Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book I: On Justifying Faith
Chapter 15: That true faith can in fact be separated from love and the other virtues
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 true and Christian faith, then, which by way of disposition justifies the impious, can be separated from love and the other virtues, is proved by these arguments.
First, of the Princes of the Jews it is thus written, John 12: Nevertheless many of the chief men also believed in him; but they did not confess him. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God. Here the Evangelist testifies that in those Princes there was faith without charity. The adversaries answer that those Princes did not have true faith, but only a certain imperfect knowledge of Christ. But if it is lawful thus to interpret the Scriptures, nothing will ever be able to be proved. Moreover, in the same chapter Scripture often uses the same phrase, where nonetheless by that which is (to believe in Christ) all understand true faith: The chief priests thought, says the Evangelist, to kill Lazarus also, because many by reason of him went away from among the Jews, and believed in Jesus. And below: Whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him; that the saying of Isaias might be fulfilled: Lord, who hath believed our report? — which place of Isaias blessed Paul also alleges, Romans 10, when he discourses of justifying faith. And below: Jesus said: He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me. And again: I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in me may not remain in darkness. Since, then, all these places are understood of true, justifying faith, why not also that which is had in the same chapter, Many of the chief men believed in him? For the words are the same, and the phrase the same. Add, last, the commentary of St. Augustine, to pass over others for the present. For in tractate 32 on John he says: “See how the Evangelist has noted and disapproved certain men whom yet he said to have believed in him — who, in this entrance of faith, if they had gone forward, would by going forward have overcome also the love of human glory.” But if that faith could go forward, and by going forward overcome the love of human glory, certainly it was true faith. For the same is the faith beginning, going forward, and perfect — though not always equally great. Otherwise, if faith, when it goes forward, is not the same which it was before, then it did not go forward, but, another being born, itself perished. The same Augustine also, tractate 54, at the very beginning, treating the same place of the Gospel: “Certain men believed, predestined unto eternal life; certain others believed not. Of those who believed, some confessed him so far that, taking branches of palms, they went to meet him coming, rejoicing in the same confession of praise. But others of the Princes durst not confess, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue.” Where St. Augustine attributes the same faith to those who confessed Jesus openly and to those who durst not confess; nor can it be doubted that the faith of those confessing was true faith in Christ; therefore true also was that of those not confessing — but in the former it wrought through love, in the latter it lay idle without love.
The second testimony is of the Apostle Paul, in the first to the Corinthians, chapter 13, where he thus speaks: If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. They answer to this place in two ways. First, that the Apostle drew an argument from an impossible condition, to show the necessity of love — which they prove from the beginning of the chapter: If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels. Second, that the Apostle speaks of the faith of signs, not of the faith of promises, which alone is true and justifying faith. But neither response is solid. For, first, the Apostle’s argument is not drawn from an impossible condition, but from a hyperbole much used in the sacred letters. For the sense of that place is: that eloquence, however great; the knowledge of all things; faith the highest and most certain; the most lavish alms; and all other goods, without charity profit nothing at all toward attaining eternal life. From which it follows that, as eloquence, knowledge, alms can be without charity, but not profit, so also faith can be without charity, and not profit. Then, the Apostle speaks in this place of the faith through which miracles are done, as is clear from those words, If I should have all faith, so as to remove mountains. But that this faith was in fact in certain men separated from charity, the Lord testifies, Matthew 7, when he says: Many will say to me in that day: Have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you; depart from me, all you that work iniquity. The Apostle, then, draws his argument not from the impossible, but from that which sometimes has been done, and is wont to be done. Finally, if the Apostle’s argument were drawn from the impossible, it would at least prove that conditioned proposition which in the foregoing chapter I set out to prove. For if faith were without charity, that it would profit nothing the Apostle in express words affirms; from which it is evidently made out that it does not justify unless it be helped by charity, and thereby that it needs, for the office of justifying, not only the presence, but also the help of charity. For if it needed not the help of charity, there would be no cause why, charity being absent, it could not justify; but if, that being absent, it could justify, the Apostle would have pronounced falsely, If I should have all faith, and have not charity, I am nothing. Now, as to what they say — that the Apostle speaks of the faith of signs, not of the faith of promises — it is easily refuted. For the faith of signs is nothing else than the true Christian faith itself, but excellent, as we proved above from the last chapter of Mark, where, after it had been said, He that believeth shall be saved, is subjoined, And these signs shall follow them that believe, etc.; and from chapter 11 to the Hebrews, where of the same faith it is said: The saints by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, etc. The same is clear from that of Luke 17: If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this mulberry tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou transplanted into the sea, and it would obey you. For this the Lord said, answering the Apostles, who had asked that faith be increased in them. For the Lord showed that it is a sign of increased faith, if through it miracles be effected. Which the Apostle too indicates in this place, when he says, If I should have all faith, so as to remove mountains. For that little word “all” signifies every degree of faith, so that it extend even to great miracles. Finally, that conjunction of this faith with hope and charity, when it is said, Now there remain these three, faith, hope, charity; but the greatest of these is charity, most openly declares that it is the same faith which, when there is need, removes mountains, and which with hope and charity justifies. Add here also the testimony of St. Augustine, book 15 On the Trinity, chapter 18, where from this place of the Apostle he teaches that faith can be without charity, cannot profit.
