proposition because a third thing may be added and that is this or because the spirit of grace or regeneration who is the author and efficient of both hath unseparably united them in one and the same subject wherein working the one that is faith with it and by it he worketh the other As touching the Assumption the former part that the one is not of the nature of the other it is denied by the Roman-Catholike the latter that the one doth not necessarily spring from the other by the true Catholikes For the Papists hold that charitie is the forme of justifying faith without which it neither doth nor can justifie And therefore they of all men ought to hold that justifying faith cannot be severed from charitie For whereas Bellarmine saith that charitie is but the outward forme of faith by which it worketh I acknowledge no outward forme but of artificiall bodies As for that which is principium motus by which any thing worketh it is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the actus primus the proper forme whereby any thing as it is that which it is so it worketh and produceth his proper and naturall effects And such is the unseparable coexistence of the forme and the thing formed that posita forma res ipsa ponatur sublata forma res ipsa 〈◊〉 The Papists therefore hold things repugnant and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they teach that charitie is the forme of justifying faith and yet that justifying faith may be severed from it The second that the one doth not necessarily spring from the other we deny For true faith doth necessarily and infallibly encline the beleever to love God and his neighbour for Gods sake For that faith whereby we are perswaded of Gods love to us in Christ cannot but move and encline us to love God neither can we love God as good if we doe not first beleeve that hee is good And such as is the measure of our faith concerning Gods goodnesse to us such is the measure of our love to him Bellarmine consesseth that saith enclineth and disposeth a man to love but saith a disposition and inclination non cogit doth not compell a man but leaveth him free As though there were no necessitie but of coaction or constraint § VIII That charitie doth necessarily follow faith as an unseparable companion he saith we have no sound proofes and therefore are faine to illustrate it by certaine similitudes which he calleth examples Answ. Whether we have any sound proofes or not I referre the Christian reader to the fifteene arguments which Bellarmine tooke no notice of besides those sixe I vindicated from his cavils As for similitudes they were not brought to prove the point but to illustrate and to make it more plaine As if I should compare a regenerate soule to fire as Christ did Iohn Baptist to a burning and shining lampe I might say which was Luthers similitude as in fire or rather if you please in the Sunne-beames two things concurre light and heate and neither is without the other the beames of the Sunne alwaies by their light producing heat so in the regenerate soule there are faith as the light and charitie as the heate and neither is without other because the spirit of regeneration as it were the Sunne by shedding abroad the beames of Gods love into our hearts that is by working in us faith by which we are perswaded of Gods love towards us in Christ inflameth our hearts with the love of God the beames of Gods love reflecting from our soules some warmth of love towards God To this Bellarminâ—… answereth that charitie in the Scriptures is compared to fire c. Answ. So it may in respect of the heate as faith also may in respect of the light as therefore in the fire concurreth both light and heate which cannot be severed so in the regenerate soule faith and love Bucers similitude was of a sicke man who being desperately sicke if a Physician shall assure him of health and much more if hee shall cure him by forgoing something that is most deare unto him cannot if hee beleeve so much but affect and love him so wee being desperately sicke of sinne and neare to death and damnation if the Lord shall by giving his owne Sonne not onely redeeme us from death but also entitle us to the kingdome of Heaven wee cannot if wee bee truly perswaded hereof by faith but love God againe who hath so loved us For we love God because he first loved us To this Bellarmine answereth that hee which beleeveth is inclined to love him in whom hee beleeveth but is not forced thereunto which no man averreth § IX A third similitude he would seeme to produce out of Calvins Institutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ and his spirit cannot be separated so faith and charitie cannot be severed but though both the parts of this comparison are true yet there is no such similitude propounded by Calvin But in that place he proveth that true faith cannot bee severed from a godly affection because true faith embraceth Christ as he is offered unto us of his Father now of his Father hee is made unto us not onely righteousnesse to bee received