Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 11: The Arguments of Calvin and Chemnitz Are Solved
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).
John Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, sections 15, 16 and 17, proposes these arguments. First, he objects the difficulty which the Scholastic theologians suffer in finding a sacrament when they treat of Penance. “The Romanist Scholastics,” he says, “sweat anxiously in finding this sacrament; nor ought it to seem strange, for they seek a knot in a bulrush. Yet what they have best, they leave the matter entangled, suspended, uncertain, and confused and disturbed by variety of opinions.” I answer: he draws his exordium most aptly from a lie; for the theologians with the highest consent teach that Penance is a sacrament, nor is there among them any variety of opinions on this matter; in this only they labour somewhat, to show in this sacrament what is the sacrament only, what the thing only, what the thing and sacrament together. For these three are clearly seen in Baptism and certain other sacraments, but in some they cannot so easily be distinguished, nor is it necessary. But these things are nothing to our matter; for we do not dispute with the heretics whether these three are found distinct in the sacrament of Penance, which is a question proper to the Schools, but whether the sacrament of Penance is a sacrament truly and properly so called; from which disputation the Scholastic theologians extricate themselves easily and very briefly.
Secondly, Calvin objects the definition of a sacrament brought forward by himself; for from it he gathers that Penance is not a sacrament, since the definition of a sacrament does not fit it: “Let those,” he says, “who keep in memory the definition of a sacrament set down by us above, test by it what they say is a sacrament, and they will find that it is not an external ceremony instituted by the Lord for the confirmation of our faith.” I answer: I have already shown in the preceding chapter that Penance with absolution is no less an external rite, instituted by God and confirming our faith, than Baptism is. But although faith can be confirmed by rites of this kind, yet that is not the proper and primary end of the sacraments, but of preaching and exhortation; otherwise infants, the sleeping and the insane would receive any sacraments in vain. But of this matter we have said enough in the first book On the Sacraments in General.
Thirdly, he objects the testimony of Saint Augustine from the sermon on Baptism to the newly baptised, and from book 3 of the Questions on the Old Testament, who writes that sacraments ought to be visible: “What of the kind,” he says, “do they either see themselves, or can show to others, in that which they call the sacrament of Penance?” I answer: there are not lacking many visible signs in the sacrament of Penance, whether you look at the priest laying on hands, or the penitent cast down at the knees of the priest and pouring out tears; but because these things are so seen for the most part that nevertheless the sacrament of Penance can exist even without them, I answer briefly: the visible sign, and that instituted by God, is both confession and absolution. For Augustine calls a visible sign that which is perceived by some external sense, even if that is not the sense of seeing but of hearing; for as the same Augustine says in book 10 of the Confessions, chapter 35, we rightly say: see how it tastes, see how it is worth, see how it sounds, see how hard it is. And certainly in the sacraments Augustine does not oppose the visible sign to that thing which is not seen by the eyes, but to that which is apprehended by the mind alone and by no bodily sense; for so he says in the sermon to the newly baptised, which Calvin himself cited: “It is therefore called a sacrament, because one thing is seen, another understood; what is seen has a bodily appearance, what is understood has a spiritual fruit”; where you see the bodily opposed to the spiritual, and what is perceived by sense to what is apprehended by the understanding. A bodily word, therefore, is rightly called a visible, that is, a sensible and external sign.
Fourthly, he objects that there is no promise extant: “In whatever part,” he says, “they place the sacrament, I deny that it is rightly held for a sacrament; first, because no particular promise of God for this matter is extant.” I answer: this is excessive impudence, or inconstancy; for that a particular promise of God is extant for private absolution, which the minister announces to the penitent (to use his own words), we showed in the preceding chapter from several places of Calvin. And indeed what clearer promise can be imagined than this: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,” John 20?
Fifthly, he objects that there is no ceremony in this sacrament instituted by the Lord: “Then,” he says, “because whatever ceremony is brought forward here is a mere invention of men, it was a lie and an imposture which they have devised about the sacrament of Penance.” I answer: absolution does not seem to Calvin a ceremony, because he has persuaded himself that the word of absolution is referred only to instructing and stirring up the mind of the penitent, just as if it were some part of a sermon; which he teaches likewise of the word of Baptism and of the other sacraments. But that this principle of his is most false we demonstrated by many reasons in the first book On the Sacraments in General. For if the word of Baptism, “I baptise thee,” and so on, is referred chiefly to instructing and stirring up the mind, to what purpose (as we said a little before) would infants, and sometimes even the sleeping and the insane, be baptised? The sacramental words, therefore, and among others that one, “I absolve thee,” are true ceremonies, not sermons; since they are external actions, instituted by Christ to signify and effect justification, and to worship God by that rite. And therefore it does not much matter whether they are heard and understood by him who receives the sacrament, or not; and whether they are pronounced in the mother tongue, or in Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew. And so much for the arguments of Calvin.
Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 903, first objects that the sacrament of Penance lacks an external element: “Penance,” he says, “by its institution has no such external and material element as there is in Baptism and in the Eucharist, which pertains to the complete definition and genuine property of a sacrament.” I answer: not badly does Chemnitz judge that the nature and property of sacraments in general is to be investigated from Baptism and the Eucharist, which by the consent of all are true sacraments; but he is deceived in this, that he does not rightly explain in what degree likeness is required between the element of Baptism and the Eucharist and that of the other sacraments. For we confess that in every sacrament an external element is required, like that which we see present in Baptism and the Eucharist; but the question is in what degree, or how far, a like one is required. And first it is certain that a likeness in species is not required; otherwise all the sacraments would have to consist of water, because Baptism consists of water, and then the Eucharist, which consists of bread and wine, would not be a sacrament. By the same reasoning it is certain that a likeness in the proximate genus is not required; otherwise all the sacraments would have to be made of a simple body, such as water is, that is, of air, or fire, or earth. But perhaps a likeness is required in some higher genus; so that the element of any sacrament be some bodily substance, such substances as we see water, bread and wine to be, of which the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist consist. But neither can this be said; for the nature and essence of Baptism properly consists not in a substance but in an action. For the external symbol to which grace is annexed, and which is properly called Baptism, is not water, but washing with the invocation of the most holy Trinity; and washing and invocation are not substances but actions. Wherefore Chemnitz undeservedly censures Catholics, page 906, for having transformed the element from the category of substance into an element from the category of action. Nor yet can it be affirmed in general that every sacrament consists in an action; for the sacrament of the Eucharist is properly not a passing action but a permanent thing; for we call the Eucharist not the action of consecrating, but the consecrated bread, changed into the Lord’s body.
The true ground of likeness, therefore, between the external symbols of Baptism and of the other sacraments is to be taken from the end for which it is certain the sacraments were instituted. And all admit the end both of Baptism and of the other sacraments to be, to signify inward justification, and in that way to raise man, who consists of body and spirit, through sensible and bodily symbols to the knowledge of intelligible and spiritual things; for hence they are called signs, symbols and sacraments. For as Saint Augustine speaks in the letter to Boniface: “If the sacraments did not bear a likeness of those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments.” As, then, in Baptism an outward washing is exhibited through water, that an inward washing through the Spirit may be signified; so also in the Eucharist bread and wine, or rather the species of bread and wine, are set before our sight, that the body and blood of the Lord may be understood to be the food and drink of souls; and in the same way in the other sacraments the nature of a sacrament necessarily demands only this, that external signs be exhibited for aptly representing the spiritual effect. But whether those signs belong to the category of substance or to the categories of accidents, and whether they are perceived by the eyes or by the ears, matters nothing; nor did Christ wish us to be anxious about categories, nor does he himself justify men more easily through a substance than through accidents. Wherefore in the sacrament of Penance, in which for the external symbol we have the confession of the penitent and the absolution pronounced with a bodily voice by the priest, the true and proper notion of a sacrament is by no means lacking. For words are not only external and sensible signs, but also the most excellent in the class of signs, as Saint Augustine teaches, book 2, chapter 3, On Christian Doctrine. And as for the same Augustine, tractate 80 on John, distinguishing the element from the word, when he says, “The word comes to the element, and it becomes a sacrament,” this ought not to be extended to all the sacraments; for he was speaking not of sacraments in general, but of Baptism only, as we understand from those words: “Take away the word, what is water but water?” For otherwise that both words can be in the place of the element, and the thing in the place of words, we demonstrated in book 1 On the Sacraments in General.
