Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 11: The Arguments of Luther and of Melanchthon, from the Common Places and the Apology, Are Solved
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).
Now at last the arguments must be solved, and chiefly those of Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin and Chemnitz. But since the arguments of Luther are both lighter and already dissolved, I shall touch only a few, that from them judgement may be made of the rest. First, then, in the sermon on indulgences which he delivered in the year 1518, namely at the beginning of the tragedy stirred up by him, he strives to demonstrate from the words of the prophet Ezekiel that after the guilt is forgiven no punishment or Penance is exacted by God, but only a new life. For Ezekiel, chapter 33, introduces the Lord speaking thus: “The wickedness of the wicked shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall turn from his wickedness”; from which place it seems to be gathered that no punishments remain which God demands of the wicked man after conversion; because if any punishment remained, certainly his wickedness would still hurt the wicked man. I answer: the sentence of the prophet is not that wickedness hurts the wicked man nothing at all after conversion, but that it does not hurt for obtaining and preserving the grace of God and eternal salvation; for what it is to hurt or not to hurt the prophet explains in the same place, when he repeats more than once that the wicked man after conversion shall not die, and the just man after turning away shall not live. As therefore his justices do not profit the just man if he turns away from the Lord, because they cannot bring it about that he does not die, so also all his wickednesses do not hurt the wicked man if he turns to the Lord, because they cannot bring it about that he dies. And this explanation is confirmed by a most evident argument. For if wickedness after conversion profited the wicked man in no way, even as to temporal punishment, in the same manner justice after turning away would profit the just man in no way, even as to temporal reward. For God in that place says: “The justice of the just shall not deliver him, in what day soever he shall sin; and the wickedness of the wicked shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall turn”; and in chapter 18, as God says that he will not remember the iniquities which the wicked man did if he does Penance, so also he says that he will not remember the justices which the just man wrought if he sins. But it cannot be denied that God very often rewards the good works of the wicked with a temporal hire, as the holy Fathers teach, Chrysostom, homily 67 to the people of Antioch, Jerome on chapter 29 of Ezekiel, Augustine, book 5 of the City of God, chapter 15, Gregory, homily 40 on the Gospels. As therefore good works after turning away are said not to profit the just man, because they do not free him from everlasting death, although they are not defrauded of some temporal reward, so also wickedness is said after conversion not to hurt the wicked man, because it does not hinder the attainment of eternal life, although it brings temporal punishment with it. Lastly, if God through the prophet witnessed that he would take no punishment at all of the sinner after conversion, for what reason would he have punished Moses, Aaron, David and so many others temporally after conversion, as the divine Scriptures witness, whose testimonies we brought forward already before? Wherefore it is necessary either that Scripture be repugnant to Scripture, which is most absurd, or (what is most true) that the one be explained from the other; therefore the temporal punishment taken of David after conversion most openly teaches that the place of Ezekiel is to be understood of the everlasting punishment which is taken away by conversion, not of the temporal punishment which remains after conversion.
The second argument is had in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, which he published in the year 1520. For in that book, when he had come to the sacrament of Penance, he wrote much of Satisfaction, but among many words, partly empty, partly lying, there is nothing which shows any appearance of argument, except the example of Christ, John 8, who, absolving the adulteress, said, “Go, and now sin no more,” and exacted of her no other satisfaction than that she should live well thereafter. I answer: first, it is not settled whether the Lord absolved the adulteress from sins, or only freed her from the punishment of stoning; certainly those words, “Neither will I condemn thee; go, and now sin no more,” seem to signify nothing else than: Neither do I adjudge you to stoning, but take care lest by sinning again you fall into the same peril. Wherefore this place makes nothing either for Satisfaction or against Satisfaction. Then, granted that the Lord remitted the adulteress her sin: who knows whether the Lord did not see in her so great a contrition that he judged there was need of no further satisfaction? For neither do we deny that so great a force of contrition can sometimes be found in someone that it alone suffices for expiating all guilt and punishment; such as I easily persuade myself was in Mary Magdalen. Lastly, the case of Christ is one thing, that of priests another. He, who was Lord, could by his own right forgive the adulteress all guilt and punishment; priests, who are ministers, are compelled according to the laws delivered to them to enjoin a penalty on penitents. The third argument Luther has in the assertion of all his articles, which he published in the year 1521. For in the assertion of the fifth article he takes an argument, after his manner, from negative authority, and indeed in these words: “I have denied Satisfaction such as they teach; which will not be difficult for me to prove. Let them show, if they can, where in the whole of Scripture one tittle or jot is written that for one mortal sin satisfaction ought to be made for seven years; let them say where Christ and the apostles appoint different punishments for different sins. Were not all these things afterwards invented by bishops? Nay, let them give one of the ancient Fathers in whom are read forty-day periods, seven-year periods and the like. When they have done so, I will willingly recant.” I answer: it would not indeed be necessary to demonstrate from the Scriptures and the Fathers those things which Luther requires, if we wished to act by the strictest right; for we do not contend that the determination of fixed punishments, whether as to time or as to manner, is of divine law. For as in many other matters Christ prescribed in general what he wished to be done, but left the determination as to time, place, manner and the like to the power of the Church, as Saint Augustine witnesses in letter 86 to Casulanus on fasting, and in letter 118 to Januarius on receiving the Eucharist, so also it would be lawful for us to say that Christ commanded Penance to sinners in general, but left the manner and time and the like to the definition of the Church. Yet it will not be difficult to show in the divine letters the penalty of seven years for a sin, which Luther seeks. In 2 Kings, chapter 24, when David had sinned against God, and then, coming to himself, had said, “I have sinned very much in this deed; but I pray thee, O Lord, to take away the iniquity of thy servant, because I have done exceeding foolishly,” God did not straightway remit him, as Luther contended in the first argument, all guilt and punishment, but, the guilt being remitted, imposed a punishment of seven years, or if he preferred, another shorter but harder, namely of three months, or lastly another shortest, of three days, but most grievous. We have, then, not a tittle or one jot, but an entire and plain sentence of divine Scripture, where for one sin a punishment of seven years is imposed. Nor is it far from our purpose what is written in Daniel 4, that King Nabuchodonosor for the sin of pride paid a most grievous punishment for seven times, that is, seven years, at God’s command. Numbers 12, Mary the sister of Moses for the sin of murmuring was compelled by the Lord’s order to remain seven days outside the camp. And as to Luther’s demand that a place be pointed out where for different sins different punishments are appointed, we have a clear testimony in Deuteronomy, chapter 25: “According to the measure of the offence shall the measure also of the stripes be.” And Apocalypse 18: “As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her”; for from these places we clearly learn that different sins exact different punishments, namely greater sins greater and lesser lesser. But as to the holy Fathers, of whom Luther desires even one to be shown him who mentions forty-day and seven-year periods, that is, a penance of forty days or of seven years, we for one Father will give most ancient councils of very many Fathers. In the Council of Ancyra, celebrated before the first Council of Nicaea, that is, more than 1270 years ago, canon 8, a penance of seven years is enjoined on those who under compulsion had twice or thrice sacrificed to idols; and in the same council for various offences penances now of two, now of three, now even of ten years are imposed. In the first Council of Nicaea, of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, canon 11, a penance of eleven years is imposed on those who prevaricated without necessity; and again, canon 12, a penance of thirteen years is commanded to certain others. In the Council of Elvira, which was celebrated about the time of the Council of Nicaea, canon 5, a penance of seven years is enjoined on a woman who killed her maidservant by beating her. Lastly, innumerable are the testimonies of that kind which can be read both in the councils themselves and in Ivo and Burchard, the collectors of decrees; from which the unskilfulness of Luther, who believed that not even one Father could be produced for a seven-year penance, can easily be known.
