Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 15: Other Arguments of 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).
Now in section 29 Calvin comes nearer to the matter, and proposes the solution of Catholics in these words: “They try indeed to extricate themselves; but the water, as they say, sticks to them. They feign for themselves a distinction of punishment and guilt; they confess that the guilt is remitted by the mercy of God, but that, the guilt being remitted, the punishment remains, which the justice of God demands to be paid; therefore that satisfactions properly pertain to the remission of punishment.” Then, many places of Scripture being brought, he adds in section 30 what seemed wanting to the solution of Catholics: “I know,” he says, “that they still slip away more subtly, while they distinguish between eternal punishment and temporal. But since they hand down that temporal punishment is any torment which God takes both of the body and of the soul, eternal death only excepted, this restriction relieves them little. For the places cited above expressly mean this, that we are received by God into grace on this condition, that whatever punishment we had merited he remits, by pardoning the guilt.” Let us sift, then, the single places which he adduces, and see whether from them it can be gathered that all temporal punishment is remitted us whenever God receives us into grace. Which testimonies indeed Calvin produces with such confidence that he says: “I will subjoin certain other testimonies, by which those tortuous snakes will be so bound that they will not be able hereafter to coil even the tip of their tail.” The first testimony is Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18, which is proposed by Calvin in these words: “This is the New Testament which God in his Christ has struck with us: that he will not remember our iniquities. What he meant by these words we gather more clearly from another prophet, where the Lord says: If the just man shall turn away from his justice, I will not remember all his justices; if the wicked man shall depart from his wickedness, I will not remember all his iniquities. What he denies that he will remember the justices is certainly this, that he will have no regard of them, so as to reward them; therefore also not to remember sins is not to demand them for punishment.” To this first testimony we have already answered above, when we solved the arguments of Luther; but that Calvin may understand how little he has bound us by this argument of his, we use the same reasoning in the solution which he himself used in the argument. For when the just man shall have turned away from his justice, God will not remember his justices, not because he will not reward them with some temporal reward, but because he will not reward them with that eternal hire which he has promised to those that love him; therefore in the same manner, when the wicked man shall have departed from his wickedness, God will not remember his iniquities, not because he will not chastise with some temporary punishment, as he chastised Moses, Aaron, David and others after reconciliation, but because he will not punish with everlasting death and that eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels. See more in the place cited in the solution of the arguments of Luther, chapter 11. The second testimony is had in Isaiah 44, Micah 7 and Psalm 31. “The same thing,” says Calvin, “is elsewhere said: to cast behind the back, to blot out as a cloud, to sink into the depth of the sea, not to impute, to hold covered; by such forms of speaking the Holy Spirit had explained his sense to us not obscurely, if we lent him docile ears. Certainly if God punishes, he imputes sins; if he avenges, he remembers; if he calls to judgement, he does not hold them covered; if he examines, he does not cast behind his back; if he looks on them, he has not blotted them out as a cloud; if he sifts, he has not cast them into the depth of the sea. And in this manner Augustine interprets in clear words: If God covered sins, he was unwilling to notice; if he was unwilling to notice, he was unwilling to animadvert; if he was unwilling to animadvert, he was unwilling to punish, he was unwilling to know, he preferred to pardon. Why then did he say sins covered? that they might not be seen. What was it for God to see sins, but to punish?” Calvin says rightly that the same thing is contained in these places as in the preceding. Wherefore, as the preceding testimonies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel signified that God does not remember the iniquities of those who return to him through Penance, not because he does not punish with some temporal punishment, for the advantage of those very persons who are punished, but because he does not retain enmity with them, nor consigns them to everlasting fire, nor excludes them from eternal happiness; so also the testimonies of Isaiah, Micah and David signify this only, that God casts away, blots out, does not see, does not impute, covers the sins of those to whom he restores his friendship and grace; because as regards the guilt of fault and of eternal punishment he so regards them as if they had never sinned, although for their advantage, and for other most just causes, he either himself chastises them temporally, or wills that they chastise themselves. Wherefore the same Saint Augustine, who interprets to cover sins as not to punish, in another place writes that God altogether wills that sin should not remain unpunished, and that he then does not punish our sins when we ourselves punish them. On Psalm 50: “My sin shall not be unpunished, but for this reason I would not that thou punish it, because I punish my sin.” And in the same place: “Thou hast loved truth, that is, thou hast not left unpunished the sins even of those whom thou forgivest; so hast thou bestowed mercy beforehand as to keep truth also.” So he. In Augustine, therefore, to cover sins is not to punish in no way, but not to punish eternally, or not to punish even temporally, if the sinner punishes himself.
