Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 5: The Calumnies and Lies of John Calvin and Theodore Beza
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 a few things seem to need noting about the calumnies and lies of Calvin. First, then, in book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 1, Calvin speaks in this manner: “The Catholics are so fixed with their teeth in external exercises that you gather nothing else from their immense volumes than that Penance is a discipline and austerity which serves partly to tame the flesh, partly to chastise and punish vices; about the inward renewal of the mind, which draws with it a true correction of life, there is a wonderful silence.” So he. Which opinion both conflicts with what is at once added by the same author, and contains an open lie; for so he speaks in what follows: “About contrition and attrition there is much talk among them.” But if among Catholics there is much talk about contrition and attrition, how is there among the same a wonderful silence about the inward renewal of the mind? For to contrition properly belongs that celebrated definition of Penance which Calvin himself attributes to the Catholics: to bewail past sins and not to commit what must be bewailed. And he who so seriously bewails his sins as to conceive in his mind a most certain purpose never afterwards to return to sins, he assuredly acquires that inward renewal of the mind which draws with it a true correction of life. And what Calvin adds a little below, that Catholics heal all the bitterness of the heart with a light sprinkling of ceremonies, is a new calumny, and can be refuted even by Calvin’s own testimony; since a little before he had said that Penance among Catholics is nothing else than a discipline and austerity which serves to punish and chastise vices. And if among us an austerity of this kind is required in penitents, and for the sake of satisfaction fasts, prayers, alms, pilgrimages and other works of that kind, troublesome and laborious to the flesh, are enjoined by the priests, how does he not lie who acknowledges this very thing, and yet writes that all the bitterness of the heart is healed with a light sprinkling of ceremonies?
Secondly, in the same place Calvin seems to himself to convict the Catholic doctors of a certain singular ignorance, because they torture and entangle themselves with three certain questions, otherwise most easy: whether penance for one sin is pleasing to God, when obstinacy persists in others; whether punishments divinely inflicted avail for satisfaction; whether penance can be repeated more often for mortal sins. But I have hitherto read no one who was held entangled by these questions; for all answer at once that penance for one sin is not pleasing to God, nor is it true penance, when obstinacy persists in others; and they hold for a certain axiom that saying of Augustine, or whoever was the author of the book On True and False Penance, chapter 9: “It is a kind of impiety of unbelief to hope for a half pardon from him who is just and is justice.” No less do all agree that scourges sent by God avail for satisfaction, and they defend this against the heretics who deny it, as may be seen in the Council of Trent, session 14, canon 13. Finally there is no Catholic who doubts that private penance (for of solemn penance there is a different account) can be repeated as often as anyone has fallen into sin.
Thirdly, in the same place Calvin impudently lies, when he says: “They basely and impiously define that penance is done daily only for venial sins.” For who, I ask, define this? Why is no author of this decree cited? Catholics do indeed write that venial sins are daily, and that therefore daily penance also is to be done for them; and not only the more recent writers, but Saint Augustine also teaches this in the plainest words in the book of Fifty Homilies, the last homily, chapter 8; but that penance cannot, and sometimes even ought, be done for mortal sins through the whole time of life, no Catholic has defined. And on the contrary rather there are extant many ancient canons which enjoin perpetual penance for certain crimes; and those are highly praised among us who, to expiate the sins of their youth, either in the desert or in monasteries do penance through the whole time of their life, embracing a most hard kind of life.
