehending the meritorious cause of justification and remission as faith is for which justification is specially ascribed to Faith IIII. As for that infused inherent Righteousness Inherent Righteousness which the Church of Rome laies so much upon in the point of our Justification seeing it is the Work of God as they acknowledge it is no proof of their doctrine of justification by works and they might forbear to make it the formal cause of our justification when we acknowledge the presence of it in and with justification as a necessary qualification of the person Justified A needless dispute it is what should be the formal cause of our Justification seeing the meritorious cause is acknowledged on both sides But if they will talk of a Formal cause it can be no other then Christs righteousness as imputed Formal Cause and by faith apprehended and made ours for that phrase of the Apostle he is made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 and we made the righteousness of God in him sounds something to a formal cause not inherent but by way of imputation and account not that God imputes his righteousness as if we had done it but that for his righteousness performed for us he not only forgives sin to them that apprehend it duly by faith but accounts of them receives them as righteous Therefore instead of asking after the formal cause in us more proper it is to enquire according to the Apostles expression Ro. 4.13 it was counted to him for righteousnes v. 23. it shall be imputed to us what is that which is imputed to us for righteousness i. e. upon which being performed on our part God receives accounts of us as righteous We finde by the Apostle it is our believing for it was so with Abraham He believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness not the Tò Credere the very act of believing but more concretely considered with that which it apprehends the receiving of what is offered in the promise Christ and his righteousness V. Lastly as for those that are commonly call'd good works which being done in the state of grace are more perfect then the former such as were preparatory and dispositive to justification or according to their measure required in Justification as Conditional to the remission of sins given in it Those good works I say are the only works concerned in their doctrine of Justification by works yet is not the first justification by these works for they follow it Our Adversaries when put to it do grant it and draw the whole dispute as we see by this Author to that which they call the second Justification of which if they will make no more then as I hinted above their Council makes of it we might here sit down having the cause yeilded up to us but that they think themselves concerned to propound the doctrine in gross to the people Justified by works and in their disputes for it to confound the first and second Justification using places of Scripture which treat of the first or true and proper Justification as we shall see in examining of them This Author begins with S. James 2.24 which he brings as a confirmation of the Romish Position that Faith only does not Justify where it is our turn now to observe his mistakes Should we therefore demand what justification is this that S. James treats of first or second he must confess his impertinency for the Apostle here treats of the first the true and proper Justification and that both he and his Trent Council acknowledge most free and not by works now this Author acknowledges it is the same Justification which S. James and S. Paul treats of and its evident by S. James citing the same Scripture for his Justification v. 23. whic S. Paul does Rom. 4.3 Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousness But it is plain that S. Paul every where treats of the first and proper Justification The other example also that S. James makes use of viz. of Rahab plainly speaks the first Justification And therefore this Author spending his whole discourse against that distinction of being Justified before God and before men to prove that S. James speaks
with the doctrine of Inherent Righteousness and what they bring from Scripture or Fathers to make it seem Catholick Inherent Righteousness they distinguish into Habitual which is by infusion of Grace and Actual which is acquired by Works and here they are not agreed * Bel. l. 2. de Justif c. 15. An sit Habitualis an Actualis an utraque De hac re disputant Catholici Doctores Sed conveniunt in eo omnes ut sit in nobis ver a justitia inhaerens non autem Christi justitia imputata whether a sinner be made formally righteous by the Habitual or by the Actual righteousness or by both together for the Cardinal acknowledges their Doctors dispute it but saith he all agree that it is a true inhaerent righteousness by which we are made righteous formally not the imputed righteousness of Christ How their Catholick Doctors agree in this we shall examine presently But first see how the Cardinal declares He professeth in the same place that his judgement is for the * Solam habitualem esse per quam justi formaliter sâ—mus ibid. Habitual as infused and answers the places of Scripture which are alledged by those that plead for the Actual also where we may note that the places of Scripture here alledged for the Actual righteousness against the solam habitualem the habitual only are the very same which they usually bring for works against solam fidem Faith only and the Answers which the Cardinal returns to them may serve us to exclude works from the true Justification The places and answers briefly are these Rom. Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 16. 2.13 The doers of the Law shall be Justified The Cardinal answers out of S. Aug. They shal be adjudged or declared just in the Divine Judgment St. James c. 2.24 By works a man is justified The Cardinal answers out of the Council of Trent which interprets that place of the second justification in as much as by good and just works the increase of habitual justice is merited Lastly 1 Jo. 3.7 He that doth righteousness is righteous The Card. answers the Apostle doth not speak what makes a man formally just but that whereby a man may be known to be just By this it appears how the Cardinal removes the Actual righteousness of Works from that which they hold to be the first and true and proper Justification much more are they removable from the formality of that which we hold the true and proper Justification according to the doctrine of St. Paul Now let us examine whether they all agree Concessions of Romanists about Imputation as the Cardinal boasted upon the inhaerent righteousness against the imputed First see what Vasquez and Bellarmine two great Defenders of inhaerent Righteousness and the perfection of it are forced to grant about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Vega had said as Vasquez notes and corrects him for it Divine providence ordered it so Vasq in 1.2 Disput 222. cap. 1. that the Fathers used not the word of Imputation lest they should seem to give occasion to the Hereticks of these daies for their Error