Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book II: On Inhering Justice
Chapter 1: On the various errors concerning the formal cause of justification
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book II. 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).
These things being dispatched which precede justification, we must now discourse of justification itself — that is, of the formal cause on account of which a man is called just before God. A great question indeed, and at this time, beyond the rest, most necessary. For the Lutheran heretics glory that a great light has been kindled by them to illustrate this disputation. Yet they have troubled it with so great a confusion of opinions that many among them already, not without reason, despair of finding the truth. I shall therefore briefly set forth their chief opinions, that thence, the state of the question being found, we may the more conveniently both prove the truth and refute the arguments which are objected against it.
First, then, Luther seems to make the formal cause of justification sometimes faith, sometimes Christ himself apprehended by faith. For thus he speaks in the commentary on chapter 2 to the Galatians: “As the Sophists say that charity informs and imbues faith, so we say that Christ informs and imbues faith, or is the form of faith. Therefore Christ, apprehended and dwelling by faith, is the Christian justice, on account of which God reputes us just, and grants eternal life.” Yet in the same place he has also this: “Our formal justice, then, is faith itself and the cloud of the heart — that is, confidence in a thing which is not seen.” And so Luther spoke variously; and therefore his disciples went off into various opinions, although they agreed in this, that they said a man is justified by faith alone, and that there is no inhering justice in us. Philip Melanchthon, in the Augsburg Confession, article 4, writes that faith itself is imputed to us for justice before God. But in article 20, and in the Apology of the Confession, articles 4, 5, 6, and 20, he more often repeats that we are not reputed just before God on account of the power of faith itself, but on account of the merit of Christ; and that we are said to be justified by faith, because faith apprehends the mercy of God. Accordingly Philip too does not always speak in one manner, since he seems now to make faith, now the merit of Christ, now the mercy of God, the formal cause of justification.
Wherefore Osiander, in the confutation of the writing which Melanchthon had published against him, testifies that twenty differing opinions about justification are numbered among the Confessionists alone. And in the book which he writes against a certain Nicticorax, he thus speaks of Philip and his disciples: “As soon as they saw some place of Scripture in which mention was made of justice, straightway out of it they fabricated a new justice.” And there he recounts fourteen opinions about justification. But Osiander himself taught, from the books of Luther, that the formal cause of justification is that very justice by which God is essentially just. For so he understood what Luther says, that Christ himself dwelling in us is our formal justice. And so Osiander does not acknowledge imputative justice with the other Lutherans, nor inhering justice with the Catholics, but indwelling justice with Luther, as he interprets him. There is extant his confession, in which he thus speaks: “Of the Confessionists, the hypocrites teach that our justice is nothing else than that God holds us for just, even though we be sinners, and that our justice is outside us.” And in the confutation of Philip’s writing he writes that God accepts no justice but his own proper and essential justice. This opinion of Osiander both very many others, and John Calvin copiously enough, refute, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 11.
Matthias Illyricus, in the Centuries, century 1, book 2, column 238, in these words proposes the opinion which he glories to have learned from Luther: “The justice which God imputes to the impious is not our qualities or virtues, nor the essence of God itself, nor a divine and substantial justice, but the whole work which Christ, man and God, in one person our Mediator, performed for the whole human race.” In almost the same manner they speak in the Colloquy of Altenburg, both the Saxons — that is, the rigid Lutherans — and the Electorals — that is, the soft: “Among us,” say these, “there is no doubt that the sacred Scripture, in clear and perspicuous words, calls the justice of Christ, by which we are justified before God, and by which we are just, the passion and obedience of Christ.” And there the Saxons: “The obedience and merit of Christ is the very thing which is imputed to us; it is the very justice which is given and ascribed to us.”
John Calvin admits indeed with the Lutherans that there is no inhering justice in us, and that the justice of Christ is imputed, and that on account of it sins are pardoned; yet he teaches that justification is properly placed in the remission of sin itself. For he thinks the name of justification to be forensic, and that to justify is nothing else than to pronounce just. And so in book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 11, section 2, he thus says: “We interpret justification simply as the acceptance by which God, receiving us into grace, holds us for just; and we say it is placed in the remission of sins and in the imputation of the justice of Christ.” And in the same place, section 3: “To justify is nothing else than to absolve from guilt one who is accused, or is on trial, as though his innocence were approved. Since, then, God justifies us by the intercession of Christ, he absolves us not by the approbation of our own innocence, but by the imputation of justice, so that we may be counted just in Christ, who are not so in ourselves.” And so when the same Calvin, in the same chapter, sections 21 and 22, and in the Antidote of the Council on session 6, contends that justification is placed in nothing but the remission of sins, he does not exclude the imputation of the justice of Christ, but internal renovation and sanctification, which he judges altogether unworthy of the name of justice.
