A treatise of iustification· By George Dovvname, Doctor of Divinity and Bishop of Dery

CAP. III. Containing our two last Arguments.

§. I.

OVR foureteenth Argument. If redemption, re∣conciliation,* 1.1 and adoption be imputative, then justification also is by imputation. For I have shewed heretofore, that these three in substance differ not from justification, for as all these three benefits are comprised under justification, so in them the whole nature of justification doth con∣sist. For what is it to be redeemed and reconci∣led, but to have our sins a 1.2 remitted or not b 1.3 imputed by the imputation of Christs sufferings (which is the first part of justification) and what is it to be adopted but to bee accepted in the beloved as righteous and as an heire of eternall life by imputation of Christs obedience? which is the second part of justification. But those three benefits are imputa∣tive, all of them wrought by the not imputing of sinne, which had made us the bond-slaves of sinne and Satan, enemies to God, and children of the devill; and by the imputation of Christs merits, whereby of the slaves of sinne and Satan, wee are made Gods c 1.4 servants; of enemies, his favourites; of the children of the devill, the sonnes of God.

§. II. Our fifteenth Argument, out of Psalm. 32. and Rom. 4. If* 1.5 the Holy Ghost describe justification to bee the forgiving of iniquities, the covering of sinne, the not imputing of sinne to the sinner, the im∣puting of righteousnesse not to him that worketh, but to him that be∣leeveth in Christ, or imputing of righteousnesse without workes: then justification standeth not in deletion of sinne by infusion of righteous∣nesse, but in imputation of Christs righteousnesse, by which the sinner is both freed from his sinne, and also accepted as righteous.

But the Holy Ghost doth so describe justification, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. •…•…x Psalm. 32. 1, 2.

To both parts d 1.6 Bellarmine doth answere. The assumption hee first denieth, and then cavills with it. For first whereas Calvin, as he saith, demandeth, whether this bee a full definition of justification, or but halfe? he likewise demandeth, when either the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith, Blessed is the e 1.7 man that feareth the Lord, and Blessed are they who f are upright in the way: or when our Saviour saith, Blessed are the poore in Spirit, g 1.8 blessed are the meeke, &c. whether each of these bee a perfect definition. For if it be, where is then remission of sinne? Secondly, he saith, that Paul alleageth this testim•…•…∣ny

out of the Psalme, not that hee might thereby define fully justification, but onely to prove, that true justification is the gift of God, and not gotten by our owne strength. And that hee fitly proveth from thence, that David calleth him blessed whose sinnes God remitteth, that is, wh•…•… by the gift a•…•…d grace of God is justified.

§. III. To the former I reply: that there is not the like reason, be∣tweene* 1.9 these places cited by us, and those alleaged by him. For those containe but certaine notes and markes of Blessednesse (though the Pa∣pists absurdly make eight beatitudes of the eight notes of one and the same blessednesse, Matth. 5.) But here the Apostle out of Psalm. 32. sheweth that blessednesse it selfe (whereby as appeareth by the former verse, he meaneth justification, which is the onely 〈◊〉〈◊〉 viae, because by it we are intitled to the eternall happinesse, which is beatitudo patriae, all otherh 1.10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being but notes and signes of this) is so defined or described. For somuch those words import, David doth describe the blessednesse, as our translation fitly rendreth the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this place.

The second is a meere depravation of the Apostles meaning, and in∣ten•…•…ion; which was, not to prove that justification is the gift of God, which he had already taught to be a gracious action of God freely ju∣stifying by his grace, those that beleeve in Christ: but by a new supply of Arguments to prove the same question, which in the former Chap∣ters hee had disputed: concluding that a man is justified by faith and not by workes, which question here hee proveth by the example of Abraham, and by the testimony of David. The Argument drawne from Abrah•…•…ms example, is an excellent proofe, which Chrysostome well observed, as Cardinalli 1.11 T•…•…let doth acknowledge. For Abraham had both faith and workes, and yet he was justified not by his workes but by his faith. If Abraham had had no workes, or not such notable workes, it might have beene said; that he was justified by faith without workes, because he wanted workes. But seeing he abounded with store of excel∣lent works, and yet was not justified by them, but onely by faith: this is an invincible argument to prove that a man is justified by faith, and not by workes. For Abraham though hee had works, yet was justified by faith without workes. Likewise David describeth (or if you will) de∣clareth the blessednesse of the man, that is, that a man is blessed, that is to say, justified, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes.

