Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Indulgences and the Jubilee · Book II: Against the Adversaries of Indulgences
Chapter 6: Answer to what Calvin brings forward in chapter 9 of the Institutes, number 43
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VII, De Indulgentiis et Jubilaeo, Book II, a treatise of the Controversies. 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).
Calvin takes his last objection, in section or number 43, from a comparison of indulgences with the Gospel. He speaks thus: “Who taught the Pope to shut up in lead and parchment the grace of Jesus Christ, which the Lord willed to be dispensed by the word of the Gospel? Surely either the Gospel of God must be a liar, or indulgences are liars. For that by the Gospel Christ is offered to us with all the abundance of heavenly goods, with all his merits, all his justice, wisdom and grace, without any exception, Paul is witness, who in 2 Corinthians 5 says that the word of reconciliation is deposited with the ministers, by which they discharge this form of embassy: as if Christ exhorted by them, we beseech you, be reconciled to God. Him who knew no sin he made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him. On the contrary, these indulgences fasten some measured portion of grace, shut out of the Pope's cupboard, to lead, parchment, and even to a place, and tear it away from the word of God.” All of this must be refuted part by part, one thing at a time, lest Calvin complain that something was rashly passed over by us. As to what he reproves, that the grace of God is shut up in lead and parchment, I answer that the grace of God is sometimes shut up in lead and parchment by the Supreme Pontiff in no other way than the Apostles and prophets shut up the mysteries of salvation in letters and paper. For as the writings of the Apostles and prophets are certain signs of heavenly things which are either revealed to us, or promised, or given, so too papal letters, fortified with their lawful seals, are signs of the remission which the Pontiff, by the power received from God, grants to those who have fulfilled what he commands. But this, you will say, is not what Calvin reproves, that remission is in some way shut up in lead and parchment as in certain instruments, but that there is shut up in letters that remission which the Lord willed to be dispensed by the word of the Gospel. I ask Calvin, then, whether he thinks that grace of remission can be dispensed by the word of the Gospel only when uttered by the voice, or also when written? Certainly if he wishes to be consistent with himself he must grant that it is dispensed by the word of the Gospel not only through speech but also through writing. For he himself, both often elsewhere and in this place, teaches that the remission of sins comes about through exhortation, or preaching; for this is why he alleges those words, He hath placed in us the word of reconciliation, as if God did exhort by us, we beseech you for Christ, be reconciled to God. But exhortation and preaching can be made not only by word but also by writing. For the Apostle himself, when he said those things which Calvin cites, was preaching to the Corinthians through a written epistle, and the same man made as many exhortations, and very grave ones, as he wrote epistles. Whence he said to the Thessalonians: Be not terrified, neither by word nor by epistle as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand, and so on. And so, as remission can be announced by word, so it can be announced by writing, and thereby can be shut up in letters and parchment. And these things have been said by us to refute Calvin from his own principles. For we do not believe that the word of reconciliation is nothing else than preaching, nor do we think (as the Calvinists dream) that the power of remitting or retaining sins is to be referred to preaching. For we know that sermons are preached to the faithful and the unfaithful, the just and sinners, the penitent and the impenitent; but sins are not remitted except to faithful sinners who are penitent. On which matter enough has been said by us in the book on penance. Nor do we admit that the sacramental remission of sins ought to be, or can be, shut up in lead and parchment, but only that remission which can be made outside the sacrament, such as absolution from ecclesiastical censures, and absolution from the guilt of temporal punishment, which is given through indulgences. Nor is this properly to shut up the grace of God in lead and parchment, as Calvin says, but it is to declare by letters fortified with a seal the will of him who has the power of bestowing indulgences, as many other things are accustomed to be declared which depend on the will of a prince.
