to proue imputation of iustice but Dauid mentioneth not imputation of iustice but not imputing of sinnes but these are diuers Wherefore by that testimonie thou hast yet proued nothing Thus I say might one except against the Apostles proofe Lastly Bellarmine falsly expoundeth imputation of iustice by giuing of iustice in as much as he vnderstandeth inherent iustice seeing these be diuers neither is there any speech of inherent iustice in this place and finally seeing it implieth a contradiction for inherent iustice to be imputed But let vs bring now more testimonies to confirme the sentence proposed 2. Proofe viz. that man is iustified in as much as his sinnes are forgiuen him for the satisfaction of Christ Rom. 3.25 Whom to wit Christ God hath sette foorth to bee a reconciliation through faith in his bloud c. that he way be iust and iustifying him that is of the faith of Iesus And Chapter 4.24.25 It shall hee imputed vnto vs to wit faith for iustice which beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead who was deliuered to death for our faults and raised vp for our iustification And Chapter 5.9 Iustified by his bloud And Chap. 10.6.7 The iustice which is of faith saith thus Say not in thy heart who shall goe vp to heauen this is to bring Christ from on high or who shall goe downe into the deepe this is to bring Christ againe from the dead Gal. 2.20.21 I liue by faith of the son of God who loued mee and gaue himselfe for me I doo not abrogate the grace of God for if iustice be by the law then Christ died in vaine Ephe. 1.6.7 God by his grace hath made vs gracious in that beloued one in whom we haue redemption by his bloud euen forgiuenesse of sinnes Against these proofes some may except that in these speeches mentiō is made indeed of Christs satisfaction as of the first mouing and deseruing cause for which man is iustified and his sins forgiuen him but hence it followeth not that Iustification cōsisteth only in forgiuenes of sins because that Christ by his satisfactiō hath deserued and obtained of God for vs not onely forgiuenesse of sinnes but also the gift of the holy Ghost which doth regenerate vs and infuse iustice into vs. I answere That which is heere saide of Christs merits is indeed true but yet in those speeches is no speech of regeneration but onely of forgiuenesse of sins as the effect of Christs satisfaction and as the thing by which we are formally iustified as chiefly appeareth by that place Eph. 1.6.7 Wherfore we must determin that it is one and the same thing with the Apostle for A man to be iustified by the bloud of Christ and A man to haue his sinnes forgiuen for the bloud of Christ Let vs adde also an other place 3. Profe Act. 13.38.39 By this man to wit Christ is preached to you forgiuenesse of sinnes and from all things from which ye could not be uistisfied by Moses law by this man euery one that beleeueth is iustified Heere Iustification is manifestly defined by forgiuenesse of sinnes Bellarmine excepteth 2. Booke of iustification Chap. 12. He that beleeueth to wit as he ought that is by fulfilling all things which faith sheweth should be fulfilled For he that beleeueth a Phisitian though a most skilfull one and that infallibly cureth is not healed except he receiue the medicines that hee appoynteth I answere This is a Iesutish glosse confounding things diuerse that I say not aduerse to wit to beleeue in Christ and to fulfill the law or doubtlesse knitting a false consequence as though the fulfilling of the lawe because it is ioyned with true faith concurreth as a cause with the same to iustification Moreouer hee deceiueth by the diuerse signification of the word beleeue as though to beleeue in Christ were no other thing then to beleeue Christ that he is a most skilfull Phisitian of soules and curing infallibly and in the meane time not to receiue the medicines that hee appointeth But I say that to beleeue in Christ is by faith to receiue and apply to ones selfe the medicines that Christ appointeth namely his bloud shead for vs on the Crosse with feeling of the wrath of God Bellarmine addeth though the Apostle in this place nameth onely the forgiuenesse of sins yet is it no let but iustification may be vnderstood to consist in forgiuenesse of sins infusion of iustice For forgiuenesse of sins is not only forgiuing of the punishmēt but is the washing away cleansing of the fault which washing and cleansing is not except there succeed the brightnesse of grace comelinesse of iustice I answere That the Apostle in this place defineth Iustification by forgiuenesse of sins onely is manifest partly by the cōsequence of sentences wherof one is added to an other as explaining the same partly by the very phrase to be iustified frō sins which is no other thing then to be absolued from sins committed by consequence to obtaine forgiuenesse of sinnes Moreouer it is vnfitly distinguished by Bellarmine as things diuerse and separable one from an other Forgiuenesse of the punishment and cleansing of the fault when as cleansing or rather forgiuing of the fault is no other thing then deliuerance from the punishment for hee is said to forgiue the fault that will not inflict deserued punishment for the fault Besides hee confoundeth cleansing of the fault with cleansing of inhabiting sinne which is by regeneration seeing vnto the cleansing of the fault he opposeth the brightnesse of grace and comelinesse or seemelinesse of iustice to wit inherent Finally he hideth a false consequence in that he saith The cleansing of the fault is not except there succeed the brightnesse of grace and comelinesse of iustice By which words hee insinuateth if iustification consist in forgiuenesse of sinnes and this is the cleansing of the fault and this cleansing is not except there succeede inherent iustice it followeth that inherent iustice also is part of that iustice wherwith man is formally