Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book II: On Inhering Justice
Chapter 7: That justification does not consist in the imputation of the justice of Christ
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).
The fourth and fifth errors, which have more assertors, constitute justification in the imputation of the justice of Christ — as though, namely, we are just before God because Christ covers us with his justice, and God, seeing us thus covered, pronounces that he holds us for just. But I shall pass over the inepties and trifles of Chemnitz, who, not knowing what he says nor of what things he affirms, says that the word “imputation” is relative; and that the foundation of this relation is the justice of Christ, the one term the believing man, the other term justice or beatitude, and the relation itself the mercy of God — because, namely, the mercy of God imputes to the believing man the justice of Christ, unto justice and beatitude. Thus in three words our Chemnitz, by this most subtle disputation, overturns the whole doctrine of Aristotle about relations. And what wonder if the temerity of these men brings forth so many monsters in supernatural doctrine, when in philosophical things, and those so luminously set forth even by the heathens, they thus rave? Certainly, if the mercy of God is a relation because it imputes the justice of Christ to believers, then Philemon too will be a relation, because the Apostle writes to him to impute to himself the debt of Onesimus. But I will not, as I said, play the fool with Chemnitz.
First, then, the error of the adversaries is sufficiently refuted by this, that it has no testimony in the Scriptures or the Fathers. For hitherto they have been able to find no place at all where it is read that the justice of Christ is imputed to us unto justice, or that we are just through the justice of Christ imputed to us. We read indeed that he is blessed to whom sins are not imputed; and that faith is reputed unto justice; and that Christ is made to us by God wisdom, justice, and redemption. But as we do not read that the redemption of Christ, or his wisdom, is imputed to us — as though we ought to be held redeemers of the human race, or the very Word and wisdom of God — so we do not read that the justice of Christ is imputed to us. “But,” says Chemnitz, “the Council of Trent does not shrink from this manner of speaking. For since in the sixth session, canon 11, it denies that we are justified by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, it grants that we are justified by the imputation of the justice of Christ, but not by it alone.” I answer: the Council of Trent in that canon willed to condemn the error of those who say that a man is justified by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, such as are the Lutherans; but the same Council did not on that account approve the error of others who say that a man is justified partly by internal renovation, partly by the imputation of the justice of Christ. For, according to the sentence of the same Council, that a man is not justified formally by the justice of Christ in any way is expressly had in canon 10.
Second, the same error is refuted from this, that no necessity of imputation of this kind can be brought forward. For if this imputation were necessary, it would be necessary chiefly for this, that a man after the remission of sin is still truly a sinner — sin, namely, being covered, not blotted out. But this cause of necessity has no place, unless one would conflict with the most evident testimonies of the Scriptures. For Scripture uses every kind of word that could be devised to signify the true remission of sin, so that if anyone of set purpose sought words by which to declare clearly that some sin is truly taken away and abolished, he could find none which the divine Scripture itself has not before occupied. For it says that sins are taken away, 1 Paralipomenon 21: I beseech thee, Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant. It says they are blotted out, Isaias 44: I have blotted out thy iniquities as a cloud, and thy sins as a mist. Where the similitude of a cloud and a mist indicates that not even a vestige of the true fault remains. It says that we are cleansed, Ezechiel 36: I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness. It says that we are washed, Psalm 50: Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed; thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. Where too that comparison is to be noted, “I shall be made whiter than snow.” For how is he made whiter than snow from whom no blackness and filth at all is taken away? It says that they are purged, Proverbs 15: By mercy and faith sins are purged. It says that they are removed from us, and cast very far off, Psalm 102: As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us; and Micheas 7: He will cast all our sins into the depth of the sea. It says, finally, that sin has been and is not, Psalm 10: His sin shall be sought, and shall not be found; Canticles 4: Thou art all fair, and there is not a spot in thee. And not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New, phrases of this kind are frequent. John 1: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world. Acts 3: Be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. 1 John 1: The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 22: Wash away thy sins, invoking his name. Hebrews 1: Making purgation of sins. Hebrews 9: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many. 1 Corinthians 6: And such some of you were, but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified. And Ephesians 5: You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. And in the same place: That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle.
