in that Chapter of renuing of nature but afterward in the Chapter following And the meaning of the place alleaged by comparing it vnto the former with which it agreeth may be perceiued to be this As Adams sinne reigned in his posterite vnto death because being imputed vnto thē it brought death that so the grace of God whereby he imputeth iustice to them that beleeue for Christs satisfaction reigneth in them vnto life eternall because iustice being imputed to them bringeth life eternall The third place is Rom. 6. Neither exhibit your members as weapons of iniquitie to sinne but exhibit your selues to God as liuing from the dead and your members weapons of iustice to God I answere This place speaketh not of Iustification the dispute whereof the Apostle ended in the 5. Chapter but treateth of sanctification Wherefore it maketh nothing to the matter The 4. place is Rom. 8. The spirit liueth for Iustification or as it is in the Greek the spirit of life for iustice Bellarmine addeth Iustification or iustice which maketh to liue and by this to worke cannot be for giuenesse of sinnes onely but some inward and inherent thing I answere Againe he bringeth a false exposition for neither speaketh he here of Iustification but of sanctification as is manifest by the things before and after And the meaning of the place is that the spirit of God dwelling in them that beleeue and are iustified by faith quickneth them as concerning study of iustice or good workes so that now they cease to giue themselues to sinne and contrariwise doo studie for iustice and good workes The 5. place is Gal. 3. If there had bene a law giuen that could haue giuen life surely iustice had bene by the law Here the Apostle sheweth openly saith Bellarmine that Iustice whereupon Iustification is called is something that giueth life to the soule and constituteth it in motion and action But I see not by what syllogisme Bellarmine gathereth this cōsequence from the Apostles words The meaning of the Apostle is If the law could giue life to man vnto whom it was giuē that is could giue him strength perfectly to fulfill or keep it then should mans iustice arise of the law that is man should be iust and counted of God for iust for the law by him obserued But by what force wil you conclude frō hence that iustification consisteth in that iustice which constituteth the soule in action that is in inherent iustice Yea the contrary may rather be frō hence concluded namely that iustification consisteth not in that iustice for that iustice which is required vnto iustification namely perfect obseruation of the law falleth not vnto man in this life The sixt place is 6. Place Ephes 4. Be renued in the spirit of your minde and put on the new man which according to God is created in iustice and holinesse of truth Where the Apostle calleth renuing iustice and holinesse I answere This place also maketh nothing to the matter seeing it speaketh not of iustification but of sanctification neither of the iustice of faith but of the iustice of workes which although it be not perfect and euery way absolute in the regenerate so as to answer in euery part to the law of God yet is it true and sincere and not feigned Three reasons To these arguments Bellarmine addeth three reasons which he calleth naturall which also we will consider The first reason is 1. Iustification without doubt is a certaine motion from sinne vnto iustice and hath it name from the thing whereunto it leadeth as all other the like motiōs inlightning warning c. True iustification therefore cannot be vnderstood except some iustice be gottē besides forgiuenesse of sinnes euen as it can 〈◊〉 either be true inlightning nor true warming if when darknesse is driuen away or cold expelled there follow no light and no heate in the subiect the body I answere Iustification it is in deed a kind of motion from sinne to iustice but not such as Bellarmine feigneth to wit such as inlightning and warning be For it is not the motion of expelling sinne and infusing iustice for this motion in scripture is not called Iustification but Regeneratiō Renouation Sanctification But it is the motion of forgiuing or remitting sinne and imputing iustice Now forgiuenesse of sinne and imputing of iustice differ onely in name indeed they are the same as appeareth by the Apostles words Rom. 4.6.7 as we haue declared elswhere And what other thing it is to driue out darknesse but to bring in light also what els to expell cold but to put in warmth Vnaptly therfore doth Bellarmine feigne that darkenesse may be driuen away and cold expelled although there follow no light nor heate in the subiect body The second reason 2. Iustification saith Bellarmine is not therefore onely giuen vs of God that we may escape the paines of hell but also that we may get the rewards of heauenly life But surely onely forgiuenesse of sinnes deliuereth from paine doth not giue glorie Which thing we see daily in ciuil iudgements For they that are quitted by the iudge are deliuered from death but they get not new rewards for this alone that they are iudged not to haue bene or not to be guiltie I deny the assumption For remission of sinnes doth not onely deliuer from paine to wit eternall death but also bringeth glorie or eternall life The reason of which thing is this that remission of sinnes wherein mans iustification consisteth is remission of all sinnes and therefore