Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book IV: On the Justice of Works
Chapter 2: The false distinction of the law and the Gospel is refuted, and thence the necessity of works is proved
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).
Now, that we may refute the most pernicious error of all, first we shall prove that in the Gospel is contained the doctrine of works, and various laws, and that its promises require the condition of fulfilling the law. Then, that the just are not free from the observance of the divine law. Lastly, that good works are simply necessary unto salvation. It is to be known, then, that the Gospel can be taken in two ways. In one way, for the doctrine which Christ and the Apostles preached, and which is contained in the books of the Evangelists and other writings of the Apostles. In the other way, for the grace of the New Testament, which is wont to be called the law written in the heart, and the quickening spirit, and the law of faith — although (to confess the truth) the name of the Gospel seems nowhere in the Scriptures to be taken save in the former way, that is, for the doctrine. And indeed, if we speak of the grace of the New Testament, the law is distinguished from the Gospel not in that the law requires works and the Gospel requires not works, but in that the law teaches what is to be done, the Gospel affords the powers of doing; for thence the law is said to be written in tables, the Gospel in hearts. Of which distinction St. Augustine writes copiously in the book On the Spirit and the Letter to Marcellinus, in epistle 200 to Asellicus, and elsewhere. Nor is the controversy in this place about this acceptation. For the adversaries themselves, when they discourse of the distinction of the law and the Gospel, by the name of the Gospel understand not grace itself, but the preaching of Christ and the Apostles, which for that reason, they say, was called the Gospel — that is, the good tidings — because it announces nothing but consolation. But we contend that in the Gospel are contained all those things which the adversaries attribute to the law alone, which are chiefly three: laws properly so called, threatenings, and promises with the condition of obedience.
As regards laws properly so called, we prove it from Matthew 5, where the Lord confirms, explains, and perfects the law of Moses about murder, adultery, perjury, and like matters. For that the Lord in fact wills that law, as explained by him, to be kept, is clear: first, from that manner of speaking, “But I say to you,” which words properly become a lawgiver. Second, from this, that the Lord says, I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil. For if there were in the Gospel no obligation of the law, the Lord would have taken away the old law, even as regards the moral precepts. Third, from this, that it is said, Matthew 7, at the end: He was teaching them as one having power, and not as the Scribes and Pharisees — that is, as a Lawgiver, who by authority interprets, or changes, or adds to laws, not as one skilled in law, who only from knowledge explains the law. Fourth, from this, that he concludes: He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. The Lord, then, not only explains the old law, but also bids it be kept as regards the moral precepts. Otherwise he would not say that he who breaks one of these least commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Moreover, if the old moral law pertained not to Christians, why would the Lord so accurately expound and perfect it? Was the Gospel of Christ to be idly consumed in the explanation of useless things? See more of this argument below, chapter 3.
As regards the second, of threatenings and terrors: what greater threatening can be devised than that uttered by the Lord’s mouth, Matthew 5: Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire? And Matthew 7: Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. But like threatenings are had everywhere in the Gospel, Matthew 22, 23, 25, Mark 9, Luke 12. But the adversaries answer that the threatenings which are found in the Gospels pertain to the law, as also, contrariwise, the promises of the remission of sins which are read in the Prophets pertain to the Gospel. But certainly they are compelled to say so who define the Gospel by consolation alone. But let them consider whether it were not better to correct that definition than to say that the greatest part of the discourses of Christ are not the words of Christ, but of Moses, and that Christ in the Gospel preaches nothing less than the Gospel. Then, does not the Apostle Paul, Romans 1 and 2, attribute to the Gospel itself the office of terrifying? I am not ashamed of the Gospel (he says, chapter 1); for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. For the justice of God is revealed therein from faith unto faith, as it is written, The just man liveth by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety, etc. That revelation of the wrath of God is manifestly attributed to the Gospel; for in the Gospel is revealed the justice of God from faith, that the justified may escape the wrath of God, which the same Gospel testifies to threaten all the impious. Whence in chapter 2 the same Apostle says: In the day when the Lord shall judge the hidden things of men, according to my Gospel. Besides, did not the Apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit being received, preach the Gospel? But what was the effect of his preaching St. Luke teaches, Acts 2, when he says: Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, What shall we do, men and brethren? The Gospel, then, not only consoles, but also terrifies. For compunction is born of terror. And not only Peter, but also Paul, when he preached the Gospel, terrified men. For thus the same Luke writes, Acts 24: Felix, coming with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess, sent for Paul, and heard of him the faith that is in Christ Jesus. And as he treated of justice, and chastity, and of the judgment to come, Felix, being terrified, answered: For this time go thy way, etc. The Lutherans will not dare (I believe) to say that Paul, called to preach the faith of Christ, preached for the faith the law, for Christ Moses, for the Gospel something contrary to the Gospel; and yet the end of the preaching was the terror and trembling of the hearers.
