Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book III: On the Uncertainty, Mutability, and Inequality of Justice
Chapter 10: The arguments from the Fathers are solved
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).
From the Fathers Catharinus adduces many testimonies, and some too the heretics, Chemnitz and Calvin. The first is Dionysius the Areopagite, in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 7, near the end, who thus says: “He who is joined to the truth knows utterly how well it is with him, even if many rebuke him as one out of his mind.” I answer: Catharinus is deceived, thinking that Dionysius speaks of the certitude of one’s own justice, whereas he speaks of the certitude of the Christian religion, which at that time seemed folly to the Gentiles. And so the sentence of Dionysius is that pious Christians altogether know, and are certain, how good it is to live in the Christian religion, although on that account they be accused as fools by the wise men of the world. And he subjoins a little after that the holy martyrs daily gladly give testimony to this very truth, even with the peril of life. But certainly the holy Martyrs met death not for their own justification, but for the divinity of Christ. The second is St. Basil, who in the questions briefly explained, questions 42 and 296, asks: “How is the soul certified that God has forgiven it its sins?” And answers: “If it contemplate itself in the affection of him who said, I have hated and abhorred injustice.” I answer: Basil speaks of conjectural certitude, which is enough for the tranquillity of the soul. For otherwise no affection and hatred against sins can beget certitude of divine faith, unless God deign to reveal that that affection and hatred is pure and sincere, and proceeds from the true charity of God, not from the fear of punishment alone. The third is St. Gregory Nazianzen, whose testimony Chemnitz adduces from the oration on the plague of hail: “Who knoweth,” he says, “whether he will turn, and repent, and leave a blessing behind him? But this I manifestly know. I am surety of the divine clemency. For the wrath, which is beside his nature, he will remit, and to the mercy, which is according to his nature, he will turn.” I answer: very acute is Chemnitz, who sees arguments even where they are not. For what does this testimony make to the matter? Gregory affirms that he manifestly knows that God is clement, and denies indulgence to none truly penitent. And those prophetic words, “Who knoweth if he will turn,” etc., he contends to be not false, but expounds them, teaching that that doubt pertains not to God himself, as though he would not give pardon to the penitent. But nowhere does Gregory say that he manifestly knows that all who seem to do penance do it from the heart, nor does he offer himself as surety of our penance, which he could not perfectly know, but of the divine clemency, of which from the divine letters he was most certain. The fourth is St. John Chrysostom, whose words Catharinus brings forward from homily 14 on the epistle to the Romans: “But when the Spirit testifies, what ambiguity remains?” And below: “That supreme essence, which both bestows what it promises, and moreover bade us pray, giving testimony — who will thereafter dare to doubt of this dignity?” I answer: St. John Chrysostom explains the words of blessed Paul about the testimony which the Holy Spirit gives, while he effects in us that we cry, Abba, Father. From which testimony it is most certainly gathered that those who truly and from the heart say, Abba, Father, are the sons of God. For that word is from the Holy Spirit, who by no means can be deceived. But Chrysostom does not say that all who say, Abba, Father, say it from the heart and as they ought; and thereby Chrysostom does not affirm that all who say, Abba, Father, say this impelled by the Holy Spirit, and accordingly are the sons of God. And so the sentence of Chrysostom is conditioned, not absolute; general, not particular. The fifth is St. Cyril, book 10 on John, chapter 3, who thus says: “When Christ saw his words not rightly understood by the disciple, he repeats again what he had said, and clearly teaches that he would manifest himself to his friends not only by that common knowledge, but by a certain more excellent manner of splendor. For the ruder, called from the impious worship of idols to the knowledge of God, learn only through faith that one God, who created us, is to be worshiped. But those who by all virtue, purging their mind, have now been made fit for greater things, having received the illumination of the Spirit, shall see with the eyes of the soul God dwelling in them.” I answer: there is no difficulty in this. For St. Cyril seems to speak of the beatific knowledge which will be obtained after this life, as can be understood from chapters 1 and 2. And accordingly he distinguishes not the ruder from the more perfect — that is, some men from others in this life — but those same ruder men in this life from themselves more perfect in the other. Then, if he spoke of knowledge of this life only, we should say that he preaches not certitude of faith, but a greater knowledge than the common sort is wont to have.
But now, of the Latins, the first whom they adduce is St. Cyprian. Of which author Catharinus brings forward two places, Chemnitz one. The first place is in the book against Demetrian, where we thus read: “There is vigorous with us the strength of hope, and the firmness of faith, and among the very falling ruins of the world a mind erect, and an immovable virtue, and a soul ever secure about its God.” The second place is in the sermon On the Lord’s Supper, where Cyprian says that the faithful soul in the reception of the Eucharist is wonderfully affected, while it sees what God forgives, and what also he gives. And he adds: “Acknowledging itself given to and sanctified, it washes itself with weeping, and baptizes itself with tears.” The third place is in the book On Mortality, where these words are had: “What place here is there for anxiety and solicitude? Who among these is trembling and sad, save he to whom hope and faith are lacking? For it is his to fear death who is unwilling to pass to Christ. It is his to be unwilling to go to Christ who believes not that he begins to reign with Christ. For it is written, The just liveth by faith; if thou art just, and livest by faith, but if thou believest in God, why, being about to be with Christ, and secure of the Lord’s promise that thou art called to Christ, dost thou not embrace it?” Likewise in the same place: “God promises thee immortality when thou departest from the world, and dost thou doubt? This is not to know God at all; this is to offend Christ the Master of believers by the sin of unbelief; this is, being set in the Church, not to have faith in the house of faith.” I answer: the first testimony is altogether adduced in vain. For we confess that with all the pious there is vigorous the strength of hope, and the firmness of faith, and that the soul is ever secure about its God. But we deny that it thence follows that they are certain, with the certitude of faith, about their own justice; for that we may live secure about God, it is enough if we are certain that God is faithful in all his words, and deserts not his own, unless he be first deserted by them. The second testimony too teaches not a knowledge certain with the certitude of faith, but experimental and conjectural, which arises not from testimony — that is, from any word of God — but from a divinely infused joy and sweetness. The third testimony fights against those who doubt of the promises of God — that is, who do not firmly enough believe that everlasting joys are prepared for those that love God, and bear not such hope as is required, and therefore too anxiously fear and flee death. But we do not deny that there ought to be had a most certain faith, which utterly excludes doubt, about the divine promises, and a hope also such and so great as to beget the desire of dying — although that hope ought to be conjoined with fear, on account of the uncertainty of our disposition, that in this manner we may serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling. But that St. Cyprian reprehends the trembling born of unbelief is clear both from the words cited, and more clearly from the words interposed between the two testimonies alleged. For thus Cyprian speaks: “But this happens, most beloved brethren, because faith is lacking, because no one believes that the things which God promises will be. If a grave and laudable man promised thee something, thou wouldst indeed have faith in the one promising; now God speaks with thee, and dost thou, with an unbelieving mind, waver, perfidious?” But, Chemnitz will say, “this is what we say, that credence is to be given to the divine promise even in particular, as it pertains to us, and thereby that nothing is to be doubted about the remission of sins, or eternal salvation.” I answer: credence is to be given to the divine promise even in particular, as far as pertains to the truth of the one promising. And this St. Cyprian says, and proves by the similitude adduced of a grave and laudable man. But on the part of our disposition, without which we are not justified, fear can have place. For the promise of the remission of sins, and of salvation, is not absolute, as Chemnitz dreams, but conditioned, and depends on works, as St. Cyprian himself teaches in many places, and especially in sermon 5 On the Lapsed, where among other things he thus speaks: “Thinkest thou that the Lord can be quickly appeased? Thinkest thou that he easily has mercy on thee? One must pray more earnestly, and entreat; pass the day in mourning, spend the nights in vigils and tears; occupy all the time in tearful lamentations; lie prostrate on the ground clinging to ashes, wallow in sackcloth and filth,” etc. Therefore, since the same Chemnitz affirms that the Catholics teach the uncertainty of justification because they think that it depends on the condition of the works of penance, though they doubt not of the promises on the part of God, he will be altogether compelled, unless he would fight with himself, to grant that St. Cyprian did not teach that certitude of faith is to be had about the remission of sins absolutely, but only on the part of God, since the same Cyprian so openly teaches that justification depends on the condition of the works of penance.
