faith he doth good workes but he is said to be iustified by faith because by faith he leyeth holde on Christs satisfaction for which only he is iustified Moreouer it is false that the Apostle vnderstandeth those workes only which are done according to Gods law by the strength of free will For it is plain by Abrahams exāple which he presently addeth to this sentence by a prolepsis in the beginning of the chapter following that he speaketh of those workes that are done of grace and faith Against this answere Bellarmine excepteth that the Apostle saith not where is the reioycing but where is the reioycing that is where is the reioycing wherewith thou reioycest in thy selfe and not in the Lord And of workes done of faith and thereby of grace seeing faith is of grace none can reioyce but in the Lord. Which reioycing is not forbidden seeing the same Apostle saith Hee that reioyceth let him reioyce in the Lord. I answere That Pronowne thy is not in the Greeke Neuerthelesse by the very matter it appeareth that it must be vnderstood Then that there is no need the Pronowne should be so expounded as Bellarmine doth for reioycing is rightly said to be his that reioiceth whether he reioyce in himself or in an other Lastly that which is chiefly to be marked the Apostle speaketh of reioycing wherewith any may truly reioyce that he is iust by inherent iustice bred of perfect obseruation of the cōmandements of the law whether he performe this obseruation of naturall strength or of Gods singular grace And such reioycing no man hath because all haue transgressed the law and they which begin to obserue it by Gods singular grace yet can they not in this life obserue it perfectly so as for that obseruation they can be counted iust of God In the meane while it is true that it is lawfull for the godly to reioyce in the Lord but so farre forth as they reioyce not falsly and they should falsly reioyce if they should say that they can by Gods grace perfectly fulfill the law so as by fulfilling thereof they may be iust before God The second place from Rom. 3.28 Wee gather that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law Bellarmine passeth ouer in silence and answereth nothing to it in speciall But in the second place he answereth vnto that saying Rom. 4.2 of Abraham and withall vnto the rest of the places before recited He saith therefore Exception against the other places before recited that Abraham was iustified by faith not by workes that went before faith And the same he answereth vnto the places following Gal. 2. Eph. 2. Tit. 3. for in all those places are excluded onely workes done before faith I answere The Apostle derogateth Iustification not onely from those works which are done before faith but also from those which are done after faith For he speaketh of Abrahams workes which are mentioned in scripture for to shew his vprightnesse as that he obeyed God going out of his owne countrey and offering his sonne But the workes which Abraham did before faith are mentioned in the scripture not as such whereof hee might reioyce but as such whereof hee might worthily be ashamed namely that he serued strange gods Iosh 24.2 Also in Gal. 2. hee speaketh in generall of the workes of the law wherein the Iewes exercised themselues among whom were many regenerate and endued with faith of Christ as cannot be denied although they knew not that that Iesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that iustice should be imputed to them that beleeue in him Besides in this saying Gal. 2. is to be noted the want of that expounding particle tout'ésti 1. that is which being obserued it will be euident that heere are contained exclusiue particles equiualent to that exclusiue particle onely For it is as if he should say Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the law that is but by the faith of Iesus Christ c. And these are equiualent Not to be iustified but by faith and to be iustified by faith onely Besides although Eph. 2. and Tit. 3. hee taketh away iustification from workes done before faith yet by this hee dooth not ascribe it to workes done after faith Against this answere Bellarmine excepteth that the Apostle when hee saith Abraham was iustified by faith not by workes doth not reiect the workes done by faith but affirmeth them not to bee don without faith for if they had bin such they had neuer iustified him therefore he excludeth saith he the workes which Abraham could haue done not of faith But what is to mingle darknesse with the cleare light if this be not The Apostle openly denieth that Abrahā was iustified with God by works speaketh of works don by faith as we haue now twise shewed and yet Bellarmine dareth to say that the Apostle reiecteth not to wit from Abrahams iustificatiō works done of faith Then what meaneth Bellarmine when he saith the Apostle affirmeth that Abrahās works were not done without faith for if they had bin such they had neuer iustified him But where doth the Apostle affirme this And doth not now Bellarmine cōtradict himselfe which affirmeth here that the Apostle speaketh of Abrahams works done of faith when yet before hee said in al those places speech was of works done before faith Also dooth hee not straightway in the words following again cōtradict himselfe when he saith that the Apostle excludeth works which Abrahā could haue done not of faith Besides Bellarmine saith that the Apostle speaketh with conditiō namely thus If Abrahā 〈◊〉 iustified by works not proceding frō the grace of faith surely he had reioycing but not with god And because it is manifest inough saith he that Abraham had reioycing also with god therupon the Apostle gathereth that he was not iustified by works without faith but by faith wherof good workes truly proceed I answere Bellarmine peruerteth the meaning of the Apostles words in feigning vnto him such a syllogisme ye openly contradicteth the Apostles words For the Apostle denieth that Abraham had reioycing with God but Bellarmine affirmeth it And that Bellarmines syllogisme is feigned appeareth by coherence of sencences For when the Apostle had recited the obiection of the Iewes drawne from Abrahams example as if hee had obtained the praise of iustice by woorkes hee answereth by distinction graunting that Abraham got that praise with men but not with God Then if in this place there were an hypotheticall or connex syllogisme it shoulde bee such as this If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath wherof to reioyce with God But he hath not whereof to reioyce with God Therefore hee was not iustified by workes The assumption of which syllogisme plainely contradicteth the assumption of Bellarmines syllogisme and the conclusion is diuerse from the conclusion of Bellarmines syllogisme because it speaketh of workes in generall when Bellarmines speaketh onely of works done without faith Vnto the last
place Exception against the place Phil. 3.9 from Phil. 3. Bellarmine answereth that those workes are called the iustice of the law which are done through knowledge of the law by the onely strength of nature I answere By that which the Apostle signifieth that hee trusted not in the iustice of workes which hee had done by the onely strength of nature it cannot firmely be gathered that he trusted in the justice of workes which hee had done of faith Yea he openly signifieth that hee trusted in the onely iustice of faith And this is the iustice which is imputed to man by faith as he teacheth Rom. 4.5.6 and not the iustice of workes done of faith inherent in a man And in an other place speaking of this inherent iustice he saith I know nothing by my selfe but I am not hereby iustified CHAP. IX The confirmation and clearing of the sixt part HItherto of the fifth part of the sentence proposed now followeth of the sixt that man is iustified by the grace or free loue of God in as much as God hath of fauour to man ordained Christ for a Mediator or satisfactor according to these sayings Act 15.11 By the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ wee beleeue that we shall be saued euen as they Rom. 3.24 Are iustified freely by his grace by the redemptiō made in Iesus Christ Rom. 4.16 Therefore the inheritance is of faith that it may be by grace Rom. 5.15 If by the fal of that one many are dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded vnto many And verse 17. they which receiue the abundance of grace and the gift of iustice shall raigne in life through one that is Iesus Christ. And vers 21. So grace might reigne by iustice vnto-eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 11.5 Euen so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace Gal. 2.21 I do not abrogate the grace of God For if iustice be by the law then Christ died in vaine Gal. 5.4 Yee are abolished from Grist whosoeuer are iustified by the Law ye are fallen from grace Eph. 1.5.6.7 Who hath predestinate vs to be adopted throgh Iesus Christ vnto himselfe according to the good pleasure of his wilt to the praise of the glorie of his grace wherewith he hath made vs accepted in his beloued by whom wee haue redemption through his bloud c. Eph. 2.8 By grace ye are saued c. Tit. 3.7 That wee beeing iustified by his grace should bee made heires according to the hope of eternall life In all these speeches the word Grace signifieth the fauour of God wherewith he accepteth his elect 2. Booke of iustification Chap. 3. Against this Bellarmine excepteth that iustifying grace is not onely the fauour of God but a gift inherent in the minde as may bee vnderstood saith he by the diuerse attributes and names thereof For it is called the gift which wee receiue Rom. 5.17 receiuing the abundance of the grace and gift Also it is said to be giuen by Christ Grace