The Christians Bulwark, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. The Romish Doctrine of the Iustification of a sinner, what it is, and wherein it consisteth.
NOw after all this adoe about preparation to iustification, which the more they magnifie, the further off they are from attaining vntounto it: what is that iustification which the Romish Church stands vponupon? Let vsus see if it bee worth all that labour and merit, whereby they must come by it. The foolish Virgins, while they went to bestow their paines and costMatth. 25. to prepare oyle for their empty Lampes, to meete the Bridegroome, lost all their paines and expence: for when theyOleum & opera perdiderunt. came, Heauen gate was shut against them. The Romish Virgins (for such they would bee accounted) wanting oyle in their Lampes; to wit, the pure oyle-oliffe of grace, distilling from the true Oliffe Tree, Iesus Christ, while they goe about toRom. 11. 24. prepare artificiall oyle made by humane inuention, they may iustly feare, to find the gate of righteousnesse and merciemercy barred vp against them. If they proue not rather like the men of Sodome, who pressing vponupon righteous Lot, to surprise euen hisGen. 19. 11. Reu. 11. 8. Angel-guests, were strucke with blindnesse, that they could not finde the right doore, where they would hauehave entred. So these, seeking to enter the gate of the righteous, as if they would surprise Heauen, the lodging of Angels, by a strange and new inuented violence; it will proue a matter of high admiration, if euer by their new way of preparation, choaked with so many mists of foggie errours, and blinde inuentions, they hit vponupon the gate of iustification, and so come promiscuously to ioyne themselues to the sacred society of righteous Angels. But now let their iustification speake, and iustifie it selfe.
The Councell of Trent in the seuenth Chapter saith thus: Hanc dispositionem seu praeparationem, iustificatio ipsa consequitur; Concil. Trid. Ses. 6. cap. 7.quae non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed & sanctificatio, & renouatio interioris hominis, per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae & donorum: Vnde homo ex iniusto, fit iustus, & ex inimico, amicus; ve sit haeres, secundum spem vitae aeternae: After this disposition or preparation, doth follow iustification it selfe; which is not onelyonly the remission of sinnes, but also sanctification, and renouation of the inner man, by a voluntary receiuing of grace and of gifts: Whence a man of vniust, is made iust, and of an enemy, a friend; that he may be an heire, according to the hope of eternall life. To which also agreeth the eleuenth Canon of this Session. Si quis dixerit, homines iustificari vel sola imputatione iustitiae Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia & charitate, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum sanctum diffundatur, at que illis inhaereat; aut etiam gratiam, qua iustificamur, esse tantum fauorem Dei: anathema sit: If any man shall say, that men are iustified either by the onelyonly imputation of Christs righteousnesse, or by the onelyonly remission of sins, excluding grace and charity, which is shed abroad in their hearts by the holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or else, that the grace whereby we are iustified, is onelyonly the fauour of God: Let him be Anathema.
In these words of the Councell, is infolded the very mysterie of iniquity; For their iustification is composed partly of remission of sins, and partly, yea principally, of*What they meane by sanctification and renouation, may be seene chap. 13. to wit, pilgrimage, vigils, almes (specially to the Friars) Pater nosters, Auemaries, oblations, fastings, vowes of chastitie, &c. also sacramentall confession, and satisfactions. chap. 14. sanctification (as they call it) and renouation of the inner man; and to this is added mans free-will. And thus their vniust man is made iust. Note also how in the Canon, they name the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, as one of the ingredients, in this composition of iustification. But the plaine truth is, this imputation they quite shut out from hauing any thing to doe with their iustification; as this very terme of imputation had no good entertainment in theaHist. Concil. Trid. Soto de nat. & grat. lib. 2. c. 20. Councell. And note againe, how they denie the grace of iustification to be the onelyonly fauour of God, reseruing a roome for mans merit: contrary to that of the Apostle, Rom. 3. 24. Being iustified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus.