The second objection of Chemnitz consists in this, that he tries to prove that the sacrament of Penance has no foundation in the word of God, nor in the Fathers; and this he pursues at length, in a disputation distributed into five heads; of all of which we must speak briefly and in order.
In the first head, then, which is found on page 908, he proves that the sacrament of Penance has no foundation in the Old Testament, and that from the testimony of the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 1, and thence gathers that for about four thousand years there was no sacrament of Penance. But these things are nothing. For we confess that the sacrament of Penance was instituted by Christ, as also Baptism and the Eucharist, and therefore it is no wonder if for many thousands of years it did not exist. Yet lest Chemnitz should seem to have done nothing, he proposes a certain argument, which can be comprised in this syllogism: in the Penance of the Old Testament there was contrition, confession and a certain kind of satisfaction, with the power of forgiving sins; but that Penance was not a sacrament properly so called; therefore neither is the Penance which Catholics hold to consist of contrition, confession and satisfaction, with the power of forgiving sins, to be thought a sacrament properly so called. The major Chemnitz proves thus: for in the Old Testament there are extant examples of contrition and confession of sins; and on Miriam the sister of Moses, and on David, God after reconciliation imposed certain chastisements, from which Catholics are accustomed to prove satisfaction. There is extant besides the example of absolution, of Nathan; since he absolved David, contrite and confessing his sin. The minor he proves from the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 1, where the Fathers teach that the Penance of the ancients was not a sacrament. I answer: the major of the argument is for the greater part false. For, to omit the rest, there was not in the Old Testament a power of forgiving sins; nor did Nathan or anyone else, as a minister of God, absolve sinners; for that had not yet been heard: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” Hear Saint John Chrysostom, book 3 On the Priesthood: “To cleanse bodily leprosy, or to speak more truly, not indeed to cleanse it, but to approve those cleansed, was permitted to the priests of the Jews alone. But to our priests it has been granted not to approve as cleansed the leprosy of the body, but to cleanse outright the defilements of the soul.” So he. Nor does the example of the prophet Nathan, which is extant in 2 Kings, chapter 12, serve our matter, and it is altogether foolishly inculcated by Chemnitz more than once. For Nathan did not say, “I absolve thee,” or, “I forgive thee thy sins,” but only, “The Lord hath taken away thy sin”; by which words he signified what had been divinely indicated to him as a prophet, but did not himself forgive the sin. But if whoever relates that something has been done can likewise be said to have done that thing, what hinders the evangelists from being said to have begotten Christ, killed him, and recalled the same from the dead and translated him into heaven, and even sent the Holy Spirit, because they have handed down in writing that all these things were done? We do not say, therefore, what Chemnitz pretends, that Nathan did not absolve by judicial power but by ministry, as if among us the priests absolved not by ministry but by royal and supreme power; but we say that in the sacrament of Penance the priests absolve sinners by a judicial but ministerial power, as ministers of Christ, not as kings and lords; whereas Nathan absolved neither by royal nor by ministerial power, but only by prophetic virtue knew and announced one already absolved by God. Although not even then would Chemnitz gain anything, if Nathan had absolved David by a judicial ministerial power; for that would have been done once by a certain extraordinary providence of God; and singular examples do not make a law.
But Chemnitz insists: “The Apostle Peter, Acts 10, and Paul, Acts 26, affirm that they taught no otherwise than the prophets about Penance towards God and about receiving the remission of sins.” But what does this do to the purpose? Will the Penance of the Old Testament therefore be a sacrament? Or that of the New not be one? For the Apostles speak of the virtue of Penance, and that especially which pertains to unbelievers who are converted to the faith; and that this was always in use, and frequently preached by the prophets, we do not deny. But the virtue of Penance, which was always necessary, is one thing; the sacrament of Penance, which, instituted by Christ, has place only in the New Testament, is another. “Why then,” Chemnitz insists, “do you strive to confirm the sacrament of Penance from the examples of the Old Testament, if Penance in the Old Testament was not a sacrament?” I answer: we do not prove the sacrament of Penance from the Old Testament, except perhaps from prophecies and figures, but the virtue of Penance, without which the sacrament either cannot exist, or certainly cannot be useful. For from the Penance of David and of the other ancients we prove that contrition is not mere terrors, but a true sorrow for past sins, with a certain purpose of a better life; and again from the same example we learn that when the guilt is forgiven the temporal punishment also is not always forgiven; and many other things of that kind, of which we shall have to dispute below in their place.
In the second head, page 910, Chemnitz proves that the sacrament of Penance has no foundation in the preaching of Penance by Christ and his forerunner; which we gladly concede in full, since we teach that the sacrament of Penance was instituted after the resurrection of the Lord. But here too the adversary chose to play, and to reason foolishly, as is his habit. So then he speaks: “The Baptist preached penance unto the remission of sins; the sum of Christ’s preaching too is thus described: Do penance, and believe the Gospel. And both the Baptist and Christ taught of contrition. The Baptist’s hearers confessed their sins, Matthew 3; and Christ imparted private absolution, Matthew 9 and Luke 7. Why then, according to the definition of Penance handed down by the Papists, is that Penance preached by Christ and the Baptist not a sacrament? But the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 1, denies that it is a sacrament.” To this argument he who made it answers himself, but plainly absurdly, namely to show that it cannot be answered except by conceding many things which ought on no account to be conceded: “I answer,” he says, “because the contrition and confession had no enumeration of single offences; Christ too imparted absolution not with a judicial process premised and a penalty imposed, but freely, to those who acknowledged their sins, feared the wrath of God, and by faith on account of him sought and asked reconciliation. And in sum,” he says, “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. So the Council of Trent concedes and confesses that the sacrament of Penance has no foundation, testimony or example, as not in the Old Testament, so neither in the sermons of the Baptist and of Christ before the resurrection.” So he.
To the argument made at the beginning I answer: the Penance which Christ and the Baptist preached was not a sacrament for this reason, that the chief part of the sacrament was lacking, namely the word of absolution joined to the confession of sins. For in Matthew 3 we do indeed read that the Baptist’s hearers were accustomed to confess their sins when they came to Baptism, but that the Baptist pronounced the word of absolution we do not read; and that Christ forgave the sins both of the paralytic and of the sinful woman we read, but that they confessed their sins we by no means read. So unless Chemnitz wishes to make one sacrament out of the confession of John’s hearers and the absolution of the paralytic and the sinful woman, we have no example of the sacrament of Penance in the acts of the Baptist and of Christ before the resurrection. Add that Christ, when he absolved the paralytic and the sinful woman, did not institute a rite by which sinners should thereafter be reconciled, nor did he command the Apostles that in the way he had done, on seeing the faith of others, they should forgive the sins of others who asked nothing; so he dismissed sins not by a sacramental word, but by his own proper and singular power. Moreover, that answer of Chemnitz to the same argument is worth nothing; nor would Catholics ever acknowledge an answer of that kind. For first it is false that the contrition of those persons was so inward as not to be also outward; certainly those who confessed their sins in Matthew 3, and she who washed the Lord’s feet with tears, showed their contrition by signs plain enough. And that their confession was not of single offences is either false or uncertain: “confessing their sins,” says Matthew, and does not add, in general or one by one. Moreover, that Christ forgave the sins of those who acknowledged their sins, feared the wrath of God, and by faith on account of him sought and asked reconciliation, I know not where Chemnitz has read; for in Matthew 9 and Luke 7, the places he himself cites, we do not read these things. The paralytic in Matthew 9 asked nothing at all of himself, and through others sought bodily health, not reconciliation; nor is there in that place any mention of acknowledgement of sin or of fear of the wrath of God. In Luke 7 a detestation of sin is indeed recognised, but it was born not so much from fear of the wrath of God, as Chemnitz dreams, as from a most vehement love of Christ; which could also have been the reason why the Lord imposed no penalty on her. For even at this time the theologians teach that there can be in a penitent so great a force of contrition and love that no guilt at all of punishment or fault remains after reconciliation: “To whom less is forgiven,” he says, “he loveth less”; and, “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.” And those lies, that we deny the Penance preached by Christ and the Baptist to have been a sacrament because in it remission was given freely and on account of Christ, have already been noted and refuted above. Finally, that conclusion we gladly admit, that the Council of Trent confesses that the sacrament of Penance has no foundation, testimony or example in the sermons of the Baptist and in the whole Old Testament. But if that seems wonderful to anyone, let him wonder also why in the Old Testament and in the sermons of the Baptist we have no foundation, testimony or example of Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Eucharist made of bread and wine through the words of consecration.
