A learned and profitable treatise of mans iustification. Two bookes. Opposed to the sophismes of Robert Bellarmine, Iesuite. By Iohn Piscator, professor of diuinitie in the famous schools of Nassouia Sigena.

CHAP. V. The proofe of the fourth part, recited and refuted.

NOw remayneth the fourth and last part of the Papists sentence, That iustification confisteth not in imputation of Christes iustice.

This first he would proue by this, that

it is neuer read in the scripture, that Christes iustice is imputed to vs: or, that we are iust, by Christes iustice imputed to vs.

Before I answere this argument, I will first shew in what sense these things be spoken of the professors of the Gospell, whome Bellarmine oppugneth. There∣fore when they say, That Christes iu∣stice is imputed to vs, they vnderstand, the iustice gotten by Christes death. Therefore this they meane: That iu∣stice is imputed to vs of God, or, we are counted of God iust, for the death of Christ, whereby hee hath satisfied his iudgement for our sinnes. Which is all one as if they should say, that Christes satisfaction is of God imputed vnto vs for

iustice. This appeareth by Caluins words in his third booke of Instir. chap. 11.5.3. Which place Bellarmine himselfe citeth: namely, To iustifie, is nothing else, but to acquite from guiltinesse, as being of appro∣ued innocency, him that is guiltie or so accu∣sed. When as therefore God iustifieth vs by Christes intercession, he doth not acquite vs, by approuing of our owne innocencie, but by imputation of iustice: that we are coun∣ted iust in Christ, which are not so in our selues. Behold he saith, God iustifieth vs by Christes intercession, that is, for Christes intercession: vnder which name is com∣prehended satisfaction. Also, He acquit∣teth vs by imputation of iustice, or, in as much as hee imputeth iustice vnto vs: namely for that intercession and satis∣faction of Christ. Whereby wee per∣ceiue, that Caluine maketh the formall cause of iustification, to be imputation of iustice, which otherwhere he calleth for∣giuenesse of sinnes.

Now the meaning of the words being declared, I answere to Bellarmines argu∣ment: and say, that it is not necessarie that those very wordes, Christes iustice is imputed to vs, be read in the scripture: but that it is ynough, if those things

be read, from which this sentence may by good consequence be drawen. And such we read: namely where it is said, that faith is imputed to man for iustice, and, that iustice is imputed to man, Rom. 4.5.6. Now seeing these phrases be diuerse, and ther∣fore cannot be both of them proper: we must consider which is proper, and which figuratiue. To speake properly, a thing is said to be imputed to one, which him∣selfe hath not done, or which is not in himselfe: and contrariwise, that is said not to be imputed, which one hath done, or which is in him. Therefore when iu∣stice is said to be imputed to sinfull man, it is a proper speech: us also when it is said, that sinne is not imputed to a sinner. It is therfore improperly said, that To him that beleeueth, faith is imputed for iu∣stice; and therefore this is to be vnfolden by a proper speech: to wit, that To him that beleeueth, iustice is imputed: or, he that beleeueth is counted for iust, by faith: as elsewhere the Apostle saith, The beleeuer is iustified by faith. Which that it may more fully be vnderstood, it is need∣full that the nature of faith be declared by his obiect whereon it leaneth, or which it apprehendeth for iustice. For that is the

thing for which the beleeuer is iustified, or iustice is imputed to him: or finally which is imputed to him for iustice by faith. And that obiect of faith is Christes satisfaction: as appeareth by the Apostles words, Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath set forth a reconciliation by faith in his bloud. There∣fore to speake properly, iustice is impu∣ted to vs for Christes satisfaction by faith: because we apprehend that by faith: or Christes satisfaction is imputed to vs for iustice by faith: that is, in as much as it is apprehended by faith.

Secondly, he would proue the same thing by this,

that no necessitie can be alleadged of that sort of imputation.

But, say I, there is manifest necessitie: namely our sinnes which cannot be vn∣done: but least we be damned for them, it is necessary that they be not imputed to vs, but couered: which is no other thing, then to haue iustice imputed to vs: as appeareth by the Apostles wordes, Rom. 4.6.7. Dauid saith, that Blessed is that man to whom God imputeth iustice. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered: blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sinne.

