Defense of Perkins Book Called a Reformed Catholic, Point 4 · Section 1
Our reasons.
Reason I. That very thing which must be our righteousnesse before God, must satisfie the iustice of the law, which saith, Doe these things, and thou shalt line. Now there is nothing can satisfie the iustice of the law, but the righteousnes or obedience of Christ for vsus. If any alleage ciuil iustice, it is nothing: for Christ saith, Except your righteousnesse exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises, you cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen.
speaker D. B. P. This reason is not worth a rush, for when he requireth that our iustice This ansvvere is lesse vvorth. Gal 5. Gal. 5.must satisfie the iustice of the law, I demaund what law he meaneth? If Moses law: of which those words, Doe this and thou shalt liue, are spoken: Then I answere with the Apostle. That you are euacuated, or abolished from Christ, that are iustified in the lavv. That is, he is a Iew and no Chri stian, that wuld hauehave Christian Iustice answerable to Moses law.
If M. Perkins would onelyonly that men iustified, must be able to fulfill Christs law, I then graunt, that they so be, by the helpe of Gods grace, which will neuer faile them, before they faile of their duties.
speaker A. W. He is neither Christian, nor Iew, but worse than either, that abolisheth the moral law by the Gospel. The rGal. 5. 3.Apostle speakes of ioyning the law with Christ to iustification, not of making Christian iustice answerable to Moses law. But is there any likelihood, that hee which came to bring perfect righteousnes, would destroy the law of righteousnes? Are you they that finde fault with vsus, because wee say it is impossible for vsus to keepe the Commandements so fully, as God requireth? Doth Moses law containe any other, or greater righteousnes, than the perfect louelove of God, and of our neighbour? Is it not your common doctrine, that faith makes vsus able to keepe the law? Nay, doe you not teach, that our Sauiour hath propounded greater perfection to his followers, than was required by the law of Moses? Beside, is not the law the very law of nature? And can any man bee righteous that keepes not the law of nature? You must prooue that God by Christ hath either abrogated the morall law, or dispensed with Christians for the breaches of it; not by pardoning of them, as the Apostle teacheth, but by freeing them from obedience to it. If this be false, then whosoeuer will be iustified by any law, must fulfill Moses law, to which onelyonly the promise is made, Doe this, and thou shalt liue.
speaker W. P. What? shall we say that workes doe make vsus iust? that cannot be: for all mens workes are defectiue in respect of the iustice of the law. Shall we say our sanctification, whereby we are renewed to the image of God in righteousnes and true holinesse? that also is imperfect and cannot satisfie Gods iustice required in the law: as Isai hath said of himselfe and the people, All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous cloath.
speaker D. B. P. But saith M. Perkins. That iustice of man is vnperfect, and cannot satisfie Isay 64.the iustice vvhichwhich God requires in his lavv, and proues it out of Esay, who saith, All our righteousnesse is as a menstruous, or defiled cloath. I answere that the holy Prophet speaketh those words in the person of the wicked, and therefore are madly applied vntounto the righteous. That he speaketh of the wicked, of that nation, and of that time: appeareth plainly by the text it selfe. For he saith before, But loe thou hast been angry, for vve hauehave offended, and hauehave been euer in sinne: and after; There is no man that calleth vponupon thy name, and standeth vp to take hold by thee. And although the words be generall, and seeme to the vnskilfull to comprehend himselfe also, yet that is but the manner of preachers, and specially of such as become Intercessors for others, who vse to speake in the persons of them, for whom they sue: for if he had reckoned himselfe in that number, he had lyed, when he said: There is none that call vponupon thy A foule and vnmannerly speech. Luther and Caluin on this place.name, when as he immediatly calleth vponupon him in most vehement sort for mercy, all which the best learned among them marking, confesse that this sentence cannot be alleadged against the vertue of good works. Hence, gather how dexterously M. Perkins handleth holy Scripture. That which the Prophet spake of some euil men, of one place, and at one time: that he applieth vntounto all good men, for all times, and all places.
speaker A. W. It is no proofe that the Prophet speakes not of himselfe, as well as of the people, because Preachers sometimes doe not in the like speeches. For sometimes also they doe. Neither had the Prophet lied (as you grosly speake) if hee had meant himselfe. For it is not his purpose to denie, that God had been called vponupon: but so called vponupon as hee ought to hauehave been. The Prophet speakes of their actions, which had some shew of goodnes, els he would not say our righteousnes: besides, he speakes not of that which he presently was to doe, as a Prophet, but of that which (ordinarily) he and other did with the infirmitie of men.