§. IV. This was his denyall of the assumption. But now he cavil∣leth,* 1.12 that it may bee, that in these words is contained the full definition of ju∣stification implicitè. For there cannot be remission of sinne, (in Bellarmines sense, that is deletion of sinne) unlesse righteousnesse be inf•…•…sed: as darke∣nesse is not driven away, unlesse light come in place. And this, saith he, The Apostle manifestly sheweth, when he saith, David explaineth the bles∣sednesse of a man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes, Bl•…•…ssed are they whose sinnes are forgiven. Vbi (saith Bellarmine) ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae where the

Apostle from the not imputing of sin gathereth the imputing of justice: which is very true, and proveth that here is a full definition of justification con∣taining these two parts, the not imputing of sinne to the beleever, and imputing of righteousnesse, or accepting of him as righteous. But where is either the popish deletion of sinne, or infusion of righteous∣nesse? unlesse as they have turned remission into deletion, so also impu∣tation bee converted into infusion.

§. V. To the proposition also Bellarmine answereth in part: and* 1.13 first to the word covering, that although to cover and not to impute sinnes, is not; if you respect the force of the word, to abolish or to extinguish sinne, yet if they be referred to God, the sense importeth so much. For nothing can bee bid from God, unlesse it bee •…•…tterly taken away: for all things are naked and open before his eyes. Reply, Nothing can bee hid from God, which hee would not have hid. But if it please God to cover our sinnes, that hee will not behold them, Psalm. 85. 2. or to hide his face from them, Psal. 51. 9. to cast them behinde his backe, Esai. 38. 17. not to marke what is done amisse, Psalm. 130. 3. then hee is said not to see them, because he taketh no notice of them, but passeth by them, Mic. 7. 18. In which sense Charity is said to cover sinnes, Prov. 10. 12.

§. VI. To the word not imputing, he saith, that God cannot but im∣pute* 1.14 sinne to him that rema•…•…neth a sinner: neither can hee repute him righte∣ous, unlesse he be made righteous: therefore •…•…he not imputing of sinne draw∣eth with it, veram peccati remissionem, that is the extinction of sinne, and infusion of righteousnesse. Reply, he should have said, as he said before; the not imputing of sinne draweth with it imputing of righteousnesse, or the acceptation of a man as righteous: both which alwayes goe to∣gether, because both are wrought together by imputation of Christs righteousnesse: whereas therefore hee saith, that God cannot but im∣pute sinne, where sinne still remaineth: it is true of unbeleevers and impenitent sinners, who are out of Christ; but for them that bee in Christ, that is to say, beleeving and repentant sinners, for whose sinnes Christ hath fully satisfied, and whom though in themselves sinners, hee hath accepted as righteous in Christ? and for whom our Saviour ma∣keth intercession, that their sinnes may not be imputed to them: hee cannot truly be said to impute sinne unto them. It is true also that the Lord reputeth none righteous, but such as he maketh righteous, both by imputation of Christs righteousnesse, and also by regeneration: by imputation perfectly, and at once; by regeneration in part and by de∣gr•…•…s, they being not onely Spirit but flesh also: in regard whereof though they be righteous in Christ; yet in themselves they are sinners, by reason of sinne remaining in them, though in some measure morti∣fied, and not at all imputed. So that a regenerate man in divers respects is both a righteous man and a sinner: righteous, not onely in Christ by imputation of his perfect righteousnesse, but also in himselfe by inhe∣rent righteousnesse begun in him, from which, as is from the better part, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath his denomination in the Scriptures: a sinner also in himselfe, both in respect of habituall sinnes remaining in him as the remnants of ori∣ginall

sinne, and also in respect of actuall transgressions, both of com∣mission and of omission, whereinto hee doth dayly fall.

