A Treatise of Justification, Book 2 · Chapter 7
CAP. VII. That the Papists exclude remission of sinne from Iustification, and in stead thereof have put expulsion and extinction of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse; and that they fouly erre therein.
§. I.
BVT heare it will be objected, that so long asObjections that the Papists retaining remission of sinnes, doe not wholly take away the benefit of justification. the Papists acknowledge remission of sinne to concurre unto justification, they cannot be said wholly to take away the benefit of justification: but rather to follow the judgement of some of the Latine fathers, who sometimes comprehending the benefit of sanctification under the name of justification, seemed to make justification to consist in remission of sinne and sanctification. Whereunto I answere, that indeed the Papists pretend so much. For the CouncellaSess. 6. cap. 7. of Trent in expresse termes saith, that justification is not remission of sins alone, but also sanctification and renovation of the inner man: and to the like purpose Bellarmine bDe Iustis. lib. 2. cap. 6.disputeth, that justification doth not consist in the remission of sinnes alone, but also in inward renovation. And yet all this is but a meere colourable pretence: For as they exclude from justification the imputation of Christs righteousnesse, by which onelyonly wee have remission of sinne: so they doe indeed and in truth exclude remission it selfe. And as in stead of imputation of righteousnesse they have brought in infusion of justice: so in stead of remission of sinne by imputation of Christs righteousnesse, they have brought in the utter expulsion, extinction, deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse. And for this they have some shew of reason: For if they should hold, that justification consisteth partly in remission, that is, in the forgivenesse, or not imputation of sinne, and partly in renovation or sanctification; then they must confesse, that there are two formall causes of justification, which Calvin cAntidot. ad Sess. 6.objected against the Councell of Trent, (and may truly bee objected against such of the Fathers as held justification to consist, partly in remission, and partly in renovation) and consequently should bee forced to acknowledge two wayes of making men just, by one and the same act of justification: the one, by imputation of that righteousnesse, by which being without us we have remission of sinne; the other, by infusion of righteousnesse inherent, by which sinne is expelled. But the Councell of Trent doth stedfastly hold, that there is but one formall cause of justification, and that is infusion of justice, whereby sinne is expelled. What then becometh of remission of sinne, which according both to Scriptures and Fathers concurreth to justification? I say of it, as of justification; the name is retained, but the thing is taken away.
§. II. Heere therefore I am to shew two things; first, that the PapistsThe Papists from justification exclude remission of sinne. from justification exclude remission of sinne, by putting into the roome thereof the expulsion and extinction of sinne, which belongeth not to justification, but to sanctification, and consequently doe wholly abolish by their doctrine the benefit of justification. Secondly, that remission of sinne is not the utter extinction or deletion thereof. As touching the former, when Calvin objected against the Councell of Trent, that it made two formall causes of justification:dDe justif. Lib. 2. Cap. 2. Bellarmine answereth thus, the Councell of Trent in expresse termes said, that there is but one onelyonly formall cause of justification. Yea but, say wee, the Councell seemeth to make two, viz. remission of sinnes and renovation. But, saith he, when the Councell maketh mention severally of remission of sin, and of infusion of grace, it did it not to signifie, that there is a twofold formall cause of justification; but to declare, that there are two termes of that motion which is called justification, or two effects of the same cause. For there cannot bee that mutation or translation, which the Councell noteth to bee in justification, unlesse by remission of sinne a man cease to bee wicked, and by infusion of justice begin to be godly. But, saith hee, as the aire, when it is enlightened of the Sunne, by the same light, which it receiveth, ceaseth to bee darke, and beginneth to be lightsome. So a man by the same justice given and infused by the Sunne of righteousnesse ceaseth to bee unjust, the light of grace expelling the darknesse of sinne; and beginneth to bee just, the light of grace succeeding the darkenesse of sinne. And as in calefaction, which similitude hee useth elsewhere, the accesse of heat expelleth cold; so in justification, the infusion of justice expelleth sinne. This then is the doctrine of the new Church of Rome; that in this mutation called justification which they define to beeeTransitus a peccato ad justitiam. a passage from sinne to righteousnesse; though there be, as in all other motions, duo termini, viz. sinne, which is terminus à quo, and righteousnesse, which is terminus ad quem; yet there are not two distinct actions concurring, viz. remission or expulsion of sinne, and infusion of righteousnesse; but one and the same action, which is the infusion of justice expelling sinne, even as in calefaction, though there bee two termes cold and hot, yet there are not two actions, for the same action of fire which bringeth in heat, expelleth cold; and so in illumination, there are two termes, darkenesse and light, but not two actions; for one and the same act of the Sunne, which bringeth light, driveth away darkenesse. Whereby it is evident, that by remission of sinne the Papists doe not understand, as all men from the beginning of the world have understood, pardoning, forgiving, not imputing sinne; but the utter deletion, expulsion, abolition of it: which Bellarmine callethfDe justif Lib. 2. Cap. 7. veram remissionem, true remission, as if the pardoning of the offence and taking away the guilt were not true remission:§. secundò. but this true remission they hold to bee such, that in a man who is justified, and hath remission of sinne, there is no sinne remaining, and hee onelyonly is to bee held a just man, in whom there is no sinne. Thus then remission of sinne is by the Papists excluded from justification, and that brought in the roome of it, which belongeth to that perfection of sanctification, whereunto none attaine in this life.