The second of the Latins whom Chemnitz adduces is St. Hilary, whose words he cites from the commentary on chapter 5 of Matthew: “The kingdom of heaven, which the Lord professed to be placed in himself, he wills to be hoped for without any ambiguity of an uncertain will. Otherwise there is no justification from faith, if faith itself become ambiguous.” I answer: this testimony is most true, but pertains nothing to the matter proposed. For St. Hilary speaks not of the faith of one’s own justification, as though each one ought without ambiguity to believe that his sins are remitted him; but of the faith of the resurrection of bodies, which unless it be most certain, so as to exclude all doubt, hope too can be none. For how shall he be justified from faith who has not faith in the word of God attesting a future resurrection? Or how shall he attain the kingdom of God, who hopes not that it will come? But that St. Hilary speaks of dogmatic faith of the resurrection anyone will understand who will consult the place alleged. For he had said a little before that some, through delight of present things and despair of future, become negligent. And then in what follows he had explained that the despair of future things arises from this, that some cannot be brought to believe that the bodies of the dead will rise again. Thence afterward he subjoined that the kingdom of heaven is to be hoped for without ambiguity; and because hope arises from faith, he had added that there would be no justification if faith itself were ambiguous.
The third is St. Ambrose, of whom Catharinus brings forward two testimonies. One from book 5 On the Sacraments, chapter 2, where he says that the soul after Baptism received sees itself to be cleansed from sins. The other from sermon 5, where Ambrose thus speaks: “Whoever cleaves to that leaven of Christ is made himself also leaven, as useful to himself as fit for all, and certain of his own salvation, and secure about the acquisition of others.” I answer: in the former place Ambrose teaches that the soul sees itself to be cleansed, since it so persuades itself, both from the certain faith of the virtue of Baptism, and from the good hope which it bears of its own disposition. But in this Catharinus is deceived, that wherever he reads “to see, to know, to recognize,” and like words, he at once interprets them of the knowledge of divine faith, when yet those words can, and are wont to, be taken in many other ways. In the latter place he speaks of conditional, not absolute certitude, so that the sense is that he who cleaves to Christ is certain of his own salvation, and about the acquisition of others, if he truly cleave to Christ, and remain in him; in the manner in which the Apostle speaks when he writes to Timothy: In doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. But that Ambrose speaks not of absolute certitude is clear, since he says not only that a man will be certain of his own salvation, but also affirms that he will be secure about the acquisition of others. But not even Catharinus would say that a just man, by the certitude of divine faith, is absolutely secure about the acquisition of others.
The fourth is St. Jerome, whose testimony is brought from the commentary on chapter 6 to the Galatians. For Jerome, treating those words, You who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted, objects to himself: “I, the just man, who is certain of his own mind, who knows that he cannot fall, ought not to instruct a sinner in the spirit of meekness.” Jerome, then, admits that some are so perfect that they certainly know that they cannot fall. I answer: we do not deny that there are some who, from many victories against certain vices, have attained a probable height of perseverance. For those who have come to old age virgins — which example Jerome adduces — can not without reason be called certain and secure about their own continence. For it is not probable that they can be overcome in old age who in youth so gloriously overcame the petulance of the flesh. But this testimony nothing conflicts with our opinion, both because St. Jerome speaks of certitude in some certain kind of virtue, not absolutely of justification, and because he speaks not of certitude of faith, to which falsehood cannot underlie, but of conjectural and human certitude.
The fifth is St. Augustine, of whom Calvin brings forward one testimony, Chemnitz two, Catharinus many. The first place, then, is in the tract on Psalm 88: “This God said, this God promised; if it is little, this he swore. Since, then, the promise is firm not according to our works, but according to his mercy, no one ought with trembling to preach that of which he cannot doubt.” I answer: this argument is in appearance great, in the truth of the matter nothing. For St. Augustine speaks not of a word, or oath, of God, that this or that man is just, but that Christ will perpetually reign in the Church. For, explaining that little verse, I have sworn to David my servant, thy seed will I settle for ever, he says: “For ever Christ will reign in his saints; this God said, this God promised,” etc. And who will believe that St. Augustine would have said, “No one ought with trembling to preach,” if he spoke of the preaching of one’s own justice? Would not this have been to exhort men to boasting? Therefore of the perpetual kingdom of Christ, whose promise is absolute, and in no wise depending on our works, no one ought with trembling to preach, of which he cannot without perfidy doubt. The second place is in sermon 28 on the words of the Lord: “O man, thou durst not lift up thy face, thou didst turn thy eyes to the earth, and suddenly thou hast received the grace of Christ, all thy sins are forgiven thee. Of an evil servant thou art made a good son. Therefore presume not of thy working, but of the grace of Christ. It is not, then, arrogance, but faith, to preach what thou hast received; not pride, but devotion. Therefore lift up thy eyes to the Father, who begot thee through the laver, who redeemed thee through the Son, and say, Our Father.” I answer: all these we gladly embrace, assert, preach, nor can we see in what point they conflict with our opinion. For Augustine does not exhort the newly baptized to believe for certain that their sins are remitted them with that certitude by which they believe Christ to be God — that is, with the certitude of divine faith — but to trust that through Baptism they are justified and made sons of God, and therefore with confidence to lift up their eyes to the Father, and say, Our Father. For to beget this confidence there abundantly suffices the faith by which we most certainly believe that through Baptism rightly conferred and received all sins are blotted out, and the grace of justification is infused, and moreover a good conscience which reprehends not our heart of an obstacle placed to the divine grace — that is, of any affection toward sin. And so we ourselves, who contend that anyone can, without a special revelation, certainly know, by the certitude of faith, that his sins are remitted him, yet when we have received the sacraments, and our heart reprehends us not, with great confidence and security say, Our Father. The third place is in tractate 22 on John: “It behooves us all to appear before the tribunal of Christ; and dost thou dare to promise thyself that thou wilt not come into judgment? God forbid, thou sayest, that I should dare to promise this to myself; but I believe the one promising. The Saviour speaks, the Truth promises; he himself said to me, He that heareth my words, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and cometh not into judgment. I have heard the words of my Lord, I have believed. Being now an unbeliever, I have been made a believer, as he admonished; I have passed from death to life; I come not into judgment — not by my presumption, but by his promise.” I answer: from the promise of Christ each one can, as St. Augustine rightly teaches, gather that he has passed from death to life, and will not come into judgment. But the question is, with what certitude he can gather this — for this Augustine does not explain. But we say that he can gather it with an infallible and plainly divine certitude, if the fidelity of the one promising be attended to; but if his own disposition be considered, we give him no greater certitude than conjectural. Since the promise of Christ is not absolute, but conditional. For Christ said not absolutely, “Thou wilt not come into judgment,” or “He will not come into judgment,” but, “He that heareth my words, and believeth him that sent me, shall not come into judgment.” But whether I have heard his words as I ought, and believed, he himself has not told me, but I must believe my own experience, which can be fallacious.