Fourthly, the same Calvin in the same chapter, section 2, writes that Catholics exact from penitents a contrition so just and perfect that it is weighed in the balance with the confidence of pardon; and in section 3, explaining himself more plainly, he writes that Catholics wish that contrition to be the merit of the remission of sins, although no one can have it: “It makes a great difference,” he says, “whether you teach that the remission of sins is earned by a just and full contrition, which the sinner can never accomplish, or whether you train him to hunger and thirst for the mercy of God,” and so on. But Catholics do not teach that by contrition we earn the remission of sins, and so neither do they teach this, that the bitterness of sorrow ought to be weighed in the balance with the confidence of pardon; for all Catholics hear the Synod of Trent preaching in express words that nothing of those things which precede justification merits the grace of justification, and that therefore men are justified freely through Christ, session 6, chapter 8. So Catholics hold contrition to be a disposition, not a merit, of the remission of sins. And what Calvin also says in passing, that a man can never accomplish a just and full contrition, and that there is no one who from the Catholic doctrine of contrition has not either been driven to despair, or has not set before God a pretence of sorrow instead of true sorrow, are mere calumnies. For although Catholics teach that it cannot be known with the certainty of faith whether we have had perfect contrition or imperfect, yet we teach that perfect contrition can be had, and is in fact had by very many; nor do we know anyone who from this doctrine has been driven to desperation, or has offered God a feigned sorrow for true sorrow. But we contend in vain, since the adversary, content with his own affirmation alone, produces no witnesses.
Fifthly, in the same chapter, sections 16, 17 and 18, he calumniates the doctrine of Catholics on the enumeration of sins to be made in confession; and at last adds that an impossible thing is commanded by them: “I will say in sum,” he says, “what sort of law that was: it is simply impossible.” But that this is a calumny no one will deny who is willing to read the books of Catholics, or at least the Council of Trent itself, session 14, chapter 5. For our law does not command that absolutely all sins be enumerated, but only those which come to mind after diligence has been used in examination; and by diligence we understand a moral diligence, such as we are accustomed to use in weightier affairs. What of this, that Calvin himself teaches this very thing in the same place? For he says that sins are to be confessed to God not only in general, but even one by one: “What then,” he says, “are single offences not to be confessed? Is no confession therefore acceptable to God unless it is comprised in these two words, I am a sinner? Nay rather, care must be taken that, so far as in us lies, we pour out our whole heart before God, and recognise with our whole thought not only that we are sinners, but how great and how various is the stain of our sins; not only that we are unclean, but of what kind and how great, and in how many parts is our uncleanness; not only that we are debtors, but with how great debts we are burdened and by how many titles bound; not only that we are wounded, but with how many and how deadly blows we are stricken.” And lest anyone should object to him that it cannot at all be done that we confess to God our single sins, he adds: “Yet by this recognition, when the sinner has poured out his whole self before God, let him seriously and sincerely think that more still remain, and that the recesses of his evils are deeper than he can thoroughly search out; and so let him cry out with David: Who understands his errors? From my hidden ones cleanse me, O Lord.” So he. As, then, he himself does not think the law impossible by which we are bidden to confess our single sins to God, because we are not bound to do so except so far as in us lies; so he ought not to judge impossible the law by which we are bidden to confess our single sins to priests, because we are not bound to do so except so far as we can remember; and for the rest we ought to pray with the prophet and say: “Who understands his offences? From my hidden ones cleanse me, O Lord.”
Sixthly, the same Calvin in the same chapter, section 25, again lies that we teach that the pardon of sins is acquired by merits: “To this sum,” he says, “everything comes down: that we obtain indeed the pardon of offences from the clemency of God, but with the merit of works intervening.” And below, section 26: “But,” he says, “with what perversity do they say that both the remission of sins and reconciliation take place once, when we are received into the grace of God through Christ in Baptism; but that after Baptism we must rise again through satisfactions.” What are you to do with this calumniator, who of set purpose expounds the opinion of Catholics wrongly, to make it odious? For what Catholics say, that satisfaction is to be made for the temporal punishments which sometimes remain after reconciliation with God and the free remission of the guilt and of the eternal punishment, he twists to the merit of reconciliation. But so far are Catholics from thinking that reconciliation is acquired by the merits of satisfactions that they even teach that no one can make satisfaction to God unless reconciled. And that you may understand, reader, that Calvin sins not by ignorance but by malice, read sections 29 and 30 of the same chapter; for there he confesses that Catholics do not refer satisfaction to reconciliation, or, what is the same, to the remission of guilt, but only to the expiation of punishment, and that temporal: “They invent for themselves,” he says, section 29, “a distinction of guilt and punishment; they confess that the guilt is forgiven by the mercy of God, but that when the guilt is forgiven there remains the punishment, which the justice of God demands to be paid.” And section 30: “I know,” he says, “that they slip away still more subtly, when they distinguish between eternal punishment and temporal punishments.”
