life From those last words that being iustified by his grace we vnderstād saith Bellarmine that iustification of described in the former words so that after the Apostles mind iustification is regeneration and renouation through the goodnesse of God wrought in vs by the lauer of Baptisme and powring out of the holy Ghost Also in those words that being iustified by his grace c. he sheweth the cause saith he why God hath regenerate renued vs by the lauer and holy Ghost and saith the cause was that being iustified that is being iustified by that regeneration and renouation we may deserue to be made heyres of the kingdame and life euerlasting I answere Bellarmine as his manner is confoundeth and taketh for one and the same the things which in the Apostle are manifestly diuerse to wit regeneration and iustification and to obteine this he giueth a glosse vpon those words that being iustified saying that is to say that being iustified by that regeneration which glosse notwithstanding might be admitted if it were rightly vnderstood namely of the procreant cause of faith and not of the formall cause of iustification For by regeneration the holy Ghost worketh faith in the elect whereby they apprehend the grace of Christ that is Christs satisfaction through Gods grace performed for them And this is it which the Apostle saith in this place that being iustified by his grace c. That is to say hauing by regeneration the gift of faith we apprehend the grace of Christ and so are iustified and obteine the inheritance of eternall life The 5. argument he taketh frō Heb. II. where the Apostle testifieth saith he that some men were truly and absolutely iust 5. Argument for of Abel he writeth He obteyned testimonie that he was iust Of Noah Hee was made heyre of the iustice which is by faith And this their iustice saith Bellarmine further was not the iustice of Chrise imputed but iustice inherent and proper to them For the Apostle willing to shew from whence Abel obteined testimonie of iustice saith God giuing testimonie to his gifis Where we see that Abels iustice is proued by the effect of his iustice to wit because hee did good works when he sacrificed vnto God aright Now the cause of a good worke is inherent iustice not imputation of iustice which seeing it is outward cannot be the beginning of the worke So also that Noe was iust the Apostle prooueth in the same place Because hee beleeued God feared Gods iudgement obeyed Gods commaundement And in Genes 6. he is sayd to be iust because he walked with God Euen as also Saint Luke prooueth Chapter 1. that Zacharie and Elizabeth were iust before God because they walked in all the commaundements and iustifications of the Lord. I answere The fraud of Bellarmine is to be marked who that he might wrest that place of Abel to his purpose reciteth it vnperfitly leauing out these two words By which which do agree in the same sentence with those words which he citeth and pertaine greatly vnto the question in hand For so saith the Apostle Abel by faith offered a more pretious sacrifice then Cain By which he obteined testimonie that he was iust God bearing witnesse of his gifts Where it is manifest that faith is made the procreant cause both of the pretiousnes of Abels sacrifice and also of Abels iustice and lastly also of the testimonie whereby God bare witnesse that Abel was iust by faith and therefore that his sacrifice was pretious and pleased him Wherefore it is plaine that here he speaketh of the iustice of faith Which thing appeareth yet more manifestly by the other testimonie namely that Noe was made heyre of the iustice which is by faith Which testimonie it is strange that Bellarmine would cite heere seeing it plainly repugneth his purpose For the iustice of faith is the iustice which God imputeth to man as is euident by the words of the same Apostle Rom. 4.6 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth iustice Moreouer Bellarmine feigneth a false drift of the Apostles words as though he would proue that Abel was iust and as though he proued it by this that he did a good worke by sacrificing a right But the Apostle hath another purpose namely by Abels ' example to proue that both man himselfe and his workes please God by faith Besides he falsly denieth that imputed iustice is the cause of a iust worke For except iustice be imputed to a man by saith no worke of his can please God and be approued as Iust. For without faith as the Apostle there saith it is impossible to please God Neither doth it hinder that imputation of iustice as Bellarmine speaketh is outward For faith by which iustice is imputed to man is that I may so say inward that is seated within and this is it which worketh by loue But as concerning those places Gen. 6. of Noe and Luke 1. of Zacharie and Elizabeth their begun inherent iustice is there cōmended by the adioyned sinceritie to wit for that they minded that God was the beholder of all their actions and thereupon studied to approue them vnto him and it is not meant that they trusted vpon that iustice of their life before God as being perfect and in all things answerable to his law for which eternall life ought to be adiudged them of God The 