Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 6: That Prayer, Fasting and Alms Are Satisfactory Works; and That the Justified Can Truly Satisfy God
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 fourth question follows: what are those works by which we ought to make satisfaction for expiating the guilt of punishment. And indeed Philip Melanchthon, both in the Augsburg Confession, article on confession, among those which are on abuses, and in the Apology, article on penance, and in the Common Places, under the title on Satisfaction, absolutely condemns those works in which Catholics place Satisfaction, and says that they are ceremonies, useless things, not commanded by God, human traditions, and so on. But Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, page 1094, admits that the works which are called satisfactory by Catholics, as prayer, fasting, alms, in general, and as they pertain to newness of life, are commanded by God; yet a fixed measure of alms, fixed days of fasts, fixed prayers for expiating sins, whether undertaken of one’s own accord or imposed by priests, he contends to be human traditions and works of election, which are of no price or value with God. By us, then, two things are to be proved. First, that satisfactory works in general are not ceremonies or useless things, but most useful things, of which there are extant in the divine letters examples, promises and precepts. Then, that these same works in particular, so far as they are not commanded by God but undertaken of one’s own accord for expiating sins, are most pleasing to God, and confirmed by the examples and promises of the Scriptures.
As to the first, then, it must be known that satisfactory works, by the common opinion of the theologians, and by the Council of Trent, session 14, canon 13, are prayer, fasting and alms, and besides all those things which are brought back to these three as to certain chief heads. But why these three are chiefly laid down by the theologians there are two causes. One is that we ought to make satisfaction through those goods which are ours, so far as it can be done. Now we have three kinds of goods: of the soul, which we give to God through prayer; of the body, which we give to God through fasting; external, which we give to God through alms. The other reason is that all vices are brought back to those three which Saint John set down in his epistle, chapter 2: the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life. Fasting represses the concupiscence of the flesh, alms the concupiscence of the eyes, that is, avarice, prayer the pride of life. And there are brought back to fasting all those things which afflict the body and oppose the concupiscence of the flesh, as hair shirts, ashes, scourgings; to alms, those which oppose avarice, or at least turn to the advantage of the neighbour, as all the works of mercy; to prayer, those which are properly rendered to God, as praises, thanksgivings, acts of contrition and confession. Wherefore rightly the theologians teach that through the act of contrition, as it is a penal work, something of the temporal punishment for which satisfaction was to be made is always remitted, and that sometimes the grief of contrition can be so vehement that the whole punishment is remitted. Which Philip also acknowledges that our men teach, in the Apology of the Confession, in the article on confession and satisfaction, and yet dares to lie that we place satisfaction in ceremonies and useless things. These things being so laid down, it will be easy to prove by the testimonies of the Scriptures those things in which we place satisfaction. For of prayer God speaks in Psalm 49: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee,” and so on; where we see at once a precept and a promise. We have the example of David, who, so many psalms being composed, bewailed his sins before God; likewise of Manasses, of whom we read thus, 2 Chronicles 33: “And after that he was in distress he prayed to the Lord his God, and did penance exceedingly before the God of his fathers; and he entreated him and besought him earnestly; and he heard his prayer, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom.” Of fasting we have the example of David, to pass over the rest, 2 Kings 12; likewise a precept and promise, Joel 2. Of alms there is extant a notable example, Tobias 1; a precept and promise, Luke 11: “Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you.” Again these three are commended by the angel, Tobias 12: “Prayer is good with fasting and alms.” And the Lord explains the rules of the same three works, Matthew 6. Of ashes and sackcloth, which are reduced to fasting, there are extant examples in the divine letters, as of the Ninevites, Jonah 3, of David and the elders of Israel, 1 Chronicles 21. The same is commanded, Jeremiah 4, Joel 1, and elsewhere. The same the Lord himself confirms, Matthew 11. Lastly Jerome, in the commentary on chapter 3 of Jonah: “Sackcloth,” he says, “and fasting are the arms of penance.” Of scourging and striking oneself, which kind of penance the adversaries condemn beyond the rest, we have the example of the apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9: “I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection.” In which place the Greek word hypopiazo (as Theophylact notes) signifies to beat even to bruising. And although the Apostle draws a likeness from those who fight in the stadium, and wishes to say that he so ill-treats and subjects his body as athletes do when in the stadium they beat their adversary with fists and gauntlets even to bruising, yet it is altogether probable that Paul also properly afflicted his body with blows; both because the Greek word signifies that, and because this kind of punishment was in use also among the ancients. For in Luke 18 the penitent publican struck his breast; and Saint Jerome, after he had said in the letter to Eustochium on the keeping of virginity, “My deformed limbs shuddered in sackcloth,” and, “I dashed my bones, scarcely holding together, on the bare ground,” and, “I subdued the rebellious flesh by weeks of hunger,” adds: “I remember that, crying out, I often joined day to night, and did not cease from beating my breast until at the Lord’s rebuke tranquillity returned.”
