Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book I: On Justifying Faith
Chapter 16: That faith does not justify alone is proved by removing the causes which can be rendered why faith alone should justify
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 third principal argument, by which we prove that faith does not justify alone, is taken from the removal of the causes which can be rendered why faith alone should justify. For all causes of this kind can be recalled to three heads. The first head is the authority of the word of God; for if Scripture expressly say anywhere, “faith alone justifies,” that without doubt is to be believed, even though no cause be rendered why it should be so. The second head is the will of God justifying — namely, because it pleased God to grant justification on the sole condition of faith. The third is the nature of faith itself, since it alone has this, that it apprehends justification, and applies it to us, and makes it ours.
As to the first: the adversaries are wont indeed perpetually to boast of the express word of God, and to recall all their dogmas to this one head. But in this cause they are destitute of that defense. For nowhere hitherto have they been able to show in the sacred letters that little word “Alone,” when justifying faith is treated. But we bring forward the express word, where the negation of that word, or of its synonym, is had. You see (says James, chapter 2) that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Martin Luther indeed put out a German Bible with the word “Alone” added to Romans 3; but the fallacy was soon detected, the Greek and Latin codices, and all that are in circulation, being inspected. Nor could he himself, being admonished of this matter, deny that that word had been added by him, but answered, with his wonted modesty: “So I will, so I command; let my will stand for reason.” See Luther’s response to two articles, written to a certain friend. They are wont to answer that the word indeed is not expressly in Scripture, yet the thing itself which is signified by that word is — Romans 3, when it is said: We account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. And in the same place: Being justified freely by his grace. For to be justified freely and without the works of the law is the same; and to be justified by faith without the works of the law, and by faith alone, is the same.
But this response is not with difficulty overthrown. For first, if it is the same to be justified by faith alone and by faith without the works of the law, I ask whether that “without the works of the law” excludes all works and all law, or only some kind of works and laws. For if it exclude all works whatsoever and all law, it will exclude even faith itself. For the act of faith is a certain work, and indeed a signal one, and by this name it is called in the Gospel, John 6, the Lord saying: Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting. The Jews answered: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? To whom the Lord says: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. Wherefore St. Augustine, in the book On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 7, writes that faith is not distinguished from works as though it were not itself a work, but because it is a work of God wrought by grace, or is the first work, whence the rest are born. And he adds that faith is so distinguished from work as in the books of Kings Judah is distinguished from Israel, although Judah too is Israel. And so we work the works of God when we believe in the Lord Jesus. Without which work we shall be justified, if faith without works excludes all works — and thereby to be justified by faith will be nothing else than to be justified without faith. There is also a certain law of faith, of which it is said in that same chapter 3 to the Romans: Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. But if justifying faith without the works of the law excludes all law, it will exclude also the law of faith; and since the law of faith is faith itself, as all commonly expound that place, faith will exclude faith, and to be justified by faith will be to be justified without faith. Therefore faith without the works of the law does not exclude all works and all law, but a certain kind of works and law — that is, works done by the sole powers of nature, or from the sole knowledge of the Mosaic law, or in whatever other manner the works of the law are here to be understood. For it matters little to the argument which we now press how these things be understood, provided that this remain: that not all works and all law are excluded. But if not all works and all laws are excluded, it is not therefore true that we are justified by faith alone; nor is it the same to be justified by faith alone, and to be justified by faith without the works of the law — for the latter is of wider extent; and accordingly that beside Scripture, not to say against Scripture, is asserted.
But that word “Freely” excludes merits, which are ours from ourselves, but not the gifts of God, such as are love, penance, and the like — otherwise it would exclude faith also: “Let him not say,” says Augustine in epistle 106, “if by faith, how freely? For it is answered him: What hast thou that thou hast not received?” etc. Which same can be said of charity: if by love, how freely? Namely, because love itself is nothing but grace. Wherefore the adversaries cannot, by the authority of the express word of God, prove their sentence of faith alone justifying.
As to the second head, the adversaries seem not to place great hope in it, seeing that for the most part they are wont to deny that God justifies us for the merit of faith, or on account of the power of our faith. But if they admit that faith alone therefore justifies because God requires the condition of faith alone, they will fight against manifest testimonies of the Scriptures. For the Scriptures much more openly require, unto justification, the condition of penance and of the Sacraments than of faith itself. Ezechiel 18: If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed, he shall live, etc. Luke 13: Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. It cannot therefore be affirmed that faith alone justifies, for the reason that the condition of faith alone is required.
