Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book I: On Justifying Faith
Chapter 11: The objections of the adversaries are refuted
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).
The adversaries object for their special faith, first, that testimony of Hebrews 11, which we too brought forward, in the first place, against them. For when faith is defined as the substance of things to be hoped for, they contend that by the substance of things to be hoped for must be understood the certain expectation of the promised mercy. For the Greek word hypostasis signifies expectation, as is gathered both from that of Psalm 38, And now what is my expectation? is it not the Lord? And my substance is with thee; and from chapter 3 to the Hebrews, where, when the Apostle had said, Which house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and glory of hope unto the end, a little after, to the same sense, he says: For we are made partakers of Christ: yet so, if we hold the beginning of his substance firm unto the end — where the repetition of those words, “hold firm unto the end,” proves that the same thing was signified by “confidence” and by “substance,” which in the Greek is hypostasis.
I answer: St. John Chrysostom was without doubt most skilled in the Greek tongue, nor was he ignorant of what the word hypostasis signified; and he is the author of the exposition which we followed above in chapter 5. These are his words, homily 21 [al. 12] on the epistle to the Hebrews: “Since the things that are in hope are thought to be without substance, faith bestows substance on them — or rather does not bestow it, but is itself their essence. For example: the Resurrection has not yet come to pass, nor is it yet in substance; but faith makes it subsist in our soul. This is what he called substance.” Nor do the other Greek interpreters expound that place in any other way; relying on whose authority we can contemn the new Grammar of Melanchthon and Chemnitz. But moreover, even though the word hypostasis could signify expectation (for it cannot be denied that it signifies many and various things), yet in the places alleged from Psalm 38 and from the epistle to the Hebrews it without doubt signifies not expectation, but substance, or subsistence. For in the Psalm cited, where we read “and my substance is with thee,” in the Hebrew indeed is “my expectation”; yet the seventy men, not ignorant that by expectation in that place was signified the thing expected — which is the true life and substance with God — therefore rendered hypostasin. But in the epistle to the Hebrews, in the very beginning of the first chapter, where we read, Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance — in Greek, charakter hypostaseos — this word signifies not expectation, but substance; for the Son is the perfect image of the substance of the Father, that is, of the subsisting paternal person. In which sense the Theologians, both ancient and more recent, everywhere use this word. And in the third chapter, “the beginning of the substance of Christ” signifies not the beginning of confidence, but the beginning of the new creature — which beginning is faith. For (as is said, Galatians 4) when we are justified, Christ is formed in us; and therefore we are called, Galatians 6, a new creature; and Ephesians 2 we are said to be created in Christ Jesus in good works. And so we are partakers of Christ, as members of the head, if however we retain the beginning of this new substance of his, through which he himself has been formed in us — which beginning is the faith that worketh by love. I add, last, that the adversaries cannot establish their error from the definition of faith had in Hebrews 11, even were we to concede to them that by the name hypostaseos is understood expectation, or confidence. For that “of things to be hoped for” is properly referred to eternal life and the resurrection of the body, of which the same Apostle says, Romans 8: And we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope. And to Titus, chapter 2: Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God. But the expectation of eternal life is not justifying faith, even according to the doctrine of the adversaries, who define justifying faith as the confidence of mercy by which, in the present, sins are remitted, or have been remitted, and through which we are reputed just by God — not through which we expect to be reputed just.
The second objection: The Apostle, Romans 4, says that Abraham was justified from faith; but by faith he understands the confidence of mercy. For, explaining the faith of Abraham, he says, Who against hope believed in hope; and below, He staggered not by distrust. Like are those of Mark 11: Whatsoever you ask when ye pray, believe that you shall receive; and it shall be done unto you — where “believe” is taken for “trust,” for we are not bound by faith properly so called to believe that we shall receive all we ask, since we ask many things which we do not receive. Likewise that of James 1: But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. Finally, hither pertains also that of 2 Paralipomenon 20: Believe in the Lord your God, and you shall be secure. I answer: in all these places the word “faith” is taken for the true Catholic faith, by which we believe everything that God reveals — not for trust or confidence. Although this is true: that the faith by which miracles are obtained must be great, so that it beget also a certain confidence of obtaining what is asked; for on this account the Lord said to the Chananean woman, O woman, great is thy faith, Matthew 15; and the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 13, If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains. And that the faith of miracles is the Catholic faith itself we proved above, from the last chapter of Mark and from this very place, 1 Corinthians 13. Nor should the matter be called into controversy, since it is agreed well enough that miracles are done for the confirming of the faith, which is the foundation of religion and salvation — according to that of the last chapter of Mark, But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed; and that of Acts 3: And in the faith of his name, this man, whom you have seen and known, hath his name strengthened; and the faith which is by him hath given this perfect soundness. That of Romans 4, then — who against hope believed in hope — has this sense: he believed, on account of the divine promise, that he could hope for a son from Sara, whom he could not naturally hope for. And that “he staggered not by distrust” could signify that the faith of Abraham was signal, so that it begot confidence also — although we noted above that distrust is set in this place for unbelief, since in the Greek it is apistia. Finally, the Apostle evidently opens what the faith of Abraham was, when he says: most fully knowing that whatsoever God has promised, he is able also to perform. And so Abraham believed the omnipotence of God; but that God is omnipotent we hold by faith, not by confidence. That of Mark 11, believe that you shall receive, pertains to faith properly so called, but is understood with the condition: if you ask well, and if it be expedient that it be given you. That of James 1, let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, excludes the doubt contrary to faith; for God wills his omnipotence to be believed without any doubting — for on this account the Lord, Matthew 9, asked of the blind men, Do you believe that I can do this unto you? And the Angel Gabriel, Luke 1, punished Zachary because, when God promised him a son, he objected his own old age and the barrenness of his wife; and to Mary the same Angel, speaking of the conception of Christ and of John: No word shall be impossible with God. Nor yet would it be absurd, or against our opinion, if someone should say that James speaks of the faith that begets confidence, and thereby excludes not only unbelief but also distrust. That, finally, of 2 Paralipomenon 20 — Believe in the Lord your God, and you shall be secure — is understood of faith properly so called; for God protects and guards his faithful. And this is manifestly gathered from the words that follow; for there follows: Believe his prophets, and all things shall succeed prosperously — where Scripture does not signify that confidence is to be placed in the Prophets, but that faith is to be given to their words; nor is it credible that within two lines Scripture took the word “to believe” now for confidence, now for faith. Always, then, it took it for faith.