of false Imputation He was not afraid it seems of the Apostles giving them occasion and warrant for the Doctrine of Imputation But Vasquez acknowledges the Fathers did use that word and other words aequivalent as Communication and Application And he grants Concedimus imputari nobis Merita obedientiam Christi acsi revera essent nostra ibid. that the merits and obedience of Christ are imputed to us as if indeed they were ours and he giveth a good Reason Because the merits of Christ are the Merits of our Head This is fair and enough for our purpose if he did not pull back what he had given out and restrain what he had freely and truly granted Therefore he subjoyns Dissentimus ab Haereticis in eo ad quod merita Christi existimamus nobis imputari Dicimus imputari ratione Effectus quo pacto loquitur Concil Trid. etiam ad aliquem effectum imputari ibid. VVe differ from the Hereticks in that to which or for which the Merits of Christ are imputed How is that VVe say they are imputed saith he by reason of the Effect as the Council of Trent speaks also that they are imputed as to some effect Now if we ask to what effect He tels us in the two next chapters They are imputed unto Justification and unto life eternal This is very true But how unto Justification In regard of the dispositions and in regard of the Form of Justification in as much as by or through the Merits of Christ grace pravenient and adjuvant is given to dispose us to Justification and Inhaerent Righteousness given formally to justifie us Thus he explains himself in the second chapter and as for remission of sins by the satisfaction of Christ imputed no mention of that We must look for it in that purgation of sin which he supposes to be made by Infused Righteousness for they usually consound Remission and Deletion or purgation of sin as above noted nu 1. The Cardinal in his Concessions speaks a little clearer for Remission of our sins by the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ imputed reserving himself still for his inhaerent Righteousness and having nothing to keep him off from the protestant Doctrine which allows the being and necessity of Inhaerent righteousness but only the nicety of a Term Formaliter For * Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 7. Si solâ—m vellent imputari nobis Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo patri offerre pro peccaâ—is nostris quoniâ—m Christus suscrpit onus satisfaciendi pro nobis recta esset corum sententia speaking of Protestants If they would saith he have only Christs merits imputed to us because they are given to us and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins because he undertook the burden of satissying for us their doctrine were right and sound But so to have Christs righteousness imputed to us as if by it we were formally just is repugnant to right reason Well we say the first which he cannot but approve we do not say the other for that formally just or justified is their expression not ours Again Although by inhaerent Righteousness saith he Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Etiamsi per justitiam inhaer tamen per eam non saâ—isfacimus Deo pro peccatis poena aeterna Non absurdum c. we are truly denominated and made righteous yet do we not by that satisfie God for our sins and eternal punishment therefore it is not absurd to say Christs merits and righteousness is imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied so that it be not denied there is besides an inhaerent righteousness in us we do not deny there is but affirm they ascribe too much unto it and may observe how careful the Cardinal is for this
inhaerent Righteousness but as for the imputed a Non absurdum will serve that It is no absurdity to grant it There is one place more where the Cardinal admits the Imputation of Christs Righteousness and that the similitude of a garment used by the Protestants may agree to it in as much as Christs satisfaction for our sins is applied to us Bel. de Justif lib. 2. c. 11. Nobis donatùr applicatur nostra reputatur and reputed ours This is fair but then he adds in behalf of the formality of his inhaerent Righteousness That one man should satisfie for another is reasonable not that one should be formally just because another is so True a man cannot be therefore formally just that is inhaerently just or as by an inhaerent qualification but why may he not be therefore that is for Christs satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted of God as just and righteous in the notion of Justification that is one to whose charge nothing can be laid one reconciled restored to favour accepted to life eternal And as Bel. said Christs satisfaction is reputed ours he means really so why may not we thereupon be also reputed really just and righteous as to the notion or importance of Justification and if by that satisfaction and righteousness of our Saviour imputed we are acquitted in our Justification from our sins and eternal death as the Cardinal granted and so doth their Trent Council why should not a sinner so acquitted be also accepted to eternal life purchased for us by that satisfaction and righteousness imputed accepted I say to eternal life as to the first Right This may be inferred also from the words of that Council when it tels us as we had it * Num. 2. above what Justification is A translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the Sons of God through Jesus Christ Which though no good definition yet implies there is in Justification a remission of sins and the condemnation due to them under which all men lye while they are in the state of the Sons of Adam Again it implies such persons acquitted of their sins are received into favour as sons by Adoption and that gives Right in the same moment to the heavenly inheritance Lastly that all this through Jesus Christ which implies the satisfaction and merits of Christ applyed imputed Now albeit Inherent Righteousness be given Other purposes of inhaerent Righteousness then that we should be justified by it in Justifying of a sinner as often said before yet it is not given for the formalizing of Justification it self properly taken but as consequential to it for qualifying the subject answerably to that which is received in Justification For there is Remission of sin as to the offence and condemnation therefore grace also put into the Soul for doing away by degrees the stain and corruption and for breaking the dominion of Sin There is also Adoption and receiving the person as a son of God therefore Grace infused for the New-birth and as a Principle of New life and obedience There is acceptation and Right to eternal life or heavenly inheritance therefore grace and inherent Righteousness given for the fitting and preparing of the Person to the pursuit obtaining and enjoying of it We see other purposes of Inhaerent Righteousness given us then that we should be Justified by it Furthermore that the accepting of us as righteous in our Justification follows immediately and is intrinsecally joyned with Remission of sins is plain by the Apostle Ro. 4.6 7 8. telling