Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book II: On Inhering Justice
Chapter 3: That our formal justice is inhering is proved from the Scriptures
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book II. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now let us come to the arguments for the truth. The first argument is taken from those words of the Apostle, Romans 5: For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one many shall be made just. From this place we have that to be justified through Christ is not to be held or pronounced just, but truly to be made and constituted just, through the attainment of an inhering justice — and a justice not imperfect, but absolute and perfect. For that to justify in this place is to make just, not to pronounce just, is clear both from those words, many shall be made just, where the Apostle himself declares what it is to be justified, and says it is to be constituted just — and to be constituted just, and to be made just, are the same; and from the antithesis of Adam to Christ, for the Apostle writes that we are so constituted just through the obedience of Christ, in the manner in which we were constituted unjust through the disobedience of Adam. But it is agreed that through the disobedience of Adam we were constituted unjust, injustice truly and in fact inhering in us, not the injustice of Adam imputed to us. And that the justice which we attain through Christ is a true and absolute justice can be understood both from this, that the Apostle calls it the abundance of justice, and from this, that the same Apostle says the gift of God is greater than the sin of Adam. For thence it follows that, if the sin of Adam placed in us a true and absolute injustice, as by the consent of all it did, certainly the gift of God places in us a true and absolute justice.
But Calvin and Chemnitz meet us, and strive to prove that the Apostle in this place by the word “justify” wished to signify nothing else than to pronounce just. First, because he opposed the word “justify” to the word “condemn,” when he says, judgment from one unto condemnation, grace from many unto justification; and again chapter 8, God that justifieth; who is he that shall condemn? Second, because the Apostle without doubt imitates the Hebrew phrase, although he writes in Greek; but in Hebrew the word “justify” has plainly a forensic signification. Third, because the Latin word, if its propriety be looked at, signifies nothing else than to pronounce just. For although by the Fathers “justify” is sometimes taken for that which is to make just, yet that notion is not found among the good authors of the Latin tongue. Finally, Chemnitz reprehends the Catholics that they cling too much to the very composition of the word, as though to justify were to make just, because it is composed of the noun “just” and the verb “make.”
I answer to the first: justification is rightly opposed to condemnation, and yet it is not therefore always a forensic word. For condemnation itself too is sometimes the act of a judge deputing to punishment him who in judgment is found guilty; sometimes it is the effect of a fault which has merited punishment. For both Adam condemned us, and God. But Adam condemned us not by judging, nor in the forensic manner, but by imprinting original fault; God, however, condemned us by judging. In the same manner, then, justification too is now the act of a judge, now the effect of grace; and Christ himself, first, as the second Adam, justifies us by blotting out sins and infusing grace; secondly, in the day of judgment he will justify us by declaring just those whom he before made just. Moreover, although condemnation and justification somewhere signify the action of a judge, as in that place cited, judgment from one unto condemnation, etc., yet when God justifies the impious by declaring him just, he makes him also just, since the judgment of God is according to truth. And so whether Christ justify us through his obedience, or through his judgment, he always makes just. And in this manner St. Augustine understood that place, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 15, where he says that to be justified in Christ, according to the sentence of the Apostle, Romans 5, is not only to be made just by the imitation of Christ, but also to be regenerated through his grace; as to be condemned in Adam is not only by the imitation of Adam, but also to be drawn to fault by carnal generation.
To the second, concerning the Hebrew word: I say the verb tsadaq properly is nothing else than to make just; but because one can be made just, both intrinsically by the attainment of justice, and extrinsically by declaration, thence the same word is carried over to signify various things. Further, that there are not lacking places in the Scriptures where that word signifies to make just — not in the forensic manner by declaring, but by truly effecting justice — is clear from those words of Daniel, chapter 12: They that instruct many unto justice shall shine as stars for all eternity. For that, “they that instruct unto justice,” is in the Hebrew matsdiqim — that is, justifying, or those who justify. And this cannot be drawn to judges declaring, for the Prophet signifies that great will be the glory of the Doctors who by teaching shall have brought many to justice. Nor does it much profit the adversaries that some of them say Daniel speaks of the ministers of the Gospel, who announce the remission of sins through the faith of Christ, as though to justify were to preach indulgence. For even in this manner to justify will not be a forensic word, as Calvin and Chemnitz take it. For he who preaches the Gospel does not pronounce men to be just, after the manner of a judge, but opens the way to justification, and in that manner is the cause that the hearers be made just from impious. For he does not say, “I, the voice, pronounce all just,” but says, “Believe the Gospel, and you shall be justified” — as no judge speaks. And so it is certain that in Daniel, in the noted place, the word “they justify” does not admit the forensic signification.
But there is another place still more illustrious in Isaias, chapter 53, where of Christ Isaias thus speaks: By his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Where is the verb in hiphil, which signifies to make just. Chemnitz indeed tries to wrest this place too to the forensic signification, but in vain. For four words manifestly conflict with his interpretation. The first is, “by his knowledge.” For this signifies, St. Jerome being interpreter, that Christ justified men in various manners, and that one of those manners was doctrine. But he who justifies by teaching certainly does not justify after the manner of a judge. The second is, “he the just one,” by which word is signified that Christ justifies not only by teaching, but also by working justly, and by imparting to us his justice. Further, it is not required, in order to justify in the forensic manner, that he be just who justifies others; but it is necessarily required that he be just who ought to justify by working well. And therefore blessed Paul, alluding to this place, says, Romans 3, That he himself may be just, and the justifier. The third is, “my servant.” For so it is to be read, not “my servants,” as some codices have by the fault of the copyists; for in the Hebrew it is abdi. And this word signifies that Christ served God the Father in the work of justification, and thereby justified men not by judging, but by ministering, as he himself says, Matthew 20: The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many. Whence also by the Apostle, Romans 15, he is called the minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises of the Fathers. The fourth is, “he shall bear their iniquities.” For here is signified the manner in which Christ justifies by ministering, where the Hebrew word sabal signifies to carry as it were on the shoulders. And so Isaias teaches that Christ justified us by bearing the burden of our sins on his shoulders — that is, by paying the punishment due to us. To which St. Peter alluded, epistle 1, chapter 2, when he says: Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice; by whose stripes you were healed. Where thou seest that the effect of the satisfaction of Christ is a justice and health inhering in us. Not, then, in this testimony of Isaias, is “justify” taken in the forensic manner; for neither do judges so justify that they pay the penalties for the guilty, and make them die to sins, and live to justice, and lastly be spiritually whole. There is also another place in Scripture where “justify” can in no way be taken in the forensic manner — namely, Apocalypse 22: He that is just, let him be justified still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still. And yet St. John was not ignorant of Hebrew phrases.
