Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book II: On Inhering Justice
Chapter 9: The arguments of the adversaries from the epistle to the Romans are solved
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).
It remains that we answer the arguments of the adversaries, of which the chief seem to us those which Calvin brings forward, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 11 — although many of them are common also to the Lutherans. First, then, from the epistle to the Romans he gathers several arguments, which we shall propose and dissolve in order. The first he takes from the name of justification, which, Romans 5 and 8, he contends is taken for the declaration of justice. I answer: the name of justification is indeed often taken in the Scriptures for the declaration of justice, but not always — the places we brought forward, chapter 3. Further, that in Romans 5 justification is taken for that which is to make, or constitute, just, we demonstrated in the place cited, from the very declaration of blessed Paul, who, when he had said, By the justice of one unto all men to justification, expounded it saying, By the obedience of one man many shall be made just. So also, that in Romans 8 the word “justify” is taken for that which is to make just, and not only to pronounce just, is clear from the likeness of this word to the others which are set in the same place. For the Apostle says: Whom he justified, them he also magnified. In the same place too he uses the words of quickening, mortifying, glorifying-together, which are altogether like the word of justifying. But no one would deny that to magnify is to make great; to quicken, to make alive; to mortify, to make dead; to glorify-together, to make glorious with another. Why, then, should not to justify also be to make just? Finally, as we showed in the place cited, even if to justify were everywhere taken for to pronounce just, yet the adversaries would obtain nothing. For the impious cannot truly be justified — that is, pronounced just — unless he who pronounces just at the same time make just. For hence God alone justifies the impious, because he alone can make pious of the impious. But men who justify the impious are no less abominable than if they condemned the just, as Solomon says, Proverbs 17.
Second, he seeks an argument from chapter 4 to the Romans, where the Apostle says that the faith of Abraham was reputed unto justice. For hence he gathers that our justice is nothing else than faith in Christ — that is, the justice of Christ apprehended by faith. I answer: faith indeed was reputed to Abraham unto justice, as the Apostle says; but we do not admit the gloss, that for faith to be reputed unto justice is for the justice of Christ to be imputed to us, if we apprehend it by faith. For this gloss conflicts with the Apostle for two causes. First, since the Apostle says that faith itself is imputed unto justice; but faith is not the justice of Christ — that is, that by which Christ is just — but our justice, that is, that by which we are just by the gift of God. Then, since the word (impute) in this place signifies not a bare estimation, but an estimation to which the truth in fact corresponds, as is clear from those words: To him that worketh, the reward is imputed not according to grace, but according to debt. For it is certain that to him who works a reward is owed not by mere opinion and estimation, but truly and in fact.
Third, he seeks an argument from those words of Psalm 31, cited in the same chapter 4 to the Romans: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. Calvin here asks whether this is a full definition of justification, or a half one. For if it be full, it will be true, what he teaches, that justification consists in the sole remission of sins — for here no mention is made of the infusion of virtues and gifts, but only of remission. If it be half, how can he be called blessed who will be justified only in half part? But David calls him blessed to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. Moreover, they gather from this place that the remission itself is not a true washing away and extinction of sin, but a non-imputation. For what he had said, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, he explained by those words, Whose sins are covered, and, To whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. And lest perhaps we say that not to impute sin is to blot out sin and infuse justice, Chemnitz meets us, and proves from the contrary sense that this is false. For if not to impute sin were to blot out sin and infuse justice, then to impute sin would be to blot out justice and infuse iniquity, which is most absurd. Therefore to impute sin is to hold a man for a sinner; not to impute sin is to hold him for just. The same Chemnitz also proves in another place that to cover sins is not to blot them out, but to hide them, that they may be and not be seen. For Proverbs 12: A cunning man covereth knowledge. Where you would ineptly expound, “he blots out knowledge,” when the sense is, a cunning man hides knowledge, that what he knows may not easily be perceived.