Now by the way, let vsus see what the Pontificians meane by Imputation. For this purpose I will insert here a saying of Pighius (though otherwise a Pontifician writer) which Soto answereth, and laboureth to cleare from suspicion of heresie. Pighius hauing considered sundry places of Scripture, as in the Psalmes, and Iob, &c. that the Saints of God dare not bring their own inherent righteousnesse, to the strict triall of Gods iudgement: Ex his confecit Pighius, &c. (saith Soto) Pighius thence concludes, That our inherent righteousnesse, if it be strictly examined by the diuine rule, is not perfect; but we are iustified rather by that righteousnesse of Christ imputed vntounto vsus. Which he exemplifieth: that as Iacob, hid vnderunder the habit of his elder brother, the true firstborne, receiued his fathers blessing; so wee receiue glory vnderunder anothers person, to wit, Christ. Now how doth Soto, with all his subtilty, acquit his Pighius from being an hereticke in so saying? Haes omnia (saith hee) all these things, by one word of equiuocation, are detorted to a finister sense. Who can euer doubt, but that we, the sons of Adam, which by our owne nature and ability can bring no merits or worthinesse into Gods presence, can pretend or couer our faults with the onelyonly righteousnesse of Christ, in whose right we are sonnes and heires of the Kingdome? But when wee say, Christs, the genetiue case, wee doe not meane the subiect of inherency; that the sense should bee, The righteousnesse which is in Christ (as the heretickes grossely erre) but it is a note of the efficient cause; that the sense should bee, The righteousnes, which is that of Christ, being accepted of God, nos influit, doth poure into vsus: so Soto. Thus we see, by what a pretty neate distinction he would assoile his brother Pighius from being an herericke, although hee speake the same thing with vsus. Only I pitie Soto his sottishnesse, that while hee would hauehave Pighius to meane by our righteousnesse, our naturall righteousnesse, which may not abide Gods strict tryall; he remembers not vponupon what instances Pighius inferred this his true Catholicke conclusion. For his instances, by Soto his owne allegation, were holy Iob, and holy Dauid, who disclaimed their owne righteousnesse. But I hope, Soto will not say, these were now naturall men, and vnregenerate.
Now for the clearer vnfolding of this mysterie, let vsus hear their great champions, what they, in their voluminous commentaries vponupon this Session, meane by Iustification. Soto makes a threefold iustification: Prima genuina que notio huius nominis Soto de nat. & grat. lib. 2. c. 6. quo termini controuersiae exponuntur.(inquit) est acquisitio iustitiae; nempe ex iniusto iustum fieri. The prime and proper notion of this word Iustification (saith he) is an acquisition of righteousnesse; namely, of vniust to be made iust. As calefaction or heating, of cold to be made hot; according to the Text of the Councell, which saith: Thus the vniust man is made iust. So they take Iustificare, to be as much as iustum facere, to make iust. Secunda, &c. the second notion, and next to this, is (saith he) that it signifieth an augmentation of righteousnesse. The first of these, he compareth to that originall righteousnesse that Adam once had; which importeth a rectitude, or right ordering of the whole man: which he proues diuinely out of Aristotle, in the fift of his Ethicks. And the second hee proueth, Apoc. 22. 11. Qui iustus est, iustificetur adhuc: He that is iust, let him be iustified still. But in this, as in many more, their Latin Translation will not abide the touch of the originall: which saith, He that is righteous,foreign let him be righteous still, or, let him doe righteousnesse still. The like place he bringeth out of Ecclesiasticus, but with the like felicitie, and successe. And he alledgeth that of St. Iames, You see, that a man is iustified by workes, and not by faith only. ByIames 2. which words, saith hee, hee had contradicted Paul, where he saith, Arbitramur hominem iustificari per fidem, & non ex operibus: Wee iudge, that a man is iustified by faith, and not of workes: vnlesse Paul had spoken of the former iustification, and Iames of the latter. Although (saith he) we will declare in his proper place, how our workes also doe concurre in iustification. Nisi quod Paulus loquitur de praecedentibus: Vnlesse that Paul speaketh of precedent workes: (I suppose he meaneth workes going before iustification) So hee. Where you see he speakes very perplexedly, yet so, as hee cannot dissemble his meaning. For the iudicious Reader may well perceiue, that hee would faine force that speech of the Apostle, Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude, that Rom. 3. 28.a man is iustified by Faith, without the deeds of the Law: to be meant of that faith going before iustification, which they rancke among their preparatory workes, for that is their fides informis, their faith without charity, as yet vnformed, as they say; sauing that herein he forgets himselfe: for the Apostle speakes of iustitification by faith, not of faith disposing or preparing a man to iustification. But of this more hereafter.