Chapter XII. The arguments of Philip Melanchthon from the Common Places are solved
Now Philip Melanchthon, in the Common Places, under the title on Satisfaction, has heaped up certain other arguments, which in this place are to be solved with the accustomed brevity. First, by the example of the heathen he strives to show that Satisfaction among the ancient Christians was nothing else than public excommunication, with certain signs of the fact, and also the outward punishments which were enjoined on public sinners for the sake of example and discipline; and he brings certain examples of Phoenix in Homer, of Orestes, Peleus, Antilochus, Adrastus and the like, who are read of in the histories, or rather in the fables, of the Greeks. I answer: that certain traces of Satisfaction are extant among the heathen we willingly admit, for that is an argument that natural judgement teaches that after guilt committed Satisfaction is necessary; yet it is in no way credible that Christians had the rite of making satisfaction from the heathen, since in both testaments so many and so clear precepts and examples of Satisfaction are found. For why, I pray, would those first Christians have learned Satisfaction from Phoenix rather, or Orestes, Peleus, Antilochus or Adrastus, than from Job, David, Achab, Manasses, the Ninevites and others, who in the holy Scriptures are found to have striven to appease the true God by works of Penance? And what need was there to seek the works of Penance in the fables of the Greeks, when in the Scriptures the prophets and apostles, and Christ himself, so frequently exhort men to those works? But that is in no way to be borne which Philip writes, that satisfactions imposed were in use among the ancients only for the sake of example and discipline. Was it for the sake of example and discipline that King Achab, on whom no one would have dared to impose a Satisfaction, wore hair shirt next his flesh of his own accord, and slept in sackcloth and fasted, as we read in 3 Kings, chapter 21? or rather that he might make satisfaction to God alone, who sees in secret? Joram also, king of Israel, when in a time of war and famine he desired to appease God by Penance, why did he wear hair shirt secretly, as we have in 4 Kings, chapter 6, unless because he desired to make satisfaction not to men but to God? Which same can be understood from King David, who, content with the eye of God alone, washed his bed every night, and humbled his soul in fasting, and ate bread as ashes, as he himself speaks of himself in the psalms; to omit the testimonies of the Fathers, who in express words witness that God is to be appeased by the works of Penance, and that satisfaction is to be made chiefly to him; which testimonies we set down above. The other argument of Philip consists of various causes for which God afflicts the Church in this world. For after he has enumerated ten causes, he concludes thus: “Let the fables, then, about the compensation of purgatory be omitted, which have no testimony in the prophetic and apostolic Scripture, and let other greater causes of calamities be thought of, that we may acknowledge and dread the wrath of God, and again set before ourselves true consolation.” I answer: the argument sins in many ways. First, it does not give the cause of the afflictions which either the penitents themselves undertook of their own accord, as the Ninevites, Job, David and the rest, or the Church enjoined on penitents, as we proved above from so many councils; but only of those which, sent by God, men are compelled to bear whether they will or not. And although we confess that the scourges sent from God, if they are borne with an even mind, profit not a little for Satisfaction, yet more properly are called satisfactions the labours undertaken of one’s own accord, or imposed by a spiritual judge, for compensating the injury done to God. Then, Philip does not prove that there are not other causes of the calamities which God sends besides those ten which he himself enumerates. And as he himself found causes not one or two but ten, so we also can add an eleventh, which is repugnant to none of the rest; and that is, that Christian men, willingly sustaining the calamities with which they are pressed by God, may escape the punishments of purgatory. Lastly, from those very causes which he himself adduces it can be gathered that Satisfactions avail for compensating the punishments of purgatory, which he himself denies. For Philip confesses in the first and eighth causes that God afflicts his own with calamities that he may punish their sins; he confesses also a little after, that is, on the following page, that calamities of that kind are mitigated by our Penance, and sometimes wholly taken away, and says that this can be proved from the divine letters. What therefore he himself teaches of the temporal punishment of this life we extend also to the temporal punishment of the future life, which is named the punishment of purgatory. But that there is a purgatory after this life Philip denies, and therefore denies that the punishment of the other life is mitigated or taken away by Penance; but if he admitted purgatory, he would consequently admit (which openly follows from what he himself teaches) that the punishment of purgatory is mitigated or taken away by penance. Further, that there is a purgatory we have most clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures and Fathers in volume 2 of the Controversies; therefore there is no reason why we should dwell longer on this argument. The last argument in the Common Places Philip draws from the absurdities which he says are found in the doctrine of the Scholastics, which he himself calls the doctrine of the monks: “There are many ravings,” he says, “in the opinion of the monks, of which it is enough to have refuted some. The Satisfactions of the monks obscure the law and the Gospel, and amplify the dignity of human traditions; for they feign that in Satisfactions something more is done than the law of God; they dream that by the remaining works satisfaction has been made to the law of God. But it is necessary that this doctrine be extant in the Church, that in this life even the regenerate are far from the perfection of the law. Then they obscure the Gospel, because they feign that eternal death is abolished by our compensation; nay, the unlearned easily transfer Satisfactions even to the remission of guilt. Thirdly, they amplify human traditions; for they define Satisfactions to be undue works, that is, human ceremonies, fasts of certain days, abstinence from certain foods, the reading of certain prayers. But it is necessary that this doctrine be extant in the Church: In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men; that is, human observances are not the worship of God, and much less of so great estimation as to be a compensation for eternal death.” I answer: I omit that Philip out of contempt names the Catholic doctrine the doctrine of the monks; for I have proposed to contend not with reproaches but with arguments; although we showed a little before that that doctrine which Philip attacks is not only of the Scholastic theologians, most of whom were monks, but also of all the ancient Fathers. As to those three things, then, which are objected against the doctrine of Satisfaction, namely that it obscures the law, that it obscures the Gospel, and that it amplifies the dignity of human traditions: the first is repugnant to Scripture and to all the Fathers; the second is not only false, but is convicted of being false by the witness of Philip himself; the third is both openly false and refuted by us above in chapters 4 and 6. That the first is repugnant to Scripture and the Fathers is clear from chapter 19 of Matthew, where the Lord, distinguishing counsels from precepts, shows that men justified through the grace of God can not only fulfil the law, but also do some other works most pleasing to God which are not commanded. For to the young man asking, “What good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?” the Lord answered, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” And when he said that he had kept all from his youth, the Lord added and said, “If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me”; of which place we discoursed at length in book 2 On Monks, chapter 9, where we also adduced many other testimonies of the Scriptures for confirming the same matter; and in the same book, chapter 11, we adduced testimonies of the Latin and Greek Fathers, who in express words affirm that a Christian man can by the grace of God do more than God commands. Wherefore it is necessary that this doctrine be extant in the Church, that all Christians can (as the second Council of Orange, last canon, hands down) after Baptism received, with the help of God, fulfil those things which are pleasing to God himself, if they are willing faithfully to labour. But that the second is false (by the witness of Philip himself), and therefore that Philip is not consistent with himself, can be demonstrated from his own words. For he writes in this place that by Satisfactions the Gospel is obscured, because the monks feign that eternal death is abolished by our compensation; but the monks, that is, the Scholastic doctors, do not say this, but rather deny it; which under the same title on Satisfaction Philip taught in these words: “The monks here define Satisfactions as undue works, by which they will have the punishments of purgatory, or at least other temporal punishments, redeemed. For so they teach: that God, since he is merciful, remits the guilt; but since he is just and an avenger, changes the eternal punishment into the temporal punishment of purgatory. Then they add that part of the punishments is remitted by the power of the keys, part is to be redeemed by Satisfactions; this is the sum of the fiction.” So he; who, when he teaches that in the opinion of the monks the punishments of purgatory, or other temporal punishments, are redeemed by Satisfactions, but the eternal punishment is not redeemed unless it has first by the mercy of God been changed into temporal, certainly at the same time teaches that in the opinion of the monks death, or eternal punishment, is absolutely and simply not redeemed, but only temporal. Further, that the temporal punishment of purgatory is redeemed by our works not only the monks teach, but also the Scriptures and Fathers, whose testimonies have been brought in another place; among which that of Saint Cyprian is notable, from letter 2 of book 4: “It is one thing to be amended and purged long by fire, tormented for sins with long grief; another to have purged all sins by suffering.” But although our Satisfactions are not from condignity compensations of eternal death, as we have already often repeated, yet that the laborious works which are done by penitents with the help of God concur and profit, whether from congruity or as dispositions, for the remission of guilt and the deliverance from eternal death, the Scriptures and Fathers clearly teach, as we demonstrated in book 2, chapter 12; among the rest that testimony of Pacian in the exhortation to Penance, after Tertullian in the book On Penance, is most open: “If you draw back from the torment of exomologesis, remember hell, which exomologesis will extinguish for you.” Of the third, that is, of the amplification of human traditions, nothing is to be added in this place, since it is enough that the whole of it was refuted in chapters 4 and 6, as we said a little before. And so much from the Common Places.
