Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 6: The Calumnies and Lies of Martin Chemnitz
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 let us come at last to the calumnies and lies of Chemnitz. First, to clear himself and his people from the heresy of the Novatians, he expounds their opinion wrongly; for so he speaks in the second part of the Examination, page 900: “We are by no means Novatians, who to those once justified, if they had fallen after Baptism, either altogether denied or called into doubt all hope of pardon and reconciliation with God, even if they were converted again and did penance.” But that this was not the heresy of the Novatians we could prove by many arguments if there were need; but Chemnitz has freed us from this labour. For a little below, page 902, he reports from the Tripartite History what the opinion of the Novatians was, in these words: “Deservedly is the saying of the Novatian Acesius condemned, who in the Tripartite History, book 2, chapter 13, says to the Emperor Constantine that the lapsed are indeed to be invited to penance, but that the hope of remission is to be looked for not from priests but from God alone, who alone has the power of forgiving sins.” Here you see that the Novatians did not deny the hope of pardon and reconciliation with God, as Chemnitz falsely wrote above, but denied that the priests have the power of absolving, since it lies in God alone; which the Lutherans also most obstinately deny, as we shall show below.
Secondly, the same Chemnitz, page 902, corrupts the words of Saint Ambrose to accommodate them to his own opinion: “Ambrose,” he says, “describes the opinion of the Novatians thus: that to those doing penance after a fall all hope of pardon is not indeed simply to be cut off, but that priests neither can nor ought, by the ministry of the Gospel, to announce to them the remission of sins or impart absolution, lest (as they pretended) they should by bold rashness usurp to themselves the part of God.” So he. But nowhere in Ambrose is that manner of speaking found, proper to the Lutherans: “by the ministry of the Gospel to announce the remission of sins.” What Ambrose teaches, as is gathered from book 1 On Penance, chapter 2, is this: that the Novatians denied that the power of forgiving sins was granted to priests. “But they say,” he says, “that they pay reverence to the Lord, to whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving crimes,” and so on.
Thirdly, page 905: “The sinner,” says Chemnitz, “fallen after Baptism, when he seeks and sues for reconciliation with God and the remission of sins, the Papists by their sacrament of Penance lead down to human or his own works, so that these, the word of absolution being added, become and are a sacrament, that is, a cause effecting and conferring the grace of reconciliation with God and the remission of sins.” So he; where first he errs in this, and fights with himself, that he calls contrition and confession human and our own works, whereas they are rather gifts of God, as Chemnitz himself confesses on page 955, where he speaks thus: “But true contrition is not a work of free will, or of human strength; but the Holy Spirit, through the word preached, heard and pondered, stirs up, begins, works and effects it in us.” Since, then, contrition, and consequently confession also, is not only our work but also God’s, who inspires it in us, Chemnitz writes falsely a little before that the Papists lead sinners down to human and their own works. Next, Catholics, although they wish contrition, confession and satisfaction to pertain to the material part of the sacrament of Penance, yet make the efficient cause of the remission of sins, as the instrument of God, either the absolution alone, or the actions of the penitent joined with the absolution, not as they are human actions, but as they are instruments of God; for otherwise the absolution itself, and the washing, and the consecration and distribution of the Lord’s body could be called human actions, since they are no less done by men than the very enumeration of sins. So there is no reason why Chemnitz should cry out that we set the efficient cause of the remission of sins in the human and personal work of the penitent, since we set it in the very word pronounced by the priest in the name of God.
Fourthly, page 911, Chemnitz, wishing to demonstrate why the Penance which John the Baptist preached, and Christ after him, is not among Catholics the sacrament of Penance, speaks thus: “Because in that Penance sins were forgiven freely, without works, by faith on account of Christ; because also both the Baptist and Christ preached faith in the Son, the mediator, as a necessary part of conversion for obtaining remission. For these reasons such Penance is not for the Papists a sacrament; let this be carefully weighed.” So he. O wretched Lutherans, whose ignorance Chemnitz so abuses that he not only impudently thrusts palpable lies upon them, but even bids them be carefully weighed as great mysteries! The Council of Trent does indeed write, session 14, chapter 1, that the sacrament of Penance was instituted after the resurrection of Christ, and for that reason Catholics teach that the Penance which the Baptist and Christ preached was not sacramental Penance. But the reasons which Chemnitz invents not only no Catholic acknowledges, but we should plainly hold all for heretics who for those reasons denied that Penance is a sacrament. For so far are we from not holding some Penance as a sacrament because in it sins are forgiven freely, without works, by faith on account of Christ, or because faith in Christ is preached as a part of conversion, and indeed necessary for obtaining remission, that on the contrary rather we say that where these things are absent the sacrament of Penance is either none, or is administered uselessly.
Fifthly, page 931, with no less audacity Chemnitz fastens on the Council of Trent what the Fathers of that council never thought: “But,” he says, “it is another thing that the Council of Trent seeks, namely that in Baptism the remission of sins is given freely, without our works, on account of the merit of Christ, and received by faith; but that in those fallen after Baptism Penance obtains pardon not by faith freely and without works, but through and on account of the works of Penance.” And on the following page: “It is the same,” he says, “as what they say elsewhere, that there is a twofold justification, of which the first is freely, by faith, without works, on account of Christ; the second is not freely, but comes about through and on account of works.” So he. Now if these are not lies, let there be brought forward even one Catholic writer, not to say a decree of an ecumenical or even a particular council, in which it is found that justification in the sacrament of Penance is not given freely, through faith, without the merit of works, on account, in short, of the passion and death of Christ. For not because we require contrition and confession, and afterwards satisfaction also, are we therefore justified not freely and through Christ, but from our own works; for those works are not merits of justification, but dispositions for being justified; otherwise the justification which takes place in Baptism also would come about not freely but from works, since a certain penance is required before Baptism, the Apostle Peter saying, Acts 2: “Do penance, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.” What of this, that the same Chemnitz had before confessed that Catholics acknowledge that remission takes place in the sacrament of Penance through the merit of Christ? For so he wrote on page 903: “The Papists assert that Penance, by which the fallen are reconciled to God, is a special sacrament, by which the benefit of the death of Christ is applied to those fallen after Baptism.” So he; whose testimony brought forward in this place is true, but coheres badly with what he everywhere falsely fastens on us.
