Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book IV: On the Justice of Works
Chapter 1: That the heretics of this time deny the necessity of works
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book IV. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
That we may begin, then, from the first question, the opinion of the adversaries about the necessity of works is to be explained. Since many of them say one thing, and hold another. For there are not lacking those who cry out that injury is done to the Lutherans when they are said to contemn good works as not necessary unto salvation. And first, the Augsburg Confession itself, article 20, falsely says that its followers are accused of neglecting or forbidding good works. Philip too in the Commonplaces, Brentius in the Catechism, Chemnitz in the Examination of the Council, session 6, near the end, Calvin book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 16, and Luther himself, in the book On the Saxon Visitation, teach that good works are to be done, and in some manner indicate that they are necessary, since they affirm that faith is not true which does not bring forth good works, and which has not charity for its companion. Finally, in the Colloquy of Altenburg the Majorists, or Electorals, in express words teach that good works are necessary unto salvation — not indeed by a necessity of efficiency, but by a necessity of presence. The Illyricians, however, or Saxons, do not deny that works are necessary by a necessity of presence; but yet, on account of scandal and danger, they contend that this proposition, “works are necessary unto salvation,” is not to be tolerated in the Church.
But whatever be the case with their manners of speaking, when their principles and very many sayings and writings of Luther are sifted, they seem altogether to think that a man can be saved even though he do no good works, nor keep the divine commandments. Which I prove by these arguments. First, from the express words of their Prophet Luther, who affirms that evil works nothing hurt a believer. For thus he speaks in the book On Christian Liberty: “Good works make not a good man, nor evil works an evil one.” And a little after: “As to an unbeliever no good work profits unto salvation and justice, so contrariwise no evil work makes him evil and damned, but unbelief alone.” The same in the sermon “So God loved the world”: “Where faith is, no sin can hurt.” And in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, in the chapter on Baptism: “Thou seest how rich a Christian, or baptized, man is, that even willing he cannot lose his salvation by any sins however great, unless he will not to believe. For no sins can damn him, but unbelief alone.” These and the like manifestly teach that all good works can safely be omitted, and thereby are not necessary. For if any sins whatever do not make a man evil, nor damn him, why can they not be omitted? And if they can be omitted, why are they necessary? In the commentary on chapter 2 to the Galatians: “When it is thus taught, faith in Christ indeed justifies, but at the same time the commandments of God must be kept, because it is written, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments — there straightway Christ is denied, and faith abolished, because to the commandments of God, or to the law, is attributed what is of God alone.” Likewise in the sermon on the New Testament, or on the Mass: “Let us beware of sins, but much more of laws and good works; let us attend only to the promise of God and to faith.” Finally in the sermon cited, “So God loved the world”: “I say to thee that the way is narrow; thou must become thin, if thou wilt come through it. But those who are laden with works — as we see the pilgrims of James laden with shells — will not be able to penetrate.” And below: “If thou come with great sacks full of works, thou wilt have to lay them down, otherwise thou wilt not be able to penetrate.” These and the like, which are everywhere read in the writings of Luther against the zeal of good works, sufficiently indicate his mind; and however they be excused, they certainly have great force to persuade the simple people, and those prone to evil, that good works are not to be done.
Second, the same is proved from that common dogma of theirs, that all the works of the just are of their own nature mortal sins, as is clear from Luther in the assertion of articles 31, 32, and 36, and from Calvin book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 12, section 4, and chapter 14, section 9. For if good works are mortal sins, and yet on account of faith are not imputed, certainly evil works too can, on account of faith, not be imputed, and thereby not hurt. Nor will there be cause why they should be avoided. And this is what Luther says, in the Babylonian Captivity, in the place cited, that all sins are in a moment absorbed by faith. They will say, perhaps, that evil works cannot consist with faith, since he who has the purpose of sinning cannot conceive a confidence of the remission of sins, and therefore true faith is always conjoined with charity. But on the contrary; for if this were true, then neither could the works which are called good consist with faith. For good works are not good (by their own opinion) save in name and in a certain respect, but in fact and simply are mortal sins. Wherefore he who has the purpose of doing alms, since he knows that he cannot do this save by sinning mortally, has the purpose of sinning mortally; and yet this purpose consists with faith — nay, on account of faith is not reputed a sin; therefore in the same manner he who has the purpose of stealing will be able at the same time to have faith, and on account of that faith the theft will not be reputed unto sin. It follows, then, from this dogma of theirs, that in truth good works are not necessary unto salvation, but that it is all one whether one love his own wife or another’s, whether he steal or give.