Now as to what Calvin adds, that either the Gospel of God is a liar, or indulgences are liars, this does not contain a complete division, for the third member is missing: or Calvin does not know what he is talking about. For the Gospel does not say, as Calvin interprets it, that in every reconciliation Christ is offered to us with all the abundance of heavenly goods, so that all guilt of fault, and of punishment both everlasting and temporal, is always remitted. For if the Gospel taught this, it would certainly conflict with indulgences; and since the Gospel cannot be a liar, it would plainly follow that indulgences were liars. But the Gospel says indeed that in the first reconciliation, which takes place in baptism, a man is renewed and born again, John 3 and Titus 3; dies with Christ, and is buried with him, and rises again to a new creature, Romans 6; and accordingly nothing remains to be expiated, nor do such men need any other indulgence if perhaps it should happen that they departed this life immediately after baptism. But in the second reconciliation, which takes place through the sacrament of penance, the Gospel says that Christ is offered to the penitent with an abundance indeed of heavenly goods, but not so great that all guilt of fault and punishment is at once remitted; rather, after all fault and everlasting punishment has been remitted, there remains penance and satisfaction to be carried out for paying the temporal punishment. For this second reconciliation is not regeneration and renewal, but is as it were a medicinal cure, a certain laborious baptism, and a second plank after shipwreck, as the holy Fathers everywhere teach, whom we cited in the books on penance. Therefore, since in the second reconciliation, according to the Gospel, some guilt of temporal punishment is often left to be expiated, indulgences can have their place, and do not conflict with the Gospel in any way. But let us see how Calvin has proved that the Gospel in every reconciliation offers us Christ with all the abundance of heavenly goods, so that his merits are always so copiously applied that nothing at all remains to be expiated. Certainly he brought nothing except the apostolic testimony of 2 Corinthians 5, He hath placed in us the word of reconciliation, and so on. But in that testimony no mention is made of all the abundance of heavenly goods, nor of the application of all the merits of Christ; we have from that place only this, that men are reconciled to God through the ministry of the servants of God, who have power from him, and who discharge an embassy for Christ, and through whom God exhorts us to be reconciled. Since Christ, who did no sin, was made sin for us, that is, a saving victim for expiating sins, that we might be made the justice of God in him, that is, that through him we might be truly and properly justified. But how far that reconciliation extends, and whether it always releases all fault and punishment, or sometimes only fault and eternal punishment, the Apostle does not say; and from other places both of Scripture and of the Fathers we gather plainly enough that after fault is remitted there remains the guilt of temporal punishment, either to be paid by one's own labours or to be forgiven through indulgences. The Gospel, then, is not a liar, nor are indulgences liars; but Calvin alleged the Gospel like a liar.
Calvin goes on in the same section, and teaches whence the origin of indulgences flowed. “If anyone,” he says, “asks after their origin, this abuse seems to have sprung from this, that when in former times satisfactions were enjoined on penitents more severe than all could perform, those who felt themselves burdened beyond measure by the penance imposed on them asked the Church for relaxation. The remission which was made to such was called an indulgence. But when they transferred satisfactions to God, and said they were compensations by which men redeem themselves from the judgment of God, at the same time they drew indulgences also to this, that they should be expiatory remedies which free us from the punishments we deserve. But those blasphemies which we have related they have invented with such impudence that they can have no pretext.” In these words Calvin affirms three things which he could prove by no testimony and no reason. For he drew whatever he babbled in this place not from the history of antiquity but from the dreams of Luther. First, then, he says that in former times satisfactions were accustomed to be enjoined more severe than all could perform, and that the relaxation of those who were burdened beyond measure was named an indulgence. I ask where he read this, where he learned it: a strange silence. We on the contrary read in the ancient Councils that indulgences were accustomed to be granted not to those who said they were burdened beyond measure, but to those who for some time had carried out the penance enjoined eagerly and willingly. The Council of Ancyra, canon 4, otherwise 5: “It will be in the bishop's power,” it says, “to examine the