But Bellarmine laboureth to confirme his argument, thus.

If this imputation were necessarie: it should therefore cheefly be necessary, for that man after forgiuenesse of sinne is yet verily a sinner, to wit, his sinne being couered, not taken away.

But this cause of necessitie hath no place. Because by forgiuenesse of sinnes, sinne is vt∣terly taken away, that it is not: (for proofe whereof, he heapeth together many testimo∣nies of scripture.)

Therefore this imputation is not necessary. I answere. First, the proposition is false: for although imputation of iustice be ne∣cessary for man, yet is it not therefore necessary, for that man after forgiuenesse of sinne is yet verily a sinner: as though imputation of iustice were done after 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 for∣giuen a man. Yet is it true, that imputati∣on of iustice is necessary for a man, be∣cause he is a sinner. Then, Bellarmine confirmeth his assumption by a false sen∣tence: 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 im∣puted, 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 cer∣taine, that the holy Ghost contradicteth not himselfe. Further, vnto that argu∣ment, from the opposition of Adam vnto Christ, Rom. 5. which Bellarmine thinketh, will admit no answere at all: we haue an∣swered before. Bellarmines third argu∣ment 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: 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 perfec∣tion of those vertues. For we cannot sa∣tisfie God for them, by the duties of ver∣tues that folow; seeing they are owing vn∣to 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 sa∣tisfaction 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 vn∣perfect, doth in any wise require imputa∣tion of iustice: seeing it iustifieth no o∣therwise, then in as much as it apprehen∣deth 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 sa∣tisfying for vs, and reconciling vs to God the Father. Yet he denyeth, that Chri∣stes 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 right∣ly be said, this Moore is black; because the proper and inherent blacknesse per∣teyneth more vnto him, then that out∣ward whitenesse fetched from an other thing.

But in man by the doctrine of imputa∣tion 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 allea∣ged, Rom. 4. doth teach: it is rightly said, that we by imputed iustice, be and are na∣med formally iust.

Now to the assumption. In man to whom iustice is imputed, it is graunted there is vniustice inherent: but it is vn∣derstood, vniustice cleauing vnto him by sinnes already committed, and not a pur∣pose 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. 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 iu∣stice: surely we ought to be counted and thought no lesse iust then Christ him∣selfe. 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 per∣formed 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 rea∣dy to suffer for the world, but it is neces∣sary

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. Christ hath re∣stored vs that which we lost in Adam. But in Adam we lost not imputed iustice: neither to be in Gods image and like∣nesse by imputation: but true inherent iustice, by which we were truly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to God. Therefore we receiue by Christ true iustice and likenesse of God, and not onely an outward imputation. Thus saith Bellarmine. Which things that they may the more easily be iudged of, we will resolue them. And they be two syl∣logismes. The first is this.

That which we lost in Adam, is restored vs by Christ: In Adam we lost not imputed iustice, Therefore, imputed iustice is not restored vs by Christ. The second syllogisme is this. That which we lost in Adam, is restored vs by Christ. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out iustice we lost in Adam. Therefore, inherent iustice is restored vs by Christ.

I answere to the last first. I grant all the latter syllogisme: but the conclusion of it, is far from the question proponed. For al∣though Christ hath restored vs inherent iustice, in regenerating and renuing vs to the Image of God by the holy Ghost; in this life as beginning; in the next▪ perfect∣ly: yet that letteth not, why he should not impute iustice to vs, wherby we may stād in the iudgemēt of God. As touching the first syllogisme, it first of all is faultie in the storme, because it hath a negatiue minor in the first figure. Then, the conclusion is frō the question proponed. For it is not asked, whether that iustice be restored vs which was imouted to vs in Adam before he fel▪ but it is demanded, whether iustice be imputed to vs, that is, whether wee be esteemed of God for iust, because of Christs satisfaction. Thirdly, the minor ••omimu in the assumption is doubtfull. For imputed iustice there may bee vn∣derstoode either of the iustice which may bee saide to bee imputed to vs in Adam before his fall: or of the iustice which wee say now is imputed to vs for Christs satisfaction. In the first sence, the assumption is true: but then there be foure termini, for that minor terminus in the conclusion is manifestly vnderstood

of the iustice which is said to be imputed to vs in Adam before his fall: as is plaine by the word Restore. And in the latter sense the assumption is false: for wee lost surely in Adam that iustice which now is imputed vnto vs for Christs satisfaction. For by the disobedience of Adam we were made vniust; and again, by Christs obedi∣ence we are made iust, Rom. 5.19. & that by imputation of iustice, Rom. 4.6.

