Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 4: The Calumnies and Lies of Tilmann Heshusius
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).
Tilmann Heshusius, who writes himself Bishop of Samland, when he observed that for many years now the Catholics had been protesting that very many lies had been invented by Luther, Philipp and the other sectaries, so as at least to make odious by impostures the Catholic doctrine which they could not confute by solid reasons, took up the plan of pointing out the authors of all those errors which are objected to us by the Lutherans, so that, the authors of our opinions being seen and acknowledged, we might at last cease to make the Lutherans guilty of so many lies and calumnies. So he wrote a book on the six hundred errors which the Roman Church furiously defends against the word of God; of which book we have said not a little in other places. Now we shall look only at the ninth place, which is on Penance. In that place Heshusius counted eighty-three errors, which he contends are affirmed on Penance by Catholics.
But among these are not found those which were everywhere objected to us by Luther and Philipp, as that we exclude faith from the sacrament of Penance, that we acquire grace by our own merits, and others of that kind; so he did not point out the authors of those errors which we contend are falsely, and with the utmost impudence, fastened on us. Next, among the errors which Tilmann enumerates, many are common to us with the Lutherans, which certainly either will not be errors, or the Lutherans will err along with the Papists, and may even be called Papists. Many likewise are taken word for word from the books of the ancient and most holy Fathers who flourished a thousand years ago, which ought likewise either to be struck out of the catalogue of those errors, or else it will be established that those ancient and most holy Fathers were Papists, and so that the Church of the Papists is that ancient and true Church which flourished a thousand years ago. There are also not a few which contain opinions so true that it must be altogether necessary either that Heshusius did not understand the opinion of the Catholics, or that he chose deliberately to play the fool, not to say the madman. There are finally very many which contain manifest calumnies and lies. And when all these are subtracted from that number, that vast heap of errors will be reduced to a very small pile.
Examples of the first kind may be these. The eighth error in Heshusius is that in the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 1, Catholics assert that Penance was not a sacrament before the coming of Christ, nor even after his coming is it one for anyone before Baptism. In this opinion certainly all the Lutherans agree with us; for neither Luther nor any Lutheran ever taught that Penance is a sacrament when it is done before Baptism, or that in the Old Testament there was any sacrament of Penance properly so called. Error 54 is noted by Heshusius, that the same Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 6, teaches that even those priests who are held in mortal sin exercise the function of forgiving sins, through the virtue of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, as ministers of Christ. This opinion is so common to Catholics with the Lutherans that in the Augsburg Confession itself, article 8, the Donatists and the like are condemned, who denied that the ministry of evil men in the sacraments is useful and efficacious; and in the same place it is openly asserted that the sacraments are efficacious on account of the ordinance and command of Christ, even if they are administered by evil men. So let Heshusius either attack that error, or confess that he is condemned as a Donatist by the Augsburg Confession itself. Error 74 is set down by Heshusius, that satisfaction ought not to be made for original sin; of which error he cites as author Saint Thomas, book 4, distinction 16, question 1, article 2. But what Lutheran has not ever thought the same? Is it credible that those who remove satisfaction altogether from the world would admit satisfaction for expiating original sin?
