begun in this life; for no one can say that he keeps his heart always pure. Nor is this any hindrance to the Divine vision. For the heart inchoately cleansed is united to God through faith and love in this life; and when it shall have attained to the clear vision of God in the world to come, it will be purged from all uncleanness.

11. Bellarmine's last argument is, Christ hath suffered that he might sanctify the people with his own blood; Heb. xiii. 12. He gave himself for the Church that he might sanctify it; Eph. v. 26. And that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people; Tit. ii. 14. But if he sanctified his people not truly, but only imputatively, he suffered and died in vain.

Our adversary appears to me to be dreaming, and to have no adequate understanding either of the subject or what he is saying. We acknowledge sanctification to be true and real, not imputative, as Bellarmine babbles; but we affirm that, true and real as it is, it admits of increase and degrees, and reaches not perfection, till God shall be all in all. But all those passages which declare that the Church is sanctified, and washed from all sins, we affirm are to be explained of a true cleansing begun in this life, and of a perfect cleansing obtained in that which is to come: so says Augustine on the Perfection of Righteousness against Celestius; and in Bede on Ephes. v. on those words,―That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, &c.*

Since then our sanctification, although true, is not yet complete, it will be by no means safe to make our justification before God depend upon it; for that alone justifies which most exactly and fully satisfies the Divine law. And thus we have sufficiently answered all the arguments of Bellarmine. Now let us weigh the testimonies which he marshals against us from the Fathers.

• See page 22 supra.

CHAPTER XXV.

THE TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS DISCUSSED.

BEFORE we proceed to examine the testimonies of the Fathers separately, it is right to advert first to what Vasquez has already noticed (in 1. 2. quæst. 113. disp. 202.) namely, that this controversy, concerning the formal cause of Justification, has not been discussed by them so accurately, as that concerning the necessity of grace for the performance of works, which they handled admirably when contending against the heresy of l'elagius. If then any of the Fathers, on account of that close affinity and inseparable connexion of infused or inherent grace, with the grace of remission and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, seem rather to confuse the one with the other, we ought not on that account to confound those things which the Spirit of God is accustomed accurately to distinguish in the Holy Scriptures.*

It must be remembered too, that we are not contending against inherent righteousness: indeed, we acknowledge such a quality to be infused in the act of justification; but yet we assert, that remission of our sins, the being received into the Divine favour, and acceptance unto life eternal, do not either flow from this quality or depend upon it; but upon the gratuitous mercy of God absolving us from our sins and accepting us to life eternal for the sake of Christ and the obedience of Christ. Neither are the Fathers to be considered as opposed to this our opinion, if sometimes they refer the word justification to the infusion of righteousness: for the same word is used sometimes in a different sense, not only by the Fathers, but even in the Scriptures themselves. Our enquiry therefore now is not concerning the divers significations of this word justification in the Fathers, but what sentiments they held on justification itself, which is the point of theological investigation.

• See Newman's Lectures p. 433.

+ Ibid, p. 434.

With these provisos let us see what Bellarmine has to allege against our doctrine out of the Fathers.

He begins with Augustine, all whose volumes he ransacks and brings forth some testimonies from each; De Justificatione, lib. 2, cap. 8.

1. Tom. 1. Confess. lib. 12, cap. 15. As great as is the difference between the light which enlightens, and the thing enlightened thereby; so great is the difference between justifying righteousness, and the righteousness which is produced by justification. In this passage he distinguishes our righteousness from the righteousness of God, and without doubt makes it a created quality, just as is light, wisdom, and the like.

I answer,-Augustine is speaking of the righteousness implanted in spiritual and eternal beings by God. If then we allow that those holy angels are justified before God by this their own inherent righteousness; yet it will not follow that we are justified in the same manner, until the righteousness begun in us shall have reached an angelic perfection. It behoves us therefore to wait till we become like the angels in heaven (Matt. xxii. 30), and then only to glory in this attribute of the holy angels. Moreover, in this place Augustine calls the righteousness of the creature not justifying righteousness, but the righteousness produced by justification; and we have always admitted that God the Justifier, at the same time with justification, produces in the justified a created quality of righteousness; but we deny that this quality, whilst it is imperfect, can justify us before God; which Augustine has neither asserted in this place, nor thought of. Lastly, the very conclusion of Bellarmine does not touch the present controversy; for he deduces from this testimony, that the righteousness inherent in us is a created quality; which we may very well grant him, without any prejudice to our defence.

