A Treatise of Justification, Book 2 · Chapter 5
CAP. V. Bellarmines discourse concerning the signification of the word justification, de Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 3. examined.De Iustif. l. 2. c. 3.
§. I.
BVT let us examine Bellarmines disputation concerning theHis 1. proofe out of Rom. 5. 17, 18, 19. signification of the word Lib. 2. Cap. 3. where alleaging …. 5. 17, 18, 19. to prove justification by inherent righteousnesse, he affirmeth, that to be justified by Christ in that place, doth signifie to bee made just by obtaining righteousnesse …. And this hee would prove by two reasons: first, out of those words j…sti constistuentur multi, many shall be constituted or made just: From whence he argueth thus:
To bee constituted just is to bee made just by inherent righteousnesse:
To bee justified is to bee constituted just, Rom. 5. 19. Therefore to bee constituted just is to bee made just by righteousnesse inherent.
Answ. Wee confesse, that whosoever is justified is constituted, yea, is made just: but the question is concerning the manner: whether by infusion of righteousnesse, or by imputation. The assumption therefore is granted by us. But the proposition is false, and hath no ground in the Scriptures. Yea, the contrary may bee proved out of the place alleaged; where justification, or making righteous is opposed, not to the corruption of sinne, but to guilt and condemnation, vers. 16. and 18. And therefore he is said in this place to be justified, or constituted righteous, who being absolved and acquitted from the guilt of sinne, and from condemnation, is accepted as righteous unto life: for as in the former part of the 19. verse, many are said to be constituted sinners, that is, as theaChrysoft. T…eodoret. …. Greeke interpreters doe expound it, and as appeareth by the former verses, guilty of sin, and obnoxious to condemnation by the disobedience of Ada…, meaning that one offence of his which we cal his fal; which cannot be otherwise understood but by imputation: so in the latter part, many are said to be constituted just, by the obedience of the second Adam, that is, absolved from the guilt of sinne and condemnation, and accepted as righteous in Christ, his obedience being communicated to them; which cannot be by any other meanes, but by imputation. Neither can any reason be given why foreign, to bee constituted just, should not be a judiciall word, as well as foreign to be justified. In all other places, this verbe, whether it bee used in the good sense or in the bad, signifieth no such thing, as Bellarmine inferreth upon it. For as in the bad it signifieth to convince or condemne, as Gal. Gal. 2. 18. Iam. 4. 4. Rom. 5. 8. 2 Cor. 4. 2. 6. 4. 7. 11.2. 18. Iam. 4. 4. so in the good, to approve or commend, as Rom. 5. 8. 2 Cor. 4. 2. 6. 4. 7. 11. And accordingly the meaning of this place may be this: as by the disobedience of the first Adam many were convicted and condemned as sinners, that is, guilty of sinne and damnation: so by the obedience of the second Adam many shall bee approved and accepted as righteous.
His reason is from the antithesis of Adam to Christ: which as I shall hereafterc…ib 4. c. 10. sect. 1. &c. in his due place prove, maketh wholly against him: for if by the actuall disobedience of Adam imputed unto us wee were made sinners; then by the obedience of Christ imputed unto us we are made righteous: but the former is true, therefore the latter. Of this antithesis I am hereafter to speake more at large: in the meane time this may suffice to maintaine and justifie our exposition of the word against Bellarmines cavils.
§. II. But here Bellarmine frameth to himselfe a fourefold ObjectionBellarmines answere, de justis. l. 2. c. 3. to foure Ob…e- ctions out of C…lvin and Chemnitius refuted. The first reason because justifying is opposed to condemning. Bellarmines hi…t answere. of Calvin and Chemnitius, proving that to justifie is a judiciall word, signifying to absolve and to pronounce just. Their first reason is, because the Apostle opposeth justifying to condemning, as Rom. 5. 16. 18. 8. 33. Therefore as God is said to condemne, when he doth not acquit a man, but pronouncing him guilty deputeth him unto punishment: so on the contrary, he is said to justifie, when hee acquitteth and absolveth a man from guilt, and pronouncing him just accepteth of him in Christ as righteous unto eternall life. To this Bellarmine shapeth two answeres: first, That justification is rightly opposed to condemnation; but is not therefore alwayes a judiciall word: for even condemnation it selfe sometimes is the act of a Iudge appointing him to punishment, who in judgement was found guilty: and sometimes it is the effect of a fault, which hath deserved punishment. And so Adam hath condemned us, and God condemneth: but Adam hath not condemned us by judging us after a judiciall manner, but by imprinting in us Originall sinne. After the same manner, saith hee, justification sometimes is the act of a Iudge, sometimes the effect of grace. And both wayes doth Christ justifie us: first, as the second Adam by deletion of sinne, and infusion of grace: secondly, in the day of judgment by declaring them just, whom before he had made just.