The third testimony is Isaiah 1 and Jeremiah 50. “Let us hear,” says Calvin, “also from another place of the prophet, on what terms the Lord remits sins. If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow; and if they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool. But in Jeremiah it is read thus: In that day the iniquity of Jacob shall be sought, and the sin of Juda shall not be found, and it shall not be, because I will be propitious to the remnant which I shall have kept. Do you wish briefly to hold what is the sense of those words? weigh what on the contrary those expressions mean: that the Lord binds up iniquities in a bag, gathers them in a bundle and stores them, engraves them with an iron pen on adamant stone. Surely if they signify that vengeance will be repaid, which is beyond doubt, neither is it to be doubted that by the contrary sentences the Lord affirms that he remits all repayment of vengeance. Here I must adjure my readers not to listen to my glosses, but only to allow some place to the word of God.” Would that Calvin had been willing himself to perform what he asked of others, so that, allowing some place to the word of God, he had by no means depraved it with his glosses; for certainly from those very places of Isaiah and Jeremiah which he then adduced he could easily have detected his own error. For hear on what terms in Isaiah God remits sins: “Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices from my eyes, cease to do perversely, learn to do well, seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow; and come, and accuse me, saith the Lord: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow; and if they be red as crimson, they shall be white as wool.” So the Lord through Isaiah, where he indeed promises a perfect purging of sin, so that no punishment remains to be paid, as Calvin desires; but he does not promise it only to those believing and repenting, as our adversaries teach, who speak from their own head and not from the mouth of the Lord; but he promises it to those who are first washed and cleansed by true contrition and Penance; then cease from the sins to which they had before evilly accustomed themselves; then are constantly and diligently exercised in good works, and so (as Saint Jerome expounds this place) bring forth worthy fruits of Penance. To these, I say, the Lord says: “Come, and accuse me: if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow”; that is, as the same Jerome expounds: If you have done all these things, accuse me unless I have rendered the rewards which I promised, namely unless I have fully and perfectly forgiven your sins, however great. Since therefore the full remission of sin, as to all guilt of punishment, is the reward of good works which are done after conversion and the remission of guilt, and which are accustomed to be called satisfactory, who does not see that by this place of Isaiah adduced by Calvin our doctrine of satisfaction is not destroyed, but wholly built up and established? Further, Jeremiah speaks of the sin of idolatry, on account of which the whole people had been led into the Babylonian captivity; and he foretells that, that sin being expiated by a long and hardest captivity, at length the scourge would be turned upon the king of Babylon himself, and the remnants of Israel and Juda would be freed, and so freed that that sin would no more be found, namely so as to be punished with any punishment. The fourth testimony is 1 Peter 2, Isaiah 53, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 1, Ephesians 1, Colossians 1 and 1 Timothy 2. “What, I pray,” says Calvin, “would Christ have done for us, if punishment were still exacted for sins? for when we say that he bore our sins in his body upon the tree, we signify nothing else than that he bore the punishment and vengeance which was due to our sins. This same thing Isaiah declared more signally, when he says that the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and as often as Paul mentions the redemption made through him, he is accustomed to call it apolytrosis, by which he indicates not simply redemption, as it is commonly understood, but the price itself and satisfaction.” I answer: if, Christ being dead, the punishment of eternal death were still exacted of us, Calvin would not altogether ineptly ask what Christ had done for us, if punishment were still exacted for sins. But since by the sacrifice of his death Christ has reconciled God to us, and from an angry judge has made him a most loving father; since he has freed us from eternal destruction and acquired everlasting life; since lastly he has given us grace and power by which we ourselves can make satisfaction to God for temporal punishment; he must needs be most ungrateful who thinks it is still to be asked what Christ has done for us, if some temporal punishment is exacted for our sins. Further, those testimonies of Isaiah, Peter and Paul have already been adduced and explained above; and most willingly and most gratefully we acknowledge and confess that the death of Christ is the price and satisfaction for our sins, since, as has often been said, he himself paid the price and made satisfaction: immediately (so to speak) for the guilt and the guilt of eternal death of those to whom his blood is applied through the sacraments; but mediately also for temporal punishment, so far as he affords the grace through which we ourselves make satisfaction to the Lord.
The fifth testimony is in the whole of Leviticus, of which Calvin speaks thus: “But a strong battering ram above all is supplied to us by what is prescribed in the Mosaic law about expiating the offences of sins. For there the Lord does not appoint this or that law of making satisfaction, but requires the whole compensation in sacrifices; although otherwise he sets forth all the rites of expiating with most diligent and most exact order. How comes it that he bids offences committed be expiated by no works at all, but requires sacrifices only for expiation, unless because he wishes so to witness that there is one kind of satisfaction by which his judgement is appeased? For the sacrifices which the Israelites then immolated were not reckoned the works of men, but were valued from their truth, that is, from the one sacrifice of Christ.” I answer: that strong ram is strong for the truth, wholly weak for the error of Calvin. For those Levitical sacrifices (as we demonstrated in book 2 On the Sacraments in General, chapters 14, 15, 16 and 17) expiated not guilt or eternal punishment, but only legal uncleanness and temporary punishment; therefore they could rightly be called certain satisfactions. That they did not expiate guilt and eternal punishment is clear, both from David, Psalm 50, “If thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it; with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit; a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise”; and from this, that those sacrifices were not pleasing to God unless he who offered was pleasing to God and thereby just; for in Proverbs 15 the victims of the wicked are said to be abominable to the Lord; and lastly from very many testimonies of the Scriptures and Fathers which we adduced in the place cited. But that as certain satisfactions they expiated the guilt of temporal punishment follows from the very promise of God. For God promised to those offering those sacrifices the remission of sins; which promise, since it cannot be understood of remission as to guilt and eternal punishment, it remains that it be understood of the remission of sin as to temporal punishment. There is added that God ordered sacrifices of greater or less price to be offered according to the measure of the offence, Leviticus 6; which is a manifest