Pareus: the outward act is not the substance of the work
Thesis XLVII. This can be seen in David Pareus, already cited so often. 'So Bellarmine deceives and is deceived,' he says, 'when he takes the outward act of a work and the substance of the work to be the same thing, though they differ as part and whole. The substance of a work requires matter and form, no less than the substance of a man requires body and soul.
The outward act the law commands serves as the matter. The inward conformity and purity that comes from faith serves as the form of the work, and a lawful end is also required for it. The Philosopher himself praises an act of virtue only on account of its end, if it is done for the sake of the noble. So whoever performs the outward act of a work has not performed the substance of the work' (on Bellarmine, On grace and free choice, book 5, chapter 5).
Latin
XLVII. Istud videre est apud Davidem Paraeum saepius jam citatum. Fallit igitur, inquit, & fallitur Bellarminus, externum actum operis, & substantiam operis pro eodem sumendo, quae ut pars & totum differunt. Ad substantiam operis requiritur materia & forma, non minus quam ad substantiam hominis requiritur corpus & anima. Actus externus lege praeceptus est pro materia: interna conformitas & mundities, quae habetur ex fide, est pro forma operis, ad quam finis etiam legitimus requiritur. Nam ipse Philosophus non laudat actum virtutis, nisi ex fine, si fiat τοῦ καλοῦ ἕνεκα. Non igitur qui externum operis actum praestat, substantiam operis praestitit. In Bellarm. lib. V. de Gratia & lib. Arbitrio capite 5.