A LEARNED AND PROFITABLE Treatise of man's justification. Two Books. Opposed to the Sophisms of Robert Bellarmine, jesuite. By john Piscator, professor of Divinity in the famous School of Nassovia Sigena. Imprinted at London by Thomas Creed, for Ralph jackson, dwelling in Paul's Chruch-yard at the sign of the Swan. 1599 TO THE REVEREND and renowned men, Daniel Tossanus, james Kimedoncius, and David Pareus: Doctors of sacred Theology, and professors in the famous University of Heidelberg: his high-esteemed brethren, greeting. WIth how great endeavour & subtly devised and writhed Sophisms, Robert Bellarmine jesuite, hath studied to cloak and defend the Popish errors: and contrariwise, to caluminate and refute the doctrine of the true teachers of the Gospel about Christian faith: it is known to them that have read with judgement, his disputations of the articles in controversy between the Papists and the Gospelers, whom he falsely calleth heretics. These disputations, when not long since they came also to my hands. I read them desirously, and was not a little grieved, when I saw the truth of the Gospel to be with such a show oppugned. And when I remembered how I heard of a credible man, that learned men addicted to the Popish religion, so greatly boasted of this Bellarmine, as if he were some Goliath of the Papists, that they feared not to say he was invincible: I began earnestly to desire that God would stir up many of the teachers of the Gospel, valiantly & happily to withstand the enterprises of this Goliath, & with the stone of God's word handsomely thrown out of the sling of true Logic, to fell him down, and finally, to kill him with his own sword. And I gave God thanks, that even then he had stirred up some learned men which had prosperously begun this fight with him: among whom first was known unto me, that famous man William whitaker's, who fought with him manfully and happily about the holy scripture, and purposed also to dispute against him about other chief points in controversy. God the father of our Lord jesus Christ, grant that what he hath holily purposed, he may prosperously bring to effect. But when as about the same time I was to write and propound for public disputation in the famous school of Nassovia Herborne, positions of justification, I thought it would be worth my labour, diligently to inquire into Bellarmine's sophisms, published concerning that article of faith, and to endeavour briefly & plainly to refute them. And by this occasion was this my writing brought forth, which now I publish abroad. Which when for the length thereof I saw not meet to be proposed for Positions publicly to be disputed of in the school, I then wrote and set out other positions of justification: and reserved this writing for a more fit time. It fell out about the same time, that the learned man Corradus Vorstius Agrippensis, created among you and of you a while after. Doctor of theology, desired by Letters mine opinion about soluting one or two of Bellarmine's sophisms in the controversy of justification: unto whom I sent to that end this writing: and withal, requested him to communicate it with learned men, of which your University hath store, and to know their judgements of it, and write me word. He therefore of late about Francfurt Mart, passing by Sigena, and for the friendship betwixt us, saluting me, told me how he had given you this writing of mine to read; and that you having read it, affirmed unto him that you liked all therein, and would exhort me to set it forth, distinguished into two Books and certain Chapters: which thing also he wrote of to me not long after from Heidelberg, and so stirred me up a fresh to divalge this writing. Now therefore cometh this my writing forth in the name of the Lord: and it cometh forth under your excellent name: for that I thought I should do conveniently, to offer this doctrine to be defended by them (together with myself) which had once approved it for a good and right opinion: and therewithal publicly to testify our holy consent in this heavenly truth. You therefore reverend brethren, take this my doing in good part: and valiantly defend as oft as need shall require, together with me, the truth of Christian doctrine delivered in this writing: to the glory of God's name, and profit of Christ's Church. To conclude, I commend you and your holy labours to God, the Father of our Lord jesus Christ. At Sigena, from the famous School of Nassovia, the 18. of December, 1594. Your Brother, john Piscator, of Argentine. OF MAN'S JUSTIFICATION before God. The first book. Wherein the judgement of the professors of the Gospel is recited, confirmed and defended from Bellarmine's exceptions. CHAP. I. Of the divers significations of the word justifying. WHen it is demanded, how a man may be justified before God: the word justify is taken two ways sometime for to make or to be made just: and sometime for to pronounce, or to be pronounced just. These two do consent and agree between themselves, as the cause efficient, and the effect. For God, being a just judge, pronounceth no man just, neither acquitteth any, but him whom he hath first made just. And God maketh a man just (whom he will pronounce just) by imputation of justice: that is, for so much as he imputeth justice to him, or (that which is all one) imputeth not sins unto him, but pardoneth & forgiveth them, Rom. 4. ver. 5.6.7.8. In the first signification, the word [justifying] is taken Rom. 4.5. where the Apostle saith, To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for justice. Hear God is said to justify the ungodly. But God pronounceth not the ungodly just, but maketh him just; and that whiles he imputeth justice unto him: as the Apostle teacheth in this place. And then at last pronounceth him just. And so the Apostle himself expoundeth the word justified, by to be made just. Rom. 5.19. In the latter signification it is taken Rom. 8.33. where the Apostle saith: Who shall accuse Gods elect? God is he that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? Hear, unto justification is manifestly opposed condemnation: whereby we may perceive that by that word here is signified judicial acquitting, whereby the judge pronounceth just and innocent the guilty party, (that is, him that is accused and brought to the judgement seat.) But, justification being taken this latter way, is again to be distinguished. For it is done either in this life, and that in justifying every one apart by himself and secretly: or after this life, in that universal day of judgement, in altogether and openly. For God hath set up his judgement seat in the conscience of man, in as much as he hath so endued man's mind with knowledge of just and unjust, that if he have done any unjust thing, his conscience of it own accord, as it were summoneth him to God's judgement seat, and accuseth him: and if he be by others accused unjustly, his conscience excuseth him. Rom. 2.15. 1. joh. 3.20.21. In this life therefore God justifieth or pronounceth man just, so far forth as he giveth testimony to his soul (by the holy Ghost, the word of grace being the means) of imputed justice, or of forgiveness of sins, and by consequence, of adoption, for the satisfaction sake of the mediator, Rom. 8.16. And in that day of judgement, Christ being appointed of the father judge of all, will with his mouth openly before all Angels and men, pronounce just, and crown with life eternal the reward of justice, all those that before were justified in this life, both by imputation of justice, and by that secret testimony of the holy Ghost. But the rest he will condemn as transgressors of the law, and punish them with eternal pains, Rom. 11.12.13.14.15.16. Mat. 25.31. etc. CHAP. II. The state of the controversy, and partition of this disputation. furthermore, about man's justification before God, being taken the first way, this question chief is controverted betwixt the professors of the Gospel, and the Papists, especially the jesuits: whether justificaion be infusing of justice, or whether it be imputing of justice? For the Papists say, that justification is infusing of justice: but the Gospelers say, that it is imputing of justice. We in the first place will declare and confirm the Gospelers opinion as true, and therefore first by nature: then will we recite and refute the opinion of the Papists. CHAP. III. The Gospelers opinion expounded by seven parts. WHen the Gospelers therefore say, that justification is imputing of justice, their meaning is, 1. that man by himself and his own nature unjust, is accounted for just: 2. and thereupon pronounced just of God: 3. in as much as he forgiveth him his sins for the satisfaction of Christ, performed for him: 4. and apprehended of him by faith: 5. and therefore that man is justified by faith only: because he is counted just, and by consequence pronounced just, for Christ's satisfaction only which is imputed to him by faith only: for that he doth not apprehend and apply it to himself, but by faith: 6. and so that man is justified, partly by God's grace or free love, with which he being moved, did ordain Christ to be satisfier or mediator for the elect: 7. partly by God's justice, whereby accepting Christ's satisfaction for the elect, he imputeth the same unto them: and thereupon receiveth them into favour, and adopteth them for sons and heirs of eternal life. The Gospelers opinion being thus declared, it followeth next that we confirm by testimonies of scripture all the parts thereof, and free it from the objections of the Papists. CHAP. FOUR The first part of the opinion expounded is confirmed, and the same confirmation freed from Bellarmine's exception. ANd first, that man by himself and of his own nature being unjust, is counted for just, Paul beareth witness Rom. 4.5.6. in these words, To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for justice: as also David declareth the blessedness of that man to whom God imputeth justice. The like sentences are in the same chapter, verse. 9.10.22.23.24. Against this proof Bellarmine excepteth: 2. Book of justification Chap. 9 that the word Impute in this place doth not signify a bare accounting: but an accounting whereunto the truth in the thing itself maketh answer, as is plain by these words, To him that worketh, wages is imputed, not according to grace, but according to debt. For it is certain, that to him that worketh, wages is due, not only in opinion and accounting, but in truth and in deed. I answer. Here Bellarmine first of all committeth the fault of falsehood, in as much as he inverteth the order of the Apostles words, that they may serve his purpose. For it is not in that place, To him that worketh, wages is imputed, not according to grace, etc. But it is, To him that worketh, wages is not imputed according to grace, etc. Neither may Bellarmine except, that it skilleth not, whither way the adverb of denial be there placed: because, howsoever it be there placed, yet in the opposition, the word Imputed, is to be repeated thus: But (the wages) is imputed according to debt. For by the very phrase we may perceive, that after the words [ou logizetai] is not imputed, these words must be understood [tout'estin ou didotai] that is, is not given: and therefore that in the opposition, the word [didotai] given, is to be understood, that the whole sentence is this: [to ergazomeno ho misthos ou logízetai, toutéstin on didotai cata chárin, alla dídotai cata tó opheílema:] that is; To him that worketh, wages is not imputed, that is to say, is not given according to grace: but is given according to debt. And if Bellarmine will not grant this * i. want of a word. ellipsis, he must confess that here is a manifest † i. abounding of a word. pleonasmus in the former part, and also a manifest i. abuse of a word. catachresis in the latter part. For if one say, Wages is not imputed: is not this as if he should say, Wages is not given according to grace? It is therefore a pleonasmus if one say, It is not imputed according to grace. Also if any say, Wages is not imputed, but is given according to debt: he speaketh properly. Therefore if one say, Wages is imputed according to debt: he (as touching the word imputed) speaketh improperly. Wherefore this place is not of force to shift off the other: in which it is plain by the Apostles words, that the proper signification of the word Imputed, is kept. For he saith, that Faith is imputed for justice to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly. Which what other thing is it, than that man is justified, not by debt or desert of his works, but by grace for Christ's satisfaction apprehended by faith? It is therefore nothing to the matter that Bellarmine saith: that wages is so imputed, that in the mean time it is due indeed. As though it were in the same respect said, that faith is imputed for justice. But even Bellarmine himself also teacheth, that faith is given to man of grace, and likewise, that justification of which we speak in this place: which he is wont to name the first. Whereupon doubtless it followeth, that neither faith nor this justification is owed to a man; seeing debt and grace are here manifestly set one against an other. And whereas Bellarmine saith, that by the word Imputing, is signified that accounting whereunto the truth in the thing itself maketh answer: it is truly said, if it be rightly understood. For to whom God imputeth justice, they are truly just; but by imputed justice, and not inherent; as Bellarmine understandeth. Even as he whose debts his surety hath paid to the creditor, oweth the creditor indeed nothing, though himself paid not his debts, neither had wherewith to pay them. CHAP. V The confirmation and freeing of the second part. SEcondly, that man of himself and his own nature unjust, but now being endued with imputed justice, is pronounced Just of God: the truth of this sentence is plain by these testimonies, in which condemnation is opposed to justification: as Rom. 5.16. judgement verily of one unto condemnation: but grace of many offences unto justification. And ver. 8. As by the fall of one, sin entered upon all men unto condemnation: so also by the iust-worke (dicáioma) of one, justice entered upon all men unto justification of life. And Chap. 8.33.34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? Against this proof Bellarmine excepteth: that the word justification doth not always pertain to the judgement place, because it is opposed to condemnation. For condemnation is sometime an effect of the fault which deserveth punishment. And as Adam condemned us, not by judging, nor after the manner used in judgement places, but by imprinting original blame, but God hath condemned by judging: so Christ as the second Adam, justifieth us by putting out our sins, and infusing grace: and secondly shall justify us in the day of judgement, by declaring them just whom he before hath made just. I answer. First this exception maketh nothing against the proof brought from Rom. 8. For although the word condemning be not always belonging to the judgement place; yet that it is so there, is manifest by that which the Apostle saith, Who shall accuse Gods elect? Moreover 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 us, or Christ justifieth us: but saith, by one offence of Adam, judgement, that is, guiltiness came upon all men unto condemnation: likewise by the iust-work (dicaloma) that is, satisfaction of Christ, the gift, that is, justice came upon all men, unto justification of life. Where both condemnation & justification are referred unto god as judge: who may with right condemn all Adam's natural children, for the sin that he committed; & who justifieth them to whom he hath given justice, for the satisfaction sake of Christ. Furthermore, Bellarmine's reasoning from a contrary sense, or from a like reason of contraries, stayeth upon a false supposition: to wit, a false opposition of contraries. For these are not opposite one to an other, to imprint original blame, and to put out sins, (to wit, from nature) and infuse grace, that is, inherent justice. But these are opposite, to imprint original blame, and, to put out original blame; likewise, to obtain imputation of justice. And indeed as Adam imprinted by his fall original blame in all his children, so Christ, for those that pertain unto him, hath put out that blame, and obtained imputation of justice by his satisfaction. Moreover, although as Adam did not only imprint blame in his posterity, but also by generation infused into them the very force of sin: so Christ also, hath not only put out the blame of the elect, and obtained imputation of justice for them, but also regenerateth them by his holy spirit, and by that regeneration, putteth out the force of sin, and infuseth justice or study of good works: yet in that place of the Apostle, he speaketh not of this benefit of Christ, but only 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 just, and pronounced just of God, in as much as God forgiveth him his sins for the satisfaction of Christ, and therefore that justification is no other thing than forgiveness of sins: these sayings teach us. Rom. 4.6.7.8. David saith, That blessed is that man, to whom God imputeth justice without works: saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin, In these words it is certain, that the full definition of justification is contained: for of this the Apostle manifestly there entreateth: to wit, minding to teach how man is justified before God, as appeareth by comparing together those things which go before, from the 17. verse of the 1. Chapter, unto this place. And he defineth justification here, by imputation of justice, or (that which he taketh for the same) forgiveness of sins. A 'gainst this proof, Bellarmine excepteth: that Paul allegeth not this testimony of the Psalm, 2. Book of justification. Chap. 9 perfectly to define justification: but only to prove, that true justification is the gift of God, and cannot be gotten by our