Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book I: On Justifying Faith
Chapter 19: The first argument from the Scriptures for faith alone is solved
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).
Now the arguments are to be solved by which the adversaries contend, with great effort, that faith alone justifies. And we shall recall the testimonies of Scripture which they propose to certain heads, that confusion may be avoided. The first argument, then, they take from those testimonies which teach that a man is justified without works. For thence they do not doubt to make out that faith alone justifies. These testimonies are: Romans 3, Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. And a little after: We account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. Romans 4: If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. Galatians 2: Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law. Ephesians 2: By grace you are saved through faith, not of works. Titus 3: The goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared, not by the works of justice which we have done. Philippians 3: That I may be found in him, not having my own justice, which is of the law, but that which is of faith.
To explain these testimonies briefly, and utterly to rout the argument for faith alone, three things must be premised. First, what with the Apostle is the law of works, and the law of faith. Second, what is the difference between the justice of the law and the justice in the law. Third, what the Apostle understands by works, when he says that a man is justified without works.
As to the first, Calvin and Chemnitz and the other sectaries by the law of works understand the law which requires works, by the law of faith that which requires faith. But St. Augustine refutes this explanation, both often elsewhere and chiefly in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 13, where he demonstrates that the evangelical law, which most requires faith, requires also works, and the observance of all the commandments and of the whole Decalogue; and contrariwise it could be demonstrated that the law of Moses, which most requires works, requires also faith. The law of works, then, with the Apostle, is that which commands what is to be done; the law of faith is faith itself, which obtains the grace of doing what the law of works commands. And so both laws require works, but the law of works contains the precept, the law of faith the help. The law of works brings it about that we know, the law of faith brings it about that we do. By the law of works God says, “Do what I command”; by the law of faith we say to God, “Give what thou commandest.” Finally, the law of works is the letter, which kills by commanding and not helping; the law of faith is the spirit, which quickens by bringing help, that the justification of the law may be fulfilled in us. From which it follows that not only the law of Moses, but also the law of Christ, insofar as it commands anything, is the law of works; and the law of faith is the spirit of faith, by which not only we Christians, but also the Patriarchs and Prophets, and all the ancient just, obtained the grace of God, and, justified freely by that same grace, kept the commandments of the law.
As to the second, the justice of the law (as we also briefly indicated at the beginning of this book) are the just works which the law prescribes to be done. Nor does the Apostle anywhere reject this justice as useless, but rather so commends it that he says, Romans 2, The doers of the law shall be justified. And in the same chapter: If the uncircumcision keep the justices of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And Romans 8: God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of sin condemned sin, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. But the justice from the law, or in the law, are those works which men do without the grace of faith, helped by the sole knowledge of the law; and these works do not justify before God, but only before men, who consider only external things. This justice, as useless, blessed Paul rejects, and opposes to the justice of faith — that is, to the good works which are done from grace and faith. The same justice from the law the Apostle calls, Romans 10, one’s own justice, and opposes to the justice of God: Being ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves to the justice of God. And chapter 9: The Gentiles who followed not after justice have attained to justice, even the justice that is of faith; but Israel, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. Why so? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works. That is, the Israelites, seeking to fulfil the law of justice, in truth could not fulfil the law of justice, since they presumed to do the law of justice by their own powers, not from the grace of God which faith obtains. “They think,” says Augustine, book 3 Against Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 7, “that they fulfil the commanding law by the powers of their own will, and, entangled in this pride, are not converted to the helping grace. And thereby, in a certain wonderful, yet true, manner, the justice of the law is not fulfilled by the justice which is in the law, or of the law, but by that which is in the spirit of grace. For the justice of the law is fulfilled in them who, as it is written, walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. But according to the justice which is in the law the Apostle says that he had been without blame in the flesh, not in the spirit; and the justice which is of the law he says was his own, not God’s. It is to be understood, therefore, that the justice of the law is fulfilled not according to the justice which is in the law, or of the law — that is, according to the justice of man — but according to the justice which is in the spirit of grace. Which can be said more plainly and briefly thus: the justice of the law of God is not fulfilled when the law commands and man does it as it were by his own powers, but when the Spirit helps, and the will of man, freed not by its own but by God’s grace, does it.” See the same, book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 12, where again he disputes copiously of this very matter.