The third testimony is of St. James, who in his epistle not only teaches, but also proves, that faith without works does not justify, and yet can be found without works. For thus he says, chapter 2: What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? Calvin answers, book 3 of the Institutes, chapters 2 and 17, that James speaks not of true faith, but of a certain shadow of faith — that is, of a certain empty knowledge of the articles of faith. But we prove that he speaks of true faith, which, if the other things that are required be not lacking, altogether justifies. For first, James absolutely calls it faith — which name in the sacred letters is always wont to signify true faith. Second, in the same chapter, and speaking of the same faith, he says that the faith of Abraham cooperated with his works, and by the works themselves was made perfect. But certainly the faith of Abraham was not a shadow of faith, nor an empty knowledge of articles, but a most true faith. Third, in the same place James concludes: You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. But a shadow of faith in no way justifies; here, however, the Apostle grants that faith justifies, but not alone. Fourth, the same is proved from two examples which St. James brings forward to prove that faith without works does not justify. For first he compares a man having faith without works to him who, seeing the poor in need of food and raiment, is content with that knowledge, and bestows on them no alms. For as it profits the poor nothing that the rich know their want — however true that knowledge be — unless according to that knowledge they furnish them the necessaries; so true faith profits nothing, unless one study to live according to it. Then he compares faith without works to a body without spirit, which is certainly a true body, though dead. Fifth, let the testimonies of the Fathers come in, who always understood this place of true faith. See Jerome on chapter 5 to the Galatians; Chrysostom homily 2 on Genesis and homily 2 on the epistle to Philemon; Augustine book 21 On the City of God, chapter 26, and the book On the One Baptism, chapter 10; and Cyril book 10 on John, chapter 18.
But Calvin objects: First, that the Apostle said, What shall it profit, if a man say he hath faith, whereas he should rather have said, What shall it profit, if a man have faith. Second, that James explained that he speaks of the faith of the essence of God, not of the faith of benevolence, which alone justifies, when he says, Thou believest that there is one God. Third, that faith without works is compared with the faith of the devils, who, it is certain, have not true and justifying faith. Fourth, that he said faith without works is dead; for what is dead, is not. To the first I answer: the Apostle noted the boasting of the wicked, who glory in faith alone. For this is the sense of that place: If a man say he hath faith — that is, if anyone, relying on faith alone, boast of it, and affirm himself content with it — let him know that faith of this kind will profit him nothing. For that the Apostle by that phrase would not deny that faith is in those who do not work, is clear from the following words: Shall faith be able to save him? To the second I confess that St. James willed to explain the faith of essence, not of benevolence; for he was teaching not the Lutheran, but the Catholic faith. But that the faith of benevolence alone justifies is in controversy, and accordingly ought not to be assumed as certain by the adversaries, unless they wish to incur in disputing that fault which is called begging the question. To the third: the faith of wicked men partly agrees with the faith of the devils, partly differs from it. It agrees in this, that both is a true and right faith on the part of the object, and yet both unfruitful. And in this manner the Apostle James compares the faith of wicked men with the faith of the devils. But St. Augustine, in the book On the One Baptism, chapter 10, teaches that the faith of the devils is so far true and Catholic, on the part of the object, that he compares it with the faith of St. Peter which the Lord praised, Matthew 16. But the faith of evil men and of the devils differ in this: that the faith of men is free — the pious will taking the understanding captive — but that of the devils is forced and wrung out by the very evidence of things. Which the same James insinuated, saying: The devils believe and tremble. For we believe not trembling — that is, unwilling and forced — but of our own accord and gladly. To the fourth: faith is said to be dead, not in the way a man is said dead, who after death is not, but in the way a body is said dead, which after death is, but does not live. For life is not of the essence of faith, as it is of the essence of a man; but by a metaphor faith is called living when it works, dead when it does not work — just as also water is called living which flows continually, as in a fountain and rivers, dead which is not moved, as in pools and marshes; when yet both is truly and properly water.
The fourth argument is taken from those testimonies which teach that in the Church there are good and bad: as Matthew 3, where is set the similitude of the chaff and the wheat in the same floor; Matthew 13, where is set the similitude of good and bad fishes in the same net; Matthew 22, where is set the similitude of those coming to the marriage without a marriage garment; Matthew 25, where is set the similitude of the prudent and the foolish virgins, and of the sheep and the goats. For since they who are in the Church are faithful, if the same can be evil, certainly it follows that faith, whence they are called faithful, can be conjoined with sin, whence they are called evil. They will answer, perhaps, that the evil who are in the Church have faith, but historical — that is, a knowledge of the articles — not the faith of special benevolence. But this is easily refuted; for first (as we have often already said) they ought not to assume as certain that which is in question — that is, that the faith of benevolence alone is true faith. Then, if all the evil who are in the Church lacked true faith, whatever it be, certainly they ought above all to be reprehended for this: that, besides their other sins, they had fallen from true faith; but they are not reprehended for the loss of faith, but for the omission of works. For in Matthew 22 the man is reprehended because he has not a marriage garment, for no other cause than because he has not that garment. But that garment signified charity, as Jerome, Chrysostom, and others on that place, and Gregory homily 38, testify. Likewise in Matthew 25 the foolish virgins are not reprehended save that they had not oil — that is, works of mercy — as Chrysostom notes on that place; and in the same chapter 25 those who shall be on the left hand out of the Lord’s flock are not condemned save for evil works, not for want of faith, as St. Augustine admonishes in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 15. St. Paul too, 1 Corinthians 5, bids a certain incestuous Corinthian be severely punished, nor yet does he accuse him of infidelity, but of incest alone; and St. Peter, Acts 5, reprehends not Ananias and Sapphira, and chapter 8 Simon Magus, for infidelity, but for other sins. And so from these and like places it is gathered clearly enough that faith can be in sinners.
