Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Church Triumphant, Book I: On the Beatitude and Canonization of the Saints
Chapter 2: That the Souls of the Saints Already See God, from the Church and from Scripture
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Ecclesia quae Triumphat in Coelis, the fourth general controversy. 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).
Chapter 2. That the Souls of the Saints Already Now Enjoy the Vision of God Is Shown by the Testimony of the Church
But it will be easy to defend the truth with as many kinds of arguments. First, then, let there come the testimony of the Church, which in the prayer on St. Gregory says: “O God, who hast given the rewards of eternal beatitude to the soul of thy servant Gregory,” and so on. Besides this prayer we have also two ecumenical councils, and the decrees of two supreme pontiffs. For this very thing was defined in the Council of Florence, the last session, in the decree of the union of the Latins with the Greeks, and in the Council of Trent, session 25. Innocent III too teaches the same in express words, the chapter Apostolicam, in the Extravagants on a priest not baptized. Lastly Benedict XII, after long disputations, defined the same in the Extravagant which begins Benedictus Deus, which Alphonsus de Castro relates in full, book 3 against heresies, under the word Beatitude.
And from this the first argument of the adversaries is answered: for this Benedict XII, who was the immediate successor of John XXII, testifies openly that John, overtaken by death, did not define this question. And not only did he not define it, but a little before his death he partly retracted his opinion and partly declared it; for he asserted, first, that in all his sermons on this matter he never intended to define the matter, but only to seek the truth. Second, he asserted that his former opinion displeased him, and that he held that the souls of the saints see God even before the day of judgment, unless the Church and his successors should define otherwise, to whose definition he said he submitted all his opinions. This retractation is had in the very words in which it was made in John Villani, book 11, chapter 19, of the History of the affairs of the Florentines, which he says he had from his brother, who lived at the court of the same Pope John.
But five lies of Calvin are to be noted, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 7, section 28. The first is that Gerson lived in the time of this John: for John died in the year 1334, as all the historians testify, and by name Onuphrius, and that John Villani, book 11, chapter 19; and Gerson was born in the year 1363, as is plain from Trithemius On Church Writers.
The second is that Pope John denied the immortality of the soul. But if this were true, much more would Calvin have denied it, who obstinately defends that souls do not see God; for Pope John is not accused by Gerson and others of any error besides this one on the vision of God.
The third is that none of the cardinals opposed Pope John: for John Villani, book 10, the last chapter of the History, writes that the greater part of the cardinals resisted John; and the same is gathered from the decretal of Benedict XII.
The fourth is that the king of France, Philip, forbade his people communion with Pope John unless he came to his senses. But that John Villani, in the place cited, writes that the king only wrote to the pontiff in a friendly and reverent way, and warned him to beware of those opinions which seemed able to bring in the suspicion of error.
The fifth is that the pontiff was forced by the king to recant. But the said John writes that Pope John retracted his opinion only on the day before his death, at the urging of his kinsmen, who feared lest, if the Church should afterwards define the contrary, as it also did, some mark of suspicion of error should be branded on the memory of Pope John. See what we wrote of this matter in book 4 On the Pontiff, chapter 14.
Chapter 3. The Same Is Shown by the Testimonies of the Scriptures
Now in the second place we will bring forward the testimonies of the Scriptures. And let the first be what we read in Ecclesiasticus, chapter 11: “It is easy before God in the day of death to reward every one according to his ways.”
You will say: Scripture does not say that on the day of death it is given to each according to his works, but that it could be given, if God willed. But surely that phrase, “it is easy,” does not signify “God could, if he willed,” but that God gives, and easily gives, to each according to his works on the day of death. For otherwise, if God could render according to works but did not render, the Wise Man would exhort us to do well by this argument in vain. Besides, since the Holy Spirit says in the same place, “In the end of a man is the disclosing of his works,” he shows that at the end of a man too it is given to each according to his works. For that judgment and disclosing of works is done for this, that the reward may follow.
You will say again: when these things were written, the essential reward was not given on the day of death, but only rest in the bosom of Abraham; therefore by these words, “It is easy before God in the day of death to reward,” and so on, it is deduced only that on the day of death there is given to the just a certain hope of future beatitude, and rest in the bosom of Abraham.
I answer: Ecclesiasticus, when he says that on the day of death the reward is given, understood that the reward is given which could be had according to the difference of the times; and because then heaven was not yet unlocked, while now it has been unlocked by Christ, it follows from his sentence that on the day of death then rest used to be given to the just, now true happiness. Hence namely in Numbers 35 the Lord commands that after the death of the high priest all exiles return to their homeland: for this is a figure of our affairs: for we are exiles, the homeland is paradise, the high priest is Christ, after whose death the entrance into heaven now lies open to the sons of Adam.
The second testimony, and indeed far clearer, is that of the apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians 5: “For we know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in heaven. For in this also we groan, desiring to be clothed upon with our habitation that is from heaven. Yet so that we be found clothed, not naked. For we also, who are in this tabernacle, do groan, being burthened; because we would not be unclothed, but clothed over, that that which is mortal may be swallowed up by life.”
Note first that that phrase, “if our earthly house,” is understood by some (as Chrysostom relates) of this sensible world, as if the Apostle said: if the world perishes, we will have another better one after the resurrection. But this is false; for the common opinion of the Greeks and Latins takes this earthly house for this mortal body, or the present bodily life. And the reason is that in the preceding chapter the Apostle said, “Though our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” And so what here he called the earthly house, there he called the outward man. Besides, he says below, “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord”; where he openly calls body what before he had called the outward man, the earthly house, the tabernacle, and so on.
Note second that by the eternal and heavenly house, which the Apostle sets against the earthly house, is understood by the Fathers either the immortal body, as by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret and Ambrose; or eternal life, that is, the vision of God. And the latter exposition is without doubt truer, which is that of Photius in Oecumenius, of Anselm, and of St. Thomas on this place. For in the first place the Apostle speaks in the present: if this earthly house is dissolved, we have another eternal one in heaven; he ought to have said, if he were speaking of the glorious body, “we shall have,” not “we have”; for we do not now have the immortal body in heaven.
Besides, the Apostle, when he says, if this house is dissolved we have another, means to say: there is no reason why we should fear that a house will ever fail us; for if we are driven from this one, we have another. But if by the heavenly house he understood the immortal body, it is not true that a house will never fail us: for it will fail from the day of death up to the day of the resurrection. Besides, he calls this house heavenly for the very reason for which a little before, at the end of chapter 4, he had called it the eternal weight of glory: for after he had said, “For that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory,” he adds by way of explanation: “For we know, if our earthly house,” and so on. And by that eternal weight of glory all understand the essential beatitude itself.
Lastly, unless the Apostle here understood beatitude by the heavenly house, he would not rightly conclude a little below: “Therefore having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord, we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” For it does not follow: if this mortal body is corrupted, we shall have another immortal one after the resurrection; therefore it is good now to die and to be absent from the body. Nay, the contrary follows, namely that it is not good to die until the day of the resurrection, because, although an immortal body is better than a mortal one, yet a mortal body is better than none. But if by the heavenly house we understand beatitude, the Apostle's argument is excellent, namely this: if this mortal life perishes, we at once have another far better in heaven; therefore it is good to die quickly in this world, that we may quickly live in heaven.
You will say: beatitude does not seem able to be called a house, since it has no likeness with a house, while the body has; for the body is truly the house of the soul.