Chapter XIII. The arguments of Philip from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession are solved
In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession the same Philip, besides those things which we have confuted as adduced from the Common Places, brings forward certain arguments by which he strives to prove that the Scriptures which are adduced by Catholics for Satisfaction make nothing for the matter, and therefore that our opinion on Satisfaction does not rest on solid arguments. He speaks thus, then, in the article on confession and Satisfaction: “Many arguments can be gathered that these sayings of Scripture in no way pertain to the Scholastic Satisfactions. These men feign that Satisfactions are undue works; but Scripture in these sentences requires due works; for this voice of Christ, Do penance, is a voice of precept.” First, this argument, if it is brought back to the form of reasoning, concludes that the Scriptures which are adduced for satisfaction are wrongly alleged, because they require due works while the Scholastics require undue ones. I answer: in the assumption lies a fault; for the Scholastics do not teach that satisfactory works must be altogether undue, but undue otherwise (as they themselves speak), that is, unless they had sinned; since continual fasts, vigils, ashes and hair shirts would be undue if men remained in innocence. Add that, although the opinion of Saint Thomas, Durandus, Paludanus and others on book 4, distinction 15, is very probable, that satisfaction is not made by works otherwise due, yet the opinion of Adrian in the treatise On Penance, and of Cajetan, question 1 on Satisfaction, is not improbable, that satisfaction can be made by works otherwise due; for the Satisfaction which we render to God does not pertain to justice alone, but also to friendship. Philip then goes on and says: “Likewise the adversaries write that one confessing who refuses to undertake Satisfactions does not sin, but that these punishments are to be paid in purgatory. Now these sentences, without controversy, are precepts pertaining to this life: Do penance; Bring forth fruits worthy of Penance; Present your members to serve justice; wherefore they cannot be twisted to Satisfactions which it is lawful to refuse; for it is not lawful to refuse the precepts of God.” I answer: neither proposition of this argument is free from fault. For as to the first, if he speaks of the Satisfaction enjoined by a priest, of which Philip seems to speak, the better part of Catholic theologians does not concede that one confessing can refuse Satisfaction without sin. For although Scotus and Gabriel and a few others teach what Philip has related, yet the Master of the Sentences, Saint Thomas, Richard, Durandus, Paludanus and very many others on book 4, distinction 16 or 18, altogether contend, what we also taught above, that the priest has the keys by which he not only absolves from guilt, but also as a judge in the stead of God binds to a punishment which the penitent cannot refuse unless he resists a judge divinely constituted, and therefore God himself. And the ancient Fathers were so far from admitting those who refused the penalty enjoined by the priest that they never permitted penitents to come to the communion of the Eucharist unless first purged by a saving Satisfaction. Lastly, the ecumenical councils themselves, of Florence and of Trent, would not have made Satisfaction a part of the sacrament of Penance unless they had believed it both instituted by God and necessary in fact or in vow. But the other proposition is not free from fault for this reason, that that precept, “Bring forth fruits worthy of penance,” which alone of the three noted by Philip we adduced for Satisfaction, is indeed given to men in this life, but is understood with a condition, namely if anyone wishes the perfect remission of sin, not only as to guilt but also as to all punishment; for it is altogether probable that those are not bound by a new sin who do not fully make satisfaction on earth for the temporal punishment of the other world. For although God wills fruits worthy of penance, yet if we have paid anything less here, it will be expiated by the purgatorial fires, as Peter Damian writes in sermon 2 on Saint Andrew. Philip adds a third argument in these words: “Thirdly, indulgences remit those Satisfactions, as the chapter Cum ex eo, on Penance and Remission, teaches. But indulgences do not release us from those precepts: Bring forth fruits worthy of Penance; Do penance. Therefore it is manifest that those sayings of Scripture are wrongly twisted to canonical Satisfactions.” I answer: indulgences (of which we shall discourse more fully in their place) do not release us from the divine precepts, but yet they bring it about that for those punishments which are forgiven us through indulgence we are not bound by that precept of bringing forth worthy fruits of penance. And we have something similar in the Apostle, Romans 13; for the Apostle commands that we render to all their dues: “to whom tribute, tribute; to whom custom, custom; to whom honour, honour.” If therefore a creditor has given someone a debt, or a prince has remitted tribute, that man will not indeed be released from the apostolic precept, so as not to be bound to render to all their dues; but he will not have a debt to render; nor will he be able with impunity to deny tribute to him to whom he owes tribute, but he will not have one to whom he owes tribute. He adds, fourthly, in this manner: “See further what follows if the punishments of purgatory are Satisfactions or satispassions, or Satisfactions are the redemption of the punishments of purgatory. Do these sentences also command that souls be chastised in purgatory? Since this must follow from the opinions of the adversaries, these sentences will have to be interpreted in a new way: Bring forth fruits worthy of penance, that is, suffer the punishments of purgatory after this life.” I answer: I wonder at this new dialectic of Philip: Satisfaction is the redemption of the punishments of purgatory; therefore the sentences which command Satisfaction command that souls be chastised in purgatory. Who would so gather, unless plainly mad? Or does he who commands that captives be redeemed, lest they be tormented or killed by enemies, seem to you to command that captives be tormented or killed by enemies? Therefore it ought to be gathered thus: Satisfaction is the redemption of the punishments of purgatory; the sentences therefore which command Satisfaction command this, that pains be taken lest souls be consigned to the purgatorial fires; and that sentence, “Bring forth fruits worthy of penance,” does not signify, Suffer the punishments of purgatory after this life, but: Redeem the punishments of purgatory, and of your own accord make satisfaction in this life, lest, willing or unwilling, you make satispassion after this life. The fifth argument he proposes in these words: “Besides, since it is most certain that the remission of sins is gratuitous, or is given freely on account of Christ, it follows that Satisfactions are not required.” I answer: that the remission of sins, as regards the reconciliation of friendship and the punishment of eternal death, is gratuitous we willingly admit, both because the divine Scriptures everywhere witness it, and because it is certain that a man cannot do anything good without the grace of God; but the remission of sin as to temporal punishment we so confess to be gratuitous that we do not doubt it can also be acquired through Satisfaction. We say it is gratuitous, because without the grace of God we could not make satisfaction; we nonetheless assert that it is acquired through Satisfaction, because the good and penal works themselves, done through the Spirit of Christ, extinguish from condignity the guilt of temporal punishment. And as blessed Paul in Romans 6 calls eternal life the grace of God, which in 2 Timothy 4 he calls the crown of justice, because, as the Council of Orange rightly teaches, canon 18, a reward is due to good works if they are done, but grace, which is not due, precedes that they may be done; so also the remission of temporal punishment pertains to grace and to justice; because the remission of temporal punishment is due to Satisfaction if it is made, but grace, which is not due, precedes that it may be made. Add that if the redemption of the temporal punishment of this life, which Philip admits, is not repugnant to the gratuitous remission of sin, there is no reason why the redemption of the temporal punishment of purgatory should be repugnant to it. The sixth argument is proposed thus in the following words: “The Gospel has a command of remitting sins freely, not of imposing punishments and new laws, or of imposing part of the punishments, part being remitted.” I answer: that Gospel command about remitting sins freely, that is, no Satisfaction being imposed, we have not hitherto been able to find in the volumes of the four evangelists; but we find in Matthew 16 and 18 a command altogether contrary. For where the keys of loosing and binding are given to the apostles, there without doubt they are so constituted judges of sinful men that they not only absolve them from faults, but also bind them to punishments, as they shall have judged expedient for their salvation. For that the power of binding is nothing else than the power of retaining sins for the impenitent, which Philip writes in this place, the adversaries do not prove, but only say; but that that power extends its bond to all those things which are necessary or useful to the salvation of regenerate men, and by name to the bond of Satisfaction, we prove, both because the words of the Lord are general, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” and, “Whatsoever you shall bind,” nor is it ours to restrict what the Lord willed to be ample; and because the custom of the Church has most openly declared that place, since (as is clear from the councils and Fathers cited above) there was never any time in which the lapsed were received in the Church without Satisfaction. But who would believe that the universal Church from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel was unwilling to admit the lapsed without Satisfaction, if in the Gospel a command were extant about remitting sins without Satisfaction? The last argument, if it ought to be called an argument and not rather a figment, is had in these words: “Besides, the death of Christ is not only a Satisfaction for guilt, but also for eternal death, according to that: O death, I will be thy death. What monstrous thing, then, is it to say that the Satisfaction of Christ redeems guilt, our punishments redeem eternal death; so that now that voice, I will be thy death, ought to be understood not of Christ but of our works; and indeed not of works commanded by God, but of certain cold observances devised by men; and that they are said to abolish death even when they are done in mortal sin?” I answer: there are here three lies. For first, Catholics do not teach that eternal death is redeemed by our Satisfactions, but only temporal punishment, as we have already said rather often; and that that, “I will be thy death,” is to be understood of the death of Christ, not of our works, we most gladly confess. Then, we place satisfactory works not in observances devised by men, but in fasting, alms and prayer, which in the Scriptures have most ample precepts, examples and promises, as we taught above. Lastly, no Catholic teaches that works done in mortal sin abolish death; some indeed say that works done in mortal sin will be satisfactory if he who did those works returns again to the grace of God; but that they are satisfactory then, while he is in mortal sin, no one (that I know) says. Further, the better theologians grant neither that those works which were done in mortal sin are satisfactory, nor that they ever will be; so far are they from saying that death is abolished by these works. And let it suffice to have answered these things to the arguments of Philip.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI.
