A Treatise of Justification, Book 4 · Chapter 8
CAP. VIII. The disproofe of the Popish assertion affirming, that we are not justified by righteousnesse inherent.
§. I. NOw we are severally to disprove the Popish assertionThe disproofe of the Negative. and to prove ours. As touching the former, that wee are not justified by righteousnesse inherent.The first argument because inherent righteousnesse is prescribed in the Law. Our first argument may bee this. That righteousnesse of God, by which we are justified, is not prescribed in the Law, as before hath beene proved, Rom. 3. 21. nor is that righteousnesse which is of the Law, Phil. 3. 9.
All inherent righteousnesse is prescribed in the Law, and is that which is of the Law:
Therefore inherent righteousnesse is not that righteousnesse of God, by which we are justified.
That all inherent righteousnesse is prescribed in the Law, it is manifest: first, because the Law is a perfect rule of all inherent righteousnesse, whether habituall or actuall: secondly, because charity, wherein they place their inherent righteousnesse, even that charity, whereby they are to love God withall their soules, and their neighbour as themselves: that charity, which proceedeth from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from faith unfained is prescribed in the Law, as the summe and complement thereof, Matth. 22. 37. 39, 40. 1 Tim. 1. 5.
§. II. To avoid this most evident truth, Bellarmine bringeth a frivolousBellarmines distinction De iustif. l. 1 c. 19. betweene the iustice of the Law and in the Law. distinction, as he applieth it; to wit, that there is, justitia legis, and justitia in lege or exlege: The justice of the Law, the justice in the Law or of the Law. The justice of the Law is that very justice which the Law prescribeth, or that justice which is described in the Law, and is not rejected by the Apostle but commended. That justice which is in, of, or by the Law, is that, which men without faith and without grace doe performe by the strength of nature, onelyonly holpen by the knowledge of the Law. And this, saith he, the Apostle doth reject as unprofitable, and opposeth it to the righteousnesse of faith. h. e. saith he, operibus bonis quae fiunt ex gratia & fide, that is, to good workes which are done by grace and by faith. So that justitia fidei, the righteousnesse of faith, is now in Bellarmines divinity, become justi…ia operum, the justice of workes. aIn Rom. 10. disput. 2.Pererius to the same purpose bringeth a threefold distinction of justice, that it is Legis, ex lege, & Dei: and inveigheth against Calvin, for that he tooke no notice of it, being so plainely, as hee saith, taught by the Apostle, Rom. 9. 31. 10. 3. 5.
§. III. Answ. 1. This distinction cannot be collected out of the writings of Saint Paul, who no where mentioneth foreign, theAnswere, refelling this distinction of …llarmine. righteousnesse of the Law, and much lesse distinguisheth it from that which is of, in, or by the Law (though the vulgar Latine hath justitias legis, where the Greek is foreign, Ro. 2. 26. and justificatio legis, Rom. 8. 4. where the Greeke is, foreign, but useth these termes to expresse our inherent righteousnesse, foreign, Rom. 10. 5. Phil. 3. 9. or foreign, Phil. 3. 6. that which is of, in, or by the Law: which termes the righteousnesse of the Law, or that which is of, in, or by the Law, doe no more differ than foreign, Rom. 4. 13. foreign, Rom. 9. 30. 10. 6. foreign, and foreign, Phil. 3. 9. the righteousnesse of faith, or that which is of, by or through faith. Secondly, the righteousnesse of the Law is that, which the Law prescribeth, as themselves define it: and what doth that differ from that, which is prescribed in the Law? Thirdly, of the righteousnesse of the Law our Saviour speaketh, saith Pererius, Matth. 19. 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements. Of that, which is of or by the Law, Moses speaketh that he which doth those things (that are commanded) shal live in them: betwixt which two speeches of Christ and Moses there is no difference. Fourthly, if the righteousnes prescribed in the Law could be performed, then would the Law give life, according to that legal promise, he that doth these things shall live thereby, Levit. 18. 5. Ezek. 20. 11. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. Rom. 2. 13. and if there had been a Law given which could have given life then there should have been righteousnesse foreign, of, or by the Law, Gal. 3. 21. and therefore that perfect righteousnesse justifying and giving life, should be called foreign the righteousnesse which is of, or by the Law. Fifthly, the righteousnesse of the Law is, as they teach, necessarily required of all that shall bee saved, and cannot be performed without grace and without faith: and therefore, according to their doctrine, differeth not at all from the righteousnesse of faith, hoc est, saith Bellarmine, operibus bonis quaefiunt ex gratia & fide, that is, from good workes, which are done by grace and faith. So that by this goodly distinction, the Law and the Gospell, the Law of workes and the Law of faith, the righteousnesse of the Law, and the righteousnesse of faith are confounded. For the righteousnesse of the Law is charity proceeding from grace and from faith, 1 Tim. 1. 