To the third, about the use of the Latin word among good authors, I answer that the authors of the Latin tongue do not have this word in any signification, and therefore it is no wonder if we cannot show in Terence or Cicero “justify” set for that which is to make just. For neither will Chemnitz himself, or Calvin, show in the same authors “justify” used for that which is to pronounce just. Then, it would not even be a wonder if the profane authors had this word only in forensic use, since they were ignorant of the justification of the judge who is God. For God, when he justifies the impious, does indeed pronounce him just, which men also do; but by absolving he makes him truly just from impious, which men cannot do. And hence it is that among men he who confesses the offence is condemned, he who denies is justified; but contrariwise with God, he who denies is condemned, he who confesses is justified. For since men cannot make him who confesses the offence just from guilty, they ought to condemn, not justify, if they will not err. But God, whose judgment is according to truth, pronounces just him who confesses himself guilty; but by pronouncing (as we said above) he makes him truly just. Accordingly God alone did not err, when he justified the impious and unjust. And the holy Fathers, not ignorant of this mystery, and not unskilled of the Latin tongue, everywhere use the word “justify” for that which is to make just. “Who is he,” says Augustine on Psalm 30, discourse 1, “who justifies the impious? He who makes just out of the impious.” Likewise book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 33: “We are justified by the grace of God, that is, we are made just.” Likewise the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 26: “What else is ‘justified’ than ‘made just’?” Epistle 105: “For they are made just, when they are justified.” And epistle 106: “Before he is justified by grace, that is, made just, what is the impious but impious?” And epistle 120, chapter 20: “Believing in him who justifieth the impious, that is, of the impious makes pious.” How great, then, is the importunity of the innovators, that in an Ecclesiastical question they repudiate the Fathers, and will not rest unless we bring forward to them Cicero, or Terence, as judge! And when the Apostle himself has so openly signified that to be justified is to be constituted just, and thereby has opened the composition and notion of the word, let Chemnitz still calumniate us for digging out the interpretation of the name from the composition of the word! But of these things enough has been said.
The second testimony for inhering justice is taken from chapter 3 to the Romans: Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood. In this place almost all the causes of justification are at once explained. For we are justified by God freely — that is, of his mere liberality, as regards our merits; for by no work of ours do we merit to be justified. And this liberality of God is the efficient cause. But we are justified through his grace — that is, through the justice given and infused by him; and this is the formal cause. We are justified likewise through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and this is the meritorious cause. Finally we are justified through faith in the blood of the propitiator; and this is the dispositive cause. The adversaries — Calvin, Chemnitz, and others — answer that by grace is not signified some infused and inhering gift, but the favor and benevolence of God itself with which he prosecutes us, while through the merits of Christ he reconciles us, not imputing our offences, but imputing the justice and obedience of Christ. But, first, the favor of God is sufficiently explained by that word “freely”; for he who justifies freely certainly justifies out of benevolence and liberality. That addition, then, “through grace,” will signify not the favor itself, but something else — that is, the effect of that favor. Then, the preposition “through” is not rightly accommodated to favor and benevolence, but to a formal, or meritorious, or instrumental cause. For we should not rightly say, God justifies us through his favor, or through his benevolence; but we rightly say, through inhering grace, through the merit of his Son, through faith. Moreover, that grace signifies not the favor of God, but a gift that he gives to someone. For “all things whatsoever he would he hath done,” Psalm 113; and if he would good to someone and did it not, he would not be omnipotent, but weak like us. For why do men will many things which they do not, except because they will many things which they cannot? But when God loves us and wills us well, he wills without doubt that we be truly just and holy before him: for “he chose us” (as the Apostle speaks, Ephesians 1) “that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight.” And, “This is the will of God” (says the Apostle, 1 Thessalonians 4) “your sanctification.” Therefore, if justifying grace is the favor and benevolence of God, and God not only favors from without, nor idly wills good, but makes holy and unspotted such as he wills us to be, certainly it follows that to be justified through grace is not to be reputed just and not to be so, but truly to be just, holy, and unspotted.
Moreover, that justifying grace is not only the favor of God, but a gift inhering in the soul, can be understood from its various attributes and names. For it is called a gift which we receive, Romans 5: Receiving abundance of grace and of the gift. Likewise it is said to be given through Christ: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, John 1; but the benevolence of God the Father is not rightly said to have been made through Christ. Likewise it is said to be given by measure by Christ himself: To every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ, Ephesians 4. But the benevolence of God is not given by measure, nor by Christ. Likewise it is compared to the essence which is given through creation. For thence we are said to be “created in Christ,” Ephesians 2, and to be “a new creature,” Galatians 6. But that by which we are said to be creatures is inmost and inhering. Finally it is compared to light, 2 Corinthians 6: What participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? Ephesians 5: You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. 1 John 2: He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness. But certainly light does not make a body luminous unless it inhere, nor does it suffer darkness with itself. How, then, can a justified man be called not only luminous, but even light in the Lord, when before he was dark, if the darkness of sins still inheres in him, and the light of grace remains outside? Moreover, the grace by which the Apostle says we are justified is also called charity diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us, Romans 5. And although the adversaries — Philip, Calvin, Peter Martyr, and others — contend that the Apostle speaks of the charity by which God loves us — that is, of the favor and benevolence which is in God himself — yet St. Augustine, whom, will they nill they, the adversaries must suffer to be preferred to themselves, teaches the contrary in express words. For thus he speaks in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 32: “The charity of God is said to be diffused in our hearts, not by which he himself loves us, but by which he makes us his lovers.” The Apostle himself too, Romans 8, speaking of this very Spirit given to us, says: You have received the spirit of the adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. But certainly we cry, Abba, Father, through the charity by which we love God, not by which God loves us. And in the same chapter we are said to live through justifying grace: “The body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification.” But we cannot rightly be said to live through the extrinsic favor of God, since nothing is more inmost than life.