own strength. He also saith, it may be answered, that in these words a perfect definition is contained, but intricately. For, forgiveness of sins, saith he, cannot be except justice be infused: even as darkness is not driven away, except light come in place thereof. Also: by not imputing of sins, saith he, the Apostle gathereth imputing of justice: and by this teacheth, that these two cannot be separated, forgiveness of sins and giving of justice, to wit, inherent; for this Bellarmine understandeth. I answer, that Paul allegeth the testimony of this Psalm perfectly to define justification, is plain by his drift, and comparing together things that went before: as even now we warned. Wherefore Bellarmine feigneth here a false drift. Whereupon it followeth, that it is also false, that here is contained a perfect definition intricately; to wit, infusion of inherent justice being understood herewithal, as the other, and that the principal part of justification. And although it be true, that with justifying faith, inherent justice is together infused, not perfect, but begun: yet is it not true, neither followeth it, that this justice is a part of that justice whereby we stand before the judgement seat of GOD, about which the Apostle dealeth in this place. Besides, Bellarmine maketh a false comparison. For infusion of justice is not so in respect of forgiveness of sins, as infusion of light into the air, to drive darkness out of the same: but is so compared unto the real putting out of inhabiting sin, which the scripture calleth mortification of the flesh and of the old man. For how much as inherent justice is infused, that is, how much as the spirit or new man is quickened: so much is inhabiting sin put out, or the flesh and old man mortified. Moreover, Bellarmine falsely interpreteth the Apostles reasoning; as though he gathered imputation of justice, by not imputing of sins, as if it were some diverse thing. For the Apostle doth not gather here a diverse thing from a diverse: but proveth imputation of justice by the testimony of David: whereby appeareth, that he holdeth imputation of justice (which he would prove) and not imputing of sins (which is mentioned in the testimony alleged) for one and the same thing. For otherwise he should not prove his purpose. For it were ready to except: Thou art in hand to prove imputation of justice: but David mentioneth not imputation of justice, but not imputing of sins: but these are divers. Wherefore by that testimony, thou hast yet proved nothing. Thus I say, might one except against the Apostles proof. Lastly, Bellarmine falsely expoundeth imputation of justice, by giving of justice, in as much as he understandeth inherent justice: seeing these be divers: neither is there any speech of inherent justice in this place: and finally, seeing it implieth a contradiction, for inherent justice to be imputed. But let us bring now more testimonies to confirm the sentence proposed: 2. Proof. viz. that man is justified, in as much as his sins are forgiven him, for the satisfaction of Christ. Rom. 3.25. Whom (to wit Christ) God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, etc. that he way be just, and justifying him that is of the faith of jesus. And Chapter 4.24.25. It shall he imputed unto us (to wit, faith for justice) which believe in him that raised up jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered to death for our faults, and raised up for our justification. And Chapter, 5.9. justified by his blood. And Chap. 10.6.7. The justice which is of faith, saith thus: Say not in thy heart, who shall go up to heaven? this is to bring Christ from on high: or, who shall go down into the deep? this is to bring Christ again from the dead. Gal. 2.20.21. I live by faith of the son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me: I do not abrogate the grace of God: for if justice be by the law, than Christ died in vain. Ephe. 1.6.7. God by his grace hath made us gracious in that beloved one, in whom we have redemption by his blood, even forgiveness of sins. Against these proofs some may except, that in these speeches mention is made indeed of Christ's satisfaction, as of the first moving and deserving cause, for which man is justified, and his sins forgiven him: but hence it followeth not that justification consists only in forgiveness of sins: because that Christ by his satisfaction, hath deserved and obtained of God for us, not only forgiveness of sins, but also the gift of the holy Ghost, which doth regenerate us, and infuse justice into us. I answer. That which is here said of Christ's merits, is indeed true: but yet in those speeches, is no speech of regeneration, but only of forgiveness of sins as the effect of Christ's satisfaction, and as the thing by which we are formally justified: as chief appeareth by that place, Eph. 1.6.7. Wherefore we must determine, that it is one and the same thing with the Apostle, for A man to be justified by the blood of Christ; and A man to have his sins forgiven for the blood of Christ. Let us add also an other place, 3. Proof. Act. 13.38.39. By this man (to wit Christ) is preached to you forgiveness of sins: and from all things from which ye could not be vistisfied by Moses law: by this man, every one that believeth is justified. Hear justification is manifestly defined, by forgiveness of sins. Bellarmine excepteth: 2. Book of justification. Chap. 12. He that believeth, to wit, as he ought: that is, by fulfilling all things which faith showeth should be fulfilled. For he that believeth a Physician, though a most skilful one, and that infallibly cureth, is not healed, except he receive the medicines that he appointeth. I answer. This is a jesutish gloss, confounding things diverse, that I say not adverse: to wit, to believe in Christ; and, to fulfil the law; or doubtless knitting a false consequence, as though the fulfilling of the law because it is joined with true faith, concurreth as a cause with the same to justification. Moreover, he deceiveth by the diverse signification of the word believe: as though to believe in Christ, were no other thing, then to believe Christ, that he is a most skilful Physician of souls, and curing infallibly, and in the mean time not to receive the medicines that he appointeth. But I say, that to believe in Christ, is by faith to receive and apply to ones self the medicines that Christ appointeth, namely his blood shed for us on the Cross, with feeling of the wrath of God. Bellarmine addeth: though the Apostle in this place nameth only the forgiveness of sins, yet is it no let, but justification may be understood to consist in forgiveness of sins, & infusion of justice, For, forgiveness of sins is not only forgiving of the punishment, but is the washing away & cleansing of the fault: which washing and cleansing is not, except there succeed the brightness of grace & comeliness of justice. I answer. That the Apostle in this place defineth justification by forgiveness of sins only, is manifest, partly by the consequence of sentences, whereof one is added to an other, as explaining the same: partly by the very phrase, to be justified from sins: which is no other thing, then to be absolved from sins committed, & by consequence, to obtain forgiveness of sins. Moreover, it is unfitly distinguished by Bellarmine, as things diverse and separable one from an other, Forgiveness of the punishment, and, cleansing of the fault: when as cleansing or rather forgiving of the fault, is no other thing than deliverance from the punishment: for he is said to forgive the fault, that will not inflict deserved punishment for the fault. Besides, he confoundeth cleansing of the fault, with cleansing of inhabiting sin, which is by regeneration: seeing unto the cleansing of the fault, he opposeth the brightness of grace and comeliness or seemliness of justice to wit, inherent. Finally, he hideth a false consequence, in that he saith; The cleansing of the fault is not, except there succeed the brightness of grace and comeliness of justice. By which words he insinuateth, if justification consist in forgiveness of sins: and this is the cleansing of the fault: and this cleansing is not, except there succeed inherent justice: it followeth, that inherent justice also is part of that justice wherewith man is formally justified. But it is not necessary, that inherent justice should be part of that justice wherewith man is justified, although that justice wherewith man is justified, befall no man (that is grown to years of discretion) without the gift of inherent justice. But Bellarmine further excepteth, Although, saith he, in this place mention only should be made of justifying from sin: yet in many other places, mention is made of sanctification, cleansing, washing, renewing and the like, which show the other part of justification. I answer. It seemeth, Bellarmine by the very phrase of this place, to be justified from things, understood, that speech here properly was of justification from sins: that is, of forgiveness of sins: but lest he should hurt his cause, he will not freely confess this. Then, in that he saith, mention is made in other places of sanctification or renewing, it maketh nothing to the matter. For there is indeed mention made thereof every where: but not as part of justification, as here Bellarmine by begging the question doth affirm. Yet Bellarmine proceedeth in his exception. That from which ye could not be justified in the law of Moses, signifieth, saith he, that the observation of the law, presumed on by our own strength, or by the help of the law only doth not justify: not that the true observation of the law is not justice; but that the law cannot be kept, before forgiveness of sins. For when God by Christ's merits reconcileth any, he together, both forgiveth him his sins, and infuseth charity, by which he keepeth the commandments of the law. I answer. Whatsoever that signifieth, To be justified in the law of Moses: the Apostle saith clearly, that the jews to whom he speaketh, could not be justified in Moses law: which thing also Peter affirmeth of the fathers, Act. 15. where he saith, that the law was a yoke, that neither they nor their fathers could bear. And who skilful in the holy story, knoweth not, that there were among the fathers some godly, and therefore endued with forgiveness of sins and the gift of regeneration? And yet they, as Peter witnesseth, could not bear the yoke of the law, that is, by keeping of the law, be justified from their sins. Also who dare affirm, that none of those jews whom Paul then spoke unto, was endued with true faith in Christ to come, although as yet they knew not who he was: and therefore 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 jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: and that they persuaded 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 justified. Wherefore that which Bellarmine saith, that the true keeping of the law is justice, is true: but it is not true which he understandeth and insinuateth in the words following, namely, that they which have received of GOD, forgiveness of sins, and the gift of charity, can perform the true, (that is, perfect) observation of the law; so that by that justice of the law, they can stand in the judgement of God. another place for a sentence there is, 4. Proof. Luk. 18. where the Publican is said to be justified, when only he had asked forgiveness of sins, saying, O God be merciful unto me a sinner. Contrariwise, the Pharisee preaching the gifts of God bestowed on him, and giving thanks, went away not justified. Therefore justification consisteth not in gifts and good works, though done through God's help, but only in forgiveness of sins. In the place before cited. Against this proof Bellarmineexcepteth thus: when the Publican said, O God be merciful to me a sinner, he asked not only forgiveness of the debt, as though he would be unrighteous, yet not so accounted of GOD, nor punished: but he asked whole reconciliation; and the same he obtained. Whereupon, our Lord concludeth the 〈◊〉: This man went away justified from him, for every one that humbleth himself, shall be exalted: and he that exalteth himself, shall be humbled. The exaltation of the humble and penitent publican, signifieth doubtless somewhat more then only forgiveness of his offence. For they are not said to be exalted, whose debts are forgiven: but which are advanced unto degrees and honours. Therefore the publican is for this said to be exalted, because of a sinner he was suddenly made just; of the servant of sin, the servant of justice; of the child of the devil, the child of God. Moreover, the Pharisee, deserved to be set after the Publican, not because he rehearsed the gifts of God, and gave the Lord thanks: but because he was full of the swelling of pride, and trusted in his own justice, so as that he would not crave any thing to beadded to him, nothing to be forgiven him: beside also he contemned the humble Publican. I answer. Bellarmine doth here crookedly cavil at the sentence of the professors of the Gospel, as if they did teach that such shall receive forgiveness of sins, as will yet be unrighteous: or as if such a purpose can stand with earnest suit for remission of sins. And where he saith, that the Publican when he said, God be merciful unto me a sinner, asked not only forgiveness of his debt: what is this but to wrest clear words from their simple sense? Also, what meaneth this, that Bellarmine opposeth whole reconciliation unto forgiveness of debt? As though that forgiving of debt, or remission of sins, were not a whole, but only a half reconciliation, against the manifest testimonies of scripture: Rom. 5.9.10. Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved now much more by him from wrath; for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son: much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Hear it is manifest, that to be reconciled unto God, is the same that to be justified of God, as may be perceived 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 himself, not imputing to them their sins. Behold whether the Apostle doth not expressly define reconciliation wherewith we are reconciled unto God, by forgiveness of sins? And whereas Bellarmine interpreteth that clause, Every one that humbleth himself, etc. so as if the Lord would define what it is to be justified: he misseth the mark: for the Lord had no other purpose, then by that proverbial sentence, to confirm that special twofold example, the one of a man justified, the other of a man not obtaining justification. Likewise, where he interpreteth to be exalted, of infusion of justice, he useth a fallacy of the consequent, reasoning from the gerall to the special, affirmatively, thus; To be justified is to be exalted: therefore it is, to be exalted by infusion of inherent justice. But though it be true, that he which is justified, is exalted not only by adoption, but also by regeneration: yet hence it followeth not, that justification is the same that regeneration. Moreover, Bellarmine in this place contradicteth himself, whiles now he granteth, that forgiveness of sin is signified by exaltation, and strait way denieth that they are said to be exalted whose debts are forgiven. Lastly, as touching the Pharisee: it is true, that for spiritual pride and trust in his own justice, he was repulsed from God: but in the mean time, this also is true, that the Lord would teach by this example, that this pride is an unseparable companion of that desire whereby men seek justice in their own works. Neither is Zacheus, Luk. 19 (which example Bellarmine objecteth) said to be justified by good works: although when he promised good works, the Lord said unto him, To day is salvation come to this house: but only the sincerity of his faith is after this manner commended by the effects. And the cause of Zacheus salvation, is showed in the words immediately following; for he saith, To day is salvation come to this house, for that he also is the son of Abraham: to wit, infisting in the steps of Abraham's faith, as Paul interpreteth this sonship, Rom. 4.12. For as touching the flesh, many were Abraham's sons, to whom notwithstanding salvation came not. And king Ezechias, (which example Bellarmine addeth) although he showed his good works with a sincere heart: yet he thought not, that he was by them just before the judgement seat of God: like as Paul said, I know nothing by myself; but I am not hereby justified. CHAP. VII. The confirmation of the fourth part. FOurthly, that man is justified by faith, in as much as by faith he layeth hold on, and apply to himself Christ's satisfaction, may be perceived by these sayings, Rom. 3.24.25. They are justified by the redemption made in Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood. And chap. 4.24.25. It shall be imputed to us (to wit, faith for justice) which believe in him that raised up our Lord jesus from the dead: which was delivered to death for our faults, and raised up for our justification. And chap. 10.6.7. The justice which is of faith, saith thus. Say not in thy heart, who shall go up into heaven? this is to bring Christ from above. Or, who shall go down into the deep? this is to bring Christ again from the dead. Gal. 2.20. I live by faith of the son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me, etc. Rom. 4.5. To him that worketh not, but beleeneth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for justice. Where it is manifest, that by the name faith, by a metonymy of the adjoint, is to be understood any thing which is by faith imputed to a man for justice. For to speak 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 Christ's satisfaction which faith apprehendeth is without a man: whereby it cometh to pass, that it is imputed unto 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 himself. CHAP. VIII. The confirmation and clearing of the fift part. FIftly, that man is justified by faith only, that is, for the only satisfaction of Christ apprehended by faith: and not partly by faith, that is, for Christ's satisfaction imputed; and partly by works, that is, for inherent justice: may be gathered by the sayings following, which teach that a man is justified without works. Rom. 3.27. Where is then the rejoicing? It is excluded. By what law? of works? no; but by the law of faith. And by and by, verse, 28. We conclude therefore, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. And Chap. 4.2. If Abraham our father were justified by works, he hath wherein to rejoice, but not with God. Gal. 2.16. Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of jesus Christ: we also have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. Eph. 2.8.9. By grace ye are saved through faith, not of works. Tit. 3.5. Not of just works which we had done, but of his own mercy he saved us, etc. Phil. 3.9. That I may be found in him, not having my own justice which is of the law, but that which is by faith of Christ. Unto those sayings wherein works are opposed to faith, I. Book of justification. Chap. 19 Bellarmine excepteth first in general or in common, that by works which are opposed to faith, & excluded from justification, are understood works which go before faith, & which are done by the only strength of free-will, & not all absolutely. And this he saith may be proved from 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 himself, saith he, what should be understood by works which are opposed to faith: and saith, that he calleth them works, to which that which is given is wages, not grace. And such be not any, but those that are done by the only strength of free-will. For that which is given 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 than wages. Thus saith Bellarmine. I answer. It is false, that Pault should here say, he calleth them works, to which that which is given is wages, not grace: that is, which are done by the only strength of free-will. For, that he speaketh of works in general, whether they be done by the strength of free-will or by grace, appeareth by this, that he entreateth there of Abraham's works, those which he had done of grace and faith, as that he was obedient to God's commandment, and trusting upon his promise, left his country of Chaldea, and went into a land which God was to show him: also, that he refused not to offer his only son Isaak at God's commandment: for these are those works wherein he might rejoice and boast with men. And from these works doth Pault derogate justification before God, by this argument which is taken from the general; for that to him that worketh, wages is given as by debt, and is not imputed, that is, not given of grace: but to Abraham justice was imputed. And whereas Bellarmine faith: that which is given to works which be done of grace, is partly wages, parley grace: therein he feigneth, that things immediately adverse, may stand together; 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 together; and also Chap. 11.6. where he saith, If by grace (to wit, there be a reservation of certain jews that are justified) it is not now of works, (that is, deserts of works) otherwise were no more grace. But if of works: than not now of grace: otherwise works were no more works. But Bellarmine having first set down that general answer, Bellarmine's exception against that place. Ro. 3 27. maketh answer afterward unto every of those sayings. And first unto that place, Rom. 3.27. he answereth, that the rejoicing of the jews is excluded by the law of of faith, not by the law of deeds: because man is justified of grace, which first of all inspireth faith, then by faith, leadeth unto mercy and good works: and is not justified by the law of deeds, that is by the only knowledge of the law, & strength of free will. I answer. Although God's grace whereby a man is justified, leadeth him by faith unto good works: yet is not in that respect man said to be justified by faith (as Bellarmine insinuateth) because of faith he doth good works, but he is said to be justified by faith, because by faith he layeth hold on Christ's satisfaction, for which only he is justified. Moreover, it is false, that the Apostle understandeth those works only which are done according to God's law, by the strength of free will. For it is plain by Abraham's example, which he presently addeth to this sentence, by a prolepsis in the beginning of the chapter following, that he speaketh of those works that are done of grace and faith. Against this answer, Bellarmine excepteth: that the Apostle saith not, where is the rejoicing? but, where is the rejoicing? that is, where is the rejoicing, wherewith thou rejoicest in thyself and not in the Lord? And of works done of faith, and thereby of grace; seeing faith is of grace; none can rejoice but in the Lord. Which rejoicing is not forbidden, seeing the same Apostle saith, He that rejoiceth, let him rejoice in the Lord. I answer. That pronoun, thy, is not in the Greek. Nevertheless, by the very matter it appeareth, that it must be understood. Then, that there is no need the pronoun should be so expounded, as Bellarmine doth; for rejoicing is rightly said to be his that rejoiceth; whether he rejoice in himself, or in an other. Lastly (that which is chief to be marked) the Apostle speaketh of rejoicing wherewith any may truly rejoice, that he is just by inherent justice, bred of perfect observation of the commandments of the law, whether he perform this observation of natural strength, or of God's singular grace. And such rejoicing no man hath: because all have transgressed the law, and they which begin to observe it by God's singular grace, yet can they not (in this life) observe it perfectly, so as for that observation they can be counted just of God. In the mean while it is true, that it is lawful for the godly to rejoice in the Lord: but so far forth as they rejoice not falsely: and they should falsely rejoice, if they should say, that they can by God's grace perfectly fulfil the law, so as by fulfilling thereof, they may be just before God. The second place from Rom. 3.28. We gather that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law: Bellarmine passeth over in silence, and answereth nothing to it in special. But in the second place he answereth unto that saying, Rom. 4.2. of Abraham: and withal, unto the rest of the places before recited. He saith therefore, Exception against the other places before recited. that Abraham was justified by faith, not by works that went before faith. And the same he answereth unto the places following, Gal. 2. Eph. 2. Tit. 3. for in all those places, are excluded only works done before faith. I answer. The Apostle derogateth justification not only from those works which are done before faith, but also from those which are done after faith. For he speaketh of Abraham's works, which are mentioned in scripture for to show his uprightness, as, that he obeyed God, going out of his own country, and offering his son. But the works which Abraham did before faith, are mentioned in the scripture, not as such whereof he might rejoice, but as such whereof he might worthily be ashamed: namely, that he served strange gods, Josh. 24.2. Also in Gal. 2. he speaketh in general of the works of the law, wherein the jews exercised themselves, among whom were many regenerate, and endued with faith of Christ, as cannot be denied: although they knew not, that that jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, and that justice should be imputed to them that believe 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 observed, it will be evident, that here are contained exclusive particles, equivalent to that exclusive particle [only.] For it is, as if he should say; Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law: that is, but by the faith of jesus Christ, etc. And these are equivalent, Not to be justified but by faith, and to be justified by faith only. Besides, although Eph. 2. and Tit. 3. he taketh away justification from works done before faith, yet by this he doth not ascribe it to works done after faith. Against this answer Bellarmine excepteth, that the Apostle when he saith, Abraham was justified by faith, not by works; doth not reject the works done by faith, but affirmeth them not to be done without faith: for if they had been such, they had never justified him, therefore he excludeth (saith he) the works which Abraham could have done, not of faith. But what is to mingle darkness with the clear light, if this be not? The Apostle openly denieth that Abraham was justified with God by works: & speaketh of works done by faith, as we have now twice showed: and yet Bellarmine dareth to say, that the Apostle rejecteth not (to wit, from Abraham's justification) works done of faith. Then what meaneth Bellarmine when he saith, the Apostle affirmeth that Abraham's works were not done without faith: for if they had been such, they had never justified him. But where doth the Apostle affirm this? And doth not now Bellarmine contradict himself: which affirmeth here, that the Apostle speaketh of Abraham's works done of faith: when yet before he said, in all those places, speech was of works done before faith? Also, doth he not straightway in the words following again contradict himself, when he saith, that the Apostle excludeth works which Abraham could have done, not of faith? Besides, Bellarmine saith, that the Apostle speaketh with condition, namely thus: If Abraham 〈◊〉 justified by works not proceeding from the grace of faith: surely he had rejoicing, but not with god. And because it is manifest enough (saith he) that Abraham had rejoicing also with god, thereupon the Apostle gathereth, that he was not justified by works without faith, but by faith whereof good works truly proceed. I answer. Bellarmine perverteth the meaning of the Apostles words, in feigning unto him such a syllogism: ye openly contradicteth the Apostles words. For the Apostle denieth that Abraham had rejoicing with God: but Bellarmine affirmeth it. And that Bellarmine's syllogism is feigned, appeareth by coherence of sencences. For when the Apostle had recited the objection of the jews drawn from Abraham's example, as if he had obtained the praise of justice by works: he answereth by distinction: granting that Abraham got that praise with men but not with God. Then, if in this place there were an hypothetical or connex syllogism, it should be such as this: If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to rejoice with God. But he hath not whereof to rejoice with God. Therefore he was not justified by works. The assumption of which syllogism, plainly contradicteth the assumption of Bellarmine's syllogism: and the conclusion is diverse from the conclusion of Bellarmine's syllogism; because it speaketh of works in general, when Bellarmine's speaketh only of works done without faith. Unto the last place, Exception against the place, Phil. 3.9. from Phil. 3. Bellarmine answereth: that those works are called the justice of the law, which are done through knowledge of the law, by the only strength of nature. I answer. By that which the Apostle signifieth, that he trusted not in the justice of works which he had done by the only strength of nature, it cannot firmly be gathered, that he trusted in the justice of works which he had done of faith. Yea he openly signifieth, that he trusted in the only justice of faith. And this is the justice which is imputed to man by faith, as he teacheth Rom. 4.5.6. and not the justice of works done of faith, inherent in a man. And in an other place speaking of this inherent justice, he saith, I know nothing by myself: but I am not hereby justified. CHAP. IX. The confirmation and clearing of the sixth part. HItherto of the fifth part of the sentence proposed: now followeth of the sixth, that man is justified by the grace or free love of God; in as much as God hath of favour to man, ordained Christ for a Mediator or satisfactor: according to these sayings. Act: 15.11. By the grace of our Lord jesus Christ, we believe that we shall be saved even as they. Rom. 3.24. Are justified freely by his grace, by the redemption made in jesus Christ. Rom. 4.16. Therefore the inheritance is of faith, that it may be by grace: Rom. 5.15. If by the fall of that one, many are dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And verse. 17. they which receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of justice shall reign in life through one, that is, jesus Christ. And vers. 21. So grace might reign by justice unto-eternall life, through jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 11.5. Even 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 justice be by the law, than Christ died in vain. Gal. 5.4. Ye are abolished from Grist whosoever are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace. Eph. 1.5.6.7. Who hath predestinate us to be adopted through jesus Christ, unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will't to the praise of the glory of his grace: wherewith he hath made us accepted in his beloved: by whom we have redemption through his blood, etc. Eph. 2.8. By grace ye are saved, etc. Tit. 3.7. That we being justified by his grace, should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. In all these speeches, the word Grace, signifieth the favour of God, wherewith he accepteth his elect. 2. Book of justification. Chap. 3. Against this, Bellarmine excepteth: that justifying grace is not only the favour of God, but a gift inherent in the mind, as may be understood (saith he) by the diverse attributes and names thereof. For it is called the gift which we receive, Rom. 5.17. receiving the abundance of the grace and gift. Also it is said, to be given by Christ. Grace and truth is made by jesus Christ. joh. 1. Now it is not rightly said, that the good will of God the Father is made by Christ. Also it is said to be given of Christ by measure: To every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Eph: 4. But the good will of God is not, given by measure, neither of Christ. Also, it is compared to the being which is given by creation. For thereof 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 justice with iniquity? What fellowship hath light with darkness? Eph. 5. Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are light in the Lord. 1. joh. 2. He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in darkness. But certes light maketh not a lucid body, except it be inherent, neither suffereth darkness with it. Besides, the grace by which the Apostle saith we are justified, is called also, love shed in our hearts by the holy Ghost. Rom. 5. Also, by justifying grace, we are said to live. Rom. 8. the spirit liveth for justification. But we cannot be rightly said to live by the outward favour of God: when nothing is more inward than life is. I answer. Rom. 5.17. the grace and the gift, of justice are openly distinguished: therefore the gift is not there called the grace, as Bellarmine saith. Then, there is there no speech of inherent justice, as Bellarmine would: but of the justice which God giveth, & of the grace or favour he imputeth: for the Apostle speaketh of the same justice that before. Rom. 4.6. where he said, justice was imputed. joh. 1. The name of Grace signifieth the benefit of redemption, by a metonymy of the cause efficient: but thereof it followeth not, that it is taken after the same manner in the sayings rehearsed. As neither from the saying, Eph. 4. where the name Grace, signifieth some spiritual 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 justification, but of regeneration. And in that saying, Rom. 5. Love is shed, etc., is not meant the love which is inherent, in us, and wherewith we love God; but wherewith God loved us: as is plain by comparing it with the 8. verse, where it is said, God commendeth his love towards us, etc. Finally, Rom. 8.10. he speaketh not of justification, but of sanctification, neither is there the name justification as Bellarmine falsely allegeth; but the name of justice, whereby is there meant, a just and holy life: as may appear by the whole context and scope of that place: and not that justice whereby a man standeth before the judgement seat of GOD; the disputation of which matter, the Apostle finished in the end of the sift Chapter. CHAP. X. The confirmation of the seventh part. THere remaineth the seventh part of the sentence propounded, to wit, that man is justified by the justice of God, whereby he accepteth Christ's satisfaction for the elect. Of this Paul testifieth, Rom. 3.25.26. Where he saith, Whom (to wit Christ) God hath set forth to be are conciliation through faith in his blood to declare his justice, by the forgiveness of the sins, that are passed through the patience of God, to show at this time his justice, that he might be just and a justifier of him which is of the faith of jesus. By which words the Apostle teacheth, that God declareth his justice, in as much as he forgiveth sins to them for whom Christ hath satisfied, namely the believers. For it is the part of justice, to be content, if satisfaction be made for the debt by a surety, and not to exact satisfaction of the debtor himself. THE SECOND Book of justification. Wherein the opinion of the Papists, and proofs of the same, are recited out of Bellarmine's Book, and refuted. CHAP. I. The Papists opinion recited: which consisteth of four parts. HItherto hath been the first part of our intended disputation, the opinion of the professors of the Gospel, touching justification: the other part followeth, to wit, the opinion of the Papists. The Papists opinion and sentence therefore, Bellarmine delivereth in these words, (2. Book of justification, Chapter 2.) that justification is the infusion of inherent justice. Also (in the same book, Chap. 3.) that it is a regeneration and renewing through the goodness of God, made in us by the laver of Baptism and shedding out of the holy Ghost. Inherent justice he maketh to consist in faith, hope and charity: (in the same book, Chap. 2.) yet in an other place (1. book of justice, Chap. 2.) in charity only. Therefore (in the same book Chap. 13. and 2. book. Chap. 4.) that faith justifieth, not only, but as the beginning and first root of justification. Also (2. book of justification. Chap. 6.) that justification consisteth not in only forgiveness of sins. Finally, (in the same book, Chap. 7.) that justification consisteth not in imputation of Christ's justice. All which things how he endeavoureth to prove, let us see after. CHAP. II. The proof of the first part recited and refuted. TO prove the first part, That justification is the infusion of inherent justice, he bringeth these arguments. 