The fourth place is on Psalm 149: “There is, then, a manner of glorying in conscience, that thou know thy faith to be sincere, that thou know thy hope to be certain, that thou know thy charity to be without dissimulation.” I answer: St. Augustine speaks of human and conjectural knowledge, which suffices for the glory of conscience of which the Apostle says, 2 Corinthians 1, Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience. For in the same place Augustine admonishes that with this knowledge and glory a hidden sin can consist, and therefore it is written, Proverbs 20, Who can glory that he is clean from sin? “But since,” he says, “there are still many things which can perhaps offend the eyes of God, praise him who gave thee these; then he will perfect what he gave” — that is, praise him that thou knowest thou hast not done and hast not many sins, and he will grant also that they be taken away, if thou have any hidden ones. The fifth place is in sermon 6 on the words of the Apostle, near the end: “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Behold, by the help of his mercy we have the Spirit of Christ; from the very delight of justice, by entire faith, by Catholic faith, we know the Spirit of God to be in us.” I answer: this place, which Catharinus made so much of as to say that by it the mouths of all the adversaries are plainly stopped, I say concludes nothing at all, if the ambiguity of the sentence be taken away from the midst. For that, “by Catholic faith,” ought not to be referred to the manner of knowing, but to the sign and conjecture. For St. Augustine did not signify that by Catholic faith we know the Spirit of God to be in us, as though the Spirit of God’s being in us were an object of Catholic faith; but he says that from the Catholic faith which we experience ourselves to have, as from a certain sign, we can gather that the Spirit of God is in us. And that this is the mind of St. Augustine we evidently prove from this, that the same Augustine joins with the Catholic faith the delight of justice, saying: “From the very delight of justice, by entire faith, by Catholic faith, we know the Spirit of God to be in us.” For either the particle “from” is referred also to the Catholic faith, or it is not. If it is referred, then this will be the sense: from the delight of justice, and from the Catholic faith, as from two signs, we know the Spirit of God to be in us. If it is not referred, this will be the sense: from the delight of justice, as from a certain sign, we know, by Catholic faith, the Spirit of God to be in us. But this sense is most absurd, and involves a repugnance; for how do we know by Catholic faith, if we know from the delight of justice? For Catholic faith ought to rest on divine revelation, not on our delight. And so it is the same as if one said that he concludes some sentence by a most certain demonstration from a topical argument. The former sense, then, which is the true one, ought to be attributed to Augustine. Add that, since the Council of Trent, by Catharinus’ own witness too, defines that certitude of Catholic faith cannot be had about one’s own justice, if Augustine said the contrary, as Catharinus now seems to will, the Council would fight with Augustine, and Catharinus with the Council. Which if Catharinus dare not grant, let him not say that by that testimony too the mouths of those who think the contrary are stopped. The sixth place is in tractate 75 on John: “Then shall it be that we can see what we believe. For now he is in us, and we in him. But this we now believe; then we shall also know.” “Therefore,” says Catharinus, “now with the certitude of faith we are certain that Christ is in us, and we in him.” I answer: it is so; but that Christ is in us, and we in him, does not signify that in me, or in thee in particular, Christ is present through justifying grace, but signifies that Christ is in the Church, as the head in the body, and the Church is in Christ, as the body in the head. The seventh place is in book 13 On the Trinity, chapter 1: “Each one sees faith itself to be in his heart, if he believes, or not to be, if he believes not.” And book 8, chapter 8: “He that loves his brother knows more the love by which he loves than the brother whom he loves.” I answer: St. Augustine speaks of the action of believing and loving. For we are most certain that we believe and love, when we believe and love; but whether those acts be such as they ought, and whether they proceed from a habit, cannot be known without revelation. The eighth place is in tractate 5 on the epistle of John: “Let no one question a man; let him return to his own heart; if he find charity there, he can with reason be secure.” But although each one can see in his heart the act of love, yet (as I said) he cannot certainly know whether that act be of true charity or not. And accordingly he will indeed be able to be secure, since for this moral certitude suffices; yet he will not be certain with the certitude of faith, to which falsehood can by no means underlie.
The ninth place is in the book On the Medicine of Penance, chapter 2: “Forgive us our debts — we say it not for those sins which we believe remitted in Baptism, unless we doubt of that very faith.” I answer: that “we believe” is set for that which is “we think, judge, deem.” Whence in book 2 against Cresconius, chapter 28, the same Augustine, repeating the same sentence, used the word “we trust”: “Forgive us our debts — we say it not for those debts which we trust to have been once remitted in Baptism.” But that, “unless we doubt of that very faith,” is therefore set, since if anyone doubt whether in Baptism all sins are blotted out, he will be judged to doubt of the very faith of Baptism — not because it cannot be that, either through defect of the intention of the minister, or through the indisposition of the receiver, the sins be not blotted out, but because for the most part there is no rational cause of doubting about the intention or disposition, as regards Baptism rightly ministered and received; and therefore if anyone doubt of the very efficacy of Baptism — that is, of the Catholic faith — he will seem to doubt. Thou wilt say: therefore such certitude ought to be had about the remission of sins in Baptism as to exclude utterly all doubt. I answer: it is so, if by doubt thou understand that disposition of mind by which one dares to assent to neither part; for they properly are in doubt who so waver as to dare to decide nothing. But if by doubt thou understand the fear which we sometimes have about the contrary part, even though we assent to one part, I deny that such certitude ought to be had as to exclude utterly doubt — that is, fear. But St. Augustine says that they doubt of the faith who say, “Forgive us our debts,” for those sins which they ought to trust to have been remitted in Baptism, since those who pray for those sins seem to be in doubt in the former manner, and thereby anxious and wavering — which wavering is not presumed to arise save from a defect of faith about the efficacy of the sacrament, as has been said. The tenth place is in the tract on Psalm 85: “Let each of the faithful say, I am holy; it is not so the pride of one puffed up, but the confession of one not ungrateful.” I answer: let each of the faithful, who is conscious to himself of nothing, say from good hope, “I am holy.” For from divine faith he cannot say this, unless God have revealed this very thing to him. Otherwise the faith could be false, since it can easily be that some believe themselves to be holy, and are not.
The sixth is St. Leo, in sermon 2 on the feast of Easter: “Let the minds of the faithful discuss themselves, and by a true examination judge the inmost affections of their heart, that, if they find laid up in their consciences anything of the fruits of charity, they doubt not that God is in them.” And he has the same in sermon 8 on the Epiphany. I answer: the same is the sentence of St. Leo as of St. Augustine in tractate 5 on the epistle of John, of which place we spoke a little before. The seventh is St. Gregory, in book 1 of the Dialogues, chapter 1: “The mind which is filled with the Holy Spirit has its most evident signs — namely, virtues and humility; which two, if they meet perfectly in one mind, it is clear that they bear testimony of the presence of the Holy Spirit.” I answer: St. Gregory speaks of the evidence of signs, which, however great it be, is yet always the evidence of a sign — that is, conjectural; and thereby effects a conjectural certitude, not of divine faith. Then, St. Gregory seems to speak not of the knowledge which each one has of himself, but rather which he has of others, in whom he sees humility conjoined with the highest virtues. The eighth is St. Anselm, in the commentary on chapter 8 to the Romans: “By this, that the Holy Spirit infuses charity into us, since he makes us imitators of the divine goodness, so that we love enemies, he declares by an evident testimony to our mind that we are the sons of God.” I answer: he speaks of the evidence of signs, as we said a little before; for the greatest sign of all of the grace of God is love, and especially of enemies.
