Of Free Justification by Christ, Book 2 · Part 11
Reasons are brought against the Definition of Iustification set down by Thomas.
BUT because here we fall into a debate with Thomas, about the definition of Iustification; Out of whose Breasts the late School Divines seem to have sucked whatsoever poyson runs in this Controversie: It will not be unconvenient as it were by tracing his Foot-steps, to pursue the deceits of this definition by a more exact enquiry, and to confute them by just Authority, that we may as much as in us lies, bring to nothing these Sophistical tricks. But by what reason more happily, or by what authority more conveniently shall I do it, then if I oppose St. Hierom to St. Thomas, who I think is nothing inferior to him, as it were beating out one hard wedge with another harder wedge. Now, whereas Thomas measuring this peripatetical Iustification by a Physical Motion, he terminates it by these bonds, to wit, That it is a Transmutation from a Term of Unrighteousness, by Remission of sins, to a Term or State of Righteousness: immediately the Divines of the Council of Trent following him, snatch at this same definition, and thus express it, that it is a Translation from that State, in which Man is born a Son of the first Adam, into a State of grace and adoption of the Sons of God by the second Adam, Iesus Christ our Saviour. Though this latter definition seems to be somewhat more cautious in words, but it differs not much in the Sense, yet one answer is sufficient to both of them.
And first I ask this of Thomas, and then of the Tridentines, What they mean by this motionary Translation of theirs, from Term to Term, from State into State, as they teach. If this be their meaning, that we, who before were dead in sins, having our sins afterwards forgiven through Christ, and being again received into grace with God, being freed from death, and the bond of Damnation, are vouchsafed into favour, and received unto life, and Placed in a free condition: Herein they do wholly agree with us: But if otherways, they think thus, That there is no Iustification made, but that which consists of the change of qualities, so that he who before was a sinner, an Evil Doer, a Deceiver, a Perjured person, an Adulterer, a Glutton and Drunkard, having changed his life now, begins to be another Man, fasts twice a week, and out of his own wealth, willingly supplies the want of the needy, being forward to help all, unto the expending of the tenth part of all his goods, and so leading his life, and changed into a new Man, that he appears Iust and Holy, not by thatRighteousness, which either needsRemission, or is imputed to the bounty of the Iudge; But which by reason of true Vertues inhering by grace, is justly approved in the sight of God: What hinders, I beseech you, but upon this account the Pharisee in comparison of the Publican goes away justified? The Histories of the Heathen Nations abound with examples of many, who, when they had been very much corrupted by their own disposition, or by education, returned afterwards to a remarkable amendment of their Life, and a habit of good manners: And what will hinder, but we may reckon those also among the Iustified, according to the Philosophy of Thomas: If so be Iustification be nothing else but a certain motion from contrary into contrary, that is a transmutation from a state of Unrighteousness to a state of Righteousness?
But there is added in the definition, by the remission of Sin, and what does this help their cause? For if there is no other Iustification, but that which consists of Remission of Sins, why then do they of Trent deny Iustification to confist of Remission of Sins only. Moreover whereas in the Remission of Sins always a suspicion of hidden Sin lyes hid, which needs the Patronage of a Pardon, where now will that state and term of Inherent Righteousness consist, which cannot otherways defend it self before the Iudge without his Mercy and Remission.
But why should I contend with any more words about this matter, when the Opinion of Hierom is contrary thereunto, who speaking particularly of these degrees of Righteousness, utterly beats down and overturns all this, both Station and term, settled by Thomas. For whereas Thomas disputing about the motion of Iustification proceeds from one term to another term in which the motion ceases, and the transmutation receives an end and station; on the contrary, Hierom running through all degrees, teaches that we never Hierom. cont. Pelag. Dial. 1. Phil. 10. 23.fix in a station, and are always in a race in this Life, and that that is always imperfect here, which we Men thought to be perfect. And he confirms it by the example of Paul: Who forgetting things past stretched himself always to things beyod him; by which he teaches that things which are behind should be neglected, and things to come should be desired, that what he thought perfect to day, whilest he always endeavours after better things, the morrow he finds it imperfect.