As to the third, the adversaries think that by the works which blessed Paul excludes from justification are understood all works whatsoever, whether done before faith or after faith, nay even faith itself, if it be considered as a work. But that this is a most absurd sentence, and sprung from ignorance of Scripture, the same Augustine teaches in the book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 7: “Men, not understanding what the Apostle Paul himself says, We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law, have thought him to say that faith suffices a man, even if he live ill and have not good works. Which God forbid that the vessel of election should hold.” And soon he adds that works which are done from faith are not excluded; and we too have proved above that there is required unto justification the act of hope, of fear, of penance, of love, and of faith itself — not only believing, but also praying and obtaining — which acts can with reason be called certain works. Some of the Catholics teach that by the works which the Apostle excludes from justification is understood the observance of the legal ceremonies — circumcision, the sabbath, the new moons, etc. — being moved by this reason, that Romans 3, the same Apostle, after he had said, We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law, subjoins, Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? And Romans 2, 3, 4, and Galatians 2 and 3, where this matter is discoursed of set purpose, the example of circumcision is always brought into the midst. But the constant sentence of St. Augustine, and without doubt most true, is that by the works which are opposed to faith, and excluded from justification, are understood the works which precede faith, and which are done by the sole powers of free choice. So teaches Augustine in the place cited, On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 7; On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 7; the preface on Psalm 31; and wherever he disputes of this matter. Which same St. Jerome also openly teaches, in the epistle to Ctesiphon, beyond the middle. And the reason of this sentence is that, Romans 4, Ephesians 2, and Titus 3, the Apostle simply excludes works, no mention being made of the Mosaic law. Hence we understand that not only the observance of the legal ceremonies is excluded, but also of the moral. But that all works done before faith are excluded, and not all absolutely, can be proved from Romans 4, where we read: To him that worketh, the reward is reckoned according to debt, not according to grace. In which place the Apostle himself explains what ought to be understood by the works which are opposed to faith; and says that he calls those works by which that which is rendered is a reward, not a grace. But such are none save those which are done by the sole powers of free choice. For, in the works which are done from grace — such as is the very act of faith, and those which would follow thence — that which is rendered is not simply a reward, but also a grace, nay rather more a grace than a reward. And this reason is confirmed from the very scope of the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians; for it cannot be doubted that the Apostle in those two epistles wished to demonstrate that no one can be justified without faith in Christ, and the gratuitous mercy of God. Accordingly, though he often mention circumcision and the ceremonies of the law on account of the Judaizers, who trusted much in them, yet he wished absolutely to exclude all works preceding faith — especially since in the epistle to the Romans he wished to persuade not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles, who boasted of philosophy no less than the Jews of the law, that the faith of Christ is necessary unto justification and salvation.
From these things it is easily answered to all those places. To the first, from Romans 3, I answer that the boasting of the Jews is excluded by the law of faith, not by the law of works, since a man is justified from grace, which first inspires faith, then through faith brings him to indulgence and good works; but he is not justified through the law of works — that is, through the sole knowledge of the law, and the powers of free choice. But against this Chemnitz says: “The Apostle wishes to exclude all boasting; therefore he excludes all works, even those done through faith, or from faith. For of those too someone could boast.” I answer: the Apostle does not exclude all boasting, but only that which arises from works done by the sole powers of free choice. For he does not say, “Where is boasting?” but, “Where is thy boasting?” — that is, where is the boasting by which thou gloriest in thyself, and not in the Lord? But of works done from faith, and thereby from grace, since faith is from grace, no one can glory save in the Lord; which boasting is not forbidden, since the same Apostle says, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, 2 Corinthians 10. And so St. Augustine, in the book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 7, when he had said that the Apostle, Romans 3, does not understand those who say that faith alone suffices for justification, renders the cause why it was said that a man is justified through faith without works: “Because,” he says, “the good works themselves also are to us from God, from whom to us are both faith and love.” And in the book On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 7: “Therefore the Apostle says that a man is justified through faith, not from works, because faith itself is first given, from which the rest are obtained.”
To the second, concerning Abraham, from Romans 4, I answer that Abraham was justified through faith, not through works preceding faith, since those could not have been truly just, save according to external justice; and therefore, if he had been justified through them, he would have had glory, but with men, not with God. The same is to be said to the following places, from Galatians 2, Ephesians 2, and Titus 3. For in all those places only works done before faith are excluded. But here again Chemnitz meets us, and proves that works done through faith are also excluded. For Abraham was already reborn, and worked from faith at the time of which the Apostle speaks, and yet the same Apostle excludes his works from justification. Likewise the Galatians were reborn, and believed in Christ, and yet Paul opposes their works to faith, and openly rejects them. Nay, the state of the question in the epistle to the Galatians seems to be no other than whether works from faith justify, or faith alone justifies. But the Apostle answers that a man is justified from faith, not from works — that is, from faith alone. I answer: Abraham, at the time of which the Apostle speaks, was indeed reborn, and from faith did many good works; yet the Apostle, when he says that he was justified from faith, not from works, does not reject the works done from faith, but affirms that they were not done without faith, since, if they had been such, they would never have justified him. And so he excludes the works which Abraham could have done not from faith. For even those who have faith sometimes work not from faith, as when they sin, or when they do purely moral works without relation to God. Finally the Apostle speaks with a condition: if Abraham was justified from works not proceeding from the grace of faith, as those thought who attributed justice to their own powers, certainly he had glory, but not with God. And since it is agreed enough that Abraham had glory even with God, thence he gathers that he was not justified from works without faith, but from faith, from which good works truly proceed.