In the third head, page 911 and following, Chemnitz proves that the sacrament of Penance is not founded on those words of the Lord, “Whose sins you shall forgive,” John 20; and again repeats his arguments about the absolution of David through the prophet Nathan, and about the Penance which Christ and the Baptist preached. But all these things have already been refuted before; for because from that testimony of the Lord the sacrament of Penance is truly gathered, we therefore treated of those words in the preceding chapter, where we brought forward our arguments for the truth.
In the fourth head, page 921, he tries to prove that from the doctrine and examples of the Apostles nothing can be adduced to confirm the sacrament of Penance; and although this does not much matter, since the word of Christ ought to be enough, yet lest Chemnitz should boast that nothing has been answered to this head, let us answer briefly. “Paul,” says Chemnitz, “in Acts 26, reciting the sum of his doctrine on Penance, affirms that he taught nothing beyond what the prophets spoke.” But here are two lies. For Paul in Acts 26 does not recite the sum of his doctrine on Penance, but only says that he announced to men that they should do penance and be converted to God, doing works worthy of penance; this certainly is not the sum of the doctrine on Penance, but an exhortation to penance. Nor does Paul speak except of the Penance which precedes Baptism, which we confess is not a sacrament. Then, what Paul adds, that he had spoken nothing beyond what the prophets foretold would come to pass, is referred not to the doctrine on Penance, but to the doctrine on Christ’s coming, passion and resurrection; for so the Apostle says: “Until this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other thing than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come to pass: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light to the people and to the Gentiles.” Chemnitz adds: “Peter also, Acts 10, affirms that he delivers that way of obtaining the remission of sins which has testimony from the prophets.” But neither does Peter deliver the rite of Penance, nor explain what is necessarily required for it; but he only writes that all the prophets give testimony to Christ, that all who believe in him receive the remission of sins in his name; which things are most true, and in no way conflict with our opinion. Chemnitz adds: “The Apostles are nowhere read to have exacted an enumeration of sins as necessary for remission; nor are they read to have imposed a penalty on those whose sins they forgave.” But neither are they read to have forgiven anyone’s sins. Let Chemnitz produce examples where the Apostles are read to have bestowed, or (as they prefer) announced, absolution in particular to anyone fallen after Baptism; and then at last he will rightly ask us to show that in that reconciliation confession and a penalty were present. Who doubts that the Apostles both did and taught many things which are not written? Otherwise we shall easily prove that men are not to be baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because nowhere are the Apostles read to have baptised by this rite. Perhaps the example of the incestuous Corinthian will be brought forward. But Paul did not properly absolve him, but approved the absolution given by the Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 2. And that the Corinthians absolved him not without a penalty imposed, the same Apostle signifies in 2 Corinthians 7, where among other things he names the vengeance which they had exacted for the sin of that incestuous man. Chemnitz adds again: “It is also vain and false that the Apostles taught one Penance, as regards essentials, by which the impious before Baptism are converted to God, and another and different one by which those fallen after Baptism return into favour with God; for they set before those fallen after Baptism no other law, no other Gospel, no other Christ, nor another faith.” And where, liar, have you read among Catholics that Penance before Baptism differs from that which is done after Baptism in this, that it requires another faith, another law, another Gospel, another Christ? For these are your lies, not our dogmas. Read, if you please, the Council of Trent, session 6, chapters 6 and 7, where the justification of the impious through Baptism is described, and again chapter 14, where justification through the sacrament of Penance is described; you will see in those places that in both justifications sins are forgiven through the merits of Christ, faith and Penance preceding, and God stirring up and helping hearts to be seriously converted and to do penance as they ought, and that this whole is derived from the same Gospel. The difference between Penance before and after Baptism we place in this: that the latter is the matter of a sacrament, and requires the confession of single sins and certain laborious works; the former is neither the matter of a sacrament, nor necessarily demands that distinct and particular confession of sins, nor those laborious works. All of which things are accidental to Penance itself, not essential; for it is accidental to the virtue of Penance that it come forth outwardly in this or that manner, and that its outward signs with the word of absolution make a sacrament. Lastly Chemnitz adds: “There are indeed extant in the writings of the Apostles examples of the conversion of those who had fallen after Baptism, as of the Galatians. But Paul does not lead them to another new and different method of reconciliation with God, but preaches most vehemently against the persuasion of the justification of works,” and so on. But I have nowhere read in Paul of the conversion of the Galatians. Paul relates that they had fallen away from the faith once received, and tries to recall them again to the way of truth; but whether they returned, and by what rite they were reconciled, neither Paul nor anyone else (that I know) has anywhere related. Moreover, since they had not yet been converted from the error into which they had fallen by the deceit of the false apostles, there was no need for Paul to prescribe to them the manner of Penance, but simply to exhort them to conversion and Penance, and at the same time to refute the very error by which they were held; which indeed the Apostle diligently performed. In the same way Catholic doctors, when they exhort you Lutherans to conversion, do not call you to lay down the confession of your single sins at the feet of a priest before they have brought you, by disputing and refuting your errors, to profess the Catholic faith again and to acknowledge the Church. For to what purpose should we invite to the sacrament of Penance those whom we know make nothing of the sacrament itself? What, then, was the rite in the time of the Apostles, or the method of reconciling those who had fallen after Baptism, cannot be plainly known from the Epistle to the Galatians alone. Somewhat more illustrious is the example of the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2 and 7; and although neither of his reconciliation in particular has it been handed down by what rite it was performed, yet it is sufficiently clear that he was dealt with much more harshly than if he had committed the same outrage before Baptism.
In the fifth and last head Chemnitz proves that the sacrament of Penance has no foundation in the ancient Fathers. And first he says it is beyond all doubt that the first origin of the sacrament of Penance, devised by Catholics, was drawn from the spectacles of public Penance, which the ancient Church kept with great severity for manifest and atrocious crimes. For in that were required external signs of contrition, exomologesis or confession of crimes; and certain chastisements were imposed, both for example’s sake on account of others, and for the sake of testing whether the Penance was serious. He adds that private Penance also was in use among the ancients; and that the Fathers, such as Origen, exhorted the people to confess other crimes also, though not notorious nor so great. And from this, he says, it began to become a general rule and doctrine that to the Penance by which those fallen into any sins whatever after Baptism are reconciled to God there pertains, besides contrition of heart and faith embracing Christ, also confession of the mouth to be made to a priest, and satisfaction of work. Then he weaves in that there are various opinions of Catholics on the necessity of confession; and this he proves from Gratian and his gloss, and Bonaventure; for these are all the Fathers and all the historians whom Chemnitz cites, although in his haste he did not note the place of Bonaventure. Hence I first ask Chemnitz whence he drew that history of the origin of Penance; for he has left these things proved by no witness. He had read, I believe, something of the kind in Calvin; that was enough for him, but it is not enough for us, who have detected many lies of Calvin himself. Next, what is this to the question of which we are treating? For grant that the first reconciliation of the lapsed was in public Penance: why could that not be a sacrament? Why were those external signs of contrition and the confession of crimes with the word of absolution not a sacrament? Finally, grant that confession is not of divine law, as Chemnitz strives to prove from a certain gloss, which Catholics also censure: why will absolution itself not be a sacrament, since it is an external symbol divinely instituted, and has the promise of grace and justification, as Chemnitz himself also confesses? Chemnitz, then, would have done more wisely if, with the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, to whose words he had sworn, he had defended the sacrament of Penance, truly and properly so called, against the Calvinists, who are heretics by the judgement and censure not of Catholics only, but of Lutherans also.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI.
