Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 14: Certain Arguments of John Calvin 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).
John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 25, begins to harass the doctrine of Satisfaction, and like another Thraso, or Goliath the Philistine, with admirable confidence insults the armies of the living God: “The third place,” he says, “they assign to Satisfaction in Penance; of which whatever they babble can be overthrown with one word. They say that it is not enough for the penitent to abstain from past evils and change his manners for the better, unless for those things which have been done he make satisfaction to God; and that there are many helps by which we may redeem sins, tears, fasts, oblations, offices of charity.” And a little after: “To such lies I oppose the gratuitous remission of sins, than which nothing is more clearly preached in the Scriptures.” Answer: what Calvin says we babble, and what he affirms can be overthrown with one word, Saint Augustine hands down in just so many words in homily 50, chapter 15, where he speaks thus: “It is not enough to change one’s manners for the better, and to withdraw from evil deeds, unless also for those things which have been done satisfaction is made to God through the grief of Penance, through the groaning of humility, through the sacrifice of a contrite heart, alms cooperating.” And what Calvin reprehends in us about the helps for redeeming sins Saint Ambrose hands down in these words, in the book On Elias and Fasting, chapter 20: “We have many helps by which we may redeem our sins. Have you money? redeem your sin.” Nor are things unlike these read in the Scriptures and Fathers whom we cited above; we therefore do not babble or feign these things, but have drawn them from the Scriptures and Fathers. Further, the gratuitous remission of sins, which is most clearly preached in the divine letters, as it did not frighten Augustine and Ambrose and the other Fathers, most diligent handlers of the Scriptures, so neither does it frighten us; for in the same Scriptures we read both, namely the gratuitous remission of sin, and the redemption of sins through good works. For the same Holy Spirit who said through Isaiah, “I am, I am he that blot out thy iniquities for my own sake, and I will not remember thy sins,” Isaiah 43, and the rest which Calvin cites, said also through Solomon, “By mercy and truth iniquity is redeemed,” Proverbs 16, and through Daniel, “Redeem thy sins with alms,” Daniel 4, and through Luke, “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much,” Luke 7. So the remission of sins is gratuitous, because God freely inspires in us faith and penance, freely receives us into his friendship and grace, freely forgives the guilt and the guilt of eternal death, freely lastly infuses that grace through which we make satisfaction for the temporal punishment which remains when the guilt is forgiven; from which it follows that the gratuitous remission of sin not only does not fight with Satisfaction, but rather begets it. But in this especially Calvin errs, that he does not notice that the grace which is preached in the sacred letters is properly opposed only to those works which are done by the proper strength of our free will; for the works which proceed from grace itself are so far from being opposed to grace that they are rather included in it as effects in their cause.
Calvin goes on, section 26: “But of what perversity are they, who both say that the remission of sins and reconciliation take place once, when we are received into the grace of God through Christ in Baptism; that after Baptism one must rise again through Satisfactions; that the blood of Christ profits nothing except so far as it is dispensed through the keys of the Church,” and so on; and against this he alleges that of 1 John 2, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ; and he is the propitiation for our sins,” and that of John 1, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world.” I answer: what Calvin reprehends in the Catholic doctrine in this place Saint Cyprian wrote more than thirteen hundred years ago in the sermon On Works and Alms, where he speaks thus: “The infirmity and weakness of human frailty would have nothing to do, unless the divine goodness again coming to help, the works of justice and mercy being shown, should open a certain way of keeping salvation, that whatever stains we afterwards contract we may wash away by alms. The Holy Spirit speaks in the Scriptures and says: By alms and faith sins are purged; not indeed those sins which had been contracted before, for those are purged by the blood and sanctification of Christ.” To the same opinion speaks Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 5: “He called each blessed, both him whose iniquity is remitted through the laver, and him whose sin is covered by good works”; and many other things of that kind are found everywhere in the Fathers. Nor indeed do we so distinguish between Baptism and Penance as if the sins which are done after Baptism were expiated without the blood of Christ, by our works alone; for (as we have taught above more than once) all sins, whether they were committed before Baptism or after Baptism, are purged by the blood and redemption of Christ, as the testimonies of Scripture adduced by Calvin prove; but we acknowledge this difference between them, that in Baptism the blood of Christ works so fully, so perfectly, so copiously that it blots out all sins not only as to guilt but also as to all punishment of the other life, both eternal and temporal, so that no place is left for one’s own satisfaction; but in the sacrament of Penance the same blood of Christ blots out indeed the guilt and eternal punishment, but does not expiate the whole temporal punishment unless one’s own Satisfaction cooperates; the cause of which difference, sought from the divine justice and from other places, we gave above. Wherefore we do not admit those manners of speaking by which Calvin explained our opinion in order to make it odious. For we do not say that the remission of sins and reconciliation take place once, as if the justification of those lapsed after Baptism were not a true remission of sins and reconciliation. Nor do we say that after Baptism one must rise again through Satisfactions; for Satisfaction is applied not for rising from the death of sin, but for expiating the guilt of temporal punishment which remains after that resurrection. Nor do we say that the blood of Christ profits nothing except so far as it is dispensed through the keys of the Church; for it profits not only in the sacrament of Penance, in which by the power of the keys sinners are reconciled, but also in Confirmation, the Eucharist and all the other sacraments.