I answer: Beatitude is excellently called a house, because it is so great that the mind does not take it in, but rather the mind enters into it than it into the mind: hence in 1 John 3 it is said, “God is greater than our heart.” And what is said in John 14, “In my Father's house there are many mansions,” all understand of the various degrees of beatitude. And of this house it is said also in Matthew 25: “Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” And the Apostle sets this house elegantly against the bodily life, or the body itself, for three reasons. First, because he calls the body itself an earthly house, because it consists of earth; he calls the blessed life a heavenly house, because it is found in heaven; for there is the seat of God, and there he is always seen as a king in his beauty. Second, he says that the body is a house which is dissolved, because it daily threatens ruin and changes; while he calls that one eternal, because it always remains in the same state. Lastly, he calls that one not made with hands, hinting that this one is made with hands, because namely we have the body by the work of men, who beget it and nourish and sustain it with food and drink; while that heavenly house does not depend on the work of men, but on God alone showing himself to us.
The third testimony is a little below: “For we also, who are in this tabernacle, do groan, being burthened; because we would not be unclothed, but clothed over. Therefore having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, and not by sight), we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” Note that the Apostle here teaches that there are two desires in us: one of nature, to live bodily; the other of grace, to see God. And that godly men would indeed wish to fulfil both at once, if they could; but since they cannot, they put the desire of grace before the desire of nature, and so long for the death of the body, that they may live with God; while wicked men on the contrary refer everything to the life of the body and the desire of nature.
From which an evident argument is drawn for our opinion. For if we could not see God except after the resurrection, Paul would not say that he wishes to be absent from the body so that he may not be absent from the Lord. For by these words he shows that there is some state of the soul in which it is absent from the body and not from the Lord; but such a state would never be, unless God were seen before the resurrection. For in this life we are absent from the Lord, but not from the body; in the other life after the resurrection we shall be absent neither from the Lord nor from the body; but before the resurrection we would of necessity be absent both from the Lord and from the body. Wherefore, that there may be a state in which we are absent from the body but not from the Lord, of which Paul speaks, it is necessary that before the resurrection the spirits of the just, freed from the body, see God. Nor can it be said that Paul speaks of a certain imperfect beatitude which consists in the vision of the humanity of Christ, and that to be absent from the Lord is to be absent from the presence of the humanity of Christ. For the holy Apostle says: “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord; for we walk by faith, and not by sight.” From which it follows on the contrary that not to be absent from the Lord is not to walk by faith, but to see face to face the sight of the divine beauty. For what the same Apostle says here, “We walk by faith, not by sight,” he says in 1 Corinthians 13: “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face.” But he who sees only the humanity of Christ still has faith, and is a pilgrim and a wayfarer, as all admit.
The fourth testimony is Luke 23: “This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” Where note that paradise is taken in two ways in the Scriptures: in one way for a certain garden of bodily delights, in which the first man was set before he sinned, of which Moses speaks, Genesis 2 and 3; in the other way for the glory of the blessed, of which the former paradise was a figure; and of this Paul speaks, 2 Corinthians 12, where he says he was caught up into paradise. For explaining what paradise is, he says that he was caught up above the third heaven.
Euthymius on this place thinks (namely to confirm his error) that the Lord here speaks of the earthly paradise; and therefore he also writes that the Lord did not answer the thief, “This day thou shalt be with me in my kingdom,” but “in paradise,” to show that the kingdom is one thing, paradise another. And because someone could object that Christ said, “Thou shalt be with me in paradise,” and yet Christ is not in the earthly paradise but in the heavenly, Euthymius answers that Christ is everywhere as God, and so is with the thief and the other saints in the earthly paradise, and at the same time with the angels in the heavenly paradise.
This exposition without doubt can and ought to be rejected. First, the earthly paradise is a place of delights for bodies, not for souls; for what does it profit souls to abound in fruits, herbs, waters and the other things of that earthly paradise? But Christ, promising the thief paradise, promised a garden of delights fitting for him, that is, spiritual.
Second, the words of the New Testament, when they are ambiguous, ought rather to be taken as they are taken in other places of the New Testament than as they are taken in the Old Testament; but this word paradise in the New Testament is taken for the spiritual paradise, as is plain in 2 Corinthians 12; therefore in Luke 23 too it is to be taken for the spiritual paradise.
Third, Christ promised the thief his fellowship, when he says, “Thou shalt be with me in paradise.” But Christ entered not the earthly but the heavenly paradise. Nor does Euthymius's answer avail: for in the way in which Christ is everywhere, he was with the thief in this world too, while he was still practising robberies; and Christ would have promised him nothing new.
Now Theophylact, in the name of others, relates and refutes two other expositions of this place. The first is of some who said that the heavenly paradise was promised to the thief, but to be given after the resurrection; and that Christ said “this day” because of the certainty of the future thing, as the prophets often express future things by the present or the past tense; as when the Lord says, “He that doth not believe, is already judged.” The second is that “this day” is to be joined with “I say,” not with “thou shalt be,” in this way: “Amen I say to thee this day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.”
But neither is solid. Not the first, both because one ought not to run to figures and leave the proper meaning of the words except when otherwise some absurdity would follow; and also because these are not prophetic words, which ought to be veiled in obscurity, but contain a simple promise, and so are to be understood simply. Nor in that place, “He that doth not believe, is already judged,” is the past taken for the future: for the Lord does not mean to say “he will certainly be judged,” but that he is truly already judged and condemned by himself, since he will not embrace that faith by which he could be saved. The second exposition is plainly ridiculous. For why would the Lord say, “Amen I say to thee this day”? Did not the thief see that the Lord was speaking on that day? Besides, who does not see that by that adverb, “this day,” answer is made to that adverb “when” which the thief had put? The thief had said, “Remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.” The Lord answers: this day is that “when”; therefore this day thou shalt be with me in my kingdom and paradise. The true exposition, then, is that of Theophylact, Ambrose, Bede and others, who understand by paradise the kingdom of heaven. For lest perhaps the thief should understand something human by the kingdom, Christ declared that his kingdom is paradise, that is, the highest and everlasting happiness.
The fifth testimony is Ephesians 4: “Ascending on high, he led captivity captive.” In which place by the word “on high” nothing can be understood but the highest heaven: for although some understand the cross, yet Paul explains himself a little below, when he says, “He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens.” Further, by the name of the captivity which he led with him into heaven, what can be understood but the multitude of holy souls which he carried out of limbo into heaven, as Ambrose expounds?
You will say: it does not follow, the saints are in heaven, therefore they see God. I answer: it rightly follows; for by heaven we understand the seat and as it were the royal court of God, where God is always seen: for in Isaiah 66 it is said, “Heaven is my throne”; and Matthew 5, “Swear not by heaven, for it is the throne of God”; and Matthew 18, “Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father”; and in the Lord's Prayer we say, “Our Father, who art in heaven.” For although God is everywhere, yet he is properly said to be in heaven, because by the manifestation of himself he shows himself present there, and is seen by those who are worthy of that heavenly seat. Hence Cyril, catechesis 9, says elegantly that heaven is the veil of the Godhead, by which God is hidden from us, namely, who are outside the veil. Nay, blessed Paul, Hebrews 9, compares the entrance of Christ into the heavenly sanctuary with the entrance of the priest within the veil into the holy of holies, showing that heaven is the same with respect to the divine essence as the veil was with respect to the ark of the Testament. And surely for the souls of the saints, if they do not see God, it seems to matter little whether they are in this material heaven, or on earth, or in another place.
The sixth testimony, Philippians 1: “Having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.” But if souls are kept until the day of judgment in some place outside heaven, Paul desired this in vain; for Christ is in heaven.
The seventh testimony, Hebrews 9: “The Holy Ghost signifying this, that the way into the holies was not yet made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle was yet standing.” Which Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact and Oecumenius expound in this way: that into the holy of holies neither the successors nor the people could enter signifies that during the whole time of the Old Testament the way to heaven was not open, and therefore that even the most just went down to the lower world; because the figure and the thing figured could not be in force at the same time. But after Christ broke the veil of the tabernacle, and the figures ceased, the way of the saints to the heavenly sanctuary has now been opened.