Further, in the epistle to the Galatians a double question is treated: one special, whether the legal ceremonies pertain to Christians, so that without them they cannot be saved; the other general, whether through the law and the powers of nature justification can happen without the grace and faith of Jesus Christ. To both the Apostle answers negatively. But that question which Chemnitz feigns he does not touch even with a word. And that this is so is clear from those words: If justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain, Galatians 2; and from those, If the inheritance be of the law, then not of promise, Galatians 3; and from those, You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law; you are fallen from grace, Galatians 5; and Romans 4, If they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, the promise is abolished. For those consequences are most firm, if from justification be excluded works done without faith and grace, from the sole knowledge of the law and the powers of free choice. For if the law and nature suffice to justify, what need was there that Christ, by dying, should of sin condemn sin, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us? And if the law and nature suffice for justice, they suffice also for the inheritance; for God is not unjust, to defraud the just of the crown of justice, as St. Augustine speaks in the book On Nature and Grace, chapter 2. But if the law and nature suffice for the inheritance, what need was there of the promise? Finally, if the law and nature suffice, we are made void of Christ, and are fallen from grace, since we profess that we have no need of these. But those same consequences are most infirm, and effect nothing, if anyone would by them exclude works which are done from grace and faith. For Christ cannot be said to have died in vain, if we are justified from faith and the works following faith; nay, unless Christ had died, we could not be justified from faith and the works following thence. For all these things the grace of God gave us through Jesus Christ our Lord. So also, the inheritance is not therefore not of promise, because works proceeding from faith and grace are necessary unto justification; but rather it is therefore of the promise of inheritance, since without the promise there would not have been grace, without grace there would not have been faith, without faith there would not have been just works, for which the inheritance — that is, the crown of justice itself — would be rendered. And lastly, we are not made void of Christ, nor are we fallen from grace, who are justified from the faith of Christ and the works of grace; but rather, contrariwise, unless we pertained to Christ and his grace, we should not have faith and justifying works. Wherefore, since those Pauline consequences have force against those who attributed justification to works done without faith and grace, but not against those who do not exclude from justification the works following faith and grace, it manifestly follows that the Apostle in the epistle to the Galatians discourses only against those who made much of the law and works without the faith of Christ; and that the state of the question in that epistle is not whether works from faith, but whether works without faith, justify.
To the last, from Philippians 3, we answer (as we said above) that the justice from the law is called the works done from the knowledge of the law by the sole powers of nature. But against this Chemnitz objects that the Apostle speaks not only of his works which he had done before faith, when he condemns his own justice, but also of the works which he then did, when he was an Apostle of Christ. For of the former he spoke in the past, All these I counted loss; of the latter he speaks in the present, All I count but as dung. And so blessed Paul contemns all his works, whether done from faith or without faith, and holds them for dung, being content meanwhile with the faith of Christ alone. I answer: it is a wonder how prompt the heretics are to blasphemies, almost no occasion being offered. For that the Apostle, in writing, now uses the past tense, now the