Now these may be examples of the second kind. The first error is said to be that Penance is to bewail past sins and not to commit what must be bewailed. These words are read in Saint Gregory, homily 34 on the Gospels, and similar ones are cited under the name of Saint Ambrose by Gratian, in the canon Ecce nunc, On Penance, distinction 1. Wherefore if this is an error of the Papists, as Heshusius says, Gregory and Ambrose were Papists, and so adversaries of the Lutherans. The third error in Heshusius is this: “The second plank after shipwreck is simply to confess one’s fault.” But these are the very words of Saint Jerome in the letter to Pammachius and Oceanus on the errors of Origen, and the same author has a similar opinion in the letter to Demetrias, and in another to Sabinian, and on Isaiah, chapter 3. You see, then, reader, how ancient and noble a Papist Heshusius grants us, whom we may with the best right prefer to six hundred Luthers. Error 11 is that we say Penance is a laborious Baptism, and that in the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 2, the Fathers assert that newness of life is reached through the sacrament of Penance not without great tears and labours. But this opinion belongs not to one or another, but to almost all the ancient writers, so that it cannot be called an error of the Papists unless all those most holy and most ancient Fathers are granted to have been Papists. For those who so compare Penance with Baptism as the plank of a shipwreck with a whole ship indicate plainly enough that Penance is a laborious Baptism. But besides Jerome, to the same effect write Saint Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Pacian, Ambrose, Theodoret, Damascene and others, whose testimonies are cited in chapter 12 below. Error 28 is that the sorrow taken up from contrition ought to be so vehement, sharp and intense that the bitterness of the sorrow can be equalled and compared with the magnitude of the crimes. But this opinion not only the Roman catechism, which Heshusius cites, but also the most holy and most learned martyr Cyprian holds; for so he writes at the end of the sermon On the Lapsed: “As greatly as we have sinned, so greatly let us weep; let a deep wound not lack a careful and long cure; let the penance not be less than the crime.” Error 40 is that confession frees from death, opens paradise and gives hope of salvation; of which error Heshusius makes Peter Lombard the author, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 17. But the words which Lombard speaks he did not invent for himself, but cited from Ambrose in a certain sermon on Lent. And so much for the second kind.
Examples of the third kind may be these. He says the fifth error is that the sacrament of Penance consists essentially in the act of him who is sanctified; which opinion Catholics so understand as to mean that contrition, confession and satisfaction, which they call the material parts of this sacrament, consist in the action of the penitent. And that this is true no sober man will deny; for whose action can it be to grieve, to confess, to make satisfaction, except his who grieves, confesses, makes satisfaction? He says the sixth error is that Penance according to habit ought to be perpetual, but according to act not so. But who will deny this opinion if he understands it? For we cannot do penance in act while we sleep (to omit now the various affairs which hinder the action of penance), and so we can by no means do it perpetually; but that in habit we ought and can be prompt and ready to do penance if the matter demands it, who has ever denied? He says error 13 is that faith is not a part of penance, but precedes it. And this opinion, if by faith is understood what Catholics understand, namely a firm assent to all those things which God has deigned to reveal by his word, neither the Lutherans nor any men at all will be able to deny. For unless someone believes for certain that there is a God, sin, judgement and other things of that kind, it cannot come about that he is led to penance; wherefore unless faith precedes, penance will never follow. He numbers as error 14 that there is a twofold sorrow in contrition, one rational, the other sensible; and that the former is necessarily required for contrition, the latter not. And here what doubt can be imagined? Will Tilmann deny that a man can conceive sorrow both in mind and in flesh? But if he denies it, he will give us an angel or a beast, not a man. Will he deny that that sorrow which is conceived in the mind can exist without sensible and external sorrow? But how often do we ourselves experience in ourselves that, when we turn away from something with the greatest gravity of mind and greatly repent of it, we nevertheless cannot obtain from ourselves a single tear? And what Christian doubts that for the detestation of sin a contrite heart and a troubled spirit can suffice, even without bodily tears? He makes it error 25 that we say contrition ought to be perfect, and so great a sorrow to be conceived for sins that a greater cannot be thought of; of which error he makes the Roman catechism the author. But Heshusius is mistaken; for the author of that opinion is not the Roman catechism but the Holy Spirit, who, since by the mouth of Moses and of Christ himself he has so often testified that God is to be loved with the whole mind, the whole heart and all our strength, that is, with the highest and most sincere love, so that we neither prefer nor equal anything to him, is certainly to be thought to have admonished us at the same time to grieve for sins committed against God with the whole heart, the whole mind and all our strength, and not to be affected with a greater or equal sorrow for the loss of any created good (for love is the measure of sorrow); unless perhaps it seems to Heshusius that a greater sorrow is to be conceived for the loss of money than for the offence of God. But I come to the examples of the last kind, that is, to calumnies and lies.
