Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book II: On Contrition
Chapter 16: The Objections Are Solved; and of the Sin Against the Holy Spirit Briefly
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).
But the objections must be solved. And first, the Novatians of old objected that saying of Heli the priest, 1 Kings 2: “If one man shall sin against another, God may be appeased in his behalf; but if a man shall sin against the Lord, who shall pray for him?” Ambrose answers, book 1 On Penance, chapter 8, that “Who shall pray” does not signify “No one shall pray,” but that some notable friend of God will have to be sought who may pray, such as Moses was, who prayed for the idolatrous people and was heard, Exodus 32. Heli seems to have spoken after the manner of men. For among men those are rarely found who dare intercede with a prince when the accused has wronged the prince himself directly; otherwise intercession is easy, when the injury lies between private persons. The sum is that Heli meant to signify nothing else than that sins against God are harder to expiate than sins against men.
The second objection is taken from the book of Proverbs, chapter 1, where the wisdom of God speaks thus: “Because I called, and you refused; I stretched out my hand, and there was none that regarded,” and so on; “then shall they call upon me, and I will not hear; they shall rise in the morning, and shall not find me.” And Psalm 17: “They cried, but there was none to save them; to the Lord, but he heard them not.” And Jeremiah 14: “When they fast, I will not hear their prayers.” I answer: the words of Wisdom in Proverbs are to be taken chiefly of those who after this life, in the day of judgement, whether universal or particular, will do a useless penance and will ask some refreshment, and will not obtain it, because the time of Penance is only in the present life; of whom the book of Wisdom also speaks, chapter 5, when it says: “Then shall they say within themselves, repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit: These are they whom we had some time in derision,” and so on. And the Lord, Matthew 25, introduces the foolish virgins after the door was shut saying: “Lord, Lord, open to us.” And Luke 13, in clearer words: “When the master of the house,” he says, “shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without, and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us; and he answering shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are. Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. And he shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” and so on. And Luke 16 introduces the rich man in hell imploring Abraham and obtaining nothing. And that the book of Proverbs speaks of the life to come is plain from those words: “I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared.” But if it pleases anyone to refer those words to this life also, without doubt they will have to be taken of the invocation of God for warding off punishments, not of true Penance, nor of a serious desire of deliverance from guilt; in which way the other two places, from David and Jeremiah, are understood. For of the invocation of God from true Penance what Joel writes, chapter 2, cannot be false: “Every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
The third objection contains two examples of those who did penance in this life and did not merit indulgence. 2 Maccabees, chapter 9, Scripture says of Antiochus: “This wicked man prayed to the Lord, of whom he was not to obtain mercy.” And in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 12, the Apostle says of Esau: “Know ye that afterwards, when he desired to inherit the benediction, he was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, although with tears he had sought it.” I answer: it cannot be doubted that Antiochus desired by his prayer to avert only the death of the body and that torment of the bowels with which he was vexed; and therefore, since his Penance and conversion were not true, it ought not to be a wonder if he obtained nothing from the Lord. Further, Esau neither found place of blessing with his father, because that blessing, already conferred on another, was irrecoverable; nor did his penance have any force with God, because he was not converted to God from the heart, nor did he weep for faults committed against God, but only for the inheritance lost. For at that very time at which he seemed to do penance he was turning over in his mind the murder of his brother; for so he says, Genesis 27: “The days will come of the mourning of my father, and I will kill my brother Jacob.” So the Apostle by the example of Esau wished to admonish the faithful not easily to let themselves be drawn into sins; both because he incurs an irrecoverable loss through sin who by sinning loses innocence, or virginity, or anything of that kind; and also because some groan and weep and yet do not have true Penance; and so the end of sinners is very doubtful and uncertain.
The fourth objection, and the chief one, which both Pacian in letter 3 to Sympronian and Ambrose in both books On Penance report from the Novatians, is taken from four places of divine Scripture in which the sin against the Holy Spirit is said to be unforgivable. And that the whole matter may be explained clearly and briefly, two things will have to be treated: first, what properly is the sin against the Holy Spirit; then, in what sense it is called unforgivable.
As to the first, there are four opinions, of which Saint Thomas recites the three later ones in the Secunda Secundae, question 14, and the Master also in book 2, distinction 43. The first is that of Origen on Matthew, chapter 12: that sins against the Holy Spirit are all those which men commit against the law of God after Baptism. And the reason is that, as he himself there teaches, the Father is in all things, even those lacking reason; the Son in rational beings only, even if they are heathen; the Holy Spirit in the regenerate only. Since, therefore, men sin against that divine person whom they have in themselves, it follows that the sins of the heathen are against the Father or the Son, the sins of Christians against the Holy Spirit. The same was the opinion of Novatian also; for, as blessed Jerome writes in the letter to Marcella on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Novatian denied the remission of sins to lapsed Christians for this reason, that he thought all the lapses of Christians to be sins against the Holy Spirit. This opinion blessed Athanasius rightly refutes in the little book which he published on that place of the Gospel, “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him,” and so on. First, because it would follow that all the sins of Christians are such as are not forgiven, neither in this world nor in the next; which is plainly false from blessed Paul, who in 2 Corinthians 2 forgave the sin of the Christian fornicator. Secondly, because the Lord accuses of the sin against the Holy Spirit the Pharisees, who nevertheless were not Christians. Thirdly, because what Origen assumes is false, that the Father is in more things than the Son, and the Son in more than the Holy Spirit. For since they are one essence in number, necessarily one divine person is in another, according to that of John 14, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me”; and much more, where one person is, there are the rest. These are the reasons of Athanasius.