iustified But it is not necessarie that inherent iustice should be part of that iustice wherewith man is iustified although that iustice wherewith man is iustified befall no man that is growen to yeares of discretion without the gift of inherent iustice But Bellarmine further excepteth Although saith he in this place mention onely should be made of iustifying from sinne yet in many other places mention is made of sanctification cleansing washing renewing and the like which shew the other part of Iustification I aunswere It seemeth Bellarmine by the very phrase of this place to be iustified from things vnderstood that speech heere properly was of iustification from sinnes that is of forgiuenesse of sinnes but least he should hurt his cause he will not freely confesse this Then in that hee saith mention is made in other places of sanctification or renewing it maketh nothing to the matter For there is indeed mention
sinnes for vs. And in this very sence faith onely is said to iustifie because it onely apprehendeth Christs satisfaction for which onely and not for our works also god counteth vs for iust And this answere is inough for soluting the Argument propounded Yet in the meane time the Reader is to be put in minde as touching the first part of the assumption that it is not denied by Iames of true faith that it onely iustifieth but this only he meaneth that man is not iustified by a dead faith but by a liuing faith which of it self bringeth forth good workes And although it bee not found expresly written Faith onely iustifieth yet is there found a sentence of equall force namely A man is not iustified but by faith Gal. 2.16 Besides as touching the second part of the assumption it is false that the scripture requireth the condition of the sacraments vnto Iustification as though none could be iustified without the sacramēts Neither can it be proued from that place Ioh. 3. Except a man be borne againe for Christ speaketh not there of Baptisme but of the holy Ghost that regenerateth which hee compareth to water The 4. principall Argument which hath three brāches 1. Branch The 4. Argument Bellarmine fetcheth from the maner of iustifying of faith And this hee parteth into three The first is Faith iustifieth after the manner of a cause therefore it iustifieth not onely I answere I denie the consequence For although faith iustifieth after the maner of a cause yet it iustifieth alone for it iustifieth as an instrumentall cause apprehending Christes satisfaction for which onely wee are iustified And there is no other instrumentall cause whereby Christs satisfaction is apprehended The other Argument 2. Branch Faith is the beginning formall cause of Iustification Therefore it iustifieth not onely To proue the antecedent these sayings are brought Rom. 4. To him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed for iustice 1. Cor. 3. Other foundation can no man lay c. Where by foundation Bellarmine would haue vnderstood faith in Christ And the foundation is the beginning of the house Therefore also faith is the beginning of Iustification Act. 15. By faith purifying theyr hearts And what is purenesse of heart saith Bellarmine but iustice either begun or perfected I answere I denie the antecedent and I denie that it can be proued by the sayings alleadged For Rom. 4. Faith is said to be reputed for iustice in this sence for that iustice is imputed vnto a mā by faith For so the Apostle there saith in the words next ioyned to them that Dauid said The man is blessed to whom God imputeth iustice namely by faith as we may perceiue by conferring of the words that go before as also by conference of that phrase so much vsed of Paul wherein he saith That God iustifieth man through faith of faith by faith Now to iustifie and to impute iustice are of equal force with the same Apostle Next 1. Cor. 3. by the name of foundation is vnderstood Christ as the Apostle himself plainly affirmeth that is to say the doctrine of Christ namely of his person and office For hee there handleth Christian doctrine and not iustification Bellarmine therefore Sophistically wresteth the name foundation vnto Iustification as though he treated there of the foundation that is the beginning of Iustification Now Act. 15. Peter faith their hearts were purified by faith because by faith the hearts are certified that the bloud of Christ purgeth vs from all sinne to wit so as that no sinne is imputed to vs. There fore purenesse of heart is euill restrained of Bellarmine vnto purenes or iustice inherent when as there is also purenesse or iustice imputed The third Argument straieth from the question propounded for it concludeth a diuerse thing namely thus Faith obtaineth forgiuenesse of sinnes after a sort also deserueth it therefore it iustifieth not because it apprehendeth the promise The antecedent hee proueth from Luk. 7. where our Lord saith to the woman Thy faith hath made thee safe But if faith did onely receiue mercie it could not rightly be said to saue For who wold say to a poore man that onely reacheth out his hand for almes thy hand hath got the almes or who wold say to a sick man that with his hand taketh the medicine Thy hand hath cured thee of thy disease I answere It followeth not Faith maketh safe therefore it saueth by obtaining and deseruing For the word make in generall noteth an efficient cause And from the generall to the special the cōsequence followeth not affirmatiuely And how faith maketh safe wee must learne out of the scripture which declareth the nature and force of faith in iustifying no otherwise then by relation vnto Christs satisfaction as the obiect which it apprehendeth and applieth to a man as Rom. 3. By faith in his bloud Gal. 2. Who hath loued me and giuen himself for me c. And although no wise man would say Thy hand hath got thy almes yet might one rightly say to him that is enriched by receiuing