Many other most weighty arguments could be brought hither, but they have already been brought in the book On Baptism, chapter 13. One thing in this place seems not to be omitted, which seems to admit no answer at all — namely, the argument taken from the antithesis of Adam to Christ. For (as the Apostle says, Romans 5) as by the disobedience of Adam many were made sinners, so by the obedience of Christ many are made just. And as in the same place the same Apostle says, the grace of Christ is greater than the sin of Adam. But the disobedience of Adam imprinted sin in us not imputatively, but truly; therefore the obedience of Christ took away and blotted out our sins not imputatively, but truly. Third, the same error is refuted by the removal of another cause which the adversaries are wont to pretext for the imputation of the justice of Christ. For they say that this imputation is necessary not only because sin truly cleaves in us perpetually, but also because our inhering justice is not so perfect as to justify simply and absolutely. But this cause we shall easily refute, if the adversaries will give credence to the holy Scriptures. For inhering justice, or interior renovation, is known to be placed chiefly in faith, hope, and charity. For this the Apostle affirms, 1 Corinthians 13, when he says: Now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three. The same teaches St. Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 3, and the preface on Psalm 31, and elsewhere; nor do the adversaries deny this. Wherefore, if we prove that faith, hope, and charity can be perfect in this life, it will also be proved that the imputation of the justice of Christ is not necessary.
And that faith in this life is always thin and languid Philip teaches in the Examination of Ordinands, and therefore that we cannot be justified by faith as it is a work or virtue, but only as it is an organ apprehending the justice of Christ. But if faith cannot be perfect in this life, it will never at all be able to be perfect. For in the other life it will not be perfected, but evacuated. But who would believe that so signal a virtue will never be perfect? Then, St. Peter, epistle 1, chapter 1, openly teaches that faith can be perfect, when he says: That the trial of your faith, much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire, may be found unto praise and glory in the revelation of our Lord. For as gold is perfect which sustains the fire, so plainly faith is perfect which, tried in the furnace of temptation, is found more precious than gold. Moreover, he who believes with his whole heart certainly has perfect faith; and that such faith the eunuch whom Philip baptized had, St. Luke testifies, Acts 8. Besides, that the faith of Abraham was altogether perfect the Apostle teaches, Romans 4, when he says: Against hope he believed in hope; he was not weak in faith; he staggered not by distrust, most fully knowing, etc. — where is set that plerophoretheis, which designates the highest fulness and perfection. The same Apostle too, Hebrews 11, commends not a languid faith, but a most robust one, when he says: The saints by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained promises, etc. And St. John, epistle 1, chapter 5, speaks not of a languid faith, but of a perfect one: This is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. And the Apostle Peter, epistle 1, chapter 5: Whom resist ye, strong in faith. And the Apostle Paul, Ephesians 6: In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. For certainly faith which can overcome the world, resist the devil, and blunt all his darts, ought to be not weak nor languid, but strong and robust. Finally, Hebrews 10, it cannot be denied that the Apostle acknowledges perfect faith, when he says: Let us draw near with a true heart, in fulness of faith; for here is that word plerophoria, which even by the consent of the adversaries signifies a most full and most perfect persuasion.
Now, concerning hope, the testimony of the Apostle to the Hebrews 6 will be able to suffice. For there he affirms that our hope ought to be as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm. Finally, concerning charity, in which our justice chiefly consists, and of which Augustine writes, book On Nature and Grace, chapter 42: “Charity itself is the truest, fullest, and most perfect justice.” And chapter 70: “Perfect charity is perfect justice.” And divine testimonies occur everywhere. For the Lord, John 15, says: Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. But it is agreed that very many men — that is, all the Martyrs — attained this perfection of charity. Likewise 1 John 2: He that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfect. And that his word can be kept the same Apostle teaches in the same epistle, chapter 5, when he says: And his commandments are not heavy. Finally, there are not lacking in the Scriptures examples of saints who loved God with their whole heart. For of David it is written, Ecclesiasticus 47: With his whole heart he praised the Lord, and loved him that made him. And in Deuteronomy this perfection of charity is promised to the people of God, when it is said, chapter 30: The Lord will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, that thou mayest love him with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. To these is added that, Matthew 5, the Lord says: Be ye perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. And the Apostle acknowledges himself and certain others to be perfect, when he writes, 1 Corinthians 2, We speak wisdom among the perfect; and Philippians 3, As many, therefore, as are perfect, etc. But it is agreed that perfection consists in charity, since it is itself the bond of perfection, Colossians 3. Therefore it must be confessed that charity even in this life can be perfect. But if we can have faith, hope, and charity, and thereby inhering justice, perfect, the heretics labor in vain in asserting the imputation of justice, as though otherwise we could in no way be simply and absolutely just.