us who are those blessed ones to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness even Those to whom he will not impute sin And the similitude of a Garment or of Jacobs wearing his elder brothers cloathes to get the blessing and the birth-right which the Cardinal granted appliable to the imputation of Christs righteousness to us does imply more then remission of sins Even the accepting of their Persons and receiving of them as Sons unto the blessing Also that the Imputation of Christs righteousness should not be confined as the Romanists would have it or delight to express it to the bare importance of satisfaction they might think it reasonable by that which they yield to the satisfactions of Saints appliable and imputable to others For when we urge against that Treasure of their Church and the applying of it that common judgment of the School Meritum non excedit Personam Merit exceeds not the Person Christ only excepted They distinguish and consider the good works and sufferings of the Saints as Satisfactory and as Meritorious and say as they are Meritorious they exceed not the Person but as Satisfactory they are imputable appliable to others Which albeit said without ground or warrant might keep them from restraining thus the imputation of Christs righteousness to the point of satisfaction and allow it to be not only as satisfactory in the Justification of a Sinner but as Meritorious also to all effects and purposes for compleating the act of Justification in the accepting of the Person as Righteous to whom it is imputed or applied We have seen what concessions are made of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness by those that are most for the inhaerent I mean the Jesuites and how they lay too much upon the inhaerent righteousness in the point of Justification when the Imputed would bear it better Now see what Vasquez who has handled this doctrine of Inhaerent Righteousness most copiously and diligently acknowledgeth touching their dissenting Authors Romish writers dissenting in the point of Justification by Inhaerent Righteousness to the great prejudice of this their supposed Catholick Doctrine First * Vasq in Thom. 1.2 disput 205. c. 1. he acknowledges of Durand and other Schoolmen that they held We are pleasing and accepted of God before he infuseth Grace or inhaerent Righteousness And that this gift of inhaerent Grace or habitual righteousness does not necessarily arise from that acceptation of God but from the will of God appointing that every one who is to be brought to eternal life should have it This is that which we say that albeit inherent grace or habitual righteousness doth accompany and follow immediately upon Divine Acceptation yet it does not necessarily accompany or arise from it as to justification but for other purposes as noted above one whereof and the main one is here mentioned viz. the bringing preparing fitting us to eternal life and is there approved by Vasquez himself But for the former part of their Sentence that pronounces us pleasing unto God and accepted of him unto Justification by the imputation of Christs righteousness antecedently to infusion of habitual righteousness * Non parum favere Haereticis nostri tempori Vasquez disp 205. c. 2. He saith it doth not a little favour the Hereticks of our daies And in another place speaking of the Imputation of Christs righteousness and merits which the Protestants assert in Justification he
saith Vasq in 1.2 Tho. disp 222. c. 2. Hoc genus imputationis seu applicationis fateri debent quotquot ex Catholicis asserunt Justitiam Similiter illi qui censent qualitatem nobis inhaerentem Non purgare nos a peccatis nisi accedente nova voluntate favore Dei condonantis peccata This kinde of Imputation or application of Christs Merits all those Catholicks must acknowledge that say inhaerent righteousness renders us acceptable to God not by its own nature and worth but through the acceptation and favour of God In like manner all those must acknowledge it that hold the quality which is in us to be true righteousness and sanctity yet in its own nature not able to purge us from our sins without the superadding of a new will and favour of God in pardoning sin Of these he saith Will they nill they Velint nolint coguntur concedere novum imputationem meritorum Christi ad remittenda condonanda peccata ibid. they are compelled to grant a new imputation of the Merits of Christ for the remitting pardoning of Sin Why the Jesuits allow the imputation or Application of Christs Merits to this effect The Brief of the Jesuites Doctrine of Justification that inhaerent grace or righteousness may be given us and then the whole work of Justification is done by it by it we are rendred acceptable to God by it our sins done away or purged out which with them is the Remission of Justification without a new imputation of Christs merits This is the brief of the Jesuites doctrine of Justification But note we out of Vasquez his acknowledgment newly recited Imperfection of Inherent Righteousness There are two sorts of their Catholicks that do admit inhaerent righteousness in some order to Justification one in regard of rendring us acceptable to God but not of it self but through the favour of God and imputation of Christs Merits The other sort in regard of doing away sin which it cannot do throughly but still needs the imputation of Christs Merits for pardon Both these acknowledge the Imperfection of Inhaerent Righteousness and upon that the necessity of Christs righteousness imputed Against both these Vasquez * Vasq in 1.2 disp 214. c. 3.5 disputeth as against Adversaries to their Inhaerent Righteousness And to these all those Schoolmen whom Vasquez complains of to have conspired in this opinion Vasq in 1.2 disp 204. c. 1. In quam sententiam non pauci Scholastici conspirarunt Nihil nobis inesse sive habitum sive operationem quod suapte natura possit Justificare animam eam à peccatis purgare That there is nothing in us either habit or operation i. e. either habitual or actual righteousness which of it self in its own nature can justifie the soul and purge it from sin but unto this it necessarily needs the favour of God accepting it viz. that righteousness which is in us and pardoning or remitting the sin To those Schoolmen he adjoyns Victoria and Canus as agreeing with them Also in the next chap. Vasquez begins thus I cannot but wonder at those ancient Schoolemen Non pâ—ssum non mirari Antiquos Scholast quod tam abjectè de inharente justitia senseâ—int ut veram ei that thought so abjectly of inhaerent righteousness as to fear to ascribe unto it the true reason of righteousness But I much more wonder at our modern Divines that after the Definition of the Council of Trent Multò magis recentiores Theologos quòd post Concilii Trid. defin tà m exilem justitiam inhaerentem Justis concesserint they should grant so weak and imperfect an inhaerent righteousness to just persons or to the Justifying of them Veram rationem justitiae inhaerentis de medio tollunt quam Patres Tridentini pro viribus astruere Vasq disp 204. c. 2. Both of these saith