I answer: to Calvin’s question another like question could be objected: whether that of the same Prophet be a full definition of justification, or a half one — Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, Psalm 111; and that, Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord, Psalm 118. For if it be full, where is the remission of sins? If half, how are they called blessed who are justified only in half part? It can therefore be answered to all such questions that in these places there is not set the entire definition of justification or of beatitude, but only something is explained which pertains to acquiring justification or beatitude. For in this manner too we take those words of the Lord, Matthew 5, Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the meek, blessed are they that mourn, and the others which follow in that place. Nor does blessed Paul, Romans 4, allege this testimony of the Psalm to define justification entirely, but only to prove that true justification is a gift of God, and cannot be obtained by one’s own powers. And this he most rightly proves from the fact that David calls him blessed to whom God remits sins — that is, who is justified by the gift and grace of God. It can also be answered that in these words the entire definition is contained, but implicitly. For the remission of sins cannot be made unless justice be infused, in the manner that darkness is not put to flight unless light succeed. Which the Apostle himself manifestly indicates when he says: David declareth the blessedness of a man to whom God reputeth justice without works: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, etc. Where from the non-imputation of sins he gathers the imputation of justice, and thereby teaches that those two cannot be separated, the remission of sin and the giving of justice. And this concerning Calvin’s question.
Further, that sins are covered and not imputed is not indeed, if you look at the force of these words, to be blotted out and extinguished; but yet it is to be blotted out and extinguished as to the sense, if these be referred to God. For to God nothing can be covered unless it be utterly blotted out; for all things are naked and open to his eyes, Hebrews 4. Wherefore if anything be covered to God, by this very thing it is of necessity blotted out and vanishes. Nor can God not impute sins — that is, not hold an impious man for impious — unless he cease to be impious; and because a man cannot pass from impiety to piety save through the grace of him who justifies the impious, therefore the non-imputation of sin necessarily draws with it the true remission of sin and the infusion of justice. And so in Scripture almost always these two are joined, to remit or blot out, and to cover sins, that we may understand that the one is not without the other. 2 Esdras 4: Cover not their iniquity, and let not their sin be blotted out before thy face. Psalm 50: Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Psalm 84: Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sins. So, then, it was also said, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Nor do the subtleties of Chemnitz prove anything. For we do not say that not to impute sin is to infuse justice, save consequently — because, namely, the infusion of justice follows upon the non-imputation, since God cannot be deceived by not imputing that which ought to be imputed. But from the contrary sense it is not made out that to impute sin is to blot out justice, or to infuse iniquity, not even consequently. For when God imputes sin, he holds for a sinner him who in fact is a sinner, by his own will and works. For it is not necessary that God blot out justice, or infuse iniquity, since a man is of himself powerful and strong enough unto evil. Moreover, if we said that not to impute sin is to infuse justice, then to impute sin would not be to infuse iniquity, but would be, not to infuse justice. For as not to impute sin and to impute sin are contradictories, not contraries, so also from the contrary sense two contradictories ought to be gathered, to infuse justice and not to infuse justice, not two contraries, to infuse justice and to infuse iniquity. But Chemnitz is to be pardoned, who was so occupied in the art of Grammar that he had no leisure to give attention to Dialectic. But that which he objects, that to cover knowledge is not to blot out knowledge, we were not ignorant of; but at the same time we also knew that some things are covered to be preserved, some to be blotted out, in the manner that wounds are covered with a plaster.
But it pleases me to bring forward the opinions of the Fathers on this testimony of the Psalm, that the adversaries may understand how far they wander from the sentence of the ancient and orthodox Church. St. Justin Martyr, in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, near the end: “Blessed is he to whom the Lord will not impute sin — that is, to whom, doing penance, God will remit sins. Not as you preach, deceiving yourselves, and certain others like you assert, that even if they be sinners, provided they know God, the Lord will not impute sins to them.” Origen, book 4 on the epistle to the Romans, writes that David ascended as it were by certain steps, so as to say that it is a great benefit when he remits sins to someone, a greater when he covers them, the greatest when he does not impute them. For then they are so utterly blotted out that not even any vestige appears, and it is just as if such a man had never sinned. St. Jerome, in the commentary on Psalm 31, leads the Prophet through certain like steps; for he writes that sins are remitted through Baptism, covered through charity, not imputed through Martyrdom. St. Augustine, discourse 2 on this same Psalm: “Do not so understand what he said, that sins are covered, as though they were there and lived.” And below: “Let the physician cover, that he may cure; for he covers with a plaster.” A like exposition both Gregories have — the Roman on the second penitential Psalm, and Nazianzen on holy Baptism — as regards the manner of covering sins through grace, as it were through a plaster.
