Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book V: On the Merits of Works
Chapter 11: 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).
But against the doctrine of the preceding chapter it is wont to be objected that merit depends on acceptation, and that God can accept unto eternal life not only free actions, but also necessary ones — as, unto the palm of martyrdom, he accepted the death of the holy Innocents. But the answer is easy. For merit depends on the acceptation of God, but not on that alone. And God can accept unto eternal life an action not free, but not unto the merit of eternal life. But the holy Innocents by a singular privilege received the glory owed to martyrs, although they properly merited it not. “If thou seek,” says St. Bernard in the sermon on the Nativity of the Innocents, “their merits before God, that they should be crowned, seek also before Herod their crimes, that they should be slain. Or is perhaps the piety of Christ less than the impiety of Herod, that he indeed could give the innocent to death, but Christ could not crown those slain for his sake?” And below: “But if they are plainly thy martyrs, O God, then in those in whom neither man nor angel finds merit, the prerogative of thy singular grace is the more evidently commended.” Second, are objected the merits of Christ, which it is certain were the greatest and most true; and yet Christ loved God not freely, but of necessity, seeing he was blessed. For that all merit depends on charity we are about to demonstrate in its place. I answer: Christ was at once wayfarer and comprehensor, and therefore a twofold act of love could be found in him — one consequent upon the vision of God, which was necessary; the other consequent upon infused knowledge, which was free and voluntary. See St. Thomas, part 3, question 19, article 3, ad 1. Then, although Christ could not but love God, yet of the acts of charity commanded he could do some and omit others at will — as the rest, both angels and men, who see God, and God himself, cannot indeed sin, or not always love God, yet can in many other things act at will. And so that the choice of the passion, by which Christ redeemed us, was free and voluntary, Isaias witnesses, chapter 53: He was offered because it was his own will. And openly of the merit of the same passion: If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed. And below: Because his soul hath labored, he shall see and be filled, etc. And the Lord himself, John 10: No man taketh my life away from me, but I lay it down. And: I have power to lay down my life.
The third objection against the solution of the preceding argument: Christ had a precept from the Father to lay down his life, for so he himself subjoins, John 10, This commandment have I received of my Father. Whence, to the Philippians 2, it is said, He was made obedient unto death. But Christ could not sin; therefore he could not but fulfil the precept, and thereby that choice of laying down his life was not free, but necessary. I answer: necessity is twofold, the one internal, the other external. Internal necessity is when the power itself is naturally determined to one thing, or when the object determines it of necessity; and this necessity hinders liberty, and thereby the notion of merit. External necessity is when there remains in the will a true indifference and indetermination to either part, but yet it cannot come to pass that it choose not to keep the precept, because it is ruled and governed by God, who always sets before it those means of not sinning which he sees it will accept. This necessity takes not away liberty, nor the notion of merit; and such was found not only in Christ, but also in those who are called confirmed in grace. But if the matter so stands, then, as those confirmed in grace could absolutely sin, though they were not to sin, at least mortally, so also Christ could absolutely sin, though he was not to sin. I answer: great is the difference between Christ and others confirmed in grace. For Christ, because he was God and man, even while he was a wayfarer, had within himself that whereby he could not sin. For the divinity, which ruled the humanity, was united to the very humanity of Christ hypostatically; and thereby it was intrinsic and natural to Christ that he could not sin even according to the humanity; and therefore absolutely and simply Christ, even as man and wayfarer (the hypostatic union standing), could not sin. But the rest confirmed in grace have not within themselves — that is, in their own suppositum — anything whereby they cannot sin, since the divinity which rules them pertains not to their suppositum. Wherefore they, considered in themselves, can absolutely sin, even mortally; but without doubt they will be immune from sin, if God has confirmed them in grace. But that which we said, that in the human will of Christ there was a true indifference to either — that is, to the observance and the violation of the precept — and that the necessity of not sinning was, in respect of that will, extrinsic, is not repugnant to what we have said. For the necessity of not sinning was extrinsic to the human will of Christ precisely taken, but to Christ himself, even as he is man, it was intrinsic and natural.