Fourth, the same error is refuted, because it cannot be that the justice of Christ be imputed to us, especially in that sense which is approved by the heretics. For if they only meant that the merits of Christ are imputed to us because they are given to us, and we can offer them to God the Father for our sins — since Christ took upon himself the burden of satisfying for us, and reconciling us to God the Father — their opinion would be right, although the manner of speaking is either never, or most rarely, found in the Scriptures and the Fathers; but that the justice of Christ is so imputed to us that through it we are formally named, and are, just — this we contend to conflict with right reason. For although sometimes a denomination is made from an extrinsic form — in the manner that a thing is said to be known through the knowledge which is in the mind, and a wall is said to be seen through the vision which is in the eye — yet when in something there are two contrary forms, the one inhering, the other extrinsic, without doubt the absolute denomination is taken from the inhering form rather than from the extrinsic. For if anyone should clothe an Ethiopian in a white garment, he would not rightly say, “this Ethiopian is white,” but contrariwise would rightly say, “this Ethiopian is black,” since the proper and inhering blackness pertains to him more than that adventitious external whiteness. So, then, if a man truly impious and unjust by inhering injustice thou clothe with the apprehension and thought of the justice of Christ, thou wilt not rightly pronounce him just, but wilt most justly name him impious and unjust.
Fifth, it is refuted, since if the justice of Christ were truly imputed to us, so that through it we were held and counted just, just as if it were properly our own intrinsic and formal justice, we should be held and counted no less just than Christ himself; and accordingly we should be called and held Redeemers and Saviours of the world, and receive other words and attributes of that kind, which is most absurd. Sixth, Christ restored to us that which we had lost in Adam, as St. Irenaeus writes, book 3, chapter 20: “When Christ, incarnate and made man, recapitulated in himself the long exposition of men, affording us salvation in compendium, that what we had lost in Adam — that is, to be according to the image and likeness of God — this we might receive in Christ Jesus.” And St. Augustine, book 6 On Genesis, chapter 24: “We receive the justice from which through sin man fell.” And chapter 26: “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth. Behold what Adam lost through sin. In this, then, we are renewed according to that which Adam lost — that is, according to the spirit of our mind.” And chapter 27: “This image impressed in the spirit of the mind Adam lost through sin, which we receive through the grace of justice.” Where it is to be noted that in book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 24, this place is explained by the same Augustine, who admonishes that the image was not altogether lost, but only deformed through sin, so that it had need of reformation. But in Adam we did not lose an imputed justice, nor to be according to the image and likeness of God by imputation, but a true inhering justice, through which we were truly like to God; therefore through Christ we receive a true justice and likeness of God, not merely extrinsic and imputed.
Seventh, if through the justice of Christ imputed to us we can truly be called just and sons of God, then Christ too, through our injustice imputed to him, will be able to be called truly a sinner, and (what the mind shudders to think) a son of the devil. For the adversaries grant that sin was so imputed to Christ as justice is imputed to us. Nay, Illyricus, in the Confession of Antwerp, chapter 6, and in the Apology of the same, admits that Christ is most truly called a sinner through the most powerful imputation of the Father and the voluntary reception of sins upon himself. But this their blasphemous and sacrilegious impudence conflicts with all Scripture. For Christ in the sacred letters is said once to be sin by a trope, because he was a victim for sin, 2 Corinthians 5; and likewise once he is said to be a curse, Galatians 3, because he was subjected to curses and reproaches and very many punishments. But nowhere is he called a sinner, impious, criminal, a son of the devil, save perhaps by enemies and infidels; but everywhere he is preached holy, innocent, unspotted, undefiled, most just. Wherefore, if Christ, because he was truly holy in himself, although our iniquity was imputed to him, was named not iniquitous but just, certainly by the same reasoning, if we were truly unclean and impious even after justification, although the justice of Christ were imputed to us, we should be called not just but iniquitous. But Scripture calls us just and holy, and sons and heirs of God, after the laver of regeneration and renovation, as is clear from Romans 8, Ephesians 1, Colossians 3, and very many other places. Therefore not through the imputation of justice, but through the very justice inhering in us and remaining, are we justified.