Seventhly, the same Calvin in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 16, when he had taught that Catholics labour and sweat much to be able to find a sacrament in Penance, points out to them that a sacrament could have been set up much more speciously and easily in the absolution of the priest than in the action of the penitent; and he wonders at the blindness of the Scholastics, who did not notice this: “They have been deluded,” he says, “more than childishly, and have been blind in the sunlight, who, while they sweated with great difficulty, did not perceive a thing so plain and obvious to anyone.” So he; who indeed could not have lied more impudently, unless perhaps he had read no Scholastic. For among the Scholastics, Scotus, Ockham and Gabriel, on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 14, place the sacrament of Penance in the absolution alone; all the rest wish the acts of the penitent, confession, contrition and satisfaction, to be a part of this sacrament, but not without the absolution, which they teach is the form of the sacrament, and thereby the primary part of the sacrament. So what Calvin pretends came into no one’s mind came into everyone’s mind; and he himself has plainly been deluded more than childishly, and was blind in the sunlight, if he read the books of the Scholastics and did not perceive a thing so plain and obvious to anyone.
Eighthly, the same Calvin in the Antidote to the Articles of Paris, article 22, introduces the Catholics speaking thus: “As to what pertains to confession, it is to be noted that the matter is of divine law, but the form of positive law.” And a little below he says that the form was superadded by Pope Innocent, who decreed that confession must be made to one’s own priest. Finally he pretends that this is the opinion of the Lutherans and contrary to the Catholics: that we are reconciled freely through the satisfaction of Christ. But these are mere impostures; for neither has any Catholic taught that the form of confession is of positive law; nor do the theologians call it the form, to confess to one’s own priest, since the form is, by the consent of all, the word of absolution; nor did Innocent institute that confession must be made to one’s own priest, but explained that by divine law the power of administering this sacrament belongs only to those who have jurisdiction over others, such as are one’s own priests. And that opinion, that we are reconciled freely through the satisfaction of Christ, is not only not contrary to us, nor does it seem absurd to any Catholics, as it pleased Calvin to pretend, but we pronounce anathema on those who would deny it; nor will the Calvinists ever produce testimonies of Catholic doctors who say what Calvin has fastened on us.
Similar lies Theodore Beza also has in his Confession, chapter 7, article 11, where he discourses on the Penance of the Papists. First he affirms that the Catholics are not so much physicians as most cruel executioners of souls, because in all adults they require, as necessary to salvation, contrition, confession and satisfaction, either in fact, if one can perform them, or at least in vow and desire. But what cruelty is it to require the desire of confessing, and of fulfilling the penalty imposed? Secondly, he affirms that it is exacted by us that those three be performed perfectly; which seems to be a ready road to desperation. But we do not exact them perfectly, except so far as human strength aided by God extends; for we do not require confession except of those sins which are held in memory, nor do we impose a penalty except one which each can easily bear. So on so sloping a road to desperation we have never seen anyone despair. Thirdly, he affirms that in these three we place the remission of sins, with signal insult to Christ. But what insult can there be to Christ if we say that the merit of his passion is the true and only medicine of sins, and that it is applied through the word of absolution to those who by contrition and confession and the purpose of making satisfaction are duly prepared to receive that medicine? Or if this is an insult, why will it not also be an insult if anyone says that Baptism, the washing of water, is the laver of regeneration; or that in that washing is placed the remission of sins, because through that washing the merit of Christ is applied to us, by which sins are forgiven? Fourthly, he affirms that the Catholic doctrine on contrition is blasphemous, because we wish it to be a part of the satisfaction for our sins before God, and so transfer to men what is proper to Christ alone. But Catholics do not teach this; for they do not believe that satisfaction can properly be made for faults committed against God, as if contrition were a just price by which satisfaction is made to the offence and to the divine wrath; for they teach only that those who have been justified and made friends of God through the merit of Christ can and ought to make satisfaction for temporal punishments. But our adversaries do not labour to understand the Catholic doctrine, but seek only this, to censure it in any way whatever, and to bring it into ill will. But so much for these things.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V.
