Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book III: On the Uncertainty, Mutability, and Inequality of Justice
Chapter 5: The same is proved by the testimony and example of Job, David, and Paul
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book III. 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).
In the second place we shall seek an argument from the testimony and example of three most perfect men — Job, David, and Paul. For if these men so signal, of whom one said, “My heart doth not reprehend me in all my life”; another, “In my innocence I have walked in”; the third, “I am conscious to myself of nothing” — durst not arrogate to themselves certitude of their own grace, who is he that will not be in dread about his own justice? Therefore holy Job, chapter 9, says: If he come to me, I shall not see him; if he depart, I shall not understand. Likewise: If I would justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me; if I would show myself innocent, he shall prove me wicked. Although I should be simple, even this my soul shall be ignorant of. And below: I feared all my works, knowing that thou didst not spare the offender. And chapter 31: What shall I do when the Lord shall rise to judge? And when he shall examine, what shall I answer him? Let us add to these places the commentary of St. Gregory, book 9 of the Morals, chapters 17 and 19: “What shall I say of others, who am not able to bear testimony for myself?” And below: “If we examine ourselves by a subtle discussion, for the most part we are in a mist between vices and virtues.” And below: “With what temerity do I gainsay the judgments of my Creator against me, who am ignorant even of myself through the mist of my weakness?” And below: “But the hearts of the just, because they cannot examine themselves to perfection, bear with grief this exile of blindness. Whence it is well subjoined, ‘And I shall be weary of my life.’ The just man is weary of living, because even by working he ceases not to seek life; and yet he cannot find the merit of that same life of his.”
To this place Catharinus answers that holy Job was not ignorant that he was just, since in this whole book, disputing against his friends, he defends it; but that he would not boast his justice, nor arrogate anything to himself proudly. But the saints ought to be humble, not lying. And accordingly, if Job had been certain, with the certitude of faith, of his own justice, he could not without a lie, or even without perfidy, have shown that doubt: “Although I should be simple, even this my soul shall be ignorant of.” And, “I feared all my works,” etc. For neither can we without sin doubt, or show doubt, in those things which we hold by faith. But in the whole book holy Job asserts indeed his innocence, because he was conscious to himself of no crime, and teaches that he was not punished so grievously on account of his crimes, as his friends thought; but he does not say that he certainly knows himself to be just in the eyes of God; nay, he affirms that he is in dread, as he truly was, lest perhaps of himself his own judgment be one thing, and the judgment of God another.
Now holy David, in Psalm 18: Who understandeth sins? From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord; and from those of others spare thy servant. St. Jerome, books 1 and 2 against the Pelagians, and St. Bernard in epistle 42, will have the sense of this place to be that there is no one of the just who fully understands whether he be free of sins or not. And although this place is sometimes wont to be expounded of venial sins, yet it is more probable that it is extended to all, since the sentence is general, and nothing absurd follows if it be generally expounded. Moreover the distinction of mortal and venial sin nothing helps our adversaries the Lutherans and Calvinists, who contend that all sins are mortal. But as to what Catharinus says, that by Augustine and Jerome this place is expounded of sinners who, while they are in darkness, cannot see their sins, it does not weaken our argument. For those holy Fathers speak of the sight of sin useful for curing them; nor do they mean that sinners do not understand that murder, and adultery, and the like, which are committed by them, are sins; but they mean to indicate that sins are not seen by sinners, because sinners do not consider how great those evils are, and how grievously by them they are hurt — which yet they begin to know when they are converted by the Lord, and therefore, as if then first they had seen them, they are struck with great horror, and busy themselves with great zeal about their cure. But this doctrine, which is most true, nothing hinders that all the most just say: From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord — fearing, namely, lest perhaps by this very thing they be sinners and blinded, that they see not their sins. For David was holy, and yet said, From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord; and St. Augustine himself, in discourse 2 on this psalm, for himself and for the whole people says, From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord.
