Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 10: That Penance Is a Sacrament Properly So Called
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 to confirming the truth. And first of all we have the words of the Lord, John 20: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” From these words two things are gathered, which for constituting every sacrament properly so called are both required and suffice: an external rite or symbol divinely instituted, and a promise of justifying grace annexed to that rite or symbol.
For since the Lord granted the Apostles the power of forgiving sins to men, it cannot be doubted that he willed that power to be exercised by some external sign; for men, who are corporeal, would not understand that their sins were forgiven them unless they were forgiven by a voice or some external and sensible sign. Nor do the adversaries deny this; for they acknowledge that from this testimony of divine Scripture the word of absolution, even private absolution, is rightly gathered, as is plain from Chemnitz, second part of the Examination, pages 916 and 917, and from Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, sections 12 and 14. And a word is a corporeal and sensible sign. Nor is only the external rite of the one absolving, but also the external rite of the penitent, rightly gathered from the same testimony; for sins ought not to be forgiven except to those who testify that they have sins and that these displease them. For as those cannot be absolved who are not bound, so neither those who will not be loosed; and they will not be loosed who do not bring a mind prepared as it ought to be, that is, who come without faith and Penance. Wherefore the adversaries themselves too do not think those are to be absolved who show no signs of Penance, and who do not seek absolution: “Private absolution,” says Chemnitz, page 916, “forgives sins to the contrite and to those seeking consolation in faith.” We have, then, a symbol or external rite, and that twofold: the signs of Penance and the word of absolution. And the promise of justifying grace the Lord nowhere set forth more openly than in this place; for what is the remission of sins but justification?
This testimony the heretics try to corrupt in various ways; but there are two principal evasions of theirs. One is common to all, that the Lord speaks of the remission of sins, not judicial, from a certain power as it were praetorian, but through the preaching of the Gospel; for the minister, they say, forgives sins to those in whom by preaching he stirs up the faith by which the remission itself is apprehended. But even if the Lord were speaking only of remission through the announcing of the Gospel, still the adversaries could not deny a sacrament; since they themselves hold all sacraments to be nothing else than a certain announcing of the Gospel instituted for stirring up faith. As, then, the sprinkling of water with the word, “I baptise thee,” is a sacrament even among the adversaries, although that “I baptise thee” is referred to the stirring up of faith through the announcement of absolution made in the name of God; so also the sign of Penance which the sinner shows when he seeks absolution, with the word, “I absolve thee,” is to be reckoned a sacrament, although in their opinion that “I absolve thee” is referred to the stirring up of faith through the announcement of absolution made in the name of God. And that absolution ought to be applied in particular the Lutherans concede, as we cited above from Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination, page 916, and from Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 14.
The other evasion is Calvin’s in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 14, where, after he had said that Catholics gather from the passage of the Gospel just cited the institution of the sacrament of Penance, he answers that those words of the Gospel, “Whose sins you shall forgive,” pertain to the remission of sins which is effected when, through the word of preaching, the impious and unbelieving are converted to the faith and joined to the Church through Baptism. “Who,” he says, “is ignorant that the office was there enjoined on the Apostles which they were to perform towards outsiders? That is the embassy which is carried by the Gospel to those not yet enrolled in the Church.” Chemnitz has the same, second part of the Examination, page 915, where he proves this exposition from the last chapter of Luke, where the Lord commanded Penance and the remission of sins to be preached in his name among all nations; for these places, since they treat of the same matter, explain each other.
I answer: the passage of the Gospel which is found in John 20 can be understood in two ways. In one way, that authority was given to the Apostles of forgiving sins both to unbelievers and to believers. In the other, that it was given only for believers. The former exposition is Saint Cyril’s on this passage; and the adversaries seem to follow it. For Chemnitz in the place cited, and also on page 920, openly declares that the promise of John 20 is general, and has place both before Baptism and after Baptism. And Calvin, although in the Antidote he speaks so as to seem to restrict that promise to unbelievers alone, yet elsewhere explains himself. For in book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 12, he says it is enjoined on ministers to make the consciences of the faithful more certain of the remission of sins, and proves it from this passage of John; and a little after, section 14, from this same passage he gathers the private absolution which is given in the Church to penitents: “It is no common or slight consolation,” he says, “to have there present the ambassador of Christ, furnished with the mandate of reconciliation, from whom he may hear absolution announced to him. Here the usefulness of the keys is deservedly commended, when that embassy is performed duly, and in the order and with the religion that befits; likewise when he who had in some way estranged himself from the Church is restored into brotherly unity, pardon being received. How great a benefit it is that he understands himself to be forgiven by those to whom Christ said: Whose sins you shall forgive on earth, they shall be forgiven in heaven.” And in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 1, section 22, he affirms in express words that the promise is general, nay that it has place more among the faithful than among unbelievers: “For when Christ,” he says, “gave the mandate to the Apostles and conferred the power of forgiving sins, he did not intend this only, that they should loose from sins those who were converted from impiety to the faith of Christ, but rather that they should perform this office perpetually among the faithful.” And Calvin proves this very thing in the same place from a most certain testimony of the Apostle Paul; for in 2 Corinthians 5 the Apostle, writing to the faithful and exhorting them to reconciliation with God on account of faults committed after Baptism, says: “God has placed in us the word of reconciliation. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us; we beseech you for Christ, be reconciled to God.” Nor can it be doubted, as Calvin also does not doubt, that the word of reconciliation was then placed in the Apostles when it was said to them by Christ: “Whose sins you shall forgive,” and so on. This exposition being laid down, we gather easily enough the sacrament of Penance. For as Cyril teaches on this passage, Christ did indeed give the Apostles the power of forgiving and retaining sins, both to unbelievers and to believers, but not in the same way. For to unbelievers he willed them to be forgiven through Baptism, and retained through exclusion from Baptism, if perhaps they were judged unworthy of it; but to believers he did not will them to be forgiven through Baptism, but through another rite, namely through the reconciliation of penitents. As, then, the power of forgiving sins to unbelievers is not exercised without a certain sacrament, so neither the power of forgiving them to believers; therefore the reconciliation of the faithful after Baptism is a certain sacrament. Nor can the adversaries deny this, since they admit that from these words of the Lord is gathered a private absolution instituted by the Lord, by which men are reconciled after Baptism. Of which matter Chemnitz speaks thus, page 904: “This also among us is beyond controversy, that God in Scripture has instituted and ordained certain means through which he wills to apply and seal the benefit of the death of Christ to those fallen after Baptism, for reconciliation and the remission of sins.” So he. These means we contend contain a true sacrament, since they are corporeal, instituted by God, and have the promise of justifying grace, as they themselves concede.