Then, section 27, he draws an argument from the honour of Christ and the peace of conscience: “And two things,” he says, “it is fitting to weigh here: that his honour be kept entire and unimpaired for Christ; that consciences, secure of the pardon of sin, may have peace with God,” and so on; and the testimonies of Isaiah, Peter and Paul being brought into the midst, by which the purging of our sins is attributed to Christ, he frames the argument in these words: “Now set before yourself their pestilent trifles: that the grace of God alone works in the first remission of sins; if we afterwards fall, our works cooperate for obtaining the second pardon. If these things have place, do those things which were above attributed to Christ remain safe for him? Hugely do these differ: that our iniquities were laid on Christ, that they might be expiated in him; and, that they are expiated by our works. That Christ is the propitiation for our sins; and, that God is to be propitiated by works.” To this former part of the argument, which is drawn from the honour of Christ, I answer that Calvin has sinned in many ways. First, he did not rightly set out the opinion of Catholics when he says that we say: “The grace of God alone works in the first remission of sins; if we afterwards fall, our works cooperate for obtaining the second pardon.” For if the matter is the remission of sins as to guilt and the debt of eternal death, neither in the first nor in the second remission do our works cooperate with the grace of God by way of Satisfaction properly so called, and yet they cooperate both in the first and in the second remission by way of impetration and dispositions. For that in the first remission, namely that which takes place in Baptism, it is not the grace of God alone which works, but our works also cooperate as dispositions, is clear from those words of blessed Peter, Acts 2, “Do penance, and be baptised every one of you,” and from those of the apostle Paul, Acts 20, “Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” And that faith and Penance cooperate by obtaining the remission of sins Augustine teaches in letter 105 to Sixtus, where he says thus: “Nor is the remission of sins itself without some merit, if faith obtains it; for the merit of faith is not nothing, by which faith that man said, God be merciful to me a sinner.” And tractate 72 on John: “With Christ working in him man cooperates for his eternal salvation and justification.” So the difference which Catholics place between the first and the second remission, that is, in Baptism and after Baptism, is placed chiefly in this, that in the first all guilt and punishment is forgiven, and therefore no Satisfaction is necessary; in the second the guilt and eternal punishment is forgiven, the guilt of temporal punishment remaining, for which Satisfaction is exacted. And that this is the opinion of Catholics the same Calvin acknowledges and writes a little below in the same chapter, section 30; but he preferred in this place fraudulently to set it out, that he might attack it more easily. Then, Calvin did not adduce those antitheses faithfully enough, when he says: “Hugely do these differ: that our iniquities were laid on Christ, that they might be expiated in him; and, that they are expiated by our works. That Christ is the propitiation for our sins; and, that God is to be propitiated by works.” For if, as he had done a little before, he had said that our works cooperate with the expiation and propitiation of Christ, and had not opposed them to the Satisfaction of Christ, he would plainly have seen that there was no place for that exclamation, “Hugely do these differ.” For these do not differ much: that our iniquities were laid on Christ, that they might be expiated in him; and, that our works, proceeding from the Spirit of Christ, cooperate with the same Christ for expiating sins; nor do those differ much: that Christ is the propitiation for our sins; and, that our works done through the Spirit of Christ cooperate with the propitiation of the same Christ. Certainly Saint Augustine, who beyond the rest everywhere defends the grace of Christ with all his strength, does not shrink from these words which Calvin so greatly reprehends in this place: “Life,” he says, in the Enchiridion, chapter 70, “is rather to be changed, and by alms God is to be propitiated for past sins.” Thirdly, the Scriptures which Calvin adduces from Isaiah, Peter and Paul prove nothing less than what he himself desires. For what does Isaiah say? “God hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, and by his bruises we are healed,” Isaiah 53. What Peter? “He himself bore our sins in his body upon the tree,” 1 Peter 2. What Paul? “Of sin he hath condemned sin in the flesh,” Romans 8. But these places teach nothing else than that the death of Christ was a price sufficient for redeeming all the sins of the whole world, or a sacrifice for expiating all the crimes of all men; but this price profits no one unless it is applied in some manner. For if no application is required, and the blood of Christ has expiated all sins altogether, whence are there so many impious in the world? why are so many thrust down to hell? why are there so few who are saved? what does Baptism do? what the Eucharist? what faith? what Penance? what the very preaching of the Gospel? It must be confessed, then, that the death of Christ, which of itself would suffice for abolishing all sins, profits no one unless it is applied to individuals through faith and the sacraments and the other instruments divinely instituted. And that one of the instruments divinely instituted for expiating the temporal punishment of sins is Satisfaction, we say, and not only say, but prove from the Scriptures and the testimonies of all the Fathers, as has appeared from what we wrote before. To this is added that the sacrifice of the cross of Christ looked