Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book III: On the Uncertainty, Mutability, and Inequality of Justice
Chapter 11: The arguments from reason 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).
Besides the testimonies of the Scriptures and the Fathers, the adversaries also collect many reasons. The first reason they draw from the examples of the saints, who are narrated to have been certain of their own justice. Chemnitz and Catharinus enumerate the holy patriarchs, Abel, Henoch, Noe, Abraham, and the like, whom Scripture itself commends. But the answer is easy. For first, those few men, and they very eminent, perhaps merited to be made certain by a peculiar revelation of the grace which they found with the Lord. Certainly to Abraham we read it was manifestly said, Genesis 22: Now I know that thou fearest the Lord — that is, now I have made thee know that thou art a true worshiper and lover of God. For so St. Augustine expounds, questions 57 and 58 on Genesis; from which we understand that it is not common to all the just to know for certain that they are just. Seeing that the patriarch Abraham had for so many years piously served God, and yet then only merited to hear, “Now I know that thou fearest God,” when at the command of God he had resolved to immolate his only-begotten son. Then, Scripture, while it commends the saints, and praises their justice and virtues, renders us certain, to whom this was most useful, rather than them. The second reason Chemnitz and Calvin seek from the truth of the promises. For God, who cannot lie, promised grace not only in general to all, but also in particular to individuals. For this those words sound, Zacharias 9: Behold thy King cometh to thee. And Luke 12: It hath pleased the Father in thee. Calvin adds in the Antidote a confirmation from the Council of Trent: “The Council, session 6, chapter 9, admonishes that no one doubt of the efficacy of the passion of Christ; but are these,” says Calvin, “Platonic ideas in the air?” I answer: we have said much of this matter in book 1; therefore we now answer briefly: first, that the promises alleged are not particular, but general. For that, Behold thy King cometh to thee, is said to the daughter of Sion — that is, to the whole Church. And that, It hath pleased the Father in thee, is said to the whole little flock — that is, to the same Church. Then we add that those promises can indeed also be applied to individuals in particular, but then they are conditioned, not absolute. For the things which are promised to the Church do not agree with individual men, unless they through faith and charity begin to be living members of the body of the Church — nay, unless first they be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost, and afterward keep all things that are commanded.
The third reason they take from the efficacy and properties of faith and hope. For Scripture attributes to faith plerophoria — that is, the fullest certitude, Hebrews 10. Likewise that it be a conviction and substance, Hebrews 11. And James 1, to faith is opposed hesitation. Moreover, to hope itself too is attributed firmness and certitude, nay even plerophoria, Hebrews 6, where it is also compared to an anchor on account of its stability and immobility. Therefore, God promising the remission of sins, a man ought most firmly and most certainly to believe and trust that his sins are remitted him; otherwise faith and hope could be doubtful. I answer: as regards faith, there is no difficulty in this part. For faith is most certain. Nor did any Catholic ever say that faith is not certain, or can be doubted, or assented to with fear, in those things which pertain to faith. But the paralogism of the adversaries is placed in this, that they assume the remission of sins, or the justification of each one, to pertain to faith properly so called — which we have shown to be false in book 1; the adversaries can bring against it no argument, not only truly solid, but not even solid in appearance. But as regards hope, we confess that it too ought to be most certain, but in its own kind. For the certitude of faith is one, of hope another. A double certitude, then, can be considered in hope: one on the part of the will, the other on the part of the understanding. On the part of the will the certitude of hope is the firm adhesion of the will to the thing hoped for; and this can be the greatest, even though on the part of the understanding a man be not certain that he will attain that thing; nay, hope seems not only not to exact, but not even to be able to bear, on the part of the understanding, an absolute certitude. For what we certainly know that we shall have, we do not properly hope for, but simply await. For in this manner the souls of the blessed do not properly hope for the resurrection of bodies, but only await it, since they are most certain on the part of the understanding that it cannot be lacking to them. And so the heretics of our time, who require absolute certitude on the part of the understanding about justification and salvation, leave no place for hope properly so called. But although (as we said) hope requires not absolute certitude on the part of the understanding, yet it has also on the part of the understanding a double certitude. The first arises from the primary foundation of hope, which is the promise of God. For we are certain that God cannot deceive. And if indeed nothing were required unto justification or salvation but the promise of God, we should have of these things also an absolute and infallible certitude; yet because other things too are required, of which we are not so certain, therefore hope does not expel all fear. Of this certitude, on the part of the foundation, the Apostle speaks, 2 Timothy 1: I know whom I have believed, and I am certain that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him, against that day. And Hebrews 6: God interposed an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm. The other certitude of hope on the part of the understanding arises from charity, and thereby agrees only with just men. For a friend can hope all goods from a friend, nor is there danger lest he be confounded. Of this certitude the Apostle writes, Romans 5: And hope confoundeth not, because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts. And if indeed that friendship with God could not be corrupted, they would be infallibly and absolutely secure of salvation who are joined with God by charity; yet because, while we sojourn from the Lord, it can be that he who is a friend become again an enemy, therefore even the just cannot live without some fear. We have, then, that the hope of Christians is most certain, both on the part of the will and on the part of the understanding; but on the part of the understanding it has an absolute and infallible certitude by reason of the foundation and by reason of the form — that is, by reason of God who promises, and by reason of charity, which is the form of hope; and only by reason of one’s own disposition has it some fear conjoined.