But now let us come to the Apostle. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 4: I am conscious to myself of nothing, yet am I not hereby justified. The purpose of the Apostle was to deter the Corinthians from rash judgments, by which one judges another either just or a sinner. And he shows that the judgment of our justice is to be left to God, since not even we ourselves fully know ourselves. To me, he says, it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man’s day — that is, I make no great account of others’ judgments about me, because I am not ignorant how uncertain they are; but neither do I judge my own self — that is, neither dare I trust my own judgment, since although I be conscious to myself of nothing, yet am I not hereby justified — that is, I am not therefore just because I have a good conscience. For perhaps God sees in my conscience that which I see not there. But he that judgeth me is the Lord — that is, God alone is the true judge; he alone knows all things; and then I shall truly think myself just, when the Lord shall pronounce me just: Therefore judge not before the time, until the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God.
To this testimony the Lutherans and Catharinus answer in different ways. Luther in the assertion of the fourteenth article, Calvin book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 17, section 14, Peter Martyr in the commentary on this place, and Chemnitz in the Examination of the Council say that the Apostle could signify that against the maledictors and detractors he testifies his own innocence, yet that before God he is not just from any virtue, or quality, or good work, but from the sole mercy of God, which on account of Christ imputes not sins to believers. This exposition, first, is convicted of being absurd from those words, “I am conscious to myself of nothing.” For either those words signify, “I acknowledge in myself no sins, as in fact existing and inhering in me”; or they signify, “I see my sins covered by the mercy of God, and therefore think that they are no longer mine, although they be in me and live.” If they say the first, it will be false that the Apostle was not just before God from any virtue and quality. For how is he not just from interior purity and virtue, if in fact no sin inhere in him? Or if truly sins inhered in him — nay, all his works, according to the doctrine of the Lutherans, were mortal sins — the Apostle falsely said, “I am conscious to myself of nothing,” and contrariwise ought rather to have said, “I am conscious to myself of many evils, since all my works are of themselves mortal sins.” If they say the second, that will be false, “yet am I not hereby justified.” For if blessed Paul was conscious to himself of nothing because he believed that his sins were not imputed to him, and that through non-imputation they were right, certainly by this very thing he was justified, according to the sentence of the Lutherans. How, then, does he oppose that, “I am conscious to myself of nothing,” to this, “yet am I not hereby justified”? He ought, then, to have said: “I am conscious to myself that I have many good works, and many good qualities and virtues, but I am justified not on account of them, but on account of the sole mercy of God.” They will answer, perhaps, that “I am conscious to myself of nothing” has this sense: “I acknowledge in myself none of those crimes which are wont to be condemned by human judgment, yet am I not hereby justified, since those very works which seem good are in me sins.” But this response is refuted from those words, “but neither do I judge my own self.” For the Apostle, when he says, “for I am conscious to myself of nothing,” renders the cause not why he does not fear external judgments, but why he dares not judge himself. “But neither,” he says, “do I judge my own self, for I am conscious to myself of nothing,” etc. He speaks, then, not of crimes which are wont to be condemned by external judgment, but of sins which he himself could bring to his own internal tribunal. But he could easily have judged himself, if the sentence of the Lutherans were true; for he would easily have known that his works were of themselves evil, but were not imputed by God. Moreover, this whole exposition of the heretics conflicts with the scope, or purpose, of the Apostle. For, as we said before, he desired to deter the Corinthians from rash judgment, and therefore says, Judge not before the time. And, To me it is a very small thing to be judged by you. And, Neither do I judge my own self. And, He that judgeth me is the Lord. But to this purpose nothing pertains that reason, “I am not justified from my virtues or qualities, but from the mercy of God not imputing sins”; but much pertains that other, “human judgments are so uncertain that no one can judge even himself, much less others, as regards justice and sins.” Lastly, this exposition of the Lutherans conflicts with the common interpretation of the Fathers, who all from this place gather the uncertainty of grace. St. Ambrose (or whoever is the author of those commentaries), expounding this place: “He humbles himself, and speaks as a man who can incur sin unawares.” St. John Chrysostom on this same place: “He deprives of this judgment not the Corinthians only, but himself also, testifying that it is greater than his own knowledge.” And below: “By what reasoning, if I have not my own affairs sufficiently explored, shall I be able to judge others’?” St. Jerome, book 2 against the Pelagians: “He who said this was conscious to himself indeed of no sin; but because he had read, ‘Who understandeth sins?’ therefore he tempered his sentence, lest perhaps through ignorance he had offended.” St. Augustine, on Psalm 41, treating that, Deep calleth on deep, says that all the saints, however much they advance, are still a deep, since they do not know themselves; and he adduces this place of the Apostle: “How great a deep it is, hear: he believes there is so great a depth in a man that it lies hidden from the very man in whom it is; for when he had said, ‘I am conscious to myself of nothing,’ he added, ‘yet am I not hereby justified.’” St. Bernard, in epistle 42 to Henry Archbishop of Sens: “When the Apostle had said, ‘To me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man’s day,’ he added, ‘But neither do I judge my own self.’ Why? ‘I cannot,’ he says, ‘pronounce a ratified sentence about myself. For I am conscious to myself of nothing, yet am I not hereby justified.’ I do not with my whole heart believe even my own conscience, since it cannot comprehend the whole of me. Nor can he judge of the whole who hears not the whole. But he that judgeth me is the Lord — the Lord, I say, whose knowledge indeed nothing escapes, whose sentence nothing evades, even that which is hidden from my own conscience. God hears in the heart of him that thinks what even he himself who thinks does not hear.” See what we cite in chapter 7; and moreover Theophylact, St. Anselm, St. Thomas, and other interpreters of this place, who all manifestly agree in the same sentence.