The 7. Argument. If by Christs iustice imputed to vs, wee may truly be called iust, & sons of God: then might Christ al∣so by our iniustice imputed to him, be tru∣ly called a sinner, & (that which the soule trembleth to think) the sonne of the diuel. For the aduersaries graunt that sin was so imputed to Christ, as iustice is imputed to vs. But the consequence is not true; but blasphemous, sacriligious, and repugnant to all the scripture; wherein Christ is eue∣ry where preached to be holy, innocent, immortall, vnpolluted, and most iust. Therefore neither is the antecedent true.

I answere. There be foure termini, for the doubtfulnes of the word truly: which in the proposition is vnderstood of the truth of imputation, but in the assumption of the truth of inherence. For after the manner of inherence, Christ was not tru∣ly

a sinner, but truly holy, innocent, &c. Yet after the manner of imputation he was tru∣ly a sinner: for our sins were truly imputed vnto 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 euery one that hangeth on tree. Now none is accur∣sed vnto 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 bee expounded that place, 2. Cor. 5 Him which knew no sin, he made sin for vs: that we might be made the iustice of God in him. For although it be a sound exposition, that God made Christ a sacrifice for sin: yet the oppo∣sition seemeth to require that it be expoun∣ded, he made him a sinner: namely by imputing our sins vnto him: for so are we made iustice in him, whiles we are made iust by imputa∣tion of his suffering.

But Bellarmine vrgeth this argument: & from that comparison of the imputation of Christs iustice, and the imputation of our vniustice, he proceedeth to reason thus.

If we were truly vncleane and wicked, euen after iustification: although Christes iustice were imputed vnto vs, yet were we not to be cal∣led iust, but vnrighteous.

But the scripture calleth vs iust and holy. Gods sonnes and heires after the lauer of regi∣neration and renouation.

We are not therefore iustified by imputation of iustice, but by iustice inherent and abiding 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vs.

The proposition he confirmeth by the comparison before spoken of.

I answere. First, there be 4. termini: for it is one thing to be called iust after Iustifi∣cation, as it is set downe in the proposition: and an other thing, to be called iust after the lauer of regeneration and renouation, as is set downe in the assumption. Then the con∣clusion followeth not of the premisses, no not though the same argument be repea∣ted in the assumption, which is contained in the proposition, as namely, if it be said, But the scripture calleth vs iust after Iustification. But this conclusion followeth of those pre∣misses: Therfore after Iustification we are not truly vncleane and wicked: Which no profes∣sor of the Gospell denieth. For after the iu∣stification of faith, we are truly cleane and godly by imputation; yea and moreouer al∣so, by inherence of godlinesse, but be∣gun onely: for iustifying faith, doth neces∣sarily bring with it study of godlinesse.

The 8. Argument. Christ in the song of Songs, is compared to a Bridegroome:

and the Church or iustified soule, is compa∣red to a Bride. And that Bride is said to bee faire, with the bewtie inherent to her selfe, not with the bewtie of the Bridegroome imputed to her. For therfore vnto the Bride is giuen the bewtie proper to women; and vnto the Bridegroome, the bewtie proper to men: that we may vnderstand, that the bewtie of Christ is one, the bewtie of the Church or iustified soule is an other. More∣ouer it would be most absurd, if an heauen∣ly Bridegroome, and one that is most faire indeed, should haue a filthy Bride, and on∣ly decked outwardly with some precious garment of a man.