The fourth argument Calvin takes from chapter 5 to the Romans, where he says: “The Apostle, when he says that by the obedience of one man many are made just, seems to signify nothing else than that the very obedience of Christ is our justice.” I answer: we have already said above that the obedience of Christ was the efficient cause, not the formal, of our justification. Which we proved from the antithesis, since the disobedience of Adam constituted us sinners not formally, but efficiently. On which matter see Augustine, book 1 On the Merits of Sins, chapter 9. The fifth argument he takes from chapter 10 to the Romans, where blessed Paul reprehends the Jews, that, being ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they were not subject to the justice of God. For this seems to fall upon us too, who, being ignorant of the justice of God imputed to us, and seeking to establish our own inhering justice, are not subject to the justice of God. I answer: St. Augustine, in the book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 12, and elsewhere in places almost infinite, teaches that by the Apostle the justice of God is called the justice which is in us, from the gift of God; but our justice is called that which is prepared, or believed to be prepared, by our own powers, without the grace of God. And so the Jews are reprehended by the Apostle, who believed that they could fulfil the law of God by their own powers. “This the Apostle assiduously commends,” says Augustine, sermon 13 on the words of the Apostle, “commending faith to the Gentiles, by which faith they obtain help to fulfil the law — not by the law, but obtaining through faith the powers of fulfilling. To this the Apostle assiduously leads, and commends these things on account of the Jews, who gloried of the law, and thought the law sufficient to their free choice; and thereby, because they thought the law sufficient to their free choice, being ignorant of the justice of God — that is, of the justice given by the Lord from faith — and willing to establish their own, as fulfilled by their own powers, not obtained by the giving of faith, they were not subject to the justice of God.” Where you see that the justice of God is called the grace and virtue by which the law is fulfilled, which is charity diffused in the heart by the Holy Ghost who is given to us; but one’s own justice is named the presumption of fulfilling the law by the sole powers of nature. We do not, then, lead men away from Christ (as the adversaries falsely say) when we teach inhering justice; but we most of all lead them to Christ, when we teach that that inhering justice, through which the justification of the law is fulfilled in us, is not in us from ourselves, but from the gift and grace of God, through the merit of Jesus Christ our Lord. But they truly extenuate the benefit of Christ, when they will have him, by so many of his labors and pains, to have procured for us not a true and absolute justice, but only an imputative and relative one.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
GAP UT IX. Solvuntur argumenta adversariorum ex epistola ad Rom. Superest ut argumentis adversariorum respondeamus, e quibus praecipua nobis esse videntur, quae profert Calvinus lib. ni. Insti- tut. cap. 11. quamvis multa eorum commu¬ nia sint etiam Lutheranis. Primum igitur ex epistola ad Romanos colligit argumenta nonnulla, quae ordine proponemus et dilue¬ mus. Primum sumit ex nomine justificationis, quod ad Roman. ,v. et vili, contendit sumi pro declaratione justitiae. Respondeo, Nomen justificationis accipitur quidem saepe in Seri-, p turis pro declaratione justitiae, sed non semper; loca protulimus cap. 3. Porro ad Roman. v. accipi justificationem pro eo, quod est justum facere, sive constituere, demonstravimus loco citato ex ipsa B. Pauli declaratione, qui cum dixisset: Per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem, exposuit dicens : Per obedientiam unius ho¬ minis, justi constituentur multi. Sic etiam ad Roman. vm. accipi verbum justificare, pro eo, quod est justum facere, non autem solum , justum pronunciare ; perspicuum est ex