In error 12 he notes from the Roman catechism that by the force and efficacy of the sacrament of Penance, which consists in an external act of a man, the blood of Christ washes away our sins, that is, that the blood of Christ receives its power from the act of a man; which is a horrible blasphemy. But it is rather the horrible impudence of the lying Heshusius, than any blasphemy of the catechism, that will be found in this place. For the catechism teaches only this, that by the force of the sacrament, as of a certain divine instrument, the blood of Christ is conveyed to us, by which sins are purged; not (as Heshusius lies) that the blood of Christ receives its power from the sacraments, for that no Catholic ever either wrote or dreamed. And these are the words of the catechism, which are cited also by the adversary: “Since no one can obtain salvation except through Christ and the benefit of his passion, it was fitting, and most useful to us, that a sacrament of this kind should be instituted, by whose force and efficacy the blood of Christ, flowing down to us, might wash away the sins committed after Baptism.” In which place the catechism does not signify that by the force and efficacy of the sacrament the blood of Christ washes away sins, but that the blood of Christ, which alone can wash away our sins, by the force and efficacy of the sacrament flows down to us. From which it no more follows that the blood of Christ receives from the sacrament the power of washing away sins than it follows that water receives from a channel the power of wetting, because it comes down through the channel; or that a lamp borrows the power of shining from the lampstand, because it is carried through the lampstand into the hall.
In error 19 he notes from Gratian and Lombard that penance can be done only once. But after his manner he plays the impostor. For Gratian, distinctions 2 and 3 On Penance, and Lombard, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 14, bring forward various testimonies of the Fathers which seem in appearance contrary, since some grant that penance is done only once, others that it can be repeated more often; but the same authors reconcile the sayings of the Fathers, and teach that solemn penance is customarily granted only once, private penance more often. But Heshusius, to impose on the simple, cites what those authors adduce for one side of the question as if that were the opinion of the Catholics.
In error 24 he censures the Roman catechism and Tapper for asserting that contrition is not a work of the Holy Spirit, but an act of the will, elicited by the power of free will. Here indeed he plays the most audacious impostor; for where, I ask, in the whole catechism, or in all the books of Tapper, will that negation be found, that contrition is not a work of the Holy Spirit? The author of the catechism and Tapper do say that contrition is an act of the will, or of free will (which alone Heshusius cites, and it is most true); but that it is an act of free will alone, or is not at the same time a gift of the Holy Spirit, they do not say. And childish is that logic of Heshusius: contrition is an act of the will, therefore it is not a work of the Holy Spirit; as if the same work could not be done at once by God and by our will. Saint Augustine, in the book On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 5, discoursing of the acts of believing and loving: “Each,” he says, “is ours on account of the choice of the will, and each is given on account of the spirit of faith and charity.”
In error 78, whose author Heshusius could not find, these words are found: “They teach that the absolution of sins ought to be done not only in the name of Jesus Christ, but also of blessed Mary, and of all the saints, and even of our own works; and this is the common and blasphemous form of absolution which they have used in the monasteries: ‘May the merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Mary ever Virgin, and of all the saints, the merit of your order and the burden of your religion, the humility of your confession, the contrition of your heart, the good works which you have done and will do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, avail you for the remission of sins, for the increase of merit and grace, and for the reward of eternal life.’” I wished to recite these things word for word, so that the impudence of the heretics and their lust for lying might become known to all; for our Heshusius neither produced nor could produce any Catholic author who would acknowledge these words as the form of absolution. For the true form which all Catholics use is these words: “I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen”; in which form no mention is made of the blessed Virgin Mary or of the other saints, but of God alone, whose proper work it is, by himself or through his ministers, to forgive sins. And that this is the form of absolution all know, partly from the Councils of Trent and Florence and all the authors who treat of these matters, partly from the very custom of the Church. Moreover, what Heshusius cites is not the form of absolution but a certain pious prayer which some are accustomed to use after the absolution from sins has been given. Nor is it absurd that we pray to be helped towards the remission of the punishment which remains from sin, and towards the increase of grace and the obtaining of eternal life, by the merits of Christ, of the most holy Mother of God, of all the blessed reigning with Christ, and also by our own works and labours, since all these can profit in their own way.