almes Thy hand hath made thee rich For if he had not taken the almes he had not bene enriched So our faith hath not made for vs Christes satisfaction but yet by receiuing it it enricheth and iustifieth vs. Finally when it is said Faith iustifieth it is a * figuratiue speech to bee vnderstood thus God Iustifieth a beleeuer because of Christs satisfaction which he apprehendeth by faith Bellarmine bringeth also other places of scripture to confirme his antecedent namely Rom 4. Abraham was comforted by faith giuing glory to God c. Therefore also was it counted vnto him for iustice In this place the Apostle sheweth the cause why Abrahams faith was counted iustice because in beleeuing hee gaue glory to God Therefore that faith pleased God by which he was glorified and therefore for desert of that faith which notwithstanding was his gift and grace he iustified Abraham Also Rom. 10. Whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued How shal they cal vpon him is whom they haue not beleeued how shall they beleeue without a Preacher Where S. Paul saith Bellarmine as hee maketh the preaching of the word the cause of faith so hee maketh faith the cause of inuocation and inuocation the cause of sauing that is of Iustification Whereby wee vnderstand saith he further that faith by inuocation obtaineth iustification Faith therefore iustifieth not relatiuely to wit by accepting Iustification offered Lastly in the 11. to the Heb. the Apostle teacheth by many examples that men please God by faith by this that faith is of great price and merit with God I answere Although that place Rom. 4. may seeme much to fauor Bellarmines opinion yet if one look throghly into it consider the applying of Abrahās exāple vnto vs. Which immediatly followeth he shall see the causall coniunction dio therefore not to be so much referred
And the cause of Zacheus saluation is shewed in the words immediatly following for he sayth To day is saluation come to this house for that he also is the sonne of Abraham to wit infisting in the steps of Abrahams faith as Paul interpreteth this sonne-ship Rom. 4.12 For as touching the flesh many were Abrahams sonnes to whome notwithstanding saluation came not And king Ezechias which example Bellarmine addeth although he shewed his good works with a sincere hart yet he thought not that he was by them iust before the iudgement seate of God like as Paule sayd I know nothing by my selfe but I am not hereby iustified CHAP. VII The confirmation of the fourth part FOurthly that man is iustified by faith in as much as by faith he layeth hold on and applieth to himselfe Christes satisfaction may be perceiued by these sayings Rom. 3.24.25 They are iustified by the redemption made in Christ whome God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his bloud And chap. 4.24.25 It shal be imputed to vs to wit faith for iustice which beleeue in him that raised vp our Lord Iesus from the dead which was deliuered to death for our faults and raised vp for our iustification And chap. 10.6.7 The iustice which is of faith saith thus Say not in thy hart who shall go vp into heauen this is to bring Christ from aboue Or who shall go downe into the deepe this is to bring Christ againe from the dead Gal. 2.20 I liue by faith of the sonne of God who loued me and gaue himselfe for me c. Rom. 4.5 To him that worketh not but beleeneth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed for iustice Where it is manifest that by the name faith by a metonymie of the adioynt is to be vnderstood any thing which is by faith imputed to a man for iustice For to speake properly that which is in a man is not said to be imputed to him but that which is without a man And faith is in a man but Christs satisfaction which faith apprehendeth is without a man whereby it cometh to passe that it is imputed vnto man by faith that is to say is accounted his so as man is esteemed in this place as if he had performed the satisfaction for himselfe CHAP. VIII The confirmation and clearing of the fift part FIftly that man is iustified by faith only that is for the onely satisfaction of Christ apprehended by faith and not partly by faith that is for Christs satisfaction imputed and partly by works that is for inherent iustice may be gathered by the sayings following which teach that a man is iustified without workes Rom. 3.27 Where is then the reioycing It is excluded By what law of workes no but by the law of faith And by and by verse 28. We conclude therfore that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law And Chap. 4.2 If Abraham our father were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God Gal. 2.16 Knowing that man is not iustified by the workes of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ we also haue beleeued in Iesus Christ that wee might bee iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law Eph. 2.8.9 By grace ye are saued through faith not of workes Tit. 3.5 Not of iust workes which we had done but of his owne mercie he saued vs c. Phil. 3.9 That I may be foūd in him not hauing my own iustice which is of the lawe but that which is by faith of Christ Vnto those sayings wherein works are opposed to faith I. Booke of Iustification Chap. 19. Bellarmine excepteth first in generall or in commune that by works which are opposed to faith excluded from Iustification are vnderstood works which go before faith which are done by the only strength of free-will not all absolutely And this he saith may be proued frō Rom. 4. where we read saith he to him that worketh wages is imputed as by debt not as by grace In which place the Apostle openeth himselfe saith he what shuld be vnderstood by workes which are opposed to faith and saith that he calleth them works to which that which is giuen is wages not grace And such be not any but those that are done by the onely strength of freewill For