The third testimony is in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 6, where the Apostle thus explains justification: And such some of you were (namely, sinners), but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. In which place, as Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact, and others expound, the Apostle teaches that men in Baptism, through the invocation of the name of Christ and the operation of the Holy Ghost, are purged and sanctified; and that this very thing is to be justified, so that justification contains those two things, purgation, or washing, and sanctification. But if justification is washing and sanctification, it follows that justification is not the remission of sins alone without internal sanctification. Likewise it follows that justification is not the imputation of justice, or a declaration, in the forensic manner. For imputation and declaration need not the invocation of the name of Christ, or the power of the Holy Ghost. But the Apostle says that the Corinthians were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of Christ and in the power of the Holy Ghost.
The fourth testimony is in the epistle to Titus, chapter 3: When the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared, not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs according to the hope of life everlasting. From those last words, “that, being justified by his grace,” etc., we understand that in the foregoing words justification is described, so that, according to the sentence of the Apostle, justification is the regeneration and renovation, by the goodness of God, wrought in us through the laver of Baptism and the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost. And that this regeneration and renovation, which is justification itself, is formally made through some inhering gift, can be proved by three arguments. First, from the very nature and notion of regeneration; for it cannot be understood how anyone is regenerated without any change of himself, through the sole benevolence of God existing in God himself, or through the sole extrinsic imputation of another’s justice. For certainly the regenerate is loved as a son, whereas before he was held in hatred as an enemy; therefore some change was made; but it could not be made in God; therefore it was made in the man. And thereby regeneration places something in the man himself, on account of which he is named and is a son of God. Then, the same is proved from the causes of this renovation, which the same Apostle here numbers. For there is named the goodness of God, which is the efficient cause; Christ, who is the meritorious cause; the laver of Baptism, which is the instrumental cause; the pouring forth of the Spirit, or the Spirit poured forth, which is the formal cause. But by the pouring forth of the Spirit, or the Spirit poured forth, nothing is more rightly understood than its primary gift, which is charity, which for that reason too is said to be diffused in our hearts. Finally, the same is proved from the confession of the adversaries; for even they themselves confess that there is in us some inhering renovation through the Holy Ghost, but they deny that it is properly justice, or that by it we are absolutely justified, and therefore they flee to the imputed justice of Christ. But the Apostle calls this very renovation justification, as we showed. For this signifies that, “that, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs according to the hope of life everlasting.” For he renders the cause why God regenerated and renewed us through the laver and the Holy Ghost, and says the cause was that, being justified — that is, being justified through that regeneration and renovation — we might merit to be made heirs of the kingdom and of everlasting life.
The fifth testimony is from Hebrews 11, where the Apostle testifies that some men were truly and absolutely just; for of Abel he writes: He obtained a testimony that he was just. Of Noe: He was made heir of the justice which is by faith. These certainly, and others like them, were truly just — and just not imperfectly and inchoately, but absolutely and perfectly. For Scripture would not absolutely call those just who were not absolutely just. Nay, it even calls them perfect and unspotted; for Genesis 6, of Noe, it is said: Noe was a just and perfect man. And David, Psalm 118: Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. Further, this their justice was not the indwelling justice of God, or the imputed justice of Christ, but a justice inhering in them and their own. For the Apostle, wishing to show whence Abel had obtained the testimony of justice, says: God giving testimony to his gifts. Where we see that the justice of Abel is proved from the effect of that justice. For as St. John says, epistle 1, chapter 3: He that doeth justice is just. And so the Apostle proves that Abel was just, because he did just works, when he rightly sacrificed to God. But the cause of a just work is inhering justice, not the imputation of justice, which, being extrinsic, cannot be the principle of a work. So also the Apostle proves in the same place that Noe was just, because he believed God, feared the judgment of God, obeyed the commandments of God. And in Genesis, chapter 6, he is said to have been just, because he walked with God. In which manner also St. Luke, chapter 1, proves that Zachary and Elizabeth were just before God, because they walked in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord.
The sixth testimony is of the Apostle, Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15, where he says that the just are conformed to the image of Christ, and bear the image of Christ: Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And, As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. But Christ is not just by imputation, nor by the sole indwelling of the uncreated justice, but is just truly and properly, even as man, by a created justice inhering in him, from which he did most just works. Therefore we too, if we ought to be like him, if his brethren, if his images, must needs have a true and inhering justice. For if in fact we be unjust and only putatively just, we shall bear the image of the devil rather than of Christ. For we are more rightly denominated from what we are than from what we are thought to be. Moreover, we have borne the true image of the earthly man — that is, of the sinner Adam — since sin inhered in us not putatively, but truly and in fact; therefore we shall bear the true image of Christ, if justice inhere in us not putatively, but truly and in fact.