Sixthly, page 955, Chemnitz makes Peter Lombard, who flourished after the year of the Lord 1100, the first author of the sacrament of Penance: “Since,” he says, “Lombard had first made a sacrament out of penance, the Scholastics afterwards began to inquire what is its matter, and what its form,” and so on. That this is a lie no one will doubt who has read anything in the ancients; for the ancients everywhere join Penance, or reconciliation, with Baptism and the other sacraments properly so called. These testimonies will be adduced in their place; now one testimony of Saint Augustine will suffice us; for he in letter 180 to Honoratus: “Do we not consider,” he says, “when it comes to the extremity of these dangers, and there is no power of fleeing, how great a concourse is accustomed to be made in the Church by both sexes and every age, some demanding Baptism, others reconciliation, others even the doing of penance itself, all consolation and the making and distribution of the sacraments? Where, if the ministers are absent, how great a ruin follows those who depart from this world either not regenerated or bound?”
Seventhly, pages 944 and 945, it can scarcely be believed with how great impudence Chemnitz both lies and wholly perverts the opinion of the Council of Trent. The council denied that the parts of Penance are terrors and faith; for terrors and faith can exist even in the impenitent, since James says that the devils believe and tremble, who it is certain will never do penance; of which matter also we shall speak in its place. But Chemnitz out of his own head expounds the council’s opinion thus: “And the terrors indeed struck into the conscience by God by the voice of the law they refuse to be a part of Penance for this reason, that they wish contrition to be a sorrow voluntarily taken up for sins as a vengeance, which by this work may merit the mercy of God.” But he lies against his own head; for the council nowhere said that contrition is a work meritorious of the remission of sins, but on the contrary rather, session 6, canon 8, pronounced in express words that we are therefore justified freely through Christ, according to the Apostle, because nothing of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merits the very grace of justification. And because the council so denies that faith is a part of Penance as nevertheless to grant that faith is necessary for Penance, and the theologians teach that faith is the foundation of Penance, Chemnitz explains the mind of the council and the theologians in these words: “When they say that faith is the foundation of Penance, they understand such a persuasion, that if anyone has undertaken and performed those actions of Penance prescribed by the Papists, by those actions he obtains the pardon of sins and is reconciled to God; and this is what they mean when they say faith is the foundation of Penance.” But far otherwise the council itself explains its mind; for so it speaks, session 6, chapter 6, where it sets out what place faith has in the business of justification: “They are disposed,” it says, “to justice itself when, aroused and aided by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which have been divinely revealed and promised, and this in the first place, that the impious is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are usefully shaken, to consider the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them on account of Christ, and begin to love him as the fountain of all justice, and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation,” and so on. From these we have that faith, which is the foundation of Penance, is not (as Chemnitz lies) a persuasion that by the actions of Penance we obtain the pardon of sins and reconciliation, but that the promises of God are true, and this in the first place, that the impious is justified by the grace of God through the redemption which is in Christ. And at the same time we have that faith and terrors are not excluded from Penance, but rather included, not as parts, but as causes preceding Penance; for to believe and to be terrified is not to repent, but from faith and terrors Penance is begotten. Nor does it much matter that in the place just cited the council explains the justification which is acquired in Baptism, not that which is in the sacrament of Penance; for the progress of the dispositions and of conversion is the same, although much easier works of Penance are required for Baptism than for reconciliation.
Eighthly, page 945, with incredible malice or ignorance, Chemnitz gathers from canon 4 of session 14 of the Council of Trent that the whole Gospel is taken away from Penance by Catholics: “When,” he says, “the fourth canon condemns with anathema those who say that faith conceived from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ, is a necessary part of Penance for obtaining the remission of sins, what else does it do than take the whole Gospel away from Penance, and condemn the very proper voice of the Gospel, as it was handed down by the prophets, Christ and the Apostles?” And page 946: “What will be left of the Gospel if you take from it Christ, faith in Christ, and the remission of sins which is received by faith through Christ? And yet the Council of Trent is not afraid to condemn with anathema anyone who says that a part of Penance is faith conceived from the Gospel, by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ.” And page 947: “For a perpetual memorial of the matter let it be known to the true Church of God that the Council of Trent promises to Penance reconciliation with God and the remission of sins without faith, that is, one conceived from the Gospel, and by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him through Christ.” So he; who indeed errs so childishly that I am truly ashamed to refute things so trifling, and not a little pity Chemnitz, though an adversary. For the council does not deny that faith conceived from the Gospel is necessary for Penance; but it denies both that faith is a part of Penance, since rather (as we said above) it begets Penance; and also that the faith by which one believes that his sins are forgiven him is a true faith conceived from the Gospel, since it can rightly be called nothing but a figment of Luther. For the Gospel promises the remission of sins to all who truly repent; but whether this or that man has true Penance the Gospel nowhere says; wherefore from the Gospel that faith cannot be conceived by which one believes for certain that his sins are forgiven him. We can indeed and ought to hope, as the council teaches, session 6, chapter 9, and session 14, chapter 4, that God will be propitious to us; but to believe this for certain in the way in which we believe for certain the articles of faith is mere folly.
