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
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
and freeing of the second part SEcondly that man of himselfe and his owne nature vniust but now being endued with imputed iustice is pronounced Iust of God the truth of this sentence is plaine by these testimonies in which condemnation is opposed to iustification as Rom. 5.16 Iudgement verily of one vnto condemnation but grace of many offences vnto iustification And ver 8. As by the fall of one sinne entred vpon all men vnto condemnation so also by the iust-worke dicáioma of one iustice entred vpon all men vnto iustification of life And Chap. 8.33.34 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect It is God that iustifieth who is he that condemneth Against this proofe Bellarmine excepteth that the word Iustification doth not alwaies pertain to the iudgemēt place because it is opposed to condemnation For condemnation is sometime an effect of the fault which deserueth punishmēt And as Adam cōdemned vs not by iudging nor after the maner vsed in iudgement places but by imprinting originall blame but God hath condēned by iudging so Christ as the second Adam iustifieth vs by putting out our sinnes and infusing grace and secondly shal iustifie vs in the day of iudgment by declaring them iust whom he before hath made iust I answer First this exceptiō maketh nothing against the proofe brought from Rom. 8. For althogh the word condemning be not alwaies belonging to the iudgement place yet that it is so there is manifest by that which the Apostle saith Who shall accuse Gods elect Moreouer this exception corrupteth the place of the 5. Chapter both touching the words touching the sense For the Apostle saith not there either that Adam condemned vs or Christ iustifieth vs but saith by one offēce of Adam iudgemēt that is guiltinesse came vpon all men vnto cōdemnation likewise by the iust-iust-work dicaloma that is satisfactiō of Christ the gift that is iustice came vpon all men vnto iustification of life Where both condēnation iustification are referred vnto god as Iudge who may with right cōdemne all Adams natural childrē for the sin that he cōmitted who iustifieth them to whom he hath giuen iustice for the satisfaction sake of Christ Furthermore Bellarmines reasoning from a contrary sense or from a like reason of contraries stayeth vpon a false supposition to wit a false opposition of contraries For these are not opposite one to an other to imprint originall blame and to put out sins to wit from nature and infuse grace that is inherent iustice But these are opposite to imprint originall blame and to put out originall blame likewise to obtaine imputation of iustice And indeed as Adam imprinted by his fall original blame in all his children so Christ for those that pertaine vnto him hath put out that blame and obtained imputation of iustice by his satisfaction Moreouer although as Adam did not onely imprint blame in his posteritie but also by generation infused into them the very force of sinne so Christ also hath not onely put out the blame of the elect and obtained imputation of iustice for them but also regenerateth them by his holy spirit and by that regeneratiō putteth out the force of sinne and infuseth iustice or studie of good workes yet in that place of the Apostle he speaketh not of this benefite of Christ but onely of the other And of the benefit of regeneration or sanctification he entreateth afterwards in the 6.7 8. Chapter CHAP. VI. The confirmation and clearing of the third part THirdly that man is accounted for iust and pronounced iust of God in as much as God forgiueth him his sins for the satisfaction of Christ and therefore that iustification is no other thing then forgiuenesse of sinnes these sayings teach vs. Rom. 4.6.7.8 Dauid saith That blessed is that man to whom God imputeth iustice without works saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sinne In these words it is certaine that the full definition of Iustification is contained for of this the Apostle manifestly there entreateth to wit minding to teach how man is iustified before God as appeareth by comparing togither those things which go before from the 17. verse of the 1. Chapter vnto this place And he defineth Iustification here by imputation of iustice or that which he taketh for the same for giuenesse of sinnes A gainst this proofe Bellarmine excepteth that Paul alleageth not this testimonie of the Psalme 2. Booke of iustification Chap. 9. perfectly to define Iustification but onely to proue that true Iustification is the gift of God and cannot be gotten by our owne strength He also saith it may be answered that in these words a perfect definition is contained but intricately For forgiuenesse of sinnes saith he cannot be except iustice be infused euen as darknesse is not driuen away except light come in place therof Also by not imputing of sins saith he the Apostle gathereth imputing of iustice and by this teacheth that these two cannot be separated forgiuenesse of sinnes and giuing of iustice to wit inherent for this Bellarmine vnderstandeth I aunswere that Paul alleageth the testimonie of this Psalme perfectly to define Iustification is plaine by his drift and comparing togither things that went before as euen now we warned Wherefore Bellarmine feigneth here a false drift Whereupon it followeth that it is also false that heere is contained a perfect definition intricately to wit infusion of inherent iustice beeing vnderstoode herewithall as the other and that the principall part of iustification And although it be true that with iustifying faith inherent iustice is togither infused not perfect but begunne yet is it not true neither followeth it that this iustice is a part of that iustice whereby wee stand before the iudgement seate of GOD about which the Apostle dealeth in this place Besides Bellarmine maketh a false comparison For infusion of iustice is not so in respect of forgiuenesse of sinnes as infusion of light into the ayre to driue darkenesse out of the same but is so compared vnto the reall putting out of inhabiting sinne which the scripture calleth mortification of the flesh and of the olde man For how much as inherent iustice is infused that is how much as the spirit or new man is quickned so much is inhabiting sinne put out or the flesh and olde man mortified Moreouer Bellarmine falsly interpreteth the Apostles reasoning as thogh he gathered imputatiō of iustice by not imputing of sinnes as if it were some diuerse thing For the Apostle doth not gather here a diuerse thing frō a diuerse but proueth imputation of iustice by the testimonie of Dauid whereby appeareth that hee holdeth imputation of Iustice which he would prooue and not imputing of sinnes which is mentioned in the testimonie alleadged for one and the same thing For otherwise he should not proue his purpose For it were ready to except Thou art in hand
