Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 10: The Answers of the Heretics to the Testimonies of the Fathers
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).
Let us now see what the adversaries are accustomed to answer to the testimonies of the Fathers. Luther, in the assertion of article 5, does not concede that there are any testimonies of the ancients which speak of Satisfaction: “Wherefore,” he says, “I said truly that that arbitrary Satisfaction is found neither in the Scriptures nor in the Fathers; but that there is found an unremittable punishment imposed by God, as Psalm 88: I will visit their iniquities with a rod.” But Luther either had not read, or pretended not to have read, the monuments of the ancients; for we have already shown that in the single ages there were not wanting those who taught Satisfaction. Following Luther, Philip, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article on confession and Satisfaction, denies that testimonies of the ancients are extant on a Satisfaction by which satisfaction is made to God for sins: “This whole matter,” he says, “is fictitious, lately invented, without the authority of Scripture and of the ancient ecclesiastical writers. And not even Lombard speaks of Satisfactions in this manner. The Scholastics saw that there were Satisfactions in the Church, and did not notice that those spectacles had been instituted both for the sake of example and for proving those who asked to be received into 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.” First, I know not with what face Philip dared to deny that in Lombard testimonies are extant of that Satisfaction of which the Scholastics speak, since the Scholastics found in Lombard those things of which they themselves discourse more copiously. Certainly Lombard, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 16, after he had said much of Satisfaction, and had deduced it from Scripture and the Fathers, so concluded that whole distinction: “For doing penance it is not enough to change one’s manners for the better, and to withdraw from evil deeds, unless for those things which have been done satisfaction is made to the Lord through the grief of penance, through the groaning of humility, through the sacrifice of a contrite heart, alms cooperating.” And since Lombard borrowed these words from homily 50 of Saint Augustine, from the same words we at the same time show that not only in Lombard but also in Augustine a testimony is extant of the Satisfaction by which we make satisfaction to the Lord himself, and not to men only. Then, not only do the testimonies brought by us plainly convict the error of Philip, but Calvin, Chemnitz and Illyricus also reprove the vanity of the same Philip. For Illyricus ingenuously confesses that almost all the Fathers acknowledge a Satisfaction which appeases the Lord and redeems sins. For in Century 3, partly chapter 4, at the end, where he sets down the inclination of doctrine, partly chapter 10, where he sets down the lives of the doctors, he cites Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian. In Century 4, partly chapter 4, in the inclination of doctrine, partly chapter 10, he cites Hilary, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Lactantius, Jerome, Theophilus of Alexandria, Antony the Great. In Century 5, partly chapter 4, in the inclination of doctrine, partly chapter 10, he cites Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, Prosper, Maximus, Paulinus, Cassian, Hesychius. In the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh Centuries, in the same places, he cites Cassiodorus, Gregory, Isidore, Bede and others, all of whom he reprehends as having taught of Satisfaction those things which are now taught by Catholics. But as the ingenuousness and diligence of Illyricus is to be praised, who studiously collected the opinions of almost all the Fathers, and would not deny against manifest truth that they were contrary to the dogmas of Luther, so his blindness of mind and impudence, not to say stupidity and madness, is to be blamed, that he could persuade himself that more credit should be given to Luther alone than to all the doctors of all ages. Namely, all the Fathers, although otherwise most learned and most wise, were blind in this article, and were ignorant of the sacred letters; Luther alone saw the light, alone could rightly interpret the Scriptures. John Calvin, although he tries to answer somehow, yet confesses, what is the fact, that the Fathers stand on our side, and most foolishly judged that it is more useful to reprehend them than to follow them. Book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, section 16: “Exercises of this kind,” he says, “the ancient writers often mention when they speak of the fruits of penance; but although they by no means place the force of penance in them, yet my readers will pardon me if I say what I think. Certainly they seem to me to insist on these more than is fair; and if anyone prudently weighs it, he will (as I hope) agree with me that they exceeded the measure in two ways.” And chapter 4, section 38: “Little,” he says, “do those things move me which occur everywhere in the writings of the ancients on Satisfaction. I see indeed that some of them, I will say simply almost all whose books are extant, either lapsed in this part or spoke too harshly and severely.” And book 4, chapter 12, section 8: “In which part,” he says, “the immoderate austerity of the ancients can in no way be excused, which both wholly differed from the prescription of the Lord and was dangerous in a wonderful degree.” So he, who clearly enough betrays his arrogance and intolerable pride, when he alone does not blush wholly to despise and chastise so many lights of the Church, who at various times were illustrious not only for notable learning but also for incomparable probity, some even for miracles or martyrdom.