Solvuntur ar(jumenla Calvini et Kcmnitil.
Joannes Calvinus lib. 4. Instilul. cap. 19. § 1.'i^
IG. et 17. haec argumenla proponil. Primo, obji-
cit diiricullatem.quam Iheologi Scholastici patiuti-
lurin sacramenlo re[)eriendo, cum de Poenitentia
Irnctanl. Romanenses. inquil . Scholaslici anxie
inreperiendo lioc sacramento desudant: nec mi-
rum videri debei, nodum enim in scirpo quae-
runt. Quod tamen &ptimum habent; rem implica-
tam. suspensam, inceriam , opinionumque va-
rielaie confusam ac iurbaiam rciinquunl.
Respondco: Aple omnino exordium a mendacio
ducil: Theologi enim suinmo consensu Poenilen-
liam sacramentum csse docent. neque ulln esl in-
ter eos de bacre opinionum vnrielns: in eo solum
nonnihii inborant,ut ostendant in hoc sacramenlo,
quid sit sacramentum tantum, quid res lantum ,
quid res simul et sacramentum. Ilaec enim Iria
perspicue cernuntur in Baptismo, etquibusdam a-
liis sacramentis, in quibusdam autcni non ila fa-
LI15EU 1>RIMUS 603
ciie dislingui possunt.ncquc neccssc cst.Scd hacc Ucspondco: Nimia hacc impudcnlia, vel incon-
nihil ad rem nostram faciunl, nou cnim cum li;ie- slanlia esl:cxslarc cnim singularem promissionom
relicis dispulamus,an hacc tria in sacramenlo l*oe- Dei pro absolulione privata , quam minislcr poeni-
nilcnliac dislincta inveniantur; quae propriaScho- lenli annuncial (ul verbis ular ipsius) cx pluribus
larum quaeslio csl: sed an sacramcnlum Poenilcn- Caivini locis supcriorc capite ostendimus. Et sane
liae verc propricque diclura sacramcnlum sil:a qua quae fingi potest clarior promissio. quara ilia sil :
disputalione thcologi Scholaslici facile se brevissi- QiLorum remiserilis peccala, remiUuntur eis, el
meque expediunt. quorum rclinucrilis. rclcnla sunt. Joan. 20.
Sccundo: Calvinus objicil definitionem sacra- Quinto:Obiicit,non nsse cacremoniam in iioc sa-
menti a sealiatam: ex ea enim colligit, Pocnitcn- cramenlo ullam a Domino inslilulam : Deinde, in-
tiaiii sacramenlum non esse, cum ci definilio sa- quit, quod quaecumque hic caeremoniaprofera-
cramenti non conveniat: Qai sacramenti, inquil , tur, merum sil hominum invenlum: mendacium,
deflnitionem supra a nobis posilam memoria tc- el imposlura fuit, quod de sacramcnto Poeniten-
nent, ad eam exUjant id quod dicunt esse sacra- tiac commenii sunt.
menlum, et invenicid non esse caeremoniam ex- Rcspondco: Absolutio non vidclur Calvino cae-
ternam a Domino institutam ad fidei nostrae con- remonia, quia id sibi persuasit. non relerri verbum
firmationem. absolulionis nisi ad instiluendam et excilandam
Respondco: Jara superiore capile ostendi non menlem poenitenlis,non secus ac si pars quacdam
minus Poenitentiam cum absolutionc ritum cxter- concionis csset: quod idem docet dc verboBaptis-
num esse.atque a Deo inslitulum cl fidem nostram mi, et caelcrorum sacramcntorum. Sed lioc cjus
conlirmarilcni, quam sil Baptismus. Sed licel fides principium faisissimum esse,in primo libro dc sa-
ex ejusmodi rilibus confirmari possit: iion esl ta- cramcntis in genere, mullis ralionibus demonslra-
men is proprius et pnmarius finis sacramcnto- vimus. Si enim verbura Baptismi: Ego te haptizo
ruin. sed concionis at(|ue exhortationis ; alioqui ctc. ad menlem inslruendam cl cxcitandara potis-
frustra infanles, dormicntes, amenles , sacrameuta simum refcrtur, quorsum (ct pauio antc diceba-
ulla perciperenl. Sed de hac re satis mulla in pri- mus) infantes,interdum etiam dormicntes et amen-
ino libro d«! sacramenlis in gcnere diximus. tes baptizarcnlur? verba igilur sacramentalia , et
Tcrlio: Objicit testimonium s. Augustini ex ser- inter alia \\\ni\:E(jo le absolvo, verae caeremoniae
nione de Baplismo ad iniaiiles, et ex lib. S.quaest. sunt, non conciones;Siquideni actioncssunt exter-
vet. Teslam. qui sacramenta visibilia esse debcre nae,adsignificandameleiriciendamjustificationem,
scribil: Quid lale, 'm(]\i\[.aul ipsi vident, aut aliis atque ad Deum eo rilu coiendum a Chrislo insti-
qucunt ostendere in eo (luod sacramentum Poe- lutae, El proptcrea non mullum referl , utrum ab
nitenliae vocant? eo qui sacramenlum pcrcipit, cxaudiantur et intel-
Respondeo: Non desunt mulla signa visibiiia in ligantur, an secus; et linguane palria , an latina ,
sacramcnto Poenitcntiacsive saccrdotcm aspicias vcl graeca aut iiebraea pronuncieatur. Alque lia-
mauus imponcnlem, sive poenilenlcra ad genua clenus de argumenlis Calvini.
sacerdotis abjeclum, et lacryraas fundentem: sed Martinus Kemnitius in 2. par. exara. Iridentini
quia isla ita plerumque coiispiciunlur , ut tamcn concilii, pag. 903. Primo objicil, dcesse Poeniten-
etiam absque iis sacramentum Pocnilcnliae esse liae sacramento eieraenlum cxtcrnum: £02 tiwma,
possil; breviler Rcsjiondeo: Visibile signura,idque inquh, insliluli07ic non habct tale exlernum el
a Dco institulum, esse lum confessioncm, lum ab- maleriale elemcntum, quale cst in Baptismo et
soIutionem.Augustinus enini visibiie signura vocat, in Euchnristia,quod ad inie(jramdefinitioncm ct
quod sensu exlerno aliquo percipilur , ctiamsi is gmuinam proprietatcm sacramenii pcriiiiet.
non sit scnsus videndi, sed audiendi: nam ut idem Bcspondco: Non maic Remnitius ex Baptisrao et
Augustinus lib. 10. confess. cap. .^5. ail. rccte di- Eucliarislia, quae omnium consensu vera sacra-
cAn^u>,: Vide quidsapial ,vide quid valeat. vide menta sunl, naturam ac propriclatem sacranicn-
(juid sonel,vidc(iuamdurum sit. Etcerle in sa- torum in gencre invcstiganda csse ccnset: setl in
cramentis visibile signum non opponil Augustinus eo faliitur, quod non recte exphcal, quo gradu si-
ci rei, quae non cernitur oculis ; scd quac sola mililudo rcquiratur inlcr clemcnlum Haptisnii al-
nienle, nullo aulcm corporali sensii ajiprchcndi- quc Euciiarisliac, ct sacramenlorum cacterorum.
lur; sic enira ait serm. ad infantes, quem Calvinus Falcmur cnim,in omni sacramenlo requiri elemcn-
ipse citavit: Sacramcntumideo dicitur, quia a- tum cxternum, simile iili,quod in Baptismo ct Eii-
liud vidctur,aliud intclligitur: quodvideiur,spG- ciiarislia adesse cernimus: sed quaesiio esl. quo
ciem habet corporalcm,quod intclli(jilur.fruclum gradu. sivc (luatcnus simile requiralur.
habel spirilualem,u\n vides corporale opponi spi- Ac primum ccrlum est,non requiri simiie in spc-
riluali, ct quod sensu pcrcipitur, ei quod inteili- cie: alioqui dciiercnt omnia sacramcnla cx aqua
gentia apprehcnditur. Vcrbum igitur cor|)oralc re- constarc, (luia Baplismus cx aqua conslat , cl lum
cte signuin visibile, idest, sensibile , atquc exter- Eucharistia. quae conslal cx pane et vino sacra-
num (licitur. mcnlum non cssel. Eadcm rationc ccrlum csl, non
Quarlo: Objicit.nullam cxstare promissionem : rcqiiiri simililtidincm in gcnere proximo: alioipii
Quucum(jue,\n(\u\[.in partc sacramentum posue- sacranKmla omnia cx siniplici coiporc , (lualc est
rint negojuni hal)eripro sacramcnto : primum, aqua, idcsl, cx acrc, aul ignc, vci terra, c()nlicien-
quod nuliaDci promissio simjularis ad hancrem da cs^ent. Scd forlc siniiiiludo rcciuirilur iii supe-
lixslct. riorcali(pm gcncrc ; ut clcmcnlnm cujusciimque
l{tI.LAnM»,M. Vril. il|. *'
(iot;
i'i i'()i:mii:mia
sacr.miiMili. Mil)slaiili;i qiiaiuliiiii sil oorporalis .
