Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 16: Other Arguments of Calvin Are Solved; the End of the Books on Penance
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).
In the same chapter 4, then, section 35, he adduces the testimony of Saint John Chrysostom from book 3 On Providence, to prove that God does not inflict punishments to punish sins, but only to stir up sinners to repentance; and he confirms the same by the testimony of the prophets Jeremiah and Osee; and he speaks thus: “He would be most foolish who thought that the calamities of the present life are imposed on us as the penalty of sin. This Chrysostom seems to me to have meant when he wrote thus: If God inflicts punishments for this reason, that he may call those persevering in evils to Penance, Penance being shown, the punishment will now be superfluous. Wherefore, as he knows it to be expedient for the disposition of each, so he treats this one with greater asperity, that one with kinder indulgence. So when he wishes to teach that he is not immoderate in exacting punishments, he upbraids a hard and obstinate people that, though smitten, they yet make no end of sinning. In this sense he complains that Ephraim is like a cake parched on one side, unbaked on the other; because, namely, the rods did not penetrate into their minds, so that, the vices being baked out, the people itself might become capable of pardon. Certainly he who speaks thus shows that as soon as anyone has repented he will forthwith be placable, and that the rigour he exercises in chastising offences is wrung from him by our stubbornness, which a voluntary correction would forestall.” I answer: the calamities which are sent by God on the wicked are very often sent to this end, that they may repent; yet that this is not perpetual the deaths of the Sodomites, of Pharaoh, of Antiochus, of Herod and of others witness, who, struck by the divine judgement, miserably perished. But although calamities of that kind which precede conversion are often, as I said, referred to repentance, yet those which follow after conversion, of which we treat in this place, are referred not to repentance, but to the compensating of the offence in some manner. And that some temporal punishments, either in this life or in the future, follow after conversion we believe has been sufficiently proved above. Nor does the testimony of Saint John Chrysostom fight with our opinion; both because he himself speaks of the punishments which precede conversion, which it is fair should cease when those who were scourged seriously repent; and because Saint Chrysostom by penance does not signify repentance alone, but entire Penance, which besides inward conversion and groaning comprehends outward labours also and satisfactory works; and it is most fair that, Penance being shown, that is, when the sinner himself afflicts and punishes himself and brings forth worthy fruits of Penance, the punishment divinely inflicted should cease. And that God complains that the hard and obstinate people, which is reprehended by Jeremiah and Osee under the name of Ephraim, long smitten, had made no end of sinning, signifies indeed that the people was struck with those scourges that it might at length some time repent; but it does not follow thence that that people ought not after conversion to do Penance in ashes and hair shirt, in fasting, weeping and wailing, and by that means make satisfaction to the Lord for past faults.
Another argument, in the same section 35, Calvin draws from the examples of those who are read to have been justified without any penalty imposed: “We read,” he says, “that the publican went down from the temple justified; no punishment follows. Peter obtained pardon of his offence; his tears (says Ambrose) we read, satisfaction we do not read. The paralytic hears, Arise, thy sins are forgiven thee; no punishment is imposed. All the absolutions which are mentioned in Scripture are described as gratuitous. From this frequency of examples a rule ought rather to have been sought than from that single one which contains I know not what singular.” I answer: the rule of Catholic doctrine has not been sought from the single example of David, but from many testimonies and examples of Scripture, from the most ancient usage of all the churches, from the common consent of the Latin and Greek Fathers. But yet even the single example of David, if anyone can judge rightly, avails more for confirming our opinion than all the examples which Calvin has brought forward for weakening it. For that publican is indeed read to have been justified rather than the Pharisee, yet not freed from all guilt of punishment. Then, he cannot be said to have been justified without satisfaction, who struck his breast, who most humbly supplicated the Lord, who dared neither to approach the inner parts of the temple nor to lift his eyes to heaven. The paralytic heard, “Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee”; but who knows whether by the name of sins only guilt and eternal punishment are not understood in that place? who would dare say that by that very paralysis, so long borne with an even mind, he had not made satisfaction to God for his offences? who lastly would deny that Christ could at his pleasure remit guilt and all punishment, and yet that not all things are lawful to ministers which are lawful to the master? Peter not only repented, but also wept most bitterly; by which weeping he made satisfaction to the Lord. But I wonder either at the impudence or the malice of Calvin, who either did not read the testimony of Ambrose, or wished to abuse it for deceiving. For Saint Ambrose by the name of Satisfaction in that place most openly designated the excusing or defence of a crime; for he praises Peter because he preferred to confess by weeping rather than to excuse his fault by speaking. For so we read, book 10 on Luke, chapter 22: “He preferred to accuse his own sin, that he might be justified by confessing, rather than be burdened by denying.” And below: “I do not find what he said, I find that he wept; I read his tears, I do not read his satisfaction; but what cannot be defended can be washed away.” And in sermon 46, where he had set down that same sentence, “I read tears, I do not read satisfaction,” he added: “Rightly Peter wept and was silent, because what is wont to be wept for is not wont to be excused.” So Satisfaction in that place is defence and excuse; in which sense it is said in 1 Peter 3, “Being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you”; and in Acts 24 Paul says, “I will with good courage answer for myself.”
