Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book V: On the Merits of Works
Chapter 1: The controversy is proposed, whether the good works of the just are meritorious of eternal salvation
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book V. 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 necessity and truth of actual justice; now we must discourse of its efficacy — that is, of the merits of works. And this disputation on merits will be fourfold. For, first, it must be treated whether there are any true merits of the just. Then, what merit is, or what is required to constitute true merit. Third, of what kind these merits are — that is, whether of condignity, or only of congruity. Fourth, on account of what they are, or what that is which properly falls under merit.
First, then, that principal controversy must be treated: whether the works of the just are meritorious of eternal life. Then two shorter questions, on the view of the reward, and on confidence in merits. As regards that principal controversy, the adversaries, although at the beginning they spoke very contemptuously of good works, yet by degrees began to attribute something to them. For the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, article 20, say that the good works of the just please God and are meritorious of rewards. But lest they seem altogether to agree with the Papists, they add two qualifications, of which one is that good works are meritorious of temporal and spiritual rewards, in this life and in the future, but not of life and eternal salvation itself — lest, forsooth, that be false which they so often repeated, that men are justified and saved by faith alone. The other qualification is that the works of the just are meritorious not from their own worth, as though they were in fact just and satisfied the law, but from faith and the indulgence of God — because, namely, God, to those who believe that their sins are remitted them, by his indulgence covers the foulness of their works, and so accepts them as if they were just. The same opinion John Brentius has, in the Confession of Wittemberg, in the chapter on good works; Martin Chemnitz in the Examination of the Council of Trent, at the end of the sixth session; and others everywhere. But John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 15, section 2 and following, in substance agrees with the Lutherans, but in words differs. For he contends that the name of merit and reward is not to be used, but that it must be said that to good works God gives some remuneration and liberal compensation; and although he acknowledges and confesses that the ancient Fathers everywhere used the words of merit and reward, yet he so bitterly inveighs against them as to say that he consulted most ill for the sincerity of faith who first attributed the name of merit to works. By which incredible arrogance he not only rashly and impudently accuses all antiquity, but even corrects the Holy Spirit himself, who in the sacred letters willed these very names (as we shall soon see) to be extant. We confess, nonetheless, that he consulted very ill for the Calvinian and Lutheran faith who first devised this name. For nothing more efficacious can be said to prove the true justice of good works, and to refute imputative justice, than if the works of the just be said to be merits of eternal life. Further, Martin Bucer, in the acts of the Colloquy of Ratisbon, lest he seem to contemn all antiquity, denies that Scripture or the Fathers used the name of merit; yet he adds that, if perhaps the Fathers used this name, there is in that word a hard catachresis. But yet the Fathers use this name so frequently and so openly that I know not whether the sacrilege of Calvin or the lie of Bucer be the greater. We, then, shall prove that which the common opinion of all Catholics holds — that the good works of the just are truly and properly merits, and merits not of any reward whatever, but of eternal life itself — against all the Sectaries. But first, against Calvin, we shall prove that the name of merit is founded in the Scriptures, and accordingly that the holy Fathers, who are found to have used this name everywhere, consulted not ill for the sincerity of faith.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
.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 LIBER V. hilominus eum valde male consuluisse Calvi- nianaj et Lutheranse fidei, qui hoc nomen primus invenit. Nihil enim efficacius diei potest ad probandam justitiam veram ope¬ rum bonorum, et ad justitiam imputatitiam refellendam, quam si opera justorum me¬ rita vitee eeternee esse dicantur. Porfo Martinus Bucerus in actis Colloquii Ratisbonensis ne totam antiquitatem con¬ temnere videatur, negat Scripturam, vel Patres, nomine meriti usos esse ; addit ta¬ men, si forte Patres hoc nomine usi sint, duram esse in ea voce catachresim. Sed ta¬ men frequenter, et tam aperte utuntur Patres hoc nomine, ut nesciam, utrum sit majus Calvini sacrilegium, an Buceri mendacium. Nos igitur probabimus id, quod habet communis Catholicorum omnia sententia, opera bona justorum vere, ac propria esse merita, et merita non cujuscumque praemii-, sed ipsius vita? aeterna), contra Sectarios omnes. Sed antea tamen contra Calvinum probabimus nomen meriti in Scripturis fun¬ dari, ac proinde non male consuluisse fidei sinceritati sanctos Patres , qui co nomine passim usi esse inveniuntur.