Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book II: On Contrition
Chapter 14: The Objections Are Solved; and That There Is No Sin Which Is Not Blotted Out by True Penance
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book II, 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).
There are many and grave objections against what was disputed in the preceding chapter. The first objection: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much,” Luke 7. If the Lord forgave her sins when he said, “Many sins are forgiven her,” as the very words sound, which are of the present tense, and as Saint Thomas seems to think, part 3, question 84, article 5, it is necessary that at some time the woman was in her sins, although she burned with charity. For she did not then first begin to love, when she heard her absolution, but had begun long before; for the Lord does not say, “because she loveth much,” but, “because she hath loved much.” Nor can it be answered that the temporal punishment was forgiven, but not the eternal, since the Lord says, “Many sins are forgiven her.” For in the parable of the two debtors the Lord explained that he was speaking of the remission of a debt for which the debtors could never have satisfied: “Whereas they had not wherewith to pay,” he says, “he forgave them both”; but those can satisfy for temporal punishment to whom God has forgiven the eternal, and whom he has made rich by his grace. I answer: those words, “Many sins are forgiven her,” do not compel us to say that at that very time the sins were forgiven that woman at which the Lord pronounced those words; for afterwards too, some space of time intervening, the Lord says again, “Thy sins are forgiven thee”; and yet we ought not to say that the same sins were forgiven twice. The words of the Lord, therefore, “Many sins are forgiven her,” and so on, signify nothing else than that great love was the cause of great indulgence; and, as Saint Gregory explains in homily 33, that a great rust of sin was purged by a great fire of charity. But those words, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” which more bear the form of a present absolution, partly absolve outwardly and before men her who had already been inwardly absolved by God; partly also confirm the absolution invisibly given. For we read something similar in Mark 5, where the Lord says to the woman whom he had already healed of the issue of blood, “Be thou whole of thy disease”; by which word he did not heal her, but confirmed the healing already done. Moreover, the testimony of Saint Thomas concludes nothing, since in the contrary arguments he touches that matter briefly, but did not clearly set out what he thought of it. Someone will say: if the love of God was the cause of the remission of sins, love certainly must have been before the remission of sin; therefore some time will be granted in which the love of God existed without the remission of sins. I answer: the love of God above all things, of which we speak here, is the last disposition for grace and the remission of sin, and therefore is indeed prior in nature to the remission of sins, but precedes it by no point of time; which the philosophers teach happens also in natural forms and dispositions.
The second objection: “He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words,” John 14. But catechumens before the remission of sins diligently observe the words of the Lord; therefore catechumens before the remission of sins love God. I answer: if the whole observance of God’s commandments is in question, the minor is false; for catechumens before the remission of sins do not keep all the commandments; or if they keep them, they do not lack the remission of sins, as we showed above from Augustine.
The third objection: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him,” and so on. This, then, is the order of justification: that first one loves God, then keeps the commandments, lastly all sins are forgiven him through the coming of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I answer: that “my Father will love him, and we will come to him,” and so on, is to be referred to eternal glory, not to justification from sins, as Saint Augustine, tractate 75 on John, and Saint Cyril, book 10 on John, chapter 1, report. So this is the order which the Lord in this place sets up, of the steps to eternal life: that one first love God, then keep all the commandments, lastly be loved by God with that perfect love which confers beatitude. Which same thing the Lord had explained more openly a little before in these words: “He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him”; which certainly will then take place when we shall be like him, “because we shall see him as he is,” 1 John 3.
The fourth objection: Acts 22, Ananias says thus to Paul, whom he had heard from the Lord himself to be perfectly converted and made a vessel of election: “And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.” I answer: these things are said most rightly to Paul by Ananias, because Paul ought to do all the things which the Lord had instituted for the forgiving of sins. For Ananias did not know for certain that Paul’s conversion had been so perfect, and alone sufficed for blotting out his sins; although he did not doubt that he had been singularly preordained by the Lord and would be a vessel of election. Ananias could also exhort Paul, though most perfectly converted, and thereby justified, to wash away his sins still more, according to that of Psalm 50, “Wash me yet more from my iniquity”; for perhaps the guilt of the whole punishment had not been remitted him through his conversion; and if the guilt of the whole punishment had been remitted, certainly there were not lacking wounds left by sin, such as evil propensities and many other things of that kind, which could be cured by the grace of God. Finally this too could be said, that Paul, already wholly washed within invisibly, ought to be washed also outwardly and visibly, so that he might have not only grace but also the sign of grace; so that the sense of those words is: “Wash away thy sins,” that is, receive the sacrament of washing; as Saint Augustine speaks of Cornelius, question 33 on the book of Numbers: “Cornelius,” he says, “hearing and believing what Peter had preached, was so cleansed that before visible Baptism, with those of his who were present, he received the gift of the Holy Spirit; nevertheless the visible sacrament could not be despised, so that, washed also outwardly, he might in a manner wash his garments.” So he.
The fifth objection: “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema,” 1 Corinthians 16. But it is impious to execrate catechumens and penitents panting after the remission of sins; therefore the charity of Christ is in them before the remission of sins. I answer: catechumens and penitents, if they love Christ above all things and burn with the true charity of God, have already obtained remission with God, for the sacrament of which remission they piously and religiously pant. But if through an inchoate love of God (as the Council of Trent speaks, session 6, chapter 6) they are gradually disposed for grace, they indeed do not have the remission of sins, but neither are they to be held of the number of those whom the Apostle execrates; since he pronounces anathema only on those who love Christ neither perfectly nor imperfectly, or even hate and persecute him, or at least despise him and disdain to acknowledge him.
The sixth objection: “He that loveth not, abideth in death,” 1 John 3. But catechumens and penitents before the remission of sins live, since they confess their sins, which the dead cannot do, Scripture saying, “From the dead, as from one that is not, confession perisheth,” Ecclesiasticus 17. Therefore catechumens and penitents before the remission of sins love God. I answer: catechumens and penitents, while they begin to love (as the council cited a little before speaks), at the same time begin to live, going to live perfectly when they love perfectly. Wherefore Augustine finely, book 1 to Simplicianus, question 2, compares catechumens to embryos, who, conceived in their mothers’ wombs, begin to live, but are born afterwards through Baptism, that they may come to everlasting life. Moreover, confession is not properly a work of life, but a disposition for life; for the works which are properly called of life are the good works of justice, meritorious of eternal life. Augustine on Psalm 110: “A man does not work justice,” he says, “unless justified”; and below: “Whence, then, that confession? It is indeed not yet a work of justice, but a condemnation of the offence.”
The seventh objection: the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 13, writes that neither faith nor alms profit anything without charity. But it is impious to think or say that the faith which catechumens and penitents have, and the alms they do before the remission of sins, profit them nothing; therefore they have charity, even before the remission of sins. I answer: what the Apostle says, that faith and alms do not profit without charity, is not so to be taken as if they did not profit absolutely, that is, brought no usefulness, but that they cannot bring a man to eternal life unless they are joined with charity; for otherwise faith, although unformed, is a gift of God, and profits much, since it is the beginning of justification and the foundation of justice. If someone had laid the foundation of a material building, and then built neither walls nor roof upon it, what he did would profit him nothing, since with the foundation alone he could be defended neither from the sun nor from the rains; but if he wished to go on with the building, it would profit him much that he already had the foundation. So also unformed faith, if it always remains unformed, does not profit, because it does not save; yet it profits much if hope and charity are joined to it.
The eighth objection: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity,” Galatians 5. But the faith by which catechumens and penitents obtain the remission of sins avails much; therefore it works by charity. I answer: the faith which works by charity is said alone to avail, because it alone perfectly justifies and saves; but not therefore does the faith which asks the remission of sins and begins justification avail nothing. Nor ought a Christian man to make the same judgement of faith, which is a great gift of God, and without which it is impossible to please God, and of circumcision and uncircumcision, which have no force at all for justifying.
The ninth objection: “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth,” 1 Corinthians 8. But the knowledge of catechumens and penitents does not puff up, but edifies, since it leads a man to the remission of sins; therefore it is joined with charity even before the remission of sins. I answer: the Apostle does not hold that knowledge without charity always puffs up, but that knowledge is accustomed to give occasion for pride, and therefore that one must apply oneself more to charity than to knowledge. Nor is it against these things that knowledge without charity, but with fear, which precedes charity, does not puff up but depresses; which we often see in penitents, who from the contemplation of the judgement to come, or of the punishments of hell, are not only not puffed up, but even terrified and humbled.
The tenth objection: the Council of Milevis, chapter 4, pronounces anathema on those who say that the grace of love is not necessary for not sinning; but not to sin belongs even to catechumens before the remission of sins. I answer: the council speaks of the grace of love through which a man can avoid all mortal sins, or keep all the commandments, which grace does not precede but is infused together with the remission of sins; as is plain from chapter 3, where it is said that the grace of God through Jesus Christ not only remits sins, but also helps towards not sinning; and at once in chapter 4 it is said that this same grace is not knowledge only, but also charity. And as for what is said in the argument, that not to sin belongs to catechumens before the remission of sins, it is true in this sense, that it is not lawful for them to sin, and they have the help of God by which they can avoid single sins; yet they will not avoid all at once except after they have obtained the grace of justification.