Reply: Iustification in this question, and in the places alleaged, is considered as an action of God, and being referred to God, it signifieth, not to make just by infusion of righteousnesse; but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge, to absolve from sinne and to pronounce and accept as righteous, as being opposed to condemning, which being referred to God, signifieth not to make sinfull, but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge to pronounce the offendour guilty, and to award him punishment. But what either justifying or condemning may signifie, being referred to other either persons or things, it is not materiall; so that it be confessed, (which cannot be denied) that justifying, being ascribed to God, signifieth not to make righteous by infusion, no more than condemning, being attributed to God, signifieth to make wicked by infusion; but both are to bee understood as the actions of a judge, who either pronouncing a man just absolveth him from guilt; or pronouncing him guilty appointeth him to punishment. This therefore was an impertinent shift of a subtle sophister having nothing to say to the purpose, for whereas he applyeth his distinction of condemning and justifying to the first and second Adam, as pertinent to the places alleaged: I answer, first, that neither is considered, as the act of the first or second Adam, but as Bellarmine confesseth in his second answer, as the actions of God the Iudge: secondly, that although in some sense the first Adam may bee said to have condemned us, as the second Adam is truely said, Esai. 53. 11. to justifie us: yet both is to bee understood of the guilt of sinne, brought upon us by the one, and taken away by the other. For as the first Adam by his transgression may be said foreign to have condemned us, because hee hath inwrapped us in the guilt of his sinne, and so made us guilty of death and obnoxious to the …entence of condemnation, that transgression of his being imputed us, being in him as the root: so the second Adam may truely be said to justifie us (who are in him) both as a surety in taking upon him our guilt, and paying our debt for us, Esai. 53. 11. and also as our intercessour and advocate pleading for us, that by imputation of his righteousnesse we may be absolved from our sinnes, and accepted as righteous in him.
§. III. His second answer is, that although condemnation and justification Bellarmines second answer.some where signifie the action of the Iudge, as in the place cited, Rom. 5. 16. yet notwithstanding when God doth justifie a sinner by d…claring him just, he doth also make him just, because the judgement of God is according to the truth. And therefore Christ, whether he justifieth us by his obedience, or by his judgement, he alwayes maketh just. And thus Augustine (saith he) understood this place.
Reply: That God maketh just, whom he pronounceth just, we freely confesse: but the question still is of the manner, for in justification when he pronounceth a man just, he maketh him just, and that perfectly just, not by infusion of inherent righteousnesse, but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse. And whom hee justifieth, that is, maketh just by imputation of righteousnesse; them hee also sanctifieth, that is, maketh just in some measure by infusion of grace. For to use Bellarmines owne words, when God doth justifie a sinner by declaring him righteous, it is plaine, that in himselfe hee is a sinner, who by God is declared to bee just: and therefore, that hee is not justified by inherent justice, for in himselfe he is a sinner, as wee all are. How then shall the judgement of God bee according to the truth, when hee declareth a sinner to bee just? To a sinner beleeving in Christ, the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith is imputed for righteousnesse, Rom. 4. 5. and this we shall hereafterRom. 4. 5. shew to be an argument unanswerable.
None, remaining sinners in themselves, can truely bee declared or pronounced just in respect of righteousnesse inherent.
All mortall men, even the most righteous of them, meraine sinners1 Job. 1. 8. Ecclus. 7. 20. in themselves, 1 Ioh. 1. 8. Ecclus 7. 20. Therefore
No mortall man can truly be declared or pronounced just in respect of inherent righteousnesse, and consequently none are or can bee justified by righteousnesse inherent.
