Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 2: That Often, the Guilt Being Remitted, the Debt of Punishment Remains; and That It Can Be Redeemed by Good Works
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book IV, 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).
The first controversy, then, is whether, the guilt being remitted, there sometimes remains a guilt of temporal punishment. The adversaries partly agree among themselves, partly differ. For they agree about the guilt of punishment of the other life, that no guilt of that kind remains, and for that cause all with common consent deny purgatory and suffrages and indulgences for the dead; but they differ about the punishments of this life. For Luther, at the beginning of his new doctrine, denied that any punishment is exacted by God after the guilt, as can be learned from the sermon on indulgences which he delivered in the year 1518, and from the asterisks which he opposed to the obelisks of Eck, at the beginning of the second asterisk. But afterwards the same Luther admitted a guilt of temporal punishment in this life after the guilt is remitted, as is plain from the assertion of his articles, article 5. Further, the former opinion of Luther John Calvin followed, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, sections 31 and 32, where he teaches that God demands no punishments from the just in vengeance of past sin, but only chastises them paternally for their progress and amendment for the future. The latter opinion many of Luther’s disciples have followed, and especially Philip in the Common Places last published, under the title on Satisfaction, and Chemnitz in part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 1074. But Catholics with the highest consent teach that after the guilt is remitted there often remains a guilt of temporal punishment, as is settled from the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 14, and session 14, chapter 12; and they understand temporal punishment both in the other life and also in the present; but the punishment of the other life is properly due to all sins, and from condignity; whereas the punishment of this life is accustomed to be inflicted by God on certain sins only from congruity (so to speak). And since of the punishment of the future life we have said enough in the first book On Purgatory, now we shall speak briefly of the punishment of this life.
Of the temporal punishment of this life, then, there are extant in the divine letters various testimonies, of which those are to be sifted in the first place which Calvin adduced against himself. The first testimony, then, is 2 Kings 12, where David, after pardon obtained for adultery and murder, was punished with the death of his son. The second is 2 Kings, chapter 24, where the same David does penance for the numbering of the people, and is received into favour by God; and yet after the guilt is remitted the choice is given him to choose as the punishment of the sin war, famine or pestilence. To these two places Calvin answers, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, sections 31 and 35, that those punishments were not imposed on David by God in vengeance of past sin, but as an admonition to beware for the rest; and that scourges of that kind are paternal corrections, not the vengeances of a judge; and in this matter he cites Chrysostom in the homily On Penance and Confession, who says thus: “For this reason he imposes punishment on us, not taking vengeance for sins, but correcting us for the future.” But Calvin strives in vain. For first, in 2 Kings 12, Scripture itself, relating the cause of the death of David’s son, does not say, “That thou mayest beware for the future,” but, “Because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee shall surely die.” Where we see the punishment inflicted on David referred to the past rather than to the future; which Calvin expressly denied when he said, in the place cited, section 35: “Sons are beaten with rods, not that they may pay the penalty of their offences, but that they may thence advance to repentance; therefore we understand that they regard the future rather than the past time.” Then, no one can better understand for what cause God enjoined that punishment on David than David himself. But David understood that it had been enjoined on him on account of past sin, not for guarding against future sins; which the tears, the fasting, the lying on the ground and the rest witness, by which he tried to avert the death of his son. For the holy man would not have prayed against a punishment useful to him for guarding against future sins, and inflicted for that end alone; but because he understood that punishment was to be paid by him for past sin, he desired to make satisfaction to God by another way. Besides, Saint Gregory, book 9 of the Morals, chapter 27, writes in express words that David was punished for past sin, although remitted as to guilt, because the Lord does not leave an offence without vengeance.