manner of their (the penitents') conduct, and either to deal more kindly with them, or to add a longer time. But above all let their former and later life be inquired into, and so let kindness be shown them.” And more clearly in chapter 22: “Let the measure of penance be at the bishops' discretion, so that according to the conduct of the penitents they may both extend it for the slow and lessen it for those who eagerly hasten.” The first Council of Nicaea, canon 11, otherwise 12, having prescribed for the lapsed a penance of thirteen years, adds: “But let this above all be observed by everyone, that their disposition and the fruit of their penance be attended to. For whoever with all fear and persevering tears and good works demonstrate their conversion not by words only but in deed and truth, when the appointed time has also been fulfilled by them, namely of the first three years, in which they were to be among the hearers, and they have already begun to share in the prayers, it will be lawful for the bishop to think of something more kindly concerning them (that is, to lessen something of the remaining ten years); but those who have regarded their fall with indifference, and think it enough for them that they have entered the church, shall in every way complete the appointed times.” Where you see most clearly that indulgence is given to the diligent and denied to the negligent. And not only is what Calvin says not true, but it is not in any way likely. For neither would those holy Fathers have enjoined satisfactions more severe than was fitting, nor, if perhaps someone had been burdened beyond measure, would they have relieved him of that burden by indulgence, but by justice. For what indulgence is it to take away a burden unjustly imposed? Next, the same Calvin affirms that those penitential satisfactions were afterwards transferred to God, and that from this it came about that indulgences were believed to be expiatory remedies which free us from the punishments we deserve. Here too we ask the Calvinists to show when penitential satisfactions did not belong to the expiation of punishments owed by the judgment of God; for we read in the most ancient Fathers that by those satisfactions God is appeased, God is propitiated, satisfaction is made to God. We cited many things in the books on penance, and some also in the former book. Now I shall be content with the testimony of Cyprian alone. He, then, in the sermon on the lapsed, exhorting to works of penance those who had already come to their senses and begun to do penance, but desired that the rest of their penance be forgiven them through the intercession of the martyrs, speaks among other things thus: “Let the penance not be less than the crime. Do you think the Lord can be quickly appeased, whom you denied with faithless words, to whom you preferred to set your patrimony before, whose temple you stained with sacrilegious contagion?” And below: “To one who repents, who works, who prays, he can mercifully pardon; he can accept as received whatever the martyrs have asked and the priests have done for such. Or if anyone has moved him (God, that is) more by his own satisfactions, if he has appeased his anger, if he has appeased the offence of his indignation by just entreaty, he gives again the arms by which the conquered may be armed.” And below: “He who has thus satisfied God, who by penance for his deed, who by shame for his fault, has conceived more of both virtue and faith from the very grief of his fall, heard and helped by the Lord whom he had lately saddened, will make the Church glad, and will now merit from God not pardon only, but a crown.” From these we have, not once but twice or three times repeated, that by the labours of penance satisfaction is made to God and God is appeased; it is not new, then, as Calvin wished it to seem, that satisfactions are referred to God. But since the root of the whole Lutheran and Calvinist error lies in this, that they deny that after fault is remitted there remains a guilt of temporal punishment to be expiated in this life or in the next, I shall bring forward another testimony of Cyprian, in which it is plainly taught that even after this life such guilt remains. He speaks thus in epistle 2 of book 4, comparing the glory of martyrdom, by which all guilt is at once purged and taken away, with other kinds of death which do not have that power: “It is one thing,” he says, “to stand for pardon, another to arrive at glory; one thing, being sent to prison, not to go out thence until one pays the last farthing, another to receive at once the reward of faith and virtue; one thing to be amended for sins by long torment and purged a long time in fire, another to have purged all sins by suffering.” So he; and if these things had been noticed and believed by Calvin, he would never have denied that after fault is remitted there remains a debt of punishment to be paid, and thereby that satisfaction is necessary, and that indulgences, which forgive satisfaction, free from deserved punishments.