The eleventh objection: the Council of Orange, last canon: “God,” it says, “with no preceding merits, first inspires faith and love of himself, that we may faithfully seek the sacrament of Baptism.” Likewise the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 6, says that sinners preparing themselves for justice begin to love God as the fountain of justice. I answer: these arguments carry their solution with them. For the Council of Orange openly distinguishes that imperfect love which men have before the remission of sins from the true charity by which all the commandments are kept, which cannot exist with the guilt of mortal sins; since after it had said, “he first inspires faith and love of himself,” it adds, “that we may faithfully seek the sacrament of Baptism, and after Baptism may be able to fulfil the things that are pleasing to him.” And the Council of Trent most clearly distinguishes that imperfect love from charity, which in chapter 7 it says is infused together with the remission of sins.
The twelfth objection: Saint Augustine, book 12 of the City of God, chapter 9, and book 14, chapter 7, and the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter 21, and elsewhere, teaches that good will is that which in the Scriptures is more usually named charity; but a man has good will even before the remission of sins, since in Luke 2 peace is promised to men of good will. I answer: the good will which blessed Augustine calls charity is not any good will whatever, but that which is given us through the Spirit of adoption, in whom we cry, Abba, Father; and which is poured forth in our hearts through the indwelling Spirit, and which alone leads to eternal life. For Saint Augustine, in the same book 12 of the City of God, chapter 9, after he had said that the angels were created with a good will, that is, with charity, at once adds the reason, that of the angels too it can be said, “The charity of God is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to them.” Moreover, in the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter 21, already cited, after he had said that good will is called charity, he at once adds that it is that through which we are made sons of God. Likewise in book 4 against Julian, chapter 3, he says that he calls good will that good through which alone a man can be led to eternal life and the kingdom. Finally, in book 1 On Free Will, chapter 12, Augustine defines good will as the desire of living rightly and of arriving at the highest wisdom; and that no one can live rightly unless he has first been made a son of God through regeneration, the same Augustine teaches, book 1, chapter 2, against the two letters of the Pelagians. And what is added in the argument, that peace is promised to men of good will, effects nothing against us. For first of all the Greek codices do not have, “Peace to men of good will,” but, “On earth peace, to men good will”; and the word “good will” is not thelema agathon but eudokia, which word is not accustomed to signify the love of man towards God, but the love of God towards men. So when it is said, “On earth peace, among men good will,” the sense is: peace is announced to men, which is the good will of God himself towards them. And according to the Latin codices, in which is found, “On earth peace to men of good will,” the sense is: peace is announced on earth to men, peace (I say) of the good will of God towards us.
The thirteenth objection: Augustine, letter 143 to Julian, says that through charity is fulfilled in us whatever of the divine law and admonition we fulfil. But catechumens before the remission of sins fulfil much of the divine law, when they come to Baptism. Likewise, in the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter 26, he says that no good work is imputed without charity, nor is it truly a good work. But the works of catechumens are not all sins; therefore catechumens are endowed with charity even before the remission of sins. I answer: through charity is fulfilled whatever of the divine law is fulfilled, because without charity we can keep no commandment except according to the substance of the work; without charity also no good work is imputed, nor is it truly good, according to Augustine, because he calls that good which is meritorious of eternal life. But catechumens before the remission of sins keep something of the law according to the substance of the work, and do good works, but not meritorious of eternal life.
The fourteenth objection: Augustine, book 2 against the two letters, chapter 9: “What,” he says, “is the desire of good but charity? Of which John speaks without ambiguity, saying: Charity is of God; nor is its beginning from ourselves, and its perfection from God; but if charity is of God, it is wholly ours from God.” But the beginning of good desire is had before the remission of sins; therefore charity also. I answer: Augustine does not say that any beginning whatever of the desire of good is charity, but the perfect desire of good itself; for he distinguishes the beginning of charity from charity itself, and says that each is from God, because he who infuses charity himself beforehand inspires the good desires by which a man is disposed for charity. Which he teaches more clearly in the book On Grace and Free Will, chapter 18: “Free will,” he says, “would be admonished without fruit of its own to seek the gift of God, of which John says, Love is of God, unless it first received something of love.” Here you see that something of love is given to a man which cannot yet be called charity, and through it he is disposed for true charity, of which John says: “Charity is of God.”
The fifteenth objection is taken from Leo, who in sermon 9 on the Lord’s passion, and Bernard, who in the book On Loving God, say that in Peter, when he denied Christ, charity was not extinguished. I answer: Saint Thomas, in the Disputed Questions, question on charity, last article, and in the Secunda Secundae, question 24, last article, rightly says that Peter’s charity is said by Bernard to have been lulled to sleep, not extinguished, because it at once returned, as if it had only been asleep; and by Leo it is said that love was not overthrown, but constancy was disturbed. Because Peter did not sin from hatred of Christ, but from fear of death, and therefore love remained, but not above all things; for Peter always loved Christ, but in that fear he loved himself more than Christ.
The sixteenth objection: many catechumens burn with true charity, and yet do not yet have the remission of sins, since they are not regenerated in Christ; true charity, therefore, can be had with the guilt of mortal sin. Augustine, tractate 13 on John: “However much,” he says, “a catechumen advances, he still carries the burden of his iniquity, nor is it dismissed him until he comes to Baptism.” And book 4 On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 21: “I do not doubt,” he says, “to prefer a Catholic catechumen burning with divine charity to a baptised heretic,” and so on. And below: “But as Baptism is lacking to the good catechumen for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, so true conversion is lacking to the bad baptised man.” Moreover the same Augustine, letter 57 to Dardanus, book 1 On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 7, and book 1 to Simplicianus, question 2, and book 1 On Baptism, chapter 8, and book 4, chapter 21, says that Cornelius the centurion, although praised in the Scriptures, was not yet such that he could be saved unless he were incorporated into the Church through the sacrament of Baptism. And of himself he writes, book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 4: “And thy nods were insinuated to me in the depth, and rejoicing in faith I praised thy name; and that faith did not allow me to be secure about my past sins, which had not yet been forgiven me through thy Baptism.” Moreover Saint Leo, letter 91 to Theodore, bishop of Forum Julii: “It has been ordained,” he says, “by the provisions of the divine goodness, that the indulgence of God cannot be obtained except by the supplications of priests.” Likewise Richard of Saint Victor, in the book On the Power of Binding and Loosing, chapter 19, says openly that a man can be in charity and at the same time in the guilt of eternal damnation; which Thomas Waldensis also affirms, volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 97. I answer to the first place of Augustine: I say that he speaks of those catechumens who neglect to come to Baptism; for such, however much they advance, are never truly justified, since they have the sacrament of Baptism neither in fact nor in vow, nor burn with true charity; for true charity and a true vow of Baptism do not allow a man to be negligent or a despiser of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine in the same place: “For this,” he says, “our Lord provided a way, lest anyone, arrogant because he has an abundance of some grace, should disdain to be baptised with the Lord’s Baptism; for however much a catechumen advances, he still carries the burden of his iniquity, nor is it dismissed him until he comes to Baptism”; which understand, in fact, or in true and ardent desire; for with God the mind is reckoned for the deed. Wherefore the same Augustine, book 4 On Baptism, chapter 22, writes that the thief who was crucified with Christ did not lack Baptism, because the will of receiving it was not wanting, but the necessity of not receiving it was present. To the second I say: a catechumen burning with divine charity does not lack the remission of sins. And that the reception of Baptism is lacking to him for obtaining the kingdom of heaven is not because he does not have the remission of sins, but because he is bound to receive Baptism, unless excluded by some necessity; and if he despises or neglects to receive it, he will be guilty and will be damned; not because he never had the remission of sins, but because he despised the sacrament in whose virtue and vow he had been justified. So Augustine in the same place: “Nevertheless,” he says, “Cornelius, if even after receiving the Holy Spirit he had refused to be baptised, would be guilty of despising so great a sacrament.” To the third I say: Cornelius before Baptism without doubt received the remission of sins, at least after he heard the faith from blessed Peter and had the vow of Baptism; for, as is said in Acts 10, he also had the indwelling Holy Spirit. But Augustine in the places noted speaks of that time at which Cornelius had as yet heard nothing of Christ, and had not even the vow of Baptism; for of the other time the same Augustine speaks thus, question 33 on Numbers: “Cornelius,” he says, “hearing and believing what Peter had preached, was so cleansed that before visible Baptism, with those of his who were present, he received the gift of the Holy Spirit; nevertheless the visible sacrament could not be despised, so that, washed also outwardly, he might in a manner wash his garments.” The same Chrysostom says, homily 24 on the Acts of the Apostles: “See,” he says, “the dispensation of God: he does not allow the discourse to be finished, nor Baptism to be done by Peter’s command; but when they had shown themselves of admirable mind, and had altogether believed that Baptism is the remission of sins, then the Spirit came.” And below, explaining that, “Can any man forbid water,” and so on, he introduces Peter speaking: “The whole,” he says, “has been done which was more necessary than Baptism; that has already been done by which we too were baptised,” and so on. Jerome, book 2 against Jovinian: “Cornelius the centurion, by alms and frequent fasts, merited to receive the Holy Spirit before Baptism.” To the place from the Confessions I say: Augustine was rightly never secure before Baptism, because he did not know for certain that he had true charity and contrition, nor had he done all he could for receiving the remission of sins. And when he says, “Thou hadst not yet forgiven my sins,” he speaks according to his conscience, for so he himself thought, nor could a pious and humble man think otherwise; yet it does not therefore follow that this was true. For very many of the saints too say that they are the greatest sinners and worthy of hell; and although they are not liars, because they say what they feel, yet they say without doubt what is false. To the place of Leo, who says that a man cannot be reconciled to God without priestly absolution, I answer: this is to be understood, in fact or in vow; for in the same place Leo writes that