Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book IV: On the Justice of Works
Chapter 5: The false Christian liberty 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).
We have hitherto discoursed of the false and true distinction of the law and the Gospel; now we shall briefly discourse of the false and true Christian liberty. For this is the other head, on which the question of the necessity of works unto salvation in great part depends. The adversaries, then, as we said above, place Christian liberty in this, that they be subject to no law in conscience and before God, and hold Christ for a redeemer, not for a lawgiver, but Moses with his Decalogue pertains nothing to them. But we, with the Council of Trent, session 6, canons 19, 20, and 21, teach that Christian and justified men are not free from the obligation of the precepts of God and of the Church, and that the liberty which the heretics preach is not a Christian, but a profane liberty, and more truly a voluntary bondage of sin and of the devil.
First, we prove it from those testimonies which teach that Christ was truly a Lawgiver. For they will not dare to deny that they are subject to the law, if they cannot deny that their Lord was a Lawgiver. Isaias indeed, chapter 33, says of the Saviour: The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us. And lest they flee perhaps to some trope, let us hear Moses in Deuteronomy, chapter 18: The Lord will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren, like unto me; him thou shalt hear. That this Prophet is Christ the Apostle Peter testifies, Acts 3, and St. Stephen, Acts 7; but most openly the Apostle Paul compares Christ with Moses, as a lawgiver with a lawgiver. For in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 2, he says that the word spoken by Angels in the hand of Moses was so firm that every disobedience received a just retribution of vengeance; and thence he gathers that much more is it to be feared by us, if we contemn the word of the Son of God. And chapter 3 he says that Moses was faithful in all the house of God as a servant, but Christ in his own house as a son. And chapter 5 he says that Christ was made to all that obey him the cause of eternal salvation; but obedience is properly owed to a Lawgiver. And chapter 12 he thus concludes: “See that you refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spoke upon earth, much more shall not we, who turn away from him that speaketh from heaven; whose voice then moved the earth, but now he promiseth, saying, Yet once more, and I will move not only the earth, but heaven also.” Moreover, that Christ is our king all Scripture testifies. Psalm 2: But I am appointed king by him. Matthew 2: Out of thee shall come forth the captain that shall rule my people Israel. Luke 1: And of his kingdom there shall be no end. Apocalypse 1 he is called the prince of the kings of the earth; and chapter 19, King of kings, and Lord of lords. But it is proper to a king to make laws; therefore, Isaias 33, “our lawgiver” is joined with the words “our king”; and Proverbs 8 it is said: By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things. Christ, then, our King, without doubt gave us some law, by the keeping of which we may render him obedience.
Second, we prove the same from testimonies which teach that the Gospel is a certain law. For Isaias 2 and Micheas 4 it is said: Out of Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Which words are commonly understood of the evangelical preaching, which was propagated from the city of Jerusalem through the whole world. See Augustine, book 18 On the City of God, chapter 50. And Isaias 42: “Behold my servant, my elect; my soul hath been well pleased in him; I have given my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” And a little after: “And the islands shall wait for his law.” And chapter 51: “Attend to me, my people, for a law shall go forth from me, and my judgment shall rest to be a light of the nations.” But that these pertain to Christ is clear from the following words: My just one is near, my Saviour is gone forth. And Matthew 11, when the Lord says, My yoke is sweet, and my burden light, does he not openly testify that he brought some law? For a promise, exhortation, instruction, cannot be called a yoke and a burden; but a law, which obligates, and by obligating presses and weighs down, is rightly called a yoke. Whence, Acts 15 and Galatians 5, the law of Moses is called a yoke by the Apostles. Moreover blessed Paul, 1 Corinthians 9: To them that were without law, I became as if I were without law, whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ. And Galatians 6: Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ.