argument that those oblations were commanded in some compensation of the injury done to God. From these it follows that Calvin affirmed many things falsely in order to build that strong ram against Satisfactions. First he falsely asserted that God in Leviticus did not appoint this or that law of making satisfaction; for what are sacrifices of various valuation for the various measure of the offence, but various Satisfactions? Secondly he falsely wrote that God exacted the whole compensation in sacrifices; for God did not institute sacrifices for expiating all sins, but only for sins of ignorance against the ceremonies of the law, Leviticus 4 and 5, and for sins about the damage of a neighbour in external things, and for perjury committed from the lust of having what belongs to another, Leviticus 6; for other graver sins, as for blasphemy, idolatry, murder, adultery and the like, no sacrifices are found instituted; but the prophets admonished the people that for these Penance was to be done in ashes and sackcloth, and sins redeemed by alms and other good works. Thirdly Calvin falsely assumed that in Leviticus God set forth all the rites of expiating with most diligent and most exact order; for that this is false is settled from what we have already said. Fourthly, what he set down in the same place is false, that God ordered offences committed to be expiated by no works at all; for the very oblation of the sacrifice was a work commanded by God for expiating sins committed. Lastly, what Calvin adds, that those oblations were not reckoned the works of men, is no less false than the rest. For although those sacrifices could be called divine works, both because they were instituted by God and because they signified the sacrifice of the cross, yet they were also, and were reckoned, human and laborious works, and therefore satisfactory; because they were not offered without loss of household substance; because through them the worship of latria was rendered to God by him whose the oblation was; because they were pleasing from the faith and piety of those offering; for “the gifts,” as the Wise Man says, Ecclesiasticus 34, “of the wicked the Most High approveth not, neither hath he respect to the oblations of the impious.” And Genesis 4: “The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offerings”; writing on which place Saint Gregory speaks thus, book 22 of the Morals, chapter 12: “An oblation knows not how to appease the wrath of the judge, unless it pleases from the cleanness of the offerer.” And a little after: “Therefore not Abel from the gifts, but the gifts offered from Abel, pleased.” And so much of Calvin’s strong ram. The sixth testimony is Osee 14. “What compensation,” says Calvin, “the Lord receives from us Osee has elegantly expressed in a few words: Thou wilt take away all iniquity, O God; behold the remission of sins; and we will render the calves of our lips; behold the satisfaction.” I answer: he who asks God to take away all iniquity rightly promises thanksgiving, or a sacrifice of praise. But what does this make against Satisfaction? for neither does iniquity properly signify the guilt of punishment, but the fault; nor, if God takes away the guilt and eternal punishment, the temporal remaining, for which satisfaction ought to be made, will there be no calves of the lips to be rendered; nor lastly, if sometimes God so forgives the guilt and all punishment that he exacts no satisfaction except of praise and thanksgiving, will that therefore be perpetual. The seventh testimony is Ezekiel 36. “The places above,” says Calvin, “which we have cited, expressly mean this, that we are received by God into grace on this condition, that whatever punishment we had merited he remits, by pardoning the guilt. And as often as David or the other prophets ask pardon of sins, they at the same time pray against punishment; nay, the sense of the divine judgement drives them to this; again, when they promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always professedly discourse of punishments and their remission. Certainly when the Lord in Ezekiel pronounces that he will put an end to the Babylonian exile, and that for his own sake, not for the sake of the Jews, he sufficiently shows that both are gratuitous. Lastly, if we are freed from guilt through Christ, the punishments which arise from it must cease.” I answer: what the places above contain we have already seen, for we have passed over none, and in none have we found what Calvin in this place so confidently affirms, that we are received by God into grace on this condition, that whatever punishment we had merited he remits, by pardoning the guilt; and on the contrary we have brought forward many examples of those to whom God pardoned the guilt and yet did not remit temporary punishment, as of Moses, Aaron, David and others. Further, David and the other prophets, when they ask pardon of sins, do not always at the same time pray against temporal punishment. That is the voice of David, 2 Kings 24: “It is I who have sinned, I have done wickedly; these that are the sheep, what have they done? let thy hand, I beseech thee, be turned against me, and against my father’s house.” Then, it is no wonder if David and the other prophets often prayed against punishment, and promised its remission to the people, since at the same time by example and word they exhorted the people to undertake punishment of their own accord; for it is fair that God should spare those who for love of him do not spare themselves. But the testimony sought from Ezekiel makes nothing at all for the matter; for in that place the prophet properly prophesies of the grace of the New Testament; for he says: “I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols, and I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you, and I will take away the stony heart, and will give you a heart of flesh”; and it is certain that this grace God did not bestow on the human race for the merits of the Israelites. Then, even if the prophet had spoken chiefly to the letter of the deliverance from the Babylonian servitude, what would this make against the Satisfaction which we defend for expiating the temporal punishment of the other world, proper to each one? for the punishments of this world, and especially those common to the whole people, we have already taught before are not always expiated by Satisfactions, as they are not always inflicted. Lastly, that conditional assertion, “If we are freed from guilt through Christ, the punishments which arise from it must cease,” if by guilt we understand the obligation to punishment, is most true; but that is not true, that through Christ we are always freed from all guilt of temporal punishment, even if no Satisfaction intervenes. But if by guilt is signified the fault, or offence, on account of which we contract the debt of paying punishment, the conditional assertion is false, “If we are freed from guilt, the punishment must cease”; for there are many things which would not arise without certain causes, which yet, once arisen, remain when the causes perish. A building would not be made without a builder; but if once it has been made, it will remain, although the builder straightway perish. So rightly Saint Augustine, tractate 124 on John: “The punishment,” he says, “is more prolonged than the fault, lest the fault be thought small if the punishment ended with it.” And so all those arguments remain solved which Calvin with his usual rashness had boasted to be insoluble; there remain, however, still certain other arguments which Calvin inserted by the way in the following sections, while doing something else, that is, while he strove to solve the arguments of Catholics.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPLT XV.