These things said Hierom. Therefore if Paul being in perpetual motion, could find no ftate of Righteousness in which he could rest: It follows by consequence from hence, that either there is no Iustification of a Christian in this Life, or that surely it is not defined by its right terms, by Thomas or the Thomists; whence a just connexion is framed on this manner.
Argument.
Ma. Where there is a perpetual Race, there is no station, nor term of motion.
Mi. There is a perpetual Race in this Life, towards obtaining Life.
Con. Therefore there is no station of attaining to Righteousness in this Life, and end of notion, which Thomas sets down.
By these things, I think it is sufficiently evidenced, what is the Iustification of a Wicked Man in the Scriptures, and in what thing it chiefly consists: not in a transmutation of inherent qualities, by a voluntary receiving of Grace, as they of Trent would have it; but in the judiciary absolution of the Iudge, whereby he that is guilty is sent away free, and indemnity is given to him. Whence Iustification seems to be defined not amiss by some: That it is an action of God, whereby he absolves the condemned Sinner from the Law, in his free mercy, for the sake of Christ, justifies him from his Sins, and glorifies him being justified. Though in the mean while it is not denied, that it is a matter of great concernment, how every Man leads his Life, and amends it. But yet it is one thing to speak of Righteousness, and another thing to speak of Iustification. And again, it is one thing to be exercised in the common use of Life, and another thing to be exercised in judicatories.
There the amendment of Life hath praise: but in judicatories, no regard uses to be, of what you are to do, but of what you have done; not what new qualities better Grace hath brought. but by what remedy former Sins may be done away. And now I pray you, what then must be said and looked for in that most strict Iudgment of the most high God, where the scene and sink of the wholeLife comes to be brought forth from its lurking places to the light; where impurity of Life, Deceits, Injuries, Filthiness of Lusts, the Defilement of Conscience and Concupiscence, the Wickedness of Words, Works, Counsels, and Thoughts, the Ambition of a pust up Mind, the stubborness of Hatred, Love, Envy, and the other Affections Rebelling against Reason, the Love of the World, Earthly Desires, the Contempt and Ignorance of God, The neglect of Duty. Moreover the whole sink of things formerly done, will be all at once laid open; What will the miserable Sinner say here? What will he bring? To what will he fly? Will he fly to his secret Confessions, and Expiatory Penances and Satisfactions: that will not be sufficient.
These things may declare thee to be a Sinner, and a Penitent, but not at all Righteous. What then, you will say, hath not God promised to the Penitent the pardon of their Sins? Be it so, but where then is the Tridentine. Iustification, which is denied to consist of Remission only, whereas you bring nothing into Iudgement, but Confessions, Penances, and Deprecatory Tears? For what need is there of any Satisfaction or Repentance, when you have committed no Sin? But if otherways, Where then is your Righteousness, whereof you boast? To wit, say you, Remission of Sins being once received by Repentance, together with Remission it self, flows in Sanctification, and the Renovation of the inner Man, and the other gifts of Grace by the Holy Spirit; whence Man of Unjust, becomes Iust, and of an Enemy, a Friend, &c.
What and dare you trusting Out of Alphonsus and the Tridentines.in this Righteousness of yours enter the lists with the Majesty of so great a Iudgment? And think you that your Vertues are such that they will overcome at this Iudgment Seat, when they are Iudged? Not by the Righteousness, say you of my Vertues, but by those works, which the efficacious Grace of God works in me: Which Righteousness is not mine but God's: Not of my own Free will, but of Grace acting in me.
Now then wherein will this Righteousness of yours differ from that Pharisee in the Parable of the Gospel? Whose Life if you look into, you see it is honest enough and unblamable, if you look upon Grace, he seems no less to acknowledge it, and to attribute all his Vertues to it. Otherways, why did he with so much reverence, and so carefully give thanks to God, that he was not like other Men, unless he had thought that whatsoever good Works he had, were received of his gift and bounty? The Pharisaical Righteousness of the Roman Catholicks.For his Prayer doth sufficiently declare that; wherein he seems not so much to Glory in his own good deeds, as in the grace of God, which he had received, to which he ascribes all these things which he had done. Therefore if it be true that these Roman Catholicks define, That true Iustification consists in no other thing, but in Works of Righteousness, done by the grace of God: what then doth hinder but this Catholick Pharisee, according to their Catholick Opinion, should be sent away to his House justified? Which not being so, it remains therefore that another manner of Iustification should be sought for by us than in VVorks of Righteousness Works not of the Law but of Grace.which inheres, and is planted in us by the grace of God.