In the last place Calvin says that the blasphemies recited above about the satisfactions of the holy martyrs, that they are mingled with the satisfactions of Christ, can be excused by no pretext. But we on the contrary think that Calvin's rashness can be excused by no pretext, who, on account of some testimonies wrongly understood (as we showed above), reproaches the whole Church, and judges of these matters with so perverse a judgment that he calls blasphemies what in truth contain the greatest glory of God; unless perhaps it is to be believed that Christ begrudges the martyrs the honour which he himself conferred on them. But enough of these things, for I have proposed to fight not with words but with reasons.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Respondetur ad ea , qux Calvinus profert cap. 9. Jnstit. num. 43. Postremam objectionem Calvinus in se¬ ctione, sive numero 43, petit a comparatione indulgentiarum cum Evangelio. Sic autem loquitur. « Quis docuit Papam plumbo et membranae gratiam Jesu Christi includere, quam Dominus verbo Evangelii dispensari voluit? Sane aut mendax Dei Evangelium esse oportet, aut mendaces indulgentias. Nam Evangelio Christum cum omni affluen¬ tia bonorum ccelestium, cum omnibus suis meritis, omni sua justitia, sapientia, gratia, nulla exceptione nobis offerri testis est Pau¬ lus, qui 11 Corinth. v. dicit, depositum esse apud ministros verbum reconciliationis, quo hac legationis forma fungantur seu Christo per ipsos hortante, obsecramus reconcilia¬ mini Deo. Eum qui peccatum non noverat, pro nobis peccatum fecit, ut efficeremur ju¬ stitia Dei in illo. Contra , hi indulgentiae demensum aliquod gratiae, ex armario Papae reclusum, plumbo, membranae, loco etiam affigunt, a verbo Dei avellunt». Ilaec omnia per partes sigillatim refellenda sunt, ne queratur Calvinus, aliquid a nobis temere praetermissum. Quod igitur reprehendit, gratiam Dei plumbo, et membranae includi, respondeo : non aiiter a Pontifice Ma¬ ximo gratiam Dei plumbo et membranae aliquando includi, quam Apostoli, et Pro¬ pheta? litteiis, et chartae mysteria salutis incluserint. Nam quemadmodum scripta CAPUT VI. 67 Apostolorum, et Prophetarum signa quae¬ dam sunt rerum coelestium, quae nobis vel relevantur, vel promittuntur, vel dantur : sic etiam litterae Pontificiae suis legitimis sigillis munitae, signa sunt remissionis, quam Pontifex, pro potestate a Deo accepta, con¬ cedit iis, qui ea, quae ab ipso praecipiuntur, impleverint. At non hoc, inquies, reprehen¬ dit Calvinus, quod remissio aliquo modo plum¬ bo et membranae, ut instrumentis quibus¬ dam includatur, sed quod litteris ea remis¬ sio includatur, quam Dominus verbo Evan- gelii dispensari voluit. Quaero igitur a Cal¬ vino, an existimet verbo Evangelii solum voce prolatp, an etiam scripto gratiam illam remissionis dispensari posse? Certe si velit sibi constare, concedere debet, verbo Evan¬ gelii non solum per sermonem, sed etiam per scripturam, dispensari. Ipse enim tum alibi saepe, tum in hoc loco docet remissio¬ nem peccatorum per exhortationem, sive concionem fieri, ideo enim allegat verba illa: Posuit in nobis verbum reconciliationis , tam¬ quam beo exhorlante per nos , obsecramus pro Christo, reconciliamini Deo. At exhortatio, et concio non solum verbo, sed etiam scripto fieri potest. Ipse enim Apostolus cum illa dicebat, quae Calvinus citat, per epistolam scriptam Corinthiis praedicabat, et ipse idem tot exhortationes, -et quidem gravissimas fecit, quot epistolas scripsit. Unde Thessa- lonicensibus dicebat : Ne terreamini , neque per sermonem , neque per epistolam tamquam per nos missam , quasi instet dies Domini , etc. Itaque, quomodo potest