Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book I: On Justifying Faith
Chapter 3: The state of the question on justifying faith is opened, and the authors who have written on justification are indicated
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book I. 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).
That we may make our beginning, then, from the dispositions which precede justification: the adversaries do not deny that some of those acts are required which we call dispositions — whatever, in fine, Luther wrote at the beginning of this pernicious contention; for there are today almost no sectaries who do not require, before justification, [repentance for] errors and faith; some also the purpose of a new life, or of obedience, as we showed in book 1 On Penance, chapter 18. Yet in four things they dissent from us — for I omit this, that they themselves do not call faith a disposition, but an instrument by which justification is apprehended; in this, certainly, the adversaries agree with us: that an act of faith is required, that we may be able to attain justification.
First, then, we dissent in this: that they interpret otherwise the faith which is necessary for obtaining justification than we Catholics do; accordingly the first question to be disputed will be what that faith is, or what the faith is which is required for justification. Second, we dissent in that they contend that faith alone justifies; we adjoin to it companions in this very office of justifying, or of disposing toward justice; the second question, then, will be whether, by way of disposition or of instrument, faith alone justifies. Third, we dissent in that they teach that the faith which they say alone justifies can never be alone; we, contrariwise, say that it does not justify alone, but yet can be alone. Last, we dissent about the manner in which faith justifies; for they contend that faith is of no price or merit, and justifies only relatively; we assert that faith, even disjoined from charity, is of some price, and has the power of justifying by way of disposition and of impetration.
And this is not to be passed over in this place: that our adversaries — poor as they are in arguments, and rich in calumnies — everywhere traduce the Catholics, as though they taught that men are disposed toward grace by the powers of nature alone; as though they attributed the merit of justification to any works whatever, or even to rites and ceremonies; as though they took no account of justifying faith, and made no mention of it in their books and sermons. That all these things are lies and calumnies we have demonstrated at large, both in book 1 On Penance and in the little book whose title is, A Judgment on the Book of Concord of the Lutherans.
These things, then, being passed over, I shall set about explaining the first question — when first, for the readers’ sake, I shall have briefly noted the names of those who in this our age have published works on justification against the new heresies. Let the reader see, then, the following authors, besides many others who are not known to me: John Driedo, in the book On the Captivity and Redemption of the Human Race, treatise 4, chapter 1; James Latomus, in the book On Faith and Works; Albert Pighius, in the second controversy; John of Rochester, in the refutation of the articles and assertion of Luther; the Enchiridion of the Council of Cologne; Dominic Soto, in book 3 On Nature and Grace; Peter de Soto, in the Instruction of Priests, lectures 11 and 12 on Penance; Alphonsus a Castro, in the book against heresies; Andreas Vega, in the little work on justification, and in the explication of the Council of Trent; Ambrose Catharinus, in the little work on justification, faith, and works; Thomas Cajetan, On Faith and Works; Stanislaus Hosius, in the Polish Confession, from chapter 61 to 75; John of Louvain, in the book on special faith; Francis Turrianus, on justification; Henry Helmesius, on justification; Theodore Peltanus, on justification; Jodocus Tiletanus, in the Apology for the Council of Trent; Nicholas Sander, in the book On Justification; Diego Payva, in book 4 of the Orthodox Explications; Ruard Tapper, in the explication of the articles of Louvain; Thomas Stapleton, in the book On Justification. See also the authors whom Fabricius of Liège gathered into one in the Harmony of the Augsburg Confession — namely, John Cochlaeus, in the discussion of the same Confession, and others. I hear that Gregory of Valencia, a priest of our order, has written many things excellently, both on justification and on all the other controversies.