Besides these there are many other testimonies of Scripture which indicate that death itself is often inflicted as the punishment of sin, even after the guilt is remitted; but it would be ridiculous to say that men are punished with death that they may afterwards live more cautiously; therefore to those testimonies Calvin’s answer can in no way be applied. The first testimony is Genesis 2: “In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” And Romans 5: “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” Nor do the adversaries deny that death is the punishment of original sin; but how many die to whom original sin has been remitted? But if perhaps Calvin should say that death is sometimes an exercise of virtue, as Saint Augustine rightly teaches, book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 34, which place Calvin adduces, what shall we say of little children who suddenly die after Baptism? For without doubt original sin has been forgiven them through Baptism, nor are they of an age to be able to exercise virtues; and yet in punishment of sin they are snatched away before the lawful time; and not only death, but also the diseases and pains by which the same little ones are not rarely tormented, are punishments of original sin, and in no way profit them for guarding against future sins. Then, even if for some death can sometimes be matter of virtue, yet it does not therefore cease to be the punishment of sin; of which the sign is that not some only, but all altogether, die, even if some are just and are able to exercise no virtue in death, as those who are snatched away by a sudden death. Wherefore the same Augustine, book 13 of the City of God, chapter 6, says that death is at once the punishment of sin and an exercise of virtue: “Since,” he says, “from the propagation of the first man perpetuated, death is without doubt the punishment of him who is born, yet if it is paid for piety and justice, it becomes the glory of him who is born again; and though death is the retribution of sin, sometimes it obtains that nothing be paid to sin.” The second testimony is Exodus 32, where without distinction many thousands of men were slain on account of the sin of the calf adored; and yet it is not credible that all those died in sin, since the Lord witnessed that at the prayers of Moses he had forgiven that sin. The third is Numbers 14, where the whole people murmured, and then at the intercession of Moses God was reconciled to Israel; and yet in punishment of that crime all the Hebrews altogether who had been numbered died in the desert, except Caleb and Joshua, who had not murmured. And besides that (as we said) the punishment of death is not inflicted for amendment in the future, God himself witnesses in that place that he exacts that punishment of the people in vengeance of the crime: “You shall know,” he says, “my revenge.” The fourth is Numbers 20, where Moses and Aaron, because they did not glorify God at the rock, are condemned to this punishment, that they should die in the desert; and of Aaron in the same chapter Scripture speaks: “Let Aaron go to his people; for he shall not go into the land which I have given the children of Israel, because he was incredulous to my words at the waters of contradiction.” And straightway his death is described. But of Moses we read thus, Deuteronomy 32: “Go up into this mountain Abarim, to Mount Nebo, and die in the mountain; and when thou art gone up into it thou shalt be joined to thy people, as Aaron thy brother died and was joined to his people; because you trespassed against me,” and so on. But there is no one who denies that Moses and Aaron after that sin returned into the grace of God; therefore the punishment to be paid remained after the guilt was remitted. The fifth is 1 Corinthians 11, where the Apostle writes that many of those who communicated unworthily in the sacrament of the body of the Lord were punished with death in punishment of sin, when he says: “Therefore are there many infirm among you, and many sleep.” And that these were reconciled to God before death the same Apostle warns when he adds: “We are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.” Nor can Calvin’s answer be accommodated to this place. Similar is what is written in 3 Kings 13 of the prophet of the Lord who for a certain sin was killed by a lion on the way; and because a little before that calamity had been foretold to him, there can be no doubt that he did Penance and obtained remission from the Lord; for in testimony of the holiness in which he had ended his life the lion stood beside the corpse, unfed, and did not dare even to touch the prophet’s ass. Lastly, Chrysostom and Augustine, whom Calvin adduces for himself, if they are rightly looked into, are manifestly against the same Calvin. For Chrysostom, in the homily On Penance and Confession cited by Calvin, writes both: that the punishment which God sometimes takes of us after the guilt is remitted is the vengeance of sins, and at the same time a remedy against future ones; which indeed is most true: “Lest,” he says, “sinning and remaining unpunished, we should be made worse, he did not remit us the punishment, but saw this manifestly, that to sins themselves it is no less harmful not to be punished; for this reason he imposes punishment.” Wherefore what follows, “Not exacting punishment for sins, but correcting for the future,” does not signify, as the words seem to sound, that the punishments which God inflicts are not punishment for sins; for that would be most openly repugnant to the preceding words, where we read that the punishment is not remitted, and that sinners do not remain unpunished; but it signifies that God in punishments intends our advantage more than the vengeance of sin, and therefore avenges sins because that is useful to us, as we read in Osee 6: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” So also Saint Augustine, book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapters 33 and 34, says indeed (what Calvin noted) that the punishments with which God allows his friends to be afflicted are matter of virtue, but does not deny that they are also the vengeance of sins. And on Psalm 50, speaking more openly of this matter, he confesses that they are vengeances: “Thou hast loved truth,” he says, “that is, thou hast not left unpunished the sins even of those whom thou forgivest; so hast thou bestowed mercy beforehand as to keep truth also.” What of this, that Calvin himself also, in the same book, chapter 8, section 6, acknowledges that sins are punished by God even in sons and friends? For he speaks thus: “Add that the most clement Father has not only to forestall our weakness, but often also to correct past offences, that he may keep us in lawful obedience towards himself. Therefore as often as we are afflicted, the recollection of our past life ought at once to come into our mind; so without doubt we shall find that we have committed what was worthy of such chastisement.”