The seventh testimony is in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 6, where the Apostle teaches that we, through justification, by which we die to sin and rise again to justice, represent the death and resurrection of Christ. And among other things he says: He that is dead is justified from sin. Which the Apostle Peter also signified, first epistle, chapter 4, when he says: Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins. But Christ died not putatively, but truly, and rose again truly. Therefore we too die not putatively, but truly, to sin, and rise again to justice, when through Baptism we are justified.
The eighth testimony is in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 8, where the Apostle writes that we have now through Christ received the spirit of the adoption of the sons of God, as to the soul, which lives (as he there says) because of justification, although the body be dead (that is, still mortal) because of sin. But a little after he adds that we, having now the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, awaiting the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body. For, as the same Apostle says, Philippians 3, We look for the Saviour, who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory. But the adoption of sons which we await in the redemption of the body will be most true, and inhering in the body itself — that is, immortality and impassibility, not putative, but true. Therefore the adoption which we now have in the Spirit through justification ought also to be true, not putative. Otherwise, as we await the redemption of the body, so also we should await the redemption of the soul.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Inhaerentem esse justitiam nostram formalem , probatur ex Scripturis. Nunc ad argumenta pro veritate venia¬ mus. Primum argumentum sumitur ex verbis illis Apostoli ad Roman. v. Sienim unius de¬ licto mors regnavit per unum , multo magis abundantiam gratia. et donationis, et justitiae accipientes in vita regnabunt per unum Jesum Christum. Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem , sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justifica¬ tionem vitae. Sicut enim per inobedientiarn unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita per unius obedientiam. justi constituentur ■multi (1). Ex hoc loco habemus, justificari per Chri¬ stum, non esse haberi, aut pronunciari ju¬ stos, sed vere fieri atque constitui justos, per adeptionem inhaerentis justitiae, et justitiae non imperfectae, sed absolutae et perfectae. Nam justificare hoc loco esse justum facere, • non justum pronunciare, perspicuum est tum ex illis verbis, Justi constituentur mul¬ ti, ubi declarat Apostolus ipse, quid sit ju¬ stificari, ac dicit esse justum constitui; ju¬ stum autem constitui, et justum fieri idem sunt; tum ex antithesi Adami ad Chrisfum, scribit enim Apostolus, sic nos constitui ju¬ stos per obedientiam Christi, quo modo con¬ stituti sumus injusti per inobedientiarn Ada¬ mi : constat autem per inobedientiarn Ada¬ mi nos injustos esse constitutos, injustitia in nobis vere, ac re ipsa inhaerente, non inju¬ stitia Adami nobis imputata. Esse autem justitiam, quam per Christum adipiscimur, veram, absolutaraquejustitiam, intelligi potest, tum ex eo, quod Apostolus vocat eam abundantiam justitiae ; tum ex eo, quod idem Apostolus dicit, majus esse Dei donum, quam Adce peccatum. Inde enim sequitur, ut si peccatum Adde veram in no¬ bis et absolutam injustitiam posuit, ut om¬ nium consensu posuit, certe Dei donum ve¬ ram in nobis absolutamquo justitiam po¬ nat. Sed occurrunt Calvinus et Ivemnitius, et probare nituntur, Apostolum hoc loco per vocem « justificare, » nihil aliud significare voluisse, nisi justum, pronunciare. Primo, quoniam opposuit verbum, «justificare», verbo, « condemnare, » cum ait, «judicium ex uno in condemnationem, gratia ex multis in justificationem ». Et rursus cap. 8. « De¬ us, qui justificat, quis est, qui condemnet ». Secundo, quoniam Apostolus sine dubio phrasim Hebraicam imitatur, tametsi greeee scribat ; Hebraice autem verbum, « justifi¬ care », forensem plane significationem ha¬ bet. Tertio, quoniam Latina vox, si proprietas inspiciatur, nihil significat aliud, nisi justum pronunciare. Quamvis enim a Patribus in¬ terdum justificare, accipiatur pro eo, quod est justum facere : tamen ea notio non inve¬ nitur apud bonos linguae Latina* auctores. Denique, Catholicos Kemnitius reprehendit, quod nimis haereant in ipsa compositione vocabuli, quasi justificare sit justum facere, quia componitur ex nomine justum et verbo facere. Respondeo ad primum, justificatio recte opponitur condemnationi, et tamen nonideo semper est forense vocabulum. Nam ipsa c- tiam condemnatio interdum est actus judicis deputantis ad poenam eum, qui in judicio reus inventus est : interdum autem est effe¬ ctus culpae, quae poenam commeruit. Siqui- dem et Adam nos condemnavit et Deus. Sed Adam nos condemnavit non judicando, nec modo forensi, sed imprimendo culpam ori¬ ginalem : Deus autem judicando damnavit. Ad euradem igitur modum et justificatio nunc est actus judicis, nunc effectus gratiae;- et ipse idem Christus primo, ut secundus Adam, nos justificat delendo peccata, et gratiam infundendo, secundo, in die judicii nos justificabit, declaiando