sLuther & Caluin. in illum locum Esaiae 64. 6.Luther and Caluin are of opinion, that the place doth not properly belong to the proofe of this doctrine; but they denie not that the Prophet speakes of the faithfull and their works. Yea Caluin plainly affirmes, that he doth speake of them: The faithfull (saith he) goe forward in their complaint. And, The faithfull must confesse their guiltines. So doth tCaietan ad 2. Cor. 3. 21.Caietan vnderstand the place, alluding to it, Christ merit is called our righteousnes, because it is true righteousnes, before Gods iudgement seate: to make a difference betwixt it and our righteousnes, which (at Gods iudgement seate) is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman. uDe verb. Esaiae ser. 5.Our humble righteousnes, if it be any, is true perhaps (saith Bernard) but not pure; vnlesse perchance we thinke our selues better than our fathers, who no lesse truly than humbly said: All our righteousnes is as the cloutes &c. Therefore Bernard and Caietan expound this place of the righteousnes of iustified men, as Master Perkins doth.
speaker W. P. To hauehave a cleare conscience before God, is a principall part of inward righteousnesse: and of it Paul in his owne person saith thus, I am priuie to nothing by my selfe, yet am I not iustified thereby, 2. Cor. 4. 4. Therefore nothing can procure vntounto vsus an absolution and acceptance to life euerlasting, but Christs imputed righteousnesse.
speaker D. B. P. But he will amend it in the next, where he proues out of S. Paul, that a cleare conscience (which is a great part of inherent iustice,) can nothing 1. Cor. 4.helpe to our iustification. I am priuie to nothing by my selfe, and yet J am not iustified thereby. Here is a very prety peece of cousinage. What, doth the Apostle say that he was not iustified by his cleere conscience? nothing lesse: but that alb…it, he saw nothing in himselfe to hinder his iustification yet God who hath sharper eye-sight, might espie some iniquitie in him, and therefore durst not the Apostle affirme himselfe to be iustified, as if he should say, if there be no o…her fault in me in Gods …, then I can find by mine owne insight, I am iustified, because I am … of nothing, and so the place proueth rather the vncertaine knowledge of our iustification, as I hauehave before shewed.
speaker A. W. If the Apostle were not iustified by the law who can be? That he was not, himselfe (saith Master Perkins) confesseth, euen then when he was not p…uie to himselfe of any grosse breach thereof. This is Master Perkins reason: to which you answere nothing, but frame another argument to your selfe out of the Apostles speech.
speaker W. P. And this will appeare, if wee doe consider, how wee must come one day before Gods iudgement seat, there to be iudged in the rigour of iustice: for then we must bring some thing that may counteruaile the iustice of God: not hauing onelyonly acceptation in merciemercy, but also approbation in iustice: God being not onelyonly mercifull, but also a iust iudge.
speaker D. B. P. But M. Perkins addeth, that we must remember, that we shall come to iudgement, where rigour of iustice shall be shewed. We know it well, but when there is no condemnation to those that by Baptisme be purged from originall sin, as he confesseth himselfe, the Apostle to teach in Pag. 28.our consents, about originall sinne, what then needeth any iustified man greatly feare, the rigorous sentence of a iust Iudge? And Saint Paul saith himselfe in the person of the iust: That he had ranne a good race, &c. and therefore, there vvas a crowne of iustice laid vp for him, by that iust Iudge, and not only to him, but all them that louelove …Crists comming.
speaker A. W. Indeede he that is iustified, needes not feare condemnation: but the question is, whether he can be iustified in Gods iust iudgement, who brings imperfect righteousnes to iustifie himselfe withall: which S. Paul doth not: but being iustified by faith in Christ, lookes for a reward of his holie labours, according to the promise of God.
speaker D. B. P. And concerning both, inherent iustice, and the ability of it, to fulfill Serm. 18. de verb. Apost.the law; And what Iaw, heare this one sentence of S. Augustine.