The fourth reason the adversaries draw from the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. But the heretics weave this argument in one way, Catharinus in another. The heretics thus reason: the sacraments are instituted to seal the grace received through Christ, or which is received through Christ, that, namely, by this external symbol faith may be sustained, and we be rendered certain of that which we see not. Therefore he who says that the baptized are not certain of the remission of sins does injury to the sacraments, and to God himself, as though he had instituted fallacious signs. Moreover, when the minister absolutely, in the name of Christ, pronounces, “I absolve thee,” either what he says is certain, or uncertain; if certain, then he sins who does not believe himself to be for certain absolved, and thereby justified; if it is uncertain, then the minister sins, so boldly pronouncing in the name of Christ what perhaps is false: “And it could be said to him,” says Luther, “Lord, thou liest.” But Catharinus proposes the argument in this manner: the sacraments confer grace for certain on one placing no obstacle; but he who receives the sacrament can know for certain that no obstacle is placed by him; therefore the same can be certain that his sins are remitted him. I answer: the heretics falsely assume that the sacraments are instituted chiefly to sustain faith, and to render us certain of the will of God; for (as we demonstrated in book 1 On the Sacraments in general) if it were so, infants and the insane would be baptized in vain, who are not capable of effects of this kind. The chief cause of the institution of the Sacraments, then, is that they be instruments of effecting justification. And therefore blessed Paul, Titus 3, said not, “He made us certain,” but, “He saved us by the laver”; nor did he say the laver of certification (so to speak), but of regeneration and renovation. And Ephesians 5 he said not, “making the Church certain,” but, “cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.” Yet we grant that the sacraments are not only causes, but also signs of justification, and indeed infallible on their part, not absolutely. For that ceremony of Baptism does not signify that a man is absolutely washed and cleansed from sin, but washed and cleansed as regards the force and efficacy of the sacrament, provided the effect be not hindered through the indisposition of the receiver. But that the disposition of faith and penance is required, and that it can be that one approach to Baptism feigning faith and penance, not even the heretics deny. And so they are not fallacious signs, nor can it be said to the minister, “Lord, thou liest,” if one perhaps approaching with a feigned heart be simply baptized by a minister who is ignorant of it. For he, when he says, “I baptize thee,” signifies nothing else than “I afford thee the sacrament which has the force of blotting out all sins,” or, “(as far as is in me) I wash thee, and cleanse thee from the filth of sins.” And this very thing is what he is bound to believe who receives the sacrament — namely, that his sins are remitted him by the force of that sacrament, unless perhaps he himself through his own indisposition be the cause why the effect of justification does not follow. But now to Catharinus I answer that his argument can rightly conclude that he who is not conscious to himself of any fraud is certain of the remission of sins, but with a certain human and moral certitude, not with the certitude of faith. Since (as we showed above) certitude of faith cannot be had (if you remove revelation) of the intention of the minister, without which the sacrament is not effected, nor of the removal of every impediment, since it can be that one be not conscious to himself of an obstacle, and yet in fact place an obstacle, since he bears an affection toward some deadly sin which he is ignorant of being a sin.
The fifth reason Chemnitz draws from the origin of our sentence. For he writes that it arose from the error of the Pharisees and Novatians. Which he thence proves, “since the Pharisees (as he says) doubted not of the remission of sins in general, but murmured because Christ bade men trust that their sins were remitted them in particular. But the Novatians (as from Ambrose On Penance, and from the Tripartite History, book 8, Chemnitz says he cites) doubted not that in general sins can be remitted, but whether the minister ought to affirm for certain, or doubtfully, that sins are remitted to the penitent in particular.” I answer: these are not arguments, but impostures and lies. For the Gospel most openly testifies that the Pharisees murmured not because Christ bade a confidence be conceived in particular about the remission of sins, but because he seemed to make himself God, while he took to himself the power of loosing sins proper to God alone. For thus the Pharisees speak, Mark 2: Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only? And Luke 7: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? Add that the Lord bade not men believe by Catholic faith that their sins were remitted them, but only to trust. Which very thing all Catholics teach, seeing they know that faith and confidence are not the same, and that a man can trust that his sins are remitted him, even though on the part of the understanding he have not absolute certitude of that matter. As regards the Novatians, it is a wonder why the Lutherans dare to attribute to us the error of the Novatians, when they themselves are most true Novatians. For that error of the Novatians was that they acknowledged in the Church no sacrament of Penance and reconciliation distinct from Baptism. Which very thing all the Lutherans teach. But since Satan had not yet inspired the Novatians to say that through the memory of Baptism men can be reconciled — which he afterward inspired the Lutherans — therefore the Novatians admonished the lapsed after Baptism to deal with God, for that in the Church there is no power of reconciling. So Ambrose speaks, book 1 On Penance, chapter 2: “The Novatians say that they show reverence to the Lord, to whom alone they leave the power of remitting crimes.” And Socrates, book 8 of the Tripartite, and book 4 of his history, chapter 23: “Novatus wrote to the Churches not to receive to the sacraments those who had sacrificed to demons, but to invite them indeed to penance, but to leave the remission to the power of God, whose alone it is to remit sins.”