justos, quos ipse antea fecit justos. Praeterea, quamvis condemnatio et justifi¬ catio alicubi significent actio rrem judicis, ut in illo loco citato : Judicium ex uno in con- (1) Rom. V, 17. CAPUT III. 213 deinuationem, etc., tamen quando Deus ju¬ stificat impium, declarando justum, facit fe¬ liam justum ; quoniam judicium Dei secun¬ dum veritatem est. Itaque sive Christus per obedientiam suam, sive per judicium suum nos justificet, semper facit justos. Et hoc modo locum istum intellexit S. Augustinus lib. i. de peccatorum meritis et remissione, cap. 15. ubi dicit, in Christo justificari, ex sententia Apostoli ad Roman. v. non esse solum imitatione Christi justum fieri, sed e- tiam per ejus gratiam regenerari : sicut in Adamo condemnari, non esse solum imita¬ tione Adami, sed carnali etiam generatione ad culpam trahi. Ad secundum de voce Hebraica, dico ver¬ bum pvS et proprie nihil esse aliud, nisi justum facere, sed quia potest aliquis fieri justus, tum intrinsece per adeptionem justitim, tum extrinsece per declarationem, inde eamdem vocem ad varia significanda traduci. Porro non deesse loca in Scripturis, ubi vox illa significet justum facere, non more forensi declarando, sed vere efficiendo justitiam, perspicuum est ex verbis illis Da- nielis cap. 12. Qui ad justitiam erudiunt mul¬ lus, fulgebunt sicut stella. ? in perpetuas aeter¬ nitates. Illud enim : Qui ad justitiam erudiunt, in Hebraeo est id est, justificantes, sive qui justificant. Et non potest hoc trahi ad judices declarantes, significat enim Pro¬ pheta magnam futuram esse gloriam Docto¬ rum, qui multos ad justitiam docendo per¬ duxerint. Neque multum prodest adversariis, quod aliqui eorum dicunt, Danielem loqui de mi¬ nistris Evangelii, qui annunciant remissio¬ nem peccatorum per fidem Christi, quasi justificare sit indulgentiam praedicare. Nam etiam hoc modo justificare non erit forense vocabulum, quomodo Calvinus et Ivemni- tius, illud accipiunt. Non enim qui fi ree dicat Evangelium, pronunciat homines esse ju¬ stos, more judicis, sed aperit viam ad justi¬ ficationem, et eo modo causa est, ut audi¬ tores justi efficiantur ex impiis. Non enim dicit, ego vox omnes justos esse pronuncio, sed ait, credite Evangelio, et justificabimi¬ ni : quemadmodum nullus judex loquitur, ttaque certum est apud Danielem loco nota¬ tu, verbum justificant, non admittere foren¬ sem significationem. Sed est alius locus adhuc illustrior apud Isaiaiu, cap. 53. ubi de Christo sic loquitur Isaias : In scientia sua justificabit ipse justus servus meus multos, et iniquitates eorum ipse portabit (2). Ubi est verbum in biphil quod justum facere significat. Conatur qui¬ dem Kemnitius hunc etiam locum detorque¬ re ad significationem forensem, sed frustra. Quatuor enim vocabula manifeste repugnant ejus interpretationi. Primum est, « in scientia sua ». Id enim significat, interprete S. Hieronymo, Chri¬ stum variismodis justificasse homines, atque unum ex eis modis fuisse doctrinam. Qui autem docendo justificat, certe non judicis more justificat. Alterum est, « ipse justus », qua voce si¬ gnificatur, Christum nou solum docendo, sed etiam juste operando, ac nobis justitiam suam impartiendo justificare. Porro non re¬ quiritur ad justificandum more forensi, ut is justus sit, qui alios justificat, sed neces¬ sario requiritur, ut is justus sit, qui bene operando justificare debet. Et ideo beatus Paulus ad hunc locum alludens ait ad Ro- man. m. Ut sit ipse justus et justificans. Tertium est, « servus meus » . Sic enim legendum est, non servos meos, ut habent aliqui codices vitio librariorum, in Hebraeo enim est VQV- ; significat autem haec vox, Christum servisse Deo Patri in opere justi¬ ficationis, ac per hoc justificasse homines non judicando, sed ministrando, ut ipse di¬ cit Matth. xx. Filius hominis non venit mini¬ nis trari, sed ministrare, et dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis (3). Unde et ab A- postolo Roman. xv. vocatur minister cir¬ cumcisionis ad confirmandas promissiones Patrum. Quartum est, « iniquitates eorum porta¬ bit » . Hic enim significatur modus, quo Chri¬ stus ministrando justificat, ubi vox Hebraea significat, gestare quasi in humeris. Itaque docet Isaias, Christum nos justificasse . portando sarcinam peccatorum nostrorum in humeris suis, id est, luendo poenam no¬ bis debitam. Quo allusit sanctus Petrus in epist. I cap. ii. cum ait : Peccata nostra ipse pertulit in corpore suo super lignum, ut pec¬ catis mortui, justitiae vivamus, cujus livore sanati estis (i). Ubi vides effectum satisfa¬ ctionis Christi, esse justitiam et sanitatem no¬ bis inhaerentem. Non igitur, in hoc Isaise te¬ stimonio, «justificare» accipitur more fo. (1) Duu. XII, 3. - (2) Isai L1I1, 41. — (3) Matth. XX, 28. - (4) 1 Pe t. II, 24. 