true conversion suffers no delay of pardon, and cites that of the prophet: “When thou shalt return and groan, then thou shalt be saved.” To the place of Richard I say: the same Richard in the same book explains himself once for all. For in chapter 4 he teaches that as soon as anyone is perfectly converted to God, the guilt of eternal punishment is remitted him, or the guilt of eternal punishment is changed into the guilt of temporal punishment, even before the reception of the sacrament. And in chapter 8 he writes: although through contrition the eternal punishment has been remitted, yet it is also truly remitted through the absolution of the priest, because it had been remitted in the vow and covenant of this absolution. What, then, he afterwards says, chapter 19, that charity stands with the guilt of eternal punishment, is not to be understood as the words seem to sound, but his sense is that a man with true charity still has the debt of eternal death when he has not actually received the sacrament, because he has not yet fulfilled the covenant and vow in which his sins were remitted him; and if through negligence he does not fulfil that covenant, he is without doubt to be damned, not because he did not have the remission of sins before, but because he did not keep the covenant. And this is most openly gathered from the likeness which he adduces in the same place. For wishing to prove that charity stands with the debt of eternal death, he says that the patriarchs and prophets departed this life with great charity, and yet remained in hell with the debt of eternal death until Christ by his death freed them. But it is certain that those fathers had no debt of eternal death except for this reason, that their sins had been forgiven them in virtue of the future death of Christ, and if that had never taken place, they too would never have come out of hell. And in this way seems to be expounded the opinion of Hugh of Saint Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 14, chapter 8. To the last, from Thomas Waldensis, we say that Thomas Waldensis wishes to teach that charity alone, without the sacrament either in fact or in vow, does not free a man from sin. And although true charity cannot exist without the sacrament, either in fact or in vow (for it cannot happen that anyone should love God above all things and not desire those remedies which God instituted for the reconciliation of the sinner), yet if per impossibile someone loved God above all things and yet refused to receive the sacraments, he would not be justified. And Waldensis wrote that against Wyclif, who held that the Baptism of water is nothing but a sign of inward renewal; which is also the heresy of the Calvinists. His words are these: “Although he was good, with full faith, yet I say that without the visible sacrament, either in fact or in a pregnant affection obtained, without water he could not be saved,” and so on; which are altogether agreeable to the doctrine which the Council of Trent hands down, session 14, chapter 4, where it teaches that contrition does indeed reconcile a man to God before the reception of the sacrament, yet that that reconciliation is not to be attributed to contrition alone, but to contrition with the vow of receiving the sacrament, which vow is always included in it.
The seventeenth objection: if through contrition sins are forgiven, to what purpose are contrite men baptised or reconciled? And is not the form of the sacrament false, “I baptise thee,” or, “I absolve thee,” if he to whom we so speak is already washed and absolved? I answer: the sacrament is not received in vain by him who has been justified through true contrition. First, because the sacrament increases grace and remits temporal punishment, either the whole, as in Baptism, or in part, as in absolution; for contrition with the vow of the sacrament alone does indeed purge the guilt, but very rarely takes away the guilt of the whole temporal punishment. Secondly, because no one can know for certain that he has had true contrition; and attrition with the vow of the sacrament alone does not justify. So that one may be more secure of the indulgence obtained, he ought to employ all those remedies which God has instituted for purging sins. Thirdly, because he ought to fulfil the covenant which he in a manner made with God, who through the vow of receiving the sacrament in its time received the grace of reconciliation. Nor is the form of the sacrament rendered false. For he who says, “I baptise thee,” or, “I absolve thee,” does not affirm that he absolutely baptises or absolves, since he is not ignorant that it can happen in many ways that he neither baptises nor absolves, although he pronounces those words; namely if he who seems to receive the sacrament perhaps has no intention of receiving it, or is not duly disposed, or places an obstacle. Therefore the minister by those words signifies nothing else than that he, so far as in him lies, bestows the sacrament of reconciliation or absolution, which has the power in a disposed man of dismissing all sins. Wherefore Saint Thomas, part 3, question 84, article 3, reply to the last, so expounds those words, “I absolve thee,” that is, I bestow the sacrament of absolution. Moreover, as (as we said in the answer to the fourth objection) Saint David prayed, “Wash me yet more from my iniquity,” so also the same sin can be brought more often to confession, and more often absolved by the ministry of the priest; because while we are in this life something brought in by sin can always be purged, such as the guilt of temporal punishment, or some wound left by sin. But enough of these things.
Chapter XV. That there is no sin which is not blotted out by true Penance
The ninth question follows: whether all sins are blotted out by true contrition or Penance; and there is a twofold sense of this question. One, whether every sinner can do penance; for there are those who think that sometimes some, either on account of the multitude or the magnitude of their sins, are so deserted by God that they will never have the divine help for repenting rightly. The other sense is, whether, if anyone does penance, there is no multitude or gravity of sins so great that it cannot be expiated by repenting. For the Novatians too seem to have been of that opinion, that for certain most grievous crimes God could by no means be appeased, as we understand from Pacian in letter 3 to Sympronian, and from Ambrose, book 1 On Penance, chapter 9, and book 2, chapters 2 and 4; and Richard of Armagh, book 9 of the Questions of the Armenians, chapter 27, taught it to be probable that for certain enormous crimes pardon cannot be obtained, even if the sinner did whatever he could to obtain pardon. But since the former sense will have to be treated in the disputation on grace and free will, now we shall discourse briefly only of the latter.
This, then, we affirm, not as probable, as Armachanus speaks, but plainly as certain and settled among Catholics: that there is no multitude or gravity of sins which is not expiated by true Penance. For first of all, in Ezekiel 18 and 33, God often cries, “I desire not the death of the sinner”; and without any exception he promises pardon of all iniquities if the wicked man seriously repents of his past life, with the purpose of amendment; which same we read in Isaiah, chapters 1 and 55, and in Jeremiah, chapter 18, and the other prophets. Moreover Joel, chapter 2, adds the universal particle: “Every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” And no one seriously does penance who does not call upon the name of the Lord; for in the same chapter the same prophet, describing Penance, says: “Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, in weeping and in mourning, and rend your hearts, and not your garments.” And below: “Between the porch and the altar the priests, the Lord’s ministers, shall weep, and shall say: Spare, O Lord, spare thy people.” And Jonah 3: “Let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength.” In the New Testament, Matthew 11, the Lord without exception invites all to himself: “Come to me, all you that labour and are burdened, and I will refresh you.” Matthew 16, he gives Peter the power of loosing all sins without exception: “Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Matthew 18, again in general he says to the Apostles: “Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” And in the same place, concerning number, lest perhaps anyone should believe someone’s sins to be unforgivable on account of frequent falls, he admonished that sins are to be forgiven not only up to seven times, but even up to seventy times seven, putting a certain and finite number for an uncertain and infinite one, as Origen, Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine and other Fathers have noted in the commentary on this sentence. And John 20, without exception of persons: “Whose sins,” he says, “you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” Since, then, the Lord invites and calls all sinners to himself, who will dare to exclude some? Since he says that whatever things are loosed by his own on earth are loosed in heaven, who will dare to cry out against him and say that there are certain sins which cannot be loosed by true Penance and the ministry of priests? Since he testifies that those whose sins the Apostles forgive are forgiven, who will be so rash as to dispute that the sins of some are unforgivable? Since, finally, he has judged that sins are to be forgiven as often as he who sinned returns to Penance, who will restrict the indulgence of God to a certain measure and number of sins? There is added the definition of the Catholic Church. For in the first chapter of the ecumenical and most numerous Council of the Lateran, which was held under Innocent III, this sentence is found: “If after the reception of Baptism anyone has fallen into sin, he can always be repaired by true Penance”; with which sentence the testimonies of almost all the Fathers agree. Hilary, canon 18 on Matthew: “Nor is it right,” he says, “that we be confined by the prescription of the law to a number of pardons to be given, since through the grace of the Gospel it has been granted us by God without measure.” Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 4: “To all the converted,” he says, “he promises pardon, because it is written: Every one whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Jerome, in the letter to Oceanus on digamy: “In vain,” he says, “did Christ die, if he cannot give life to some; John the Baptist lies, pointing out Christ with his finger and his voice, Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world, if there are still in the world those whose sins Christ has not taken away,” and so on. Augustine, book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 19, recalls what in book 1 On the Lord’s Sermon he seemed to have said, that there is some enormous sin which can by no means be forgiven: “It should have been added,” he says, “If he ends this life in so wicked a perversity of mind; since of anyone however wicked, set in this life, one ought certainly not to despair, nor is prayer imprudently made for him of whom one does not despair.” The same opinion you will find in Basil, in the letter to a Fallen Virgin, in Chrysostom in the two letters to Theodore on the restoration of the lapsed, and everywhere in others. To these can be added the examples of divine Scripture. For among the kings of Israel you will not easily find one worse than Ahab, nor among the kings of Judah one worse than Manasses; and yet each obtained pardon through Penance. See on the Penance of Ahab 3 Kings, chapter 21; on the Penance of Manasses 2 Chronicles, chapter 33. In the New Testament Stephen, Acts 7, prays for those stoning him, who nevertheless were resisting the Holy Spirit, as he himself had told them; and, as we heard a little before from Augustine, prayer is not imprudently made for those of whom one does not despair. Acts 8, Peter exhorts Simon Magus to Penance, and rebukes him, who nevertheless had sinned most grievously; and as Augustine speaks, sermon 11 on the words of the Lord: “What is the fruit of rebuke, without any hope of remission?” 2 Corinthians 2, Paul receives to indulgence that Corinthian whom he had ordered, 1 Corinthians 5, to be delivered to Satan, and of whom he had said: “It is heard that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not among the heathens, that one should have his father’s wife.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV.