remissio annunciari verbo, ita potest annunciari scripto, ac per hoc potest litteris, et membranae includi. Atque haec dicta sunt a nobis, ut ex princi¬ piis propriis Calvinum refelleremus. Nos enim non credimus, verbum Reconciliationis nihil esse aliud, nisi concionem, neque exi¬ stimamus (ut Calviniani somniant) postesta- tem remittendi vel retinendi peccata ad concionem esse referendam. Scimus enim conciones fieri ad fideles, et infideles, justos, et peccatores, poenitentes, et impoenitentes ; peccata autem non remitti, nisi fidelibus peccatoribus , poenitentibus. De qua re satis multa dicta sunt a nobis in lib. de Poenitentia. Neque admittimus remissionem peccatorum sacramentalem debere , aut posse plumbo, et membranee includi, sed tantum eam remissionem, quee fieri potest extra sacramentum, qualis est absolutio a censuris ecclesiasticis, et absolutio a reatu poenee temporalis, quee datur per indulgen. tias. Neque hoc est, gratiam Dei plombo, et membraneo proprie includi ut Calvinus dicit, sed est voluntatem ejus , qui potestatem habet indulgentias largiendi, declarari lit¬ teris, sigillo munitis, ut solent alia multa declarari, quee a voluntate principis depen¬ dent. Jam vero quod Calvinus adjungit, aut mendax esse Dei Evangclium, aut mendaces indulgentias, non integram partitionem con¬ tinet, deest enim tertium membrum, aut Calvinus nescit quid loquatur ; Evangelium enim non dicit, ut Calvinus interpretatur, in omni reconciliatione nobis offerri Christum cum omni affluentia coelestium bonorum, ita ut semper remittatur omnis reatus culpa;, et poenae tam sempiternae, quam temporariae. Si enim Evangelium hoc doceret, pugnaret utique cum indulgentiis; et quia mendax Evangelium esse non potest, id plane seque¬ retur, ut mendaces essent indulgentia?. At Evangelium dicit quidem in prima reconci¬ liatione, quae fit in Baptismo, hominem re¬ novari, et renasci, Joan. m. et Tit. m. Christo commori, et consepeliri, et resurgere in novam creaturam, Rom. vi. ac proinde nihil expiandum remanere, neque egere hujus¬ modi homines ulla alia indulgentia, si forte continuo post Baptismum eos de hac vita migrare contigerit. Caeterum in secunda re¬ conciliatione, quae fit per sacramentum Poe¬ nitentiae, Evangelium dicit, Christum offerri poenitenti cum affluentia quidem coelestium bonorum, sed non tanta, ut continuo remit¬ tatur omnis reatus culpae et poenae, sed ut post remissam omnem culpam, et poenam sempiternam, remaneat poenitentia, et satis¬ factio peragenda pro temporaria poena ex¬ plenda; non enim reconciliatio haec secun- ’da, est regeneratio, et renovatio, sed est quasi medicinalis curatio, et baptismus qui¬ dam laboriosus, et secunda tabula post nau¬ fragium, ut sancti Patres passim docent, quos citavimus in libris de poenitentia. Quare cum in secur.da reconciliatione secun¬ dum Evangelium relinquatur saepe numero reatus aliquis poenae temporalis expiandus, locum suum habere possunt indulgentiae, neque cum Evangelio ulla ratione pugnant. Sed videamus, quomodo probaverit Calvi¬ nus, Evangelium in omni reconciliatione offerre nobis Christum cum omni affluentia coelestium bonorum, ita ut semper tam co¬ piose merita ejus applicentur, ut nihil orn- LIBER )f. po UO runo remaneat expiandum. Certe nihil attu¬ lit, nisi testimonium Apostolicum II Cor. v. Posuit in nobis verbum reconciliationis ctc. (1). At in eo testimonio nulla fit mentio totius affluentim coelestium honorum, neque appli¬ cationis omnium meritorum Christi : sed solum ex eo loco habemus, eos reconciliari Deo per ministerium servorum Dei, qui ab illo potestatem habenl, quique legatione funguntur pro Christo, et per quos Deus nos exhortatur, ut reconciliemur. Quandoquidem