Now that these same works, so far as they are not commanded by God as to a fixed manner in particular, and thereby can be called undue, are pleasing to God, and holy and useful, has been demonstrated by us in book 2 On Monks, where we disputed of the evangelical counsels and works of supererogation. And besides others, we have a notable testimony in the book of Numbers, chapter 30, where God approves, and orders to be paid to himself, vows made of one’s own accord of fasts or of any other affliction of the body. And God had nowhere commanded, not only in kind certain vows, but not even in general any vows; and yet that vows made of one’s own accord are pleasing to God is clear, both from this, that he orders them to be paid to himself, and from that exhortation of the prophet, “Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God,” Psalm 75. It is false, therefore, what the adversaries everywhere write, that undue works, or those not commanded by God, by no means please God. Notable also is the example of Saint John the Baptist, whose garment was of camel’s hair, whose food locusts, whose bed the ground, whose house the desert, Matthew 3, Luke 3 and Mark 1. Nor will the adversaries be able to show in the Scriptures where God commanded so great an asperity of life; so that we are altogether compelled to confess that labours of that kind were undertaken of his own accord, and pertained to works of supererogation. Nor can it be said that repentance and newness of life demanded those labours; for neither was Saint John ever estranged from God, so that he needed conversion and repentance and newness of life; nor does conversion and newness of life, especially in the opinion of the adversaries, require so great a severity. John, therefore, because he came to preach Penance, that he might preach it not only by word but also by example, “chose,” as Chrysostom writes, homily 10 on Matthew, “a garment and food, and the rest of his life, accommodated to compunction and penance.” And that a life of that kind pleased God, Christ himself is witness, who wonderfully praised John, Matthew 11 and Luke 7. Hither also pertains the example of that Anna, who, as Luke writes, chapter 2, “departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day.” For not to depart from the temple, and perpetually to fast and pray, was nowhere commanded in the law of the Lord; and yet that these undue works, and of supererogation, were a worship pleasing to God is gathered clearly enough from the words of the Gospel. For the evangelist would not have set among the praises of that woman those continual fasts and prayers and the dwelling in the temple, nor would he have said that she served God by fastings and prayers night and day, unless he had believed those works to be the worship of God. I omit very many other things, which are both obvious of themselves and noted by us elsewhere. Further, the ancient Fathers most openly praise those afflictions of the flesh not commanded in particular but undertaken of one’s own accord, and say that they pertain to the worship of God. Tertullian, in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, writes that late and dry meals, and the rest of the affliction of the body, are sacrifices pleasing to God. Gregory Nazianzen, in the letter to Hellenius, writing of certain holy men who either never saw men, or passed whole twenty days without food, or stood a whole year in prayer, which works certainly are not commanded by God: “Such,” he says, “is the portion of Christ, such the fruit of the passions of Christ, which he himself bears from earth to the Father; the pillar, I say, of the Christian religion, the ornament of the people, the foundation of the world, contending almost with the heavenly beauties in elegance.” Augustine, homily 20 in the book of fifty homilies, calls the giving of alms a sacrifice. The same, or whoever was the author, in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, chapter 68: “To believe that no merit accrues to those abstaining from wine or flesh for love of chastising the body is not of a Christian, but of Jovinian.” But surely to abstain from flesh and wine is not commanded by God. Leo, sermon 2 on the fast of the tenth month: “For the completed gathering of all the fruits most worthily bestowed,” he says, “a libation of continence is offered to God the giver.” In which place the holy pontiff calls that fast a sacrifice, and thereby the worship of God, which it is certain was not imposed on Christians by God. Lastly, the books of the Fathers are full of testimonies of that kind. Finally, reason also is added. For if works please God which he himself has commanded neither in general nor in kind, provided they are done with the due circumstances, as we showed a little before of vows, how much more certain will it be that those please God which he himself has commanded at least in general, such as are prayer, fasting and alms, and those which are brought back to these? The arguments of Philip were solved in the preceding chapter.