by faith unto justification but holinesse also to bee applied by his spirit unto sanctification And therefore those that receive Christ receive also his spirit Bellarmine answereth that it is true indeed that he which receiveth Christ receiveth him with his spirit sed credendo recipit i. credit illum habere spiritum sanctificationis but he receiveth by beleeving that is he beleeveth that Christ hath aspirit of sanctification but from hence it doth not follow that the spirit of sanctification is alwaies with faith in a man unlesse it be objectively even as health is in a sicke man that hath it not when he thinketh of it and desireth it Thus in popish divinitie to receive the spirit of Christ is to beleeve that Christ hath a spirit of sanctification but not to be partaker thereof or to have the communion of the holy Ghost which notwithstanding all those have who truely beleeve in Christ. For all that truely beleeve are the sonnes of God as I have shewed and to so many as be his sonnes God doth send the spirit of his sonne into their hearts his spirit dwelleth in them and he by his spirit And if any man have not the spirit of Christ hee is none of his If therefore all that receive Christ receive also his spirit then all that truely beleeve are also endued with charitie as I have proved before § X. His sixth argument is taken from an absurditie which he saith followeth upon our doctrine For saith he they doe therefore contend that a man is justified by faith onely because if justification depended upon the condition of works or our obedience of the Law no man could be certaine of his justification to which effect the Apostle argueth
Flesh and the Flesh lusting against the Spirit So that though Will be present with us that wee cannot doe what we would and much lesse after what manner wee would that is with our whole soules with our whole mind heart and affections For what good wee minde or will as wee are Spirit the same wee will as wee are Flesh. This concupiscence the Apostle had not knowne to bee a sinne had not the Law said non concupisces that is thou shalt have none evill concupiscence neither habituall nor actuall Neither is it onely a sinne as the Apostle oftentimes doth cal it but also it is the mother-sinne Iam. 1. 13 Rom. 7. 17. which taking occasion by the Law to produce ill concupiscences therein forbidden is convinced not onely to bee a sinne but exceedingly sinnefull Rom. 7. 13. But of this I have spoken before and proved by the testimony of Augustine that concupiscence against which the good Spirit lusteth viz. in the regenerate for in the unregenerate the Spirit is not is both a sinne and the cause of sin and a punishment sinne § XIII And as touching the second the summe of the Law is that we should love God with all our heart and with all our soule c. but where is any defect of love there God is not loved with all the heart c. it being legally understood and therefore every defect is an aberration from the Law and consequently a sinne I have also proved out of Augustine that it is a fault where love is lesse than it ought to bee from which fault it is that there is not a righteous man upon earth which doth good and sinneth not For which also though wee bee never so good proficients wee must of necessity say forgive us our debts Therefore every defect is a debt that is a sinne whereunto wee may adde that of the same Augustine It is a sinne either when there is not charity where it ought to bee or is lesse than it ought to bee whether this may or may not bee avoided by the Will § XIV And as to the third If those which the Papists call veniall sinnes bee not contrary to the Law then they are not forbidden in the Law and without doubt they are not commanded therein Now if neither they bee commanded nor forbidden then they are things indifferent but that is absurd yea but saith hee veniall sinnes hinder not justice And the Scripture absolutely calleth some men just and perfect notwithstanding their veniall sinnes I answere they hinder not imputative justice nor evangelicall perfection which is uprightenesse for to them that beleeve and repent they are not imputed Neither can it be denied but that the most upright men have their imperfections infirmities and slippes which though in themselves and according to the Law are mortall sinnes for if they should not bee forgiven they would as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth exclude men from heaven yet to them that are in Christ Iesus thâ—…y become veniall by the mercie of God through the merits and intercession of Christ. § XV. His second reason is taken from divers absurdities which hee conceiveth doe follow upon our assertion when as indeed they follow not upon our doctrine but upon his malicious misconceiving and misreport thereof as if wee held that all even the best workes of the righteous are mortall sinnes But wee acknowledge that the good workes of men regenerate are truly good and so to bee called notwithstanding the imperfection thereof Onely wee deny them to