§. III. Now, that the Papists grossely erre in making remission ofThat remission of sinne is not the extinction of it. sinne to bee the utter abolition or expulsion of it by infusion of righteousnesse, may appeare by these arguments: First, whereas in sinne there are two things to bee considered, the guilt and the corruption, or Anomy thereof; it is evident, that the guilt of sinnes past is taken away by remission wholly and at once: the corruption is taken away by mortification thereof, not wholly in this life, and at once, but by degrees, we being day by day g2 Cor. 4. 19.renewed in the inner man. The latter is the worke of Gods Spirit within us. The former is an action of God without us, such as is that of the Creditor in remitting or forgiving a debt. And so the Scriptures conceive of remission. For our sinnes are debts in respect of the guilt binding us over to punishment, which wee owe for them. When as God therefore remitteth the debt, releaseth this obligation, forgiveth the punishment, hee is said, to remit our sinnes. This our Saviour taught by the parables of the creditors and debtors, Matth. 18. 23. Luk. 7. 41. And thus he hath taught us to pray, Matth. 6. 12. Forgive us our debts, as wee forgive our debtors. How doe wee forgive? By not revenging the offence, but laying aside all desire and purpose of revenge, by passing by it, and as it were forgetting it, by covering it with hProv. 10. 12.charity, by not imputing it, by being reconciled unto the party who hath offended us; not by a reall taking away of the sinne from the offender, but a wiping of it out of our remembrance; not by expelling the offence out of the offender, but out of our thoughts.
§. IV. Thus in the Scriptures, to remit sinne is not to abolish andTo remit, what it is in the Scriptures. See more Lib. 5. Cap. 3. extinguish the sinne it selfe, but to absolve from the guilt of sinne, to pardon and to forgive the debt, and to remit the punishment, to cover a mans sinne and not to impute it. And this plainely appeareth by these manifold phrases which are used in the Scriptures to signifie remission of sinne, all which import the taking away of the guilt, but none the utter abolishing of the corruption. As first the Hebrew Salach, Exod. 34. 9. Numb. 14. 19, 20. 30. 6. Deut. 29. 19. Psal. 103. 3. Esay 55. 7. Ier. 31. 34. Dan. 9. 20. signifieth parcere, remittere, ignoscere, condonare, propitium esse. Kasah, to hide, to spare, to forgive, Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 32. 1. 85. 2. Ioel 2. 17. Deut. 13. 8. Kaphar also is to cover, to pardon, to be propitious, Deut. 21. 8. Psal. 65. 4. 78. 38. 79. 9. Esay. 22. 14. Nasa, to spare, to forgive, to take away the guilt, Gen. 18. 24, 26. 50. 17. Exod. 32. 32. Numb. 14. 19. Psalm. 32. 1. cum Rom. 4. 7. Esay 33. 24. Psalm. 25. 18. Habar, to passe by an offence, Mic. 7. 18. and Hehebir to cause it to passe, 2 Sam. 12. 13. 24. 10. Zech. 3. 4. Machah, to wipe, or to blot out of remembrance the sinnes of men, as it were out of a booke, to blot them out from before his face, Nehem. 4. 5. Psalm. 51. 9. Ier. 18. 23. Hesir, to remove, Esay 27. 9. Lo chashab not to impute, Psal. 32. 2.