The ninth is St. Bernard, whom for their opinion all adduce — Luther, Calvin, Philip, Bucer, Chemnitz; and of the Catholics, Catharinus. He, then, in sermon 1 On the Lord’s Annunciation, has these words: “If thou believest that thy sins cannot be blotted out save by him against whom alone thou hast sinned, and into whom sin falls not, thou dost well; but add still that thou believe that through him thy sins are forgiven thee. This is the testimony which the Holy Spirit gives in our heart, saying: Thy sins are forgiven thee. For so the Apostle judges, that a man is justified freely through faith.” I answer: St. Bernard in that sermon proposes to explain those words of the psalm, That glory may dwell in our land. And at once in the very beginning he says that this glory is that of which the Apostle speaks, 2 Corinthians 1, Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience. Then he teaches that this testimony of conscience is the testimony which the Holy Spirit gives in our heart, not the testimony which we ourselves give of ourselves. And he adds that there is a triple testimony — of the remission of sins, of the merits of eternal life, of election unto glory. But that one may have this triple testimony, and be able to say, “Our glory is this,” etc., they show that three things are necessary. The first is, that one believe that the remission of sins, nor merits, nor eternal life, can be had save through the grace of God. And of this first there is no question, for it is certain that this must be believed by Catholic faith. The second is, that one believe that through Christ sins are forgiven him, merits given, and everlasting life prepared. Of this second there is a question, in what manner it ought to be understood. Some of the Catholics say that St. Bernard speaks not of Catholic faith, but of the faith which can be had from conjectures and signs, so that the sense is that a man ought to persuade himself, and to trust, that his sins are remitted him, yet not to believe this for certain with the certitude of divine faith. But this response seems not solid. Both because St. Bernard uses the same word “believe” when he says that it must be believed that sins cannot be blotted out save through grace, and when he says that it must be believed that through Christ sins are remitted; and in the former sentence without doubt he speaks of Catholic faith, not of persuasion from signs, nor is it credible that within two lines he would use equivocation. And because he at once subjoins, of this faith by which we believe that through Christ sins are remitted us, “For so the Apostle judges, that a man is justified freely through faith.” But certainly we are justified not through that persuasion from signs, but through true and Catholic faith. I say, then, that St. Bernard speaks of the Catholic faith by which we believe that God wills to remit our sins, and in fact on his part remits them, provided the condition be fulfilled of which we shall speak a little after; but not of the faith by which absolutely, and without respect to disposition, we believe our sins to be remitted us, as the heretics dream. And this I prove. First, since St. Bernard, as he says that it must be believed that our sins are remitted us, so also says in the same place that it must be believed that merits are given us, and eternal life prepared; but the same Bernard, in epistle 107, and in sermon 1 on Septuagesima, and elsewhere, in express words says that of attaining eternal life we have hope, not security. Then, the same Bernard, wishing to prove that we ought to believe that sins are remitted us through Christ, merits given, and eternal life prepared, says that most valid arguments are the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. But these arguments are truly most valid to prove that God wills to remit sins, and on his part in fact remits them, and gives merits, and prepares eternal life. For Christ died not, rose again, and ascended, to show that without his grace sins cannot be blotted out, merits had, and eternal life; but to show that he wills to bestow all these things, and on his part in fact now bestows them. But these arguments do not prove that to us in particular, without any disposition on our part, sins are remitted, merits given, and eternal life. For if it were so, all men would be justified and saved, since for all Christ died and rose again. Third, the same Bernard a little after (as we shall soon say) openly teaches that many conditions are required on our part that we be justified and saved; therefore he does not teach that it must be believed absolutely that our sins are remitted us, merits given, and eternal life. Add, lastly, that since Bernard had before spoken of the power of God, when he said that it is necessary to believe that sins cannot be blotted out, merits had, and eternal life, save through the grace of God, he adds in right order, in the second place, that it must be believed that God wills to blot out sins, give merits, and eternal life, that we may have first the testimony of power, secondly the testimony of will. And this concerning the second. The third thing which St. Bernard shows to be necessary is that there be applied to us in particular the remission of sins, and merits be given, and the hope of eternal life be conferred, that we may have not only the testimony of power and of will, but also of execution. And in this third Bernard says not that it must be believed, but rather that it must be experienced, whether we have the conditions which are required. “So, then” (he says, speaking of the application in particular), “this glory dwells even here in our land, if mercy and truth meet each other, and justice and peace kiss each other. For it is necessary that the truth of our conversion meet the preventing mercy, and that for the rest we follow after holiness and peace, without which no one shall see God. For when one is compunct, then mercy prevents him, but will by no means enter until the truth of confession meet it. And this indeed, that thou mayest decline from evil. But now, that thou mayest do good, thou must sing to the timbrel and choir, that the very mortification of thy flesh, and the fruit of penance, and the works of justice, be done in unity and concord.” And below: “Surely whoever he is in whom mercy and truth have met each other, justice and peace have kissed each other, let him securely glory, but in him who gives testimony to himself, in the Spirit indeed of truth.” Thus he. You see, then, that St. Bernard teaches not that it must be believed absolutely, without respect to works, that our sins are remitted us; but that he requires the condition of conversion, of confession, the fruit of penance and like works, from which, as from certain signs, is begotten a persuasion and security of grace, yet not the certitude of Catholic or divine faith. This place I wished to explain more fully, since from the words of this sermon ill understood took its origin that pernicious heresy of special faith, which infected a great part of the North.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Solvuntur argumenta ex Patribus. Ex Patribus multa testimonia Catharinus adducit, quaedam etiam haeretici, et Kemni- tius, et Calvinus. Primus est Dionysius Areopagita, in libro de divinis nominibus, cap. 7. prope finem, qui sic ait : « Novit penitus is, qui veritati conjunctus est, quam bene se habeat, etiam si plures illum corripiant, quasi amentem » . Respondeo : Fallitur Catharinus , existi¬ mans, loqui Dionysium de certitudine pro¬ priae justitiae, cum ipse loquatur de certitu¬ dine Christianae religionis, quae stultitia eo tempore Gentilibus esse videbatur. Itaque sententia Dionysii est, pios Christianos om¬ nino scire, et certos esse, quam bonum sit in Christiana religione vivere, quamvis pro- pterea, ut stulti a mundi sapientibus arguan¬ tur. Et subjungit paulo post, sanctos marty¬ res huic ipsi veritati quotidie libenter etiam cum vitae periculo testimonium dare. Certe autem sancti Martyres non pro sua justifi¬ catione^ sed pro Christi divinitate mortem oppetebant. Secundus est S. Basilius, qui in quaestioni¬ bus breviter explicatis, quaesi. 