But let us see what, besides that contempt of the Fathers, Calvin brings for an answer. Book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, sections 38 and 39, he proposes three things by which the testimonies brought by us seem somewhat weakened. He adduces first two places of Chrysostom, and two others of Augustine, against Satisfaction. But these we shall discuss a little later in the solution of the arguments. Meanwhile everyone sees that four obscure places of two authors cannot prejudice the very many and most open testimonies of more than thirty authors which we have adduced. Then he says: “The Fathers called 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.” And a little after: “And so they were said to make satisfaction not to God but to the Church; which also has been expressed in these very words by Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 65.” But Saint Augustine in the place noted does indeed say that penitents ought to make satisfaction to the Church, but does not add that negation, “not to God.” And the same Augustine in more than one place writes in express words that satisfaction is to be made to God himself also. In the same Enchiridion, chapter 70: “By alms,” he says, “God is to be propitiated for past sins”; and chapter 71: “For daily and light sins the daily prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction”; where, although it is not expressed to whom, yet without doubt it is understood, to God; for we are not commanded for light daily sins to recite the Lord’s prayer daily in public, but it is enough if it is recited privately in the chamber, where God alone hears. The same, homily 50, chapter 15: “It is not enough to change one’s manners for the better, unless also for those things which have been done satisfaction is made to God.” What clearer? Nor less clearly do Tertullian, Cyprian and the rest whom we produced in the preceding chapter hand down the same. The same Saint Augustine also, on Psalm 50, as we noted above, requires Satisfaction that the sin may not remain unpunished, so that in that manner not only the mercy of God may shine in the remission, but truth and justice also may have place; whither also pertains that many of the ancients whom we cited above say that sins are redeemed, blotted out, expiated, purged by Satisfactions. Lastly Calvin adds that the testimonies which Catholic writers adduce for Satisfaction are in good part patchworks from the insipid ravings of monks, which are carried under the names of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom, collected by Peter Lombard. But the testimonies which we have cited we have taken not from the Sentences of Lombard, but from the very monuments of the ancient Fathers; and the thing itself will make faith by itself, if anyone wishes to read those testimonies and bring them back to their sources. Although neither do we admit that Peter Lombard collected patchworks from the insipid ravings of monks; for he was a man exceedingly learned, and diligently versed in the books of Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory and other Fathers, and beyond the rest in those of Augustine.
Now Martin Chemnitz does not deny that in the Fathers many things are extant on Satisfaction, but partly openly reprehends their opinions, partly brings them back to tropical and hyperbolical expressions; for he speaks thus in part 2 of the Examination, page 1082: “The ancients, that they might commend those rites of Satisfactions more to men, often spoke of those rites more by way of exhortation than truly, according to the saying of Chrysostom, by hyperbole, namely that sins, and the punishments due to sins, are purged, compensated, covered, the judge appeased and reconciled by those works of Satisfactions.” And a little below, where he had cited Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine and Gregory, he adds thus: “And Cyprian, in those hyperbolical commendations of Satisfactions, goes so far as to affirm that sin is not forgiven except when those canonical Satisfactions are finished and completed; and in the sermon on alms this inconsiderate saying slipped from him: that the offences which had been contracted before Baptism are purged by the blood and Satisfaction of Christ, but the stains contracted afterwards alms washes away; and he adds that the remedies for propitiating God in lapses after Baptism are these: to make satisfaction to God by just works, to purge offences by the merits of mercy. This surely is a discourse too much transcending the truth. For John says to those who sin after Baptism: These things I write to you, that you may not sin; but if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” So he. But as to the reprehension of the holy Fathers, he who dares to blame those most illustrious lights brands not them with the mark of ignorance or unskilfulness, but himself with that of pride and arrogance. Nor do those places of Cyprian fear the censure of Chemnitz. For where Cyprian writes that sins are not forgiven except when the canonical satisfactions are completed, he does not speak of any