present, does not compel us to think that he speaks of diverse things. For he could of those same works done in the law, and before faith, say that at the beginning of his conversion he had held them all for losses, and now too holds those same for nothing, and holds them not only for losses, but even for dung, because from day to day he more and more understands the emptiness of those works. And that blessed Paul spoke, even in the present, of works done in the law and before faith, is clear from the antithesis which he makes when he says: That I may be found in him, not having my own justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ. Where he opposes his justice — that is, his just works done from faith, which are truly just before God — to his justice — that is, his just works done in the law without faith, which could not be truly just before God, but only outwardly, and in the face of men, among whom (as he himself there writes) he had lived in Judaism without blame. But what, I ask, a blasphemy it is, to name dung the works done from the faith and grace of Christ, which, Galatians 5, the same Apostle calls the fruit of the Spirit! Are then the fruits of the Holy Spirit dung? And how, 2 Timothy 4, does blessed Paul glory, and say: I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; as to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the just judge will render to me? Ought so great an Apostle to glory of dung? And what crown of justice is due to dung? And who is that just judge who deigns to crown dung? Then, what thanks do we owe to God, who created us in Christ Jesus in good works, which he prepared that we should walk in them, Ephesians 2, if those works are nothing else than dung? Finally, if the good works of the faithful are losses and dung, certainly they are not to be done and embraced, but to be shaken off and cast away. Let Chemnitz now go, and complain that we say he is an enemy of good works.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. Solvitur argumentum primum ex Scripturis . depromptum pro sola fide Nunc argumenta solvenda sunt, quibus adversarii magno conatu contendunt, solam fidem justificare. Revocabimus autem testi¬ monia Scripturae, quae illi proponunt ad cer¬ ta capita, ut confusio evitetur. Primum igitur argumentum sumunt ab illis testimoniis, quae docent, hominem sine operibus justificaid. Inde enim effici non du¬ bitant, solam fidem justificare. Testimonia haec sunt, Rom. iii : Exclusa est gloriatio tua, per quam legem ? factorum ? non. Sed per legem fidei. Et paulo post : Arbitramur ho- 192 LIBER I. minem justificari per fidem sine operibus legis. Rom. iv. Si Abraham ex operibus justifica-, tus est habet gloriam , sed non apud Deum. Galat. ii. Scientes, quod non justificabitur homo ex operibus legis. Ephes. n._ Gratia es¬ tis salvati per fidem, non ex operibus. Tit. iu. Apparuit benignitas et humanitas Salvatoris nostri Dei, non ex operibus justitiae, quae fe¬ cimus nos. Philipp. m. Ut inveniar in illo - non habens meam justitiam, quae ex lege est, sed eam. equae est ex fide (i). Aci haec testimonia breviter explicanda, et argumentum pro sola fide penitus profligan¬ dum, tria quaedam praenotanda erunt. Pri¬ mo, quid sit apud Apostolum lex factorum, et lex fidei. Secundo, quid intersit inter ju¬ stitiam legis et justitiam in lege. Tertio, quid intelligat Apostolus per opera, cum dicit, hominem justificari sine operibus. Quod attinet ad primum, Calvinus et Kemnitius et alii sectarii, per legem facto¬ rum intelligunt legem, quae requirit opera, per legem tidei eam, quae requirit fidem. Sed refellit hanc explicationem S. Augusti¬ nus, cum alibi saepe, tum praecipue in libro de spiritu et littera cap. 13. ubi demonstrat, legem evangelicam, quae maxime requirit fidem requirere ’ etiam opera, et omnium mandatorum, ac totius Decalogi observatio¬ nem : et contra demonstrari posset, legem - Mosis, quae maxime requirit opera, require¬ re etiam fidem. Lex igitur factorum apud Apostolum est ea, quae jubet quid sit faciendum, lex fidei est ipsa fides, quae impetrat gratiam facien¬ di, quod lex factorum jubet. Itaque utraque lex requirit opera, sed lex factorum