This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
Examination
There are three main points in particular which need to be examined. First is the preparation for justification, since the papists only regard faith for the beginning of justification. Second is how Scripture describes justifying faith. The third concerns the doubt raised by the papists against the confidence and certainty of justifying faith.
9:1: The Preparation for Justification
[3] If the intention of the council were merely to demonstrate the order which God employs when He leads men to justification, agreement over the proper understanding of the word “preparation” could easily be achieved. For Luther also says when commenting on Galatians 3 that the Law is in its service a helper for grace, for it is useful in that it makes it possible for grace to have access to us. He even says that, in its service, the Law is useful for justification in that it leads to the promise. Unjustly, therefore, does Trent charge us in the ninth canon as though we taught that no movement of the will aroused by God precedes the reception of justification. For we absolutely do teach that repentance or contrition precedes, which is not possible without great, true, and serious movements of the will. But we do not say that repentance or contrition precede as a merit which, through its value, cooperates so that we achieve justification. Indeed, perceiving the pain of a wound does not somehow achieve healing, rather it arouses the desire for a doctor. For as Christ says, “The healthy do not need a doctor, but rather the sick” (Luke 5:31).
[4] But the Tridentine fathers contend with malicious cunning over an entirely different matter when they address the preparation for justification. Hosius spares us from conjecture about this point, for he clearly expresses in his long confession that the scholastics had erected “congruent merit” because somewhere it is read in the ancients that sinners merit the forgiveness of sins and also justification itself through the good works that are done before justification. Because much could be brought forth in refutation of this merit from Scripture as well as from the fathers, especially Augustine, Hosius states that the Council of Trent wished rather to speak of preparation and aptitude for grace. But let the reader carefully observe that the Council of Trent understands preparation and aptitude in exactly the same way as the scholastics treated congruent merit.
[6] Thomas says, “Congruent merit is that which proceeds from the free will.” It is called congruent to the extent that man applies the power of his free will while correspondingly God works at the same time according to the glory of His special mercy.
[7] Let the reader apply this description to the statute of the Council of Trent. There the words—with some mention of divine grace—are so phrased that one could presume that the fathers of Trent want nothing to do with the view of the scholastics, according to whom the preparation for grace is brought about by the unregenerate and the natural powers of free will. But do they reject and deprecate these views? By no means. For in Canon Seven they anathematize those who deny that the unregenerate prepare themselves for grace through their works. Moreover they ridicule that statement of Luther’s that if the unbeliever imagines that he prepares himself for grace by the works that are done without faith from his own power and choice, then he has sinned in a twofold manner. First, because that which does not come from faith is sin. Second, because sin is exacerbated through the vain delusion of good works and when one lets himself think that God wants to be gracious because of them.
[8] These views have been refuted earlier in the discussions concerning free will and the works of unbelievers. Let us then proceed to what follows, namely, how to understand that faith justifies by way of being a preparation. In chapter eight, they interpret their opinion in such a way that it says that we are justified because faith is the beginning of human salvation and the foundation and root of all justification. Andrada explains that, in a way, faith opens the doors for hope and love which are necessary for achieving justification.
[9] This view is of scholastic origin. Thomas muses and spins in this way: Righteousness is a constitution of the will, which is guided by the power of knowledge. Therefore, for him faith is necessary for justification in order to lead the will and to call forth movements of hope and love. Prepared in this way, faith in a way merits the obtaining of infused justification. For the scholastics, therefore, faith is only a historical knowledge and a mere approval.
[15] If you now ask, “What errors are in the Tridentine decree?” I answer as follows:
1. They regard faith as a historical knowledge and a mere approval, and they deny that it is the confidence in the mercy of God who forgives sins for the sake of Christ.
2. They imagine that divine grace should only stir and move free will. Then one could begin and accomplish that preparatory work from his own natural powers.
3. In those preparations, they place a merit and a worthiness in view of which we are justified.
4. What actually pertains to faith, such as to lay hold of Christ unto righteousness and salvation, they ascribe to love. And the biblical order they simply turn on its head.
[15] This is the simple examination of the Tridentine decree concerning the preparation for justification. For this is how they want it to be understood when Paul says the ungodly are justified through faith.