The last argument Calvin seeks from four testimonies of Chrysostom and Augustine, which yet can be explained with no trouble. The first testimony of Chrysostom is homily 2 on Psalm 50, where we read thus: “Where mercy is demanded, interrogation ceases; where mercy is asked, judgement does not rage; where mercy is sought, there is no place for punishment; where mercy, no inquiry; where mercy, the answer is forgiven.” The second testimony of the same is homily 10 on Genesis, where Chrysostom says that God requires nothing further of us than that we confess our offences with tears before him. The first testimony of Augustine is in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, chapter 54, where Satisfaction is defined in this manner: “The Satisfaction of penance is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to indulge entrance to their suggestions.” The second testimony of the same, from I know not what book, for he did not note a fixed place: “The flesh of Christ,” he says, “is the true and only sacrifice for sins, not only for those which are all blotted out in Baptism, but for those which afterwards creep in from weakness, for all of which the Church daily cries, Forgive us our debts; and they are forgiven through that singular sacrifice.” I answer, first: the testimony of Chrysostom commends mercy in general. And it is most true that judgement and punishment are opposed to mercy; for he who seeks mercy does not wish to undergo judgement; and he who obtains indulgence from mercy ought not to undergo the punishment which has been forgiven him. But from this general commendation of mercy it cannot rightly be gathered that penitents ought not by satisfaction to compensate the injury in some part, unless it is settled from elsewhere that from mercy there is forgiven them by God not only the guilt but also all punishment altogether, temporal and everlasting. So the same Chrysostom in the same homily a little lower has these things: “God indeed has mercy, but does not have mercy indiscriminately; he provokes us and says: Give thou also something; not because I need thee, but because I wish thee also to contribute something to thine own advantage.” And below: “God says: Give me thy confession, and the tears of Penance.” And in the homily on Psalm 6, explaining how many tears David gave to the Lord, who nevertheless demanded mercy: “He not only wept,” he says, “but also washed his bed with tears, not on one or two or three days, but even every night. And he says not only the past, but also the future. For do not think that when he had once done these things he thereafter gave himself to rest and used relaxation; but he did this constantly through his whole life.” And in the homily on Psalm 106: “Confession,” he says, “shows Penance; Satisfaction conciliates pardon for itself by the divine goodness.” And below: “It is worse not to appease the offence of God by Satisfaction than by sinning to offend the goodness of God.” The other testimony of Chrysostom teaches that for recovering the friendship of God true contrition suffices, which embraces the confession of sin made before God with tears, and the purpose of a better life; but Chrysostom does not exclude laborious works, after the friendship of God is recovered, for blotting out the guilt of temporal punishment, as we proved above from many of his testimonies. That this is so will be clear from the homily on blessed Philogonius, where those things are had more fully which Calvin adduced from homily 10 on Genesis; for he speaks thus: “I testify and pledge myself, that if each of us, who are liable to sins, withdrawing from his former evils, from the heart and truly promise God that he will never afterwards return to them, God requires nothing else for further satisfaction; for he is kind,” and so on; in which place by Satisfaction he understands excuse, and the sense is: that God does not require that we defend or excuse our sin and render a reason why we did this or that, but that it is enough for him if we simply confess the sin and promise that we will not sin thereafter; for he had said a little before: “Depart from evil, embrace virtue, desist from perversity, promise that you will not commit these things hereafter, and that will suffice for excuse.” But in the same homily the same Chrysostom had taught before that Satisfaction, that is, laborious works, is required, or at least the purpose of them, if anyone is shut out by straits of time: “Therefore,” he says, “do you also by those things by which you provoked God make him again propitious. You provoked him by the robbery of money; by the same reconcile him; and when you have both restored what was seized and added other things besides, say with Zacchaeus: I restore fourfold, if I have taken anything. You provoked him by the evil speaking of your tongue, many being treated with contumely; in