He that beleeueth in him, he hath not that iustice, which is of the lavv, albeit the lavv be good, but he shall fulfill the lavv, not by iustice vvhichwhich he hath of himselfe, but vvhichwhich is giuen of God, for charity is the fulfilling of the lavv, and from him is this charity povvred into our barts, not certainlie by our selues, but by the holy Ghost vvhichwhich is giuen vsus.
speaker A. W. There needes *Aug. de verbis Apost. ser. 15.no mans authoritie to prooue, that hee which is iustified hath inherent righteousnes. For the Apostle saith, x1. Cor. 1. 30. & 6. 11.Christ is made sanctification to vsus, and that by him we are sanctified: neither doe we denie, that this inherent righteousnes is such, as might enable vsus to keepe the law, and shall, when it is perfect: but to keepe the law, is not onelyonly to hauehave charitie, or righteousnes, but to vse it as the law commands. Righteousnes (saith yAug. ser de temp. …er. 5….Austin) is nothing els but not to sinne: not to sinne, is to keepe the commandements of the law: that is (as himselfe presently expounds it) to do none of those things that are forbidden, and to doe all those things that are commanded. But the chiefe point is, what law he meanes: out of doubt the law of Moses, which is alwaies meant, when it is put alone without any addition or explication, as it is here. What law vnderstands he, when he saith, that iustice which is of the law? Of the same he saith, he shall fulfill zLegem ipsam.the law it selfe: besides, what aRom. 13.law doth charitie fulfill? questionlesse the law of Moses: the summe whereof is the louelove of God and man.
speaker W. P. Reason II. 2. Cor. 5. 21. He which knew no sinne was made sinne for vsus, that we might be made the righteousnes of God which is in him. Whence I reason thus. As Christ was made sin for vsus, so are we made the righteousnesse of God in him: but Christ was made sin, or, a sinner by imputation of our sinnes, he being in himselfe most holy: therefore a sinner is made righteous before God, in that Christs righteousnesse is imputed and applied vntounto him. Now if any shall say, that mā is iustified by righteousnes infused: then by like reason, I say Christ was made sinne for vsus by infusion of sinne, which to say is blasphemie.
speaker D. B. P. I denie both propositions, the former because it hath a comparison in the manner of our iustification, with the sinne which Christ was made for vsus: for in the text of the Apostle, there is no signification of a similitude that Christ was so made sinne, as we are made iust. That is then M. Perkins vaine glosse, without any liklyhood in the text. The other proposition is also false, for Christ was not made sinne by imputation, for sin in that place is taken figuratiuely, and signifieth according to the exposition VVhy doe you not bring a better vvarrant from the Hebrevv phrasesof auncient Fathers, An host or sacrifice for sinne: Which Christ was truely made: his body being sacrificed on the Crosse for the discharge of sinne, and not by imputation.
speaker A. W. That there is some comparison of likenes implied by the Apostle, it appeares by bAug. Enchir. ad Laurent. cap 41.Austin: He therefore was made sinne, that we might be made righteousnes; not ours, but Gods; not in vsus, but in him; as he cDemonstrauit.made shew of sinne, not of his owne, but of ours; not dConstitutum.resting in him, but in vsus.
speaker W. P. That interpretation indeed is generally best liked of, because of the Hebraisme: but yet the place may also be expounded otherwise, as eLombard. Thomas, Caietan. Catharin Gloss. Interlin.your owne writers shew: He made him to be counted a sinner, saith Thomas; and Catharin more fully, fIn illo posuit peccata nostrum omnium.He laid vponupon him the sinnes of vsus all, and especially that originall sinne, out of which, as out of a roote, the other spring.
And the exposition of this place by S. Hierome is not to be despised. Christ (saith he) beeing offered for our sinnes, tooke the name of sinne that we might bee made the righteousnesse of God in him, Not ours nor in vsus. If this righteousnesse of God be neither ours nor in vsus, then it can bee no inherent righteousnesse, but must needes be righteousnes imputed. And Chrysost. on this place saith, It is called Gods righteousnes, because it is not of workes, and because it must be without all staine or want: and that cannot bee inherent righteousnes. Anselme saith, He is made sinne as wee are made iustice: not ours, but Gods: not in vsus, but in him: as he is made sinne, not his owne, but ours: not in himselfe, but in vsus.