9:2: What Justifying Faith Actually and Truly Is and How Scripture Wants It to Be Understood When It Says the Ungodly Are Justified through Faith
[1] Certainly necessary is the true and real explanation of what justifying faith is and how Scripture should be understood when it teaches that man is justified through faith. Faith is namely the means or instrument whereby we take hold of, receive, and appropriate the mercy of God in the word of the Gospel, which forgives sins and receives us into eternal life for the sake of the Son and mediator.
[2] For the sake of brevity and order, I shall break this down into a few questions.
The first question is the object with which justifying faith is actually and primarily concerned. In Scripture or God’s Word, faith has its unique and certain object which it considers and regards. It thereby sees, grasps, receives and appropriates that through which the believer is justified before God, that is, it that through which it can obtain forgiveness, reconciliation, adoption, and eternal life.
[4] To be sure, there is a general faith, which entails general historical knowledge about that which is proclaimed in Scripture by God and includes a general approval according to which we hold the revelation given in God’s Word to be true, not on account of reason, but because we are certain that such has been proclaimed and given by the true and almighty God.
[6] Now the question arises, what is the actual and chief object which justifying faith regards in God’s Word in such a way that it seeks and seizes therein reconciliation with God and receives the forgiveness of sins, adoption, and eternal life.
[7] According to the sure and clear testimonies of Scripture, the unique promise of the Gospel concerning the free mercy of God, who forgives sins for the sake of the Son and mediator and receives believers as His children into eternal life, forms the true, actual, and essential object of justifying faith, wherein justification and reconciliation with God is sought and grasped and the forgiveness of sins is received. See Romans 3:24–25: “We are freely justified according to His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood.” See also Romans 4:5 ff.
[13] The real and essential object of justifying faith therefore is and remains God’s free mercy, who forgives sins according to the promise and takes up believers and receives them into eternal life for the sake of Christ the mediator. This concerns the first question.
[14] The second question is how justifying faith relates to its object in order to be able to justify. It does not do so in cold consideration, nor in general and superficial approval. Rather, the manner of faith is that it recognizes Christ and looks to Him, and grasps, accepts, and embraces all His merits, thereby seeking in Christ the mercy of God, which forgives sins. It appropriates this to each individual believer through the promise. For they, who desire to be justified, must necessarily receive Christ and the promise of the free mercy of God for Christ’s sake. Those who do not receive it are not justified, according to the words of John 1:11–12: “Those who were His own did not receive Him; as many as received Him, to them God gave the power to become children of God.”
[15] The third question is this: How does faith grasp Christ and the grace of God in the Word of promise, along with reconciliation and the forgiveness of sins? My good Andrada, when developing the opinion of the council, says this happened in so far as faith stirs and kindles the heart to works of love. Through this, the heart is prepared and made adept and is no longer unworthy to receive Christ and His merits and to obtain grace, reconciliation, adoption, and eternal life.
[16] Scripture teaches, however, that faith brings forth good works, but where it speaks of the reception of justification or reconciliation, it only mentions faith and even adds in contrast: “not from works” or “not according to works.”
[18] With what inner movements faith grasps the promise of the Gospel is recognized in the true exercise of justifying faith. For there, such degrees of development are perceived, as they are identified in Scripture.
First, there is a cognizance or knowledge, a contemplation or a consideration, which is engaged with the promise of God and with the benefits of Christ, the mediator, with God’s mercy, and with the freely given reconciliation.
Second, this knowledge must be coupled with appropriation, not merely in general, but rather that each one, certain of his faith, relates the general promise to himself in particular.
Third, from this knowledge or approval the heart obtains, by the working of the Holy Spirit, a longing that, because it feels gravely burdened by sin and God’s wrath, the benefit of justification promised in the Gospel might be given and imparted to it.
Fourth, where faith flees in such a way to the throne of grace in the blood of Christ, there the confidence which is based on the promises is added. God desires to give you the goods of the promise as your own. From such confidence springs joyfulness, peace in the conscience, and delight in the spirit, for the heart rests in the promise of grace, and in cross and trial, even in death itself, the joy of glory remains firm.