§. VII. And whereas he saith, that these phrases almost alwaies* 1.15 goe together, and to that purpose citeth, Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 51. 9, 85. 2 and so Psal. 32. 1, 2. I answere that deletion of sinne, covering of sinne, forgiving of sinne and the not imputing of it, are used as synonima, that is, as words of the same signification: and that in all such places deleti∣on of sin doth signifie the blotting of them our of Gods remembrance which is, as it were his record or debt booke. Out of which, when God forgiveth sinnes, he blotteth or wipeth them out. Thus, to forgive sins is not to remember them, Esai 43. 25. I, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine owne sake, and wil not remember thy sinnes, Ier. 31. 34. I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sinne no more. And to remember them is not to forgive them. Ps. 109. 14. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembred with the Lord, and let not the sinne of his Mother bee blotted out, namely of remembrance, that is, let it not bee forgotten: So Neh. 4. 5. Cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out before thee. Ps 51. 9. hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities: and to the same purpose, Psal. 85. 2. forgiving and covering are used in the same fence. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all thei•…•… sinne, and so Psal. 32. 1. 2. forgiving, covering, not imputing. Deletion therefore of sinnes according to the Scriptures is the blotting of them out of the Booke of Gods remembrance. In this sense many things are said deleri to bee blotted out, or wiped away by oblivion, whose memory is wiped out, as it is said of the Amalekites, Exod. 17. 14. and according to the vulgar Latine translation, Deut. 31. 21. nulla delebit oblivio, Esth. 9. 28. Eccl. 6. 4. Ierem. 20. 11. 23. 40. 50. 5. So that non imputare is all one with igno∣scere, 2 Tim. 4. 16. So Iob 42. 8. according to the vulgar Latine. 2 Cbro. 30. 19. Ezek. 33. 16.

§. VIII. Now, if not to impute sinne bee, as Bellarmine s•…•…ith, to* 1.16 expell sinne by infusion of righteousnesse (for, according to his concelt infusion of righteousnesse is not a consequent of the expulsion of sinne, as here for a poore evasion he saith, but expulsion of sinne is a conse∣quent of infusion of righteousnesse: for, according to his assertion, by infusion of righteousnesse sinne is expelled as by accession of light and heat, cold and darkenesse is expelled) I say, if not to impute sinne bee to expell sinne, by infusion of justice; then by the rule of contraries, which is, Contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia, to impute sinne shall bee to expell righteousnesse by infusion of sinne, as it was well objected by Chemnitius. To him Bellarmine objecteth want of Logicke, for calling those contraria, which are contradicentia. Where by Bellarmines Logick adversa onely are contraria, whereof notwithstanding there are foure sorts: for if contraries bee such opposits as are opposed one to one one∣ly, then besides adversa as Tully termeth those which Aristotle calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there are three other sorts of contraries, that is to say relata, which Aristotle calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, privantia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as

privation and habit, contradicentia 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as affirmation and negation, which Tully calleth velde contraria. Thus if Bellarmines Logick be good, there are no opposits but contraries, nor any contraries but adversa, when it is acknowledged by better Logicians than himselfe, that of all opposites the most contrary are those which are opposed as affirmation and negation which are cal∣led contradicentia, as imputare non imputare, which are so immediately opposed, as the one of them is alwayes true, quidlibet affirmare & negare verum, but cannot both bee true together, for that implyeth a con∣tradiction. And therefore Chemnitius objection standeth still in force.

§. IX. Againe if the holy Ghost in this place had meant by remis∣sion* 1.17 of sinne, the deletion or abolition of it, hee would not have called it, remitting, covering, or hiding, or not imputing of it. For nothing is either remitted, covered or not imputed, but that, which is. And things are hid, not that they should not bee, but that they should not bee seene. Tecta ergo peccata quare dixit? saith Augustine, ut non vide∣rentur. As a prudent man hideth his knowledge, Prov. 12. 23. and an hypocrite his sinne, we know this, saith Bellarmine, but withall we know, that somethings are covered that they may bee preserved; and some things, that they may be abolished. As wounds are covered with a plaister: the most or∣dinary end, and perpetuall consequent of hiding any thing hee leaveth out; which is, that it may not be seene, and so God hideth our sinnes, when hee hideth his face from them.

§. X. But for our learning, Bellarmine will shew us the expositions* 1.18 of the Fathers, that wee may know how farre we swarve from the mea∣ning of the ancient and Orthodox Church. And first, hee citeth Iustink 1.19 Martyr, who alleadging, Psal. 32. 2. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sinne, that is saith he, that a man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 repen∣ting of his sinnes receiveth from God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the forgivenesse of his sinne, (where hee expounderh the not imputing of sinnes, to bee the forgive∣nesse thereof.) But saith he, not as you deceive your selves and others, like you in this point, who say, that although they be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (that is, not those which have sinne, but such as the Scripture calleth sinners, that is to say, impenitent sinners) so that they know God, the Lord will not impute sinne unto them, though they doe not repent, wherein we whol∣ly agree with Iustin, though the Papists doe not: who deceive them∣selves and others; whom they perswade though they live in sinne, if they observe the outward formality of doing penance, which all of them do once a yeare, though they neither have faith nor repentance, (which very few, if any of them have,) they have absolution from their sinne.