chiefly to this, that it should reconcile us to God, and from impious and enemies make us just and friends of God; for so the Apostle speaks: “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” Romans 5; and, “Of sin he hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8; and blessed Peter: “He himself bore our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice,” 1 Peter 2. But all this we most willingly confess, that not by the force of our satisfaction, but by the merit of Christ alone, we are reconciled and justified, whether through Baptism or through absolution; but with this it does not fight that we say that men reconciled and justified by the blood of Christ, the Spirit and power of Christ working in them, make satisfaction to God for the guilt of temporal punishment. Lastly, what Calvin assumes at the beginning of the argument, that care must be taken that his honour be kept entire and unimpaired for Christ, is so far from being against our opinion on Satisfaction that it rather establishes and confirms it. For the glory of Christ is greater if he is said not only to have made satisfaction for our sins, but also to have given this to his members, that through his grace and power they too should in some part make satisfaction; just as he does not derogate from the omnipotence of the Creator, but rather commends and celebrates it, who says that God works miracles not only by himself but also through his servants. Let the adversaries see to it, then, lest, while they believe they are contending for the honour of Christ, they do injury to the works of grace, and to the members of Christ, and to the Holy Spirit himself; since the reprehension of the fruits is carried down to the root, and the injury of the members redounds on the head.
Now the latter part of the argument, which was drawn from the peace of consciences, is treated by Calvin in these words: “But if the matter is the pacifying of the conscience, what pacification will this be, if it hears that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? when at last will that measure of satisfaction be able to be settled? therefore it will always doubt whether it has God propitious, will always be in a fever, will always shudder. For those who rest in light little satisfactions estimate the judgement of God too contemptuously, and reckon little how great is the gravity of sin. And though we grant them that they redeem some sins by a just satisfaction, what at last will they do when they are overwhelmed by so many sins, for whose Satisfactions not a hundred lives, even if they were wholly given to this, could suffice?” I answer: the peace of conscience does not depend on that guilt of temporal punishment, which alone we say is to be taken away by our satisfactions; for he who has received the remission of guilt, and, freed from the peril of eternal death, has returned into grace with God, without doubt enjoys great peace of conscience, even if he knows that he is to be chastised with some temporal penalty for past sins. Wherefore Calvin argues as if we said that the friendship and grace of God are to be recovered by our satisfactions; which, since we by no means say it, he himself sweats in vain, and beats nothing but the air. In this besides Calvin is deceived, that he thinks a whole life, or even a hundred lives, do not suffice for the Satisfaction which we teach. He is deceived, I say, most openly; since the Satisfaction which is undertaken in this life of one’s own accord and from charity is so much esteemed by God that the brief labour of this life easily compensates the most bitter and longest torments of purgatory. Certainly the holy martyr Cyprian, book 4, letter 2, does not hesitate to affirm that all sins, which otherwise would exact a very long punishment in purgatory, are purged by the single suffering of martyrdom; nay, even besides martyrdom, the theologians teach that there can be in some penitent such a contrition that through it all sins, as to guilt and punishment, are most fully blotted out. These arguments being explained, Calvin, section 28, sets down the distinction of mortal and venial sin, which he says we use for dissolving the argument set down above, and tries to refute it. Of which matter we shall say nothing at present, both because we do not use that solution, and because we have set up a full treatise on the distinction of mortal and venial sin in volume 2. This one thing I cannot pass over, that Calvin uses a most inept reasoning to prove that satisfaction can never be made for venial sins: “And if,” he says, “the satisfaction of one sin is of one day, while they meditate it they entangle themselves in more; since no day passes for the most just man in which he does not slip somewhat; but while they gird themselves for the satisfactions of these, they will heap up many, or rather innumerable ones. Now the confidence of making satisfaction is cut off. Why do we delay? how do they still dare to think of making satisfaction?” But who gave Calvin that principle, that one day is required for the satisfaction of one venial sin? If by a single act of contrition, which can be done in a moment of time, many mortal sins are sometimes expiated, as we have said, how much more easily will not, I say, one day, but one hour suffice for the Satisfaction of very many venials? “For daily, brief and light sins,” says Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 71, “without which this life is not led, the daily prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction.” Certainly a whole day is not consumed in reciting the Lord’s prayer; and yet Augustine believes that by that prayer satisfaction is made for venial sins, not one or two, but many; the confidence of making satisfaction is not therefore cut off, nor without cause do we dare to think of making satisfaction.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV.