The fifth argument is taken from the proper nature of faith and charity. For if faith and charity could not be disjoined from each other, this would come to pass either because the one were of the nature of the other, or certainly because the one necessarily were born of the other. But neither can be said. Not the first, for faith and charity are not one virtue, but two, as the Scriptures everywhere teach, as 1 Corinthians 13, Now there remain these three, faith, hope, charity; and 1 Timothy 1, The end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith. And besides, they have diverse subjects, acts, and objects. For faith is in the understanding, charity in the will; and faith believes, or (as they will) trusts; charity loves. Finally, faith regards the first truth, charity the highest good. Nor the second, since, although charity arise from faith, yet it arises not as a proper passion, which necessarily flows from its subject, but as a virtue toward which the other disposes and inclines. For faith is said to beget charity, because it disposes and inclines him who believes to love him in whom he believes. But disposition and inclination do not compel, but leave the man free, that he love if he will, and love not if he will not. The adversaries choose that second — namely, that charity is inseparable from faith because it necessarily follows faith; but they strive to persuade by examples what they cannot prove by solid reasons. For Luther, in the preface to the epistle to the Romans, says that faith is like fire, which, if it shine not and burn not, is not fire; so that faith is a thing living, active, efficacious, which always necessarily works. Bucer too, in the book of Concord, bids us imagine some sick man greatly desirous of health, who, if a physician suddenly come to him promising him health for certain, cannot but love him; and he says that like to this sick man is he who believes that God, after the manner of a most skilled physician, offers certain health. Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 2, section 9, compares faith and charity with Christ and the Holy Spirit. For as it cannot come to pass that Christ be separated from the Holy Spirit, so, he says, it cannot come to pass that faith be separated from love, since faith beholds and receives Christ, but with the Spirit of sanctification and of love.
But these similitudes are brought forward not very probably. For first, the similitude of fire is in the sacred Scriptures properly attributed to charity, not to faith, save insofar as it lives through charity. For it is charity of which it is said in the Canticles: Many waters cannot quench charity; and, The lamps thereof are lamps of fire and of flames, Canticles 8. That same charity it is which, according to the Apostle, Romans 13, fulfils the law; and 1 Corinthians 13, is patient, is kind, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, etc.; and of which St. Augustine, in the preface on Psalm 31: “What it believes, is of faith; what it works, is of charity.” And in the same place: “Love cannot be idle: it works nothing evil, and works whatever good it can.” And St. Gregory, homily 30: “Love works great things, if it be; but if it refuse to work, it is not love.” And so charity is that virtue living, active, efficacious, always working, and from which operation can no more be sundered than brightness or heat from fire. But faith works not immediately, but by the mediation of charity, which itself begets — yet (as we said) not by properly producing it, as fire produces heat, but by disposing and inclining toward it. Then, the similitude of the sick man, which Bucer brings forward, proves only what we say — that he who believes is inclined to love him in whom he believes, but not compelled necessarily to love, save perhaps with the love of concupiscence, which is not charity, but cupidity. For a sick man, and desirous of health, necessarily loves the physician, but more often for his own sake than for the physician’s. Finally, that similitude of Calvin concludes nothing at all; for he who by faith regards or receives Christ does indeed behold him with his Spirit, and receives him with the same Spirit — yet not always with the Spirit of sanctification and love; for Christ is one thing, the grace of the Holy Spirit another.
It remains to answer the objections which the adversaries are wont to bring against this our sentence. First they object that of the Apostle, 1 Timothy 5: If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. I answer: the Apostle speaks, as Chrysostom and other interpreters witness, of those who are said to deny the faith because they live not as faith teaches one ought to live — who (as the same Apostle says to Titus 1) confess that they know God, but in their works deny him. And they are said to be worse than infidels, not in all respects, but as to impiety toward their own. For infidels are wont to have care of their own. And so the wicked deny the faith, not with the heart or the mouth, but in work; and of these St. Gregory writes, homily 29 on the Gospels, that they do not truly believe, and have not true faith, who do not work well. For he signifies that they do not truly show their faith by their works, and thereby have not true faith in the showing of works. For otherwise the same Gregory, homily 38, most openly teaches that many enter into the Church because they have faith, and yet lack the marriage garment, because they have not charity. Second, they object that of John 6: There are some of you that believe not; for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe, and who he was that would betray him — where Judas is said not to believe, because he was about to betray him. I answer: Judas was one of those who, having heard the Lord’s discourse of eating his flesh, were scandalized, and began in heart to withdraw from him through unbelief; whence afterward he was even led to betray him. For he would never have betrayed him, if he had believed him to be the true God. And so Judas truly lost faith, and from infidelity came to the betrayal. Third, they object that of 1 John 2: He who saith that he knoweth God, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar. I answer: St. John speaks of the knowledge of familiarity and friendship, as Bede and Oecumenius expound — of which knowledge the Lord speaks, Matthew 7 and Matthew 25, where of the wicked he says, I never knew you, or, I know you not. Fourth, they object that of 1 John 5: Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God — and accordingly without doubt has charity. I answer: he speaks of formed faith, which works through love, as St. Augustine expounds, tractate 10 on the epistle of John. Fifth, they object that of James 2: Faith without works is dead. But this has already been explained in our third argument. Sixth, they object that of Habacuc 2: The just liveth by faith. But he lives not without charity; therefore with faith there is always charity. I answer: to the letter, that sentence, The just liveth by faith — which also the Apostle frequently cites — seems to signify that the just man sustains himself, and bears the desire of the heavenly country, by faith, since faith makes in a manner present that beatitude which in its own time is hoped to be; for faith is the foundation and substance of things to be hoped for. But that too is most true, that the just man lives the spiritual life by faith — but by faith such as is in just men, that is, formed by charity.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV.
Fidem veram posse re ipsa a dilectione aliisque
virtutibus separari.