Chapter VII. That a justified man can truly make satisfaction to God for the guilt of temporal punishment
The last question remains: whether the works which are done for redeeming the temporal punishment, whose guilt we have shown often to remain after the guilt is forgiven, can be called truly satisfactory. For the adversaries, even if they are compelled to admit (as we have already disputed) that sometimes the guilt of temporal punishment remains after the guilt is remitted, and that by punishments undertaken of one’s own accord the hand of God is forestalled and the divine scourges averted, and lastly that fasting, prayer and alms are laborious works and pleasing to God, yet can in no way be brought to confess that through these works satisfaction is made to God, or the punishments due compensated; they scarcely even bear the very name of Satisfaction. Luther, in the assertion of article 5: “I vehemently hate,” he says, “and would wish taken away, this word Satisfaction, which is not only not found in the Scriptures, but also has a dangerous sense, as if anyone could make satisfaction to God for any sin, whereas he freely forgives all.” Philip, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article on confession and Satisfaction: “But yet,” he says, “the adversaries confess that satisfactions do not profit for the remission of guilt; but they feign that satisfactions profit for redeeming punishments, whether of purgatory or others.” And below: “This whole matter is fictitious, lately invented, without the authority of Scripture and of the ancient ecclesiastical writers.” And below: “The Scholastics saw that there were Satisfactions in the Church, but did not notice that those spectacles had been instituted both for the sake of example and for proving those who asked to be received by the Church. In sum, they did not see that it was a discipline, and a thing wholly political; therefore they superstitiously feigned that they avail not for discipline before the Church, but for appeasing God.” John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 39, speaking of the Satisfactions which are read of among the ancients: “They called,” he says, “for the most part Satisfaction, not a compensation which should be rendered to God, but a public testification by which those who had been punished with excommunication, when they wished to be received into communion, made the Church more certain of their penance; for certain fasts and other things were imposed on those penitents, by which they might approve that they were truly and from the heart weary of their former life, or rather might blot out the memory of former things; and so they were said to make satisfaction not to God but to the Church.” So he, who by these words sufficiently shows that he does not admit a Satisfaction by which satisfaction is made to God; and in the preceding he had explained that he admits in no way not only Satisfaction as to guilt, but not even as to punishment; whose arguments we shall dissolve a little below. Martin Chemnitz also, in the place often noted, and especially page 1087, reprehends this especially in the Council of Trent, that it exacts satisfaction in the reconciliation which is made after Baptism: “So,” he says, “the council explains its opinion: those who offended before Baptism it says are received into grace by God without their own satisfactions, on account of the merit and satisfaction of Christ; but to those who have lapsed after Baptism it says the divine clemency does not forgive sins without some satisfaction of their own, which they pay for their sins. Let the reader note this well,” and so on. We, therefore, following the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 14, and session 14, canon 13, and the opinion of the whole Church, shall set about to prove that through those penal works of which we have hitherto spoken satisfaction is truly and properly made to the Lord for the guilt of punishment which after the guilt is forgiven remains to be expiated. Yet we think this should first be premised, which we also touched at the beginning of this book: that we in this place speak of that Satisfaction which (as our men speak) indeed expiates temporal punishment from condignity, yet not from the rigour of justice. For Satisfaction from the rigour of justice requires two things: that satisfaction be made from one’s own, and to equality, namely with no grace of him to whom the Satisfaction is due going before or intervening. But we neither