be purely good wherin we have the consent of holy Scriptures and of the ancient Fathers some whereof I before alleaged to whom I added Gregory and Bernard Gregory in the conclâ—…sion of his Moralls saith thus Mala nostra pura mala sunt bona quae nos habere credimus pura bona esse uequaquaÌ„ possunt Our evill things are purely evill and the good things which we suppose our selves to have can by no meanes bee purely good Bernard t Our lowly justice if we have any is perhaps true but not pure Vnlesse peradventure wee beleeve our selves to bee better than our fore-fathers who said no lesse truely than humbly all our righteousnesses are as it were the cloth of a menstruous woman wee doe not say that the good workes of the faithfull are sins and much lesse mortall sins For we hold that the sins of the faithful become to them venial But this we say with Salomon that there is not a righteous man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not which in effect is the same with that assertion of Luther Iustus in omni opere bono peccat § XVI Now let us examine the absurdities which hee absurdly upon his owne malitious misconceit objecteth against us In all which it is supposed that wee call the good workes of the righteous sinnes yea mortall sinnes The first if all the workes of the faithfull bee sinnes then the worke of faith whereby we are justified and that prayer whereby we begge remission of sinne should be sinnes Answ. The worke of faith and the act of prayer are good but not purely and perfectly good Neither are we justified by the worthinesse or by the worke of our faith but by the Object which it doth receive nor obtaine our desires by the merit of our prayer but by the mediation and intercession of Christ our Saviour Our faith is such that wee have need alwayes to pray Lord increase our faith Lord I beleeve help mine unbeleefe and our prayer such that when wee have performed it in the best manner we can wee have neede to pray that the wants and imperfections of our prayer may bee forgiven us § XVII The second If all the works of the righteous be sinnes with what face could the Apostle say that hâ—… knew nothing by himselfe And what boldnesse was that for his good workes that is for his mortall sinnes to expect a Crowne of righteousnesse Answ. Though the Apostle had no doubt sometimes offended after his conversion yet he was not conscious to himselfe in particular of any actuall sinne or crime committed by him for as the Psalmist saith who can understand his errors No man saith Basil is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free from sinne but God for of those many things wherein we offend the most wee understand not for which cause the Apostle saith I know nothing by my selfe but in that I am not justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in many things I offend and doc not perceive whence also the Prophet saith who understandeth his trespasses But though hee was not conscious to himselfe of his slippes and oversights yet hee was not ignorent of his owne corruptious and infirmities against which when hee had prayed to God hee received this answere My grace is sufficient for thee and in weakenesse my power is made perfect Neither did the Apostle expect the reward for the
I will not content my selfe to have answered elsewhere all his objections againstit but I will here also briefly propound some of our arguments to prove that wee I meane all mortall men neither doe nor can by our righteousnesse and obedience fulfill and so even in that respect cannot satisfie the Law And first I prove it by this most plaine reason No transgressours of the Law doe fulfill it All men without exception of any but Christ are transgressours of the Law not onely the unregenerate but the regenerate also Therefore no man whatsoever Christ excepted doth fulfill it The proposition needeth no proofe the assumption I have proved before and every mans Conscience giveth testimony to it for himself Or thus Whosoever is a fulfiller of the Law is without sinne No mortall man is or can bee without sinne Therefore no mortall man is or can bee a fulfiller of the Law § VII Secondly If any man could fulfill the Law he might bee justified thereby Rom. 2. 13. Gal. 3. 12. But no man whatsoever can be justified by the Law Gal. 2. 16. 3. 10 11. Rom. 3. 