speaker D. B. P. How these words of the Apostle, Iustice of God, are to be vnderstood, see Saint Augustine. One place I will cite for all. The iustice of God (saith Tract. 26. in Iohan. Item Epist. 120. ad honorat. cap. 30. Item in Psalm. 30. Con…. 1. de spirit. & lib. c. 9.he) through the saith of Christ Jesus, that is by faith wherewith we beleeue in Christ: for as that faith is called Christs, not by vvhichwhich Christ beleeues, so that Iustice is called Gods, not whereby God is iust: both of them, faith and iustice, be ours, but therefore they are tearmed Gods, and Christs, because through their liberality they are giuen to vsus. Which interpretation may be confirmed out of that place of S. Chrysostome, which M. Perkins citeth, saying: It is called Gods Iustice, because it is not of works, but of his free gift. So that it is, not that which is in God himselfe, but such as he bestoweth vponupon vsus. And that iustice of it selfe is pure, and wanteth no vertue to work that, for which it is giuen, to wit, to make a man righteous. S. Anselme a A poore shift. VVhat say you to Jerome?right vertuous and learned Catholike Arch-bishop of ours shall be answered, when the place is quoted.
speaker A. W. The iustice of God is expounded by the Apostle to be the forgiuenes of sinnes, especially vponupon your interpretation. For what is it that Christ gRom. 3. 25. 26procures by his sacrifice but pardon, the wrath of God being appeased? It is indeed called the righteousnes of God, because it is giuen vsus by God, and chiefly because it is appointed and approoued of God. They that make it inherent in vsus (as it cannot be prooued by this place that S. Austin doth) stretch it further than the Apostle vseth to doe, and make it comprehend sanctification also. It is but a shift to put off hAnselm. ad 2. Cor. 5. 21.A…s…lme, whom you cannot answere: it had been casie for you to conceiue, that he meanes his Commentarie vponupon that place. But how chance Hierome is past ouer too? we must hauehave some other excuse, for the place is quoted.
speaker W. P. Reason III. Rom. 5. 19. As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous: marke here is a comparison betweene the first and second Adam. And hence I reason thus. As by the disobedience of the first Adam men were made sinners: so by the obedience of the second Adam, are we made righteous. Now we are not onelyonly made sinners by propagation of naturall corruption, but by imputation. For Adams first sinne was the eating of the forbidden fruite: which verie acte is no personall offence, but is imputed to all his posteritie, in whom we hauehave all sinned. The cI…n. l…br. 5. cap. …7. Ch… …. ad Neop….Fathers call this very sinne Adams hand-writing, making vsus debters vntounto God. And therefore in like manner the obedience of Christ is made the righteousnesse of eueryevery beleeuer, not by infusion but by imputation.
speaker D. B. P. The comparison I allovv, because it is the Apostles, and deny that men are made sinners by imputation of Adams fault. And say that eueryevery one descended of Adam by natural propagation, hath his ovvn pe…onal iniquity stieking in them, which is commonly called O…ginal sin, and an high point of Pelagiamsme is it, to deny it. For albeit vve did not … of the forbidden fruit in proper person, yet receiue vve the nature of man, polluted vvith that infection really, and not by imputation. And so the comparison serues not at all M. Perkins turne, but beareth very strongly against him, it being thus framed: As by Adams disobedience many vvere made sinners, euen so by Christs obedience many shall be iustified: This is his Maior. Novv to the Minor. But by Adams disobedience they were made sinners, by drawing from him, eueryevery one his owne proper inherent iniquitie, First, by hauing his sinne imputed to them. See hovv they are saine to disgrace arguments, that can not ansvvere them.in like manner vve are iustified by Christ, not by imputation of his iustice, but by our inherent iustice, vvhichwhich is povvred into our soules, vvhen … ▪ are in Baptisme borne a new in him. See what penury of poore arguments they hauehave, that to make some shew of store are forced to propound such as make manifestly against them.
speaker A. W. Your bare deniall is no sufficient answere, especially since greater Clerkes directly affirme the contrarie, viz. that that sin of Adams makes vsus debters to God; whereof we are all guiltie, as hauing committed it in his loynes. All men (saith iAug. contra Iulian. Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 2.Austin) are vnderstood to hauehave sinned in the first man, because all men were in him when he sinned: yea more then that, he saith, All men committed that sin in him, because all were that one man. As Leui (saith kDominic. Soto ad Rom. cap. 5.Domingo a soto) many yeeres before he was borne paid tithes in Abraham; in like sort we sinned in the loynes of Adam. We denie not that we receiue from Adam inherent vnrighteousnes by propagation; but affirme, that Adams sinne is imputed to vsus to our iust condemnation.
