Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book I: On Justifying Faith
Chapter 12: The second question is proposed, whether faith alone justifies
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).
There follows now the second question: whether faith alone justifies. In which place this is at the beginning to be observed: that this question can be disputed about the dispositions toward justice — whether, namely, faith by way of disposition alone justifies; likewise about formal justification itself — whether, that man be formally just, the obedience of the law be required, at least in habit, or whether the faith apprehending the justice of Christ suffice; finally, about the things that follow justice — namely, whether for retaining and conserving justice good works be required, or faith alone suffice. But in this place we have undertaken to explain only the first question; for of the other two we shall have to discourse in the following books. Wherefore no one ought to wonder if in this place we pass over many things which other writers dispute about faith alone justifying — or rather about faith not alone justifying.
Further, the heretics of this time agree among themselves in one thing, and dissent from the Catholics; in three others they dissent even among themselves. They agree that faith alone justifies — that is, that justification is acquired, or, as they speak, apprehended, by no other thing than faith. But they dissent, first, about the manner in which faith justifies. For Luther seems to have held that faith is the true cause of justification. For thus he writes on chapter 2 to the Galatians: “Faith is the formal justice on account of which man is justified — not on account of charity.” Where not only that word “formal” signifies a true cause, but also the antithesis by which he opposes faith to charity. For when he denies that we are justified on account of charity, he certainly denies that charity is the cause of justification; therefore when he asserts that we are justified on account of faith, he asserts that faith is the cause of justification. The same opinion, in the Colloquy of Altenburg, the Illyricians attribute to the Wittenbergers, affirming that it was said by George Major that faith is the cause why justification is given. Yet very many others — and at this time almost all — teach that faith does not justify by way of formal cause, or of efficient, physical or meritorious — as though either it were itself the justice, or the beginning of justice, or as though in view or respect of it God justified us — but only relatively, because it regards and receives the offered pardon. And so they will have the sense of this proposition, “man is justified by faith,” to be this: man is justified through the grace of God not imputing sins, which grace faith by believing receives. They explain their opinion by the example of the hand by which a poor man receives an alms from a rich one. For that hand receiving the alms is not itself the alms, nor is it the efficient cause of the alms, nor is the alms given on account of it, as though by its beauty it merited this; but it concurs only relatively toward the obtaining of the alms, since to give and to receive are relatives, nor can an alms be given unless it be received by someone. So Philip explains the manner in which faith justifies, in the Commonplaces, under the title of good works, in the dissolution of the arguments; and Chemnitz, in the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 6; and John Calvin, in the Antidote of the Council, on canon 11 of session 6. Likewise in the Colloquy of Altenburg not only the Illyricians, or Saxons, but also the Electoral Wittenbergers agreed in this: that faith is not to be called a cause, but a mere organ, of justification; and the words of George Major objected to them they did not so much defend as excuse. From which we understand that the Lutherans, who boast that they attribute all things to faith alone, in very truth attribute nothing at all to it, but plainly contemn it and count it as nothing.
Second, they dissent about the acts of the other virtues, or works — as of hope, love, penance, and the like — whether, namely, they be required in any way for justification. For although they agree in this, that those acts are not the cause of justification, nor are said to justify, yet some judge that their presence is required, whether as signs of true faith or for other causes. So teach the Wittenbergers in the Colloquy of Altenburg; the same also Philip teaches, in the Commonplaces cited a little before: “We teach clearly,” says Philip, “that there must exist in man the knowledge of the articles, likewise contrition, a good purpose, love begun. About these the adversaries fight — which yet we ourselves confess must exist in man. But we add that faith must come besides; that is, the confidence of mercy: that on account of the Son of God we have the remission of sins, not on account of these our virtues.” Calvin likewise, in the Antidote of the Council, on article 11 of session 6, teaches that faith alone justifies, but that that faith is not alone — in the way that the sun’s heat alone kindles, though it is not alone, but conjoined with brightness. Chemnitz has like things in the place noted. Contrariwise, the Illyricians, or Saxons — that is, the rigid Lutherans — in the same Colloquy of Altenburg contend that faith alone so justifies that that “alone” excludes not only the merit, but even the presence, of the other virtues; and they will have this to have been Luther’s opinion. And truly Luther, on chapter 2 to the Galatians, speaks thus: “Faith justifies without and before charity.” And in the disputation “Whether works make toward justification or not,” tome 1 of his works, he speaks thus in the third proposition: “Faith, unless it be without even the least works, does not justify — nay, is not faith.”