not onely of sinnes of committing but also of sinnes of omitting whereby it commeth that he to whome God forgiueth sinnes is so accounted of as if he had not only committed nothing which God hath forbidden in his law but also omitted nothing of that which he hath commanded and therefore as if he had perfectly fulfilled the law of God Now where the perfect fulfilling of the law is there also is life according to that The man that doeth these thinges shall liue in them Moreouer the example of ciuil iudgement which Bellarmine bringeth proueth not his assumption because that absolution is vnlike to the absolution of God For this is vniuersall to wit from all sinnes against the law of God but that is particular or special to wit frō some certaine crime or crimes against the politick lawes Notwithstanding the ciuil Iudge giueth vnto him whome he hath quitted from certaine crimes those rewards which hee hath promised to the innocent namely preseruation in life and defence although hee giue him no new and singular rewards which hee hath promised onely to certaine vertuous exploits And so God giueth eternall life as a reward to those vnto whome he hath promised it to wit vnto those that keepe his law such as he accounteth all those whose sinnes he hath forgiuen The third reason Iustification of enemies maketh friends children 〈◊〉 citizens with Saints of the houshold of God heyres of his kingdome Onely for
spirit that is in the soule neither doth hee compare these two adoptions as like one to an other But hee sayth Wee expect the adoption of the sonnes of God that is to say that heauenly inheritance which wee are adopted to possesse and enioy in due time And this very thing hee calleth redemption of the body that is to say redemption whereby both the body shall be deliuered from the crosse whereto it is subiect in this life and the soule from inhabiting sinne wherein it is holden so long as it liueth in this mortall body Wherefore it is vnapt and not beseeming a Diuine that Bellarmine counteth this an absurd thing that we should looke for redemption of the soule For that lamentation of Paule Rom. 7.24 O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me from this body of death doth it not pertaine to the ful deliuerance of the soule from inhabiting sinne Finally it is a true and not a putatiue adoption as Bellarmine cauelling speaketh wherewith God hath adopted vs and yet the adoption is the imputation of sonneship whereby wee are counted for the sonnes of God through grace when by nature wee were the children of wrath But in the meane time adoption is one thing the spirit of adoption an other thing By adoption we are receiued into grace and iustified by the spirit of adoption we are regenerate beeing already adopted CHAP. III. The proofe of the second part recited and refuted HItherto we haue disputed of the first part of the Papists opinion wherin they determine that Iustification is infusion of iustice It followeth that now wee treate of the second parte wherein they say That faith alone iustifieth not but * The I. principall Argument the proofes wherof do follow I. Argument I Booke of Iustificatiō Chap. 13. as the beginning and roote of Iustification To proue this Bellarmine first bringeth the place Heb. 11. Hee that commeth vnto God must beleeue that God is Where the first motion vnto God is giuen to faith by which he that was far off beginneth now to draw nigh I answere The Apostle here maketh no comparison betweene faith and other spirituall vertues but speaking simplie of faith alone affirmeth it to bee necessarie for him that commeth vnto God to wit to craue his helpe and aske any thing of him Wherfore it is a strange glosse that the first motion vnto God is here giuen to faith As though the motions that follow were not of faith but of other spiritual vertues And as though Iustification were done by I know not how many motions vnto God Nay Iustification is made by this onely motion wherby the mind through faith is so moued vnto God that it taketh hold of his good will reconciled by Christs satisfaction to all that beleeue in him Then hee bringeth the saying Rom. 2. Argument 10. Whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued But how shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued how shall they beleeue without a Preacher how shall they preach except they bee sent Where the Apostle deseribeth this order of lustification that first there be a sending of Preachers secondly the preaching of the Gospell thirdly faith fourthly inuocation fiftly saluation that is Iustifications which is health of soule from the disease of sinne Of which sending and preaching are without vs and and to the first beginning of Iustification in vs is faith after which followeth inuocation and the rest in their order I answere Bellarmine faulteth fast in confusion of things diuerse in that be expoundeth the word Saluation by the word Iustification when as Saluation properly spoken is more large to wit comprehending iustification regeneration and glorification Then hee faulteth in a false definition when as hee defineth Iustification to bee health of soule from the disease of sinne that is to say regeneration Finally he goeth from the question in that hee numbreth certaine things which be needfull vnto saluation besides faith For when the professors of the Gospell teach that man is iustified by faith