he do take away the true reason and effect of inhaerent righteousness that is as to justification by it which the Fathers of the Council of Trent did so much strive to assert and defend And yet more home in the next chapt Otherwise saith he I do not see Alioquin non video quomodo declinare possimus corum sententiam qui negant justitia inhaerente tanquam forma fieri justificationem nostram Vasq ibid. c. 3. how we can decline their Tenet that deny our Justification to be made by inhaerent righteousness as by the Form of it that is unless we assert the contrary to that which the forementioned Schoolmen and Divines asserted So that Bellarmine was out when he said as above noted All their Doctors agreed upon the inhaerent righteousness against the imputed Certainly he knew the contrary but Vasquez was more ingenuous in acknowledging it Unto all the former Witnesses we must add what Pighius and Contarenus say as to this question between the inhaerent and imputed righteousness The acknowledgment of some late Romish Writers Pighius out of the saying of St. Paul Act. 13.38 39. concludes that Justification stands in Remission of sins through Faith Therefore saith he to be justified Pigh controversia secunda Hoc ergo est justificari peccata nobis misericorditer remitti à Deo in Christo is this to have our sins mercifully remitted of God in Christ Again from 2 Cor. 5.18 19. he concludes In illo igitur justificamur non in nobis non nostrâ justitiâ sed illius justitia quae nobis imputatur Non nostra sed Dei justitia in Christo ibid. In him therefore we are justified before God not in our selves not by our own righteousness but by his which is imputed to us and from 2 Cor. 5. v. 22. We made the righteousness of God in him Pighius concludes We are made the righteousness of God in Christ Exclusively to all righteousness in our selves Also out of Rom. 5. v. 18 19. In Christi autem obedientia quòd nostra collocatur Justitia inde est quod nobis illi incorporatis aâ—st nostra esset accepta ea fertur ità ut eâ ipsâ etiam nos justi habeamur ibid. By the righteousness of one by the obedience of one are many made righteous he gathers Thence it is that our righteousness stands in Christs obedience because for us being incorporated into him his obedience is accepted as if it were ours so that by it we also may be accounted righteous and then adds the example of Jacob clothed with his elder brothers raiment to obtain the blessing Contarenus in his Tract of Justification gives us first his distinction of Righteousness Contar. de Justific Justitiam inhaerentem Et non inhaer Sed donatam nobis cum Christo Christi inquam justitiam omne ejus meritum One saith he is inhaerent in us the other not inhaerent in us but given us with Christ the righteousness of Christ and all his merit and afterward he cals it the Imputed righteousness Ad
first Adam that is that there is a new righteousness also put in us in our Justification which we every where acknowledge and is that which Theoph. said above Justificans Sanctificat when he Justifies he Sanctifies Two other places he brings to prove the inhaerent to be our true righteousness which we grant in its order and measure but not to the excluding of the imputed from its due order and place The * Bell. l. 2. c. 8. Cardinal tels us that St. Aug. in his Book of Nature and Grace ch 38. teaches that charity infused into our hearts is our true righteousness This is the Cardinals Collection he does not give us the very words of that Father we must therefore know that Book was written against the Pelagians against whom it was his usual work to assert the true grace of God given us and that all the good we have or do is from God and that all the righteousness which is in us though true yet imperfect and this is the very purpose of that place He shews there that Abel and many others in Scripture were just yet were not without sin and Justi fuerunt sine peccato non fuerunt qua una verè justus est quicunque justus est adhuc erat quo posset deberet augeri quicquidâ—minus erat ex vitio erat Aug. de na gra c. 38. if in Abel the just there was the Love of God by which only every one is just that is just that is without which there is no true inhaerent or actual righteousness yet was it such as might and ought to be increased and whatsoever was less then it ought was to be reckoned as of vice or faulty It is plain he did not mean the righteousness of Justification or that those just men were justified by that righteousness he there speaks of which will farther appear by the next place out of St. Aug. Aug. de Civ Dei l. 19. c. 27. Hic itaque in uno quoque Justitia est siobedienti Deus homini c. Book Of the City of God the Cardinal draws this Testimony Here therefore it is righteousness in every one that God should rule over man obeying him the minde over the body and reason over vice In this definition saith the * Bel. ubi suprá Cardinal the imputed righteousness of Christ hath no place but only inhaerent righteousness Definition of what he could not say of Justification for that Father speaks not of it in that place and so the Cardinal is impertinent But put the Case that any were to give a Definition of Justification should the imputed righteousness of Christ have no place in it This is that they strive for and think they allow it enough if they grant that by the merit of Christs satisfaction and righteousness we have grace righteousness given us by which we are justified and have our sins purged out which with them is Remission and our persons made acceptable we noted this * Nu. 4. ex Vasque above and this is that which keeps the Gap from closing which might be reasonably made up if they would give the Righteousness of Christ its due for our Justification as we are ready to give inhaerent grace and righteousness its due both for the Connexion it hath with our Justification and for the necessity of it to our sanctification But to return there is enough in that chap. to shew how little this serveth to the Cardinals purpose The whole place speaks of Actual righteousness and that is not for his purpose and the two first words Here therefore shews the dependence of this upon what went before and thereby the imperfection of our righteousness here in this life and that also is not to the Cardinals purpose That which went before runs thus Our righteousness though it be true Aug. de Civ Dei l. 19. c. 27. Nostra justitia quamvis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur tanta tamen est in hac vita ut potiùs peccatorum remissione consteâ— quam perfectione virtutum Testis est oratio totius Civitatis Dei per omnia membra sua clamat ad Deum Dimitte nobis as to the end of that true good to which it refers or tends yet is it such in this life that it rather stands in the remission of sins then in the perfection of vertues which shews the imperfeon as I said of any righteousness in us as needing continually in this life the mercy of God for pardon and therefore unable to Justifie As witness and proof of this St. Aug. adds the prayer of the whole City of God so journing upon earth witnesseth this for