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
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
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
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
exact satisfaction of the debter himselfe THE SECOND Booke of Iustification VVherein the opinion of the Papists and proofes of the same are recited out of Bellarmines Booke and refuted CHAP. I. The Papists opinion recited which consisteth of foure parts HItherto hath bene the first part of our entēded disputation the opiniō of the professors of the Gospell touching Iustification the other part followeth to wit the opinion of the Papists The Papists opinion and sentence therefore Bellarmine deliuereth in these words 2. Booke of Iustification Chapter 2. that Iustification is the infusion of inherent iustice Also in the same booke Chap. 3. that it is a regeneration and renewing through the goodnesse of God made in vs by the lauer of Baptisme and sheading out of the holy Ghost Inherent iustice he maketh to consist in faith hope and charitie in the same booke Chap. 2. yet in an other place 1. booke of Iustice Chap. 2. in charitie onely Therefore in the same booke Chap. 13. and 2. booke Chap. 4. that faith iustifieth not onely but as the beginning and first roote of Iustification Also 2. booke of Iustification Chap. 6. that iustification consisteth not in onely forgiuenesse of sinnes Finally in the same booke Chap. 7. that Iustification consisteth not in imputation of Christes iustice All which things how he endeuoureth to proue let vs see after CHAP. II. The profe of the first part recited and refuted TO proue the first part That Iustification is the infusion of inherent iustice he bringeth these arguments 1. Argument The first argument saith he is taken from these words of the Apostle 2 Booke of iustificatiō chapt 3. Rom. 5. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obediēce of one many shall be made iust Hence Bellarmine inferreth that we are made iust by obteining inherent iustice both for that the Apostle saith shall be made iust and also for that he saith we are so made iust by Christes obediēce as we were made vniust by Adams disobedience But by Adams disobedience we are made vniust by iniustice cleauing within vs indeede I answere It foloweth not we are made iust therefore by obteining inherent iustice because we may be made iust by imputation of iustice And indeede the Apostle teacheth that we are made iust so Rom. 4.6 where he saith that Dauid affirmed the blessednesse of the man to whome God imputeth iustice But that comparison of the Apostle is wrested to a wrong sense for the Apostle would say As vnto all naturally borne of Adam iniustice is imputed for his disobedience so to all that beleeue in Christ and belong vnto Christ iustice is imputed for his obedience to wit wherewith hee obeyed his father in suffering the punishment for them And although it is true that Christ by that his obedience hath obteined also that iustice is infused into the elect by the regeneration of the holy Ghost as Adam by his disobedience caused that iniustice is infused into his posteritie by carnal generation neuerthelesse the Apostle speaketh not heere of that thing because heere he handleth not regeneration which he handleth in the 6.7 and 8. chapters but iustification The second argument for inherent iustice 2. Argument Bellarmine taketh frō Rom. 3. Iustified freely by his grace That is saith Bellarmine by iustice giuen infused of him I answere with them of sound iudgement that by the name grace here is not meant any infused or inherent gift but Gods fauour and good wil which he beareth towards vs. As in many other places in this disputation as is to be seene in the sayings recited before for to confirme the sixt part of the sentence of the professon of the Gospell Against this answere Bellarmine excepteth that gods fauour is explained inough by that word freely in that addition therfore by grace is signified the effect of his fauour Then saith he the prepositiō per by is not rightly applied to fauour that it be said God by his fauour iustifieth vs. Moreouer the good will of God effecteth that good which it willeth to any and Gods will is that we be truly iust and holy before him I answere Although Gods fauour he signified ynough by the word dorean a. freely yet because by that aduerb there is not expressed the author of this gift whereof we speake it pleased the Apostle for more full declaration sake to adde té autoú chariti by or through his that is Gods grace by a certaine apposition Then Bellarmine assumeth falsly that the Apostle heere vseth the preposition per .i. by Moreouer he frameth a false position when he saith the preposition per .i. by is not rightly applied to fauour For the cōtrary is gathered by th'Apostles words Eph. 1.6 where he saith to the praise of the glory of his grace in which en hé he hath made vs accepted c. Heere it is certaine by the name grace is vnderstood the favour or good will of God for this is the subiect of the praise whereof the Apostle treateth Then this also is manifest that en hé in which is put by an hebrue proprietie for di hes by which Lastly the good will of God effecteth in deed that we be truly holy but it effecteth not that we be perfectly holy in this life so as that we can stand in the iudgemēt of God by the holinesse inherent in vs but effecteth that we are counted for perfectly holy for the redemption made by Christ of which benefit the Apostle here properly speaketh as appeareth by his words The third argument he taketh from 1. Cor. 6. 3. Argument And such were ye but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are iustified Hence Bellarmine inferreth that iustification conteineth these two purgation or washing and sanctification I answere This consequence cannot be firmely drawen frō the Apostles words Then this is not the Aposties mind that sanctificatiō is part of iustification which may be gathered by this that in the Epistle to the Romanes hauing ended the disputation about Iustification he treateth of Sanctification apart by it selfe to wit in the 6.7 and 8. chapters And those three things by the sentence of the Apostle are thus compared among themselues First by the word washing he signifieth in generall metaphorically hoth the benefits of Christ to wit sanctification iustification which afterwards he addeth for speciall explication sake Moreouer the things that Bellarmine in this place doth further inferre from those words against forgiuenesse of sinnes and imputation of iustice shall more fitly be answered otherwhere The 4. argument he taketh from Tit. 3. When the bounty humanity of God our sauiour appeared not by works which we did but according to his mercy he saued vs by the lauer of regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost which he hath shed into vs abundātly through Iesus Christ our Sauiour that being iustified by his grace we may be heires according to the hope of eternal
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
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