The second opinion is that of blessed Augustine, who would have no other sin against the Holy Spirit than final impenitence. For he asserts in the Enchiridion, chapter 83, that this matter was most thoroughly disputed by him in sermon 11 on the words of the Lord; and in that sermon he finally settled this. He teaches the same also in letter 50 to Boniface, and the book On Rebuke and Grace, chapter 12, and book 4 against Cresconius, chapter 8. And that he persevered in this opinion to his death is plain both from the Enchiridion, chapter 83, for he wrote that book among his last, and from book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 19, where he corrects what he had said in book 1 On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, chapter 43. For he had said that the sin unto death is envy of a brother’s grace, and that this is the sin against the Holy Spirit; but he corrected it in the Retractations, saying that it should have been added, “if he ends this life in that wicked perversity of mind.” This opinion of blessed Augustine is indeed true so far as it teaches that final impenitence is some sin against the Holy Spirit; yet it does not seem able to be defended if he means that the sin against the Holy Spirit properly, of which the Lord speaks in the Gospel, is final impenitence. First, because the sin against the Holy Spirit is properly a certain blasphemy, as is plain from Matthew 12, Luke 12 and Mark 3; but final impenitence is not a blasphemy, but a certain circumstance which can be found in every sin. Secondly, because final impenitence is committed only in death; but the sin against the Holy Spirit is found also in this life; otherwise the Lord would not say that it is not forgiven either in this world or in the next. Thirdly, because the Lord marked the Pharisees with this crime, as is plain from Mark 3: “He that shall blaspheme,” he says, “against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin; because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.” And the Pharisees were not then giving up the ghost, and perhaps survived many years. Fourthly, because the Apostle, Hebrews 6 and 10, seems to speak of this sin; for he says in chapter 6, “It is impossible for those who were once illuminated,” and so on, “and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance.” And chapter 10: “For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins,” and so on; and below he says that those who so sin sin most grievously for this reason, that they offer an affront to the Spirit of grace. But it is certain that the Apostle speaks of the sins of the living, not of final impenitence; otherwise it would be the same as if he said that the dead cannot be recalled to Penance, which is unworthy of so great an Apostle. Lastly, because 1 John 5, where it is said, “There is a sin unto death; for that I say not that any man ask,” and so on, is a discourse on the sin against the Holy Spirit, as Augustine himself confesses, book 1 On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, chapter 43; and yet John speaks of the sins of the living. There are indeed some who think John speaks of the sins of the dead, and says that one must not pray for those who have remained in their sins up to death; but the text of the Apostle openly cries out against it; for he says: “He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him,” and so on; by which words he presupposes that it can be known, when someone sins, whether that sin is unto death or not; and therefore he does not speak of final impenitence, which cannot be known except after death. Besides, if he spoke of the sins of the dead, he would not say, “If any man know his brother to sin,” but, “If any man know his brother to have sinned.”
The third opinion is that the sin against the Holy Spirit is the sin from malice, as the sin from infirmity is called the sin against the Father, and the sin from ignorance is called the sin against the Son. This opinion seems above the others to have pleased the Master of the Sentences, book 2, distinction 43, and blessed Thomas in the Secunda Secundae, question 14, although he does not repudiate the other opinions either. But we can say the same of this opinion as we said of the opinion of blessed Augustine, namely that it is true, but does not satisfy our question. For although any sin from malice can be called a sin against the Holy Spirit, yet not every sin from malice is that of which the Scriptures speak, which is properly and singularly called the sin against the Holy Spirit, and which is not forgiven either in this world or in the next. Which can easily be proved, because the sin against the Holy Spirit is a certain definite blasphemy, as is plain from Matthew 12, Mark 3 and Luke 12; but the sin from malice is not a special sin but a general one, nor is it always a blasphemy; for the authors of this opinion divide the sin against the Holy Spirit into six species, of which only one pertains to blasphemy.
There is therefore a fourth opinion, which we do not doubt to be true: that the sin against the Holy Spirit is properly nothing else than to reprove from malice a truth known and manifest, and to calumniate it as devilish and detestable. And it is called the sin against the Holy Spirit, not because it is not also against the Father and the Son, but because to the Holy Spirit is attributed the working of miracles and the enlightening of minds for knowing the truth; for he it is who teaches all truth, John 16, and who divides to every one as he will, to one the grace of healings, to another the gift of tongues, and works all in all, 1 Corinthians 12. So he sins against the Holy Spirit who reproves the truth known, the Holy Spirit enlightening, and attributes to Satan the signs and prodigies done by the power of the Holy Spirit. That this opinion is true is proved, first, from the common consent of the ancients; for so teach Athanasius in the little book written on this matter, and also oration 2 against the Arians; Chrysostom, homily 42 on Matthew; Basil in the Morals, summary 33, chapter 1, and in the questions explained in compendium, question 273; Hilary on chapters 5 and 12 of Matthew; Ambrose, book 1 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 3; Jerome on chapter 12 of Matthew, and in the letter to Marcella on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; Anselm on chapter 12 of Matthew; Richard of Saint Victor in the book On the Spirit of Blasphemy; Theophylact and Bede on chapter 12 of Matthew and chapter 3 of Mark; and before these Pacian in letter 3 to Sympronian. But it is to be observed that when blessed Jerome in the letter cited says that it will be a sin against the Holy Spirit if anyone set before the tribunal of a judge not only denies Christ but also says he is Beelzebub, these words are not to be understood simply. For blessed Jerome means that it will be a sin against the Holy Spirit only if he who says Christ is Beelzebub says it not compelled by torments, but of his own accord from malice, fighting against the truth he knows, as is plain from the whole of that letter; and blessed Cyprian testifies in the sermon On the Lapsed that there were some such in his time. Secondly, it is proved from this, that the Lord calls the sin against the Holy Spirit the sin of the Pharisees, by which they said that Christ cast out devils in Beelzebub, as Mark writes, chapter 3; but this sin of the Pharisees was nothing else than an assault on a truth they knew. Thirdly, it is proved from this, that the Lord, Matthew 12, distinguishes blasphemy against the Son of man from blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But blasphemy against the Son of man, according to the exposition of Athanasius and Jerome and others, was that of those who, thinking Christ to be nothing but a man, calumniated his works, and said, “Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker”; therefore the sin against the Holy Spirit is that of those who, knowing that Christ worked miracles in the power of God, yet from malice and envy ascribe those divine works not to the Holy Spirit but to an unclean spirit.
From these things it can be deduced that the sins of the apostles Peter and Paul, of whom the former denied Christ and the latter openly persecuted him, were not sins against the Holy Spirit. For Peter denied from infirmity, namely from fear of punishment; Paul from ignorance: “I obtained mercy,” he says, 1 Timothy 1, “because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” But the sins of the Jews stoning Stephen were against the Holy Spirit; for since they could not resist the Holy Spirit who spoke in him, as is said in Acts 6, yet they tried to resist. And it is credible that the same sin is committed by many heretics, who, since they are constantly engaged in the Scriptures and the Fathers, can scarcely fail to understand that they are vehemently in error, and yet, lest they seem to have departed from the Church without cause, obstinately reprehend a doctrine sufficiently known and explored.