But we have now said enough of Heshusius; for it was not our purpose to sift everything, but only to bring forward certain things by way of example.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
Calumniae et mendacia Tilmanni Heshusii.
Tilmannus Heshusius, qui se episcopum sam-
biensem scribit , cum animadvcrleret mulli jam
annis catholicos protestari , mendacia plurima a
Lulhero, Philippo, caelerisque sectariis esse con-
ficla, ut doctrinara calholicam, quam solidis ratio-
nibus confutare non poterant, imposturis sallem
odiosam facerent, consilium cacpit iiidicandi au-
ctores eorura omnium crrorum.qui nobis a Lulhc-
rauis objiciunlur, ut aucloribus nostrarum scnlen-
liarum conspectis atque agnilis, dcsinereraus ali-
quando Lulheranos lot mendaciorum et calumniaT
588
DK POKM rilNTl \
TUin rcos facere. Ilaque librum scripsilile scxccn-
lis erroribus.quos roMiaua Koclesia conlra Doi vcr-
l)uui furonlor licfenilil; ilc quo libro in aliis locis
iion pauca dixinuis.
Nuuc inspicicuius soluin locuni novum , qui csl
<lc Pocnilcnlia. In co loco crrorcs trcs ct octo^'in-
ta nuineravil Hcshusius, quos dc Pocnilcnlia u ca-
lliolicis anirmari conlcndit.
Scd in his nou iuvcniuntur . qui a Lutiicro cl
rhili|ipo passim uobis objiciebaiitur, ut, (]uo(i li-
dcm cxcludanuis a sacrainciilo Poouitcntiac, quod
graliam propriis mcrilis acquiramus, et alia id ge-
nus: non igilur indicavit auclorcs corum crroruin,
quos nobis faiso.ct per suiumam impudcntiam im-
poni conlcndimus. Dcindc in crroribus quos Til-
niannus cnumcral.mulli sunt nobis communcs cum
Luthcrauis, qui certc aul errorcs uon crunt. aul
Luthcrani cum Papistis errabunt, ccl etiam Papi-
stae dici polerunt: multi sunl item ad verbum (ic-
prompli ex libris vctcrum ac sanclissimorum Pa-
Irum, qui anle millc annos llorucrunt , qui debenl
simililer aut expungi ex calalogo illorum errorum,
aul certe eniciclur, vetcres illos sanctissimosque
Patres fuissc Papislas, et proindc Papistarum Ec-
clesiam, anliquam illam ct vcrara essc Ecclesiam,
quae ante annos raille florebat.
Sunt ctiara non puuci, qui scnlcnlias adeo veras
comprehenduul, ut nccesse omnino fuerit, vel
Hcshusiura non inlellexisse catholicorum senlen-
liam, aul sludiose incplire, ne dicam insanire vo-
luisse. Sunl dcnique plurirai , qui manifestas ca-
lumnias: ct mcndacia contincnt. Ilis aulem orani-
bus de numcro illo detractis, ad exiguum sane re-
ducctur cumulum illc ingcns acervus errorum.
Exempla primi generis haec csse possunl. Octa-
vus error apud Heshusium est, quod in concilio
tridcnlino, sess.l4. cap. 1. catholici asseranl;Poe-
nitentiam ante Christi adventura sacraraentura non
fuisse, nequc etiara post illius adventum cuiquam
esse ante Baptismura.In hac certe senlentia nobis-
cum Lulherani conveniunt oranes : neque enim
Lulherus, aut ullus unquam Lutheranus docuit
Pocniteniiam sacraraentum esse, cum agitur ante
Captismura, aut in veteri Testamento uUum fuisse
sacramentura proprie diclum Poenilentiae.