The last reason they draw from the absurd. For very absurd seems to be a doctrine which teaches perpetual doubt, hesitation, and wavering. “What,” says Chemnitz, “is that doctrine whose highest effect and end is that anxious consciences, seeking consolation, are cast back into perpetual hesitations and doubts of their reconciliation with God, of salvation, and of eternal life?” I answer: this argument, if it were lawful to play the rhetorician, could much more truly be retorted upon the adversaries, who so seduce miserable souls seeking consolation as not to doubt to precipitate them into a most vain confidence and rash presumption. But these things omitted, I say there is no Catholic writer who teaches that men ought perpetually to doubt and hesitate about their reconciliation with God. For three opinions seem to be numbered among the Catholics on this question. One, which is Ambrose Catharinus’s, not only excludes all doubt, but also adds that the just can have of their own justification certitude of divine faith; of which opinion Chemnitz cannot complain. The other opinion teaches not indeed certitude of divine faith, yet affirms that men, especially perfect men, can, nay are even wont, to come to that security that they have no fear of their own justification — plainly in the manner in which we believe, without any hesitation and fear of deception, that Caesar ruled in Italy, Alexander in Greece, that Cicero was an orator, Livy a historian, Virgil a poet; that Constantinople is a city in Thrace, and Antioch in Syria, although we have seen neither. Of which opinion too I do not see why Chemnitz can complain. Although (to confess the truth) this opinion is not approved by me; both because the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 9, teaches that there is no one who, while he considers his own weakness and indisposition, cannot be in dread and fear about his own grace; and because the examples of the saints — Job, David, Paul, Hilarion, and other most perfect men, cited above — persuade the contrary; and finally because of Caesar, Alexander, Cicero, Livy, Virgil, Constantinople, and Antioch, and other like things, we therefore doubt not, since we have very many eyewitnesses, nor did deception ever happen in things of this kind, or the thing has been celebrated for many ages, and no one ever contradicted, and things of this kind are such as fall under sight, and can be known with easy labor. Often too they pertain nothing to us, and therefore we prefer simply to believe than anxiously to inquire whether they be so or otherwise. But the business of justification and eternal salvation pertains to us most of all, nor have we any eyewitnesses of that matter, and we know that not a few have been vehemently deceived, and the thing is most deep and very hidden.
The third opinion, which is the more common in the Church, does not indeed take away all fear, yet takes away all anxiety and hesitation, and even doubt itself, if he be called in doubt who dares not assent to either part. For neither is this a good argumentation: The Catholics have not certitude of faith about their own justification; therefore they always doubt, hesitate, are anxious. As neither, contrariwise, would one rightly conclude: The Catholics are not anxious, nor do they hesitate about their own justification; therefore they are certain, with the certitude of faith, that their sins are remitted them. For there is a certain mean between these extremes — namely, a certain moral certitude on the part of the understanding, and hope and confidence on the part of the will. Further, a solid consolation and peace and tranquillity and interior joy is begotten in Catholics far better by a good conscience, contrition, charity, zeal of good works, frequent reception of the Eucharist, the visitation of the Holy Spirit — which is the hidden manna, which no one knows but he who receives it — than that vain confidence and truly rash presumption in the Lutherans. For of a good conscience the Apostle writes, 2 Corinthians 1: Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience. And St. John, epistle 1, chapter 3: If our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God. Of true contrition Solomon writes, Proverbs 14: The heart that knoweth the bitterness of its own soul, in its joy the stranger shall not intermeddle. For truly an incredible joy arises from this, that one see himself most bitterly bewailing his sins. Further, charity begets nothing sooner than joy and peace. For thence it is said, Galatians 5: The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, etc. But from patience (to omit other things now) a most solid consolation arises. For, as the Apostle says, Romans 5: We glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and patience trial, and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not, etc. And 2 Corinthians 7: I am filled with comfort, I exceedingly abound with joy in all our tribulation. And chapter 8: We make known to you, brethren, the grace of God that hath been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in much experience of tribulation the abundance of their joy was, etc. And James 1: Esteem it all joy, my brethren, when you shall fall into divers temptations, knowing that the trial of your faith worketh patience; and patience hath a perfect work. And before all these the Prophet David: In tribulation thou hast enlarged me. And again: According to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, thy comforts have given joy to my soul. The holy Fathers too, whose testimonies the adversaries wrongly adduced for the certitude of faith, and especially Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, gathered the security of the soul not from the faith of the remission of sins, but from the conscience of charity and good works. But it pleases me, in the name of the others, to transcribe here the testimony of St. Bernard, that all may understand whence solid consolation is to be sought. Thus, then, he speaks in sermon 69 on the Canticles: “How great, thinkest thou, a confidence follows from this familiarity? Now, as I think, such a soul does not fear to say, My beloved is mine; since, from the fact that it feels itself to love, and to love vehemently, it nonetheless doubts not that it too is loved vehemently; and about its own singular intention, solicitude, care, work, diligence, and zeal, with which it incessantly and ardently watches how it may please God, and all these things acknowledges undoubtedly in him, remembering his promise, in which ‘with what measure you shall have measured, it shall be measured to you again.’ Therefore from its own things, which are with God, it acknowledges, nor doubts that it is loved which loves.” And below: “Thou seest how he renders thee certain not only of his love, if thou love him, but also of his solicitude, which he bears for thee, if thou hast felt thyself solicitous for him.” This certitude, then, we gladly acknowledge, which arises not from the presumption of imputed justice, nor is the certitude of Catholic faith, but arises from the experience of charity and good works, and thereby can be named a moral and conjectural certitude.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
^ CAPUT XI.