and truth is made by Iesus Christ. Ioh. 1. Now it is not rightly said that the good wil of God the Father is made by Christ Also it is said to be giuen of Christ by measure To euery one of vs is giuen grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ Eph 4. But the good will of God is not giuen by measure neither of Christ Also it is compared to the being which is giuen by creation For therof we are said to be Created in Christ Eph. 2. a new creature Gal. 5. But that whereby we are said to be creatures is inward and inherent Finally it is compared to the light 2. Cor. 6. What part hath iustice with iniquitie What fellowship hath light with darknesse Eph. 5. Ye were sometimes darknesse but now are light in the Lord. 1. Ioh. 2. He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother is in darknesse But certes light maketh not a lucide body except it be inherent neither suffereth darkenesse with it Besides the grace by which the Apostle sayth wee are iustified is called also loue shead in our hearts by the holy Ghost Rom. 5. Also by iustifying grace wee are saide to liue Rom. 8. the spirit liueth for iustification But wee cannot bee rightly saide to liue by the outward fauour of God when nothing is more inward then life is I answere Rom. 5.17 the grace and the gift of iustice are openly distinguished therefore the gift is not there called the grace as Bellarmine saith Then there is there no speech of inherent iustice as Bellarmine would but of the iustice which God giueth of the grace or fauour hee imputeth for the Apostle speaketh of the same iustice that before Rom. 4.6 where he said iustice was imputed Ioh. 1. The name of Grace signifieth the benefite of redemption by a metonymie of the cause efficient but thereof it followeth not that it is taken after the same maner in the sayings rehearsed As neither from the saying Eph. 4. where the name Grace signifieth some spirituall gift profitable for the edifying of the Church Neither yet by the other speeches Eph. 2. Gal. 5.2 Cor. 6. where the name of Grace is not found neither is the speech of iustification but of regeneration And in that saying Rom. 5. Loue is shead c is not meant the loue which is inherent in vs and wherewith wee loue God but wherewith God loued vs as is plaine by comparing it with the 8. verse where it is said God commendeth his loue towards vs c. Finally Rom. 8.10 hee speaketh not of iustification but of sanctification neither is there the name Iustification as Bellarmine falsly alleageth but the name of Iustice whereby is there meant a iust and holy life as may appeare by the whole context and scope of that place and not that iustice whereby a man standeth before the iudgement seate of GOD the disputation of which matter the Apostle finished in the end of the sift Chapter CHAP. X. The confirmation of the seuenth part THere remaineth the seuenth part of the sentence propounded to wit that man is iustified by the iustice of God whereby he accepteth Christs satisfaction for the elect Of this Paule testifieth Rom. 3.25.26 Where he saith Whom to wit Christ God hath set forth to be are conciliation through faith in his bloud to declare his iustice by the forgiuenesse of the sinnes that are past through the patience of God to shew at this time his iustice that he might be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith of Iesus By which words the Apostle teacheth that God declareth his iustice in as much as he forgiueth sinnes to them for whom Christ hath satisfied namely the beleeuers For it is the part of iustice to be content if satisfaction bee made for the debt by a suretie and not to
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
sinnes for vs. And in this very sence faith onely is said to iustifie because it onely apprehendeth Christs satisfaction for which onely and not for our works also god counteth vs for iust And this answere is inough for soluting the Argument propounded Yet in the meane time the Reader is to be put in minde as touching the first part of the assumption that it is not denied by Iames of true faith that it onely iustifieth but this only he meaneth that man is not iustified by a dead faith but by a liuing faith which of it self bringeth forth good workes And although it bee not found expresly written Faith onely iustifieth yet is there found a sentence of equall force namely A man is not iustified but by faith Gal. 2.16 Besides as touching the second part of the assumption it is false that the scripture requireth the condition of the sacraments vnto Iustification as though none could be iustified without the sacramēts Neither can it be proued from that place Ioh. 3. Except a man be borne againe for Christ speaketh not there of Baptisme but of the holy Ghost that regenerateth which hee compareth to water The 4. principall Argument which hath three brāches 1. Branch The 4. Argument Bellarmine fetcheth from the maner of iustifying of faith And this hee parteth into three The first is Faith iustifieth after the manner of a cause therefore it iustifieth not onely I answere I denie the consequence For although faith iustifieth after the maner of a cause yet it iustifieth alone for it iustifieth as an instrumentall cause apprehending Christes satisfaction for which onely wee are iustified And there is no other instrumentall cause whereby Christs satisfaction is apprehended The other Argument 2. Branch Faith is the beginning formall cause of Iustification Therefore it iustifieth not onely To proue the antecedent these sayings are brought Rom. 4. To him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed for iustice 1. Cor. 3. Other foundation can no man lay c. Where by foundation Bellarmine would haue vnderstood faith in Christ And the foundation is the beginning of the house Therefore also faith is the beginning of Iustification Act. 15. By faith purifying theyr hearts And what is purenesse of heart saith Bellarmine but iustice either begun or perfected I answere I denie the antecedent and I denie that it can be proued by the sayings alleadged For Rom. 4. Faith is said to be reputed for iustice in this sence for that iustice is imputed vnto a mā by faith For so the Apostle there saith in the words next ioyned to them that Dauid said The man is blessed to whom God imputeth iustice namely by faith as we may perceiue by conferring of the words that go before as also by conference of that phrase so much vsed of Paul wherein he saith That God iustifieth man through faith of faith by faith Now to iustifie and to impute iustice are of equal force with the same Apostle Next 1. Cor. 3. by the name of foundation is vnderstood Christ as the Apostle himself plainly affirmeth that is to say the doctrine of Christ namely of his person and office For hee there handleth Christian doctrine and not iustification Bellarmine therefore Sophistically wresteth the name foundation vnto Iustification as though he treated there of the foundation that is the beginning of Iustification Now Act. 15. Peter faith their hearts were purified by faith because by faith the hearts are certified that the bloud of Christ purgeth vs from all sinne to wit so as that no sinne is imputed to vs. There fore purenesse of heart is euill restrained of Bellarmine vnto purenes or iustice inherent when as there is also purenesse or iustice imputed The third Argument straieth from the question propounded for it concludeth a diuerse thing namely thus Faith obtaineth forgiuenesse of sinnes after a sort also deserueth it therefore it iustifieth not because it apprehendeth the promise The antecedent hee proueth from Luk. 7. where our Lord saith to the woman Thy faith hath made thee safe But if faith did onely receiue mercie it could not rightly be said to saue For who wold say to a poore man that onely reacheth out his hand for almes thy hand hath got the almes or who wold say to a sick man that with his hand taketh the medicine Thy hand hath cured thee of thy disease I answere It followeth not Faith maketh safe therefore it saueth by obtaining and deseruing For the word make in generall noteth an efficient cause And from the generall to the special the cōsequence followeth not affirmatiuely And how faith maketh safe wee must learne out of the scripture which declareth the nature and force of faith in iustifying no otherwise then by relation vnto Christs satisfaction as the obiect which it apprehendeth and applieth to a man as Rom. 3. By faith in his bloud Gal. 2. Who hath loued me and giuen himself for me c. And although no wise man would say Thy hand hath got thy almes yet might one rightly say to him that is enriched by receiuing almes Thy hand hath made thee rich For if he had not taken the almes he had not bene enriched So our faith hath not made for vs Christes satisfaction but yet by receiuing it it enricheth and iustifieth vs. Finally when it is said Faith iustifieth it is a * figuratiue speech to bee vnderstood thus God Iustifieth a beleeuer because of Christs satisfaction which he apprehendeth by faith Bellarmine bringeth also other places of scripture to confirme his antecedent namely Rom 4. Abraham was comforted by faith giuing glory to God c. Therefore also was it counted vnto him for iustice In this place the Apostle sheweth the cause why Abrahams faith was counted iustice because in beleeuing hee gaue glory to God Therefore that faith pleased God by which he was glorified and therefore for desert of that faith which notwithstanding was his gift and grace he iustified Abraham Also Rom. 10. Whosoeuer shall call vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued How shal they cal vpon him is whom they haue not beleeued how shall they beleeue without a Preacher Where S. Paul saith Bellarmine as hee maketh the preaching of the word the cause of faith so hee maketh faith the cause of inuocation and inuocation the cause of sauing that is of Iustification Whereby wee vnderstand saith he further that faith by inuocation obtaineth iustification Faith therefore iustifieth not relatiuely to wit by accepting Iustification offered Lastly in the 11. to the Heb. the Apostle teacheth by many examples that men please God by faith by this that faith is of great price and merit with God I answere Although that place Rom. 4. may seeme much to fauor Bellarmines opinion yet if one look throghly into it consider the applying of Abrahās exāple vnto vs. Which immediatly followeth he shall see the causall coniunction dio therefore not to be so much referred