Solvunlur alia Calvini argumenla.
Jam voro in § 21). propius ad rem accedit. etso-
luiioiitjin calliolicorain liis verbis Calvinus propo-
iny. Conantur quidemse expedirc: sed aqua, iit
dicilur, illis haeret. Finfiunt sibi dislinctionem
jiornuf ct culpac: culpiiin rcmilli fdlcnlur hci
miscricnrdia: scd culpa rcmissa, pociiani rcsta-
re. quampcrsolvi Deijustilia ]tostulnt: ad pni'.-
nnc iqitur rcnwMnncm prnpric apcrtdrc snlisfd.-
clinncs. Dciiidt^ iiinllis ScriphHiK; locis ;ill;ilis. ;i(l-
(lii \S M). (|iii)il drcssc, vidobiilnr jid ciitliolicoruni
sdliilidncm: Scin. impiil. su,l)fUius adliuc ipsos e-
tnbi. dum inlcr etcrnnm pocnam, ct lcmpnrnics
dislinijuunl.Sed cum tcmpnralcm poc.n(i.in qund-
vis supplicium esse tradunl,<iuod tam de corpnrc
quam dc aniiha. suinil Dcus.c.v.ccpln inodn ac.tcr-
ua innrlc: parum eos sablcval liacc rcstrictio.
Kani superiorcs loci, quos cilaviinus, hoc nomi-
nnliiu voliint, hac nos condilione rccApi a Dcn iii
iirnliiim: ul (luicquid crainus pocnae nicrili rc-
inillal. culpani iijnoscendo.
Exculiamus igilur loca singul:i quiie addncil ac
vidciimus. uU-uin c\ iis colligi (]uiiiil, oinnoiu loiu-
jiuriilem pocnaiii iiobis riHuilli (]uoliescum(]U(! nos
Dciis in griiliiuu roci|)it. Quac (]iiidcin leslimoniii
liinl;i conlidonliii Calvinus i)ro;iucil, ul dical: Sub-
nectain quacdain alia, lcsimonia, quibus adcn
conslri(janlur lortuosi isli angucs.ut ne suininam
quidem caudam complicare postliac queant.
Primum hislinioniuiu osl. Ilmrcin. .'»1. olEzocIi.
18. quod his vorbis a Ciiiviiio pruiiDiiilur: 7/oc est
Tcslamentum novum, quod Deus in Chrislo suo
nob.scum pepiijit. qiiod iniquitaluni noslrarum
non recordabitur. Quid liis significaverit. disci-
vius ex alio prnphcla, ubi Doniin.ii.s,Sijusl,u,siii-
quil, ajuslitia sua deflcxcrii. oinnium jnslitin-
rum cjus non rccord(ibor:si impius ab impiclatc
sua rccesserit. omniuin iniquitaluin cjus nonre-
cordnbor. Quod se justiliaruin rccordaturuin iic-
gal. ulique hoc est, nullani se earum liabituruni
rationcm, ut remunerelur: ergo cl peccalorum
non recordari, est ea non poslulare ad poenam.
Ad lioc primuin leslimonium jam supia respon-
dimus. cuin Lulheri argumonla solvercmus: atcjuii
ul Calvinus inlelligal, quani parum hoc suo argu-
mento nos conslrinxeril: eadcm nos raliocinalio-
no ulimur in solutione, qua csL ipso usus in argu-
nienlo. Cum enim justus a jusliU;i sua doflexeril,
jusliliarum (\jus Dcus non recordiibilur, noii qui;i
non romuneiabillcmporali aliquo priieniio,sed (nii;i
non romuncrabil aelerna ilhi mercedo,quiim repro-
misil diligenlibus sc:orgo ad eundem modum cum
impius ab impielale sua reccsseril, iniquit;ilum c-
jus Deus non rccordabitur, non quia non casligii-
bil tcmporaria ali^jua poeiia,ut .^loysom, A.ironem,
Davidem, el alios post rcconcilialionem casligavil.
scd quia nori puuiet senipilern;i morte, oligneillo
aolerno. qui piiralus est diabolo et angolis ejus.
Yide plura loco citiito in solulione argume.ntorum
Lulheri, cap, 1 1.
Alterum teslimonlura habetur Isai;ie 44.Michc;io
7. el in psal. 31. Idipsum, inquil Calvinus, alibi,
dicitur, Projiccrc post tcrgum, dcicre iiistar nu-
his. demergere in profundum niaris, non iinpn-
tare, teclumque haberc: talibus loqucndi foimu-
lis non obscure sensum suum nobis cxplicavcrat
Spiritus sanclus, si dociies aures illi accomnn)-
daremus. Ccrte sipunit Dcus, peccata imputat:sl
vindicat, recordatur: si adjiidiciuni vocat, tecla
Lii;i:u oi.UMis
7n
non liabel: si cxainliial, posl terfjum non proji-
cit: ni i/}.sp2Ci/, non oblilcravil imtar ncbnlae: si
ventilat, non projecit in profnndiim viaris. At-
que in hunc mocium inlerprclatur, Auri)if>linu!^
claris verbis: Si texit peccata Deus, noluit adver-
tere: si noluil advertere, noluit animadvertere,
$inoluit animadvertere noluit punire, noluit a-
finoscere. maluil ignoscere. Tecta ergo peccala
quare dixH? ut non viderentur. Quid erat Deum
videre peccata. nisi punire?