turn appease him with your tongue, sending forth pure prayers, blessing those that curse, praising those that revile, giving thanks to those that do you injury. These things do not need many days or years, but by the purpose of the mind alone are accomplished in a single day.” The testimony of Augustine, or rather of Gennadius, from the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, defines true Satisfaction by its effect; for that is a true and serious Satisfaction from which it follows that the roots of sins are plucked out, and good habits of virtues acquired, from which it will come about that entrance is not easily laid open thereafter to evil suggestions. For otherwise in the same book, in the next chapter, that is, 53, the author teaches Satisfaction in express words: “Although,” he says, “one is bitten by sin, let him have no will of sinning for the rest, and, being about to communicate, let him make satisfaction by tears and prayers.” And a little after: “But this I say of him whom capital and mortal crimes do not burden; for him whom mortal crimes committed after Baptism press, I exhort first to make satisfaction by public Penance, and so, reconciled by the judgement of the priest, to be joined to communion, if he wishes to receive the Eucharist not to his judgement and condemnation. But we do not deny that mortal crimes are loosed also by secret satisfaction, but with the secular dress first changed, and the zeal of religion professed, through the correction of life, and by continual, nay perpetual mourning, God having mercy, only so that he do the contrary things for those of which he repents.” So he. From which it can be understood with what intolerable impudence Calvin, after alleging chapter 54 of this author, subjoined these words: “By which it appears that in those ages also the doctrine of Satisfaction was everywhere mocked, which was said to be repaid for offences committed; since he refers all Satisfaction to the caution of abstaining from sins in future.” Surely he who has dared to write a lie which is so evidently convicted from that very place whence the occasion of the lie was taken, with what rashness will he range in matters somewhat more obscure? The other testimony of Augustine needs no exposition. For we confess that all sins are remitted through the sacrifice of the cross; for from that sacrifice Baptism and the other Sacraments, by which men are justified, have their force; and from the same sacrifice we draw the spirit of grace, without which we could not make satisfaction for the guilt of temporal punishment. Further, that Saint Augustine did not think satisfactions excluded on account of the sacrifice of the cross is clear from those testimonies which we brought forward in chapter 9. And let these things suffice in this place for the whole disputation. For what Martin Chemnitz has brought on Satisfaction has partly been refuted by us in chapters 8 and 10, and partly is the very testimonies which Luther, Philip and Calvin brought forward. Certainly I could not find any new testimony in the whole disputation of Chemnitz, nor any other opinion which seemed to bear the appearance of a solid argument. As also what Chemnitz discoursed on absolution we have not sifted for this reason, that he brought nothing besides what he had already set down before in the disputation on the sacraments in general; to which we answered in that place.
The end of the books on the sacrament of Penance. To the honour and glory of God.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI.
Solvuntur alia Calvini argumenla.
Igilur in eodem cap. 4. § 35. udducit s. Joannis
clirysostomi tcslimonium cx lib. 3. de providen-
tia, ulprobelDeum non inferre supplicia , ul pec-
cata puniat, sed tanlum, ul pcccalores exciiel ad
resipiscenliam: el idem confirraat teslimonio Hie-
rcmiae el Oscae prophelarum; sic aulem loquilur:
ShUtissiimis fueril , si quis arbiiretur , prae-
senlis vitae calamitates in peccali noxam esse
nobis impositas. Id mihi videtur Chrrjsoslomus
voluisse, cum ita scripsil: Si ob hoc poenas in-
ferl Deus, ut in malis perseverantes ad Poeni-
tentiam vocet; ostensa Poenitenlia , supertlua
jam erit pocna. Quare prout uniuscujusque in-
genio expedire novil, ita hunc majori asperitate,
illum benigniori tractat i)idulgeniia. Itaquc ubi
docere vult, se non esse in poenis exigendis im-
modicum, exprobrat duro et obstinato populo,
quod percussus, non tamen faciat finem peccan-
di. Hoc sensu conqueritur. Ephraim esse quasi
placenlam ab una parlc torridam,ab alte.ra par-
te incoctam: quia sciiicet non penclrabanl in a-
nimos ferulae, ul vitiis excoctis.populus ipse ca-
pax vcniac jierct. Certc qui sic loquilur,ostendit,
simul ac quisque resijnierit, se mox forc pLocabi'
lein. sibiquc nostra pervicacia exprimi,quem. ex-
crcet rigorem in custigandis delictis,cuivolun-
laria correctio occurrerct.