42. et 296. (I)Joan. 111, 14; ibid. IV, 15; ibid. V, 19; ibid. 10. — (2) IJ Pet 1, tO. — (3) Eph 1,4. CAPUT X. 2tf9 quaerit : «Quomodo certificatur anima, quod Deus dimiserit ei peccata »? Et respondet : « Si contemplabitur ipsum in affectu ejus, qui dixit, injustitiam odio habui, et abomi¬ natus sum ') . Respondeo : Loquitur Basilius de certitu¬ dine conjecturali, quae satis est ad animae tranquillitatem. Alioqui enim certitudinem fidei divinae non potest gignere quivis affe¬ ctus, et odium contra peccata, nisi Deus re¬ velare dignetur, affectum illum et odium esse purum et sincerum, atque ex vera Dei cha- ritate, non ex solo poenae timore procedere. Tertius est sanctus Grego rius Nazianzenus, cujus testimonium adducit Kemnitius ex ora¬ tione de plaga grandinis: « Quis scit, inquit, numquid convertatur, et pceniteat, et relin¬ quat post se benedictionem? Atqui manifeste hoc scio. Ego divinae clementiae sum fidejus¬ sor. Nam iram, quae praeter naturam ipsius est, remittet, et ad misericordiam, quae se¬ cundum naturam ejus est, convertetur. » Respondeo : Valde acutus est Kemnitius, qui videt argumenta etiam ubi non sunt. Quid enim hoc testimonium facit ad rem ? affirmat vero Gregorius, se manifeste scire, Deum esse clementem, et nullis A ere pceni- tentibus indulgentiam denegare. Et verba illa prophetica : Quis scit si convertatur etc ., non falsa esse contendit, sed exponit, docens, dubitationem illam non pertinere ad ipsum Deum, quasi is non velit poenitentibus ve¬ niam dare. Nusquam autem Gregorius dicit, se manifeste scire, omnes qui videntur poeni¬ tentiam agere, ex animo illam agere, neque se fidejussorem nostrae poenitentiae, quam perfecte scire nqn poterat, sed divinae cle¬ mentiae, cujus ex divinis litteris certissimus erat, offerre non dubitat. Quartus est S. Joannes Chrysostomus, cu¬ jus illa verba Catharinus profert ex homil. 14. in epist. ad Roman. « Quando vero spi¬ ritus testatur, quaenam relinquitur ambigui¬ tas? » Et infra: «Suprema illa essentia, quae et hoc ipsum largitur, quod promittit, atque adeo orare etiam jussit, testimonium perhi¬ bente, quisnam de dignitate hac deinceps dubitare audebit ? » Respondeo : S. Joannes Chrysostomus ex¬ plicat verba B. Pauli de testimonio, quod Spiritus sanctus perhibet, dum efficit in no¬ bis, ut clamemus «Abba Pater.). Ex quo testimonio certissime colligitur, eos qui vere, et ex corde dicunt, «Abba Pater», esse filios Dei. Nam ista vox est a Spiritu sancto, qui nulla ratione falli potest. At non dicit Chry¬ sostomus, omnes qui dicunt, « Abba Pater, » ex corde, et sicut oportet, illud dicere ; ac per hoc non affirmat Chrysostomus omnes qui dicunt, « Abba Pater », hoc dicere, im¬ pulsos a Spiritu sancto, et proinde esse filios Dei. Itaque Chrysostomi sententia conditio- nata est, non absoluta ; generalis, non par¬ ticularis. Quintus est S. Cyrillus lib. x. in Joan. cap. m. qui sic ait : « Cum non recte a discipulo verba sua intellecta Christus videret, repetit rursus quod dixit, dilucideque docet, non solum cognitione ista communi, amicis se suis manifestaturum, sed excellentiori quo¬ dam fulgoris modo. Nam rudiores ab impio idolorum cultu ad cognitionem Dei vocati, solummodo per fidem discunt, quod unus Deus, qui nos creavit, colendus est. Qui vero omni virtute mentem suam purgando apti jam ad majora facti sunt, Spiritus illumina¬ tione recepta, oculis animi habitantem in se Deum videbunt. » Respondeo : Nulla est in hoc difficultas. Nam loqui videtur S. Cyrillus de notitia bea¬ ta,. quae obtinebitur post hanc vitam, ut ex cap. 1. et 2. intelligi potest. Proinde non dis¬ tinguit rudiores a perfectioribus, id est, alios ab aliis in hac vita ; sed eosdem ipsos rudiores in hac vita a se ipsis perfectioribus in alia. Deinde, si loqueretur de notitia solius hujus vitae, diceremus, eum non praedicare certi¬ tudinem fidei, sed notitiam majorem, quam vulgus habere consueverit. Jam vei’o ex Latinis primus, quem addu¬ cunt, sanctus Cyprianus est. Cujus auctoris duo loca profert Catharinus, unum Kemni¬ tius. Primus locus est in libro adversus De- metrianum, ubi sic legimus : « Yiget apud nos spei robur, et firmitas fidei, et inter ip¬ sas saeculi labentes ruinas erecta mens, et immobilis virtus, et de Deo suo semper ani¬ ma secura » . Secundus locus est in sermone de coena Domini, ubi Cyprianus dicit animam fide¬ lem in perceptione Eucharistiae mirabiliter affici, dum videt, quod Deus condonet, et quid etiam donet. Et addit : « se donatam et sanctificatam agnoscens, fletibus se abluit, et lacryniis se baptizat » . Tertius locus est in lib. de mortalitate, ubi haec habentur verba : « Quis hic anxietatis, et sollicitudinis locus est ? quis inter haec trepidus, et moestus est, nisi cui spes et fides deest ? ejus enim est mortem timere, qui ad 270 LIBER III. Christum transire nolit. Ejus est ad Chri¬ stum nolle ire, qui se non credit cum Christo incipere regnare. Scriptum est enim : Justus ex fide vivit; si justus es, et fide vivis; sivero in Deum credis, cur non cum Christo futu¬ rus, et de Demini pollicitatione securus, quod ad Christum voceris, amplecteris?» Item ibi¬ dem : « Deus tibi de mundo recedenti im¬ mortalitatem pollicetur, et tu dubitas ? hoc est, Deum omnino non nosse, hoc est, Chri¬ stum credentium Magistrum peccato incre¬ dulitatis offendere, hoc est, in Ecclesia con¬ stitutum, fidem in domo fidei non habere ». Respondeo : primum testimonium omnino gratis adducitur. Fatemur enim apud omnes pios vigere spei robur, et fidei firmitatem, et animam de Deo suo semperesse securam. Sed negamus, inde sequi, ut certi sint certi¬ tudine fidei-, de sua justitia ; ut enim securi de Deo vivamus, satis est, si certi simus, Deum fidelem esse in omnibus verbis suis et non deserere suos, nisi prius ipse deseratur ab illis. Alterum quoque testimonium non docet agnitionem certam certitudine fidei, sed ex- perimentalem, et conjecturalem, quae non ex testimonio, id est, ex verbo aliquo Dei, sed ex infusa divinitus laetitia, et suavitate ori¬ tur. Tertium testimonium pugnat adversus eos, qui de promissionibus Dei dubitant, id est, qui non satis firmiter credunt, parata esse gaudia sempiterna diligentibus Deum , et spem talem non gerunt, qualis requiritur, et ideo nimis anxie mortem timent, et fugiunt. Nos autem non negamus, oportere fidem cer¬ tissimam, quae dubitationem prorsus exclu¬ dat, haberi de divinis promissionibus, et spem etiam talem, ac tantam, quae deside¬ rium moriendi pariat, quamvis ea spes cum timore conjuncta esse debeat propter incer- titudinem dispositionis nostrae, ut hoc modo serviamus Domino in timore, et exultemus ei cum tremore. Reprehendi autem a S. Cypriano trepida¬ tionem natam ex incredulitate, perspicuum est tum ex verbis citatis, tum etiam clarius ex verbis interjectis inter duo testimonia alle¬ gata. Sic enim loquitur Cyprianus : « Hoc autem fit, fratres dilectissimi, quia fides de- est, quia nemo credit futura esse, quae pro¬ mittit Deus. Si tibi vir gravis, et laudabilis aliquid polliceretur, haberes utique pollicenti fidem ; nunc Deus tecum loquitur, et tu mente incredula perfidus fluctuas ? » At inquiet Kemnitius, « hoc est, quod nos dicimus, divinae promissioni fidem esse ha¬ bendam etiam in particulari, ut ad nos per¬ tinet, et per hoc nihil esse dubitandum de remissione peccatorum, vel aeterna salute. Respondeo: Divinae promissioni etiam in par¬ ticulari fides habenda est, quantum pertinet ad veritatem promittentis. Et hoc dicit S. Cyprianus et probat similitudine allata gra¬ vis alicujus et laudabilis viri. Caeterum ex parte dispositionis nostrae, si¬ ne qua non justificamur, potest locum ha¬ bere formido. Promissio enim remissionis peccatorum, et salutis, non est absoluta, ut Kemnitius somniat, sed conditionata, et ab operibus pendet, ut sanctus ipse Cyprianus multis in locis docet, ac praesertim in ser. 5. de lapsis, ubi inter alia sic loquitur : « Pu¬ tas, inquit, tu Dominum cito posse placari ? putas eum facile misereri tui ? orare oportet impensius, et rogare; diem luctu transigere, vigiliis noctes, et fletibus ducere ; tempus omne lacrymosis lamentationibus occupa¬ re ; stratos solo adhaerere cineri, in cilicio, et sordibus volutari etc. » Ergo cum ipse idem Kemnitius affirmet, Catholicos ideo docere