Third, it is proved from the particular and proper commandments of Christ. For, first, that a commandment of Christ is contained in the Gospel about receiving Baptism and the Eucharist no one can deny, since we read it so openly written, John 3: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And John 6: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. Then the law forbidding the bill of divorce, and commanding that a man put not away his wife, nor a wife her husband, save in the cause of fornication, and if they shall have put them away, even for this cause they remain unmarried, or be reconciled to their spouses, is proper to Christ; of which the Apostle thus speaks, 1 Corinthians 7: To them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And Matthew, last chapter, the Lord himself testifies that he commanded certain things, and that they are to be kept by all, in these words: Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
Fourth, it is proved from testimonies which teach that the law of Moses, which pertains to manners, was approved by Christ and the Apostles, and delivered to the faithful to be observed. For this, first, is clear from Matthew 5, 6, and 7, where the Lord approves and explains the law of Moses; of which matter we spoke above, in chapters 1 and 2. Then, the same is clear from Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18, where the Lord again approves the Decalogue of Moses, and says that that law is a way to eternal life; of which too we spoke, chapter 1. Third, it is evidently proved from this, that the same Lord testifies, Matthew 22, that the precept of love is the first and greatest commandment, and that on it the law and the prophets depend, seeing that it virtually comprehends the Decalogue and all the other laws and precepts; and this very commandment he so commends to the Apostles, and through them to the whole Church, that he says, John 15, This is my commandment, that you love one another; and again, These things I command you, that you love one another; and John 13, A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another. Where he calls it new, both because he willed it to be renewed, and because that one, diligently kept, makes men new. Not only the Lord, but also the Apostles, diligently and assiduously commend to all the faithful the commandments of the Decalogue, and the very precept of love, in which the whole Decalogue (as we said) is contained — which certainly they would not do, if the ten precepts pertained not to the Church of the Christians. Romans 13: Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law. For, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The love of one’s neighbor worketh no evil; love therefore is the fulfilling of the law. The same, Ephesians 6: Honor thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise. The Apostle James too, chapter 2: If then you fulfil the royal law, according to the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, you do well; but if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors. And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all. For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. Thou seest how openly James demonstrates that the Decalogue of Moses pertains to us also? Further, St. Peter, in epistle 1, chapters 1 and 4, and St. John in his whole first epistle — nay even in the second and third — admonish nothing more often than that we busy ourselves to fulfil the precept of love, knowing, namely, that in that precept, as we have often said, the universal law is most fully contained.
Fifth, it is proved from those testimonies which teach that the moral law of Moses is not abrogated by the faith of Christ and the Gospel. Matthew 5: Do not think that I am come to destroy the law; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. But how he said he would fulfil it he explains in what follows, where he commands the precepts of the law, “Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and the like, to be kept most perfectly. And the Apostle, Romans 3: Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid; but we establish the law. But if the evangelical preaching so teaches faith alone as to require not works, nor admit any law properly so called, why should it not be true that the law is destroyed through faith? For what is to destroy the law but to take from it the force of obligating? The same Apostle too, Romans 7: So then the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. And in the same place: I consent to the law, that it is good; likewise, I myself with my mind serve the law of God. And chapter 8: God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, of sin condemned sin, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. Who, then, would believe that that law was taken away by Christ, which the Apostle called holy, good, and just, and for the sake of which God sent his Son and of sin condemned sin, that, namely, we might, with his help, be able to fulfil it? Sixth, it is proved from testimonies which have the name of debt, as Romans 8: We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh, etc. 1 John 4: We ought to love one another. 1 John 2: He that saith he abideth in Christ ought himself also to walk even as he walked. 1 John 3: We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. Luke 17: We have done that which we ought to do. Seventh, it is proved from those which teach that Christ is the judge of the whole world, and in the last day will distribute either punishments or rewards according to the works of each. For this is had expressly, Matthew 25, Acts 10 and 17, Romans 2 and 14, 1 Peter 4, and everywhere else. But what kind of judgment will it be, if there are no laws, from the transgression of which we deserve to be damned, or from the observance to be crowned? For as to what certain of the innovators say, that in the last judgment the examination will be of faith alone, it manifestly conflicts with the words of the Lord, who, Matthew 25, testifies that he will say to the just: Possess the kingdom prepared for you; for I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, etc.; but to the unjust, Depart, you cursed, into everlasting fire; for I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat, etc. In which place (as St. Augustine notes in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 15) no mention of faith is made, that we might understand that to the Christians who are damned not faith, but works, were lacking. Which the Apostle also most openly teaches, 2 Corinthians 5, when he says: We must all be manifested before the tribunal of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.