And these things I should say if that former exposition is admitted; but nevertheless the latter exposition seems altogether more probable. For Saint John is not accustomed to repeat what the other evangelists have written, unless perhaps when he judges something is to be added concerning the same history. Now of the command to administer Baptism, Matthew and Mark had written plainly enough in the last chapter of their Gospels; and already, even before his passion, the Lord had given the Apostles the power of baptising, as the same John testifies in chapter 4; there was, then, no reason why either the Lord after his resurrection should give this power to the Apostles, or John should write it. Moreover, the power of the keys is given in this place to the holy Apostles, as Catholics and heretics concede; but the power of the keys is not necessary for Baptism, since not only ecclesiastical ministers, to whom the keys are given, but also laymen, nay even non-Christians, can sometimes give Baptism. Further, the power of the keys is without doubt a certain judicial power, as we shall prove in another place; but Christians do not judge of unbelievers, but of believers only: “What have I to do,” says the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 6, “to judge them that are without?” Therefore in this place power is given to the prelates of the Church of forgiving sins only to the baptised faithful, and of reconciling them after Baptism by a certain rite. Wherefore Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius and others on this passage, and again Chrysostom in book 3 On the Priesthood, and Ambrose in book 1 On Penance, chapter 2, when they expound this passage, make no mention of Baptism. Pacian, in letter 3 to Sympronian, refutes the Novatians, who wished that in this place the power was given to the Church of loosing catechumens through Baptism. Nor has Chemnitz’s argument from the last chapter of Luke any force; for Chemnitz falsely assumes that John and Luke speak of the same matter. For it is a far different thing that it was foretold by the prophets that Penance and the remission of sins were to be preached in the name of Christ among all nations, which Luke writes; and another, that the Apostles received from the Lord the Holy Spirit, and with him the power of forgiving and retaining sins, which John writes. Nor is it doubtful that Luke speaks of that Penance which precedes Baptism, and which properly belongs to the nations to be led to the faith, of which Peter speaks in Acts 2 when he says, “Do penance, and be baptised every one of you”; whereas John speaks either in general of all Penance, or only of that which is done after Baptism. Finally, we have already said that it is not John’s custom to repeat what the others have written. And if this latter exposition is admitted, the objection of the adversaries is plainly emptied. We have, then, a rite of absolving, through the word of reconciliation, as the Apostle speaks, external and sensible, with a promise of the remission of sins founded in the Gospel, even on the testimony of the adversaries themselves; from which what is lacking to the notion of a sacrament properly so called I altogether fail to see.
But that everything may be seen more clearly, and the adversaries more evidently convicted, let us compare this rite, which we have deduced from Scripture, with the definitions by which both Catholics and heretics are accustomed to explain the nature and essence of a sacrament. Catholics hold a sacrament to be a sign of a sacred thing; and they so expound their definition that by sign they understand a practical and efficacious sign, which by signifying effects; by the sacred thing, the grace of justification, which is then infused by God into the soul when that sign is outwardly applied. This definition fits most aptly the rite of which we are treating; for both the confession of the penitent and the word of the one absolving are signs of justifying grace. For what does confession signify but the renewal of the soul? And what absolution but the loosening of the sin itself, by which as by a bond the contrite sinner was held? And that this sign is practical and efficacious we understand from this, that what the Truth said cannot be false: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.”
Luther, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, near the end, writes that those are properly called sacraments which are promised with signs annexed. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article on the number and use of the sacraments, defines a sacrament properly so called in the same way; for it holds it to be a rite which has the command of God, and to which the promise of grace is added. That this definition fits the rite of confession and absolution certainly cannot be denied; for, to say nothing of confession for the present, that absolution, even private, has the command of God and the promise of grace all confess. For that of 2 Corinthians 5, “He has placed in us the word of reconciliation,” and, “For Christ we are ambassadors,” sounds a divine command; and that of John 20, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” contains a most open promise of grace. And even if no express command were extant, still it would without doubt be tacitly contained in the promise itself; for to what purpose would Christ give the Apostles the power of absolving unless he also bade them use it when there was need?
Martin Chemnitz was not content with this common definition; and so in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 41, in order to exclude from the notion of a sacrament properly so called all the sacraments of the Catholics, except two, Baptism and the Eucharist, he fabricated a very long definition. For he held that eight conditions are required for a sacrament of the new law properly so called; all of which we examined in the first book On the Sacraments in General; now it will be enough to show that they all belong to the sacrament of Penance, even against Chemnitz’s will. The first condition demands that there be an external and sensible symbol. We give in the present case an external and sensible word, “I absolve thee,” or, “I forgive thee thy sins,” from that testimony of the Lord, “Whose sins you shall forgive.” The second condition requires that that symbol have the institution and command of God, and not be fabricated by human ingenuity. This too we have already demonstrated from the word of God, “Whose sins you shall forgive.” The third, that the command or institution be in the New Testament. And this is beyond controversy, unless someone will not have the Gospel of John and the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians belong to the New Testament. The fourth, that it be a perpetual rite, not instituted for a short time. And that the rite of absolution has always remained in the Church, and will remain, not even the adversaries deny; and it can easily be proved from the Gospel. For since the Lord willed the power of forgiving sins to be in the Church, and defined no time, it manifestly follows that that power will last as long as the Church needs purging and remission. The fifth, that there be also a promise of grace. The sixth, that it be a promise of grace not of any kind whatever, but one which consists in justification and reconciliation. The seventh, that that promise of grace be joined to and clothed with an external sign. These three conditions are most evidently seen in the testimony alleged, “Whose sins you shall forgive.” The eighth, that the promise be not only announced in general, but also applied in particular to individuals. And that this condition is present in the rite of absolution no one can deny. For as from those words, “Teach all nations, baptising them,” and so on, we gather that it is to be said in particular to individuals, “I baptise thee,” and so on; so also from these, “Whose sins you shall forgive,” we ought to gather that it is to be said in particular to individuals, “I forgive thee thy sins,” or, what is the same, “I absolve thee from thy sins.” You see, then, that nothing is wanting in the rite of absolution of those things which Chemnitz required for the proper and perfect notion of a sacrament.
But perhaps Calvin’s definition does not fit this rite; so indeed he teaches in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 15, where he appeals to his own definition. But that also (although otherwise foolish enough, as we demonstrated in the first book On the Sacraments in General) can be accommodated to this rite. He, then, in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, section 1, defines a sacrament: “An external symbol, by which the Lord seals to our consciences the promises of his goodwill towards us, to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in turn testify our piety towards him, both before him and the angels and before men.” An external symbol and a promise of grace we have already shown more than once in the rite of confession and absolution; and that end, of sustaining faith and testifying piety, I see has place no less in the rite of absolution than in the rite of Baptism. For as he who in Baptism hears those words uttered in the name of God, “I baptise thee,” raises his mind to hope, and is confirmed and strengthened in faith, so likewise does he who after confession hears those words directed properly to himself by the ambassador of God, “I absolve thee.” And as he who comes to Baptism, and asks to be enrolled in the household of Christ, testifies his piety towards God before men, so also he testifies the same who, showing signs of Penance and hastening to absolution, earnestly begs to be reconciled with God. Since these things are so, either the sacrament of Penance will be a sacrament truly and properly so called, or Baptism will not be a sacrament truly and properly so called; or else let them invent some new definition, if they so desire to exclude the rite of reconciliation from the notion of a sacrament as not to exclude Baptism from the same.