214 LIBER II. rensi, neque enim judices ita justificant, ut pro reis poenas luant, eosque peccatis mori, et justitiae vivere, ac demum spiritualiter sanos esse faciant. Est etiam alius locus in Scriptura, ubi «justificare », nullo modo potest accipi mo¬ re forensi, nimirum Apoc. xxii. Qui justus est , justificetur adhuc, et qui sordidus est, sordescat adhuc (1). Et tamen non ignorabat sanctus Joannes Hebraicas phrases. Ad tertium, de usu Latinae vocis apud bonos auctores, respondeo, auctores linguae Latinae non habere hanc vocem in ulla si¬ gnificatione, et ideo non esse mirum, si non possimus ostendere in Terentio, vel Cicero¬ ne, «justificare», positum esse pro eo, quod est justum facere. Nam nec ipse Kemnitius aut Calvinus ostendet in iisdem auctoribus, « justificare » , usurpatum esse pro eo, quod est justum pronunciare. Deinde non esset etiam mirum, si profani auctores haberent hanc vocem solum. in usu forensi, cum ignoraverint justificationem judicis Dei. Deus enim cum justificat im¬ pium, pronunciat quidem illum justum, quod et homines faciunt, sed absolvendo fa¬ cit illum vere justum ex impio, quod homi¬ nes facere non possunt. Atque'hinc est, quod apud homines, qui fatetur delictum, con¬ demnatur; qui negat, justificatur: contra autem apud Deum, qui negat, condemnatur; qui fatetur, justificatur. Nam cum non pos¬ sint homines eum, qui delictum fatetur, fa¬ cere justum ex reo, damnare debent, non justificare, si nolint errare. Deus autem, cu¬ jus judicium secundum veritatem est, pro¬ nunciat justum eum, qui se fatetur reum, sed p ronunciando, justum (utsupra diximus) facit re vera justum. Proinde solus Deus non erat; cum impios injustosque justificat. Quod mysterium non ignorantes sancti Patres, Latinae etiam linguae non imperiti, verbum, «justificare », passim usurpant pro eo, quod est justum facere : « Quis est, inquit Augustinus in Psalm. xxx. concion. 1. « qui justificat impium? quifacit ex impio justum » . Item lib. n. de peccatorum meritis et remis¬ sione, cap. xxxiii, « Gratia Dei justificamur, hoc est, justi efficimur ». Item libro de spi¬ ritu et littera, cap. xxvi : «Quid estaliudjustifi- cati, quam justi facti»? Epist. 105. «Justi enim facti sunt, cum justificati sunt » . Et Epist. 106! « Antequam gratia justificetur, idest, justus efficiatur, impius quid est, nisi impius » ?Et epist. 120. cap. xx. « Credens in cum qui ju¬ stificat impium, id est, ex impio facit pium». Quanta igitur importunitas novatorum est, ut in quaestione Ecclesiastica repudient Pa¬ tres, neque velint quiescere, nisi Ciceronem illis, vel Terentium judicem proferamus. Et cum Apostolus ipse tam aperte significaverit justificari esse justum constitui, ac per hoc vocis compositionem et notionem aperuerit, calumnietur Kemnitius adhuc, quod ex com¬ positione vocis interpretationem nominis eru¬ amus ? sed de his satis multa dicta sunt. Alterum testimonium pro justitia inhaerente sumitur ex cap. m ad Romanos : Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem , quae est in Christo Jesu, quem proposuit propi¬ tiatorem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Hoc loco simul explicantur fere omnes causae justifi¬ cationis ; nam justificamur a Deo gratis, id est, ex mera ejus liberalitate, quantum ad nostra merita ; nullo enim nostro opere me¬ remur justificari. At haec Dei liberalitas est causa efficiens. Justificamur autem per gra¬ tiam ipsius, idest, per justitiam ab illo dona¬ tam, et infusam ; et haec est causa formalis. Justificamur item per redemptionem, quae est in Christo Jesu ; et haec est causa meritoria. Denique justificamur per fidem in sanguine propitiatoris ; et haec est causa dispositiva. Respondent adversarii, Calvinus, Kemni¬ tius et alii, per gratiam non significari domim aliquod infusum et inhaerens, sed ipsum Dei favorem et benevolentiam, qua nos prosequi¬ tur, dum per Christi merita nos reconciliat, non imputans delicta nostra, sed imputans justitiam ctobedientiam Christi. At in primis favor Dei satis explicantur per illam vocem, « gratis » , qui enim gratis justi¬ ficat, certe ex benevolentia et liberalitate justificat. Illa igitur additio, « per gratiam» , non ipsum favorem, sed aliquid aliud, id est, effectum illius favoris significabit. Deinde praepositio, «per», non recte accom¬ modatur favori et benevolentiae, sed causae formali, aut meritoriae, aut instrumentali. Non enim recte diceremus, Deus per suum favorem, aut per suam benevolentiam nos justificat ; recte autem dicimus, per gratiam inhaerentem, per meritum filii sui, per fidem et Sacramenta justificat. Adhaec benevolentia Dei non potest esse inanis, sed omnino praestat atque efficit id bo- (fi Apoc. XXII, H. — (2) Rom. III, 24. CAPUT m. 315 nam, quod alicui vult. Omnia enim qusecum- que voluit fecit, Psalm. cxin, etsi vellet ali¬ cui bonum, et non faceret, non esset omni¬ potens, sed similis nobis infirmus. Cur enim multa volunt homines, quae non faciunt, nisi quia multa volunt, quse non possunt ? cum vero Deus nos diligit, ac nobis bene vult, id sine dubio vult, ut simus vere justi et sancti coram ipso : Elegit emmnos, ut Apostolus lo¬ quitur ad Ephes. i. ut simus sancti et immacu¬ lati in conspectu ejus. Et : ffxc est voluntas Dei (inquit Apostolus ad 1. Thcssalon. iv) sanctifi¬ catio vestra. Igitur si gratia justificans est fa¬ vor et benevolentia Dei, et Deus non solum extrinsecus favet, neque inaniter bonum vult, sed facit sanctos, et immaculatos, quales esse nos vult ; certe sequitur, ut per gratiam ju¬ stificari, non sit justos reputari, et non esse, sed’ re vera justos, sanctos, atque immacula¬ tos esse. Praeterea gratiam justificantem non esse solum favorem Dei, sed donum in anima in¬ haerens, intelligi potest ex variis attributis et nominibus ejus. Nam dicitur donum, quod accipimus, ad Roman. v. Accipientes abundan¬ tiam gratise et donatioriis (I). Item dicitur dari per