The third objection is taken from those places where certain men are reprehended for timidity, and yet that reprehension is referred to a defect of faith; from which it follows that faith is taken for confidence, to which fear is properly opposed. Matthew 6: how much more you, O ye of little faith? Matthew 8: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Matthew 14: O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt? Matthew 16: Why do you think, O ye of little faith? And the argument is confirmed, since, as fear, which is contrary to confidence, is opposed to faith, so also sometimes fortitude, which is properly born from confidence, is in the Scriptures attributed to faith: Hebrews 11, The saints by faith conquered kingdoms,... became valiant in battle, etc.; 1 Peter 5, Whom resist ye, strong in faith; Ephesians [6], In all things taking the shield of faith, etc. I answer: it is no wonder if timidity, which is opposed to confidence, be referred to a defect of faith, seeing that confidence itself arises from faith; but faith is not on that account to be confounded with confidence. And so, when the Lord says, Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? he teaches that fear found place in the Apostles precisely because they were weak in faith. For if with a great — that is, a most firm and most intense — faith they had believed that Christ is God, and thereby everywhere present and omnipotent, and ever watching, and bearing the providence of his own, from that faith they would have conceived the confidence of escaping the danger of shipwreck, even though Christ slept bodily; but since they doubted whether they could escape that danger unless they woke the sleeping Christ, therefore they deservedly heard: “Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?” And the same is to be answered to the other places. For the same cause fortitude is attributed to faith, since faith is the root and origin of confidence, and even of charity itself, by which all contrary things are overcome. Although this too could be said: that fortitude is referred to faith because faith is a kind of spiritual armor, armed with which the faithful bravely wage war against the principalities and powers, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places; but by the same reasoning fortitude could be referred to the other Christian virtues, which are all kinds of spiritual arms, as the same Apostle teaches, Ephesians 6.
The fourth objection — in which the Heretics seem to place very much confidence indeed — is taken from those words of Romans 4: Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm. For these words seem plainly to compel us to understand by faith the confidence, or assent, by which we embrace the promise and apply it to ourselves. For as in human contracts a donation or promise is not ratified until he to whom it was made has accepted it, so also the promise of the remission of sins is not firm — that is, does not obtain its effect — unless man embrace it through faith, and, God saying, “thy sins are forgiven thee,” man say, “I believe that my sins are forgiven me.” For if he say not that, he makes God a liar, according to that of 1 John 5: He that believeth not... maketh him a liar. Therefore, that the promise may be firm, God justifies from faith — that is, he justifies those who believe and trust that they are justified. Otherwise, if by faith we understood the historical faith, by which we believe that Christ was born of the Virgin, and other things of that kind, that Pauline sentence would be most inept: “Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm.” This argument I have wished to propose even a little more clearly than the adversaries themselves are wont to do, that the solution too may become clearer and more evident. I answer: if God should say manifestly to someone, “thy sins are forgiven thee,” as in very fact he said to the Paralytic and to the Magdalene, without doubt that man ought to believe and trust that his sins had truly been forgiven him — otherwise he would make God a liar, as St. John says. But not on that account would he be justified through that faith; for, as we showed above, that faith, as also the confidence, would be later than the remission of sins, and accordingly could not effect it. But the Apostle, Romans 4, does not speak of the promise of the remission of sins, as the adversaries falsely assume, but of the promise made to Abraham that he should become the Father of many nations — or, what is the same, of the promise of the calling of the gentiles to justice and salvation. Now this promise could not be firm and ratified if justification befell from the law of Moses, or from works done by the powers of free choice; for then either none at all, or the Jews alone, would have been justified and saved. Wherefore, that the promise may be firm, and free, not owed, God does not justify men from the law, or from works done by the powers of nature alone, but from the faith of Jesus Christ, which alone is the beginning of free and true justice, not only to the Jews, but also to the gentiles. And so the adversaries wrongly understand, in this testimony, both the word “promise” and the word “faith.” And indeed, that by the word of promise is understood not the remission of sins, but the calling of the gentiles, is clear from those words: that the promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all — as it is written: I have made thee a father of many nations. And that by the word of faith is understood not the faith, or confidence, by which one believes or trusts that his sins are remitted, but the dogmatic faith, which they call historical, is clear from the words following: But was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, most fully knowing that whatsoever God has promised, he is able also to perform. And therefore it was reputed to him unto justice. Now it is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, but also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him that raised up Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead. For here we see that the justifying faith in Abraham was the faith of the omnipotence of God, and in us likewise the faith by which we believe that God raised Christ from the dead. And what St. John writes — he that believeth not maketh him a liar — would have place not only in one who would not believe that his sins had been remitted him, if God signified this to him by a special word; but it has place also in those who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the other dogmas which God has manifested through his Prophets and Apostles.
