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
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 And the cause of
vnto that effect of AbrahaÌ„s faith to wit glorifying of God as vnto the truth of his faith which truth is signified by that effect For in applying Abrahams example hee doth not now mention strong faith such as that of AbrahaÌ„s was but simply true faith to wit wherby we beleeue that God gaue Iesus for our sinnes and raised him vp for our Iustification The place Rom. 10 speaketh not of Iustification but of saluation that is glorification Which although it be obtained by inuocation proceeding of faith yet is it not obtained by the merit of faith but by Gods grace and the way that he hath prescribed Lastly although out of Hebr. 11. it is manifest that faith is of great price with God yet hence it followeth not that wee by faith do merit Gods benefits For as other the benefites of God so faith it selfe also is Gods free gift as the Apostle witnesseth Eph. 2.8 The 5. prin cipal argumeÌ„t which hath 2. branches There remaineth the last argument which Bellarmine saith is taken from two principles of which the one is that the formal cause of Iustification is Iustice really inherent in vs the other that good works are necessarie to saluation Before wee see how Bellarmine dooth reason froÌ„ these principles it is meet first to put in minde that that first principle is false euen by Bellarmines owne testimonie 2. Booke of IustificatioÌ„ Chapt. 2. For else-where he saith The formall cause of Iustification consisteth in the infusion of that inherent iustice But infusion of Iustice is not the inherent iustice it selfe But now let vs see how he reasoneth from these principles FroÌ„ the first principle he reasoneth thus Vnto the infusion of iustice are more actions required then the action of faith But Iustification is the infusion of iustice Therfore vnto Iustification are required moe actions then the action of faith And by consequence onely faith Iustifieth not after the manner of disposition I answere First Bellarmine here departeth froÌ„ the question not oppugning the opinion of the professors of the Gospell but a Popish fiction For the professors of the Gospel when they say that faith onely iustifieth do not meane that it iustifieth onely by way of disposition but by way of apprehension as hath already bâ—â— often declared Then the assumption is false as we haue shewed before Besides Bellarmine agreeth not with himself who now affirmeth that the action of faith is fore-required vnto Iustification also that it disposeth vnto IustificatioÌ„ wheÌ„ before he said 1 Booke of IustificatioÌ„ Chap. 13.2 Booke Chapt. 4. Of grace and free-will 1. Booke Chap. 6. The latter Branch that Faith iustifieth as the beginning and first roote of Iustification and afterward he maketh faith part of the formall cause of Iustification where he saith That faith is not the whole formal cause of Iustification And in an other place that the formall cause of Iustification consisteth in faith hope and charnie Is part of the forme therefore fore required for the obtaining of the forme Now froÌ„ the other principle he draweth this argument If faith only did iustifie it shuld only saue also But it doth not only saue because good works are also necessarie to saluation Therefore it onely doth not Iustifie I answere Although this argument at the first sight haue a great shew yet if it be throghly looked into it will be sound to be a * i. A false argument Paralogisme hauing foure terms by the homonyâ—â—â—â— or double signification of the argument or middle cerme For that Onely saue in the proposition is to be vnderstood specially of saluation which is by way of apprehension but in the assumption it is vnderstood generally of saluation which is any maner of way For faith onely saueth as the instrumentall apprehending cause to wit by apprehending Christes satisfaction for which God saueth the beleeuer but it doth not onely saue euery maner of way for Gods grace and Christs satisfaction also saueth but as the principall efficient causes also good workes saue but as the way by which God bringeth the beleeuers vnto saluation This double signification being obserued I answere to the assumption where it is said Faith saueth not onely If this be vnderstood generally it is true but then an other thing is assumed then was in the proposition For wheÌ„ it is said in the proposition Faith onely saueth that is not vnderstood generally but specially to wit by way of apprehension But if the assumption bee vnderstood specially as in the proposition namely that faith onely saueth not by laying hold on Christs satisfaction it is manifestly false CHAP. IIII. The proofe of the third part recited and refuted HItherto of the second part of the Papists sentence wherein they contend that faith onely iustifieth not Now followeth the third part wherein they dispute that Iustification standeth not onely in forgiuenesse of sins Which Bellarmine purposeth to proue thus I Booke of IustificatioÌ„ Chap. 6. Iustification consisteth also saith he in inward renuing Therefore not in forgiuenesse of sinnes onely Wee denie the antecedent But to proue that Bellarmine bringeth some places of scripture which wee will consider in order The first place is Rom. 4. Who was deliuered for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification That is as Bellarmine interpreteth that we may walke in newnesse of life I answer This exposition of Bellarmines is false coÌ„fouÌ„ding those things which the Apostle distinguisheth For Paul beginneth in that Epistle to dispute of renning of nature or of sanctification at the sixt chapter hauing finished the disputation of iustification in the fift chapter And the sense of the place alleaged is That Christ was deliuered vnto death for our sinnes that is to purge our sinnes by satisfaction and was raised vp for our iustification that is to say that he might make knowen our iustification to wit that he hath obtained it by his death for vs. For if he had not risen from the dead we should yet be in our sinnes 1. Cor. 15. Wherefore seeing he is risen againe we know that we are no more in our sinnes but that forgiuenesse of sinnes or our iustification is gotten for vs by Christs death The second place is The 2. place Rom. 5. As sinne reigned vnto death so also grace reigneth by iustice vnto eternall life FroÌ„ hence Bellarmine reasoneth thus He opposeth iustice to sin and by iustice vnderstandeth renuing from which works proceed of life for that the opposition requireth For sinne is said to haue reigned vnto death because it wrought deadly workes contrariwise therfore the grace of God is said to reign by iustice vnto life because by iustice infused it worketh the works of life And if inward renuing which is the beginning of good works be rightly called rustice out of doubt Iustification must be constituted in that renuing and not in forgiuenesse of sinnes onely I answere A gaine Bellarmine bringeth a false exposition For the Apostle entreateth nothing
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