speaker W. P. Reason IV. A satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires at our hands, is accepted of God as the iustice it selfe. But Christ obedience is a satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the lawe requires, as the Papists themselues auouch. Therefore this satisfaction is our iustice. And me thinks, the Papists vponupon this consideration hauehave little cause to dissent from vsus. For if they make Christs obedience their satisfaction, why should they not fullie close hands with vsus, and make it their iustice also?
speaker D. B. P. For the Maior he citeth Bellarmine. I hauehave read the Chapter, and find Lib. 2. de Iusti…. cap. 7.no such words: further I say, there is a great difference betweene satisfaction for mortall sinnes, and iustification: for satisfaction cannot be done by vsus; for the guilt of mortall sinne is infinite, being against an infinite Maiesty, and so no creature can make full satisfaction for it: wherfore the infinit valour of Christs satisfaction is necessarily required, who hauing taken away the guilt of eternall punishment, due to sinners, leaueth vsus his grace to satisfie for the temporall paine of it, as shal be in his And answered as largely as shall be needfull.due place, declared more at large.
speaker A. W. Againe, a man must needs hauehave his sinnes pardoned, and grace giuen him, before he can make any kind of due satisfaction, for he must be in the state of grace before he can satisfie, wherefore he must needs flie to the benefit of Christs satisfaction: There is nothing like in iustification, for first to make a man iust in Gods sight, requires no infinite perfection but such as a meere man is very well capable of, as all must needes confesse of Adam in the state of Innocency, and of all the blessed soules in heauen who be iust in Gods sight. Neither is it necessary to be infinit, for to be worthy of the ioyes of heauen, which be not infinit as they are The ioyes of heauen are as infinite as the paines of hell.enioyed of Men or Angels, either who hauehave all things there in number, weight, and measure.
Master Perkins argument is wholy omitted by you; and a consectarie, which he drawes from it, propounded in stead of it. The argument is this:
A satisfaction made for the want of that iustice or obedience which the law requires at our hands, is accepted of God as iustice it selfe.
But Christs obedience is a satisfaction, made for the want of that iustice, or obedience, which the law requires.
Therefore Christs obedience is accepted of God, as the iustice it selfe.
VponUpon this he concludes yet further.
If the Papists make Christs obedience their satisfaction, why should they not make it their iustice? The reason of the proposition is, because God accepts such satisfaction for iustice.
But they make Christs obedience their satisfaction.
Therefore why should they not make it their iustice?
Your answere must be applied to the consequence of the proposition; the proofe whereof, as I hauehave shewed, is fetcht from the former syllogisme; to which you answer nothing at all.
But let vsus take it as it is; and it is thus much in effect, that you hauehave neede of Christs satisfaction, but no neede of his iustice. So then belike you will not accept of his righteousnes as yours, because you are loth to be any more beholding to him than needs you must. That you need it not, you prooue, because a meere man is capable of sufficient lighteousnes to iustification. But that will not serue the turne, vnlesse also he hauehave as much as he is capable of: to which estate no man attaines in this life, by your confession, who admit an increase of iustice eueryevery day.
speaker D. B. P. Briefly, it is a most easie thing for one man to pay the debts of an other but one man cannot bestow his wisedome or iustice on an other, and not credible, that God (whose iudgement is according to truth) will repute a man for iust, who is full of iniquity: no more then a simple man will take a Black moore for white, although he see him cloathed in a white sute of apparell.
speaker A. W. Secondly, you take it not as yours, because Christ cannot bestow it on you. What? not so much as to hauehave it imputed to you? why not, as well as Adams sinne is mads ours by imputation? But God (you say) whose iudgement is according to truth, will not repute a man iust, who is full of iniquitie. Indeede God cannot be deceiued, to hold a man not to be wicked that is wicked: but God can iustifie, that is, forgiue and acquite him, though he know him to be wicked; and can take him for righteous in Christ, of whom he is a member, though in himselfe he be not righteous. So may the man, that will not take a blacke Moore for white, accept of him, as if he were white, without any error.