Uespondeo: Calamilates, quac im|)iis iminitlun-
liir a Dco: saepenumero ad eum fincm immiliun-
lur, ut illi rcsipiscanl: id lamen non esse perpe-
liium, teslantur morles Sodmnitarum, Pharaonis,
Anliocbi, Ilcrodis; cl aliorum, (pii divino judicio
pcrcussi, misere intericrunl. Caelerum , lamelsi
cpismodi caliimitalcs, quae convcrsioncm prat!cc-
dunl, sacpe, ut dixi, ail resipisccntiam rcfcranlur:
cae tainen ipiac post conversionem scquuntur, de
f|uibus nos lioc looo agimus,non ad resipisccnliam.
scd ad olTen.^ain aliquo modo compensandam rcfc-
7il
DK POKMlKiMlA
ruiilur. Seiiiii nulciii pusl cuuversioiUMii poeiuis n-
liquas leinpi>r;ilos. vol iii hac vila, vel iii luturiKsa-
tis supra [irohaUiin osse crtuliiiuis.
Neipie losliiiioiiiuiii s. Joaiiiiis ilirysosloini cuiu
noslra seiUenlia pujinal: Uuu quia UuiiiiUir ipse de
poenis, quae eonversioneui praeccduiil, (pias ao-
(|uum esl cessare. cuin li. (jui liajj^ellabanlur. serio
resipisouiil: Uiiii cliam quia s. Cluysosloiiuis por
poenilenliam non signilical solain resipiscenliam,
setl inltvram Pucnilfiiliam, t]iiao praclor inlornam
conversionciu ol ^omilum, oxlcrnos cliam labores
alque opera salisfacloria comprclieiuiil: ac(iuissi-
inuin aulem csl, ul oslensa Poonilcnlia, i(lesl,ciiui
poccalor sc ipse amiti;il cl puiul . dijjnosquc la-
cil Poeuilenliae fruclus; poeua divinilus innicla
cesset.
Quod aulom Dcus qucralur. durum el oI)sUiin-
tum populum. qui a llicromia cl Usea sub nominc
Ephraiin roprclit;ndilur, diu pcrcussum, non lecis-
se pcccandi Hnem: signitical quidein, iis fliigellis
populum perciissum. ul taiuicm aliquando rosipi-
scenu; sed iion iiuJe sotiuilur.non opurUiissc ciim
populum posl convcrsioncm in cinere et cilicio,
in jojunio. flcUi ot plauctu Pocnitentiam agcre,
o;iquc ralione pro culpis practerilis Domino satis-
faccrc.
Aliud argumenlum in eodcm § 3a. ducil Calvi-
nus ab oxemplis eoriim,qui sinc iilla imposila mul-
cla jiislifioali lcf,uintur:i(3(;i7t/?',inquil,p?t/>/tCrt?iu.s,
descendisse e lemplo jusliiicatus: poena milla se-
(juilur. Pelrus doJicliveniam oblinuilAachrymas
cjus {inquit Ambrosius) legimus. satii;faclioncni
non lerjimu9. Auditparalyticus. Surye.remillun-
tur tibi peccata tua.poena non imponilur.Omnes
quae iii Svriptura conimemorantur ab:<oluliones,
yratuilae describuntur. Ex liac exemplorum fre-
quentia. reyula polius peti debuerat, quamabu-
nico illo, quod nescio quid singulare coritinel.