Christum gratia et veritas per Jesum Chri¬ stum facta est, Joan. i. non autem recte dici¬ tur facta per Christum benevolentia Dei Pa¬ tris. Item dicitur dari ad mensuram ab ipso Christo : Unicuique nostrum data est gratia , secundum mensuram donationis Christi (2), ad Ephes. iv. At benevolentia Dei non datur ad mensuram, neque a Christo. Item compa¬ ratur essentiae, quae datur per creationem. Inde enim dicimur « creari in Christo», ad Ephes. ii. Et esse « nova creatura » , ad Galat. v. At id, per quod creaturae dicimur, inti¬ mum et inhaerens est. Denique comparatur luci, II ad Corinth. VI. Quse participatio justitiae cum iniquitate ? quae societas luci ad tenebras ? ad Ephes. v. Eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino. I Joan. ii. Qui dicit, se in luce esse, et fratrem suum odit, in tenebris est (3). At certe lux non facit corpus lucidum, nisi inhaereat, neque patitur'secum tenebras. Quomodo igi¬ tur potest homo justificatus, non tantum lu¬ cidus dici, sed etiam lux in Domino, cum an¬ tea tenebrosus esset, si adhuc tenebrae pecca¬ torum in ipso inhaerent, et gratiae lux extrin¬ secus manet ? Praeterea gratia, per quam justificari nos dicit Apostolus, dicitur etiam charilas diffusa in cordibus per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis (4), ad Roman. v. Et quamvis adver¬ sarii, Philippus, Calvinus, Petrus Martyr, et alii, contendant, Apostolum loqui de chari- tate, qua Deus nos diligit, hoc est, de favore et benevolentia, quae in ipso Deo est ; tamen sanctus Augustinus, quem sibi anteponi, ve¬ lint nolint 'adversarii pati debent, disertis verbis contrarium docet. Sic enim loquitur in libro de Spiritu et littera, cap. xxxii. «Cha- ritasDei dicta est diffundi in cordibus nostris, non qua nos ipse diligit, sed qua nos facit dilectores suos » . Ipse etiam Apostolus ad Ro¬ man. vm. de hoc ipso spiritu nobis dato, lo- quens : Accepistis, inquit, spiritum adoptio¬ nis filiorum , in quo clamamus , Abba Pater (3). At certe clamamus, Abba Pater, per charita- tem, qua diligimus nos Deum, non qua dili¬ git nos Deus. Et in eodem cap. per gratiam justificantem vivere dicimur : « Corpus qui¬ dem, inquit, mortuum est propter peccatum, spiritus autem vivit propter justificationem ». At non recte dici possumus vivere per extrin- secum Dei favorem ; cum nihil sit magis inti¬ mum, quam vita. Tertium testimonium est in epistola priore ad Corinth. cap. vi. ubi sic explicat Apotolus justificationem : Et hxc quidem ( peccatores videlicet) fuistis, sed abluti estis, sed sanctifi¬ cat/'. estis, sed justificati estis in nomine Domini, nostri Jesu C hiasti, et in spiritu Dei nostri (6). Quo loco, ut exponunt Chrysostomus , Am¬ brosius, Theophylactus et alii, docet Aposto¬ lus, homines in Baptismb per invocationem nominis Christi, et operationem Spiritus san¬ cti purgari et sanctificari. Atque hoc ipsum esse justificari, ita ut justificatio duo ilia con¬ tineat, purgationem, sive ablutionem et san¬ ctificationem. Quod si justificatio est ablutio et sanctificatio ; sequitur, ut justificatio non sit sola peccatorum remissio sine interna san¬ ctificatione. Item sequitur, ut justificatio non sit imputatio justitiae, vel declaratio, more forensi. Nam imputatio et declaratio non egent invocatione nominis Christi, aut virtute Spiritus sancti. Apostolus autem dicit, Corin¬ thios fuisse ablutos, sanctificatos et justifica¬ tos, in nomine Christi et in virtute Spiritus sancti. Quartum testimonium est' in epistola ad 216 LIBER II. Titum, cap. hi. Cum apparuit benignitas et humanitas Salvatoris nostri Dei , non ex operi¬ bus , quae fecimus nos , sed secundum suam mi¬ sericordiam salvos nos fecit per lavacrum re- generatioms et renovationis Spiritus sancti , quem effudit in nos abuncle per desum Chri¬ stum Salvatorem nostrum , ut justificati gratia ipsius , haeredes simus, secundum spem vitx internae (1). Ex verbis illis postremis : Ut justi¬ ficati gratia ipsius, etc., intelligimus. in verbis superioribus descriptam essejustificationem, ita ut secundum Apostoli sententiam, justifi¬ catio sit regeneratio et renovatio, Dei beni¬ gnitate, per lavacrum Baptismi et effusionem Spiritus sancti, in nobis facta. Hanc autem regenerationem, et renovatio¬ nem, quae est ipsa justificatio, formali ter fieri per donum aliquod inhaerens, tribus ar¬ gumentis probari potest. Primo, ex ipsa na¬ tura et ratione regenerationis ; neque enim intelligi potest, quemadmodum regeneretur aliquis, sine ulla sui mutatione, per solam Dei benevolentiam, in ipso Deo existente ; vel per solam extrinsecam justitia) alterius imputationem. Nam certe regeneratus, dili¬ gitur ut filius, cum antea odio haberetur, ut inimicus, igitur m litatio aliqua facta est ; non potuit autem in Deo fieri, igitur in homine facta est. Ac per hoc regeneratio aliquid in ipso homine ponit, ob quod filius Dei nomine¬ tur et sit. Deinde, idem probatur ex causis hujus re¬ novationis, quas hoc loco idem Apostolus numerat. Nominatur enim benignitas Dei, quae estefficiens causa ; Christus, qui est causa meritoria ; lavacrum Baptismi, quod est cau¬ sa instrumentaria ; effusio Spiritus, sive Spi¬ ritus effusus, qui est causa formalis. Per effu¬ sionem autem Spiritus, sive spiritum effu¬ sum, nihil rectius intelligitur, quam prima¬ rium ejus donum, quod est charitas, qua) id¬ circo etiam dicitur