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
coÌ„science excuseth him Rom. 2.15 1. Ioh. 3.20.21 In this life therefore God iustifieth or pronounceth man iust so far forth as he giueth testimony to his soule by the holy Ghost the word of grace being the means of imputed iustice or of forgiuenes of sins and by consequence of adoption for the satisfaction sake of the mediator Rom. 8.16 And in that day of iudgement Christ being appointed of the father iudge of all will with his mouth openly before all Angels and men pronounce iust and crowne with life eternall the reward of iustice all those that before were iustified in this life both by imputation of iustice and by that secret testimonie of the holy Ghost But the rest he will condemne as transgressors of the law and punish them with eternall paines Rom. 11.12.13.14.15.16 Mat. 25.31 c. CHAP. II. The state of the controuersie and partition of this disputation FVrthermore about mans Iustification before God being taken the first way this question chiefly is controuerted betwixt the professors of the Gospell and the Papists especially the Iesuites whether Iustificaion be infusing of iustice or whether it be imputing of iustice For the Papists say that iustification is infusing of iustice but the Gospellers say that it is imputing of iustice We in the first place will declare and confirme the Gospellers opinion as true and therefore first by nature then will we recite and refute the opinion of the Papists CHAP. III. The Gospellers opinion expounded by seuen parts WHen the Gospellers therefore say that iustification is imputing of iustice their meaning is 1. that man by himself and his own nature vniust is accounted for iust 2. and thereupoÌ„ pronounced iust of God 3. in as much as he forgiueth him his sinnes for the satisfaction of Christ performed for him 4. and appreheÌ„ded of him by faith 5. and therfore that maÌ„ is iustified by faith only because he is counted iust and by consequence pronounced iust for Christes satisfaction only which is imputed to him by faith only for that he doth not apprehend and apply it to himselfe but by faith 6. and so that man is iustified partly by Gods grace or free loue with which he being moued did ordayne Christ to be satisfier or mediator for the elect 7. partly by Gods iustice whereby accepting Christs satisfaction for the elect he imputeth the same vnto them and thereupon receiueth them into fauour and adopteth them for sonnes and heyres of eternall life The Gospellers opinion being thus declared it followeth next that we confirme by testimonies of scripture all the parts thereof and free it from the obiections of the Papists CHAP. IIII. The first part of the opinion expounded is confirmed and the same confirmation freed from Bellarmines exception ANd first that man by himselfe and of his owne nature being vniust is counted for iust Paul beareth witnesse Rom. 4.5.6 in these words To him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed for iustice as also Dauid declareth the blessednesse of that man to whome God imputeth iustice The like sentences are in the same chapter verse 9.10.22.23.24 Against this proofe Bellarmine excepteth 2. Booke of iustification Chap. 9. that the word Impute in this place doth not signifie a bare accounting but an accounting whereunto the truth in the thing it selfe maketh answere as is plaine by these words To him that worketh wages is imputed not according to grace but according to debt For it is certaine that to him that worketh wages is due not only in opinion and accounting but in truth and in deede I answere Here Bellarmine first of all coÌ„mitteth the fault of falshood in as much as he inuerteth the order of the Apostles words that they may serue his purpose For it is not in that place To him that worketh wages is imputed not according to grace c. But it is To him that worketh wages is not imputed according to grace c. Neyther may Bellarmine except that it skilleth not whither way the aduerbe of denyall be there placed because howsoeuer it be there placed yet in the opposition the word Imputed is to be repeated thus But the wages is imputed according to debt For by the very phrase wee may perceiue that after the words ou logizetai is not imputed these words must bee vnderstoode tout'estin ou didotai that is is not giuen and therefore that in the opposition the word didotai giuen is to be vnderstoode that the whole sentence is this to ergazomeno ho misthos ou logÃzetai toutéstin on didotai cata chárin alla dÃdotai cata tó opheÃlema that is To him that worketh wages is not imputed that is to say is not giuen according to grace but is giuen according to debt And if Bellarmine will not graunt this * i. want of a word ellipsis he must confesse that here is a manifest †i. abounding of a word pleonasmus in the former part and also a manifest i. abuse of a word catachresis in the latter part For if one say Wages is not imputed is not this as if he should say Wages is not giuen according to grace It is therefore a pleonasmus if one say It is not imputed according to grace Also if any say Wages is not imputed but is giuen according to debt he speaketh properly Therefore if one say Wages is imputed according to debt he as touching the word imputed speaketh improperly Wherefore this place is not of force to shift off the other in which it is plaine by the Apostles words that the proper signification of the word Imputed is kept For he sayth that Faith is imputed for iustice to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly Which what other thing is it then that man is iustified not by debt or desert of his works but by grace for Christs satisfaction apprehended by faith It is therefore nothing to the matter that Bellarmine sayth that wages is so imputed that in the meane time it is due indeed As though it were in the same respect said that faith is imputed for Iustice. But euen Bellarmine himselfe also teacheth that faith is giuen to man of grace and likewise that Iustification of which we speake in this place which he is wont to name the first Whereupon doubtlesse it followeth that neither faith nor this Iustification is owed to a man seeing debt and grace are heere manifestly set one against an other And whereas Bellarmine saith that by the word Imputing is signified that accounting wherunto the truth in the thing it selfe maketh aunswere it is truly said if it be rightly vnderstood For to whom God imputeth iustice they are truly iust but by imputed iustice and not inherent as Bellarmine vnderstandeth Euen as he whose debts his suretie hath paid to the creditor oweth the creditor indeede nothing though himselfe paide not his debts neither had wherewith to pay them CHAP. V. The confirmation
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 Zacheus saluation is shewed in the words immediatly following for he sayth To day is saluation come to this house for that he also is the sonne of Abraham to wit infisting in the steps of Abrahams faith as Paul interpreteth this sonne-ship Rom. 4.12 For as touching the flesh many were Abrahams sonnes to whome notwithstanding saluation came not And king Ezechias which example Bellarmine addeth although he shewed his good works with a sincere hart yet he thought not that he was by them iust before the iudgement seate of God like as Paule sayd I know nothing by my selfe but I am not hereby iustified CHAP. VII The confirmation of the fourth part FOurthly that man is iustified by faith in as much as by faith he layeth hold on and applieth to himselfe Christes satisfaction may be perceiued by these sayings Rom. 3.24.25 They are iustified by the redemption made in Christ whome God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his bloud And chap. 4.24.25 It shal be imputed to vs to wit faith for iustice which beleeue in him that raised vp our Lord Iesus from the dead which was deliuered to death for our faults and raised vp for our iustification And chap. 10.6.7 The iustice which is of faith saith thus Say not in thy hart who shall go vp into heauen this is to bring Christ from aboue Or who shall go downe into the deepe this is to bring Christ againe from the dead Gal. 2.20 I liue by faith of the sonne of God who loued me and gaue himselfe for me c. Rom. 4.5 To him that worketh not but beleeneth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed for iustice Where it is manifest that by the name faith by a metonymie of the adioynt is to be vnderstood any thing which is by faith imputed to a man for iustice For to speake properly that which is in a man is not said to be imputed to him but that which is without a man And faith is in a man but Christs satisfaction which faith apprehendeth is without a man whereby it cometh to passe that it is imputed vnto man by faith that is to say is accounted his so as man is esteemed in this place as if he had performed the satisfaction for himselfe CHAP. VIII The confirmation and clearing of the fift part FIftly that man