onely they exclude not those things that are here reckoned from the obtaining of saluation but only they exclude mans workes from obtaining that rustice which God may approoue as perfect Thirdly he bringeth the place Iohn I. So many as receiued him 3. Argument he gaue them power to be made the sons of God to those that beleeue in his name Here Iohn opēly teacheth saith Bellarmine that they which receiue Christ by faith are not yet the sons of God but may so be made if they go on further that they also begin to hope and loue For loue properly maketh the sonnes of God as as appeareth I. Iohn 2. I answere The meaning of Iohn words is not that which Bellarmine bringeth but he meaneth that God hath giuen to the beleeuers power or right exousian for to be made the sonnes of God that is to be the sonnes of God in this very respect that they are borne of God as be declareth in the verse following that is that they are regenerate and by consequence endued with faith Whence I draw this Argument As farre forth as the beleeuers are borne of God so farre forth is giuen vnto them the right of the children of God But the beleeuers as far foorth as they beleeue are borne of God Therefore to the beleeuers as far forth a they beleeue is giuen the right of the children of God and by consequence they are iustified as far foxth as they beleeue or by faith And whereas Bellarmine saith it is plaine by 1. Ioh. 2. that loue properly maketh the sonnes of God verily I find not this sentence in that Chapter neither expresly nor yet by collection But if perhaps through the Printers fault the number second crept in for the nūber third there is indeed in the third Chapter a certaine sentence of loue but not this That loue maketh the sonnes of God but that by loue the sonnes of God are knowne namely in the 10. verse By this are manifested the sonnes of God and the sonnes of the diuell Who so doth not iustice is not of God and he that loueth not his brother Neither can Bellarmines sentence be concluded as hee peraduenture thinketh from the 1. verse where it is said thus Behold what loue the father hath giuen to vs that we should be called the sonnes of God For by the name Loue there by a metonymie of the efficient cause he vnderstandeth a benefit proceeding from the loue wherewith God loueth vs and what that benefit is he declareth by opposition in those words that we should be called the sonnes of God namely the benefit of adoption Wherefore Bellarmine hath not yet shewed that we are adopted and iustified of GOD by loue and therefore not by faith onely To these Arguments Bellarmine addeth a naturall reason 4. Argument as hee calleth it in these words Some man may beleeue that which he hopeth not for neither loueth
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
that place to the Corinthes thus Wee haue borne the true Image of the earthly man that is of the sinner Adam because sinne cleaued in vs not putatiuely but in truth and in deed Therefore we beare also Christs true Image if iustice cleaue in vs not putatiuely but in truth and in deed Here Bellarmine deceitfully in stead of the word Imputation putteth as equall thereto the word Putation saying putatiuely for imputatiuely that he might note a certaine vaine opinion whereunto no matter subsisteth Yet in the meane while Bellarmine is not ignorant that not onely the sinne which dwelleth in man since the fall is deriued from Adam vnto his posteritie by generation but also that first sinne committed properly by Adam is imputed to his posteritie And by like reason not onely inherent iustice that is study of godlinesse in those that belong vnto Christ is wrought by Christ through regeneration of the holy Ghost but also that obedience of Christ whereby he satisfied for the sinnes of the elect is imputed vnto thē for the iustice whereby they stand before God Moreouer he concludeth not heere the question which is not whether wee shall beare Christes Image as touching inherent iustice for no professor of the Gospell denieth this but the question is whether by this iustice we can stand in the iudgement of God The 7. argument hee draweth from Rom. 6. where the Apostle teacheth saith he that we through Iustification 7. Argument whereby we die to sinne and rise againe to iustice do represent Christs death and resurrection And amongst other things saith He that is dead is iustified from sinne Which also the Apostle Peter signified in his first Epistle Chap. 4. when he saith Christ therefore hauing suffered in the flesh be ye also armed with the same minde For he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sinnes But Christ was not putatiuely but truly dead truly rose again therefore we also do not putatiuely but truly die to sinne and rise againe to iustice when wee are iustified by Baptisme I answere First it is false that the Apostle in Rom. 6. teacheth that wee by Iustification do represent Christs death and resurrection For hee treateth not there of Iustification hauing made an end of that dispute in in the 5. Chapter but he treateth of sanctification or regeneration Neither can it bee proued otherwise from those words He that is dead is iustified from sinne For the Apostle speaketh not there of mans Iustification before God but vseth the word Iustified for Freed by a synechdoche of the species For euery one that is iustified that is to say is quitted by the Iudge is freed to