Eighth, it is proved from the testimonies of the Fathers. Clement, in book 6 of the Apostolic Constitutions, chapter 19: “You know God through Christ, and his whole dispensation instituted from the beginning, that he gave us a simple law for the help of the natural law, pure, salutary, holy, in which he placed also his own name, perfect, absolute, containing the ten precepts, free of reprehension, converting souls,” etc. St. Augustine, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 14: “In those ten precepts, the observance of the sabbath excepted, let it be told me what is not to be observed by a Christian.” And below: “Which of these would anyone say that a Christian ought not to keep?” Likewise book 10 against Faustus, chapter 2: “To a Jew saying to me, Why holdest thou the Old Testament, whose precepts thou keepest not? I answer that the precepts of the life to be led are kept by Christians even from those books; but the precepts of the life to be signified were then rightly observed when they were foretold, which now are revealed.” Likewise tractate 3 on John: “All those things (the moral precepts) are rather commanded to us, and are to be observed.” On Psalm 73, not far from the beginning: “If we distinguish the two Testaments, Old and New, the sacraments are not the same, the promises not the same, yet very many precepts the same. For ‘Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Honor thy father and mother, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife’ are said to us also; and whoever observes them not deviates, and is not at all worthy to ascend the holy mountain of God.” And below: “The precepts, then, being examined, either all the same are found, or scarcely any in the Gospel which were not said by the Prophets; the precepts the same, the sacraments not the same.” St. Leo, sermon 6 on the fast of the tenth month: “From the very ecclesiastical devotion it is demonstrated that the Lord Jesus Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil. For, the signifying things ceasing, by which the coming of our Saviour was announced, and the figures being accomplished, which the very presence of truth took away, those things which the reason of piety instituted either for the rules of manners or for the simple worship of God persevere among us in the same form in which they were founded; and those which were congruous to each Testament are varied by no change.” The same in sermon 14 on the Passion of the Lord: “As there is none of the believers to whom the gifts of grace are to be denied, so there is none who is not a debtor of Christian discipline. For although the asperity of the mystical law be removed, yet the utility of voluntary observance has grown.” Where that word “voluntary” is not opposed to “due” — otherwise he would fight with himself — but is opposed to “harsh and servile,” as we shall declare more fully in the following chapter. Whence in the same place St. Leo subjoins: “In the moral precepts no decrees of the former Testament are reproved, but by the evangelical ministry many are increased, that they might be more perfect and more luminous, giving salvation, than promising a Saviour.” Many such testimonies could still be brought forward, but there is no need, since they are obvious and everywhere occur to readers. This one thing I will add: that some of the Fathers not only said this in passing, but even studiously collected from each Testament the moral precepts by which the life of the faithful ought to be formed unto the perfection of justice. See Clement of Alexandria, book 3 of the Paedagogus, chapter 10; Cyprian, book 3 to Rufinus; Augustine in the Mirror, which is had in tome 9 (though it seems not to be Augustine’s). A like work St. Basil too meditated, but, excluded by the narrowness of time, he collected the moral precepts only from the New Testament, as he himself testifies in the preface to the Morals.
Ninth, it is proved by a most evident reason. For either a Christian and just man sins when he transgresses the moral precepts of the old law, or he sins not. If he sins, then he is not free from the observance of that law. For what is sin but the transgression of the law? But he does not transgress the law who has not the law; for where there is no law, neither is there transgression. Accordingly, if that moral law of the Old Testament is not truly a law to a Christian and justified man, he sins not when he keeps it not; or if he sins, then it is truly a law to him. Finally, it cannot be imagined how he sins who is free from the law. But if he sins not, then it is false, what all the sectaries say, that all the works of a just man are mortal sins. Likewise, if he sins not, then the heresy of the Libertines is true, that nothing is sin but a false imagination, and that the reins are to be loosed to all, so that it be lawful for each to do what he pleases. This, forsooth, is the Christian liberty which the sectaries preach — the liberty of perpetrating all villainies without scruple, the liberty of the flesh, not of the spirit, of the sons of the devil, not of the sons of God, the liberty, finally, more miserable than all bondage.
They will say, perhaps, that they do not so understand liberty from the law as though the transgression of the law be not sin, but that to the faithful that transgression is not imputed. For this sense the words of Luther seem to effect in the book On Monastic Vows, where he says that liberty consists in this, that a pious conscience be free from all works — not indeed to be done, but accusing and defending — because none are so evil as can accuse and damn him, none so good as can defend and justify him. And on chapter 2 to the Galatians, where he acknowledges that a man sins, but says that he has nothing to do with the law, because it cannot damn him. The same sense the words of Calvin make, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 19, sections 4 and 7, where he says that liberty consists in this, that we do works not as to be examined by the rule of the law, but as to be accepted of whatever kind they be. But if they say so, they must confess that the law truly and properly pertains to them, and that they too are subject to its yoke; for if they truly sin, though the sin be not imputed to them, they truly transgress the law, and accordingly truly have the law. For they could not truly be called transgressors unless they had the law, nor would they truly sin unless they transgressed the law. Moreover I ask whether the transgression of the law — as, for example, murder, adultery, perjury — can dwell together with faith, or cannot. For if it cannot, then that transgression not only is a sin, but is imputed. For how is it not imputed, if it shakes off faith? Or is the transgression not imputed even to unbelievers? But if the transgression of the law can dwell with faith — as Luther indicates openly enough, when he says in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, in the chapter on Baptism, that no sins can hurt the baptized, because, if faith stand or return, they are in a moment absorbed (where he signifies that faith can stand), and in the book On Monastic Vows, where he says that of the believer no works are so evil as can accuse or damn him — then good works are not necessary, even as fruits and signs of faith? Then there is no reason at all why crimes and villainies should be fled, save perhaps from the fear of temporal punishment? Thou seest how the error of the sectaries ever recoils to this, that they may open the entrance to vices and sins, and yet everywhere cry out that a great injury is done to them by the Catholics, as though they neglected good works.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V.