Solvunlur argimenla quaedam LiUheri contra
senlenliam Ecdesiac de SalisfacUone.
INunc denfium argumcnla solvenda sunt ac prae-
cipue Lutheri , Melanclhonis. Calvini , Remnilii.
Scd quoniam Lulheri argumenla el leviora sunl
el tlissoluta: pauca solum altingam, ul ex iis judi-
ciuni tle caeteris fial.
Priinum igitur in senu. de indulgentiis , quem
liabuit auiio 1jI8. ad imlium vidclicet tragocdiae
a se e.xcilalae, ex verbis Ezechielis prophetae de-
monitrare nitilur, posl dimissam culpam , nullam
oxigi a Dco pocnam.sive Pocnilcnliam, sed novam
laiilummodo vilaiii. Iv/iM-hifl (Miim cap '.V.\. indiicit
Domimim ila IoiiuciiIimii: liiipicUi.^ iini^ii iwnnO'
cchiL qudcumque die c.onvcrsus fucril (ih iinjiic-
lalesua: cx (pio loco colligi vidclur, nullas sup(;r-
css(> pociias . (juas !)(Mis rcpelal ab imj)i() posl
coiiversioiicm; (juia si ali(piii supcrcsscl pociia ,
certe adliuc noccrcl impio im|)iclas sua.
Hi^spoiKhM): Scnlciitiii prophelae non esl, quod
nihil omiiiiio impiclas iioc(;al impio post coiiver-
sioncm: scd quod iion nocciil ad oblinandam el
conscrvandam graliiim Dei et salutem acternam :
nam (luid sil noccrc, aiil noii iukmmc cxplicat ibi-
dcm |)r()plictii, cuio non scmcl n^pclit, iiupium
post convcrsionem non moriiurum, cl justum post
iivcrsioncm non viclurum. Qucmadmodum igitur
iioii prosunt justiliac juslo, si a Domino avcrtalur,
quiii non possunt eHiccrc ul non morialur: sic et-
iiim non nocenl impio omnes impielalcs, si ad Do-
miiium convertatur, quia non possunt eflicere, nt
iiiorialur.
El confirmatur haec explicalio cvidcnlissimo ar-
gumcnlo. Niim si impietas impio post conversio-
iicm nullo modo prodesscl, eliam quoad poenam
lcmporiilcm: eodem modo jusliliii justo posl avcr-
sionem nullo modo prodcssct, cliam quoad prac
inium lcmporalc.jXam Dcus in eo loco dicil: Jusli-
lia jusli non liberahit cum in quacumque dia
pcccaverii, et impielas iriijyii non nocebU eiin
quacumquc die conversus fueriL\ cl cap. 18. si-
cul dicit Deus non rccordalurum se iniquilatum ,
qiiiis impius gessil, si Poenitentiam egerit: ita quo-
qiie dicil, non recordalurum se jusliliarum, quas
j uslus opcratus esl, si peccaverit. At ncgari non
polcsl, quin saepenumero Deus opcra bona impio-
rum rcmuncret tcmporali mercede, ut sancti Pa-
Iros doccnl, Chrysostomus hom. G7. ad populum
Anliochcnum. Ilicronymus in c^ip. 29. Ezcchielis;
Auguslinus lib. ij. de Civil. Dei. cap. 15. Grego-
rius homil. 40. in evangclia. Sicut igitur bona opc-
ra post aversionem dicunlur non prodesse justo ,
qiiia non eum liberanl a morle sempilerna , licet
non fraudenlur temporali aliquo praemio:sic eliain
impielas dicilur post conversionem non nocere im-
pio, quia non impcdil vilae aeternae consequutio-
nem, licei poenam tcmporiilem sccum fcral.
Deni(]ue si Deus per prophetam leslaretur nul-
lam omnino poeuam se de peccatore sumpluruin
posl conversioncm: qua ralione Moysem,Aaroncm,
Davidem, el alios tam mullos post conversionem
temporaliter punivisset, ut Scripturae divinae le-
slanlur, quarum testimonia jam antc prolulimus?
Quarc necesse est, aul Scripluram Scripturae re-
pugnarc, quod absurdissimum est; aut (quod esl
vcrissimum) allcram ex altera explicari : proinde
poena tcmporalis de Davide posl convcrsioncm
sumpla, aperlissime docct, locum Ezcchiclis inlcl-
ligendum esse de poena sempitcrna , quae per
conversionem lollilur, non de poena temporali ,
quae posl conversionem manet.
Secundum argumenlum habelur in lib. de ca-
plivit. Babylon. qucm ediditanno 1j20. l\am in co
lib. cum ad sacramenlum Poenilcnliac venissct ,
mulla scripsil de SalisI'aclione,sed inler multa ver-
MIM.ll giAUHS
73:5
h;\ |):irlim iiiaiii:i. piirliiii mfindnoi;!. niliil o.st quoil
aliqiiiiiii arf^umculi spociiMii osleiulal , praelcr e-
xempiiun Chrisli, Joan. 8, qui cum adulleram ab-
solvens.di.vil: Vade, cl noli ampliitspeccnre'. nun
aliam salisfaclioncm ab illa excgit,nisi ul cleiiicops
bene viveret.
llespondeo: Primum non conslal, ulrum adul-
teram Dominus a oeccalis absolveril . an soium a
poena lapidalionis liberaveril: certe verba ilia: iVcc
ii()0 iQ condemiiabo: vade, el noli amplius pecca-
re. niliil aliud signiflcare videnlur , nisi, iNeiiuc
0^0 te ad lapidationem adjndico , sed cave ne ite-
ruin peccando in idem i)ericulum incidas. Quare
nilul hic locus pro Salisraclionc, vel conlra Satis-
factionem facil.
Deinde est^j, remiseril Dominus adullerae pec-
«■atutn: quis novit. an non laiilam in ea Oominus
oontritionem viderit, ul nuUa praelerea satisfaclio-
ne opus psse judiciiveril? nam nec nos 'lifliletnur,
lantam aliquando vim conlrilionis in ali(]iji) repc-
riri posse, ut sola sulficiat ad omnem cuipam et
poenam expiandam; qualem fnisse in Hlaria Mag-
(lalena, facile milii ipse persuadeo.
Deuitiue alia ralio Cbristi esl, alia sacerdotum.
Ille, qui Dominus erat, suo jure poteral omnem
culpam el poenam adulterae condonare : Siicerdo-
les, qui ministri sunl. ju.vta leges sibi traditas co-
guritur poenitcntibus mulctam injungere.
Terlium argumc:itum Lulherus habet in asser-
lione omnium articuiorum suorum , quam edidit
anno 1.'i21. i\ain in asserlione arliculi quirili. more
suo ab auctoritale negativa sumit argurnentiim el
quidem his verbis: SalififactionemjnquW.nega.vi.
qualemipsi docent: quod milii non erit dilJicile
])robare. Osiendanl si possnnt ubi iii lota Scri-
plura unus apex. auljoia scribalur, pro pecca-
to mortali uno dehere snlislieriseptem nnni><; di-
canl ubi pro differentibus peccalis differenles
poenas slalunt Chrislus et apostoli. !)lonne haec
omnia sunt postea invenla ab episcopis? immo
denl unum ex anliquis Palribiis. in qvo legnn-
tur quadraqeaae, septenae el similia. Vbi fece-
rihl. iibens revocabo.
lirspondeo, non cssel qnidem necoss.-.rium ox
Scripluris etPalribus ea demouslrare quae reiiiii-
ril Lutherus, si summo jure agere vellemus: non
enim contendimus. determinationem c(M-larum poe-
uarum sive qiioad tenipus.sive quoad modum. osse
jiiris divini. QuiMnaduiodum enim iii multis aliis
rebus gerieratiin Christus pracscripsit quid ;igj vel-
let, (b-terminalioiiem anlom quoad lompus. lociim,
nioduiii el cact(M'a siuiilia, Ec(desia(! [loleslali ndi-
<|uit, ut sanctus Augnslinus lcstatur in episl. SG. ad
Casulauum de jojunio , el iu episl. 118. ad .laniia-
rium. de sumeuda Lucbaristia: sic etiaru dicore no-
his licoret, Christum in geiiere Poonit(Mitiam pcc-
4;atoribus imperasso, modum aulem el lempus ot
similia, (bdiiiilioui r.ccle.-^iao roliquisso.