Third, the same we prove from the distinction of the law and the Gospel. For by their common doctrine this is the difference between the law and the Gospel: that the law proposes justice and salvation with the condition of fulfilling the whole law, but the Gospel promises justice and salvation without any condition, absolutely, or with the sole condition of faith. And hence they deduce another distinction: that the law terrifies, the Gospel consoles. So Luther teaches everywhere in the commentary on chapter 3 to the Galatians and elsewhere; Philip in the Commonplaces, under the titles of the law and of the Gospel; and others. And in the Colloquy of Altenburg the Saxons thus speak: “The promises of the law are conditional, for they propose with the condition of obedience; but the promises of the Gospel are not conditional, but gratuitous.” But if the Gospel requires no condition of obedience, but is content with faith alone, certainly he who does nothing of good will live consonantly to the Gospel. But if thou say the Gospel requires not the condition of works, yet faith requires it, for there will be no faith unless it bring forth good works, it will follow either that faith is not conformable to the Gospel, or that the Gospel, if not immediately, at least mediately, requires the condition of works. For how, if faith requires works, will it not be rather of the law than of the Gospel? Or if the Gospel requires faith, and faith requires works, does not the Gospel too consequently require works? Wherefore either that distinction is empty which they most frequently deliver between the law and the Gospel, or they are compelled to say that absolutely no good works are necessary unto salvation, and that great consolation is received from the Gospel, and that even those are justified and saved who voluntarily persevere in crimes.
Fourth, we prove the same from the Christian liberty which they teach by common consent. For they constitute Christian liberty in this, that a just man is free from the debt of fulfilling the law before God, and thereby all works are now to him indifferent — that is, neither commanded nor forbidden. Which they necessarily gather from another principle, by which they teach that the observance of the law is utterly impossible even to the just. For if the law is impossible, unless the debt of fulfilling it be taken away, it will damn all. Lest, then, the just be damned, they are freed from its yoke and debt. So teaches Luther, both in the book On Christian Liberty, and in the commentary on the epistle to the Galatians, and in the sermon on Moses: “Faith alone (he says, on chapter 2 to the Galatians) is necessary that we be just; all the rest most free, no more commanded, nor forbidden.” In the same place: “If conscience dictate, thou hast sinned, answer, I have sinned; therefore God will punish and damn? No. But the law says this. But I have nothing to do with the law. Why? Because I have liberty.” And in the argument of the same epistle: “The highest art and wisdom of a Christian is to know not the law, to be ignorant of works, and of all the justice of the active life.” And in the book On Christian Liberty: “No work, no law, is needful to a Christian man, since through faith he is free from all law.” And Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 19, sections 2, 4, and 7, places Christian liberty in three things. First, in this, that where the confidence of justification is sought, no account be had of law or works. Then, in this, that good works be done not as to be examined by the rule of the law, but as certainly to be accepted by God, of whatever kind they be. Finally, in this, that the use of all external things be held for indifferent, so that a man be touched by no religion, whether he use them or leave them. From this doctrine who does not see how wide a door is opened to all crimes and villainies? And who doubts that no good works are necessary unto salvation, if all external things — and accordingly even Baptism and the Eucharist — are things indifferent, and nothing is to be examined by the rule of the law?