remission whatever of sin, but of the full and entire remission as to guilt and punishment, both eternal and temporal. Wherefore Cyprian does not deny that a man lapsed after Baptism can be reconciled to God before the completed Satisfaction; but he denies that sin is fully remitted to him as to guilt and all punishment unless satisfaction has been made to the divine justice by laborious works. And that this is not denied by Cyprian is clear from letters 17 and 18 of book 3, where, the danger of death impending, the same Cyprian orders the lapsed to be reconciled, even if they have not yet fulfilled the time of penance; and because Cyprian rightly knew that for those who while they lived had not fully made satisfaction sins were not fully remitted as to all punishment, therefore in express words in letter 2 of book 4 he writes that some are tormented for a long time after death: “It is one thing,” he says, “to be purged for sins by being tormented for a long time, and to be amended long by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering.” But in the other place reprehended by Chemnitz Cyprian does not deny that sins committed after Baptism are blotted out by the merit of the passion of Christ; but he denies that they are fully blotted out by that merit alone, as to all guilt and punishment. For this (as has been often said and proved by us) is the difference between the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, according to the opinion of Scripture and of the holy Fathers, that in Baptism Satisfaction is not required on our part, but the passion of Christ is applied fully and entirely for blotting out all guilt and punishment; whereas in the sacrament of Penance the passion of Christ is so applied for taking away the guilt and eternal punishment that yet it requires on our part laborious works, by which satisfaction may be made to the divine justice for the guilt of temporal punishment. Wherefore the same evangelist John, whom Chemnitz wrongly adduces against the opinion of Cyprian, although in his epistle he truly said that sins done after Baptism are expiated by the blood of Christ, yet to a certain young man who after Baptism had fallen into many crimes, and desired to do penance, did not command that which the Lutherans are accustomed to, that he should certainly believe his sins purged by the blood of Christ, but imposed prayers and fasts; and not that only, but John himself also wore himself out with a long fast for him, as Eusebius relates from Clement, book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 17. And thus far of the reprehension of the testimonies of Cyprian. But that Chemnitz contends there is hyperbole in the opinions of the Fathers on Satisfaction is refuted in two ways. For first, even if we conceded that there is hyperbole in those testimonies of the Fathers, still we should have a most solid argument against the adversaries. For a hyperbolical expression requires that something truly underlie in fact, although not so excellently as the words signify; otherwise it would be not a hyperbole but a lie; nor would discourse be adorned by figures of that kind, but defiled. David writes, Psalm 106, of ships in peril on the sea: “They mount up to the heavens, and they go down to the depths”; this indeed is a hyperbolical expression, yet unless ships were in truth sometimes lifted very high and sunk by the waves, it would contain not a figure but a lie (as we said). In the same manner, then, unless laborious works availed something, or rather unless they availed much, for expiating the punishment of sins and appeasing God, the opinions of the ancients ought to be called not hyperbolical but plainly false. So if there is any hyperbole in those praises of satisfaction which are found in the Fathers, it is in this, that the words of the Fathers seem to signify that by the works of Penance sins are purged as to guilt and punishment, and that both eternal and temporal; whereas in fact and without hyperbole only as to punishment, and that only temporal, are crimes expiated by works of that kind. But even if hyperbole could be admitted in the testimonies of those Fathers who discoursed of Satisfaction in sermons to the people, yet it is in no way probable that those spoke hyperbolically who either wrote books On Penance against heretics, as Ambrose, Tertullian and others; or in decretal letters answered the consultations of bishops, as Innocent, Leo, Gelasius; or in commentaries or other books of that kind simply handed down the ecclesiastical doctrine, as Jerome in the commentaries on the prophets, Augustine in the Enchiridion, Gregory in the explanation of the books of Kings, Theodoret in the epitome of the divine decrees, Cassiodorus, Isychius, Isidore, Bede, Rabanus, Radulphus and others whom we brought forward in the preceding chapter. Further, all these teach no less clearly that sins are redeemed by Satisfactions than Cyprian, Pacian, Chrysostom and others who discoursed of Satisfaction in sermons to the people. And of these things enough.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
GAPUT X.
