Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 2: Certain Grosser Impostures and Lies of Luther Are Exposed
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book I, the fourth general controversy on the sacraments. 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).
Now to come to the lies. Luther, in the pamphlet which he entitled Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist, disputing on the sixth article, says thus: “Read the books of those sophists on Penance; you will laugh that they make no mention either of the promise or of faith. For these living parts of Penance they omit, and harass men with dead contritions only.” So he there. He repeats the same in these words, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Penance: “Not content with this, our Babylon has so extinguished faith too that with shameless brow she denied that it was necessary in this sacrament; nay, with antichristian impiety she defined it to be heresy if anyone asserted that faith was necessary.” This most shameless calumny is refuted not only by all the books of Catholics, which require faith in the first place in the justification of adults, but also by Luther himself, most openly fighting with himself on the same page within seven lines. For so he says in the book cited above against the execrable bull of Antichrist, and on that very page: “This is the doctrine: that penance is of no moment to anyone unless it be done in faith and charity; which they themselves also teach, except that they neither know nor teach what faith is or what charity is.” So he there.
Secondly, the same Luther in the same book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Penance: “In the first place,” he says, “they have so taught contrition as to make it prior to faith in the promise, and far more precious, as being not a work of faith but a merit; nay, they do not mention faith.” And below: “Bolder than these, others have invented a certain attrition, which by virtue of the keys, which they do not know, becomes contrition; this they grant to the impious and unbelieving, so that all contrition is abolished. O the insupportable wrath of God! Are these things taught in the Church of Christ?” So he. But all these things are impostures and calumnies. For no Catholic has taught that contrition is prior to faith, nor that even attrition can in any way be had without faith going before; and we are so certain that faith is the gift of God that we constantly teach that it cannot be acquired as by merit, either by contrition, which is born of faith, or by any other work. Nor could Luther point to any author of ours, that is, of the Catholics, who wrote the things against which he so tragically vociferates. But I see whence he took the occasion for calumniating: for this new Apostle defines faith far otherwise than blessed Paul defined it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and than the Catholic Church of Christ has hitherto received it. Because, then, we Catholics do not acknowledge that empty persuasion by which the Lutherans bid each man believe most firmly that his sins are forgiven him by God, and do not even count it worthy of the name of Catholic faith, Luther, to impose on the simple, calumniates us as simply separating faith from contrition, and indeed as removing it altogether. But we contend that it is not the faith of Christ but the heresy of Luther that is not at all necessary for contrition.
Thirdly, the same Luther in the fourth disputation against the Antinomians, proposition 3, teaches that among Catholics the penitent must be uncertain of the remission of sins. And in the same disputation, proposition 9, he affirms that the Papists compel men to distrust whether Christ died for their sins. And in the sermon on the Eucharist which he gave in the year 1520, he says that the greatest error has been that no one hitherto has had the benefit of absolution, because, that is, they did not believe for certain that they were absolved. Here something is briefly to be observed, that the foundation of these calumnies may be more easily exposed. Since three things concur to the remission of sins, the merit of Christ, the virtue of the sacrament, and our own disposition through penance itself, which cannot be had without an act of faith and of the other virtues, Catholic men are so far from doubting of the merit of Christ and the virtue of the sacrament that they count as heretics those who dare to dispute that Christ did not die for all, or that his death does not suffice to blot out all the sins of all men, or that the virtue of the sacrament is ineffectual or uncertain. But about our own disposition, whether it is such as is required, they teach that one may not without reason be in doubt. And this the Lutherans themselves also are compelled to confess; for they too do not deny that penance is required, and they grant that a man can be deceived in discerning his own faith and penance. For so Luther speaks in the sermon on Baptism given in the year 1535: “That Baptism may be certain in us, God does not found it on our faith, since that can be uncertain and false, but on his word and his institution.” And John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 2, section 10, speaking of those who think they have faith when they do not: “So many recesses of vanity,” he says, “does the human heart have, with so many hiding-places of falsehood does it teem, with such fraudulent hypocrisy is it covered, that it often deceives itself. But let those who glory in such images of faith understand that in this respect they in no way surpass the