What of St. James? Did not he too preach the Gospel, when he wrote in his epistle, chapter 5: Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries which shall come upon you? And his brother Jude, likewise an Apostle, what preached he but the Gospel, when in his epistle he wrote: Behold the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, to execute judgment against all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness? Finally St. John the Apostle and Evangelist, in the Apocalypse, chapter 14: I saw another Angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the eternal Gospel, to preach unto them that sit upon the earth, and over every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear the Lord, and give him honor, because the hour of his judgment is come. Since, then, Christ and all the Apostles, in evangelizing, terrify, and in the Apostolic Symbol, which contains the sum of the Gospel, there is also one article about the future judgment, the Lutherans falsely teach that it is the proper office of the law to terrify, and that this pertains not to the Gospel. “But if the matter be so,” they say, “why is the Apostolic preaching called the Gospel — that is, glad and good tidings? And why does St. Paul, Romans 8, write that we have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear?” I answer: the name of the Gospel was imposed to signify one office, and that the chief, of the Apostolic preaching; but it does not therefore follow that there are not also other offices of the Gospel, though they be not explained by that name. In the manner that a key is so called because it shuts, and yet it also opens; and the tongue is called the instrument of licking, which yet is the instrument also of speaking. It is called the Gospel, then, because it announces the coming of the Saviour, reconciliation with God, the entrance opened to the kingdom of heaven — whence also it is called the Gospel of the Kingdom, Matthew 24 and Mark 1; but at the same time it also announces wrath and indignation to those who receive not the Saviour, nor do penance. Add that the Gospel terrifies that it may console, in the manner that the physician wounds that he may heal; which agrees not so properly with the law of Moses, which terrified by threatening punishments to sinners, and showed the deliverer only obscurely. But as regards the spirit of fear and of charity, thence is gathered a distinction not between the law and the Gospel, insofar as the Gospel signifies the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles — according to which acceptation we here speak of the Gospel — but between the New Testament and the Old. For the Old Testament properly contains nothing but what Moses brought — that is, the law written in tables, which indeed begets bondage, as is said Galatians 4, and works fear, since it shows what ought to be done, and gives not the powers of doing; but the New Testament contains what Christ brought. But Christ brought not only the doctrine and evangelical precepts, though these too he brought, but also the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is the law written in the heart — that is, charity diffused in the heart, through which, not by the fear of punishment, but by the love of justice, the law written in tables is kept. And this distinction the Apostle indicates, Romans 8, Galatians 4, Hebrews 8 and 10. And St. Augustine, in the book against Adimantus, chapter 17, wrote that the briefest difference, not of the law and the Gospel, but of the Old Testament and the New, is fear and love.
Let us come to the third distinction, which is most proper to this place. That the evangelical promises are conditional, not absolute, is proved: first, from chapter 5, Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. This certainly is an evangelical promise, since it comprehends the kingdom of heaven; and yet it requires the condition of a justice not imputative, but actual and operative, which consists in the perfect observance of the commandments. For the Lord explains what it is for our justice to abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, when he says that the justice of the Pharisees and Scribes was to love friends, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to forswear; but that ours ought to be to love even enemies, not to be angry without cause, not to look on another’s wife to lust after her, not to swear at all without necessity. Second, it is proved from Matthew 19, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. For this most open promise of eternal life exacts a most open condition of obedience. And a like promise is had, Luke 10, where, when he who had asked the Lord what was to be done to acquire eternal life had set forth the commandments of the law, the Lord says: Thou hast answered right; do this, and thou shalt live. To these places the adversaries answer that the Lord said these things ironically, since he would only signify that it cannot be that anyone keep the divine commandments — in the manner that if one said, “If thou wilt ascend into heaven, fly through the air,” or, “Do this: take feathers like a dove, and thou shalt fly most high.” So teaches Luther, in the commentary on chapter 3 to the Galatians, explaining that, He that shall do these things shall live in them, which words he says are to be understood ironically, like those of Christ, Do this, and thou shalt live. So also Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 18, section 9, says that Christ was wont to attemper his answers to those who questioned him; and since the lawyer was imbued with the persuasion of legal justice, and was blind in the confidence of works, therefore he was by Christ remitted to the observance of the law. The same too in the Antidote of the Council, harassing that which the Council admonishes, session 6, chapter 7, that it must be said to catechumens, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments”: “Woe,” he says, “to those catechumens, if so hard a condition be imposed on them. For what else than an eternal curse is proclaimed to them?” Further, John Brentius, homily 1 on the 13th Sunday after Trinity, dares even to say that Christ so answered, when he said, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, that he rather indicated to him the way to eternal damnation. Thus these men pervert the simplicity of the Word of God, and try to wrest it to their errors and blasphemies.