is iustified by faith only that is for the onely satisfaction of Christ apprehended by faith and not partly by faith that is for Christs satisfaction imputed and partly by works that is for inherent iustice may be gathered by the sayings following which teach that a man is iustified without workes Rom. 3.27 Where is then the reioycing It is excluded By what law of workes no but by the law of faith And by and by verse 28. We conclude therfore that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law And Chap. 4.2 If Abraham our father were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God Gal. 2.16 Knowing that man is not iustified by the workes of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ we also haue beleeued in Iesus Christ that wee might bee iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law Eph. 2.8.9 By grace ye are saued through faith not of workes Tit. 3.5 Not of iust workes which we had done but of his owne mercie he saued vs c. Phil. 3.9 That I may be foūd in him not hauing my own iustice which is of the lawe but that which is by faith of Christ Vnto those sayings wherein works are opposed to faith I. Booke of Iustification Chap. 19. Bellarmine excepteth first in generall or in commune that by works which are opposed to faith excluded from Iustification are vnderstood works which go before faith which are done by the only strength of free-will not all absolutely And this he saith may be proued frō Rom. 4. where we read saith he to him that worketh wages is imputed as by debt not as by grace In which place the Apostle openeth himselfe saith he what shuld be vnderstood by workes which are opposed to faith and saith that he calleth them works to which that which is giuen is wages not grace And such be not any but those that are done by the onely strength of freewill For that which is giuen to the works that be done of grace such as is the very act of faith and those that follow thereupon is not simply wages but also grace yea more grace then wages Thus saith Bellarmine I answere It is false that Pault should here say he calleth them works to which that which is giuen is wages not grace that is which are done by the onely strength of freewill For that he speaketh of works in generall whether they be done by the strength of freewill or by grace appeareth by this that he intreateth there of Abrahams workes those which he had done of grace and faith as that he was obedient to Gods commandement and trusting vpon his promise left his countrie of Chaldea and went into a land which God was to shew him also that he refused not to offer his onely sonne Isaak at Gods commandement for these are those workes wherein he might reioyce and boast with men And from these works doth Pault derogate Iustification before God by this argument which is taken from the generall for that to him that worketh wages is giuen as by debt and is not imputed that is not giuen of grace but to Abraham iustice was imputed And whereas Bellarmine faith that which is giuen to workes which be done of grace is partly wages parly grace therein hee feigneth that things immediately aduerse may stand togither and that against the Apostles manifest sentence both in this place where he opposeth grace to debt and by consequence to wages as that cannot stand togither and also Chap. 11.6 where he saith If by grace to wit there be a reseruation of certaine Iewes that are iustified it is not now of workes that is deserts of workes otherwise were no more grace But if of workes then not now of grace otherwise workes were no more workes But Bellarmine hauing first set downe that generall answere Bellarmines exception against that place Ro. 3 27. maketh answere afterward vnto euery of those sayings And first vnto that place Rom. 3.27 he answereth that the reioycing of the Iewes is excluded by the law of of faith not by the law of deeds because man is iustified of grace which first of all inspireth faith then by faith leadeth vnto mercie and good works and is not iustified by the law of deeds that is by the only knowledge of the law strength of free will I answer Although Gods grace wherby a man is iustified leadeth him by faith vnto good works yet is not in that respect man said to be justified by faith as Bellarmine insinuateth because of
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
A LEARNED AND PROFITABLE Treatise of mans Iustification Two Bookes Opposed to the Sophismes of Robert Bellarmine Iesuite By Iohn Piscator professor of Diuinitie in the famous Schoole of Nassouia Sigena Imprinted at London by Thomas Creede for Raphe Iackson dwelling in Paules Chruch-yard at the signe of the Swanne 1599. TO THE REVEREND and renowmed men Daniel Tossanus Iames Kimedoncius and Dauid Pareus Doctors of sacred Theology and professors in the famous Vniuersitie of Heidelberg his high-esteemed brethren greeting WIth how great endeuor subtilly deuised and writhed Sophismes Robert Bellarmine Iesuite hath studied to cloake and defend the Popish errours and contrariwise to caluminate and refute the doctrine of the true teachers of the Gospell about Christian faith it is knowne to them that haue read with iudgement his disputations of the articles in controuersie betweene the Papists and the Gospellers whom he falsly calleth hereticks These disputations whē not long since they came also to my handes I read them desirously and was not a litle greened when I sawe the truth of the Gospel to be with such a shewe oppugned And whē I remembred how I heard of a credible man that learned men addicted to the Popish religion so greatly boasted of this Bellarmine as if he were some Goliath of the Papists that they feared not to say he was inuincible I began earnestly to desire that God wold stirre vp many of the teachers of the Gospel valiantly happily to withstand the enterprises of this Goliath with the stone of Gods word handsomely throwne out of the sling of true Logicke to fell him downe and finally to kill him with his owne sword And I gaue God thankes that euen then he had stirred vp some learned men which had prosperously begun this fight with him among whom first was knowne vnto me that famous man William Whitakers who fought with him manfully and happily about the holy scripture and purposed also to dispute against him about other chiefe points in controuersie God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ graunt that what he hath holily purposed he may prosperously bring to effect But when as about the same time I was to write and propound for publicke disputation in the famous schoole of Nassouia Herborne positions of Iustification I thought it would be worth my labour diligently to inquire into Bellarmines sophismes published concerning that article of faith and to endeuour briefly plainly to refute them And by this occasion was this my writing brought forth which now I publish abroad Which when for the length thereof I saw not meet to be proposed for Positions publikely to bee disputed of in the schoole I then wrote and set out other positions of Iustification and reserued this writing for a more fit time It fell out about the same time that the learned man Corradus Vorstius Agrippensis created among you and of you a while after Doctor of Theologie desired by Letters mine opinion about soluting one or two of Bellarmines sophismes in the controuersie of Iustification vnto whom I sent to that end this writing and withall requested him to communicate it with learned men of which your Vniuersitie hath store and to knowe their iudgements of it and write me word He therefore of late about Francfurt Mart passing by Sigena and for the friendship betwixt vs saluting me told me how he had giuen you this writing of mine to reade and that you hauing read it affirmed vnto him that you liked all therein and would exhort me to set it forth distinguished into two Bookes and certain Chapters which thing also hee wrote of to me not long after from Heidelberg and so stirred me vp a fresh to diualge this writing Now therfore commeth this my writing forth in the name of the Lord and it commeth forth vnder your excellent name for that I thought I should doo conueniently to offer this doctrine to be defended by them togither with my selfe which had once approoued it for a good and right opinion and therwithal publikely to testifie our holy consent in this heauenly truth You therefore reuerend brethren take this my doing in good part and valiantly defend as oft as need shal require togither with me the trueth of Christian doctrine deliuered in this writing to the glorie of Gods name and profit of Christs Church To conclude I commend you and your holy labours to God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. At Sigena from the famous Schoole of Nassouia the 18. of December 1594. Your Brother Iohn Piscator of Argentine OF MANS IVSTIFICATION before God The first booke VVherein the iudgement of the professors of the Gospell is recited confirmed and defended from Bellarmines exceptions CHAP. I. Of the diuers significations of the word Iustifying WHen it is demaunded how a man may be iustifyed before God the word Iustifie is taken two wayes sometime for to make or to be made iust and sometime for to pronounce or to be pronounced iust These two do consent and agree betweene themselues as the cause efficient and the effect For God being a iust iudge pronounceth no man iust neither acquiteth any but him whome he hath first made iust And God maketh a man iust whome he will pronounce iust by imputation of iustice that is for so much as he imputeth iustice to him or that which is all one imputeth not sinnes vnto him but pardoneth forgiueth them Rom. 4. ver 5.6.7.8 In the first signification the word Iustifying is taken Rom. 4.5 where the Apostle sayth To him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is imputed for iustice Heere God is sayd to iustifie the vngodly But God pronounceth not the vngodly iust but maketh him iust and that whiles he imputeth iustice vnto him as the Apostle teacheth in this place And then at last pronounceth him iust And so the Apostle himselfe expoundeth the word Iustified by to be made iust Rom. 5.19 In the latter signification it is taken Rom. 8.33 where the Apostle sayth Who shall accuse Gods elect God is he that iustifieth Who is hee that condemneth Heere vnto iustification is manifestly opposed condemnation whereby we may perceiue that by that word here is signified iudicial acquitting whereby the iudge pronounceth iust and innocent the guiltie partie that is him that is accused and brought to the iudgement seate But Iustification being taken this latter way is againe to be distinguished For it is done either in this life and that in iustifying euery one apart by himselfe and secretly or after this life in that vniuersall day of iudgement in altogether and openly For God hath set vp his iudgement seat in the conscience of man in as much as he hath so indued mās mind with knowledge of iust and vniust that if he haue done any vniust thing his conscience of it owne accord as it were summoneth him to Gods iudgement seat and accuseth him and if he be by others accused vniustly his