Calumniae el mendacia JoanniH Cahini.
el Tlieodori Bezae.
M\nc de Calvini ealurauiis et niendaciis pauca
quaedam annolanda esse videntur. Primo igilur
in :>. lih. Inslit. cap. 4. § 1. ad huiic modum Cal-
vinus loquilur: Sisunl, calholici, m exlernis e-
,rercitiis mordiciis infixi. ut niliil aliud ex im-
mensis voluminibus coUicias. quam I^oenilenti-
am esse disciplinam et auslcrilulem. quae par-
lini domandae carni. partim castigandis, pu-
niendisque viliis servial: de interiori menlis re-
nnvatione.quo.c vcram vilae correclionem secum
trahil, mirum silentium. Haec ille. Quae senten-
lia et iis repugnat,quae continuo ab eodem auclo-
jesubjiciunlur. el aperliim mendacium .conlinel:
sic eniin ille in consequenlibus loquilur: Dc con-
tritione quiilcu) cl iitlrilionc. mullus ojmd cos
scrmo. \\ si de cunlrilKme el allriiiiiiM' mnllus a-
pud calludicos sermo esl. (]uo imidn i\i\ inicriori
menlis r(Miovalione miruin apud eosiliMu MhMilium
esl? ad ciuitrilionem cnim proprie perlinet cc.la-
hris illa PoiMtittMiliae ilidinilni. i|ii:iiii iiMliMii ca-
lliolicLs iiltMii Calviiius allribiul. .[ulcacUi pccc<ila
dcllcre. el dejlenda. non commiiierc. Oui auleiii
iia scrio [)eccala dellet.ul proposiUim cerlissimum
coiKMpial animo. iiumquam iIimik i'ps ad peccala
rcdeuiiiii, is prolVcio inlernam illiiin nuMiiis reiio-
ViiiidiuMu acquiiil: (piae verain vilae correclioneni
scruiii Irahil.
Chiod vero paulo infra Calvinus subjicil, callio-
licos levi caeremoniarum asptMsione lolam cordis
amnriludiiiem saiiare. iiova calumnia esl.el ipsius
eliam Calvini lestiinonio rcfeili polcsl. si quidem
paulo anle dixeral, Puenilcnliam apiid calholicos
nihil esse aliud, iiisi disciplinam el auslurilalem,
quae vitiis punicmlis el casligandis serviat. Onofl
si apud nos ejnsmodi requirilur in potmilenlibus
austerilas et satisfiiclionis grulia, jejunia, preces,
elecmosynae, per(>griiialiones, el alia id g('ni:s o-
pera carni molesta et laboriosa , a sacerdolibu.s
indicunlur: quomodo non mcnliiur.qui hoc )[)sum
agnoscil. et lamen scribil. omnem cordis amaritu-
dinem levi caeremoniarum aspersione sanari?
Secundo: Ibidcm Calvinus doctores calholicos
singularis cujusdam inscitiae argueic sibi videlur,
»]uod se lorqueant el iinpediant tribus quibusdam,
alioqui facilliniis quaeslionibus, An unius peccali
Poenilenlia Deo piaceal, ubi in aliis durat obslina-
iio;An poenae divinitus inflictae ad salislaclionem
valeaiii; An saepius ilerari possit pro morlahbus
peccalis Poenilentia.
