Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book III: On the Uncertainty, Mutability, and Inequality of Justice
Chapter 3: Various opinions on the proposed question are reviewed
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book III. 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).
Concerning the proposed question, then, there seem to be three opinions, or rather errors. The first is of all the heretics of this time, who teach three things. First, that the faithful can have such knowledge of their own grace as to determine with certain faith that their sins are remitted them. Second, that not only can, but also ought all to determine this of themselves, otherwise they will be neither faithful nor just. Third, that by this very faith, and by this faith alone, men are justified. So Luther, in articles 10, 11, and 12, and in the assertion of the same articles; Melanchthon in the Commonplaces, under the title of faith, and in the Apology of the Confession, articles 4 and 20; Bucer in the book of Concord, article on Justification; Calvin in the Antidote of the Council, session 6, and in book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 2, sections 16, 17, 18, and the rest, to the end of the chapter; Chemnitz in the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 6; and others.
The second opinion is of the author of the Cologne Enchiridion, in the treatise on Justification, who of those three errors of the heretics receives only not the third. For he will have it necessary unto justification that each one believe for certain that his sins are remitted him; but yet he denies that a man is justified by faith alone. “We confess,” he says, “that it is true that unto the justification of a man it is altogether required that a man believe for certain, not only generally, that on account of Christ sins are remitted to those truly penitent, but also that to the very believing man they are remitted on account of Christ through faith.” Thus he. But that book in many other respects seems worthy of Ecclesiastical censure. Certainly in its manner of speaking it strongly smacks of the doctrine of Melanchthon and Bucer. The third opinion is of Ambrose Catharinus, who communicates with the heretics only in the first saying. For he does not teach that certitude of faith about one’s own grace is necessary unto justification, nor that by this faith, by which a man believes himself to be just, and much less by this faith alone, a man is justified; but only asserts that a faithful man can have certitude of faith about his own grace. And accordingly his opinion is far distant from the heresy of the Lutherans, though it is not without reason wont to be judged erroneous. See his assertions, and the Apology against Dominic Soto.
Contrary to these errors is the opinion common to almost all Theologians, who teach that men cannot in this life have certitude of faith about their own justice, those excepted to whom God deigns to indicate this by special revelation. So teaches St. Thomas in 1.2, question 112, article 5; likewise St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Durandus, and others, on the first book of the Sentences, distinction 17; and of the more recent, John of Rochester against articles 10 and 11 of Luther; Alphonsus of Castro, book 7 against heresies, at the word Grace; Dominic Soto, book 3 On Nature and Grace, chapter 10 and following; Ruard Tapper in the explanation of article 9 of the Louvain men; John of Louvain in the book On Special Faith; Andrew Vega, book 9 on the Council of Trent; Nicholas Sander, and Thomas Stapleton, in the books On Justification; and others. And this seems to be the opinion not only of particular Theologians, but also of the very Universities, and, what is far greater, of the Ecumenical Council itself. The University of Paris, in those censures which it published on the articles of Luther, having recited those words of Luther, “Most ill do the Theologians teach when they say that we know not when we are in grace,” added this censure: “This proposition, understanding ‘to know not’ by the certitude of faith of which he speaks in writing, is false, dissonant from the holy Doctors, and from the sacred understanding of Scripture.” The University of Louvain, in the articles against the Lutherans, article 9, has thus: “The faith by which one firmly believes and certainly determines that through Christ his sins are remitted him, and that he shall possess eternal life, has no testimony in the Scriptures, nay is adverse to them.”
Ambrose Catharinus indeed tries to wrest these two testimonies to another meaning; for he says that by those Universities only the opinion of the heretics was condemned, which teaches that a man is certain that his sins are remitted him by the certitude of faith — not of any faith whatever, but of the faith which alone justifies. But he tries in vain. For the University of Paris, when it says, “understanding by the certitude of faith of which he speaks in writing,” by that “of which” signifies not faith, but certitude. For it distinguishes the certitude of faith from the certitude of science. Moreover the Parisians condemn what Luther affirms, and approve what he disapproves. But Luther, when he reprehends the Theologians for saying that we know not when we are in grace, treats not of justification, but of the certitude of faith. For he does not accuse the Theologians of denying that we are justified by faith alone, but of saying that we know not when we are in grace. The Parisians, then, judged this very thing in Luther worthy of censure — that he affirmed that we can determine, by the certitude of faith, when we are pleasing to God. But the opinion of the Louvain men is too clear to be able to be depraved. For that error about faith alone justifying they had already before condemned in article 8; and accordingly in article 9 they do not again repeat what they had said, but condemn another error, which is about the certitude of one’s own justification.