Solvuntur argumenta ex ratione.
Praeter testimonia Scripturarum et Pa¬
trum, multas quoque rationes colligunt ad¬
versarii.
Primam rationem ducunt ab exemplis
sanctorum, qui certi fuisse narrantur de sua
justitia. Enumerant Komnitius, et Cathari-
nus sanctos patriarchas, Abel, Henoch, Noe,
Abraham, et similes, quos ipsa Scriptura
commendat.
'Sed facilis est responsio. Primum enim
pauci illi viri, et ii valde eximii, fortasse pe¬
culiari revelatione certi fieri meruerunt de
gratia, quam apild -Dominum invenerunt.
Certe ad Abraham manifeste dictum esse le¬
gimus Genes, xxii. Nunc cognovi , quod ti¬
meas Dominum (1), id est, nunc te cognoscere
feci, quod verus sis cultor, et amator Dpi.
Sic enim exponit S. Augustinus qusest. 57.
et 58. in Genesim, ex quo intelligimus, non
esse commune omnibus justis, ut se justos
esse certo sciant. Quandoquidem patriarcha
Abraham, tot annis pie Deo servierat, et
tamen tunc solum audire meruit. Nunc cog¬
novi, quod timeas Deum, quando ad impe¬
rium Dei unigenitum Filium immolai’e de¬
crevit. Deinde, Scriptura dum sanctos com¬
mendat, et eorum justitiam, et virtutes lau¬
dat, nos certos reddit, quibus id utilissimum
erat, potius quam illos.
Secundam rationem petunt Komnitius et
Calvinus a veritate promissionum. Deus
enim, qui mentiri non potest, gratiam pro¬
misit non solum in genere omnibus, sed
etiam in particulari singulis. Id enim sonant
illa verba, Zach. i x.Ecce Rex tuus venit tibi.
Et Luc. xii. Complacuit Patri in te (2). Addit
Calvinus in Antidoto confirmationem ex Con¬
cilio Tridentino. « Concilium sess. 6. cap. 9.
monet, ut nemo dubitet de efficacia passionis
Christi, at numquid in aere, inquit Calvinus,
\
(1) Gen. XXII. 12. - (i) Zach. IX. 9; Luc. XII,
non idea; Platonicae.
Respondeo : multa de hac re diximus in
t. lib. Ideo breviter nunc respondemus, pri¬
mum promissiones allegatas non esse parti¬
culares, sed generales. Illud enim ; Ecce
tuus venit tibi, dicitur filia; Sion, id est, toti
Ecclesia;. Et illud ( Complacuit Patri in te)
dicitur toti gregi pusillo, id est, eidem Ec¬
clesia;. Deinde addimus, promissiones istas
posse quidem etiam applicari singulis in par¬
ticulari, sed tunc esse conditionatas, non
absolutas. Non enim quae promittuntur Ec¬
clesiae, conveniunt singulis hominibus, nisi
illi per fidem, et charitatem incipiant esse
membra viva corporis Ecclesiae, immo nisi
prius renascantur ex aqua et Spiritu sancto,
et postea servent omnia, qua; mandata sunt.
Tertiam rationem sumunt iidem ab effica-
cia et proprietatibus fidei et spei : Scriptura
enim tribuit fidei Tt^pocpoptav, id est, plenis¬
simam certitudinem, ad Hebr. x. Item ut
sit convictio et hypostasis, ad Hebraeos xi.
Et Jacobi i, fidei opponitur haesitatio. Prae¬
terea ipsi etiam spei tribuitur firmitas et cer¬
titudo, immo et 7rXr,po:popia ad Hebr. vi. ubi
etiam comparatur anchorae propter stabilita¬
tem et immobilitatem. Igitur promittenti
Deo remissionem peccatorum, debet homo
firmissime, ac certissime credere et confi¬
dere, sibi remitti peccata, alioqui fides et
spes dubia; esse possent.