have anything which is not God’s, nor can we by any kind of honour equal the injury which we have done to God; since the measure of the injury is estimated from the dignity of God, which is infinite, while the measure of the honour which we bestow on him is estimated from our dignity, which is finite and very slight. Nevertheless, the grace of God coming to us, and that manifold, we truly can in some manner from our own, and to equality, and thereby justly and from condignity, make satisfaction. For first there comes the grace of justification, through which we are made sons of God, members of Christ, dwellings of the Holy Spirit; and by this reasoning our works, as they proceed from the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us, have a certain infinity, and thereby also a certain equality with the injury with which by sinning we had affected God. There comes again another grace, in that God, who could rightly claim for himself all that is ours, does not command all that we can do, but only certain works; but very many others he does not command, but counsels, and exhorts to do them, as we have shown copiously in book 2 On Monks. From which kindness of God it follows that we have works of our own and undue, by which we may make satisfaction for the injury; although such is the kindness of God that he suffers even what are his gifts to be our merits, and willingly admits that what we have received from his hand is given to him. There comes besides another grace. For God, when he receives us again into his friendship through reconciliation, takes away eternity from the punishment of which we were debtors, and from eternal makes it temporal. So then we understand that through our works satisfaction is made to the Lord, not from the rigour of justice, but by his grace, and that manifold, going before and accompanying, and giving us this, that we have whence from our own and to equality we may be able to make satisfaction for temporal punishment. This explanation premised, the truth is to be proved first by the testimonies of the Scriptures, then by the tradition of the ancient Church.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI.
Opera saiisfacloria esse, orationem, jejunium
el eleemosynam.
Quarla sequitur quaestio,Quaenam sint illa ope-
ra, quibus pro reatu poenae expiando, satisfacere
debcmus. El quidetn Pliilippus JVlelanchthon cum
in confessione auguslana, art. de confessione, in-
tcr cos qui sunt (fe abusibus, el in apologia arl.de
poenilentia, lura in locis, litul. dc Satisfactione ,
absolule d.imnal ea opera, in quibus calholici Sa-
tisfaclionem conslituunt, ac dicit esse caeremo-
nias, res inulilcs, non mandatas divinitus , tradi-
tiones humanas elc.
Marlinus aulcm Rcranilius in 2. par. examin.
pagin. lOOi. admitlit, opera quae satisfacloria di-
cunlur a catholicis, ut orationcm , jejunium, elee-
mosynam, in gencre, et ul ad vilae novitatem per-
tinont, mandata essc divinitus:tamen ccrtam men-
suram eleemosynae. certos dies jejuniorum, cer-
las precesad expianda peccata, vel sponle susce-
pta, vcl a sacerdolibus indicta; contcndit esse Ira-
ditiones humanas, el opcra electilia , quae nuliius
sinl apud Dcum prclii, aut valoris.
I
LIBEIl QLAiniJS
■321
Nobis igilur diio probanda sunl. Primum, opera
salisfacloria in genere, non esse caeremonias, aut
res inuliles, scd res ulilissimas, quarura in divinis
lileris extent exerapia, promissiones et praecepta.
Deinde haec ipsa opera in parliculari, qualenus a
Deo non imperanlur,sed sponle ad peccala explnn-
<ia suscipiunlur, gralissima csse Deo, el exemplis
Scriplurarum ac promissionibus conQrmari,
Quod igilur ad Pritnum allinet , sciendum esl ,
Opera salisfacloria, cx communi Iheologorum sen-
lenlia, et ex concilio tridentino, sess. 14. can. 13.
esse oralionem,jejunium el eleemosynam,ac prae-
lerea illa omnia, quae ad haec tria , tamquara ad
quaedam praecipua capila revocanlur.
Cur aulem haec tria praecipue a llieologis sta-
luantur, duae sunt caussae. Una est , quod debea-
raus salisfacere per ea bona, quae nostra sunt,
quoad ejus Geri potest. llabemus aulem tria gene-
ra bonorum animi,quae Deo damus per oralionem;
corporis, quae Deo damus per jejuniura; externa,
quae Dco damus per elecniosynam. Altera ralio
est. quod omnia vitia revocanlur ad illa tria, quae
s. Joannes posuit in epist. cap. 2.concupiscenliam
carnis, concupiscentiam oculorum , et superbiam
vilae.Jcjunium comprimil concupiscenliam carnis,
cleemosyna concupiscentiam oculorum, idest,ava-
ritiam, oralio superbiam vilae.