Now, in what sense this sin is called unforgivable is doubtful on account of four places of Scripture. The first is Matthew 12, Luke 12 and Mark 3, where blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is said not to be forgiven either in this world or in the next. The second is Hebrews 6: “It is impossible for those who were once illuminated,” and so on. The third, Hebrews 10: “If we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins.” The fourth, 1 John 5: “There is a sin unto death; for that I say not that any man ask.”
To the first place a manifold answer is usually given. The first is that of Theophylact on this place of Matthew, and of Tostatus on the same: that the sin against the Holy Spirit is called unforgivable because it is never forgiven without Penance, but the sin against the Son of man is called forgivable because it is forgiven without Penance, since, because it proceeds from ignorance, it is not reckoned a true sin. But if this opinion were true, it would follow that every true sin which is not from invincible ignorance is a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is certainly most absurd. The second is that of Richard in the little book On the Spirit of Blasphemy: that the sin against the Holy Spirit is called unforgivable not by reason of the guilt but by reason of the punishment; because if a man does not do penance for this sin nothing of the punishment of damnation is remitted him, and if he does penance nothing is remitted him of the temporal punishment which is required for satisfaction; but other sins are called forgivable because something of the punishment due them is always remitted, by reason of ignorance or infirmity, which diminish those sins. Against this solution is, first, that all the other Fathers understand the Lord to have spoken of the remission of guilt. Secondly, that the Lord did not say, “Nothing of this sin shall be remitted,” but absolutely, “This sin shall not be forgiven”; therefore he does not speak of the diminishing of punishment, but of the absolute remission of the whole sin. Thirdly, because it is asserted without reason that nothing of punishment is relaxed to those sinning against the Holy Spirit if they have done penance; for if some such man is really converted with great fervour, why could not God and the Church relax even some part of the temporal punishment?
Another solution, therefore, is that of others: that the sin against the Holy Spirit is called unforgivable because, although it could be forgiven if Penance were present, yet those who so sin do not come to true Penance, because by a just judgement God has deserted them and they have been given over to a reprobate sense. This opinion seems to be that of Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome and Anselm on chapter 12 of Matthew; yet it seems to need tempering, as Chrysostom on chapter 12 of Matthew and Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 4, temper it. For if we understand simply that the sin against the Holy Spirit is never forgiven, it will follow that all those who know that they are fighting against a known truth ought deservedly to despair of salvation, which seems most absurd; it will follow also that we ought not to pray for such, as we do not pray for the damned; whereas Saint Stephen prayed for those stoning him, whom he knew to be sinning against the Holy Spirit, as we have in Acts 7. And blessed Augustine, book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 19: “Of no one,” he says, “however wicked, set in this life, is one to despair; and prayer is not imprudently made for him of whom one does not despair.” Saint Ambrose also, in the place cited, proves that the sin against the Holy Spirit can be forgiven through Penance, because the people of the Jews, who had said of Christ, “In Beelzebub the prince of devils he casteth out devils,” is afterwards read to have been converted at the preaching of blessed Peter, Acts 2.
It must be said, therefore, that the Scriptures and Fathers say the sin against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven because ordinarily and for the most part it is not cured; as the Lord says of other sins, “All sins and blasphemies are forgiven,” not because they are always forgiven and to all, but because for the most part and ordinarily they are forgiven. And there are two causes why the sin against the Holy Spirit is ordinarily incurable. One, because it directly resists and repudiates the grace of God; just as, if a sick man could be cured by one medicine only, and would not admit it, his disease would rightly be called incurable. The other, because, since it is a sin from malice, not from ignorance or infirmity, it has nothing in itself whence it could be even a little excused, and therefore merits no mercy; for hence the Apostle, 1 Timothy 1: “I obtained mercy,” he says, “because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” And lest it seem strange if we call the unforgivable sin unforgivable ordinarily but not absolutely, let other similar places be considered. In Matthew 19 the Lord says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. In which place he seems plainly to have shut off the approach to salvation from the rich; yet in the same place he adds, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” And in Jeremiah 13 the Lord says: “If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots, you also may do well, when you have learned evil.” And yet in the whole of that book God exhorts them to return, and promises pardon.
To the second place, from the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 6, it could first be answered in the same way: that it is impossible for those who were once illuminated and afterwards sin wilfully to be renewed to Penance, not absolutely, but for the most part. But the better solution is that the Apostle here speaks only of the Penance which precedes Baptism; for so Chrysostom, Ambrose and the other Fathers expound. And the Apostle himself hints this by those words, “who were once illuminated,” that is, baptised; for among the ancients to be illuminated is to be baptised. And by those, “to be renewed again,” for one is properly renewed in Baptism. And by those, “crucifying again the Son of God.” For when we are baptised we are conformed to the likeness of the death of the Lord, as is said in Romans 6; and as Christ was crucified only once, so we too are baptised only once; and he who wished to be baptised again would crucify Christ again to himself.
To the third, from chapter 10 of Hebrews, I say with Chrysostom, Ambrose and others: when the Apostle says that no sacrifice for sin is left, the sense is that another Christ is not to be expected who should die for us, or that he who once died should come again to die; and consequently that a second Baptism is not to be expected. For the sense of this place and of the former is the same.
To the fourth, from the epistle of John: Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, chapter 12, and Gregory, book 6 of the Morals, chapter 31 or the last, say that the sin unto death is the sin in which a man perseveres up to death. But then he would not have said, “If any man know his brother to sin,” but, “If any man know him to have sinned not unto death”; for the sin unto death could not be known except after the death of him who committed it. Ambrose, book 1 On Penance, chapter 9, says that John did not say that no one should pray for those who sin sins unto death, that is, most grievous sins, but only that ordinary and imperfect men, to whom he was writing that epistle, should not pray; for the most grievous sins need perfect intercessors. Jerome, book 2 against Jovinian, beyond the middle, towards the end, treating this place, says that nothing else is signified here than that for a sin unto death prayer is heard with difficulty. And this seems to be the truest sense of this place; for immediately before John had said: “We know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask.” Therefore, lest we should think this holds also in any petitions whatever which we offer for others, he adds: “He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given him,” and so on; that is, let him ask with confidence, for he will obtain. But if the sin is unto death, that is, most grievous, of the kind of those which ordinarily are not forgiven but are punished with eternal death, “for that I say not that any man ask”; that is, I do not indeed forbid to pray, but I do not dare to promise that it is easily obtainable; therefore I do not say that any man ask, namely with that strong confidence of obtaining; for often God in such a business does not hear the prayers of the saints, according to that of Jeremiah 7: “Do not thou pray for this people, for I will not hear thee.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPl T XYl.