Let there be added, moreover, the testimonies of the ancients. In two ways chiefly it can be understood what was the opinion of the Fathers on this matter. For first, not seldom, when they enumerate the true sacraments, they add Penance to them; often too they compare Penance with Baptism, and teach that in each sacrament it is God who chiefly works. Tertullian, in the book On Penance: “God,” he says, “foreseeing these poisons, though the door of forgiveness was shut and barred with the bolt of Baptism, has allowed something still to stand open: he has placed in the vestibule a second Penance, which may open to those who knock.” Where Tertullian teaches that there are two doors to the remission of sins, Baptism and Penance; so he judges Penance to be some such remedy as Baptism is, although different in kind. See also the same, at the end of book 4 against Marcion. Saint Cyprian, or whoever was the author (and no one denies that the author is ancient), in the sermon on the washing of feet: “After Baptism,” he says, “which by its reverence does not allow itself to be repeated, thou hast procured another washing,” and so on. Saint Ambrose, book 1 On Penance, chapter 7: “Why,” he says, “do you baptise, if it is not lawful for sins to be forgiven through a man? For in Baptism certainly the remission of all sins is; nor does it matter whether priests claim this right as given to them through Penance or through the laver; it is the same mystery in both.” And because the Novatians said that a man can baptise, because in Baptism it is God who chiefly works, Ambrose adds: “What of Penance? Does not the name of God work there?” See also book 2, chapter 2. Saint Jerome, in book 1 against the Pelagians: “Let him be redeemed,” he says, “by the blood of the Saviour, either in the house of Baptism, or in Penance, which imitates the grace of Baptism.” And book 2: “What is written,” he says, “And the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, is to be taken both in the confession of Baptism and in the clemency of Penance.” And in letter 1 to Heliodorus: “Far be it that I should say anything sinister of those who, succeeding to the Apostolic rank, make the body of Christ with their sacred mouth; through whom we too are Christians; who, having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in a manner judge before the day of judgement”; where he joins with Baptism and the Eucharist the absolution of penitents. Saint Augustine, 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?” And a little after: “If the ministers are present,” he says, “some are baptised, others reconciled, none are defrauded of the communion of the Lord’s body.” And book 5 On Baptism, chapter 20: “If what is said in the Gospel avails to this, that the sacraments are not celebrated through a sinner, how does he hear a murderer praying, whether over the water of Baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom hands are laid?” Where by the imposition of hands he understands ordination and reconciliation. For that the reconciliation of penitents is called by Augustine the imposition of hands could be proved by many testimonies; but for the present one or two will suffice. Same book 5 On Baptism, chapter 23: “Hands,” he says, “are laid on one returning from heresy for this reason, that he may not seem to have been without all fault,” and so on. And on Psalm 146, explaining that, “Who heals the broken of heart and binds up their bruises”: “What,” he says, “are these bandages? Temporal sacraments”; and he gives as examples the Eucharist and the imposition of hands, by which sinners are reconciled through the prelate. The same Augustine, in book 1, last chapter, On Adulterous Marriages, and book 2, chapter 9, most openly compares reconciliation with Baptism. Saint John Chrysostom, book 3 On the Priesthood, first joins the power of forgiving sins with the power of consecrating the Eucharist; then a little after compares the same with Baptism: “For not only,” he says, “when they regenerate us, but afterwards also, do they hold the power of forgiving our sins.” Saint Cyril, book 12 on John, chapter 56, says that sins are forgiven by priests, as ministers of God, in two ways: through Baptism and Penance. Theodoret, in the Epitome of the Divine Decrees, chapter on Penance, says that the figures of the sacred mysteries of Baptism and Penance in the Old Testament were washings and sacrifices. Where Theodoret not only joins Penance with Baptism, but also calls each a mystery, by which word they are accustomed to name the sacraments. Saint Leo, letter 91 to Theodore: “The manifold mercy of God,” he says, “so comes to the aid of human falls that not only through the grace of Baptism, but also through the medicine of Penance, the hope of eternal life is repaired.” Victor of Utica, book 2 On the Vandal Persecution, introduces the people addressing in these words the priests who were being sent into exile: “To whom do you leave us wretched, while you go on to your crowns? Who will baptise these little ones in the fountains of everlasting water? Who will confer on us the gift of Penance, and by the indulgence of reconciliation loose those bound by the chains of sins? Since to you it was said: Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth,” and so on. Victor of Cartenna, in the book On Penance, chapter 20, openly names the sacrament: “Hear,” he says, “in the Gospel, with what darts of men he strikes the sinner, that you may understand how much he makes of the sacrament of Penance.” And Victor of Cartenna flourished about the year of the Lord 450, as Trithemius and Gennadius witness.
Let there be added lastly the testimony of the Latin and Greek Church which has flourished these five hundred years. For that in these five hundred years, in the whole Church, the sacrament of Penance has been numbered among the sacraments truly and properly so called can in no way be denied, nor, as I think, do the adversaries deny it. For that is sufficiently established, both from Peter Lombard, whom all later theologians have followed, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 14; and from the decree of Pope Lucius III, which is extant in the chapter Ad abolendam, on heretics, in the Extra; and from the definition of the general councils of Florence and Trent, which all Catholics gladly obey; and finally from the answer of Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Germans; for in chapter 7 Jeremias openly teaches that the Greek Church numbers the sacrament of Penance among the true sacraments. And these testimonies I bring forward not because I am ignorant that they are made nothing of by the adversaries, but that all may understand that either for these whole five hundred years the universal Church has been engaged in a most grievous error, which certainly cannot be, since it is the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Timothy 3; or that what we have learned from that same Church about the sacrament of Penance is true. And that this Church, which these five hundred years has sojourned on earth, was the true Church of Christ, and continuous with that more ancient one, we sufficiently prove by this one argument: that since no other Church is shown by the adversaries which has been spread everywhere on earth without interruption for the whole of these five hundred years, either this our Church was the true Church, or there was none at all; and that there was none, no one will ever affirm who believes those words of Christ to be true: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” Matthew 16. But enough of these; now let us dissolve their objections.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X.
Poenitentiam sacramenlum esse proprie
dictum.