continet praeceptum, lex fidei auxilium. Lex factorum praestat, ut cognoscamus, lex fidei facit, ut faciamus. Lege factorum dicit Deus, fac quod jubeo, lege fidei dicimus Deo, da quod ju¬ bes. Denique lex factorum est littera, quae occidit jubendo et non juvando, lex fidei est spiritus, qui vivificat opem ferendo, ut justi¬ ficatio legis impleatur in nobis. Ex quo se¬ quitur, ut non solum lex Mosis, sed etiam lex Christi, quatenus aliquid imperat, sitlex factorum, et lex fidei sit spiritus fidei, non solum quo nos Christiani, sed etiam Patriar¬ chae et Prophetae, et omnes antiqui justi, Dei gratiam impetrarunt, et justificati gratis per eamdem gratiam, legis mandata servarunt. Quantum ad secundum, justitia legis (ut etiam initio hujus libri breviter indicavimus) sunt opera justa, qiue lex facienda praescri¬ bit. Neque hanc justitiam usquam Apostolus rejicit tamquam inutilem, sed contra potius ita commendat, ut dicat Roman. n. Factores legis justificabuntur. Et in eod . cap. Si praeputium justitias legis custodiat, nonne prae¬ putium in circumcisionem reputabitur ? Et Rom. vm. Deus misit Filium suum in si¬ militudinem carnis peccati, et de peccato dam¬ navit peccatum, ut justificatio legis impleretur in nobis (2). At justitia ex lege, sive in lege sunt illa opera, qure homines faciunt sine gra¬ tia fidei, sola cognitione legis adjuti, et haec opera non justificant coram Deo, sed solum coram hominibus, qui tantum externa con¬ siderant. Hanc justitiam tamquam inutilem B. Pau¬ lus rejicit, et opponit justitia} fidei, hoc est, operibus bonis, quae fiunt ex gratia et fide. Eamdem justitiam ex lege vocat Apostolus ad Roman. x. justitiam propriam, et oppo¬ nit justitia) Dei : Ignorantes, inquit, Dei ju¬ stitiam, et suam quaerentes statuere , justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti. Et cap. ix. Gentes, quae non sectabantur justitiam, apprehende¬ runt justitiam ; Jus titioni autem, quae ex fide est ; Israel autem sectando legem justitiae, in legem justitiae non pervenit. Quare 1 quia non ex fide, sed quasi ex operibus (3). Hoc est, Israelitee quaerentes implere legem justitia;, revera legem justitiae implere non potuerunt; quoniam viribus propriis non ex gratia Dei, quam fides impetrat, legem justitiae facere praesumpserunt : « Putant, inquit Augusta¬ nus libro iii. contra duas epistolas Pelagian. cap. 7. se arbitrii sui viribus implere legem jubentem, et ista implicati superbia, ad gra¬ tiam non convertuntur juvantem. Ac per hoc miro quodam modo, sed tamen vero, justitiam legis non implet justitia quae in le¬ ge est, vel ex lege, sed quae in spiritu gra¬ tiae. Justitia quippe legis impletur in eis, sic¬ ut scriptum est, qui non secundum carnem ambulant, sed secundum spiritum. Secun¬ dum justitiam vero, quae in lege est, se fuisse sine querela in carne, non in spiritu, dicit Apostolus, et justitiam quae ex lege est, su¬ am dicit fuisse, non Dei. Intelligendum est igitur, justitiam legis non impleri secundum justitiam quae in lege est, vel ex lege, id est, (1) Rom. III, 27 ; ibid. 28; Rom. IV, 2 ; Gal. II, 16; Eph. II, 8 ; Tit. III, 5; Phil. III, 9. —(2) Rom, II, 13 ; ibid. 16; Rom. VIII, 4, - (3) Rom. X, 3; ibid IX, 30. CAPUT XIX. m secundam justitiam hominis, sed secundum justiliam, quae est in spiritu gratiae. Quod planius, et brevius ita dici potest, justitiam legis Dei non impleri, cum lex jubet, et ho¬ mo quasi suis viribus facit, sed cum spiritus adjuvat, et hominis non libera, sed Dei gra¬ tia liberata voluntas facit». Vide eumdem lib. de grat. et libero arbitr. c. 12. ubi rur¬ sus de hac ipsa re copiose disputat. Quod jam ad tertium pertinet, adversarii existimant per opera, qua? B. Paulus a ju¬ stificatione excludit, intelligi omnia omnino opera, sive ante fidem, sive post fidem facta, irnmo etiam ipsam fidem, si consideretur ut opus. At hanc absurdissimam esse sententiam, et ab ignoratione Scripturae profectam, do¬ cet idem Augustinus in libro de gratia et li¬ bero arbitrio cap. 7. « Homines, inquit, non intelligentes, quod ait ipse’ Apostolus Pau¬ lus, Arbitramur hominem justificari per fi¬ dem sine operibus legis, putaverunt eum dicere, sufficere homini fidem, etiamsi male vivat, et bona