Refellitur falsa libertas Christiana, et inde
probatur necessitas operum.
Disseruimus hactenus de falso et vero di¬
scrimine legis et Evangelii ; nunc de falsa et
vera libertate Christiana breviter dissere¬
mus. Nam hoc est alterum caput, unde ma¬
gna ex parte dependet quaestio de necessi¬
tate operum ad salutem.
Igitur adversarii, ut supra diximus, in eo
(1) Rom. VIII, 15; Gal. IV, 24; II Tim. I. 7 - (2) Act. XV, I0;Mat.XI, 29.
CAPUT V.
307
ponunt Christianam libertatem, ut nulli legi
subjecti sint in conscientia, et coram Deo ;
et Christum habeant pro redemptore, non
pro legislatore ; Moses autem cum suo Deca¬
logo nihil ad eos pertineat. Nos vero cum
Tridentino Concilio in sess. 6. can. 19. 20 et
21. docemus, homines Christianos et justifi¬
catos, non esse liberos ab obligatione pne-
ccptorum Dei et Ecclesiae, et eam, quam
Ha?retici praedicant, non esse Christianam,
sed profanam libertatem, et verius peccati,
ac diaboli voluntariam servitutem.
Primum, id probamus ex iis testimoniis,
quae docent, Christum verum fuisse Legisla¬
torem. Neque enim negare audebunt, se legi
subjectos esse, si Dominum suum Legislato¬
rem fuisse negare non possint, Isaias qui¬
dem cap. xxxm. de Salvatore dicit : Domi¬
nus Judex noster, Dominus Legi fer noster. Do¬
minus Rex noster, ipse salvabit nos. Ac ne ad
tropum aliquem forte confugiant, audiamus
Mosem in Deuter. cap. xvni. Prophetam, in¬
quit, de gente tua, et de fratribus tuis, sicut
me suscitabit tibi Dominus, ipsum audies (1).
Hunc Prophetam, Christum esse, testatur
Apostolus Petrus Actor, m. et S. Stephanus
Act. vn. sed apertissime Apostolus Paulus
Christum confert cum Mose, ut legislatorem
cum legislatore. Nam in epist. ad Hebraeos
cap. 2. dicit, sermonem factum per Angelos
in manu Mosis, ita firmum fuisse, ut omnis
inobedientia dignam receperit vindictae re¬
tributionem. Et inde colligit, multo magis
timendum esse nobis, si sermonem filii Dei
contempserimus. Et cap. 3, dicit, Mosem fi¬
delem fuisse in tota domo Dei tamquam fa¬
mulum, Christum autem in domo sua tam¬
quam filium. Et cap. 5. dicit, Christum fa¬
ctum esse omnibus obedientibus sibi causam
salutis aeternae. Obedientia autem proprie
Legislatori debetur, et cap. 12. ita concludit :
« Videte ne recusetis loquentem. Si enim
illi non effugerunt, recusantes eum, qui su¬
per terram loquebatur, multo magis nos,
qui de coelis loquentem nobis avertimus, cu¬
jus vox movit terram tunc, nunc autem re¬
promittit dicens :« Adhuc semel et ego mo¬
vebo non solum terram, sed et coelum ».
Praeterea Christum esse regem nostrum
omnis Scriptura testatur, Psal. n. Ego au¬
tem constitutus sum rex ab eo. Matth. ii, 6.
Ex te exiet dux , qui regat populum meum
Israel. Luc I. Et regni ejus non erit finis.
Apocal. i. dicitur : Princeps regum terree.
Et cap. xix. Rex regum, et Dominus domi¬
nantium. At Regis proprium est leges con¬
dere ; ideo siquidem Isaiae xxxm. conjungi¬
tur, Legifer noster, cum verbis, rex noster ;
et Proverb. vm. dicitur : Per me reges re¬
gnant, et legum conditores justa decernunt (2).
Christus igitur Rex noster legem aliquam
sine dubio nobis dedit, per cujus custodiam
obedientiam illi praestemus.
Secundo, idem probamus ex testimoniis,
quae docent, Evangelium esse quamdam le¬
gem. Nam Isai. ii. et Michaeae iv. dicitur :
De Sion exibit lex et Verbum Domini de Hie¬
rusalem (3). Quae verba intelliguntur com¬
muniter de praedicatione evangelica, quae ab
urbe Hierosolyma per totum mundum pro¬
pagata est. Vide Augustinum lib. xvm de
Civ. Dei cap. l. et Isai. xlii. « Ecce ser¬
vus meus, electus meus, complacuit sibi
in illo anima mea, dedi spiritum meum su¬
per eum, judicium gentibus profert » . Et
paulo post : « Et legem ejus insulae expecta-
bunt ». Et cap. 51. « Attendite ad me popule
meus, quia lex a me exiet, et judicium
meum in lucem populorum requiescet.