she cries in all her members unto God Lord forgive us our Debts and gives a reason from this mortal condition and corruptible body * quod aggravat animam non perfecte ratio vitiis imperat ideo necessaria est justis talis oratio which presseth down the soul so that Reason does not perfectly rule over vice therefore is such prayer necessary for just persons The Cardinal replies to the first part that mans righteousness consists in both that is in the forgiveness of sins and the perfection of virtues which is true of the Righteousness St. Aug. speaks of viz. the actual righteousness of man in this life for such is the righteousness of just or justified men of whom the Father speaks here but they had another kinde of righteousness by which they are first justified Sic orare justos ac per hoc indigere indulgentia ventalium delictorum Bel. ubi suprá To the latter part he replies That just persons pray so as St. Aug. said they do and by this shew they need indulgence of their venial sins But if only need remission of such which may so easily be satisfied for and done away St. Aug. had not said potius in remissione rather in the remission of sins experience also tels us that just men commit greater sins and need indulgence or remission of them too and see how heedlesly contrary the Cardinal is to himself in so few lines He had said Mans righteousness stands in both these Remission of Sins and Perfection of Virtue and meant it of the righteousness of Justification in which he will grant the Remission of all sins and of eternal death due to them Here presently he restrains Remission to the indulgence of Venial sins I will but add two other places cited out of the same Father rendring the word Justifie The word Justifie sometimes improperly taken by the Fathers by making just or righteous as when he saith Who has made righteousness in man but he that justifieth the ungodly that is of an ungodly man by his grace makes a just and righteous man Aug. in Ps Ps 118. conc 26. qui justificat impium i. e. per gratiam suam ex Impio facit Justum and to the like purpose he speaks upon
Ps 96. By such expressions St. Aug. truly speaks the inhaerent righteousness given us of God and when he cals this Justifying a sinner he uses the word Justifie according to the Latin origination and importance of it for thereby a man is made truly righteous by that grace received righteous I say for its measure and proportion not to exclude Justification by an imputed righteousness through faith which is the primer and more proper meaning of the word Iustifie If therefore we finde St. August acknowledge another Righteousness and Iustification differing from that which he seems to ascribe to Inhaerent Righteousness then have we our intent and purpose and the Cardinal is impertinent in his allegations out of St. Aug. as also in those other which he pretends from other Fathers which we may let passe as speaking but the being of Inhaerent righteousness not proving justification by it Ambr. in Hexam l. 6. c. 8. Justitia unde justificatio derivata est in any proper sense as for example St. Ambrose who is one of those Fathers cited by the Card. speaks of it according to the Grammatical origination of the word Justice saith he from whence Instification is derived Now for St. Aug. his allowing of the imputed righteousness and our Justification by it Aug. Enchir. cap. 41. Ipse ergo peecatum ut nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum See his Enchirid where he thus explains that of the Apost 2 Cor. 5. ult He therefore was made sin that we might be righteousness and that not ours but of God and not in our selves but in him even as he was Sin not his own but ours and not in himself but in us This admits none of their exceptions as that we are made righteous in him because we have our righteousness by his Merit and the righteousness of God because we have it of his gift and by the infusion of his Grace This is all they can say and this though true of our inhaerent righteousness yet comes not home to the purpose of St Augustine who saith plainly As our Sauiour was made Sin not in himself but in us and manifestly acknowledges we are so also made righteousness in him that is righteousness is imputed to us See also how this is asserted by the Greek Fathers Chrys on that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He doth not say he hath made us wise and just and holy but he is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification which is as if he had said He hath given himself unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And upon that of 2 Cor. 5. ult Made him sin for us the same Father thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner And here also he observes as above The Apostle did not say we are made righteous but righteousness and that of God for it is the righteousness of God when it is not of Works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that we are justified by the Grace of God and he gives this as a reason of the need we have of such a righteousness because there must be found no blot or stain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he observes the Apostle said not made him a sinner but sin for he named not the habit as if sin had been inhaerent in him but the bare quality as in the Abstract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum Which shewes that when he said righteousness rather then righteous there is a righteousness made ours beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inhaerent quality With Chrysostom agree Oecumenius and Theophylact upon the places cited So St. Cyril Glaphyr 5. cap. ult Cyril sets out our Saviour under the name of Iosedeck which signifies the righteousness of God because we are justified in him through the mercy of God and unto this he applies that of Ierem. 23.6 The Lord our Righteousness Oecumenius upon Psal Oecum in Phil 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3.9 not having my own righteousness but the righteousness which is of God by faith gives us a distinction of Righteousness not properly or properly taken That is our Righteousness or the righteousness of Works This is the Righteousness which is by Grace and the faith of Christ And needful it is in this Question and the Testimonies of Fathers concerned in it to hold to the Justification properly taken To this imputed righteousness belongs that of the ancient Father Iustin Martyr Justin ad Diogen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What thing else can cover our sins but his righteousness and that which he adds to be justified in him only Which is a stronger expression then to be justifiedby him and then he cries out O sweet and happy exchange wherein that because as the Apostle He made sin for us we righteousness in him or as Iustin subjoyns because one mans righteousness justifies many unrighteous men To this also belongs what Chrysost hath who with reference to Isa 43.26 that thou mayst be justified Chrys homil 3. de poenitenti◠Eximens poenae donat justitiam facit enim peccatorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expresseth