Solvuntur objectioncs.
Mullae sunl objectiones el graves adversus ea ,
quae superiore capitc disputata sunl. Prima obje-
clio; Remittunlur ei peccata muUa, quoniam di-
lc.cil nLullum. Luc. 7.Sii)ominus pcccata dimisil,
cuin ait: livmilluntur ci pcccala 'mullti, ul verba
ipsii sonnnl. qiine prnesenlis temporis sunl, el ul
senlire videlur s. Tlioinas in ^. par. qiiaest. (14.
nrl. ',). neccssc esl,ul nlicpio teinpore hicril mulier
iu peccalis suis, licet charilate llagrnrel.Non enirn
luiic primuin coepil dili;;(;re, ciim audivil absolu-
tionem siiam, seil iiuillo anlc coepcrat. Dominus
eiiim non ail: Onia diligil inullum, sed: Quia dile-
xit muUum. Ne^iue responderi polesl ; remissnm
fuisse poennm temporalem, non aulem acternam,
ciiin Doiuiiius nit: DimUiunhir ei peccala muUa.
Nam in parabola duorum debilornm explicuit Do-
miniis sc loqui de condoiintione debili , [)ro qua
debitores satisfneerc numquam poiuisscnt. Non
hnbentibus, inqiiil, unde rcddereni, donavil u-
trisque; al satisfncere pro tempornli poena , pos-
sunl ii, quibus Deus donavit aeternam , ct quos
gralia sua divites fecit.
Respondco: Vcrba illa: Dimitluntur eipeccata
muUa. non cogunt ut dicamus , illo ipso lcmpore
peccaln fuisse focminae illi dimissa, quo vcrba illa
Dominus pronunciavil: nnin elinm postea intcrje-
cto aliqunnlo spntio temporis, iterum Dominus ait:
liemiltuntur libi peccata tua: nec lamen diccire
debemus. bis eadem peccnta fuisse dimissa. Vcr-
ba igiiur Domini liemittuniur ei peccala muUa etc.
niliil aliud signilicnnl, nisi, magnam dileclioneiii
caussnm luissc magnnc indiilgeiiliae: el uts. Gre-
gorius explical in honiil. 33. magnam rubiginem
peccali, mngno ehnrilntis igne purgnlam. Illa nu-
tein verba: RemiUuntur tibi pecca/a tua , qune
mngis praeseferunt formnm praescntis nbsolutio-
nis: partim absolvunt exlerius et cornm hominibus
enin qune jnm intus n Dco nbsolula erat; partim et-
iam conlirmanl nbsolutionem invisibiliter datam.
Nam simile quid lcgiraus Marci 5. ubi Dominus
inulieri, quain jnm sanaverat a lluxu sanguinis,ait:
Eslo sana a plaga tua; quo verbo non eam cura-
vit, scd curntionem jam fnctnm conOrmavit. Porro
sancli Thomae tcstimonium nihil concludit, quo-
niam in argumentis conlrariis rem illam breviter
alligit, sed non clnre exposuit, quid inde sentiret.
Diccl aliquis: Si dileclio Dei caussa fuit remis-
sionis peccatorum, prius certe debuit esse dile-
ctio, quam pcccnti remissio: ergo dabitur tempus
aliquod. quo dilectio Dei sine remissione pecca-
lorum fuerit.
Rcspondeo: Dilcctionem Dei super omnia, de
qua bio loquimus, ultimam esse dispositionem ad
graliam et peccnli remissionem, et proplerca esse
quideni naturn priorem, quam sit remissio pecca-
torum, sed nullo puncto leinporiseam praecedere:
quod idem in nalurnlibus formis el dispositionibus
usu venire philosophi doccnt.
Secunda objecto: Qui non diligitme, sermones
meos nonservat. JOi\n. \^i-. Al catcchumeni ante
remissionein peccalorum, sermones Domini dili-
genler observant: igitur catechumeni anle rcmis-
sionem peccalorum Deum diligunt.
Respondeo: Si de inlegra observatione manda-
lorum Dei agatur, falsa esl assumplio: neque enim
catechumeni ante remissionem peccatorum oinnia
mandala servanl: vel si ea servanl, non carenl re-
lUWLW SKCrNOUS 6o7
missione peccaloruin, ul supra cx Augustino de- llagrant, jam apud Deum remissionem consequuli
monstravimus. sunl, ad cujus remissionis sacramentum pie, reli-
Terlia objeclio: Siguts diligil me, sermonem gioseque aiihclant.Siautemperinchoatamdilectio-
meumservabitelPalcrmeusdiligeleum,eladeum nem Dei (ul concilium tridentiimm loquitur scss.
veniemus elc. hic igitur est ordo justincationis.ut G. cap. 6.) pauhuim disponunlur ad graliam, non
primum quis diligat Dcum,deinde mandata servet, habcnt illi quid(;m remissionem peccalorum, sed
postremo illi per adventum Patris, et Filii el Spi- neque ex eorum numero habendi sunt, quos Apo-
rilus sancti peccata omnia remiltantur. stolus execralur: ille siquidem eis lanlum analhe-
'Responiieo: IWnd Paler meus diligcl eum, et ad ma dicit , qui Chrislum neque perfecle , neque
emn renfemws e<c. ad gloriam aelernam , non ad imporfecte diligjnl, vel etiam oderunl ac perse-
justiiicationem a peccatis referendum est, ut s.Au- quunlur, aut certe contemnunl et agnoscere dedi-
gustinus Iract. 75. in Joannem et s.Cyrillus lib.lO. gnanlur.
in Joannera, cap. 1. referunt. Ilaque hic est ordo, Sexla objectio: Qui non diligil, manel in mor-
quem Dominus hoc loco slaluil, graduum ad vitam ie. 1. Joan. 3. Sed catechumeni el poenilenles an-
aeternam, ut quis primum diligat Deum , deinde le lemissionem peccalorum vlvunl, cum peccata
mandata omnia servet,postremo diligalur a Deo di- sua confileantur, quod morlui facere nequeunt,di-
lectione illa perfecla , quae beatitudinem confert. ceute Scriptura: Amorluo, tamquam qui non esl,
Quod idem aperlius paulo ante liis verbis Dominus perit confessio. Ecdesiastici 17.1gitur catechume-
e\p\\caveTi\\:Quidiligitme,diligetur a Patre meo, ni et poenitentes ante remissionem peccalorum
el ego diligam eum el manifeslabo ei meipsum , Deum diligunt.
quod certe tunc fiel, cum similes illi ermns, Quia Respondeo: Catechumeni et pocnitenles, dum
videbimus eum siculi est. 1. Joan. 3. diligere incipiunt (ut concilium paulo anle cilalum
Quarla objectio, Actor. 22. Ananias Paulo.quem loquitur) simul vivere incipiunt, perfecte victuri,
perfecte conversum esse, el vas eleclionis faclura quando perfecte diligent. Quare pulchre Augusti-
ab ipso Domino audieral, sic ail: Et nunc quid nus lib. 1. ad Simplicianum, quaest. 2. comparat
moraris^exurgeetbaptizareetabluepeccata tua catechumenos embrionibus, qui in uteris matrum
invocato nomine illius. concepli, vivere incipiunt, sed nascunlur postca
Respondeo: Rectissime dicunlur baec Paulo ab per Baptismum, ut ad vitam perveniant sempiter-
Anania, quia debuit Pauius omnia facere, quae ad nam. Porro confessio non esl proprie opus vilae,
peccata remitlenda Dominus instituerat. Non enim sed dispositio ad vitam: opera enim quac proprie
cerlo sciebat Ananias, adeo perfectam Pauli con- dicuntur vilae, sunt opera justitiae bona ac vitae
versionem fuisse, et sola suflicere ad peccata ejus aelernae meriloria. Augustinus in psalm. 110. Ju-
delenda; licel eum a Domino singulariter pracor- stitiam, inquit, liomo non operatur, nisi justifi-
dinatum el vas elcctionis futurum esse non dubita- catus; eA infra: Vnde ergo illa confessio: non-
ret. Potuit eliam Ananias liorlari Paulum,licet per- dum quidem opus est justiiiae, sed delicliim-
lectissime conversum, et per hoc juslificalum, ut probatio.