Recle dicil Calvinus. id ipsuni in his locis con-
lineri.quod in superioribus. Quare quom;idmodum
supcriora lesliinoni;) Iliercminc cl Ezechielis. si-
gnificabanl Dcum nun rccordari ini(iuilatum co-
rum. qui per Pocnilcnliani ad ipsum rcdeunl, non
quia non punial lemporali aliqua pocna.oh corum
ipsorum, qui puniunlur, ulililalen), sed quia non
rclincl cum iilis inimiciliam. ncque scmpiterno
ijrni illos addicit. ncque ab aelerna relicilalc cx-
eiudil. sic eliam lcslimonia Isaiae. Miclicae cl Da-
vidis: iioc lantum significant, Deum projicere, dc-
lere, non videre, non impulare, legere peccata eo-
rum, quibus amiciliam suam, graliamque reslituil:
quia quod allinet ad realum culpae et poenae ac-
ternae. ita illos respicit, ac si numquam piMxas-
sent, licet ob eorum ulilitatem, aliisque juslissi-
mis de caussis, aul eos ipse lemporalilcr casligcl,
aut ul se ipsi casligent. velit.
Quocirca idem s. Auguslinus, qui. tcgere pecca-
ta. inlerprelatur, non punire: in alio loco scribit
Deum omnino velle, ul peccatum non maneat im-
punilum, el tum non punire pcccata nostra, cum
nos ipsi ea punimus. In psalm. oO. ISon inipuni-
ium erit peccatum meum. sed idco nolo ut tu pu-
nias, quia ego peccatum meum punio.El ibidcm:
Yeritalem dilexisti, hoc est.impunila peccafa eo-
rum, quibus ignoscis,7ion dimisisli:sic pracroga-
sli misericordiam, ut servares et veritatem. IIicc
ille. Non igitur apud Augustinum, tegere peccata,
cst, nullo tnodo punire: sed. non punirc in aoler-
num: vel non punire etiam ternporalilcr, si sc ipse
peccalor puniat.
Tcrlium tcslimonium esl Isaiae 1. ct Hiercm.
.■>0. Audiamus vcro. inquit Calvinus. et cx alio
prophetae loco . quibus lerjibus peccata remit-
tal Dominus. Si fuerinl peccata vestra ut coc-
cinum.quasi nix albcsccnt,et si rubuerint ut ver-
miculus , erunt quasi lana. Apud Uicremiam
autem sic legitur: In illa die requiretur iniqui-
tas Jacob. et non invenietur peccatum Judae, et
non erit. quiapropHiabor rcliquiis quas scrva-
vcro. Vis breviler tenere quis sit vcrborjtm isio-
rum sensus? expende quid e convcrso sibi velinl
loquutiones illae: Dominum in sacculo iniquita-
tes colliqare, in fusciculum colligcre et rccon-
dcrGyStylo ferreo exarare in lapide adamantino.
Nempe si vindictam rcponsum iri Higni(icanl ,
quod exlra dubium csl:neque cMam dubilandum
csf, quin contrariis senlcnliis oninem vindidae
rcpensionem Dominus .«e rcmitlere afjirmet. llic
mihi obleslandi siuit loclorcs.noyi ul glossis nicis
auscullent, sed tantuni ut verbo Dei locum ali-
quem esse sinant.
Utinam Calvinus quod ab aliis pctiit , |)racslarc
l^F.I.L4K.)ll>l Vol. itl.
ipse voluisset, ul vcrbo Dci locuni aliquem esse
sinens, illud suis glossis minimc dcpravassel: ccr-
te enim ex islis ipsis locis Isaiae ct Hiercmiac .
quae lunc addu.xil . crrorcm siiiini <l(;prchenderp
lacile potuisset. Audi cnim quibus apiid Isaiam
peccata remiltal Deus: Lavamini, mnndi eslote ,
aufcrle malum cogilationum vostrorum ub oculis
meis.quiescile agere perverse^ discile benefacere.
quaerite judiciuiii. snbvenile oppresso. judicale
pupillo, dofendite viduam: et venite . et arguite
me, dicit Dominus: si fuerint peccata vestra ut
coccinum, sicutnixdealbabuntur, et si fuerint
rubra quasi vermiculus, velut lana alba erunt.
llaec Don)inus pcr Isaiam, ubi promiltit quidem
perfcctam pcccali purgationcm , ut nulla restet
luenda poena, ut cupit Calvinus : scd non promit-
titsolum credentibus et resipiscenlibus,ul adver-
sarii noslri docent. qui de capile suo loquuiilur.