But for many causes that feigned irony will be able to profit them nothing. First, since if the answer were ironical, it would be such because it is directed to lawyers or Pharisees; therefore when the Lord addresses his Apostles, he speaks not ironically, but properly and seriously. Let them hear, then, what he says to his Apostles, John 13: If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them. John 15: You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. And that which we cited before, Matthew 5, Unless your justice abound, etc. And chapter 6: If you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences; but if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you. These and the like cannot be eluded by irony, and yet they contain promises with the condition of good works and of the obedience of the law. Second, he to whom the Lord said, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” was not a Scribe, nor a Pharisee, nor a lawyer, but a certain rich young man. For Matthew, chapter 19, calls him a young man, and narrates that he was rich; Mark, chapter 10, mentions only his riches; Luke, chapter 18, calls him a ruler; a lawyer, scribe, or Pharisee no Evangelist names. Moreover he came not to tempt Christ, but simply to learn the way of salvation. For of temptation there is no mention in this place; and Mark writes that he, kneeling, asked the Lord about the way of salvation. And he adds: The Lord, looking on him, loved him. Certainly both the humility of the young man toward Christ, and the benevolence of Christ toward the young man, manifestly indicate that the colloquy was serious, and that no suspicion of irony underlies it. Third, he to whom the Lord said, Do this, and thou shalt live, Luke 10, was indeed skilled in law, and came to tempt the Lord; but it does not therefore follow that the Lord answered him ironically. For that temptation was not to deceive, but to inquire what the Lord held about the way of salvation, or what he taught — which can be understood, both from this, that the Lord says to him, “Thou hast answered right; do this, and thou shalt live”; for how would the Lord say, “Thou hast answered right,” to one whom he knew to be a hypocrite and crafty tempter? and from this, that in the same place the Lord, to instruct him further, added the parable of him who fell among robbers; and when he had narrated the work of mercy which a certain Samaritan performed on him, he said to the lawyer, “Go, and do thou also in like manner.” Where in no way is it lawful to suspect irony, unless we would have the Lord ironically commend the works of mercy, but truly and properly teach the contempt of them. But if in those words, “Go, and do thou also in like manner,” there is no irony, certainly neither is there in those, “Thou hast answered right, do this, and thou shalt live.” For they are said to the same person, by the same, in the same phrase, in the same place and time and on the same occasion. Fourth, when the Lord was tempted with a fallacious and crafty temptation, he did not return guile for guile, but overcame evil in good, and answered not ironically, but properly, and delivered serious and solid doctrine, as is clear from Matthew 22, where first the Pharisees, taking counsel to catch him in his speech, ask whether it be lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not; then the Sadducees, with no unlike zeal, propose a question, of which man she shall be the wife in the resurrection who had married seven husbands succeeding one another in order by death; finally the lawyers, tempting, ask which is the great commandment in the law. But to all the questions the Lord answered truly, properly, and simply. To the first: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. To the second: In the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the Angels of God in heaven. To the third: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. Let the Calvinists and Lutherans dare, if they have utterly put off shame, to make these answers of the Lord ironical. But if they dare not, much less let them suspect irony in Matthew 19 and Luke 10, since in these places less occasion of irony is found.
Third, it can be proved that the evangelical promises are conditional from the doctrine of the Apostles, who everywhere inculcate the conditions of works. Romans 8: If by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. And in the same place: Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so, if we suffer with him. 2 Timothy 2: If we be dead with him, we shall live also with him; if we suffer, we shall also reign with him. James 2: If then you fulfil the royal law. 2 Peter 1: For if (namely) by good works you make sure your calling, there shall be ministered to you abundantly an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord. 1 John 1: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins. Apocalypse 3: To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne. Fourth, it is proved from the prophetic doctrine. For the promises of the remission of sins, even though they be in the Prophets, the adversaries do not deny to pertain not to the law, but to the Gospel. Thus, then, Ezechiel speaks, chapter 18: If the wicked turn himself away from his wickedness, and do judgment and justice, he shall live, etc. Where not once, but often, the Lord repeats that he will give indulgence and life to the wicked, if he do penance for his sins and keep all the commandments; and contrariwise, that he will grievously punish the just, if he turn himself away from justice and keep not all the commandments. In which place, as to turn oneself away from justice and not keep the commandments is a condition on which the threatening of death depends by the consent of all — and no one would dare say that the threatening of death is not conditional, but absolute — so also to turn oneself from sin, and do judgment and justice, is a condition on which the promise of life depends; and no one ought to say that the promise of life is not conditional, but absolute, unless he would openly conflict with the divine letters. Fifth, it is proved from the condition of faith, which the adversaries do not deny to be required unto salvation, since it is written, Mark, last chapter: He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned. For from this condition of faith it follows: first, that it is false, what they say, that the promises of the Gospel are not conditional; for how are they not conditional, if some condition — namely, of faith — is required in all? Second, that it is also false that the condition of fulfilling the law is not required. For by the same words by which Scripture teaches that the condition of faith is required unto salvation, by the same, or even clearer, it teaches that the condition of fulfilling the law is required, as is clear from so many places cited above.