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
in that Chapter of renuing of nature but afterward in the Chapter following And the meaning of the place alleaged by comparing it vnto the former with which it agreeth may be perceiued to be this As Adams sinne reigned in his posterite vnto death because being imputed vnto thē it brought death that so the grace of God whereby he imputeth iustice to them that beleeue for Christs satisfaction reigneth in them vnto life eternall because iustice being imputed to them bringeth life eternall The third place is Rom. 6. Neither exhibit your members as weapons of iniquitie to sinne but exhibit your selues to God as liuing from the dead and your members weapons of iustice to God I answere This place speaketh not of Iustification the dispute whereof the Apostle ended in the 5. Chapter but treateth of sanctification Wherefore it maketh nothing to the matter The 4. place is Rom. 8. The spirit liueth for Iustification or as it is in the Greek the spirit of life for iustice Bellarmine addeth Iustification or iustice which maketh to liue and by this to worke cannot be for giuenesse of sinnes onely but some inward and inherent thing I answere Againe he bringeth a false exposition for neither speaketh he here of Iustification but of sanctification as is manifest by the things before and after And the meaning of the place is that the spirit of God dwelling in them that beleeue and are iustified by faith quickneth them as concerning study of iustice or good workes so that now they cease to giue themselues to sinne and contrariwise doo studie for iustice and good workes The 5. place is Gal. 3. If there had bene a law giuen that could haue giuen life surely iustice had bene by the law Here the Apostle sheweth openly saith Bellarmine that Iustice whereupon Iustification is called is something that giueth life to the soule and constituteth it in motion and action But I see not by what syllogisme Bellarmine gathereth this cōsequence from the Apostles words The meaning of the Apostle is If the law could giue life to man vnto whom it was giuē that is could giue him strength perfectly to fulfill or keep it then should mans iustice arise of the law that is man should be iust and counted of God for iust for the law by him obserued But by what force wil you conclude frō hence that iustification consisteth in that iustice which constituteth the soule in action that is in inherent iustice Yea the contrary may rather be frō hence concluded namely that iustification consisteth not in that iustice for that iustice which is required vnto iustification namely perfect obseruation of the law falleth not vnto man in this life The sixt place is 6. Place Ephes 4. Be renued in the spirit of your minde and put on the new man which according to God is created in iustice and holinesse of truth Where the Apostle calleth renuing iustice and holinesse I answere This place also maketh nothing to the matter seeing it speaketh not of iustification but of sanctification neither of the iustice of faith but of the iustice of workes which although it be not perfect and euery way absolute in the regenerate so as to answer in euery part to the law of God yet is it true and sincere and not feigned Three reasons To these arguments Bellarmine addeth three reasons which he calleth naturall which also we will consider The first reason is 1. Iustification without doubt is a certaine motion from sinne vnto iustice and hath it name from the thing whereunto it leadeth as all other the like motiōs inlightning warning c. True iustification therefore cannot be vnderstood except some iustice be gottē besides forgiuenesse of sinnes euen as it can 〈◊〉 either be true inlightning nor true warming if when darknesse is driuen away or cold expelled there follow no light and no heate in the subiect the body I answere Iustification it is in deed a kind of motion from sinne to iustice but not such as Bellarmine feigneth to wit such as inlightning and warning be For it is not the motion of expelling sinne and infusing iustice for this motion in scripture is not called Iustification but Regeneratiō Renouation Sanctification But it is the motion of forgiuing or remitting sinne and imputing iustice Now forgiuenesse of sinne and imputing of iustice differ onely in name indeed they are the same as appeareth by the Apostles words Rom. 4.6.7 as we haue declared elswhere And what other thing it is to driue out darknesse but to bring in light also what els to expell cold but to put in warmth Vnaptly therfore doth Bellarmine feigne that darkenesse may be driuen away and cold expelled although there follow no light nor heate in the subiect body The second reason 2. Iustification saith Bellarmine is not therefore onely giuen vs of God that we may escape the paines of hell but also that we may get the rewards of heauenly life But surely onely forgiuenesse of sinnes deliuereth from paine doth not giue glorie Which thing we see daily in ciuil iudgements For they that are quitted by the iudge are deliuered from death but they get not new rewards for this alone that they are iudged not to haue bene or not to be guiltie I deny the assumption For remission of sinnes doth not onely deliuer from paine to wit eternall death but also bringeth glorie or eternall life The reason of which thing is this that remission of sinnes wherein mans iustification consisteth is remission of all sinnes and therefore not onely of sinnes of committing but also of sinnes of omitting whereby it commeth that he to whome God forgiueth sinnes is so accounted of as if he had not only committed nothing which God hath forbidden in his law but also omitted nothing of that which he hath commanded and therefore as if he had perfectly fulfilled the law of God Now where the perfect fulfilling of the law is there also is life according to that The man that doeth these thinges shall liue in them Moreouer the example of ciuil iudgement which Bellarmine bringeth proueth not his assumption because that absolution is vnlike to the absolution of God For this is vniuersall to wit from all sinnes against the law of God but that is particular or special to wit frō some certaine crime or crimes against the politick lawes Notwithstanding the ciuil Iudge giueth vnto him whome he hath quitted from certaine crimes those rewards which hee hath promised to the innocent namely preseruation in life and defence although hee giue him no new and singular rewards which hee hath promised onely to certaine vertuous exploits And so God giueth eternall life as a reward to those vnto whome he hath promised it to wit vnto those that keepe his law such as he accounteth all those whose sinnes he hath forgiuen The third reason Iustification of enemies maketh friends children 〈◊〉 citizens with Saints of the houshold of God heyres of his kingdome Onely for