Ninthly, page 958, he falsely attributes to Saint Thomas that he wrote that for the remission of sin there is required an act of ours which is meritorious because it falls under free will. For this Saint Thomas neither anywhere wrote, nor could have written, unless he had plainly forgotten theology. For what even middling theologian would say that our act is meritorious because it falls under free will? As if many acts could not fall under free will and yet not be meritorious. What of this, that Saint Thomas, in the Prima Secundae, the last question, article 5, teaches in express words that no one can merit the grace of justification; the contrary of which Chemnitz fastens on him?
Tenthly, Chemnitz has an altogether similar calumny on page 961, where he says thus: “Such is the faith of the Papist Penance, namely in our works, not in Christ; such a mercy of God they wish, not one which is gratuitous and freely forgives sins on account of the merit of Christ, but one which gives to our works a reward, namely reconciliation with God and the remission of sins.” So he. But so far is this from being the opinion of Catholics that there is no Catholic who is not ready with his whole heart to write anathema on those who think as Chemnitz pretends we think.
Eleventhly, page 962, he affirms that Scotus holds that the love of God above all things can be had from natural powers, and that this is a sufficient, immediate and final disposition for the infusion of grace. Then on page 963 he adds: “And this is the dogma of the Scholastics, for the establishing of which this decree was made.” Here are two lies. One, that that dogma is the Scholastics’; for that Scotus, whom alone Chemnitz cites, thought far otherwise, Andreas Vega demonstrates at length in the book On Justification, question 10; and then, whatever may be true of Scotus, it is certain that Saint Thomas, and the better part of the School, teach altogether the contrary. The other lie is more glaring: that the decree of the Council of Trent, which is found in session 14, chapter 4, and canon 5, was framed to establish that dogma; for the council in this very place teaches that attrition, which is imperfect contrition, is a gift of the Holy Spirit; from which it is rightly gathered that much more perfect contrition itself, which includes the love of God above all things, is had not from the powers of nature alone but by the gift of God. And in session 6, canon 3, it condemns that opinion in these words, which Chemnitz is not afraid to touch on: “If anyone says that without the preceding inspiration of the Holy Spirit and his help a man can believe, hope, love or repent as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred on him, let him be anathema.”
Twelfthly, page 964, Chemnitz denies that Luther taught what we read condemned in the bull of Leo X, that attrition makes a man a hypocrite and more a sinner; but that he only censured the opinion of the Scholastics, which makes the detestation of sins produced by free will from the powers of nature alone a sufficient disposition for grace. But this is incredible audacity, since the words of Luther, set down in more than one place, are most clear, and admit no interpretation of that kind. In the sermon on Penance given in the year 1517, from which those articles were taken which Leo X condemned, Luther speaks thus: “Contrition is prepared in a twofold way. First by the examination, collection and detestation of sins, by which one (as they say) recounts his years in the bitterness of his soul, weighing the gravity, harm, foulness and multitude of his sins, then the loss of eternal blessedness and the acquisition of eternal damnation, and other things which can stir up sadness and sorrow. But this sadness makes a hypocrite, nay more a sinner, because he does it only from fear of the precept and from sorrow; and all such are unworthily absolved.” So he there; where contrition, or attrition, is not condemned (as Chemnitz says) because it is from free will alone, but because it is born from fear of the precept, not from love of justice. Again the same Luther, in the book against the bull of Antichrist, after he had recited the sixth article condemned by Leo, where is found word for word what we have just cited from the sermon on Penance, adds thus: “Mine certainly is the article, and most Christian, which I will not allow to be wrung from me by innumerable popes and papists.” Which, I ask, is more to be believed, Luther acknowledging his article, or Chemnitz impudently lying that Luther never thought so? In the assertion also of all his articles he again recites the same sixth article, and confesses it his own, and strives to confirm it by many arguments. Finally, in the Resolutions on the propositions disputed at Leipzig, he most openly says that it is a Pelagian heresy to admit that Penance begins before the love of justice; where he wholly takes away the first part of Penance, which Chemnitz and the other Lutherans place in those terrors preceding faith. So now, on Luther’s witness, the Lutherans have become Pelagians; and so it is no wonder if Chemnitz prefers impudently to deny Luther’s writings rather than be held a Pelagian.
Thirteenthly, page 967, by a wonderful stratagem Chemnitz fastens on Catholics what is proper to Luther. For he censures the Scholastics for teaching that contrition, if it arises not from the love of God but from fear of the wrath and judgement of God, even if there is added a faith holding and resolving that our sins are forgiven us on account of Christ, is nevertheless not salutary, but the Penance of Judas. But this the Scholastics never taught; but Luther teaching so the Pontiffs and the Catholic academies, and lately the Fathers in the Council of Trent, condemned. So faithfully, you see, does Chemnitz recite our opinions. And these things suffice on calumnies and lies.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT M.
C.alumniae et mendacia Martini Kemnitii.
Nunc landem ad calumnias et mendacia Kemni-
lii veniamus. Primum, ut se ac suos a Novaliano-
rum liaeresi asserat, illorum sentenliam perperam
exponil: sic enim loquilur in 2. par. exam. pag.