and freeing of the second part SEcondly that man of himselfe and his owne nature vniust but now being endued with imputed iustice is pronounced Iust of God the truth of this sentence is plaine by these testimonies in which condemnation is opposed to iustification as Rom. 5.16 Iudgement verily of one vnto condemnation but grace of many offences vnto iustification And ver 8. As by the fall of one sinne entred vpon all men vnto condemnation so also by the iust-worke dicáioma of one iustice entred vpon all men vnto iustification of life And Chap. 8.33.34 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect It is God that iustifieth who is he that condemneth Against this proofe Bellarmine excepteth that the word Iustification doth not alwaies pertain to the iudgemēt place because it is opposed to condemnation For condemnation is sometime an effect of the fault which deserueth punishmēt And as Adam cōdemned vs not by iudging nor after the maner vsed in iudgement places but by imprinting originall blame but God hath condēned by iudging so Christ as the second Adam iustifieth vs by putting out our sinnes and infusing grace and secondly shal iustifie vs in the day of iudgment by declaring them iust whom he before hath made iust I answer First this exceptiō maketh nothing against the proofe brought from Rom. 8. For althogh the word condemning be not alwaies belonging to the iudgement place yet that it is so there is manifest by that which the Apostle saith Who shall accuse Gods elect Moreouer this exception corrupteth the place of the 5. Chapter both touching the words touching the sense For the Apostle saith not there either that Adam condemned vs or Christ iustifieth vs but saith by one offēce of Adam iudgemēt that is guiltinesse came vpon all men vnto cōdemnation likewise by the iust-work dicaloma that is satisfactiō of Christ the gift that is iustice came vpon all men vnto iustification of life Where both condēnation iustification are referred vnto god as Iudge who may with right cōdemne all Adams natural childrē for the sin that he cōmitted who iustifieth them to whom he hath giuen iustice for the satisfaction sake of Christ Furthermore Bellarmines reasoning from a contrary sense or from a like reason of contraries stayeth vpon a false supposition to wit a false opposition of contraries For these are not opposite one to an other to imprint originall blame and to put out sins to wit from nature and infuse grace that is inherent iustice But these are opposite to imprint originall blame and to put out originall blame likewise to obtaine imputation of iustice And indeed as Adam imprinted by his fall original blame in all his children so Christ for those that pertaine vnto him hath put out that blame and obtained imputation of iustice by his satisfaction Moreouer although as Adam did not onely imprint blame in his posteritie but also by generation infused into them the very force of sinne so Christ also hath not onely put out the blame of the elect and obtained imputation of iustice for them but also regenerateth them by his holy spirit and by that regeneratiō putteth out the force of sinne and infuseth iustice or studie of good workes yet in that place of the Apostle he speaketh not of this benefite of Christ but onely of the other And of the benefit of regeneration or sanctification he entreateth afterwards in the 6.7 8. Chapter CHAP. VI. The confirmation and clearing of the third part THirdly that man is accounted for iust and pronounced iust of God in as much as God forgiueth him his sins for the satisfaction of Christ and therefore that iustification is no other thing then forgiuenesse of sinnes these sayings teach vs. Rom. 4.6.7.8 Dauid saith That blessed is that man to whom God imputeth iustice without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sinne In these words it is certaine that the full definition of Iustification is contained for of this the Apostle manifestly there entreateth to wit minding to teach how man is iustified before God as appeareth by comparing togither those things which go before from the 17. verse of the 1. Chapter vnto this place And he defineth Iustification here by imputation of iustice or that which he taketh for the same for giuenesse of sinnes A gainst this proofe Bellarmine excepteth that Paul alleageth not this testimonie of the Psalme 2. Booke of iustification Chap. 9. perfectly to define Iustification but onely to proue that true Iustification is the gift of God and cannot be gotten by our owne strength He also saith it may be answered that in these words a perfect definition is contained but intricately For forgiuenesse of sinnes saith he cannot be except iustice be infused euen as darknesse is not driuen away except light come in place therof Also by not imputing of sins saith he the Apostle gathereth imputing of iustice and by this teacheth that these two cannot be separated forgiuenesse of sinnes and giuing of iustice to wit inherent for this Bellarmine vnderstandeth I aunswere that Paul alleageth the testimonie of this Psalme perfectly to define Iustification is plaine by his drift and comparing togither things that went before as euen now we warned Wherefore Bellarmine feigneth here a false drift Whereupon it followeth that it is also false that heere is contained a perfect definition intricately to wit infusion of inherent iustice beeing vnderstoode herewithall as the other and that the principall part of iustification And although it be true that with iustifying faith inherent iustice is togither infused not perfect but begunne yet is it not true neither followeth it that this iustice is a part of that iustice whereby wee stand before the iudgement seate of GOD about which the Apostle dealeth in this place Besides Bellarmine maketh a false comparison For infusion of iustice is not so in respect of forgiuenesse of sinnes as infusion of light into the ayre to driue darkenesse out of the same but is so compared vnto the reall putting out of inhabiting sinne which the scripture calleth mortification of the flesh and of the olde man For how much as inherent iustice is infused that is how much as the spirit or new man is quickned so much is inhabiting sinne put out or the flesh and olde man mortified Moreouer Bellarmine falsly interpreteth the Apostles reasoning as thogh he gathered imputatiō of iustice by not imputing of sinnes as if it were some diuerse thing For the Apostle doth not gather here a diuerse thing frō a diuerse but proueth imputation of iustice by the testimonie of Dauid whereby appeareth that hee holdeth imputation of Iustice which he would prooue and not imputing of sinnes which is mentioned in the testimonie alleadged for one and the same thing For otherwise he should not proue his purpose For it were ready to except Thou art in hand
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
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