20. Therefore no man can fulfill it § VIII Thirdly Those who cannot fulfill the first commandement of the two and the last of the ten cannot fulfill the whole Law But no mortall man is able to fulfill the first and last commandements Therefore no mortall man is able to fulfill the whole Law The first which is the great commandement injoyneth us to love the Lord our God with all our soules c. which being legally understood no mortall man is able to fulfill For whosoever are in all the parts and faculties of the soule partly flesh and but partly Spirit they cannot love God with all their soules The most regenerate in this life are partly flesh and but partly Spirit in all the parts and faculties of the soule Therefore the most regenerate in this life cannot love God with all their soules that phrase being legally understood The last commandement forbiddeth all evill concupiscence whether habituall with which all men generally are infected or actuall from which none are free and those not such as are joyned with consent of the wil which are passions of lust for those are forbidden in the former commandements but such as goe before consent which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with which all men without exception doe abound Neither is the commandement thou shalt not consent to lust but thou shalt not lust that is thou shalt have no evill concupiscence which as Augustine saith ought not to be bridled onely but not to be for hee that hath concupiscences though he doth not goe after them doth not fulfill the Law thou shalt not coveâ—… § IX Fourthly by the testimony of Saint Peter Act. 15. 10. that the observation of the Law is not to be imposed upon Christians as necessary to justification as being a yoke which neither the Apostles nor their forefathers the Patriarches and Prophets were able to beare but that we are to be justified and saved by the grace of God through a lively faith which purifieth the heart Bellarmine answereth that the Apostle speaketh of the ceremoniall Law which wee doe not altogether deny But from hence wee argue as from the lesse If the ceremoniall Law were an unsupportable yoke how much more the morall For the ceremoniall Law in it selfe considered was not unsupportable nor required any thing exceeding the power of man For not onely the godly did performe it but hypocrites also who many times were more precise in observing the ceremonies than the godly themselves but as it was an appendice of the Law morall As for example Circumcision in it selfe though the most painefull ceremony might well bee borne But as by it men were made debtors to the whole Law in such sort as they could not be justified but were under the curse if they did not observe the whole Law it was a yoke unsupportable For in that sense the Apostle speaketh when he protesteth to the Galathians that if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing And in that sense as it seemeth it was urged by the beleeving Pharisees that it was needfull that the disciples meaning all the Christians of that time as well Gentiles as Iewes should bee circumcised and so required to keepe the Law otherwise they could not be justified nor saved And to that purpose tendeth Saint Peters speech That it was not needfull to require the beleeving Gentiles to be circumcised seeing it was well knowne that the Gentiles were first called by his ministery had truly beleeved and had received the holy Ghost who had purified their hearts by a lively faith by which without circumcision or other observations of the Law they were justified as well as the beleeving Iewes the Iewes also themselves expecting to bee justified and saved by the grace of the Lord Iesus Christ even as the Gentiles were without the workes of the Law as Paul also reasoneth Gal. 2. 15 16. § X. Fifthly by the testimony of Saint Paul and his experience in himselfe Rom. 7. 18. c. From whence I reason thus whosoever are not able to performe that which is good though by the grace of God they are willing to performe it they are not able to fulfill the Law But the faithfull and regenerate are not able to performe that which is good though by the grace of God â—…hey be willing thereunto Therefore they are not able to fulfill the Law The assumption is proved from the example of Saint Paul as it were an argument from the greater For if Saint Paul himselfe who in sanctity farre excelled any man now living did not finde in himselfe ability to performe that which was good but was so hindered by the flesh that the good which he would he did not how sholl those who are farre inferiour unto him bee able to doe it being the common condition of all the regenerate that by reason of the reluctation of the flesh they cannot doe those things they would Gal. 5. 17. § XI Sixthly the Apostle Rom. 8. 3. doth acknowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the impossibility of the Law namely to justifie us The reason whereof is not any defect in the Law it selfe but our impotencie to fulfill it by reason of the flesh for if it were possible for us to fulfill the Law it were possible to the Law to justifie us but it is not possible to the Law to justifie us by reason of the flesh and therefore by reason of the flesh it is not possible for us to fulfill the Law whiles the flesh remaineth in us as it alwayes doth remaine even untill death To these arguments if you shall adde the testimonies of the Fathers which in handling the sixth question I doe plentifully alleage you will acknowledge that besides the authority of Scriptures and evidence of reason we have the consent of antiquity that no mortall man is