Igitur fidem veram et Christianam, quae
per modum dispositionis justificat impium,
posse a dilectione, aliisque virtutibus sepa¬
rari, his argumentis probatur.
Primo, de Principibus Judaeorum ita scri¬
bitur, Joan. xii. Verumtamen multi ex Prin¬
cipibus, crediderunt in eum, sed non confite¬
bantur. Dilexerunt enim magis gloriam ho¬
minum, quam gloriam Dei (1). Hic Evange-
lista testatur, in illis Principibus fuisse fidem
absque charitate.
Respondent Adversairii , non habuisse
Principes illos veram fidem, sed tantum no¬
titiam quamdam Christi imperfectam. At si
licet ita interpretari scripturas, nihil unquam
probari poterit.
Praeterea, in eodem capite saepe eadem
phrasi utitur scriptura, ubi tamen per id,
quod est (credere in Christum) omnes in-
telligunt veram fidem : Cogitaverunt, inquit
Evangelista, Principes sacerdotum, ut et La-
zarum interficerent, quia multi propter illum
abibant ex Judosis, et credebant in Jesum. Et
infra : Cum tanta signa fecisset corajn eis, non
credebant in eum, ut sermo Isaise impleretur.
Domine quis credidit auditui nostro (2) ? Quem
locum Isaiae allegat etiam Beatus Paulus ad
Roman. x. cum disserit de fide justificante.
Et infra : Dixit Jesus, qui credit in me, non
credit in me, sed in eum, qui misit me. Et rur¬
sus : Ego lux m mundum veni, ut omnis qui
credit in me, in tenebris non maneat (3). Cum
igitur haec omnia loca de vera fide justifi¬
cante intelligantur, cur non etiam ille, qui
in eodem capite habetur, Multi ex Princi¬
pibus crediderunt in eum ? Eadem enim sunt
verba, et eadem phrasis.
Adde ultimo etiam commentarium S. Au¬
gustini, ut alios interim praetermittam. Nam
tract. 32. in Joannem : «Videte, inquit Au¬
gustinus , quemadmodum notaverit Evan¬
gelista , et improbaverit quosdam , quos
(1) Joan. XU, 42. - (2) Joan, XII, iO, 37. - (3) Joan. XII, 44.
I
180
LIBER I.
tamen in eum credidisse dixit, qui in hoc
ingressu fidei, si proficerent, amorem quoque
humanae gloriae proficiendo superarent ».
Quod si fides ista proficere poterat, et amo¬
rem humanae gloriae proficiendo superare,
certe vera fides erat. Eadem enim est fides
incipiens, proficiens et perfecta, sed non
semper aeque magna. Alioqui si fides cum
proficit non est eadem, quae antea erat ; non
illa profecit, sed alia nascente, ipsa defecit.
Idem etiam Augustinus, Tract. 54. in ipso
initio , eumdem locum Evangelii tractans ;
«Quidam, inquit, crediderunt praedestinati
in vitam aeternam, quidam vero non credi¬
derunt. Eorum autem qui crediderunt, alii
usque adeo confitebantur, ut palmarum ra¬
mis acceptis venienti occurrerent, in eadem
laudis confessione laetantes. Alii vero ex
Principibus confiteri non audebant, ut de
Synagoga non ejicerentur». Ubi S. Augu¬
stinus eamdem fidem tribuit illis, qui confi¬
tebantur Jesum manifeste, et illis qui confi¬
teri non audebant : neque dubitari potest,
quin fides confitentium vera fidesin Christum
fuerit : erat igitur vera et non confitentium,
sed in prioribus per dilectionem operaban¬
tur, in posterioribussine dilectione otiabatur.
Alterum testimonium est Apostoli, Pauli,
in priore ad I Corinth. cap. xm. ubi sic lo¬
quitur : Si habuero omnem fidem, ita ut mon¬
tes transferam, charitatem autem non habuero,
nihil sum.
Respondent ad hunc locum duobus modis.
Primo, Apostolum duxisse argumentum a
conditione impossibili, ut ostenderet neces¬
sitatem dilectionis ; quod probant ex prin¬
cipio capitis : Si linguis hominum loquar et
Angelorum. Secundo, loqui' Apostolum de
fide signorum, non de fide promissionum,
quae sola est fides vera et justificans. At
neutra responsio solida est; Primum enim,
argumentum Apostoli non ducitur a condi¬
tione impossibili, sed ab hyperbole in sacris
litteris valde usitata. Sententia enim ejus loci
est, Eloquentiam quamvis maximam, scien¬
tiam omnium rerum, fidem summam et cer¬
tissimam , eleemosynas profusissimas , et
omnia alia bona, sine charitate ad vitam
aeternam consequendam minime prodesse.
Ex quo sequitur, ut sicut eloquentia, scientia,
eleemosynae sine charitate esse possunt, sed
non prodesse, ita et fides sine charitate
possit esse, non prodesse.
Deinde, loquitur hoc loco Apostolus de
fide, per quam miracula fiunt, ut patet ex
illis verbis : Si habuero omnem fidem , ita ut
montes transferam. Hanc autem fidem re ipsa
separatam in quibusdam fuisse a charitate,
testatur Dominus , Matthaei vn. cum ait :
Multi mihi dicent in illa die , Nonne in nomine
tuo prophetavimus , et dsemonia ejecimus , et vir¬
tutes multas fecimus ? Quibus confitebor , quia
numquam novi vos , discedite a me omnes , qui
operamini iniquitatem { 2). Non igitur Aposto¬
lus ducit argumentum ab impossibili, sed ab
eo, quod aliquando factum est, et fieri solet.