Solvuntur ohjectioncs: ac de peccaloin Spiritum
sancluni brcviter dispulatur.
Sed objecliones solvendae sunl. Ae Priinnm ob-
jicicbant olim Novaliuni illud Heli sacerdolis, 1.
Hcijum 2. Si peccaveril vir in virum. placari ei
polcst Deus, si autem in Deum peccaverit vir^
quis pro eo orabit?
Hespondel Ambiosius lib. 1. de Poenilenlia cap.
8. illud: Quis orabil; non significare: Nullus ora-
bil, sed: Ouaerendns erit insignis aliquis Dei ami-
cus, qui oret, qualis fuil Moyses. qui pro populo
idolnlalra oravit, el exanditns esl. Exod. .'^2. Vidc-
turllcli moro humano csse loquulus.Nam inler ho-
mincs rari inveniunlur, qui apud principem inler-
cedere audeant, quando rensprincipem ipsum im-
inediale laesil: alioqni facilis cst inlerccssio.quan-
do inlcr privalos injuria consistil. Siimma est:Hcli
nihil alind significare voluisse, nisi peccala in
Deura difTicilJns cxpiari, quam in homines.
Secunda objectio sumilur cx lib. Proverb.cap.l.
ubi sapienlia Dei sic loquitur: Qaia vocavi eire-
nimtis: exlendi manum meam, el non fuil qui
aspiceretelc.tuncinvocabunt me. et non CTau-
diam.mane consurgent el non invenient me. Et
psalm. 17. Clamaverunl. nec erat qui salvos face-
ret, ad Dominum, nec exaudiviteos. El Hierein.
74. Cumjejunaverint, non exaudiam preces eo-
rum.
Kcspondco. Vcrba Sapienliae in Proverbiis , de
iis polissimum accipienda sunt. qui posl hanc vi-
lum in die judiciisiveuniversalis,sive parlicularis,
inulilemPoenitenliam agenl,el refrigerinm aliquod
petenl, nec impetrabunl,quia tempus Pocnilonliac
non esl, nisi in vila pracscnli : dc (piibiis , eliain
loquilur libcr Snpicnliae, cap. li. cum ait: Tunc
diccnt intra se, Poenilenliam agcnles , et prae
. aiujiLstia spirilus gctnentes:lli.sunl ({uos aliqua.n-
do habuimus in dcrisum clc. El Domiiius Mallh.
25. inlroducil f.iluas virgincs pnslclausum osliuin
dicenlcs: Dominc. Domin.e apcri nobis. El Luc;io
1.'5. chirioribus vcrliis: C}t,m inlraveril. inquil ,
paterfamilias, cl clauserit ostium , el incipietis
foris stare, el pulsare ostium dicentes, Domine,
apcri nobis: ctrespondens dicct vobis; ISescio
vos unde silis: iunc incipielis dicere: Iflanducavi-
mus coram lc cl bibimu,s, cl in plateis nostris do-
cuisli. Et dicclvobis: i\esciovos undesitis: disce-
dite a me omnes opcrariiiiiiquitat.is: ibi crit fle-
tns ct stridor dentium etc. El Lucae lO.inlroducit
divilcm in infcrno imploranlem Abrabamum. cl ni-
hil impctranlem. Loqni antem librum Provcrbio-
rum de vila fulura. perspicuum csl cx illis verbis:
Ego quoque in interituveslro ridebo et subsan-
nabo, cum vobis quod limebatis advenerlt.
Quod si ea verba ad hanc eli;im vitam rcfcrrc
placeat, sine dubio accipienda erunt de invocalio-
ne Dci ad pocnas arcendiis.non dc vcra Poenilen-
lia, ncque dc seria cnpidilate libcralionis a culpa:
nd quem modum intclligunlur alia duo loca, cx
Davide cl llicrcmia. Nam de invocatione Dci ex
vera Poenilcntia.non polcst falsum esse quod scri-
bit .Tocl cap. 2.0mnis qui invocaveril nomen Do-
mini salvus erit.
Tertia objcctio conlinct exempla duo enrum,qui
Pocnilcnliam in hac vila egerunt, nec indulgen-
tiam mcrncrunt. Lib. 2. Machab. cap. 9.de Antio-
clio inquil Scriptura: Orabat hic scelestus Deum,
a quo non cssel niisericordiam conseqtiulurus.El
in episl. ad Hebr. cap. 12. de Esau inquil Aposlo-
lus: Scilote quoniam poslea cupiens hae7'editare
benediclionem, reprobalus esl: non eniminvenit
Poenitcntiae locum, quamquam cum lachrymis
inquisissel eum.
Respondeo: Dubitari non polest, quin Antiochus
solam corporis morlcra cl cruciatum illuin visce-
rum. qno vcxabalur, avertcrc oratione sua deside-
raverit; et ideo cum ver;i non fueril ejus Poenflen-
tia alquo conversio. mirnm esse non debet, si ni*
hil eliam a Domino impetraverit. Porro Esau ne-
quc apud palrera looum benediclionis invenit,quia
jam in alterum collala bcnediclio illa, irrecupera-
bilis eral; neque apud Deum Poenitentia ejus vim
ullam habuit, quia non ex corde conversus est ad
Deum, neque flevit ob culpas in Deum admissas.
sed solum ob haereditatem amissam. Nam illo ip-
so tempore, quo Pocnitenliam agere videbatur.
necem fralris sui animo volvebat; sic cnim ait Ge-
nes. 27. Venict dies luctus patris mei,et occidam
Jacob fralrem meuni. Itaqne Apostolus exemplo
Esau admonere voluil fideles, ne facilc se in pec-
cala pertrahi sinerent;tum quia damnum irrecupe-
rabile per peccalura incurrit, qui innocentiam.aut
virginilalem, aut aliquid ejusmodi peccando a-
miltit;lum eliann» quia nonnulli gemunt ac plorant,
nec laraen veram Poenitenliam habent: atque i-
ta valde dubius, atque incerlus est peccantium c-
xilus.