Sed ego nullum haclenus legi.qui Iiis quaeslio-
nibus impedilus tenerelur; omnes enim continuo
respondent, non placere Deo Poenitentiarn unius
peccali, nec veram Pocnilenliam esse, ubi in aliis
(iurat obstinatio;el pro cerlo axiomale habent ver-
bum illud Auguslini, seu quicumque fueritauctor
in libro de vera el lalsa Poenilenlia cap. 9. Quae-
dam impietas iyifidelilalis est, ab Ulo quijustus,
etjustitia est.dimidiam sperare veniam: nec mi-
nus conscntiunl oinnes flagella a Deo immissa, ad
salisfaclionem valere: idque conlra hacreticos ne-
ganles defendunl. ul videre est in concilio triden-
lino sess. 14. can. la.nemo dcnique catholicorum
esl.qui dubilcl Poenili ntiam privatam (nam (\c sc-
lemni alia ralio est) lolies ilerari posse, quoUes
quis in peccatum lapsus luerit.
Terlio: Ibidem Calvinus impudenler mentitur,
cum aii: TurpHcr ct impic dcfiniunt, nonnisi de
veniuiibus pcccalis quolidie agi Pocnitcnliom.
Qui enim quaeso hoo definiunl? cur niillus ciialur
luijus decreli auctor? Scribunt quidem catholici,
venialia peccaln quotidiaua esse, el idcirco quoti-
dianam quoque de eis Poenilenliam esse agen-
dam: neque solum recenliores, sed eliain s. Au-
guslinus id verbis aperlissimis docet in lib. .SO.
liomiliarum, homil. poslrema cap. 8. nl non pos-
se, el inlerdum etiam oportere de mortalibus pec-
catis loto vilae tempore Poenilentiam agi, nemo
calholicus definivit.
i.ii:i:k i'himus
>9I
Et conlra polius oxhmt mnlti veferes onnonps.
qui Poenilontiam perpoiiinm pro certis crimiiiibns
imperant; ot laudnnlur apiifl nos ii vehementer,
qui ad expianda adolosoenliae suae pcccala, vel
in crcnio, vel monastoriis lolo vitae siio lempo-
rc diirissiniuin vitae gcnus coin[)le\i Poenilenliam
agunt.
Ouarlo:Idein Calvinus in oodem capite § 2.scri-
hil, oxigere calliolicos a l*oenitenlibus contrilio-
iiem adeo juslam el pcrfectam, ut in trutina a|i-
pendatur cum liducia veniae. ol § 3. ad ipsniri
planius expliraiis. sciibit ciilholicos volle. iil ea
coiilritio meriUim sil rcmissionis peccatorum^cum
tamcn eam nomo liabere possil: MuUim. in(]uit,
inlerost. doceasne emcreri remissionem peccato-
rum jnxta elplena cnntritione, qun numquam
defungi jjossii peccalor: an euni inslituas od e-
suriGndam cl siliendo.m Dei misericordiani c/c.
Scd catbolici non dociMil contrilione nos emereri
remissionem peccaloriim.ac per lioc nec illud dn-
cent, debere iii trulina nppendi cum fiducia veniao
doloris accrbiiatem: aiidiunlenim catbolici omnes
synodum tridenlinam disertis verbis concionan-
leni, nibil eorum quae juslificalionom prijeceduiit,
mereri graliam jusiificalionis, el ideo gralis per
Cbristum bomines juslilicari. soss. (i. cap. 8. lla-
que ccmlrilionom disposilionem esse volunt calbo-
lici. non merilum rcmissionis peccalorum.
Quod eliam Calvinus obiler dicit.numquam pos-
se bominem deftmgi jnsla ac plena contrilione; et
neminem csse qui ex doclrina catbolica de contri-
tione,vel non sit ad dcsperalionern adactus, vel si-
miilationem doloris Deo pro vero dolorc non op-
posueril; merae calumniae sunt. Nam eliamsi 11-
dei certitudine sciri non posso calbolici doceant,
perfectamrie contrilionem babuerimus, an imper-
ieclain: lamen porfoctam baberi posse, el a pluri-
mis reipsa liabori docemus: nequeulkim novimiis
qui ex hac doclrina ad separationem adactus sit,
aut simulatum Deo dolorom pro vero dolore obtn-
leril, Sed frustra conlendimus, cum aflversarius
sola sua aflirmatioiie contentus, nullos lcstes ad-
liibcat.
