trauelled in birth againe of them that so he might continue the metaphor hee had begun But such forming of Christ in man cannot be ascribed vnto feare Neither can that any way be prooued from that saying of Isaiah in the citing wherof hitherto Bellarmine bewrayeth his maruellous impudencie seeing that place containeth nothing at all of Christ or iustification no not though the interpretation of the 70. be admitted But why doth not Bellarmine cite the common Latin translation when as notwithstanding hee approoueth and defendeth the decree of the Councell of Trent wherin is determined that the common Latin edition is to be held for authenticall 2. Booke De Verbo Des Chap. 10. For if that be autheÌ„ticall that which differeth from it cannot be couÌ„ted for authenticall And the interpretation of the 70. differeth in this place But if one looke into that place and consider the whole context hee shall see that there is nothing at all of Christes or mans iustification before God contained in those words but a narration of the Iewes wherein they tell theyr owne weaknesse in deliuering themselues from calamities and purchasing themselues saluation Their calamities they compare to a woman in trauell saying As a woman with child that draweth neare to the trauell is in sorrow and crieth in her paines so haue we bene in thy sight ô Lord We haue conceiued we haue borne in paine as though wee should haue brought forth wind We could not giue any helpe to the Land It is therfore an impudent sophisme of Bellarmine who shameth not to alleadge these things here as being spoken of mans Iustification Againe faith Iustifieth saith Bellarmine because the iust liueth by faith Hab. 2. And of feare it is written The feare of the Lord is the fountaine of life Prou. 14. I answere It is false that faith iustifieth because or in as much as the Iust liueth by faith Neither doth Habacuck say this but onely saith The iust shall liue by faith You contrariwise the iust shall liue by faith because hee is iustified by faith For iustice goeth before life as the cause before the effect And faith Iustifieth because or in as much as it apprehendeth Christs satisfaction for which God iustifieth To conclude 6. Argument faith iustifieth saith Bellarmine because it purgeth sinnes as the Apostle teacheth Act. 13. Rom. 3. Gal. 3. and in other places But of feare also we reade Ecclesiast 1. The feare of the Lord expelleth sinne I answere Faith to speake properly purgeth not sinnes but Christes bloud 1. Iohn 1. And if faith be said to purge sinnes it is to be vnderstood thus that it apprehendeth Christes satisfaction vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes But after this manner the feare of the Lord doth not expell sinne but so farre as it holdeth a man like a bridle from giuing himselfe vp to sinne and sinning securely Neither is it said in any of the places alleaged that faith purgeth sinnes But Act. 15.9 Peter saith that God had purged the harts of the beleeuing Gentiles by faith that is had forgiuen them their sinnes by faith whereby they apprehended Christs satisfactioÌ„ In Rom. 3.25 it is said That God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation by faith in his bloud to declare his iustice by forgiuenesse of foredone sins In Gal. 3. there is no such thing Last of all he addeth this reason 7. Argument The nature of feare is saith he to flee euils and seeke remedies how it may escape them I answere But hence it foloweth not that feare iustifieth and that after the same manner that faith doth Bellarmines arguments that hope of pardon is a disposition vnto iustice and remission of sinnes Bellarmine proceedeth to the third disposition as he calleth it to wit Hope namely hope to obtaine pardon That this is a disposition vnto iustice and remission of sinnes he proueth by these sayings Prou. 28. He that hopeth in the Lord shal be healed Psal 36. He wil saue them because they hoped in him Psal 90. Because he hoped in me I will deliuer him Mat. 9. Haue confidence some thy sinnes are forgiuen thee where he noteth that the Lord first said Haue confidence sonne and when he sawe him lifted vp vnto the hope of saluation he added Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee I answere First Bellarmine strayeth from the question For the question proposed is whether onely faith iustifieth and not whether it onely dispose vnto iustification wherefore he should proue that hope also iustifieth and not that hope disposeth vnto iustification Moreouer the sayings all eaged out of the Prouerbs and Psalmes make nothing to the matter for none of them speake of the obtaining of the forgiuenes of sinnes but they speake of outward felicitie and deliuerance from outward dangers Neither is there in that place of the Prouerbs in the Hebrue the word bealed but 〈◊〉 shal be made fat Neither in the said 90. Psalme or after the Hebrues distâ—ction the 91. Psalme is the Hebrue because he hoped in me but because he hath loued me or bene louingly affected vnto 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 