Revocanlur uulem ad jejunium ea omnia quae
corpus aflligunt et concupiscentine carnis repu-
gnant, ul cilicia, cineres flagellationes: revocan-
tur ad eleemosynam, quae repugnant avaritiae,aut
cerlc in proximi utilitalera ccdunt, ulopera orania
misericordiae: revocantur ad oralionem, quae Deo
proprie exhibentur, ulopera omnia misericordiae:
rcvocantur ad oralionem, quae Dco proprie exlii-
bentur, ut laudes, graliarura acliones, conlrilionis
et confessionis actus.
Quocirca recle theologi docent, per actura con-
tritionis, ut est opus poenale, scmperaliquid poe-
iiae teraporalis, pro qua satisfaciendura eral, re-
milti, el aliquando tam veheraentem esse posse
dolorem conlrilionis , ut tota poena reraillatur.
(Juod etiam a noslris docere , agnoscit Philippus
in apolog. confess. in articulo de confess. el sa-
lisfaclione, el tamen mentiri audet , nos satisfa-
rtionem in caercmoniis , el rebus inulilibus con-
slituere.
His ila constitulis, facile eril probare Scriptura-
rum teslimoniis ea, in qiiibus nos ponimus salis-
faclionem.INam de oralione loquiturDcus in psalm.
40. Iiivoca me in die tribulationis, eruam tc ctc.
nbi simul praeceplum el promissionem videmus.
Kxemplum habemus Davidis, qui tot psalmis com-
I)Osilis, pec(;ala sua coram Deo dcflevit; itein Ma-
nasse, de quo sic legimus, 2. Paralip. ,33. Qui
postquum coamjustotus esl , oravil Dominum
Deum suum, et efjit Poenitentiam valde coram
Deo Palrum suorum, depreealusque est cum, el
exnravit inlensc: et cxaudivit oralionem ejus ,
reduxilque eum Jlierusalem in rerjnum suum.Da
jfjunio liabemus ex(unplum Davidis , ut caelera
praetcrmillam , 2. Reg. 12. item praeccplnm el
promissionem: Joelis 2. de eleemosyna insignc
cxslal cxcraplum Tob.l. praeceplum el proniissio,
Lucae 11. Dale eleemosynam , el omnia munda
sunt vobis.
Kursum haec Iria commendanlur ab angelo,To-
biac 12. Uona esl oralio cumjejunio et eleemosy-
na.Et r(-Kulas eorundem Irium operurn expIicatDu-
minus, Mallh. 6. De cinere ct cilicio.quac ad jeju-
nium reducunlur,exstnnt exempla in dlvinis lilcris,
ut Ninivitarum.Jonae 3.Davidis.ac seniorum Israei,
l.Paral.2I.Idem impcratur llier.4. Joel.1. et alibi.
Idera confirraal ipsc Dominus, Matlh. 11. Deniquc
Ilieronymus in comracnl. ad S.cnp.Jonac: Saccus,
inqult, etjejunium, arma sunt poenilenliae.
De flagellatione ac percussione sui ipsius, quod
genus pocnilenllae praeier caelern dnranant adver-
sarli, liubemus exemplum aposloli Pnuli, 1. Co-
rinth. 9. Casligo corpus meum, el in servitutem
rcdigo. Quo loco verbum graecum 'j-o-id^Lo (ul
Theophylactus notal) significal, usquo ad livorem
contundere. Et quamvis Aposlolus simililudinem
ducat ab iis, qui in stadio pugnant ac dicere velit,
eo se raodo corpus suura raale acclpere, ac subji-
cere, quemadraodum alhletae, cum in sladio ad-
versarium suum pugnis ac caeslibus ad livorcm
usque coiilandunl: tamen omnino probabilc est,
Paulum etiam proprle corpus suum vcrberlbus af-
fecisse; tuin quod vox graeca id slgnificet, luin
quod hoc genus poenae eliara vcteribus fuerit usi-
tatum. Nara Lucae 18. Publlcnnus pocnilcns per-
culiebat peclus suum: et s. Ilieronyinus postquam
dixerat in epist. ad Euslochium de cuslodla virgi-
nilalis: Ilorrebanl sacco membra deformia; et:
Nuda humo vim ossa coliaerenlia collidcham.ci:
Repuynantem carnem , hebdomadarum inedia
subjugabam. Subjungil: Memini me clamantcm,
diem crebro ju7ixisse cum nocte, nec prius ape-
cloris cessasse verberibus, quam rediret Domino
increpante tranquillitas.