Fifth, we prove it from the life and manners of the Lutherans, who, on occasion of this doctrine, began to break forth with incredible license into all crimes and sins, so that it was necessary that Luther himself should institute the Visitation, and praise good works, and exhort the people to them. But how little happily this succeeded with him, John Cochlaeus writes in his life. Rightly, then — that is, consonantly to the dogmas of Luther — certain of the rigid Lutherans in the Colloquy of Altenburg said: “Good works and the new obedience pertain not to the kingdom of Christ, but to the world. Likewise, Christians with good works look toward Satan. Likewise, good works are so far from being necessary that they even are an incommodity unto salvation, and are pernicious.” Finally, “we must pray that in faith, without all good works, we may persevere unto the end.” See Peter Canisius in book 1 On the Corruptions of the Word of God, chapter 10, where he reports many things of this kind from the books of the adversaries.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM i . Quod Haeretici hujus temporis negent operum necessitatem. Ut igitur u prima quaestione incipiamus, explicanda est sententia adversariorum de necessitate operum. Siquidem multi ipsorum aliud loquuntur, aliud sentiunt. Non desunt enim qui clament injuriam Lutheranis fieri, cum dicuntur opera bona, tamquam non ne¬ cessaria ad salutem contemnere. Ac primum confessio ipsa Augustana art. 20. falso dicit accusari suos, quod bona ope¬ ra negligant, vel prohibeant. Philippus quo¬ que in locis, Brentius in Catechismo, Kem- nitius in Examine Concil. sess. 6. prope finem. Calvinus lib. m. Institut. eap. 16. Et ipse etiam Lutherus, in lib. de visitatione Saxonica, docent opera bona esse facienda; et aliquo modo indicant esse necessaria, cum affirment, veram fidem non esse, qua; non parit opera bona, et quae charitatem comitem non habet. Denique in Colloquio Altemburgensi Mojoristae, sive Electorales disertis verbis docent, opera bonq esse ad salutem necessaria, non' quidem necessitate efficientia;, sed necessitate praesentia;. Uly- riciani autem, sive Saxonici non negant ope¬ ra esse necessaria necessitate praesentiae : sed tamen propter scandalum et periculum con¬ tendunt, istam propositionem, opera sunt ne¬ cessaria ad salutem, non esse in Ecclesia tolerandam. Caeterum quidquid sit de modis ipsorum loquendi, cum excutiuntur ipsorum princi¬ pia et pleraque dicta et scripta Lutheri, vi¬ dentur omnino existimare posse hominem CAPUT I. 293 salvari, etiamsi nulla bona opera faciat, nec mandata divina custodiat. Quod his argu¬ mentis probo. Primum, ex verbis disertis Prophetae ipso¬ rum Lutheri, qui affirmat mala opera cre¬ denti nihil nocere. Sic enim loquitur in libro de libertate Christiana : « Bona opera non faciunt bonum virum, nec malum mala». Et Paulo post : « Ut infideli nullum bonum opus prodest ad salutem et justitiam : sic e diverso nullum malum opus facit malum et damnatum, sed sola incredulitas ». Idem in sermone : sic Deus dilexit mundum : « Ubi fides est, inquit, nullum peccatum nocere potest » . Et in lib. de Captivitate Babylonica cap. de Baptismo : « Vides, inquit, quam dives sit homo Christianus, vel baptizatus, ut etiam volens non possit perdere salutem suam, quantiscumque peccatis, nisi nolit credere. Nulla enim peccata possunt eum damnare, nisi sola incredulitas ». Haec et similia manifeste docent, omnia bona opera posse tuto omitti, ac per hoc non esse neces¬ saria. Nam si quaevis peccata non faciunt hominem malum, neque ipsum damnant, quare non possunt omitti? Et si possunt omitti, quare sunt necessaria ? In comment. ad