1.1BEI5 SKCUNUUS
G(J3
Qunrla objoclio: Kaque praecipua. quam el Pa-
ciaiius iii episU 3. ad Syinprouianum. cl Ambro-
sius iii ulroque iib. de Poeiiileiilia, ex Wovalianis
rcferunl , sumilur ex qualuor locis Scriplurae di-
viiiae, m qu::bus peccalum in Spirilum sanclum
dicilur esse irremissibile. Ac ul perspicue res lo-
la el breviter explicelur , duo Iraclanda erunl.Pri-
nium. quid sil proprie peccalum in Spiritum san-
ctum. Deinde, qua ralione dicalur irremissibile.
Quod ad Primum atlinel , quatuor senlenliae
sunt , quarum Ires posleriores in 2. 2. quaesl.
14. B. Tliomas recilal , cl eliam Magisler in 2.
disl. 43.
Prima esl Origenis in 3latlli. cap. 12. peccala in
Spiritum sanclum, esse omnia illa, quae conlra
Dci iegem admitlunt homines posl Baplismum. Et
ratio est. quia, ut ipse ibi docel, Paler esl in o-
mnibus rebus, etiam ratione carentibus, Filius in
solis rationalibus. eliamsi ellinici sint, Spiritus
sanclus in solis regeneraiis. Cuin igilur peccent
bomines in eam personam divinam, quam in se
habenl; sequilur peccala elhnicorum essc in Pa-
Irem, aul Filium: peccala Christianorum in Spiri-
tum sanclum. Kadem senlcnlia fuit etiam Wovatia-
ni; nam ul b. Hieronymus scribit in episl.ad War-
cellam, de blasphemia in Spirilum sanclum; idco
lAovalianus negiibal Chrislianis lapsis remissionem
peccatorum, quia exislimabal, omiies 'Chrisliano-
rum lapsus csse pcccala in Spirilum sanclum.
Ilanc sentenliam merito refellit b. A.thanasius
in libello quem edidil supcr eum locum evangelii:
Qui dixerit verbum in Fdium hominis, remiUe-
tur ci, clc. Primo, quia sequeretur omnia peccala
Christianorum esse talia, ul non rcn»itlanlur, ne-
que in hoc saeculo, ncque in futuro; quod conslat
csse falsum ex b. Paulo, (pji 2. rcniisil peccatum
fornicario christiano. Secundo, quia Dominus ac-
cusat peccali in Spiritum sanclum Pharisaeos, (jui
laraen Chrisliani non eranl. Tcrtio, quia falsum
est. quod Origenes assumil, Palrcm esse in pluri-
bus rebus, quam Filium, et Filium in pluribus,
quam Spiritum sanclum. Nam cum sinl una nume-
ro esscnlia, necessario una pcrsona divina est in
alia, juxta illud Joan.Ii./iVyo in Patre ct Patcrin
mc cst. Et iimlto magis ubi est una persona, ibi
sunt reliquae. Hac sunt rationcs Alhanasii.
Altera senlentia est beali Augustini, (pii nulluin
aliu(J voluit essc peccatum in Spiritum sancliim,
(piarn finalem impoeniienliam. Is enim asserit in
«mcliiridio cap. 83. enucicatissime de hac rc a se
dispulaium esse in scrm. M. de verbis Domini:in
illo aulem sermone tandem hoc constiluil. Idem
etiam docet in episl. 50. ad Bonifacium: ct lib. de
corrcpl. ct gralia cap. 12. ct lib. 4.contra Crcsco-
nium cap. 8. Quod autcm iii hac sentcnlia us^iue
ad obitum perscveraveril, patel lum ex enchiridio
cap. 83. nam eum librum ex poslremis scripsil,
lum cx lih. 1. Bctracl. cap. 1!). ubi corrigil id,
<|uod dixeral lib. 1. de sermon. Domini in moiile
cap. 43. Dixerat enim, pcccalum ad niorlem essc
invidcnliam fralcriKK! gratlac, ct hoc cssc pecca-
lum in Spiriliim sanctum: caelerum corr^ixit in re-
Iractationibiis, (liccns, addcndiim fiiisse^.Si iH.scc-
lcrata 'incntia i^crvcriiilalc (Inirct lianc vilam.
Ilaec scntenlia b. Auguslini vera quidem est,
(luatenus docet liiialem impoenilenliam essc pec-
calum aliquod in Spirilum sanclum: lamen non vi-
detur possc dcfendi.si velit proprie peccatuin illud
in Spiritum sanctum, de quo Doininus in evange-
lio loquilur, esse rinalcm impoiMiilcntiam. Priino,
(juia peccalum in Spirilum sanctura , propric bla-
sphemia quacdam est, ul palel Matlh. 12. Luc 12.
et Marc. 3. rinalis aulem impoenilcntia non cst bla-
sphemia.sed circumslanlia (piaedain,quae in omni
peccalo repcriri potesl.
Secundo: Quia iinalis impoeniteiilia non com-
mittitur nisi in morle:peccalum auteni in Spiritum
sanctura, etiam in hac vita reperitur; alioqui non
dicerel Dominus, iion remitti,ncque in hoc saecu-
lo, neque in fuluro.
Tertia: Quia Dominus notavit Pbarisaoos hujus
criminis, ul palet Marc.3.Qia blasphemaverit, in-
iHi\l,in Spiritumsanctum, non habet remissio-
nem in aeternum, sed reus efit aeterni delicti,
quoniam dicebat: Spirilum immundum habct.kt
Piiarisaei lunc non agebant animam et multos an-
nos forlasse su[)ervixerunt.
Quarto: Quia Aposlolus Uebr. 6. el 10. de hoc
peccato loqui videtur; ait enim cap. C. Impossibile
cst, eos qui scmcl sunt illuminati ctc. ct prola-
psi sunt: iterum rcnovari ad Poenilentiam. VA
cap. 10. Voluntarie enim peccanlibus nobis post
acccptam notitiam vcritatis, jam non relinqni-
tur hostia pro pcccato clc. el infra dicil , cos
qui ila pcccaiil, ideo gravissinic peccare,quia Spi-
ritui gratiac contumeliam faciunt. Certum aulem
cst, Aposlolum loqui dc peccalis vivorum, non de
linali impocnitcntia; alioqui idcm essel ac si dice-
rel, non posse mortuos revocari ad Poenitcntiam;
quod indignum esl lanto Apostolo.