Jam vero haec ipsa open quatenus quoad cer-
tum modum in parliculnri, divinllus raandnta non
sunt, nc per hoc indebila dlci possunl; grata esse
Deo, etsancta atque utilia,dcmonstratum est a no-
bis in 2. lib. dc monachis, nbi de consiliis evan-
gelicis.et operibus supercrogntloiiis dispulavimus.
Ac praeter alin,insigne tcslimonium hnhemus in
lib. Niim. cap. 30. ubi Deus approbat, et sibi red-
di jnbet.vota sjionte fncla dc jejuniis, aut nlin qua-
vis corporis afllictione.Alque Dcus nusquam impe-
rnverat,non solum in specie aliqua certa vota, sed
ne in gcnere quidem ulla vota: ct tamcn vola spon-
le facta Deo grala essc.pcrspicuum cst, tura ex eo,
quod jubet sibi rcddi, lum ex illn prophelae cohor-
tatione : Yovetc ct reddite Domino Deo vestro;
psalm. 75. Falsura igiltir est quod advcrsarii pas-
sim scribunt, opera indcbila, sivc non imperata di-
vinitus, minime Deo placcre.
Insigne quoque cst cxcmplum s. Joannis liapti-
slae, cnjns veslis, pili caiiiclorum eranl : cibus ,
locnslae: leclus, bumus, domus, dcscrtum. Mallh.
3. Luc. 3. cl Warc. 1. Nequc poterunl adversnrii in
Scripturis oslcndcre, ubi Dcus Innlnin vilac nspcri-
tatera impcravoril; ut omnlito fntcri cognmur. cjus-
modi Inborcs sponte snsccptos luisse, ntque ad o-
pera supererogalionis pertinuisse.IVeque ilhid dici
potest; resipiscentiam ac vitae novitatcm eos labo-
1*2
HL POHMTluMl.V
res posluhissc. iN;im noc s. Joan. unqiuiin :i Dce ;i-
Immuis riKMMl.iil ('oiivcrsioiic c[ rosipiMOiili.i iic vi-
l.io novil;ilo iiulii,'<'rcl : iiO(]iic Cdiivorsio ;ic vil;ic
iiovilas.ox seiUonli;i piaccipue ;ulvcrsurioruin,l;m-
Uiiii scveril.iloin roi|uiril. Jo;inncs ij,MUir (ini;» Poe-
nilonli;iiii pr.iotlitMluriis vencnil: ul o;ini lum so-
luin vcrho. sod oli;iin cxiMnpIo pr;ic(lio;ircl: EUujil,
ul .scribil Chrysosloinus lioniil. 10. in .Mallli. veMom
rt victuni . (k; rcUqunin vitdm cotupunclioni
el pocuitcnliac (iccouwduliun.VA phuuissc Dco c-
jusniodi vilain.lcslis csl Clirislus ipsc.iiui Joanncm
.M.illli. II. cl Luc. 7. mirilioo laiuhivil.
liuc oliain iiorlinol .\nnac illius oxcinpliiin. (]uac
iil Luoas scribil oap. 2. !\on rcccdcbat a lcmplo,
jejuniis ac obsccrationibus scrvicns, die ac no-
rte. Nam a lodipio non riM-odcrc. ol iicrpoliio ji^ju-
narc cl or;iro. non oral in ]og:c Domini usciiiam im-
peralum: cl lamcn liacc opcra iiuicbila, clsupere-
rogalionis. fuissc cullum ])ro gralum, cx vcrbis o-
vaiijjclii salis a|>crle oolligilur. .\oqiic cniin evan-
}lolisl;i in huulibus ojus muiicris posuisscl,assidua
illa jejunia ct preces.ct in lemplo commoralionem;
neque dixissel, illam Deo scrvisse .jojuniis cl ora-
lionibus. nocle ac dic: nisi opcra il!a culUim Dci
osse crcdidissel. Oinillo alia plurima. quac el pcr
se obvia sunl, el a nobis alibi aniiolala.