speaker W. P. Reason V. The consent of the auncient Church. Bernard saith, epist. 190. The iustice of an other is assigned vntounto man: who wanted his owne, man was indepted and man made paiment. The satisfaction of one is imputed to all. And why may not iustice be from an other as well as guiltinesse is from another. And in Cant. serm. 25. It sufficeth me, for all righteousnesse to hauehave him alone mercifull to me, against whom I hauehave sinned. And, Not to sinne is Gods iustice, mans iustice is the mercifullnesse of God. And serm. 61. Shall I sing mine owne righteousnesse, Lord I will remember thy righteousnesse alone: for it is mine also: in that euen thou art made vntounto me righteousnesse of God. What, shall I feare least that one bee not sufficient for vsus both? it is a short cloke that cannot couer two: it will couer both thee and me largely, beeing both a large and eternall iustice.
speaker D. B. P. Master Perkins last reason, is taken from the consent of the auncient VVhichWhich shewes Austins iudgement.Church, And yet citeth (sauing one two lines) nothing out of any auncient writer, not out of any other, but out of only S. Bernard, who liued 1000. yeares after Christ, so that he signifieth that there is little releefe to be had in Antiquity.
speaker A. W. What reliefe there is for vsus, touching this point, in the Fathers, shall appeare more fully hereafter, if it please God, in another treatise. In the meane while take a taste by these, who acknowledge their righteousnes imperfect, and vnable to abide Gods iudgement. This (saith lIn concio. de humilitate.Basil) is perfect and sound reioycing in God, when a man doth not bragge, no not of his righteousnes, but knowes himselfe vnworthie of true righteousnes, and that he is iustified onelyonly by faith in Christ. And in mBasil. in Psalm. 114.another place: Euerlasting rest remaines for them, which in this life hauehave striuen lawfully, not for the desert of their workes, but by the fauour of the most bountifull God, in whom they hauehave hoped. Charitie (saith nAug. epist. 2… ad Hietonym.Austin) in some is greater, in some lesse, in other none at all: but so great charitie, as cannot be increased, is in no man so long as he liues here. Now, so long as it may be increased, surely that which is lesse than it should be, is faultie. By reason of which fault, there is not a righteous man vponupon earth, that doth good, and sinnes not: by reason of which fault, no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God: because of this fault, if we say we hauehave no sinne, the truth is not in vsus: and for this also how much soeuer we hauehave done, it is necessarie for vsus to say, Forgiue vsus our debts; though all our words, deedes and thoughts were forgiuen in baptisme. I will not boast (saith nDe Iacob. & vita beata ca. 6Ambrose) because I am righteous, but because I am redeemed: I will boast, not because I am voide of sinnes, but because my sinnes are forgiuen me.
speaker D. B. P. Which Caluin declareth more plainely, for he commonly setting light …ib. 3. insti…. ca. 11. num. 15by all other in this question, reiecteth also S. Augustine saying. Yea not the sentence of Augustine himselfe is to be receiued in this matter, vvho attributeth our samctification to grace, wherewith we are regenerate in newnes of life by the spirit. And Kemnitius in the first part of his examination of the Councell of …rent, saith: VVe contend not how the Fathers take iustification: and a little after. I am not ignorant that they spake othervvise then we doe of it. Therefore M. Perkins had reason to content himselfe with some few broken sentences of later vvriters.
speaker A. W. Caluin doth not commonly reiect the Fathers in this point; but both he and Chemnitius alleage diuers things out of them, in this question of iustification. For oChemnit. de iustif. tit. I estimonia.Chemnitius looke in the place you hauehave named, in his disputation of iustification. pCalu. Instit. lib. 3. c. 11. §. 15Caluins words will cleere him sufficiently, if they be truly reported. Yea not the sentence of Austin himselfe, or at the least not his manner of speech, is qPer omnia.in all sorts to be receiued. For although he notably spoyle man of all commendation of righteousnes, and passe ouer all to Gods grace, yet he referres grace to sanctification, whereby we are regenerate into newnes of life, through the spirit. Indeed it is vsuall with Austin, and the Latin Fathers, to speake of rIustificare, … facere.iustification, as the word seemed to leade them; and so to comprise vnderunder it sanctification also. In which respect Caluin, and Chemnitius say, they are the lesse to be receiued. But as for iustification, they spake ordinarily, as you heard before, when they speak properly, acknowledging euen the charitie of men regenerate (as I shewed out of sAug. epist. 29 …d Hieron.Austin) by which the law is fulfilled, to be imperfect, and vnable to iustifie vsus in the sight of God.
speaker D. B. P. But was S. Bernard trow you in this one point a Protestant? Nothing Ep…s…. 190.lesse, his words be these. The iustice of another is assigned vntounto man, vvho wanted his own: man vvas indebted, and man made payment, &c. But let his owne reason there cited, serue for exposition of his former words, which is this. For vvhy may not iustice be from another, aswell as guiltines is from another? Now guiltines from Adam is not by imputation, but eueryevery one contracts his owne, by taking flesh from him, euen so iustice … The … is double.from Christ powred into eueryevery man, that is borne againe of water and the holy Ghost. In the second place he saith: That mans iustice is the mercifulnes of God: that is, by Gods free grace and mercy it is bestovved vponupon vsus.
speaker A. W. Your answere to the tBern. …pi. 19…first place of Bernard was refuted before, when I prooued that Adams sinne was made ours by imputation.