Responsiones liacreticorum ad teslimonia
Palrum.
Vidcamus nunc, quid advcrsarii ad Patrum lc-
stimonia rcspondcrc soloant. Lulhcrus in asscrt.
artic. ■). non concedit, tcstimonia ulla vctcrum (!s-
sc, quac dc Salisfaclione loqnalnr: Quare, inquil,
vcrum dixi, arbitrariam istam Salisfactionpni
nec in Scripturis, nec in Patrilnis inveniri: inve
■ 30
DK POKNIIKNriA
niri aulein pomdm irreinissibiletn a Deo iinposi-
lam, Hf p>-a/j/i. SS. Visilaho in vinja iniiiuilatcs
rorum. Scd Liillieius, iiiil iiuii lej;eral. ;iiil so iioii
lcisso liajjobiil. inoniiiuMila velcriim; j;im eiiim o-
slondimus.sinjjiilis aolalibus non defuisso, qui Sa-
lisrarlionom doeeroiil.
Lulhorum sequulus Philippus in apologia con-
fossionis auguslanac arl. dc confcssione el Salis-
raclione negal oxslare velorum It^stimimia de Sa-
lisraclioiio. qua Deo pro peeealis s:ilislial: Uaec
lota rcs, iiiquil. commontitia cst, rccens conficta,
sinc auctoritale Scripturac, e.l vrJerum scriplo-
rum ccclcsiaslicorum. Acnc Lombardus quidcm
de Sati.<l'aclionibus hoc modo loquilur. Schola-
stici vidcrunl in Ecclesia essc Satisfactiones.nec
animadvcrlcrnnt. illa spectacuJa inslilulacssc ,
lum cvcnipli caussa. tum ad probandos hos, qui
pclcbant rccipi in Ecclesia. In summa. non vi-
derunl cssc disciplinnm.ct rem prorsus politicani
idco supcrstiliosc linxerunt. ens non ad discii^li-
nam corum Eccksia, sed ad placandum Deum
lalerc.
Primum ncscio qua fronlo Piiilippus ncgarc nu-
dciil, apud Lombardum exslare lcslimonia dc Sa-
lisfiiclioiic illa, de qua Seliolaslici loquunlur, cum
Scholaslici apud Lombardum invencriut ea , de
(|uibus ipsi copiosius disserunl. Ccrlo Lombardiis
lib. 4. scnlenl. disl. 10. poslcaquam mulla de Sa-
lisraclionc dixerat, eamque ex Scriplura el Patri-
IriLus dcduxeral . ila conciusil lolam eam dislin-
clionem: Ad aqcndam poeniicnliain non sulficii ,
mores inmelius commulare, ci amalis faclis re-
cedcre, nisi de his quae facla sunt, salislial Do-
mino pcr poenilenliae dolorem, per humililalis
nemilum, per conlriti cordis sacrificiuni coope-
rantibus elccmosynis. Et quoniam haec vcrba
Lombardus ex homil. 50. s. Auguslini niulualus
esl: cx iisdem vcrbis simul oslendimus,non solum
apud Lombardum,sed cliam apud Auguslinum cx-
slarc leslimonium de Salisfaclione, qua ipsi Domi-
110. non aulera solis hominibus salisfacimus.
Deinde non solum lcstimonia a nobis allala pla-
ne coiivincunt errorem Pbilippi , sed eliam Calvi-
nus.Kemnitius etlliyricus cjusdem Philippi vanila-
le:ii redarguunt. lllyricus enim ingenuc falelur, o-
mncs fere Paires agnoscere Satisfactionem , quae
Dominum placet el peccala redimal.Narn Centur..3.
parlim cap.4.in fine.ubi ponit inclinationem doclri-
nae.piirlim cap. 10. ubi ponit vilas doclorum, cilat
Tertullianum, Origcnem el Cyprianuin. Centur. 4.
parlim cap. 4. in inclinalione doclrinae.parlira cap.
