160 A DISCUSSION OF INHERENT [CHAP. XXII. naming it will be in proportion to the degree of the quality. so. Thus then vanishes that threadbare calumny of the Papists, namely, that no one of the Protestants, except Bucer and Chemnitz, acknowledges any inherent righteousness at all in the justified. For we all acknowledge and clearly profess, that God infuses a righteousness of this kind in the very act of justifying; but we deny that the sentence of God in justifying has respect to this as to the cause by which man is constituted justified. The objection of Bellarminet also against Chemnitz is answered, when he accuses him of fraud, because he states this controversy in the following way: What is that on account of which God receives man into favour? Is it the merit and obedience of Christ, or that inchoate obedience which resides in us? Bellarmine objects-The question is concerning the formal cause, but the little word propter (on account of) denotes not the formal, but the meritorious cause. fore the obedience of Christ be the meritorious cause of our justification, on account of which God justifies us; yet inherent righteousness may be the formal cause, through Although therewhich we are constituted justified. But the Jesuit shews here that he forgot himself, since he himself speaks in the same manner, de Justif. lib. 2. cap. 1: We must treat of the formal cause on account of which man is said to be just before God. And in truth such a formal cause of justification must be laid down as, at the same time, can be meritorious For unless it have in itself that dignity, on account of too. Vasq. in 1. 2. qu. 113. disp. 202. cap. 1. ↑ Bellarm. de Justif. lib. 2. cap. 2. which man is rightly reputed justified, it never will be the formal cause through which he stands justified in the sight of God. Now as to the state of the controversy itself, Bellarmine and Vasquez affirm on the faith of Osiander, that twenty different opinions are held among Protestants. But neither Osiander, nor those Jesuits themselves have been able to find even two different opinions among us, unless the differences about some little word must be supposed necessarily to form a different opinion. But, says Bellarmine, it is the opinion of Luther that the formal cause of justification is faith. I answer, he always acknowledges it the instrumental, not the formal cause; unless so far as that under the term faith, he includes the object comprehended in faith. As though he would say that, the obedience of Christ apprehended by faith is the formal cause of our justification. This has not escaped the notice of the Papists themselves, for Vasquez writest :When, in Luther, faith is asserted to be our formal righteousness, faith is therefore called righteousness, because by it we apprehend the righteousness of Christ whereby we are justified.t As the second opinion, he mentions that of those who set it down, that the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to us is the formal cause of justification. Now this is the common opinion of all our divines; nor, as to • OSIANDER (ANDREW) an eminent Divine, born in Bavaria 1498, and began to preach at Nuremburg in 1552. He was one of the promoters of the Reformation; but eventually, by his peculiar doctrines he became the cause of great disturbance in the Lutheran Churches. At the Conference of Marpurg, in 1529, between Luther and the Swiss Divines, he maintained his opinion that a man is justified formally not by the faith and apprehension of the justice of Jesus Christ, or the imputation of his justice, according to the opinion of Luther and Calvin; but by the essential justice of God." He then drew up a Confession of Faith, which was printed by order of the Margrave of Brandenburg, but highly disapproved of by the Lutherans. He was a studious and acute divine, but much disliked for his arrogance, and the insolent manner in which he treated the aged Melancthon. His works are "Harmonia Evangelica;" "Liber de Imagine Dei quid sit;" "Epistola ad Zuinglium de Eucharistia ;""Dissertationes due de Lege et Evangelis et Justificatione." He died suddenly at Konigsberg, where he was Minister and Professor in 1552. See more of his peculiar opinions in Soames's Mosheim, Vol. iii. pp. 357, 358. Vasq. in. 1. 