[20] In all these stages of development, the reminder must be added that God’s power is perfected in weakness. For faith is neither always nor with everyone a burning light; rather, it is often a smoldering wick.
[24] True faith lays hold of Christ. Faith justifies, but it does not have this power because it is active through love, but because it lays hold of Christ. The marks of true, living faith is another question. In this regard we state with Scripture: “What counts is faith, which is active through love” (Galatians 5:6) and “without works faith is dead” (James 2:17). In this sense, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession states that faith which is without good works does not justify.[1]
[25] Andrada twists the statement I made in my little book on the Jesuits as though I hold that good works are necessary for justification and for blessedness. He added that if we desire to continue speaking in such a way that it is to be hoped that we would soon return to the Roman church and speak in agreement with the papists. Here the reader may carefully observe what hope and what force are placed by the papists in the proposition of the necessity of good works for justification and salvation. As for what concerns me, I disapprove those statements which are disseminated in our churches, though they are refuted by common consent, as though good works are necessary for justification and salvation in such a way that it is impossible for anyone to be justified without good works.
[26] In contrast to the papistic distortions and the discourse of the people of the land, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession establishes this sign of true faith, namely, that it stands in true repentance and is active through love. As for the question of how faith justifies, we say that faith lays hold of the only mediator, Christ, for righteousness and salvation, and this without our works.
Paul, who presents the doctrine of justification so simply, adds many exclusionary adverbs as a confession and defense.
[27] Thus: “By grace” you are saved (Ephesians 2:8); we are “freely” justified (Romans 3:24); the grace of “one single” man, Jesus Christ, has richly befallen many (Romans 5:15, 17, 18); or when he says: “apart from the Law” (Romans 3:21), “without works” (Romans 4:6); or with the expressions of “imputation,” “forgiveness of sins,” and “faith.”
[28] These are the words of exclusion that are frequent in Paul, which we are unable to express more briefly or conveniently than through the little word “alone,” which has been customary in the article of justification at all times in the church and is also common in our churches. Therefore, we confess that we justified from grace alone, through faith alone, by imputation alone, for the sake of Christ alone.
We understand this exclusion as follows:
- Our merit is excluded.
- The reason for reconciliation is transferred to God’s grace alone.
- The means or tool of appropriation is emphasized.
Because Andrada wrote that Luther understood an isolated and dead faith by the word “alone,” I make note of his exposition of Genesis 15: “As when you have many kinds of seed in the hand, I do not ask which seed is placed beside another, but rather what the power and effect of each seed is. Thus, I clearly and plainly say here what faith does and produces in itself alone, and not with what virtues or works it is surrounded and adorned. Now faith lays hold of the promise for itself alone; this alone is faith’s own work. Other works go around it. Indeed, we know that faith is never alone but brings with it love and other manifold gifts. For this reason one thing should not be mixed with another, and what is of faith alone should not be assigned to other virtues or works.” Thus Luther.
9:3: Whether True Justifying Faith is Confidence or Doubt in the Forgiveness of Sins
[1] Luther says on Genesis 41 “Even if there were nothing else wrong or sinful in the pope’s teaching but that it taught that we should always go back and forth in doubt, waver, and be uncertain concerning the forgiveness of sins, God’s grace, and our salvation, we would still have a justified reason to separate ourselves from the unbelieving church.” On this question there are two contradictory writings, that of Catharinus and Soto, which show that those assembled at Trent were not united on this disgraceful article that faith must doubt.
[2] Admittedly, reasons are not lacking as for why the papists may argue so fiercely that they may retain doubt. They recognize that the entire business of papal dealing rests upon this foundation. Therefore, there arise vows, pilgrimages, excessive works and the selling of indulgences, purgatory, in short, the entire known dragon of papal superstition. The treasurers of the papal funds fear for the revenue of the Holy See. This is the crux of the matter. This is the reason for the attempts to establish doubt.
[3] At the Council of Trent, faith trusts in the promise of the Gospel, only in such a way that it does not dare to rest in it with firm confidence. They do not even shy away from saying that no one obtains the forgiveness of sins who, according to the promise of the Gospel, rests in the certainty of such forgiveness.