himself as to this point Freeing us from punishment he gives righteousness for he makes a sinner to be alike or in the like condition to him that had not sinned which must needs be by not imputing sin and imputing righteousness upon his faith and repentance This imputing of Righteousness to him that believes will also appear by the Fathers using the expression of sola fide by faith only There is scarce any Father but so expresses himself I promised at the beginning to speak something of Faith only and of Works Of Sola Fides in this point of Justification as to that which Antiquity yields unto them in the business of our Justification What this Faith is which justifies was sufficiently debated * Chap. IV. nu 3 4 9. above and also why and in what respect Faith alone is said to justifie The expression is exclusive yet did not as appeared above in the fourth chapter exclude the praeparatory workings of the soul dispositive to Justification did not exclude Repentance and charity but admitted them as conditions to Remission did not exclude inhaerent Righteousness but only from being the formal cause of Justification properly taken else it was admitted as a Concomitant and necessary qualification of the subject or person justified Lastly it did not so exclude good works as if justifying faith could be without them but did infer them as necessary consequents engaging the soul to do them and till so it is not a believing to justification and unless it continue so doing that is still to engage the Soul to well doing or good works the state of
Faith its due which apprehends that righteousness and be content that inhaerent Righteousness should hold its due place there would be little cause of Controversie in this great point of Christian Doctrine I will conclude with the Cardinals answer to a saying of holy Bernard upon the Canticles * Bern. in Cantic Christus nobis justitia in dulgentia Dei nostra justitia Christ is our righteousness because he justifies us from our sins and the Indulgence of God is our righteousness By Indulgence and Remission saith the * Cardinal he understands full and compleat Justification Bel. de Iustif l. 2. c. 13. Nomine Indulgentiae Remissionis intelligit plenam Iustificationem quoniam ut saepè diximus nunquam remittitur culâ—a quin simul because as we have often said the sin is never remitted but righteousness is together with it insused And so say we But the righteousnes which Bernard cals Indulgence is not the Infused but the righteousness of Justification for where sin is not imputed there righteousness is imputed as * Nu. 4. above shewen out of Rom. 4.6 7. and this is indeed Divine Indulgence But still we acknowledge that continuance in the state of Justification is by good Works or continuance in wel-doing SECT V. Of Merit of good works IT was observed above Chap. V. nu 1. that the Council of Trent had desined Explication of the Question and the Reason of Merit properly taken Good works do truly merit eternal life but did not tell us plainly wherein the Reason of Merit truly so called doth stand only it gives us certain acknowledgements of Gods bounty promise and grace which are so far from being the grounds of Merit as Mr. Spencer there cals them that they do by necessary consequence overthrow it The Question therefore being about Merit truly so called it will be first necessary to see into that for the clearing of it will plainly shew the impertinency of what they alledge out of Scripture or Fathers for their works truly Meritorious We spoke something to this purpose in the V. Chap. as Mr. Spencer gave occasion We may further observe that They who hold up the Controversie for the moderate sort in the Church of Rome do let it fall use three Adverbials which speak the meaning of that Vere merentur or truly meritorious and they are simplicitèr propriè ex condigno simply properly and condignly meritorious as we see in their * Bel. 5. de Iustif c. 16. Vasq in 1.2 Tho. disp 213. c. 4. two great Champions for Merit The word Simply is alwaies exclusive of that which is so or so according to some respect only Now the respect here considerable and to be inquired into has regard to Gods promise bounty and acceptation whereby good works say we obtain so great a reward The Asserters of Merit will not say that their simply meritorious does exclude the Promise or all respect unto it but lay the Promise as a ground-work of their merit The word Merit sounds two things The better to understand this mystery we must consider that the word to merit sounds two things obtaining and deserving the first stands by the promise but the second which carries the reason of merit stands by the worth of the work The Cardinal and his fellowes must say that if God had not made the promise and of his gracious bounty appointed such a reward the best service of man could not have obtained it or brought him to eternal life but they will also say that such service would by the worth of the work and labour have deserved the reward See to this purpose what the Cardinal putting the queston of works condignly meritorious delivereth Bell. l. 5. de Justif c 17. Meritoria ex condigno ratione Pacti tantùm vel operis tantùm vel ratione utrâ—usque This may saith he be three waies varied or considered that works be called condignly meritorious In regard of the Covenant or promise only or in regard of the work only or in regard of both Opus multò inferius mercede promissâ In the first he supposeth the work or service far inferiour to the reward promised as if a hundred Crowns should be promised for one daies labour in the Vineyard Opus revera aequale mercedi Opus verè par mercedi In the second he supposeth the work equal to the reward but no covenant or promise intervening In the third he supposeth the work truly equal to the reward set out in the Covenant or promise and the example of this he makes the penny given to the Labourers in the vineyard Mat. 20. And this third way he declares for that Good Works are condignly meritorious in regard of both the promise and the work it self Whereas it is plain that the promise makes but way for the Consecution or obtaining of the reward and is requisite to make works meritorious only according to the first and less proper importance of the word meriting for obtaining but as for deserving of the reward wherein the reason of Merit properly stands that is laid upon the worth of the work which is supposed as we see to be truly equal to the Reward promised Vasquez usually more free and open then the Cardinal plainly professeth and mamtains †Vasquez in Tho. 1.2 disp 214. c. 5. that good works without any promise or divine acceptation are condignly meritorious of eternal life and have of themselves a value or worth equal to it For he saw that the pretence of the Covenant or promise or divine acceptation was no ground but a prejudice to the reason of Merit truly so called and therefore a little after sets himself to prove Vesq c. 8. nullo msdâ— pertinere ad rationem meriti that the Covenant or promise does not at all belong to the reason of Merit and makes this his argument for the condign meriting of Good Works Sin saith he deserves a punishment equal to it without all Covenant or Commination therefore also the works of the Just do condignly merit the eternal Crown of glory Vasq ibid. cap. 10. absque ullo pacto vel comminatione without all Covenant or promise * siqui dem hoâ— praetrâ—â— aequale est for this reward is equal to the worth of the work without the promise But this is thwarted by the Bull of Pius V. and Greg. XIII two Popes condemning certain Propositions of which this is one Vasq ibid. cap. 13. â— Even as the evil of sin in its own nature deserves eternal death so a good work of its own nature deserves or merits eternal life What else did Vasquez say but he strives to clear himself by pretending this difference between his Assertion and the condemned Proposition that the Author of those Propositions held good works without Grace were so meritorious which Vasquez does not Now whether Jesuites little regard what their Popes define in their Bulls being