similitudine hujus vocis ad alias, quae in eodem loco ponuntur. Ait enim Apostolus : Quos justificavit, hos et magnificavit. Ibidem etiam utitur verbis vi¬ vificandi, mortificandi, conglorificandi, quae sunt omnino similia verbo justificandi. Ne¬ mo autem negaret, magnificare esse magnum facere ; vivificare, vivum facere; mortificare, mortuum facere ; conglorificare, gloriosum cum alio facere ; cur igitur justificare non sit etiam justum facere ? Denique, ut ostendimusloco citato, etiamsi justificare acciperetur ubique proj ustum pro¬ nunciare, nihil tamen adversarii obtinerent. Non enim potest impius vere justificari, id est, justus pronuntiari, nisi qui pronunciat justum, simul faciat justum. Hinc enim solus Deus justificat impios, quia solus potest de impiis facere pios. Homines autem qui justi¬ ficant impios, non minus abominabiles sunt, quam si condemnarent justos, ut ait Salo¬ mon Proverbior. xvn. Secundo, petit argumentum ex cap. iv. ad Rom. ubi dicit Apostolus, Abrahse fidem re¬ putatam esse ad justitiam. Hinc enim colli¬ git, nihil esse aliud nostram justitiam, nisi fidem in Christum, id est, Christi justitiam, fide apprehensam. Respondeo : Fides quidem reputata est Abrahse ad justitiam, ut Apostolus dicit : sed non admittimus glossam, quod reputari fi¬ dem ad justitiam, sit nobis imputari Christi justitiam, si fide illam apprehendamus. Nam glossa haec repugnat Apostolo, duas ob cau¬ sas. Primum, quoniam Apostolus ipsam fi¬ dem dicit imputari ad justitiam, fides autem non est justitia Christi, id est, qua Christus justus est, sed justitia nostra id est, qua nos justi sumus ex dono Dei. Deinde, quoniam verbum ( imputare ) hoc loco non signi¬ ficat nudam existimationem, sed existima¬ tionem cui veritas in re ipsa respondeat, ut .perspicuum est ex illis verbis : « Ei qui ope ratur, merces imputatur non secundum gra tiam, sed secundum debitum » . Certum enim est, ei, qui operatur, non sola opinione et existimatione, sed vere ac reipsa deberi mercedem. Tertio, petit argumentum ex illis verbis Psal. xxxi. in eodem cap. iv. ad Rom. citati : Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates , et quorum tecta sunt peccata , beatus vir , cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum (1). Quaerit (1) Psal. XXXI, \ ; — Rom., IV, 7. 232 UBER II. hoc loco Calvinus, an haec sit plena definitio justificationis, an dimidia. Nam si plena sit, verum erit quod ipse docet, justificationem sola peccatorum remissione constare. Nulla enim hic mentio fit infusionis virtutum et donorum, sed solius remissionis. Si dimidia sit, quomodo beatus dici poterit, qui non erit, nisi media ex parte justificatus ? At beatum dicit David eum, cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum. Praeterea colligunt ex hoc loco , ipsam etiam remissionem non esse veram peccati ablutionem et extinctionem, sed non impu¬ tationem. Quod enim dixerat : Beati quorum remissas sunt iniquitates , explicuit per illa verba : Quorum tecta sunt peccata. Et : Cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum. Ac ne forte dicamus, non imputare peccatum, esse de¬ lere peccatum, et infundere justitiam ; oc¬ currit Kemnitius, et probat, a contrario sensu id esse falsum. Nam si non imputare peccatum, esset delere peccatum, et infun¬ dere justitiam; imputare peccatum esset delere justitiam, et infundere iniquitatem, quod est absurdissimum. Igitur imputare peccatum, est habere hominem pro pecca¬ tore, non imputare peccatum, est habere pro justo. Idem etiam Kemnitius alio loco probat, tegere peccata, non esse delere, sed abscon¬ dere, ut sint, et non videantur. Nam Prov. xn. Homo astutus tegit scientiam (1). Ubi ine¬ pte exponas, delet scientiam, cum sensus sit, homo astutus abscondit scientiam, ut non facile percipiatur, quod ipse novit. Respondeo : ad quaestionem Calvini pos¬ set objici alia similis quaestio , Sitne plena definitio justificationis, an dimidia illa ejus¬ dem Prophetae, Beatus vir qui timet Domi¬ num, Psal. cxr. Et illa : Beati immaculati in via , qui ambulant in lege Domini , Psal. cxviii (2). Nam si plena sit, ubi est remissio peccatorum ? si dimidia, quomodo dicuntur beati, qui non