Eighth, Christ in the Canticle of Canticles is compared to a bridegroom, and the Church, or the justified soul, is compared to a bride. But that bride is said to be most beautiful with a beauty inhering in her, not with the beauty of the bridegroom imputed to her. For therefore is attributed to the bride the beauty proper to women, and to the bridegroom the beauty proper to men, that we may understand that the beauty of Christ is one, that of the Church, or of the justified soul, another. Add that it would be most absurd if the heavenly Bridegroom, and truly most beautiful, had a bride most foul, and only adorned outwardly with some precious garment of the man. Ninth, through justification the heart is cleansed, that it may be prepared for the vision of God. For therefore it is said, Matthew 5, Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God; and Acts 15, By faith purifying their hearts. But one truly unclean in his eyes, although he be held most clean, cannot see the sun; therefore neither will an unclean heart, although it be reputed clean, ever see God. A true cleanness, then, not imputative, is conferred in justification, if it must prepare us for the divine vision. Tenth, Christ suffered that he might sanctify his people by his blood, says the Apostle, Hebrews 13. And, He delivered himself for the Church, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life, Ephesians 5. And, That he might cleanse to himself an acceptable people, Titus 2. And the Lord himself says, John 17: And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. But if Christ sanctified his people not truly, but only imputatively, he suffered and died in vain, and could not accomplish what he desired. For to will to sanctify, and to sanctify in truth, does not signify only to will to free from the punishment of sin, or to will that we be held for holy, though in fact we be not, but to will to effect this, that we be truly holy, clean, and unspotted. Many other reasons could be brought, but these have seemed to us the chief.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Justificationem non consistere in imputatione. justitia: Christi. Quartus et quintus error, et qui plurcs assertores habent, in imputatione justitiae Christi justificationem constituunt, quasi vi¬ delicet nos justi simus coram Deo, quoniam tegit nos Christus justitia sua, et eo modo tectos Deus nos videns, pro justis se habere prononciet.' Omittam autem ineptias, nugasque Kem- nitii, qui nesciens quid loquatur, neque de quibus affirmet, dicit, vocabulum imputa- (1) Rom. YI, 21 : ibirt. VITI, 30; II Tim. IV, 8, CAPUT VII. tionis esse relativum, et fundamentum qui¬ dem hujus relationis esse Christi justitiam; terminum autem, hominem credentem ; alium terminum justitiam, seu beatitudi- nem ; relationem ipsam, Dei misericordiam. Quia videlicet misericordia Dei imputat ho¬ mini credenti justitiam Christi, ad justitiam et beatitudinem. Ita tribus verbis totam Aristotelis doctrinam de relationibus subti¬ lissima hac disputatione Kemnitius noster evertit. Et quid mirum, s? temeritas horum hominum tot monstra pariat in doctrina supernaturali, cum in rebus philosophicis, et ab ipsis Ethnicis tam luculenter exposi¬ tis, ita delirent ? Certe si misericordia Dei relatio est, quia justitiam Christi credentibus imputat; Philemon quoque relatio erit, quoniam illi scribit Apostolus, ut sibi impu¬ tet debitum Onesimi. Sed nolo, ut dixi, cum Kemnitio ineptire. Primum igitur satis refutatur error ad¬ versariorum, quod nullum in Scripturis, aut patribus, testimonium habeat. Hactenus enim nullum omnino locum invenire po¬ tuerunt, ubi legeretur, Christi justitiam no¬ bis imputari ad justitiam ; vel nos justos esse per Christi justitiam nobis imputatam. Legimus quidem, beatum esse, cui non im¬ putantur peccata ; et fidem reputari ad ju¬ stitiam, et Christum factum esse nobis a Deo sapientiam, justitiam et redemptionem. Sed sicut non legimus, nobis imputari redem¬ ptionem Christi, aut sapientiam, quasi non re¬ demptores haberi debeamus humani generis, vel ipsum Dei verbum etsapientiam, ita non legimus, nobis Christi justitiam imputari. « At, inquit Kemnitius, Concilium Triden- tinum non abhorret ab hoc modo loquendi. Cum enim in sexta sessione, canon. 