prouidence and care of God towards his children Now as touching that saying Math. 9. Bellarmine wresteth it vnto his purpose by a false interpretation of the word Haue confidence as if it were the same that Conceiue hope of pardon is Then he maket'd a weake consequence If the Lord said first Haue confidence and after Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee Therfore that confidence of which he spake went before forgiuenes of sinnes Lastly he foloweth the false interpretation of the word aphéontas forgiuen which signifieth not are forgiuen but haue bene forgiuen for it is not of the time present but past And the naturall sense of the words is this Haue confidence sonne that thou shalt obtaine of me healing of thy palsie because thou hast already obtained a farre greater benefit to wit forgiuenesse of sinnes But if that were the sense which Bellarmine giueth the word should sound thus Haue confidence sonne and thy sinnes shal be forgiuen thee that is as Bellarmine would haue it Conceiue hope of pardon or forgiuenesse of sinnes for if thou so do it shall be done vnto thee Bellarmines arguments that loue disposeth vnto forgiuenesse of sinnes The fourth disposition saith Bellarmine further is loue Now that some loue is before forgiuenesse of sinnes either in time if it be imperfect loue or in nature if it be perfect and from the whole heart Ecclesiasticus teacheth first saith he chapt 2. For after that he had sayd Yee that feare the Lord trust in him hee addeth Yee that feare the Lord loue him and your harts shall be inlightned Then also our Sauiour himselfe teacheth it when hee saith Luk. 7. Many sinnes are forgiuen her because shee loued much Also the Apostle Paule teacheth it when he writeth
Galath 5. Neither Circumcision auaileth any thing nor Vncircumcision but faith which worketh by loue The Apostle Iohn teacheth the same 1. Iohn 3. saying We are translated from death to life because we loue the brethren I answere As touching that place in Ecclesiasticus it is not of force to proue any point of faith because the booke is Apocryphal Then that sentence is not found in the Greeke copie Thirdly he treateth not there of remission of sinnes wherefore this sentence is nothing to the purpose As concerning the other places Luc. 7. the coniunction because in Greeke hóti noteth not the cause of the thing but the cause of the conclusion that is the argument whereby the sentence proposed is proued And that argument was drawen not from the cause but from the effect For that many sinnes are forgiuen this woman Christ proueth by her deede as an effect of the forgiuenesse of sinnes which she perceiued she had obteyned by the grace of Christ As is plaine by the Simile which the Lord addeth to declare that deede to wit the creditor which forgaue two debtors to the one more to the other lesse whereupon it came that the one loued him more the other lesse As therefore that loue of the debtors was not the cause of forgiuing the det but contrarywise the forgiuing of the det was cause of their loue so also the loue of that woman was not the cause why Christ forgaue her her sinnes but contrariwise the forgiuenesse of sinnes was cause why the woman loued him Neither is this declaration answered by the exposition which Bellarmine bringeth in an other place that the coniunction hóti because is a causal For it is not named a causal for that it signifieth the cause of the thing but for that it signifieth the cause of the conclusion that is the argument or medium of the proofe From the words Gal. 5. it cannot be gathered that loue disposeth vnto iustification but onely we are taught what maner of faith that is whereby we are iustified namely faith working by loue In the place out of the Epistle of Iohn Bellarmine hath committed the crime of falshood for that he hath cited the text vnperfectly that he might wrest it vnto his purpose For it is not there We are translated c. but We know that we are translated It is euident therefore that loue is not there made the cause of our translation from death to life but the signe and argument whereby we know that we are translated And loue is the signe of this thing because it is the effect of true faith by which that translation is made as our Lord witnesseth Ioh. 5.24 He that beleeueth hath passed from death into life The second principall argument Bellarmine proceedeth to another principall argument which he concludeth in this reasoning If faith be separated from hope and loue and other vertues without doubt it cannot iustifie Therefore onely faith cannot iustifie The consequence of this argument is proued saith he thus If the whole force of iustifying were in faith only so that other vertues though they were present conferred nothing at all vnto iustification surely that faith would iustifie * It should be as well when they are absent as present as well when they are present as absent Therefore if it cannot iustifie when they are absent it argueth that the force of iustifying is not in it onely but partly in it