Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book IV: On the Justice of Works
Chapter 21: Objections from the Fathers and from reason against the truth of actual justice are solved
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).
[The opening pages of this chapter — treating an objection drawn from Isaias and from the Lord’s Prayer — are damaged in the sole surviving scan. What follows is translated from the legible portions; the substance of the opening is given from the recoverable text, and the copious testimonies of Augustine, Gregory, and Bernard, which are the body of the chapter, are entire.]
The heretics object that in the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6, we are taught to say, Forgive us our debts, and, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven; whence they gather that we always sin, and always rebel against the will of God in every work, since we always need to ask pardon, and the will of God is never fulfilled in us. I answer: we ask not only what we have not, but also the conservation and increase of what we have. So St. Cyprian explains, in the sermon on the Lord’s Prayer, treating the first petition: “This we ask and pray, that we who in Baptism are sanctified may persevere in that which we have begun to be.” And in the same manner St. Augustine explains, in the book On the Good of Perseverance, chapter 2. And that, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, the aforesaid Fathers admonish can also be understood as asking for the conversion of the infidels — namely, that those who are signified by the name of earth may do the will of God, as those do who are signified by heaven. From which we understand that the holy Fathers argue from the Lord’s Prayer in a manner contrary to what Luther would do. Further, when we say, Forgive us our debts, we say it not for every work, but for the venial sins which we mingle with our works; for we give thanks for many works, not asking pardon. But what Luther says, in the assertion of the second article, that that prayer is said for the concupiscence which is always in us, is expressly contradicted by St. Augustine, who in the book On the Perfection of Justice teaches that we ought not, for the concupiscence of the flesh against which the Spirit lusts, to say, “Forgive us our debts.” And so that we ask pardon is no proof that all our works are sins, but only that we cannot in this life avoid all venial sins.
By this same justice we are made just; for this justice we obtain not from merit, but from the mercy of God, and penance and the confession of sins properly precede it. Nor yet will any inconvenience follow if the same place be referred to the second justification. For it pertains to the justice of this life that the truth of confession — that we often slip into sins, at least venial, which (as we have often said) are not repugnant to justice, and that whatever good we do, we do it not without the grace and help of God.
From St. Augustine three places are wont to be objected, besides those which we shall sift in the disputation on the merits of works in the following book. The first place is in epistle 29 to Jerome: “The fullest charity, which cannot now be increased, is in no one so long as this man lives here; but as long as it can be increased, surely that which is less than it ought is of vice; from which vice there is none that doth good and sinneth not.” Another place like this is in the book On the Perfection of Justice, response 15: “It is sin, when either there is not the charity that ought to be, or it is less than it ought.” I answer: St. Augustine calls vice, and in a broad manner sin, the imperfection and defect which is in us by reason of concupiscence; of which vice there is no one who does not sometime sin. But that this imperfection is not sin properly so called is clear, both from the very book On the Perfection of Justice, where St. Augustine says that we ought not, for the concupiscence of the flesh against which the Spirit lusts, to say, “Forgive us our debts”; and from the book On the Spirit and the Letter, last chapter, where in express words he says that it is not to be reckoned a fault that charity in this life is not so great as it will be in the fatherland. The second place is in book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 13: “Woe even to the laudable life of men, if, mercy set aside, thou examine it.” I answer: St. Augustine says not that laudable works are sins, if, mercy set aside, they be examined; nay, in the same place he separates the good works of his mother, for which he gives thanks to God, from the sins, for which he asks pardon of God. He says only that the life of a man, laudable on account of good works, needs mercy in the judgment of God, on account of the sins, at least venial, from which no one is found free. The third place is in book 3 against Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 7: “Hence it has come to pass that the virtue which is now in a just man is so far called perfect, that to its perfection belongs also the knowledge, in truth, and the confession, in humility, of its own imperfection.” I answer: St. Augustine says nothing else in this place than that justice in this life is imperfect if it be compared to the justice of the blessed life, and that the knowledge and confession of this imperfection is at this time not a little necessary, lest one think himself to be what he truly is not, and so deceive himself. But nowhere in this whole book does Augustine say that this imperfection is sin; but rather, on the contrary, he affirms that it is a true justice, and in its manner perfect. For thus he says at the end of the chapter: “The justice according to which the just man liveth by faith, since it is to a man from God through the spirit of grace, is a true justice. Which, though it be not without reason in some just men called perfect according to the capacity of this life, is yet small compared with that great justice which the equality of the Angels receives; which he who had not yet, both on account of that which was in him called himself perfect, and on account of that which was still wanting called himself imperfect. But plainly that lesser justice makes the merit, that greater becomes the reward; whence he who follows not the former attains not the latter.” Thus he — from which it evidently appears that the adversaries abuse the authority of the Fathers to deceive the unskilled and simple.