wit from punishment but euery one that is freed is not iustified for one may be freed from some other thing then from punishment as from sinne And of this freeing saith the Apostle He that is dead is iustified from sinne for because hee that is dead cannot worke eyther good or euill Therefore beleeuen in as much as they are dead to sinne as the Apostle there saith verse 11. so far forth they are freed from sinne Euen as a seruāt by death is freed from his maister that he serue him not any more hereafter as the Apostle saith in the words immediately going before That our old man is crucified with Christ that the body of sinne may be weakened that hereafter we serue so no more Then it is true that wee do truly die to sinne and rise againe to iustice but the question is not of this thing but it is whether by this spirituall death and resurrection that is to say inherent iustice we be iustified before God Finally Bellarmine comprehendeth more in the conclusion then followeth of the premisses where he saith When we are iustified by faith in which very thing hee beggeth the question For the Apostle sayth not in the place cited that we are iustified by Baptisme seeing hee handleth nothing there of Iustification but teacheth that Baptisme is a testimonie of our regeneration which is wrought by the holy Ghost in as much as it teacheth vs of Christs death and resurrection For it being taught by the holy Ghost we beleeue that Christ died for our sinnes and rose againe vnto heauenly life as our first fruites and head certainly wee will study to auoyde sinnes and will meditate an heauenlie and an holie life The 8. Argument hee taketh from Rom. 8. where the Apostle saith Bellarmine writeth 7. Argument That wee now by Christ haue receiued the spirit of adoption of sonnes of God as touching the soule which liueth as there is said because of Iustification though the body be dead that is be yet mortall because of sinne But by and by after hee addeth to wit the Apostle that we now hauing the first fruites of the spirit doo sigh in our selues expecting the adoption of the sonnes of God the redemption of our body For as the same Apostle saith Phil. 3. Wee expect a Sauiour which will reforme the body of our humilitie configured to the body of his glory But the adoption of sonnes which we expect in the redemption of our body shall be most true and inherent in the body that is immortalitie and impassibilitie not imputatiue but true Therefore the adoption which now we haue in the spirit by Iustification ought also to be true not putatiue Otherwise as we expect the redemption of the body so also we expect the redemption of the soule I answere First Bellarmine faulteth in a false exposition in as much as he taketh the name body simplie for the body of man and contrariwise the name spirit for the soule For the Apostle there by the name body vnderstandeth that which in that and other places hee calleth flesh that is the body together with the soule but such as it is by carnall generation and likewise by the name spirit he vnderstandeth the soule with the body but so far forth as the soule is regenerate by the holy Ghost Next he faulteth in false citation for the Apostle writeth not The soule liueth because of Iustification but The spirit is life because of Iustice Then againe he faulteth in false exposition in as much as he expoūdeth those words The body is dead to meane Is yet mortall when the Apotles meaning is that by the holy Ghost dwelling in the beleeuers it commeth to passe that their flesh is mortified as touching sinne to wit so as that it sinne not and the spirite is quickned as concerning iustice to wit so as that it endeuoureth for iustice and worketh it That this is the meaning of those words may plainly appeare to any that marketh by the words there next ensuing Moreouer Bellarmines sophisme from a like reason of the adoption of the body and the adoption of the soule is vtterly darke and farre from the Apostles words and meaning For neither doth the Apostle say the adoption to come in the body nor yet that wee now haue adoption in the
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
forgiuenesse of sinnes For remission of sinnes and imputation of iustice are one and the same thing as appeareth by the Apostles words Rom. 4.5.6 where these two are taken as equiualent for Iustice to be imputed to man and iniquities to be forgiuen a man Yet is it true that imputation of iustice is necessary for a man because he is a sinner Then Bellarmine confirmeth his assumption by a false sentence to wit that by forgiuenesse of sins sinne is vtterly taken away that it is not For sinne is taken away by forgiuenesse not so as that it is not but that it is not imputed but couered as Dauid expresly teacheth in that place which the Apostle citeth Rom. 4.7.8 in these words Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered blessed is the man to whom the Lord shal not impute sin Behold if thou askest what it is to haue iniquities or sins forgiuen Dauid answereth It is to haue sins couered that they come not into the sight of God as iudge Also it is to haue sinne not imputed of the Lord to wit that man be punished for his sinne as he hath deserued Wherefore we may not thinke that in those places of scripture those I meane that speake of iustificatiō which Bellarmine hath heaped together a diuerse thing is taught seeing it is