Postremo: Quia I. Joan. 5. ubi dicitur; Est pcc-
catum ad mortcm: non pro eo dico, ut roget
quis etc.scvtt\o est de peccato in Spiritum sanctum,
ul ipse Augustinus condtetur lib. I. de senn. Do-
mini in monle cap. 43. et lamen Juannes de pcc-
catis vivoruiu loquitur. Sunl quidem aliqui , qui e-
xislimant Joanncm loqui de pcccalis mortuorum,
ac dicerc, non essc orandiim pro illis. qui usque
ad inorlem in pcccatis suis permanseruni: tamen
tcxlus Apostoli apcrle reclamal; ail enim: Qui scit
fralrcm snum peccare pcccatum non ad morlem;
pctat et dabitur ci vita ctc. quibus verbis prae-
supponit, posse sciri cum aliquis peccat , an illud
pcc(;alum sil ad niortcm, vel non: ac proindc non
Idquitur de rinali impocnilcnlia, quac non potost
cognosci, iiisi posl morlein. Praelcrea, si loquer(s
Itir de peccatis morluorum, non dicerel: Si quis
scit fralrcm stium pcccare: sed, Si quis scit fra-
Iro.m suumpeccassc.
Tcrlia scnlentia esl: Peccatnm in Spiritum san-
ctum. csse pcccatum ex malilia , sicul peccntuin
ex inllrmitalc, dicilur pcccatum iii Patrciii. ct pcc-
calum ex ignorantia, dicitur pcccalum iii Filium.
Ilaec seiilcntia, praecaeteris vidclur placuissc ma-
gistro senlcnliarum iii 2.(lisl.43. el b.Tliomae in 2.
2. (|uaesl. 14. taniclsi cliaiii alias senlciilias noii
rc[>udial.
Possumus aiilcm idem dc liac senlenlia diccre
r.«»
IH 1'Or.NMr.NIIA
(]\Hn\ liiMiiiDS de soiiLf^nli.i h. .\u^Mis(iiii. iiiiiiirdiii
vcraiii esse.srd iio i s;Uisr;ictMe iioslriU! (lUiiestioni.
Niifii elsi iiiioilJibel |ii're;iluiii e\ Miiilitiii, diei po-
tesl peicMiiiiii III Spiiiluiii siinclum : l.imeii non
<|Uodlibel pecciiluni e\ miilitiii csl illml. d(3 quo
Scnpliiriie liinuuiilur. (|U()d pro|)rie e! siii^Mi!;iril(M'
dicilur pecciilum inSpirilum s.inclum.el (piod non
remillilur ncque iii hoc saeculo, ne(pii! iii liiluro.
Id (lund facili> prdbiiri pnlesl . (]ui;i p(MM-;iluin iii
SpiriliKii s.Tnclum esl cerla (iu;iedain bliisphemia ,
ul palel e\ .Mallli. 12. .Iliirc. :\. cl J.ucae 12.pecca-
lum aulem e.K malilia, iKMpie csl speciale pecca-
tum, sed !^ener;de: neiiue semper esl bl;)spliemi;i:
dividiint enim anclores liujus senlenliai! pecc;)liim
in Spirlluin sanclum in sc.x specics,ex (piibns laii-
lum uii;i ad bl;)S|)l)emi;im perlinel.
Kst iijilur Ouarla senlcnlia , (piam veram esse
non dubilamus . percalum in Spirilum s:iiicliiiti
proprie nihil esse aliud. (|Uiim verilalem cognilam
fl manifeslam, e\ inalilia improhnre. el l;imqu;im
daemoniiicam, et delesl;ibilem calumniari. Dicilur
iiuUMH peccalum in Spirilum sanclum , non qiii;i
nou sil 1'liiini coulr;i Piilrein el Filium , sed quia
Spirilui sauclo Iribiiilur opcralio mirnculorum, el
illuslratio animorum ad cognosccndam vcnlnlem :
ipse cnim esl qui (locel omneni verilalem, Joan.
U». et qiii dividil singiilis, pro ul vult. uni graliam
sanilalum, alleri donum linguarum, el oporatur o-
innia in omnibus 1. Corinlli. 12.l!aque ille peccat
in Spirilum sancliim, qui cognilam verilatem Spi-
rilu sancto ilhislr^inle, improhal, el siiiiia ;ic pro-
ditiia, virlule S|):nlus sancli facta. Iribuil Satanae.
Hanc senlciiliam veram esse, Primo prohatur e.\
communi coiiseiisu velerum: ita enim docenl Alha-
nasius in iihidlo dc hiic re scriplo, el eliam orat.
2. in Arianos. Chrysost. homil. 42. in Matlh. Basi-
lius iu moriilihus, summa 33. cap. 1. el in quaesl.
compendio eNplicatis (|uaest. 273. Ililarius in caji.
5. el 12. Mallh. .\mbros. lib. 1. de Spiritu siinclo
cap. 3. Ilierouymus in cap. 12. Malth, et in episl.
ad M;ircclhim,de blasphemia in Spiritum sanclum.
Anselmus in cap. 12. Mattli. Hichardus do s. Vi-
clore, iii lihro dc spirilu blasphcmiae. TlKMiphylii-
clus el Deda. in cap. 12. Matth. el cap. 3. Marci:
et anlc hos Pacianus in cpisl. 3. ad Sympronia-
iium.
Veruui ohservandum est. cum b. Hieronymus in
epistolii cilata dicil.peccalum iii Spirilum s;mctum
fulurum, si quis;inle tribuiuil judicis constiliiius ,
non solum negel Chrislura, sed eliara dicat eum
esse Beelzebub: non esse haeo verba simpliciler
intelligenda. Tuiic enim soluin vull b. llieronymus
fiilurum peccalum in Spirilum sanctum, si is, qui
dicit Chrislum essc Bcekcbub, non dicat roactus
tormenlis, sed uliro ex inalilia cognilam verilatem
oppuguans. ul e\ tota illa epistoh/perspicuum est:
el lales aliquos fuisse suo lempore b. Cyprianus
leslalur in serni. de lapsis.
Secundo: Probalur ex eo. quod Dominus peeca-
lum iiiSpiritumsauclum vocai peccatum Pharis;ieo-
rum, quo dicebanl Christum in Ueel/ebub ejiccre
daemonia, ut 3Iarcus cap. 5. scribil: peccatum au-
lcni hocPliaris.icorum. niliil eral aliiid . u
pngnalio coLinilae venlaii:^.