11. ne¬ get, nos justificari sola imputatione justitiae Christi, concedit, non justificari imputatio¬ ne justitiae Christi, sed non sola » . Respondeo : Concilium Tridentinumin illo canone damnare voluit errorem illorum, qui dicunt, sola imputatione justitiae Christi hominem justificari, quales sunt Lutherani ; sed non proptorea approbavit idem Conci¬ lium errorem aliorum, qui dicunt, hominem justificari partim renovatione interna, par- tim imputatione justitiae Christi. Nam ex sententia ejusdem Concilii, non justificari hominem formaliter per justitiam Christi 22.“) ullo modo, habetur expresse in can. 10. Secundo, refutatur idem error ex eo, quod nulla necessitas ejusmodi imputationis ad- ferri potest. Nam si necessaria esset impu¬ tatio ista, ideo potissimum necessaria esset, quod homo post remissionem peccati adhuc sit vere peccator, peccato videlicet tecto, non deleto. At ista necessitatis causa locum non habet, nisi quis Scripturarum eviden- tissimis testimoniis repugnare velit. Scriptu¬ ra siquidem utitur omni genere vocabulo¬ rum, quas excogitari poterant ad veram peccati remissionem significandam, ut si quis de industria quaerat vocabula, quibus perspicue declaret, peccatum aliquod vere tolli et aboleri ; non possit aliquod reperire, quod ipsa Scriptura divina ante non occu¬ paverit. Dicit enim paccata tolli, i. Paralipome- non xxi. Obsecro, domine , aufer iniquitatem servi tui. Dicit deleri, Isaue xuv. Delevi , ut nubem , iniquitates tuas , et quasi nebulam, pec¬ cata tua. Ubi similitudo nobis, et nebulae indicat, ne vestigium quidem verae culpae rej manere. Dicit mundari, Ezechielis xxxvi. Effundam super vos « quam mundam, et mun¬ dabimini ab omnibus, inquinamentis vestris. Dicit ablui, Psalm. l. Asperges me Domine, hyssopo, et mundabor , lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor. Ubi etiam obiter compara¬ tio illa notanda est, super nivem dealbabor. Quomodo enim super nivem dealbatur, a quo nihil omnino nigredinis , et sordium aufertur ? Dicit purgari, Proverbior. xv. Per misericordiam et fidem , purgantur pecca¬ ta. Dicit removeri a nobis, et longissime projici. Psalm. cii. Quantum distat ortus ab occidente, longe fecit a nobis iniquitates nos¬ tras. Et Micheai vii. Projiciet in profundum maris omnia peccata nostra. Dicit denique peccatum fuisse, et non esse, Psalm. x. Quaeretur peccatum illius, et non inveniuntur, Cantic. iv. Tota pulchra es, et macula non est in te (1). Nec solum in Testamento veteri, sed etiam in novo, phrases ejusmodi frequentantur. Joan. i.Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollis peccata mundi. Actorum, nr. Convertimini, ut detean tur peccata vestra. I Joan. i. Sanguis Jesu Christi emundat nos ab omni peccato. Actorum xxii. A blue peccata tua , invocato nomine ipsius. Hebraeor. I. Peccatorum purgationem faciens. (1) I Paral. XI, 8; Is. XLIV, 22; Ezech. XXXVI, 95 ; Psal. L, 9; Prov.XV, 28; Ps. CII, 12: Mich- VII, 19;Psa]. X,15:Cant. IV, 7. 226 LIBER II. Hebr. ix. Christus semel oblatus est ad multo¬ rum exhaurienda peccata. I ad Corinth. vi. Haec quidem fuistis , sed abluti estis , sed san- ctificati estis, sed justificati estis. Et ad E- phes. v. Eratis aliquando tenebrse, nunc au¬ tem lux in Domino. Et ibidem : Ut exhiberet ipse sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam, non habentem maculam, neque rugam (1). Multa possent huc adduci alia gravissima argumenta, sed jam allata sunt in libro de Baptismo, cap. 13. Unum hoc loco non vi¬ detur omittendum, quod nullam omnino responsionem videtur admittere ; videlicet argumentum petitum ex antithesi Adami ad Christum. Nam (ut Apostolus ait ad Rom. v). Sicut per inobedientiam Adami peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita per obedientiam Christi, justi constituuntur multi. Et ut in eodem loco idem Apostolus ait : Major est Christi gratia, quam Adami peccatum (1). Inobedientia vero Adami non imputative, sed vere peccatum in nobis impressit; igi¬ tur obedientia Christi non imputative, sed vere peccata nostra sustulit, atque delevit. Tertio, refutatur idem error ex remotione alterius causte, quam aclversarii