by good works which was somewhat more absurd for charity receives life from faith arising and advancing according to the apprehensions that faith has of the goodness and mercy of God and his several manifestations of it and therefore S. Paul saith it worketh by charity Gal. and note that all his proof for this informing or vivificating of saith by charity is S. Iames his saying that Abrahams faith was made perfect by works wherein as I noted * Ibid. above appear both the falshood of his interpretation and the impertinency of his argument for works belong to his second justification but that informing of faith by charity is supposed to be done in the first A working faith it is that S. Iames requires and so do we to justification a believing with the whole heart as Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.37 a faith that engages the whole heart in receiving Christ not only for the benefits of his merits and participation of his righteousness but also for obedience to his command and performance of every Christian duty Such was Abrahams faith or believing to which his justification is ascribed the acts of it were pure acts of faith though virtually including works because a readiness to do works of every kinde or obey any of Gods commands Lastly Albeit such a faith justifies as gaining at present remission of sins past and giving a right to the heavenly inheritance yet no man shall gain finall justification and absolution if he continue not in doing good works i. e. if his faith continue not to work as Abrahams did And this is that S. Iames intended by propounding Abrahams example for works not denying his justification by faith but urging it was such a faith or believing that continued working by fuitable obedience to every command of God CHAP. V. Of the Merit of good works THe Council of Trent has defined The notion and reason of merit that good works do verè mereri truly merit increase of grace and eternal life but neither the Council nor Mr. Spencer tells us wherein the reason of merit stands that we might know what it is they contend for when they speak of a work truly meritorious Many fair acknowledgements their Council makes as of the free grace mercy promise of God merits of Christ Sess 6. c. 16. which Mr. Spencer calls the grounds of merits pa. 162. But if they stand to this we have the cause yeilded to us and nothing left but a verbal controversy for those former particulars are so far from being grounds of our meriting truly and properly that they directly overthrow it One would have thought that the verè mereri our truly meriting should imply all the conditions requisite to merit truly and properly taken and that the doctrine of condignity or merit upon worth of the work which the men of Mr. Spencers society generally contend for should be the sense of the Councils definition but that Council was wiser then to speak too plain in this point in which there is so great difference amongst them and therefore may seem to content both parties the one with this verè mereri◠truly merit and the other dissenting party with the former acknowledgments of free grace mercy promise Christs merits as grounds of merit And Mr. Spencer may remember of what society he is and how most of his Fellows speak out and say The righteous merit eternal life by their good works even as the wicked do eternal death by their evil works this is plain and home to a verè mereri truly meriting however he minces it at the beginning with professions of free grace divine acceptation and promise as pa. 164 165. Well notwithstanding all the fair proressions they make when put to it such indeed as overthrow merit truly taken yet will they hold the name and thing of mans meriting eternal life and so propound it grosly to the people They know best how it concerns them By reason of such general concessions of their Council Goodworks acceptable to God he will have some words in our 22. Article to favour merit of good works because it saith they are pleasing and acceptable unto God in Christ From whence he infers 1. Then are they no way sinfull but truly and absolutely good and just for no sin can be pleasing to God in Christ pa. 167. But this is too carlessly spoken for if absolutely good say we then had there been no need to have added in Christ such works would been pleasing and acceptable of themselves We say also good works are truly good and just but not absolutely so they are not sins but something sinfull may stick to them in the performance some imperfections and defects some mixture of by-respects and glances at self-interest yet because they are good both for substance and for manner of performance as to the chief respects and motives upon which they are done they are truly good though not absolutely for which the Article saith they cannot endure the severity of Gods judgment Not that God accepts those sinfull imperfections or accrescencies as he would infer upon us but pardoning and over-looking them in Christ he accepts the good works And what else is the cause that they acknowledge it so hard for a man to know he has merits upon which * Tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia reponere De justific l. 5. c. 7. Bellar. concludes it most safe to put our whole confidence in Gods mercy only what but defects and imperfections which are less perceptible when the works themselves are notorious enough 2. He infers seeing such good works have the promises annexed to them and shall be rewarded in Christ they are truly meritorious in Christ having such a supernatural goodness in them The conformity of good works to the Reward conformable to that heavenly reward and this is all which is taught by the Church of Rome in this point So he pa. 168. This is the most he speaks to the reason of merit or why works are meritorious viz. Reward and Conformity but the first Reward upon the free promise as he affirms it to be takes away more from the reason of merit then the latter which is Conformity can adde unto it for that conformity if our works or sufferings be weighed or examined with the weight of glory falls short by infinite degrees 2 Cor. 4.17 Rom. 8.17 A conformity we grant between good works and the reward as between grace and glory the way or means and the end but it must be equality in worth and value that makes merit And that Conformity or Equality were it to be had is but one of the things requisite to make truly meritorious there are other conditions as that the service be of our own not his enabling us of whom we are said to merit also that the service be not of antecedent duty to the Compact also that the reward be though by compact yet not out of