Respondeo: Re£j;ula doctrinae catholicae non ab
unico Davidis exomplo potila esl.scd a mullis .Scri-
plurae tcsliiTioniis el exemplis, ab usu veluslissi-
mo omiiiiim ecolesiarum. a communi Palrum lati-
norum. graecorumque consensu. Sed tamen uni-
cum cliain Davidis exemplum.si quis recle judica-
re possit, plus valet ad sentenliam noslram confir-
mandam, quain exempla omnia,quae Calvinus pro-
Uilit, ad inlirmandam. Siquidem publicanus ille le-
gilur quidem juslificatus prae Pharisaeo, non ta-
mon ab oinui realu poenae liberalus. Dcinde non
sine salisfactione juslificalus dici potcsl, qui pe-
ciiis suiim poiculiebat,qiii huraillime Domino sup-
plioabal, qui neque ad interiora lempli accedere,
neque ociilos ad coelum susloUere audebat. Para-
lylicus audivit: Confide (Hii, remittunlur tibipec-
cata tua; sed quis novit, an peccatoruin nomine
^ohi culpa el poena aeterna eo loco non intelliga-
lur? quis dicere auderet, ipsa paralysi lam diutur-
na aequoanimo lolorata, non eum pro deliclis suis
salis Dco fecisse? Quis ncget deniqiie, Christum
pro arbitrio culpain el omnem poenam rcmitlere
potnisse? nec lamcn minislris licere omnia quae
domino liceanl? Pctrus non solum resipuit , sed
eliani amarissime flevit: (uio fletu Domino salis-
fecil.
Mlror aulom Calvini vcl iiiiputlenliam, vcl niali-
liaiu, qui aul Ambrosii testimonium non lcgit, aut
00 ad rallondiim abuli voluil.Sanclus enim Ambro-
sius iiomiiic Salisractioiiis eo loco oxcusalioncm,
sivc defcnsionem criminis apcrlissimc dcsignavil:
lauilat ciiim Potrum, quod malucril lachrymando
conlileri. qiiam lotpiciulo excusarc deliolum. Sic
onim logiiiuis lib. 10. in Lucam cap. y(>. Maluil
ipse suum accusarc peccaluni, ul justificaretur
filendo, quam yravaretur neya.ndo: Kl infra^A^on
invenio quid dixerit, invenio quod fleveril: la-
clirymas ejus leyo, satisfaclionem non lcgo: sed
quod defendi non polest,ablui polcsl. El in scrin.
4(>. iibi candem illam senlciiliam posueral:/.,ac/irjy-
vias leyo, sdlisfaciionem non leyo: subjecil: Re-
cle Pelrus flevil el tacuil, quia quod dejlerisolet,
non solel excusari. Ilaque Salisfactio eo loco dc-
foiisio et cxcusalio esl; quo sensu dicilur 1. Pelr.
^.Parali semper ad satisfactionem omniposcenti
vos rationeni. de ea, quae in vobis est spe; el A-
ctor. 24. inquil Paulus:fiono animo pro me salis-
faciam.
Argumentum Poslremum Calvinus pelil ex qua-
luor Chrysostomi ct Auguslini lcslimoniis quae la-
mcn nullo iiegolio polcrunt explicari. Primum te-
slimonium Chrysoston;i est hoinil. 2. in psalm.oO.
ubi sic legimus: Vbi misericordia flagilatur, in-
terroyatio cessat:ubi misericordia postulalur, ju-
diciuni non saevil: ubi misericordia petitur.poe-
nae iocus non esi: ubi misericordia,quaesiio nul-
la: ubimisericordia, condonata responsio est.Se-
cundum leslimonium ejusdem cst hom. 10. in Ge-
ncsim, ubi Chrysoslomus dicit, nihil ullra a nobis
Deum requirere, quam ut delicta noslra cum la-
chrymis apud se confiteamur.Primum leslimonium
Auguslini esl in lib. de dogmalibiis ecclcsiaslicis,
cap. 51. ubi definitur Salisfactio ad hunc modum:
Poenitentiae Satisfaclio est, caussas peccatoruni
excindere. nec eorum suyyestionibus adilum in-
dulyere. Sccundum lcslimonium ojusdcm, ex ne-
scio quo libro, neque cnim certum locum notavil:
Caro Christi, inquil, verum est. et unicum pro
pecealis sacrificium. non modo iis, quae univer-
sa in Baptismate delentur.sed quae postea ex in-
firmitate subrepunl. propler quae nniversa quo-
lidie clamat Ecclesia, Remitte nobis dobita no-
slra; et remiltunlur per singulare illud sacri(i-
cium.