§. XI. In the next place he citeth Origenl 1.20 and Hierome, both which doe make three degrees of the three phrases; wherein, as they conceive David ascendeth from the lesse to the greater: when as notwithstan∣ding it is apparant, that if those phrases did signifie divers things, the first were the greatest, and the middle the least, according to the variety

of the words whereby sinne in this place is signified. Origen setteth them* 1.21 downe not as the gifts of God, as Bellarmine beareth us in hand, but as a mans owne merits: for because, saith hee, the beginning of the con∣version of the soule is to forsake evill, from this hee deserveth (which the Papists themselves deny) to receive remission of sinne. But when hee shall beginne to doe good, as it were, covering over his former evils with new good things—he is said to cover sinnes. But when he shall come to a perfect man, insomuch that from the soule the very roote of all wickednesse is cut off, in so much, that no footstep of wickednesse can bee found therein (which never happeneth in this life, for concupi∣scence which remayneth in all, is both a footstep of sinne at the least, and the very roote of all iniquity, Iam. 1. 14.) where now the summe of perfect blessednesse is promised, then God cannot impute any sinne, which was a private and unsound conceit, as there are many more of Origen: from which though we dissent, wee cannot justly bee said to swarve from the doctrine of the Primitive Orthodox Church.

§. XII. Hierome, m 1.22 (if yet it be Hierome) mentioneth three degrees but all of remission of sinne, for so hee saith: quibus modis remittuntur peccata? tribus: by what wayes are sinnes remitted? by three. They are remitted by Baptisme, they are covered by Charity, they are not impu∣ted by Martyrdome: which assertion also is unsound: both because ac∣cording to this conceipt, to no man is sinne not imputed, but onely to Martyrs: and also because by Charity hee seemeth to understand, not Gods love, but ours, when notwithstanding it is euident, though our charity cover other mens sinnes, Prov. 12. 10. yet our sinnes are to bee covered by the love and mercie of God in Christ. Howbeit in that which followeth, he is moresound, and agreeth with us, quod tegitur, non videtur: quod non videtur, non imputatur: quod non imputatur, nec punietur what is covered, is not seene: what is not seene, is not imputed: what is not imputed shall not be punished: where he plainely sheweth that the covering and not imputing of sinne, is the not punishing of it. But this distinction of the words into three degrees is rejected by Saintn 1.23 Ambrose, who saith, that to remit, cover, and not impute, are all of one sense and meaning. Indeed hee saith, that divers names of sinnes are here mentioned, whereby wee may gather the variety of sinnes, but the Verbes bee of one signification, quia & cum tegit, remittit: & cum re∣mittit, non imputat. because when hee covereth, he remitteth; and when hee remitteth, hee doth not impute. And this exposition is most agreeable •…•…to that of Saint Paul, who by all these three understandeth one and the same thing, which is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes. For it is the manner of the men of God in their Psalmes and Hymnes recorded in the Word of God; for their greater comfort, as it were by way of exultation, to dwell upon those things wherein they rejoyce, by expressing the same in divers and sundry •…•…ermes, whereby the selse same thing is repeated; which Rhetoricians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.24