But, they say, “the promises of the Gospel are gratuitous; therefore not conditional.” I answer: gratuitous is not opposed to conditional, nor is it the same as absolute; otherwise the evangelical promise would not require the condition of faith. A promise, then, is called gratuitous, though conditional, since the condition itself too is gratuitous. For the promise of indulgence is gratuitous, though it exact faith and penance, since faith and penance are gifts of God; and the promise of eternal life is gratuitous, though it require the obedience of the law, since the very obedience of the law is a gift of God. And in this manner God gives grace for grace, as we read John 1: since he gives the grace of eternal life for the grace of merits, and the grace of indulgence for the grace of penance.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Refutatur falsum discrimen legis et Evangelii et inde probatur operum necessitas. Nunc ut errorem omnium perniciosissi¬ mum refellamus ; primo probabimus , in Evangelio contineri doctrinam operum, et leges varias, ejusque promissiones requirere conditionem legis implenda). Deinde, justos non esse liberos ab observatione legis divi¬ na). Postremo, opera bona simpliciter ad sa¬ lutem esse necessaria. Igitur sciendum est Evangelium duobus modis accipi posse. Uno modo pro doctrina, quam Christus et Apostoli pnedicarunt, et in libris Evangelistarum, aliisque Apostolo- CAPUT II. 297 lorum scriptis continetur. Alio modo pro gratia novi testamenti, qua} et lex scripta in corde, et spiritus vivificans, et lex fidei dici solet, quamvis (ut verum fatear) nomen Evangelii non videatur in Scripturis usquam accipi, nisi priore modo, id est, pro doctrina. Et quidem, si loquamur de gratia novi testa¬ menti, non distinguitur lex ab Evangelio, quod lex requirat opera, Evangelium non requirat opera, sed quod lex doceat quid sit faciendum, Evangelium praebeat vires ad faciendum : inde enim dicitur lex scripta esse in tabulis, Evangelium in cordibus. De quo discrimine copiose scribit sanctus Au¬ gustinus in libro de Spiritu et littera ad Mar- cellinum in epist. 200. ad Asellicum et alibi. Neque de hac acceptione hoc loco con¬ troversia est. Nam ipsi etiam adversarii, cum discrimine Tegis et Evangelii disserunt, nomine Evangelii non gratiam ipsam, sed praedicationem Christi et Apostolorum in- telligunt, quam ideo Evangelium, id est, bo¬ num nuncium appellatam esse dicunt, quo¬ niam nihil nisi consolationem annunciat. Nos vero contendimus Evangelio contineri illa omnia, qua; adversarii soli legi tribuunt, qua; sunt piaccipue tria, leges proprie dicta;, comminationes et promissiones cum con¬ ditione obedientue. Quod attinet ad leges proprie dictas, id* probamus ex cap. 5. Matth. ubi Dominus confirmat, explicat et perficit legem Mosis de homicidio, adulterio, perjurio, et simili¬ bus rebus. Nam quod revera Dominus eam legem, ut a se explicatam servari velit, per¬ spicuum est. Primo, ex modo illo loquendi : « Ego au¬ tem dico vobis » . Qua; verba legislatorem proprie decent. Secundo, ex eo quod Dominus ait ; Non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere. Si enim nulla esset in Evangelio legis obligatio, sus¬ tulisset Dominus legem veterem, etiam quoad praeopta morali ITT Tertio, ex eo quod dicitur Matth. vii. in fine ; Quod erat docens sicut potestatem ha¬ bens, non sicut Scriba; et pharissd (1). Id est, sicut Legislator, qui ex auctoritate leges in¬ terpretatur, vel mutat, vel addit, non sicut Legisperitus, qui solum ex scientia legem explicat. Quarto, ex eo quod concludit ; « Si quis ergo solverit unum de mandatis istis mini¬ mis, et docuerit sic homines, minimus vo¬ cabitur in regno coelorum » . Non igitur Dominus solum explicat legem veterem, sed etiam jubet eam servari, quod attinet ad praecepta moralia. Alioqui non diceret, qui solverit unum de mandatis istis minimis, minimus vocabitur in regno coelorum. Praeterea, si lex vetus moralis ad Christia¬ nos non pertineret, quare Dominus tam ac¬ curate illam exponeret et perficeret ? Num Evangelium Christi otiose in rerum inuti¬ lium explicatione consumi