Solvunlur quacdam argumenta Joannis
Calvini.
Joannes Calvinus lib. 3. Instilul. cap. 4. § 2j.
incipil exagilare doclrinam de S;itisfactione,et qu;i-
si aller Thraso. vcl Golialh philistaeus, admirabili
confidentia iusultal agtninibus Dci vivcntis: Ter-
tium, inquil, locum Salisfactioni in Poenilentia
assignant: de qua quidquid blal.erant,uno vcrbo
subverti potest. Dicunt non sufficere poenitenli
a praetcritis malis abstinere, et mores in melius
commulare, nisi deiis, quae facta sunt, satisfa-
ciat Deo: csse autcm mulla adminicula , quibus
peccata redimamus, lachrymas, jejunAa, oblatio-
ncs. charitatis o//icia. Et paulo post: Talibus men-
daciis oj^pono gratuitam peccatorum rcmissio-
ncnr.qua nihilin Scripturis clarius praedicatur.
Responsio. Quod nos blatcrare dicil Calvinus,
ct quod uno verbo subverti posseaflirmat, lolidem
verbis tradit s. Augustinus in homil. 30. cap. 15.
ubi sic Ioquilur:A^OMSM//tci7 mores inmelius com-
mutare, el a factis malis recedere, nisi etiam de
iis. quae facla siint. satisliat Deo per Poeniten-
tiae dolorem, per humilitatis gemitum, per con-
trili cordis sacrificium cooperantibus cleemos})-
7w.s.Quod etiam de subsidiis peccatorum redimcn-
dorum in nobis Calvinus rcprchendil . his vcrbis
Iriidil s. Ambrosius in lib. de Elia ct jcjnnio, cap.
20. Jkibemus plurasubsidia, quibus peccata no-
stra redimamus. Pecuniam habesl* redimc pec-
catum tnum. Nequc his dissimilia leguntur ia
Scripturis et Palribus. quos supni cit;ivimus: non
igilur isl;i nos blater;imus, ;iul liugimus , sed ex
Scripturis el Palribus hausimus.
Porro graliiit;i peccalorum remissio . quae cla-
rissime in (iivinis lileris pr;ic(iic;iliir . sicut Augu-
stinum el Ambrosium el Piitres caelcros. Scriplu-
rariim diligenlissinms Iraclalores non lcrruil , ila
ne(]iie nos terrcl^in iisdem cnini Scriptiiris utrunr-
(pie legimiis. griiliiiliir;i vi(Ieiic(!l |)ecc;iti remissio-
iicm, cl redom|)lionein pecc;ilorum jrer bona opc-
ra. Idcm eiiim Spiritus sanclus, qui pcr Is;iiam
dixil: /•>/() sum. ego sum . qui dcleo ini^juilatcs
luds proplvr iiic, rl pcccdtoruiii lunrum noii vro
mcmor. Isaiae 13. ol caolcra, (piac cilal Caivinus:
738
DE POKNITK.N II \
(lixil oliiun prr S;iIonutii(Mi): Miacrivordia el vcri-
late rcdiviiniv iniiiniUi^. IMi»v(mI). I(i. tl pri- l);i-
tuclem: l'ecciita tua clecvwsynis redime. l):\i\\d.
t. el pcr Luciim: Hcinillunlur ei peccala multa ,
quoniavi dilcxit viuUuni. Liir. 1. lliupio i^riiliiila
esl peiiMloriim lomissio, qiiiii gralis Doiis rKJoin
ol pooniloniiiiin nobis inspiriil: {zriilis ad ainiciliiim
ol jiriiliinn sniiin nosrooipil, },'ralis onlpain el rca-
tuin inorlis aolornae ooinloniit; gnilis (ioiii(iiie grii-
tium illain infundil, por (|iiaiii pro poena lempora-
li, (]iiiie (iiniissa onlpa roniaiiot , satislaeiimis: ex
(1110 so(|uilnr. ul szriiliiita peeoiili romissio, iioii so-
lum ouin Salisfaoliono non pu«;nel.sed cam polius
gignal. In eo vcro polis^iimiin orrat Ciilviiiiis,(iuo(J
;;raliam, (luae in saoris liloris pracdiriilur . non a-
nimadverlit opponi pr(i|)ric illis liiiiliiin oporihus ,
(juae ex propriis viribiis liberi nostri arbiirii liuiil:
opor;i eniin, (inae cx pralia ipsa prooedunl, adeo
non oppoiuintor «iratiiie. ul in ca polius tainquain
olToctus in oiiussa includanlur.