Postremo, si argumentum Apostoli ab im¬
possibili duceretur, probaret saltem condi-
tionatam illam propositionem, quam supe¬
riori capite ego probare institui. Nam si fides
sine charitate esset, eam nihil profuturam
Apostolus disertis verbis affirmat; ex quo
evidenter efficitur, eam non justificare, nisi
a charitate juvetur, ac per hoc non solum
praesentia, sed etiam ope charitatis egere ad
officium justificandi. Nam si charitatis ope
non egeret, nulla esset causa, cur absente
charitate justificare non posset : quod si illa
absente, justificare posset; falso pronuncias
set Apostolus, si habuero omnem fidem, cha¬
ritatem autem non habuero, nihil sum.
Jam vero quod dicunt, Apostolum loqui de
fide signorum, non de fide promissionum,
facile refellitur. Nam fides signorum nihil
aliud est, nisi ipsa vera fides Christiana, sed
excellens, ut supra probavimus ex ultimo
capite Marci, ubi posteaquam dictum fuerat :
Qui crediderit, salvus erit; Subjungitur : Si¬
gna autem eos, qui crediderint, hsec sequentur,
etc. Et ex cap. n. adHebr. ubi de eadem fide
dicitur : Sancti per fidem vicerunt regna, ope¬
rati sunt justitiam, adepti sunt repromissiones ,
obturaverunt ora leonum, extinxerunt impetum
ignis etc. Idem patet ex illo, Lucae xvn. Si
habueritis fidem sicut granum sinapis, dicetis
huic arbori moro, eradicare, et transplantare
in mare, et obediet vobis (3). Nam hoc dixit
Dominus respondens Apostolis, qui petierant,
adaugeri sibi fidem. Ostendit enim Dominus
signum auctae fidei esse, si per eam miracula
efficientur. Quod etiam indicat Apostolus hoc
loco, cum ait : Si habuero omnem fidem, ita
ut montes transferam. Illa enim particula
« omnem » significat omnem gradum fidei
ita ut etiam ad magna miracula se extendat.
Denique illa conjunctio hujus fidei, cum
(1) I Corin. XIII, 2. — (2) Matth. VII, 22. - (3) Mare. XVI, 16; Heb. XI, 33 ; Luc. XVII, 8.
CAPUT XV.
181
spe et charitate, cum dicitur : Nunc manent
tria haec, fides, spes, charitas, major autem
horum est charitas; Apertissime declarat,
eamdem fidem esse, quae cum opus est, mon¬
tes transfert, et quae cum spe et charitate
justificat. Adde huc etiam testimonium S.
Augustini, lib. 15. de Trinitate cap. 18. ubi
ex hoc loco Apostoli docet, fidem sine cha¬
ritate esse posse, prodesse non posse.
Tertium testimonium est S. Jacobi, qui in
epistola sua non solum docet, sed etiam pro¬
bat, Fidem sine operibus non justificare, et
tamen sine operibus inveniri posse. Sic enim
ait, cap. ii. Quid proderit fratres mei, si fidem
quis dicat se habere, opera autem non habeat ?
numquid poterit fides salvatae illum (1) ?
Respondet Calvinus lib. m. Instit. cap. 2.
et cap. 17. Jacobum loqui non de vera fide,
sed de umbra quadam fidei, hoc est, de inani
quadam cognitione articulorum fidei. At nos
probamus, eum loqui de vera fide, quae, si
non desint caetera quae requiruntur, omnino
justificat. Primum enim Jacobus eam abso¬
lute fidem appellat. Quod nomen in sacris
litteris semper veram fidem significare solet.
Secundo, in eodem capite, ac de eadem
fide loquens, dicit, fidem Abrahami coope¬
ratam esse operibus ejus, et ex ipsis operibus
consummatam. At certe fides Abrahami non
umbra fidei, nec inanis articulorum notitia,
sed fides verissima fuit.
Tertio, ibidem Jacobus concludit : Videtis
quod ex operibus justificatur homo, et non ex
fide tantum ? At umbra fidei nullo modo ju¬
stificat, hic vero Apostolus fidem justificare
concedit, sed non solam.
Quarto, idem probatur ex duobus exem¬
plis, qum S. Jacobus adfert, ut probet fidem
sine operibus non justificare. Primum enim
comparat hominem habentem fidem sine
operibus ei, qui videns pauperes egentes
cibo, et vestibus contentus sit ea cognitione,
et nihil eis eleemosynae largiatur. Sicut enim
nihil prodest pauperibus, quod divites sciant
eorum inopiam, etiamsi verissima sit ea co¬
gnitio, nisi secundum eam cognitionem ne¬
cessaria illis praebeant; ita nihil prodest vera
fides, nisi quis juxta eam vivere studuerit.
Deinde, comparat fidem sine operibus cor¬
pori sine spiritu, quod certum est verum esse
corpus, licet mortuum.
Quinto, accedant testimonia Patrum qui,
semper hunc locum de vera fide intelle¬
xerunt. Vide Hieronymum in cap. v. ad Galat.
Ghrysost. homil. ii. in Genes, et hom. 2. in
epist. ad Philemon. Augustinum lib. xxi. de
Civ. Dei cap. 26. et lib. de unico baptismo
cap. 10. etCyrillum lib. x. in Joan. cap. xviii.
Sed objicit Calvinus, Primo, Apostolum
dixisse : Quid proderit, si quis fidem habere
se dicat, cum potius dicere debuisset; Quid
proderit, si quis fidem habeat. Secundo,
quod explicuerit Jacobus, se loqui de fide
essentiae Dei, non de fide benevolentiae, quae
sola justificat, cum ait : Tu credis, quia unus
est Deus. Tertio, quod fides sine operibus
comparata sit cum fide daemonnm : quos
constat fidem veram, et justificantem non ha¬
bere. Quarto, quod fidem sine operibus mor¬
tuam esse dixerit : quod enim mortuum est,
non est.