devils.” So he. Luther, then, and likewise the Lutherans everywhere, when they understand that Catholics sometimes not without cause doubt of the obtaining of remission of sins on account of their own indisposition, by a wonderful fraud transfer what belongs to one cause to another, and shamelessly fasten on us that we doubt of the price of Christ’s death, or of the virtue and efficacy of the sacrament. Add that Catholics do not teach that penitents must be uncertain (as Luther lies) of the remission of sins, since they rather exhort them so to live, and to receive the sacrament with such diligence and such zeal, that they may confidently trust that their sins are forgiven them, and may most joyfully enjoy the testimony of a peaceful conscience. But there are two things which Catholics teach, and in which we differ from the adversaries. The one, that the certainty which we can have of the remission of sins, and which very many of the faithful have after receiving the sacraments, is not the certainty of Catholic faith but a moral and human one, and belongs not so much to faith as to confidence. The other, that those who lack this certainty, and on account of their own weakness fear that perhaps they have not received the fruit of the sacrament, are not on that account to be numbered among the unbelieving and impious; nor do they receive the sacraments uselessly because they fear that perhaps they receive them uselessly. But the adversaries bid those to whom they minister the sacraments believe no less certainly that their sins are forgiven them than that Christ is God; and for the same reason they judge those who doubt of their own justification impious and unbelieving; in which they are most plainly deceived. For although from the word of God we are certain that sins are forgiven to all those who come as they ought to the sacrament of Penance, the Lord saying, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” John 20; yet that this or that man comes to the sacrament as he ought cannot be gathered from the word of God, but only from human conjectures and signs; and so this can in no way pertain to Catholic and divine faith, which rests on the word of God.
Fourthly, the same Luther in the book On the Private Mass, published in the year 1534, writes that most Catholics with horrible and satanic impudence now again teach that Christ satisfied only for original sin, but that for actual sins we ourselves must satisfy; and that thus from Christians we are now made Turks and heathens, Christ being spat upon. The same in the preface of the commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians, in the year 1535, goes further; for he says that Christ is less esteemed by Catholics than by the Jews, since the Jews hold Christ for a robber deservedly hanged on a cross, but Catholics (as he lies) hold Christ for a fable, and as some fictitious deity among the Gentiles. This lie is so gross and manifest that it needs no refutation. For Catholics do not refer satisfaction to the blotting out of actual sins themselves, except perhaps by way of disposition, but to the temporal punishments which the divine wisdom has willed to remain when the guilt is forgiven; moreover all Catholics affirm that actual guilt itself is purged through the sacrament of Penance, which has its power from the blood of Christ. And this Luther himself could not have been ignorant of; for in the disputation of Philipp on the parts of Penance, to which Luther prefixed a commendatory letter, proposition 10 runs thus: “The adversaries rightly confess that satisfactions do not merit the remission of guilt”; and Philipp repeats the same in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in the article on confession and satisfaction. Add that Catholics teach not only that Christ satisfied for all guilt, but also for all punishments; but that the satisfaction of Christ is not applied to us in the same way for original guilt and for actual, nor in the same way for eternal punishment and for temporal, as we shall explain below in its place.
Fifthly, the same Luther in the commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, on those words of chapter 2, “For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed,” and so on, writes that Catholics in the sacrament of confession make no mention of the merit of Christ, but inculcate only human satisfactions; which he proves from the form of absolution used by the more religious Papists. But this lie I think Luther wrote not awake but asleep; for in the very form of absolution which he sets down in that place, and which Tilmann Heshusius also recites from Luther in the book On the Six Hundred Errors of the Papists, place 9, number 57, the first words are these: “May the merit of the passion of Christ, and the merit of the blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints,” and so on.
Sixthly, the same Luther in the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on the sacrament of Penance, at the very beginning says thus: “The first and capital evil of this sacrament is that they have wholly abolished the sacrament itself, not even a trace of it being left.” But if this were so, as Luther says in this place, certainly Catholics would not, in Luther’s own opinion, reckon that there are seven sacraments; for there cannot be seven if one is taken away. And the same Luther, at the very beginning of the same book on the Babylonian Captivity, when he says that he must deny the seven sacraments and for the time being set down only three, signifies plainly enough that among Catholics seven sacraments are commonly numbered.