But let us hear the decree of the Council of Trent, to which all Catholics willingly subject their understandings and judgments: “As no pious man” (it says, session 6, chapter 9) “ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, so each one, while he regards himself and his own weakness and indisposition, can be in fear and dread about his own grace; since no one can know, with the certitude of faith to which falsehood cannot underlie, that he has obtained the grace of God.” And chapter 16: “And because in many things we all offend, each one ought to have before his eyes the severity and judgment, as well as the mercy and goodness; nor ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be conscious to himself of nothing, since the whole life of men is to be examined and judged not by human judgment, but by God’s.” To this testimony of the Council Catharinus answers in a long discourse; the sum is: that the Council published that decree against the heresies of the Lutherans, not against the opinions of Catholics — which he proves from the title of the chapter, which is, Against the vain confidence of the heretics. He adds that by that decree not all certitude of faith about one’s own grace and justice is denied, but the certitude of Catholic faith. And this he proves, both from those words, “to which falsehood cannot underlie,” which agree only with Catholic faith; and from this, that otherwise no one could be certain, with the certitude of faith, that his sins are remitted him, even though he had a special revelation — for the Council excepted nothing.
This defense of Catharinus does not seem sufficiently apt. For first, nothing hinders that the Council chiefly publish a decree against the heretics, and at the same time condemn all erroneous opinions which have something common with the errors of the heretics that are condemned in that decree. And so the title of that ninth chapter indicates to what the words of the decree chiefly look, but does not forbid us to understand that other things too are condemned which are not expressed in that title, provided they be expressed in the decree. But that the Council rejects not the certitude of Catholic faith alone, but of all divine faith, can be understood: first, from this, that the Council of set purpose made no mention of Catholic faith, that by like glosses it might preclude entrance, and include all true and divine faith. Then, from this, that in express words it teaches that there is no one who cannot be in dread about his own grace. But he who has the certitude of faith cannot be in dread, otherwise he does injury to divine faith. Third, since all divine faith has the certitude of Catholic faith; for faith is not certain because Catholic, but because divine. For faith has certitude not because it is common to the whole Church, but because it rests on the authority of God, who can neither be deceived nor deceive, since he is truth itself. “But,” says Catharinus, “it belongs to Catholic faith alone that falsehood cannot underlie it, since it is of an object approved by the Church; but to particular divine faith falsehood can underlie, since it is of an object not approved by the Church.” I answer that this is a new and unheard-of doctrine, that falsehood can underlie divine faith before its object has been approved by the Church. For the approbation of the Church brings it about that it be known to all that that object is revealed by God, and therefore certain and undoubted; but it does not give firmness to the word of God revealing something. And so it implies a contradiction that anything be revealed by God, and falsehood be able to underlie it, whether it be approved by the Church or not. Otherwise what Christ said to the Paralytic and to Magdalen, Thy sins are forgiven thee, could be false, because it had not yet been approved by the Church — who would so dote as to think that the words of Christ depend on the approbation of the Church? And if anyone