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. Solvuntur objectiones: Sed contra doctrinam capitis superioris objici solet, quod meritum ex acceptatione dependeat, et possit Deus ad vitam aeternam acceptare non solum actiones liberas, sed etiam necessarias, quemadmodum ad Mar¬ tyrii palmam acceptavit mortem sanctorum Innocentium. Sed facilis est responsio ; pendet enim meritum ab acceptatione Dei, sed non sola. Et potest Deus acceptare ad vitam aeternam actionem non liberam, sed non ad meritum vit® aeternae. Sancti autem Innocentes pri¬ vilegio singulari gloriam, Martyribus debi¬ tam, acceperunt, quamvis illam proprie non meruerint : « Si quaeris, inquit sanctus Ber- liardus in serm. de Natali Innocentium, eo¬ rum apud Deum merita, ut coronarentur : quaere et apud Herodem crimina, ut truci¬ darentur. An forte minor Christi pietas, quam Herodis impietas, ut ille quidem potu¬ erit innoxios neci dare, Christus non potue¬ rit propter se occisos coronare ? » Et infra : « Caeterum si sunt plane Martyres tui, Deus, ut in quibus nec homo, nec Angelus meritum invenit, singularis tuae praerogativa gratiae evidentius commendetur ». Secundo, objiciuntur' Christi merita, quae constat fuisse maxima atque verissima : et tamen Christus non libere, sed necessario Deum diligebat, quippe qui beatus erat. Nam meritum omne ex charitate pendere, suo loco demonstraturi sumus. Despondeo : Christus simul viator fuit, et comprehensor, et ideo duplex in eo dilectio¬ nis actus inveniri poterat, unus consequens ad visionem Dei, qui necessarius erat, alter consequens ad cognitionem infusam, qui li¬ ber ac voluntarius erat. Vide S. Thomam 3. part. qusest. 19. art. 3. ad. 1. Deinde quam¬ vis Christus non posset non diligere Deum, tamen poterat ex actibus charitatis impera¬ tis, alios facere, alios omittere pro arbitrio : quemadmodum caeteri tum Angeli, tum ho¬ mines, qui Deum vident, et ipse etiam Deus, non possunt quidem peccare, aut Deum non semper diligere : tamen possunt in aliis mul¬ tis rebus pro arbitrio agere. Itaque electionem passionis, qua nos Chri¬ stus redemit, liberam, voluntariamque fuisse testatur Isaias cap. Liir. Oblatus est, quia ipse voluit. Et aperte de merito ejusdem passionis : Si posuerit pro peccato animam suam, videbit semen longaevum. Et infra : Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus, videbit et satu¬ rabitur, etc. Et ipse Dominus Joan. x. Nemo tollit animam meam a me, sed ego pono eam. Et : Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, (1). Tertia objectio contra solutionem argu¬ menti superioris : Christus praeceptum ha¬ buit a Patre ponendi animam suam, sic enim ipse subjungit Joan.x. Hoc mandatum accepi a Patre meo. Unde ad Philip, ii. dicithr : Fac¬ tus obediens usque ad mortem (2). At Christus peccare non poterat : igitur non poterat non implere praeceptum, ac per hoc electio illa ponendi animam suam, non libera sedneces- saria fuit. Respondeo : Duplex est necessitas, altera interna, altera externa ; necessitas interna est, cum ipsa potentia naturaliter determi¬ nata est ad unum ; vel cum objectum eam ex necessitate determinat, et hacc necessitas impedit libertatem, ac per hoc meriti ratio¬ nem. Necessitas externa est, cum remanet in voluntate vera indifferentia, et indeter- rainatio ad utrumlibet, sed tamen fieri non potest, ut eligat non servare praeceptum, quoniam regitur et gubernatur a Deo, qui semper illi objicit ea media ad non peccan¬ dum, quae videt eam acceptaturam. Haec necessitas non tollit libertatem, nec meriti rationem, et talis fuit non solum in Christo, sed etiam in iis, qui dicuntur confirmati in gratia. At si res ita se habet, sicut confirmati in gratia, absolute peccare poterant, quamvis peccaturi non essent, lethaliter saltem, ita et Christus peccare potuit absolute, quamvis peccaturus non esset. Respondeo : Magnum est discrimen inter Christum, et alios confirmatos in gratia. Christus enim, quia Deus, et homo erat, etiam cum viator esset, habebat intra se, unde peccare non posset. Divinitas enim, quae humanitatem regebat, unita erat ipsi Immanitati Christi hypostatice, ac per hoc intrinsecum, et naturale erat Christo, ut non posset peccare etiam secundum humanita¬ tem, et ideo absolute, et simplici ter Christus, etiam ut homo viator (stante hypostatica unione) peccare non potuit. At caJteri con* (1) Isni LI1I, 7, 10, ||; Joan. X, IS. — (2) Jon. X. 18; Pbil. II, S.. LHiEIt V. 3i>t; firmati in gratia, nun habent intra se, id est, in suo supposito aliquid, unde peccare non possint, cum divinitas, qu;c eos regit, ad ipsorum suppositum non pertineat. Proinde ipsi in se considerati, absolute peccare pos¬ sunt, etiam lethaliter; sed sine dubitatione immunes erunt a peccato, si Deus eos in gra¬ tia confirmavit. Quod autem diximus, in voluntate Christi humana fuisse veram indifferentiam ad utrumque, id est, ad prsecepti observationem et violationem et necessitatem non peccandi, respectu illius voluntatis, fuisse extrinsecam : non repugnat his, qua) diximus. Nam neces¬ sitas non peccandi ipsi voluntati humanae Christi praecise sumptae fuit extrinseca, sed ipsi Christo etiam ut homo est, fuit intrinseca et naturalis.