Porro vetores Palros.allliolionos islas carnis non
iinpcralas in parlicuhiri, sed spoiUo assumplas, a-
perlissimc laudanl, cl ad culUim Dci perlinerc di-
cunt.
Torlullianus in libro dn rcsurrcctione carnis;se-
ras et aridas escas, el rcliquam corporis allliclio-
ncm, sacrificia esse Dco grala, scril)il. Gregorius
iiazianzcnus in cpistola ad Ilellcnium, scribens dc
(luibusdam sanctis viris, qui aul numquam bomi-
nes vidcbant, aut lotos viginti dies sinccibo trans-
iiiebnnl . aul intcgro anno in oralione slabanl:
quae ccrle opcra non sunl divinilus impcrala: Ta-
Us. inquit. esl Cliristi pars. taUspassionum Cliri'
xti fructus, quem ipsc a terra ad Patrem deferl;
rclifiionis, inquam, chrislianae columen, popuU
decus . niundi fundamentum, cum coeleslibus
vulchritudiiiibus clcfianUapropemodumccrtans.
Augustinus bomil. 20. in lib. 50. liomiliarum.clee-
Muisynanim largilioncm. s^icrificium vocal. Idem,
sive quicumque fuit auclor.in libro do dognialibus
ccclesiaslicis. cap. 08. Pro amore castigandi cor-
poris. o.b fitino.nl ibus a vino vel caTnibus, niliil
credore meriti accrescerc. non hoc Chrisliani,
sed Joviniani est. At profcclo a carnibus et vino
abstinere, non cst divinilus imppraluiii. Leo serm.
2. do jcjunio decimi monsis: Pro consummala,
inquit. percep/to/ie omnium fructuum dignissimc
largilorum, corum Deo continentiae Ubamen of-
fcrtur. Quo loco s. ponlifcx. sacrificium, ;ic per
boc, ciilluin Dci, jeiunium illud appellal.quod ccr-
tuin est non esse a Dco Clirislianis imposiium.
Deniquc, plcni sunt libri Palrum ejusmodi lcsti-
inoniis.
Poslremo, accedit etiam ralio. i\ara si Dco pla-
oent opera, quae ipse neque in genere, ncquc in
specie imperavil, modo cum dcbilis circumslanliis
fiant. ul paulo anle oslendimus dc volis: quanlo
magis cerlura eril, placere Deo, quae ipse sallcra
lu gonore impcravil, qualia sunl, oralio. lojunium
cl oloomosyna. ot quao ad isla revocanlur? Aigu-
monla Plnlippi soluta sunl (^apilc superiore.
CAPUT Yll.
Posse homincmjuslificalum vero Deo saUsfacere
2)ro reatu poenac lemporaUs.
Ullima reslal quacslio; Ulruin opera quac fiunl
ad rcdimcndam poen;im lcmporaIcm,cujus rcaluni
sacpc niancro oslciulinuis posl culpam dimissam,
Ycro siilislacloria dici possinl. Advcrsarii siquidcm
eliamsi coganlur admiltcrc (ut jam dispulavimus)
niancrc inlordum rcaluin poenae tempor;ilis posl
culi)ain rcinissam;el pocnis sponlc assumplis pr;ic-
voniri mannm Dci, cl llagclla divina averli, ac dc-
iiique jcjunium, oralioncm cl elecmosynam esse
opcra laboriosa ac Doo gr;ila: lamcn nullo modo
;idduci possunl. ul faleanlur, pcr hacc opcra salis-
iieri Dco. aul poenns debitas compensari;vixeliani
iiomen ipsuni Salisfaclionis feriint.