baptize an infant with the intention of truly baptizing, will he not be held a heretic if he doubt whether that infant is truly justified? And yet this object is not approved by the Church. Finally, the Prophets and Apostles, to whom the divine mysteries were immediately revealed, were they not bound to believe them before they were approved by the Church? And was not their faith so certain that in no wise could falsehood underlie it? For if falsehood could underlie the faith of the Prophets and Apostles, certainly much more could falsehood underlie the faith of the rest of the Church. For the rest of the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, as the Apostle says, Ephesians 2. “Why, then,” says Catharinus, “did the Council not except special revelation, when it defined that there is no one who cannot be in dread about his own grace?” The answer is at hand: because privileges are always understood to be excepted. For the Council, when it teaches that no one is certain by the certitude of faith that his sins are remitted him, speaks of the certitude which is had through ordinary means, such as are the Scriptures, the Sacraments, good works, and other things of that kind. Further, the same Council in most express words condemns the error of the Cologne Enchiridion, when it thus speaks, session 6, canon 13: “If anyone say that it is necessary for every man, unto obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain and without any hesitation of his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are remitted him, let him be anathema.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Recensentur varice sententiae de proposita quaestione. De proposita igitur quaestione tres viden¬ tur esse sententiae, sive potius errores. Pri¬ mus est, omnium hujus temporis Haeretico¬ rum qui tria docent. Primo, posse fideles eam notitiam habere de sua gratia, ut certa fide statuant, sibi remissa esse peccata. Se¬ cundo, non solum posse, sed etiam debere omnes hoc de se statuere, alioqui nec fideles, nec justos futuros. Tertio, hac ipsa fide, et sola hac fide homines justificari. Ita Luthe- rus in artic. 10. 11. et 12. et eorumdem ar¬ ticulorum assertione. Melanhcthon in Lo¬ cis, tit. de fide, et in Apologia Confessionis, artic. 4. et 20. Bucerus in lib. Concordiae, artic. de Justificatione. Calvinus in Antidoto Concilii sess. 6. et in lib. iii, Institut. cap. 2. §, 16. 17. 18. et caeteris, usque ad finem capitis. Kemnitius in Examino Concilii Tri- dentini sess. 6. et alii. Altera sententia est auctoris Enchiridii Coloniensis in tractatu de Justificatione, qui ex tribus illis haereticorum erroribus so¬ lum tertium non recipit. Vult enim necessa¬ rium esse ad justificationem, ut certo credat unusquisque sibi remissa esse peccata : sed tamen negat, hominem sola fide justificari ; « Fatemur, inquit, » verum esse ad justifica¬ tionem hominis omnino requiri, ut homo certo credat, non tantum generaliter, quod propter Christum vere poeni tentibus remit¬ tantur peccata, sed et quod ipsimet homini credenti remissa sint propter Christum per fidem». Haec ille. Sed liber ille in multis CAPUT Ili. 2oi aliis censura Ecclesiastica dignus esse vide¬ tur. Certe in modo loquendi doctrinam Me- lanchthonis et Buceri valde redolet. .Tertia sententia est Ambrosii Catharini, qui solum in primo dicto cum tuereticis communicat. Non enim docet, certitudinem fidei de propria gratia necessariam esse ad justificationem, neque hac fide, qua homo credit, se justum esse, et multo minus hac sola fide hominem justificari, sed tantum asserit, posse hominem fidelem habere cer¬ titudinem fidei de sua gratia. Proinde sen¬ tentia ejus longe distat ab haeresi Luthera- norum, tametsi erronea non immerito judi¬ cari solet. Vide assertiones ejus, et Apolo- giam contra Dominicum aSoto. Ilis erroribus contraria est sententia com¬ munis fere omnibus Theologis, qui docent, non posse homines in hac vita habere certitu¬ dinem fidei de sua justitia, iis exceptis, qui¬ bus Deus speciali revelatione hoc indicare dignatur. Ita docet sanctus Thomas in 1. 