is to say justified so also by infusion that is sanctified For the justifying faith being a lively and effectuall faith purifieth the heart and worketh by love and may be demonstrated by good works And where is not inherent righteousnesse concurring with faith there is no justifying faith at all But although sanctification doe alwaies accompany justification yet wee are not justified by the righteousnesse of sanctification which is inherent because it is unperfect and wee are sanctified but in part whiles we have the flesh that is the body of sinne remaining in us Neither was there ever any man since the fall absolute or perfect in respect of inherent righteousnesse Christ onely excepted § X. Yea but saith Bellarmine the Scripture acknowledgeth some men to have beene perfect Gen. 6. 9. immaculate Psal. 119. 1. just before God Luke 1. 6. I answere that this perfection is not legall as being a perfect conformity with the Law which is the perfect rule of righteousnesse but evangelical as being one of the properties of our new obedience which is not to bee measured by the perfect performance but by the sincere and upright desire and purpose of the heart For this uprightnesse goeth under the name of perfection and what is done with an upright heart is said to be done with a perfect heart and with the whole that is entire heart And likewise those men who were upright are said to have been perfect And yet notwithstanding all those men who are said in the Scriptures to have been perfect and to have walked before God with a perfect heart as Noah Iacob Iob David Ezâ—…kias c. had their imperfections Ezekias is said to have been a perfect man and to have served God with a perfect heart notwithstanding when God left him a little to try him he discovered his imperfections 2 Chr. 32. 25. 31. Of Asa it is said 2 Chron. 15. 17. that his heart was perfect all the dayes of his life and yet in the very next chapter there are three faults of his recorded where Zachary is said to have beene just before God and to have walked in all the Commandements and Ordinances of God blamelesse in the same chapter his incredulity is registred for which hee was stricken with dumbnesse and deafnesse for the space of tenne moneths So that all that are sincere and upright that is to say no hypocrits are notwithstanding their imperfections called perfect and so the word which is translated immaculate Psal. 119. 1. signifieth upright and to be righteous before God is all one with upright Thus the holy Ghost teacheth us to expound the word which is translated perfect viz. thamin and tham that to be upright is to walke before God is to walke before God and to walke before God is to be perfect Gen. 17. 1. Let perfection and uprightnesse preserve me Psal. 25. 21. Psal. 37. 37. Observe the perfect man and behold the upright for the end of that man is peace § XI Yea but Bellarmine will prove that these men which are in the Scriptures called just were endued with inherent righteousnesse because they brought forth good workes which were the fruits and effects of their inward righteousnesse for he that doth righteousnesse is righteous whom doth he now confute wee doe not deny them who are commended in the Scriptures for righteous persons to have been endued with righteousnesse inherent but wee deny that they or any of them were justified before God thereby As for example Abraham who abounded with good workes was justified by faith without workes Rom. 4. 2 3. and as hee was justified so are all the faithfull Rom. 4. 23 24. David though a man according to Gods own heart walking before him in truth and righteousnes and uprightnesse of heart yet professeth that neither he nor any man living could be justified if God should enter into judgement with them and therefore placeth his happinesse and justification notin his vertues or good works but in the not imputing of sin and imputation of righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4. 6. Paul though hee knew nothing by himselfe yet professeth that hee was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. Yea in the question of justification hee esteemeth his owne righteousnesse of no worth Phil. 3 8 9. But as wee doe not deny the faithfull to bee endued with inherent righteousnesse so we affirme that whosoever is justified by imputative righteousnesse is also sanctified in some measure with righteousnesse infused and inherent In respect whereof though they bee also sinnes in themselves by reason of their habituall corruptions and actuall transgressions being in part carnall and sold under sinne and by the Law which is in the members led captive to the Law of sinne yet they have their denomination from the better part Even as a wedge of metall wherein much drosse is mingled with Gold is called a wedge of Gold though not of pure Gold and an heape of Corne wherein is as much chaffe as Wheate is called an heape of Wheate though not of pure Wheate So the faithfull man in whom there is the flesh and body of sinne as well as the Spirit and regenerate part is called of the better part a righteous man though not perfectly absolutely purely just in respect of his righteousnesse inherent Indeed every true beleever so soone as he is indeed with a true justifying faith is perfectly just by righteousnesse imputed but at the best he is sanctified onely in part § XII His sixth testimony is taken out of Rom. 8. 