Theological Theses
Theses theologicae
Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu (1604–1675) was minister and professor of theology at the Academy of Sedan, the Reformed school on France's eastern border. His Theses were disputed by students over many years and collected in a London folio (1675).
The Theological Theses range across the whole Reformed system — Scripture, God, predestination, grace, and justifying faith — in the crisp thesis-and-proof form of the seventeenth-century schools.
This volume holds the Theses on Theology I–XLIII and On Faith I–XXII, in eighteen sections.
© 2026 SaneApps. This translation is free to share and adapt, even commercially, as long as you credit SaneApps. Draft translation, prepared with AI assistance and not yet independently reviewed. Verify against the original before citing. Translated from Theses theologicae (London: Moses Pitt, 1675). ESTC R17887; Wing L802. IA bub_gb_eOkHAW4G0-wC. Densify through De Certitudine I-XLVIII + Gratia I-XXX + De Fidei justificantis natura I-CIV (not whole folio).
Theology names speech about God, and stands to faith as science to understanding§1
1Theology, by the etymology of the word, means speech about God. Taken generally, it names every teaching that treats of God and of divine things. And because God can be treated of in two ways — first from principles known by the natural light, then from principles which God has made known in a supernatural manner — a twofold theology is commonly distinguished: one natural, the other supernatural.
Natural theology is that part of philosophy which treats chiefly of immaterial being and of God. Aristotle himself calls metaphysics by this name in the first book of the Metaphysics. Supernatural theology, however, is that teaching about God which has its origin from divine revelation. This theology is called theology absolutely and by antonomasia. It is of this alone that we must treat from here on.
Further, the habit that rests on revelation is twofold. One is that by which we simply believe and embrace what is contained in the word of God; and this habit is nothing other than faith itself. The other is that by which a person is fitted to explain distinctly the things that faith believes, to assert and defend them with various reasons, and from them to draw legitimate consequences. This habit is properly called theology.
Theology, taken in this way, stands to faith as science stands to understanding. For faith is the habit of the principles; theology is the habit of the conclusions. The primary and principal object of faith is certain truths immediately and expressly revealed by God. The proper objects of theology are those revealed only mediately and virtually — that is, those gathered by reasoning from those first immediately revealed truths. So theology, though distinguished from faith, still presupposes faith and in a way includes it. But faith does not necessarily bring theology along with it.
Latin · §1
I. THEOLOGIA, juxta vocis etymon, significat sermonem de Deo. Et sumitur in genere pro omni doctrina quae agit de Deo rebusque divinis. Itaque, cum de Deo duobus modis agi possit: primò ex principiis naturali lumine notis: deinde ex principiis, quae modo supernaturali a Deo patefacta sunt: hinc quoque duplex solet distingui Theologia: Una, scilicet, Naturalis: Altera Supernaturalis. II. Theologia naturalis vocatur pars illa Philosophiae, quae de ente immateriali et Deo praecipue tractat. Sic Aristoteles ipse Metaphysicam appellat libro primo Metaphysicorum. Theologia vero supernaturalis est doctrina illa de Deo, quae a revelatione divina ortum habet. Et haec Theologia absolute dicitur et antonomasticè. Et de hac sola nobis deinceps est agendum. III. Porro, duplex est habitus qui revelatione nititur, unus quo simpliciter credimus et amplectimur quae verbo Dei continentur. Et hic habitus non est aliud quam fides ipsa: Alter quo quis aptus ea quae fides credit, distincte explicare, variisque rationibus asserere et vindicare, et inde legitimas deducere consequentias. Et hic habitus proprie Theologia dicitur. IV. Theologia autem sic sumpta se habet ad fidem, sicut scientia ad intelligentiam. Etenim fides est habitus principiorum: Theologia vero habitus conclusionum. Fidei primarium et praecipuum objectum sunt veritates quaedam a Deo immediate et expresse revelatae. Theologiae vero proprie objiciuntur, quae mediate et virtualiter tantum revelata sunt, id est, quae a primis illis immediate revelatis per discursum colliguntur. Itaque Theologia, licet a fide distinguatur, fidem tamen praesupponit, et quodammodo includit. At vero fides non necessario secum trahit Theologiam.
Theology is not required of every person for salvation, yet the church cannot stand without it§2
2Many things are commonly disputed about theology in the schools. But what we now propose to teach on this subject will be referred to these heads: first, what and how great is the necessity of theology; second, what is its nature, where we must inquire into its genus and difference; third, what is the dignity of theology and its excellence above the remaining sciences.
As to the first: it is certain that theology is not in itself necessary for each person unto salvation — that is, it is not necessary that all who come to eternal life be endowed with theological science. For in the church all are not teachers, as the Apostle teaches (1 Corinthians 12:29); nor are they for that reason deprived of salvation. For the salvation of individuals, faith suffices; a fuller and wider knowledge of the things of faith is not necessarily required.
Nevertheless theology — that is, such a science of divine things as can defend, explain, and commend the faith itself — is necessary in the church, so that the church may stand and be preserved, and so that individuals may obtain salvation. This the Apostle teaches (Ephesians 4:11-14), where besides other things he affirms that Christ appointed teachers in his church for the perfecting of the saints and the building up of the body of Christ, and so that we may not be children tossed and carried about by every wind of teaching. From this it is plain that there is danger, if there are no teachers in the church, that its frame be dissolved, the building fall, and private persons fall away from the faith, carried off by many and various errors. And the same Apostle requires as a necessary condition in a bishop that he be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9) — which cannot be done by one who is not more learned in sacred things than the common run of the faithful.
Latin · §2
V. De Theologia autem in Scholis multa disceptari solent. Sed quae nunc de hoc argumento docere nobis propositum est ad haec capita referentur. 1. Quae sit, et quanta Theologiae necessitas. 2. Quae sit illius natura, ubi in genus ejus et differentiam inquirendum. 3. Denique quae sit Theologiae dignitas, et praestantia supra reliquas scientias. VI. Quod ad primum attinet, certum est Theologiam per se non esse singulis ad salutem necessariam, id est, non esse necesse, ut omnes qui ad vitam aeternam perveniunt, Theologica sint scientia praediti: in Ecclesia enim omnes non sunt doctores ut docet Apostolus 1. Cor. 12. nec ob id tamen salute privantur. Siquidem ad singulorum salutem sufficit fides, non vero necessario exigitur de rebus fidei plenior et amplior cognitio. VII. Verumtamen Theologia, hoc est, talis de rebus divinis scientia, quae ipsam fidem tueri, explicare et suadere possit, in Ecclesia necessaria est, ad hoc ut Ecclesia stet et conservari queat, adeoque ut singuli salutem consequantur. Hoc docet Apostolus Ephes. 4. Ubi praeter caetera affirmat Christum in Ecclesia sua doctores instituisse εἰς καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων ad concinnationem sanctorum et corporis Christi aedificationem: et ne simus pueri qui fluctuemus et circumferamur omni vento doctrinae. Unde patet periculum esse, ne, si doctores in Ecclesia non sint, ejus compages dissolvatur, et aedificium ruat, privatique a fide excedant, multis et variis erroribus abrepti. Praetereaque idem Apostolus Tit. 1. exigit, tanquam conditionem in Episcopo necessariam, ut potens sit exhortari in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt redarguere: quod praestare non potest is, qui in sacris eruditus non est supra fidelium vulgus.
The church has never lacked teachers above the faithful people; faith itself requires theological science in the church§3
3And certainly the church never existed without such men, who by doctrine in divine things stood above the pious and faithful people. For of old doctors of that kind were the patriarchs and the prophets, who had their own schools and disciples — those called in Scripture the sons of the prophets. A school of that kind is thought to have been the hill of God mentioned in (1 Samuel 10). And it is thought to have taken that name because divine teaching was handed down there. Likewise in (2 Chronicles 34) mention is made of the Mishneh, in which Huldah the prophetess is said to have lived. That word is translated by many as school, or college, which our French version has followed. For from the usage of the Chaldee and Rabbinic tongue the root signifies to learn and to teach. Whence the Talmudic text is called by the Hebrews the Mishnah, as if you were to say doctrine, or discipline, by a certain antonomasia.
After the times of the prophets also the Jewish church had its own theologians, who were called Wise Men, Masters, and Scribes. With that title Ezra himself is marked in the book that bears his name. And of this same kind were those who in the Gospel are called doctors and experts of the law. From them Christ, taking away the key of knowledge, handed it to the apostles, and to pastors and teachers, who for their part are their successors.
But besides ordinary bishops and pastors, in whom at least some knowledge of theology is required, the Christian church from the beginning has had its own schools, and doctors professing sacred teaching in them and expounding the divine writings. Especially famous was the Alexandrian school, in which, if Jerome is believed in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, there had been in an unbroken series, from the times of the evangelist Mark down to Jerome's own times, ecclesiastical doctors. Of whom Pantaenus is especially remembered, and Clement of Alexandria, who succeeded him.
And certainly from the very necessity of faith the necessity of theological science is inferred. For faith cannot be propagated and endure unless there are those who teach, commend, and defend the faith. But it is not for every believer to do this — only for those who are skilled in Scripture and in divine things. So for the preservation of the faith and of the church, and consequently for the salvation of men, theology is necessary: that is, in the church there must be men skilled in divine things, who generate, foster, and nourish faith in others — though it is not necessary that each person be so taught and skilled.
Latin · §3
VIII. Et certe nunquam fuit Ecclesia sine talibus viris, qui supra piam et fidelem plebem in rebus divinis doctrina eminerent. Namque olim doctores istiusmodi erant Patriarchae et Prophetae, qui suas habebant scholas et discipulos: qui filii Prophetarum in Scriptura dicuntur. Cujus generis schola fuisse putatur collis Dei qui memoratur 1. Samuel. 10. Et inde accepisse nomen, quod in eo doctrina divina traderetur. Similiter 2. Chron. 34. mentio fit Mishneh, in quo dicitur habitasse Hulda Prophetissa. Quae vox a multis vertitur schola, seu collegium, quod Gallica nostra versio secuta est. Quoniam ex usu linguae Chaldaicae et Rabbinicae radix discere et docere significat. Unde textus Talmudicus Hebraeis dicitur Mishnah quasi doctrinam, seu disciplinam dicas, per quandam antonomasiam. IX. Post Prophetarum quoque tempora Ecclesia Judaica suos habuit Theologos, qui dicebantur Sapientes, Magistri, et Scribae. Quo titulo Esdras ipse insignitur in libro qui nomen ejus praefert. Et de hoc quoque genere fuerunt, qui dicuntur in Evangelio doctores et periti legis. A quibus Christus clavem scientiae auferens, ipsam tradidit Apostolis, Pastoribusque et Doctoribus, qui pro parte sua sunt eorum successores. X. Verum praeter Episcopos et Pastores ordinarios, in quibus aliqua saltem exigitur Theologiae cognitio, Ecclesia Christiana jam ab initio suas habuit scholas, et Doctores doctrinam sacram in iis profitentes, et exponentes divinas literas. Inprimis celebris fuit schola Alexandrina, in qua, si creditur Hieronymo, libro de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, continua serie fuerant, ab Evangelistae Marci temporibus, ad ipsius usque tempora, Ecclesiastici Doctores. Quorum praecipue memoratur Pantaenus, et, qui eum excepit, Clemens Alexandrinus. XI. Et certe ex ipsa fidei necessitate Theologicae scientiae necessitas infertur. Fides enim propagari et durare non potest, nisi sint qui fidem doceant, suadeant et tueantur. At non est cujusvis fidelis hoc praestare: sed eorum tantum qui sunt in Scriptura rebusque divinis periti. Itaque ad fidei et Ecclesiae conservationem, et per consequens ad hominum salutem, Theologia necessaria est, hoc est, in Ecclesia necessarij sunt viri rerum divinarum periti, qui fidem in aliis generent, foveant et nutriant: licet non necesse sit ut singuli ita docti et periti sint.
Theology is not a science by Aristotle's strict definition, yet it is rightly called science by the evidence of the consequence§4
4So much, then, is clear about the necessity of theology. But now, that we may hold clearly and distinctly what it is, we must first inquire into its genus. The first question, therefore, is whether our theology is a science. On which we say that theology is not a science accurately speaking, and according to the definition of science laid down by Aristotle. For science according to Aristotle is an evident assent: but theological conclusions are not evident. And that is because they are gathered from inevident principles. For faith is the habit of the theological principles. But faith is an inevident habit. For the Apostle opposes faith to sight: (2 Corinthians 5:7) — By faith, he says, we walk, not by sight. And (Hebrews 11:1) teaches that faith is of things that are not seen. Faith, he says, is the substance of things hoped for, and the argument of things that are not seen.
Now those things are said to be evident which of themselves move the intellect to the knowledge of them — that is, which of themselves persuade and commend themselves to the mind, and by their own light so strike and convince the mind that it cannot but assent to them. That this does not suit the mysteries of our faith is plain. For they are not things known of themselves, whose truth of itself lays itself open to our mind. But that we assent to them, we do because of the authority and testimony of God, who revealed and confirmed them by his Word.
But here a distinction must be made between the evidence of the consequent and the evidence of the consequence. For theological conclusions are indeed not evident: yet the consequence by which they are drawn from their principles is evident. From inevident premises, to be sure — but they are gathered evidently. For example: that Christ is true God and true man is a principle of faith, which of itself is not evident, but is believed because of God's testimony alone. Yet from it it evidently follows that in Christ there are two wills, one divine and the other human. And so in this respect theology lacks nothing toward the true character of a science.
Although, however, theology is not a science properly and strictly speaking, and according to all the conditions of science laid down by Aristotle, still there is no habit of the mind to which it more nearly approaches, and to which it ought rather to be referred. For it is a certain knowledge evidently deduced from certain principles, which, though they are inevident, are no less certain than if they were evident. And so it is rightly and fittingly called a science, nor can it be designated by any more apt name.
Latin · §4
XII. Sic ergo de Theologiae necessitate patet. Jam vero ut quid ea sit, clare et distincte teneamus, primo in genus ejus inquirendum est. Quaeritur ergo primo an Theologia nostra sit scientia. Super qua re dicimus Theologiam scientiam non esse accurate loquendo, et juxta definitionem scientiae ab Aristotele positam. Etenim scientia secundum Aristotelem est assensus evidens: Atqui conclusiones Theologicae non sunt evidentes. Et hoc quia colliguntur ex principiis inevidentibus. Fides enim est habitus principiorum Theologicorum. Atqui fides est habitus inevidens. Nam Apostolus fidem opponit aspectui: 2 Corinth. 5. Per fidem, inquit, ambulamus non per aspectum. Et Hebr. 11. docet fidem eorum esse quae non videntur. Fides, inquit, est rerum quae sperantur substantia, et eorum quae non videntur argumentum. XIII. Illa autem dicuntur esse evidentia, quae per se intellectum movent ad sui cognitionem, id est, quae seipsa menti suadent et commendant, et luce sua mentem ita feriunt et convincunt, ut non possit non iis assentiri. Quod fidei nostrae mysteriis non convenire palam est. Non sunt enim res per se notae, quarumque veritas ex se menti nostrae se prodat. Sed quod illis assentimur, id facimus propter authoritatem et testimonium Dei, qui ea Verbo suo revelavit et confirmavit. XIV. Verum hic est distinguendum inter evidentiam consequentis et consequentiae. Conclusiones enim Theologicae non sunt quidem evidentes: sed consequentia tamen, qua ex principiis suis deducuntur, evidens est. Ex praemissis quidem inevidentibus: sed evidenter colliguntur. Exempli causa, Christum esse verum Deum et verum hominem, fidei principium est, quod ex se non est evidens, sed propter solum Dei testimonium creditur. At inde tamen evidenter sequitur in Christo duas esse voluntates, divinam unam et alteram humanam. Ideoque hac in parte Theologiae nihil deest ad veram scientiae rationem. XV. Licet autem Theologia scientia non sit proprie et stricte loquendo, et juxta scientiae conditiones omnes ab Aristotele positas, nullus tamen est habitus mentis ad quem magis accedat, et ad quem potius debeat revocari. Est enim cognitio certa evidenter deducta ex principiis certis, quae, licet inevidentia sint, non minus tamen certa sunt, quam si essent evidentia. Ideoque recte et convenienter scientia dicitur, nec alio aptiori nomine designari potest.
Theology is one science by species under divine revelation, and is practical rather than merely speculative§5
5Further, theology is one science by species, not many. For although it treats of things that are very diverse — for example, of God, of angels, of man, of virtues and vices, which seem to belong to altogether different sciences — still all those things agree in one common formal reason, under which they confront and are objected to theology. That common reason is divine revelation. For the things I have named do not fall under the theologian's consideration in any way whatever, but only insofar as they can be known through divine revelation. For example, concerning the nature, powers, and duty of man the theologian does not teach whatever can be taught, but only those things which he has learned and gathered from the word of God.
Here it must also be noted that not whatever God reveals in any manner whatever pertains to the object of theology. For God may have revealed certain things privately to many persons, which do not fall under this science. But here by revelation we understand that which is common to the whole church, and which was made for its common usefulness, and which God willed to be consigned in writing. For the theologian ought to prove his assertions not from private revelations made to this person or that, but from sacred Scripture.
Further, theology does not seem to be a science merely speculative, nor merely practical, but practical and speculative at once. And that is because theology treats of many things that belong to practical science as well as to speculative. For it contemplates God and the divine mysteries, which do not fall under action; and it also gives precepts of life, and teaches what manners are worthy of a Christian man.
Nevertheless we judge theology to be practical rather than speculative. For the whole of theology is occupied in the explanation and defense of the things contained in the Scriptures. But the teaching contained in the Scriptures, from the scope of God himself who teaches and reveals, is referred to action — namely to the love of God and of neighbor. Nor has anyone attained the scope of this teaching who does not refer whatever he has learned from the word of God to that end. For Christ affirms in (Matthew 22:37-40) that the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and your neighbor as yourself. Then Paul says in (Romans 15:4) that whatever things were written were written for our learning, that through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope. But above all his words in (2 Timothy 3:16-17) are to be weighed: All Scripture is inspired by God, and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for discipline which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto every good work.
To this belongs the fact that the Gospel is called by the same Paul a teaching according to godliness (1 Timothy 6:3). For that is for no other reason than that the chief scope of the Gospel is to form us unto godliness. Indeed those articles which seem most to pertain to contemplation — namely concerning the divinity and incarnation of the Son of God — are called by the Apostle in specie the mystery of godliness, in chapter 3 of the same epistle (1 Timothy 3:16). Add that the habit of the theological principles is faith. But true faith is a practical habit. And the habit of the principles and the habit of the conclusions are of the same genus.
Latin · §5
XVI. Porro Theologia scientia est una specie, non multiplex. Licet enim de rebus valde diversis agat, exempli gratia, de Deo, de Angelis, de homine, de virtutibus et vitiis, quae videntur ad prorsus diversas scientias pertinere, omnia tamen illa in una ratione communi conveniunt, sub qua Theologiae obversantur et objiciuntur. Quae ratio communis est revelatio divina. Ista enim quae dixi non quovis modo cadunt sub Theologi considerationem: sed quatenus per divinam revelationem cognosci possunt. Nam verbi causa, de natura, viribus et officio hominis non docet Theologus quaecunque doceri possunt, sed ea tantum quae ex verbo Dei didicit et collegit. XVII. Est autem hic notandum, non quaecunque Deus quovis modo revelat ad Theologiae objectum pertinere. Potest enim Deus multis quaedam privatim revelasse, quae non cadunt sub hanc scientiam. Sed hic per revelationem intelligimus illam, quae Ecclesiae toti communis est, et in communem ejus utilitatem est facta, quamque Deus scriptis voluit consignari. Siquidem non ex privatis revelationibus huic aut illi factis, sed ex Scriptura sacra, assertiones suas probare debet Theologus. XVIII. Porro Theologia non videtur esse scientia mere speculativa, neque mere practica, sed practica simul et speculativa. Et hoc quia Theologia de multis rebus agit, quae spectant ad scientiam tam practicam, quam speculativam. Deum enim contemplatur et mysteria divina, quae sub actionem non cadunt: tum quoque vitae praecepta dat, docetque qui sint mores homine Christiano digni. XIX. Verumtamen Theologiam censemus potius esse practicam quam speculativam. Siquidem universa Theologia versatur in explicatione, et defensione eorum quae continentur in Scripturis. Atqui doctrina in Scripturis contenta, ex ipsius Dei docentis et revelantis scopo, ad actionem refertur, videlicet ad Dei et proximi dilectionem. Neque doctrinae hujus scopum assecutus est, qui non quaecunque ex verbo Dei didicit, ad finem illum refert. Affirmat enim Christus Matth. 22. legem atque Prophetas pendere ex his duobus mandatis, nempe, Dominum Deum tuum diliges toto corde, et tota anima, et proximum sicut teipsum. Deinde dicit Paulus Rom. 15. Quaecunque scripta sunt ad nostram doctrinam scripta esse, ut per patientiam, et consolationem Scripturarum spem habeamus. Sed praesertim maxime ponderanda sunt ejus verba, 2. Tim. 3. Tota Scriptura divinitus inspirata, utilis est ad doctrinam, ad redargutionem, ad correctionem, ad disciplinam quae est in justitia; ut perfectus sit homo Dei, et ad omne bonum opus perfecte instructus. XX. Huc facit, quod Evangelium ab eodem Paulo dicitur doctrina quae est secundum pietatem, 1 Tim. 6. Hoc enim aliunde non est, nisi quod praecipuus Evangelii scopus, est nos ad pietatem formare. Imo articuli illi qui maxime videntur pertinere ad contemplationem, nimirum de filii Dei divinitate et incarnatione, mysterium pietatis ab Apostolo dicuntur in specie, cap. 3. ejusdem Epistolae. Adde quod Theologicorum principiorum habitus est fides. At vera fides habitus est practicus. Ejusdem vero generis est habitus principiorum, et habitus conclusionum.
The object of theology is God as the savior of men, not deity considered apart from that respect§6
6As for the object of theology, it is to be noted that sometimes the object of a science is said to be whatever the science considers in any way. So the object of theology is not one. For it considers many and very diverse things: God, the church, angels, the sacraments. Yet all these agree in one common appellation, insofar as they fall under the theologian's consideration. For whatever the theologian treats can be called divine things. For they are either God himself, or other things ordered in some way to God. Nor is anything properly considered by the theologian except with some respect to God. So if anyone asks about the object of theology, it can not ineptly be answered that that object is divine things.
But for the most part the object of any science is said to be that of which the science principally intends to give us knowledge, and on account of which it considers all the rest — because, namely, they lead to a fuller and more perfect acquaintance with it. Of this kind the object of theology is God, which almost all confess, and which the very word theology teaches, which, as was noted above, means speech about God. But it is not agreed whether that object is God simply, as God is, or rather under some certain respect. The former is defended by the more celebrated scholastics following Thomas Aquinas, and they state that the object of theology is God as God is, and, as they speak, under the reason of deity. But this seems to us too loose and general. Nor is the scope of theology to lead us simply into the knowledge of God as God is; rather it treats of God with some respect to men.
Therefore the object of theology can more conveniently be said to be God, as God is, and the savior of men. For the whole of Scripture proposes God to us under this respect. And it principally intends to teach us what benefits of God are toward men, and what worship and obedience he in turn requires of them. But if it touches any other things, it does so in order to declare and confirm these more. For example, when it teaches that there are three Persons in God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — its scope is not simply to teach us this truth; but by it it wills to inform us more clearly and richly concerning the manner of our redemption and salvation, which was procured for us through Christ, and is applied and sealed to us through the Spirit. And likewise the attributes of God, such as justice and mercy, are narrated in the Scriptures in relation to men, so that they may know how far the justice of God is to be feared by them, and what refuge they ought to seek in his mercy.
Latin · §6
XXI. Quod ad objectum Theologiae spectat, notandum est, aliquando objectum scientiae dici quicquid scientia quovis modo considerat. Ita Theologiae objectum non est unum. Multa enim et valde diversa considerat, Deum, Ecclesiam, Angelos, Sacramenta. Quae omnia tamen in una communi appellatione conveniunt, quatenus sub Theologi considerationem cadunt. Nam quaecunque tractat Theologus possunt vocari res divinae. Sunt enim, vel Deus ipse, vel alia quae ad Deum aliquo modo ordinantur. Nec quicquam a Theologo proprie consideratur; nisi cum aliquo respectu ad Deum. Itaque, si quis de objecto Theologiae quaerat, non inepte responderi potest, objectum illud esse res divinas. XXII. Sed ut plurimum objectum scientiae cujuspiam dicitur, id cujus scientia praecipue intendit cognitionem nobis dare, et propter quod cetera omnia considerat: quia, scilicet, ad ejus ampliorem et perfectiorem notitiam conducunt. Hujusmodi objectum Theologiae Deus est, quod plerique omnes fatentur, et docet ipsa Theologiae vox, quae, ut supra notatum est, significat sermonem de Deo: sed non convenit, an illud objectum sit Deus simpliciter, ut Deus est: an vero sub certo aliquo respectu. Prius illud tuentur Scholastici celebriores Thomam Aquinatem secuti, statuuntque objectum Theologiae esse Deum, prout Deus est, atque ut loquuntur sub ratione Deitatis. Verum hoc nobis videtur nimis laxum et generale. Neque scopus Theologiae est nos simpliciter in Dei, ut Deus est, cognitionem ducere; sed de Deo agit cum aliquo ad homines respectu. XXIII. Itaque convenientius Theologiae objectum dici potest Deus, ut Deus est, et servator hominum. Tota quippe Scriptura Deum nobis sub hoc respectu proponit. Ac praecipue intendit nos docere quae sint erga homines Dei beneficia, quemque vicissim ab illis cultum exigat et obedientiam. Si quae vero alia tangit, id facit ad ista magis declaranda et confirmanda. Exempli gratia, cum tradit esse tres in Deo Personas, Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, scopus ejus non est simpliciter nos hanc veritatem docere: sed per id vult nos clarius et uberius informare, de modo redemptionis atque salutis nostrae, quae per Christum nobis parta est, et per Spiritum nobis applicatur et obsignatur. Et similiter Dei attributa, ut justitia et misericordia enarrantur in Scripturis relate ad homines, ut scilicet sciant, quatenus Dei justitia ipsis timenda sit, et quodnam debeant in ejus misericordia quaerere perfugium.
Theology's dignity appears from its object — above metaphysics, and wide through creatures, ethics, and history§7
7Further, once the nature of theology is known, it is ready to hand to gather what its dignity is, and its excellence above the remaining sciences. And first, indeed, those things already said about the object of theology show it sufficiently. For from the dignity of the object the dignity of the sciences is usually estimated. But the object of theology, as has been said, is God Most High, who surpasses all other things infinitely in dignity, since he himself is of infinite essence and perfection.
First philosophy does indeed treat of God, but concerning so great an object it hands down few and slight things compared with those handed down in this discipline. For theology narrates the nature and attributes of God far more richly and clearly than metaphysics. Then it opens many mysteries about God altogether unknown to the philosophers — as that there are three persons in God though the essence is one, and that the Son of God was incarnate and died for us, and many like things.
Then also, although God is the principal object of theology — because, as we have just taught, it considers nothing except in order and respect to God — still theology treats of many things besides God, and there is no science that extends itself to more things, or whose object lies open so widely. For it discourses on many excellent matters concerning spiritual creatures, namely angels both good and evil, of which human reason can scarcely attain anything. There we have a perfect ethics, and a rule of living well far holier and more sublime than any precepts of the wise of this age. Nor does theology lack political and economic precepts, many of which can be drawn from sacred Scripture.
Add that through this discipline a person is led into a true knowledge of himself, and learns those things about himself which cannot be taught from elsewhere. For this alone opens the origin of the human race, and the various states of man. And since it is easy to notice in human nature a great misery and disturbance, theology alone teaches its cause and remedy, and opens so great a magnitude of the evil. Over which matter philosophy long ago seethed and panted in vain.
Indeed sacred teaching embraces not a few geographical and historical matters, which pour great light on history and geography. And without its torch shining ahead, the beginnings of the world would be unknown, and the origins of almost all nations, nor would chronology have any certain beginning, and the first and most venerable antiquity would lie wholly hidden. Finally sacred Scripture, the fountain of our theology and its first rule, scatters here and there certain physical matters which not lightly assist natural science — as, for example, that saying of Solomon in the first chapter of Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 1:7), concerning the origin of springs and rivers from the sea, and their perpetual return by a circle into the same sea.
Latin · §7
XXIV. Porro semel cognita Theologiae natura, in promptu est colligere, quae sit ejus dignitas, et praestantia supra reliquas scientias. Et primo quidem, eam satis ostendunt, quae de Theologiae objecto jam dicta sunt. Ex objecti enim dignitate, solet scientiarum aestimari dignitas. At Theologiae objectum, ut dictum est, est Deus Opt. Max. qui cetera omnia in infinitum dignitate superat, cum sit ipse essentiae et perfectionis infinitae. XXV. Prima Philosophia agit quidem de Deo, sed de tanto objecto pauca tradit et exigua, prae iis quae in hac disciplina traduntur. Etenim Theologia Dei naturam et attributa longe uberius et luculentius enarrat, quam Metaphysica. Deinde multa de Deo mysteria aperit, Philosophis prorsus incognita: veluti in Deo tres esse personas, licet una sit essentia, Deique Filium pro nobis incarnatum et mortuum esse, et multa similia. XXVI. Tum quoque, licet Deus sit Theologiae objectum principale, quia, ut modo docuimus, nil considerat, nisi in ordine et respectu ad Deum; de multis tamen praeter Deum agit Theologia, neque est ulla scientia, quae ad plura se extendat, cujusque tam late pateat objectum. Plurima enim praeclara edisserit de creaturis spiritualibus, Angelis scilicet, tam bonis quam malis, de quibus vix quicquam potest assequi ratio humana. Ibi habemus perfectam Ethicam, et regulam bene vivendi longe sanctiorem et sublimiorem quibuscunque sapientum hujus saeculi praeceptis. Neque Theologiae desunt praecepta politica atque oeconomica, quae multa ex Scriptura sacra depromi possunt. XXVII. Adde quod per hanc disciplinam homo in veram sui cognitionem ducitur, eaque de seipso discit, quae aliunde doceri non potest. Siquidem haec sola generis humani originem aperit, variosque hominis status. Cumque facile sit animadvertere in natura humana magnam miseriam et perturbationem, sola Theologia illius causam et remedium docet; tantique aperit mali magnitudinem. Super qua re jam olim frustra aestuavit et anhelavit Philosophia. XXVIII. Imo doctrina sacra non pauca Geographica et Historica complectitur, quae magnam lucem affundunt Historiae atque Geographiae. Et sine ejus face praelucente ignota essent mundi primordia, et gentium pene omnium origines, nec ullum Chronologia certum initium haberet, primaque et maxime veneranda in totum latens antiquitas. Denique Scriptura sacra, Theologiae nostrae fons, et regula prima, passim quaedam Physica aspergit, quae non leviter juvant scientiam naturalem. Ut, verbi causa, illud Salomonis Ecclesiastae primo, de fontium et fluviorum a mari origine, et in idem mare per circulum perpetuum reditu.
Theology is also commended by its author — God, not Aristotle or Euclid§8
8But as much as this science is commended from its object, so much also does its author commend it. For the remaining sciences glory in some illustrious man as their chief author. Aristotle is held the prince of the philosophers, and Hippocrates of the physicians; and the mathematical disciplines acknowledge Euclid as their parent. But theology claims God for itself as author, from whom this sacred teaching has flowed forth. For prophecy was not brought in of old by the will of man, as the Apostle Peter says (2 Peter 1:21); but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, who first consigned it in writing.
Not without the deity, indeed, were the good arts and disciplines invented; and the light of reason itself descends from the Father of lights (James 1:17), who is the mover and governor of nature. But the principles on which theology rests are the express sayings and oracles of God, by which those things are made manifest which could not have become known except by a light higher than reason.
Latin · §8
XXIX. Sed quantum haec scientia commendatur ab objecto, eam tantundem commendat ejus autor. Reliquae enim scientiae illustri aliquo viro tanquam praecipuo authore gloriantur. Aristoteles habetur Philosophorum princeps, et Medicorum Hippocrates: Mathematicae vero disciplinae parentem agnoscunt Euclidem. At Theologia Deum sibi vindicat authorem, a quo sacra haec doctrina emanavit. Non enim libitu hominis allata est olim prophetia, ut Petrus Apostolus ait, sed acti a Spiritu sancto loquuti sunt sancti homines Dei, qui primum eam scriptis consignarunt. XXX. Non sine numine quidem inventae sunt bonae artes, et disciplinae: et ipsum rationis lumen descendit a Patre luminum, qui est naturae motor et gubernator. Sed principia, quibus Theologia nititur, sunt expressa Dei dicta et oracula, quibus manifestantur ea, quae non potuerunt innotescere, nisi per lumen ratione altius.
Theology surpasses the other sciences in certainty, both in the object and in the habit of faith§9
9Hence it comes about that theology surpasses all the remaining sciences in certainty. For those rest on human reason, which can be deceived and is liable to error. But theology reclines upon the truth of God, who can neither be deceived nor deceive. Many indeed waver about theological truths, and to them the principles and conclusions of theology seem less certain than the things handed down in the human sciences. But that does not hinder them from being in themselves most certain — just as the sun does not cease to be most splendid, though the blind and the bleary-eyed either do not perceive its light at all, or perceive it only obscurely.
But here it must be noticed that when we set theology as more certain than the other sciences, we do not so understand it as if that certainty were only on the side of the object. For the things which God has revealed are not only most certain in themselves, but can also be known more certainly through the habit of faith and of theology than any truths known through the light of reason alone. So that one who is strengthened in faith and in the science of divine things is more certain, and more persuaded, concerning the divine truths than he is concerning any other truth. And thus the habit of faith and of theology, in itself and from its own species, excels in certainty the habit of the merely natural sciences — although not all participate that habit equally, and it is firmer in one person and less firm in another.
Latin · §9
XXXI. Unde fit ut Theologia certitudine superet reliquas omnes scientias. Siquidem illae nituntur ratione humana, quae falli potest, et est errori obnoxia. Sed Theologia recumbit in veritatem Dei, qui nec falli, nec fallere potest. Multi quidem circa veritates Theologicas addubitant, iisque Theologiae principia, et conclusiones minus certa videntur, quam ea quae traduntur in scientiis humanis. Sed id non obstat quo minus in se sint certissima: sicut Sol non desinit esse splendidissimus, licet caeci et lippientes lucem ejus, aut omnino non, aut obscure tantum percipiant. XXXII. Verum hic animadvertendum, quum ponimus Theologiam certiorem esse aliis scientiis, nos id ita non intelligere, quasi certitudo illa solum esset ex parte objecti. Etenim illa quae Deus revelavit, non tantum sunt in se certissima, sed etiam per habitum fidei, et Theologiae certius cognosci possunt, quam ullae veritates per solum lumen rationis notae. Ita ut qui in fide et rerum divinarum scientia roboratus est, certior sit, et magis persuasus de veritatibus divinis, quam sit de ulla alia veritate. Atque sic fidei et Theologiae habitus, in se et ex propria specie, certitudine antecellit habitus scientiarum mere naturalium, licet omnes non aequaliter participent illum habitum, et sit in uno firmior, in alio vero minus firmus.
Theology's dignity shines most in its end and use — perfect beatitude, not a particular good of this life§10
10But in no matter does the dignity and excellence of theology shine forth more than in the excellence of its end and use. For among practical disciplines, the further and more universal the end of any discipline is, the more worthy and excellent that discipline is. So politics excels military science, because the end of military science is victory, which is a means to obtaining public peace and tranquillity — which is the end of political science, and some greater good. But the end of this science is the highest and last of all: namely the perfect beatitude of man, to which the ends of all the other arts and disciplines are subordinated.
The remaining disciplines and arts care for some particular good of man. Medicine, for example, the health of the body; jurisprudence, estates; politics, public peace and tranquillity. But none of these suffices to make a person blessed. Theology, however, cares for the whole happiness of man, and supplies whatever things are desired for living well and blessedly.
Philosophy also strives toward that, indeed. But it attains its scope less fully, and whatever goods it tries to procure for a person are contained within the compass of this life. But theology offers eternal life and happiness, and renders them to those who follow its leading. And so it teaches how to order the present life, that we may be blessed not only for the state of this life, but in such a way that it leads through to everlasting beatitude.
Latin · §10
XXXIII. Sed in nulla re magis Theologiae dignitas et excellentia elucet quam in praestantia finis et usus ejus. Etenim, inter disciplinas practicas, quo alicujus disciplinae finis ulterior est et magis universalis, eo disciplina illa dignior et praestantior est. Ita Politica praestat scientiae militari, quia militaris scientiae finis est victoria, quae medium est ad adipiscendam publicam pacem et tranquillitatem, quae politicae scientiae finis est, et bonum aliquod majus. At hujus scientiae finis summus est et ultimus omnium, perfecta scilicet hominis beatitudo, cui subordinantur caeterarum omnium artium atque disciplinarum fines. XXXIV. Disciplinae et artes reliquae particulare aliquod hominis bonum curant. Medicina v. g. corporis sanitatem: Jurisprudentia, facultates: Politica, publicam pacem et tranquillitatem. Sed harum nulla sufficit ad hominem beandum. Theologia vero integram hominis felicitatem curat, et suggerit quaecunque desiderantur ad bene beateque vivendum. XXXV. Ad id quidem etiam contendit Philosophia. Sed scopum suum minus assequitur, et quaecunque bona homini procurare conatur, intra hujus vitae ambitum continentur. At Theologia vitam et felicitatem aeternam offert, et praestat iis qui sequuntur ejus ductum. Et sic docet praesentem vitam instituere, ut non tantum pro hujus vitae statu beati simus, sed ita ut ad sempiternam beatitudinem perducat.
Theology is wisely called wisdom: hardest mysteries, and independent of every other science§11
11Therefore by highest right this sacred discipline ought to be called wisdom. For according to Aristotle himself, wisdom is the science of the most excellent things. But as is clear from what has been said, theology treats of the most excellent things: namely of God and of his wonderful works, both in creation and in our redemption. Then also of things of the greatest moment with respect to us, and which it is of the highest interest for us to know — namely of our highest happiness, and of life rightly ordered according to God, which is the way to attaining that happiness. Nor does it treat only of the most excellent things, but also in the most excellent manner: namely not from the inventions of human reason, but from divine revelation.
Besides, among the marks of wisdom it is commonly reckoned that it is occupied about things most difficult and remote from sense; next, that it does not depend on another science; and finally that it directs and judges the other sciences, as their arbiter and mistress. All of which fit theology exactly.
For first it opens to us mysteries far most difficult, which in themselves are not only remote from the senses, but far surpass the capacity of the human mind. For they are, as the Apostle says, things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have ascended into the heart of man; but God has revealed them to us by his Spirit, who searches all things, even the depths of God (1 Corinthians 2:9-10).
Second, theology does not depend on any other science. For one science is said to depend on another in two ways. First, when a certain science takes its principles from another, which principles are conclusions of that superior science. So the art of fortifying cities depends on geometry; for geometrical conclusions are the principles of that art. Then, when the end of one science is referred to the end of another science. So military science depends on politics; since the military end is referred to the political end, and is a means to attaining it. But in both of those ways theology is plainly independent. For since the end of theology is the last end of man — namely his eternal beatitude — it cannot be referred to any end, but all things are necessarily referred to it. Then also there is no human science from which theology takes its principles; but it has them immediately from the revelation of God, whose are the utterances and pronouncements.
Latin · §11
XXXVI. Itaque summo jure sacra haec disciplina sapientia dici debet. Etenim juxta ipsum Aristotelem, Sapientia est scientia rerum praestantissimarum. Sed ut patet ex dictis, Theologia de rebus praestantissimis agit: videlicet de Deo et mirandis ejus operibus, tam in creatione quam in redemptione nostra. Deinde quoque de rebus respectu nostri maximi momenti, et quae nosse nostra maxime interest, nempe de summa nostra felicitate, et de vita secundum Deum recte instituenda, quae via est ad illam felicitatem adeundam. Nec tantum de rebus praestantissimis agit, verum etiam praestantissimo modo: scilicet non ex humanae rationis inventis, sed ex divina revelatione. XXXVII. Praeterea inter notas sapientiae recenseri solet, quod versetur circa maxime difficilia et a sensu remota. Deinde quod ab alia scientia non pendeat. Ac demum quod dirigat et judicet scientias alias, tanquam earum arbitra et domina. Quae omnia apprime in Theologiam quadrant. XXXVIII. Etenim primo nobis mysteria aperit longe difficillima, quae in se non tantum sunt a sensibus remota, sed mentis humanae captum longe superant. Sunt enim, ut ait Apostolus, quae nec oculus vidit, neque auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascenderunt: sed Deus ea nobis revelavit per Spiritum suum, qui Spiritus omnia scrutatur, etiam profunditates Dei, 1 Cor. 2. XXXIX. Secundo Theologia non pendet ab ulla alia scientia. Etenim una scientia ab alia pendere dicitur duobus modis. 1. Quum scientia quaedam ab altera sumit sua principia, quae superioris istius scientiae sunt conclusiones. Et ita ars urbes muniendi a Geometria pendet. Conclusiones enim Geometricae sunt istius artis principia. Deinde quum finis unius scientiae refertur ad finem scientiae alterius. Et ita militaris a politica pendet: quandoquidem finis militaris refertur ad politicae finem, et est medium ad illum consequendum. Utroque vero isto modo Theologia est plane independens. Nam, cum finis Theologiae sit finis hominis ultimus, aeterna scilicet ejus beatitudo, ad nullum finem referri potest, sed ad illum omnia necessario referuntur. Tum quoque nulla est humana scientia, a qua Theologia sua principia sumat: sed illa immediate habet ex revelatione Dei, cujus sunt effata et pronunciata.
Theology uses the natural sciences as mistress, judges them, and rightly bears the title Wisdom§12
12But you will say: theologians in their arguments often use propositions which are not revealed, but known by the light of reason alone; and many argumentations are found in theology in which only one of the premises is revealed, while the other is one of the conclusions of some natural science. I answer that when theology takes certain things from other sciences, it does not do so from necessity, but to illustrate the matter more, and to accommodate itself to weak persons. For by itself alone it is sufficient to itself, and can prove all necessary conclusions from revealed principles. So when it borrows anything from the natural sciences, it does not do so as an inferior compelled to run back to a superior, but as a mistress who freely uses the faculties of her handmaids.
And in truth theology is the arbiter and mistress of the other sciences, which directs them and judges concerning them, herself to be judged by no other science. For all the remaining disciplines are to be measured by her rule, so that whatever they have not consonant with theology is rejected, and nothing is admitted which does not agree with the principles of theology.
And so various errors in philosophy have been detected — as, for example, concerning the origin of the world, which some of the philosophers thought eternal, others made from matter; but none thought it created from nothing, as it truly is, except with theology showing and leading by the hand. And in many other matters where the philosophers stuck fast and did not have the thing sufficiently explored, theology set it in the open and took away all doubt — as is plain in the business of divine providence and of the immortality of the soul.
Therefore by right and merit sacred teaching is to be adorned with the title Wisdom, which is also often attributed to it in Scripture: as when the Apostle calls the Gospel the wisdom which is in a mystery; and says that it is to the nations foolishness, and to the Jews a stumbling-block; but to those who believe, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:18-24; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8).
Latin · §12
XL. At inquies, Theologi in suis argumentis saepe utuntur propositionibus, quae non sunt revelatae, sed notae solo lumine rationis, et plurimae in Theologia reperiuntur argumentationes, in quibus una tantum praemissarum est revelata, altera vero una est ex conclusionibus cujusdam scientiae naturalis. Respondeo Theologiam, quum quaedam sumit ex aliis scientiis, id non facere ex necessitate, sed ad rem magis illustrandam, et ut se hominibus infirmis accommodet. Etenim per se sola sibi sufficit, omnesque necessarias conclusiones potest ex revelatis principiis probare. Itaque, quum aliquid a naturalibus scientiis mutuatur, id non facit tanquam inferior, quae ad superiorem recurrere cogitur: sed tanquam domina, quae libere utitur facultatibus ancillarum. XLI. Et revera Theologia caeterarum scientiarum est arbitra et domina, quae ipsas dirigit, et de ipsis judicat, ipsa a nulla alia scientia judicanda. Nam reliquae omnes disciplinae, exigendae sunt ad ejus amussim, ut quicquid habent cum Theologia non consonum rejiciatur, neque admittatur quicquam quod cum Theologiae principiis non congruat. XLII. Atque sic in Philosophia varii errores detecti, ut v.g. de origine mundi, quem Philosophorum alii aeternum, alii ex materia factum existimarunt: nulli vero, ex nihilo, prout est revera, creatum, nisi Theologia monstrante et manu ducente: Et in multis aliis, ubi Philosophi haerebant, nec rem habebant satis exploratam, eam Theologia posuit in aperto; et sustulit omnem dubitationem. Ut patet in negotio de divina providentia, et animae immortalitate. XLIII. Jure merito ergo doctrina sacra titulo Sapientiae ornanda est, qui etiam ipsi saepe in Scriptura tribuitur: ut quum Apostolus Evangelium vocat, sapientiam quae in mysterio est: ipsumque dicit esse gentibus quidem stultitiam, et Judaeis scandalum: at vero iis qui credunt, Dei potentiam atque sapientiam, 1. Cor. 1. et 2.
Faith is assent to God speaking, moved by divine authority — and not every assent counts as faith§13
13Faith, taken theologically in general, is the assent we give to God speaking, when we are certainly persuaded that something is true, moved to it by divine authority. By this, faith is distinguished from opinion, which is a timid and uncertain assent. Likewise from science, which is indeed a certain assent, but one that rests on demonstration or some evident argument, not on anyone's testimony. Finally from human faith, which rests in the authority of men.
Therefore not every assent, even when given to things contained in the word of God, is to be counted as faith. For if someone holds some doctrine of religion with certainty and firmness — for example the creation of all things out of nothing — yet is not driven to it by divine revelation, but by some reason that seems necessary to him, to that extent he does not have faith. Nor does the one who believes the history of the Israelite people from the report of Josephus the historian, and does not give faith to the sacred historians. The same can be said of those who cling to the true and orthodox religion, but only from custom, and moved to it by the authority of their ancestors alone.
But various species or grades of faith may be assigned from the Scriptures. In some people faith sticks in the theoretical intellect alone: and so they give a bare and simple assent to what is proposed in the word of God, yet are not moved thereby to act rightly, nor are they made better. So Simon Magus believed Philip's preaching, yet his heart was not right, and he was in the bitterest gall and the bond of injustice, as is recorded in Acts 8. So also those had believed in the name of Christ to whom nevertheless Christ did not entrust himself, because he knew all people thoroughly, as we read in John 2. And even the demons themselves share in this in their own way, who are said in James to believe and tremble (James 2:19).
Latin · §13
I. FIDES Theologice sumpta in genere, est assensus quem Deo loquenti praebemus, quum aliquid verum esse certo nobis persuademus, ad id Divina Authoritate moti. Ac per hoc fides distinguitur ab opinione, quae assensus est timidus et incertus. Item a scientia, quae quidem assensus est certus, sed qui demonstratione, aut evidenti aliquo argumento, non vero cujusquam testimonio nititur. Denique a fide humana, quae in authoritate hominum acquiescit. II. Itaque quivis assensus, adhibitus etiam eis, quae verbo Dei continentur, fides non est censendus. Si quis enim aliquod religionis dogma, veluti universorum creationem ex nihilo, certo et firmiter teneat: non tamen ad id impulsus revelatione divina, sed ratione quadam, quae ipsi necessaria videtur, eatenus fidem non habet. Ut nec qui Israelitici populi historiam credit ex relatione Josephi Historici, non vero historicis sacris fidem adhibens. Quod et de iis dici potest, qui verae et orthodoxae religioni adhaerescunt, sed tantum ex consuetudine, et ad id sola majorum authoritate moti. III. Fidei vero varias, sive species, sive gradus, ex Scripturis assignare licet. In quibusdam enim fides intellectu theoretico haeret: et ita nudum et simplicem assensum praebent iis, quae verbo Dei proponuntur, ut ad recte agendum inde non moveantur, nec reddantur meliores. Ita credidit Simon Magus praedicationi Philippi, cujus tamen cor non erat rectum, quique in amarissimo felle, et nexu injustitiae positus erat, ut habetur Actorum 8. Ita quoque crediderant in nomen Christi, illi quibus tamen Christus non credebat seipsum, quod probe nosset omnes, prout legimus, Johan. 2. Et hanc suo modo participant ipsi daemones, qui dicuntur apud Jacobum credere et contremiscere.
Historical faith names idle assent; temporary faith is shallow joy that collapses under the cross§14
14This is the faith that our writers call historical. It does not take that name from its object, as though it belonged only to things narrated historically in the Scriptures. For those who have this faith believe as true whatever is contained in the sacred writings — promises, doctrines, and precepts no less than histories and narratives. Many of the ungodly do not doubt the truth of the Gospel promises, and even the demons do not call them into question. But this faith is called historical from the way it turns about its object. Just as when we read histories that do not concern us, we contemplate them bare and are not inwardly affected or moved by them: so those who have that faith which the word of God teaches speculate idly and do not refer those things to practice.
Whether this faith ought to be called true is asked. The Doctors of the Roman Church affirm it. And this can be granted them in some sense. For that faith believes only what is true, and believes it in earnest, not fictively and with pretense. Yet only that faith seems to us absolutely deserving to be called true which is justifying and saving — which we deny that historical faith to be.
From this faith another grade of faith does not differ far, which may be observed in Scripture. For there are those in whom faith not only illumines the theoretical mind, but also affects the practical mind to some extent; so that they do not merely believe the Gospel truth simply, but are tickled with some joy from it, and in some measure abstain from their vices and worldly desires. Yet by that faith their mind is only lightly imbued; it has not penetrated deeply enough, nor taken root in the heart. Nor do they renounce their own vices and desires wholly truly and sincerely, and love of the world and of earthly things always clings in the breast. Hence it comes about that if a somewhat heavier cross must be borne, and persecution rushes in, they take offense and cast away the faith. Which they also often do when they yield to their desires and are weighed down by the cares of this life.
These are the ones Christ marks in the parable: those who at once receive the Word of God with joy, yet have no root in themselves, but are temporary; and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, they are immediately offended (Matthew 13:20-21). Such also are those of whom Peter writes in his second letter: who, after they had first escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, are again entangled in them and overcome; so that their last condition is worse than the first (2 Peter 2:20). And of this kind also are those whom the Apostle so severely threatens in Hebrews 6 and 10. Our schools call this faith temporary, taking the name from Christ's words which we have just cited.
Latin · §14
IV. Haec est fides, quae a nostris historica dicitur. Quam denominationem ab objecto non accipit: quasi sit eorum tantum, quae historice narrantur in Scripturis. Siquidem qui hac fide praediti sunt, vera credunt quaecunque in sacris literis habentur; non minus promissiones, dogmata et praecepta, quam historias et narrationes. Multi enim impii de promissionum Evangelicarum veritate non ambigunt, nec daemones eas revocant in dubium. Sed ista fides vocatur historica, a modo quo versatur circa suum objectum. Scilicet quemadmodum cum legimus historias ad nos nihil pertinentes, eas nude contemplamur, nec inde afficimur et commovemur intus: ita qui fidem illam habent, quae verbum Dei docet, otiose speculantur, nec ea ad praxin referunt. V. An autem haec fides vera dicenda sit, quaeritur. Affirmant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Et hoc iis aliquo sensu concedi potest. Quippe ista fides credit ea tantum quae vera sunt, et ea severe credit, non ficte et simulate. Sed tamen ea sola fides absolute vera nobis videtur appellanda, quae justificans et salutaris est, qualem illam esse negamus. VI. Ab hac fide non longe differt fidei gradus alter, quem in Scriptura licet observare. Sunt enim in quibus fides non solum illuminat mentem theoreticam, sed et practicam quadantenus afficit; ita ut non simpliciter Evangelicae veritati credant: sed inde laetitia nonnulla titillentur, atque a vitiis suis et mundanis cupiditatibus aliquo modo abstineant. Verumtamen ista fide mens eorum tantum leviter est imbuta, nec satis alte penetravit, et radices egit in corde. Neque etiam prorsus vere et sincere vitiis et cupiditatibus propriis renunciant, semperque amor mundi et rerum terrenarum in praecordiis haeret. Unde fit, ut si crux paulo gravior toleranda sit, et ingruat persecutio, scandalum patiantur, et fidem abjiciant. Quod et saepe faciunt cupiditatibus suis obsequentes, et sollicitudinibus hujus vitae gravati. VII. Hi sunt quos notat Christus in parabola, nempe qui Verbum Dei cum gaudio statim accipiunt, radicem tamen non habent in se; sed temporarii sunt: orta vero afflictione, vel persecutione propter sermonem, statim offenduntur. Tales etiam illi de quibus Petrus 2. epist. 2. Qui cum prius effugerint pollutiones mundi per agnitionem Domini et Servatoris Jesu Christi, his rursum implicati superantur; unde fit ultima eorum conditio deterior priore. Et de hoc quoque genere sunt illi, quibus Apostolus tam severe minatur cap. 6. et 10. ad Hebr. Hanc fidem scholae nostrae temporariam vocant: appellatione sumpta ex Christi verbis, quae modo citavimus.
Miracle-working faith is a special gift; justifying faith is named; Rome confuses it with historical faith§15
15But there is also a certain faith which is counted among the peculiar gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:9), and which does not fall to all who are in the Church, but to a few, as it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit. This is the faith through which miracles are wrought, from which it has also received its name. And it is found in the one who, called by God to work miracles and having a promise concerning this matter — as the Apostles had from the mouth of Christ, and many others from an inward revelation of the Spirit — does not hesitate or distrust, but is certainly persuaded that God is able and willing to accomplish those stupendous works through him. Of this faith Christ speaks in Mark 11:22 when he says to the disciples, Have faith in God. Amen I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him, whatever he says (Mark 11:22-23). He also reproaches the disciples for the defect of this faith in Matthew 17:20, when he refers the cause why they could not cast out the demon to their unbelief. And to this the Apostle looks in 1 Corinthians 13:2: If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Finally there is another faith, to which Scripture attributes our righteousness and salvation, to which it urgently and often exhorts us, and which it adorns with the highest praises and elogies. And this is the faith which we name justifying, saving, living, and true.
But here we have a dispute with the Doctors of the Roman Church: for they confuse justifying faith with that which we have just called historical, and put no distinction between them, but want them to be plainly one and the same. Then they also teach that the faith of miracles is nothing other than a certain excellent grade of justifying faith.
Latin · §15
VIII. Sed et est quaedam fides, quae inter peculiaria Spiritus dona recensetur 1 Cor. 12. 9. quaeque non omnibus, qui sunt in Ecclesia, obtingit: sed paucis quibusdam; prout visum est Spiritui Sancto. Haec est fides, per quam miracula eduntur, unde quoque nomen est sortita. Atque in ea reperitur, qui a Deo vocatus ad edenda miracula, et super hac re promissionem habens, quemadmodum Apostoli habuerunt ex ore Christi, et multi alii ex interna Spiritus revelatione, non haesitat, nec diffidit: sed certo persuasus est Deum posse et velle stupenda illa opera per ipsum efficere. De hac fide loquitur Christus Marc. 11. 22. dum discipulis ait, Habete fidem Dei. Amen dico vobis, quicunque dixerit huic monti, Tollitor, et projicitor in mare, nec dubitaverit in corde suo, sed crediderit futura quae dicit, fiet ei quicquid dixerit. Hujus quoque fidei defectum, discipulis exprobrat Matt. 17. 20. dum refert in eorum incredulitatem causam, cur non potuissent daemonem ejicere. Et ad hanc respicit Apostolus, 1 Cor. 13. Si habeam, inquit, omnem fidem, ita ut montes transferam, charitatem autem non habeam, nihil sum. IX. Denique est alia fides, cui Scriptura justitiam et salutem nostram tribuit, ad quam nos vehementer et frequenter hortatur, quamque summis laudibus et elogiis ornat. Et haec est, quam justificantem, salutarem, vivam, veramque nuncupamus. X. Hic autem nobis est lis cum Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae: confundunt enim illi fidem justificantem cum illa quam modo historicam diximus, nullamque inter eas distinctionem ponunt: sed volunt plane unam et eandem esse. Tum etiam docent fidem miraculorum, nihil esse aliud quam excellentem quendam gradum fidei justificantis.
Justifying faith must be distinguished from historical faith; Rome's reply helps; miracle faith is not an eminent grade of justifying faith§16
16But that justifying faith ought to be distinguished from historical faith is not hard to prove. For if historical faith were the same as justifying faith, then whoever had historical faith would by that very fact have justifying faith. Yet many hypocrites and ungodly people are endowed with historical faith who nevertheless lack justifying faith. For of this faith Scripture says that whoever believes does not perish but has eternal life (John 3:16), and that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4); and that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is revealed to all and upon all who believe (Romans 1:16-17). From which it is plain that no one is endowed with such faith who is not a partaker of righteousness and salvation. And therefore to those who are in a state of perdition and remain in sin, if they are said to believe, another faith must be assigned.
And certainly what the Pontificians say about these places helps our sentence. For they say that when Scripture says whoever believes has eternal life, it ought to be understood of those who believe as they ought and with the whole heart; and that the reason many believe in the Son and yet do not have life is that they believe badly, and not with the whole heart, and not as they ought — as may be seen in Bellarmine, book one On Justification, chapter ten, paragraph Adde quod. But who can with any reason affirm that it is the same faith by which someone believes well and by which someone believes badly; by which someone believes as he ought and by which someone believes as he ought not? Or that the faith by which someone believes badly, and not with the whole heart, and not as he ought, is the justifying faith which the Apostle says is imputed for righteousness (Romans 4)?
Next, that the faith of miracles is not an eminent grade of justifying faith is also manifest from this: that some are gifted with that faith who nevertheless do not have justifying faith. For to many who will say to Christ, Did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works? Christ will answer, I never knew you, as Christ himself witnesses (Matthew 7:22). Add that the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 12:9 numbers the faith of signs among the various charisms of the Spirit, which the Pontificians call graces given freely (gratiae gratis datae). Yet an eminent grade of justifying faith belongs to grace that makes acceptable (gratia gratum faciens). For it is given for the salvation of the one who has it — not, like those free gifts of the Spirit, for the salvation of others. Then if the faith of miracles were an excellent grade of justifying faith, Christ, when reproaching the disciples for the defect of that faith, would not say to them, If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you would say to this mountain, Move from here, and it would move, and nothing would be impossible for you (Matthew 17:20). For a grain of mustard seed denotes something very small in the Scriptures, and it amounts to the same as if Christ said, If you had even a tiny bit of faith.
Latin · §16
XI. At fidem justificantem ab historica debere distingui, probare non est difficile. Si enim fides historica eadem esset cum justificante, tum quicunque fidem historicam haberet, hoc ipso haberet fidem justificantem: At hypocritae, et impii multi praediti sunt fide historica, qui tamen fide justificante carent. De hac enim Scriptura dicit, Quicunque credit non perire, sed vitam aeternam habere, et Christum esse finem legis in justitiam omni credenti: atque Evangelio justitiam Dei patefactam in omnes, et super omnes qui credunt. Unde patet neminem esse tali fide praeditum, qui non sit justitiae et salutis particeps. Ac proinde iis qui sunt in statu perditionis, et manent in peccato, si credere dicantur, aliam fidem esse assignandam. XII. Et certe quod ad haec loca dicunt Pontificii sententiam nostram juvat. Aiunt enim, quod Scriptura dicit, Quicunque credit vitam aeternam habet, intelligi debere de iis qui credunt sicut oportet, et toto corde: atque quod multi sint qui credunt in Filium, nec tamen vitam habent; inde esse, quod male credant, et non ex toto corde, et sicut oportet: ut videre est apud Bellarminum libro primo de justificatione, capite decimo, paragrapho Adde quod. At quis potest cum aliqua ratione affirmare eandem fidem esse, qua quis bene credit, et qua quis male credit: qua aliquis credit ut oportet, et qua aliquis credit ut non oportet? aut fidem illam qua quis male credit, nec toto corde, et sicut oportet, fidem esse justificantem, quam Apostolus dicit in justitiam imputari? Romanorum capite quarto. XIII. Deinde fidem miraculorum non esse gradum eminentem fidei justificantis, manifestum est etiam, ex eo quod quidam ista fide sunt donati, qui tamen non habent fidem justificantem. Multis enim qui Christo dicent, Nonne per nomen tuum prophetavimus, et in nomine tuo daemonia ejecimus, et virtutes multas fecimus? respondebit Christus, Non novi vos, ut testatur Christus ipse Matt. 7. 22. Adde quod Apostolus 1. Corint. 12. 9. fidem signorum numerat inter varia spiritus charismata, quae Pontificii vocant Gratias gratis datas. Atqui gradus eminens fidei justificantis ad gratiam gratum facientem pertinet. Datur enim ad salutem ejus, qui eam habet: non vero, ut illa dona Spiritus gratuita, ad salutem aliorum. Tum si fides miraculorum esset gradus excellens fidei justificantis, Christus, exprobrans discipulis fidei illius defectum, non diceret ipsis, Si fidem haberetis sicut granum sinapi, diceretis huic monti, Transi hinc, et transiret, et nihil esset impossibile vobis. Granum enim sinapi denotat aliquid minimum in Scripturis, et tantundem est ac si Christus diceret, Si vel tantillum fidei haberetis.
Justifying faith applies the word to practice; it includes the lesser species as the perfect includes the imperfect; assurance of pardon is not its primary act§17
17Now justifying faith is that by which not only the theoretical intellect is illumined, so that it certainly believes the things taught by the word of God, but also the practical mind of man is so affected that it refers those things to practice and applies them to itself. For the truly faithful person so believes, for example, the promises of the Gospel concerning remission of sins and eternal happiness and glory, that he firmly and effectually judges his highest good and blessedness — to which he must aspire with all his strength — to be placed in them; so he gives faith to the mysteries of our redemption that he plainly thinks consolation and peace of conscience are to be sought for himself in them; finally he so considers the divine commandments that he certainly resolves within himself that life is to be lived according to them.
From which it can be clear that justifying faith is so diverse from historical and temporary faith that it includes all their virtue; and is so distinguished from them as the perfect from the imperfect — or by that distinction by which a higher grade differs from a lower. For justifying faith stands to the remaining species of faith as the rational soul stands to the sensitive and vegetative; whose force and faculties — life, sense, and motion — it eminently embraces, and adds the grade of reason. For so also justifying faith makes us believe all things taught by the word of God, which historical faith performs. And if God should promise something special and call someone to work a miracle, then it also supplies the force of miraculous faith; nor does the one who already believes the word of God as he ought, if a special promise is directed to him, need a new habit in order to give assent to it. Hence it is that the Apostle, commending the force and efficacy of saving faith, attributes to it various miraculous works which holy men once wrought, or which were done for their sake: saying that by faith the fathers crossed the Red Sea, and by faith the walls of Jericho fell, and by faith some stopped the mouths of lions and quenched the power of fire (Hebrews 11). But above the remaining species of faith, justifying faith has this: that it more brightly irradiates the theoretical mind, more fully imbues the practical, penetrates more deeply, and begets a sharper sense of truth and a firmer assent in our souls than historical or temporary faith. Then also whatever it has drawn from the word of God it refers to action and to the ordering of life; and in the way we have said, it applies it to itself.
Which application is indeed to be understood rightly, and in the sense already set out. Not, however, as though the proper act of justifying faith, by which it is discerned from the other species of faith, consisted in this: that someone should bring himself to think that his sins are remitted, and that he is a child of God predestined to life, and will certainly be a partaker of salvation. For this persuasion, if it is legitimate, necessarily presupposes faith and arises from it; and therefore cannot be its primary act. For since remission of sins and eternal life are promised in the Gospel to no one absolutely, but under the condition of faith and repentance: in order that we may be certain of the grace of God and of our salvation, it is necessary that it first be clear to us concerning our faith and repentance. From which it is manifest that that certainty of faith is a consequent, not faith itself; or if someone wishes it to belong to faith, at least that it is not its primary act.
Latin · §17
XIV. Est autem fides justificans, qua non tantum intellectus theoreticus illustratur, ut certo credat iis, quae verbo Dei docentur; sed et ita mens hominis practica afficitur, ut illa ad praxin referat, et sibi applicet. Si quidem vere fidelis ita credit, exempli causa, promissionibus Evangelii, de remissione peccatorum, de felicitate et gloria aeterna, ut in illis summum suum bonum et beatitudinem, ad quam ipsi sit totis viribus aspirandum, sitam esse firmiter et efficaciter judicet: ita fidem adhibet redemptionis nostrae mysteriis, ut in iis consolationem, et pacem conscientiae sibi quaerendam plane existimet: denique sic divina mandata considerat, ut secundum ista sibi vitam esse exigendam certo apud se constituat. XV. Unde liquere potest, fidem justificantem ita diversam esse a fide historica, et temporaria, ut omnem ejus virtutem includat; atque sic ab ea distingui, ut perfectum ab imperfecto: sive ea distinctione, qua gradus superior ab inferiori differt. Etenim fides justificans ad reliquas fidei species se habet, quemadmodum anima rationalis ad sensitivam et vegetativam; quarum vim et facultates, vitam, sensum et motum eminenter complectitur, et gradum rationis addit. Nam sic quoque fides justificans facit, ut omnia credamus quae verbo Dei docentur, quod praestat fides historica. Et si Deus aliquid speciale promittat, et ad patrandum miraculum vocet, tum etiam vim supplet fidei miraculosae; nec qui jam credit Dei verbo, ut par est, si ad eum dirigatur specialis promissio, opus habet novo habitu, ut assensum illi praebeat. Unde est quod Apostolus vim et efficaciam salutaris fidei commendans, ipsi tribuit varia opera miraculosa, quae sancti viri olim patraverunt, aut quae in eorum gratiam facta sunt: dicens, Fide Patres mare rubrum transgressos, et fide moenia Jericho concidisse, et fide quosdam ora leonum obturasse, et extinxisse vim ignis. Hebr. 11. Sed supra reliquas fidei species fides justificans habet, quod mentem theoreticam luculentius irradiat, et practicam plenius imbuit, ac altius penetrat, acrioremque veritatis sensum, et firmiorem assensum animis nostris ingignit, quam fides historica, sive temporaria. Tum etiam quaecunque ex verbo Dei hausit ad actionem refert, vitamque instituendam: atque quo diximus modo, sibi applicat. XVI. Quae quidem applicatio recte est intelligenda, et quo sensu jam expositum est. Non vero ita quasi proprius fidei justificantis actus, quo ab aliis fidei speciebus discernitur, in eo consistat, ut quis in animum inducat sibi esse remissa peccata seque esse Dei filium ad vitam praedestinatum, et salutis fore certo participem. Etenim haec persuasio, si legitima sit, fidem necessario praesupponit, et ex ea oritur: adeoque actus ejus primarius esse non potest. Cum enim remissio peccatorum, et vita aeterna in Evangelio nemini promittatur absolute, sed sub conditione fidei et resipiscentiae: ut de gratia Dei et salute nostra certi simus, necesse est ut prius nobis constet de fide, et resipiscentia nostra. Unde manifestum est certitudinem illam fidei esse consequens, non vero ipsam fidem: aut si quis ad fidem pertinere velit, saltem ejus actum non esse primarium.
Faith's object is what God has revealed; Bellarmine misstates it; primary and secondary objects; explicit and implicit faith; revelation measures explicitness; implicit faith is no pretext for ignorance§18
18But that the nature of faith may be more fully understood, it is necessary to discuss its object and subject, cause and effects a little more widely. And indeed from what has been said it is plain that the object of faith is the things that have been revealed by God, and insofar as they have been revealed by God. So that the material object of faith is the things contained in the word of God; but the formal object is the divine authority and truth itself.
Therefore Bellarmine does not dispute rightly against our writers, as though they altogether restricted the object of saving faith to the bare promise of remission of sins. For we set the object of that faith as not only the things promised in the Gospel, but also whatever else is taught, narrated, and commanded in the word of God. Which the Apostle teaches in Hebrews 11, where speaking of justifying faith he says that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which appear (Hebrews 11:3). And likewise that Noah by faith believed the divine warning about the coming flood, by which, being moved with fear, he built an ark for the saving of his house (Hebrews 11:7).
But here it must be noted that not all things which are set before our faith belong equally to its object. For just as in the objects of the human sciences some things are those whose knowledge is chiefly intended, and those are called the principal object — as, for example, in Logic the syllogism and demonstration — while others are proposed only for the elucidation of those former things, and so that they may be known more easily and more richly, and these are the secondary and less principal object of the science: so also the matter stands in the doctrine of faith. For some things are set before faith primarily and chiefly, and some secondarily and less chiefly. Now that principal object is the things without which one cannot arrive at salvation, nor can life be rightly ordered: such as those called the articles of faith, summing up the mysteries of salvation, and also the divine precepts. But the word of God contains many other things which pertain only to the confirmation of those and to a fuller knowledge of them — as, for example, the various histories and miracles narrated in the Scriptures — and those are the secondary object of faith.
Further, the things that belong to the principal object of faith must be believed distinctly; for the rest it is enough if they are believed confusedly. Those things are believed distinctly which faith apprehends separately and one by one. And this is the faith which is called explicit. Confusedly, those which are not apprehended in particular, but only in some common principle in which they are contained: and this is the faith which they call implicit. For example, one who believes that the book of Judges is divinely inspired, and yet has not read it, nor heard anything from it recited: he indeed believes that the histories contained there are true, but implicitly and confusedly. But one who reads those histories, and knows one by one what is narrated in that book about Samson and Gideon and the other leaders of the Israelite people, has an explicit and distinct faith of them.
But since God has not at once and once for all manifested the whole doctrine of redemption and salvation to men, but in many ways and in many parts — and first more obscurely, then more clearly — it follows that according to the various differences of times faith ought to have been more or less explicit. For revelation is the measure of faith: and the more things are distinctly revealed, the more things faith must be extended to. And therefore from us, to whom the Gospel has been clearly made known, an explicit faith of many articles is required as necessary, for which under the Old Testament an implicit faith formerly sufficed.
But here too it must be observed that when we say an implicit faith of many things contained in the word of God is sufficient, this ought not to be taken as though it were praiseworthy to rest in any sort of knowledge of the principal heads of faith, and as though no fuller knowledge were to be sought. For although a distinct faith of a few articles is required as plainly necessary to salvation, yet this also is certain: that each person is bound to use every effort, according to the manner of his calling, to advance more and more in the doctrine of salvation, and to be more fully and richly instructed in the word of God. To which the Apostle diligently exhorts the faithful (Colossians 2:2 and 3:16). And therefore those gravely err and sin who, under the pretext of implicit faith, foster the stupid and crass ignorance of the people.
Latin · §18
XVII. Sed ut fidei natura plenius intelligatur, necesse est de ejus objecto et subjecto, causa et effectibus paulo latius disserere. Et quidem ex dictis patet, fidei objectum esse quae a Deo revelata sunt, et quatenus sunt a Deo revelata. Ut objectum materiale fidei sint ea quae verbo Dei continentur: formale vero sit ipsa authoritas et veritas divina. XVIII. Itaque Bellarminus non recte disputat adversus nostros, quasi fidei salutaris objectum ad solam promissionem remissionis peccatorum omnino restringerent. Quippe fidei illius objectum statuimus, non tantum ea quae promittuntur in Evangelio, sed et alia quaecunque in verbo Dei docentur, narrantur, et praecipiuntur. Quod docet Apostolus Hebr. 11. ubi de fide justificante loquens, dicit, Fide nos intelligere aptata esse saecula verbo Dei, ut quae videntur non sint ex apparentibus facta. Itemque Noe per fidem credidisse admonitioni divinae de venturo diluvio, qua territus arcam construxit ad servandam domum suam. XIX. Verum hic est notandum, omnia, quae fidei nostrae objiciuntur, non perinde ad ejus objectum pertinere. Sicut enim in objectis scientiarum humanarum, quaedam sunt quorum cognitio praecipue intenditur, et ista objectum praecipuum vocantur: ut verbi causa, in Logica syllogismus et demonstratio: alia vero quae tantum proponuntur ad priorum istorum elucidationem, atque ut facilius et uberius cognoscantur: et haec sunt scientiae objectum secundarium, et minus praecipuum, ita quoque res se habet in fidei doctrina. Quaedam enim fidei objiciuntur primario et praecipue, quaedam vero secundario et minus praecipue. Objectum autem illud praecipuum, sunt ea sine quibus ad salutem perveniri non potest, nec vita recte institui: quales sunt qui vocantur articuli fidei, mysteria salutis summatim complectentes, itemque praecepta divina. Sed multa alia verbum Dei continet, quae ad istorum tantum confirmationem et cognitionem ampliorem pertinent, ut sint, verbi causa, historiae variae et miracula quae narrantur in Scripturis: et ista sunt objectum fidei secundarium. XX. Porro quae ad fidei praecipuum objectum pertinent, ea distincte credi necesse est; caetera vero sufficit, si confuse credantur. Distincte creduntur ea, quae fides apprehendit seorsim et sigillatim. Et haec est fides quae dicitur explicata. Confuse, quae non apprehenduntur in particulari, sed tantum in aliquo communi principio, in quo continentur: et haec est fides quam vocant implicitam. Exempli gratia, Qui credit librum Judicum esse divinitus inspiratum, nec tamen eum legit, nec de eo quicquam recitari audivit: is quidem credit veras esse historias quae illic habentur, sed implicite et confuse. Qui vero legit illas historias, novitque sigillatim quae in eo libro narrantur de Samsone et Gedeone, caeterisque populi Israelitici Ducibus, is earum habet fidem explicatam et distinctam. XXI. Sed cum Deus non simul et semel totam redemptionis et salutis doctrinam hominibus manifestaverit, sed multis modis, multisque partibus: ac primo obscurius, deinde clarius; inde sequitur, secundum varia temporum discrimina, fidem magis aut minus explicitam esse debuisse. Revelatio enim est fidei mensura: atque quo plura distincte revelantur, ad plura fidem extendi necesse est. Ac proinde a nobis, quibus Evangelium clare patefactum est, multorum articulorum fides explicita, ceu necessaria exigitur, quorum sub Veteri Testamento, fides implicita olim sufficiebat. XXII. Sed et hic animadvertendum, quod dicimus fidem implicitam multorum, quae Dei verbo continentur, sufficientem esse, non ita accipi debere, quasi in qualicunque praecipuorum fidei capitum notitia laudabile sit acquiescere, nec amplior sit cognitio quaerenda. Quamvis enim paucorum articulorum fides distincta, tanquam ad salutem plane necessaria exigatur, tamen et hoc certum est, unumquemque teneri omnem operam adhibere, ut pro vocationis modo, in doctrina salutis magis magisque proficiat, pleniusque et copiosius in verbo Dei instruatur. Ad quod sedulo fideles hortatur Apostolus Col. 2. 2. et 3. 16. Ac proinde graviter errant et peccant illi, qui sub praetextu fidei implicitae stupidam et crassam plebis ignorantiam fovent.
Scripture's authority is sharply disputed; Rome grants God as author in itself but hangs our knowledge on the Church; ours say Scripture itself suffices§19
19The authority of Scripture is sharply disputed between the Orthodox and the Pontificians. The question is: whence sacred Scripture has its authority. Both sides, however, understand by the authority of Scripture that dignity according to which it merits faith in everything it says in any way, and the highest obedience from faith in the things it commands and forbids.
But here the Pontificians make a distinction. They grant that Scripture in itself has its authority from nowhere else than from God; yet they contend that that authority, as it concerns us, hangs on the Church's testimony. This is their mind: that Scripture is worthy of all faith and reverence because it proceeded from God, the fountain of all truth and the supreme Lord of all; yet that one cannot know certainly and without doubt that Scripture came forth from God from any other ground than that the Church witnesses it. Thus, that Scripture is of irrefragable truth and has the highest empire over consciences comes from its having God as author; but that it is certainly acknowledged to have God as author already hangs on the Church's testimony.
But our writers do not hang the authority of sacred Scripture, either in itself or as it concerns us, on the Church's testimony and authority. For they assert that the sacred books can be acknowledged to have come forth from God from another ground than the voice of the witnessing Church; and that when the faithful receive these books as divine, they do not do so because of the Church's authority; but that Scripture itself is enough to furnish knowledge of itself.
Latin · §19
I. De authoritate Scripturae acriter disputatur inter Orthodoxos et Pontificios. Nempe quaeritur, Unde Scriptura sacra suam authoritatem habeat. Utrique autem per Scripturae authoritatem intelligunt dignitatem, secundum quam meretur fidem in omnibus quae quocunque modo dicit, et summam ex fide obedientiam in iis quae mandat et prohibet. II. Sed distinguunt hic Pontificii, et fatentur quidem Scripturam in se suam authoritatem non aliunde quam a Deo habere: Verum authoritatem illam, quoad nos, ab Ecclesiae testimonio pendere contendunt. Haec scilicet eorum mens est. Quod Scriptura omni fide et reverentia digna sit, id esse quia promanavit a Deo fonte omnis veritatis, et supremo omnium Domino: Verum non aliunde certo et indubitate sciri posse Scripturam a Deo prodiisse, quam quia id Ecclesia testatur. Ita ut, quod Scriptura sit veritatis irrefragabilis, summumque in conscientias habeat imperium, inde sit quod Deum habeat authorem; quod vero certo agnoscitur Deum authorem habere, id jam ab Ecclesiae testimonio pendeat. III. Nostri vero Scripturae sacrae authoritatem neque in se, neque quoad nos, ab Ecclesiae testimonio et authoritate suspendunt. Siquidem asserunt posse aliunde agnosci sacros libros a Deo prodiisse, quam ex testantis Ecclesiae voce: neque quod fideles hos libros tanquam divinos suscipiunt, id eos facere propter Ecclesiae authoritatem: sed Scripturam ipsam sufficere ad praebendam sui notitiam.
Parties agree whence authority belongs, not how it is known; plan of inquiry; four questions about Scripture's light, the Spirit, the Church, and faith's foundation§20
20The parties therefore agree whence Scripture's own authority belongs to it; they do not agree whence it is known that such authority belongs to it. And so the state of the controversy seems easy and ready. Yet when one comes to the fight, and each side explains its mind more clearly and in particular, then great obscurity and confusion arise in this question; and one can scarcely assign in what the parties properly disagree.
Therefore, so that, as far as in us lies, we may bring some light to this most celebrated question, we will try to set out the whole matter more carefully. And first we will investigate and set out the way in which Scripture becomes known to us as divine. Then we will inquire into the Pontificians' sentence, which is not so ready and prompt to acknowledge and perceive as it might seem. And finally, once the state of the controversy has been drawn out from that, we will explain what the Pontificians' error is in this part, and will refute it.
Further, concerning the way by which we come to knowledge of sacred Scripture, four things chiefly will have to be discussed. First: whether sacred Scripture has some light by which it presents itself to be acknowledged, and what that light is and of what kind. Second: what parts the Holy Spirit has in this business, and how far His work is necessary for someone to acknowledge the Word of God and Scripture. Third: what is to be attributed to the Church in this matter, and how much its testimony avails. Fourth: finally, on what foundation especially that faith rests which we give to Scripture as true and divine.
Latin · §20
IV. Convenit ergo inter partes unde Scripturae sua authoritas competat: non convenit vero unde ipsi talem authoritatem competere cognoscatur. Atque ita facilis et expeditus videtur controversiae status: Verumtamen quum ventum est ad concertationem, et utraque pars mentem suam explicat clarius et in particulari, tum magna in hac quaestione oritur obscuritas et confusio; vixque licet assignare qua in re partes proprie dissideant. V. Itaque, ut, quantum in nobis est, celeberrimae huic quaestioni lucem aliquam afferamus, rem totam accuratius tradere conabimur. Et primo quidem investigabimus, et exponemus modum quo Scriptura nobis pro divina innotescit. Deinde inquiremus in sententiam Pontificiorum, quam agnoscere atque percipere non est ita expeditum et promptum ut videri posset. Ac postremo inde eruto controversiae statu explicabimus qui sit Pontificiorum hac in parte error, illumque confutabimus. VI. Porro circa modum, quo in Scripturae sacrae cognitionem devenimus, quatuor praecipue discutienda erunt. 1. An Scriptura sacra lucem aliquam habeat qua se praebeat agnoscendam, et quae qualisque sit illa lux. 2. Quae sint in hoc negotio Spiritus Sancti partes, et quousque illius opera necessaria sit, ut aliquis Dei Verbum et Scripturam agnoscat. 3. Quid Ecclesiae hac in re tribuendum sit, et quantum valeat ejus testimonium. 4. Denique quo praesertim fundamento nitatur fides illa, quam Scripturae adhibemus ut verae et divinae.
Scripture has light in itself apart from the Church; that light is evidence of truth; metaphysical versus moral evidence§21
21As for the first point: in this question our writers lay down as a foundation that sacred Scripture has in itself a certain light by which, with all authority of the Church set aside, it can become known through itself. And certainly Scripture in many places compares itself to light. But this noted only in general brings little light to this controversy. Therefore it is necessary to set out more distinctly what that light and evidence of Scripture is. For by that light we understand nothing but a certain evidence of truth which the faithful perceive in Scripture, and by which Scripture proves its own divinity to their minds.
Further, a twofold evidence can be distinguished: one which may be called mathematical or metaphysical; another which can be called moral. I call metaphysical evidence that which belongs to first principles known of themselves, and to conclusions demonstrated through principles of that kind. Moral evidence, however, is that which is seen in things that cannot indeed be demonstrated, yet are urged by such marks and arguments that a prudent and skilled man cannot doubt them or wrest dissent from himself. So it is that the Aeneid was written by Virgil, and the orations against Verres, Catiline, and Antony by Cicero.
Latin · §21
VII. Quod ad primum attinet, in hac quaestione nostri tanquam fundamentum substernunt, Scripturam sacram in se lucem quandam habere, qua, seclusa omni Ecclesiae authoritate, per se innotescere possit. Et certe Scriptura pluribus in locis seipsam luci comparat. Sed hoc ita tantum in genere notatum parum lucis affert huic controversiae. Itaque necesse est distinctius tradere quae sit illa Scripturae lux et evidentia. Quippe per lucem illam non intelligimus nisi evidentiam quandam veritatis, quam in Scriptura percipiunt fideles, et qua Scriptura sui divinitatem mentibus eorum probat. VIII. Porro distingui potest duplex evidentia: una quam vocare licet mathematicam seu Metaphysicam; altera vero quae moralis dici potest. Evidentiam metaphysicam voco illam, quae competit primis principiis per se notis, et conclusionibus per hujusmodi principia demonstratis. Moralis autem est illa quae cernitur in rebus quae quidem demonstrari non possunt, sed ejusmodi tamen indiciis et argumentis suadentur, ut de iis vir prudens et peritus dubitare nequeat et dissensum a se impetrare. Sic Aeneidem esse scriptam a Virgilio, et orationes in Verrem, Catilinam et Antonium, a Cicerone.
Scripture's evidence is not metaphysical demonstration; its light is moral evidence that induces the pious and prudent§22
22The evidence that belongs to Scripture is not of the former kind. For that Scripture is divinely inspired is not a thing known of itself, as these principles are — The whole is greater than its part; The same thing cannot at once be and not be. Nor can that be demonstrated logically or mathematically, as experience shows. For no one has ever been able to bring any demonstration of this truth. Add that if the matter stood so, the assent we would give to sacred Scripture would be science, not faith, since the definition of science itself is that it is a demonstrative habit.
Therefore sacred Scripture has no other light or evidence besides that moral evidence we have named. For although it is not known of itself, nor can it properly be demonstrated, that sacred Scripture came forth from God, yet this is urged by so many and so probable arguments, and Scripture has in itself so many and so marked notes and indications of its divinity, that from them a pious and prudent man is effectively led to believe that it is true and divine.
Latin · §22
IX. Evidentia, quae Scripturae competit, non est prioris generis. Etenim Scripturam esse divinitus inspiratam res non est per se nota, sicut haec principia, Totum est majus sua parte. Idem non potest simul esse et non esse. Nec etiam istud demonstrari potest logice, seu mathematice, ut patet experientia. Nec enim ullus unquam potuit hujus veritatis aliquam afferre demonstrationem. Adde quod, si res ita se haberet, assensus ille, quem sacrae Scripturae adhiberemus, scientia esset, non fides, siquidem ipsius scientiae definitio est, quod sit habitus demonstrativus. X. Igitur Scriptura sacra non habet aliam lucem, sive evidentiam, praeter illam quam moralem diximus. Etenim quamvis non sit per se notum, nec etiam possit proprie demonstrari Scripturam sacram a Deo prodiisse: attamen hoc tam multis, et tam probabilibus argumentis suadetur, habetque Scriptura in se tot et tam insignia divinitatis suae notas et indicia, ut inde vir pius et prudens efficaciter inducatur ut credat illam esse veram et divinam.
The first transmitters prove Scripture divine: prophets and apostles were not impostors seeking gain, unlike Muhammad§23
23And so that we may bring forward here certain specimens of those arguments: that the Scripture which we hold as sacred is truly such, and divinely inspired, is proved from the condition of those who first handed it down and recommended it as divine. For if sacred Scripture is not true and divine, then the sacred writers, who profess that they wrote as God inspired them, and who testify that the things they write were either seen by them or divinely revealed to them, must have been impostors whose design was to deceive men and mock the world.
But this suspicion cannot fall on the Prophets and Apostles, by whose work Scripture has been consigned to us. For those who mean to deceive aim at that either from desire of gain, or for the sake of some pleasure, or in hope of some glory and of obtaining pleasure. Thus those who were authors of some superstition certainly won wealth and dignities for themselves by their inventions — as, for example, Muhammad, who by deceiving the world with his fables arrogated the highest empire to himself and his own. But such a thing cannot be affixed to the Prophets and Apostles except very shamelessly and against every appearance of truth.
For if the matter is estimated by the sense of men, nearly all of them were most miserable, and of a cast-down and despised condition; nor by their preaching did they produce for themselves any riches in the world, or any empire and glory among men. On the contrary, that doctrine which they asserted by word and writings stirred up against them the hatred of their fellow-citizens and of outsiders, and made them liable to infinite reproaches and insults; nay, it cast them into certain danger of life, so that most of them sealed their writings with their own blood.
Latin · §23
XI. Atque ut argumentorum istorum specimina quaedam hic proferamus, Scripturam illam, quam pro sacra habemus, revera talem esse, et divinitus inspiratam, probatur ex conditione eorum qui primi illam tradiderunt, et pro divina commendarunt. Etenim, si Scriptura sacra vera et divina non est, oportet ut scriptores sacri, qui profitentur se Deo inspirante scripsisse, et ea quae scribunt aut esse a se visa, aut sibi divinitus revelata testantur, impostores fuerint quibus propositum fuerit homines decipere, et mundo illudere. At haec suspicio cadere non potest in Prophetas et Apostolos, quorum opera Scriptura nobis consignata est. Quibus enim est animus decipere, illi eo intendunt, vel lucri cupiditate, vel voluptatis alicujus causa, vel spe gloriae cujusdam, et voluptatis potiundae. Ita qui superstitionis alicujus authores fuerunt ii certe suis commentis opes et dignitates sibi conciliarunt: ut exempli causa, Mahumetes qui fabulis suis mundum decipiendo summum sibi suisque arrogavit imperium. Sed Prophetis et Apostolis tale quid affingi non potest, nisi valde impudenter, et contra omnem veritatis speciem. Si enim res ex sensu hominum aestimetur, omnes illi fere fuerunt miserrimi, et conditione abjecta et contempta: neque sua praedicatione ullas sibi in mundo pepererunt divitias, aut ullum imperium et apud homines gloriam. Contra vero doctrina illa, quam verbo et scriptis suis asseruerunt, concitavit in eos concivium suorum et externorum hominum odium, et reddidit eos obnoxios infinitis opprobriis, atque contumeliis: imo in certum vitae periculum conjecit, adeo ut eorum plerique scripta suo proprio sanguine obsignarint.
They did not stumble into suffering by inadvertence; Moses refused dynastic gain and recorded his own faults§24
24Nor can it be said that they fell into such hardships by thoughtlessness. For when they took up their office they foresaw these calamities, and voluntarily handed themselves over to be exercised and tormented by so many evils. Moses indeed was leader and priest of the Israelite people; yet how little he cared for himself and his own is plain from this: that he did not transmit the principate and the priesthood to his posterity, but designated his servant Joshua as leader of the people after him, and, at God's command, inaugurated his brother Aaron as priest.
And how far the sacred writers were from vain glory is plain from this: that if anything great or illustrious was done or said by them, they refer it wholly to God as received from Him; nay, in those very writings which they commend as divinely inspired they candidly note their own blemishes and defects; and if anything in them was slight and humble and without glory, they do not disguise it. Thus Moses recorded his own diffidence and the penalty of that diffidence which God imposed on him; and likewise his brother Aaron's idolatry and his sister Mary's murmurings.
Latin · §24
XII. Nec dici potest eos per incogitantiam incidisse in tales aerumnas. Nam illi munus suum aggredientes praescii fuerunt harum calamitatum, et ultro sese exercendos et cruciandos tot malis tradiderunt. Moses quidem populi Israelitici dux fuit et sacerdos: sed tamen quam parum sibi suisque studuerit inde manifestum est, quod principatum et sacerdotium non transmisit ad posteros suos, sed servum suum Josuam ducem populi post se designavit, et fratrem suum Aaronem in sacerdotem, Deo mandante, inauguravit. Quam autem a vana gloria sacri scriptores alieni fuerint, inde patet, quod, si quid magnum aut praeclarum ab ipsis gestum vel dictum fuit, id totum Deo acceptum referunt: imo in illis ipsis scriptis, quae tanquam divinitus inspirata commendant, candide notant suos naevos atque defectus: Et si quid in ipsis tenue et humile ac inglorium fuit, istud non dissimulant. Ita Moses annotavit suam diffidentiam et diffidentiae poenam, quam Deus ipsi imposuit: itemque fratris sui Aaronis idololatriam et Mariae sororis murmura.
The world's rapid faith in the Gospel makes Scripture's divinity credible; Paul from Jerusalem to Illyricum§25
25Next, that the doctrine and that Scripture which we hold as divine are truly divine is made very credible by the faith which the world has given them. For in a few years the Gospel of Christ pervaded almost the whole world; and as soon as it began to be preached to the nations, it found countless followers everywhere, of every age, sex, and condition — so much so that one Paul, from Jerusalem even to Illyricum, in a very short space of time filled all things with the Gospel of Christ, as he himself writes to the Romans (Romans 15:19). But that could not have come about except from a certain divine force that accompanied that sacred doctrine; and as the same Paul notes in the place cited, from the power of the divine Spirit engraving it on men's hearts and confirming it with various prodigies and signs.
Latin · §25
XIII. Deinde doctrinam et Scripturam illam, quam pro divina habemus, vere divinam esse, valde credibile reddit fides, quae illi in mundo habita est. Paucis enim annis Evangelium Christi totum fere orbem pervasit; et statim atque coepit gentibus praedicari, innumeros invenit ubique sectatores, omnis aetatis, sexus et conditionis: adeo ut unus Paulus ab Hierosolymis in Illyricum usque, brevi admodum temporis spatio, omnia repleverit Evangelio Christi, sicut ipse scribit ad Romanos c.15. Istud autem provenire non potuit nisi a vi quadam divina, quae doctrinam illam sacram comitata est: et ut notat idem Paulus loco citato, a virtute divini Spiritus, illam cordibus hominum insculpentis, variisque prodigiis et signis confirmantis.
Everything stood against reception; rude messengers and fierce enemies prove the growth came from God's power alone§26
26For if the matter is considered in itself, everything ought to have stood in the way of men receiving that doctrine, and Scripture which is its foundation. First, the genius of the doctrine itself. For it sets before us to be believed very many mysteries which human sense judges folly; and it commands and exacts things that most of all repugn human affections — namely that we bear Christ's cross, deny ourselves, and for Christ crucified be ready to leave wealth and pleasures and pour out our life (Matthew 16:24).
Next, those who announced that doctrine to men did not use art and eloquence, by which men's minds are usually bent. Nor did they prevail among men by authority, or by fame of wisdom and learning. Nor were they powerful men who could terrify by threats and arms and compel people to embrace their doctrine; but most of them were rude and unlettered men, earning their living by mechanical arts, from the nation of the Jews, despised and hated by all others, and held for barbarians and ignorant by those who were then thought wise and learned. Add that they were preaching to men nursed in another religion, and occupied by many and great prejudices. For the superstition from which they were being turned away they had received from their ancestors, and they saw it established by the consent of peoples, the vote of the wise, and great authority then.
Finally, it can scarcely be said how many and how sharp and powerful enemies the doctrine contained in our scriptures had. For the teachers of the Jews and the philosophers of the nations assailed it with great effort. The former opposed their own authority; the latter exercised against it all the sharpness of their ingenium and unfolded their eloquence. And besides, the magistrates and princes of the age most atrociously persecuted those who had embraced it, and raged against them with every kind of punishment. Since therefore nothing aided it humanly, and on the contrary it had all things adverse, it is necessary that its increase and propagation be ascribed to the power of the one God. For if any other sect and religion has crept widely and found many followers, that was done by human means. Muhammadanism spread briefly from Arabia through many provinces; but that was done by arms and open force. Next, that doctrine in many things flatters the flesh.
Latin · §26
XIV. Etenim, si res in se consideretur, omnia obstare debuisse, quominus doctrinam illam, et Scripturam, quae est illius fundamentum, homines reciperent. Primo doctrinae ipsius genius. Nam credenda proponit mysteria plurima quae sensus humanus stultitiam judicat: eaque jubet et exigit quae maxime repugnant humanis affectibus: ut scilicet Christi crucem bajulemus, nos ipsos abnegemus, et pro Christo crucifixo parati simus opes et voluptates relinquere, et vitam profundere. Deinde qui doctrinam illam hominibus annunciarunt, non usi sunt arte et eloquentia, quibus hominum animi flecti solent. Neque apud homines valuerunt authoritate, seu sapientiae et doctrinae fama. Nec fuere viri potentes qui minis et armis terrere potuerint, et ad doctrinam suam amplectendam cogere: sed fuerunt plerique viri rudes et idiotae, vitam tolerantes mechanicis artibus: ex Judaeorum gente caeteris omnibus contempta et exosa: ab iis, qui tum sapientes et docti existimabantur, pro barbaris et inscitis habiti. Adde quod praedicabant hominibus alii religioni innutritis, quique multis et magnis praejudiciis occupati erant. Etenim superstitionem, a qua avertabantur, a majoribus acceperant, eamque firmatam videbant populorum consensu, sapientum calculo, et magna tum authoritate. Denique vix dici potest quot et quam acres et potentes hostes doctrina, scripturis nostris contenta, habuerit. Judaeorum enim magistri, et Philosophi gentium magno conatu eam impugnabant. Ac priores quidem suam authoritatem opponebant: posteriores vero in eam omne ingenii acumen exercebant, et facundiam explicabant. Et praeterea magistratus et principes saeculi atrocissime persequebantur eos, qui eam amplexi fuerant, et in eos omni genere suppliciorum saeviebant. Cum ergo nihil eam humanitus adjuverit, contra vero omnia habuerit adversa, necesse est ut illius incrementum, et propagatio unius Dei virtuti ascribatur. Cum si quae alia secta et religio late serpsit, et multos sectatores invenit, id factum sit humanis mediis. Nam Mahumetismus ex Arabia brevi per provincias multas propagatus est: sed id factum est armis, et vi aperta. Deinde quod doctrina illa in multis carni adblanditur.
Martyrs' constancy, number, and condition mark something divine in Scripture§27
27Besides, something divine in Scripture is argued by the constancy, number, and condition of the martyrs who sealed it with their own blood. For since by nature nothing is dearer to a man than life, how did it come about that so many men willingly sought death for the defence of Scripture and of the doctrine it hands down, unless from a certain divine force that had settled thoroughly in their minds? Rage has sometimes been spent on certain heretics and the superstitious, and a few examples can perhaps be found of those who from a certain fierceness and obstinacy of mind chose rather to die than to suffer themselves to be moved from an error once seized. But there is no error, no superstition and human doctrine, that has had followers so obstinate that, when by denying their impiety they could escape safe and unharmed, they nevertheless refused not to endure punishments and torments. But when the Apostolic and prophetic doctrine, and Scripture, first began to be propagated through the world — and could not yet be reckoned established by the tradition of the ancestors and by custom, the deepest roots by which human institutes usually cling to men's minds — not a few only were found, but infinite myriads of men, of every age, sex, and condition, men, women, boys, old men, the lettered and the unlettered, who endured every harshest kind of death rather than deny Scripture's doctrine: although by that denial alone they could not only redeem life, but also enjoy their goods and honors with fellow-citizens by equal right. Nor can they be reckoned to have rushed into certain death by fierceness or stupidity or some disease of mind: since they often extorted from the enemies themselves testimony of a rightly composed mind and of a blameless life, and in death itself attested the highest modesty, the highest humanity, and presence of mind. In which, certainly, unless someone willingly shuts his eyes, the finger of God can easily be noted.
Latin · §27
XV. Praeterea divinum aliquid in Scriptura arguit constantia, numerus, et conditio martyrum, qui eam suo sanguine obsignarunt. Cum enim per naturam homini nihil sit vita charius, unde factum, ut tot homines pro defensione Scripturae, et doctrinae quam tradit, mortem libenter oppetiverint, nisi a vi quadam divina quae penitus eorum animis insiderat? Aliquando quidem saevitum est in quosdam haereticos et superstitiosos, et pauca forte reperiri possunt exempla eorum, qui ex animi quadam ferocia et obstinatione mori potius elegerunt, quam ut a semel arrepto errore dimoveri se paterentur. Sed nullus est error, nulla superstitio et doctrina humana, quae multos habuerit sectatores tam obstinatos, ut, cum abnegata sua impietate evadere possent salvi et incolumes, supplicia tamen et tormenta perferre non recusaverint. Verum quum Apostolica et prophetica doctrina, et Scriptura, primum per orbem propagari coepit, necdum censeri posset traditione majorum et consuetudine firmata, quibus maxime radicibus humana instituta hominum animis solent adhaerescere, non pauci quidam reperti sunt, sed infinitae hominum myriades, omnis aetatis, omnis sexus, omnis conditionis, viri, foeminae, pueri, senes, literati, idiotae, qui durissima quaeque mortis genera perpessi sunt, potius quam Scripturae doctrinam abnegarent: licet sola ejus abnegatione possent non solum vitam redimere, sed etiam bonis et honoribus suis cum concivibus aequali jure frui. Neque censeri possunt ferocia vel stupiditate aut animi quodam morbo in mortem certam ruisse: cum saepe ab ipsis hostibus extorserint testimonium animi recte compositi, et inculpatae vitae, et in ipsa morte testati fuerint summam modestiam, summam humanitatem et animi praesentiam. In quo certe, nisi quis ultro claudat oculos, facile digitus Dei notari poterit.
Miracles confirm Law and Gospel; God would not lend omnipotence to a lying claim§28
28Besides, that the doctrine handed down in the Scriptures — and so Scripture, which is its foundation — is divine and flowed from God is proved from the miracles done in confirmation of that doctrine. For since Scripture and heavenly doctrine have two chief parts, Law and Gospel: the law was confirmed by those wonders that happened in the desert — that the living voice of God speaking was heard from the midst of fire, that for forty years manna rained in the desert, that water was often led out from the rock, and that the Israelites' clothes were not worn out in that whole time, and more of that kind. To the Gospel almost infinite miracles of Christ bore witness; then those visible and plainly stupendous gifts of the Holy Spirit poured out on the first believers, so that suddenly they spoke in various and foreign tongues, healed any diseases, expelled demons, and performed very many other wonders. Since such things are above nature's powers, it is necessary that God exercised his power in them. But it is unholy to think God willed to use his omnipotence to make faith for a Scripture and doctrine falsely and injuriously ascribed to him, as if he had willed by compact with men to lie.
Latin · §28
XVI. Praeterea doctrinam in Scripturis traditam, adeoque Scripturam, quae fundamentum illius est, divinam esse et a Deo manasse, probatur ex miraculis quae in doctrinae istius confirmationem facta sunt. Cum enim Scripturae et doctrinae caelestis duae sint praecipuae partes, Lex, et Evangelium: lex quidem confirmata est mirabilibus illis quae in deserto contigerunt: ut quod viva vox Dei loquentis e medio ignis audita est, quod quadraginta annis in deserto manna pluit, quod aqua saepius e petra educta est, quodque Israelitarum vestes toto illo tempore attritae non fuerunt, et plura ejusmodi. Evangelio vero testimonium perhibuerunt infinita pene Christi miracula: tum visibilia illa et plane stupenda Spiritus sancti dona, quae effusa sunt in primos credentes: ita ut subito variis et peregrinis linguis loquerentur, morbos quosvis sanarent, daemones expellerent, et miranda alia quam plurima patrarent. Cum enim talia sint supra naturae vires, necesse est Deum in illis exeruisse suam potentiam. At nefas est cogitare Deum voluisse uti sua omnipotentia ad fidem faciendam Scripturae et doctrinae, quae falso et injuria ipsi ascribebatur, quasi voluisset ex pacto cum hominibus mentiri.
How we know the miracles happened: writers known; either deceived or deceiving§29
29But you will say: those miracles are indeed said to have been done, yet how can we know they really were done? For it seems no less uncertain whether those miracles are true than whether that Scripture is divine in whose confirmation they are said to have been done. I answer that those things really happened can be proved efficaciously from our scriptures themselves. For our writers wrote those things in such a manner that they cannot have lied in this matter. For the one denying or doubting that what our writers Moses and Paul narrate about those miracles is true, I will ask, for example, whether he wills to call into doubt that there was a certain Moses who gave laws to the Israelite people and wrote certain volumes; and likewise that there was a certain Paul who preached Christian doctrine and wrote certain epistles ascribed to him. About this matter certainly no one has hitherto doubted, nor have the atheists themselves willed or dared to deny it. And really that is witnessed by a fame so constant, so perennial, so received by the consent of all — even of adversaries — that to doubt about this would plainly be to rave. For frequent mention of Moses and of his writings is made among the Gentiles. Nor do Jews and Muhammadans, most hostile enemies of the Christian religion, deny or doubt that our Apostles were and wrote. If someone would stubbornly wish to call that into doubt, he would have to be driven to bring a cause of his doubt, and some reason why he does not give faith to the concordant testimony of the whole world — and why he believes rather that Pliny and Titus Livius were and wrote than Moses and Paul. And certainly we labor in vain in proving this, since the matter is in confession. For those who reject God's word do not deny that those authors whom we hold as sacred were or wrote, but blaspheme that they did not write true things.
Come then, let us see whether it can be that those things narrated by Moses and Paul about those miracles are not true. Certainly, if they are not true, either those men were deceived in writing, thinking things had happened which really had not; or they wrote with a mind to deceive and tried to thrust false things for true. The former cannot be said. For they do not report those things as received from elsewhere, but testify them as done or seen by themselves. Therefore Moses must have willed to deceive the Israelites, and Paul the Corinthians, Galatians, and others. And so profane men feel who accuse Moses and Paul of imposture. It remains to see whether they were impostors who tried to persuade those to whom they were writing, and into whose hands they were handing their writings, that these and those prodigies and miracles had been done, when nevertheless nothing of them had been done.
Latin · §29
XVII. At inquies, miracula illa facta quidem dicuntur, sed qui scire possumus illa revera facta esse: Nec enim minus incertum videtur, an vera sint illa miracula, quam hoc, an divina sit Scriptura illa in cujus confirmationem facta esse dicuntur. Respondeo. Quod ista revera contigerint, ex ipsis scripturis nostris efficaciter probari posse. Etenim scriptores nostri ista eo modo scripserunt, ut fieri non possit eos hac in re mentitos esse. Negantem enim, sive dubitantem vera esse quae narrant de miraculis istis scriptores nostri, Moses et Paulus, verbi causa, rogabo num velit in dubium vocare Mosen quendam fuisse qui Israelitico populo leges dedit, et quaedam volumina scripsit: Et similiter fuisse quendam Paulum, qui Christianam doctrinam praedicavit, et scripsit quasdam epistolas quae ipsi ascribuntur. Hac de re certe nemo hactenus dubitavit, nec ipsi quidem Athei hoc negare voluerunt, vel ausi fuerunt. Et revera id testatur fama tam constans, tam perennis, ita omnium, etiam adversariorum, consensu recepta, ut de hoc dubitare, delirare plane esset. Crebra enim Mosis et scriptorum ejus mentio fit apud Ethnicos. Neque Judaei et Mahumetani religionis Christianae hostes infestissimi, Apostolos nostros fuisse et scripsisse negant, sive dubitant. Quod si quis illud vellet pertinaciter in dubium vocare, eo adigendus esset, ut dubitationis suae causam afferret, et rationem aliquam cur fidem non habeat concordi totius orbis testimonio. Et cur credat potius Plinium, et Titum Livium fuisse et scripsisse, quam Mosen atque Paulum. Et certe frustra in hoc probando laboramus, quandoquidem res est in confesso. Neque enim illi, qui verbum Dei rejiciunt, negant authores illos, quos pro sacris habemus, fuisse vel scripsisse, sed illos vera non scripsisse blasphemant. XVIII. Age ergo videamus an fieri possit, ut vera non sint ea quae de miraculis istis a Mose et Paulo narrantur. Certe, si vera non sunt, aut decepti sunt illi in scribendo, existimantes contigisse ea, quae revera non contigerant: aut scripserunt animo fallendi, et conati sunt falsa pro veris obtrudere. Prius dici non potest. Non enim illa tanquam aliunde accepta referunt, sed a seipsis gesta sive visa testantur. Oportet ergo ut voluerint fallere Moses Israelitas, et Paulus Corinthios, Galatas et alios. Et sic sentiunt homines profani qui Mosen et Paulum accusant imposturae. Videndum igitur an fuerint impostores, qui conati sint suadere iis ad quos scribebant, et in quorum manus sua scripta tradebant, haec et illa prodigia et miracula facta fuisse, cum tamen illorum nihil factum fuerit.
Impostors hide from witnesses; Moses and Paul appeal to eyes and ears among their hearers§30
30Certainly impostors, and those whose mind is to deceive, are accustomed so to forge their lies that they cannot easily be charged with lying by those they want deceived. Thus Numa, who instituted most of the rites of Roman superstition, feigned that he had conversations by night with the nymph Egeria — truly alone with her alone, where no one could be a witness. In Muhammad's Qur'an also certain portentous things are narrated, yet not as done before men's eyes, but whose credit would rest with him alone. But if someone narrated portents and dreams, and nevertheless appealed about their truth to the senses of those he addressed — as if he were already recounting that by Moses the waters flowed back and grain rained while we were looking on, and willed to persuade us of that itself — this would no longer be imposture, but a certain kind of dementia plainly unusual and incredible; nor can this fall on one who is not altogether raving and stirred by black bile. Now those wonders held in Moses — that the sea was split, that the voice of God speaking was heard from mount Sinai, that in the desert it rained manna and quails, that torrents of water burst from the rock, and more of the same kind — those wonders, I say, Moses does not commemorate as things that happened at other times or in distant places: but he narrates them as having happened in that very time and in that very place where he was writing, indeed while those for whom he was writing were seeing and attending, and into whose hands he was handing his writings. And about the truth of those miracles he appeals to the eyes and ears of the Israelites. You have seen, he often says, and you have heard; and by that name he heavily and often rebukes their mind as ungrateful toward God.
Likewise the Apostle Paul, when he had among the Corinthians certain rivals and envious men who were trying to call his apostleship into doubt and render it suspect, appeals about the truth of his apostleship to miracles and signs done in their midst. The signs of apostleship, he says, were published among you with all patience, through signs and wonders and powers (2 Corinthians 12:12). And in chapters 12, 13, and 14 of the former epistle he discusses the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit — the gift of healings, the working of powers, the gift of prophecy, and the gift of speaking and interpreting foreign tongues by the Spirit's sudden breath — as things known and customary in their midst: he exhorts them to peace, warns them not to envy one another because of such gifts, and also rebukes that they sometimes used such gifts ambitiously; and he orders that thereafter they do it toward edification, and he prescribes the lawful use of those gifts.
Latin · §30
XIX. Certe solent impostores, et illi, quibus est animus decipere, sic procudere sua mendacia, ut facile non possint argui mendacii ab iis, quos deceptos volunt. Ita Numa, qui Romanae superstitionis ritus plerosque instituit, fingebat se de nocte colloquia habere cum Nympha Egeria: verum solum cum sola, et quorum nemo testis esse poterat. In Alcorano quoque Mahumetis portentosa quaedam narrantur, verum non tanquam facta ante hominum oculos, sed quorum fides penes ipsum esset. Si quis vero portenta et somnia narraret, et tamen de eorum veritate provocaret ad sensus eorum quos alloqueretur, ut qui jam commemoraret Mose aquas retro fluxisse, et frumento pluisse nobis inspectantibus, et istud ipsum nobis persuadere vellet, hoc jam non esset impostura, sed dementiae quoddam genus plane inusitatum atque incredibile; Neque hoc cadere potest in eum qui non omnino furit, et atrabile percitus est. Jam vero miranda illa quae habentur apud Mosen, ut quod mare fissum est, quod vox Dei loquentis audita de monte Sinai, quod in deserto pluit manna et coturnicibus, quod aquarum torrentes e petra eruperint et plura ejusdem generis, miranda inquam illa non commemorat Moses, tanquam quae contigerint aliis temporibus, aut in locis distantibus: sed contigisse narrat illo ipso tempore, et eo ipso in loco quo scribebat, imo videntibus, atque advertentibus illis, ob quos scribebat, et in quorum manus sua scripta tradebat. Atque de miraculorum istorum veritate provocat ad oculos, et aures Israelitarum. Vidistis, inquit saepe, et audistis, et eo nomine animum ipsorum erga Deum ingratum graviter et saepe objurgat. XX. Similiter Paulus Apostolus, cum haberet apud Corinthios quosdam aemulos et invidos, qui Apostolatum ejus conabantur in dubium vocare, et suspectum reddere, de veritate sui Apostolatus provocat ad miracula et signa quae in medio eorum facta erant. Signa, inquit, Apostolatus edita sunt apud vos cum omni tolerantia, per signa, et prodigia, et virtutes: 2. Corinth. 12. v. 12. Et in prioris Epistolae capitibus 12. 13. 14. disserit de miraculosis Spiritus sancti donis, de dono sanationum, de operatione virtutum, de dono prophetiae, et de dono loquendi, et interpretandi peregrinas linguas subito Spiritus afflatu tanquam de rebus in medio eorum notis et usitatis: hortatur eos ad pacem, et monet ne sibi mutuo invideant ob hujusmodi dona, atque etiam reprehendit quod aliquando istiusmodi donis ambitiose uterentur: jubetque ut deinceps id faciant ad aedificationem, et donorum istorum legitimum usum praescribit.
If the miracle reports were lies, craft fails and madness cannot explain the world's faith§31
31If therefore all those things are lies and fictions, certainly Moses and Paul were not, as the profane charge, crafty dealers and cunning men whose purpose was to deceive men and impose on the world. For no one can be deceived in things about which appeal is made to his ears, eyes, and experience. But it is necessary that they were — far be the blasphemous saying — men plainly raging and insane. And yet their writings, with the atheists themselves as judges, prove enough that they were of sound mind. For they speak things coherent with themselves, and in which much prudence and wisdom is to be discerned.
Next, let us feign they were insane men who wrote with the highest madness or imprudence and thrust for true those lies about which they could be charged openly and by all. Whence then did it come about that the Israelites looked up to Moses, and the Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, and others to Paul, as divine and holy men, and received their discipline with so great reverence — although in many things it is ungrateful to the flesh, burdensome, and repugnant to human affections — and that no profit returned therefrom to those who thus willed to be deceived, if the matter is valued from men's sense? Certainly no miracle, nor any portent, is more incredible than this: that the doctrine of insane men, and their thick and foul lies, without any aid either divine or human, obtained so great faith among those very people for whom it was impossible not to recognize and notice their insanity and lies.
And here that ancient dilemma has place: the miracles narrated in the Scriptures are true, or not true. If true, the doctrine and scripture to whose confirmation they were applied are true also. But if they are not true, it is more than a miracle that a doctrine so abhorrent from men's sense, and stuffed with so many lies which anyone was ready to charge, was nonetheless received with so great ardor without any help divine or human, and retained with so great constancy through exiles, crosses, and tortures, while those eminent in the world by power and prudence were raging and indignant.
Since therefore what Moses and Paul recount about miracles done in confirmation of the Law and the Gospel is written in such a manner that those to whom they were writing could at once recognize whether they were saying true or false — since they are things about which appeal is made to their experience and senses — and yet so great faith was given to those writings by those who first received them, and thereafter even to this day, it is plainly necessary that they wrote true things, and that the miracles they narrate are true, and therefore that Scripture and the doctrine in whose confirmation God willed those things to happen are true.
Latin · §31
XXI. Si ergo ista omnia mendacia sunt et figmenta, certe Moses et Paulus non fuerunt, ut profani criminantur, veteratores et homines callidi, quibus propositum fuit homines decipere et mundo imponere. Nemo enim decipi potest in iis de quibus ad aures, ad oculos, et experientiam illius provocatur. Sed necesse est ut fuerint, absit blasphemiae dicto, homines plane furentes et insani. Atqui scripta eorum, judicibus ipsis Atheis, satis arguunt eos fuisse mentis compotes. Loquuntur enim sibi cohaerentia, et in quibus multum cernere est prudentiae et sapientiae. XXII. Deinde, fingamus eos fuisse homines inanos, qui summa cum amentia, sive imprudentia scripserint, et pro veris obtruserint ea mendacia de quibus poterant palam et ab omnibus argui; Unde factum igitur ut Israelitae Mosen, Corinthii, Romani, Galatae, aliique Paulum tanquam viros divinos et sanctos suspexerint, et disciplinam eorum susceperint tanta cum reverentia: licet in multis carni ingrata sit, et onerosa et affectibus humanis repugnet: Nec ullum inde ad eos, qui sic decipi voluerunt, si res ex hominum sensu aestimetur, redierit emolumentum. Certe nullum miraculum, neque ullum portentum magis est incredibile quam hoc, doctrinam hominum insanorum, eorumque crassa et taeda mendacia, sine ullo adjumento vel divino, vel humano fidem tantam obtinuisse apud eos ipsos, quibus impossibile erat insaniam et mendacia eorum non agnoscere et animadvertere. XXIII. Atque hic locum habet priscum illud dilemma, miracula quae narrantur in Scripturis vera sunt, vel non vera: si vera, vera quoque est doctrina et scriptura ad cujus confirmationem adhibita fuerunt. Si autem vera non sint, plusquam miraculum est doctrinam ita a sensu hominum abhorrentem, et refertam tot mendaciis, quae promptum erat cuivis arguere, nihilo minus absque ulla ope divina, vel humana, tanto cum ardore susceptam, et retentam tanta constantia, per exilia, per cruces, per tormenta, frementibus et indignantibus qui in mundo potestate et prudentia eminebant. XXIV. Quandoquidem igitur quae Moses et Paulus memorant de miraculis factis in confirmationem Legis et Evangelii, eo modo scripta sunt, ut illi quibus scribebant statim agnoscere potuerint verumne an falsum dicerent, cum sint res de quibus ad eorum experientiam et sensus provocatur, et tamen scriptis illis tanta fides habita sit ab illis, qui primi ea susceperunt, et deinceps usque in hodiernum diem, plane necesse est eos vera scripsisse, et vera esse miracula quae narrant, ac proinde veram esse Scripturam et doctrinam in cujus confirmationem Deus illa fieri voluit.
Adversaries themselves confess Moses' and Christ's miracles; Jews invent magic or the Name§32
32But besides, that the miracles reported as done by Moses are true, and likewise those attributed to Christ and his Apostles, is clear from the adversaries' own confession. For as to Christ, the Jews who are most hostile enemies of the Christian name neither formerly dared, nor even now dare, to deny that Christ performed miracles: but they have invented I know not what to elude the force of the argument we draw therefrom — namely either that Christ did those things by magic art which he had learned in Egypt, or by virtue of that tetragrammaton Name whose right pronunciation and exposition he held. For they fable that whoever knows how to pronounce that name rightly can by its force do any wonderful works. The vanity of that invention is clear of itself, and there is no need to refute it. Here we only note that the truth of Christ's miracles is not a little confirmed thereby: since the Jews who most envy his glory neither dare nor are able openly to deny that those things were done. And likewise very many of the Gentiles bore testimony to Moses and acknowledged the truth of the Mosaic history, as is to be seen in the books of Josephus against Apion, and of Eusebius on the Preparation of the Gospel.
Latin · §32
XXV. Sed praeterea vera esse quae facta perhibentur a Mose miracula, et similiter ea quae tribuuntur Christo et Apostolis ejus, ex ipsa adversariorum confessione patet. Nam quod ad Christum attinet, Judaei qui sunt Christiani nominis hostes infestissimi, nec olim ausi sunt, nec etiamnum audent negare Christum patrasse miracula: sed nescio quid commenti sunt, ut eludant vim argumenti quod inde deducimus; nempe vel Christum illa fecisse arte magica, quam in Aegypto didicerat: vel virtute nominis illius tetragrammati, cujus rectam pronunciationem et expositionem tenebat. Fabulantur enim quicunque nomen illud scit recte pronunciare, posse vi illius nominis quavis opera miranda facere. Cujus commenti vanitas per se patet, nec opus est illud refutare. Solummodo hic notamus non parum inde confirmari veritatem miraculorum Christi: quandoquidem Judaei qui maxime ejus gloriae invident, non audent, neque possunt aperte negare illa facta fuisse. Et similiter Ethnicorum plurimi testimonium Mosi perhibuerunt, et veritatem agnoverunt historiae Mosaicae, ut videre est in libris Josephi contra Appionem, et Eusebii de praeparatione Evangelica.
Prophets' predictions prove Christian doctrine and Scripture's divine origin§33
33Especially do the Prophets' predictions prove the truth of Christian doctrine, and argue Scripture's divine origin. For it belongs to God alone to foreknow future contingencies certainly and distinctly, and things that will come to pass only after many ages. And therefore no one can predict such things except by the afflatus of the divine Spirit. But the Prophets predicted many things for which no causes appeared in the nature of things, and which were fulfilled long after their death. Thus Isaiah named Cyrus, and predicted his empire and wondrous felicity, a hundred and fifty years before Cyrus was born. Thus Jeremiah the Prophet precisely numbered the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity before the Jews were led away to Babylon. Thus finally Daniel prophesied very clearly concerning the Monarchy of the Persians and of the Greeks, concerning the successors of Alexander the Great, and concerning Antiochus especially Epiphanes who profaned the temple of God.
Latin · §33
XXVI. Praecipue vero doctrinae Christianae veritatem probant, et divinam Scripturae originem arguunt Prophetarum praedictiones. Etenim solius Dei est certo et distincte praenosse futura contingentia, et demum multis post saeculis eventura. Ac proinde talia praedicere nemo potest nisi divini Spiritus afflatu. Sed Prophetae multa praedixerunt, quorum nullae in rerum natura causae apparebant, et quae diu post mortem eorum impleta sunt. Ita Esaias Cyrum nominavit, imperiumque, et miram felicitatem illius praedixit, centum quinquaginta annis antequam Cyrus nasceretur. Ita Jeremias Propheta septuaginta annos captivitatis Babylonicae praecise numeravit, priusquam Judaei essent Babylonem abducti. Ita denique Daniel de Monarchia Persarum et Graecorum, de successoribus Alexandri magni, et de Antiocho praesertim Epiphane qui templum Dei profanavit, clare admodum vaticinatus est.
Gospel events clearly foretold; Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 show stunning Messianic consensus§34
34But what is chief: what the Gospel teaches us concerning the nativity, life, passion, death, and burial of Jesus Christ, concerning his resurrection and ascension into heaven; likewise concerning the fruit of his death and passion, the calling of the Gentiles, the desolation of the Jewish nation, and the abrogation of the ceremonial worship, with nearly every circumstance of these things — these are found clearly and openly predicted in the Prophets. Among other things Isaiah chapter 53 is notable, where he speaks of the death and passion of Christ our Redeemer, and of his offering for the sins of the world, so expressly and clearly that he seems to narrate a thing already done, not to predict a future one (Isaiah 53). And Daniel chapter 9 expressly designates the time at which Christ was to come, and at once to be cut off, and to put an end to sacrifices — namely after seventy weeks of years, which the dreadful destruction of the whole Jewish nation was to follow (Daniel 9): so that for one comparing the oracles of Moses and the Prophets concerning the Messiah with the Gospel history of Christ, a wondrous and plainly stupendous consensus at once appears. Whence it is manifestly proved both that the Prophets' books are divine, since they contain predictions of things that happened after so great a space of time, and that the Gospel history is true and divine, since God through the Prophets bore testimony to it so many ages beforehand.
Latin · §34
XXVII. Sed quod praecipuum est, quae nos docet Evangelium de nativitate, de vita, de passione, de morte, de sepultura Jesu Christi, de ejusdem resurrectione et ascensione in coelum: item de fructu mortis et passionis ejus, de Gentium vocatione, Judaicae Gentis desolatione, et abrogatione cultus caeremonialis cum singulis fere harum rerum circumstantiis, reperiuntur in Prophetis clare et aperte praedicta. Inter alia insigne est Esaiae caput 53. ubi de Christi redemptoris nostri morte et passione, et pro peccatis mundi oblatione tam diserte et clare loquitur, ut videatur narrare rem gestam, non futuram praedicere: Et Danielis caput 9. ubi expresse designat tempus, quo Christus adventurus erat, statimque excindendus, et sacrificiis finem impositurus, nimirum post septuaginta annorum septimanas, quas sequuturum erat horrendum totius gentis Judaicae excidium: ita ut conferenti Mosis et Prophetarum oracula de Messia cum Evangelica de Christo historia, mirus ac plane stupendus statim appareat consensus. Unde manifeste probatur et Prophetarum libros esse divinos, quandoquidem continent praedictiones rerum, quae tanto post temporis spatio contigerunt: Et Evangelicam quoque historiam veram et divinam esse, quandoquidem Deus per Prophetas tot ante saeculis ipsi testimonium perhibuit.
