A Treatise of Justification, Book 4 · Chapter 12
CAP. XII. That justification doth n…t c…nsist in ren…vation.
§. I.
HIs second ranke of arguments proving indirectlyDe iustif. lib. c. 6. Iustificationem nostram non constare sola remissione peccat…rum. justification by righteousnesse inherent is propounded in his sixt Chapter, the title whereof is this, That o…r justification doth not consist in the remission of sinnes alone. Neither doe we say, it doth. The exclusive particle used by some of our Divines doth exclude infusion, not imputation of righteousnesse, asa…ib. 2. c. 1. §. Ioan▪ Calvin. Bellarmine confesseth. For wee doe hold (though all perhaps have not so plainely expressed their meaning and some few have delivered their private opinions) that remission of sinne is but a part of justification: and that by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we are both absolved from our sinnes, and also accepted as righteous in Christ and as heires of eternall life. But Bellarmine, howsoever he would seeme to acknowledge the concurrence of remission of sinne unto justification, yet indeed excludeth it. For by remission of sinne concurring to justification, hee doth not understand the not imputing or forgiving of sinne, but the extinction and abolition thereof, wrought by the infusion of habituall righteousnesse, which expelleth its contrary, as heat doth cold, and light darkenesse. And howsoever there bee duo termini two termes in this motion or mutation,Transitus à pecca…o ad iustitiam. as he conceiveth of justification, as being a passage b or change from sinne to righteousnesse: yet there be not two causes, nor yet two distinct actions, but the onelyonly cause is justice infused; and the action is but one and the same, the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne. Even as in creation, which is transit…s à non esse ad esse: in illumination, which is transit…s à tenebris ad l…cem; in calefaction, which is a passage from cold to heat. But if this be all that is required in the Popish justification, as undoubtedly it is, the whole and onelyonly forme thereof being infused of righteousnesse, or as they love rather to speake, righteousnesse infused, their justification also not differing from that which the Scriptures call sanctification, saving that they dreame of a totall mortification or deletion of sinne, and of a perfect renovation: then what is become of the absolving of … …tom the guilt of sinne, by which wee are freed from hell; and the acceptation of us as righteous in Christ, by we are intitled to the kingdome of heaven? Both which are wrought by imputation of Christs righteousnesse, in which true justification doth consist. For infused righteousnesse, though it were perfect, could not discharge us from our former debts; and being unperfect, as their owne consciences cannot but tell them, it cannot entitle them to the kingdome of heaven. Wherefore if they will be saved, they must of necessity flee to the righteousnesse or satisfaction of Christ, who hath fully satisfied the Law, both in respect of the penalty, by his sufferings, and also in regard of the commandement, by his obedience: which obedience and sufferings, being transient and gone so long since, can no otherwise bee communicated unto them, but by imputation. Now, if they can be content to acknowledge the imputation of Christs satisfaction (which sometimescBellarm. de iustif. l. 2. c. 7. §. quar to &c. 10. Deinde &c. 5. §. quar to & §. quòd ver…. they doe, and must doe if they will bee saved; for there is no other meanes, either to escape hell, or to come to heaven) then let them, according to the Scriptures, acknowledge this imputation of Christs satisfaction, by which they are to bee acquitted and freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation, and also accepted as righteous in Christ, and heires of eternall life, to be their justification. As for the mortification of sinne, and the renovation of us according to the image of God in true holinesse and righteousnesse, both which are but in part, and by degrees wrought in us by the Spirit of regeneration, let them bee acknowledged to bee the two parts of our sanctification.
§. II. But Bellarmine will needs have our renovation to be the righteousnesseBellarmines. proofe, that iustification con sisteth in renovation. of justification. And this he indevoureth to prove by Testimonies of Scripture, by the authority of Saint Augustine, and by reason. The texts of Scripture, which he citeth, are six. The first, Rom. The first Rom. 4. 25.4. 25. who was delivered up for our sin…es, and rose for our justification. From whence Bellarmine argueth thus: to what the Apostle giveth the name of justification, in that justification consisteth, rather than in that, unto which hee doth not give the name: But to renovation in this place the Apostle doth give the name of justification, and not to remission of sinne: Therefore justification consisteth rather in renovation, than in remission of sinne.