Martin Bucer, in the book of Concord — perhaps that he might seduce some Catholics, as he did — devised a double justice by which we are formally justified: one imperfect, which is placed in the virtues inhering in us; the other perfect, which is the very justice of Christ imputed to us. For since our justice can never be such as to sustain the judgment of God (as he himself says), therefore, he says, the imputation of the justice of Christ is necessary, that, clothed and in a manner covered with it, we may appear before God, and be pronounced just. Hence in the little book exhibited to the Emperor at Ratisbon by the Lutherans (whose chief was Bucer) we thus read in article 3: “And although he who is justified receives justice, and has it through Christ even inhering, yet the faithful soul rests not on this, but on the justice of Christ alone given to us, without which there is, and can be, no justice at all.” Into the same opinion, or rather error, fell Albert Pighius, in the second controversy, and the authors of the Cologne Antididagma. Wherefore Bucer, in the book of Concord already cited, in the article on Justification, confesses that the opinion of Pighius does not dissent from the opinion of the Lutherans as regards the formal cause of justification, but only as regards the apprehensive cause, which the Lutherans define to be faith alone, Pighius rather love than faith.
But whatever Bucer say of Pighius’s communion with the Lutherans, in two things Pighius differs from the Lutherans. For first, the Lutherans do not deign to honor by any name of justice the virtues which are in us through the grace of God (Bucer alone excepted), but call them inchoate obedience and renovation, which of itself they so contemn that they will have it to be injustice, and esteem it worthy of eternal death, as is clear from Calvin, Chemnitz, and others: “All the works of men,” says Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 12, section 4, “if they be judged by their own worth, are nothing but defilements and filth.” And chapter 14, section 9: “No work can proceed from the saints which does not merit a just reward of reproaches.” Nor is it credible that Bucer himself placed inhering justice in us save in name. For he would not have dared to deny that axiom of Luther: “The just man in every good work sins mortally.” But Pighius and the men of Cologne called inhering justice imperfect, not because they believed it to be injustice, but because they judged it unequal to the greatness of the adoption of the sons of God, which is acquired through justification. Then (which is by far the greatest difference), Bucer and the other sectaries obstinately defend their opinion, nor are they prepared to acquiesce in the judgment of the Catholic Church; and accordingly they are with reason named not errant but heretics. But Pighius and the men of Cologne always remained in the communion of the Catholic Church, prepared to subject their judgment and opinion to her judgment; wherefore the charity of unity could cover their error, defended by no animosity, but by sole ignorance.
From these things which have hitherto been said, five errors about justification seem able to be numbered. One is, that the formal cause of justification is faith. For this (at least in word) we find both in the writings of Luther and in the Augsburg Confession. The second, that the formal cause of justification is the obedience of Christ, and his justice imputed to us. For this Illyricus and very many others teach. The third, that the formal cause of justification is the essential justice of God indwelling us. For this Osiander taught. The fourth, that formal justification is placed properly in the remission of sin alone. For this Calvin affirms, although he does not deny (as we said) that the imputation of the justice of Christ is also required unto justification. The fifth, that the formal cause of justification is double — our inhering justice, and the imputed justice of Christ. For this Pighius and certain others taught.