is being healed daily. The perfection of our righteousness, therefore, if we have any, consists rather in the remission of sins, than in the perfection of infused virtues. But Bellarmine urges, that the Scripture would not call those absolutely righteous who were not absolutely so. Why should not I also retort; the Scripture would not call those absolutely sinners, who were not absolutely sinners; therefore the same man will be absolutely just and absolutely a sinner? To leave that, however: If by absolutely righteous, he understands that which is real and positive, we acknowledge absolute righteousness in the regenerate; but if he means that which is faultless, and such as can endure the scrutiny of a strict enquiry, we deny such absolute righteousness to be inherent. Neither because man is called righteous, can his righteousness be proved to be absolutely perfect, any more than that because he is called faithful, or chaste, his faith is so perfect as to be free from all wavering, or his chastity so absolute as to be void of all inordinate affection.

7. Whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren; Rom. viii. 29. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly; 1. Cor. xv. 49. But Christ is not righteous by imputation, but by inherent righteousness; therefore we also, if we ought to be like him, if his brethren, if his images, should have inherent righteousness. For if we are in reality unrighteous, and righteous only putatively, we bear the image of the devil rather than of Christ.

To this I answer, that the Apostle is speaking of that glorious conformity, which the members of Christ expect in the life to come; but the argument-We shall be conformed to Christ in a state of immortality, therefore we are now also exactly conformed to him-has no sequence. Moreover, in this latter passage, if we consult the Greek text, the sense is plain; for the words are: Pogέooμev Tǹv 'EIXÓvα TÕU 'εжOugavíou, we shall bear, portabimus.* We admit that we put on the image of Christ to some extent even in this life; yet we cannot hence conclude, that this image

Following the Vulgate.—Tr.

of Christ has been so complete, that we can be justified by it. Nothing else can be hence concluded, than that there is inherent righteousness in Christ, and also inherent righteousness in us. But that ours has the same virtue for justifying us, as that of Christ has, may then be considered a consequence, when it is proved that ours has no less perfection, than that most pure righteousness of the Son of God. Lastly, Bellarmine's remark, that we are justified only putatively, if we are not justified before God by the work of inherent righteousness, is but trifling, and of little weight. For we are truly, not putatively righteous, if we regard our habitual righteousness; but this true righteousness is as yet inchoate and imperfect. We are also not only truly but perfectly righteous, if we regard the righteousness of Christ bestowed upon us; for it is not imaginary although it be imputed; because this imputation of God renders it no less rightfully ours, than if it were inherent in us. For it is a puerile and foolish notion to suppose that nothing can be truly and solidly ours, except in the sole way of inherency.

8. Bellarmine observes again, that He who is dead is justified from sin; Rom. vi. 7. and that the Apostle here teaches, that we by justification, whereby we die unto sin and rise again unto righteousness, do represent the death and resurrection of Christ. Now Christ did not die putatively, but truly, and truly rose again: we therefore die to sin not putatively, or in imagination merely, but truly; and rise again to righteousness in our justification.

The conclusion should have been, therefore inherent righteousness justifies us. But Bellarmine was not able to deduce anything else from this passage, than that there is true inherent righteousness in the justified, which no one has denied. The passage alleged however relates to sanctification, not to justification; for in this place, to be justfied from sin means nothing else, than to be freed from the service and dominion of sin; which may be easily collected from the preceding and following context. For, since he who is justified by the sentence of the judge is forthwith freed from accusation and the threatened punishment, it

The translation is here given in conformity with the original.

sometimes happens that to be justified is put for to be freed: and this is the meaning of the word in this text. Besides, it is not our justification properly understood, but our sanctification, which consists in mortification and quickening, that represents the death and resurrection of Christ. Our position then is, that this is not fanciful and fictitious, but true and real. And we consider that logic of Bellarmine, who would thence conclude that we are justified by inherent righteousness, to be merely putative and imaginary.

9. If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life, because of righteousness; Rom. viii. 10. To this is added another passage from Philip. iii. 20; We look for the Saviour, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like to his glorious body.