Before I answere, I thinke good to advertise the reader againe, that Bellarmine here by remission of sinne doth not understand the not imputing of sinne, or as we in plaine English call it, forgivenesse of sinne: but the utter deletion, the extinction, the totall mortification of sinne. And that hee doth foure times at the least signifie in this one passage. Now I answer, by denying his assumption; because the Apostle in this place doth give the name of justification, neither to remission, nor yet to renovation, which is not mentioned so much as once in all the Chapter. Indeed in some other places the Apostle and his Disciple Saint Luke doe give the name to remission of sinnes, that is, to the not imputing of sinne, or to the absolving and acquitting from sinne, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. …. 13. 38, 39. but never to renovation.
§. III. His assumption Bellarmine proveth, because it cannot be doubt…d, He proveth his assumption.but that the Apostles meaning was, that Christ his death was a samplar or patterne of the death of sin, that is (saith he) of remission or deletion of sins: and that his resurrection was a samplar *This is denied by Cardinall Tolet, in Rom. 4. annot. 25▪ Christ. non est traditus propter de…icta tanquam examplar, sed tanquam vera satisfactio: igitur nec resurrexisse pro… ter iustifi cationem dicitur tanquam exemplar, sed propter ipsum iustificationem, quem non ess…mus conseca…, nisi surrexisset.or patterne of our renovation, and inward regeneration, by which we walke in newnesse of life. And is this the meaning of the Apostle? Then be like wee are justified by imitation, and not by imputation of Christs death; and by imitation of his resurrection, and then also by the same reason we are made sinners by imitation and not imputation of Adams transgression. But indeed in this place the Apostle doth not propound, by way of exhortation, the death and resurrection of Christ as an example to bee followed in dying to sinne, and rising to righteousnesse represented in Baptisme, as hee doth in the sixth to the Romans, where he exhorteth to sanctification as an inseparable consequent and companion of justification: but by way of Doctrine hee speaketh of the death and resurrection of Christ, as the cause of our justification, of which he had spoken in the whole Chapter, and even in the verses next going before: that righteousnesse shall bee imputed to us, as well as to Abraham, if wee beleeve in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead, who was given by his father and by himselfe to us and for us, that by the obedience of his life untill death, but especially at his death he might satisfie for our sinnes: and was raised from the dead, that we might be justified and saved by his life which he liveth after his death: Christ by his death and obedience did satisfie for our sinnes paying a full ransome for them, and so did justifie us meritoriously: and in that sense we are said to bee justified by his blouddRom. 5. 9. 19. and by his obedience, both as the matter and merit of our justification. But neither his death nor obedience had beene effectuall to our justification, if he had not risen from the dead. As the Apostle sheweth 1 Cor. 15▪ 17. If Christ bee not raised, your faith is vaine, yee are yet in your sinnes. For if Christ had not risen againe, it had beene an evid…nce, that he was not the Sonne of God: and then could not his obedience or sufferings have beene meritorious for us. But by his resurrection hee waseRom. 1. 4. mightily declared to be the Sonne of God, in regard whereof it was said,fPsal. 2. 7. Heb. 1. 5. Act. 13. 33. Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee: and being God, his obedience and sufferings, are of infinite and all sufficient merit and value, vertue and efficacie for the justification and salvation of all that beleeve in him. And againe what benefits Christ merited for us by his obedience even untill death, the same being risen he applyeth and giveth to those that beleeve. God having raised him and exalted himgAct. 5. 3. 31. with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sinnes. Christ therefore was given unto death, that hee might by his sufferings satisfie for our sinnes the penalty thereunto belonging: and he did rise againe, that by application of his merits we might bee justified. Righteousnesse therefore shall be imputed to those that beleeve in the resurrection of Christ, or rather in Christ raised againe: who as he gave himselfe to bee a foreign or price of ransome for our sinnes; so he did arise againe, that by effectuall application of his merits we might bee justified. So that whom by his death and obedience he redeemed meritoriously, then he doth effectually justifie and save by his lifehRom. 5. 10. and the severall actions thereof, viz. his resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of his Father as our King and Priest, his comming againe to judgement: who therefore shall layiRom. 8▪ 33, 34. any thing to the charge of Gods children? it is God that justifieth: who is hee that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed, yea rather that is risen againe, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intorcession for us?