But here the Roman Legions fight with all vehemency for their Catholick Righteousness, as for their Camp: First by Natural Reason, that it is contrary to Nature, for any Man to receive the Name or Essence of Righteousness from the Righteousness of another. Moreover that it is much less reasonable, No Man is Righteous … by inherent Righteousness according to the Roman Divinity.for God who is the highest perfection of Righteousness, and the Eternal Verity, to will or be able to pronounce Men Iust that are impure and defiled with wickedness and Evil deeds, and who are not truly righteous. That I may answer these men, two things offer themselves to be considered; one which belongs to A twofold Errour of the Papists.the cause of Iustification, and another, which belongs to the explication of the word. In both of which the Adversaries are greatly mistaken. First in this, that treating of the cause of Iustification, they seem to place it in no other thing next and immediately, but in every man's own Righteousness, not which is imputed, being received from another, but which every one hath within himself, trusting to this foundation: That because every thing receives its name and essence only from the form that is inherent; hence they gather, that none should be accounted just but those only, whom their own life and not another's Formal Righteousness. Iudicial Righteousness.makes righteous. If they understand it of Formal Righteousness only, and not Iudicial, it hath no absurdity, and may, without any inconvenience be granted to them. But what then? what is this so much to the purpose? for this is not the matter of debate, what we are, or are not, formally in our selves; but what the Sentence of the Iudge doth judicially determine concerning us. We contend To justifie according to the Papises, is nothing else, but to make righteous.not about Habitual Righteousness, but Evangelical Iustification. For it is one thing to dispute about Righteousness, and another to dispute about Iustification.
But these Logical Divines confound these two with one another too unskilfully, defining Righteousness thus, as if it were nothing else but to make righteous: Or if there is any difference, this is the manner of it, that. our Faith in Christ is by no means Two parts of Iustification, of which the first consists in remission, the other in works of Faith. Alphonsus in … Christ. Relig. p. 456. The other part of Tridentine Iustification.the cause of perfect Righteousness, but only the beginning of that which is to be perfected: And that we do not therefore stand as righteous in the sight of God, because our sins are forgiven us, and we are reconciled to God for Christ's sake. Though also they do not deny this, that in this very remission or reconciliation, where. by a wicked man is first justified before God through Faith and the Merit of Christ; some part of humane Iustification is contained, which also is necessarily requisite. But they say that it is not enough, that sins are forgiven, and that we are reconciled unto God (which is the first part of Iustification) unless another part also be added thereto, which compleats the former; which, of what sort it is, you may see here by their own words. When first, say they, man begins to detest sin, as offensive to God, and so of a wicked man is made just, and reconciled, at one and the same time, and in the same instant God infuses his Grace, waiting no interval of time: which Grace, where it comes, there we having received inward Renovation by the Holy Spirit, receive Righteousness, and are made truly righteous before God: And this is that other part of Iustification, whereof I spake, without which no Righteousness is truly perfected; because it is most certain, that God justifies no man, or pronounces no man just, but him whom by the gift of his Spirit through internal Renovation he makes righteous, and cloaths, adorns, and endues with Righteousness, &c.
Answ. Why should I answer these men in many words? If they understand it of the Power of the Divine Bounty; I grant that there is nothing which the Infinite Power of the most high God cannot do: But it is not the matter of our Controversie, what the heavenly Grace can, but what it will do. Neither doth it follow as a rational consequence, because that the Almighty Grace of God can make us just, that therefore we are made just: Therefore either prove that there Aug. de perfect. Iust. For that is not sin, which is not imputed for sin; ibid. Whosoever says, that after the remission of sins received, any man hath lived, or doth live so righteously in the flesh, or that he hath no sin, contradicts the Apostle Iohn, who says, If we say we have no sin, &c. for he says not, we had, but we have.is any man endued with such a Righteousness, which doth not always stand in need of the Mercy of God: Or confess that which is the truth with Augustin, that all assurance of our Iustification acquiesces in the remission of sins only through the Mercy of God.