(piam op-
TiMii.i : l»rob;iliir c\ (m», i|ii0(l Doiiiiiiu^ Malt.I2.
di>liuj^uit bliisphemiaiii in Kihimi homiiiis , ii bhi-
sphcmia iii Spiritum s;incliiiii.l!l isplMMiii;i ;iut(Mii iit
Fiiiuii! lioiiiiiiis,secuuiluni c\posilioiuMii Alh;iiiasii
(!l llierouymi. et aliornm, cral enruni , qui exisli-
m;iiiles Chrislum iion esse nisi hominem , operii
cjus c;iliiimiiabanlur, et dicebanl: Kr.cc, liomn vo-
raxcl polaUirvini : ergo peccalum in Spiritum
siinctnm csl eorum,(|ui scienles Christum in virlu-
te D(>i miriuuhi operalum. t;imen e\ iniiliti;i cl in-
vidia. diviiia ilhi o|)era non Spirilui sancto, sed
spiritui immundo adscribunl.
K\ liis deduci polesl, piMM'ii!o apostolorum l'elri
ct Piiuli. (pioriim prior Cliristum negiivit, posterior
apcrlc persequulus est, non hiisse peccata iii Spi-
ritum sanclum. Nani Petrus ex inlirmilate negavit,
limore videlicet poenae: Piinlus iiulem ex ignoran-
lia. 1. Tim. \JIisc,ricordiam. iiiquil, comeqmUus
sum, qida ignorans feci , in incredulilale. At
peccalii .Tud;uM)rum hipidantium Stephanum , iii
Spiritum sanclum eranl: n;)m cum resislerc non
possent Spirilui sanclo, qui loquebalur in eo, ul
dicitur Aclor. G. tamen resislere conabantur. El i-
dem pecciilum a mullis h;ierelicis commitli credi-
hile esl, qui cuui iu Scripluris el Patribus assidue
versenlur, vi\ fleri polesl, quin inteliigant se ve-
bementer errarc:el tamen ne videanlur sine caiissa
dc Ecclesia recessisse , doclrinam cognitam salis
et e\plora!am ohslinale reprchendunt.
Jam vero, qua ralione hoc peccatura dicatur ir-
remissibile, dubium est propler quatuor loca Scri-
pturae. Primusesl, Maltli. 12.Luc. 12. et Marc.3.
iibi dicitur blasphemia in Spirilum sanclum non
remitli, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in fuluro.Se-
cundus esl Ilebraeor. 0. Inipossibile est eos, qui
sevi cl sunlilluminati elc. Tevllus llebv. 10. Vo-
lunlarie peccantibusvobispost acceplam noliliam
Terilaiis.jam non rclinquifur hoslia pro peccalo.
Ouarlus 1. Joan. 5. Est peccatum ad mortem.pro
co non dico ut roget quis.
Ad Primum locum mulliplex responsio dari so-
let.Piima cst The(q)liyhicli in hunc locum Matthaei
el Abulensis ihithun. peccalum in Spiritum san-
clum dici irremissiliile . quia numquam remittitur
sine Po(Miitcnlia, pecciilnin aulem iii Filiuni bomi-
nis dici rcmissibile, quia remitiilur sine Poeniten-
tia. quiii enini ex ignoriinlia precedil, non reputa-
liirvcriim [leccalum. At si haec senlenlia vera es-
scl. si-ipuiielur.omno verum peccatiim , quod non
est ex ignoranlia invincibili, esse peccalum in Spi-
rituin sanclum; quod cerle absurdissimum est.
Secunda esl Richardi in libello de spirilu bla-
splieraiae, pecc;i!um iu Spiritum sanclum dici ir-
remissihile non ralione culpae, sed ralionepocnae;
quia si bomo Poenilentiam non agil de boc peccalo,
nihil ei remillilur dc poena damnalionis; si vero
Poenitenliam ;igit.nihil ei rcmiltiturde poena lem-
por;ili, qiiae ad salisfiictionem requinlur: alia vero
peccata dicuntur remissibilia , quia s(!mper remit-
litur aliquid de poena illis debila , ratione igno-
ranliae, vel inlirmilatis , (|uae peccala illa dirai-
iiiiunt.
Contra hanc solutionem esl. Primo, quod oinnes
alii Palres intclligunt . Dominum cbse lo(iuulum
l.liniH SKCl"iNDUS
(165
tic rcmissioiie culpne. Seoumli^qui;! Doniiiiiis riou
ilixil: Niliil de lioc pfHicalo remilleliir ; sed al)sulii-
te: Hoc peccaliiin non reinitlelur: ergo non loqui-
hir de diminulionc poenae, sed du absoluln remis-
sione lolius peccali. Tertio, quia sine raUone as-
serilur. niliil poenae relaxarl peccanlibus in Spi-
ritum sancluni , si Pocniienliam cgerinl: nam si
revera mngno fervore aliqnis lulis conviM-talur, cur
non poleril Deus el Ecclesia, vel parlem aliquam
poenae temporalis relaxare?
Alia i^dlur solulio esl aliorum, peccaliim in Spi-
rilum sanctum irrcmissibilo dici , quia eliamsi re-
milti possil, si Poenitcnlia adsil,lamen qiii ita pec-
canl, ad veram Poenilenliam non perveniunl.quod
juslo judicio Deus eos deserueril el in rcprobum
scnsum Iradili sinl.
Haec senlentia videlur esse Alhanasii , Ililarii ,
ITieronymi el .Anselmi in caput Mallhaei 12. vide-
tur tamen temperanda. ut eam lompf^rant Cbryso-
slomus in cap. 12. .Mnllh. el .4mbrosius lib. 2. de
Poenitentia cap. 4.Nam si simpliciter inlelligamus,
peccalum in Spiritum sanclum iiumquam remilli ,
sequelur, cos omnes qui sciunt se impugnare co-
gnilam veritalem, merilo desperare debere de .«a-
iule, quod absurdissimur.i esse videlur: sequeiur
etiam. nos non debere pro lalibus orare. sicul pro
damnalis non oramus: cjin tamen s. Slephanus
oraveril pro lapidaloribus suis , quos in Spiriium
sanctum peccare sciebat, ut habemus Aclorum 7.