The fifth objection: Faith does not justify as it regards in the Word of God the histories of things done, or the threatening of punishments, or the precepts and laws of works to be done, but only as it regards the promise of salvation — and this not in general, but in special; therefore justifying faith has been rightly defined as the confidence of special mercy for Christ’s sake. And that faith does not justify as it regards the histories they prove thus: because it does not teach how we may be freed from the wrath of God, but rather increases terrors and desperation; for what sign of the wrath of God is more terrible than that God could be appeased by no other victim than the death of his Son? Likewise, that that faith does not justify which proposes the threats and the just judgment of God against sinners they prove by the same reasoning: since justifying faith makes one seek God, while the faith of threats and judgment rather frightens away, and compels to flee. That the faith too which teaches the commandments and the law of works does not justify they prove thus: since that faith drives men to desperation, as it requires the exact fulfilling of the law, which no one can perform. Finally, that the faith of the promises proposed only in general does not justify they prove thus: because a promise does not bring peace and tranquillity to the soul unless it be applied in special. It remains, then, that that faith alone justifies which regards the promise of salvation as it pertains to us in special. Wherefore Luther, in the commentary on chapters 1 and 3 to the Galatians, says that the whole force of the promises is placed in the pronouns — “our,” “us,” “me,” etc.: as when it is said, Galatians 1, Who gave himself for our sins; and chapter 3, being made a curse for us; and chapter 2, who loved me, and delivered himself for me.
I answer: the adversaries do not reason badly among their own, whom they have persuaded that the office of justifying faith is to render men secure and certain of the remission of sins and of everlasting salvation; for, this principle being admitted, it is not difficult to prove that justifying faith regards not histories, or laws, or threats, but promises only, and grace. But the catholics, who see them assume what was to be proved, laugh at arguments of that kind. For when they say that justifying faith does not regard the histories — that is, the deeds narrated in the scriptures — since that faith increases terrors and desperation: we deny the consequence as regards the terrors. For faith does not fail to justify because it increases terrors; nay, by increasing terrors it justifies — not (as they would have it) by bringing security, but, as the scriptures teach, by calling back from sin and disposing toward justice; for the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, Psalm 110. Then we deny that histories of that kind increase desperation. For although the history of the death of Christ shows the supreme wrath of the supreme God against sin, yet at the same time it shows that that death was the price of redemption, and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 Timothy 2 and 1 John 2. Finally, there are many histories which raise the sinner into hope, and exhort him rather to seek God than to flee from him — such as the histories of the conversion of Paul, of Matthew, of Zacheus, of the Magdalene, and the like. And this same I answer to the other part of the argument, about the faith regarding the threats and the just judgments of God. To that, however, about the faith regarding the laws and commandments, I answer that it too justifies, since it arouses in man the purpose of working well, without which (as we shall say below in its place) no one can be justified. Nor is it true that by this faith men are driven to desperation. For the right faith does not teach that God requires of us that we presume to fulfill the law by our own strength, but rather the contrary: that we believe without doubting that without his help we can do nothing at all, but can do all things in him who strengthens us. Finally, as to what they say about the application of the general promises, on account of those pronouns “our,” “us,” “me,” and the like: they say rightly that each one can apply the general promises to himself through faith. For as by the catholic faith I believe that Christ died for all, so by the same faith I believe that he died for me, who am one of all. But those promises which are found absolute in the scriptures attest the sufficiency of our price — that is, of the merits of