1. Argument. The first argument (saith he) is taken from these words of the Apostle, 2 Book of justification chapt. 3. Rom. 5. As by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. Hence Bellarmine inferreth, that we are made just by obtaining inherent justice, both for that the Apostle saith, shall be made just: and also, for that he saith, we are so made just by Christ's obedience, as we were made unjust by Adam's disobedience. But by Adam's disobedience we are made unjust, by injustice cleaving within us indeed. I answer. It followeth not: we are made just; therefore by obtaining inherent justice: because we may be made just by imputation of justice. And indeed the Apostle teacheth that we are made just so, Rom. 4.6. where he saith, that David affirmed the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth justice. But that comparison of the Apostle, is wrested to a wrong sense: for the Apostle would say; As unto all naturally borne of Adam injustice is imputed for his disobedience: so to all that believe in Christ, and belong unto Christ, justice is imputed for his obedience, to wit, wherewith he obeyed his father, in suffering the punishment for them. And although it is true, that Christ by that his obedience, hath obtained also that justice is infused into the elect by the regeneration of the holy Ghost; as Adam by his disobedience caused that injustice is infused into his posterity by carnal generation: nevertheless the Apostle speaketh not here of that thing, because here he handleth not regeneration (which he handleth in the 6.7. and 8. chapters) but justification. The second argument for inherent justice, 2. Argument. Bellarmine taketh from Rom. 3. justified freely by his grace. That is (saith Bellarmine) by justice given & infused of him. I answer with them of sound judgement: that by the name grace, here is not meant any infused or inherent gift, but God's favour and good will which he beareth towards us. As in many other places in this disputation: as is to be seen in the sayings recited before, for to confirm the sixth part of the sentence of the professon of the Gospel. Against this answer Bellarmine excepteth: that god's favour is explained enough by that word, freely; in that addition therefore, by grace, is signified the effect of his favour. Then (saith he) the preposition per, by, is not rightly applied to favour, that it be said, God by his favour justifieth us. Moreover, the good will of God effecteth that good which it willeth to any; and Gods will is, that we be truly just and holy before him. I answer. Although God's favour he signified enough by the word [dorean, a. freely] yet because by that adverb there is not expressed the author of this gift whereof we speak; it pleased the Apostle for more full declaration sake to add, té autoú chariti, by, (or through) his, (that is, Gods) grace; by a certain apposition. Then, Bellarmine assumeth falsely, that the Apostle here useth the preposition per, i by. Moreover he frameth a false position, when he saith the preposition per i by, is not rightly applied to favour. For the contrary is gathered by th'Apostles words Eph. 1.6. where he saith, to the praise of the glory of his grace, in which (en he) he hath made us accepted, etc. Hear it is certain, by the name grace, is understood the favour or good will of God: for this is the subject of the praise whereof the Apostle treateth. Then, this also is manifest that [en he] in which, is put by an Hebrew propriety, 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 judgement of God by the holiness inherent in us: 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 justified. Hence Bellarmine inferreth, that justification containeth these two: purgation or washing, and sanctification. I answer. This consequence cannot be firmly drawn from the Apostles words. Then this is not the Apostles' mind, that sanctification is part of justification: which may be gathered by this, that in the Epistle to the Romans, having ended the disputation about justification, he treateth of Sanctification apart by itself, to wit, in the 6.7. and 8. chapters. And those three things by the sentence of the Apostle, are thus compared among themselves. First by the word washing, he signifieth in general, metaphorically both the benefits of Christ, to wit, sanctification & justification: which afterwards he addeth for special explication sake. Moreover, the things that Bellarmine in this place doth further infer from those words, against forgiveness of sins, and imputation of justice, shall more fitly be answered otherwhere. The 4. argument he taketh from Tit. 3. When the bounty & humanity of God our saviour appeared: not by works which we did, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost, which he hath shed into us abundantly through jesus Christ our Saviour: that being justified by his grace, we may be heirs according to the hope of eternal life. From those last words, that being justified by his grace, we understand (saith Bellarmine) that justification of described in the former words: so that, after the Apostles mind, justification is regeneration and renovation through the goodness of God wrought in us by the laver of Baptism, and pouring out of the holy Ghost. Also, in those words, that being justified by his grace, etc. he showeth the cause (saith he) why God hath regenerate & renewed us by the laver and holy Ghost: and saith, the cause was, that being justified, that is, being justified by that regeneration and renovation, we may deserve to be made heirs of the kingdame and life everlasting. I answer. Bellarmine as his manner is, confoundeth and taketh for one and the same, the things which in the Apostle are manifestly diverse: to wit, regeneration and justification; and to obtain this, he giveth a gloss upon those words, that being justified: saying, that is to say, that being justified by that regeneration: which gloss notwithstanding might be admitted, if it were rightly understood, namely of the procreant cause of faith, and not of the formal cause of justification. For by regeneration, the holy Ghost worketh faith in the elect, whereby they apprehend the grace of Christ, that is, Christ's satisfaction through Gods grace performed for them. And this is it which the Apostle saith in this place, that being justified by his grace, etc. That is to say, having by regeneration the gift of faith, we apprehend the grace of Christ, and so are justified, and obtain the inheritance of eternal life. The 5. argument he taketh from Heb. II. where the Apostle testifieth (saith he) that some men were truly and absolutely just: 5. Argument. for of Abel he writeth, He obtained testimony that he was just. Of Noah, He was made heir of the justice which is by faith. And this their justice (saith Bellarmine further) was not the justice of Chrise imputed: but justice inherent and proper to them. For the Apostle willing to show, from whence Abel obtained testimony of justice, saith, God giving testimony to his gifis. Where we see, that Abel's justice is proved by the effect of his justice; to wit, because he did good works, when he sacrificed unto God aright. Now the cause of a good work is inherent justice, not imputation of justice: which seeing it is outward, cannot be the beginning of the work. So also that Noah was just, the Apostle proveth in the same place: Because he believed God, feared God's judgement, obeyed God's commandment. And in Genes. 6. he is said to be just, because he walked with God. Even as also Saint Luke proveth (Chapter. 1.) that Zacharie and Elizabeth were just before God, because they walked in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord. I answer. The fraud of Bellarmine is to be marked, who that he might wrest that place of Abel to his purpose, reciteth it unperfitly: leaving out these two words By which, which do agree in the same sentence with those words which he citeth, and pertain greatly unto the question in hand. For so saith the Apostle: Abel by faith offered a more precious sacrifice than Cain; By which, he obtained testimony that he was just, God bearing witness of his gifts. Where it is manifest, that faith is made the procreant cause both of the preciousness of Abel's sacrifice, and also of Abel's justice, and lastly also of the testimony, whereby God bore witness that Abel was just by faith, and therefore that his sacrifice was precious and pleased him. Wherefore it is plain, that here he speaketh of the justice of faith. Which thing appeareth yet more manifestly by the other testimony; namely, that No was made heir of the justice which is by faith. Which testimony it is strange that Bellarmine would cite here, seeing it plainly repugneth his purpose. For the justice of faith, is the justice which God imputeth to man, as is evident by the words of the same Apostle, Rom. 4.6. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth justice. Moreover, Bellarmine feigneth a false drift of the Apostles words; as though he would prove, that Abel was just: and as though he proved it by this, that he did a good work, by sacrificing a right. But the Apostle hath another purpose, namely, by Abel's ' example to prove, that both man himself and his works please God by faith. Besides he falsely denieth, that imputed justice is the cause of a just work. For except justice be imputed to a man by saith, no work of his can please God and be approved as just. For without faith (as the Apostle there saith) it is impossible to please God. Neither doth it hinder, that imputation of justice (as Bellarmine speaketh) is outward. For faith, by which justice is imputed to man, is (that I may so say) inward, that is, seated within: and this is it which worketh by love. But as concerning those places, Gen. 6. of Noah, and Luke. 1. of Zacharie and Elizabeth; their begun inherent justice, is there commended, by the adjoined sincerity: to wit, for that they minded, that God was the beholder of all their actions: and thereupon studied to approve them unto him: and it is not meant, that they trusted upon that justice of their life before God, as being perfect, and in all things answerable to his law, for which eternal life ought to be adjudged them of God. The 6. Argument he taketh from Rom. 8.29. and 1. Cor. 15.49. where the Apostle saith, 6. Argument. that the just are conformed to the Image of Christ, & bear Christ's Image, Those whom he foreknew (saith he) them he predestinated to be made conformable to the Image of his son. And as we have borne the Image of the earthy, we shall bear also the Image of the heavenly. Bellarmine assumeth: now Christ is not just by imputation, but by justice inherent to himself. He concludeth: therefore it is necessary, that we also have inherent justice. Here first Bellarmine useth a fallacy from that which is spoken in respect, unto that which is spoken simply: whiles he taketh those speeches of the Apostle which are spoken properly of the conformity of the believers with Christ in glory, as if they were spoken of conformity in all things. For otherwise he could not thence infer, that we ought to be conformed unto Christ even in this also, that we be not just by imputation. Then he deceitfully leaveth out in the conclusion, the one part of the assumption: when as the whole conclusion is this: therefore we also are not just by imputation, but by inherent justice. The first part of which conclusion manifestly contradicteth the Apostle, who saith, Rom. 4. The man is blessed to whom God imputeth justice. Finally that conclusion of Bellarmine's, maketh nothing for the question in hand. For the question is not, whither it be necessary that we have inherent justice: but whether by inherent justice we can stand in God's judgement and be justified of God. But Bellarmine proceedeth to reason from that place to the Corinth's thus. We have borne the true Image of the earthly man, that is, of the sinner Adam: because sin cleaved in us not putatively, but in truth and in deed: Therefore we bear also Christ's true Image, if justice cleave in us, not putatively, but in truth and in deed. Here Bellarmine deceitfully in stead of the word Imputation, putteth as equal thereto, the word Putation: saying putatively, for imputatively: that he might note a certain vain opinion, whereunto no matter subsisteth. Yet in the mean while Bellarmine is not ignorant, that not only the sin which dwelleth in man since the fall, is derived from Adam unto his posterity by generation: but also that first sin committed properly by Adam, is imputed to his posterity. And by like reason, not only inherent justice, that is, study of godliness in those that belong unto Christ, is wrought by Christ through regeneration of the holy Ghost: but also that obedience of Christ, whereby he satisfied for the sins of the elect, is imputed unto them for the justice whereby they stand before God. Moreover, he concludeth not here the question, which is not, whether we shall bear Christ's Image as touching inherent justice: for no professor of the Gospel denieth this: but the question is, whether by this justice we can stand in the judgement of God. The 7. argument he draweth from Rom. 6. where the Apostle teacheth (saith he) that we through justification, 7. Argument. whereby we die to sin, and rise again to justice, do represent Christ's death and resurrection. And amongst other things saith, He that is dead, is justified from sin. Which also the Apostle Peter signified in his first Epistle, Chap. 4. when he saith, Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be ye also armed with the same mind. For he that hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sins. But Christ was not putatively, but truly dead, & truly rose again: therefore we also do not putatively but truly die to sin, and rise again to justice, when we are justified by Baptism. I answer. First it is false, that the Apostle in Rom. 6. teacheth, that we by justification do represent Christ's death and resurrection. For he treateth not there of justification, having made an end of that dispute in in the 5. Chapter: but he treateth of sanctification or regeneration. Neither can it be proved otherwise, from those words: He that is dead, is justified from sin. For the Apostle speaketh not there of man's justification before God, but useth the word justified for Freed, by a synecdoche of the species. For every one that is justified, that is to say, is quitted by the judge, is freed: to wit, from punishment: but every one that is freed, is not justified: for one may be freed from some other thing then from punishment; as, from sin. And of this freeing saith the Apostle: He that is dead is justified from sin: for because he that is dead cannot work either good or evil. Therefore beleeven in as much as they are dead to sin, (as the Apostle there saith, verse, 11.) so far forth they are freed from sin. Even as a servant by death is freed from his master, that he serve him not any more hereafter, as the Apostle saith in the words immediately going before, That our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin may be weakened, that hereafter we serve so no more. Then it is true, that we do truly die to sin and rise again to justice: but the question is not of this thing: but it is, whether by this spiritual death and resurrection (that is to say, inherent justice) we be justified before God. Finally Bellarmine comprehendeth more in the conclusion, then followeth of the premises where he saith, When we are justified by faith: in which very thing he beggeth the question. For the Apostle saith not in the place cited: that we are justified by Baptism: seeing he handleth nothing there of justification: but teacheth, that Baptism is a testimony of our regeneration, which is wrought by the holy Ghost, in as much as it teacheth us of Christ's death and resurrection. For it being taught by the holy Ghost, we believe that Christ died for our sins, and rose again unto heavenly life, as our first fruits and head: certainly we will study to avoid sins, and will meditate an heavenly and an holy life. The 8. Argument he taketh from Rom. 8. where the Apostle (saith Bellarmine) writeth, 7. Argument. That we now by Christ have received the spirit of adoption of sons of God, as touching the soul, which liveth (as there is said) because of justification: though the body be dead, (that is, be yet mortal) because of sin. But by and by after he addeth (to wit, the Apostle) that we now having the first fruits of the spirit, do sigh in ourselves, expecting the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body. For as the same Apostle saith, Phil. 3. We expect a Saviour which will reform the body of our humility, configured to the body of his glory. But the adoption of sons which we expect in the redemption of our body, shall be most true and inherent in the body: that is, immortality, and impassibility, not imputative, but true. Therefore the adoption which now we have in the spirit by justification, ought also to be true, not putative. Otherwise as we expect the redemption of the body, so also we expect the redemption of the soul. I answer. First Bellarmine faulteth in a false exposition: in as much as he taketh the name body simply for the body of man: and contrariwise, the name spirit for the soul. For the Apostle there by the name body, understandeth that which in that and other places he calleth flesh: that is, the body together with the soul, but such as it is by carnal generation: and likewise by the name spirit, he understandeth the soul with the body; but so far forth as the soul is regenerate by the holy Ghost. Next, he faulteth in false citation: for the Apostle writeth not, The soul liveth because of justification; but The spirit is life, because of justice. Then again he faulteth in false exposition; in as much as he expoundeth those words, The body is dead, to mean, Is yet mortal: when the Apotles meaning is, that by the holy Ghost dwelling in the believers, it cometh to pass that their flesh is mortified as touching sin; to wit so, as that it sin not: and the spirit is quickened as concerning justice, to wit so, as that it endeavoureth for justice and worketh it. That this is the meaning of those words, may plainly appear to any that marketh, by the words there next ensuing. Moreover Bellarmine's sophism, from a like reason of the adoption of the body, and the adoption of the soul, is utterly dark, and far from the Apostles words and meaning. For neither doth the Apostle say, the adoption to come in the body; nor yet, that we now have adoption in the spirit; that is, in the soul: neither doth he compare these two adoptions as like one to an other. But he saith, We expect the adoption of the sons of God: that is to say, that heavenly inheritance, which we are adopted to possess and enjoy in due time. And this very thing he calleth redemption of the body: that is to say redemption, whereby both the body shall be delivered from the cross whereto it is subject in this life▪ and the soul, from inhabiting sin, wherein it is holden, so long as it liveth in this mortal body. Wherefore it is unapt, and not beseeming a Divine, that Bellarmine counteth this an absurd thing, that we should look for redemption of the soul. For that lamentation of Paul, Rom. 7.24. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? doth it not pertain to the full deliverance of the soul from inhabiting sin. Finally, it is a true, and not a putative adoption (as Bellarmine cavilling speaketh) wherewith God hath adopted us: and yet the adoption, is the imputation of sonship, whereby we are counted for the sons of God through grace: when by nature we were the children of wrath. But in the mean time, adoption is one thing, the spirit of adoption an other thing. By adoption we are received into grace, and justified: by the spirit of adoption, we are regenerate, being already adopted. CHAP. III. The proof of the second part recited and refuted. HItherto we have disputed of the first part of the Papists opinion, wherein they determine, that justification is infusion of justice. It followeth that now we treat of the second part, wherein they say, That faith alone justifieth not, but * The I. principal Argument the proofs whereof do follow. I. Argument. I Book of justification Chap. 13. as the beginning and root of justification. To prove this, Bellarmine first bringeth the place, Heb. 11. He that cometh unto God, must believe that God is. Where the first motion unto God, is given to faith; by which he that was far off, beginneth now to draw nigh. I answer. The Apostle here maketh no comparison between faith and other spiritual virtues: but speaking simply of faith alone, affirmeth it to be necessary for him that cometh unto God, to wit, to crave his help, and ask any thing of him. Wherefore it is a strange gloss, that the first motion unto God is here given to faith. As though the motions that follow, were not of faith, but of other spiritual virtues: And as though justification were done by I know not how many motions unto God. Nay, justification is made by this only motion, whereby the mind through faith is so moved unto God, that it taketh hold of his good will, reconciled by Christ's satisfaction to all that believe in him. Then he bringeth the saying Rom. 2. Argument. 10. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. But how shall they call upon him, in whom they have not believed? how shall they believe without a Preacher? how shall they preach except they be sent? Where the Apostle deseribeth this order of lustification, that first there be a sending of Preachers: secondly, the preaching of the Gospel: thirdly, faith: four, invocation: fifthly, salvation: that is, justifications, which is health of soul, from the disease of sin. Of which sending and preaching, are without us: and and to the first beginning of justification in us, is faith: after which followeth invocation and the rest in their order. I answer. Bellarmine faulteth fast in confusion of things diverse, in that be expoundeth the word Salvation, by the word justification▪ when as Salvation properly spoken, is more large, to wit, comprehending justification, regeneration, and glorification. Then he faulteth in a false definition: when as he defineth justification to be health of soul from the disease of sin: that is to say, regeneration. Finally, he goeth from the question, in that he numbereth certain things which be needful unto salvation besides faith. For when the professors of the Gospel teach, that man is justified by faith only: they exclude not those things that are here reckoned, from the obtaining of salvation: but only they exclude man's works from obtaining that rustic which God may approve as perfect. Thirdly, he bringeth the place john. I. So many as received him, 3. Argument. he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to those that believe in his name. Here john openly teacheth (saith Bellarmine) that they which receive Christ by faith, are not yet the sons of God, but may so be made, if they go on further, that they also begin to hope and love. For love properly maketh the sons of God, as as appeareth, I. john. 2. I answer. The meaning of john words, is not that which Bellarmine bringeth: but he meaneth, that God hath given to the believers power or right [exousian] for to be made the sons of God, that is, to be the sons of God, in this very respect, that they are borne of God (as be declareth in the verse following) that is, that they are regenerate, and by consequence endued with faith. Whence I draw this Argument: As far forth as the believers are borne of God, so far forth is given unto them the right of the children of God. But the believers as far forth as they believe, are borne of God. Therefore to the believers as far forth a they believe, is given the right of the children of God: and by consequence, they are justified as far foxth as they believe, or, by faith. And whereas Bellarmine saith, it is plain by 1. joh. 2. that love properly maketh the sons of God: verily I find not this sentence in that Chapter, neither expressly, nor yet by collection: But if perhaps through the Printers fault, the number second crept in for the number third, there is indeed in the third Chapter a certain sentence of love, but not this. That love maketh the sons of God; but, that by love the sons of God are known: namely in the 10. verse. By this are manifested the sons of God, and the sons of the devil: Who so doth not justice, is not of God, and he that loveth not his brother. Neither can Bellarmine's sentence be concluded (as he peradventure thinketh) from the 1. verse, where it is said thus, Behold what love the father hath given to us, that we should be called the sons of God. For by the name Love there, by a metonymy of the efficient cause, he understandeth a benefit proceeding from the love wherewith God loveth us: and what that benefit is, he declareth by opposition in those words, that we should be called the sons of God: namely, the benefit of adoption. Wherefore Bellarmine hath not yet showed, that we are adopted and justified of GOD by love, and therefore not by faith only. To these Arguments Bellarmine addeth a natural reason, 4. Argument. as he calleth it in these words. Some man may believe that which he hopeth not for, neither loveth: be cannot hope for, or love that which he believeth not. Therefore faith is the foundation of hope and love: and not contrariwise, hope or love, the foundation of faith. I answer. In this reason, the question is not concluded. Which is not, whether faith be the foundation or original of hope and love: but whether we be justified by faith only, or by faith hope and love together. Unto this reason he joineth an other: in bodily diseases the beginning of health is, 5. Argument. to believe that he is sick, and to have faith in the Physician that is willing to cure: yet is not that only faith, perfect health. I answer. First Bellarmine unaptly maketh the sick man's faith a part of health when as it is the procreant cause of health: in as much as the sick man should not obtain health, except he had that faith. In like manner faith whereby we are justified, is not a part of justification: but the procreant instrumental cause, because by faith we apprehend Christ's satisfaction, for which we are justified. Next as his manner is, he confoundeth justification with regeneration: in as much as he calleth faith health, towit, of soul, understanding newness of nature. Moreover, he falsely defineth faith whereby we are justified: to wit, as though by it we believed only, that we are spiritually sick, that is to say, sinners: and that the spiritual physician Christ, is willing to cure us. But these suffice not unto justifying faith: but it is required further, that we believe that Christ hath already perfectly cured us by his satisfaction, as touching forgiveness of sins: and hath begun to cure us, as touching renewing of nature: and finally, as touching the same, is willing perfectly to cure us, and also will cure us after this life. Wherefore there is not the like reason of the faith which Bellarmine in this place attributeth to a sick man, and of justifying faith. Bellarmine's arguments, that fear concurreth unto justification. Bellarmine proceedeth unto the second disposition (as he after the Council of Trent nameth it) whereby they feign a man is disposed unto justification, that is to say, Fear. And endeavoureth to prove by the places of scripture following, that this concurreth unto justification, almost after the same manner that faith itself concurreth. First (saith he) we have learned by the Apostle, that faith justifieth, I. Argument. when he saith, Without faith it is impossible to please" God, Hebr. 11. But the same is also said of Fear; Ecclesiasticus, 1. He that is without fear, cannot be justified. I answer, First, the testimony of Ecclesiasticus is not of force to prove any point of faith: because that book is not Canonical, but Apocryphal. Then, though that book were of authority; yet the saying alleged would prove nothing: because here is brought a false interpretation, which containeth a plain diverse sentence from that which is contained in the Greek words of jesus the son of Sirach; which are to be interpreted, an angry man cannot be justified: for the moment of his anger is ruin unto him. Thirdly, although it were so in the Greek as Bellarmine citeth out of the common translation; yet this speech would make nothing to the purpore for the son of Sirach speaketh not of man's justification before God; but before the civil judge: warning, that they which are given to anger, or that without the fear of God follow their own lusts, will at length commit those heinous sins and wickednesses, for which being brought unto judgement, they cannot be justified, that is quitted: but are by the judge condemned unto deserved punishment. Fourthly, although this saying of Syrach were to be understood of justification before God: yet could not the question be concluded from it. For it is brought as being like to that saying of the Apostle: and from that likeness, is the Argument drawn: when as notwithstanding it is not like. For it is not said, Without fear it is impossible to be justified; as it is said, Without faith it is impossible to please God: but it is said, He that is without fear, cannot be justified. Besides, though it were said, Without fear it is impossible to be justified, as it is said, without faith it is impossible to please God: yet would it not follow from hence, that fear would pertain unto justification, after one and the same manner that faith doth: for faith pertaineth to justification, as the instrumental cause whereby we take hold on Christ's satisfaction, for which we are justified: but the fear of GOD pertaineth as an effect of faith, necessarily agreeing therewith. For where the fear of GOD is not, neither is there iustyfying faith. Then, 2. Argument. faith justifieth (saith Bellarmine) because it is the beginning of justice and salvation: But the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, Prou. I. and by wisdom is understood perfect justification. I answer. First it is false, that by wisdom is understood justification, for justification is God's action, whereby he counteth and pronounceth man just: but wisdom is a quality in man's mind, wrought of God. Wherefore that saying maketh nothing to the matter. Next, if by the name of wisdom in salomon's speech, were understood justification, Bellarmine assumeth things that manifestly cannot stand together, and feigneth them unto the holy Ghost that speaketh in the scripture: in as much as he affirmeth both faith and fear to be the beginning of justification. For if faith be the beginning of justification, fear cannot be: and so contrariwise, seeing of one thing, there is but one beginning. Moreover, 3. Argument. faith justifieth (saith Bellarmine) because by it we seek God, and come unto him. But the same thing doth fear. For it is written in Psal. 77. When he slew them, they sought him and returned, etc. I answer. Bellarmine assumeth a false thing: for faith justifieth not, because by it we seek God: but because by it we take hold on Christ's satisfaction, for which God justifieth us. Which thing cannot be attributed unto fear. Furthermore, 4. Argument. faith justifieth (saith Bellarmine) because by it Christ is form in us, as he saith, Gal. 4. But of fear, Isaiah writeth, chapt. 26. according to the 70. Greek interpreters, By the fear we have conceived, and brought forth the spirit of salvation. I answer. First it is false, that it is said in Gal. 4. Faith justifieth because by it Christ is form in us. Yet it is true, that this sentence may be concluded from the Apostles words, which are: My little children, of whom I travel in birth again, until Christ be form in you. By which words the Apostle signifieth, that he went about by the doctrine of the Gospel to reduce the Galathians to the true knowledge and faith of Christ. And the scope was, that by that faith they might be justified; in as much as by it they should take hold on Christ's satisfaction. Which taking hold, the Apostle metaphorically calleth a forming of Christ in the Galathians: because he had said, that he traveled in birth again of them: that so he might continue the metaphor he had begun. But such forming of Christ in man, cannot be ascribed unto fear. Neither can that any way be proved from that saying of Isaiah: in the citing whereof hitherto, Bellarmine bewrayeth his marvelous impudency: seeing that place containeth nothing at all of Christ or justification: no not though the interpretation of the 70. be admitted. But why doth not Bellarmine cite the common Latin translation; when as notwithstanding he approveth and defendeth the decree of the Council of Trent; wherein is determined, that the common Latin edition is to be held for authentical? 2. Book De Verbo Des, Chap. 10. For if that be authentical, that which differeth from it cannot be counted for authentical. And the interpretation of the 70. differeth in this place. But if one look into that place, and consider the whole context, he shall see, that there is nothing at all of Christ's or man's justification before God, contained in those words: but a narration of the jews, wherein they tell their own weakness in delivering themselves from calamities, and purchasing themselves salvation. Their calamities they compare to a woman in travel, saying: As a woman with child, that draweth near to the travel, is in sorrow, and crieth in her pains, so have we been in thy sight o Lord: We have conceived, we have borne in pain, as though we should have brought forth wind; We could not give any help to the Land. It is therefore an impudent sophism of Bellarmine: who shameth not to allege these things here, as being spoken of man's justification. Again, faith justifieth (saith Bellarmine) because the just liveth by faith. Hab. 2. And of fear it is written, The fear of the Lord is the fountain of life. Prou. 14. I answer. It is false, that faith justifieth, because, or in as much as the just liveth by faith. Neither doth Habacuck say this, but only saith, The just shall live by faith. You contrariwise, the just shall live by faith, because he is justified by faith. For justice goeth before life, as the cause before the effect. And faith justifieth, because, or in as much as it apprehendeth Christ's satisfaction, for which God justifieth. To conclude, 6. Argument. faith justifieth (saith Bellarmine) because it purgeth sins, as the Apostle teacheth, Act. 13. Rom. 3. Gal. 3. and in other places: But of fear also we read, Ecclesiast. 