cap. ii. ad Galat. «Quan¬ do, inquit, sic docetur, fides in Christum ju¬ stificat quidem, sed simul servari oportet mandata Dei, quia scriptum est, si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata, ibi statim Christus negatus est, et fides abolita, quia mandatis Dei, sive legi tribuitur, quod est solius Dei » . Item in sermone de novo testa¬ mento, sive de Missa : « Caveamus, inquit, a peccatis, sed multo magis a legibus, et operibus bonis, tantum attendamus Dei pro¬ missionem et fidem » . Denique in sermone citato, sic Deus ddexit mundum : « Ego, inquit, dico tibi, quia an¬ gusta est via, oportet te fieri tenuem, si vis per eam venire. Cseterum qui operibus one¬ rati sunt, sicut conchilibus onustos videmus Jacobi peregrinos, ii non poterunt pene¬ trare ». Ei infra :« Si veneris cum magnis saccis operum plenis, deponere oportebit, alioqui non poteris penetrare ». Haec et similia, quse in Lutheri scriptis contra studium operum bonorum passim le¬ guntur, satis indicant mentem ejus, et quo¬ modocumque excusentur, certe magnam vim habent ad persuadendum simplici populo, et ad malum propenso, non esse facienda opera bona. Secundo, idem probatur ex illo communi ipsorum dogmate, quod omnia opera justo¬ rum sint ex natura sua peccata mortalia, ut patet exLuthero in assert. art. 31. 32 et 36. Et ex Calvino lib. m. Instit. cap. 12. § 4. et cap. 14. § 9. Nam si bona opera sunt pec¬ cata mortalia, et tamen propter fidem non imputantur, certe poterunt etiam mala opera propter fidem non imputari, ac per hoc non nocere. Neque erit causa cur vitentur. Atque hoc est, quod dicit Lutherus, in Captivit. Babyb. loco citato, omnia peccata in mo¬ mento a fide absorberi. Dicent fortasse, mala opera non posse cum fide consistere, quoniam qui habet pro¬ positum peccandi, non potest concipere fidu¬ ciam remissionis peccatorum, et ideo fides vera semper est, cum charitate conjuncta. At contra, nam si hoc esset verum, non possent etiam opera, quae dicuntur bona, cum fide consistere. Nam opera bona non sunt bona (ex ipsorum sententia) nisi nomine, et secun¬ dum quid, re ipsa vero et simpliciter sunt peccata mortalia. Quare qui habet proposi¬ tum faciendi eleemosynam, quoniam scit hoc se non posse facere, nisi peccando mortali¬ ter, habet propositum peccandi mortaliter, atqui hoc propositum cum fide consistit, immo propter fidem non reputatur pecca¬ tum, igitur eodem modo qui habet proposi¬ tum furandi, poterit simul habere fidem, et propter eam fidem furtum non reputabitur ad peccatum. Sequitur igitur ex hoc ipsorum dogmate, ut re vera non sint necessaria bona opera ad salutem, sed perinde sit utrum quis amet conjugem suam, an alienam, utrum fu¬ retur, an donet. Tertio, idem probamus ex discrimine le¬ gis et Evangelii. Nam ex doctrina ipsorum communi hoc interest inter legem et Evan- gelium, quod lex proponit justitiam et salu¬ tem cum conditione totius legis implendae, Evangelium promittit justitiam et salutem sine ulla conditione, sed absolute, vel cum sola conditione fidei. Et hinc deducunt alte¬ rum discrimen, quod lex terret, Evangelium consolatur. Ita docet Lutherus passim in comment. ad cap. ix. ad Galat. et alihi, Phi¬ lippus in locis, tit. de (ege et de Evangelio, et alii. Et in Colloquio Altemburgen. ita lo¬ quuntur Saxonici : « Legis promissiones sunt conditionales, proponunt enim cum condi¬ tione obedientiae, sed promissiones Evange¬ lii non sunt conditionales, sed gratuitae » . At i>i Evangelium nullam requirit conditionem 296 LIBER IV. • obedientia), setl est sola fide contentum, certe qui nihil boni faciat, consentanee ad Evangelium vivet. Quod si dicas, Evangelium non requirit conditionem