Jews attest the prophecies were not forged; hatred could not make them erase Daniel§35
35Further, that these oracles were not forged by Christians the Jews testify — enemies of the Christians, and yet the keenest assertors and defenders of the prophetic books. And besides, that that greatest hatred of the Christian religion could not compel them to erase from their books those oracles so greatly adverse to themselves — this itself, I say, frees them from the crime of which certain Gentiles wished to render them suspect, as if they had inserted into their books those oracles concerning Cyrus and Alexander the Great in order to court those kings' favor. For if they had thought so much allowed to them, those oracles by which Christians so greatly press them would not have remained untouched, especially that of Daniel concerning the time of Christ's advent and his cutting off. Nor will anyone ever suspect such a thing of the Jews who has ascertained with how great religion — not to say superstition — toward the sacred books they conduct themselves, even to such a degree that they keep the syllables and apices of each book numbered, and appoint a public fast if by chance a Scripture codex has fallen to the ground through carelessness. Add that whoever will attentively read through and consider the books of the Prophets Daniel and Isaiah will easily recognize that in them all things cohere and are woven with the same thread and genius, nor is anything found that anyone could deservedly suspect to have been added and inserted there against the author's mind and sense — and that could be torn away from them without the ruin and gap of the whole work.
Latin · §35
XXVIII. Porro haec vaticinia a Christianis non esse conficta testantur Judaei Christianorum hostes, et tamen propheticorum librorum assertatores, atque vindices acerrimi. Et praeterea quod maximum illud religionis Christianae odium non potuit eos compellere, ut vaticinia illa, tantopere ipsis adversa, e libris suis eradent, hoc ipsum, inquam, eos liberat a crimine, cujus Ethnici quidam suspectos eos reddere voluerint, quasi illa de Cyro et Alexandro magno vaticinia libris suis inseruissent ut gratiam istorum regum aucuparentur. Etenim si tantum sibi licere putavissent, non intacta fuissent illa vaticinia quibus a Christianis tantopere urgentur, praesertim illud Danielis de tempore adventus Christi et ejus excidio. Neque unquam aliquid tale de Judaeis suspicabitur, qui compertum habebit quanta religione, ne dicam superstitione erga libros sacros se gerant usque adeo ut librorum singulorum syllabas et apices in numerato habeant: et jejunium publicum indicant, si forte Scripturae codex per incuriam in terram deciderit. Adde quod quicunque attente perleget, et considerabit Prophetarum Danielis et Esaiae libros, facile agnoscet in iis omnia cohaerere, et esse eodem filo et genio contexta, nec quicquam reperiri quod quis merito suspicari possit, illic additum et insertum fuisse contra mentem et sensum authoris; quodque inde possit avelli citra totius operis ruinam et hiatum.
Antiquity, providence preserving Scripture, and the sects' consensus jointly commend its authority§36
36Besides these, many arguments can be taken toward conciliating Scripture's authority and veneration from Scripture's antiquity, from God's care in preserving it, and from the world's hatred toward it, and God's just judgment against its haters and despisers. For the books of Moses, which are as it were the basis and foundation of the whole of Scripture, are by far the most ancient of all that exist. Indeed there are no writings that equal the antiquity of Solomon and David. And yet almost the whole world long waged war against Scripture and tried to abolish it — as in Jewish times that Antiochus Epiphanes, and in Christian memory the Roman Emperors, whose power was so great and whose empire so widely extended. But as much as the world worked to abolish it, so much did God's providence watch that it should remain safe and entire hitherto.
Nor is the consensus of the nations — indeed of the various sects — of small moment in this matter. Since today three chief sects thrive, afterward subdivided into many others — namely the Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan — which occupy the greatest part of the world. Jews, Christians, and Mahometans all acknowledge the authority of the Old Testament. The Jews indeed reject the New Testament, but the Mahometans hold it in esteem with us, and at least venerate Christ as God's greatest Prophet. What then could compel so many peoples, disagreeing among themselves in customs and sects, and mutually pursuing one another with the keenest hatreds, to approve these books as sacred and divine, unless the force of truth itself and a certain divine efficacy?
Which arguments, although perhaps not all equally valid if taken singly by themselves, nevertheless when taken together have the greatest force toward proving Scripture's excellence and conciliating authority to it. Nay, those superior ones which we have explained more widely we judge to be such that by them Scripture's authority can validly be asserted and proved even against atheists and the profane, who can retort and oppose nothing that has any force, and whose vanity it is not hard to show.
Latin · §36
XXIX. Praeter haec ad conciliandam Scripturae authoritatem et venerationem, multa possunt argumenta sumi a Scripturae antiquitate, a cura Dei in ea conservanda, et a mundi in eam odio, justoque Dei judicio adversus osores et contemptores ejus. Etenim libri Mosis, qui sunt veluti totius Scripturae basis et fundamentum, omnium qui exstant sunt longe antiquissimi. Imo nulla sunt scripta quae Salomonis et Davidis antiquitatem aequent. Et tamen totus pene orbis adversus Scripturam bellum diu gessit, et conatus est illam abolere, ut Judaicis temporibus Antiochus ille Epiphanes: Christianorum vero memoria Imperatores Romani, quorum tanta fuit potentia et tam late patens imperium. Verum quantum sategit mundus eam abolere, tantum vigilavit Dei providentia ut salva et integra hucusque permaneret. XXX. Neque parvi momenti est gentium, imo sectarum variarum hac in re consensus. Cum hodie vigeant tres praecipuae sectae, in multas alias postea subdivisae, Judaica scilicet, Christiana et Mahumetana quae partem orbis maximam occupant. Judaei, Christiani, et Mahumetani omnes Veteris Testamenti authoritatem agnoscunt. Novum vero Testamentum Judaei quidem rejiciunt, sed Mahumetani illud nobiscum in pretio habent, Christumque saltem tanquam maximum Dei Prophetam venerantur. Quid autem compellere potuit tot populos moribus et sectis inter se discrepantes, et acerrimis odiis sese mutuo prosequentes, ut libros hosce tanquam sacros et divinos probarent, nisi vis ipsa veritatis et divina quaedam efficacia? XXXI. Quae quidem argumenta licet omnia forte perinde valida non sint, si per se sumantur singula, maximam tamen simul sumpta vim habent ad praestantiam Scripturae probandam et authoritatem illi conciliandam. Quin superiora illa quae latius explicuimus, talia esse judicamus, ut iis valide possit Scripturae authoritas asseri et probari etiam adversus Atheos et profanos, qui nihil regerere et opponere possunt quod vim aliquam habeat, cujusque vanitatem facile non sit ostendere.
Scripture bears intrinsic divinity notes a well-disposed mind perceives, as critics scent an author§37
37But besides those arguments by which Scripture's divinity can be asserted against a denier, Scripture has in itself very illustrious notes and indications of truth and divinity, by which it proves and commends itself to a mind well affected, whose eye is not blinded by prejudices and perverse affections — although means suited for disputing cannot be taken from them, or certainly not means so valid and efficacious. For just as there inhere in some excellent work of art — for example a Virgilian poem, or a painting of Apelles — certain things by which it betrays its author and claims itself for him; and these are recognized openly, certainly, and clearly, although the unskilled does not attend to them, nor can arguments easily be drawn from them against a denier: so deeply impressed on sacred Scripture are the footprints of the divine Spirit, and the marks of heavenly origin, which those discern whose mind is not darkened, and who are skilled in divine things, and who thereby become certain of its divinity — although ignorant and profane men make light of those things, or do not notice them at all. And certainly, if any are learned in humane letters, when they unroll some human book they easily note in it a certain genius and character by which they are led into knowledge of its author. By that reason critics assert genuine writings to their authors — to Aristotle, for example, or to Cicero — but expunge spurious and supposititious writings, although often what sagacious critics note and recognize they can scarcely explain and demonstrate to another who is not versed in these things. Shall we doubt that the Prophetic and Apostolic writings savor of the divine Spirit, and that there inheres in them a something which a pious and learned man perceives, and by which he distinguishes them from human and Apocryphal writings — although that could not be demonstrated against a disputant who resists?
Latin · §37
XXXII. Sed praeter argumenta ista quibus asseri potest adversus negantem Scripturae divinitas, Scriptura in se habet illustres admodum notas et indicia veritatis et divinitatis, quibus ipsa se probat et commendat menti bene affectae, et cujus oculus non est occoecatus praejudiciis et perversis affectibus: quamvis inde media ad disputandum apta sumi non possint, aut certe non ita valida atque efficacia. Etenim quemadmodum artis alicujus eximio operi, ut ex. gr. poemati Virgiliano, aut Apellis tabulae, insunt quaedam quibus authorem suum prodit, et ipsi se vindicat: Et haec aperte certe et clare agnoscuntur, licet imperitus ad ista non advertat, nec inde facile possint argumenta duci adversus negantem: Ita Scripturae sacrae alte impressa sunt spiritus divini vestigia, et coelestis originis notae, quas cernunt illi quibus mens obtenebrata non est, et qui sunt rerum divinarum periti, atque inde de illius divinitate certi fiunt: etsi homines ignari et profani ista floccifaciant, aut omnino non animadvertant. Et certe, si qui sunt docti in litteris humanioribus, cum librum quempiam humanum evolvunt, facile notant in eo genium et characterem quendam quo in authoris ejus cognitionem ducuntur. Qua ratione Critici germana scripta suis asserunt authoribus, Aristoteli verbi causa, vel Ciceroni, scripta vero spuria et supposititia expungunt, quamvis saepe istud quod notant et agnoscunt Critici sagaces, vix possint explicare et demonstrare alteri qui non sit in hisce versatus: An dubitabimus scripta Prophetica et Apostolica redolere divinum Spiritum, et iis inesse τι quod percipiat vir pius et doctus, et quo a scriptis humanis et Apocryphis illa internoscat; quanquam istud non posset adversus disputantem et repugnantem demonstrari?
Divine character in Scripture's words: plain majesty, condescension, Hebrew idiom, and sublime simplicity§38
38Further, such notes of divinity as we say inhere in Scripture can be noticed both in things and in words. And first in words, or in the manner of speaking, a certain divine character shines forth through the whole of Scripture. For when it narrates deeds it does so ingenuously, simply, and nakedly, without any paint, without any trappings. Human writers, when they recite great things, are accustomed to give signs of an anxious mind, fearing lest it not be believed. For they try secretly to remove what could more offend, and to render the matter, as much as in them lies, credible. But when something must be said by them concerning themselves, either they boast and display their own deeds, or they are timid and fearful and use certain excuses and prefaces — which certainly arises from a certain weakness, and betrays a mind distrusting itself and not secure enough. But as for the sacred writers, although they treat of things greatest and plainly stupendous, and often done by their ministry, in their narrations nevertheless all things are straight and simple, nor is there anything that savors an anxious and solicitous mind lest faith be denied them. But everywhere they speak as if secure concerning men's judgments, relying on the dignity and truth of the matter: which argues a magnanimity and a certain majesty worthy of God.
In Scripture's precepts, corrections, and exhortations also it is easy to observe a certain divine majesty. With equal authority it addresses kings and commoners, the highest and the lowest, magistrates and private persons. It flatters no one, connives with no one, and its author plainly shows himself impartial (ἀπροσωπόληπτον) — devoid of favor and hatred, of hope and fear, and the same toward all of whatever status and condition they are. Nor yet is the speech fierce, swollen, and proud. But in it there appears a certain wondrous gravity, yet tempered with the highest gentleness and a pious affection toward men.
But when it teaches, it uses a certain condescension (συγκαταβάσει) by which it accommodates itself to the capacity of the rude. Nor does it seek for what it teaches ornaments from art and eloquence, but commends them by their own weight and usefulness. Teachers of human arts and sciences are accustomed to forge peculiar terms for each art, and to cover what they hand down with wrappers of grand words, that they may win dignity for their art and feign some mystery for the crowd to look up to and wonder at. But Scripture explains divine things with human words and phrases drawn from the crowd. When it wants to illustrate something, it does not seek its likenesses and examples far off, but uses obvious examples, as if from the crossroads. Nor are its arguments such as only the learned can perceive: but usually of such a sort that every rustic and unlearned person recognizes their force.
Often indeed there is in Scripture's words and phrases something foreign, and abhorrent from common use. But that is to be assigned to the genius of the Hebrew tongue, to which our ears are not accustomed. For the sacred writers either wrote in the Hebrew tongue, as Moses and the Prophets, or used phrases and idiotisms of the Hebrew tongue even when they wrote in Greek, as the writers of the New Testament.
Finally Scripture everywhere acts candidly and ingenuously. And whereas men are accustomed, whether blaming or praising, threatening or promising, to inflate small and humble things and raise them with magnificent words and sublime metaphors, Scripture on the contrary expresses the greatest things in a style usually thin and common, and with words that sink below the magnitude of the matter. And when it threatens and promises, its promises are indeed magnificent and its threats terrific: yet so that the moment and gravity of the thing itself far surpass the sound and emphasis of the words. And yet from that highest simplicity of Scripture gravity and decorum are never absent. Indeed there is often joined to it a wondrous sublimity of speaking: so much so that Longinus himself, the Gentile rhetor and most hostile enemy of Christians, treating of the sublime (περὶ ὕψους), cites its example from Moses: "As," he says, "the Legislator of the Hebrews said, and they were done" (Genesis 1:3).
Latin · §38
XXXIII. Porro ejusmodi divinitatis notae quas Scripturae inesse dicimus animadverti possunt tam in rebus, quam in verbis. Et primo quidem in verbis, sive dicendi modo divinus quidam character per totam Scripturam elucet. Etenim, quum narrat res gestas id facit ingenue, simpliciter et nude, absque ullo fuco, absque ullis phaleris. Scriptores humani quum recitant res magnas, solent signa dare animi solliciti, et metuentis ne sibi non credatur. Conantur enim occulte amoliri, quae magis offendere possent, et rem, quantum in ipsis est, reddere credibilem. Cum vero ipsis de se aliquid dicendum est, vel jactant et ostentant propria facinora, vel timidi sunt et meticulosi, ac utuntur quibusdam excusationibus et praefationibus; quod certe oritur ex quadam imbecillitate, et prodit animum sibi diffidentem et non satis securum. Quod attinet autem ad scriptores sacros, etsi agant de rebus maximis, ac plane stupendis, et saepe eorum ministerio gestis, in eorum tamen narrationibus omnia recta sunt atque simplicia, neque est quidquam quod sapiat animum anxium atque sollicitum, ne ipsi fides denegetur. Sed ubique loquuntur quasi securi de hominum judiciis, rei dignitate et veritate freti: quod magnanimitatem et majestatem quandam Deo dignam arguit. XXXIV. In Scripturae quoque praeceptis, correptionibus, et hortationibus, facile est observare majestatem quandam divinam. Pari enim authoritate alloquitur reges et plebeios, summos atque infimos, magistratus et privatos. Nemini blanditur, nemini connivet, authorque illius plane se ostendit ἀπροσωπόληπτον, favoris et odii, spei et metus expertem: quique sit idem erga omnes cujuscunque status et conditionis sint. Neque tamen oratio ferox, turgida, atque superba est. Sed in ea quidem apparet mira quaedam gravitas, verum quae lenitate summa, et pio erga homines affectu temperata sit. XXXV. Cum vero docet, utitur συγκαταβάσει quadam, qua se captui rudium accommodat. Neque iis quae docet ornamenta conquirit ex arte et eloquentia, sed ea proprio pondere et utilitate commendat. Solent humanarum artium et scientiarum magistri, arti cuique terminos peculiares cudere, et ea quae tradunt tegere vocabulorum grandium involucris: ut ita arti suae dignitatem concilient, et mysterii aliquid affingant, quod suspiciat et miretur vulgus. At Scriptura res divinas explicat vocibus et phrasibus humanis, et e vulgo petitis. Cum vult aliquid illustrare, similia et exempla sua non longe quaerit: sed utitur exemplis obviis, et velut e trivio. Nec argumenta ejus talia sunt quae non possint nisi a doctis percipi: sed plerunque ejusmodi ut rusticus et idiota quisque vim eorum agnoscat. XXXVI. Saepe quidem vocibus et phrasibus Scripturae inest aliquid peregrinum, et quod ab usu communi abhorret. Verum id deputandum est Hebraicae linguae genio, cui aures nostrae assuetae non sunt. Etenim scriptores sacri vel scripserunt Hebraica lingua, ut Moses et Prophetae: vel usi sunt phrasibus, et idiotismis linguae Hebraicae, etiamsi Graece scripserint, ut scriptores Novi Testamenti. XXXVII. Denique Scriptura ubique candide et ingenue agit. Cumque homines soleant culpando sive laudando, minando sive promittendo res parvas et humiles inflare, et attollere magnificis vocibus et sublimibus metaphoris, Scriptura contra res maximas exprimit stylo plerunque tenui et vulgari, et verbis quae infra rei magnitudinem subsidunt. Quumque minatur et promittit, magnificae quidem sunt ejus promissiones et terrificae minae: sed ita tamen ut rei ipsius momentum, et gravitas longe superet sonum et emphasim verborum. Et tamen a summa illa Scripturae simplicitate nunquam abest gravitas et decor: Imo saepe illi juncta est mira dicendi sublimitas: adeo ut ipse Longinus Rhetor Ethnicus, et Christianorum hostis infestissimus differens περὶ ὕψους, id est, de sublimi genere dicendi, citet illius exemplum ex Mose, Quemadmodum, inquit, Legislator Hebraeorum dixit et facta sunt.
Intrinsic notes in the matter itself: history, prophecy, and dogma; sacred history's claim to truth§39
39Now if we attend to the things themselves of Scripture, notes of divinity still far more illustrious and clearer will appear in them. Whatever Scripture contains is either histories and narrations of things past, or oracles and predictions of things future, or dogmas and precepts that mark no difference of time. Further, two things chiefly commend a history: the truth of the matters, and also their weight and moment — both of which sacred history claims for itself in an eminent way. And first, sacred history has many and great indications of truth. For either reason and the very nature of things give it suffrage, as with the history of the world's creation, which is proved by most strong arguments to have been made from nothing and in time. As for history, even the monuments of ancient and external writers also afford testimony to its truth — for example in the history of the universal flood, of the building of the tower of Babel, of the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the Israelites' exit from Egypt — of which mention is made among approved and ancient historians whose fragments survive in Eusebius, Josephus, and others, and some of which are still current in men's hands.
Latin · §39
XXXVIII. Jam vero, si ad res ipsas Scripturae attendamus, in iis apparebunt longe adhuc illustriores et clariores divinitatis notae. Quaecunque autem Scriptura continentur vel sunt historiae et narrationes rerum praeteritarum, vel sunt vaticinia et praedictiones rerum futurarum, vel dogmata et praecepta quae nullam temporis differentiam notant. Porro historiam praecipue duo commendant, nempe rerum veritas, tum quoque pondus et momentum: quae duo Historia sacra eminenti quodam modo sibi vendicat. Et primo quidem historia sacra multa et magna habet veritatis indicia. Vel enim illi ratio, et ipsa rerum natura suffragatur, ut historiae creationis mundi, quem e nihilo atque in tempore factum esse validissimis probatur argumentis. Ut historiae, eorum etiam veterum et externorum monumenta testimonium ejus veritati perhibent, ut ex. gr. in historia de diluvio universali, de aedificatione turris Babylonicae, de conflagratione Sodomae et Gomorrhae, de Israelitarum exitu ex Aegypto, quibus mentio fit apud probatos et priscos historicos quorum fragmenta supersunt apud Eusebium, Josephum et alios: et nonnulli etiam in manibus hominum versantur.
Sacred history proves itself by ingenuousness, surviving names, and appeal to living witnesses§40
40Add that sacred history in many places proves itself by its own ingenuousness and likelihood, and has those notes of truth which every honest historian has, as may be seen in the books of Samuel and of Kings. The names of nations, cities, and regions that once were and still remain today also create faith for what Scripture narrates concerning Noah's posterity, from whom after the flood the world began to be inhabited anew and filled with dwellers — plain to anyone who compares those names Moses recites with the names of peoples and nations. But the things that seem to surpass belief, and are wondrous and plainly stupendous, are written so that the writer cannot have lied: he appeals to innumerable witnesses who could have refuted him, yet who received his writings as divine and so commended them to posterity — as was shown above concerning the miracles Moses narrates, and of which mention is made in the Apostle Paul.
Latin · §40
XXXIX. Adde quod Historia sacra in multis ipsa se probat sua ingenuitate, et verisimilitudine, habetque eas veritatis notas, quas habent probi quique historici, ut videre est in libris Samuelis et Regum. Gentium quoque, urbium et regionum nomina, quae fuerunt olim, et hodie remanent, fidem creant iis quae Scriptura narrat de posteris Noe a quibus post diluvium orbis de novo habitari coepit, et incolis repleri, ut planum sit conferenti nomina illa, quae Moses recitat cum populorum et gentium nominibus. Quae vero fidem videntur superare, et miranda sunt ac plane stupenda, eo modo scripta sunt, ut impossibile sit, qui scripsit esse mentitum, quandoquidem provocat ad testes innumeros a quibus revinci potuit, qui tamen ejus scripta tanquam divina susceperunt, et pro talibus posteris commendârunt: ut supra ostensum est de miraculis quae a Mose narrantur, et de quibus apud Paulum Apostolum mentio.
Sacred historians' candor, and pagan myths as shadows of the true history§41
41Moreover sincerity and candor build faith for the sacred historians — candor so great that they do not hide their own vices, and often brand themselves and their own with many marks of ignominy. Nay, the poets' very fables make Scripture's history credible. For if anyone diligently inspects the ancient poets' fables and compares them with sacred history, he will find those fables to be shadows of things whose body Scripture has, and to have drawn their origin from true histories spread through the whole world by the tradition of Noah's sons, and later corrupted and interpolated by the lapse of time: which could be made plain by many examples, and which learned men who have labored in this matter have made easy to see.
Latin · §41
XL. Praeterea Historicis sacris fidem astruit sinceritas et candor eorum, qui tantus est, ut vitia sua non dissimulent, et saepe sibi suisque multas inurant ignominiae notas. Imo Scripturae historiam credibilem reddunt ipsae poetarum fabulae. Si quis enim veteres poetarum fabulas diligenter inspiciat, et cum historia sacra conferat, reperiet istas fabulas umbras quasdam esse rerum, quarum corpus Scriptura habet, et originem traxisse e veris historiis quae traditione filiorum Noe per totum orbem disseminatae sunt, et tandem lapsu temporis corruptae et interpolatae: ut multis exemplis posset fieri manifestum, et rem facilem reddiderunt viri docti, qui hac in re operam posuerunt.
The weight of sacred history: the Church, the world, angels, and God himself§42
42Now if anyone wishes to weigh the weight and moment of sacred history, what matters of greater weight and moment can be imagined than those which pertain not only to some nation and commonwealth, but to the whole Church which God selected for himself out of the world — nay, to the universal world, to the angels who inhabit Heaven, and to God himself, who is the first cause of all things? These are the things about which sacred Scripture's history turns. For Scripture tells us what were this universe's beginnings and cradles, and how God once founded all things and ordered them to exist; whence the human race was born and propagated; how it spread through the whole earth; and what were at the beginning the divisions of nations and of tongues. It narrates the appearances of angelic spirits and their frequent colloquies with men, and God's own admirable deeds in ruling and guarding the Church and procuring the human race's salvation. If anyone compares Greek or Roman histories with these, he will find nothing whose moment and gravity can in any part match them.
Latin · §42
XLI. Jam vero si quis historiae sacrae pondus et momentum perpendere velit, quae res majoris ponderis et momenti esse fingi possunt, quam quae non modo ad gentem et rempublicam aliquam pertinent, sed ad totam Ecclesiam quam Deus sibi e mundo selegit, imo ad mundum universum, ad angelos Coelorum incolas, et ad Deum ipsum, qui est prima rerum omnium causa. Haec vero sunt circa quae versatur Scripturae sacrae historia. Nam Scriptura nobis recitat quae fuerint hujus universi primordia et incunabula, et quomodo Deus olim omnia condidit et extare jussit: unde genus humanum natum et propagatum est, quomodo per totum orbem terrarum se diffudit, et quae fuerint initio divisiones gentium et linguarum. Narrat angelicorum spirituum apparitiones, et frequentia cum hominibus colloquia: Deique ipsius admiranda facta in Ecclesia regenda et tuenda, humanique generis salute procuranda. Cum quibus si quis conferat historias Graecorum sive Romanorum, nil inveniet cujus momentum et gravitas possit ulla ex parte cum hisce comparari.
Prophetic oracles shine with the greatest divinity-light: clear, named, and fulfilled§43
43Especially in the Prophets' oracles and inspirations the greatest light of divinity shines — of which we spoke already above — because it not only suffices to persuade a pious and faithful mind, but also avails much to refute the enemies of God's Word and to prove its divinity even against the profane. For if you regard the matter of the sacred oracles, they are not about things of no or slight moment, but about what looks to God's glory and the salvation of the whole human race. Nor are the prophetic oracles entangled and ambiguous, as the pagans' oracles once were, but so clear and plain that persons and place are often named in them, and the time of fulfillment is fixed beforehand with precision. Nor are they fallacious and uncertain: by the event itself most have already been proved.
Latin · §43
XLII. Praecipue in vaticiniis et afflatibus Prophetarum divinitatis maxima lux affulget, de qua jam antea diximus, quoniam non tantum sufficit ad pium et fidelem animum persuadendum, sed etiam plurimum valet ad verbi Dei hostes redarguendos, et divinitatem illius comprobandam etiam adversus profanos. Nam si vaticiniorum sacrorum materiam spectes, non sunt de rebus nullius aut exigui momenti, sed quae ad Dei gloriam et totius Humani generis salutem spectant. Neque prophetarum praedictiones perplexae sunt et ambiguae, ut Ethnicorum olim oracula, sed clarae adeo, atque perspicuae, ut in iis personae et locus designentur propriis saepe nominibus, et precise complementi tempus praefiniatur. Neque etiam sunt fallaces et incertae, sed tales ut ipso eventu pleraeque jam comprobatae sint.
Precepts and dogmas, Scripture's inward efficacy, and divinity-marks read in the whole§44
44Sacred Scripture's precepts and dogmas also do not lack their own light — nay, they have by far the greatest. That this may appear more clearly, note that they are of two kinds. For Scripture teaches and commands many things of which men have by nature some notice, but very confused and wavering. Yet Scripture has laid those things open more lucidly, and taught them fully and accurately. Of this sort are what Scripture hands down concerning God's nature and attributes — namely concerning God's eternal, immense, and immutable essence; concerning his infinite power, wisdom, goodness, and also justice; concerning the creation of the world and of all that is in it; concerning God's providence by which he conserves, rules, and administers all things; likewise concerning man's office both toward God and toward the neighbor: that God is to be loved above all, all things referred to his glory, himself carefully worshiped and invoked, trusted, and that one is to rest upon his care; that the neighbor also is to be loved, good done to all, injuries borne, oneself thought of humbly, innermost thoughts and affections kept pure — and in a word, nearly all and each of the precepts of the Christian life, which ought to be pure and sincere in every part, and from which all filth and luxury ought to be absent. Those things and the like the sense of conscience proves, reason confirms, and certain rudiments of them are discerned in the pagans' books. For they hand down some things concerning God, piety, and man's office that are not contemptible — yet obscurely, sparingly, coldly, doubtfully, and mixed with very many errors. But Scripture places those things in clear light and teaches them fully and openly: so that after its light has shone on us, we wonder that things so certain and undoubted were seen and handed down only thinly, doubtfully, and obscurely by the most excellent minds. But when those most excellent minds handed down so jejunely and obscurely the things whose truth we now discern by Scripture's benefit, while Scripture handed them down so fully and perspicuously — and yet the sacred writers did not excel other men by erudition or by nature's gifts, but on the contrary most were rude and unlearned in the human sciences — it is necessary that they were led by another light than nature's, and taught and inspired by God.
But besides those things of which men have by nature only a thin and fleeing cognition, sacred Scripture teaches many things that surpass reason, which the human mind cannot grasp, and for which it has no certain arguments. Yet they cohere so well with what the sense of conscience proves and right reason is convinced of, and agree so well with those prior things, and are built upon them so fittingly, that it sufficiently appears they are not human inventions but mysteries of divine wisdom. Such, for example, is the doctrine of the expiation of our sins through the death and offering on the cross of Christ, God and man — which is discerned to agree most with God's justice and mercy. For in this manner God's justice was satisfied while our sins were punished in Christ, and mercy while they were forgiven us. And with this doctrine coheres that dogma so sublime and lofty concerning three divine persons in one essence. For unless the Son of God were God and equal to the Father, his sacrifice would not have been of infinite value, such as was required that by it our sins be expiated, inasmuch as they had deserved infinite punishment. And such also is the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. For it seems agreeable to reason that a man who acts well or ill in the body should also receive in the body punishment or reward for what was done justly or unjustly — which, since it does not happen in this life, agrees with God's justice that our bodies, which death has reduced to dust, be joined again to their souls, so that it may go well or ill with the whole man according as he acted well or ill.
But moreover the greatest indication of divinity in sacred Scripture is its efficacy, by which it acts inwardly in a man — partly by terrifying consciences and affecting them with the sense of sin, partly by raising the bruised mind and consoling afflicted consciences; but chiefly by so changing the man that he hates sin and pursues piety and true virtue from the soul. By this efficacy nothing is more powerful in confirming the faithful, although it cannot compel to assent those who have not yet felt that efficacy and have hardened against God's Word. And yet even a most profane man, if he has not felt the efficacy of God's Word, yet if he considers it attentively, can easily recognize that this Word is such as to generate the highest tranquillity and joy in those who firmly believe it, and to compel them to every good work and every virtue.
And let these few things suffice as a taste of this argument, which can never be exhausted, and which is treated more fully and copiously by learned men whose footsteps we follow and who have borne the torch before us. But this seems worth adding: that these characters of divinity which we said shine in Scripture are not to be sought in single parts of Scripture separated from the whole, but in the divine writings as they are considered jointly and as wholes in themselves. For it is not to be thought that any pericope of a Canonical book has a certain mark by which it can be discerned and distinguished from the Apocrypha.
Latin · §44
XLIII. Sua quoque luce non carent, imo multo maximam habent, Scripturae sacrae praecepta et dogmata. Quod ut clarius appareat, notandum est illa duorum esse generum. Multa enim docet et jubet Scriptura quorum homines per naturam notitiam aliquam habent, sed confusam valde atque vacillantem. Verum Scriptura ista luculentius patefecit, et docuit plene atque accurate. Ejusmodi sunt quae Scriptura tradit de Dei natura atque attributis, nempe de Dei essentia aeterna, immensa, et immutabili, et de infinita illius potentia, sapientia, bonitate, atque etiam justitia, de creatione mundi et omnium quae in eo sunt, de providentia Dei qua cuncta conservat, regit, et administrat: Item de hominis officio tam erga Deum, quam erga proximum, qualia sunt esse Deum supra omnia amandum, omnia in ipsius gloriam referenda, ipsum esse sedulo colendum atque invocandum, ipsi fidendum, et in curam illius recumbendum esse. Proximum quoque esse diligendum, omnibus benefaciendum, ferendas esse injurias, humiliter de se sentiendum esse, cogitationes et affectus intimos puros esse servandos, et uno verbo, omnia et singula fere praecepta vitae Christianae, quae omni ex parte pura et sincera esse debet, et a qua debet abesse spurcitia et luxuria omnis. Illa certe et similia probat conscientiae sensus, confirmat ratio, et eorum quaedam rudimenta cernuntur in Ethnicorum libris. Etenim nonnulla de Deo, de pietate atque hominis officio non contemnenda tradunt. Sed tamen obscure, parce, frigide, dubitanter, atque cum plurimorum errorum admixtione. Scriptura vero ista in clara luce ponit, pleneque et aperte docet: ita ut postquam nobis lux illius splenduit, miremur res tam certas atque indubitatas nonnisi tenuiter, dubitanter et obscure a praestantissimis ingeniis perspectas traditasque fuisse. Cum autem ingenia illa praestantissima, res illas, quarum jam veritatem cernimus Scripturae beneficio, ita jejune et obscure tradiderint, Scriptura vero ita plene et perspicue; neque tamen Scriptores sacri eruditione, aut naturae dotibus supra caeteros homines praecelluerint, imo contra fuerint plerique scientiarum humanarum rudes et idiotae, necesse est illos alio quam naturae lumine ductos esse, atque a Deo doctos et inspiratos. XLIV. Sed praeter ista, quorum homines per naturam tenuem quandam, atque fugientem cognitionem habent, Scriptura sacra multa docet quae rationem superant, neque mens humana illa capere potest, nec eorum habet certa argumenta: Verumtamen tam bene cohaerent cum iis quae probat conscientiae sensus, et de quibus recta ratio convincitur, et prioribus illis tam consentanea sunt, et ita congruenter et apposite superstructa, ut satis appareat non esse commenta humana, sed sapientiae divinae mysteria. Talis est ex. gr. doctrina de peccatorum nostrorum expiatione per Christi Dei et hominis mortem et oblationem in cruce factam, quae congruere maxime cernitur cum Dei justitia et misericordia. Hoc enim modo justitiae Dei satisfactum est, dum peccata nostra in Christo punita sunt, et misericordiae, dum nobis condonata. Et cum hac doctrina cohaeret dogma illud tam sublime et excelsum de tribus personis divinis in una essentia. Nam nisi Dei filius Deus esset, et aequalis patri, sacrificium ejus non fuisset valoris infiniti, quale requirebatur, ut eo peccata nostra expiarentur, quandoquidem infinitam poenam promeruerant. Et talis quoque doctrina de mortuorum resurrectione. Videtur enim esse rationi consentaneum, ut homo qui in corpore bene vel male agit, in corpore quoque poenam, vel mercedem accipiat juste vel injuste factorum: quod cum in hac vita non fiat, justitiae Dei congruit, ut corpora nostra, quae mors in pulverem redegit, animabus suis denuo jungantur, ut ita homini integro, vel bene, vel male sit, prout bene, vel male egerit. XLV. Sed praeterea maximum divinitatis indicium in Scriptura sacra est ejus efficacia, qua intus in homine agit, partim quidem terrendo conscientias, et peccati sensu afficiendo, partim erigendo animum attritum et conscientias afflictas consolando: Sed praecipue ita hominem immutando, ut peccatum odio habeat, et pietatem veramque virtutem ex animo sectetur: qua quidem efficacia nihil potentius est in fidelibus confirmandis, licet ad assensum compellere non possit eos, qui nondum istam efficaciam senserunt, et adversus Dei verbum obduruerunt. Et tamen homo maxime profanus, etiamsi verbi Dei efficaciam non senserit, si tamen illud attente consideret, facile potest agnoscere hoc verbum tale esse, ut summam tranquillitatem et gaudium generet in iis qui illi firmiter credunt, eosque ad omne bonum opus et omnem virtutem compellat. XLVI. Atque haec pauca sufficiat delibasse de hoc argumento quod nunquam exhauriri potest, quodque fusius et copiosius tractatur a viris doctis, quorum vestigia sequimur, et qui nobis facem praetulerunt. Hoc autem addendum videtur, nempe characteres hosce divinitatis, quos in Scriptura fulgere diximus, non esse quaerendos in singulis Scripturae partibus a toto separatis, sed in scriptis divinis prout considerantur conjunctim, et secundum se tota. Nec enim putandum est quamvis Canonici libri pericopen, certam habere notam, qua possit ab Apocrypha discerni et distingui.
Unequal radiance across the books: Esther and Ruth beside Moses, Isaiah, Paul, and the Gospels§45
45Besides, we must admit that the marks and signs of divinity we said belong in Scripture do not shine with equal brilliance in every book. Just as one star differs from another in light, so some books of Scripture send out richer and more splendid rays of the divine Spirit, while others send out far feebler and more obscure ones. In the Old Testament, for example, Esther and Ruth are far dimmer in divine brightness than Moses's Pentateuch and the Prophecy of Isaiah. And the vestiges of Christ's Spirit are less open in the epistles of James and Jude than in most of Paul's epistles and the four Gospels.
Latin · §45
XLVII. Ac praeterea fatendum est divinitatis notas et indicia, quae Scripturae inesse diximus, in singulis Scripturae libris non esse pari fulgore conspicuas. Nam quemadmodum stella luce a stella differt, ita quidam Scripturae libri uberiores et splendidiores divini Spiritus radios emittunt, alii vero longe exiliores et obscuriores. Sic ex. gr. in Veteri Testamento longe impar est divinitatis fulgor in libro Esther, aut libro Ruth, quam sit in Mosis Pentateucho, et Prophetia Isaiae. Neque tam aperta sunt spiritus Christi vestigia in epistola Jacobi, aut Judae, quam in plerisque Pauli epistolis, et quatuor Evangeliis.
After Scripture's light: how it is perceived; fleeting opinion versus true saving faith without the Spirit's inward work§46
46In the previous disputation we set out what light sacred Scripture has — that is, what arguments and marks of truth and of divine origin. Next we ask how that light is perceived, and whether, and how far, the Holy Spirit's work is needed if we are to acknowledge Scripture as true and divine.
Here, though, we must distinguish a fleeting, vanishing opinion from true saving faith that is pleasing and acceptable to God. A person can form an opinion that Scripture is divine, drawn by some human incentives, without any inward work of the Spirit; the Schools call that human and acquired faith. Many utterly wicked and perverse heretics do not deny Scripture's authority and grant that it is divinely inspired. Unbelieving Jews themselves fiercely defend at least the Old Testament's authority, and Mohammedans are said to hold and revere both Testaments as divine. Still we need not suppose that the Holy Spirit is at work in all those heretics and unbelievers, illuminating their minds within.
Latin · §46
I. Superiori disputatione exposuimus quam lucem, id est, quae argumenta et indicia Veritatis, et originis divinae, habeat Scriptura sacra: sequitur ut inquiramus, quomodo lux illa percipitur, Et An, et Quousque opera Spiritus sancti necessaria sit, ut Scripturam pro vera et divina agnoscamus. II. Hic autem distinguendum est, inter opinionem quandam fluxam et evanidam, et fidem veram et salutarem, quae Deo sit grata et accepta. Quandam enim opinionem de Scripturae divinitate potest aliquis concipere, eo adductus humanis quibusdam incitamentis, absque ulla Spiritus interna operatione: atque haec est quam Scholae fidem humanam et acquisitam vocant. Sic haeretici multi improbissimi et perversissimi authoritatem Scripturae non negant, illamque divinitus inspiratam agnoscunt. Imo Judaei ipsi infideles Veteris saltem Testamenti authoritatem acriter defendunt: Mahumetani vero utriusque Testamenti libros pro divinis habere, et revereri, perhibentur. Neque tamen necesse est, ut in omnibus illis haereticis et infidelibus Spiritum sanctum agere putemus, et intus eorum mentes illuminare.
Legitimate faith in Scripture needs the Spirit's secret work; John 6, 1 Corinthians 12 and 2, Ephesians 2§47
47Saving, legitimate faith about Scripture — faith that actually matters for salvation — does not arise without the Holy Spirit slipping into our minds and working there in secret. The Schools therefore name that faith divine and infused. Scripture itself says so again and again.
Christ teaches in John that no one can come to him (believe in him and take his teaching) unless the Father draws that person, and unless that person has heard the Father teaching within. His words: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. It is written in the Prophets, And they shall all be taught by God. Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (John 6).
Paul is just as plain: no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). On the Gospel mysteries he adds (1 Corinthians 2): "God has revealed them to us by his Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may know the things freely given to us by God." Then: "But the natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." That is why faith itself is called God's gift (Ephesians 2): "By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."
Latin · §47
III. Verum ut certam ac legitimam fidem, et quae sit alicujus ad salutem momenti de Scriptura concipiamus, omnino necessarium est ut Spiritus sanctus sese in mentes nostras insinuet, et arcano modo in iis operetur: Unde est quod ejusmodi fidem, Scholae divinam, et infusam vocant. Hoc autem ipsa Scriptura docet multis in locis. Nam apud Johannem Christus Dominus noster affirmat neminem posse ad ipsum venire, id est, in eum credere, et doctrinam ejus amplecti, nisi quem traxerit Pater, et qui Patrem intus docentem non audiverit: Nemo, inquit, potest venire ad me, nisi Pater qui misit me traxerit eum. Scriptum est in Prophetis, Et erunt omnes docti a Deo. Quisquis ergo audivit et didicit a Patre, venit ad me. Joh. cap. 6. Praeterea Paulus, 1 Corinth. 12. disertis verbis affirmat, Neminem posse dicere Jesum Dominum nisi per Spiritum sanctum. Et cap. 2. ejusdem Epistolae, de mysteriis Evangelii loquens, Deus, inquit, nobis ea revelavit per Spiritum suum. Spiritus enim omnia scrutatur, etiam profunda Dei. Nos vero Spiritum mundi non accepimus, sed Spiritum qui est ex Deo, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis. Et paulo post, Animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei, stultitia enim ei sunt, et non potest intelligere, quoniam spiritualiter dijudicantur. Atque hinc est quod fides dicitur donum Dei, Eph. 2. Gratia estis salvati per fidem, idque non ex vobis: Dei donum est.
Depravity and mysteries above nature both demand the Spirit's work for faith§48
48Human crookedness, plus the darkness sin has piled on, forces this need for God's Spirit in the soul. Scripture is full of matter that fights our warped loves. The flesh-bound person therefore recoils and turns away — and that recoil blocks true acknowledgment and right judgment, because we all judge by the grain of our affections.
Sin also darkens the mind so thoroughly that even among ordinary natural things we keep hallucinating and falling into error. How much less, then, can we be sure of what stands above nature? So the Holy Spirit must drive out the mind's native night, and clear the smoke by which wicked desires cloud the intellect and stop it from seeing truth.
Nor is depravity the only reason. The very character of the doctrine Scripture teaches also requires this Spirit work if faith is to be born in us. Scripture holds mysteries that outrun not only fallen nature but human nature taken by itself, even without sin. Nature cannot invent them, think them up, or even understand and take them in. So the Spirit must heal minds sin has blinded, and must also lift the intellect well above its natural level, until it can rise to things that great.
Latin · §48
IV. Porro istam Spiritus Dei in animis nostris operationem necessariam reddit ingenii humani pravitas, et tenebrae quas peccatum accersivit. Etenim Scriptura sacra multa continet, quae pravis et distortis nostris affectibus repugnant. Unde fit ut homo carnalis ab illa abhorreat, et eam aversetur, quod impedit ne ejus veritatem agnoscat, et rectum de ea judicium ferat: quandoquidem prout quisque affectus est, ita judicat. Deinde mens hominis in universum ita per peccatum obscurata est, ut, etiam in naturalibus, non possit non hallucinari, et saepissime falli. Ac proinde multo minus quae supra naturam sunt certo agnoscere et percipere potest. Ad hoc igitur necesse est, ut Spiritus sanctus mentis tenebras nativas dispellat, et fumos illos, quibus affectus pravi intellectum obscurant, et praepediunt ne possit veritatem cernere. V. Imo hanc Spiritus operationem ad fidem animis nostris ingenerandam necessario exigit, non tantum naturae nostrae depravatio, et tenebrae ex peccato ortae, sed genius ipse doctrinae in Scriptura traditae. Siquidem multa mysteria continet, quae non tantum naturam corruptam, sed naturam humanam in se, etiam citra peccatum, consideratam, omnino superant: ita ut ab ea, non solum non inveniri et excogitari, sed nec intelligi et percipi possint. Ideoque necesse est, ut Spiritus sanctus non tantum mentes nostras peccato caecas sanet, sed etiam ut intellectum nostrum non parum supra statum naturalem extollat, ut ad res tantas possit assurgere.
The mode of that Spirit-work is obscure, though every believer experiences the faith§49
49But what the mode of that operation is remains very obscure and hard to explain — which might seem strange. Since the Holy Spirit's work happens in our souls, we seem as if we ought to know it by sense and experience itself. Yet there is nothing odd here. We experience many things in ourselves, and we ourselves do many things, whose reason and mode we still do not grasp and cannot understand.
Every day we experience that we see and understand; yet when someone must explain how vision and intellection happen, the sharpest and most learned men stick fast and cannot disentangle themselves. Physicists and mathematicians still dispute whether vision happens by the emission of rays or by the reception of visible species.
So although every believer experiences that he embraces God's Word with certain faith and gives full, firm assent to sacred Scripture, it should not surprise us if theologians stick fast when they try to explain how that faith is generated in us, and how the Spirit brings forth that assent. On that we will briefly set out our view.
Latin · §49
VI. Quis sit autem istius operationis modus, res valde obscura est et explicatu difficilis: quod forte cuipiam mirum videri posset. Cum enim illa Spiritus sancti operatio in animis nostris fiat, videmur id nosse debere sensu ipso et experientia. Sed tamen in eo nihil est quod mirari debeamus. Etenim multa in nobis experimur, imo multa operamur ipsi, quorum tamen rationem et modum non tenemus, nec valemus intelligere. Sic quotidie experimur nos videre et intelligere, et tamen, quum explicandum est qua ratione visio et intellectio fiat, acutissimi quique et doctissimi viri haerent, nec satis possunt se expedire. Et adhuc lis est inter Physicos et Mathematicos, An visio fiat per radiorum emissionem, An vero per receptionem specierum visibilium. Igitur etsi fidelis quisque experiatur se verbum Dei certa fide amplecti, plenumque et firmum assensum Scripturae sacrae tribuere, admirationem movere non debet, si Theologi haereant in exponendo, quomodo fides illa nobis ingeneretur, et qua ratione Spiritus assensum illum in nobis pariat. Qua de re sententiam nostram breviter exponemus.
New eyes for Scripture's light; moral evidence alone may not yield faith's full certainty, especially in the dimmer books§50
50Our first settled point: when the Spirit leads someone to faith, he so shapes and moves that person's mind — otherwise groping and blind here — that it can see and own the light of God's Word and of Scripture. The mind seriously watches the arguments, marks, and axioms that prove the Word true and divine; it judges them rightly; and then, as it should, it is persuaded of that divine truth. While he works within, the Spirit is said to give new eyes.
Moses speaks of those eyes (Deuteronomy 29): "You have seen all that the Lord did before you in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials your eyes saw, those signs and huge wonders: and the Lord has not given you a heart to understand, or eyes to see, or ears that can hear, to this day." David asked for the same help (Psalm 119, pause Ghimel): "Open my eyes, and I will consider the wonders of your law." By "wonders of the law" he means the tokens of divine wisdom sown through God's law. Our fleshly mind cannot judge those rightly while dullness, crookedness, and ignorance — a veil over the mind's eyes — stand in the way. The Holy Spirit lifts that veil in the faithful.
May we doubt, though, whether this Spirit work alone — simply making the mind attend to Scripture's shining light and take it in — is enough to birth a full, sufficiently certain faith about sacred Scripture? We may. The light under discussion is only moral evidence. It does not compel the mind the way self-evident principles do, or the way logical and mathematical proofs do. So it yields a lower grade of certainty, as the previous disputation taught.
That leaves a fork. Either the faith we give Scripture, by its own kind, never reaches the certainty human sciences enjoy — against what theologians commonly hold — or the Spirit, when he stamps that faith on us, does more than merely open eyes to Scripture's light. Take the sacred books one by one and, if we speak honestly, many simply do not carry enough light of themselves to make it wholly certain and plain both that they hold true teaching and that God wrote and inspired them. Old Testament examples: Esther, Ruth, and the Song of Songs. New Testament examples: some epistles, such as Jude and James.
So to receive those books as divine with firm, certain faith, spotting the light in them is not enough. That light cannot force the assent faith requires. And that assent belongs to faith's object, because those books stand inside the rule of faith and are counted among faith's principles.
Latin · §50
VII. Primo igitur certum et indubitatum nobis est Spiritum sanctum, hominis, quem ad fidem adducit, sic disponere et afficere mentem, quae alioqui in his caligat et caecutit, ut verbi Dei et Scripturae lucem percipiat et agnoscat, hoc est, serio advertat ad ea argumenta, notas, et ἀξιώματα, quibus verbum Dei verum et divinum probatur, et de iis recte judicet, indeque, sicuti par est, de illius divina veritate persuadeatur. Quod dum Spiritus intus agit, inde dicitur nobis novos oculos. De quibus Moses Deut. 29. Vos vidistis, inquit, universa quae fecit Dominus coram vobis in terra Aegypti Pharaoni et omnibus servis ejus, universaeque terrae illius, tentationes magnas quas viderunt oculi tui, signa illa portentaque ingentia: et non dedit vobis Dominus cor intelligens, et oculos videntes, et aures quae possint audire usque in praesentem diem. Et hanc Dei opem implorabat David Psalm. 119. pausa Ghimel, Revela, inquit, oculos meos, et considerabo mirabilia de lege tua. Nam, per legis mirabilia, intelligit divinae sapientiae documenta, quae per legem Dei sparsa sunt: de quibus mens nostra carnalis rite judicare non potest, obstante nativa nostra hebetudine, pravitate et ignorantia, quae sunt veluti quoddam velum mentis nostrae oculis oppansum, quod Spiritus sanctus in fidelibus tollit. VIII. An autem illa Spiritus sancti operatio, qua sic mentem nostram afficit, ut advertat ad lucem in Scriptura fulgentem, eamque percipiat, praecise et sola per se considerata, sufficiat ad plenam et certam satis fidem de Scriptura sacra nobis ingenerandam, dubitari jure potest. Etenim lux illa Scripturae, de qua jam quaestio est, moralis est tantum quaedam evidentia, quae mentem non ita convincit ut principia per se nota, aut demonstrationes Logicae seu Mathematicae, ac proinde non parem certitudinem gignit, sed inferioris cujusdam generis; ut disputatione praecedenti docuimus. Ideoque, vel dicendum est, fidem, quam sacrae Scripturae adhibemus, per se et ex suo genere, non admittere tantam certitudinem, quanta reperitur in scientiis humanis: quod est contra communem Theologorum sensum: vel Spiritum, ut nobis fidem illam imprimat, aliud quid agere, quam ut simpliciter aperiat oculos, ad Scripturae sacrae lucem videndam et percipiendam. Praesertim, si singulos Scripturae sacrae libros consideremus, multi reperientur, qui, si velimus fateri quod res est, tantum in se lucis non habent, ut eos non solum veram doctrinam continere, sed etiam divinitus esse conscriptos et inspiratos, inde reddatur omnino certum et manifestum. Ut ex. gr. in Vet. Testamento, liber Esther, liber Ruth, et Canticum canticorum: et in Novo quaedam epistolae, ut Judae, et Jacobi. Quapropter, ut aliquis libros illos agnoscat, et recipiat pro divinis certa et firma fide, non satis est cernere eam lucem quae in illis est: quandoquidem lux illa tanta non est, ut possit eum assensum extorquere, quem requirit fides, ad cujus objectum pertinent, cum sint pars regulae fidei, et inter principia fidei connumerentur.
Inward impulse beyond opened eyes: the Spirit's inward testimony is a secret persuasion, not an audible voice inside§51
51So for firm, certain faith in the whole of Scripture as divine — the faith it deserves — opened eyes are not enough. Besides the Spirit’s work of opening our mind’s eyes to the light that shines in sacred Scripture, there seems to need to be a certain inward impulse and instinct (so to speak) that moves us to believe with a force greater than every argument and reason.
That instinct is what we take the Spirit’s inward persuasion and the Holy Spirit’s inward testimony properly to mean. When the Spirit is said to testify in believers’ hearts that Scripture is divine truth, we must not picture them hearing an inward voice that says, clear and express, "This is true and is God’s Word." Take it as a kind of virtual testimony: in a secret way the Spirit urges us to believe and stamps on our minds a settled persuasion of Scripture’s divinity.
That is how to read the famous Augustine passage usually cited from his Confessions. "Let me hear," he says, "and understand how in the beginning you made heaven and earth. Moses wrote this, wrote it and went away, passed from here to you, for he is not now before me. For if he were, I would hold him and ask him and through you beg him to open these things to me, and I would offer the ears of my body to the sounds breaking from his mouth. And if he spoke in Hebrew, he would strike my sense in vain and would not, in my way, touch my mind at all. But if in Latin, I would know what he said — yet how would I know he spoke the truth? And if I knew even that, would I know it from him? Within me, yes within, in the dwelling of thought, truth — neither Hebrew nor Greek nor Latin nor barbarian — without mouth and tongue, without the noise of syllables, would say, ’He speaks the truth’; and I at once, certain, would confidently say to that man of yours, ’You speak the truth.’"
Latin · §51
IX. Ut ergo toti Scripturae ceu divinae, sicuti meretur, firmiter et certo credamus, praeter actionem illam Spiritus sancti aperientis mentis nostrae oculos ad lucem in sacra Scriptura fulgentem, necessarius videtur internus quidam, ut sic dicam, impulsus et instinctus, quo nos ad credendum moveat, vi quadam quae sit omni argumento et ratione major. Et instinctus ille est, quem proprie, per suasionem Spiritus intrinsacam, et internum Spiritus sancti testimonium intelligi debere putamus. Non enim existimandum est, quum Spiritus sanctus dicitur in fidelium cordibus de divina Scripturae veritate testari, fideles intus audire vocem quandam, quae diserte et expresse dicat hoc verum est et Dei verbum. Sed istud accipiendum est de virtuali quodam, ut sic loquar, testimonio: nec per hoc datur aliud intelligi, quam quod arcano modo Spiritus sanctus nos ad credendum instigat, et certam de Scripturae divinitate persuasionem mentibus nostris imprimit. Quo modo intelligendus est Celebris ille Augustini locus qui ex Confessionibus ejus citari solet. Audiam, inquit, et intelligam quomodo in principio fecisti caelum et terram. Scripsit hoc Moses, scripsit et abiit, transivit hinc a te, neque enim nunc ante me est. Nam si esset, tenerem eum, et rogarem eum et per te obsecrarem ut mihi ista panderet, et praeberem aures corporis mei sonis erumpentibus ex ore ejus. Et si Hebraea voce loqueretur, frustra pulsaret sensum, nec meo modo mentem meam quicquam tangeret. Si autem Latine, scirem quid diceret: sed unde scirem an verum diceret? quod si et hoc scirem, num ab illo scirem? intus utique mihi, intus in domicilio cogitationis, nec Hebraea, nec Graeca, nec Latina, nec Barbara veritas, sine oris ac linguae organis, sine strepitu syllabarum diceret, verum dicit; et ego statim certus confidenter illi homini tuo dicerem, verum dicis.
That inward impulse is not enthusiasm: it binds only what Apostles and Prophets set before us§52
52Do not fear that admitting this Spirit impulse and instinct in the faithful opens the door to enthusiasms. The Spirit’s force and action in us differs greatly from enthusiasm.
In enthusiasm — to leave other differences aside — God slips into men’s minds and reveals things they never learned or heard from any human teacher. The Spirit, by contrast, urges believers only toward what is set before them from outside as to be believed: the Word of God handed down through the Apostles and Prophets.
Nor is the persuasion that impulse births blind or unaware of itself. The Spirit of God does not drive us to believe before he has first made the mind see the light of those things, so the intellect judges them credible and rightly believable with reason. The truth-marks the mind notes in them still do not equal the certainty the Holy Spirit stamps, and they are not that certainty’s rule and measure.
Latin · §52
X. Non est autem metuendum ne, si impulsus ille et instinctus Spiritus sancti in fidelibus admittatur, locus detur enthusiasmis. Etenim ejusmodi vis et actio Spiritus in nobis multum differt ab enthusiasmo. Nam, ut omittam alia quae possent hic afferri, in enthusiasmo Deus ita se in mentes hominum insinuat, ut ea ipsis revelet, quae a nullo homine didicerunt, vel audiverunt. At Spiritus non instigat fideles ad credendum, nisi ea quae extrinsecus credenda proponuntur, in verbo Dei per Apostolos et Prophetas tradito. Nec etiam persuasio, quam impulsus ille Spiritus generat, potest dici caeca, et sui nescia. Non enim Spiritus Dei ad credendum impellit, nisi illa quorum prius ita lucem cernere fecit, ut ea intellectus judicaverit esse credibilia, atque merito, et cum ratione posse credi, licet, quae in illis notat argumenta veritatis, non exaequent certitudinem quam imprimit Spiritus sanctus, nec sint illius regula, et mensura.
The Spirit of wisdom and revelation is common to every church member who believes the Word; Romans 8§53
53That Spirit of wisdom and revelation — the force by which people are led into knowledge of God’s Word and form certain faith about it — is common to every member of the church. No believer, no church member, is wholly without him.
"As many as are sons of God are led by the Spirit of God. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his," the Apostle testifies (Romans 8). And since we already proved that no one can believe God’s Word and receive it as divine without the Holy Spirit’s light, it follows that every believer who trusts that Word has been illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
Latin · §53
XI. Porro Spiritus ille sapientiae et revelationis, cujus vi et efficacia homines in verbi Dei notitiam ducuntur, et certam de eo fidem concipiunt, omnibus et singulis in Ecclesia communis est, nec est ullus fidelis et Ecclesiae membrum, qui sit ejus omnino expers. Nam quotquot filii Dei sunt Spiritu Dei aguntur. Quod si quis Spiritum Christi non habet, ille non est ejus, ut testatur Apostolus Roman. 8. Atque etiam, cum ante probatum sit neminem posse verbo Dei credere, et illud tanquam divinum recipere, qui non sit a Spiritu sancto illuminatus; inde manifestum est fidelem quemcunque, qui verbo Dei credit, a Spiritu sancto illuminatum esse.
Yet the Spirit is given unequally: spiritual and carnal believers in 1 Corinthians 3§54
54Yet that Spirit is given unequally, not to all by the same measure. So although every believer has God’s Spirit at least in some degree, some are still called spiritual over against others called carnal, as in 1 Corinthians 3.
Paul says: "And I, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal: as to infants in Christ." He does not call them brothers unless they are believers. Yet those he addresses there he calls carnal — still crude and weak in mind, who have not yet received Christ’s Spirit in the measure needed to bear and grasp the more hidden, harder mysteries of the Christian religion. So, as he says, they are as it were infants in Christ. By "the spiritual" he means those the Holy Spirit has raised into a more perfect state.
Latin · §54
XII. Verum Spiritus ille inaequaliter datur, nec omnibus eadem mensura. Unde est quod, tametsi omnes et singuli fideles Spiritum Dei habent, aliquo saltem gradu, quidam tamen eorum spirituales vocantur, opposite ad alios, qui dicuntur carnales, ut videre est, 1. Cor. 3. Et Ego fratres, inquit Paulus, non potui loqui vobis quasi spiritualibus, sed quasi carnalibus: tanquam parvulis in Christo. Nam fratres suos Paulus non vocat, nisi fideles. Et tamen quos ibi compellat, dicit esse carnales, id est, rudes adhuc et mente imbecilla, quique ea mensura Spiritum Christi adhuc non acceperunt, ut ferre et capere possint religionis Christianae mysteria magis abstrusa atque difficilia: ideoque, ut ipse dicit, in Christo quasi infantes. Per spirituales autem intelligit illos quos Spiritus sanctus in statum perfectiorem evexit.
Unequal measure means doubt about a book or dogma can remain among the faithful; Hebrews; Philippians 3§55
55So not everyone in the church receives God’s Spirit in a measure that lets each person acknowledge and discern everything that belongs to God’s Word and sacred Scripture. Among believers who have that Spirit, doubt can remain about some book of Scripture, and about some dogma of the Christian religion.
In the early church not all good and holy teachers held the same view of the canonical books: some rejected what others admitted. For example, the Latin church long rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, while the Greek church acknowledged its sacred and divine authority.
Nor should someone who errs in a head of religion be struck at once from the number of the faithful. Paul in Philippians 3 wants those who are perfect to bear with those who think otherwise, and to keep fellowship with them as brothers, in the meantime, as God reveals to them what they have not yet reached.
Latin · §55
XIII. Itaque omnes, qui sunt in Ecclesia, Spiritum Dei non ea mensura accipiunt, ut quilibet eorum possit agnoscere atque discernere quicquid ad Dei verbum et Scripturam sacram pertinet. Etenim, inter fideles et Spiritum Dei habentes, potest esse dubitatio de aliquo Scripturae libro, et de aliquo religionis Christianae dogmate. Sic olim in prisca Ecclesia non omnes viri boni et sancti doctores idem senserunt de libris Canonicis: sed quidam rejecerunt, quos alii admiserunt. Nam ex. gr. Epistolam ad Hebraeos diu rejecit Ecclesia Latina, cujus interim sacram et divinam authoritatem agnoscebat Ecclesia Graeca. Neque qui errat in aliquo Religionis capite, statim est e numero fidelium expungendus. Nam Paulus Phil. 3. vult ut qui perfecti sunt ferant aliter sentientes, et tanquam cum fratribus communionem colant, interim dum Deus ipsis revelet illud, ad quod nondum pervenerunt.
Still every Spirit-taught believer can discern enough for salvation; John 10 and 7, 1 Corinthians 2, 1 John 2§56
56However unequally that Spirit of Wisdom and revelation is shared out, this much is certain: everyone who has God’s Spirit can recognize the Word of God set before him, and tell true teaching from false, as far as his own salvation requires.
It is not necessary for each person’s salvation to know every sacred book, or everything God has revealed in his Word. Some of those things are needed for individuals’ salvation; others look only to the church’s common good. Compare church members one with another and one is bound to know more in God’s Word, another less. What is enough for a private person’s salvation must not be treated as enough for those called to teach in the church.
Therefore God variously dispenses his gifts in the church as he sees fit. He does not give his Spirit to all in such fullness that they can reach everything his Word contains. But to each believer he at least metes out the Spirit-measure needed to acknowledge and take in what fits that person’s calling, and what that person needs to know for his own state and condition.
Read the Scripture places that give the faithful power to discern and judge God’s Word under that limit and fitting distribution. Christ says (John 10): "My sheep hear my voice." And (John 7): "If anyone wills to do the Father’s will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is from God, or whether I speak from myself." Paul says (1 Corinthians 2): "The spiritual man judges all things." And 1 John 2: "You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things." Likewise: "The anointing teaches you about all things."
By these and like places Scripture does not mean that every believer can at once, by the Spirit’s help, distinguish whatever in any way belongs to God’s Word. It means only this: those the Spirit has touched can, as far as each one’s salvation requires, discern the truth — the Spirit urging and suggesting — from contrary error.
Latin · §56
XIV. Sed quantumvis inaequali mensura distribuatur Spiritus ille Sapientiae, et revelationis, certum est omnes et singulos, qui Spiritum Dei habent, posse verbum Dei sibi oblatum internoscere, et doctrinam veram a falsa discernere, quantum cuique ad salutem propriam necessarium est. Observandum est enim, non esse ad cujusque salutem necessarium nosse singulos Scripturae sacrae libros, et omnia quae Deus in verbo suo revelavit. Siquidem eorum quaedam necessaria sunt ad salutem singulorum, alia vero tantum commune bonum Ecclesiae spectant. Deinde, si inter singula Ecclesiae membra comparatio fiat, alius plus, alius in verbo Dei minus nosse tenetur. Neque quod ad alicujus privati salutem sufficit, sufficere putandum est iis qui ad docendum in Ecclesia vocati sunt. Atque idcirco Deus cui visum est varie dona sua in Ecclesia dispensat, Spiritum suum non largitur omnibus tanta copia, ut assequi possint omnia, quae verbi ejus ambitu continentur. Sed saltem fideli cuique eum Spiritus modum admetitur, qui necessarius est ut agnoscere et percipere possit quae vocationi ipsius congruunt, et quae illi nosse opus est, secundum statum et conditionem suam: Et juxta hanc limitationem, et accommodam distributionem, intelligenda sunt loca illa Scripturae, quae fidelibus tribuunt facultatem verbum Dei discernendi atque dijudicandi. Quale est illud Christi, Johan. 10. Oves meae vocem meam audiunt: Et Johan. 7. Si quis voluerit voluntatem Patris facere, cognoscet de doctrina, utrum ex Deo sit, an ego a meipso loquar. Item quod dicit Paulus 1. Corinth. 2. Homo spiritualis dijudicat omnia: Et Johan. 1. Epist. 2. Unctionem habetis a Sancto, et nostis omnia. Item, Unctio vos docet de omnibus. His enim, et similibus locis Scriptura non vult docere, omnes et singulos fideles posse statim ope Spiritus dignoscere quicquid ad Dei verbum quovis modo pertinet. Sed hoc tantum, eos Spiritu affectos posse, quantum ad salutem uniuscujusque expedit, veritatem Spiritu instigante et suggerente discernere ab errore contrario.
Having seen how far the Spirit works for recognizing Scripture, what belongs to the Church§57
57So it is clear how necessarily, in what manner, and how far the Holy Spirit works in us so that we can acknowledge God's Word and sacred Scripture. Next we should briefly see what also belongs to the Church in this matter. That was the third head of the things we undertook to examine at the start of this disputation.
Latin · §57
XV. Atque ita patet, quam necessario, et quomodo, et quousque, Spiritus sanctus in nobis operetur, ad hoc ut Dei verbum et Scripturam sacram possimus agnoscere. Sequitur ut paucis videamus, quid Ecclesiae quoque hac in re tribuendum sit. Quod fuit tertium caput eorum quae in hujusce disputationis initio, examinanda suscepimus.
Absolutely speaking, God can give Scripture knowledge without human ministry; Galatians 1§58
58So the question is whether the Church's voice and testimony is needed to gain this knowledge. Briefly: absolutely speaking, no human labor is required for it. God can immediately, without anyone's outward ministry, give someone knowledge of Scripture and of his Word, and impress sure faith about it.
So Paul had not received the Gospel from a man, nor been taught it; he received it through the revelation of Jesus Christ, as he himself testifies (Galatians 1). So the other Apostles were led by the Spirit Paraclete into all truth with no man going before. So of old the Prophets learned from the Holy Spirit alone, who inspired them, what they spoke.
Latin · §58
XVI. Quaeritur ergo, Num ad hanc notitiam adipiscendam opus sit Ecclesiae voce et testimonio. Breviter respondemus, absolute loquendo, ad hoc non esse necessariam ullius hominis operam. Siquidem Deus potest immediate, et absque cujusquam externo ministerio, alicui, Scripturae et verbi sui cognitionem dare, et certam de eo fidem imprimere. Ita Paulus Evangelium ab homine non acceperat, neque edoctus erat, sed per revelationem Jesu Christi, sicut testatur ipse Galat. 1. Sic reliqui Apostoli a Spiritu Paracleto ducti fuerunt in omnem veritatem, homine nullo praeeunte. Sic denique olim Prophetae a solo Spiritu sancto, qui eos inspirabat, didicerunt quae proloquebantur.
That path was extraordinary; ordinarily people teach while the Spirit teaches within§59
59But that was extraordinary. God did not see fit to use that path commonly when bringing people to faith and instructing them in heavenly teaching. He willed that people be taught by people and receive faith, yet with the Spirit himself teaching within and working with them.
So he instituted the sacred ministry in the Church and commanded pastors and teachers to announce, explain, and commend his Word publicly, and to bear witness to its truth. And what pastors do publicly and with authority, individual believers also are bound by divine ordinance to do privately, according to their measure, among those committed to their care.
Latin · §59
XVII. Sed istud fuit extraordinarium. Neque Deo visum est hac via passim uti in hominibus ad fidem adducendis, et in doctrina caelesti instruendis. Sed voluit ut homines ab hominibus docerentur, et fidem acciperent, Spiritu tamen ipso intus docente et cooperante. Ideoque in Ecclesia ministerium sacrum instituit, jussitque ut pastores et doctores publice verbum ejus annunciarent, explicarent et commendarent, et de veritate illius testarentur. Quodque Pastores publice faciunt, et cum authoritate, singuli quoque fideles, ex ordinatione divina, tenentur id privatim pro suo modulo, facere apud eos qui curae illorum commissi sunt.
By ordinary law ministry must lead first; Romans 10 and Augustine§60
60So under the ordinary law that ministry is necessary if someone is to know divine teaching and Scripture and conceive faith. The Holy Spirit does not lead us straight into knowledge of God's Word. Nor do we embrace heavenly teaching and revere the Scriptures by some immediate breath of the Spirit. In this matter we need the Church's ministers going before us, and those entrusted with our instruction, who propose and set out that teaching and who point out, explain, and commend Scripture.
First that Church testimony moves us to think well of heavenly teaching and sacred Scripture and to give it faith; otherwise we would stay forever ignorant of it. As the Apostle says (Romans 10): "How will they believe him of whom they have not heard? How will they hear without a preacher?" Likewise: "Faith comes from hearing; and hearing through the Word of God" — that is, from God's command. Here belongs Augustine's oft-sung line: "I would not believe the Gospel unless the Catholic Church's authority moved me." He speaks in the person of someone being brought into faith, who is beginning to have some persuasion of the Gospel's divine truth.
For the Church's common consensus and testimony is ordinarily the first incentive that leads us to give Scripture some faith. And even among the faithful themselves, when doubt arises about some book or divine dogma, we confess that the Church's constant, uniform testimony is an argument of the greatest weight and moment; for a person to set his own judgment against it is insolent and rash. Especially when the question is rejecting or admitting some sacred book, we acknowledge that the perpetual consensus of the Jewish and Christian Church is an inescapable argument, one to which anyone ought to yield.
Latin · §60
XVIII. Itaque, juxta legem ordinariam, ministerium illud necessarium est, ut aliquis doctrinae et Scripturae divinae cognitionem habeat, et fidem concipiat. Nec enim Spiritus sanctus in verbi Dei notitiam immediate nos ducit. Neque quod doctrinam caelestem amplectimur, et veneramur Scripturas, id facimus quopiam immediato Spiritus afflatu. Sed necesse est ut hac in re praeeuntes habeamus Ecclesiae ministros, et eos quibus nostra institutio commissa est, qui nobis doctrinam illam proponant et exponant, et Scripturam indicent, explicent et commendent. Et primum isto Ecclesiae testimonio movemur, ut de doctrina caelesti et Scriptura sacra bene sentiamus, et fidem ei habeamus, alias in perpetua ignoratione illius versaturi. Juxta illud Apostoli, Roman. 10. Quomodo credent ei de quo non audiverunt? Quomodo audient sine praedicante? Item, Fides est ex auditu: auditus per verbum Dei, id est, ex Dei mandato. Quo spectat illud Augustini toties decantatum, Non crederem Evangelio, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. Loquitur enim in persona ejus qui ad fidem introducitur, et aliquam de Evangelii divina veritate persuasionem habere incipit. Nam Ecclesiae communis consensus et testimonium ordinarie est primum incitamentum, quo inducimur ad aliquam Scripturae fidem adhibendam. Atque etiam inter ipsos fideles, quum dubitatio oritur de aliquo libro et dogmate divino, fatemur constans atque uniforme Ecclesiae testimonium argumentum esse maximi ponderis et momenti, cui judicium proprium opponere hominis sit insolentis atque temerarii. Praesertim vero, quum agitur de libri alicujus sacri rejectione vel admissione, agnoscimus perpetuum Ecclesiae Judaicae et Christianae consensum argumentum esse ineluctabile, et cui quemvis cedere oporteat.
Yet Church consensus is not faith's proper basis; the Samaritan woman in John 4§61
61Yet the Church's consensus and testimony is not the proper and principal basis of our faith, the thing to which its certainty should be reduced. The Church, as we have just said, is what proposes and explains through its ministers — and through private believers too — the things we are to believe, according to God's ordinance. By its testimony and authority we are first led to give them some faith. But our faith does not rest there. It rests on a far more solid foundation. If it goes no further, it is not true and legitimate faith, only a human persuasion.
The Church does for us what the Samaritan woman once did for her townspeople. It opens the way for us to know Christ and his teaching. First the Church's testimony admonishes us to believe in Christ. But after we have heard Christ himself speaking — outwardly in the Word and inwardly in our hearts — our faith no longer rests on the Church's testimony. We can say to it what the Samaritans said to the woman: "Now we do not believe because of your speech, for we ourselves have heard, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world" (John 4).
Latin · §61
XIX. Neque tamen Ecclesiae consensus et testimonium est propria et praecipua fidei nostrae basis, ad quam certitudo ejus reducenda sit. Nam Ecclesia quidem, ut modo docuimus, ea est quae per ministros suos, et privatos etiam fideles, credenda nobis proponit et explicat, juxta Dei ordinationem, ejusque testimonio et authoritate primum inducimur, ut eis aliquam fidem adhibeamus, verum in eo fides nostra non conquiescit, sed longe solidiori fundamento nititur. Quod si ultra non pergat, non est vera et legitima fides, sed tantum humana quaedam persuasio. Videlicet, Ecclesia idem nobis praestat officium quod olim Samaritana mulier concivibus suis. Nam Ecclesia aditum nobis praebet ad cognoscendum Christum, et doctrinam illius. Et Ecclesiae primum testimonio commonemur ut in Christum credamus. Sed postquam Christum ipsum loquentem audivimus, tam extrinsecus in verbo, quam intus in cordibus nostris, jam fides nostra non amplius nititur Ecclesiae testimonio, eique dicere possumus, quod Samaritani mulieri dicebant, Jam non credimus propter loquelam tuam, ipsi enim audivimus, et scimus quod hic est vere Servator mundi.
That Church testimony is not faith's proper ground is proved by many arguments§62
62That matters stand this way — that the Church's testimony and authority is not the proper ground of our faith, not the chief thing on which our certainty about God's Word rests — is proved by many arguments. First: if our faith had that foundation, it would be human, not divine, because it would rest on men's testimony, not on divine truth and authority. Next it would follow that believers believe God not for God's sake but for men's, and that for the believers themselves men's authority is greater than God's — which is deeply absurd.
The definition of faith would have to change as well. By the consensus of all the Doctors, faith is the assent we give to God when he speaks. On that view, through faith we would be believing men more than God speaking. Nor would faith be an assent altogether firm and infallible. No human truthfulness is great enough to remove every fear of falsehood.
Latin · §62
XX. Quod autem res ita se habeat, neque testimonium et authoritas Ecclesiae sit fidei nostrae propria ratio, et praecipuum illud, in quod nostra de verbo Dei certitudo recumbit, probatur multis argumentis. Nam primo, si fides nostra tale fundamentum haberet, humana esset non divina: quia, scilicet, non divina veritate et authoritate, sed testimonio hominum niteretur. Deinde sequeretur fideles Deo credere, non propter ipsum, sed propter homines, et fidelium ipsorum respectu majorem esse hominum quam Dei authoritatem, quod valde absurdum est. Mutanda quoque esset fidei definitio. Nam, ex Doctorum omnium consensu, fides est assensus ille quem Deo loquenti praebemus. At sic per fidem, non tam Deo loquenti, quam hominibus crederemus. Neque fides esset assensus omnino firmus et infallibilis. Nulla enim humana veracitas tanta est, ut possit omnem falsi formidinem tollere.
No Church authority greater than the Apostles', yet faith did not rest on an Apostle; Galatians 1§63
63Besides, no greater authority ever was in the Church, or ever will be, than the authority the Apostles held. Yet the faith of those who believed the Apostles' preaching did not rest on any Apostle's authority. Paul's words make that plain (Galatians 1): "Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be anathema."
If the Apostles' authority had been the sole or principal foundation on which believers leaned, then once that foundation was removed their faith would necessarily have been removed or would have tottered. Yet even if Apostles — indeed angels themselves — had taught the contrary of what was first preached, Paul wills that the Gospel's faith remain no less firm and unshaken.
Latin · §63
XXI. Praeterea nulla unquam in Ecclesia major fuit, aut erit authoritas, illa qua fuerunt praediti Apostoli. Et tamen fides eorum, qui praedicationi Apostolorum crediderunt, non nitebatur ullius Apostoli authoritate. Quod patet ex Pauli verbis, Galat. 1. Licet, inquit, nos, aut Angelus e caelo, evangelizet vobis praeterquam quod vobis evangelizavimus, anathema sit. Nam si Apostolorum authoritas fuisset fundamentum solum vel praecipuum quo nixi fuissent fideles, certe sublato isto fundamento, necesse quoque fuisset fidem illorum tolli, vel labascere. Et tamen si Apostoli, imo Angeli ipsi, contrarium docuissent ejus quod primo praedicatum fuerat, vult Paulus ut nihilo minus Evangelii fides firma sit et inconcussa.
Prophets and Apostles could not resolve faith into Church authority; one species, one formal ground§64
64Next, the Prophets and Apostles who first handed down sacred teaching and Scripture could not resolve the faith they had in God's Word into the Church's authority. They handed that teaching to the Church; they did not receive it as something the Church had already recommended. And it can happen, at least outside the ordinary course, that someone believes the Gospel though taught by no man — happening, say, on a Gospel codex. In that case his faith could not take as foundation a Church authority whose testimony he had never heard.
Yet there is one faith of all. Our faith does not differ in species from the faith of the Prophets and Apostles, or of those taught by God immediately. But our faith would not be the same as theirs if it had another foundation and another formal ground of believing. One species of faith has one proper and principal foundation. As the Schools put it, it does not have diverse formal grounds of believing.
Latin · §64
XXII. Deinde Prophetae atque Apostoli, qui primi doctrinam sacram et Scripturam tradiderunt, fidem illam, quam verbo Dei habebant, non poterant in Ecclesiae authoritatem resolvere: quandoquidem doctrinam illam Ecclesiae tradebant, non vero ab Ecclesia commendatam accipiebant. Et fieri potest, saltem extra ordinem, ut quis Evangelio credat a nullo homine doctus, sed forte in aliquem Evangelii codicem incidens. Quo casu fides istius hominis pro fundamento non posset habere authoritatem Ecclesiae, cujus testimonium nunquam audivisset. Et tamen una est omnium fides. Neque specie differt fides nostra a fide Prophetarum et Apostolorum, et eorum qui a Deo immediate docerentur. Fides autem nostra non esset eadem cum eorum fide, si fundamentum aliud haberet, et aliam formalem credendi rationem. Unius enim speciei fidei unicum est proprium et praecipuum fundamentum: nec sunt ejus, ut loquuntur Scholae, diversae formales credendi rationes.
Those who rest faith on the Church mean a universal Church individuals never hear§65
65Add this: those who invent that our faith rests on the Church's authority mean by "Church" the universal Church. But individual believers do not hear that Church. Most are instructed by particular churches and their ministers, who can be deceived and can err. So their faith cannot rest on the testimony of a universal Church they have never heard.
Latin · §65
XXIII. Adde quod, si qui fingant fidem nostram Ecclesiae authoritate niti, per Ecclesiam intelligunt Ecclesiam universalem. Atqui fideles singuli Ecclesiam illam non audiunt, sed plerique instituuntur ab Ecclesiis particularibus, et earum ministris, qui falli et errare possunt. Ac proinde fides eorum non potest niti Ecclesiae universae testimonio, quod ab ipsis nunquam auditum est.
That Church-reduction exploded: distinguish God's Word itself from the things delivered in it§66
66But once that opinion is exploded — the one that reduces faith in God's Word and sacred Scripture to the Church's authority — we must ask what our faith finally rests on, and what its proper and principal foundation is. To make that clear, a distinction seems needed between God's Word itself, or divine revelation, and the things handed down and contained in God's Word, which become open through divine revelation. Our faith receives the mysteries delivered in God's Word in one way, and God's own voice — divine revelation — in another.
Latin · §66
XXIV. Verum explosa illa sententia, quae, fidem verbo Dei et Scripturae sacrae adhibitam, ad authoritatem Ecclesiae reducit, videndum quid ergo sit illud in quo tandem ultimo conquiescit fides nostra, et quod sit ejus proprium et praecipuum fundamentum. Quod ut manifestum fiat, videtur distinguendum esse inter ipsum Dei verbum, sive divinam revelationem: et illa quae Dei verbo traduntur et continentur, et per revelationem divinam patefiunt. Etenim, mysteria quae verbo Dei traduntur fides nostra aliter accipit, et aliter ipsam Dei vocem, seu divinam revelationem.
We receive dogmas because God revealed them; arguments persuade, revelation grounds; 1 Peter 3§67
67As for the things themselves handed down in God's Word — the so-called dogmas of faith, and the other things held in the Scriptures — we assent to them and receive them as true because God, who is supremely truthful and can neither be deceived nor deceive, revealed them to us through Apostles and Prophets and taught them in his Word. Besides divine revelation, the dogmas of faith do have many arguments by which they are proved and urged. God does not ordinarily lead us to faith in them except through mediating arguments, indications, and reasons that make their truth credible to our mind and gently work it into our souls.
That is why Peter wills that believers be able to give a defense, and to satisfy anyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3). Whoever would believe with no reason at all, and would have no account of his faith or could not give one, would not have true faith, only a light and rash persuasion. So those who announce God's Word must not merely propose the doctrine of faith. They also need to apply persuasions and draw arguments from the things themselves or from adjuncts, so as to make the mysteries of the Christian religion credible and even strongly prove them. Still, the principal foundation of our faith, and its proper ground, is not those reasons and arguments of whatever kind, but divine revelation, on which our faith especially rests.
Latin · §67
XXV. Nam quod attinet ad res ipsas quae traduntur in Dei verbo, ut sunt quae vocantur fidei dogmata, et alia quae habentur in Scripturis, illis assentimur, eaque ut vera recipimus, quoniam Deus, qui est summe verax, quique nec falli, nec fallere potest, illa per Apostolos et Prophetas nobis revelavit, et in verbo suo docuit. Habent quidem fidei dogmata, praeter divinam revelationem, argumenta multa quibus probentur et suadentur. Neque solet Deus nos ad eorum fidem adducere, nisi mediantibus quibusdam argumentis, indiciis et rationibus, quibus eorum veritas menti nostrae credibilis redditur, et suaviter in animos nostros insinuatur. Unde est quod Petrus 1. Epist. cap. 3. vult ut fideles possint defensione uti, et satisfacere cuivis petenti rationem ejus quae in ipsis est spei. Qui vero absque omni ratione crederet, nec fidei suae rationem ullam haberet, aut reddere posset, ista non esset vera fides, sed levis et temeraria quaedam persuasio. Ideoque non sufficit iis, qui verbum Dei annuntiant, simpliciter doctrinam fidei proponere, sed praeterea opus est, ut suasiones quasdam adhibeant, et vel ex ipsis rebus, vel ex quibusdam adjunctis argumenta eliciant, quibus religionis Christianae mysteria credibilia reddant, et etiam valide comprobent. Attamen fidei nostrae praecipuum fundamentum, et propria ratio, non sunt illae qualescunque rationes et argumenta, sed divina revelatio, in quam praesertim fides nostra recumbit.
Some learned men ground dogma-faith in the light of the things revealed; we put the proper ground in God speaking§68
68Some learned men — if we have their mind right — think the certainty of the faith by which we embrace religion's dogmas and believe what God has revealed rests in the light of the things revealed, and in a certain inborn splendor of truth that convinces our mind and all but compels assent. When someone believes the Gospel, and is persuaded that the Son of God was made man, came into the world, suffered and died for us, rose again, ascended into the heavens, and the rest that belongs to our redemption, they hold that the proper and principal ground of that assent is the doctrine's own majesty, holiness, sublimity, and truth, and its congruence with right reason — which seizes the mind into assent and makes plain that the doctrine is not only true but has come immediately from God, since things so great and wonderful could neither be found nor fabricated by human wit.
On that view the truth of heavenly doctrine would by nature be recognized by us before we were sure God was its author; and so the ultimate and chief ground of believing it would not be the truthfulness and authority of God speaking, and that God so said and revealed, but — as they put it — the very truth and evidence of the thing. We do grant that religion's dogmas have their own light and arguments of truth, and even of divine origin. Still it seems more agreeable to theological truth and teaching to say that the proper and principal ground of the faith by which we receive those dogmas is the authority of God speaking and revealing, rather than the thing's own truth and light. That is proved by many arguments.
Latin · §68
XXVI. Viris doctis quibusdam visum est, si modo mentem eorum percipimus, certitudinem fidei, qua religionis dogmata amplectimur, et rebus a Deo revelatis credimus, fundari in rerum revelatarum luce, et splendore quodam insito veritatis, quo mens nostra convincitur, et ad assensum veluti cogitur. Nimirum, quum aliquis Evangelio credit, et sibi persuadet Filium Dei hominem factum esse, et in mundum venisse, pro nobis passum et mortuum esse, resurrexisse, in caelos ascendisse, et caetera quae ad nostram redemptionem pertinent, in ea sunt sententia, propriam et praecipuam rationem illius assensus, esse ipsam doctrinae majestatem, sanctitatem, sublimitatem, veritatem, et cum ratione recta congruentiam, quae mentem rapit in sui assensum, et manifestum reddit doctrinam illam, non tantum veram esse, sed immediate a Deo prodiisse, quandoquidem ab ingenio humano tanta, tamque miranda, nec inveniri, nec confingi potuerint. Unde sequitur doctrinae caelestis veritatem natura prius a nobis agnosci, quam certi simus illam Deum authorem habere; adeoque ultimam et potissimam illius credendae rationem non esse Dei dicentis veracitatem et authoritatem, et quia Deus ita dixit et revelavit: sed ipsam, ut diximus, rei veritatem et evidentiam. Verum, licet agnoscamus religionis dogmata suam habere lucem et argumenta veritatis, atque etiam originis divinae: Videtur tamen veritati et doctrinae Theologicae magis consentaneum, si dicamus fidei, qua dogmata illa recipimus, rationem propriam et praecipuam esse authoritatem Dei dicentis et revelantis, potius quam ipsam rei veritatem et lucem: quod probatur multis argumentis.
Faith rests on the speaker's authority, not on evidence in the things; formal object is divine revelation§69
69First: up to now the Schools have held that faith, though it does not shut out reasoning, rests rather on the authority of the one who speaks. But faith does not rest chiefly on divine authority if the principal reason we believe the things of faith is a certain evidence of truth in the things themselves, not divine revelation. The definition of faith would also become absurd — that it is the assent we give to God speaking. For then through faith we would believe God speaking only materially, as the Schools say: we would believe the things God spoke, but not because God had spoken them. And it is absurd to define any habit of mind from its object only as material.
Suppose someone skilled in Peripatetic doctrine happens on a book of Aristotle, studies its teaching carefully, recognizes it as true, and even judges from the sharpness of style and manner of arguing that the book is Aristotle's. The assent he gives that doctrine could only absurdly be called faith held toward Aristotle speaking. Yet up to now the Theologians by common consensus not only define faith as assent exhibited to God speaking, and take its object to be God's Word and things revealed by God; they also teach that the formal ground of that object — under which faith apprehends it, and on account of which it receives and acknowledges it — is divine authority and revelation.
Latin · §69
XXVII. Primo enim hactenus in Scholis receptum est fidem, licet non excludat ratiocinationes, potius tamen loquentis authoritate niti. Sed authoritate divina potissimum non nititur fides, si praecipua ratio, cur rebus fidei credimus, sit quaedam, quae ipsis inest, evidentia veritatis, non divina revelatio. Absurda quoque esset fidei definitio, nempe, quod sit assensus quem Deo loquenti praebemus. Tum enim per fidem Deo loquenti non crederemus, nisi materialiter, ut dicitur in Scholis, hoc est, crederemus quidem iis, quae Deus loqueretur, at non, quia Deus illa locutus esset. Sed absurde mentis aliquis habitus ab objecto suo tantum materiali definitur. Si quis enim, verbi causa, Peripateticae doctrinae peritus incidat in aliquem librum Aristotelis, et doctrinam illius exacte considerans, veram esse agnoscat, atque etiam ex acumine styli et differendi modo judicet librum esse Aristotelis, assensus illi doctrinae praebitus nonnisi absurde dici poterit fides Aristoteli dicenti habita. At certe Theologi huc usque communi consensu, non tantum fidem definiunt assensum Deo loquenti exhibitum, et statuunt objectum illius esse Dei verbum, et res a Deo revelatas; sed etiam objecti illius rationem formalem, sub qua fides illud apprehendit, et ob quam illud recipit et agnoscit, docent esse divinam authoritatem et revelationem.
If the light of truth determined assent, faith would be evident; Scripture sets faith against sight§70
70Next: if the proper and chief ground of faith were the very light of truth discerned in the things to be believed, the light that necessarily determines the mind to assent, then faith would be an evident assent, and the dogmas of faith would be evident. For what is evident is what convinces the mind by its own light and compels assent. But it is almost an axiom of the schools, founded in the Scriptures, that faith is an inevident habit of the mind. Scripture sets faith against sight, and teaches that faith is of things that are not seen.
Latin · §70
XXVIII. Deinde, si propria et potissima fidei ratio esset ipsa lux veritatis, quae in rebus credendis cernitur, quaeque mentem ad assensum necessario determinat, fides esset assensus evidens, et dogmata fidei essent evidentia. Siquidem illud est evidens quod luce sua mentem convincit, et cogit ad assensum. At est veluti quoddam scholarum axioma, in Scripturis fundatum, fidem esse habitum mentis inevidentem; quandoquidem Scriptura fidem opponit aspectui: et docet fidem eorum esse quae non videntur.
Trinity, satisfaction, conflagration, resurrection lack demonstrative light; arguments are only congruences§71
71Besides: some things God's Word teaches are demonstrable, and can be gathered from principles known through themselves. Still, many things are proposed to faith to be believed which — unless someone wants to be contentious — must be confessed neither known through themselves nor able to be proved by any necessary and convincing arguments. Take that principal article of faith by which we are taught that in one most simple essence of God there are three distinct persons. Who will dare promise a demonstration of so great a mystery, and seriously affirm that there is in it a certain evidence of truth? There our mind sees nothing but mere darkness, dimming toward that inaccessible light as owls' eyes toward the sun. Even the most acute and subtle can scarcely clear that article of apparent contradiction, much less demonstrate it.
The same holds for the satisfaction performed by Christ's death, for the future conflagration of the whole world, and for the resurrection of all the dead. If anyone seeks proofs of their truth besides the authority of sacred Scripture, he will find nothing firm enough, nothing that suffices to support our faith. We do not disapprove the pious labor of those who try to prove and urge these mysteries and the like with reasons sought from every side. But if we deal candidly, we must confess that those arguments, of whatever kind, are only what the Schools call congruences: at most they make the matter probable and likely; they do not necessarily conclude that it is so.
Latin · §71
XXIX. Praeterea, licet quaedam, quae docet Dei verbum, sint demonstrabilia, et possint ex principiis per se notis colligi: attamen fidei multa credenda proponuntur, quae, nisi quis velit esse contentiosus, fatendum est nec esse per se nota, nec posse probari ullis argumentis necessariis et convincentibus. Sumamus, exempli gratia, praecipuum illum fidei articulum, quo docemur in una simplicissima Dei essentia tres esse distinctas personas. Quis audebit polliceri tanti mysterii demonstrationem, et serio affirmare in eo esse quandam veritatis evidentiam? cum contra ibi mens nostra nihil videat, nisi meras tenebras ad lucem illam inaccessam caligans, ut noctuarum oculi ad solem: vixque acutissimi et subtilissimi quique articulum illum possint a contradictione apparenti vindicare, nedum ut demonstrare queant. Idemque dici potest de satisfactione morte Christi praestita, de futura olim mundi universi conflagratione, et resurrectione omnium mortuorum, de quorum veritate, si quis, praeter Scripturae sacrae authoritatem, probationes quaerat, nihil admodum certi et firmi reperiet, et quod fidei nostrae fulciendae sufficiat. Non improbamus quidem pium eorum conatum qui in eo laborant, ut mysteria ista et similia undecunque quaesitis rationibus probent, et suadeant. Sed, si volumus candide agere, fatendum est argumenta illa, quaecunque tandem sint, esse tantum, ut loquuntur Scholae, congruentias quasdam, quae rem ad summum probabilem et verisimilem reddunt, non vero, quod ita sit, necessario concludunt.
Circumcision and the sacraments show precepts may lack intrinsic light; God's authority is the chief ground§72
72When the Israelites in Egypt were taught that every male was to be circumcised on the eighth day, that they were to abstain from blood, that some animals might be eaten and others not, and more of that kind, no one can deny those things were to be embraced by them with faith, as things pleasing and acceptable to God. Yet who could sincerely and from the heart say those things had in themselves a light enough to make faith, and enough to compel believers' minds to conclude that God had commanded and handed them down? The same can be said of us today about that washing of water used in Baptism, and about taking bread and wine at the Lord's table.
So when many dogmas and precepts must be taken up by faith, though they do not have in themselves the light and evidence by which they would prove themselves with enough certainty true and handed down by God, it is clear that the principal ground and basis of the faith by which we take up what God's Word delivers and religion's dogmas is not the thing's own truth and evidence, but rather the truth and authority of God teaching and revealing.
Latin · §72
XXX. Quum vero Israelitae in Aegypto docerentur marem omnem octavo die esse circumcidendum, a sanguine abstinendum esse, quibusdam animalibus vesci licere, aliis non licere, et plura hujusmodi, nemo negare potest quin ista illis fide amplectenda fuerint, ut res Deo gratae et acceptae. Et tamen quis sincere et ex animo affirmare possit ista in se lucem habuisse, qua sufficienter fidem sui facerent, et unde mens fidelium efficaciter compelleretur ut crederet haec a Deo jussa et tradita fuisse. Idemque hodie nostri respectu, dici potest de lavacro illo aquae quod in Baptismo usurpatur, et de sumptione panis et vini in mensa Domini. Cum igitur fide suscipienda sint dogmata, et praecepta multa, quae non eam in se habent lucem et evidentiam, qua se satis certo vera esse comprobent et a Deo tradita, manifestum est fidei, qua res verbo Dei traditas et religionis dogmata suscipimus, rationem et basin praecipuam, non esse ipsam rei veritatem atque evidentiam, sed potius veritatem et authoritatem Dei docentis et revelantis.
How we perceive revelation: notes, motives, miracles; Acts 13; Luke 23; John 4§73
73You will ask how we perceive divine revelation, and where the certainty comes from in the faith that embraces God's Word itself. God does not ordinarily speak without notes and marks in his voice and word by which it can be told from human or diabolical fraud. The revelation our faith rests on today — consigned in the sacred Scriptures — has very illustrious arguments claiming it for God, as the earlier theses already showed at length. The faith that receives it is not a blind persuasion with no account of itself. A fitting believer is led to assent by reasons and motives strong enough to persuade a prudent man that God is truly the one speaking, and that a fabricated, false revelation is not being passed off as true.
Besides arguments taken from the matter itself, God has often used signs and miracles to create faith for his word and compel men to believe; the faith of those who believed is not rarely ascribed to those signs. Sergius Paulus, a prudent man, saw the blindness with which Paul the Apostle struck Elymas the Magician, and believed while marveling at the Lord's doctrine (Acts 13). The centurion standing by as Christ died saw the wonders at Christ's death and glorified God, saying truly this man was just (Luke 23). Likewise (John 4): a father recognized that Christ's word had healed his dying son, and that the boy had recovered at the very hour Jesus said your son lives — and he believed, and his whole house with him. Conversion is therefore deservedly suspect when someone asked for its reason has nothing to say, or only trivial things to offer.
Latin · §73
XXXI. At, inquies, quomodo revelationem divinam percipimus? Et unde pendet certitudo fidei qua verbum ipsum Dei amplectimur? Certe Deus loqui non solet quin vox et verbum ejus habeat quasdam notas et indicia, quibus ab humana, vel diabolica impostura et fraude distingui possit atque internosci. Praesertim vero revelatio illa cui fides nostra hodie innititur, et quam habemus in sacris Scripturis consignatam, habet illustria admodum argumenta quibus Deo sese vendicat, sicut thesibus superioribus abunde ostensum est. Neque fides, qua illam suscipimus, est persuasio caeca, et quae sui nullam rationem habeat. Sed qui verbo Dei sicuti par est credit, ad assensum illi praebendum inducitur rationibus et motivis quibusdam, quae viro prudenti suadere possunt revera Deum esse qui loquitur, nec confictam et falsam revelationem pro vera obtendi. Ideoque, praeter argumenta quae ex re ipsa peti possunt, saepe Deus, ut fidem verbo suo crearet, et ad credendum homines compelleret, multa adhibuit signa et miracula, quibus fides eorum qui crediderunt, non raro ascribitur. Ita Sergius Paulus vir prudens, quum vidisset caecitatem qua Paulus Apostolus Elymam Magum percusserat, credidit, admirans super doctrina Domini, Actor. 13. Et Centurio qui Christo morienti astabat, videns mirabilia quae in morte Christi contigerunt, glorificavit Deum, dicens, vere hic homo justus erat: Luc. 23. Similiter Joan. 4. Quum Pater quidam agnovisset filium suum moribundum verbo Christi sanatum fuisse, et convaluisse, illa ipsa hora qua dixerat ei Jesus, filius tuus vivit, et credidit ipse, et Domus ejus tota. Unde merito suspecta est eorum ad fidem conversio, qui conversionis suae rationem exposcenti, nihil habent quod dicant, aut trivialia afferunt.
Motives of belief feed faith, but they are not its chief certainty§74
74Still, we do not think those arguments and motives of belief — the ones that recommend God's Word and gently bend minds toward obedience to it — are what faith's certainty chiefly hangs on, or its principal foundation. God does use them when he generates faith, and by them faith already generated is also nourished and kept warm. They do not seem to be faith's strongest basis, or the measure of its certainty.
The Christian schools already agree on this, as thesis 8 said: faith's certainty is the highest — equal to every certainty in the human sciences, or even above them — when faith is judged from its own principles and taken as it can and ought to be, not as it actually stands in many people. But the faith that receives God's Word as Scripture now holds it cannot have that certainty if it rests only on the notes and arguments that prove Scripture divine. Those are not demonstrations that produce absolute certainty. They are only moral arguments. They can lead a person to believe prudently, yet by themselves and by their nature they cannot generate a certainty equal to what the mathematical disciplines have — the kind of certainty, or even a greater one, that we suppose faith acquires.
Latin · §74
XXXII. Attamen non existimamus argumenta illa et credendi motiva, quibus verbum Dei suadetur, et quibus hominum mentes leniter ad ejus obsequium flectuntur, esse illud unde fidei certitudo potissimum pendet, et praecipuum illius fundamentum. His quidem argumentis Deus utitur in fide generanda, et iis quoque fides jam generata alitur et fovetur: non tamen videntur esse fidei potissima basis et certitudinis illius mensura. Et hoc quia, ut jam thesi 8. dictum, consentiunt scholae Christianae certitudinem fidei summam esse, et talem quae vel aequet, vel etiam superet, certitudinem omnem quae reperitur in scientiis humanis, nempe, si fides aestimetur ex suis principiis et consideretur qualis esse potest, et debet: non autem qualis revera sit in multis. Sed fides qua verbum Dei, quod hodie Scriptura continetur, suscipimus, non potest habere illam certitudinem, si nitatur tantum notis et argumentis, quibus Scriptura divina comprobatur. Nec enim sunt demonstrationes quae certitudinem absolutam generent, sed argumenta solum moralia, quae, licet sufficiant ut aliquis ad prudenter credendum inducatur, non tamen per se, et ex sua natura, possunt gignere certitudinem parem illi quam habent, verbi causa, disciplinae Mathematicae: qualem aut etiam majorem supponimus fidem acquirere.
Judges, Ruth, Esther, Song: some books lack intrinsic notes strong enough for faith's certainty§75
75Especially when we take the sacred books one by one, we must admit that many do not carry in themselves those notes of divinity that would necessarily and evidently prove their divine authority, or found the certainty faith requires. Judges, Ruth, Esther, and the Song of Songs are examples. That they are divinely inspired can scarcely be proved by anything but the general arguments drawn from the testimony and consent of the Jewish and Christian Church.
Yet those books are part of the divine Word and of that most certain rule of faith by which everything that touches religion must be tried and examined. They belong to the object of faith in its full breadth, and the assent we rightly give them is referred to no other virtue than faith. So when some parts of God's Word that faith must receive lack intrinsic arguments of divinity strong enough by themselves to found the assent faith demands, the arguments by which God's Word proves itself divine and from God are plainly not faith's principal foundation, or the last thing into which our faith should resolve.
It is no answer that faith in such books is not necessary for each person's salvation. The question here is not what each person must know to be saved. We are considering the nature and foundation of faith in general — and many things belong to faith's object that individuals need not know for salvation.
Latin · §75
XXXIII. Praesertim vero, si singulos Scripturae sacrae libros consideremus, fatendum est multos esse qui in se non habeant eas divinitatis notas, quibus necessario et evidenter probetur authoritas eorum divina, et quibus tanta possit fundari certitudo, quantam fides requirit. Quales sunt, exempli gratia, liber Judicum, liber Ruth, liber Esther, Canticum Canticorum, quos divinitus inspiratos esse, vix probari potest aliis argumentis, quam generalibus illis, quae petuntur a testimonio et consensu Ecclesiae Judaicae et Christianae. Et tamen libri illi sunt pars verbi divini, et regulae illius fidei certissimae, ad quam omnia, quae religionem spectant, exigenda sunt et examinanda; adeoque pertinent ad fidei objectum in tota sua amplitudine sumptum: et assensus quem illis, sicuti par est, praebemus, non refertur ad aliam virtutem, quam ad fidem. Ac proinde, cum partes quaedam verbi Dei fide suscipiendae non habeant ea divinitatis argumenta, quae per se fundare possint assensum tam certum quam fides exigit, proculdubio argumenta, quibus verbum Dei divinum se probat et a Deo manasse, non sunt praecipuum fidei fundamentum, et ultimum illud in quod fides nostra resolvi debet. Neque ad rem pertinet quod librorum ejusmodi fides ad singulorum salutem necessaria non est. Hic enim non est quaestio, quid ad singulorum salutem necessarium sit, vel non. Sed consideramus in genere naturam, et fundamentum fidei ad cujus objectum pertinent multa, quae non sunt cognitu singulis ad salutem necessaria.
Faith resolves into the Spirit's impulse; faith's light is that by which we believe§76
76Therefore we state that the last thing into which our faith finally resolves — its principal support — is that impulse and instinct of the Holy Spirit described in thesis 9. By that name we mean the Spirit's action and efficiency: he immediately moves us to receive divine revelation and impresses a sure persuasion of it on our minds.
A comparison with scientific assent helps. What demonstrated conclusions are in the sciences, the dogmas of faith and the other things God's Word teaches are here. What the middle term of a demonstration is to its conclusion, the authority of God speaking and revealing is to the things proposed for belief. As we immediately grasp the middle term and the force of a demonstration by reason's natural, inborn light, so we immediately believe and perceive the revelation given to the Prophets and Apostles through the Spirit's inward instinct and testimony — what the Scholastics call the light of faith.
And as reason's light is not something we come to know by reasoning, but that by which we know and reason, so this testimony of the Holy Spirit is not a further thing believed, nor an argument that moves us to believe. It is only that by which we believe — the action that impresses faith on the mind. Every believer who elicits an act of faith need not know and understand that action by reflexive cognition, any more than a country laborer must think about intelligence and the power of reasoning while he understands and reasons.
Latin · §76
XXXIV. Quapropter ultimum illud in quod fides nostra tandem resolvitur, et praecipuum illius firmamentum, statuimus esse illum Spiritus sancti impulsum, et instinctum qui a nobis thesi 9. descriptus fuit. Quo nomine designamus Spiritus sancti actionem, et efficientiam, qua nos ad divinam revelationem suscipiendam immediate movet, et certam de ea persuasionem mentibus nostris imprimit. Ad cujus rei illustrationem potest aliquid conferre, si comparatio fiat inter assensum fidei, et assensum scientiarum. Quod ergo sunt in scientiis conclusiones demonstratae, hic sunt fidei dogmata, et alia quae docet et tradit Dei verbum. Quod est medium demonstrationis, conclusionis respectu, istud est Dei dicentis et revelantis authoritas, respectu eorum quae credenda proponuntur. Ut autem medium ipsum, et demonstrationis vim immediate percipimus, naturali et infito rationis lumine: ita divinam revelationem, factam Prophetis atque Apostolis, immediate credimus et percipimus, per internum Spiritus Dei instinctum et testimonium, quod fidei lumen Scholastici vocant. Atque ut rationis lumen non est illud quod ratiocinando percipimus et cognoscimus, sed illud quo cognoscimus et ratiocinamur: Ita istud Spiritus sancti testimonium non est amplius aliquid quod creditur, nec argumentum quod ad credendum moveat, sed illud tantum quo creditur, et actio qua fides menti nostrae imprimitur: quam non necesse est ut omnis fidelis, qui fidei actum elicit, cognoscat et intelligat cognitione reflexa: Non magis quam necesse est rusticum aliquem cogitare de intelligentia et vi ratiocinandi, quum intelligit et ratiocinatur.
Calvin: those the Spirit teaches rest in Scripture as self-authenticating; Institutes 1.7.5§77
77But what the Holy Spirit's testimony actually contributes, and what weight the arguments for Scripture's divine authority have when we give Scripture the faith it deserves — we cannot explain better than in the words of a most famous man speaking on the point.
Let this stand fixed: those the Spirit has taught inwardly rest solidly in Scripture; Scripture is self-authenticating; it is not right to subject it to demonstration and reasoning; and the certainty it deserves among us comes by the Spirit's testimony. Its own majesty does win reverence of itself, yet it first seriously moves us when the Spirit has sealed it on our hearts. Illuminated by that power, we no longer believe Scripture is from God by our judgment or by other people's. Above human judgment we settle more certainly than certain — as if we were beholding God's own deity there — that by human ministry it has flowed to us from God's very mouth.
We do not hunt arguments or probabilities for our judgment to lean on. As for a matter already beyond the hazard of weighing and guessing, we subject our judgment and ingenuity to it. Not as wretched people bind a captive mind to superstitions, but because we feel no doubtful power of the deity thriving and breathing there — and by it, knowing and willing, we are still drawn and kindled to obey more vividly and effectively than human will or knowledge can account for. Such is the persuasion that does not ask for reasons; such the knowledge that has the best reason of all, the one in which the mind rests more securely and constantly than in any reasonings; such, finally, the sense that cannot be born except from heavenly revelation (Calvin, Institutes 1.7.5).
Latin · §77
XXXV. Verum quid Spiritus sancti testimonium conferat, et quid momenti habeant argumenta, quibus authoritas divina Scripturae suadetur, ad hoc ut illi quam par est fidem adhibeamus, non possumus melius explicare quam verbis viri celeberrimi qui sic ea de re loquitur. Maneat ergo hoc fixum, quos Spiritus intus docuit, solide acquiescere in Scriptura, et hanc quidem esse αὐτόπιστον, neque demonstrationi et rationibus subiici eam fas esse: quam tamen meretur apud nos certitudinem, Spiritus testimonio consequi. Etsi enim reverentiam sua sibi ultro majestate conciliat, tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit quum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostris. Illius ergo virtute illuminati, jam non aut nostro, aut aliorum judicio credimus a Deo esse Scripturam: sed supra humanum judicium, certo certius constituimus, non secus ac si ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur, hominum ministerio, ab ipsissimo Dei ore ad nos fluxisse. Non argumenta, non verisimilitudines quaerimus quibus judicium nostrum incumbat: sed ut rei extra aestimandi aleam positae, judicium ingeniumque nostrum subiicimus. Non qualiter superstitionibus solent miseri homines captivam mentem addicere: sed quia non dubiam vim numinis illic sentimus vigere ac spirare, qua ad parendum, scientes quidem ac volentes, vividius tamen et efficacius quam pro humana aut voluntate, aut scientia trahimur et accendimur. Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat: talis notitia cui optima ratio constet, nempe in qua securius constantiusque mens quiescit quam in ullis rationibus: talis denique sensus, qui nisi ex caelesti revelatione nasci nequeat. Calv. Instit. lib. 1. c. 7. Sect. 5.
So far: Scripture bears its own splendor as moral evidence, not as demonstration§78
78So far we have set out our judgment on Scripture's authority as distinctly and clearly as we could. To draw the whole into a few words, we have taught first that Scripture bears a splendor of its own and sends out various rays of divinity. Those rays can strike and move a mind rightly disposed, and so Scripture proves itself.
Yet that light is not evidence in the strict sense — not the kind that belongs to things known of themselves, or that fall under demonstration, as in mathematics and metaphysics. It is only a moral evidence. It consists entirely in this: Scripture is recommended by so many probable arguments, and carries in itself so many conspicuous marks of divinity, that a pious and prudent person is effectively led to believe it true and divine — even though its divine authority is not self-evident, and cannot be demonstrated.
Latin · §78
I. Hactenus exposuimus, quam distincte et clare a nobis fieri potuit, nostram de authoritate Scripturae sententiam. Atque, ut rem totam in pauca contrahamus, docuimus 1. Scripturam proprio quodam splendore gerere, et varios divinitatis radios emittere, quibus mentem rite dispositam ferire et afficere possit: et ita ipsi se probare. Lucem tamen illam non esse evidentiam proprie dictam, qualis est eorum, quae sunt per se nota, aut sub demonstrationem cadunt, ut cernitur in rebus Mathematicis et Metaphysicis: sed solummodo quandam moralem evidentiam, quae tota in eo consistit quod Scriptura tam multis et tam probabilibus argumentis suadetur, et habet in se tot et tam insignes divinitatis notas, ut inde vir pius et prudens efficaciter inducatur ut credat illam esse veram et divinam: quamvis divina illius authoritas non sit res per se nota, aut etiam quae demonstrari possit.
Believing Scripture unto salvation needs the Spirit's inward impulse beyond argument§79
79We have proved this: to believe sacred Scripture, and to acknowledge it as divinely inspired, with a true and legitimate faith that matters for salvation, a person needs the Holy Spirit admonishing and illuminating within.
That work of the Spirit is necessary for us not only because of the darkness sin brings — a kind of veil set before the mind's eyes, hiding Scripture's light and keeping us from looking at it — but also because of the character and nature of the doctrine Scripture itself contains. That doctrine altogether surpasses our mind, even considered apart from sin. So our intellect must be lifted above itself if it is to rise to it.
Therefore, to acknowledge and receive Scripture and each of its books as true and divine — firmly, without doubt, and with the certainty faith requires, since they belong to faith's object — we need more than the Spirit healing our native blindness and driving off the darkness sin has fetched in, which blocks perception of Scripture's light. He must also compel us to believe by a secret instinct and impulse, or by an inward efficacy greater than every argument and reason.
Latin · §79
II. Probavimus, ad hoc ut aliquis Scripturae sacrae credat, illamque divinitus inspiratam agnoscat, vera et legitima fide quae sit alicujus ad salutem momenti, opus esse Spiritu sancto intus monente et illuminante. Illam autem Spiritus sancti operationem necessariam nobis esse, non tantum propter tenebras per peccatum inductas, quae sunt veluti quoddam velum, mentis nostrae oculis oppositum, quod occultat nobis Scripturae sacrae lucem, et obstat ne illam possimus aspicere; sed etiam propter genium et naturam ipsius doctrinae in Scriptura contentae: quae, cum mentem nostram in se, etiam citra peccatum consideratam, omnino superet, necesse est ut intellectus noster supra seipsum extollatur, ut ad illam possit assurgere. Adeoque, ut Scripturam et singulos ejus libros pro veris et divinis agnoscamus et recipiamus firmiter et indubitate, et certitudine tanta quantam requirit fides, ad cujus objectum pertinent, opus esse non solum ut Spiritus sanctus, mentis nostrae nativam caecitatem sanet, et dispellat tenebras per peccatum accersitas, quae obstant ne Scripturae lucem possimus percipere; sed etiam ut nos ad credendum compellat arcano quodam instinctu et impulsu, sive interna quadam efficacia, quae sit omni argumento et ratione major.
Ordinarily the Church's consent first moves us; it is still not faith's chief foundation§80
80We have also shown this: speaking absolutely, we do not need the Church's voice and testimony in order to know and believe Scripture. Still, by the ordinary rule God uses the Church's ministry when he generates in us faith concerning Scripture. The first incentive that ordinarily moves us to receive it as true and divine is the Church's common consent and testimony.
Even so, the Church's voice and authority are not the principal foundation of our faith, nor the last point to which the certainty of the faith that embraces sacred Scripture is to be reduced.
Latin · §80
III. Et hoc a nobis ostensum est, licet, absolute loquendo, non sit opus Ecclesiae voce et testimonio, ut Scripturae notitiam et fidem habeamus, attamen juxta legem ordinariam, Deum Ecclesiae ministerio uti in fide de Scriptura nobis ingeneranda; primumque incitamentum, quo movemur ordinarie ad illam suscipiendam pro vera et divina, communem esse Ecclesiae consensum et testimonium. Neque tamen Ecclesiae vocem et authoritatem esse fidei nostrae praecipuum fundamentum, et illud ad quod tandem reducenda est certitudo fidei qua Scripturam sacram amplectimur.
Faith rests on God's truthfulness; certainty resolves into the Spirit's secret testimony§81
81We have taught that religion's dogmas, and other things handed down by God's word, can carry many arguments for their truth. Those arguments are still not the proper and principal reason on which the faith rests that receives what God's word hands down. That reason is rather the authority and truthfulness of God as he teaches and reveals.
God's word itself — divine revelation — does have notes and marks by which it can be recognized and told apart from diabolical and human frauds. Even so, our faith does not rest chiefly on notes and marks of that kind. Its certainty is resolved into the Holy Spirit's secret testimony, and into that inward efficiency by which he immediately makes the faithful certain it is God who speaks, and presses a firm persuasion of this on our minds.
Latin · §81
IV. Docuimus, licet religionis dogmata, et alia quae verbo Dei traduntur, multa argumenta suae veritatis habere possint, tamen argumenta ista non esse propriam et praecipuam rationem cui innititur fides qua res Dei verbo traditas accipimus; sed potius authoritatem et veracitatem Dei docentis et revelantis. Ipsum vero Dei verbum, seu divinam revelationem, habere quidem notas et indicia, quibus internosci possit, et a diabolicis et humanis fraudibus distingui, nihilominus fidem nostram non niti potissimum hujuscemodi notis et indiciis: sed certitudinem illius resolvi in arcanum Spiritus S. testimonium, et internam illam efficientiam, qua fideles certos reddit immediate Deum esse qui loquitur, et firmam hac de re persuasionem mentibus nostris imprimit.
Two kinds of Roman disputants: blindfold quarrelers who hiss at the Spirit's testimony§82
82Next we must see what the Roman doctors judge about all this, so that it may be plain where the real state of the question on Scripture's authority lies — the question fought today with such heat between us and them. First of all, notice that among the Pontificii there are two kinds of men.
Many among them are insolent, without candor, with scarcely any learning. Their only aim is to harass our people with importunate disputes. They often fight like the Andabatae — blindfold fighters — not seeing what they hold or where they aim their blows. In debate they not only attack our doctrine; they also tear up their own opinions and contradict themselves. Pointed sophisms and captious subtlety are enough for them if they can make trouble for us. They do not care whether what they urge against us can be turned back on themselves.
So when Scripture's authority is the question, they hiss at the Holy Spirit's inward testimony and babble against our people words that strip sacred Scripture of all authority and hang our faith solely on human testimony. In that way they expose the Christian religion to reproach and make it look ridiculous, as if it rested on no foundation but the authority of those who profess it.
Latin · §82
V. Sequitur jam ut videamus quid de istis omnibus Pontificii censeant, ut inde liquido constet, qua in re situs sit status quaestionis de Scripturae authoritate, quae tanta contentione inter nos et illos hodie agitatur. Hic autem ante omnia observandum inter Pontificios duo esse hominum genera. Etenim inter eos multi sunt homines procaces, nullius candoris, vix ullius doctrinae, quibus aliud nihil propositum est, quam nostros importunis disputationibus vexare. Hi saepe pugnant Andabatarum more, non videntes quid teneant, et quo dirigant ictus. Itaque inter disputandum non tantum nostram doctrinam impugnant, sed propria quoque placita convellunt, et sibi ipsis adversantur. Satis enim ipsis est, modo aculeatis quibusdam sophismatis, et captiosa quadam subtilitate molestiam nobis creent; non curantes interim, an ea, quae contra nos proferunt, possint in ipsos retorqueri. Ita, quum de authoritate Scripturae quaestio est, internum Spiritus sancti testimonium exsibilant, et multa in nostros blaterant quae omnem Scripturae sacrae authoritatem detrahunt, et fidem nostram unice suspendunt ex hominum testimonio. Et ita Christianam religionem exponunt opprobrio et ridiculam reddunt, quasi nullo alio fundamento niteretur, quam eorum, qui illam profitentur, authoritate.
Beside the babblers: learned Roman doctors who hold their Church's mind more carefully§83
83Besides those babblers and sophists who carry no weight even among their own, we must admit that the Pontifical school has many learned men. They speak more carefully and exactly, and they choose their arguments better. These hold the Roman Church's mind more accurately, explain it better, and defend it more cautiously.
So those earlier quarrelsome wranglers should indeed be checked and put down; our people rightly refute their folly and impiety and expose it in public. Still, when we seek and fix the real state of a controversy with the Roman Church, we should not cling to those men's trifles. We should ask what the later sort think and teach — the ones who stand strong among their own in learning and authority.
Latin · §83
VI. Sed praeter istos blaterones, et sophistas nullius inter suos authoritatis, fatendum est, in schola Pontificia multos esse viros doctos, qui magis considerate et exacte loquuntur, majoremque delectum argumentorum habent. Hi certe sententiam Ecclesiae Romanae accuratius tenent, et melius explicant, cautiusque defendunt. Ideoque priores isti vitilitigatores coercendi sunt quidem, et reprimendi, eorumque stultitia, et impietas merito a nostris coarguitur, et publice vapulat. Veruntamen, quum status alicujus controversiae cum Ecclesia Romana quaerendus et constituendus est, non putamus istorum nugis esse inhaerendum: sed inquirendum quid sentiant et doceant posteriores, qui apud suos pollent doctrina et authoritate.
Even leading Roman doctors speak calmly at home and rashly in the heat of dispute§84
84Even those leaders and front-rank men of the Pontifical school must be told apart from themselves. They do not always seem consistent. They speak one way when they deal with their own and teach among them with a calm, composed mind. They speak another way when they fight with us and the heat of disputing and contradicting has caught fire.
In their contests with us, carried off by hatred of us and by the heat of debate, those very Antelignani — front-rank men — of the Roman school rashly blurt out many things that cut against not only us but themselves, and of which they are ashamed. Elsewhere in their writings those same points appear set out far more softly, and closer to the truth.
Latin · §84
VII. Rursus tamen illi Pontificiae Scholae duces ac primipili a seipsis distinguendi sunt. Semper enim sibi constare non videntur. Quippe aliter loquuntur quando cum suis agunt, et apud suos animo sedato et composito docent; aliter vero quum nobiscum dimicant, et disputandi atque contradicendi ardor incaluit. Siquidem in suis nobiscum concertationibus, odio nostri et aestu disputationis abrepti, illi ipsi Romanae scholae Antelignani multa temere effutiunt, non tantum nobis, sed sibi ipsis adversa, quorumque eos ipsos pudet. Itaque ea ipsa alibi in eorum scriptis longe mollius et veritati propius exposita reperiuntur.
Equity reads adversaries where they speak calmly, and softens harsh dispute-talk from better places§85
85Those rash blurted words, born of hatred and blind passion rather than a settled judgment, our people may most justly note and press. Yet when we fix the state of any controversy, we think we should look rather to the places where they speak with a calm mind, treat the matter on purpose, and explain their Church's mind clearly and distinctly.
Not only men who plead a bad cause, but also good men set on defending the truth, often pull too far from the opposing view in the heat of dispute and are carried to the opposite shore. They imprudently urge against an adversary things that also hurt themselves, and that do not sit fully with the truth or with their own settled opinions. Our people and the Pontificii alike often notice this in the ancient Fathers of the Church, when those Fathers refute schismatics and heretics and inveigh against heresies.
Equity and candor require that words spoken so harshly and awkwardly be explained from other places where those authors speak more fitly and more in step with the truth. We do not deny that our own doctors sometimes need the same pardon and indulgence. So if we are to deal kindly and candidly with our adversaries, we judge that the same should be granted them: where they have spoken badly and falsely in one place, but well and truly in another, the earlier words should be softened and read from the later.
Latin · §85
VIII. Porro licet ista sic temere effutita, odioque et caeco affectu, potius quam certa animi sententia prolata, justissime a nostris notentur et exagitentur: in constituendo tamen controversiae alicujus statu, respiciendum potius arbitramur ad ea loca ubi sedato animo loquuntur, et rem illam, de qua agitur, ex professo tractant, mentemque suae Ecclesiae clare et distincte explicant. Etenim, non tantum istiusmodi viris, qui malam causam agunt, sed viris quoque bonis, quibus propositum est veritatem tueri, non raro contingit ut, inter disputandum, ab adversa sententia plus nimio recedant, et deferantur in contrarias oras; eaque imprudenter proferant in adversarium, quae ipsis quoque nocent, neque cum veritate, et propriis ipsorum placitis usquequaque congruunt. Quod tam nostri quam Pontificii saepe in priscis Ecclesiae Patribus animadvertunt, dum schismaticos et haereticos confutant et in haereses invehuntur. Sed aequitas et candor exigit, ut quae ita duriter et incommode dicta sunt, explicentur ex aliis locis, ubi autores illi commodius loquuntur, et veritati magis consentanee. Neque diffitemur nostros quoque Doctores aliquando hac venia et indulgentia egere. Ideoque, ut benigne et candide agamus cum adversariis nostris, existimamus etiam hoc ipsis debere concedi, ut sicubi quaedam male et falso prolocuti sint, alibi vero bene et veritati congruenter, priora illa ex posterioribus emolliantur et intelligantur.