1. The fear of the Lord expelleth sin. I answer. Faith, to speak properly, purgeth not sins, but Christ's blood, 1. john. 1. And if faith be said to purge sins, it is to be understood thus, that it apprehendeth Christ's satisfaction unto forgiveness of sins. But after this manner the fear of the Lord doth not expel sin: but so far as it holdeth a man like a bridle, from giving himself up to sin, and sinning securely. Neither is it said in any of the places alleged, that faith purgeth sins. But Act. 15.9. Peter saith, that God had purged the hearts of the believing Gentiles by faith: that is, had forgiven them their sins by faith, whereby they apprehended Christ's satisfaction. In Rom. 3.25. it is said, That God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation by faith in his blood, to declare his justice by forgiveness of foredone sins. In Gal. 3. there is no such thing. Last of all he addeth this reason: 7. Argument. The nature of fear is (saith he) to flee evils, and seek remedies how it may escape them. I answer. But hence it followeth not that fear justifieth; and that after the same manner that faith doth. Bellarmine's arguments, that hope of pardon is a disposition unto justice and remission of sins. Bellarmine proceedeth to the third disposition, as he calleth it, to wit, Hope: namely, hope to obtain pardon. That this is a disposition unto justice and remission of sins, he proveth by these sayings. Prou. 28. He that hopeth in the Lord, shallbe healed, Psal. 36. He will save them because they hoped in him. Psal. 90. Because he hoped in me, I will deliver him. Mat. 9 Have confidence some, thy sins are forgiven thee: where he noteth, that the Lord first said, Have confidence son: and when he saw him lifted up unto the hope of salvation, he added, Thy sins are forgiven thee. I answer. First, Bellarmine strayeth from the question. For the question proposed is, whether only faith justifieth; and not, whether it only dispose unto justification: wherefore he should prove, that hope also justifieth, and not, that hope disposeth unto justification. Moreover, the sayings all eaged out of the Proverbs and Psalms, make nothing to the matter: for none of them speak of the obtaining of the forgiveness of sins, but they speak of outward felicity, and deliverance from outward dangers. Neither is there in that place of the Proverbs, in the Hebrew, the word healed: but 〈◊〉, shallbe made fat. Neither in the said 90. Psalm, or after the Hebrues dist●ction, the 91. Psalm, is the Hebrew; because he hoped in me: but because he hath loved me, or, been lovingly affected unto me. Finally, in none of these places is there speech of hope of obtaining pardon, of which the question was propounded: but there is speech of hope of the fatherly providence and care of God towards his children. Now as touching that saying, Math. 9 Bellarmine wresteth it unto his purpose, by a false interpretation of the word, Have confidence: as if it were the same that Conceive hope of pardon is. Then he maketed a weak consequence. If the Lord said first, Have confidence: and after, Thy sins are forgiven thee. Therefore that confidence of which he spoke, went before forgiveness of sins. Lastly he followeth the false interpretation of the word [aphéontas] forgiven, which signifieth not are forgiven, but, have been forgiven, for it is not of the time present, but past. And the natural sense of the words is this: Have confidence son, that thou shalt obtain of me healing of thy palsy: because thou hast already obtained a far greater benefit, to wit, forgiveness of sins. But if that were the sense which Bellarmine giveth the word▪ should sound thus, Have confidence son, and thy sins shallbe forgiven thee: that is (as Bellarmine would have it) Conceive hope of pardon, or forgiveness of sins; for if thou so do, it shall be done unto thee. Bellarmine's arguments, that love disposeth unto forgiveness of sins. The fourth disposition (saith Bellarmine further) is love. Now that some love is before forgiveness of sins, either in time, if it be imperfect love, or in nature, if it be perfect and from the whole heart, Ecclesiasticus teacheth first (saith he) chapped. 2. For after that he had said, Ye that fear the Lord, trust in him, he addeth, Ye that fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts shall be enlightened. Then also our Saviour himself teacheth it, when he saith, Luk. 7. Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much. Also the Apostle Paul teacheth it, when he writeth, Galath. 5. Neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Uncircumcision: but faith which worketh by love. The Apostle john teacheth the same, 1. john. 3. saying, We are translated from death to life, because we love the brethren. I answer. As touching that place in Ecclesiasticus: it is not of force to prove any point of faith, because the book is Apocryphal. Then, that sentence is not found in the Greek copy. Thirdly, he treateth not there of remission of sins, wherefore this sentence is nothing to the purpose. As concerning the other places, Luc. 7. the conjunction because, in Greek [hótis,] noteth not the cause of the thing, but the cause of the conclusion: that is the argument, whereby the sentence proposed is proved. And that argument was drawn not from the cause, but from the effect. For, that many sins are forgiven this woman, Christ proveth by her deed, as an effect of the forgiveness of sins, which she perceived she had obtained by the grace of Christ. As is plain by the Simile, which the Lord addeth to declare that deed, to wit, the creditor, which forgave two debtors, to the one, more; to the other, less: whereupon it came, that the one loved him more, the other less. As therefore that love of the debtors, was not the cause of forgiving the det: but contrariwise, the forgiving of the det, was cause of their love: so also the love of that woman, was not the cause why Christ forgave her her sins: but contrariwise, the forgiveness of sins, was cause why the woman loved him. Neither is this declaration answered, by the exposition which Bellarmine bringeth in an other place, that the conjunction [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 proof. From the words Gal. 5. it cannot be gathered, that love disposeth unto justification: but only we are taught, what manner of faith that is whereby we are justified, namely faith working by love. In the place out of the Epistle of john, Bellarmine hath committed the crime of falsehood, for that he hath cited the text unperfectly, that he might wrest it unto his purpose. For it is not there, We are translated, etc. but, We know that we are translated. It is evident therefore, that love is not there made the cause of our translation from death to life: but the sign and argument, whereby we know that we are translated. And love is the sign of this thing: because it is the effect of true faith, by which that translation is made, as our Lord witnesseth, joh. 5.24. He that believeth, hath passed from death into life. The second principal argument. Bellarmine proceedeth to another principal argument; which he concludeth in this reasoning: If faith be separated from hope and love and other virtues, without doubt it cannot justify: Therefore only faith cannot justify. The consequence of this argument is proved saith he, thus: If the whole force of justifying were in faith only, so that other virtues though they were present, conferred nothing at all unto justification; surely that faith would justify * It should be, as well when they are absent as present. as well when they are present, as absent. Therefore, if it cannot justify when they are absent, it argueth that the force of justifying is not in it only, but partly in it, partly in the other. Also: If it cannot be, that faith severed from love should justify; than it alone justifieth not. But the first is true: for without love there can be no justice: because he that loveth not, abideth in death, 1. john. 2. Therefore the latter also is true. Besides, if faith separated from virtues can justify, it can also do the same with vices: for as the presence of other virtues profiteth faith nothing, as concerning the duty of justifying, because it only justifieth: so the presence of vices shall nothing hinder it as touching the office of justifying: because by accident, there are joined with it either vices or virtues. But the consequent is absurd: therefore also the antecedent. I answer. All these connex or (as Bellarmine calleth them) conditionate propositions of these three reasons, are false. For although faith be not alone, but hath other virtues joined with it, and not vices (which is impossible:) yet faith only justifieth. Even as the hand of a writer, although it be not alone, but joined with the other members: yet it only writeth. And as the foot as not alone, but joined to the other members, yet it only standeth. Likewise as the eye is not alone, and yet alone seethe: the ear is not alone, but yet heareth alone. Finally, the members of man's body, although they be joined one to another, and cannot do their several actions, except they be joined one to another, yet have every one their proper action. The third principal argument. The third principal argument, whereby Bellarmine would prove that faith justifieth not alone; is taken (saith he) from the removing away of the causes which may be given why faith only justifieth. For all such causes may be reduced (saith he) unto three heads. And thus he concludeth. If faith alone justifieth: either it therefore justifieth alone because the scripture expressly saith it; or because it pleased God to give justification with the only condition of faith: or because it alone hath the force to apprehend justification, and apply it unto us, 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 only justifieth. The first part of the assumption he endenoureth to prove by this, that in the scripture there is found an express denial of that word (to wit, Only) or a word of the same signification: namely, jam. 2. Ye see that of works a man is justified, and not of faith only. The second part he proveth by this, that scriptures do much more openly require the condition of repentance and of the Sacraments unto justification, then of faith: as Ezek. 18. If the wicked repent, he shall live. Luk. 13. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. joh. 3. Except a man be borne again of water and of the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. The third part, he endeavoureth to prove thus: for that faith is not said properly to apprehend: or certainly, justification is not so apprehended by faith, that it is had indeed and inherent: but only that it is in the mind after the manner of an object, apprehended by the action of the understanding or will: But after this manner love also and joy do apprehend. I answer. The assumption of the syllogism proposed is false, as touching the third part or branch. For only faith apprehendeth Christ's satisfaction unto justification: because by faith only we can make full account, that Christ hath satisfied for us, and by his satisfaction obtained of God forgiveness of sins for us. And in this very sense faith only is said to justify, because it only apprehendeth Christ's satisfaction: for which only, and not for our works also, god counteth us for just. And this answer is enough for soluting the Argument propounded. Yet in the mean time, the Reader is to be put in mind, as touching the first part of the assumption, that it is not denied by james of true faith, that it only justifieth, but this only he meaneth, that man is not justified by a dead faith, but by a living faith, which of itself bringeth forth good works. And although it be not found expressly written, Faith only justifieth: yet is there found a sentence of equal force, namely, A man is not justified 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 unto justification: as though none could be justified without the sacraments. Neither can it be proved from that place, joh. 3. Except a man be borne again: for Christ speaketh not there of Baptism, but of the holy Ghost that regenerateth: which he compareth to water. The 4. principal Argument which hath three branches. 1. Branch. The 4. Argument Bellarmine fetcheth from the manner of justifying of faith. And this he parteth into three. The first is: Faith justifieth after the manner of a cause: therefore it justifieth not only. I answer. I deny the consequence: For although faith justifieth after the manner of a cause; yet it justifieth alone: for it justifieth as an instrumental cause, apprehending Christ's satisfaction, for which only we are justified. And there is no other instrumental cause whereby Christ's satisfaction is apprehended. The other Argument. 2. Branch. Faith is the beginning formal cause of justification: Therefore it justifieth not only. To prove the antecedent, these sayings are brought. Rom. 4. To him that believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for justice. 1. Cor. 3. Other foundation can no man lay, etc. Where by foundation, Bellarmine would have understood, faith in Christ. And the foundation is the beginning of the house: Therefore also faith is the beginning of justification. Act. 15. By faith purifying their hearts. And what is pureness of heart (saith Bellarmine) but justice either begun or perfected. I answer. I deny the antecedent: and I deny, that it can be proved by the sayings alleged. For Rom. 4. Faith is said to be reputed for justice, in this sense, for that justice is imputed unto a man by faith. For so the Apostle there saith, in the words next joined to them, that David said, The man is blessed to whom God imputeth justice, namely by faith: as we may perceive by conferring of the words that go before: as also by conference of that phrase so much used of Paul, wherein he saith, That God justifieth man through faith, of faith, by faith. Now to justify and to impute justice, are of equal force with the same Apostle. Next, 1. Cor. 3. by the name of foundation, is understood Christ, as the Apostle himself plainly affirmeth: that is to say, the doctrine of Christ, namely, of his person and office. For he there handleth Christian doctrine, and not justification. Bellarmine therefore Sophistically wresteth the name foundation, unto justification: as though he treated there of the foundation, that is the beginning of justification. Now, Act. 15. Peter faith, their hearts were purified by faith, because by faith the hearts are certified, that the blood of Christ purgeth us from all sin: to wit so, as that no sin is imputed to us. There fore pureness of heart is evil restrained of Bellarmine, unto pureness or justice inherent: when as there is also pureness or justice imputed. The third Argument strayeth from the question propounded: for it concludeth a diverse thing; namely thus. Faith obtaineth forgiveness of sins, & after a sort also deserveth it: therefore it justifieth not, because it apprehendeth the promise. The antecedent he proveth from Luk. 7. where our Lord saith to the woman, Thy faith hath made thee safe. But if faith did only receive mercy, it could not rightly be said to save. For who would say to a poor man, that only reacheth out his hand for alms, thy hand hath got the alms? or who would say to a sick man, that with his hand taketh the medicine, Thy hand hath cured thee of thy disease? I answer. It followeth not: Faith maketh safe, therefore it saveth by obtaining and deserving. For the word, make in general noteth an efficient cause. And from the general to the special, the consequence followeth not affirmatively. And how faith maketh safe, we must learn out of the scripture: which declareth the nature and force of faith in justifying, no otherwise then by relation unto Christ's satisfaction, as the object which it apprehendeth and apply to a man, as Rom. 3. By faith in his blood. Gal. 2. Who hath loved me and given himself for me, etc. And although no wise man would say, Thy hand hath got thy alms: yet might one rightly say to him that is enriched by receiving alms: Thy hand hath made thee rich. For if he had not taken the alms, he had not been enriched. So our faith hath not made for us Christ's satisfaction: but yet by receiving it, it enricheth and justifieth us. Finally when it is said, Faith justifieth, it is a * figurative speech; to be understood thus, God justifieth a believer, because of Christ's satisfaction which he apprehendeth by faith. Bellarmine bringeth also other places of scripture to confirm his antecedent, namely, Rom 4. Abraham was comforted by faith, giving glory to God, etc. Therefore also was it counted unto him for justice. In this place, the Apostle showeth the cause why Abraham's faith was counted justice: because in believing he gave 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 justified Abraham. Also Rom. 10. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How shall they call upon him is whom they have not believed? how shall they believe without a Preacher? Where S. Paul (saith Bellarmine) as he maketh the preaching of the word, the cause of faith: so he maketh faith the cause of invocation: and invocation the cause of saving: that is, of justification. Whereby we understand (saith he further) that faith by invocation, obtaineth justification. Faith therefore justifieth not relatively, to wit, by accepting justification 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 answer. Although that place Rom. 4. may seem much to favour Bellarmine's opinion: yet if one look throughly into it, & consider the applying of Abraham's example unto us. Which immediately followeth, he shall see, the causal conjunction dio, therefore, not to be so much referred unto that effect of Abraham's faith, to wit, glorifying of God, as unto the truth of his faith: which truth is signified by that effect. For in applying Abraham's example, he doth not now mention strong faith: such as that of Abraham's was: but simply true faith to wit, whereby we believe that God gave jesus for our sins, and raised him up for our justification. The place Rom. 10 speaketh not of justification, but of salvation: that is glorification. Which although it be obtained by invocation proceeding of faith: yet is it not obtained by the merit of faith, but by God's 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 we by faith do merit God's benefits. For as other the benefits of God, so faith itself also is God's free gift, as the Apostle witnesseth, Eph. 2.8. The 5. principal argument, 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 justification is justice really inherent in us: the other, that good works are necessary to salvation. Before we see how Bellarmine doth reason from these principles; it is meet first to put in mind, that that first principle is false, even by Bellarmine's own testimony: 2. Book of justification Chapt. 