10.cilainitarium,Nazianzcnum,Ambrosium,L;iclan-
liam, Ilieronymum. Ttieopiiilum alexandrinuin,An-
lonium magnum. Centur. 3. parlini cap. 4. in in-
clinalione doctrinae.parlira cap.lO. citat Chrysosto-
mum. Auguslinura, Leonem, Prospcrum.Maximura,
Paulinum, Cassianum, Hesycbium. Centur. scxto,
septimo, octavo, nono, decimo et undecimo in iis-
«lem locis, cilat Cassiodorum,Gregoriura, Isidorum
Bedam, et alios,quos oranes reprehendil, ut qui ca
de Salisfactione docuerint, quae a calholicis nunc
docentur.
Sed quemadmodum laudanda est Illyrici ingcnui-
tas el diligentia, qui sentcnlias omniurn ferme Pa-
trum sludiose collogil, Oiiquc Lulhcri dogmalibiis
esse eoiilriiri;i. neg;iie eoiilrii miinift^sliim verilalcm
noliiil: ilii ciiecilas animi cl impiideiilia, iic dicain
stolidilas et vecordia viluperanda^quod sibi persua-
dere polucril, pliis nni Lulhero, quam omnibus o-
iiiniuin;i(!tiiluindoeloribiis cssccrcdendum.Scilicet
ornues I*iilrcs. quamvis alioqui doctissimi el sa-
picntis^irni, in hoo arliculo cacci fiierunl, cl sacras
liler;is ignoraninl: uniis Lulhcrus lumon aspexil,
unus Scriptiiriis recle iiiler|)r('t;iri potuil.
JoaiinesCalvinus l;imetsi coiiotiir ulcumque res-
pondcrc. tanien lalelur, q;io(l r(»s csl, Palros a par-
tibus noslris stiirc, eos()ue rtqireluMidcre. qu;im sc-
qui, uliliiis (!ssc, slultissime iiidiciivil. Lib. .'L Iii-
slitul. Ciip. ?>. § 10. Ejiismodi, inqiiil, cxercilia
sacpc commeinorant vctusti scriplores . cum de
poenilenliae fruclilms lo(}Uunlnr:quam.quam au-
tem vim poenilenliae minime in illis rcponunt ,
veniani lamcnmihi dalynnl leclorcs , si dixero
quod scn.lio. Plus acquo ccrle insisterc in his mi-
hi videnlur: ac si quis prudcnter expendal.mihi
(ul spero) assentietur dupliciler eos modum cx-
cessisse. El c;ip. 4. § 38. Parum, inquit, me mo-
venl. quae in, velcrum scriplis de Salisfaclione
passim occurrunt. Yideo quidem eorum nonnul-
los, dicamsimpliciter omnes fere quorum libri
exslant. aul hac in parlc Uipsos esse, aul nimis
aspere eldureloquutos. VA\\b. ^. cap. 12. § 8.
Qua inparlc, iiiquit, excusari nullo modo potest
immodica veterum auslerilas. quac el prorsus a
Domini praescripto dissidcbal, el eral mirum in
nioduni periculosa. Haoc ille, qui satis aperle ar-
roganliam suam et superbiam intolerandam pro-
dit; dum ipse unus lot Eeclcsiae lumina, qiiae va-
riis lemporibus non solum insigni doctrin;i , sed
otiam probil;ite incomparabili. pars etiam miracu-
lis, aut martyrio claruerunl, prorsus conlemnere
el caslignre iion erubcscit.
Scdvidcaniusquidpractcr conlemplura isliim Pa-
• rum, pro responsione Ciilvinus adferal. Lib. 3.
Instilut. cap. 4. § 38. et 39. tria proponit, ex qui-
bus lcstimonia nobis prolata nonnibil infirmari vi-
dentur.
Adducit Primum duo loca Chrysoslomi . et alia
duo Augustiui, contra Satisfaclionem. Sed ea pau-
lo post in argumenlorum solulione discutiemus.
Interim nemo non videt.qualuor obscura loca duo-
rum auctorum, praejudiijare non posse lestimonirs
plurimis, ;ilquc apcrlissimis auctorum supra Iri-
ginla, quac nos adduximus.