incertitudinem justifi¬ cationis, quia existimant, eam pendere a conditione operum poenitentiae : quamvis non dubitent de promissionibus ex parte Dei; cogetur omnino, nisi secum pugnare velit, Goncedere S. Cyprianum non docuisse certi¬ tudinem fidei habendam de remissione pec¬ catorum absolute, sed tantum ex parte Dei, cum tam aperte idem Cyprianus doceat, ju¬ stificationem ab operum poenitentiae condi¬ tione pendere. Secundus ex Latinis, quem adducit Kem¬ nitius, est S. Hilarius, cujus haec verba ci¬ tat ex comment. in cap v. Matth. « Regnum coelorum, quod Dominus in se esse positum est professus, vult sine aliqua incertae volun¬ tatis ambiguitate sperari. Alioqui justificatio ex fide nulla est, si fides ipsa fiat ambigua ». Respondeo : hoc testimonium verissimum est, sed ad rem propositam nihil pertinet. Non enim loquitur S. Hilarius de fide propriae justificationis, quasi unusquisque sine ambi¬ guitate credere debeat, sibi remissa esse pec¬ cata ; sed de fide resurrectionis corporum, quae nisi certissima sit, ita ut omnem dubita¬ tionem excludat, spes quoque nulla esse po¬ terit. Quomodo autem justificabitur ex fide, qui fidem verbo Dei resurrectionem futuram protestanti non habet ? aut quomodo regnum CAPUT X. 271 Dei consequetur, qui illud venturum esse non sperat? Loqui vero sanctum Hilarium de fide dog¬ matica resui'rectionis , intelliget quicumque locum illum allegatum consulere voluerit. Dixerat enim paulo ante, quosdam ob prae¬ sentium delectionem, et futurorum despera¬ tionem fieri negligentes. Ac deinde in se¬ quentibus explicaverat, desperationem futu¬ rorum inde nasci, quod nonnulli adduci non possunt, ut credant, corpora mortuorum esse resurrectura. Inde postea subjunxit, regnum coelorum sine ambiguitate .sperandum, et quia spes oritur ex fide, addiderat, justifica¬ tionem nullam futuram, si fides ipsa sit am¬ bigua. \ Tertius est S. Ambrosius, cujus duo testi¬ monia profert Catharinus. Unum ex lib. v. de Sacramentis, cap. 2. ubi dicit animam post Baptismum susceptum, videre se a pec¬ catis esse mundatam. Alterum ex serm. 5, ubi sic loquitur Ambrosius : « Quisquis illi fermento Christi adhaerescit, efficitur et ipse fermentum, tam sibi utilis, quam idoneus universis, et de sua certus salute, et de alio¬ rum acquisitione securus » . Respondeo : in priore loco docet Ambro¬ sius, animam videre se ipsam esse munda¬ tam, qnoniam ita sibi persuadet, tum ex certa fide virtutis Baptismi, tum ex bona spe : quam de sua dispositione gerit. In eo vero fallitur Catharinus quod ubicumque legit, « videre, scire, cognoscere », et similia verba, conti¬ nuo interpretatur de notitia fidei divinae : cum tamen ea verba multis aliis modis ac¬ cipi queant, et soleant. In postoriore loco loquitur de certitudine conditionali, non absoluta, ut sensus sit, eum qui adhaeret Christo, certum esse de sua sa¬ lute, et de aliorum acquisitione, si Christo vere adhaereat, et in illo permaneat : quo¬ modo loquitur Apostolus cum Timotheo scri¬ bit : Haec faciens, et te ipsum salvum facies , et eos qui te audiunt (1). Non loqui autem Ambrosium de certitudine absoluta, perspi¬ cuum est, quia non solum dicit, hominem fo¬ re certum de sua salute, sed etiam affirmat, eum fore securum de aliorum acquisitione. At ne Catharinus quidem dixerit, hominem justum certitudine fidei divinae, absolute es¬ se de aliorum acquisitione securum. Quartus est S. Hieronymus, cujus testimo¬ nium adfertur ex comment. ad cap. vi. ad Galat. tractans enim Hieronymus illa verba : Vos qui spirituales estis, hujusmodi instruite in spiritu lenitatis, considerans te ipsum ne et tu tenteris.(2 ) ; objicit ipse sibi: « Ego justus, . qui de sua certus est mente, qui scit se non posse labi, non debet instruere peccatorem in spiritu lenitatis ». Admittit igitur Hiero¬ nymus, aliquos esse ita perfectos, ut certo sciant, se non posse labi. Respondeo : non negamus esse quosdam, qui ex multis victoriis contra aliqua vitia probabilem celsitudinem perseverantiae sint adepti. Nam qui ad senectutem virgines pei‘- venerunt, quod exemplum Hieronymus, ad- feit, non ixnmerito certi, ac securi dici pos¬ sunt de sua continentia. Non enim probabile est, vinci posse in senectute qui in adole¬ scentia carnis petulentiam adeo gloriose vi¬ cerunt. Nihil autem pugnat hoc testimonium con¬ tra sententiam nostram , tum quia sanctus Hieronymus loquitur de certitudine in aliquo certo genere virtutis, non absolute de justi¬ ficatione ; tum quia non loquitur de certitu¬ dine fidei, cui falsum subesse non potest, sed de certitudine conjecturali, atque humana. Quintus est sanctus Augustinus, cujus u- num testimonium profert Calvinus, duo Kem- nitius, multa Catharinus. Primus igitur locus est in tractatu super Psalm. lxxxviii. « Hoc dixit Deus, hoc pro¬ misit Deus, si parum est, hoc juravit. Quia ei’go non secundum opera nostra, sed secun¬ dum illius misericordiam firma est promis¬ sio, nemo debet cum trepidatione praedicai'e, de quo non potest dubitax-e ». Respondeo : est argumentum hoc in spe¬ cie magnum, in rei veritate nullum. Nam non loquitur S. Augustinus de verbo, aut jura¬ mento Dei, quod iste, aut ille sit justus, sed quod Chi’istus sit perpetuo regnaturus in Ec¬ clesia. Explicans enim versiculum illum : juravi David servo meo , usque in aeternum prae¬ parabo semen tuum; ait : « In eeternum reg¬ nabit Christus in sanctis suis, hoc dixit Deus, hoc promisit, Deus etc » . Et quis credent san¬ ctum Augustinum dicturum fuisse, Nemo de¬ bet cum trepidatione praedicare, si de prae¬ dicatione pi'opi’iae justitiae loqueretur? an non fuisset hoc ad jactantiam homines exhortari? igitur de regno Christi perpetuo cujus abso¬ luta est promissio nec ullo modo pendens ab operibus nostris, nemo debet cum trepida- (!) I Tim, IV, Hi. - (2) Gal. V), 1. 272 LIBER III. } tione praedicare, de quo non potest sine per¬ fidia dubitare. Secundus locus est in serm. 2S. de verbis Domini : « 0 homo, faciem tuam non aude¬ bas attollere, oculos tuos in terram dirige¬ bas, et subito accepisti gratiam Christi, om¬ nia tibi peccata dimissa sunt. Ex malo servo factus es bonus filius. Ideo praesume non de operatione tua, sed de gratia Christi. Non ergo arrogantia est, sed fides, praedicare quod accepisti, non superbia, sed devotio. Ergo attolle oculos ad Patrem, qui te per lava¬ crum genuit, qui te per Filium redemit, et dic, Pater noster. » Respondeo : llaec omnia libenter ample¬ ctimur, asserimus, praedicamus, nec videre possumus, qua in re sententiae nostrae repug¬ nent. Non enim hortatur Augustinus recens baptizatos, ut certo credant, sibi remissa esse peccata ea certitudine , qua credunt Christum esse Deum ; id est, certitudine fi¬ dei divinae, sed ut confidant, se per Bapti¬ smum justificatos, et filios Dei effectos, et ideo cum fiducia oculos ad Patrem attollant et dicant : « Pater noster ». Ad hanc enim fiduciam gignendam abunde sufficit fides qua certissime credimus per Baptismum rite collatum, et susceptum omnia peccata deleri, et gratiam justificationis infundi, et praeter¬ ea bona conscientia, quae non reprehendat cor nostrum de obice divinae gratiae posito, id est, de affectu aliquo ei’ga peccatum. Ita¬ que nos ipsi, qui contendimus, nos posse quemquam sine peculiari revelatione, certo scire, certitudine fidei, sibi remissa esse pec¬ cata , tamen quando sacramenta percepi¬ mus, et cor nostrum non reprehendit nos, magna cum fiducia, et securitate dicimus, < Pater noster » . Tertius locus est in tractatu 22 super «I )annem : « Oportet omnes nos exhibeiu ante t' ibunal Christi, et tu tibi audes promittere, quod in judicium non venies ? Absit, inquis, ut hoc ego mihi promittere audeam : sed credo promittenti. Salvator loquitur, veritas pollicetur, ipse dixit mihi, Qui audit verba mea, et credit ei, qui me misit, habet vitam aeternam, et in judicium non venit. Ego au¬ divi verba Domini mei, credidi. Jam infidelis cum essem, factus sum fidelis, sicut ipse monuit, transii de morte ad vitam, ad judi¬ cium non venio, non praesumptione mea, sed promissione ipsius. Respondeo : ex promissione Christi potest unusquisque, ut S. Augustinus recte docet, colligere, se transisse de morte ad vitam, et in judicium non esse venturum. Cseterum, quaestio est, qua certitudine id possit colli¬ gere, id enim Augustinus non explicat. Nos vero dicimus, id eum posse colligere certi¬ tudine infallibili, planeque divina," si pro¬ mittentis fidelitas attendatur : sin autem consideretur dispositio propria, non majorem certitudinem illi damus, quam conjectura¬ le m . 