6. Argument hee taketh from Rom. 8.29 and 1. Cor. 15.49 where the Apostle saith 6. Argument that the iust are conformed to the Image of Christ beare Christs Image Those whom he fore-knew saith he them he praedestinated to be made conformable to the Image of his sonne And as we haue borne the Image of the earthy we shall beare also the Image of the heauenly Bellarmine assumeth now Christ is not iust by imputation but by iustice inherent to himselfe He concludeth therefore it is necessarie that wee also haue inherent iustice Here first Bellarmine vseth a fallacie from that which is spoken in respect vnto that which is spoken simplie whiles he taketh those speeches of the Apostle which are spoken properly of the conformitie of the beleeuers with Christ in glorie as if they were spoken of cōformitie in all things For otherwise he could not thence inferre that wee ought to be conformed vnto Christ euen in this also that we be not iust by imputation Then he deceitfully leaueth out in the conclusion the one part of the assumption when as the whole conclusion is this therefore we also are not iust by imputation but by inherent iustice The first part of which conclusion manifestly contradicteth the Apostle who saith Rom. 4. The man is blessed to whom God imputeth iustice Finally that conclusion of Bellarmines maketh nothing for the question in hand For the question is not whither it be necessarie that we haue inherent iustice but whether by inherent iustice wee can stand in Gods iudgement and be iustified of God But Bellarmine proceedeth to reason from
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
made thereof euery where but not as part of iustification as heere Bellarmine by begging the question doth affirme Yet Bellarmine proceedeth in his exception That from which ye could not be iustified in the law of Moses signifieth saith he that the obseruation of the law presumed on by our owne strength or by the help of the law only doth not iustifie not that the true obseruation of the law is not iustice but that the law cannot bee kept before forgiuenesse of sinnes For when God by Christs merits reconcileth any he togither both forgiueth him his sinnes and infuseth charitie by which he keepeth the commandements of the law I answere Whatsoeuer that signifieth To be iustified in the law of Moses the Apostle saith clearely that the Iewes to whom he speaketh could not be iustified in Moses law which thing also Peter affirmeth of the fathers Act. 15. where he saith that the law was a yoake that neither they nor their fathers could beare And who skilfull in the holy storie knoweth not that there were among the fathers some godly and therefore endued with forgiuenesse of sinnes and the gift of regeneration And yet they as Peter witnesseth could not beare the yoake of the law that is by keeping of the law be iustified from their sinnes Also who dare affirme that none of those Iewes whom Paul then spake vnto was endued with true faith in Christ to come although as yet they knew not who he was and therfore were also endued with the gift of generation Surely that some of them were such may be gathered from the 43. verse where it is said that many of those Iewes and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas and that they perswaded them to continue in the grace of God And yet these as Paul witnesseth could not in the law that is by the law be iustified Wherefore that which Bellarmine saith that the true keeping of the lawe is iustice is true but it is not true which hee vnderstandeth and insinuateth in the wordes following namely that they which haue receiued of GOD forgiuenesse of sinnes and the gift of charitie can performe the true that is perfect obseruation of the lawe so that by that iustice of the law they can stand in the iudgement of God An other place for a sentence there is 4. Proofe Luk. 18. where the Publican is said to bee iustified when onely hee had asked forgiuenesse of sinnes saying O God bee mercifull vnto mee a sinner Contrariwise the Pharisee preaching the gifts of God bestowed on him and giuing thankes went away not iustified Therefore Iustification consisteth not in gifts and good workes though done through Gods helpe but onely in forgiuenesse of sinnes In the place before cited Against this proofe Bellarmineexcepteth thus when the Publican said O God bee mercifull to mee a sinner hee asked not onely forgiuenesse of the debt as though hee would bee vnrighteous yet not so accounted of GOD nor punished but hee asked whole reconciliation and the same hee obtained Whereupon our Lorde concludeth the 〈◊〉 This man went away iustified from him for euery one that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted and hee that exalteth himselfe shall be humbled The exaltation of the humble and penitent publican signifieth doubtlesse somewhat more then onely forgiuenes of his offence For they are not said to be exalted whose debts are forgiuen but which are aduanced vnto degrees and honours Therefore the publican is for this said to be exalted because of a sinner he was sodainly made iust of the seruant of sinne the seruant of iustice of the child of the diuell the child of God Moreouer the