De natura et gratia libri III, cum Apologia contra Catharinum

With the causes of justification established from the theology of Catholics, as ancient as it is most approved, concerning whose nature there is no great disagreement among them, we must now deal with the adversaries. For three dogmas are to be observed and weighed, which they preach concerning formal causes.¹ First they persist in saying that sins are not so remitted in justification as to be taken away: but only that they are not imputed by God. Second, that no justice is in us formally by which we are just: that is, acceptable to God and worthy of eternal life. And third, that all who have been and will be just after the sin of Adam are such formally through the justice of Christ, which is imputed to all as each one's own. The first point indeed, insofar as it regards original sin, is most evident among them, as was seen in the first book, ch. 11 and 12. Namely, that it is not so remitted in baptism as to be entirely taken away. But concerning actual sins they speak variously and slippery. In the colloquy of Worms² they established a different account between original and actual. Namely that when the act of actual guilt passes, only the guilt remains: which once released, nothing of sin remains. Indeed no guilt of punishment either. For they say that sins are simply forgiven through faith. But concerning original sin, with the guilt washed away through baptism, there remains that assaulting act of concupiscence, which they say is a sin hateful to God. Yet in other places they seem to hold the same of actual as of original. For they continually gloss remission of sins and justification by this, that we are reputed just by faith on account of Christ. The words are in the Augsburg Apology, art. 6 on justification: Obedience (namely of the justified) toward the law pleases, and is reputed a certain justice. And Melanchthon in the Apology repeatedly repeats³ that although in the justified there is a begun renewal, nevertheless the remnants of sin still cling in nature. And again: This begun fulfillment of the law pleases God, because on account of faith in Christ there is not imputed to us what is lacking to the fulfillment of the law. And in the Interim, where they seem to speak more precisely, they still inculcate the word "reputed." For they say: And thus by faith in Christ we are justified, or reputed just. The same in Bucer's Concordances and on Paul, Rom. ch. 2. And Luther in art. 2 generally says that it is not the same for sins to be forgiven and for sins to be taken away. But since they say that the just man sins in every good work (of which we must discourse in book 3), it is manifestly gathered from them that no one is simply just before God: but that one only comes to the name of just because God on account of his mercy does not impute our sins to us. For if the offices which we perform in grace are of themselves all sins (as they say), it follows that sins are not truly forgiven, but only not imputed. And for this reason these men make so much of that third acceptation of justification which we explained above. Namely that someone is said to be justified when he is pronounced just. Which word they indeed use most frequently, so as to hide their poison under it. Namely that as human judges often legitimately pronounce those just who are not truly such, so it happens before God. And so in this sense they read that, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin. And, Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice: and similar things. And therefore they impose on us and reproach us that we think we do not need the mercy and grace of God except in the first point of justification. Because we teach that the works of the justified need no remission. But this point is not why we should be delayed here long: indeed it has been sufficiently discussed and shaken out by us in the cited place. Where by testimonies of Scripture, many enough and plainly firm, and by the attestations of the saints and manifest reasons, we demonstrated that through baptism there is made a most full remission, not only of original but also of actual sin. Nor is remission less full through penance. Except that not always are all the punishments and penalties which are owed temporally forgiven. Indeed to say that God forgives sins but does not entirely take them away is the part of a man ignorant of the meaning of remission. For to forgive in God is not to diminish, but to pardon completely, and so to pardon that he no longer recognizes them, just as if they had never been committed: according to that, I will not remember all his iniquities. For since an offense is committed against God alone, if he spares, there remains nothing from which any account of guilt could exist. And what we were saying in the cited place, and must be repeatedly inculcated against these men, while they do not desist from this repugnance of words, he says contradictory things who says that sin remains and is not imputed by God. For no account of guilt can be devised which that supreme goodness does not hate: because guilt means that which is erred against his will. But if he hates it, how can it be that it is not reckoned evil by him? Indeed to hate is the same as to impute. Let us therefore invert the argument. God so forgives sin as to lay aside entirely the hatred which he had for the unjust and his iniquity: therefore he so forgives as to wipe away and take away entirely the very account of guilt. And it is confirmed. That God does not impute sin (as St Thomas says, 1-2 q. 113 art. 2)⁴ proceeds from divine love, but that God loves him in whom any account of mortal guilt remains is a contradiction: and so therefore he is entangled who says that sins remain but are not imputed. Perhaps these men have not read Augustine in the book On the Perfection of Justice.