0 u o n i am p r o m i ssio C h risti n on a bsoluta , sed conditionalis est. Non enim dixit absolute Christus, tu in judicium non venies, aut ille •in judicium non veniet : sed qui audit verba mea, et credit ei, qui. misit me, in judicium non veniet. Utrum autem ego verba ejus, sicut oportet, audierim, et crediderim, mihi ipse non dixit, sed experientiae meae, quae fallax esse potest, credere me oportet. Quartus locus est super Psal. cxlix : « Est ergo modus gloriandi in conscientia, ut no¬ veris fidem tuam esse sinceram, ut noveris spem tuam esse certam ut noveris eharita- tem tuam esse sine simulatione » . Respondeo : Loquitur S. Augustinus de notitia humana, et conjecturali, quae sufficit ad gloriam conscientiae de qua dicit Aposto¬ lus II ad Corinthios t. Gloria nostra hxc est. testimonium conscientix nostrx (1). Nam ibi¬ dem admonet Augustinus, cum hac notitia et gloria, posse consistere peccatum occul¬ tum , et ideo scriptum esse Proverbiorum xx. Quis (jloriatur mundum se esse a pecca¬ to (2)? sed quoniam, inquit, multa sunt adhuc, quae possunt forte offendere oculos Dei , lauda eum qui ista tibi donavit, tunc perfi¬ ciet, quod donavit, id est, lauda eum, quod scias te multa peccata non fecisse et non ha¬ bere, et ipse dabit etiam ut auferantur, si quae habes occulta ». Quintus locus est in serm. 6. de verbis Apostolis f&fe extremo : « Si quis Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est ejus.Ecce ad¬ juvante ipsius misericordia spiritum Christi habemus, ex ipsa delectatione justitiae, inte¬ gra fide, Catholica fide. Spiritum Dei in nobis esse cognoscimus ». Respondeo : hunc locum, quem tanti fecit Catharinus, ut diceret, per eum plane ob¬ strui ora omnium adversariorum, dico nihil omnino concludere, si ambiguitas sententiae tollatur e medio. Illud enim, « Catholica (!) II Cor. 1. 12. - (2) Prov XX, 9. CAPUT X. 273 fide », non debet referri ad modum cogno¬ scendi, sed ad signum, et conjecturam. Non enim significavit S. Augustinus nos Catho¬ lica fide cognoscere, Spiritum Dei esse in nobis ; quasi Spiritum Dei esse in nobis, sit objectum fidei Catholica) , sed dicit , nos ex fide Catholica, quam habere nos experimur, tamquam ex quodam signo colligere posse, Spiritum Dei esse in nobis. Hanc, autem esse mentem sancti Augu¬ stini evidenter probamus ex eo, quod idem Augustinus conjungit cum fide Catholica delectationem justifice, dicens : « Ex ipsa delectatione justitia), integra fide, Catholica fide, Spiritum Dei in nobis esse cognosci¬ mus. » Nam vel particula, ex, refertur etiam ad fidem Catholicam, vel non refertur : si refertur, tunc sensus iste erit, ex delecta¬ tione justitia), et ex Catholica fide, tamquam duobus signis, Spiritum Dei in nobis esse cognoscimus; si non refertur, iste erit sen¬ sus, ex delectatione justitia), tamquam ex quodam signo cognoscimus, fide Catholica, Spiritum Dei esse in nobis. Hic autem sensus absurdissimus est, et repugnantiam involvit, quomodo enim Catholica fide cognoscimus, si ex justitiae delectatione cognoscimus? fides enim Catholica, in divina revelatione non in nostra delectatione niti debet. Itaque idem est, ac si quis diceret, sententiam ali¬ quam se certissima demonstratione conclu¬ dere ex argumento topico. Prior igitur sen¬ sus, qui verus est, Augustino tribui debet. Adde quod cum Tridentinum Concilium, ipso etiam Catharino teste, definiat, non posse haberi de propria justitia certitudi¬ nem fidei Catholica;, si Augustinus diceret contrarium, ut jam viditur Catharinus velle, pugnaret concilium cum Augustino et Ca¬ tharinus cum Concilio. Quaesi Catharinus concedere non audet, non dicat etiam eo testimonio obstrui ora contra sentientium. Sextus locus est in tract. 75, super Joan- nem : « Tunc erit, ut possimus videre quod credimus. Nam nunc est in nobis, et nos in illo. Sed hoc nunc credimus, tunc etiam cognoscemus. Ergo (inquit Catharinus) nunc fidei certitudine certi sumus, Christum esse in nobis, et nos in illo ». Respondeo : ita est, sed Christum esse in nobis, et nos in illo, non significat, in me, aut in te in particulari esse Christum pei' gratiam justificantem, sed significat Chri¬ stum esse in Ecclesia, ut caput in corpore, et Ecclesiam esse in Christo, ut corpus in capite. Septimus locus est in lib. xm. de Trinitate cap. 1. « Fidem ipsam videt quisque esse in corde suo, si credit, vel non esse, si non credit». Et lib. ym. cap. 8. « Qui diligit, inquit, fratrem, magis novit dilectionem , qua diligit, quam fratrem, quem diligit». Respondeo : Loquitur sanctus Augustinus de actione credendi et diligendi. Certissimi enim sumus nos credere et diligere, quando credimus et diligimus, sed utrum actus illi sint quales oportet, et utrum ex habitu pro¬ ficiscantur, sine revelatione sciri non potest. Octavus locus est in tract. 5. super epist. Joan. « Nemo interroget hominem, redeat ad cor suum, si ibi invenit charitatem, se¬ curus sit, quia transiit a morte ad vitam ». Respondeo : Charitas sine ulla dubitatione vivificat, ct ideo si quis illam inveniat in corde suo, securus merito esse potest. Ceete- rum quamvis possit unusquisque in corde videre actum dilectionis, tamen (ut dixi) non potest certo cognoscere, sitneille actus vera) charitatis, an non. Proinde poterit quidem se* eurus esse, quoniam ad hoc sufficit certitudo moralis, non tamen certus erit certitudine fidei, cui falsum nulla ratione subesse possit. Nonus locus est in libro de poenitentia) medicina, cap. 2. « Dimitte nobis debita nostra, non dicimus pro iis peccatis, qua; remissa credimus in Baptismo, nisi de ipsa fide dubitemus » . Respondeo : illud « credimus » positum est pro eo quod est, existimamus, censemus, arbitramur. Unde in lib. n. adversus Cre- seonium cap. 28. eamdem sententiam idem Augustinus repetens, usus est verbo, confi¬ dimus : (( Dimitte nobis, inquit, debita nostra, non dicimus, pro iis debitis, quse semel in Baptismo dimissa esse confidimus» . Illud au tem, << nisi de ipsa fide dubitemus », ideo positum est, quoniam si quis dubitet, an in Baptismo peccata omnia deleantur, de ipsa fide Baptismi dubitare censebitur, non quod fieri non possit, ut vel propter defectum in¬ tentionis ministri, vel propter indispositio¬ rem suscipientis non sint deleta peccata, sed quia ut plurimum nulla est rationalis causa dubitandi de intentione vel disposi¬ tione, quod attinet ad Baptismum rite mini¬ strandum et suscipiendum ; et ideo si quis dubitet, de ipsa-efficaeia Baptismi, hoc est, de fide Catholica dubitare videbitur. Dices : ergo talis certitudo haberi debet de remissione peccatorum in Baptismo, ut om¬ nem dubitationem prorsus excludat. 274 LIBER III. Respondeo, ita esse, si per dubitationem intelligas eam animi dispositionem, perquam neutri parti assentiri quis audet, illi enim du- b.i proprie sunt, qui ita fluctuant, ut nihil decernere audeant. At si per dubitationem intelligas formidinem, quam interdum habe¬ mus de contraria parte etiamsi uni parti assentiamur, nego talem certitudinem habe¬ ri debere, quae dubitationem, id est, formidi¬ nem prorsus excludat. Sanctus autem Augu¬ stinus dicit, eos dubitare de fide, qui dicunt, Dimitte nodis debita nostra , pro iis peccatis, quae in Baptisme dimissa esse confidere de¬ bent, quoniam qui orant pro illis peccatis, videntur esse dubii priore modo, ac per hoc anxii et fluctuantes , quae fluctatio non prae¬ sumitur nasci, nisi ex defecta fidei de effica¬ cia sacramenti, ut dictum est. Decimus locus est in tractatu super Psal. lxxxv . « Dicat unusquisque fidelium, sanctus sum, non est ita superbia elati, sed confessio non ingrati ». Respondeo : dicat sane unusquisque fide¬ lium, qui nihil sibi conscius est, ex bona spe, sanctus sum. Nam ex fide divina non potest hoc dicere, nisi hoc ipsum Deus ei revelave¬ rit. Alioqui falsa esse posset fides, cura facile fieri possit, ut aliqui sanctos se esse credant, et non sint. Sextus est S. Leo in serm. 2. de festo Pa¬ schae : « Discutiant se fidelium mentes, et in¬ timos sui cordis affectus vera examinatione dijudicent, ut si depositum aliquid in con¬ scientiis suis de fructibus charitatis invene¬ rint, Deum sibi inesse non dubitent ». Et idem habet in serm. 8. de Epiphania. Respondeo : eadem est sententia S. Leo¬ nis, quae S. Augustini in tract. 