Deindedicit, Voc /sse Patres Salisfaclionem ,
non compensalionem, quae Deo redderelur, sed
publicam leslificalioncm, qua qui excommunica-
iione mulctaii fucranl, cum in communioneni
rccipi vellcnt. Ecclesiam reddcbant de sua poe-
nilentia ccrtiorem. Et paulo posl: Atque ita dice-
batur non Deo, sed Ecclcsiae salisfacere: quod
eliam his ipsis vcrbis ab AuQUstino expressuni
esl in enchiridio cap. Go.
At dicil quidem loco notato s. Augustinus,opor-
terc poeniteiiles Ecclesiae salisfacere, sed non ad-
dit negalionem illam, I\on Deo. Idem aulem Au-
gustinus, non uno in loco discrlis verbis scribit ,
ipsi eliain Deo salisfaciendum. In eodcm enchiri-
J
LIBE» QU. \RTL'S
731
(Vio cap. 70. Per elcemosijnas, inquil. de peccalis
praeterUis esl propiliamlus Deas, el cap. 71. De
quotidianis, levibusque peccatis, quotidiana ora-
lio [ididium salisfacit; libi licel iioii exprimalur ,
cui, lameii siiie dut)io iniell:i,Mlijr , Deo: neque e-
nim pro l'n'ibus, quoliiiianis peccalis jubemnr pu-
blice oralionem doniiiiicam (inotidie recilare, sed
salis esl si privalim in cubiculo,ubi solusDeus ex-
iindial. reciletnr. Idem iiomii. .jO. cap. 15. ISon
sufficii mores in melius commutare. nisi etiam
de liis . quae facta sunt , satisfial Deo. Qu\il
clarius?Nec minus perspicueid ipsum IradunlTer-
tullianns, Cyprianus el caetcri, qnos capitt; snpe-
riore produ.\imus. Idem quoquc s. Auguslinus
psal. 30. ul supra nolavimus , Satisfaclionem re-
quiril, ul peccalun^ non maneat iiripunitum, nl eo
niodo no!i solum misericordia Dei in remissione
resplcndeal. sed eliam verilas et juslilia locum
habeant; quo ctiam pertinet, quod multi velerum
qnos supra citavimus, pcccata per Salisfacliones
rcdimi, deleri, expiari, purgari dicunl.
Ultimo addit Calvinus, leslimonia , qnae calho-
lici scriplores pro Salisfaclione ad(Jncnnl, bona ex
parle csse canones cx insulsis monachorum deli-
riis, quae sub .\mbrosii, Ilierouyini. Anguslini el
Chrysosloml nomine ferunlur, a Pelro Lombardo
collectos.
Sed leslimonia, qnae cilavimus.non ex Lorabar-
di senlentiis, sed ex ipsis vclerum Palrum monu-
inentis accepimus: el r(^s ipsa per se ftdem facicl,
si quis ea teslirnonia legcre, el ad suos fontes re-
vocarc volueril. Quaniquam nequf. illnd admitli-
mus. Pelrum Lombardum Cenloncs oollegissc ex
insulsis monachorum deliriis: fnil enim is vir r.p-
primc doclns, el in Ililarii. Ainbrosii, Ilicronymi ,
(ircgorii aliorumqne Palrum, ac praeter caeteros
in Augusliiii libris diligenler versatus.