diffundi in cordibus no¬ stris. Denique idem probatur ex confessione ad¬ versariorum ; fatentur enim etiam ipsi, esse in nobis inhmrentem aliquam renovationem per Spiritum sanctum, sed negant eam pro¬ prie esse justitiam, aut per eam nos absolute justificari, et ideo confugiunt ad Christi ju¬ stitiam imputatam. At Apostolus hanc ipsam renovationem justificationem appellat, ut o- stendiinus. Id enim significat illud : Ut ju¬ sti ficati gratia ipsius, hier edes simus, secundum spem vitae aeternae. Reddit enim causam, cur nos Deus per lavacrum et spiritum sanctum regeneraverit, ac renovaverit ; et ait, causam fuisse, ut justificari, id est, ut per eam rege¬ nerationem, et renovationem justificati, ha)- redes regni, ac vitae sempiterna) effici mere¬ amur. Quintum testimonium e 4, ad Ilebr. xi. ubi testatur Apostolus, aliquos homines fuisse vere ct absolute justos ; nam de Abel scribit : Te¬ stimonium consecutus est, esse justus. De Noe: justitiae , quae per fidem est. haeres est constitu¬ tus (2). Isti certe et alii eorum similes, vere ju¬ sti erant, nec justi imperfecte et inchoate, sed absolute et perfecte. Neque enim Scriptura justos absolute vocaret eos, qui absolute justi non essent. Quid ? quod etiam perfe¬ ctos et immaculatos appellat ? Nam Gen. vi. de Noe dicitur : Noe vir justus atque perfe¬ ctus fuit. Et David in Psal. cxvill. Beati immaculati in via, qui ambulant in lege Do¬ mini (3) Porro hsec eorum justitia non erat justitia Dei inhabitans, aut justitia Christi imputata, sed justitia in illis inhierenset propria. Nam Apostolus ostendere volens, unde Abel ju¬ stitia) testimonium consecutus esset, ait : Te¬ stimonium perhibente Deo, muneribus ejus. Ubi videmus, probari justitiam Abelis, ab effectu ipsius justitia). Nam ut ait sanctus Joannes in epist I. cap. m. Qui facit justitiam justus est (4). Itaque probat Apostolus, Abelem fuis¬ se justum, quia justa opera faciebat, cum Deo rite sacrificaret. Justi autem operis causa, est justitia inhaerens, non imputatio justitiae, qua) cum extrinseca sit, principium operis esse non potest. Sic etiam Noe fuisse justum, probat ibidem Apostolus, quia credidit Deo, timuit judicium Dei, obedivit mandatis Dei. Et in Genesi, ciip. vi, dicitur fuisse justus, quia ambulavit cum Deo. Quomodo etiam probat S. Lucas. cap. i. Zachariam et Elisa- betham fuisse justos coram Deo, quia incede¬ bant in omnibus mandatis et justificationibus Domini. Sextum testimonium est Apostoli ad Ro- man. vili, et I ad Gorinth. xv. ubi dicit, ju¬ stos conformes esse imagini Christi, et porta¬ re imaginem Christi : Quos, inquit, praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui ; ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. E t sicut portavimus imaginem terreni, ita porte¬ mus ct imaginem coelestis (6). Christus autem (l) Tit. 111, 4. - (2) Heb. XI, 4, 7. - (3) Gen. VI, 9 ; Psal. CXVIII, 1. — (Ij I Joan. III, 7. (5) Itoni. VIII. 29 ; 1 Corin. XV, 49. CAPUT IV. 217 * non est justus per imputationem, neque per solam inhabitationem justitim increatae, sed justus est vere ac proprie, etiam ut homo, per creatam et inhaerentem sibi justitiam, ex qua justissima opera faciebat : igitur et nos si similes, si fratres, si imagines ejus esse de¬ bemus, justitiam veram et inhaerentem habe¬ re necesseest. Nam sire ipsa injusti etsolum putative justi simus, magis diaboli, quam Christi imaginem geremus. Rectius enim de¬ nominamur ab eo, quod sumus quam ab eo, quod esse putamur. Praeterea terreni homi¬ nis, id est. Adami peccatoris ? veram imagi¬ nem portavimus, quoniam peccatum in no¬ bis non putative, sed vere et re ipsa in¬ haerebat, igitur et Christi veram imaginem geremus, si justitia nobis putative, sed vere ac rc ipsa inhaereat. Septimum testimonium est in cpist. ad Ro¬ manos, cap. vi, ubi Apostolus docet, nos per justificationem, qua morimur peccato, et re¬ surgimus justitiae, repraesentare Christi mor¬ tem et resurrectionem. Et inter alia dicit : Qui mortuus est, justificatus est a peccato. Quod etiam significavit Apostolus Petrus in priore cpist. cap. iv. cum ait : Christo igitur passo in carne, et vos eadem cogitatione armamini. Quia qui passus est in carne, desiit a peccatis (1). At Christus non putative, sed vere mortuus est et vere resurrexit. Igitur et nos non putative, sed vere morimur peccato, et resurgimus ad justitiam, cum per Baptismum justificamur. Octavum testimonium est in epist. ad Ro¬ manos, cap. vm. ubi Apostolus scribit : Nos jam per Christum accepisse spiritum adoptio¬ nis filiorum Dei quoad animam qux vivit (ut ibidem dicit) propter justificationem, quamvis corpus mortuum sit (id est, adhuc mortale sit) propter peccatum, Sed paulo post addit : Nos jam primitias spiritus habentes, intra nos ge¬ mere, expectantes adoptionem filiorum Dei, red¬ emptionem corporis nostri. Nam ut idem ait ad Philippens. m. Salvatorem expectamus, qui reformabit corpus humilitatis nos f me, configu¬ ratum corpori claritatis suae (2). Atqui adoptio filiorum, quam expectamus in redemptione corporis, verissima erit, et inhaerens in ipso coi’pore, id est, immortalitas et impassibilitas, non putativa, sed vera. Igitur adoptio quam nunc habemus in Spiritu per justificationem, vera etiam esse debet, non putativa. Alioqui, sicut expectamus redemptionem corporis, ita quoque expectaremus redemptionem animae.