Christ; for the passion of Christ was, as to sufficiency, a propitiation for sins, not only ours, but also those of the whole world. But there is no general promise which attests that the death of Christ obtains its effect in all, without any condition on their part; rather, all are conditional as regards efficacy, since they require faith and the Sacraments. Let the adversaries read us out of the book of God some such general promise, and then they will by their own right be able to apply it to themselves by reason of the pronouns. Nay, what of this: that they themselves too cannot deny that at least the condition of faith is demanded? For they do not admit that through the death of Christ pardon has been promised to all men, even if they will not believe in Christ. Since, then, the promise of the remission of sins has not been made — the adversaries themselves also confessing it — without the condition of faith, how can they absolutely believe that their sins have been remitted them, when from no word of God have they learned that they have the faith such as is required for obtaining that remission? But (say they) does not St. John, in the first epistle, chapter 5, say absolutely, and without condition: These things I write to you, who believe in the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life? We must therefore absolutely believe that we have eternal life; otherwise, as the same John says in the same place, we make God a liar. I answer: St. John most truly says that all who believe — namely, as is fitting — have eternal life — namely, in hope; for we are saved by hope, Romans 8. But he does not say that all who suppose themselves to believe as is fitting do in fact believe as is fitting. And so he says indeed, “These things I write to you who believe, that you may know that you have eternal life”; but he does not say, “These things I write to you, that you may know that you have the faith such as is required.” The sentence of the Apostle, then, is conditional; for he writes to those who believe, that they may know that they have eternal life — if in very fact they believe (as is fitting); that is, if they have the faith which worketh by love.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. Refelluntur objectiones adversariorum. Objiciunt adversarii pro fide sua speciali primo, testimonium illud ad Hebr. xr. quod nos etiam primo loco adversus eos attuli¬ mus. Nam cura definitur fides sperandarum substantia rerum ; contendunt per substan- (l) Psal. IV, 6 ; Eccl. II, 6 ; Osc. XII, 6 ; I Joan. II, 28 ; lbid, III, 21 ; II Pet. I, 10.— (2) Rom. V, 1. 168 LlllEll I. tiani rerum sperandarum intelligi debere ex- pectationem certam promissa» misericordiae. Nam vox Gra)oa Ccrouraff i; cxpectationem significat, ut colligitur exilio Psal. xxxvm. Quae est expectatio mea , nonne Dominus? et substantia mea apud te est. Tum ex cap. ur. ad Hebraeos, ubi cum dixisset Apostolus : Qua; domus sumus nos, si fiduciam, et gloriam spei usque in finem firmum retineamus. Paulo post in eamdem sententiam dicit : Participes enim Christi effectis sumus, si tamen initium substantive ejus usque in finem firmum retinea¬ mus. Ubi repetitio illorum verborum ( usque in finem firmum retineamus) (1), convincit, idem significatum esse per fiduciam, et per sub- stajitiam, quae in Graeco est ummasi; . Respondeo : sanctus Joannes Chrysosto- mus, sine dubio Graecae linguae peritissimus erat, nec ignorabat quid significaret vocabu¬ lum uK07Ta?i;. Ipse autem auctor est ex¬ positionis : quam nos supra cap. 5. secuti sumus. Haec autem sunt ejus verba, homil. 12. in epistolam ad Hebraeos : « Quoniam ea quae sunt in spe, sine substantia esse pu¬ tantur, fides eis tribuit substantiam, magis autem eis non tribuit, sed ipsa est essentia eorum, ut puta : Resurrectio nec dum facta est, et nec dum est in substantia, sed fides facit eam subsistere inanima nostra, hoc est, quod dixit substantia » . Nec alio modo locum istum exponunt cmteri Graeci interpretes, quorum auctoritate freti, contemnere possu¬ mus novam Grammaticam Melanchthonis et Kemnitii. Sed praeterea tametsi vocabulum ujtoaTast? significare , posset expectationem (negari enim non potest, quin multa, variaque si¬ gnificet) tamen in locis allegatis ex Psalm. xxxvm. Et ex epistola ad Hebraeos, sine du¬ bio non expectationem, sed substantiam, sive subsistentiam significat. Nam in Psalmo ci¬ tato ubi legimus, et substantia mea apud te est , in Hebraeo quidem est, ■'nbflP expecta¬ tio mea : tamen septuaginta viri non igno¬ rantes, per expectationem eo loco significari repi expertatam, qua) est vera