Porpil Calvinus § 20. Voj'J/m qua sunl pervo.rsi-
tale. el peccntorum reviissionem ei reconcilia-
tioncm licri semel dicunt . cum in (jratiam Dei
per Christum in Baptismo recipimur:posl Baptis-
vxum rcsurrjcndum esse pcr Satislactiones : >^an-
[luincm Christi nihil prodcssc, nisi qualenus per
claves Ecclesiac dit^pensatur etc. ct eontra iillegat
illud 1. Joan. 2. St quis peccaveril , advocalum
habemus apud Patrcm Jesuvi Chrisfum, el ipse
cst propitiatio pro peccatisnoslris. Et iilud Jo;in.
1. Ecce ognus Dei,ecce qui loUit peccala mundi.
llespondeo: Quod hoe loeo in calliolica doclrina
Calvinus reprehendit, ante mille et treccnlos an-
nos scripsil s. Cypriaiius in scrmone de opere et
eleemosynis, ubi sic loquilur: ISon haberel quid
frafiHitatis humanae infirmitas, atque imbecilli-
tas facerct. nisi itcrum pietas divina subveniens
ju^ititiae et misericordiae opcribus ostensis, viam
quandam tucndac salutis cperiret , ul sordes
])Ostmodum quascumque contrahimus.elecmosy-
nis abluamus. Loquitur in Scripturis Spiritus
sanclus.el dicit: Eleemosynis et fide delicta pur-
qanlur: non utique illa dclicla , qvae fueranl
ante contracta.nam illa Chrisli sanguine et san-
ctificatianc purgantur. In eandem senlenliam lo-
quitur Ambrosius libr. 2. de Poenilenlia, cap. 3.
1'trumque bcatum dixit:et cujus iniquilas reniit-
titur pcr lavacrum, et cujus pcccalum legitur o-
peribus 6o7u's; alque alia id genus mulla passim
in Palribus repcrinnliir.
Neque vcro ita dislinguiinus inler Baptismum et
Poenilentiam, quasi peceala, quae posl Baplismum
fiunt, sine Chrisli sanguine. solis operibus nostris
expicntur:nam (ut supra non semel docuimus) pec-
cata omiiia, sive ante Baptismum, sive posl Baplis-
inum coinmissa fuerinl, Chrisli sani^uine el rcdem-
plione purgantur, ut testimonia Scripturaea Ciilvi-
110 adducla probanl: sed hoc inlcr ea discrimen a-
gnosciraus, quod in Baptismo ita plene, ita perfe-
ole, ita copiose Chrisli sanguis operatur,ut peccala
omnia non solum quoad culpam, sed eliam quoad
omncm poennm allerius vilae, cum aelernam, tnm
eliam temporalem deleat. ila ul nuilussatisfaclioni
propriae locas relinqualur : in sacramenlo autcm
Poiiiloiiliiio. idem Clirisli sanpriiis oiilpaiii (iiiidcni
et poonam .icttMiiain delol.scd poeiiinn liMiipor;il(Mn
lolam,nisi propria Sati.sfaclione oooperaiitoiiioii o\-
pial: cnjus discriiiiinis oiiusiiin cx diviiiii justilia.
al^pie (>x aliis locis piUitam siipra rcddidimus.
Quiirc non adinillimus inodos illus loqucndi ,
quibiis Calvinus scnlciitiam nostrain, ut eam odio-
sain fiiccrct. explicavil. Non ciiiin dicimus, rcinis-
sioiiom pccciitorum ct rcconciliatioiuMn scmel lic-
ri. (itiasi juslilicatio liipsoruiii posl B;iplismuin ,
non sit vcrii peccaloruui r(Miiissio ct rcconciliiilio.
Noi]iic dicimiis posl B;iplisinuin rosurgendum cssii
pcr Salisfactiones: non enim Satisfactio ad resur-
gcndum a morle peccati, sod ad reaturn poenac
temporalis, qiii posl cain resurreclioncrn inanel ,
expiiiudum iuiliihcliir. Netiue illud dicimus, saii-
ffuinem Chrisli niliil prodcsse, nisi quatenus per
Ecclesiac ciavcs dispcnsalur: ncque enim solum
prodesl in sacriimcnto Poenitentiae, in quo virlute
clavium peccalores reconciliantur , scd etiam in
ConDrmatione, Eucharislia, caclerisquc omnibus
sacriimentis.
Deinde, § 27.argumcnlum ducit ab honore Chri-
sti et pace conscientiae: Ac duo, inquil, /lic per-
pendere convenit: ut integer el illibatus suus ho-
nor Christo servelur: ut conscientiae de peccati
venia securae, pacem apud Deum habeant etc.
allatis aulem in medium testimoniis, Isaiae , Pctri
et Pauli. quibus pec(;alorum noslrorum purgalio
Christo Iribuilur, liis verbis coniicil argumentum:
Nunc tibi pestilentes eorum naenias propone :
Grafiam Dei inprimapeccaioruniremissione so~
lam opcrari; si postea ceciderimus,ad secundani
veniam impetrandam opera 7iostra cooperari.