pro impu¬ tatione justitise Christi praetexere solent. Dicunt enim imputationem hanc propterea necessariam esse, non solum quod vere pec¬ catum in nobis perpetuo haereat, sed etiam quod justitia nostra inhaerens, non tam sit perfecta, ut simpliciter, et absolute justifi¬ cet. At causam istam facile refutabimus, si Scripturis sanctis adversarii fidem habere voluerint. Nam justitia inhaerens, sive reno¬ vatio interior in fide, spe et charitate, po¬ tissimum sita esse cognoscitur. Id enim af¬ firmat Apostolus I ad Corinth. xm. cum ait : Nunc manent fides , spes, charitas, tria haec (3). Idem docet S. Augustinus in En- chir. cap. 3. et praefat. in Psal. xxxi. et alibi ; neque adversarii hoc negant. Quare si probaverimus fidem, spem et charitatem in hac vita posse esse perfectam, probatum quoque erit, non esse necessariam imputa¬ tionem justitise Christi. Ac fidem quidem in hac vita tenuem, ac languidam semper esse, docet Philippus in Exam. ordinand. et ideo non posse nos fidei justificari, ut fides est opus, aut virtus, sed solum ut organum, est apprehendens Chrsti justitiam. At si fides in hac vita non potest esse perfecta, numquam omnino poterit esse perfecta. Nam in alia vita non perficietur, sed evacuabitur. Quis autem credat tam in¬ signem virtutem numquam futuram esse perfectam ? Deinde S. Petrus in epist. I. cap. i. aper¬ te docet, fidem perfectam esse posse, cum ait : Ut probatio vestrae fidei multo pretiosior auro , quod per ignem probatur, inveniatur in laudem et gloriam, in revelatione Domini no¬ stri (4). Sicut enim aurum perfectum est, quod ignem sustinet, ita plane fides perfecta est quae in camino tentationis probata, pre¬ tiosior auro invenitur. Praeterea qui credit ex toto corde, cert perfectam habet fidem : talem autem ha¬ buisse Eunuchum illum, quem Philippus baptizavit, testatur S. Lucas Actor, vm. Adhacc fidem Abrahami omnino fuisse per¬ fectam, docet Apostolus ad Rom. iv. cum ait : Contra spem in spem credidit, non infir¬ matus est fide, non haesitavit diffidentia ple¬ nissime sciens, etc. (3). ubi ponitur illud 7rXT)po(pop7i0eIs, quod summam plenitudinem, perfectionemque designat. Idem quoque A- postolus ad Hebr. xi. non languidam fidem, sed robustissimam commendat, cum ait : Sancti per fidem vicerunt regna, operati sunt justitiam , adepti sunt repromissiones etc. Et S. Joannes in epist. I. cap. v. non de languida iide, sed de perfecta dicit : Haec est victoria quae vincit mundum, fides nostra. Et Aposto¬ lus Petrus in epistol. I. cap. v, Cui resistite fortes in fide. Et Apostolus Paulus ad E- phes. vi. In omnibus sumentes scutum fidei , in quo possitis omnia tela nequiss imi ignea ex- tinguere (6). Certe enim fides, quae mun¬ dum vincere, diabolo resistere, et omqia ejus tela retundere potest, non imbecilla, nec languida, sed fortis et robusta esse debet. Denique ad Hebr. cap. x. negari non po¬ test, quin Apostolus perfectam fidem agno¬ scat, ubi dicit : Accedamus cum vero corde, in plenitudine fidei (7), est enim hic voxillla (•jrXvipocfopta) quae adversariorum etiam con¬ sensu plenissimam, ac perfectissimam per¬ suasionem significat. Jam vero de spe testimonium Apostoli ad Hebraeos vi. satis esse poterit. Ibi enim spem (J) Joan. I, ‘29; Act. 111,19; I Joan. I, 7; Act. XXII, 16; Heb. 1, 3; ibid. IX, 28; I Corin. VI, 11; Eph. V, 27. - (2) Rom. V, 19. — (3' 1 Corin. XIII, 13. - (4) I Pet. I, 7. - (5) Rom. IV, 19. - (6) Heb. XI, 33 ; I Joan V, 4 ; I Pet. V, 9 ; Eph. VI, 16. - (7) Heb. X, ;»*>. CAPUT XII. 227 nostram esse debere affirmat, tamquam an- choram anima; tutam ac firmam. Denique de charitate, in qua praecipue ju¬ stitia nostra consistit, et de qua scribit Au¬ gustinus libro de natura et gratia cap. 42. « Ipsa charitas est verissima, plenissima, perfectissimaque justitia » . Et cap . 