VerumtaiiKMi iioii eril dillicilo, 111 diviiiis liloris
oslendere mulctam septem aniiorum pro peccalo ,
(|uaiii Lulherus quacril. Lil). 2. Hoguin cap. 2i.
cuui David peccasset in Dcum, ac deinde ri^sipi-
sccus dixissct: Peccavi v<dde iii /loc facln. scd
precor Domine, ul Iransferas iniqnilalcm servL
bKi.ir.iiiM. Viij. III,
lui, quia slull'> egi niniis .• non romisil ei Deus
coiiliuuo,ul Lulhorus in primo argumenlo conlcn-
dobat, omnem culpam el poeriam, sed culpa rc-
missa. poenaiu indixit se|Uem aiinornm , aul si
mallet, aliam brcviorem. sed diiriorem , Irinm vi-
delicet monsium, aul deiiique aliam brevissimam,
(lierum trium, sed gravissimam. ilabemus igilur
non apicein. aut.jota iinum. scd integram, planani-
(lue seulentiam Scripturae divinae. ubi pro uno
peccato poen-d seplennis indicilur. Neque l<-uge
abesl a proposilo noslro quod scribilur Daniel. i.
regcin Nabuchodonosor pro poccato superbiae se-
ptem temporibus. idesl, seploin aiinis.gravissimam
poenam Deo jubenle luisse. Num. 12. Maria soror
Moysis pro poccato murmuralionis jussu Doniini
septcin diebus exlra castra morari coacla est.
Quod aulem Lulherus indicari poslulat locum,
ubi pso dilferentibus peccatis diflerenles poeiiae
conslituanlur; lu.bemus teslimonium luculeulum
in Deulcrou. cap. 2.'>. Pro mensura delicli , erit
et plaqarummodus. Et Apocal. 18. Quantuni se
qlorificnvil, el in deliciis fuil.lanlum dale ei lor-
'iiientum el lucluin: ex his (Miim locis jicrspicue
discimus diversa peccata, diversas cxigere poenas,
majora videlicet majores ct minora minores.
Quod vcro pcrtinet ad sanclos Palros, quorum
vcl unum sibi demonstrari cupil LulhiM-us. qui mc-
minerit quadrngonarum et seplenarum, idesl, poe-
nilcnliac qiiadragiula dieruni, aul scplcm anno-
ruin: nos pro uuo Palre concilia anliquissima Pa-
Iruin plurimorum dabimus. In coiicillo ancyrano
celebralo ante nicaenum 1. concilium, idcsl, anle
annos 1270. can.8. injungitur seplennis poeniten-
tia iis, qui coacti bis, tcrve, idolis sacriDcaverant,
et in eodem concilio pro variis delictis, aliquando
duorum. aliquando trium. aliquando etiam deceni
annorum poenitentiac indicunlur. In concilio ni-
caeno I. trecenlorum decem et octo sanctorum Pa-
irum, can. 11. indicitur poenilentia annorum un-
deciin iis, qui praeter nccessilatom praevaricali
snnt; el rursus can. 12. quibusdam aliis annorum
13. poenitcnlia impcralur. In concilio (diberlino ,
quO(J circa tcmpus concilii nicaeni colebralum est,
can. .■). niulieri, quae ancillam vcrboraudo iieca-
vit. seplcrn annorum iiiiungilur pooriilenlia.
Denique innumerabilia sunt ojusmodi lcslimo-
nia, qiine lum iu ipsis conciliis. tum apud Ivonem
et Ikir(diariluin decrotorum collcclores legi possunl,
oxquibus LullKMi imperitia. qiii ne unum quidom
Patrem pro septenni pocnitentia proferri posse
credidil, lacile cognosci potcst.
C.VPUT .\II,
Solvu.nlur nrqumenla Philippi Mvlanrhlhonis
px hicis rominunibus.
.lam voro Philippus Miilanc.hthou in locis com-
mnnihus lil. do Salisfai tione. (piaodam alia argii-
iiKMila ( (iiigossit, ([u:i(M'. ho loco solibi brevituli}
S(dvonius,
i^l
iii. i'oi:.mii:mi.v
Priiniiin: Fvcmplo piMililiuiiuonaUir osltMidere.
S.ilisfaclioiiodi apuil voleres Clirislianos nihil aliud
fuissc. nisi |>ul)luMin rMoininimicalionein.id cerln
si^^na rf.iliis. alijue eliain poeiias exlernas , iiuae
iiijuii;?el)aiiUir publicis percaUiribus exetnpli el
iliscipluiae caussa: el proferl exenipla quaedam de
Ptioeiiicf apud Ihxneruu) de Oresle. IN-Ieo. AiUilo-
cliu. .\ilrasU) el siinilihus.iiui lei^unUiriii hisloriis,
sive poUus in fahulis Graecorum.
Kcspondeo: Ivxslare vesUgia quaedam SaUsfa-
cUonis apiid eUinifos libenlcr adiniUiinus,id euiin
ariiuinenU) esl, naUirale judicium docere, posl ad-
missam cnlpam necessariam essc Salisfaciioncm:
tainen nulli) inodo credibile esl. ChrisUanos ah et-
hniris saUsfaciendi riluni hahuisse; cum in ulro-
que lestamenlo lam mulla el lam perspicua inve-
nianlur praecepla el exempla Salisfaclionis. Cur
enim. obsecro. primi illi Chrisliani a Plioenicc.
polius, aul Oresle. Peleo. Aiililocho vel Adraslo,
SalisfacUonem didicisscnl, quam a Job, Davide, A-
chabo. .Manasse. Mnivitis et aliis. qui in Scripturis
sanctis Doum veruin per opera Pocnilenliae placa-
re sluduisse inveniunlur?et quid opus eral in fahu-
lis Graecorum opera Poenitentiae quaerere. cum
in Scripluris prnphclae el aposloli . el Chrislus
jpse lain frcquenter ad ea opera homines adhor-
lelur.
Sed illud nullo modo fcrendum est. quod Phi-
lippus scrihil. exHinpli solum et disciplinac caus-
sa imposilas salisfacliones in usu fuisse apiid vele-
res. .\n exempli el disciplinae caussa. Rex Achab,
cui nemo Satisfaclionem imponere ausus fuisset,
cilicium ad carnem sponle sua gerchat,el dormie-
bal in sacco acjejunabal. ut lefl^imus lib. 3. Re-
gum cap. 21. an polius ul soli Dco, qui videt in
ahscondito, satisfacerel? Joram quoque rex Israel.
cuin lempore belli et fain:s Deum per Poenilenliam
placare cuperel. cur cilicium gerebal occulle, ul
iiabemus lib. 4. Regum cap. 6. nisi quia non ho-
ininibus. sed Ueo satisfucere cupiebar^Quod idem
ex rege David intelligi potest, qui solo Dei oculo
contentus.lavabatper singulas nocies lectiimsuum,
el humiliabnl in jejunio animara suam, ct panem
sicul cinerem manducabat; ul ipse de se in psal-
mis loquilur: ul omittam lcslimonia Palruin,qui di-
seriis verbis testanlur. per opera Poenileniae Deum
esse placandum. alque illi potissimum salisfacien-
dum: quac leslimonia su[)ra posuimus.
Allorum Philippi argumenlum conslal ex variis
caussis. qiiibus Deus in hoc mundo affligil Ecclc-
siani.X.im posleaquam enumeravit dcccm caussas,
ita concludit: Omitlantur orgo fabulne de com-
tp^nf^atione purfiatorii. quae nuUa hahml testi-
moniain Scripturaprophetica et npostolica. et
cogilentur aliae majores caussne calamitatum.ut
iram Dei ngnoscnmus el expavescamus, et rur-
f^um veram cnnsolationetn nobis proponamus.
Respondeo: .Mullis modis nrgumentiim pcccal.