From St. Gregory they bring forward many testimonies. The first is in book 9 of the Morals, chapter 1: “A holy man, because he sees that all the merit of our virtue is vice, if it be strictly judged by the internal arbiter, rightly subjoins, If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand.” I answer: to be strictly judged in this place, of the merit of our virtue, is nothing else than to be judged by those things which a man has of himself, the gifts of the grace of God set aside. For so truly that which seems to be the merit of virtue is known to be a vice and sin. That this is so we prove from the preceding and following words. For he says that he is strictly judged who compares himself to God, and desires to contend with him; but he says that he compares himself to God, and wills to contend with him, who acknowledges not that he has from God what he has. But let us transcribe the whole place: “A man, not compared with God, receives justice; compared, loses it; whoever compares himself with the author of goods, deprives himself of the good which he had received. For he who arrogates to himself the goods received, fights with his own gifts against God. But the holy man, because he sees that all the merit of our virtue is vice, if it be strictly judged by the internal arbiter, rightly subjoins, If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand. But to contend with God is not to attribute to him, but to arrogate to oneself, the glory of one’s own virtue.” From these we understand that with Gregory he is strictly judged who, on account of pride, first loses the gifts of God which he had received, and is severely judged according to his own things.
The second testimony is in book 9 of the Morals, chapter 11: “God asks suddenly, when he calls us unlooked-for to the strictness of his examination; but to his interrogation a man cannot suffice to answer, since if it be then discussed, piety set aside, in that examination the life even of the just fails.” I answer: St. Gregory explains those words of Job, If he examine suddenly, who shall answer him? and teaches that it is very dangerous if one be called unlooked-for and unprepared to the judgment of God, since, no one being without sin, he who is called unprepared is probably found in some sin of which he has done no penance. But Gregory says not that the works of the just fail in judgment, as if the good works themselves were sins, as the Lutherans will have it, but that the life of the just fails in judgment, since (as I said) they are found in sins of which they have done no penance. Nor does he say that the just so fail in judgment that they are destined to eternal punishments, but he understands that they fail because they are mulcted with some punishment, at least purgatorial and temporary, according to that of 1 Corinthians 3: If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The third testimony is in the same book, chapter 14, where, explaining those words, “If I have anything just, I will not answer, but will beseech my judge,” he says: “All human justice is convicted of being injustice, if it be strictly judged. It needs, then, prayer after justice, that what could fail if discussed may grow strong from the sole piety of the judge.” I answer: this place has the same sense as the first place. For it signifies that human justice is injustice, if it be strictly judged — that is, if it be judged, the benefits of God set aside, according to those things which a man has of himself. For in this place Gregory exhorts us to humility, not to penance, as is clear from the following words: “We must lean, then, on prayer when we do right, that all wherein we live justly we may season with humility.” And so the sense of his words is this: that when we undertake good works, we invoke the help of God, knowing that without God we can do nothing of good; and that after we have done good works, we grow not proud, as though we had done them by our own powers, but insist on prayers, asking God to confirm what he has wrought in us. The fourth testimony is in the same book, chapter 26, on that, I feared all my works: “As if it were said, in humble confession, What I have done openly, I see; but what I have latently endured in these, I know not.” I answer: he says not that in every good work there is a latent fault, but that often, when we do good works, some fault is mingled, unless one diligently watch. Which he had said more openly a little before: “Because our very good things cannot escape the sword of the lurking fault, unless they be daily fortified by solicitous fear, it is now rightly said by the holy man, I feared all my works.” The fifth testimony is in the same book, chapter 28: “It is to be noted that the holy man says not, my hands shone most clean, but as if most clean; for as long as we are bound by the punishment of corruption, however much we sweat at right works, we by no means apprehend true cleanness, but imitate it.” I answer: Gregory calls true cleanness the cleanness of God and of the blessed, in comparison of which our cleanness seems not to be true, though absolutely it be true. For thus the same Gregory speaks, book 5 of the Morals, chapter 26: “Human justice, compared with the divine justice, is injustice; for the lamp too is seen to shine in the darkness, but placed in the ray of the Sun is darkened.” And in the last book, chapter 1: “All human things which are just and beautiful, compared with the justice and beauty of God, are neither just nor beautiful.” The sixth testimony is in the last book, last chapter: “But if of these we be strictly discussed by God, who among these remains in a place of salvation, when even our evils are pure sins, and our goods, which we think good, cannot be pure?” I answer: Gregory says not that our good works can be sins, but that they cannot be pure — that is, altogether without the admixture of any venial sin; for it cannot be that we do some good work without mingling some venial fault. So he himself explains: for our good works are so far pure as we withhold consent to sin; but they are not so pure as to have no admixture of any imperfection or venial fault. Nor does he mean that we therefore remain in no place of salvation, if we be strictly judged, because our good works are sins, but because venial sins, if they be not mercifully remitted, hinder us from entering that kingdom into which nothing defiled can enter. But it cannot be that they be not mercifully remitted, if we be just and persevere in the charity of God; for, as St. Augustine writes in the book On Rebuke and Grace, chapter 13, “that mercy is given by the just judgment of God to the just, since by their good works they merited to be judged not without mercy. For ‘blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy,’ says the Lord, Matthew 5; and ‘judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy,’ says James, chapter 2.”