2. For elsewhere he saith, The formal cause of justification consisteth in the infusion of that inherent justice. But infusion of justice, is not the inherent justice itself. But now let us see how he reasoneth from these principles. Fron the first principle he reasoneth thus: Unto the infusion of justice are more actions required then the action of faith: But justification is the infusion of justice: Therefore unto justification are required more actions than the action of faith: And by consequence, only faith justifieth not, after the manner of disposition. I answer. First Bellarmine here departeth from the question: not oppugning the opinion of the professors of the Gospel, but a Popish fiction. For the professors of the Gospel, when they say, that faith only justifieth, do not mean, that it justifieth only by way of disposition, but by way of apprehension: as hath already b●● often declared. Then the assumption is false: as we have showed before. Besides, Bellarmine agreeth not with himself: who now affirmeth, that the action of faith is fore-required unto justification; also that it disposeth unto justification; when before he said, 1 Book of justification Chap. 13.2. Book Chapt. 4. Of grace and free-will. 1. Book. Chap. 6. The latter Branch. that Faith justifieth as the beginning and first root of justification: and afterward he maketh faith, part of the formal cause of justification, where he saith, That faith is not the whole formal cause of justification. And in an other place, that the formal cause of justification consisteth in faith, hope and charnie. Is part of the form therefore, fore required for the obtaining of the form? Now from the other principle, he draweth this argument. If faith only did justify, it should only save also. But it doth not only save: because good works are also necessary to salvation. Therefore it only doth not justify. I answer. Although this argument at the first sight have a great show: yet if it be throughly looked into, it will be sound to be a * i. A false argument. Paralogism, having four terms by the homonymous or double signification of the argument or middle cerme. For that Only save, in the proposition, is to be understood specially of salvation, which is by way of apprehension: but in the assumption, it is understood generally of salvation which is any manner of way. For faith only saveth as the instrumental apprehending cause, to wit, by apprehending Christ's satisfaction, for which God saveth the believer: but it doth not only save every manner of way: for God's grace and Christ's satisfaction also saveth, but as the principal efficient causes: also good works save, but as the way by which God bringeth the believers unto salvation. This double signification being observed, I answer to the assumption, where it is said, Faith saveth not only. If this be understood generally, it is true: but then an other thing is assumed then was in the proposition. For when it is said in the proposition, Faith only saveth: that is not understood generally, but specially: to wit, by way of apprehension. But if the assumption be understood specially, as in the proposition, namely, that faith only saveth not by laying hold on Christ's satisfaction; it is manifestly false. CHAP. FOUR The proof of the third part, recited, and refuted. HItherto of the second part of the Papists sentence, wherein they contend, that faith only justifieth not. Now followeth the third part, wherein they dispute, that justification standeth not only in forgiveness of sins. Which Bellarmine purposeth to prove thus. I Book of justification Chap. 6. justification consisteth also (saith he) in inward renewing. Therefore not in forgiveness of sins only. We deny the antecedent. But to prove that, Bellarmine bringeth some places of scripture: which we will consider in order. The first place is Rom. 4. Who was delivered for our sins, and rose again for our justification. That is, as Bellarmine interpreteth: that we may walk in newness of life. I answer. This exposition of Bellarmine's is false, confounding those things which the Apostle distinguisheth. For Paul beginneth in that Epistle to dispute of running of nature, or of sanctification, at the sixth chapter, having finished the disputation of justification in the fift chapter. And the sense of the place alleged is: That Christ was delivered unto death for our sins, that is, to purge our sins by satisfaction, and was raised up for our justification: that is to say, that he might make known our justification: to wit, that he hath obtained it by his death for us. For if he had not risen from the dead, we should yet be in our sins: 1. Cor. 15. Wherefore seeing he is risen again, we know that we are no more in our sins, but that forgiveness of sins, or our justification is gotten for us by Christ's death. The second place is, The 2. place. Rom. 5. As sin reigned unto death, so also grace reigneth by justice unto eternal life. Fron hence Bellarmine reasoneth thus. He opposeth justice to sin: and by justice understandeth renewing, from which works proceed of life, for that the opposition requireth. For sin is said to have reigned unto death, because it wrought deadly works: contrariwise, therefore the grace of God is said to reign by justice unto life, because by justice infused, it worketh the works of life. And if inward renewing, which is the beginning of good works, be rightly called rustic, out of doubt justification must be constituted in that renewing, and not in forgiveness of sins only. I answer. A gain Bellarmine bringeth a false exposition. For the Apostle entreateth nothing in that Chapter, of renewing of nature: but afterward in the Chapter following. And the meaning of the place alleged, by comparing it unto the former, with which it agreeth, may be perceived to be this. As Adam's sin reigned in his posterity unto death, because being imputed unto them, it brought death: that so the grace of God whereby he imputeth justice to them that believe, for Christ's satisfaction, reigneth in them unto life eternal: because justice being imputed to them, bringeth life eternal. The third place is, Rom. 6. Neither exhibit your members as weapons of iniquity to sin: but exhibit yourselves to God, as living from the dead, and your members weapons of justice to God. I answer. This place speaketh not of justification; 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 liveth for justification: or (as it is in the Greek) the spirit of life for justice: Bellarmine addeth: justification or justice, which maketh to live, and by this to work, cannot be forgiveness of sins only: but some inward and inherent thing. I answer. Again he bringeth a false exposition: for neither speaketh he here of justification, 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 believe and are justified by faith, quickeneth them, as concerning study of justice or good works: so that now they cease to give themselves to sin, and contrariwise do study for justice and good works. The 5. place is Gal. 3. If there had been a law given, that could have given life: surely justice had been by the law. Here the Apostle showeth openly (saith Bellarmine) that justice whereupon justification is called, is something that giveth life to the soul: and constituteth it in motion and action. But I see not by what syllogism Bellarmine gathereth this consequence from the Apostles words. The meaning of the Apostle is: If the law could give life to man, unto whom it was given: that is, could give him strength perfectly to fulfil or keep it: then should man's justice arise of the law: that is, man should be just, and counted of God for just for the law by him observed. But by what force will you conclude from hence, that justification consisteth in that justice which constituteth the soul in action, that is, in inherent justice? Yea the contrary may rather be from hence concluded: namely, that justification consisteth not in that justice: for that justice, which is required unto justification, namely, perfect observation of the law, falleth not unto man in this life. The sixth place is, 6. Place. Ephes. 4. Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth. Where the Apostle calleth renewing, justice and holiness. I answer. This place also maketh nothing to the matter: seeing it speaketh not of justification, but of sanctification: neither of the justice of faith, but of the justice of works: which although it be not perfect, and every way absolute in the regenerate, so as to answer in every 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 natural: which also we will consider. The first reason is. 1. justification without doubt is a certain motion from sin unto justice: and hath it name from the thing whereunto it leadeth, as all other the like motions; enlightening, warning, etc. True justification therefore cannot be understood, except some justice be gotten besides forgiveness of sins: even as it can 〈◊〉 either be true enlightening, nor true warming: if when darkness is driven away, or cold expelled, there follow no light, and no heat in the subject the body. I answer. justification, it is in deed a kind of motion from sin to justice, but not such as Bellarmine feigneth: to wit, such as enlightening and warning be. For it is not the motion of expelling sin and infusing justice: for this motion in scripture is not called justification, but Regeneration, Renovation, Sanctification. But it is the motion of forgiving or remitting sin, and imputing justice. Now forgiveness of sin, and imputing of justice, differ only in name, indeed they are the same: as appeareth by the Apostles words Rom. 4.6.7. as we have declared elsewhere. And what other thing it is to drive out darkness, but to bring in light? also what else, to expel cold, but to put in warmth? Unaptly therefore doth Bellarmine feign, that darkness may be driven away, and cold expelled, although there follow no light nor heat in the subject body. The second reason. 2. justification (saith Bellarmine) is not therefore only given us of God, that we may escape the pains of hell, but also that we may get the rewards of heavenly life. But surely, only forgiveness of sins delivereth from pain, doth not give glory. Which thing we see daily in civil judgements. For they that are quitted by the judge, are delivered from death, but they get not new rewards for this alone, that they are judged not to have been, or not to be guilty. I deny the assumption. For remission of sins doth not only deliver from pain, to wit, eternal death; but also bringeth glory or eternal life. The reason of which thing is this, that remission of sins, wherein man's justification consisteth, is remission of all sins: and therefore not only of sins of committing, but also of sins of omitting: whereby it cometh, that he to whom God forgiveth sins, 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 doth these things shall live in them. Moreover, the example of civil judgement which Bellarmine bringeth, proveth not his assumption: because that absolution is unlike to the absolution of God. For this is universal, to wit from all sins against the law of God: but that is particular or special; to wit, from some certain crime or crimes, against the politic laws. Notwithstanding, the civil judge giveth unto him whom he hath quitted from certain crimes, those rewards which he hath promised to the innocent, namely, preservation in life and defence; although he give him no new and singular rewards which he hath promised only to certain virtuous exploits. And so God giveth eternal life as a reward to those, unto whom he hath promised it, to wit, unto those that keep his law: such as he accounteth all those, whose sins he hath forgiven. The third reason. justification of enemies maketh friends, children, 〈◊〉, citizens with Saints, of the household of God, heirs of his kingdom. Only forgiveness of sins, maketh not men such: Therefore only forgiveness of sins is not justification. The assumption he would prove thus: For one is not worthy of love for this only that his debts are forgiven him when he cannot pay them. Neither is he straightway made a son, a citizen, or of the household, or an heir: who by the judges clemency undergoeth not the punishment, whereto he was justly adjudged. I deny the assumption. And I prove the contrary by the Apostles words, Eph. 1.5.6.7. He bath predestinate us to be adopted through jesus Christ, unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will: To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherewith he hath made us accepted in that Beloved; by whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. If thou askest how God hath adopted us for sons, and so for heirs of his kingdom? also, how he hath made us accepted, that is, friends and beloved? the Apostle answereth: By jesus Christ: also, In that (his) beloved: and declaring this same thing, he faith, that in him or by him we have redemption through his blood, the for givenes of sins. Therefore the Apostle showeth no other thing by which we are made the friends of God, than the forgiveness of sins: neither any other thing for which, than the redemption made by the blood of Christ. The proof which Bellarmine bringeth of the assumption, hath no force, for the manner of dealing with God and with men is unlike. Men are not so affected, that they will straightway vouchsafe to heap benefits on him, to whom they have forgiven offences: but God, to whomsoever he forgiveth offences for Christ, them he prosecuteth which eternal favour for his sake: and thereupon heapeth his benefits on them, though unworthy. CHAP. V The proof of the fourth part, recited and refuted. NOw remaineth the fourth and last part of the Papists sentence, That justification consisteth not in imputation of Christ's justice. This first he would prove by this, I. Proof. that it is never read in the scripture, that Christ's justice is imputed to us: or, that we are just, by Christ's justice imputed to us. Before I answer this argument, I will first show in what sense these things be spoken of the professors of the Gospel, whom Bellarmine oppugneth. Therefore when they say, That Christ's justice is imputed to us, they understand, the justice gotten by Christ's death. Therefore this they mean: That justice is imputed to us of God, or, we are counted of God just, for the death of Christ, whereby he hath satisfied his judgement for our sins. Which is all one as if they should say, that Christ's satisfaction is of God imputed unto us for justice. This appeareth by Caluins' words in his third book of Instir. 2. Book of justific. chapt. 1. chap. 11.5.3. Which place Bellarmine himself citeth: namely, To justify, is nothing else, but to acquit from guiltiness, as being of approved innocency, him that is guilty or so accused. When as therefore God justifieth us by Christ's intercession, he doth not acquit us, by approving of our own innocency, but by imputation of justice: that we are counted just in Christ, which are not so in ourselves. Behold he saith, God justifieth us by Christ's intercession, that is, for Christ's intercession: under which name is comprehended satisfaction. Also, He acquitteth us by imputation of justice, or, in as much as he imputeth justice unto us: namely for that intercession and satisfaction of Christ. Whereby we perceive, that Caluine maketh the formal cause of justification, to be imputation of justice, which otherwhere he calleth forgiveness of sins. Now the meaning of the words being declared, I answer to Bellarmine's argument: and say, that it is not necessary that those very words, Christ's justice is imputed to us, be read in the scripture: but that it is enough, if those things be read, from which this sentence may by good consequence be drawn. And such we read: namely where it is said, that faith is imputed to man for justice, and, that justice is imputed to man, Rom. 4.5.6. Now seeing these phrases be diverse, and therefore cannot be both of them proper: we must consider which is proper, and which figurative. To speak properly, a thing is said to be imputed to one, which himself hath not done, or which is not in himself: and contrariwise, that is said not to be imputed, which one hath done, or which is in him. Therefore when justice is said to be imputed to sinful man, it is a proper speech: us also when it is said, that sin is not imputed to a sinner. It is therefore improperly said, that To him that believeth, faith is imputed for justice; and therefore this is to be unfolden by a proper speech: to wit, that To him that believeth, justice is imputed: or, he that believeth is counted for just, by faith: as elsewhere the Apostle saith, The believer is justified by faith. Which that it may more fully be understood, it is needful that the nature of faith be declared by his object whereon it leaneth, or which it apprehendeth for justice. For that is the thing for which the believer is justified, or justice is imputed to him: or finally which is imputed to him for justice by faith. And that object of faith is Christ's satisfaction: as appeareth by the Apostles words, Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath set forth a reconciliation by faith in his blood. Therefore to speak properly, justice is imputed to us for Christ's satisfaction by faith: because we apprehend that by faith: or Christ's satisfaction is imputed to us for justice by faith: that is, in as much as it is apprehended by faith. Secondly, 2. Proof. he would prove the same thing by this, that no necessity can be alleged of that sort of imputation. But, say I, there is manifest necessity: namely our sins which cannot be undone: but lest we be damned for them, it is necessary that they be not imputed to us, but covered: which is no other thing, then to have justice imputed to us: as appeareth by the Apostles words, Rom. 4.6.7. David saith, that Blessed is that man to whom God imputeth justice. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin. But Bellarmine laboureth to confirm his argument, thus. If this imputation were necessary: it should therefore chiefly be necessary, for that man after forgiveness of sin is yet verily a sinner, to wit, his sin being covered, not taken away. But this cause of necessity hath no place. Because by forgiveness of sins, sin is utterly taken away, that it is not: (for proof whereof, he heapeth together many testimonies of scripture.) Therefore this imputation is not necessary. I answer. First, the proposition is false: for although imputation of justice be necessary for man, yet is it not therefore necessary, for that man after forgiveness of sin is yet verily a sinner: as though imputation of justice were done after forgiveness of sins. For remission of sins, and imputation of justice, are one and the same thing: as appeareth by the Apostles words, Rom. 4.5.6. where these two are taken as equivalent, for justice to be imputed to man; and iniquities to be forgiven a man. Yet is it true, that imputation of justice is necessary for a man, because he is a sinner. Then, Bellarmine confirmeth his assumption by a false sentence: to wit, that by forgiveness of sins, sin is utterly taken away, that it is not. For sin is taken away by forgiveness; not so as that it is not, but that it is not imputed, but covered: as David expressly teacheth in that place which the Apostle citeth, Rom. 4.7.8. in these words, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin. Behold, if thou askest what it is to have iniquities or sins forgiven? David answereth: It is to have sins covered, that they come not into the sight of God, as judge. Also, it is to have sin not imputed of the Lord: to wit, that man be punished for his sin, as he hath deserved. Wherefore we may not think, that in those places of scripture (those I mean that speak of justification) which Bellarmine hath heaped together, a diverse thing is taught: seeing it is certain, that the holy Ghost contradicteth not himself. Further, unto that argument, from the opposition of Adam unto Christ, Rom. 5. which Bellarmine thinketh, will admit no answer at all: we have answered * Before in the second chapter of this book, in the solution of the first Argument. before. Bellarmine's third argument is this. If faith, hope and love, can be perfect in this life: the imputation of Christ's justice is not necessary. But the antecedent is true: 3. Proof. Therefore also the consequent. I answer. The proposition is false. For first, that imputation of justice be not necessary for man; it is not enough, that faith, hope and love, can be perfect in this life, but it behoveth that they be perfect. Then, though it be granted that perfect faith, hope and love, befall some (as the Martyrs) in this life: yet nevertheless is imputation of justice necessary for them, for sins committed before the perfection of those virtues. For we cannot satisfy God for them, by the duties of virtues that follow; seeing they are owing unto God. Therefore for old debts another satisfaction is needful. And God cannot be satisfied for sins, but by suffering the punishment of them. And this hath Christ suffered for them that believe, & so hath satisfied for their sins: which satisfaction is imputed to them for justice: and this imputation is needful for them: seeing they cannot but by it be counted for just, and worthy of eternal life: yea, justifying faith, whether perfect or unperfect, doth in any wise require imputation of justice: seeing it justifieth no otherwise, then in as much as it apprehendeth Christ's satisfaction, which by the grace of God is imputed for justice to him that believeth. In exposition of the fourth argument, Bellarmine alloweth of the Gospelers sentence, at least in part: in that he saith, it is right if it be so understood: that Christ's justice is imputed to us, that is, Christ's merits, because they are given unto us: and we can offer them to God the Father for our sins: because Christ hath taken upon him the burden of satisfying for us, and reconciling us to God the Father. Yet he denieth, that Christ's justice it so imputed unto us, that we are called, and be formally just by it, and that he would prove thus. When there be two contrary forms in any, the one inherent, the other outward: without doubt the absolute denomination is taken from the inherent form, rather than from the outward. For if one should put a white garment upon a blackmoor, he could not rightly say, This blackmoor is white: but contrary wise it might rightly be said, this Moor is black; because the proper and inherent blackness pertaineth more unto him, than that outward whiteness fetched from an other thing. But in man by the doctrine of imputation of justice there are made two contrary forms, the one inherent, namely Injustice: the other outward, namely, inputed justice. Wherewith man by apprehension is clothed as with a garment. Therefore man to whom justice is imputed, is rather to be named unjust of the inherent form, then just of the outward. I answer unto the proposition. Although that denomination be usual with men: yet God in this affair followeth a diverse: reason in his word: saying both; to wit, that faith is imputed unto us for justice, or that justice is imputed to us, to wit by faith, Rom. 4.5.6. and that we are justified by faith, Rom. 5.1. And surely, when as we are so far forth just before God, as justice is imputed to us, as Paul in the place alleged, Rom. 4. doth teach: it is rightly said, that we by imputed justice, be and are named formally just. Now to the assumption. In man to whom justice is imputed, it is granted there is unjustice inherent: but it is understood, unjustice cleaving unto him by sins already committed, and not a purpose of doing unjustly. For to whom faith is given, that by it justice is imputed to him and committed sins are forgiven: to him withal, is given a purpose to live justly, and to avoid sins. The 5. Argument. 5. Proof. If Christ's justice were truly imputed unto us, that by it we were counted and thought just, even as if it were our own inward and formal justice: surely we ought to be counted and thought no less just than Christ himself. Then ought we to be called and counted redeemers and saviours of the world, and to receive other such names and attributes of the like sort: which is most absurd. I answer. I deny the consequence. For by Christ's justice which is imputed to us, is understood the obedience of death, whereby he satisfied for our sins, and so brought us everlasting justice (as Daniel speaketh.) This obedience I say, is imputed to us for justice: so that we are esteemed of God, as if ourselves had performed it. Neither doth it follow from hence, that we should be called and counted redeemers and saviours of the world: both for that Christ's suffering is so imputed to every believer, as if he had suffered for himself, and not for others: as also because that any may be called the redeemer and saviour of the world, it is not inogh that he be ready to suffer for the world, but it is necessary that he be meet to satisfy God by his suffering for the world: and unto this is required, that he be not only man, but a holy man, and besides that, God. The sixth Argument. 6. Proof. Christ hath restored us that which we lost in Adam. But in Adam we lost not imputed justice: neither to be in God's image and likeness by imputation: but true inherent justice, by which we were truly 〈◊〉 to God. Therefore we receive by Christ true justice and likeness of God, and not only an outward imputation. Thus saith Bellarmine. Which things that they may the more easily be judged of, we will resolve them. And they be two syllogisms. The first is this. That which we lost in Adam, is restored us by Christ: In Adam we lost not imputed justice, Therefore, imputed justice is not restored us by Christ. The second syllogism is this. That which we lost in Adam, is restored us by Christ. 〈◊〉 out justice we lost in Adam. Therefore, inherent justice is restored us by Christ. I answer to the last first. I grant all the latter syllogism: but the conclusion of it, is far from the question proponed. For although Christ hath restored us inherent justice, in regenerating and renewing us to the Image of God by the holy Ghost; in this life as beginning; in the next▪ perfectly: yet that letteth not, why he should not impute justice to us, whereby we may stand in the judgement of God. As touching the first syllogism, it first of all is faulty in the storm, because it hath a negative minor in the first figure. Then, the conclusion is from the question proponed. For it is not asked, whether that justice be restored us which was imouted to us in Adam before he fell▪ but it is demanded, whether justice be imputed to us, that is, whether we be esteemed of God for just, because of Christ's satisfaction. Thirdly, the minor ●omimu in the assumption is doubtful. For imputed justice there may be understood either of the justice which may be said to be imputed to us in Adam before his fall: or of the justice which we say now is imputed to us for Christ's satisfaction. In the first sense, the assumption is true: but then there be four termini, for that minor terminus in the conclusion is manifestly understood of the justice which is said to be imputed to us in Adam before his fall: as is plain by the word Restore. And in the latter sense the assumption is false: for we lost surely in Adam that justice which now is imputed unto us for Christ's satisfaction. For by the disobedience of Adam we were made unjust; and again, by Christ's obedience we are made just, Rom. 5.19. & that by imputation of justice, Rom. 4.6. The 7. Argument. 7. Proof. If by Christ's justice imputed to us, we may truly be called just, & sons of God: then might Christ also by our injustice imputed to him, be truly called a sinner, & (that which the soul trembleth to think) the son of the devil. For the adversaries grant that sin was so imputed to Christ, as justice is imputed to us. But the consequence is not true; but blasphemous, sacrilegious, and repugnant to all the scripture; wherein Christ is every where preached to be holy, innocent, immortal, unpolluted, and most just. Therefore neither is the antecedent true. I answer. There be four termini, for the doubtfulness of the word truly: which in the proposition is understood of the truth of imputation, but in the assumption of the truth of inherence. For after the manner of inherence, Christ was not truly a sinner, but truly holy, innocent, etc. Yet after the manner of imputation he was truly a sinner: for our sins were truly imputed unto him of God, when as for them he was truly made a curse or execration, Gal. 3.13. that is, accursed: as is there declared, when it is added: For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on tree. Now none is accursed unto God, but for sin; that is, in as much as either he is a sinner, or so reputed. And so also may be expounded, and it seemeth should be expounded that place, 2. Cor. 5 Him which knew no sin, he made sin for us: that we might be made the justice of God in him. For although it be a sound exposition, that God made Christ a sacrifice for sin: yet the opposition seemeth to require that it be expounded, he made him a sinner: namely by imputing our sins unto him: for so are we made justice in him, whiles we are made just by imputation of his suffering. But Bellarmine urgeth this argument: & from that comparison of the imputation of Christ's justice, and the imputation of our unjustice, he proceedeth to reason thus. If we were truly unclean and wicked, even after justification: although Christ's justice were imputed unto us, yet were we not to be called just, but unrighteous. But the scripture calleth us just and holy. God's sons and heirs after the laver of regineration and renovation. We are not therefore justified by imputation of justice, but by justice inherent and abiding 〈◊〉 us. The proposition he confirmeth by the comparison before spoken of. I answer. First, there be 4. termini: for it is one thing to be called just after justification, as it is set down in the proposition: and an other thing, to be called just after the laver of regeneration and renovation, as is set down in the assumption. Then the conclusion followeth not of the premises, no not though the same argument be repeated in the assumption, which is contained in the proposition, as namely, if it be said, But the scripture calleth us just after justification. But this conclusion followeth of those premises: Therefore after justification we are not truly unclean and wicked: Which no professor of the Gospel denieth. For after the justification of faith, we are truly clean and godly by imputation; yea and moreover also, by inherence of godliness, but begun only: for justifying faith, doth necessarily bring with it study of godliness. The 8. Argument. 8. Proof. Christ in the song of Songs, is compared to a Bridegroom: and the Church or justified soul, is compared to a Bride. And that Bride is said to be fair, with the beauty inherent to herself, not with the beauty of the Bridegroom imputed to her. For therefore unto the Bride is given the beauty proper to women; and unto the Bridegroom, the beauty proper to men: that we may understand, that the beauty of Christ is one, the beauty of the Church or justified soul is an other. Moreover it would be most absurd, if an heavenly Bridegroom, and one that is most fair indeed, should have a filthy Bride, and only decked outwardly with some precious garment of a man. I answer. Christ's Bride, the Church, in the Song of Songs, confesseth that she is black, & withal affirmeth that she is comely, Chap. 1.5. By that confession she acknowledgeth her filthiness or native deformity, that is, sin: but by that affirmation, she setteth forth the beauty received from the Bridegroom. And that beauty is double: the one of justice imputed, the other of justice infused: but this is imperfect in this life. Wherefore Bellarmine doth falsely lay it to the Gospelers charge, as if they thought, that Christ's Bride even justified, should yet be filthy: or fair only by imputation of justice. Moreover, although Christ's Bride be fair, even by justice inherent to her: ye hence it followeth not, that she is not justified by justice imputed. The 9 Argument. 9 Proof. If by justification the heart be prepared unto the sight of God: then is true cleanness conferred by it, and not imputative. But the antecedent is true: therefore also the consequent. The consequence of the proposition is proved by a simile. For as the eye being indeed unclean, though it be counted most clean and pure, cannot see the sun: so neither can an unclean heart, though it be counted clean, ever see God. I answer. Bellarmine doth sophistically oppose, true & imputed cleanness: as though the cleanness which is imputed unto us by faith, were not true cleanness. Also by the rest of his disputation it appeareth, that he by true cleanness, understandeth inherent cleanness. But the consequence of his proposition is false. For although it be needful to have an eye truly and habitually clean for to see withal: and by justification the heart is after a sort prepared to see God: yet is not inherent cleanness conferred by it, but by regeneration. Even as by taking away the putrefied matter, a wound is prepared unto the scar: yet is there no fort conferred by it for the wound to close together, but by the plaster which is laid upon the wound being purged of the putrefied matter. For God first by justification removeth from man the filth and uncleanness of sin: then by regeneration endueth him with faith & study of godliness: that by faith he may be made more sure of his justification, and may begin to see God: & by study of godliness cleave unto him, until he come to see him fully in the other life. The 10. Argument. Christ suffered, 10. Proof. that he might sanctify his people by his blood: Heb. 13. that he might sanctify his Church, Eph. 5. that he might cleanse for himself a people acceptable. Tit. 2. And the Lord himself saith, joh. 17. I sanctify myself for them, that they also may be sanctified in the truth. But if Christ have sanctified his people not truly, but only by imputation, he hath suffered and died in vain, & he could not perform that he desired. For to be willing to sanctify, & to sanctify in the truth, doth not signify only to be willing to deliver from the punishment of sin, or to be willing that we should be counted for Saints, though indeed we be not so: but to be willing to effect that, whereby we may be truly Saints, clean and immaculate. Thus far Bellarmine. The Syllogism is to be form thus. If Christ have not sanctified his people truly, but only imputatively he suffered in vain. But he suffered not in vain. Therefore, He hath sanctified his people truly and not only imputatively. I answer. Again, truly and imputatively are sophistically opposed. Then, the conclusion is from the question. For the Gospelers confess, that Christ hath sanctified his people, not only imputatively, but also habitually: or, not only by imputation of holiness, but also by real beginning of holiness: for by his suffering, he obtained both benefits of God. But yet it followeth not from hence, that the justification wherewith man is justified before God consisteth not in imputation of justice. The conclusion. These things the Lord hath given me at this time to dispute against Bellarmine's sophisms of justification. His graune that they may be a help unto many to rid themselves out of those sophisms. FINIS.