Qiiinlo: In codom cap. § 10. 17. cl 18. calum-
niatur doctrinam catbolicorum dc enumcralione
peccalorum in confossione facienda: ac landein
addit, rom impossibilem ab illis praecipi: Dicam,
inquit. m summa. qualis lcx itla fueril. Simpli-
ciler est impossiljilis. Sed calumniam banc os.sc
nomo negabit. cpii libros catbolicorum. aut cerlc
concilium ipsum Irido.ntinum, sess. li. cap. .').
legore voluoril. iVoipie enim omnia omnino pecca-
la eiiiimorari oporlcre lox noslra jiibcd, scd ea so-
Iiini. qu.ie posl diligonliam in examino posilain
moiiti occurrcrinl: diligonliam auicin moralcm in-
lelligimus, (iiialem in ncgoliis gravioribus adliibe-
re solemus.
Qiiid, (piod boc idom oodfMU in loco ipse idoin
CaUiims docci? i\;imi Ooo poccala confil(Mida csso
di(Mt rioii soliiiii geiHMalim, sed cliain siiignla:
Quid, inquil, er(jone conftlenda non sunl siuqu-
la. dcliclay erqo nuita confcssio Dco acccpla.nisi
duohus istis verhis co'/ic/?/.sa,P»M'cator snm? i/uiu**
vcro danda potius oj^cra, ul quantuni in iiohis
esi. lotum cor effundnmus coram Deo. nec modo
nos pcccatorcs csse, sed. quunlasit et quuni vu-
ria peccalorum lahes; lota cogilatione recogno-
scamvs non modo nos immundos. sed qualis ct
qnanta. quomque inmuUis pariibus nostra im-
tnundiiies: non modo nos dcbilores, sed quantis
dchiiis gruvali cl quot nominibus obslricli; non
modo vuincratos scd etiam quam nmUis el tetha-
lilrus plagis saucii sinius. Ac no quis ei objice-
rof, id oiniiiiio ficri non posse, ul siiigula pcccata
J)oo c(iiiliicanmr, adjuiigil:7/ac tamen recognitio-
ne.cum .sc lotum poccator coram Vco cffnderil,
serio «c sincere cogilet plura adhuc rcstarc, ac
profundiores esse maloruni suorum reccssxis,
quani quos penilus exculerc possil: atque adeo
cxclamet cvm Davide: Errorcs quis inlcUigil?ab
occultis mcis munda me Dominc. nacc ille. Si-
cut igitur ipse non existimai legein osse impossi-
bilein, qua inberaur singula pcccala Dco conlileri;
qiiia non lenomur id facere.nisi qu.mlum in nobis
esl: ila non debel lcgein impossibilem jndicare,
qua jubemur singula peccaia saccrdolibus conii-
leri. quia non tenemur id lacere nisi quanlum re-
cordari possumus: el de roliquis cum propbela
supplicarc debemus, ac dicere: Delicla quis in-
teUigU? ab occidlis nmnda me Doniinc.
Sexto: Idem Calvinus in eodeni cap. § 25. rur-
sus menlilur, nos docere.veniani poccatorum me-
riiis acquiri: /n /lac suuimam, inquit, recidunt
omnio: nos quidem a Dei clementia delictorum
veniani impetraro. sed intercedenle mcrilo opc-
rum. Et infra § 20. \orum. in(]uit; cjua sunt pcr-
vcrsUale. et peccalorum remissionem, et recon-
ciiialionem lieri semel dicunl, cum in graliam
Dei per Christum in Baptismo recipimur: post
Oapiismum resurgendiim csse per satisfactio-
nes.Qiud facias buic calumniiitori, (jui dedila ope-
ra sentonliam ciitholicoruin perperam exponil, ul
odiosam reddiil? quod cnirn catbolici dicunt satis-
faciendum esse pro pocnis temporalibus,quae posl
reconciliiitionem cum Deo, et ctilpae ac |)oenae
aelernac graluilam i-omissionem, aliquando re-
slant: id ipsc trabil ad merilum rcconcilialionis.