(jnales siibslaiUias csse videmiis, a(|iiam . paiiem
«'l viiuim, e\ (]uilnis nai^lismi el Kucliarisliae sa-
crameiila coiislanl. Al neciue lioo ilici polesl: nain
liaplismi iKilura ahpie essenlia jtroprie iion in sui)-
slantia. sed in aelionc consislil. Syinholum cnim
1'xUMiuim. eui annexa csl j^ralia, el ipioil proprie
naplismus tluMlur, lum esl aipia , soii ablulio cum
sanctissimac Trinilalis invocalioin!: abluiio anlem
<M invocalio. non sulislanliac, sed aelioncs suiit.
Ou.irc immerilo ealluilicos Kemiiilius reprelieiulil,
paj;. ^XM). (luoil elcmeiiliiiii de praedicaiiiento siib-
slaniiac.transrormarint iii elcmenUim de pracdica-
menlo aeruinis. Nec lamen generalim allirmari po-
lost.omne saeramciiUim in aclioiie consisl(M'c.uam
Kiicliaristiae sacramcnlnm propric nonaelio trans-
iens . sed res permaiUMis cst: non eniin aelionem
(•onsecrandi, scd panem conseeralum . ei iii cor-
piis Dominicum commulaliim, iMicliarisliam voca-
inns.
Vcra igiUir rntio similiiudinis inlcr exlerna s\in-
bola r>ai)lisini el sacrauiiMiloruni caclcrorum. n li-
nc snmenda esl, ob (]iicm sacramcnla iiislilula cs-
sc constat. Fincin anlcin Uim Baplismi, tnm alio-
rnm sacranuMilorum . omiics admillunt cssc, si-
}:;nilicarc iiilernam juslilicalionem; cl co modo bo-
mincra. (pii corporc el spiritu conslal , per sensi-
])ilia el corporalia symbola ad rerum inlclligibi-
]mm cl spiriuialium cognilioiiem cvcbere: binc e-
uini signa. symbola el sncraincnla dicuiiUir. Nam
ut s. Auijiislinus in cpisl. ad Boniracium loquilur:
Si fiacmmc.nUi similUndincmiion gcrerent earnm
rcrnm. quarnm ^acramenUi suni , sacramenla
non esseht. Qucmadmodum igilur in Baplisrao ab-
hitio cxtcrior pm- acpiam exliibelur. ut ablulio in-
icrior pcr spiriliim siiinificelur: sic clium in Eu-
cliarislia panis el vimim, seu polius panis viniqiic
??pecics iii conspecUj ponuntur. ul corpus ct san-
guis Domini, cibus ac polus animoruin csse intcl-
JiiiaiiUir; el ad cuiidiMii modum in sacramenlis
cacleris. id solnm ncecssario sacramenti nalura
j)()Slnlal. ul cxlcrna signa ad spirilualcrn cffeclum
:iplc rci^raeseiilandum cxliibcuntur. Ulriim aulcm
ca signa ad pracdicamcnlum subslanliac , an ad
])rac(iic:>mcnla accideniium, ct ulrnm ocnlis, an
;iiiribiis jiercipiaiilur. niliii inleresl.ncquc Chrislns
ii()S dc |)rae(!ic:i'.ncnlis sollieilos cssc voluil,ncquc
lacilius ipse pcr sidjslantiam quam pcr accidenlia
liomines ju5Ufic;it.
(Juarc in sacrainento Pftenilcnliac . in quo pro
symbolo exlernn conressionem poenilenlis , el ab-
soluiionem voce corporali a sacerdole jironuncia-
lam liabemus, vera et propria s;icr;imcnli ralio mi-
iiimc desidcralur.Verba enim non solum signii cx-
l(M"na ac sensibiliii. seci cltaiu in frenerc signorum
pracstanlissimii sunl, iit sancUvS ducel Auguslinus
lib. 2. cap. 3. de doclrina christiana.
Quod vcro idein Angustinns tr;icl. 80. in Joan.
dislinguil elementnm a verbo , cum ail: Acccdil
icrbnm ad elcmcnlum, et [U sacramentum : non
debt;l ad ouinia siicramenta Irahi: iieque cnim ille
de sacrameMlis g(;ncriilim,scd dc Haplismo tantuin
loqiiebalur, ul cx illis verbis intclligimus: Dclralie
vcrbum, quid cst aqua, nisi aqua? Alioqui enim
el vcrb;i loco chMiKMili, simi rci (•! rcs Iikn) ViMbo-
riim csse possc, in lib. 1. ilc siiiM-amtMiiis in gc-
nerc. demoiistravimus.
Secunda objcctio luMiinitii iiieo consistil.nl j^ro-
bcl. sacriimtMiliim l*ocnilciiliii(! iioii liiib(M'c hiiitla-
mcntnin iu vcrbo Dci. ncquc In Piilribus : id vero
jirolixt^ pcrsiMpiilur. (lis|)iil;ilioiic iii (piinquc Ciijii-
lii (lislribiilii: dc tjiiibus omnibus brcviler , iil^juc
oriliiic diccndum eril.
l*riino igilur capilc, qnod habelur jir.g.OOH. pro-
bal. Sii(M'iim(Miliiin l'()(Miil(Mili;ie noii hab(M'c hiiida-
nicnUim iii TcsliinKMilo vcUmm. id^jiie v,\ lcslimoino
concilii Iridcnliiii. sess. 14. cap. I. el indc colli-
gil. JUM' iimios circiliM' qiialer inillc non ruissc Poc-
nitenliiic Siicrameiilum. Sed hiiec iiiiiiiiii siinl. Kii-
temur cnim sacramentnm Pocnilcnliiic ii Clinslt)
iiislilnlum.ul etiam ]{iipUsmum el Kutdiiirisliam,et
idcireo miriim non esse, si jicr mullii iinnorum
milliii non tii(M'il.
i\c lamcn niliil fecisse Kcmnitius videalur.argu-
nuMitum quoddam jiroponil , (jiiotl hoc syllogismo
comjirehendi j)olest. In PoenihMilia Tesliimenti vc-
teris l'nil contrilio, confessio el quaedam velnli sa-
tishiclio. cum poteslalc remittendi peccala: Alqiii
ca Poenilcnti;! non criit sacramentum propric di-
cluin: igilur nec INicnilcnlia , qiiiun calholici e\
coiilritione, confessionc el salisfaclione , cuni po-
teslate rcmitlendi pccciila. conslarc volunt: sacra-
nienlnm jiroprie diclum existimandum esl. Projio-
silionem probal fvemnilius : nam in Testamcnto
veleri exstanl exempla conlritionis ct confessioiiis
pcccatoruni: ct Mariac sorori Moysis , ;ic Davidi
i)eiis jtost rcconciliiilionem imjiosuit ccrlas ciisli-
galiontis. ex quibus Ciilholici salisfadionem proba-
rt! solent. Kxslat praeterca exemplum absolutionis,
INiithan: siqnidem Davidem contrilum el confitcn-
lem pcccalum suum, absolvil. Assumplionem jiro-
bat ex concilio Iritlcnlino sess. 14. cap. 1. nbi l*a-
tres doccnt, Poenilcnliam vclerum, sacramculum
non fuissc.