1)00. Ncquaquam sumus Novaliani , qui semel
jusLificaiis, si po^^t Daplismum lapsi essenl, o-
mnem spem veniae et reconciliationis cum Deo
vel ])rorsus negabant.vel in dubiuni revocabant,
etiamzi rursus converlerenlur. et Poenitentiam
afjerenl. Sed non fuisse hanc Novalianorum hiie-
resim, mullis argumenlis prohiire possemus, si o-
pus esscl: veriim Rcmniliiis hoc labore nos libc-
ravit. Nam paiilo iiifra pag. 902. refcrl ex hisloria
triparlita. (]uac hicril IVovatiiinorum opinio hisver-
bis: iVerito improbalur Acesii Novaiiani dictum,
qui in Triparl. lib. \. cap. 13. ad Constaniinum
imperatorem inquit. inviJ.andos quideni lapsos
ad PoenHenliam: spem vero reniissionis non a
sacc.rdolibus, scd a Deo solummodo cxpcctan-
dam.qui solus potestatem habeatrcmiltendi jjcc-
cata. Ilic vides non negi;sse Novatianos speiu ve-
niae el rcconciliationis cum Deo, ut supra falso
scripsit Remnilius, scd negasse in sacerdolibus
poleslatem ahsolvendi, quippe quae in solo Deo
sil: quod etiam neganl pertinacissime Lulherani,
ut infra oslcndemus.
i.i!;i:i; ['iiiMUs
>9.{
Secundo: Idein Keninilius paii. 902. s. .Amhro-
sii verbn depruviil, ul eii ;i(l sentcnliiun su;iui ac-
comaioclel: Ambrosius, inquil. Novalianorum o
pimoncm ila dcscribil: poenitenlibus jiosl lap-
suin non simpliciler sanc praccidendam csse o-
vmem spem veniae. sed sacerdolcs nec posse 7iec
dcbcre itlis, minislerio evangetii remissionem
peccatorum amiunciare,vel absoluiionem imper-
liri: nc Dei {sicul simulabanl) partes audaci ie-
meritale sibiusurparcnt. Ilaec ille. At nusquam
in Aiubrosio invenilur modus ille loquendi.LuUie-
ranoruni proprius: Ministerio evanfjetii renmsio-
nem peccatoruni annunciare. Quod Ainbrosius
docel, ul ex lib. 1, de Poenit. cnp. 2. colligilur,
idesl, negasse Novalianos, polesialein remillendi
peccatu sacerdolibus esse concess;nii: Sed ajunt,
inquil. se Domino deferrc reverentiam. cui so-
li remittcndorum criminum poteslatem reser-
vcnl etc.
Terlio pag. 90."). Deccatorum, inquil Remnilius,
post Jiaptismum lapsum, quando quaerilet am-
bil rcconciliationcm cum Deo. el remissioncm
pcccatorum, Pontificii per sacramentum suum
Poeuitcntiae dcducunl ad liumana. seu propria
opera. ut illa. accedcnte verbo absolutionis, fi-
ant cl sint sacramentvm., hoc cst, caussa, cfjlci-
ciens el confercns gratiam rcconciliationis cum
Deo ei remissionis peccatorum . II;iec ille:ubi Pri-
mum in eo errat, et secura ipse pugnal, quod con-
trilionem el confessionem vorat opera liumana ct
propria, cum potius dona sinl Dei. ut ipse idem
Remnilius confitelur pag. 9j').ubi sic loquilur^^sl
autem vera contrilio non opus libcri arbiirii.scu
virium liumanarum: scd Spiritus sanctvs pcr
vcrbum pracdicalvm , ouditum ct cogitatum.illa
in nobis excitat. inclioat. opcralur ct cfficit.Cuiw
igilur conlrilio et consequenler cliam ronressio,
non sil noslrum lanlum opus, sed cliam Dei qui
illam nobis inspiral. lalso Renmilius paulo anle
scribil, Ponlificios deducere peccalores ad opera
humana et propria.
Deinde: Calbolici cliamsi contrilionem, confes-
sionem el salisfaclionem ad parlem materialem sa-
cramenli Poenilenliae perlinere velinl: tamen caus-
s;m) enicienlem remissionis peccalorum ut inslru-
menlum Dei, vel solam absolulionem faciunl. vcl
;icliones poenilenlis cum absolulionc conjunclas,
non uL ;;c[iones liumanae suiil. sod iil inslitiiiUMila
Dci; ;ilioqui enim ipsa cliam absolulio et ablulio,
(!l corporis Domini consecralio ac dislribulio, a-
cliones liiiraanao dici possenl, cum non minus ab
hominibiis liaiil, quain ipsa peccatorum cnumcra-
lio, .\iliil ifrilur esl ciir Remnitius clamilel, nos
caussiimenicienlem reinissionis peccalornm in hu-
inani) ac profirio operc poenilenlis consliliicre,
cum in ipso viubo, per s;icerdolem noniine Dei
))ronunci;iLo, consliluamus.