29. and 1 Cor. 15. 49. where it is said that the just are conformable to the image of Christ and doe beare the image of the second Adam as they have borne the image of the first Adam from whence hee collecteth three reasons The first As Christ was just so are wee and as hee was not just so â—…re not we But Christ was just by inhâ—…rent rightâ—…ousnesse and not by imputatiâ—…n Therefore we are just by inherent righteâ—…usnesse and not by impâ—…tation The proposition he proveth by the places alleaged First I answer to the proofe of the proposition that the places alleaged are impertiâ—…ent For the question being of the righteousnesse of â—…ustification never any understood the Apostâ—…e in these places to speake thereof But either of filiation as Chrysostome and others understand the former plate because as Christ is the Sonne of God so also are wee or of afflictions because whom God hath predestinated to bee like his Sonne in glory they shall bee conformable to the image of his Sonne in bearing the Crosse which sence is given by our Writeâ—…s and is agreeable to the scope of the Apostle in that place to the Romans or of Glory that when he shall appeare wee shall bee like him in glory of which as Ambrose Sedulius and others understand Rom. 8. â—…9 fo the other place being read in the future as it ought to bee in
away unlesse light come in place And this saith he The Apostle manifestly sheweth when he saith David explaineth the blessednesse of a man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes Blâ—…ssed are they whose sinnes are forgiven Vbi saith Bellarmine ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae where the Apostle from the not imputing of sin gathereth the imputing of justice which is very true and proveth that here is a full definition of justification containing these two parts the not imputing of sinne to the beleever and imputing of righteousnesse or accepting of him as righteous But where is either the popish deletion of sinne or infusion of righteousnesse unlesse as they have turned remission into deletion so also imputation bee converted into infusion § V. To the proposition also Bellarmine answereth in part and first to the word covering that although to cover and not to impute sinnes is not if you respect the force of the word to abolish or to extinguish sinne yet if they be referred to God the sense importeth so much For nothing can bee bid from God unlesse it bee â—…tterly taken away for all things are naked and open before his eyes Reply Nothing can bee hid from God which hee would not have hid But if it please God to cover our sinnes that hee will not behold them Psalm 85. 2. or to hide his face from them Psal. 51. 9. to cast them behinde his backe Esai 38. 17. not to marke what is done amisse Psalm 130. 3. then hee is said not to see them because he taketh no notice of them but passeth by them Mic. 7. 18. In which sense Charity is said to cover sinnes Prov. 10. 12. § VI. To the word not imputing he saith that God cannot but impute sinne to him that remaâ—…neth a sinner neither can hee repute him righteous unlesse he be made righteous therefore â—…he not imputing of sinne draweth with it veram peccati remissionem that is the extinction of sinne and infusion of righteousnesse Reply he should have said as he said before the not imputing of sinne draweth with it imputing of righteousnesse or the acceptation of a man as righteous both which alwayes goe together because both are wrought together by imputation of Christs righteousnesse whereas therefore hee saith that God cannot but impute sinne where sinne still remaineth it is true of unbeleevers and impenitent sinners who are out of Christ but for them that bee in Christ that is to say beleeving and repentant sinners for whose sinnes Christ hath fully satisfied and whom though in themselves sinners hee hath accepted as righteous in Christ and for whom our Saviour maketh intercession that their sinnes may not be imputed to them hee cannot truly be said to impute sinne unto them It is true also that the Lord reputeth none righteous but such as he maketh righteous both by imputation of Christs righteousnesse and also by regeneration by imputation perfectly and at once by regeneration in part and by degrâ—…s they being not onely Spirit but flesh also in regard whereof though they be righteous in Christ yet in themselves they are sinners by reason of sinne remaining in them though in some measure mortified and not at all imputed So that a regenerate man in divers respects is both a righteous man and a sinner righteous not onely in Christ by imputation of his perfect righteousnesse but also in himselfe by inherent righteousnesse begun in him from which as is from the better part 〈◊〉 hath his denomination in the Scriptures a sinner also in himselfe both in respect of habituall sinnes remaining in him as the remnants of originall sinne and also in respect of actuall transgressions both of commission and of omission whereinto hee doth dayly fall § VII And whereas he saith that these phrases almost alwaies goe together and to that purpose citeth Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 51. 