be cannot hope for or loue that which he beleeueth not Therefore faith is the foundation of hope and loue and not contrariwise hope or loue the foundation of faith I answere In this reason the question is not concluded Which is not whether faith be the foundation or originall of hope and loue but whether we be iustified by faith only or by faith hope and loue together Vnto this reason he ioyneth an other in bodily diseases the beginning of health is 5. Argument to beleeue that he is sicke and to haue faith in the Phisitian that is willing to cure yet is not that onely faith perfect health I answere First Bellarmine vnaptly maketh the sick mās faith a part of health whē as it is the procreant cause of health in as much as the sick man should not obtaine health except he had that faith In like manner faith whereby we are iustified is not a part of Iustification but the procreant instrumental cause because by faith we apprehend Christs satisfaction for which we are iustified Next as his maner is he confoundeth iustification with regeneration in as much as hee calleth faith health towit of soule vnderstanding newnesse of nature Moreouer he falsly defineth faith whereby we are iustified to wit as though by it we beleeued only that we are spiritually sick that is to say sinners and that the spirituall phisitian Christ is willing to cure vs. But these suffice not vnto iustifying faith but it is required further that we beleeue that Christ hath already perfectly cured vs by his satisfaction as touching forgiuenesse of sinnes and hath begun to cure vs as touching renuing of nature and finally as touching the same is willing perfectly to cure vs and also will cure vs after this life Wherefore there is not the like reason of the faith which Bellarmine in this place attributeth to a sick man and of iustifying faith Bellarmines arguments that feare concurreth vnto iustification Bellarmine proceedeth vnto the second disposition as he after the Councell of Trent nameth it whereby they feigne a man is disposed vnto iustification that is to say Feare And indeuoureth to proue by the places of scripture folowing that this concurreth vnto iustification almost after the same manner that faith it selfe concurreth First saith he we haue learned by the Apostle that faith iustifieth I. Argument when hee saith Without faith it is impossible to please God Hebr. 11. But the same is also said of Feare Ecclesiasticus 1. He that is without feare cannot be iustified I answere First the testimonie of Ecclesiasticus is not of force to proue any poynt of faith because that booke is not Canonicall but Apocryphall Then though that booke were of authoritie yet the saying alleadged would proue nothing because here is brought a false interpretation which containeth a plain diuerse sentence frō that which is cōtained in the Greek words of Iesus the son of Sirach which are to be interpreted an angry man cannot be iustified for the moment of his anger is ruine vnto him Thirdly althogh it were so in the Greek as Bellarmine citeth out of the common translation yet this speech would make nothing to the purpore for the son of Sirach speaketh not of mans iustificatiō before God but before the ciuill Iudge warning that they which are giuen to anger or that without the feare of God follow their owne lusts will at length commit those haynous sinnes and wickednesses for which beeing brought vnto iudgement they cannot be iustified that is quitted but are by the Iudge condemned vnto deserued punishment Fourthly although this saying of Syrach were to be vnderstood of Iustification before God yet could not the question bee concluded from it For it is brought as beeing like to that saying of the Apostle and from that likenesse is the Argument drawne when as notwithstanding it is not like For it is not said Without feare it is impossible to be iustified as it is said Without faith it is impossible to please God but it is said Hee that is without feare cannot bee iustified Besides though it were said Without feare it is impossible to be iustified as it is said without faith it is impossible to please God yet would it not follow from hence that feare would pertaine vnto Iustification after one and the same manner that faith dooth for faith pertaineth to Iustification as the instrumentall cause whereby wee take holde on Christes satisfaction for which wee are iustified but the feare of GOD pertaineth as an effect of faith necessarily agreeing therewith For where the feare of GOD is not neither is there iustyfying faith Then 2. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because it is the beginning of iustice and saluation But the feare of the Lord is the beginning of wisedome Prou. I. and by wisdome is vnderstood perfect iustification I answere First it is false that by wisedome is vnderstood iustification for iustification is Gods action whereby he counteth and pronounceth man iust but wisedome is a qualitie in mans minde wrought of God Wherefore that saying maketh nothing to the matter Next if by the name of wisedome in Salomons speech were vnderstoode iustification Bellarmine assumeth things that manifestly cannot stand together and feigneth them vnto the holy Ghost that speaketh in the scripture in as much as he affirmeth both faith and feare to be the beginning of iustification For if faith be the beginning of iustification feare cannot be and so contrariwise seeing of one thing there is but one beginning Moreouer 3. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because by it we seeke God and come vnto him But the same thing doth feare For it is written in Psal 77. When he slew them they sought him and returned c I answere Bellarmine assumeth a false thing for faith iustifieth not because by it we seeke God but because by it we take hold on Christes satisfaction for which God iustifieth vs. Which thing cannot be attributed vnto feare Furthermore 4. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because by it Christ is formed in vs as he saith Gal. 4. But of feare Isaiah writeth chapt 26. according to the 70. Greeke interpreters By the feare we haue conceiued and brought forth the spirit of saluation I answere First it is false that it is said in Gal. 4. Faith iustifieth because by it Christ is formed in vs. Yet it is true that this sentence may be concluded from the Apostles words which are My little children of whom I trauel in birth againe vntill Christ be formed in you By which words the Apostle signifieth that he went about by the doctrine of the Gospell to reduce the Galathians to the true knowledge and faith of Christ And the scope was that by that faith they might be iustified in as much as by it they should take hold on Christes satisfaction Which taking hold the Apostle metaphorically calleth a forming of Christ in the Galathians because he had said that hee
trauelled in birth againe of them that so he might continue the metaphor hee had begun But such forming of Christ in man cannot be ascribed vnto feare Neither can that any way be prooued from that saying of Isaiah in the citing wherof hitherto Bellarmine bewrayeth his maruellous impudencie seeing that place containeth nothing at all of Christ or iustification no not though the interpretation of the 70. be admitted But why doth not Bellarmine cite the common Latin translation when as notwithstanding hee approoueth and defendeth the decree of the Councell of Trent wherin is determined that the common Latin edition is to be held for authenticall 2. Booke De Verbo Des Chap. 10. For if that be autheÌ„ticall that which differeth from it cannot be couÌ„ted for authenticall And the interpretation of the 70. differeth in this place But if one looke into that place and consider the whole context hee shall see that there is nothing at all of Christes or mans iustification before God contained in those words but a narration of the Iewes wherein they tell theyr owne weaknesse in deliuering themselues from calamities and purchasing themselues saluation Their calamities they compare to a woman in trauell saying As a woman with child that draweth neare to the trauell is in sorrow and crieth in her paines so haue we bene in thy sight ô Lord We haue conceiued we haue borne in paine as though wee should haue brought forth wind We could not giue any helpe to the Land It is therfore an impudent sophisme of Bellarmine who shameth not to alleadge these things here as being spoken of mans Iustification Againe faith Iustifieth saith Bellarmine because the iust liueth by faith Hab. 2. And of feare it is written The feare of the Lord is the fountaine of life Prou. 14. I answere It is false that faith iustifieth because or in as much as the Iust liueth by faith Neither doth Habacuck say this but onely saith The iust shall liue by faith You contrariwise the iust shall liue by faith because hee is iustified by faith For iustice goeth before life as the cause before the effect And faith Iustifieth because or in as much as it apprehendeth Christs satisfaction for which God iustifieth To conclude 6. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because it purgeth sinnes as the Apostle teacheth Act. 13. Rom. 3. Gal. 3. and in other places But of feare also we reade Ecclesiast 1. The feare of the Lord expelleth sinne I answere Faith to speake properly purgeth not sinnes but Christes bloud 1. Iohn 1. And if faith be said to purge sinnes it is to be vnderstood thus that it apprehendeth Christes satisfaction vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes But after this manner the feare of the Lord doth not expell sinne but so farre as it holdeth a man like a bridle from giuing himselfe vp to sinne and sinning securely Neither is it said in any of the places alleaged that faith purgeth sinnes But Act. 15.9 Peter saith that God had purged the harts of the beleeuing Gentiles by faith that is had forgiuen them their sinnes by faith whereby they apprehended Christs satisfactioÌ„ In Rom. 3.25 it is said That God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation by faith in his bloud to declare his iustice by forgiuenesse of foredone sins In Gal. 3. there is no such thing Last of all he addeth this reason 7. Argument The nature of feare is saith he to flee euils and seeke remedies how it may escape them I answere But hence it foloweth not that feare iustifieth and that after the same manner that faith doth Bellarmines arguments that hope of pardon is a disposition vnto iustice and remission of sinnes Bellarmine proceedeth to the third disposition as he calleth it to wit Hope namely hope to obtaine pardon That this is a disposition vnto iustice and remission of sinnes he proueth by these sayings Prou. 28. He that hopeth in the Lord shal be healed Psal 36. He wil saue them because they hoped in him Psal 90. Because he hoped in me I will deliuer him Mat. 9. Haue confidence some thy sinnes are forgiuen thee where he noteth that the Lord first said Haue confidence sonne and when he sawe him lifted vp vnto the hope of saluation he added Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee I answere First Bellarmine strayeth