Nunc ad verilalcm conlirmandam accedanius.
Ac primu quidem loco habcmus vcrba Douiini
Jo;iu. 20. Quorumrcmiscritis peccata , rcmitlun-
lur eis, et (luorum rclinucritis, rctcnta sunt. Ex
(piibns vcrbis duo colligunlur, quae ad omue sa-
cr;imcutuin proprie dictum constiluendum, cl re-
quirtinlur el suiriciunl; ritus externussive symbo-
iniu diviuilus inslilutum , et promis.^-io gratiuc ju-
slilicanlis, illi rilui sivc symbolo annexa.
Nam cum Dominus uposlolis polestalem conces-
serilremillendi peooala hominibus , dubilari noti
polesl, quin signo aliquo externo eam poleslateni
exerceri voluerit:ncque enim homines. qui corpo-
niles sunt, peccata sibi remilli intelligerent , nisi
voce aut signo ;diquo externo ac sensibili rcmilte-
rentur. Neque udversarii id negant: agnoscunl c-
niin ex hoc leslunouio diviuae Scriplurue recte
colligi verbum absolutionis ctiam priv;iiue, iit pa •
lel ex Remnitio 2. p;ir. exam. pag. DIO. et 017. el
ex Galvino lib. :i. Inslilut. cap. 4. § 12. et 14.
Verbum aulem signum corporale ac sensibile esl.
IVcquc solum rilus extcrnus absolvonlis.scd cliam
rilus cxternus poenitentis ex codem leslimonio rc-
clc colligitur: ucque enim peccata remitti dobenl,
nisi iis, qui se peccata habere, eaque sibi displi-
ccrc tcslatur. Nam ut ii absolvi nequeunt, qui li-
gali non sunU ila iicc ii, qui solvi noluul: uolunl
dulcm sulvi, qui non adlerunl auimum paralum.ut
I
oporlel, idesl, qui sinc fidc ac Poenilcnlia ;iccc- eorn seqiii vidcnliir ndversiirii. Nam Kcranilius lo-
dunt. Ou.'ire ipsi eliaui advcrsiirii .'ihsolvcndos non co cilalo. cl cliiitn piij^. t)20. iiperle dcclariil.^fcnc-
j)ul;inl cos,qui Poenilcnliiie sitriiii niiila oslendunl, ralcm (!sse pruinlssioiifni Joiin. 20. quac liim an-
quiquft aljsolulionom non peiunl: Pnvala absulu- tc Baplismum, quam posl Daplisirum Jocum liu-
tio, inquil Remnilius pajj. DIG. contrUis el jide beal.
pctentibu^ consolatinncm, rer^iittit pcccata. Ha- Calvinus iiulem l;imelsi in anlidoto ila loquilur,
beujus igilur symbolum , seu rilum cxlernum , ul videalur eam promisslonem rtislrint^cre ad soios
eumque dupliccm; signa Pociiilenliae el vcrbum iniidelcs; lamen alibi sc ipse expliciil. Si(iuidcm
absolulionis. lib. 3. Inslil. cap. 4. § 12. dicil minislris esse in-
Promissiofiem vero G;ratiae juslificanlis nusquam junclum. ul dc remissionc peccalorum ccrliorcs
Dominus iiperlius cxposuit, quam lioc loco: quid reddanl lidclium conscientiiis,el probal ex lioc loco
e.nim est peccalorum rcmissio. nisi jiislificatio? Joannis; el paulo post § 14 cx hoc codcm loco
lloc teslimonium variis modis liiierelici depra- collijfil priv;iiam absoliilionem, quae dalur in Ec-
vare conanlur: sed duo sunl praecipua ipsorum ef- clesia pocnilenlibus: Noavulgare. inquil, aut levc
lugia. Umim esl omnibus commune, loiiui Domi- solaliuni est habere ilUc praesentem Christi lc-
nuni de remissione peccalorum, non judiciaria, gatum, reconciliationi^ mandalo praedilum, a
cx potesliilc quadam quasi praelorla . sed per c- quo denmyyiari sibi absolulionemaudial. Ilic u-
vangelii praedicalioncm: lllis enim, inquiunl, mi- iililas claviurii merito commendatur . cum ritc ,
nisler peccata remitlit, in quibus praedicando quo ordineetquareli()ionedecet.istaperagilur
tidem excilat, qua remissio ipsa apprehenditur. leqatio: similiter cumis, qui se ah Ecclesia quo-
Scd cliamsi solum de remissione per aiinuncia- danwiodoabalienaverat.restiluitur in fralernam
lioiiem cvangelii Dominus loquerelur.adliuc adver- veritatem, accepta venia. Quanlum beneficium
sarii sacramcntum negare non posseni: siquldcm est. quodsibi abiis iqnosci inleUiqit, quibus di-
ipsi omnia sacr;nncnlii niliil allud csse volunl.nisi xit Chrislus: Quibuscumquc remiserilis peccata
«piaruliim (jviingclil annunciiilioncm ad excilandam m terris, remissa in coelo eruni:'* El lib. 4. Insill.
lidem instilulam. Qiiemadmodum igllur aquae a- cap. 1. § 22. diserlis vcrbis aniniiat, generalciii
spersio curn verbo: J^iyo /e ftap^tJiO. sacriimenliim esse promissionem, immo magis fidcllbus, quam
csl ellam apud adveisiirios, licct illud: Ego te ba- in inlidelihus locum bahere : I\'on enim, iiKjuil ,
23<tr.o, releralur ad excitandam fidcm, pcr annun- cum. (ipostolismandaluvidedit Chrisius, et pole-
cialionem absolulionis nomine Dei laclam: sic cl- stalein contuiit romiltendipeecata , hoc tanhtm
iam signum Poenilenllac, quod peccalor ostendil voluit. ut cos solverenl a peccalis , qui ab im-
dun) pclil absolulionem, cum verbo: Ego te absol- pietale ad Chrisli fidem converterenlur: scd ma-
vo, sacramenlum censendum cst, llccl ipsorum o- gis ul hoc olJicio fiingerentur perpetuo inter
pinione, illud: /sf/o /e fl/;so/i;o. rercriiliir ad cxci- /i(/c/cs. El probiit ibidem Calvinus lioc ipsuiii cx
taiidam lidera.per annuncialionem idisolulionis no- iiposloli Paiili certissimo leslimonlo: :i;im 2. Co-
iiiine Dei faclam; dchcre aubun absoliiUonem iii riiilli. 5. Aposlolus ad lideles scribens, cos(iue c\-
})arliculari applicari, Lulherani concedunt , ul su- horliins ad rcconciliationcm curn Deo ob culpas
pra cilavimus ex Kemnitio in 2. par. exiim. pag. post Baplismum iidmissas: heiis, inquil. posuit in
yif). et ex Galvino lib. ^. Inslil. ca[), 4. § 14. nobis verbu.m reconcilialionis. Pro Chrislo crgo
Allcrum clTugium esl Calvini in aiitidoto conci- legatione fungimur , taiiiquam Deo cxhortanle
lii tridenlini. sess. C. cap. 14. ubi posleaquam di- per nos; obsecramus pro Christo, reconciliamini
xcrat, calholicos ex loco jam cilalo evangelii colli- Deo. Neque dubilari potesl, iil cli;ini C;dviiius iioii
gere inslltulionem sacramenli Poenilenliac ; Hc- (iubilal, quin verhnm reconcilialionis tnnc iii apo-
spondel, verha illa evangelii: Quorum remiscrilis slolis posilum fucrit. cum dictum cst cis a Christo:
peccata, perlinere ad remissioncm peccalorum , Quorwmrcmiserilis peccata clc.