Tantum aulcm abcst, ut ciilholici scntiant, recon-
ciliiitionem acquiri mcritis satisfaclionum ut eliam
doccant niMnincm posse Deo satisfaccre, nisi re-
conciliafum. Ac ut intelligas, lector,Calvinum non
igiioranlia. sod malilia peccare, legas § 21). el3().
cjusdem capitis: ibi enim fatetnr, calbolicos non
roferre salisfactioncra ad reconcilialioncm, sJTe,
(]uod pst idem, ad culpae rernissionera,sed solum
ad expiiindam poenam, earaquc ternporalem: Fin-
guni, in(]uit, § 20. sibi distinctionem culpae et
poenae: culpani romilti fatenlur Dei misericor-
dia, sed culpa romisi>a poenani reslare. quam
jicrsolviDeijustiiiapostulal.El^ 30. Scio, in-
(juil. suhtilius adhuc ipsos elabi, dum inler ae-
lernam poenain et temporales distinginmt.
So|)limo: Idorn Calvinus lib. i. Instilut. ciij^.lO.
§ 1(>. cuin docuisset ciilbolicos mnllum laborarp
ol siidarc, ut sacramcntnm in Pocnilentia invenire
possinl, indiciil ois in absolulione sacerdotis mnl-
lo spcciosius el facilius siicramontum ("onstitui po-
luissc, quam in aclionc pocnitcntis:cl miralurcae-
b«ji
I»t POK.MIKMIV
cilalem Siholaslioonmi. qui hoo iu>n lulvcrleiint:
<Sflne,in(|uil, hallucinuH !>uiil pluii(juum puorUi-
tor, ct cacci in i^olc fucrunt: qui cuni multa dif-
ticullale acaludrcnt. rcni i>lanani adco, ct cuivis
obiiani non pcrspcxcrunt. ll;icc illr: qui (ini(l(Mn
iinpudonlius nuMiliri non poicr;il,nisi forle nulluni
Scluiiasticnm lciicril. i\ani ox Scholaslicis Scotus.
Ockam cl Gahr. m 4. scntonl. iJist. 11. sacramcn-
lum Poenilenliac in soia ahsolnlionc conslituiinl:
caclcri omncs aclus imcnilcnlis. contVssioiicm,
contrilioncm ot salisfaclionum. parlcm sacraiiuMili
hujus esse volunl, scd iion abs(]ue absoliitiunc.
quam sacrnmcnli formam, ac pcr hoc pnmariam
sacramcnli parlcm ossc (hicciil. flaiiuc (lodii luilli
in mcnlcm vcnisse Calvinus liiigil, omiiihus in
meniem venil: el ipse phmc liallucimUus esl phis-
(]uam piicrililcr. el caecus in solc fuil, si hbros
Schohisticorum lc^'il, el rcin plaiiam adco. el cui-
vis obviam non pcrspexil.
Oclavo: Idem Calvinus in anlidolo arliculonini
Parisionsium, art. ;?^ntroducil calluilicos ila lo-
(iucnlcs:(){<a'/i/u»i rcro pertinct ad confessionem:
notandum cst quod ^iateria sitrde jure divino,
forma autcm dejurc^posilivo. El paulo infra di-
cil, formam superinduclam ab Innoccnlio pontifi-
ce,qui slatuil confilcndum esse proprio saccrdoli.