Pharisee deserued to be set after the Publican not because he rehearsed the gifts of God and gaue the Lord thanks but because he was full of the swelling of pride and trusted in his owne iustice so as that he would not craue any thing to beadded to him nothing to be forgiuen him besides also hee contemned the humble Publican I answere Bellarmine doth heere crookedly cauill at the sentence of the professors of the Gospell as if they did teach that such shal receiue forgiuenesse of sins as will yet be vnrighteous or as if such a purpose can stand with carnest suite for remission of sinnes And where he saith that the Publican when he said God be mercifull vnto me a sinner asked not onely forgiuenesse of his debt what is this but to wrest cleare words from their simple sense Also what meaneth this that Bellarmine opposeth whole reconciliation vnto forgiuenesse of debt As though that forgiuing of debt or remission of sinnes were not a whole but onely a halfe reconciliation against the manifest testimonies of scripture Rom. 5.9.10 Beeing instified by his bloud wee shall be saued now much more by him from wrath for if when we were enemies wee were reconciled to God by the death of his sonne much more beeing reconciled wee shall be saued by his life Heere it is manifest that to be reconciled vnto God is the same that to be iustified of God as may be perceiued by Chap. 4. ver 5.6.7 Yet there is a clearer place 2. Cor. 5.19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe not imputing to them their sinnes Behold whether the Apostle dooth not expresly define reconciliation wherewith we are reconciled vnto God by forgiuenesse of sinnes And whereas Bellarmine interpreteth that clause Euery one that humbleth himselfe c. so as if the Lord would define what it is to be instified hee misseth the marke for the Lord had no other purpose then by that prouerbiall sentence to confirme that speciall two-folde example the one of a man iustified the other of a man not obtaining Iustification Likewise where he interpreteth to be exalted of infusion of iustice he vseth a fallacie of the consequent reasoning from the gerall to the speciall affirmatiuely thus To be instified is to be exalted therefore it is to bee exalted by infusion of inherent iustice But though it be true that hee which is iustified is exalted not onely by adoption but also by regeneration yet hence it followeth not that Iustification is the same that regeneration Moreouer Bellarmine in this place contradicteth himselfe whiles now he granteth that forgiuenesse of sinne is signified by exaltation and straight way denieth that they are sayd to be exalted whose debts are forgiuen Lastly as touching the Pharisee it is true that for spirituall pride and trust in his owne iustice he was repulsed from God but in the meane time this also is true that the Lord would teach by this example that this pride is an vnseparable companion of that desire whereby men seeke iustice in their owne workes Neither is Zacheus Luk. 19. which example Bellarmine obiecteth sayd to be iustified by good workes although when he promised good works the Lord sayd vnto him To day is saluation come to this house but only the sinceritie of his faith is after this manner commended by the effects
trauelled in birth againe of them that so he might continue the metaphor hee had begun But such forming of Christ in man cannot be ascribed vnto feare Neither can that any way be prooued from that saying of Isaiah in the citing wherof hitherto Bellarmine bewrayeth his maruellous impudencie seeing that place containeth nothing at all of Christ or iustification no not though the interpretation of the 70. be admitted But why doth not Bellarmine cite the common Latin translation when as notwithstanding hee approoueth and defendeth the decree of the Councell of Trent wherin is determined that the common Latin edition is to be held for authenticall 2. Booke De Verbo Des Chap. 10. For if that be autheÌ„ticall that which differeth from it cannot be couÌ„ted for authenticall And the interpretation of the 70. differeth in this place But if one looke into that place and consider the whole context hee shall see that there is nothing at all of Christes or mans iustification before God contained in those words but a narration of the Iewes wherein they tell theyr owne weaknesse in deliuering themselues from calamities and purchasing themselues saluation Their calamities they compare to a woman in trauell saying As a woman with child that draweth neare to the trauell is in sorrow and crieth in her paines so haue we bene in thy sight ô Lord We haue conceiued we haue borne in paine as though wee should haue brought forth wind We could not giue any helpe to the Land It is therfore an impudent sophisme of Bellarmine who shameth not to alleadge these things here as being spoken of mans Iustification Againe faith Iustifieth saith Bellarmine because the iust liueth by faith Hab. 2. And of feare it is written The feare of the Lord is the fountaine of life Prou. 14. I answere It is false that faith iustifieth because or in as much as the Iust liueth by faith Neither doth Habacuck say this but onely saith The iust shall liue by faith You contrariwise the iust shall liue by faith because hee is iustified by faith For iustice goeth before life as the cause before the effect And faith Iustifieth because or in as much as it apprehendeth Christs satisfaction for which God iustifieth To conclude 6. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because it purgeth sinnes as the Apostle teacheth Act. 13. Rom. 3. Gal. 3. and in other places But of feare also we reade Ecclesiast 1. The feare of the Lord expelleth sinne I answere Faith to speake properly purgeth not sinnes but Christes bloud 1. Iohn 1. And if faith be said to purge sinnes it is to be vnderstood thus that it apprehendeth Christes satisfaction vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes But after this manner the feare of the Lord doth not expell sinne but so farre as it holdeth a man like a bridle from giuing himselfe vp to sinne and sinning securely Neither is it said in any of the places alleaged that faith purgeth sinnes But Act. 15.9 Peter saith that God had purged the harts of the beleeuing Gentiles by faith that is had forgiuen them their sinnes by faith whereby they apprehended Christs satisfactioÌ„ In Rom. 3.25 it is said That God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation by faith in his bloud to declare his iustice by forgiuenesse of foredone sins In Gal. 3. there is no such thing Last of all he addeth this reason 7. Argument The nature of feare is saith he to flee euils and seeke remedies how it may escape them I answere But hence it foloweth not that feare iustifieth and that after the same manner that faith doth Bellarmines arguments that hope of pardon is a disposition vnto iustice and remission of sinnes Bellarmine proceedeth to the third disposition as he calleth it to wit Hope namely hope to obtaine pardon That this is a disposition vnto iustice and remission of sinnes he proueth by these sayings Prou. 28. He that hopeth in the Lord shal be healed Psal 36. He wil saue them because they hoped in him Psal 90. Because he hoped in me I will deliuer him Mat. 9. Haue confidence some thy sinnes are forgiuen thee where he noteth that the Lord first said Haue confidence sonne and when he sawe him lifted vp vnto the hope of saluation he added Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee I answere First Bellarmine strayeth from the question For the question proposed is whether onely faith iustifieth and not whether it onely dispose vnto iustification wherefore he should proue that hope also iustifieth and not that hope disposeth vnto iustification Moreouer the sayings all eaged out of the Prouerbs and Psalmes make nothing to the matter for none of them speake of the obtaining of the forgiuenes of sinnes but they speake of outward felicitie and deliuerance from outward dangers Neither is there in that place of the Prouerbs in the Hebrue the word bealed but 〈◊〉 shal be made fat Neither in the said 90. Psalme or after the Hebrues distâ—ction the 91. Psalme is the Hebrue because he hoped in me but because he hath loued me or bene louingly affected vnto me Finally in none of these places is there speech of hope of obtaining pardon of which the question was propounded but there is speech of hope of the fatherly prouidence and care of God towards his children Now as touching that saying Math. 9. Bellarmine wresteth it vnto his purpose by a false interpretation of the word Haue confidence as if it were the same that Conceiue hope of pardon is Then he maket'd a weake consequence If the Lord said first Haue confidence and after Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee Therfore that confidence of which he spake went before forgiuenes of sinnes Lastly he foloweth the false interpretation of the word aphéontas forgiuen which signifieth not are forgiuen but haue bene forgiuen for it is not of the time present but past And the naturall sense of the words is this Haue confidence sonne that thou shalt obtaine of me healing of thy palsie because thou hast already obtained a farre greater benefit to wit forgiuenesse of sinnes But if that were the sense which Bellarmine giueth the word should sound thus Haue confidence sonne and thy sinnes shal be forgiuen thee that is as Bellarmine would haue it Conceiue hope of pardon or forgiuenesse of sinnes for if thou so do it shall be done vnto thee Bellarmines arguments that loue disposeth vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes The fourth disposition saith Bellarmine further is loue Now that some loue is before forgiuenesse of sinnes either in time if it be imperfect loue or in nature if it be perfect and from the whole heart Ecclesiasticus teacheth first saith he chapt 2. For after that he had sayd Yee that feare the Lord trust in him hee addeth Yee that feare the Lord loue him and your harts shall be inlightned Then also our Sauiour himselfe teacheth it when hee saith Luk. 7. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because shee loued much Also the Apostle Paule teacheth it when he writeth
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
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
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