Jlaec si locum habea.nt, anne quac Chrisfo supe-
rius sunt attribufa. illi salva manent ? Immane
quantum haec differunt: Iniquilales no^ilras po-
silas esse in Christo, ut in ipso expiarentur; et
7iostris opcribus expiali. Christuni essc propi-
tiationempro peccatis noslris; et,Deum operibus
propitiandum.
Ad hancPriorem argumenti parlera,quae ab ho-
nore Christi ducta est , Respondeo: Multis modis
peccasse Calvinum. Primum, non recte sentenliam
oalholicoruin exposuit, cura ait nos dicere: Gra-
tiam Dei in prima peccalorum remissione solam
opcrari: si poslea ceciderimus, ad secundam ve'
niain impetrandam opera nostra cooperari. Nam si
agatur de remissione peccalorum quoad culpam
et debitum mortis aelernae; nequein prima,neque
in secunda remissione, opera noslra cooperanlur
graliae Dei, per modum Salisfactionis proprie di-
ctae, cl tamen cooperanlur tum in prima, lum in
secunda remissione. per modum impctralionis ct
disposilionum. Quod enim in prima remissione .
quae videlicet fit in Baptismo, non sit gralia Dei
sola, quae operatur,sed opera etiam nostra, ut dis-
posiliones. cooperentur: perspicnum est ex verbis
illis beali Pelri Aclor. 2. Poenitentiam agite. et
baptizelur unusquisque vestrum. Et ex illis apo-
sloli Pauli kclov. 20. Testi ficans Judaeis afque gen-
tibus in Deum poenitenliam.et lidem in Dominum
noslrum Jesum Christum. Cooperjiri autem fidem
et Poenitentiam; impetrando remissioncm peccaln-
1.IHI:U QIAUIUS
1?>\)
riiin, (lorol Au}Tusliniis in opisl. 10.^. ;ul Sixtiim.
uhi sic ;iil: iVec ipsa rc.missio peccalorum sine a-
iiquo mcrilo esl, si {ides hanc impeirat: neque e-
nim nullum est meritum (idei.qua fide ille dice-
bal, Deus propilius e&lo milii peccatori. El Irucl.
72. in Joun. Ope.ranti in se Chrislo cooperatur ho-
nio salutem aetenvnn acjuslificationcm suam.
Ilnque (liscriinon quod ciitliolici ponunlinlcr re-
iiiissionein primain et sccuiuhim, idcsl, in B;iplis-
ino.el posl Biiplismum in eo polissimnm siluin est,
quoil in prim;i condon;ilur omnis ciilpii el poena,
et proinde nulla esl neoessaria Siilisfaclio: in se-
cunda. condonalur culpa et poena acterna, rema-
nente reaiu poenae temporalis, pro qua Salisfactio
exigatiir. Alque hanc esse calholicorum senlen-
liani, agnoscil et scribit idem Calvinus paulo in-
fra in eodem cap. § 30. sed maluit hoc loco frau-
dulenler cam proponere, ut facilius impugnaret.
Deinde Calvinus non satis fideliter antilheses il-
las adduxil, cum ail: Immane,quantinn liaec dif-
ferunt:iniquilates nostras posiias esse in Christo,
ut in ipso expiarentur: et nostris operibus ex-
piari: Christum esse propitiationem pro pecca-
lis nostris : el , Deum operibus propitiandum.
Nam si ut paulo ante fecit opera noslra cooperari
expiationi et propilialioni Clirisli dixisset,non au-
lem ea Christi Salisfaclioni opposuissel: vidissel
plane nullum esse locum excl;imationi illi: Imma-
ne. quanlum haec differunt. Neque cnim.haec
multum diirerunt. Iniquilates noslras posilas esse
in Chrislo. ul in ipso expiarenlur; et, opera nostra
a Spiritu Chrisli profecla,ei(lem Christo ad peccala
expiiinda cooperari: neque illa mullum differunl,
Chrislum csse propiliiilionem pro p('cc;ilis noslris;
el, opera noslra per Spiritum Chrisli facla, ejus-
dem Chrisli propitialioni cooperari. Cerlc s. Aupu-
siinus, qui praelcr caeleros ntraliam Chrisli lolis
viribus uhique defendii, non abhorret ab liis voci-
bns.quas hoc loco tiinlopere reprehendit Calvinus:
lumelins. inquil in enchiridio, cap. 70. est vila
inutanda. et per elcemo^^ynas de jjeccatis praete-
ritis cst propitiandus heus.