I{cspondco: Proposilio argumenli magna cx par-
tc lalsa esl. Nani nt omillam cactera , non fiiit iii
Teslamento veleri potcslas remillciidi peccala: nc-
qnc Nalhiiii aul ulhis alius.ul Dci minister, pecca-
tores absolvit: nondiim cniiii auditum crat iliud :
Qiiorum remiscritis pcccatajcmitluntur cis.Audi
s. Joaniicm chrysostomnm lib. 3. de saccrdolio :
Corporaicm lcpram purgare, seuvtrius dicam .
Jiaud purgare quidcm, scd purgatos prohare, Ju-
dacorum saccrdoiibus solis liccbat. At vero no-
siris saccrdotibus non corporis lepram , verum
animae sordes, non dico purgatas probare, sed
purgarc prorsus concessum esi. Haec illc.
IVcquc exemplum jirophctac Nathan, quod exslat
lib. 2. Reg. cap.l2. ad rem noslram lacil.ct omni-
no inepte non semel a Kemnilio inculcalur. Non
cnini Niithan dixil: Ego te absolvo. vel libi p^^ccala
rcmitlo; sed soluin: bominus transtuUt ■pcccaium
iuum a ie, quibus vtirbis significavit id, quod sibi
nt prophetae, divinilns indicatum erat, non aulem
j)cccatnm ijisc rcmisil. Quod si quicumqiie narral
aliquid facUiin csse.idcm polest dici rem illam fc-
cissc; quitl prohibet, quo minus evangclislae Chri-
slum peperisse, interfecisse, el eundcm a mortuis
LllJEK riii.MlJS
(07
rcvocassc el iii coeluni Ir.iiKslulisse , cl S[)iriluiJi
eliaiii sancluiu misissc dicaulur , quia liaco oniuia
facta psse lilcris prodidcruul? i>ou igilur diciuius,
quod fiugil Kcuiuilius, Nalliau uou absolvisse ju-
diciaria polcslalc, scd pcr uiinisleriuui,quasi afiud
nos saccrdolcs non per minislerium, scd rcgia ac
supreu)a polcslale absolvaut, scd diciiuus , lu sa-
craiuculo l*ocuiteiiliac sacerdules potcstalo judi-
ciaria. scd miuistcriali, utClirisli miuislros, uou ut
rcgcs ac domiuos, pcccalorcs absolvcre ; Nailiaii
aulcm, ucc rcixia, iiec minislcriali polcstalc absol-
visse, scd taiilum a Dco .jam absolutuui pro()liclica
virtute cogiiovisse et reuuuciasse, Quamquam ue
tum quidcm aliquid obliucrcl Iveuiuilius,si l>atliau
judiciaria miiiislcriali poteslate Davidem absolvis-
set: id ciiim l;iclum esset scmcl exlraordiuaria
quadam provideutia Dci; siugularia vcro cxcmpla
legem noii raciuut.
Scd iuslal Kcmuitius: Apuslolus Pelriis Act. 10.
et Pautus Acl. 20. alJlnnaiU se dc PuenUciitia in
Deum. el de aecipieiida remissiunc peeeaturum ,
nun uiiter dueuisse (luam prupketas. At quid lioc
ad propositum tacit? iium ideo 1'oeiiileutia Tcsla-
rncnti vetcris sacramciitum cril? aul novi non cnl?
Aposluli euim loquunlur dc Poeuitcntiae virtutc,ct
ca i^racserliiii quae ad iulidclcs pcrtiiict, qui coii-
vertuulur ad fidem: eani autem seuiper iii usu
faisse. et a [)roplietis rrcquenler pracdicalam, non
ncgamus.AIiud aulcm est virlus Poeuilcnliae,(iuac
semper necessaria fuil: aliud vcro sacramenluin
Pociiitenliae, quod a Christo inslitulum, in solo
Tcslameuio novo iof-um liabct.
Cur i(jitur, insiai Kcmuilius, ab excmplis Testa-
nienti veteris, sacramcnium PueniteiUiae cunfir-
viarc nitimini, si PucnitciUia in TcstameiUu vc-
teri saeramentum non erat'/ ricspoiidco:i\oii pro-
i)ainus ex Tcslamciito vclcri l*oeuilciili:ic saura-
meiitum, nisi forle ex vaticiniis ct figuris, scd vir-
lulcm Poenitcntiac, sinc qua sacramcnlum, aut
csse, aut certc ulih; esse non potcst. Lx Pocnitcii-
lia eniin Davidis, et aliorum vcterum , probamus
coulrilioncm non esse solos terrores , sed verum
dolorem de pcccatis practeriris, cum certo propo-
silo vitae melioris; et rursum eodem cxcmplo di-
scimus.remissa culpa non scmpcr poenam quoque
ttmiporalcm rcmilli: el alia id genus mulla;de (pii-
bus iufra siio loco (lis[)utandum erit.
In sccundo capitc pag. UIO. probat Kcmnitius ,
sacramentum Pocnitentiae non liabcre fiiiidaimui-
liiiu iu pracdicalionc Pocnitculiae Cliristi cl [irac-
cursoris ejus: quod tolum libcntcr couccdimus ,
cum doccamus, sacramculum Pocniteutiae [losl
resurrectioniMii Domiui iusliluluui fuisse.Caeterum
liic cli;im Iud(;r(! voiiiit advcrsarius et iiicpic, ul
solet.ratiocinari.Sic igitur l()(|uitur: li aptista prae-
dicavil poenitcntiam in rcmissionem pece^Uorum:
summa etiani pracdicationis Cliristi ita dcscribi-
lur: Pocnitenliam arfile el creditc cvanfjelio. l)o-
cuit aulcm.ct llaplista et Clirislus tLc eonlrilionc.
UaptiMac auditores confcssi sunl peccuta sua ,
Ahutli,. .'». cl Cliristus priv(U(nn (Uisfttutionem im-
pertiit. Maltli. 'J. el Lue. 7. Quarc initur juxta
dcfmitionem Poenitentiac a Pontificiis traditani
PoeniteiUia illa a Christo ct Baptislapraedicata,
nou estsacramtuUum? al<ini tndeiUinum conci-
tin/n sess. \i. cap. 1. neyat eam essc sacrameii-
tn)R..
Ad lioc arguuicutum rcspondct iiisc qui illud fe-
cit, sed plaiK; absurdc, iil uimirum oslcndal uon
[losse respuiidcri.iiisi uiullis concessis,quac nulla
rationc conccdLMula cssciit: liespondeo . inquit ,
(jniacoiUrUiu et confcssio non liabuit cnumera-
tionem sinuulurum delicturum: Cliristus etiam
(Uisotutionem impertiit, nun praemisso processu
judieiiUi ct impOHita mulcta. sed (jralis. iis qui
peccata ajnoseetnint, iram Uci timebant el fidc
proplcr ipsum pelcbant el quacrcbant reconeilia'
lionein. Et summa, inquit, (/uia in iila Poeniten-
tia jratis, sine operibus , fide jn-opler Chrislujii
reinittcbantur pcccata, tjnia eliani lam Baptista
(luam Chrislus.fidem in FiUummcditUorcm.par-
tem convcrsioim neeessariam ad cousequendam
reinissionem praediearunt: prupter has caussas
talis Pocnitentia Puntificiis non est sacramen-
tuiii. Cunccdit itiuiue et fatelur tridentinum con-
citium.sacrameiUum PuenileiUiac noii habcre
fundamentum. teslimonium, vel cxemplum. si-
cut non inveteri Tcstamcnto, itanec in concio
nibus Baptistac, et Christi antcrcsurrcclionem.
llacc ille.
Ad arguuicnluni inilio factum Respondeo: Poe-
nileutiani, ([uam Clirislus ctl{a|)lisla praedicarunl.
idco sacramcutum non fuisse , (]uia defiiit pars
sacrauKMili polissiiua. nimirum verbum absolulio-
iiis,coufessioni [)eccaloruni adjuuciuin.lVam Mallli.