Denique fingil scnlentiam esse Lntheranorum et
calholicis conlrariam: Aos rcconciliari iiralis pcr
salisfaclioncm Christi. Sed hae mcriie sunl unpo-
slurae: nam ncque nllus calhoiicus docuilformam
confcssionis essedc jure posilivo: neque formam
Iheologi vocanl. coniileri proprio sacerdoli, cum
forma sil, omnium conscnsu,vcrbum absolulionis:
neque Innocenlins insliluil conlitendum essc pro-
prio sacerdoli, scd explicuit. jure divino non con-
vcnire poleslalem sacramcnli hujus adminislran-
di, nisi iis, qui jurisdiclioncm in alios habcnl,
quales sunt proprii saccrdotes. Senlentia autcm
illa , .'Nos rcconciliari gratis per satislaclionem
Chrisli, non modo nobis conlraria non esl, neque
absurda catholicis ulhs videtur,ul Calvino fingere
placiiil, sed aiialhema dicimus iis, qui ilJam nega-
re voluerinl: ncque Calvinistae proferent unqiiam
lesiimonia doclorum catholicorum, qui ea dicanl.
quae nobis Calvinus imposuit.
Similia mendacia habet etiani Theodorus Beza in
sua cunfessione, cap. 7. arl. Il.ubi dc Poenilcnlia
Papislarum disseril.Primo afTirmal: Catholicos non
lam csse medicos, (luam caroifices crudelissimos
animanim, quod in omnibus adullis requiranl, ut
necessaria ad salulem, conlritionem,confessionem
el satisfaclionem, sed aul rcipsa, si potesl quis ea
pracstare. aul ccrte in voto ac desiderio. Quae au-
tein crudolitas est, exigcre desiderium confilendi,
ct mulclam impositam adimpjendi.
Secundo: AfTirmat exigi a nobis, ut pcrfecle Iria
illa praestenlur: quod csse videlur promplum ilcr
ad desperalionem. At non exigimus perfecte, nisi
quJilcnus vires humanae a Deo adjulae se exten-
dunt; neque enim requirimus conlessionem, nisi
eorura peccatorum, quae memoria tcnenlur,ncquc
mulctam imponimus, nisi quam unusquisque faci-
Je ferre possil. Itaquc in tam prono itinere ad de-
spcrnlionem nullum vidimus unquam dctpcrasse.
Tcrlio: Anirmal in liis tribus nos poncre rcmis-
sioneni pcccalurum, insigiii cuin Clinsli coiitume-
lia. Al quae contumelia Chrislo esse polesl, si di-
canius. mcriliun passionis cjiis veram cssc. atque
unicam pccc:itoniin mcdiciiiam, caimiue ajijilicari
pcr vcrhum ahsolulioiiis iis, (]ui per conlnlioncm
cl coiircs>ioiicm, ac satisraciciuii proiio.sitom ad
cam luedicinam rccipieiulam ritc pracpariiiitiir?
Vcl si hiicc conlumelia csl.cur non crilcliiim con-
liiiiu;lia,si qiiis (lixcril,Ba|itismnin aquae lavacrum
csse rcgcncratioiiis? vcl, in c.o laviicro posilam cs-
se rcinissioiicm pccciilonim.iiuod pcr id liivacriim
applicelur nobis Christi merilum, quopeccala do-
iiaiilur?
Uiiarlo:Anirmat doclrinam ciitholicornm de con-
Irilimie. bliisplicmam csse, (luod Ciiiu piiitem csso
velimus salislaclionis pro noslris pecciilis coraiu
Dco, atqiie ila triinsrcramus ad homincs, qiiod u-
iiius Chrisli proprium (;st. Al non hoc doccnl ca-
tholici, ncqiic enim proprie satisficri posse crc-
diinl pro ciilpis in Deum ;idmissis, quasi conlrilio
justum preliuni sil, qmi offcnsioni, iilque iriie di-
viiiae salisOiit: solum enim juslificalos, atque ami-
cos Dci per Chrisli meritum factos, docent, pro
lcmporiilihus poenis posse ac debere satisfacere.
Sed advcrsarii noslri iion laborant ul c.ilholicaiu
doclrinam iiilclliganl, scd id solura quaeruiil, ut
quovis modo eam reprehendanl, ac in invidiam
voccnt. Scd de his haclenus.