Respondeo : quod attinet ad fidem, nulla
est in hac parte difficultas. Fides enim cer¬
tissima est. Neque ullus unquam Catholicus
dixit, fidem non esse certam, aut posse du¬
bitari, vel cum formidine assentiri, in iis,
qua; ad fidem pertinent. Sed paralogismus
adversariorum in eo positus est, quod assu¬
munt remissionem peccatorum, sive justifi¬
cationem uniuscujusque, ad fidem proprie
dictam pertinere, quod falsum esse ostendi¬
mus in i. lib. possunt adversarii ullum argu¬
mentum, non solum vere solidum, sed neque
in speciem solidum contra proferre.
Quod autem attinet ad spem, fatemur,
eam quoque esse debere certissimam, sed in
suo genere. Alia enim fidei, alia spei certi¬
tudo est. Duplex igitur in spe certitudo con¬
siderari potest. Una ex parte voluntatis ;
altera ex parte intellectus. Ex parte volun- •
tatis certitudo spei est firma adhaesio volun-
CAPUT XI.
277
tatis ad rem speratam, et haec maxima esse
potest etiamsi ex parte intellectas non sit
homo certus, se rem illam consecutorum,
fmmo videtur spes non solum non exigere,
sed nec ferre posse ex parte intellectus cer-
tudinem absolutam. Nam quod certo scimus
nos habituros, non proprie speramus, sed
simpliciter expectamus. Hoc enim modo ani¬
mae beatorum non proprie sperant corporum
resurrectionem, sed tantum expectant, quia
certissimae sunt ex parte intellectus, eam sibi
deesse non posse. Itaque haeretici nostri
temporis, qui certitudinem absolutam exparte
intellectus requirunt de justificatione et salute,
nullum locum spei proprie dictae relinqunt.
Quamvis autenx (ut diximus) absolutam
certitudinem spes non requirat ex parte intel¬
lectus, tamen habet etiam exparte intellectus
duplicem certitudinem.
Prima oritur ex fundamento spei prima¬
rio, quod est promissio Dei. Certi enim su¬
mus, Deum non posse fallere. Etsi quidem
nihil requireretur ad justificationem, vel
salutem nisi promissio Dei, haberemus etiam
de his rebus absolutam, et infallibilem
certitudinem : tamen quia requiruntur etiam
alia, de quibus non sumus tam certi, ideo
spes non expellit omnem timorem. De hac
certitudine, ex parte fundamenti, loqui¬
tur Apostolus II Tim. I. Scio cui credidi, et
certus sum, quia potens est depositum meum
servare in illum diem. Et ad Ilebr. -vi. Inter¬
posuit (Deus) jusjurandum, ut per duas res
immobiles , quibus impossibile est mentiri
Deum, fortissimum solarium habeamus, qui
confugimus ad tenendam propositam spem,
quam sicut anchoram habemus animee lutam,
ac firmam (1).
Altera certitudo spei ex parte intellectus
oritur ex charitate, ac per hoc non convenit
nisi hominibus justis. Amicus enim ab amico
omnia bona sperare potest, neque periculum
est, ne confundatur. De hac certudine scj:-
bit Apostolus ad Roman. v : Spes autem non
confundit , quia charitas Dei diffusa est in cor¬
dibus nostris (2). Etsi quidem amicitia ista
cum Deo corrumpi non posset, infallibiter,
et absolute de salute securi essent, qui cha¬
ritate cum Deo conjuncti sunt : tamen quia
dum peregrinamur a Domino, fieri potest, ut
qui amicus est, iterum fiat inimicus. Idcirco
non possunt etiam justi sine timore aliquo
vivere.
(i) 11 Tim. I, 12; Heb. VI, 7. - (2; Rom. V, 5.
Habemus igitur spem Christianorum cer¬
tissimam esse, tum ex parte voluntatis, tum
ex parte intellectus, sed ex parte intellectus
certitudinem absolutam, et infallibilem ha¬
bere, rationi fundamenti et ratione formae,
id est ratione promittentis Dei, et ratione
charitatis, quae est forma spei : et solum ra¬
tione propriae dispositionis formidinem ali¬
quam habere conjunctam.
Quartam rationem ducunt adversarii ex
natura et efficacia sacramentorum. Sed ali¬
ter hoc argumentum texunt haeretici, aliter
Catbarinus. Haeretici sic ratiocinantur, sa¬
cramenta sunt instituta ad obsignandam gra¬
tiam per Christum acceptam, vel quae per
Christum accipitur, ut nimirum hoc symbolo
externo sustentetur fides, et certi reddamur
de eo, quod non videmus. Igitur qui dicit,
baptizatos non esse certos de remissione
peccatorum, injuriam sacramentis facit, et
ipsi etiam Deo, quasi fallacia signa institue¬
rit. Praeterea, cum minister absolute, in
Christi nomine pronunciat : Ego te absolvo,
vel est certum quod dicit, vel incertum ; si
certum, igitur peccat qui non credit se certo
esse absolutum ac per hoc justificatum; si
est incertum, igitur peccat minister, tam au¬
dacter pronuncians Christi nomine, quod
fortasse est falsum : « Et posset ei dici», in¬
quit Lutherus, « Domine, tu mentiris » .