In the third place (saith he) the name of iustification is further vsed, to signifie the absoluing of a guiltie person in iudgement, and pronouncing of him to bee quit. For which he alleageth, Prou. 17. 15. and Deut. 25. 1. But this (saith he) is not much different from the first acception of the word, but rather altogether of neere affinity to it Yet this third signification (saith Soto) is no where in Paul, nor in the Scripture, where any mention is made of our iustification by Christ. See this crafty shuffler, how hee can packe this close to the first kinde of acception of this word iustification, as if it were all one with it, or neere a-kinne vntounto it: and yet he can say of this last, that it is not to be found in Paul, although he could finde the first to be in Paul, at least in his owne strained sense. But is not the word Iustifie (as it is taken in the last sense, to wit, to absolue, or acquit as it were in iudgement) vsed by Paul? yea, and that also where mention is made of our iustification by Christ? What meaneth then that which the Apostle saith, Rom. 8. 33. 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? It is God that iustifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed: or rather that is risen againe, who is euen at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for vsus. Note, the Apostle vseth here the termes of a iudiciall triall: Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? who shall accuse them? who shall bring in euidence against them? It is God that iustifieth. And if God the Iudge do iustifie, who shall condemne? Yea, but how shall God iustifie a sinner? It is Christ that dyed: He dyed for our sinnes, Rom 4. 25. or rather which is risen againe: And, He rose againe for our iustification, Rom. 4. 25. &c. So you see here is iustifying taken for absoluing in iudgement: and it is in Paul; and that where mention is made of our iustification by Christ. Therefore Soto bewrayes eyther grosse ignorance in denying, or egregious malice in dissembling such a cleare truth. And no maruell, if he cannot, or will not finde iustification vsed for absolution iudiciall, in Paul, or in the Scripture, where mention is made of our iustification by Christ. For indeed iustification in this sense is the condemnation and confusion of Popish iustification: as we shall see in the due place.
Vega also, another Champion in this Councell, he speakesVega de descript. iustif. l. 5. in c. 4. decret… de iustificatione. cap. 11. the same language of Babylon, and saith, there is a twofold iustification, as Doctors (meaning the Schoole-men) say: The first, and second. The first iustification, when a man of vniust is made iust. The second, when of iust a man becomes more iust. The first he defineth thus: The first iustification is a certaine supernaturall change, whereby a man of vniust is made iust. The second thus: It is a supernaturall change, whereby a man of iust is made more iust. And these also are either actiue or passiue: actiue in regard of God, working this iustification, first, and second, in vsus: and passiue in regard of man himselfe, who is changed from bad to good, and from good to better. But for the actiue iustification, as it is wrought by God, and so proues derogatory from mans excellency, Vega sleights it, as rather obscuring, than clearing his definitions. But as for the third kinde of iustification, which is iudiciall, to be pronounced and accounted iust, before the Tribunall seate of iustice, Vega giues it no better entertainment, than his brother Soto, saying, That the Doctors intermit, and let passe this kinde of iustification, as impertinent to the purpose. And so it is indeede, very impertinent to their Pontifician purpose, and very incommodious; as the wicked complaine, that the righteous man is not for their profit, sith contrary to their waies, Wisd. 2. 12. But for other distinctions of iustification, Vega is very liberall in summing them vp together: as, Iustitia Christiana, & Mosaica: politica, & oeconomica: legalis, moralis, particularis: actualis, habitualis: acquisita & insusa: inharens & imputata: externa & interna: fidei & operum: practica & theologica: pharisaica, sincera: philosophica, supernaturalis; and so in infinitum. But enough of such blundring distinctions. So then the iustification of the Church of Rome is properly to make one iust, that was vniust, and to make one of iust, more iust. Yet here it will be worth our noting, to obserue the legierdemaine of the Councell of Trent, and the Pontificians, in their distinction of first and second righteousnesse or iustification. For the Scriptures speaking of a twofold iustification, one by faith, another by workes; vponupon which ground the ancient Fathers also do distinguish a two-fold righteousnesse, one in the sight of God, the other in the sight of men: the Pontificians also, that they may seeme to speake the same language, they hauehave their distinction too of a first and second righteousnesse; yet so, as destroying the nature of the first iustification by faith, whereby we stand iust in Gods sight, they so qualifie the matter, as either they make nothing at all of their first righteousnesse, or they doe altogether confound it with their second righteousnesse inherent; and so by their distinguishing, they make iustification and sanctification all one. But the learned Cardinall Contarenus, writing a little before the Councell of Trent, and was afterwards one of the Councell; in his tract of iustification, speaking of these two iustifications, saith, That by the one, to wit, the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith, we are iustified before God: by the other, which is inherent, we are iustified before men. But Babylon confounds all together, iustification and sanctification.