Third, they dissent about the word “Alone” — whether it be altogether necessary, or could for some just cause be left unsaid. For there are not wanting among the Lutherans those who say that that little word “alone,” in the proposition “Faith alone justifies,” even if it be not expressed, is understood; and therefore that there must be no over-obstinate wrangling about it — especially since it is not found in the sacred writings; nay, that it can usefully be left unsaid for concord’s sake. Others, however, contrariwise, judge that for the little word “alone” one must fight most keenly, and contend that all things are to be endured sooner than that that word be snatched from them. See, on this their sword-play, John Cochlaeus in the Acts of Luther, at the year 1530; and Laurence Surius, in the commentary of the deeds of the same year; or, from the heretics, John Sleidan, at the same year, and David Chytraeus, in the history of the Augsburg confession; and the Colloquy of Altenburg itself, where many things on this matter are reported by the Illyricians. But we, laboring little over their contentions, set about explaining only that controversy which they have with us — that is, with the Catholics.
The adversaries, then, as we said a little before, teach that by faith Alone justification is acquired, or apprehended. The Catholics, contrariwise — and above all the Synod of Trent itself (which all Catholics follow as their teacher), session 6, chapter 6 — enumerate seven acts by which the impious are disposed toward justice: namely, of faith, of fear, of hope, of love, of penance, of the purpose of receiving the sacrament, and of the purpose of a new life and of the observance of the commandments of God. Which opinion we shall prove to be true in the following chapters, God graciously helping.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Proponitur secunda quaestio , an fides sola justificet. Sequitur nunc altera qusestio, an fides sola justificet. Quo loco illud est initio obser¬ vandum, quaestionem istam disputari posse dispositionibus ad justitiam, an fides vide¬ licet per modum dispositionis sola justificet. Item de ipsa formali justificatione, an, ut homo sit formaliter justus, requiratur obe- dientia legis saltem in habitu, an vero suf¬ ficiat fides apprehendens Christi justitisun. Denique de consequentibus justitiam, nimi¬ rum utrum ad justitiam retinendam et con¬ servandam requirantur opera bona, an fides sola sufficiat. Cseterum hoc loco primam tantum quaestionem suscepimus explican¬ dam. Nam de aliis duabus in sequentibus libris disserendum erit. Quare nemo mirari debet, si multa hoc loco praetermittimus, quae alii scriptores de sola fide justificante, vel potius de fide non sola justificante dis¬ putant. Porro haeretici hujus temporis una in re conveniunt inter se, et dissentiunt a Catho¬ licis ; in aliis tribus dissentiunt etiam inter se. Conveniunt, fidem solam justificare, hoc est nulla re alia justificationem acquiri, vel ut ipsi loquuntur, apprehendi, nisi fide. Dissentiunt autem primo de modo, quo fides justificat. Nam Lutherus sensisse vide¬ tur, fidem esse veram causam justificationis. Sic enim scribit in n. cap. ad Galat. Fides est formalis justitia, propter quam homo justi¬ ficatur, non propter charitatem. Ubi non so¬ lum vox illa, « formalis » , significat veram causam; sed etiam antithesis, qua fidem op¬ ponit charitati. Nam cum negat, nos justifi¬ cari propter charitatem, certe negat, chari¬ tatem esse causam justificationis : igitur cum asserit propter fidem nos justificari, as¬ serit fidem esse causam justificationis. Eamdem sententiam in Colloquio Altem- burgensi, tribuunt Illyriciani Wittembergen- sibus, affirmantes a Georgio majore, dictum esse, fidem esse causam, cur detur justifica¬ tio. Alii tamen plurimi, ac fere omnes hoc tempore docent, fidem non justificare, per modum causae formalis, aut efficientis phy¬ sicae vel meritoriae, quasi aut ipsa sit justi¬ tia, vel initium justitiae, aut ejus intuitu, sive respectu Deus nos justificet, sed solum re¬ lative, quia respicit, ac recipit oblatam in¬ dulgentiam. Itaque sensum hujus propositionis : Homo fide justificatur, hunc esse volunt. Homo ju¬ stificatur per gratiam Dei, non imputantis peccata, quam gratiam fides credendo reci- (1)1 Joan.V, 13. CAPUT XIII. 173 pit. Explicant sententiam suam exemplo ma¬ nus, qua pauper eleemosynam a divite reci¬ pit. Nam manus illa recipiens eleemosynam, non est ipsa eleemosyna, neque est causa efficiens eleemosynae, neque propter ipsam, quasi sua pulchritudine id mereatur, datur eleemosyna, sed solum relative concurrit ad eleemosynam obtinendam, quoniam dare et accipere, sunt relativa, neque enim dari po¬ test eleemosyna, nisi ab aliquo recipiatur. Ita explicant modum, quo fides justificat, Philippus in locis communibus, titulo de bonis operibus, in dilutione argumentorum. Et Kemnitius, in Examine Concilii Triden- tini sess. 6. Et Joannes Calvinus, in Anti¬ doto Concilii, ad Canon. 