§. IV. In the words following Bellarmine answeareth a secret objection:Whether ren…ssion and renovation be two distinct actions. if remission of sinnes be ascribed to Christs death: and renovation to his resurrection, then belike remission and renovation be two severall actions proceeding from divers causes, contrary to that which hath beene delivered. For prevention whereof he saith, It is to be noted, that the death of Christ, which is the price of our redemption, was not onelyonly the cause of the remission of sinne, but also of internall renovation. And the like, as he saith afterwards, may bee said of the re…urrection. For according to the doctrine of the Catholike Church, these two cannot bee severed: f…rasmuch as one and the same grace (viz. charity,) being through the merit of Christ infused and inherent in us, doth both blot out or extinguish our sinnes, and also adorneth the soule with righteousnesse, wherefore though the Apostle might have ascribed both remission and renovation, either to Christs death, or to his resurrection: yet he chose rather distinctly to attribute remission to his death, and renovation to his resurrection, propter similitudinem, because of the likenesse which the extinction of sinne hath with the death of the body: and spirituall renovation with the resurrection of the body: whereunto I answer briefly; first, that though the death and resurrection of Christ, in respect of their efficacie, though remission and renovation alwayes goission and renovation, then in justification there are two actions proceeding from two causes: secondly, that these foure distinct benefits, remission of sinne, and acceptation of us as righteous in Christ, (which are the parts of justification, wrought both of them by imputation of Christs righteousnesse, which is the one and onelyonly forme of justification:) likewise the dying unto sinne or mortification, and the rising of the Sonle from the grave of sinne, which is our first resurrection, or vivification, which are the two parts of sanctification, those foure actions I say proceed from two causes, and that in twofold respects. For remission of sinne is procured by the merit of Christs death; and dying unto sinne is ascribed to the vertue of his death: the imputation of Christs merits, whereby wee are both absolved from sinne and accepted as righteous, is ascribed to his resurrection, whereby his merits are applyed unto us for our justification; and the grace of rising from the grave of sinne, to the vertuekPhil. 3. 9. of his resurrection: for by the same power, whereby Christ did rise againe, are wee raised from sinne to newnesse of life.