On these two passages Bellarmine raises this quibble : The Apostle says, that we have received the Spirit of adoption of God's children as to the soul; and look for the adoption of God's children also in the redemption of the body. But the adoption which we expect in the redemption of the body will be most true and inherent, not putative or extrinsic; consequently, the adoption which we now have in the Spirit by justification, is true, not putative.

The Jesuit does but beat the air. The conclusion which he deduces is not the question in dispute, but is simply that our adoption, which we have together with justification, is not putative; an inference which does not contribute any thing to the confirmation of his cause. As to the statement of the Apostle, it means that this outward man, on account of the indwelling remains of sin, is liable to death and corruption; but that the inward and spiritual man, by the effectual working and the grace of the Spirit, is raised again to a new life of righteousness; moreover, that the whole man is to be perfected in the life of glory, and that whatever corruption or infection yet adheres to the old man is to be utterly abolished.

How it is possible by these arguments to establish the doctrine of justification, by that inherent and imperfect righteousness which we obtain, I confess that I have not yet been able, throughout the whole course of Bellarmine's argument, to discover. In the ivth chapter of the 2nd book of his treatise on Justification, he endeavours to demonstrate

against Luther and Melancthon, that faith is not the entire formal cause of justification; yet in the same place he nevertheless acknowledges, that all the Lutherans had now all abandoned this error. He might have asserted, with more truth, that no one of them had ever fallen into the error. For his assertion that Melancthon says this expressly in the Augsburg Confession, art. 4, is an impudent calumny. Melancthon lays down that men are justified for the sake of Christ, through faith; and he states with the Apostle, Rom. iv. 3., that faith is imputed to us for righteousness by God; which we have before shewn is to be understood relatively in reference to the object apprehended. But he never asserts that faith is the entire formal cause of justification a statement which Bellarmine falsely attributes to him. He accuses Luther also of the same error, and cites his Commentary on the iind chapter of the Galatians; but in this chapter he teaches nothing else, than that God justifies no one because of his works, but that he gratuitously imputes the righteousness of faith to believers for the sake of Christ. What therefore Bellarmine has adduced to refute this error, which he has himself invented, I pass by in silence, lest it should be supposed that I consider a most false and silly calumny worthy of an answer.

All we have now to do is, to meet those arguments of Bellarmine by which he endeavours to prove, that the justification of a sinner cannot consist in the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE ARGUMENTS OF BELLARMINE AGAINST THE IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS ANSWERED.

BELLARMINE opposes the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in his book de Justificatione, lib. 2. cap. 7.; but before leading his forces out into the field, he, in order to weaken our doctrine, propounds it by halves. For he asserts that we make justification to consist in the

imputation of Christ's righteousness, because Christ covers us with his righteousness, and God beholding us thus covered declares that he regards us as righteous. We, on the contrary, hold that justification consists in this imputation, not only because Christ covers us with his righteousness; but much more because he bestows his righteousness upon us. Nor do we say, that God regards us as righteous, merely because he looks upon us covered with the righteousness of our Redeemer; but because, according to his own appointment, he regards all who believe and are united into one person with Christ, as become truly partakers of his righteousness and obedience. This being premised, let us proceed to Bellarmine's arguments.

1. First, then, he objects that, for this doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ, there is no testimony to be found either in Scripture or the Fathers. For that no passage is to be met with in which we read, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for righteousness, or, that we are righteous by Christ's imputed righteousness. For as we do not read, that the redemption of Christ is imputed to us, so that we may be thence esteemed as redeemers of the human race; so we do not read, that his righteousness is imputed to us.

I answer, If the grounds of our opinion are not to be found in the Scriptures, we must needs admit it to be false and erroneous; but what our grounds for it are you will learn when we shall have come to the establishing of our cause. In the mean time even those passages which Bellarmine himself adduces would suffice: that-Blessed is he whose sins are not imputed to him-Faith is reckoned to believers for righteousness-Christ is made unto us righteousness. For, it is for the doctrine itself we have to contend, not about syllables, or letters. But just observe Bellarmine's acuteness As, says he, we do not read that the redemption of Christ is imputed to us, so that we may therefore be regarded as redeemers: so we do not read that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.-Where anybody must see that to complete the sentence, these words are wanting, so that thence we may be regarded as justifiers? But Bellarmine perceived the folly of such a parallelism, and therefore did not venture to annex that most necessary member. I therefore