Catharinus autem in hunc modum argu¬
mentum proponit, sacramenta non ponenti
obicem certo gratiam conferunt ! potest au¬
tem qui sacramentum recipit, certo scire a
se obicem nullum poni; igitur potest idem
ipse certus esse, sibi peccata esse dimissa.
Respondeo : Falso assumunt haeretici sa¬
cramenta instituta esse praecipue ad fidem
sustentandam, et nos certos de Dei voluntate
reddendos : nam (ut. in lib. i de Sacramen¬
tis in genere demonstravimus) si ita esset,
frustra baptizarentur infantes et amentes,
qui ejusmodi effectus capaces non sunt. Po¬
tissima igitur causa institutionis Sacramen¬
torum est, ut sint instrumenta justificationis
efficiendae. Et ideo B. Paulus ad Tit. m. non
dixit, certos nos fecit, sed, salvos nos fecit
per lavacrum ; neque lavacrum dixit certifi-
cationis (ut sic loquar) sed, regenerationis et
renovationis. Et ad Ephes. v. non dixit, cer¬
tam faciens Ecclesiam, sed, mundans eam la¬
vacro aqux in verbo vitae (3). Concedimus ta¬
men sacramenta non solum esse causas, sed
- (3) Tit. 111, 5; Eph. V, 26.
278
LIBER III.
etiam signa justificationis, et quidem infal¬
libilia ex parte sua, non absolute. Non enim
significat caeremonia illa Baptismi, hominem
absolute lavari et mundari a peccato, sed
lavari et mundari, quod attinet ad vim, et
efficaciam sacramenti, modo non impediatur
effectus per indispositionem suscipientis. Re¬
quiri autem dispositionem fidei et poeniten¬
tiae, et posse fieri, ut quis fidem, et poeniten¬
tiam simulans ad Baptismum accedat, neque
haeretici negant.
Itaque non sunt fallacia signa, neque po¬
test dici Ministro, Domine, tu mentiris, si
quis forte ficto corde accedens a Ministro
qui id ignorat, simpliciter baptizetur. Non
enim ille, cum dicit, ego te baptizo, aliud sig¬
nificat, nisi ego sacramentum tibi praebeo,
quod vim habet omnia peccata delendi, vel
(quod est in me) abluo te, et mundo a sor¬
dibus peccatorum. Et hoc ipsum est, quod
credere tenetur, qui sacramentum recipit
nimirum sibi remitti peccata vi sacramenti
illius, nisi forte ipse per indispositionem
suam in causa sit, cur non succedat justifica¬
tionis effectus.
Jam vero ad Catharinum respondeo, ar¬
gumentum ejus recte concludere posse eum,
qui non est sibi conscius fraudis alicujus,
certum esse de remissione peccatorum, sed
certitudine quadam humana et morali, non
certitudine fidei. Quoniam (ut supra ostendi¬
mus) non potest haberi certitudo fidei (si
revelationem removeas) de intentione mini¬
stri, sine qua non perficitur sacramentum,
neque de remotione omnis impedimenti
cum fieri possit, ut aliquis non sit sibi con¬
scius obicis, et tamen re ipsa obicem ponat,
cum affectum gerat ad peccatum aliquod
lethale; quod esse peccatum ignoret.
Quintam rationem ducit Kemnitius ab ori¬
gine sententiae nostrae. Scribit enim eam
ortam esse ab errore Pharisaeorum et Nova-
tianorum. Quod inde probat, « quoniam
Pharisaei (ut ipse dicit) non dubita ant de
remissione peccatorum in genere, sed mur¬
murabant, quia Christus jubebat homines
confidere sibi in particulari dimissa esse
peccata. Novatiani vero (ut ex Ambrosio de
poenitentia, et ex historia tripartita lib. vm.
Kemnitius citare se dicit) non dubitabant
in genere posse dimitti peccata, sed an mini¬
ster deberet certo affirmare, an dubitative
in particulari pcenitentibus peccata dimitti».
Respondeo : haec vero non argumenta, sed
imposturae et mendacia sunt. Nam Evange-
lium apertissime testatur, Pharisaeos non
murmurasse, quod Christus juberet in par¬
ticulari fiduciam concipi de remissione pec¬
catorum, sed quod se Deum facere videre¬
tur, dum potestatem peccata relaxandi soli
Deo propriam sibi sumebat. Sic enim Pha¬
risaei loquuntur, Marci n. Quid hic sic lo¬
quitur ? Blasphemat. Quis enim potest pec¬
cata dimittere, nisi solus Deus ? Et Lucae
vii. Quis est hic, qui etiam peccata dimit¬
tit (1)? Adde quod Dominus non jussit, ho¬
mines credere fide Catholica, sibi peccata
esse dimissa, sed tantum confidere. Quod
ipsum Catholici omnes docent, quippe qui
sciunt fidem et fiduciam non esse idem, et
posse hominem confidere sibi remissa esse
peccata, etiamsi ex parte intellectus, non
habeat ejus rei certitudinem absolutam.