There remains the third head, in which they most rely: that faith alone justifies, because it alone is that which apprehends the promise of justification, or justification itself, and applies it, and makes it ours. But this too is easily refuted. For first, faith is not properly said to apprehend. For apprehension, when it is referred to the understanding, is the knowledge of a thing as it is represented in its kind, and is distinguished from judgment, which discerns and judges the apprehended thing, whether it be true or false. But that apprehensive knowledge is indeed pre-required unto faith, but is not properly faith itself; for even infidels can apprehend the mysteries of faith, when yet they do not believe them. Faith, therefore, consists rather in judgment than in apprehension. For he who judges, whether by knowledge or by faith, apprehends nothing, but weighs and discerns the thing apprehended, as I said. Nor is a thing therefore true because the understanding, by believing or knowing, judges it to be true; but contrariwise, the understanding therefore judges truly — that is, truly knows, or truly believes — because the thing is true. The same also is the reasoning of confidence, if by faith they will have confidence understood. For to trust is not to apprehend, but firmly to adhere to the thing apprehended. For he who trusts that he is, or will be, learned, does not apprehend learning by that confidence, nor begin to be learned because he trusts that he is learned; but firmly adheres to the opinion conceived about his own learning.
But be it so: let justification be in some manner apprehended by faith — certainly it is not so apprehended that it is now in fact had and inheres, but only that it be in the mind by way of an object, apprehended by the action of the understanding or of the will. But in this manner love and joy also apprehend, as St. Augustine writes in book 8 of the Confessions, chapter 2, where, speaking of Victorinus: “All wished to snatch him within into their heart, and they snatched him by loving and by rejoicing: these were the hands of the snatchers.” And so, if faith justifies because it apprehends justice, while I believe or trust that I am just through Christ, charity too justifies, while I love and rejoice that I am just through Christ. And in truth, if we were justified through apprehension of this kind, it ought to be attributed most of all to charity, which makes all things, however foreign, to be ours. For among lovers all things are common.
But what, I beseech you, will the adversaries be able to answer concerning the application of justification, which they themselves teach to be made through the Sacraments? Certainly Philip and Chemnitz (as we showed in the first book On the Sacraments in general) contend that the Sacraments are as it were visible words, which apply the general promises to those who rightly receive the Sacraments, and make them special out of general. But if the Sacraments apply the promises, and make them ours, then not by way of an applying instrument does faith alone justify. And this same is confirmed by a most open testimony of the sacred Scriptures. For as, Romans 3, the Apostle writes that God justifies men by faith, so, to Titus 3, the same Apostle writes that God justifies by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost. And as, Acts 15, the Apostle Peter says that the hearts of men are purified by God by faith, so, to the Ephesians 5, his co-apostle Paul says that the Church is cleansed by God by the laver of water in the word of life. Nor does it much matter that the Sacraments apply the promise by giving, faith by receiving. For both is an instrument of God; for not by the Sacraments does God justify, and by faith does man justify; but the same God justifies both by faith and by the Sacraments; and as the Sacraments are given by God, so also faith is given by God. And since to justify signifies an action, not a passion, more properly does the Sacrament justify, which is the instrument, and as it were the hand giving justice, than faith, which is the instrument, and as it were the hand (as they say) receiving justice. It cannot therefore be truly said either that man is justified by faith alone, or that God justifies man by faith alone, since the Sacraments perform this same thing, and more properly, than faith.
They will answer, perhaps, that faith alone excludes not the Sacraments, but works. But Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, in the chapter on Baptism, and in the assertion of articles 1, 2, 6, and others, most openly writes that the Sacraments do not justify, but faith alone. Then, if that “Alone” excludes not the Sacraments, but works, we shall return to the first head, where it has already been demonstrated that works cannot be excluded, unless faith too be excluded.