et non de ore Domini: sed promittil iis, qiii prius
lavantur et mandanlur per veram conliilioncm
et Pocnilentiam; dcindc cessanl a pcccatis.quibus
anlca male assueveranl; lum in bonis opcribus as-
sidiie ac diligenter cxcrcenlur, al^iuc ita (ul l)uiic
locum sanctus exponil Hieronjmus) dignos Poeni-
tcnliae rruclus faciunl. Ilis inquam , Dominus di-
cil: Yenite et arguilc mc: si fuerint pcccala vestra
ut coccinum. quosi nix decdbabuntur , idest, ut
idem cxponitllieronymus: Si haec omnia fcccri-
tis. arguite me, nisi pracmia reddidero , quae
2)ollicilus sum, nimirum nisi peccata. quamvis
maxima, plene, perfccteque diniisero. Cum igitur
plena peccali remissio, quoad omnem poenac rea-
tum, pracmium sil operum bonorum, quae posl
conversionem. el culpae remissionem fiunt, quae-
que satisfacloria dici solent: quis non videl,ex hoc
loco Isaiae a Calvino adducto, non deslrui. sed a-
slrui prorsus el slabiliri noslram dc satisfaclione
doctrinam?
PorroIIieremias loquilur dc peccatoidololaliiae,
ob quod tolus populus in captivitatcm Babyloiiicam
ductus fuerat; ac pracdicit, cxpialo pcccalo illo
longa, durissimaque caplivilale, tandcin Ilagcllum
in ipsum rcgcm Babylonis coiivcrtendum, et rcli-
quias Israiil cl .luda liberandas. cl ilti libcrandas .
ul pcccalum illud non ampliiis invcniatur . ut ni-
miruin aliqua pocna mulclclur.
Ouartum lcslimonium cst, 1. Pctr. 2. Isaiae 5^5.
Rom. 1. 1. Coriiilli. 1. Kphcs. I. Coloss. 1. cl 1.
Tim. 2. Quidquacso, inquit Calvinus. ?io6is prac-
stitisset Chrislus. si adliiic pro peccatis poena e-
xigerctur? nam cum dicimus cum pcriulisse pec-
cata nostra in corpore suo supcr iignum, non a-
liudsignilicamus.quam dofimonivi poona ct vin-
dicla. (juae pccc /ts noslris dcbclxiiur. Jd ij^sum
signilicanlius dcclaravil Isaias, cum ilicit. casli-
galii)7iem pacis nostrae fuissc super eum. c/ quo-
ties dc redcmjitione pcr eum facla mcminil l*(iu-
lus.vocaresolel (Z-XO-^to^iv. quo non simpHrilcr
redemplionem indical.qualilor vulgo inteliigitur.
sed prclium ipsum el salisfactionem.
n('spoi)d('o: Si Cl)rislo mortuo . adhnc pocna
morlis aclcriiac a nobis (ixigcrciur . non oiiinino
incpte Calvinus (piacrcrel, (luid nobis praeslili.ssei
Cl)rislu>^; si adhuc pro peccalis pocna exig(>relur.
n
71:;
iti: poi:mii:mi.\
Al ciiiu s:nMilicio mnrlissuaft Ohrislus nobis Dcuni
reoouciliavfril, el e\ iralo jutlicf palnMn ainantis-
siuuun fcccril; cuui nos ab aelcrno inlcrilu libora-
veril cl viliiin soinpilcrnain acipiisiciil. cuin dc-
ni(pie jirali.iin el virlulcni nobis tJcdcril, tpia Dco
pro leuiporaH poeua salislacero ipsi posseuius. iii-
f.'r;ilissiinus sic ncccsse csl, tiui (]uacrcni!am ;i(l-
liuc esse pulal. (jui'! nobis pracslilcril Chrislus ,
si poena quacdain leinporalis pro peccalis nostris
e.xi}'alur.
Porro lcslinionia illa Isaiae. Pclri et Pauli , jam
supra iloruiu adduola el evplicala sunl: ac libcn-
lissime , pratissimeque agnoscimus el falemur ,
Christi morlcm prctium el satisfaclioncm ossc pro
pcccatis nostris, quoniam, ut sacpe dicliim esl .
solvil ipse prclium el satisfccil: immcdialc (ut sic
lnquar),pro culpa,el realu morlis aelcrnac eorur.i,
quibus snnguis (^jus per sacramenla applicidnr ;
mediale autem pro pocna eli;im len>poraIi. quale-
nuspratiam praebel, per quam ipsi nos Domino
salisfacimus.
Quinlum teslimonium esl in lolo Lcvilico,dc quo
sic loquilur Calviniis: Ynlidum aitlcm in primis
arielem nobis sxippedHot , quod de expiandis
pcccalorum no.ris in lcgc mosaica pracscribHur.
^'cquc cnim illic Doininus lianc uul illam salis-
facicndi leqem constituiL sed totam in sacrificiis
compcnsationcm rcquiril: tibi tamcn alioqui di-
liqenlissimc atquc exdctissimo ordine ouines cx-
piandi rilus excquilur. Qui fit aulem. utnullius
prorsus opcribus admissa delicla procurare ju-
bcnt, sedsohi in expialione sacrificia rcquirat ,
nisi quod ila lestarivult. unicum csse salisfactio-
nis qenus. quo judicium suum placalur? nam
quae tunc immolabanl sacrilicia Israclitae, non
hominum opera cp.nsebantur. sed asuavcrilate,
lioc csl. unico Christi sacn[icio acsliniabantur.