5. and the righteousnesse of faith as Bellarmine here teacheth are good works proceeding from grace and faith. And yet I deny not, but that great difference is to be made between the seeming obedience performed by carnal men without faith & without grace, (which cannot truely be called righteousnesse) and the new obedience of men spirituall and regenerate proceeding from faith working by love, as the fruits of the Spirit. But neither the one, nor the other, is the righteousnesse of Faith. The new obedience of the faithfull is indeed a righteousnesse begun, and performed in some measure foreign, according to the Law, Act. 22. 12. foreign according to the Commandements, 2 Iohn 6. but the righteousnesse of faith is this, that hee who beleeveth in Christ, in that hee beleeveth, fulfilleth the Law. foreign he that beleeveth in Christ fulfilleth the Law, saith Photius bPhotius apud Occum, in Ro. 10., and likewise Primasius cPrimas in Rom. 10 3., qui in Christo credit, ipse perficit legem, for to him Christ is foreign the end and complement of the Law, Rom. 10. 4. and in him by Christ, foreign that which the Law requireth to justification is fulfilled, Rom. 8. 4. Chrysostome dIn Rom. 10. …om. 17., the end of the Law, saith he, was that a man might be justified: but this end, Christ foreign more amply performed by faith: feare not therefore (saith hee) because thou art a transgressour of the Law, seeing thou art come to faith. For then doest thou transgresse the Law, when by reason of it thou doest not beleeve in Christ: but if thou doest beleeve in him, foreign thou hast also fulfilled the Law, and much more than it commanded: foreign for thou hast received a much greater righteousnesse, viz. the righteousnesse of Christ, which is the righteousnesse of faith.
§. IV. Yea, but Augustine hath this distinction, denying thoseBellarmines obiect. that this distinction is found in Augustin. advers. 2. epistolas Pelag. liv. 3. c. 7. who have justitiam in lege or ex lege in or by the Law, to fulfill justitiam legis the righteousnesse of the Law. I answer, that Augustine disputing against the Pelagians, who held that men might fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law by the strength of nature, saith, that they might have a kind of righteousnesse in the Law or by it, which notwithstanding did not fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law, which could not bee done without the grace of the Spirit. By the justice of the Law, Augustine meaneth that which the Apostle calleth foreign (for otherwise Paul never so much as nameth the righteousnesse of the Law) that is, whatsoever the Law requireth to justification. This justice of the Law, Augustine considereth in the Abstract, as Bellarmine also himselse doth in his first booke, eDe iustif. 41. c. 1.for that righteousnesse of the Law, as it is described in the booke of the Law, being perfect and compleate: which Bellarmine saith is properly called the justice of the Law, of which hee saith, justitia legis est in libris, the justice of the Law is in bookes; even as habituall righteousnesse is in the heart; and actuall, in the hands. The justice in and by the Law hee considereth in the concrete, with relation to the subject in whom it is, viz. for that righteousnesse which men attaine unto by their observation of the Law written. And hee proveth against the Pelagians, that the righteousnesse, which they seemed to have in lege, or ex lege, in or by the Law, did not fulfill justitiam legis the righteousnesse of the Law: unto which wee may adde against the Papists, that all the righteousnesse, even of the faithfull also and regenerate, (though endevouring to live according to the Law, and according to the Commandements), which they have in or by the Law, doth not fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law, which Paul calleth foreign, which Christ onelyonly fulfilled for us: by whose foreign, hee being but one, we are justified, Rom. 5. 18. For as the foreign or guilt by the fall of one man came upon all foreign to condemnation; so by the foreign the righteousnesse of one whereby hee fulfilled the Law▪ foreign the grace of absolution and of Gods acceptation redounded upon all unto justification of life. And thus this distinction maketh against the Papists. For justitia legis the justice of the Law considered in the abstract, as it is described in the booke of the Law, being most perfect, is never fulfilled by that righteousnesse of the concrete in or by the Law, which men not onelyonly carnall but spirituall also attaine unto by their observation of the Law, being alwayes unperfect in this life and stained with the flesh. For even as it may bee said of all other graces, which being considered in the abstract, are perfect, and are so defined: but considered in the concrete as they be in men, who have received but the first fruits fRom. 8. 23.of the Spirit, according to the measure of the donation gEphes. 4. 7.of Christ, they are unperfect: So the righteousnesse of the Law, as it is taught in the Law, and as it was performed by Christ, is perfect; but as it is in all mortall men, it is unperfect. Therefore righteousnesse inherent in us is not that righteousnesse of God by which we are justified.