Chapter III. That the guilt of temporal punishment, which sometimes remains after friendship with God has been reformed, can be redeemed by good works
The second question follows: whether the guilt of temporal punishment, which we have demonstrated sometimes to survive after the guilt is remitted, can be redeemed by good works; or, what is the same, whether satisfaction can be made for the guilt of punishment. John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 30, teaches that the punishments of sins can be redeemed by no works; for he speaks thus of the law of the Old Testament: “How comes it that he bids offences committed be expiated by no works at all, but requires sacrifices only for expiation, unless because he wishes so to witness that there is one kind of satisfaction by which his judgement is appeased? For the sacrifices which the Israelites then immolated were not reckoned the works of men, but were valued from their truth, that is, from the one sacrifice of Christ.” And in section 36, explaining that place of Daniel, “Redeem thy sins with alms”: “He did not wish,” he says, “to signify that justice and mercy are the propitiation of God and the redemption of punishments; for far be it that there should be any other redemption, I say, than the blood of Christ.” But the Lutherans almost commonly confess that the temporal punishments of which we are guilty before God can sometimes be taken away or mitigated by other punishments undertaken of one’s own accord. Martin Luther, in the assertion of his articles, article 5, does not indeed admit the name of satisfaction, but yet concedes (which alone we seek in this place) that the hand of God can be forestalled, and by punishments undertaken of one’s own accord those punishments averted which otherwise we deserved for our crimes. Which same Philip admits in the Common Places last published, under the title on Satisfaction, and in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, chapter on confession and Satisfaction; and Chemnitz in part 2 of the Examination, page 1078.
Further, Catholics teach three things. First, that the temporal punishments of the other life, which would have to be paid in purgatory, can be redeemed by fasts, prayers, alms and other pious and laborious works of this life; of which matter we have said enough in the books On Purgatory. Secondly, that the temporal punishments of this life sometimes cannot be redeemed, but must necessarily be endured; which seems to be outside all controversy. For God sometimes so appoints some punishment that he will accept no redemption for it. Such a punishment above all is death, which no one, however just, could avert by any pious work. Such was that punishment of David, 2 Kings 12: “Because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee shall surely die.” For although David fasted, and prayed prostrate on the ground, yet he could not redeem that death of his son. Such also was that punishment of Moses, that he should not enter the land of promise, on account of the sin which he had committed at the rock of Horeb; for Moses asked God (as he himself witnesses, Deuteronomy 3) to forgive him that punishment, and was not heard. See Saint Gregory, book 9 of the Morals, chapter 30, on those words of Saint Job, “God, whose wrath no man can resist.” Thirdly, that the temporal punishments of this life can sometimes be taken away by other works; which is so evident in the Scriptures that it is a wonder it could be denied by anyone. Certainly the Ninevites for grave sins had deserved what God had threatened them, that after forty days Nineve should be overthrown; and yet the Lord, appeased by the fasts, sackcloth and prayers of the Ninevites, preserved that city, Jonah, last chapter. In 2 Chronicles 7 the Lord says: “If I shut up heaven, and there fall no rain, or if I give orders and command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; and my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land.” In Jeremiah 18 the Lord says: “I will suddenly speak against a nation, and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them.” In Daniel 4, when the prophet had expounded to the king the vision by which the temporal punishment had been signified which he deserved for his crimes, he straightway added: “Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and redeem thou thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with works of mercy to the poor.” Where Saint Daniel most openly teaches that the punishments of sins can be redeemed by pious works. Nor can that solution of Calvin be accommodated to this place, that Daniel speaks of the redemption of a debt to men, namely that Nabuchodonosor should restore what he had unjustly seized. For the chief sin of Nabuchodonosor, on account of which he had deserved that punishment which the prophet says can be averted by alms, was not the robbery of others’ goods, or any other sin against men, but pride and elation of heart. For so we read in that very chapter 4 of Daniel: “He walked in the palace of Babylon; and the king answered and said: Is not this the great Babylon, which I have built, to be the seat of the kingdom, by the strength of my power, and in the glory of my excellence? And while the word was yet in the king’s mouth, a voice came down from heaven: To thee, O king Nabuchodonosor, it is said: Thy kingdom shall pass from thee,” and so on. Besides, even if the sin of the king had been iniquity against men, yet Nabuchodonosor had not that sin only, but many others. But Daniel says that all his sins can be redeemed by alms: “Redeem thy sins,” he says, “with alms.” Which is written more clearly in Tobias 4: “Alms delivereth from all sin and from death.” Daniel therefore speaks of alms not so much as it restores to men what was taken, as it appeases God offended. To this also makes what the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 11: “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” Lastly, hither pertains that sentence of Saint Augustine on Psalm 50: “Thou hast not left unpunished the sins even of those whom thou forgivest; so hast thou bestowed mercy beforehand as to keep truth also. Thou forgivest him who confesses, thou forgivest, but him who punishes himself; so mercy and truth are kept.” And that of Saint Gregory, book 9 of the Morals, chapter 27: “Without doubt the Lord does not leave an offence without vengeance; for either the man himself, repenting, punishes this in himself, or God, avenging it with the man, strikes it.” And the other sentences of the Fathers, which we shall bring below in chapter 9.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II.