that which is giuen to the works that be done of grace such as is the very act of faith and those that follow thereupon is not simply wages but also grace yea more grace then wages Thus saith Bellarmine I answere It is false that Pault should here say he calleth them works to which that which is giuen is wages not grace that is which are done by the onely strength of freewill For that he speaketh of works in generall whether they be done by the strength of freewill or by grace appeareth by this that he intreateth there of Abrahams workes those which he had done of grace and faith as that he was obedient to Gods commandement and trusting vpon his promise left his countrie of Chaldea and went into a land which God was to shew him also that he refused not to offer his onely sonne Isaak at Gods commandement for these are those workes wherein he might reioyce and boast with men And from these works doth Pault derogate Iustification before God by this argument which is taken from the generall for that to him that worketh wages is giuen as by debt and is not imputed that is not giuen of grace but to Abraham iustice was imputed And whereas Bellarmine faith that which is giuen to workes which be done of grace is partly wages parly grace therein hee feigneth that things immediately aduerse may stand togither and that against the Apostles manifest sentence both in this place where he opposeth grace to debt and by consequence to wages as that cannot stand togither and also Chap. 11.6 where he saith If by grace to wit there be a reseruation of certaine Iewes that are iustified it is not now of workes that is deserts of workes otherwise were no more grace But if of workes then not now of grace otherwise workes were no more workes But Bellarmine hauing first set downe that generall answere Bellarmines exception against that place Ro. 3 27. maketh answere afterward vnto euery of those sayings And first vnto that place Rom. 3.27 he answereth that the reioycing of the Iewes is excluded by the law of of faith not by the law of deeds because man is iustified of grace which first of all inspireth faith then by faith leadeth vnto mercie and good works and is not iustified by the law of deeds that is by the only knowledge of the law strength of free will I answer Although Gods grace wherby a man is iustified leadeth him by faith vnto good works yet is not in that respect man said to be justified by faith as Bellarmine insinuateth because of
be cannot hope for or loue that which he beleeueth not Therefore faith is the foundation of hope and loue and not contrariwise hope or loue the foundation of faith I answere In this reason the question is not concluded Which is not whether faith be the foundation or originall of hope and loue but whether we be iustified by faith only or by faith hope and loue together Vnto this reason he ioyneth an other in bodily diseases the beginning of health is 5. Argument to beleeue that he is sicke and to haue faith in the Phisitian that is willing to cure yet is not that onely faith perfect health I answere First Bellarmine vnaptly maketh the sick mās faith a part of health whē as it is the procreant cause of health in as much as the sick man should not obtaine health except he had that faith In like manner faith whereby we are iustified is not a part of Iustification but the procreant instrumental cause because by faith we apprehend Christs satisfaction for which we are iustified Next as his maner is he confoundeth iustification with regeneration in as much as hee calleth faith health towit of soule vnderstanding newnesse of nature Moreouer he falsly defineth faith whereby we are iustified to wit as though by it we beleeued only that we are spiritually sick that is to say sinners and that the spirituall phisitian Christ is willing to cure vs. But these suffice not vnto iustifying faith but it is required further that we beleeue that Christ hath already perfectly cured vs by his satisfaction as touching forgiuenesse of sinnes and hath begun to cure vs as touching renuing of nature and finally as touching the same is willing perfectly to cure vs and also will cure vs after this life Wherefore there is not the like reason of the faith which Bellarmine in this place attributeth to a sick man and of iustifying faith Bellarmines arguments that feare concurreth vnto iustification Bellarmine proceedeth vnto the second disposition as he after the Councell of Trent nameth it whereby they feigne a man is disposed vnto iustification that is to say Feare And indeuoureth to proue by the places of scripture folowing that this concurreth vnto iustification almost after the same manner that faith it selfe concurreth First saith he we haue learned by the Apostle that faith iustifieth I. Argument when hee saith Without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11. But the same is also said of Feare Ecclesiasticus 1. He that is without feare cannot be iustified I answere First the testimonie of Ecclesiasticus is not of force to proue any poynt of faith because that booke is not Canonicall but Apocryphall Then though that booke were of authoritie yet the saying alleadged would proue nothing because here is brought a false interpretation which containeth a plain diuerse sentence frō that which is cōtained in the Greek words of Iesus the son of Sirach which are to be interpreted an angry man cannot be iustified for the moment of his anger is ruine vnto him Thirdly althogh it were so in the Greek as Bellarmine citeth out of the common translation yet this speech would make nothing to the purpore for the son of Sirach speaketh not of mans iustificatiō before God but before the ciuill Iudge warning that they which are giuen to anger or that without the feare of God follow their owne lusts will at length commit those haynous sinnes and wickednesses for which beeing brought vnto iudgement they