amplius peccala sua ablueret: juxta illud psal.oO. Septima objeclio. Apostolus 1. Corinth. IS.scri-
Amplius lava me ab iniquitatc mea; forte enim bit, neque Cdera, neque cleemosynas aliquid pro-
non totius poenae reatus per conversionem ei re- desse sine charitate. Sed impium esl existimare
missus fuerat; et si lotius poenae reatus fuerat re- vel dicere, nihil prodesse catechumenis et poeni-
missus, cerlc non deerant vulnera ex peccato rc- tentibus fidem quam babent, et elecmosynas quas
licta, ut propensiones maiae, el alia id genus mul- faciunt ante remissionem peccatorum: habent igi-
la, quae per gratiam Dei curari polerant. Denique tur illi charitatem, etiam antc rcmissionem pecca-
et illud >dici posset, debuisse Paulum jara inlus lo- torura.
tum invisibiliter, lavari cliam extcrius visibiliter, Rcspondeo: Quod Aposlolus ait, fidcm et clee-
ut non solum gratiam, sed etiam gratiae signum mosynas non prodesse sine charitate, non ila acci-
haberet; ut sensus sileorum verborum:/16/uc jjec- piendum est, quasi absolule non prosinl, lioc est,
cata tua, idest, ablutionis sacramenlum accipe : nullam adfcranl ulilitalem, sed quod nequeanlho-
quomododeCornelio loquilurs.Auguslinusquacst. minem ad vilam aelernam perducere, nisi cum
33. in lib. INumeri: Cometius, inquil, audiens ct charilale junganlur: alioqui enim lides, quamvis
credens quod praedicaverat Petrus. ila munda- informis, donum Dei est, et miiltum prodesl, cum
lus est, ut anle viaibilem liaptismum , cum suis sit justificalionis initium.et jusliliae fnndamenlum.
qui aderant, acciperet donum Spiritus sancti: Si (piis acdificii materialis lundameiilum jecissel,
verinntamen nec visibile sacramcntum contemni ac deinde neque parieles. neque tectum superae-
potuil, ut ablutus eliam exlri)isecus,lavaret quo- dinearet, nihil ei prodesset quod fccit, cum solo
dammodo veslimenla sua. ilaec ille. fundiimcnlo ueciue a soh;, ne(]ue ab imbribus de-
Quinta objectio: Si quis non amat Dominum fendi posset: al si vellet in acdilicalionc pergere,
noslrumJesumClirislumanalhomasit.\.Coriu[\\. mullum oi prodessel, qiKni fiiiulamenlum jain ha-
10. At impium est, execrari catechiimenos et pue- bcret. Sic (!tiam (idcs iiiformis, si semper niaueat
nitcnles, aiihelanles ad remissionem peccatorum: informis, noii j^rodesl, (luiii iiou salvat, nHiIliim la-
igilur in illis est charitas Clirisli anlcremissioncm mcii prodesl, si ei spes et cliiiritiis adjungantur.
peccatorum. Oclavii ohjectio: In Christo Jcsu neqnc, c.irrum-
Kespondeo: Catechumeni et poenilentes,si Chri- ci.s?o atiquid valel, neque praepulium, scd fi-
5lum super omnia diligunl , ac vera Dei charilate des, quae per dilertionem operatar. Oalat. 'i.Sed
65H
DE ih)i:.mti;mi\
fitlos. (iua caltH-liiimciii i>l poonilonii^s iinpolriiiil
niiiissioiuMn poccaluruni. inulluiu vulel; i}::;ilui- per
dileclioncin opcraUir.
UcspiHitlco: Tulcs (piac pcr (lilcclioncin opcra-
Inr, (liciUir sola valtMC, (luia sola pcrUuMc jiisUH-
v[\{ el siilval: scil lum idco lldcs.quac pclil rcinls-
sionein lu^ccalorum cl iiiclii>al jusliHfalitxicin, ni-
liilvalcl. iVciiuc oporlel cliristianuni lioinmcin. i-
dMnjiulicium faccre dc ndc.^iuae majinum donum
Dci esl. el sine (lua impossihile csl placcre Deo;
t>l «Ic circumcisionc ac pracpuUo. quac nuUam o-
innino vim liabcnl ad jusUricanilum.
i>ona objectio: Scienlia injlat. cliaritas acdifi-
cat. 1. r.orinlli. 8. Scd scicnlia calccliumenorum,
ct poenilcnliuni non inllat. scd acdilicat, cnin ad
rcmissioncm pcccalorum liomiiuMn pcrducal; \^\-
lur cum charilatc conjuncla esl etiam anlc remis-
sioncm peccatorum.
Ucspondco: .\on liahci Aposlolus, scicntiam si-
ne charitate scmper inflare:sed scienliam occasio-
ncm superbiac pracbcrc soHlam, cl idco ma<iis
diaritati. quam scicnliac incumbendum cssc. His
aulem non rcpugnal, ut scicntia sinc charilate,
sed cum limore, qui cliariialem praecedit, non in-
flct. scd dcprimat. quod saepe in pocnilcnlibus
vidcmus. qui cx conlcmiilalione judicii futuri. aul
infcrnalium suppliciorum non modo non inflanlur,
sed etiam lerrcntur ct humiliantur.
Dccima obiectio. ConciUum milevitanum cap.4.
dieit analhcma iis, qui dicunl gratiam dilectionis
non esse neccssariam ad non peccandum: sed non
peccare convenil etiam calechumenis ante rerais-
sionem peccatorum.
Respondeo: Loquitur concilium dc gratia dile-
ctionis, per quam homo vitare potest omnia pec-
cala morlalia, sive omnia mandata servare, quac
nrntia non praecedil, sed simul infunditur cum re-
missioue peccatorum: ut patet ex cap. 3. ubi dici-
tnr gratiam Dci per Jesum Clirislum, non solum
remiltere peccata.sed cliam juvare ad non pect^an-
dum: et statim cap. 4. dicitur, hanc eandem gra-
liam non esse scientiam tantura, sed eliara chari-
laiem. Quod vero dicitur in argumento : Calc-
chmnenis ante remissionem pcccalorum conve-
nit non peccare; in eo sensu verum est, quia non
licet eis peccare, et auxilium Dei habent, quo pos-
sinl vilare singula peccata; non tamen omnia si-
mul vitabunt.nisi posteaquam gratiam juslificaUo-
nis fuerint adepti.
Undecima (ibjecUo. Concilium arausicanum can.
nlt. Dcus. inquit. nullis praeccdenlibus meritis.
fidcm et amorem sui prius inspirat, ut Baptismi
sacramentumfidelilerrcquiramus. Ilera concili-
nm Iridcntinum sess. fi, cap. 6. dicil, quod pecca-
lores se ad jusliliam praeparantes.Deum tamquam
fontem justiUae diligere incipiunt.
Respondeo: Ista argumenta ferunt secum solu-
tionera. Nara conciliura arausicanura aperle dislin-
guil amorera illum impcrfectura.quera habent ho-
mines ante reraissionem peccatorum, a vera cha-
riiale, per quara servanlur omnia mandata, quae
cum realu mortalium peccatorum esse non potest:
siquidem postquara dixeral: Fidemelamoremsui
priiis inspi7'af,subdit, Vt Baplismi sacramentum
fuli>li(i'r rc.quiramus. et posl linplismuni. quac
ipsi sunt placita implo.rcpossimus. Coiicilium vc-
ro tridciiUnum, clarissimc disUnguit impcrfcclum
illiim amorcm a charitalc, (piani cap. 7. dicil.cum
rcmissionc pcccatormn siinul inrundi.
Duodccima objccUo. S. Augushmis lib. 12. dc
Civil. hiM, cap. 0. cl lib. li. ca|). 7. ct lihro dc
gralia Christi,cap.21.ct alihi.docct bonain volunta-
lem essc id,quod in Scriptiiris usitatius cliarilas no-
miiiatur:scd boiiain voluntalcm liabct honu) cliam
anlc rcmissioncm pcccatorum, cum Lucae 2. pro-
millatur ])ax hominihus bonae volunlatis.
Uespondco: Rona voluntas. quam b. AugusUnus
vocat charilatcm. non cst, quaccumquc bona vo-
lunlas,sed illa (piae dalur nobis pcr 8|)irilum ado-
ptionis, in quo chiinamus, Abba Paler; (luacquc
diirundilur in cordibus nostris pcr Spiritum inlia-
l)itanlcin,ct quac sola pcrducit ad vilam acternam.
Nam sancliis AugusUnus codem lib. 12. de Civil.
Dei, cap, 9. poslquam dixil: Angelos crealos cum
bona voluntale, iiiest, cuin charilate; slatim ratio-
nera subdit. quia de angclis quoquc dici potest:
Charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus eorum, pcr
Spiritum sanclum. qui dalus cst cis. Praelerea
libro dc gratia Chrisli, cap. 21. jam cilato, posl-
quam dixit bonam volunlalcm dici charitalcm.sla-
tira addil, ipsara csse pcr quam cflicimur filii Dei.