Quod saepe remissa culpa, mancat dcbilum
luendaepoenae.
Prima igitur controversia est, An rcmissa culpa,
remaneat aliquando reatus poenac lemporalis. Ad-
vcrsarii partim inter se conveniunt, parlim dissi-
dent. Conveniunl ciiim de reatu poenae allerius
vilae, nullum ejusmodi reatum remanere , eaquc
de caussa omnes communi consensu purgatoriuni
et suffragia atque indulgenlias pro defunctis ne-
gant: dissidenl autcm dc poenis hujus vitae.
um\ Qi'Ai{Ti:s
7i;
Lulhenis enim inilio suae noviie <lo(;lrinae, ne-
gabiil ullam poenani a Deo exigi posl culpam , ul
ctigriosci polesl ex concionede indulgenliis.fiuam
luibuil anno 1518. cl ex asleriscis, quos opposuit
Eckii ol)eliscis,ad inilium secundi asterisci.Deindc
liimen idem Lutherus.admisit realum poenae leni-
poralis in liac vita, posl culpam remissam, ut palct
cx asserlione arliculorum suorum arl. 5.
Porro Priorem Lulheri sententiam seqiiutus esl
Joan. Calvinus lib. 3. Inslit. cap. 4. § 31. el 32.
ubi docct Deum a juslis nulias expetere poenas in
vindictam peccali practeriti.sed eos tantum paler-
ne castigare ad profcclum.et emendalionem in po-
steruin.Senlcniiam postcriorem sequuti suntmulti
c.\ Lutheri discipulis, ac praecipue Philippus in
iocis uliimo edilis, lit. de Salisfaclione, el Remni-
tius in 2. par. exam. Irident. conc. pag. 1074.
Calholici aiilem summo consensu docent , post
remissam culpam saepe remanere realum poenae
lemporalis, ul ex concil. Irid. conslat. sess.O.cap.
14. et sess. 14. cap. 12. poenam autem tempora-
lem inteUigunl. lum in alia vita.lum etiam in prae-
senli: sed pocna allerius vilae, proprie peccalis o-
mnibus, el cx condigno debetur; poena ;iutem hu-
jiis vilae, solum ex congruo (iil sic ioquamur) cer-
lis peccalis a Deo infligi solet. El quoniam de poe-
na fulurae vitae, satis multa dixiiiius in primo li
bro de purgatorio, nunc de poena hujus vilae bre-
viler dicemus.
Igiiur de poena lemporali hujus vilae. extant in
divinis literis varia lestimonia, ex quibus ea primo
loco exculienda sunl, quac conlra sc Calviniis nd-
duxil.
Primum igitur leslimonium esl. 2.Regum 12.iibi
I);ivid posl impetralam veniam adullerii. atque ho-
niicidii, piiniUjs est morle lilii.
SiMHindum est 2. Reg. cap. 24. ubi idem David
ob numeraluni populum Poenilentiam agil . et a
Deo in graliam recipihir: et tamcn post remissam
(;iilpam,(lalur illi oplio ul cligat in poenam peccali
bellum, ramein aut pestem.
Ad haec duo loca respnndel Calvinus lib. 3. In-
slit. cap. 4. § 31. el3.j. poenas istas non fiiisse a
Deo Davidi i(ii|)osilas in vindiclam pcccali practe-
rili; sed iu adinonilioncm cavendi de caelero; es-
seipie ejusmodi fLigclla correptiones patcrnas,nou
Jiidicis ullioncs: el in hac re cilat Chrysoslon.um
in hom. de Pijenilenlia et confessione, qiii sic ail:
Proplcr lioc imponil nobis pocnam, non dc pec-
ralis sumens suppUcium, sed ad fulura nos cor-
riijens.
At rriislra nililur Calvinus. Nam in primis 2. Re-
giim 12. Scri[)lura ipsa caussam refcrcns niorlis
iiiii D;ivid,noii jiil: Ut cavcas in riilnriim: se(l:(>»/a
blasphcmare fecisli inimicos nomcn Domini, pro-
•plcr verbum, lioc. filius quinalus csl libi. morle
morieiur. Lbi vidcmus. pociuim Davidi inlliclam,
relerri ad praeterilum pfitius. (piiim iid fuliirum ;
qiiod expressc negabat Ciilviniis. cum dicerel loco
citalo § 3!). Vcrulis vcrbcranl ur filii.non ul mul-
clam dclictorum persolvanl, scdulindc ad rcsi-
pisccnliamproficianl: proinde in fulurum cas
polius.quam in practcriluui lempusrespiccrc in-
ifUicjimus.