Ad Primum Respondeo : notasse Aposto¬
lum, jactantiam improborum, qui de sola
fide gloriantur. Haec enim est sententia ejus
loci. Si quis fidem habere se dicat, id est, si
quis fide sola fretus, eam jactet, seque ea
contentum esse affirmet, sciat nihil sibi fidem
hujusmodi profuturam. Quod enim Aposto¬
lus ea phrasi noluerit negare, fidem esse in
iis, qui non operantur, perspicuum est ex
verbis sequentibus : Numquid fides poterit
salvare illum ?
Ad Secundum, fateor, S. Jacobum expli¬
care voluisse fidem essentiae, non benevo¬
lentiae ; non enim Lutheranam fidem, sed
Catholicam docebat. Fidem autem benevo¬
lentiae solam justificare, in controversia est,
proinde non debet assumi tamquam certum
ab adversariis, nisi velint vitium illud di¬
sputando incurrere, quod vocatur petitio
principii.
Ad Tertium, Fides hominum improborum
partim convenit eum fide Daemonum, partim
ab ea dissidet. Convenit in eo, quod utraque
est vera et recta fides ex parte objecti, et
tamen utraque infructuosa. Et hoc modo
comparat Apostolus Jacobus fidem homi<
num improborum cum fide daemonum S. au¬
tem Augustinus in lib. de unico baptismo
cap. 10 usque adeo veram et Catholicam
esse docet Daemonum fidem, ex parte objecti,
ut eam comparet cum fide S. Petri, quam
Dominus laudavit , Matth. xvi. Differunt
autem fides hominum malorum et Daemo¬
num, quod hominum fides libera est, capti¬
vante nimirum pia voluntate intellectum in
(1) Jacob. II, 14.
182
LIBER I.
est coacta et extorta ab ipsa rerum evidentia.
Quod insinuavit idem Jacobus dicens : Dae¬
mones credunt et contremiscunt (1). Nos enim
non credimus contremiscentes, id est, inviti
et coacti, sed sponte ac libenter.
Ad Quartum, Fides dicitur mortua, non
quomodo homo dicitur mortuus, qui post
mortem non est, sed quomodo corpus dicitur
mortuum, quod post mortem est, sed non
vivit. Vita enim non est de essentia fidei,
quemadmodum est de essentia hominis; sed
per metaphoram dicitur fides viva cum ope¬
ratur, mortua cum non operatur; sicut etiam
aqua dicitur viva, quse continuo fluit, ut in
fonte, et fluviis ; mortua, quae non movetur,
ut in stagnis, et paludibus : cum tamen u-
traque vere, proprieque sit aqua.
Quartum argumentum sumitur ex illis
testimoniis , quae docent in Ecclesia esse
bonos et malos; ut Matth. m. ubi ponitur
similitudo palearum, et tritici in eadem area.
Matth. xiii. ubi ponitur similitudo piscium
bonorum et malorum in eodem reti. Matth.
xxii. ubi ponitur similitudo venientium ad
nuptias sine veste nuptiali. Matth. xxv. ubi
ponitur similitudo Virginum prudentium et
fatuarum, et ovium atque hoedorum. Quo¬
niam enim, qui sunt in Ecclesia, fideles sunt,
si iidem mali esse possint, certe sequitur
fidem, unde dicuntur fideles, cum peccato,
unde dicuntur mali, posse esse conjunctam.
Respondebunt fortasse, malos, qui sunt in
Ecclesia, habere fidem, sed historicam, id
est, notitiam articulorum, sed non fidem
specialis benevolentiae. Sed facile hoc refel¬
litur, nam in primis (ut saepe jam diximus)
non debent assumere tamquam certum, id
quod est in quaestione, id est, fidem bene¬
volentiae solam esse veram fidem.
Deinde, si omnes mali, qui sunt in Eccle¬
sia, fide vera carerent , quaecumque illa sit :
certe ob id potissimum reprehendi deberent,
quod praeter alia peccata, exciderint a verafi-
de,at non reprehenduntur de amissione fidei,
sed de omissione operum. Nam Matth. 22.
reprehenditur, quia non habet vestem nu¬
ptialem, non alia de causa, nisi quia vestem
illam non habet. Illa autem vestis charitatem
significabat, teste Hieronymo, Chrysostomo,
et aliis in eum locum, et Gregorio hom. 38.
Item Matth xxv. non reprehenduntur Vir¬
gines fatuae, nisi quod oleum, id est, opera
misericordiae non habuerint, ut in eum lo¬
cum notat Chrysostomus, et in eodem cap.
25. non damnantur ii, qui ex grege domini¬
co, a sinistris erunt, nisi propter mala ope¬
ra, non autem propter carentiam fidei, ut
admonet S. Augustinus, in lib. de fide et
operibus cap. xv. S. etiam Paulus, 1. Co-
rinth. v. Incestuosum quemdam Corinthium,
severe puniri jubet, nec tamen eum arguit
infidelitatis, sed .solius incestus, etS. Petrus
Act. v. non reprehendit Ananiam et Saphi-
ram, et cap. vm. Simonem Magum, propter
infidelitatem, sed propter alia »peccata. Ita¬
que ex his, et similibus locis satis aperte
colligitur, fidem in peccatoribus esse posse.