from the question For the question proposed is whether onely faith iustifieth and not whether it onely dispose vnto iustification wherefore he should proue that hope also iustifieth and not that hope disposeth vnto iustification Moreouer the sayings all eaged out of the Prouerbs and Psalmes make nothing to the matter for none of them speake of the obtaining of the forgiuenes of sinnes but they speake of outward felicitie and deliuerance from outward dangers Neither is there in that place of the Prouerbs in the Hebrue the word bealed but 〈◊〉 shal be made fat Neither in the said 90. Psalme or after the Hebrues distâ—ction the 91. Psalme is the Hebrue because he hoped in me but because he hath loued me or bene louingly affected vnto me Finally in none of these places is there speech of hope of obtaining pardon of which the question was propounded but there is speech of hope of the fatherly prouidence and care of God towards his children Now as touching that saying Math. 9. Bellarmine wresteth it vnto his purpose by a false interpretation of the word Haue confidence as if it were the same that Conceiue hope of pardon is Then he maket'd a weake consequence If the Lord said first Haue confidence and after Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee Therfore that confidence of which he spake went before forgiuenes of sinnes Lastly he foloweth the false interpretation of the word aphéontas forgiuen which signifieth not are forgiuen but haue bene forgiuen for it is not of the time present but past And the naturall sense of the words is this Haue confidence sonne that thou shalt obtaine of me healing of thy palsie because thou hast already obtained a farre greater benefit to wit forgiuenesse of sinnes But if that were the sense which Bellarmine giueth the word should sound thus Haue confidence sonne and thy sinnes shal be forgiuen thee that is as Bellarmine would haue it Conceiue hope of pardon or forgiuenesse of sinnes for if thou so do it shall be done vnto thee Bellarmines arguments that loue disposeth vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes The fourth disposition saith Bellarmine further is loue Now that some loue is before forgiuenesse of sinnes either in time if it be imperfect loue or in nature if it be perfect and from the whole heart Ecclesiasticus teacheth first saith he chapt 2. For after that he had sayd Yee that feare the Lord trust in him hee addeth Yee that feare the Lord loue him and your harts shall be inlightned Then also our Sauiour himselfe teacheth it when hee saith Luk. 7. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because shee loued much Also the Apostle Paule teacheth it when he writeth
Galath 5. Neither Circumcision auaileth any thing nor Vncircumcision but faith which worketh by loue The Apostle Iohn teacheth the same 1. Iohn 3. saying We are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren I answere As touching that place in Ecclesiasticus it is not of force to proue any point of faith because the booke is Apocryphal Then that sentence is not found in the Greeke copie Thirdly he treateth not there of remission of sinnes wherefore this sentence is nothing to the purpose As concerning the other places Luc. 7. the coniunction because in Greeke hóti noteth not the cause of the thing but the cause of the conclusion that is the argument whereby the sentence proposed is proued And that argument was drawen not from the cause but from the effect For that many sinnes are forgiuen this woman Christ proueth by her deede as an effect of the forgiuenesse of sinnes which she perceiued she had obteyned by the grace of Christ As is plaine by the Simile which the Lord addeth to declare that deede to wit the creditor which forgaue two debtors to the one more to the other lesse whereupon it came that the one loued him more the other lesse As therefore that loue of the debtors was not the cause of forgiuing the det but contrarywise the forgiuing of the det was cause of their loue so also the loue of that woman was not the cause why Christ forgaue her her sinnes but contrariwise the forgiuenesse of sinnes was cause why the woman loued him Neither is this declaration answered by the exposition which Bellarmine bringeth in an other place that the coniunction hóti because is a causal For it is not named a causal for that it signifieth the cause of the thing but for that it signifieth the cause of the conclusion that is the argument or medium of the proofe From the words Gal. 5. it cannot be gathered that loue disposeth vnto iustification but onely we are taught what maner of faith that is whereby we are iustified namely faith working by loue In the place out of the Epistle of Iohn Bellarmine hath committed the crime of falshood for that he hath cited the text vnperfectly that he might wrest it vnto his purpose For it is not there We are translated c. but We know that we are translated It is euident therefore that loue is not there made the cause of our translation from death to life but the signe and argument whereby we know that we are translated And loue is the signe of this thing because it is the effect of true faith by which that translation is made as our Lord witnesseth Ioh. 5.24 He that beleeueth hath passed from death into life The second principall argument Bellarmine proceedeth to another principall argument which he concludeth in this reasoning If faith be separated from hope and loue and other vertues without doubt it cannot iustifie Therefore onely faith cannot iustifie The consequence of this argument is proued saith he thus If the whole force of iustifying were in faith only so that other vertues though they were present conferred nothing at all vnto iustification surely that faith would iustifie * It should be as well when they are absent as present as well when they are present as absent Therefore if it cannot iustifie when they are absent it argueth that the force of iustifying is not in it onely but partly in it partly in the other Also If it cannot be that faith seuered from loue should iustifie then it alone iustifieth not But the first is true for without loue there can be no iustice because he that loueth not abideth in death 1. Iohn 2. Therefore the latter also is true Besides if faith separated from vertues can iustifie it can also doo the same with vices for as the presence of other vertues profiteth faith nothing as concerning the dutie of iustifying because it onely iustifieth so the presence of vices shall nothing hinder it as touching the office of iustifying because by accident there are ioyned with it either vices or vertues But the consequent is absurd therefore also the antecedent I answere All these connexe or as Bellarmine calleth them conditionate propositions of these three reasons are false For although faith be not alone but hath other vertues ioyned with it and not vices which is impossible yet faith onely iustifieth Euen as the hand of a writer although it be not alone but ioyned with the other members yet it onely writeth And as the foote as not alone but ioyned to the other members yet it onely standeth Likewise as the eye is not alone and yet alone seeth the eare is not alone but yet heareth alone Finally the members of mans body although they be ioyned one to another and cannot do their seuerall actions except they be ioyned one to another yet haue euery one their proper action The third principall argument The third principall argument whereby Bellarmine would proue that faith iustifieth not alone is taken saith he from the remouing away of the causes which may be giuen why faith onely iustifieth For all such causes may be reduced saith he vnto three heads And thus he concludeth If faith alone iustifieth either it therefore iustifieth alone because the scripture expressely saith it or because it pleased God to giue iustification with the onely condition of faith or because it alone hath the force to apprehend iustification and apply it vnto vs and make it ours But none of these causes can truly be said of faith Therefore neither can it be truly said of it that it onely iustifieth The first part of the assumption he endenoureth to proue by this that in the scripture there is found an expresse denyall of that word to wit Onely or a word of the same signification namely Iam. 2. Yee see that of workes a man is iustified and not of faith onely The second part he proueth by this that scriptures doo much more openly require the conditiō of repentance and of the Sacraments vnto Iustification then of faith as Ezek. 18. If the wicked repent he shall liue Luk. 13. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Ioh. 3. Except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God The third part he endeuoureth to proue thus for that faith is not said properly to apprehend or certainly Iustification is not so apprehended by faith that it is had indeed and inherent but onely that it is in the mind after the manner of an obiect apprehended by the action of the vnderstanding or will But after this manner loue also and ioy do apprehend I answere The assumption of the syllogisme proposed is false as touching the third part or branch For onely faith apprehendeth Christs satisfaction vnto Iustification because by faith onely we can make full account that Christ hath satisfied for vs and by his satisfaction obtained of God forgiuenesse of
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
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