But now Ambrose Catharinus, in the commentary on this place, lest he should grant that his opinion on the certitude of grace could be refuted from so open a testimony of the Apostle, would have this place so expounded: “I am conscious to myself of nothing” — that is, I indeed know that I am just and innocent; yet am I not hereby justified — that is, but I am not therefore just before men, who cannot see my internal justice; but he that judgeth me is the Lord — that is, God himself in the last judgment will declare me to be just before all others. This exposition, first, is refuted because it is new and contrary to the Fathers cited a little before. Second, because it does not cohere well with those words, “but neither do I judge my own self.” For of this sentence he renders the cause when he says, “for I am conscious to myself of nothing,” etc. But what is that connection: “I do not judge my own self, because I know that I am just, but I am not therefore just among men”? Third, because it conflicts with the scope and purpose of the Apostle, as we have shown. Fourth, because the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 16, taught that this place is to be understood, according to the common sentence of the Fathers, of the certitude of grace: “Each one,” it says, “ought to have before his eyes the severity and judgment, as well as the mercy and goodness; nor ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be conscious to himself of nothing, since the whole life of men is to be examined and judged not by human judgment, but by God’s, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Idem probatur testimonio , et exemplo Job, Davidis et Pauli. Secundo loco petemus argumentum a te¬ stimonio et exemplo trium perfectissimorum hominum, Job, Davidis et Pauli. Nam si viri isti tam insignes, quorum unus dicebat ; a Non reprehendit me cor meum, in omni vita mea. (Alius) : In innocentia mea in¬ gressus sum. (Tertius) : Nihil mihi conscius •sum »; non audebant sibi certitudinem pro¬ priae gratiae arrogare, quis erit ille, qui de propria justitia non formidet? Igitur sanctus Job, cap. ix : Si venerit, in¬ quit, ad me, non videbo eum: Si abierit , non intelligam. Item : Si justificare me voluero, os meum condemnabit me, si innocentem osten¬ dero, pravum me comprobabit, etiamsi simplex fuero, hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea. Et in¬ fra : Verebar omnia opera mea, sciens quod non parceres delinquenti. Et cap. xxxi : Quid faciam, cum surrexerit ad judicandum Lomi- nusl Et cum quaesierit, quid respondebo illi ? (I). Addamus ad haec loca comment. sancti Gregorii lib. ix. Moralium, cap. 17. et 19. (( Quid de aliis loquar, qui ipse pro me testi¬ monium ferre non valeo » ? Et infra : « Si subtili, inquit, discussione nos requirimus, plerumque inter vitia virtutesque caliga¬ mus » ? Et infra : a Conditoris contra me ju¬ dicia, qua temeritate redarguo, qui ipsum me ex infirmitatis caligine ignoro » ? Et in¬ fra : « Sed justorum corda, quia ad perfe¬ ctum se examinare nequeunt : aigre hoc exilium caecitatis ferunt. Unde et bene sub¬ ditur, et taedebit me vitae meae. Taedet ju¬ stum vivere, quia et operando vitam non desinit quaerere; et tamen ejusdem vitae suae meritum non valet invenire ». Ad hunc locum Catharinus respondet , sanctum Job non ignorasse, justum se esse, cum in toto hoc libro, contra amicos suos disputando, defendat : sed noluisse jactare justitiam suam, nec sibi aliquid superbe ar¬ rogare. At sancti humiles esse debent, sed non mendaces. Proinde si Job certus fuisset, certitudine fidei, de sua justitia, non potuis¬ set sine mendacio, vel etiam