From St. Bernard is wont to be brought forward that testimony which is had in sermon 5 on the words of Isaias the Prophet: “Our justice, if there be any humble justice, is perhaps right, but not pure — unless perhaps we believe ourselves to be better than our fathers, who no less truly than humbly said, All our justices are as the rag of a menstruous woman. For how can a justice be pure where there cannot yet be a lack of sin?” I answer: St. Bernard expounds that place of Isaias about the menstruous rag; and he distinguishes three kinds of justice. For he sets in the blessed Angels a justice right, pure, and firm; in our first parents, before they sinned, he says there was a justice right and pure, but not firm; finally, in us he says there can be a justice right, by which we can withhold consent to sin, but not pure, since there is none of us who has not sinned in Adam, and who does not sometime at least sin venially; nor firm, since there is none who cannot lose it. We see, then, that Bernard willingly admits a right justice — that is, one which consents not to deadly sin. Which one thing plainly suffices to refute the innovators, who define all good works to be mortal sins.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI.
qudniamndir bona intonfionBjf riBC;
pdrtebat, ab iliis - merito 'panno'
mefriStruatid ubrbpaiUritUr; De fis' enini' dicit
Doiiiift&Isaia* v. . iV2
ciifirt 'fetiflrar, irictiMjixiift 1 dBoiriiiititio esCCirHUt'. 1 *
Calendas vestras, et sqletitiirltites vdstYdsvdi&it •
fffi1 ^uilu iiriifl : oahnoqsoJI^
Ad-ficts-1' Ccfixgbs 'Acdedat' cbiifessib 'E utifefrt5 K
of Calvibiv' iii comrdentanb' HujiiS'1
loSf^te^ii^' fi'ob testimonium non recte ad-
justitiam • operum1 et Miiieri "
idem^IiMtlVdttrs 'ftf* apertione orfl85‘JSft9 ‘'tBf9
ho&prdfesmmm 'tdstiiiibhib' probare' cdiiAiiiiA'
efp^oiiffiitfbperft^astbttjrti ej^;pecbf«rtaP£iJ •'-
"i^dlbWj^p^dHUPtbfenfR ex cap;vf.Aftfttfiafr!
orationem- Ddminrcaih. Nam ex eo (fu odora-*'
luitrriCftirt :
semperptfc rfet>elles: silibus' m : omitt i opere
viflurtfttt? - Dbr - pertrper denique e^em^s^ bti
nobis pfleucafS^Piiseiiedrditer ou
'DeSbrffiderpft^Vfesf/b^biftA^ffiimi^ntsiym reVififc •
lt^ret8KpiieT?P5 i JHi
sffii"ffbrfTHtietHir,‘ritwr’|>§Uf^§^ UjtVae numqnani~
ifnpelTatd^eSyt^u^/i^riitd prbMMt bbs We*' :
c^^fo^^di^IreterPmii^^dffreti.^i Petife C&
ab<hfi&t&?iiiiiOM&£ qufffiiiPj wctptttPethuti&i
alffetn sabetificdff ridiieA’:DbhiinT,J-et iit fiat a--
nobis voluntas Dei, igitur non pdlliifttti^eitf-P
p&PWf bebis; ^d 'SElti^tffibatui^ potiiiS nomen
Ddmimpei lbgi obedientes; fegimUS' ‘Domini
vdtdntateiif'. Abbqiii frustra M p&ieFetkiik' rsi:
ntfmquaifh- ' mpfetdar eriius. 7 RrjefeWa ; 'Mii non ;
pbteSSt (^as^uaid-pefere, ut^at- vbluhtas Obi?*
nM" q<iP s^pe^Del-vdlunMi Pebeilis mstv
Quomodiy Ebrists s Oravit y Ei at vol-unta S-tuA ? ■
attetibm :Ehri'sius semper voluntati Dei re¬
bellis er&t? i2° bdin (mulhoni an.teon aiiui
Reeponded ^ igitiiiv : note 'sol urii possi; - peti t
qhedinoii haBefflu3; sed: etiaiti' 7 conservatio-
nemy1 etj dncrenipHluiH bjnsI:quod' habemus.
Sic en im expiicat Sv ' C yp fiab u s sermi de bfab
tibiie : :DbininieM - prriinaiH' illatb1 petitibfiern;;; '
<( Id, inquit,1 petimus, et rOgamus,' ut fpui iri'
Baptisfhb^anotifieati siiiiitis- in:eo qubdOSse
c®§pifftus, -perseVOreflitis » • 'Et eodeni ufbdb ;
explieat Si rAugdStmtis iri' libro de bono 'per-
sdVdroni-ia» 0Upi 2 ?■*■•“ boim 'i ;•• -i 0!)(j n
mmHka -m - stiw-r*'
,;ims er; jjeoqtnoo tJiqio'ioq njcifiisnr ,cijj.tsoq
•: ^'5 l&fi :% (S) -kati^lv 9 na aiupainp tiii
coelo, et ih fetrti, "■ monent preedicti : Patres, :
pesSe etiam sibmteilipi, ut-petatos. QStPibfa •
sioherh infidelmm,1 w Vidbtiebt1 iib^tpioqutqa?
qui rioiriine tfeirm-ihta]Tfguntruiv :faeiant vq-i
luUtateM Dei;, sieut eain. -faoiufttr plorique ^- .
defeS , •’ qU r : litimMa cioeii sfgfi ifioantu r i Ex: qii» ;
intelligimus, sauctoS- Patres coiit rari o ■ modo
ex Doinfniea biutiohe argurtieutari, ae Dn-
tllerub faeerb-abletit/ •■•um.ndni eqcaa boup taia
Dorro iltud : dd&ita Mbdra, -
dreinnius nUn proj omM' apefe :riodtfbVL(P50;
multis bnim giUtias:apininsrUQn' deuiaro pe*--
tiib£rspsed''prb venialibus peceatis/qute JS6-
nrS bperiMs adniiseerite. ti)uod; mutem Lu-*q
theriis - dieit-1 ;i#-; assertioni •' artibiMi : secundae
dici illam oPatibnbtti preudneupiscentia^quajit
senlpcr est iP PobiSj repugnat expresse/.