In the next place let vsus consider, how they vnderstand this making iust. This iustification (saith the Councell) consists partly of remission of sinnes, partly of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, and partly of sanctification and renouation of the inner man, and so of inherent righteousnesse. Now here lies the knot of the mysterie to be resolued; first, it were well, if the Chuch of Rome did meane truely and sincerely, in naming remission of sins, and imputation of Christs righteousnesse, in the point of iustification. Secondly, if at the best, they did vnderstand them aright, yet to ioyne vntounto them inherent righteousnesse of our owne, will be found no iust dealing. But to allow of no iustification at all, saue that which is inherent in vsus, bewrayes deepe deceit, and double hypocrisie, in once naming remission of sins, and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, which they vtterly shut out, from hauing any society with inherent righteousnesse, in the worke of iustification, as a little before we premonished.
Now concerning the imputation of Christs righteousness, what do they understand by it? The Councell it selfe tels vsus, chap 7. where speaking of the formall cause of iustification, they call it the righteousnesse of God; but how the righteousnesse of God imputed to vsus? nothing lesse: but that which is infused into vsus. The words of the Councell are these: Vnica formalis causa (put a iustificationis) est iustitia Dei; non qua ipse iustus est, sed qua nos iustos facit: qua videlicet ab eo donati, renouamur spiritu mentis nostrae, & non modo reputamur, sed verè iusti nominamur, & sumus, iustitiam in nobis recipientes, vnusquis que suam secundum mensuram, quam Spiritus sanctus partitur singulis, prout vult, & secundum propriam cuius que dispositionem & cooperationem: Quanquam enim nemo posset esse iustus, nisi oui merita passionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi communicantur; id tamen in hac impi… iustificatione fit, dum eiusdem sanctissimae passionis merito, per Spiritum sanctum charitas Dei diffunditur in cordibus eorum qui iustificantur, at que ipsis inhaeret, &c. The onelyonly formall cause (to wit, of iustification) is the righteousnesse of God; not that whereby himselfe is iust, but that whereby he makes vsus iust: namely, wherewith he hauing endowed vsus, wee are renewed in the spirit of our minde, and are not onelyonly reputed, but nominated, and are really iust, receiuing righteousnesse in our selues, each according to his measure, which the holy Ghost diuideth to eueryevery one, euen as he will, and according to eueryevery mans disposition and cooperation: For although no man can be iust, but hee to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ are communicated; yet that is wrought in this iustification of a sinner, while by the merit of the same holy passion, the louelove of God is by the holy Ghost shed abroad in the hearts of those who are iustified, and is inherent in them, &c.