quac lum ellicilur, cum per vcrhum praedicatio- Posita liac exposiliom; , salis facile colligimns
iiis. impii el infideles converlunlur ad fideni ct per sacramentum Poeiiitentiiie.iNam iil Cyrillus In iiunc
]5aplismuin ad Ecclesiam adjiingimtiir. Q\iis, in- locum docet,Clirislus dcdit quidem aposlolis pole-
(luii, ignoral. munus aposlolisUlic fuissc injun- stiilem pecciita reoiittendi ac reliiiciuli . tum inli-
clum, qito erga exlraneos fungerenlur? ea lega- dcllbiis, tuni lidcllhus: sed iioii codciii modo. Inli-
tio esl. quae per cvangclium deferlur in Ecclc- (hdibusenim remilti volull p(M- Biqilismuni, el re-
^iam nondum cooplalis. Idcm eliam habel Kcm- tincri pcr exclusioncni a Biiplismo;si lortc indiiini
nlliiis m 2. piir. exain. pag. 91."). uhi lianc cxposi- eo censeantnr: al lidelihus rcmilti noliiil pcr \\\\-
tloiicm prohal ex ciip. ult. Lucac. ubi Domiiius plismum, simI pcr aliuiii riluiii,nimiruin per rccon-
jussit praedicari Poenilentiam , cl rcmissionem cilialioiiem pocnilcnlium. Sicul igilur potesliis
l)ccc;il(H'um in nomiru; suo peromncs gcnles:li;i(!C rcmillcndi inlidellhus pcccala, non sine sacr;iiiicii-
ciiim loc;i ciim dc re ciidem li'aclcnl sc inviccm ex- lo (|iiod;iiii (ixcrceliir. ilii iicc polcslas rcniiltciidi
pllciin;. lidclihiis: proindc rcconciliiilio lidellum posl Ha-
Uespondeo: Duohiis modis polesl intclligi locus plismum s;icramcnlum (luoddam csl.
evaiig(dii. (pji hiihetur Jo;iii. 20. Uno modo . ut iVequc li;iec, ncgiireadversiirii possiinl.cum admil-
d;ila sit aposlolis aiictorilas f)eccat;i rcmillcndi luin lanl ex his vcrhis Domiiii, colligi piiviitiim, iihsolu-
inndclihiis, lum fidelihus. Allero modo , ut solum tioncin a Doniino insliliitani, (lua post P.iiplisnuim
jidclihiis. rccoiiclliciiliir. D(! (iu;i re sic lo(iuilur Kcinnitius ,
Priur cxpositio cst s. Cyrilli in cum lucuiii: cl \n\v,.\)i)\.Uoccliamapudnos(ixlraconlvoversiam
fiO?
i)K i'oi;.Mii:.MiA
cs(, Ucum in Scriplura iii^lilui^sc cl urdina^ac
virla mcdia, }>cr qnac lai>!^is yjo.-^t Baplir^muiii, ai
vonvcrlaulur bciicjtcium morlis Chrifili ruU afi-
plicare, cl ol>iii<jnare ad rcconciiialioiicm cl re-
mi^!iioncmpcccatorum. llnoc ille. Ka nuHli;i iios
conltMhliniiis vtMHiin siii-iMinenUiin conlineie. euin
siiit eorpor;ili:i. ;i Deo insliluUi, el proinissiononi
iKibeant j;:r;iti;ie jnslilic;inlis, ul ipsi eoncedniit.
Kl h;iec (li.xenni. si priof illa e.xposilio ailniilla-
liir: seil lainen videlur oniniiiO Posterior c.\posilio
probabilior. Nain s. Joannes non solel ea rcpete-
re, quae alii cvan^clisl;ie scnpscrunl, nisi rorlc
cnin aliqnid circa candein liisloriain addcnduin
judical. Jani de mandalo Baptismi adininislrandi
satis ;iperte scripseraiil .M;illliaeus ct iMarcus in
ull. cap. evanjielii: ct jam eliain aiite passioncm
suiim Dominus dederal aposlolis baplizaiuli pote-
slalem. ul idem Joannes teslatur cap. 4. nulla i-
jzilur c;iussa cral. cnr ;iiit Doininus posl resurre-
clionem siiam lianc polcslalcm aposlolis daret,aul
id seriberel Joannes.
Praeierca poteslas clavium datur hoc loco san-
ctis aposlolis. ut calholici el haerclici coiiccdunl:
poleslas aulem clavium noii csl ad liaplismuiu ne-
cessaria, cum non soli ministri ecclesiaslici, qui-
luis claves danlur. sed cliam laici, immo cliam
uon Chrisliani lUiptismum.aliquando dare possinl.
Adliaec poleslas clavium sine dubio, judicialis
quaedam poleslas esl, ut alio loco probaturi su-
nius:iion aulcm judicanl Chrisliani de inlldelibus,
sed de fidelibustantum: Quid ad me, inquil Apo-
stolus 1. Corinlh. 6. de his qui foris sunt judi-
care? Igiiur hoc loco poleslas dalur Ecclesiae
praeposilis.fidelibus lantum baplizalis peccata re-
mitlendi.eosque cerlo rilu posl Baptismum recon-
ciliiindi.
Ouare Chrysoslomus, Theophilaclus, Eulhymi-
us. el alii inhunc locum: et rursus Chrysoslomus
in 3. lib. de sacerdolio. Ambrosius in lib. \. de
Poenilenlia, cap. 2. cum hunc locum exponunl,
nulliim Baplismi mcnlionera faciunl, Pacianus in
epist. 3. ad SYmproni;iiiiim , reiellit Novalianos,
qui hoc loco volebanl, datam Ecclesiae potesla-
lem solvendi calechumenos per Biiplismum.