Primuin,«non reddil caussara afllicliomim. quas
^el ipsi poenilenlcs sponle sua assiimebanl. ul Ni-
niviUie. Job. David et cacleri vel Ecclesia poeni-
tenlibus injungehat, ut ex lol conciliis supra pro-
bavimus: sed earum tantum quas a Deo imraissas,
velinl nolinl. homines lolerare cotrunlur. Elsi au*
tem nos fatemur tlagcll.i diviniUis iinmis.sa, si ae-
(|uo auimo lolerenlur, non parum prodesse ad Sa-
UsfaclioneuKlamen m.igis propric salisfaclionis di-
cuuliir hibores sponh; assunipli. vid a jiidice spi-
riliiali imposili ad compensandam injuriam Deo
faclain.
Deinde non probal Philip|ius non i^sse alias ca-
ussas calamitalum. quas Deus immillil, prarlcr il-
las decem, quas ipse enumeral. Et (lucmadmodiim
ipse reperil canssas, non unam. aiit diias. sed de-
cenr. ita possumiis el nos undccimam addere,qiiae
cacleris nihil repugnet: ea vero est, ut homines
Chrisliani calamilales, quibiis a Deo premuntur,li-
bentcr snstinenles purgatorii poenas evadant.
Deniqiic ex illis i[)sis caiissis.quas ipse addiicil,
colligi potesl, valere Salisfacliones ad poenas puf-
galorii compensandas, quod ipse negal. Faleture-
nim Philippus in priina et oclava caussa.Deiim ca-
lamilaliliiis siios affligcre^ul eorum peccata punifil:
faleUir cliam paulo posl, idesl, pag. sequfiiiti, e-
jiismodi calamilales per PoenilenUam noslram mi-
tigari et aliquando pcnitus lolli, idque ex divinis
lileris proh.iri posse dicit. Quod igilur ipse docel
de poena temporali hujus vitac. nos extendimus
eliam ad poeiiam temporalem vilae fiilurac, quac
piirgatorii po<'na noininalur. Esse aulem purgalo-
rium post hanc vitam negal Philippus. el ideo ne-
gat pocnam allerins vilae per Poenitenliam mitiga-
ri, vel lolli: sed si admillerel purgalorium, admil-
tercl consequenler (qiiod ex iis quae i[)se docet,
aperle sequilur) purgalorii poennm per poenilen-
tiam miligari. vel lolli. Porro: Purgaloriiim esse,
nos in 2. lomo Conlroversiarum cx Scripluris et
Palribus clarissime demonslravimus: proinde ni-
hil est, quod in hoc argumento diuUus immo-
remur.
Poslremum argnmenlum in locis communibus,
ducil Philippus ab absurdis, quae in Scholaslico-
rum doclrina. quam ipse doclrinam monachorum
vocal. repcriri iWcii: l}Iulla sunt. inqnh.deliramen-
ta in opinione monachorum, quorum aliqua sa-
tis est refutasse. Satisfacliones monachorum ob-
scurantlegem et evangelium, et nmplificant di-
gnitatem iradilionum humanarumr.fingunt enim
in Satisfacti.onihvs aliquid amplius fieri. quom
legom Dei: somniant reUquis operibus legi Dei
sntisfactnm esse. Necesse est autem in Ecclesia
exslare hanc doctrinam,quod in hac vita procvl
absinl eJiam rennti a perfeitione legis. Deinde
obscnrant evnngelinm . quia fingunt, mortem ae-
tprnnm nostra compensalione aboleri. immo in-
docli facile Iransferunt Satisfactiones ctiani ad
remissionem culpae. Terlio amplificant trnditio-
nes humanas: definiunt enim Satisfacliones esse
opera non debita. hoc est. caeremonias huma-
nas, certorum dierum. jejunia.cerlorum ciborum
abstinentinm,cerlarumprecum leclionem. Neces-
sc esl autem in Ecclesia exslare hanc doctri-
nam: Frustra colunl me mandalis hominum,
idest, observationes humnnae non sunt cultus
JJei. ac multo minus aestimalionis tantae,ut sinl
compensatio pro morte aelerna.
Hespondeo: Omillo quod doclrinam catholicam,
per conlempluin Phiiippus doclrinam monachorum
LlHKil (JLARTUS
7*> V
nominnl: neqiic enim conviciis, sed argumciilis
cerlaro inilii proposiliim esl.qu;imqiiam eitiiidoclri-
nam. quam Pliilippus oppiigiiat, iion liicologorum
taiilum Scholasticorum, quorum plerique moiiaclii
fuerunt, sed etiam omnium veterum Palrum esse,
paiilo anlc oslendimus.
Quod igilur allinel ad illa tria,quae adversus do-
clrinam de Sntisfaclione objicitinlur, quod vidcli-
cel obscurel legein. quod obscuret evangelium, ct
quod amplificet dignilalem traditioniim liumana-
rum. Primum repugnal Scripturae et Patribus nni-
versis. Secundum, non modo esl falsnni, scd ct-
iam ipso tesle Pliili[)po falsum essc convincilur.
Terlium el esl t»perle falsum,et supra a nobis cap.
4. el 6. refutalum.
Primum Scripliirae el Patribus rcpugnare. pcr-
spicuum est ex cap.19. Matlliaei.nbi Dominus con-
siiia a praeceplis distinguens. ostcndil, posse lio-
mincs jnstificalos per graliam Dei non solnm im-
plcrc legem; sed eliam aliqna alia opera Deo gra-
tissima faceri;. quae iniperala non sinl. IVam inler-
roganll adolescenli: Qui boni faciam, ulhabeam
vilam aelernam? respondil Dominns:Si vis advi-
tam ingredi. scrva mandata. Cumque ille dicc-
ret, se omnia servasse a juventule sua, adjecit Do-
minus el ait: Si vis perfecius esse, vade. vende
qune habes, et da pauperibys, et habebis thesau-
rum in coelo. et veni sequere me;de quo loco fu-
se disseruimus in 2. lib. de monachis, cap. 9. ubi
etiam mulla alia adduximns teslimonia Scriplura-
rum ad rem eandem conUrmandam; el in codera
libro. cap. II. adduximus lcstimonia Palrum lali-
norum et graccoriim, qui diserlis verbis alTirmant,
posse liominem christianum per Dei giatiam plns
facere, quam Deus praecipiat. Ou'H'e necesse cst
in Ecclesia exstare hanc doctrinam, posse omncs
Christianos (ul concil. II. arausicannm, can. ulli-
mo Iradil) post acceplum Baptismum, cum Dei ad-
jutorio, quac ipsi Dco sunt placita, si Gdeliler la«
borare voluerint adimplcre.
.\Uerum anlcm (ipso lestc Pliilippo) falsum csse,
ac proinde Philippum sibi non conslare, ex cjus
verbis demonslrari polesl. Scribil enim hoc loco,
pcr Satisfaclioncs cvangelium obscurari. propUjrca
quod inonachi linganl, mortcm actcrnam iiostra
compensationc abolcri: al non dicnnl hoc, sed nc-
gant potins monaclii, idcsl. scholastici doclorcs;
qiiod in codem litiilo d(; Salisraclionc, docnil Plii-
lippus his vcibis: Monachi Jiic dcjiniunt Salisfa-
clioncH opcrn non debila. quibus volanl redinii
pocnas purqnlorii.ant ccrlc alias poenas lcmpo-
ralcs: Sic enim doccnl,Demn cumsil misericors,
rcmi.Uere culpam. scd cum sil justus cl vindcx,
mulare pocnam aclcrnam in lcmporalem purqa-
lorii. hcindc addnnl, parlom pocnamm remilli
poicslale clavium. pnrlcm rcdimcnddm essc Sa-
lisfactionibus: hacc est summa commenli. Ilaec
illc; qni (■iirn docct. cx sentenlia monaclioriini.Sa-
lisfactionibus rcdimi pocnas [)iirgatorii. aut alias
I)ocnas lemporales, [xicnam aiitcin aclernam non
rcdimi nisi prius ex miscricordia Dei mulala sit in
icm|)oralcm: cortc simnl doccl. ox scntciili;i mo-
iiachornm.absoliitc cl sim|)Iicit( r iioii rcdiini mor-
l'!m, sivc pocnam aelcrnam,scd solum lcmporalcm.
Porro: Poennm lemporalern purgatorii noslris n-
pcribus rediini, non soluin nionachi docenl, sed
cliam Scriplurac et Putres, quorum tesiimonia a-
lio loco allata sunt: intcr quae illud s. Cypriaui in-
signe csl, ex epist. 2. lib. 4. Alind est pro pecca-
tis lonqo dolorc crucialum emendari et purga-
ri diu igne^ aliud peccata omnia passione pur-
gasse.