Apply equity: even leading Roman doctors speak against notes and Spirit in dispute§86
86Apply that equity to the matter in hand, and it is plain: not only the empty disputers who count for little even among their own, but the very men who head the Roman school, often urge in debate things that cut clean against what we have taught so far — against the marks of God's Word, against the arguments that prove sacred Scripture, and against that inward Spirit-testimony in which our certainty about the Word must finally rest.
They talk as if Scripture deserved no trust and held no authority except what it borrows from the Roman Church, and as if the whole certainty of our faith lay on today's church doctors — so that, once that witness is set aside, Scripture would be worth no more among us than any pagan book. Our doctors collect those impious and blasphemous lines in their disputations on this subject.
Yet when those same Roman doctors speak so injuriously of Scripture, they forget themselves and pull down their own settled teaching. For nearly everything we have already taught — Scripture's light, the Spirit's secret witness, the proper ground of faith and its chief foundation, and the last point into which faith's certainty resolves — is handed down by Pontifical theologians in the schools. To make that clear, we must run briefly back through the heads already treated and note in a few words what the Pontificii teach on each.
Latin · §86
IX. Ut autem ista ad rem praesentem applicemus, certum est, non tantum vanos illos homines, et nullius etiam apud suos pretii, sed eos ipsos quoque qui inter Pontificios Doctores familiam ducunt, multa proferre inter disputandum, quae videntur plane contraria his quae hactenus docuimus, de notis Verbi Dei et argumentis quibus Scriptura sacra comprobatur, et de interno illo Spiritus testimonio, ad quod nostra de verbo Dei certitudo referenda est. Saepe enim loquuntur quasi Scriptura sacra nullam fidem mereretur, nec authoritatem haberet, nisi quam ab Ecclesia Romana mutuatur, et quasi in hodiernos Ecclesiae Doctores tota fidei nostrae certitudo recumberet: ita ut, secluso isto testimonio, Scriptura non plus esset apud nos valitura, quam quilibet liber profanus. Cujus generis voces impias et blasphema dicta Doctores nostri notant et congerunt in suis de hoc argumento disputationibus. Attamen, quum doctores illi Pontificii talia Scripturae injuria proferunt, videntur esse sui immemores, et in eo propria placita refigere. Eadem enim fere quae antea docuimus, de Scripturae sacrae et verbi Dei luce, de arcano Spiritus sancti testimonio, de propria fidei ratione et praecipuo illius fundamento, et de ultimo eo in quod resolvitur fidei certitudo, a Pontificiis Theologis traduntur et docentur in scholis. Quod ut clarius ostendamus, breviter percurrenda sunt nobis illa capita, de quibus antea egimus, et quid de uno quoque doceant Pontificii paucis est indicandum.
Roman school grants moral evidence and arguments that make doctrine clearly credible§87
87First: the Pontificii will not allow the things that belong to faith of themselves to be self-evident or demonstrable — and we have already granted that. Still they do not deny that matters of faith carry a kind of outward, moral evidence. Beside their Church's authority they admit many arguments by which Christian doctrine and sacred Scripture are proved and, in their phrase, made evidently credible.
Thomas's commentators teach this commonly on the Secunda secundae, question 1, article 4, where he asks whether the object of faith can be something seen. Thomas holds that faith's object is not something seen or evident; then he faces the Apostle's line in 1 Corinthians 13, We see as through a mirror. Paul is speaking of faith's knowledge, yet says that through it we see as through a mirror — so the believer seems to see faith's object, and faith would be of things seen.
Thomas answers that the things of faith may be taken in special, and then cannot be seen and believed at once; or in general, under the common reason of what is credible, and then the believer does see them. He would not believe, Thomas says, unless he saw that they ought to be believed — either by the evidence of signs or by something of that kind. From those words the scholastics draw this: what falls under faith is not evidently true, yet it is evidently credible, and is urged by many weighty arguments and strong reasons. Each writer then lists the proofs that seem strongest to him — Dominic Banñez, John of Poitiers, Pesantius, and others on that same article of Thomas.
Latin · §87
X. Primum igitur, licet Pontificii nolint ea quae per se et proprie ad fidem pertinent res esse per se notas, aut quae demonstrari possint, quod etiam supra fassi sumus, non negant tamen rebus fidei competere evidentiam quandam externam et moralem; et praeter Ecclesiae suae authoritatem, agnoscunt esse plurima argumenta quibus doctrina Christiana et Scriptura sacra comprobatur, et, ut loquuntur, evidenter credibilis redditur. Id docent communiter commentatores Thomae in secundam secundae quaest. 1. art. 4. Ubi Thomas illud discutit, An objectum fidei possit esse aliquid visum. Nam in eo articulo Thomas, qui statuit objectum fidei non esse aliquid visum sive evidens, sibi objicit locum Apostoli, 1 Corinth. 13. Videmus tanquam per speculum. Ubi Apostolus loquitur de cognitione fidei: Et tamen dicit nos per eam, tanquam per speculum videre. Unde sequitur objectum fidei a credente videri, adeoque fidem esse eorum quae videntur. Ad quod respondet Doctor ille, ea quae sunt fidei considerari posse, uno modo in speciali, et sic non posse esse simul visa et credita: alio modo in generali, scilicet, in communi ratione credibilis, et sic visa esse ab eo qui credit. Non enim, inquit, crederet, nisi videret ea esse credenda, vel propter evidentiam signorum, vel propter aliquid hujusmodi. Ex quibus Thomae verbis Scholastici istud sensum colligunt, ea quae sub fidem cadunt non esse evidenter vera: attamen evidenter esse credibilia et persuaderi multis argumentis maxime gravibus et rationibus admodum validis. Quae argumenta deinde enumerant, quisque, scilicet ea quae sibi maxime valida videntur. Ut videre est apud Dominicum Bannem, Johannem Puteanum, Pesantium, et alios ad locum Thomae supra memoratum.
Valencia and Bellarmine list marks of the Word; the fight is not whether notes exist§88
88Gregory of Valencia, a sharp and learned Jesuit, spends the whole first book of his Analysis of Faith chasing the arguments by which Christian doctrine and Scripture (its book) can be proved and pressed. He counts nineteen such arguments, and in them touches nearly every mark of God's Word that our people name — the proofs by which sacred Scripture can be told apart from human writings.
Bellarmine himself, in On the Word of God book 1, chapter 1, leaves aside his Church's testimony (which his opponents refuse) and still proves Scripture's divine authority by many reasons: miracles done to confirm Scripture, the striking agreement of the sacred writers, prophecies of future things contained in Scripture and proved by the event — and other points he urges against Libertines who despise Scripture.
So those of our theologians miss the Roman mind when they labor to prove against them that Scripture has marks and arguments of divinity — as if the whole heat of the authority debate sat there, and as if the Pontificii simply denied that Scripture has any τεκμήρια or notes of divinity and held that it can be known only by the Church's word.
Latin · §88
XI. Praecipue vero Gregorius de Valentia, Jesuita doctus et acutus, in eo volumine quod de Analysi fidei inscripsit, primum librum insumit in persequendis argumentis quibus doctrina Christiana et Scriptura, quae ejus liber est, probari et suaderi potest: et argumenta ejusmodi usque ad decem et novem enumerat. In quibus attingit fere omnes illas quas nostri notas verbi Dei vocant, hoc est argumenta, quibus Scriptura sacra a scriptis humanis dignosci et discerni potest. Atque etiam Bellarminus ipse libr. 1. de Verbo Dei cap. 1. Omittens Ecclesiae suae testimonium, quod respuunt illi quibuscum rem habet, multis argumentis et rationibus Scripturae divinam authoritatem probat. Ut, exempli gratia, ex miraculis in Scripturae confirmationem factis, ex admiranda conspiratione et concordia Scriptorum sacrorum, et ex futurorum praedictionibus et Prophetarum vaticiniis in Scriptura contentis, et eventu comprobatis. Quae et alia quaedam profert et vindicat adversus Libertinos Scripturam contemnentes. Itaque non videntur Pontificiorum mentem satis capere illi ex nostris Theologis qui operose probant adversus eos Scripturam sacram quasdam notas habere et quaedam argumenta quibus divina comprobetur; quasi in eo positus esset ardor controversiae de Scripturae authoritate, negarentque simpliciter Pontificii Scripturam ulla divinitatis τεκμήρια et notas habere, sed solo Ecclesiae testimonio posse internosci.
Roman doctors also require the Spirit's inward operation and testimony§89
89The doctors of the Roman Church also agree with us that some inward work of the Holy Spirit is needed if we are to recognize God's Word and sacred Scripture and receive it with due faith. They call that work, as we do, the Spirit's inward illumination, revelation, and persuasion, and the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. They speak of it so clearly and so often that citing them might seem needless; still, lest doubt linger, a few witnesses from many.
Melchior Canus, Loci Theologici 2.8, reply to the fourth argument: human authority and all those outer inducements used by the one who proposes the faith are not enough for the belief we are bound to give; there must also be an interior efficient cause — God's special help moving us to believe. A little later: no outward human persuasion is enough, however well the things of faith are set out by men; there must also be an interior cause — a divine light that urges belief, and inward eyes given by God's kindness for seeing. He presses Thomas, Augustine, and many Scripture places for the point.
Stapleton teaches the same in his relection on the Church's power, and more fully in On the Principles of Faith (Controversy 4, book 8, chapter 1): without special grace and the infused gift of faith it is impossible to produce a true act of faith, or to believe with faith worthy of the name. Against Whitaker he keeps complaining that Rome is falsely charged with denying the Spirit's inward testimony; and in defense of the Church's authority, chapter 3, he says that secret testimony of the divine Spirit is altogether necessary if anyone is to trust the Church's judgment in approving the Scriptures. Gregory of Valencia concurs: God himself first of all, by the voice of his revelation and by an inward instinct and impulse, witnesses to human minds that Christian doctrine — and so sacred Scripture — is true, and persuades, as Scripture itself says in many places. Bellarmine carries the same teaching through a whole sermon titled On the Light of Faith.
Latin · §89
XII. Praeterea Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae nobiscum consentiunt, opus esse interna quadam Spiritus sancti operatione, ad hoc ut Dei verbum et Scripturam sacram agnoscamus, et, ea qua par est fide, recipiamus. Quam operationem Spiritus Dei in nobis vocant, ut et nos internam Spiritus illuminationem, revelationem et persuasionem, internumque Spiritus sancti testimonium. Atque de isto Spiritus sancti testimonio tam clare, tam constanter et frequenter loquuntur, ut videri possit superfluum eorum super hac re proferre testimonia. Nequis tamen supersit dubitationi locus, pauca de multis citabimus. Sic ergo Melchior Canus locor. Theolog. lib. 2. cap. 8. Resp. ad 4. arg. Id statuendum est, inquit, authoritatem humanam et incitamenta omnia illa praedicta, sive alia quaecunque adhibita ab eo qui proponit fidem, non esse sufficientes causas ad credendum ut credere tenemur, sed praeterea opus esse interiori causa efficiente, id est, Dei speciali auxilio moventis ad credendum. Et paucis interjectis, Externae igitur omnes et humanae persuasiones non sunt satis ad credendum, quantumcunque ab hominibus competenter ea quae sunt fidei proponantur. Sed necessaria est insuper causa interior, hoc est divinum quoddam lumen incitans ad credendum, et oculi quidam interni Dei beneficio ad videndum dati. Quod ibidem probat authoritate Thomae et Augustini, et multis Scripturae locis, quae in hanc rem citat et urget. Idem docet Stapletonus in relect. princip. controvers. de potestate Ecclesiae in se, quaest. 1. artic. 2. conclus. 4. Et fusius De principiis fidei Controv. 4. libr. 8. cap. 1. cujus lemma est, Impossibile esse sine speciali gratia ac dono fidei divinitus infuso, actum verae fidei producere, aut ex veri nominis fide credere. Atque in suis contra Witakerum disputationibus perpetuo queritur per calumniam doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae objici, quod negent Spiritus sancti internum testimonium necessarium esse ad fidem ingenerandam. Speciatim triplicat, adversus Witakerum pro Eccles. authorit. cap. 3. Arcanum hoc, inquit, divini Spiritus testimonium prorsus necessarium est, ut quis Ecclesiae testimonio ac judicio circa Scripturarum approbationem credat. Quibus concinit Gregorius de Valentia Analysis fidei lib. 1. cap. 1. Deus, inquit, ipse in primis est qui Christianam doctrinam, atque adeo Scripturam sacram veram esse voce revelationis suae, et interno quodam instinctu atque impulsu humanis mentibus contestatur, atque persuadet ut in ea ipsa Scriptura multis in locis expressum est. Denique Bellarminus hanc doctrinam persequitur integra concione, cui titulum fecit De lumine fidei.
So the controversy is not Church alone versus the Spirit alone§90
90From all this it is clear that those have missed the mark of this controversy who state the question as: Do we believe Scripture on the Church's testimony alone, or chiefly on the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit? — as if Rome wholly rejected and hissed out that inward Spirit-testimony.
And on the other side the Pontificii wrong us when they harry our people as boasters of a private Spirit, gaping after enthusiasms. On the Spirit's secret testimony we teach nothing beyond what they themselves grant. Nor does that testimony cancel, as they falsely charge, the need of the Church's ministry to propose and explain what belongs to faith — as the previous disputation has already shown at length.
Latin · §90
XIII. Ex his vero manifestum est eos non attigisse hujus controversiae scopum qui quaestionis statum sic explicant. An, scilicet, Scripturae credamus propter Ecclesiae solum testimonium: an vero praecipue, propter testimonium internum Spiritus sancti: quasi Ecclesia Romana internum illud Spiritus sancti testimonium prorsus rejiceret et exsibilaret. Et vice versa nobis injurios esse Pontificios qui nostros exagitant, quasi privatum jactantes Spiritum, et enthusiasmis quibusdam inhiantes. Etenim de Spiritus arcano testimonio non docemus aliud quicquam quam quod ipsi fatentur et docent. Nec per istud testimonium excludimus, ut nobis calumniose objiciunt, necessitatem ministerii Ecclesiastici in proponendis atque exponendis iis quae pertinent ad fidem, ut superiori disputatione abunde docuimus.
Roman doctors teach that Church authority is not faith's formal reason§91
91The Pontificii teach no less plainly that the Church's authority is not the formal reason of our faith — not the chief foundation on which faith finally rests. Melchior Canus presses this hardest in Loci Theologici 2.8, reply to the fourth argument. Third, he says, we must hold that faith's formal reason is not the Church's authority: faith's last resolution is not made into the Church's testimony. Below he adds: the Church's authority is not of itself a reason that moves to belief. And again: if the question is asked in general how the believer knows that what he holds by faith was revealed by God, he cannot bring in the Church's authority.
Some of the older scholastics — Durandus and Gabriel Biel — did finally resolve Christian faith into the Church's authority, as if the Church's word were the believer's last ground for believing. That view was exploded long ago and is rejected by today's schools, Canus named among them. Their error, he says, I cannot hide: they claim our faith must be reduced to this last cause of believing — that we take the Church to be truthful.
Then he piles up arguments against it. On that scheme the first formal reason of faith would be created truth, not uncreated; our faith would lean on human truth rather than divine. And since a conclusion is never more certain than its principles, God's being triune would be no firmer for us than the Church's being truthful — a claim we would take on human inducements. He presses Paul's line: "Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel to you…" (Galatians 1). Faith's assent, he gathers, does not lean on human causes. So, lest the mind waver, Scripture's divine authority must be sought higher than any human reason or authority. The Apostles and Prophets finally resolved their faith into God's authority and truthfulness; our faith is the same as theirs, and so is not resolved into the Church's human authority — with many like points.
Latin · §91
XIV. Neque minus diserte docent Pontificii Ecclesiae authoritatem non esse fidei nostrae rationem formalem, id est praecipuum illud fundamentum in quod fides nostra recumbit. Istud praesertim docet Melchior Canus locor. Theolog. lib. 2. cap. 8. resp. ad quartum arg. Tertium, inquit, subjiciendum est rationem formalem nostrae fidei non esse Ecclesiae authoritatem, hoc est fidei ultimam resolutionem non fieri in Ecclesiae testimonium. Et infra, Non est Ecclesiae authoritas ratio per se movens ad credendum. Item, Si generaliter quaeratur unde fideli constet ea quae fide tenet esse a Deo revelata, non poterit Ecclesiae authoritatem inducere. Fuerunt quidem nonnulli inter veteres Scholasticos, nempe Durandus et Gabriel Biel, qui fidem Christianam in Ecclesiae authoritatem ultimo resolvebant, quasi ultima credendi ratio fidelibus esset Ecclesiae testimonium. Sed haec sententia pridem explosa est, et communi consensu rejicitur a Scholasticis hodiernis, nominatim vero a Melchiore Cano loco quem jam indicavimus. Eorum, inquit, errorem dissimulare non possum, qui asserunt fidem nostram eo tanquam in ultimam credendi causam reducendam esse, ut credamus Ecclesiam esse veracem. Postea subjungit multa argumenta quibus errorem illum redarguit: ut quod inde sequeretur primam rationem formalem fidei non esse veritatem increatam sed creatam: Et ita fidem nostram non inniti tanquam suo fundamento divinae veritati, sed humanae. Praeterea, cum assensus conclusionis non sit certior principiorum assensu, ostendit inde sequi, quod Deum esse trinum, non nobis esset certius, aut firmius, quam Ecclesiam esse veracem, cui per humanarum causarum incitamenta crederemus. Deinde urget locum Pauli, Licet nos, aut Angelus de caelo, evangelizet vobis, &c. Unde colligit fidei assensionem humanis causis et incitamentis non inniti. Quare, inquit, ne mens nostra vacillet, altius petenda, quam ab hominis vel ratione, vel authoritate Scripturae divinae authoritas est. Quibus addit Apostolos et Prophetas resolvisse ultimo fidem suam in divinam authoritatem et veracitatem: Jam autem fidem nostram eandem esse cum fide Prophetarum et Apostolorum, adeoque in humanam Ecclesiae authoritatem non resolvi, et multa similia.
Stapleton, Canus, and Bañez: the Church's voice is not the formal object of faith§92
92Stapleton teaches the same in Controversy 4, on the Church's power in itself, question 3, article 3. His second conclusion: the Church's voice is not the formal object of faith. He proves it first because faith can exist without that voice, and second because the Church's voice and authority alone cannot produce faith worthy of the name. He then faces older scholastic arguments, including Augustine's famous line: "I would not believe the Gospel unless the Catholic Church's authority moved me."
Stapleton's short answer: the Gospel is not believed except with the Church's authority moving — ordinarily, because that is the ordinary way the first Truth reveals all things. In the same place he grants that our faith does not hang on the Church's testimony alone, nor chiefly on it. Canus on the same Augustine text: if the Church only opens the door to the sacred books, we must not stop there; we must go on and lean on God's solid truth. Dominic Bañez, on the Secunda secundae 1.1, doubt 4, is just as clear: the assent of our faith cannot be reduced to acquired faith that the Church is truthful, as if that were the rule or formal reason of believing. The opposite, he adds, is not only rash but erroneous in the faith itself.
So this too is not the state of the question between us and the Pontificii — whether the proper reason and chief foundation of the faith we give to Scripture is the Church's authority.
Latin · §92
XV. His consentanea docet Stapletonus Controvers. 4. de potest. Eccles. in se quaest. 3. Art. 3. ubi haec est ejus secunda conclusio, Ecclesiae vox non est formale fidei objectum. Id quod probat, Primo, quia absque ea fides esse potest. Et secundo, quia sola Ecclesiae vox et authoritas ad veri nominis fidem non potest inducere. Postea sibi objicit argumenta quorundam veterum Scholasticorum, et inter alia celebrem istum Augustini locum, Non crederem Evangelio, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. Ad quod breviter respondet his verbis, Evangelio non creditur, nisi authoritate Ecclesiae commovente, scilicet ordinarie, quia est ordinarius modus quo prima veritas omnia revelat. Ibidemque fatetur fidem nostram non pendere a solo Ecclesiae testimonio, nec principaliter ab illo. Ad illud vero Augustini haec dicit Melchior Canus, loco supra citato, Non, si Ecclesia aditum nobis praebet ad sacros libros cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est, sed oportet ultra progredi, et solida Dei veritate niti. Consentit Dominicus Bannes inter suos celebris in secundam secundae quaest. 1. art. 1. dubio 4. ubi haec est ejus secunda conclusio, Assensus fidei nostrae non potest reduci ad fidem acquisitam, qua credimus Ecclesiam esse veracem, tanquam in regulam, vel formalem rationem credendi. Posteaque subjungit, Haec conclusio tam certa est, ut oppositum ejus videatur nobis non solum temerarium, sed erroneum etiam in fide. Unde patet neque hunc inter nos et Pontificios esse quaestionis statum, An, scilicet, fidei quam Scripturae adhibemus, ratio propria et praecipuum fundamentum sit Ecclesiae authoritas.
Faith's proper formal reason is God revealing, with the Spirit's inward motion§93
93What then is faith's proper reason? Canus, in the place already cited, joins this to three settled points: faith's last resolution is into an interior efficient cause — God moving us to believe. To the article "God is triune," to "the Church cannot err," and to every other principle of Christian doctrine, I assent by infused faith not because John said it, or any other man, but because God revealed it; and to "God has revealed" I believe at once, moved by God through a special instinct.
So on the object's side the formal moving reason is revealed divine truth; yet that does not move us unless an interior cause is also present — God himself moving by a free and special concurrence. Stapleton's third conclusion (question 1, article 2) says the same: God revealing is properly and absolutely the formal object of faith. He proves it from the Prophets and Apostles, who had no other formal object; therefore every believer's faith has that same object, for there is one faith of all. In reply to the third argument he writes: absolutely and of itself, the last resolution of things to be believed is the truthful God — or God revealing inwardly in the heart — after John the Baptist: "He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, and whoever receives his testimony has set his seal that God is true" (John 3).
Finally the scholastics commonly hold that the assent of our faith is at last resolved into the Holy Spirit's inward motion — as Thomas's commentators show on the Secunda secundae, question 1.
Latin · §93
XVI. Quae sit vero propria fidei nostrae ratio sic explicat idem Canus loco saepius memorato, His vero tribus certis stabilibusque sententiis illa etiam conjuncta est, ultimam fidei nostrae resolutionem fieri in causam interiorem efficientem, hoc est, in Deum moventem ad credendum, verbi gratia, huic articulo, Deus est trinus, et huic, Ecclesia non potest errare, et caeteris universis doctrinae Christianae principiis, assentior per infusam fidem, non quod Johannes dixerit, aut quivis alius homo, sed quod Deus revelaverit: huic autem, Deus revelavit, immediate credo, a Deo motus per instinctum specialem. Itaque, ex parte objecti, ratio formalis movens est divina veritas revelata: sed illa tamen non sufficit ad movendum, nisi adsit causa interior, hoc est, Deus etiam movens per gratuitum specialemque concursum. Idem docet Stapletonus quaest. illa prima art. 2. ubi haec est ejus tertia conclusio, Deus revelans est proprie et absolute objectum formale fidei. Idque probat exemplo fidei Prophetarum et Apostolorum, qui non aliud formale fidei suae objectum habuerunt; unde concludit omnium fidem idem objectum habere; quandoquidem una est omnium fides. Ibidem vero resp. ad tertium arg. illius haec verba sunt, Absolute et per se, ultima resolutio credibilium est Deus verax, seu Deus intus in corde revelans, juxta illud Johannis Baptistae, Quem misit Deus, verba Dei loquitur, et qui accipit testimonium ejus signavit quia Deus verax est, Johan. 3. Denique haec est communis Scholasticorum sententia, Assensum fidei nostrae resolvi ultimo in motionem interiorem Spiritus sancti, ut videre est apud Commentatores Thomae in secundam secundae quaest. 1.
The Church is a condition and medium, not the last ground of believing§94
94Those doctors therefore treat the Church's voice and testimony as a cause without which we would not believe, and, in their terms, a condition of faith's object: the Church is the medium through which God reveals and proposes what is to be believed. Yet they refuse to reduce our faith to the Church's testimony as the supreme and last reason of believing. They reduce it to God revealing and the Holy Spirit illuminating — as Bañez teaches carefully in the place already cited.
Stapleton's words in the article we keep marking are the same: faith that begins from the Church's testimony, so far as that testimony proposes and leads to faith, ends in God revealing within and teaching within what the Church preached without. The Church's preaching teaches from outside; it proposes, leads, and helps. But the One who teaches within has his chair in heaven, as Augustine says. Once that inward teaching has come, the Samaritan line has its place: "Now we do not believe because of your speech; for we ourselves have heard, and we know that this is the Savior of the world" (John 4).
Latin · §94
XVII. Itaque Doctores illi volunt Ecclesiae vocem, et testimonium esse causam sine qua non crederemus, et, ut loquuntur, conditionem quandam objecti fidei nostrae quia Ecclesia medium est per quod Deus revelat, et proponit credenda. Attamen nolunt fidem nostram reduci ad testimonium Ecclesiae, tanquam ad supremam et ultimam credendi rationem, sed ad Deum revelantem, et Spiritum sanctum illuminantem, ut accurate docet Bannes loco quem jam citavimus. Et similiter Stapletonus, cujus haec verba sunt articulo a nobis saepius indicato, Fides quae capit ab Ecclesiae testimonio, quatenus proponit et inducit ad fidem, definit in Deo intus revelante, et intus docente quod foris Ecclesia praedicavit. Praedicatio enim Ecclesiae docet forinsecus, proponit, inducit, adjuvat: sed cathedram habet in caelo qui docet intus, ut docet Augustinus. Quo interno magisterio semel accedente, locum habet illa Samaritanae vox, Jam non propter loquelam tuam credimus: Ipsi enim audivimus, et scimus quia hic est Salvator mundi.
Faith is a prudent assent; certainty still rests on divine revelation alone§95
95Nor do the scholastic doctors deny that the faith we give to divine revelation is a prudent assent: the one who believes God's Word is moved by arguments that can persuade a prudent mind that what is set before him as God's Word truly is. Faith's certainty does not hang on those arguments, nor properly lean on them. Gregory of Valencia makes the distinction sharpest in Analysis of Faith 1.1: because divine revelation is not evident to human reason, other arguments besides revelation are needed, so that men may prudently persuade themselves that Christian doctrine is true.
Yet those arguments are not required so that people believe properly, surely, and firmly because of them. The certainty and firmness of faith — and the assent itself — lean of themselves on divine revelation alone as their foundation. The arguments only supply clearer motives by which the mind may prudently will to believe surely and firmly because of divine revelation, with God's help. Two soul-motions must be told apart in those who take hold of faith. First, even under prudence's dictate, they judge Christ's doctrine worthy of sure and firm belief. Then, helped by God, they believe by faith's assent that it is true. That sure, firm, God-helped assent must be referred to the divine testimony alone contained in revelation, as the cause and reason of believing; and to the Church's proposing only as a condition without which Christian faith would scarcely be given. The first prudent judgment — that this doctrine may rightly be held as divine and true — is a judgment of prudence, and it properly leans on arguments other than revelation itself.
Canus teaches the same in Loci Theologici 2.8, reply to the fourth argument. It is not enough that the things of faith be simply proposed by a man to the one about to believe, as first principles to a pupil; some exterior persuasion and human inducement must also be used. He proves it from those moved to believe by miracles and other reasons. Once that is set out, he adds, what we said a little earlier is easy to see: certain human, outward supports must intervene for believing, yet they are not fit of themselves, and faith's resolution is not made into them, but into an interior divine cause that stirs and moves us to believe. That is the common teaching of the Roman school, so far as I know with no dissent — so further witnesses would be surplus.
Latin · §95
XVIII. Nec etiam negant Doctores Scholastici fidem, quam revelationi divinae adhibemus, esse prudentem assensum, hoc est, illum qui verbo Dei credit, ad id moveri quibusdam argumentis, quae viro prudenti suadere possunt revera Dei verbum esse quod ut tale ipsi proponitur. Licet non pendeat ab istis argumentis fidei certitudo, aut eis proprie nitatur: ut praesertim videre est apud Gregor. de Valentia, Analyf. fidei, lib. 1. cap. 1. ubi haec sunt illius verba, Sed quia rationi humanae revelatio divina non evidenter patet, aliis quibusdam, praeter revelationem divinam, argumentis, opus est, quibus homines etiam inducti, prudenter sibi persuadeant doctrinam Christianam veram esse. Nec vero ejusmodi argumenta ad eam rem requiruntur, ut propter illa proprie, certe ac firmiter homines credant, (certitudo enim et firmitas fidei, atque adeo ipsius assensio, per se divinae revelationi soli, tanquam fundamento innititur.) Sed ut clariora quaedam habeant motiva, quibus prudenter animum inducant velle certe ac firmiter, propter divinam revelationem, Deo adjuvante, credere. Etenim accurate discernendi sunt animi motus duo in iis qui fidem amplectuntur. Nam et prudentia etiam dictante, judicant dignam esse Christi doctrinam quae certo ac firmiter credatur, et demum credunt assensione fidei, adiuti divinitus, eam veram esse. Quod assensione fidei certa atque firma, adiuti divinitus, credunt doctrinam Christi veram esse, id in solum divinum testimonium, quod revelatione divina continetur, tanquam in causam quidem rationemque credendi, referri debet. Itemque, in Ecclesiae propositionem, tanquam in quandam conditionem, sine qua, Christiana quidem fide minime crederetur. Quod autem in primis prudenter deliberant, atque statuunt merito eam a se doctrinam, tanquam divinam ac veram, certo ac firmiter credi posse, id vero prudentiae judicium quoddam est, quod proprie argumentis aliis praeter divinam revelationem nititur. Quibus conformia tradit Melchior Canus lib. 2. cap. 8. resp. ad quartum arg. Non solum, inquit, necessarium est, ut credituro ea quae sunt fidei simpliciter ab homine proponantur, quasi prima principia discipulo, verum etiam opus est exteriorem aliquam persuasionem, et humanum incitamentum adhiberi. Idque probat exemplis eorum qui miraculis et aliis rationibus commoti crediderunt. Et postea quoque addit, quibus rebus expositis, facile, ut opinor, intelligi potest vera esse quae paulo ante a nobis dicta, hoc est, oportere humana quaedam et exteriora adminicula intervenire ad credendum, nec tamen ea esse idonea per se, nec fidei nostrae resolutionem in ejusmodi fieri, sed in interiorem causam divinam quae excitet et moveat ut credamus. Atque haec est etiam communis sententia scholae Romanae nullo, quod sciam, refragante: ut superfluum sit plura cumulare testimonia.
The real controversy is not a war of names§96
96You will ask: what, then, is the real state of the controversy on Scripture's authority? In the heads reviewed so far the Orthodox and the Pontificii seem to agree. Is the fight only about a name? Not at all. The rift between the two sides is large and of the highest moment.
To see it clearly, note first that some revelations become known to us only through another revelation, and they borrow their authority for us from that other. Balaam's old revelation reached us through the revelation given to Moses. The same holds for that scrap of Enoch's prophecy to which Jude's letter lends authority.
Yet there cannot be an infinite regress here, and a circle — one revelation proved by another, and that other by the first — must not be allowed. So some revelation must be first for us: one that wins our faith by itself and for its own sake, not by help from a better-known revelation.
Latin · §96
XIX. At, inquies, quis ergo tandem est status controversiae de Scripturae authoritate? nam in capitibus hucusque recensitis videtur esse consensus inter Orthodoxos et Pontificios. An forte hic est tantum de nomine certamen? minime certe. Hic magnum et maximi momenti dissidium est inter utrosque. Ad cujus intelligentiam notandum est, 1. quasdam esse revelationes quae non nisi per aliam revelationem nobis innotescunt, unde suam quoad nos authoritatem mutuantur. Ita verbi gratia, revelatio facta olim Balaam, per revelationem Mosi factam nobis innotuit. Idemque dico de fragmento illo prophetiae Enochi, cui Epistola Judae authoritatem conciliat. Sed cum hac in re non possit dari progressus in infinitum, nec debeat admitti circulus, quo una revelatio per aliam probetur, et haec vicissim per alteram illam: necesse est, ut detur revelatio quaedam, respectu nostri prima, quae per se, et propter se fidem apud nos obtineat, non autem beneficio revelationis cujusdam notioris.
Formal reason of faith versus the Church's public external rule§97
97Speak carefully and you may also distinguish faith's proper formal reason — taken simply and absolutely, as the Schools put it — from an external principle of faith, an outward rule for what is to be believed.
Faith's proper formal reason was, is, and always will be the same for every believer: God's revelation, however it comes — by God's immediate breath, through men, through angels, through Scripture, or outside Scripture. For every believer the standing formal reason of religious belief is this: because God revealed such things.
Yet God did not judge it enough to reveal privately to each believer whatever that person needed for salvation. To keep unity and communion in the Church, and to meet Satan's tricks, he always willed a common, external, public revelation to stand in the Church as the rule of faith — the measure of every dogma, and the court that ends every dispute about faith.
Before the law was given, that rule was the Patriarchs' voices and God's living oracles. After Moses' law was given and written, the Church's rule was that written law, with the revelations later made to the Prophets and likewise written down. After Christ's coming the New Testament enlarged the rule. So now, in the Christian Church, the rule of our faith is the Scripture of both Testaments.
Latin · §97
XX. Praeterea sciendum est, accurate loquendo, distinctionem adhiberi posse inter fidei propriam, et, ut loquuntur Scholae, formalem rationem, si consideretur simpliciter et absolute; et inter externum quoddam fidei principium, sive regulam externam credendorum. Fidei propria et formalis ratio eadem fuit, est, et erit semper apud omnes fideles, nempe Dei revelatio, quocunque tandem modo illa revelatio fiat, sive immediato Dei afflatu, sive per homines, sive per Angelos, sive per Scripturam, sive extra Scripturam. Etenim fidelibus cunctis haec perpetua credendi res fidei et religionis ratio formalis est, nempe, quia Deus talia revelavit. At Deo visum non est satis fidelibus singulis privatim revelare quae ad salutem cujusque necessaria essent, sed ad unitatem et communionem in Ecclesia servandam, et ut obviam iretur Satanae praestigiis, Deus semper voluit in Ecclesia extare communem quandam, externam et publicam revelationem, quae esset fidei regula, ad quam exigenda essent omnia fidei dogmata, et ex qua omnis de rebus fidei contentio decidenda et terminanda esset. Talis fidei regula ante legem datam erant Patriarcharum voces, et viva Dei oracula. Post legem vero a Mose datam et scriptis mandatam, regula fidei in Ecclesia fuit ipsa lex Mosis scripta, et revelationes Prophetis postea factae, et scriptis quoque consignatae. Post Christi vero adventum, haec regula Novi Testamenti accessione auctior et amplior facta est. Itaque jam fidei nostrae in Ecclesia Christiana regula est Scriptura Veteris et Novi Testamenti.
Faith resolves two ways: in the conscience, and before others§98
98Third: our faith can be resolved in two ways — with respect to the object or the subject; with respect to ourselves or with respect to others.
With respect to ourselves and the subject, faith is resolved when we ask what the inward principle is, and where each conscience rests so that we may not press further. With respect to the object and to others, our faith is resolved when we ask for the last foundation we can show and name to someone else.
That last foundation we can show another must be some external principle of faith — an outward rule of faith — where we stop, with no further rule beyond it.
Latin · §98
XXI. Tertio observandum est, fidei nostrae resolutionem dupliciter fieri posse, respectu objecti, et respectu subjecti, sive respectu nostri, et respectu aliorum. Respectu nostri, et respectu subjecti fides resolvitur, quum quaeritur quid sit internum fidei principium, et illud in quo conscientia cujusque conquiescit, neque licet ultra progredi. Sed respectu objecti, et respectu aliorum fides nostra resolvitur, quum quaeritur ultimum fidei nostrae fundamentum, quod alteri proferre et indicare possumus. Ultimum vero istud fidei nostrae fundamentum quod indicare possumus alteri, necesse est ut sit aliquod externum fidei principium, et externa quaedam fidei regula, in qua sistendum est, et qua non datur alia ulterior.
Scripture is the first external principle; the Spirit seals within§99
99Apply this to the present case. We and the Pontificii agree, as the earlier theses show, that faith's proper reason simply and of itself is divine revelation, however it comes; on that point there is no fight between us. We also agree that the last rest of each believer's conscience is the Holy Spirit's inward testimony.
What is not agreed is which revelation is today first and most known for us — the one we must receive by itself and for its own sake, not because of some other revelation better known to us and of higher authority; and so which is the first and most common external principle of faith, through which everything else is to be proved, while it itself has no prior.
We hold that this revelation is contained in sacred Scripture. God's Word in the books of both Testaments ought to win faith among us by itself — not by some other Word of God, some further divine revelation that would give it a public external witness better known and more certain to believers than Scripture is. No rule of faith, no external principle, stands prior to sacred Scripture so that Scripture could be proved from something earlier. Scripture is the first and most common rule of everything that belongs to faith, and it is not to be measured by another rule.
Ask why we believe this or that dogma — that God is triune and one, or that believers are to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit — and we answer: because inspired Scripture holds it, and we point to the place. Press further why we take that Scripture as divine, and we do not offer another principle of faith to prove Scripture; we say one must stop there. We do offer arguments that Scripture is divine and deserves to be believed as divine. Those arguments are not, properly speaking, faith's principles, nor the foundation on which faith chiefly leans. We believe Scripture at once — God speaking in the Scriptures — moved by the Spirit's inward impulse.
Latin · §99
XXII. Jam ut ista ad rem praesentem applicemus, constat inter nos et Pontificios, ut patet ex antedictis, fidei nostrae rationem propriam simpliciter et per se, esse divinam revelationem, quocunque tandem modo fiat, neque hac de re ulla est inter nos controversia. Constat quoque ultimum illud in quo fidelis cujusque conscientia conquiescit esse internum Spiritus sancti testimonium. At vero non constat quae sit hodie illa revelatio, nostri respectu, prima et notissima, quae per se et propter se a nobis recipi debeat, non vero propter ullam aliam revelationem, quae nobis sit notior et majoris authoritatis; adeoque quae sit primum et communissimum fidei principium externum, per quod omnia probari debeant, ipsum vero a nullo priore. Hanc revelationem asserimus nos sacra Scriptura contineri: Etenim verbum Dei, libris Veteris et Novi Testamenti comprehensum, tale est ut per se apud nos fidem obtinere debeat; non vero per aliquod aliud Dei verbum, et divinam quandam revelationem, quae publicum et externum testimonium illi perhibeat, quod fidelibus sit ipsa Scriptura notius et certius. Neque est ulla fidei regula, aut ullum fidei principium externum, quod Scriptura sacra sit prius, et quo Scriptura possit tanquam a priori probari. Sed ea est prima et communissima regula omnium quae ad fidem spectant, ipsa ad aliam nullam regulam examinanda. Itaque si quis roget cur hoc vel illud dogma credis, verbi gratia, Deum esse trinum et unum, et fideles esse baptizandos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, Respondemus, quia hoc in Scriptura divinitus inspirata habetur, et locum indicamus. Si vero ultra rogemur, cur Scripturam illam divinam esse credamus, jam non proferimus aliud fidei principium, quo Scriptura probetur: sed in eo principio sistendum esse monemus. Adducimus quidem argumenta quibus probare conamur Scripturam divinam esse, et illi merito tanquam divinae credi. Attamen argumenta illa non sunt fidei nostrae principia proprie dicta, et fundamentum illud quo fides nostra praecipue nititur: Sed Scripturae, id est, Deo in Scripturis loquenti, immediate credimus, ad id moti interno Spiritus sancti impulsu.
Rome makes the Church a superior revelation that proves Scripture§100
100The Pontificii will not let sacred Scripture deserve and win our faith immediately and of itself. They teach another divine revelation by which Scripture must be proved, so that the Church may publicly settle its standing. For them that revelation is the Church's voice and testimony — the doctrine of her overseers. They want God to speak today through the Church's pastors as through organs infallible in the doctrine of faith, as he once spoke through Prophets and Apostles.
So they admit Scripture is a rule of faith, yet a subordinate and partial one that needs proving by a superior, fuller rule. When they prove dogmas they do cite sacred Scripture's authority. Asked why they trust sacred Scripture, they say: because of their Church's testimony — and in that testimony, as the supreme external principle of faith, they must rest if they mean to keep their own teachings.
We too bring the Church's constant testimony when we prove a sacred book's authority. But not as they do — not as a principle of faith to which our faith must be subjected. For us it is only an argument from the later effect: sound and strong, yet not wholly divine and infallible.
Latin · §100
XXIII. At vero Pontificii nolunt Scripturam sacram immediate et per se fidem apud nos mereri et obtinere; sed docent esse aliam divinam revelationem per quam Scripturam probari necesse sit, ut publice de ea in Ecclesia constet. Et haec revelatio ipsis est Ecclesiae vox et testimonium, hoc est praepositorum Ecclesiae doctrina. Siquidem Deum ipsum per Ecclesiae pastores hodie loqui volunt, tanquam per organa, quoad fidei doctrinam, infallibilia, quemadmodum olim locutus est per Prophetas atque Apostolos. Itaque admittunt quidem Scripturam esse fidei regulam, sed subalternam atque partialem, quae superiori et ampliori regula probari indigeat. Quapropter ad fidei dogmata comprobanda afferunt quidem Scripturae sacrae authoritatem. Sed si rogentur cur sacrae Scripturae fidem adhibeant, dicunt se id facere propter Ecclesiae suae testimonium, et in hoc testimonio, tanquam inter fidei externa principia supremo, conquiescere ipsos necesse est, si quidem suis placitis stare velint. Nos quidem ad libri alicujus sacri authoritatem comprobandam afferimus quoque constans Ecclesiae testimonium: verum non sicut ipsi, tanquam aliquod fidei principium cui fides nostra subjicienda sit: sed solum tanquam quoddam argumentum a posteriori, validum quidem et bonum, sed non prorsus divinum atque infallibile.
The celebrated question: is Scripture's authority supreme or borrowed?§101
101From this rises the famous question on Scripture's authority. We say Scripture's authority among us is supreme, not borrowed from elsewhere: above itself Scripture has no revelation, and no other principle of faith by which it can be proved.
The Pontificii say Scripture's authority hangs on the Church's: they take the Church's testimony for a principle of faith above Scripture, one by which Scripture must be proved so that the Church may publicly settle its standing.
Latin · §101
XXIV. Atque inde exurgit celebris illa quaestio de Scripturae authoritate. Nobis asserentibus Scripturae authoritatem apud nos esse summam, nec aliunde mutuam sumptam; quoniam Scriptura supra se nullam habet revelationem, aut aliud quoddam fidei principium quo probari possit. Pontificiis vero contendentibus authoritatem Scripturae ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere: quoniam existimant Ecclesiae testimonium fidei quoddam principium esse Scriptura superius, et quo Scriptura probari indigeat, ut de ea publice in Ecclesia constet.
Their analogy: Scripture stands to the Church as a dogma stands to Scripture§102
102To mark the difference between their sentence and ours, and where the hinge of the controversy sits, note how the Pontificii compare sacred Scripture with the Church's doctrine: as we compare a particular dogma of faith with sacred Scripture.
As an article of faith — for example that the dead will one day rise — has its truth and authority in itself from God alone, not from the Prophets' and Apostles' testimony as writers of Scripture, so they admit that sacred Scripture has its authority in itself from God alone, not from the Church's word.
And as the chief reason we embrace that dogma is not properly Peter's, Paul's, or Isaiah's authority, but the divine revelation brought to us by their pen — for the dogma was believed before Scripture, and can still be believed apart from it — so they confess that the Church's testimony is not the proper and chief reason of our faith about Scripture, but simply and absolutely divine revelation.
Yet again: as that dogma, or any like it, must not be publicly received in the Church or set forth for belief unless Scripture's testimonies prove it — since only from those can believers publicly know that something belongs to faith, so that any dogma's authority for us, and its public external certainty, hangs on sacred Scripture's testimony — so they want Scripture's authority for us to hang on the Church's testimony, and a book's divinity not to be publicly settled for believers except by the Church's approval and attestation.
Finally: even with that dependence of dogmas on Scripture, Christian dogmas can be proved and urged by many arguments besides Scripture's testimonies — motives that lead toward faith, not faith's reason and foundation. So the Pontificii also do not deny that sacred Scripture, besides the Church's testimony, has many notes and arguments of divinity by which it can be proved and urged — yet which cannot found public faith in the Church concerning Scripture's divinity.
Latin · §102
XXV. Verum ut distinctius appareat discrimen Pontificiae sententiae, et nostrae, et qua in re positus sit controversiae cardo, sciendum est Pontificios ita Scripturam sacram cum Ecclesiae doctrina comparare, ut nos aliquod fidei particulare dogma cum Scriptura sacra comparamus. Sicut ergo aliquem fidei articulum, ut exemp. gr. mortuos olim resurrecturos esse, in se suam veritatem et authoritatem a solo Deo habet, non vero a testimonio Prophetarum et Apostolorum, qui Scripturae libros conscripserunt: ita Pontificii admittunt Scripturam sacram in se suam authoritatem a solo Deo habere, non ab Ecclesiae testimonio. Deinde quemadmodum praecipua ratio fidei, qua dogma illud amplectimur non est proprie Petri, Pauli, Esaiae, etc. authoritas, sed divina revelatio ad nos illorum calamo transmissa, quandoquidem ante Scripturam dogma illud creditum fuit, et adhuc citra Scripturam credi potest. Sic fatentur Pontificii, Ecclesiae testimonium non esse fidei nostrae de Scriptura rationem propriam atque praecipuam, sed simpliciter et absolute divinam revelationem. Rursus tamen, ut dogma illud, et aliud quodvis simile non debet publice in Ecclesia recipi, et credendum proponi, nisi quatenus Scripturae testimoniis probatur ex quibus solis publice constare potest fidelibus aliquid ad fidem pertinere, atque sic dogmatis cujusvis authoritas quoad nos, et certitudo publica et externa a Scripturae sacrae testimonio pendet: Ita volunt Pontificii Scripturae authoritatem quoad nos ab Ecclesiae testimonio pendere, neque de libri alicujus divinitate publice fidelibus constare, nisi ex Ecclesiae approbatione et testificatione. Denique, quemadmodum, non obstante illa dogmatum a Scriptura dependentia, religionis Christianae dogmata multis, praeter Scripturae testimonia, argumentis probari et suaderi possunt, quae tamen argumenta non sunt fidei nostrae ratio et fundamentum, sed tantum motiva quaedam ad fidem inducentia: Ita Pontificii quoque non diffitentur Scripturam sacram, praeter Ecclesiae testimonium, multa divinitatis argumenta et notas habere, quibus probari et suaderi possit, sed quae tamen non possunt publicam de Scripturae divinitate fidem in Ecclesia fundare.
Controversy stated: first external rule — Scripture, or present pastors?§103
103From all this the controversy between us and the Roman Church's doctors is plain enough. Is Scripture the first rule of faith and the first external principle of faith — so that no other principle can prove it, and it does not borrow its authority from elsewhere?
Or is the Church's doctrine and testimony the principle and rule of faith, better known and clearer to us than Scripture itself, and the means by which Scripture must be proved so that believers may publicly settle its standing? We assert the former. The Pontificii assert the latter — and by "Church," as already said, they mean the present pastors, above all the Roman Pontiff.
Latin · §103
XXVI. Ex quibus satis liquere putamus quaenam hic nobis intercedat cum Ecclesiae Romanae Doctoribus controversia. Nempe haec, utrum Scriptura sit prima fidei regula, et primum fidei principium externum, quod proinde alio nullo principio probari possit, nec aliunde suam mutuetur authoritatem. An vero Ecclesiae doctrina et testimonium sit principium et regula fidei, Scriptura ipsa quoad nos notior et evidentior, et qua Scripturam probari necesse sit, ut publice de ea apud fideles constet: Prius nos asserimus: Posterius Pontificii, qui per Ecclesiam, ut modo dictum est, intelligunt praesentis Ecclesiae Pastores, et praecipue Pontificem Romanum.
Scripture is better known among the faithful than the Church herself§104
104Their error is answered from this: among believers Scripture is better known than the Church herself.
Every Christian body agrees, at least on the chief books, which writings are true Scripture. Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Pontificii, Protestants, and whatever other Christian parties remain today all acknowledge as Canonical the books our churches hold Canonical. Rome adds certain Old Testament books to its Canon; on the books we count Canonical it still agrees with us.
Those who denied or despised Scripture outright — as the Libertines are remembered to have done in our fathers' day — were few, obscure, and soon gone. Which Church is the true one is not settled the same way: each party claims to be it. The Greek, Armenian, and Ethiopian churches neither take Rome for God's true Church nor bind themselves to its authority.
Latin · §104
XXVII. Inde vero error illorum refellitur quod Scriptura est aliquid apud fideles notius quam sit ipsa Ecclesia. Et hoc quia inter omnes Christianos constat quae sint verae Scripturae, saltem quoad partes praecipuas, ut patet per inductionem. Etenim Graeci, Armeni, Aethiopes, Pontificii, Protestantes, et si quae sint adhuc hodie Christianorum sectae, communi consensu agnoscunt libros, quos Ecclesiae nostrae pro Canonicis habent, revera Canonicos esse. Addunt quidem Pontificii quosdam alios libros ad Canonem veteris Testamenti: sed de illis quos Canonicos censemus nobiscum consentiunt. Quod si qui Scripturas in totum negarunt, vel contempserunt, quod patrum nostrorum memoria putantur fecisse Libertini, paucissimi fuerunt, nec ullius nominis, et cito defierunt. At non constat quae sit vera Ecclesia: sed unaquaeque secta pertendit se esse veram Ecclesiam. Nec Ecclesiae Graecae, Armeniacae et Aethiopicae Romanam Ecclesiam pro vera Dei Ecclesia habent, aut illius authoritate ullo modo se obstringi putant.
No pope or council carries Scripture's notes of divinity§105
105No pope, council, or gathering of pastors carries so many and so bright marks of its own authority as sacred Scripture carries of its divinity.
Earlier theses already listed what recommends Scripture: prophecies of things to come, the holiness, height, and force of its teaching, the majesty and plainness of its style, the harmony of Old and New Testament, miracles confirming it, the life of those who first handed it down, God's lasting care to keep it, the martyrs' constancy for its truth, the consent of peoples, and even hostile witnesses.
What council, or what crowd of pastors, presses its claim with notes so many and so strong? Ask the adversaries' own conscience: is it not plainer that Moses and Paul wrote divine, authentic books than that Florence, Trent, or the Lateran were legitimate councils led by the Spirit without fail?
Latin · §105
XXVIII. Adde quod nullus Pontifex, nullum Concilium, nullus Pastorum Coetus tot et tam illustres habet suae authoritatis notas et argumenta, quam Scriptura sacra suae divinitatis. Nam Scripturam sacram commendant quamplurima Thesibus praecedentibus a nobis enumerata: Futurorum praedictiones quae in ea habentur, doctrinae quam tradit sanctitas, sublimitas et efficacia, styli majestas atque simplicitas, consensus veteris et novi Testamenti, miracula in ejus confirmationem facta, genus vitae eorum qui primi eam tradiderunt, perpetua Dei cura in ea conservanda, constantia martyrum in veritate illius tuenda, populorum consensus, et ipsorum etiam hostium testimonium. Quodnam vero Concilium, aut quae Pastorum multitudo, tot et tam insignibus authoritatem suam ingerit argumentis? Atque hic appellanda est conscientia adversariorum, annon, scilicet, notius sit scripta Mosis et Pauli divina et authentica esse, quam Concilium Florentinum, Tridentinum, aut Lateranense legitima esse Concilia, et quae Spiritus sancti infallibilem ductum habuerunt.
Scripture is more certain than living pastors; Peter's firmer prophetic word§106
106Scripture is also more certain for believers than the word of those who preside in the Church — so it does not borrow its authority from them.
Pastors today are not more certain for the faithful than the Apostles were for the first Christians. Yet while the Apostles still lived and preached, their testimony weighed less among believers than Scripture's — as Peter shows in his second letter (2 Peter 1). Speaking to people who already believed, after he told how he heard the voice from heaven say of Christ, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," he adds that they have a firmer witness still: the Prophets in the holy Scriptures.
"We did not follow cleverly devised myths," he says, "when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice came to him from the Majestic Glory: 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.' We heard that voice from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place."
Latin · §106
XXIX. Praeterea Scriptura fidelibus est certior testimonio eorum qui Ecclesiae praesunt, ac proinde ab illis authoritatem suam non mutuatur. Nam authoritas Pastorum Ecclesiae non est hodie fidelibus certior, quam fuit primis Christianis authoritas Apostolorum. Sed Apostolis olim viventibus et praedicantibus, testimonium eorum apud fideles minus certum fuit Scripturae testimonio, ut patet ex verbis Petri, Epist. 2. cap. 1. ubi verba faciens apud eos qui jam fidem susceperant, postquam testatus est se vocem audivisse de coelo Christo dicentem, hic est filius meus dilectus in quo mihi complacui, addit fideles habere de Christo testimonium aliud firmius, nempe Prophetarum in Scripturis sanctis. Non enim, inquit, arte compositas fabulas secuti, notam fecimus vobis Domini nostri Jesu Christi potentiam et adventum. Sed ut qui nostris oculis aspeximus illius majestatem. Acceperat enim a Deo Patre honorem et gloriam, voce ad eum delata hujusmodi e magnifica gloria, hic est filius meus dilectus in quo acquiesco. Et hanc vocem audivimus e caelo delatam, cum essemus una cum eo in monte sancto: Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem, cui benefacitis attendentes, quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco.
Scripture's witness outranks the Baptist's — and today's pastors§107
107Sacred Scripture also has, on every side, greater authority among believers than the Church's pastors do.
Their testimony today is no greater than John the Baptist's once was. Yet Scripture's testimony was greater than the Baptist's — as Christ our Lord teaches plainly (John 5), where he sets Scripture's witness to himself above John's. "You sent to John," he says, "and he has borne witness to the truth; yet I have a testimony greater than John's."
He then names a threefold witness greater than John's: first the miracles he worked — "the works the Father gave me to accomplish testify that the Father has sent me"; next the Father's voice from heaven — "the Father who sent me has himself borne witness of me"; and last sacred Scripture. He adds: "Search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me."
Latin · §107
XXX. Adde quod Scriptura sacra majorem ex omni parte apud fideles authoritatem habet, quam testimonium Pastorum Ecclesiae. Etenim testimonium Pastorum Ecclesiae non est hodie majus quam erat olim Joannis Baptistae testimonium. At Scripturae testimonium testimonio Joannis Baptistae majus erat: ut manifeste docet Christus Dominus noster, Joan. cap. 5. ubi testimonium illud quod ipsi Scripturae sacrae perhibebant, anteponit Joannis Baptistae testimonio. Misistis, inquit, ad Joannem, et testimonium dedit veritati, ego autem habeo testimonium majus Joannis testimonio. Et postea affert triplex testimonium testimonio Joannis majus: et primo quidem opera miraculosa quae patrabat. Opera enim, inquit, quae dedit mihi Pater, ut ea perficerem, testantur de me quod Pater miserit me. Deinde vocem Patris e coelo attestantem, Et qui misit me Pater ipse testatus est de me. Ac denique Scripturae sacrae testimonium. Subjungit enim, Scrutamini Scripturas, quia vos putatis in ipsis vitam aeternam habere, et illae sunt quae testificantur de me.
Councils and papal letters yield to Moses and Paul; the Bereans check preaching§108
108On their own showing, no Church testimony is brighter or more solemn than what Councils and papal Decrees give. Yet common Christian sense says no council matches sacred Scripture's authority. No one dares set Nicea, Chalcedon, Trent, or any other beside Moses and the Prophets. Even Rome's warmest friends have not yet hardened their faces enough to level papal letters with Paul's epistles and the four Gospels.
Roman practice itself proves it. When they rank the sources of theological argument, Scripture always comes first; Councils and papal Decrees come later. They so honor Scripture, as they should, that they grant no error can be found in it, even the least. Councils they want infallible on dogmas of faith — yet they admit many other slips: conclusions may be of faith while the arguments are poor; they may hold the question of right and still err on the question of fact.
Pastors and doctors also use Scripture's witnesses to recommend their own teaching — and that teaching can and must be tried by Scripture. So the Bereans are praised: after hearing Paul preach, they searched the Scriptures to see whether those things were so (Acts 17). If Scripture carries more weight with believers than the Church's pastors, it plainly does not take its authority from their word. What is greater cannot draw its authority from what is less. Nothing can give an authority greater than its own.
Latin · §108
XXXI. Praeterea Ecclesiae testimonium nullum est illustrius et magis solemne juxta adversarios, quam illud quod perhibetur in Conciliis et Decretis Pontificum. At sensus communis fidelium dictat nullorum Conciliorum tantam esse authoritatem, quam sit Scripturae sacrae. Nec enim ullum Concilium vel Nicenum, vel Chalcedonense, vel Tridentinum, vel aliud quodvis quisquam aequiparare auderet authoritate scriptis Mosis et Prophetarum libris. Neque, vel illi qui sunt Pontificibus maxime addicti, eousque adhuc frontem perfricuerunt, ut aequare audeant Epistolas Papales Paulinis Epistolis, et quatuor Evangeliis. Quod docet ipsa praxis doctorum Romanensium. Etenim, cum digerunt locos unde desumuntur argumenta Theologica, primum locum semper Scripturae assignant, posteriorem vero Conciliis, et PP. Decretis. Et quidem eousque Scripturam, sicuti par est, venerantur, ut agnoscant in ea nullum, vel minimum erratum reperiri posse. At, licet velint Concilia infallibilia esse quoad fidei dogmata, tamen agnoscunt in aliis multis errori esse obnoxia, eorumque conclusiones esse quidem de fide, at Concilia uti posse argumentis non bonis: Et quamvis non errent in quaestione juris, saepe tamen falli in quaestione facti. Adde quod Ecclesiae Pastores et Doctores utuntur Scripturae sacrae testimoniis ad authoritatem suae doctrinae conciliandam; illorumque doctrina potest et debet ad Scripturae sacrae examen revocari. Unde est quod laudantur fideles Beroenses qui, audita Pauli praedicatione, consulabant Scripturas, an quae dixerat ita se haberent. Ad. 17. Cum ergo Scriptura sacra apud fideles sit majoris authoritatis, quam sint Ecclesiae Pastores, proculdubio suam authoritatem a testimonio illorum non accipit, quandoquidem quod majorem authoritatem habet, authoritatem sumere non potest ab eo quod habet minorem. Nihil enim potest conferre authoritatem majorem illa ipsa quam habet.
If the Church hangs on Scripture, Scripture cannot hang on the Church§109
109How then could Scripture's authority for us hang on the Church's, when the Church's authority for us hangs on Scripture?
From Scripture we learn which Church is true, and what force it has. That authority cannot be proved with certainty from anywhere else. So the fathers once sent heretics who denied Christ's true Church back to the Scriptures, and held that the true Church must be shown from them. Augustine tells the Donatists: if they hold the Church, let them show it only from the canonical books of divine Scripture.
Rome itself today tries to prove its Church and its infallible authority against us from sacred Scripture, and thinks the work well done when it cites places such as "I am with you to the end of the age," "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail," "the Spirit will lead you into all truth," "Tell it to the Church," and the like, as foundations of the authority it gives the Church. Since, by their own confession, the Church's authority is known to us from Scripture, and no surer proof can be offered, it is clear the other way that our certainty about Scripture does not rest on the Church's testimony as its chief ground. Otherwise the circle is open: Scripture is proved by the Church, the Church by Scripture, and back again without end.
Latin · §109
XXXII. Quomodo vero posset Scripturae authoritas quoad nos ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere, cum contra, authoritas Ecclesiae quoad nos ab authoritate Scripturae pendeat. Etenim ex Scriptura discimus quae sit vera Ecclesia, et quae et quanta sit illius authoritas. Nec authoritas illa potest aliunde certo probari. Ideoque patres olim ad Scripturas revocarunt haereticos qui veram Christi Ecclesiam non agnoscebant, et ex iis veram Ecclesiam demonstrandam esse censuerunt. Sic enim Augustinus cum Donatistis agit: Utrum ipsi, inquit, Ecclesiam teneant nonnisi divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant. Et ipsi Pontificii hodie Ecclesiam suam, et authoritatem ejus infallibilem, contra nos ex Scriptura sacra probare conantur, et eo se officio egregie defungi putant dum nobis afferunt illa Scripturae loca, Ero vobiscum usque ad consummationem saeculi, Rogavi pro te, Petre, ne fides tua deficiat, Spiritus vos deducet in omnem veritatem, Dic Ecclesiae, et similia quaedam quae proferunt tanquam fundamenta authoritatis illius quam Ecclesiae tribuunt. Cum igitur, ipsis fatentibus, ex Scriptura authoritas Ecclesiae nobis innotescat, nec certior possit ejus afferri probatio, planum est vice versa certitudinem nostrae fidei de Scriptura, Ecclesiae testimonio, tanquam praecipuo suo fundamento, non niti. Alioquin hic admittetur circulus. Nam Scripturae authoritas per Ecclesiam probabitur, et vicissim authoritas Ecclesiae per Scripturam; Et rursus a Scriptura ad Ecclesiam redibitur, et sic in infinitum.
Rome's letters of credit cut the other way§110
110Rome adds that Scripture in the Church's hands is like letters of credit: papers that accredit an envoy from a superior, and that send us back to that superior for a fuller account of his mind and will. So they want the Church to present Scripture as a diploma sealing its divine calling and authority, and remitting us to the Church to learn God's will more fully.
But letters of credit do not draw their force from the one who shows them. The opposite is true: the bearer's authority is known and confirmed by the letters. The one who brings the letters is not why we trust the letters; we trust him because of the letters that accredit him.
Latin · §110
XXXIII. Huc accedit quod Pontificii docent Scripturam in manibus Ecclesiae esse instar literarum quas vocant credentiae, hoc est, quibus fides sit alicui qui mittitur ab aliquo superiori, et quibus ad illum remittimur, ut plenius de mittentis mente et voluntate informemur: Sic enim volunt Ecclesiam nobis exhibere Scripturam, tanquam diploma quo ejus divina vocatio et authoritas confirmatur, ac nobis obsignatur. Et quo ad illam remittimur, ut plenius de voluntate Dei edoceamur. At literarum illarum, quas credentiae vocant, authoritas non pendet ab eo qui illas exhibet: sed contra authoritas ejus qui literas exhibet per literas illas nobis innotescit et confirmatur. Et qui affert literas non est causa cur literis credamus: sed illi credimus propter istas literas quibus fides ei sit.
Stapleton's Baptist mutual-testimony fails; dependence cannot run both ways§111
111Their reply to this argument is strange. Stapleton, who seems to have handled the controversy with the most care, grants that the Church's authority for us hangs on Scripture's. He denies that Scripture's authority therefore fails to hang in turn on the Church's — and he tries to prove it by instances.
Christ's authority for us, he says, hung on John the Baptist's, for John was sent to witness to Christ so that all might believe through him; yet the Baptist's authority in turn hung on Christ's witness, for Christ attested John and confirmed his calling. The instance — and others like it — does not reach the point. Mutual testimony can prove two things to each other. It does not show that the first's authority hangs on the second's, and the second's on the first's, for the same people at once.
The Baptist did point men to Christ. Those who came to Christ that way did not believe in Christ chiefly on the Baptist's word, nor was John greater or surer for them than Christ. We grant that John's authority hung on Christ's; we deny outright that Christ's hung on John's. Two authorities cannot each hang on the other for the same persons at the same time. Whatever hangs on another is less certain and less known to us than that on which it hangs. If the Church's authority depends on Scripture's, Scripture is more certain and better known for us. If Scripture's hangs on the Church's, Scripture is less certain and less known. Then Scripture would be at once more and less certain, better and less known, than the Church — a contradiction.
The question here is not merely whether Scripture can be proved by the Church and the Church by Scripture. It is whether Scripture's authority, properly speaking, hangs on the Church's as on a principle of faith more certain and better known for us.
Latin · §111
XXXIV. Ad hoc Argumentum mirum est quomodo respondeant Pontificii. Etenim Stapletonus, qui omnium accuratissime hanc controversiam tractasse videtur, concedit authoritatem Ecclesiae quoad nos ab authoritate Scripturae pendere. At negat inde sequi authoritatem Scripturae non pendere vicissim ab Ecclesiae authoritate. Idque probare conatur quibusdam instantiis in negationis suae rationem adductis. Nam, inquit, authoritas Christi quoad nos ab authoritate Johannis Baptistae pendebat. Johannes enim missus erat ut Christo testimonium perhiberet, et ut omnes per illum in Christum crederent. Et tamen vicissim Baptistae authoritas quoad nos a Christi testimonio pendebat. Christus enim Baptistae testimonium perhibuit, et vocationem illius confirmavit. Verum haec Instantia, et similes quas affert, nihil faciunt ad rem. Nam per hoc tantum ostenditur, duo quaedam sibi posse testimonium mutuo perhibere, et sese invicem probare. At non duo ita esse comparata, ut authoritas primi ab authoritate secundi pendeat, et vicissim authoritas secundi ab authoritate primi, saltem eorundem respectu. Etenim verum est quidem Baptistam testimonium perhibuisse Christo, et Christum indicasse, atque homines ad Christum adduxisse. At tamen Christi authoritas ab authoritate Baptistae non pendebat, neque qui ad Christum adducti fuerant et Christum agnoverant Baptista indicante, in Christum credebant propter Baptistae testimonium, tanquam praecipuum fidei suae fundamentum. Neque major et certior quoad illos erat Johannis Baptistae, quam Christi authoritas. Itaque damus quidem authoritatem Johannis Baptistae ab authoritate Christi pependisse, at pernegamus Christi authoritatem vicissim pependisse ab authoritate Johannis Baptistae. Et certe impossibile est duo ita esse comparata, ut unius authoritas ab alterius authoritate pendeat, et vicissim, saltem quoad eosdem, et eodem tempore. Nam id cujus authoritas ab alio pendet, quoad nos minus certum et notum est eo unde dependet. Ita si Ecclesiae authoritas quoad nos ab authoritate Scripturae dependet, tum certior et notior est quoad nos Scripturae authoritas. Si vero vicissim Scripturae authoritas ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendet, tum Scriptura quoad nos minus certa erit et nota. Et sic Scripturae authoritas simul erit quoad nos certior et minus certa, notior et minus nota quam Ecclesiae authoritas, quod implicat contradictionem. Jam vero hic non quaeritur simpliciter, an Scriptura possit per Ecclesiam probari, et Ecclesia vicissim per Scripturam. Sed an Scripturae authoritas proprie loquendo pendeat ab Ecclesiae authoritate, tanquam ab aliquo fidei principio quod sit certius et notius quoad nos.
Stapleton's Symbol reply fails; the Creed takes its authority from Scripture§112
112Stapleton's second reply grants that the Church's authority for us hangs on Scripture's, yet denies that the Church can be known only through Scripture. Apart from Scripture, he says, the faithful learn from the Creed that the Church exists and must be believed.
The Creed has no authority of its own. It draws its whole force from sacred Scripture, from which it is taken. It is simply the faithful's confession of what they believe according to Scripture. That already makes the Creed's authority better known to us than the Church's — which cuts hard against those who say the Creed's authority, like every other article of belief, hangs on the Church as on a better-known principle of faith.
On their own showing the Church is the body that frames Creeds and confers that authority. Yet in the Creed we confess one holy Catholic Church, and the Creed never tells us which Church that is — Roman rather than Greek or Ethiopian. No proof from the Creed settles it. If Scripture's authority is to be confirmed to us through the Church's, as Rome wants, bare knowledge that some Church exists on earth is not enough. We must know determinately which Church is the true one, clothed with divine and infallible authority.
Latin · §112
XXXV. Secundo respondet Stapletonus, authoritatem quidem Ecclesiae quoad nos ab authoritate Scripturae pendere, non tamen ita ut Ecclesia non possit aliunde quam per sacram Scripturam innotescere. Nam, inquit, citra Scripturam ex Symbolo discunt fideles Ecclesiam esse et ipsi esse credendum. At certe Symbolum per se authoritatem non habet, sed authoritatem suam sumit ex Scriptura sacra, ex qua totum desumptum est. Nec Symbolum aliud est, quam declaratio eorum quae fideles, juxta Scripturam sacram, se credere profitentur. Praeterea inde sequitur authoritatem Symboli quoad nos, notiorem esse ipsa Ecclesiae authoritate, quod valde facit contra adversarios, qui authoritatem Symboli, ut caeterorum omnium credendorum, ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere contendunt, tanquam a fidei quodam notiori principio et argumento. Nam Ecclesia juxta adversarios ipsa est quae Symbola condit, et conciliat illam authoritatem. Adde quod in Symbolo profitemur nos credere unam sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam. At Symbolum non docet quae sit illa sancta et Catholica Ecclesia, an scilicet Romana, potius quam Graeca aut Aethiopica. Nec ullis ex Symbolo probationibus istud elici potest. Sed ut authoritas Scripturae per authoritatem Ecclesiae nobis confirmetur, qua ratione volunt Pontificii, non sufficit ut in genere sciamus in terris esse Ecclesiam, sed necesse est ut determinate sciamus quae sit vera Ecclesia, praedita, scilicet, authoritate divina atque infallibili.
Faith received Scripture as Canon for centuries before any solemn Church decree§113
113The certainty with which believers receive sacred Scripture as the rule of faith does not hang on some public, solemn Church decree that confirms Scripture's divinity like an oracle. For ages Scripture was publicly known and received as the Canon of faith with no such decree at all.
For several centuries after the Apostles, no council and no pope sealed a fixed Canon or drew up a catalogue of the sacred books. The first council to review the number of Canonical books was Laodicea — not before the three-hundredth year from Christ's birth, and still a particular council, not a general one. Yet before Laodicea the Canon was already certain, and Scripture's authority was certain to the faithful.
Neither Laodicea nor the later councils that listed the sacred books aimed to give those books some new authority. They only marked and declared which books were already Canonical.
Latin · §113
XXXVI. Praeterea quod certitudo fidei, qua Scripturam sacram fideles amplectuntur ut fidei regulam, non pendeat a publico et solemni aliquo Ecclesiae judicio, quo tanquam oraculo divina authoritas Scripturae confirmatur, inde patet quod, citra ullum ejusmodi judicium, Scriptura multis seculis publice innotuit et recepta est, tanquam fidei Canon. Etenim per aliquot annorum centurias a tempore Apostolorum, nullum Concilium, nec ullus Pontifex certum Scripturae Canonem consignavit, et librorum sacrorum catalogum contexuit. Nam primum Concilium in quo librorum Canonicorum numerus recensitus est Laodicenum fuit, quod non habitum est ante trecentesimum a Christo nato annum, et adhuc particulare fuit, non generale. At ante Concilium istud certus fuit Scripturae Canon, et certa fidelibus Scripturae authoritas. Neque Laodicenae Synodi, ut nec subsequentium Conciliorum quae librorum sacrorum numerum recensuerunt, scopus fuit novam quandam authoritatem libris illis acquirere, sed tantum indicare et declarare qui jam Canonici fuissent.
Pre-conciliar tradition cannot be the certain foundation of faith in Scripture§114
114Nor may one fall back on some Church tradition, as if before the councils that fixed the number of sacred books tradition itself had been the foundation of faith concerning Scripture.
Rome grants that tradition is a means the Church uses in judging matters of faith. Yet on Rome's own terms tradition is as doubtful as the books of Scripture, and is no certain foundation of faith until a public Church judgment has proved it.
Latin · §114
XXXVII. Neque hic recurri potest ad traditionem aliquam Ecclesiae, quasi ante Concilia quae librorum sacrorum numerum definierunt, Ecclesiae traditio fuerit fidei de Scriptura fundamentum. Nam Pontificii volunt traditionem esse quidem medium quo Ecclesia utitur in dijudicandis eis quae fidei sunt, attamen traditionem dubiam esse volunt, non minus quam libros Scripturae, nec esse certum fidei fundamentum, antequam publico Ecclesiae judicio probata fuerit.
Stapleton's tacit Church testimony follows the faithful's belief; it cannot found it§115
115Stapleton's further device helps no more. He distinguishes two kinds of Church testimony: one solemn and express, given in general councils and papal decrees; the other tacit and interpretative, by which the Church is said to approve whatever she lets her ministers teach and her people hold.
As if, before any council decided the Canon, the Church had already judged the Canonical books — not by a solemn sentence, but by this tacit reading: she let pastors hand the books to the faithful as Canonical, and did not reject the faith of those who received them.
That so-called interpretative judgment cannot found the faithful's belief, nor did Christian faith hang on it. It follows their faith; it does not precede it. What the Church allows to happen is already happening before she allows it. So I ask Rome: what grounded that early Christian faith which the Church merely tolerated and is said to have approved by her silence? A faith conceived as prior to that tolerance cannot rest on the tolerance and the tacit consent.
Latin · §115
XXXVIII. Nec etiam est magis ad rem commentum Stapletoni qui duplex Ecclesiae testimonium distinguit. Unum solemne et expressum, quod Ecclesia scilicet perhibet in Conciliis universalibus et PP. Decretis. Alterum tacitum et interpretativum, quo Ecclesia censetur probare illa quae a suis ministris patitur doceri, et a populo fideli teneri; quasi Ecclesia ante Conciliorum determinationem, jam de Canonicis libris judicium pronuntiasset, et testimonium perhibuisset, non illud quidem solemne et expressum; sed alterum istud tacitum et interpretativum: quatenus nimirum sinebat Pastores libros Scripturae tanquam Canonicos fidelibus tradere, nec fidelium illos acceptantium fidem improbabat. Nam judicium, sive testimonium illud, quod vocat interpretativum, non poterat fidem fidelium fundare, nec ab eo fides Christianorum pendebat, quandoquidem judicium illud fidem fidelium sequitur, non praecedit. Quod enim sinit Ecclesia fieri, intelligitur esse et fieri, prius quam Ecclesia illud fieri sinat et patiatur. Itaque rogo Pontificios quodnam fundamentum habebat illa priscorum Christianorum fides, quam Ecclesia toleravit, et quam probasse censetur sua tolerantia. Nam certe non potuit niti Ecclesiae tolerantia, et tacito consensu, fides illa quae concipitur tanquam aliquid ista tolerantia prius.
Disputed New Testament books were already received without a public Church determination§116
116Whatever one makes of that tacit testimony, Rome herself teaches that for a time the Church gave no sentence on certain Canonical books. Some New Testament books were once doubted, they say, because the Church had not yet made her mind clear enough about them.
Even so, while some doubted, most churches already received those books publicly and held them divine and authentic. Public Church testimony is therefore not required before a book's divinity can stand publicly and believers be sure of it. Before any Church determination of the disputed books, their authority was already certain and publicly owned across the greater part of the Christian world.
Jude and James seemed disputed (ἀντιλεγόμεναι) to some, as Eusebius says; yet on his own witness others acknowledged them (ὁμολογούμεναι) and received them publicly. Some rejected John's Apocalypse, yet the churches John had nursed, as Tertullian puts it, defended its authority. Hebrews stood the same way: though long doubted in the Latin Church, Jerome tells Dardanus that the Eastern churches had venerated it as divine and Apostolic.
Latin · §116
XXXIX. Deinde, quicquid sit de illo tacito Ecclesiae testimonio, saltem quod ad aliquos Canonicos libros attinet, docent Pontificii per aliquod tempus Ecclesiam super illis non pronuntiasse suam sententiam: dicunt enim de quibusdam Novi Testamenti libris olim dubitatum fuisse, eo quod Ecclesia de illis mentem suam non satis testata fuerat. At licet quidam de illis dubitarent, tamen apud plerasque Ecclesias libri illi etiam tum publice recepti fuerunt, et pro divinis atque authenticis habiti. Unde liquet publicum Ecclesiae testimonium necessarium non esse ut de cujuspiam libri divinitate publice constare possit, et de eo certi sint fideles. Quandoquidem ante Ecclesiae determinationem librorum illorum, de quibus quidam addubitabant, certa fuit et publice agnita authoritas in Christiani orbis maxima parte. Quamvis enim Epistolae Judae et Jacobi quibusdam viderentur ἀντιλεγόμεναι, ut ait Eusebius: tamen, eodem teste, apud alios erant ὁμολογούμεναι et publice receptae. Et similiter, cum Joannis Apocalypsin quidam rejicerent, tamen Johannis alumnae Ecclesiae, ut loquitur Tertullianus, illius authoritatem tuebantur. Et de Epistola ad Hebraeos eodem modo res se habuit. Quanquam enim de illa aliquandiu dubitatum fuerit in Ecclesia Latina, Hieronymus tamen docet Epistola ad Dardanum, Ecclesias Orientis illam fuisse veneratas tanquam divinam et Apostolicam.
Old Testament prophets held divine authority before and against the priests who opposed them§117
117Go back to Old Testament times. When the Prophets published their books, those books already had authority by right, and in fact held it among Israel's faithful, before the priests then ruling the Church had approved them or declared them divine.
Most of the Prophets were sent chiefly to rebuke the priests' vices and sloth, so the priests were usually their enemies. Even so, against that resistance the Prophets' books were held and acknowledged as divine and authentic. Jeremiah makes it plain. In chapter 8 he rebukes Judah's rulers: How can you say, We are wise, and the Lord's law is with us? The lying pen of the scribes has wrought a lie; the wise are shamed and taken; they have cast away the Lord's word, and there is no wisdom in them — from prophet to priest they all work a lie.
In chapter 18 those same rulers plot against him: Come, let us devise devices against Jeremiah. The law will not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, let us strike him with the tongue, and ignore all his words. Far from approving his prophecies, they fought him. Yet Jehoiakim is charged most heavily for rejecting the authority of those prophecies that Baruch had written out, and for cutting them with a scribe's knife and burning them (Jeremiah 36). On Rome's principles, what great crime was the king committing in refusing as divine a writing the Church's judgment had not yet approved — a writing her rulers were then attacking?
Latin · §117
XL. Quod si libet ad Veteris Testamenti tempora regredi, quando Prophetae libros suos edebant, libri illi authoritatem et de jure habebant, et de facto apud fideles Israelitici populi obtinebant, antequam sacerdotes Ecclesiae tum praepositi, libros illos probassent, et divinos esse declarassent. Imo cum plerique eorum in eum finem praecipue a Deo missi essent, ut Sacerdotum vitia et socordiam arguerent, illos ut plurimum habuerunt adversos; et tamen, non obstante illa Sacerdotum repugnantia, Prophetarum libri pro divinis et authenticis habiti et agniti fuerunt. Quod patet praesertim Jeremiae exemplo. Etenim cap. 8. libri sui sic eos increpat qui tum Judaico populo praeerant. Quomodo dicitis nos sapientes sumus et lex Domini nobiscum est: vere mendacium operatus est stylus mendax Scribarum, confusi sunt sapientes, perterriti et capti sunt; verbum enim Domini abjecerunt, et sapientia nulla est in eis, a Propheta usque ad Sacerdotem omnes faciunt mendacium. Ideoque cap. 18. videmus in Jeremiam insurrexisse istos Ecclesiae praepositos, dicentes, Venite et cogitemus contra Jeremiam cogitationes. Non peribit enim lex a Sacerdote, et consilium a sapiente, nec sermo a Propheta. Venite et percutiamus eum lingua, et non attendamus ad universos sermones ejus. Et tamen quamvis ita Jeremiae repugnarent Ecclesiae Judaicae praepositi, nedum ut illius prophetias probarent, tamen, inquam, gravissime increpatur Jehojakim, quod prophetiarum illius a Barucho exscriptarum authoritatem respuisset, ipsasque scalpello Scribae laceratas combussisset, ut habetur Jeremiae cap. 36. Sed juxta placita Pontificiorum quodnam tantum crimen admittebat rex ille, pro divino non habens scriptum, quod nondum Ecclesiae judicio probatum erat, imo tunc ab Ecclesiae praepositis impugnabatur.
Pastors cannot ground their own certainty about Scripture in the Church's judgment of themselves§118
118Finally, since by the Church on which Scripture's authority for us is said to hang Rome means the pastors and bishops who rule the Church, we ask: whence does Scripture's authority hang for the pastors themselves, and how do they know these books are divine and God-inspired?
They cannot appeal here to a Church judgment that founds the pastors' own faith in Scripture. The pastors and bishops are that Church whose testimony is in question. They would then learn from themselves which writings are true Scripture, and their faith would rest on their own word. To leave no escape, take those who first gave such a judgment: they could not lean on other pastors' rulings.
Yet Rome will not have the Church's pastors driven by enthusiasms or taught Scripture by immediate revelation — for such enthusiasms and immediate revelations, they say, no longer have place in God's Church. Bishops and doctors reach that knowledge with the Holy Spirit teaching and leading, but also through their own study, diligence, careful reading of the books, and close weighing of the many arguments the Spirit uses to beget faith in Scripture in them. What absurdity is it, then, to say the faithful are led the same way by the Spirit into knowledge of sacred Scripture? At least this much follows plainly: Scripture can be established for us without enthusiasm or immediate revelation — and also without some authentic, infallible Church judgment.
Latin · §118
XLI. Denique, quandoquidem per Ecclesiam unde pendet quoad nos Scripturae authoritas, Pontificii intelligunt Pastores et Episcopos qui Ecclesiam regunt, rogamus eos unde pendeat Scripturae authoritas quoad Pastores ipsos, et unde constet eis hos libros divinos esse et a Deo inspiratos. Certe hic recurrere non possunt ad Ecclesiae judicium, quo Pastorum fides de Scriptura fundetur. Nam Pastores et Episcopi sunt ipsa Ecclesia de cujus testimonio et judicio agitur: adeoque Pastores illi ex seipsis discerent, quae sint verae Scripturae, et fides eorum in proprio suo testimonio fundaretur: nam, nequis sit ullus exceptioni locus, sumemus in exemplum eos qui primi tale quoddam judicium pronuntiarunt, neque pastorum aliorum judicio niti poterant. Et tamen adversarii nolunt Pastores Ecclesiae enthusiasmis agi, et Scripturae notitiam ex immediata Dei revelatione habere. Siquidem enthusiasmi et immediatae revelationes non amplius habent locum in Ecclesia Dei. Sed statuunt Episcopos et Doctores Ecclesiae ad cognitionem illam pervenire, Spiritu quidem sancto docente et ducente, sed tamen etiam mediante ipsorum studio, et diligentia, et consideratione accurata librorum ipsorum, ac sedulo examine multorum argumentorum, quibus Spiritus S. utitur ad fidem de Scriptura ipsis ingenerandam. Quid autem absurdi est, si dicamus fideles eo modo, Spiritu sancto in Scripturae sacrae cognitionem duci? saltem ex eo manifeste sequitur de Scriptura sacra nobis constare posse citra enthusiasmum, et immediatam revelationem, et tamen etiam citra Ecclesiae quoddam judicium authenticum et infallibile.
Pars IV opens: adversaries' arguments against the Reformed position remain to be answered§119
119In the immediately preceding disputation we set out the state of this question and confirmed the true view with the arguments that seemed to us most fit. What remains is to sift the adversaries' arguments and show, as briefly and clearly as we can, how empty they are.
Latin · §119
I. DISPUTATIONE proxime praecedenti quaestionis hujus statum explicuimus, veramque sententiam confirmavimus iis argumentis quae nobis maxime idonea visa sunt. Restat ut excutiamus argumenta adversariorum, et eorum vanitatem, quam breviter et dilucide a nobis fieri poterit, ostendamus.
First adversary argument: Scripture cannot prove Scripture, so the Church's testimony must§120
120Their first attempt is to prove that Scripture's authority hangs on the Church's. Scripture, they say, cannot be proved by Scripture. So for the faithful to be sure of Scripture, some divine and infallible testimony must prove it. That testimony, they claim, can only be the Church's — none more certain or august on earth.
If you answer that Scripture in many places asserts its own divinity, they retort that we would already have to be persuaded of that divinity from elsewhere before we could believe the assertion. Mere self-claim is not enough: most of the Apocrypha claimed to be divine and were rightly rejected.
And it seems plain that Scripture cannot prove Scripture, because every proof moves from what is better known — and the same thing cannot be both better and less known than itself. Nothing from Scripture proves anything to someone who does not yet grant Scripture's authority, or who still doubts it.
Latin · §120
II. Primum ergo sic authoritatem Scripturae ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere, probare conantur. Scriptura, inquiunt, per Scripturam probari non potest. Ergo, ut de Scriptura apud fideles constet, necesse est ut sit testimonium aliquod divinum et infallibile, quo Scriptura probetur. Sed hoc testimonium aliud esse non potest quam Ecclesiae testimonium, quo in terris nullum est certius et augustius. Quod si dicas Scripturam multis in locis se divinam asserere, regerunt illi, ut Scripturae credamus se divinam asserenti, necesse esse ut de illius divinitate jam aliunde persuasi simus. Nec enim, ut scriptum aliquod pro divino habeatur, sufficit ut se divinum afferat: quod fecere libri plerique Apocryphi, qui merito tamen rejecti sunt. Et certe Scripturam per Scripturam ipsam probari non posse inde manifestum videtur, quod probatio omnis est a notioribus. At idem non est seipso notius et ignotius. Neque authoritatem Scripturae nescienti, aut de Scriptura dubitanti ex Scriptura quicquam probatur.
The argument is a fallacy that overturns every first rule of faith, including Rome's§121
121I answer that this is a mere fallacy with which Rome can be pressed as hard as we can. Turn it back on them: the Church's voice and testimony is not the supreme rule of faith; its authority for us hangs on some other principle of faith better known and more certain.
There must be another divine testimony, clearer and surer than the Church's, by which the Church's testimony itself is established — because the Church's authority cannot be proved by the Church's own word. The same thing is not better known and less known than itself; nothing from the Church's testimony proves anything to someone ignorant of that authority, or still doubting it.
If the argument is worth anything, it overturns faith altogether. No rule of faith can be offered as first and supreme without leaving room for the same objection.
Latin · §121
III. Respondeo hoc argumentum meram esse fallaciam qua Pontificii possunt aeque ac nos urgeri. Sic enim in ipsos retorqueri potest. Ecclesiae vox et testimonium non est suprema fidei regula, sed ejus authoritas ab alio quodam fidei principio quoad nos notiori et certiori pendet. Nam necesse est ut sit testimonium aliud divinum, Ecclesiae testimonio notius et certius, per quod de Ecclesiae testimonio constet. Et hoc quia Ecclesiae authoritas et testimonium per ipsius Ecclesiae testimonium probari non potest. Cum idem seipso non sit notius et ignotius, neque authoritatem Ecclesiae ignoranti, aut de authoritate Ecclesiae dubitanti, quicquam possit ex testimonio Ecclesiae probari. Itaque, si quicquam valet hoc argumentum, omnem prorsus fidem subvertit: quandoquidem non potest ulla proferri fidei regula, tanquam prima et suprema, contra quam non liceat simili argumento uti.
Formalized, the major is false: a first principle need not prove itself or be evident§122
122To expose the cheat, reduce the argument to form. They must argue: whatever is not evident of itself and cannot prove itself is not a first principle of faith or supreme rule whose authority does not hang elsewhere — it must be proved through something else. But Scripture is not evident, nor can it prove itself. Therefore, and so on.
The major is plainly false. On the contrary: what is a first principle of faith must neither prove itself nor be proved through another — and yet need not be something evident. In the human sciences some principles are first: the rest hang on them and are proved through them, while they hang on nothing else in that order, or they would not be first, and win assent of themselves. Faith is the same.
Either admit a circle, or an infinite regress — both absurd — or stop at some principle on which the rest of faith hangs, proved by no prior principle and not by itself either, since the same thing cannot prove itself, yet winning immediate belief and assent of itself.
Latin · §122
IV. Ut autem hujus argumenti fraus et vitium detegatur, ad formam revocandum est. Sic igitur necesse est ut illi argumententur. Quod ex se non est evidens, nec seipsum probare potest, illud non est primum fidei principium, et suprema fidei regula, cujus authoritas aliunde non pendet, sed ipsum per aliud probari necesse est. At Scriptura non est aliquid evidens, nec seipsam probare potest. Ergo, &c. Jam vero major hujus argumenti est falsi manifesta. Nam plane contra necesse est, ut quod est primum fidei principium, neque seipsum probet, nec per aliud probetur; nec tamen sit aliquid evidens. Etenim quemadmodum in disciplinis humanis quaedam sunt prima principia, unde reliqua pendent, et per quae caetera probantur, ipsa tamen neque a se, neque ab aliis in hoc genere pendent, alioqui prima non essent, sed per se fidem et assensum obtinent: ita quoque res se habet in fidei doctrina. Vel enim debet hic admitti circulus, aut dari progressus in infinitum, quorum utrumque est absurdum; aut necessario sistendum est in principio aliquo, unde pendeant, et per quod probentur caetera quae ad fidem pertinent, ipsum tamen a nullo priori, scilicet, probetur, neque etiam a seipso: quandoquidem idem non potest a seipso probari: sed per se fidem et assensum obtineat, et cui immediate credamus et assentiamur.
Faith principles are not self-evident like science, yet we believe them immediately by the Spirit§123
123Faith's principles and the sciences' differ here: the sciences' principles are self-known and evident, and by their own light compel the intellect to assent. Faith's principles, though they have some moral evidence, are — strictly and properly — inevident, and do not by their own light win the assent faith requires.
Yet they agree in this: as we assent to natural principles immediately by the natural light of the intellect, so we believe faith's principles immediately by the Spirit's illumination and impulse. And as nothing stops natural principles from sometimes being proved a posteriori, so faith's principles can be proved — but only a posteriori, and only ad hominem.
Latin · §123
V. In hoc quidem differunt principia fidei, et principia scientiarum, quod principia scientiarum per se nota sunt et evidentia, et sua luce cogunt intellectum ad assensum: principia vero fidei, quamvis moralem aliquam evidentiam habeant, tamen, logice et proprie loquendo, sunt inevidentia, neque sua luce assensum, qualem fides requirit, impetrant. Attamen in hoc conveniunt quod sicut principiis naturalibus assentimur immediate, per naturale lumen intellectus: ita quoque fidei principiis immediate credimus, per illuminationem et impulsum Spiritus sancti. Verum ut nihil obstat quominus aliquando principia naturalia probentur a posteriori: sic etiam fidei principia probari quidem possunt, sed a posteriori, et ad hominem tantum.
Scripture can still be the first principle of faith though it is neither evident nor self-proving§124
124So in the matter of faith we must come down to some principle that is neither evident of itself nor able to prove itself, yet hangs on no prior principle and of itself deserves authority and belief. Though Scripture is neither evident of itself nor able to prove itself, it does not follow that Scripture is not that first principle of faith which borrows its authority from nowhere else.
Latin · §124
VI. Inde ergo planum est in fidei negotio deveniendum esse ad principium aliquod, quod neque ex se sit evidens, neque etiam possit per seipsum probari, et tamen a nullo priori principio pendeat, sed per se authoritatem et fidem mereatur. Quamvis igitur Scriptura neque ex se sit evidens, nec seipsam probare possit, inde tamen concludi non potest illam non esse primum istud fidei principium quod authoritatem suam aliunde non mutuatur.
Rome's Church-testimony claim collapses by the same standard they press against Scripture§125
125Whichever way Rome turns, it must confess that the Church's testimony — which it offers as faith's first and supreme principle — is not evident of itself, and cannot well be proved by the Church's own voice. Yet they still want that testimony to hang on no prior authority and to hold among the faithful of itself. They fight themselves when, from Scripture's inability to prove Scripture, they conclude that Scripture's authority is not first and needs a superior testimony to establish it for us.
The sum of our reply comes to this: Scripture cannot indeed be proved by Scripture itself; yet it does not follow that its authority hangs elsewhere and must be proved to us by the Church as a principle prior and superior to Scripture. As faith's first principle, Scripture wins the faithful's belief and assent not by such a proof intervening, but immediately, by the Spirit's inward efficacy impressing a sure persuasion of it on our minds.
Latin · §125
VII. Et certe quocunque se vertant Pontificii, omnino fateri cogentur Ecclesiae testimonium, quod tanquam primum et supremum fidei principium obtendunt, non esse rem per se evidentem, nec per ipsam Ecclesiae vocem et testimonium idonee posse probari. Cum ergo nihilominus Ecclesiae testimonium ab alia nulla priori authoritate pendere, sed per se suam authoritatem apud fideles obtinere velint, aperte contra seipsos pugnant, quum ex eo quod Scriptura per Scripturam probari non possit, concludunt authoritatem illius non esse primam, et illam superiori indigere testimonio, quo nobis comprobetur. Huc ergo redit summa responsionis nostrae, Scripturam quidem per Scripturam ipsam probari non posse; non tamen inde sequi authoritatem ejus aliunde pendere, et nobis per authoritatem Ecclesiae debere probari, tanquam per quoddam fidei principium Scriptura ipsa prius et superius: quoniam Scriptura, tanquam primum fidei principium, fidem et assensum apud fideles obtinet, non probationis talis interventu, sed immediate per internam Spiritus efficaciam certam de illa persuasionem mentibus nostris imprimentis.
'Scripture cannot prove Scripture' denies only bare self-assertion, not divinity's marks in the text§126
126These points, though, must be taken carefully. When we grant that sacred Scripture cannot be proved by Scripture itself, we mean only that the places where Scripture proclaims itself divinely inspired are not fit arguments to convince and persuade someone who already denies sacred Scripture's authority.
That does not stop us saying, in another sense, that Scripture proves itself: as the preceding theses showed, sacred Scripture bears many marks and arguments of divinity by which it asserts itself true and divine — just as heaven and earth proclaim and show God as their author, not by a bare spoken claim, but by the excellence of their nature and the traces of divine power and wisdom visible in them.
Or as a book claims Aristotle or Euclid as its author not from the title alone, but from the genius of the teaching, the sharpness of style, and the manner of argument — the sort that can belong only to those rare minds.
Latin · §126
VIII. Quae tamen dextre accipienda sunt. Primo enim, cum concedimus Scripturam sacram non posse per Scripturam ipsam probari, hoc tantum volumus illa testimonia quibus Scriptura se esse divinitus inspiratam praedicat, non esse argumenta idonea quibus convincatur, et persuadeatur ille qui Scripturae sacrae authoritatem negat. At hoc non obstat quominus alio sensu Scriptura dici possit seipsam probare, quatenus, ut thesibus praecedentibus ostensum est, Scripturae sacrae insunt multa divinitatis signa et argumenta, quibus seipsam veram et divinam asserit. Non secus ac coelum et terra praedicant et ostendunt suum authorem Deum esse, non simplici aliqua voce et testimonio, sed ex ipsa suae naturae praestantia, et potentiae ac sapientiae divinae vestigiis, quae in illis notari possunt. Aut, ut liber aliquis Aristoteli, et Euclidi se vendicat, non ex solo titulo, sed ex ipsius doctrinae genio, acumine styli, et disserendi modo, qui ejusmodi est, ut non possit, nisi praestantibus illis ingeniis tribui.
Immediate belief is not blind persuasion; moral marks are helps, not de fide proofs§127
127Next, when we say we believe Scripture immediately by the Spirit's inward efficacy, not by some proof stepping in between, we do not mean that our faith about sacred Scripture is a blind persuasion with no reason of its own.
Nor do we deny that the person who believes Scripture as he should is led there by arguments that can persuade a prudent mind that Scripture is true and comes from God.
By that word immediately we shut out only the proofs the schools call de fide — proofs drawn from some principle of faith, that make a matter of faith, and that can by themselves found an article of faith — not every kind of proof whatever.
The arguments that urge sacred Scripture's divinity are not of that kind. They are not taken from any principle or rule of faith, but only from various notes and signs, and they consist wholly of moral arguments that cannot of themselves yield the certainty faith requires — for the certainty owed to faith equals, if it does not surpass, every certainty demonstration can produce.
So although those proofs are helps to faith and motives for believing, the full certainty by which we ought to embrace the sacred books is not to be referred to them as its proper and chief foundation, but rather to the Spirit's inward persuasion.
Latin · §127
IX. Deinde, quum dicimus nos immediate Scripturae credere, per internam Spiritus sancti efficaciam, non vero probationis alicujus interventu, sententia nostra non est, fidem nostram de Scriptura sacra esse caecam persuasionem, et quae sui nullam rationem habeat. Neque per id negamus, eum qui Scripturae, sicuti par est, credit, eo adduci quibusdam argumentis, quae viro prudenti suadere possunt Scripturam veram esse, et a Deo profectam. Etenim per vocem illam immediate non excludimus probationes qualescunque, sed solum probationes quas scholae vocant de fide, id est, quae petitae sint ex aliquo fidei principio, et faciant rem esse de fide, et possint per se fidei articulum fundare. Hujusmodi vero non sunt probationes illae quibus Scripturae sacrae divinitas suadetur. Nec enim petuntur ex ullo fidei principio, et ex aliqua fidei regula; sed tantum ex notis et signis variis: et totae constant argumentis quibusdam moralibus, quae per se parere non possunt eam certitudinem quae requiritur in fide: quandoquidem certitudo quae fidei debetur, ex se et ex suo genere, aequat, si non superat, certitudinem omnem quae nasci potest ex demonstratione. Ac proinde, quamvis probationes istae sint fidei adjumenta et credendi motiva, attamen plena fidei certitudo, qua libros sacros amplecti debemus, ad eas referenda non est, tanquam ad proprium atque praecipuum suum fundamentum, sed potius ad internam Spiritus sancti persuasionem.
Immediate excludes Church authority as faith's foundation, not the Church's teaching ministry§128
128But when we say the certainty of our faith about Scripture's divinity is to be referred immediately to the Spirit's inward persuasion, the adversaries press hard: things that belong to faith — that this or that book was written by divine inspiration — are no longer had by immediate revelations, but by God's ordinance must be learned and received from the teaching Church; otherwise a window opens to fanatics and Enthusiasts.
Reply. Saying something is believed immediately by the Spirit's illumination and impulse can mean two things.
First, it can shut out the work and ministry of people who explain and commend what is to be believed — the way Paul received the Gospel not from a man nor through a man, but was taught immediately by the Holy Spirit. Immediate revelation of that kind no longer has a place in God's Church. Nor does the Spirit, in the common and ordinary way, reveal to the faithful which books were written by divine inspiration. Faith about Scripture is generated in us through the Church's work and ministry as she hands down and recommends the sacred books.
Yet in another sense Scripture can be said to be believed immediately by the Spirit's inward testimony: namely, so that any foreign authority is shut out — whether some unwritten word, or the teaching Church — that would be the properly so-called argument of our faith by which the Spirit founds that faith.
So we believe Scripture immediately because the faith we give it, and which God's Spirit impresses on us, does not properly rest on any external argument or medium, nor is it founded on a word in the Church's mouth.
Likewise, on the Roman Doctors' own view, the faith given to the teaching Church as she proposes God's word (which they believe is in her mouth) does not rest on some alien authority different from that word's authority, nor even take the Church's own testimony and voice as its argument — that would be an argument of itself — but is immediately from the Spirit's illumination and instinct. He still, they say, uses motives that dispose people to trust the Church, which they call the Church's notes.
So by immediately we exclude the Church's authority as faith's foundation, not simply the teaching Church's work and ministry.
Latin · §128
X. Verum quum fidei nostrae certitudinem de Scripturae divinitate immediate referendam dicimus ad internam Spiritus sancti persuasionem, instant adversarii: ea quae fidei sunt, quale est hunc et illum librum divinitus esse conscriptum, non amplius haberi per immediatas revelationes, sed juxta Dei ordinationem ab Ecclesia docente disci et accipi debere: alioqui fenestram apertum iri fanaticis et Enthusiastis. Resp. Quum dicitur aliquid immediate credi, per illuminationem et impulsum Spiritus sancti, id duobus modis intelligi posse. Primo quidem ut excludatur opera et ministerium hominum explicantium et commendantium ea quae credenda sunt; quo pacto Paulus Apostolus Evangelium non acceperat ab homine, neque per hominem, sed immediate a Spiritu sancto edoctus erat. Hujusmodi immediata Spiritus revelatio non amplius locum habet in Ecclesia Dei. Neque Spiritus sanctus, communiter et juxta viam ordinariam, sic fidelibus revelat hos et illos libros esse divinitus conscriptos. Sed fides de Scriptura nobis ingeneratur per operam et ministerium Ecclesiae tradentis et commendantis libros sacros. Verum alio sensu dici potest Scripturam immediate credi per internum Spiritus sancti testimonium; nempe, ut excludatur extranea quaevis authoritas, sive verbi cujusdam non scripti, sive docentis Ecclesiae, quae sit fidei nostrae argumentum proprie dictum, quo fidem nostram Spiritus fundare intelligatur. Atque ita Scripturae immediate credimus, quoniam ea fides quam Scripturae adhibemus, et quam Spiritus Dei nobis imprimit, non nititur proprie ullo argumento et medio externo, nec in verbo aliquo quod in ore sit Ecclesiae fundatur. Non secus ac, ex mente Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae, fides illa quae praebetur Ecclesiae docenti, et proponenti Dei verbum, quod in ejus ore esse credunt, non nititur aliena quadam authoritate, quae sit a verbi illius authoritate diversa: neque etiam habet pro argumento testimonium et vocem Ecclesiae, quandoquidem idem esset sui ipsius argumentum, sed immediate est ex illuminatione et instinctu Spiritus sancti. Qui tamen etiam, ex eorum mente, utitur motivis quibusdam quibus homines ad fidem Ecclesiae adhibendam disponat; qualia sunt quae ipsi notas Ecclesiae vocant. Itaque per vocem illam immediate excludimus authoritatem Ecclesiae tanquam fidei nostrae fundamentum, non vero simpliciter Ecclesiae docentis operam et ministerium.
Adversaries press recognition of books and Protestant discord as against immediate Spirit persuasion§129
129But the adversaries keep pressing. If the faithful received Scripture immediately by the Spirit's inward illumination and persuasion, and not because of the Church's teaching and testimony as their rule of faith, then — they say — those who have God's Spirit could, without the Church's authority and testimony, infallibly and certainly tell divine books from ones that are not. Experience, they claim, says otherwise.
Before the Church judged and determined, many truly divine books were doubted — for example the Epistle to the Hebrews, John's Apocalypse, and several other New Testament books. Others that were not Canonical or divine were ignorantly taken as such even by pious people.
And to press harder: You Protestants, they say, who boast you have that Spirit of God by which sacred and divine books are told from the apocryphal, are not agreed among yourselves; Lutherans doubt the Epistle of James and some others that Calvinists admit.
To set the matter before the eyes and refute us among our own by experience, they read someone from our common people a chapter of an Apocryphal book and a chapter of a Canonical book with the author's and book's name hidden, then ask whether he can tell by the Spirit's help which is divine.
Latin · §129
XI. Sed urgere nos pergunt adversarii. Nam, inquiunt, si fideles immediate Scripturam reciperent per internam Spiritus illuminationem et persuasionem non vero propter Ecclesiae doctrinam et testimonium, tanquam suae fidei regulam, futurum esset ut fideles, qui Spiritum Dei habent, absque authoritate et testimonio Ecclesiae, possent infallibiliter et certo dignoscere libros divinos sibi propositos ab iis qui divini non sunt. At contra est experientia. Siquidem, ante Ecclesiae judicium et determinationem, de multis libris qui vere divini sunt dubitatum fuit; ut ex. gr. de Epistola ad Hebraeos et Joannis Apocalypsi, et de pluribus aliis Novi Testamenti libris. Alii vero qui non erant Canonici et divini pro talibus ignoranter a piis etiam viris habiti sunt. Utque magis nos urgeant. Vos, inquiunt, Protestantes, qui jactatis vos habere illum Dei Spiritum quo libri sacri et divini ab apocryphis dignoscuntur, non estis inter vos de his libris concordes; siquidem Lutherani de Epistola Jacobi, aliisque nonnullis dubitant, quas admittunt Calviniani. Atque ut rem quasi oculis subjiciant, et sententiam nostram apud nostros redarguant ipsa experientia, alicui ex plebe nostra praelegunt caput libri Apocryphi, itemque caput libri Canonici, celato authoris et libri nomine. Tum rogant an possit ope Spiritus discernere, utrum divinum sit, utrum non.
Reply: the Spirit's unction is real but unequal; Philippians 3 bears with the imperfect§130
130Reply. It is true that God grants his Spirit to all the faithful and leads them into knowledge of his word, and that — as John says — they have an anointing from the Holy One that teaches them concerning all things.
Yet not all share that spirit of faith and wisdom equally. God does not dispense it to each by the same measure; he gives a greater supply to some and a lesser to others. Nor does that anointing teach every believer simply everything, but at least whatever suits each calling and is needed for each one's salvation and knowledge, according to state, condition, and place in God's Church.
So someone gifted with faith and knowledge of divine things enough for salvation may still err on some point of faith and fail to recognize some part of God's word.
That is why Paul in Philippians 3 wants those who are perfect to bear with those who think otherwise and keep brotherly communion while God reveals what they have not yet reached: As many of us as are perfect, let us think this; and if you think anything otherwise, God will also reveal this to you. Yet in what we have already reached, let us walk by the same rule and think the same.
Latin · §130
XII. Resp. Verum quidem est Deum fidelibus omnibus Spiritum suum indulgere qui eos in verbi sui cognitionem ducit: eosque, ut inquit Joannes, unctionem habere a Sancto quae eos docet de omnibus. Veruntamen non omnes spiritum illum fidei et sapientiae aequaliter participant: Nec Deus illum omnibus et singulis aequali mensura dispensat: sed aliis majorem, aliis vero minorem spiritus illius copiam impertit: Neque unctio illa fideles omnes docet de omnibus simpliciter, sed saltem de omnibus quae vocationi cujusque congruunt, et ad cujusque salutem et cognitionem necessaria sunt, secundum statum et conditionem suam, et locum quem tenet in Ecclesia Dei. Unde fit ut qui fide, et rerum divinarum cognitione donatus est, quantum ad salutem sufficit, possit tamen in aliquo fidei capite errare, et aliquam verbi Dei partem non agnoscere. Ideoque Paulus ad Philippenses capite tertio, vult ut qui perfecti sunt ferant aliter sentientes, et tanquam cum fratribus communionem colant, interim dum Deus ipsis revelet illud ad quod nondum pervenerunt. Quotquot, inquit, perfecti sumus hoc sentiamus: quod si quid aliter sentitis, hoc quoque vobis Deus revelabit. Attamen in eo ad quod pervenimus, eadem incidamus regula, et idem sentiamus.
Salvation does not require knowing every canonical book; reception may still be immediate§131
131It is not necessary for anyone's salvation to receive and acknowledge every book of Scripture and every part of them.
So it is no wonder if all who have received the spirit of faith and revelation, even in some measure, still miss certain parts of Scripture — taking a truly divine book for human, or conversely taking a mere product of human wit for something written by divine inspiration.
It is plainly unjust, and against reason, to demand that any ordinary believer be able at once by himself to tell any scrap of a Canonical book from a scrap of an Apocryphal one. Salvation does not require that.
Yet it does not follow that those who embrace books some have rejected or not known, and take them on faith, do so only through the Church's testimony and authority as faith's foundation, and not immediately by the Spirit's inward testimony and illumination — with which they have been given a greater supply in this part.
Latin · §131
XIII. Jam autem ad salutem cujusque non est necessarium ut singulos Scripturae libros, et singulas eorum partes recipiat et agnoscat. Itaque non mirum est si omnes qui spiritum fidei et revelationis, aliquo saltem gradu, acceperunt, ignorent tamen quasdam Scripturae partes, et in eo fallantur quod aliquem librum, qui vere divinus est, humanum esse opinentur: Et vicissim librum aliquem, qui tantum est foetus ingenii humani, divinitus conscriptum existiment. Ac plane injustum est, et contra rationem a simplici quovis fideli exigere ut per se statim internoscere possit quamvis Canonici libri particulam a portiuncula libri Apocryphi. Nec enim ad ejus salutem hoc requiritur. Inde tamen non sequitur eos qui libros istos a quibusdam rejectos, aut ignotos amplectuntur, et fide suscipiunt, eos inquam istud non facere immediate per testimonium et illuminationem internam Spiritus sancti, quo majore hac in parte copia donati sunt, sed mediante Ecclesiae testimonio et authoritate, tanquam fidei suae fundamento.
Retorsion: Rome's faithful cannot better tell true councils from false than our people tell canon from apocrypha§132
132Plenty of people Rome itself counts as true believers are no better at spotting a forged church-testimony, an unlawful council, or adulterated canons than our ordinary hearers are at spotting Apocrypha next to Canon.
Even their own learned men quarrel over whether some councils bind, and they do not settle the question among themselves.
Still they insist their church's teaching and witness is faith's supreme rule, depending on no higher authority, and that the faithful must submit to it at once under the Spirit's impulse.
Latin · §132
XIV. Et certe multi, quos Ecclesia Romana pro vere fidelibus habet, non magis possunt per se dignoscere germanum Ecclesiae suae testimonium a supposititio, verumque et legitimum Concilium ab illegitimo, et Canones veros ab adulterinis, quam fideles e plebe nostra particulam libri Canonici a particula Apocryphi. Atque etiam viri in ea Ecclesia docti de quorundam suorum Conciliorum authoritate disputant, nec satis inter se consentiunt an legitima sint an secus. Et tamen illi tuentur Ecclesiae suae doctrinam et testimonium esse supremam fidei regulam, cujus authoritas a nulla superiori authoritate pendet, et cui se fideles immediate subjicere debent, a Spiritu sancto moti atque impulsi.
Adversaries: without the Church Scripture is doubtful and uncertain§133
133The Roman doctors next try to prove that Scripture's authority for us hangs on the Church's.
Without the Church's authority and witness, they say, Scripture is doubtful and uncertain for us, and must be confirmed by that authority and witness.
They argue that without it we cannot know for certain which books are holy and divine: heretics and idle men have forged many writings under the Prophets' and Apostles' names; not everything Prophets and Apostles wrote earned divine authority (Solomon and others wrote things never numbered among the sacred letters); and scarcely any biblical book has escaped doubt or outright denial from professing Christians.
The Manichaeans rejected the Old Testament; the Ptolemaeans Moses; the Marcionites the Gospels except Luke alone — and so on. We still contest Rome over certain books they force into the Old Testament canon as Apocrypha. Even among the orthodox there was once doubt about many New Testament books, and there is still doubt among those who have left Rome in these later centuries — Jude, James, and some letters of John and Peter.
Add corruption, depravation, and interpolation by heretics, with additions and omissions; some still suspect the first part of John 8 and the story of the adulterous woman.
In so great a clash of opinions about the sacred books and their parts, they ask, how can truth be found without the Church's authority and judgment? How do you know those books are truly the Prophets' and Apostles'? And even if they are, how do you know they were written by divine inspiration rather than human care, and have reached us whole rather than variously corrupted?
They conclude that for faith about Scripture to rest on a firm base we must turn to the Church, which by a certain and infallible judgment tells divine books from Apocrypha and forgeries — a judgment the faithful may safely trust.
Latin · §133
XV. Praeterea Scripturae authoritatem quoad nos ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere Pontificii sic probare contendunt. Absque authoritate & testimonio Ecclesiae, Scriptura nobis est dubia & incerta, & illam per Ecclesiae authoritatem & testimonium confirmari necesse est. Scripturam autem esse dubiam & incertam, nisi Ecclesiae authoritas & testimonium accedat, inde probant, quod absque authoritate illa certo sciri non potest, qui sint libri sacri & divini, qui minus. Et hoc quia plurima scripta, ab haereticis & vanis hominibus conficta, Prophetis & Apostolis afficta & supposita sunt. Nec etiam quaecunque scripserunt Prophetae & Apostoli divinam authoritatem habere meruerunt. Etenim multa leguntur scripsisse Salomo, & alii Prophetae, quae in sacrarum literarum numero habita non sunt. Tum quoque vix est ullus Scripturae sacrae liber cujus authoritas non sit in dubium vocata, aut in totum negata, ab iis qui se Christianos profitebantur. Exempli causa, Manichaei Veteris Testamenti authoritatem negabant, Ptolomaïtae librorum Mosis, Marcionitae Evangeliorum, excepto solius Lucae Evangelio, & ita de caeteris. Et adhuc hodie inter nos & Pontificios de quorundam librorum divinorum authoritate certatur. Siquidem plures libros, quos Apocryphos censemus, ad Canonem Veteris Testamenti pertinere volunt. Atque etiam de multis Novi Testamenti libris inter ipsos orthodoxos olim dubitatum est, & hodie quoque dubitatur inter eos qui ab Ecclesia Romana postremis hisce saeculis secesserunt. Ut ex. gr. de Epistola Judae & Jacobi, & quibusdam Joannis & Petri Epistolis. Adde quod libri sacri ab haereticis corrupti, depravati & interpolati sunt, iisque multa addita vel detracta. Et quibusdam adhuc suspecta est prima pars capitis octavi Evangelii secundum Joannem, ubi habetur historia de muliere adultera. In tanta ergo, inquiunt, sententiarum varietate & confusione de libris sacris & eorum partibus, qua certa ratione verum poterit inveniri absque authoritate & judicio Ecclesiae? Unde scitis libros eos qui Prophetis & Apostolis tribuuntur revera eorum esse: Et posito quod libri isti revera quosdam ex Prophetis & Apostolis habeant authores, unde certo scietis illos non fuisse scriptos humana diligentia, sed divina inspiratione, & ad nos usque integros pervenisse, non vero variis modis ab haereticis corruptos. Atque inde concludunt, ut fides nostra de Scriptura firmum fundamentum habeat, necessario recurrendum esse ad authoritatem Ecclesiae, quae scilicet, suo judicio certo & infallibili libros divinos discernit ab Apocryphis & supposititiis, & quo judicio licet fidelibus secure niti.
Reply: the argument is a sophism; retorsion on doubtful Church authority§134
134They press and inflate this with a fine show; yet anyone who looks into the argument and weighs it carefully will see it is a mere sophism on a false presupposition.
To make that plain even to them, we can argue the same way against them and overturn the foundation they put under their own faith.
The Church's authority is doubtful and uncertain. Therefore its teaching is not faith's supreme rule, nor does the Church hold first authority for us.
That doubt is plain: people dispute what authority the Church has — whether some infallible divine authority, as Rome wants, or, as we hold, great yet human and open to error. Among Christians it is not even settled which church is true; Christianity is split into many parties, and each claims to be the true Church.
So we ask them: amid so many Christian sects, by what argument do you prove that yours is the true Church and its authority infallible? They cannot fall back on Scripture, whose authority they also put in doubt and make to hang on the Church as better known and higher. Still less can they plead their own church's witness, which is the very thing under dispute.
They must either fall silent, or turn to those marks of the true Church by which they think it only probable that Rome is the true Church. But what we need here is not mere probability — it is a lawful foundation for faith that proves the matter to be of faith.
Scripture, moreover, bears far clearer and brighter marks of divinity than the Church does, and there is no lack of strong persuasive arguments — short of strict demonstration — many of which were already set out in the first part of these Theses.
Latin · §134
XVI. Porro ista quidem speciose urgent & exaggerant, sed tamen, si quis argumentum illud introspiciat, & accurate expendat, facile agnoscet merum esse sophisma, quod falsa nititur praesuppositione. Atque ut hoc adversariis ipsis clarum faciamus, simili plane modo possumus contra eos argumentari, & evertere fundamentum quod fidei suae substernunt. Ecclesiae authoritas dubia & incerta est. Ergo Ecclesiae doctrina non est suprema fidei regula: nec Ecclesia quoad nos primam authoritatem habet. Authoritatem vero Ecclesiae dubiam & incertam esse, patet quia dubitatur quaenam authoritas Ecclesiae sit tribuenda. An scilicet infallibilis & divina quaedam authoritas, ut volunt Pontificii: An vero, ut nos censemus, magna quidem, sed humana tamen, & errori obnoxia. Tum quoque inter Christianos non est certum quae sit vera Ecclesia; sed, cum Christianismus in multas partes & sectas divisus sit, unaquaeque pertendit se esse veram Ecclesiam. Hic ergo possumus illos quoque rogare. In tanta sectarum inter Christianos diversitate, quo argumento demonstrare potestis apud vos esse veram Ecclesiam, & authoritatem ejus esse infallibilem? Jam enim non possunt ad sacram Scripturam recurrere cujus authoritas quoque in dubium vocatur, & quam volunt ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere tanquam notiori & superiori. Multo minus possunt obtendere ipsius Ecclesiae suae testimonium, de cujus authoritate hic quaeritur & disputatur. Vel ergo cogentur hic obmutescere, vel necessario recurrent ad indicia illa & notas quas vocant verae Ecclesiae, hoc est, argumenta quaedam quibus probabile reddi putant Ecclesiam Romanam esse veram Ecclesiam. Sed hic non quaeruntur argumenta quae rem tantum probabilem & credibilem reddant, verum quibus nostra fides tanquam legitimo suo fundamento nitatur, & quae certo probent rem esse de fide. Deinde Scriptura longe clariores & illustiores divinitatis suae notas habet quam Ecclesia, neque desunt argumenta quibus fortiter suaderi possit, etiamsi non demonstrari: qualia multa argumenta Thesium harum prima parte allata & indicata sunt.
Retorsion on popes and councils: their authority is likewise doubtful§135
135When Rome's doctors locate that church authority chiefly in councils and popes, the same argument turns on them.
I prove that papal and conciliar authority is not first and supreme by the same token: it is doubtful and uncertain.
Some popes were intruders, irregularly created. Often several antipopes excommunicated one another and branded one another Antichrists. Councils that called themselves ecumenical and gathered in Christ's name favored heretics and were not lawful — Ariminum for the Arians; the second Ephesine for the Eutychians.
Second Nicaea and Frankfurt under Charlemagne cannot both be lawful: one banned the worship of images, the other commanded it under anathema — so one of them erred.
In the later Roman Church of these past centuries many councils have each styled themselves ecumenical, yet some were rejected, some approved, some half accepted and half refused. Their own doctors quarrel sharply over certain ones.
Bellarmine signs the Lateran under Leo X; the Gallican Church refuses its decisions, because it set the Roman pontiff above the whole Church and a universal council. Constance, which many in France receive whole, Bellarmine and others reject as to its first canons, because it set the council above the pope. Some Roman doctors revere Basel; others brand it a mere conciliabulum.
Latin · §135
XVII. Cum vero Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae Ecclesiasticam illam authoritatem praecipue residere velint in Conciliis & Pontificibus, hac quoque in parte potest eorum argumentum valide retorqueri. Nam Pontificum & Conciliorum authoritatem primam & supremam non esse inde quoque probabo, quod eorum authoritas dubia & incerta est. Quidam enim Pontifices fuerunt intrusi & vitio creati. Et saepe plures fuerunt Antipapae qui se mutuo excommunicabant & Antichristos declarabant. Multa quoque Concilia quae se Oecumenica, & in nomine Christi congregata dixerunt, faverunt haereticis, neque fuerunt legitima, ut Concilium Ariminense quod Arianis favit, & Ephesinum secundum in quo superiores fuerunt Eutychiani. Nicenum vero secundum, & Francofordiense sub Carolo magno legitima simul esse non possunt, sed alterutrum errasse necesse est. Cum unum adorationem & cultum imaginum vetuerit & prohibuerit, alterum vero jusserit sub Anathematis poena. Imo in nupera Ecclesia Romana, qualis est ab aliquot saeculis, multa Concilia fuerunt quae singula se Oecumenica vocant, quorum tamen quaedam reprobata sunt, alia vero approbata, alia in parte probata & in parte rejecta. Et de quorundam authoritate acriter certatur inter Doctores Pontificios. Ita Concilio Lateranensi sub Leone X. subscribit Bellarminus, Ecclesia vero Gallicana Concilii istius decisiones non admittit. Quandoquidem definivit Pontificem Romanum esse supra Ecclesiam totam, & Concilium universale. Et vicissim Constantiense, quod in Gallia multi integrum recipiunt, quoad primos Canones a Bellarmino & aliis rejicitur: quoniam definivit Concilium esse supra Pontificem. Sic quoque Basileense Concilium venerati sunt inter Pontificios alii, alii vero tanquam Conciliabulum diffamant.
How do you know Trent is lawful, or papal acts uncorrupted?§136
136We may fairly ask them in turn: how do you know this or that council is lawful, or that this pope is not an intruder created by defect — like many others whose successors cancelled their acts and stained their memory?
By what certain argument do you prove Trent was truly gathered in Christ's name? Because it says so? Nothing proves itself; and many wicked councils have boasted the same Spirit. Because the Roman pope approved it? He also approved that Lateran whose authority not all Romanists will bind themselves to.
By what certain argument of faith can you prove the approving popes were lawful and did not seize the see by force or simony? At best you have historical and moral certainty, which does not suffice for faith.
How will anyone trust that copies of councils and papal decrees are uncorrupted, with nothing added or cut, when it is certain many decrees were fastened on popes and many councils' acts corrupted and spoiled?
A fresh papal or conciliar declaration will not end the doubt: the same difficulties rise against the latest council as against the earlier one, and so without end.
If their case against Scripture's certainty and authority stands, the authority of church, councils, and popes falls with it — and no foundation of faith is left.