debuit ? Yi- dc plura de hoc argumento infra cap. 3. Quod attinet ad alterum de comminationi¬ bus et terroribus ; quae major comminatio excogitari potest quam illa dominico ore prolata, Matth. v. Qui dixerit fratri suo, fa¬ tue, reus erit gehennx ignis ? Et Matth. vii. Omnis arbor qua; non facit fructum bonum, excidetur, ei in ignem mittetur (2). Similes autem commniationes habentur in Evan¬ gelio passim, Matth. xxn. xxiii. xxv. Marci ix. Luca; xii. Sed respondent adversarii, comminatio¬ nes, qua; in Evangeliis reperiuntur, ad le¬ gem pertinere, sicut etiam contra, promis¬ siones remissionis peccatorum, qua; legun¬ tur in Prophetis, ad Evangelium. At certe coguntur ita dicere, qui Evangelium sola consolatione definiunt. Sed cogitent, an non satius esset, corrigere definitionem illam, quam dicere maximam partem sermonum Christi non esse Christi verba, sed Mosis; et Christum in Evangelio nihil minus, quam Evangelium praedicare. Deinde , nonne Apostolus Paulus ad Rom. i. et ii, ipsi Evangelio tribuit officium terrendi? Non erubesco (inquit cap. i.) Evan¬ gelium. Virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti. Judaeo primum et Graeco. Justitia enim Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem ; Si¬ cut scriptum est : Justus autem ex- fide vivit. Revelatur enim ira Dei de coelo super omnem impietatem, etc. Ista revelatio irae Dei mani¬ feste tribuitur Evangelio, revelatur enim in Evangelio justitia Dei ex fido, ut justificati evadant iram Dei, quam idem Evangelium omnibus impiis imminere testatur. Unde in ii. cap. idem Apostolus ait : In die cum judicabit Dominus occulta hominum, secun¬ dum Evangelium meum (3). Adhaec, nonne Apostolus Petrus in die Pentecostes, accepto Spiritu sancto Evan¬ ti) Matth. VII, 29. — (2) Matth. V, 22;-ibfd. VI!, 19. - (3) Rom. II, 10. Tom. YI. 20 298 LIBER IV. gelium praedicavit ? Quis autem fuerit ejus praedicationis effectus, docet sanctus Lucas, Actor, ir. cum ait : His auditis com¬ puncti sunt corde , et dixerunt ad Petrum , et ad reliquos Apostolos , Quid faciemus viri fra¬ tres (1) ? Evangelium igitur non solum con¬ solatur, sed etiam terret. Compunctio enim ex terrore nascitur. Nec solum Petrus, sed etiam Paulus cum Evangelium praedicaret, homines terrefa- ciebat. Sic enim scribit idem Lucas, A- ctor . xxiv . Veniens Fcelix cum Drusilla uxore sua, qux erat Judaea, vocavit Paulum , et audivit ab eo fidem , qux est ia Christum Jesum. Disputante autem illo de justitia et castitate , et de judicio futuro , tremefactus Foelix respondit, quod nunc attinet, vade, etc. (2). Non audebunt (credo) Lutherani di¬ cere, Paulum vocatum, ut praedicaret fidem Christi, pro fide legem, pro Clmsto Mosem, pro Evangelio aliquid Evangelio contrarium praedicasse, et tamen finis praedicationis fuit terror ct tremor audientium. Quid sanctus Jacobus ? An ipse quoque Evangelium non praedicabat, cum scriberet in epistola sua, cap. v. Agite nunc divites, plorate ululantes , in miseriis, qux advenient vobis (3). Et frater ejus Judas item Apo¬ stolus, quid nisi Evangelium praedicabat, cum in epistola sua scriberet : Ecce venit Dominus in sanctis millibus suis, facere judi¬ cium contra omnes , et arguere omnes impios de omnibus operibus impietatis eorum » ? Denique S. Joannes Apostolus et Evan- gelista in Apocalypsi, cap. xiv. Vidi (inquit) alterum Angelum volantem per medium coe¬ lum, habentem Evangelium xternum, ut evan- gelizaret sedentibus super terram, et super omnem gentem, et tribum, et linguam } et po¬ pulum, dicens magna voce : Timete Dominum, et date illi honorem, quia venit tora judicii ejus (4). Cum igitur Christus et omnes Apostoli evangelizando terreant, et in Symbolo Apo- stolico, quod Evangelii summam continet, sit etiam articulus unus de futuro judicio, falso docent Lutherani, proprium esse le¬ gis officium terrere, et ad Evangelium non pertinere. « At si res ita se habet (inquiunt) cur Apo- stolica praedicatio dicitur Evangelium, id est, laetus et bonus nuncius ? Et cur sanctus Paulus ad Romanos octavo scribit, nos non accepisse Spiritum servitutis iterum in timo¬ re » ? Respondeo : nomen