Tertio Scriplurae, qiiascx Isaia, Pclro et Paiilo
Calvinus ;iddiicil, iiihil minus prohanl, (luaiii iiuod
ipse cupil. Ouid enim Isaias dicit? Posuit Deus
in fo iniqviialem omnium noslrum , el livore
e.jus sannti .swnnfs-. Isaiae 53. Quid Pelnis ?
Vcccata nostra ipse perlulil in corpore suo su-
per lignum 1. 1'elr. 2. Qynd Paulus ? De pec-
cato damnavdl peccalum in carne. Uom. 8,
.4lquili;ipc loca nihil iiliiid docent, nisi, Chrisli
niorlem fuisse prelium suniciensad omnia pecc;ita
mundi tolius rediinenda,sive sacrillcium ad omnia
omnium homiiium crimin;i expi;iiid;i: scd hoc pr<!-
tiiim neinini prodcst, nisi inodo ;ilicpio iipplicclur.
Niim si nulla reqiiirilur ;ipplic;ilio. el oirinia omni-
no pecc;ita Chrisli sanj^uis i;xpiavil; unde tam miil-
ti sunl in mundo inipii? ciir l;im niulli delrudiinlnr
ad inferos? cur tiim paiici siinl (|i)i Siilvantui? (luid
facil Baptismus? quid Eucharislia? qiiid li(les?quid
Poenilentia? quid ipsii cv;in{^elii pra(!dicalio? Conli-
tfindum esl i»itur,Cliristi mortem,qii;ie per se ad o-
tnni.i pe<;cala abolenda sunicerel,nemini prodesse,
iiisi po.r Qdem el sacramcnta, caeleraque inslru-
inenta diviniliis instiliita,singulis appliceliir. Uniiiii
autem ex instrumentis divinitus inslilulis ad poc-
nam tem[)oralem peccatoruin expiandam, Satisfa-
ctionem esse, nos dicimus.nec solum dicimus,sed
ex Scripturis, ot omniiim Palruin teslimoniis com-
prohamus, ul ex iis quac ;intea scripsimus, patuil.
Huc accedit, quod sacrificium crucis Christi eo
polissimum speclavit, iit nos Deo reconciIi;iret. ac
de impiis el inimicis. justos el amicos l)ei lace-
rel: sic cnim Apostolus loqiiitur: Cuni inimici es-
semus, reconciliati sumus Deo per morlem FiliL
ejus. Rom. 5. et, De peccato damnavit peccatum
in carne. utjustificatio legis implerelurin nobis.
IJom. 8. el b. Pelrus: Peccata noslra ipse perlulil
in corpore suo super liqnum. ut peccatis niorlui,
justitiae vivamus. L Petr. 2. Id autcm lolum nos
libentissime confilemur, non vi solisfaclionis no-
strae. sed solo Cliristi merito nos reconciliuri el
juslificari, sive per Biiplismus, sive per absolulio-
neni: sed cum hoc non pugnal quod dicimus, ho-
mines Chrisli sanguine reconcilialos ct juslifica-
tos, operanle in ipsis Chrisli spiritu et viilule, sa-
tisfacere Deo pro realu pocnae temporalis.
Denique quod initio argumenti Calvinus assu-
mit,Providcndum essc, ut integer el illibalus suus
honor Cliristo servetur; lantum ;ibesl.ut senlcnliue
nostr;ie de Salisfaclione adversetur, ut e;im potius
slabiliul et confirmel. Siquidem major est Christi
gloria, si dic;itur non solum pro peccalis noslris
satisfccisse. sed eliam id membris suis donasse,ut
per ejiis gratiam et virtutcm aliqua ex parle ctiain
ipsa Siilisfacerenl: qucmadmoduin non derogat o-
mnipolenliae crealoris, sed eam potins commeii-
dat ct celebral, qui dicit Deum non solnm per sc,
sed eliam perservos suos miracula facere.Viderint
igilur advers;irii, ne dum pro Chrisli lumore certa-
re sc credunl, operibus gniliae, et Chrisli mem-
bris, et ipsi Spiritiii sancto injuriam facianl: siqui-
dcm reprchensio fructuum. d(!riv;iliir ;i(l radicem,
et injuria membrorum in capiil redundat.
Jam vcro poslerior argiimenli purs, quae duce-
batur a pace conscienliurum, his verbis a Calvino
Iractalur. Quod si de pacijicunda conscientia a-
flilur: quae is//iaec erit pacilicatio.si audial pec-
cata redimi satisfactionibusPquando tandeni illc
saiisfaclionis modus conslare poterit? ergo scm-
per dubilabil, an Deum habeat propitium, sem-
pcr acstnjihil. .s.-jnpc?- horrescet. .\am qni levibus
sati.sfactiuneulis acquiescunt. nimis conlemplim
judiciuniDci aestimant.et pnrum repulant quan-
ta sitpeccali gravitas. Kl ut ip^-is conrcdamus.
pecr.ala, aiiquotjusla salisfaelione redimcre.quid
tandem facient nln tol peccatis obruuntur, quo-
rnm Siilisfnrlionibus nec centum vilae, vel si lo-
tar in hoc sint. s\i(ficcre queant?