Item lib. i. in Julianum,cap. ',). dicil se bonain vo-
lunlatcrn appcllare bonum illud, pcr quod solum
homo potest ad aeternam vitam, rcgnumque per-
duci. Dcnique lib. 1. de libero arbilrio, cap. 12.
definil Augustinus bonam voluntatcm, appeUtnm
recte vivendi, el ad summam sapienlium pcrveni-
endi: recle autem vivere neminem posse, nisi
prius Filius Dei per regeneraUonem effeclus sit,
docet idem Auguslinus lib. 1. cap. 2. contra duas
epistolas Pelagianorum.
Quod vcro in argumento additur,promilti pacem
hominibus bonae voluntatis ; nibil elficit conlra
nos. Nam in primis codiccs graeci non habcnl:
Pax hominibus bonae votuntatis; scd, In terra
pax hominibus bona voluntas:no\T\en qimque Bo-
nae voluntatis , non est ^rilYiim ocYaJ^ov , scd
euooxia, quod nomen non solet significare amo-
rem hominis erga Deum.scd amorem Deiergaho-
raines. Itaque cum dicilur: In terra pax, in ho-
minibus bona volunlas, sensus est, Annuncialur
hominibus pax, quae esl ipsa Dei bona volunlas
erga ipsos. Secundum vero latinos codices,in qui-
bus habelur: In terra pax hominibus bonae vo-
luntatis, sensus est, Annunciatur in lcrra pax ho-
minibus, pax (inquara) bonae volunlalis Dei er-
ga nos.
Deciraalerlia objeclio. Augustinus cpist. U3.ad
Julianura, dicit,pe"r charitalem adimplcri in nobis,
si quid divinae legis et admonilionis implemus,
Sed calechumeni ante remissioncm pcccatorum
multum implent divinae legis, cum ad Baptismum
accedunl. llem libro de gralia Christi, cap. 2G.di-
cit, nullum bonum opus sine charilate impulari,
nec esse vere bonum opus. At catcchumenorum
opera non sun« omnia peccata: igitur (•atechumeni
charitale pracdiU sunl, etiam antc remissioncm
peccalorum.
LlBlilH SECUINDUS
659
Respondeo: Pcr charilalem implelur, si quid di-
vinae legis implclur, quia sine charilale nuUum
mandalum scrvare possumus, nisi secundum sub-
slanliam operis: sine charilale etiara nullum bo-
num opus imputalur, nec esl vere bonum, secun-
dum AiiL,Hislinum, quia ipse id vocatbonum, quod
esl mcnlorium vitae aelcrnae. Catechumcni autem
ante remissionem peccalorum servant aliquid le-
gis, sccundum substanliam operis,et faciunt opera
bona, sed non meritoria vitae aeternae.
Decimaquarla objectio. Augustinus lib. 2. con-
tra duas cpislolas. cap. 0. (Jtiides/. inquit. boni
ctipidilas, nisi cliarilasPde qua Joannes sine am-
hiijuilale loquitur, dicens: Charilas ex Deo et-l;
ncc iniliuniejus ex nobis, el perfeclio ex Deo\
sed si charitas ex Deo esl, tola nobis ex Deo est.
Sed initium bonae cupiditatis habetur anle remis-
sionem peccatorum; ergo et charitas.
Respondeo: Augustinus non dicit,quodiibet ini-
lium cupiditatis boni esse charitatem, sed ipsam
perfftctam boni cupiditatem: distinguil enim ini-
tium charitatis ab ipsa charitale. el utrumque di-
cit essc e\ Deo, quia qui infundit charilatem, ipsc
idem antca inspirat bona desideria, quibus homo
disponilur ad charilalem. Id quod clarius docetli-
bro de gratia et libcro arbilrio. oap. 18. Sinc suo
fructu, inquit, admonerelur libenim arbitrium
quaerere Dei donuni, de quo Joannes ail : Dilc-
ctio ex Deo cst: nisi prius acciperel aliquid di-
lcctionis. Ilic vidcs, dari homini aliqnid dilcctio-
nis, quod nondum charitas dici potesl,et per illud
disponi ad veram charilalem, dc qua Joannes ait:
Charilas cx Dco csl.
Decimaquinta objeclio sumilur ex Leonc, qui
serm. 0. de passione Domini; et Hernardo, (jni in
lib. de diligendo Deo, dicunt, in Petro cum Chri-
slum negavit, non hiisse exiinctam charitalem,
Hespondeo: S. Thomas in quaeslionibus dispu-
talis quaest. de charitate, arl. ull.et in 2.2.quaest.
24. arl. ult. recte dicit : Charilatem Petri a Ber-
nardo dici sopitam fuisse, non cxtinctam. quia
stalim rediil, ac si sopita tanlum fuisset; a Lcone
autem dici non cversam dilectionem, sed constan-
liam fuisse turbalam. Quia non peccavit Pelrus ex
odio Chrisli. sed ex limore mortis, ct idco inansit
dileclio, scd non super omnia: dilexitcnim Pelrus
semper Christum, scd in illo timore magis sc,
qunm Chrislum dilexit.
Deciniasexta objeclio. Multi catechumeni vera
charitate flagranl.et lamen nondum habent pecca-
Inruin remissionem.cum non sint in Christo rcge-
ncrali; vcra igitnr charitas cum rcatu peccali mor-
talis liahcri potesl. Auguslinus trarl. 1.3. in .To;in.
Quantuiiicumqne, in^iuit, catechum.cnus profici-
at, adhuc, sarcinam suae iniquitaiis portal. nec
illi dimitlilur, nisi cum venerit ad Baplismum.
Kt lib. 4. de Haptismo conlra Donatistas. cap. 21.
A'on duhito, \\\t\u\[ , caterhuwonvm cathdlicvm
divjina charitale fJufjrantem. hacrclicn huptizato
anleponcrc elc. Kt infr.i: Sicni aulem hono cale-
r.humcno Jiapiisnuis dcesl ad capessendum re-
fjmnn coetnruvi., sic malo baptizato vera conver-
sio. Praelorea idpin Augusiimjs c[)isl. '»7. ad Dar-
«lanum, lib.1. dc pracdcslinatumc simclorunKcni).
7. el lih. 1. quaest. 2. ad Simplician. ct lib. 1. dc
Baptismo, cap. 8. et lib. 4. cap. 21. dicit Corne-
liurn centurionem, licct laudatum in Scripturis ,
nondum t;ilem fuisse, ut salvus esse posset . nisi
per sccramentum Baplismi inoorporarelur Ercle-
si;ic: El de sc scribit lib. 0. confcss. cap. 4. Et
insinuati sunl niihi in profundo nutus tui , et
gaudens in fide laudavi nomen tuum.ct ea fides
me securum esse non sincbnt de praeferilis pec-
calis mei^. quae mihiper Daplismum tuumre-
mis.-ia nonduin erant. Praelerea s. Leo episl. 91.
ad Theodorum cpiscopuni Fdrojiilii: Divinae, in-
quil. bonitalis praesidiis ordinatam esl.vt indvl-
(jentia Dei.nisi supplicalionibus sacerdolum.ne-
queal obtineri. Item Hirhardus de s. Vidore . in
lib. de potestale ligandi elsolvendi. cap. 91. ilicit
aperte. posse hoininem esse iii cliaril;ile, et simul
in reatu aeternae damnationis:quod etiam airirm;it
ThomasWaldensis tom. 2. de sacramentis cap.97.
Rcspcndeo ad Primum iocum Auguslini : Dico
eum Joqui de iis calechumenis, qiii negligunt ad
Baptisinum accedere: tales enim quantumvil; profi-
ciunt, numquam sunt vere juslifioali, rum nec in
re, nec in voto sacramentum B;q-)lismi h;il)eant
nec vera charilatefl;igrent; vera enim charilas el
verum Baptismi volum, non permiltuiit hominem
essc ncgligentem , vel coiitcmplorcm Baplismi.
Quare ibidem Auguslinus: Ad hoc, inquit . viam
praehuit Dominus nostcr, ne quis arroqans. co
quod habeat abundantiam alicujns (jratiae, de-
dignarctur baptizari Baplismo Domini: Quan-
tunieumque enim catechumenus proficiat.adhuc
sarcinam iniqnitatis suae portat, nec illi dimil'
titur nisi cum veneril ad Baplismum, quod iu-
tellige, in re, aut in vero et ardenti desiderio:nam
apud Deuni animus pro facto repulatur. Quarc i-
dem Auguslinus lib. 4. de Baptismo, cap. ^.l.scri-
bit, latronem, qui cum Christo crucifixus fuit, non
caruisse Baptismo;quia non ejus accipiendi volun-
las defuit, sed non accipiendi necessitas adfuil.
Ad Secundum dico:Catechumenum divina chari-
tate flagrantem,non carere rcmissionepeccalorum.
Quod autem desit illi Baptismi susceplio ad capcs-
sendumregnumcoelornin,nonideoest,quia nonha*
beat remissionem peccatorum.scd quia tenetur Ba-
plismum suscipcre, nisi necessilale aliqua excln-
dalur, et si contempserit aut neglexerit accipere,
reus erit ct d;imnaljitur; non qnia numqu.im ha-
buerit remissionem peccaloriim, sed qiii;i s;ici;i-
mentum conlcmpsil.in cujus virlute et voto justifi-
catus erat. Ila Augustinus ihidom: Yerumtamcn .
inqiiil. Cornelius, si eliam Spiritu sancto accepto
haptizari noluisscl, contempti tanli sacramcnti
reus ficret.