The eighth testimony, Hebrews 12: “For you are not come to the mount,” and so on, “but you are come to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of angels, and to the church of the firstborn, who are written in the heavens, and to the spirits of the just made perfect,” and so on. Here (as Anselm rightly expounds) the Church triumphant is described, and in it there are said to be two kinds of citizens: first the angels, then the souls of the firstborn, that is, of those who first believed and are already dead, as James the apostle, Stephen and others; who are said to be written in the heavens, because they have been enrolled and chosen with the angels into the order of heavenly citizens; as the senators used to be called conscript fathers. Unless perhaps it pleases more that by the church of the firstborn written in heaven are understood the souls of the patriarchs and prophets reigning with Christ, and by the spirits of the perfect, the souls of the apostles and martyrs. Yet the sense is always the same: that the spirits of holy men are already blessed with that beatitude which the holy angels alone enjoyed before.
The ninth testimony is in the book of Acts, chapter 7, where Stephen, about to die, saw the heavens opened, and the glory of God, and Christ standing at the right hand of the Father. And why did he see this, except that he might understand that heaven lay open to him, and that he would at once be received by the Lord into that glory? For understanding this he cried out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
The tenth testimony is chapter 6 of the Apocalypse, where to the martyrs are given each a white robe, which signify the glory of the soul; the other robe, that is, the glory of the body, they will have after the resurrection; as Gregory expounds on the fourth penitential psalm, and Bede, Haymo and Anselm on this place; and also blessed Augustine, sermon 4 on the feast of the Innocents.
The eleventh is chapter 7, where it is said of the same: “These that are clothed in white robes are before the throne of God, and they serve him day and night in his temple.” From which we have that they are truly in heaven and see God. For what does it signify to be before the throne of God, if not to have God in sight and to behold him?
And from this the second argument can be answered. For to the first place brought against us I answer in two ways. And first, as Chrysostom notes on chapter 20 of Matthew, parables need not fit on every side, but it is enough that there be a likeness in that which is intended; for many things are said not to signify something, but only that the parable may be whole. As a mirror is given to represent the face, and yet does not represent it on every side. Otherwise, how did those receiving the penny murmur? Will there be murmuring in heaven? And why does the Lord say, “Is thy eye evil, because I am good?” Is there an evil eye in heaven? And how can it be that the pay is given first to the last rather than to the first, since it is established that all the elect together will be given the kingdom by the same sentence? From that parable of the labourers, then, we have only this: that the Fathers of the New Testament labour for a shorter time than the Fathers of the Old Testament, and yet come to the same beatitude; or surely that those who are converted in old age have less labour than those converted in youth, and yet can obtain no less reward.
We can also answer, second, if we will have that part too to be meaningful by which it is said that all the labourers were called at evening and the pay given to all together: for we will say that by evening is signified the future general judgment, in which perfect pay will be given publicly to all; which judgment yet does not exclude the particular judgments of God, by which at the death of each a part of the pay is given privately to each one.
To the second place, from Paul, who says that the Fathers did not receive the promises but would receive them in their time, I say three things. First, that by the promise can be understood the Incarnation of Christ, as Primasius expounds; for God had very often promised this to the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David; hence the Lord says, “Many kings and prophets have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them.”
Second I say that by the promises can be understood the beatitude of the soul; and then the men of the Old Testament are compared with the men of the New, so that the sense is: those ancient saints died without having received the promise of eternal life, that they might not go before us, but they waited until the coming of Christ, that they might receive that promise with us, that is, with the saints of the New Testament. And the Greek text favours this exposition: ouk ekomisanto tēn epangelian, they did not receive the promise; that is, now indeed they have received it, but before this they had not yet received it.
Third I say that by the promise is understood the perfect beatitude of body and soul, which they have not yet had, that they may not have it without us; which indeed is the common exposition of the Fathers on that place, and of Augustine, tractate 49 on John; those words are all to be noted, “That they should not be perfected without us.” For he does not say, “that they should not be rewarded without us,” but that they should not receive without us the perfected reward, not only of the soul but also of the body.
To the third place, from the letter of John, I answer that that phrase, “when he shall appear,” does not signify “when Christ shall appear,” but “when it shall appear what we shall be,” as is plain from what goes before. For he had said, “It hath not yet appeared what we shall be,” and then added, “We know that, when it shall appear,” namely what we shall be, “we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is.” And further that phrase, “we shall be like to him,” signifies that we shall be like Christ before the eyes of the whole world; for we will be seen in the clouds sitting with Christ, and like him as to the outward glory of the body. Which glory will be born from this, that we shall see him as he is; for to see God is the beatitude of the soul, from which is born the glory of the body. And this place is like, as Bede too notes, that place of Paul: “For you are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ shall appear, who is your life, then you also shall appear with him in glory,” Colossians 3. Wherefore it is not gathered from the words of John that holy men will not see God before the day of judgment, but only that before that day their glory is not to be made manifest to the whole world.
To the fourth, from the Apocalypse, I say that by the altar under which the souls are, no place outside heaven can be understood; for in chapter 7 we have that these souls, clothed in white robes, are before the throne of God, and serve God in his temple, that is, in heaven, day and night.
There are, then, three Catholic expositions. The first is Bede's: that “under the altar” is joined with “of them that were slain,” in this way: “I saw the souls of them that were slain under the altar”; and by the altar is understood Christ, so that the sense is: I saw the souls of them that were slain under the altar, that is, under the testimony of the Christian name; as in 2 Maccabees 7 the Maccabees are said to have been slain under the covenant of God, that is, for the covenant of God.
The second, of the same Bede, of Primasius and of Haymo: that “under the altar” is joined with “I saw,” but that by the altar is understood the intellectual secret from which proceeds the incense of divine praise. For as in the tabernacle there was the ark, and before the ark the golden altar of incense, so in heaven, the tabernacle not made with hands, there is the ark of the humanity of Christ, in which the Godhead dwells; and before it is the golden altar, from which proceeds the perpetual incense of divine praise and prayers. And Haymo notes that as in the material tabernacle, between the golden altar and the ark, there was the veil, which was broken at the death of Christ, so too, while the Old Testament lasted, the souls of the saints were under the altar, offering to God sacrifices of praise, but the veil was between them and God; but, the veil being broken by Christ, the altar is now joined to the ark, and there is nothing between. And the souls are said to be under this altar, and not at the altar, to signify that heavenly secret into which not only our eyes but not even our minds can penetrate. For who can grasp how the souls are before God and minister to him in heaven?
The third is Anselm's, who teaches that by the altar Christ is understood. For the sacrifices of the saints, whether of praise or of prayers, do not please God unless they are placed on this altar, that is, offered through Christ. And the souls are said to be under Christ not because Christ is to them as a wall overshadowing them and hindering them from seeing God, as blessed Bernard seems to have expounded, but they are said to be under Christ because they are lower than he in place and dignity; because under Christ's patronage and protection they conquered, and to him they ascribe the rewards they have received.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II.
Animas sanctorum javi nunc frui Dci visionc ,
dcmonstratur lestimonio Ecclesiae.