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM De variis erroribus circa formalem causam justificationis. Expeditis iis, quee Justificationem praece- dunt, de ipsa justificatione, id est, de causa formali, propter quam homo dicitur justus coram Deo, disserendum est. Magna sane qufestio, et hoc tempore prseter caderas ma¬ xime necessaria. Hajretici siquidem Lutherani ad hanc dis¬ putationem illustrandam, magnum a se lu¬ men accensum esse gloriantur. Cum tamen tanta eam opinionum confusione turbaverint, ut multi jam apud eos de veritate reperienda non sine ratione desperent. Exponam igitur breviter praecipuas eorum sententias , ut inde statu quaestionis invento, commodius et veritatem comprobare, et quae contra eam objiciuntur argumenta refutare possimus. Primus igitur Lutherus causam formalem justificationis aliquando fidem , aliquando Christum ipsum fide apprehensum, facere videtur. Sic enim loquitur in comment. ad cap. n. ad Galat. « Sicut Sophistae dicunt charitatem informare et imbuere fidem ; sic nos dicimus, Christum informare et imbuere fidem , vel formam esse fidei. Ergo fide apprehensus et inhabitans Christus, est ju¬ stitia Christiana, propter quam nos Deus reputat justos, et donat vitam aeternam». Ibidem tamen etiam haec habet : « Est ergo formalis nostra justitia, ipsa fides et nebula cordis, hoc est, fiducia in rem, quae non vi¬ detur ». Itaque varie locutus est Lutherus; et ideo discipuli ejus in varias sententias abierunt, quamvis in eo convenirent, ut dicerent, sola fide hominem justificari, el nullam esse in nobis inhaerentem justitiam. Philippus Melanchton in confessione Au¬ gustana, art. 4, scribit, fidem ipsam nobis pro justitia imputari coram Deo. Sed in art. 20. et in Apologia Confessionis, art. 4. 5. 6. et 20. saepius repetit, non propter ipsam fidei virtutem nos coram Deo justos reputari, sed propter Christi meritum : dici autem nos fide justificari, quia fides apprehendit misericordiam Dei. Proinde Philippus quo¬ que non semper uno modo loquitur, cum interdum fidem, interdum Christi meritum, interdum Dei misericordiam videatur facere formalem causam justificationis. Quocirca Osiander in confutatione scripti, quod contra ipsum ediderat Melanchthon, testatur, viginti discrepantes sententias apud solos Confessionistas numerari de justifica¬ tione. Et in libro, quem scribit contra Nicti- coracem quemdam, ita loquitur de Philippo, ejusque discipulis : « Simul ac locum ali¬ quem Scripturae viderunt, in quo justitiae mentio fieret, statim ex eo novam justitiam sunt fabricati ». Atque ibidem recenset qua- tuordecim de justificatione sententias. Ip se autem Osiander ex Lntheri libris docuit, formalem causam justificationis esse illam ipsam justitiam, qua Deus essentialiter ju¬ stus est. Sic enim intellexit, quod Lntherns ait, ipsum Christum in nobis habitantem esse formalem nostram justitiam. Itaque Osiander non agnoscit imputativam justitiam cum aliis Lutheranis, neque inhajrentem cum Catholicis, sed inhabitantem cum Lu- thero, ut ipse eum interpretatur. Extat ejus confessio, in qua sic loquitur : « De confes- sionistis, hypocritie docent, justitiam no¬ stram nihil esse aliud, quam quod Deus nos pro justis habet, etiamsi simus peccatores. CAPUT I. 200 et nostram justitiam esse extra nos ». Et in confutatione scripti Philippi, scribit, Deum non acceptare ullam justitiam, nisi suam propriam, et essentialem. Refellunt hanc Osiandri sententiam, cum alii permulti, tum Joannes Calvinus satis copiose lib. iii. Inst.it. eap. 11. Matthias Illyricus in Centuriis, cent. 1. lib. ii. coi. 238. his verbis proponit senten¬ tiam, quam ex Luthero se didicisse, gloria¬ tur: « Justitia, quam Deus impio imputat, non sunt qualitates, aut virtutes nostrae, ne¬ que ipsa Dei essentia, sed divina et substan¬ tialis justitia, sed totum opus, quod Christus homo et Deus in una persona mediator no¬ ster pro toto genere humano praestitit ». Eodem fere modo loquuntur in Colloquio Altemburgensi tum Saxonici, id est, Luthe- rani rigidi, tum Electorales, id est molles : « Inter nos, inquiunt isti, nulla est dubitatio, quin sacra Scriptura justitiam Christi, per quam nos coram Deo justificamur, et qua justi sumus, passionem et obedientiam Chri¬ sti claris et perspicuis verbis appellet ». Et ibidem Saxonici : « Obedientia, inquiunt, et meritum Christi est res ipsa, quae nobis im¬ putatur, est justitia ipsa, quae nobis donatur, atque adseribitur ». Joannes Calvinus admittit quidem cum Lutheranis, non esse in nobis ullam inhae¬ rentem justitiam, et imputari Christi justi¬ tiam, et propter eam condonari peccata, proprie tamen in ipsa remissione pec¬ cati sitam esse docet justificationem. Existi¬ mat enim nomen justificationis esse forense, neque aliud esse justificare, nisi justum pro¬ nuntiare. itaque in lib. iii. Institut. cap. H. §. 2. sic ait : « Nos justificationem simpli¬ citer interpretamur acceptationem, qua nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro justis habet : eamque in peccatorum remissione, ac ju¬ stitiae Christi imputatione positam esse dici¬ mus. Et ibidem §. 