Evangelii impo¬ situm est ad significandum officium unum, idque potissimum Apostolicae praedicationis ; sed non propterea sequitur non esse etiam alia officia Evangelii, quamvis eo nomine non explicentur. Quomodo clavis dicitur quia claudit, et tamen etiam aperit ; et lin¬ gua dicitur instrumentum lingendi, quod est tamen instrumentum etiam loquendi. Dicitur igitur Evangelium, quia annun- ciat Salvatoris adventum, reconciliationem cum Deo, aditum patefactum ad regnum coelorum. Unde etiam dicitur Evangelium Regni, Matthaei 24. Et Mare. 1. Sed simul etiam annunciat iram et indignationem his, qui non recipiunt Salvatorem, neque poeni¬ tentiam agunt. Adde quod Evangelium ter¬ ret, ut consoletur, quo modo medicus vul¬ nerat ut sanet. Quod non tam proprie con¬ venit legi Mosis, quai terrebat comminando supplicia peccatoribus, et non ostendebat, nisi obscure liberatorem. Quod autem attinet ad spiritum timoris et charitatis, non colligitur inde discrimen in¬ ter legem ct Evangelium, quatenus Evan¬ gelium significat doctrinam Christi et Apo¬ stolorum ; secundum quam acceptionem nos hic loquimur de Evangelio ; sed inter testa¬ mentum novum et vetus. Nam testamentum vetus proprie non continet, nisi quod Moses attulit, id est, legem scriptam in tabulis, quie quidem servitutem generat, ut dicitur ad Galat. 4. Et timorem incurit, quoniam ostendit quid facere oporteat, et non dat vires faciendi : at novum testamentum con¬ tinet id, quod Christus attulit : Christus autem non attulit solum doctrinam et prai- cepta Evangelica, quamvis heee etiam attu¬ lerit, sed gratiam quoque Spiritus sancti, quse est lex in corde scripta, id est, charitas in cordo diffusa, per quam non timore pce- nai, sed amore justitias lex in tabulis con-” scripta servatur. Ai$ue hoc discrimen indi¬ cat Apostolus ad Roman. vm. ad Galat iv. ad Hebr. vm. et x. Et S. Augustinus in lib. contra Adimantum, cap. 17. brevissimam differentiam esse scripsit, non legis et Evan¬ gelii, sed testamenti veteris et novi, timo¬ rem et amorem. Veniamus ad tertium discrimen, quod est hujus loci maxime proprium. Igitur promis¬ siones evangelicas conditionales esse, non (1) Act. II, 35 - (2) Act; XXXIV, 24. — (3) Jacob, V, 1. — (4) Apo. XIV, 6. CAPUT II. - 299 absolutas, probatur primo ex cap . v. Nisi abundaverit justitia vestra plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum coelorum (i). Haec certe promissio est Evangelica, cum regnum caelorum com¬ prehendat. Et tamen requirit conditionem justitiae non imputatitiae, sed actualis et ope¬ rosae, quae in perfecta mandatorum obser¬ vatione consistit. Explicat enim Dominus quid sit, justitiam nostram abundare plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, cum di¬ cit, pharisaeorum et scribarum justitiam fuisse diligere amicos, non occidere, non moechari, non pejerare : nostram autem es¬ se debere, diligere etiam inimicos, non ira¬ sci sine causa, non videre uxorem alienam ad concupiscendum, non jurare omnino abs¬ que necessitate, Secundo, probatur cx cap. xix. Matth. Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata (2). Haec enim apertissima promissio vitsc aeter¬ nae, apertissimam conditionem exigit obe- dientiae. Et similis habetur promissio, Lucae iO. ubi cum is, qui Dominum rogaverat, quid facto opus esset ad vitam aeternam ac¬ quirendam, mandata legis exposuisset, Do¬ minus ait : Ilecte respondisti, fac hoc, et vives. Ad haec loca respondent adversarii, Do¬ minum haec dixisse ironice, cum solum si¬ gnificare vellet, fieri non posse, ut aliquis mandata divina custodiat : quomodo si quis diceret, si vis in coelum conscendere, vola per aerem ; vel hoc fac, assume pennas si¬ cut columbae, et altissime volabis. Ita docet Lutherus, in comment, ad cap. m. ad Ga- lat. explicans illud : Qui fecerit ea, vivet in illis. Quae verba dicit esse intelligenda iro¬ nice, sicut illa Christi : Hoc fac, et vives. Sic etiam Calvinus lib. ni. Instit. cap. 18. §. 