In like manner the Greeke foreign, to remit, or forgive, Mat. 6. 12, 14, 15. 18. 27, 32. whence is foreign, remission, that is, foreign, forgivenesse, as Hesychii…s expoundeth it. foreign, condonare, to forgive, Luk. 7. 42. 2 Cor. 2. 10. Ephes. 4. 33. Col. 2. 13. 3. 13. foreign not to impute, Rom. 4. 8. 2 Cor. 5. 19. So the Latine, remittere, dimittere, ignoscere, condonare, donare, veniam dare, parcere, propitium esse; and the English to remit, to pardon, to forgive.
§. V. For the farther clearing of this point, let us consider these three things; first, what that is which is remitted. Secondly, where itThree other arguments. remaineth untill it bee remitted. Thirdly, by what act of God it is remitted. The thing remitted is our debt, Matth. 6. 12. The subject where it remaineth are the bookes of Gods providence and of our own consciences. The act of God in remitting our debts is the wiping them out of his remembrance, as it were, his debt-bookes The debt is the sinne it selfe, which maketh us debtors unto God. And therefore sinnesFirst, the debt. are called debts, and sinners debtors, Matth. 6. 12. cum Luk. 11. 4. Matth. 23. 16, 18. Luk. 13. 4. cum 2. which also appeareth by the parables of the debtors, Luk. 7. 41. Matth. 18. 23, 35. and therefore sinners are called debtors, because for their sinnes they owe punishment, unto which by the just ordination of God they are obliged. This obligation, whereby sinners are bound over to punishment, is called reatus, that is, guilt. When as therefore God remitteth sins, he forgiveth the debt, hee remitteth or releaseth the punishment, hee taketh away the guilt, whereby we were bound over to punishment. And è converso, when God forgiveth the debt, releaseth the punishment, taketh away the guilt, he is said to remit sinne. Now sinnes are either habituall or actuall: An habituall sinne God doth remit, when hee doth take away the guilt of it, iPsalm. 32. 2.and cover the Anomy of it, not that it should not be at all, but that it should not bee imputed, as Augustine kDe Nupt. &saith of concupiscence or originall sinne, whereof all particular habituall … sinnes areConcupisc. c. 25. 1 Col. 3. 5. members and branches. Actuall sinnes God doth remit, when he doth forgive the sinfull act mAct. 8. 22.it selfe, and the guilt also which remaineth after the act is past and gone.
§. VI. But here the Papists have found out a new devise, to confirme their error in confounding justification and sanctification; that whereasWhether remission be of the macula. there are two things, which as themselves doe teach, nThom. 1. 2. … q. 87. art. 6. c. & ad. 1. ….remaine in the soule after the act of sinne hath been committed, viz. reatus & macula, the guilt and the blemish or spot; they teach against sense that it is properly the macula which is remitted in justification. But then say I, what becometh of the punishment, & the guilt binding over to punishment? It is certaine, that the infusion of righteousnesse doth not take away the guilt, nor free us from punishment. Neither can we be freed either …rom the one or the other, but only by the satisfaction of Christ imputed unto us. Hence therfore they should have learned to distinguish between justification and sanctification, rather than to confound them, that whereas there are two things remaining after sinne committed, the guilt, and the pollution; the guilt is taken away by imputation of Christs righteousnesse in our justification; the pollution is in some measure cleansed in our sanctification.