Thus a man may see, by the Councels expresse words, that though they name imputation, which they call the communication of Christs righteousnesse, as the formall cause of our iustification: yet they meane nothing else, but that Christ hath merited, that charity should be infused into our hearts, whereby we should be iustified: which in summe, is as much to say, as Christ became a Sauiour, by whose merit eueryevery man might bee made his owne Sauiour; and that by another kinde of righteousnesse, than that of Christ imputed. That this is the sense of the Councell, witnesse her chiefe Interpreters. For if they had not finely found out this witty sense of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, it is much to be feared they had Anathemarized the very name of it, and throwne it into the fire of their Index expurgatorius, wheresoeuer they had found it. But this, and other cleare truths in Scripture, they can so dextrously handle, as they can easily euacuate them, by turning them to a most sinister sense; and so are the lesse affraid to name them, and to seeme to auouch them. Otherwise, as the history of this Councell tels vsus, the very name of imputation found very harsh intertainment among the most of their Schoole-doctors; and Soto himselfe confesseth: Quod verbum mihi semper suspectum, in suspicionem Soto de nat. & grat. lib. 2. c. 20.detuli coram sancta Synodo; which word (saith he, to wit, Imputation) I alwaies hauing suspected, brought it into suspicion before the holy Synod. And a little after, although he commend the Canons of Colen, accounting them as the buckler and bulwarke of faith; yet (saith he) they, as happely more secure of the aduersaries, than safe, hauehave vsed that word of Imputation: where they say, That the chiefe head of iustification, is the remission and ablution of sinnes, by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. But yet the Councell of Trent and Church of Rome, are not so barren of inuention, as not to bee able easily to reconcile this Catholicke word Imputation, to the Church of Rome, and to make it a Roman-Catholicke: For by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, they hauehave learned to vnderstand, that Christ hath merited an infusion of grace into vsus, whereby we are iustified. For, confessing the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, to be the formall cause of our iustification; they would teach vsus out of Philosophy, that Formalis causa est res illa vel qualitas, quae in est subiecto: that the formall cause, as Soto saith, is that thing or quality, which is inherent in the subiect: for the forme, saith he, is said in relation to the matter, to which it giues a being by inherency. Pari ergo modo, &c. As therefore the aire is not luminous or lightsome formally by the light that is in the Sun, but by the light it receiueth in it selfe from the Sunne; Constantissimum est, &c. it is a most constant truth, That neither are wee formally iust, and accepted by the righteousnesse which is in Christ, but by that which himselfe hath conueyed into vsus. Wee are (saith hee) made iust by Christs righteousnesse, as by the efficient cause; but not as by the formall cause. But Vega peremptorily in his 7. book, and 22. chapt. intituled Of the impossibility of Christs righteousnesse, to be the formall cause of our iustification, concludeth thus in his first argument: Superfluum est, & ab omni philosophia alienum, ad hoc ipsum, ponere aliam aliquam iustitiam, videlicet, iustitiam imputatiuam Christi; It is superfluous, and abhorring from all philosophy, to put any other righteousnesse, for a formall cause of our righteousnesse, as the imputatiue righteousnesse of Christ. Therefore according to Romane-Catholicke diuinity, which is most humane philosophy, the formall cause of a mans righteousnesse must be inherent in him, and his owne, and not the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vsus. But yet the same author, afterwards seemeth to shake imputation by the hand, and to be good friends with it, where he saith: Non est adeo inuisum nobis Vega de vera & sicta iustis. lib. 15. cap. 2.hoc vocabulum, vt credam nunquam nos posse hoc in proposito benè illo vti; This word (Imputation) is not so odious vntounto vsus; as that I thinke, wee may neuer vse it well to this purpose: Verè nam que & sanè, ac latinè possumus dicere, ad satisfactionem & meritum, imputatam esse generi humano iustitiam Christi in passione sua, & iugiter imputari omnibus qui iustificantur, & satisfaciunt pro peccatis suis, & vitam aeternam suis bonis operibus merentur: For wee may truely, and soothly, and in *Latinè dicere.plaine termes say, that vntounto satisfaction and merit, the righteousnesse of Christ in his passion is imputed to mankinde, and is continually imputed to all men that are iustified, and doe satisfie for their sins, and by their good works do merit eternall life. And much more to this purpose: And a little after hee saith; Non transit iustitia Christi realiter ab illo in iustificatos: Christs righteousnesse doth not really passe from him into those that are iustified; nor by it are we formally iustified. But imputation is of God, which ioynes the merits of Christ vntounto vsus, and makes them ours after a sort; in as much as for his merits sake, hee giueth vsus righteousnesse, whereby wee are righteous. Cum enim per iustitiam Christi, &c. For seeing by the righteousnesseIbid. of Christ, mankinde hath