Seventhly, the same Luther in the book Against the Papacy Founded at Rome, which he published in the year 1545, one year, that is, before he departed this life, lies so impudently and speaks so obscenely and petulantly that it is a wonder he was not held by his own people rather for a buffoon than for an evangelist. He boldly writes that the Pope says: “No one outside me, my keys and my Masses can bring help; Christ and faith can confer nothing here.” Likewise: “Christ is drunk, stupid, foolish, and has forgotten how great a power of binding with the keys he handed over to me.” Likewise: “He who does not adore the crackings of my belly commits mortal sin and is worthy of hell.” In the same place he seriously affirms that the Pope and all who adhere to him, whom he calls rude and stupid and wicked asses, know nothing at all in the sacred letters, know nothing of God, of Christ, of Baptism, of the Eucharist, of the keys, of good works; and he says it is beyond doubt that no Catholic knows one of the ten commandments, or one petition of the Lord’s prayer, or any article of the creed; nay, that they cannot even recite the order of the decalogue, things which among his Lutherans are very well known even to children of five years. If I were to wish to refute these things I should do an injury to the Lutherans themselves, as if I thought them so dull and slow as to have allowed such splendid lies to be persuaded them.
Eighthly, the same Luther in the Smalcald Articles, which he collected in the year 1537 and promulgated in an assembly of his own people, in the third part, under the title of the false Penance of the Papists, besides many other lies with which that title teems, fastens on Catholics that they teach that those who do penance rightly merit the remission of sins. Likewise he adds that among Catholics no mention is made of Christ or of faith, but that each one hopes by his own works to blot out all his sins before God; likewise that the contrition of Catholics is a feigned and simulated thought of sins proceeding from their own strength, without faith and without thought of Christ. These and similar things, which in that place are often repeated and inculcated, so far are we from acknowledging as ours that we utterly condemn them in the Pelagian heretics. But, as I have often said, it is easy to assert anything without a witness, and it is prone and familiar to heretics to lie.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
DetegiuUuv imposluriic. vl mcndacia quacdam
crassLora Luthcri.
Nunc ul ad mendacia vcnianuis: Lulhcrus in li-
bcllo (juem inscripsil: Adversus cxccrabilem An-
tlclirisli bullam. dc C». articul. dispiilans , sic ail :
Lrtjc Ubros iUorum ^ophislarum dc PociiUcnlia,
ridebis cos nec promissionis , ncc fidci 'ulhim
monlioncm faccrc. Jlas cnim partcs Pocnilcnliac
rivas omiltunt. cl snlis mortuis contritionibus
homincs cxa<jitant. Ilaec ibi.Mcm rcpetit bis ver-
bis. in lib. dc caplivit. babylon. cap.dc Poenitcn-
lia: iSon hoc conlonta Pjalnjlona noslra , fidcm
quoqnc adco cxlinxU, ut impudcnti frontc cnm
nccjarcl neccssariam csse in sacranunUo islo.im-
mo antichristica impietate definirel haeresim
vssi\ si fid('mncccssn.riani quis csse asscreret.
lliicc impudcnlissima calumnia non solum refu-
latur omnibus catbolicoruni libris, qui primo loco
lidcin exiguiil in juslificatione adultorum: sed et-
iam cx ipi-omel Lulhcro secum in eadem pat^ina
inlra seplem lineas apcrtissime pugnante. Sic e-
nim ail in libro supra cilato adversus execrabilem
Anlichristi bullam, el in cadem ipsa pagina: 7/oc
ea doctrina cqi: pocmlcntiam nuUius es.se mo-
vicnti. nisi in (ide el charitate ficret; quod ipsi-
nicl doccnl qunque. nisi quod ncc quid fidcs,
ncc quid charitas sU , aul sciunl , aut doccnt.
Haec ibi.
Seciindo: Ideni Lulherus in eodcm lib. dc ca-
pliv. babylonica cnp. de Poenilenlia: Principio ,
iiuniit. cnnirUionemsic docuerunl , ut eani (ide
promissionis priorem facerent, el lonric vitiorem,
ut quac non cssct (idei opus, scd meritum; inimo
non mcmoranlur cam. Va infra : His audaciorcs
flpcjnrcs (inxerunt quandam attrUioncm, quae
virtule claviuni, quam ignoranl. ficrct conlrilio:
cam dnnant impiis et incred.ulis. tU si universa
r.ontrUio abolcretur. 0 iram Dci insuslcntabilem.
llaeccinc in Ecclesia Christi doceri? [hwc ilJe.
Atliaccomnia imposlurae el calumniae sunl.