opera non habeat. Quod ab¬ sit, ut sentiret vas electionis ». Et mox ad¬ jungit, non excludi opera, quae fiunt ex fide, et nos etiam supra probavimus, requiri aci justificationem actum spei, timoris, poeni¬ tentiae, dilectionis, et ipsius fidei, non solum credentis, sed etiam orantis et impetrantis, fjui actus opera quaedam merito dici pos¬ sunt. Nonnulli ex Catholicis docent, per opera, quae a justificatione Apostolus excludit, in¬ telligi observationem legalium caeremonia¬ rum, circumcisionis, sabbati, neomeniarum etc., qui ea ratione moventur, quodadRom. cap. m. idem Apostolus posteaquam dixerat : Arbitramur hominem justificari per fidem sine operibus legis, subjungit, An Judaeorum Deus tantum ? nonne et gentium' (1)? Et ad Rom. ii. m. cf. iv. et ad Galat. ii. et m. ubi de hac re disseritur ex proposito, semper adducatur in medium exemplum circumcisionis. Caeterum sententia S. Augustini constans, et sine dubitatione verissima est, per opera, quae fidei opponuntur, et a justificatione excluduntur, intelligi opera, quae fidem prae¬ cedunt, quaeque solis viribus liberi arbitrii fiunt. Ita docet Augustinus loco citato de gratia et libero arbitrio cap. 7. de praede¬ stinatione Sanctorum cap. 7. praefat. in Psal. 31 . et ubicumque de hac re disputat. Quod idem aperte docet etiam S. Hieronymus in epistola ad Ctesiphontem, ultra medium. Et ratio hujus sententiae est, quoniam ad Ro- man. iv. ad Ephes. ii. et ad Tit. m. Apostolus simpliciter excludit opera, nulla mentione facta legis Mosaicae. Hinc enim intelligimus, non excludi solum legalium caeremoniarum observationem, sed etiam moralium. Excludi autem omnia opera facta ante fi¬ dem, non autem omnia absolute, probari potest ex cap. iv. ad Rom. ubi legimus : Ei qui operatur, merces imputatur secundum debitum, non secundum gratiam (2). Quo loco explicat Apostolus ipse, quid intelligi debeat per opera, quae opponuntur fidei ; ac dicit, illa se vocare opera, quibus id, quod, reddi¬ tur, est merces, non gratia. Talia autem non sunt nisi illa, qua? fiunt ex solis viribus liberi arbitrii.' Nam operibus, quae fiunt ex gratia, qualis est ipse actus fidei, et quae inde con¬ sequeretur, id quod redditur, non est sim¬ pliciter merces ; sed etiam gratia, immo magis gratia quam merces. Et confirmatur haec ratio ex ipso scopo epistolar. ad Rom. et ad Galatas, neque e- nim dubitari potest, quin Apostolus in dua¬ bus illis epistolis demonstrare voluerit, ne¬ minem posse justificari sine fide in Chri¬ stum, et gratuita Dei misericordia. Proinde quamvis saepe meminerit circumcisionis, et caeremoniarum legis propter Judaizantes, qui multum in illis confidebant : tamen ab¬ solute omnia opera fidem praecedentia ex¬ cludere voluit ; praesertim cum in epistola ad Romanos, non solum Judaeis, sed etiam gentilibus, qui non minus philosophiam ja¬ ctabant, quam Judaei legem, Christi fidem necessariam esse ad justificationem, et salu¬ tem persuadere voluerit. Ex his facile respondetur ad illa omnia lo¬ ca. Ad primum ex cap. 3. ad Rom. respon¬ deo, excludi gloriationem Judaiorum per legem fidej, nonper legem factorum, quoniam homo justificatur ex gratia, qua? primo fidem inspirat, deinde per fidem ad indulgentiam, et opera bona perducit ; non autem justifi¬ catur per legem factorum, id est, per solam notitiam legis, et vires liberi arbitrii. At contra Kemnitius : « Apostolus, inquit, vult excludere omnem gloriationem, igitur excludit omnia opera, etiam facta per fidem, vel ex fide. Nam de illis etiani posset aliquis gloriari ». Respondeo : non excludit Aposto¬ li) Rom. HI, 28 - (2) Rom. IV, 4. LIBEM I. ■194 lus omnem gloriationem, sed illam solum, qua; oritur ex operibus per solas vires liberi arbitrii factis. Non enim dicit, ubi est gloria¬ tio ? sed ubi est gloriatio tua ? id est, ubi est gloriatio, qua in te gloriaris, et non in Do¬ mino ? ex operibus autem factis ex fide, ac per hoc ex gratia, cum fides ex gratia sit, nemo potest gloriari, nisi in Domino, quse gloriatio non est prohibita, cum idem Apo¬ stolus dicat : Qui gloriatur, in Domino glo- rietur , II Corint. x (1). Itaque S. Augustinus libro de gratia et li¬ bero arbitrio cap. 7. cum dixisset, non intel- ligere Apostolum ad