§ IIII. The testimony of Augustine is falsified. For disputingAugustine de peccatorum meritis & remis. Lib. 1. Cap. 15. against the errour of the Pelagians, who imagined that originall sinne was not propagated from Adam, but that imitation onelyonly maketh sinners by Adam: hee inferreth, that then by the same reason onelyonly imitation maketh just by Christ. As though either Adam had done no more against us, or Christ for us, than that they had been prime examples and precedents, the one of sinne, the other of righteousnesse. But Augustine sheweth out of Rom. 5. that as those who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ, obtaine remission of sinnes and inward grace: so those who come from Adam by naturall generation, are made guilty of his sinne unto condemnation, and also receive corruption from him by propagation, all which we teach. But that Augustine pleadeth not for justification by inherent justice, appeareth by the antithesis, which in that place hee maketh betwixt our condemnation by Adam, and our justification by Christ. First, that whereas to condemnation there concurresNon tamen aliqua justitia propter Christum, sicut aliqua peccata propter Adam. our owne voluntary transgression besides Adams sinne: yet to our justification there doth not concurre any righteoufnesse besides Christ. Secondly, (which difference Saint Paul also noteth Rom. 5. 15, 16) because in the carnall generation originall sinne onelyonly is contracted; but in the spirituall regeneration there is remission not onelyonly of originall, but also of voluntary sinnes.
§ V. The second reason of Calvin and Chemnitius, which Bellarmine The second reason of Calvin and Chemnitius, that as the Hebrew, so the Greeke signifieth.taketh upon him to confute, is this, because the Apostle writing of justification did, no doubt, imitate the Hebrew phrase, though he wrote in Greeke. But the Hebrew word signifying to justifie, hath the judiciall signification. The argument may thus be propounded.
Such as is the signification of the Hebrew hitsdiq in the old Testament, the same is the signification of the Greeke word foreign both in the edition of the Septuagints, as being the translation thereof, and in the new Testament, which in this point retaineth the translation of the Septuagints:
But the Hebrew hitsdiq is meerely a judiciall word, opposed to condemnation, as I have proved heretofore by induction of examples, as Deut. 25. 1. 1 King. 32. 8. Prov. 17. 15. Esai 5. 23. and never signifieth to make righteous by infusion, or to endue with righteousnesse inherent:
Therefore the Greeke word also hath the same signification.
To the assumption Bellarmine answereth, that the Hebrew word properly signifieth to make just, but because a man may bee made just, both inwardly by obtaining of justice, and outwardly by declaration; hence it is, that the word admitteth these divers significations. Reply. In this answer we are to take his confession of the truth, both that we may be made just outwardly by declaration, and also that the Verbe sometimes doth signifie so much. In vaine therefore doe the Papists urge against us the signification of the Latine word justificare, as signifying justum facere. seeing by our exposition it signifieth justum facere also, not onelyonly by declaration, as Bellarmine heere speaketh, but much more by imputation. But though he confesseth the signification of the Verbe urged by us: yet wee may not acknowledge the signification so much urged by the Papists: yea wee confidently deny, that the Hebrew hitsdiq doth any where in the Scriptures signifie to endùe with righteousnesse inherent.
§ VI. This therefore hee endevoureth to prove by induction ofBellarmines first testimony, Dan. 12. 3. examples, and first out of Dan. 12. 3. Qui adjustitiam erudiunt multos, who instruct many to righteousnesse. The Hebrew word is matsdiqim, where the Prophet speaking of the great glory which shall bee of Teachers, who justifie many, the vulgar Latine (which is the onelyonly authentique Text among the Papists) doth not translate the word making righteous by infusion, or enduing with righteousnesse inherent, which is the worke of God alone, and not of the Teacher; but instructing unto righteousnesse, or as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth, by teaching to bring men to righteousnesse; which is done by bringing them to beleeve, and therefore this allegation proveth not the Popish signification of the word. Yea, but it disproveth, saith Bellarmine, the judiciall signification so much urged by you. For Teachers doe not justifie after the maner of …udges, (howbeit the Popish Priests dot in their absolutions as themselves doe teach.)
Reply. But this is nothing but a cavill. For where wee say, that to justifie, in this doctrine of justification, is verbum forense, a word taken from Courts, having a judiciall signification, as namely to absolve from sinne, or to give sentence with a man after the maner of a Iudge: our meaning is, that this word being attributed to God, as it is God alone that justifieth, (and so wee consider justification as an action of God) it alwaies hath this judiciall signification, and never signifieth to endue with righteousnesse inherent. But wee doe not say, that it being attributed to any other, as it is to divers others both per…ons and things, it is to bee expounded as the act of the Iudge; though otherwise the justice implyed in the signification of the word, bee after the judiciall sense, not inherent, but imputative. Thus (as I have said before) Christ justifieth, not onelyonly as hee is our Iudge, but also as our Surety paying our debt, and as our Advocate pleading for us. The holy Ghost justifieth, both as he is the Spirit of regeneration working in us the grace of faith; and as the Spirit of adoption, by applying unto us the merits of Christ, assuring us of our justification and adoption. The Ministers of the Gospell justifie (as they are also said to forgive sinnes, to beget men unto God, and to save them) ministerially, as the Embassadours of Christ, whose office it is to reconcile men unto God, to preach and to pronounce remission of sinnes to them that beleeve, and also instrumentally, as the instruments of the holy Ghost, to worke in them the grace of faith, by which they are justified: for faith commeth by hearing Rom. 10. 14, 17. and Preachers are said to bee Ministers by whom you beleeve, 1 Cor. 3. 5. Sacraments doe justifie as seales of that righteousnesse which is by faith, Rom. 4. 11. And as the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments doe justifie ut manus dantis, as the hand of God giving and applying Christ and his righteousnesse to the faithfull receiver: so faith is manus accipie…tis, the hand of the beleever receiving Christ and his righteousnesse unto justification.