§. V. His second allegation is Rom. 5. 21. That as sinne reignedTestimonie 2. Rom. 5. 21. unto death, so grace may reign by justice to life everlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord: where by justice opposed to sin, he saith, is meant inward renovation. Ans. 1. We deny not, but that in all the faithful there is a two fold righteousnesse: the one, imputed, which is the righteousnesse of justification: the other, infused and inherent, which is the righteousnesse of sanctification, which he calleth renovation. If therfore the Apostle did speake here of righteousnesse inherent, yet this place would make nothing against us. For we confesse, that as sin reigneth in the children of disobedience by producing the workes of iniquity: so the grace of God, or the Spirit of grace doth reigne in the faithful by bringing forth the fruits of righteousnes. But this is not the righteousnesse of justification, but that wherein our sanctification doth consist. But indeed the Apostle here doth not speake, either only, or chiefly, if at all, of inherent righteousnesse. Neither doth hee in this place make an opposition or antithesis betweene sinne and righteonsnesse, to which supposition Bellarmines argument is grounded; but betweene the kingdome of sinne reigning unto death; and the kingdome of grace reigning by righteousnesse unto everlasting life through Iesns Christ our Lord. Now the righteousnesse, wherein the kingdome of grace especially consisteth, is the righteousnesse of justification by faith, whereupon followeth peace of conscience, and joy in the holy Ghost, Rom. 14. 17. compared with Rom. 5. 1. 2. which being not our righteousnesse (as all inherent justice is) but the righteousnesse of God, is chiefly, lMat. 6. 33.yea in the cause of justification is onelyonly to bee sought after, Phil. 3. 8, 9. Rom. 10. 3. Secondly, as in all the chapter from the twelfth verse to the end, the opposition which is made is of Adams sinne to Christs obedience: so in this place, as the sinne of Adam was the cause of death, so Christs obedience, of life: the opposition is not of inherent righteousnesse to inherent sinne, but of Christs righteousnesse to Adams sinne.Testim. 3. Rom. 6. 13
§. VI. His third allegation is out of Rom. 6. 13. Doe not ye exhibit your members as instruments of iniquity unto sinne; but exhibit your selves to God, as of dead men alive, and your members instruments of justice to God; where, by righteousnesse, saith hee, is understood, something that is inherent, &c. and that hee goeth about to prove, which no man doubteth of, when indeed hee should prove, not, that there is a righteousnesse inherent in the faithfull, for that wee freely confesse; but that the righteousnesse, which is inherent, is that, by which wee are justified. But it is evident, that the Apostle speaketh not heere of the righteousnesse of justification, but of the righteousnesse of sanctification, whereunto in this Chapter hee doth exhort as to a necessary and unseparable consequent of justification. Neither doth the Apostle heere, or elsewhere, (as before I observed in setting downe the differences betweene justification and sanctification) exhort us to the righteousnesse of justification or the parts thereof, which bee not our duties, but Gods gracious favours: for that were to exhort us to remission of sinne, and acceptation to life. But to the righteousnesse of sanctification, and the parts mortification and renovation, and to the particular duties thereof, hee doth, both here and in many other places exhort, as namely in his sixth testimony cited o…t of Eph. 4. 23, 24. from which hee would prove (which no man doth deny) that our renova…ion, according to the image of God, standeth in righteousnesse and holinesse inherent.
§. VII. His fourth allegation had need to be a good one: for thisTestim. 4. Rom. 8. 10. is the third time that hee hath cited, and recited, and as it were recocted it, out of Rom. 8. 10. The Spirit liveth, because of justification, or as it is in the Greeke, the Spirit is life because of justice. For justification or justice which maketh us to live, and thereby to worke, cannot be onelyonly remission of sin, but something inward inherent. Answ. In this place, vers. 10. 11. as I shewed before, the Apostle setteth down a double priviledge of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit, freeing them from the Law of death. The one, in respect of the soule, vers. 10. that howsoever the body bee dead, that is, (as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth) mortall, or appointed to death by reason of sin, which the first Adam brought in, and by it death, his sinne being imputed to all: yet the soule, (for so the word Spirit is taken when it is opposed to the body) is life, that is, as the Antithesis requireth, designed unto life, by reason of that righteousnes of the second Adam, by imputation whereof all the faithfull are entituled unto everlasting life, For as in the former part of the Antithesis is not meant the spirituall death of men dead in sinne, (for that is the death of the soule and not of the body, and the Apostle speaketh of those in whom Christ dwelleth) but the corporall death, unto which they also, in whom Christ dwelleth, are subject: so in the latter is meant, not the life of grace or of righteousnesse, but the life of glory. The other priviledge respecteth the body, vers. 11. that after it hath beene dead and turned into dust, the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from death, dwelling in us shall raise unto life eternall our mortall bodies.