§. V. Our second argument. That doctrine, which confoundethArg. 2. the popish doctrine confoundeth the Law and the Gospell. the righteousnesse of the Law and of the Gospell, and by confounding them maketh void the Covenant of grace, is false and Antichristian.
The Popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse, confoundeth the righteousnesse of the Law and of the Gospell, and maketh void the covenant of grace.
Therefore it is false and Antichristian.
The assumption is thus proved: whosoever maketh the condition of justification to be the perfect fulfilling of the Law in our owne persons, confoundeth the Gospell with the Law. For the righteousnesse of the Law is, the man that doth these things (which are prescribed in the Law) shall live by them: but the true condition of the Gospell is, beleeve in Christ, and thou shalt be saved. He also maketh void the Covenant of grace. For if justification be promised upon condition of perfect obedience or righteousnesse, which condition is impossible by reason of the flesh, then is the promise void and of none effect. But the Papists make the condition of justification to bee the perfect fulfilling of the Law in our owne persons, or perfect righteousnesse inherent. Againe, whosoever are made debtours to the whole Law, to them not onelyonly the covenant of grace is void, but Christ himselfe is of none effect, as the Apostle teacheth, Gal. 5. 2, 3. But they who must bee justified by inherent righteousnesse are made debrours to the whole Law, which they must perfectly fulfill, else they cannot bee justified. But of this more hLib. 7 c. 3.hereafter.
§. VI. Our third argument, That doctrine, which depriveth ChristiansThirdly, it depriveth men of the chiefe part of Christian liberty. of the chiefe part of that Christian liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, is false and Antichristian. The popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse depriveth Christians of the chiefe part of that Christian liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free: the chiefe part of our liberty is, that, which we have by justification, wherein wee are freed from hell, and intitled to heaven. And that is a freedome from a double yoke of most grievous bondage, wherein all are held that are under the Law: the former in respect of the curse, under which all are, who in the least degree at any time transgresse the Law, Gal. 3. 10. which all do both oft and grievously: the other in respect of the rigour of the Law, excluding all men from justification and salvation, who doe not perfectly fulfill it: which by reason of the flesh is unpossible. But by the popish doctrine the benefit of justification it selfe is taken away, as I have shewed, and with it, the liberty, which we have by it. For if we cannot be justified but by perfect inherent righ…eousnes, then are we subject to the curse, then are we excluded from all possibility of justification and salvation as being sinners in our selves, wherefore all those, who will stand fast iGal. 5. 1.in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, must abhorre the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse, which intangleth the imbracers of it with this double yoke of bondage, whereby they are subjected to the curse and damnation, and are excluded from heaven and salvation.
§. VII. Our fourth Argument, No sinners, whiles they remaineFourthly, because all men are sinners. sinners, are justified by righteousnesse inherent.
All men whatsoever (Christ alwayes excepted:) are sinners as I proved kSupr. c. 2. §. 9.before, and so remaine whiles they remaine in the flesh.
Therefore no man whatsoever is justified by righteousnesse inherent.
This seemeth to be the Apostle argument in the three first Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans: whosoever are sinners, they are not justified by the works of the Law, that is to say, by no righteousnesse inherent in themselves or performed by themselves.
All mortall men whatsoever, both Iewes and Gentiles, are sinners, which hee proveth at large. Therefore no mortall man whatsoever is justified by the works of the Law, that is, by righteousnesse inherent.
§. VIII. Our fifth argument: None that are accursed by the Law,Fifthly, because all men by the Law are accursed. are justified by their obedience to the Law, for to bee justified is to bee blessed, Rom. 4. 6.
All mortall men without exception are accursed by the Law, as the Apostle proveth, Gal. 3. 10. because all without exception have broken the Law.