operum, fides tamen requirit, non enim erit fides, nisi pariat bona opera, sequetur aut fidem non esse conformem Evangelio, aut Evangelium si non imme¬ diate, saltem mediate requirere conditionem operum. Quomodo enim fides si requirit opera, non erit potius ex lege, quam ex Evangelio? aut si Evangelium requirit fi¬ dem, et fides requirit opera, nonne Retiam consequenter Evangelium requirit opera? Quare vel inane est discrimen quod fre¬ quentissime tradunt inter lcge-m et Evan¬ gelium, vel coguntur dicere, absolute nulla bona opera necessaria esse ad salutem, et consolationem magnam ex Evangelio per¬ cipere, et justificari et salvari etiam eos, qui voluntarie in sceleribus perseverant. Quarto, probamus idem ex libertate Chri¬ stiana, quam ipsi communi consensu docent. In eo siquidem libertatem Christianam con¬ stituunt, quod homo justus sit liber a debito legis implendae coram Deo, et per hoc omnia opera sint illi jam indifferentia, id est, nec praecepta, nec prohibita. Quod necessario colligunt ex alio principio, quo docent legis observationem esse etiam justis penitus im¬ possibilem. Nam si lex impossibilis est, nisi tollatur debitum ejus implendae, omnes dam¬ nabit. Ne igitur justi damnentur, ab ejus jugo et debito liberantur. Ita docet Lutherus, tum in lib. de libert. Christiana, tum incomment. epist. ad Galat. tum in serm. de Mose r « Sola fides (inquit in cap. ii. ad Galat.) necessaria est, ut justi sumus, caeteva omnia liberrima, neque prae¬ cepta amplius, neque prohibita ». Ibidem : « Si conscientia dictat, peccasti, responde, peccavi, ergo Deus puniet et damnabit? Non. At lex hoc dicit. Sed nihil mihi cum lege. Quare? Quia habeo libertatem » . Et in argu¬ mento ejusdem epistolae :« Summa ars, in¬ quit, et sapientia Christiana est, nescire le¬ gem, ignorare opera, et totam justitiam acti vagi ». Et in lib. dejibert. Christi: « Nullo opere, nulla lege homini Christiano opus est, cum per fidem sit liber ab omni lege ». Et Calvinus lib. m. Institut. cap. 19. §. 2. A. et 7. tribus in rebus libertatem Christia¬ nam ponit; Primum in eo, quod ubi fiducia justificationis quaeritur, nulla legis, vel ope¬ rum ratio habeatur. Deinde in eo, ut opera bona non fiant tamquam examinanda ad re¬ gulam legis, sed tamquam certo acceptanda a Deo qualiacumque sint. Denique in eo, ut omnium rerum externarum usus habeatur pro indifferenti, ita ut homo nulla religione tangatur, sive eas usurpet, sive relinquat. Ex hac doctrina quis non videt, quam lata porta sceleribus et flagitiis omnibus pate¬ fiat? Et quis ambigat, nulla esse opera bona necessaria ad salutem, si res omnes exter- me, proinde etiam Baptismus et Eucharistia, adiaphoree sunt, et nihil ad legis regulam examinandum est? Quinto, probamus ex vita et moribus Lu- theranorum, qui occasione hujus doctrina) ita coeperunt incredibili licentia in omnia scelera et peccata prorumpere, ut necesse fuerit, Lutherum fpsum Visitationem insti¬ tuere et laudare opera bona, atque ad ea populos adhortari. Sed quam parum felici¬ ter id ei successerit, scribit Joannes Go- chkeus in ejus vita. Recte igitur, id est, con¬ sentanee aci Luthcri dogmata in Colloquio Altemburgensi dixerunt quidam ex rigidis Lutheranis : « Opera bona, et novam obe- dientiam non ad regnum Christi, sed ad mundum pertinere. Item, ad Satanam spe¬ ctare Christianos cum operibus bonis. Item, adeo non esse necessaria opera bona, ut etiam ad salutem incommodent, sintque per¬ niciosa ». Denique, « precari oportere, ut in fide sine omnibus operibus bonis, usque in finem perseveremus ». Vide Petrum Ca- nisium in lib. I. de corruptelis verbi Dei cap. 10. ubi multa hujus generis ex adver¬ sariorum libris refert.