Dcinde nemo melius polesl intelligere , qua de
caussa Deus poenam illam injunxerit Davidi:qijam
ipsemet Divid. David autem intellexit sibi injun-
clam fuisse propler peccalum pr;icteritum . non
ad cavcnda futura: id quod lestanlur lachrymac ,
jejunium, humi cubatio et caetera.quibus rriorlcm
lili avertere conabatur. Nequc enim poenam sibi
ulilem ad cavenda fulura, et ad hunc solum linem
inlliclam, deprecalus fuisset vir sanclus: sed quia
inlelligebat, iuendam sibi fuisse poenam ob pec-
caiuin praeteritum,per aliam viam Deo siitisfaccre
cupiebat.
Praeterea s. Gregorius lib. 9. 3Ioral. cap. 27.
diserlis verbis scribit, Davidem punilum fuisse ob
peccatum praelerilum, quamvis remissum quoad
culpam: quia Dominus deliclum sine ullione nori
deseril.
Adliacc multa sunt alia Scripturae teslimonia ,
quae indic;int. niortcm ipsam saepc infligi iii poe-
nam peccati, etiam post culpain rcmissam: ridicu-
lum autcm cssct dicere morle puniri homines. ut
deinceps caulius viv;int; proinile ad ca lcslimonia
nullo modo applicari potest Calvini responsio.
Primum testimonium esl Gen. 2. Quacumque
die comederis , morle moricris. Ei Rorn. ."». Per
unuin liomincm peccalum in hnnc mundnm in-
iravil, el per peccalum mors, el ila in omnes ho-
mines mors pcrlransiit, in quo omncs peccave-
runt. Neque adversarii negant, morlem csse poe-
nam peccali originalis; quam miilti ;iutcm nioriun-
tur, quibus peccalum originale remissum est?
Quod si forle Calvinus dicat, mortem esse non-
numquam cxercitationem virtulis, ut s.Augusliuus
recte docel lib. 2. de pcccalorum merilis el re-
mission. cap. 34. quem locum Calvinus adducil :
quid dicemus de parvulis, qui post Biiplismum re-
pente moriunlur? Nam sine dubio peccalum illis
originale per Baplismum dimissum csl, neque e-
jus aclalis sunt, ut virlules exercere possinl. et la-
men in poenam peccali ante lcgilimum lcmpus ra-
piuntur: ncque solum mors , sed eliam morbi et
dolores, quifcus iidem parvuli non raro torquenliir,
sunt poenae peccali originalis, neque ullo modo
eis ad cavenda fulura proficiunl.
Deinde eliamsi quibiisdam mors interdum vir-
tulis maleria esse possil, tamen non ideo desintl
esse pocnii peccali: cujus signum csl, quod non ;i-
liqui lanlum, sod omnes ouinino moriunlur.eliam-
si aliqui jusli sint,et nullarn in morte virliilem cx-
erccre valciint , ul qui repenlina morte rapiunlur.
Quocirca idcm Augustiniis lib. i:>. de Civil. Dei
cnp. 6. morlem, et peccali poenam. et exerciliiim
virtiilis simiil esse dicil: Cum, impiil. cx primi
liominis pcrpctunta propaqine. proculdubio sit
mors poena nascenUs. tamen si pro picUite.jusU-
liaque pcndalur. fil ()loriarcnasccntis:et cumsil
mors pccrali rclribulio. aUquando impctral, ut
niliil rrtribuatur pcccato.
Altcrum lestimonitini cst Exod. 32. ubi sine di-
scrimine iniillii homiiium millia inlcrf(;rl;i stint ,
propler pecc;ilum adorati viliili: ncc lamen ciedi-
bile esl, omncs illos in peccalo morluos esse ,
cum Dominus tcstalus sil,se ob Moysi prcccs poc-
cattim illud dimisisse.
1|ii
l»K POMNIir.MIA
rorliiiin csl iViiin. H. nhi ixipiihis iiniversiis
iiMinnunivil, !ic (hMiitli' ;iil .Movsis inlciccssioiKMii .
nM-oiinli:iiiis csl Dcus IsiMiMi.cl Uinicn in pociiiun
criininis illius, oniiics oninino llci)r;ici: (|ui nuino
nili ru(M'anl. inorlui sunl in (icscrlo.cxccf^lis Ciilcb
«•l Josuc, qui non innrinunivcr.inl. .\c pr;iclcr(iti;iiii
<|UOil (ul (iiMinus) pociia nunlis iion iiilli^Mtur ;ul
('inciKialionctn in ruluruin, Dihis ipsc lcshilur (mi
loro, o;Mn poiMUMii in ullioiKMii scel(Mis ;i populo
sc c\i<icrc: Eli^civlU, iiKpiil. iillioncm meam.