How will that agree with the former part of the sentence; uBernard. in Cant. ser. 25.The iustice of God is not to sinne, but the iustice of man is bestowed by Gods free merciemercy? There is a poore difference betwixt these two, when as God may bestow such righteousnes vponupon a man, that he shall be free from sinning. But thus stands the opposition; not to sinne, is Gods righteousnes; not to hauehave sinne imputed, through Gods merciemercy, is mans righteousnes.
speaker D. B. P. With S. Bernard in the third place, we acknowledge that we hauehave no iustice of our owne, that is from our selues, but from the goodnesse of God, through the merits of our blessed Sauiours Passion: read his first sermon, vponupon these words of the Prophet Jsaie. Vid… Dominum, &c. There you shall see him speake plainely of inherent iustice, and how it Ser. 1. super Esaiam.is a distinct thing from the iustice of Christ.
speaker A. W. How vaine and sleight an answere this is, the very words will shew; *Bernard. in Cantic. ser. 61.Thou art made vntounto me righteousnes of God: he speakes of such a righteousnes, as is both his and Christs; Shall I feare (saith he) least that one be not sufficient for vsus both? It is not a short cloake that cannot couer, it will couer both thee and me largely, being both a large and eternall iustice. In xBernard. ser. 1 super Esai.the place, by you quoted, he speakes not a word of any righteousnes: but in ySer. 5. super Esai.the fifth sermon vponupon that text, he compares the righteousnes of men and Angels with Gods; not inherent with imputed. But what if he speake of inherent righteousnes, as he doth in many places? doe we deny it? or is there, because of that, none imputed? or is that inherent righteousnes sufficient to iustifie vsus in Gods sight? Let zBernard. ser. 5. de verb. Esaiae.Bernard speake for himselfe: Our humble righteousnes, if there be any, is aRecte forsit ….true (perhaps) but not pure; vnlesse perchance (saith Bernard vponupon that very place of Esay) we thinke our selues better than our fathers, who said, no lesse truly than humbly, All our righteousnes is as the cloutes of a menstruous woman. For how can there be pure righteousnes, whereas yet there cannot be fault wanting? It is no marueile then if you now make light of Bernard, whom otherwise you magnifie. His testimonie must needes bee accounted of, that is so plaine for vsus, and against you; whereas he was a member of your owne Church, and erred with you in many points of Antichristianisme.
speaker W. P. August. on Psal. 22. He prayeth for our faults, and hath made our fault: his faults, that he might make his iustice our iustice.
speaker D. B. P. Another broken peece of a sentence, there is cited out of S. Augustine. In Psalm. 22. Tract. 27. in Ioan.Christ made his iustice our iustice. That is, by his iustice, he hath merited iustice for vsus, as he expoundeth himselfe. What is this, the iustice of God, and the iustice of man? The iustice of God is here called that, not whereby God is iust, but that which God giueth to man, that man may be iust through God.
speaker A. W. What a forced interpretation is this? Christ (saith bAugust. in Psalm. 22.Austin) made his iustice our iustice: that is (say you) by his iustice he hath merited iustice for vsus. He hath made his ours: that is, he hath by his purchased other for vsus. Who can beare such an exposition? Sure the words will not, nor the sense. For how shall we expound the former part of the sentence, which you craftily leaue out? He hath made our sinnes his sinnes. HaueHave our sinnes merited sinne for him? If this be absurd, as it is, how shall your interpretation be auowed, the latter part depending vponupon the former? As for the exposition you bring out of cAug. tract. 27. in Ioh.another place; where the iustice of God is said to be that which God giueth man; this proues that, which before I deliuered, that the Fathers sometimes make iustification to comprehend sanctification too: but where they speake properly of iustification, there they teach as we doe.