vita, et sub¬ stantia apud Deum, ideo veterunt OTroaxaciv In epistola vero ad Hebraeos in ipso initio capitis primi, ubi legimus : Qui cum sit splen¬ dor Patris , et figura substantive ejus, graece, yapaxT y,p vnonxGEots, non significat vocabu¬ lum hoc expectation em, sed substantiam, est enim filius perfecta imago substantiae Patris, id est, subsistentis personae paternae. Qua notione utuntur hac voce passim Theo¬ logi tum veteres, tum recentiores. Capite autem tertio, initium substantiae Christi, non significat initium fiduciae, sed initium novae creaturae, quod initium est fides. Nam (ut dicitur ad Galat. ivv) cum justificamur, for- matur Christus in nobis, et ideo dicimur ad Galat. vi. nova creatura. Et ad Ephes. n. dicimur creati in Christo Jesu, in operibus bonis. Itaque participes sumus Christi, ut membra capitis, si tamen retinemus initium hujus novae substantiae ejus, per quam for¬ matus est ipse in nobis, quod initium j)st fi¬ des, quae per dilectionem operatur. Addo postremo, non posse adversarios ex definitione fidei, quae habetur ad Hebr. xi. errorem suum constabilire, quamvis eis con¬ cederemus, nomine uTroctacEt»? intelligi ex peetationem, sive fiduciam. Nam illud (re¬ rum sperandarum) proprie refertur ad vitam acternaun, et corporis resurrectionem, de quibus idem Apostolus dicit, ad Romam. viii. Et ipsi intra nos gemimus adoptionem fi¬ liorum, expectantes redemptionem corporis no¬ stri. Spe enim salvi facti sumus. Et ad Titum secundo : Expectantes beatam spem, et ad¬ ventum gloriae Dei (2). Expectatio autem vitae aeternae non est fides justificans, etiam se- cundumdoctrinam adversariorum, qui fidem justificantem definiunt fiduciam misericor¬ diae, qua in praesenti peccata remittuntur, aut remissa sunt, et per quam justi reputa¬ mur a Dt»o, non per quam expcctamus, ut justi reputemur. Secunda objectio. Apostolus ad Roman. iv. dicit Abrahamum justificatum ex fide: per fidem autem intelligit fiduciam miseri¬ cordiae. Nam explicans fidem Abraham dicit : Qui contra spem in spem credidit ; et infra : Non haesitavit diffidentia. Similia sunt illa. Marci xi. Quidquid orantes petitis, credite quia accipietis, et fiet vobis (3). Ubi (credite) ac¬ cipitur pro confidite, non enim tenemur fide proprie dicta credei'e, nos accepturos omnia, qua) petimus, cum multa petamus qua» rmn accipimus. Item illud Jacobi i. Postulet au tem in fide nihil hxsitans. Deniqne huc etiam pertinet illud II Paral. xx. Credite in Domino Deo vestro, et securi eritis (4). Respondeo : In his omnibus locis, vocabu¬ nt) Psal. XXXVIII, 8; Ileb. 1H, 6, 14. - (2) Roro. VIII. 23. -fil) Itum. IV, 18, 20: Ma.e. XI. 24 — (4)Jacob. I, 6; II Paral. XX, 20. I CAPUT XI. Ium fidei accipitur pro vera fide Catholica, qua credimus in omne, quod Deus revelat, non pfo fiducia, aut confidentia. Quamvis illud verum sit, fidem qua impetrantur mira¬ cula, magnam esse debere, ut etiam gignat fiduciam quamdam impetrandi quod petitur. Nam propterea dixit Dominus Chananese : 0 mulier, magna est fides tua. Matth. xv. et Apostolus I Corinth. xm. Si habuero om¬ nem fidem, ita ut montes transferam (1). Esse autem fidem miraculorum, fidem ipsam Ca¬ tholicam, supra probavimus ex cap. ult. Marci, et ex hoc ipso loco : I Corinth. xm. Neque res in controversiam vocanda esset, cum satis constet, miracula fieri ad confir¬ mandam fidem, quse fundamentum est reli¬ gionis et salutis, juxta illud Marci ult. Illi au¬ tem profecti, praedicaverunt ubique Domino cooperante , et sermonem confirmante sequenti¬ bus signis. Et illud Actor, m. In fide nominis ejus hunc , quem vos videtis, confirmavit nomen ejus. Et fides, quae per eum est, dedit integram sanitatem istam (2). Illud igitur Roman. iv. Qui contra spem in spem credidit (3), hanc sententiam habet, cre¬ didit ob divinam promissionem, se posse spe¬ rare filium ex Sara, quem naturaliter spe¬ rare non poterat. Illud autem « Non haesi¬ tavit diffidentia » significare posset, fidem Abrahae fuisse insignem, ita ut fiduciam, quoque perpererit. Quamquamsupra notavi¬ mus, diffidentiam hoc loco positam esse pro incredulitate, cum sit in Graeco dmanct. De¬ nique Apostolus evidenter aperit, quae fuerit fides Abrahae, cum ait : Plenissime sciens, quia quaecumque promisit Deus, potens est et facere. Itaque omnipotentiam Dei credidit Abraham. Deum autem esse omnipotentem, fide tenemus, non fiducia. Illud Marci xi.C redite quia accipietis (4), ad fidem proprie dictam pertinet, sed intelligi- tur cum conditione si bene petatis, et si expe¬ dit vobis dari. Illud Jacobi I Postulet in fide nihil haesitans (5), excludit dubitationem fidei contrariam. Vult