Ad Torliiim dico: Cnrnolium anle B;iplisniiim
prnciil diihio ;iccopisse rcmissionem poc,c;itorum ,
s;illem poslo;iqu;im fidem a b. Pelro audivit el vo-
tiim B;iplismi li;ibuil; ii;im iil diciliir Aclor. 10. ol-
i;iiii Spirilum s;inclum inli^ibihintom li;d)uil. Au-
guslinus aulom locis not;ilis. liKpiiliir do eo limi-
pore, quo Cornelius niliil adhuc de Chrislo audie-
r;il, el no vnliim qnidoiii B;iplismi liabob;it: n;im dc
;ilio leuipore ila ln(|iiili)r ipse idem Auguslinus
qiuiesl. VA. in Num. Cnrnofius, inqiiil. audiens,
iHAi
1)K POHMTKMI.V
H credens, (lUtnlpraviiicaviTnl Polrus. itamun-
datiiit est, iil «»/« visibilevi JiaplismumAntm suis
qui adcrant, accipcrcl donum Spiritus sancti :
rcrumtamcn ncc vi^^ibiU'. sacranicnlum contcnmi
potuU. ul ablutus ctiam cxtrinaccus, lavarel quo-
dammodovcstimcnta aua. Idein dicil Chrysoslo-
iiMis iionul. 2i. in Aclor. aposlol. V/(/<'. iii(]oit ,
di!^pcn.^ationcni Dci: non pcrmittil a/)so/ri scr-
inonem,nc(juec.xpracccplo Pctri ficri Baplismiim,
scd ubi cxhibucrunt sc mcnte admirabili, cl cre-
didcrunl omnino Haptisma cssc rcmissioncm
■pcccatorum: tunc advcnit Spirilus. El inrr;i e\-
plioans illud:iY»»)(;i//(/ aquam quisprohiberc po-
tcsl ctc. inlrodiicii IVMrnm loquonUMir. Tolum, in-
quit. factum csl. quod viafjis ncccssnriHvi fuil
Jhiptisma: jam factum csl. quo cl nos baptizati
sumus ctc. lliLMonynnis lib. 2. in Jovinianuin :
Cornclius ccnturio. nt Spirilum sanctum accipc-
■rct antcquam Baptisma. elccmosijnis meruil,cre-
brisquejcjuniis.
Ad locuin e.v confessionibus, dico: Mcrito Auijn-
slinum anle Baplismum numquam fuisse sccurum:
quia non cerlo scicbal,se veram cliarilalem el con-
Irilionem habere, nec feceral lotum quod poteral ,
ad reinissionem peccalorum accipicndam.Cum au-
tem dicil: Peccala mea nondum remiscras: loqui-
lur secundum conscienliam suam , ipse enim ila
exislimabal, nec polerat homo pius el humilis aii-
ler exisUmare: non tamen proplerea sequitur id
verum luisse. Nam el plerique sanctorum, dicunt,
se maximos esse peccatores el dignos gehenna ;
et licet mendaces non sint, quia dicunl quod sen-
liunl; falsum lamen sine dubio dicunt.
Ad locum Leonis, qui ait non posse hominem
Deo rcconciliari sine sacerdotaii absolutione, Re-
spondco: Id esse inlclligendum, in re, vel in voto:
nam ibideni scribit Leo, veram conversionem nul-
lam veniae moram pali, ct cilal illud propheticum:
Cum reversus ingemueris, lunc salvus eris.
Ad locum Kichardi dico: Eundem Richardum in
eodein libro semel expiicare. Nam cap. 4. docel ,
slalim alque aliquis perfecte ad Deum convertitur,
rcmilli ei realum poenae aelernae.sive mutari rea-
luin poenae aeternae in realum poenae temporalis,
eliam ante sacramenti susceptioncm. Et cap. 8.
scribit: Licet per contritionem poena aeterna sit
remissa.lamen vere eliam remilli per absolulionem
sacerdolis.quia in voto et paclo hujus absolutionis
remissa fuerat. Quod igitur postea dicit, cap. 19.
charilalem consislerc cum realu poenae aeternae;
Ron esl inlelligendum, ut verba sonare videnlur ,
sed sensus ejus est, habere hominem c-um vera
ctiarilale adhuc debilum morlis aeteruae, quando
non susccpil actu sacramentum, quia nondum iin-
plevil paclumel votum,in quo remissa sunt ei pec-
cata:et si ex negligentia paclura illud non impleal,
proculdabio damnandum , non quia non habueril
anle remissionem peccatorum , sed quia paclum
non servavit. Id vero ex ea similitudine, quam ibi-
dem adducit. apertissime colligitur. Nam probare
volens, charitatem consislere cum debilo morlis
aelernae, dicil: Palriarchas el prophetas cum ma-
gna charilate de hac vita migrasse et tamen man-
sisse apud inferos cum debilo mortis aelernac. do-
ncc Chrisliis siia morte eos libiMMvil. C(M'tiiiii esl
aulem, patres illos non habnisse debituin morlis
aclernae nisi ca ratione.quia rcmissa erant cis pec-
cata in virtute mortis Christi lnliirae.el si ea luiiii-
quam fiiisset, ipsi quo^pie iium(|uain de inlerno
oxissenl. Alqiie ad iuinc moduin exponenda vide-
liir sonlontia Ilugonis de sanclo Victore, lib. 2.
do. sacrameiilis. par. 14. cap. S.
Ad Uitimnm ex Tlioma Waldensi , dicimus Tlio-
main Wald(Miscm doccre velIe,solam charilatem si-
n<^ sacranuMito, vcl in re, vcl in volo , homincm a
])eccato non libcrarc. El quam(]iiain vera charilas
esse non polest sine sacramento, vel in re, vel in
voto: nec enim licri potesl,ul aliquis diligat I>ciiiii
super oinnia, el non dosidercl ea remodia , quae
Deus instituil pro reconciliatione peccatoris; tamcii
si pcr impossibile aliquis diligeret super omnia
Doum, cl tamen nollct sacramenta susciperc, noii
juslificarelur. Waldensis aulcm illud scripsil con-
tra Wiclefum, qui scntiebat , Baptismum aquae
non esse nisi signum internae renovalionis: quae
est ctiam haeresis Calvinislarum. Verba ejus haec
sunl: Quamvis bonusfuerit, plena fidc ; dico ta-
men sine visibili sacramenlo, vel rc ipsa, vel af-
fectu gravido consequuto, sine aqua salvus esse
non polerat elc. quae sunt oinnino conseiilanca
doctrinae,quam Iradit conciliuin Iridenlinuin sess.
14. cap. 4.ubi docet conlritionem quidein recon-
ciliare hominemDeo anle susceptionem sacramen-
ti: tamen eam reconciliationem non esse Iribuen-
dam soli conlrilioni, sed contritioni eum volo sa-
cramenti suscipiendi , quod votum semper in ca
includitur.
Dccimaseplima objectio. Si pcr contritionem
peccata remittunlur, quorsum homines contriti ba-
plizantur, vel reconciliantur? et nonne falsa est
lorma sacraraenli: Ego te baplizo , vel absolvo; si
is jain lolus el absolulus est, cui sic loquimur?
Rcspondeo: Sacramentum non fruslra suscipilur
ab eo, qui per veram conlritionem juslificalus est.
Primum, quia sacramentum auget graliam et poe-
nam lemporalem remittit, vel toiam. ut in Raptis-
mo, vel ex parte, utin absolutione: Contritio enim
cum solo sacramenli volo, culpam quidem purgat,
sed realum toliuspoenae teraporalisraro admodum
tollit, Secundo, quia neino cerlo scire polesl , se
veram conlrilionem habuisse ; et atlritio cum solo
sacramenli volo non juslilicat. Itaque ut quis de
adepla indulgentia securior sit , debet omnia illa
remedia adhibere,quae Deus ad peccata purganda
inslituil. Terlio, quia paclum implere debet, quod
cum Deo quodammodo pepigit, qui per volum sa-
cramenli suo lempore suscipiendi, gratiam recon-
ciliationis accepit.
Neque forma sacramenli redditur falsa. Nam qui
dicit: Ego te baplizo, vel absolvo, non anirmal se
absolule baptizare vel absolvere,cum non ignorel,
mullis modis fieri posse, ut neque biiplizel, neque
absolval, licet ea verba pronunciet, nimirura si is,
qui sacraraentura suscipere videtur , forte non ha-
beat suscipiendi intentionem, vel non sil rite dis-
positus, aut obicem ponat. Igitur minisler illis
verbis nihil aliud significat,nisi se, quod in se est,
sacramentum reconcilialionis vel absolutionis im-
\MiVM SKCLiNULS
Gol
ponilcrf: qii(i'l \iiii lniliel in liominc di.sposilo pcc-
,-;ila oinnin. dimilleiidi. Qiinro s. Tlioinas iii .'{. piir.
quaesi. 84. arl. 3. ad ullimura , ila exponil verba
ijla : Ego le absolvo, idesl , sacramenlum absolu-
tionis impendo.