§. XIII. In the last place hee citeth two testimonies against us

which he calleth out of Augustines exposition of these words, which be∣ing intirely cited agreeth wholly with us. For, to omit his exposition of these words a little before set downe, quorum tecta sunt peccata, whose sins are covered, that is, saith he, quorum peccata in oblivionē ducta sunt, whose sins are brought into oblivion: in the place quoted by Bellarmine, he hath these words. Blessed—are they whose sins are covered: he doth not say in whom no sins are found, but whose sins are covered. The sins are co∣vered and hid, they are abolished or blotted out (by oblivion, according to his owne former exposition even now alleaged.) If God covered sins, he would not have an eye to them nor animadvert them, if hee would not animadvert them, neither would he punish them Noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere; he would not take notice of them, he would rather par∣don them. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered: then follow the words cited by Bellarmine. Ne sic intelligatis, doe not sounderstand, what he saith, whose sins are covered, as though they were there, and lived, unmortified and unrepented of. For that they bee there still, though mortified, appeareth both by the words before, that they may be found there, though covered; and by his next words, tecta ergo peccata quare dixit? ut non viderentur: why then did he say that sins are covered? not, that they be not at all, but, that they may not be seene. Quid enim erat Dei videre peccata, nisi punire peccata? for what is Gods seeing of sin, but his punishing of sin? and so on the other side, what is his not seeing or covering of sin, but his not punishing or pardoning it? After∣wards, making way for the exposition of verse 3. he saith, that no man is without sin, and that no man can boast that he is cleane from sins. And that therefore men, if they would have their sinnes cured, they must not hide them, like theo 1.25 Pharisee, who be ing in the Temple, as it were, in sta∣tione medici, did shew his sound parts, and hid his wounds. Deus ergo tegat vulnera, noli tu: let God therefore cover thy wounds, do not thou. For if thou being ashamed wilt cover thy wounds, the Physician will not cure it: then follow the words cited by Bellarmine in the second place, Medi∣cus tegat & curet; emplastro enim tegit. Let the Physician cover and cure: for with a plaister he covereth: then followeth: under the cover of the Physitian the wound is healed: under the cover of him that is wounded, the wound is concealed. From whom doest thou conceale it? from him that knoweth all things. Therfore brethren see what he saith* 1.26 quum tacut, &c. because I held my peace my bones are waxen old, &c. where August. doth not expound these words, whose sins are covered, but sheweth that if wee would have them healed wee should not cover them, but confesse them to our Spirituall Physician, that he covering them with an emplai∣ster, may cure them: all which we confesse: so that he needed not to quote the two Gregories to prove, that God doth, as it were, with a plaister co∣ver and cure our sinnes. But withall we would know of Bellarmine, what this plaister is. Is it our inherent righteousnesse, as the Papists teach? or is it not the righteousnesse and satisfaction of Christ, by whose stripeso 1.27 we are healed? for as I shall shew presently out of p 1.28 Iustin Martyr, whom here to no purpose Bellarmine did alleage in the first place, nothing could cover

our sinnes, but onely the righteousnesse of Christ, by whom the iniqui∣ty of many is hid or covered.

§. XIV. Diverse other arguments Bellarmine mentioneth, as cited out of Calvins Institutions, Lib. 3. c. 11. in answering wherof, besides some of those which I have produced, he spendeth six q 1.29 whole Chapters, which* 1.30 notwithstanding, for the most part, are not there to be found: but seeme at least some of them to have been devised of his own braine, and by him framed and fitted to his owne strength: that, having overcome these counterfeit enemies, hee might seeme to have refuted us. But these ar∣guments, which I have produced, are sufficient for the proofe of the point in question; and them I have defended against his cavils. If any man desire to see the defence of the rest, that is, to see Bellarmines objections, devised for us, maintained against himselfe, he may have re∣course to the answere of David Paraeus, who hath in so many Chapters answered Bellarmines exceptions, Lib. 2. de justif. Cap. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Now I proceed to the testimonies of the Fathers, and of other later Writers.

Notes

• * 1.1

  14. Because re∣demption, re∣conciliation, adoption, or im∣putive.
• a 1.2

  Ephes. •…•…. 7.
• b 1.3

  2 Cor. 5. 19.
• c 1.4

  1 Cor. 6. 19, 20.
• * 1.5

  Argument 15. Psal. 32. 1, 2. Rom. 4. 6, 7. 8.
• d 1.6

  De iustif. l. 2. 6. 9. §. Terti•…•….
• e 1.7

  Psal. 112. 1. f 1•…•… 9. 1.
• g 1.8

  Matth. 5. 3. 5.
• * 1.9

  B•…•…llarmines an∣sweres refuted▪ The first.
• h 1.10

  Pronouncia∣tions of blessed∣nesse.
• i 1.11

  In Rom. 4. an∣not. 1.
• * 1.12

  Bellarmines▪ ca∣vill with the as∣sumption.
• * 1.13

  Bellarmines an∣swere to the proposition, and first to the word covering.
• * 1.14

  To the word not imputing.
• * 1.15

  Whether not imputing doe not signifie deletion.
• * 1.16

  Chemnitius his argument from the rule of con∣traries.
• * 1.17

  Imputing and covering are of things which be.
• * 1.18

  The expositi∣ons of Fathers obiected by Bellarmine.
• k 1.19

  Dialog. cum Tryphone Iudaeo. sub finem.
• l 1.20

  Origen in Rom. lib. 4.
• * 1.21

  Pishal chataah. havon.
• m 1.22

  Hieromein Psal. 31.
• n 1.23

  in Rom. •…•….
• * 1.24

  Augusti•…•… testi∣mony con•…•…. sen 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. in Psa. 31.
• o 1.25

  Luk. 18.
• * 1.26

  vers. 3.
• o 1.27

  Esai. 53. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 24.
• p 1.28

  Ad Diogne∣tum.
• q 1.29

  De iustif l. 2.
• * 1.30

  c. 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.