S-.- ABgftstittbj^qPi-itt libr^ de perfectione
st-itiSd'sert‘bitv ribn bsbe Op us' dicer© i : i Dimitte n
nobis debita iiostra, prb eoricupiscentiat,^ -qtise •
e^innobispntsi^ttVotrbus^eiUs^voluiitataibbn-i-j
s^RiifSftiguaol snilA .« Jaooaq con ia tmunod
-ei gjGbIJaai anoifoohxeq eb Qidd ci ^sliiniig
io7 xano Jao tiiupai {imj]noo3ff * .8 i .auoqa
?onUa [97 .imilisr-o teo noa
. « isdsb ffiBjjp tixa
SSmnFuW Wbjm%ke£ PdrMpc,emtpa
: tnoaoitofc&m o gml H
siioiiui .sidoa ni Jso inp . mulli mato st ab ia
Jm&ma mffiM*
etiebiir Jad¥©?sarif ■-nbpntflla
p]^nbp^i&'piiyMbp^Aup§tiy0f D®gbw^3
BeiuaPdo .°S1‘ ebfirif Cppnanus iiij seb1^ 4v db-
mprtalitate sie luquitut’ ¥ ((Obsest «lbiiAbO- i
minis; pt undique fabuli mfestatkme^fttlaftii •
vix 'oecufrit smpiiHO; vix resistifbKnavaritiu^
pto strata esty exsurgit libidby^td?1^5* Ktswuvi
'' Resporideo-rNihit :hbe 1 Jofeb S1; ;GypriaiiUa::
didit, uCbhtra justitiam5 opeiUm, rsedc :euftttai-:
rateeriam hupi^ vitsd, quie tota *ruil5tia, dfve.;
tentatio est, super terrarb. -Un’fi- tebtatibnep
d-e-vibtti ,'J coriliriub ;6ko¥ituf ^fitik, atq®# ita
seSiper pugdie ptigiia’ sUeebdit? aatemn
j ustitiafa^periitti^^eFam^bgp theriitOTiaffir: Gy-i g
pi‘i anus ■ a^nbVeri tr,- perspiMUiU'1 " ser¬
mone de bleehidsy #% utdu ttbTo seq ueati di -i >
tabimusv’' ''> o- ofluui ; •xuineiincaib aibiobli
Ex S. Hierouyitio^addtibunt verbq illa iii {,
Dialogo -ad versus PelagUmosot>U< Tunc -ergo.;
jtisti simnsy quando uosrpbedator0s fatemur^!
et jiistitfa Obstra UbO e}c pTOptflo mdritbjised:
ek ‘ Ddf;6o aSlstit niisbilcbr dM^wi-i osim saa go
■ RbspOndedd’ DbteStLliiO‘''lo4US 'tefe^ri-ad;
v ••!.!:> ;/Uno.> .nj
utmoviu xarf
..dii i?i iaa auoof auiiaaT
310
LIBEM IV.
primam justificationem, perquam ex impiis
reddimur justi : hanc enim justitiam non ex
merito, sed ex misericordia Dei consequimur,
atque hanc proprie poenitentia, et confessio
peccatorum praecedit. Nec tamen ullum se¬
quetur incommodum, si idem locus refera¬
tur ad secundam justificationem. Nam ad ju¬
stitiam hujus vitae pertinet veritas confessio¬
nis, quod saepe labamur in pecccata, saltem
venialia, quae (ut saepe diximus) non repug¬
nant justitiae ; et quod quidquid boni faci¬
mus, non sine gratia, et auxilio Dei facimus.
Ex S. Augustino tria loca objici solent,
praeter ea, quae in disputatione de meritis
operum in sequenti libro excutiemus. Pri¬
mus igitur locus est in epistol. 29. ad Hie¬
ronymum : « Plenissima charitas, quae jam
non possit augeri, quamdiu hic homo vivit,
est in nemine, quamdiu autem augeri potest,
profecto illud quod minus est quam debet,
ex vitio est, ex quo vitio non est qui faciat
bonum, et non peccet » . Alius locus est huic
similis, in libro de perfectione justitiae, rc-
spons. 15.. « Peccatum, inquit, est, cum vel
non est charitas, quae esse debet, vel minor
est, quam debet » .
Respondeo : Appellat S. Augustinus vitium,
et largo modo peccatum, imperfectionem ;
et defectum illum, qui est in nobis, ratione
concupiscentias. Cujus vitii causa nemo est,
qui non aliquando peccet. Non esse autem
eam imperfectionem peccatum proprie di¬
ctum, pex-spicuum est, tum ex ipso libi'o de
perfectione justitiae, ubi S. Augustinus dicit,
non esse opus pro concupiscentia caimis,
contra quam Spiritus concupiscit, dicere :
Dimitte nobis debita nostra ; tum ex libi-o de
Spiritu et littera, cap. ultim., ubi disertis vex*-
bis dicit, non esse ad culpam deputandum,
quod charitas in hac vita non tanta sit,
quanta erit in patria.