Nemo enim catliolicorum contrilionem priorem es-
se nde. ncqiio ipsai)! eliam allrilioncm nisi llije
praecedonle ulio modo Iiabori possedocuil: fidem
.mtcm iia cerli sumiis donum osse Dei , ul neque
contnlione. quae ex fide nascitur , nequc ullo alio
opero, lamquani ex mcrilo acqiiiri posscconstau-
t«r doccamus. i\cquo Lutberus ullum iiolare potuit
•nicior.Mii o\ iioslris, idcsl, CMlbolicorum, qui ea
scnpseril, advcrsus quac ipsc adco tra-ice vocire-
ralnr. Sed vidoo undo occavsionom accepcril ca-
Iiminiandi: lidcm enim novus islo Aposloliis lonj^c
alilcr ilclinil, t|uani in cpisl. ad llcbraeos b. Pau-
lus ilcrmicril, t!l tpiam at-ccpont baclcniis callioli-
ca Cliristi Kcclosia. Quia igilur inanom iliam per-
suasioiKMii, ipia Lutliorani jubcnl iiniimqucnKiuo
liruiissime crodcro sibi a Doo romissa ossc pocca-
la, iios calholici non agnoscimus, ac ne fidci tjui-
dcm catliolicao noniinc dignamur ; Lulliorus ul
simplicibus imponal, nos rulom simplicitcr a con-
Irilione soiiarare, alque adoo, tlo modio lollore ca-
lumniatur. Al nos non fidem Clirisli, sod baeresini
Lulhcri minime ncccssariam ad conlritionem cssc
coutimdimus.
Terlio: Idem Lullicrus iu 4. disput. advcrsus
Anlinomos propos. 3. docct, apud calholicos poe-
nilonliMii oporlcre csso incerlum de remissiono
pcccalorum. Kl in cadein dispulalione, proposil.
1). afHrmal Papistas cogere liomines uldifiidanl an
Clirislus pro illorum pcccatis sit morluus. Et iii
scrm. de Eucharislia, quem habuilanno 20. dicit,
summo crralum osse; quod nemo liaclenus ratio-
nem absolutionis habuerit, quod vidclicel non cer-
to croditJcrinl sc absolulos.
Ubi ost aliquid brcvilcr observandum; ut funda-
mentum harum calumniarum facilius detcgaiur.
Ciim Iria conciirrnnl ad remissionem peccalorum
Chrisli merilum, virtus sacramenti, et propria dis-
positio per ipsam poenitcnliam , quae sine actu
fidei, aliarumque virtulum haberi non potest: Ca-
tholici homines adeo non dubilant de Chrisli me-
rito ot sacramenli virlule, ut haereticos censeant
qui Chrislum non pro omnibus mortuum, autojus
morlem non ad omnia omnium hominura peccata
dclenda suflicere, aul sacramenti virtutem incfii-
caocm; incortamve esse disputare ausi fuerint. l)c
propria disposilione, an ea sit qualis requiritur ,
noii immorilo ambigi posse docent. Quod quidem
ipsi eiinm Lulherani fatcri coguntur : nam iideiTi
cl pocnilonliam re(]uiri non neganl: possc aulen^
falli hominem in sua fide ac po(milenlia discernen-
da,concedunl.Sic cnim Lulhorus loquitur in serm.
de Baplisino habilo anno 153.j. Ut IJaptismus ccr-
tus sit in nobis,idco nonfundal euni Deus supra
(idemnosiram, cum illa possit inccrta el falsa
esse, scd supra vcrbuni el institutionem suam.
Va Joannes Calvinus lib. 3. Inslit. cap. 2. § 10.
de iis loquens, qui fidem se habere exislimant ,
cum larnon non habcant : Tot vanjitalis , inquil,
recessus habct , tot mendacfi lalebris scatct cor
humanum, tani fraudulcnta hypocrisi obtcctum
est, ul scipsuni saepe fallat. At vero qui talibus
fidei simulachris gloriaiUur. inteUiganl diabolis
nihilo se in hac parte praeceUere. Hacc iJlc.
Lutherus igilur, utetiaui Lulherani passim,cum
inlelliganl calholicos dc consequutiono rcmissio-
nis pcccalorum interdum non sine caussa dubitare
ob indispositionem propriam ; mira fraudo , quod
osl unius caussae, ad aliam transferunt, et iinpu-
denlcr nobis affingunt, quod de morlis Chrisli [ire-
lio, aul de sacramenti virtule et ciricacia dubite-
mus. Accedit, quod catholici non docent oportere
pocnilcntes (ut Lutherus mentitur) esse incertos
dc lemissiouc pcccalorum, (luiii puliLis hurlantur,
LIBER PRIMUS
585
ut ila vivant, et ca diligenlia, eoque sludio sacra-
racnlum percipiant, ul certo confidere possint sibi
remissa csse peccata, et teslimonio pacatac con-
scicntiae jucundissime perfruanlur.
