180. Objections.
1. From Rom. 5:13. Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but
sin is not counted where there is no law. Therefore the conclusion is that
sin remains in the justified, and it is remitted only inasmuch as it is not
imputed.
I concede the antecedent and deny
the consequent. For in the text the question concerns sin not yet forgiven. Moreover,
the meaning of this passage is not fully clear. Probably it means, up until the
Law of Moses, actual sins were not imputed by God for the punishment of bodily
death, because the law that punished some sins with capital punishment had not
yet been given.
2. Justification is often
expressed in Holy Scripture under the forensic formulas of judgment,
accuser, advocate, decision, etc. (John 5:45; 1 John 2:1; Luke 16:22, etc).
Therefore justification has only a forensic value.
I distinguish the antecedent.
Justification is expressed under these formulas in order to represent, under
these sensible forms, the effects that happen intrinsically in the soul, conceded;
otherwise, denied. I also distinguish the consequent. Justification
would have only a forensic value, if the matter itself permitted it, conceded;
otherwise, denied. For the Holy Scriptures themselves remove all doubt when
they teach that sins are truly destroyed and taken away by justification.
3. The verb iustifico, in
Greek δικαιοω, does not signify “to make just”
but “to declare just.” Therefore justification does not imply true and
intrinsic justice, but it is only a declaration of it.
I distinguish the antecedent.
It has this meaning in the works of profane authors, conceded; in the
sacred authors, I subdistinguish: it has that meaning sometimes, conceded;
always, and in particular in the present case, denied.
The classical Latin authors did
not know the verb iustifico. Profane Greek authors surely used the verb δικαιοω, but since they were completely ignorant
of internal justification, for them it meant only forensic justification.
4. From 1 Cor. 1:30 where it says
that Christ “was made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and
redemption. Therefore if Christ is made our justice, we are justified by the
imputation of Christ’s justice.
I concede the antecedent and distinguish
the consequent. Christ is made our justice in a meritorious way, inasmuch
as he merited internal justice for us, conceded; inasmuch as formally
his justice is our justice, denied. Trent itself gives us this
distinction: “If anyone says that men are justified without the justice of
Christ, by which he gained merit for us, or that they are formally just by his
justice itself, let him be anathema” (D 1560).
5. From 2 Cor. 5:21: For our
sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness
of God. Hence the argument is made: we are made justice by the same reason
whereby Christ was made sin. But Christ was made sin only extrinsically and in
an imputative manner. Therefore we are also made just only extrinsically and in
an imputative manner.
I deny the parity.
For Christ, by reason of his sinlessness, could not become sin intrinsically;
but, because he represented sinful humanity, he became a partaker in its fate
and punishment. Men, however, when their sins have been forgiven, can be
internally renewed and justified.
6. In Holy Scripture justice is
compared with a garment (Ps. 132:9, Rom. 13;14; Eph. 4:24). But a garment
affects the body extrinsically. Therefore justice affects the soul extrinsically.
I distinguish the major.
Justice is compared with a garment because it is not natural to us, but is
infused into us by God, conceded; because it is not intrinsic to us, denied.
I concede the minor and distinguish the consequent. It affects the soul
extrinsically inasmuch as it is not natural to us, conceded; inasmuch as
it does not truly inhere in us, by the infusion of God, denied.
Therefore, the reason for the comparison between a garment and justice is
sought from the fact that neither proceeds from nature, but is added to it.
Therefore this comparison does not exclude inhering justice. This is clear
from the fact that Trent, after it taught that justice inheres in the soul, immediately
calls it a resplendent and spotless robe (D 1531).
7. Justification brings with
itself divine adoption. But adoption places nothing to intrinsic in the one who
is adopted. Therefore justification does not say an internal renewal of the
soul.
I concede the major and distinguish
the minor. Human adoption confers nothing intrinsic, conceded;
divine adoption, denied, on the basis of our proof. (Severino González
Rivas, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 4 vols. [trans. Kenneth Baker; Keep the
Faith, Inc., 2014], 3-B: 122-24)