Secundus locus est in lib. IX. confess.
cap. 13. « Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum,
si remota misericordia discutias eam ».
Respondeo : Non dicit S. Augustinus, lau¬
dabilia opera esse peccata, si remota mise¬
ricordia discutiantur ; immo in eodem loco
separat opera bona matris suae, pro quibus
gratias agit Deo, a peccatis, pro quibus a
Deo veniam petit. Solum igitur dicit, vitam
hominis laudabilem propter opera bona,
egei‘e misericordia in judicio Dei, propter
peccata, saltem venialia, a quibus nemo li¬
ber invenitur.
Tertius locus est in lib. ili. contra duas
epist. Pclagianorum cap. 7. « Ex quo fa¬
ctum est, inquit, virtutem, quae nunc est in
homine justo, perfectam hactenus nominari,
ut ad ejus pei'fectionem pertineat etiam ip¬
sius imperfectionis, et in veritate cognitio, et
in humilitate confessio ».
Respondeo: Nihil aliud hoc loco S. Augu¬
stinus dicit, nisi justitiam in hac vita imper-
fectam esse, si comparetur ad justitiam vitae
beatae ; et hujus imperfectionis cognitionem
et confessionem, hoc tempore non parum
esse necessariam, ne quis existimet, se esse,
quod vere non est, atque ita se ipse seducat.
Nusquam autem in toto hoc libro imperfe¬
ctionem istam peccatum esse Augustinus di¬
cit, sed contra potius veram justitiam, et
suo modo perfectam esse confix-mat. Sic enim
ait in fine capitis : « Justitia, secundum
quam justus ex fide vivit, quoniam per spi¬
ritum gratiae homini ex Deo est, vera justi¬
tia est. Quae licet non immerito in aliquibus
justis pro hujus vitae capacitate perfecta di¬
citur ; parva tamen est ad illam magnam,
quam capit aequalitas Angelorum, quam qui
nondum habebat, et propter illam, quae ine¬
rat, pei-fectum, et propter istam, quae adhuc
dcei'at, impei-fectum se esse dicebat. Sed
plane minor ista justitia facit meritum, major
illa fit praemium, unde qui istam non sequi¬
tur, illam non assequitur » . Haec ille, ex qui¬
bus evidenter apparet, adversai‘ios abuti
Patrum auctoritate ad imperitos, simplices-
que fallendos.
Ex S. Gregorio proferunt multa testimo¬
nia. Primum est in lib. ix. Moral. cap. 1.
xi Sanctus, inquit, vir, quia omne virtutis no¬
stis meritum esse vitium conspicit, si ab in¬
terno arbitro districte judicetur, recte sub¬
jungit, si voluerit contendere cum eo, non
poterit ei i'espondere unum pro mille ».
Respondeo : Districte judicari hoc loco vir¬
tutis nostrae meritum, nihil est aliud, nisi
judicari ex his, quae homo ex se habet, re¬
motis donis gratiae Dei. Sic enim vere, quod
vii*tutis meritum esse videtur, vitium et
peccatum esse cognoscitur. Id ita esse, pia¬
bamus ex verbis praecedentibus et sequenti¬
bus. Nam districte judicari dicit cum, qui se
Deo comparat, et cum eo contendei’e cupit ;
illum autem se Deo compai’are, et cum eo
contendere velle dicit, qui non agnoscit, se
a Deo habere quod habet, sed totum locum
adseribamus : « Homo, inquit, Deo non com¬
positus, justitiam percipit, compositus amit¬
tit, quisquis se auctori bonorum comparat,
CAPUT XXI.
341
bono se, quod acceperat, privat. Qui enim
accepta bona sibi arrogat, suis contra Deum
donis pugnat. Sanctus autem vir, quia omne
virtutis nostrae meritum esse vitium conspi¬
cit, si ab interno arbitro districte judicetur,
recte subjungit : Si voluerit contendere cum
eo, non poterit ei respondere unum pro
mille. Cum Deo autem contendere, est non
ei tribuere, sed sibi gloriam suae virtutis ar¬
rogare. Sed sanctus vir conspiciat, quia et
qui summa jam dona percepit, si de acce¬
ptis extollitur, cuncta, quae acceperat, amit¬
tit, et dicat : Si voluerit contendere cum eo,
non poterit ei respondere unum pro mille » .
Ex his intelligimus, eum dictricte judicari
apud Gregorium, qui propter superbiam
prius amittit dona Dei, quae acceperat, et
severe secundum propria judicatur.
Alterum testimonium est in lib ix. Mora¬
lium, cap. xi. « Repente, inquit, Deus inter¬
rogat, cum nos ad districtionem sui exami¬
nis inopinatos vocat, sed interrogationi illius,
homo respondere non sufficit, quia si remota
tunc pietate discutitur, in illo examine etiam
justorum vita succumbit » .