Sed fncile cril lolidem argumonlorum generibus
veritiUem propugnnrc. Primum igilur accedal Ei;-
clcsiac leslimonium, quac in oraUonc de s. Grcgo-
rio dicil: Deus. qui animae famuU tui Gregorii
aelernac Ijeatiludinis pracmia contuUstietc.Vri\e-
lcr quam oralionem liabemus eliam duo concilia
occumcnica. cl duorum summorum pontificum de-
crcla. Siquidem hoc ipsum definilum cst in conci-
lio florentino, scssione ullima, iu decrelo unionis
Lalinorum cum Graecis , et in concilio Iridenlino ,
sessionc 2o. Idcm quoque discrtis vcrbis doccl In-
noccntius III. c. ApostoUcam, Exlra. dc prcsbytc-
ro non baplizalo. Idem deniqnc posl longas dispu-
talioncs Hcncdiclus XII. delinivil in Exlravaganti ,
quae incipit, jRe/iedicnts Dei/s, quam lotam rcfert
Alphonsusa Caslro lib. 3. conlra haereses , verbo
Bealiludo.
Atquc hinc solvilur primnm argumentum adversa-
riorum:nam islcncuedictus XII. qui successor fuit
immedialus Joannis XXII.apcrle teslalur, Joannera
morle praeventum, non dcGnivisse islam quacslio-
nem.Ncque verosolum cam non dermivit,sed eliam
paulo anle mortem parlim rclractavit senlcntiam
suara, parlim eliam declaravil; nam asscruit Pri-
mo se in omnibus suis scrmonibus dc hac renum-
quam inlendissc rem definire, sed solum quacrere
vcritatcm. Secundo, asseruit sibi displiccre prio-
rcm scnlentiam, ac sentirc se, animas sanctorum
vidcre Deum, etiam anle diem jndicii: nisi aliter
Ecclesia, et sui succcssorcs definirct: quorum dc-
linilioni se submitlere diccbat omnes suas opinio-
ncs. llabctur haec rclraclatio ipsis vcrbis, quibus
facta est, apud Joannem Villanum lib. 11. c. 19.
historiae, de rebus Florenlinorum, quam illc dicit
se habuisse a fratre suo, qui in aula cjusdem Jo-
annis papae degebat.
Sed notanda sunt quinquc mcndacia Calvini lib.
4.Institutionem cap. 7. § 28. Prinmm esl, Gcrso-
ncm vixisse lcmpore hujus Joannis: nam Joannes
obiit anno 1334. ut tcslantur omnes hislorici, et
nominatim Onuphrius, et ille Joannes Villanus lib.
11. c. 19. Gerson autem natus est, anno 13C3. ut
ex Trithemio patet de sciploribus ccclesiaslicis.
Sccundura esl, Joannera papam negavisse animae
immortalitalem. At sic hoc essct verum,multo ma-
gis eam negasset Calvinus, qui perlinaciter dcfen-
dit, animas non videre Dcum: nec enim Joannes
papa ilh'us erroris accusatur a Gcrsone, et aliis,
praeterquara istius de visione Dci.
Tertium est, nullum cardinalium sc opposuisse
Joanni papae: nam Joannes Villanus lib.lO.c. ult.
hist. scribit, majorcm partem cardinalium repu-
gnasse Joanni, et idem colligitur ex decrctali Bc-
ncdicti XIF.
Quartum cst, rcgem Galliac Philippum inlcrdi-
\isse suis communioncm Joannis papae, nisi resi-
pisceret. At Joanncs ille Villanus loco citato scri-
bit rcgem solum scripsisse ad pontificcm amice
ct revcrcnler, cimique monuissc. ul cavercl ab il-
lis opinionibus, quac videnlur suspicionem erro-
ris ingercre posse.
Quiutum est, ponlificem coaclum a rcgc ad pa-
linodiam. At Joanncs praediclus scribit, Joannem
pontificem solum rclractasse opinioncm suam pri-
dle anlc morlem suasu affinium , qui metuebant,
nc; si Ecclesia postea conlrarium definiret, ut
eliam fecit, memoriae Joannis papae aliqua uota
suspicionis crroris inurcrelur.Vide quae scripsi-
mus dc hac re lib. 4. de pontifice, cap. 14.
CAPUT III.
Idem Scriplurarum ieslimoniis demonstralur.
Jam secundo loco Scripturarum testimonia pro-
fcrcmus. Ac primum sit id,quod lcgimus in Eccle-
siaslico cap. 11. Facile est coram Deo in die obi-
ius retrihuere unicuique secundum vias suas.
Diccs. non ait Scriptura in dic obilus rcddi uni-
cuiquc sccundura opera. sed posse reddi, si Deus
vellet. Atccrtc illud.faciie est, non signiflcat, pos-
set Dcus. si vcllcl: scd rcddit Deus, et facile red-
dit unicuique sccundum opera sua in die obitus.
Aiioqui enira, si Deus posset reddere secundum
opera, scd non redderet, frustra nos hoc argu-
mento hortarctur Sapiens ad benefaciendum. Prac-
tcrea cum dicat ibidera Spiritus sanctus:Mi jine
hominis denudatio operum ejus; indical cliamin
fine hominis, reddi unicuiquc secundum opera.
Nam ad hoc fit judiciura illud, et denudatio ope-
rurn, ut seqnantur rerauneralio.
Diccs rursum, quando haec scripla sunt; non
dabatur remuneratio essentialis in die obitus, scd
tantum requies in sinu Abrahae, igitur per ista
verba: Facile cst coram Deo in die obilus redderc
etc. solum dcducitur , rcddi in die obitus justis
ccrtam spcra bealitudinis fulurae,et requiem in si-
nu Abrahae.
Rpppondeo: Ecclesiaslicum. cum dicit. in dic o-
bitus rcddi rcmunerationem, intcllexisse,reddi rc-
muncrationcm. quae pro temporum diversilatc ha-
bcri polcrat. et quia tunc nondum coelum cralre-
seratum. nunc autem a Christorcseratura est,exil-
lius scnlcnlia sequitur. in die obitus, et tunc re-
quiem dari solilam juslis. nunc vcram fclicitalcm.
llinc nimirum Num'. 35. Dominus jubet , ul post
mortcm sacerdolis magni omnes exules revertan-
tur ad palriam: haec enira est figura rerum nostra-
rum: nam nos exules sumus, patria paradisus, sa-
ccrdos magnus Christus. post cujus mortera jam
palet adilus Adae filiis in coelum.
Altcrnm tcstimonium. ct quidem longe clarius
cslapostoli Pauli 2. Corinth. S. Scimus quia si
tcrrestris domus noslra hujus habitationis dis-
solvaturMedificationem exDco habem.us,domum
non ma.nufactam.aeternam in coelis. Nani el in
hoc infiomiscimus. habitationem nostram , quac
de coelo est, superindui cupientes, si tamen ve-
stiti,el non nudi inveniamur: nam et qui sumus
in hoc tabcrnaculo, ingemiscimus gravati , eo
quod nolumus expoliari. sed supervesUri,ul ab-
sorheatur quod mortale esl a mta.
Nola primo, illud: Si terrestris domus nostra,
iiii II 1'iiniiis
4SS
iiilrllii^i n (|iiiliiis(|ii;iiii (iil ('.litisostoiniis cidil) il(i
llltllKJO lioc. siiiisiliili, (|lliisi ii|)osloluH (liciil, si llll'.
lilllllillls |ici'llill,llii|| iliTiit llnliis illlis llli>||(it- |iiist
ICMIiriTlidlUMII. Sl'(l llOC r.llsillll (sl.llillO ('Olllllltl
iils (ifiuMuiniiii <'l l.iitiootiiiii o|)itiio i>ti) iloiiio linc.
lciTCStiis iiccipil c(it'|)its lioc tiioiMiilc, scii mI.oii
pnicsiMilciii corporiilctii. \'.[ tiilio c.st, (|iiiii iii lioo
ni|tilis sti|)cii()ris disil iipostoliis: >'« rxlrrior /lo-
ino notttcr ('iirnunjtiUir, iiitcriin' rcnovntiir <Ln
(lic. in (/n')(i.ltii(|iic. (|ii(i>l liic (livit lcircsltciii do-
tiutiii, ilii (liMl lioiiiiiiciii c\lcii()t'ciii. friictcrc.i iti-
l'ni cliiniis iliiii: Ihun snm\i>i in /loc cor/iorc, pc-
TciiriniDnnr n //o/mimo. 11)1 iiiicilo vociil ('ot'|iits
i|iioil iititcii vociivcr.il c\t(M'i(ii'('iii lii>iiiiii(Mti,(l()iiiiuii
lcrrcslrciii. tiihcriiiicitltitii clc.