Neque vim ullam habet argumenlum Remnilii
ex ult. cap. Lucae: falso enim assumil Remnilius,
de re eadcm loqui Joanncm et Lucam. Kam longe
aliud esl. praediclum esse a piophelis.praedican-
dam essc Poenilentiam el remissioncm peccato-
rum in Chrisli nomine per omnes genles, quod
scribit Lucas: aliud, accepisse aposlolos a Domi-
no Spirilum sanclum.et cum eo polestalem remil-
tcndi ac relinendi pecciita, quod scribil Joannes.
IVcquc dubium esl, quin Lucas de ea Poenilenlia
loquatur, quae Baplisiiuim praecedil;quaeque pro-
prie gentibus ad fidem adducendis conveiiil, de
qua foquitur Pelrus Act. 2. cumail:Poenife?i^ta77i
agile, el baplizelur unusquisque vestrum: cum
Joiinnes iiul generalim de o:nni Poenitentia, aul
solum de ea quae posl Baplismum, agilur, verba
faciat. Denique jam di.ximus, Joannis consueludi-
iicm non esse repetcre quae caeleri scripserunt.
Quod si poslerior haec exposilio admillalur,eva-
cualum esl plane objeclum advcrsariorum. Habe-
iiius igiliir rilum absolvcndi, per verbiim reconci-
li;ilioiiis, ul Aposlolus lociuilur. exlcnium ;h-, scii-
sibile. eum promissioiiis pccciitorum iii evangejio
ruiidaliim, ipsisetiam advcrsariis leslibiis: e.\ quo
(]uid inl sacramcnti proprie du ti ralionem dcsit,o-
niniiio noii vidco.
Sed ul clarius omnia perspiciantur, el ndvcrsa-
rii evidcntius coiivincanlur, conferaiiius liuiic ri-
luiii (luein e.\ Scriplura dcduximus, ciini dclinilio-
nibiis, quibus lum calholici, lum hacretici sacra-
mciili ii;iluram ;il(iuc esseiili;im explicarc solenl.
C;illiolici s;icramcntuin esse volunl sacrae rci si-
guuin: sic ;iulcm delinilionem suam cxponenl, ul
pcr signum iiiteliiganl signum praclicum, alque
cllicax, (]uod signilicinido elfu-iat-.per rcmsacriim,
graliam juslilicalioiiis,quiic tunc a Deo in aniniam
inlundatur, cum signum illud exlrinsecus adhibe-
tur. Ilacc dclinilio aptissime quadral in eum ri-
tuin, dc (juo agiraus: nam el confessio poenilcn-
tis, el verbum absolvenlis, signa sunl graliac ju-
stilicanlis. Quid cnim confcssio signilicat, nisi a-
ninii renovaiioncm? quid vero absolutio, nisi pcc-
cati ipsius, quo quasi vinculo peccalor contrictus
tcnebatur, relaxationcm? Esse autem hoc signum
practicum, alque ellica.x, cx eo inlelligimus, quia
lalsum esse non polcslquod veritas dixil: Quoruni
rcmiserilis pcccala, remittwnlur eis.
Lutherus iii lib. de captivit. babyl. propc finen>
scribit, propric sacramenla vocari, quae signis an-
nexis promissa sunt. Apologia confessionis Augu-
slanae artic. de numcro ct usu sacramentorum,
sacr;imcnlum proprie dictum eodem modo deli-
nil: vull enim esse ritum, qui liabel mandalum
Dei, et cui addila esl promissio gr;iliae. Ilanc de-
linilionem in rilura conlessionis alque absolulio-
nis quadrare, certe negari non polesl: nam ul de
confcssione interim taceam; absolulionem, eliam
privatam, habere mandalum Dei el promissionem
grali;ic, omnes falcnlur. Illud enim 2. Corinlh. 5.
Posuit in nobis verbum reconciliationis , ei, Pro
Christo legatione fungimur, mandalum diviiium
sonat. Illud aulem, Joan. 20. Quorurn remiseritis
peccala, remiltuntur eis, aperlissimam gratiae
promissionem coiilinet. Et licel eliain mandalum
expressum nullum exslarel; lamen in ipsa promis-
sione absque dubio lacile conlincrelur; quorsum
enim darel Chrislus apostolis absolvendi polesta-
lem,nisi etiam ul ea ulerenlur quando opus esset,
juberet?
Marlinus Remnilius communi hac deDnilione
conlentus non fuit: Itaque in 2. par. exam.lriden-
tini concilii pag. 41. ut excluderel a ratione sacra-
menti proprie dicti, omnia sacramenla catholico-
rum, exceplis duobus Baptismo el Eucharisii;i:de-
finilionem longissimam fabricavil. Voluil enim o-
cto condiliones requiri ad sacraraenlum novae
legis proprie dictum: quas omnes excussimus in
primo libro de sacramentis in genere; imne salis
eril oslendere, eas oranes sacramento Poenitenti-
ae, invito eliam Reranilio, convenire.
Prima conditio postulat, ul adsit externura ac
sensibile syrabolum. Damus in praesenli verbum
cxlernum ac sensibile. Ahsolvo le, seu, liemitlo
«i6i peccata, ex illo lesliraonio Dcmini: Quorum
LiiJKn i>RiMi;s
(103
vpmiscnlis peccala. Secunda condilio exigit, ul
synibolum illud habcal inslitulionem el mandnlum
l)Vi.non aulem sil ab humano ingenio fabricatum.
Id quoque jam demonslravimus ex verbo Dc.wQuo-
rum rcmiHerUis pcccala. Terlia. ul mandalum si-
ve instilulio sil iu novo Teslamenlo. Et hoc exlra
conlroversiam esl. nisi quis evangelium Joannis,
el epislolam Pauli ad Corinlhios ad novum Tesla-
menlum perlinere nolil. Qunrla, ul sit rilus perpe-
tuus, non ad brevc tempus iiislilulus. Uitum au-
lem absolutionis semper in Ecciesia permausisse,
ac permansurum, neque adversarii neganl; el ex
evanpelio facile probari polest. Cum enim Domi-
nus in Ecclesia poteslatem remillendi peccata es-
se volueril. neque tempus ullum definieril;id ma-
Tiifcste soquilur, ut tamdiu ea poleslas duralura
sil,quamdiu Ecclesia purgatione et remissione in-
digebil. Quinta, ut adsit etiam promissio gratiae.
Sexta, ul sil promissio graliae non cujuslibet, sed
quae in jusliflcalione ac reconiilialione consislat.