Latin · §136
XVIII. Nos igitur jure quoque Pontificios rogare possumus, Unde scitis hoc vel illud Concilium legitimum esse, & Pontificem istum non esse intrusum, & vitio creatum, sicut multos alios, quorum successores acta resciderunt, & memoriam infamarunt? Quo certo argumento probare potestis Concilium Tridentinum vere fuisse in Christi nomine congregatum? An quia ipsum hoc dicit? Sed idem sibi ipsi fidem facere non potest, & seipsum probare: suntque alia multa impia Concilia quae se itidem duci Spiritu sancto jactant. An quia Papa Romanus Concilium istud approbavit? Sed approbavit quoque illud Lateranense, cujus tamen authoritate Pontificii omnes sese obstringi nolunt. Deinde quo certo fidei argumento probari potest Pontifices illos, qui Concilia probarunt, legitimos fuisse, neque per vim & simoniace occupasse sedem suam? Saltem enim hac de re major certitudo haberi non potest quam historica & moralis quae ad fidem non sufficit. Praeterea quomodo fides alicui fiet exemplaria Conciliorum atque Decretorum Pontificalium corrupta non esse, neque iis quicquam additum aut detractum, cum certum sit multa decreta Pontificibus afficta fuisse, & plurimorum Conciliorum acta corrupta atque depravata? Nec dubitationem hanc tollet nova Pontificis aut Concilii alicujus declaratio. Nam adversus hoc postremum Concilium eaedem quae adversus prius difficultates movebuntur, & sic in infinitum. Itaque, si locum habet Pontificiorum ratio adversus Scripturae sacrae certitudinem & authoritatem, evertetur quoque Ecclesiae & Conciliorum atque Pontificum authoritas: nec ullum supererit fidei fundamentum.
Any first rule of faith is logically indemonstrable§137
137I dare say one cannot even imagine a foundation of faith against which the same cavils would not be lawful.
Whatever is offered as faith's first rule must be something logically inevident and not properly demonstrable. Theologians and scholastics agree: the principles of faith are inevident and indemonstrable.
Nor can it be proved from other, prior, better-known principles of faith — or it would not be first, and some earlier rule would take its place.
So the first rule of faith, whose authority for us is supreme, cannot be proved by arguments of faith a priori, nor can the questions of irreligious men be met about it by demonstrations and strictly necessary, evident reasons.
Latin · §137
XIX. Imo ausim dicere ne quidem animo fingi posse ullum fidei fundamentum adversus quod non liceat similibus uti cavillationibus. Quicquid enim proferetur tanquam prima fidei regula, necesse est ut sit aliquid logice inevidens, & quod non possit proprie demonstrari. Nam principia fidei, ex communi Theologorum & Scholasticorum consensu, sunt inevidentia & indemonstrabilia. Ac praeterea necesse est ut non possit ex aliis fidei principiis tanquam prioribus & notioribus probari, alioqui prima regula non esset, sed daretur aliqua prior. Unde necessario sequitur primam fidei regulam, cujus authoritas quoad nos suprema est, esse aliquid quod argumentis de fide a priori probari non possit, & super quo etiam non possit satisfieri profanorum hominum quaestionibus per demonstrationes, & rationes prorsus necessarias atque evidentes.
False presupposition: what many deny is not thereby uncertain for the sound§138
138To see the sophism's emptiness more clearly, note how many false things it assumes.
First it assumes that whatever many deny, or many doubt, is doubtful and uncertain for us. Admit that, and nothing certain remains. Almost nothing so certain and evident has escaped doubt — or flat denial — from many.
Then it would not be certain from the sight of heaven and earth that God is, because Epicureans and atheists deny it. First principles of the sciences would not be certain, because Pyrrhonians who suspended all assent doubted them too. And Rome's own church authority would not be certain for Romanists, because the rest of Christians deny it.
What is doubted without desert, and denied without reason, does not cease to be certain for those who judge rightly. The error and doubt of idle, perverse, foolish people about things certain in themselves do not touch the certainty of sound minds rightly disposed.
Latin · §138
XX. Sed ut istius sophismatis vanitas clarius appareat, notandum in eo multa praesupponi quae omnino falsa sunt. Et primo quidem supponit illud omne nobis esse dubium & incertum quod a multis negatur, & de quo sunt multi qui dubitant. At si hoc admittatur nihil prorsus certum remanebit. Vix enim quicquam est tam certum & evidens, de quo non fuerit a multis dubitatum; imo quod a multis negatum non fuerit. Ita nobis certum non erit ex caeli & terrae aspectu Deum esse, quoniam Epicurei & Athei hoc negant. Neque prima principia scientiarum nobis certa erunt, & indubitata, quoniam Pyrrhonii, qui assensum omnem tollebant, de istis quoque dubitarunt. Neque Pontificiis, ut diximus, certa erit Ecclesiae suae authoritas, quoniam a reliquis Christianis negatur. Itaque dicendum id de quo immerito dubitatur, & quod sine ratione negatur, non desinere certum esse recte sentientibus. Nec enim hominum male feriatorum, perversorum atque stultorum error & dubitatio circa res in se certas, quicquam obest certitudini hominum sani judicii, & quorum mens recte affecta est.
What cannot be demonstrated can still be a sure rule of faith§139
139Next the argument assumes that what cannot be demonstrated by necessary and evident proofs cannot be certain for faith, or a sure rule and foundation of faith among believers. That is utterly false.
Whatever first rule of faith you set must be something that cannot be proved by evident — and, speaking logically, strictly necessary — arguments.
Such proofs would have to come from its own testimony, from other principles of faith, or from human reason. It cannot prove itself from its own witness. It cannot be proved from other faith-principles, because as first rule it is already supposed the best-known principle — so weaker ones would be useless except perhaps ad hominem. And it cannot be proved from human reason: a rule of faith is properly inevident, and so can only be urged by moral arguments, not demonstrated by necessary ones.
Latin · §139
XXI. Deinde supponitur in isto argumento id quod demonstrari non potest, & necessariis ac evidentibus argumentis probari, non posse esse fidei certum & exploratum, certamque apud fideles fidei regulam atque fundamentum. At hoc est falsissimum. Etenim prima fidei regula, quaecunque tandem statuatur, necesse omnino est ut sit aliquid, quod evidentibus, &, si logice loquamur, prorsus necessariis argumentis probari non potest. Siquidem argumenta illa, vel ex proprio ipsius testimonio peterentur, vel ex aliis fidei principiis, vel ex humana ratione. Jam vero peti non possunt ex ipsius testimonio, quoniam hoc modo nihil probat seipsum: non etiam ex aliis fidei principiis, quia quod ponitur esse prima fidei regula hoc ipso supponitur esse principium fidei notissimum, ad quod proinde probandum, alia minus nota frustra adhiberentur; nisi forte ad hominem: denique non ex humana ratione; quia, cum regula fidei sit aliquid proprie loquendo inevidens, non potest rationibus necessariis demonstrari, sed solum argumentis moralibus suaderi.
Church authority does not remove the same inquisitive doubts§140
140Third, the argument assumes that doubts human reason can raise against Scripture are cleared by the Church's authority. That too is false.
To someone asking how we know circulating books are the Apostles' and Prophets', or that there ever were Apostles and Prophets, it is not enough to say the Church so teaches — he will ask with equal right how we know the Church speaks truth and is led by the Spirit.
With so many Christian sects, how do we know this rather than that is the true Church — or that any Church of God is on earth at all? Then they have nothing left against such an inquirer but those marks and prejudices that make Rome's authority look credible to them.
But what we need here is not that kind of probability — it is what proves the matter to be of faith and can bear faith as its foundation. And if we did have to go there, we are ready to show that Scripture's authority is recommended by far more and surer arguments and marks than any Christian church's.
Latin · §140
XXII. Tertio, istud argumentum supponit dubitationes illas quas adversus Scripturam movere potest humana ratio per Ecclesiae authoritatem tolli. Sed hoc quoque falsum est. Nam quaerenti unde scimus libros qui circumferuntur Apostolorum & Prophetarum esse, aut omnino fuisse Apostolos & Prophetas ullos, non satis fit dicendo Ecclesiam ita dicere & docere. Siquidem pari jure quaeret ille unde scimus Ecclesiam verum dicere, & duci a Spiritu sancto. At cum tot sint sectae inter Christianos, unde scimus hanc potius quam illam esse veram Ecclesiam, aut ullam omnino esse in terris Dei Ecclesiam. Certe tum ipsis nihil supererit quo se adversus ejusmodi percunctatorem tueantur, nisi notae & praejudicia illa quibus Ecclesiae Romanae authoritas ipsorum judicio redditur credibilis. Verum hic non quaeruntur ejusmodi argumenta, sed quae certo probent rem esse de fide, & quibus fides tanquam suo fundamento niti possit. Ac praeterea, si istuc deveniendum foret, promptum est nobis ostendere Scripturae authoritatem longe pluribus & certioribus argumentis & notis commendari, quam cujuscunque inter Christianos Ecclesiae authoritatem.
Closer application: the doubt syllogism and two senses of uncertainty§141
141But to deal more closely now, apply this to the argument on the table. It runs like this: what is doubtful and uncertain to us of itself cannot be firmly believed unless some higher authority confirms it; Scripture of itself is doubtful and uncertain to us; therefore some higher authority must confirm it — and that can only be the Church.
I answer that something can be called doubtful and uncertain to us in two respects: with respect to faith, and with respect to human reason.
Uncertain for faith is what God has not revealed and inspired. Uncertain for human reason is what cannot be shown by necessary and evident proofs. So distinguish the minor: Scripture of itself is doubtful and uncertain to us. Said of human reason, that can be granted; said of faith, it must be denied.
Scripture can of course be urged on human reason with many good, weighty arguments. Because those arguments are not logical or mathematical demonstrations, we allow that Scripture may be called uncertain to human reason. But it is false that what reason finds uncertain and indemonstrable cannot be certain for faith. What can be demonstrated is, to that extent, not a matter of faith at all.
Latin · §141
XXIII. Sed, ut jam pressius agamus, ista sunt ad argumentum propositum applicanda. Argumentum fuit ejusmodi. Quod ex se nobis est dubium & incertum firma fide a nobis apprehendi non potest, nisi authoritate aliqua superiori confirmetur. Sed Scriptura ex se nobis dubia & incerta est. Ergo necesse est eam authoritate aliqua superiori confirmari. Quae alia esse non potest quam Ecclesiae authoritas. Respondeo aliquid nobis dubium & incertum dici potest duplici respectu. Nempe fidei respectu: deinde respectu rationis humanae. Fidei incertum est quod a Deo revelatum & inspiratum non est. At rationi humanae incertum est quod demonstrari non potest argumentis necessariis & evidentibus. Itaque distinguenda minor, Scriptura ex se nobis dubia & incerta. Nam, si illud nobis dicatur, respectu rationis humanae concedi potest, si vero respectu fidei neganda est. Quamvis enim Scriptura rationi etiam humanae suaderi & commendari possit multis bonis & validis argumentis: Attamen quia ista argumenta logice & mathematice demonstrativa non sunt, eatenus patimur Scripturam dici humanae rationi incertam. Sed falsum est fidei non posse esse certum quod rationi incertum est, nec demonstrari potest. Imo quod demonstrari potest eatenus res fidei non est.
Reply to the major: what cannot be demonstrated can still be faith's first rule§142
142As for the major — that what is doubtful and uncertain to us of itself cannot be firmly grasped or stand as a sure rule of faith unless a higher authority confirms it — the reply is that this is utterly false if "uncertain to us" means "what cannot be demonstrated and confirmed by wholly necessary arguments."
What cannot be proved by necessary and evident arguments in the philosophical sense can still be firmly believed and be a sure rule of faith, even without confirmation from an authority prior and superior for us.
As we have just shown, the first rule of faith must be something non-evident that cannot be demonstrated — and that neither can nor should be confirmed by a higher authority. Otherwise it would not be, as supposed, faith's first and supreme rule, but only a subordinate, inferior one.
Latin · §142
XXIV. Ad majorem vero illam, Quod ex se nobis est dubium & incertum firma fide non potest apprehendi, & esse certa fidei regula, nisi authoritate superiore confirmetur. Resp. falsissimam esse, si per illud quod nobis est incertum intelligatur id quod demonstrari non potest, & argumentis prorsus necessariis confirmari. Etenim quod probari non potest argumentis, philosophice & proprie loquendo, necessariis & evidentibus, firma tamen fide potest apprehendi, & esse certa fidei regula, quamvis authoritate quoad nos superiori & priori non confirmetur. Imo, ut jamjam probavimus, omnino necesse est ut prima fidei regula sit aliquid inevidens, quod demonstrari non possit, nec tamen superiori authoritate confirmari aut queat aut debeat. Quandoquidem hoc pacto non esset, ut supponitur, prima & suprema fidei regula, sed subalterna tantum & inferior.
Reply to the minor's confirmation: rash doubt does not unsettle the instructed§143
143As for the confirmation of the minor — that Scripture's books are doubtful apart from the Church because many books were foisted on the Apostles and genuine writings were doubted — the reply is that what is doubtful to the ignorant, the perverse, or the poorly taught can still be certain for the faithful and devout who are well taught and enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
Rash, unjust doubt from some people does nothing to shake the certainty of those with sound judgment.
Latin · §143
XXV. Ad minoris vero confirmationem, qua probatum est Scripturae sacrae libros esse dubios citra Ecclesiae authoritatem, quoniam multi libri Apostolis suppositi sunt, & de veris eorum scriptis dubitatum est. Resp. quod dubium est hominibus ignaris, perversis, aut non satis instructis, posse tamen esse certum fidelibus & piis, qui abunde instructi sunt, & a Spiritu sancto illuminati. Nec enim temeraria & injusta quorundam dubitatio quicquam obest certitudini hominum sani judicii.
Importunate questions demand demonstration of the indemonstrable§144
144As for those importunate questions — How do you prove the Apostles existed and wrote by divine impulse, and that the circulating books are truly theirs? — something unjust is being demanded of us: that we demonstrate what is indemonstrable.
We freely admit that we cannot demonstrate those things mathematically or logically. We deny that it follows that those books cannot be faith's certain first rule. It belongs to faith's principles to be non-evident and not provable by philosophically necessary and evident arguments.
That does not mean we have nothing to answer profane objectors. We have arguments enough for a prudent person — that the Apostles and Prophets wrote by divine impulse, and that we hold their genuine books — many of which we already set out in Part I of these theses; there is no need to repeat them here.
We only grant that those arguments lack logical or mathematical evidence, and so leave the matter "uncertain" if one chooses to call the non-evident and undemonstrable (anapodeikton) uncertain. Even so, whatever uncertainty they leave cannot be cleared by some church judgment or determination — as we have just proved.
Latin · §144
XXVI. Quod autem spectat importunas illas interrogationes, Unde probatis Apostolos fuisse & scripsisse libros instinctu divino, & eos qui circumferuntur revera illorum esse? Resp. a nobis aliquid injustum exigi, nempe ut demonstremus quod est indemonstrabile. Itaque fatemur ultro ista non posse a nobis demonstrari, & mathematice seu logice probari. Sed inde negamus sequi libros istos esse non posse certam & primam fidei regulam; quoniam hoc proprium est principiis fidei ut sint inevidentia, neque probari possint argumentis philosophice necessariis & evidentibus. Quae tamen ita accipienda non sunt, ut jam saepe observatum est, quasi nihil habeamus quod hominibus profanis regerere possimus, & impiis eorum quaestionibus opponere. Nobis enim non desunt argumenta quae viro prudenti satis esse possint, & ipsi suadere Apostolos & Prophetas instinctu divino scripsisse, & nos in manibus habere genuinos eorum libros: cujus generis argumenta multa harum thesium parte prima, proposuimus & explicuimus, nec opus est hic illa repetere. Hoc solum fatemur argumenta illa non habere evidentiam logicam, seu mathematicam, & eatenus rem relinquere incertam, si libet incertum vocare quod est inevidens, & ἀναπόδεικτον. Sed hoc quoque addimus, si quid incertitudinis argumenta illa relinquunt, minime tolli posse per Ecclesiae quoddam judicium & determinationem, ut jamjam probatum est.
Next argument from Church practice: rejection of Apocrypha§145
145Enough on that argument. On to another. The Roman doctors also try to prove that Scripture's authority for us hangs on the Church's from the Church's use and practice.
Apocryphal books, they say, which impostors published under Prophets' and Apostles' names and tried to pass off as sacred, were rejected and exploded by the faithful — and that was by the Church's authority and judgment, which wisely separated those forgeries from the divine books and struck them from the Canon, or at least never judged them receivable.
They pile up Fathers for this. The synopsis attributed to Athanasius, explaining why the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, according to the Hebrews, and the like are not approved, says the Canons of the holy Catholic Church sanctioned four Gospel books for us; besides those it is not safe to have another.
Augustine likewise rejects a Gospel of Thomas the Manichees were offering: We need not believe this Scripture, because it is not in the Catholic Canon; and again, The ecclesiastical Canon rejects these Scriptures. They add Eusebius, who in the Ecclesiastical History often calls such writings Apocrypha because the ancients never mention them, and no church writer cites them or bothers to record them.
Latin · §145
XXVII. Atque haec de isto argumento jam satis. Pergendum ad aliud. Igitur Pontificii Scripturae authoritatem quoad nos ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere, probare quoque student ex usu & praxi Ecclesiae. Nam, inquiunt, quod libri Apocryphi, quos impostores varii sub nomine Prophetarum & Apostolorum ediderunt, & tanquam sacros & divinos obtrudere conati sunt, a fidelibus rejecti fuerunt & explosi, factum est authoritate & judicio Ecclesiae, quae libros illos supposititios, pro sua sapientia, a divinis discrevit, & e Canone expunxit: aut saltem nunquam judicavit esse recipiendos. Atque in hanc rem afferunt ex Patribus multa testimonia. Ut quod autor synopseos quae tribuitur Athanasio, rationem afferens quare Evangelia illa Thomae, Petri, secundum Hebraeos, &c. non approbentur, Quatuor, inquit, nobis Evangeliorum libros sacri sanctae Catholicae Ecclesiae Canones sanxerunt, praeter istos non est tutum aliud. Et similiter Augustinus Evangelium quoddam Thomae, quod Manichaei proferebant, repudiat his verbis, Huic Scripturae licet nobis non credere, quia non est in Catholico Canone; Et iterum, Has Scripturas Canon Ecclesiasticus respuit. Quibus addunt Eusebium, qui in historia Ecclesiastica, saepe scripta istiusmodi Apocrypha esse pronunciat, quia apud veteres nulla sit eorum mentio. Et quia nullus Scriptor Ecclesiasticus usus est testimoniis ex libris illis depromptis: aut usquam in scriptis suis in memoriam illa redigere dignatus est.
Disputed New Testament books said to wait on Church determination§146
146When even among the orthodox some truly divine and Apostolic books were sometimes doubted — Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, and the Apocalypse — they claim this was because the Church had not yet given its judgment, and that the doubt was finally lifted by church determination: at Laodicea, the third council of Carthage, and the decrees of Popes Innocent and Gelasius.
By those, they say, not only the New Testament books just named, but also the Old Testament books still disputed between us and Rome, were received into the Canon — as they would have it.
For confirmation they cite Jerome on James: though it was being put about as written by someone else under his name, little by little it gained authority. On Jude: though most rejected it, antiquity and use earned it authority.
In the same vein Jerome writes to Dardanus on Hebrews and John's Apocalypse: We receive both, following not present custom but the authority of the ancient writers, who usually cite both not as they sometimes do the Apocrypha, but as Canonical and Ecclesiastical.
Latin · §146
XXVIII. Cum vero de quibusdam libris vere divinis & Apostolicis aliquando inter ipsos orthodoxos dubitatum sit, ut ex. gr. de Epistola ad Hebraeos, de Epistola Jacobi, de Epistola Judae, & posteriore Epistola Petri, & de secunda & tertia Joannis, ejusdemque Apocalypsi, id inde factum afferunt & pertendunt, quod Ecclesia de his libris judicium & sententiam suam nondum pronunciarat: istam vero dubitationem tandem per Ecclesiae determinationem & judicium sublatam fuisse. Nempe in Laodicena Synodo, & III. Carthaginiensi, Innocentiiique & Gelasii PP. decretis, quibus non tantum praedicti Novi Testamenti libri, sed illi quoque de quibus adhuc hodie lis est inter nos & Pontificios, An ad Veteris Testamenti Canonem pertineant, in Scripturae Canonem, ut quidem illi volunt, recepti sunt. Atque in hujus rei confirmationem afferunt etiam quod de Epistola Jacobi scribit Hieronymus, Et si ab alio quodam sub ejus nomine scripta afferebatur, tamen paulatim procedente tempore obtinuit authoritatem. Et quod de Epistola Judae similiter dicit, Quod, etsi a plerisque rejiciebatur, tamen authoritatem vetustate & usu meruit. Quibus consentanea sunt quae de Epistola quoque ad Hebraeos, & Joannis Apocalypsi scribit idem Hieronymus epistola ad Dardanum, Nos, inquit, utraque recipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed, veterum Scriptorum authoritatem sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque utuntur testimoniis, non ut interdum de Apocryphis facere solent, sed quasi Canonicis & Ecclesiasticis.
Fathers alleged to refute heretics from Church authority alone§147
147Finally, when heretics rejected or doubted many books whose authority was always sure among the Orthodox, many Roman doctors try to show that the Fathers refuted them from the Church's authority, consent, and testimony, by which they vindicated those books' divinity and authority.
So Augustine on Acts, which the Manichees denied: I must believe this book if I believe the Gospel, since Catholic authority recommends both Scriptures to us alike. And against the same: The authority of our books, strengthened by so many nations' confession through the successions of Apostles, bishops, and councils, stands against you; yours has none, being put forward by so few.
From this and the like they conclude that our faith about sacred Scripture hangs on the Church's judgment, and that its authority, testimony, and consent are the rule and plumbline by which all Scripture must be tested so we can be sure of it — citing Augustine's famous line, I would not believe the Gospel unless the Catholic Church's authority moved me.
And elsewhere the same holy man: The faithful mind will keep this measure in the Canonical Scriptures — prefer what all Catholic churches receive to what some refuse; and among books not received by all, prefer what more and weightier churches receive to what fewer churches of lesser standing hold.
Latin · §147
XXIX. Denique, cum multi libri quorum authoritas semper certa fuit apud Orthodoxos, ab haereticis rejecti aut in dubium vocati sint, in eo multi sunt Pontificii, ut ostendant Patres refellisse illos haereticos ex authoritate, consensu, & testimonio Ecclesiae, quibus librorum istorum divinitatem & authoritatem vindicarunt & asseruerunt. Ita enim ex. gr. Augustinus loquitur de Actis Apostolorum, quorum authoritatem Manichaei negabant, Huic libro necesse est me credere, si credo Evangelio: cum utramque Scripturam pariter nobis Catholica commendet authoritas. Et adversus eosdem Manichaeos, Nostrorum, inquit, librorum authoritas tot gentium confessione, per successiones Apostolorum, Episcoporum, Conciliorumque roborata, vobis adversa est: Vestrorum autem nulla est, quae a tam paucis profertur, &c. Ex quibus & similibus concludunt Pontificii fidem nostram de Scriptura sacra ab Ecclesiae judicio pendere: ejusque authoritatem, testimonium & consensum esse regulam & amussim, ad quam Scriptura omnis probanda & examinanda est, ut certo de ea nobis constare possit: juxta celebre illud Augustini, Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. Et quod alibi dicit idem vir sanctus. Tenebit hunc modum fidelis animus in Scripturis Canonicis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. De iis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeferet eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ecclesiae tenent.
First clarify what adversaries mean by Church§148
148To answer all this, first recall what the adversaries mean by "Church." That is essential for the real state of the question and for clearing away the ambiguity of the name.
Church is not here taken collectively for the whole multitude of the faithful who are and ever have been. The debate is not properly about that Church's authority.
Even though sacred Scripture's authority does not depend on the authority of the Church so taken, it is still certain that from that Church's testimony and consent one can draw a divine, infallible argument for Scripture's authority that binds our faith — because that Church includes the Apostolic and primitive Church, whose role it was to confirm Scripture's Canon by a sure divine reason and hand it to the faithful as what would thereafter be faith's unique rule.
Latin · §148
XXX. Ut omnibus his satis fiat, ante omnia hic est in memoriam revocandum quid Ecclesiae nomine intelligant adversarii. Id enim apprime necessarium est ad statum quaestionis probe intelligendum, & tollendam hic omnem homonymiam. Igitur sciendum est Ecclesiam hic non sumi collective pro tota multitudine fidelium qui sunt & hactenus fuerunt. Nec enim de istius Ecclesiae authoritate proprie quaestio est. Et quamvis Scripturae sacrae authoritas nequidem ex Ecclesiae sic sumptae authoritate pendeat, certum est tamen ex ejus testimonio & consensu duci posse argumentum pro Scripturae authoritate divinum & infallibile, & quod fidem nostram obliget: quandoquidem in ista Ecclesia comprehenditur Apostolica & primitiva, cujus fuit Scripturae Canonem certa quadam & divina ratione confirmare, & fidelibus tradere, tanquam qui deinceps esset unica fidei regula.
Present Church means present pastors§149
149But by "present Church" the Pontificians mean the Church of each age.
Even then they do not mean the community of the faithful living in one and the same age. They restrict the name "Church" to the overseers and pastors of the Church.
So when they claim that the authority of Scripture depends on the authority of the Church, they mean that the faith by which the faithful people receive the books of Scripture as true and divine rests on the testimony of the pastors then in office, and settles on that testimony.
Why? Because in the pastors and prelates of the Church there always resides a certain infallible, divine authority by which they can decide the truth and divinity of a book, so that their sentence and judgment bind our faith.
They even hold that those pastors have power to make authentic a book that until then was of doubtful authority, and about which either side might be held, so that after their determination it must be ranked with the other sacred and canonical books.
Latin · §149
XXXI. Pontificii vero per Ecclesiam praesentem intelligunt uniuscujusque saeculi. Nec adhuc per illam Ecclesiam praesentem communitatem fidelium uno eodemque saeculo viventium intelligunt: sed restringunt Ecclesiae nomen ad praepositos & Pastores Ecclesiae. Itaque, quum pertendunt Scripturae authoritatem ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere, mens eorum est, fidem illam, qua fidelis populus Scripturae libros amplectitur ut veros & divinos, niti testimonio Pastorum qui tum Ecclesiae praesunt, & testimonio illi acquiescere. Et hoc quia in Pastoribus & praesulibus Ecclesiae perpetuo residet infallibilis & divina quaedam authoritas, ex qua de libri alicujus veritate & divinitate pronunciare possint: ita ut sententia & judicium illorum fidem nostram obliget. Imo illos ea esse praeditos potestate, ut liber, qui hactenus dubiae fuit authoritatis, & de quo in utramque partem opinari licuit, per determinationem illorum fiat authenticus, & eodem postea debeat haberi numero quo libri alii sacri & canonici.
Older scholastics vs today's schools§150
150Among the older scholastics some did restrict that power of deciding Scripture infallibly and with certainty to the Apostolic Church. They taught that it belongs to the present Church only insofar as that Church is counted one body with the Apostolic — as an old man truly did what he did as a boy, though as an old man he can no longer do those same acts.
That was the view of Durandus, of Thomas Netter of Walden, and in the previous age of Driedo. Today that view is commonly judged wrong, and the doctors of the present Roman schools yield to the earlier opinion instead.
So the question is whether from the Church's practice, and from the ancient Fathers' arguments recited above, one may conclude that the pastors who govern the Church in each age have authority so great that it is our rule of faith about Scripture — more certain and better known to us than Scripture itself — and the chief foundation of our faith in sacred Scripture.
That is what we deny. The proofs already brought do nothing to establish it.
Latin · §150
XXXII. Fuerunt quidem inter veteres Scholasticos qui authoritatem illam de Scriptura infallibiliter & certo determinandi ad Apostolicam Ecclesiam restrinxerunt, & docuerunt non alio sensu tribuendam esse Ecclesiae praesenti, quam quia cum Apostolica censetur unum corpus. Et senex revera fecit quae fecit quum esset puer, licet jam senex non possit amplius illa facere. Quae fuit sententia Durandi, & Thomae Waldensis, & etiam superiori saeculo Driedonis. At haec sententia hodie communiter erronea censetur. Et hodierni Scholae Pontificiae Doctores in priorem illam sententiam concedunt. Itaque videndum est, an ex usu & praxi Ecclesiae, & illis priscorum Patrum argumentationibus, quae supra adductae sunt, concludi possit Pastorum qui unoquoque saeculo Ecclesiam gubernant, authoritatem tantam esse, ut sit fidei nostrae circa Scripturam regula, Scriptura ipsa quoad nos certior & notior, & qua fides nostra de Scriptura sacra, tanquam praecipuo fundamento nitatur. Illud est quod negamus: neque quicquam ad hoc faciunt probationes illae quae supra allatae sunt.
Apocrypha rejected for never being in the Canon§151
151We gladly grant that the doctors of the ancient Church rejected the apocryphal books heretics had forged and pushed as divine on this ground: those books were never in the Church's Canon, nor acknowledged, held, and cited as divine by the Church's doctors.
We treat that argument as sound, and we use the same kind of argument against the books Rome adds to the Old Testament beyond the Jewish Canon — because the Jewish Church never acknowledged them, even while it was still God's true and only Church.
Nor did the primitive Christian Church: its doctors, by common consent (a very few perhaps excepted), remove those books from the Canon, though they allow them to be read in churches as useful for the people's edification.
Many apocryphal books do carry marks of vanity and traces of human weakness that show they are not God-inspired. Still, speaking absolutely and in general, we judge no argument more fit to break their authority than this: the true Church of God never held them as divine.
Latin · §151
XXXIII. Ultro quidem concedimus Doctores Ecclesiae antiquae eo nomine rejecisse libros Apocryphos, quos haeretici confinxerant, & pro divinis obtrudebant, quod libri illi nunquam in Canone Ecclesiae fuerint, neque a Doctoribus Ecclesiae agniti, & pro divinis habiti & citati. Et hanc eorum argumentationem tanquam legitimam probamus, & simili plane modo impugnamos authoritatem librorum illorum quos Ecclesia Romana adjicit ad Vetus Testamentum supra Ecclesiae Judaicae Canonem: nempe, quia hi libri nunquam ab Ecclesia Judaica agniti fuerunt, etiam tum quum vera & sola esset Dei Ecclesia. Imo nec a primitiva Ecclesia Christiana, cujus Doctores communi consensu, paucissimis forte quibusdam exceptis, libros illos e Canone expungunt, licet eorum lectionem in Ecclesiis admittant, tanquam utilem ad plebis aedificationem. Et quamvis libri plerique Apocryphi notas quasdam in se vanitatis habeant, & infirmitatis humanae vestigia, quibus deprehendi possit illos a Deo inspiratos non esse: tamen absolute & in genere loquendo, non putamus ullum esse magis idoneum argumentum, quo librorum Apocryphorum authoritas infringi possit, quam quod nunquam vera Dei Ecclesia eos pro divinis habuerit.
The argument needs no present infallibility§152
152For that argument to stand, the pastors of the present Church need not have a divine, infallible authority better known to us and superior to Scripture itself.
The argument does not simply rest on their authority. Its force is this: if those apocryphal books were truly divine, and written by the prophets and apostles to be a perpetual rule of faith in the Church, the prophets and apostles themselves would without doubt have handed them down and recommended them as such — like the other canonical books, and sealed with the rest of Scripture's Canon.
Had that happened, the apostolic men and the Church next after the apostles, which received their other books with such reverence, would without doubt have received these too — if not among all the faithful, at least among the greatest or a notable part.
That the ancient Church doctors do not even mention them is a clear sign that the apostles, when they sealed Scripture's Canon, did not admit such books, but rejected and cast them out.
It is in no way likely that God by His singular providence moved a prophet or apostle to write so that his book would be a rule of faith and serve the faithful's instruction and comfort — and yet allowed His Church neither to receive nor to acknowledge that book.
Latin · §152
XXXIV. Sed ut subsistat argumentum istud, & vim suam habeat, non necesse est ut praesentis Ecclesiae Pastores authoritatem habeant divinam & infallibilem, Scriptura ipsa quoad nos notiorem & superiorem. Nec argumentum istud simpliciter nititur eorum authoritate: sed vis argumenti in eo consistit, quod, si libri illi Apocryphi vere divini essent, & a Prophetis & Apostolis eo fine conscripti, ut perpetua essent in Ecclesia fidei regula, proculdubio a Prophetis & Apostolis ipsis pro talibus traditi & commendati fidelibus essent, ut alii libri Canonici, & cum reliquo Scripturae Canone consignati. At si hoc factum esset, Apostolici viri & Ecclesia proxime succedens Apostolis, quae tanta reverentia reliquos eorum libros suscepit, absque omni dubio istos quoque suscepisset, &, si non ab omnibus, saltem a maxima, aut notabili parte fidelium admissi fuissent. Itaque quod eorum ne meminerint quidem prisci Ecclesiae Doctores, signum est manifestum Apostolos, quum Canonem Scripturae consignarunt, ejusmodi libros non admisisse, sed rejecisse & repudiasse. Nec ullo modo verisimile est Deum singulari sua providentia Prophetam aut Apostolum ad scribendum impulisse, eo fine ut liber illius esset fidei regula in Ecclesia Dei, & ad eruditionem & consolationem fidelium inserviret, & tamen passum fuisse ut liber ille ab Ecclesia sua nec reciperetur nec agnosceretur.
Truly canonical books were never so doubtful§153
153Next, their second proof from books once doubted — as if certain divine books were once of doubtful authority because the Church had not yet spoken, and all doubt later fell by the Church's judgment and definition.
I say first: the authority of books that are truly divine and canonical was never so doubtful that it was once lawful to doubt them and later unlawful, which is what the Pontificians claim.
Those who doubted Hebrews, John's Apocalypse, and other New Testament books did so rashly and without just cause. Just as today anyone who denied or questioned those books' authority would not be blameless, so those who once stripped them of authority or tried to make them doubtful deserved blame.
But as for the other books Rome wants in the Old Testament Canon, about which they themselves grant it was once lawful to doubt: as they were rightly doubted then, so we contend they may rightly be doubted still.
Latin · §153
XXXV. Ad secundam vero illam probationem petitam ex libris de quibus olim dubitatum est, quasi librorum quorundam divinorum fuerit olim dubia authoritas, quoniam Ecclesia super illis sententiam suam nondum pronunciarat: postea vero omnis dubitatio sublata fuerit per Ecclesiae judicium & definitionem: Dico primo librorum qui vere divini & Canonici sunt authoritatem nunquam ita fuisse dubiam, ut de iis aliquando dubitare licuerit, amplius vero non liceat, quod Pontificii volunt. Etenim qui dubitarunt de Epistola ad Hebraeos, & Joannis Apocalypsi, aliisque Novi Testamenti libris, id temere fecerunt, & sine justa ratione. Et sicut hodie culpa non careret qui librorum illorum authoritatem negaret, aut in dubium vocaret, ita quoque fuerunt reprehensione digni, qui libris istis olim authoritatem sustulerunt, aut dubios eos reddere voluerunt. Quod attinet autem caeteros illos libros, quos ad Veteris Testamenti Canonem Pontificii pertinere volunt, & de quibus tamen agnoscunt licuisse olim dubitare, quemadmodum merito de illis dubitatum fuit, ita quoque hodie jure dubitari posse contendimus.
Doubt was only partial, never universal§154
154Second: no truly divine book's authority was ever so doubtful that everyone everywhere doubted it. The doubt belonged only to some; among the rest their authority stayed certain.
Hebrews, James, and John's Apocalypse were indeed suspect to some, and by some treated as spurious — yet among most churches they always kept their authority. No time can be named when they were not received in a large part of the Christian world and held divine and authentic.
The very passages the adversaries quote as favoring them show this. Against Arians who denied Hebrews, Theodoret says they ought at least to reverence the long stretch of time in which the truth's pupils had continually read that epistle in the churches.
So Tertullian defends the Apocalypse against Marcion: we also have John's foster-churches; though Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the line of bishops traced back to the origin will still stand on John as author.
As for James, the same Eusebius who says some thought it νόθον — spurious — also testifies that it was publicly received in very many churches.
Latin · §154
XXXVI. Secundo vero dico, nullorum librorum, qui vere divini sint, authoritatem unquam ita fuisse dubiam, ut omnes & passim de iis dubitarint. Sed dubitatio illa quorundam tantum fuit: apud reliquos vero eorum fuit certa authoritas. Ita verum est quidem Epistolam ad Hebraeos, Epistolam Jacobi, & Joannis Apocalypsin, quibusdam fuisse suspectas, & a quibusdam habitas pro supposititiis: attamen apud plerasque Ecclesias authoritatem suam semper obtinuerunt. Nec ullum tempus assignari potest quo non in magna orbis Christiani parte receptae fuerint, & pro divinis & authenticis habitae. Quod indicant ipsa loca quae referunt adversarii tanquam suae causae faventia. Ita negantibus Arianis authoritatem Epistolae ad Hebraeos respondet Theodoretus, Oportebat eos, si non aliud, certe diuturnitatem temporis revereri, quo hanc Epistolam in Ecclesiis perpetuo legerant veritatis alumni. Et sic Apocalypsin adversus Marcionem tuetur Tertullianus, Habemus & Joannis alumnas Ecclesias, nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensitus in Joannem stabit authorem. Quod vero spectat Epistolam Jacobi, idem ille Eusebius qui dicit illam quibusdam videri νόθον, adulterinam esse, testatus eam in quamplurimis Ecclesiis fuisse publice receptam.
Doubt came from hard passages, not missing Church decree§155
155Third: those who doubted those books did not doubt because they failed to see them received by the churches and recommended by the ancient Fathers' tradition naming the apostles as authors.
They doubted because, without weighing the matter enough, they thought those books contained things that did not savor of the divine Spirit and did not cohere well enough with the faith taught in the other books.
So the Latin Church doubted Hebrews, because chapters six and ten seemed to favor the Novatians, who cut off all hope of pardon from those who fell after baptism.
The Apocalypse was also suspect because of the Millenarians, who misused certain places that seemed to favor them.
Jude was rejected by some because it seems to cite an apocryphal book that once circulated under the name of Enoch the patriarch.
Latin · §155
XXXVII. Dico tertio, eos, qui de libris illis dubitarunt, dubitandi causam non habuisse, quod eos non viderent ab Ecclesiis receptos, & antiquorum Patrum eos ad Apostolos authores referentium traditione commendari: sed quod, re non satis expensa, putarent in his libris quaedam esse quae non redolerent divinum Spiritum; nec satis cohaererent cum fidei doctrina reliquis libris comprehensa. Ita dubitatum est in Ecclesia Latina de Epist. ad Hebraeos, quod capite sexto & decimo videretur favere Novatianis, qui lapsis post baptismum omnem spem veniae tollebant. Apocalypsis etiam suspecta fuit propter Millenarios, qui quibusdam ejus locis abuttebantur, quae ipsis in speciem favent. Judae vero Epistola a quibusdam rejecta fuit, quoniam videtur citare librum quendam Apocryphum, qui sub nomine Enoch Patriarchae olim circumferabatur.
Later reception was not a new Church decree§156
156Finally, those books were later received by common consent — not because some new Church decree sanctioned their authority.
What had raised scruple in them gradually came into the light and was rightly understood; at last the doubters ceased, and all conceded to the ancient Fathers nearest the apostles, who recommended these books to later ages as received from them and confirmed them by frequent use and reading.
This cannot be credited to the Synod of Laodicea or the third council of Carthage: those synods were provincial, and on the adversaries' own view could not properly bind the faith.
In fact doubt about those books remained after Laodicea. In Jerome's day — later than that synod — some still doubted.
Above all, neither Carthage nor the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Innocent removed doubt about the Old Testament books they call canonical and we call apocryphal: right up to Trent, many inside the Roman Church itself rejected those books' authority.
Latin · §156
XXXVIII. Denique quod isti libri communi postea consensu recepti fuerunt, in causa non fuit novum quoddam Ecclesiae decretum, quo sancita fuerit eorum authoritas; sed quae in istis libris scrupulum quibusdam movebant paulatim lucem accipientibus, & probe intellectis, tandem desierunt esse qui dubitarent, & concesserunt omnes in sententiam priscorum Patrum, qui Apostolis proximi, hos libros tanquam ab iis acceptos posteris commendârunt: & frequenti usu atque lectione comprobarunt. Et certe quod istud non sit tribuendum Synodo Laodicenae, aut tertiae Carthaginiensi, patet, quia Synodi illae provinciales fuerunt, nec poterant, ex ipsa adversariorum sententia, fidem proprie obligare. Et revera de istis libris post Synodum Laodicenam dubitatum adhuc fuit. Nam tempore Hieronymi, qui fuit illa recentior, erant adhuc qui dubitarent. Praesertim vero manifestum est, nec Synodum Carthaginiensem, nec Decreta PP. Gelasii & Innocentii, sustulisse dubitationem circa Veteris Testamenti libros, quos Canonicos illi, nos Apocryphos putamus: quandoquidem usque ad Concilii Tridentini tempora, plurimi fuerunt, in ipsa Ecclesia Romana, qui librorum istorum authoritatem rejecerunt.
Fathers used Church consensus against heretics — not present-pastor supremacy§157
157As for that supporting point — that the Church's doctors, when they answered heretics who rejected certain books of Scripture, kept using the Church's testimony and consensus to prove those books' authority — I answer that this does not yield what the Pontificians want, or what is actually in dispute.
It does not show that the pastors who govern the Church in each age have, for us, an authority greater and better known than Scripture's, or that our faith about Scripture rests on the testimony and judgment of the pastors now in office as on a divine, infallible, chief, and proper foundation.
Those fathers were not simply arguing from the authority of the bishops of their own day as if that were a rule of faith binding every church member.
The heretics they opposed rejected certain sacred books as falsely ascribed to the apostles or apostolic men and as inventions of Catholic teachers. Against that charge the Fathers set the perpetual consensus of bishops and of the faithful who, from the apostles' time on, have received those books as handed down and recommended by the apostles as true and divine.
Only a shameless, stubborn person can refuse that consensus. Anyone today who denied that the books of Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Cicero belong to the men named on them could be answered from the continuous judgment of the learned who have always ascribed them so — and would be thought mad for refusing so constant a fame.
By equal — indeed by far greater — right, then, is the person mad who dares to oppose a tradition and fame still more constant, celebrated, and continuous, which refers the books we hold sacred to the apostles as their authors and approvers?
Latin · §157
XXXIX. Ad illam vero argumenti confirmationem, quae inde petita est quod Ecclesiae Doctores, ad confutandos varios haereticos, qui quosdam Scripturae libros repudiabant, perpetuo usi sunt testimonio & consensu Ecclesiae, quo librorum istorum authoritatem comprobarunt: Respondeo, inde minime concludi posse quod Pontificii volunt, & quod in quaestione est, nempe authoritatem Pastorum, qui unoquoque saeculo Ecclesiam gubernant, majorem quoad nos & notiorem esse Scripturae authoritate, fidemque nostram de Scriptura niti testimonio & judicio Pastorum qui jam Ecclesiae praesunt tanquam divino & infallibili, & tanquam praecipuo & proprio suo fundamento. Neque Doctores isti simpliciter argumentantur ex Episcoporum sui temporis authoritate, quasi regula fidei fuisset, & ea singulorum Ecclesiae membrorum fides obstringeretur: sed, quum haeretici illi, quos impugnabant, librorum quorundam sacrorum authoritatem rejicerent, quasi Apostolis aut viris Apostolicis falso tribuerentur, & a Catholicis Doctoribus conficti essent, Patres illis opposuerunt perpetuum Episcoporum atque fidelium consensum, qui jam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus, libros illos venerati sunt tanquam ab Apostolis traditos & commendatos pro veris & divinis: cui consensui fidem derogare non potest, nisi homo protervus & pervicax. Etenim, si ille qui hodie negaret libros Aristotelis, Demosthenis & Ciceronis, eorum esse quibus tribuuntur, convinci posset ex consensu Doctorum, qui omnibus saeculis libros illos tribuerunt magnis illis & praestantibus viris, & insanus haberetur qui famae tam constanti & celebri fidem denegaret: Annon pari, imo longe majori jure insanus habeatur, qui se audet opponere traditioni, & famae constantiori & celebriori, & magis adhuc continuae, quae libros illos, quos pro sacris habemus, ad Apostolos refert tanquam authores & approbatores?
Augustine’s literary-fame analogy for the canonical books§158
158That the early Church doctors put their chief force here when they defended the authority of the canonical books from the Church's authority is plain from Augustine.
In books 32 and 33 against Faustus the Manichee, when Faustus asks how Augustine knows those letters are the apostles', Augustine answers: from the same kind of public knowledge by which Faustus knows other letters are Mani's, by which everyone knows certain books are Varro's, Plato's, or Aristotle's, and by which later ages would know the books Augustine was then writing were his.
After heaping up more such examples he concludes: That being so, who is blinded by such madness — unless overturned by consenting to the malice and deceit of lying demons — who would say the apostles' Church, so faithful and so numerous in brotherly concord, could not have deserved to hand their writings faithfully to later ages, when they have kept their chairs by most certain succession down to the bishops now sitting, and when even ordinary men's writings, inside or outside the Church, fare so well?
Latin · §158
XL. Et certe in eo vim praecipue fecisse priscos Ecclesiae Doctores, quum ex authoritate Ecclesiae librorum Canonicorum authoritatem tutati sunt, patet ex Augustino, qui libr. 32. & 33. adversus Faustum Manichaeum, Quaerenti Fausto unde sciret Apostolorum esse istas literas, respondet inde se scire, unde sciebat Faustus literas illas alias esse Manichaei, & unde sciebant omnes libros quosdam esse Varronis, Platonis & Aristotelis, & unde scitura erat posteritas libros quos tunc scribebat Augustinus, esse Augustini. Et postquam plura ejusmodi exempla explicuit & accumulavit, tandem concludit in haec verba, Quae cum ita sint, quis tandem tanto furore caecatur, nisi daemoniorum mendaciloquorum malitia atque fallacia consentiendo subversus sit, qui dicat hoc mereri non potuisse Apostolorum Ecclesiam, tam fidam, tam numerosam fratrum concordiam, ut eorum scripta fideliter ad posteros trajicerent, cum eorum cathedras usque ad praesentes Episcopos certissima successione servaverint, cum hoc qualiumcunque hominum scriptis, sive extra Ecclesiam, sive in ipsa Ecclesia, tam feliciter proveniat.
Perpetual consensus is strong human proof — not divine pastor-authority§159
159So when a book of Scripture is disputed — whether it is truly prophetic and apostolic, and was sealed with the rest of the canon by the apostles or apostolic men — we grant that the best argument is the Church's perpetual, constant consensus and testimony, which has always referred that book to the apostles as authors or approvers.
Faith cannot be withdrawn from that witness without great shamelessness and stubbornness. We know no fitter argument for answering a sectarian or a heretic.
Yet the argument is human, not divine. Its force does not lie in some infallible, divine authority residing in the Church's overseers. That is not required for the argument to stand.
In literary questions no such infallible judging-authority can even be invented; yet the continuous consensus of the learned that ascribes certain books to Aristotle, Plato, or Galen is enough for full confidence, and anyone who fought it would rightly be thought shameless and mad.
How much more, then, does the Church's consensus — which no one doubts is ruled by God's special providence and the Spirit's help — give us confidence that this or that book was written by an apostle or prophet and recommended as divine.
Latin · §159
XLI. Itaque quum liber aliquis Scripturae in controversiam vocatur, & dubitatur an vere sit Propheticus & Apostolicus, & cum caetero Canone consignatus ab Apostolis aut viris Apostolicis, agnoscimus optimum hujus rei argumentum duci posse ab Ecclesiae perpetuo & constanti consensu & testimonio, quo liber ille semper relatus est ad Apostolos ut authores sive approbatores, cui testimonio fides derogari non potest, absque magna impudentia atque pervicacia. Nec ullum putamus esse argumentum magis idoneum quo revinci possit homo sectarius, sive haereticus. Nec tamen argumentum istud est divinum, sed humanum, neque vis ejus in eo consistit, quod in Ecclesiae praepositis resideat infallibilis & divina quaedam authoritas. Id enim necesse non est ut argumentum subsistat, & vim suam habeat. Nam in iis qui rem literariam tractant nulla fingi potest talis judicandi infallibilis authoritas. Et tamen perpetuus literatorum consensus qui libros quosdam ascribit Aristoteli, Platoni, & Galeno, sufficit ad plenam fidem faciendam; & si quis contra niti vellet, jure merito protervus & insanus haberetur. Quanto magis ergo consensus Ecclesiae, quam non est dubium peculiari Dei providentia, & Spiritus sancti assistentia regi, fidem faciet librum hunc vel illum ab Apostolo vel Propheta conscriptum, & pro divino commendatum esse.
Reciprocal proof does not make the Church better known than Scripture§160
160However good and valid an argument may be drawn from the Church's consensus and testimony to prove a sacred book's divinity, we deny that Scripture's authority therefore depends on the Church's as on something better known and superior.
We can force this even from unwilling adversaries. Just as the Fathers answered heretics who denied Scripture from the Church's authority and testimony, they also sent schismatics who would not own Christ's true Church back to the Scriptures, and held that the true Church must be shown from them.
So Augustine with the Donatists: whether they hold the Church, let them show it only by the canonical books of the divine Scriptures. Today the Pontificians try to prove their Church and its authority from Scripture, and think they do that office well.
Yet they refuse to allow that, for us, the Church's authority is less known and certain than Scripture's — which is exactly the point under inquiry: we affirm it; they deny it.
So from the fact that a disputed book of Scripture has no fitter or surer defense against heretics than the Church's consensus and testimony, they cannot conclude that the Church's authority is for us more certain and better known than Scripture's.
They themselves must admit that a heretic who does not acknowledge the true Church cannot be answered by any firmer argument than Scripture's authority — and yet they most of all shrink from saying that sacred Scripture's authority is for us prior to and better known than the Church's.
Latin · §160
XLII. Sed quantumvis bonum & validum argumentum sumi possit ex Ecclesiae consensu & testimonio pro libri alicujus sacri divinitate comprobanda, negamus inde sequi authoritatem Scripturae ab authoritate Ecclesiae pendere tanquam notiori & superiori. Quod ab ipsis adversariis vel maxime invitis extorquere possumus. Nam quemadmodum Patres refellerunt haereticos qui Scripturam negabant ex authoritate & testimonio Ecclesiae; ita quoque Schismaticos veram Ecclesiam Christi non agnoscentes ad Scripturas revocarunt, & ex iis veram Ecclesiam demonstrandam esse contenderunt. Sic enim Augustinus cum Donatistis agit, utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant nonnisi divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant. Et hodie Pontificii Ecclesiam suam, & ejus authoritatem ex Scripturis probare conantur: Et eo se officio egregie defungi putant. Et tamen minime volunt Ecclesiae authoritatem quoad nos minus notam & certam esse Scripturae authoritate: quod est ipsum de quo hic quaeritur, & quod affirmamus, illi vero negant. Igitur ex eo quod Scripturae liber aliquis in dubium vocatus, non potest aptiori & certiori argumento contra haereticos defendi, quam ex Ecclesiae consensu & testimonio, Pontificii concludere non possunt authoritatem Ecclesiae certiorem quoad nos & notiorem esse Scripturae authoritate: quandoquidem fateri coguntur haereticum, qui veram Ecclesiam non agnoscit, non posse certiori & firmiori argumento revinci quam Scripturae authoritate. Et tamen ab eo maxime abhorrent ut dicant Scripturae sacrae authoritatem quoad nos authoritate Ecclesiae priorem & notiorem esse.
In dispute we often prove what is prior by what is posterior§161
161So not every proof is taken from what is simply better known and more certain.
In dispute we must adapt to those we are dealing with. Against people who deny principles — even things most certain in themselves — we use weaker proofs and arguments called a posteriori: proving what is prior in knowledge, simply speaking, through what is posterior in knowledge.
Against Gentiles who deny the Christian religion we often argue from the opinions of the wise, from philosophical axioms, and from the nations' consensus — yet none of that has, for us, as much certainty as the Christian religion itself.
Even first principles, than which nothing is absolutely better known or more certain, we illustrate by examples and inductions; but their certainty and authority do not depend on those illustrations.
Latin · §161
XLIII. Itaque dicendum est non omnes probationes ab eo sumi quod est simpliciter notius & certius. Etenim inter disputandum cogimur nos attemperare illis, quibuscum nobis res est: Et contra eos qui principia negant, & ea quae sunt in se certissima, uti minus certis probationibus, & argumentis illis quae vocantur a posteriori, hoc est, quibus quod est cognitione prius, simpliciter loquendo, probatur per illud quod est cognitione posterius. Sic contra Ethnicos qui negant religionem Christianam, argumentamur saepe ex placitis sapientum, philosophicis axiomatibus, & consensu gentium. Et tamen omnia ista tantam respectu nostri certitudinem non habent, quam religio Christiana. Et ipsa prima principia, quibus absolute nihil est notius & certius, probamus exemplis & inductionibus, unde tamen non pendet principiorum illorum certitudo & authoritas.
Summary: Church witness proves Scripture — it is not a higher rule of faith§162
162In short, then: we grant that the sacred books' authority is rightly and validly proved by the Church's consensus and testimony.
We deny what the adversaries infer — that the Church's testimony is a rule of faith better known to us than Scripture itself.
Not every sound proof is taken from a rule and principle of faith, or even from what is simply better known and more certain. Often we must prove the point to the person before us, and a posteriori.
Latin · §162
XLIV. In summa ergo fatemur authoritatem librorum sacrorum per Ecclesiae consensum & testimonium recte & valide probari. Sed negamus tamen inde sequi quod adversarii volunt, nempe Ecclesiae testimonium esse regulam fidei Scriptura ipsa notiorem quoad nos. Non enim omnis bona probatio ex aliqua fidei regula & principio sumitur, nec etiam ex eo quod est simpliciter notius & certius: sed saepe res probare cogimur ad hominem, & a posteriori.
Opening: Scripture sufficiently contains all that belongs to faith and salvation§163
163The Churches that left Rome in the last century hold this steadily: sacred Scripture sufficiently contains everything that belongs to faith and salvation — so that we do not need another word of God to fill what Scripture supposedly lacks.
Rome’s doctors and champions attack that claim fiercely. The dispute is serious; we take it up in these theses and a few that follow.
For clarity we will first state our Churches’ view as plainly as we can, then compare the adversaries’ view with ours so the real question stands out, and finally confirm the truth briefly and undercut the opposite case.
Latin · §163
I. Ecclesiarum, quae secessionem ab Ecclesia Romana fecerunt superiori saeculo, constans sententia est, Scripturam sacram, omnia quae ad fidem & salutem pertinent, sufficienter continere: ita ut opus non sit alio Dei verbo, unde ea, quae desunt Scripturae, suppleantur. Ecclesiae vero Romanae Doctores & propugnatores sententiam illam acerrime impugnant, estque ea de re gravis controversia, quam hisce thesibus & sequentibus aliquot tractare aggredimur. Ut autem distinctius & clarius id fiat, Ecclesiarum nostrarum sententiam quam dilucide & distincte a nobis fieri poterit exponemus. Deinde inquiremus in sententiam adversariorum, illamque cum nostra conferentes, manifestum reddemus quid proprie sit illud quod in quaestione est. Ac denique veritatem paucis confirmabimus, & adversae sententiae fundamenta subruemus.
Necessary-to-salvation things are in Scripture — the rest need not be§164
164First our theologians distinguish what is necessary to salvation from what is not.
They hold that Scripture contains what is necessary to salvation. What is not necessary need not, on their view, be in Scripture at all.
Latin · §164
II. Quod ad primum attinet, ante omnia nostri Theologi distinguunt inter ea quae sunt ad salutem necessaria, & ea quae ad salutem necessaria non sunt. Et quidem ea quae sunt ad salutem necessaria Scriptura sacra contineri asserunt. Ea vero quae non sunt ad salutem necessaria, ex eorum mente Scriptura contineri nihil necesse est.
Two senses of ‘necessary to salvation’: must know — or must not reject§165
165‘Necessary to salvation’ is said in two ways.
First: no one may be ignorant of it without losing salvation, and no one is saved without express knowledge of it.
Second: no one may reject it, or have the Church teach its contrary, without sinning against his own salvation.
Latin · §165
III. Sed hic observandum est aliquid ad salutem necessarium dici posse duobus modis. Et primo quidem quoniam tale est, ut nemo illud ignorare queat citra salutis dispendium, neque possit ullus servari sine expressa ejus cognitione. Deinde etiam quia nullus illud rejicere potest, & contrarium ejus Ecclesia docere, quin peccet in propriam salutem.
Necessary to faith: each person’s explicit faith — or the Church’s public faith§166
166So also ‘necessary to faith’ has two senses.
Either it is required for each person’s faith — no one without explicit faith in it should be counted a believer — or it belongs in general to faith’s object and binds the Church’s public faith.
Latin · §166
IV. Et similiter aliquid ad fidem necessarium dicitur, vel quia necessarium est ad singulorum fidem, nec quisquam sine fide illius explicita fidelis censeri debet: vel in genere ad objectum fidei pertinet, & publicam fidem Ecclesiae obligat.
Both senses: Scripture holds all faith-and-salvation necessaries — nothing outside binds§167
167When our Churches say Scripture has everything necessary to faith and salvation, they mean necessary in both senses — not the first alone.
We do not only claim that nothing outside Scripture is such that without explicit faith and knowledge of it no one can be saved. We also claim that no one should be judged to sin against Christian faith and his own salvation merely for rejecting and attacking what sacred Scripture does not teach.
So our case is not proved by listing only what explicit faith for salvation needs. Faith’s scope is wider than that minimum — yet we still hold that nothing belongs to faith that Scripture does not contain.
Latin · §167
V. Quum autem statuunt Ecclesiae nostrae ea, quae sunt ad fidem & salutem necessaria, in Scripturis omnia haberi, intelligunt necessaria non tantum primo modo, sed etiam secundo modo. Nec enim id solum volumus, extra Scripturam nihil esse sine cujus explicita fide & notitia ad salutem nemo pervenire possit: sed hoc quoque, neminem existimari debere in fidem Christianam, & salutem propriam peccare, eo quod rejiciat & impugnet aliquid quod Scriptura sacra non docet. Unde sequitur nostram sententiam non satis probari, inductione facta eorum quorum fides & cognitio explicita possit alicui ad salutem sufficere. Nam fides in genere ambitu suo plura comprehendit, quam ea quorum cognitio ad salutem necessaria sit. Ad fidem autem nihil pertinere censemus quod in Scriptura non reperiatur.
Clearer split: religion’s substance vs indifferent rites and discipline§168
168To cut ambiguity, some of our theologians prefer a clearer distinction.
They separate what is the substance — the body of Christian religion — necessary by divine institution not only for faith but for morals and church order, from mere appendages and ornaments of that body.
Those ornaments are not necessary by nature or divine institution; they are indifferent, kept for order and decency: many disciplinary canons, and rites and ceremonies universal or particular — freely observed, yet not to be despised or dropped by private authority alone.
Latin · §168
VI. Ideoque ut vitetur omnis ambiguitas, nonnulli ex nostris Theologis utuntur hac distinctione clariori & commodiori. Observant enim distinguendum esse inter ea in quibus substantia est, & quasi corpus religionis Christianae, & quae ex vi divinae institutionis necessaria sunt non tantum ad fidem, sed etiam ad mores formandos, politiamque Ecclesiae continendam: & alia quae sunt tantum hujus substantiae veluti appendices, & corporis hujus ornamenta, quaeque nec ex natura sua, nec ex divina institutione, necessaria sunt, sed indifferentia, ordinisque tantum & decoris gratia in usum recepta: ut sunt multae disciplinae partes variis Canonibus sancitae, ritus etiam & caeremoniae variae, tum universales, tum particulares, observationis liberae quidem, sed hactenus ut nemo sua privata authoritate illa possit aut debeat contemnere rejicereve.
Scripture holds the substance — not every rite left to church prudence§169
169We say Scripture contains the former kind — the substance — not those accidental appendages of church faith, morals, and discipline.
Many circumstances of worship and church polity are not set out item by item in Scripture; they are left to the prudence of church overseers under the general rule that all things be done decently and in order in God’s Church.
So Rome’s doctors waste their shot when they press old Jewish or Christian rites, statutes, and ceremonies — still kept among us in worship and polity — as if their absence from a Scripture catalogue refuted us.
Latin · §169
VII. Res prioris generis asserimus sacra Scriptura contineri, non item alias istas, quae sunt ad Ecclesiae fidem, mores & disciplinam veluti accidentariae. Multa enim quae pertinent ad varias divini cultus & Ecclesiasticae politiae circumstantias, fatemur non esse sigillatim in Scriptura tradita, sed relicta prudentiae praepositorum Ecclesiae, sub hoc generali praecepto, ut omnia fiant ordine & decenter in Ecclesia Dei. Unde patet ab Ecclesiae Romanae Doctoribus frustra contra nos in hac controversia, varias instantias peti a ritibus, statutis & caeremoniis quibusdam, quae in Ecclesia antiqua, sive judaica sive Christiana, olim observata sunt, & etiamnum apud nos servantur tam in divino cultu, quam in politia Ecclesiastica, etiamsi nihil de iis in Scriptura constitutum sit.
Contained κατὰ λέξιν or in substance — Trinity proves the point§170
170From the above it is clear what we say Scripture contains. Next: how it contains them.
Dogmas and precepts may stand in a book in two ways — first κατὰ λέξιν, in the same words; second in substance, in equivalent words.
We do not claim every orthodox dogma and life-precept appears in Scripture in so many words. Some modern wranglers pin that on us: because we take up nothing outside Scripture in religion, they demand every sentence we teach be shown syllable by syllable in the text.
For us it is enough that Scripture contain the dogma in substance. Scripture nowhere says the bare words ‘God is one and three’; yet we believe it firmly, because Scripture says what comes to the same — three in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one — and in many places that God is one, while the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each God.
Latin · §170
VIII. Igitur quae sint illa, quae Scriptura sacra contineri dicimus, ex dictis manifestum est. Deinceps videndum est, qua ratione & modo ex sententia nostra in Scriptura contineantur. Porro dogmata & praecepta quaedam in aliquo libro possunt contineri duobus modis. Primo quidem κατὰ λέξιν, & iisdem verbis. Secundo in substantia, & verbis aequipollentibus. Nostra autem sententia non est omnia fidei dogmata, atque vitae praecepta quae traduntur ab orthodoxis, totidem verbis in sacra Scriptura reperiri. Istud quidem nobis imputant hodierni quidam vitilitigatores, qui ex eo quod profitemur nihil nos extra Scripturam in religionis negotio suscipere, exigunt ut quaecunque scribimus & docemus, totidem verbis & syllabis in Scriptura sacra ostendamus. Verum nobis sufficit ad credendum aliquod dogma, ut Scriptura sacra illud in substantia contineat. Ita Scriptura Sacra nullibi habet haec verba, Deus est unus & trinus. Et tamen illud certa fide credimus, quin quod eodem recidit Scriptura dicit tres esse in caelo, Patrem, Verbum, & Spiritum, & hos tres unum esse. Et pluribus in locis testatur Deum esse unum, & tamen Patrem esse Deum, Filium esse Deum, & Spiritum sanctum esse Deum.
Expressed immediately vs mediate by consequence — two natures§171
171Beside the last distinction stands another close to it. One thing is to contain a teaching expressly and immediately; another is to contain it mediately, by consequence.
On our view Scripture does not hold every dogma of faith in that immediate, express form. Still nothing that necessarily belongs to faith and religion fails to follow from Scripture by a good, open consequence.
Scripture never says in so many words that Christ has two natures, or two wills in him. Both still belong to the truth of faith, because they follow openly from what Scripture teaches in many places — that Christ is true God and true man.
Latin · §171
IX. Priori autem isti distinctioni affinis est altera. Nam aliud est continere expresse & immediate, aliud mediate & per consequentiam. Et Scriptura quidem, ex nostrorum mente, omnia fidei dogmata non continet immediate & expresse. Sed nihil est ad fidem & religionem necessario pertinens, quod ex Scriptura deduci non possit per bonam & apertam consequentiam. Sic non dicit expresse Scriptura, Christum duas naturas habere, & in eo duas esse voluntates. Attamen ad fidei veritatem utrumque pertinet: quoniam aperte ex eo consequitur, quod Scriptura docet pluribus in locis, nempe, Christum verum Deum, & verum hominem esse.
Drawing consequences is not adding a second rule — Acts prophets§172
172So today's Sophists wrong us when they chide us for drawing a dogma from Scripture by good consequence — as if we broke our own law that Scripture alone is the rule of faith and religion, with nothing added or taken away.
To deduce from Scripture is not to add to it, nor to put another rule in its place. It is to unroll what Scripture already holds and to open its hidden stores.
In Acts the Prophets are said to testify of Christ that whoever believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Those bare words are not set down expressly in the Prophets; the Prophets are said to testify what follows from their witness.
Latin · §172
X. Unde patet rursus hodiernos Sophistas injuste nos vexare, quum aliquod dogma nostrum per bonam consequentiam ex Scriptura eruimus. Quasi in eo retigeremus legem a nobis positam, qua statuimus Scripturam unicam esse fidei & religionis regulam, cui nihil addendum, nihil detrahendum sit. Nam ex Scriptura aliquid deducere non est ei aliquid addere, aut aliam fidei regulam substituere: sed illa ipsa quae continet evolvere, & reconditos ejus thesauros explicare. Ita dicuntur in Actis Prophetae Christo attestari, fore ut qui credit in eum remissionem peccatorum per nomen ejus accipiat. Neque tamen istud ullibi expresse positum, reperitur apud Prophetas; Sed dicuntur Prophetae testari quod ex testimoniis eorum deducitur.
Sigillatim vs in seed — OT proves Gospel in genere§173
173Dogmas may also be drawn from a principle in two ways: item by item, distinctly and of themselves; or only in a general, mixed way, through something else.
Not every Christian dogma and ordinance can be proved from the Old Testament by itself, one by one. Baptism in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit could not be shown from the Old Testament alone if that were our only principle of faith.
Yet everything that belongs to Gospel teaching can be proved from the Old Testament in general, because from it one can show effectively that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and the Son of God promised by the Prophets — and therefore that his teaching is true and divine, and his ordinances to be received as divine.
What follows from a principle only in that general, mixed way is in it by force and in seed. What is proved from it distinctly, item by item, may be said to be in it expressly in a looser sense — though strictly 'expressly' means the same as clearly and immediately.
Latin · §173
XI. Praeterea dogmata quaedam ex aliquo principio deduci possunt duobus modis. Primo sigillatim, distincte & per se. Deinde generatim confuse, & per aliud. Sic omnia religionis Christianae dogmata & instituta ex Scriptura veteris Testamenti probari non possunt per se & sigillatim. Ut, exempli gratia, fideles esse baptizandos in Nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus sancti ex veteri Testamento satis probari non posset, si nullum aliud fidei principium suppeteret praeter illam veterem Scripturam. Et tamen omnia quae ad Evangelicam doctrinam pertinent ex veteri Testamento in genere probari possunt, quatenus inde potest efficaciter demonstrari Jesum Nazarenum esse Messiam, & Dei Filium a Prophetis promissum: adeoque doctrinam illius veram & divinam esse, & ejus instituta tanquam divina a nobis amplectenda. Quae generatim & confuse tantum ex aliquo principio colligi, & deduci possunt, in eo continentur virtute atque in semine. Quae vero ex eo probantur distincte & sigillatim expresse dici possunt aliquo modo in eo contineri: licet strictiori sensu expresse idem significet ac diserte & immediate.
Our claim: Scripture proves Christian doctrine distinctly, not only in seed§174
174In this dispute we do not say Christian ordinances and dogmas of faith can be proved from Scripture only in a general, mixed way.
We say they can be proved distinctly, item by item — and in that sense can be said to stand expressly in Scripture, not merely by force and in seed.
Latin · §174
XII. In hac autem disputatione sententia nostra non est omnia religionis Christianae instituta, & fidei dogmata confuse solum atque generatim ex Scriptura probari posse sed distincte & sigillatim, adeoque, hoc quidem sensu, dici posse in Scriptura expresse contineri non virtute tantum, atque in semine.
Perfect sufficient rule — ministry and Spirit stay; no second rule§175
175Since everything that belongs to faith is in sacred Scripture in the way already shown, Scripture is a perfect and sufficient rule of faith.
That sufficiency does not cancel the Church's ministry. By God's order, heavenly teaching is drawn from Scripture and given to the faithful through their pastors and teachers. It also does not cancel the Spirit's inward teaching, by which believers come to know the doctrine drawn from Scripture and set before them — without which they cannot discern it or embrace it for salvation.
Scripture's perfection and sufficiency shut out only one thing: the need of another rule that must be joined to Scripture before we have the whole doctrine of faith.
So Rome's doctors gain nothing when they argue that Scripture is not enough for salvation because otherwise the Church's ministry would be useless. Scripture itself urges that ministry.
Latin · §175
XIII. Quandoquidem autem omnia quae ad fidem pertinent Scriptura sacra continentur, quomodo jam expositum est, inde colligitur Scripturam esse fidei regulam perfectam & sufficientem. Quae tamen sufficientia non excludit necessitatem ministerii Ecclesiastici, quo, juxta ordinem a Deo constitutum, doctrina caelestis ex Scriptura hauritur, & fideli populo per suos pastores & doctores traditur: tum quoque interni Spiritus magisterii, quo fideles ducuntur in notitiam doctrinae ex Scriptura haustae atque propositae, & sine quo illam discernere, & salutariter amplecti non possunt. Sed ista Scripturae sacrae perfectio & sufficientia, excludit solummodo necessitatem alterius regulae, quam Scripturae sacrae adjungi necesse sit, ut integram fidei doctrinam habeamus. Unde patet nihil agere Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores, qui nobis ad salutem Scripturam non sufficere inde probare conantur, quod alioqui frustra foret ministerium Ecclesiasticum, cujus tamen necessitas in ipsa sacra Scriptura commendatur.
Schools and confessions: principles are Scripture itself§176
176For a fuller grasp of the question, note what our schools treat and our public confessions set out. Some of it is admitting the true principles of faith and religion, and rejecting what is falsely pushed forward as such. The rest is the doctrine drawn from those true principles.
We say Scripture contains the principles of faith because those principles are Scripture itself. Our Churches admit no principles of faith beyond the inspired books that make up the body of Scripture.
Latin · §176
XIV. Verum ad pleniorem quaestionis hujus intelligentiam, hic quoque est animadvertendum, ea quae in scholis nostris tractari solent, & in publicis nostrorum confessionibus proponi, & exponi, vel consistere in admissione verorum principiorum fidei & religionis, & rejectione eorum quae pro talibus principiis immerito & falso obtruduntur: vel esse doctrinam ipsam ex veris principiis haustam atque deductam. Et fidei quidem principia Scriptura sacra contineri dicimus, quoniam sunt ipsa Scriptura. Nec enim Ecclesiae nostrae ulla fidei principia admittunt, praeter libros divinitus inspiratos quibus constat Scripturae corpus.
A rule need not prove itself — canonicity not required from Scripture§177
177The fullness and sufficiency we give sacred Scripture do not require that Scripture prove its own principles — for example, that this or that book is divine and canonical.
Any rule is perfect when it measures everything else of its kind. It need not be the rule of itself.
No science asks its first principles to prove themselves; that is absurd and impossible. Principles are perfect enough in their kind if from them everything belonging to that science can be proved.
Latin · §177
XV. Sed plenitudo & sufficientia quam Scripturae sacrae tribuimus, nullo modo requirit, ut ex ea fidei principia probari & demonstrari possint, verbi gratia, hunc, aut illum librum divinum esse atque Canonicum. Etenim cujusvis regulae perfectio in eo consistit, ut sit reliquorum omnium quae sunt ejusdem generis mensura, minime vero ut sit regula sui ipsius. Neque in ulla disciplina requiritur in principiis, ut seipsa probent & demonstrent, quod absurdum est & impossibile, sed in suo genere sat perfecta habentur, si ex iis omnia quae ad talem scientiam, & disciplinam pertinent, probari & demonstrari possint.
Faith's first principles stand like the axioms of a science§178
178In every human art and science there are first principles proper to that field. From them every conclusion belonging to the art is drawn and proved. The principles themselves are certain in that kind and cannot be demonstrated. They are, as it were, the rule on which the rest hangs — though they neither can nor should prove themselves.
Divine teaching is the same. When its theorems are examined and we ask for their foundation, we must come to principles beyond which, in that kind at least, we cannot go.
Those principles cannot be proved by other principles of faith, and no one should demand that they prove themselves — nothing proves itself. Yet they must be held as a sufficient and perfect rule of faith, because everything else that belongs to faith is proved by them.
Latin · §178
XVI. Quemadmodum igitur in disciplinis omnibus humanis sunt principia quaedam, unicuique arti & scientiae propria, ex quibus deducuntur & probantur conclusiones & propositiones omnes, quae pertinent ad artem & scientiam cujus sunt principia, ipsa vero in eo genere per se certa sunt nec demonstrari queunt: adeoque dici possunt esse veluti regula unde pendent, & per quam probantur omnia, quae ad talem artem aut scientiam spectant, licet ipsa sese probare nec possint, nec debeant: sic quoque res se habet in divina & caelesti doctrina. Nam quum Theoremata, & propositiones ejus ad examen revocantur, & quaeritur quod sit eorum fundamentum, necessario deveniendum est ad principia quaedam, ultra quae in eo saltem genere, procedi non possit: Ac per consequens, quae non possint per alia fidei principia probari, & a quibus quoque exigi non debet, ut seipsa probent, quandoquidem seipsum nihil probare potest: Et quae tamen haberi debeant pro sufficiente & perfecta fidei regula, quoniam caetera omnia, quae ad fidem pertinent, per ipsa probantur atque demonstrantur.
Faith principles need the Spirit's illumination — unlike science axioms§179
179Theologians commonly mark this difference between the principles of faith and the principles of the sciences. Science axioms are known in themselves, evident, and by their own light compel assent from natural reason. Faith principles do not have that same evidence. So, as is right, they cannot be believed and received except through the Holy Spirit's inward illumination.
Yet they agree in this: we assent to natural principles at once by the mind's natural light, not through other better-known principles that prove them. In the same way we believe faith's principles immediately through the Spirit's illumination — not by some intervening proof drawn from other principles more known in that order.
Latin · §179
XVII. Ex communi quidem Theologorum sensu, in eo discrimen est inter principia fidei, & principia scientiarum, quod principia scientiarum per se nota sunt, & evidentia, & sua luce assensum extorquent a naturali rationis lumine: principia vero fidei non habent parem evidentiam; ideoque, sicuti par est, credi & suscipi non possunt, nisi per illuminationem internam Spiritus sancti. Attamen in hoc conveniunt, quod sicuti principiis naturalibus assentimur immediate per naturale lumen intellectus, non vero per alia notiora quaedam principia, per quae demonstrata fuerint; ita quoque fidei principiis credimus immediate, per Spiritus sancti illuminationem, non vero interventu probationis alicujus, quae ducta sit ex aliis notioribus in hoc genere principiis.
Scripture's authority is received immediately — not proved from Scripture§180
180Faith's first principles must bear marks and characters of their divinity and truth, and arguments that recommend them. But they cannot, directly and properly, prove themselves. Nor do they lean on other faith principles from which they would borrow authority.
That first rule of religion — the principles of Christian faith — is for us the divine Scriptures, a fixed set of God-breathed books (θεοπνεύστων).
So on our view Scripture's authority should not be proved from Scripture itself. All Christians receive it immediately, and for its own sake.
Latin · §180
XVIII. Habere quidem debent prima fidei principia divinitatis & veritatis suae notas & characteres, & argumenta quibus probentur & suadeantur: sed directe & proprie seipsa probare non possunt: nec etiam ab aliis pendent fidei principiis, unde authoritatem & fidem mutuentur. Jam vero prima illa religionis regula, & Christianae fidei principia nobis sunt Scripturae divinae constantes certo numero librorum θεοπνεύστων. Ac proinde sacrae Scripturae authoritas, juxta sententiam nostram, ex ipsa Scriptura probari non debet, sed ab omnibus Christianis immediate & propter se suscipi.
If Scripture's divinity is doubted, prove it a posteriori — not from faith principles§181
181If a contentious man denies a science's first principles, you do not prove them from themselves. You must leave that science's bounds and seek proofs elsewhere — or even use weaker, a posteriori arguments aimed at that man. That does not lessen the principles' perfection or sufficiency.
So if Gentiles and profane men call Scripture's divinity into doubt, it must be proved — yet not from Scripture's own testimony, nor from any other faith principle. The proofs called de fide (drawn from faith principles properly so named) no longer apply.
Other proofs must be used: various marks, inward and outward, by which Scripture's divinity can be known and confirmed. That still leaves Scripture, for believers, the fullest and most perfect rule of religion and faith.
Latin · §181
XIX. Sed quemadmodum, si prima cujusdam scientiae principia negentur ab homine contentioso, non probantur illa ex seipsis, sed illius scientiae fines transire necesse est, & aliunde eorum probationes quaerere: aut etiam recurrere ad quaedam minus nota quibus probentur a posteriori, & ad hominem illum; neque hoc quicquam derogat principiorum illorum perfectioni & sufficientiae: Ita si Scripturarum sacrarum divinitas in dubium vocetur, ut fit ab Ethnicis & profanis hominibus, probanda quidem erit, non tamen ex proprio earum testimonio, aut ex alio quopiam fidei principio, neque amplius suppetunt probationes quas vocant de fide, hoc est, quae petitae sint ex proprie dictis fidei principiis: sed aliae probationes adhibendae erunt, quae petentur ex variis notis, tum intus, tum externis, quibus Scripturae Sacrae divinitas innotescere, & confirmari potest. Neque hoc obstat quominus, fidelium respectu, plenissima sit & perfectissima religionis & fidei regula.
Rome's 'Scripture cannot prove Scripture' does not defeat sufficiency§182
182Here is how to meet the argument Rome loves: that Scripture is not a full and sufficient rule of faith because Scripture cannot be proved by Scripture.
A rule need not prove itself to be perfect and sufficient. It is enough that by it everything else of the same kind can be examined and proved.
In analyzing faith, unless you allow a circle or an infinite regress — both absurd — you must stop at some principle that cannot be proved by another better known in that order, and that cannot prove itself. Nothing proves itself.
Latin · §182
XX. Atque hinc patet quomodo occurrendum sit argumento, quo se plurimum jactant Pontificii, dum, scilicet, se demonstrare putant Scripturam non esse plenam & sufficientem fidei regulam, quoniam ipsa Scriptura per Scripturam probari non potest. Nec enim, ut patet ex dictis, ad perfectionem & sufficientiam regulae requiritur, ut possit seipsam probare. Sed satis est ut per eam examinari & probari possint omnia praeter ipsam quae sunt ejusdem generis. Ac praeterea in fidei analysi, nisi quis velit admittere circulum, aut progressum in infinitum, quorum utrunque absurdum est, necesse est devenire ad principium quoddam in quo sistendum sit, & quod probari non possit per aliud in eo genere notius, nec etiam seipsum probare, quandoquidem, ut dictum est, nihil probat seipsum.
False pretended principles fall by missing the Spirit's marks — not by proof-texts§183
183Scripture's perfection does not require that it prove itself. Neither must every false pretended principle of faith be rejected by direct, express proof-texts.
We believe true faith principles immediately through the Spirit's inward illumination and persuasion. He sweetly draws people to them — not by another faith principle, but by motives and marks that make their divinity known.
So to refuse what are falsely counted as faith principles, it is enough that they lack the true marks of true principles, and that traces of human ignorance and weakness show in them.
Latin · §183
XXI. Sicut autem ad perfectionem, quam Scripturae sacrae tribuimus, non requiritur, ut seipsam probet, ita quoque nihil necesse est, ut, quae falso obtenduntur fidei principia, per Scripturam directe & expresse rejici possint, atque ad hoc exigantur Scripturae testimonia. Sed quemadmodum veris fidei principiis immediate credimus, per illuminationem & persuasionem internam Spiritus sancti, qui homines eo suaviter adducit, non per aliud quoddam fidei principium, sed tantum motivis & notis quibusdam quibus divinitas eorum innotescit: sic ad rejicienda & non admittenda quae falso putantur fidei principia sufficit ut destituantur veris verorum principiorum notis, & in iis notari possint ignorantiae & imbecillitatis humanae vestigia.
Burden of proof for Apocrypha and unwritten traditions lies on their defenders§184
184Scripture's perfection is not hurt if it cannot demonstrate that this or that book, falsely presumed canonical, is really apocryphal.
Even if unwritten traditions were granted for the sake of argument, it should be enough for rejecting them that their authority cannot be shown by fit arguments as divine Scripture's can.
It is not our job to prove they are not divine. Those who press and defend them must prove that they are.
Latin · §184
XXII. Ac proinde Scripturae perfectioni nihil obest, si demonstrari per eam non possit hunc aut illum librum, qui falso Canonicus praesumitur, revera Apocryphum esse. Imo, etiamsi omnino steteret de non scriptis traditionibus, ad illas rejiciendas sufficere deberet, quod idoneis argumentis eorum authoritas suaderi & probari non potest sicuti Scripturae divinae. Neque nostrum est probare illas non esse divinas, sed eis qui illas urgent atque tuentur, probandum incumbit illas divinas esse.
Near consequences bind as faith articles; remote ones are only theological opinions§185
185Doctrine drawn from Scripture and taught in the schools is of two kinds.
First: what Scripture states expressly, or what follows by nearest, evident consequences. Those should be proposed to the church as articles and heads of faith, with the mark of heresy for those who teach the opposite.
Second: what is rightly and soundly drawn from Scripture, yet not so clearly, and by subtler, more remote consequences. Those are not properly articles of faith, but theological truths or opinions. Their contrary should be called error — not heresy.
Rome's own doctors say only what their councils have clearly and expressly defined is de fide — not whatever they think they can weave by chaining consequence upon consequence. So they distinguish faith dogmas from their theologians' opinions: heresy against the first, error against the second.
Latin · §185
XXIII. Quod spectat autem ad doctrinam quae ex Scriptura hauritur, & in scholis proponi solet, vel consistit in iis quae in Scriptura sacra reperiuntur diserte & expresse posita, aut saltem quae ex iis per consequentias proximas & evidentes deducuntur: cujus generis ea esse debent, quae tanquam articuli, & capita fidei credenda Christiano populo proponuntur, cum nota haereseos in illos qui contraria docent. Vel in iis quae quidem ex Scriptura recte & sane deducuntur, sed tamen non ita clare, & evidenter, & per consequentias magis subtiles & remotas: quod genus proprie non sunt articuli fidei, sed veritates, aut opiniones tantum Theologicae, quarum contrarium gravius appellari non debet, quam error, non vero nomine haereseos notari. Quemadmodum Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae ea tantum esse de fide statuunt, quae sunt a Conciliis suis perspicue & expresse definita, non vero quaecunque nectendo consequentias de consequentis ex iis sese recte colligere posse putant. Ideoque distinguunt inter fidei dogmata, & Theologorum suorum placita, atque sententias, prioribus haeresin, posterioribus errorem opponentes.
Church practices like not rebaptizing may be held without binding as heresy — Cyprian§186
186So we can answer adversaries who attack the sufficiency we give Scripture. They object that our churches hold and teach some things not drawn from Scripture by consequences open and necessary enough to bind the people's faith unless some other divine authority props them up — for example, that those once baptized among heretics are not to be baptized again.
That teaching, and some others, our churches do hold and teach as agreeing with Scripture, and as confirmed by long use and the common vote of the faithful. It is rash to condemn and reject them.
Yet we do not give them such necessity that they bind Christian faith as such — as if whoever thinks otherwise must be struck from the faithful and counted a heretic. We would never want Cyprian so numbered: a holy man and martyr of Christ, who did not hold the same view of heretics' baptism that our churches hold.
Latin · §186
XXIV. Inde vero colligi potest quid sit respondendum adversariis, dum impugnantes sufficientiam, quam Scripturae sacrae tribuimus, objiciunt quaedam in nostris Ecclesiis teneri, & doceri, quae tamen per consequentias tam apertas & necessarias ex Scriptura non deducuntur, ut possint Christiani populi fidem obligare, nisi aliunde divina quadam authoritate fulciantur: ut ex. gr. non esse de novo baptizandos eos qui semel apud haereticos baptismum susceperunt. Etenim dogma istud, & alia nonnulla in Ecclesiis nostris tenentur quidem, & docentur, ut Scripturae consentanea, & praeterea longo usu & communi fidelium suffragio probata, quae propterea temerarium est damnare atque rejicere: nec tamen eam illis tribuimus necessitatem, ut Christianorum fidem necessario obligent, adeo ut qui aliter sentit sit e fidelium numero expungendus, & accensendus haereticis, quibus minime vellemus annumeratum Cyprianum virum sanctum & Christi martyrem, qui de baptismo haereticorum non idem sensit quod Ecclesiae nostrae.
Plenitude across ages — Scripture always held what each age needed§187
187From what we have already set out, it is plain enough in what sense we praise Scripture's fullness and sufficiency, and press that it contains everything necessary to faith and salvation.
We do not give that perfection only to Old and New Testament Scripture as the Apostles and apostolic men handed it down to us. From the moment God saw fit to put his word in writing, we hold that Scripture always contained all that God's people and the Church needed to worship him rightly and to reach salvation — and that they did not need to go elsewhere to draw the teaching of faith and salvation.
Latin · §187
XXV. Porro, ex iis quae jam exposita sunt, satis manifestum est, quo sensu commendemus Scripturae plenitudinem, & sufficientiam, & inculcemus illam omnia quae sunt ad fidem & salutem necessaria continere. Istam autem perfectionem non tantum tribuimus Scripturae Veteris & Novi Testamenti, prout ab Apostolis, & viris Apostolicis nobis consignata est: sed, ex quo Deo visum est verbum suum scripto tradere, existimamus Scripturam semper continuisse omnia quae Dei populo & Ecclesiae necessaria erant ad Deum rite colendum, & salutem adipiscendam: nec opus fuisse alio recurrere ad hauriendam fidei & salutis doctrinam.
Progressive revelation — Moses' five books vs later necessity (Hebrews 1:1)§188
188It does not count against this that Scripture as we now have it holds not a few things needful for salvation that are missing from Moses' five books — which alone made up sacred Scripture for a time.
The same things were not necessary for salvation in every age. Much that now belongs of necessity to faith and religion under the New Testament did not always have that necessity.
God did not unveil all the mysteries of heavenly wisdom at once. As the Apostle says in Hebrews, he spoke πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως — in many parts and in many ways (Hebrews 1:1). From the first consigning of heavenly teaching to writing, the light of divine revelation grew little by little, until in the last times Christ brought the fullness of that teaching and announced to us the whole counsel of our salvation.
Latin · §188
XXVI. Neque contra hoc facit quod Scriptura, qualis jam est, non pauca ad salutem necessaria continet, quae desiderantur in quinque libris Mosis, quibus solis constitit aliquandiu Scripturae sacrae corpus. Etenim sciendum est omnibus aetatibus non eadem fuisse ad salutem necessaria. Nam plurima nunc sub novo Testamento ad fidem & religionem necessario pertinent, quae non semper eandem habuerunt necessitatem. Siquidem Deus omnia caelestis sapientiae mysteria non revelavit simul & semel: sed ut loquitur Apostolus Hebr. 1. πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως multis partibus atque multis modis. Atque, ex quo primum doctrina caelestis scripto consignari coepit, paulatim crevit divinae revelationis lumen, donec ultimis temporibus Christus doctrinae caelestis plenitudinem attulit, & totum de nostra salute consilium nobis annunciavit.
As revelation grew clearer, the Scripture corpus and Canon grew§189
189As heavenly teaching grew clearer and wider, the body of the Scriptures grew with it.
When God, along the Church's changing courses, revealed something new to the Prophets and Apostles, they put it down in writing in summary. So as time went on, the Canon of Scripture was enlarged.
Latin · §189
XXVII. Crescente vero doctrinae caelestis claritate, & amplitudine, crevit quoque Scripturarum corpus. Nam prout Deus, juxta varia Ecclesiae suae curricula, aliquid de novo Prophetis & Apostolis revelavit, illud summatim scripto tradiderunt. Unde procedente tempore auctus est Scripturae Canon.
The measure of faith is revelation — fuller light demands fuller faith§190
190The more God revealed, and the more distinctly, the fuller and more distinct faith he required of men.
When revelation was thinner and darker, faith reached fewer things as well. Divine revelation is the measure of faith: for salvation we need not know and believe more than God has revealed.
Latin · §190
XXVIII. Sed quanto plura Deus revelavit, & magis distincte, tanto pleniorem & magis distinctam fidem ab hominibus exegit. Quum vero parcior atque obscurior erat revelatio, ad pauciora quoque fides extendebatur. Nam mensura fidei est divina revelatio: neque ad salutem opus est plura nosse & credere, quam sint ea quae Deus revelavit.
Moses' Scripture was perfect for Israel then — always enough for the Church's need§191
191So although Scripture, when first given through Moses, did not contain everything now necessary for us, it still sufficiently held what the people of Israel then needed.
Divine Scripture always had that perfection: it took in all the Church needed to do and to know.
Latin · §191
XXIX. Itaque quanquam Scriptura, quum primum per Mosen data est, non omnia contineret quae nobis nunc necessaria sunt, sufficienter tamen continebat ea quae tunc populo Israelitico necessaria erant. Eamque perfectionem semper habuit Scriptura divina, ut omnia complecteretur, quae Ecclesiam facere & scire opus erat.
Caution — while θεόπνευστοι still spoke, written Scripture was not yet the full deposit§192
192Take that with this caution: once the θεόπνευστοι men through whom revelation's light grew are gone, and their writings are out.
Except the time when their living voice still sounded in the Church, before they had put in writing what God was pleased to reveal to them anew. For example, when the Apostles began to preach and had not yet written anything, Old Testament Scripture did not hold all needful for salvation except in a mixed, implicit way — inasmuch as it sent us to the true Messiah, from whom we would be taught God's will more fully.
Latin · §192
XXX. Id tamen intelligendum videtur cum hac cautione, nempe sublatis viris θεοπνεύστοις per quos crevit divinae revelationis lumen, & editis eorum scriptis. Ut excipiatur tempus quo viva vox eorum in Ecclesia resonabat, nec dum scriptis consignaverant quae Deo placitum erat de novo ipsis revelare. Nam, exempli gratia, quum Apostoli praedicare coeperunt, neque adhuc quicquam scripserant, Scriptura veteris Testamenti non continebat omnia ad salutem necessaria, nisi confuse & implicite, quatenus nos ad verum Messiam remittebat, a quo plenius de Dei voluntate edoceremur.
After the inspired writers were taken up — nothing outside their writings for faith§193
193But after those men were taken from the earth and translated into heaven — whose mouth and pen God was pleased to use to hand his mysteries to the Church — nothing is to be counted as belonging to faith and salvation that is not found in the writings they left and entrusted to the faithful as the Church's norm and rule of faith.
Their teaching cannot be sought or found safely and certainly anywhere but in their writings.
Latin · §193
XXXI. Sed postquam terris exempti sunt, & in coelum translati illi, quorum ore & calamo Deo visum est uti ad sua mysteria Ecclesiae tradenda, nihil ad fidem & salutem pertinere existimandum est, quod non reperiatur in scriptis quae reliquerunt, & fidelibus commendárunt, ut in Ecclesia essent fidei norma & regula. Nec eorum doctrina alibi quam in eorum scriptis tuto & certo quaeri & inveniri potest.
Oral teaching and unwritten polity admitted — yet outside the written deposit§194
194We freely admit that the Prophets and Apostles and other men inspired by God said and taught many things by living voice that are not found set down word for word in sacred Scripture.
Nor do we deny that the Apostles and θεόπνευστοι men may once have ordered many things in the Church about the form of divine worship and various circumstances of church polity that are not written out in Scripture. Some historical items received from them may also have been kept among the faithful and handed on to later ages.
Latin · §194
XXXII. Ultro quidem fatemur Prophetas & Apostolos hominesque alios a Deo inspiratos, plurima viva voce dixisse & docuisse, quae in sacris literis verbatim expressa non reperiuntur. Nec etiam negamus fieri potuisse ut Apostoli & viri θεόπνευστοι in Ecclesia olim multa ordinaverint, circa formam divini cultus, & varias Ecclesiasticae politiae circumstantias, quae non sunt in sacris literis perscripta. Atque etiam historica nonnulla ab iis accepta potuisse apud fideles conservari & transmitti ad posteros.
Sum of inspired oral teaching — as to faith and salvation — is in Scripture§195
195Yet we hold this tightly: the sum of what holy men, moved by the divine Spirit, taught and spoke — so far as suffices for salvation and faith — is contained in sacred Scripture.
They taught nothing of any weight for religion that has not been handed down abundantly in the sacred letters.
Latin · §195
XXXIII. Verum illud arcte tenemus, summam eorum, quae homines sancti, divino Spiritu acti, docuerunt & prolocuti sunt, quantum ad salutem & fidem sufficit, Scriptura sacra contineri; nec quicquam eos docuisse, quod sit ad religionem alicujus momenti, quod in sacris literis abunde traditum non sit.
Apostolic rite and polity left to the Church — under order and decency§196
196We also assert that what the Apostles instituted about rites of divine worship and circumstances of church government — where sacred Scripture is silent — was left to the Church's power.
She may change those things variously for times and places, under this general rule alone: that all things be done in order and decently in the Church of God (1 Cor. 14:40).
Latin · §196
XXXIV. Praeterea quoque asserimus, ea, quae ab Apostolis instituta fuerunt circa ritus divini cultus, & Ecclesiastici regiminis circumstantias, & de quibus tamen Scripturae sacrae silent, esse potestati Ecclesiae permissa, ut ea, pro temporum & locorum ratione, varie immutare posset, sub hac tantum regula & cautione generali, ut omnia fiant ordine & decenter in Ecclesia Dei.
After the Apostles — certainty only from what is written; no more ἀδιάπτωτοι§197
197The chief point — from which the rest follow — is this: of what the Apostles taught or instituted, we hold nothing as fully certain except what is handed down and set in sacred Scripture.
After the Apostles and apostolic men, the Church had no more ἀδιάπτωτοι men set beyond every danger of error. So whatever of their sayings and deeds reaches us outside the Canonical writings comes only on the credit of weak men, who could both err and deceive.
Latin · §197
XXXV. Denique, quod praecipuum est, & unde reliqua sequuntur, illud constanter affirmamus eorum quae Apostoli docuerunt, aut instituerunt, nihil nos pro omnino certo & comperto habere, nisi ea quae sunt tradita & consignata in sacris literis. Et hoc quia post Apostolos, & viros Apostolicos, nulli amplius fuerunt in Ecclesia viri ἀδιάπτωτοι extra omne erroris periculum positi. Adeoque quicquid de dictis & factis Apostolorum, praeter scripta Canonica, ad nos usque pervenit, non habemus nisi ex fide hominum infirmorum, qui & falli & fallere potuerunt.
No unwritten tradition equals Scripture — sole rule of faith§198
198So there is no unwritten tradition that should be matched in authority with the divine and Apostolic writings.
Scripture is the sole rule of faith; nothing else can be joined to it with the same power to bind conscience and constrain faith. If Scripture were not enough and did not hold all that belongs to faith, the Church would lack a sufficient rule, and her salvation would not have been adequately provided for.
Latin · §198
XXXVI. Unde patet nullam esse traditionem non scriptam, quae authoritate comparari debeat cum scriptis divinis & Apostolicis: adeoque Scripturam esse unicam fidei regulam, cui alia non possit adjungi quae vim eandem habeat obligandi conscientiam, & fidem obstringendi. Ac proinde, si ipsa sufficiens non esset, neque omnia, quae ad fidem pertinent, contineret, sequeretur Ecclesiam ejusmodi regula sufficienti carere, nec illius saluti sufficienter fuisse provisum.
Negative argument from Scripture — reject what lacks Scriptural foundation§199
199Hence we argue negatively from Scripture's authority.
Of what God revealed through the Prophets and Apostles, nothing certain has reached us except what they themselves divinely committed to writing. To reject something as not belonging to faith, it is enough that it has no foundation in Scripture and cannot be proved or drawn from it.
Latin · §199
XXXVII. Atque hinc est quod a sacrae Scripturae authoritate negative argumentamur. Quandoquidem enim eorum quae Deus per Prophetas & Apostolos revelavit, nihil omnino certi ad nos pervenit, praeter ea quae ipsi divinitus scripto mandarunt, ut aliquid rejiciamus tanquam ad fidem non pertinens, satis est ut in Scriptura fundamentum non habeat, nec possit ex ea probari & deduci.
Historical and polity traditions admitted — none for faith dogmas or morals§200
200We do not wholly despise or reject unwritten traditions about historical matters and the Churches' rites, order, and polity.
But we admit none for the dogmas of faith, or for what belongs to morals. What the Spirit did not judge needful to put in writing through his amanuenses the Apostles and Evangelists cannot be known by us with equal certainty, or hold equal authority in the Church, as what he willed to consign in writing to have the force of an eternal law there.
Latin · §200
XXXVIII. Itaque non omnino quidem contemnimus, & rejicimus traditiones non scriptas circa res historicas, & Ecclesiarum ritus, ordinem, atque politiam: sed tamen nullas admittimus circa fidei dogmata, & ea quae ad mores pertinent. Neque putamus illa quae Spiritus non judicavit opus esse scripto mandari per suos amanuenses Apostolos & Evangelistas, tanta certitudine a nobis sciri posse, aut eandem authoritatem in Ecclesia habere, ac illa quae scriptis voluit consignari, ut aeternae legis vim in Ecclesia haberent.
Pars II open — summary of our churches' plenitude teaching§201
201From the preceding theses on Scripture's plenitude and sufficiency — as clearly as we could — we have set out our Churches' teaching.
In short: once God willed his word consigned in writing, the Church in the sacred books had all that each age and God's varied dispensation made so needful to salvation that no one could teach, defend, or hold the contrary without loss of salvation.
Or the same point: sacred Scripture has always held all that belongs to the body and substance of religion and is necessary by God's institution — though many circumstances of worship and church discipline were left to the Church's power, not prescribed one by one in Scripture.
Latin · §201
I. Ex THEISIBUS praecedentibus de Scripturae plenitudine & sufficientia, quam distincte & dilucide a nobis fieri potuit, exposita est nostrarum Ecclesiarum sententia. Ut vero rem totam in pauca contrahamus, huc illa redire videtur, nempe, ex quo Deus verbum suum scriptis consignari voluit, Ecclesiam in libris sacris habuisse omnia quae pro singulis aetatibus, & varia Dei dispensatione ad salutem ita necessaria erant, ut nemo posset citra salutis dispendium contrarium docere, tueri ac tenere: sive quod eodem recidit, Scripturam sacram semper continuisse omnia quae ad corpus & substantiam religionis pertinebant, & ex Dei instituto necessaria erant, quamvis determinatio multarum circumstantiarum quae ad divini cultus, & Ecclesiasticae disciplinae exercitium pertinent, fuerit potestati Ecclesiae permissa, non sigillatim in Scriptura praescripta.
Not word-for-word — equipollent wording or necessary consequence§202
202We do not claim every necessary point stands in Scripture word for word.
It may stand in equivalent words, or at least so that each item can be drawn from Scripture by a necessary and clear consequence — without needing another principle of faith to which Scripture would send us for fuller knowledge.
Latin · §202
II. Non tamen omnia illa quae necessaria dicimus in Scriptura de verbo ad verbum reperiri, sed, vel verbis aequipollentibus, vel saltem ita ut singula ex Scriptura deduci possint per necessariam atque evidentem consequentiam, citra opem alterius fidei principii, ad quod Scriptura nos remittat, ut ex eo cognitionem uberiorem hauriamus.
Faith principles are Scripture itself — dogmas vs school theological truths§203
203The principles of faith are contained in Scripture because they are Scripture itself — not something outside it — and not because they must or can be proved from Scripture.
Everything else in religion and sacred doctrine either is proved by express texts, or drawn from Scripture by open, near consequences (what properly count as dogmas of faith), or only fetched by more remote, less plain consequences from Scripture's deeper store (many theological truths taught in the Orthodox schools).
Latin · §203
III. Ac praeterea fidei principia Scriptura quidem contineri, quoniam sunt ipsa Scriptura, non aliquid extra Scripturam; non quod ex Scriptura sacra probari debeant aut possint. Reliqua vero omnia quae ad religionem & doctrinam sacram pertinent, vel disertis textibus probari, aut ex Scripturis per apertas & proximas consequentias deduci, cujusmodi sunt ea quae proprie dogmata fidei appellari debent: vel solummodo per consequentias remotiores & minus evidentes ex reconditiore Scripturae penu veluti depromi, cujusmodi sunt multae Theologicae veritates in Scholis Orthodoxis proponi & doceri solitae.
Sole rule — nothing of equal authority beside Scripture§204
204Our Churches also hold tightly: what is necessary to salvation cannot be sought elsewhere than from Scripture — with certainty and without fail.
Besides Scripture there is no word of God by which the things of faith can be confirmed. Sacred Scripture is the sole rule of faith; nothing of equal authority can be joined to it.
Latin · §204
IV. Quibus addendum est Ecclesias nostras illud arcte tenere, quae ad salutem necessaria sunt, non posse aliunde, quam ex Scriptura peti certo & infallibiliter, nec ullum esse praeter Scripturam Dei verbum, quo confirmari possint ea quae fidei sunt, adeoque Scripturam sacram unicam esse fidei regulam, cui non possit alia adjungi quae sit paris authoritatis.
Roman doctors — Scripture not given as sole rule; Bellarmine on Augustine§205
205We turn next to the Roman doctors on this question.
First they teach that Scripture was not given so the Church would have it as the sole rule of faith, or so that religion's institutes and the dogmas of faith would have to be sought from it alone. So not everything that belongs to faith and morals need be proved from sacred Scripture.
They do not deny that what is simply necessary to each person's salvation is found in Scripture — see Bellarmine, De verbo Dei 4.11 (last section). Answering Augustine's line our side cites (In what is openly set down in Scripture are found all things that contain faith and the way of life), he limits it to dogmas simply necessary for all, such as the Apostles' Creed and the Decalogue, and presses Augustine's further point about ignorance that would cost promised salvation.
Latin · §205
V. Sequitur jam ut exquiramus quae sit de hac quaestione Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae sententia. Primo igitur docent, Scripturam non esse datam Ecclesiae in hunc finem, ut esset unica fidei regula, atque ut ex ea sola religionis instituta & fidei dogmata peti & erui deberent. Itaque non esse necesse, ut omnia quae pertinent ad fidem atque mores, ex Scriptura sacra probentur. Non negant tamen illa, quae ad salutem singulis simpliciter necessaria sunt, in Scriptura sacra reperiri, ut videre est apud Bellarminum, De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 11. §. ultimo. Ubi respondens ad illud Augustini quod a nostris pro sua sententia afferri solet, In his quae aperte posita sunt inquit, Scriptura inveniri illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. Limitat, inquit, de illis dogmatibus quae necessaria sunt omnibus simpliciter, qualia sunt quae habentur in Symbolo Apostolico, & in Decalogo. Et in sequentibus probat illud ejusdem Augustini, Credo quod etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset.
Roman concession — contained for the whole Church, not expressly; Stapleton modes§206
206Roman doctors do not deny that Scripture contains the whole necessary doctrine of faith or morals — not simply for each person, but somehow for the whole Church. They only deny that it is contained expressly (Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei 4.3 section 2).
Stapleton (Controv. 5 q.5 art.1) offers modes by which the whole saving doctrine is in Scripture: first, Scripture points to the true Church and through that Church teaches all that is needed; second, from dogmas openly set in Scripture the rest can be firmly drawn — as two natures in Christ from the Son's incarnation. Even in that sense, he says, the Fathers teach that all faith needs is comprehended in Scripture.
Latin · §206
VI. Porro etiam totam doctrinam, sive de fide, sive de moribus, necessariam, non quidem singulis simpliciter, sed toti Ecclesiae aliqua ratione Scriptura contineri non negant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae: sed solum non expresse contineri affirmant, ut videre est apud Bellarminum 4. de Verbo Dei cap. 3. §. 2. Et similiter Stapletonus agens de principiis fidei doctrinalibus, Controv. 5. quaest. 5. art. 1. dum hanc quaestionem explicat, varios modos proponit quibus tota doctrina salutis in Scripturis contineatur. Et primo quidem hunc, quod Scriptura sacra veram Ecclesiam indicans, & ad eam nos mittens, per eam nos omnia necessaria docet. Deinde etiam istum, quod ex multis illis dogmatibus quae in Scripturis aperte posita sunt, reliqua possunt firmiter deduci, sicut dogma de duabus in Jesu Christo naturis ex Filii Dei incarnatione. Nam, inquit, etiam hoc sensu omnia ad fidem necessaria Scripturis comprehendi verum est & Patres docent.
Roman consensus — all needed for eternal salvation in Scripture explicitly or in seed§207
207Roman doctors do not all speak alike here — some seem to grant Scripture more, some less.
Yet they all agree: everything necessarily required for eternal salvation is in sacred Scripture explicitly or implicitly, expressly or by virtue, and as in seed — if Scripture is read in the sense the Holy Spirit intends.
Latin · §207
VII. Et quamvis in hac quaestione omnes Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae non eodem modo loquantur, sed alii plus, & alii minus Scripturae videantur hac in re tribuere; in eo tamen omnes conveniunt, omnia quae sunt ad aeternam salutem necessario requisita, in Scriptura sacra contineri explicite, vel implicite, expresse vel virtute, & tanquam in semine, si ad eum sensum Scripturae investigantur quem intendit Spiritus sanctus.
Roman denial — tradition and unwritten word still needed beside Scripture§208
208Yet they all deny that everything the Church needs for the doctrine of faith and morals is so contained in Scripture that it can be sufficiently sought and drawn from there alone.
They still require the help of tradition and of an unwritten word deposited in the Church's heart.
Latin · §208
VIII. Sed negant omnes ea quae ad doctrinam fidei & morum in Ecclesia necessaria sunt in Scripturis ita contineri omnia, ut sufficienter inde peti & hauriri possint, sine ope traditionis, & verbi cujusdam non scripti, quod in Ecclesiae corde depositum est.
Roman consensus — Christ and Apostles taught unwritten faith and worship matters§209
209Roman doctors agree: Christ and the Apostles taught and set up many points of faith and worship that sacred Scripture neither states expressly nor yields sufficiently when mined alone.
Christian and Apostolic doctrine, on their view, rests partly on Scripture and partly on an unwritten word passed along by mouth.
Latin · §209
IX. Etenim Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae communi consensu docent, Christum Dominum nostrum, & Apostolos ejus, multa docuisse & instituisse ad fidem & divinum cultum pertinentia, quae in sacris literis expressa non reperiuntur, nec sufficienter inde possunt erui: adeoque doctrinam Christianam & Apostolicam partim Scriptura, partim verbo quodam non scripto, & ore tenus tradito contineri.
Unwritten word — committed to pastors; succession keeps it pure§210
210That unwritten word, they say, was placed in the charge of the churches' rectors and overseers.
Hand to hand it was then passed down, and through unbroken succession of bishops and pastors it has reached us pure and unspoiled.
Latin · §210
X. Istud autem verbum non scriptum Ecclesiarum rectoribus & praepositis commendatum, & eorum fidei commissum, de manu in manum postea traditum fuisse volunt, & perpetua Episcoporum & Pastorum successione sincerum & incorruptum ad nos usque pervenisse.
Unwritten traditions named — general sense vs viva voce; not in Canonical books§211
211What they label unwritten traditions are dogmas and religious institutes never lodged in the canonical books.
Even Pontificians grant that tradition as a word is broad: any teaching one person communicates to another, in writing or outside Scripture. Handing on equals teaching; tradition equals a teaching.
Church writers, however, usually narrow the term to teaching given by living voice rather than writing — and that is how the Pontifician schools use it.
They do not mean a doctrine that exists nowhere in writing, but one the first author never wrote — or, more carefully, one absent from the Canonical books of Prophets and Apostles.
Latin · §211
XI. Atque hae sunt quas vocant traditiones non scriptas, quo nomine intelligunt dogmata & instituta pertinentia ad fidem atque religionem, quae Scripturis canonicis consignata non fuerunt. De quibus, ut quae sit eorum sententia, distinctius intelligatur, sciendum est, fatentibus ipsis Pontificiis, traditionis nomen ex se generale esse, & significare doctrinam omnem quae ab uno traditur & communicatur alteri, sive per scriptum, sive extra Scripturam. Et ita tradere est idem quod docere, & traditio idem quod documentum. Sed tamen usus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum traditionis vocem plerunque restringit ad doctrinam non scriptam, sed viva voce traditam: & ita sumunt hanc vocem Pontificiae Scholae. Neque tamen per doctrinam non scriptam, intelligunt eam quae nullibi scripta est, sed quae scripta non est a primo authore, seu potius, ut eorum quidam accuratius dicunt, quae scripta non invenitur in libris Canonicis Prophetarum & Apostolorum.
Tradition kinds — Divine, Apostolic, Ecclesiastical; confirmation chrism as Divine§212
212Traditions get many partitions. The one that matters here turns on the authors to whom each kind is traced.
Roman doctors name three: Divine, Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical.
Divine are those Christ himself taught and instituted ἀγράφως (without writing), yet nowhere appear in sacred Scripture.
Their stock case is the oil-and-balsam anointing in confirmation, counted among the new-law Sacraments — for they grant every new-law Sacrament must come immediately from Christ.
Latin · §212
XII. Porro traditiones varie partiuntur. Sed partitio quae hic maxime consideranda est, illa est quae sumitur ab authoribus ad quos referendae sunt. Dicunt enim traditiones, alias esse Divinas, alias Apostolicas, & alias Ecclesiasticas. Divinas traditiones vocant ea, quae, ut existimant, Christus ipse ἀγράφως docuit & instituit: nec tamen usquam in sacris literis inveniuntur. Hujusmodi traditio ipsis est unctio illa ex oleo & balsamo quae fit in confirmatione, quam inter Sacramenta novae legis numerant. Agnoscunt enim omnia novae legis Sacramenta immediate a Christo institui debuisse.
Apostolic Lent; terms confused with Divine; Ecclesiastical customs by consent§213
213Apostolic traditions, in the proper sense, are commands and institutes they ascribe to the Apostles even when the Apostolic writings are silent.
Under that head they place the Quadragesima (Lent) fast, which they claim the Apostles founded.
Often they blur the labels: what only the Apostles (not Christ) instituted they still call Divine, because those institutes came with the Spirit's breath; and what they tie to Christ they also call Apostolic, since nothing of Christ's teaching reaches us except through Apostolic writing and preaching.
Ecclesiastical traditions are old customs begun by prelates or peoples that, by gradual tacit consent, took on the force of law.
Latin · §213
XIII. Apostolicae vero traditiones ab iis proprie dicuntur, quae ab Apostolis praecepta & instituta opinantur, quamvis eorum mentio nulla fiat in scriptis Apostolicis. Ad quas traditiones referunt jejunium quod vocant Quadragesimae, quod ab Apostolis institutum autumant. Et tamen saepe has voces contundunt, traditiones Divinas vocantes ea, quae non Christus ipse, sed Apostoli tantum instituisse putantur: quoniam quae sunt ab iis instituta non sine divini Spiritus afflatu instituerunt. Et vicissim quae ad Christum referunt, traditiones quoque Apostolicas vocant, quoniam eorum quae Christus docuit nihil ad nos pervenit, nisi per Apostolorum scripta & praedicationem. Ecclesiasticae vero traditiones ab iis vocantur quaedam consuetudines antiquae, vel a Praelatis, vel a populis inchoatae, quae paulatim tacito populorum consensu vim legis obtinuerunt.
Authority grades — Divine equals Gospels; Apostolic equals Apostolic writings; Ecclesiastical equals canons§214
214Authority is not equal across these kinds.
What they call Divine is given the same force as precepts and dogmas written in the Gospels.
What they call Apostolic is ranked with the Apostolic writings themselves.
Ecclesiastical traditions sit lower — on a level with the Church's written canons and laws.
Latin · §214
XIV. Caeterum omnibus istis traditionibus non omnino eandem authoritatem tribuunt. Et quidem traditiones illas quas divinas vocant, eandem vim habere volunt, quam divina praecepta & dogmata quae scripta sunt in Evangeliis. Et similiter traditionibus, quas Apostolicas dicunt, eandem authoritatem tribuendam esse statuunt, quam scriptis Apostolicis. Sed traditionibus Ecclesiasticis minorem aliquanto authoritatem deferunt, eam scilicet, quam habent Canones & Leges Ecclesiae scriptae.
Trent Session 4 — equal piety for unwritten traditions restricted to first two kinds§215
215They therefore confine Trent's Session 4 rule — receive unwritten traditions with the same piety as the Canonical books — to the first two kinds alone (Divine and Apostolic).
The Council says: seeing Gospel truth and discipline live in written books and in unwritten traditions received from Christ's mouth by the Apostles, or passed from the Apostles under the Spirit's dictation as if by hand down to us, the Synod, following the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with equal piety and reverence every Old and New Testament book (one God their author) and those faith-and-morals traditions spoken by Christ or the Spirit and kept by continual succession in the Catholic Church.
Latin · §215
XV. Itaque ad duo tantum priora traditionum genera restringunt Decretum Concilii Tridentini, quod habetur Sessione quarta: ubi praecipitur ut traditiones non scriptae pari pietatis affectu suscipiantur atque ipsi libri Scripturae Canonicae. Verba Concilii sunt, Synodus perspiciens Evangelii veritatem & disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis, & sine scripto traditionibus, quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt, Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit author, necnon traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam, vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas, & continua successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu & reverentia suscipit & veneratur.
Three Roman rules for discerning Divine and Apostolic traditions — first rule§216
216Roman doctors offer several tests for sorting true Divine and Apostolic traditions from fakes; they boil down to three.
First: whatever Rome believes as de fide, yet is not clearly in Scripture, must itself be a Divine or Apostolic tradition — because Rome cannot err, and because she is not ruled by fresh revelation but only by what she learned from Apostles and Prophets.
Latin · §216
XVI. Porro Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae plures tradunt regulas, quibus traditiones revera divinae & Apostolicae discerni possint ab aliis, quae falso possent pro talibus obtrudi. Quae tamen omnes regulae ad tres reduci possunt. Prima est quod quicquid Ecclesia Romana tanquam de fide credit, nec tamen in Scriptura clare traditum reperitur, hoc ipso censendum est traditionem esse divinam, seu Apostolicam. Idque nititur duobus quae supponunt fundamentis. Unum est quod Ecclesia Romana errare non possit: Alterum quod tamen Ecclesia illa hodie non regitur novis revelationibus: sed quicquid novit in rebus fidei id totum ab Apostolis & Prophetis didicit.
Second rule — rites only God could institute, absent from Scripture, must be Apostolic§217
217Second rule, on the same two foundations: what Rome keeps that only God could lawfully institute, yet Scripture never shows God instituting, must have come from the Apostles.
Latin · §217
XVII. Secunda regula nitens iisdem fundamentis haec est, Quod ea quae servat Ecclesia Romana quae sunt ejusmodi, ut nemo nisi Deus legitime potuerit illa instituere, nec tamen in Scripturis reperiuntur a Deo instituta, ab Apostolis tradita fuisse necesse sit.
Third rule — common Roman consensus as Apostolic tradition; Lenten fast example§218
218Third rule: whatever Roman doctors by common consent say descends from Apostolic tradition is to be treated as Apostolic — even when the Church herself could have set it up.
They class the Quadragesimal (Lenten) fast under this head.
Latin · §218
XVIII. Tertia denique regula eorum est, Quod illud, quod Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae communi consensu docent, ex Apostolica traditione descendere revera pro traditione Apostolica habendum sit: licet tale sit ut ab Ecclesia potuerit institui. Cujusmodi traditionem volunt esse jejunium illud quod vocant Quadragesimale.
Three rules collapse to one — present Roman Church judgment alone discerns§219
219The three rules fold into one: whatever Rome proposes as Divine or Apostolic tradition must be taken as such without doubt.
As they hang the authority of long-known books on the present Church's witness, so they will have true traditions sorted from false ones only by that same judgment — and that with certainty and infallibility.
Latin · §219
XIX. Sed rursus hae tres regulae in unicam contrahi possunt, hanc nempe, Quod quicquid Ecclesia Romana tanquam divinam aut Apostolicam traditionem proponit, pro traditione tali indubitato sit habendum. Quemadmodum enim Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae authoritatem librorum diu notorum quoad nos ab Ecclesiae praesentis testimonio suspendunt, ita quoque nonnisi ejusdem judicio traditiones veras a falsis certo & infallibiliter discerni & distingui volunt.
Controversy status — Reformed concede polity and external ceremonies to Church prudence§220
220From the foregoing, the controversy's state is clear: where Reformed churches agree with Rome, and where they do not.
First concession: polity and public external-worship ceremonies need not be fetched from Scripture; they are left to Church power and her overseers' prudence.
Latin · §220
XX. Porro ex iis quae dicta sunt, facile colligi potest quatenus Ecclesiae nostrae cum Ecclesia Romana in hac quaestione conveniant, & quatenus ab ea dissentiant: adeoque quis sit hujus controversiae status. Et primo quidem Ecclesiae Romanae concedimus singula quae pertinent ad Ecclesiae politiam, publicique & externi cultus ceremonias, ex Scriptura peti non posse, sed esse potestati Ecclesiae permissa, & relicta prudentiae praepositorum Ecclesiae.
Further Reformed concession — substance of faith not always verbatim, often by consequence§221
221Further concession: the substance and body of faith and religion are not always in Scripture verbatim, expressly, or immediately.
Many faith dogmas come only by good and lawful consequence from Scripture.
Latin · §221
XXI. Ultro quoque fatemur illa ipsa quae pertinent ad substantiam & corpus fidei & religionis in Scriptura non contineri verbatim & expresse, sive immediate, sed multa fidei dogmata solummodo ex Scriptura per bonam & legitimam consequentiam deduci.
Roman concessions — necessary-to-salvation truths clear in Scripture; rest at least virtually§222
222Rome concedes in turn: whatever is simply necessary for every person's salvation, and whose explicit faith each believer must hold, stands clear and open in Scripture.
They also grant that whatever is needed for faith-and-morals doctrine is at least in Scripture virtually and implicitly, and can be drawn by good consequence.
Latin · §222
XXII. Vicissim vero Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae nobis concedunt, omnia quae sunt omnibus simpliciter ad salutem necessaria, & quorum fides explicita a fidelibus singulis exigitur, in Scriptura clare & aperte haberi. Ac praeterea nobis largiuntur omnia quae necessaria sunt ad doctrinam fidei & morum in Scriptura saltem virtute & implicite contineri, & ex ea posse per bonam consequentiam deduci.
The real difference — sola Scriptura vs tradition as a second equal divine word§223
223The real split: Reformed hold that everything needed for faith and religion can be drawn and proved from Scripture alone — no second faith-principle to which Scripture remits us for fuller teaching, and no rule of faith outside Scripture.
Roman doctors deny that faith dogmas and religion's institutes can be proved sufficiently from Scripture without intervening Church doctrine and tradition, which they take as another part of the divine word equal in authority with sacred Scripture.
Latin · §223
XXIII. Sed discrimen in eo est, quod omnia quae ad fidem & religionem necessaria sunt, contendimus ex Scriptura ita peti & probari posse, ut opus non sit alio fidei principio, ad quod Scriptura nos remittat plenius erudiendos. Nec etiam ullum fidei principium & regulam extra Scripturam agnoscimus. Doctores vero Ecclesiae Romanae omnia fidei dogmata, & religionis instituta ex Scriptura sufficienter probari non posse contendunt, nisi interveniente Ecclesiae doctrina atque traditione, quam tanquam alteram verbi divini partem paris cum Scriptura sacra authoritatis suscipiendum esse docent.
The two-point question — unwritten apostolic necessities vs equal-authority tradition§224
224The whole question therefore turns on two points.
First: Did the Apostles teach or institute necessary things not sufficiently contained in sacred Scripture?
Second: Can apostolic teaching and institutes be had with certainty and infallibility from somewhere other than Scripture — namely from the tradition of post-apostolic Church doctors, owed equal faith-obedience with Scripture itself?
Rome affirms both. All Orthodox (Reformed) theologians deny both.
Latin · §224
XXIV. Adeoque tota haec quaestio in duobus versatur. Unum est, an Apostoli quaedam necessaria docuerint aut instituerint, quae non sint sufficienter in sacris literis contenta. Alterum, an Apostolorum documenta & instituta aliunde certo & infallibiliter peti & haberi possint, quam ex Scriptura sacra, nempe ex traditione Doctorum Ecclesiae qui Apostolos secuti sunt, cui par obsequium fidei debeatur atque ipsi Scripturae sacrae. Utrumque affirmant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae: Theologi vero omnes Orthodoxi utrumque negant.
Two Reformed affirmations — Scripture's full substance; no equal unwritten word§225
225Two affirmations follow.
First: everything belonging to the substance of faith and religion is fully and sufficiently in sacred Scripture.
Second: besides Scripture there is no word of God that is our faith's principle and rule — so no unwritten traditions equal Scripture's authority, and least of all Rome's so-called Apostolic and divine traditions.
The first follows from the second: if there is no divine word outside Scripture, Scripture must hold all that faith and salvation require, or we already lack necessities and have no sure path of salvation.
So, without rehearsing Scripture's own fullness-texts, the main proof target is this: no living-voice-only word of God stands as a certain faith-rule alongside Scripture.
Latin · §225
XXV. Duo igitur affirmamus. Et primo quidem omnia quae pertinent ad substantiam fidei & religionis plene & sufficienter in Scriptura sacra contineri. Deinde, praeter Scripturam non extare ullum Dei verbum quod fidei nostrae sit principium & regula, adeoque nullas traditiones non scriptas aequalis esse cum sacra Scriptura authoritatis. Minime vero istud honoris tribuendum esse traditionibus illis quas Ecclesia Romana tanquam Apostolicas & divinas commendat. Prius autem illud sequitur ex posteriori. Etenim si nullum sit praeter Scripturam Dei verbum, necesse est illam omnia ad fidem & salutem necessaria continere, vel nos jam aliquibus necessariis carere. Et quod inde sequitur, nullam certam ad salutem nobis superesse viam. Itaque omissis iis testimoniis quibus Scriptura suam ipsius plenitudinem & perfectionem commendat, illud praecipue probare contendemus nullum esse Dei verbum viva voce tantum traditum quod cum Scriptura sacra certa sit fidei regula.