sine perfidia dubitationem illam ostendere : Si simplex fuero, hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea. Et : Verebar omnia opera mea, etc. Neque enim sine peccato dubitare, vel dubitationem ostendere possumus in iis rebus, quas fide tenemus. In toto autem libro sanctus Job asserit quidem innocentiam suam, quia nul¬ lius criminis sibi conscius erat, et docet, se non puniri tam graviter propter scelera sua, ut amici ejus existimabant : sed non dicit, se certo scire se justum esse in oculis Dei : immo formidare se affirmat, sicut vere for¬ midabat, ne forte de se ipso aliud esset judi¬ cium suum, aliud judicium Dei. Jam vero sanctus David in Psalm xvm : Delicta quis intelligit ? inquit, et ab occultis meis munda me, Domine, et ab alienis parce servo tuo (2). Sanctus Hieronymus lib. I. et 2. adversus Pelagianos, et] sanctus Bernar- dus in epist. 42. sententiam hujus loci esse volunt, neminem esse justorum, qui plene intelligat, careat ne peccatis, an non. Et quamvis hic locus interdum exponi soleat de peccatis venialibus ; tamen probabilius est extendi ad omnia, cum sententia sit gene¬ ralis, et nihil sequatur absurdi, si generaliter exponatur. Praeterea distinctio peccati mor¬ talis et venialis nihil adversarios nostros Lu- theranos et Calvinistas juvat, qui omnia peccata mortalia esse contendunt. Quod autem Catharinus dicit, ab Augu¬ stino et Hieronymo hunc locum exponi de peccatoribus, qui dum in tenebris sunt, pec¬ cata sua videre non possunt : non infirmat argumentum nostrum. Loquuntur enim san¬ cti illi Patres de visione peccati, utili ad ea curanda, neque enim dicere volunt, pecca- (1) Job. IX, U, 28 ; ibid. XXXI, 14. - (2) Ps»l. XVIII, 13. CAPUT V, 237 tores non intelligere, homicidium, et adul¬ terium, et similia, quae ab illis committuntur, esse peccata; Sed indicare volunt, peccata non videri a peccatoribus, quia non cogitant peccatores quam magna sint illa mala, et quam graviter per ea ipsi laedantur, quod tamen cognoscere incipiunt, cum a Domino convertuntur, et ideo quasi tunc primum ea vidissent magno horrore concutiuntur, et de eorum curatione magno studio satagunt. Haec autem doctrina, qua? verissima est, nihil impedit, quo minus justissimi quique dicant : Ab occultis meis munda me , Domine : metuentes videlicet, ne forte hoc ipso pec¬ catores sint et excaecati, quod peccata non vident. Nam David sanctus erat, et tamen dicebat ; Ad occultis meis munda me , Domine : et ipse etiam S. Augustinus conc. 2. in hunc psalmum, pro se, et universo populo dicit : Ab occultis meis munda me, Domine. Sed jam ad Apostolum veniamus. In epist. priore ad Corinth. cap. lv. Nihil, inquit, mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc justificatus sum (1). Propositum Apostoli erat deterrere Corinthios a judiciis temerariis, quibus unus alium aut justum, aut peccatorem judicat. Ostendit autem judicium de nostra justitia Deo esse relinquendum, cum ne nos quidem ipsi nos plene cognoscamus : Mihi, inquit, pro minimo est, ut a vobis judicer, aut ab hu¬ mano die, id est, non magni facio aliena ju¬ dicia de me, quia non ignoro, quam sint incerta : sed neque me ipsum judico, id est, nec meo judicio fidere audeo , quoniam etiamsi nihil mihi conscius sim, tamen non in hoc justificatus sum, id est, non ideo justus sum, quia bonam conscientiam habeo. Fortasse enim Deus videt in conscientia mea id, quod ego ibi non video : Qui autem ju¬ dicat me, Dominus est, id est, solus Deus est verus judex, ille solus omnia novit, et tunc vere justum me putabo, cum Dominus me justum esse pronunciabit : Nolite itaque ante I tempus judicat'e, quousque veniat Dominus, qui revelabit abscondita tenebrarum, et mani¬ festabit consilia cordium, et tunc laus erit uni¬ cuique a Deo. Ad hoc testimonium alio atque alio modo respondent Lutherani et Catharinus. Lu- therus in assertione articuli decimiquarti, Calvinus lib. m. Institutionum, cap. 17. - §. 