2. Tom. 2, Epist. 85. What else is righteousness when it is in us, or any virtue by which we live righteously and wisely, than the beauty of the inner man? Here he most plainly places our righteousness in the internal renovation of the mind and the comeliness of virtue.

It is strange that Bellarmine should take so much trouble, in scraping together testimonies of this description, which

in no way aid his cause. That there is a certain inherent righteousness in us is admitted; that this also adorns the soul and renders it beautiful, no one denies; but we assert, with Augustine, that this righteousness is bestowed on the regenerate, in order that by it they may live righteously and wisely among men; not that by it they may stand absolutely justified before God. We admit also that this has its beauty; but it is also interspersed with many spots; which easily appear if any righteous man looks at himself in the glass of the Divine law. Bellarmine's argument therefore is foolish : Augustine places our inherent righteousness in the renewal of the mind; therefore, concludes Bellarmine, our justification before God consists in the same!-He proceeds,

3. Tom. 3 lib. 15 de Trinit. cap. 8. Now this nature, when it is justified by its Creator, is transformed from a state of moral deformity, into a state of moral_beauty.* Therefore a justified man does not continue in a state of moral deformity, nor does he need the imputation of the righteousness of another to cover or hide his inherent unrighteousness.

To this I answer :-Augustine says, that man's nature is formed anew by God, whenever he justifies the sinner; and we also say the same. We also grant the first inference of Bellarmine-Therefore a justified man does not continue in a state of moral deformity,—in this sense; he does not continue in that state of moral deformity in which he was previous to the commencement of this renewal. It cannot however be the lot of any mortal, that he has no moral deformity remaining in him until that renewal has been completed. But the second inference of Bellarmine, namely, That such a person needs not the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, must be altogether rejected. For he who by the grace of sanctification is transformed into a state of moral beauty, is, notwithstanding this change, not brought into so perfect a state of moral beauty, as may constitute a formal cause of our justification.

4. Tom. 4. lib. 1. ad Simpl. quæst. 2. Because it remains the purpose of God to justify believers, therefore he decrees the works which he already elects to the kingdom of heaven.

A deformi forma formosam transfertur in formam.

And afterwards: Unless the mercy of God precedes our calling, no one can believe that he begins to be justified at his calling, and receives the power of doing good works. Here, in the former passage, that is called justification, whence good works proceed; in the latter he shews that faith and love, whence the faculty of doing works proceeds, is that righteousness whereby we are justified.

In the latter passage Augustine is proving, not that men are therefore chosen by God, because they were about to do good works of themselves; but that they therefore do good works, because God, according to the good pleasure of his will, has chosen them, and by his infused grace rendered them capable of good works. To the former passage I answer, that good works, and that habitual righteousness from which they arise, proceed from justification; because God justifies no one into whom he does not infuse grace for performing good works, according to his immutable decree: but it is not thence proved, either that this infused grace or these works are the constituent cause upon which our justification is grounded, but rather effects consequent upon it. To the latter I also reply, that nothing else is thence proved, than that when a man is justified through faith, he at the same time receives the power of doing good works; so that under its direction he enters upon the way which leads to glory, or the kingdom of heaven.

5. Tom. 5, lib. 19. de Civit. Dei, cap. 27. Man's righteousness here is of such a character, that God rules over the obedient man, the soul over the body, and reason over opposing vices, either by subduing or resisting them; and that God be entreated both for the grace of merit and the pardon of sin. In this definition, there is no mention whatever of the imputed righteousness of Christ, but only of righteousness dwelling in us.

Augustine is not describing that righteousness by which man stands absolved and justified before God; but that by which, according to the measure of grace received, he endeavours to perform to God and man the duties of holiness and love. That he is not speaking of the righteousness which justifies before God is plain from hence, that this righteousness is consistent with inherent corruption; but that which justifies in the sight of God ought to be free from