A fortiori from the Jewish Church — Christ and Paul reject extra-Scriptural traditions§226
226First argument: when Jewish Scripture was only the Old Testament, the whole salvation-doctrine was in Scripture, with no unwritten traditions equal to it.
A fortiori today: Scripture now includes the New Testament books that set out Christ's and the Apostles' teaching, so all the more must salvation-doctrine be contained in Scripture.
That Judaism had no equal-authority unwritten traditions follows because any such would have been the very traditions the Jewish teachers pressed — yet Christ shows those empty human inventions (Matthew 15; Mark 7).
When scribes and Pharisees (then the Jewish Church's doctors) charged the disciples with breaking the elders' tradition by unwashed hands (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:5), Christ answered that they break God's commandment by their tradition and make God's word void (Matthew 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8-13).
He does not merely rebuke hypocrisy; He rejects their traditions as vain in general and draws no line between true and false extra-Scriptural traditions — citing Isaiah: This people honors Me with lips while the heart is far; in vain they worship Me, teaching human commandments (Isaiah 29:13 via Matthew 15:8-9; Mark 7:6-7).
Paul likewise warns against human tradition (Colossians 2:8) and recalls his own former zeal for ancestral traditions (Galatians 1:14).
So if Christ and the Apostles treat Jewish extra-Scriptural traditions as human doctrines, Rome's traditions fall the same way — they come with no greater authority.
Latin · §226
XXVI. Primum ergo sic argumentamur. In Ecclesia Judaica, cum Scriptura sacra constaret solis Veteris Testamenti libris, tota salutis doctrina Scriptura continebatur, neque extabant ullae traditiones non scriptae aequalis cum Scriptura sacra authoritatis. Atqui multo magis credendum est totam salutis doctrinam hodie sacra Scriptura contineri, cum Scriptura jam aucta sit Novi Testamenti libris, in quibus exponitur doctrina Christi & Apostolorum. In Ecclesia vero Judaica non extitisse ullas traditiones non scriptas, ejusdem cum Scriptura sacra authoritatis, ex eo colligitur, quod, si quae tales habendae fuissent, proculdubio forent illae quas Judaeorum magistri commendabant, & quarum apud populum observationem urgebant. Sed illas vanas fuisse & hominum commenta docet Christus apud Matthaeum cap. 15. & apud Marcum cap. 7. Quum enim Scribae atque Pharisaei, qui tum erant Ecclesiae Judaicae Doctores, discipulos Christi arguerent, dicentes, Quare discipuli tui transgrediuntur traditionem seniorum? Non enim lavant manus quam panem edunt. Christus vicissim illos increpat, dicens, Quare & vos transgredimini praeceptum Dei per traditionem vestram? Item, irritum fecistis praeceptum Dei per vestram traditionem. Neque solum arguit eorum hypocrisin, quod mandatorum humanorum observationem urgerent, dum ipsi Dei mandata negligebant, & dogmatibus pravis corrumpebant: sed in genere declarat traditiones eorum tanquam frustraneas rejiciendas esse, nec ullas traditiones ut veras & legitimas a falsis & spuriis distinguit. Bene, inquit, de vobis prophetavit Isaias, sicut scriptum est, Populus iste labiis me honorat, cor autem eorum procul abest a me. Frustra vero me colunt docentes doctrinas quae sunt praecepta hominum. Nam omisso Dei praecepto tenetis traditiones hominum, lotiones sextariorum, & poculorum, aliaque similia hujusmodi multa facitis. Ideoque Paulus Coloss. 2. fideles monet ut sibi caveant ab hominum traditionibus, Videte, inquit, Ne quis vos decipiat per Philosophiam & inanem fallaciam, secundum traditionem hominum. Et Galat. 1. sibi ipsi vitio vertit quod ante suam ad Christum conversionem, Supra modum zelator fuerit paternarum traditionum. Cum ergo Christus & Apostoli damnent, ac pro doctrinis hominum habeant Judaeorum traditiones extra Scripturam sacram, pari ratione sequitur rejiciendas & damnandas esse traditiones Pontificiorum: cum illae non majori authoritate nobis commendentur quam Judaeorum olim traditiones.
Adversaries' Mosaic-tradition reply — oral law claim still falls under Christ's verdict§227
227Rome replies: Christ condemned only later, empty, or Scripture-contradicting Jewish traditions — not Mosaic/Prophetic ones — and Rome's traditions come from Christ and the Apostles.
Counter: the traditions Christ attacks as human doctrines were sold as Mosaic and Prophetic. Rabbis call them thorah shebbal peh (oral law), claiming Moses received them viva voce on Sinai equal in authority with the written law.
In Christ's day those Jewish doctors were the Church's only teachers — there was no true Church of God except among the Jews.
Yet Christ still rejects their extra-Scriptural traditions as human doctrines despite ancient/Mosaic pedigree. So why trust today's Roman doctors when they claim hand-to-hand receipt from Christ and the Apostles?
Church teachers can err and push merely human dogmas as divine; therefore no certain word of God stands outside sacred Scripture — for any such word would still have to come through fallible overseers, with no greater warrant.
Latin · §227
XXVII. Respondunt adversarii, Christum & Apostolos non reprehendere traditiones, quas Judaei acceperant a Mose & Prophetis, sed traditiones acceptas a quibusdam recentioribus, quae quidem traditiones partim inanes erant, partim cum Scripturis repugnabant: Sed aliam esse rationem traditionum Ecclesiae Romanae, quas illi scilicet a Christo & Apostolis acceperunt. Sed contra sciendum est, traditiones illas, quas Christus exagitat ut doctrinas hominum, pro traditionibus Mosaicis & Propheticis fuisse venditatas. Nam Judaeorum Rabbini, in eo majorum suorum vestigiis insistentes, traditiones suas vocant thorah shebbal peh, quasi dicas, legem oralem, nempe quia volunt illas ore tenus a Mose acceptas, qui illas in monte Sinai ab ipso Deo habuerit, non minus quam legem scriptam, cui proinde volunt illas authoritate pares esse. Jam autem Christi tempore Judaeorum Doctores erant Ecclesiae Doctores & Magistri: siquidem nulla tum erat vera Dei Ecclesia nisi apud Judaeos. Cum ergo nihilominus Christus aperte rejiciat, & pro doctrinis hominum habeat traditiones quas extra Scripturam proferebant, licet ab antiquis illas accepissent, adeoque ab ipso Mose traditas gloriarentur, quam fidem facient hodierni Pontificiorum Doctores traditiones illas, quas se ab ipso Christo & Apostolis ejus per manus patrum suorum accepisse se jactant, revera esse instituta Christi & Apostolorum, non vero humana inventa? Et certe cum inde pateat Ecclesiae magistros in eo posse falli, & pro divinis obtrudere dogmata & praecepta quae mere humana sunt, Inde quoque sequitur nullum extra Scripturam sacram certum Dei verbum reperiri. Etenim, si quod tale verbum Dei exstaret, ab Ecclesiae praepositis accipiendum esset, nec majori authoritate nobis commendaretur.
Extra-Scriptural teaching is rejectable as human — Scripture the examination rule§228
228Church teachers' delivery can be rejected as human tradition only because it stands outside Scripture.
If God's word were not bounded by Scripture and an unwritten divine word also existed, teachers could rightly claim their teaching is that word — and if we needed an unwritten word, where else would we take it?
Yet Christ shows Church doctors can propose mere human invention as God's word.
Therefore whatever can be proposed outside Scripture's substance counts as human doctrine, and Scripture is the rule for examining all things — otherwise magisterial precepts could never be rejected as human traditions.
Latin · §228
XXVIII. Denique quod tradunt & docent Ecclesiae Doctores non potest rejici tanquam humana traditio, nisi quia est extra Scripturam. Etenim, si Dei verbum Scriptura sacra determinatum non esset, sed praeterea extaret verbum Dei non scriptum, jure possent obtendere Ecclesiae Doctores sua documenta esse illud ipsum Dei verbum. Et revera, si ad aliquod verbum Dei non scriptum nobis recurrendum esset, unde potius deberet accipi quam ab ipsis? Cum ergo nihilominus contingat, teste Christo, Ecclesiae Doctores pro Dei verbo proponere quod non est aliud quam humanum commentum; inde manifestum est habendum esse pro doctrina hominum, quicquid extra Scripturae substantiam proponi potest, & Scripturam regulam esse ad quam omnia examinanda sunt: alioquin, ut diximus, Magistrorum Ecclesiae praecepta & documenta, tanquam traditiones humanae, rejici non possent.
Ecclesiastical traditions fall under Isaiah — later pastors' human precepts§229
229Note Rome's own concession: Christ rebuked traditions from teachers later than Moses and the Prophets.
By the same right, so-called Ecclesiastical traditions fall — rites and worship practices invented by later pastors and doctors, not by Christ or the Apostles — and those make up much of Rome's system.
They are no less human commandments than the Jewish elders' once were.
Isaiah's words, cited and confirmed by Christ, fit them equally: In vain they worship Me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7).
Latin · §229
XXIX. Praeterea valde notandum est quod in sua responsione adversarii concedunt, nempe Christum ibi reprehendere traditiones quasdam a quibusdam Mose & Prophetis recentioribus acceptas. Etenim inde sequitur pari saltem jure damnandas, & rejiciendas esse traditiones illas quas Pontificii Ecclesiasticas vocant, id est, multa quibus putatur Deus coli, & quae tamen nec Christus, nec Apostoli ejus instituerunt, sed Pastores & Doctores posteriorum saeculorum: quae certe traditiones magnam partem constituunt institutorum Ecclesiae Romanae. Nam traditiones illae non sunt minus mandata & praecepta hominum quam quae olim a senioribus Judaeorum instituta erant. Ideoque non minus in illas congruunt Isaiae verba a Christo prolata, atque confirmata, Frustra colunt me docentes doctrinas & mandata hominum.
Not only Scripture-contrary traditions — Christ damns human precepts as such§230
230Rome says Jewish traditions contradicted Scripture, but theirs do not.
Many Jewish traditions were not evil or directly anti-Scripture by nature — only unlawful as additions, since divine law forbids adding to itself.
Hand-washing before meals looks harmless and not directly against Scripture — yet that is the very tradition Christ specially targets.
Calling it empty helps Rome nothing: their traditions are no less empty, and by mere human wisdom Jewish washings look no less wise than most Roman institutes.
Christ's verdict is broader: He damns them not only as empty or contrary, but in general as human commandments and doctrines — and that charge fits Rome's traditions equally.
Latin · §230
XXX. Ad illud vero quod dicunt adversarii Judaeorum traditiones fuisse sacrae Scripturae contrarias, suas vero non item: observandum est multas Judaeorum traditiones non fuisse directe, & sua natura legi divinae contrarias, sed tantum quatenus erant legis additamenta, cum lex divina quicquam sibi addi prohibeat. Ita mos ille abluendi manus religione quadam ante cibi sumptionem ex se nihil mali habere videtur, nec quod sit directe Scripturae contrarium. Et tamen haec est illa ipsa traditio quam speciatim carpit Christus. Quod si dicant Pontificii saltem inanem esse, verum quidem illi dicent. At non minus quadrat in illorum traditiones. Nec enim minus inanes & vanae sunt. Quod si res ex humanae rationis judicio aestimetur, mos ille Judaeorum comperietur non minorem sapientiae speciem habere, quam Pontificiorum pleraque instituta. Sed Christus non damnat simpliciter Judaeorum traditiones, vel quia inanes erant, vel quia erant Scripturae contrariae; sed praeterea in genere, quoniam erant mandata & doctrinae hominum. Quod de traditionibus Pontificiorum non minus verum est.
Many Roman traditions directly conflict Scripture — cup, images, Mass sacrifice§231
231Most Roman traditions are not only beside Scripture (already a kind of conflict as unlawful additions) but often fight Scripture directly.
Example — communion in one kind: Rome says it is lawful and expedient to give the Eucharist under bread alone; yet Christ instituting the sacrament said of the cup, Drink from this, all of you (Matthew 26:27).
Example — images: the second commandment forbids religious worship of any image, and Scripture often forbids fashioning a likeness of God; Rome teaches placing and religiously venerating images of God, angels, and the dead in churches.
Example — the Mass: Rome holds Christ is offered daily as a true and proper sacrifice though He suffers nothing there; Hebrews teaches Christ's offering is once for all and He does not offer Himself repeatedly, because He cannot suffer repeatedly (Hebrews 9:25-28; 10:10-14).
Therefore Rome's supposedly Apostolic and divine traditions are not God's word or a certain faith-rule: God's word cannot contradict itself, and what contradicts undisputed Scripture must not be held as God's word.
Latin · §231
XXXI. Adde quod de plerisque Pontificiorum traditionibus probare facile est illas non tantum esse praeter Scripturam, & Scripturae additas, quod ipsum aliquatenus Scripturae contrariatur, sed etiam directe cum Scriptura pugnare. Nam, verbi causa, juxta Ecclesiae Romanae traditionem, & licet, & expedit Eucharistiae sacramentum sub sola specie panis fidelibus administrare. Et tamen Christus in Evangelio hoc sacramentum instituens expresse dixit de calice, Bibite ex hoc omnes. Similiter Deus in secundo Decalogi praecepto vetat ullam imaginem religiose coli. Et multis in locis speciatim prohibet, ne quis aliquam Dei similitudinem effingere praesumat. Sed traditio Ecclesiae Romanae docet licitum & utile esse Dei & Angelorum, hominumque morte functorum imagines in templis collocare, & coram iis procumbere, illasque venerari & religiosis ritibus colere. Denique eadem traditio perhibet Christum in Missa quotidie offerri in verum & proprie dictum sacrificium, quamvis in ea nihil patiatur. Epistola vero Pauli ad Hebraeos praedicat unicam tantum esse Christi oblationem, & Christum sese saepius non offerre, quia pati saepius non potest. Unde manifestum redditur traditiones quas Ecclesia Romana ut Apostolicas & divinas commendat non esse Dei verbum & certam fidei regulam. Nam verbum Dei sibi ipsi contrarium esse non potest. Adeoque quod est contrarium Scripturae, quae sine controversia ab omnibus Christianis ut Dei verbum suscipitur, Dei verbum haberi non debet.
Unwritten viva-voce deposit would corrupt — Scripture alone a certain rule§232
232Scripture alone is a certain rule of faith; traditions proposed outside it are doubtful and uncertain.
If any part of Christian doctrine had been left by the Apostles only viva voce, committed to memory and never written, it either would not have reached us, or would have reached us thick with corruptions — so that pure truth could hardly be separated from human inventions.
Men's perversity, ignorance, and negligence easily bury, erase, or adulterate what is trusted only to care and memory. Writing is needed for a sure and accurate record.
What is not written soon vanishes from memory or is tangled in fables until true and false cannot be told apart.
Philosophers' opinions and commonwealth institutes left only to memory have perished, except scraps someone happened to write. Of past deeds and sayings we have nothing certain except what books kept as faithful custodians.
If writing is needed anywhere, it is needed most in religion and worship — where people are by nature forgetful and quick to invent.
Ask Rome where the Jews' alleged Mosaic and prophetic oral traditions are now: even Rome cannot say what they contained. Of Jewish religion and worship we know nothing certain except from Moses and the Prophets in writing.
Latin · §232
XXXII. Praeterea solam Scripturam esse certam fidei regulam, traditiones vero quae extra illam proponuntur dubias & incertas esse, inde patet quod si qua pars doctrinae Christianae ab Apostolis solum viva voce tradita, & memoriae hominum commissa, non vero etiam scriptis mandata esset, certe vel illa ad nos non pervenisset, vel saltem non sine multis corruptelis & depravationibus; adeo ut vix purum ab impuro, germanaque ac sincera veritas ab humanis figmentis & commentis addititiis discerni & secerni posset. Tanta est enim hominum perversitas, ignorantia & negligentia, ut quae simpliciter eorum curae & memoriae commissa sunt, oblivioni facile mandentur, & penitus obliterentur, aut saltem variis modis corrumpantur & adulterentur. Ideoque Scripturae usus plane necessarius est ad certam & accuratam rerum memoriam servandam. Quae vero scriptis consignata non sunt, brevi ex hominum memoria delentur, aut fabulis ita implicantur ut verum a falso distingui non possit. Quod multis experienciis manifestum reddi posset. Nam placita Philosophorum, & instituta Rerumpublicarum quae literis tradita non sunt, sed tantum hominum memoriae commissa penitus interierunt, neque de iis quicquam amplius scitur, nisi si quid forte obiter ab aliquo literis mandatum est. Denique de omnibus illis quae praeteritis temporibus sive gesta, sive dicta sunt, nihil certi habemus praeter ea quae libris tanquam fidis custodibus data sunt asservanda. Si autem Scripturae usus ullibi necessarius est, certe praesertim in iis quae ad religionem & cultum divinum pertinent, circa quae homines natura maxime obliviosi sunt, & ad mentiendum & confingendum proni. Atque in hujus rei fidem Pontificios rogare possumus, ubi nunc sint illae Judaeorum traditiones quas volunt illos a Mose & Prophetis accepisse. Certe ne ipsi quidem Pontificii explicare audent, aut possunt quid traditionibus illis continebatur. Neque de Judaeorum religione & cultu quicquam certi hodie habemus aliunde quam ex Mosis & Prophetarum scriptis.
Pre-Mosaic oral survival was brief — and extraordinary revelation filled the gap§233
233Rome replies: from creation to Moses, heavenly doctrine was kept by oral tradition alone — so why not apostolic traditions for sixteen hundred years?
Answer: before Moses sacred teaching did survive unwritten for a while — but only among very few.
Among most it was soon corrupted and wrapped in absurd fables; God's covenant and saving doctrine nearly remained in Abraham's family alone while the rest of humankind turned to idolatry and invented cults.
What Scripture later supplied was then filled by frequent divine appearances and familiar talk with the Patriarchs, by which God repeatedly restored the viva-voce teaching and called it back to purity.
Those extraordinary appearances and conversations have long ceased in the Church.
Latin · §233
XXXIII. At, inquiunt, adversarii, a mundi creatione ad Mosen usque doctrina coelestis per solam traditionem sine scripto conservata est. Cur non ergo similiter Apostolicae traditiones ab Apostolorum temporibus ad nostra usque tempora per mille & sexcentos annos servari potuerint? Sed ad istud dico ante Mosen quidem doctrinam sacram sine scripto aliquandiu servatam fuisse. Verum intra paucos admodum. Nam apud plurimos statim corrupta est, & absurdissimis fabulis involuta: ita ut Dei foedus, & doctrina salutis, in una fere Abrahami familia remanserit, reliquum vero totum genus humanum ad idololatriam & commentitios cultus deflexerit. Adde quod tunc temporis defectum Scripturae supplebant frequentes Dei apparitiones, & familiaria cum Patriarchis colloquia, quibus doctrinam viva voce traditam apud ipsos saepius instauravit & renovavit, eamque non tam incorrupte a piis etiam servatam ad puritatem suam & integritatem revocavit. Sed divinae istae apparitiones, & extraordinaria Dei cum hominibus colloquia, in Ecclesia pridem locum non habent.
Why God had the law written — then why leave any equal part unwritten?§234
234Press harder: why did God finally will His law written, and the rest of sacred Scripture composed?
Rome cannot deny the twin aims — to help human weakness and to block the frauds of the ungodly — and that God's counsel was to rescue the doctrine in those books from oblivion and corruption, and keep it safe against negligence and imposture.
Then why not the same care for the whole of sacred doctrine? Why write one part and leave another equal part unwritten?
Is the unwritten part somehow less open to diabolical fraud and forgetfulness than the written part?
Worldwide experience says otherwise: where Scripture was missing, Father-handed vestiges remained, but ruined by fables, foreign sacrilegious rites, and idolatry.
Rome itself counts later doctors' writings among providence's means of keeping traditions. If traditions needed writing to survive, why leave that writing to fallible common authors instead of Prophets and Apostles — and why seal Scripture on authentic tables while parking equal-weight traditions in ordinary men's books?
Latin · §234
XXXIV. Atque, ut adversarios hic magis constringamus, rogamus eos quare Deus tandem voluit legem suam scripto mandari, & reliquum Scripturae sacrae corpus confici. Certe negare non possunt, quin id factum voluerit Deus, tum ut succurreretur humanae infirmitati, tum ut occurreretur fraudibus impiorum: & quin fuerit Dei consilium, doctrinam sacram istis libris contentam, ab hominum oblivione, & corruptelis vindicare, & tutam illam reddere contra aliorum quidem negligentiam, aliorum vero fraudes & imposturas. Quandequidem autem res ita se habet, dicant adversarii cur toti doctrinae sacrae Deus ita consultum noluit; sed unam quidem partem scribi voluit, aliam vero non scriptam remanere. Etenim, an pars illa non scripta minus opportuna est fraudibus diabolicis, & oblivioni minus obnoxia, quam pars illa quae scripto mandata est? Et nonne testatur experientia in toto orbe, ubi defuit Scriptura, mansisse quidem nonnulla vestigia divinae doctrinae a Patribus traditae, sed illa fabulis miserandum in modum contaminata fuisse, ritusque sacrilegos & peregrinos introductos, & in horrendam, ut diximus, idololatriam detortos? Adde quod adversarii inter causas, quibus divinam providentiam uti volunt in traditionibus conservandis, numerant scripta Doctorum hominum, quibus consignatae sint. Si ergo opus fuit traditiones scribi quo facilius conservari possent, cur Deus id factum voluisset potius ab hominibus vulgaribus & errori obnoxiis, quam a Prophetis atque Apostolis, quibus caetera doctrinae salutaris capita scribenda mandavit? Et cur, si ea quae ex traditione peti volunt ejusdem momenti sunt cum iis quae sacra Scriptura continentur, haec tabulis authenticis consignari voluit, ista vero in hominum vulgarium scriptis relinquere?
Continuous use does not freeze tradition — vernacular languages keep changing§235
235Rome adds: their traditions survived intact by continuous use among Christians — like vernacular languages, which endure even without grammars because a people keeps speaking them.
Experience says the opposite. People are inconstant; whatever lives only in use keeps changing, often slowly and unnoticed — unless something else holds it fast.
Their own analogy proves it: vernaculars continually shift until, after centuries, they look like another dialect. Ancient customs diverge from today's for the same reason.
Church history shows the same: set the second- and third-century Church beside Rome's present rites and discipline, and the gap is obvious.
So the Church needs a firm, stable rule that does not hang merely on memory and good faith — a rule by which creeping abuses can be corrected. That rule is sacred Scripture alone, not unwritten tradition.
Latin · §235
XXXV. Addunt Pontificii traditiones suas conservatas fuisse, & ad nostra tempora integras pervenisse per continuum usum in quo apud populum Christianum fuerunt; quemadmodum, inquiunt, conservantur linguae vulgares, etiamsi nullae quandoque exstent grammaticae propter earum usum continuum in aliqua gente. Sed contra est experientia. Sicut enim homines natura sunt inconstantes & valde mutabiles, ita quaecunque sunt in eorum usu, nisi quid aliud obstet, hoc ipso continue mutantur atque alterantur; licet plerunque sensim & sine sensu. Quod manifestum est ipso exemplo quem illi afferunt. Etenim linguae vulgares perpetuo mutationem aliquam recipiunt, quae post aliquot saecula ita notabilis est ut videantur in aliam dialectum transiisse. Et ita quoque in quolibet populo antiqui mores, & consuetudines ab hodiernis plurimum discrepant, saeculorum lapsu semper rebus humanis mutationem aliquam afferente. Idemque facile animadverti potest in Ecclesia ipsa Christiana. Si quis enim peritus historiae Ecclesiasticae, ob oculos sibi ponat Ecclesiae faciem, qualis erat secundo & tertio post Christum saeculo, prout illam ex istius aevi scriptoribus colligere licet, agnoscet statim Ecclesiam Romanam in ritibus & disciplina hodie multum ab ea distare: nec est qui negare possit istis in rebus magnam factam esse mutationem. Unde magis patet necessitas regulae cujusdam firmae atque stabilis, nec simpliciter pendentis ab hominum memoria & bona fide, ad quam corrigi possint abusus & errores in Ecclesia sensim enascentes: qualis regula est sola Scriptura sacra, minime vero traditio non scripta.
Fathers are fallible witnesses — their consensus cannot equal inspired Scripture§236
236Unwritten traditions are wrongly leveled with Scripture: Scripture's inspired writers, beyond error's reach, tell us what Christ taught and instituted.
Outside Scripture, sayings and deeds of Christ and the Apostles reach us only through early post-apostolic witnesses — the Fathers whose monuments remain.
Those Fathers were fallible, confessed it, and asked that their writings be measured by Scripture — not received ἀθεωρήτως and without examination.
Roman doctors themselves mark many errors and blemishes in the Fathers — not only in lone opinions, but even where many agree.
Examples Sixtus of Siena collects: most Fathers denied the saints the beatific vision before the resurrection; ancients held no creature incorporeal as a received Catholic rule; many forbade all oaths; chiliast hope of an earthly fleshly reign (Papias, Irenaeus, and others); and a purifying world-fire for all except Christ on judgment day — which even Jerome and Augustine hesitate to condemn outright.
If early doctors could hug false dogma as divine truth, later-age traditions learned only from their witness cannot stand as certain beside what God consigned in the Prophets' and Apostles' books — nor can fallible men's testimony claim equal Church authority with God's own.
Latin · §236
XXXVI. Et certe quam immerito traditiones non scriptae authoritate cum Scriptura aequantur, inde manifestum est, quod in Scripturis sacris Christum Dominum hoc & illud docuisse, atque instituisse testantur nobis Scriptores divinitus inspirati, & extra omne erroris periculum positi. Sed de dictis & factis Christi & Apostolorum extra Scripturam sacram nihil ad nos pervenisse potest, nisi ex testimonio eorum hominum, qui primis post Christum saeculis in Ecclesia floruerunt, & Apostolis ac viris Apostolicis successerunt: quales sunt illi quos Patres antiquos hodie nominamus, & quorum monumenta inter Christianos supersunt. At omnes illi fuerunt errori obnoxii, & tales ipsi se fatentur, cupiuntque ut scripta sua ad Scripturae normam exigantur; non vero recipiantur ἀθεωρήτως & sine examine. Imo ipsi Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae non paucos errores & naevos in iis annotarunt: idque non tantum quum aliquis eorum solitarius, ut sic dicam, loquitur, aliis tacentibus, vel contra dicentibus: Sed etiam quum eorum plurimi in idem consentiunt, quod multis exemplis potest fieri manifestum. Sic, ex. gr. plerique patres docuerunt animas sanctorum ante resurrectionem divinae visionis gloria frui non posse, ut notat Sixtus Senensis, Bibliothecae sanctae lib. 6. annotatione 365. ubi prolixe citat in hanc rem testimonia Justini, Tertulliani, Clementis, Origenis, Lactantii, Victorini, Ambrosii, Prudentii, Augustini, Theodoreti, & multorum recentiorum. Ejusdem quoque libri annot. 35. observat Veteres sensisse nullam creaturam esse incorpoream, & dogma istud illis sic placuisse, ut inter Catholicas regulas & synodicas sanctiones receptum fuerit. Annotatione vero 26. adducit multa loca Chrysostomi, Origenis, Athanasii, Hilarii, Ambrosii, Hieronymi, Chromatii Episcopi Aquileiensis, Oecumenii, Euthymii, unde probat illos credidisse omne juramentum esse simpliciter illicitum, & Christianis interdictum. Praeterea error fuit apud antiquissimos Patres valde solennis, Christum in terris olim aliquandiu cum sanctis in carne regnaturum: quod sensisse olim Papiam Episcopum Hierapolitanum, Irenaeum, Apollinarium, Tertullianum, Lactantium, Severum & Victorinum, testis est Hieronymus, lib. de viris illustribus in Papia, & libro undecimo in Prophetam Ezechielem. Neque Hieron. ipse & Augustinus audent sententiam istam aperte damnare, ut agnoscit idem Sixtus lib. 5. annot. 19. Denique in eodem lib. annot. 171. refert testimonia Origenis, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Basilii, Lactantii, Hieronymi, unde liquet illos existimavisse omnes homines qui sunt qui fuerunt & qui futuri sunt, uno Christo excepto, examinandos, probandos, & aliquo modo urendos igne conflagrationis mundanae in die judicii. Cum ergo prisci illi Ecclesiae Doctores ita fuerint errori obnoxii, ut dogma falsum atque erroneum ceu veritatem divinam amplecti potuerint, quomodo Ecclesiae posteriorum saeculorum tam certe esse possunt traditiones illae quas nonnisi ex eorum fide & testimonio didicit, atque illud quod consignatum videt in divinis ipsis libris Prophetarum & Apostolorum? Et annon omnino a recta ratione abhorret illud, quod testantur homines qui fallere & falli potuerunt, debere apud Ecclesiam authoritatem parem obtinere cum eo quod Deus ipse per Apostolos & Prophetas testatur?
Even the earliest unwritten traditions were already uncertain and contested§237
237If unwritten apostolic traditions ever had certainty, it should have been strongest while apostolic memory was still fresh.
Yet already in the first centuries they were so uncertain and various that Church doctors fought over them, and good men were taken in by the name of tradition.
Eusebius: Papias, living next after the Apostles, leaned hard on traditions and wrote five books of the Lord's sayings from unwritten tradition — stuffed with fables.
Pascha dispute: Asian bishops (Polycrates) alleged John and Philip's tradition for Nisan 14; Victor of Rome and the West claimed Peter and Paul for the Sunday after — Eusebius and Socrates record the clash.
On fixed apostolic fasts, ancients disagreed; Augustine to Casulanus and Socrates deny the Apostles fixed fasting rules at all.
Augustine on Sabbath fasting: Rome alleged Peter's tradition; other churches alleged other apostles — an interminable fight proving unwritten tradition yields no certainty on fasting.
Tertullian and Basil list standing prayer, no Sunday fasts, Pascha-to-Pentecost customs as apostolic — later ages dropped them even while still calling them apostolic.
Latin · §237
XXXVII. Sed ut clarius appareat, quam fallaces sint traditiones, quae tanquam Apostolicae extra Scripturam proferuntur, hic valde considerandum est, quod, si unquam traditiones illae certitudinem aliquam habuerunt, id maxime locum habere debuit primis Ecclesiae Christianae temporibus, quum recens adhuc erat memoria Apostolorum. At jam primis post Christum saeculis traditiones non scriptae ita incertae & variae erant, ut Doctores Ecclesiae de iis inter se certarent, & multi viri alioqui boni traditionum nomine decepti sint, & multa vana atque falsa tanquam Apostolicas traditiones sint amplexi. Ita testatur Eusebius Historiae Ecclesiasticae lib. 3. cap. ult. Papiam illum Episcopum Hierapolitanum, qui proxime post Apostolos vixit, traditionibus multum tribuisse, & inter alia scripsisse quinque libros de sermonibus Domini ex traditione non scripta, sed illos fabulis refertos fuisse. Sic quoque quum aliquanto post de celebratione Paschatis magna contentione inter Ecclesias Orientis & Occidentis certaretur, An scilicet praecise decima quarta lunae, an vero die Dominica post decimam quartam celebrandum esset: Polycrates, & alii Asiae Episcopi, qui prius illud tuebantur, traditionem Joannis & Philippi obtendebant: Victor vero Romanus, & alii Occidentales asserebant se Petrum & Paulum sequi, ut videre est apud Eusebium hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 23. & seqq. & apud Socratem lib. 5. cap. 22. Ita non pauci ex antiquis existimarunt Apostolos instituisse stata quaedam & certa jejunia, hi quidem uno, illi vero alio modo. Sed Augustinus epist. 86. ad Casulanum, & Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. negant Apostolos quicquam de jejuniis determinasse; Sed Ecclesiis liberum reliquisse quando & quomodo jejunandum esset. Et quum Augustinus in ista epistola tractet quaestionem illam, An Sabbato jejunandum sit, quod faciebant Romani & pauci Occidentales, traditionem Petri Apostoli obtendentes, reliquae vero Ecclesiae omnes aut negligebant, aut etiam illicitum ducebant, caeterorum Apostolorum, a quibus Evangelii doctrinam acceperant, traditione nitentes, judicat interminabilem esse istam contentionem generantem lites, non finientem quaestiones, adeoque ex non scripta traditione nihil certi haberi posse super jejuniorum ratione & modo. Sic etiam Tertullianus libro de corona militis, & Basilius libro de Spiritu sancto, recensent varias traditiones quas Apostolicas esse volunt, ut ex. gr. nefas esse jejunare diebus Dominicis, & iisdem diebus oportere stantes precari, ut & diebus omnibus a Paschate ad Pentecosten, quod etiam sanxit Nicena Synodus. Et tamen ista posterioribus saeculis observata non fuerunt, & pro traditionibus Apostolicis habita.
Infant communion once treated as apostolic — later abrogated by Rome herself§238
238Still stronger: for many ages, especially in the Roman and African churches, infants received the Eucharist as soon as they were baptized, and it was held necessary to their salvation.
Witnesses: Cyprian On the Lapsed; Innocent I to Milevis; Gelasius to the Picene bishops; Augustine in many places — not as a private whim but as the common Church view descending from apostolic tradition, and used as conceded ground against the Pelagians.
No contemporary writer objects. Roman doctors admit it: Vasquez and Maldonatus note Augustine's and Innocent's view held about six hundred years.
Yet Rome long ago abolished the custom, and Trent condemned it.
If unwritten traditions were already so uncertain and various in the first Christian centuries — and often deceived even good doctors — what certainty can sixteen later centuries add?
How unsafe, then, to take them as a rule of faith and set them equal in authority with sacred Scripture.
Latin · §238
XXXVIII. Imo olim inter Christianos, praesertim in Ecclesia Romana atque Africana, & quidem per multa saecula, obtinuit consuetudo infantibus praebendi sacram Eucharistiam statim atque baptizati essent: istudque ad eorum salutem necessarium existimabatur, ut patet ex Cypriano lib. de lapsis num. 20. ex Innocentio primo Episcopo Romano in epist. ad Concil. Milevit. Item ex Gelasio Episcopo quoque Romano, in epist. ad omnes Episcopos per Picenum, & ex Augustino pluribus in locis. Qui sententiam istam de necessitate sacrae Eucharistiae respectu infantium non simpliciter probant, sed illam proferunt tanquam totius Ecclesiae sui temporis communem, adeoque ex Apostolica traditione descendentem, & inde tanquam ex re nota atque concessa argumenta ducunt adversus Pelagianos, ut speciatim videre est apud Augustinum libro 1. de peccati meritis & remissione cap. 24. & lib. 1. contra Julianum cap. 2. Nec est ullus scriptorum istius aevi qui reclamet. Idque agnoscunt ipsi Doctores Pontificii, ut Vasquez tom. 3. in 3. Thom. disp. 212. cap. 2. & Maldonat. in Joan. 6. num. 116. ubi dicit sententiam illam Augustini & Innocentii sexcentos circiter annos in Ecclesia viguisse. Et tamen haec consuetudo in Ecclesia Romana pridem abrogata est, sic a concilio Tridentino damnata. Si igitur jam olim primis post Christum temporibus traditiones non scriptae tam incertae & variae erant inter ipsos fideles & Doctores Ecclesiae, qui saepe traditionum obtentu decepti sunt, quid jam amplius certi post saecula sexdecim ex traditionibus haberi posse existimabimus? Et quam intutum atque periculosum erit illas assumere pro fidei regula, & ipsis Scripturis sacris authoritate aequare.
Forged or doubted apostolic writings do not level Scripture with oral tradition§239
239Rome objects: forged 'apostolic' writings once circulated, and even true apostolic books were doubted among the faithful — so if that undercuts unwritten tradition, Scripture's authority falls too.
The objection fails on our side. We do not hang Scripture's authority on Church doctors' testimony. The faithful receive Scripture immediately, for its own sake, because it carries the marks of its divinity in itself.
Old doubts about certain books therefore do not prejudice Scripture among us.
We reject Rome's traditions not merely because some doubted them, but because they fight Scripture and have nothing in them that can claim divine authority.
Rome, by contrast, makes both written and unwritten 'word of God' hang on doctors' testimony. If those early doctors — the only chain by which later ages learned 'apostolic' traditions — were themselves uncertain, various, and often deceived, then on Rome's own principles those traditions have no certain authority.
Latin · §239
XXXIX. At, inquiunt, adversarii, Apostolis etiam multa scripta olim falso supposita sunt, & de quibusdam veris Apostolorum scriptis apud fideles ipsos dubitatum est. Igitur, si hoc argumentum traditionis non scriptae authoritatem tollit, ipsi Scripturae sua non constabit authoritas. Verum haec instantia nec apud nos Scripturae authoritatem evertit, nec argumenti nostri vim contra Pontificias traditiones imminuere potest. Neque enim Scripturae sacrae authoritatem quoad nos pendere volumus a testimonio doctorum Ecclesiae, sed Scripturam a fidelibus immediate & propter se suscipi statuimus, ut quae in se habeat divinitatis suae argumenta & notas insitas: adeoque quorumdam olim dubitatio de quibusdam Scripturae libris authoritati ejus apud nos nihil praejudicare potest. Nec etiam simpliciter traditiones rejicimus, quod quidam olim de iis dubitarunt, sed quia sunt Scripturae adversae, nec in se quicquam habent quo divina ipsis authoritas conciliari possit. Pontificii vero verbi Dei tam scripti, quam non scripti authoritatem quoad nos pendere statuunt a testimonio doctorum Ecclesiae. Adeoque, si prisci Ecclesiae Doctores, ex quorum relatione atque testimonio Ecclesia posteriorum saeculorum accepit traditiones suas, nec aliunde didicit illas ab Apostolis originem habere, si, inquam, prisci illi Ecclesiae Doctores de istis traditionibus tam incerti & varii erant, & eorum plerique in iis discernendis lapsi & decepti sunt, juxta placita Pontificiorum nulla certa authoritas ipsis constare potest.
Rome's living judge — Pope or Council — is not even certain inside Rome§240
240Rome replies: when ancients disagree and apostolic tradition looks uncertain, the Church has a living authority that can settle true vs false traditions for the faithful, certainly and infallibly.
Ask who holds that authority now that prophets and apostles are gone, and Rome splits.
Most say the Roman Pontiff is Christ's infallible faith-judge — yet even inside Rome that claim is not a settled de fide dogma; many Catholics in communion deny it.
Others put infallibility in a general Council of overseers — still less settled; many Roman doctors, and the popes themselves, fight it, and denying it is not treated as heresy.
The fallback — Councils safe once the Pope confirms them — collapses into a circle: if Councils can err before confirmation and the Pope is not infallible, how can he infallibly judge whether the Council erred?
Latin · §240
XL. Sed regerunt adversarii, si haeremus, num aliquid traditio sit Apostolica, & propter dissentientes veterum sententias res incerta videtur, in Ecclesia est certa authoritas quae dubium tollere possit, & cujus judicio verae traditiones a falsis discernantur, & fidelibus innotescant certo & infallibiliter. Si autem rogamus quis sit tanta authoritate praeditus, quum nulli amplius sint in Ecclesia viri a Deo inspirati, ut Prophetae & Apostoli, non omnes Adversarii eodem modo respondent. Nam eorum plerique dicunt authoritatem illam in Pontifice Romano residere, quem, scilicet, volunt judicem infallibilem esse in rebus fidei a Christo constitutum. Verum haec authoritas in ipsa Ecclesia Romana certa non est. Nec enim illi ipsi qui Pontifici Romano maxime adulantur, audent asserere hoc esse dogma de fide compertum atque manifestum. Siquidem non pauci sunt quos Ecclesia Romana pro Catholicis habet, & qui in ejus communione manent, qui in Papa non agnoscunt ejusmodi authoritatem. Alii vero contendunt praerogativam istam infallibilitatis in judicando de rebus fidei reperiri in Concilio, id est, in coetu generali praepositorum Ecclesiae. Sed rursus apud Ecclesiam Romanam istud adhuc minus certum est. Nam Pontificii plurimi reclamant, praecipue vero ipsi Romani Pontifices. Nec qui hoc negat ab ullo habetur in Ecclesia Romana haereticus. At, inquies, saltem omnes Pontificii consentiunt Concilia generalia quae Papa probavit atque confirmavit in fide errare non posse, & tuto eis posse credi. Verum, si Concilia quantumvis generalia non sint extra omne erroris periculum ante Papae confirmationem, & Papa ipse non sit infallibilis, quomodo infallibiliter judicabit an propositum Concilium erraverit, vel non?
Neither Pope nor Council can show a real title — proof-texts are twisted§241
241Neither Pope nor Council can show a lawful title-deed for the authority they claim.
What they offer with any color is Scripture twisted off its sense.
Example — Luke 22:32 ('I have prayed for you… that your faith may not fail'): Christ promises Peter, about to deny Him, that heart-faith would not be snuffed out and he would rise again — not Roman episcopal infallibility.
Councils lean on Matthew 18:20 ('two or three… in my name'): Christ does not absolutely underwrite every general pastors' council; He promises Spirit-help to any council that uses His means, seeks God's and Christ's glory and the Church's building up, and is not dragged by its own passions.
No pastors' meeting can be known infallibly to have met that condition.
Latin · §241
XLI. Ac profecto nec Papa, nec Concilium, possunt ullum legitimum, tantae authoritatis, quam sibi arrogant, documentum proferre. Nec aliud cum specie aliqua obtendere possunt, quam Scripturae quaedam loca in alienum plane sensum detorta. Sic, exempli gratia, Pontifex probare nititur suam infallibilitatem dicto illo Christi ad Petrum, Rogavi pro te, Petre, ne deficiat fides tua, ubi Christus pollicetur Petro tentationi maximae statim objiciendo, & Christum ipsum ore abnegaturo, tamen ut in ejus corde fides penitus non extingueretur, sed ex eo lapsu resurgeret, & in fide perseveraret: quae nihil omnino pertinent ad Episcopum Romanum, & eam quam sibi tribuit infallibilitatem. Concilia vero Romana ad vendicandam sibi similem authoritatem, praecipue abutuntur illa Christi promissione, ubi duo vel tres erunt congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum. Sed Christus ibi generali Pastorum Concilio nihil absolute promittit; omnibus autem conciliis sive generalibus, sive particularibus pollicetur Spiritus sui assistentiam, modo mediis ab ipso institutis utuntur, ac unice sibi proponant Dei Christique gloriam, & Ecclesiae aedificationem, nec sinant se propriis affectibus abripi. At nullus est Pastorum coetus de quo infallibiliter certi esse possimus, an conditionem illam impleverit.
Infallible Church-judge is a circle — prove it without Scripture and tradition§242
242If only a present, infallible Church authority can certify true Scripture and tradition against the false and apocryphal, that authority must be known first — before Scripture and tradition, and without leaning on their witness.
So ask Rome to prove papal or conciliar authority from somewhere other than Scripture and tradition.
They say they defer to Scripture and traditions as divine because Pope or Council so moves them — which leaves the question: what finally makes them believe the Church is infallible when it judges Scripture and tradition?
Latin · §242
XLII. Adde quod, si certi reddimur de veris Scripturis, & traditionibus per authoritatem quandam infallibilem quae est in Ecclesia praesenti, sine qua non possunt a nobis falsae & apocryphae discerni certo & infallibiliter, necesse est ut prius nobis constet de authoritate illa infallibili, quam de ipsa Scriptura atque traditione, & seposita Scripturae atque traditionis authoritate & testimonio nobis innotescere possit. Ideoque jure possumus Pontificios rogare, ut authoritatem illam, quam Pontifici sive Concilio tribuunt, aliunde nobis probent, quam ex ipsa Scriptura atque traditione, quandoquidem profitentur se Pontificis sive Concilii authoritate moveri, ut tantum traditionibus & Scripturae deferant, & tam Scripturas quam traditiones tanquam divinas amplectantur. Quid ergo tandem erit illud propter quod Ecclesiam suam infallibilem esse credunt dum de traditionibus & Scripturis judicat?
No new revelation — only a fallible hand-to-hand chain Augustine calls interminable§243
243Even Rome's best grant: the Church is not run by new revelations, and neither Pope nor Council learns immediately from God what the Apostles taught.
Their only remaining answer: hand-to-hand testimony of doctors back to hearers of the Apostles.
But we have already shown — and Rome's own history admits — that the earliest doctors often erred in receiving 'apostolic' traditions, and by common consent held as apostolic what Rome now condemns.
How then can that chain give later Councils and popes certain faith, or serve as a rule equal to Scripture for settling controversies?
The uncertainty of conflicting Father-witness is exactly what still needs removing. Augustine, in the place already cited: when the fight turns on apostolic tradition itself, the contention is interminable — it breeds quarrels and does not end questions.
Latin · §243
XLIII. Sed quantacunque authoritas seu Concilio, seu Papae tribuatur, agnoscunt doctissimi & probatissimi quique inter Pontificios, Ecclesiam hodie non regi novis revelationibus, nec Papam, neque Concilium immediate a Deo discere quid Apostoli tradiderint. Unde ergo istud certo discere possunt? Profecto nihil ipsis hic dicendum superest, nisi, quod & revera dicunt, nempe, Papam, sive Concilium id habere ex voce & testimonio Doctorum Ecclesiae, qui de manu in manum hoc vel illud acceperunt a priscis illis Doctoribus qui Apostolorum fuerunt auditores. Sed jam pluribus instantiis, & ex ipsa adversariorum confessione manifestum fecimus antiquissimos Ecclesiae Doctores in traditionibus recipiendis atque commendandis saepe fuisse deceptos, atque hallucinatos, & eorum plurimos communi consensu tanquam dogma & institutum Apostolicum admisisse, quod Ecclesia Romana hodie rejicit & damnat. Quomodo ergo certam fidem eorum testimonia facere potuerunt Conciliis & Pontificibus saeculorum posteriorum? Et quomodo traditiones a Patribus acceptae respectu Pontificum & Conciliorum ipsorum possunt haberi pro certa regula ex qua controversias propositas dijudicent, non minus quam ex ipsa Scriptura? Et jam hoc ipsum quaeritur, qua ratione tolli possit incertitudo quae nascitur ex Patrum & priscorum illorum Ecclesiae Doctorum variis testimoniis & pugnantibus inter se sententiis, quum agitur de iis quae Apostoli tradiderunt. Quare ea merito dicit Augustinus loco citato: Quod quum ad Apostolorum traditionem recurritur & circa ipsam pugnatur, Interminabilis est ista contentio, generans lites, non finiens quaestiones.
Only perpetual Christian consensus could count — Rome's traditions fail that test§244
244If any tradition deserves to be true, it is one marked by the perpetual, constant consensus of Christians.
Rome's traditions fail that test: they stand outside Scripture, often against it, and many were unknown in the ancient Church and contrary to its faith and practice.
Examples: papal indulgences; saint-canonization; public worship in a tongue the people do not share; bans on vernacular Scripture without special leave; communion in one kind; and religious image-making and image-worship — easy to show absent, even opposed, in the primitive Church.
So they are human inventions, and it is impious to set them equal in authority with the writings of Apostles and Prophets.
Pars II closes here; Pars III opens next.
Latin · §244
XLIV. Denique, si qua traditio pro vera habenda sit, illa est quam commendat perpetuus & constans Christianorum consensus. Sed hoc minime convenit traditionibus Ecclesiae Romanae, quia non tantum sunt extra Scripturam, & in plerisque Scripturae adversantur, sed etiam earum plurimae sunt in Ecclesia antiqua inauditae, & ejus fidei & praxi contrariae. Cujus generis sunt indulgentiae, quales a Papa conceduntur, sanctorum canonizatio, celebratio cultus publici lingua non communiter a populo intellecta, prohibitio ne Scriptura sacra in vulgares linguas transferatur, & sine speciali permissione a plebe legatur: praecipue vero mos administrandi sacram Eucharistiam sub altero tantum symbolo, & plurium hujusmodi; item effingendi & cultu religioso prosequendi imagines Dei & sanctorum, quae facile est ostendere locum non habuisse in Ecclesia primitiva, & contrarium plane observatum fuisse. Unde manifeste patet illas esse commenta hominum, nec absque impietate posse cum Apostolorum & Prophetarum scriptis authoritate comparari.
Pars III opens: two questions Rome still presses against Scripture sufficiency§245
245Pars III opens by splitting the fight into two questions that travel together but are not the same.
First: are all things necessary to faith and religion fully and sufficiently in Scripture?
Second: is there, beside Scripture, another word of God in the Church, equal in authority, handed down only by unwritten tradition?
Rome denies the first and affirms the second, and piles arguments on both.
Latin · §245
I. TOTA haec controversia ad duo referri potest, quae, quanquam valde connexa sunt, distingui tamen debent. Unum est an omnia quae necessaria sunt ad fidem & religionem plene & sufficienter in Scriptura contineantur. Alterum an praeter Scripturam sit in Ecclesia quoddam aliud Dei verbum paris cum Scriptura sacra authoritatis, quod traditione non scripta ad nos derivatum sit. Prius negant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, posterius affirmant, & suam, circa utrumque, sententiam multis argumentis confirmare conantur.
Rome's first sufficiency attack: lost canonical books would leave doctrine incomplete§246
246Rome's opening move: if Scripture were enough, either the whole Canon together would be enough, or each book by itself would be enough.
Neither works. Single books, cut off from the rest, do not hold every saving dogma — not every OT prophecy, not every NT epistle.
So sufficiency would have to belong to the whole Canon. Missing books would mean missing doctrine.
They claim many sacred books have perished: Nathan and Gad, Ahijah and Iddo, Solomon's songs and parables, plus a Laodicean letter and perhaps another Corinthian letter.
From today's incomplete Canon, they say, salvation's doctrine cannot be drawn sufficiently.
Latin · §246
II. Primum ergo, ut probent Scripturam non continere omnia quae ad fidem & religionem necessaria sunt, in hunc modum argumentantur. Si Scripturae omnia necessaria ad fidem & salutem sufficienter continerent, id intelligendum esset, vel de toto Scripturae Canone, qui simul sumptus sufficiens esset; vel de singulis Scripturae partibus, quae singulae per se sufficerent. At neutrum dici potest. Et quidem de singulis libris manifestum est eos seorsim sumptos, & absque reliquo Scripturae corpore non continere omnia necessaria ad salutem. Nec enim prophetia quaevis Veteris Testamenti, aut Novi Testamenti Epistola quaelibet omnia fidei dogmata complectitur. Restat ergo, ut illa perfectio & sufficientia toti Scripturae sacrae Canoni tribuenda sit. Itaque ut habeatur integra salutis doctrina, necesse est ut integer Scripturae Canon habeatur. Quod si aliquid desit in Scripturae Canone, in doctrina quoque aliquid deficere necesse est. Jam autem non habetur integer Scripturae Canon. Igitur ex Scriptura, prout illam hodie habemus, doctrina salutis non potest sufficienter hauriri. Quod autem nunc non habeatur integer Scripturae Canon inde probant quod multi libri sacri interciderunt, tam ex Veteri, quam ex Novo Testamento. Et ex Veteri quidem Testamento libri Nathan & Gad Videntis, de quibus mentio fit cap. ult. lib. 1. Paralip. Et libri item Ahiae Scilonitae & Addo Videntis, de quibus mentio fit 2. Paralip. 9. hodie non extant amplius. Ut nec quinquies mille Salomonis Cantica, & tria millia parabolarum quae loquutus fuisse dicitur 1 Reg. 4. Ex Novo vero Testamento aiunt periisse Epistolam ad Laodicenses, cujus mentio fit, ut putant, ult. cap. Epist. ad Colos. Et forte aliam quandam Epistolam ad Corinthios, cujus mentio fieri videtur 1 Cor. 5.
Reply: sufficiency is of Scripture's body taken indefinitely, not of every booklet§247
247We never meant: every single biblical booklet by itself teaches every dogma.
Sufficiency belongs to Scripture's body taken as a whole — indefinitely, and at least in its chief parts.
Rome assumes that dropping any one book instantly guts doctrine. That is not our claim.
Today's corpus holds salvation's teaching not only enough, but richly; many books only explain or apply what others already teach.
Even if some authentic divine writings had perished, the remaining Scripture could still hold the full saving doctrine — those lost books need not have carried any dogma missing from what survives.
Latin · §247
III. Respondeo, quum dicimus Scripturam sufficienter continere omnia necessaria, nos id non intelligere de singulis Scripturae libris, quasi nullus esset Scripturae libellus in quo non traderentur omnia fidei dogmata. Sed hoc verum esse de Scripturae corpore indefinite sumpto, & secundum partes saltem praecipuas. Dico autem notanter de Scripturae corpore indefinite sumpto, & secundum partes praecipuas, quia mens nostra non est, doctrinam necessariam ita in toto Scripturae corpore contineri, ut, si inde pars aliqua, & liber aliquis dematur, statim aliquid desit ad integritatem doctrinae, quod in argumento supponunt adversarii. Nam in Scripturae corpore, prout illud hodie habemus, doctrina salutis continetur non tantum sufficienter, sed etiam abundanter. Suntque plures Scripturae libri in quibus nova dogmata non traduntur, & diversa ab iis quae alibi docentur, sed tantum luculentiores quaedam eorundem dogmatum explicationes & applicationes, sive ad contrarios errores refutandos, sive ad mores hominum formandos & instituendos. Itaque absque doctrinae salutaris dispendio quibusdam Scripturae sacrae libris carere possemus, & qui Ecclesiae dati sunt, non precise ad necessitatem, verum ad ubertatem & majorem utilitatem. Quamvis ergo daremus scripta quaedam divina & authentica periisse, non inde tamen sequeretur integram salutis doctrinam in Scriptura non posse amplius reperiri. Nam fieri posset ut alia quaedam scripta divina extiterint, neque tamen in iis ullum fuerit dogma, sive praeceptum, quod hodie non extet in Scripturae partibus quae supersunt.
Unlikely that any properly divine authentic writing truly perished§248
248We also doubt the premise: it is not likely any properly divine, authentic writing has truly vanished.
Providence is injured if God had a book written only to let it vanish useless to the Church.
Among books providence did keep, some are tiny and of no obvious necessity — so why invent larger lost equals?
Rome, which credits the Church with ἀδιαπτωσία and exalts her, still shames her if she let many God-given norm-books perish through neglect.
Latin · §248
IV. Attamen nobis non est probabile ullum scriptum proprie divinum & authenticum periisse. Nec enim id videtur statui posse absque magna providentiae divinae injuria. Ad quid enim Deus curasset librum aliquem divinum & authenticum scribi, ut tamen Ecclesiae nulli usui foret, sed statim Deus illum intercidere pateretur? Cumque inter eos Scripturae sacrae libros, quos divina providentia mirabiliter huc usque conservavit, reperiantur quidam exigui valde, & quorum non magna potest videri necessitas, quis in animum inducere poterit Deum fuisse passurum, ut perirent tot libri non minoris authoritatis, quique tales finguntur ut istos magnitudine, momento, numero & usu superarint? Adde quod Pontificii qui ἀδιαπτωσίαν Ecclesiae tribuunt, & supra modum illius authoritatem extollunt, non levem tamen hac in re illi contumeliam faciunt, & ignominiam inurunt. Quis enim posset tantam in Ecclesia culpam & negligentiam excusare, ut libros divinitus conscriptos, & ipsi datos, ut per eos instrueretur in doctrina salutis, illisque uteretur tanquam fidei norma, & regula veritatis, ut tales, inquam, libros, eosque multos, interire sivisset, nec ea, qua par erat cura, custodivisset?
Gad and Nathan's lost books are Samuel / Kings still extant§249
249For the cited lost books: either they did not perish, or they were never canonical immediate inspiration.
Gad and Nathan we count prophetic and canonical — but still extant as Samuel, Vulgate 1-2 Kings.
Samuel alone cannot be full author: his death falls mid-1 Samuel, so he stops around chapter 16.
The rest, and 2 Samuel, fit Gad and Nathan, who lived the story and are named beside Samuel as its writers and continuators.
Latin · §249
V. Jam vero quod attinet ad eos libros, quorum exemplo, adversarii probare contendunt, libros quosdam divinos & authenticos periisse, Dico, vel falsum esse quod perierint, vel eos nunquam Canonicos fuisse, & immediate a Deo inspiratos. Et quidem existimamus propheticos fuisse, & ad Canonem pertinere libros Gad Videntis, & Nathanis Prophetae, qui cap. ult. lib. 1. Paralip. junguntur libris Samuelis, & in quibus scripta fuisse dicuntur gesta regis David, tam prima quam novissima: sed negamus illos periisse, & etiamnum extare pertendimus. Sunt enim illi ipsi libri qui hodie libri Samuelis vocantur, sive, prout habet vulgata versio, primus & secundus Regum. Nam quod solus Samuel non sit illorum author, inde manifestum est, quod in medio libri primi mors Samuelis describitur. Non potuit ergo Samuel scribere ultra sexdecim circiter hujus libri capita. Reliquum vero libri, & alterum etiam librum, qui ex usu Judaeorum Samuelis etiam dicitur, quinam potius scripserint, quam Gad & Nathan Prophetae, qui tempore illo vixerunt, & illius historiae pars ipsi non minima fuerunt? Certe hoc satis aperte indicat ille ipse locus quem adversarii citant: Nam ibi Gad & Nathan Samueli junguntur, tanquam ejusdem Davidis historiae scriptores & continuatores.
Hiddo and Ahijah likewise wrote what remains as 1 Kings§250
250Same move for Iddo and Ahijah in 2 Chron. 9: Solomon's acts credited to Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo's vision.
Those writings look like 1 Kings, Vulgate 3 Kings — anonymous, yet best ascribed to the prophets of that age.
So again: not vanished canonical books, but books we still read under other titles.
Latin · §250
VI. Idem etiam dicimus de libris Hiddo Videntis, & Ahiae Scilonitae, qui memorantur 2 Chron. 9. ubi Salomonis gesta dicuntur scripta fuisse in libris Nathan Prophetae, & in Prophetia Ahiae Scilonitae, & in visione Hiddo Videntis. Etenim videntur illi scripsisse librum primum Regum, qui tertius Regum dicitur in versione vulgata. Nullius enim quidem scriptoris nomen praefert, sed aliis non potest commodius tribui, quam Prophetis illorum temporum.
Solomon's lost songs and sayings need not have been inspired Scripture§251
251Yes, much of Solomon's writing is gone — but not everything a God-breathed man writes is divine Scripture.
Augustine in City of God 18: prophets can write as historians by human diligence, or as prophets by inspiration; only the latter bind as God's word.
Solomon's inspired share is what entered the Canon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs.
The rest — plant-lore from cedar to hyssop, extra parables, five thousand songs — can be brilliant human work without being lost canonical revelation.
Latin · §251
VII. Quod spectat autem ad libros Salomonis, quorum plurimos interiisse constat, sciendum est non omnia, quae Prophetae & alii viri θεόπνευστοι scripserunt, authoritatem habuisse divinam: Nam, ut recte monet Augustinus de Civit. Dei lib. 18. Prophetae alia sicut homines scribere potuerunt, historica diligentia, & alia sicut Prophetae, inspiratione divina. Quae ita distincta fuerunt, ut priora quidem ipsis, posteriora Deo, per ipsos loquenti tribuenda fuerint. Ita ergo Salomon nonnulla quidem scripsit a Deo inspiratus, in quo genere sunt illi libri Salomonis qui partem Scripturae faciunt, & in Canonem sunt relati, veluti Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, & Canticum canticorum. Plurima vero scripsit idem ille propria industria, neque tanquam Propheta, sed tanquam vir omnium suo tempore doctissimus. In quo genere fuerunt multa physiologica, veluti quae scripsit de plantis a cedro usque ad hyssopum. Multa quoque ethica, quo pertinent parabolae illae quae proverbiorum libro non continentur. Denique multa poetica, ut illa quinque millia canticorum, de quibus loco citato mentio fit.
Apostles too may have written pious letters beneath canonical authority — 1 Cor. 5§252
252Apostles could write other pious letters that never rose to canonical, immediately inspired authority.
1 Cor. 5 may point to an earlier Corinthian letter — if so, a holy but non-canonical piece, not a lost rule of faith.
Many Reformed and Roman scholars instead read 'in this epistle,' pointing back to Paul's words already in the same letter about the incestuous man.
Either way, Rome gains no vanished second Canon equal to Scripture.
Latin · §252
VIII. Similiter Apostoli nostri, praeter eas Epistolas, quae Canonicam authoritatem in Ecclesia habere meruerunt, multas alias potuerunt scribere, pias quidem & sanctas, attamen non ejusdem cum prioribus illis authoritatis, ut quae a Deo non fuerunt inspiratae, sicut illae, immediate, & extraordinarie. Talis potuit esse Epistola illa Pauli cujus mentio fieri videtur 1 Corinth. 5. ubi sic ait Apostolus, Scripsi vobis in epistola ne commisceamini cum scortatoribus. Ista enim videntur commode referri non posse nisi ad aliam quandam ad Corinthios epistolam, quae priorem illam praecesserit. Quanquam sunt multi viri docti, tam ex nostris, quam ex Pontificiis, qui nolunt ibi Paulum designare epistolam quandam quae fuerit ab illa ipsa quam tunc scribebat diversa. Sed verba ejus sic interpretantur, scripsi vobis in hac epistola: Ut Paulus non respiciat ad aliam quandam epistolam, sed ad illa ipsa quae superius scripserat, de repurgando fermento, & e medio ipsorum tollendo illo scortatore, qui uxorem patris habebat.
No lost Pauline letter to the Laodiceans — Col. 4 ambiguity§253
253Rome's 'lost letter to Laodicea' rests on a Latin ambiguity in Col. 4, not on a vanished Canon.
The Vulgate's 'epistle of the Laodiceans' is read as a letter to them; the Greek says a letter from Laodicea.
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας means written from Laodicea — anyone with a little Greek can see it.
So the lost-Laodiceans proof for an incomplete Canon falls with the mistranslation.
Latin · §253
IX. Quod vero pertendunt Pontificiorum nonnulli periisse quandam epistolam Pauli ad Laodicenses, non habet ullum fundamentum: sed natum est ex ambiguitate, quae reperitur in verbis veteris interpretis ult. cap. Ep. ad Colos. Sic enim ibi legitur apud veterem interpretem, Quum lecta fuerit apud vos epistola, facite ut in Laodicensium Ecclesia legatur; & eam quae Laodicensium est vos quoque legatis. Per illam vero epistolam, quae ibi Laodicensium dicitur, intelligunt epistolam ad Laodicenses scriptam, cum revera ibi agatur de epistola scripta a Laodicensibus, ut manifestum est ex Graeco contextu, qui sic habet, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε, & scriptam a Laodicea vos quoque legatis. Nam certe nullus est Graece tantisper intelligens qui ignorare possit τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας significare epistolam scriptam e Laodicea, non vero ad Laodicenses.
Roman argument: Christ would have expressly commanded writing§254
254Rome's next move: if Scripture alone were the Word, Christ would have plainly ordered writing.
They want an explicit 'write this' parallel to the explicit 'teach the nations' mandate.
Because they find no such vocal command on the page, they say the Word outruns the book.
The claim sets up the reply: inspiration itself is the stronger mandate.
Latin · §254
X. Praeterea Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, ut probent verbum Dei Ecclesiae necessarium latius patere quam Scripturam sacram, sic ratiocinantur. Si Christo & Apostolis fuisset propositum verbum Dei coarctare & restringere ad Scripturam sacram, rem tanti momenti Christus aperte praecepisset. Et Apostoli testarentur se ex Domini mandato scribere, quemadmodum ex Domini mandato toto orbe docuerunt: Sed id nusquam legimus.
Reply: internal inspiration is a stronger writing mandate than vocal order§255
255Agreed: they would not make writings the rule of faith without a divine mandate.
Denied: that they lacked one — Augustine says Christ ordered the Apostles to write what we should read.
Even without a spoken 'Write!', inspiration and the Spirit's extraordinary impulse are the stronger command.
2 Tim. 3: all Scripture is God-breathed — once that stands, a further vocal warrant is needless.
Latin · §255
XI. Respondeo, verum est Apostolos non fuisse aggressuros summam Evangelicae doctrinae scripto complecti, scriptaque sua Ecclesiae tradere, tanquam fidei normam & regulam, nisi ex divino mandato: Sed eos nullum tale mandatum habuisse falsum est. Id ex Augustino poterant adversarii discere. Nam Augustini verba sunt lib. 1. de consensu Evangelistarum cap. ult. Quicquid Christus de suis dictis & factis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum Apostolis tanquam suis manibus imperavit. Fieri quidem potest, ut Christus viva voce & expressis verbis istud non praeceperit: Sed dubium esse non potest, nec negare audent ipsi Pontificii, quin ad hoc fuerint a Deo inspirati, & a Spiritu sancto moti extra ordinem. Quod enim Petrus dicit de scriptis propheticis, non voluntate humana allatam olim prophetiam, sed actos fuisse a Spiritu sancto sanctos Dei homines, non minus verum est de scriptis Novi Testamenti. Atque, ut docet Apostolus 2. Tim. 3. Omnis Scriptura, seu Veteris, seu Novi Testamenti, divinitus inspirata est. Itaque Apostoli forte non habuerint externum & vocale scribendi mandatum: At certe mandatum internum habuerunt, eoque fuerunt adducti extraordinario quodam impulsu Spiritus divini, quod est omni mandato fortius. Nec video, ubi constat de divina inspiratione, cur praeterea mandatum externum requiratur.
John had an external write-command; Teach all nations includes the pen§256
256John's Apocalypse repeatedly records a heavenly order to write — including the seven Asian letters.
Bellarmine's split between 'teach' and 'write' fails: teaching includes the pen.
Matthew's closing 'Teach all nations' is not viva-voce-only; writing is one teaching mode.
Christ wants the nations filled with the Gospel by speech or by calamus.
Latin · §256
XII. Neque tamen Joanni saltem defuit externum mandatum; ipse enim in Apocalypsi testatur pluribus in locis sibi coelitus injunctum, ut scriberet ea quae Dominus ipsi revelaverat, ac praesertim Epistolas illas quas, Christi nomine, septem Ecclesiis Asiae inscribit. Non recte autem opponit Bellarminus mandatum docendi, quod Apostoli a Christo habuerunt, mandato scribendi: Docet enim non tantum qui viva voce instituit, sed etiam qui doctrinam scripto tradit: Ideoque quod discipulis suis injungit Christus Mat. cap. ult. Docete omnes Gentes, ad solam praedicationem viva voce factam restringi non debet, sed ad scriptionem ipsam potest extendi, quae unus est ex docendi modis. Nam ibi jubet Christus ut optimis quibusque modis gentes Evangelii cognitione imbuerent, sive sermone & lingua, sive etiam calamo.
Occasions of writing do not cancel the divine mandate to write§257
257Bellarmine lists occasions: Matthew's memorial, John's anti-Ebionite request, Luke vs uncertain tales.
He infers they wrote casually, not by office or divine order.
Occasions do not cancel mandate — inspiration is the strongest mandate of all.
They seized those occasions for the Church's perpetual use, not for one private fix.
Latin · §257
XIII. Frustra quoque notat Bellarminus varias occasiones quibus ad scribendum invitati fuerunt Apostoli & Evangelistae. Matthaeum, exempli gratia, Evangelium scripsisse ut Hebraeis, quos deserebat ad Gentes proficiscens, aliquod memoriale doctrinae & praedicationis suae relinqueret. Johannem vero suum Evangelium edidisse rogantibus Asiae Episcopis, propter Ebionitarum haeresim tunc exorientem. Lucam vero aggressum fuisse Evangelicam historiam scribere, ut nos abstraheret ab incertis aliorum narrationibus. Unde colligit Bellarminus Apostolos & Evangelistas obiter tantum scripsisse, & per occasionem, non vero quasi ex proprio munere & divino mandato. Sed quamvis scriptoribus sacris variae occasiones scribendi oblatae fuerint, non ideo tamen absque mandato divino scripserunt. Fuerunt enim a Deo inspirati, quod fortissimum mandati genus est, ut arriperent illas occasiones doctrinam sacram scripto consignandi ad perpetuum Ecclesiae usum, non vero simpliciter ut singulari cuipiam incommodo mederentur.
No scholastic catechism required — God wrote by their hands§258
258Bellarmine wants a catechism; he finds only Gospels and letters that touch dogma in passing.
Reply: God wrote through their hands — not bound to school method.
Pious readers can still gather faith and life-precepts from the books as written.
Moses had an express write-order yet left precepts scattered in narrative — same pattern.
Latin · §258
XIV. At, inquit Bellarminus, si doctrinam sacram literis consignare ex professo voluissent, certe catechismum aut similem librum confecissent. At ipsi, vel historiam scripserunt, ut Evangelistae: vel epistolas, ut Paulus & alii, in quibus nonnisi obiter de dogmatibus tractant. Respondeo scriptores sacros non tam scripsisse, quam Deum per ipsorum manus: Deum autem in scribendo humanae & scholasticae methodo astrictum non esse; Imo istas scholae leges scripti divini majestatem & simplicitatem non satis decere. Quomodocunque vero scripti sint libri sacri, inde satis facile & luculenter doctrina fidei, & praecepta vitae ab attentis & piis lectoribus colligi possunt. Certe negari non potest Mosen saltem ex aperto & expresso Dei mandato legem a Deo acceptam literis mandavisse. Neque tamen libros magis methodicos scripsit, quam Apostoli & Evangelistae. Sed in libris Mosaicis sine ullo certo ordine sparsa sunt praecepta Dei, & historiis variis inserta.
Not every Apostle need write — a few inspired books serve the whole Church§259
259Bellarmine: if God meant a written Gospel, every Apostle — or a joint council — would have issued a full body of doctrine.
Reply: a few inspired writers suffice for the whole Church's use.
No need for an Apostles' committee — God inspires persons as well as assemblies.
Sacred books arise from God's immediate breath, not from human planning.
Latin · §259
XV. Denique non est majoris ponderis & momenti quod urget Bellarminus, nempe, si Deo fuisset propositum Evangelii doctrinam per Apostolos literis consignare, futurum fuisse ut, vel singuli Apostoli corpus Evangelicae doctrinae conscriberent in usum provinciarum illarum quibus praedicabant, vel certe omnes simul congregati, antequam discederent in suas provincias, librum aliquem communem ederent: Etenim ut istud Dei propositum ratum fieret, & mandaretur executioni, suffecit ut nonnulli ex Apostolis & Evangelistis scribendi curam Deo inspirante susciperent. Nam scripta a paucis edita potuerunt universae Ecclesiae usui esse, & inservire fidelibus omnium provinciarum. Neque opus fuit hac de re Apostolos in communi consulere, cum Deus non minus singulos seorsim inspiraret, quam omnes simul congregatos. Adde quod scripta divina non ex hominum consilio, sed ex Dei immediato & extraordinario afflatu fieri debuerunt.
Third attack: many needful things missing from Scripture — OT remedies for women and day-eight males§260
260Rome's third attack: many things we must know are missing from Scripture.
Under the Old Testament women needed a cleansing from original sin as much as men — yet circumcision is only for males, and Scripture names no parallel rite for women.
Nor is it believable that males who died before the eighth day had no remedy, though circumcision could not yet be given — and Scripture is silent here too.
Latin · §260
XVI. Tertium argumentum contra Scripturae sufficientiam Pontificii sumunt ex multis, quae, ut aiunt, ignorari non debent, & tamen Scriptura sacra non continentur. Ac primum, inquiunt, tempore Veteris Testamenti sine dubio non minus foeminae quam viri remedium aliquod habebant quo a peccato originali purgarentur. Et tamen pro masculis quidem circumcisio instituta erat, quid autem esset pro foeminis nusquam habet Scriptura. Deinde eodem tempore non est ullo modo credibile non fuisse ullum remedium pro masculis morientibus ante octavum diem, quo solo poterant circumcidi, & tamen nihil extat hac de re in Scriptura.
Reply: tradition is as silent — lost-tradition retorsion mirrors the lost-books attack§261
261If the silence proves Scripture incomplete, it equally proves Scripture-plus-tradition incomplete — tradition is silent too.
Let Rome name the Old-Testament remedy for women and for boys who died before day eight from her unwritten word.
If she says the tradition perished, her own lost-books attack against the Canon rebounds on her.
One could as easily stash the missing remedy in the prophetic books she claims are gone.
Latin · §261
XVII. Respondeo illo argumento, si aliquid virium habet, posse probari non tantum Scripturam non continere omnia scitu necessaria, sed totam fidei doctrinam non posse sufficienter hauriri ex Scriptura sacra & traditione non scripta simul sumptis. Etenim hic non minus tacet traditio & verbum non scriptum quam Scriptura sacra. Alioqui depromant nobis Pontificii ex traditione sua quodnam fuerit illud remedium peccati originalis sub Veteri Testamento in foeminis & masculis morientibus ante octavum diem. Quod si dicant traditionem illam intercidisse, retorquebitur in illos argumentum istud quo probare nituntur Scripturam sacram non esse sufficientem fidei regulam, quoniam, ut putant, quidam Scripturae libri perierunt. Et pari facilitate poterit dici hoc fuisse contentum in quodam ex istis libris propheticis quos interiisse contendunt.
False hinge: grace need not hang on external signs — OT rites lacked NT sacramental force on Rome's own view§262
262The whole attack hangs on a false hinge: that grace must ride on outward signs.
On that hinge Rome wonders how women were saved without circumcision — yet she forgets her own teaching.
She grants New-Testament sacraments alone that grace-working force; Old-Testament rites she calls shadows without power to work grace.
Stand by that, and circumcision itself was no remedy of original sin.
Latin · §262
XVIII. Ad rem ipsam quod attinet dico, totam vim istius argumenti niti falsa quadam adversariorum hypothesi, nempe, quod gratia Dei necessario pendeat a signis quibusdam externis, quodque externus Sacramentorum actus vim habeat gratiam in nobis producendi. Hoc enim posito, mirum ipsis videtur qui potuerint foeminae salvari sub Veteri Testamento absque circumcisione, aut simili quopiam externo sacramento: Et tamen hac ipsa in re sui obliviscuntur. Nam quum de Sacramentis agunt, istam efficaciam & necessitatem tribuunt solis Sacramentis Novi Testamenti, non vero Sacramentis quae erant sub lege veteri, quae juxta ipsorum mentem erant tantum umbrae & figurae nostrorum, nec in se vim ullam habebant gratiam operandi. Ideoque si suis ipsorum placitis stare velint, neque circumcisio, nec ullus alius ritus sub Veteri Testamento potuit remedium esse peccati originalis.
Circumcision a seal of faith's righteousness — promise covers women and pre-day-eight males (Rom. 4; Lombard)§263
263With Paul we call circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4), not a rite that by outward application wiped original sin away.
Adults — men and women — were set right by faith in the divine promises.
Abraham's promise, I will be your God and of your seed, covered women as well as men.
By that promise God remitted original sin to covenant infants who died before reason, circumcised or not — including girls and boys before day eight.
Male circumcision sealed the promise for the whole household.
Even Lombard (and Gregory) taught Bellarmine that women and pre-circumcision infants were saved by faith — their own or their parents' — without a bodily sacrament.
Latin · §263
XIX. Sed quicquid hac de re dicant, vel sentiant adversarii, nos cum Apostolo dicimus circumcisionem fuisse, non remedium aliquod cujus externa applicatione tolleretur statim & aboleretur peccatum originale, sed, ut loquitur Apostolus, Sigillum justitiae fidei, Rom. 4. Itaque verum justitiae medium, & originalis peccati remedium in adultis omnibus, tam viris quam foeminis, fuit fides promissionibus divinis adhibita. Ista vero promissio quam fides accipiebat, & a qua gratia & salus pendebat, erat haec Abrahamo facta, Ero Deus tuus & seminis tui post te; sub quo semine non masculi solum, sed foeminae quoque comprehendebantur. Hujus promissionis virtute, non autem externi alicujus signi, Deus originale peccatum condonabat omnibus infantibus qui ante usum rationis in foedere moriebantur, sive circumcisionem illi accepissent, sive propter sexum muliebrem, aut aetatem immaturam, illam non accepissent. Quod vero cujusque familiae masculis circumcisionis signum imprimebatur, hoc promissionem toti familiae obsignabat, & in masculis foeminae Deo consecrabantur. Et certe quod absque externo sacramento in proprio corpore suscepto potuerint olim servari foeminae sub Veteri Testamento, & etiam masculi ante octavum diem, ex Lombardo poterat discere Bellarminus. Is enim lib. 4. dist. 1. litter. G. docet mulieres olim salutem & justitiam adeptas fuisse per fidem & operationem bonam, vel suam, si adultae erant, vel parentum, si parvulae. Et similiter parvulos ante circumcisionem in fide parentum servatos fuisse, idque Gregorii Papae testimonio confirmat.
Bellarmine's OT silence example flips to NT instances — Mary's perpetual virginity first§264
264Bellarmine offers that Old-Testament silence as a specimen of something necessary yet unwritten.
He then piles New-Testament instances of faith-matters he says Scripture cannot teach.
First: Mary always a virgin against Helvidius — Church-wide belief, he says, with no Scriptural witness.
Latin · §264
XX. Et istud quidem profert Bellarminus, cujus praecipue vestigia sequimur, tanquam exemplum rei necessariae sub Veteri Testamento, de qua tamen in Scriptura sacra nihil reperitur. Quod autem hodie sub Novo Testamento multa ad fidem pertineant de quibus per Scripturam doceri non possumus, pluribus instantiis probare annititur. Et primum quidem, inquit, credendum est Beatam Mariam semper fuisse virginem contra errorem Helvidii, ut semper tota Ecclesia credidit. Et tamen nullum de hac re est in Scriptura testimonium.
Mary virgin in bearing Christ is of faith — perpetual virginity pious, not a salvation article (Basil)§265
265Faith requires Mary's virginity in bearing Christ our Savior.
Basil: what comes after does not belong to the reason of the mystery — to pry is curiosity.
We piously hold her perpetual virginity and count Helvidius rash.
We will not rank it among articles of faith or press it as necessary to salvation.
Latin · §265
XXI. Respondeo fides quidem exigit ut credamus Mariam fuisse virginem, quum peperit Christum servatorem nostrum. τὸ ἐφεξῆς, ut inquit Basilius, εἰς τὴν τοῦ μυστηρίου διάνοιαν οὐκ ἔστι, id est, quod sequitur ad rationem mysterii non pertinet, & de eo inquirere curiosum est. Pie quidem credimus Mariam mansisse perpetuo Virginem, & putamus Helvidium qui contrarium asserere est ausus, merito damnatum fuisse ut hominem temerarium: Non tamen existimamus istud numerandum esse inter fidei articulos, & urgendum esse tanquam rem ad salutem necessariam.
Pascha on Sunday vs fourteenth moon — indifferent rite; Victor vs Irenaeus; Quartodecimans mislabeled heretics§266
266Bellarmine's Pascha instance — Sunday, not the fourteenth moon, though Scripture is silent — has no more force.
We grant the silence; we deny the stake: the day is indifferent, a church rite, not a salvation hinge.
Second-century Rome and Asia even excommunicated each other over it.
Rome's custom may look wiser, yet both sides sinned in the heat.
Irenaeus rebuked Victor for rupturing charity over a light cause.
Fathers' catalogs list Quartodecimans as heretics, but they often brand as heresy any view they dislike — even on trivial points.
Latin · §266
XXII. Nec majorem vim habet alia instantia, quam affert Bellarminus de Paschate. quod, inquit, credendum est in Novo Testamento celebrandum esse die Dominico non decima quarta Lunae, quocunque die inciderit, licet de eo in sacra Scriptura nihil extet. Fatemur enim quidem in Scriptura nihil de ista re haberi, sed dicimus quoque rem per se indifferentem esse, quae solum ad ritus externos Ecclesiae pertinet, non vero ad ea unde salus pendet. Olim quidem hac de re altero post Christum saeculo, excitata est magna controversia inter Ecclesiam Romanam & Asiaticas Ecclesias, ut propterea sese mutuo excommunicarent. Sed quamvis consuetudo Ecclesiae Romanae, quae tandem ubique obtinuit, rationi magis consentanea videatur, tamen hac in re utrinque peccatum est. Ideoque Irenaeus Episcopus Lugdunensis circa illa tempora graviter reprehendit Victorem Episcopum Romanum, quod tanto ardore de re non magni momenti certaret, & nimium de levi causa charitatis vinculum cum Orientalibus Ecclesiis abrumperet. In catalogis quidem haereticorum, quos patres texuerunt, recensentur Quartodecimani. Sed quicunque catalogos istos diligentius inspiciet, videbit patres illos inter haereses numerare opiniones quascunque ab ipsis improbatas, quamvis de rebus levibus & minime necessariis.
Infant baptism can be proved from Scripture — Bellarmine refutes Anabaptists, then denies the proof§267
267They next call infant baptism necessary yet unwritten — or at least not proved enough from Scripture.
We deny the silence: our theologians prove infant baptism from Scripture against the Anabaptists.
This is not the place to rehearse those arguments.
Stranger still: Rome herself routs Anabaptists from Scripture — Bellarmine boasts his baptism arguments cannot be escaped (On Baptism 1.9).
The same Bellarmine, attacking Scripture's sufficiency, then says paedobaptism cannot be proved from Scripture.
We appeal from partisan Bellarmine to Bellarmine elsewhere convinced by the truth.
Latin · §267
XXIII. Objiciunt praeterea, Bellarminus & alii, baptismum parvulorum tanquam rem necessariam, & tamen in sacra Scriptura non traditam, aut saltem quae sufficienter non probetur ex sacra Scriptura. Sed negamus non posse ex sacra Scriptura probari legitimum esse baptismum infantium. Illud certe multis & validis argumentis ex Scriptura sacra deductis contra Anabaptistas Theologi nostri confirmant. Quae argumenta referre & vindicare hujus loci non esset, & prolixiorem operam requirit. Sed quod valde mirum est, ipsi Pontificii ex Scripturis Anabaptistas egregie confutant. Inter alios vero Bellarminus de hac controversia ex Scripturis ita disputat, ut argumenta sua, nulla ratione solvi, nulla arte eludi posse, glorietur & fidat, libr. 1. de sacram. Bapt. cap. 9. Et tamen idem ille sui oblitus, dum Scripturae sufficientiam impugnare conatur, asserit paedobaptismum ex Scriptura satis probare non posse. Sed hic a Bellarmino studio causae abrepto, ad Bellarminum alibi evidentia veritatis convictum appellamus.
Rebaptism of those baptized by heretics is not simply necessary to salvation — Cyprian, Stephen, Augustine§268
268Rome presses hardest the rule against rebaptizing those baptized by heretics — as if it were necessary faith we cannot deny, yet cannot prove from Scripture.
Cyprian died holding the opposite view the Church later repudiated — yet who would say that martyr fell from salvation?
Their dodge that nothing was yet defined in Cyprian's day fails: if the dogma is Apostolic tradition, a later Church decree adds nothing to Apostolic authority.
Stephen of Rome condemned Cyprian while he lived; Cyprian refused and answered him.
We share the Church's settled practice — no rebaptism of heretics' baptism — but will not urge it as simply necessary to salvation.
We hold it not by unwritten word, but because Augustine's Scripture arguments make it highly probable — and it would be shameless to reject universal practice Scripture does not oppose.
Latin · §268
XXIV. Sed adversarii vim praecipue faciunt in dogmate de non iterando baptismo in iis qui ab haereticis baptizati sunt, quasi negare non possimus dogma illud ad fidem necessario pertinere, & haereticos esse qui illud negant, nec tamen etiam possimus illud ex sacra Scriptura probare. Sed certe utrum illud sit ad salutem necessarium, si nihil aliud esset, ambiguum facere posset Cyprianus Christi Martyr, qui sancti nomen post obitum in Ecclesia meruit. Etenim dubium non est illum e vivis excessisse retinentem ejus sententiae quam Ecclesia postea communiter repudiavit. Et tamen quis auderet pronunciare salute excidisse virum doctrina, pietate, constantique in Christum fide praecellentissimum? Neque difficultatem expedit quod excipere solent adversarii ea de re tempore Cypriani nihil dum ab Ecclesia fuisse definitum: Nam si, quod Pontificii volunt, Ecclesia illud dogma accepit ab Apostolica traditione, quid ad sanctionis Apostolicae authoritatem accedere potuit ex Ecclesiae decreto? Sane si necessarium non fuit ex Apostolorum authoritate, necessarium esse non potuit ex authoritate Conciliorum. Adde quod ipso vivente Cypriano sententia ejus publice damnata & reprobata fuit a Stephano Episcopo Romano, cujus ore volunt Ecclesiam loqui, & illius rescripta esse totidem oracula Christianorum fidem obligantia. Et tamen ejus judicio Cyprianus non acquievit, sed liberum sibi putavit in sententia propria permanere, & Stephani scripta refellere. Itaque, quanquam in illam eamus sententiam, quae Ecclesiae communi judicio sancita est, nempe iterandum non esse baptismum apud haereticos susceptum, eam tamen urgere nollemus, tanquam quae sit ad salutem simpliciter necessaria. Quod vero illam sequimur ac tuemur, id non facimus quod eam alicujus verbi non scripti authoritate fultam esse putemus, sed quia, si non ex Scriptura demonstrari, probabilissime tamen ex ea colligi potest, ut manifestum faciunt argumenta quae ex Scriptura sacra sedulo in hanc rem collegit Augustinus. Ac praeterea protervum & inverecundum esset sententiam ab universali Ecclesia jam receptam, nec ulla in re Scripturae contrariam rejicere, & animi quadam libidine diversam praxin sequi ab ea quae diuturno fidelium usu probata est, nihil Scripturae repugnante.
Filioque is hard, but can be proved from Scripture — Rome's own arguments against the Greeks§269
269Some also press the Filioque — procession of the Spirit from the Son — as if Scripture cannot show it.
We will not list it among truths that cannot be denied without losing salvation.
We prefer Rome's reading, yet would not damn the Greeks for this alone or break communion over it.
The mystery is hard, but we deny it cannot be proved from Scripture: Spirit of the Son, sent by the Son as by the Father.
Rome herself piles Scripture texts against the Greeks — Lombard, Bessarion, Bellarmine — so she must admit either Scripture proves the Filioque or her anti-Greek case is sophistic.
Latin · §269
XXV. Nonnulli quoque Pontificiorum urgent dogma de processione Spiritus sancti ex Filio, de qua inter Ecclesiam Graecam & Romanam contentio est: Quasi dogma etiam illud ex Scripturis ostendi, & probari nequeat. Sed primo nobis durum valde videtur dogma istud inter ea numerare quae absque salutis jactura negari non possunt. Et quamvis in hac quaestione Ecclesiae Romanae sententiam ut veriorem sequamur, si tamen Ecclesiae Graecae nullum alium errorem haberent, non ideo de salute earum acerum putaremus, neque communionem cum ipsis detrectaremus. Deinde, licet processio illa Spiritus sancti ex Patre & Filio res plane ardua sit, & longe supra captum nostrum, negamus tamen illam ex Scripturis probari non posse. Imo non aliis argumentis illam nobis persuademus, quam quae ex sacra Scriptura duci possunt, ut quod Spiritus sanctus non minus dicitur Spiritus Filii, quam Patris, quod a Filio ut a Patre mittitur, aliaque ejusmodi, quae Theologi nostri ex variis Scripturae locis deducunt & explicant. Quin ipsi Pontificii, dum Graecos dissentientes refellere nituntur, non aliis fere argumentis utuntur quam ex Scriptura ductis, quae plurima congerunt, ut videre est, non tantum apud Petrum Lombardum, sed apud Bessarionem & Bellarminum Cardinales. Ita ut adversarii hic fateri cogantur, vel processionem Spiritus ex Filio per Scripturam probari posse, vel se perperam atque sophistice contra Graecos argumentari.
Mosaic books presuppose immortality and prove resurrection — Christ vs the Sadducees§270
270Graver still: they say Moses alone never contained all needful to salvation — immortality and resurrection are missing.
Immortality every religion presupposes: if souls die like cattle, piety is vain — eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
Moses' whole scope is religion and worship; soul-immortality is presupposed and openly drawn from that scope.
Particular Mosaic texts also prove resurrection: Christ vs the Sadducees cites I am the God of Abraham... — God of the living, not the dead.
He blames their ignorance of the Scriptures; if resurrection was only obscure then, clear distinct faith of it was not yet required for salvation.
Latin · §270
XXVI. Sed aliquid gravius est quo putant adversarii se posse probare Scripturam, quamdiu saltem solis libris Mosaicis constitit, omnia ad salutem necessaria non continuisse. Nec enim quicquam ad fidem & salutem magis necessarium fingi potest, quam dogma de animorum immortalitate & resurrectione corporum. At, inquiunt, de dogmatibus istis tanti momenti apud Mosen nihil reperitur. Quod ad primum attinet, animorum nempe immortalitatem, dico rem esse quam omnis religio praesupponit. Etenim si a brutis eatenus non differimus, animaeque nostrae non secus ac pecudum, cum corporibus intereunt, nec quicquam hominis post mortem superest, frustra est pietas, & frustra religio: nec aliud restat, quam ut cum profanis dicamus, Edamus, bibamus, cras enim moriemur. Itaque, quandoquidem libri Mosis toti occupantur in tradenda religione & cultu Dei praescribendo, animae immortalitas a Mose praesupponitur, estque aliquid quod ex generali librorum ejus scopo doctrinaque in eis contenta indubitate & aperte deducitur. Sed praeterea sunt multa singularia loca apud Mosen unde non tantummodo animae immortalitas, sed corporum resurrectio probari & colligi potest. Nam utrumque Christus contra Sadducaeos confirmat ex illis Dei verbis, Ego sum Deus Abrahami, Deus Isaac, & Deus Jacobi, quoniam, ut inquit, Deus non est Deus mortuorum, sed Deus viventium. Atque adeo Christus Sadducaeos erroris hac in parte arguens ad Scripturam eos revocat, & illis ignorantiam Scripturarum exprobrat. Erratis, inquit, nescientes Scripturas. Unde manifestum est, doctrinam istam illis ex Scriptura notam esse debuisse. Adde quod, si ponamus doctrinam de resurrectione obscure tantum fuisse Mosaicis libris insinuatam, probari non poterit claram & distinctam ejus fidem etiam tunc fuisse ad salutem necessariam.
Legal sacrifices foreshadowing Christ were not clear faith for OT believers — revelation measures faith§271
271They add: OT believers had to know legal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's — yet Moses and the prophets do not make that plain.
Answer: Christ's real death and the types' force toward it is a Gospel mystery, silent in prior ages (as Paul says).
Apostles read it from Scripture after Gospel light and fulfillment; before, it lay in shadows — not clear to the common faithful.
Even after Christ came, Jews and even the Apostles did not yet grasp His death — Peter rebuked as Satan (Matthew 16).
Ancient saints lacked nothing needful: revelation measures faith. Obscure confused faith sufficed until the Gospel made clear distinct faith necessary.
Latin · §271
XXVII. Praeterea contendunt, sub toto Veteris Testamenti curriculo in Ecclesia scitu necessarium fuisse, quod sacrificia legalia futurum Christi sacrificium adumbrarent. Id vero notum esse non potuisse ex scriptis Mosaicis, imo neque ex propheticis. Respondeo reale Christi sacrificium, id est, illius mortem & vim quam ad illam sacrificia typica habuerunt, mysterium esse quod solum Evangelium revelavit, quodque praecedentibus saeculis tacitum erat, ut pluribus in locis loquitur Apostolus. Ista quidem Apostoli nostri, postquam accessit lux Evangelii, & rerum ipsarum eventus, vaticiniorum optimus interpres, ex Scriptura sacra deduxerunt. At vero antea in umbris legalibus & prophetiarum obscuritate latebant: nec a vulgo fidelium saltem poterant pervideri. Et certe quod jam post ipsius Christi in terris adventum, nihil dum de illius oblatione & morte apud Judaeos innotuerat, tantum abest ut ab initio quicquam de ea re sciverint, inde manifestum est, quod nihil aeque eorum animos a Christo alienaverit, ac cruenta illa oblatio quae in cruce peracta est. Neque id verum est tantum de Judaeis incredulis, sed de piis & fidelibus quoque: Nam Apostoli ipsi paulo ante Christi passionem illum pro nobis moriturum esse nondum intelligebant. Unde est quod, quum de sua morte illis aperte primum loqui coepit, istud a Petro fuerit rejectum magna cum aversatione: Quapropter etiam illum increpuit Christus dicens, Vade a me Satana, ut videre est Matth. 16. Neque tamen quicquam ad salutem necessarium priscis fidelibus defuit: Nam divina revelatio est mensura fidei nostrae, neque Deus a nobis pleniorem fidem exigit, quam possit ex hactenus facta revelatione haberi. Quamdiu ergo mysterium oblationis a Christo peragendae confuse tantum obscure & indistincte revelatum fuit, suffecit ut fideles obscuram tantum & confusam illius fidem haberent. Clara vero & distincta illius mysterii fides post Evangelii promulgationem necessaria demum fuit.
Rome's hardest instance: Scripture cannot prove its own divinity — so an unwritten word seems needed§272
272Harder still: they say Scripture cannot be a sufficient faith-rule because we must know which books are inspired.
Even if Scripture calls the Prophets' and Apostles' books divine, no one trusts that claim until he already trusts that Scripture is divine.
So, they argue, some unwritten word of God must teach us that Scripture is God's word — or faith has no divine ground.
Latin · §272
XXVIII. Sequitur instantia quae plus habet difficultatis, & per quam Pontificii demonstrare se putant Scripturam esse non posse sufficientem fidei regulam. Nam, inquiunt, necesse est nosse esse Scripturam aliquam divinitus inspiratam, & illam consistere in libris illis quos hodie prae manibus habemus, qui praeferunt Prophetarum & Apostolorum nomen, & a Christianis pro divinis habentur. Sed hoc dogma tam necessarium non potest sufficienter haberi ex Scriptura. Nam, etiamsi Scriptura dicat libros Prophetarum & Apostolorum esse divinos, nemo certo id credet, nisi prius crediderit Scripturam quae hoc dicit, esse divinam: proinde necesse est praeter Scripturam esse aliquod Dei verbum quo doceamur ipsam Scripturam esse verbum Dei; alioqui de eo nullam fidem haberemus, quandoquidem fides verbo Dei nititur.
Reply: the self-witness objection is a sophism — even a complete written word would face the same charge§273
273Answer: however showy, the argument is a mere sophism.
Rome admits God could have put His whole word in writing and ordered the Apostles to write all the Church must know — and then our thesis would be true.
Yet the same objection would still run: that this complete Scripture is inspired and these are its books is itself a faith-matter Scripture cannot prove, since nothing proves itself.
That would again demand an unwritten witness — a conclusion false under the hypothesis — so the argument that yields it is sophistic.
Latin · §273
XXIX. Respondeo argumentum istud, utut speciosum sit, merum esse sophisma, quod facile ostendi potest. Quamvis enim Pontificii negent totum Dei verbum Scriptura sacra contineri, negare tamen non possunt quin Deus saltem potuerit integrum suum verbum scripto tradere, & Apostolis praecipere ut scriptis mandarent omnia quae ipsis revelata erant, & quae Ecclesiam scire opus erat: Et quin, hoc casu posito, vera esset nostra thesis, nempe, Scripturam sacram esse sufficientem & perfectam fidei regulam; & nihil posse tanquam ad fidem & salutem necessarium urgeri, quod ipsa non contineretur. Et tamen, hac hypothesi facta, liceret eodem modo argumentari, & probare omnia ad fidem pertinentia non posse sufficienter haberi ex Scriptura sacra: nam hoc ipsum, quod talis Scriptura divinitus inspirata esset, & constaret his atque illis libris, res esset maxime pertinens ad fidem: Et tamen non posset istud ex Scriptura probari: quoniam, scilicet, nihil probat seipsum, nec potest aliquis credere testimonio alicujus Scripturae se divinam asserentis, quin prius persuasus sit illam esse divinam. Unde concluderetur necessarium esse verbum quoddam non scriptum praeter illam Scripturam, quod testimonium illi perhiberet, & quo nostra fides de Scriptura istiusmodi niteretur. Quae tamen conclusio, ex hypothesi facta, manifesto falsa esset, adeoque necesse est argumentum allatum falsum & sophisticum esse, quandoquidem ex eo falsum concludi potest.
Retorsion: Rome's Scripture-plus-tradition rule fails the same self-witness test§274
274Ask Rome: if Scripture is not the whole sufficient rule, what is?
They answer: written plus unwritten word in Rome's mouth — the total rule outside which there is no other word of God.
Retorsion: that mixed rule also cannot prove what is most necessary — that Rome's Scriptures and traditions are the divine ones, and that her witness is infallible.
Scripture's self-claim and Rome's boast do not settle the point until one already believes God speaks through Rome.
So their rule demands yet another word beyond Scripture, tradition, and Rome's testimony — or faith rests on no word of God.
No faith-rule escapes a similar charge.
Latin · §274
XXX. Quod ut evidentius fiat, rogamus Pontificios, si Scriptura non sit integra & sufficiens fidei regula, dicant nobis quae tandem illa sit. Respondebunt regulam illam constare tam verbo scripto, quam non scripto, quod est in ore Ecclesiae Romanae: Et verbum illud tam scriptum, quam non scriptum esse sufficientem & totalem fidei regulam, extra quam non sit aliud Dei verbum, & ex qua sola peti possint ea quae sunt necessaria ad fidem & salutem. Sic vero jam proprium eorum argumentum in ipsos retorqueo. Verbum illud partim Scriptura sacra constans, partim sine scripto traditionibus quibus Ecclesia Romana testimonium perhibet, non est sufficiens fidei regula. Nec enim omnia quae sunt ad fidem necessaria ex eo probari possunt. Etenim omnium maxime necessarium est ut credamus esse aliquod verbum vere divinum, & verbum istud constare partim Scripturis quibusdam, partim non scriptis traditionibus, & divinas istas Scripturas atque traditiones esse illas ipsas quibus Ecclesia Romana testimonium perhibet; nosque posse ac debere testimonio ejus hac in parte credere, tanquam omnino certo atque infallibili. Sed istud dogma tam necessarium, & quod tanquam totius religionis fundamentum profertur, non potest sufficienter haberi ex verbo, seu scripto, seu non scripto, quod est in ore Ecclesiae Romanae. Nam quamvis Scriptura affirmet se divinitus inspiratam esse, & Ecclesia Romana glorietur traditiones suas esse divinas, & verbum Dei ab ipsa tanquam ab infallibili teste petendum esse, Nec Scripturae tamen, nec traditionibus, nec Ecclesiae Romanae certo credam, quin prius credam Deum per Romanam Ecclesiam loqui, & tam Scripturam quam traditiones a Deo suam ducere originem. Itaque necesse est, praeter Scripturam & traditiones, & ipsum Ecclesiae Romanae testimonium, esse quoddam Dei verbum unde discam ista omnia esse divina, & fidem meam obligare: alioqui fides mea de authoritate verbi tam scripti, quam non scripti quod in ore habet Ecclesia Romana, nullo nitetur Dei verbo, & sic non erit fides. Denique nulla fidei regula fingi potest contra quam aliquis non possit simili argumento uti.
Fallacy exposed: a sufficient faith-rule need not prove itself — like science's first principles§275
275The sophistic fallacy assumes what is false: that a sufficient faith-rule must prove everything including itself.
No rule of faith can prove itself by its own testimony — proof is from what is better known, and a thing is not better known than itself.
Yet embracing the rule is itself necessary to faith.
A perfect sufficient rule is one that, once supposed, proves all else of faith — not one that proves itself.
Scripture's inability to prove itself by bare self-testimony does not strip its sufficiency.
Saying otherwise is like saying the sky does not cover all because it does not cover itself — or that science's first principles are no rule because principles do not prove principles.
Latin · §275
XXXI. Ut vero sophistici istius argumenti fallacia detegatur, notandum est illud tanquam rem manifestam supponere id quod falsissimum est, nempe, non esse illam sufficientem fidei regulam cujus testimonio non possint omnia probari quae ad fidem pertinent, ne quidem excepta illa ipsa regula. Nam, quaecunque tandem fidei regula statuatur, non potest illa proprio testimonio probari. Nihil enim seipsum hoc modo probare potest, cum probatio omnis sit ex notioribus, idem vero seipso non sit notius, & ignotius. Et tamen res est maxime ad fidem pertinens, & necessaria, ut ipsam fidei regulam amplectamur, & illi certum assensum praebeamus. Igitur illa fidei regula perfecta est & sufficiens, non quae seipsam probat, sed ex qua supposita probari possunt omnia, praeter ipsam, quae ad fidem pertinent. Ideoque quamvis Scriptura proprio testimonio sufficienter probari non possit, hoc tamen non arguit illam non esse perfectam & sufficientem fidei regulam. Et dicere Scripturam non sufficere ad probanda omnia quae fidei sunt, quoniam proprio suo testimonio fidem sibi facere non potest, sophisticari est eodem plane modo ac si quis probaret coelum non omnia tegere quoniam coelum non tegit ipsum caelum: aut cujusdam scientiae principia non esse veluti normam & regulam, per quam probantur omnia quae ad illam scientiam spectant: quoniam ipsa principia per principia non probantur; Et tamen ad aliquam scientiam pertinet illius principia nosse.
Faith accepts revealed things by the word — but the word itself by innate notes§276
276The objection assumes faith accepts only what another divine word proves — true for revealed things, not for the word itself.
Things revealed are believed because God testifies in his word; the word itself cannot be propped by infinite regress of further words.
Faith must finally rest in a word received for its own sake, made known by implanted signs and notes under the Spirit's light.
Scripture needs no second word to witness its divinity — it is still faith's proper object.
Rome's own faith likewise bottoms out in some word accepted by motives, not by yet another divine word.
Latin · §276
XXXII. Praeterea istud argumentum supponit nihil nos per fidem amplecti, nisi quod probari potest divino quodam verbo atque testimonio: quod, licet prima fronte videatur esse verissimum atque indubitatum, undiquaque tamen verum non est. Etenim fides nostra aliter accipit res in verbo Dei revelatas, & aliter ipsum Dei verbum, seu divinam revelationem. Siquidem res ipsas a Deo revelatas credimus & suscipimus propter divinam revelationem, & quoniam Deus illis in verbo suo testimonium perhibet. At de ipso Dei verbo, seu divina revelatione alia ratio est. Nam una pars verbi divini potest quidem alteri testimonium perhibere, & una revelatio suscipi propter aliam revelationem qua nobis confirmetur; Verum hic dari non potest progressus in infinitum: Sed tandem sistendum est in aliquo Dei verbo, quod fides nostra propter se suscipiat, & quod authoritatem suam non mutuetur ab aliquo alio extra se Dei verbo, cujus testimonio de eo certi reddamur. Itaque necesse est esse aliquod Dei verbum quod per se nobis innotescat, id est, ex signis & notis insitis, aliisque argumentis atque incitamentis, quibus mens nostra a Spiritu sancto illuminata moveatur ut credat revera tale verbum divinum esse, & ad Deum suam referre originem. Quamvis ergo non sit aliud Dei verbum, quod Scripturae divinitati testimonium perhibeat, nihilominus Scriptura erit legitimum fidei nostrae objectum, si quidem fides est assensus quo verbum Dei amplectimur, & propter illud quaecunque testimonio illius confirmantur. Nec effugere possunt adversarii quin fides eorum tandem resolvatur in aliquod Dei verbum cui fidem adhibeant inducti tantum argumentis & motivis quibusdam, non vero propter aliud verbum Dei, cujus testimonio sanciatur ejus authoritas.
Scripture proves itself by innate notes of divinity — like creation or a classic author's genius§277
277Bare self-assertions in Scripture do not convince those who already doubt its authority — in that sense Scripture cannot prove Scripture.
Yet another sense holds: Scripture carries many innate notes of divinity by which it shows itself true and divine.
As heaven and earth prove God by excellence and wisdom's traces — not by a spoken certificate.
As a book claims Aristotle or Cicero by genius of doctrine and style, not by the title page alone.
Scripture's books likewise bear divine wisdom so deeply that inspiration and divine authorship appear.
Latin · §277
XXXIII. Praeterea hic observandum est, testimonia, quibus Scriptura sacra se divinam asserit, non esse quidem idonea & efficacia argumenta ad convincendos eos qui in dubium vocant Scripturae authoritatem; Et eatenus verum est Scripturam per Scripturam probari non posse. Sed tamen alio sensu Scriptura per Scripturam ipsam probari potest, quatenus Scripturae insunt multa divinitatis argumenta & notae quibus ipsa se veram & divinam indicat & asserit. Non secus ac caelum & terra probant & ostendunt suum authorem Deum esse, non simplici aliqua voce & testimonio, sed ex ipsa suae naturae praestantia, & potentiae ac sapientiae divinae vestigiis quae in illis notari possunt: aut ut aliquis liber Aristoteli & Ciceroni se vindicat, non ex solo titulo, sed ex ipsius doctrinae genio, acumine styli & differendi modo, qui ejusmodi est ut non possit nisi praestantibus illis ingeniis tribui. Ita enim Scripturae libri, seu stylum, seu res ipsas spectes, tam alte impressa habent sapientiae divinae vestigia, ut satis appareat illos divinitus inspiratos esse, & Deum habere authorem.
Sum of the reply: no circle, no infinite regress — Scripture known by implanted signs§278
278Faith-analysis allows neither a circle nor infinite regress — the mind must stop in a word received immediately for itself.
That word is sacred Scripture (a fixed number of God-breathed books), known by implanted signs, not by another divine word's bare certificate.
Self-knowledge by innate notes does not strip Scripture's perfection as faith-rule.
A rule need not prove itself the way it proves everything else — first principles are supposed, proved at most ad hominem / a posteriori.
Latin · §278
XXXIV. Huc ergo redit summa responsionis nostrae, in fidei analysi nec dari posse circulum, nec progressum in infinitum, sed mentem nostram necessario sisti in aliquo Dei verbo quod per aliud Dei verbum non confirmetur, sed quod fides nostra suscipiat immediate & propter se, & in cujus notitiam & fidem adducamur per argumenta & signa insita, aliaque, ut loquuntur scholae, credendi motiva, non ex testimonio alterius cujusdam verbi divini desumpta. Istud autem Dei verbum, in quo sistitur fides nostra, esse Scripturam sacram, constantem certo numero librorum θεοπνεύστων, ac proinde illam a nobis non suscipi propter aliquod aliud Dei verbum quod testimonium illi perhibeat, nec etiam illam se nobis probare simplici & nudo suo testimonio, sed nobis innotescere ex signis & notis insitis aliisque argumentis atque incitamentis. Inde vero minime sequi illam non esse perfectam & sufficientem fidei regulam: quoniam in tali regula non requiritur ut aliter se probet, sed satis est ut, illa excepta, omnia quae ad fidem pertinent possint testimonio illius confirmari. Imo impossibile est dari talem regulam fidei, quae seipsam, sicut caetera, possit simplici suo testimonio probare: prorsus vero necessarium primam fidei regulam inter Christianos tanquam principium supponi, nec per alia fidei principia probari, nisi forte ad hominem, & a posteriori, ut loquuntur in scholis.
Rome's integrity objection: Scripture's sincerity cannot be learned from Scripture alone§279
279Rome adds: we must know not only that Scripture's books are Spirit-dictated, but that they remain sincere and uncorrupted in our hands.
That integrity, they say, cannot be learned from Scripture itself — so another divine word seems required.
Hence their claim that Scripture alone is not a sufficient faith-rule.
Latin · §279
XXXV. Addunt adversarii, Necesse est ut sciamus non tantum Scripturae libros ex se divinos esse, dictatos a Spiritu sancto, sed etiam sinceros & incorruptos hodie reperiri, & tales ad nostras manus pervenisse. Id autem non possumus ex ipsa Scriptura discere: ac propterea opus est alio Dei verbo, per quod certi reddamur de Scripturae ipsius sinceritate & integritate. Sola ergo Scriptura non est fidei regula sufficiens.
Retorsion: tradition's integrity faces the same demand — Bellarmine's 'no new revelations' collapses§280
280Same demand hits oral tradition: we must know Apostolic deliveries reached us intact across ages — yet tradition cannot certify its own integrity.
So Rome would need yet another divine word beyond Scripture-plus-tradition to guarantee both arrived uncorrupted.
That falsifies Bellarmine's claim that the Church needs no new revelations and only keeps what Apostles and Prophets delivered.
Appealing to an infallible Church's testimony does not help — whence does the Church itself learn, and on what does its faith rest?
Latin · §280
XXXVI. Sed illi possunt simili difficultate urgeri. Dicam enim eodem modo, Non tantum necesse est, ut sciamus Apostolos doctrinam a Christo acceptam Ecclesiae Pastoribus & Rectoribus sine scripto magna ex parte tradidisse, & simpliciter fidei illorum commisisse, sed etiam ut certi simus traditiones illas Apostolicas per tot saecula ad nos pervenisse integras atque incorruptas. Istud autem non possumus ex ipsa Apostolica traditione discere. Igitur necesse est ut praeter verbum illud quod Apostoli partim scripto, partim viva voce tradiderunt, in Ecclesia extet aliud Dei verbum, per quod hodierna Ecclesia certa reddatur tam Scripturas quam traditiones integras & incorruptas ad ipsam pervenisse. Adeoque falsum est, quod Bellarminus cum Pontificiorum doctissimis quibusque & probatissimis asserit, Ecclesiam nunc non regi novis revelationibus, sed in iis permanere quae tradiderunt illi qui ministri fuerunt sermonis: Et illa omnia quae Ecclesia fide tenet, tradita fuisse ab Apostolis, aut Prophetis, aut scripto, aut verbo. De verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 9. Quod si quis dicat fideles certos reddi de sinceritate & integritate tum Scripturae, tum traditionum per testimonium Ecclesiae quae errare non potest, difficultatem hanc minime tollet. Nam quaeritur unde hoc discat Ecclesia ipsa, & quo fundamento nitatur hac in parte ipsius Ecclesiae fides.
Further squeeze: even an infallible Pope or Council cannot prove its own legitimacy or pure decrees§281
281For faith to rest sure, you need more than an infallible Pope or Council — you need certainty that this Pope and this Council are the legitimate ones.
Neither can prove its own legitimacy by its own testimony.
Even if legitimacy is granted, you still need certainty that the decrees and canons reached you uncorrupted.
So Rome's rule would demand yet another divine word beyond Scripture, tradition, papal decrees, and conciliar canons — or faith has no sure foundation.
Latin · §281
XXXVII. Deinde sic urgebo, ut fides mea certum fundamentum habeat, non tantum necesse est ut sciam Ecclesiam infallibile testimonium perhibere, sive per Concilium, sive per summum Pontificem; sed praeterea ut certus sim legitimum esse Pontificem illum cujus testimonium audio, & legitimum quoque Concilium cujus decreta mihi objiciuntur. De hoc autem non possum certus reddi per testimonium sive Pontificis, sive Concilii ipsius. Nam proprio testimonio sufficienter nihil probari potest. Ac praeterea posito quod talis Pontifex fuerit legitimus, & legitimum tale Concilium, oportet ut certus sim sincerum & incorruptum ad manus meas pervenisse Pontificis decretum, & similiter sinceros & incorruptos Canones Concilii. Itaque necesse est ut non tantum praeter Scripturam & traditiones, sed etiam praeter ipsa Pontificum decreta, & Conciliorum Canones, sit in Ecclesia quoddam Dei verbum, quo certus reddar legitimum esse Pontificem istum, & Concilium istud, & decreta Pontificum, ac Conciliorum statuta, quae mihi in manus traduntur, sincera esse atque incorrupta, alioqui fides mea non nitetur certo fundamento, neque fides dicenda erit, quandoquidem fides verbo Dei nititur.
Reply: the same innate notes that show divinity also show essential integrity§282
282Rome is caught in its own snare — the integrity demand forces the reply their Scripture objection needs.
As Scripture needs no second word to prove its divinity, because it is the first rule known by innate signs and motives,
so it needs no second word to prove it uncorrupted and integral.
The same path that shows it divine shows it integral and sincere — at least in momentous and essential matters.
Latin · §282
XXXVIII. Hic certe Pontificii constringuntur propriis laqueis, neque se possunt expedire quin objectioni suae responsionem subministrent. Sed respondeo quod sicut non opus est alio Dei verbo, cujus testimonio probetur Scripturam sacram esse divinam, quia Scriptura sacra est prima fidei regula, in qua fides nostra sistitur: Ipsa vero per se innotescere potest ex signis & notis insitis, aliisque argumentis & credendi motivis, quibus possunt fideles sufficienter moveri ut illam amplectantur ceu veram & divinam: ita quoque non opus est alio Dei verbo unde discamus Scripturam incorruptam & integram esse. Nam unde discimus illam esse divinam, inde discimus illam integram & sinceram esse, in rebus saltem momentosis & essentialibus.
No circle, no regress: faith reduces to an authority received immediately by the Spirit's illumination§283
283In faith's proofs neither circle nor infinite regress is allowed — both are absurd.
Faith must reduce to some authority received as divine (and thus sincere) for its own sake and immediately.
The Holy Spirit's internal illumination brings us there — not by another external divine word's testimony, but by motives of another kind.
Latin · §283
XXXIX. Namque ut istud inculcem quod satis notari non potest, in fidei probationibus, nec potest dari circulus, nec progressus in infinitum, quorum utrumque est vehementer absurdum: adeoque fides nostra necessario reducitur ad aliquam authoritatem, cujus testimonium ut divinum, adeoque ut sincerum & incorruptum suscipimus, propter se & immediate, per illuminationem internam Spiritus sancti, qui eo nos adducit, non amplius externo aliquo, alterius divini verbi testimonio, sed alius generis motivis & incitamentis.
Rome: having Scripture is not enough — you need its true sense, hence tradition§284
284Rome presses again: owning the book is not enough — faith needs Scripture's true Spirit-intended sense.
Words alone are not the rule; the sense is.
That sense, they say, cannot come from Scripture alone, because the text is often ambiguous.
Without an infallible explainer — tradition — certainty fails; therefore sola Scriptura fails.
Latin · §284
XL. Rursus instant adversarii, non satis est Scripturam in manibus habere, sed necesse est ut verum illius sensum teneamus. Nec enim fidei regula proprie sunt verba Scripturae, sed potius Scripturae sensus a Spiritu sancto intentus. Atqui verus Scripturae sensus ex sola Scriptura haberi non potest. Nam Scriptura saepissime ambigua & perplexa est, ut, nisi ab aliquo qui errare non possit explicetur, non possit intelligi: nec certi esse possimus de vero Scripturae sensu, nisi accedat traditio. Igitur Sola Scriptura non sufficit.
Reply: hard places exist — but saving faith does not require piercing every obscurity§285
285Yes, Scripture has very hard places even the learned cannot settle.
That does not make an unwritten tradition necessary for those loci.
Faith and salvation do not require piercing every obscurity.
If they did, the Church would lack necessities — and Rome itself confesses tradition does not settle those darkest places either.
Latin · §285
XLI. Respondeo in Scripturis esse quidem loca quaedam valde difficilia, & super quorum intellectu mens haeret: Nec satis liquido perspicere possunt, etiam doctissimi quis sit verus eorum sensus. Sed inde non sequitur necessariam esse traditionem aliquam unde petatur istorum locorum intelligentia. Nec enim necesse est ad fidem & salutem in verum sensum ejusmodi locorum penetrare. Quod si necessarium esset, Ecclesia quibusdam necessariis careret. Nam, ex confessione ipsorum adversariorum, in obscurissimis istis & perplexis Scripturae locis traditio non docet, & extra dubium ponit quis sit eorum sensus genuinus: ac de illo non minus incerti sunt Doctores Pontificii quam nostri.
Scripture is not so dark that necessary doctrine cannot be gathered — pastors help without replacing it§286
286Whatever Scripture's obscurity, necessary faith-and-life doctrine can still be gathered certainly by an attentive, skilled reader.
Clarity is not instant ease without labor — weighing words, context, parallels, and purged affections still matter.
Pastors and teachers rightly go before the flock in private, pulpit, and writing.
God gave them to open Scripture's sense — not to replace Scripture as another divine word.
Latin · §286
XLII. Qualiscunque ergo sit Scripturae obscuritas, negamus illam ita obscuram esse, quin tota doctrina ad fidem & mores necessaria ex ea indubie & certo colligi possit ab attento & perito lectore. Nec enim asserimus Scripturam ita claram esse in omnibus quae sunt ad fidem & salutem alicujus momenti, ut ad scopum ejus assequendum, & doctrinam sacram inde eruendam, nullo sit opus labore, studio & diligentia: sed per se fidelis quisque statim & sine ullo adjumento illam satis intelligere possit. Quamvis enim Scripturae sensus saepe ita in promptu sit, ut probatione non egeat, & ingerat se vel invitis, nonnunquam tamen, ut sensus Scripturae eruatur, & splendeat, verba diligenter ponderanda sunt, praecedentia & sequentia accurate expendenda, & parallela loca conferenda, sepositis praejudiciis, & compositis animi affectibus. Qua in re opus est ut Pastores praeeant plebi curae suae commissae, tam privatis sermonibus, quam publicis concionibus, ac etiam, quum res exigit, editis scriptis diversi generis, in quibus Scripturam explicent & applicent ad varios usus populi Christiani. Ad hoc enim inter alia Deus Ecclesiae dedit Pastores & Doctores, ut Dei verbum in Scriptura contentum exponerent, Scripturae sensum aperirent, & in ejus intelligentiam plebem fidelem quasi manu ducerent.
The flock does not take the pastor's sense by blind obedience — but by the light of truth shown§287
287Believers do not swallow a pastor's reading by blind obedience or bare office.
Once the sense is shown, the light of truth itself leads them to it.
Finding a sense is harder than recognizing it when another has demonstrated it.
Like faded handwriting: after it is read aloud, the eye begins to see the strokes for itself.
Latin · §287
XLIII. Veruntamen Scripturae sensum a Pastoribus suis commonstratum plebs fidelis non amplectitur caeca quadam obedientia, & propter eorum solam authoritatem, sed eo adducitur ipsa luce veritatis, quum ipsi semel indicata atque commonstrata est. Etenim difficilius est loci alicujus sensum invenire ac deprehendere, quam deprehensum ab alio & demonstratum, sola evidentia veritatis agnoscere & discernere. Quemadmodum multi sunt qui non possunt per se legere epistolam aliquam scriptam literis exolescentibus aut non satis apte formatis. Et tamen, postquam illis praelecta est, incipiunt agnoscere, & distinguere literarum ductus, & vident propriis oculis quid in illa contineatur.
Need a skilled interpreter, not an infallible one — sense has light in the text itself§288
288Faithful readers need a skilled interpreter — not Rome's interpreter who cannot err.
After guidance, certainty rests on the light of truth in the things themselves under the Spirit, not on the guide's or tradition's authority.
Like Aristotle or Horace: a teacher helps, but then you see the sense in the author by your own judgment.
Scripture's sense has light and proofs in the text; it is not blank until tradition or Church judgment fences it.
Latin · §288
XLIV. Itaque ut fideles verum Scripturae sensum in multis assequantur, & uberem fructum ex ea capiant, opus habent quidem interprete, sed non interprete qui errare non possit, ut dicunt Pontificii, verum interprete sagaci & perito. At, postquam illis praeivit ejusmodi interpres, Scripturae sensum tenent, & de eo certi sunt, non propter authoritatem, sive interpretis, sive traditionis, quam ex interprete suo didicerunt: sed propter vim & lucem veritatis, quam jam in rebus ipsis agnoscunt & animadvertunt, si quidem mentem, ut decet, Spiritus sancti virtute purgatam, & illuminatam habeant. Quemadmodum qui student Philosophiae & literis humanioribus per se statim non possunt intelligere textum Aristotelis, & Horatii vel Juvenalis Satyras, sed ad opera praeceptoris & magistri. Et tamen postquam verus, vel Poetae, vel Philosophi sensus ipsis indicatus & expositus est, illum jam proprio judicio discernunt & vident in ipso authore: Nec de eo persuasi sunt propter solam magistri sui authoritatem. Etenim sicut sensus Poematum Horatii & Aristotelici textus ex se incertus & dubius non est, donec accedat aliqua externa authoritas, quae super eo pronunciet, sed ex ipsis authorum verbis atque operum contextura certo deprehendi potest, modo debite expendantur: ita quoque verus Scripturae sacrae sensus habet in ipso textu propriam lucem, & sui argumenta atque probationes quibus innotescere possit, nec est per se vagus & indeterminatus donec accedat authoritas traditionis non scriptae, vel judicii Ecclesiastici quae illum certo modo limitet & coarctet.
Sufficiency allows ordinary explanation — it denies another divine word or infallible sense-fixer§289
289Some obscurity and need of explanation do not touch Scripture's sufficiency.
Sola Scriptura does not mean every believer needs no help to draw the whole faith alone.
It means: no second divine word, no second faith-rule, no infallible sense-fixer beyond Scripture.
Latin · §289
XLV. Igitur quamvis Scriptura aliquatenus obscura sit, & apud fideles egeat explicatione, qua ratione jam expositum est, nihil inde concludi potest contra sufficientiam quam Scripturae sacrae tribuimus. Etenim, quum dicimus Scripturam solam sufficere ad fidem & salutem, non intelligimus illam nulla indigere interpretatione, ut inde fideles singuli totam fidei doctrinam hauriant, sed solum ad hoc minime opus esse alio praeter Scripturam Dei verbo, & alia fidei regula, sive interprete quodam infallibili, qui Scripturae sensum alioqui dubium & incertum determinet, & de eo certos nos reddat.