§ VII. But the second place is in his conceit more cleare, viz. His second Testimony, Esai. 53. 11.Esai. 53. 11. where the Lord speaking by his Prophet concerning Christ, saith, My righteous servant shall by his knowledge justifie many, and he sh…ll beare their sinnes, where the verbe is in Hiphil Iatsdiq, which signifieth shall make just: Chemnitius indeed, saith he, goeth about to wrest this place also to the judiciall signification: But in vaine, for there are foure words which are manifestly repugnant to his interpretation. But before wee speake of those foure words, let us heare whatdExam. part. 1. pag. 131. a. Chemnitius saith, Whereas Andradius (saith he) wresteth that sentence of Esay to prove, that to justifie is to endue the minde with the quality of inherent justice, it is great impudencie for there is presently added an exposition, how that justification is to be understood, because he shall, saith Esay, beare their iniquities: where Chemnitius doth not so much as mention the judiciall signification of the word, justifying, after the manner of a Iudge, but rather signifieth, that Christ at his first comming, did not justifie the Elect after the manner of a Iudge, but as a surety in taking upon himselfe our debt and bearing our iniquities, and as a Redeemer paying our ransome, and so di charging us from our debt and from our bondage. Neither doth it follow, that it is not a judiciall word, because in that place it signifieth not to justifie as a Iudge, for besides the Iudge there are other parties also who doe justifie in a judiciall sense, as namely sureties and advocates.
§. VIII. Now let us examine those foure words, all which serve toThe foure words which … taketh hold of. prove that Christ in that place is not said to justifie after the manner of a Iudge, which no man affirmeth, and therefore Bellarmine fighteth with his owne shadow. For we doubt not, but that Christ may be said to justifie divers wayes: first, by his doctrine, as our Prophet and Teacher▪ in which sense Teachers are said to justifie, Dan. 12. 3. secondly, as our Priest, both by his satisfaction and sacrifice propitiatory, as Esai. 53. 11. for so he saith, and he shall beare their iniquities; so Heb. 9. 26, 28. and also by his intercession, as our Advocate, 1 Ioh. 2. 2. Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 9. 24. thirdly, by his sentence, as our king and judge at the2 Tim. 4. 1. The first word, by his knowledge. last day, Matth. 25. 34. The first word is by his knowledge, that is, as he expoundeth it out of Hierome, by his doctrine. Answ. Wee deny not, but that Christ by his doctrine did justifie many, working in them the grace of faith, for even other Teachers, who are but his Ministers, doe also justifie others, as Daniel speaketh, not by infusion of righteousnesse, but as the instruments of the holy Ghost to beget faith in the hearers, or being, as Saint Paul speaketh, Ministers by whom they doe beleeve, and beleeving are justified in the judiciall sense. But Esay speaketh not of his doctrine, but of his knowledge, and that passively understood; not, for that knowledge whereby he knoweth all things, but whereby hee is acknowledged to bee the Messias, that is to say, faith; and so Pagnine, Vatablus, and Tremellius read, scientia sui, or agnitione sui, that is, by faith in him (for so is faith often termed, as 2 Pet. 1. 2, 3. and 1 Tim. 2. 4. &c. by which, as it is said in this place of Esay, hee doth justifie La rabbim, that is as Paul speaketh Rom. 5. 19. foreign, the multitude of the Elect, who beleeve in him: how? by bearing their iniquiti…s, that is, the punishment due for their sinnes, his sufferings being imputed to them: if therefore justifying by faith doe prove justification by works or by inherent righteousnesse, then this word proveth it.