Pertinere autem haec ad Christum, perspi¬
cuum est ex verbis sequentibus : Prope est
iustus meus, egressus est Salvator meus. Et
Matth. ii. cum Dominus ait : Jugum meum
suave est, et onus meum leve (4). Nonne
aperte legem aliquam se attulisse testatur ?
neque enim promissio, exhortatio, instru¬
ctio, jugum et onus dici possunt. Sed lex,
quae obligat, et obligando premit et gravat,
recte dicitur jugum. Unde Actor, xv. et ad
Gal. v. lex Mosis jugum ab Apostolis appella¬
tur. Praeterea B. Paulus I Corinth. ix. Iis,
inquit, qui sine lege erant, factus sum tam¬
quam sine lege essem, cum sine lege Dei non
essem, sed in lege essem Christi. Et ad Galat. vi.
Alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebi¬
tis legem Christi (5).
Tertio, probatur ex particularibus et pro¬
priis Christi mandatis. Nam in primis man¬
datum Christi in Evangelio contineri, de
suscipiendo Baptismo et Eucharistia, nemo
negare potest, cum tam aperte scriptum le¬
gamus, Joan. m. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex
II, 6; Matth. II, G; Luc. I, 33; Apo. I, 5; ibid
(4) Mat. XI, 30. -(5) I Cor.
(1) Isai. XXXIII, 22; Deut. XVIII, 15,- (2) Psal.
XIX, 16; Isai. XXXIII, 22; Prov. VIII, 16.-(y) Isai. II, 3; Mieh. IV, 2.
IX, 21; Gal. VI, 2.
308
LIBER IV.
aqua et Spiritu sancto, non potest intrare in
regnum Dei, Et Joan. vi. Nisi manducaveritis
carnem filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sangui¬
nem, non habebitis vitam in vobis (1). Deinde
lex prohibens libellum repudii, et praeci¬
piens, ut vir uxorem non dimittat, neque
uxor virum, nisi in causa fornicationis, et si
dimiserint, hac etiam de causa maneant in¬
nupti, vel conjugibus reconcilientur ; pro¬
pria Christi est, de qua sic loquitur Aposto¬
lus I ad Gorinth. vn. His, qui matrimonio
juncti sunt , praecipio, non ego, sed Dominus,
uxorem a viro non discedere ; quod si discesse¬
rit, manere innuptam, aut viro suo reconciliari.
Et Matth. ult. Dominus ipse aliqua se man¬
dasse, et ab omnibus esse custodienda testa¬
tur his verbis : Docete omnes gentes, bapti¬
zantes eos in nomine Patr is, et Filii, et Spiri¬
tus sancti , docentes eos servare omnia, qute
mandavi vobis (2).
Quarto, probatur ex testimoniis, quae do¬
cent, legem Mosis, quae ad mores pertinet a
Christo et Apostolis approbatam, et fidelibus
ad observandum traditam. Nam id in pri¬
mis perspicuum est ex cap. v. vi. et vn.
Matth. ubi Dominus approbat, et explicat le¬
gem Mosis. De qua re diximus supra in cap. i.
et ii. Deinde, idem patet ex cap. xix. Matth. x.
et Mare. xvm. Luc. Ubi Dominus iterum
approbat Decalogum Mosis, ac dicit, eam le¬
gem viam esse ad vitam aeternam. De quo
etiam diximus cap. 1. Tertio, probatur evi¬
denter ex eo, quod idem Dominus testatur
Matt. 22. praeceptum dilectionis esse primum
et maximum mandatum, et ab eo legem,
Prophetasque pendere, quippe quod virtute
Decalogum, et omnes alias leges, et praece¬
pta comprehendit ; et hoc ipsum mandatum
ita commendat Apostolis, et per eos Eccle¬
siae universae, ut dicat Joan. xv. Hoc est prae¬
ceptum meum, ut diligatis invicem. Et rursus :
Haec mando vobis, ut diligatis invicem. Et
Joan. xm. Mandatum novum do vobis, ut dili¬
gatis invicem (3). Ubi novum appellat, tum
quia renovari illud volebat, tum quia illud
unum diligenter servatum homines facit
novos.
Non solum Dominus, sed etiam Apostoli
mandata Decalogi, et ipsum dilectionis prae¬
ceptum, in quo totus Decalogus (ut diximus)
continetur, fidelibus omnibus diligenter, as¬
sidueque commendant, quod certe non face¬
rent, si decem praecepta non pertinerent ad
Ecclesiam Christianorum. Rom. xm. Nemini
quidquam debeatis, nisi ut invicem diligatis.