9 85. 2 and so Psal. 32. 1 2. I answere that deletion of sinne covering of sinne forgiving of sinne and the not imputing of it are used as synonima that is as words of the same signification and that in all such places deletion of sin doth signifie the blotting of them our of Gods remembrance which is as it were his record or debt booke Out of which when God forgiveth sinnes he blotteth or wipeth them out Thus to forgive sins is not to remember them Esai 43. 25. I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine owne sake and wil not remember thy sinnes Ier. 31. 34. I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sinne no more And to remember them is not to forgive them Ps. 109. 14. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembred with the Lord and let not the sinne of his Mother bee blotted out namely of remembrance that is let it not bee forgotten So Neh. 4. 5. Cover not their iniquity and let not their sin be blotted out before thee Ps 51. 9. hide thy face from my sins and blot out all mine iniquities and to the same purpose Psal. 85. 2. forgiving and covering are used in the same fence Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people thou hast covered all theiâ—… sinne and so Psal. 32. 1. 2. forgiving covering not imputing Deletion therefore of sinnes according to the Scriptures is the blotting of them out of the Booke of Gods remembrance In this sense many things are said deleri to bee blotted out or wiped away by oblivion whose memory is wiped out as it is said of the Amalekites Exod. 17. 14. and according to the vulgar Latine translation Deut. 31. 21. nulla delebit oblivio Esth. 9. 28. Eccl. 6. 4. Ierem. 20. 11. 23. 40. 50. 5. So that non imputare is all one with ignoscere 2 Tim. 4. 16. So Iob 42. 8. according to the vulgar Latine 2 Cbro 30. 19. Ezek. 33. 16. § VIII Now if not to impute sinne bee as Bellarmine sâ—…ith to expell sinne by infusion of righteousnesse for according to his concelt infusion of righteousnesse is not a consequent of the expulsion of sinne as here for a poore evasion he saith but expulsion of sinne is a consequent of infusion of righteousnesse for according to his assertion by infusion of righteousnesse sinne is expelled as by accession of light and heat cold and darkenesse is expelled I say if not to impute sinne bee to expell sinne by infusion of justice then by the rule of contraries which is Contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia to impute sinne shall bee to expell righteousnesse by infusion of sinne as it was well objected by Chemnitius To him Bellarmine objecteth want of Logicke for calling those contraria which are contradicentia Where by Bellarmines Logick adversa onely are contraria whereof notwithstanding there are foure sorts for if contraries bee such opposits as are opposed one to one onely then besides adversa as Tully termeth those which Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are three
For what will it profit a man saith St. Iames if hee shall say that hee hath faith and hath not workes will that faith save him For as the body without the Spirit is dead so that faith which is in profession onely and is without workes is dead § XVII But this reason of his hee doth illustrate by two unlike similitudes For saith hee even as fire because by its heat alone it heateth if from the fire were taken away all other qualityes which are by accident joyned with heat it would still without doubt heat And as a father because by the onely relation of paternity hee hath reference to his sonne if from him who is a father all other attributes were removed as knowledgen â—…bility power health beauty and in stead os them there should succeed ignorance basenesse weaknes sicknes deformity and among all these attributes paternity should remaine yet still that father should have relation to his sonne Even so because a Christian apprehendeth salvation by faith alone and unto it is referred by our adversaryes surely it followeth that faith remayning hee may be saved although hee have no good workes and have many ill Answ. In the former similitude hee compareth a Christian man to fire faith to heat and other graces and good workes to such other qualityes as in fire by accident concurre with heat In which similitude nothing is like For neither doth a Christian man justifie or save others by faith as fire by his heat doth heat other things neither is hee justified or saved by his faith as it is a quality inherent but as it is the hand to receive Christâ—… neither are other graces or duetyes of sanctification which wee call good workes to be compared with I know not what