^>iiiirliim csl Nuin. 20. ulii .Moysiis cl .V;ii()ii .
(]ui:i noii «zlorilicavcrunl Dcuin ml pclr;Mn, c;i p<)C-
na (I iinn;iiilur, ul iiKiri;iniur in (ie.scrUi: cl ilc \:\-
roii in codcin ca[>il(^ lo(piilur S(M"iplur;i : Pcrfjul
Aaron adpojmlo!^ suos,noii enim inlrabil lcrrain
iiuaiii (lc(ti filii$ l^racl.co qaod incrcdulas fucril
ori mco adaijuas conlradiclioni^.El coniiniio (lc-
scriliilur niors cjus. Dc .Moysi; ;iiileni sic lci,niiHis
Dculcronom. 'M. Ancenda iii vionlcm islum Aba-
nni, in monlcm }'cJ)0. cl viorcrc in monle: qucni
consccndcns.jun(]cris populis luis.sicul morluus
est Aaron fratcr luus. cl apposHus populis suis :
quia })racvaricali cslis conlra mc. c.lc. Ncmo esl
:uilcm (]ni ncgcl Moyscm cl .Aiironcm post pcccn-
luin iiluil in iiraliam Dci rc(Jiissc : mansil igilur
pocna lucmhi posl culpam rcmissam.
nuinlum csl I. Cor. II. iihi Aposlolus scrihil ,
inullos corum qni imlignc commuiiic;ib;uil s;icra-
menlo corporis Doinini. in poenam peccali morlc
puuilos. cum ;iii: Idco inlcrvos mnlLi imbecilles ,
cl dormiunt mulli. Quos jiiilc morlcm rcconcili;;-
los Deo fuisse, idcm Aposlolus moncl, ciim ;wl(lii:
A Domino corripimur, nc cum lioc mundo dam-
7ic»i(tr..>(!(]uc liuic loco accomod;iri polcsl Calviiii
rcspoiisio.
.^imilc esl quod scribilur .*>. Ilc^.13. de prophe-
ta Domini, qui ob peccalum quoddam a leone oc-
cisus fuil in iliucrc: el quia paulo anlc pracdicia
illi fucral ea calnmitas, (Jubium csse non polcsl ,
quin Pocnilcnliam egerit. et remissionem a Domi-
no impclravcril; nam in teslimonium sanclitalis
cjus, in qua vilam rmicrat.sl;ib;il leo jiixt;i cadaver,
impaslus. cl ne asinum quidcm prophclac atlinge-
rc aiidebat.
Ocnique Chrysoslomus cl Auguslinns, quos pro
se C;dvinus adducit, si recle inspici;intur, eidem
Calvino manifeste repugnant. Nam Chrysostomns
in liom. dc Pocnitcnlia ct confcssionc, a Calvino
cital;i. utrum(pK} scribil: et supplicium.quod Dcus
de nobis posl culpam remissam inlcrdum sumit ,
ullionem csse peccalorum , et simul remedium
contni fulura: quod quidem vcrissimum csl: Ne
pcccantes. inquit, cl imtlli mancnles , nos effice-
remur dcteriorcA, non remisil nobis suppUcium,
sed vidit lioc manifeslc, quod peccatis ipsis non
minus damnosum sit non puniri:proptcr lioc im
ponit pocnam. Quare illud quod sequiliir; I\'on c-
xirjens supplicium de peccatis , sed ad futura
corrigcns. Non signilical ut vcrba sonaro videntur
poen;i3, quas Deus infligit. non essc supplicmm
pro peccalis: id enim repugnaret apertissimc ver-
bis supcrioribus, iibi legimus, non rcmitli suppli-
cium, el peccanles non mancre inultos: sed signi-
fical, Doum magis inlendere in pocnis utilitatcm
noslram, qnam ullioncm pccc;ili, cl idco peccala
iilcisci, (piia nobis id iilile esl, (pi(Mn;idmo(him 0-
sc;ic ('». lcgimus: Miscricordiam volo, non sacri-
ficium
Sic cliam s. Augustinus lib. 1. de pcccalorum
mcritis cl riMiiission. c;ip. :{;{. cl .'Ji. dicil quid(Mii
((piod nul;ivit (:;dvimis) pocuas, (|uibus Dcus ;iiui-
cos suos allligi sinil, csse m;itcriain virlutis, s(mI
iion ncp[ cssc cli;im ullionem peccalorum. Kl in
ps;\l. .'»(1. ;i|)crlius dc h;ic rc loipiciis, iillioncs cs-
sc conlilclur: ycnlatem, impiit, diLexisli, lioc c.s/,
impunita peccala corum etiam, quH)iis ifjnoscis,
non dimisisti, sic praeroQasti misericordiam, ut
scrvares et veritaLcm.