Respondeo Primum: Chrysostomi leslimonium
misericordiam gcncralim coinmendat. Ac verissi-
niuin esl, misericordiae opponi judicium el poe-
nam:qui enim miscricordiam quaeril.non vult sub-
ire juclicium; el qui ex misericordia indulgenliam
conscquilur, non debet subire poenam, quae sibi
condonala est. At ex hac generali commendalione
misericordiae, non potest recte coUigi, non opor-
lere pocnitenles satisfaclione injuriam aliqua ex
parte compensare. nisi aliunde conslel, ex misori-
cordia condonari illis a Deo non solum culpara.sed
eliam omncra oinnino poenain teinporalem etsem-
pilernam.
Itaque idem Chrysoslomus in eadem homilia pa-
ulo inferius, haec habel: Miscretur quidem Deus,
sed non passim miserelur: provocal nos et dicit.
UUER QLARTLS 7'i5
Da et tu aliquid; non quia ego tui egeo, scd quia lib. de dogm:ilibiis ncclesinslicis, definil Siilisfa-
volo, el aliquid conferrc ad luamulililalem. El clionern ver;ini nb cllcclu: illii eiiiin esl vera serin-
infra: Deus dicil; Da milii confcssionem tuam, el qne Siilisliiclio, ex qiiii sequilnr. ul rudices peccii-
lachry mas Pocnitentiae. E[ hom. ia psal. 6. ex- Idruni evellunlur, el boni hiibitus virluluin acqni-
plicans quanlas lachryinas David Domino dederil, riinlur. ex quibus fiel, ut non fncile deinceps ma-
qni lamen misericordiam flagilabal: I\on iiintum, lis sujigeslionibus adilus palefial. Nnm iilioqui ia
inquil, lachrymalus est, sed etiam lachrymis le- codem libro capile proximo, idest, 53. Auclor illis
ctum lavit. non uno. aut duobus, aui tribus die- diserlis verbis Salisraclionem docel: Quamvis. in-
bus. sed etiam singulAs nociibus. El non solum (piii. quis pcccato mordeatur: peccandi non ha-
dicitpraclenLum, sed cliam futurum. Ne putetis beal de caelero voluntatem. et communicaturus
enim. quod cum liaec semel fecisset, deinceps se saiisfacial lachrymis el orationihus. Et paulo
quieti Iradiderit. et laxamento usus sit: sed hoc posl:Sed hoc de lUo dico. quem capilalia etmor-
assidue fecil per lotam vi7am. El hom. in psal. lalia crimina non (iravanl: yani qucm morlalia
106. Confessio, inqnil. Poenilentiam monstrat, criniiiui posl Baptismum commissa premunt ,
Salisfaclio veniam sibi divina pietale conciliat. Iwrtor priua publica Poemlcntia salisfacere. cl
El infra: Pcjus est, Dei offensam non Satisfactio- iia saccrdotis judicio reconciliatinn. communio-
nc placare, quam peccando Dci bonitalem of}en- ni snciari, si vult non adjudicium et condcmna-
dere. tionem sui, Eucharistiam pcrcipere. Scd cl secre-
Allerum Chrysoslomi leslimoninm dncet, ad a- ta salisfactiGne solvi mortalia crimina non ne-
miciliam Dei recuperandam,snfficere conlrilioncm yamus, scd^mutalo prius saeculari habitu.cl con-
veram, quae confessionem peccali corain Deo cuni fcsso religionis studio. pcrvilae correclioncm. et
jachrymis faclam, el proposilum vitiic melioris jugi,imnioperpetuoluctu,miserante Deoitadum-
cotnplectilur: non excludit autcm Chrysostomus o- laxal, nt contraria pro his quac poenitct, agat.
pera laboriosa. posl amiciliam Dei recuperatam.ad Haec illc.