3, justificare nihil aliud est, quam eum qui reus est, vel agitur, tamquam approbata innocentia a reatu ab¬ solvere. Cum itaque nos Christi intercessione justificet Deus, non propria; innocentia; ap¬ probatione , sed justitice imputatione nos absolvit, ut pro justis in Christo censeamur, qui in nobis non sumus ». Itaque cum idem Calvinus in eodem cap. §.■ 21. et 22. et in Antidoto Concilii ad sess 6. contendit, ju¬ stificationem non esse positam nisi in pecca¬ torum remissione, non excludit imputatio¬ nem justitiae Christi, sed internam renova¬ tionem^et sanctificationem ^ quam justitia; nomine omnino indignam esse judicat. Martinus Bucerus in libro Concordia;, ut fortasse Catholicos aliquos seduceret , ut fecit, duplicem justitiam excogitavit, a qua formaliter justificaremur ; unam imperfe¬ ctam, qua; in virtutibus in nobis inha;renti- bns sita sit : alteram perfectam, quse est ipsa Christi justitia nobis imputata. Quoniam enim justitia nostra numquam talis esse po¬ test, ut judicium Dei sustineat, ut ipse dicit, ideo necessariam esse imputationem justitia; Christi, ut illa induti, et quodammodo tecti coram Deo comparcamus, et justi pronun- ciemur. Hinc in libello Imperatori Ratisbo- nee exhibito a Lutheranis (quorum princeps Bucerus erat) sic legimus in art. 3. « Et si autem is qui justificatur, justitiam accipit, et habet per Christum etiam inhaerentem : tamen anima fidelis huic non innititur, sed soli justitia; Christi nobis donata;, sine qua nulla omnino est, nec esse potest justitia ». In eamdem sententiam, sive potius erro¬ rem incidit Albertus Pighius in secunda con¬ troversia, et auctores Antididagmatis Colo- niensis. Quocirca Bucerus in libro Concor¬ diae jam citato, in articulo de Justificatione, fatetur, Pighii sententiam non dissentire a Lutheranorum sententia, quod attinet ad causam formalem justificationis, sed solum quantum ad causam apprehensivam, quam Lutherani solam fidem, Pighius dilectionem potius, quam fidem esse definit. Cael erum quidquid Bucerus de Pighii communione cum Lutheranis dicat, duabus in rebus dissidet a Lutheranis Pighius. Pri¬ mum enim Lutherani virtutes, quae sunt in nobis per gratiam Dei, non dignantur ullo modo nomine justitiae (solo excepto Bucero) sed inchoatam obedientiam et renovationem vocant, quam ipsam per se adeo contemnunt, ut injustitiam esse velint , et sempiterna morte dignam existiment, ut perspicuum est ex Calvino, Kemnitio, et aliis : « Omnia ho¬ minum opera (inquit Calvinus lib. m. Insti¬ tut. cap. 12. §. 4.) si sua dignitate censean¬ tur, nihil nisi inquinamenta sunt et sordes ». Et cap. 14. §. 9. « Nullum a sanctis exire po¬ test opus, quod non mereatur justam oppro¬ briis mercedem ». Neque ipsum Bucerum credibile est, justitiam in nobis inhaerentem posuisse, nisi nomine. Neque enim axioma illud Lutheri negare ausus fuisset : « Justus in omni bono opere peccat mortaliter » . At Pighius et Colonienses justitiam inhaerentem £10 LIBER II. imperfectam dixerunt, non quod injustitiam esse crederent, sed quod eam imparem esse censerent ad magnitudinem adoptionis filio¬ rum J ei, quie per justificationem acquiri¬ tur. Deinde (quod est discrimen longe maxi¬ mum) Bucerus et caeteri sectarii, sententiam suam obstinate defendunt, neque Ecclesiae Catholicae judicio acquiescere sunt parati; proinde non errantes, sed haeretici merito nominantur. Pighius autem, et Colonienses semper in Ecclesiae Catholicae communione manserunt, parati illius judicio judicium suum, sententiamque subjicere ; quocirca illorum errorem nulla animositate, sed sola ignoratione defensum tegere potuit charitas unitatis. Ex his, quae hactenus dicta sunt, errores de justificatione quinque numerari posse vi¬ dentur. Unus est, formalem causam justifi¬ cationis esse fidem. Id enim (saltem verbo) tum in Lutberi scriptis, tum in Augustana Confessione reperimus. Alter, formalem cau¬ sam justificationis esse Christi obedientiam, et justitiam nobis imputatam. Id enim Illyri¬ cus, et plerique alii docent. Tertius, forma¬ lem causam justificationis esse justitiam Dei essentialem nos inhabitantem. Id enim docuit Osiander. Quartus, formalem justifi¬ cationem sitam esse proprie in sola remis¬ sione peccati. Id enim Calvinus affirmat, quamvis non neget (ut diximus) ad justifi¬ cationem requiri etiam imputationem justi¬ tiae Christi. Quintus, formalem causam justi¬ ficationis duplicem esse, justitiam nostram inhaerentem, et Christi justitiam imputatam. Id enim Pighius et quidam alii docuerunt.