Nolii Sccttiulo, pcr (loniiiiii iiclcriiinii oi coclc-
slciii, (|ii;iin oppotiil iipostoltts (loiiiiii tcrrcstri. iii-
l(dli^i ii P.itiilois \cl cotptts iiitiiiorliilc, itl a Cliry-
sosloiiio. ili(Mipliyl;iclo,'riicodorcl(>. .Viiihrosio: vcl
viliiiii iicUMiiiini, iilcNt, visioitctn \h\\. \\[ sitic. dii-
l)io vcrior csl.postcnor c\posilio, (|i)iic csl, IMiotii
iipiul Oociiincnitini, .\nsclitii, el simcli Tliomne in
Itiinc loctim. [Niitn in pritnis a|iosl()Itis ail dc priu;-
scnli, si dotnns liiicc lcrrcna dissolvitiir, liiilxMiins
iiliiiin iiclcrnain in cooloidchtiisscl (Miito diccre, si
i\o, corporo plorioso loqncrctnr, liahcbimns, non
liabcmns; niitn corptis immortalc noii lialxMnns
minc in codo.
1'raclorca jiposloUis, cum dicil, si hitcc dotnus
dissolvilnr. b;ibcimis ;iliiiin, viill diccro: tioii osl
(piod limcimms nobis dotnttm dcrnluram luujniim;
nain si liinc pellintnr, bitbcituis aliiitn. Al si pcr
doinnm coelostom inlcIIij,Ml corpns inmiortiile.iion
(^st vcriini nobis niimtinam dornlnriim domnin: dc-
orit onim a die morlis nsiiiic ad dicm rcsmrcclio-
nis. Praotcrca id ipsnin voeal banc domum cot^Ie-
slom, (]nod panlo antc in fmc cap. i. vociivoral:
Ac.lcrnnni (jloridc poui/i/s:nam poshpuim dixcriil:
Id cninh , quoti in pmcscnli esl monicntancuni .
c/ lcve trUniUitioncs nostrac , supra nwilum in
suhlimitalc aclcrnum riloriac pondus opcratur
in nobis ; snbjnngil oxpliciuis : Si cnini lerrcsiris
domu!i e/c.Al pcr iilud:.ie/e)"?iae ghwiac pondus,
omnosinlolligunl ipsiiin cssenlialcm be;ililudinem.
Dcni(]ite , nisi aposlolus bic per domuiu coele-
slcm, inlolligcrel boalitndincm, non bcnc conclu-
derol panlo inrcrius: Audcntes Ujilur , et scicntcs
quia duni siunus in corporc.pereririnanmr a Do-
niino. luulemus, el bomun voluntateni habenms
magis pereijrinuri a corpore , et pracsentes essc
ad Dominum. Ncc eniin scc]nitnr: si hoc morlalc
corpus conumpihir, b;tbebiinits aliud immorlalc
post resnrroclionctii , (M'go bonum est nunc mori
el peroi,M'inari a curporc. Iinmo conlrarium sequi-
lnr,niininim non cssc bonuni mori usquc ad dicm
rosurreolionis, qnia, clsi melius sit corpus imraor-
lalc, qttam mort;ile, lauicn uiclius esl corpus mor-
talc, qu;iiii nullmn. At, si per dotuum coelcslem ,
intelligamus boalitndinem , aposloli argumenlalio
oplima esl, nimirum isla: si vita haec morlalis pc-
ril.babemus slalim aliam longe meliorem in coelo,
ergo bonum eslcilo mori in boc mundo.nt cito vi-
vamus in coclo.
Diccs, non videtur bcaliludo possc vocari do-
niiiM, iiuii oiiiiii liiib(;l siiiiililiidiiKMii cuiii •loriiii ,
c()r|)tii{ iiiJlctit babcl ; corpii.s (miiiii rcvcrti csl ilo-
miis iiiiiiii.ic.
Il( .s|i()iiilco: ItiMililndiiKMii optiinc dii i (loiiiiiin ,
i|iiiii i*sl tiim iiiui;tiii, iil (Miiii iiiiliiiii iioii ciipliil, <'l
[idIiiis atiiiiiii iti itl.iiii liilrci, i|ii.iiii illii iii iuiiiitiiiii:
iiiiic. l. Jiiiiti. .'t. duMtiir: .Unjin' cnt hciiH rorilc tjo-
atro. Kl (jtiod dicitur .loiin. 14. In donnt l'nlrin
inci VKUiHinncs vudlnc Huiit: oiiitios iiilclli^Minl do
Viirits ^Miidihtts hciiliiiKliiiis. Iic, liiic doiiio diiMlur
('tiiiiii .M.itlliiKM l'i. Inlni in ijnndium Ihnnini lui.
1)1 liiiiic duitiuin cl(;i(iiiit(*r upoHluliiH ()|)p<uiil viluc
cor|)()t'i)li, sivc ipsi (M^rpori, pi'o|)l<'r (rii). I'iiiiiiiiii
oiiiiii corims i|)siiiii vociil doiiiiiiii tcrrcstri-.in, (|uij
ox lcrrii coitsliit: vitiim biMhini vocal dotiiuiii cou-
lcstcm, (|uiit 111 coclo tiivciiitur; ibi otiini c?>( simIcs
Dci, cl ibi s(Mn|)(:r vidclnr tiiiiii|uiiiii n-.v iii dccorc
sito. Sc.cnndo, c.or|)us dicil cssi: doitiiini,<pjiiC <lis-
solvidir, tpiiii <|uo(i(lic doiicil riiiiKis c( miit;is,illiiiii
iiiilcin vociit iiclcniiiiii.()iiiii sotnjior in codcm sliitii
ponuiincl: D(-nii|tu: illiiin vocat noii uiiiiiuriicliiiii ,
itisinuiins, istiiin csso tnanuriictaiii, (|uia niinirurii
cor|)us liiilKMUus ()])crii bominiim, (]ni iiltid gciic-
riiniiit, ol cibo, iic ]K)tu .ilunl, ct stislotitiint: iit illii
dotuus coclcslis iib lioiiiinum o|)orc non |)Ciidc( ,
scd a solo Dco tniitiilostiinlc soi|)siiin mJiis,
Tortium testinioniitm osl j);iiilo iiifrii:Oui .snrn?rs
in hoctalicrnacnlojniicmisr.iinns ijraiati.coquod
nolumus expoliari. scd supervesliri : audientes
iijilur ct sric.ntcs. ijuia duni suiniis in rorpore .
pcrcijriiuunur a Domino, per lidcin cnini aiiibu-
lainus. ct non pcr sj)cciem, audcmus , ct bonani
voluntatcm liabcmus vuinis pcrcjrinari a corpo-
/-('. ('/ pracscntes csse ad Dominuin. iXola i)])oslo-
liitu bicdocere duo dosidoriii ossc iii nobis, unuiii
iiiiturae ad viviMuium corporidilor, altcrum gniljiic
ad videndum Deu;n: ot qitidcm bominos ])ios vclle
(luidem utrumquc. si i)ossinl, imi)lerc simul ; siMi
cum non ])0ssiul, anlcponorc desidcrium graliiic
dcsidorio naturac , ol proindc appolerc tnorlom
corporis. nl possint ctim Dco vivcre: bomities im-
pios c conlriirio omni^t relcrre iid vilam corporis ct
dosidcrium nalurac.