Christus, qui peccatum non fecit, factus est pro nobis peccatum, id est, victima salutaris ad expianda peccata, ut nos efficiamur justi¬ tia Dei in illo, id est, per ipsum vere, pro- prieque justificemur. Sed quam late pateat ea reconciliatio et an seinper relaxet omnem culpam et poenam, an aliquando solam cul¬ pam, et poenam seternam, Apostolus non dicit, et ex aliis locis tum Scripturse, tum Patrum satis aperte colligimus, post remis¬ sam culpam, restare poense temporalis rea¬ tum, vel propriis laboribus solvendum, vel per indulgentias condonandum. Non igitur Evangelium est mendax, neque mendaces sunt indulgentise, sed Calvinus Evangelium mendaciter allegavit. Pergit in eadem sectione Calvinus, ac do¬ cet, unde origo indulgentiarum fluxerit: «Si quis, inquit, originem requirat, hinc videtur hic abusus emanasse, quod cum injungeren¬ tur olim severiores satisfactiones poenitenti- bus, quam ut ab omnibus fieri possent, qui poenitentia sibi imposita gravari sc ultra modum sentiebant , petebant ab Ecclesia relaxationem. Remissio qua? talibus fiebat, indulgentia vocabatur. Ubi autem satisfa¬ ctiones ad Deum transtulerunt, ac compen¬ sationes esse dixerunt, quibus se redimant homines a judicio Dei, simul etiam indul¬ gentias eo traxerunt, ut essent expiatoria remedia, quae nos poenis meritis liberent. Illas vero quas retulimus blasphemias, tanta impudentia confinxerunt, ut nullum praetex¬ tum habere queant ». In his verbis tria quaedam Calvinus affir¬ mat, quae nullo testimonio, nulla ratione probare potuit. Neque enim ex historia anti¬ quitatis, sed exLutheri somniis hausit quse- •eumque hoc loeo effutiit. Primum igitur, ait, injungi solitas olim severiores satisfactiones, quam ut ab omnibus fieri possent, et relaxa¬ tionem eorum, qui supra modum gravati erant, indulgentiam esse nominatam. Quaero, ubi hoc legerit, ubi didicerit, mirum silen¬ tium. Nos contra legimus in antiquis Conci¬ liis, indulgentias concedi solitas non iis, qui se supra modum gravatos dicerent, sed qui poenitentiam injunctam aliquanto tempore studiose, libenterque peregerant. Concilium Ancyranum can. 4. alias 5 : « Penes Episco¬ pum, inquit, erit potestas modum conversa¬ tionis eorum (pcenitentium) probare, vel humanius erga eos agere, vel amplius tem¬ pus adjicere. Ante omnia vero praecedens eorum vita, et posterior inquiratur, et ita cis impertiatur humanitas />. Et clarius cap. 22. e* Modus poenitentiae in Episcjoporum sit arbitrio, ut secundum conversationem poeni- tentium, possint et extendere tardantibus, et minuere studiose festinantibus » . Conci¬ lium Nicaenum I canon. 11. alias 12. cum poenitentiam lapsis praescripsisset annorum tredecim, addit : « Ab omnibus vero illud praecipue observetur, ut animus eorum, et fructus poenitentiae attendaitur. Quicumque enim cum omni timore et lacrymis perseve¬ rantibus, et operibus bonis conversationem suam non verbis solis, sed opere, et veritate demonstrant, cum tempus statutum etiam ab iis fuerit impletum, nimirum primi trien¬ nii, quo inter audientes futuri erant, et ora¬ tionibus jam coeperint communicare, licebit Episcopo humanius circa eos aliquid cogi¬ tare (id est, minuere aliquid de reliquis de¬ cem annis) ; qui vero indifferenter habuerint lapsum, et sufficere sibi quod Ecclesiam in¬ troierint arbitrantur, isti omni modo tempora statuta complebunt. » Ubi clarissime vides indulgentiam dari diligentibus, negari ne- gligentibus. Neque solum non est verum, quod Calvinus dicit, sed nec est ullo modo verisimile. Nam nec sancti illi Patres satis¬ factiones injunxissent severiores, quam par esset : nec si forte aliquis, supra modum gra- # vatus fuisset, illum per indulgentiam, sed per