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Aperitur status quaestionis de fide justificante, et indicantur auctores . qui de justificatione scripserunt. Ut Igitur a dispositionibus, quae justifica¬ tionem praecedunt, principium faciamus ; ad¬ versarii non negant, aliquos eorum actuum requiri, quos nos dispositiones appellamus, quidquid tandem initio hujus perniciosae con¬ tentionis scripseritLutherus ; nulli enim fere sunt hodie sectarii, qui errores, et fidem non requirant ante justificationem. Aliqui etiam propositum novae vitae, sive obedientiae. ut ostendimus in i. lib. de poenitentia, cap. 18. Sed tamen quatuor in rebus a nobis dissen¬ tiunt ; omitto enim illud, quod non vocant ipsi fidem, dispositionem, sed instrumentum, quo apprehenditur justificatio. In eo certe nobiscum adversarii conveniunt, actum fidei requiri, ut justificationem adipisci valeamus. Primum igitur in eo dissentimus, quod ali¬ ter ipsi fidem, quee ad justificationem obti¬ nendam necessaria est, interpretantur, quam nos Catholici faciamus; proinde prima qua;- stio disputanda erit, qutenam sit illa fides, sive quid sit ea fides, quse ad justificationem requiritur. Secundo dissentimus, quod ipso solam fidem justificare contendunt ; nos ei comites adjungimus in hoc ipso officio justi¬ ficandi, sive ad justitiam disponendi. Erit igitur altera quaestio, an per modum dispo¬ sitionis, sive instrumenti, fides sola justificet. Tertio dissentimus, quod ipsi fidem, quam dicunt solam justificare, docent numquam esse posse solam: nos. eontra dicimus, non justificare solam, sed tamen posse esse solam. Postremo dissentimus de modo, quo fides justificat, ipsi enim contendunt, fidem nullius esse pretii, aut meriti, et solum relative ju¬ stificare : nos asserimus, fidem etiam achari- tate disjunctam, alicujus esse pretii, et vira habere justificandi per modum dispositionis et impetrationis. Illud autem non est hoc loco prmtercun- dum, adversarios nostros, ut sunt inopes ar¬ gumentorum, et divites calumniarum, pas- sim traducere Catholicos, quasi doceant, solis naturae viribus disponi homines ad gratiam, quibuscumque operibus, vel etiam ritibus, et caeremoniis tribuere meritum justificationis ; fidei justificantis nullam rationem habere, neque in suis libris, et sermonibus ullam ejus mentionem facere. Qua; omnia mendacia, at¬ que calumnias esse, fuse demonstravimus tum i. lib. de poenitentia, tum in libello, in cujus inscriptio est, Judicium de libro con¬ cordiae Lutheranorum. His igitur praetermissis, ad primam quaest. explicandam aggrediar, si prius in lectorum gratiam breviter annotavero nomina eorum, qui hoc nostro saeculo de justificatione, ad¬ versus novas haereses opuscula ediderunt. Videat igitur lector auctores sequentes, prae¬ ter alios multos, qui mihi noti non sunt, Joan. Driedon. in lib. de cap et redempt. humani generis, tract. 4 cap. 1. Jac. Latom. in lib. de fide et operibus. Albertum Pighiumin 2. con¬ troversia. Joan. Itoffen. in refuta, articulo¬ rum, et assertionis Lutheri. Enchiridion Con¬ cilii Colonien. Dominicum a Soto in lib. m. de natura et gratia. Petrum a Soto in Insti- tut. Sacerdotum, lect. 11. et 12. de Poeniten¬ tia. Alphonsum a Castro in lib. contra hacre- ses. Andrcam Vegam in opusculo de justifi¬ catione, et in explicatione Concilii Trident. Ambrosium Cathar. in opusculo de justifica¬ tione, fide et operibus. Thomam Cajet, de fide et operibus. Stanislaum Hosium in Confess. Polinica, a cap. 61. usque ad 75. Joan. a Lo- vanio in lib. de fide speciali. Franciscum Turrianum de justificatione. Henricum Hel- raesium de justificatione. Theodorum Pclta- num de justificatione Jodocum Tiletanum in Apologia pro Concilio Trident. Nicolaum Sanderum in lib. de Justificatione. Diegum Pay vam lib. iv. orthodoxarum explicationum, ltuardum Tapper. in explicat, articulorum Lovaniens. Thomam Stapletonum in lib. de justificatione. Vide etiam auctores, quos in (1) Rom. VIII, 29. CAPUT IV. 153 unum congessit FabritiusLeodius in Harmo¬ nia Confess. Augustanae, videlicet, Joan. Co- chlacum in discussione Confessionis ejusdem,* et alios. Audio inulta praeclare scripsisse tum de justificatione, tum de aliis controversiis omnibus Gregorium de Valentia nostri ordini sacerdotem.