2. quaist. 112. art. 5. Item sanctus Bonaven- tura, Scotus, Durandus, et alii, in primum sententiarum, distin. 17. et ex recentiori- bus Joannes Roffensis contra articul. 10. et 11. Lutheri, Alphonsus a Castro lib, vii. adversus liseres. verbo, Gratia, Dominicus a Doto lib. 3. de natura et gratia, cap. 10. et seq. Ruardus Tapper in explicatione artic. 9. Lovaniensium, Joannes a Lovanio in lib. de fide speciali. Andreas Vega lib. ix. in Con¬ cilium Tridentinum, Nicolaus Sanderus, et Thomas Stapletonus in libris de Justifica¬ tione, et alii. Videtur autem haec esse sententia non so¬ lum particularium Theologorum, sed etiam ipsarum Academiarum, et quod longe ma¬ jus est, ipsius Concilii OEcumenici. Pari- siensis Academia in iis censuris, quas ad articulos Lutheri edidit, recitatis verbis illis Lutheri : « Pessime docent Theologi, quan¬ do dicunt, nos nescire, quando simus in gratia », hanc censuram adjecit. «Haec pro¬ positio, intelligcndo nescire certitudine fidei, de qua loquitur scribens, est falsa, sacris Doctoribus dissona, et sacrae intelligentiee Scriptura) ». Lovaniensis Academia in articulis adver¬ sus Lutheranos, art. 9. sic habet : « Fides, qua quis firmiter credit, et certe statuit, per Christum sibi remissa esse peccata, seque possessurum vitam aeternam, nullum habet in Scripturis testimonium, immo eisdem ad¬ versatur ». Nititur quidem Ambrosius Catharinus hfec duo testimonia alio detorquere ; dicit enim ab iis Academiis solum damnatam es¬ se sententiam haereticorum, quae docet, ho¬ minem certum esse sibi remissa esse pecca¬ ta certitudine fidei, non cujuscumque autem fidei, sed fidei, quae sola justificet. At frustra nititur. Nam parisiensis Acade¬ mia, cum ait : a Intelligendo certitudine fi¬ dei, de qua loquitur scribens», per illud « de qua » non significat fidem, sed certi¬ tudinem. Distinguit enim certitudinem fidei, a certitudine scientia). Praeterea damnant Parisienses, quod Lutherus affirmat, et pro¬ bant, quod ipse improbat. Lutherus autem cum Theologos reprehendit, quod dicant, nescire nos, quando simus in gratia, non agit de justificatione, sed de certitudine fi¬ dei. Non enim Theologos arguit, quod ne¬ gent, nos justificari sola fide, sed quod di¬ cant, nos ignorare, quando simus in gratia. Igitur parisienses hoc ipsum in Luthero censura dignum esse judicarunt, quod affir¬ maverit, nos certitudine fidei statuere posse, quando simus Deo grati. Lovaniensium vero sententia clarior est, quam ut depravari possit. Nam errorem il¬ lum de fide sola justificante, jam ante dam¬ naverant in art. 8. proinde in artic. 9. non iterum repetunt, quod dixerant, sed alium errorem damnant, qui est de certitudine propriae justificationis. Sed Concilii Tridentini, cui Catholici om¬ nes ingenia sua, atque judicia sponte sub¬ jiciunt, decretum audiamus : « Sicut (inquit sess. 6. cap. 9.) nemo pius de Dei misericor¬ dia, de Christi merito, deque Sacramento¬ rum virtute et efficacia dubitare debet : sic quilibet, dum seipsum, suamque propriam infirmitatem et indispositionem respicit, de sua gratia formidare et timere potest. Cum nullus scire valeat, certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum ». Et cap. 16. « Et quia in mul¬ tis offendimus omnes, unusquisque sicut misericordiam et bonitatem, ita severitatem et judicium ante oculos habere debet, neque seipsum aliquis, etiamsi nihil sibi conscius fuerit, judicare, quoniam omnis hominum vita non humano judicio examinanda et ju¬ dicanda est, sed Dei ». Ad hoc testimonium Concilii Catharinus longa oratione respondet : summa est, Con¬ cilium edidisse decretum illud adversus hac- reses Lutheranorum, non contra opiniones 252 LIBEU III. Catholicorum, id quod probat e.v titulo ca¬ pitis, qui est, contra inanem haereticorum liduciam. Addit eo decreto, non negari om¬ nem fidei certitudinem de propria gratia, atque justitia, sed certitudinem fidei Catho¬ licae. Probat