9. dicit Christum attemperare solitum sua responsa iis, qui eum interrogabant : et quoniam Legisperitus persuasione legalis justitiae imbutus erat, et in operum fiducia caecutiebat, ideo a Christo ad legis observa¬ tionem esse remissum. Idem quoque in an¬ tidoto Concilii exagitans illud quod monet Concilium sess. 6. cap. 7. catechumenis di¬ cendum esse, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata; « Vae, inquit, eorum catechume¬ nis, si tam dura illis conditio imponitur. Quid enim aliud, quam aeterna illis male¬ dictio indicitur ? Porro Joan. Brentius homil. 1. in Domi¬ nica 13. post Trinitatem audet etiam dicere, Christum sic respondisse, cum ait : Si vis ad vitam ingredi , serva mandata, ut potius in¬ dicaverit ei viam ad aeternam damnationem. Ita videlicet isti Verbi Dei simplicitatem per¬ vertunt, et ad suos errores et blasphemias detorquere conantur. At multis de causis nihil eos conficta ista ironia juvare poterit. Primum, quoniam si ironica esset responsio, ideo talis esset, quoniam ad legisperitos, vel pharisajos di¬ rigitur : igitur cum Dominus Apostolos suos alloquitur, non ironice, sed proprie et serio loquitur. Audiant ergo quid Apostolis suis dicat, Joan. xm. Si haec scitis, beati ebitis, si feceritis ea. Joan. xv. Vos amici mei eritis, si feceritis , quae ego praecipio vobis. Et illud quod ante citavimus, Matth. v. Nisi abun¬ daverit justitia vestra ete . Et cap. vr. Si dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum , dimit¬ tet et vobis paler vester coelestis peccata ve¬ stra, si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, nec pater vester dimittet vobis (3). Haec, et simi¬ lia non possunt eludi per ironiam, et tamen promissiones continent, cum conditione ope¬ rum bonorum et obedientiee legis. Secundo, is cui Dominus dixit, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, non erat Scri¬ ba, nec Pharisaeus, aut Legisperitus, sed adolescens quidam dives. Matthaeus enim cap. xix. adolescentem vocat, et divitem fuisse narrat. Marcus cap. x. non meminit, nisi divitiarum. Lucas cap. xvnr. princi- pem appellat ; legisperitum, scribam, aut pharisieum , nullus Evangelistarum nomi¬ nat. Praeterea non venit ille ut Christum ten- taret, sed ut simpliciter viam salutis adisce - reti Nam tentationis hoc loco nulla mentio est ; et Marcus scribit eum genu flexo ro¬ gasse Dominum de via salutis. Et addit : intuitus eum Dominus, dilexit eum. Certe tam adolescentis erga Christum humilitas, quam Christi erga adolescentem benevolentia manifeste indicant serium fuisse colloquium, neque ullam ironia; suspicionem subesse. Tertio is, cui Dominus dixit : Hoc fac et vives (4). Luc. x. Legis quidem peritus erat, et Dominum tentaturus accessit : sed non propterea sequitur, ut ironice Dominus illi responderit. Nam tentatio illa non erat ad fallendum, sed ad inquirendum quid Domi- (I) Mat. V, 20. - (i) Mat. XIX, t7. - (3) Joan. XIII, 17; ibici- XV, 14; Mat. V, 20; ibid. VI, 14. - (4) Luc. X, 28. 300 LIBER VI. nus de via salutis sentiret, quidve doceret : id quod intelligi potest, tum ex eo quod Dominus illi ait : Recte respondisti , hoc fac, et vives. Quomodo enim Dominus diceret, recte respondisti, ei quem hypocritam et tentatorem subdolum esse cognosceret ? Tum ex eo quod ibidem Dominus, ut illum magis instrueret, parabolam adjecit de eo, qui incidit in latrones, et cum narrasset opus misericordiae, quod in eum Samarita¬ nus quidam exercuit, ait ad Legisperitum : Vade, et tu fac similiter. Ubi nullo modo iro¬ niam suspicari fas est, nisi velimus Domi¬ num ironice commendasse opera misericor¬ diae, vere autem et proprie contemptum eorum docuisse. Quod si in illis verbis, Vade et tu fac similiter, nulla ironia est, certe neque in illis est, Recte repondisti, hoc fac et vives. Nam ad eumdem, ab eodem, eadem phrasi, in eodem loco et tempore et eadem occasione dicuntur. Quarto, cum Dominus tcntaretur tenta- tione fallaci, et subdola, non reddebat do¬ lum pro dolo, sed vincebat in bono malum, et non ironice, sed proprie respondebat, et doctrinam seriam, et solidam tradebat, ut patet Matth. xxii. ubi primum Pliarisaei consilium ineuntes, ut caperent eum in ser¬ mone, quaerunt, liceat ne sensum dare Cae¬ sari, an non ; deinde Sadducaei non dissimi¬ li studio quaestionem proponunt, cujus viri