§. VII. And how soever that, which they say of the macula or pollutionThat which they say of the macula …emaining is not altogether true. remaining, is true in respect of Originall sinne, wherein, upon the guilt of Adams transgression imputed, there followeth an universall macula or corruption, consisting of two parts, the privation of Originall righteousnesse, and an evill disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne, by which twofold corruption all the parts and faculties of the soule are defiled: yet it seemeth not to be altogether true in regard of mens personall sinnes, in respect of either part: for as touching the former part, which is the privation; neither are the unregenerate by their actuall sinnes deprived of grace or righteousnesse infused, which they had not before they sinned: neither are the regenerate utterly deprived of grace by such sinnes as they commit, as I have elsewhere oIn the treatise of perseverance.proved: and as touching the latter part, which is the evill disposition; this macula, whereof they speake, is no new evill disposition making him a sinner who before was not, but an evill disposition remaining of the old man, which by committing of actuall sinnes is increased. Insomuch as where the same actuall sinne is often committed and reiterated, that evill disposition groweth to bee an habit. For all evill dispositions or habituall sinnes, which are in men, are either the reliquia or remnants of originall sinne in some measure mortified, or the increments thereof, when by the committing of actuall sinnes they receive increase. And such a thing is that macula, whereof they speake: which remaining in the soule per modum habitus, is to bee taken away, as all other habituall sinnes are, as they are pollutions, by the mortification pCol. 3. 5.of them; which is a part of sanctification and not of justification. Neither is the mortification of sinne a totall deletion or abolition thereof in this life, as if no sinne or corruption remained in the party justified or sanctified: for though in the forgiving or remitting of originall sinne, the guilt bee wholly taken away; yet the corruption, which is called concupiscence, remaineth more or lesse mortified.
§. VIII. Now followeth the subject, where that, which is to beeThe booke out of which God doth wipe our sinnes, when he doth remit them. remitted, doth remaine; and from whence, when it is remitted, it is wiped or blotted out, that is, Gods remembrance and our conscience, which are as it were the Lords debt-bookes, according to which bookes he will judge, Apoc. 20. 12. the former is the booke of Gods providence, Psalm. 56. 8. 139. 15. wherein all offences are written, and wherein they remaine upon record, Hos. 7. 2. 8. 13. Ier. 17. 1. The other is the booke of our conscience, which is, as it were, the Lords atturney indicting us of sinne. In regard whereof David saith, Psalm. 51. 3. I doe know, or am conscious to my transgressions, and my sinne is ever before mee. Out of the former booke the Lord doth wipe out sinnes, when he justifieth us in the Court of Heaven: out of the latter, when we are justified in the Court of our owne Conscience.
§. IX. And hereby the third thing appeareth: namely, by whatBy what Act of God our sinnes are remitted. act of God our sinnes are remitted. For if that which is remitted be a debt, which is recorded in Gods booke: then this debt is remitted not by any act of God within us, either really wiping the pollution out of our soules, or infusing grace into them (both which are done in some measure after the debt is remitted, in our sanctification) but by an act of God without us, wiping our sinnes out of his booke, blotting them out of his remembrance, Esai. 43. 25. casting them behinde his backe, Esai. 38. 17. turning his face from them, Psalm. 51. 9. not remembring, Ier. 31. 34. nor imputing them, Rom. 4. 8. ex Psal. 32. 2. but forgiving and forgetting them, and accepting of Christs satisfaction for them in the behalfe of all that truely beleeve in Christ, Rom. 3. 24, 25.
§. X. Our fifth argument may be this: The utter deletion of sinneOur fifth argument becau…e the utter deletion of sinne is not granted in this life. is not granted in this life: Remission of sinne is granted to the faithfull in this life: Therefore remission of sinne is not the utter deletion of it.
The proposition is certaine: For during this life sinne remaineth in the best, Rom. 7. 17. 20. 1 Ioh. 1. 8.
The assumption is undeniable, as being an Article of our faith testified in many places of Scripture.
Or thus: If in justification there were an utter deletion or abolition of sinne, then in those, that are justified, there is no sinne.
But there is no mortall man, though justified, in whom there is no sinne.
Therefore in justification there is not a Totall deletion of sinne.