Therefore none are justified by their obedience to the Law, and therefore not by inherent righteousnesse.
§. IX. Our sixth argument: whosoever is justified by inherentSixthly, because none fulfill the Law. righteousnesse fulfilleth the Law.
But no mortall man doth fulfill the Law, as I have elsewhere defended and proved lSupr. c. 5. §. 3. Lib. 7. c. 6, & 7.at large. And thus mforeign, hom. 17 in Rom. 10. 5.Chrysostome argueth.
No man can be justified by the Law, unlesse he fulfill the whole Law, but this is not possible for any man; therefore that righteousnesse is fallen to the ground.
To this argument adde a seventh as being a Consectary thereof: whosoever is justified by inherent righteousnesse, and namely by charity, he is justified by his owne fulfilling of the Law. For charity is the fulfilling of the Law, but no man is or can bee justified by his owne fulfilling of the Law, for none can fulfill it: therefore none are justified by inherent righteousnesse.
§. X. Our eighth argument: we are not justified before God: bothEigthly, Not by faith and by workes. by faith and by workes, by Gods righteousnesse and our owne, by that righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ, and by that which is inherent in our selves. For the holy Ghost maketh such an opposition betweene these, as that they cannot stand together, Rom. 3. 28. 4. 4, 5. 9. 30, 31, 32. 11. 5, 6. Phil. 3. 9. Gal. 2. 16. 3. 11. Eph. 2. 8, 9. But wee are justified by faith, by the righteousnesse of God through faith, by Christs righteousnesse which is out of us in him. viz. by his sufferings and by his obedience, as besides the places even now quoted appeareth, Rom. 5. 9. 19.
Therfore we are not justified by righteousnesse inherent in our selves.Ninthly, because it is imputative.
§. XI. Our ninth argument: Imputative righteousnesse is not inherent, as being not ours, nor in us, but communicated to us by imputation.
The righteousnesse by which we are justified is imputative: that
I prove, first, by testimony, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8, 23, 24. for then is God said to justifie, when not imputing sinne, hee imputeth righteousnesse without workes. Secondly, by reason. The personall righteousnesse of Christ is inherent in him and not in us, being proper to his person, though by imputation communicated unto us. The righteousnesse of God, by which we are justified, is the personall righteousnesse of Christ, 2 Pet. 11. viz. his passive and active righteousnesse, Rom. 5. 9. 19. And that it is his personall righteousnesse, appeareth evidently, because it is the righteousnes and obedience of one onelyonly, wheras if it were a righteousnesse from him in us, it would be the justice of so many as are justified: so saith the Councell nSess 6 Sess. 7.of Trent, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam.
§. XII. Our tenth argument. That justification which the ScriptureTenthly, iustification taketh away boasting teacheth, taketh away all matter of boasting, Rom. 3. 27. Epbes. 2. 9.
But justification by works or by inherent righteousnesse doth not take away all matter of boasting, Rom. 3. 27. 4. 2. Eph. 2. 9.
Therefore justification by workes or inherent righteousnesse is not that which the Scriptures teach, we must therefore say with oAmbr. de Iacob. & vitabeata. l. 1. c. 6. Sed & illud mihi prodest, quod non iustificamur ex operibus legis. Non babeo igitur, unde gloriari in operibus, meis possim: non habeo unde me jactem. Et idco gloriabo… in Christo. Non gloriabor, quia iustus sum, sed gloriabor, quia redemptus sum: gloriabor non quia vacuus p…cati sum, sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata. Non gloriabor, quia profui, nec quia profuit mibi quisquam, sed quia pro me advocatus apud Patrem Christus est, sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est.Ambrose, that is profitable to me, that we are not justified by the works of the Law: wherefore I have not whereof to glory in my workes, I have not whereof to boast. And therefore I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I am just, but I will glory, because I am redeemed. I will glory, not that I am without sinne, but because my sinnes are forgiven mee. I will not glory because I have beene profitable, or because any other hath profited me, but because Christ is an Advocate for me with the Father, and because his bloud was shed for me.
§. XIII. Our eleventh argument: If there be no justification but by righteousnes inherent, and that also perfect and pure, then is justification promised upon an impossible condition, and so consequently the promise should be void and of none effect. But farre be it from us to thinke, that the promise of justification by Christ is void and of none effect. Therefore wee are not justified by workes, or by righteousnesse inherent, but by faith, that the promise might bee sure to all the seed, as the Apostle reasoneth, Rom. 4. 13, 14, 15, 16.