enim Deus, omnipotentiam suam sine ulla dubitatione credi : nam ideo Dominus Matth. ix. petebat a caecis : Creditis quia hoc possum facere vobis (6) ?'Et Angelus Gabriel, Luc. I Zachariam punivit, quod promittenti Deo filium, objecerit senectutem suam, et sterilitatem conjugis . Et ad Mariam 169 idem Angelus de Christi et Joannis conce¬ ptione loquens : Non erit, inquit, impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. Nec tamen esset absurdum, aut contra sententiam nostram , si quis diceret, loqui Jacobum de fide, quae gignit fiduciam, ac per hoc non solum in¬ credulitatem, sed etiam diffidentiam exclu¬ dere. Illud denique II Paralipom. xx. Credite in Dominum Deum vestrum, et securi eritis (7). De fide proprie dicta intelligitur , fideles enim suos Deus protegit et custodit. Id vero ex sequentibus verbis manifeste colligitur. Sequitur enim : Credite Prophetis ejus, et cuncta evenient prospera. Ubi non significat Scriptura, fiduciam esse ponendam in Pro¬ phetis, sed fidem habendam verbis eorum. Neque credibile est intra duas lineas Scri¬ pturam accepisse verbum (credendi) nunc pro fiducia, nunc pro fide. Semper igitur accepit pro fide. Tertia objectio sumitur ex illis locis, ubi reprehenduntur quidam ob timiditatem et tamen ea reprehensio refertur in defectum fidei; ex quo sequitur, ut fides accipiatur pro fiducia, cui proprie opponitur timor. Matth. vi. Quanto magis vos modicae fidei. Matth. vili. Quid tim\fii estis modicae fidei ? Matth. xiv. Modicae fidei , quare dubitasti ? Matth. xvi. Quid cogitatis modicae fidei (8). Et confirmatur argumentum, quoniam sicut timor, qui est fiduciae contrarius, oponitur fidei ; sic etiam interdum fortitudo , quae proprie nascitur ex fiducia, in Scripturis tri¬ buitur fidei Hebr. xi. Sancti per fidem vice¬ runt regna, fortes facti sunt in bello etc. I Petri v. Cui resistite fortes in fide. Ephes. In omnibus sumentes scutum fidei , etc. (9). Respondeo : Non est mirum si timiditas, quae fiduciae opponitur, referatur in defectum fidei, quandoquidem ipsa fiducia oritur ex fide. Sed non ideo confundenda est fides cum fiducia. Itaque cum Dominus ait : Quid ' timidi estis moditae fidei. Docet ideo timorem in Apostolis locum invenisse, quoniam de¬ biles erant in fide. Nam si magna, id est firmissima et intensissima fide credidissent, Christum esse Deum, ac per hoc ubique prae¬ sentem et omnipotentem, semperque vigi¬ lantem, ac suorum providentiam gerentem, ex ea fide concepissent fiduciam evadendi (1) Matth. XV ; I Corin. XIII, 2. — (2) Mare. XVI, 20; Act. III, 16. — (3) Rom. IV, 18. — (4) Mar. XI, 24 —(5) Jacob.I, 6.-(6)Mat. IX, 28. -(7)11 Paral. XX, 20. —(8) Matth. VI, 30; ibid. VIII, 26; ' ibid. XIV, 31 ; ibid. XVI, 8. - (9) Heb. XI, 33 ; I Pet, V, 9; Ep. VI, 16. Tom. VI. 12 LIBER I. 170 periculum naufragii, etiamsi Christus cor¬ poraliter dormiret; sed quoniam dubitabant, an periculum illud evadere possent, nisi Christum dormientem excitarent, ideo me¬ rito audierunt ; Quid timidi estis modicae fidei? Quod idem ad alia loca respondendum est. Eadem de causa fortitudo tribuitur fidei, quoniam fides est radix et origo fiduciae, et ipsius etiam charitatis, quibus contraria om¬ nia superantur. Quamvis illud etiam dici posset , fortitudinem referri in fidem, quo¬ niam fides est genus armorum spiritualium, quibus armati fideles fortiter bellum gerunt adversus principes et potestates, contra ne¬ quitiae spiritualia in coelestibus : sed eadem ratione referri posset fortitudo in alias Chri¬ stianas virtutes, quae sunt omnia spiritualium armorum genera, ut idem Apostolus docet ad Ephes. 6. Quarta objectio, in qua “multum omnino confidere videntur Haeretici, sumitur ex illis verbis ad Roman. iv. Ideo ex fide , ut secun¬ dum gratiam firma sit promissio (1). Videntur enim haec verba plane cogere, ut per fidem intelligamus fiduciam, sive assensum, quo amplectimur promissionem, eamque nobis applicamus. Nam quemadmodum in hu¬ manis contractibus non est rata donatio vel promissio, donec illam is, cui facta est ac¬ ceptaverit ; sic etiam promissio remissionis peccatorum non est firma, id est, non sor¬ titur effectum suum, nisi homo per fidem illam amplectatur, et dicenti Deo, remittun¬ tur tibi peccata tua, dicat homo, credo mihi remitti peccata mea. Nam si id non dixerit, mendacem facit Deum, juxta illud I Joan. v. Qui non credit, mendacem facit eum (2). Igitur ut firma sit promissio, ex fide justificat Deus, id est, eos justificat, qui credunt et confidunt, se justificari. Alioquisiper fidem intelligere- mus fidem historicam, qua credimus Christum natum esse de Virgine, et alia id genus, ine¬ ptissima esset illa Paulina sententia, Ideo ex fide, ut secundum gratiam firma sit promissio. Hoc argumentum proponere volui paulo etiam clarius, quam adversarii ipsi facere soleant, ut clarior quoque ac evidentior fiat solutio. Respondeo : si Deus alicui manifeste di¬ ceret, remittuntur tibi peccata, ut re vera dixit Paralytico, et Magdalense, sine dubio credere, et confidere is deberet, sibi vere peccata esse remissa, alioqui mendacem fa¬ ceret Deum, ut S. Joannes dicit. Sed non ideo per eam fidem is justificaretur; nam ut supra ostendimus, fides ista, ut etiam fiducia posterior esset remissione peccatorum, ac proinde eam efficere non posset. Cseterum Apostolus ad Rom. iv. non lo¬ quitur de promissione remissionis pecca¬ torum, ut adversarii falso assumunt, sed de promissione facta Abrahae, quod Pater fieret multarum gentium, sive, quod est idem, de promissione vocationis gentium ad justitiam et salutem. Hsec autem promissio non po¬ terat esse firma et rata, si justificatio con¬ tingeret ex lege Mosis, vel ex operibus factis ex viribus liberi arbitrii, nam tunc vel nulli omnino, vel soli Judaei justificati salvatique fuissent ; quare ut firma sit promissio et gra¬ tuita, non debita, non justificat Deus ho¬ mines ex lege, aut operibus factis ex solis naturae viribus, sed ex fide Jesu Christi, quae sola est initium gratuitae, veraeque justitiae solum Judaeis, sed etiam gentibus. Itaque adversarii perperam intelligunt in hoc testimonio , tum vocabulum promis¬ sionis, tum vocabulum fidei. Et quidem, per vocabulum promissionis, non intelligi remis¬ sionem peccatorum, sed vocationem gen¬ tium, patet ex illis verbis : Ut firma sit pro¬ missio omni semini, non ei , qui ex lege est so¬ lum, sed et ei, qui ex fide est Abrahse, qui pater est omnium nostrum , sicut scriptum est quia patrem multarum gentium posui te. Per vocabulum autem fidei non intelligi fidem, seu fiduciam, qua quis credit aut confidit sibi remissa peccata, sed fidem dog¬ maticam, quam illi vocant historicam ; patet ex verbis sequentibus : Sed confortatus est fide dans gloriam Deo, plenissime sciens , quia quaecumque promisit Deus, potens est et facere. Ideo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam. Non est autem scriptum tantum propter ipsum , quia reputatum est illi ad justitiam , sed etiam pro¬ pter nos quibus reputabitur credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit Jesum Christum Dominum no¬ strum a mortuis. Hic enim videmus fidem justificantem in Abrahamo fuisse fidem om¬ nipotentia Dei, et in nobis similiter fidem, qua credimus, Deum excitasse Christum a mortuis. Quod autem S. Joannes scribit : Qui non credit mendacem facit eum, non solum locum haberet in eo, qui non crederet, sibi remissa esse peccata, si Deus hoc illi speciali verbo (i) Rom. IV, 16. - (2) | Joan. V, 40. CAPUT XI. 171 significaret : sed etiam locum habet in iis, qui non credunt, Jesum esse filium Dei, et alia dogmata, quae Deus per Prophetas et Apostolos suos manifestavit. Quinta objectio. Fides non justificat, ut respicit in Verbo Dei rerum gestarum hi¬ storias, aut comminationem poenarum, aut praecepta et leges operum faciendorum, sed solum ut respicit promissionem salutis, et hanc non in genere, sed in speciali ; igitur recte definita est fides justificans, fiducia specialis misericordiae propter Christum. Et quidem fidem non justificare, ut respicit historias, probant, quoniam non docet, quo¬ modo ab ira Dei liberemur, sed potius auget pavores, et desperationem. Quod enim est signum terribilius irae Dei, quam placari Deum non alia victima potuisse, nisi morte filii. Eam item fidem non justificare, quae pro¬ ponit minas et judicium Dei justum in pec¬ catores, eadem ratione probant, quoniam fides justificans facit quaerere Deum, fides autem minarum et judicii absterret potius et fugere compellit. Eam quoque fidem, quae docet manda¬ ta et legem operum, non justificare, pro¬ bant, quoniam illa fides adigit homines ad desperationem, cum requirat exactam legis impletionem, quam nemo praestare po¬ test. Denique fidem promissionum generatim solum propositarum non justificare, probant, quia promissio non adfert pacem, et tran¬ quillitatem animae, nisi in speciali applicetur. Restat igitur ut illa sola fides justificet, quae respicit promissionem salutis, ut in speciali ad nos pertinet. Quocirca Lutherus in com- ment. ad i. et m. cap. ad Galat. totam vim promissionum sitam esse dicit in pronomi¬ nibus, Nostris, Nobis, Me etc. Ut cum di¬ citur Galat. I. Qui dedit semetipsum pro pec¬ catis nostris. Et cap. m. Factus est pro nobis maledictum. Et cap. ii. Quidilexitme , et tra¬ didit semetipsum pro me (i). Respondeo : adversarii non male ratio¬ cinantur apud suos , quibus persuaserunt, fidei justificantis officium esse, reddere ho¬ mines securos, ac certos de remissione pec¬ catorum et salute sempiterna. Hoc enim ad¬ misso principio, non est difficile probare, fi¬ dem justificantem non respicere historias, aut leges, aut minas, sed promissiones tan¬ tum et gratiam. At catholici, qui vident eos assumere , quod erat probandum, rident ejusmodi argumenta. Nam cum dicunt fides justificans non respicit historias, id est, res gestas, quae narrantur in scripturis, quoniam illa pavo¬ res et desperationem auget. Negamus con¬ secutionem, quod attinet ad pavores. Non enim ideo non justificat fides , quia pa¬ vores auget, immo pavores augendo justi¬ ficat, non (ut illi vellent) securitatem adfe- rendo, sed ut scripturae docent, revocando a peccato, et disponendo ad justitiam : Ini¬ tium enim sapientia;, timor Domini (2). Psal. cx. Deinde negamus , ejusmodi historias augere desperationem. Nam etsi historia mortis Christi summam summi Dei iram contra peccatum ostendit, tamen simul os¬ tendit mortem illam pretium fuisse redemp¬ tionis, et propritiationem pro peccatis to¬ tius mumdi. I ad Timoth. n. Et I Joan. ii. Denique multae sunt historiae , quae in spem erigunt peccatorem, et ad quaerendum potius Deum, quam ab eo fugiendum hortan¬ tur , quales sunt historiae de conversione Pauli, Matthaei, Zachaei, Magdalenae et si¬ milium. Atque hoc idem respondeo : ad aliam partem argumeuti, de fide respiciente minas, et justa Dei judicia. Ad illud autem de fide respiciente leges et mandata, Respondeo : eam quoque justifi¬ care, quoniam excitat in homine propositum bene operandi, sine quo (ut infra suo loco dicemus) nemo justificari potest. Neque ve¬ rum est, hac fide adigi homines ad despe¬ rationem. Neque enim recta fides docet , Deum requirere a nobis, ut propria virtute legem praesumanus implere, sed contra po¬ tius , ut sine dubitatione credamus , sin» ipsius auxilio nihil omnino nos posse, omnia autem posse in eo, qui nos confortat. Denique quod dicunt de promissionum ge¬ neralium applicatione, propter illa prono¬ mina, nostris, nobis, me, et similibus : recte dicunt, posse unumquemque promissiones ge¬ nerales sibi applicare per fidem. Nam quem¬ admodum fide catholica credo, Christum mortuum esse pro omnibus, ita eadem fide credo mortuum esse pro me, qui sum unus ex omnibus. At illae promissiones, quae ab¬ solutae reperiuntur in scripturis, testantur sufficientiam pretii nostri, id est, meritorum Christi. Fuit enim Christi passio, quoad suf- (1) Gal. 1, 4 ; ibid. III, 13; ibid. II, 20. — (2) Psal. CX, 10. 172 LIBER I. fidentiam, propitiatio pro peccatis, non so¬ lum nostris, sed etiam totius mundi. Nulla autem est promissio generalis, quae testetur, Christi mortem in omnibus sortiri suum effectum, absque ulla conditione ex parte ipsorum , sed omnes conditionales sunt, quod attinet ad efficaciam, cum fidem, et Sacramenta requirant. Legant adversarii nobis ex libro Dei talem aliquam generalem promissionem, et tunc suo jure poterunt eam sibi ratione pronominum applicare. Quid ? quod ipsi quoque inficiari non pos¬ sunt, exigi saltem conditionem fidei. Non enim admittunt, per Christi mortem pro¬ missam esse indulgentiam omnibus homi¬ nibus, etiamsi in Christum credere nolint. Cum igitur non sit facta promissio remissi¬ onis peccatorum, ipsi etiam adversariis con- fitentibus, sine conditione fidei, quomodo possunt absolute credere, sibi remissa esse peccata, cum ex nullo verbo Dei didicerint, se habere fidem, qualis requiritur ad remis¬ sionem illam obtinendam ? At (inquiunt) nonne S. Joannes in I epist. cap. v. absolute, et sine conditione dicit : Haec scribo vobis , qui creditis in filium Dei , ut sciatis , quia vitam habetis aeternam (1) ? Oportet igitur absolute credere, nos habere vitam seternam : alio qui, ut ibidem idem Joannes ait : Mendacem facimus Deum. Respondeo : S. Joannes verissime dicit, omnes qui credunt, videlicet sicut oportet, habere vitam seternam , nimirum in spe. Nam spe salvi facti sumus, Roman. vin. Cse- terum non dicit, omnes qui arbitrantur se credere sicut oportet, re vera credere sicut oportet. Itaque ait quidem, Haec scfibo vo¬ bis, qui creditis, ut sciatis, quia vitam habetis seternam ; sed non ait, Hsec scribo vobis, ut sciatis, vos habere fidem, qualis requiritur. Sententia igitur Apostoli conditionalis est; scribit enim iis, qui credunt, ut 'sciant, se habere vitam seternam, si re vera (sicut o- portet) credant, hoc est, si fidem habeant, quse per dilectionem operatur.