70 . «Perfecta charitas, perfecta justitia est ». Testimonia autem divina ubique occurrunt. Nam Dominus Joan. xv. ait : Majorem hac 'dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam po¬ nat quis pro amicis suis (I). Constat autem plurimos homines, id est, omnes Martyres hanc perfectionem charitatis attigisse. Item IJoan. ii. Qui servat (inquit Joan nes) vergam •ejus, in hoc vere charitas Dei perfecta est. Servari autem posse verbum ejus, docet idem Apostolus in eadem epist. cap. v. cum ait : Et mandata ejus gravia non sunt (2). Denique non desunt in Scripturis exempla Sanctorum, qui Deum toto corde dilexerint. Nam de Davide scribitur Ecclesiast. xlvii. De omni corde suo laudavit Dominum, et di- lexit eum , qui fecit illum. Et in Deuteronomio promittitur haec perfectio charitatis populo Dei, cum dicitur cap. xxx. Circumcidet Do¬ minus cor tuum , et cor seminis tui, ut diligas eum in toto corde , et in tota anima tua. His accedit , quod Matth. v. Dominus dicit : Estote perfecti , sicut Pater vester coelestis per¬ fectus est. Et Apostolus agnoscit se, et alios quosdam esse perfectos, cum ’ scribit I ad Corinth. n. Sapientiam loquimur inter per¬ fectos. Et ad Philipp. m. Quicumque ergo perfecti sumus etc. (3). Constat autem perfe¬ ctionem in charitate consistere, cum sit ipsa vinculum perfectionis, Colossens. m. Igitur fatendum est, charitatem etiam in hac vita posse esse perfectam. Quod si fidem, spem et charitatem, ac per hoc justitiam inhseren- tem, perfectam habere possumus, frustra la¬ borant hseretici in asserenda imputatione justitiae, quasi alioqui nullo modo simplici¬ ter, et absolute justi esse possimus. Quarto, refellitur idem error, quia fieri non potest, ut Christi justitia nobis impu¬ tetur, praesertim in eo sensu, qui probatur haereticis. Nam si solum vellent, nobis im¬ putari Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, et possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris ; quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nos- que Deo Patri reconciliandi ; recta esset eo¬ rum sententia, quamvis modus loquendi in Scripturis et Patribus, aut numquam, aut rarissime inveniatur : sed ita imputari nobis Christi justitiam, ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur, et simus, id nos cum recta ra¬ tione pugnare contendimus. Nam tametsi aliquando denominatio fiat a forma extrin- seca, quomodo res dicitur cognita per cogni¬ tionem, quae est in mente, et paries dicitur visus, per visionem, quae est in oculo, ta¬ men cum in aliquo duae sunt formae contra¬ riae, una inhaerens, altera extrinseca, sine dubio denominatio absoluta sumitur ab in¬ haerente forma potius, quam ab extrinseca. Si quis enim aethiopem candida veste indue¬ ret, non recte diceret, hic aethiops est albus, sed contra recte diceret, hic aethiops est ni¬ ger. Quoniam magis pertinet ad eum pro¬ pria, et inhaerens nigredo, quam ille asci- titius candor externus. Sic igitur, si homi¬ nem vere impium et injustum, per inhaeren¬ tem injustitiam, in duas per apprehensio¬ nem, et cogitationem justitiae Christi, non recte pronuntiabis eum justum, sed impium et injustum justissime nominabis. Quinto refellitur, quoniam si vere nobis imputaretur Christi justitia, ut per eam ju¬ sti haberemur ac censeremur, perindp ac si proprie nostra esset intrinseca, formalisque justitia, profecto non minus justi haberi, censerique deberemus quam ipse Christus : proinde deberemus dici, atque haberi Red¬ emptores et Salvatores mundi, atque alia id genus vocabula et attributa recipere, quod ost absurdissimum. Sexto, Christus id nobis restituit, quod perdideramus in Adam, ut scribit S. Ire- nseus lib. m. cap. 20. « Quando, inquit, in¬ carnatus, et homo factus Christus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitu- lavit, in compendio nobis salutem prsestans,' ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est, se¬ cundum imaginem, et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus ». Et S. Augustinus lib. vi. de Genes, cap. 24 : « Recipimus, inquit, justitiam, ex qua per peccatum lapsus est homo ». Et cap. 26. « Renovamini, inquit, spiritu mentis vestraj, et induite novum hominem, qui secundum Deum creatus est in justitia, et sanctitate veri¬ tatis. Ecce quod amisit Adam per peccatum. (I) Joan. XV, 13. — (2) I Joan. II, 5; ibid. V, 3.