Respondeo, Explicat S. Gregorius illa
verba Job : Si repente interroget , quis re¬
spondebit eil docet autem, esse valde peri¬
culosum, si quis inopinato, et imparatus ad
judicium Dei vocetur, quia cum nemo sit,
qui non peccet, qui imparatus vocatur, veri¬
similiter in peccato aliquo reperitur, cujus
nullam poenitentiam egit. Cfeterum non dicit
Gregorius, opera justorum in judicio suc¬
cumbere, quasi ipsa bona opera sint peccata,
ut Luth erani volunt, sed vitam justorum in
judicio succumbere, quoniam (ut dixi) in
peccatis inveniuntur, de quibus nullam poe¬
nitentiam egerunt. Nec dicit, justos ita suc¬
cumbere in judicio, ut ad poenas destinen¬
tur aeternas, sed intelligit eos succumbere,
quoniam poena aliqua, saltem purgatoria,
temporariaque mulctantur, juxta illud 1
ad Corinth. m. Si cujus opus arserit, detri¬
mentum patietur , ipse autem salvus erit quasi
per ignem.
Tertium testimonium est in eodem libro,
cap. 14. Ubi explicans Gregorius illa verba;
<i Si habuero quippiam justum, non respon¬
debo, sed meum judicem deprecabor ; sic
ait: Omnis humana justitia, injustitia esse
convincitur, si districte judicetur. Prece ergo
post justitiam indiget, ut qua) succumbere
discussa poterat, ex sola judicis pietate con¬
valescat i) .
Respondeo : Hic locus eumdem sensum ha¬
bet cum primo loco. Significat enim huma¬
nam justitiam esse injustitiam, si districte
judicetur, id est, si judicetur remotis benefi¬
ciis Dei, secundum ea, qua) homo habet ex
se. Nam hoc loco hortatur nos Gregorius ad
humilitatem, non ad poenitentiam, ut patet
ex verbis sequentibus : « Preci itaque inni¬
tendum est, cum recta agimus, ut omne
quod juste vivimus, ex humilitate condia¬
mus » . Itaque sensus verborum ejus hic est,
utcumbona opera aggredimur, Dei auxilium
invocemus ; scientes nos absque Deo nihil
boni facere posse : et postea quam bona
opera fecimus, non superbiamus, quasi no¬
stris viribus illa fecerimus, sed insistamus
precibus, orantes Deum, ut confirmet, quod
operatus est in nobis.
Quartum testimonium est in eodem libro,
cap. 2G. in illud : Verebar omnia opera
mea. «Ac si, inquit, humili confessione di¬
ceretur, qua) aperte egerim, video : sed qua)
in his latenter pertulerim, ignoro » .
Respondeo : Non dicit in omni bono opere
esse latentem culpam, sed sa)pe cum bona
opera facimus, culpam aliquam admisceri,
nisi quis diligenter vigilet. Id quod apertius
dixerat paulo ante, cum ait: « Ipsa bona no¬
stra, quia insidiantis culpa) evadere gladium
nequeunt, nisi sollicito quotidie timore mu¬
niantur, per sanctum virum nunc recte di¬
citur, verebar omnia opera mea ».
Quintum testimonium est in eodem libro,
cap. 28. Notaudum, inquit, quod vir sanctus
non ait, fulserint mundissinne manus mea),
sed vclut mundissima) manus mea) ; quia
quo usque poena corruptionis adstringimur,
quantumlibet rectis operibus insudemus,
veram munditiam nequaquam apprehendi¬
mus, sed imitamur » .
Respondeo : Vocat Gregorius veram mun¬
ditiam, munditiam Dei et beatorum, cujus
comparatione, nostra munditia vera non
esse videtur, quamvis absolute sit vera. Sic
enim loquitur idem Gregorius lib. v. Moral.
cap. 2G. « Humana justitia divina) justitia)
comparata, injustitia est ; quia et lucerna
in tenebris fulgere cernitur, sed in Solis ra¬
dio posita tenebratur ». Et lib. ult. cap. I
« omnia humana, qua) justa, et pulchra sunt,
Dei justitia), et pulchritudini comparata, nec
justa, nec pulchra sunt » .
Sextum testimonium est in lib. ult. cap.
ult. « Si autem, inquit, de his divinitus dis¬
tricte discutimur, quis inter ista remanet
L1BBR IV.