Rom. m. eos, qui dicunt solam fidem sufficere ad justificationem, red¬ dit causam cur dictum sit, hominem justifi¬ cari per fidem sine operibus : « Quia, inquit, et ipsa bona opera nobis ex Deo sunt, a quo nobis et fides est, et dilectio » . Et in lib. de praedestinat. Sanctorum cap. 7. « Ideo, in¬ quit, per fidem justificari dicit Apostolus ho¬ minem, non ex operibus, quia ipsa prima datur, ex qua impetrentur cietera. » Ad secundum de Abrahara ex cap. 4. ad Rom. respondeo, Abrahamum justificatum fuisse per fidem, non per opera praeceden¬ tia fidem, quoniam non potuissent illa esse vere justa, fiisi secundum externam justi¬ tiam, et ideo si per illa justificatus fuisset, habuisset gloriam, sed apud homines, non apud Deum. Idem dicendum est ad loca se¬ quentia ex cap. 2. ad Galat. cap. 2. ad E- phes. et cap. 3. ad Titum. Nam in illis om¬ nibus locis solum excluduntur opera facta ante fidem. Sed hic etiam occurrit Kemnitius, ac pro¬ bat, excludi etiam opera facta per fidem. Nam Abraham jam renatus erat, et ex fide operabatur eo tempore, de quo loquitur A- postolus, et tamen idem Apostolus excludit opera ejus a justificatione. Item Galatae re¬ nati erant, et in Christum credebant, et ta¬ men eorum opera Paulus opponit fidei, et aperte rejicit. Immo status quaestionis in epist. ad Galat. non alius e^se videtur, nisi utrum opera ex fide justificent, an fides sola justificet. Apostolus autem respondet, homi¬ nem justificari ex fide, non ex operibus, id est, ex sola fide. Respondeo : Abraham eo tempore, de quo loquitur Apostolus, renatus quidem erat, et ex fide multa bonaopera faciebat : tamen Apostolus cum dicit, eum justificatum esse ex fide, non ex operibus ; non rejicit opera facta ex fide, sed affirmat illa non esse facta sine fide, quia si talia fuissent, numquam eum justificassent. Itaque excludit opera, qua; Abraham facere potuisset non ex fide. Nam etiam ii, qui fidem habent, aliquando operantur non ex fide, ut cum peccant, aut cum faciunt opera pure moralia sine relatio¬ ne ad Deum. Denique loquitur Apostolus cum conditio¬ ne, si Abraham justificatus est ex operibus, non procedentibus ex gratia fidei, ut ii pu¬ tabant, qui suis viribus tribuebant justitiam; certe habuit gloriam, sed non apud Deum. Et quoniam satis constat, Abrahamum ha¬ buisse gloriam etiam apud Deum, inde col¬ ligit, eum non esse justificatum ex operibus sine fide, sed ex fide, ex qua bona opera ve¬ re procedunt. Porro in epist. ad Galat. duplex tractatur qusestio : una specialis, an cferemoniae lega¬ les ad Christianos pertineant, ita ut sine illis salvi esse non possint; altera generalis, an per legem, et vires natura; possit contingere justificatio sine gratia, ct fide JESU Christi. Ad utramque respondet Apostolus negative. Quiestionem autem illam, quam fingit Kom- nitius, ne verbo quidem attingit. Id autem ita se habere, perspicuum est ex illis verbis : Si per legem justitia , ergo Christus gratus mortuus est. Galat. n. et ex illis ; Si ex lege hsereditas, ergo non ex promissione. Ga¬ lat. m. et ex illis : Evacuati estis a Christo , qui in lege justificamini , a gratia excidistis. Galat. v. et Rom. iv. Si ex lege hxreditas , exinanita est fdes, abolita est promissio (2). Nam istfe consecutiones firmissima; sunt, si excludantur a justificatione opera facta si¬ ne fide et gratia, ex sola cognitione legis, et viribus liberi arbitrii. Nam si lex, et natura sufficiunt ad justificandum ; quid opus fuit, ut Christus moriendo, de peccato damnaret peccatum, ut justificatio legis impleretur in nobis ? et si lex, et natura sufficiunt ad ju¬ stitiam, sufficiunt etiam ad heereditatem, non enim injustus est Deus, ut justos fraudet co¬ rona justitio;, ut S. Augustinus loquitur in libro de natura et gratia cap. 2. Quod si lex, et natura sufficiunt ad luereditatem, quid opus fuit promissione ? Denique si lex, et natura sufficiunt, evacuati sumus a Christo, ct a gratia excidimus, quoniam his opus no¬ bis non esse profitemur. (1) II Cor. X, 17. - (2) Gal. II, 21 ; ibid. III, 18; ibid. V, 4; Rom. IV, 14. CAPUT XX. 19h At eaedem ista; consecutiones infirmissimae sunt, neque aliquid efficiunt, si quis per eas excludere velit opera, quae fiunt ex gratia