cannot be iustified that is quitted but are by the Iudge condemned vnto deserued punishment Fourthly although this saying of Syrach were to be vnderstood of Iustification before God yet could not the question bee concluded from it For it is brought as beeing like to that saying of the Apostle and from that likenesse is the Argument drawne when as notwithstanding it is not like For it is not said Without feare it is impossible to be iustified as it is said Without faith it is impossible to please God but it is said Hee that is without feare cannot bee iustified Besides though it were said Without feare it is impossible to be iustified as it is said without faith it is impossible to please God yet would it not follow from hence that feare would pertaine vnto Iustification after one and the same manner that faith dooth for faith pertaineth to Iustification as the instrumentall cause whereby wee take holde on Christes satisfaction for which wee are iustified but the feare of GOD pertaineth as an effect of faith necessarily agreeing therewith For where the feare of GOD is not neither is there iustyfying faith Then 2. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because it is the beginning of iustice and saluation But the feare of the Lord is the beginning of wisedome Prou. I. and by wisdome is vnderstood perfect iustification I answere First it is false that by wisedome is vnderstood iustification for iustification is Gods action whereby he counteth and pronounceth man iust but wisedome is a qualitie in mans minde wrought of God Wherefore that saying maketh nothing to the matter Next if by the name of wisedome in Salomons speech were vnderstoode iustification Bellarmine assumeth things that manifestly cannot stand together and feigneth them vnto the holy Ghost that speaketh in the scripture in as much as he affirmeth both faith and feare to be the beginning of iustification For if faith be the beginning of iustification feare cannot be and so contrariwise seeing of one thing there is but one beginning Moreouer 3. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because by it we seeke God and come vnto him But the same thing doth feare For it is written in Psal 77. When he slew them they sought him and returned c I answere Bellarmine assumeth a false thing for faith iustifieth not because by it we seeke God but because by it we take hold on Christes satisfaction for which God iustifieth vs. Which thing cannot be attributed vnto feare Furthermore 4. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because by it Christ is formed in vs as he saith Gal. 4. But of feare Isaiah writeth chapt 26. according to the 70. Greeke interpreters By the feare we haue conceiued and brought forth the spirit of saluation I answere First it is false that it is said in Gal. 4. Faith iustifieth because by it Christ is formed in vs. Yet it is true that this sentence may be concluded from the Apostles words which are My little children of whom I trauel in birth againe vntill Christ be formed in you By which words the Apostle signifieth that he went about by the doctrine of the Gospell to reduce the Galathians to the true knowledge and faith of Christ And the scope was that by that faith they might be iustified in as much as by it they should take hold on Christes satisfaction Which taking hold the Apostle metaphorically calleth a forming of Christ in the Galathians because he had said that hee
Galath 5. Neither Circumcision auaileth any thing nor Vncircumcision but faith which worketh by loue The Apostle Iohn teacheth the same 1. Iohn 3. saying We are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren I answere As touching that place in Ecclesiasticus it is not of force to proue any point of faith because the booke is Apocryphal Then that sentence is not found in the Greeke copie Thirdly he treateth not there of remission of sinnes wherefore this sentence is nothing to the purpose As concerning the other places Luc. 7. the coniunction because in Greeke hóti noteth not the cause of the thing but the cause of the conclusion that is the argument whereby the sentence proposed is proued And that argument was drawen not from the cause but from the effect For that many sinnes are forgiuen this woman Christ proueth by her deede as an effect of the forgiuenesse of sinnes which she perceiued she had obteyned by the grace of Christ As is plaine by the Simile which the Lord addeth to declare that deede to wit the creditor which forgaue two debtors to the one more to the other lesse whereupon it came that the one loued him more the other lesse As therefore that loue of the debtors was not the cause of forgiuing the det but contrarywise the forgiuing of the det was cause of their loue so also the loue of that woman was not the cause why Christ forgaue her her sinnes but contrariwise the forgiuenesse of sinnes was cause why the woman loued him Neither is this declaration answered by the exposition which Bellarmine bringeth in an other place that the coniunction hóti because is a causal For it is not named a causal for that it signifieth the cause of the thing but for that it signifieth the cause of the conclusion that is the argument or medium of the proofe From the words Gal. 5. it cannot be gathered that loue disposeth vnto iustification but onely we are taught what maner of faith that is whereby we are iustified namely faith working by loue In the place out of the Epistle of Iohn Bellarmine hath committed the crime of falshood for that he hath cited the text vnperfectly that he might wrest it vnto his purpose For it is not there We are translated c. but We know that we are translated It is euident therefore that loue is not there made the cause of our translation from death to life but the signe and argument whereby we know that we are translated And loue is the signe of this thing because it is the