Septima, ul promissio illa gratiae signo externo
adjuncla el veslila sit. Quae tres condiliones in
aliegalo testimonio: Quoruvi rcmiserilis peccata,
cvidenlissime conspiciuntur. Oclava, ut promissio
iion tanlum in genere annuncielur, scd etiam iu
particulari singulis applicetur.Hanc vero condilio-
nem in absolutionis ritu inessc. nemo inficiari po-
tesl. I\am quemadmodum ex illis verbis: Docetc o-
mnes genies, boptizanles eos c.tc. colligimus, in
particulari singulis esse dicendum: Ego te bapti-
zo etc. sic eliam ex islis:Quo7'i(?// rcmiserilis pec-
cjila, colligere debemus, in |)arlicuhu'i singulis
<'sse dicendum: Ego tibi remitlo peccata;vel quod
vsl \(]cAn: Ego te absolxo apeccatis. Vides igilur
nihii desiderari in ritu absolutionis, eorum, quae
ad propriam perfectam sacraiucnli ralioncm Kem-
nilius requisivit.
Sed forle Calvirti dcfinilio in hunc rilum non
quadraUita quidem ilie docft in 4. lib. Inslil.cap.
19. §. 1."). ubi ad suam definitionem provocat.Sed
illa eliam (quamvis alioqui satis inepta, ut in pri-
nio lihro de sacrarnonlis in gcnere, demonsliiivi-
inus) ad liuiic riliim accominodari polest. Igitur
ille, lib. 4. Inslilul. cap. 14. § l.sacramentum de-
finil: Exlcrnum symbolum . quo bcncvolcntiac
ergn nos suae , promisHoncs conscientiis no-
stris Dominus obsignat , ad sustinendani fi-
de.i noslrae imbecHlitalem, et nos vicissim pic-
talcni erga cum nostram , tam coram eo el
angelis , quam apud homincs testamur. Sym-
bolum oxlernum , et gratine promissionem ,
jam non semel in ritu confessionis el absolutionis
ostendimus: illum aulem finem, ad sustinendam
lidcm el pielatem teslificandam: non rninus in rilu
absolullonis, quain in ritu Baplismi locum habere
video. Nam quemadmodum qui in Baplismo audil
illa verba nomine Dei prolata: Ego tc baptizo, e-
rigil animum ad spem, el in fide conlirmatur el
roboratiir:simiIiler facil,qui [lost confessionem au-
dit verba illa a Dei legalo ad se proprie dirigi^^yo
le absolvo. Et sicut qui ad Baplismum accedit, et
in Christi familiam cooplari poslulat , pielalem
suam erga Deum apud homines teslatur: ila etiam
eandem leslulur, qui signu Poenileuliue prae se
ferens, el ad absolutionem accurrens,cum Dco re-
conciliari enixe llugitat.
Quae cura ila sint; aut sacramenlum Poenilen-
liae verc proprieque dictum sacramentum erit,aul
Baptismus sacramcnlum vere ae proprie dicluin
non eril: vel certe confingant novam aJiquam de-
finilionem, si rilum reconcilialionis ila cupiunt a
sacramenti ratione excludere, ut ab eadem Baptis-
mum non cxcUidanl.
Accedant praelerea testimonia velenim. Duobus
praecipiie modis inlelligi polest, quae fiierit de
hac re Palrum senlentia. Primum enim non raro.
cum vera sacramenla ennmeranl, iis Poenilenliam
adjungunt: saepe etiam Poenilenliam cum Baptis-
rao conferunl ac docent, in utroque sacramento
Deum esse, qui potissimum operalur.
Terlullianus in libro de Poenilenlia; Ilacc, in-
quit. vencna providcns Deus claiisa ignoscentiae
janua, et intinctionis sera obslructa,aliquid ad-
liuc permisit patere: collocavil in vcslibulo Poe-
nitentiam secundam, quae pulsantibiis patcfaci-
at. Ubi Terlullianus duas januas esse do<;cl ad re-
missionem pcccalorum. Bai)lismum et Poenilen-
tiam: Proinde tale aliquod remedium esse judicat
Poenitenliam. quale est Baplismus.liccl specie di-
versum. Vide etiara eundem lib. I. contra Marcio-
nem exiremo.
S. Cyprianus vel quicumquft fuit auctor (anli-
quum aulein auctorem esse nemo negat) in sermo-
ne de ablutione pedum: Post Baplisnium, inquit,
qui siii revcrentia non patitur ilerari, aliud la-
vacrum j^Tocurasti etc.
S. Ambrosius lib. 1. de Poenilcnlia.cap. l.Cur,
inquit, baptizalis, si per homincm pcccata rc-
milti non Ucel? In Bapiismo enim uliquc rcmis-
sio pcccalorum omnium d^l; ncque inlcrcst u-
trum per Poenitcniiam.an pcr lavacrum hocjus
.sifci dalum sacerdoles sibi vindiccnt : idem in u-
troque mystcrio esl. Et quia INovaliani dicebant,
posse hominem baplizare, qiiia in Baptismo Deus
esl, qui potissimum operalur : addil Anibrosius:
Quid in Pocnitentia,noune nomcnDci opcralur?
Yide eliam lib. 2. cap. 2.
S. Hieronymus iii lib. 1. conlra Pelagianos: Ee-
dimalur, inquit, sanguine Salvatoris, aulindo-
mo Baptismalis, aut in Poeniicnlia. quac imita-
tur Baptismalis graliam. Et lib. 2. Quod. inquil,
scripium est: Et sanguis Jesu emundat nos ab
omni pcccato; la,m. in confessione naplismalis.
quam in clemcnlia I^oeniiudinis acciiiicvdum
est. El in epist. 1. ad Heliodorum: Absil ut dc his
quidquam sinistrum loquar, qui aposlolicn gra-
dui succcdenles, Chrisli corpus aacro orc confi-
ciunt: pcr quos ct nos Chrisiiani suuius:qui cla-
ves rcgni coelorum h(d)enlcs, quodammodn anic
dicm judicii judicunl; ubi conjungil cum Baptis-
1110 el Eueharistia, poenilenliiim absolulionem.