Ouamvis aulem Satisfacliones nostrae non sint
ex condigno compcnsalioncs mortis aelernae, ut
saepc jam re()etivimiis:lamen opera Iaboriosa,quae
cum Dei anxilio fiunl a poenilcnlibus, sive cxcon-
gruo, sivc ul disposiliones concurrere ct prodesse
ad culpae rcmissionem, ol mortis aelernae libera-
tionem; Scriplurae et Palres pers[)icue docent, ut
lib. 2. cap. 12. demonslravimus: inter caclera,Pa-
ciani in paraencsi ad Poenitcntiam, post Tertullia-
niim in libro dc Pocnitcnlia, tcstimonium illud a-
pcrtissime esl:Si de crueialu exomologcsis retra-
clalis. gchcnnnm recordemini, quam vobis exo-
mologesis exliuguet.
I)e Tertio, idest, de amplificatione tradilionum
hiimanarum, nihil esl hoc loco addcndum.cum sa-
lis sit id totuin cap. 4. el 6.nt paulo ante dixiinus,
refutalum. Atque haec ex locis.
C.\PUT XIII.
Solvuntw argumenta Philippi ex apologia
confessionis auguslanae.
In apologia confessionis auguslanae idem Plii-
Ii[)piis |)raeler ea, quac cx locis communibus ad-
ducla conrnlavimns, quaedam profert argumenla,
qiiibus probare nilitur, Scripturas, quae pro Salis-
factionc a calholicis ad(lu''unlur. ad rcm iion face-
rc, ac proinde scntcntiam noslram dc Saiisfaclione
non niti solidis argumcntis. Sic igilur loqudur in
arliculo dc confcssione et Satisfactione: Mullacol-
ligi possunl argumenta. quod haec dclicla ScH-
pturae nullo modo pcrlincant ad schotasticas Sa-
tisfactiones.lsli (ingunt Salisfacliones esse opera
indcbila-.Scriplura aulcmin his senlenliis rcqui-
ril ojicra dcbila: nam haccvox Chisli: Agite Poc-
nitenliam;voxpraecepliesl. Primum hoc argu-
mcntum si ad forinam ratiocinationis rcvocctur, e-
;ii^inr>,i; nri'i- «Jci-i i> I iir.i r> niinf» nrn satisla('lion(' ad-
(livinac |)('r[)cram allegantur.
Kftspondeo. In assumplionc latct vilinm; ncque
cnim Scholaslici dnccnt. ()[)cra S:>tisfacloria dcbe-
rc (>ssc omnino indcbita.scd alias (nt ipsc lo(|iiun-
lur) indebila, idcsl, nisi pcccasscnl: siipiidcin as-
sidua jciunia, vigiliac, cincrcs cl cilicia indcbila
csscnt, si homincs in innoccnlia [if.rm.incrcnl.
Addc qiiod licet scntcntia sil valde probabili'^
sancli Thoniac, Durandi, Palndani,ct aliorum in K.
i.vi
m. pi»i;mii:.mi\
«li>liiiii. li.noti leclt: s^ilislicii por opeiM ;ili;is (lt>
Itita: (anuM) non «'sl iinprob:il)ilis sonlciilia .\ilri:ii)i
iri trartiilii de PooniltMilia. ti (lajolaiii t|iiaosl 1. iW,
Satisfatiiono. ptM" o|hm;i ;iii;is ilii)il;i s^ilisfKMi pos-
N»\ (Miin Salisf;ii iio. (Hi;im l>tM) rotidiiiius. iioii ptM*-
liiicat ail solain jiislili;iin. sotl tiiain atl ;iiniciliaiii.
Perjjil (liMn'li> IMiilippiis ol ail: lloin (uhcrsdriL
sirihuut. conlilcntcni .s< rccuacl snsciiicrc Satisfa'
rlionea. iwn jwccare, scdpcrsolutanuii oase has
poenas in jiuriialnrio. Jani hac scntcnliac fiine
ronlrorersia jiracccpta fntnt ad hanc vilain pcrti-
nentia: Afiilc Pocniicnliain:Facitc fructusdiiinon
Poejiilentiae:E.vhibete niembra vestra servire ju-
sliliac: quarc 7wn possunl dctor(]Ucri ad Salis-
farliones. quas rccusarc licet; noneniin licct rc-
rusarc praecepla Dei.
Kospontloo: Neulia proposiiio lnijiis ;irgunicnli
vilio cartM. Xain qiiod ;illiiiol ad Priininn. si lotpiii-
iiir ilo S;ilisf;Hiiono ;i s;nMM'dolo iiijiinil;i. do qii;i
IMiilippns loqui vitiolur, non conccdil nielior pars
iliooloiiornni r;itlioIicornni. |iosse fonliitMiltMn sinc
peccalo rornsare Salisriniioneiii. Nain l;iinclsi Sco-
iiis el Gahricl. ot pauci (|uid;iin doceant, quod Phi-
lippus retulil: lamon ninijislor senlciiliarum.s.Tlio-
tinis. l{icliardus. Duriindiis. Paiiitiiiniis ot ;ilii por-
imilli in 4. disl. 10. vol IS. omnino tM)iiloiidiinl,
'Uiod el nos supra docnimus. saccrdoloin hiibore
« laves. qnibus non laiilum ;il)Solv;il ;i cuIpa,sod cl-
iam nt )udox vicc Dci liizol ad poonam. qiiam |)oe-
nilons rocusare non polost. nisi judici divinitus
conslilulo.ac proinde ipsi Deoresislal. VoIitos ;iu-
lom P;ilros lanlnin ;ibes(. nl rocusanlos nmlclam a
sacordole injunctiim admissuri csscnl.ul numquam
ad communionem Kiicliarisli;ie poenilcnles adire
l»ermiserinl. nisi prins s;ilubri S;ilisfacliono purgii-
los, Tp«n doniqno (M)ncilia occuincnica. Florenli-
iium cl tridonlinum. noii laccrcnt SalisriHiionem
p;irtem sacramenli Poenitenliiie, nisi el a Deo in-
siilulnm.cl necessariam in rc vcl in volo esse cre-
diilissonl,
Altera vero proposilio ideo non carti vilio. qiiia
praecepliim illud: Facite fruclus diqnos poenilen-
tiae. quod unnm ex tribus a Philippo nolalis, nos
adduximus, pro Satisfaclionc. dalur quidem homi-
nibns in hac vita. sed inlelligilur cum condilione,
si vidclicel qiiis velit porfeclam remissionom pec-
cati, non solum quoad culpam, sed eliam quoad o-
moom pocnam: oinnino enim probabile esl, non
obslringi eos novo peccalo, qui non plene salisla-
fiiinl in terris pro poena lemporali allerius saecu-
li.Klsi enim vull Deus dignos poeniloiiliae fruclus,
lamen si quid minus hic solvcrimus. id purgato-
riis ignibus expiabiliir, ul Petrus Damianus scribil
in 2. serm, de s, Andrea.
Addil Philippus argumenlum Terlium his verbis:
Tertio. indidrjentiae rem.illimt illas Satisfaclio-
nes. ut docet capit. Ciim ex co. de Poenitenlia el
remissione. At indidfientiae non solvunl nosillis
pracccptis: Facitc fructus difjnos Poenitentiae;
Aflilo poenilcniiam. Ilaque vmnifestum csl, r.ule
driorqueri iUa dicta Scriplurae ad canonicas
^alisfartiones.
Rosporulpo.lndiilgcntiae (de (piihiis sno locofii-
»iu.sdibsercmiis)nonsulvunt nos divinis praoccplis,
sod fiifiiiiil laiinMi, iil pro iis poOiiis.(pi;ic iiobis |)or
iiidulgtMiliam tM)inloiiantur,non loiio;iiiiiirpr;iercplo
illodtrfaciiMidis tliunis pooniloiiiinc IVik lilms.Kl ii;i-
boimis siiiiilt* iiliquid ;ipiid Apostohim Itomaii. III.
imptMiil iMiim Aposltdiis, iil roddiiniiis omnibus de-
l)ilii:(.'uj. tribulum.tri.hutum; cui vectiffal. vcctiqal;
cui honorcm. /io/jo/vM;i.Ij;iliir si c ui tMfdilor dtiii-
liiiu doiiavcril, aiil princops Iribiilinn rcmiscnl .
iion solvetur illc qiiidcm a|)i)stolico praeceplo , nt
nou loiioatur rodilorc omnibiis dii)it;i: sed noii li;i-
bcbil dii)it;i.(]nac roddi\l:nc(pio poloril impnne ne-
garo. Iributimi im. (Mii dolxi liibiilum: scd iion ha-
bii)il cni dcbcal Irilniliini.
