Vindiciae fidei, or A treatise of iustification by faith wherein that point is fully cleared, and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries. Deliuered in certaine lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford, by William Pemble, Master of Arts of the same house: and now published since his death for the publique benefit.

CHAP II▪

The Confutation of the Arminian errour, shewing that faith doth not iustifie, sensu proprio, as it is an act of ours.

The second Error about this point is of the Armi∣nians, with whom also the Papists agree: Tis this.

2 That we are Iustified by Faith sensu pro∣prio, that is, the Act of beleeving, in that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉credere, is impu∣ted to vs for righteousnesse, being accepted of God and ac∣counted vnto vs for that whole Righteousnesse of the Law which we were bound to performe. So that our very Faith is that Righteousnesse, for which we are iustified in the sight of God; no•• quidem merito suo: sed propter gratuitam accepti∣lationem Dei.

The authors of this opinion are Faustus Socinus that vnhappy Haereticke in his most Blasphemous Booke [de Christo servatore:] & Michael Servetus a Spanyard in his se∣cond Booke [de lege & Evangelio] which Errors are confu∣ted by Calvin in his opuscula. A stiffe de••ender of this opi∣nion was Christophorus Ostorodius a Polonian in his disputa∣tions contra Georgium Tradelij, who for this and other pesti∣lent errors about the Article of Mans Redemption, was wi••h his companion Andreas Vaidonitus banished the Low Countreys where he had seated himselfe and published his opinions; Arminius, and his followers haue bin cheefe pro∣moters of it. Arminius himselfe, as in other his opinions: so in the publishing of this vsed much closenesse and cunning conveyance. In his private disputations [Tit. de Iustificatione] he seemes plainly to condemne it, saying that it is an abuse to say that Fides est causa formalis Iustificationis, and an error to affirme [That Christ hath deserued, vt fidei dignitate et merito iustificemur.] In his publique disputations he opens himselfe somewhat plainly:* 1.1 yet darkely enough [Thes. 19. de Iustifi∣cat.

cat. Thes. 7. These are his words. [Fidei vero Iustificatio tri∣buitur, non quod illa sit Iustitia ipsa quae rigido & seuero De•• iudicio oppont possit; quanquam Deo grata: sed quod in iudicio mis••ri••ordiae triumphans supra iudicium absolutionem a pec∣catis obtineat & gratiose in Iustitiam imputetur. Cuius rei cau∣saest tum Deus iustus & misericors, tum Christus obedient•••• oblatione et intercessione suâ secundum Deum in beneplacito et mandato ipsius.] Here Faith it selfe is imputed for Righteous∣nesse. But tis not in Gods seuere Iudgment, but in his Iudg∣ment of Mercy. Faith in it selfe is not worthy: but yet Christ by his merits hath deserued that God will gratiously accept of it. This opinion published was quickly contradicted: wherevpon Arminius makes knowne his mind in playner Termes, In declaratioue sententiae ad ordines Holland: & Westfrisiae he confesseth that in the forenamed Thesis his mea∣ning was,* 1.2 that [ipsa fides tanquam actus iuxta Evangelij mandatum praestitus imputatur coram Deo in siue ad iustitiam, idque in gratiâ, cum non sit ipsamet iustitia Legis. And in his Responsione ad 31. Artic. art. 4. hee brancheth cut his opi∣nion in three distinct propositions.

• 1 Iustitia Christi imputatur nobis.
• 2 Iustitia Christi imputatur in iustitiam.
• 3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere imputatur in iustitiam.

The first of these Propositions, he grants: That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed to vs. The second hee denies, That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed for Righteousnesse. The third ••e grants, That the Act of beleeuing is imputed for Righteousnesse. Here by Mysteries in these Propositi∣ons, hereafter to bee vnfolded. Wee now meddle with the last which yet is more roundly expressed by Arminius in his Epistle ad Hyppolitum. [Lege princip. Pa.] [Ipsum Fidei actum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere, dico imputari in iustitiam, idque sensu proprio non metonymice] The same is the opinion of his fel∣lowes the Remonstrants, ofc 1.3 Vorstius, ofd 1.4 Peter Bertius, of e 1.5Episcopius, and thef 1.6 rest. With whom Bellarmine agrees pat [Liber ••. de Iust. cap. 17. When vpon that Rom: 4.

(His faith is imputed for righteousnesse.] he saith thus. [Vbiipsa fides censetur esse Iustitia, ac per hoc non apprehendit fides iustitiam Christi: sed ipsa fides in Christum est iustitia.] In summe, their opinion runnes thus. God in the Legall Coue∣nant required the exact obedience of his Commandement: but now in the Couenant of grace, he requires faith, which in his gracious estimation stands in stead of that obedience to the Morall Law, which wee ought to performe. Which comes to passe by the Merit of Christ; for whose sake God accounts our imperfect saith to be perfect obedience. This Assertion we reiect as erronious, and in place thereof we de∣fend this Proposition. God doth not iustifie a man by Faith properly, impuring vnto him faith in Christ for his perfect obedience to the Law, and therefore accounting him iust and innocent in his sight. Which we proue by these Reasons.