futura sit uxor in resurrectione, quae septem viris sibi per mortem ordine succedentibus nupserat. Denique legisperiti tentantes inter¬ rogant, quod sit mandatum magnum in lege. Omnibus autem quaestionibus Dominus vere, proprie, simpliciterque respondit. Ad pri¬ mam : Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo. Ad secundam: In resurrectione neque nubent nubentur, sed erunt sicut An¬ geli Dei in coelo. Ad tertiam : Diliges Do¬ minum Deum tuum, ex toto corde tuo, et in tota anima tua, et in tota mente tua. Audeant Calvinistae et Lutherani, si pudorem penitus exuerunt, has responsiones Domini ironicas facere. Si vero non audent, multo minus Matth. xix. et Lue. x. ironiam suspicentur, cum in his locis minor occasio ironiae re¬ pe riatur. Tertio probari potest, promissiones Evan- gelicas esse conditionales ex doctrina Apo¬ stolorum, qui passim conditiones operum in¬ culcant, Roman. vili. Si spiritu facta carnis morti ficaveritis, vevetis. Et ibidem. Cohaere • des autem Christi, si tamen compatimur. II ad Timoth. ii. Si commortui sumus, et convive¬ mus ; si sustinebimus et conregnabimus. Jacob. n. Si tamen legem perficitis regalem. II Petri i. Sic enim (si videlicet) per bona opera certam vestram vocationem faciatis; abundanter mi¬ nistrabitur vobis introitus in aeternum regnum Domini nostri. I Joan. i. Si confiteamur pec¬ cata nostra, / idolis est et justus, ut remittat nobis peccata nostra. Apocal. iii. Qui vicerit, dabo ei sedere mecum in throno meo (1). Quarto, probatur ex doctrina prophetica. Nam promissiones remissionis peccatorum, etiam si in Prophetis sint, non ad legem, sed ad Evangelium pertinere adversarii non ne¬ gant. Sic igitur loquitur Ezechiel, cap. xviii. Si impius averterit se ab impietate sua , et fe¬ cerit judicium et justitiam , vita vivet etc. (2). Ubi non semel, sed saepius Dominus repetit se indulgentiam, et vitam impio donaturum, si tamen poenitentiam egerit a peccatis, et mandata omnia custodierit. Et contra, se justum graviter puniturum, si averterit se a justitia et mandata omnia non custodierit. Quo loco sicut avertere se a justitia et. man¬ data non custodire, conditio est, a qua pen¬ det comminatio mortis omnium consensu ; et nemo dicere auderet comminationem mor¬ tis non esse conditionalem, sed absolutam : ita quoque avertere se a pecccato, et facere judicium et justitiam, conditio est, a qua pendet promissio vitae ; et nemo dicere debet, promissionem vitfe non esse conditionalem, sed absolutam, nisi divinis litteris aperte re¬ pugnare velit, Quinto, probatur ex conditione fidei, quam requiri ad salutem non negant adversarii, cum scriptum sit Marci ult. Qui crediderit , salvus erit ; qui non crediderit, condemnabi¬ tur (3). Ex ac enim fidei conditione sequitur primo, ut falsum sit quod ipsi dicunt, pro¬ missiones Evangelii non esse conditionales : quomodo enim conditionales non sunt, si conditio aliqua, fidei videlicet, in omnibus requiritur? Secundo, ut etiam falsum sit, non requiri conditionem legis implendae. Nam quibus verbis Scriptura docet, requiri condi¬ tionem fidei ad salutem, iisdem, vel etiam clarioribus docet, requiri conditionem legis implenda;, ut patet ex tot locis supra citatis. (1) Rom. VIII; ibici. 17; II Tim. II, I; Jacob II, 8; II Pet. 1,10; I Joan, I, 9; Apo. III, 21. — (2)Ezccli. XVII!, 27. — (3) Mar. XVI, 10. CAPUT III. At (inquiunt) « promissiones Evangeli gratuita; sunt, non igitur conditionales » . Respondeo: gratuitum' non opponitur con- ditionali, neque est idem, quod absolutum, alioqui promissio evangelica conditionem fi¬ dei non requireret. Gratuita igitur dicitur promissio, quamvis conditionalis ; quoniam ipsa etiam conditio gratuita est, gratuita enim est promissio indulgentia;, tametsi fi¬ dem et poenitentiam exigat, quoniam fides et poenitentia dona sunt Dei, et gratuita est promissio vita; aderna;, quamvis obcdiontiam legis requirat, quoniam ipsa etiam obedien- tia legis donum Dei est; et hoc modo gra¬ tiam dat Deus pro gratia, ut legimus Joan. i. Quoniam gratiam vita; a; terna; dat pro gra¬ tia meritorum, et gratiam indulgentiae dat pro gratia poenitentiae.