⁵ His words are: Surely God is just: it cannot be denied. But God imputes every sin to man: because whatever is not imputed as sin is not sin. Gather therefore how what God does not impute, he makes to be not sin. Hence they wrongly use in the present matter that third signification of justification,⁶ for that which is only to be pronounced just. For the judges of mortals, whose business is not to judge the hidden things of hearts, but to know the merits of causes according to human testimonies, are said to justify the guilty when they absolve him: even if he remains in guilt before God. And thus the word is used in that of Proverbs, He who justifies the impious,⁷ and he who condemns the just, are both abominable. But yet before God, who most deeply beholds our hearts, there is no justification where there is not altogether a deletion of guilt: otherwise it would be a fiction, and not the truth which Christ nevertheless asserted, where he says, Father, sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth. And, If the Son has freed you, you will be truly free.⁸ From which words of truth the Apostle infers that there is now nothing of condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh.⁹ Nor would that be true which John says: You know that he appeared to take away sins. And, Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.¹⁰ And accordingly that, See what love the Father has given us, that we should not only be named sons of God, but truly be.

But concerning actual sins there are certain stronger arguments¹¹ than concerning original. First, that since they pass in act, and only guilt remains, once that is forgiven, nothing of sin remains. Then, that it is forgiven by the special help of God converting us. For these men, defenders of the grace of God, are to be wondered at, that they do not see what injury they themselves unwittingly inflict. For since God converts us by special favor and effort (because, he says, No one can come to me unless my Father draws him),¹² how will he not be as powerful to tear our mind away from that changeable good and convert it to himself (which is to take away guilt) as our free will was to turn itself away from him? But if they grant that actual guilt (which they cannot deny) is entirely taken away when it is forgiven, the same is convicted and must be confessed concerning original. For that remission too is from God through Jesus Christ. Therefore those words, Blessed are they whose sins are covered, and to whom the Lord has not imputed sin: so far from suggesting that any sin remains in man which God hides or which could be imputed, that they most evidently demonstrate to those who understand the nature of his infinite goodness and truth, that to be covered and not imputed is the same as to be utterly abolished. For if even the least account of guilt were in him, never would supreme goodness cover it, nor supreme truth not impute it. For mercy, says the Prophet, and truth have met each other:¹³ that is, mercy and justice have inseparably embraced. And therefore although his mercy precedes us, yet in such a way that it stirs our will to do justice and judgment. Namely that through penance, which is the work both of him working and of us cooperating, guilt may be wiped out, and finally the remnants of debts may be paid by the fruits of penance. Rightly therefore has the holy Synod just now confessed, session 6 ch. 7, that when we are justified we are not only reputed, but truly named and are just.¹⁴

Concerning the second article also, namely concerning inherent justice, the Lutherans have also spoken variously.¹⁵ Nor is there one sense of those denying inherent justice: but surely a double one. Which must be carefully considered. For by the word inherent justice we can conceive not only the habits infused by God, but the acts themselves by which we work rightly by the nod and motion of the Holy Spirit. Concerning the habits there is no discourse among them. Indeed they do not acknowledge that the faith by which we are justified is a resting habit: but an act and apprehension of the mercy of God, although Luther says in art. 1 that the act itself is infused by God alone. Nor do they understand anything else by the name of grace than by the adverb "freely." Although they now begin to say that the same faith is grace. Nor do they explain anything else concerning charity than what Paul says, that it is poured into our hearts.