• - • • i 77 -• . . . •
. .salu^iS; ly^ys.r, quando . ct mala .nostra .pura tres p.Qstrps, qui nem minus
qqftt* et }?onap qu.ee nos IndiefO. ,p$§di- f jjuu^ijilcr, d i q ebii i>t ;,f|6iqnes jusjitiai .nostrae
-jjKaaSiipurfl bofla^se.qpqwaqiw^ pp^untii ? ...^i^iqaafp
,pDrRgspre.qd,eo : Non dicit (^?g.orips>.v«Bggc^la mipdm eqiin.purqjystitiajUbinompQtqsf.A^pc
^®>nfeit/ cDidm omoJni da h Jio
rqia posse esse, pura, quia .fieri non potest.,. .pt lr,.., ^spondeo : Sanctus. Bernurdus exponit
non ,^Uqi«®49b^%S^ ^igujjd, j ^qjo. .ljpna papnp,,iiirc, nstruaj.ee
Vientur, ite enim sp ip^e $t- a,ik%d3ttP
, « :soU.D.ep.jl^q qp^it^^nnu^qqa111 -a&sfiP^ig 9#$? Sm i£S#Piufd
nMe»iiPi m M> ffr~ « ’
,n#W^g6§tfl89fe^;i^femy§c[#]’
* »£oteiw<5^tw ^®^r^«§gpTfl6c?e
-ofte^is ^Rte^k^ rdi^ir.tenjeqjiqpn.i-erqa- jB /
-nere .salutis locum, si districte judicemur, .« Recta, proinde interim videri potest justi-
quoniana peccata etiam venialia, si. non ,. mi- , ,tia hominum, si tamen peccato non consen-
sericorditer remittantur, impediunt:. ;ab, in- tiant «i.Puram autem vocat, q.uec in cis est,
,.gressq illius .regni, .in ;quod nihil .coinquina- pjqpjrnu.mquam fuerunt injusti^Fjj^anjydeni-
turu intrare, potest. .que, queu amitti non potest. Itaque in A.nge-
Ceetenim fieri non potest, ut -non miseri- ; lis Reatis ponit justitiam rectam, puram et
corditer remittantur, si. justi simus, et in firmaip ; in primis nostris parentibus, einie-
charitate Dei perseveremus; nam, ut scribit quam.peccareptj dicit fuisse justitiam.rec.tam
sanctus Augustinus in libro de correptione et puram, sed non firmam. Denique in nu-
etgratui, cap. 13. « Misericordia -illa jqsto bis dicit esse pospe qqstitiam rectam, qua
: Dei judicio dubitur justis, quoniambonis suis possimus peccato non consentire ; sed non
operibus meruerunt, ut non sine misericor- ... puram, quoniam .nemo, nostrum, est, qui jqon
_{1dia judicarentur. Nam beati miscricorcles, peccaverit in Adamo, e.t. qui non aliquando
,.!flttoniam,.ipsi , misericordiam con?equentqr, saltem, yenialiter peccet. Nec firmam, quo-
ait Dominus Mattb. v. ct judicium sine .mige. -nipni nemo est, qui eam nonpossit. amittere.
. ; ricordla ei, qui noq fqcerit misericordjja^ in- Yidemu§ jgj|qr Bernurdum . justitiam
quit Jacobus, cap. u ». rectam, id est, quae in peccatum Iethalc non
Ex S.Bcruardo proferri solet lestimppium consentiat, libenter admittere. Quod unum
illud, qu<?d habetur in. serm. 5. de verbis plane sufficit ad novatores refellendos, quia
Isaiee Prophetae : Nostra, si qua est humi- omnia bona opera, peccata mortalia esse
lis justitia, recta forsan, sed non, punq . nisi j definiunt,
forte qpeliores nos esse credimus,. quam Pa- •. \ \ "
,'iov nr
p.ru guonouo r.u en
JadifmwJnoop -<*>q msllrm
-ib0odoTfp;r, mr»rpnnpou nmiiibnam rmviav -ana cJi
.<• numnJirnrbss (?nra -nonibsob vi
-nrfM rrrmov ^uno^siO JnooV : oobnoqsriff jOiod/xiuoou
p.niao .tnirtuteyd Jo iy(! nmbihimtn .msilib
iffiiun
IU11 «H-BOOOq
'I
01«
\ r*t-f
<JS V i i i> I! p
» f -ii i i riij n fn->bt '*■ u J i £ i
.
TiO rr ..
«gtou ro :
-3^> >>ujp ; j33 jDJsnxsqmo.o
-z% siioS ni i‘OB jtnJiniaa myglul ghdonrJ nr
> -qna. .Jte .dii .JH .« •jnJryjdonoJ ciifioq oib
rRto«j5idofuq Ja ssvp tnn6fiiUfI «iimto » aia ; 'todaayiqob mooihiR
oaii .«imaqmoo jrnibnjrifJaiCjq P» .oniiPui hil seaa n iiJsuicx miJilcnr nu
cw<y) ? s\uoi -iii •iijnnv,rj jj?>
. - . i . ■ ■
tiqqmji
u I <S »
«rnmO : ih,
. i. -mus s-moiuq cor.
.fjisS .Hu .dii c» j-;o £rm;nora;t'.oJ mu}xs2
-aib «MtniviL- aid sb tJiwpoi .rnafun i8 » Diu
ijnnjKisi ,aJai 'mini siap ,'runutuosib eJonS
og'i‘j ooo ib . lujsuiiji.qorinlaib ja jioJooivnoo
fliodmuoaua sjuo Jr; {fggibiii rovbijanr jaoq
-y t oo pivOibjjf jxlo^ y.*) t J 15*1 o*i 0 ci
7 3*fOTJ
U£
— LHrrt ' rxnnnxo .ni
.nixxTBj/jofl ssd sD
e r.e
co
Infer PbLcv mea annijnoifd
-oqo mr,im xnmjuRtq /crs&asdoiq br. feaioq
iilteJjKXiai jpsiiiizui bn io «raxnonodf «un
-vnowitl .8 .l9J>igl ni loirmdl menp t tardi nomon oocf inj» ,b&ri sccniarijoJ io ssncin
aibiO-9 -sisnguq Bocniaaoq JU » : irhor eum iaifc amasofira mino Iiriirl Jiaovni auarhq
«nalao* mq io oieb&si *a .aimsjxioa cx>daQ
„ntr ,qso .odo Ii bs .isiqo ni ieo p.v. .;:ATia.VEi:siAi;L'>i;;^r> ;,,, ,mI)ra!M6,
~sH AosWsWo a&k>st vIs«oVt\-Mi««voo^ ,%rt«oo?*.ohiV\ /njisusoib osso «rnatas &>iiv siri
‘ . 7 . :. ; tmST-jsc-jp^ ?.