§. IX. The second word is ipse justus: by which word, saith he, is signified The second word, ipse justus.that Christ doth justifie not onelyonly by teaching, but also by just working, and by imparting his righteousnesse unto us. Answ. Christ his obedience or just working is proper to his person, and inherent in him, and therefore that righteousnesse, which he performed in his owne person, being both active, and therefore transient, and proper to his person, and therefore without us, cannot be imparted to us otherwise than by imputation. To what purpose then doth he urge this word, seeing Christ is just in justifying us, as well by imputation, as by infusion? Forsooth, to shew, that Christ by his obedience and sufferings doth not justifie after the manner of a Iudge: which no man affirmeth. But what is his reason? because it is not required to justifying after a judiciall manner, that he, who justifieth others, should himselfe be just: as if he should say, it is not required that a Iudge should bee just: contrary to that Gen. 18. 25. But God doth justifie us after the judiciall manner, as a Iudge, through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus, and by forgivenesse of sinnes, and that to this end to shew forth his justice that hee might bee just▪ and the justifier of him who beleeveth in Iesus, Rom. 3. 25, 26. But this might better have beene objected against his owne exposition of the former word; seeing he, who is not just himselfe, may by his doctrine justifie others. Notwithstanding, that which Bellarmine here áffirmeth concerning Christ, is most true: that it was necessary, that he who should justifie others by his obedience should bee just himselfe: howbeit he impertinently alleageth, Rom. 3. 26. which speaketh of God justifying us, not as a Mediator by his obedience, but as a Iudge by his sentence. But the true reason, why the Prophet useth this word, is in respect of the words following, to signifie that Iesus Christ the righteous was made a propitiation for our sinnes, 1 Ioh. 2. 2. and that Christ, who was just and knew no sinne, was made sinne for us, that wee might bee the righteousnesse of God in him, as the Apostle speaketh, 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Esai. 53. 5, 6, 6.
§. X. The third word is my servant: which signifieth that Christ did The third word, my servant.serve his Father in the worke of justification, and consequently did justifie men, not by judging, but by ministring, as himselfe saith, Matth. 20. 28. and is therefore called the Minister of Circumcision; that is, of the Iewes. TheThe fourth, and he shall▪ beare their iniquities. fourth word and he shall beare their iniquities: which signifieth the manner how Christ by ministring doth justifie; that is, by bearing the burden of our sinnes upon his shoulders; that is, by suffering the punishment due for our sinnes. Answ. The thing which hee indevoureth to prove, viz. that Christ, as he performed the office of Mediation in the dayes of his flesh, did not justifie us a…ter the manner of a Iudge, is true. But his reasons are not sufficient. Not the former, for he might bee Gods Minister or servant, as all Kings or Iudges are, and yet our Iudge. Not the second; for although he were our Priest to offer himselfe for us, and by his obedience and sufferings to justifie us; yet is he also our King and our Iudge, who by his sentence will justifie us at the last day. But although Christ did not justifie us after the manner of a Iudge: yet it followeth not either that the word doth signifie infusion of justice, to which purpose Andradius alleaged this place, or that it is not a judiciall word. For it is a judicial word as it is attributed not only to Iudges, but also to sureties and advocates. Christ, as our Advocate, justifieth by pleading for us as asurety, by bearing the punishment judicially imposed upon us. And whereas Bellarmine would prove out of 1 Pet. 2. 24. that inherent righteousnesse is an effect of Christs satisfaction, or bearing our iniquities, he proveth nothing but what we teach, viz. that the fruits and end of our justification and redemption by Christ is our sanctification, Luk. 1. 74, 75. Rom. 6. 22. Tit. 2. 14. And consequently that our sanctification or inherent righteousnesse, being the fruit and effect of our justification, cannot bee the cause thereof, no more than it is the cause of redemption. For
By what righteousnesse wee are redeemed, by the same wee are justified: for redemption and justification in substance differ not, Rom. 4. 6. 7. 3. 24. 25. Col. 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7.
By the righteousnesse of Christ wee are redeemed, which is out of us in him, and not by righteousnesse inherent. Therefore
By that righteousnesse of Christ, which is out of us in him, wee are justified, and not by righteousnesse inherent.
His third place is Apoc. 22. 11. which I have fully answered before:Lib. 2. cap. 4. sect. 5. Ap. 22. 11. and is here impertinently recited to prove the signification of the Hebrew word, being not sufficient to cleare the Greeke. Seeing their owne best editions in stead of foreign, read foreign, as I have shewed before.