Qui enim diligit proximum, legem implevit.
Nam non adulterabis, non occides, non fura¬
beris, non falsum testimonium dices , non con¬
cupisces, et si quod est aliud manaatum, in
hoc verbo instauratur, Diliges proximum
tuum sicut teipsum. Dilectio proximi malum
non operatur, plenitudo ergo legis est dilectio.
Idem ad Ephes. vi. Honora, inquit, patrem
tuum et matrem tuam, quod est mandatum
primum in promissione (4).
Apostolus quoque Jacobus cap. ii. Si ta¬
men, inquit, legem perficitis regalem secun¬
dum Scripturas, Diliges proximum tuum sicut
te ipsum, bene facitis ; Si autem personas ac¬
cipitis, peccatum operamini, redarguti a lege
quasi transgressores. Quicumque autem totam
legem servaverit, offendatiautem in uno, factus
est omnium reus. Qui enim dixit, non moecha¬
beris, dixit et, non occides, quod si non moecha¬
beris, occides autem, factus es transgressor le¬
gis. (5). Vides quam aperte Jacobus Decalo¬
gum Mosis ad nos quoque pertinere demon¬
stret ?
Porro S. Petrus in epist. i. cap. i. et iv. et
S. Joannes in tote. 1. epist. immo etiam in ii.
et iii. nihil saepius admonent, quam ut di¬
lectionis praeceptum implere satagamus,
scientes videlicet in eo praecepto, ut saepe
diximus, universalem legem plenissime con¬
tineri.
Quinto, probatur ex testimoniis illis, quae
docent, legem Mosis moralem non esse per
fidem Christi, et Evangelium abrogatam,
Matth. v. Nolite putare quoniam veni solvere
legem, non veni solvere, sed adimplere (G).
Quomodo vero se dixerit impleturum, expli¬
cat in sequentibus, ubi perfectissime servari
mandat praecepta legis, non occides, non
moechaberis et similia. Et Apostolus ad
Rom. iii. Quid ergo legem destruimus per fi¬
dem ? absit, sed legem statuimus (7). At si
praedicatio Evangelica solam fidem ita docet,
ut opera non requirat, nec legem ullam pro¬
prie dictam admittat, quid ni verum sit, le¬
gem destrui per fidem ?quid enim est, legem
destruere, nisi vim obligandi ab ea tollere ?
idem quoque Apostolus ad Rom. yii. Itaque,
inquit, lex quidem sancta, et mandatum san¬
ctum, justum et bonum. Et ibidem ; Consen-
(1) Joan. III. 3 ; Joan. VI, 54. — (2) I Cor. VII, 10; Matth. XXVIII, 19. - (3) Joan. XV, 11; ibid.
17; Joan. XIII, 34. — (4) Rom. XIII, 8; Eph. VI, 1,— (5) Jacob. II, 8.-(6)Mat. V. 17.— (7) Rom. V, 31.
CAPUT V. •
lio legi, quia bona est ; Itera : Ego ipse mente
servio legi Dei. Et cap. viii. Deus filium suum
mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, de
peccato damnavit peccatum , ut justificatio le¬
gis impleatur in nobis (1). Quis igitur credat,'
legem illam a Christo esse sublatam, quam
sanctam, bonam et justam appellavit Apo¬
stolus, et cujus gratia misit Deus filium
suum, et de peccato damnavit peccatum, ut
eam videlicet, ipso adjuvante, implere pos¬
semus.
Sexto, probatur ex testimoniis, quae ha¬
bent nomen debiti, ut Rom. vixi. Debitores
sumus non carni, ut secundum carnem viva¬
mus etc. I Joan. iv. Nos debemus alterutrum
diligere. I Joan. ii. Qui se dicit in Christo
manere, debet, sicut ille ambulavit , et ipse am¬
bulare. I Joan. iii. nos debemus pro fratri¬
bus animas ponere. Luc. xvil. Quod debuimus
facere fecimus {'1).
Septimo, probatur ex iis, quae docent,
Christum esse judicem totius mundi, et in
ultimo die secundum opera uniuscujusque,
vel poenas, vel praemia distributurum. Id
enim habetur expresse Matt. xxv. Act. x.
et xvii. Rom. ij. et xiv. I Petri iv. et alibi
passim. At quale judicium erit, si nullae sunt
leges, ex quarum praevaricatione damnari,
vel observatione coronari mereamur ? quod
enim quidam ex novatoribus dicunt, in judi¬
cio extremo examen futurum de sola fide,
manifeste pugnat cum verbis Domini, qui
Matth. xxv. justis dicturum se esse testatur :
Possidete paratum vobis regnum , esurivi enim
et dedistis mihi manducare etc., injustis autem ;
hc maledicti in igiiem veternum , esurivi enim,
et non dedistis mihi manducare etc. In quo
loco (ut notat sanctus Augustinus in lib. de
fide et operibus, cap. 13.) nulla mentio fidei
facta est, ut intelligcrcmus, Christianis, qui
damnantur, non fidem, sed opera defuisse.