Scd duo sunt quae calliolici docent, el in qui-
bus ab adversariis dissideraus. Allerum, certudi-
ncm quam de remissione peccatorum habere pos-
sumus, cl plurimi lidelium posl sacramenta perce-
pla habent, non csse cerlitudinem lidei catholicae
sed moralem elhumanam, nec tam fidei, quam fl-
duciae. Alterum, eos, qui hac certitudine carent ,
ctob suam inflrmilatem metuunt ne forle sacra-
menti fl-uctum non percepermt, non csse prople-
rea inter infldeles et impios numcrandos; neque
ideo inutiliter sacramenla percipere, quia Imicnl
ne lorte inulililer sacramenla percipiant.
Adversarii vcro non minus ccrlo credere jnbent
cos, quibus sacraraenla rainislrant , sibi remissa
cssc peccata,quam Chrislum Dcum esse,ct cadcm
decaussa qui de sua justiGcalionc dubilant , im-
pios el infldelcs judicant: in qno aporlissime lal-
luiilur. Nara etiamsi cx verbo Dci cerli sinms, o-
mnibus illis remitti pcccata.qui ul oporlciad Poc-
nilenliac sacramenlum accedunt, diccnlc Domino:
Quorum remiscritis pcccata, rcmiltuntur cis ,
Joan. 20.IIunc tamen aul illu.n liomincm.ul opor-
let, ad sacramentura accedere,cx vcrbo Dei colligi
non potest, sed ex huraanis tantura conjecturis ac
signis, proinde ad fldem calholicara et divinam ,
quae verbo Dci nititur, id pertincre nuUo modo
potest.
Quarlo: Idem Lutherus in lib. de missa privala
edito anno 34. scribit plerosque catholicorum hor-
ribili ct satanica irapudentia jara rursus docere ,
Christura tanlum salisfecissc pro peccato originali:
pro actualibus autcm nosipsos satisfacere oporte-
rc, ct ila ex Christianis nos jara flcri Turcas ct E-
thnicos, consputato Christo. Idem in praefalione
commentariorum m cpisl. ad Galat. anno 35. lon-
gius progrcditur: dicit cnim a calholicis minoris
Christum acslimari, quam a Judacis; cum Judaci
Christum habcant pro latrone merito in cruce su-
spenso: Catholici aulem (ut ipse meTilitur) Cliri-
stum habcant pro fabula, et tamquam aliquod fl-
ctum numen apud gcnlilcs.
Mcndacium hoc lam est crassum cl manifcstum,
utnnlla refutationc indigeaf. Calholici cnim salis-
faclioncm iion ad ipsa poccata acluaiiii dclendii rc-
lcrunt, nisi fortc pcr modura dispositionis; scd ad
[)Ocnas temporales, quas divina sapienlia rcmane-
rc vuluit rcmissa culpa: porro culpas ipsas actua-
les calholiciomncs per sacramentum Poenitcntiae,
quod vim Iiabct cx Christi sanguine, purgari aiflr-
mant. Id quod ncquc Lulhcrus ipsc ignorarc po-
luit: nam in dispuliilionc l'hilippi dc partibus Poc-
nitentiae.cui Lulhcrus epislolam laudaloriiim priic-
flxit, ila liabct propositio 10. liecte fatciitur ad-
vcrsa7'ii quod satisfacliovcs non mcrcantur rc-
missioncm culpae, ct idcm rcpetit Philippus in a-
pologia confessionis Augustanac in art. de confes-
sionc cl satisfactionc. Addc, quod non soliira ca-
Iholici doccnt, Chrislmii salisfecissc pro culpis o-
imiibus, scd cliiim pro (»mnibus pocnis : ciKilcrum
Cliristi satisfaclioncm non eodem modo nobisap-
plicari pro culpa originali, et pro actuah'; neque
eodcm modo pro pocna aeterna , et pro temporali,
ut infra suo loco cxplicabiraus.
Quinto: Idcra Lutherus in corament. epist. ad
Galat. in illa verba2. cap.St enim qiiae dcstruxi;
iterum aedifico etc. scribit calholicos in confes-
sionis sacraraento nuUara mentionem facere meriti
Christi, sed inculcare tanlum humanas satisfactio-
nes: id quod probat ex forma absolutionis, qua
utuntur religiosiores Papistae.