satisfied for their sinnes, and by it is reconciled to God; and the gates of Paradise are thereby vnlocked, and all that are iustified, or satisfie, or merit at Gods hand, seeing by his merits they are iustified, and reconciled to God, and satisfie for themselues, and merit increase of grace and blessednesse: surely it cannot be denied, but that to mankinde, and all so iustified, Christs righteousnesse is, or may be imputed to satisfaction and merit. So Vega. I neede passe no other censure vponupon this Romane-Catholicke doctrine, than that of Gregory: Deo maledicunt, cum se & ab illo Greg. moral. lib. 1. cap. 37.accepisse vires intelligunt, sed tamen de eius muneribus propriam laudem quaerunt; They blaspheme God, when they acknowledge they hauehave receiued strength from him, and yet from his gifts seeke their owne praise. And St. Augustine in hisAug. Soliloq lib. cap. 15. tom. 9. Soliloquies, saith sweetly: Vnde gloriabitur omnis caro? Nunquid de malo? Haec non est gloria, sed miseria: sed nunquid gloriabitur de bono? nunquid de alieno? Tuum, Domine, est bonum, tua est gloria. Qui enim de bono tuo gloriam sibi quaerit, & non tibi quaerit; hic fur est & latro, & similis est diabolo, qui voluit furari gloriam tuam. Qui enim laudari vult de tuo dono, & non quaerit in illo gloriam tuam, sed suam: hic licet propter tuum donum laudatur ab hominibus, … te tamen vituperatur, quia de dono tuo non tuam, sed suam gloriam quaesiuit. Qui autem ab hominibus laudatur vituperante te, non defendetur ab hominibus iudicante te, ne… liberabitur condemnante te: Whereof shall all flesh reioyce? Of euill? This is not glory, but misery. But shall hee glory of good? What, of anothers good? Thine, O Lord, is the good: thine is the glory. For he, who of thy good, seekes glory to himselfe, and not to thee; hee is a theefe and a robber, and like the deuill, who would hauehave robbed thee of thy glory. For he that would be praised for thy gift, and doth not therein seeke thy glory, but his owne: this man, though for thy gift hee be praised of men, yet hee is dispraised of thee; because of thy gift he sought not thine, but his owne glory. But hee that is praised of men, being disallowed of thee, shall not be defended of men, when hee shall be iudged of thee; nor absolued, when condemned of thee.
I hauehave been the more copious in citing these two authors, Vega and Soto, because both they were grand-Sticklers in the Councell, and vndertooke to write these things as Commentaries vponupon this sixt Session of Iustification, as we hauehave sufficiently noted before. So that what the Councell hath couched in the Text in fewer words, these hauehave amplified and expressed more at large, to the end that no man might mistake the Councels minde and meaning, no not in the middest of her mistie and cloudy equiuocations. Thus they hauehave learned to doe with imputation (the very name whereof had so startled the Councell for the time) as men doe with the Serpent. The Serpent with her very aspect, at first affrights the beholder, but being taken, and her teeth pulled out, men are then not affraide to carry her in their bosomes: So the imputation of Christs righteousnesse was at the first sight terrible to the Church of Rome, assembled in the Councell of Trent, no lesse than the gastly Owle was to the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Councell of Lateran (which appeared to them in steede of their holy Ghost) but finding meanes to take Christ, the Antitype of that health-giuing brasen Serpent, and to pull out his teeth (to wit the truth of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, whereby sinne and death are bitten and stung to death) lest it should bite and sting all their merits to death: they dare now freely and familiarly carry the Serpent in the bosome of their bookes, handling imputation at their pleasure, without any perill at all to Papall satisfaction. Bellarmine hath also learned to play with the word imputation:Bellar. de iustif. l. 2. c. 8. Homo iustificatus non egit imputatione alienae iustitiae, qua iniustitia propria & inhaerens tegatur: A man iustified needeth not the imputation of anothers righteousnesse, whereby his owne inherent vnrighteousnesse may be couered. And in the tenth Chapter of the same booke, Christus nostra iustitia, non quòd iusti simus ea iustitia, quae est in Christo nobis imputata: Christ is our righteousnesse, not that we are iust by the righteousnesse which is in Christ imputed vntounto vsus; Sic igitur & nobis imputatur iustitia eius, quoad satisfactionem, quam pro nobis praestitit; sed non propterea nos iusti, id est, mundi & immaculati haberi possumus, si verè in nobis peccatorum macula & sordes inhaereant: So therefore is Christs righteousnesse imputed to vsus in regard of satisfaction, which he performed for vsus; but for all that we cannot bee holden for iust, to wit, cleane and immaculate, if the spots and staines of sinne by yet truely inherent in vsus. So this is the generall voyce of the Councell of Trent, and the Church of Rome, to allow of no other imputation of Christs righteousnesse, but such, as by his merits wee hauehave an infusion of grace, whereby we merit and satisfie God in our iustification: And so they admit of no other formall cause of iustification, but an inherent righteousnesse in themselues, and out of Christ. Thus we hauehave seene what the Romane-Catholike faith is touching Iustification, and the formall cause of it.