effect of true faith by which that translation is made as our Lord witnesseth Ioh. 5.24 He that beleeueth hath passed from death into life The second principall argument Bellarmine proceedeth to another principall argument which he concludeth in this reasoning If faith be separated from hope and loue and other vertues without doubt it cannot iustifie Therefore onely faith cannot iustifie The consequence of this argument is proued saith he thus If the whole force of iustifying were in faith only so that other vertues though they were present conferred nothing at all vnto iustification surely that faith would iustifie * It should be as well when they are absent as present as well when they are present as absent Therefore if it cannot iustifie when they are absent it argueth that the force of iustifying is not in it onely but partly in it partly in the other Also If it cannot be that faith seuered from loue should iustifie then it alone iustifieth not But the first is true for without loue there can be no iustice because he that loueth not abideth in death 1. Iohn 2. Therefore the latter also is true Besides if faith separated from vertues can iustifie it can also doo the same with vices for as the presence of other vertues profiteth faith nothing as concerning the dutie of iustifying because it onely iustifieth so the presence of vices shall nothing hinder it as touching the office of iustifying because by accident there are ioyned with it either vices or vertues But the consequent is absurd therefore also the antecedent I answere All these connexe or as Bellarmine calleth them conditionate propositions of these three reasons are false For although faith be not alone but hath other vertues ioyned with it and not vices which is impossible yet faith onely iustifieth Euen as the hand of a writer although it be not alone but ioyned with the other members yet it onely writeth And as the foote as not alone but ioyned to the other members yet it onely standeth Likewise as the eye is not alone and yet alone seeth the eare is not alone but yet heareth alone Finally the members of mans body although they be ioyned one to another and cannot do their seuerall actions except they be ioyned one to another yet haue euery one their proper action The third principall argument The third principall argument whereby Bellarmine would proue that faith iustifieth not alone is taken saith he from the remouing away of the causes which may be giuen why faith onely iustifieth For all such causes may be reduced saith he vnto three heads And thus he concludeth If faith alone iustifieth either it therefore iustifieth alone because the scripture expressely saith it or because it pleased God to giue iustification with the onely condition of faith or because it alone hath the force to apprehend iustification and apply it vnto vs and make it ours But none of these causes can truly be said of faith Therefore neither can it be truly said of it that it onely iustifieth The first part of the assumption he endenoureth to proue by this that in the scripture there is found an expresse denyall of that word to wit Onely or a word of the same signification namely Iam. 2. Yee see that of workes a man is iustified and not of faith onely The second part he proueth by this that scriptures doo much more openly require the conditiō of repentance and of the Sacraments vnto Iustification then of faith as Ezek. 18. If the wicked repent he shall liue Luk. 13. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Ioh. 3. Except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God The third part he endeuoureth to proue thus for that faith is not said properly to apprehend or certainly Iustification is not so apprehended by faith that it is had indeed and inherent but onely that it is in the mind after the manner of an obiect apprehended by the action of the vnderstanding or will But after this manner loue also and ioy do apprehend I answere The assumption of the syllogisme proposed is false as touching the third part or branch For onely faith apprehendeth Christs satisfaction vnto Iustification because by faith onely we can make full account that Christ hath satisfied for vs and by his satisfaction obtained of God forgiuenesse of
spirit that is in the soule neither doth hee compare these two adoptions as like one to an other But hee sayth Wee expect the adoption of the sonnes of God that is to say that heauenly inheritance which wee are adopted to possesse and enioy in due time And this very thing hee calleth redemption of the body that is to say redemption whereby both the body shall be deliuered from the crosse whereto it is subiect in this life and the soule from inhabiting sinne wherein it is holden so long as it liueth in this mortall body Wherefore it is vnapt and not beseeming a Diuine that Bellarmine counteth this an absurd thing that we should looke for redemption of the soule For that lamentation of Paule Rom. 7.24 O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death doth it not pertaine to the ful deliuerance of the soule from inhabiting sinne Finally it is a true and not a putatiue adoption as Bellarmine cauelling speaketh wherewith God hath adopted vs and yet the adoption is the imputation of sonneship whereby wee are counted for the sonnes of God through grace when by nature wee were the children of wrath But in the meane time adoption is one thing the spirit of adoption an other thing By adoption we are receiued into grace and iustified by the spirit of adoption we are regenerate beeing already adopted CHAP. III. The proofe of the second part recited and refuted HItherto we haue disputed of the first part of the Papists opinion wherin they determine that Iustification is infusion of iustice It followeth that now wee treate of the second parte wherein they say That faith alone iustifieth not but * The I. principall