Quurlo. Pag. 9M. demonslrare Rcmnilius vo-
Jcns, cur Poeiiilcnli;i. quain praedicavil Jo;m. ft;i-
plisla, el posL cum Clirislus, non sil apud c;iLlioIi-
cos sacramenlum Poenilenliac. ila loquilur: Qwia
in illa Poenilcntia (jratis sine operibus.fidc pro-
plcr Chrislum rcmitlcbaiitur peccatajjuia cliam
tani Baptista,quam Cliri-jtus.fidcni infiliumme-
dialorcm parlcm conversionis neccssariam. ad
(■oiisc(iueiutaiiL rciiiii^^iancm pracdicarunt. Pro-
pter has caussas talis Pocnilciitia i'ontificiis non
cst sacramcntum: id quod ditigenler expcnda-
tur. llaec ille. 0 miseros LulliciMnos. quuiiiin i-
gnor;inlia sic ubiililur hciiinilius , ut p;ilpabilia
mendiicia non soluni eis impudenler oblrudal,sed
eliain jubc;it l;imqu;im magnu mysLcria diligenLer
expendi. ScribiL quidom concilium Iridenlinuiu
sess. 14. c;ip. 1. S;icr;imcnlum Pocnilenli;ie insli-
tulum fuissc posl Cbrisli rcsurreclioncm. et eu de
caussa sacr;imenlalcm Pocnilcnliam non fuisse ca-
Ibolici doceuL Po(Miiteuli;ini illiim, quam D;iptisla
ct ChrisLus praedicab;inL. AL c;iussas quas fingit
Kemnilius, non modo nullus agnosciL caLlioiicus,
scd plane omnes pro huercticis hiibercmus, qui
illis dc caussis Poeniienlium s;icrameiiium esse
negarenl. Tanlum enim abesl, ul ideo Poeniten-
ti;in> aliquam pro sacramenlo non liubcumus, quia
in Cii gralis, sine operibus, lidc prophM' ClirisLum
rcmillunlur pcccalu; vcl quia lidcs in Christuni
pars convcrsionis, et (luidiMu necessaria ad rcMiiis-
sioncm obLiiiendam pr;ie(Iicetur, uL conlru polius
ubi islaabsinl, s;icr;imenium Poenilenliiie aiiL uul-
lum esse, ciut inulililer ;idininislruri dicanms.
Qiiinlo. P;ig. 931. non niinori uudacia Kcmnilius
tridenlino concilio imponil eu. (iu;ie iiuiiiqu;im Pa-
Ircs (^jus concilii cogil;irunt: Scd.\rn\u\[.aliud est,
quod tridentinum concilium quacrit. in Baplis-
mo scilicct rcmissioncm pcccatorum gralis. sine
no^tris vpcribus. proptcr mcritum Christi dona-
ri ct fidc accipi : in lapsis vcro posl Jkrptismum
Pocnilcnliamimpclrare rcniam. non fidc (iralis
ct sinc opcribus. scd pcr ctproptcr opcra Pocni-
tcntiae. KL pug. seqiienti: Jdem cst. iiiqnil, (juod
alibi dicunt, duplicem esse jusiificalioncm,qua-
rumprior sit gratis. fide. sine operibus proplcr
Cliristum: altcranon gratis, scd pcr et propter
opcrafiat: Iluec ille. Porro, si isLa mendacia non
sunl, profcralur iii mcdiuin vcl unus aliquis scri-
ptor c;ilIiolicus: ne dic;im concilii oeciimcnici. aut
ctiam parlicularis, decreium. in qiio habcalur.ju-
slificuLionem in sacramenlo Poenitcnliae non do-
ii;iri grutis, pi^r lidem siue opcrum nicrilo.ob Cliri-
sti dcnique passioncm ct morlem? Neijue enini
quia reqiiirimus contrilionein cL lionfcssioncm, uc
deinde eliuni satisfaclioncm.idco non gralis el pcr
Chrislum, scd cx opcriluis projiriis iustilicamur;
illa eiiim operu non merilii siiiil jiislitic;iliouis. scd
dispoiiilioucs juslincandi: alioqui eliam jusliiicatio
quae lil in nnplismo. non gralis, scd cx operibus
licrcl, quiii Pocnilcntiu quiUidiim re(|iiiritur ;inlc
Haptismum. diccnte upostolo Pclro A<ior. 2. J'oe-
nitentiam agite et baptizctur unusquisque ve-
strnm in nomineJesu Cliristiinremissionempec-
catorumvcstrorum.
Quid, ()uod idein Keinnitius ;iulc coufessus fiic-
rut calholicos :>giiosccrc. jicr uuM-iliim Clirisli, lic-
ri remissioniMu in sucranuMilo l'oc(iiltMili;ic? ^ic c-
iiiin scrii)sil pag. 9():{. Vonlificii assevcranl Pog-
nitcnliam. (jua lapsi J)co rcconcilianlur, esse
pcculiarc sacramentum, quo lapsis post Jiaplis-
mnm bciicficium mortis Cltristia])})li(uitur. Iliiec
ille: cujiis lCbLimonium hoc loco prolulum, verum
511
l)i: POKMIKNTl.v
esl, sed miilc coliaercns cum his, quac iiobis falso
|);issiin iiuponil.