§. VIII. His fifth testimony, Gal. 3. 21. where, when the Apostle saith Testim. 5. Gal. 3. 21.If there had been a Law given which could give life, or justifie (as the Rhemists translate the word vivificare) then in very deed, justice should be of Law: hee doth plainely (saith he) demonstrate, that justice from whence justification is named, is something, which giveth life to the soule, and hee doth place the same in motion and action. Answ. If from this proposition propounded by the Apostle, Bellarmine could have assumed the antecedent that so hee might conclude the consequent: then might hee strongly have concluded against us, that wee are justified by inherent righteousnesse. But seeing the Apostle doth tollere anteceden…, that is, intendeth to contradict that antecedent; what reason hath Bellarmine to argue as hee doth? It is very true, that if the Law could have given us life, that is, as Chrysostome and O…umenius expound, could have saved us, according to that legall promise, Hocfac & vives, doe this and thou shalt live, or as the Rhemists translate, could have justified us: then undoubtedly wee might have beene justified by inherent righteousnesse. But forasmuch as it was impossible for the Law to justifie and save us, because it neither was, no… is possible for us, by reason of the flesh, to performe the condition: and forasmuch as God therefore sent his Sonne mRom. 8 3, 4.to performe foreign all that the Law requireth unto justification that wee, who could not bee justified, nor saved by any inherent righteousnesse of our owne prescribed in the Law, and therefore not by a justice consisting in our actions or motions, might bee justified and saved by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us: what can Bellarmine gather from hence with any shew or colour of reason, to prove justification by such a righteousnesse, as is inherent, and consisteth in motion and action?
§. IX. The sixth I have already answered with the third.Testim. 6. Eph. 4. 23, 24.
As for his testimonies collected out of Augustine, a briefe an…wereThe testimony of Augustine. may serve: that hee, not considering the force of the Hebrew and Greeke words, which never in all the Scriptures are used in the signification of making righteous by inherent or infused righteousnesse: but resting, as it seemeth, upon the notation and composition of the Latine word justificare as not differing in respect thereof from the Verbe sanctificare; doth sometimes more largely extend the signification of the word justification, than the Scriptures use it, as including the benefit of sanctification. But it is a most certaine truth, that the word justificare being used in the Scriptures translated into Latine as the translation of the Hebrew Hitsdiq and of the Greeke foreign must be understood to signifie no other thing (if it bee a true translation) than what is meant by the Hebrew and the Greeke; which, as I have shewed before, doe never in all the Scriptures signifie to make just by infusion of righteousnesse. And therefore it cannot be denied, but that it is, and was an oversight in them, who using the word as mentioned in the Scriptures, and from thence borrowing it, extend it to another signification, than that of the originall, wherof it is a translation. I say againe, as I have said before, that the fotce of the Latine word, in this controversie, is no further to be respected, than as it is a translation of the Hebrew and the Greek; and as it is a true translation, it must bee understood no otherwise, than according to the meaning of the originall: if it be understood otherwise, then is it not a true translation, neither is the sence of the word divine, but humane. Howbeit; Augustine differeth from Bellarmine, as touching the use of this word, in two things, first, that hee doth not alwaies so use the word; as for example, when hee teacheth, as hee, and the rest of the Fathers often doe) that wee are justified by faith alone, as hereafter nLib. 6. cap. 9.shall bee shewed, they could not meane, that wee are sanctified by faith alone. Secondly, remission of sinne, which is the not imputing or forgiving of sinne, is by Augustine included in the signification of the word, which by Bellarmine is excluded; who, in stead of remission, hath substituted the extinction and abolition of sinne. So that although he retaine the name, which hee confoundeth with sanctification: yet the thing thereby signified, which is the maine benefit, which wee receive from Christ, by which wee are both delivered from hell, and entitled to heaven, hee hath taken away, as I have heretofore declared. If this answere doe not content the Papists, let them understand; that when the use of any word in the Fathers borrowed from the Scriptures, differeth from the perpetuall use thereof in the Scriptures: wee are bound to follow the infall…ble authority of Gods Word, rather than the testimony of any man, or men whatsoever. And for this wee have Augustines oSee to this purpose divers testimonies of Augustine citedby Gratian. Dist. 9.owne warrant, who challengeth liberty to reject in other mens writings, though never so learned andholy, what is not agreeable to the Scriptures. Talis ego sum saith he, in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellector…s meorum.Bellarmines reasons. The first.