Quintum argumentum, sumitur a ratione
propria fidei et charitatis. Nam si fides et
charitas inter se disjungi non possent, vel
id ex eo fieret, quod una esset de ratione al¬
terius, vel certe quod una necessario nasce¬
retur ab altera. Neutrum autem dici posset*
Non primum, nam fides et charitas non
una virtus, sed duae, ut scripturae passim do-
cen^, ut I Corinth. xiii. Nunc manet tria haec ,
fides , spes, charitas. Et I Timoth. ii. Finis
praecepti charitas de corde puro , conscientia
bona, et fide non ficta (2). Et praeterea habent
diversa subjecta, actus et objecta. Fides e-
nim est in intellectu, charitas in voluntate,
et fides credit, vel (ut ipsi volunt) confidit ;
charitas diligit. Denique fides respicit ve¬
ritatem primam, charitas summum bonum.
Non item secundum , quoniam tamet si
charitas oriatur ex fide, tamen non oritur ut
propria passio, quae necessario fluit a subje¬
cto, sed ut virtus, ad quam alia disponit et
inclinat, fides enim dicitur gignere charita¬
tem, quia disponit et inclinat eum, qui cre¬
dit, ad diligendum eum, cui credit. Disposi¬
tio autem et inclinatio non cogit, sed liberum
relinquit hominem, ut diligat si velit, et non
diligat si non velit.
Adversarii eligunt illud secundum, charita¬
tem videlicet ideo inseparabilem esse a fide,
quod necessario sequatur fidem : sed exem¬
plis persuadere nituntur, quod solidis ratio¬
nibus probare non possunt. Lutherus enim
praefatione in epist. ad Rom. dicit, Fidem
similem esse igni, qui si non luceat et ar-
deat, non est ignis : ita fidem rem esse vi¬
vam, actuosam, efficacem, quae semper ne¬
cessario operetur.
Bucerus quoque, in libro Concordiae, ju¬
bet fingi animo aegrotum aliquem valde
(1) Jacob. II, 49. — (2) l Corin. XIII, 13 ; I Tim. I, 5.
CAPUT XV.
483
cupidum salut;s, qui si repente ad eum ac¬
cedat medicus, qui certo polliceatur salutem,
non possit eum non amare. Similem vero
hujus aegroti dicit esse eum, qui credit Deum
instar peritissimi medici, certam salutem of¬
ferre.
Calvinus lib. m. Institut. cap. 2 §. 9.
comparat fidem et charitatem cum Christo
et Spiritu sancto. Nam quomodo fieri ne¬
quit, ut Christus separetur a Spiritu sancto,
ita fieri non posse dicit, ut fides separetur a
dilectione, quoniam fides intuetur et recipit
Christum, sed cum spiritu sanctificationis
et dilectionis.
At similia ista non admodum verisimili¬
ter adferuntur. Primum enim, ignis simili¬
tudo in scripturis sanctis proprie tribuitur
cbaritati, non fidei, nisi quatenus per cha¬
ritatem vivit. Charitas enim est, de qua in
Canticis dicitur : Aquse multae non potuerunt
extinguere charitatem; Et: Lampades ejus
Lampades ignis , atque flammarum. Cant. vm.
ipsa eadem charitas est quae juxta Apostolum
ad Rom. xiii. implet legem. Et I Corinth. xm.
patiens est, benigna est omnia credit , omnia
sperat, omnia sustinet , etc. (4). Et de qua
S. Augustinus, praefatione in Psal. xxxi :
« Quod inquit, credit, fidei est, quod operar
tur, charitatis est. » Et ibidem: «Dilectio va¬
care non potest, nisiet mali nihil operetur, et
quicquid potest boni operetur. » Et S. Grego-
rius hom. 30: « Amor operatur magna, si est;
si autem operari renuit, amor non est. » Ita¬
que charitas est virtus illa viva, actuosa, ef¬
ficax, semper operans, et a qua non magis
sejungi potest operatio, quam ab igne splen¬
dor, aut calor. Fides autem non immediate
operatur, sed mediante charitate, quam ipsa
gignit, sed (ut diximus) non proprie illam
producendo, ut ignis producit calorem, sed
ad illam disponendo et inclinando.
Deinde, similitudo segroti, quam adfert
Bucerus, solum probat quod nos dicimus,
eum qui credit, inclinari ad amandum eum,
cui credit, non autem cogi, ut necessario
amet, nisi forte amore concupiscentiae, qui
non est charitas, sed cupiditas. AEgrotus
enim, et salutis cupidus necessario amat
medicum, sed saepius gratia sui, quam gra¬
tia illius.
Denique, similitudo illa Calvinfnihil omni¬
no concludit, nam qui fide Christum respicit,
vel recipit intuetur quidem illum cum spiritu
suo, et recipit cum eodem spiritu sed cre¬
dendo recipit, id est, credit illum habere
spiritum sanctificationis et dilectionis : sed
non inde sequitur, in homine cum fide sem¬
per esse spiritum sanctificationis et dilectio¬
nis, nisi objective ; quomodo est sanitas
in aegroto, quando illam cogitat aut appetit.
Sextum argumentum, sumitur ab absurdo,
quod sequitur ex doctrina adversariorum.
Ipsi enim ideo contendunt, hominem sola
fide justificari, quoniam si justificatio pen¬
deret a conditione operum, aut obedientia
legis, nemo certus esse posset, se esse justi¬
ficatum ; et quia in hac certitudine justifica¬
tionem sitam esse credunt, efficeretur, im¬
possibilem esse justificationem.
At si fides necessario conjuncta esse debet
cum dilectione et operibus bonis, ita ut alio-
qui non sit fides , sed umbra quaedam , et
spectrum fidei ; certe sequitur justificatio¬
nem hoc ipso» quod pendet a vera fide, pen¬
dere etiam ab operibus et dilectione, quae
est impletio legis ; ac per hoc neminem cer¬
tum esse posse, se esse justificatum, atque
omnino impossibilem esse justificationem.