Id quod etiam apertissime docet Apostolus
II Corinth. v. cum ait : Omnes nos manife¬
stari oportet ante tribunal Christi , ut referat
unusquisque propria corporis , pro ut gessit ,
sive bonum , sive malum (3).
Octavo, probatur ex testimoniis Patrum.
Clemens in lib. vi. Apostolicarum constitu¬
tionum, cap. 19. Cognoscitis, inquit, Deum
per Christum, universamque ejus dispensa¬
tionem a principio institutam, quod dedit
nobis legem simplicem ad auxilium naturalis
300
legis, puram, salutarem, sanctam, in qua
et proprium nomen reposuit, perfectam,
absolutam, decem praecepta continentem,
reprehensione carentem, convertentem ani¬
mas etc. »
S. Augustinus in ljjerode spiritu et littera,
cap. 14. <( In illis, inquit, decem praeceptis,
excepta sabbati observatione, dicatur mihi,
quid non sit observandum a Christiano».
Et infra : « Quid horum quisquam dixerit,
non debere servare Christianum »? Item
lib. x. conta Faustum, cap. 2. a Judaeo di¬
centi mihi, cur tenes vetus Testamentum,
cujus praecepta non servas? Respondeo, ser¬
vari a Christianis etiam ex ipsis libris prae¬
cepta vitae agendae ; praecepta autem vitae
significandae tunc recte observata, cum prae-
nunciabantur, quae nunc revelata sunt».
Item tractat. 3. in Joan. « Illa, inquit, om¬
nia (moralia praecepta) nobis magis praeci¬
piuntur, et observanda sunt ». In Psalm.
lxxiii. non procul ab initio : « Si discerni¬
mus, inquit, duo Testamenta vetus et no¬
vum, non sunt eadem sacramenta, non ea¬
dem promissa, eadem tamen pleraque praeee-
ta. Nam non occides, non moechaberis, non
furaberis, honora patrem et matrem, nonfal-
sum testimonium dixeris, non concupisces
res proximi tui, non concupisces uxorem pro¬
ximi tui, et nobis dictum est, et quisquis ea
non observaverit, deviat, nec omnino dignus
est, qui ascendere mereatur montem san¬
ctum Dei ». Et infra : « Discussa ergo prae¬
cepta, aut eadem omnia inveniuntur, aut vix
aliqua in Evangclio, qua non dicta sint a
Prophetis, praecepta eadem, sacramenta non
eadem ».
S. Leo serm. 6. de jejunio decimi mensis :
« Ex ipsa, inquit, ecclesiastica devotione de¬
monstratur, quod Dominus Jesus Christus
non venit legem solvere, sed adimplere.
Cessantibus enim significantibus, quibus
Salvatoris nostri nunciabatur adventus, et
peractis figuris; quas abstulit ipsa praesentia
veritatis, ea quae vel ad regulas morum, vel
ad simplicem Dei cultum ratio pietatis insti¬
tuit, in eadem apud nos forma, in qua sunt
condita perserverant ; et quae utrique Testa¬
mento erant congrua, nulla sunt commuta¬
tione variata ». Idem in serm. 14. de passione
Domini ; a Sicut, inquit, nemo est creden¬
tium, cui dona neganda sint gratiae, ita uc-
(1) Rom. VII, 12; ibid. 1G; ibid, VIII, 3.— (2) Rom. VIII, 12; I Joan. IV, II; I Joan. II, 0; ibid. III,
16; Luc. XVII, 10. - (5) Muttli. XXV, 54; U Cor. V, 10.
310
LIBER IV.
mo est, qui non sit Christiana; debitor disci¬
plinae. Quia et si remota sit mysticae legis
asperitas, voluntariae tamen observantiae
crevit utilitas ». Ubi vox illa, « voluntariae »,
non opponitur debitae, alioqui secum ipse
pugnaret, sed opponitur asperae et servili, ut
fusius in sequenti capite declarabimus. Unde
subjungit ibidem sanctus Leo : « In praece¬
ptis moralibus nulla prioris Testamenti de¬
creta reprobata, sed cvangelico ministerio
multa sunt aucta, ut perfectiora et lucidiora
essent dantia salutem, quam promittentia
Salvatorem ».