§. XI. Sixthly, if remission of sin be an utter deletion of the corruptionSixthly, the guilt and punishment which are taken away in justification, are not taken away by infusion of righteousnesse. by infusion of righteousnesse, and nothing else concurre to justification, but infusion of righteousnesse expelling sin; what then becommeth of the guilt of sinne and the punishment? how is our debt satisfied? The justice infused, though it should utterly expell the corruption; yet it neither doth nor can satisfie for the punishment, as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth. Neither is there any other satisfaction or propitiation for our sinnes, whereby Gods justice may be satisfied, our debt discharged, our selves freed from hell and damnation, but onelyonly the satisfaction of Christ, without imputation whereof there is no justification nor salvation: but none of this is done by righteousnesse infused expelling sinne. Wherefore the Papists, if they will bee saved, must acknowledge, besides the benefit of the infusion of righteousnesse expelling the corruption of sinne, which they call justification, but is indeed sanctification, another greater benefit, whereby we are both freed from hell, and entituled to heaven, by imputation of Christs satisfaction, called in the Scriptures justification, which they by their Antichristian doctrine have utterly abolished.
§. XII. Seventhly, that which worketh no reall change in the partySeventhly, remission doth not worke a reall change. doth not really take away and expell all sin from him by infusion of righteousnesse, for that cannot bee done without a reall, yea and a great change in the party. True remission of sinne doth not worke a reall change in the party. Therefore the true remission of sinne doth not really take away and expell all sinne by infusion of righteousnesse. The assumption is thus proved: first, the forgiving of a debt worketh no reall change in the debtor, but relative. The true remission of sinne is the forgiving of our debt, therefore the true remission doth not worke a reall change in the party. Secondly, that which is imputative doth not worke a reall change in the party but is an act wrought without the party. True remission of sinne is imputative, as the Apostle teacheth, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. consisting in the not imputing of sinne, presupposing the imputing of righteousnesse without workes, therefore it worketh not a reall change.
§. XIII. My eighth argument is from theabsurdities which followEight absurdities following on this Pop…h Doctrine. upon this Popish Doctrine. First, Necessity of despairing, not onelyonly to the tender conscience labouring under the burden of sinne: but also to all not cauterized consciences, which have any sense of theirSer. lib. 5. c. 5. §. 6, 7, 8. owne estate. For if remission of sinne bee the utter deletion of sinne, then have not they, neither can they have remission of sinne, in whom any sinne remaineth: and those, that neither have, nor can have remission of sinne in this life, because sinne doth ever remaine in them, what remaineth to them but despaire? Secondly, that there is no necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification, because there is in them both a totall deletion of sinne, and an infusion of perfect righteousnesse, whereby sinne is wholly expelled. And these, as you shall heare hereafter pLib. 5.are two of Bellarmines *De justis. l. 2. 6. 7. §. secund…. & § tertio.principall Arguments to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to bee needlesse, both because, when our sinnes are remitted they are utterly abolished; so that whosoever is justified is no longer a sinner in himselfe, nor hath any sinne remaining in him; and also because in justification there is an infusion of perfect righteousnesse. The third, that to remission of sinne there needeth no favour or indulgence for pardon or forgivenesse: for if remission of sinne be a totall deletion of sinne by infusion of perfect righteousnesse, then without any accession of favour the one contrary is necessarily expelled by the other. And this doth Vasques professe in expresse termes, Mihi semper qIn 1. … 2. … Disp. 204 n. 2.3.necessarium visum fuit asserere, maculam peccati ipsa justitia inherente tanquam forma contraria nullo accedente favore & condo natione deleri.
§. XIV. These absurdities doe necessarily follow upon their Antichristian doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse: For if a man be justified before God by inherent righteousnesse, then is he not a sinner in himselfe, and consequently hath no sinne in him. And if by infusion of righteousnesse there be a totall deletion of sinne, then must that righteousnesse, which is infused, be perfect. For that which is unperfect cannot wholly expell sinne, the imperfection being of it selfe a sinne; and if upon infusion of perfect righteousnesse there doth necessarily and of its owne accord follow a totall deletion of sinne, then to remission of sinne favour and condonation is needlesse. And yet we have not done with their absurdities: For to dreame that men who are but infants in Christianity, yea infants in age, before they have the use of reason, or are capable of habits, are endued. and that ordinarily, with perfect righteousnesse in their first imaginary justification, which is inciptentium of such as be but incipients, whereunto the best proficients doe not in this life attaine, is a monstrous absurdity.