autem id, tum ex illis verbis : « Cui non potest subesse falsum », quae non conveniunt, nisi fidei Catholica) ; tum ex eo, quod alioqui nemo posset certus esse, cer¬ titudine fidei, sibi remissa esse peccata, e- tiamsi haberet specialem revelationem ; Concilium enim nihil excepit. Haec Catharini defensio non videtur esse satis idonea. Nam in primis nihil impedit, quo minus Concilium praecipue decretum edat adversus haereticos, et simul damnet omnes opiniones erroneas, quae aliquid commune habent cum haereticorum errori¬ bus, qui in eo decreto damnantur. Itaque titulus illius capitis noni indicat, quo potis¬ simum spectent verba decreti, sed non pro¬ hibet, quo minus intelligamus, alia quoque damnari, quae in eo titulo non sunt expressa, modo sint expressa in decreto. Quod vero Concilium non rejiciat certitu¬ dinem solius fidei Catholicae' sed omnis di¬ vinae fidei, intelligi potest primum ex eo, quod Concilium, data opera, non fecit men¬ tionem fidei Catholicae, ut similibus glossis aditum praecluderet, et omnem fidem ve¬ ram atque divinam includeret. Deinde exeo, quod disertis verbis docet, neminem esse, qui non possit de sua gratia formidare. At qui habet certitudinem fidei, non potest formidare, alioqui facit injuriam divinae fi¬ dei. Tertio, quoniam omnis fides divina hai- bet certitudinem fidei Catholicae, fides enim non est certa, quia Catholica, sed quia divina. Non enim ideo certitudinem habet fides, quia toti Ecclesiae communis est, sed quia nititur auctoritate Dei, qui nec falli, nec fallere po¬ test, cum sit ipsa veritas. « At (inquit Catharinus) soli fidei Catholicae convenit, ut ei falsum subesse nequeat, quo¬ niam est de objecto probato ab Ecclesia : fidei autem divinae particulari falsum subes¬ se potest, quoniam est de objecto non pro¬ bato ab Ecclesia ». Respondeo, novam, at¬ que inauditam hanc esse doctrinam, ut fidei divinae possit subesse falsum, antequam ejus objectum probatum fuerit ab Ecclesia. Pro¬ batio enim Ecclesiae facit, ut omnibus inno¬ tescat, objectum illud esse revelatum a Deo, et propter hoc certum, et indubitatum ; non autem tribuit firmitatem verbo Dei aliquid revelantis. Itaque implicat contradictionem, ut ali¬ quid sit revelatum a Deo, et possit ei subesse falsum, sive illud ab Ecclesia probatum sit, sive non sit. Alioqui quod Christus Paraly¬ tico et Magdalenae dicebat : Remittuntur ti¬ bi peccata tua, poterat esse falsum, quia nondum fuerat ab Ecclesia approbatum ; quis ita desipiat, ut verba Christi ab Eccle¬ sia) approbatione pendere arbitretur ? Et si quis infantem baptizet, cum intentione ve¬ re baptizandi, nonne ha)reticus censebitur, si dubitet, an infans ille sit vere justificatus? Et tamen non est hoc objectum ab Ecclesia approbatum. Denique Propheta) et Apostoli, quibus immediate mysteria divina revelabantur, nonne tenebantur ea credere, antequam ab Ecclesia probarentur ? et nonne fides eorum tam certa erat, ut nullo modo falsum ei sub¬ esse posset ? Nam si Prophetarum et Apo¬ stolorum fidei falsum subesse poterat, certe multo magis fidei reliqua) Ecclesia) falsum subesse posset. Reliqua enim Ecclesia super- mdificatur super fundamentum Apostolo¬ rum et Prophetarum, ut ait Apostolus ad Ephes. 11. « Cur igitur (inquit Cathar.) Concilium non excepit specialepi revelationem, cum definivit, neminem esse, qui de sua gratia formidare non possit?» Responsio est in promptu, quia privilegia semper intelligun- tur excepta. Concilium enim cum docet, ne¬ minem esse certum certitudine fidei sibi esse remissa peccata, loquitur de certitudine, qua) habetur per media ordinaria, qualia sunt Scriptura), Sacramenta, opera bona, et alia id genus. Porro idem Concilium diser¬ tissimis verbis damnat errorem Enchiridii Coloniensis, cum sic loquitur sess. 0. Can. 13. e Si quis dixerit, omni homini ad remis¬ sionem peccatorum assequendam necessa¬ rium esse, ut credat certo et absque ulla hie- sitatione propria) infirmitatis et dispositionis peccata sibi esse remissa, anathema sit ».