Messiah and indeed that place of Isa 9.6 where the Messiah is called Pater futuri seculi the father of the Age or world to come to whom a generation shall be accounted Ps 22.30 does accord thereunto Now it was an opinion among the Jewes as they that are acquainted with their Rabbins do tel us that some sins should then be forgiven which could not before and accordingly it was an usual expression by saying such a sin shall not be forgiven no not in the world to come to shew the Atrocity and flagitiousness of such a sin which the grace that the Messiah should bring would not take away and so our Saviour might speak this ad hominem according to their common opinion and saying to express the hainousness of that sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost But take this Phrase according to the tenour of the New Testament which supposes the Messiah come already The world to come every where signifies that which begins at the Resurrection or last day of this world Then is fixed the End of this world Mat. 13.39.40 cap. 28.20 and then begins the world to come Marc. 10.30 Luc. 18.30 Eph. 1.21 And so it must be taken by St. Aug. in that place which the Romanists cite as to their purpose for the forgiveness of sins not forgiven before Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 21. c. 24. Neque enim de qui busdam veraciter diceretur non remittetur Otherwise saith he it could not be truly said of some it shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come for if we inquire of him when shall this be factâ resurrectione He tels us there after the Resurrection is done And so also Futurum seculum the world to come is taken both by Greeks and Latins * Concil Flor. Sess 1. de Purgatorio in their debate of this point II. Of the Forgiveness For their inference from our Saviours Negative Not forgiven saith he in the world to come therefore say they there are sins to be forgiven in the world to come The Cardinal acknowledges it does not follow according to the Rules of Logick Indeed such forgiveness as they pretend in relation to Purgatory cannot in any reason follow upon our Saviours speech That there is a forgiveness of sins after death cannot be denied so long as we believe there is a Judgment of God to come for when that comes and passes upon the Souls of men either privately at their death or openly at the Last day there is an absolution of some and a condemnation of others a forgiving and a not forgiving in the world to come whether we begin that Time at the day of Death or of Resurrection but this forgiveness is nothing to Purgatory Again This forgiveness or not forgiveness of sins in the world to come may have regard to the forgiveness or retaining of sins by Man in the Ministry of reconciliation in this life so there is a loosing and binding on Earth and a loosing and binding in Heaven in like manner a declaration of sins forgiven in the Church in this life and a declaration of sins forgiven or not forgiven in the world to come For then it shall appear that many sins forgiven by Man Clave errante through misapplication of the Keyes are not forgiven of God but shall receive sentence of condemnation and many that have been unjustly excommunicated and condemned here shall be owned and absolved there And so in this respect it may be said truly that whoever will continue obstinate and rebel against light as they that here blasphemed against the Holy Ghost must not exspect to have his sin forgiven either in this life by the Church or in the world to come when God shall appear in judgment and so it comes to what St. Marc. saith Hier. in Mat. 5. Huic nullo tempore blasphemia remittetur he hath never forgiveness and what St. Hier. saith upon the place This blasphemy shall never be forgiven him The Sins which the Romanists will have forgiven in the next life Venial Sins are Venial or light sins But why these forgiven in the next world when the great sins are forgiven in this life as they acknowledge unto those justified persons whom they send to Purgatory why should such small sins which do not cut off the state of justification or put the person out of the favour of God be retained and call'd so so severe a reckoning as is that of the Purgatory Prison It is true that sanctified persons after their Justification are subject to the daily subreption of such lighter sins but seeing as St. Aug. saith often we do for them daily confess and say Forgive us our debts why should not the general repentance and confession with which such Persons dye be available to the forgiveness of all such failings and secret sins that cannot be remembred in particular through the merit of Christs perfect obedience apprehended by the faith of such justified persons And as for the stains of sinful corruption The stain or remaining corrupting of Sin yet remaining after forgiveness of the guilt and punishment the doing away of which the Romanists call forgiveness what need is there of a Fire to purge them away for it is not fire but the grace of God likened unto fire that can work that effect upon the soul And why may not final grace as some call it do away the remaining corruption at the parting of soul and body They acknowledge that grace infused does it in the first Justification not only taking away the guilt but the stain and corruption too and why may it not do so in the last infusion or communication They acknowledge also that the stain of original Sin comes upon the Soul in a moment at the conjunction of it with the body and why may not the contracted stains and blots of sin be by the grace of God done away at the separation of soul and body All this is far more reasonable to say then from our Saviours speech not forgiven to infer some shall be then forgiven and from that forgiveness to conclude such a Purgation of Souls as they imagine More reasonable I say though not so prudential it may be considering what is gained by it in the Romish Church For hear what the Cardinal saith of that Inference of the affirmative shall be forgiven from our Saviours Negative shall not be forgiven It doth not follow Bel. l. 1. de Purgat c. 4. Non secundum Regulas Logicae sed sequi secundum regulam prudentiae alioqui faceremus Dominum ineptissimè locutum saith he according to the Rules of Logick that is of Reason but it follows according to the Rules of Prudence Else should we make our Lord speak inconsiderately in saying neither in this world nor in the world to come For their Prudence in drawing Purgatory out of so many pretended places of Scripture besides the Rules