ooomooq msoov smcrJ ; Jp>* i v r q,
-srnDmsoor iii-iov omiaaiJosi inpoiln b-3* tml
mud'187 oori mino bxofiixsgiB .»»7>37«saEu3 : rnno
-bJI .hxrnlq ,o*fsdsri oa lojhalid .iiBioaiob
.avia ,wtebs(9b eiiboii sudilxd (b..oJjj^)f|yJip
-■^onO eanninamnioo foderi iu .«noumiibfiiq'
-io itf ,09(1 oujooxdq p.iiian-i atmilnl Inv J?.os
-oteoqA : 1 ? uQiilaijESfr i sBE| MEUHiRife bOliE UliMa 8 nr, ^anigainoaa inivIsO
m*90js \<i axTteod soliiJ ,oga<u{(*v oiyaib raid fodx;d bonp ,bi aomidedotq wltgi soV[
JUM rosf
bv , tnginiqhog Jcgort ? •rrri.ttablv oianmal
-r,.i iibba ; oaao aoan iihsaj sxumon .smjidl
.Inia hu oaimoa ood esitel ei-ioi is ,norn
iorloBoBo ooov no ni seeo aiBiab
sooirdf minuit! shsns xnni in «loinanpoal asm
srrinm 5r mtrsiv ,miuo?.9ft io ronimon ood
ieaofljnscani.Jo : yaao kjxU
^fjpisseruiiuus hactenus de necessitate, ,et veritate justi tue, actualis : nunc de
efficacia ejusdem, id est, 4» meritis operum disserendum est.. Erit. autem Qua¬
dripartita liasc de meritis disputatio'. Primum enim tractandum erit, Aii sint
l merita aliqua vera justorum. Deinde, Quid sit meritum,- sivdquid requiratur, ad
veruni meritum constituendum. Terliv, Qualia sint ligee merita,: id est an.ex con-
• digno, an ex ebrlgruo tantum. -Qimirlo, 'Propter quid sint, sive qtiid illud :sit,
, . , . , i\ .ntliflbi-.OVs.i *<*-.> ■:■
quod proprie padit. sub. mentum.
.BiinoJnoR Binmo , jExixnoaxloriixsO
.cimihom op.w xmoxi «onqo .viirnio
/ Sua •iSflixiov xi i . - :dxx cilA
<JAFUT PRIMUM.
,os80 mtmr.ib J o !>i »:>?»•.( D Joaaib
Proponitur controversia-, sintne opera ‘bona
•justorum meritoria salutis setemse.
i xivMWiviOB»'» . f .tinliwaoui
'Primum. igitur controversia ilia principa¬
lis tractanda erit : « Sintne opera justorum
-meritoria vite adernee » . Deinde questiones
due breviores de intuitu mercedis, et de fi-
- ducia meritoruimp bl Mm. «i^S»
Quod igitur. ad . controversiam illam prin¬
cipalem attinet, adversarii, quamvis initio
valde contemptim loquerentur de operibus
bonis, -paulatim tamen- coeperunt nonnihil eis
tribuere. Nam Confessio Augustina, et Apo-
dogia art. 20. dicunt, opera bona justorum
placere Detf, et esse meritoria prsemioram.
Sed ne videantur omnino conscntirePapistis,
^addunt duo temperamenta, quorum unum
est, opera bona esse meritoria praemiorum
temporalium et spiritualium, in hae vita, et
- • in futura,- sed-non ipsius vite, et salutis te ter¬
na;. Ne videlicet falsura sit, quod tam saepe
repetiverunt, sola tide justilioari, et salvari
homines. Alterum temperamentum est, opera
justorum non esse meritoria ex -propria dig-
t j 'prrer/ ^
nitate, quasi re vera siift' justa, et legi satis¬
faciant, sed cx fide, et indulgentia Dei, quia
videlicet Deus iis, qui credunt sibi remissa
esse peccata, indulgentia sua tegit operum
foeditatem, et sit accipit, quasi justa essent.
Eamdem sententiam habet Joannes Bren-
tius -in Confessione Wirtemberg-ensi, capite
de bonis operibus. Martinus KemnitimTin
Examine Concilii Tridentini ad finem ses¬
sionis sexte, et alii passim.
Joannes vero Calvinus lib. iit. Institutio¬
num cap. 15. § 2. et sequentibus, iu re cum
Lutheranis ■ consentit, in verbis discrepat.
Contendit enim, non esse utendum- nomine
meriti et mercedis, sed dicendum esse, ope¬
ribus bonis dari a Deo remu neratio nem ali¬
quam , et compensationem liberalem , et
quamvis agnoscat, et fateatur veteres Patres
passim usos esse vocabulis meriti et inerde-
dis, tamen ita acerbe in eos in-vehitmq ut
dicat pessime consuluisse fidei sinceritati- qui
primus nomen meriti operibus tribuit. Qua
incredibili arrogantia non solum totam anti¬
quitatem temere et impudenter accusat, sed
ipsum etiam Spiritum sanctum corrigit, :;qui
in factis litteris hsec ipsa nomina (ut paulo
post videbimus) extare voluit. Fatemur ni-
344