sunt nisi media ex parte justi¬ ficati? Potest igitur ad omnes ejusmodi quae¬ stiones responderi, non poni in his locis in¬ tegram definitionem justificationis, aut bea- titudinis ; sed explicari solum aliquid, quod pertinet ad justificationem, vel bcatitudinem acquirendam. Nam hoc etiam modo accipi¬ mus illa Domini verba Matth. v. Beati pau¬ peres spiritu, beati mites , beati qui lugent (3), ct alia, quae eo loco sequuntur. Neque B. Paulus ad Rom. iv. allegat hoc testimonium Psalmi, ut definiat integre justificationem, sed solum ut probet justificationem veram esse donum Dei, nec posse propriis viribus obtineri. Id autem rectissime probat ex eo, quod David beatum dicit eum, cui Deus peccata remittit, hoc est, qui dono et gratia Dei justificatur. Potest etiam responderi, in his verbis de¬ finitionem integram, sed implicite contineri. Nam remissio peccatorum non potest fieri, nisi justitia infundatur, quomodo non fu¬ gantur tenebrae, nisi lumen succedat. Id quod Apostolus ipse manifeste indicat, cum ait : David dicit , beatitudinem, hominis , cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, etc. Ubi ex non imputatione peccatorum, colligit impu¬ tationem justitiae, ac per hoc docet, non posse duo ista separari, remissionem pecca¬ ti, et donationem justitiae. Atque haec de quaestione Calvini. Porro tegi, et non imputari peccata, non est quidem, si vim horum vocabulorum spectes, deleri, atque extingui ; sed tamen est deleri, atque extingui quoad sensum , si haec referantur ad Deum. Nam Deo non potest aliquid tegi, nisi penitus deleatur Omnia enim nuda sunt, et aperta oculis ejus, ad Hebraeos iv (4). Quare si Deo tegitur ali¬ quid, hoc ipso ex necessitate deletur et eva¬ nescit. Neque potest Deus non imputare peccata, hoc est, non habere hominem im¬ pium, pro impio, nisi desinat esse impius ; et quia non potest homo transire ab impie¬ tate ad pietatem, nisi per gratiam ejus, qui justificat impium ; ideo non imputatio pec¬ cati necessario trahit secum veram peccati remissionem et justitiae infusionem. Itaque in Scriptura fere semper conjunguntur haec duo, remittere, sive delere, et tegere pecca¬ ta, ut intelligamus unum non esse sine al- teio. II Esdrae iv. Ne operias iniquitatem eorum, et peccatum eorum coram facie tua non deleatur. Psalm. l. Averte faciem tuam a peccatis meis, et omnes iniquitates meas dele. Psal. lxxxiv. Remisisti iniquitatem plebis hae, operuisti omnia peccata eorum. Sic igitur etiam dictum est, Bjati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata (o). Neque aliquid probant argutiae Kemnitii. Nam non dicimus, non imputare peccatum, (I) Prov. XII, 23.— (2) Psal. CXI, t: ibid. CXVIII, 1. - (3) Matth. V, 3.-(4)IIeb. IV, 13. - (5) II Esdr. IV, 5: Psal., L, II; ibid. LXXXIV, 3. CAPUT IX. • 233 esse infundere justitiam, nisi consequenter, quia videlicet sequitur infusio justitiae ad non imputationem, cum Deus non possit falli non imputando id, quod imputari deberet. A contrario autem sensu non efficitur, ut im¬ putare peccatum, sit delere justitiam, vel infundere iniquitatem, ne consequenter qui¬ dem. Nam cum Deus imputat peccatum, habet pro peccatore eum, qui revera est peccator, propria voluntate, et operibus. Non enim necessarium est, ut Deus justitiam deleat, vel iniquitatem infundat, cum satis per se sit homo potens, et fortis ad malum. Praiterea si diceremus, non imputare pecca¬ tum, esse infundere justitiam ; imputare peccatum, non esset infundere iniquitatem, sed esset, non infundere justitiam. Quemad¬ modum enim non imputare peccatum , et imputare peccatum, contradicentia sunt, non contraria ; ita quoque a contrario sensu colligi debent duo contradicentia, infundere justitiam, et non infundere justitiam, non autem duo contraria, infundere justitiam, et infundere iniquitatem. Sed ignoscendum est Kemnitio, qui tam fuit occupatus in arte Grammaticae, ut non ei vacaverit dare operam Dialecticae. Illud autem, quod objicit, tegere scientiam, non esse delere scientiam, non ignorabamus ; sod simul etiam sciebamus, quaedam tegi, ut conserventur, quaedam ut deleantur, quo modo teguntur vulnera emplastro. Sed pla¬ cet adferre sententias Patrum de hoc