Sed hoc raendaciura non opinor Lutherum vigi-
lando, sed dormiendo scripsisse: nam in ipsa for-
ma absolutionis, quam eo loco ponit, et quara et-
iam ex Luthero Tilmannus Heshusius recitat in li-
bro de sexcentis crroribus Pontiflciorum, loco 0.
num. 57. prima verba sunt haec: Meritum passio-
nis Chrisli, ct mcritum bealae Mariac Yirginis el
omnium sanctorum elc.
Sexto: Idera Lufhcrus incaptivit. babyl. cap.de
sacramcnto Poenitentiae, in ipso principm sic ait :
Prinium hujus sacramenli, et capitale malum
est, quod sacramentum ipsum in totum aboleve-
runt, ne vestigio quidem ejiis relicto.
At si ista esset, ul Lulherus hoc loco dicit, cer-
te non aestimarent calholici ex Lutheri senlcntia,
septem csse sacramenla: non enim septem esse
possunt si unum dematur.Idcm autem Lutherus ia
ipso principio ejusdem libri de caplivit.Babyl.cum
dicit, neganda sibi esse seplem sacramenta,et lan-
tum Iriapro lempore poncnda. satis aperle signi-
flcal apud catholicos septera sacramcnta coramuni-
ter numcrari.
Seplimo: Idem Lutherus in lib. adversus papa-
tura Romaefundatum, quem cdidit anno 45. uno
anno videlicet antequam de hac vita migrarct. ila
impudcntcr menlitur et obscocne ac pelulanter
loquilur, ul mirum sit ab ipsissuis hominibus non-
pro scurra potius, quam pro cvangelista habitum.
Andacler scribit papam dicere: iVcmo extra me ,
mcas clavcs et missas. potesl opcm fcrre: Christus
et fides hic nihilpossunlconferrc. Item: Christus
est ebrius, stolidus, fatuus et oblitus quantam
potestatem lirjandi cum clavibus 7nihi tradidcrit.
Itcm: Qui non adorat ventris mci crepitus. pcc-
catum mortalc commitlit et dignus cst inferno.
Ibidem serio alflnnat: Papam el omnes qui illi ad-
haercnt, quos rudes ct slupidos ac scclcratos asi-
uos vocat, nihil omnino scire in sacris lilcris, ni-
hil nossedc Dco, de Christo, dc Bnptismo, dc Eu-
charislia, dc clavibus, dc bonis opcribus: et cxtra
dubitationem csse dicit.nullum catholicorum scire
nnum cx dccem praccoplis. vcl unara pctitioncm
orationis dominicac, vel aliqucra articulum syni-
boli; iramo ncquc ordinem dccalogi possc rcccn-
serc, quac apud suos J.ulhcranos cliam pucrisr
qiiinquc annorum nolissiina snnt.
Ilacc si refcllerc vcliin iiijiiriam fariam vcl ipsis:
Lulhcraiiis, qmisi cos lam hcbclcs (>t liir(loscss(j
ccnscam: ul Iiaoc tam splendida niendacia sibi
persuadcri passi fucrint.
Octavo: Idom Liithcrus in arliculis Smalchaldi-
cis, (piosiiiino 1537. collogit , ct in convciilii suo-
riim promulgiivit, in 3. part. liliilo dc falsa Pocni-
tcntia l'apistarum, praetcr alia niultii mcnducia ,
586
UC POK.MTKMIA
quibus lilulus ille scalel, caUiolicis imponil, (juod
tloccaiit oos qui rocto PooiiiteiUi;iiii ;ij,niiit, iiior«ri
reiiiissionoiii poccatoruiii. Ileiii addit. ajiud (iillK)-
licos nullani liori Clirisli, aul (idei inoiitioiicm, scd
speraro uiuimquoiiU]ue se propriis oporihus aliole-
ro ouiiiia poccala corain Doo: itciu contrilionein
ciiHiolicoruin. cssc liclain cl sinuilalani coj^italio-
nom pcccalorum cx propriis viribus profcclani sinc
lido cl sine copiutione Cliristi.
Maec otsimilia.quae co loco saepius rcpcluntur
cl inculoanlur, tanluin abcsl ul pro noslris agno-
scamus , ul ca in Pelagianis haerelicis prorsus
damnemus. Sed ut saepc dixi, facilc csl siuc lcslc
quiJIibct assererc , clproclivc ac familiure haerc-
licis mcnliri.