Atldil Qiiarlo lioc modo: Xidcle porro quid se-
(luotur. si pociiae purifatorii sunt Salisfaclioncs
aeu satispassiones. aut Saiisfacliones. snnl re-
demplio poc.narum purfjalorii. Nuni etiani hae
scntcnliae prac.cipiunt. ut animae caslifjcntur iii
pnriiatorio? id cum sequi nccesse sil ex adver-
sa.riorum opiuionibus, hae senlenliae novo mo-
do inleriiretandae erunt: Faeile fruetus difjnos
poc.nUenliae, hoc esl, paliamiui poc.nas purgato-
rii posl lianc vitam.
Hespondeo: Miror iiovam istam Philippi Dialecli-
ciiin: Siilisfaclio esl rcdoniptio poonarum pnrg;ilo-
rii: igilur senlcnti;ic. quiic praccipiunl Salisfaclio-
ncm, praecipiunl ul animae casligcnlur in purga-
lorio. Quis il;i colligorel. nisi plnnc ;imons? an ipii
pr;i(MMpil rodimi fii[)tivos. no divoxtMilur, aul occi-
diinlur ab hoslibus, is tibi videtur pr;iecipore. ul
ciiptivi ;ib hoslibus vcxenlur vcl inlerliciiinliir? Er-
go ilii colligi debi- Sidisi'actio esl rcdomplio poo-
iiiirum purgiilorii. Scnlcnliac igilur , quae Salisfa-
clioncm praecipiunt, id praecipiunl, uldelurope-
ra. ne aniniae purgatoriis ignibiis adiliciiiilur: et
scnliMilia illa: Faciie fructus dif/nospoenilentiae,
non significat, P;itiamini poenas purgalorii, posl
lianc vitam. sed; Redimile poen;is purgalorii, cl
sponde s;ilislacile in hiic vita, nc, vclitis nolilis,
siitis paliiimini posl liiiiic vit;im.
Quinlnni argumenlum liis verbis proponil: Prae-
lerea cum cerlissimum sit, remissionem peccalo-
rum fjraluitam esse, seu gratis propler ClirisluriL
dunari scquitur non requiri Satisfactioncs.
Respondco. Keinissionem peccalorum, quod ;ii-
lincl ad rctMjnciliationcm amiciliae.cl pitcnam mor-
tis actcrmic. graluilam esse, libcnler admitiimns,
iiiin qnia Scripturac divinac id passim testantur,
Inm qni;i cerlum esl, non posse hominem sine Dei
gralja tioni ;iliquid agcrc: rcmissionom autcm p(M>
calf quoad poenain temporalem, ita falemur csse
graluilfim. nt eliam per Satisfaclionem acquiri pos-
sft non dubilonius. r.ratuilam osse dicimus. qnia
sine graliu Dei salisracere non possemus, acquiri
nihil()minus per Salisfiiclionem asserimus, quia i-
psa opera bona et poenali;i per Spirilum Chrisli
lacta, ex condigno realnin poenac lcmporalis ox-
imngnnt. VA quemadniodum b. Piiulus ad lloni. (i,
vitam aclernam, gratiam Dei vocat, quarn 2. Ti-
niolh. 4. Justiliae coronam appcllal, quia ul rccle
docti concilium arausicanum can, 19, debclur nier-
cos bonis opcribus, si fianl, scd gralia, quac non
dobetnr, praecedil ut fiant, sic etiam poenae tcm-
poralis rcmi.^^siu ad graliani ct inslitiam pcrlincl:
JllKll OLAUriiS
73:
quiij (lebclur rcmissio pornac lempornlis Salisfii-
clioni, si linl. sed griilia quae non (lobclur. [^rac-
cedil, ul fial. Adde, quod si non repugnat graluilao
remissioni peccali. redcmplio poenae lemporalis
hujus vilae, quam IMiilippus admitlil: nuUa csl ralio
(Mir eidcm repugnal retlcmplio poenac lemporalis
purgalorii.
bexlum argumcntuTii in verbis sequenlibus ila
|)rop()iiilur. Evangelium liabcl mandatutii oratis
rcmillendi pcccaia , non imponendi poenas et
novas le(jes, anl parlem poenarum imponendi ,
pnrtc rcmissa.
Hespondco:Mandatum istud evangelicuni de pec-
calis remiUendis gratis, idest, nulla Satisfaclione
imposila: nos adhuc in quatuor cvangelislarum vo-
Jiiminibus repcrire nequivimus; invenimus auleni
Mallii. tO. cl iS.mandalum omnino contrariuiri.Ubi
cnim aposloiis dantur clavcs solvendi et ligandi,
ibi sine dubio sic illi judices liominem peccatorucn
ronsliluunlur, ut non solum eos a culpis absolvanl,
sed etiam ad poenas ligent, proul ad salutem ipso-
rum judicaverint expedire. Quoad enim potesias li-
gundi niliii sil aliud,Misi poteslas retinendi peccata
impocnilentibus, quod lioc loco soribil Pliilippus,
sujvcrsarii non probanl.scd diccint tanlum:quo(J au-
icm ea poteslas ad ea omnia vinculo se exlcndal,
(juae necessaria, vcl utilia sunt salulem liomiiuim
rcnalorum , ac nominalim ad vinculum Salislactio-
nis, nos probamus, tum quia verba Domini gcne-
ralia sunl: Quodcumque ligaveris. el Qunccuinque
alligavcrilis; neque nostrum est rcstringcre, quod
Dominus amplum esse voluil: lum quia Ecclesiae
consuetudo locum islum apcrtissime declaravit, si-
quidem (ut ex conciliis et Palribus supra cilatis
perspicuum est) nullum unquam fuit lempus, quo
lapsi in Ecclesia sine Satislactione reciperentur.
Quis autem credat, Ecclesiam universam ab inilio
praedicationis evangelicae , noluissc lapsos sine
Satisfaclione admitlere, si in evangelio mandatum
exstarel dc peccalis sine Satisfaclione remitlen-
(lis?
Argumenlum Postremum, si lam argumentum,
cl non potius (igm(.'.nluui dici debel, in illis verbis
habetur: Prneterea nmrs Cliristi nnn cst solum
^alislaclio pro culpa, sed eliam pro morte aeler-
na, juxla illud: Ero mors lua o mors. Quid csl
iljitur monstri, dicere, quod Cliristi Salisfactio
redimat culpam, nostrae poenac redima.nl mor-
lem aelernam: ut jam illa vox (Kro mors tua.)
intcllifji debeat. non de Chrislo, sed de noi^tris
(iperibus: et nuidem,non de operibus: el (juidev},
iion de operibus a Deo praeceptis, sed de l'ri(jidis
(f^iibusdarn observationibus,exco(fitalis a.b homi-
nibus: el dicanlur mortem abolere etiam cum
liunt in peccalo mortati?
Respoudeo. Tria sunl liic mendacia, Primum e-
nini non docet calholici , Salisfaclionibiis nostris
rcdimi morieiu aetcrnam.sfid poimani solum t('m|>o-
lem, utjam sac|)ius diximus: al^juc illud: Kro v.ors
lua, (hiClirisli morle. non dc noslris opcribus iii-
ielligendum esse, gralissime conlilemur. Dcimh!,
^atisfacloria opera non in observationibus ab homi-
iiil)us excogitiitis, scd iii jeiiinio, eh^emo^yiiii ct
■Malionc, quae in Scripluris praccrplu, cxemplii ct
prornissioncs amplissimns Iiabenl, ut supra docui-
nius, collocamus. Deiiiqm; neino catholicorum do-
cel, opera in peccato morlali facla. abolere mor-
lom: dicunt quiilem aliqui, opera in peccala mort;ili
fiicta. fore s;ilisfactoria, si is ilerum ad graliam Dci
rcdeat. (pii ea opera fccerat; sed lunc salisfacloriii
esse, dum is est in peccalo mortali. nemo (quod
sciam) dicit. Porro meliores thcologi ne(iu(! s;ilis-
fiicloria esse, neque unquam futura concedunl ca o-
pera, quae in peccalo morlali fiicla sunt: lantum
abcsl ul his opcribus rnortcm abolcri dicant. Atque
liaec ad argumenta Philippi rcspondissc suflicial.