partly in the other Also If it cannot be that faith seuered from loue should iustifie then it alone iustifieth not But the first is true for without loue there can be no iustice because he that loueth not abideth in death 1. Iohn 2. Therefore the latter also is true Besides if faith separated from vertues can iustifie it can also doo the same with vices for as the presence of other vertues profiteth faith nothing as concerning the dutie of iustifying because it onely iustifieth so the presence of vices shall nothing hinder it as touching the office of iustifying because by accident there are ioyned with it either vices or vertues But the consequent is absurd therefore also the antecedent I answere All these connexe or as Bellarmine calleth them conditionate propositions of these three reasons are false For although faith be not alone but hath other vertues ioyned with it and not vices which is impossible yet faith onely iustifieth Euen as the hand of a writer although it be not alone but ioyned with the other members yet it onely writeth And as the foote as not alone but ioyned to the other members yet it onely standeth Likewise as the eye is not alone and yet alone seeth the eare is not alone but yet heareth alone Finally the members of mans body although they be ioyned one to another and cannot do their seuerall actions except they be ioyned one to another yet haue euery one their proper action The third principall argument The third principall argument whereby Bellarmine would proue that faith iustifieth not alone is taken saith he from the remouing away of the causes which may be giuen why faith onely iustifieth For all such causes may be reduced saith he vnto three heads And thus he concludeth If faith alone iustifieth either it therefore iustifieth alone because the scripture expressely saith it or because it pleased God to giue iustification with the onely condition of faith or because it alone hath the force to apprehend iustification and apply it vnto vs and make it ours But none of these causes can truly be said of faith Therefore neither can it be truly said of it that it onely iustifieth The first part of the assumption he endenoureth to proue by this that in the scripture there is found an expresse denyall of that word to wit Onely or a word of the same signification namely Iam. 2. Yee see that of workes a man is iustified and not of faith onely The second part he proueth by this that scriptures doo much more openly require the conditiō of repentance and of the Sacraments vnto Iustification then of faith as Ezek. 18. If the wicked repent he shall liue Luk. 13. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Ioh. 3. Except a man be borne againe of water and of the holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God The third part he endeuoureth to proue thus for that faith is not said properly to apprehend or certainly Iustification is not so apprehended by faith that it is had indeed and inherent but onely that it is in the mind after the manner of an obiect apprehended by the action of the vnderstanding or will But after this manner loue also and ioy do apprehend I answere The assumption of the syllogisme proposed is false as touching the third part or branch For onely faith apprehendeth Christs satisfaction vnto Iustification because by faith onely we can make full account that Christ hath satisfied for vs and by his satisfaction obtained of God forgiuenesse of
forgiuenesse of sinnes For remission of sinnes and imputation of iustice are one and the same thing as appeareth by the Apostles words Rom. 4.5.6 where these two are taken as equiualent for Iustice to be imputed to man and iniquities to be forgiuen a man Yet is it true that imputation of iustice is necessary for a man because he is a sinner Then Bellarmine confirmeth his assumption by a false sentence to wit that by forgiuenesse of sins sinne is vtterly taken away that it is not For sinne is taken away by forgiuenesse not so as that it is not but that it is not imputed but couered as Dauid expresly teacheth in that place which the Apostle citeth Rom. 4.7.8 in these words Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered blessed is the man to whom the Lord shal not impute sin Behold if thou askest what it is to haue iniquities or sins forgiuen Dauid answereth It is to haue sins couered that they come not into the sight of God as iudge Also it is to haue sinne not imputed of the Lord to wit that man be punished for his sinne as he hath deserued Wherefore we may not thinke that in those places of scripture those I meane that speake of iustificatiō which Bellarmine hath heaped together a diuerse thing is taught seeing it is certaine that the holy Ghost contradicteth not himselfe Further vnto that argument from the opposition of Adam vnto Christ Rom. 5. which Bellarmine thinketh will admit no answere at all we haue answered * Before in the second chapter of this booke in the solution of the first Argument before Bellarmines third argument is this If faith hope and loue