§. X. I come to his reasons, which are three. The first, in every motion, or mutation there are two termini, a quo, and ad quem, the name being taken from the latter, as in illumination there is a change from darknesse to light; in calesaction from cold to heate. Iustistcation is a mutation or change, Therefore in justification there are two termini, a quo, sc. peccatum; ad quem, justitia, from which it hath his denomination, and therefore besides remisston of sinne, there must accrew righteousnesse. I answer, that mutations are either reall or relative. If hee speake of reall mutations, I deny the assumption, for I have proved before, that justification is no such mutation. If hee speake of relative mutations, I grant the syllogisme, for even in such there are two termini, as in liberation, terminus a quo, is bondage, ad quem is freedome, in marrying, the change is from being a Batchelor to bee a Husband, from being a Maid to bee a Wife; so in Reconciliation, Redemption, Adoption; and so also in justification there is a change from guilt of sinne to righteousnesse imputed: from being guilty of sinne and damnation, to bee accepted as righteous unto life: from being the bondslave of sinne and Satan, and obnoxious to hell and condemnation; to bee not onelyonly made a free-man but also a Citizen of Heaven. In all these are great changes, yet not reall or positive, whereby any inherent forme, either going before, is abolished, or new acquired; but onelyonly relative.
§. XI. His second reason may thus bee framed: If justification bee His second reason,given to us of God, not onelyonly that wee may escape the paines of hell, but also, that wee may obtaine the rewards of the heavenly life: then justification doth not consist onelyonly in the remission of sinnes, which onelyonly freeth from punishment; but giveth not glory: but the former is true: therefore the latter. Ans. All this wee freely confesse: but first, the thing principally intended, that to justification besides remission of sinnes renovation concurreth, hee doth not goe about to prove. OnelyOnly hee proveth that justification doth not consist in remission onelyonly, in which wee agree with him, though not in the other thing which is to bee added; for wee adde making righteous by imputation; hee, by infusion or renovation. Secondly, the proofes of his assumption wee doe not approve. The first, Rom. 6. 22. yee have your fruit unto sanctification, but the end everlasting life. The whole verse is this: But now being made free from sinne and become servants to God, (that is, being redeemed or justified) ye have your fruit unto holinesse (that is, the fruit of your justification is your sanctification) and the end of both is glorification, or everlasting life. For this text doth neither prove, that justification is not remission of sinne onelyonly; not that it is to bee confounded with sanctification, which is here made the fruit of it; nor that it conferreth everlasting life. For if the holy Ghost, speaking of justification, had mentioned onelyonly remission of sinne without mentioning any other thing concurring thereunto (as sometimes hee doth Act. 13. 38, 39. 26. 18. Rom. 4. 7, 8.) his meaning might be, that being freed from sinne and mancipated pforeign.to God, that is, redeemed, (for manu capti and servati are mancipia and servi, and to bee redeemed is to have remission of sinnes, Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14.) yee have the fruit of your redemption unto sanctification, according to that, Luk. 1. 73, 74, 75. and the end both of your redemption and sanctification, everlasting life, his second proofe is Rom, 8. 30, whom hee hath justified hee hath glorified, for so might I say, to whom hee hath given remission of sinnes, to them hee giveth the inheritance, Act. 26. 18. them he maketh blessed, Psal. 32. 1. them hee justifieth, Rom. 4. 6, 7. Act. 13. 38, 39. and them hee glorifieth. And whereas hee saith, that in that order of causes set downe in qRom. 8. 30.that place, every latter is the effect of the former, as glorification of justification, justification of vocation, vocation of predestination: that may bee a reason, why in that serie causarum, sanctification is left out: because it is not the cause, but the way to glorification, Eph. 2. 10. and the cognizance and character of them that shalbe glorified. Act. 20. 32. 26. 18. his third proofe out of 2 Tim. 4. 8. there is a Crown of righteousnesse laid up for me, is nothing to the purpose. For as Augustine rin Psal. 100.saith donando delicta fecit se Coronae debitorem, by pardoning offences hee oweth the Crowne, and Bernard, sDegratiam & lib. arb.there is a Crowne of righteousnesse, which Paul expecteth, sed justitiae Dei, non suae, but of Gods righteousnesse, not of his, for it is just he should render what hee oweth and hee oweth what hee hath promised.
