Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book V: On the Merits of Works
Chapter 9: Objections are solved
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).
Neither do the arguments which are objected to the contrary prove anything. First is objected the testimony of the Lord, who, John 10, reproves the hirelings. Second is added the testimony of St. Bernard in the book On the Love of God, speaking thus: “God is not loved without reward, although he is to be loved without a view to reward. For true charity cannot be void; yet it is not on that account mercenary.” Third, the testimony of St. Thomas, who, 2a 2ae, question 19, article 4, ad 3, writes that mercenary love cannot subsist with true charity. Fourth, that it seems servile and sordid to work for the sake of reward. Fifth, that God is to be loved with the love of friendship, not with the love of concupiscence. To the first, second, and third, I answer: hirelings are not properly so called, save those who regard the reward alone, or chiefly. For these are they who, if no reward were at hand, would not serve the Lord. These also are they who, seeing the wolf, flee and leave the sheep, because it pertains not to them concerning the sheep — that is, they have set before them not the salvation of the sheep, but only their own advantage. These, therefore, the Lord reproves, and so do St. Bernard and St. Thomas. But we say not that in good works the reward is to be regarded alone, or chiefly, but God and his glory as the last end, and the reward as a secondary end, which is expected for the sake of God and his glory. For we desire to see God, and by that vision to be made happy, that so much the more ardently and securely we may love the Lord. To the fourth I answer: it is servile and sordid to regard a reward viler than the very work and labor — which they do who serve God, or discharge ecclesiastical and spiritual ministries, chiefly for temporal gains. But to regard the most eminent reward, which consists in the vision of God himself, cannot be sordid or servile, but most noble and kingly. And although not even eternal life itself is to be desired more than the glory of God, and it would be a vicious love to love one’s own beatitude more than God, yet it is incomparably baser and more dangerous to regard a temporal reward than an eternal one — not only because (as we said) a temporal reward is viler than the very work, but also because the love of a temporal reward hinders the love of God, calls back from God, and entangles in earthly things; whereas the love of the eternal reward, which is placed in the vision of God, joins to God, plucks away from earthly things, purges the soul from depraved desires, and stirs to the keeping of the commandments of God. Finally, it scarce is wont to happen that anyone ardently desire to see God, save because he ardently loves God himself with the love of friendship, so that he desires to see him because he loves him, not because he loves himself. And hence it is that the saints, when they detest mercenary love, always speak of the love of temporal advantages. See St. Ambrose, book 7 on Luke, on chapter 15; St. Jerome, book 6 on Isaias, near the end; St. Augustine, tract 46 on John; St. Gregory, homily 14 on the Gospels. Hence also St. Bernard, in the book On the Love of God, says: “A soul loving God requires no reward besides God; or if it requires another, then certainly it loves that, not God.” To the fifth I answer: the love of concupiscence is properly so called when one loves another chiefly for his own sake, not for that other’s. For if one love a friend chiefly for the friend’s own sake, even though secondarily he expect from him the reward of the work, it is not the love of concupiscence, but of friendship.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Solvuntur objectiones. Neque argumenta, quae contra objiciun¬ tur, aliquid probant. Primum objic tur testi¬ monium Domini, qui Joan. x. mercenarios reprehendit. Secundo, additur testimonium S. Bernardi in lib. de diligendo Deo, sic lo- quentis : « Non sine praemio diligitur Deus, etsi absque praemii intuitu diligendus sit. Vacua namque vera charitas esse non po¬ test, nec tamen mercenaria est ». Tertio, testimonium S. Thora. qui in 2. 2. quaest. 19. art. 4. ad 3. scribit, amorem mercena¬ rium cum vera charitate non posse consi¬ stere. Quarto, quod servile, ac sordidum v.dcatur operari propter mercedem. Quinto, quod Deus amore amicitiae, non amore con- cupi-centiae diligendus sit. Ad primum, secundum, et tertium, re¬ spondeo, mercenarios proprie non vocari, ni¬ si qui mercedem solam, aut praecipue in¬ tuentur. Isti enim sunt, qui si merces nulla (l) Hoiu- VI. 22: I Pet. I. U. CAPIT X. praesto esset, Domino non servirent. Isti etiam sunt, qui viso lupo fugiunt et dimit¬ tunt oves ; quoniam non pertinet ad eos de ovibus, id est, non ovium salutem, sed pro¬ priam tantum utilitatem propositam habent. Hos igitur Dominus reprehendit : nec non S. Bernardus et S. Thomas. Nos vero non dicimus, in bonis operibus solam, aut prae¬ cipue spectandam esse mercedem , sed Deum, ejusque gloriam, tamquam ultimum finem, mercedem autem, ut finem secunda¬ rium, qui propter Deum, ejusque gloriam expectatur. Cupimus enim Deum videre, at¬ que ex ea visione felices effici, ut tanto ardentius et securius Dominum diligamus. Ad quartum respondeo, servile ac sordi¬ dum esse intueri mercedem opere ipso, et labore viliorem ; quod faciunt, qui propter temporalia lucra praecipue Deo serviunt, aut ecclesiastica et spiritalia ministeria obeunt- At spectare mercedem eminentissimam, quae in ipsius Dei visione consistit, non potest esse sordidum, aut servile, sed nobilissimum ac regium. Et quamvis ne ipsa quidem vita aeterna sit appetenda, plusquam Dei gloria, et vitiosus amor esset, magis beatitudinem propriam amare, quam Deum, tamen incom¬ parabiliter turpius et periculosius est tem¬ poralem mercedem intueri, quam aeternam, non solum quoniam (ut diximus) merces temporalis opere ipso vilior est, sed etiam quoniam temporalis mercedis amor impedit amorem Dei, revocat a Deo, implicat terre¬ nis ; amor autem mercedis aeternae, quae in Dei visione posita est, cum Deo conjungit, avellit a rebus terrenis , purgat animam a pravis cupiditatibus, excitat ad custodiam mandatorum Dei. Denique vix contingere solet , ut aliquis ardenter appetat videre Deum, nisi quia ardenter amat ipsum Deum amore amicitiae, ita ut cupiat eum videre, quia diligit eum, non quia diligit se. Atque hinc est. quod Sancti, cum dete¬ stantur amorem mercenarium, semper lo¬ quuntur de amox^e temporalium commodo¬ rum. Vide Sanctum Ambrosium lib. vii. in Lucam, in cap. Io. sanctum Hieronymum lib. vi. in Isaiam, prope finem, sanctum Au¬ gustinum tract. 40. in Joannem ,■ sanctum Gregorium homil. 14. in Evangelia. Hinc etiam S. Bernardus in lib. de diligendo Deo. dicit : « Anima amans Deum, aliud praeter Deum, praemium non requirit, aut si aliud requirit, illud pro certo, non Deum dili¬ git. » . _ .‘io:; Ad quintum respondeo : Amorem concu¬ piscentia! proprie dici, cum potissimum quis diligit alterum propter se, non propter illum. Nara si quis diligat amicum, praecipue pro¬ pter ipsum, etiamsi secundario mercedem operis ab illo expectet, non est amor concu¬ piscentiae, sed amicitia;.