Quid (piod ipse cliam Calvinns in lib. eodcm c.
S.§().agnoscit puniri aDeo peccala eliainin Ijliis et
amicis? sic enim loquilur: Adde, quod non modo
infirmHaXem noslram praevcnire, sed praelcrita
etiam dclicta saepe corrigere liabel cienienLissi'
mus Pater: nt nos in legiiima crga sc obedienlia
conlincat. Proinde quoties al]ligimur,subirepro-
tinus in vienlem debet anLeacLac vitae rccorda-
tio: ita proculdubio repcriemus, nos admisisse,
quod dignum ejusmodi castigationc essel.
CAPUT III.
Picalum poenae lcmporalis, qiti inLerdnm rcma-
nel posL amiciLiam cum Deo reformaLam bonis
opcribus redimi possc.
Scquilur altera quaestio, An rcalus pocnac lcm-
por;iIis,quem interdum superessc demonstravimus
posl culpam rcmissam bonis opcribus redimi quc-
;il; sivc quod idcm esl, An pro realu poenac satis-
ficri possil.
Jo;inncs Calvinus lib. 3. Instilut. cap. 4. § 30.
doccl, poenas peccatorum nullis operibus redimi
possc: sic enim loqiiitur dc lege Testamenti vele-
ris: Qui fU ut 7iullis prorsus operibus admissa
dclicLa procurare jubeal, sed sola in expiatiO'
nem sacvificia requiraL;nisi quod ila lestari vull
unicum csse satisfacLionis genus. quo judicium
suum placatur? nam quac Lunc immolabant sa-
crificia IsraeliLae.non hominum opera censeban-
tur: sed a sua verilaLe, hoc esL, unico ChrisLi sa-
crificio extimabanlur. El § 3G. explicaiis locum
illum Danielis: Peccata tua eleemosynis redime.
A'o/i voluil, iuqiiil, significare justiliam eL mise-
ricordiam esse Dci propiLiaLionem el poenarwn
rcdemptionem: absil enim.uL alia inquam fueril
anoAuTpto';'.;, qiiam sangiiis ChrisLi.
Al LulliiM"ani fere coinmuniler fatenlur poenas
lemporalcs, quaruin apud Deuin sumus rei, possc
inlcrdum aliis poenis sponle assumptis lolli, aut
miiigari.
3IarliuusLutherus in asserlione articulorum suo-
rum art. .j. non admittit quidem nomcn salishiclio-
nis.sed lamen concedit (quod solum hoc loco quae-
rimus)possc praeveniri manum Dei,cl poenis spon-
le susceplis poenas illas averti, quas ali0(jui ob
Liisi':is QUAnTijs
717
noslra sct'lora merebamur.Quod idom admillilPhi-
lipijQS iii locis comniunibus ullimo edilis til.dosa-
lisiaclione. et in npoloj^fia confessionis auguslanne
cap. de riOnfessioue el Salisfaclione; etKemnilius
in 2. par. examiuis pag, 1078.
Porro calholici Iria docenl.Primo poenas lempo-
rales alleiius vilae. quae in piirfralorio iucndae cs-
sent, redimi posse .ieiuniis, precibus,cleemos)iiis,
aliisque piis ac lahoriosis operibus hujus vilae: de
qua re satis diximus in libris de purgatorlo.
Sccundo: Poenas hMuporales hujus vi[ae inter-
dum non posse redimi, sed necessario perpelien-
das esse:id quod extra omnem conlroversiam esse
videtur. Deus enim aliquando ila poenam aliquam
consliluil. ut nuliam pro ea redcmplionem accipc-
re velil. Taiis iu primis poena mors esl,quam uui-
lus quanluiTivis juslus. u!Io pio opere averlere po-
luil. Talis fuil poena illa Davidis, 2. Kejj. 12. Quia
blaspliemarc, fccisli inimicos Domiiii.propler vcr-
hum lioc, ('ilius qui natus est tibi, morle morie-
tur. Tamelsi eniiu David jejunaveril, el huini pro-
stralus oraverit. non lamen morlem ilJain filii sui
redimerc poluit.Talis eliain. fuit poena illa Sloysis,
ne intrarel in lerram promissionis, ob peccalum,
quofl ad pelram Oreb commiseral: rogavil cnim
Moyses (ut ipse teslatur Deul. 3.) Deum, ut poe-
nam illam sibi cotidonaret. et cxaudilus non est.