§. XIV. Our twelfth argument: because unto justification concurrethTwelfthly, because remission of sinne is a necessary part of iustification. remission of sinnes, as a necessary part thereof: from whence three arguments arise, First, true justification is not without remission of sinne. The popish justification by infusion of perfect righteousnesse is without remission of sinne. For although they pretend that to their justification concurreth remission of sinne: yet by remission they not understanding the pardoning or forgiving, but the extinction and abolition of sinne, have utterly excluded from justification the forgivenesse of sinne, as I have shewed before. Secondly, unto true justification necessarily concurreth remission of sinne. And where is remission of sin, there is imputation of righteousnesse without workes. But in the popish justification there needeth no imputation of righteousnesse; and that for two reasons, which Bellarmine doth prosecute at large in his dispute against imputation. The one, because in justification by infusion of righteousnesse, sinne is fully expelled, and therefore no need of imputation. And secondly, because the righteousnesse which is infused is perfect of it selfe without imputation of any other righteousnesse. Thirdly, if our justification and blessednesse doth consist in the forgivenesse of our sinnes, as it doth Rom. 4. 6, 7. ex Psal. 32. 1. then not in perfect inherent righteousnesse: for where is neede of the forgivenesse of sinne, there is no perfect righteousnesse inherent. And where perfect righteousnesse is infused, there needeth not imputation of righteousnesse.
§. XV. Our thirteenth argument. If Abraham, David, and Paul Thirteenthly, from the example of Abraha….were not justified by righteousnesse inherent, then much lesse any of us, who are so farre inferiour to any of them.
Not Abraham, whose example was a samplar in this behalfe, Rom. 4. 23, 24. For as Abraham the father of the faithful was justified, so are we Abraham though he were a mirrour of piety abounding with good workes; yet was not justified thereby. As the Apostle proveth, Rom. 4. 3, 4, 5. For to whom righteousnesse is imputed of grace through faith, he is not justified by workes before God: And contrariwise whosoever is justified by workes, to him the reward of righteousnesse is not imputed of grace, but rendred as a due and deserved debt, ver. 4. To Abraham righteousnesse was imputed of grace through faith, vers. 3. and 5. and therefore though hee abounded with workes, yet hee was not justified by workes, verse 2. or inherent righteousnesse, but by faith without workes.Of David.
Not David: for hee though a man according to Gods owne heart, walking before God p1 King. 3 6.in truth and righteousnesse and in uprightnesse of heart: yet he desireth the Lord that he would not enter into judgement with him, for if hee did, not onelyonly himselfe, but no man living qPsal. 143. 2.could be justified: for himselfe, he maketh this confession, as rDe tempore serm. 49.Augustine understandeth him, nam me invenies reum, si in judicium intraveris mecum, for thou shalt finde me guilty, if thou shalt enter into judgement with me. And therefore he places his blessednesse or justification, in the not imputing of sinne, and imputing of righteousnesse without workes, Psal. 32. 1, 2. Rom. 4. 6, 7. and professeth, Psal. 71. 16. I will remember thy righteousnesse onelyonly.Of Paul.
Not Paul: for he, though he knew nothing by himselfe, yet professeth that he was not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4. 4. though hee had lived after his conversion in all good conscience before God, Act. 23. 1. though herein he did exercise himselfe to have alwayes his conscience sAct. 24. 16.foreign, cleare and without offence towards God and man: yet in the question of justification he renounceth all his righteousnesse tPhil. 3. 8, 9.inherent, that he might be found in Christ indued with his righteousnesse. And …o these we might adde, Iob, Esay, and Daniel, who, as well as the former,Of Iob, Esay, and Daniel. had that righteousnesse which is à Domino, I meane, righteousnesse inherent, but were not justified thereby, see Iob, 9. 2, 3. 15. 20. 10. 15. 42. 6. Esai. 6. 1. 5. Dan. 6. 7. 18.
§. XVI. Our foureteénth argument: The righteousnesse by which14 because it is not the righteousnesse of one. we are justified, is the righteousnesse and obedience of one, and but of one, Rom. 5. 18, 19. Inherent righteousnesse is not of one, but of so many as are indued therewith. Therefore inherent righteousnesse is not that whereby we are justified.