Quod ad Novatianos pertinet, mirum est,
cur audeant Lutherani nobis errorem Nova-
tianorum tribuere, cum ipsi verissimi sint
Novatiani. Nam error Novatianorum ille
erat, quod nullum in Ecclesia sacramentum
Poenitentiae et reconciliationis agnoscebant
distinctum a Baptismo. Quod ipsum Luthe¬
rani omnes docent. Sed quoniam nondum
Satanas inspiraverat Novatianis, ut dicerent
per memoriam Baptismi posse homines re¬
conciliari, quod Lutheranis postea inspira¬
vit, ideo Novatiani lapsos post Baptismum
monebant, ut cum Deo agerent, in Ecclesia
enim non esse potestatem reconciliandi. Sic
Ambrosius loquitur lib. i. [de poenitentia,
cap.i. «Aiunt Novatiani se Domino deferre
reverentiam, cui soli remittendorum crimi¬
num potestatem permittunt». Et Socrates
lib. vm. Tripart. et lib. iv. historiae suae,
cap. 23. «Novatus, inquit, Ecclesiis scribe¬
bat, ne eos, qui deemonibus immolaverant,
ad sacramenta susciperent, sed invitarent
quidem ad poenitentiam, remissionem vero
Dei relinquerent potestati, cujus solius est
peccata remittere.
Postremam rationem ducunt ab absurdo.
Nam valde absurda videtur esse doctrina,
quae perpetuam dubitationem, haesitationem
et fluctuationem docet. « Qualis, inquit Kem¬
nitius, est illa doctrina, cujus effectus, sum¬
mo, et finis est, ut anxiae conscientiae, quae¬
rentes consolationem, rejiciantur in perpe¬
tuas haesitationes et dubitationes suae cum
(1) Mare. II, 7; Luc. VII, 49%
CAPUT XI.
279
Deo reconciliationis, salutis, et vitae aeternae?»
Respondeo : posset hoc argumentum, si
rethoricari liberet, multo verius in adversa¬
rios retorqueri, qui miseras animas, quae¬
rentes consolationem, ita seducunt, ut in
vanissimam fiduciam et temerariam prae¬
sumptionem praecipitare non dubitent. Sed
his omissis, dico nullum esse Catholicum
scriptorem , qui doceat oportere homines
perpetuo dubitare, et haisitarc de sua cum
Deo reconciliatione.
Tres enim videntur numerari inter Catho¬
licos de hac quaestione sententiae, quarum
una, quae est Ambrosii Catharini, non solum
dubitationem omnem excludit, sed etiam
addit posse justos habere de sua justifica¬
tione certitudinem fidei divinae, de qua sen¬
tentia non potest Kemnitius queri.
Altera sententia non docet quidem certi¬
tudinem fidei divinae, tamen affirmat posse,
immo etiam solere praesertim homines per¬
fectos ad eam securitatem venire, ut nul¬
lam habeant de sua justificatione formidi¬
nem, plane ad eum modum, quo credimus
sine ulla haesitatione et formidine deceptio¬
nis, Caesarem imperasse in Italia, Alexan¬
drum in Graecia, Ciceronem oratorem, Li¬
vium historicum, Yirgilium poetam fuisse ;
Constantinopolim esse urbem in Thracia, et
Antiochiam in Syria, quamvis neutram vide¬
rimus.
De qua etiam sententia non video cur
Kemnitius queri possit. Quamquam (ut verum
fatear) mihi haec sententia non probatur ;
Tum quia Concilium Tridentin. sess. 6. c. 9.
docet, neminem esse, qui dum considerat
suam infirmitatem et indispositionem, non
possit de sua gratia formidare ac timere.
Tum etiam quia exempla sanctorum, Jobi,
Davidis, Pauli, Hilarionis, et aliorum perfe¬
ctissimorum hominum, supra citata, contra¬
rium persuadent. Tum denique quoniam de
Caesare, Alexandro, Cicerone, Livio, Virgi-
lio, Constantinopoli, et Antiochia, aliisque
similibus rebus ideo non dubitamus, quo¬
niam habemus plurimos oculatos testes, nec
unquam in ejusmodi rebus accidit deceptio,
vel multis saeculis res celebrata est, et nemo
unquam contradixit, et ejusmodi res sunt,
quae sub aspectum cadunt, et facili negotio
cognosci possunt. Saepe etiam nihil ad nos
pertinent, et ideo malumus simpliciter cre¬
dere, quam anxie quaerere, utrum sic, an
aliter se habeant. At negotium justificatio¬
nis, et salutis aeternae ad nos maxime perti¬
net, neque ullos habemus de ea re testes
oculatos, et scimus non paucos vehementer
esse deceptos, et res est altissima, atque
abdita valde.