,'5. Icgimus (luidciu aiidilorcs Baplislac coiililen
solilos [)cccala sua,cum acccdcicnt ad Ba[)lismum,
scd I»aplisUim prouunciassc vcrbum absolulionis ,
non legimus; Clinslum autcm ct paralylico el foe-
ininae pcccatrici pcccata rcmisisse lcgimiis , sed
eos peccata confcssos ncqua(|uam lcgimus. Itaquc
nisi Kcmnilius vclil excoufcssione au(litoruiii.Ioan-
iiis, el ex [laralytici ac p(u;calricis absoiutionc, u-
iium sacrainciilum l'acere:iiou liabcmus c\eui|)lum
sacramcnli P()cuil(Miliae,iu actis Bai)lista(i cl Cliri-
sli anle resurrectioncm.
Addc: (piod Cbristus , cum [laralylicum cl p.^c-
calriccm absolvil, nuu riiuin iiisliluil, ([uo rccou-
ciliareiilur diMuccps [icccalores , iieque apostolis
mandavit. ut co iiiodo (juo ipsc fccerat , inspcclii
fidc aliorum. alii niliil piiouli , peccala rcinilte-
r(Mit: proindi! uou V(M'bo sacramciitali, sed pro[)ria
ac siiigulari sua [loteslate peccala dimisil.
Porro illa Kcmuilii responsio ad idcm argumcn-
tum,uiliil vnli.'l: uc([uc ciitliolici cjusmodi res|)oii-
sioiiem uiKiuam agiioscercnt. Primuin enim fal-
suni est conlrilioncm illorum ila inleriorcin fiiisse,
ut non fucrilcliam cxlerior: cerle ([ui conlilcban-
tur [icccala Maltli. 3. el ([uae laclirymis pedes
Domini iavil,satis apertis signiscontrilioncm suam
prodcbanl. ConrcssioiKMU auliMii illoriim nou fuis-
sesingulorum deliclorum, aut falsum. aul iiiccr-
luni cst: ConfUcntes pcccata sua , ail Hlaltliacus,
ii(M|ue addit generatim, vcl singillalim.
Porro Cliristiim cis pcccata r(Muisissc.qui [^cccata
agnosccbant, iram Dci limcbaut . cl jidc [)ro[)ler
i[)sum pctelianl el quacrcbaul reconcilialioncin ,
ncscio ubi Kcmnilius icgcril , nam Matlli. \). ct
iOH l)E POKMIKNTIA
Luc. 1. qiiae loca ipsn oilat, isla non losimus. l\i- liir ;i.l .loclriiiam do roenilonlia , sod ad doolri-
ralylicus M.illli. ".). uiliil omiiino per se pcliil, pcr naiu do Chrisli adveutu. passioiu! r.l resurieclio-
alios aulem cor|U)raloiu sauitatem, iu)n reconeilia- ne; sic euiiu Aposlolus ail: Usquc in hodLcrnuin
tionem (luaerehat: ne.pie ulia lil eo ioeo uuMitio (.lirmslo , tcstilkam minori atquc mdjori, nikil
aiiuitiouis peecali. vol timoris irae Dei. Lucac au- oxlra diccm, (luain ea. quae propkctae lofjuuti
tem 7. deleslalio (luidem peccali aguoscilur , sed sunl fulura essc,el Moyscs: si passibilis Ckrisius,
ea luiu tam e\ timore irae Dei, ul Ivemuitius som- si prinius cx rcsurriictione mortuorum lumcn
nial, quam ex amore Cluisli vehemeutissimo ua- anuunciaturus eslpopulo el (jcntibus.
scebalur: quao eliam caussa csse potuit, cur mul- Subjunj^Ml Kemuilius: Pcirus etiaui AclAO.alfLr-
clam nullam ei Dorainus imposuerit. Nam el lioc mat,seillaviralioncmconsequc.ndacremissionis
lempore Ihcologi doccul , taulain essc posse in peccatorum tradere , quac a propkctis tcstimo-
poeuitente vim contrilionis el amoris, ul nullus nium kabet. Al nec Pclrus Iradil rilum Poeuileu-
omnino poenae cl culpae rcalus posl reconcilialio- tiac, nequc cxplical quid ad cuiu nccessario requi-
ncm supersit: Cui. inquit. ?ni/ai8 dimiltitur,minus ralur; sed solum scrihit, Chrislo omnes prophclas
dUii}it,ci,Rcmittunlur ci pcccatamulta, quoniam leslimonium perhibere, rcmissioncm peccutorum
dilcxit multum. accipcre in noiuinc ejus onines , qui crcdunl iii
ilondacia autcm illa. quod idoo negemus, Poe- cum, (luac verissima sunl, nequc ullo modo cum
nitenliam a Chrislo cl Baplista praodicatam sacra- scnlentia noslra pugnant.
lueiUum fuisso, (juia in ea gralis , el proptcr Chri- Addil Kcmnilius: Aposloli nusquam leguntuv
slum dabalur rcmissio:jam supra notala el refulala cxcgissc cnumcralioncm peccatorum ad remis-
sunt. sionem nccessariam : nec legunlur imposuisse
Denique conclusioMem illam libenlcr admilli- mulclam, quibus peccala rcmillcbant. Al ucc lc-
mus, fateri concilium trideutinum , sacramontum gunlur alicui poccala romisissc. Proforal Koinni-
Poenileuliae non habcre fundamentum , lcslimo- lins oxempla, ubi aposloli leganlur in parliculuri
nium, aul exemplum iu conoionibus Bapl!Stac,ol in alicui lapso posl Baplismum absolulionem impon-
tolo vcleri Teslamonto. Sed si cui mirabile id vi- disse, vol (ul ipsi malunl) annunciasse ; el tum
delur, is mirctur eliam, cur in Tcslamenlo veleri, demum jure a nobis quaorot. ul ostendamus, oa
et in concionibus Baplistac, fundamenlum , lcsli- in roconcilialinno conrossionem el mulclam ad-
monium el exemplnm non haboamus Haptismi in fuisse. Quis ambigit, mulla aposlolos, et fccisse ot
nomiue Palris, cl Filii ct Spirilus sunotiicl Eucha- docuisse, quac scripta non sunl ? alioqui fucilc
risliae, ex pane vinoquc por consccralionis vcrba probabiraus, non esso bomincs baptizandos in no-
conlcclao. minc Palris, cl Filii el Spiritus sancli, quia nus-
In tertio capilc pag. 911. cl scqucnlibus. probat quam apostoli hoc rilu baptizusse leganlur.
Kemnitius, Poenilenliac sacramcntum non fundari Profcrclur forlasse cxomplum Coiinthii ince-
In illis vcrbi5Domini:()itoru?)ircmiscrtfis2)eccaftt, siuosi. Sed Paulus non euni proprie absolvit , sed
Joan. 20, el rursus rcpelitargumenla suu do abso- absolutionom a Corinthiis dalura approbuvit 2. Co-
lutione Davidis per Nalhan prophetara, et de Poe- rinlh. 2. Corinthios aulcm non siue mulcta impo-
nilentiu quam Christus cl Baplisla praedicaverunt. sila illum absolvisse , signiOcat idera Aposlolus 2.
Sed hucc omnia jam antea refutala sunl: quiu e- Corinth. 7. ubi inter alia nominat vindictam, quam
niin ex lostimonio illo Dominico vere colligitur de poccato illius incostuosi exegeranl.
