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
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
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
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
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