5. in epist. Joan. De quo loco paulo ante locuti sumus. Septimus est S. Gregorius, in i. lib. Dialog. cap. 1. « Mens, quse sancto Spiritu impletur, habet evidentissima signa sua, virtutes sci¬ licet, et humilitatem, quse si utraque perfe¬ cte in una mente conveniunt, liquet, quod de praesentia sancti Spiritus testimonium fe¬ rant » . Respondeo : loquitur S. Gregorius, de evi¬ dentia signorum, quae quamvis tanta sit, quanta esse potest, semper tamen est evi¬ dentia signi, id est, conjecturalis; ac per hoc certitudinem efficit conjecturalem, non fidei divinae. Deinde, non videtur loqui sanctus Gregorius de notitia, quam unusquisque ha¬ bet de se, sed potius quam habet de aliis, in quibus videt, cum summis virtutibus humi¬ litatem esse conjunctam. Octavus est S. Anselmus, in comment. ad cap. viii ad Rom. « Per hoc, quod Spiritus sanctus charitatem nobis infundit, quia nos facit imitatores esse divinae bonitatis, ut dili¬ gamus inimicos, evidenti testimonio decla¬ rat menti nostrae, nos esse filios Dei ». Respondeo : loquitur de evidentia signo¬ rum, ut paulo ante dicebamus, signum enim omnium maximum gratiae Dei, est dilectio, ac praesertim inimicorum. Nonus est S. Bernardus, quem pro senten¬ tia sua omnes adducunt Lutherus, Calvinus, Philippus, Bucerus, Kemnitius; et ex Catho¬ licis Gatharinus. Is igitur in ?erm. 1. de An- nunciatione Dominica habet haec verba : « Si credis peccata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo, cui soli peccasti, et in quem peccatum non cadit, bene facis, sed adde adhuc ut credas, quia per ipsum tibi peccata donan¬ tur. Hoc est testimonium, quod perhibet in corde nostro Spiritus sanctus, dicens: Dimis¬ sa sunt tibi peccata tua. Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus, gratis justificari hominem per fi¬ dem » . / Respondeo : S. Bernardus in eo sermone, proponit explicanda verba illa psalmi, ut in¬ habitet ylotna in terra nostra. Etstatim in ipso principio, dicit, hanc gloriam esse illam de qua loquitur Apostolus, II Corinth. i. Gloria nostra haec est , testimonium conscientiae nostrae (1). Deinde docet, hoc testimonium conscientiae, esse testimonium, quod perhibet Spiritus sanctus in corde nostro, non testi¬ monium, quod ipsi perhibemus de nobis. Et addit, esse testimonium triplex, de remis¬ sione peccatorum, de meritis vitae aeternae, de electione ad gloriam. Ut autem quis habeat hoc testimonium triplex, et possit dicere : Gloria nostra haec est, etc., tria necessaria esse demonstrant. Primum est, ut quis credat, non posse ha¬ beri remissionem peccatorum, neque merita, neque vitam aeternam, nisi per gratiam Dei. Et de hoc primo 'non est quaestio, certum enim est, hoc debere credi fide Catholica. Secundum est, ut quis credat, per Chri¬ stum sibi indulgeri peccata donari merita, et paratam esse vitam sempiternam. De hoc se¬ cundo quaestio est quo pacto intelligi debeat. Aliqui ex Catholicis dicunt, S. Bernardum (1) II Cor. I, 12. CAPUT X. 275 non loqui de fide Catholica, sed de fide, quae haberi potest ex conjecturis et signis, ut sen¬ sus sit, debere hominem sibi persuadere, et confidere sibi remissa esse peccata, non ta¬ men id certo credere certitudine fidei divinae. Sed haec responsio non videtur solida. Tum, quia S. Bernardus eadem voce (credendi) uti¬ tur, cum dicit, credendum esse, non posse deleri peccata, nisi per gratiam, et cum di¬ cit, credendum esse, per Christum remitti peccata ; et in priore sententia sine dubio loquitur de fide Catholica, non de persuasio¬ ne ex signis, neque credibile est, eum intra duas lineas aequivocatione uti voluisse. Tum, quia mox adjungit de hac fide, qua credi¬ mus, nobis per Christum remitti peccata, sic enim arbitratur Apostolus , gratis justificari hominem per fidem. At certe non justificamur per illam persuasionem ex signis, sed per veram et Catholicam fidem. Dico igitur, S. Bernardum loqui de fide Catholica, qua credimus, Deum velle nobis peccata remittere, et re ipsa ex parte sua re¬ mittere, modo conditio impleatur de qua paulo post dicemus, non autem loqui de fide, qua absolute, et sine respectu dispositionis credamus nobis peccata nobis remitti, ut haeretici somniant. Id autem probo. Primum quoniam S. Bernardus, sicut di¬ cit, credendum esse nobis remitti peccata, ita etiam dicit in eodem loco, credendum esse nobis donari merita, et paratam esse vitam aeternam; at idem Bernardus in epist. 107. et in serm. 1. de septuagesima, et alibi, disertis verbis dicit, de vita aeterna consequenda spem nos habere, non securi¬ tatem. Deinde, idem Bernardus probare volens, nos debere credere, peccata per Christum nobis remitti, merita donari, et vitam aeter- jiam esse paratam, dicit, argumenta vali¬ dissima esse Christi mortem, resurrectionem et ascensionem. At haec argumenta vere validissima sunt ad probandum, Deum velle peccata remittere, et ex parte sua reipsa illa remittere, et merita donare, et vitam aeternam parare. Non enim Christus mortuus est, resurrexit, et ascendit, ut ostenderet sine sua gratia, non posse deleri peccata, haberi merita, et vitam aeternam, sed ut ostenderet, se velle ista omnia praestare, et reipsa ex parte sua jam praestare. At non probant haec argumenta nobis in particulari, sine ulla dis¬ positione ex parte dimitti peccata, donari me¬ rita, et vitam aeternam. Nam si ita esset, omnes homines justificarentur et salvaren¬ tur, quia pro omnibus Christus mortuus est, et resurrexit. Tertio, idem Bernardus paulo post (ut mox dicemus) aperte docet, multas condi¬ tiones ex parte nostra requiri, ut justifice¬ mur et salvemur : non igitur docet, creden¬ dum esse absolute, nobis remitti peccata, donari merita, et vitam aeternam. Adde ultimo, quod cum Bernardus antea locutus esset de potentia Dei, cum dixit, necessarium esse credere, non posse deleri peccata, haberi merita, et vitam aeternam, nisi per gratiam Dei, recto ordine adjungit, credendum esse secundo loco, Deum velle delere peccata, donare merita, et vitam aeternam, ut habeamus primo testimonium potentiae, secundo testimonium voluntatis. Atque haec de secundo. Tertium, quod necessarium esse demon¬ strat S. Bernardus/ est, ut nobis applicetur in particulari remissio peccatorum, et merita donentur, et spes vitae aeternae conferatur, ut non solum habeamus testimonium potentiae, et voluntatis, sed etiam executionis. Et in hoc tertio non dicit Bernardus, credendum esse, sed potius experiendum, an habeamus conditiones, quae requiruntur : « Sic ergo (inquit loquens de applicatione in particula¬ ri) inhabitat haec gloria etiam hic in terra nostra, si misericordia, et veritas obvient sibi, et sese justitia, et pax osculentur. Prae¬ venienti siquidem misericordiae ut veritas nostrae conversionis occurrat necesse est, ac de caetero sanctimoniam sectemur et pacem, sine qua nemo videbit Deum. Ubi enim com¬ pungitur quis, tunc eum misericordia prae¬ venit, sed nequaquam ingredietur, donec ei veritas confessionis occurrat. Et hoc quidem, ut declines a malo. Jam vero ut facias bo¬ num, in tympano, et choro tibi psallendum est, ut ipsa mortificatio carnis tuae, et poeni¬ tentiae fructus, ac justitiae opera in unitate, et concordia fiant ». Et infra : « Sane quis¬ quis ille est, in quo misericordia, et veritas obviaverunt sibi, justitia, et pax osculatae sunt, secure glorietur, sed in eo, qui sibi testimonium perhibet, in Spiritu utique veri¬ tatis». Haec ille. Vides igitur S. Bernardum non docere, absolute credendum esse sine respectu ope¬ rum, nobis remitti peccata : sed eum requi¬ rere conditionem conversionis, confessionis, fructum poenitentiae et similium operum, ex quibus, ut ex signis quibusdam gignitur per- LIBER III. 276 suasio, et securitas gratiae non tamen certi- locanda est ista efficacia ? Si efficax fuit tudo fidei Catholicae, vel divinae. Hunc locum Christi passio certe mihi, et tibi fuit efficax, fusius explicare volui, quoniam ex verbis hujus sermonis perperam intellectis^ duxit originem perniciosa illa haeresis de fide spe¬ ciali, quae magnam partem Septentrionis in¬ fecit.