nsilum poenae lemporalis delendum, ul ex mullis Ex quo inlel!ip;i potest. quam intolcranda impu-
ejns teslimoniis supra probavimns. denlia Cnlvinus posl allegatum cap. r>4. hujus au-
Id ila esse. pcrspicuum erit ex homilia de b. oloris, haec vc.rba subjunxerit: Quo apparet. illis
Philogonio, ubi fusius habentur ea, quae ex hom. quoque saeculis irrisam passim fuisse Satisfa-
10. in Genes. Calvinns adduxil, sic enim loquilnr: ctionis doctrinani, quacpro admissis deliclis re-
Ego lcstificor. ac fidejubeo, ut si nostrum. quis- pendi diceretur: cum omnem Satisfaclionemi, ad
que. qui peccatis obnoxii sumus. recedens a pri- ca.ulionem rcfcrat,se in posterum a pcccatis abs-
stinis malis. ex animo vereque promittal Deo, se linendi. Sane qui mendaciuni scribcre ausus csl,
postea numquam adiUarediluram: nihil aliud (pjod ex eodem ipso loco , unde mendacii oc-
Deus requirat ad satisfactionem ulleriorem: be- cnsio snmpla est , tam evidenler coarguitur : in
nignns enim est ctc. quo loco per Salisraclionem rebns pnulo obscurioribus, qua temeritate grassa-
inielligit excusationem, et sensus csl; Deum non |)itnr?
renuirere, ut peccalum defendamus, vel excuse- Alterum Augustini testimonium nulla indigelcx-
rnus et ralionem reddamus, cur hoc, aut illud fe- positione.Fatemur enim peccata omnia remilti per
cerimus. sed salis illi esse. si simpliciler pecca- sjicrificium crncis:l\am ex eo sacrificio vim liabent
tum confitearaur.et promillamus nos deinceps non l^aplismus et Sacramenta caetera, quibns homines
peccaturos: dixerat enim paulo ante:D?sccdc ama- justificanlur; el ex eodem sacrificio spirilum gra-
lo. virtutem amplcclere, desiste a^pravitate, pol- ijne hiiurimus, sine quo pro reatu poenae lempo-
licere te poslhac ista non commissurum. el istud ralis salisfacere non possemus. Porro s. Angusli-
sufjiciel ad excusationcm. Id eadem aulem Iiomi- n,ifn ob crucis sacrificium non exislimasse satisfa-
a idem Chrysosloinns anlea docueral, Salisf.iclio- cliones excludi.perspicuum est ex his testimoniis.
li;
nem, id esl, opera labnriosa rcquiri, vel cerle eo- quiu; cap. 9. prolulimus.
rnm propositnm, si lemporis angustiis quis exclu- Atque haec de lola dispntatione hoc Inco snni-
datnr: Proinde, inquil, et tu quibus refnis provo- riiinl.Kam quae !\lnrlinus Kemnitius de Salisfaclio-
casti Doum. per has rursus facilo propitium.Pro- ne allulit, pnrlim sunt a nobis cap. 8. el 10. rcln-
voca<iiillum pccuniarum rapina, per casdcmil- lau: pnrtim sunt ea ipsa lestimonia. qnne Lulhe-
lum reconcilia: cumque ct rapta restitueris, et a- rns,Philippus cl Calvinus protnlernnt.Cerle novum
lia insuper addidcris. dicito juxta Zachaeum; nliquod testimonium in lola Remnilii dispulatione
Deddo. si quid rapui. quadruplum. Prnvocasti rejicrire non polui: neque aliquam nliam senlen-
linguae 7naled.icenlia multis contumelia affectis: ii;im, quae speciem solidi argumenti praeseferre
vicisnm linguaplacalo, puras emillens preces, videretur.Onemadmodum etiam quac Kemnilius de
benedicensma.lcdicenlibus,laudansviluperanles, nbsolulione disseruit, ideo non excussimus, quod
gralias agensinjuriam infercnUbus.IIaec non e- nihil altulcrit praeter en, qnae in disputalione de
gcnt mulis dicbus, onnisve, sed solo animi pro- sncramenlis in genere jam ante posucrat: ad quae
po.s//o unico die perficiuntur. nos eo loco respondimus.
Teslimonium i\uguslini, sive Gennadii potius,ex
Finis Hbrorum de sacramonlo Poenilenliae.