Siwlo. I';i^'. '.»;>'>. auclorem primum sacramonti
Pocnitcnliae hcmniliiis INMnim Lombardum facil,
(pii pusl aimiiiii Domiiu ItOO. Iloruii: Qui<}. in-
(|uit, l.nmhnvdus priinitni cx })Oc.nil(;nli(i xacra-
vwntuni fcccral. cocpcntnl /m.s/eu Sclwlaslici
iHKierere, quae sil tnalcria. cl quac fornuL elc.
ilor cssc niciulacium iicmo (lubilavit. (iiii ali^piid
in vctcribus b^Licril; pas.sim cnim coiijiuij^Miul vc-
tcrcs Pocnilcnliam scu rcconciiiationcm cum IJa-
ptisnio. oliisijoc sacraiiHMilis pro|>ric diclis. Ouac
toslimoiiia suo loco addiiccnliir: nuiic unum s.Au-
gusliiii lcstimoniuiu noliis sullicicl; is cnim in c-
pist. 180. ad llonornium: Aii noii cotjilainus, in-
f|uil. cuni ad i^lornni 'pcricnloruni pcrrcnilur
cxlrcma. ncc csl polcslas nlld futjicndi: quan.lus
in Ecclcsia ficri solcal ab ulroquc scxu, alqae
ah onini actalc concursus, aliis IkiplisniunijhKji-
lantihns. aliis rcconcilialioncin. aliis cliam ip-
sius Pocnilcniiac aclionciii. oinnihits consolalio-
ncni ct socramcnloruni confeclionem, el, erorja-
linncm? uhi si minislri dcsinl.^juanlum cciliuni
sciiualur cos.qui de islo sacculo vei non retjene-
rati cxeunt, vcl liqali?
I^cplimo. Pajr. 1H4. cl 04j. vix crcdi polcsl
qiianta impudcritia Komnilius lum inpntiatiir. luin
conciiii Iridciiliiii seiiicnliam oiniiino perverlal.
-^ccravenit concilium parles Pocnilentiac essc lcr-
rorcs ct fidcm: nam lcirores cl tldes eliam iii im-
jtocnilentibus cssc |)os>uiil. cuni Jacobus dicat,
dacmones crcdcre ct conlremisccro, quoscprlum
cst Poenitentiam numqua'n acturos: de qua ctiam
rc suo loco dicemus. Al Kcuinilius ex capile suo
ila ooncilii soiilculinm exponil: Kl terrorcs qui-
dem. inquit. a. Deo voce lefiis conscienliae incus-
sos: ideo nolunt csse parteni Poenilcnliae. quia
contritionem volunt esse dolorcm volunlariepro
peccatis tamquam vindictam assumplum. qui
hoc opcrc promerealnr nusericordiam Dei. Sed
mcnlilur in ca|)ul suiim. non enim concilium us-
quam dixiuConlritioncm csse opus moritorium re-
missionis peccalorum. scd contra potius sess. G.
canon. 8. disertis verbis pronunciavil, ideo g^raiis
per Clirislum nos juslilicari sccundum Aposloium,
quia niliil eorura quac justincalionom praecediinl,
sive fides, sive opera,ipsam justitlcationis graliam
promerenlur.
El quia concilium sic npfiat fidem parlem esse
I'oenitenliac, ul tamen ad Poenitcnliam fidem ne-
cessariam esse concedat. et theologi fidom Poeni-
tenliae fundamenluin esse doceanl: explioal Kora-
nilins menlom concilii ac Ihoologorum his vorbis:
Qunndo dicunl fideni essc fundamentum Poeni-
tcntiae, intellifjunl talein ncrsuasionenr.si acfio-
nes illas Poenilcnliae a Pontificiis prnpseriptas
quis susceperil et praeslileril . quod illis aelio-
uihus impetret veniam peccalorum el reconci-
lietur Deo:et hoc est quod dicunt fidcin esse fun-
damentum Poenilentiae. M longQ aliler uienlein
suam ipsum concilium explical: sic euira loquilur
sess. G. cap. 0. iibi exponil quem locum fides ha-
beatin negotio juslificaiionis: Disponuntur, in-
qiiit, tvr/ ?p.sa;7c i\f.iuuam. d^iYd ex':iiati divino:
(jratia el adjuti, fideni ex audilu coiicipienlcs,
lilicrc movcntur in DMtin. crcdcnlcs vcra csse.
quac divinitus revclata cl jyroinissa sunl aUiuc
illndinprimis, a Deo justificari imjnum pcr
(jraliam o/?/s, per redc.mpiioncni quae cst in
Chrislo Jesu: el duni peccalnrcs; se essc iiitoWi-
ijcnlcs. a divinae jusliliac liniore. quo ulUilcr
coiic.utiuntwr: ad considerandam Dci nmericor'
diam se convcrlcndo. in.Sj)cni. criyuntur. fidcn-
li's hcuiii sihi projilc.r Chrislnin propiliuin forc:
illumque tamquani oniuis jufiliiiae fonlein dili-
(jerc iiiciidunl. ac proplerea nioventur adversus
pcccdUi pcr odiuin aliquod et delesUitiouein ctc.
Ex liis liahcinus, lidem, (]iiao, osl luiidamciiliiin
Poeniteuliae, non cssc ( ul mcnlilur Kcmnilius )
pcrsuasionom, qiiod aclioiiihus Poonilonliae iin-
pclrcraus vcniam pcccalorura ct rccoiiciliationom;
scd quod vera sint J)ei promissa. et illud in pri-
inis.juslificari impium p(!r graliam Doi pcr rodoin-
ptioncra. qiiao osl in Clirislo. VA simiil hahomns,
non cxcludi lidoin ac lorroros a Poomleiiiia, immo
includi, non ul parlos, scd ul caussas praeccden-
lcs Poonitcnliara: iKiquo eniin crederc et torrori
esl pocnitore. sod ox lide el lorroribus Pocnilon-
tia gignilur. Noque raiilluiu reforl, (iiiod in loco
jam cilalo conciliuin cxplical juslificationom.quac
in biiplismo ncquiriliir, non oain qiiae iu sacra-
lueiito PoeniliMiliaf^: nam idciii osl disposilioiium
cl conversionis progressus, liccl Poenitimliae o-
pera mullo faciliora ad Baplismum, quara ad re-
conciliationera exiganliir.