14. Petrus Martyr in commentario hujus loci, et Kemnitius in Examine Concilii di¬ cunt , Apostolum significare potuisse , se contra maledictos, et obtrectatores, inno¬ centiam suam testari, tamen coram Deo se non esse justum ex ulla virtute, aut qualitate, aut opere bono, sed ex sola Dei misericordia, quae propter Christum peccata credentibus non imputat. Haec expositio primum absurda esse con¬ vincitur, ex illis verbis : « Nihil mihi con¬ scius sum » ; NaiA vel significant illa verba ; Non agnosco in me ulla peccata, quasi re vera in me existentia, et inhaerentia ; vel significant ; Video mea peccata per miseri¬ cordiam Dei tecta, et ideo existimo, non es¬ se amplius mea, quamvis in me sint, et vi¬ vant : Si dixerint primum, falsum erit Apo¬ stolum non fuisse justum coram Deo, ex ulla virtute et qualitate. Quomodo enim non est justus ex interiori puritate et virtu- te, si re vera nullum in eo peccatum inhae¬ ret ? vel si vere peccata in illo inhaerebant, immo omnia ejus opera, juxta doctrinam Lutheranorum, erant peccata mortalia, fal¬ so dixit, Apostolus : Nihil mihi conscius sum, et contra potius dicere debuit : Multa mala mihi conscius sum, quoniam omnia mea opera sunt ex se peccata mortalia. Si dixe¬ rint secundum, falsum erit illud : Non in hoc justificatus sum. Nam si Beatus Paulus ni¬ hil sibi conscius erat, quia peccata non im¬ putari sibi, et per non imputationem recta esse credebat, certe per hoc ipsum justifi¬ cabatur ex sententia Lutheranorum. Quo¬ modo igitur opponit illud : Nihit mihi con¬ scius, illi, Sed non in hoc justificatus sum ? debuisset igitur dicere : Multa bona opera, et multas bonas qualitates, et virtutes me habere, mihi conscius sum, sed non pro¬ pter eas, sed propter solam Dei misericor¬ diam justificatus sum. Respondebunt fortasse, illud, Nihil mihi conscius sum, hunc habere sensum, non agnosco in me ulla ex illis criminibus, quae humano judicio damnari solent, tamen non ideo justificatus sum, quoniam illa ipsa ope¬ ra, quae videntur bona, in me peccata sunt. At haec responsio refellitur ex illis verbis : Sed neque me ipsum judico. Apostolus enim cum dicit : Nihil enim mihi conscius sum, non reddit causam, cur non timeat externa judicia, sed cur non audeat ipse se judicare. Sed neque, inquit, me ipsum judico, nihil enim mihi conscius sum, etc., non igitur loqui- (1)1 Car. IV, 4. 238 LIBER III. tui* de criminibus, quae externo judicio dam¬ nari solent, sed de peccatis, quse ipse ad suum internum tribunal adducere posset. Potuisset autem ipse se facile judicare, si vera esset sententia Lutheranorum, facile enim cognosceret opera sua per se esse ma¬ la, sed a Deo non imputari. Praeterea tota haec haereticorum expositio repugnat scopo, sive proposito Apostoli . Nam, ut ante diximus, cupiebat deterrere Corinthios a judicio temerario, et ideo ait : Nolite ante tempus judicare. Et : Mihi pro minimo est, ut a vobis judicer. Et : Neque me ipsum judico. Et : Qui judicat me , Dominus est. Ad hoc autem propositum nihil pertinet illa ratio, non justificor ex virtutibus, aut qualitatibus meis, sed ex Dei misericordia non imputante peccata : multum autem per¬ tinet illa : ita incerta sunt humana judicia, ut nemo possit etiam ipse se, nedum alios ju¬ dicare, quod attinet ad justitiam et peccata. Postremo, repugnat ista Lutheranorum. expositio, communi Patrum interpretationi, qui omnes ex hoc loco