Kx (inibus deduciltir ovidcns argumeiilum jiro
sententia noslrir.nam si non posscinus videre Dcuiu
nisi posl rcsurrcctionem, non dicercl Paulus , se
oplarc pcrcgrinari a cori^orc. ul non peregrinotur
;i Domino. llis onim vcrbis oslcndil osse aliquciii
shilutn animae, in quo percgrinolur a corpore , el
non ii Domino: al lalis slalus non csset unquam ,
nisi anlc resurrccliottcm vidorelur Deus. .\ain in
liiic vila peregrin;iiuiir a Domino: sed non a cor-
l)orc: in aliavita posl resurrcctioncm non pcregri-
n;ibimur noc a DoMiino, nec a corpore; anlc resur-
reclionem auUMU oporteret neccssario peregrinari
;i Doinino, ct a corporc. Ouare ut detur slalus, in
quo percgrinemur a corporc, sed non aDoraino.de
quo Paulus loquitur, neccsse esl ut anle resurre-
clionem, spirilus juslonim corpore soluli . Dcuin
videant. INequc etiam dici polest. Paulum loqui de
(luadain bealiludine imperlccta, quac consislil in
visione bumanilatis Cbrisli. el quod pcrcgrinan ;i
Doinino. sil percgriuari a praesenlia bumiiniliitis
(^lirisli. Si qui.Icm sanctus aposlolus ail: Dum sit-
426
DE SAlNCTORUM BEATlTCDirSE
vius in corpore, perccjrinamur a Domino , per
fidem enim ambulami(s, et non per speciem. Ex
(|uo sequilaiMil e coiilrario non peret-rinari ii Do-
uiiiio, sit non ambuhire pt-r fidcni, sed lacic ad la-
cieiii videre specieni divinae pulclirididinis. Idern
enim nposloius quod liic dicil: Amhulamus per
tidcin. non pcr speciem, dicit 1. Corinlh, 13. Vi-
demusnuncper speculum in aenigmalc . tunc
autem facie ad facicm. Al qui soiam videt ChrisU
humanilalem, adhuc habet iidem,elest peregrinus
et vialor, ul omnes falenlur.
Quarlum lestimonium est Luc. 23. Hodie mc-
cum erisinparadiso. Ubi nola, paradisum dupli-
ciler accipi in Scripluris;uno modo pro horto quo-
dam deliciarum corporalium, in quo primus hoino
conslilulus fuit antequam peccarel, de quo loqui-
liir 31oyses Genes. 2. el 3. allero modo pro gloria
beatorum, cujus prior paradisus ligura luil ; et de
hoc loquilur Paulus 2. Corinlh. 12. ubi se dicil ra-
ptum fuissc in paradisum. Explicens enim quid
paradisus sit, dicit se raplum supra tertium coe-
lum.
Euthymius in hunc locum exislimal (nimirum ut
conlirmet errorem suum ) hic Dominum loqui de
paradiso lerreslri ; et ideo etiam scribit, Dominum
lalroni non respondisse. hodie mecum eris in re-
gno meo, sed in paradiso;ut oslenderet aliud essc
regnum,a!iud paradisum. Et quia poleral aliquis
objicere, Chrislum dixisse: Mecum eris in para-
diso; et lamen Chrislus non esl in paradiso lerri!-
slri, sed coelesli; respondet Eulhymius, Christum
esse ubique ut Deus est , et proinde esse cum la-
Irone, aliisquesanctis in paradiso terrestri, etsi-
mul cum angelisin paradiso coelesti.
Ilaec exposllio sine dubio polest, ac debel reji-
ci. Primum, paradisus lerrcslris esl locus delicia-
rum corporibus, non animabus; quid enim prodest
animabus abundare pomis. herbis,aquis, caeleris-
que rebus terreni illius paradisi? Chrislus aulem
promitlens lalroni paradisum, promisit horlum de-
liciaram ipsi convenienlem, idesl spirilualem.
Secundo, voces Teslamenli novi cum ambiguae
sunt. potius yccipi debent, nt sumunlur in aliis lo-
cis Teslamcnli novi, quam ut sumuntur in Tesla-
liiento veteri,sed vox ista. parad!;sws,in Testamen-
10 novo accipilur pro paradiso spiriluali , ut patet
2. Corinth. 12. igitur el Luc. 23. pro spirituali pa-
radiso accipienda esl.
Tertio,Chrisluspromisit lalroni consorlium suum,
cum aii : Iflecum eris in paradiso. Christus aulem
lion terrestrem, sed coelestem paradisum introivit.
Nec valet responsio Eulhymii: nam eo modo, quo
Christus est ubique, erat cum Jalrone eliain in lioc
niundo, cum adhuc lalrocinia exerceret, ct nihil ei
Christus novi promisisset.
Jam vero Theophylaclus nomine aliorum referl ,
f't refellit diias alias exposiliones ad hunc locum.
Prima esl quurundam, qui diccbanl , lalroni pro-
missum fuisse paradisum coeleslem, sed dandum
post resurreclionem:dixisse aulein Chrislum,/iO(iic
eris. propter cerlitudinem rei futurae , quomodo
prophelae saepe exprimunl res fuluras per tempus
praesens, aol praeteritum : ul, cum Dominus di-
cil: Qui non credit. jamjudicatus esl. Sccunda
est, illud hodie, coiijungendum cum . dico. non
cum,e?-ts,hoc modo: Amen dico libijiodie mecum
eris inpa.radiso.
Sed iiculra estsolida; uon prima, lum quia non
oporlct recurrere ad tiguras,el relinquere propriam
verl)m-um signilicalionem, nisi quando alioqui ab-
surdilas aliqua seqiicrelur ; luin eliam. quia ista
non sunl verba prophetica, ul oporlucrit ea velari
obscurilate, sed conlinenl simplicem promissio-
nem, cl proinde simpliciler inlclligenda siiiil. Ne-
que co Idco, qui non credii jam judicatus est ,
acci|)ilur praelerilum pro fuluro : non eiiim viill;
Domiiius dicere, cerlo judicabilur , sed vcre jain
judicaius esl, et condemnalus a seipso , cum nolit
eaiii fidein amplccli, pcr quam salvus esse pnssel.
Sccunda cx|H)silio esl plane ridicula. Quorsum
enim J)omiiiusdiccrct:A?ue?i dico tibi hodiei'' non-
ne videhal lalro. Dominum loqui illa die ? Praetc-
rea, quis non videt per illud adverbium hodie ,
respomleri ad illud adverbium. Quando qiiod la-
tro posuerat? Lalro dixeral: Memento mci.quando
veneris in regnum iuum. Dominus respondet :
hodie fuil illud quando, proinde bodie raecuin eris
in rcgiio et paradiso meo. Vera ergo exposilio est
Theopliylacli, Ambrosii, Bedae, el alioriim . qui
|)er paradisum iulciligunt regnum coelorum. Ne
forle eiiim lalro perregnum inlelligerel aliquid hu-
inanuui, Cliristus declaravit , regnum suum essc
I)aradisum, idest, summam el serapilernam felici-
laleni.
Quinluni tcslimonium Ephes. 4. Cliristus ascen-
dens in altum, captivam duxit caplivitalem.Qyio
iii loco per voccm altum. non polesl inlelligi nisi
sunniiiim coelum: elsi (Uim qnidam inlelligunt
crucem. lamen Paulus se exponil paulo infra,cum
ail: Qui descendit, ipse est qui ascendit super o-
mnes coelos. Porro nomine caplivilalis, quam se-
cum duxit in coelum , quid potesl intelligi , nisi
mulliliido sanclarum animarum,quas ex lyrabo ad
coeliim evtixit, ut Ambrosius exponil.