§. II. The third and fourth reason, which Bellarmine alleageth out of Calvin and Chemnitius, and answereth them together, are concerning the signification and composition of the Latine word justificare: which indeed are not used as arguments to prove the true signification of the word in this controversie, but as just exceptions against the arguments of the Papists, who rely too much upon the signification and composition of the Latine word: wherein they were justly reprooved by Chemnitius; first, because the controversie being, what is the use and signification of the word in the Scriptures, it is not materiall, what the Latine word doth signifie in other authors; but what is the signification of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament, and of the Greeke in the New, whereof the Latine is meerely a Translation. And therefore the Latine, if it be a right Translation, must in this controversie bee understood to signifie the selfe same thing with the Hebrew and the Greeke: the use and signification whereof in the Scriptures is judiciall, and is neuer used in the Popish sense: wherefore though the use of the word in other authors did favour the Popish conceipt, yet would it not disadvantage us: secondly, though the Latine words do signific to make just, (which is all that can be enforced from the signification and composition thereof) and be so expounded by Augustine, whom Bellarmine to that purpose alleageth, yet this maketh nothing against us. Not onelyonly because Bellarmine hath confessed, men may be made just, either inwardly by obtaining of righteousnesse inherent, or outwardly after a judiciall manner; but also because we freely professe that whom God doth justifie, he maketh righteous by imputation of Christs righteousnesse. It is true indeed, that some of our Divines deny the word to signifie making righteous: but their deniall is to be understood according to the meaning of the Papists, viz. by infusion: thirdly, the Latine word justificare, and so the English, as in the translation of the Scriptures it hath alwayes the judiciall signification, and never signifieth to endue with righteousnesse inherent, no more than the Hebrew and the Greeke whereof it is a translation: so oftentimes in the Fathers, and many times in the Popish writers, and alwayes almost in the common use of speech, it signifieth to cleare from guilt, to free from imputation of fault, to approve, to declare, or pronounce just. Or if at any time it be used in the sense of induing with righteousnesse inherent, it is contrary to the use of the Scriptures, which in the doctrine of justification is to be retained.
§. XII. Yea, but the Fathers interpret justifying to be making righteous, The use of the word in the Fathers.whom to refuse in an ecclesiasticall question, and to appeale to the judgement of the Latine authors as Tully and Terence, is a great importunity, saith Bellarmine, especially seeing the Apostle hath taught, that to be justified, is to be constituted or made just, according to the composition of the word. Answ. That which is said of the Authors of the Latine tongue is a meere calumniation, for in them the word is not used at all. The interpretation of the Fathers, according to the doctrine of Saint Paul wee approve; acknowledging, that whom God doth justifie, hee maketh them just, by imputation of Christs righteousnesse. Yea but, say they, the Fathers meane by inherent justice. Answ. Though some of the Latine Fathers, who were ignorant of the Hebrew, and not skilfull in the Greeke, sometimes under the terme of justification include the benefit also of sanctification, being led thereunto by the notation of the Latine word; yet sometimes they exclude it; as first, when they place justification in remission of sinnes, as many times they doe: secondly, when according to the Scriptures they oppose it to condemnation: thirdly, and especially, when with one consent they plainely teach, that we are justified by faith alone, as hereafter shall be shewed: which cannot be understood of justification by inherent righteousnesse. For it were very absurd to affirme (which the Papists would faine father upon us) that to justification by inherent righteousnesse nothing is required but faith only. Againe, Bellarmine objecteth, which in the ninth Chapter (where he confesseth justification to be often taken in the Scriptures for declaration of righteousnesse) he more plainely expresseth, although to justifie were every where taken for to pronounce just, yet that were no advantage to us. For a sinner cannot truely be pronounced just, unlesse he who pronounceth him just, doe withall make him just, which God onelyonly can doe. And therefore hee alone is said to justifie a sinner, and by absolving him to make him truely just. Answere. Whom God pronounceth just, them hee maketh just: but still the question is of the manner: for to justifie by absolving, is to make righteous by the not imputing of sinne, and imputing of righteousnesse, and not by infusion of righteousnesse: for that is not to justifie, but to sanctifie. Howbeit wee freely confesse, that whom God justifieth, hee also sanctifieth, and that whosoever is in CHRIST IESVS, hee is a new Creature. But howsoever these graces doe alwayes concurre, insomuch that whosoever hath the one hath the other, and whosoever hath not both, hath neither: yet notwithstanding they must carefully bee distinguished. And that is it which hitherto I have endevoured to prove.