colligunt incertitudi- nem gratiae. Sanctus Ambrosius (vel quicumque est auctor commentariorum illorum) hunc lo¬ cum enarrans : « Humiliat, inquit, se, et lo- loquitur ut homo, qui possit peccatum in¬ currere nescius ». S. Joannes Chrysostomus in hunc eumdem locum : « Non Corinthios, inquit, tantum, sed seipsum quoque hoc privat judicio, quod cognitione sua majus testatur». Et infra : « Qua ratione, inquit, si res meas non satis exploratas habeo, aliena potero judi¬ care » ? Sanctus Hieronymus lib. n. adversus Pe- lagianos : « Qui hoc, inquit, dicebat, nullius utique peccati sibi conscius erat, sed quia legerat : Delicta quis intelligit, idcirco tem¬ perabat sententiam, ne forte per ignorantiam deliquisset » . Sanctus Augustinus in Psalm. xy. tractans illud : A byssus abyssum invocat (1), dicit om¬ nes Sanctos, quantumvis proficiant, adhuc esse abyssum, quoniam non se ipsi nove¬ runt, et adducit hunc locum Apostoli : a Quanta, inquit, abyssus sit, audite, tantam profunditatem credit esse in homine, quae lateat ipsum hominem, in quo est ; cum enim dixisset : Nihil mihi conscius sum, ad¬ jecit, sed non in hoc justificatus sum ». Sanctus Bernardus in epist. 42. ad Hen- ricum Senonensem Archiepiscopum : « Cum Apostolus, inquit , diceret : Mihi pro mi¬ nimo est, ut a vobis judicer, aut ab humano die, adjecit: Sed neque me ipsum judico. Quare? non possum, ait, ratam de me pro¬ ferre sententiam. Ego enim nihil mihi con¬ scius sum, non tamen in hoc justificatus sum. Non ex toto corde credo me vel ipsi con¬ scientiae meae; quippe cum ne ipsa quidem queat me comprehendere totum. Neque po¬ test judicare de toto, qui totum non audit. Qui autem judicat me, Dominus est; Domi¬ nus, inquit, cujus utique scientiam non fu¬ git, sententiam non subterfugit, etiam quod propriam latet conscientiam. Audit Deus in corde cogitantis, quod non audit vel ipse, qui cogitat » . Vide quae citamus cap. 7. et praeterea Theophylactum, sanctum Anselmum; san¬ ctum Thomam, et alios hujus loci interpre¬ tes, qui omnes in eamdem sententiam mani¬ feste conveniunt. Jam vero Ambrosius Catharinus in com¬ mentario hujus loci, ne sententiam suam de certitudine gratiae, ex tam aperto Apostol1 testimonio refutari posse concederet, ita hunc locum exponi voluit : Nihil mihi con¬ scius sum, id est, ego quidem scio me justum et innocentem esse, tamen non in hoc justifi¬ catus sum, hoc est, sed non propterea justus sum coram hominibus, qui justitiam meam internam videre non possunt; Qui autem ju¬ dicat me, Dominus est, id est, Deus ipse in extremo judicio, me justum esse coram aliis omnibus declarabit. Haec expositio primum refellitur, quia est nova et contraria Patribus paulo ante ci¬ tatis. Secundo, quia non bene cohaeret cum vex*- bis illis : Sed neque me ipsum judico. Hujus enim sententiae causam reddit cum ait : Nihil enim mihi conscius sum, eic. Quae est autem ista connexio : Ego me ipsum non ju¬ dico, quia scio me esse justum, sed non ideo justus sum apud homines? Tertio, quia repugnat scopo et proposito Apostoli, ut ostendimus. Quarto, quia Concilium Ti*identinum ses- sion. 6. cap. 16. hunc locum intelligendum esse docuit, juxta communem Patrum sen¬ tentiam, de cei*titudine gratiae : « Unusquis¬ que, inquit, sicut misericordiam et beni- (1) Psal. XLI, 8. CAPUT VI, 259 gnitatem, ita severitatem et judicium ante oculos habere debet, neque seipsum aliquis, etiamsi nihil sibi conscius fuerit, judicare, quoniam omnis hominum vita, non humano judicio examinanda et judicanda est, sed Dei, qui illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum, et manifestabit consilia cordium, et tunc laus erit unicuique a Deo » .