certaine that the holy Ghost contradicteth not himselfe Further vnto that argument from the opposition of Adam vnto Christ Rom. 5. which Bellarmine thinketh will admit no answere at all we haue answered * Before in the second chapter of this booke in the solution of the first Argument before Bellarmines third argument is this If faith hope and loue can be perfect in this life the imputation of Christes iustice is not necessary But the antecedent is true 3. Proofe Therefore also the consequent I answere The proposition is false For first that imputation of iustice be not necessary for man it is not ynough that faith hope and loue can be perfect in this life but it behoueth that they be perfect Then though it be graunted that perfect faith hope and loue befall some as the Martyrs in this life yet neuerthelesse is imputation of iustice necessary for them for sinnes committed before the perfection of those vertues For we cannot satisfie God for them by the duties of vertues that folow seeing they are owing vnto God Therefore for old debts another satisfaction is needfull And God cannot be satisfied for sinnes but by suffering the punishment of them And this hath Christ suffered for them that beleeue so hath satisfied for their sinnes which satisfaction is imputed to them for iustice and this imputation is needfull for them seeing they cannot but by it be counted for iust and worthy of eternall life yea iustifying faith whether perfect or vnperfect doth in any wise require imputation of iustice seeing it iustifieth no otherwise then in as much as it apprehendeth Christs satisfaction which by the grace of God is imputed for iustice to him that beleeueth In exposition of the fourth argument Bellarmine alloweth of the Gospellers sentence at least in part in that he saith it is right if it be so vnderstood that Christs iustice is imputed to vs that is Christes merits because they are giuen vnto vs and we can offer them to God the Father for our sinnes because Christ hath taken vpon him the burden of satisfying for vs and reconciling vs to God the Father Yet he denyeth that Christes iustice it so imputed vnto vs that we are called and be formally iust by it and that he would proue thus When there be two contrary formes in any the one inherent the other outward without doubt the absolute denomination is taken from the inherent forme rather then from the outward For if one should put a white garment vpon a black-moore he could not rightly say This black-moore is white but contrary wise it might rightly be said this Moore is black because the proper and inherent blacknesse perteyneth more vnto him then that outward whitenesse fetched from an other thing But in man by the doctrine of imputation of iustice there are made two contrary formes the one inherent namely Iniustice the other outward namely inputed iustice Wherewith man by apprehension is cloathed as with a garment Therfore man to whom iustice is imputed is rather to be named vniust of the inherent forme then iust of the outward I answer vnto the proposition Althogh that denomination be vsuall with men yet God in this affaire foloweth a diuerse reason in his word saying both to wit that faith is imputed vnto vs for iustice or that iustice is imputed to vs to wit by faith Rom. 4.5.6 and that we are iustified by faith Rom. 5.1 And surely when as we are so far forth iust before God as iustice is imputed to vs as Paul in the place alleaged Rom. 4. doth teach it is rightly said that we by imputed iustice be and are named formally iust Now to the assumption In man to whom iustice is imputed it is graunted there is vniustice inherent but it is vnderstood vniustice cleauing vnto him by sinnes already committed and not a purpose of doing vniustly For to whom faith is giuen that by it iustice is imputed to him and committed sinnes are forgiuen to him withall is giuen a purpose to liue iustly and to auoyd sinnes The 5. Argument 5. Proof If Christs iustice were truly imputed vnto vs that by it we were counted and thought iust euen as if it were our owne inward and formall iustice surely we ought to be counted and thought no lesse iust then Christ himselfe Then ought wee to be called and counted redeemers and sauiours of the world and to receiue other such names and attributes of the like sort which is most absurd I answere I denie the consequence For by Christs iustice which is imputed to vs is vnderstood the obedience of death wherby he satisfied for our sinnes and so brought vs euerlasting iustice as Daniel speaketh This obedience I say is imputed to vs for iustice so that we are esteemed of God as if our selues had performed it Neither dooth it follow from hence that wee should be called and counted redeemers and sauiours of the world both for that Christs suffering is so imputed to euery beleeuer as if hee had suffered for himselfe and not for others as also because that any may be called the redeemer and sauiour of the world it is not inogh that he be ready to suffer for the world but it is necessary that he be meete to satisfie God by his suffering for the world and vnto this is required that he be not onely man but a holy man and besides that God The sixt Argument 6. Proofe Christ hath restored vs that which we lost in Adam But in Adam we lost not imputed iustice neither to be in Gods image and likenesse by imputation but true inherent iustice by which we were