[4] In his manner Andrada comments as the translator of the council: “I in no way doubt that access to righteousness stands open to me when I have approached the throne of divine grace in pure faith and in true repentance. But whether I have ever carried that out truly and purely, I shall never be able to determine with certainty.” He reasons thus: “There are many sins which are hidden from sinners in such a way that they are not able to distinguish them in any way. If no one can know with certainty whether he is entangled in a transgression of which he is in no way aware, how can he firmly believe himself justified? And that this opinion that one flatters oneself into thinking that they have obtained justification is thoroughly unchristian is proven by the view of Cyprian: ‘Let no one flatter himself with a pure and undefiled heart, as though he would boast of his innocence and keep away the means of healing from the wounds, for it is written: “Who shall boast that he is free of sin?”’”
[5] The reader may compare Andrada’s explanation with the chief points of the Tridentine decree concerning doubt.
First, they do attribute reconciliation and the forgiveness of sins to the grace of God for the sake of Christ. But they add that this good is communicated to no one except the one who has so prepared himself through works of repentance and love that he is not all together unworthy to receive the blessing of justification from God. Because the conscience always bears doubts as to whether it has enough of such works, whether its preparation suffices, it is an inner necessity that fearful souls should never be able to draw a secure and firm consolation from this teaching in trial, in wrestling with God’s wrath, and especially in the throes of death.
Second, the Tridentine decree says that even if someone really is justified, he may not himself decide that he is definitely and doubtlessly justified. The papal teaching contains, therefore, pure uncertainties both with respect to preparations as well as the chief matter of justification. As justification is with the papists, so also is their teaching concerning faith.
[6] Therein the papists deal openly and properly in that they give their theology this heading, that it is a teaching of doubt, which cannot show or give true, certain, and firm consolation to the conscience.[2] For they affirm that deception can subvert faith. The Jesuits also teach that it belongs to hope to deceive itself.
[7] But the fathers of Trent do not stop here but go further and conclude: No one, not even the one who believes in true confidence that their sins are forgiven by God’s grace for the sake of Christ, may assume with certainty that they are absolved of their sins. Indeed, they add: Whoever believes that their sins are only freely forgiven by God’s grace for the sake of Christ and rests upon this confidence will then and for this reason not be forgiven.
As we therefore gladly admit and completely attest, the papal doctrine of justification is a workshop of doubt and despair, therefore we must unconditionally contend for the confidence of the freely given reconciliation with God for the sake of Christ in the church. For this is the real teaching of the Gospel and of the church.
[8] To begin with, there are some confusions which need to be removed by which the papists cunningly and maliciously seek to shift the state of the question before the ignorant.
[10] Necessary and beneficial is that teaching which is unique to the Gospel which sets forth a fundamental consolation to the conscience trembling before God’s wrath in the fear of sin, where it can rest securely with all confidence in the forgiveness of its sins. Without making too extensive of a speech, we will limit ourselves to highlighting the most important principles of this teaching.
[11] First, we take a clear and firm foundation from the nature of the free promise. For the confidence of our blessedness rests not upon the idea that with our sagacity we can press into heaven and probe into what has been decided concerning us in the secret counsel of the Trinity. Rather, it rests upon the foundation that God, when He stepped forth from His secret light, revealed to us His will in the Word. In the Law, however, God’s will is revealed thus: The one who does this shall thereby live. If eternal life could be grasped through doubt, then no promise would be better suited for this than that of the Law, because it leaves consciences in perpetual doubt because of the condition of complete obedience attached to it. Since it is not doubt but faith which justifies, and not the doubting but the believing who has eternal life, God announced the free promise of the Gospel, which is based not upon our works but on the mercy of God, for the sake of the Son and mediator and His obedience. For this reason, John concludes in his first epistle, “He who does not believe makes Him a liar” (1 John 5:10).
[12] The second reason follows from the specific essence of justifying faith, for these are ascribed to faith: persuasion, confidence, conviction, joyfulness, and trust. With such words, certainly firm and sure confidence are indicated, not doubt. For this reason, the epistle to the Hebrews encourages us to hold fast to confidence and the boasting of hope until the end. If doubt were a virtue, then we would not rightly be commanded to fight it and we would not be urged to pray: “Strengthen our faith; help our unbelief.” Indeed, the papists with every kind of artificiality seek to play a game with Romans 8.
