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
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
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