truly 〈◊〉 to God Therefore we receiue by Christ true iustice and likenesse of God and not onely an outward imputation Thus saith Bellarmine Which things that they may the more easily be iudged of we will resolue them And they be two syllogismes The first is this That which we lost in Adam is restored vs by Christ In Adam we lost not imputed iustice Therefore imputed iustice is not restored vs by Christ The second syllogisme is this That which we lost in Adam is restored vs by Christ 〈◊〉 out iustice we lost in Adam Therefore inherent iustice is restored vs by Christ I answere to the last first I grant all the latter syllogisme but the conclusion of it is far from the question proponed For although Christ hath restored vs inherent iustice in regenerating and renuing vs to the Image of God by the holy Ghost in this life as beginning in the next perfectly yet that letteth not why he should not impute iustice to vs wherby we may staÌ„d in the iudgemeÌ„t of God As touching the first syllogisme it first of all is faultie in the storme because it hath a negatiue minor in the first figure Then the conclusion is froÌ„ the question proponed For it is not asked whether that iustice be restored vs which was imouted to vs in Adam before he fel but it is demanded whether iustice be imputed to vs that is whether wee be esteemed of God for iust because of Christs satisfaction Thirdly the minor â—omimu in the assumption is doubtfull For imputed iustice there may bee vnderstoode either of the iustice which may bee saide to bee imputed to vs in Adam before his fall or of the iustice which wee say now is imputed to vs for Christs satisfaction In the first sence the assumption is true but then there be foure termini for that minor terminus in the conclusion is manifestly vnderstood of the iustice which is said to be imputed to vs in Adam before his fall as is plaine by the word Restore And in the latter sense the assumption is false for wee lost surely in Adam that iustice which now is imputed vnto vs for Christs satisfaction For by the disobedience of Adam we were made vniust and again by Christs obedience we are made iust Rom. 5.19 that by imputation of iustice Rom. 4.6 The 7. Argument 7. Proof If by Christs iustice imputed to vs wee may truly be called iust sons of God then might Christ also by our iniustice imputed to him be truly called a sinner that which the soule trembleth to think the sonne of the diuel For the aduersaries graunt that sin was so imputed to Christ as iustice is imputed to vs. But the consequence is not true but blasphemous sacriligious and repugnant to all the scripture wherein Christ is euery where preached to be holy innocent immortall vnpolluted and most iust Therefore neither is the antecedent true I answere There be foure termini for the doubtfulnes of the word truly which in the proposition is vnderstood of the truth of imputation but in the assumption of the truth of inherence For after the manner of inherence Christ was not truly a sinner but truly holy innocent c. Yet after the manner of imputation he was truly a sinner for our sins were truly imputed vnto him of God when as for them he was truly made a curse or execration Gal. 3.13 that is accursed as is there declared when it is added For it is written Cursed is euery one that hangeth on tree Now none is accursed vnto God but for sin that is in as much as either he is a sinner or so reputed And so also may be expounded and it seemeth should bee expounded that place 2. Cor. 5 Him which knew no sin he made sin for vs that we might be made the iustice of God in him For although it be a sound exposition that God made Christ a sacrifice for sin yet the opposition seemeth to require that it be expounded he made him a sinner namely by imputing our sins vnto him for so are we made iustice in him whiles we are made iust by imputation of his suffering But Bellarmine vrgeth this argument from that comparison of the imputation of Christs iustice and the imputation of our vniustice he proceedeth to reason thus If we were truly vncleane and wicked euen after iustification although Christes iustice were imputed vnto vs yet were we not to be called iust but vnrighteous But the scripture calleth vs iust and holy Gods sonnes and heires after the lauer of regineration and renouation We are not therefore iustified by imputation of iustice but by iustice inherent and abiding 〈◊〉 vs. The proposition he confirmeth by the comparison before spoken of I answere First there be 4. termini for it is one thing to be called iust after Iustification as it is set downe in the proposition and an other thing to be called iust after the lauer of regeneration and renouation as is set downe in the assumption Then the conclusion followeth not of the premisses no not though the same argument be repeated in the assumption which is contained in the proposition as namely if it be said But the scripture calleth vs iust after Iustification But this conclusion followeth of those premisses Therfore after Iustification we are not truly vncleane and wicked Which no professor of the Gospell denieth For after the iustification of faith we are truly cleane and godly by imputation yea and moreouer also by inherence of godlinesse but begun onely for iustifying faith doth necessarily bring with it study of godlinesse The 8. Argument 8. Proofe Christ in the song of Songs is compared to a Bridegroome and the Church or iustified soule is compared to a Bride And that Bride is said to bee faire with the bewtie inherent to her selfe not with the bewtie of the Bridegroome imputed to her For therfore vnto the Bride is giuen the bewtie proper to women and vnto the Bridegroome the bewtie proper to men that we may vnderstand that the bewtie of Christ is one the bewtie of the Church or iustified soule is an other Moreouer it would be most absurd if an heauenly Bridegroome and one that is most faire indeed should haue a filthy Bride and only decked outwardly with some precious garment of a man I answere Christes Bride the Church in the Song of Songs confesseth that shee is black withall affirmeth that she is comely Chap. 1.5 By that confession shee acknowledgeth her filthinesse or natiue deformitie that is sin but by that affirmatioÌ„ she setteth forth the bewtie receiued from the Bridegroome And that bewtie is double the one of iustice imputed the other of iustice infused but this is imperfect in this life Wherefore Bellarmine doth falsly lay it to the Gospellers charge as if they thought that Christs Bride euen iustified should yet be filthy or faire onely by imputation of iustice Moreouer although Christes Bride be faire euen by iustice inherent to her yee hence it followeth not that she is not iustified by iustice imputed The 9. Argument 9. Proof If by Iustification the heart be prepared vnto the sight of God then is true cleannesse conferred by it and not imputatiue But the antecedent is true therefore also the consequent The consequence of the proposition is proued by a simile For as the eye being indeed vncleane though it be counted most cleane and pure cannot see the sunne so neither can an vncleane heart though it be counted cleane euer see God I answere Bellarmine doth sophistically oppose true imputed cleannes as though the cleannesse which is imputed vnto vs by faith were not true cleannesse Also by the rest of his disputation it appeareth that hee by true cleannesse vnderstandeth inherent cleannesse But the consequence of his proposition is false For although it be needfull to haue an eye truly and habitually cleane for to see withall and by Iustification the heart is after a sort prepared to see God yet is not inherent cleannesse conferred by it but by regeneratioÌ„ Euen as by taking away the putrified matter a wound is prepared vnto the scarre yet is there no forte conferred by it for the wouÌ„d to close togither but by the plaister which is laid vpoÌ„ the wound being purged of the putrified matter For God first by Iustification remoueth from man the filth and vncleannesse of sin then by regeneration endueth him with faith studie of godlinesse that by faith hee may be made more sure of his Iustification and may begin to see God by studie of godlinesse cleaue vnto him vntil he come to see him fully in the other life The 10. Argument Christ suffered 10. Proof that he might sanctifie his people by his bloud Heb. 13. that he might sanctifie his Church Eph. 5. that he might cleanse for himselfe a people acceptable Tit. 2. And the Lord himselfe saith Ioh. 17. I sanctifie my selfe for them that they also may be sanctified in the truth But if Christ haue sanctified his people not truly but onely by imputation hee hath suffered and died in vaine he could not performe that he desired For to be willing to sanctifie to sanctifie in the truth doth not signifie onely to be willing to deliuer from the punishment of sinne or to be willing that we should be counted for Saints though indeed we be not so but to be willing to effect that wherby we may be truly Saints cleane and immaculate Thus farre Bellarmine The Syllogisme is to be formed thus If Christ haue not sanctified his people truly but onely imputatiuely he suffered in vaine But he suffered not in vaine Therefore He hath sanctified his people truly and not onely imputatiuely I answere Againe truly and imputatiuely are sophistically opposed Then the conclusion is from the question For the Gospellers confesse that Christ hath sanctified his people not onely imputatiuely but also habitually or not onely by imputation of holinesse but also by reall beginning of holinesse for by his suffering he obtained both benefites of God But yet it followeth not from hence that the iustification wherwith man is iustified before God consisteth not in imputation of Iustice The conclusion These things the Lord hath giuen me at this time to dispute against Bellarmines sophismes of Iustification His graune that they may be a helpe vnto many to rid themselues out of those sophismes FINIS