¹⁶ Indeed they more frequently use the Master's way of speaking: namely that the Holy Spirit is given. And although in the Interim they confess that charity is infused, nevertheless neither the Interim nor Bucer in the Apology mentions anything of habit. And Melanchthon in the Apology of justification ridicules this fiction of ours about habits. But by this reasoning, as we said above, to deny inherent justice would not indeed be a most open denial of sacred Scripture. Wherefore the holy Synod now suppressed the word "habit." It would nevertheless be notable temerity, without any reason or cause, to oppose not only the judgment of the holy Fathers and of all theologians (as is had in the Council of Vienne), but also the Synod itself judging the same,¹⁷ as more consonant with Scripture and approved by the Fathers. Yet they do not confess exactly either this habitual justice, or even that which is in the actions themselves. They indeed say (as we reported above) that the act of penance is from the motion of the Holy Spirit, and that charity is infused into our holy will, so that it can begin the justice of works. But by these words they thoroughly grant this, that there is in the justified a certain imperfect and begun justice: namely works by which we do not altogether satisfy the justice and precepts of God. Because in this life, they say, we cannot fulfill as is just that precept of the love of God above all things. And therefore in every work we sin, as by some omission of that precept. And for this reason it is called imperfect justice. But because it gradually grows until it is perfected in the fatherland, it is called begun justice. But to this controversy concerning the imperfection and beginning of justice, a place is dedicated in book 3. Here however concerning inherent justice we establish at least this conclusion,¹⁸ which we strive to show is fixed always by the monuments of the Fathers and the sanctions of the Church according to the testimonies of sacred Scripture, and confessed by the orthodox. Namely that the justice of God, that is, which is his effect, is inherent in us. In this sense, that besides his general influence by which he governs the universe, he assists us by special favor and divine will to do his own commands worthily. And so whether this be through infused habits, or through actual succor, this nevertheless is an article of faith, that the justice of works which we do is his own, who moves us by peculiar assistance. For there is first of all the condemnation of the Council of Milevis under anathema can. 3:¹⁹ that the grace by which we are justified through Jesus Christ our Lord avails only for the remission of sins which have already been committed, and not also for help that they not be committed. And can. 4 and 5 more explicitly also subscribe that the grace of God is necessary not only for understanding the commandments, but also that we may love and be able to do what we have known is to be done: and that we ought to ask grace from heaven not only that we may be able more easily, but simply that we may be able to fulfill the law. Therefore it is the Catholic confession that the grace of God (in whatever way it be) is in us, whether in habit or in act. And so the Church has always understood.²⁰ Without me you can do nothing.²¹ And we are not sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, as if from ourselves: namely, concerning special help.²² And, It is God who works in you both to will and to perfect for good will.²³ And, By the grace of God I am what I am: but his grace in me was not in vain, but I labored more abundantly than all of them, not I alone, but the grace of God with me.²⁴ But that justifying grace, by which we are what we are, remains in us for works which are not his alone, but his with free will, is most certain and most holy to the holy Fathers. Concerning which in the book On Grace and Free Will ch. 4, Augustine:²⁵ Man therefore is helped by grace, lest it be commanded to his will without cause. Hence the Psalmist: Be my helper, do not forsake me.²⁶ Which observing best there, ch. 6, he adds that it is necessary for man that by the grace of God not only the impious be justified, that is, from impious be made just, but also that he not be forsaken: so that the justified man may walk with that grace, and lean upon it lest he fall: according to that, Who is this that ascends white, leaning upon her brother?²⁷ This inherent justice we have explained in two ways, expounding the most prudent determination of the holy present Synod of Trent ch. 7.²⁸ Where it decrees anathema on one who does not confess inherent justice. Namely the aids which by the virtue of baptism and of justifying grace God bestows on the justified for working. And therefore whatever may be the case with habits, from this he is to be held a heretic who denies inherent justice. But although it suppressed the name of habit (because it did not see fit to sanction those under anathema), nevertheless by using the name of the infusion of faith, hope, and charity, and by calling inherent justice the first garment restored in place of that which Adam had lost, it holds as most approved that such aids are brought to us through infused habits, by which we put on Christ: so that it is now very great temerity to deny the habits.