justitiam ab illo onere sublevassent. Queo enim 'indulgentia est, demere onus injuste impositum? Deinde affirmat idem Calvinus, satisfactiones iJlas pcenitentiarias postea ad Deum fuisse translatas, et inde factum esse, ut indulgentice crederentur esse remedia ex¬ piatoria, quse nos a poenis meritis liberent. Ilie etiam quterimus, ut ostendant Calvinia- ni, quando satisfactiones pcenitentiariee non pertinuerint ad expiandas poenas judicio Dei Cor. Y, 19 CAPUT VII. 69 debitas, nos enim legimus in antiquissimis Patribus , per satisfactiones illas placari Deum, propitiari Deum, satisfieri Deo. Multa citavimus in libris de poenitentia, nonnulla etiam in libro superiore. Nunc unius Cy¬ priani testimonio contentus ero. Is igitur in serm. de lapsis exhortans ad poenitentia; opera illos, qui jam resipuerant, et poeni¬ tentiam agere coeperant, sed intercessione Martyrum cupiebant sibi condonari reliquam poenitentiam, inter alia sic loquitur :« Poeni¬ tentia crimine minor non sit. Putasne tu Dominum cito posse placari, quem verbis perfidis abnuisti, cui patrimonium praepo¬ nere maluisti, cujus templum sacrilega con¬ tagione maculasti » ? Et infra : « Poenitenti, operanti , roganti potest clementer igno¬ scere, potest in acceptum referre quicquid pro talibus et petierint Martyres, et fecerint Sacerdotes. Vel si quis plus ‘eum (Deum vi¬ delicet) suis satisfactionibus moverit, si ejus iram, si indignantis offensam justa depreca¬ tione placaverit, dat ille et arma rursum, quibus victus armetur ». Et infra : « Qui sic Deo satisfecerit, qui poenitentia; facti sui, qui pudore delicti plus et virtutis, et fidei de ipso lapsus sui dolore conceperit, exau¬ ditus, et adjutus a Domino, quem contrista¬ verat nuper, laetam faciet Ecclesiam, nec jam solam Dei veniam merebitur, sed coro¬ nam » . Ex bis habemus, non semel, sed bis, terve repetitum , per labores poenitentia; satisfieri Deo, et placari Deum : non igitur novum est, ut Calvinus videri volebat, sa¬ tisfactiones ad Deum referri. Sed quoniam radix totius Lutherani, et Calviniani erroris in eo posita est, quod negant, post remissam culpam, remanere pomae temporalis reatum expiandum in hac vita, vel in alia, adducam aliud Cypriani testimonium, quo manifeste docetur, etiam post hanc vitam remanere ejusmodi reatum. Sic igitur loquitur in epistol. 2. lib. iv. conferens gloriam Marty¬ rii, quo reatus omnis continuo purgatur, et tollitur, cum aliis generibus mortis, qua; non habent eam vim : « Aliud, inquit, est ad veniam stare, aliud ad gloriam pervenire, aliud, missum in carcerem, non exire inde, donec reddat novissimum quadrantem, aliud statim fidei, et virtutis accipere mercedem; aliud pro peccatis longo tempore cruciatum emendari, et purgari diu in igne, aliud pec¬ cata omnia passione purgasse ». Haec ille, qua; si a Calvino animadversa, et credita fuissent, numquam negasset, post remissam culpam manere debitum luenda; poena;, ac per hoc satisfactionem esse necessariam, et indulgentias, qua; satisfactionem condonant, liberare a meritis poenis. Ultimo loco Calvinus dicit, nullo praetextu excusari posse blasphemias supra recitatas de satisfactionibus sanctorum Martyrum , qua; cum Christi satisfactionibus miscean¬ tur. Sed nos contra existimamus, nullo prae- textu excusari posse Calvini temeritatem, qui propter aliqua testimonia perperam in¬ tellecta (ut supra demonstravimus) totam Ecclesiam reprehendit, et tam perverso ju¬ dicio de his rebus censet, ut blasphemias vocet, qua; revera gloriam Dei continent maximam, nisi, forte credendum sit, Chri¬ stum eum honorem invidere Martyribus , quem ipse illis contulit. Sed de his satis, neque enim verbis, sed rationibus dimicare proposui.