Respondeo: Validus isle aries, pro veritale vali-
dus c^i. pro Calvini crrore prorsus infirmus. Nam
s.icrificia illa levitica (ut in 2. lib. de sacramentis
in gencre cap. 14. 15. 16. et 17. demonslravimus)
non culpam aut poenam aeternam, sed iinmundi-
liam l;inium legalem el poenam temporaiiam ex-
piabanl: proinde recte salisfactiones quaedam dici
l)oierant.
Ouod culpam el poenam aeternam non expia-
rent. pi',rspicuum est. lum ex Davide ps;ilm. 50,
Si volumes sacrificium, dedissem: ulique holo-
caustis non delectabcris.Sacrificiiim Deo spiritus
conlribulatus : cor contrilum et humilitatum
Dcus non despicies, lum ex eo, quod ea sacrificia
Deo grala nbn eranl, nisi qui olTercbal.Deo gralus
et p;ir liot; jiislus esset; nain Proverbior. 15. vi-
climae impiorum dicunlur abominabiles Domino:
lum denique ex leslimoniis plurimis ,Scriplurarum
et Patrum, quae loco cilalo adduximus.
Quod aulom ulquaedam sali>ractiones,cxpiarent
reahim poenae temporalis; sequitur ex ipsa Dei
promissione. Promisit cnim Deus ofTerenlibus ea
sncrificia. rcmissionem peccatorum: quae promis-
sfo cum inlelligi nequeal de remissione quoad cul-
pam et poenam aetcrnam : id reslat, ui intelliga-
tur de remissione peccati quoad poenam tempora-
iem. .\ccedit, quod Dcus jubebat pro mensura dc-
licli ollcrri sacrilicia majttris vcl minoris prclii.
Levilic. G. quod est argumciUum mcnifcslum.illas
ohlationcs imperatas fuissc in compensalionem a-
lii]u;iin injun;ic Dco hi(iae.
\']\ his ;iulem scquilur. mulla falso anirmasse
C;ilviiuiin, ul validum illum arielcm conlra Salis-
huiioncs cxliucrel. Primo f;ilso ;isscriiit. Deum in
Lcvilico non consliluisse luinc aiil illain s;ilisfa-
cicndi legem: quid cnim sunl sacrificia variae ae-
slim;ilionis pro varia mcnsura deiicli . nisi variae
S;ilisf;uiiones? Serundo falso scripsil. Deum loUiin
in s;icriliciis compcnsalionem cxcgisse: n;im Deus
non instiluit sacrificia pro omnibus peccatis cx-
piandis, sed solum pro pcccatis ijinoranliae conlr;i
caercmonias logis, Levilic. 4. el5. cl pro peccalis
circa damnum proximi in rebus cxlernis, el pro
perjurio, ex cupidiUile h;ibendi res alienas prohi-
to, Levit. 0. pro aliis pcccatis gravioribns , ul pro
blasphcmia. idololatria , homi(iilio, adultcrio ct
similibus. nulhi inveniunlur sacrificia instilula:sed
prophclae populum admonebanl. pio his in cinere
(i cilicio Poenilenliam esse agend;iin,cl eleemosy-
nis, aliisque bonis operibus peccala redimenda.
Tertio falso Calvinus assumpsit, in Levilico Deuiii
diligentissime, Jilqoe exaclissimo ordinc omnes
expidiidi rilus exetuilum: id cnim falsum esse ,
constat ex his, quae jam diximus. Quarto, falsuiri
esl quod ibidcm posuit, nullis prorsus operibus
admissa dclicla procurari jussisse Dcum : nam
ips.i oblatio sacrillcii, opus erat a Deo mandalum
ad peccala admissa procuranda. •
Quod dcnique C;Uvinus addil, oblationes illas .
non hominum opera censeri; non minus esl fai-
sum, quam caetera. Nam tametsi sacrificia illa, di-
vina opera dici possenl, lum quia a Deo inslituta
er;ml. tum quia sacrificium crucis significabanl :
lainen cranl etiam, ac censebanlur opera humana
el laboriosa ac proinde satisfactoria: quia non sine
dolrimenlo rei lamiliaris ofTerebanlur; quia per ea
cultus Ialri;ie, Dt^.o ;ib eo cujus erat oblalio, adhi-
bebatur: quia ex fide et pielalc oirerentium grala
eranl: Dona cnim. ut ail S;ipiens Eccles. 34. ini-
quorum, non probai Allissimus, ncc respicit in
oblcdioncs impiorum. El Cenes. 4. Respexil Deus
ad Abel,el munera ojus: in quem locum scribens,
ila loqiiitur s. Gregorius lib. 22. Moral. cap. 12.
Jram judicis placare nescit oblatio,nisi ex mun-
ditiaplaceat offcrenlis. El paulo posl: Idcirco
non Abcl cx muneribus.sed ex Abel muncra ob-
lala placuerunl. Alque liacc de valido Calvini a-
riele.
Sextum lestimonium esl Oseae 14. Qaalcm, in-
quil Calvinus, compensafi07icm anobis recipiat
Dominus. paucis vcrbis eleganter Oseas expres-
sit: Omncm, inquil, tollcs iniquilatem, o Dcus :
en peccatorum remissio el vitulos labiorum per-
solvcmus; en satisfactio.