Tertia sententia, quae communior in Ec¬
clesia est, non tollit quidem omnem formidi¬
nem, tamen tollit omnem anxietatem et
haesitationem, et ipsam etiam dubitationem, si
dubius dicatur, qui non audet alteri parti as-
sentiri. Neque enim bona est argumentatio :
Catholici non habent certitudinem fidei, de
sua justificatione, igitur semper dubitant,
haerent, anxii sunt. Sicut neque contra recte
quis concluderet, Catholici non sunt anxii,
neque haesitant de sua justificatione, igitur
certi sunt certitudine fidei, sibi remissa esse
peccata. Datur enim aliquid medium inter
haec extrema, videlicet certitudo quaedam
moralis ex parte intellectus, et spes, ac fidu¬
cia ex parte voluntatis.
Porro solidam consolationem et pacem, ac
tranquillitatem, et laetitiam interiorem longe
melius gignit in Catholicis bona conscientia,
contritio, charitas, studium bonorum ope¬
rum, frequens Eucharistiae perceptio, visita¬
tio Spiritus sancti, quae est manna abscondi¬
tum, quod nemo scit, nisi qui accipit, quam
inanis illa fiducia, et vera temeraria prae¬
sumptio in Lutheranis. Nam de bona con¬
scientia scribit Apostolus, II Corinth. i.
Gloria nostra hsec est, testimonium conscientiae
nostrse. Et S. Joan. es in epist. 1. cap. m. Si
cor nostrum non reprehenderit , nos, fiduciam
habemus apud Deum.: De vera contritione
scribit Salomon, Proverb. xiv. Cor quod no¬
vit amaritudinem animae suae, in gaudio ejus
non miscebitur extraneus { I). Vere enim in¬
credibilis laetitia oritur ex eo, quod quis vi¬
deat se amarissime peocata sua deflere. Por¬
ro charitas nihil prius gignit quam gaudium
et pacem. Inde enim dicitur Galat. v. Fru¬
ctus Spiritus est charitas , gaudium , pax etc.
Sed ex patientia (ut alia nunc omittam)
solidissima oritur consolatio. Nam ut ait
Apostolus, Roman. v. Gloriamur in tribula¬
tionibus , quia tribulatio patientiam operatur,
patientia probationem , probatio vero spem,
spes autem non confundit etc. Et II Corinth.
vii. Repletus sum consolatione, superabundo
gaudio in omni tribulatione nostra. Et cap.
vili. Notum, inquit, vobis facimus fratres gra-
(1) II Cor. I, 12; I Joan. III, 20; Prov, XIV, 10.
280
LIBER 111.
tiam Dei, qux data est in Ecclesiis Macedo¬
niae, quod in multo experimento tribulationis
abundantia gaudii ipsorum fuit. Et Jacobus
cap. i. Omne gaudium existimate, fratres, cum
in tentationes varias incideritis, scientes quod
probatio fidei vestrae patientiam operatur, pa¬
tientia autem opus perfectum habet. Et ante
hos omnes Propheta David : In tribulatione,
inquit, dilatasti mihi. Et rursus : Secundum
multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo
consolationes tuae laetificaverunt animam me¬
am (1).
Sancti quoque Patres, quorum testimonia
perperam, adduxerunt adversarii pro certi¬
tudine fidei, et praesertim Cyprianus, Am¬
brosius, Augustinus, Leo, securitatem ani¬
mae, non ex fide remissionis peccatorum, sed
ex conscientia charitatis et operum bono¬
rum colligebant. Placet autem nomine alio¬
rum S. Bernardi testimonium hic abscribere,
ut omnes intclligant, unde petenda sit solida
consolatio. Sic igitur loquitur in serm. 69. in
Cantica : « Quanta putas ex hac mansione
iter animam et verbum familiaritatis gratia
oriatur. Quanta de familiaritate sequatur fi¬
ducia? Non est (ut opinor) quod jam talis
anima dicere vereatur, dilectus meus mihi,
quse ex eo quod si ddigere et vehementer
diligere sentit, etiam diligi nihilominus ve¬
hementer non ambigit, ac de sua singulari
intentione, sollicitudine, cura, opera, dili¬
gentia, studioque, quo incessanter et arden¬
ter invigilat quemadmodum placeat Deo,
ajque heeo omnia in ipso indubitanter agno¬
scit, recordans promissionis ejus, in qua
mensura mensi fueritis remetietur vobis. Er¬
go ex propriis, quae sunt penes Deum agno¬
scit, nec dubitat se amari quae amat ». Et
infra : «Vides quomodo non solum de amore
suo certum te reddit, si quidem tu ames il¬
lum, sed etiam de sollicitudine sua, quam
pro te gerit, si te senserit sollicitum sui. »
Hanc igitur certitudinem libenter agnosci¬
mus, quai non oritur ex praesumptione im¬
putatae justitiae, neque est certitudo fidei
Catholicae, sed oritur ex charitatis et operum
bonorum experimento, ac per hoc moralis
et conjecturalis certitudo nominari potest.