Priiclcrca:Quemadmodum(ulin responsione ad
quarlam objeclionem diximus(s.David orabal) Am-
2)liiLS lavame ab iniquilale mea, ila potesl cliam
ideni peccaUim saepius ad conlessionem adduci,
saepiusque minislerio sacerdolis absolvi;quia duin
in hac vila sumus, semper aliquid ex peccalo in-
duclum. puri,niri polesl. ul poenae lcmporalis rea-
lus, aut vulnus aliquod ex peccalo reliclum. Sed
<ie his salis.
CAPUT XV.
ISullum esse peccatum, quod per veram
Poenilentiam non delealur.
Scquitur quaestio nona: Ulrum omnia peccata
per veram Contrilionem sive Poenilenliam delean-
lur: esl autem duplcx sensus hujus quaestionis.
Aller,an omnis pcccalor possil agere pocnilentiam:
sunl enim qui exislimcnt, intordiim aliquos, vel ob
multiludinem, vel ob magnitudinem peccatorum
ila dcseri a Deo, utnumquam sinl anxilium divi-
nuii) ad recle poenilenduni habiluri. Aller sensus
esl, an si quis egcrit Poeuilenliam , nulla sit lanta
peccatorum muUitudo, vel gravilas.quae poenilen-
(lo non possit expiari. Nam et Novaliani vidcnlur
iii ea sentcntia fuisse, ut ob gravissima quabdam
scelera nuUa ratione Deus placari possct , ut ex
J^dciano in epist. .3. ad Symproniannm , el ex Ain-
brosio lib. 1. de Poenilcnlia, cap. 9. et lib. 2.cap.
2. et 4. inlelligimus : el Hichardus Armachanus ,
lib. 9. quaestionum Armenorum , cap. 27. proba-
bile csse docuit, ob (juacdam ingenlia crimina non
posse veniain impelrari, etiamsi agerel peccalor
(juidquid possel pro venia impetranda. Sed quo-
iiiam de sensu priorc tractanduin erit in dispula-
lione de gratia et libcro arbitrio: nunc solum de
posteriorc breviter disseremus.
Illnd igitur ailirmamus, non ut probabiIe,quem-
admodum loquilur Armachanus, sed planc nl cer-
lum el apud catholicos exploratum ; nullam essc
peccatorum multitudinem, vel gravitalem,quae per
veram Poenilentiam non expietur. i\am in primis
E/,ecli. 18. et 3.*^. Dcus saepius clamat: Nolo nior-
/enipecca(oris;ct sine ulla exceplione veniain pol-
licelur oinnium iniqui!alum,si impium serio pocni-
liierit vil:ie praeleritae,cum emendationis proposi-
lo: qnod idem in Isaia cap. 1. el o."». et in .Icrem.
ca[). 18. el aliis prophelis lcgimus.Porro .loiil cap.
2.addil particulam universalem:Om.nts qui invoca-
veril nomea Domini . salvus eril. iVemo adlem
serio Poenitenliam agit, ([ui non invoccl nomcn
Domini: nam in eodem cap. describens ideni ()ro-
pliela Poenitenliam, ait: Converliiniiii ad nu> in
\oto corde vcsiro, injejunio, flctu elplanclu, el
scindile corda vcstra cl non vestimenta vostra.
Et infra : Intcr vestibulum ct altare ploralnuit
liKLMRin.M Vol. III.
sacerdoles ministri lh)mini, et dicent: Parce Uo-
inine, parce populo tuo. VA .lonae 3. Operiantur
saccis liomines el jumenta , ct clament ad Do-
minum in lortitudine.
Jn Testamcnto novo Mallli. 11. Dominus sine
exccplione omnes invitat ad se: Yenitc ad me o-
mnes.qui laboraiis et orierati estis.et ego rellciam
vos. Matth. iO. omnium peccatorum solvendorum
sinc exceplionc Petropoiestatcm [r\bu\[:Qaodcum-
que soiveris super lerram, erit solutuni el in coe-
lo. Matth. 18. rursus generalim dicit aposlolis.
Quaecumque solveritis super terram, erunt solu-
ta et in coelis. Et ibidcm dc nuinero.ne lorte quis
peccala alicujus ob rrequentes lapsusirremissihilia
esse crederct, non solum usque seplies,sed eliam
usque septuagies septies peccata dimitlenda ess«
admonuit, numerum certum ac finilum, pro incer-
to etinfinito ponens, utOrigines. Ililarius. Iliero-
nymus, Chrysostomus, Augusliniis etalii J^ilrcs in
commentario hujus scntentiae annolnrunt.El .loan.
20. sine exceptione personarum: Quorum, inquil,
remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis. Cum igilur
Dominus onines ad se peccalores iinilet ac vocel,
quis audebit aliquos excludere ? cum ille, quac-
cum([ue solvuntur a suis in terra, soliila esse dieat
in coelis. quis obslrepere audebit, ac dicere quao-
dam esse pcccala. quae per vcram Poenilentiam,
et sacerdotum ministerium solvi nequcanl ? cuni
ille, quorum peccala aposloli remiserint . iisdem
rcmissa essc testetur , quis eril lain temerarias.
qui aliorum peccata irremissihilia esse dispulet ?
cum ille denique loties remillenda csse peccala
judicavcril, quolics ad Pocnilenliam is qui pecca-
"vit redieril,quis in.lulgcntiam Dei ad cerlam men-
suram ac numerum peccalorum rcslringet?
Accedit Ecelesiae calholicae delinilio. \am iii
primo capile concilii laleranensis oecumenici el
h-equentissimi. quod sublnnocenlio III. celebra-
lumesl. habetiir ea sentenlia: Si post susceplio-
nem Baptismi quisquam prolapsus l'uerit in pcc-
catum, per veram potest semper Poenitentiam
reparari; cui senleniiae cons(!nlinnl omnium rere
Piilrum teslimonia. Ililarius can. 18. in Mattli. Nc-
(jue fas est, 'i\n\ml, nos ex pracscripto leuis, dan-
daeveniae numero concludi. cumper evangclii
gratiam sine modo nobis a Deo fuerit induUa.
Ambrosiiis lib. 2. de Poenitenlia, cap. 4. Onmi-
bus, in([uit , conversis pollicetur veniam . quia
ncriptum est: Omnis quicumque invocaverit no-
men Domini, salvus erit. Hicronynius in e|)ist.
ad Oceannm. de digamia: Fri^s/m,in(iuil, mortuus
est Cliristus,si (diquos vivilicare non potcsl: men-
titur Joannes llaptista , cl digito Christum , et
voce dcmonslrans: Ecce agnus Dei . ecce qui
lollit peccala mundi: si sunt adliuc in saeculo.
quoruin Clirisius pcccata non iulerit etc. Augu-
stinus lib. 1. Ketract. ca[). 19. revocat . quod in
lib 1. de sermonc Domini dixisse videbalur, esse
iiigcns ali^piod [)(;ccalum ([uod iiulla ratione remil-
ti possil: Addendum, inquit, fnit: Si in hac tam
scelerala mcntis jicrrersitate linierit hanrvitani:
quoniam. dc qnov.unuiuc pessimo in Ikic vila ron-
stituto, non cst utique dcsiwraniium.ncc pro iUo
imprudenter oratur . dc qno non dcspvnitur
G(i2
DK 1'()EMTI:MIA
Kaiulcm sonlciili;iin apiKl llii:^iliiim. iii cpisl. ad
Virgincin lapsnm. (llirYsoslomiim in cpislolis diia-
bns ad Thcodorum dc rcp.iralionc lapsi. al<pie ;i-
pnd alios passim invoincs.
His addi possnnlc\cmplaSoripUiraodivinae.i\arn
in rcpilnis Isriicl pcjorcm Acluiho cl iii rcjjibns .lu-
da pcjorcm Manassc non 1'acilc rcperics : ulcrciuc
laincn pcr Pocnilcnliam vtMiiam impelravil. \idc
dc l'ocnilcnlia Acliab. lib. :{. Ucptum, cap. 21. de
Pocnilcnlia .Manassc lib. 2. Paralip. cap. 3li.
In Tcslamcnlo novo oral Slcpbanus Aclor. 7.
pm lapidaloribus suis. qni lamcn Spirilui sanclo
rcsislcbant. ul ipsc illis dixcral: el. ul ab Aup:u-
slino pauloanlc audivimus. pro iis non imprudcn-
lcr oralur. dc qnibns non despcralur.Anlor. S.hor-
talur Pelrus Simoncm niagum ad Pocnilenliam ,
cnmcpic oorripii. qni lamcn gr;ivissiinc pcccavcral:
cl nl loquilnr Anjzuslinns scrm. 11. de vcrbis Do-
mini: Quis esl fruclus corrcplionis. sinc uUa spc
rrmissiouiji? 2. Corinlli. 2. Paulus Corinlhium
illum ad indulfienliam recipil , quem jusseral 1.
Cnrinlh. o. Iradi Salanac, el de qno dixcral: Audi-
tur inler vos fornicatio, qualcs nec inler gcntes,
■ut uxorem patiis sui aliquis liabeat.