testi¬ monio Psalmi, ut adversarii intelligant quam longe aberrent a sententia veteris, orthodo- xaeque Ecclesiae. S. Justinus Martyr in Dialogo cum Tri- phone Judaeo, prope finem : « Beatus, in¬ quit, cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum, hoc est, cui poenitenti Deus peccata remittet. Non sicut praedicatis vosmetipsos fallentes, et alii quidam vestri similes asseverant , etiamsi peccatores fuerint, modo Deum no¬ verint , non imputabit eis Dominus pec¬ cata » . Origenes lib. iv. in epist. ad Roman. scribit, Davidein quasi quibusdam gradibus ascendisse, ut diceret, magnum esse benefi¬ cium, cum alicui peccata dimittit, majus cum tegit, maximum cum non imputat. Tunc enim ita funditus delentur ut ne vesti¬ gium quidem ullum appareat, et perinde sit, ac si talis homo numquam peccasset. S. Hieronymus in comment. Psalmi xxxi. per similes quosdam gradus Prophetam dc- Tom. VI. ducit : scribit enim peccata remitti per Bapli- smum, tegi per charitatem, non imputari per Martyrium. S. Augustinus, concion. 2. in hunc eum- dem Psalmum : «Non sic, inquit, intelligatis quod dixit, peccata cooperta sunt, quasi ibi sint et vivant». Et infra : «Medicus, inquit, tegat, ut curet, emplastro enim tegit ». Si¬ milem expositionem habet uterque Gregorius, Romanus videlicet in Psalmum secundum pcenitentialem, et Nazianzenus in sanctum lavacrum ; quod attinet ad modum tegendi peccata per gratiam, quasi per emplastrum. Quartum argumentum sumit Calvinus ex cap. v. ad Rom. ubi dicit : « Apostolus, cum dicit per obedientiam unius hominis justos constitui multos, nihil aliud signifi¬ care videtur, nisi ipsam Christi obedientiam nostram esse justitiam ». Respondeo : jam supra diximus, obedien¬ tiam Christi causam fuisse efficientem, non formalem nostrae justificationis. Id quod ex antithesi probavimus, quoniam inobedientia Adami nos constituit peccatores, non for- maliter, sed efficienter. De qua re vide Au¬ gustinum lib. i. de peccat, merit. cap. 9. Quintum argumentum sumit ex cap. x. ad Rom. ubi B. Paulus reprehendit Judaeos, quod ignorantes Dei justitiam, et suam qute- rentes constituere, justitiae Dei subjecti non essent. Id enim in nos quoque convenire vi¬ detur, qui ignorantes Dei justitiam, nobis imputatam, et nostram inhaerentem quaeren¬ tes constituere, justitia: Dei subjecti non su¬ mus. Respondeo : S. Augustinus lib. de gratia et libero arbitrio cap. 12. et alibi, locis prope infinitis, docet , justitiam Dei vocari ab Apostolo justitiam, qua: est in no^is, ex dono Dei ; justitiam autem nostram dici eam, quae propriis viribus, sine gratia Dei, paratur, aut parari creditur. Itaque repre¬ henduntur ab Apostolo Judaei, qui legem Dei se propriis viribus implere posse crede¬ bant : « Commendat (inquit Augustinus serm. 13. de verbis Apostoli) hoc assidue Apostolus commendans fidem gentibus, qua fide impetrant adjutorium, ut impleant le¬ gem, non per legem, sed vires implendi impe¬ trantes per fidem. Ad hoc assidue ducit, et commendat ista Apostolus propter Judaeos, qui de lege gloriabantur, et libero suo arbitrio legem sufficere arbitrabantur : ac per hoc, quia libero suo arbitrio legem sufficere arbi¬ trabantur, ignorantes Dei justitiam, id est, 16 234 LIBER II. cx fide justitiam datam a Domino, et suam volentes statuere, quasi suis viribus imple¬ tam, non dante fidem impetratam, justitia) Dei non sunt subjecti ». Ubi vides, justitiam Dei appellari gratiam et virtutem, qua lex impletur, qu;e est cha- ritas in corde diffusa per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis ; justitiam autem pro¬ priam, nominari praesumptionem legis im¬ plenda), solis natura) viribus. Non igitur ab¬ ducimus homines a Christo (ut adversarii mentiuntur) cum justitiam inhmrentem do¬ cemus, sed eos maxime adducimus ad Chri¬ stum,, cum doceamus, justitiam illam inhae¬ rentem, per quam justificatio legis impletur in nobis, non esse in nobis, ex nobis, sed ex dono et gratia Dei, per meritum Jesu Christi Domini nostri. Ipsi autem vere extenuant beneficium Christi, cum illum velint, non veram, ahsolutamque justitiam, sed imputa- titiam tantum, et relativam, nobis tot suis laboribus et doloribus comparasse.