Rome: major doctrines are only probable from Scripture until tradition locks the sense§290
290Rome lists weighty doctrines drawn from Scripture only 'somehow' — Trinity equality, Filioque, original sin, need of inward grace.
Until tradition seals the sense, they say, the mind cannot rest without doubt.
Heretics (Greeks, Arians, Pelagians) quote Scripture both ways with a show of probability.
So they demand another divine word to end controversy infallibly.
Latin · §290
XLVI. Sed contra istud urgent adversarii, non pauca esse quae sunt ad fidem magni momenti, quae ex Scriptura quidem aliquo modo deducuntur; Sed non ita certo atque evidenter, ut in eo possit animus firmiter acquiescere, ac dubium omne tollatur, donec adhibeatur traditionis authoritas, quae verum Scripturae sacrae sensum confirmet, & extra dubium ponat. Atque in exemplum afferunt doctrinam de aequalitate personarum in divinis, de processione Spiritus a Filio, de peccato originis, & necessitate gratiae alicujus internae, ut aliquis bene operari possit, & ad salutem utiliter. Etenim ista ex Scripturis non satis clare deduci, ut citra traditionis authoritatem haberi possint pro fidei dogmatis, inde probant quod haeretici, ut hodie Graeci, & olim Ariani & Pelagiani, contra ista ex Scripturis istis probabiliter disputant, neque tantum respondent argumentis, quibus articuli illi ex Scriptura sacra confirmantur, sed vicissim ex Scripturis pro sua sententia loca non pauca cum specie objiciunt. Itaque nunquam posse controversias cum hominibus protervis finiri, nisi sit praeter Scripturam aliud Dei verbum quod dogmata ista clarius confirmet, & unde possit verus Scripturae sacrae sensus circa loca controversa peti certo & infallibiliter.
Sophistry does not erase clarity — tradition and councils face the same heretical pushback§291
291Sophistry and varnish that snare the unwary do not make truth unclear for a purged, unprejudiced mind.
Otherwise nothing stays certain — not even God's existence by reason, nor mathematics against Sceptics.
Retorsion: the same dogmas are also contested from tradition and the Fathers — Arians and Pelagians claimed tradition too.
Councils do not escape: Arians set Rimini against Nicaea; Greeks oppose Rome with their own tradition, Fathers, and councils.
Latin · §291
XLVII. Respondeo sophisticas & perversitatem hominum qui veritatem negant, atque illi obstrepunt, & mendaciis atque erroribus faciunt aliquem fucum, qui possit homines leves & incautos decipere, non obstare quominus veritas clara & certa sit respectu eorum qui rem debite considerant, & oculo purgato, absque praejudiciis & pravis affectibus. Alioqui nihil prorsus clarum, & certum remanebit. Et dicendum erit non posse ex naturali rectae rationis lumine probari Deum esse, & illum esse unicum, quia Athei & sophistae multi ista negarunt, & ratione abusi sunt ut contrarium astruxerunt: nec ipsis Mathematicis disciplinis constabit sua certitudo atque evidentia, qua Sceptici conati sunt illarum certitudinem evertere: & multis sophismatis & fallacibus argumentis earum principia & axiomata reddere dubia. Et quod magis urgere potest Pontificios, probabo similiter ex traditione & verbo non scripto, non satis clare & certo deduci illa ipsa dogmata, quae in exemplum allata sunt, adeoque praeter verbum ab Apostolis partim scripto partim viva voce traditum, necessarium esse in Ecclesia aliud Dei verbum, unde possint clarius & certius haberi. Nam Ariani & Pelagiani non tantum ex Scripturis disputabant contra Orthodoxos, sed etiam Ecclesiae traditionem sibi vendicabant, & sententiam suam testimoniis priscorum Ecclesiae Doctorum confirmari gloriabantur; ut manifestum est ex veterum contra haereticos illos disputationibus. Imo nequidem res poterit ipsorum Conciliorum authoritate definiri. Nam Orthodoxorum Conciliis sua quoque Concilia Ariani opponebant, ut Ariminense Niceno. Praecipue vero Graeci cum Ecclesia Romana certantes de processione Spiritus sancti a Patre solo, de Monarchia Papae, & aliis articulis, non tantum ex Scripturis pugnant, sed etiam ex antiqua Ecclesiae traditione, ex Patrum testimoniis, & decretis Conciliorum, & Ecclesiae Romanae suam Ecclesiam, traditioni illius suam traditionem, & Concilia sua Conciliis illius opponunt.
Blinded disputers do not cancel Scripture light for sincere Spirit-led readers§292
292If many dispute the same proofs made every rule useless, no word of God could ever settle heresy.
Prejudice and vain sophisms can darken Scripture for the blinded — that does not cancel its light.
Sincere minds, freed from perverse affections and led by the Spirit, still gather the saving doctrine evidently from Scripture.
They hold firm, undoubted arguments in the text itself.
Latin · §292
XLVIII. Igitur si veritas aliqua dubia redditur, & probatio aliqua infirmatur, quia multi sunt qui lucem istius veritatis, & probationis vim non vident & agnoscunt, sed contra ex iisdem principiis disputant, & utcunque solvunt argumenta ex illis pro veritate adducta, nullum prorsus Dei verbum supererit, unde satis solide possint haeretici confutari, & dogmata fidei probari satis certo atque evidenter. Sed profecto quamvis homines praejudiciis & pravis affectibus ducti & occaecati doctrinam salutarem in Scriptura sacra contentam non videant, & argutiis ac vanis sophismatis tenebras illi offundere conentur, id non obstat, quominus illam ex Scripturis evidenter colligant, & firma ac indubitata illius argumenta se in iis habere certi sint illi qui animo sincero, & mente a praejudiciis & affectibus perversis libera, ac Spiritu sancto duce, & facem praeferente, Scripturae testimonia expendunt, & conferunt ut veritatem in illis inveniant.
Rome: you cannot prove from Scripture that Scripture alone is enough§293
293Last objection: you claim Scripture holds all needful to faith and salvation — and no unwritten word of God.
Rome: that claim itself cannot be proved from Scripture; the usual texts are answerable.
Answer: the thesis is solidly from Scripture; earlier theses already undercut unwritten tradition and assert Scripture perfection.
Our theologians bring still more proofs and clear the exceptions.
Latin · §293
XLIX. Superest ut unum adhuc Argumentum solvamus. Nam credere nos profitemur, & studiose asserimus Scripturam sacram continere omnia quae sunt ad fidem & salutem necessaria, & nullum esse Dei verbum non scriptum. At, inquiunt, hoc ipsum ex Scriptura probari non potest. Etenim istud non convincunt Scripturae loca quae in hanc rem proferuntur, & argumenta ex iis deducta facile solvi possunt. Respondeo veritatem quam hic tuemur posse ex ipsa Scriptura solide probari, & thesibus praecedentibus ex Scripturis eruta & vindicata fuisse argumenta quibus infirmatur traditionis non scriptae authoritas, & asseritur Scripturae perfectio & sufficientia, & alia plurima proferri a Theologis nostris, & ab adversariorum exceptionibus vindicari.
Even without self-commendation, no rival divine word appears — duty stops at what God revealed§294
294Even if Scripture never named traditions or praised its own sufficiency, we would still deny an unwritten word of God.
No such word appears; proposed divine tradition carries human marks and fails as a safe faith-foundation.
True first principles need no higher proof — and false claimants need no express biblical rebuttal if their weakness is plain.
Since no other divine word exists beside Scripture, it holds all that is necessary: men owe no more belief than God has revealed.
Latin · §294
L. Sed quamvis Scriptura sacra nullam traditionum mentionem faceret, nec propriam perfectionem & sufficientiam ullibi commendaret, nihilominus vere nec sine ratione affirmaremus, nullum esse verbum Dei non scriptum: quia nullum tale comparet, & traditio quae tanquam divina proponitur habet in se notas quibus agnoscitur humana esse, & argumenta quae convincunt illam non esse satis tutum fidei fundamentum, quemadmodum superiori disputatione a nobis ostensum est. Nam sicut verum Dei verbum, & legitima fidei principia non opus habent probari alio Dei verbo, & deduci ex aliis fidei principiis, sed fidelibus innotescunt ex signis & notis innitis, aliisque argumentis & credendi motivis, ita etiam, ut merito rejiciamus id, quod falso ut Dei verbum proponitur, & legitimum fidei principium, non opus est expresso aliquo testimonio, quod desumptum sit ex vero Dei verbo, sed satis est ut in se habeat indicia & notas imbecillitatis humanae, & desint motiva atque argumenta quibus sufficienter fideles moveri & suaderi possint, ut illud tanquam divinum suscipiant. Ex eo vero quod praeter Scripturam nullum aliud extat & comparet Dei verbum, evidenter deducitur illam necessaria omnia continere. Nam per se notum est, homines de rebus divinis & supernaturalibus non teneri plura scire & credere, quam Deo placuit ipsis revelare & manifestare.
Pars IV opens: Rome next claims unwritten tradition equals Scripture§295
295Pars III answered the claim that Scripture is not a full faith-rule.
Pars IV turns to Rome next move: unwritten traditions share Scripture authority.
They want those traditions received with the same piety as the written word.
We take up that equal-authority claim thesis by thesis.
Latin · §295
I. THESIBUS novissimis solvimus argumenta, quibus Pontificii ostendere se putant Scripturam non esse plenam & sufficientem fidei regulam. Sequitur ut ea solvamus quibus probare conantur traditiones non scriptas aequalem cum Scriptura sacra authoritatem habere, & pari pietatis affectu esse suscipiendas.
Rome cites John 16 and John 21: much Jesus said and did went unwritten§296
296Rome opens with John 16: I still have many things to say — you cannot bear them now.
They add John 21: the world could not hold books of all Jesus did.
Acts 1: forty days of kingdom teaching after the resurrection, yet the Gospels write little of it.
So, they say, much apostolic teaching must live in unwritten tradition.
Latin · §296
II. Primum igitur ut probent multa esse Christi & Apostolorum dogmata, atque instituta quae sacris literis comprehensa non sunt, & tamen apud fideles authoritatem eandem obtinere debent ac illa quae scripta sunt, proferunt verba Christi Joan. 16. ubi discipulos suos alloquens, ait, Adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modo. Cui loco jungunt ea quae leguntur ultimo cap. ejus Evangelii, Sunt autem & alia multa quae fecit Jesus: quae, si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere posse eos qui scribendi sunt, libros. Constat ergo, inquiunt, multa Dominum fecisse & dixisse, quae non sunt scripta. Nam illos libros qui extant una manus capere potest, Joannes autem dicit totum mundum non posse capere libros qui scribendi essent. Et praeterea illa quae promittebat Dominus se dicturum loco citato, dixit haud dubie post resurrectionem suam, ut colligi potest ex Actorum capite primo, ubi testatur Lucas Dominum post resurrectionem per quadraginta dies apparuisse discipulis, & ipsis locutum fuisse de iis quae pertinent ad regnum Dei. At de gestis & verbis Domini post resurrectionem paucissima scripserunt Evangelistae. Non autem est ullo modo credibile Apostolos, qui illa viderant aut audierant, non tradidisse Ecclesiis. Nec enim invidi, aut obliviosi erant, ut nollent, aut non possent ea dicere.
Reply: the unsaid things were Gospel mysteries the disciples could not yet bear§297
297The many things of John 16 are not a blank check for later Roman traditions.
They mean the clear unpacking of Gospel mysteries the disciples could not yet carry.
Cross, resurrection, ascension, session, Gentile call, end of legal worship, New-Testament church — Christ had sketched these briefly.
Prejudice, grief, and the still-missing Spirit blocked full grasp before the Passion.
Latin · §297
III. Respondeo per multa illa quae testatur Christus se dicenda discipulis habuisse, & quae tamen discipuli ante Christi mortem portare non poterant, intelligi accuratam & distinctam explicationem mysteriorum Evangelicorum, veluti de efficacia & fructu mortis Christi, de resurrectione illius, de ascensione in caelum, & sessione ad dexteram Patris, de vocatione Gentium, & cultus legalis abrogatione, de statu Ecclesiae sub Novo Testamento, aliisque hujusmodi, de quibus quidem breviter & generatim Christus discipulis locutus est, etiam ante mortem; sed ea tamen tunc illi intelligere non poterant, nec eorum accuratam explicationem ferre, propter varia praejudicia quibus mens eorum erat occupata, & tristitiam summam qua dejectus erat illorum animus, & quia nondum acceperant illum veritatis Spiritum qui mentis ipsorum oculos erat illuminaturus, ut Evangelii lucem ferre & aspicere possent.
Even after Easter the Apostles were slow — but those mysteries are written in the NT§298
298Acts 1 proves the point: even after Easter they still asked about restoring Israel kingdom.
Peter needed Acts 10 vision before Gentile inclusion clicked.
Christ did teach after the resurrection and by the poured-out Spirit — true.
False: that teaching stayed unwritten; the NT already holds those mysteries in substance for salvation.
Latin · §298
IV. Et certe quod discipuli ista tum non intelligebant, inde manifestum est, quod, etiam postquam Christum a mortuis excitatum viderunt, nesciebant tamen quae futura esset regni ipsius natura; quam suam ignorantiam produnt illa ad Christum quaestione, quae a Luca refertur cap. 1. Actorum, Domine, num hoc tempore restitues regnum Israel? Imo post ipsam Christi ascensionem, Gentium vocatio, & cum populo Dei in unum corpus collectio a Petro non satis intelligebatur, donec de mysterio isto, speciali visione plenius edoceretur, ut videre est Actorum capit. 10. Multa vero illa Christus proculdubio Apostolos docuit, tum viva voce post resurrectionem, tum per Spiritum sanctum abundanter illis superfusum post sessionem ad dexteram Patris. Sed unde Pontificii probant, aut conjiciunt illa scripta non esse, cum mysteria ista quae breviter recensuimus, & longe plura, scripta reperiantur in Evangelistarum scriptis, quae illi proculdubio a Magistro suo hauserant? Itaque, verum est quidem Christum ante mortem habuisse multa dicenda discipulis quae illi ferre non poterant, & verum quoque Christum illa discipulis suis dixisse & aperuisse post resurrectionem. At falsum est ista non fuisse scripta ab Apostolis & Evangelistis, saltem quoad summam atque substantiam, & quantum nobis ad salutem satis est. Sunt enim illa ipsa mysteria quae per totum Novum Testamentum sparsa sunt. Nec adversarii possunt contrarium ullo argumento probare.
John 16 is no warrant for Mass, saints, or images — heretics used the same text§299
299Rome may not map John 16 onto Mass sacrifice, saint-invocation, or image-worship.
Ancient heretics used the same verse to baptize their figments.
Augustine (tract on John) already called out that abuse.
So the Pontifician move repeats the old heretical color, not a new proof.
Latin · §299
V. Multo minus vero possunt nobis fidem facere, multa illa, quae Christus discipulis dicenda habebat, esse traditiones illas, quas nobis hodie obtrudunt de Missae sacrificio, de invocatione Sanctorum, de cultu imaginum, aliisque hujusmodi: certe istud majori cum ratione non affirmant de suis traditionibus, quam prisci haeretici de figmentis & somniis suis, quibus audacia simili authoritatem atque fidem conciliare conabantur: Testatur enim August. tractatu in Joan. 97. veteres haereticos his verbis Christi abusos fuisse, ut figmenta sua populo commendarent, quasi essent illa ipsa quae Christus dicenda discipulis habebat. Omnes, inquit, insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt, audacias figmentorum suorum hac occasione Evangelicae sententiae colorare conantur, ubi Dominus ait, adhuc habeo multa vobis dicere. Unde patet Pontificios imitari palam veteres haereticos, dum ex iisdem Christi verbis pro traditionibus suis non scriptis argumentantur.
John 21: not every deed is written — enough is written for saving knowledge of Christ§300
300We never claimed every deed of Jesus is in the book.
What is claimed: the whole doctrine needful for salvation is written.
John 20 sets the measure: enough signs for knowing Christ unto life.
Unwritten deeds do not open a second equal rule beside Scripture.
Latin · §300
VI. Quod attinet ad alterum locum, ubi Joannes affirmat non omnia fuisse scripta quae fecit Christus, neque mundum capere posse libros qui de iis scribi possent, respondeo neque nos dicere omnia Christi facta scripta fuisse: sed solummodo totam ejus doctrinam, quantum ad salutem sufficit. De gestis vero Christi tantum scriptum est, quantum satis est ut Christum possimus cognoscere, & per notitiam ejus ad vitam aeternam pervenire, ut docet idem Joannes cap. 20. Multa, inquit, alia signa edidit Jesus in conspectu discipulorum suorum quae non sunt scripta in hoc libro. Haec autem scripta sunt ut credatis Jesum esse Christum Dei filium, & ut credentes, vitam habeatis per nomen ejus.
Unwritten signs do not imply unwritten saving dogmas — the same limit cuts both ways§301
301Rome consequence fails: unwritten signs do not prove unwritten saving dogmas.
Better inference: even miracles are certain only from Scripture, not tradition.
Same for words and doctrine — certainty stays in Scripture.
Christ measured both deeds and teaching to what suffices for saving knowledge.
Latin · §301
VII. Porro quaenam est ista consequentia? Multa signa fecit Christus quae scripta non fuerunt, ergo sunt multa dogmata ad salutem necessaria quae sacra Scriptura comprehensa non sunt. Annon potius inde debemus concludere, quod quemadmodum Christus multa quidem signa fecit, quae in Scriptura sacra non memorantur, attamen de signis & miraculis ejus ex traditione nihil certi haberi potest, sed tantum ex Scriptura sacra: Ita quoque de Christi verbis atque doctrina nihil certum atque exploratum, nisi ex eadem Scriptura habemus. Ac praeterea, quod sicut de suis factis Christus tantum scribi voluit, quantum ad salutarem ejus notitiam satis est, ita quoque de suis verbis atque doctrina tantum scriptis mandari curavit, quantum ipsi ad fidem atque salutem nostram sufficere visum est.
1 Cor 11 traditions means the Gospel Paul delivered — not unwritten prayer rules§302
302Rome third text: 1 Cor 11 — keep the traditions as I delivered them.
They hear unwritten church-prayer rules; that needs proof, not assertion.
Tradition here means the whole Gospel and precepts Paul had given — oral or written.
Much already written, more written later in Paul and the NT; leftover rites fit their age, not a second equal rule.
Latin · §302
VIII. Tertius Scripturae locus, unde Pontificii pro traditionibus non scriptis argumentantur habetur: 1 Corinth. 11. ubi sic Paulus Corinthios affatur, Laudo autem vos, fratres, quod omnia mea meministis, & sicut tradidi vobis, traditiones retinetis. Dicunt enim per traditiones intelligi praecepta quaedam de modo orandi in Ecclesia, quae nusquam scripta inveniuntur. At istud non tantum dici, sed probari quoque oportuit. Nos vero dicimus per traditiones intelligi eo loco totam Evangelii doctrinam, & omnia praecepta quae a Paulo acceperant. Nam traditionis nomen, ut ante observatum fuit, generale est, & significat documenta quaevis quocunque modo tradita, seu viva voce, sive etiam scripto. Porro documentorum & institutorum illorum, quae Corinthiis primum a Paulo tradita fuerant, plurima jam tum scripta erant, alia nondum erant scripta, sed postea scripta sunt in ipsis Pauli Epistolis, & aliis Novi Testamenti libris, qui postea exarati sunt. Quaedam forte nunquam scripta fuerunt, quo in genere possunt esse ritus quidam & ceremoniae, quae ad illa tempora accommodatae erant.
Rome: 1 Cor 11 — I received from the Lord what I delivered; the rest I will set in order§303
303Rome's second 1 Cor 11 text: I received from the Lord what I delivered — the rest when I come.
Bellarmine leans on delivered as if it proved unwritten tradition.
He adds that Paul's later arrangements are nowhere written.
Catholics fill the gap with ordination, altar-sacrifice, and sacrament matter and form.
Latin · §303
IX. Nec majorem vim habet alterum testimonium, quod ex eodem capite adversarii desumunt. Apostolus enim, modum expositurus celebrandae Coenae Dominicae, sic sermonem suum orditur, Ego accepi a Domino, quod & tradidi vobis: & tandem concludit his verbis, Cetera quum venero disponam. Ubi primum Bellarminus urget vocem tradidi, quasi faceret aliquid ad traditiones non scriptas. Deinde addit nusquam scriptum inveniri quid Paulus disposuerit. Merito autem Catholicos censere eum non solum disposuisse quae ad ritus & ceremonias pertinebant, sed etiam tradidisse alia graviora, ut de ordinatione Ministrorum, de sacrificio altaris, de aliorum Sacramentorum materia & forma, nec haereticos posse contrarium ostendere.
tradidi is general — the Supper is written; the rest is free order and decency§304
304Bellarmine already grants deliver is a general verb — written or unwritten.
The Supper institution Paul delivers is written in 1 Cor 11 and the Synoptics.
What he will arrange later is free order and decorum, not binding everywhere always.
1 Cor 14's general rule — all things decently and in order — is enough; particulars stay with pastors and churches.
Latin · §304
X. Sed, quod ad prius attinet, mirum est Bellarminum vim facere in voce tradidi, cum agnoscat ipse verbum tradendi generale esse, neque ad solam doctrinam non scriptam pertinere, sed ad doctrinam quoque scripto traditam. Et certe quae ibi tradit Paulus de institutione Coenae Dominicae, non tantum ab illo eo loci scripta sunt, sed a tribus etiam Evangelistis scripta reperiuntur, nempe, a Matthaeo, Marco, atque Luca. Cetera vero quae pollicetur Paulus se dispositurum quum venerit, merito nostri referunt, quicquid contra censeant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, ad ritus & ceremonias, & alia quae spectant decorum & ordinem, quaeque adeo sunt res per se liberae, & quae Ecclesiam ubique & semper non obstringunt, nec apud omnes eodem modo observantur. Et idcirco illa Pauli diatagmata sigillatim scribi necesse non fuit, cum in hoc negotio sufficiat regula Scripturae generalis, nempe, ut in Ecclesia omnia fiant ordine & decenter; particularis vero ordinis dispositio, & illius quod decorum spectat, Pastorum & Ecclesiarum ipsarum judicio & arbitrio relicta sit.
Burden of proof: Bellarmine must prove Mass and Roman sacraments, not demand our disproof§305
305He may not shift the burden: we need not disprove Mass and Roman sacrament forms.
He argues; we answer — he must prove his fill-ins.
Denial of his propositions is enough until he demonstrates them.
Show that Paul ordered Mass sacrifice and those sacraments we call spurious — or drop the claim.
Latin · §305
XI. Iniquum est autem, & contra disputationis leges, quod Bellarminus a nobis exigit, nempe, ut ostendamus caetera illa quae Paulus dispositurum se promittit, non esse graviora quaedam de sacrificio, scilicet, altaris, & Sacramentorum Ecclesiae Romanae materia & forma. Cum enim hoc in loco Bellarminus argumentetur, nos vero respondeamus, Bellarmini est probare quae dicit, nobis vero sufficit propositiones illius negare, & nostras asserere. Itaque non debuit simpliciter dicere, sed demonstrare Paulum aliquid ordinasse de sacrificio Missae, & illis Ecclesiae Romanae Sacramentis, quae nos adulterina & notha judicamus.
Cetera cum venero: lesser order left for an apostolic visit, not Mass dogma§306
306His conjectures weigh nothing — and the text itself undercuts them.
After fixing Supper institution and rebuking abuses, Paul adds: the rest when I come.
That rest is lesser business needing his presence and local judgment.
Not a coded deferral of Mass sacrifice and sacrament matter and form.
Latin · §306
XII. Igitur Bellarmini conjecturas & suspiciones nihil omnino moramur: Et tamen facile possumus ostendere, quod Bellarminus affirmat nos ostendere non posse, nempe, Paulum ibi nihil innuere de sacrificio Missae, & Sacramentorum materia & forma, aliisque gravioribus. Nam ipse loquendi modus, quo Apostolus utitur, satis indicat ipsum agere de rebus quae tanti momenti non sunt. Postquam enim institutionem Coenae Dominicae breviter exposuit, & reprehendit quosdam graviores abusus, qui apud Corinthios in celebratione illius obtinebant, subjungit verba illa, de quibus quaestio est, Cetera cum venero disponam. Ubi quivis qui textum attente considerabit, agnoscet facile Paulum innuere per caetera illa quaedam minoris momenti quam ea quae praecesserunt, & quae scribi nihil opus fuit, & quorum ordinatio in aliud tempus potuit sine periculo remitti, & videbatur requirere praesentiam Apostoli, qui praesens Ecclesiae Corinthiacae statum consideraret, & perpensis omnibus circumstantiis, statueret quid facto esset opus, & quae disciplina, quis ordo, in Ecclesia illa sequendus esset.
If cetera were Rome's necessary rites, Paul would already have given the Corinthians all needful§307
307Retorsion: if cetera meant altar-sacrifice and sacrament forms, those were still missing when Paul wrote.
But Rome calls those first necessities — while 1 Cor 1 and 15 say the Corinthians already had every word, knowledge, and saving Gospel.
Paul had given a complete faith-doctrine; he hid nothing needful.
So either those Roman traditions are not necessary, or they are not what Paul postponed.
Latin · §307
XIII. Sed, quod majorem vim habet, & adversario potest os obstruere, si per caetera illa, quorum Paulus ordinationem in aliud tempus differt, intelligantur ea quae sentiunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, nempe, sacrificium altaris, ordinatio ministrorum, & alia de Sacramentorum materia & forma, tum quaedam necessaria nondum fuerunt Corinthiis tradita, quum Apostolus hanc epistolam scriberet. Dicunt enim Pontificii sua haec esse in primis necessaria. Sed omnia necessaria Corinthiis abunde ab Apostolo tradita fuerant prius quam hanc epistolam ad illos mitteret, ut patet ex epistolae hujus capite primo, ubi Paulus dicit Corinthios in omnibus divites factos fuisse in Christo, in omni verbo, & in omni scientia. Et capite decimo quinto affirmat Evangelium quod praedicaverat Corinthiis, quod acceperant, & in quo stabant, ejusmodi esse, ut per illud servarentur, siquidem illud retinerent, qua ratione ipsis praedicaverat. Unde manifestum est Apostolum integram & perfectam doctrinam illis antea tradidisse neque quicquam eos celasse quod ad salutem & fidem necessarium judicaret. Igitur oportet, ut, vel Pontificii concedant suas illas traditiones de sacrificio altaris & Sacramentorum materia & forma necessarias non esse, vel agnoscant, non ad illa pertinere, quae Paulus, quum scriberet Corinthiis, nondum tradiderat, sed in posterum se apud ipsos dispositurum esse pollicebatur.
Absurd: Paul writes about head-coverings yet postpones the chief part of Christian worship§308
308Even without 1 Cor 1/15, the timeline is absurd.
Would Paul plant a church and omit the chief sacrificial sum of Christian religion?
Yet he writes now about men's and women's attire in the assembly.
And postpone sacrament institution — Rome's supposed chief part of worship — for later? Preposterous.
Latin · §308
XIV. Sed, etiamsi Paulus diserte non significaret se jam Corinthiis omnia necessaria tradidisse, quis in animum posset inducere Paulum, quum Corinthiis Evangelium praedicaret, & Ecclesiam apud ipsos constitueret, nihil ipsis tradidisse de sacrificio illo in quo religionis Christianae summa constituenda est, & pars ejus longe praecipua? Et quam praepostera esset ista diligentia Corinthiis scribere de habitu quo viri & feminae debeant in publicis coetibus adesse, in aliud vero tempus differre institutionem de Sacramentis, & eo quod in cultu divino pars praecipua putatur?
Rome's third text: 2 Thess 2 — hold traditions by word or by letter§309
309Third Rome text: 2 Thess 2 — stand and hold the traditions, by word or by letter.
They hear two equal bins: written epistles and oral-only deposits.
Both, they say, must be held alike.
So unwritten apostolic tradition stands beside Scripture.
Latin · §309
XV. Tertium argumentum pro traditionibus Pontificii sumunt ex illis Pauli verbis quae habentur cap. 2. posterioris ad Thessalonicenses, Itaque, fratres, state & tenete traditiones quas didicistis, sive per sermonem, sive per epistolam nostram. Nam, inquiunt, Paulus ibi traditiones quasdam opponit doctrinae scriptae, & duo proponit genera documentorum quae Thessalonicenses ab ipso acceperant, alia, scilicet, quae scripto consignaverat & epistolis suis inseruerat, alia vero quae viva tantum voce ipsis commendaverat. Et tamen utraque vult pariter teneri.
Reply: then oral and written both bound hearers — now only Scripture locks apostolic substance§310
310True for Thessalonians then: some Gospel by voice, some by letter — equal reverence while Paul preached.
The NT canon was still unfinished — granted.
False now: that apostolic substance stayed unwritten, or that certainty comes outside Scripture.
Hearers then had Paul's living voice; after the Apostles, only their Spirit-sealed writings bind the church's perpetual need — no parallel unwritten precept bank remains.
Latin · §310
XVI. Respondeo, verum est quidem Apostolum, quum haec scriberet, non omnia quae ad doctrinam Evangelii pertinent, scripto tradidisse Thessalonicensibus, sed quaedam tantum viva voce, quaedam etiam scripto, & utraque pari reverentia a Thessalonicensibus suscipi debuisse: siquidem non minor fides Apostolo praedicanti, quam scribenti adhibenda erat. Ultro quoque fatemur fieri posse ut tunc tota Evangelii doctrina, neque ab Apostolo, neque ab aliis scripto mandata esset, quoniam Novi Testamenti Canon nondum constitutus & consummatus erat. Sed inde non sequitur totam Apostolicae praedicationis substantiam scripto postea mandatam non fuisse, tam ab ipso Paulo, quam ab Evangelistis & Apostolis reliquis: aut jam aliquid certi de Apostolica praedicatione posse aliter, quam ex Scriptura sacra haberi. Thessalonicenses quidem, qui Apostolum praesentem viderant & audiverant, de vera Evangelii doctrina certi esse poterant, non tantum ex Scripturae libris qui tum extabant, sed ex viva Apostoli voce quam ipsi perceperant. Sed ex quo Apostoli e vivis excesserunt, de doctrina eorum aliter certi esse non possumus, quam ex eorum scriptis, quibus Spiritus sanctus consignari voluit quicquid necessarium est ad perpetuum Ecclesiae usum. Quae ergo Apostolus partim per sermonem, partim per epistolam, tradiderat Thessalonicensibus, Apostolorum epistolis & Evangeliis postea fuerunt comprehensa, ut, Apostolis amplius viva voce non docentibus, inde salutis doctrina hauriretur. Itaque ex his Apostoli verbis non sequitur ullo modo etiamnum extare certas quasdam traditiones, unde petenda sint quaedam Apostoli praecepta, quae in Scripturis sacris non continentur.
Bellarmine: Paul taught when Antichrist would come — Augustine says we cannot know it§311
311Bellarmine's press: not everything Paul taught later landed in writing.
2 Thess: you know what restrains — he had said these things when present.
The calendar of Antichrist's coming is nowhere written.
Augustine Civ. Dei 20: hearers knew by living voice; we who did not hear cannot know that point.
Latin · §311
XVII. Sed instat Bellarminus, non omnia quae Apostolus docuit scriptis postea fuisse comprehensa. Nam, inquit, Apostolus in hoc ipso capite indicat se docuisse Thessalonicenses quando Antichristus venturus esset, & quid adventum ejus moraretur. Et nunc, inquit, quid detineat scitis. Et nunc retinet, quia quum essem apud vos, haec dicebam vobis. Hoc autem nusquam scriptum est, quando, scilicet, sit venturus Antichristus. Quare beatus Augustinus lib. 20. de Civit. Dei, dicit illos scivisse quod Apostolus docuerat viva voce, nos autem non posse id scire qui Apostolum non audivimus. Ergo non omnia scripta sunt quae Apostolus dixit.
Reply: only faith-and-salvation necessities were written — Antichrist's hour is not one§312
312We never claimed every apostolic sentence is in the canon — only all needful to faith and salvation.
Nothing of that saving kind stayed oral-only.
Private revelations to some need not bind the whole church or reach parchment.
Antichrist's clock, if Paul knew it, is that private kind — Rome will not call the hour salvific.
Latin · §312
XVIII. Respondeo primo, nos non dicere omnia & singula quae dixit Apostolus scripto mandata esse, sed duntaxat omnia quae necessaria sunt ad fidem & salutem. Hujus generis nihil ab Apostolo viva voce traditum & praedicatum fuit quod in sacris literis scriptum non reperiatur. At dicere nolumus Apostolum non communicasse cum quibusdam singulares quasdam revelationes, quae ad communem totius Ecclesiae salutem non spectant, quae quidem revelationes postea scriptae non fuerint. Quod si Paulus habuit ex peculiari revelatione quando venturus erat Antichristus, illudque docuit Thessalonicenses, certe hoc non ad prius illud genus, sed ad posterius pertinet. Nec enim, puto, dicent ipsi Pontificii rem esse quae sit ad salutem necessaria scire tempus & horam adventus Antichristi.
Retorsion: tradition is as silent as Scripture on when Antichrist comes§313
313Ask them: can the whole apostolic doctrine be had from Scripture and tradition together? They will say yes.
Then teach from tradition the Antichrist timetable Paul allegedly gave.
Tradition is as mute as Scripture here.
If that silence does not wreck their tradition-rule, it does not wreck sola Scriptura either.
Latin · §313
XIX. Sed, quod maxime notandum est, rogo Pontificios annon ex Scriptura & traditione simul integra Apostoli doctrina haberi possit? Proculdubio istud non negabunt. Doceant ergo nos ex traditione quando dixit Apostolus Thessalonicensibus venturum esse Antichristum. Certe hic non minus tacet traditio, quam Scriptura sacra. Itaque, si quis est hac in re defectus, ejus non minus traditio, quam Scriptura sacra incusari potest. Si vero hoc non obstat quominus tota Apostoli doctrina possit haberi ex traditione, non obstabit etiam quo minus possit haberi ex Scriptura.
Paul taught that Antichrist comes before the Lord — not the date; the restrainer is in the letter§314
314Paul did not teach a date — only that Antichrist comes before the Lord's return, and what delays him.
He says you know what restrains — not you know the hour of the man of sin.
The same restrainer is repeated in the letter itself until he is taken out of the way.
Oral clarity may have helped hearers; tradition still adds nothing beyond the written hint.
Latin · §314
XX. Sed quod ad rem ipsam attinet, Apostolus non innuit se docuisse Thessalonicenses quando venturus esset Antichristus, sed simpliciter illum venturum esse ante secundum Domini adventum, ac praeterea quid tardaret Antichristi adventum. Et enim non dicit, scitis quo tempore venturus est homo peccati, sed simpliciter, nunc quid detineat scitis. Quid autem esset illud, non tantum viva voce docuerat ante Apostolus, sed postea repetit & confirmat in hac ipsa epistola, Tantum enim, inquit, qui nunc retinet, retinebit, usque dum e medio tollatur: Et tunc revelabitur iniquus ille. Obscure ista quidem, quae forsan clarius & uberius viva voce explicuerat Paulus, sed quicquid sit traditio nihil hic ad Scripturam adjicit, neque ex ea habemus quicquam amplius de iis quae paullo innuit Apostolus.
Augustine's line helps us: without the written word we cannot know the apostolic point§315
315Bellarmine's Augustine citation cuts his own way.
If it is not written, we who never heard Paul cannot know it.
So Augustine denies certain knowledge of apostolic preaching from tradition alone.
Certainty rests on sacred Scripture — our claim, not Rome's oral bank.
Latin · §315
XXI. Locus autem Augustini, quem pro se affert Bellarminus, mirifice pro nobis facit. Nam ibi dicit Augustinus quando hoc scriptum non est nos non posse id scire, cum Apostolum ipsi docentem non audiverimus. Unde manifestum est Augustinum non putasse quicquam certi posse haberi de Apostolorum praedicatione, ex traditione sola, sed tantum ex Scriptura sacra, quod certe nos volumus.
Rome's next reason: heretics of every age rejected traditions — so contempt marks heresy§316
316Beyond the texts, Rome argues from reason.
First: heretics in every age despised traditions.
So rejecting tradition is treated as a heresy-mark.
They list Valentinians, Marcionites, Donatists, Arians, Eunomians, Nestorius, Eutyches, Aerians, and more.
Latin · §316
XXII. Sed praeter Scripturae sacrae testimonia, quibus Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae traditionis non scriptae authoritatem fulcire annituntur, in eundem finem proferunt argumenta quaedam ex ratione ducta. Et primo quidem argumentum ducunt ex consensu haereticorum in traditionibus contemnendis. Nam, inquiunt, haeretici omnium aetatum traditiones rejecerunt. Ideoque traditionum contemptus, & rejectio est veluti haereseos nota & indicium. Quod autem haeretici traditiones semper rejecerint, probant per inductionem & exemplum Valentinianorum, Marcionitarum, Donatistarum, Arianorum, Eunomianorum, Nestorii, Eutychetis, Aerianorum, & aliorum quorundam.
Reply: heretics can mix true with false — rejecting tradition is not automatically heresy§317
317Heresy is not every opinion a heretic holds.
False teachers can still affirm many truths.
Even shared rejection of traditions would not make rejecting them heresy.
They were heretics for perverting Scripture — not for under-valuing tradition; else we must also damn their confession that Jesus is Christ.
Latin · §317
XXIII. Respondeo, quicquid haeretici sentiunt, protinus tamen haereticum non esse. Nam haeretici possunt cum falsis dogmatibus multa vera amplecti. Itaque, licet haeretici illi, quos adversarii recensent, traditiones communi consensu rejecissent, non inde sequeretur tamen haeresin esse traditiones rejicere. Nam haeretici quidem illi fuerunt, sed non in eo quod non satis tribuebant traditionibus, verum in eo quod contra Scripturae authoritatem perversa & impia dogmata defendebant. Alioqui, si quicquid illi senserunt damnandum est, credendum non est Jesum esse Christum, & pro Christo patiendum esse, quod illi quoque admiserunt.
Bellarmine is wrong: many heretics sold unwritten tradition — Irenaeus and Jerome say so§318
318Bellarmine's premise fails: not every heretic dumped tradition.
Some sneered at unwritten tradition while twisting Scripture; many others sold oral tradition as cover for figments.
Irenaeus: the Marcionites and Valentinians — Bellarmine's alleged tradition-foes — fled Scripture for living-voice tradition.
Jerome and Augustine: heretics forge apostolic tradition and abuse John 16 the same way Rome does now.
Latin · §318
XXIV. Deinde falsum est quod sumit Bellarminus, nempe, haereticos omnes traditiones rejecisse. Nam fuerunt quidem haeretici nonnulli qui traditiones non scriptas contempserunt, & soli Scripturae sese inhaerere profitebantur, quamvis varie illam corrumperent; sed fuerunt quoque multi haeretici qui traditiones quasdam non scriptas venditabant, & eo fuco atque colore utebantur, ut figmenta & somnia sua apud populum commendarent. Id docet Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. Haeretici, inquit, resistunt & repugnant saluti suae: quum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, & quia varie sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem; non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem. Imo haeretici illi, quos hoc in loco perstringit Irenaeus, sunt ipsi Marcionitae, & Valentiniani, aliique similes, quos tanquam traditionum hostes producit Bellarminus. Quibus consona docet Hieronymus commentar. in Aggaeum, De haereticis enim loquens, Quae, inquit, absque authoritate & testimoniis Scripturarum, quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt & confingunt, percutit gladius Dei. Et supra retulimus Augustini verba, quibus testatur veteres haereticos abusos fuisse, ad traditiones suas confirmandas, illis ipsis Christi verbis, quibus Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae simili modo hodie abutuntur, nempe, Adhuc habeo multa vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modo.
Epiphanius: heretics boasted apostolic tradition — so Rome cannot tar us with their company§319
319Epiphanius: Ptolemaeus sold 'apostolic tradition by succession' to Flora.
Semi-Arians likewise boasted a father-to-son faith inheritance from the Apostles.
Worst heretics waved unwritten tradition as cover — just as Rome does.
So they cannot brand our rejection of their traditions as heretic-company.
Latin · §319
XXV. Epiphanius vero haeresi 33. speciatim idem docet de Ptolemaeo quodam haeretico, ubi verba ejus refert ex epistola ad Floram, cui pollicetur fore ut veritatem disceret eorum quae docebat, postquam dignata esset Apostolica traditione, quam, inquit, per successionem nos quoque accepimus. Haeresi autem 73. refert epistolam Semi-Arianorum in qua gloriantur se amplecti traditam a patribus fidem, & se velut haereditatem quandam servare eam fidem, quam ex Apostolicis temporibus, per patres, qui in medio diu usque ad eos fuerunt, susceperant. Non est ergo, quod Pontificii nostrum cum haereticis consensum nobis exprobrent in rejiciendis traditionibus, cum pessimi quique haeretici de quibusdam traditionibus non scriptis gloriati sint, & eo fuco sua perniciosa figmenta tegere voluerint, ut hodie Pontificii.
Rome: unwritten tradition is natural — Jews, pagan states, Pythagoras and Socrates§320
320Next Rome proof: every nation runs on unwritten custom.
Jews keep extra-scriptural traditions; Athens, Sparta, and the Gauls used unwritten law.
Pythagoras and Socrates taught much and wrote nothing.
Bellarmine: nature itself cries that unwritten tradition is necessary or most useful.
Latin · §320
XXVI. Praeterea Pontificii, traditiones non scriptas necessarias esse probant ex more omnium gentium. Nam primo, inquiunt, Judaei traditiones aliquas extra Scripturam habuerunt, & etiamnum habent. Deinde omnes profanae Respublicae magna ex parte legibus non scriptis reguntur, ut olim Athenienses, & Lacedaemonii, & etiam antiqui Galli, sicut testantur Caesar, Thucydides, & Plutarchus. Ac praeterea Philosophi nobilissimi & celeberrimi, Pythagoras & Socrates, cum plurima docuerint, nihil tamen scripserunt. Unde concludit Bellarminus naturam ipsam quodammodo clamare traditiones non scriptas necessarias, vel certe utilissimas esse.
Jewish tradition is no model — Christ rebuked it as voiding God's law§321
321Yes, Jews had unwritten traditions — Christ called them out for voiding God's law by them.
Isaiah applied: in vain they worship me with commandments of men.
God disapproved; Christ rebuked — no rule for the church.
Today's Moses-mouth boasts show how well oral tradition preserves truth: trifles and blasphemous dreams.
Latin · §321
XXVII. Respondeo, quod ad Judaeos attinet, illos quidem jam olim habuisse traditiones non scriptas. At quales essent & quanti faciendae docet Christus, dum Judaeis exprobrat illos traditionibus suis legem Dei & ejus mandata abrogasse & rejecisse, dumque iis applicat verba Dei apud Isaiam, Frustra colunt me mandatis hominum. Itaque habuerunt quidem traditiones suas, sed Deo improbante, & increpante Christo, tantum abest ut eorum exemplum nobis imitandum sit & habendum pro regula. Quanta vero sit vis traditionis non scriptae, & quam aptum sit medium ad propagandam atque conservandam veritatem, manifestum facere possunt hodiernae Judaeorum traditiones, quas ex ore Mosis se habere gloriantur, cum tamen non sint nisi merae nugae, & impia, putidissima, ac saepe blasphema somnia.
Pagan unwritten civil law does not prove unwritten faith-rules§322
322Athens and Sparta may run on unwritten civil custom — that lane is reason's.
Faith and worship come by revelation, not civic prudence.
Memory alone is not a safe vault for revealed things.
So wisdom had inspired men put them in writing for an uncorrupted church.
Latin · §322
XXVIII. Porro profanarum Rerumpublicarum exempla nihil moramur. Possunt illae quidem uti optime legibus non scriptis, in iis quae ad civilem gubernationem pertinent, quaeque adeo ab humanae rationis judicio pendent. At inde non sequitur parem esse rationem eorum quae pertinent ad fidem & cultum divinum. Cum enim ista habeantur ex divina revelatione, nec in iis quicquam ratio perspiciat, hominum curae atque memoriae non satis tuto committi potuerunt: ideoque divinae sapientiae consultum visum est, ut a viris divinitus inspiratis scripto mandarentur, quo facilius in Ecclesia possent incorrupta servari.
Rome: if all were written, the Church would lose her privilege of secret mysteries§323
323Third argument: church dignity / privilege.
Romans 3: Jews held the oracles — so the church alone holds true religion's secrets.
If everything is written, that privilege vanishes.
Heretics, Jews, and pagans would know the mysteries as well as we and our bishops.
Latin · §323
XXIX. Tertium argumentum Pontificii sumunt ab Ecclesiae dignitate. Nam, inquiunt, ut olim Judaei excellabant omnibus nationibus, quia credita erant illis eloquia Dei, ut dicit Paulus cap. 3. Epist. ad Rom. ita nunc praestat Ecclesia Christi omnibus sectis, quod ipsa sola noverit omnia mysteria verae religionis, & conscia sit secretorum sponsi. At, si omnia essent scripta, nullum esset Ecclesiae privilegium. Nam nihil minus scirent haeretici, & Judaei, & Pagani de mysteriis fidei nostrae, quam nos ipsi, atque antistites nostri.
Reply: the church keeps written oracles — privilege is faith, not secret textbook knowledge§324
324Same privilege as Israel's: the oracles are committed to the church — and they came in writing.
She is guardian and depositary of Scripture; outsiders borrow knowledge from her.
Knowing the textbook is not believing the mysteries.
A Muslim can learn the whole Christian corpus without the faithful's privilege — just as one can read the Koran without believing Muhammad.
Latin · §324
XXX. Respondeo, ut olim privilegium Judaeorum erat, quod ipsis eloquia Dei credita erant, ita quoque Ecclesiae Christianae privilegium est, quod ipsi commissa sunt eadem eloquia. Sed, ut Judaei illa scripto consignata habebant, ita quoque Ecclesiae Christianae scripto tradita sunt. Est ergo Ecclesia Scripturae sacrae & doctrinae coelestis in ea contentae, custos & depositaria. Quod si quam infideles ejus notitiam habent, ab Ecclesia illam mutantur. Deinde distinguenda est duplex mysteriorum divinorum notitia. Aliud est enim nosse quid Scriptura doceat, & quae sint religionis Christianae mysteria, & aliud ista mysteria credere, & certa fide amplecti: Potest enim aliquis in doctrina Christiana versatissimus esse & eruditissimus, qui tamen doctrinae Christianae non credat, sed occultam in corde tegat infidelitatem. Jam autem Ecclesiae Christianae privilegium proprie non consistit in priori illa notitia, quae non aliud est, quam simplex apprehensio illius quod dicitur, sed in illa notitia quae fidem quoque includit, & persuasionem certam illius, quod a mente nostra apprehenditur. Ut enim Alcoranum legere & discere possunt, neque tamen credant Mahumeto, & ejus Alcorano: Ita quoque Mahumetanus, & quilibet alius infidelis Scripturam legere potest, & totum Religionis Christianae corpus ediscere, neque tamen propterea religioni Christianae fidem adhibebit, & gaudebit privilegio fidelium, qui Christum & Evangelium ejus vere norunt & amplectuntur.
If bare knowledge were the privilege, Rome's own theology books already destroy it§325
325If privilege were mere textbook grasp, nothing should ever have been written — only perpetual oral handoff.
Rome already admits the mysteries sit clear in countless scholastic books.
Unbelievers can learn the system from those theologians even if they miss it in the Prophets and Apostles.
So their imaginary privilege dies either way — written Scripture or written Doctors.
Latin · §325
XXXI. Quod si habeatur ratio prioris istius notitiae, quae tota in simplici quadam apprehensione posita est, certe ut illa quoque Ecclesiae propria maneret, nec infideles ulli ejus participes essent, doctrina Christiana a nullo unquam debuit scripto mandari, ac chartis committi, sed viva tantum voce in Ecclesia perpetuo tradi. At quamvis Pontificii praetendant non omnia fidei mysteria ab Apostolis & viris Sanctis scripta esse, fatentur tamen illa in quamplurimis Doctorum suorum libris scripta reperiri, idque sigillatim, clare & dilucide, ut a legente quovis percipi possint. Ac proinde, quamvis infideles ex scriptis Propheticis & Apostolicis non possent totam doctrinam Christianam haurire, facile tamen illam discere possunt ex Theologorum Christianorum libris. Et sic non minus concidit imaginarium istud Ecclesiae privilegium, quam si omnia in libris Prophetarum & Apostolorum perscripta sint, sicut nos contendimus.
Rome: some Mass mysteries need silence — so they must not be written for the world§326
326Last dignity argument: some mysteries demand silence.
Scripture is read by the whole world — so Rome says those secrets must stay out of it.
Unbaptized may not watch the tremendous Mass mysteries.
Therefore, they ask, how may the same things be delivered to them in writing?
Latin · §326
XXXII. Denique Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae pro traditione non scripta argumentum desumunt a dignitate mysteriorum religionis Christianae. Nam inquiunt, sunt mysteria multa quae silentium requirunt, nec decet ut in Scripturis, quae toti mundo leguntur, explicentur. Si enim ad videnda tremenda mysteria Missae non licet admittere ullos non baptizatos, quomodo licebit eis eadem scripto tradere?
Reply: superstition hides mysteries — Christian truth is not ashamed§327
327Reply: hiding mysteries is superstition's habit — pagans barred the crowd.
Christian truth is not ashamed; Tertullian: it blushes only at being hidden.
Prudence still holds — milk for babes, solid food for the mature; do not cast pearls.
Writing the Gospel is not casting pearls: Rome's own summas and catechisms already publish every Mass mystery Bellarmine calls tremendous.
Latin · §327
XXXIII. Respondeo, proprium esse superstitionis occultare sua mysteria, & plebem ab eis arcere, ut Ethnici olim faciebant. Sed religionem Christianam sui ipsius non pudet; ac, ut ait Tertullianus, veritas Christi nihil erubescit nisi abscondi. Itaque religio Christiana nemini sui notitiam invidet, sed ad eam ipsos infideles invitat. Fateor quidem hac in re prudentia aliqua opus esse. Nam monet Christus sanctum non esse dandum canibus, nec margaritas porcis objiciendas esse. Aliter etiam agendum cum parvulis in Christo, aliter cum perfectis. Et prioribus quidem lac praebendum est, posterioribus, cibus solidus reservandus. Itaque Pastorum atque Doctorum est hac in re auditorum suorum rationem habere, & doctrinam Evangelii, quam ex Scripturis hauriunt, dextre & ad captum eorum, qui audiunt, proponere, nec temere religionis Christianae mysteria profanis & impiis ridenda exponere. Sed contra prudentiam istam, a Christo ipso praeceptam, non peccarunt Evangelistae & Apostoli nostri, dum integrum Evangelium breviter & summatim scriptis suis consignarunt. Nam illa ipsa scripta proponi & exponi possunt aliis ad modum lactis, aliis vero ad modum solidioris cibi. Neque quicquid scriptum est, protinus censeri debet porcis objectum esse, & profanorum sibilis & cachinnis expositum. Alioquin ipsi Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae sanctum canibus quotidie darent, & margaritas porcis objicerent, si quidem illi quotidie Theologicas summas, & Catecheses edunt, & religionis Christianae mysteria quaelibet scripto docent, & explicant, quam clare & aperte possunt. Quod certe si ipsis licet, inviolata manente dignitate mysteriorum Evangelicorum, cur idem non licuerit Apostolis & Evangelistis? Si vero non licuit, nec decuit Apostolos scripto explicare omnia fidei mysteria, cur idem hodie magis licebit scholasticis & Theologis Pontificiis, qui omnia Pontificiae Theologiae dogmata scripto docent, & illa ipsa, quae dicit Bellarminus, tremenda Missae mysteria, quorum nullum prorsus est quod scriptum non reperiatur in Pontificiorum libris.
Name the mysteries too sublime for Scripture — image-cult is not greater than the Trinity§328
328Challenge: name the mysteries too sublime for Scripture.
Creation, judgment, resurrection, incarnation, two natures, Trinity — already written.
Image-cult, saint-invocation, papal succession are not higher than Trinity and the cross.
Madness: Apostolic writing would degrade tradition, yet ordinary doctors print it daily.
Latin · §328
XXXIV. Deinde nobis edant Pontificii quaenam sint illa mysteria, quorum dignitas & majestas tanta est, ut non debuerint in sacris Scripturis explicari. Nam certe mysterium de mundi creatione, & ejus interitu, de resurrectione corporum, de Filii Dei incarnatione, de duabus in Christo naturis, de tribus personis in una divina essentia, & plura ejusmodi, in Scripturis exposita sunt. An vero Pontificii proferre possunt mysteria his augustiora atque sublimiora? Et num dogma de cultu imaginum, de invocatione Sanctorum, & de successione Papae in locum Petri Apostoli, sunt aliquid excellius, & majori veneratione dignum, quam personarum trinitas in Deo, generis humani redemptio per mortem Dei incarnati pro nobis, ut haec quidem scribi potuerint, illa vero non decuerint scribi? Denique quis est ille furor existimare, non fuisse de dignitate traditionum, ut ab Apostolis scriberentur, istam vero illarum dignitatem non violari, cum centies a gregariis Doctoribus scriptis mandantur, atque omnibus inculcantur.
Theology begins from God — He is its chief object§329
329Theology takes its name from God — and He is its chief object.
So the right start for theological work is God Himself.
Latin · §329
I. Ut Deus nomen Theologiae dedit, ita ejus est praecipuum objectum. Idcirco res Theologicas tractare aggredienti ab ipso Deo sumendum est exordium.
Two heads about God: whether He is, and what He is§330
330Two heads: AN SIT (whether God is) and QUID SIT (what God is).
Reason says start with whether He is.
Latin · §330
II. Quae autem de Deo traduntur ad duo capita revocari possunt. Vel enim spectant Dei existentiam, & quaestionem AN SIT: vel Dei naturam atque essentiam, & quaestionem QUID SIT. A priori ratio postulat ut incipiamus.
First theorem: God is — eternal mind, cause of all§331
331First theorem under all religion: God is.
Eternal mind — best, most powerful, most wise — cause and ruler of all.
Hebrews 11:6: the one who comes to God must believe that He is.
Latin · §331
III. Primum ergo totius Theologiae theorema, cui omnis religio superstruitur, illud est, Esse Deum, hoc est mentem aeternam, optimam, potentissimam & sapientissimam, quae sit causa rerum omnium, & a qua omnia pendeant & regantur. Juxta quod dicit Apostolus Hebr. 11.6. Accedentem ad Deum oportet credere, quod est.
God's existence is not revelation-only — nature presses it on the senses§332
332This principle is not revelation-only — nature itself drums it in.
Romans 1:20: everlasting power and divinity seen in the things made.
Job: ask beasts, birds, earth, and fish — the Lord's hand made them.
Latin · §332
IV. Porro principium istud non est de genere eorum, quae ex sola revelatione & Dei verbo habentur: sed res est, quam tota rerum natura inculcat, & nostris pene sensibus ingerit. Nam ut ait Apostolus Rom. 1.20. Invisibilia Dei sempiterna scil. ejus virtus & divinitas a creatione mundi, per ea, quae facta sunt intellecta, conspiciuntur. Quo spectat etiam Job 12.7-9. Interroga, inquit, jumenta, & docebunt te: aut aves, & indicabunt tibi: aut terram alloquere, & docebit te; & ipsos pisces maris, & tibi narrabunt. Quis ignorat quod haec omnia manus Domini fecerit?
Even without the Word, some knowledge of God reaches nearly all peoples§333
333Even without the Word, some God-knowledge reaches nearly every people.
Almost no nation lacks some religion and some cult of divinity.
Conscience terrors drag even the most lost toward God's tribunal.
Latin · §333
V. Unde factum, ut etiam citra revelationem, qua Deus seipsum in verbo cognoscendum praebuit, nonnulla Dei cognitio ad omnes fere homines promanarit. Siquidem nulla, aut pene nulla gens est, cui non sit aliqua religionis forma, & qualiscunque divinitatis cultus. Nec aliunde proveniunt conscientiae terrores & morsus, qui etiam improbissimos & perditissimos quosque, qui omnem Dei timorem excutere conantur, quamvis invitos protrahunt ad ipsius tribunal, & divinae vindictae horrorem illis incutiunt.
Saving knowledge is rare — yet even "atheist" nations keep a sense of deity§334
334True saving knowledge is rare; most nations miss the true God.
Ephesians 2:12: without God in the world — yet a sense of deity remains.
Idolatry proves it: proud man would rather bow to stones than admit no God.
Latin · §334
VI. Non est quidem negandum, veram & salutarem Dei cognitionem apud paucos admodum homines reperiri: Verumque Deum fuisse, & etiamnum esse, plerisque gentibus ignotum, quo nomine dicuntur ab Apostolo ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, sine Deo in mundo, Eph. 2.12. Sed hoc non obstat, quo minus apud illas ipsas gentes, quas Paulus Atheismi quodammodo intitulat, numinis tamen sensus aliquis remanserit, licet multis & foedis erroribus implicatus. Cujus rei argumentum est illa ipsa idololatria, qua sese gentes profanae polluerunt, & relicto creatore, creaturas varias, & ipsa animi sui figmenta coluerunt. Oportet enim ut alte hominibus impressus sit iste divinitatis sensus, quandoquidem homo, plus satis alioqui ad superbiam pronus & fastu tumens, maluerit se abjicere infra bestias, & colere lapides & ligna, quam nullum plane Deum agnoscere.
World-contemplation can reach God — and His existence is demonstrable§335
335World-contemplation can reach some knowledge of God — sin's darkness does not block that path for most.
Open question: are the reasons necessary or only probable?
Verdict with nearly all theologians, ours and Rome's: God's existence is demonstrable by necessary arguments.
Latin · §335
VII. Igitur omnino certum est ex contemplatione Mundi, & eorum quae in eo videntur, homines posse ad Dei cognitionem pervenire: nec obstitisse tenebras humanae menti per peccatum offusas, quin maxima pars hominum, hac via, & natura duce, qualemcunque numinis notitiam adeptasit. Sed quaeritur, cujus generis sint rationes illae, quibus ex operum naturae consideratione ostenditur esse Deum. An scilicet sint necessariae, an vero probabiles tantum? Et an Dei existentia sit demonstrabilis ingenio humano, an vero duntaxat illam assequi possit conjecturis nonnullis, & probabilibus quibusdam argumentis. In hac autem sumus sententia, cum omnibus fere Theologis tam nostris quam Pontificiis, Dei existentiam rem esse, quae demonstrari potest, & necessariis argumentis evinci.
God is not shown a priori from causes — but a posteriori from effects§336
336Two demonstration modes: from causes, or from effects.
God cannot be shown a priori from a higher cause — there is none.
He is shown a posteriori from effects — and those arguments convince, not merely persuade.
Latin · §336
VIII. Sed cum duplex sit demonstratio apud Dialecticos, altera quae ex causis effectum, altera vero quae contra ex effectis causam monstrat: manifestum est, priori demonstrationis modo non posse doceri Deum esse; cum nec Dei, nec ejus existentiae, possit in ullo genere causa proferri: sed demonstrari potest posteriori modo, nimirum ex effectis. Nec enim existimandum est, argumenta quibus probatur esse Deum, rem aliquatenus relinquere dubiam, & suadere tantum, non convincere.
One path: from the visible world deduce the God who made it§337
337Best shown by sample arguments that carry their own necessity.
From what the eyes meet in this visible world, deduce the God who made it.
One demonstration path is enough — chasing every proof would be endless.
Latin · §337
IX. Id autem melius ostendi non potest, quam prolatis exemplis ejusmodi argumentorum, quae ex se suam produnt evidentiam & necessitatem. Itaque qua ratione commodius id fieri posse existimamus, ex iis quae in hoc mundo aspectabili nostris oculis obversantur, per necessariam & evidentem consequentiam deducere conabimur, Deum esse qui ista produxit: eaque quasi unica demonstratione contenti erimus. Nam argumenta singula persequi, quibus probatur esse summum aliquod numen, infiniti esset operis, & supra nostri instituti modum.
First lay principles — foundations for physical and metaphysical evidence§338
338Before the proof: lay principles as foundations.
Aim at the evidence physics and metaphysics can demand.
These principles will be reused through the whole argument.
Latin · §338
X. Ut autem sensim ad institutum nostrum viam nobis complanemus, nec reliqui quicquam faciamus ad summam evidentiam, qualis quidem exigi potest in rebus Physicis & Metaphysicis, principia quaedam constituenda sunt, quibus veluti fundamentis reliqua superstruentur, quibusque in tota discursus serie saepe utendum erit.
Principle 1: nothing makes itself — nothing is its own cause§339
339First principle: nothing makes itself; nothing is its own cause.
Self-making would require being before being — contradiction.
What is becoming is not yet; what acts already is.
Latin · §339
XI. Primo igitur certum est, nihil a se ipso fieri, & nihil esse sui ipsius causam. Nam si aliquid se ipsum fecisset, plane necesse foret, illud fuisse antequam esset, quod implicat contradictionem. Etenim quod fit nondum est; nam quod fit transit a non esse ad esse. Quod vero facit aliquid, jam est; cum agere praesupponat esse.
Principle 2: nothing depends on itself — dependence is on another§340
340Second principle: nothing depends on itself.
Whatever depends, depends on another.
Self-dependence would make the same thing prior and posterior to itself.
Latin · §340
XII. Est etiam extra dubium, nihil pendere a seipso: sed quicquid dependet, ab alio dependere. Ratio manifesta est: nam si aliquid penderet a seipso, idem esset seipso prius & posterius. Quod enim dependet, posterius est eo unde dependet.
Principle 3: no infinite regress of efficient causes — a first cause§341
341Third principle: no infinite regress of efficient causes — arrive at a first cause.
If every cause had infinite superiors, infinite causes would stand outside the whole set — contradiction.
Same distance up and down: if no first cause ascending, no last effect descending.
Latin · §341
XIII. Tertium principium prioribus illis non minus manifestum est, in ordine causarum efficientium, quarum una ab alia pendet, non posse dari progressum in infinitum: sed tandem deveniendum esse ad causam aliquam primam atque summam. Nam si daretur in causis progressus in infinitum, nec ulla causa prima esset, omnes & singulae causae mediae essent, adeoque ante se causam aliquam haberent: imo nulla esset causa, quae ante se infinitas causas superiores non haberet. Sed hoc est impossibile: nam si ante omnes & singulas causas infinitae causae essent, ante totam causarum multitudinem & collectionem essent infinitae causae. Nam quod est ante omnia & singula, illud est ante totam singulorum multitudinem: sed contradictionem manifestam implicat infinitas causas esse tota multitudine causarum superiores. Nam certe extra totam causarum multitudinem, causa nulla reperiri potest. Alioqui multitudo illa tota non esset. Deinde, si ascendendo ab effectis ad causas, non posset ad primam causam perveniri, pari ratione, descendendo a causis ad effecta, ad ultimum effectum nunquam deveniri posset. Etenim distantia tanta est a summo ad imum, quanta est ab imo ad summum. Et quod infinitum est non magis ascendendo quam descendendo pertransiri potest.
Principle 4: not every being is made — some unproduced independent being§342
342Fourth: not every being is made — some unproduced, independent being must exist.
Else infinite regress (already ruled out) or a circle of mutual makers.
Abraham–Isaac–Jacob circle: Abraham would mediately beget himself — absurd.
Latin · §342
XIV. Porro ex principiis jam positis sequitur, non omne ens esse factum & sui habere causam: sed dari aliquod ens improductum & independens. Nam si non daretur ens aliquod improductum, sed omne ens factum & productum esset, necesse esset factum esse vel a se vel ab alio. Sed ens ullum a se factum dici non potest, quia nihil est causa sui, per primum principium a nobis ante positum. Igitur oportet omne ens fuisse ab alio productum. Et ita vel dabitur in causis producentibus progressus in infinitum, quem impossibilem esse jamjam demonstratum est: vel circulus aliquis entium invicem productorum & producentium. Sed cum in eis quae sunt facta detur ultimum, quod aliud non fecit & produxit, talem circulum non dari evidens est. Praeterquam quod ejusmodi circulus est impossibilis. Nam tali circulo posito, sequeretur idem a se ipso fieri, & idem esse sui ipsius causam. Si dicas enim, exempli gratia, Abraham genuisse Isaac, & Isaac genuisse Jacob, & rursus Jacob genuisse Abraham, quod in circulo necessarium est; inde sequetur Abraham mediate saltem seipsum genuisse: quo nihil absurdius.
Principle 5: the first cause is not less perfect than its effect§343
343Fifth: the first cause is not less perfect than its effect.
No perfection in the effect is missing from the cause — formally or more eminently.
Nothing gives what it does not have.
Latin · §343
XV. Denique & hoc principium firmiter tenendum est, videlicet causam primam & praecipuam effectus sui non posse esse minus perfectam, neque quicquam in effectu perfectionis esse, quod in causa non contineatur, si non formaliter, ut aiunt, saltem modo aliquo eminentiori. Nam cum effectus, qua talis, quicquid habet a causa acceperit, manifestum est, effectum nihil habere posse quod in causa quodammodo non sit. Nihil enim dat quod non habet: quum dare sit, alium participem facere ejus, quod ipse habes.
Two things to prove: world-bodies are not from themselves; their cause is God§344
344Proof plan: two lemmas.
First: earth, sun, stars, planets are not unproduced self-beings — they have a cause.
Second: that cause can only be the highest intelligence we call God.
Latin · §344
XVI. His ita constitutis ut intentum nostrum assequamur, & ex iis, quae in hoc universo spectanda exhibentur, demonstremus esse Deum, duo sunt sigillatim & distincte probanda. Primo corpora illa, quibus constat hic mundus, terram scilicet, solem, stellas atque planetas, non esse entia a se & improducta; sed habere causam quae illa produxit. Deinde causam illam non posse esse, nisi summam intelligentiam, optimam, potentissimam & sapientissimam, quae ipsa est quam Deum vocamus.
World-bodies are composites, not simple self-beings§345
345First: chief world-bodies are not unproduced self-beings.
They are composites of diverse parts — rocks, waters, earth — not simples.
What is from itself must be simple and have nothing prior; composites need a unifier.
Latin · §345
XVII. Primum igitur quod corpora illa, quae sunt universi partes praecipuae & integrantes non sint entia a se & improducta multis modis probari potest. Nam primo non sunt entia per se & simplicia, sed tota quaedam congesta ex partibus diversae naturae; Saltem id manifestum est in hoc terreno & elementari globo, qui constat partibus maxime diversis: veluti petris, aquis, & terra proprie sic dicta, aliisque hujusmodi; sed quod est a se debet esse aliquid simplex. Nam quod est a se nihil habet se prius. Quod vero conflatum & compositum est ex partibus diversis, posterius est partibus ex quibus componitur; partes enim sunt aliquid prius toto. Deinde res diversae non coalescunt in Unum, nisi per aliquam causam uniantur. Sed quod est a se nullam causam habet, neque dependet ab alio.
What is from itself needs nothing — but planets need the sun§346
346What is from itself is self-sufficient.
Earth and planets need the sun's light and heat — they cannot stand alone.
Need of another means dependence — and conservation implies an efficient cause.
Latin · §346
XVIII. Deinde quod est a se, est sibi ipsi sufficiens, nec ullo alio indiget. Sed corpora illa, quibus hoc universum constat, veluti terra, planetae, res hujusmodi non sunt: sed aliena ope egent, nec possunt alio carere. Minor manifesta est. Nam terra & planetae lumine solis egent. Neque globus elementaris absque sole subsistere posset: Sed omnino opus habet luce & calore illius foveri, ut in suo statu & esse permaneat. Et sic quoque proculdubio reliquae universi partes solae per se esse non possent: multisque modis ab aliis juvantur atque sustentantur. Nec vero minus evidens est, quod est a se sibi sufficere, & alio non indigere: Nam quod alio indiget, & sibi ipsi non sufficit, non potest absque alio conservari. At quod non potest absque alio conservari, ab alio pendet ut sit. Quod autem ut sit ab alio pendet, certe illud non est a se. Adde quod ens a se nullam omnino causam habet: Nam a seipso esse, est causam non habere, sed quod non potest absque alio conservari causam aliquam habet, scilicet conservantem. Ac praeterea quicquid causam conservantem habet, efficientem quoque habet. Nam conservatio est quaedam efficientiae continuatio.
World-bodies aim at ends — so they are not for themselves§347
347Each world-body has an end — not for itself but for another.
Aseity cannot be referred to an end or have anything prior intending it.
Parts serve the world's common good — so some mind conceived the harmony.
Latin · §347
XIX. Tertio quod corpora, quibus constat hic mundus, entia a se & improducta non sint, inde manifestum est, quod singula certum finem habent, nec sunt propter se, sed propter aliud: Nam certe quod est a se, illud quoque est propter se, non autem propter aliud, neque potest ad finem referri. Etenim quicquid refertur ad finem, ab aliquo alio, unde pendet, ad finem refertur: Verum id quod est a se, non pendet ab ullo alio, a quo possit ad finem referri. Adde quod finis omnis est intentione prior re illa cujus est finis; sed quod est a se, ut jam dictum fuit, nihil habet se prius, a quo finis ille intendi potuerit. Quod autem singula corpora mundana propter se non sint, sed referantur ad finem, vel ex eo patet quod sint partes totius cujusdam, harmonice & ordine digesti, nimirum mundi ipsius ad cujus commune bonum referuntur. Nam bonum totius est finis partium singularum. Neque ullus negare potest, quod hoc & illud corpus, exempli causa, terra, sol, aut aliquis planeta, sit magnitudinis hujus aut illius, in hoc vel illo statu, ista vel illa qualitate, figura ac motu praeditum: quod, inquam, omnia ista finem certum habeant, & ita sint vel non sint, quoniam ita exigit ornatus, pulchritudo & commodum universi. Adeoque necesse est, ut tota universi harmonia & idea concepta & intenta fuerit ab aliquo, a quo omnia juxta illam constituta & ordinata sint.
Limited diverse natures prove an efficient cause — not aseity§348
348Diverse limited perfections need an efficient cause.
If all were from themselves they would be one unbounded being.
Aseity would be the fountain of all perfection — not a capped planet-nature.
Latin · §348
XX. Quod corpora illa quae constituunt totum hoc universum, entia a se non sint, sed ab alio orta & producta, inde probatur, quod singula certam & determinatam perfectionem habent, & naturam ab invicem diversam: istud enim eorum discrimen, & ista determinatio omnino referri debet ad causam efficientem, quae singulis talem naturam indulsit, ac perfectionem istam & non aliam. Quod si essent a se omnia, unum & idem essent. Unde foret enim quod naturam diversam haberent, ac praeterea omni perfectionis termino & limite carerent? Nam quod essentiam habet determinatam & limitatam, necesse est ita fuisse limitatum ab aliqua causa: sed quod est a se nullam causam habet, quae limites & terminos ei ponere potuerit, sed esse per se hausit in ipso fonte, aut potius est ipsius esse fons, necesse est in se continere omnem entitatem & perfectionem.
If the parts are produced, the universe itself is produced§349
349Produced parts → produced universe.
A whole of produced parts cannot itself be unproduced.
Latin · §349
XXI. Jam autem si corpora, quibus hoc universum constat, entia producta sunt, & quae sui causam & originem habent, ipsum quoque universum productum esse necesse est. Nam quod constat partibus productis improductum esse non potest.
If the world were from itself it would be eternal — but motion and time are not§350
350Aseity would mean an eternal world with no start of duration.
But this bodily world is in perpetual motion measured by time.
Motion and time cannot be from eternity — next theses prove it.
Latin · §350
XXII. Et certe si mundus hic, & partes illae quibus constat, esset aliquid a se, & quod sui causam non haberet, aeternus quoque esset, & durationis initio careret. Nam quod est, & tamen nunquam productum est, necesse est semper fuisse. Etenim quod est, & aliquando non fuit, productum esse necesse est. Quod enim transit a non esse ad esse illud certe produci dicitur; sed fieri non potest, ut mundus hic corporeus & visibilis ab aeterno fuerit. Nam mundus hic est in perpetuo motu, ejusque duratio tempore mensuratur. Sed motus & tempus, quod motum consequitur, ab aeterno esse non possunt, quod multis modis demonstrari potest.
Eternal solar motion yields contradiction in the Zodiac§351
351Eternal sun-motion: either stuck in one Zodiac sign forever, or in all at once.
One-sign forever: infinite time covers only finite space.
All-signs at once: contradicts moving through the Zodiac.
Latin · §351
XXIII. Primo enim si motus, qui, verbi causa, in sole apparet, ab aeterno esse dicatur, necesse erit solem ab aeterno fuisse, vel in aliquo Zodiaci signo, vel in omnibus Zodiaci signis. At neutrum dici potest absque manifesta contradictione. Etenim si sol ab aeterno fuit in aliquo Zodiaci signo, puta in Ariete, non item in aliis, inde sequitur solem in tempore demum pervenisse ad Taurum & Geminos. Et ita cum supponatur ab aeterno motus fuisse, per totam aeternitatem unum aut alterum tantum signum peragraverit, id est, infinito tempore, spatium finitum. Nam motus qui est ab aeterno infinito tempore, antecedit quicquid in tempore factum. Ac proinde sol eodem illo motu, quo intra mensem signum unum percurrit, tempore infinito non amplius quam unum aut alterum signum percurrere potuerit. Si dicatur autem sol ab aeterno fuisse in omnibus Zodiaci signis; necesse erit solem simul in omnibus signis Zodiaci fuisse. Etenim si ab aeterno fuit, & in Ariete & in Cancro, & in Libra & in Capricorno, non ante fuit in Ariete quam in Cancro, & in Libra quam in Capricorno. Nam quod ab aeterno est, ante se nihil habet. Ac proinde quum non fuerit in uno prius quam in alio, necesse est ut simul in omnibus fuerit. Sed implicat contradictionem solem per Zodiacum moveri, & tamen simul in omnibus Zodiaci signis esse. Nam solem per Zodiacum moveri, est unum signum deserere & ad aliud progredi: praeterquam quod ita sol sibi ipsi oppositus & a se ipso distans fuisset.
Eternal motion would require infinite human generations — impossible§352
352Eternal motion → infinite past human generations.
No first human: every human begotten by a human — including the whole set.
Begetter outside the set is impossible; begetter inside would beget himself.
Latin · §352
XXIV. Praeterea si motus qui in mundo observantur ab aeterno fuerunt, nec ullum sui initium habent, necesse est ut hactenus fuerint infinitae generationes hominum & caeterorum animalium, usque in istis generationibus detur progressus in infinitum: sed hoc est impossibile. Nam si in hominum generationibus daretur progressus in infinitum, nullus daretur primus homo, unde reliqui progeniti essent; sed omnes omnino homines, nullo excepto, essent ab homine geniti. Atqui fieri non potest, ut omnes omnino homines nullo excepto, sint ab homine geniti. Nam sic tota & integra hominum multitudo ab homine genita esset, quod dici non potest absque contradictione. Etenim si tota hominum multitudo ab homine genita est, necesse est ut ille a quo genita dicitur, vel sit extra multitudinem, vel in multitudine illa contineatur. Prius dici non potest. Nam fieri nequit ut integra hominum multitudo, ne uno quidem excepto, genita sit ab aliquo homine, qui in illa non comprehendatur: quandoquidem extra universalem hominum multitudinem nullus homo reperitur. Nec etiam dici potest, totam multitudinem hominum genitam fuisse ab aliquo, qui sit pars illius multitudinis. Nam si ita esset, homo ille, qui caeteros genuisse diceretur, se ipsum quoque genuisset. Nam qui genuit universam hominum multitudinem, singulos quoque genuit, qui in illa continentur, quorum unus ille est. At nihil se ipsum gignit, nec est sui ipsius causa.
No first human in an infinite past — contradiction§353
353No human is born before another already existed.
Infinite past births: humans before any human — contradiction.
An infinite generation-order could never arrive at us.
Latin · §353
XXV. Deinde nullus est homo ab homine genitus, ante quem alius homo non extiterit. Itaque si omnes omnino homines ab hominibus geniti sunt, ante omnes omnino homines quidam homines fuerunt, & sic priusquam ullus esset homo, fuit aliquis homo, quod manifeste contradictorium est. Imo si omnes homines sunt ab hominibus in infinitum geniti, nullus unquam homo fuit, qui non fuerit posterior infinitis aliis hominibus praeexistentibus, adeoque fuerunt infiniti homines, priusquam ulli homines extarent. Adde quod, si ante nos generationes infinitae fuissent, ordo generationis non potuisset ad nos pervenire: nam infinitum pertransiri non potest.
Eternal time fails: day and night cannot both be from eternity§354
354Eternal time would mean eternal day/night turnover.
What is from eternity is simultaneous — but day and night cannot be.
Night is privation of day: habit and privation cannot coincide.
Latin · §354
XXVI. Ut autem motus illi, qui in mundo observantur, ab aeterno esse non possunt, ita nec tempus aeternum esse potest. Nam si tempus aeternum est, ab aeterno est diei & noctis vicissitudo: sed impossibile ab aeterno fuisse vicissitudinem diei & noctis. Etenim si ab aeterno fuit vicissitudo diei & noctis, tam nox quam dies ab aeterno fuit. Nam si vel nox vel dies ab aeterno non fuit, vicissitudo illa in tempore demum incepit: sed repugnat utrumque, nempe, diem & noctem ab aeterno fuisse. Etenim eorum quae sunt ab aeterno unum non est altero prius. Nam quod habet aliquid ante se, non est ab aeterno. Ac proinde quae sunt ab aeterno simul sunt. Atqui plane necesse est, ut vel nox diem, vel dies noctem praecesserit, neque possibile est, quod dies & nox sint simul, siquidem nox est privatio diei: habitum vero & privationem in eodem subjecto simul esse, implicat contradictionem. Uno verbo si dies & nox statuantur ab aeterno fuisse, necesse est ut vel dies & nox fuerint simul, id est, simul & eodem respectu fuerit dies & non dies: vel ut in iis quae aeterna dicuntur, unum praecedat alterum, quorum utrumque apertam contradictionem involvit.
No first day; infinite days cannot equal or sit inside infinite hours§355
355Eternal time → no first day — yet a day before every day is absurd.
Infinite past hours vs days: equal would make part = whole.
Lesser infinite days inside greater infinite hours is not infinite.
Latin · §355
XXVII. Deinde si tempus aeternum est, nullus fuit primus dies. Nam, si est aliquis primus dies, tempus initium habet, adeoque aeternum non est. Atqui necesse est esse primum aliquem diem. Nam, si nullus fuit primus dies omnem diem dies praecessit, ac ante omnes & singulos dies, dies aliquis extitit: Et sic fuit dies antequam esset dies. Praeterea si tempus ab aeterno est, necesse est hactenus fuisse infinitas horas, infinitos dies, infinita saecula, imo etiam infinitas saeculorum myriades. Rogo igitur, num numerus dierum hactenus elapsorum sit aequalis numero horarum, an vero illo minor? Si dicatur aequalis esse, inde sequetur partem esse toti aequalem, & totum non esse sua parte majus. Nam cum in singulis diebus sint viginti quatuor horae, numerus dierum est tantum pars vigesima quarta numeri horarum, & necessario vicies & quater plures horae quam dies effluxerunt. Si vero dicatur numerus dierum esse minor numero horarum, primum hoc absurdi sequetur dari numerum infinitum, qui tamen sit tantum pars vigesima quarta majoris numeri, & qui in alio numero continetur quater & vicies, imo plusquam centies millies, & millies adhuc pluries, si quis comparare velit non numerum dierum cum numero horarum, sed numerum saeculorum cum numero minutorum, & saeculorum myriades cum minutis decimis. Certe capi non potest, quomodo numerus ille sit infinitus, qui in majori numero toties continetur, & qui est illius pars tam exigua. Nam numerus, qui in alio continetur, majori illo numero continente terminatur & limitatur, & ita infinitus non est, quippe qui omni termino & fine non caret.
A bounded slice of past time cannot be eternal§356
356Hours matching infinite days are still bounded by today and a longer past.
A twenty-fourth of past time cannot be called eternal.
Any finite-bounded slice — and a whole of such slices — is not infinite.
Latin · §356
XXVIII. Praeterea cum numerus dierum sit, quater & vicies minor numero horarum, rogo iterum, an numerus horarum numerum dierum aequans & non superans, constituat tempus finitum, an infinitum? Dici non potest finitum tempus constituere: nam cum numerus dierum statuatur infinitus, numerus horarum ipsi aequalis infinitus quoque est. Sed infinitae horae non possunt finitum tempus constituere: nec etiam dici potest numerum illum horarum, qui dierum numerum aequat & non superat, efficere tempus infinitum & aeternum. Nam utrinque limitatus est, nimirum hodierno die, & ab altera parte, tempore ter & vicies longiori, quod praecessit. Et certe cum tempus illud, quod constituit numerus horarum, dierum numero aequalis, sit tantum pars vigesima quarta totius temporis anteacti, absque manifesta contradictione infinitum & aeternum dici non potest. Etenim ab hodierno die incipiendo, nulla pars praeteriti temporis infinita est, siquidem quaevis talis pars temporis praeteriti terminatur tempore praecedente & subsequente. At infinitum est, quod caret terminis: & quod vero terminos habet, infinitum esse non potest. Nec minus pugnat notio aeternitatis cum eo quod est tantum certa pars temporis praeteriti: nam aeternum non est quod tempus aliud ante se habet; sed pars ejusmodi temporis praeteriti tempus aliud ante se habet, scilicet totum illud quod est extra partem illam. Cum ergo quaelibet assignata pars temporis veluti vigesima, centesima aut millesima non possit esse aeterna & infinita, totum tempus aeternum & infinitum esse non potest. Nam quod constat partibus finitis & determinatis, non potest esse infinitum.
Past infinite time was once future infinite — unreachable; Hebrews 1§357
357All past was once future — infinite past was infinite future, never finishable.
Today would have been infinitely distant — unreachable.
No day / every day / some day from eternity all fail; Hebrews 1: God made the ages.
Latin · §357
XXIX. His adde, quod omne tempus praeteritum aliquando fuit futurum, atque etiam tantum futurum fuit, quantum est praeteritum. Ideoque si jam tempus praeteritum infinitum est, aliquando fuit futurum infinitum. Sed ad finem temporis in futurum infiniti nunquam deveniri potest. Ergo ad finem temporis praeteriti nunquam deveniri potuit. Et si posthac tantum temporis nunquam praeteribit, ut dici possit adhuc infinitum tempus praeteriisse: profecto nec antehac tantum praeterire potuit, ut sit praeteritum actum infinitum, obstante in utroque pariter infinitate. Quod, si usque ad hodiernum diem infinitum tempus praeteriit, dies hodierna aliquando in infinitum abfuit. Qui ergo potuit ad illam perveniri? Nec parum urget haec viri doctissimi ratio: nempe, vel nullus dies est ab aeterno, vel omnis dies est ab aeterno, vel aliquis est ab aeterno & aliquis non est ab aeterno. Nam quartum fingi non potest. Sed primum si verum est, tempus non est ab aeterno: non enim est ab aeterno id cujus nulla pars ab aeterno extitit. Secundum verum esse non potest, repugnante experientia. Nec etiam tertium: Nam si dies aliquis ab aeterno fuit, ejus duratio fuit infinita, neque principium habet, sed cujuscunque diei duratio viginti quatuor horis limitata est. Unde liquet tempus ab aeterno fluere non potuisse; sed ut loquitur Scriptura Deum esse qui fecit saecula, Hebr. 1.
So the world has a beginning — made by the eternal mind we call God§358
358Motion and time need a start — so the moving timed world does too.
Therefore the world was made by another.
Author: highest eternal mind — what all call God.
Latin · §358
XXX. Quum igitur nec motus nec tempus ab aeterno esse potuerint, sed necessario sui quoddam initium habeant: manifestum est mundum, qui, ut diximus, est in perpetuo motu, & cujus duratio tempore mensuratur, ab aeterno quoque esse non potuisse, sed aliquod sui initium habere; ac proinde illum ab alio factum esse & productum. Quis autem tanti operis author censeri poterit, nisi causa quaedam non tantum potentissima, sed etiam optima & sapientissima, adeoque nisi summa & aeterna quaedam mens, quae ab omnibus Dei nomine significatur?
Three candidate causes: chance, blind nature, or intelligent mind§359
359World is made — what cause?
Three options: chance atom-clash, blind necessary nature, or intelligent best-and-powerful mind.
Next theses reject the first two.
Latin · §359
XXXI. Sed ut res adhuc fiat manifestior, & omnis dubitandi tollatur occasio, quandoquidem evicimus mundum factum fuisse, & existentiae suae causam habere. Rogamus, quae sit illa causa cui mundus suam originem debeat? Certe, quantum animo capimus, tres ejus omnino causae fingi & assignari possunt. Vel enim dicendum est illum casu exortum fuisse, & ex fortuito quodam particularum materiae concursu: vel habere quidem causam necessariam, sed tamen brutam & sui nesciam, quae naturae nomine vocetur: Vel denique, ut diximus, mundum opus esse causae cujusdam intelligentis, optimae simul & potentissimae.
Democritus and Epicurus: chance atoms cannot yield order§360
360First option: Democritus/Epicurus — world from rash atom-clash.
Chance yields mess, not constancy, order, harmony.
This universe — and each natural work — shows supreme order.
Latin · §360
XXXII. Primum illud tribuitur Democrito & Epicureis, qui dicuntur censuisse mundum esse ortum ex quodam fortuito, & temerario concursu atomorum. Verum haec sententia ad insaniam accedit. Nam constantia, ordo, & harmonia a casu esse non potest, sed quae casu fiunt & exoriuntur, incerta sunt & indigesta, nihilque constans habent, & quod sui simile semper sit. At nihil fingi potest hac universi compage magis ordinatum atque compositum. Et in singulis quoque naturae operibus summus ordo atque constantia facile observari potest.
Palace and watch: chance cannot build the universe-machine§361
361Who credits a palace or a clock to chance scrap-heaps?
This universe outdoes any palace in art and proportion.
No machine shows more motions — more marvelous, more constant.
Latin · §361
XXXIII. Et certe quis est, qui, dum palatium aliquod splendide, & ex arte extractum contemplatur, aut horologium quoddam affabre fictum, quod variis rotis & motibus inter se compositis, horas, dies, & lunae phases notat & dimetitur, in animum inducat ista casu facta esse, & lignis atque lapidibus, aerisque & chalybis particulis quibusdam temere congestis exorta? At quodnam Palatium excogitari potest majori arte, & symmetria structum, & ubi proportiones omnes melius observatae sint, quam ipsum hoc universum, quod oculis nostris obversatur? Aut quaenam est machina in qua plures motus, magisque mirabiles, & in summa varietate magis constantes, observari possint?
Blind necessary cause cannot birth knowers — Psalm 94§362
362A brute necessary cause cannot explain knowers.
Knowing effects require a knowing first cause.
Psalm 94: He who planted the ear — shall He not hear?
Latin · §362
XXXIV. Nec etiam potest tantum opus tribui causae brutae, & quae agat ex necessitate, absque ratione & intelligentia. Primo enim inter ea quae in mundo videntur, multa sunt, non tantum sensu & cognitione praedita, veluti bestiae: sed etiam ratione & intellectu, sicuti homines; sed id quod cognoscit & intelligit, necessario causam aliquam habet cognoscentem & intelligentem: nam effectus sua causa prima & praecipua perfectior esse non potest: nec potest in effectu quicquam perfectionis esse, quod in causa non sit, si non formaliter, saltem modo quodam eminentiori, ut ante demonstratum fuit. Jam autem simpliciter & absolute perfectius est cognoscere, quam non cognoscere, intelligere, quam non intelligere. Ideoque necesse est, ut quod est prima & praecipua causa rei intelligentis, non sit expers intelligentiae, alioqui causa esset effectu minus perfecta. Atque haec est demonstratio, qua utitur Psaltes Psal. 94. dum homines atheos & profanos coarguit. Intelligite, inquit, stupidi in populo & fatui, quando intelligetis? An qui plantavit aurem, non audiet? an qui oculum finxit, non videbit? An qui gentes corripit, non arguet? An qui docet homines scientiam, non cognoscet?
Nature acts for ends — either intelligent, or steered by God§363
363Nothing in the world is rash — nature acts for ends.
Sun, seasons, organs: each fitted to a use.
End-seeking without knowledge needs an archer — God either is or steers that nature.
Latin · §363
XXXV. Deinde videmus in mundo nihil temere factum esse, & naturam in omnibus agere certum ob finem, & qua ratione congruit ut assequatur illud quod optimum est. Sic nullus est eorum, qui speculantur opera naturae, qui facile non agnoscat solis motum diurnum & annuum, ita ut est, temperatum esse, ut mediante vicissitudine dierum & noctium, variarumque anni tempestatum, diversae rerum in natura species generari & conservari possint. In terra vero disposita esse omnia ad usum & commodum animalium, ac praecipue in animalibus illa tot & tam varia organa ad certos usus singula facta esse, & unumquodque suum habere finem, unum ut nutritioni, aliud ut generationi, aliud ut sensuum functionibus inserviat: & ita de reliquis quae pene innumera sunt. Jam autem necesse est, ut quod agit propter finem, & ad finem aliquem tendit, vel cognoscat finem illum, vel, si finem non novit, dirigatur ab alio, cui finis ille fuerit propositus, sicut sagitta ad scopum dirigitur a sagittario. Itaque natura illa, quae statuitur causa rerum, necessario, vel est aliquid intelligens, ac proinde Deus ipse, vel dirigitur a summa quadam intelligentia, quae certe Deus erit.
Infinite marks of wisdom — not a brute cause§364
364World-system and each creature show infinite marks of highest wisdom.
Proportions exact beyond human grasp.
Only a fool credits that to a brute, mindless cause.
Latin · §364
XXXVI. Praeterea si quis consideret, tam universum hujus mundi systema & corporum illorum, quibus constat, dispositionem, motusque & flexus varios, quam singula quae in eo observantur, plantas, dico, & animalia & alia, quae videre & tractare possumus, negare non poterit, in omnibus istis elucere infinitas summae sapientiae notas: atque non tantum totius universi, sed animalis cujusque structuram, ita mirandam & stupendam esse, & in ea proportiones omnes tam accurate & exacte observatas, atque tam diligenter & proinde omnibus prospectum, ut ingenium humanum, sapientiam tantam satis capere & mirari non possit. Quis ergo, nisi plane stupidus & insipiens, opera tanta cum arte & industria facta, tantoque cum ordine & harmonia digesta, referre possit in causam, quae sit omnino bruta, omnisque sapientiae & cognitionis expers?
“Nature” is only the order of causes — who authored that order?§365
365Ask the nature-only crowd: what do you mean by nature?
Usually: the order of causes — plant begets plant, seasons turn.
That order itself needs an author — who made heaven, sun, earth?
Latin · §365
XXXVII. Verum ut magis adhuc urgeamus impios illos, qui nolunt aliam rerum causam agnoscere, nisi brutam quandam naturam: Rogamus eos quid nomine naturae intelligant. Nam vulgo per naturam, quae casui opponitur, & iis quae ex consilio & deliberatione agunt, intelligitur ordo & series causarum, quibus constat hoc universum. Juxta quem ordinem videmus in terra fieri varias generationes, & in elementari regione alias & alias mutationes: Sic enim, quum planta plantam, & animal aliud animal simile generat, opus esse naturae dicimus: & similiter quum nives per hyemem terram operiunt, aestate vero terra aestu fatiscit, ad naturam ista referimus: Sed hic frustra ad istam naturam recurritur. Nam natura illa, ut patet ex dictis, nihil aliud est, quam ordo agentium & patientium, quibus hoc universum constat. Sed hic quaeritur hujus ordinis author, & quid est illud quod coelum, solem & terram produxit, & quo videmus ordine disposuit? Quaenam est ergo natura, quae, naturae hujus, quae jam operatur, causa est?
Matter-particles are not from themselves either§366
366Some say matter bits self-sorted into the world-order — stop there.
Same proofs that bar planet-aseity bar particle-aseity.
Imperfect parts exist for wholes — not from themselves.
Latin · §366
XXXVIII. Arbitrantur impii nonnulli naturam hanc, quae non est aliud quam mundi systema, exortam esse ex vario situ, figura & dispositione partium materiae, quae certa quadam motus mensura agitatae, sese sponte in hunc ordinem digesserunt, qui jam in mundo observatur: nec aliam rerum causam aliudve principium ultra esse quaerendum. Sed quibus argumentis probavimus mundi partes praecipuas, terram scilicet, solem atque planetas a se ipsis non esse, sed aliquam sui causam & originem habere, iisdem probare possumus, istas quoque materiae particulas a se non existere, sed esse suum habere ab alio. Etenim id quod est a se, perfectionis nullos limites habere potest, ut ante ostensum est, atqui materia & ejus particulae sunt entia imperfectissima. Deinde quod est a se illud quoque propter se est: Sed materiae partes non sunt propter se, sed propter aliud, nimirum propter corpora quae componunt & quorum partes sunt.
Matter’s division and shapes need an agent§367
367Whence matter's split sizes and shapes?
Some agent must have divided and figured it.
Self-shaped bits could not differ or change — yet matter divides without end.
Latin · §367
XXXIX. Praeterea unde est ista materiae divisio, & variae in partibus ejus magnitudines & figurae? Omnino necesse est, ut sit agens aliquod, quod materiam ita diviserit, & varias partibus ejus figuras impresserit. Quod si omnes a se ipsis suam quantitatem & figuram haberent, nulla esset inter ipsas ratio diversitatis. Nec etiam earum figura variari & mutari posset. Ac proinde materia non esset, ut tamen est, divisibilis in infinitum.
Matter’s motion needs an external mover — God§368
368Motion is not eternal — so matter-motion had a start.
Matter cannot give itself that first stir.
Who wound torpid matter into a world-system? The highest mind — God.
Latin · §368
XL. Praecipue vero, cum demonstraverimus motum & tempus ab aeterno esse non posse, quicquid sit de materia ipsa, necesse est, ut motus ille partium materiae, unde exorta statuitur universa rerum dispositio, aliquod sui initium habeat: ac proinde materia non potest motum illum a se habere; sed motus iste necessario est a principio extrinseco. Nam illo non concesso materiam aeternam esse, & a se existere, cujus contrarium ante probatum est, attamen post aeternam quietem moveri non potuit, nisi motor aliquis externus motum illum ipsi impresserit. Ecquis vero est ille motor, qui torpentem materiam primo commovere & agitare coepit, & motum ejus tam apte dimensus est, ut inde mundi systema oriretur? Hic certe necessario ad summam quandam mentem, id est, ad Deum recurrendum erit.
Blind particle-toss cannot build the human body — or the universe§369
369No sober mind credits ordered universe-harmony to undirected particle-toss.
Even one human body — organs apt for many uses — bars that cause.
Blind matter-jactation cannot build this fabric.
Latin · §369
XLI. His adde, quod in mentem hominis cadere non potest, corpuscula quaedam varie jactata, absque ullo proposito fine, & absque ullo motore dirigente, potuisse componere tam mirabilem universi structuram, ubi tantus ordo, tanta sapientia, tanta partium omnium consensio & harmonia, quae per tot saecula constans & invariabilis manet, a quovis non omnino caeco animo animadverti potest. Imo si solum hominis corpus consideremus, non puto ullum esse tam stupidum, aut furiosum, qui sibi ipsi persuadere possit, tam mirandam fabricam, in qua tot organa numerari possunt, tam artificiose & concinne fabrefacta, tam apte disposita, ad usus tam varios & multiplices inservientia, fabricam, inquam, hujusmodi non aliam habere causam, quam caecam particularum materiae jactationem.
Conclusion: eternal mind — God is§370
370Universe and its parts are not a-se — they need a cause.
Not chance, not blind self-ignorant nature.
Necessary: eternal mind, best, strongest, wisest — God. Demonstratum: God is.
Latin · §370
XLII. Itaque concludimus integrum hoc universum, & singula quae in eo observantur a se ipsis non esse, sed sui causam aliquam habere: causam autem illam esse non posse casum & fortunam, nec etiam naturam quandam caecam & sui nesciam, sed necessario esse mentem aeternam, optimam, potentissimam, & sapientissimam, quam Deum appellamus. Et sic existimamus, quod nobis propositum erat, nos evidenter demonstrasse, nimirum Deum esse.
From Esse Deum to Quid sit Deus — inquire with sobriety§371
371Esse Deum is done — now Quid sit Deus.
Inquire into God's nature with fitting modesty and sobriety.
Latin · §371
I. Esse Deum, Thesibus superioribus a nobis demonstratum fuit. Sequitur ut agamus de altera ista quaestione, scilicet, quid sit Deus, atque ea, qua decet, modestia & sobrietate, in ipsam Dei naturam inquiramus.
Our mind cannot grasp what God is in Himself§372
372First: confess our weakness — we cannot grasp God-in-Himself here.
1 Cor 13: mirror and enigma; 1 John 3: seeing as He is is future privilege.
If fly and ant essence escape us, much less God's.
Latin · §372
II. Hic autem ante omnia profitenda est imbecillitas & ignorantia nostra. Nec enim putandum est mentem humanam, saltem quamdiu in hoc mortali corpore degit, capere posse quid Deus sit in se. Id docet Apostolus 1 Cor. 13. cum ait, nos nunc Deum videre per speculum & in aenigmate. Et Joan. ep. 1. c. 3. proponens tanquam vitae futurae privilegium quod Deum tunc sicuti est visuri simus. Indicio manifesto quod Deus sicuti est, a nobis jam non cognoscitur. Et certe si ne muscae quidem & formicae essentia a nobis jam percipi potest, ut modestiores philosophi agnoscunt, quanto minus existimandum est cognitione nos assequi posse quid sit Dei natura atque essentia.
Yet we form concepts — the divine attributes§373
373We can still form limited concepts of the divine nature.
True attributions fall short of His immense perfection.
Those are the divine attributes — a faint outline of essence.
Latin · §373
III. Veruntamen negandum non est, nos posse conceptus aliquos formare qui naturam divinam utcunque repraesentent, quantum scilicet capit ingenii nostri modulus: multaque Deo a nobis tribui, & de Deo enuntiari quae vere ipsi conveniunt, quamvis immensam ejus perfectionem minime assequantur. Et haec sunt quae vocantur attributa divina, quibus essentia Dei, quamquam imperfecte admodum & obscure aliquatenus tamen adumbratur.
Two kinds of attributes: via affirmation and negation§374
374Attributes affirm or deny — two paths to divine nature.
Give God creature-perfections eminently; strip every creature-imperfection.
Negatives teach clearer what God is not; affirmatives dimly what He is.
Latin · §374
IV. Porro attributa ista duorum sunt generum. Nam vel iis aliquid de Deo affirmatur, vel aliquid de Deo negatur. Etenim duabus viis ad Divinae naturae cognitionem contendere possumus. Primum ipsi tribuendo perfectiones omnes quae in rebus creatis cernuntur. Quum enim sit primum ens, primaque omnium causa, necesse est ut quicquid perfectionis creaturis inest, in eo reperiatur modo quodam eminentiori. Deinde de Deo negando quicquid in creaturis sapit aut secum trahit aliquam imperfectionem. Oportet enim quicquid est imperfectum in rebus creatis a Deo removeri. Cum certum sit causam efficientem perfectiorem esse rebus effectis, eam maxime quae est prima & summa causa. Unde oriuntur, ut dictum, duo attributorum divinorum genera, quaedam scilicet negativa, alia vero affirmativa. Et prioribus quidem clarius & distinctius de Deo docetur quid non sit: posterioribus vero confusius & obscurius quid sit. Nam longe facilius est de Deo dicere quid non sit, quam explicare & capere quid sit. Itaque nobis naturam divinam investigantibus istiusmodi attributa divina breviter percurrenda & consideranda sunt: non omnia quidem & singula, sed praecipua nonnulla quae plus habent difficultatis, aut in Theologia majorem usum praestant.
First attribute: God's simplicity removes all composition§375
375First attribute: God's Simplicity.
Not moral "simple" — physical/metaphysical vs mixed and composite.
Simplicity attributed = every composition removed.
Latin · §375
V. Primum autem attributum, quo natura divina utcunque declaratur, est Dei Simplicitas. Hic vero simplicitas non sumitur sensu morali, sed physico & metaphysico, prout simplex opponitur mixto & composito. Nam quum simplicitas Deo tribuitur, per id ab eo removetur omnis compositio.
Created compositions: extended parts; subject and accident§376
376Creatures show many composition kinds.
Sensible: body parts outside parts, divisible.
Next: subject + accident — white/whiteness; virtue, vice, knowledge on a man.
Latin · §376
VI. Porro in rebus creatis multa animadvertuntur compositionis genera. Prima eaque omnium maxime sensibilis est, quae cernitur in omni corpore, quod constat partibus extensis, quarum una est extra aliam: adeoque quarum una ab alia dividi & separari potest. Secunda compositio, quae hic consideranda est, est subjecti & accidentis, sicut album constat albedine & corpore illo quod sustinet albedinem. Et sicut in homine, praeter naturam humanam, varia sunt accidentia, veluti virtus & vitium, scientia & ignorantia, unde varie homo denominatur, vel doctus, vel indoctus, vel vitiosus, vel virtute praeditus.
Essence vs existence composition in creatures§377
377Metaphysical composition: essence ≠ existence in creatures.
Essence = what you must conceive (rational animal = man).
Winter rose-nature without a rose: creatures can be and not-be.
Latin · §377
VII. Sed praeterea sunt quaedam compositionis genera magis abstracta & metaphysica, quae hic quoque consideranda sunt. Nam in rebus omnibus creatis essentia potest ab existentia distingui, estque aliud essentia, & aliud existentia. Quippe per essentiam intelligimus id sine quo res concipi non potest, & per quod res quaeque definitur. Sic animal rationale est hominis essentia, quia non potes concipere hominem quin concipias animal rationale: estque animal rationale hominis definitio. Per existentiam autem intelligitur id per quod res actu est in rerum natura. Jam autem haec duo in rebus creatis omnino distinguuntur. Siquidem existentia de illarum essentia non est. Nam possunt esse & non esse. Et potes essentiam illarum concipere, etiamsi de earum existentia non cogites: imo quamvis cogites & scias illas non existere. Veluti cum quis hyeme, quando nulla rosa existat, naturam rosae contemplatur. Ideoque res omnes creatae compositae dici possunt ex essentia & existentia.
Nature vs suppositum — incarnation shows the split§378
378Another split: nature vs the singular that has it (Peter / humanity).
Incarnation: Christ took human nature, not a human person.
Creatures = nature + suppositum (subsistence).
Latin · §378
VIII. Est & alia quoque compositio quae in rebus omnibus creatis animadvertitur. Nam in omnibus illis aliud est natura, & aliud singulare istud quod naturam habet. Ita distinguenda est humanitas quae est in Petro, & Petrus qui habet illam humanitatem. Estque in omni persona seu supposito, ut loquuntur, aliquid praeter naturam a natura ipsa distinctum: imo quod potest ab ipsa natura separari, ut patet ex mysterio incarnationis in Christo. Nam Christus naturam humanam assumpsit, & personam tamen humanam non assumpsit. Siquidem natura humana in Christo subsistit in persona Verbi, & propria subsistentia caret. Unde manifestum est aliud esse naturam, & aliud subsistentiam, sive illud quod personam constituit. Ideoque res omnes creatae compositae dici possunt ex natura & supposito, sive dicere mavis ex natura & subsistentia.
Genus and difference — another creaturely composition§379
379Last shared creature-composition: grades in essence.
Agree by genus; differ by difference.
Finite creatures = genus + difference.
Latin · §379
IX. Denique est alia quaedam compositio rebus omnibus creatis communis. Nam in earum essentia sunt veluti quidam gradus. Sunt enim quaedam quibus inter se conveniunt, quaedam, quibus inter se differunt. Id quo conveniunt genus appellatur, quo differunt differentia. Ideoque res omnes creatae & finitae, compositae dici possunt ex genere & differentia.
Does God's simplicity exclude all these? First: is God a body?§380
380Christian School: God's simplicity bars every such composition.
First question: is God extended parts-outside-parts — a body?
Ancients who said yes: Anaximenes, Diogenes, Xenocrates, Epicurus.
Latin · §380
X. His ita expositis quaeritur an Deo talis simplicitas conveniat, quae omnes ejusmodi compositiones excludat. Id autem ita esse communi consensu Scholae Christianae docetur. De singulis vero est distincte ostendendum. Primum ergo quaeritur an Deo conveniat illa compositio quam primo loco commemoravimus, id est, an Deus ad modum corporum sit extensus, & habeat partes extra partes, quod idem est ac quaerere an Deus sit corporeus, an non? Corporeum esse censuerunt ex Philosophis antiquis non pauci: veluti Anaximenes, Diogenes Apolloniates qui putabant Deum esse aerem: Xenocrates, qui Deum fingebat caelesti corpore: & Epicurus qui Deo corpus humano simile tribuebat.
Sadducees, Anthropomorphites, Tertullian on a corporeal God§381
381Sadducees: no spirits — so God must be body.
Anthropomorphites gave God human members; Tertullian called God corporeal.
Augustine excuses him as meaning substance / something real.
Latin · §381
XI. Ex Judaeis autem Sadducaei cum nullum spiritum esse existimarent, nec tamen Deum esse diffiterentur, omnino videntur sensisse Deum non esse spiritum sed corpus. Nec etiam inter Christianos defuerunt haeretici qui Deum corporeum esse opinati sunt. Tales erant Anthropomorphitae qui Deo membra humanis similia affingebant, nec parum olim Ecclesiam turbarunt. Imo Tertullianus ipse disertis verbis affirmat Deum esse corporeum, libro adversus Praxeam: quo minus mirum est eum similiter statuisse animam esse corpus. Veruntamen Augustinus haeres. 86. quae est Tertullianistarum Tertullianum hac in parte excusat quasi pro eodem sumat substantiam & corpus, & dicere velit simpliciter Deum esse aliquid reale & subsistens.
Scripture: God is spirit, fills all, no bodily likeness§382
382Scripture + reason: God is wholly incorporeal.
John 4: God is spirit; Ps 139 / Jer 23: He fills all — no extended body.
Latin · §382
XII. Sed quicquid ille & alii senserint, certum est tam ex Scriptura, quam ex recta ratione, Deum omnino esse incorporeum. Primo enim Scriptura Deum diserte spiritum appellat Joan. 4. Nam inquit Christus, Deus spiritus est. Spiritus autem & corpus opponuntur. 2. Docet Scriptura Deum ubique esse & omnia replere. Psal. 139. Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo, & quo fugiam a facie tua? &c. Et Jer. 23. Annon caelum & terram ego impleo, inquit Dominus? Jam autem si Deus esset corpus & extensum quid, non posset ubique esse & omnia replere, quin duo corpora simul essent, & daretur penetratio dimensionum, quod absurdum est & impossibile. Ac denique Scriptura satis indicat Deum non esse corpus, dum negat ullum fingi posse corporeum simulachrum quod sit Deo simile. Ut Isaiae 40. cui similem facietis Deum, aut quam imaginem ponetis ei? Et Act. 17. Non debemus existimare sculpturae artis & cogitationis hominis divinum esse simile.
Image of God is spiritual — human members of God are metaphor§383
383Anthropomorphites abused imago Dei into bodily members.
Image = intellect, will, grace-gifts — not limb-shape.
God's ears/eyes/hands in Scripture are metaphor for knowledge and power.
Latin · §383
XIII. Anthropomorphitae quidem errori suo obtendebant authoritatem Scripturae, quae dicit hominem factum esse ad imaginem & similitudinem Dei, unde colligebant Deum habere membra similia humanis. Sed imago Dei in homine non consistit in membrorum situ & conformatione, verum in spiritualibus animae facultatibus, intellectu, scilicet, & voluntate: ac praeterea in donis variis, quibus anima per Dei gratiam decoratur. Quod autem Scriptura variis in locis Deo membra humana tribuit, veluti aures, oculos, manus, pedes, metaphorice intelligendum est. Nam aures & oculi, verbi causa, Deo tribuuntur ut per id significetur nihil ipsi esse occultum, omniaque dicta & facta nostra ipsi probe nota & perspecta esse. Etenim aures & oculi sunt instrumenta visus & auditus, quibus percipimus ea quae fiunt & dicuntur. Et similiter quia manus sunt actionum nostrarum instrumenta, per manum Dei significatur illius potentia & vis illa qua res efficit. Et ita de reliquis.
Philosophy: unmoved mover, immaterial products, no imperfect parts§384
384Aristotle: first unmoved mover — no body moves unmoved.
He makes angels and souls — so He is still more immaterial.
Bodies have imperfect parts; a-se first being cannot.
Latin · §384
XIV. Sed praeter Scripturae sacrae testimonia, non desunt Philosophis argumenta quibus probent Deum esse incorporeum. Primo enim, sicuti demonstrat Aristoteles, Deus est primus motor qui omnia movet, ipse immobilis manens. Sed nullum corpus movet, quin moveatur ipsum, ut patet per inductionem. Ideoque Deus non potest esse corpus. Deinde inter res a Deo productas sunt substantiae immateriales, velut angeli, & anima humana, quae corporibus sunt praestantiores. Sed Deus est aliquid rebus quibusvis ab ipso productis longe praestantius atque nobilius. Ergo multo magis debet esse incorporeus & immaterialis. Denique quod corporeum est, aliquid in se continet quod non est omnino perfectum: nempe partes singulas ex quibus componitur: quarum unaquaeque minus quiddam est, & imperfectius quam ipsum totum. Sed cum Deus undiquaque sit ens primum & ex se, nihil in eo potest esse quod non sit omnino perfectum. Nam ratio nulla reddi potest cur in eo quod est a se, aliqua perfectio desit. Igitur Deus non potest esse corpus.
No accidents in God — subject-accident composition denied§385
385Second composition: subject + accident — does God have it?
Theologians say no: first independent being cannot depend as accidents do.
Perfect essence takes no add-on perfection — God is accident-free.
Latin · §385
XV. Secunda compositio, cujus mentionem fecimus est ex subjecto & accidente, de qua etiam quaestio est, An Deo conveniat, id est, an in Deo sint accidentia quaedam ab essentia ipsius distincta. Id autem Theologi communi consensu negant. Nec sine summa ratione. Etenim quum Deus sit primum ens & prima causa, necesse est ut sit ens omnino independens. Adeoque in ipso nihil est quod ab alio dependeat. Sed accidens omne ab alio dependet, nimirum a subjecto: Ergo in Deo nullum est accidens. Deinde quicquid praeter essentiam accidens aliquod habet, hoc ipso arguitur essentiam habere non omnino perfectam. Nam si essentiae rei alicujus perfectio nulla deesset, nullam extra essentiam perfectionem suscipere posset. Si quidem quod ex se habet omnem perfectionem, ipsi perfectio nulla adjici potest. Sed Deus essentiam habet omnino perfectam: Ergo nullius accidentis est capax. Atque, ut verbo dicam, compositio omnis ex subjecto & accidente arguit imperfectionem tam subjecti, quod ab accidente velut accessoriam perfectionem mutuatur: quam ipsius accidentis, quod propterea semper imperfectum convincitur, quia ejus esse semper a subjecto dependet. Verum in Deo nihil est imperfectum, ideoque est talis compositionis expers.
Wisdom and justice in God name the essence, not accidents§386
386Objection: God is called wise, just, merciful — are those accidents?
In us those names mark accidents; in God they name the essence itself.
One essence, many names — no single word holds that perfection.
Latin · §386
XVI. At inquies, nonne Deo accidentia multa tribuuntur, veluti sapientia, justitia, bonitas, misericordia, & his similia, unde denominatur sapiens, justus, misericors, & bonus? Respondeo omnia ista non dici eodem modo de Deo, & de nobis. Nam nomina illa in rebus creatis accidentia quaedam notant: sed in Deo designant ipsam illius essentiam, quae propter omnimodam suam perfectionem, & varias operationes, varia sortitur nomina: quoniam unico nomine tanta perfectio significari non potest, nec uno conceptu concipi.
In God essence cannot be cut from existence§387
387Creatures: essence without existence — contingent, accidental.
God: essence cannot be conceived without existing.
First essential attribute: necessary being — to be and exist is of His essence.
Latin · §387
XVII. Tertia compositio, quae a nobis notata fuit, est ex essentia & existentia. Nam haec duo, ut dictum, in rebus creatis omnino distinguuntur. Estque in iis alia essentiae ratio, & alia existentiae: quandoquidem tota earum essentia concipi potest absque existentia, nec existentia ingreditur earum definitionem. Et hoc quia possunt esse & non esse, nec est ulla res creata quam non existere repugnet. Ideoque earum respectu existentia est aliquid contingens, non vero necessarium, & aliquid accidentarium, non autem essentiale. Sed in Deo res aliter se habet. Nam essentia ejus non potest concipi absque existentia. Et repugnat plane Deum concipere qui non existat. Nec magis potest mente abstrahi & praescindi essentia Dei ab ejus existentia, quam essentia hominis ab animali vel rationali. Nam quamvis in Deo nihil sit prius & posterius, attamen nostro concipiendi modo primum & maxime essentiale Dei attributum est, quod sit ens primum & necessarium, id est, quod primo per se & necessario existat: estque omnino de Dei essentia esse & existere.
Ego sum qui sum — Jehovah; no essence-existence composition§388
388Plato's to on / ens per essentiam: exists by His essence forever.
Exod 3: I am who I am; Jehovah from havah — being proper to God.
Apocalypse: who is, was, is to come — no essence-existence split.
Latin · §388
XVIII. Idcirco Deus vocatur a Platone to on, esse ipsum, quod hodie Philosophi dicunt ens per essentiam, id est, quod vi suae essentiae existit, & cujus essentia & natura est ut perpetuo existat. Atque hoc docet Deus ipse Exodi capite tertio, dum se vocat illum qui est, Ego sum qui sum, inquit Mosi. Quo nomine significat esse ipsi convenire longe alia ratione, quam rebus ab ipso creatis. Nam existere, ut dixi, creaturarum respectu est aliquid contingens, Dei vero, necessarium. Creaturis est accidentarium, verum Deo, essentiale. Esse creaturarum est participatum & mutuarium: sed Deo, esse proprium est, ipsique primo & per se competit. Atque haec est etiam vis nominis illius Jehovah quod est Deo maxime proprium. Fit enim ab havah, esse, quasi dicas ipsum est, id quod est, & ho on. Quod Joannes in Apocal. explicat illa periphrasi ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos: qui est, qui erat, & qui futurus est. Adeoque quum Dei existentia sit de ratione essentiae illius, nec una possit ab altera distingui, quasi aliud quid, sed conceptus unius ingrediatur conceptum alterius, Deus non potest dici ullo modo compositus ex essentia & existentia, estque prorsus istius compositionis expers.
Fourth composition: nature and subsistence in creatures§389
389Fourth composition: nature vs subsistence (person/suppositum).
Peter ≠ his humanity; Gabriel ≠ angelic nature.
Concrete and abstract names split in creatures.
Latin · §389
XIX. Nec etiam ipsi competit quarta compositio, quae a nobis commemorata est, ex natura, nempe, & subsistentia, sive eo quod personam & suppositum constituit. Haec duo quidem in rebus creatis distingui docuimus. Quippe in eis aliud est natura & essentia, & aliud quod naturam habet. Sicut aliud est Petrus, & aliud humanitas quae est in Petro. Et hoc quoniam praeter humanitatem, in Petro est aliquid quod personam Petri constituit, videlicet, subsistentia, quae (ut supra probatum est) a natura realiter differt. Atque etiam in Petro est differentia quaedam singularis, quae naturam humanam in Petro, ad Petrum contrahit & restringit ad ipsum, quod alioqui pluribus commune est. Ideoque in rebus creatis nominibus concretis & abstractis non idem omnino significatur: Nec unum dici de alio potest. Nam Petrus non est sua humanitas. Nec humanitas Petri est Petrus ipse. Ut nec Gabriel est ipsa natura Angelica, nec natura est ipse Gabriel.
In God no added subsistence — else a quaternity§390
390Divine nature is singular — no contracting difference needed.
Subsistence is not really other than essence in God.
Else quaternity (nature + three persons); perfect essence needs no add-on to subsist.
Latin · §390
XX. Sed distinctio illa in Deo locum non habet. Nam in Deo Divinae naturae nihil est superadditum quod ab ipsa diversum sit. Etenim natura divina est aliquid singulare, quod multiplicari non potest. Ideoque opus non habet differentia ulla contrahente quia fiat Deo propria: sicut Petri humanitas Petri fit propria per quandam differentiam singularem. Nec etiam in Deo subsistentia est aliquid ab essentia realiter distinctum. Sed personae divinae & essentia divina idem sunt. Alioqui non trinitas, sed quaternitas quaedam in Deo concipienda esset, nempe natura divina, & tres personae, sive subsistentiae. Et hoc quoque exigit divina perfectio. Nam cum essentiae divinae nihil desit, sed ipsa sit simpliciter & absolute perfecta, & omnem in suo conceptu perfectionem includat, non alia re ad subsistendum eget, nec quicquam ipsi superaddi potest.
Deus est Deitas — Gilbert of Poitiers rejected§391
391In God abstract = concrete: God is Deity; goodness itself, justice itself.
John 14: I am the truth and the life.
Gilbert of Poitiers exploded — Person/nature not split names in God.
Latin · §391
XXI. Idcirco nominibus abstractis & concretis in Deo res una plane, & eadem significatur. Nam Deus est sua essentia, & essentia Dei est Deus ipse. Homo non est humanitas, nec humanitas est homo: sed Deitas est Deus, & Deus est Deitas. Ac similiter quodcunque Divinum attributum, tam in abstracto quam in concreto de Deo recte & vere enunciari potest. Etenim Deus non tantum est bonus; sed etiam ipsa bonitas: nec tantum justus; sed ipsa justitia. Qui loquendi modus authoritate Scripturae comprobatur. Siquidem Filius Dei frequenter in Scripturis vocatur sapientia. Et non solum dicitur Deus verus: sed ipsa veritas: nec solum Deus vivens: sed ipsa vita, veluti Joan. 14. Ego sum, inquit, veritas & vita. Quapropter in scholis merito explosa est sententia Gilberti Porretani Episcopi Pictaviensis, qui tempore Bernardi docuit non eandem rem in Deo significari nominibus abstractis & concretis: ut hisce vocibus Deus & Deitas, Persona & natura. Adeoque hac etiam in parte Deus est omnino simplex & compositione caret.
God is above every genus — not univocal with creatures§392
392God is above every genus — nothing univocally common with creatures.
Wise/just of God names essence; of men, a quality — analogy only.
Even substance is no shared genus: God farther from creatures than substance from accidents.
Latin · §392
XXII. Nec magis Deo tribui potest compositio quam diximus ex genere & differentia. Nam Deus est supra omne genus: nec ullo rerum genere includitur. Genus enim dicitur quod pluribus commune est, & eodem modo de pluribus dicitur. Sed nihil est proprie creaturis & Deo commune, & quod eodem modo de creaturis & de Deo dicatur. Si quid enim dicitur de Deo & de creaturis, id non univoce dicitur, sed per analogiam & similitudinem quandam, nec eodem modo est in Deo & in creaturis. Veluti, cum Deum nominamus sapientem & justum, & quosdam etiam homines sapientes & justos, justitia & sapientia in hominibus notat qualitatem quandam; sed in Deo notat ipsam illius essentiam. Quod si esset aliquod genus creaturis & Deo commune, nullum potius esset quam substantia. Et tamen Dei natura magis distat a substantiis creatis, quam substantia creata distat ab accidentibus. Jam autem substantia creata non est in eodem genere cum accidente. Multo minus igitur Deus est in eodem genere cum substantiis creatis.
No proper difference — one simple essence§393
393No genus → no proper difference.
Divine nature has no graded composition.
One simple essence differs through itself from all else.
Latin · §393
XXIII. Cum autem Deus non habeat genus, differentiam quoque proprie dictam habere non potest. Nam differentia dicitur id quod genus pluribus commune ad certam speciem contrahit. Et sic in natura divina certi gradus distingui non possunt, nec composita est ex variis gradibus; sed est una simplex essentia, quae per seipsam differt ab omnibus aliis.
Act and potency — the last metaphysical composition in creatures§394
394Last metaphysical composition: act and potency.
Act = whatever perfects; potency = aptness to be perfected or changed.
Every creature has both — and can still receive more change.
Latin · §394
XXIV. Restat unum, quod omisimus, compositionis metaphysicae genus, nimirum ex actu & potentia. Actus hic dicitur quicquid rem perficit, determinat, & constituit, & uno verbo quaevis perfectio actus est. Potentia vero dicitur id secundum quod res apta est perfici & determinari, & in se aliquid recipere vel pati. Idcirco res omnes creatae compositae dici possunt ex actu & potentia. Nam in iis omnibus est aliquid quod perficit, & aliquid quod perficitur. Et praeter perfectiones quae actu illis insunt, nulla est quae non possit aliud recipere, & non sit alicujus mutationis capax.
God is pure act — no passive potency§395
395God has no passive potency — nothing can accrue or be stripped from Him.
Schools: He is actus purus — no mixed potency.
Whole mere perfection: whatever He can be, He is.
Latin · §395
XXV. Sed ab hac compositione Deus est quoque immunis. Nam in Deo nulla est potentia, nempe passiva qualem intelligimus. Etenim Deus est quicquid esse potest: nec potest ipsi quicquam accidere aut ab eo recipi, ut nec ab eo demi aut auferri: quandoquidem est primum ens omnino independens, & quod nullam habet causam quae in ipsum agere possit. Et hoc est quod scholae dicunt, Deum esse actum purum, id est, quod nullam habet potentiam admixtam. Quoniam in Deo nihil est quod perfici egeat aut ab alio perfectionem sumat: sed Deus totus est perfectio mera, cui nihil unquam addi, & unde nihil tolli potest. Et quae, ut jam dictum, est quicquid esse potest, nec potest esse aliud quam quod est.