Pocnilonliae sacramcnlum,idoo do verbis illis egi- Addit rursus Kemnltius: \anumcliam etfalsum
mus capile suporiorc, ubi argumenta nostra pro cst, aposlolos aliam docuisse Poenitenliam.quod
verltate adforebamus. ad subslantialia atiinel. qua impii ante Baptis-
In quarto capile pag. 921. probarc conatur , ex mum ad Deum converluntur; elaliam divcrsam,
apostolorum doclrina et exomplis nihil adfcrri pos- qua lapsi posl Baptismum cum Deo in graliam
se. ad sacrumcntum Poeniteniiac confirraandum : rcdcant: 7ion cnim aliam legem.non aliud evan-
et quamvis id non multura referat, cum satis esse gelium, non alium Ckristum. ncc aliam fidcm la-
debeal Christi verbum, lairion ne Keranilius glorie- psis posl Baptismum proposuerunt. El ubinam le-
tur, ad hunc locum nihil csse responsura, respon- gisli nicndax, apud oalholicos Poenitentiam ante
dcamns broviler: Pmtius,inquit Remnitius, Aclor. Baptismum, ac oa diflerre^quae agilur post Baptis-
2G, recitans summ.m doctrinac suae de Poeni- mura, quod aliam fidem, aliam legem, aliud evan-
tentia, afftrmal sc nikil docuisse cxlra ca, quae gelium, alium Christum roquirut? haec enim veslra
prophetae loquuti sunl. sunl mendacia, non nostra dogmata. Lege, si pla-
At hic duo sunl mendacia. Non enim Paulus cet, tridentinum conciliura sess. 6. cap. ♦). el 7,
Act. 2(>. recital summum doctrinue suae de Pocni- ubi doscribitur justificalio impii per Buptismum ,
tentla, sed tantum dicit sc annunciasse homini- et rursus cap. 14. ubi describilur justificalio per
bus, ut Poeniteniiam agerent et converlerenlur Pocnilentiae sacramentum: vidcbis in iis locis, in
ad Deum, digna Poenitonliao opera facientcs: haec ulraquc justificatione peccata rcmitti per Cluisli
cerle non est summa doclrinacde Poenitenlia.sed merita, praocedente fide el Poenilenlia, ac Deo
cohoriatio ad poenilenliam. Nec loquilur Paulus corda excilante et adjuvanle,ul serio couvorlantur,
nisi dc Pocnitenlia , quae Baptismum praecedit , ot Poenitenliam, ul oportel, agant, idque totum ex
(|uam nos falemur sucramenlum non esse. Deinde oodom evangelio dcrivari.
(|uod Paulus addil, se nihil esse loquutum cxtra Discrinien inter Poenilcntiara anle cl post Ba-
ea,quae prophetae praedixerunt fulura, nou rcfcr- plismum, in eo ponimus; quod poslerior maleria
LIIJKI'. PRIMIS
G09
sncramcnli csl, et confcssionom singulorum pccra-
lorum. ac opera quacdam laboriosa exigil: prior ,
ncc esl sacramcnli maleria , neque distinclam il-
]am ac particularem peccatorum confessionein .
neque laboriosa illa opera neccssario poslulat.Qnae
omnia accidcnlaria ipsi Poenilenliae sunt,non sub-
slanlialia: accidit enim virluli Pocnilenliae, ut tali
vel tnli niodo exterius prodeal, atque ut signa ojus
externa cum verbo absolulionis, saoramenlum cfli-
ciant.
Ultimo addit Remnilius^Eccsfanf verein scriplis
Apnslolorum, exempla conversionis eorum, qui
post Baj)lismum lapsi fuerant , ul Galalarum.
Illos vero Paulus non ad aliam novam. et di-
versam raiionem reconcilialionis cum Veo de-
d^icil,sedvehementissivuconlra persuasioncm da
justillcatione operum concionalur etc. Sed Ga-
lalarum ergo apud Paulum convcrsionem nusquam
legi. Detecisse eos a fide semel accepla Paulus
naVrnt. eosque ad viam vcritatis iterum revocare
conatur: sed num illi redierinl, ct quo ritu recon-
ciliali fuerint. nec Paulus. necalius (quod sciam)
nusquam relulit. Porro cum nondum illi conversi
essent ab crrore, in quem dolo pscudoapostolorum
prolapsi fuerant, non opus erat ul Paulus eis Poe-
nilentiae modum praescriberel. scd ul ad convcr-
sionem et Poenitenliam sinipliciu-r tiorlarelur, ac
simul errorem ipsum quo tenebanlur, refclleret,
quod quidem Apostolus diligenter praeslitit. Ad
quem modum catliolici doclores, cum vos Lulhe-
ranos ad conversionem hortantur,non ante ad con-
Tessionem singulorum peccatorum ad pedcss;icer-
dotis deponendam vos provocant. quam ad fidem
catholicam ilerum profitendam.et Ecclesiafu agno-
scendam, dispulando, atquc errores veslros refcl-
lendo perduxerint. Ouorsum enim ad sacramen-
lum Poenilentiae invitaremus, quos scimus sacra-
raentum ipsum nihili facerc?
Quis igitur fuerit apostolorum tempore ritus,
quaeve ralio rcconciliandi cos,qui [)OSt Haptistnum
lapsi fuerant . non polest ex episl. sola ad Gala-
las planc cognosci. Illustrius aliquando est cxem-
plum Corinthii incestuosi 1. Cor. G. el 2, Cor. 2.
ct 7. et quamvis nec dc illius reconcilialione in
particulari sit proditum, quo ritu ca peracla sil:
lamen satis conslat multo durius cum eo actum
esse, quam si ante Baplismum idem flagitium pcr-
petrassel.
In quinlo el ullimo capile jtrobat KemnitiusrSa-
cramentum Poenitentiae nullnm habere in anliquis
Palribus rundamcnlum. Ac Primum dicil extra o-
mncm dubilalionfun cssc. primiun originem sacra-
menti Pocnilcntiae, a catiiolicis cxcogilali.ductani
cssc cx spe(;lacuhs publicac Poenitcntiae , quam
magna severilalc vclus Kcclesia in manilcslis el
iilrocibus criminibus scrvabal. In ill;i cnim r(M|ui-
rcbanlur signa externa conlritionis, cxoinologesis,
scn confcssio criminum; et imponebanlnr ((Mlae
casligationes . lum cxempli caussa proplcr alios,
lum vcro explorationis gratia, an scria csset Poe-
nilcntia.
Addil:Fiiissc cliam anlifiuis in usu privatam Poe-
nilcnliiim; ct Patr(!S, ut (Jrigcncm, horlatos |»opu-
ium, ut cliam alia crimina, ({uamvis non notoria,
nec ita mngna.confitcrcnlur, Indc autcm coepisse
rcgulam cl (ioclriuam gencralcm licri, ad Poeni-
tcntiiim, qua lapsi in qnaliacnmquc pcccata posl
Baplismum, Dco reconcilicnlur, pcrtinere practer
conJis conlritionem et fidem amplcctentcm Chri-
stum.etiam oris confessioncm sacerdoti faciendam,
el operis salisfactionem.
Deinde altcxit: Varias esse opiniones calholico-
ruin de necessitate conlessionis: idque probat ex
Graliano, et cjus glossa, ac Bonavenlura; hi sunt
enim omnes P;itres,omncsque hislorici,quos Rem-
nitius citat, quamvis Bonaventurae locum prae fe-
slinalione non annolaverit.
Hinc ego Primnm aRemnilio quaero,unde illam
historiam de origine Poenitentiae hauseril: nullo
enim teste haec probata reliquil. Lcgerat, credo,
tale aliqiiid in Calvinn: id ei salis fuit, sed nobis
non est salis, qui mulla ipsius etiam Calvini men-
dacia deprehendimus. Deindc, quid hoc ad quae-
slionera, de qua agimus? Esto enim, prima lapso-
rum reconcilialio, in publica Pocnilentia fuerit:
cur ea sacramentum esse non potuit?cur signa illa
externa contrilionis el criminum confessio cum
verbo absolutionis, sacramenlum non fuerunl?De-
nique esto, non sit confessio juris divini, ut ex
glossa quadam, quam etiam catholici rcprehen-
(Junt. Remnilius probarc nilitur: cur ipsa absoiu-
lio sacramentum non erit, cum symbolum sil ex-
ternum divinilus institulum, et gratiae ac justifica-
tionis promissioncm habeal;nt ipse etiam Kemni-
lius confiteinr?
Sapientius igilur Remnilius fecisset, si cum a-
pologia confessionis Auguslaniie, in cujus vcrba
juravcral, Pocnitcntiae s:ici'mentum vere ac pro-
prie dictum, adversus Calviniauos, non calhoiico-
rum modo . sed etiam Luthcranorura judicio ac
ccnsura, haereticos, defendisset.