El bealus Auguslinus lib. 1. relraclat. cap. 19. De
niillo, inquit, qiiamvis pe.ssimo in hac vila con-
sliluto, desperaiidum esl: et pro eo non impru-
denter oratiir, de quo nondesperatur. S.Ambro-
sius quoque loco citato probat, peccatum in Spiri-
lum sanclum per Pocnilenliam posse remilli, quia
populus .Tudaeorum. qui dixerat de Chrislo: In
Beelzebub principe daemoniorum ejicit daemo-
nia; poslea ad praedicalioncm beali Pelri conver-
sus legitiir. Aclorum 2.
Dicendum igiliir. Scripluras cl Patros dicere ,
peccalum in Spiritum sanclum non remitli, quia
ordinarie el ul plurimum, non curalur: sicut de
aliis pcccalis Dominus ail: Omnia peccata et bla-
spliemiae remitlunlnr, non quia semper el omni-
bus remittaiilur, scd (]uia ut plurimum el ordina-
rie remillunlur. Siint autem duae caussae cur or-
dinarie iiicurabile sit peccalum in Spiritum san-
clum. Una, (luia direcle rcsislit el repudiat gra-
liam Dei: quemadmodum si aegrolus unico mcdi-
camento curari posset, et illud admillere non vel-
lel, reclc dicerelur morbus ejus incurabilis. Alle-
ra, quia cum sit peccalum ex malilia, non cx igno-
ranlia vel infirmiialc, nihil in se habet, unde vel
modicum exciisari possit. ac proinde nihil miseri-
cordiae merelur: hinc enim .\posloIus 1. Timolh.
i. MisericoriHam. inqiiil. consequutus sum, quia
ignorans feci, in incrednlilatc.
Ac ne mirum videalur, si peccaliim irremissibi-
le, dicarnus irreinisibile ordinarie , sed nnn ahso-
lute; considcrenlur alia similia loca. Matlhaei 19.
Dominus ait, facilius essc, ul camelus intrel pcr
loramen acus,(piairi ul divcs ingredialiir in regniim
coelorum. Ouo loco videlur plario divilibiis adiliim
ad salulem inlerclusissc: ut lamen in eodem loco
subjuugit. Qni)d iinpn>>sibUe esl apud liomines ,
apnd Ijeumpnssibile est. Et Ilier. 13. dicil Donii-
nus: Si mulare jwtesl xXelliiops pelliim suam el
pardus varietates suas: elvos poterilis benefacerc
cumdidiceritis male. El lamen in toto eo libro
horlalur eos Deus ul revertaulur, el veniara polli-
cetur.
Ad Secundurn locum ex cpist. ad Hebraeos cap.
G. posscl Primo eodem modo responderi, impos-
sibile esse ul qui semel sunl illuminati,et volunla-
rie poslea peccent, ad Poenilenliain renovenlur ;
non absolule, sed ut in plurimum. Sed melior so-
liitio est, quod Aposlolus hic solum loquatur dc
Poenilenlia, quae Baplisinum praecedit: sic enim
exponunt Chrysoslo.".ius, Ambrosius et alii Palres.
Et ipse Apostolus hoc iiisinuat illis verbis: Qui se-
7?ieisimH!iammfltt,idesl.baplizali:Nam apud vete-
res,illuminari csl baplizari:El \l\\s:Iterum rcnova-
?'i,renovalur enim proprie in Baptismo.El illis: lie-
rum crucifigcntes Filium Dei. Nam cum bapliza-
rnur,conformainur simiIiludinimorlisDomini,utdi-
cilur adRom.G.et sicut Chrislus tanlum semel cru-
cifixus cst, ita et nos tanlum semel baplizaiiiur,
el qui vellet iterum b'iplizari,itcrum sibi Chrislum
crucifigeret.
Ad Tertium ex cap. 10. ad Hebr.dico cum Chry-
soslomo, Ambrosio el aliis: cum Apostolus dicil ,
non relinqui hostiam pro peccalo, seusuin esse ,
non esse expcclandum aliuin Chrislum, qui pro
nobis morialur, vel ut ille. qui semel morluus esl,
iterum venial morilurus: et consequenter non esse
secunilum Baptismum expeclandum. Eadem euiin
esl senlentia liuius loci et suporioris.
Ad Quarlum ex epistola Joannis. Augustinus dc
correplionc et gralia cap. 12. el Grcgorius lib, G.
Moralium cap. 31. sive ullimo, dicuut , peccatum
ad morlem, esse peccaluin in quo homo perseve-
rat usquc ad morlem. Sed tunc non dixissel: Si
quis scit fratrem peccare, sed; Si quis scit pec-
casse non ad morlcm: non enim cognosci posset
peccalum ad morlem, nisi posl inorlem ejus , qui
illud commisit. Ambrosius lib. 1. de Poenitenlia
cap. 9. dicil, Joannem noii dixisse ul nemo oret
pro iis, qui peccant peccala ad mortem, idest,gra-
vissima peccala: sed solum ul non orenl homines
vulgares el imperfecli, ad quos epistolam illam
scribehal: gravissima enini peccala, pcrfcclis ora-
toribus indigent. Hicroiiymus lib.2. in Jovinianuni
uUra mediuin, versus finein, Iraclans liunc locum,
dicit niliil hic significari aliud, nisi pro pcccato ad
mortcm difliculler oraliouem cxaudiri. El hic vide-
liir vcrissimus esse Iiiijus loci sensus: nain imme-
diate anlea dixerat Joanncs: Sciniiis quoniam au-
dil nos. quid<iuidpeAiorimus ah eo. Mcirco ne
pularemus hoc Iiaberc locum eliain iii pelilionibus
quihuslihcl, quas pro aliis olTerimus : subdit: Qui
scit fralrem suumpeccarcnnn ad nwrtem.polal,
el datii.lnr ei. elc. idesl , cum fiilucia pclat, nam
impclrabil. Si vero peccalum esl ad morlem.idest,
gravissimtim ex gcnere illorum , quae ordmaric
non remillimliir.scd puniuulur aclcriia morle:^'^??.
dico, ul ro(/et quis. idcsl. non prohibco quidem
orare, sed non aiideo poHiccri, quod facile impc-
Irabilis, idcn noii dico ul roget quis, niminim cuin
(i(i6
DK i>()i-:mti:mi\
illii forlii liducia iinpolniiuli; sacpe oniiii Ueus in
l.ili not,'olio prccos saiuioiiiiii non audil.jn.vUi ilhul
llioiviii. 7. yoU onuc pro /<opi</o /luc. i/iaa non
cxaudiam lc.
C.VPUT WIl.