Andrada, however, because he realizes these games cannot stand, says the phrase “I am certain” designates not a certain confidence, but rather a probable view or persuasion, which could be mistaken, because the word is used in this way in some passages of Scripture.
Now the question is: Which meaning fits Romans 8? The entire context shows this with a loud voice: “If God is for us, then who is against us? How should He not give us all things with the Son? Who will condemn? Who will accuse? God is the one who justifies. Christ is the one who has died. Who will separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord? We are more than conquerors for the sake of Him who loved us.” The phrase “I am certain” follows this. It is clear that he who says this entire statement is to be explained on the basis of doubt speaks irrationally.
[13] Now the teaching of the use of the sacraments furnishes the most pleasant arguments concerning believers’ certainty of salvation against the doubt of the papists. For the Son of God instituted those signs that we call sacraments and thereby—this is certain—added the promise of grace to them. Moreover, this happened that the promise of the Gospel would not only be preached in general but that the promise might be offered, appropriated, and sealed for individual believers in the celebration of the sacraments. Faith, being weak as it is, can scarcely sustain itself on the general, mere promise, if it is to hope where there is nothing to hope. It must, therefore, be upheld and strengthened by the power of the sacraments. For this reason, Romans 4:11 calls circumcision the seal of righteousness, and 1 Peter 3:21 calls Baptism the pledge of a good conscience with God.
[14] The strongest arguments against the doubt of the papists are derived from the Scriptural testimonies concerning the sealing of believers with the Holy Spirit. See Ephesians 1:13: “Through whom you also, when you believed, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the pledge of our inheritance.”
[15] Paul points to Abraham in Romans 4:14, that he hoped when there was no hope. For he did not doubt the promise of God through unbelief, rather he was strong in faith, and knew for certain that what God promised He could also do. Therefore, it was reckoned to him as righteousness. These are not mere words; they are thunder bolts against the Tridentine decree which says that no one will be forgiven of their sins who is at ease in the confidence of their forgiveness in the promise.
[16] Doubt which strives with faith is reproved in Scripture with emphatic words: “O you of little faith” (Matthew 6:30); “He asks in faith and does not doubt, for he who doubts is like the waves of the sea that are tossed to and fro by the wind. Such a man does not think he will receive anything from the Lord.”
[17] It is also useful to consider where the teaching originates that would have true believers doubt the forgiveness of their sins. For in Matthew 9:3, the scribes do not doubt the general promise of the forgiveness of sins, but they condemn Christ: “This one blasphemes God,” because He promised and bestowed the forgiveness of sins to the believer so certainly that He could say to the paralytic, “Be of good comfort!”
[18] Finally, the marvelous testimonies of the ancients show that the papal article of faith is novel and false.
Thus, Hilary says concerning Matthew 5: “Where faith wavers there is no justification by faith.”[3] So also Cyprian, “He does not come to Christ who does not believe that he will begin to reign with Christ” (On Mortality).[4]
[20] Now, you might say: “They also have reasons for their doubt.” But to this we respond: “Because they only teach the Law, they can do nothing but work perpetual doubt and ultimately despair with their teaching.” But let us hear their further objections.
[21] First of all, when they say that even heretics and secular people could imagine that they are confident in such certainty, it is thus rashly decided that true faith should be shaken because of false faith.
[22] Second, they hold out the sight out of their own weakness and unworthiness against confidence. Certainly, our faith is everywhere bound with true humility, and it must be so. But true humility does not make faith doubtful or staggering. For it does not keep the conscience in the Law, but it drives it to the promise and the mediator, whose wounds, according to Bernard of Clairvaux, are the refuge of true believers.[5]
[23] Third, they raise the doctrine of election against the certainty of salvation and say one must be careful of vain presumption. It is also earnestly taught among us that God’s secret counsel should not be investigated. For election is not determined by an arrogant use of reason, but rather by God’s Word, which reveals to us that God has chosen:
- To redeem the human race through Christ;
- To call Jews and Gentiles through the office of the Word to salvation in Christ;
- To work repentance and faith in the hearts of men by His Spirit through the hearing of the Word;
- To justify and save those who in repentant faith rush to the throne of grace and lay hold of Christ, but to condemn those who despise the Word and the promise.