11. sess. 6. Item in Colloquio Altemburgensi, non solum Illyri- ciani, sive Saxonici, sed etiam Wittember- genses Electorales convenerunt in eo, quod fides non sit dicenda causa, sed merum or¬ ganum justificationis, et verba Georgii Ma¬ joris sibi objecta, non tam defenderunt, quam excusarunt. Ex quo intelligimus Lu- theranos, qui se jactant omnia tribuere soli fidei, re vera nihil omnino ei tribuere, sed eam plane contemnere, ac nihili facere. Secundo, dissentiunt de actibus aliarum virtutum, sive operum, ut spei, dilectionis, poenitentiae et similibus, an videlicet requi¬ rantur ad justificationem aliquo modo. Nam etsi conveniant in eo, quod isti actus non sint causa justificationis, neque dicantur ju¬ stificare, tamen aliqui existimant, requiri eorum praesentiam, vel ut signa verae fidei, vel aliis de causis. Ita docent Wittember- genses, in Colloquio Altemburgensi, idem etiam docet Philippus, in locis communibus, paulo ante citatis. « Clara, inquit Philippus, docemus, oportere in homine existere noti¬ tiam articulorum, item contritionem, bonum propositum, inchoari dilectionem. De his dimicant adversarii, quae tamen fatemur ipsi, in homine oportere existere. Sed addi¬ mus oportere accedere fidem, id est, fidu¬ ciam misericordiae, quod propter filium Dei habeamus remissionem peccatorum , non propter has nostras virtutes »'. Calvinus item in Antidoto Concilii, ad artic. 11. sess. 6. docet, fidem solam justifi¬ care, sed eam fidem non esse solam, quo modo solis calor solus accendit, quamvis non sit solus, sed cum splendore conjun¬ ctus. Similia habet Kemnitius loco notato. Contra autem Illyriciani, sive Saxonici, hoc est, rigidi Lutherani in eodem Altem¬ burgensi Colloquio contendunt, ita solam fidem justificare, ut illud solam, non solum meritum, sed etiam praesentiam aliarum vir¬ tutum excludat. Et hanc fuisse volunt Lu- theri sententiam. Et sane Lutherus in c. n. ad Galat. ita loquitur : « Fides sine et ante charitatem justificat ». Et in disputatione: Utrum opera faciant ad justificationem, an non, tom. 1. operum suorum, sic ait, in 3. propositione: « Fides, nisi sit sine ullis etiam minimis operibus, non justificat, immo non est fides » . Tertio, dissentiunt de voce Sola, an sit omnino necessaria, an vero posset justa ali¬ qua de causa reticeri. Non desunt enim in¬ ter Lutheranos, qui dicant, voculam illam «sola» in propositione : Fides sola justificat, etiamsi non exprimatur, subintelligi, et ideo non esse de ea pertinacius altercandum, praesertim cum non inveniatur in sacris lite¬ ris, immo posse utiliter reticeri concordiae causa. Alii tamen contra, pro vocula <c sola » acerrime dimicandum esse censent, atque omnia, priusquam ut ea vox sibi eripiatur, toleranda esse contendunt. Yide de hac eo¬ rum digladiatione Joan. Cochlaeum in Actis Lutheri, anno 1530. Et Laurentium Surium, in commentario rerum gestarum, ejusdem anni, vel ex haereticis, Joan. Sleidanum, ad eumdem annum, et Davidem Chythraeum, in hist. confess. Augustanae, et ipsum etiam Altemburgense Colloquium, ubi multa de hac re ab Illyricianis referuntur. Sed nos parum laborantes de ipsorum contentioni¬ bus, ad eam tantum controversiam explican¬ dam aggredimur, quam nobiscum, id est, cum Catholicis habent. Igitur adversarii, ut paulo ante diximus, Sola fide justificationem acquiri, sive ap¬ prehendi docent : Catholici contra, ac prae¬ sertim Synodus ipsa Tridentina (quam om¬ nes Catholici ut magistram sequuntur) sess. 6. cap. 6. Septem actus enumerat, quibus impii ad justitiam disponuntur, videlicet fi¬ dei, timoris, spei, dilectionis, poenitentiae, propositi suscipiendi sacramenti, et propo¬ siti novae vitse, atque observationis manda¬ torum Dei. Quam sententiam veram esse in sequentibus capitibus, Deo bene juvante, probabimus. 174 LIBER I.