Octavo. Pag. 945.incredibili malitia vpI inscilia.
ex can. 4. sess. 14. concilii tridontini Kemnilius
colligit. totum cvangeliiiin ex Poeni'lenlia a callio-
licis tolli: Quando, inqiiit. quartus canon ana-
tliemate dn.mnat eos. qui dicunt fidem. coitce-
ptam ex cvanfjelio, vel ahsolulione, qua crcdil
quis sibi per Ckristum rcmissa e.s.sc peccata, ne-
cesaariarii partem esse Poeniteniiae ad conse-
quendani remissioneni peccatorum; quid (diud
facit, quam quod totum evangelium ex Poeni-
tentia tollit,el ipsani vocem evaiujeliiprojmain, ,
sicut a proplieiis.Christo et oposlolis tradila est,
daninal'? Ei pacr. OtC». Quid, relUjuum erit cvaii-
(jelio, si loUas inde Clirisluiii, fidemin Chrisluiit
cl rc.nvissionem j)eccaloruni, qu.ae fule jier iUiri-
slum accipilur? ct lamen tridenUiium concilium
non verelur analhem.ale damnare. si quis dixe-
ril, partcni Poenilentiae csse fuiem cx evan- mt
gelio conceplam, ([ua quis credil sihi per Chri- ■
stuni rcimissa essepcccala. Kt.pag. {)^tl.Adperpe-
tunni , inquil , rei nmnoriam notuni sit verae
Ecclesiae Dci concilium Iridentinum promit-
tere Poenilentiae reconciliationcm ciim Deo ,
et remissionem peccatorum , sine fide , ([uae
quidem ex evangelio concepta. sil , el (jua
(juis credat per Christum sibi peccata remissa.
Haec ille: qui quidera lam pueriliter errai, ut mo
sane pudeal haec lam levia refutare:ct noii parum
Kemnilii, quamvis adversarii, misercal. Noque e-
nim concilium negal, fidem ex evangelio conce-
ptam ad Poenitcnliam esse necessariam: sed ne-
gat, lum fidem partem esse Poenileniiae, cuni ea
potius (ut supia diximusi Poenilenliam gignal ;
i.iuEii mm,s
59:;
lum vero lidem, qna quis crodil sibi csse peccalo:
veram esse fideni ex evaiigeiio conceplam, cum
niliil nisi ti^^nieniuni Lutlieri jure dici possil. E-
vaiigeliuu) onim remissioiiem iieccalorum omni-
bus vcre Fuenilenlibus promillil: sed utrum liic
aul illc veram roenilenliam babeal. eviinfrelium
nusquam diiil, (juare ex evangelio fides illa con-
cipi iiun polesl,qua quis cerlo credal sibi remissa
esse peccala. Sperare quidem possumus el debe-
mns, ul concilium docel sess. 0. cap. 5. et se.>s.
14. cap. 4. iJeum nobis propilium lore: sed cerlo
id credere quo mocio cerlo credimus arliculos fi-
dei, mera stullilia esl.
Nouo. I>iig, 958. Calso Iribuit s. Tliomae quod
scrip^eril ad remissionem peccali requiii aclum
noslrum. qui sil mcriturius, quia cadal sub tibero
arbilrio. Id enim neque usquam s. Thomas scri-
psil. neque scribere potuit. nisi theologiae plane
oblilus. Quis enim vel mediocris theologus dice-
rel, aclum noslrum esse nierilorium, quia cadat
sub liberum arbilrinm? qnasi vero non possint
multi actus sub libeium uibilrinin cadere, nec ta-
uien meritorii esse. Quid. quod s. Tliomas in 1.
2. quaesl. ultim. arlic. 5. diseilis veibis docet,
iieminem posse niereri graliam jnslifiealionis: cu-
jus conlrarium Kemnitius ilii imponil?
Decimo. Similem omnino Kemnilius habel ca-
Inmniam pag. Of)l. ubi sic ail:7'aits lUles esl pon-
liliciac Puenilenliae., in noi^lra sciiicel opera,
non in Chrislum; talem misericordiam Dei vo-
lanl, noii quae sil fjraluila el (jralis propler
Chrisll merilum peccata remillal, seci quae ope-
ribus noslris Iribual me.rcedem.Teconciiiaiionem
scilicel cum Dco ct remissionem peccalorum.
Haec lile. Sed lanlum abesl.ut haec sil catli(dico-
ruin sentcnlia, ul nullus sit calbolicoi um, qui non
tolo corde analhe.ma scribere paratus mI iis, qui
ila spiitiunl, ut nos senlire Kemiiilius liiigil.
liiulecimo. Piig. 9G2. alllrmat Scolum vello dile-
(■iKHicm Dei snper omnia ex naturalibus vinhus
Iiriberi posse, eamque esse disposilioncrn suflici-
enleni immediidam et nllimani iid infusionein gi-i-
liae. Deinde piigm. 1)03. addit: El koc esl donina
Scliolasticoruin, ad quod stabiliendum faclum
csl lioc decrelum. Ilic duo inendacia sunt. Uiuim
Scbolaslieoriiin est illud dogina : nam Scoluin,
quem solum Kemnitiiis cilal longc aliter sensisse,
fuse demonslrat Andreas Vega in lib. de Jusiific.