Dices. nou sequitur, sancli sunl in coelo , ergo
videut Deum. Respondeo: Recte sequi; nam per
coclum inlelligiinus sedem; et quasi aiilam regiam
Dei, ubi Deus semper videtur; nam Isaiae G6. di-
citur: Coelum milii sedcs esi'. El Matlh. 3. Dolite
jurare pcr coelum,quia thronusDei est.El Mattli.
18. Angcli eorum in coelis sempcr vident fa-
ciem Vairismei. Et in oralione dominica dicimus:
PaXer noster, qui es in coeits.Tamctsi cnim Deus
ubique sil, lamcn proprie in coclo esse dicilur ,
quia per sui manireslalionem illic se praesenlem
oslendil, et cernilur ab iis. qui digni siint coelcsli
illa sede. Unde eleganier Cyrillus calechesi 9. di-
cit, cocium esse velum deilalis, quo nobis videli-
cel, qui sumus exlra velum, abscondilur Deus.Im-
rao b. Paulus ad Hebr. 9. comparat ingressuin
Christi in sanctuarium coeleste , cum ingressu sa-
ccrdolis inlra velum in sancla sanctorum, indicans
idem esse coelum respectu divinae essenliae,quoci
eral velum respcctu arcae Testampnli, et cerle ani-
mabus sanctoriim, si non videant Deum, parura vi-
delurrcferre ulrum iu coelo islo maleriali , an in
lerra. vel in alio loco siul.
Scxlum teslimonium Pliilip 1. Cupio dissolvi
l.lliKK 1'IUMI
4<7
cl vH.i' niin (ilu'i!<ltt. Al sl iiiiirii.io siTviiiitiir lii iill
t|it() liin» ('\lni (•oi'liiiii,riiisli.i Imcdcsidcriiliiil l',iii
lllS, (llinslllS ('llilll III (•(M!lis t's|.
S('|iliiiiiiiii lc^liiiKtiiiiiin llchr. \) llor Hiijuijlrmi-
tc. SiHrifUHaiivU) niniilnin ■pniixiliildin fsso «a;»-
chtniin riiiin inlhiii' /ir/nic liihrriiiiniln linhiniti'
.sf(//(MM.(.llli»il C\|iniiillil rriiliiiM(|S.,\liM'lllil|s,TliC(i-
|iliylacliis, Occiiiipiiiii^ III Ikiiic iiiihIiiiii , i|iiiii| iii
Siiiiclii siiiicldniiii iniii iiossciil iii^rcili siicciijnlcs,
IICC |)(l|llllUS, Sl^lllliCilll.ll lold lctllporC rcslilllKMlll
vclcris iioii ritissii ii|)(M'lniti vijiiti lul roidititt.ol idco
<Uiiiiii jiislissiiiios (|iio>(|ii(^ iiil inrcros ditscctKlissc:
(|lllil IKHI polciillll SIIIKll Vi^'crc li^MMil iM li^Mirilllllll.
Al pi)slcii(|u.uii C.liri^liis pcrriipil \cliiiii l.ilicriiiicii-
li, cl li^uriu; ccssiivcniul, jiim propiiliilii csl \iii
siiucliintui iid siUKluiiriiiiii cdclcstc.
Oiiiivuiii lcsliiiiouniiti llclir. 12. .Yo» nccossislis
ad inonicm. Sion vlc.scd nd Sion inontcni ct llic-
rnsalcin roclcslcin, vl miillonuii milliiim anijclu-
rniii frcqiicnliiiin, F.rrlrsiajii }niiiiilivorinn , <iiii
vonscrii)li siinl iii coclis,vl sinrHiis juslornm pvr-
fectonini vlc. llic (ul rcclc Aiisidiuus cxpouil) dc-
.scnliitur Kcclcsia lriiiiupli;iiis. cl iii (';i diciiuliir
vss<' liiitiipi.iiu civcs , priimiiu iiii^'cli , dcimlc iiui-
iiiiio primilivonim. idcsl, ('oniiii . ipii priiiii cnidi-
ilcriuil, ol jiiiii nuirUii fucriiiil . ul .hicidii iiposloii .
Sl('|)|iniu. t.'l iilidrum: (lui dicuiilur conscripli iii
coclis, (piiii siinl iulscripli ol cooplati cnm anjji^lis
iii ordincm civiuin coclosliiim: (]U()iiiodo dicohiin-
liir nouiiio souiilorcs i^iilrcs consciipli. INisi forlo
iiKi^is pliiccal pcrKcclosiiini i^rimiliviiriim incoolis
conscriplornm, inlclligi animas piilriarcliarnm ct
propliclaruin cumCdirislo rcj];iianlium: pcr spiriliis
anlcin pcrloclorum. anini;is .iposlolonim ol inarly-
niiu. Scmpor liinion ciulciu csl sonlcntia , jiiiu
spirilus sanclonun liomiiuim lioatos csse , Cii
boaliludinc , qua sancli angoli soli anle frue-
banlur.
Nonum lcstimonium rst in lib. Actor. cap. 7.nbi
Slopliaunsmorilurus vidil coclosapprlos.el gloriam
Dei. (lliristumqnc stanlem a dexlris Patri. Cur ou-
lcm lioc vidil, nisi ul intoUigerol. sibi coelum pa-
tere, el so slalim a Domiiio rocipiendum in iJlam
^loriam? Id cnim illo iiilellii;ons e.vclamavit. i)o-
mine Jesii suscipc spirilnni mvum.
Dcciinum lostliuoiiium esl cap. (>. Apocal. nbi
d;inlur marlyriLus siniiulao slolae albao, quae glo-
riam auiiuiic signiticiiiil;uiiin altcrani sloliim.idesl.
iiloriiiin corporis posl rcsnrrcclionem babebunl ;
ul cxponuiit Grcgorius in 4. psal. poeuilenlialem,
el lieda, llayuio el Ausclinus iii bunclocum: nec
non b. Augustinns serm. 4. de feslo Innocon-
tium.
Undecimum ost cap. 7. ubi de iplis dicilur: Bi,
qui amicti sunl stolis albis, sunl anle iJironum
Dei.vl serviunt ci die ac nocte in templo ejus. Ex
quo habomus. illos vere esse in coelo , el videre
Deum.Ouid onim siguilicat esse anlc llironumDei,
iiisi liaberc Deuin iu conspectu , eumque cer-
nore?
Alque hinc solvi polest argumonlum secundum;
niim adprimum locum contra adductum respondeo
dnj)!iciler; ac primum.ul Chrysoslomus in cap.20.
MaUli. mouel . parabuliis non oporlere ex omui
piirle (iiiadraro, .seil xdlijiit rohsidoriiinlinii c^^'
scdpiitti; iiKiltii oiiiiit iliciiiiliir iioii ad hli,'iiilii';iii-
(luiii iiliipiid, scd Mduiit iil tiiirrulto iiiU-i,'i.i >iduii-
liir. Oitciiiaditiodiiiii i;! niltfr ad Kciiid<iidiiiii !•(•
(ItiH osl, ii<>c laiiniii v\ oiitiii pariit Hniidil. AIkmiiii
(|iiomo(l(i (ipcriirii iiccipiciilct dciiitniiiit iiiiiiiiiiir.i-
b.iiil ? iNiiiuipitd (Til uiiiniKir iii coclo? Kl i ur Do-
iiiiiiiis dntl: ,1h or.utUH tuun nv<iuam cnt, tiuia
vi/n ttnniis nniny\\\n\ c\-\[ iii cncli» dciilus iicipi.iin?