They will say that faith too is excluded, as it is a work, but not as an instrument apprehending justice. But faith is not an instrument except as a work; for faith is not anything solid and permanent, but an action and operation, and as an action and operation it apprehends justice, if in any way it apprehends it. They will say that the word “Alone” excludes works, not as works, but as merits. For so “work” is taken, Romans 4, where faith is distinguished from work, in that to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt; but to him that believeth in him who justifieth the impious, his faith is reputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of God. But if so, penance and love ought not to be excluded from the action of justifying as they are works absolutely, but only as they are meritorious works. They will say that penance, love, and similar works, faith excepted, cannot concur toward justification save under the notion of merit; and therefore, since under this notion they are excluded, they are excluded simply and absolutely; but that faith, besides the notion of merit, has also this, that it is an instrument apprehending justice, and on that account it alone among human actions is excluded not simply, but only under the notion of merit. And this is altogether the utmost to which the response of the adversaries can come, if they grant that the Sacraments justify.
But this very thing is easily refuted from the nature itself of faith and love. For (as we showed above) the act of faith is not apprehension, but judgment; and if they would improperly call judgment apprehension, they will be forced to attribute the power of apprehending to love by a better title than to faith. For love will be said to apprehend more than judgment, since it more unites. But if they will have the act of justifying faith to be not judgment, but confidence, by the same reasoning we shall say that a thing is better apprehended by love than by confidence, since the former joins and unites more than the latter.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Fidem non solam justificare , probatur ex remotione causarum, quae possunt reddi, cur fides sola justificet. Tertium argumentum principale, quo pro¬ bamus, fidem non solam justificare, sumitur a remotione causarum, quae possunt reddi, cur fides sola justificet. Omnes enim ejus¬ modi Causae ad Tria capita revocari possunt. Primum caput est, auctoritas verbi Dei ; si enim Scriptura expresse alicubi dicat, Fides sola justificat, id sine dubio credendum erit, etiamsi nulla reddatur causa, cur ita fiat. Alterum caput est voluntas De justificantis, quia videlicet placuit Deo, donare justifica¬ tionem cum sola conditione fidei. Tertium est natura ipsius fidei, quoniam ipsa sola id habet, ut apprehendat justifica¬ tionem, et nobis applicet, ac nostram esse faciat. Quod attinet ad Primum, solent quidem adversarii perpetuo jactare verbum Dei ex¬ pressum, atque ad hoc unum caput dogmata sua omnia revocare. Sed in hac causa desti¬ tuuntur isto praesidio. Nusquam enim hacte¬ nus ostendere potuerunt in sacris litteris illam particulam Sola, cum de fide justificante (1) I Tim. V, 8 ; Tit. 1, 16. — (2) Joan. VI, 65. — (3) I Joan. II, 4 ; Matth. VII, 25. — (4) I Joan. V, 1. — (5) Jacob. XX, 26. - (6) Hab. II, 4. CAPUT X\i. IBo agitur. Nos autem expressum verbum profe¬ rimus, ubi habetur negatio ejus vocis, aut synonimaj. Videtis (inquit Jacobus cap. xx) quia ex operibus justificatur homo, et non ex fule tantum (1) ? Edidit quidem Murtinus Lu- therus, Diblia Germanica cum' voce « Sola » ad Roman. m; sed cito fallacia deprehensa fuit, inspectis codicibus Graecis et Latinis, et qui circumferuntur, omnibus. Neque ipse de hac re admonitus,- negare potuit a se additam eam vocem, sed respondit pro solita sua mo¬ destia : Sic volo , sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. Vide responsionem Lutheri ad duos articulos ad amicum quemdam scri¬ ptam. Respondere solent, non esse quidem eam vocem expresse in Scriptura, tamen esse rem ipsam, qua} illa voce significatur, ad Rom. ili. cum dicitur : arbitramur hominem justi¬ ficari per fidem sine operibus legis. Et ibidem : Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius (2). Idem enim est justificari gratis et sine operibus le¬ gis. Idem vero per fidem sine operibus legis, et per solam fidem. At litec responsio non difficulter evertitur. Umero enim, si idem est per solam fidem, et per fidem sine operibus legis, utrum illud «sine operibus legis » excludat omnia opera, et omnem legem, an tantum aliquod genus operum et legum. Nam si excludat omnia omnino opera, et omnem legem, excludet etiam ipsam fidem. Nam actus fidei est quod¬ dam opus, et quidem insigne, et lioc nomine appellatur in Evangclio, Joan. vi dicente enim Domino : Operamini non cibum qui perit, sed qui permanet in vitam aeternam ? Responde¬ runt Judeei : Quid faciemus , ut operemur opera Dei ? Quibus Dominus ait : Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum , quem misit ille (3). Quare S. Augustinus in lib. de pnedestin. sanctor, cap. 7. scribit, Fidem non distin¬ gui ab operibus, quasi ipsa non sit opus, sed quoniam ipsa est opus Dei gratia factum, vel est primum opus, unde cratera nascun¬ tur. Et addit, sic distingui fidem ab opere, quomodo in libris Regum distinguitur Juda ab Israel, quamvis etiam, Juda sit Israel. Itaque operamur opera Dei, cum credimus in Dominum Jesum. Sine quo opere justifi¬ cabimur, si fides sine operibus omnia opera excludit, ac per hoc justificari ex fide, nihil aliud erit, nisi justificari sine fide. Est etiam queedam lex fidei, de qua dicitur (lj JacobfXX, 24. - (2, Itom III, 28. Toai. VI. in illoipso cap. ili. ad Rom. Exclusa est gloria¬ tio tua. Per equam legem ? factorum ? non, sed per legem fidei (4). Quod si fides justificans sine operibus legis, excludit omnem legem, excludet etiam legem fidei ; et quoniam lex fidei e'stipsa fides, ut communiter eum locum omnes exponunt; fides excludet fidem, et, ex fide justificari, erit sine fide justificari. Non igitur fides sine operibuslegis excludit omnia opera et omnem legem, sed certum genus operum et legis, id est, opera facta solis viri¬ bus natura, vel ex sola cognatione legis Mo- saicra, vel si quo alio modo opera legis hoc loco intelligenda sunt. Parum enim refert ad argumentum, quod nunc urgemus, quomodo ista intelligantur, modo illud maneat, non excludi omnia opera et omnem legem. At si non excludunturomnia operact omnes leges ; non igitur verum est, sola nos fide justifi¬ cari ; neque est idem, sola fide justificari, et per fidemjustificari sine operibus legis; illud enim latius patet; et proinde prseter Scriptu¬ ram, ne dicam contra Scripturam, asseri¬ tur. Illud autem Gratis excludit merita, quas sunt nobis ex nobis, non autem dona Dei, qualis est dilectio, poenitentia et similia, alioqui excluderet etiam fidem : « Non dicat, inquit, Augustinus in epist. 106.siper ficlem, quomodo gratis? respondetur enim ei, Quid habes quod non accepisti, etc. » Quod idem de eharitate dici potest. Si per dilectionem, quomodo gratis? nimirum, quia ipsa dilectio nihil est nisi gratia. Quare non possunt ad¬ versarii, expressi Verbi Dei auctoritate, sen¬ tentiam suam de sola fide justificante com¬ probare. . Quod attinet ad alterum caput, non viden¬ tur adversarii in illo magnam spem ponere, quippe qui ut plurimum negare solent, Deum nos justificare ob meritum fidei, aut propter nostra fidei virtutem. Graterum si admittant, fidem solam ideo justificare, quia Deus requirat conditionem solius fidei ; ma¬ nifestis Scripturarum testimoniis repugna¬ bunt. Scriptura siquidem multo apertius exigunt ad justificationem conditionem poeni¬ tentiae et Sacramentorum, quam ipsius fidei. Ezech. xviii. Si impius egerit poenitentiam ab omnibus peccatis suis, quae operatus est, vita vivet , etc. Lucte, xm. Nisi poenitentiam egeritis, omnes similiter peribitis. Joan. m. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu — (3) Joan. VI, 2.7. — (4) Rora. III, 27. 