Error 54. ab Heshusio notatur, quod idera con-
ciliura Iridenlinura sess. 14. cap. 6. doceat, etiam
eos sacerdotes, qui peccalo mortali lenentur , per
Spirilus sancli virtutera in ordinatione collalara ,
lamquara Christi rainistros functionera remitlendi
peccata exercere. Haec sententia ita est comraunis
catholicis cura Lutheranis, ut in ipsa confessione
Augustana art.8. damnentur Donatislae et similes,
qui negabant ministeriura raalorum in sacramentis
esse ulile, atque efficax: et ibidem aperle assera-
lur, sacramenta propter Ordinationem , et manda-
lum Christi efficacia esse, etiamsi per raalos exhi-
beantur. "Vel igitur Heshusius errorem illum ex-
pugnal, vel se ut Donatistam ab ipsa Auguslana
confessione damnatura esse faleatur.
Error 74. ponitur ab Heshusio,quod pro peccato
originali non debeat fieri salisfaclio: cujus erroris
auclorem cilat s. Thomam 4. dist. 16. quaesl. 1.
arl. 2. At quis unquara Lulheranus non idem sen*
sil? (|ui salisfactionom universo dc modio lollmil:
an cro.dibilo cst oos admissiiros salisrarlioncm ad
cxpiandum originalc pcocatiiiu ?
Jam sccuiuli gcncris \\i\w, (muiiI cxcmpla. Pri-
mus crror csse dicilur, quod Pocuitcntia sil prae-
lorila i)cccata plangcre ot plangonda noii admil-
lcrc. Quac vcrba apud s. Grcgoriiim loguntur liom,
34. in evangclia, cl citaiilur sirailia iiomiiie s.Am-
brosii a Gratiano cau. Eccc nunc, dc Pocnitentia
dist. 1. quarc si istc crror Papislarum csl, ut Hc-
sluisius dicil, Grcgorius ct Ambrosius Papi.stac,
alcpic adeo Luthcrauorum advcrsari cranl.
Tortius crror apud lloshusium hic cst:Sec)mr/rr
posl naufrogium labula esl, culpam simpUcUcr
confilcri. Al haec ipsa verba s. Ilieronymi sunl
in episl. ad Pammachiura cl Oceanum , de crrori-
bus Origcnis, cl similcm senlentiam idem auclor
liabct in cpislola ad Dcmctriadem , el in allera ad
Sabinianum, ctin cap. 3. Isai. Vides igitur leclor,
quam anliquum ac uobilem Papislam nobis con-
cedat Heshusius, quem scxccnlis Luthcris oplimo
jurc anteferre possimus.
Error 11. esl, quod Poenilenliam esse dicamus
BaptismumIaboriosum,quodque in tridenlino con-
cilio, scss. 14. cap. 2. asscrant Patrcs , ad vilae
novilalem pcr sacramcnlum Pocnitontiac non sine
magnis flelibus et laboribus pervcniri. Alqui haec
senlentia non unius. aut alterius, sed oranium pe-
ne velerura scriplorum est, ut non possit hic er-
ror Papislarum dici , nisi omnes illi sanctissimi
atque anliquissimi Patres Papistae concedantur
fuisse.
Nara qui ila comparant Poenitentiam cum Baplis-
mo ut labulam naufragii cum navigio integro,satis
aperte indicant, Poenitentiam Baplismum esse la-
boriosum. Sed praeter Hieronyraura in eandcm
scnlentiam scribunts. Cyprianus, Clemens alexan-
drinus, Tertullianus, Pacianus, Ambrosius, Theo-
doretus, Damascenus et alii , quorum teslimoniu
cap. 12. infra cilanlur.
Error 28. est, dolorera cx contrilione susceplum
adeo vehementem, acrem cl intensum esse opor-
lcrc, ut doloris accrbitas cum scelerum raagnitu-
dine aequari, conferrique possit. Ilanc vero sen-
tentiara non solum calechismus romanus, quem
Heshusius cital, sed etiam sanclissimus et doctis-
simus martyr Cyprianus habet: sic enim scribit in
serm. de lapsis exlremo : • Quam magna deliqui-
mus, tam granditcr defleamus: alto vulneri dili-
gens el longa medicina non desit ; Poenitenlia
crimine minor non sil.