Rcspondco: Conscienliae [lax non pendcl a reatu
illo po(!na(! lcm|)oralis, fiuem soluin satislaclioni-
biis noslris tollenduin csse dicimus: qui cniin cul-
jiiie rcmissioncm ;icc(q)it, ac dc niorlis aclcriiiio
|)(!riculo liberalns, in gratiam cuni Deo rediil. ma-
gna sine duhio Iriiilnr conscienliac pace, ctiainsi
sciat se lein|)or;ili ;ili([u;i niulchi ob |)i;ccala [)raelc-
rila casligandum.Ouure C;ilvinus ila argiimcntalur,
ac si nos diceremus, satisfaclionibus noslris anii-
710
l)K PDKMiKMlA
rilinm Di^i. j,'r;ili:im(iiir r<'(iip(MMnil;im: (|ii(i.l ciiim
nos iiiiuimt* •li(Mmiis: ipsc IriisIiM sudiil. cl niliil
prnPlor iirrcm Y('rl)cr;il.
Fn 00 |>r;ieUTO;i (l;ilvimis f;illiliir. (JikuI p\islim;il
loliMii viliim. iic ne ccnliim (IiikIciii \il;is siilliccrc,
:iil SalisfiiclitUK^m, (iu;im doccmus. riilliliir. iii-
iimim. jip('rlissimo:si(|ui(lcm liiiili iicslim.ihir ii Dco
S;tlisriiclio. (lonc in ii:ic vilii sponlc. iilqiio o\ clia-
riiiilo siiscipiliir. ul brovis liiijus viliic liibor liicih^
compcnscl iicorbissimos. loi)j;issimos(]iic (ruciiilus
puri:;ilorii. Corlo s. m;irtyr r.vpriiimis lil). 1. oi)isl.
2. non (liil)it;il iillirmiiro. pccc;il;i omni;i, (iu;io ;ili()-
(liii loniTissimiim in purpiilorio pooiuiin e.\i{;erenl,
unioii miirlyrii p;issiono purp.iri: iic oliiim praolor
iii:irlyriiim.tliool()<:i docont cjusmodi esso posso iu
aliquo pocnilonlc conlrilionom.ul por oam poccala
omnia (luoad culpam el poonam, plcnissimo de-
loiintur.
llis arsiumcnlis e\pliciitis. Calvinus § 28. poait
dislinclionom pocciili mortalis ol vonialis. qua nos
iiii dicil ad arpumontum suprii positum dissolvon-
diim. at(iu"^ oain rofiitare conalor. Do qua rc nihil
in praesentiaruin dicemus. tuni qnod nos ea solu-
tiono non esrcmus, liim quod de dislinctionc pcc-
cnli mort:ilis ol venialis plenum Iractatum in 2. lo-
ino insliliiinnis.
IIoc unuin praoterirn non possum, ineplissima
raliocinaliono uli C:ilvinuni, ut probol non possc
iinquam pro vonialibiis salisfiori: i't M7iius.inquit,
tUci csl sadnfnctio pecc.ali unius: dum illam mc,-
(litanlur.^pluribns si involvunl: quando diem nul-
lum praelcrit juslissimus quisque. quo non ali-
qjintio^ lahaturiad eorum vo.ro satisfacliones dum
sc accinqcnl. numcrosa. rcl potius innumera cu-
mulabunl.Jani praccisa est salisfaciendi fiducia.
Qnid mnramur? quomodo adhuc de satisfacien-
do coqitare audent?
i^e(\ quis dodit Calvino illud principium; unum
diom roquiri ad satisfactionem unius pocciili ve-
niali"^? Si nnico aciu rontrilionis, qui momenlo
tomporis fiori potosl, inlenhim multa mortalia, ut
diximus expianlur: qiianto facilius non, inquam.u-
niis dios, sod nna hora sufficiel ad Siilisfactionem
vcnialium phirimorum? De quolidianis (inquit Au-
cuslinus in onchiridio. cap. 71.), brevibus, levi-
busque pcccatis, sine quibus liaecvila non duci-
tur. qiiotidiann oratio fidelium i^utisfacit. Corle
non consumilur unus inleger dies in oratione Do-
minica recitanda: et lamen ea oralione pro venia-
libus peccalis. non uno aul duobns, sed mnltis sa-
listiori credit Anciustinus: non igitur praecisa est
s;ilisf;iciendi fiducia. neque sine caussa de salisfa-
ciendo cogilarc audemus.