13 18G LIBER 1. sancto, non potest intrare in regnum Dei 1). Noa igitur affirmari potest, fidem solam ju¬ stificare, propterea quod solius fidei conditio requiratur. Restat caput tertium, in quo maxime ni¬ tuntur; fidem solam justificare, quod sola ipsa sit, qmc promissionem justificationis, sive ipsam justificationem apprehendit, appli¬ cat, et nostram esse facit. At hoc etiam facile refellitur. Primum enim fides non dicitur proprie apprehendere. Apprehensio enim cum refertur ad intellectum, est cognitio rei, prout in specie reprmsentatur et distinguitur a judicio, quod rem apprehensam discernit ct dijudicat, vera ne sit, an falsa. Illa autem cognitio apprehensiva prseexigitur quidem ad fidem, sed non est ipsa proprie fides, nam etiam infideles apprehendere possunt mysteria fidei, cum tamen ea non -credant. Fides igitur consistit potius in judicio, quam in apprehensione. Qui enim judicat, sive per scientiam, sive per fidem nihil apprehen¬ dit, sed rem apprehensam, ut dixi, appen¬ dit et discernit. Neque ideo res est vera, quia intellectus credendo, vel sciendo judi¬ cat esse veram, sed centra ideo intellectus vere judicat, id est, vere scit, aut vere credit, quia res est vera. Eadem quoque est ratio fiducia, si per fidem fiduciam intelligi velint. Confidere enim non est apprehendere, sed firmiter adhaerere „rei apprehensa?. Nam qui se doctum esse aut fore confidit, non apprehendit doctrinam ea fiducia, neque incipit esse doctus ; quia con¬ fidit se esse doctum; sed opinioni de sua do¬ ctrina concepta? firmiter adhaeret. Sed esto, apprehendatur aliquo modo justificatio per fidem, certe non ita appre¬ henditur, ut re ipsa jam habeatur et inhae¬ reat, sed solum ut sit in mente per modum objecti, actione intellectus, aut voluntatis apprehensi : at hoc modo apprehendunt etiam amor et gaudium, ut scribit S. Augu¬ stinus in libro vm. Confess. cap. 2. Ubi de Victorino loquens : « Volebant eum, inquit, omnes rapere intro in cor suum, et rapiebant amando, et gaudendo : Hae rapientium ma¬ nus erant». Itaque si fides Justificat, quia .justitiam apprehendit, dum credo aut con¬ fido, me esse justum per Christum; ipsa etiam charitas justificat, dum diligo, et gau¬ deo me esse justum per Christum. Et revera si per hujusmodi apprehensionem justifica¬ remur, id tribui deberet maxime charitati, qua? omnia quantumvis aliena, facit esse no¬ stra. Amantium enim omnia sunt commu¬ nia. Sed quid, obsecro, respondere poterunt adversarii ad applicationem justificationis, quam ipsi iidem per sacramenta fieri docent? certe Philippus et Kemnitius (ut ostendimus in primo libro de Sacramentis in genere) contendunt, Sacramenta esse quasi visibilia verba, qua? generales promissiones appli¬ cant iis, qui rite Sacramenta suscipiunt, eas- que speciales de generalibus esse faciunt. Quod si Sacramenta promissiones applicant, et nostras faciunt, non ergo per modum in¬ strumenti applicantis fides sola justificat. Et confirmatur hoc ipsum testimonio aper¬ tissimo sanctarum Scripturarum. Nam quem¬ admodum ad Rom. m. Apostolus scribit, Deum justificare homines per fidem; ita ad Tit. iii. idem ipse scribit, Deum justificare per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus sancti. Et sicut Actor, xv. Petrus Apostolus dicit, fide purificari a Deo corda hominum. Ita ad Ephes. v. coapostolus ejus Paulus dicit, a Deo mundari Ecclesiam lava¬ cro aquee in verbo vita?. Neque multum refert, quod Sacramenta promissionem applicant dando, fides appli¬ cat accipiendo. Nam utrumque est instru¬ mentum Dei, non enim per Sacramenta ju¬ stificat Deus, per fidem justificat homo ; sed idem Deus per fidem, et per Sacramenta justificat; etsicut Sacramenta dantur a Deo, ita et fides datur a Deo. Et quoniam justifi¬ care significat actionem non passionem, magis proprie justificat Sacramentum, quod est instrumentum, et quasi manus dans justi¬ tiam, quam fides, quee est instrumentum, et quasi manus (ut ipsi dicunt) accipiens justi¬ tiam. Non igitur vere dici potest, vel homo sola fide justificari, vel Deus hominem sola fide justificare, cum id ipsum et magis pro¬ prie preestent Sacramenta, quam fides. Respondebunt fortasse, solam fidem, non excludere Sacramenta, sed opera. At Lnthe- rus in lib. de Captivit. Babylonica cap. de Baptismo, et in assertione art. 1. 2. 6. et aliorum, apertissime scribit Sacramenta non justificare, sed solam fidem. Deinde, si illud « Sola » non excludit Sacramenta, sed opera : redibitur ad primum caput, ubi jam demon¬ stratum est, non posse excludi opera, nisi (I) Ezech. XVIII, 21 ; Lue. XIII, 5 ; Joan. 111, 3.