quaesl. 10. et deinde quid(|uid de Scolo sit, con-
slat s. Tljoni.iin, el inelioiem Scholae parlcm.eon-
imrium omniiio doceie. AUcrnm est mcndaciiim
Inculcnliiis. Ad illud slabiliemluiii dognia, decre-
lum concilii Iridenl. esse lormalum. (|uod habdur
sess. 15. cap. 4. el can. .'>. coiicilium t;iiim iii hoo
ipbO loco. atirilioncm. ()uae esl imperfecla conlii-
110, donum essc Spuiius sancti doeet: cx qno re-
cle colligitiir, multo inagis ipsain coiilritionein
perfeclam, quiic dilcctium-m I)(m supi-r omnia in-
clii-lil. iion ex solis nalur;ie vinbus, sed I)(d iiiu-
iiere liiibi-ri. VA s(;ss. (i. eiiii. ."►.Iiis vnbis seiil(;ii-
liiiiii isiiiiii (jiinimil, (|Uiiiii ei Ke:niiilins allingeni
niMi vcrclur: Si qnis dixeril, sinc praecenienlc
Siiiriius sancii inspiralionc, al(iu.c ejus adjalo-
riu, liouiinein credcrc, spnrare. dilifptre^aul poc'
nilcrc possc sicut opmiel. ul ci jusiilicalionis
ijraiia conferalur, analliema sit.
Duodecimo. Piig. 904. negat Komnilius Lutlie-
rum doeuisse id, quod in bulla Leonis X. damna'
tum legimus: Altritionem lacere hominem liypo-
eriliim et niiigis pecealorem : sed tantiim Scholii-
slieoruiii sentenliam roprehendisse. quac delesla-
lionein pcceiitorum per liborum arbilrium solis
nalurae viribus producUim.facii dispositionein suf-
ficientem iid griiliiim. Atiiui h;iec esl incredibilis
audiiciii.eum verba Lulheri non uno in loco posila
clyrissima siiil, neque ullam ejusmodi interprcta-
tionein admillant.
In sermone de Poenilontia habiio imno 1517.
ex quo arliculi illi deprompli siinl. (pios Leo X.
damnavit: ita Lulberus loquilur: Conlrilio dnplici
via paratur. Primo pcr discussionein. coUeclio-
nem, dctestaiionem peccatoruin. qua qnis {ul
dicunl) recogitat arinos suos in amariluitinc a-
niinac snae, ponderando peccalorum suorum
(jravilalem. damnnm, foedUalcm.muliiludinem,
deinde amissionem aelernae beaiLiudiiii!<. ac ae-
lernac damnatioiiis acquisilionem.. el alia,quac
possunl Irisliliam ac dolorem cxcilarc. Uaec
aulein tristilia facil lujpocrilain, iinmo mdqis
peccalorem, quia soluin limore pracccpli el do-
L<yrc id facil: el tales omnes indiqne absolvun,-
lur. Hiiec ibi; ul»i non damnatur eontrilio. sivo
allrilio (ut Kemnilius (Jicii) quia sit ex solo libero
arbilrio, sed quia nascitur ex timore praeccpli,
non ex aniorc jnsliliae.
Rursus idoni Lutliorus in lib. eonlra btijhim An-
lichrisli, poslcaquam rocitavil art. O.a Loono d;im-
nalnni. iibi babetur ad verbnm. (|na(; modo ox
serm. de Poeuiteniiii cilavimns.ita subjiingit:J/eMS
cerlc esl arliculus el chrislianissimus. quem mi-
hi ab innumerabiiibu,s papis ct Papislis non si-
nam cxlorqucri. Uiri, qu;ieso, uiagis credi>ndum,
Lulberone ;irliculuin suum agnoscenti.an Kemni-
tio impiidenter menlienti, nuimiuam Luicrum ita
sensisse?
In assertione quoquc omninm arliculorum suo-
rum, ilerum recilal eundem sextiim ariiculum. el
suum esse fatctur, el mullis argumcntis contirma-
rc nililur.
Denique in Uosolnlionibns siiper prnposilionos
Lipsi;ic dispnt;il;is,;ipertissinie <iieil li;i(n'osiiii csse
Pelagianam, adiniltere,Poenilentiam imdioari anlc
diieelionem juslili;ie: ubi prorsus lollil prinniin
parlom Poeiiilcntiae , (puini Kemnitius ot Lntlio-
rani caeteri conslitunnl in illis t(;rroiibiis li<lciii
praeccdcntibiis. IMoindc nunc Luthero lesle, Lu-
ltior;ini Peliigiani fiicti sniit: el idoo iion miniin.si
Kemnitius miivult impudenter Lulhcri scrijjta nc-
garc, quain Pelagianiis haberi.
Decimolcrlio. Pagin. 907. mirabili slratiigcmalf^
Keniiiitius calliolicis alfingit, (piao sunl Lulheri
propria. Ucprchendit enim Scholiisticos, qiiod do-
ceant, contritionem. si non oriiitur ex dileclione
Dei, sed ex tiinor^! irae el judicii diviiii, etiiimsi
aec(;d;it (ides potens et st;ituens remitli nobis
pccciiUi propler Christnm, tiiinen non essc s;ilula-
rcm, seil .ludae Poeiiilenli;im. At hoc nnmqiiiiin
Scholaslici ducucruiil,sed Lutherum ita docontein
SIH
I)E POKMiKMIV
I,'M) poiiliri'.\. iM nc.-Kli^nii.ii» ralholioao. ol mipor
Palros ii) Iridciiliiu) (•oiicilio daimiavcrmU. Ila vi-
(ItMlccl li Ifliler rccilal scnlciilias noslras Konini-
tius. Alque haoc dc caluinniis cl mendaciis sulli-
ciunt.