I answere. Christes Bride, the Church, in the Song of Songs, confesseth that shee is black, & withall affirmeth that she is come∣ly, Chap. 1.5. By that confession shee ac∣knowledgeth her filthinesse or natiue defor∣mitie, that is, sin: but by that affirmatiō, she setteth forth the bewtie receiued from the Bridegroome. And that bewtie is double: the one of iustice imputed, the other of iu∣stice infused: but this is imperfect in this life. Wherefore Bellarmine doth falsly lay it to the Gospellers charge, as if they thought, that Christs Bride euen iustified, should yet be filthy: or faire onely by imputation of iustice. Moreouer, although Christes Bride

be faire, euen by iustice inherent to her: yee hence it followeth not, that she is not iusti∣fied by iustice imputed.

The 9. Argument. If by Iustification the heart be prepared vnto the sight of God: then is true cleannesse conferred by it, and not imputatiue. But the antecedent is true: therefore also the consequent. The conse∣quence of the proposition is proued by a si∣mile. For as the eye being indeed vncleane, though it be counted most cleane and pure, cannot see the sunne: so neither can an vn∣cleane heart, though it be counted cleane, e∣uer see God.

I answere. Bellarmine doth sophistically oppose, true & imputed cleannes: as though the cleannesse which is imputed vnto vs by faith, were not true cleannesse. Also by the rest of his disputation it appeareth, that hee by true cleannesse, vnderstandeth inherent cleannesse. But the consequence of his pro∣position is false. For although it be needfull to haue an eye truly and habitually cleane for to see withall: and by Iustification the heart is after a sort prepared to see God: yet is not inherent cleannesse conferred by it, but by regeneratiō. Euen as by taking away the putrified matter, a wound is prepared vnto the scarre: yet is there no forte confer∣red by it for the woūd to close togither, but

by the plaister which is laid vpō the wound being purged of the putrified matter. For God first by Iustification remoueth from man the filth and vncleannesse of sin: then by regeneration endueth him with faith & studie of godlinesse: that by faith hee may be made more sure of his Iustification, and may begin to see God: & by studie of god∣linesse cleaue vnto him, vntil he come to see him fully in the other life.

The 10. Argument. Christ suffered, that he might sanctifie his people by his bloud: Heb. 13. that he might sanctifie his Church, Eph. 5. that he might cleanse for himselfe a people acceptable. Tit. 2. And the Lord himselfe saith, Ioh. 17. I sanctifie my selfe for them, that they also may be sanctified in the truth. But if Christ haue sanctified his peo∣ple not truly, but onely by imputation, hee hath suffered and died in vaine, & he could not performe that he desired. For to be wil∣ling to sanctifie, & to sanctifie in the truth, doth not signifie onely to be willing to de∣liuer from the punishment of sinne, or to be willing that we should be counted for Saints, though indeed we be not so: but to be willing to effect that, wherby we may be truly Saints, cleane and immaculate. Thus farre Bellarmine.

The Syllogisme is to be formed thus.

If Christ haue not sanctified his people truly, but onely imputatiuely he suffered in vaine.

But he suffered not in vaine. Therefore, He hath sanctified his people truly and not onely imputatiuely.

I answere. Againe, truly and imputatiuely are sophistically opposed. Then, the con∣clusion is from the question. For the Gos∣pellers confesse, that Christ hath sanctified his people, not onely imputatiuely, but also habitually: or, not onely by imputation of holinesse, but also by reall beginning of ho∣linesse: for by his suffering, he obtained both benefites of God. But yet it followeth not from hence, that the iustification wher∣with man is iustified before God consisteth not in imputation of Iustice.

These things the Lord hath giuen me at this time to dispute against Bellarmines so∣phismes of Iustification. His graune that they may be a helpe vnto many to rid themselues out of those so∣phismes.

FINIS.

Notes

• I. Proofe.
• 2. Booke of Iustific. chapt. 1.
• 2. Proofe.
• Before in the second chapter of this booke, in the solu∣tion of the first Argu∣ment.
• 3. Proofe.
• 5. Proof.
• 6. Proofe.
• 7. Proof.
• 8. Proofe.
• 9. Proof.
• 10. Proof.
• The con∣clusion.