Lutbcrus in asserl. arl. ;>. Xehomenler, inquil,
odi, el sublatum veUem liec vocabuUtm. Salisfa-
ctio, quod non modo in Scripluris non inveni-
tur, sed et periculosum habel sensam, quasiDeo
quisquam possil pro lUlo pcccato saUsfaccrc,cum
gratis iUe ignoscal omnia.
Pbilippusin apologia confcssionis auguslanaear-
licul. dc Confessione el Salisfaclione: Sed tamen,
inqiiil. falenlur adversarii, quod satisfactio7ies
non prosint ad remissionem culpae: verum fln-
gunl saHsfactiones prodesse ad redimendas poe-
nas, seu purgatorii, seu aUas. El infra: Haec lo-
ta res est commenlilia. recens conficta, sine au-
etoritate Scriplurae, et velerum scriplorum ec-
clesiaslicorum. V;l \nkii: Scholastici videru7it in
Ecclesia essc Salisfactiones, sed non animadver-
tcbant, iUa spectacida inslituta esse, tum exem-
pU caussa. tum ad probandos hos qui petebant
recipi ab Ecclesia. In summa, non viderunt esse
di^cipUnam, et rcm prorsus poUticam: ideo su-
perstiliose flnxerunt. eas non ad discipUnam co-
ram Ecclesia. sed ad placandum Deum valere.
Joanncs Calvinus lib. 3. Inslit. cap. 4. § ."^O. lo-
quens, de Salisfactionibus, quac legunlurapud ve-
leres: Vocarunt. inquit, lU phirimmn Salisfaelio-
nem: non compcnsationcm.quae Deo redderctur,
sed pubUca lesUficationem. qua qui excommu-
nicatione mulclati fuerant, cum i?i communio-
nem recipi veUenl, Ecclesiam rcddebat de sua
poenitenlia cerliorem: indicebantur cnim iUis
poenitenUbus certa jojunia et aUa, ciuibus se
prioris vitae vere, et ex animo pertaesos esse ap-
probarent, vcl potius priorum memoriam obUte-
rarenl: atque ita dicebantur, non Deo.sed Eccle-
siae satisfacere. Haec ille. qui bis verbis salis o-
slendil, se non admiltere Satlsfaclionem qua Deo
saUsfiat; et in superioribus explicaverat.se non so-
lum Satisfaclionem quoad culpam,sed neque eliam
L11U'U QUARTIS
quoail pocnnm. ullo moJo nflmillcrc: cujus argu-
iiicnla paulo infra dissoivcmus.
Marlinus eliam Rcmnilius loco saepius nolalo.ac
praecipue pag. 1087. k\ praccipuc in Iridenlino
concilio repreliendit. quod exigat salisfaciionem
in reconciiialione, quae fil post Baplismum: Ita.
jnquit. conciliuin sententiam suani cxplicat: Eos
qnianle ijaplismuin deliquerunt, dicit in qra-
tiam a Deo recipi sine projjriis satisfaclionihiis.
propter vieritum el salisfactionem Clirit^ti: qui
vero post Baplismvm lapsi sunt.Ulis ait divina,m
v.lemenliam non dimillere peccata absque ulla
'propriaipsorum sntisfactione. quam pro pecca-
lis ipsi exohant. lloc lector bene notet etc.
Nos igilur concilium tridenlinum sess. G. cap.
14. et scss. 14. ranon. 13. et Ecclcsiae tolius sen-
lontiam sequenles.probare aggrediemur.per opera
illa pocnalia,de quiljus haclenus loquuli sumus,ve-
rc ac proprie Domino salisfieri jiro realu poenae,
qui posl culpam dimissam rcmanel expiandus.
Illud lamen aniea praemittendum pulamus,quod
ol inilio libri hujus alligimus. nos hoc loco dc Sa-
lisractione illa verba lacere.^iuae (ul noslri lo(iuun-
tnr) ex coudigno quidem poenam temporalem ex-
piet, non lamen ex rigore jusliliae. Satisfaclio e-
bis donanlc, ut habeamus unde ex propriis, et ad
aequaliialcm pro pocna leraporali satisfacere va-
leamus,
Ilac cxplicalione pracmissa. probanda est veri-
las Primum lcslimoniis Scriplurarum. Dcindc. Ira-
ditione veleris Ecclesiac.