Whether good works are a part of repentance.
Whether good works are a part of repentance.
§ 53. Bellarmine’s third proposition about the parts of repentance is this: “Not all the good works done after justification should be counted among the parts of repentance.”
We respond. We ourselves deny that the new obedience is an essential part of repentance properly and accurately speaking. Meanwhile, we cannot approve Bellarmine’s proposition, for he changes what he wrote by claiming that some good works—namely, those which reveal inner repentance or by which one believes he makes satisfaction for his sins—must be counted as parts of repentance. For here the question does not concern the outward signs of contrition, which we say are present very often but not always—thus we cannot assign them to the essential parts of repentance. Nor does the question have to do with the works of satisfaction. (A little later [§§ 118–29] what must be said about these will be stated.) Rather, the concern is with the good works which follow repentance in those who have truly turned to God, by which works they walk and show themselves as pleasing to God and helpful to their neighbor.
We say that these should not be counted as essential parts of repentance from the following foundational truths. (1) The fruit is never part of the thing or, as the philosophers say, something consecutive is not a constitutive part of the thing.8
** Scaliger (Exerc. 140, p. 471): “The flower or fruit of a plant is not a part but a work of it.” **
Good works are the fruit of repentance. “Bear fruit worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8). “I have testified to Jews and to Gentiles to repent and turn to God and do works worthy of repentance” (Acts 26:20). “Repent and do the former works” (Rev. 2:5). Therefore good works are not essential parts of repentance.
(2) If one claims that the new obedience is an essential part of conversion, then there is no firm promise of reconciliation with God and of the remission of sins, since judgment would then be passed on our reconciliation with God and remission of sins on the basis of the quality and quantity of the new obedience. The consequent conflicts with the apostle’s statement (Rom. 4:16): “Therefore it is from faith, freely, that the promise may be firm.” Therefore the antecedent must not be asserted.
(3) As good works stand in relation to our justification before God, so the new obedience stands in relation to true and salutary repentance. But now, good works are neither causes nor parts of justification; they do not go ahead of the person who is to be justified but follow the person who has been justified. Therefore the new obedience also is not a part of repentance but is the necessary consequence of it, since it does not make a person repentant but rather follows the person who is now truly contrite and upright by faith in Christ, as fruit follows the tree. Also note that when the new obedience is established as the necessary consequence of true repentance this expression means not only outward good works but also—and, in fact, especially—an inner good intent, since there are times when outward good works cannot follow, namely, at the threshold of death, in extreme need, etc. Here Augustine’s statement applies: “God crowns the will within if it does not find an opportunity for well-doing.” The statement of Remigius also applies, which Guillermus cites ([Sermon]in festo nativ.): “If you do not have the riches of Zacchaeus, if you lack the two mites of the widow, if you are unable to offer a cup of cold water, offer God your goodwill.”