Jani vero Marlinus Remnitiiis non negat in Pa-
tribns njiilla de Salisfactionc extare, sed partim a-
perte reprehendit eorum senlentias, parlim revo-
cal ad tropicas alque hyperbolicas loquutiones;sic
cnim loqnilur in 2.par. cxam. pag. 1082. Vetores,
ul ritus illos Salisfactionum hominibus maqis
commendareni, saepe cohortatorie mafjis. quam
vere. jnxla Chrysoslomi dictum, de ritibus itlis
per liyperbolcm ioquuti sunt. peccata Hcilicet. el
poenas peccalis debitas, pnrqari, compensari ,
tcfji. judicem placari et reconciliari operibus il-
lis SatisfacAionum; cl paulo infra, ubi citasset 0-
rigenem, Cypriannm, Ambrosium, Augustinem et
Grcgorium, ila snbjnngil: El Cyprianus in illis
liijperbolicis Satisfaclionum commendationibus,
eo usque proqreditur , ut affirmet pcccalum non
dimitti , nisi (ibsolutis et completis illis cano-
7ucis Satisfactionibus; oX in sermone de elee-
mosijna, excidit ipsi hoc incomiderate dictum:
Daticla, . quae anle liaptismum contracta fue-
runl, Christi sanfjuine et Satisfactione purfia-
ri ; sordes vero postmodum contractas . etem.o-
nijnia ahini : et addit , rcmedia propiliando
Deoin lapsibus post liaptismum. haec e.sse: o-
peralionibus justis Deo salisfacere, miscricordiae
mcrilis delictapurqarc. Ilaec profccto nimium
transcendens veritatem est oraiio. Joannes cnini
iilis. qui post liaptismuni peccant , dicit: Ilaec
scribo vobis, ut non pcccatis; sed ct si quis pecca-
veril, advocatum habemus apud Patrem Jesuvi
Christum , et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis
noslris; nec pro nostris tanlum , sed etiam pro
totius mundi. Ilacc ille.
Sed quod altinel ad reprehensionem sanclorum
Patrum, qui clarissinoa illa lumina viluperare au-
dcl, non illis ignorantiae anl imperiliae, sed sibi
suporbiae, alqne arrogantiae nolam inuril.
Ncque loca illa Cypriani censuram Kcmnilii mc-
luunt. Ubi enim Cyprianus scribit. peccata non di-
milli. nisi complctis canonicis salisfactionibus; non
loquitur de quacumque rcmissione pcccaii, sed dc
plena , atque inlegra remissione quoad culpam
et poenam tum aelernam, lum temporalcm. Qua-
re non negal Cyprianus , hoininem lapsum posl
Baplismum. anle complelam Salisfaclionem possc
Deo reconciliari; sed negal plena remilli peccalum
illi quoad culpam, el omnem poenam. nisi per ope-
ra labonosa divinae justitiac fueril saiisfacluin. Id
aulem non negari a Cypriano, perspicuum cst ex
cpist. 17. et 18. lib, 3. ubi periculo morlis immi-
nenle.jnbet idem Cyprianus lapsos reconciliari, el-
iamsi nondum poenitentiae lempus inpleverint: cl
quia recte noverat Cyprianus, eis qni plene dum vi-
verenl. noii salisfeo(;rant, peccata non esse plcne
remissa quoad omnem poenam, ideo disertis verbis
in epist. 2. lib. i. scribil, nonnullos posl mortem
longo tempore crucm'\:Aliud, in(|uil. cst pro pcc-
catis longo tempore cruciatum purgari et emen-
dari diu igne:aliud peccata omnia passione pur-
gasse.
In alio vero loco a Remnilio rcprehenso, non ne-
gal Cyprianus peccala post Baptismnm coinmissa
merito passionis Christi deleri; sed negal, solo il-
lo merito plcne dcleri, quoad omncm culpain el
pocnam.IIoc enim (ut saepius diclum el probalum
a nobis cst) inleresl intcr Haptismi.ct Poenilentiac
sacramenla, ex sentcntia Scripturae, ct sanctornin
Patrnm, quod in Baplismo non requirilur Satisla-
ctio cx parle noslra, sed plene atquc integre, ad
omncm culpain clpocnam delendam. Chrisli pas-
sio applicalur: in sacramento autcm Poenitenliae
ita Chrisli passio applicatur ad culpam ct poenam
aelcrnam lollcndam, ul lamcn rcqniral ex parle no-
stra opera laboriosa, quibus pro realu poenae lem-
poralis divinae justitiae satisliat. Onocirca idem c-
vangelista Joanncs,qnem adversus Cypriani senien-
liam porperam adducil Remnitius.liccl in epislola
sua vcre dixcrit peccala post Biiptismnm faclaChri-
sli sangnine cxi)iari, lamen adolcscenti cuidam
|)ost Haptismum in nuilla crimina delapso, ac poc-
iiitentiam agere cupienli, non id praccepil , (juod
Liitlicrani solcnt, ut Christi sanguine pcccala suu
liiirgala esse cerlo credcrcl, sed prcccs ct jcjunia
indi.xil; ne(iue id solum, sed ipse ctiam Joaiincs
pro eo longo jejunio se maccravil, ul ex Clemenle
rcferl Eusebiiis lib. 3. hislor. eccles. cap. 17. Ai-
(ine hactcnus de rcprehensionc teslimoniorum Cy-
priani.