3. qu. 113. disp. 202. cap. 1. Y the thing itself, is there one of them who has either thought or written otherwise upon the matter. The third he mentions is that of Osiander, who acknowledges the essential righteousness of God, as the formal cause of man's justification. But all the Protestant Churches have exploded this opinion of Osiander. What then have we to do with it? The fourth he reckons is that of Calvin, who (as he says) teaches that the formal cause of justification consists in remission of sin alone. But there is hardly an individual who does not know, that Calvin requires the imputation of Christ's obedience, without which no remission of sins is obtained. If therefore any one had asked Calvin what that is, on account of which, and through which, the ungodly is justified; he would have answered, On account of and through the merit of the Son of God. This is the cause of remission, the cause of acceptance; this the cause of passing from a state of death to a state of life; God, regarding this obedience and righteousness of his own Son, as apprehended by us by faith, receives us at first into the state of the justified; God, perpetually beholding this same righteousness granted and applied to us in the remaining course of our life, views us as justified :-In short, however sanctified and inchoately just he may reckon us, by the implanted and inherent quality of righteousness; yet, as justified, that is, absolved from sin and accepted to life eternal, it is through, and on account of, the righteousness of the Mediator bestowed upon us by God himself, and applied by faith and the Spirit. To dismiss however philosophical speculations concerning the nature of the formal cause; when we are seeking for the formal cause of our justification, we seek for that on account of which the sinner is received into the favour of God; through which he stands immediately well pleasing to God and accepted to eternal life; by the benefit of which he escapes the condemning sentence of the law, and, in fine, on which he may and ought to depend, for obtaining the favour and approbation of his heavenly Judge. We shall now present our opinion, and the state of this controversy in the shape of two propositions, the contradictories of which the Papists endeavour to maintain. The first is this; that the perfect obedience of Christ the Mediator, who dwells in us and by his Spirit unites us to himself, is the formal cause of our justification; since it is made ours by the gift of God, and applied by faith. The second proposition is, Righteousness, implanted and dwelling in us by the Spirit of Christ, is not the formal cause by which we stand justified, that is, by which we are judged to be free from condemnation, and accepted to life eternal, as though worthy of the same through this quality dwelling in us. The propositions of the Papists contradictory to ours are these: 1. The formal cause of our absolute justification is the very righteousness which inheres in us; and by inhering, makes us worthy of life eternal. 2. The obedience or righteousness of the Mediator is not bestowed or applied to believers instead, or in the way, of a formal cause, by the virtue and efficacy of which they stand justified or accepted of God to life eternal. I shall say nothing now of the disputes among the Papists [as usual] with one another, about this their formal cause, which some would have to consist in habitual, others in actual righteousness; I add nothing on the old Schoolmen, who taught that there is no habit or operation in us, which in its own nature can justify the soul, but that there is always need of the favour of God. See Vasquez in 1. 2. disp. 203. et 204. But waiving the disputes of the Papists [among themselves,] let us proceed to a solution of the arguments which they bring against us. CHAPTER XXIII. THE ARGUMENTS OF BELLARMINE FOR INHERENT RIGHTEOUSNESS REFUTED. BELLARMINE seeks to support his opinion in two ways. First, affirmatively and directly, by endeavouring to bring out the conclusion that inherent righteousness in us is the formal cause of our justification. Secondly, negatively and indirectly, in attempting to prove, that the cause of our justification cannot by any means be the imputed righteousness of Christ. The former proposition he sets about establishing from the Scriptures, de Justif. lib. 2, cap. 3. 1. The first argument is taken from Rom. v. 17, 18, 19; If by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. From this passage Bellarmine draws many inferences: We learn hence, says he, that to be justified by Christ is not to be accounted or pronounced just, but truly to be made and constituted just, by the obtaining of inherent righteousness absolute and perfect. For to justify in this passage is to make just, as is plain from those words, MANY SHALL BE MADE RIGHTEOUS; where the Apostle declares what it is to be justified, namely, to be made just. The same also is to be gathered from the antithesis between Adam ana Christ; for the Apostle writes, that we are so constituted righteous, by the obedience of Christ, in the same manner as we are made unrighteous by the disobedience of Adam. But Adam made us unrighteous by inherent unrighteousness, not by imputed; so therefore Christ as to the opposite. Lastly, that this infused righteousness is true and absolute appears from hence, that Paul calls |