1 We are not Iustified by any worke of our owne. But [ 1] beleeving is an Act of our owne: Therefore by the Act of beleeving we are not Iustified.

The Maior is most manifest by the Scriptures, which teach that we are saued by grace Ephes. 2. 5. [and therefore not by the workes of Righteousnesse which we had wrought.] Tit. 3. 6. [For if it be of Works, then were grace no more grace] Ro. 11. 6.

The Minor is likewise evident. [That Faith is a worke of ours.] For though Iohn 6. 29. it bee said, [This is the worke of God that ye beleeue in him whom hee hath sent] yet will not our adversaries conclude thence, that Faith is Gods worke within vs, and not our worke by his helpe. For so should they runne into that absurdity which they would fasten vpon vs. (viz.) That when a Man beleeues, tis not man beleeues: but God beleeues in him. To beleeue, though it be done by Gods aide: yet 'tis we that doe it; and the Act is properly ours. And being so, we conclude, that by it we are not iustified in Gods sight.

Here two Exceptions may be made.

1 First that we are not iustified by any worke of our [ 1] owne (viz▪) which we our selues doe by our owne strength

without the help of grace: But yet we may be iustified by some worke which we doe (viz) by the aide of Grace; and such a worke is Faith. Wee answere. This Distinction of workes done without Grace and workes done by Grace, was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace; being a T••icke to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude indefi∣nitely all workes from our Iustification, without distinguish∣ing either of Time when they are done, before or after; or of the ayde & helpe whereby they are done, whether by Na∣ture or by Grace. Wherefore it is without all ground in Scripture thus to interpret these Propositions: A man is not iustified by workes (that is) by workes done by worth of Nature before and without Grace. A Man is iustified by Grace (that is) by workes done by aide of Grace. These Interpretations are meere forged inventions of froward Minds, affirmed but not proved: as we shall more hereaf∣ter declare,

[ 2] 2 That we are not Iustified by any workes of our own, (that is) by any works of the Law: but by a worke of the Gospell such as faith is we may be iustified. Male res agitur vbi opus est tot Remedijs (saith Erasmus in another case.) Tis a certaine signe of an vntrue opinion when it must be bolste∣red vp with so many distinctions. Nor yet hath this distinc∣tion any ground in Scripture, or in Reason: for both tell vs that the workes commamded in the Law, and workes com∣manded in the Gospell are one and the same for the sub∣stance of thē, What worke can be named, that is enioyned vs in the New Testament, which is not also cōmanded vs in that summary precept of the Morall Law [Thou shalt loue the L••rd thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all they strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thy selfe.] Luc. 5. 27. Deut. 6. 5 What sinne is there against the Gospell, that is not a transgression of the Law? If the Gos∣pel cōmand Charity, is it any other then that which the Law commands: If the Gospell cōmand Faith, doth not the Law enioine the same? you will say No. It doth not command

Faith in Christ. I answere, yea, it doth: For that which com∣mands vs in generall to Beleeue what euer God shall pro∣pose vnto vs: commands vs also to beleeue in Christ, as∣soone as God shall make knowne that tis his will we should beleeue in him. The Gospell discouers vnto vs the Obiect; the Law commands vs the obedience of beleeuing it. Wherefore Faith, for the Substance of the Grace and works done by vs, is a worke of the Law; and so to be Iustified by the Action of beleeuing, is to be Iustified by workes and by our owne Righteousnesse, contrary to the Scriptures; and that Phil: 5. 9. (That I may be found not, &c. This of the first Reason.

2 God accounts that only for perfect Righteousn••sse [ 2] of the Law, which is so in deed and truth. But Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law. Therefore God doth not account it ••or such.

The Minor is granted by our adversaries; That Faith is not the exact Iustice of the Law; such as can stand before the se∣verity of Gods Iudgments. The Maior must be proued: That God accounts not that for perf••ct Iustice which is not per∣fect indeed. This appeares by that Rom. 2. 2. [The iudge∣ment of God is according to trueth.] Where therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect: there God esteemes it not so. Here also twilbe excepted.

That God some time Iudgeth Iudicio iustitiae, according to exact Iustice; and then he ••udgeth nothing perfectly iust, but that whi••h hath true perfection of Iustice in it. Some∣times he iudgeth iudicio misericord••ae; according to mercy: and so he may esteeme a Man perfectly righteous for that which is not perfect righteousnesse in it selfe; namely for his Faith.