can be perfect in this life the imputation of Christes iustice is not necessary But the antecedent is true 3. Proofe Therefore also the consequent I answere The proposition is false For first that imputation of iustice be not necessary for man it is not ynough that faith hope and loue can be perfect in this life but it behoueth that they be perfect Then though it be graunted that perfect faith hope and loue befall some as the Martyrs in this life yet neuerthelesse is imputation of iustice necessary for them for sinnes committed before the perfection of those vertues For we cannot satisfie God for them by the duties of vertues that folow seeing they are owing vnto God Therefore for old debts another satisfaction is needfull And God cannot be satisfied for sinnes but by suffering the punishment of them And this hath Christ suffered for them that beleeue so hath satisfied for their sinnes which satisfaction is imputed to them for iustice and this imputation is needfull for them seeing they cannot but by it be counted for iust and worthy of eternall life yea iustifying faith whether perfect or vnperfect doth in any wise require imputation of iustice seeing it iustifieth no otherwise then in as much as it apprehendeth Christs satisfaction which by the grace of God is imputed for iustice to him that beleeueth In exposition of the fourth argument Bellarmine alloweth of the Gospellers sentence at least in part in that he saith it is right if it be so vnderstood that Christs iustice is imputed to vs that is Christes merits because they are giuen vnto vs and we can offer them to God the Father for our sinnes because Christ hath taken vpon him the burden of satisfying for vs and reconciling vs to God the Father Yet he denyeth that Christes iustice it so imputed vnto vs that we are called and be formally iust by it and that he would proue thus When there be two contrary formes in any the one inherent the other outward without doubt the absolute denomination is taken from the inherent forme rather then from the outward For if one should put a white garment vpon a black-moore he could not rightly say This black-moore is white but contrary wise it might rightly be said this Moore is black because the proper and inherent blacknesse perteyneth more vnto him then that outward whitenesse fetched from an other thing But in man by the doctrine of imputation of iustice there are made two contrary formes the one inherent namely Iniustice the other outward namely inputed iustice Wherewith man by apprehension is cloathed as with a garment Therfore man to whom iustice is imputed is rather to be named vniust of the inherent forme then iust of the outward I answer vnto the proposition Althogh that denomination be vsuall with men yet God in this affaire foloweth a diuerse reason in his word saying both to wit that faith is imputed vnto vs for iustice or that iustice is imputed to vs to wit by faith Rom. 4.5.6 and that we are iustified by faith Rom. 5.1 And surely when as we are so far forth iust before God as iustice is imputed to vs as Paul in the place alleaged Rom. 4. doth teach it is rightly said that we by imputed iustice be and are named formally iust Now to the assumption In man to whom iustice is imputed it is graunted there is vniustice inherent but it is vnderstood vniustice cleauing vnto him by sinnes already committed and not a purpose of doing vniustly For to whom faith is giuen that by it iustice is imputed to him and committed sinnes are forgiuen to him withall is giuen a purpose to liue iustly and to auoyd sinnes The 5. Argument 5. Proof If Christs iustice were truly imputed vnto vs that by it we were counted and thought iust euen as if it were our owne inward and formall iustice surely we ought to be counted and thought no lesse iust then Christ himselfe Then ought wee to be called and counted redeemers and sauiours of the world and to receiue other such names and attributes of the like sort which is most absurd I answere I denie the consequence For by Christs iustice which is imputed to vs is vnderstood the obedience of death wherby he satisfied for our sinnes and so brought vs euerlasting iustice as Daniel speaketh This obedience I say is imputed to vs for iustice so that we are esteemed of God as if our selues had performed it Neither dooth it follow from hence that wee should be called and counted redeemers and sauiours of the world both for that Christs suffering is so imputed to euery beleeuer as if hee had suffered for himselfe and not for others as also because that any may be called the redeemer and sauiour of the world it is not inogh that he be ready to suffer for the world but it is necessary that he be meete to satisfie God by his suffering for the world and vnto this is required that he be not onely man but a holy man and besides that God The sixt Argument 6. Proofe Christ hath restored vs that which we lost in Adam But in Adam we lost not imputed iustice neither to be in Gods image and likenesse by imputation but true inherent iustice by which we were