Error 40. est, quod confessio a morte liberet ,
paradisum aperiat et spem salutis Iribuat: cujus
erroris auclorem facit Heshusius Pelrum Lom-
bardum lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 17. At verba ,
quae Lombardus loquitur, non ipsc sibi finxit, se(i
ex Ambrosio citavit in sermone quodam de qua-
dragesima. Atque haec de secundo genere.
fertii generis exempla haec esse poterunt.
Quintura errorem esse dicit, quod Poenilentiae sa-
cramentum consistat essenlialiler in aclu ejus qui
sanclificalur: quam sententiam calholici sic intel-
ligunt, ut ve^int conlritionem, confessionem etsa-
lisfactionem, quas partes materiales sacramenti
].im\ piiiMis
58!)
hujus appfillanl, in acliont^ poiMiilnnlis consisloro.
Quod quiclem veruni cssc, nenio sobrins negabil :
cujus eniin aclio esse polesl dolerc , conliteri . sa-
tisracere, aisi cjus qui dolcl, confilelur. salisfacil?
SexUnn errorcni esse dicil.quod Pocnilenlia siuuin-
dum liabilum dcboal esse perpclua, sccundu:n a-
cluin non ilem. Hanc vero senlcnliam quis nei:i'l,
si eam inlelligal? nec enini Poenilcnliam ac/.u aire-
re dum dormimus possumus (utvaria ncgolia.([uae
Pocnilenliae aclioncni impcdiunt, nunc omitlam )
proindc pcrpeluo illam agerc minime possunius :
jiabilu autcm promplos ac paratos ad Pocniicn-
liam agcndam si rcs poslulel cssc non debere ac
po^sc, quis unquam inficiatus esl?
Errorem 13. esse dicil, quod fides non sil pars
poenileuliac . sed eam anlccedal. El banc senlen-
tiam, si per fldem inlelligalur id quod catholici in-
lelligunl, firmus videlicel asseusus ad ea omnia ,
quae Deus verbo suo revehirc dignalus esl : nec
Lulherani, nec ulli omnino homines negare pole-
runl. Nisi cnim quis Deum, peccalum, judicium ,
el alia id gcnus csse corlo credat,ficri non potcsl,
ut ad Poenilenliam adducalur: quare nisi fides
praccedal, Poenitenlia numquam subsequctur.
Errorcm 14. numcrat, quod duplcx sit dolor in
conlrilione. unus ralionalis. aller sensuaiis. quod-
qnc prior neccssario ad conlritionem requiralur .
poslerior non ilem. Et hic quac dubitalio fingi po-
lesl? Negabil Tilmannus hominem , et mcnle, et
carnc dolorem possc concipere? al si id ncgel ,
angelum, vel belluatn, non hominem dabil.lXega-
bit dolorcm illum qui menle concipitur, sine dolo-
rc sensil)ili, atquc externo esse posse ? Al quain
sacpe expcrimur ipsi in nobis, cum rcm aliquam
gravissime animo aversemur . ejusque nos valdo
poenileat; tamcn lachrymam unam nos ipsos a
n()bis impetrare non posse? quis vcro Cliristianus
ambigat ad peccali dclest;ilionem , cor conlrilum
el spirilum conlribulatum. eliam sine corporalibus
lachrymis posse suiricerc ?
Errorem 25. facil, quod perfeclam conlrilionem
essc oporlerc dicamus, el tanlum dolorem ex pec-
calis concipicndum.ut major ncqueat cogitari: cu-
jns crroris anctorem facil calcchismum romanum.