- (3) Ecc. XLVII, 10;Deut.XXX, 6; Mat. V, 48 ; I Cor. II, 6; Phil. III, 15. m LIBER II. ln hoc ergo renovamur secundum id, quod amisit Adam, id est, secundum spiritum mentis nostr® ». Et cap. 27. « Hanc ima¬ ginem in Spiritu mentis impressam, amisit Adam per peccatum, quam recipimus per gratiam justitia; ». Ubi notandum est, in n. lib. Retract. cap. 24. explicari hunc locum ab eodem Augustino, qui monet, imaginem non fuisse amissam omnino, sed tantum de¬ formatam per peccatum , ut reformatione opus haberet. At in Adam non perdidimus justitiam imputatam, neque esse ad imagi¬ nem et similitudinem Dei, per imputationem, sed veram justitiam inhaerentem, per quam Vere similes eramus Deo; igitur per Christum veram justitiam, Deique similitudinem, non extrinsecam tantum imputatamque, recipi¬ mus. Septimo, si per justitiam Christi, nobis imputatam, vere dici possumus justi et filii Dei ; ergo poterit etiam Christus, per inju¬ stitiam nostram, sibi imputatam, dici vere peccator, et, quod horret animus cogitare, filius diaboli. Nam adversarii concedunt, ita Christo imputatum fuisse peccatum, ut nobis justitia imputatur. Tmo Illyricus in Confess. Antuerpiens. cap. 6. et in Apologia ejusdem admittit, Christum verissime dici peccato¬ rem per potentissimam patris imputationem, et voluntariam in se peccatorum receptio¬ nem, At ista ipsorum blasphema, et sacri¬ lega impudentia toti Scripturae repugnat. Christus enim in sacris litteris dicitur semel peccatum per tropum, quia hostia fuit pro peccato II ad Corinth. v. et item semel di¬ citur maledictum, ad Galat. in. quia male¬ dictis et opprobriis, ac poenis plurimis sub¬ jectus fuit. At nusquam dicitur peccator, impius, scelestus, diaboli filius, nisi forte ab inimicis et infidelibus ; sed ubique sanctus, innocens, immaculatus, impollutus, justissi¬ mus praedicatur. Quare si Christus, quia vere in se sanctus erat, quamvis ei nostra iniquitas imputare¬ tur ; non iniquus, sed justus nominatus est : certe eadem ratione, si nos vere immundi essemus, et impii etiam post justificationem ; quamvis nobis Christi justitia imputaretur, non justi, sed iniqui dicendi essemus, at Scriptura vocat nos justos et sanctos, Deique filios, et haeredes post lavacrum regenera¬ tionis et renovationis, ut patet ex cap. vm. ad Rom. cap. i. ad Ephes. cap. iii. ad Co- loss. et aliis plurimis locis, non igitur per imputationem justitiae, sed per ipsam justi¬ tiam inhaerentem in nobis, et manentem ju¬ stificamur. Octavo, Christus in Canticis Canticorum comparatur sponso, et Ecclesia, sive anima justificata, comparatur sponsae. Dicitur au¬ tem sponsa illa pulcherrima pulchritudine sibi inhaerente , non pulchritudine sponsi sibi imputata. Nam idcirco tribuitur spons® pulchritudo propria mulierum, et sponso pulchritudo propria virorum, ut intelliga- mus aliam esse pulchritudinem Christi , aliam Ecclesiae, vel animae justificat®. Adde quod esset absurdissimum, si sponsus coele¬ stis, et vere pulcherrimus, sponsam habe¬ ret turpissimam, et solum ornatam extrin¬ secus pretiosa aliqua veste viri. Nono, per justificationem mundatur cor, ut pr®paretur ad visionem Dei. Nam ideo dicitur Matth. v. Beati mundo corde , quo¬ niam ipsi Deum videbunt. Et Actor, xv. Fide purificans corda eorum (1). At oculos re ipsa immundus, quamvis mundissimus habeatur, non potest solem videre : igitur neque cor immundum, quamvis mundum reputetur, Deum unquam videbit. Vera igitur mundi¬ ties, non imputativa confertur in justifica¬ tione, si ad visionem divinam pr®parare nos debet. Decimo, Christus passus est, ut sanctifica¬ ret per suum sanguinem populum suum , dicit Apostolus ad Ilebr. xm. Et tradidit semel ipsum pro Ecclesia , ut eam sanctificaret ’, mundans eam lavacro aquae in verbo vitae, ad Ephesios v. Et mundaret sibi populum ac- ceptabilem , ad Titum n. Et ipse Dominus ait, Joannis xvii. Et pro eis ego sanctifico meipsum, ut et ipsi sint sanctificati in veri¬ tate (2). At si non vere, sed imputative tan¬ tum populum suum Christus sanctificavit, frustra passus et mortuus est; et non potuit perficere, quod 'optabat. Velle enim sancti¬ ficare, et sanctificare in veritate, non signifi¬ cat solum velle liberare a poena peccati, aut velle, ut habeamur pro sanctis, quamvis re vera non simus, sed velle id efficere, ut vere sancti , mundi et immaculati simus. Ali® rationes mult® adferri possent, sed h® vis® sunt nobis pr®cipu®. (1) Mflth. V, 8; Act. XV, 9. -(2)Reb. XIII, 12; Eph. V, 26; Tit. II. 14; Joan. XVII, 19. CAPUT VIII.