S. Augiistiiius epist.180. ad Ilonoratum: Annon
cogilamus, iiiqiiil. cum ad istorum poriculnrum
pcrvcnilur c.i:lrcma. ncc est potcsluii ulla fugicn-
di, quanlus in Ecclc^ia ficri solcat ab ulro(iue
scxu , atque ab omni aclalc concursus. «/m Pa-
ptisuiinii jlagitaniibus, aliis recnnciliationcru. a-
liis cliauL Pocnilcnliac ipsius uclioncm.omnibus
('>0^
|)K POKMrK.MI.V
vousoliiliunvm cl Sdcranicntoiiiin confcclinnctii
ct croijnlinncin? Kl piuil^» p<isl:>7 ininislri adsinl,
inquil, nlii hdpiizanhtr. aliircconcHianliirjiuUi
l>i)ininici coriioris coininunionc frdudanlvr. V.[
lil). .■). dt' l>;ipli>in(i, cap. H).Si ad hoc valci quod
(ticluin csl iii evamjclio. ul jwr peccaloreni sa-
craincnta iion cclchrcnlur:<]Uoinitdo c.vaudil ho-
micidain dcprccanlcin, vcl su<icr (Kiuaiii i>ai)lis-
mi, rcl sujicr olcuni, vcl suinir 1'jUcharisliain.vcl
sujier capiUi eortiin, quibus inanus iinponilur:'*
iilii por iiKiiuis iinpusilioiuMii. (irdiiMlioiicin ci ro-
foMcilialioiuMii iiilollijjil. Niim potMHienliiiiii recoii-
cilialioncin vocari :ii) Au^usluio innniis iinposilio-
ncnr.mnllis lcslimoniis [trohiui posschsctl in prac-
stMili nnnni anl allcinin snllicit;!. I.ili. codtMii .'>. tlo
iJaplisino, ca|). 'l'\.Maiius. iii(|uii, ah hacrcsi rcd-
cunli proptcrca iinponilur , nc exlra oinnciii
culpani fuissc vidcalur clc. Kl in psaliii. liC». cx-
])licans illiid: Qui saiial coiitritos corde cL alii-
fint conlritioncs eorum. Quac suni, iii(]uil, isla
aUiiiaincnta? tcniporalia sacrainc.nta;c.[ cxcmpla
poiiil Kiicliarisliat! cl maiiiis imposilionis.tpja ptM'
|)raeposilnin pcccalores rcconciliaiilnr. Ideni An-
t^nsliiius in lib. l.cap ull. dt; adnlicrinis conju-
i^iis. cl lil). 2. cap. (>. apcrlissinie confcrt reconci-
lialioncm niin Baplismo.
.Sancliis Joanncs clirysoslomus lib. 3. (jc saccr-
(lolio, prinio conjunjzil polcstalcm rcmillcndi pcc-
cala cnm [loteslate conticiendi Kncliaristiam:dcin-
(le pnulo [)ost candem conferl cum iJaplismo: iVe-
qm eniin. inqml. soluin cuin vos regeneranl,sed
ctiain postca. condonandoruinnobis peccaloruni
potestntcin obtinent.
S. Cyrilhis lib. 12. in Joannem, cap. aG. duo-
l)us niodis dicil remilli peccala a sacerdolibus, ul
Dei minislris: pcr Baplismum el Poenilentiam.
Tlieodoretus in epilome divinorum decretorum,
cap. (le Poenilcntia, dicil, sacrorum mysleriorum
IJaplismi ct Poenilenliae, figuras fuisse in Tcsla-
mento veleri. ahlntiones ei sacrilicia. Ubi non so-
lum conjungit Thcodorelus Pocnitentiam cum L'a-
piismo, sed etiain ulrumque. mysterium (([ua vo-
ce sacramenla noiiiinnrc solent) appellat.
5. Leo e|)ist. 91. ad Thcodorum: MuUiplex, in-
quil. mUericordia Dei, ita Uipsibus subvenit hu-
manif!^ ul non solum per Baptisini graliam, sed
riiani per Pocnitenliae medicinam spes vilae
reparelur aeiernne.
Viclor Ulicensis lib. 2. de persequut. vandalica,
iiiducit populos liis vocibus alloquenles sacerdo-
tes. qiii in cxilia millebanlur: Quihus nos miseros
relinquilis. duiii pergitis ad coronas?qui lios ba-
pHzaiuri sunt parvulos fonlibus aquae perennis?
quinobis munns Poenitcnliae coUaluri su7it et
reconciliationis indulgentia obslrictos pcccato-
rum vinculis soluluri? quia vobis diclum est :
Qunecumque solverilis super terram etc.
Viclor Cnrtcnnensis in lib. de Poenitentia cap.
20. a[)erte nominat sacramentum: We?ugufi,inquil,
Ifoinimim audi in evangelio, quibus jaculis fe-
rint pcccatorem, ut intclligas quanti faciat Poe-
nilentiae sacramentum. Floruilautem Viclor Car-
lenncnsiscirca annum Domini 4oO. lesle Tritbc-
mio el Gennadio.
Acccdat ultiino lcslimnniiim KtM-lcsiao lalinae ol
t^raccac,(|iiac ab aiinis ."iOO.Iloruit. ilis (Miiiii tpiiii-
jienlis annis in lola Lcclesia, sacrauuMilum Pociii-
liMiliae inlcr sacramcnla vcre ac [iroiiric tlicla nu-
mcralum cssc, iiiillo modo iic^'ari |)ol(!sl , neqnc
advcrsarii, ul arbilror. nc^^ant. Salis ciiini id con-
slal.limi c.\ Pclro Lombardo.tiniMii llictdo;^i oniiics
poslcritires scquiili sunl. lih. 4. S(Mit(Mit. disl. 14.
lom t!x tlccrclo Lucii |)a|)at; III. ([uod cxslat ca|).
Ad (d)ulendum,c\lv:\ dc bacrclicis, ct c,\ (icliiiilio-
ne i;(MieraIiuin conciliorum.llortMitiiii ct Iriileiilini,
qiiihus catholici omnes liheiiter partMil: liim tleiii-
t|uc cx rcsponsioiu! liicrtMiiiae archicpiscopi con-
slantino|)oIitaiii ad Germanos: iiam cap. 7. aperlt;
docet ilit rtMiiias.graecam Lcclt^siam inter vera sa-
crr.incnta numtirarc Pucnitentiae sacramtMilum.
llaec aulcm lcstimonia non ideo profero , (|uod
ignorem ea nihili licri ab advcrsariis:sed utomnes
intclligant. aul lolis ([uingtMilis annis Kcclesiam ii-
niversam in gravissimo crrore esse versalam.quod
ccrlc lleri non polesl, cum sit columna ct fiima-
meiitum vcritalis. 1. Timol. .3. aul verum csse ,
quod iios ab cadcm Ecclesia dc l*oenitenlia sacra-
intmlo (Iidicimus. Hanc auttMn EccIesiam,quao Iiis
quingcntis annis [)ercgrinala est in lerris, vcram
Christi luisse Eccicsiam, et curn antiquiore illa
conlinualam; vel uno iioc arguinenlo salis convin-
cimus: Quia cum nuila alia Ecclesia ab adversariis
dcmonstretur. quae totius liis quiiigentis aniiis si-
ne inlerruplione nbique lerrarum sparsa luerit ;
aut baec nostra vera Ecciesia fuit. aut nulla omni-
no fuil: nullam vero fuisse, numquam airirmabit ,
qui vcrba illa Chrisli vera essc credident: Super
lianc petram aedificaho Ecclesiam mcam, et por-
tae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eawi.iMallh.
IG. Sed dc iiis salis: nunc ipsorum objecla dilua-
mus.