Scd lidlilur llcslujsius: non enim senlenliac illius
calechisraus romanus, sed Spirilus sanclus est au-
clor, ([ui cum et Moysis, ct Christi ipsius orc lam
saei)0 loslalus sil: Dcum tota mcnte , loto cordo ,
alque omnibus viribns. idest, summo cl sinccris-
simo amore diligendum esse, ul nihil ei vel antc-
yiouamus, vcl adacquemus : cerlc simul cliam nos
admonuisso censcndus est, ut de peccalis in Diiuin
admissis, loto corcJo, lota mcnlo ; atquo omnibus
virihus dolcamus: ncquc ob ullius honi creali ja-
cturam majori, aul ac(iuali doloro aniciamnr (amor
cnim doloris monsura csl) nisi forlc Iloshusio vi-
doalur majorem cssc dolorcra cx pecuniae an)is-
sionc, (|uam (!X Dci olTimsione concipiondtmi. vSod
vonio ad cxcmpja ullimi goneris, idesl , ad calum-
nias ol moiidacia.
In crroro 12. nohit cx catcchismo roniano halio-
ri, quod vi cl onicacia sacramouli Poouilciiliac .
quod consistit in actu cxtorno iKiminis , Siinguis
Chrjsti noslra poccata abluat, hoc ost , sanguis
IkLLAIDII.M. Viil. III
Clirisli accipial vim sunm ab aclu hominis ; quae
cst horrenda blasphemia. At liorrenda polius im-
pudenlia nicnlienlis lleshusii, quam ulla calechis-
mi blasphcmia hoc loco repcrielur. Id enim soluni
calechismns docel, vi sacramenli . ut diviiii cujus-
dam instrumcnli, Chrisli sanguincm ad nos deri-
vari, qun poccala purgentur: non autem (ut men-
lilur ll(!sliusius) Clirisli sauguincin vira suam a sa-
cramcnlis accipere, id cnim nullus unquam neque
scripsil, neque somniavit calholicorum. ITaec au-
lcm sunt vcrba calochismi , qnao cilanlur cliam
id) advcrsario: Cumnemo saiulem nisi pcr Chri-
slum. , ejufique passionis beneficium conscqui
jwssit, coiiscnlaneum, nobisquc uliUxsimum fuit
ejusmodi sacramenlum inslHui. cujus vi el ef-
ficienlia Clirisiisanquis ad nos d.cfluens.peccala
posl liapUsmum admissa elucrcL Quo loco non
significal calechismus, vi el eiricicnlia sacrarnenti.
Cliristi sanguinem peccala eluere : sed Chrisli
sanguinom,qui solus peccala noslra eluerc potest,
vi el eiricienlia sacramenti ad nos dcfluere. Ex quo
non magis sequitur . Christl sanguinem a sacra-
miMilo vim elucndi peccata accipere, (luam scqna-
tur, aquam viin humoclandi a canali accipere.quia
per canalem descendit: vol certo luccrnara lu-
ccndi vim muluari a candelabro, quia per cande-
lahrum doforlur ad anlam.
In errore 19. notal ex Gratiano et Eongobardo ,
semcl lanlnm Pocnitentiam agi posse. tied more
suo imposlorem agit. Nam Gralianus disliiict. 2.
el ?>. dc Pocnilcnlia.et Longobardus lib.i.Senlenl.
dislinct. 14. profcrunt varia Palrum teslimonia ,
quae in spccie conlniria essc videnlur , cnm alia
semol lantum Pucnilcnliam agi, alia saepius itc-
rari posse concedanl: sed iidcm auctores Palrura
dicta conciliant ac docent Poenilenliam solemnem
non nisi soinel, privalam saepius concedi solilam.
Ileshusius aulom ul simplicibus imponal, quac au-
ctorcs illi pro una parlc quaeslionis adducunl, ila
cital, acsi ca scntonlia calholicorum csscl.