Most simple — first being, first one§396
396Every composition kind removed — God is most simple.
First being = first one; perfect unity bars composition.
Composites depend on prior parts and a unifier — God has neither.
Latin · §396
XXVI. Porro, ex istis apparet Deum esse simplicissimum, & nullam prorsus compositionem in eo reperiri, quandoquidem singula compositionis genera ab eo removimus. Et confirmatur ex eo quod Deus est primum ens, adeoque primum unum. Nam ens & unum convertuntur. Perfecta autem unitas compositionem excludit. Nam quod compositum est, aliquo modo non est unum sed multa, quoniam ex multis constat. Deinde primum ens nihil habet se prius. Sed quicquid compositum est posterius est suis partibus componentibus, & dependet ab illis. Ac denique quae sunt diversa non conveniunt in unum, nisi per aliquam causam uniantur. Deus autem causam non habet.
School axiom: whatever is in God is God Himself§397
397School axiom: whatever is in God is God Himself.
Follows absolute simplicity.
Anything in God that is not God would split and compose Him.
Latin · §397
XXVII. Atque hinc quoque patet quam verum sit illud axioma quod in scholis tritum est, videlicet, quicquid est in Deo est ipse Deus. Nam hoc sequitur absolutam illam Dei simplicitatem. Etenim si aliquid esset in Deo, quod Deus non esset, necesse esset naturam divinam non esse omnino simplicem, sed quaedam in ea distincta esse, quorum unum non esset alterum: ac proinde Deum esse aliquatenus compositum.
All attributes one with the essence — split only in our conceiving§398
398All attributes are one with each other and with the essence.
Distinction is only in our conceiving — not in the thing.
Infinite perfection forces many concepts of one sufficient reality.
Latin · §398
XXVIII. Inde etiam sequitur omnia Dei attributa esse unum inter se, & cum essentia divina, & distingui non reipsa, sed tantum secundum nostrum concipiendi modum. Nam quia Dei essentia infinita est, & infinite perfecta, tota ejus perfectio a nobis simul concipi non potest, & conceptu uno exhauriri. Ideoque cogimur illam partiri in varios conceptus, quibus respondet una eademque res quae secundum diversos respectus & varias operationes, quibus una per se sufficit, diversimode a nobis consideratur.
After simplicity — highest perfection demands absolute simplicity§399
399Simplicity and highest perfection are necessarily linked.
In bodies, simpler often means more imperfect — creatures need composition.
Highest perfection demands absolute simplicity — so after simplicity, perfection.
Latin · §399
I. Novissimis thesibus egimus de divina simplicitate, quae cum summa & absoluta Dei perfectione necessariam connexionem habet. Nam in rebus quidem corporeis, quae simpliciora sunt, sunt imperfectiora. Sic elementa sunt imperfectiora mixtis, & animalia sunt plantis perfectiora. Nec est ulla res creata quae ad suam perfectionem compositionem aliquam non requirat, & quae saltem non egeat accidentibus quibusdam perfici. Sed summa perfectio simplicitatem absolutam exigit. Deus est simplicissimus, quia perfectissimus. Ideoque postquam actum est de Dei simplicitate, ratio postulat ut jam de perfectione illius agamus.
Perfect = nothing lacking — absolutely or secundum quid§400
400Perfect: that to which nothing is lacking.
Said two ways: absolutely, or secundum quid.
Latin · §400
II. Perfectum dicitur id cui nihil deest. Perfectio vero saepe excellentiam quamlibet designat. Sed aliquid perfectum dicitur duobus modis, vel absolute, vel secundum quid.
Secundum quid: complete in its own kind§401
401Secundum quid: nothing lacking in its own kind.
Perfect horse / perfect plant = full for that nature.
Still miss many absolute excellences.
Latin · §401
III. Secundum quid perfectum est illud cui nihil deest, non simpliciter, sed in suo genere, id est, quod habet omnem perfectionem naturae suae congruam & debitam. Ita perfectus equus est cui nihil deest quod pertinet ad naturam equinam, & perfecta planta quae habet omnem perfectionem plantae convenientem, quamvis absolute loquendo, sint multae perfectiones quas non habet equus, vel planta quae perfecta dicitur.
Simply perfect: every possible excellence — God alone§402
402Simply perfect: nothing lacking; every possible excellence.
No creature — only the divine nature.
Creatures have bounded perfections; God holds them all.
Latin · §402
IV. Simpliciter vero perfectum est id cui nihil omnino deest, & quod habet omnem excellentiam possibilem. Talis perfectio nulli creaturae competit, sed est proprium naturae divinae attributum. Omnis enim creatura perfectionem habet certam & determinatam, haec illam, ista aliam: sed Deus in se continet quicquid haberi potest perfectionis, nec cogitari potest ulla excellentia cujus natura divina sit expers.
Two grounds: cause of all; uncaused from Himself§403
403Highest divine perfection from two grounds.
He is cause of all.
He has no cause — through Himself, from Himself.
Latin · §403
V. Haec autem summa naturae divinae perfectio colligitur ex duobus. 1. Ex eo quod Deus est rerum omnium causa. 2. Ex eo quod Deus nullam causam habet, sed per se est, & a seipso.
Effect-perfection is in the cause — Psalm 94; Isaiah 66§404
404No effect-perfection missing from the first cause.
Ps 94: planter of the ear hears; former of the eye sees.
Isa 66: He who makes others bear is not barren.
Latin · §404
VI. Etenim certissimum est in effectu nullam esse posse perfectionem, quae in causa quodammodo non sit. Quandoquidem ergo Deus est prima rerum omnium causa, nihil in ulla re potest esse perfectionis quod in Deo non reperiatur. Atque hoc indicat Scriptura, dum perfectionem aliquam in rebus a Deo factis notans, inde argumentatur Deum multo magis talem perfectionem habere. Veluti Psal. 94. An, inquit Propheta, qui aurem plantavit non audiet? an qui oculum formavit non videbit? Et Isa. 66. Nunquid ego qui alios parere facio, ipse non pariam, dicit Dominus? An ego qui generationem ceteris tribuo, sterilis ero?
Axiom: every creaturely excellence is somehow in God — simply simple perfections§405
405Axiom: every creaturely excellence is somehow in God.
Two kinds: first, simply simple — better to have than lack.
Life, intellect, free will — no greater perfection bars them.
Latin · §405
VII. Itaque arte tenendum est, & tanquam firmum certumque axioma, nullam omnino praestantiam & excellentiam in creatura ulla reperiri, quae in Deo non sit aliquo saltem modo. Sed ad pleniorem hujus rei intelligentiam notandum est duo esse perfectionum genera. Sunt enim perfectiones quaedam simpliciter tales, id est, quas, absolute loquendo, praestat habere, quam non habere, & quae nullam majorem perfectionem excludunt. Has Scholastici vocant perfectiones simpliciter simplices. Atque hujusmodi perfectiones sunt vita, intellectus, voluntatis libertas. Nam absolute loquendo, praestat vivere, quam non vivere, intelligere quam non intelligere, & praeditum esse libera voluntate, quam non esse praeditum. Nec ulla est perfectio quantumvis magna, quae cum vita, intellectu & libera voluntate consistere non possit.
Secundum quid perfections: sensitive and vegetative tied to imperfection§406
406Secundum quid perfections: kind-good but locked to imperfection.
Sensitive / vegetative conflict with higher (angelic) perfection.
Absolutely: better without sense/vegetative than with them.
Latin · §406
VIII. Sed praeterea sunt aliae quaedam perfectiones non simpliciter, sed secundum quid sic dictae. Hae vero sunt, quae quidem in suo genere dicunt perfectionem aliquam, sed quae tamen necessario est cum imperfectione conjuncta: nec ab ea potest separari, quandiu suam naturam retinet. Ideoque sunt quaedam perfectiones majores quae cum istiusmodi perfectione consistere non possunt. Ac proinde, simpliciter & absolute loquendo, praestat talem perfectionem non habere, quam illam habere. Hujusmodi perfectio est animalis sensitiva & vegetativa. Nam quamvis in suo genere sit perfectio quaedam vegetativum & sensitivum esse, tamen perfectiones illae connotant quandam imperfectionem, & est major quaedam perfectio quae non potest cum illis consistere, ut verbi causa, perfectio naturae angelicae. Ideoque, simpliciter & absolute loquendo, praestat non esse sensitivum, quam esse sensitivum, non esse vegetativum, quam esse vegetativum.
Two modes: formaliter vs virtute / eminenter§407
407Schools: contain a perfection formally, or by virtue / eminently.
Formal: the perfection is present by its whole nature — fire hot, water cold.
Latin · §407
IX. Secundo notandum est perfectionem aliquam posse duobus modis in aliquo esse & contineri: nempe, ut scholae docent, vel formaliter & proprie, vel virtute, seu eminenter. Illud perfectionem aliquam formaliter habet cui perfectio illa inest secundum totam suam naturam & essentiam, ita ut ab ea denominari possit. Sic ignis habet formaliter calorem, aqua habet formaliter frigus, quia calor & frigus proprie, & secundum totam suam naturam, insunt aquae, & igni, ita ut ignis calidus, & aqua frigida proprie, & citra figuram ullam denominari possit.
Eminent containment: Sun and heat; angels and senses§408
408Eminent: hold something better that can do all the lesser does — without its flaw.
Peripatetic Sun: not formally hot, but produces heat.
Angels: no sense-nature, yet sense-knowledge more nobly by intellect.
Latin · §408
X. Eminenter autem & virtute habere perfectionem aliquam, est in se habere aliquid perfectius, & quod continet totam vim perfectionis illius quae eminenter haberi dicitur: idque, vel quia potest perfectionem illam producere; vel quia absque illa potest praestare quicquid illa praestat, seclusa omni imperfectione. Ita juxta mentem Peripateticorum Sol formaliter calorem non habet, & proprie calidus non est: sed tamen calorem habet virtute seu eminenter, quia calorem producere potest, & praestare quicquid praestat ignis qui calorem habet. Sic visus & auditus in angelis formaliter non est, nec enim habent naturam sensitivam, attamen sensus illos habent virtute & eminenter, quia cognitionem quam habet homo, sensibus illis mediantibus nobiliori modo per intellectum suum habent.
Secundum quid perfections in God only virtute & eminenter§409
409Secundum quid creature-perfections: not formal in God.
Yet God has them all by virtue and eminently.
Latin · §409
XI. His ita notatis dicimus perfectiones illas creaturarum quas vocavimus secundum quid, in Deo quidem non esse proprie & formaliter: attamen Deum omnes illas habere virtute & eminenter.
Why not formal: they drag imperfection and clash in one subject§410
410Formal secundum quid would import imperfection — none in God.
Human/horse/ox natures and hot/cold cannot share one subject.
If formal in God, we could predicate them — we cannot.
Latin · §410
XII. Quod in Deo proprie & formaliter non sint, est per se manifestum. Etenim, ut dictum est, notant & secum trahunt quandam imperfectionem. Sed in Deo nulla est imperfectio. Deinde perfectiones illae non possunt compatari omnes in eodem subjecto. Nec enim unum idemque potest simul habere naturam humanam, equinam, & bovinam. Et esse simul siccum & humidum, calidum & frigidum. Sed ista necessario constituunt diversas res, & requirunt diversa subjecta. Ac denique, si omnia ista in Deo formaliter essent, possent de eo dici & affirmari. Quod tamen falsum esse nemo non videt.
Yet eminently: He made ear and eye — perceives without organs§411
411Not by proper ratio — still virtute & eminenter.
No plant/animal nature formally — yet He made them.
No ears/eyes — yet He planted the ear and formed the eye.
Latin · §411
XIII. Sed quamvis perfectiones illae in Deo non sint secundum propriam suam rationem, nihilominus in Deo sunt, ut dictum, virtute & eminenter, quoniam Deus in se vim habet illas producendi, & potest sine iis efficere quicquid illae efficere possunt. Sic Deus in se formaliter non habet naturam plantae, vel animalis: sed habet aliquid in se perfectius quod tota virtute continet, fiunt enim a Deo quicquid sunt; & Deus est qui ista produxit, & producere potest. Non habet aures & oculos, nec est proprie visu & auditu praeditus: sed ille est qui plantavit aurem, & qui oculum formavit, adeoque qui sine auribus, & oculis, percipit omnia quae fiunt & dicuntur.
Simply simple perfections are formal in God§412
412Simply simple perfections: formal and proper in God.
Life, intellect, will, wisdom, goodness, justice — by proper form.
God is truly living, understanding, free, wise, just, good.
Latin · §412
XIV. Illae vero perfectiones quae sunt simpliciter tales, & quas absolute praestat habere, quam illis carere, in Deo formaliter & proprie reperiuntur. Etenim in Deo sunt secundum propriam suam formam & essentiam, vita, intellectus, voluntas, sapientia, bonitas, justitia, & alia istiusmodi: adeoque Deus vere & proprie dici potest vivens, intelligens, liber, sapiens, justus, & bonus.
Objection: intellect and wisdom are accidents — answer by analogy§413
413Objection: intellect/wisdom name accidents — none in God.
Answer: as in creatures they are imperfect accidents; as absolute concepts, formal in God.
Analogical names strip accident — sit inside the divine essence.
Latin · §413
XV. At, inquies, nomina ista proprie significant accidentia quaedam, nam intellectus & voluntas sunt potentiae naturales, sapientia vero & justitia, habitus quidam intellectum & voluntatem exornantes. Sed in Deo nulla sunt accidentia. Ideoque perfectiones quae per nomina illa significantur in Deo, non possunt esse proprie & formaliter, sed solummodo eminenter, sicut perfectiones illae quae dicuntur secundum quid. Respondeo intellectum, voluntatem, sapientiam, justitiam, & similia duobus modis considerari posse. Vel secundum modum quo creaturis insunt: Et ita sunt accidentia quae imperfectionis aliquid admixtum habent. Vel praecise, prout de illis formatur quidam conceptus generalis qui abstrahit ab omni imperfectione, & per analogiam communis est Deo & creaturis. Priore modo perfectiones illae proprie Deo non competunt. Posteriore vero Deo formaliter insunt, & possunt de Deo vere & proprie enunciari. Nam cum audimus voces illas intellectum, voluntatem, sapientiam, justitiam, possumus concipere perfectionem quandam absolutam, & quae non includat ullam rationem accidentis. Et sic Deo tribui possunt recte & convenienter. Nam perfectiones istae hoc modo consideratae vere sunt intra essentiam divinam.
Every creaturely perfection is somehow in God — as in the fountain§414
414No creaturely perfection missing from God — formal or eminent.
He is first cause: all perfection flows from Him and preexists in Him.
Excellence resides in God as in a fountain.
Latin · §414
XVI. Ex his ergo manifestum est nullam in ulla re esse perfectionem quae in Deo quodammodo non sit: nempe, formaliter, ut perfectiones illae quae simpliciter simplices dicuntur: vel eminenter & virtute, ut aliae quae vocantur perfectiones secundum quid. Et hoc quia Deus est rerum omnium prima & praecipua causa. Unde sequitur quicquid perfectionis est in rebus ab ipso promanare, adeoque in eo, ut sic dicam, praeexistere: nec ullam omnino posse dari excellentiam, quae ab ipso non derivetur, adeoque quae non in ipso, tanquam in fonte resideat. Quod enim ab alio derivatur & manat, non potest non esse quodam modo in eo unde manat & derivatur.
Uncaused first being — fountain of all entity and perfection§415
415Creatures' bounded perfections prove they received being from another.
First being has no cause — exists by His essence.
He is the fountain of all entity and perfection — not a measured grade.
Latin · §415
XVII. Sed praeterea quod in Deo sit omnis perfectio quae esse & haberi potest, inde, ut jam dictum, aliunde probatur, quod Deus qui est prima rerum omnium causa nullam ipse causam habet, sed est primum ens omnino independens, quod a seipso est, non ab ullo alio. Nam quod rerum creatarum natura & perfectio certa & determinata est, ita ut haec habeat unam perfectionem, ista vero aliam: inde fit quod ab alio suum esse acceperunt. Istud enim earum discrimen, & ista determinatio, omnino referri debet ad causam efficientem, quae singulis talem naturam indulsit, istumque, non alium, perfectionis gradum. Adeoque primum ens, quod suum esse non accepit ab alio, sed per seipsum est, & vi suae essentiae existit, non potest habere certam perfectionis mensuram, & esse quiddam ad hoc & illud determinatum: sed est ipse totius esse fons & origo prima, quae in se continet omnem entitatem & perfectionem.
No possible perfection can be absent from God§416
416If a missing "perfection" is impossible — it is nothing, not a lack.
If it is possible — it depends on the first cause.
So it is in God at least virtute & eminenter.
Latin · §416
XVIII. Et certe si a Deo absit aliqua perfectio, necesse est ut perfectio ista sit aliquid possibile, vel non. Si non est quidpiam possibile; sed aliquid quod esse repugnat, certe perfectio non est, sed merum nihil: nec Deus quod illam non habet potest dici aliqua perfectione carere. Si vero est aliquid possibile quod sit, aut esse possit, quandoquidem Deus est primum ens, & prima causa, unde reliqua omnia pendent, nec est, nec esse potest, nisi per Dei virtutem, & consequenter ab eo non abest: sed in eo saltem virtute & eminenter continetur.
El Shaddai — all-sufficient, not lacking§417
417Most perfect: holds every excellence of every being.
Hebrew Shaddai / Dai = sufficiency.
El Shaddai: lacks nothing; self-sufficient — often rendered omnipotent.
Latin · §417
XIX. Deus igitur est ens perfectissimum, quod non tantum entia singula perfectione superat, sed etiam in se habet omnem omnis entis perfectionem: nec caret excellentia ulla quae sit aut esse possit. Et haec est summa Dei perfectio, quam exprimit vox Hebraea Shaddai, quae unum est ex divinis nominibus. Nam Dai Hebraeis est sufficientia. Ideoque El Shaddai proprie significat illum cui nihil deest, & qui nulla re eget, sed in se, & a se habet omnimodam sufficientiam, sive dixeris autarkes, qui sibi ipsi sufficit & potest solus omnia efficere, unde non male vertitur omnipotens.
Covenant name with Abraham — God needs nothing§418
418To Abraham: I am El Shaddai — all-sufficient, not needy.
Covenant for Abraham's sake — nothing God promised was lacking to God.
Creatures always need and can receive; God needs nothing, gains nothing.
Latin · §418
XX. Atque hoc est nomen quod Deus assumpsit foedus cum Abrahamo pangens: Ego sum, inquit, El Shaddai, Deus fortis, & omnipotens, seu potius, omnisufficiens. Quo titulo Deus innuebat foedus illud, non sua, sed Abrahami causa initum: nec quicquam eorum quae illi spondebat sibi deesse. Nulla res creata est, quae sibi ipsa sufficiat: aliae aliis opus habent, nec ulla est quae saltem Dei continua ope non egeat. Sed Deo proprium est omnia a se habere, nec indigere re ulla. Ideoque creaturae sunt profectus capaces, & possunt semper aliquid accipere: sed Deo nihil nocere, nihil prodesse potest. Nec bonum aut malum ullum ad ipsum unquam pertingit.
Highest perfection implies infinite essence§419
419Summa perfectio → infinite essence.
Nothing better than God can be or be thought.
Infinite good outranks finite good.
Latin · §419
XXI. Porro ex ista summa Dei perfectione & sufficientia sequitur ipsum infinitum esse, & essentiam habere infinitam. Quandoquidem enim Deus habet omnem perfectionem, quae esse & haberi potest, certum est nihil ipso melius & perfectius esse, vel cogitari posse: adeoque necesse est ipsum esse infinitum. Nam bonum infinitum finito bono melius est.
Creatures finite by bounded kinds — God holds every kind eminently§420
420Creature essences finite: each kind stops at its own limit.
Ox / horse / man — each lacks the others' essential perfection.
God holds every being's perfection eminently — so His essence is infinite.
Latin · §420
XXII. Deinde essentiae rerum creatarum ideo finitae dicuntur, quia perfectio uniuscujusque certum terminum & limitem habet, ultra quem non extenditur. Nimirum haec habet unam perfectionem, ista vero aliam: & singulae, intra fines proprios continentur, nec perfectiones aliarum habent. Ita perfectio quaedam essentialis est in bove, quaedam in equo, quaedam in homine: verum equus non habet perfectionem bovis, nec homo habet perfectionem equi, sed istorum unumquodque suam. Et in summa, nulla est creatura quantumvis perfecta, a qua non absit aliqua perfectio. Cum ergo in Deo res aliter se habeat, & ipse contineat omnem omnis entis perfectionem, modo quodam nobilissimo & eminentissimo, ipsius essentia finita dici non potest; sed infinitam esse necesse est.
Divine perfections have no sphere or grade-limit§421
421Creature perfections: bounded sphere of force.
Divine perfections: no limit at all.
Not only every perfection — every grade without limitation.
Latin · §421
XXIII. Adde quod perfectiones quae rebus creatis insunt, includuntur certis terminis ultra quos non extenduntur. Omnique earum vis & activitas certam habet sphaeram quam transgredi non valet. Sed divinae perfectiones omni prorsus limite carent. Nec Deus tantum omnem perfectionem habet: sed omnem omnis perfectionis gradum absque ulla limitatione.
No superior cause to limit God — therefore unlimited§422
422Finite things were limited by a cause that set their grade.
God has no superior cause to bound Him.
Therefore His nature is unlimited — infinite.
Latin · §422
XXIV. Et certe quod finitum atque limitatum est, necesse est ita fuisse limitatum ab aliqua causa, quae ipsi talem naturam tribuit, & certum assignavit perfectionis gradum. Sed Deus, ut jam dictum, nullam supra se causam habet, quae limitare ipsum potuerit, & illi certos terminos ponere: cum ipse sit prima rerum omnium causa. Ideoque necesse est Deum naturam habere plane illimitatam, omnique fine & termino carentem: quod est infinitum esse.
Scripture teaches infinite essence — Psalm 145§423
423Not only philosophy — Scripture teaches divine essence is infinite.
Psalm 145: His greatness has no end / Hebrew En cheker — no searching out.
What has an end is not altogether searchable.
Latin · §423
XXV. Neque hanc essentiae divinae infinitatem docet tantum ratio & sana Philosophia, sed etiam ipse Scripturae sacrae textus. Nam Psal. 145. de Deo diserte dicitur, Dominus magnus est & valde laudabilis, & magnitudinis illius non est finis, sive, ut habet Hebraeus eodem, En cheker, non est investigatio, quod eodem recidit. Etenim quod finem habet non est penitus investigabile.
Infinite power and wisdom prove infinite essence§424
424Scripture gives God infinite power and infinite wisdom.
Attributes = essence (simplicity) — so essence is infinite too.
Finite subject cannot hold infinite power/wisdom; what can do all things has no bound.
Latin · §424
XXVI. Et certe ista essentiae divinae infinitas inde satis probatur, quod Scriptura Deo tribuit potentiam infinitam, & sapientiam quoque infinitam. Nam essentia Dei & attributa divina sunt plane unum & idem, sicuti patet ex summa Dei simplicitate, quae ante probata & demonstrata fuit. Ideoque si attributa Dei infinita sunt, etiam essentiam infinitam esse necesse est. Praeterquam quod subjectum finitum non esset capax potentiae & sapientiae infinitae. Nam inter subjectum, & id quod est in subjecto proportio quaedam requiritur. Quod autem, juxta Scripturam, potentia Dei plane infinita sit, inde manifestum est, quod expresse Scriptura docet Deum omnia posse, & ipsi rem omnino nullam esse impossibilem. Nam potentia illa demum finita dici potest, quae huc usque potest extendi, & non ultra, adeoque cui est aliquid impossibile. Qui vero simpliciter & absolute omnia potest, illius potentia nullum terminum habet extra quem extendi non possit, sed omni fine & termino caret. Et similiter sane de intelligentia & sapientia divina dicitur, quod illius non sit numerus nec investigatio: quibus verbis, ut patet, res infinita describitur.
Unlimited divine perfection → God infinite in every respect§425
425Divine essence has no perfection-limit.
Therefore God is infinite however you take Him.
Infinite = unbound — not shut inside limits.
Latin · §425
I. Quandoquidem essentiae divinae perfectio omni prorsus limite caret, sequitur Deum, quocunque modo consideretur, infinitum esse. Nam infinitum esse est terminis carere, & intra certos limites non concludi.
Infinitude chiefly as immensity (place) and eternity (time)§426
426Every attribute is infinite — yet two foci stand out.
No place-bound, no time-bound: greatness without end; duration without start/end.
Prior = immensity; posterior = eternity — treat immensity first.
Latin · §426
II. Sed quamvis Dei infinitas per omnia ejus attributa aequaliter fusa sit, nec quicquam sit in Deo quod non sit infinitum: illa tamen solet in duobus praecipue considerari, nempe in eo quod nullis nec loci, nec temporis limitibus circumscribatur, sed sit longe supra omne tempus & locum: adeo ut ejus magnitudo terminum non habeat, nec duratio principium, aut finem. Quae prior infinitas immensitas vocatur; posterior autem aeternitas: de quibus utraque seorsim agendum est: atque nunc quidem de priori.
Immensus vs creatures — circumscriptive and definitive place§427
427God immense: no bound of greatness; not place-defined.
Bodies: circumscriptive place (parts match space-parts).
Angels/souls: definitive place — here not elsewhere; can migrate.
Latin · §427
III. Deus igitur immensus est, quia magnitudinis ejus terminus nullus datur, adeoque nullo loco circumscriptus, aut definitus est. Quae naturae divinae singularis praestantia melius percipitur, si quis conferat Deum hac in parte cum rebus creatis. Igitur res omnes creatae singulae suum locum peculiarem habent. Quemadmodum essentia illarum finita est, ita sunt in certo & finito loco. Et quidem videmus corpora certo loci spatio concludi, contineri, & circumscribi, sic ut partes eorum partibus spatii & loci respondeant, major majori, & minor minori. Quod Philosophi vocant in loco esse circumscriptive. Qui modus solis corporibus competit: a substantiis vero incorporeis, quales sunt angeli, & anima humana, plane alienus est. Cum enim substantiae spirituales non sint extensae ad modum corporum, nec habeant partes extra partes, non possunt habere partes partibus loci respondentes, & loco commensurari. Attamen certis locis definiuntur. Ita sunt hic ut alibi non sint. Hinc abscedunt, & alio migrant. Ideoque a Philosophis in loco dicuntur esse definitive.
God alone is everywhere — whole everywhere, whole outside every place§428
428Proper to God: ubique — not fixed to one place.
Infinite substance penetrates all; present to all.
Whole everywhere and whole outside every place.
Latin · §428
IV. Sed Deo proprium est ubique esse, nec ullo certo loco definiri. Nam infinita ipsius substantia omnia penetrat, & omnibus adest. Nullibi ita est ut alibi non sit. A nullo loco exclusus est, & nullo tamen includitur. Totus ubique est, & totus extra quemvis locum est.
Circle whose center is everywhere — Hebrew Makom§429
429Wise saying: circle — center everywhere, circumference nowhere.
Hebrews called God Makom (place) — He contains places.
All things in Him more than He in all things.
Latin · §429
V. Quocirca sapienter & acute dictum est Deum esse circulum cujus centrum est ubique, circumferentia nullibi. Nec etiam absque ratione Hebraeorum Magistri Deum vocaverunt Makom, id est, locum: quoniam Deus loco non continetur, sed ipse est qui fecit, & continet omnia loca: ita ut potius omnia sint in ipso, quam ipse sit in omnibus.
Three modes of presence — power, presence, essence§430
430Scholastics: present by power, presence, and essence.
Clearer: by operation, by cognition, by substance.
Sets up VII–IX on each mode.
Latin · §430
VI. Verum ad accuratiorem immensitatis hujus divinae notitiam, notate Deum rebus adesse tribus modis, nempe, per potentiam, praesentiam, & essentiam, ut Scholastici communiter loquuntur. Quod clarius dixeris & convenientius, per operationem, per cognitionem, & per substantiam.
Presence by power — Acts 17 in Him we live§431
431By power: He produces, preserves, governs all.
Works all in all.
Acts 17: not far — in Him we live, move, and are.
Latin · §431
VII. Nam Deus per potentiam in omnibus esse dicitur, quoniam omnia producit, conservat & gubernat: & operatur omnia in omnibus: juxta illud Apostoli: Actor. 17. Non longe Deus est ab unoquoque nostrum, in ipso enim vivimus, movemur, & sumus.
Presence by cognition — all bare before His eyes§432
432By presence: He sees all that is done everywhere as before Him.
Heb. 4: nothing invisible — all naked and open to His eyes.
Scholastic "praesentia" tracks cognition — like eye-survey / sun seen.
Latin · §432
VIII. Per praesentiam vero dicitur Deus in omnibus esse, quoniam omnia quae sunt, fiunt, aut aguntur ubique locorum, tanquam coram se posita videt & intuetur, secundum illud Apostoli Hebr. 4. Non est creatura ulla invisibilis in conspectu Dei: omnia autem nuda & aperta sunt oculis ejus. Hic autem modus quo Deus rebus adest speciali ratione a Scholasticis per praesentiam dicitur, quoniam praesens videtur ad cognitionem referri. Nam juxta etymologiam, praesens est illud quod prae sensibus est. Quomodo nos alicui loco praesentes esse dicimur, cum oculis illum collustramus: & quomodo sol, etsi in caelo sit positus, praesens nobis dicitur, & nos illi, dum eum aspicimus.
Presence by essence — whole substance intimately in every creature§433
433By essence: His substance is nowhere missing.
It penetrates all — whole, by itself, intimately in each thing.
No creaturely recess lacks the whole divine essence.
Latin · §433
IX. Denique Deus in rebus dicitur esse per essentiam, quia substantia ejus nusquam deest, nec deesse potest: sed, ut diximus, omnia penetrat, & per omnia diffusa est, omnibusque ac singulis rebus tota per seipsam intime inest; ita ut nulli dentur recessus in ulla plane creatura, in quibus tota divina essentia non reperiatur.
Mode ineffable — not by parts; soul vestige tota in toto§434
434We cannot fully grasp or word the mode of essence-in-things.
Claim only: absent from nothing; not present by parts (simplicity).
Vestige: soul whole in whole body and whole in each part.
Latin · §434
X. Quae quamvis a nobis dicantur, agnoscimus tamen modum illum quo essentia divina rebus inest, a nobis satis intelligi, aut verbis exprimi non posse. Neque verbis praedictis aliud assertum volumus, quam essentiam divinam a nulla re prorsus abesse: nec illam rebus inesse per partes, cum simplicissima sit & indivisibilis, ut aliis thesibus abunde probatum est. Ac licet modus ille quo Deus existit in rebus ipsi sit proprius, ac plane singularis, ejus tamen vestigium quoddam dari videtur in anima humana, quae per totum corpus ita diffusa est, ut tota sit in toto, & tota in qualibet parte, ut communiter docent scholae Philosophicae.
First two modes undisputed — even among theists§435
435Orthodox: three modes of ubiquity.
Power and cognition-presence: no dispute.
Even theist unbelievers grant no thing escapes His knowing/power.
Latin · §435
XI. Tribus hisce modis Deus in mundo ubique praesens est, juxta Orthodoxorum communem sententiam. Et quidem de duobus primis nulla dubitatio est. Nec est quisquam inter Christianos, quod sciam, imo nec inter ipsos infideles, qui Deum aliquem agnoscunt, qui neget Deum ubique praesentem esse per suam cognitionem & virtutem: ita ut nulla res sit quae cognitionem illius fugiat, & ad quam virtus ejus non possit pertingere.
Third mode denied — Eugubinus and Vorstius confine substance to heaven§436
436Substance-presence is the contested mode.
Eugubinus: God's substance only in heaven (Ps 138/139).
Vorstius (Leiden): same — substance in heaven; earth only by power/wisdom.
Latin · §436
XII. Sed de tertio modo, nimirum de praesentia secundum substantiam, repertus est unus, aut alter qui negaret Deum ita ubique esse. Nam inter Pontificios Augustinus quidam Eugubinus scribens in Psalmum 138. juxta versionem vulgatam, qui juxta Hebraeos est 139. pretendit Deum secundum substantiam extra caelum non esse, & in caelo duntaxat versari. Ex reformatis vero similem errorem erravit Vorstius, sub hujus saeculi initium, Professor in Academia Lugduno-Batava, qui affirmavit Deum, ratione suae substantiae, esse tantum in caelo, licet in terra virtute & sapientia sua nobis adsit.
Two proofs — no empty place; greater than the world§437
437Against Vorstius: two claims to prove.
1) No place without substantial presence.
2) God not contained by the world — surpasses it.
Latin · §437
XIII. Itaque ad asserendam Deo immensitatis suae laudem, contra hominem illum, & si qui sint qui cum ipso sentiant, duo jam, Deo ipso favente, probabimus. Primo in toto universo nullum locum esse, in quo Deus praesens non sit secundum suam substantiam, secundum Deum toto mundo non contineri, & illum immensa sua magnitudine superare.
Jeremiah 23 — filling heaven and earth is substantial presence§438
438Scripture: no place without real substantial presence.
Jer 23: I fill heaven and earth — not mere remote rule.
Remote seeing ≠ filling (Gaul-king / tower-watcher analogies).
Latin · §438
XIV. Quod ad primum attinet Scriptura sacra docet apertissime nullum in toto mundo locum esse in quo Deus praesens non adsit, & quidem praesentia reali & substantiali. Id praesertim colligitur ex ipsius Dei verbis, Jeremiae capite vigesimo tertio, ubi se terram & caelum implere asseverat. Quod de praesentia alia quam substantiali commode accipi non potest. Nam arguens Pseudo-prophetas, qui fingebant se a Deo missos, eique mendacia sua ascribere non verebantur, non cogitantes Deum testem & ultorem adesse, his interrogationibus stuporem eorum excitat. Numquid ego sum Deus de propinquo, inquit Dominus, & non Deus de longinquo? Potestne quis abscondi in latibulis ubi ego eum non videam, inquit Dominus? Annon caelum & terram impleo? dicit Dominus? Ubi probat neminem posse ab ipsius oculis abscondi, quoniam in toto mundo nullus locus ipso vacuus est. Et certe, si Deus tantum ideo terrae praesens esset, quia de caelo videt & regit ea quae in terra fiunt, non posset recte dici terram implere. Nec enim Rex qui Galliam imperio suo regit potest dici Galliam implere. Ut nec implet campum aliquem, qui in turri quadam constitutus, procul illum contuetur.
Psalm 139 — same substantial presence in heaven and on earth§439
439Ps 139: no flight from God — heaven, Sheol, seas.
Not twistable to power/knowledge only without missing the aim.
Highest and lowest places: same substantial presence.
Latin · §439
XV. Nec minus illam naturae divinae omnipraesentiam probant verba Prophetae: Psal. 139. Quo ibo a spiritu tuo, & quo a facie tua fugiam? Si ascendero in caelum, tu illic es. Si stratum posuero in inferno, ecce ades. Si assumam alas aurorae, & ultra maria andeam: ibi quoque manus tua inveniet me, & dextera tua me comprehendet. Quae verba docent Deum tam esse in terra quam in caelo, & in summa nullum omnino locum esse ubi non adsit. Nec verba ista ad solam Dei potentiam & cognitionem detorqueri possunt quin recedatur a scopo Prophetae. Nam cum duae sint rationes, quibus ita quis occultari possit, ut non videatur ab alio, una, si sit in eo loco ubi alter non sit; altera, si sit quidem in eodem loco, sed visum impediant tenebrae, neutram sibi prodesse posse Psaltes affirmat. Et prius quidem illud removet verbis citatis, ubi docet a nullo loco Deum abesse. Posterius vero verbis sequentibus, ubi affirmat Deo esse perinde tenebras atque lucem. Nec etiam verba Prophetae patiuntur istud interpretamentum. Nam quum de loco supremo dicit Propheta, Si ascendero, tu illic es, & verborum proprietas, & rei veritas exigit ut intelligamus substantiae divinae praesentiam. Sed manifestum est, quam postea de loco infimo subjungit, ecce ades, illum de eadem praesentia loqui, & dicere velle Deum ita praesentem esse in terra ut in caelo: adeoque illic etiam secundum suam substantiam adesse.
Isaiah 66 — heaven throne, earth footstool; same substance§440
440Isa 66: heaven My throne, earth My footstool — cannot be boxed in temples.
Not Vorstius's distant-seat reading — substance fills the world.
Throne-sitter touches footstool too — earth gets the same substance.
Latin · §440
XVI. Huc etiam referri potest quod legitur apud Isaiam cap. 66. Haec dicit Dominus, caelum sedes mea, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Quae est ista domus quam aedificabitis mihi? Et quis est iste locus quietis meae? Nonne manus mea fecit haec omnia? Ubi Deus probat se templis manufactis includi non posse, non ratione ducta a distantia loci in quo sit ejus propria sedes & habitaculum, ut somniasse videtur Vorstius: sed a substantiae suae magnitudine, qua replet universum mundum. Et certe is qui folio insidit, substantia sua non minus attingit scabellum quam solium ipsum. Adeoque Deus dicens caelum esse thronum suum, & terram pedum suorum scabellum, significat se non minus terrae quam ipsi caelo substantia sua adesse.
Immediate earth-operation proves substantial presence on earth§441
441Immediate earth-acts prove substance on earth as in heaven.
Creation, conservation, miracles: no instruments — He acts through Himself.
Acts 17: not far away in a heavenly box outside which He is not.
Latin · §441
XVII. Sed praeterea, quod Deus in terra sit secundum substantiam non minus quam in caelo, inde patet quod in terra immediate operatur. Nam non minus est impossibile, ut quis immediate efficiat aliquid ubi non est, quam quum non est. Deum autem agere immediate in terra manifestum est ex terrae creatione, & conservatione: tum ex miraculis in terra editis. Nam creatio & conservatio, & miraculorum etiam patratio sunt actiones Dei immediatae, in quibus Deus nullis utitur instrumentis, sed per seipsum immediate agit. Ideoque Apostolus Actor. 17. ex perpetua illa rerum conservatione & sustentatione, ratione cujus dicimur in Deo vivere, moveri, & esse, colligit Deum non esse longe ab unoquoque nostrum: adeoque non procul a nobis in caelo versari, tanquam in habitaculo quodam extra quod non sit.
Hypostatic union — Colossians 2 requires divine substance on earth§442
442Faith: divine nature personally united to Christ's human nature.
Col 2: all fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily/substantially.
He walked earth — so divine substance was on earth, or the union breaks.
Latin · §442
XVIII. Et huc etiam nos ducit fidei analogia. Nam ex fide certum est naturam divinam in Christo humanae naturae esse personaliter unitam. Et sic omnem plenitudinem divinitatis in Christo habitare corporaliter & substantialiter, ut docet Apostolus capite secundo Epist. ad Colossenses. Sed Christus secundum naturam humanam in terris diu versatus est. Ideoque necesse est divinam substantiam in terris etiam adesse, nisi quis dissolvere velit unionem duarum naturarum in Christo: aut dicere Christi naturam humanam personaliter unitam fuisse cum natura divina, etiam tum quum ab ea secundum locum distabat.
First proof closed; Solomon — heavens of heavens cannot contain God§443
443First claim closed: essence-presence everywhere.
Second: filling the universe yet not contained — surpasses it.
1 Kgs 8: heavens of heavens cannot contain You — of substance, not mere power.
Latin · §443
XIX. Itaque nullus est locus in universo, ubi Deus non adsit non tantum virtute & potentia sua, sed etiam per essentiam suam quae omnia penetrat, & per omnia diffusa est. Sed praeterea, quod secundo loco probandum suscepimus, Dei magnitudo tanta est ut totum universum replens ipso tamen non contineatur, sed ipsum longe exsuperet. Id docet Salomon libro primo Regum capite octavo. Nam postquam dixit de templo quod recens extruxerat, Aedificavi domum habitaculum tibi, firmam sedem in qua aeternum habites, Ne quis existimaret Deum magnifica illa domo in posterum includendum esse, sicuti gentium idola suis templis, absurdam ejusmodi cogitationem removet. Ecce, inquit, caeli caelorum non capiunt te, quanto minus domus ista quam aedificavi? Ubi per caelos caelorum intelligit caelos extremos, qui continent universum mundum, quos Deum capere, id est, continere & concludere non posse asseverat. Quae verba accipi non possunt nisi de Dei substantia, non vero de Dei virtute, & exertione providentiae ejus. Nam cui tam stupido & inepto posset venire in mentem Dei potestatem & providentiam unica domo concludi? Nec opus fuit ut Salomon cogitationi tali occurreret.
Job 11 — higher than heaven, deeper than Sheol§444
444Sophar (Job 11): higher than heaven, deeper than Sheol, longer/broader than earth/sea.
If outermost heaven boxed Him, He could not be higher than heaven.
World-enclosure blocked.
Latin · §444
XX. Praeterea quod Deus mundo non includatur, sed sit toto mundo major & superior, manifeste docet Sophar apud Jobum capite undecimo. Excelsior, inquit, est caelo, profundior inferno, longior terra, & latior mari. Nam certe si Deus extremo caelo concluderetur non posset dici caelo excelsior.
Isaiah 40 and Psalm 145 — greatness without end§445
445Isa 40: waters in a fist, heavens in a span — nations as a drop / dust / nothing.
If the finite universe boxed Him, greatness would end.
Ps 145 En cheker: greatness has no end / no searching out.
Latin · §445
XXI. Et huc etiam facit quod Deus, apud Isaiam capite quadragesimo, dicitur mensus fuisse pugillo aquas, & caelos spithama, denique tantus ut in conspectu ejus gentes sint tanquam gutta e situla, tanquam flos pulverisculi in lancibus: imo velut nihil, & quid minus nihilo & inanitate. Quibus verbis Deo tanta magnitudo tribuitur, ut, illius respectu, totum hoc universum sit res parva & quasi nihili. Et certe si Deus universo concluderetur, nec esset illo superior, finem haberet illius magnitudo: quandoquidem mundus est aliquid finitum. Sed diserte Psaltes affirmat magnitudinis Dei non esse finem: Psal. 145. Magnus est Dominus, & laudabilis nimis, & magnitudinis illius En cheker, non est investigatio, id est, ut recte vertit vulgata, non est finis. Cur enim magnitudinis Dei non est investigatio, nisi quoniam illa nec modum habet nec finem.
Could create infinite worlds — so not shut in this one§446
446He made this world from nothing — could make endless others.
He would be absent from none; no reason to pick only this box.
Shut inside this world → cannot immediately create another outside it.
Latin · §446
XXII. Et certe, quandoquidem Deus pro sua voluntate mundum hunc e nihilo creavit, negari non potest illum pari facultate posse, si liberet, plures alios mundos creare in infinitum, & sine certo numero. A quorum tamen nullo abesse putandus esset. Nec daretur ulla ratio cur esset in hoc, non vero in alio. Praeterquam quod si Deus hoc mundo includitur, nec est extra hunc mundum, qui posset extra hunc mundum operari, & alium mundum creare? cum ad productionem ex nihilo requiratur actio immediata: inde ergo sequitur Dei magnitudinem non habere finem & terminum ullum, nec ut caelo conclusa sit.
Extra mundum — God is His own place (Tertullian, Augustine, Bernard)§447
447Objection: outside the world is nothing — is God in nothing?
Answer: as before creation — God needs no place; He is place to Himself.
Tertullian / Augustine / Bernard / Dionysius; possible place beyond this world.
Latin · §447
XXIII. At, inquies, quomodo Deus est extra mundum cum extra mundum nihil sit? An Deus est in nihilo? Respondeo Deum esse extra mundum quomodo ante mundum conditum erat ubi est mundus. Nempe Deus loco non indiget, sed est ipse sibi locus. Juxta illud Tertulliani libro contra Praxeam: Ante omnia Deus erat solus ipse sibi, & locus, & mundus, & omnia. Quod alii volunt, dum dicunt, Deum extra mundum esse in seipso, sicut ante in seipso fuit. Idque post Augustinum in Psalmum 122. Antequam faceret Deus sanctos ubi habitabat? In se habitabat. Quo pertinet etiam illud Bernardi, Non est quod quaeras ultra ubi erat? praeter ipsum nihil erat. Atque haec est sententia versuum istorum qui leguntur apud Dionysium Carthusianum: Dic ubi tunc esset quum praeter eum nihil esset? Tunc, ubi nunc, in se, quoniam sibi sufficit ipse. Quibus addendum est extra hunc mundum quidem nullum esse locum realem & actualem, sed tamen esse locum possibilem. Nimirum Deus potest ibi creare corpora & loca ubi erit citra ullum sui motum & loci mutationem.
Heaven-habitation texts do not box substance — temple and Church parallels§448
448Vorstius cites heaven-as-dwelling texts (Ps 115, 123).
Same logic would have boxed God in the Jerusalem temple.
Church/believers are God's temple — that does not confine substance to them alone.
Latin · §448
XXIV. Quod autem Vorstium, & paucos quosdam movit ut essentiae divinae magnitudinem limitarent, & Dei substantiam caelo inclusam esse opinarentur, sunt multa Scripturae loca ubi caelum terrae oppositum describitur tanquam Dei habitaculum & locus in quo residet. Sicut id quod legitur Psal. 115. Caeli caelorum Domino, terram autem dedit filiis hominum. Et Psal. 123. Ad te levavi oculos qui habitas in caelis. Sed si ideo putandum est Dei substantiam caelo contineri, & extra caelum non esse, quoniam Deus dicitur peculiariter habitare in caelo: pari ratione concludendum erit Deum olim inclusum fuisse templo Hierosolymitano: quoniam saepe quoque dicitur Deus templum istud elegisse tanquam domum & sedem in qua habitaret. Et praeterea, tam tota Ecclesia conjunctim, quam singuli fideles seorsim, vocantur in Sacra Scriptura Dei templum, in quo etiam Deus dicitur habitare. Et tamen quis inde colliget Deum per substantiam alibi praesentem non esse, quam in Ecclesia & illius membris?
Peculiar habitation — heaven as special glory and family seat§449
449Ubiquitous by substance — yet peculiarly said to dwell where special glory/grace signs appear.
Heaven: clearer documents of power; earth holds sin/misery — Scripture speaks as if He were absent.
Angels and the Church's prepared seat make heaven God's peculiar house.
Latin · §449
XXV. Igitur sciendum est, quamvis Deus sit ubique, non tantum per virtutem & cognitionem suam, sed etiam per substantiam; certas tamen ob causas Deum peculiari modo dici esse, & habitare in quibusdam locis & personis, nempe, ubi, vel suae majestatis & gloriae, vel gratiae & favoris signa & effecta dat quaedam peculiaria. Sic Deus in caelis habitare dicitur, quia ibi cernuntur illustriora quam in terra potentiae & gloriae divinae documenta. Illic enim videmus splendere solem & alia sidera, & mirandis motibus ciere. Indeque derivari in haec inferiora lucem, calorem, vitam, atque omnem vigorem. Deinde in terra locus est peccato & miseriis quae a caelo procul absunt. Sed ubi peccatum & miseria obtinet, Scriptura Sacra nobiscum balbutiens, de Deo loquitur perinde ac si abesset: quia ibi Dei praesens auxilium & efficacia gratiae non sentitur, aut ita illustris non est. Ideoque mirum non est si dicatur in caelis esse aliquo modo, secundum quem in terra non est. Adde quod angeli, qui Dei filii & ministri dicuntur, propriam in caelis habitationem habent, ubi etiam sedes parata est Ecclesiae, quae ideo in terris peregrina dicitur. Et idcirco non immerito Dei domus & habitaculum peculiari ratione dicitur esse in caelis, quandoquidem universa, ut ita dicam, Dei familia illic perpetuo mansura & habitatura est.
Jerusalem temple — symbols, commanded worship, oracles§450
450Temple habitation: ark and mercy-seat as presence symbols.
Commanded worship and promised hearing of prayer there.
Sometimes living oracles and answers from that place.
Latin · §450
XXVI. Similiter in templo Hierosolymitano Deus habitare olim dicebatur, quoniam ibi certa praesentiae suae symbola collocari voluerat: nempe arcam foederis, & propitiatorium. Et ibidem singulari quadam ratione se coli praeceperat, & preces sibi offerri quas promiserat se exauditurum. Imo aliquando inde viva reddebat oracula, & responsa dabat interrogantibus.
God dwells in the holy — favor, grace, John 14 mansion§451
451In the holy: propitious rule, favor, grace, singular works.
Love-language: as people inhabit what they love, God inhabits the just.
John 14: We will come and make Our mansion with him.
Latin · §451
XXVII. Ita quoque Deus dicitur in hominibus sanctis & justis habitare, quoniam eos regit propitius, & favore suo prosequitur & gratia exornat, singularesque in iis operationes edit. Tum quia homines frequentant, imo si possunt inhabitant ea loca quae amant, ad designandum summum illum amorem quo Deus justos prosequitur, dicitur eis inhabitare. Juxta illud Christi, Joan. 14. Si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit, & Pater meus diliget eum, & ad eum veniemus, & mansionem apud eum faciemus.
Highest mode — divinity in Christ hypostatically, bodily§452
452Highest mode: deity in the man Christ — He is truly God.
Col 2 somatikos / bodily: beyond temple-figure presence.
Hypostatic union: divinity incarnate / incorporate in one person.
Latin · §452
XXVIII. Praecipue vero longe perfectissimo & ineffabili modo Deus est in Christo homine, in quo tam excellenter habitat divinitas, ut ipse vere & proprie Deus esse dicatur. Unde dictum est a Paulo omnem plenitudinem divinitatis in eo habitare somatikos, corporaliter. Corporaliter, inquam, non tantum, ut id opponatur figurae, secundum quam Deus in templo Judaico, & in arca foederis esse & habitare dicebatur: sed maxime propter hypostaticam illam unionem, qua divina natura cum humana & concreta in unam convenit personam; ut vere dicere liceat divinitatem incarnatam, atque ut ita loquar, incorporatam esse.
Peculiar modes do not cancel ubiquity or world-surpassing greatness§453
453Singular presence in some does not block existence in all.
Still everywhere in the world — yet not contained by it.
Immensity infinitely surpasses the world.
Latin · §453
XXIX. Sed quamvis Deus, ut jam ostensum est, singulari modo dicatur in quibusdam rebus & personis esse, ob certas rationes a nobis indicatas, hoc non obstat quo minus existat in omnibus rebus, qua ratione quoque supra expositum est. Imo quin tantus sit ut, cum in mundo ubique praesens sit, mundo tamen non contineatur, sed immensitate sua mundum infinite superet.
Essence through lower places does not pollute God — only sin is filth before Him§454
454No fear: essence in low places does not soil God.
Spirit — untouchable by body; infinite gap — receives nothing from creatures.
Creaturely filth is relative to us; before God only sin is spiritual uncleanness.
Latin · §454
XXX. Neque metuendum est ne Deus locorum sordibus inquinetur. Et ne, si ejus essentia per haec inferiora & terrena diffusa sit, ubi tam multa polluta & sordida occurrunt, inde pollutionem & immunditiem aliquam contrahat. Nam cum Deus sit spiritus a corpore tangi non potest. Et cum infinito naturae intervallo creaturam omnem superet, a creatura non potest quicquam recipere, vel pati. Deinde verum est quidem quaedam corporaliter immunda & sordida esse respectu nostri, vel alterius creaturae, cujus naturam offendunt, corrumpunt, aut vitiant. Sed respectu Dei nulla res sordida aut polluta est. Solum vero peccatum, quod non est res, sed rei vitium, & defectus, quodque Deus nec facit, nec contingit, spiritualis immunditia est, & abominatio coram Deo.
Immensity implies immobility — already everywhere, needs no local motion§455
455Fills all actual and possible places → immobile.
Local movers leave one place for another; ubiquity cannot.
Finite things need successive motion; immensity already has that more perfectly.
Latin · §455
XXXI. Porro ex ista Dei immensitate, qua omnia loca tam actualia, quam possibilia replet, sequitur illum esse immobilem, neque posse mutare locum. Nam quod locum mutat & loco movetur necesse est ut locum unum deserat, & alium acquirat. Sed quod ubique jam est, & loca omnia replet, nullum locum acquirere potest, nec ullum locum deserere. Et certe vis se loco movendi est magna quidem perfectio in substantia finita, quae, cum pluribus in locis simul esse non possit, beneficio facultatis illius potest innumeris locis successive adesse, & ita suam, ut ita dicam, finitatem & parvitatem quodammodo compensare. Sed Dei infinitas & immensitas efficit ut auxilio isto non egeat: quandoquidem per suam immensitatem habet modo perfectissimo quicquid per motum localem suppleri, & acquiri potest modo longe imperfectiori.
Scripture ascent and descent are figurative of operations, not local change§456
456Ascend / descend / approach / withdraw in Scripture.
Not local change in God.
Figurative of operations begun or ended here or there.
Latin · §456
XXXII. Quamobrem quum Deus dicitur in Scriptura ascendere, vel descendere, accedere, vel recedere, hucque & illuc proficisci, ista figurate accipienda sunt non de quadam in Deo loci mutatione, sed de variis operationibus, quas Deus hic vel illic edere incipit, vel definit.
Aeternum with a start but no end — life and punishment§457
457Scripture often calls eternal what began but will not end.
Blessed life in Christ — eternal; judgment on the ungodly — eternal.
Matt 25:46: eternal punishment / eternal life.
Latin · §457
I. Aeternum frequenter in Scriptura dicitur id quod principium quidem durationis habet, sed finem habiturum non est: sic beata illa vita quam Deus promittit credentibus in Christum, aeterna saepe appellatur, & aeterna quoque dicitur poena illa quae justo Dei judicio impiis & impoenitentibus olim infligenda est: ut quum tum piorum, tum impiorum finis his verbis describitur apud Matthaeum cap. 25. vers. 46. & abibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, justi vero ad vitam aeternam.
Aeternum by long duration — earth, hills, Canaan§458
458Sometimes eternal = very long, still able to end.
Eccl 1: earth stands forever; Deut 33: everlasting hills.
Gen 17: Canaan as everlasting possession.
Latin · §458
II. Aeternum etiam quandoque dicitur id quod aliquando quidem finem habiturum est, sed tamen propter diuturnitatem, aeternitatem imitari videtur: sic quamvis caelum & terra olim transire debeant, tamen Ecclesiastae 1. dicitur terra in aeternum stare: & eodem sensu Deuteron. cap. 33. mentio fit a Mose, collium aeternorum, & eo quoque referri potest, quod decimo septimo capite Geneseos Deus pollicetur Abrahae se daturum illi & semini ejus, omnem terram Canaan in possessionem aeternam.
Aeternum for a fixed course — Passover until Christ§459
459Eternal can mean: lasting through a set course.
Exod 12: everlasting Passover worship.
Bound to Mosaic rites until Christ's advent / diorthosis.
Latin · §459
III. Praeterea illud quod durante certo curriculo, perpetuo locum habere debet, aeternum fieri dicitur. Quomodo sumendum est illud Exod. 12. Celebrabitis hanc diem cultu sempiterno, ubi agitur de festo Paschatis: quoniam ritus legales & cultus Mosaicus obtinere debebant usque ad tempus diorthoseos, & Domini nostri Jesu Christi adventum.
Aeternum for a human lifetime — Hebrew servant; Horace§460
460Even a short life can host forever-language.
Exod 21: Hebrew servant forever = for life (leolam).
Horace: serve forever who cannot use a little.
Latin · §460
IV. Imo quamvis hominum vita brevissima sit, quandoque dicitur in aeternum fieri, id quod per totam hominis vitam nunquam finiendum est, sed ad mortem usque locum habere debet: ut quum de servo Hebraeo qui anno septimo uti noluerat libertate per legem oblata, dicitur, Servus erit domino suo leolam, in aeternum, Exod. cap. 21. Quo pertinet illud Horatii, Serviet aeternum qui parvo nesciet uti.
Proper eternity — no beginning, no end of duration§461
461Proper sense: no beginning and no end of duration.
This is the eternity predicated of God as an attribute.
As greatness escapes place, duration escapes all times.
Latin · §461
V. Aeternum vero proprie dicitur id quod simpliciter & absolute caret durationis principio & fine: & haec est illa aeternitas quae de Deo praedicari solet, & inter ejus attributa censeri: est enim Dei essentia omnino expers ortus & interitus. Deus nec esse incepit, nec unquam esse desinet: Atque ut Dei magnitudo, tanta est, ut nullo loco contineri, vel definiri possit, sic Dei duratio nullo tempore limitatur, sed omnia praecedit & superat tempora.
Psalms 102, 92, 90 — God remains; a thousand years as yesterday§462
462Ps 102: heavens perish like a garment; God remains the same.
Ps 92 / 90: most high forever; from age to age You are God.
A thousand years before God — as yesterday; no proportion to His duration.
Latin · §462
VI. Istud autem Scriptura multis locis aperte docet, praecipue vero Psalmo 102. ubi Propheta comparans res quae inter visibiles maxime sunt permanentes, caelum scilicet & terram, docet illa aliquando habuisse initium, quum sint opus manuum Dei, & finem olim esse habitura: Deum vero permanere semper, & eundem perpetuo & fuisse & fore. Initio, inquit, Tu Domine terram fundasti, & opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli: ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes: & omnes ipsi sicut vestimentum veterascent, & sicut opertorium mutabis eos, & mutabuntur, tu autem idem ipse es, & anni tui non deficient. Quam perpetuam quoque Dei permanentiam celebrat David, Psal. 92. Tu autem, inquit, altissimus in aeternum Domine. Et Moses vir Dei, Psal. 90. Priusquam montes fierent, & formaretur terra & orbis, a saeculo & usque in saeculum tu es Deus. Quo etiam respicit quod addit, mille anni ante oculos tuos sicut dies hesterna quae praeteriit: quia scilicet ad immensam & illimitatam Dei durationem, nec mille anni, nec quodlibet designatum tempus ullam proportionem habent.
Isaiah and Apocalypse — Father of eternity; Alpha and Omega§463
463Isa 9: Father of eternity; Isa 41/57: first and last; dwells in eternity.
Apoc 1: Alpha and Omega — who is, was, and is to come.
Beginning without beginning; end without end — all times embraced.
Latin · §463
VII. Propterea Deus apud Isaiam cap. 9. vocatur Pater aeternitatis: item primus & novissimus, cap. 41. & 57. capite, excelsus & sublimis habitans aeternitatem. Quo pertinet quoque illa descriptio qua Deus seipsum designat cap. 1. Apocalypseos, Ego sum Alpha & Omega, principium & finis, dicit Dominus Deus, qui est, qui erat, & qui venturus est. Quibus docemur Dei durationem omnia complecti tempora, praeteritum, praesens & futurum, ac Deum optimo jure dici posse principium sine principio, & finem sine fine: quia scilicet quum sit omnium rerum principium, ipse principio caret, nec etiam finem ullum habere potest, quum sit finis ad quem omnia referuntur.
First Ens cannot have been made — Jehovah / l'Eternel§464
464First-Ens proofs (from Deum esse) force no start of duration.
First cause cannot be made by another or by itself — contradiction either way.
Jehovah / l'Eternel names aseity and so connotes eternity.
Latin · §464
VIII. Hac in parte vero, Scripturae ratio manifeste adstipulatur. Quaecunque enim argumenta demonstrant unum esse primum Ens a quo pendent omnia caetera, & unde originem habent, cujusmodi a nobis allata & exposita sunt Thesibus illis quibus demonstravimus Deum esse, ea, inquam, argumenta necessario probant primum Ens illud, nempe Deum, aeternum quoque esse, nec habuisse ullum durationis initium. Nam Ens quod primum est, & aliorum causa, factum esse non potest, quippe nec ab alio factum est, alioqui primum non esset, sed daretur Ens aliud ipso prius: nec etiam a seipso, quum ut fieret deberet non fuisse: ut faceret, deberet fuisse, quae manifeste pugnantia sunt. Quod autem est & non factum est, nunquam esse incepit, adeoque aeternum est. Quocirca Augustum illud Dei nomen Jehovah quod significat Deum esse per se & a se, & illum qui facit ut reliqua omnia sint, adeoque Ens primum & independens, Dei aeternitatem includit & connotat. Ideoque authoribus vernaculae nostrae versionis non male vertitur l'Eternel.
Necessary perpetual duration — incorruptible / immortal§465
465Not only no start — it is impossible He ever not was.
So also necessary: perpetual duration, never an end.
1 Tim 1:17 aphthartos — incorruptible / immortal.
Latin · §465
IX. Porro ut Dei essentia non caret simpliciter initio durationis, sed impossibile est illam non semper fuisse, ita quoque simpliciter & absolute necesse est ut perpetuo duret, neque finem unquam habeat. Ut enim Deus a nullo est, nec esse suum ab alio accepit, sic a nullo destrui potest, nec esse suum amittere. Quapropter ab Apostolo dicitur aphthartos, incorruptibilis sive immortalis, 1 Tim. 1. 17.
Eternity proper to God alone — 1 Tim 6:16 sole immortality§466
466Divine eternity is incommunicable — every creature began from nothing.
Even a supposed eternal creature could have not been; angels can still end if God wills.
1 Tim 6:16: God alone has immortality — absolute inability to perish.
Latin · §466
X. Unde patet aeternitatem illam quae Deo competit esse proprium naturae divinae attributum, quod cum creatura nulla communicari potest. Quum enim creatio sit productio rei ex nihilo, omnis creatura necessario incepit, & aliquando non fuit, quandoquidem transiit a non esse ad esse. Ac quamvis ex Philosophis nonnulli existiment creaturam aliquam ab aeterno posse existere, attamen, quum Deus sit agens liberrimum quod agit absque ulla necessitate, si quae creatura foret ab aeterno, saltem potuisset ab aeterno non esse, & habuisse suae durationis initium, nec esset necesse ut semper fuisset: & similiter quamvis creaturae quaedam nunquam sint finem habiturae, sicut Angeli & humani spiritus, nihilominus nulla est creatura quae finem non possit habere, si quidem Deo ita visum esset: nam sicut omnia ex nihilo creavit, ita omnia ad ipsius nutum in nihilum possunt recidere, & haec est ratio cur 1 Tim. 6. 16. dicitur Deus solus habere immortalitatem, nimirum quia licet non possint quaedam ab ulla creatura destrui, nihil est tamen praeter Deum quod, absolute loquendo, interire & deficere non possit.
Eternal and immutable — no flux of perfection with time§467
467Not only perpetual duration — the same remains; ages add/take nothing.
Creatures flux or at least take new acts/accidents.
God: no change — every perfection already in act, never was not.
Latin · §467
XI. Divinae vero naturae praestantia non elucet tantum in perpetua & omnino necessaria illius duratione, sed in eo praeterea quod eadem perpetuo manet, nec saecula praeterlabentia quicquam ei addunt aut detrahunt. Siquidem Deus non solum aeternus est, sed etiam immutabilis. Res pleraeque non tantum durationem habent brevibus admodum terminis circumscriptam, sed etiam quandiu durant sunt in perpetuo fluxu: nam de earum substantia jugiter aliquid effluit, & aliquid ei de novo accedit, donec tandem penitus intereant & dissolvantur, ut videre est in plantis atque animalibus. Quod si quaedam substantia ita firma sit ut eadem perpetuo maneat, saltem novos actus & nova accidentia suscipere potest, & hactenus est variis mutationibus subdita: at Deus est omnis omnino mutationis expers, nullam perfectionem cum tempore amittit, nec ulla ei de novo accedit, sed quaecunque perfectio in eo unquam fuit, ea jam actu perseverat ac incessanter perseverabit, & quaecunque in eo unquam erit ea jam actu est, & nunquam non fuit.
Actus purus — already is whatever was or will be§468
468Pure act: already is whatever was or will be.
No power to drop what He has.
No power to take on what He lacks.
Latin · §468
XII. Quapropter Deus merito dicitur actus purus, quia actu jam est quicquid fuit, vel erit: nec ulla est in eo potestas qua possit aliquid quod habet deponere, aut aliquid quod non habet suscipere.
Life of God tota simul — Plutarch's river and tree§469
469God's life: not only endless — tota simul (all at once).
Time adds/takes nothing for Him; Plutarch: eternity in a unique now.
Time as river carrying the sailor; God as rooted tree the stream flows past.
Latin · §469
XIII. Optimo quoque jure a Theologis vita Dei dicitur non tantum interminabilis, sed etiam tota simul, quia de vita ejus, sicut de nostra, nihil cum tempore effluit, sed Deus quovis momento simul habet, quicquid in toto simul tempore, quum ipsi, temporis progressus nihil adjiciat, vel adimat, ut caeteris rebus, quae sunt mutationi obnoxiae: quo respicit Plutarchus tract. de vocula e templi Delphici vestibulo inscripta. Deus, inquit, cum unus sit unico nunc aeternitatem complevit: quia scilicet in tota temporis amplitudine nullum momentum sumi potest in quo habeat aliquid quod ante non habuerit, vel olim habiturus non sit, aut non habeat aliquid quod antea habebat, aut aliquando sit habiturus. Unde tempus merito comparatur flumini perpetuo labenti, nauta, qui fluvio innatans ab eo abripitur; Deus vero arbori altis radicibus alveo implantatae, immobiliter & constanter in eodem statu manenti; fluvius ille temporis imago jugi fluxu praeterlabitur.
Plato and Augustine — was / will be without change of nature§470
470Plato: properly only is — yet duration embraces all times.
Was/will-be words track creaturely change; still true of God without negation.
Augustine on John: was / is / will be = never lacking, always is.
Latin · §470
XIV. Praeterea inde est quod Plato, & alii post eum Philosophi pronuntiaverunt de Deo nec praeteritum, nec futurum, sive fuit, vel erit, sed solum praesens sive est proprie dici posse: quia scilicet, Dei aeterna duratio omnia quidem tempora praeteritum praesens & futurum complectitur: at vero in Dei natura nihil est praeteritum neque futurum: nec enim quicquam de ea praeteriit, ut etiam ad eam quicquam nondum advenit, sed eadem & immutata perpetuo perseverat. Jam autem praeteriti & futuri temporis verba inventa sunt ad significandas mutationes rerum, quae cum tempore transeunt, & tempore mensurantur: nam proprie ac stricte loquendo fuisse dicitur quod non est amplius, ut quum apud Poetam dicitur fuit Ilium, & futurum esse quod nondum est, ut Alter erit tum Tiphys: sed quamvis praeteriti & futuri temporis verba hoc sensu Deo non congruant, hoc tamen non obstat quominus de Deo possimus vere dicere fuit, modo intelligamus illum eundem omnino jam perseverare qui antea fuerit: itemque erit, modo intelligamus talem ab aevo ac etiamnum esse qualis est perpetuo futurus, quod est de eo affirmare futurum, sed absque negatione praeteriti & praesentis: & affirmare praeteritum, sed absque negatione praesentis & futuri: ut quum Deus describitur loco supra citato qui est, qui erat, & qui venturus est: quod Augustinus optime explicat tractatu 99. in Joan. Quamvis inquit natura illa immutabilis & ineffabilis non recipiat fuit & erit, sed tantum est, tamen propter mutabilitatem temporum in quibus versatur nostra mortalitas & mutabilitas, non mendaciter dicimus, est, fuit, & erit: fuit in praeteritis saeculis, est in praesentibus, erit in futuris; fuit quia nunquam defuit, erit quia nunquam deerit; est quia semper est.
Malachi 3 and James 1 — I do not change; no shadow of turning§471
471Mal 3: I the Lord — I do not change.
Ps 102: heavens change and perish; You are the same.
Jas 1:17: Father of lights — no change, no shadow of turning.
Latin · §471
XV. Porro hanc a nobis descriptam immutabilitatem Deus ipse sibi tribuit Mal. 3. Ego, inquit, Dominus & non mutor: & illam egregie describit Psaltes per oppositionem ad res creatas quae sunt mutationi obnoxiae Psal. 102. quem modo citavimus, ubi postquam dixit caelos ipsos qui initium suae durationis habuerunt, immutandos, & tandem etiam perituros esse, de Deo dicit Atta hu, Tu idem ipse es, & anni tui non deficient: & huc quoque respicit Jacobus 1. v. 17. dum Deum vocat Patrem luminum, apud quem non est transmutatio, nec vicissitudinis obumbratio.
Immutability from absolute simplicity§472
472Reason: absolute simplicity → no change.
Change needs a remaining subject and a departing form/act — composition.
Most simple God: no other-and-other — no change can fall on Him.
Latin · §472
XVI. Nec minus evidenter ipsa ratio probat Deum esse omnis omnino mutationis expertem. Id enim necessario colligitur ex ejus absoluta simplicitate, quae ante a nobis demonstrata fuit Thesibus de hoc argumento editis: etenim quicquid mutatur, secundum aliquid manet, & secundum aliquid transit, nempe subjectum manet, forma vero aut actus aliquis ab eo abscedit: Ac proinde necesse est id quod mutatur a summa simplicitate deficere, & aliquo modo componi ex diversis. Igitur cum Deus sit simplicissimus, nec in eo sit aliud & aliud, planum est in eum nullam mutationem cadere.
Infinite perfection bars change for better or worse§473
473Change would be better or worse — both clash with infinite perfection.
Better means a prior lack; worse means a lost perfection.
Change needs impotence or a stronger other — neither fits the first Ens.
Latin · §473
XVII. Idem quoque evincitur ex infinita Dei perfectione, nam si Deus mutaretur, mutatio illa fieret vel in melius, vel in deterius. Quorum utrumque divinae perfectioni repugnat. Nam quod mutatur in melius, necessario carebat aliqua perfectione quam per mutationem illam adipiscitur: & quod in deterius mutatur, per mutationem illam perfectionem aliquam amittit, adeoque non potest esse summe perfectum. Adde quod res nulla est mutationi obnoxia, nisi vel ex propria ejus impotentia, vel ex alterius majore potentia: Deo vero, qui est Ens primum & independens, nihil est potentius, nec ulla potest ei tribui impotentia, si quidem nulla perfectione caret.
No species of mutation — start/stop, accidents, quantity, place§474
474Scan mutation kinds: none fit God.
No start/stop of being; no quality/accident change; no increase/decrease.
No local motion — whole everywhere.
Latin · §474
XVIII. Ac praeterea, si quis singulas mutationis species percurrere velit, manifestum erit nullam Deo accidere posse. Nec enim incipit aut desinit esse qui per naturam aeternus est. Non mutatur secundum qualitates & accidentia, is in quo nulla accidentia sunt, sed quicquid in eo est, mera ejus essentia est. Non augetur neque minuitur qui incorporeus est & indivisibilis: & denique non potest loco moveri qui totus ubique est.
Immutability incommunicable — creatures can be reduced to nothing§475
475Immutability is God's alone — incommunicable.
Every creature depends on creating/conserving cause.
At His will, withdrawing concurrence, any creature can fall to nothing.
Latin · §475
XIX. Istud autem attributum ita Dei proprium est, ut non possit cum ulla creatura communicari. Nihil enim fingi potest quod a Deo non pendeat tanquam a prima causa creante atque conservante, ac proinde quod ejus potentiae non ita subjaceat ut etiam possit in nihilum redigi Deo sic volente & suum concursum subtrahente.
Living in loose speech — living water and living fire§476
476Loose speech: anything that seems self-moving is called living.
Living water / living fire vs stagnant dead water.
Flame and spring-water looked spontaneous.
Latin · §476
I. Notione communissima & generalissima ac in usu communi loquendi vivere dicuntur ea quae quovis modo nobis seipsa movere apparent, sic dicimus aquam vivam & ignem vivum, quia flamma pluribus motibus sponte sua cieri videtur, & etiam aqua e fonte scaturiens, cui aquae mortuae stagnorum opponuntur.
Philosophical living — resume motion from an inward principle§477
477Strict sense: can restart a motion from itself after stopping.
Not total stillness — continuous vital vigor until death.
Life = stop some act, then restart it from an inward principle.
Latin · §477
II. Sed proprie & Philosophice id tantum seipsum movere adeoque vivere dicitur quod seipsum in loco & statu naturali constitutum movere potest, atque ita ut postquam naturaliter a motu destitit, & ab operando cessavit, motum rursus a se inchoare valeat. Quum autem dico id quod vivit a motu desistere, non intelligo simpliciter ab omni motu. Etenim in omni vivente est vigor quidem continuus & motus indeficiens qui nisi in morte non cessat. Sed vivere tamen non dicimus nisi quod potest per naturam ab aliquo motu cessare, & rursus eundem motum ex principio interno inchoare.
Motion here means any operation — even actus perfecti§478
478Not the scholastic actus imperfecti alone.
Motion = any operation, including perfect acts.
Widens life-talk past mere locomotion.
Latin · §478
III. In hac autem vitae definitione motus non sumitur stricte & prout a Philosophis definitur, Actus entis in potentia quatenus est in potentia, qui motus in subjecto necessario supponit aliquam imperfectionem, & propterea dicitur in scholis actus imperfecti; sed sensu generali per motum intelligitur operatio quaevis, & illa etiam quae est actus perfecti.
Life’s perfection — variety of acts and self-motion§479
479Two marks: richer operations + freer self-agency.
Self-motion = independence from an external mover.
More / better acts and less determination = higher life.
Latin · §479
IV. Porro vitae perfectio, ut ex definitione facile colligi potest, in duobus praesertim consistit: primo, scilicet, in motuum & operationum praestantia & varietate: deinde in agentis, ut sic dicam, αὐτοκινησίᾳ: id est, ejus in agendo ab externo motore independentia, atque indeterminatione. Ac proinde perfectius vivunt ea quae plures & praestantiores motus exercere possunt, & quae minus ab alio in agendo dependent & determinata sunt.
Climb toward God’s life — living bodies as divine automata§480
480Approach God’s life by creature grades.
Living bodies = God’s crafted automata.
Nature’s works = divine art; human art = nature guided by mind.
Latin · §480
V. Ut vero ad vitam illam quae Deo Optimo Maximo competit, & de qua hic nobis agendum est, sensim, & veluti per gradus assurgamus, notandum est Deum plures viventium ordines in creaturis corporeis atque visibilibus creasse & constituisse. Etenim quemadmodum hominum industria & solertia praecipue elucet in fabricandis variis machinis, quae sponte moveri videntur & pluribus usibus in humana vita inserviunt, sic quoque, ut sic dicam, Dei sapientia sese manifestavit dum in hoc mundo sensibili varia, ut sic dicam, αὐτόματα excogitavit, & incomprehensibili ac plane stupenda arte fabricata est, quae nos corpora viventia vocamus. Et certe opera naturae non aliud sunt rite expendenti quam opera artis divinae, sicut vice versa opera artis humanae nihil aliud sunt quam opera naturae quatenus a mente humana dirigitur.
Plants — vegetative life; feed, grow, generate§481
481Lowest rung: plants rooted in earth.
Soul as inward mover: juices, growth, seed.
Vegetative life — nourish, grow, generate.
Latin · §481
VI. Primum igitur cernere est multa corpora terrae adnata & adhaerentia quae iis sunt organis instructa, & eo interno movendi principio quod animam vocamus, praedita, ut dum terra solis calore aperitur, & spiritus in ea contenti excitantur, varios succos e terra eliciant, & attrahant, quorum beneficio non tantum foventur & augescunt, sed folia, flores & fructus diversi generis producunt, & semina quoque proferunt unde postea corpora similia sponte germinant atque enascuntur. Et hae sunt quas plantas vocamus, quae a Philosophis vivere dicuntur vita vegetativa, cujus tres principes facultates recensent altricem, auctricem atque generatricem.
Animals — sensitive life and local motion§482
482Animals: more organs, freer motions than plants.
Not place-fixed; vary acts by sensory impressions.
Sensitive + loco-motive faculties above vegetative life.
Latin · §482
VII. Sed praeter istud primum & infimum viventium genus, in terrae superficie, in aquis, in aere ipso extant corpora plurima longe pluribus & magis admirandis organis distincta, & quae etiam nobilioribus facultatibus pollent, motusque multo plures & magis diversos exercere possunt. Etenim non solum vim habent alimento intus suscepto seipsa nutriendi, & augmentum sumendi, ac simile sibi procreandi: sed praeterea non sunt ut priora uni certo loco affixa, verum seipsa de loco in locum transferre valent, neque sunt, quemadmodum plantae, ad unum certum & simplex operationum genus a natura sic determinata, ut non possint nisi semper eodem modo moveri & agere: sed saepe aliter atque aliter agunt, & motus suos varie temperant, raro diversis impressionibus quas intus ab objectis variis suscipiunt mediantibus organis quae Philosophi sensoria appellant. Et illa sunt quae animalia vocantur, quae sponte supra terrae superficiem, in aere & in aquis variis motibus cientur, & per sensus objecta externa percipiunt: adeoque supra plantas pollent facultate sensitiva atque loco motiva.
Humans — spiritual soul above animal life§483
483Body like the brutes — plus a higher acting principle.
Understand, reason, know God, reflect, free mastery of acts.
Intelligent / spiritual soul above sensitive and vegetative.
Latin · §483
VIII. Verum supra omnia corpora viventia multum adhuc eminent homines. In iis oculis usuramus corpus brutorum corpori simile, nisi quod sit organis perfectioribus instructum, neque quicquam est in brutis, quod spectat vitam animalem, quod in iis non reperiatur. Sed in iis praeterea latet principium quoddam agendi ab eo quod est in brutis diversae plane naturae, unde procedunt motus & actiones quae nullo modo ex sola organorum fabrica, & forma ulla mere corporea consequi possunt: sed necessario tribuenda sunt cuidam principio spirituali & immateriali: qualia sunt intelligere & ratiocinari, Deum nosse, & res pure immateriales, in seipsum, & proprias operationes reflecti, &c. rerum causas inquirere, ac denique libertate uti, & esse propriarum actionum dominum. Quae arguunt in hominibus animam latere plane alterius generis quam sit sensitiva, & vegetativa, nempe, intelligentem, & ratiocinantem, ac proinde spiritualem, & immaterialem.
Human life freer than the brutes — self-directed end§484
484Humans outrank brutes by freer self-motion, not only more acts.
Brutes: nature-pushed ends; no dominion over their acts.
Man sets ends, picks means, αὐτεξούσιος — master of his acts.
Latin · §484
IX. Quapropter homo vivit vita longe perfectiori quam animalia bruta: non solum quia longe plures & praestantiores actiones exercet: sed quia seipsum movet, & a seipso agit modo multo excellentiori. Bruta enim, quae carent ratione & intelligentia, nec finem sibi praestituunt, neque se ad finem dirigunt, sed simpliciter ad finem ab authore naturae aguntur, eodemque ducuntur necessario impressionibus per sensus ab objectis materialibus acceptis. Itaque illorum operationes non sunt in eorum potestate, nec proprie habent illarum dominium. Homo vero ratione utens finem ipse sibi praestituit, & media ad finem ducentia pro arbitrio rejicit, vel eligit: nec in suis actionibus ab objectis materialibus, & sensuum impressionibus necessario pendet: Sed operationes suas ad finem deliberate, & ex proprio judicio dirigit, & ita est αὐτεξούσιος, & propriarum actionum dominus.
Angelic spirits live higher than humans§485
485Angels: higher life than human among creatures.
Nobler intellect; not bound to matter.
Men still matter-determined in many motions like brutes.
Latin · §485
X. Et tamen fatendum est inter creaturas quasdam reperiri quarum vita est humana perfectior, substantias, scilicet, pure immateriales, ut sunt spiritus Angelici. Nec enim solum nobilior est eorum intelligentia, & ad multo plura eorum cognitio & virtus extenditur: Sed, cum materiae non sint alligati, in agendo minus pendent ab extrinseco quam homines, qui respectu multorum motuum qui ab ipsis, aut in ipsis exercentur, a materia pendent, atque determinantur, neque aliter agunt aut aguntur potius quam bruta.
Life belongs more properly to God than to any creature§486
486Weigh life’s marks against the creature grades.
Life fits God more properly than any creature.
And in a far more eminent mode.
Latin · §486
XI. Jam autem, si quis ex iis quae dicta sunt rite perpendat qua in re consistat vita & ejus perfectio, & creaturarum, quae vivere dicuntur, comparationem cum Deo instituat, facile agnoscet vitam magis proprie Deo competere quam ulli creaturae, & modo multo eminentiori.
Creatures act only secundum quid — God from Himself absolutely§487
487Top creatures self-move only secundum quid.
Acts 17 / 1 Cor 12: first mover works all in all.
God alone acts from Himself simply and absolutely.
Latin · §487
XII. Etenim creaturarum viventium nobilissimae atque praestantissimae a seipsis quidem agunt & moventur: sed secundum quid non vero simpliciter. Etenim non solum a Deo essentiam & virtutem operandi habent, & per eum continuo subsistunt atque conservantur: sed earum nullae agunt nisi a Deo primo agente actae: nec ullae earum moventur nisi virtute Dei primi motoris, in quo vivimus, movemur, & sumus, ut testatur Apostolus Actor. 17. & qui operatur omnia in omnibus juxta ejusdem Apostoli doctrinam: 1 Cor. 12. Deus autem a seipso agit simpliciter & absolute. Nec enim ab ullo in agendo pendet. Et, cum sit primus motor, ita seipsum movet, ut ab alio nullo moveatur.
Creature freedom is precarious — God alone absolutely free§488
488Creature liberty / αὐτεξούσιον is real but borrowed.
Bent under God’s supreme power — precarious dominion.
God alone absolutely free and independent in acting.
Latin · §488
XIII. Deinde quae sunt inter creaturas praestantissimae habent quidem respectu quodam potestatem suorum actuum, & sunt propriarum actionum dominae, ideoque liberae dicuntur, & ipsis tribuitur αὐτεξούσιον: sed tota ista potestas a Dei summa potestate pendet, & prout ipsi libuerit, flectitur: ac dominium istud non est simplex & absolutum, sed precarium quodammodo, & supremo Dei dominio subditum. Ideoque solus Deus absolute est αὐτεξούσιος, & propriarum actionum Dominus: & solus gaudet libertate in agendo absoluta & prorsus independenti.
Creatures limited in acts — God can do all§489
489Life’s excellence also tracked by variety of operations.
Creatures capped at graded, limited action-kinds.
God’s power: not many, but all — unbounded.
Latin · §489
XIV. Praeterea, cum vitae excellentia aestimetur etiam, sicut supra dictum est, ex varietate motuum & operationum quae a vivente exercentur, creaturae quidem multae reperiuntur quae variis omnino motibus sese movent, & multifarias actiones exercent, multaque & plane diversa operantur: sed tamen omnium illarum facultates certum obtinent perfectionis gradum, & ad certa actionum genera limitatae & determinatae sunt, ultra quae nihil possunt, nec valent quicquam perficere. At Deus Optim. Maxim. non multa potest, sed omnia; illiusque virtus est prorsus infinita & illimitata, nec terminis ullis definitur & circumscribitur ejus operandi potestas.
Creature life defectible — God alone has immortality§490
490Even top creatures can lose life if God wills.
Relative creature immortality ≠ absolute.
1 Tim 6: God alone has immortality.
Latin · §490
XV. Adde quod sicut creaturae, etiam excellentissimae, vitam a seipsis non habent, sed a Deo prima rerum omnium causa, sic quoque, simpliciter & absolute loquendo, possunt illae omnes vita destitui, & ab agendo & existendo cessare, siquidem Deo ita visum fuerit. Ut vero Deus a nullo est, ita quoque vita ejus a nullo tolli & aboleri potest. Itaque licet creaturae quaedam aliarum respectu immortales dicantur, quia scilicet Dei beneficio in perpetuum victurae sunt, nec ulla est causa secunda quae illas perimere & destruere possit: tamen, si creaturae cum Deo comparentur, vivunt omnes illae vita mortali & defectibili, solus vero Deus est simpliciter & absolute immortalis & incorruptibilis, & propterea dicitur ab Apostolo solus habere immortalitatem, 1 Tim. 6.
God alone lives simply — creature life by analogy§491
491Only God lives simply and absolutely.
Creatures: life secundum quid, by participation.
Not univocal — equivocal / analogical predication.
Latin · §491
XVI. Igitur cum solus Deus simpliciter a seipso agat, atque a nullo moveatur, & absolutum habeat operationum suarum dominium, nec possit unquam ab ullo in agendo impediri, nedum omni motu & actione privari, & virtus quoque ejus sit plane illimitata & indeterminata, solus etiam simpliciter & absolute vivere dicendus est: creaturis vero vita competit tantum secundum quid, & per participationem & dependentiam a Deo. Ac proinde vita de Deo & creaturis non univoce dicitur, sed aequivoce & analogice.
Scripture calls God the living — against dead idols§492
492Scripture’s favorite title: living / the living God.
Sets the true God against false gods.
Dead idols: no knowledge, no power to act.
Latin · §492
XVII. Propterea nihil est frequentius in Scriptura quam Deum vocare vivum sive viventem, quo titulo vult illa Deum verum quem colimus falsis Diis opponere, illumque secernere ab idolis mortuis, quae omni cognitione & agendi vi destituta sunt.
Swearing by God’s life — Vivit Dominus / Vivo Ego§493
493Scripture-approved oaths by God’s life.
Human form: Vivit Dominus.
Divine self-accommodation: Vivo Ego.
Latin · §493
XVIII. Inde quoque natus est mos in Scriptura probatus jurandi per Dei vitam. Nam pii homines in juramentis suis saepe hanc formulam usurpant, Vivit Dominus. Et Deus ipse dum, ut sese nobis attemperet, jurans introducitur, utitur his verbis, Vivo Ego.
The Living as a proper title — Gen 16/17 well; Rev 4§494
494Not only “lives” — titled the Living One.
Hagar’s well: Living One who sees me.
Rev 4: elders worship Him who lives forever.
Latin · §494
XIX. Neque Deus in Scriptura simpliciter vivere dicitur, sed etiam vivens absolute vocatur, & titulus viventis ipsi tanquam nomen quoddam proprium tribuitur, ut Genes. 17. ubi puteus ille apud quem Deus ancillae Abrahae Agar apparuerat vocatur in persona mulieris istius puteus viventis videntis me. Et Apoc. 4. ubi viginti quatuor seniores dicuntur adorasse Viventem in saecula.
Pagans named Zeus from living — τῷ ζῆν§495
495Even pagans nicknamed the top god from living.
Ζῆνα from τῷ ζῆν — to live.
Echoes the living-God theme outside Israel.
Latin · §495
XX. Hinc etiam Ethnici Deum illum supremum quem ipsi praedicabant patrem hominumque Deumque, vocaverunt Ζῆνα quasi vivum diceres, scilicet a τῷ ζῆν, quod apud Graecos vivere significat.
God is life itself — simplicity; fountain of life§496
496God / Christ called life itself (John 14; 11).
Simplicity: God’s life = His being — no separate vital principle.
Scripture stress: fountain of life (Ps 36); John 5 life-in-Himself.
Latin · §496
XXI. Neque Deus solum dicitur vivens sed vita ipsa: ut cum Dei Filius dicit apud Joan. c. 14. Ego sum via, veritas & vita: & undecimo capite, Ego sum resurrectio & vita. Et certe Dei summa simplicitas exigit ut ipse vita dici possit: quoniam in illo res non se habet ut in creaturis: in quibus vivere & esse distinguuntur tanquam gradus essentiales; vita vero Dei est ipsum ejus esse, neque in eo, ut in nobis, a vita distingui debet quoddam vivendi principium. Veruntamen quum Scriptura Deum & Christum dicit esse vitam, eo proprie non respicit: sed potius per hoc significat Deum non solum in seipso vivere, sed praeterea fontem esse perennem a quo quicquid est in creaturis vitae, praecipue spiritualis, necessario manat; & quicum non possumus communionem habere quin beatae & aeternae vitae fiamus participes, juxta illud Psalmi trigesimi sexti, quoniam apud te est fons vitae, & in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Nec alio spectat Christus Dominus noster dum dicit apud Joan. cap. 5. Patrem habere vitam in seipso, & filio dedisse ut vitam quoque habeat in seipso: nempe ut per id probet mortuos audituros vocem filii Dei, & qui audierint victuros.
Frivolous scholastic question — John 1 punctuation§497
497Scholastic “when are all things life in God?” — frivolous.
Bad Vulgate join: quod factum est in ipso vita erat.
Right cut: …nihil quod factum est. / In ipso vita erat.
Latin · §497
XXII. Porro hic quaerere solent, & explicare conantur scholastici post Thomam quando omnia sint vita in Deo: sed quaestio ista prorsus frivola est & nata solum ex mala distinctione, & pravo intellectu textus vulgaris veteris initio capitis primi Evangelii secundum Joannem, ubi tanquam unam sententiam verba ista conjungit Thomas, quod factum est in ipso vita erat. Cum tamen verba illa quod factum est pertineant ad praecedentem clausulam omnia per ipsum facta sunt, & sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est. Sequenś vero sententia incipiat ab illis verbis, In ipso vita erat.
Proofs that God is also prove He knows§498
498Deum-esse proofs force a knowing first cause.
Best/wisest cause sets ends and directs creatures.
World-order displays supreme knowing power.
Latin · §498
I. Illa argumenta quae demonstrant Deum esse, eadem quoque probant illum esse intellectu & scientia praeditum: iis enim concluditur necessario dari causam primam, non tantum potentissimam, sed etiam optimam & sapientissimam, quae rebus singulis fines optimos praestituat, eisque commodissime & convenientissime ad finem suum quamque ducat atque dirigat, neque in Dei operibus quicquam clarius elucet, quam μιμητότατον ejus sapientia, quae corpora mundana, & varias in eis creaturas stupenda quadam arte fabricata est, & etiam prorsus admirando ordine inter se disposuit: adeoque necesse est ei inesse summam & excellentissimam vim cognoscendi & intelligendi.
Maker of knowers must know more eminently — Ps 94§499
499Creatures that know imply a knowing Maker.
Ps 94: ear/eye maker hears and sees.
Cause ≥ effect; knowing beats ignorance.
Latin · §499
II. Et certe, cum inter ipsas creaturas visibiles multae reperiantur, quae sensu, ratione & intelligentia pollent, quis dubitare possit illarum authorem atque opificem modo longe praestantiori atque sublimiori res cognoscere atque percipere? juxta illud Psal. 94. An qui plantavit aurem non audiet: aut qui oculum finxit non considerat? Nec enim potest causa effectu suo minus perfecta esse: jam autem evidens est simpliciter perfectius esse id, quod cognoscit atque intelligit, quam illud quod est omni sensu & cognitione privatum; & absolute loquendo, melius atque optabilius esse intelligere, quam non intelligere.
Even Epicureans grant God knows§500
500God’s name itself suggests an intelligent nature.
Even Epicureans keep divine knowing.
They deny providence, not contemplative knowledge.
Latin · §500
III. Ac profecto nullus est qui, audito Dei nomine, non statim notionem formet intelligentis cujusdam naturae, quae summa sit sapientia & virtute polleat, ne quidem exceptis ipsis epicureis, qui licet negaverint Deum, hujus universi authorem & rectorem esse, Deum tamen esse fassi sunt, rerumque cognitionem & contemplationem ei non ademerunt.
Scripture praises God’s knowledge — 1 Sam 2; Ps 147/139; Rom 11§501
5011 Sam 2:3 — God of knowledges.
Ps 147 / 139 — unnumbered, unattainable knowledge.
Rom 11 — depth of wisdom and knowledge.
Latin · §501
IV. Praesertim vero Scriptura intelligentiam & scientiam Dei saepe praedicat. Sic 1 Sam. 2. 3. Dominus vocatur Deus scientiarum, id est, Deus omni scientia praeditus. Quo respiciens David Psal. 147. Sapientiae, inquit, seu intelligentiae ejus non est numerus: Psalmo 139. sic Deum alloquitur, Mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me, seu prae me, id est, mirabilis atque sublimior est, quam ut possim eam assequi. Unde est quod Paulus exclamat. Rom. 11. O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae & scientiae Dei.
Plan — object, nature, scholastic divisions§502
502Three questions structure the tract.
Object / extent; nature / ratio; scholastic kinds.
Limited by our mind’s weakness.
Latin · §502
V. Ut autem mirabilis hujus scientiae, quae in Deo est, plenam atque distinctam, quantum quidem patitur mentis nostrae imbecillitas, cognitionem habeamus, expendendum est primo, quod sit ejus objectum, & ad quid se extendat. Secundo, qualis illa sit, & quae ejus ratio. Denique quotuplex sit, & quae sint ejus vulgatae in schola divisiones.
Object in general — whatever can be known; omniscient§503
5031 John 3:20 — God knows all.
Omnipotent parallel → omniscient.
Gaps in knowledge would bound and un-infinite Him.
Latin · §503
VI. Quod ad primum attinet, scientiae divinae objectum in genere est quicquid sciri & cognosci potest. Deus enim novit omnia, ut docet Joan. Epist. 1. cap. 3. 20. Itaque quemadmodum dicitur omnipotens, sic quoque dici potest omniscius. Quod exigit plane ejus infinitas & summa perfectio alio loco a nobis demonstrata. Si enim Deus non novisset omnia, sed quaedam ipsum fugerent, & ab eo ignorarentur, abesset ab eo aliqua perfectio, & scientia ejus aliquos terminos & limites haberet, ultra quos non extenderetur, adeoque prorsus infinita non esset.
First object — God Himself; needed for creating counsel§504
504Chief object of divine knowing: God Himself.
Self-knowledge is part of wisdom.
Without knowing Himself He could not plan creation.
Latin · §504
VII. Sed ad pleniorem & distinctiorem omniscientiae divinae notitiam, necesse est ejus varia objecta percurrere & seorsim considerare. Primum autem & praecipuum cognitionis divinae objectum est, Deus ipse. Si enim creaturae intelligentes seipsas cognoscant: quanto magis istud est de Deo existimandum. Hoc ipsum exigit Dei sapientia: Etenim sapientiae pars non minima est seipsum novisse. Nec etiam objectum nobilissimum, quod est Deus, latere potest intellectum divinum, qui omnium nobilissimus est. Ac profecto si Deus seipsum non novisset, rerum creandarum consilium capere non potuisset: ad hoc enim necesse fuit, ut vires suas immensas suamque sapientiam, quibus res omnes condere, disponere & regere posset, probe cognitas & perspectas haberet.
God comprehends Himself — Thomas; 1 Cor 2§505
505God comprehends Himself — not by bounding His essence.
Comprehend = know as far as knowable; nothing hidden (Thomas).
Creature intellects finite; 1 Cor 2: Spirit alone knows God’s depths.
Latin · §505
VIII. Porro Deus ita seipsum cognoscit, ut seipsum comprehendat. Quod sic accipiendum non est, quasi intellectus divinus essentiam divinam quibusdam quasi finibus concluderet. Etenim rem comprehendere, non est aliud quam eam cognoscere, quantum cognoscibilis est, & ita ut nihil ejus lateat cognoscentem, ut loquitur Thom. Aquinas, seu in essentia divina, quantumlibet infinita sit, nihil latere potest intellectum divinum, qui simili quoque modo infinitus est. Talis vero Dei cognitio ipsius Dei propria est, nec competit ulli creaturae. Nam cum creaturae omnes finitae sint, non possunt rem infinitam capere & comprehendere. Et huc potest illud Apostoli referri, Spiritus omnia scrutatur etiam profunda Dei. Quis enim hominum scit, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est: ita & quae Dei sunt nemo cognovit nisi Spiritus Dei: 1 Cor. 2. 11.
God knows all else as perfectly as Himself — Heb 4; Job 28§506
506Creatures known as perfectly as God knows Himself.
Heb 4:13 — all naked and open to His eyes.
Job 28 — He surveys earth’s ends and all under heaven.
Latin · §506
IX. Non minus autem perfecte quam seipsum, reliqua omnia praeter se Deus novit. Nam ut ait Apostolus Hebr. 4. 13. Non est ulla res creata non manifesta in conspectu ejus: sed omnia sunt nuda, & τετραχηλισμένα intime patentia oculis ejus cum quo nobis est negotium. Quo spectat quoque illud Jobi cap. 28. Ipse fines mundi intuetur, & omnia quae sub caelo sunt respicit.
Not universals only — Averroes error rejected§507
507Not genus-only knowledge like human sciences.
Averroes: universals yes, singulars no — false.
Reason and Scripture both reject it.
Latin · §507
X. Deus autem res non solum cognoscit in genere, & sub communi aliqua ratione, prout considerantur in scientiis humanis. Id senserunt Philosophi quidam, inter quos praecipue memoratur Averroes. Tribuitur enim illi quod docuerit Deum universalia tantum cognoscere, singularia vero non cadere sub intellectum divinum. Verum istud est manifestus error, cui tum rationis lumen, tum Scriptura Sacra aperte repugnat.
Free creating cause must know its singular works§508
508Each thing made by immediate free efficiency.
Counsel / will decree — not blind necessity.
A free judging cause knows its own work.
Latin · §508
XI. Nam cum Deus res singulas condiderit, & earum unicuique rei esse contulerit propria & immediata quadam efficientia, atque id non temere, neque naturali quadam necessitate, sed certo consilio & ex propriae voluntatis decreto, non potest illas ignorare. An enim causa libera, atque ex judicio agens proprium suum opus non intelliget, & percipere non poterit quod ipsa valet efficere?
Ongoing rule requires individual knowledge§509
509Not one-shot creation — perpetual governance.
Each directed wisely to its end.
Requires sigillatim knowledge, not only in common.
Latin · §509
XII. Neque Deus res semel condidit & produxit, sed illas perpetuo regit & moderatur, & sapientissime ad finem suum unamquamque dirigit. Non potest autem id praestare, quin res, non solum in communi, sed sigillatim probe ipsi notae atque perspectae sint.
Judgment by works requires knowing deeds and thoughts§510
510Final recompense by works.
Must know each person.
Words, deeds, and thoughts all known.
Latin · §510
XIII. Ac profecto, cum Deus sit unicuique redditurus secundum opera sua, quae bene acta sunt, scilicet, liberaliter remunerans, male facta vero pro eorum merito puniens & vindicans, necesse est Deum unumquemque novisse, & singula omnium dicta, facta, atque cogitata penitus percepta & cognita habere.
Immensity and presence — Jer 23 against hidden sins§511
511Immense essence fills all places — present to each.
Near presence implies perception.
Jer 23: no hiding from the God who fills heaven and earth.
Latin · §511
XIV. Adde quod cum Deus immensus sit, & essentia ejus ineffabili modo omnia loca repleat, singulis rebus adest & intime praesens est. An autem Deus ignoraret, & non perciperet ea, quae ipsi proxima & praesentia sunt: imo in quibus est, aut quae potius sunt in ipso? cum ne homo quidem, nisi dormiens, aut non advertens, non possit quin percipiat ea, quae attingit, & quae sunt coram ipso in luce posita. Quo argumento Deus Jeremiae cap. 23. arguit stuporem eorum, qui fraudes suas atque occulta facinora Deum latere posse existimant. Putatisne, inquit, Deus e vicino ego sum, & non Deus de longo? si occultabitur vir in abscondito & ego non videbo eum, dicit Dominus? Nunquid non caelum & terram ego impleo, dicit Dominus.
If men know singulars, God more — drop from His ocean§512
512Humans already know singulars.
Cannot strip that from God.
Human knowing = a drop from God’s ocean.
Latin · §512
XV. Sed cum homines ipsi singularia noscant & percipiant, quis cum ratione reliqua, eorum cognitionem Deo adimere poterit? Num enim quidquam homo sciet, quod Deus ignorabit? cum quicquid in homine cognitionis reperitur sit veluti gutta quaedam ex immenso divinae sapientiae Oceano hausta.
Perfect intellect reaches every intelligible — including singulars§513
513Most perfect power covers its whole object-range.
Whatever is, is intelligible — including singulars.
Singulars under divine intellect no less than universals.
Latin · §513
XVI. Praeterea potentia omnium perfectissima necessario se porrigit ad omnia, quae ad ejus potentiae objectum pertinere possunt. Ac proinde cum intellectus divinus omnium perfectissimus sit, nihil eum fugit eorum, quae sunt intelligibilia. Sed omne quod est, intelligibile est, adeoque talia sunt etiam singularia, quibus juxta Philosophos ratio entis, vel maxime, competit, & sic necesse est illa non minus, imo magis quam universalia sub intellectum divinum cadere.
God names each star — Ps 147§514
514Scripture: God knows each star.
Ps 147 — counts them and names them all.
Singular stars, not genus only.
Latin · §514
XVII. Et certe Scriptura testatur Deum nosse singulas stellas, & earum unamquamque nomine suo vocare. Psal. 147. Numerat, inquit, multitudinem stellarum & omnibus eis nomina vocat. Argumento evidenti, quod non solum in genere naturam stellarum noverit, sed quod haec & illa stella singularis ipsi probe sit nota & perspecta.
Jerome’s absurdity — counting gnats and fleas§515
515Do not spare small/vile things from His knowledge.
Jerome (Hab 1) called gnat-counting absurd.
Le Blanc will refute that limit.
Latin · §515
XVIII. Neque putandum est Deum res quidem magnas, & alicujus momenti, ut stellas, sigillatim nosse, scientiam vero illius fugere multitudinem & numerum rerum parvarum & vilium: quasi non deceret intellectum divinum ad earum singulas seorsim advertere. Id existimasse videtur Hieronymus scribens in Prophetiae Abacuc caput primum, Absurdum est, inquit, ad hoc Dei deducere majestatem, ut sciat per momenta singula quot nascantur culices, quotve moriantur: quae cimicum, & pulicum, & muscarum sit in terra multitudo: quanti pisces in aqua natent, & qui de minoribus majorum praedae cedere debeant.
Small things too — sparrows and hairs; Matt 10§516
516Same create/presence arguments cover small things.
God cares for the least.
Matt 10: sparrow / numbered hairs.
Latin · §516
XIX. Sed argumenta, quae modo attulimus, probant Deum non minus res parvas ac tenues, quam magnas & graves nosse: Etenim Deus non minus res parvas quam magnas condidit. Non minus parvis, quam magnis rebus adest, & intime praesens est. Adeoque minimarum etiam rerum curam gerit. Nam ne unus quidem passerculus in terram cadit sine patre nostro, id est, sine ejus scitu atque permissu. Et etiam capitis nostri capilli omnes numerati sunt, ut docet Christus Matth. cap. 10. 29. 30.
Knowing the low does not soil the divine intellect§517
517Knowing low objects does not degrade God.
Sun analogy: rays on mud stay clean.
Object’s baseness ≠ knower’s baseness.
Latin · §517
XX. Nec ideo vilescit intellectus divinus, quod nec parvas & viles cognoscat: sicut & sol non inquinatur, propterea quod illius radii saepe limum & stercora feriant & collustrent.
Finite minds must skip small things — God’s infinity need not§518
518For humans: attending to trivia crowds out weighty things.
Finite capacity forces trade-offs.
Infinite intellect: no diversion, no forgetting.
Latin · §518
XXI. Hominum quidem respectu melius est quaedam nescire quam scire: & res est vituperabilis, ingenioque magno & excelso indigna, si quis ad res parvas & viles advertat. Verum hoc inde fit, quod intellectus humanus finitus cum sit, neque multorum capax, sufficere non potest omnibus cognoscendis. Ac propterea si rerum vilium atque minutarum cognitionem quaerat, iisque nimium attendat, hoc ipso necesse est illum ea negligere, quae sunt majoris momenti, & quae ignorare illi noxium ac turpe est. At in Deo res aliter se habet. Nam intellectus divinus, propter suam infinitatem, per notitiam rerum pusillarum non avertitur a rerum magnarum scientia, aut in ea aliqua ratione impeditur. Nec etiam metus est, ne dum res parvas & viles contemplatur, obliviscatur earum, quae graves sunt atque momentosae.
Before God nothing is properly great — Isa 40§519
519Nothing properly great before self-sufficient God.
Infinite distance: our greatest ≈ our least to Him.
Isa 40: nations as a drop — else strip all knowledge.
Latin · §519
XXII. Adde quod Dei respectu nihil proprie magnum aut pretiosum dici potest. Nec enim ullius indiget, aut aliquem ex ulla re, qui ad ipsum redeat, fructum capere potest, cum sit αὐτάρκης, & sibi sufficiens. Nec etiam quidquam ad ejus magnitudinem accedit. Nam quae sunt quantumlibet magna in infinitum, sua immensitate superat. Nec minus ab eo distant quae maxima videntur nobis, quam quae minima: cum inter Deum & creaturam quamvis distantia sit infinita, qua nulla major dari potest. Adeoque, si Deus nil nosse debet, quod non sit coram ipso magnum & momentosum, necesse est omnium scientiam ei adimere, quia omnia sunt ei tanquam nihilum, ut magnificis verbis docet Isaias cap. 40. Ecce, inquit, gentes quasi stilla situlae, & quasi pulvis staturae reputatae sunt: ecce insulae quasi pulverem exiguum. Omnes Gentes quasi non sint sic sunt coram eo, & quasi nihilum & inane reputatae sunt ei.
Conversely nothing is properly vile — glory in animalcules§520
520Flip side: no creature properly vile before God.
Very good even in the least.
Animalcules display power, goodness, wisdom.
Latin · §520
XXIII. Rursus vero alio respectu dici potest coram Deo nullam creaturam parvam & vilem esse. Nam vidit Deus quicquid fecit, & visum est ei valde bonum, quam in minimis quoque ejus potentia, bonitas & sapientia elucet: imo maxime in illis animalculis, quae calcamus & pro vilissimis habemus: in quibus Deo placitum est virtutum suarum edere specimina, & quasi miracula, quae rite contemplantem in admirationem & stuporem dare possunt, & Dei gloriam non parum illustrare.
God searches hearts — Prov 15; Jer 17; 2 Chr 6§521
521Omniscience pressed on hidden hearts/counsels.
Prov 15:11; Jer 17 — searches heart and kidneys.
2 Chr 6:30 — You alone know hearts.
Latin · §521
XXIV. Ut autem divinae omniscientiae Scriptura nos certiores reddat, praecipue urget Deum videre atque intueri quae sunt hominibus maxime occulta: quales sunt cordium cogitationes, & latentia in hominum animis consilia. Infernus, inquit sapiens, & perditio coram Domino, quanto magis corda filiorum hominum? Prov. 15. 11. Et hac cognitione Deus tanquam sibi propria saepius gloriatur, asserens se eum esse qui scrutatur renes & corda, ut praesertim videre est 17. cap. Jeremiae, Fraudulentum est, inquit, cor prae omnibus & inscrutabile; quis cognoscet illud? Ego Dominus scrutans cor & probans renes: qui do unicuique juxta viam suam & juxta fructum operum suorum. Quod agnoscens Solomon 2. Paral. 6. 30. hanc Deo gloriam tribuit, Tu solus nosti corda filiorum hominum.
By times — present, past, and future all known§522
522Time-slices also fall under omniscience.
Hidden presents known.
Past escapes Him not; future seen from afar.
Latin · §522
XXV. Jam autem, si per discrimina temporum ire libet, & ex iis rerum genera distinguere, inde quoque manifestum erit, nullum rerum genus a Deo ignorari. Nec enim Deo nota sunt praesentia solum quantumvis occulta, sed praeteritorum nihil eum fugit, & de longe quoque prospicit futura.
Past knowledge — Moses, memory, books, final judgment§523
523Scripture recounts ancient past via Moses.
“Remembering” covenant/oath presupposes knowing.
Books (Ps 56/139) + final judgment seal exact past knowledge.
Latin · §523
XXVI. Et certe praeteritorum notitiam Deo tribuendam esse, vel inde patet quod Deus in Scriptura multa pluribus ante saeculis praeterita recenset, primamque rerum originem ab initio per Mosen repetit. Hoc quoque facit, quod Scriptura memoriam Deo tribuit, ut quum dicitur meminisse foederis vel juramenti sui. Etenim licet Deus idcirco praecipue dicatur meminisse rerum, quia earum rationem habet, aut propter eas aliquid operatur, hoc ipsum tamen supponit Deum illas probe novisse ac tenere. Nec alio referendi sunt libri illi, in quibus ea quae fiunt & contingunt Deus scribere dicitur, Psal. 56. 9. & Psal. 139. 16. Per hoc enim Scriptura innuit Deum oblivioni praeterita non mandare, sed illa Deo tam certo & distincte cognita manere, ac si ab eo scriptis mandata essent, & continuo lecta. Sed praecipue exactam rerum praeteritarum cognitionem in Deo arguit universale illud judicium, in quo unicuique pro praeteritis ejus factis, dictis & cogitatis, sive bonis sive malis olim redditurus est: juxta illa ultima Ecclesiastae verba, Cuncta quae fiunt adducet Deus in judicium de omni abscondito sive bonum sive malum sit.
Future foreknowledge — prophecy; Tertullian; Isa 41§524
524Prophecy floods Scripture — including Revelation.
Tertullian: as many witnesses as Prophets.
Isa 41: announce the future — mark of the living God.
Latin · §524
XXVII. Futura vero Deum praenoscere probant innumerae rerum futurarum praedictiones per totum Sacrae Scripturae corpus sparsae, & quibus praecipue Prophetarum libri scatent, ut liber Apocalypseos inter scripta Novi Testamenti. Ideoque scite dixit Tertullianus, Dei praescientiam tot habere testes, quot fecit Prophetas. Atque hanc futurorum praenotionem Deus ut propriam sibi vendicat, eaque vult a falsis Gentium Diis discerni, & pro vero vivoque Deo solum agnosci, quia videlicet, ipse solus futura annunciare possit, & reipsa annunciet: ut saepius apud Isaiam videre est, praesertim cap. 41. ubi Deus per Prophetam sic idolatria Gentium numina alloquitur, Annunciate quae ventura sunt in futurum, & sciemus quod Dii estis vos.
God knows possibles that will never be§525
525Not only actual timeline — also mere possibles.
Men already know unused possibles.
Knowing His power = knowing its infinite unused reach.
Latin · §525
XXVIII. Porro Deus novit non tantum ea quae sunt, fuerunt, aut futura sunt, sed & quaecunque possunt esse, licet revera nunquam futura sint. Quum enim homines ipsi noverint multa esse possibilia, quae nunquam tamen actu ponenda sunt, & in natura rerum exitura, quis rerum ejusmodi cognitionem Deo cum ratione adimat? Adde quod Deus propriam potentiam ignorare non potest: nec potest propriam potentiam nosse, quin noverit ad quae se extendat. Deus autem praeter ea quae fecit, aut facturus est, infinita facere & producere potest: adeoque necesse est, ut distincte cognoscat infinita posse esse & fieri, quae tamen nunquam futura sunt.
God knows impossibles — cannot die or lie§526
526Impossibles known too — die, deny Himself, lie.
Men already spot impossibles; God more.
Infinite intellect covers every intelligibile.
Latin · §526
XXIX. Jam vero sicut Deus optime novit quicquid est possibile, sic quoque non ignorat quid impossibile sit & fieri non possit. Novit se non posse mori, & seipsum abnegare, & impossibile esse, ut Deus mentiatur, quod Deus ipse in verbo suo asserit. Et certe, quum homines ipsi certo & distincte sciant hoc vel illud fieri non posse, quanto magis illud Deo tribuendum est. Cumque ad intellectum pertineat judicare quid fieri repugnet, & quid non, quid est hujusmodi quod intellectum divinum latere & fugere possit, quandoquidem quicquid est ullo modo intelligibile necessario cadit sub intellectum infinitum?
Wrap — God knows all that can be known§527
527Close: perfect distinct knowledge of every knowable.
Singulars/universals; great/small; open/hidden; good/evil.
Past/present/future; possible/impossible — if humans glimpse any, God holds all.
Latin · §527
XXX. Igitur conclusum esto, Deum perfecte & distincte novisse omnia, quae quomodocunque sciri & intelligi possunt, singularia & universalia, maxima & minima, patentia & latentia, bona & mala, praeterita, praesentia & futura, denique possibilia & impossibilia: quorum omnium quum aliquid mens humana percipiat, eorum nihil menti divinae atque infinitae potest non esse penitus cognitum & perceptum.
Roman senses of praedestinatio — glory, means, or both§528
528Roman School: several senses of predestination.
Some = glory-decree only; others = means-decree only.
Most now combine both — our working sense here.
Latin · §528
I. Thesibus praecedentibus observavimus Praedestinationem in Schola Romana multis modis accipi. Et primo quidem nonnullos Praedestinationis vocem restringere ad decretum illud, quo Deus ab aeterno absolute constituit gloriam caelestem certis hominibus conferre. Juxta alios vero, praedestinationem solum illud decretum complecti, quo Deus hominibus quibusdam praeparavit media ad gloriam caelestem infallibiliter assequendam conducibilia. Hodie vero apud plerosque Scholae Romanae Theologos utrumque istud decretum sub praedestinationis nomine comprehendi. Et hoc sensu vox ista in hac disputatione communiter sumitur.
Triple respect — act, effects, eternal relation; no cause of the act§529
529Three respects: will’s act; temporal effects; eternal relation.
Of the act itself: no cause in man — unanimous.
Divine will is cause of all; has no cause.
Latin · §529
II. Porro praedestinatio sub hac notione accepta, secundum Scholae Romanae Theologos tripliciter considerari potest. Et prima quidem ratione actus ipsius voluntatis divinae, per quem Deus homines ad salutem destinat. Secundo, ratione effectuum illius actus, qui conferuntur homini in tempore, & qui omnes ad gratiam & gloriam revocantur. Denique secundum terminationem atque relationem, quam divina voluntas ab aeterno habuit ad effectus illos futuros. Priori modo confitentur omnes Scholae Romanae Doctores, absque ulla haesitatione, nullam causam divinae praedestinationis a parte hominis dari, vel cogitari posse, ut nec divinae voluntatis, quae cum ipsa sit causa rerum omnium, nullam causam habere potest.
The question — is there a motive in us for election?§530
530Live question: effects + eternal relation to them.
Is there a non-effect cause/motive in us?
Why this person elect rather than another?
Latin · §530
III. Verum hic quaestio est de praedestinatione secundo & tertio modo considerata, nempe, secundum effectus quos Deus, ut praedestinans & eligens homines, in hominibus, aut circa homines operatur. Et etiam secundum respectum extrinsecum, quem Dei praedestinantis voluntas habet ad effectus illos, ad quos ab aeterno libere terminatur. Videlicet, quaeritur, An sit aliqua causa omnium effectuum praedestinationis in nobis, quae effectibus illis non sit annumeranda. Seu quod eodem redit, An Deus hos & illos eligens atque praedestinans consideraverit & praeviderit in ipsis aliquid quod sit ratio vel motivum praedestinationis & electionis ipsorum, ad quod nimirum possint referri, tanquam ad causam quoquo modo moventem atque meritoriam, quaecunque bona ipsis, vi suae praedestinationis & electionis obtingunt: & ita an sit in homine quaedam vel causa, vel ratio cur sit a Deo praedestinatus, & cur iste potius electus sit quam alter?
Adults only — infants have no election-cause in them§531
531Scope: adults only.
Infants: nothing in them as election’s cause/condition.
Need a cause tied always to predestination’s effects.
Latin · §531
IV. Quae quaestio solos adultos respicit. Nam quod spectat ad parvulos ante usum rationis ex hac vita decedentes, in Schola Romana certum apud omnes habetur nihil esse in ipsis, quod possit esse causa, vel conditio electionis illorum. Adeoque tota controversia est An in illis praedestinatis qui adulta aetate ex hac vita migrant, possit assignari aliqua causa ullo modo meritoria, seu aliqua ratio praedestinationis & electionis ipsorum, quoad omnes ejus effectus? Et quidem talis causa, vel conditio quae semper habeat certam connexionem cum praedestinatione.
Opinion 1 — moral works before justifying grace§532
532First opinion: pre-grace moral works as meritorious cause.
Foresaw natural free-choice goodness → congruous grace.
Named: Thomas of Argentina, Gabriel, Ockham, Javellus.
Latin · §532
V. Super qua re variae sunt & fuerunt in Schola Romana sententiae. Primo enim reperti sunt Scholastici nonnulli, qui existimarunt causam meritoriam praedestinationis, quoad omnes ejus effectus esse bona opera moralia antecedentia gratiam justificationis. Nempe Deum ab aeterno ad gratiam & salutem aeternam elegisse, quos praevidit, citra gratiam ullam supernaturalem, ex liberi arbitrii viribus bene acturos moraliter, & sic sese ad gratiam quodammodo praeparaturos: Deumque ad illam dandam ex congruitate quadam invitaturos esse. Hanc sententiam tribuit Gregorius de Valentia Thomae de Argentina, Gabrieli, & Occam veteribus Scholasticis: itemque Chrysostomo Javello Dominicano, qui superiori saeculo scribebat.
Opinion 2 — merits after grace; Thomas’s horse§533
533Second opinion: post-grace merits as cause.
Foresaw right use of grace → further effects.
King/horse example — Thomas ST I q.23 a.5; Durandus.
Latin · §533
VI. Alii putarunt causam praedestinationis esse merita, non quidem antecedentia gratiam, sed illam subsequentia. Dixerunt enim Deum ab aeterno decrevisse illi homini conferre gratiam, & reliquos subsequentes effectus praedestinationis, quem praevidit recte fuisse usurum accepta gratia, atque a Deo habiturum merita per divinam gratiam. Quam rem explicabant exemplo Regis alicujus, qui dare vellet equum ei militi quem existimaret equo bene usurum, atque ita propter bonum usum futurum equi, equum daret. Ut refert Thomas quaest. 23. art. 5. Et Durandus in Dist. 41. lib. 1. Sententiarum.
Opinion 3 — Henry of Ghent / Eck; free will as sine qua non§534
534Henry of Ghent: free-will side ≠ predestination’s effect.
Grace-side = effect; free-will side = sine-qua-non congruity.
Not condign merit — Eck’s Chrysopassus follows.
Latin · §534
VII. Ad hanc sententiam accedit, & cum ea fere coincidit sententia cujusdam Henrici Gandavensis veteris Scholastici. Docet enim actiones illas, quibus homo praedestinatus cooperatur divinae vocationi & justificantem gratiam acquirit, ac in ea acquisita constanter perseverat, observando Dei mandata, dupliciter considerari posse, uno modo, ut sunt a libero arbitrio, altero modo, ut sunt ab adjutorio Gratiae. Et priori modo dicit non esse effectus praedestinationis, sed posteriori modo. Atque ita existimat actiones illas, ut sunt a Libero arbitrio, esse causam praedestinationis relatam ad suos effectus, atque adeo ad illas etiam ipsas actiones, ut sunt a gratia. Addit autem tales actiones esse causam non propter quam homo praedestinetur, tanquam propter meritum ex condigno, sed sine qua non praedestinaretur, & qua interveniente praedestinetur, ex congruitate quadam: quia nimirum decet & aequum est, ut Deus eum praedestinet quem videt cooperaturum illo modo Divinae gratiae. Quam sententiam, teste Gregorio de Valentia, superiori saeculo secutus est Joannes Eckius, in libro qui ab eo Chrysopassus inscribitur.
Opinion 4 — negative cause: no final mortal obstacle§535
535Fourth opinion: negative cause only.
Foresaw: no final mortal-sin block to grace.
Catalogue via Gregory of Valencia Disp. 1 q.23 p.4.
Latin · §535
VIII. Denique ex Scholasticis aliqui censuerunt esse aliquam causam praedestinationis ex parte praedestinati, non tamen positivam, sed negativam. Arbitrati sunt enim Deum eo praedestinare quos praedestinat, quia praevidit illos non posituros obicem gratiae divinae finaliter per peccatum mortale. Quae variae sententiae referuntur & explicantur ab eodem Gregorio de Valentia, Disputatione prima, quaestione 23. de Praedestinatione, puncto 4.
Common Roman view — absolute gratuitous decree; no meritorious cause§536
536Today’s common Roman Doctors reject all four prior opinions.
Decree to all effects: absolute, merely gratuitous.
No propter-quam / sine-qua-non in the elect — Gregory lists Thomas to Lombard.
Latin · §536
IX. Verum omnes istae sententiae a Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae communiter hodie rejiciuntur & damnantur. Censent enim, saltem eorum longe plurimi, decretum divinae praedestinationis ad omnes suos effectus relatum absolutum esse & mere gratuitum, nec pendere ab ulla conditione vel causa, quam Deus praedestinans in homine praeviderit & consideraverit. Hanc enim sententiam ut Theologorum communem proponit & defendit jam saepe memoratus Gregorius de Valentia. Nullam, scilicet, esse rationem seu causam ullo modo meritoriam, ex parte praedestinati, praedestinationis quoad omnes ipsius effectus. Et quod si praedestinatio referatur ad omnes ipsius effectus, nulla sit ratio, vel causa ullo modo meritoria ipsius in praedestinato, neque propter quam, neque sine qua non, sed in solam gratuitam Dei voluntatem referri debeat. Ut videre est loco supra citato. Ubi eandem quoque sententiam tribuit multis veteribus Scholasticis, ut Thomae Aquinati, Alexandro Alensi, Cardinali Bonaventurae, Joanni Scoto, Aegidio Romano, Gregorio Ariminensi, Richardo Hertio, & ipsi Sententiarum Magistro Petro Lombardo.
Vasquez — no cause, merit, or occasion in the elect§537
537Vasquez Disp. 91: Catholic sentence — no cause/merit/occasion in the elect.
Covers faith-start and any honest moral work.
Excludes condign, congruous, disposition — only God’s good pleasure.