Argument the proofes wherof do follow I. Argument I Booke of Iustificatiō Chap. 13. as the beginning and roote of Iustification To proue this Bellarmine first bringeth the place Heb. 11. Hee that commeth vnto God must beleeue that God is Where the first motion vnto God is giuen to faith by which he that was far off beginneth now to draw nigh I answere The Apostle here maketh no comparison betweene faith and other spirituall vertues but speaking simplie of faith alone affirmeth it to bee necessarie for him that commeth vnto God to wit to craue his helpe and aske any thing of him Wherfore it is a strange glosse that the first motion vnto God is here giuen to faith As though the motions that follow were not of faith but of other spiritual vertues And as though Iustification were done by I know not how many motions vnto God Nay Iustification is made by this onely motion wherby the mind through faith is so moued vnto God that it taketh hold of his good will reconciled by Christs satisfaction to all that beleeue in him Then hee bringeth the saying Rom. 2. Argument 10. Whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued But how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued how shall they beleeue without a Preacher how shall they preach except they bee sent Where the Apostle deseribeth this order of lustification that first there be a sending of Preachers secondly the preaching of the Gospell thirdly faith fourthly inuocation fiftly saluation that is Iustifications which is health of soule from the disease of sinne Of which sending and preaching are without vs and and to the first beginning of Iustification in vs is faith after which followeth inuocation and the rest in their order I answere Bellarmine faulteth fast in confusion of things diuerse in that be expoundeth the word Saluation by the word Iustification when as Saluation properly spoken is more large to wit comprehending iustification regeneration and glorification Then hee faulteth in a false definition when as hee defineth Iustification to bee health of soule from the disease of sinne that is to say regeneration Finally he goeth from the question in that hee numbreth certaine things which be needfull vnto saluation besides faith For when the professors of the Gospell teach that man is iustified by faith onely they exclude not those things that are here reckoned from the obtaining of saluation but only they exclude mans workes from obtaining that rustice which God may approoue as perfect Thirdly he bringeth the place Iohn I. So many as receiued him 3. Argument he gaue them power to be made the sons of God to those that beleeue in his name Here Iohn opēly teacheth saith Bellarmine that they which receiue Christ by faith are not yet the sons of God but may so be made if they go on further that they also begin to hope and loue For loue properly maketh the sonnes of God as as appeareth I. Iohn 2. I answere The meaning of Iohn words is not that which Bellarmine bringeth but he meaneth that God hath giuen to the beleeuers power or right exousian for to be made the sonnes of God that is to be the sonnes of God in this very respect that they are borne of God as be declareth in the verse following that is that they are regenerate and by consequence endued with faith Whence I draw this Argument As farre forth as the beleeuers are borne of God so farre forth is giuen vnto them the right of the children of God But the beleeuers as far foorth as they beleeue are borne of God Therefore to the beleeuers as far forth a they beleeue is giuen the right of the children of God and by consequence they are iustified as far foxth as they beleeue or by faith And whereas Bellarmine saith it is plaine by 1. Ioh. 2. that loue properly maketh the sonnes of God verily I find not this sentence in that Chapter neither expresly nor yet by collection But if perhaps through the Printers fault the number second crept in for the nūber third there is indeed in the third Chapter a certaine sentence of loue but not this That loue maketh the sonnes of God but that by loue the sonnes of God are knowne namely in the 10. verse By this are manifested the sonnes of God and the sonnes of the diuell Who so doth not iustice is not of God and he that loueth not his brother Neither can Bellarmines sentence be concluded as hee peraduenture thinketh from the 1. verse where it is said thus Behold what loue the father hath giuen to vs that we should be called the sonnes of God For by the name Loue there by a metonymie of the efficient cause he vnderstandeth a benefit proceeding from the loue wherewith God loueth vs and what that benefit is he declareth by opposition in those words that we should be called the sonnes of God namely the benefit of adoption Wherefore Bellarmine hath not yet shewed that we are adopted and iustified of GOD by loue and therefore not by faith onely To these Arguments Bellarmine addeth a naturall reason 4. Argument as hee calleth it in these words Some man may beleeue that which he hopeth not for neither loueth