et fide. Neque enim Christus gratis mortuus dici potest, si justificamur ex fide et operi¬ bus consequentibus fidem : imo nisi Christus mortuus esset, non possemus ex fide et ope¬ ribus inde sequentibus justificari. Haec enim omnia gratia Dei donavit nobis per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Sic etiam, non ideo haercditas non est ex promissione, quia opera ex fide et gratia procedentia ad justi¬ ficationem sunt necessaria ; quin potius ideo est ex promissione haereditatis, quoniam sine promissione non fuisset gratia, sine gratia non fuisset fides, sine fide non fuis¬ sent opera justa, quibus redderetur haere- ditas, id est, ipsa coronajustitiae. Ac demum non evacuamur a Christo neque a gratia ex¬ cidimus, qui ex fide Christi, et operibus gra¬ tiae justificamur, sed contra potius, nisi ad Christum, et ejus gratiam pertineremus, fi¬ dem et opera justificantia non haberemus. Quare cum Paulinae illae consecutiones vim habeant adversus eos, qui justificatio¬ nem operibus factis sine fide, et gratia tri¬ buebant, non autem adversus eos, qui a ju¬ stificatione opera consequentia fidem, et gratiam non excludunt; manifeste sequitur, Apostolum in epist. ad Galatas contra eos tantum disserere, qui legem, et opera sine fide Christi magnifaciebant : neque statum quaestionis in ea epistol. . esse, an opera ex fide, sed an opera sine fide justificent. Ad ultimum ex cap. m. ad Philip, respon¬ demus (ut supta diximus) justitiam ex lege, vocari opera, facta ex cognitione legis per solas naturae vires. At contra objicit Kemnitius , Apostolum non solum loqui de operibus suis, quae fece¬ rat ante fidem, cum damnat justitiam pro¬ priam, sed etiam de operibus, quae tunc fa¬ ciebat, cum esset Apostolus Christi. Nam de prioribus dixit in praeterito, omnia arbitratus sum detrimenta , de posterioribus dicit in praesenti, omnia arbitror ut stercora. Itaque B. Paulus omnia opera sua, sive ex fide, sive sine fide facta contemnit, et pro stercoribus habet, sola interim Christi fide conten¬ tus. Respondeo: mirum est, quam prompti sint haeretici ad blasphcmias, nulla ferme oblata occasione. Nam quod Apostolus inter scri¬ bendum nunc utatur tempore praeterito , nunc tempore praesenti, non cogit, ut existi¬ memus eum loqui de rebus diversis. Potuit enim de iisdem illis operibus factis in lege, et ante fidem dicere, se initio conversionis illa omnia pi^ detrimentis habuisse, et nunc etiam illa eadem nihili facere, et non solum pro detrimentis, sed etiam pro stercoribus habere, quod in dies magis ac magis intel- ligat illorum operum inanitatem. Et re vera locutum esse B. Paulum, etiam in praesenti, de operibus factis in lege, et ante fidem, perspicuum est ex antithesi, quam facit cum dicit : Ut inveniar in illo , non habens meam justitiam , qase ex lege est , sed illam, quae ex fide est Christi. Ubi opponit justitiam suam, id est, opera sua justa facta ex fule, quae sunt vere justa coram Deo, justitiae suae, id est, operibus suis justis factis in lege sine fi¬ de, quae non poterant esse vere justa coram Deo, sed solum exterius, et in facie homi¬ num, apud quos (ut ipse ibidem scribit) fue¬ rat in Judaismo sine querela versatus. At quimta quaeso blasphemia est, opera facta ex fide, et gratia Christi, stercora no¬ minare, quae ad Galat. v. Fructus spiritus ipse idem vocat Apostolus? ergo ne Spiritus sancti fructus stercora sunt? et quo modo II Timoth. iv. B. Paulus gloriatur, et dicit : Bonum certamen certavi , cursum consummavi , fidem servavi. In reliquo reposita est mihi co¬ rona justitiae , quam reddet mihi justus judex? Ita ne de stercoribus gloriari debuit tantus Apostolus ? et quai debetur stercoribus coro¬ na justitiae ? et quis ille est justus judex, qui stercora coronare dignatur? Deinde , quam gratiam debemus Deo, qui nos creavit in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis, quae praepa¬ ravit ut ambulemus in illis ad Ephes. ii. si ista opera nihil sunt aliud, nisi stercora? Denique, si opera bona fidelium, detrimenta, ac stercora sunt, certe facienda, et ample¬ ctenda non sunt, sed excutienda, atque abji¬ cienda sunt. Eat nunc Kemnitius, et quera¬ tur, quod eum hostem operum bonorum esse dicamus.