Uiii)ino'li» cliiiiii licrt pdlcsl , iil tticrci's priii-» mI
r(Ml(litit ulliiiiis, (piiuti priiiii.s. cuiii conslcl uiiiiicit
siiniil clcclos ciid»'iti sciilciili.i (hiiiiiiiilos re^Mio
cd('ldiiiiit?Sdlitiii cr^M) ('\ piiriiholii ilhi (l<! opnruriis
h.ihcuiits, miiiori htmporc l'.ilrcs iiovi T(!sliiiiii iili
liihoiiiro, (juant ntccriiti l'iilris TeslaiiuMili veloriii :
el liiiiicti iid ciiitidoiu l)(;;ililudiii(Uti |)crvetiir<-: \cl
ccrti; <M)s, (|ui Cdiiviutunliir iii sciiccliili! jjrcvii)-
rem hiborom liahcro, (|u;iin eos, (|iii iii adohtsccii-
liii . ol hiineii posse noit iiiiiius |iraciiiium iidi-
[lisci.
Pdssumiis otiaiii sccuudo rosponderc, si velimiis
iihiui parhMii esse sigiiilic;iliv;im . qiia dicitiir, ad
vcspcr;im v(ic;itos osseomiK^s oper^irios , el siiiitil
omnihiis rcddihim css(; iiKTcedem; dicciuus eiiiiii
pcr vcspcram signiliciiri fuluruiti generiih! jiidi-
ciiiin, qiin puhlicc rcddiitur omiiihits perfcchi iikm'-
cos: quod l;inion jiidicium non oxclulil [);irli(:ula-
ria Dei jndicia . (juibus in^obitii uniiiscujsijuc red-
ditur siiigulis |)i'iv;itiin p;irs uH^rcedis.
Ad secuudum locuiii c\ Piiulo , (jui ail , Palres
noii acc(![)isse [iromissioncs, sed suo lem[)ore ac-
cepturos, dico tria. Primo , per repromissioneni
posse iutelligi Chrisli inciirnalionom , ul e\[)onit
IM'im;isius. id onim Deus promiscTal saopissim';
Piilribus Abrahae, Isaac, Jiicob.David; unde Doini-
nus ait: Jflulli rcgvs ot prophelac voluerunl videre
quae vos videlis, et non viderunt.
Socundo dico, por ropromissiones posse inlolli-
gi bc.ilitudincm animae: el tunc confcrri bomincs
Toslamonli veleris.cum bominibus Teslamenti novi.
ut sensus sil; illi anliqui sancli morlui scinl . noii
acceptii repromissionc vilae aeternae, ul non prae-
venirenl nos, sed expectavemnt usque ad Christi
adveutum.ut oam repromissioneni uobiscum.idcst,
cuiu sanclis Teslamonli novi acciperent. El favel
liuic exposilioni lexlus graecus: c-jx £zc;jii7a'>-:o Trjv
£-aYYcXc{av.non acce|)er;int roproniissionem,idest,
nunc quidem acceperunl , sed antehac nondum
acceperant.
Torlio dico. per repromissioncm inlelllgi perfc-
clam beatiludinem corporis el animae . quum illi
adliuc non babuerunl.ne sine nobis habe;inl:quae
quidem est communis Palrum exposilio in eum lo-
cum, et Augiistini lracl.49.in Joann. notanda sunt
omnia illa verba:iYe sine nobis consummarenlur.
i\on enim ail, ne sine nobis reraunerarenlur , sed
ne sine nobis consummalam mercedem non modo
animae, sed etiam corporis acciperenl.
Ad lertium locura ex epistola Joannis respon-
deo, illud, cuni apparuerit, non significare , cuin
apparuerit Christus, sed cum apparuerit quid eri-
inus. ut patet ex superioribus. Dixeral enim. non-
dnm apparuit quid enmiis , ac deinde subjecii .
scimus enim . quia cum apparuerit . nimirum .
428
DE SANCTORUM BEATITUDINE
quid crinuis . nimiles ci crimus , quia vidcbimm
eum sicuti est. \i;u]w, illiul, similcs ei crimus,s\-
gnilical . si(nilos Cliristo erinuis coram ociilis to-
lius auindi; viilebitur cnim nos in nubibus Chrislo
nssidenlcs, ac similes illi quoad exlernam gloriam
corporis. Quae gloria ex co nascelur , quod vide-
binuis eum siculi cst; Nam vidcre Dcum, esl bca-
titudo animae, cx qua nascilur gloria corporis.Esl
autcm siinilis liic locus , ul Bcda eliara monct illi
loco Piuili: Morlui cslis, elvilavcstra ahscondita
€st cuin Chrislo in Dco ; cum autcm apparueril
Cliristus vila vestra, tunc cl vos apparcbilis cuin
ipso in (jloria. Coloss. 3. Quare non colligilur ex
vcibis Joannis,sanctos bomines non visuros, Dum
anto diem judicii , sed solum ante cum diera
non essc eorum gloriam toti mundo manifcsl;in-
dam.
Ad quartum cx Apocalypsi, dioo,pcr altare, sub
quo sunt animac , non posse inlclligi aliqucm lo-
cum exlra coclum; nam in cap. 7. habcmus , islas
animas amiclas slolis albis esse anle thronura Dei,
Deoquc in lcmplo ejus, idesl, in coelo servirc,dic
ac noctc.
Trcs crgo sunl catholicae cxpositiones. Prima
Bedac, illud: Sub atfan,conjungi cum inlcrfecto-
rum , boc niodo : Yidi animas inlcrfeclorwn sub
allari: pcr allare aulem inlcHigi Christura, ulscn-
sus sil: Vidi animas intcyfcclorum sub altari,idest,
sub leslificatione norainis chrisliani : quoraodo 2.
Machab. 7. dicuniur Machabaci occisi sub Tcsta-
mcnlo Dei, idest. pro Teslamento Del.
Secunda, ejusdcra Bedae,Priraasii el Ilaymonis,
illud, sub allari, conjungi cura vidi, scd per alla-
re intelligi secretum intellcctuale.unde procedil Ihi-
niiaraa laudis divinae. Sicut enira in tnbernaculo
eral arca,et anle arcam altare aureum Ihimiamalis,
ila in coelo, tabernaculo non manu faclo, cst arca
humanilatis Christi, in qua residet divinitas: el an-
le cam esl altare aureum,unde procedil pcrpeluum
thimiama huidis divinae, el precum. Et nolat Hay-
mo, quod sicul in labcrnaculo maleriali,intcr alta-
re aureum el arcam, erat velum, quod frnclura est
in morle Chrisli: ila quoque durante Teslamenlo
vetcri, animae sanctorum erant sub altari, sacrifi-
cantes Dco hostias laudis,sed velum erat inlcr eas
et Deura; at fraclo velo per Chrislura, jam altare
cst conjunctum arcae,et nihil est in raedio.Dicun-
lur aulem animae esse sub altari Isto, non aulera
ad altare, ad significandum secretura illud coele-
sle, quo non solum oculi, sed nec menlcs nostrae
penetrare possunt. Quis enim capiat , quomodo
animae sint ante Deum , eique minlslrent in
coelo?
Tertia est Anselmi, qui docel, per altare intel-
ligi Chrislum. Sacrificia enim sanctorum,sivc lau-
dis sive orationura,non placent Deo nisi siipcrhoc
allari ponantur, idest, per Christum offerranlur.
Dicuntur aulem animae sub Cliristo esse, non quia
Christus sit illis quasi paries adumbrans. el impe-
diens, quo minus Deura videanl, ut b. Bernardus
videtur cxposuisse, sed sub Christo esse dicuntur,
quia illo iuleriores sunt loco el dignilate;quia sub
Christi palrocinio ct protcctione viccrunl, el illi
referunl acccpla sua praemia.