Possent ejusmodi testimonia adhuc multa
proferri, sed non est opus, cum obvia sint,
et legentibus passim occurrant. Id unum
addam, nonnullos ex Patribus non solum
obiter hoc dixisse, sed etiam studiose colle¬
gisse ex utroque testamento prsecepta mo¬
ralia, quibus ad perfectionem justitiae infor¬
mari debeat vita fidelium. Vide Clementem
Alexandrin. lib. 3. Pajdagogi, cap. 10. Cy¬
prianum lib. m. ad Rufinum, Augustinum
in Speculo, qui habetur tom. 9. non videtur
esse Augustini. Simile opus meditabatur
quoque sanctus Basilius, sed augustiis tem¬
poris exclusus, non collegit praecepta mora¬
lia, nisi ex Testamento novo, ut ipse testatur
in praefatione moralium.
Nono, probatur evidentissima ratione. Nam
vel homo Christianus et justus peccat, cum
moralia legis veteris praecepta transgreditur,
vel non peccat. Si peccat, igitur non est li¬
ber ab ejus legis observatione. Quid enim est
peccatum, nisi praevaricatio legis? non autem
praevaricatur legem, qui non habet legem.
Nam ubi non est lex, nec praivaricatio ;
proinde si lex illa moralisTestamenti veteris
non est homini Christiano et justificato vere
lex, non peccat, dum eam non servat : vel si
peccat, igitur est illi vere lex : Denique fingi
non potest, quomodo peccet, qui liber sit a
lege. Quod si non peccat, igitur falsum est
quod sectarii omnes dicunt, omnia opera
hominis justi esse peccata mortalia. Item si
non peccat, igitur vera est Libertinorum hae-
resis, quod nihil sit peccatum, nisi falsa ima¬
ginatio ; et laxandae sunt omnibus habenee,
ut unicuique liceat quod ei libet. Ista videli¬
cet libertas est christiana, quam sectarii fne-
dicant, libertas omnia flagitia sine scrupulo
perpetrandi, libertas carnis, non spiritus,
filiorum diaboli, non filiorum Dei, libertas
denique omni servitute miserior.
Dicent fortasse, non ita se intelligere liber¬
tatem a lege quasi prmvaricatio legis non sit
peccatum, sed quod fidelibus ea praevaricatio
non imputetur. Ilunc enim sensum videntur
efficere verba Lutheri in lib. de votis Mona¬
sticis, ubi dicit, in eo consistere libertatem,
quod pia conscientia sit libera ab omnibus
operibus, non quidem faciendis, sed accu¬
santibus et defendentibus, quia nulla sunt
tam mala, qua; possint illum accusare et dam¬
nare, nulla tam bona, qua; eum queant de¬
fendere et justificare. Et in 2 cap. ad Galat.
ubi agnoscit hominem peccare , sed dicit,
nihil sibi esse cum lege, quia non potest eum
damnare. Eumdem sensum faciunt verba Cal¬
vini lib. m. Institut. cap. 19. §. 4. et 7. ubi
dicit, libertatem in eo consistere, ut facia¬
mus opera non tanquam examinanda ad
regulam legis, sed tanquam acceptanda qua-
liacumque sint.
At si ita dixerint, fateri debent, vere et
proprie legem ad se pertinere, ejusque jugo
se quoque esse subjectos : nam si vere pec¬
cant, licet peccatum eis non imputetur, vere
pra; varicantur legem. Proinde vere legem
habent. Non enim vere praevaricatores dici
possent, nisi legem haberent ; neque vere
peccarent, nisi legem praevaricarentur.
Praeterea quaero, utrum praevaricatio legis,
ut exempli gratia, homicidium, adulterium,
perjurium, cum fide simul habitare possit,
vel non possit : nam si non potest, igitur
praevaricatio illa non solum est peccatum,
sed imputatur. Quomodo enim non impula-
tur, si excutit fidem? an etiam infidelibus
praevaricatio non imputatur? si vero potest
praevaricatio legis habitare cum fide ; ut sa¬
tis aiperte indicat Lutherus, cum dicit in lib.
de Captio. Babylonica , cap. de Baptismo,
nulla peccata nocere posse baptizato, quia si
stet, vel redeat fides, in momento absorben¬
tur; ubi significat posse stare fidem. Et lib.
de votis Monasticis, ubi dicit, credentis nulla
esse tam mala opera, quee eum accusare vel
damnare possint. Igitur non sunt necessaria
opera bona,- etiam ut fructus et signa fidei ?
igitur nulla est omnino ratio, cur sint scelera
et flagitia fugienda, nisi forte ex metu sup¬
plicii temporalis? Vides ut semper ad id re¬
volvatur error sectariorum, ut aditum pate¬
faciant vitiis et peccatis, et tamen passim
vociferantur, sibi magnam a Catholicis inju¬
riam fieri, quasi negligant opera bona.
CAPUT VI.
311