In erroro 24. calcchismum romanum et Tappc-
rum roprchondit, quod asscrunl,contrilionem non
esso opus Spirilus sancli, sed aclum voluntalis, vi
libori arbiirii olicilum. Hic vcro audacissimum ira-
poslorcm agil: ubi cnim, quacso, in toto catechis-
ino, aut inomnibus Tappcri libris invenielur illa
iiogalio, non osso conlrilioncm opus Spiritus san-
ctiVDicunl quidom auctor calochismi cl Tapperus:
Conlritioncm cssc aclum volunlalis, seu libcri ar-
bilrii (quod soluin llcshusius cilat, ol verissimuin
ost) sod aclum esso solius libcri arbilrii, aul non
cssc simul Spirilus sancli donum , non dicunt. El
pueriVis esl illa Ileshusii dialcclica: Contrilio est
aclus voUintalis, non igilur esl opns .Spirilns san-
cli: (jnasi non possil idcm opus a Dco siinul, el a
noslra voluulalo liori. S. Auguslinus lib. de prae-
dosl. sanctornm cap. .3. disserons dc aclihns cre-
dondi olamandi: Imimque, inqnit, nostrum esl .
propler aTbUriumroUtntaUs,el uirumquc dalum
esl proplcr spiritum fidei olclmrilalis.
In erroro "iS.cuius auclorom lleshusins invoniro
non poluil, liacc verba hahenlur: Doccnt absoUi-
Uonem percalorum non lanlum in nomine Jesu
ClirisU debere fieri, sed el h. Hlariae. el amniuin
i.y
&yo
Dt: i'(ii:Mir.Mi\
suiulurum, el nu^lrorum eliom opcrum: nmio
est liaec commnni^ c/ hfa^plicnuiw /)/<•/!(/ I'i>riini
uli^olutiunis, <ni<i in monnstcrii^i »unl usi {.Ucri-
tum jKissionis Itoniini /i«s/r/ Jcan i.hristi: et h.
Muruic ficmpcr Mnjinis, et omnium sanclorum,
incrilum oVilinis ct <irav(imcn rcli<jionis . Iiunii-
liliia conl'<'ssionis. conlritio cor<Us. Inma opcr<i.
quiie fceisli, et fucies pro amorc liomini nostri
Jesu C.hristi, calant tihi in ronissioncm pccca-
torum, in auijmcntum ineriti ct <jratiac, et in
pracmium vitac aclcrnac).
Hacr. ad vcrhmii recilare vohii, iil inipiifienlia
li.ierolicoium: cl menlieiiiii lil)itlo omiiil>us iiino-
tescerel: iiam iiee proliilil, nee proferre poUiil im-
sler llesliusius ullum calholicuin auclorem> qiii
liaec verba |)ro lorma ahsoUilioiiis aj,Mioscerel.Kor-
ina enim vera, qua calhoHci omiios iiUinliir, ilia
vorba sunl: J-^ijo le ob.^iolvo ob omnihua pcccoiis
luis. in nomine Pntris. et Filii el Spiriius snn-
cii. .4/)ie?j: in qua 1'orma nulla menlio (il b. Yiryi-
nis .Mariae, aul sanolorum caelcrorum. secl solius
l)ei. cujus esl proprium. per so aul per minislros
fcuos, peccala remillcre. Hanc aulem esse formnm
absolulionis, parlim c.\ conciliis, iridenlino cl llo-
renlino, el omnibus aucloiibus, qui de lis rebus
Iraclanl. parlim ex ipsa Ecclesiae consucludine,
onines norunl. Porro illn. quae cital Ileshusius,
non forma absolulionis, sed pia quaedam precalio
esl,quam adhibere nonnulli soleiil posl absolulio-
nein a peccatis dalam. Neque absurde precamur
juvari ad poenae. quae ex peccato relinquilur, re-
iDissionem, necnon ad graliae incrementum,el vi-
taiu aelernam consequendam. merilis Chrisli,san-
clissimae Deiparae. oninium bealorum cum Oliri-
slo reijnanlium, el noslris eliam propriis operibus
ijc laboribus, cum omuia suo modo prodesse va-
leanl.
Sed jam de Hcshusio salis diximus: neque e-
iiini omnia exculere, sed quaedam soUim exempli
caussa in medium adducere proposilum fueral.