Surely, this is a trimme distinction thus applyed, that sets Gods Mercy and Truth together by the Eares. As who would say, When God iudgeth out of Mercy: hee then doth not iudge according to truth. The Scriptures doe not acquaint vs with any such mercifull iudgement of

God. This they doe acquaint vs with, That God iudgeth according to mercy, not when he doth pronounce and cleare a Sinner to be perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse which is truely imperfect: but when he iudgeth a Sinner to be righteous for that righteousnesse which is perfect; but is not his owne. In this Iudgement there is both Truth and Mercy. Truth, in that he esteemes me perfectly righteous, for that righteousnesse sake which is euery way perfect: and mercy, that he accepteth for sinne, that righteousnesse which is performed for me by Christ my surety; but is not mine owne. Other mercifull Iudgement of God besides this, we acknowledge none.

[ 3] 3 We are not iustified by two righteousnesses ex∣isting in two diuers subiects. But if wee be iu∣stified by the worke of Faith: we shall be iusti∣fied partly by that righteousnesse which is in vs, (viz.) of Faith: partly by the righteousnesse of Christ without vs.

Ergo we are not iustified by Faith properly.

The Minor is apparant. The Righteousnesse of Faith is ••nherent in vs. and by it we are iustified (say our Aduersa∣ries.) The righteousnesse of Christ is inherent in him: and by it are we iustified, say the Scriptures. [Being now iustifi∣ed by his blood, we shall be saued from wrath through him.] Ro. 5 9. & v. 19. [By the obedience of one, many shall be made iust.] Wherefore either we are properly iustified by both, or there is an errour, and one part must stand out▪ We cannot be properly iustified by both, for our own faith and Christs obedience too: for if we be perfectly iust in Gods sight for our own Faith, what need the Imputation of Christs obedi∣ence to make vs iust? If for Christs righteousnes we be per∣fectly iustified: how can God accoūt vs perfectly iust for our faith? Arminius and his friends, seeing these things cannot stand together; haue (according to the good will which they beare toward the righteousnesse of Christ) kept in our faith, and thrust out Christs obedience, denying vtterly that

it is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse. But my Brethren (which I hope make a better choice) seeing it cannot part with ours: part with our owne righteousnesse, leaning wholy vpon the righteousnesse of Christ; and seeking for the comfort of our Iustification in his perfect obedience, and not in our weake and imperfect saith. These Reasons may suffice to shew the errour of that Assertion. We are iustifi∣ed by Fa••••h, sensu prop••rio, God accepting the Act of belee∣uing for the perfect obedience of the Law. And therefore that in those places,* 1.7 where 'tis said, [Faith is imputed for righteousnesse,] the Phrase is to be expounded metonymice, (that is) Christs righteousnesse beleeued on by Faith, is im∣puted to the beleeuer for righteousnesse.

Whereas our Aduersaries say that faith of its owne dignity and desert, doth not obtaine this fauour of God, to be esteemed for the perfect righteousnesse of the Mo∣rall Law: but this comes to passe onely by the Me∣rits of Christ, who hath procured this grace vnto vs, that God should thus accept of our Faith: wee answere, that this is affirmed, but 'tis not prooued. They speake a little more fauourably then the Romanists, who make faith of it selfe to merit Iustification: these will haue it not to merit it; but to be graciously accepted for righteousnesse. But wee find not in Scripture any such Doctrine as this, [Christ hath merited that wee should bee iustified for our faith,] or [Christ hath merited for our faith, that faith should be esteemed by God for that perfect Iustice of the Law; where∣by we are iustified in Gods sight.] These things the Scriptures teach not: they teach, that Christ is our righteousnesse, and that we are iustified by his blood and obedience. But that he hath merited by his obedience, that we should be iustified by our owne obedience and righteousnesse, is a peruerse as∣sertion of men that loue to runne about the bush, and lea∣uing the streight, to runne in crooked and froward wayes. And it differs little from the like shift of the Disciples of Rome, who to maintaine Merit of our workes and of Christ

too; salue it with this tricke. Christ hath merited that wee might merit. But we acknowledge, as no other merit, but that of Christ; so no other righteousnesse to Iustification, but his alone. Thus much of the second Assertion.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Thes. 48. 2. 3.
• * 1.2

  pag 6••.
• c 1.3

  A••tibell. pag. 106.
• d 1.4

  Collat. cu•• Sib. Lubber.
• e 1.5

  Thesibu, de ••ustific.
• f 1.6

  R••monstr••nt. In Cell. Delphensi. Art. 2. Antith. 2. [Statuimus De∣um Fidem no∣••iram nobis im∣putare per obe∣dientiam: ea••{que} (& nos in illa) acceptos habere.
• * 1.7

  We are saued by grace tho∣rough faith. Ephes. 2. 8.