Quod autem Kemnitiiis hyporbolem csse conten-
dit in sentcnliis Patriim de Salisfaotione , duobiis
modis ref<!llilur. Primuiii cnim etiamsi concede-
m
|)K POKMH-MIA
romiiscssp liyprrbnloiu in illis lcsliinnniisPiilnim,
ailliuc l.iiiHMi liahciiMiiiis ar^MiiiuMiluiii soliilissi-
inimj conlra iulvcrsiirius. llyiMMbolica tMiiiii l()i]iui-
lio roquifil. ul vcrc iiliqoid siibsil in rc, liccl non
(uni excclliMilcr, (Iikiiii vcrhii si},Miilicaiil: ;ilio(iiii
«Miiin iion liyptMlxih'. scd iiKMKlariuin csscl. iKMiiui
Uiin cjiisnioili li^Miris oriiarclur, (|uain Mliiirclur o-
ralio. SiMibil Uaviil ps. lOG. dc navibus iii inari pe-
riclilaiilibus: .lscc/ic/i//i/ usquv ad coclox cl do.-
sccndunt u^que adabyssos: liacc (luidciu liypiM-
bolica loiiuulio esl, lanicn nisi rcvcra navcs a ilu-
clibus iiUcrdum valdc allc suslollercnlur el dc-
priiucrenlur. non liiiurain. scd mcndacium (ul di-
.Miiius) conliiicrcl. Ad cuiidcm iiiilur modum, iiisi
opcra laboriosa ali(]uid. \c\ polius nisi mulliim va-
lcrciil ad pociiam pcc( alorum cxpiandam el Dcum
placaiidum. non liypcrbolicac. sed lalsac prorsus
vclcrum senlcnliae dici dcbcrcnl. Ilaque si qua
csl liypcrbolc in illis cncomiis salisfaclionis,quac
apud 1'alrcs invcniunlur; in eo esl, quod vcrba
Palrum signilicarc vidcaiilur,operibus Poenilenliac
purjzari pcccata, quoad culpam el poenam, eam-
quc lum aelcrnam, lum lcmporalem: cum lamen
rc ipsa ac sine liyptTbole, quoad pocnara lanlum
camtiue solum teniporariam , ejusmodi operibus
crimina e.\picnlur.
Caclcrum cliamsi in corum Palrum teslimoniis
liypcrbolc admilli possil, qui in concioiiibus ad
populum deSatisfaclione disserebant; tamen nullo
modo probabile cst, hyperbolicc esse loquulos cos
(lui vcl coutra baerelicos libros de Pocuitcnlia scri-
pscrunt. ul Ambrosium. Tcrtullianum. et alios ;
vcl in cpisl. dccrelal. ad consulla cpiscoporum re-
spondebaiit. ul InnoceiUium. Lconem, Gelasium ;
vel in commcnlariis, aut aliis ejusmodi libris do-
clrinam ccclcsiasticam simpliciler Iradebanl, ul
Ilicronymum in commen*. prophetarura ., Augusli-
num in enchiridio, Gvegorium in explicalione libr.
Ilcgum, Thcodoruui in cpilome divinorum decre-
torum. Gassiodoriim, Isichium, Isitlorum, Bedara,
Uabanum, Radulphum, et alios (juos capile supe-
nore prolulimus. Porro isli oinnes non minusper-
spicuc Salislactionibus peccala redimi docenl ,
ipiain Cyiirianus, Pacianus, Chrysostomus, el alii,
<|ui in concionibus ad populuin de Salisfaclione
disscruerunt. Ac de his satis.