[24] From this the reader may recognize that the doctrine of election is revealed in Scripture, not to make the salvation of believers doubtful or uncertain, but rather that it may be a foundation of certainty. See 2 Timothy 2:19: “The firm foundation of God remains and has this seal: ‘The Lord knows His own.’”
[26] Fourth, with respect to perseverance, they respond that no one is certain as to whether he will persevere until the end. Indeed, Scripture and experience teach that many do not persevere but fall from grace. Therefore, people should remember to put to death the dealings of the flesh through the Spirit, to cling to Christ in faith, to always be united with Him more intimately through Word and sacrament, to ask God for the gift of perseverance, and to strive lest they forfeit it.
Therefore one should not doubt on account of perseverance, but hold on to the Word of the Lord: “No one shall take them from my hand.”
[27] Fifth, they present words of Scripture such as 1 Corinthians 10:12: “Let him who stands take heed lest he fall”; Philippians 2:12: “Work your salvation with fear and trembling.” Such passages warn of fleshly security, not to confuse believers, but rather to drive believers to cling to the grace promised for the sake of Christ more warmly and firmly.
[28] Sixth, Andrada further avails himself of the following argument against confidence: Paul says, “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified, because it is God who justifies me.” Therefore, Paul was not certain concerning his justification. But Paul, who calls out in Romans 8, “Who will condemn?” etc., does not deprive true faith in Christ of the certain confidence of being justified. He is denying that his works—not doubtingly, but downright—are the reason for his justification.
[32] We are not envisioning a certainty of faith which in the weakness of the body would not be distressed by any doubt; nor do we mean that weak faith is not true faith. The doctrine of the certainty of faith is proclaimed, however, so that:
- Believers do not boast of their doubt before God, as though it were some virtue of faith, but rather ask that the dross of imperfect faith be covered and forgiven;
- We do not give in to doubts, but fight against them, for God has given us the Word, sacraments, and prayers as means of grace for the exercising of faith. Moreover, the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness, so that the smoldering wick of faith is not extinguished.
[33] This is why true believers rest in such certainty of salvation or seek to do so.
NOTES
[1] “James does not contradict us, who, when censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have faith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead and living faith. He says that that is dead which does not bring forth good works [and fruits of the Spirit obedience, patience, chastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth good works. Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely the history concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc.]. Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the adversaries dream [as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to believe! etc.], nor a human power [thought which I can form for myself], but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which we overcome the devil and death. Just as Paul says to the Colossians 2:12 that faith is efficacious through the power of God, and overcomes death: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. Since this faith is a new life, it necessarily produces new movements and works. [Because it is a new light and life in the heart, whereby we obtain another mind and spirit, it is living, productive, and rich in good works.] Accordingly, James is right in denying that we are justified by such a faith as is without works. But when he says that we are justified by faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again by works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our Propitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does he describe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just are, after they have been already justified and regenerated.” – Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article V, §127-130, link: https://thebookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-v/
[2] “There seem to be three proposed opinions, or rather errors, concerning this question [of uncertainty]. The first [error] is held by the present-day heretics who teach three [articles]. Firstly, it is possible for the faithful to have certainty of his grace in order by certain faith to determine that their sins are remitted…” – Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis, Tertiae Controversiae Generalis: Controversia Secunda Generalis Quae Est De Justificatione Impii, Book III, Chapter 3, link: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Dispvtationvm_Roberti_Bellarmini_Politia/yf9DTDJOCSwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA239&printsec=frontcover
^ [Lat: De Proposita igitur quæstione tres videntur esse sententiæ, sive potius errores. Primus est, omnium huius temporis Hæreticorum qui tria docent. Primo, posse fideles eam notitiam habere de sua gratia, ut certa fide statuant, sibi remissa esse peccata.]
