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
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
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
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