§. XII. But the assumption, though not proved by him, is approved and granted by us, as agreeing with that justification, which wee teach: and disagreeing from that, which is taught by the Papists. For wee teach that in justification, by imputation of Christs righteousnesse, wee are both freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation, and also are in Christ accepted as righteous, and as heires of eternall life. And further wee teach, that howsoever the parts of justification, viz. remission of sinne and acceptation unto life, in the faithfull; and the causes thereof in Christ, that is to say, his bloud and his obedience, doe alwayes concu…re, for whosoever hath remission of sinnes is also accepted unto life, and contrariwise, and our Saviour in his obeying suffered, and in his sufferings obeyed: yet the causes in Christ, and effects unto the faithfull are to bee distinguished. For by imputation of his sufferings properly wee are freed from punishment; and by imputation of his obedience properly wee are entituled to the kingdome of heaven, as I have shewed heretofore. But in the popish justification there is neither remission of sinnes properly to free them from hell: nor donation of such ju…tice, as may entitle them to heaven. For neither the abolition or extinction of sinne present by infusion of righteousnesse, though it were compleate (as it is not) can satisfie for their former sinnes, nor can their righteousnesse, being unperfect, give them right to heaven. But it is the onelyonly satisfaction of Christ by his righteousnesse and obedience, both Passive and Active, which being communicated unto beleevers by imputation, doth both free them from hell, and giveth them a Title and Right to the Heavenly Kingdome. His proofe taken from the courts of men, I admit as good against them, who holding, that wee are justified onelyonly by the Passive righteousnesse of Christ, doe make justification to bee nothing else but remission of sinnes. For they whom being guilty in themselves (as we all a…e before God) a judge doth justifie, are freed indeed from punishment, but they doe not thereby obtaine new rewards. Howbeit there is a great dissimilitude betweene Gods justification of men, and that of humane Iudges. For a judge by his absolution, though he doth free the guilty, and indeed faulty parson from punishment, and from the guilt binding him over to punishment, and thereby perhaps bewrayeth his owne unjustice: yet he doth not free him from the fault, nor doth he make him righteous, and much lesse doth hee indow him with new priviledges. But when God doth justifie a beleeving sinner, hee doth not onelyonly free him from hell, and from the guilt binding him over to condemnation, by imputation of Christ sufferings: but also by imputation of Christ obedience he maketh him righteous and an heire of eternall life. And in thus justifying a beleeving sinner, he is just, uRom. 5. 26.because Christ by his sufferings hath fully satisfied for his sinnes, and by his obedience hath merited for him eternall life.