accidentall qualityes concurring with heat but to those unseparable qualityes of fire viz light and drynes For even in the fire that is inflamed there doe concurre necessarily with heat drynesse and light neither were it a true fire without them and yet the act of heating is to be ascribed to the heat of the fire properly and not to the light or drynesse of the element so in a true Christian that is justified there doth concurre necessarily with faith both other sanctifying graces answerable to the drynesse of the fire and also the light of a Christian conversation without which hee is not to be held a true Christian or truely justified and yet the act of justifying or saving is not to be ascribed either to other graces or to good workes but onely to faith receiving Christ or rather to Christ onely received by faith In the other similitude he compareth the reference which faith hath to salvation unto that relation with is betweene father and sonne But faith and salvation are no such relatives Neither are the graces of the sanctification or good workes to be compared to those accidentall adjuncts attributed to a father which may come and goe as being not necessary to the being of a father but rather to those properties of the humane nature as reason will understanding wit c. For although a man cannot become a father without these yet his being a father is not not to be ascribed to these § XVIII And whereas hee would seeme to take away the answeare of his adversaties who alleage that his supposition is impossible both because in his first booke he had proved that saith may truely and indeed be severed from charity and good workes and also because at least in conceit it may be severed from them which he saith is sufficient for the confirmation of an hypotheticall prâ—…position neither can his adversaries deny it who teach thah faith and workes have that relation which is betweene the cause and the effect Hereunto I reply First that I have formerly not onely answered his arguments which hee produced to this purpose but also proved by unanswereable arguments that true justifying faith cannot be severed from charity and good workes Secondly as I said even nowe his supposition implyeth a contradiction and therefore is impossible Impossible I say that workes being supposed to bee present necessitate presentiae should in the same speech be truely supposed to be absent Thirdly If Bellarmine can conceive that true justifying and saving faith may be without charity and good workes then hee may also conceive that that faith may save which is severed from charity and destitute of good workes His assumption I grant for wee teach according to the Scriptures that that faith which is alone severed from charity and good works doth justify or save neither alone nor at all and doe ascribe lesse to such a faith than the Papists themselves doe But his conclusion is faulty as contayning more than can be inferred upon the premisses that good workes are necessary not onely in regard of presence but also of some Efficiencie which was not so much as mentioned in the antecedent of the proposition which the conclusion should gainsay and say no more Thus much of the necessity of good workes CHAP. VI. Of the verity of the justice of works and of the possibilitie of fulfilling the Law § I. NOw Bellarmine will discourse of the truth of the justice of workes or of actuall righteousnesse And in this dispute he spendeth eigth Chapters But to what end for I feare hee wandreth still Hee had in the first booke propounded five principall arguments to prove that faith doth not justifie alone The Fifth and last was that good workes also doe justifie and therefore not faith alone This assertion hee laboureth to prove by divers arguments The first from the necessity of good workes which I have answeared The second from the verity of the justice of workes namely that the good workes of the faithfull and regenerate are truely good which wee doe not deny wee say indeed that the seeming good workes of men unregenerate are not truely good because an evill tree cannot bring forth good fruit But the good workes of the regenerate being the workes of grace and the fruits of the Spirit wee acknowledge to be truely good But will it hereupon followe that therfore they are or may be justified by workes Nothing lesse Hee must prove that the workes of the regenerate are not onely truely good but also purely and perfectly good and not onely that but that they are also perpetually and universally good For if they faile in any one particular as in many things we saith Iames the just offend all they cannot be justified by their obedience For hee that offendeâ—…h in one is guilty of the breach of the whole Law and is so farre from being justified by his obedience that by the sentence of the Law hee is accursed because he hath not continued in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them unlesse therfore he can prove that not onely some but all the workes of the faithfull are not onely truely but