Vide s. Gregorium lib. 9. Moral. cap. 30. in illii
verba s. Job: Deus cujus irae nemo rcsistcre po-
test.
Terlio:Posse ahquando poenas lemporalcs hujus
vilae aliis operihus tolli: id quod lani cst in Scri-
pluris evidens. ul mirum sil ab ullo negari poluis-
se. Certe Ninivilae ob gravia peccala mcrueraut id,
quod Deus illis comminaius fueral.ul post quadra-
ginta dies iXinive subvcrlerclur: et tameii jcjiiniis,
saccis el prccibus Ninivilarum placaliis Dominus,
civilalem illam consprvavil. .lonae. ull.
Scciindi Paralip. 7. Dominus ail: Si clnuscro
coelum. et plavia non fluxeril, cl mandnvcro. el
praccepcro locustae, ut dcvoret terram.ct miscro
pcstilcnliam in populum mcum:convcrsus autcm
populus meus supcr quos invocatum csl nomcn
incum,deprccatus me fuerit.ct cxquincritfacicm
meam,el egerit pocnilcnliam a viis suis pcssimis:
ct c(jo cxaudiam dc coclo, el propitius cro pcc-
calis eorum, et sanabo tcrram cornm..
Ilieremiae 18. Dominus dicil: Rcpenle loquar
ndversus qcnlem, et advcrsus regnum, ut eradi-
ccm ct destruam, et dispcrdam illud. Si pocni-
tcnliam cjfcrit (jcns illa a malo suo. agam cl cfjo
pocnitcnliam super nialo, (juod co(jilavi, ut face-
rcm ci.
Dan. i.rum prophcla exposuissel regi visionem,
pcr qiiain iihli(;;ilii riieral pocna lcm[)oraIis. (|Uiun
ille ob sua scelera mercbalur: conlinuo suhjecil:
Quamohrcm. rcx consilium nicum placcat tilyi, ct
pcccata tua clccmosi/nis rcdimc. cl iniq^i.ilalcs
tiias miscricordiis jiaupcrum. Ubi apcrlissiiiio s.
Daniel docet, posso poenas peccalorum piis operi-
hus redimi.
IVcque polcsl afcommndari liuic loco solulio illa
Calvitii. quod loquiilur Daniid (hi redempiiono do-
biti ad homities, iit vidcliccl rcslilucrel .\abuclio-
liici,i,ut'ii,M. \'(il. III.
donosor quae injusle rapucral. Nampcccalum prae-
cipuum Nabuchodouosor, ob quoj poenam illam
merueral, quatu propheta eleeinosynis averti pos-
se dicil, non fuil rapiiia bonnrum alienorum, aut
idiquod aliud pccculum iri homines. sed superbiu
et cordis elatio.Sic enim legimus iii illo ipso 4.ca-
piie Daniclis: In aula liabijlonis dcamlmlabat;
rcsponditquc rcx. ct ait: Noniie liaec est Babijlon
niagna, quam cijo acdificavi in domum rcgni,
in robore fortitudinis mcae, ct in gloria decoris
mci? fAimquc scrmo adkuc cssct in ore regis,vox
dc coclo ruil: Tibi dicitur lyabucliodonosor rex,
regnum transibit a te etc.
Piiielerea eliamsi peccalum rcgis fuisset iniqui-
tas in homines: tamen non solum illud peccatutn
habuit Nabuchodonosor, sed mulla alia.Daniel au-
lem omnia peccala eleemosynis redimi posse dicit:
Peccata tua. inquit, cleemosynis rcdime. Quod
clarius scribilur Tub.4. Elcemosyua ab omnipcc-
cato et a mortc libcrat. Loiiuilur igiUir Daniel de
eleemosyua nou tam ul hominibus ablaluin resli-
tuil. quiim ul Deutn offensum placal.
IIuc eliam facit quod ait Aposlolus 1. Corinth.
1 1 . Si nosmetipsos dijudicaremus , non utique
judicaremur.
Denique. Iiiic pcrlinel senleulia illa s.Augustini
in psalm. 50.ImpU7iita pcccala corum.ctiam qui-
bus ignoscis,7ion dimisisti: sic prac.rogasli mise-
ricordiam. ut scrvares ct vcritatem.Ignoscis con-
fitcnii, ignoscis. sedseipsum, pimiciiti:sic serva-
tur miscricordid etvcritas. El illii sancli Grego-
rii lib. 9. Morai. cap. 27. Proculdubio Dominus
dclictum sinc ullione non dcscrii: aut cnim ipse
lioc homo in se poenitens punit, aul hoc Dcus
cum homiiie vindicaiis percutit. Et caeterae Pa-
Irum senienliae, quas infra cap. 9. adferemus.