§. XIII. His third reason: justification, of enemies maketh us Gods His third reason.friends, children, beloved Citizens of Heaven, the Domesticks of God, heires of his kingdome, as the Scriptures every where speake: therefore it doth not stand onelyonly in remission of sinnes, Thus farre we agree with him. But as it is a good argument against those who hold justification to bee nothing else but remission of sinne: so it maketh not for him, who holdeth justification by infusion of righteousnesse, but against him. For whereas the Scriptures testifie, that God, when he justifieth men, hee doth of enemies make them his beloved friends, and his children, &c. It is to be confessed, that here is a very great change: but is it reall, or relative? by infusion, or by imputation? Surely, when God reconcileth men unto himselfe and of enemies maketh them his favourites; when he adopteth men, and of the children of the devill, maketh them his owne children; when justifying men hee doth of foes make them his beloved friends, of bondslaves not onelyonly freemen, but also Citizens of heaven; of alients, his Domesticks; of men obnoxious to damnation, heires of his Kingdome, hee doth not these things by infusion of any reall or positive qualities into them: but these are externall favours, which God vouchsafeth unto them, when forgiving their sinnes and imputing unto them the righteousnesse of his Sonne, hee doth in him accept them for such, yea, and in respect of his relation unto them, maketh them such, as before they were not. And when he hath made men such by imputation, he also maketh them such by infusion of such qualities and dispositions, as are answerable to that which they are called, as I shewed in the beginning: whom God receiveth into his grace and favour, them hee endueth with grace; whom hee redeemeth from the servitude of sinne and Satan, hee maketh them his faithfull servants; they, who are the sonnes of God by adoption, are also his sonnes by regeneration, and finally, those whom God doth justifie, them also he doth sanctifie.
§. XIV. And this is all which Bellarmine hath brought for theTestimonies of Fathers. proofes of justification by inherent and infused righteousnesse, either from the Scriptures or from naturall reason. Afterwards indeed in his eighth Chapter hee produceth the testimonies of Augustine and some others, which he calleh the tradition of the ancient Fathers, as if they did agree with the doctrine of the present Church of Rome; which they doe not. For first, though some of the Latine Fathers, led by the notation of the Latine word, which was not to be respected, it being bnt the translation of the Hebrew and Greeke; did under the name of justification include the benefit of sanctification, whereof there is no example in the Scriptures; yet they did not exclude that, which the Scriptures call justification, as …the Papists doe. For they acknowledged, that justification containeth remission of sinnes, and that it standeth chiefly in remission of sinnes; that being our happinesse, and therefore implying, besides the not imputing of sinne, acceptation unto life. The Papists also talke of remission, but their remission is not that, which the Scriptures and Fathers speake of, for the Scriptures and Fathers and all ancient Writers whatsoever by remission understand veniam, pardon, condonation, forgiving, not imputing of sinne, absolving from it; which is a distinct action of God from infusion of righteousnesse; that, being a worke of God without us working no reall or positive change within us: and herein wee have the consent of all antiquity. The Papists by remission of sinne understand the expulsion or extinction, the utter deletion or abolition of sinne, which is not a distinct action (as they teach) from infusion of righteousnesse, but one and the same action, which is the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne; And is an action of God not without us as the other, but within us working in us a reall and possitive change. And therefore remission of sinne in the Popish sense belongeth not to justification, but to perfect sanctification, as being a totall mortification of sinne, which none attaine unto in this life: but of this point I have already treated in the second *Lib. 2. c. 6. & 8:question of the first controversie. Secondly, the fathers oftentimes use the word justification in the same sense that wee doe according to the Scriptures, as implying the forgivenesse of sinnes, and acceptation unto life by the satisfaction and merits of Christ communicated unto us▪ As namely when they teach, as very oft they doe, that we are justified by faith alone: which they could not have taught, if by justifying they had meant sanctifying: for we are not sanctified by faith alone as all confesse. Thirdly, the Fathers did not looke to bee justified before God by any righteousnesse inherent in themselves or performed by them, but renounced it as being unperfect and stained with the flesh. And therefore where they speake of justification by inherent righteousnesse, they meant sanctification: and not justification before God, whereof our question is. For they professe that by inherent righteousnesse no man living can be justified in Gods sight, as I have shewed in this third xLib. 4. cap. 3▪ §. 5. & 16.controversie, and in the xLib. 6. c. 9.fifth and zLib. 7. c. 6: De paritate justiti…. Bellarm. de iustif. l. 3. c. 16.sixth.