[3] “‘Therefore I say to you: do not concern yourself with what you shall eat nor how you shall clothe your body. Is not your life more than food and the body more than clothing?’ In all the preceding words, Jesus had prescribed contempt for the world and confidence in the future. When He commanded us to be open to insult, and willingly accept loss, and to be indifferent about taking revenge, and indiscriminate about those whom we love, and unconcerned for human glory, he was urging us to set our hopes courageously on eternal gain. Both the love of present things and anxiety about things to come foster uncertainty in many people, either captivating them by enticements or confounding them through their disbelief. He wants us, therefore, to put our hope without any ambiguity of an uncertain will, in the Kingdom of heaven, which the prophets announced, John preached, and our Lord declared was found in himself. If faith is doubtful, how can there be justification by faith? For this reason, the Lord instructs us to have no care about clothing or about food, saying that life is more valuable than nourishment and the body more valuable than food.” – Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Vol. 125, tr. D. H. Williams, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press (2012), Chapter 5, §6, pg. 76-77, link: https://archive.org/details/commentaryonmatt0125hila/page/76/mode/1up
[4] “The kingdom of God, beloved brethren, is beginning to be at hand; the reward of life, and the rejoicing of eternal salvation, and the perpetual gladness and possession lately lost of paradise, are now coming, with the passing away of the world; already heavenly things are taking the place of earthly, and great things of small, and eternal things of things that fade away. What room is there here for anxiety and solicitude? Who, in the midst of these things, is trembling and sad, except he who is without hope and faith? For it is for him to fear death who is not willing to go to Christ. It is for him to be unwilling to go to Christ who does not believe that he is about to reign with Christ. For it is written that the just lives by faith. If you are just, and live by faith, if you truly believe in Christ, why, since you are about to be with Christ, and are secure of the Lord’s promise, do you not embrace the assurance that you are called to Christ, and rejoice that you are freed from the devil?” – Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise VII: On the Mortality, §2-3, ANF, Vol. 5, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/cyprian/treatises/anf05.iv.v.vii.html
[5] “Some one else has expounded this passage in a different sense, interpreting the “clefts of the rock” to mean the Wounds of Christ, which I entirely approve of, since “Christ is the Rock.” O blessed clefts, which fortify our faith in the resurrection and in the Divinity of the Saviour! “My Lord and my God,” exclaimed Thomas the Apostle. But whence did he derive this confession save from the clefts of the Rock? Therein “the sparrow hath found herself a house, and the turtle a nest for herself, where she may lay her young ones.” In them the dove rests secure, and beholds with fearless eye the hungry hawk’s gyrations. Therefore the Bridegroom here calls His Spouse, “My dove in the clefts of the Rock.” And it is the voice of the dove we hear in the psalm saying, “He hath exalted me upon a Rock,” and, “He hath set my feet upon a Rock.” The wise man builds his house upon the Rock, because on such a foundation he shall have nothing to fear from the violence of floods or tempests. What can be found in the Rock except what is most excellent? It lifts me up from the ground, It renders me secure, It affords me firm footing. On the Rock I am safe from my enemies, I am prevented from falling, and that because, standing on the Rock, I am exalted above the earth. For everything on the earth is unstable and insecure. But if “our conversation is in heaven,” then we need have no fear either of falling or of being thrown down. In heaven is the Rock, wherein alone can be found strength and security. “The Rock is a refuge for the irchins,” as the Psalmist says. And in truth where shall the weak find a safe rest or a secure asylum except in the Wounds of the Saviour? There shall I dwell with a confidence proportionate to the greatness of His power to save me. Let the world rage, let the body bear me down, let the devil plot against me: I shall not fall, for I am founded on the Rock. I have sinned most grievously; my conscience is indeed much disquieted, yet is not confounded, because I will call to mind the Wounds of my Saviour. For “He was wounded for our iniquities.” What sin can be so much “unto death” as that it cannot be “loosed” by the death of Christ? Therefore no disease, however desperate, shall have power to drive me to despair, if only I keep in mind so potent and efficacious a remedy.” – Bernard Of Clairvaux, St. Bernard’s Sermons On The Canticle Of Canticles, Volume 2, Sermon LXI, pg. 196-197, link: https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/stbernardssermon02bern/stbernardssermon02bern.pdf