giuenesse of sinnes maketh not men such Therefore onely forgiuenesse of sinnes is not iustification The assumption he would proue thus For one is not worthy of loue for this only that his dets are forgiuen him when hee cannot pay them Neither is hee straight-way made a sonne a citizen or of the houshold or an heyre who by the iudges clemencie vndergoeth not the punishment whereto he was iustly adiudged I deny the assumption And I proue the contrary by the Apostles words Eph. 1.5.6.7 He bath predestinate vs to be adopted through Iesus Christ vnto himselfe according to the good pleasure of his will To the praise of the glory of his grace wherewith he hath made vs accepted in that Beloued by whome wee haue redemption through his bloud the forgiuenesse of sinnes If thou askest how God hath adopted vs for sonnes and so for heyres of his kingdome also how he hath made vs accepted that is friends and beloued the Apostle answereth By Iesus Christ also In that his beloued and declaring this same thing he faith that in him or by him we haue redemption through his bloud the for giuenes of sinnes Therefore the Apostle sheweth no other thing by which we are made the friends of God then the forgiuenesse of sinnes neither any other thing for which then the redemption made by the bloud of Christ The proofe which Bellarmine bringeth of the assumption hath no force for the manner of dealing with God and with men is vnlike Men are not so affected that they will straightway vouchsafe to heape benefits on him to whom they haue forgiuen offences but God to whomsoeuer he forgiueth offences for Christ them he prosecuteth which eternal fauour for his sake and thereupon heapeth his benefits on them though vnworthy CHAP. V. The proofe of the fourth part recited and refuted NOw remayneth the fourth and last part of the Papists sentence That iustification confisteth not in imputation of Christes iustice This first he would proue by this I. Proofe that it is neuer read in the scripture that Christes iustice is imputed to vs or that we are iust by Christes iustice imputed to vs. Before I answere this argument I will first shew in what sense these things be spoken of the professors of the Gospell whome Bellarmine oppugneth Therefore when they say That Christes iustice is imputed to vs they vnderstand the iustice gotten by Christes death Therefore this they meane That iustice is imputed to vs of God or we are counted of God iust for the death of Christ whereby hee hath satisfied his iudgement for our sinnes Which is all one as if they should say that Christes satisfaction is of God imputed vnto vs for iustice This appeareth by Caluins words in his third booke of Instir 2. Booke of Iustific chapt 1. chap. 11.5.3 Which place Bellarmine himselfe citeth namely To iustifie is nothing else but to acquite from guiltinesse as being of approued innocency him that is guiltie or so accused When as therefore God iustifieth vs by Christes intercession he doth not acquite vs by approuing of our owne innocencie but by imputation of iustice that we are counted iust in Christ which are not so in our selues Behold he saith God iustifieth vs by Christes intercession that is for Christes intercession vnder which name is comprehended satisfaction Also He acquitteth vs by imputation of iustice or in as much as hee imputeth iustice vnto vs namely for that intercession and satisfaction of Christ Whereby wee perceiue that Caluine maketh the formall cause of iustification to be imputation of iustice which otherwhere he calleth forgiuenesse of sinnes Now the meaning of the words being declared I answere to Bellarmines argument and say that it is not necessarie that those very wordes Christes iustice is imputed to vs be read in the scripture but that it is ynough if those things be read from which this sentence may by good consequence be drawen And such we read namely where it is said that faith is imputed to man for iustice and that iustice is imputed to man Rom. 4.5.6 Now seeing these phrases be diuerse and therfore cannot be both of them proper we must consider which is proper and which figuratiue To speake properly a thing is said to be imputed to one which himselfe hath not done or which is not in himselfe and contrariwise that is said not to be imputed which one hath done or which is in him Therefore when iustice is said to be imputed to sinfull man it is a proper speech us also when it is said that sinne is not imputed to a sinner It is therfore improperly said that To him that beleeueth faith is imputed for iustice and therefore this is to be vnfolden by a proper speech to wit that To him that beleeueth iustice is imputed or he that beleeueth is counted for iust by faith as elsewhere the Apostle saith The beleeuer is iustified by faith Which that it may more fully be vnderstood it is needfull that the nature of faith be declared by his obiect whereon it leaneth or which it apprehendeth for iustice For that is the thing for which the beleeuer is iustified or iustice is imputed to him or finally which is imputed to him for iustice by faith And that obiect of faith is Christes satisfaction as appeareth by the Apostles words Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth a reconciliation by faith in his bloud Therefore to speake properly iustice is imputed to vs for Christes satisfaction by faith because we apprehend that by faith or Christes satisfaction is imputed to vs for iustice by faith that is in as much as it is apprehended by faith Secondly 2. Proofe he would proue the same thing by this that no necessitie can be alleadged of that sort of imputation But say I there is manifest necessitie namely our sinnes which cannot be vndone but least we be damned for them it is necessary that they be not imputed to vs but couered which is no other thing then to haue iustice imputed to vs as appeareth by the Apostles wordes Rom. 4.6.7 Dauid saith that Blessed is that man to whom God imputeth iustice Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sinne But Bellarmine laboureth to confirme his argument thus If this imputation were necessarie it should therefore cheefly be necessary for that man after forgiuenesse of sinne is yet verily a sinner to wit his sinne being couered not taken away But this cause of necessitie hath no place Because by forgiuenesse of sinnes sinne is vtterly taken away that it is not for proofe whereof he heapeth together many testimonies of scripture Therefore this imputation is not necessary I answere First the proposition is false for although imputation of iustice be necessary for man yet is it not therefore necessary for that man after forgiuenesse of sinne is yet verily a sinner as though imputation of iustice were done after