Ita videlicet stabile et aedificium haeretico¬
rum dogmatum, ut undique ruinam mine¬
tur.
Accedat septimo consensus veterum pa¬
trum, quibus numquam in mentem venit
haec absurditas, ut non possit esse fides , ubi
non est charitas.
S. Augustinus lib. xv. de Trinit. cap. 48.
« Fides, inquit, sine charitate potest quidem
esse, sed non et prodesse». Tract. x. in
epist. Joan. « Jam, inquit, credit aliquis in
Christo, sed odit Christum, habet confessi¬
onem fidei in timore poenae, non in amore
coronae : adde huic fidei dilectionem, ut fiat
fides, qualem dicit Apostolus Paulus, Fides,
quae per dilectionem operatur ». Lib. de
spir. et lit. cap. 32. « Unde, inquit, est di¬
lectio, id est, charitas, per quam fides ope¬
ratur, nisi unde illam fides ipsa impetravit » ?
Quod si fides impetrat charitatem , certe
prior est charitate, et antequam illam impe¬
tret, sine illa manet. Vide eumdem Tract. 83.
in Joan. de agone Christiano cap. 43. Et in
eamdem sententiam Clementem Alexandri¬
num lib. ii. et 4. Stromat. Chrysostomum
hom. 9. in Joan. Et hom. 8. in 2. ad Ti-
moth. Et in Psal. xiv. Ambrosium lib. ix.
epistol. 74. Hieronymum lib. ii. in Jovini-
(1) Cant. VIII, 7; ibid. VIII, 6; Rom. XIII, 8; I Corin. XIII, 4.
m
LIBER I.
anum Cyrillum lib. x. in Joan. cap. 18. Et
Gregorium hom. 38. in Evangelia. Sed ar¬
gumenta quaedam Kemnitii, et aliorum bre¬
viter sunt refellenda.
Objiciunt ergo Primo, illud 1 Timoth. v.
Qui suorum , maxime domesticorum , curam
non habet, fidem negavit , et est infideli dete¬
rior. Respondeo : loquitur Apostolus,’ teste
Chrysostomo et aliis interpretibus, de iis, qui
fidem negare dicuntur, quoniam non vivunt,
ut fides vivendum docet, qui (ut idem Apo¬
stolus ait ad Titum 1)', confitentur se nosse
Deum , factis autem negant (1). Dicuntur au¬
tem iidem infidelibus deteriores, non quoad
omnia, sed quoad impietatem in suos. Infi¬
deles enim suorum curam gerere solent.
Itaque improbi fidem negant, non corde,
vel ore, sed opere, et de iisdem scribit S.
Gregorius hom. 29. in Evangelia, eos non
veraciter credere, et non habere veram fi¬
dem, qui non bene operantur. Significat
enim eos non vere ostendere ex operibus fi¬
dem suam, ac per hoc non habere veram fi¬
dem in ostensione operum. Alioqui enim
idem Gregorius hom. 38. apertissime docet,
multos in Ecclesiam intrare, quia fidem ha¬
bent, et tamen veste nuptiali carere, quia
charitatem non habent.
Secundo objiciunt illud Joan vi. Sunt qui¬
dam ex vobis , qui non credunt , ipse enim sci¬
ebat, qui essent credentes, et quis eum tradi¬
turus esset (2). Ubi Judas dicitur non credere,
quia eum traditurus erat. Respondeo, Judas
unus ex illis erat, qui audito sermone Do¬
mini, de carne ejus manducanda, scanda¬
lizatus est, et coepit corde recedere ab eo,
per incredulitatem ; unde postea etiam ad
prodendum illam inductus est. Numquam
enim eum prodidisset, si verum Deum fuisse
credidisset. Itaque vere fidem amisit Judas,
et ex infidelitate ad proditionem devenit.
Tertio objiciunt illud, I Joan. n. Qui dicit,
se nosse Deum, et -mandata ejus non servat, hic
mendax est. Respondeo, loquitur S. Joan-
nes de notitia familiaritatis et amicitiae, ut
Beda etOecumenius exponunt. De qua notitia
loquitur Dominus, Matthaei vn. et Matth. xv.
ubi de improbis dicit, non novi vos, aut, ne¬
scio vos (3).
Quarto objiciunt illud, I Joan v. Omnis, qui
credit, quoniam J esus est Christus, ex Deo natus
est (4), proinde sine dubio charitatem habet.
Respondeo : loquitur de fide formata, quae
per dilectionem operatur, ut S. Augustinus
exponit tractat. 10. in epist. Joannis.
Quinto objiciunt illud* Jacobi xx. Fides
sine operibus mortua est (5). Sed jam id ex¬
plicatum est in argumento nostro tertio.
Sexto objiciunt illud, Habacuc ii. Justus
ex fide vivit (6). At non vivit sine charitate,
igitur cum fide semper est charitas.
Respondeo : ad literam videtur sententia
illa. Justus ex fide vivit, quam etiam fre¬
quenter Apostolus citat, significare, Justum
sustentare se, ac tolerare desiderium coe¬
lestis patriae ex fide, quoniam fides praesen¬
tem facit quodammodo eam beatitudinem,
quae suo tempore futura speratur, ut supra
ostendimus. Est enim fides fundamentum,
et substantia rerum sperandarum. Caeterum
illud etiam est verissimum, Justum vivere
spiritualem vitam ex fide, sed ex fide, qualis
est in hominibus justis, id est, formata per
charitatem.