Respondeo:Qui Deum rogat ut omnem toUat ini-
quitalem, jure pollicelur aclionem gratiarum, sive
laudis sacrificium. Sed quid hoc facit conlra Salis-
faclionem? nam ncque iniquitas rcalum poenae ,
sed culpam sigiiificat proprie, neque si Deus cul-
pam et poenam aeternam tollal lemporali manenle,
pro qua satisfieri debeal, non erunt labiorura vi-
LIIiLU QLAKTUS
743
luli persolvendi: nec (icniquo. si aliquando Deus
culpiitn el omnem poeiiam ila condoiiel,ul nullam
twigat salisfaclionem, praelerquam laudis el aclio-
nis graliarum. idcirco id perpelimm erit.
Seplimum teslimonium esl Ezecli. 30, Superio-
res loci, inquit Calvinus. quos cilavitims, hoc no-
minalim volunl. hac nos condilione recipi a Deo
in (jradam. ul quidquid erainux pocnae meriti,
rcmiltat, culpam ignoscendo. Et quoties David,
aut alii proplietae peccalorum veiiiam pelunt .
simul poenam deprecanlur. immo divini judicii
sensus huc eos impellit: rursus cum a Domino
misericordiam promittunt, semper fere ex pro-
fesfio de poenis .eorumque remissione condonan-'
tur. Cerie cum Dominus apud Ezechiclem pro-
nunciat.fmem se imposilurum babylonico exilio
idque propterse.non propter Judaeos: gratuilum
esse uirumque salis demonslrat. Denique si a,
reatu liberamur per Christum.poenas, quae inde
proveniunt, cessare oporlet.
liespondeo:Ouid superiores loci conlineanl. jani
vidiinns, nulliim enini prnelcrmisimus, et in nullo
inveninms quod Caiviims lioc loco lam confidenler
nlTlrmal: liac nos conditione recipi a Deo in grali-
um, ul qui'Jquid (mmiiuis poenac merili, remiltat,
culpam ignoscendd: el conlra, nus multa exenipla
prolulimus eorum, quibus Deus culpam igiutvil, ci
poenam lamen lemporariam non reinisit,ul Moysis,
Aarcmis. Daviilis el aliorum.
Porro David et propbelae caeleri, cum veniam
peccalurum pelunl. non simul |)oenam lemporalem
semper deprecanlur. Davidis illa vox est, 2. Re-
gum 'li.Ego sum qui peccavi,et ego inique egi:isti
qui oves sunt.quid fcceruntPvertalur obsecro ma-
nus tua contra me.et contra domum palris mei.
Deinde David et propli(!lae caeteri. niliil est mirum
si poenam saepe deprecabantiir, et ejus reniissKi-
nem po|)ulo promiltebanl, cum simul ad poeiiam
sponte susciiiiendam excmplo, el verbo popiilum
bortarcntur; aeciuum esl eniiii. ul Dcus parcal illis,
qui ob ejus aniurcm sibi ipsi non parcuiit.
Testimonium autem ab Ezechiele pelilum uibil
omiiino facit ad rem: nam eo loco proplieta de gra-
lia novi Teslamenti proprie valicinalur; ait enim:
Effundam super vos aquam mundam ,et munda-
bimini ab omnibus inquinamentis veslris , el ab
itniversis idolis veslris mundabo vos.el dabo voliis
eor novum.et spirilum novum ponam in medio
vestri,eA auferam cor lapideum.et dabo vobis cor
Garn(.nt?7ic/c.liaii(;aulem gratiam ccrluin esl.proplcr
merita Israelilarum. Dcum lecisse bumano geneii.
Deinde eliamsi ad lileram potissimum de libcralio-
neaservilule babyloiiica proi^liela loquulus fuis-
sel, quid buc laccrct coiitra Satisfaclionem, qiiani
nos defendimns ad cxpiandam poenam tr-mporalcm
alterius saeculi, el unicuiquc propriam? poenas e-
nim liiijus saeculi et praesertim communes loli po-
pulo, jam anlca docuimus non scinpcr Salisfaclio-
iiibus cxpiari , quemadmodum non semper iiii-
iiiiUi.
Deni(]uc ilia condilionalis asserlio; Si a realu
liberamur pcr Clirislnm , pofuas quae inde
proveniunt, cessare oportet. m per reatum in-
lelligamus obligalionem ad pocnum , venssima
esl: scd illud non esl veruin, j)cr Clirislum semper
liberari nos ab omni reatu poenae temporalis; el-
iamsi nulla inlerveniat Satisfactio. Si vero per rea-
lum signilicelur cuipa, sive oirensio, ob quam de-
bilum poenae luendae contrabiinus ; falsa condi-
tionalis assertio est. Si a rcalu liberamur, poenam
cessare oportet; multa snnt enim, quae sine certis
caussis noii orirentur,quae tamen orta mancnl,caus-
sis peretinlibus. Aediticium sine aedificalore non
lieret; quod si semel faclum fuerit, manebil, licet
conlinuo aedilicalor pereal. llaque recte s. Augu-
slinus Iracl. 124. in Joan. Produclior , iiiquit. est
poena, quam culpa. ne parva pularetur culpa ,
si cum illa finirelur et poena.
Atque ila solula manenl illa omnia argumenta .
quae Calvinus insolubilia esse, solila temeritate
jaclaverat; supersunl lamen ailliuc alia quaedam
arguincnla, quae obiler Calvinus in scqufcotibus
paragraphis. dum aliud agerct, idesl , duin argu-
menta calholicorum solvere niterelur, inseruit.