Latin · §537
X. In eadem etiam sententia est Gabriel Vasquez, qui eam prolixe probat & tuetur tomo primo in primam Thomae, Disputatione nonagesima prima. Ubi suam ea de re mentem his verbis explicat. Catholica igitur sententia est, nullam causam, nullum meritum, seu occasionem ex parte praedestinati excogitari posse, ob quam Deus, aut in tempore gratiam suam ei dederit, aut ab aeterno dare decreverit. Primum autem doctrina haec non solum intelligenda est de initio fidei, orationis, seu voluntatis consequendi salutem, vel de aliis operibus, quae circa Deum aliquo modo versantur, qualia sunt religionis: verum etiam de quovis opere moralis virtutis, quod in ipsum solum bonum honestum referatur: Ut nullo modo aliquid hujusmodi esse possit occasio, aut initium donationis, aut praedestinationis gratiae. Praeterea non solum excludimus initium, quod sit meritum condignum, sed etiam meritum congruum, seu impetratorium, aut dispositionem: denique quamlibet causam & occasionem, ob quam Deus huic potius quam alteri, gratiam donaverit, aut donare praesciverit: ita ut tota ratio praeparandi huic potius gratiam, quam alii, sit beneplacitum divinae voluntatis, nihil autem, vel minimum ex parte praedestinati. Disputationis jam dictae capite undecimo.
Petrus a S. Joseph — Quis te discernit?; Bannez circle§538
538Idea Theol.: no cause in the elect for first grace.
1 Cor 4:7 — discrimination = God’s mercy alone.
Bannez, Estius, Puteanus, Eustachius agree.
Latin · §538
XI. Idem quoque docet Petrus a Sancto Joseph in Idea Theologiae speculativae. Ubi libro primo, capite decimo nono, haec est illius Resolutio quarta. Ex parte praedestinati non datur causa praedestinationis ad primam gratiam. Quod probat ex illo Pauli, Quis te discernit? Unde colligit hominem non esse causam illius discriminis, quo praedestinatus distinguitur a non praedestinato, sed meram misericordiam Dei tale discrimen inter utrumque constituentis: quod falsum esset, si homo naturaliter Deo praeberet motivum, seu rationem eum praedestinandi prae alio, ad gratiae auxilia quibus salus comparatur. Atque eandem sententiam inter recentiores tenent Dominicus Bannez, Estius, Puteanus, Eustachius a Sancto Paulo, & alii plurimi, quorum singulorum testimonia referre taediosum nimis & superfluum esset.
Molina — no cause of the integral effect; agrees with Thomas§539
539Molina: no cause in us for the integral effect.
Even preparation-for-grace is inside the effect (particular help).
Assents to Thomas ST I q.23 a.5 — reason only from God’s side.
Latin · §539
XII. Quin haec est ipsius Molinae sententia. Asserat enim praedestinationis quoad integrum effectum non dari causam ex parte praedestinati. Et hoc probat quia quicquid est in homine, quo in vitam aeternam dirigitur, comprehenditur ut integro effectu praedestinationis, etiam ipsa praeparatio ad gratiam, quae non fit nisi per auxilium particulare Dei. Ergo nulla ratione fieri potest, ut integri effectus praedestinationis aliqua causa ex parte nostri reperiatur. Praedestinatio igitur hoc modo sumpta ex parte effectus habet pro ratione divinam voluntatem, ad quam totus effectus praedestinationis ordinatur ut in finem, & ex qua, sicut ex principio movente, procedit. Unde est quod postea assentitur Thomae dicenti, Ex parte hominum praedestinatorum & reproborum nullam esse causam, sive rationem, quare quidam eorum sint a Deo praedestinati, alii vero reprobati; sed rationem sumendam, reddendamque esse ex parte Dei. Quaest. 23. art. 5. & d. Disput. 1. Memb. 5.
Collective effects uncaused — but one effect may cause another§540
540Collective package of effects: no cause in man.
Still: one effect can cause another effect.
New question: glory-election vs grace-decree — foresight or absolute?
Latin · §540
XIII. Porro quamvis Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae communiter censent omnes effectus praedestinationis simul & collective sumptos, nullam omnino causam in homine habere, nec ex ullo hominis merito, vel opere pendere, sed ex Dei quadam voluntate omnino gratuita & absoluta homini conferri, adeoque nullam ex parte hominis dari, vel reperiri causam divinae praedestinationis ad omnes suos effectus relatae, est tamen communis eorum sententia unum effectum praedestinationis esse non tantum rationem, sed vere causam alterius effectus ejusdem praedestinationis: & sic unum effectum esse posse rationem, & causam, saltem improprie dictam, praedestinationis, prout refertur ad alium effectum. Quo posito quaerunt, An praedestinatio seu electio hominis ad gloriam, prout consideratur distincte a decreto de conferenda homini gratia, habeat aliquam in homine causam, & facta sit ex fide & meritis praevisis, An vero sit omnino gratuita & absoluta, & secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, debeat censeri fieri ante praevisionem fidei & bonorum operum, adeoque nullam ex parte hominis rationem vel causam habeat.
Many hold glory-election absolute — grace given to merit destined glory§541
541Agree: glory conferred from merits in time.
Many: eternal glory-election still absolute / beneplacitum.
Grace given so they can merit the already-destined glory.
Latin · §541
XIV. Super qua re variae sunt in Ecclesia Romana Doctorum sententiae. Quamvis enim in eo conveniant, quod gloria detur homini ex meritis, quodque Deus gloriam a meritis dare homini decreverit, eorum tamen multi, & quidem Doctissimi atque celeberrimi, docent electionem hominis ad gloriam omnimodo gratuitam esse, & pendere a solo Dei beneplacito. Nempe volunt Deum ab aeterno certis hominibus gloriam caelestem gratuito destinasse atque praeparavisse, sed tamen voluisse ut per merita ad illam pervenirent, & propterea decrevisse illis dare gratiam, qua possent gloriam ipsis destinatam mereri: ita ut donatio gloriae cadat sub meritum, nec omnino gratuita sit, decretum vero de gloria donanda sub meritum non cadat, sed sit simpliciter & absolute gratuitum.
Bellarmine — predestination vs execution; per opera praevisa§542
542Bellarmine: predestination ≠ execution.
Loved without foresight of works; works = path of execution.
“Through foreseen works” false of praedestinavit, true of dare.
Latin · §542
XV. Haec est inter alios sententia Bellarmini. Nam libro secundo de Gratia & libero arbitrio cap. 13. Respondens ad quintum testimonium, Alia, inquit, est praedestinatio, alia executio. Constituit enim Deus in praedestinatione, regnum caelorum dare certis hominibus quos absque ulla operum praevisione dilexit: tamen simul constituit, ut via ad executionem, via perveniendi ad regnum, essent bona opera. Itaque illa propositio, Deus ab aeterno praedestinavit hominibus dare regnum per opera bona praevisa, potest & vera esse & falsa. Nam si illud, per opera praevisa, referatur ad verbum, praedestinavit, falsa erit: significabit enim Deum praedestinasse homines, quia opera illorum bona praeviderat: si referatur ad verbum, dare, vera erit: quia significabit executionem futuram esse per opera bona, sive, quod idem est, glorificationem effectum esse justificationis, & operum bonorum, sicut ipsa justificatio effectum est vocationis, & vocatio praedestinationis.
Bellarmine ch. 15 — free election to glory, not only to grace§543
543Bellarmine II.15 title: free election to glory too.
Targets split: predestination=means / election=glory-from-works.
Holds both gratuitous — denies works-foresight for election.
Latin · §543
XVI. Capite vero decimo quinto ejusdem libri ex professo probat, ut patet ex ipso titulo capitis, Non solum ad gratiam efficacem, sed etiam ad gloriam, gratis homines eligi. Et capitis initio eos sibi refutandos proponit qui distinguunt praedestinationem ab electione, & praedestinatione quidem praeparari certis hominibus infallibilia media ad salutem, electione vero praeparari ad gloriam. Denique praedestinationem esse plane gratuitam, electionem autem a bonorum operum praevisione pendere.
Petrus a S. Joseph — glory-election before foresight of merits§544
544Petrus a S. Joseph sides with Bellarmine.
Efficacious glory-election before absolute foresight of merits.
Therefore merely gratuitous — Idea Theol. I.20 Res. 1.
Latin · §544
XVII. Bellarmino hac in parte astipulatur Petrus a Sancto Joseph cujus haec est Resolutio. Probabilior est sententia quae docet, electionem efficacem ad gloriam factam esse antecedenter ad absolutam praevisionem meritorum, adeoque esse mere gratuitam. In Idea Theologiae speculativae lib. 1. cap. 20. Resolutione 1.
Thomists and Jansenius — glory-election as free as grace-election§545
545Eustachius, Bannes, Estius + recent Thomists agree.
Jansenius & disciples: glory-election no less free than grace-election.
Our conception: it precedes foresight of good works.
Latin · §545
XVIII. Denique idem ea de re docent Eustachius a Sancto Paulo, Dominicus Bannes, Gulielmus Estius, & alii qui dicuntur Thomistae recentiores, omnium vero maxime Jansenius & ejus Discipuli, qui acriter tuentur praedestinationem & electionem hominis ad Gloriam, & aeternam beatitudinem, non minus gratuitam esse, & secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, praevisionem bonorum operum in Deo praecedere, quam praedestinationem hominis ad gratiam.
End before means — glory-destination precedes merits-decree§546
546Glory = end; merits = means → intention of end first.
Glory-destination precedes the grace/merits decree.
Foresight of merits follows election — cannot be its cause.
Latin · §546
XIX. Fundamentum autem eorum est quod gloria finis est, merita vero hominis medium ad finem illum consequendum: prior est autem intentio finis electione mediorum. Unde sequitur destinationem hominis ad gloriam, qua Deus finem intendit, praecedere decretum de conferendis per gratiam meritis, ut mediis ad finem illum necessariis: ac proinde praevisionem meritorum hominis sequi electionem illius ad gloriam, quae sic non potest niti illa praevisione, ut conditione vel causa.
Opposite party — eternal glory-election from foreseen merits§547
547Many Roman School: eternal glory-election from foreseen merits.
Not merely post praevisa — also propter praevisa.
So the glory-decree itself is not simply gratuitous.
Latin · §547
XX. Plurimi tamen Scholae Romanae Theologi in ea sunt sententia, non tantum in tempore gloriam dari ex meritis, sed aeternam ipsam praedestinationem, seu electionem hominis ad gloriam, factam esse ex praevisis meritis: ita ut, juxta ipsos, ipsum illud decretum quo Deus ab aeterno quibusdam hominibus gloriam destinavit, non sit simpliciter & mere gratuitum, sed factum sit non solum post praevisa hominis merita, verum etiam propter illa praevisa.
Becanus — conditional vs absolute foresight; post vs propter§548
548Becanus: glory-election from foreseen merits is more probable.
Splits: conditioned vs absolute foresight.
And: post praevisa vs propter praevisa — true in all modes.
Latin · §548
XXI. Haec est sententia Martini Becani, qui postquam dixit multos ex Scholasticis sentire praedestinationem, seu efficacem electionem ad gloriam factam esse ex praevisis meritis, sequentia verba subjungit. Porro haec sententia, quae multo probabilior est, potest duobus modis explicari. Primo de praescientia conditionata, ut sensus sit, Deus, antequam efficaciter eligeret aliquos ad gloriam, praevidit per scientiam conditionatam, quinam bene usuri essent gratia Dei si illis daretur. Secundo de praescientia absoluta, hoc sensu: Deus absolute praevidit aliquos bene operaturos, antequam illos efficaciter eligeret ad gloriam. Rursum utrumque dupliciter intelligi potest. Primo Deus efficaciter elegit aliquos ad gloriam ex praevisis meritis, id est, post praevisa merita. Secundo, ex praevisis meritis, id est, propter praevisa merita. Nos dicimus omnibus modis veram esse hanc sententiam. In Summa Theol. tom. 1. cap. 9. q. 1. sect. 3.
Vasquez Disp. 89 — no free glory-election before merits; allies listed§549
549Vasquez Disp. 89: no efficacious glory-election from will alone before merits.
Before merits: only common antecedent will toward all, even reprobate.
Becanus’s roll-call: Molina/Lessius/Stapleton … to Major.
Latin · §549
XXII. Hac in parte vero Becanus, ut in multis aliis, sequitur Gabrielem Vasquez qui tomo primo in primam Thomae, disputatione 89. haec duo constituit & multis probare contendit. Prius est, Nullam electionem efficacem ad gloriam ex sola Dei voluntate fuisse, antequam merita praeviderentur ex gratia, sed quemlibet ad gloriam electum fuisse ex meritis praevisis, quae ex gratia facturus erat. Posterius est, ante merita gratiae praevisa, nullum peculiarem affectum donandi gloriam Deum habuisse erga praedestinatos, sed circa omnes etiam reprobos habuisse communem voluntatem simplicem, vel antecedentem, qua omnibus vitam aeternam, tanquam bravium, & praemium commune aequum proposuit, & desideravit. Cap. 2. In eadem autem cum Vasquez, & cum Becano sententia, sunt alii plurimi, quos Becanus nominat loco supra citato, ut Pighius, Molina, Lessius, Ruardus, Driedo, Eckius, Turrianus, Stapletonus, Gregorius de Valentia. Et e Veteribus Alensis, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Argentinensis, Henricus Gandavensis, Occam, Gabriel, Joannes Major: Quos omnes idem in hac quaestione secum sentire affirmat jam dictus Martinus Becanus.
Reformed unanimous — collective grace+glory predestination uncaused in man§550
550All Reformed Doctors: collective grace+glory election uncaused in man.
Merely and absolutely gratuitous — free will of God alone.
No motive in the elect; only God’s beneplacitum.
Latin · §550
XXIII. Quod spectat autem Scholae Reformatae Doctores omnes unanimi consensu statuunt praedestinationis ad gratiam & gloriam simul & collective sumptas, nullam in homine causam, conditionem, vel rationem reperiri posse, sed illam esse mere & absolute gratuitam, & a sola Dei libera voluntate pendere. Deum enim dum hos & illos prae aliis elegit, & ad gratiam & salutem ordinavit, nihil in iis spectasse quo ullo modo moveri potuerit ad illos tanta benevolentia & favore prae aliis prosequendos, nec ullam hujus rei rationem afferri posse, praeter unicum ejus beneplacitum.
Most Reformed — glory-election absolute, before foresight of faith/works§551
551Most Reformed: glory-election itself absolute, not conditioned.
Before foresight of motions, works, or faith’s start.
Grace-decree later/coordinated with glory-election (our conception).
Latin · §551
XXIV. Quod si quis seorsim considerare velit electionem ad gloriam, illamque distinguere a decreto conferendi varia gratiae dona, ad coelestis illius gloriae assecutionem necessaria, longe plurimi quoque ex Theologis Reformatis asserunt illam minime conditionatam, sed mere gratuitam & absolutam esse: Deumque ad gloriam absoluto decreto certos homines elegisse, priusquam in iis praevideret ullos futuros bonos motus, ullumque vel bonum opus, vel fidei initium. Quoniam Deus non potuit quicquam tale in iis praevidere antequam decrevisset illis dare gratiam ad omne bonum opus, omnemque fidei actum plane necessariam. Quod decretum, juxta nostrum concipiendi modum posterius esse censent electione ad gloriam, aut saltem non ea prius, sed cum ea cohaerens, eique si non subordinatum, saltem coordinatum.
Minority Reformed — glory-decree after foresight of faith and works§552
552Some Reformed: glory-decree later than faith/grace election.
God first foresees faith and works, then glory-predestination.
So eternal glory-election is from foreseen faith as condition.
Latin · §552
XXV. Attamen nonnulli sunt, qui secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, decretum de danda gloria posterius esse volunt electione ad fidem & gratiam efficacem, adeoque statuunt Deum ratione prius praevidere hominis fidem & bona opera, quam illum ad gloriam coelestem praedestinet. Unde sequitur praedestinationem ad vitam & gloriam aeternam esse ex fide, tanquam conditione ab aeterno a Deo praevisa in eo qui eligitur.
Testard Irenicum 289 — justification/glorification from foreseen faith§553
553Testard Irenicum th. 289: election to justif./glorif. from foreseen faith.
Object = the believer as believer.
Time’s subordinate condition mirrors the eternal decree.
Latin · §553
XXVI. Quae est Pauli Testardi sententia in Irenico, Thesi 289. Nemo, inquit, certe negaverit electionem ad justificationem & glorificationem, si distincte consideretur esse ex fide praevisa, earumque objectum esse hominem credentem, quatenus credentem. Nam quales justificat & glorificat Deus in tempore, tales decrevit justificare & glorificare ab aeterno. Et quod est causa subordinata & conditio justificationis & glorificationis in tempore, illud est causa subordinata & conditio justificationis & glorificationis in decreto ab aeterno: quandoquidem executio decreto optime respondet.
Cappel Salmurian theses — faith-decree prior; no absolute glory first§554
554Cappel (Saumur th. 30–31): faith-decree prior by nature of the thing.
First separation = faith-decree, not glory-decree.
Not: absolute glory then faith — reverse: faith then glory.
Latin · §554
XXVII. Et his quoque consentanea docet Ludovicus Capellus thesibus de Electione & Reprobatione, quae insertae sunt Systemati Thesium Salmuriensium. Ibi enim thesi trigesima & trigesima prima haec sunt illius verba. Decretum de danda fide prius est, non quidem tempore, omnia enim Dei decreta in eo simul ab aeterno sunt, sed rei natura decreto de justificando & sanctificando, adeoque & de glorificando eo qui credit, & ab illis est distinguendum. Nam ut aliud est credere, aliud justificari, aliud sanctificari, aliud glorificari, sic etiam aliud est Dei decretum quo constituit homini dare fidem, aliud quo credentem justificare, sanctificare, & tandem glorificare sibi proposuit, nostro inquam concipiendi modo. Neque per decretum de glorificando fit prima inter homines separatio, sed per decretum de danda fide, quia reapse per veram fidem, & actu ipso, homines ab invicem primo separantur, qui eousque pares fuerant. Neque Deus primum decernit hominem absolute glorificare, deinde fidem illi dare; sed contra fidem dare, deinde glorificare decernit. Quia quemadmodum non nisi credentem actu glorificat, sic nec nisi credentem decrevit glorificare.
Common ground — collective effects uncaused; leftover dispute with ancients§555
555Reformed + most Roman: no fight on collective uncaused package.
Why this one not that → only God’s mere beneplacitum.
Leftover quarrel only with older School / few Neoterics.
Latin · §555
XXVIII. Caeterum ex dictis apparet circa causam electionis & praedestinationis, prout suos omnes effectus respiciunt, nullam esse controversiam inter Doctores Reformatos, & plerosque Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Utrique enim in eo consentire, quod omnes effectus praedestinationis, simul & collective sumpti, nullam omnino causam in homine habeant, sed ad solam Dei gratiam atque benignitatem in solidum referendi sint. Unde sequitur nullam rationem ex parte hominis, reddi posse, cur hic potius, quam ille, ad gloriam & varia gratiae auxilia ab aeterno fuerit a Deo praedestinatus, sed id totum referendum esse ad merum & unicum Dei beneplacitum, quod a nulla conditione ex parte hominis pendere censendum est. Quod si quae restat ea de re quaestio, illa est tantum cum nonnullis vetustioris Scholae Theologis, & paucis quibusdam forte Neotericis, reclamante communi hodiernae Scholae sententia.
Open question — glory-election alone from foresight of faith/works?§556
556Still open in both Schools: is glory-election alone from foresight?
Some put living-faith election before absolute glory-election.
Reason named: God foresaw this one’s faith/repentance/perseverance, not that one’s.
Latin · §556
XXIX. An vero electio ad vitam aeternam & gloriam coelestem seorsim considerata, & distincte a decreto conferendi gratiam, sit ex praevisa fide, & praevisis operibus, dubitatur, ut patet ex antedictis, tam in Schola Reformata, quam in Schola Romana. In illa enim, ut in ista, reperiuntur nonnulli qui sentiunt, electionem ad fidem vivam & operosam, secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, praecedere absolutam electionem ad gloriam, & rationem aliquam reddi posse cur hic potius, quam ille, sit ad vitam & gloriam aeternam praedestinatus. Nempe quia Deus ab aeterno praevidit hunc gratiae beneficio in Christum crediturum, & acturum poenitentiam, ac in fide perseveraturum, nihil tale vero de altero praevidit.
Roman School more often suspends glory-election on foresight§557
557Roman School: glory-election from foresight is the more common view.
Reformed School: only a few put living-faith foresight before glory-election.
Same thesis: many Romans teach it; few Reformed.
Latin · §557
XXX. Verum in Schola Romana communior & vulgatior est sententia quae suspendit decretum electionis ad gloriam aeternam, ex praevisa conditione fidei & operum, quam in Schola Reformata. Et in hac pauci sunt admodum prae aliis, qui volunt praevisionem fidei vivae & per dilectionem operantis, in Deo, secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, praecedere efficacem electionem quorundam ad gloriam: cum idem in Schola Romana tueantur & doceant plurimi.
Collective-cause question is foundational — Pelagian risk§558
558Collective-cause question = foundation of Christian faith.
Cause-in-man for the whole package → Pelagianism.
Would teach grace-from-merits and natural self-discerning — condemned.
Latin · §558
XXXI. Porro prior illa quaestio de causa praedestinationis secundum omnes suos effectus consideratae, an scilicet, detur ex parte hominis, non est parvi momenti, & spectat ad fundamenta fidei Christianae. Nec enim affirmari potest dari causam ex parte hominis omnium effectuum praedestinationis, quatenus tam ad auxilia gratiae, quam ad gloriam coelestem refertur, quin incidatur in Pelagianismum, & negetur salutem hominis esse gratuitam, & ex sola Dei misericordia & benignitate in solidum pendere, non ex ullis operibus nostris, quod tam clare & constanter affirmat Evangelium: adeoque quin doceatur gratiam dari ex meritis, & hominem per naturae vires incipere seipsum ab alio discernere, & ad gratiam salutarem, aliquo saltem modo, praeparare atque disponere, quod tanquam Pelagianum, & Christianae gratiae adversum, pia antiquitas horruit & damnavit.
Second question safer — if saving grace is wholly free and one act in God§559
559Glory-vs-grace order question is different — safer if grace stays free.
Premise: nothing in man provokes the grace-helps.
And: one simple eternal will-act — not stacked real decrees in God.
Latin · §559
XXXII. Secus vero videtur de altera illa quaestione, An scilicet, Electio ad gloriam aeternam, prout ab Electione ad gratiam distinguitur, sit ex praevisa fide & operibus? hoc est, An natura, vel ratione prius Deus praevideat hominem in Christum crediturum, illumque fide viva & per dilectionem efficaci amplexurum, quam absolute decernat illi conferre vitam & gloriam aeternam? Modo constet homines ad gratiam salutarem omnino gratis eligi, nec quicquam in iis esse quo Deus provocetur, ad gratiae istius auxilia ipsis, potius quam aliis destinanda atque largienda. Ac praeterea Deum unico & simplici voluntatis suae actu, ab aeterno simul & semel decrevisse, quaecunque unquam decrevit, & in tempore exequitur. Nec revera in Deo esse plura decreta, sibi succedentia, aut ab invicem realiter distincta, tanquam distinctos, & seorsim ac separatim elicitos, divinae mentis & voluntatis actus.
Remaining dispute is method of our concepts, not the thing in God§560
560Given the agreed points: leftover quarrel ≠ the thing in God.
It is only how we sort our concepts of one will-act.
Execution-order vs intention/end-means order — nearly arbitrary, both blameless.
Latin · §560
XXXIII. Si enim ista, de quibus jam convenit, inter Scholam Romanam & Scholam Reformatam, agnita & concessa fuerint, quod superest controversiae, non erit de reipsa, qualiter res, scilicet, in Deo se habeat, sed solum de Methodo aliquos mentis nostrae conceptus digerendi. Nempe omnes jam in eo consentiunt, decretum de danda gloria, & decretum de gratia conferenda, non esse duo decreta realiter in Deo distincta, & inter quae possit esse realis aliquis ordo prioris & posterioris; sed Deum unico voluntatis actu uno ista constituisse. Verum mens nostra non valens, propter suam imbecillitatem, uno conceptu exhaurire, & simul complecti omnes illos respectus, quos unicus actus voluntatis Divinae ad varia objecta habet, cogitur illam seorsim concipere, prout modo hoc objectum, modo illud respicit, & sic illam diverse nominat, & modo unius decreti, modo alterius nomen illi imponit. Et postea inter varios illos conceptus, quos unius, & nunc alterius decreti nominibus insignit, excogitat aliquem ordinem, quo convenienter inter se disponantur, qui ordo propemodum arbitrarius videtur: Et citra culpam & reprehensionem diverse assignari potest: dum alii nimirum conceptus suos de decretis divinis, secundum ipsam rerum executionem, digerunt, alii vero, si quae sit relatio mediorum & finis, inter res a Deo decretas, malunt ordinem intentionis sequi, & tanquam, prius concipere decretum de re quae finis est, ut posterius autem illud quod se habet tanquam medium ad illam.
Either conceptual order allowed — Reformed end-first preferred; better not to fight§561
561Either conceptual order is allowed: end-first or execution-first.
Reformed (and Le Blanc) prefer end/intention-first as more fitting.
Still: better neither to raise nor settle — no piety fruit, much fight.
Latin · §561
XXXIV. Itaque non video quid mali, vel periculi sit, si quis decretum de gloria alicui donanda concipiat ut prius decreto de conferendis gratiae auxiliis, quia gloria se habet ut finis, gratiae vero auxilia, ut media quae ad finem illum consequendum necessaria sunt; aut contra, si quis concipiat decretum de praebendis gratiae auxiliis, ut prius decreto de conferenda gloria, quia reipsa Deus prius gratiam communicat, & postea gloriam, & ita secundum ordinem causae efficientis, gratia gloriam praecedit: quamvis prior ille ordo, ut in Scholis Reformatis longe magis receptus est, ita nobis etiam videtur convenientior. Etenim sapientis est finem aliquem intendere, postea vero apud se statuere de mediis quae ad finem illum obtinendum conducunt. Forte tamen consultius esset quaestiones ejusmodi, quae nihil ad fructum pietatis faciunt, & nihilominus saepe gravissimas contentiones excitant, nec movere, nec determinare.
Roman School — three senses of the word Praedestinatio§562
562Roman School uses “praedestinatio” in three ways.
Glory-decree alone; means-to-glory decree alone; or both.
Eustachius a S. Paulo Summa, de Praedestinatione q.3.
Latin · §562
I. Vox Praedestinationis in Schola Romana varie usurpatur. Nam juxta quosdam illius Doctores Praedestinatio solum illud decretum complectitur, quo Deus ab aeterno absolute constituit gloriam coelestem certis hominibus conferre. Aliis vero praedestinatio restringitur potius ad decretum conferendi certis hominibus media ad gloriam coelestem infallibiliter assequendam conducibilia. Alii denique utrumque decretum ad praedestinationem pertinere contendunt. Ut observat Eustachius a Sancto Paulo in Summa Theologiae, de Praedestinatione, quaestione 3.
First sense rarer — Biel and Occam: eternal counsel to give glory§563
563Glory-only sense is the rarer acceptance.
Biel & Occam: praedestinatio = eternal counsel to give glory.
Cited via Gregory of Valencia Tom.1 Disp.1 q.23.
Latin · §563
II. Acceptio prior rarior est. Sic tamen sumere videntur nomen praedestinationis nonnulli veteres Scholastici, ut Gabriel Biel, & Occam, quibus praedestinatio nil aliud esse videtur, quam aeternum Dei consilium quo decrevit quibusdam hominibus dare gloriam. Ut patet ex iis quae refert Gregorius de Valentia, Tom. 1. Disp. 1. quaest. 23. quae est de praedestinatione, puncto 1.
Most Scholastics — praedestinatio as preparation of grace§564
564Most Scholastics: second sense = preparation of grace.
Distinguished from election to glory.
Becanus Summa Theol. I.19 q.2 concl.1.
Latin · §564
III. Scholasticorum vero maxima pars praedestinationem sumit secundo modo, nempe pro gratiae praeparatione, ut ab electione ad gloriam distinguitur. Sicuti videre est apud Martinum Becanum, in Summa Theologiae, tom. 1. c. 19. quaest. 2. conclus. 1.
Many Romans — both grace and glory preparation in one decree§565
565Many Romans fold both grace- and glory-preparation into praedestinatio.
Eternal purpose directing some into supernatural beatitude via means.
Eustachius, Petrus a S. Joseph, Valencia, Estius, &c.
Latin · §565
IV. Multi tamen ex Doctoribus Ecclesiae Rom. sic definiunt praedestinationem, ut non tantum gratiae, sed etiam gloriae praeparatio ad ipsam pertineat. Illis enim praedestinatio est aeternum decretum, seu propositum Dei, quo Deus homines quosdam ordinat ac dirigit in beatitudinem supernaturalem, per media supernaturalia reipsa consequendam. In qua sententia sunt memoratus ille Eustachius a Sancto Paulo, Petrus a Sancto Joseph, Gregorius de Valentia, Estius, & alii plurimi.
Jansenius — still more general: predestination to life and to death§566
566Jansenius/Augustinians: still wider sense of praedestinatio.
Covers good and evil of punishment (not of fault).
Double predestination: to life and to death — De gratia Christi IX.3.
Latin · §566
V. Jansenius vero & ejus discipuli, Augustinum hac in parte sequentes, praedestinationem sumunt sensu adhuc generaliori. Nam putant Dei praedestinationem respicere non solum bonum, sed etiam malum, non quidem culpae, sed poenae. Adeoque reprobos non minus dici posse ad aeterna supplicia a Deo praedestinatos esse, quam electos ad gloriam & beatitudinem. Unde est quod duplicem faciunt praedestinationem, unam ad vitam, & alteram ad mortem. Ut videre est apud Jansenium De gratia Christi Salvatoris, lib. 9. cap. 3.
Electio likewise — glory-only vs grace-and-glory§567
567Many Scholastics: electio = glory-decree; praedestinatio = means-decree.
Mendoza (Salamanca) notes the split.
Many others: electio covers grace-decree and glory-decree alike.
Latin · §567
VI. Electio similiter a multis Scholasticis restringitur ad decretum quo Deus hominibus quibusdam decrevit dare gloriam, prae aliis. Et sic distinguitur a praedestinatione, quae juxta ipsos, est decretum de conferendis mediis ad gloriam. Ut observat Alphonsus Mendoza Professor Salmanticensis in quaestione Scholastica de praedestinatione, Sectione secunda. Alii vero permulti electionem, sicut praedestinationem, non minus ad gratiam, quam ad gloriam referunt, & volunt illam complecti decretum de danda Gratia, non secus ac decretum de conferenda gloria.
Effects — glory-only sense assigns only communication of glory§568
568Effect-lists track the word-sense chosen.
Glory-only sense → only communication of glory as effect.
Occam & Biel refuse to count grace-gifts as effects.
Latin · §568
VII. Ut autem praedestinatio in Schola Romana a variis varie accipitur & definitur, sic non omnes eodem modo effectus illius assignant. Qui enim praedestinationis nomine intelligunt solum illud decretum, quo Deus ab aeterno certis hominibus gloriam coelestem praeparavit, non alium assignant ejus effectum quam gloriae istius communicationem: neque volunt dona gratiae inter praedestinationis effectus numerari. Qua in sententia sunt Gulielmus Occam, & Gabriel Biel, referente Greg. de Valentia. Tom. 1. quaest. cit.
Opposite — only means are effects; not attainment of beatitude (Durandus)§569
569Opposite camp: only means-to-beatitude are effects.
Attainment of beatitude itself is not an effect.
Because praedestinatio = grace-decree only — Durandus (via Valencia).
Latin · §569
VIII. Alii vero contra pretendunt sola media ad aeternam beatitudinem esse effectus praedestinationis, minime autem ipsam beatitudinis assecutionem. Et hoc quia nomen praedestinationis restringunt ad decretum de gratia communicanda, nec eo comprehendi volunt decretum de danda gloria. Quae est opinio Durandi, teste eodem Gregorio de Valentia loco modo citato.
Communior Roman view — beatitude plus means; Rom. 8 triad§570
570Common Roman view: effects = beatitude + the particular means to it.
Three general effects from Rom. 8: vocation, justification, glorification.
Name covers both the glory-decree and the means-decree.
Latin · §570
IX. Hodie vero Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae communior sententia est, effectus praedestinationis esse, tum ipsam beatitudinem supernaturalem, tum media illa particularia, quibus unusquisque praedestinatus supernaturaliter adipiscitur beatitudinem. Adeoque tres effectus praedestinationis generales numerant, qui notantur ab Apostolo Rom. 8. Vocationem, scilicet, justificationem, & glorificationem. Nempe, praedestinationis nomine intelligunt, tum decretum de conferenda certis quibusdam hominibus coelesti beatitudine, tum decretum de mediis quibus ad fruitionem beatitudinis illius deducuntur.
Some Romans count more — permission of sins; creation (Estius)§571
571Some Romans expand the effect-list far beyond the Rom. 8 triad.
Include permission of the elect’s sins — even the first sin.
Also creation & conservation of the predestined — Estius 1 Sent. d.40 §7.
Latin · §571
X. Sed sunt nonnulli Scholae Romanae Theologi qui longe plura numerant inter praedestinationis effectus: atque inter alia permissionem peccatorum illorum in quae incidunt electi, adeoque ipsius primi peccati permissionem. Imo ad praedestinationis effectus referunt ipsam creationem & conservationem eorum qui praedestinantur. Quod facit inprimis Estius in 1. Sentent. Dist. 40. paragr. 7.
Mendoza — predestination the first divine act; all else its effect§572
572Mendoza (Salamanca Augustinian): praedestinatio = first of all divine acts.
World, creation, permission of sin — all follow from it.
Even demon/impious reprobation = effect of Christ’s and the elect’s predestination.
Latin · §572
XI. Quin ulterius procedit Alphonsus Mendoza Augustinianus Professor Salmanticensis jam supra memoratus. Nam ex professo tuetur primum omnium actuum divinorum fuisse praedestinationem, ex qua consecutae sunt caetera omnia decreta de condendo mundo, de creandis hominibus, de permittendo peccato, &c. Itaque totius hujus universi creationem & conservationem, imo ipsam Daemonum & impiorum reprobationem, & justam damnationem, vult numeranda esse inter effecta praedestinationis Christi & electorum. Ac ut verbo dicam, pretendit nihil omnino a Deo in quocunque genere vel parvum, vel magnum fieri, vel permitti, quod non sit effectus praedestinationis, & medium ad illam exequendam ordinatum.
Mendoza concl. 2 — no foreknowledge presupposed; all is medium of predestination§573
573Mendoza Sect.6 concl.2: no future-foreknowledge presupposed to praedestinatio.
Everything God decrees/does/permits follows from it.
All ordered as means to Christ’s and the saints’ glory.
Latin · §573
XII. Nam in Controversiis Theologicis, jam citata prima quaestione Scholastica de Praedestinatione, Sectione sexta, haec est ejus secunda conclusio. Nulla futuri praescientia praesupponitur in mente Dei ad praedestinationem, sed omnia ex ipsa sequuntur: atque adeo nihil prorsus ab aeterno decrevit Deus facere, vel in tempore facit, vel permittit, sive intendit, sive naturale, sive supernaturale, sive sit res magni ponderis, sive minimi, & fere nullius, quod non proveniat, sitque effectus, & medium praedestinationis electorum & Christi. Atque adeo omnia cadunt sub ordine divinae praedestinationis, tanquam media ad Christi & sanctorum gloriam ordinata.
Mendoza concl. 3 — no providence prior to predestination§574
574Mendoza concl.3: no second providence before praedestinatio.
The one providence = predestination itself.
Everything in the universe follows from it — nothing excepted.
Latin · §574
XIII. Unde est haec ejus tertia conclusio. Non est aliqua alia providentia in Deo antecedens praedestinationem, ex qua scilicet providentia proveniant res naturales, & quidam alii effectus supernaturales: sed unica est duntaxat providentia, ipsaque est praedestinatio, ex qua omnia in universum, nullo prorsus excepto, habent sequi.
Therefore the whole universe is one total object of predestination§575
575Corollary: whole universe = one total object of praedestinatio.
Natural/supernatural, good/evil, substance/accident, every mode.
Nothing falls outside that act.
Latin · §575
XIV. Atque adeo juxta hanc conclusionem, totum universum, ut complectitur naturalia, & supernaturalia, bona, & mala, substantias & accidentia, & omnes in universum modos essendi & operandi, non solum in generali, sed in specie, & individuo, sunt consideranda tanquam unicum objectum totale divinae praedestinationis: ita ut nihil omnino sit quod subterfugiat illius objecti latitudinem, & quod non cadat sub actu illo praedestinationis.
Object as possible/creatable — not as fallen or already created§576
576Estius/Mendoza: man-object = possible/creatable, not fallen or already made.
Because fall-permission and creation are themselves effects.
So foresight of fall/creation follows praedestinatio — Estius 1 Sent. d.40 §6.
Latin · §576
XV. Ex eo vero licet colligere sub quo respectu duo illi Doctores hominem objectum putent Deo praedestinanti, nempe non ut lapsum neque ut conditum in divina praescientia, sed potius simpliciter ut possibilem, sive creabilem. Nam cum permissio lapsus primi hominis, imo & ipsius hominis creatio, ab iis recensetur inter effectus praedestinationis, necesse est ut, ex eorum mente, praevisio lapsus & creationis non praecesserit in Deo, juxta nostrum intelligendi modum, decretum praedestinationis, sed potius illud secuta sit; & sic Deus homines praedestinans illos ut lapsos & conditos considerare non potuit, sed solum ut a se creabiles. Quod cum Mendoza agnoscit Estius. Non ita nominamus, inquit, praedestinationem hominum lapsi, quasi praevisio lapsus primi hominis, atque in eo totius humani generis, praecesserit in Deo, secundum modum intelligentiae nostrae, praedestinationem aliquorum ex toto hominum genere ad vitam aeternam. Citata Distinctione quadragesima libri primi sententiarum, paragrapho 6.
Mendoza’s allies — Scotus: elect before this sensible world§577
577Mendoza Sect.4 roll-call: Naclantus, Pighius, Galatinus, Catharinus.
Prefers Scotus above the rest.
Scotus: elect + grace-goods willed before this sensible world.
Latin · §577
XVI. Idem autem secum hac in parte sensisse non paucos, ex Scholasticis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus, ostendit Alphonsus Mendoza, jam dicta quaestione, Sectione quarta. Ubi pro se citat Jacobum Naclantum Episcopum Clugiensem, Albertum Pighium, Petrum Galatinum, Ambrosium Catharinum, & quem caeteris omnibus praefert, Joannem Scotum, cujus citat multa verba, ex quibus patet, juxta Doctorem illum subtilem, Deum electos praedestinasse, & bona gratiae ipsis voluisse, priusquam vellet hunc mundum sensibilem, quem Deus ab aeterno voluit in ordine ad hominem praedestinatum, propter quem totam naturam visibilem creare constituit.
Communior Roman view — God predestined men as fallen in Adam§578
578Common Roman view: God predestined men as fallen in Adam, sin-corrupted.
Salvation-decree later (our conception) than foresight of the first fall.
And later than foresight of original sin infecting the whole race.
Latin · §578
XVII. Sed communior Scholae Romanae sententia est, quum Deus certos homines ab aeterno praedestinavit, illum eos considerasse ut in Adamo lapsos, & peccato corruptos. Nam communiter censent illius Theologi decretum illud quo Deus quosdam ex hominibus ad salutem praedestinavit, secundum nostrum concipiendi modum posterius esse praevisione lapsus primi hominis, ac inde consequentis peccati originalis, quo totum genus humanum infectum est.
Most Reformed — praedestinatio covers election and reprobation§579
579Most Reformed: praedestinatio = whole providence re salvation or ruin.
Split: to life/salvation (election) vs to death/ruin (reprobation).
Zanchius, Beza, Ursinus, Perkins, Polanus, Bucanus, Dort.
Latin · §579
XVIII. Quod spectat autem illos qui inter Protestantes singulari nomine Reformati dicuntur, eorum plurimi voce praedestinationis significant totam illam providentiae divinae partem, qua Deus apud se ante mundum conditum decrevit & statuit ea quae singulorum hominum, vel aeternam salutem, vel interitum & exitium spectant. Ac proinde aeternam Dei praedestinationem distinguunt, in eam quae est ad vitam & salutem, & in eam quae est ad mortem & exitium. Et prior illa est quae communiter Electio, posterior quae Reprobatio in Scholis appellatur. Sic utuntur voce praedestinationis Zanchius, Beza, Ursinus, Perkinsus, Polanus, Bucanus, & alii complures, ac ipsa quoque Synodus Dordracena.
Many Reformed — praedestinatio only in the good sense (end + means)§580
580Many Reformed: praedestinatio only in the good / Scriptural sense.
Acts bringing certain men to heavenly life/glory + supplying the means.
Not grace-prep alone — covers both glory-decree and grace-decree.
Latin · §580
XIX. Non pauci tamen Doctores Reformati praedestinationis vocem, juxta Scripturae usum, in bonam partem tantum sumendam esse putant. Ac proinde per praedestinationem designant illos solos divinae mentis & voluntatis actus, quibus Deus de certis hominibus ad vitam & gloriam coelestem perducendis, & mediis quae ad hunc finem assequendum necessaria sunt illis subministrandis, immutabiliter apud se constituit. Nec enim restringunt praedestinationem ad solam gratiae praeparationem, quemadmodum multi Scholastici: sed tam decretum de fine, quam decretum de mediis, id est, tam decretum de danda certis hominibus gloria, quam decretum de gratia illis communicanda, praedestinationis nomine complectuntur.
Same sense of electio — synonymous with praedestinatio§581
581Same group: electio = decree selecting some for grace now, glory later.
Electio and praedestinatio treated as synonyms.
Latin · §581
XX. Et eodem quoque sensu vocem Electionis usurpant. Siquidem per Electionem intelligunt decretum, quo Deus ab aeterno quosdam homines ab aliis selegit, ut illos in hac vita gratiae Christi participes redderet, in altera vero gloria coronaret; adeo & electio & praedestinatio pro Synonymis ab ipsis habeantur.
Cameronians — electio as efficacious calling and gift of living faith§582
582Some: electio = efficacious calling + gift of true living faith.
Looks to grace-communication more than glory-gift.
Testard, Cappel, Amyraut, and other Cameronians.
Latin · §582
XXI. Attamen nonnulli videntur per electionem proprie designare decretum de certis quibusdam hominibus efficaciter ad Christum vocandis & fide vera vivaque donandis. Ut electio, juxta ipsos, potius gratiae communicationem, quam donationem gloriae respiciat. Sic electionis vocem communiter usurpant Testardus in Irenico, Ludovicus Capellus Thesibus de Electione & Reprobatione, et Moses Amyraldus passim, aliique qui cum illis Cameronis Methodum & doctrinam sequuntur.
Object-question opens — first party: creatable / supralapsarian§583
583Reformed also split on the object of praedestinatio.
First party: object above fall and even above creation = creatable man.
Called supralapsarians — Zanchius, Beza, Gomarus, Voetius, Twisse, &c.
Latin · §583
XXII. Non parum quoque variant in Schola Reformata Theologorum sententiae, circa quaestionem illam sub qua ratione & respectu homo sit objectum divinae praedestinationis. Primo enim nonnulli in assignando objecto praedestinationis atque electionis, supra lapsum hominis, imo supra ipsam hominis creationem ascendunt. Etenim decretum praedestinationis certorum quorundam hominum ad salutem in Deo, secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, prius fuisse volunt, non solum praevisione lapsus hominis in peccatum, sed ipso quoque decreto de homine creando. Ac proinde objectum praedestinationis ipsis est homo non conditus & lapsus in Dei praescientia: sed potius homo creabilis. Unde est quod ab aliis Theologis supralapsarii vocantur. Quo de numero sunt Zanchius, Beza, Piscator, Perkinsus, Ursinus, Gomarus, Polanus, Voetius, Twissus, & alii non pauci.
Infralapsarian majority — object is the mass corrupted by sin (Dort)§584
584Most Reformed: object = mass corrupted by sin (infralapsarian).
Creation-decree and fall-permission are not parts of total praedestinatio.
Foresight of fall before mercy-election — Dort-conformable majority.
Latin · §584
XXIII. Verumtamen maxima pars Doctorum Scholae Reformatae Deo praedestinanti objectum fuisse volunt massam peccato corruptam, nec decretum de homine creando & de primo lapsu hominis permittendo ingredi volunt decretum totale praedestinationis & partem illius facere. Sed ex eorum sententia in Deo, secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, prius extitit lapsus hominis praevisio, quam decretum de misericordia in salute quorundam hominum exercenda, atque manifestanda: quod a Theologis vocatur electio, seu praedestinatio. Ac proinde, juxta ipsos, objectum electionis & praedestinationis est homo lapsus & peccato corruptus: neque in eo describendo atque definiendo supra hominis lapsum & creationem assurgere debemus. Atque haec sententia maxime conformis est Canonibus Synodi Dordracenae, illamque sequuntur longe plurimi Reformatorum, quorum nomina recensere & prolixum nimis & superfluum foret.
Some Reformed — object already called by external preaching§585
585Some Reformed: object = fallen man already externally called.
Christ-sending / gospel-offer not inside the predestination decree.
Christ-mission-decree prior to efficacious leading of certain men to salvation.
Latin · §585
XXIV. Sed inter Reformatos reperiuntur nonnulli qui electionis objectum constituunt hominem non lapsum simpliciter & peccato corruptum, sed praeterea jam ad gratiae Christi participationem & communionem vocatum externa praedicatione. Nec enim decretum de Christo Redemptore mittendo, & de gratia ejus per verbi praedicationem hominibus offerenda, volunt facere partem decreti praedestinationis, & subordinari decreto de hisce illis hominibus aeterna salute donandis. Quin potius statuunt, secundum nostrum concipiendi modum, Deum prius decrevisse Christum in mundum mittere, quam certos quosdam homines ad vitam & salutem per veram in Christum fidem efficaciter perducere.
Sohnius — fallen and gospel-called; followed by Testard and Cameronians§586
586Sohn (Heidelberg): object = race fallen and gospel-called (universal vocation).
Not simply creatable — considered as falling and called again in the Gospel.
Testard follows; Cameronians must join if consistent with their own tenets.
Latin · §586
XXV. Haec fuit sententia Georgii Sohnii olim Theologiae in Heidelbergensi Academia Professoris. Nam operum tomo secundo, sic definit hominum praedestinationem, Decretum Dei quo ipse homines universos a se praescitos ut corruptos, & per Evangelium ad Christum vocatos ad vitam, vel mortem aeternam ab aeterno praeordinavit, ad declarandam aeternam gloriam suam. Hanc vero definitionem explicans ista addit, Praedestinatio illa facta est secundum praescientiam Dei, id est, a se praescitos homines, atque adeo ut peccato corruptos & per Evangelium de Christo vocatos Deus praeordinavit. Nam ab aeterno eos praedestinans consideravit, non simpliciter ut homines a se condendos, sed ut homines in peccatum lapsuros, & per Christum iterum in Evangelio vocandos. Quibus postea subjungit, Itaque objectum seu materia praedestinationis est genus humanum lapsum, & per Evangelium iterum vocatum. Nam vocatio hic est universalis. In Exegesi praecipuorum articulorum Confessionis Augustanae, tractatu de aeterna praedestinatione pag. 1000. Quam Sohnii sententiam probat & sequitur Testardus libro de natura & gratia, capite de voluntate & decreto gratiae, sectione nona. Et ad hanc quoque necesse est accedere omnes illos qui in doctrina de hominum Redemptione atque electione, Cameronis Methodum & Doctrinam sequuntur, siquidem propriis placitis stare velint.
Creatable-object party — creation and fall-permission as effects§587
587Object-view drives effect-list.
Creatable-object party: creation + fall-permission are means/effects of praedestinatio.
To life in some, to death/ruin in others — Beza, Perkins, Bucanus, Polanus.
Latin · §587
XXVI. Ut autem varii varie sentiunt de Praedestinationis & Electionis Objecto, sic quoque de effectis praedestinationis atque electionis illos diversa sentire necesse est. Nam qui censent objectum praedestinationis esse hominem non conditum & lapsum, sed simpliciter hominem creabilem, & a Deo producibilem, inter media quibus Deus finem in praedestinatione intentum assequitur, ponunt creationem & lapsus permissionem. Adeoque creatio & lapsus permissio sunt ipsis effectus praedestinationis, in his quidem ad vitam, in aliis vero ad mortem & interitum. Prout videre licet apud Bezam, Perkinsum, Bucanum, Polanum, & alios ejusdem sententiae.
Fallen-object party — effects are saving means; Christ chief§588
588Fallen-object party: creation and fall-permission are not effects.
Effects = means freeing from sin unto eternal life.
First/chief: gift and mission of Mediator Christ.
Latin · §588
XXVII. Illi vero qui praedestinationis & electionis objectum constituunt hominem consideratum a Deo ut lapsum, ac peccato corruptum, quique non subordinant decretum creationis & permissionis lapsus decreto de illustranda Dei justitia & misericordia in horum quidem salute, in aliorum vero justa punitione, non putant inter effectus praedestinationis numerari debere hominum creationem, ut nec lapsus permissionem. Sed tantum electionis effecta esse volunt varia illa media, quibus Deus homines a peccato liberat, eosque ad felicitatem & vitam aeternam perducit: inter quae primum & praecipuum ponunt ipsam Mediatoris Christi donationem, & missionem in mundum.
Called-object party — first effect is gift of faith, not Christ’s mission§589
589Called-object party: Christ’s mission/redemption not election-effects.
Those decrees precede and are presupposed by election.
First proper effect = gift of true faith in time; then other benefits.
Latin · §589
XXVIII. Denique illi quibus objectum electionis & praedestinationis non est homo lapsus simpliciter, sed praeterea ad Christi gratiam & communionem vocatus, non possunt inter effectus electionis numerare missionem Christi in mundum, & Redemptionem morte ejus peractam. Siquidem decretum de Christo mittendo, & de humano genere per Christum redimendo, juxta ipsos, praecedit decretum electionis, & ab eo praesupponitur. Sed primum & proprium electionis effectum ipsis est fidei verae in tempore donatio: quam sequitur, ut ejusdem electionis effectus, collatio reliquorum Christi beneficiorum, quibus ad salutem aeternam pervenitur.
Roman and Reformed — election/praedestinatio not used the same way§590
590Both communions use electio / praedestinatio — not in one shared sense.
Various acceptations in each School.
Some Roman uses Reformed refuse; some Reformed senses have no place at Rome.
Latin · §590
XXIX. Porro ex dictis patet voces electionis & praedestinationis, tam in communione Romana quam Reformata, non eodem modo & sensu usurpari: & varias esse vocum illarum acceptiones apud utriusque Scholae Theologos. Verum tamen quosdam esse vocum istarum usus in Schola Romana plurimum receptos, quos non admittit Schola Reformata, & vicissim voces illas a multis Reformatis usurpari eo sensu qui non habet locum in Schola Romana.
Scholastic end/means split vs Reformed medium voice — election and reprobation§591
591Scholastics: electio = end (glory); praedestinatio = means (grace alone).
Reformed: praedestinatio covers end and means; election seldom = glory alone.
Many Reformed: election → gift of faith (grace over glory) — not Roman custom.
Rome (except Jansenists): praedestinatio almost only in bonam partem.
Most Reformed: praedestinatio = medium voice → Election and Reprobation.
Latin · §591
XXX. Sic plerisque Scholasticorum solenne distinguere est, ut vidimus, per praedestinationem intelligere solius gratiae praeparationem, illamque a decreto electionis quo gloria certis hominibus ab aeterno destinata est, praeteritis caeteris: ita ut electio sit decretum de fine, praedestinatio vero decretum de mediis. Reformati autem nunquam vocem praedestinationis eo modo restringunt, sed perpetuo sub illa comprehendunt, tam decretum de danda gloria tanquam fine, quam decretum de conferendis auxiliis & donis gratiae, ut mediis ad finem illum consequendum necessariis atque efficacibus. Et vix etiam videas apud illos vocem electionis restringi ad decretum de communicanda gloria. Imo eorum non pauci electionem videntur restringere ad decretum de fide donanda, existimantque illam potius respicere gratiam quam gloriam, quae acceptio in Schola Romana usitata non est. In qua etiam rarissime, si Jansenium & ejus discipulos excipias, vox praedestinationis aliter sumitur quam in bonam partem, vixque unquam accommodatur ad decretum de quorundam hominum interitu. Cum contra apud plerosque Doctores Reformatos praedestinatio sit vox media, qua ipsis in genere designatur Dei decretum, quo homines vel ad vitam, vel ad mortem ordinantur: cujusque proinde duas species constituunt, Electionem, scilicet, & Reprobationem.
Effects of election — same diversity in both Schools (creation/fall as effects)§592
592Neither Roman nor Reformed Doctors agree among themselves on election-effects.
Nearly the same diversity of judgment on both sides.
Some Reformed and some Romans (Estius, Mendoza, Báñez ST I.23 a.2) count creation & fall-permission as effects.
Most of each School deny and reject that count.
Latin · §592
XXXI. Praeterea ex supra-dictis manifestum est, nec Ecclesiae Romanae, nec Ecclesiae Reformatae Doctores inter se convenire de effectis electionis, seu praedestinationis, dum in bonam partem sumitur. Etenim, prout antea nobis relatum est, variae sunt & discrepantes super hac re sententiae, tam in Schola Romana, quam in Schola Reformata. Eademque, aut fere eadem in isto negotio utrobique reperitur judiciorum & sensuum diversitas. Nam quemadmodum non pauci Scholae Reformatae Doctores ipsam creationem & lapsus permissionem numerant inter effectus praedestinationis quorundam ad salutem, idem quoque faciunt Theologi nonnulli Ecclesiae Romanae, ut praeter Estium, & Alphonsum Mendozam, aliosque supra memoratos, Dominicus Bannes in primam Thom. quaest. 23. ad secundum articulum, dubitatione secunda. Et sicut a plerisque Scholae Romanae Doctoribus istud negatur atque rejicitur, sic idem etiam negat & rejicit Doctorum Scholae Reformatae magna pars.
Object of praedestinatio — parallel opinion-splits in both Schools§593
593Effect-disputes and object-disputes travel together in both Schools.
Question: under what ratio/respect is man object to God predestining?
Nearly the same opinion-splits in Reformed and Roman Schools.
Latin · §593
XXXII. Quemadmodum autem Theologi tum Ecclesiae Romanae, tum Ecclesiae Reformatae, de effectis electionis & praedestinationis varie philosophantur, sic apud utrosque judicia variant, nec parva reperitur opinionum diversitas circa praedestinationis & electionis objectum, id est, quum quaeritur sub qua ratione, & quo respectu homo praedestinanti Deo objiciatur. Eademque propemodum sententiarum discrimina quae inveniuntur in Schola Reformata, in Schola quoque Romana locum habent. Ut apparere potest repetenti quae supra dicta sunt.
Creatable-object party in both Schools; fallen-object the commoner Roman view§594
594Creatable-object party: Reformed and Roman (Scotus, Pighius, Naclantus, Catharinus, Estius, Mendoza, Báñez).
For them: creation & fall-permission are effects; object = possible/creatable man.
Majority of each School rejects that party.
Fallen-object is the commoner Roman view — and the more common Reformed too.
Latin · §594
XXXIII. Etenim, quod est valde observandum, quemadmodum sunt inter Reformatos nonnulli, qui praedestinationis objectum esse putant simpliciter hominem creabilem, minime vero hominem consideratum ut jam condendum & lapsum, quique censent decreto praedestinationis antecedaneum non esse praevisionem lapsus & creationis ejus qui eligitur, sic eandem quoque sententiam tuentur in Ecclesia Romana non pauci, omnes illi, scilicet, qui creationem praedestinatorum, & permissionem lapsus eorum in peccatum, inter effectus praedestinationis locum habere existimant, quique contendunt creationem ipsam ingredi decretum praedestinationis, & esse medium ad finem illius consequendum isti fini a Deo praedestinante subordinatum. Quo de numero post Scotum, Pighium, Naclantum, Catharinum, supra docuimus esse Gulielmum Estium, Alphonsum Mendozam & Dominicum Bannes, ex cujus doctrina, loco supra citato, Deo praedestinanti objicitur homo duntaxat possibilis. Ac sicut in Schola Romana plurimi ab hac sententia recedunt, ita quoque illam damnat & improbat major pars Doctorum Scholae Reformatae. Et denique sicuti plures inter Reformatos objectum praedestinationis constituunt hominem lapsum, sic etiam in Schola Romana haec sententia communiter obtinet.
Object/effects dispute — much logomachy from unequal definitions§595
595How much does the object/effects question matter? Much logomachy.
Dissenters define praedestinatio unequally — more vs fewer decrees under the word.
Creatable-object party enlarges the definition to include create-and-permit-fall.
Mendoza even draws universal providence toward praedestinatio — then creation must be an effect.
Latin · §595
XXXIV. Jam autem si quis quaerat quanti momenti sit illa quaestio de praedestinationis objecto atque effectibus, Respondeo in illa videri multum esse logomachiae. Etenim qui circa haec dissentiunt, praedestinationem non eodem modo definiunt: sed alii sub hac voce plura, alii vero pauciora decreta divina comprehendi volunt. Et hunc & illum actum divinae providentiae in praedestinatione includi hi quidem negant, illi vero affirmant. Nam qui praedestinationis objectum faciunt hominem creabilem vel possibilem, sic ampliant definitionem electionis & praedestinationis, ut illam ingrediatur divinum propositum de homine creando & lapsu ejus permittendo; imo nonnulli, ut Alphonsus Mendoza, universam providentiam ad praedestinationem quodammodo revocant. Quo posito necesse est effectum ejus esse creationem; & hominem consideratum, ut jam a Deo creandum, non recte ejus objectum constitui.
Fallen-object definition — create/permit-fall presupposed, not inside praedestinatio§596
596Fallen-object party: object = fallen sinner in divine foreknowledge.
Create-and-permit-fall decrees are presupposed prior — not inside praedestinatio.
Where definition is not shared, verbal contention is certain.
Latin · §596
XXXV. Qui vero putant hominem lapsum & peccatorem in praescientia divina esse objectum praedestinationis, & consequenter negant hominis creationem & peccati permissionem inter effectus praedestinationis debere numerari, sic eam definiunt, ut non complectatur decretum divinum de homine creando, & lapsu ejus permittendo, sed decretum istud ab ea praesupponatur, tanquam aliquid prius, secundum nostrum concipiendi modum. Ubicunque vero non convenit de rei definitione, certum est ibi multum esse logomachiae & contentionis verbalis.
Rule of use — Scripture / common Schools; creation not apt as praedestinatio-effect§597
597Rule: follow Scripture’s use of the words, or at least common School use.
Schools distinguish praedestinatio from common providence (grace-gifts vs nature-goods).
Creation less apt as an effect of praedestinatio; object not simply creatable man.
Those who fold create-and-permit-fall under praedestinatio enlarge the word too much.
Latin · §597
XXXVI. In hoc autem negotio & aliis similibus haec regula videtur tenenda, nimirum, ut quum agitur de vocum significatione, sequamur, si fieri potest, Scripturae usum, aut saltem non aliter eas accipiamus, quam in Scholis Christianis communiter accipi solent. Itaque cum praedestinatio a communi providentia in Scholis distingui soleat, & communiter ad illam referantur dona gratiae, ad hanc vero naturae bona, minus convenienter creatio poni videtur inter effectus praedestinationis, & consequenter ejus objectum constitui homo nondum a Deo condendus, sed simpliciter creabilis. Nimiumque ampliant vocem praedestinationis, qui sub ea comprehendunt decretum ipsum de homine creando, & lapsu ejus permittendo.
Why some restrict, others extend praedestinatio — creation not under mercy-end§598
598Why restrict vs extend praedestinatio? How many providence-acts they tie to the mercy-end in election.
Agreed: acts/effects that of themselves show mercy or justice in salvation/punishment belong under election/reprobation.
Disputed: whether creation’s end is that mercy/justice end.
Extenders: create-man decree enters praedestinatio; restrictors (Le Blanc, more probable): it does not.
Creation → power, goodness, wisdom — not directly mercy/justice manifestation.
Latin · §598
XXXVII. Quod si quis ulterius quaerat, unde sit ut Theologi alii sic restringant, alii vero sic extendant praedestinationis vocem? Respondeo hoc inde esse quod alii plures, alii pauciores divinae providentiae actus atque effectus referunt ad finem a Deo intentum in quorundam hominum praedestinatione, qui est illustratio misericordiae divinae in eorum salute. In hoc enim Theologi consentire videntur, quod ad praedestinationem & reprobationem hominum revocandi sunt omnes providentiae Dei actus atque effectus, qui ad manifestationem tum misericordiae, tum justitiae divinae in certorum hominum vel aeterna salute, vel justa punitione per se referuntur. Finem autem illum a Deo intentum in hominis creatione, alii negant, alii affirmant. Juxta hos posteriores aeternum Dei decretum de homine condendo praedestinationis decretum ingreditur, & partem illius facit, minime vero, secundum priorum sententiam, ad quam accedimus ut probabilorem. Quippe hominis creatio per se & directe referri non videtur ad misericordiae vel justitiae divinae manifestationem, sed potius ad illustrationem potentiae, bonitatis, & sapientiae divinae.
Certainty in general — firm assent without doubt or fear§599
599Certitudo = firmness of assent.
Mind assents without doubt or fear.
Tenacious, firm adherence to what is proposed.
Latin · §599
I. Certitudo in genere est quaedam assensus firmitas qua mens rei propositae citra dubitationem & formidinem assentitur, eique tenaciter & firmiter adhaeret.
Subjective vs objective certainty§600
600Teaching-split: subjective vs objective certainty.
Subjective = assent as it actually sits in a mind.
Objective = what the object of itself deserves / exacts from the mind.
Latin · §600
II. Porro docendi causa certitudo distingui potest in subjectivam atque objectivam. Certitudinem subjectivam voco, quam assensus quislibet actu in mente alicujus obtinet. Objectiva vero certitudo dicitur, quae per se cuilibet assensui debetur: seu, quae ratione habita objecti, menti inesse debet: & quam objectum, ut sic dicatur, jure suo a mente exigit.
Why the distinction matters — strong feeling, weak object (and reverse)§601
601Watch the split: subjective max can meet objective near-zero.
Men often cling firmly to falsehoods or unfounded claims.
Conversely: object may deserve max certainty while assent is weak from mind’s fault.
Latin · §601
III. Est autem haec distinctio apprime observanda. Nam quandoque certitudo subjectiva maxima est, ubi objectiva exigua, vel nulla: videlicet homines nimis quam saepe sibi firmiter persuadent ea quae, vel in se falsa sunt, vel quibus assentiendi nullum habent solidum & firmum fundamentum. Et contra ubi objectum certitudinem maximam exigit, debilis est mentis assensus, propter ejus aliquod vitium, aut defectum.
Assent without legitimate object-ground is blind obstinacy, not true certainty§602
602Mind-internal ‘certainty’ without legitimate object-ground ≠ true certitudo.
Name it obstinate, blind persuasio instead.
Latin · §602
IV. Caeterum illa certitudo, quae menti quidem inest, nullum tamen in objecto legitimum fundamentum habet, veri nominis certitudo non est, sed potius obstinata & caeca persuasio.
True certainty needs solid object-ground and right apprehension§603
603True certitudo needs solid object-foundation for the intellect.
Mind must rightly grasp that solidity — object as it is.
Sluggishness/prejudice → only light persuasion where doubt has no place.
Latin · §603
V. Ad veri nominis autem certitudinem menti ingenerandam requiritur ex parte objecti fundamentum aliquod solidum quo intellectus innitatur: ac praeterea ut vim & soliditatem ejus mens rite apprehendat, eique objectum tale quale est videatur. Nam aliquando contingit, ex ingenii tarditate aut mentis praejudicio, ut vim & lucem objecti mens non satis percipiat, ac proinde levem tantum concipiat persuasionem rei illius, de qua tamen nullus est haerendi & dubitandi locus.
First mover — clear perception; certainty of experience§604
604Many movers of assent; first: clear object-perception.
Sense-thrust cases: see/touch → sun bright, fire hot, snow cold.
Named: certitudo experientiae.
Latin · §604
VI. Multa vero possunt intellectum movere ut propositae rei assentiatur, illamque veram esse firmiter & certo judicet. Sit primo quidem clara objecti perceptio, quam pluribus modis fieri contingit. Nam quandoque res ipsa sese sensibus externis ingerit, & corporeo sensu percipi potest. Ita certi sumus eorum quae videmus atque palpamus, ut solem esse lucidum, ignem calidum, & nivem frigidam. Et haec certitudo vocatur certitudo experientiae.
Mind-only clear perception — intelligentia vs scientia§605
605Object to mind only (not outer sense) — still clear/distinct.
Immediate innate light → principles / per se nota = certitudo intelligentiae.
Discursive light from principles → conclusions = certitudo scientiae.
Latin · §605
VII. Alias vero objectum sensus ipsos non ferit, sed menti tantum sese offert, & clare ac distincte ab ea percipitur. Idque adhuc bifariam. Vel enim res proposita immediate, sive propria & innata luce, sine ullo discursu & ratiocinio, mentem movet ad assensum. Quo pacto percipimus veritatem principiorum, & eorum quae sunt per se nota. Quale est, idem simul non potest esse & non esse, bis duo sunt quatuor, si aequalibus aequalia addas tota erunt aequalia, & quae sunt ejusmodi. Et haec certitudo potest ad distinctionem dici certitudo intelligentiae. Vel res, quae menti judicanda offertur, propria quidem luce mentem ita non ferit, sed intellectus discurrendo & ratiocinando ex principiis per se notis colligit & judicat omnino & simpliciter impossibile esse ut res aliter se habeat. Quomodo mens percipit veritatem conclusionum, quas ex primis principiis evidenter deducit, & quas propterea dici potest videre luce quadam ex illis reflexa. Et haec certitudo dicitur certitudo scientiae.
Moral certainty from signs — letter example§606
606Firm assent without demonstration of absolute impossibility.
From many signs/indices: morally can’t be otherwise (contrary not absolutely impossible).
Letter example: hand, style, contents — still possible an evil genius forged it.
Latin · §606
VIII. Praeterea intellectus quandoque rei cuipiam firmum assensum praebet, non propter aliquam demonstrationem, cujus vi clare percipiat simpliciter impossibile esse ut res aliter se habeat, sed quia ex multis signis & indiciis colligit & judicat revera rem ita se habere, neque ut res sunt, & moraliter loquendo, fieri posse ut alio modo se habeat, quamvis contrarium non sit absolute impossibile. Sic vir, qui ab uxore aut viro familiari epistolam aliquam accipit non dubitat quin sit illius, sed istud pro certo sibi persuadet, eo adductus characterum ductibus, stili ratione, materia contenti, aliisque similibus: quamvis fieri possit ut malus aliquis genius simile quiddam effinxerit.
Moral certainty from constant fame and common consent§607
607Certainty from constant fame + celebrated human consensus.
Excludes fear and doubt (Rome’s consuls/emperors; Constantinople; Spain in America).
With VIII’s sign-certainty: Schools call this certitudo Moralis.
Latin · §607
IX. Denique est certitudo quaedam quam fama constans ingenerat, & consensus hominum tam confirmatus & celebris, ut a mente prorsus excludat omnem formidinem & dubitationem. Ita nemo est, cui sit aliquis rerum & literarum usus, qui non indubitate & certissime sibi persuadeat populum Romanum olim Consules suos habuisse: & postea fuisse Imperatoribus subjectum. Item esse in Thracia urbem nomine Constantinopolim, quae sedes est magni cujusdam imperii: & Hispaniae regem Americae partem maximam subegisse, & illi dominari. Ista vero postrema certitudinis species, ut & illa de qua Thesi superiori, in Scholis certitudo Moralis appellari solet.
Moral certainty is a lower grade than scientia or intelligentia§608
608Moral certainty < scientia / intelligentia in grade.
Clear distinct perception + plain impossibility of contrary convicts more strongly.
Fame/signs leave absolute other-possibility open.
Latin · §608
X. Si quis autem comparet moralem hanc certitudinem cum prioribus illis certitudinis speciebus, fatendum est illam esse gradus inferioris, nec ex suo genere tantam, quanta est certitudo scientiae, sive intelligentiae. Nam intellectus fortius & potentius convincitur de veritate eorum, quae ipse clare & distincte percipit, & quorum contrarium videt plane impossibile esse, quam eorum quae judicat & colligit ita se habere ex hominum constanti fama & testimonio, aut ex variis signis & indiciis, licet absolute impossibile non sit, ut alio modo se habeant.
Moral certainty is still true-name certainty — not weak fluctuating assent§609
609Moral certainty remains veri nominis certitudo.
Not weak/doubtful/fluctuating — excludes doubt and hesitation.
Authority-weight + moral evidence of signs suffice for constant intrepid assent.
Latin · §609
XI. Attamen certitudo, quam moralem dicimus, non definit esse veri nominis certitudo. Nec putandum est eo nomine designari assensum aliquem infirmum, dubium atque fluctuantem: sed excludit illa prorsus dubitationem & haesitationem. Nam pondus & gravitas authoritatis illius qua nititur, & moralis evidentia signorum & indiciorum quae illam ingenerant, sufficiunt ad animum penitus suadendum, & praestandum ut constanter ac intrepide rei assentiatur, sicut manifestum est ex exemplis propositis, & aliis quae magno numero facile esset congerere.
Moral persuasion enough for life — parents, princes, magistrates§610
610Ordering life needs no certainty above moral.
Most life-duties presuppose only moral persuasion.
Parents/kin and princes/magistrates: moral certainty still binds conscience.
Latin · §610
XII. Adeoque majori certitudine non opus est ad vitam instituendam. Nec pleraque munia, & officia, quibus vita constat, aliam quam moralem persuasionem in nobis praeexigunt. Nam verbi causa, tantum moraliter certi sumus hos esse nostros parentes cognatos & consanguineos, illos vero esse nostros principes, atque magistratus, quibus tamen in conscientia tenemur ea praestare, quae ejusmodi gradus & dignitas, aut sanguinis conjunctio, jure divino & humano exigit.
Certainty of cognition vs certainty of adhesion§611
611Moral assent can cling harder than demonstrative/experiential assent.
Scholastic split: cognition/speculation vs adhaesio.
Cognition: mind-conviction alone, object-extorted. Adhesion: also will’s effect — closer cling.
Latin · §611
XIII. Atque hic observandum venit fieri posse ut assensus moralis quodam respectu sit in animo firmior, eique tenacius & fortius adhaereat, quam assensus alius, qui nititur demonstratione, vel experientia. Quod ut intelligatur notanda est alia certitudinis distinctio quam Scholastici nonnulli proferunt. Nimirum alia est certitudo quae dici potest cognitionis, sive speculationis, alia vero quae certitudo adhaesionis vocatur. Prior illa certitudo pendet a sola convictione mentis, sed posterior etiam ab effectu voluntatis. Priorem objectum debite propositum a mente extorquet, non expectato voluntatis consensu. Posterior vero sequitur voluntatis imperium, & consensum. Quo major est illa certitudo, quae dicitur cognitionis, eo longius omnem dubitationem a mente removet. At quo major est ista, quam dicimus adhaesionis, eo mens assensum arctius amplectitur: & firmius retinet.
Measure of cognition-certainty — evidence; moral evidence still evidence§612
612Cognition-certainty measured by evidence / clear perception.
Certain ↔ evident here; even moral certainty needs some evidence.
Sign/authority assent is obscure vs scientia — yet morally evident (trustworthy witnesses).
Latin · §612
XIV. Prioris certitudinis mensura est ipsa rei evidentia & clara perceptio, quae quo major est, eo quoque in mente certitudo major. Nam certum & evidens hoc respectu convertuntur. Ac profecto nihil etiam moraliter certum dici potest, quod non ratione aliqua sit evidens. Nam quamvis assensus certus a Philosophis dividi soleat in assensum evidentem, qualis est scientiae, & intelligentiae: & in assensum obscurum atque inevidentem, qualis est qui nascitur ex signis & indiciis, & ad quem humana impellit authoritas: tamen hic ipse est quodammodo evidens, scilicet evidentia quae moralis dicitur. Nam cum certo judicamus aliquid ita esse, ad hoc moti hominum fama, consensu & testimonio, ut in exemplis ante propositis, istud eo facimus quod intellectus noster ex variis indiciis & argumentis colligit & videt, tum fide dignos esse testes qui proferuntur, tum revera hoc & illud testimonium ab ipsis perhiberi.
Adhesion grows with the moment of the thing — denying parents§613
613Adhesion-certainty from the thing’s moment/gravity.
More tied to good/honor/advantage → stronger cling, harder to tear away.
Example: rather concede anything than deny own parents (conscience, honor).
Latin · §613
XV. Sed posterior ista certitudo nascitur ex momento & gravitate rei, quae quo magis facit ad hominis bonum, honorem, & commodum, eo quoque illam animus fortius apprehendit, & difficilius patitur se ab ea divelli. Sic vir cordatus quidvis aliud potius concedet, quam ut abneget proprios parentes; quia, scilicet, res est conscientiam attingens, & unde pendet ipsius honor & existimatio.
Divine testimony and revelation — object of faith’s certainty§614
614Beyond listed movers: divine testimony / revelation.
Object of the faith whose certainty this tract disputes.
Schools + common Christian sense: highest, absolute — above scientiae; everyday ‘articles of faith’ as most-certain example.
Latin · §614
XVI. Sed praeter illa supra enumerata, quae mentem movere & impellere possunt ut firmiter & certo rei assentiatur, unum superest, nempe, testimonium divinum, & divina revelatio; quae objectum est fidei illius de cujus certitudine disputatio praesens instituta est. Porro illam esse summam & absolutam, & ipsam scientiarum certitudinem superare, non tantum agnoscit scholarum consensus, sed communis quoque Christianorum sensus: ita ut etiam in sermone triviali, articuli fidei pro exemplo rei, omnium certissimae, nominari soleant.
Faith as essence vs existence — weak faith often lacks absolute certainty§615
615Faith two ways: essence (what it can/ought to be) vs existence (as it actually is in someone).
As existent: highest absolute certainty does not always belong.
Weak faith wrestles doubt — Mark 9:24; disciples ὀλιγόπιστοι; Luke 17:5 Increase our faith.
Latin · §615
XVII. Hic vero ante omnia notandum est, fidem duobus modis considerari posse. Vel secundum essentiam, ut loquuntur Philosophi, id est, qualis esse potest, & debet natura sua, & secundum perfectiones quae illi ex suo genere debentur, & ratione habita objecti quod respicit. Vel secundum existentiam, id est, qualis actu est in hoc aut illo subjecto. Si fides consideretur hoc posteriore modo, manifestum est ei, saltem semper, non competere certitudinem illam summam & absolutam. In multis enim fides infirma est, & tentationibus variis succutitur, ac perpetuam habet cum dubitatione & diffidentia luctam. Qualis erat fides illius qui Domino Jesu Christo dicebat, Credo Domine, succurre incredulitati meae. Et discipulorum, quos Christus vocat ὀλιγοπίστους, & qui propterea illi quoque dicebant, Adauge nobis fidem.
Weak faith can still be true and saving§616
616Weak/infirm faith can still be true and saving.
Disciples and the lunatic’s father prayed thus — yet true faith.
Supreme absolute certainty-grade not required for saving faith.
Latin · §616
XVIII. Nec idcirco ejusmodi fides debilis & infirma, definit esse vera & salutaris. Talis enim proculdubio erat fides discipulorum, & illius qui filium habebat lunaticum, quum sic Dominum Jesum Christum orabant. Adeoque, ut fides vera sit & salutifera, non necessario in ea requiritur supremus ille & absolutissimus certitudinis gradus.
Theologians’ preached certainty is objective, not every subject’s actual grade§617
617Preached faith-certainty = essence-mode (XVII’s prior).
Not subjective grade actually in this/that mind.
Objective: what faith/object by nature demands from the mind.
Latin · §617
XIX. Verum, quum tanta praedicatur a Theologis fidei certitudo, priore modo illam considerant, & rationem habent, non ejus certitudinis, quam actu in mente hujus aut illius obtinet, quae subjectiva dici potest: sed ejus quam sibi ex se, & natura sua vendicat, sive quam objectum fidei jure suo a mente postulat, quae idcirco certitudo objectiva dicenda est.
Objective summit — divine authority; formal reason is revelation§618
618Objective faith-certainty = highest/absolute > scientiae.
Foundation: divine authority/truth — firmer, less able to deceive.
Formal reason of assent: divine testimony/revelation (Trinity; Christ God-man — because God said it in the Gospel).
Latin · §618
XX. Hanc esse summam atque absolutam, ac, ut diximus, ipsam scientiarum certitudinem superare, ex eo probant Theologi, quod fundamentum quo nititur est ipsa authoritas & veritas divina, qua nihil est magis firmum, atque immutabile, & quod minus fallere possit. Nam ratio propria &, ut Scholae loquuntur, formalis, cur credendis fides assentitur, est divinum testimonium, seu divina revelatio. Nempe hunc & illum articulum credimus, verbi causa, in Deo tres esse personas distinctas, & Christum esse Deum & hominem in una persona, quoniam istud Deus dixit & revelavit in verbo Evangelii.
Two conditions for any testimony to make the mind certain§619
619Naked ‘divine authority’ reason leaves scruple.
Any testimony needs two: (1) witness worthy / cannot or will not deceive; (2) testimony truly his — not fictive/supposed.
Latin · §619
XXI. Sed fatendum est istam Theologorum rationem sic nude propositam non omnem scrupulum ex animo tollere, nec per hoc inquirenti menti satisfieri. Ad hoc enim, ut testimonium & authoritas quaevis mentem nostram de re aliqua certam reddat, duo omnino requiruntur. Primo ut judicemus illum, qui testimonium perhibet, dignum esse cui fides adhibeatur, & fallere, vel non posse, vel non velle. Deinde ut certi simus tale testimonium vere ab eo perhiberi, nec esse fictitium & supposititium.
God’s supreme truthfulness is per se known — if perceived as God’s word, absolute certainty follows§620
620Per se known: God supremely truthful — cannot lie/false-testify.
If something is certainly/evidently perceived as said by God → absolute certainty follows.
Latin · §620
XXII. Jam autem est quidem per se notum Deum esse summe veracem, ac plane fieri non posse ut mentiatur, & falsum testimonium perhibeat. Adeoque si quis certo & evidenter percipiat aliquid a Deo dici & asseri, inde proculdubio in mente ejus formabitur certitudo summa atque absoluta.
The hard question — how know this word is truly God’s§621
621Hard question: how know this proposed word is truly God’s.
Not sense-perceived; not per se known; not mathematical demonstration.
No absolute impossibility-of-contrary as in Math conclusions.
Latin · §621
XXIII. Verum tota difficultas est, unde, & quomodo certi esse possimus hoc, vel illud a Deo fuisse dictum, & revelatum: Et quod proponitur, tanquam Dei verbum, & testimonium revera in se tale esse. Etenim verbum illud, quo credenda confirmantur, vere divinum esse, sensu non percipitur, nec etiam res est per se intellectui nota, neque etiam aliquid proprie demonstrabile, ad modum conclusionis alicujus Mathematicae, cujus contrarium plane impossibile esse mens videt & clare perspicit, nec de eo potest tantisper dubitare.
No infinite regress of divine testimonies — must stop somewhere§622
622Cannot solve by another prior divine testimony ad infinitum.
NT can confirm OT — parts witness to parts.
Must stop in some divine testimony where the mind rests without prior other.
Latin · §622
XXIV. Nec etiam hic recurrere potest ad alterum quoddam Dei testimonium quo Dei verbum innotescat. Nam una quidem verbi divini pars potest alteri parti testimonium perhibere, & una revelatio per aliam confirmari, atque innotescere, quemadmodum Novum Testamentum testimonium Veteri perhibet, & authoritatem illius confirmat. Sed hic dari non potest progressus in infinitum, & sistendum est tandem in aliquo Dei testimonio, in quo mens acquiescat, & quod non debeat per prius aliud innotescere.
The difficulty presses all Christians — Protestant and Roman alike§623
623Same knot presses Reformed and Roman theologians.
Scripture-alone or Rome’s unwritten revelation — both stop at a first revelation.
Question: how/by what reason we are made certain of that first.
Latin · §623
XXV. Atque haec difficultas ex aequo urget omnes Theologos Christianos, & illis solvenda incumbit. Sive enim dicamus, ut revera dicendum est, Scripturam sacram esse unicum Dei verbum hominibus traditum, ex quo solo omnia credenda peti & confirmari possint, & quod alio quopiam Dei verbo confirmari non possit, nec egeat: Sive cum Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae, praeter Scripturam, esse aliam revelationem, sine scripto Ecclesiae fidei commendatam; cujus authoritate atque testimonio Scriptura nobis solemniter innotescat, & certa reddatur; semper, ut dixi, deveniendum est ad primam quandam revelationem, in qua mentem sisti necesse sit, & qua alia non sit certior, aut notior, cujus authoritate nobis commendetur atque consignetur. De hac igitur quaestio est quo pacto, & qua ratione de illa certi reddamur.
Internal testimony of the Spirit — efficient cause, not a heard medium§624
624Reformed and Roman: need Spirit’s secret operation — ‘internal testimony’.
Not an audible inner voice used as medium/argument.
Efficient cause of faith; still uses means/incentives that move the mind.
Latin · §624
XXVI. Et omnes quidem Theologi, tam nostri, quam Romanenses, ad hoc, ut aliquis Dei verbum & revelationem, sicuti par est, suscipiat, & de ea certus reddatur, agnoscunt opus esse arcana quadam Spiritus Sancti operatione, quam communiter vocant internum Spiritus sancti testimonium. Sed nemo eorum, quod sciam, per testimonium istud intelligit expressam aliquam Dei vocem, quam fidelis intus audiat, & sentiat, & cujus authoritate, sic velut indicio, propositam extrinsecus revelationem amplectatur. Sed per hoc in genere non aliud intelligunt, quam operationem quandam Spiritus Sancti, qua fidem nobis ingenerat, & quae se ad fidem non habet instar medii, sive argumenti, quo fides innitatur, sed potius instar causae efficientis. Nec etiam, ex eorum communi sententia, interna illa Spiritus Sancti operatio necessitatem excludit aliquorum mediorum & incitamentorum, quorum intuitu mens nostra ad suscipiendam revelationem, quae ipsi proponitur, moveatur atque impellatur.
Motives to receive the word are only moral arguments§625
625Word-as-God’s not mathematically/logically demonstrable.
Motives ≤ moral arguments → only moral certainty of themselves.
Spirit-illumined ‘seeing’ still = moral evidence, not scientia-grade.
Latin · §625
XXVII. Cum autem, ut ante dictum est, hanc esse divinam revelationem, & illud esse Dei verbum, res non sit mathematice, seu logice demonstrabilis, incitamenta & media illa, quae nos movent ad Dei verbum ut tale suscipiendum, non possunt esse plusquam argumenta moralia, quae non mathematice, sed moraliter evidens faciunt menti bene affectae quod proponitur tanquam Dei verbum, & doctrina coelestis, revera in se tale esse. Adeoque argumenta illa non possunt ex se menti ingenerare, nisi certitudinem illam, quam moralem diximus, & quae ex suo genere inferior est illa certitudine, qua principiis per se notis, & conclusionibus inde evidenter deductis assentimur. Etenim, licet homo cujus mens intus Dei Spiritu illustrata, & qui ad notas & varia τεκμήρια verbi Dei debite attendit, judicet & videat impossibile esse ut ab alio quam a Deo prodierit, probationes tamen inde deductae, quibus impellitur ad ita judicandum, non nisi morales sunt, & quod istud videre dicitur non de alia quam de morali evidentia intelligi debet.
Apparent collapse — faith seems only moral, below scientia§626
626Apparent ruin of faith’s claimed supra-scientia certainty.
Assent because God revealed — but ‘God revealed’ only morally argued.
Seems: faith reduces to moral certainty < scientiae.
Latin · §626
XXVIII. Unde corruere videtur certitudo illa summa, & ipsa scientiarum certitudine major quam Theologi fidei tribuunt. Si enim dogmatis credendis assentimur, quoniam illa Deus in verbo suo revelavit, Deum vero revelasse non persuademur vi alicujus demonstrationis, sed argumentis tantum moralibus, inde sequitur fidem ad illa tandem argumenta reduci, ac proinde fidei non competere nisi certitudinem moralem, & quae sit scientiarum certitudine inferior.
Whether ‘this is God’s word’ is an act of faith — mere logomachy§627
627‘Is this-God’s-word an act of faith?’ = λογομαχία (definition stretch).
Narrow faith-def: judgment precedes faith (else circle/regress).
Wide faith-def: two acts — word-is-divine + assent to contents.
Either way: uncertain revelation → no certain assent on its authority.
Latin · §627
XXIX. Porro ad tollendam hanc difficultatem, nihil attinet quaerere an judicium illud, quo statuimus revelationem, quae nobis proponitur, & per quam nobis credenda confirmantur, vere divinam esse, fidei actus sit, & dici debeat: an vero judicium quoddam fidem praecedens, & ab ea praerequisitum, quod ex Theologis alii affirmant, alii vero negant. Sed haec vere est mera λογομαχία. Nam prout libebit fidei definitionem restringere, vel ampliare, sic quoque actus ille vel fidei includetur, vel ab ea excludetur. Etenim, si quis fidem definiat assensum quo aliquid verum esse statuimus, propter Dei dicentis authoritatem & testimonium, tum judicium istud non est actus fidei, sed tantum aliquid quod fidem necessario antecedit, & ab ea praesupponitur. Nam testimonium illud, quod reliquorum omnium credendorum argumentum est, non creditur propter aliud testimonium divinum, cujus authoritate mens nostra moveatur: nisi quis hic velit admittere circulum, aut progressum in infinitum, quorum utrumque absurdum est, ut ante observatum fuit. Si quis autem fidem definiat assensum illum quo verbum divinum ut tale suscipimus, & propter illud assentimur omnibus quae nobis in eo credenda proponuntur; tum assignandi erunt duo fidei actus, quorum prior erit judicium illud quo statuimus hoc verbum vere divinum esse, alter vero assensus quem praebemus omnibus quae illo continentur. Utcunque vero de eo sit, sive judicium istud dicatur actus fidei, sive non, profecto, si sumus incerti an revelatio quae nobis proponitur divina sit, non possumus propter eam certum assensum praebere illis quae nobis ejus authoritate commendantur.
Many theologians — Spirit imprints more certainty than the motives carry§628
628Escape: faith’s whole certainty does not hang on the motives.
Spirit uses motives, but imprints more certainty than they carry.
Summit referred to internal Spirit-testimony (hidden powerful operation) — Le Blanc has followed this elsewhere.
Latin · §628
XXX. Multi Theologi, ut hinc se expediant, negant fidem hic reduci ad ista argumenta, sive incitamenta, ut inde tota ejus certitudo pendeat. Nam Spiritum Sanctum iis quidem uti ut nos ad fidem impellat, & adducat, sed menti fidelium majorem de verbo Dei certitudinem imprimere, quam per se argumenta istiusmodi ferant. Itaque summam illam fidei certitudinem referunt ad internum Spiritus testimonium, id est, ut jam explicuimus, ad occultam & potentissimam Spiritus Sancti operationem, qua immediate certissimam illam de verbo Dei persuasionem mentibus fidelium indit. Quod & nos in aliis Thesibus secuti sumus.
Scruple — rational creature’s assent should not outrun its grounds§629
629Naked Spirit-imprint story leaves a scruple.
Rational assent shouldn’t outrun its grounds (perception/signs/authority).
Else a reason-less grade — against rational creature’s genius.
Spirit works above nature, not against it.
Latin · §629
XXXI. Verum ista sic nude & breviter proposita scrupulum aliquem in animo relinquunt. Sicut enim non congruit creaturae rationali, ut ulli rei assensum praebeat, quin ante ipsa per se veritatem ejus percipiat, vel ex quibusdam signis & argumentis colligat, aut saltem ad credendum moveatur gravi quadam authoritate: Ita quoque eidem congruere non videtur, ut certior sit ejus assensus quam possunt argumenta quibus movetur ad assentiendum. Alioquin in isto assensu erit saltem gradus aliquis ratione omni destitutus, ac nulli solido fundamento subnixus, quod abhorret a genio creaturae rationalis. Constituendum est autem Spiritum Sanctum fidem aliasque virtutes, sive virtutum actus in nobis operari modo quodam naturae congruo & consentaneo, & qui licet sit supra naturam, minime tamen est naturae contrarius.
Bonaventure — faith surer than sciences by adhesion, not speculation§630
630Scruple-relief: Bonaventure’s cognition vs adhesion (as XIII).
Faith > sciences by adhesion-certainty, not speculation-certainty.
Martyr-cling vs geometer who won’t die for a theorem — faith forbids lying.
Latin · §630
XXXII. Ut scrupulus iste tollatur existimamus commode hic adhiberi posse distinctionem illam qua utitur Bonaventura inter Scholasticos Doctores percelebris. Nam comparans ille fidem cum scientiis quoad certitudinem, distinguit certitudinem, ut nos ante fecimus, in certitudinem cognitionis, seu speculationis, quae pertinet ad solum intellectum, & certitudinem adhaesionis, quae praecipue respicit voluntatem, & ab illa pendet. Dicitque fidem esse scientiis certiorem, non certitudine speculationis, seu certitudine solum adhaesionis. Quoniam, inquit ille, fideles Christiani nec argumentis, nec tormentis, neque blandimentis adduci possunt, vel inclinari, ut veritatem quam credunt, vel ore tenus negent: quod nemo peritus alicujus scientiae faceret, si acerrimis tormentis cogeretur sententiam suam de conclusione aliqua Geometrica, vel Arithmetica retractare. Stultus enim & ridiculus esset Geometra qui pro sua sententia in controversiis Geometricis mortem auderet subire, in quantum fides dictat non esse mentiendum.
As speculation/cognition — faith not surer than proper scientia§631
631Speculation/cognition-certainty: faith < proper scientia.
Greater cognition-certainty → farther from doubt.
Math demonstration: no momentary doubt; faith often wrestles doubt/distrust.
Latin · §631
XXXIII. Igitur respectu certitudinis illius, quam speculationis, seu cognitionis diximus, fides non est certior scientia proprie dicta; sed ab illa potius certitudine superatur. Etenim quo major ista certitudo, eo longius ab assensu removet omnem dubitationem. Sed fides dubitationi magis est obnoxia quam scientiae, verbi causa Mathematicae. Nam si quis perceptam habet vim demonstrationis alicujus Geometricae, de conclusione tantisper dubitare non potest. Sed fideli saepe luctandum est cum dubitatione atque diffidentia, quibus fides ejus impetitur.
Shaken subjective faith can still be true — unlike defective ‘scientia’§632
632Objection: only subjective faith-grade is below scientia.
Reply: tempted/wrestling faith can still be true faith.
Weak grasp of a geometric proof ≠ true scientia — scientia excludes doubt more by kind.
Latin · §632
XXXIV. Quod si quis dicat istud tantum probare certitudinem fidei, quam vocavimus ante subjectivam, esse scientiarum certitudine minorem, non vero certitudinem fidei objectivam, de qua jam est quaestio: Respondeo fidem illam quae actu in fidelibus tentationibus variis quatitur, & luctatur cum diffidentia, non definere esse veram fidem. Si quis vero minus perceptam haberet vim demonstrationis alicujus Geometricae, & de veritate conclusionis dubitaret, in eo non esset veri nominis scientia. Atque hoc ipso patet scientiam per se & ex suo genere dubitationem magis excludere quam fidem.
Cognition-certainty measured by evidence — word-of-God less clear than principles§633
633Cognition-certainty measured by evidence/clear perception.
Clearer perception → farther doubt.
Theologians grant: ‘this is God’s word’ less clear than per se nota / logical conclusions — assent less certain that far.
Latin · §633
XXXV. Adde quod, ut ante dictum est, certitudinis illius, quae cognitionis dicitur, mensura, est evidentia. Nam quod dubitationem ex animo excludit est veritatis perceptio, & mentis convictio. Ac proinde quo quis clarius veritatem percipit, hoc ipso a mente ejus longius removetur omnis dubitatio. Non verentur autem Theologi fateri mentem nostram minus clare percipere hoc esse Dei verbum atque testimonium, quam percipit res per se notas, aut conclusiones Logice demonstratas. Non est ergo quod timeant agnoscere assensum illum eatenus esse minus certum.
Below scientia is not yet uncertain — moral certainty still binds conscience unto death§634
634Not reaching scientia/intelligentia ≠ uncertain.
Moral certainty (lower grade) still veri nominis — secure mind.
Enough for conscience-duties unto death (subject/prince; father/children).
Latin · §634
XXXVI. Nec propterea fides, saltem ex hac parte, incerta relinquitur. Quod enim non attingit certitudinem scientiae & intelligentiae, statim tamen incertum non est. Quippe, ut ante ostensum est, certitudo quae moralis dicitur, etiamsi sit inferioris gradus, est tamen veri nominis certitudo, quae mentem securam & indubiam reddit. Nec alia requiritur ut homines ad munia & officia vitae obligentur in conscientia, & efficaciter etiam impellantur: vel usque ad vitam propriam exponendam, & mortem ultro subeundam, quod facit aliquando subditus pro principe, & pater pro liberis, quos suos esse non aliter certus est.
‘This word is God’s’ rests on moral evidence that should remove doubt§635
635Word-is-divine judgment ≠ innate first-principle light.
Still founded on moral marks/arguments that make the matter evident.
Can/ought to clear all doubt in a well-affected mind.
Latin · §635
XXXVII. Ac profecto judicium illud, quo mens nostra statuit verbum ac testimonium, quod proponitur ipsi ut credendorum argumentum, vere divinum esse, non nascitur quidem ex tali perceptione, qualis est illa qua intellectus noster admittit lucem innatam primorum principiorum, & veritatem propositionum quae necessario ex iis deducuntur: sed tamen fundatur in argumentis, notis & indiciis, quae moraliter saltem, evidens reddunt rem ita se habere, adeoque possunt, ac debent ex mente bene affecta tollere omnem dubitationem, & illam certam & securam reddere.
Once persuaded the word is God’s — cling unto renouncing all rather than reject it§636
636Once sure the addressed word is God’s — consider the Speaker’s gravity.
Struck into obedience: venerate, cling, adhere.
Judge: suffer anything / renounce all rather than reject the word.
Latin · §636
XXXVIII. Homo vero semel indubie statuens, ac certo persuasus ex variis indiciis notis & argumentis, verbum quod dirigitur ad ipsum divinum esse, & revelationem illam a Deo ortam, si debite attendat, & serio consideret Deum esse qui loquitur, & quam grave sit & atrox Dei verbum spernere & vocem rejicere, authoritate tanti testis perculsus totus in ejus obsequium fertur, ac Dei verbum summa cum veneratione suscipit, & arctissime complectitur, eique tenaciter & firmiter adhaeret, ac pro certo statuit, & efficaciter judicat quidvis potius patiendum esse, & omnibus renunciandum, quam ut Dei verbum rejiciat, & fidem deroget iis quae illo continentur, & authoritate illius confirmantur.
Adhesion-certainty in faith greater than in any science§637
637Faith’s adhesion-certainty > any science’s.
Eagerer receive, closer embrace, firmer retain than any demonstrated light.
Rather renounce all sciences than cast off faith; hardest assent to tear away.
Latin · §637
XXXIX. Unde oritur in fide major quaedam certitudo quam sit in ulla scientia. Siquidem mens fidelis sic affecta atque disposita Dei verbum, & quae fidei sunt, avidius suscipit, arctius amplectitur, & firmius retinet: quam quidlibet aliud sub quovis tandem lumine proponatur, & quocunque demonstrationum robore confirmetur. Atque adeo vir vera fide imbutus mente animoque fixum & ratum habet omnibus aliis potius scientiis renunciare quam fidem abjicere. Nec est ulla cognitio quam ita firmiter atque studiose custodiat & retineat; Neque ullus assensus, quem aegrius & difficilius a mente sibi revelli patiatur.
Faith perceives its object less clearly, yet assents more firmly§638
638Object less clear than in human sciences.
Yet faith-assent firmer, stronger, deeper in the mind.
Ready to shake off any other assent first.
Latin · §638
XL. Itaque fides, qua verbum divinum amplectimur, objectum suum quidem minus clare percipit, quam assensus, qui locum habet in scientiis humanis: verumtamen fidei assensus in mente firmior est, eamque potentius & efficacius afficit, ac altius penetrat: ita ut quemvis alium assensum potius quam hunc fidelis paratus sit excutere.
Cling-strength from gravity of the matter, not object-evidence§639
639Cling-strength and tenacious adhesion: not from object-evidence.
From the matter's gravity: Spirit-lit mind sees other knowledge little aids blessed life; reject this and whole-man ruin follows.
Faith removes doubt less than demonstrative scientia — yet clings and guards more anxiously.
Maybe less by speculation-certainty; surely greater by adhesion-certainty.
Latin · §639
XLI. Quae fidei firmitas potensque & tenax in mente adhaesio ex evidentia objecti non nascitur, sed ex rei ipsius gravitate & momento. Scilicet mens Spiritu Sancto illuminata percipit quamlibet aliam cognitionem ad bene beateque vivendum nihil aut parum conferre, verum ex hac hominis beatitudinem pendere, nec posse illam rejici, nisi cum certa totius hominis pernicie: ideoque tenacius, & potentius illi adhaerescit, quam ulli qualicunque cognitioni, sive scientiae. Denique, ut breviter quae fusius dicta sunt concludam, fides non tam procul a mente dubitationem removet, quam scientia, quae demonstratione nascitur; sed tamen mens fidei tenacius adhaeret, illamque ut sic dicam, studiose magis, & anxie custodit. Et idcirco, licet fides minus certa forte dici possit certitudine speculationis, quam scientiae prorsus demonstrativae, proculdubio tamen omnibus illis certior est certitudine adhaesionis.
Faith's summit certainty referred to the Spirit's inward operation — not note-measure alone§640
640Whole faith-certainty not resolved into word-light or proving notes alone.
Those arguments are not the measure of its whole certainty.
Spirit stamps greater word-certainty than marks bear by themselves.
Summit cling referred to inward Spirit operation: full firm assent by a force above every argument.
Latin · §640
XLII. Porro hinc liquere potest, quam non sine ratione alias docuerimus, totam certitudinem, quae in fide reperitur, non resolvi in ipsam verbi divini lucem, id est, in varias notas & argumenta, quibus verbum Dei tale esse se probat, nec argumenta illa esse mensuram totius ejus certitudinis, sed Spiritum Sanctum fidelium mentibus majorem de verbo Dei certitudinem imprimere quam per se ferant ejusmodi notae & argumenta: adeoque summam istam certitudinem, qua verbum Dei fides amplectitur, referendam esse ad internam operationem Spiritus Sancti, qui plenum illum & firmum assensum fidelium mentibus imprimit vi quadam quae sit omni argumento & ratione major.
Adhesion that beats human sciences: Spirit opens eyes and bends the will§641
641Adhesion-certainty greater than human sciences: not measured by evidence; not simply by proving-force.
Spirit chiefly generates it: opens eyes to moral word-light and author-signs.
Also bends the converting mind: God's voice addresses me; stakes are the soul's whole good and eternal salvage or ruin.
Nothing worse than refuse God speaking; insane to neglect true happiness.
Efficacious resolve: receive, embrace, cling — will pulled from earth; base affections broken; Spirit's strongest work.
Latin · §641
XLIII. Etenim certitudo illa adhaesionis, qua fides humanas scientias superat, non mensuratur rei evidentia, nec simpliciter pendet a vi argumentorum quibus aliquid verum esse probatur: Et in ea fidelium menti ingeneranda praecipue sese exerit efficacia & vis Spiritus Sancti, qui non solum eis oculos aperit, ut perspiciant verbi divini lucem, id est, moralem illam evidentiam qua menti nostrae innotescere potest, & percipiant vim signorum & argumentorum quae probant & ostendunt Deum esse illius authorem: sed praeterea sic mentem hominis convertendi disponit & afficit, ut serio cogitet atque animadvertat Dei vocem, ad ipsum dirigi, illumque docere & monere de rebus, non levibus & parvi momenti, sed unde pendet totum animae bonum, & aeterna hominis salus, vel perditio: Jam vero nihil gravius & atrocius esse quam Deo loquenti assensum & obsequium debitum non praestare: Et nihil quoque insanus quam ea negligere in quibus vera hominis felicitas sita est, & quae rejici & contemni non possunt absque pernicie & summa miseria. Unde formatur in hominis animo propositum & judicium efficax, quo statuit Dei verbum cum debita veneratione & obsequio suscipere, illudque firmiter amplecti, & penitus ei adhaerere. Quod ut fiat necesse est voluntatem a rebus terrenis & caducis abstrahi, & ad Deum resque caelestes inclinari, & perrumpi obstacula pravorum affectuum, qui mentem ita pervertunt, & obscurant: ut hisce in rebus nihil sani judicare possit; quandoquidem, ut quisque affectus est ita judicat: ad quae omnia requiritur potentissima & efficacissima Spiritus Dei in animis nostris operatio.
Not by rapture or enthusiasm — yet not without object-side ground§642
642Spirit's work is not rapture or enthusiasm.
Moves as befits a rational free creature — nature-agreeing.
Highest faith-firmness not wholly from object-light — yet not reasonless.
Even object-side ground: dignity and gravity the mind duly weighs (as already shown).
Latin · §642
XLIV. Nec tamen quicquam in nobis Spiritus Dei agit per modum raptus sive enthusiasmi: sed homines eo movet & impellit modo quodam naturae maxime consentaneo, & prout decet creaturam rationalem & liberam. Ac quamvis summa illa fidei firmitas atque certitudo, quam Spiritus nostris mentibus imprimit, tota referenda non sit ad objecti lucem sive evidentiam, nulla tamen ex parte ratione destituta est, nec caret omni fundamento etiam ex parte objecti. Siquidem nascitur ex rei ipsius dignitate atque gravitate, quam mens, ut decet, expendit & attendit, quomodo jam expositum est.
After true faith, the word works: terror, peace, new creature§643
643Another side: certainty grows after true admission of the word.
Word works hard: first sharp terror of sin and wrath.
Then sweet comfort — peace beyond understanding, unspeakable joy (Phil 4:7; 1 Pet 1:8).
Changes affections; frees from vice; renews whole man — soberly, justly, piously; new creature.
Latin · §643
XLV. Verum adhuc alia ex parte certitudo quaedam fidei accrescit. Postquam enim aliquis Dei verbum admittit vera & sincera fide, verbum istud potenter & efficaciter in eo operatur. Nam primo conscientiam terret atque percellit acutissimo peccati & irae Dei sensu. Deinde illam consolatione suavissima mulcet, & creat in ea pacem quae superat omnem intellectum & gaudium inenarrabile: Phil. 4.7. 1 Petr. 1.8. Tum quoque hominum affectus immutat, pravos corrigit, turbatos componit, impuros mundat atque purificat: Et liberat animum a servitute vitiorum, ut libenter & alacriter Deum colat, & ipsi serviat: adeoque sic hominem totum intus & extra innovat, ut omni impietati & cupiditatibus mundanis renuncians, sobrie, juste & pie in hoc saeculo vivat, atque eo nomine nova creatura dici mereatur.
Feeling God's finger in the word's work confirms it is divine§644
644Word cannot so work without men feeling God's finger in themselves.
They own a divine efficacy moving the mind within.
That felt force becomes a new argument: this word is truly divine.
Paul to Thessalonica: received as God's word, which works in you who believed (1 Thess 2:13).
Latin · §644
XLVI. Ista vero Dei verbum in hominum animis operari non potest, quin ipsi digitum Dei in se sentiant, & agnoscant divinam quandam efficaciam, quae intus eorum animos miris & variis modis commovet & afficit. Nec possunt mentem eo referre, quin inde valide in fide confirmentur, & novo quodam argumento colligant vere divinum esse verbum illud cujus tam divinam vim & energiam in se persentiunt. Quo spectat Apostolus dum gratulatur Thessalonicensibus quod verbum auditus Dei accepissent, non ut verbum hominum, sed sicut vere est, ut verbum Dei, quod & (inquit) operatur in vobis qui credidistis, 1 Thess. 2.13.
Experimental certainty — Spirit seals the word and sonship together§645
645Faith gains an experimental certainty.
Inward Spirit-testimony seals the word in the heart — divinity and truth sanctioned.
Same witness: Spirit with our spirit testifies we are sons (Rom 8:16).
Cannot certify sonship without certifying the Father who addresses us in the Gospel.
Latin · §645
XLVII. Unde fidei accedit certitudo quaedam, ut sic dicam, experimentalis: & in eo quoque notare est internum quoddam Spiritus Sancti testimonium insigne valde & illustre, quo Dei verbum in cordibus fidelium obsignatur, ejusque divinitas & veritas sancitur. Nec alia ratione Spiritus Dei una cum spiritu nostro testatur nos esse filios Dei, ut loquitur Apostolus, Rom. 8.16. De quo certos nos reddere non potest Dei Spiritus suo testimonio, quin simul nos certos reddat Deum patrem nostrum esse, qui nos in Evangelio compellat atque alloquitur.
Post-faith sealing is not the earlier operation that creates faith§646
646This post-faith sealing (adoption and Gospel divinity via divine effects) is not the Spirit's creating infusion.
The creating work is what people commonly call inward testimony.
Creating testimony precedes faith by nature.
Experimental sealing follows faith and presupposes it.
Latin · §646
XLVIII. Verum hoc Spiritus Sancti testimonium, quod intus perhibet adoptioni nostrae & Evangelici verbi veritati & divinitati, per effecta varia ac plane divina, quae in nobis producit, mediante Dei verbo fide suscepto & admisso, distinguendum est ab altera illius operatione, qua fidem in nobis creat & infundit, & quae etiam vulgo testimonium internum Spiritus appellari solet. Etenim illud testimonium fidem natura praecedit, ut patet; hoc vero fidem consequitur, & illam supponit.
Roman doctors split: Jansenists deny any mere sufficient grace§647
647Roman doctors do not all agree on sufficient grace.
Some reject sufficient-vs-efficacious: no grace is sufficient unless efficacious.
They deny sufficient grace to all — for conversion or for avoiding sins — since efficacious grace is not given to all.
Jansenius and his disciples: this fits Augustine.
Latin · §647
I. De hac quaestione non omnino convenit inter Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Primo enim sunt qui improbant distinctionem gratiae in sufficientem atque efficacem, nec volunt ullam esse gratiam sufficientem quae non sit efficax. Illi vero aperte docent non omnibus hominibus dari gratiam sufficientem sive ad conversionem, sive ad peccata vitanda; cum planum sit gratiam ad ista efficacem non omnibus dari. Quam sententiam tuentur Jansenius & ejus Discipuli, ut Augustini doctrinae conformem.
Common Roman view: God gives all sufficient grace — Scripture and inexcusability§648
648Common Roman (esp. recent) view: God gives all sufficient grace for conversion and avoiding sins.
Driven by God-wills-all-saved / none-perish / all-to-repentance texts.
Else He would will salvation yet deny needed grace — incoherent.
Without universal sufficient help, the unevangelized look excusable; Scripture still calls persevering sinners inexcusable.
Latin · §648
II. Sed communis Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae sententia est in contrarium: saltem quantum attinet Doctores hodiernos atque recentiores. Existimant enim omnibus a Deo gratiam sufficientem dari ad conversionem, & peccata vitanda. Ut autem ita sentiant inducuntur Scripturae locis, in quibus dicitur Deus velle ut omnes homines serventur, & ad agnitionem veritatis veniant; item nolle quemquam perire, sed omnes ad resipiscentiam venire; aliisque similibus. Nec enim ista constare videntur, ut Deus velit hominum salutem & conversionem, & tamen iis gratiam ad fidem & salutem necessariam denegat. Ac praeterea, nisi omnibus hominibus sufficiens gratia detur, putant multos excusari posse, si non convertantur, & a peccatis abstineant, nempe omnes illos quibus talis gratia non obtigit. Nec enim existimant quenquam juste condemnari posse, quod non fecerit ea ad quae non habuit auxilia necessaria & sufficientia: cum tamen Scriptura doceat omnes illos esse inexcusabiles, qui in peccatis perseverant, & ad Deum non convertuntur.
Recent Thomists: sufficient help to be able — but efficacious help needed to act§649
649Agreement on sufficient grace for all still splits on what it means.
Recent Thomists: efficacy equals physical determination of free choice.
All get sufficient help to be able to work well — yet with it alone no one ever does.
Actual well-doing needs a further efficacious help, really distinct, not given to all.
Latin · §649
III. Veruntamen omnes qui in ista Thesi generali de sufficienti gratia omnibus concessa convenire videntur, gratiam illam non eodem modo explicant atque intelligunt. Etenim qui recentiores Thomistae appellantur, quique docent gratiae efficaciam consistere in liberi arbitrii Physica quadam determinatione, dicunt omnibus hominibus gratiam a Deo sufficientem dari, quoniam illis a Deo auxilium sufficiens datur ut bene operari possint: quamvis cum isto auxilio nunquam aliquis bene operetur; sed ad hoc necessario requiratur aliud auxilium efficax a sufficiente realiter distinctum, quod voluntatem ad bonum determinet, & quod a Deo omnibus hominibus non conceditur. Itaque juxta illos, datur omnibus hominibus gratia sufficiens ut bene operari possint: sed tamen quae sine novo auxilio non sufficiat ut actu bene operentur.
Molina: sufficient grace enough to act if they will — use or refuse§650
650Molina and most Roman schoolmen go further.
Sufficient grace not only ability — also actual working without a further prior help, if they will.
Use or refuse sits in their freedom and power.
Latin · §650
IV. At vero Molina, & plerique alii Scholae Romanae Theologi, docent omnibus dari gratiam sufficientem, non tantum ut bene operari possint, sed etiam ut sine alio auxilio praevio actu operentur, si velint, & situm sit in eorum libertate atque potestate gratia illa uti, vel non uti.
Roman consensus: not immediate sufficiency for salvation — faith needs Christ known§651
651All Roman doctors agree: not everyone gets grace that immediately suffices for salvation.
Adults need faith in Christ.
No faith without Christ preached or otherwise made known.
Many have never even heard Christ's name.
Latin · §651
V. Est autem observandum inter omnes Scholae Romanae Doctores convenire, quod non omnibus hominibus detur gratia quae immediate ad adipiscendam salutem sufficiat. Ad hoc enim fatentur adultorum respectu necessariam esse fidem in Christum, quam quis habere non potest, nisi Christus ipsi praedicetur, aut alio quodam modo innotescat: cum tamen palam sit multis hominibus Christi nomen prorsus inauditum esse.
Universal sufficient means mediate — more grace if well used (Cornelius)§652
652Their universal sufficient grace is at least mediate, not always immediate.
Use the first measure well → God ready to give more.
Until saving knowledge of the Son — by ordinary or even extraordinary means.
Cornelius: pious with limited light → angel → Peter → Gospel.
Latin · §652
VI. Itaque quum gratiam quandam universalem & sufficientem urgent, intelligunt eam quae saltem mediate sufficiat, ut ejus beneficio homines ad salutem aeternam perducantur: quatenus, scilicet, si bene utantur ea gratiae mensura quae primo ipsis indulgetur, paratus sit Deus semper ampliorem largiri, donec tandem eos ad salutiferam filii sui notitiam adducat, per media seu ordinaria, seu etiam extraordinaria: sicut Cornelio contigit, qui Deum pie colens pro modulo cognitionis ipsi a Deo indulto per angelum monitus fuit ut Petrum arcesseret, a quo in via salutis amplius instrueretur, & Evangelii doctrinam perciperet.
Not immediate power against every temptation — at least mediate via prayer§653
653Likewise: not immediate sufficiency against every sin and temptation for all.
Only mediate power to avoid and overcome.
Many with present help still lose unless God adds greater help.
Yet they keep at least prayer-help to ask God for the grace then needed.
Latin · §653
VII. Imo neque volunt omnibus hominibus gratiam dari quae sit immediate sufficiens ad peccata vitanda, & tentationes vincendas, sed eam tantum qua possint, mediate saltem, peccata vitare, & tentationes vincere. Agnoscunt, videlicet, multos cum auxilio praesenti impares esse tentationi vincendae, & ni Deus majus auxilium addat, certo fore ut pravae cupiditati succumbant: sed contendunt illis saltem non deesse auxilium quo Deum orare possint, & gratiam tum illis necessariam ab ipso impetrare.
Infants: many Romans deny sufficient grace for all — baptism barrier§654
654Romans still split on further questions — first, infants.
Is sufficient saving grace given to every infant?
Many say no: many die before baptism can be given.
Without baptism they hold no infant reaches salvation — clearest in womb-deaths without parents' fault.
Latin · §654
VIII. Ceterum Scholae Romanae Theologi quaestiones varias hic movent circa quas non est eadem omnibus sententia. Et primo quidem de infantibus quaerunt, An etiam omnibus illis gratia sufficiens ad salutem a Deo detur? Id negant in Schola Romana non pauci: quoniam multi infantes decedunt, antequam potuerit illis administrari Baptismus, sine quo tamen existimant nullum infantem posse ad salutem pervenire. Quod clarum est, praesertim in iis infantibus, qui in utero materno sine parentum culpa extinguuntur.
Vasquez on infants: sufficient remedies for some, not all§655
655Vasquez: the question is not whether Christ made means sufficient in themselves for every infant.
But whether He left their application in someone’s free power.
Some infants (born, or dying in the womb by parental neglect): sufficient remedies were provided — though often unused.
Others: God never granted that human diligence could apply sufficient remedies (no water; womb-death by nature alone).
Latin · §655
IX. In ea est sententia Vasquez, qui monet hic non quaeri an Christus instituerit media ad salutem parvulis omnibus ex se sufficientia: sed an illa ita providerit & disposuerit, ut in libera facultate alicujus applicationem illorum reliquerit. Et postea, adhibita quadam distinctione, docet quibusdam parvulis, editis nimirum in lucem, & iis qui negligentia parentum in utero materno moriuntur, provisa fuisse remedia sufficientia, quae applicari illis possent, licet adultorum negligentia non fuerint applicata: quibusdam vero parvulis non fuisse a Deo ullo modo concessum, posse humana diligentia applicari sufficientia remedia, sive editis in lucem, quum aqua non conceditur, sive in utero materno vi sola naturae morientibus. Tom. 1. in 1. Thom. disputatione 96.
Others: every infant has sufficient grace — baptism prepared for all§656
656Contra Vasquez: sufficient grace is given even for every infant.
God prepared baptism for all infants, as far as in Him lies.
Parents and guardians got immediate or mediate power to baptize — and so to procure their salvation.
Latin · §656
X. Sed contra alii affirmant, etiam respectu ipsorum infantium, gratiam omnibus sufficientem dari: idque quoniam Deus, quantum in ipso est, baptismum omnibus infantibus paravit, & parentibus, ac aliis in quorum potestate sunt infantes, seu immediatam, sive mediatam facultatem dedit ipsos baptizandi, & ita salutem eorum procurandi.
Tricassini: infants’ sufficient grace is in parents and friends§657
657Tricassini (Capuchin): every infant has sufficient grace for salvation.
Not in themselves — they cannot receive it yet.
But in parents and parents’ friends who can bring them to baptism — and so to salvation.
Latin · §657
XI. Haec est sententia Caroli Joseph Tricassini Concionatoris Capucini, in libro nuper edito de necessaria ad salutem gratia omnibus & singulis data, secundae partis sectione ultima, ubi haec est ejus conclusio, Omnes & singuli parvuli habent gratiam sufficientem ad salutem, non quidem in seipsis, cum ejus recipiendae sint incapaces, sed in suis parentibus, & parentum amicis, qui possunt eos perducere ad baptismum, & per hoc ad salutem.
How parents can bring infants to baptism — unbelieving and believing§658
658How parents lead infants to baptism:
Unbelievers: grace to believe (immediate or at least mediate) → then seek baptism.
Believers: pray God keep the child to birth; baptize promptly; avoid sins that cut life short.
Mothers especially avoid what harms mother or child in the womb — then baptism and eternal salvation follow.
Latin · §658
XII. Postea vero explicat quomodo parentes possint eos ad baptismum perducere. Nempe si infideles sunt, gratiam habent qua possint vel immediate, vel saltem mediate credere, & ita suis baptismum procurare. Si vero fideles sunt, possunt orare pro salute parvulorum suorum, ut Deus servet eos usque ad nativitatem, quo tempore solliciti debent esse, ut cito procurent ipsis baptismum. Possunt etiam cavere a peccatis, ne ob ea priventur parvuli sua vita temporali antequam nascantur. Et specialiter possunt cavere matres ab iis omnibus, quae possunt sibi, & parvulis suis, quos gestant in utero, esse noxia & lethifera. Quae si bene observent, parvuli eorum sunt perventuri ad baptismum, & sic ad salutem aeternam.
Adults: Jesuits — sufficient grace present to life’s end§659
659Adult question splits even among universalists: is sufficient grace always present, or only sometimes?
Today’s Jesuits and most Roman doctors: present to every adult to life’s end.
Enough to avoid each presenting sin and temptation.
Enough also to convert and leave the state of sin.
Latin · §659
XIII. Quod attinet autem ad adultos, illi ipsi qui docent adultis omnibus gratiam sufficientem dari, inter se non consentiunt, An gratia ista sufficiens perpetuo illis adsit, An vero iis detur pro loco tantum & tempore; ita ut aliquando ea destituti sint. Nam hodierni Jesuitae, & plerique alii Scholae Romanae Doctores statuunt adultis omnibus, ad finem usque vitae perpetuo adesse gratiam, qua & vitare possint singula peccata quorum occasio se offert, & ad quae tentantur atque impelluntur, & qua possint quoque ad Deum converti, & se ex statu peccati eripere.
Bellarmine: conversion-grace not always on hand — yet never denied for new sins§660
660Other Romans distinguish:
Everyone gets, at some life-moment, grace enough to convert and share salvation.
But that converting grace is not always on hand — many justly lose it for sins.
Yet God never denies help to refuse new sins / resist temptation — at least mediate via prayer (Bellarmine).
Latin · §660
XIV. At vero alii quadam hic utuntur distinctione. Sunt enim qui sentiunt neminem quidem esse cui non in aliquo saltem vitae momento, Deus largiatur gratiam qua possit sese ad Deum convertere, & salutis fieri particeps: sed negant istam gratiam semper omnibus praesto esse: multos enim illa juste propter peccata a Deo destitui. Verum contendunt Deum nunquam ulli homini denegare gratiam qua possit a novis peccatis abstinere, & tentationi ingruenti resistere, scilicet, vel immediate, vel ut dictum est, saltem mediate, per auxilium, quod quidem non habet, sed quod precibus impetrare potest. Qua in sententia est Cardinalis Bellarminus, ut videre est primis capitibus libri secundi de Gratia & libero arbitrio.
Some universalists: even avoid-sin grace can be withdrawn — the hardened§661
661Even some universalists deny perpetual avoid-sin grace for all.
After extreme abuse, God may forsake them in punishment.
Then they are enslaved to base desires — can no longer not sin.
These are Scripture’s hardened and blinded.
Latin · §661
XV. Nonnulli tamen ex patronis gratiae universalis atque sufficientis nequidem admittunt semper omnibus adesse gratiam qua possint peccata vitare: quia scilicet, quidam propter nimium gratiae divinae abusum, & in vindictam ac poenam peccatorum praecedentium, sic a Deo deseruntur, ut deinceps prorsus mancipentur pravis suis cupiditatibus, nec amplius possunt non peccare. Quo de numero putant esse illos quos scriptura induratos & occaecatos vocat.
Vasquez names Tostatus, Cajetan, Fisher, Tapper for timed destitution§662
662Vasquez pins this timed-destitution view on Tostatus, Cajetan, Fisher (Rochester), and Tapper.
For a set stretch of life, after worse sins, help can fail.
Not even sufficient/necessary aid to believe, repent, keep like commands, or avoid sins.
Latin · §662
XVI. Hanc sententiam Vasquez tribuit Tostato Episcopo Abulensi, Cardinali Cajetano, Joanni Episcopo Roffensi & Cardinali, & Ruardo Tappero Professori Lovaniensi, quos censere affirmat, interdum propter peiora peccata, ita destitui homines per aliquam certam vitae periodum, ut nec sufficiens & necessarium iis concedatur auxilium, quo observare valeant mandata credendi, paenitendi, & alia hujusmodi, atque peccata evitare. Tom. 1. in 1. Thom. disp. 96. cap. 3.
Most Reformed: no sufficient grace that is not also efficacious — elect only§663
663Most Reformed deny any ‘sufficient’ grace that fails to convert in fact.
Sufficient = efficacious — no real distinction.
God’s grace efficacious in the elect alone.
So sufficient grace for conversion or avoiding sins is for the elect only — not for all.
Latin · §663
XVII. Quod spectat Scholae Reformatae Doctores, eorum longe plurimi non agnoscunt ullam gratiam quae sufficiat ad hominem convertendum, & perducendum ad salutem, quae etiam reapse hominem non convertat, & ad salutem perducat. Adeoque, juxta eorum sententiam, nulla est gratia sufficiens, quae etiam efficax non sit: nec debet haec ab illa distingui. Ac proinde cum doceant gratiam Dei in solis electis esse efficacem, tantum abest ut agnoscant omnibus hominibus dari gratiam sufficientem sive ad conversionem, sive ad peccata vitanda, ut hanc solis electis obtingere contendant.
Some Reformed: universal external mercy-offer counts as sufficient§664
664Some Reformed today preach a universal grace common to all — enough of itself for salvation.
Asked if all get sufficient grace: they say yes.
Not as inward Spirit-work on mind/will/affections.
But as outward mercy-preaching and invitation to faith and repentance — by word or providence’s effects.
Latin · §664
XVIII. Veruntamen nonnulli hodie reperiuntur Theologi inter Reformatos qui tuentur & praedicant gratiam quandam universalem, quam communem esse volunt omnibus hominibus, & quam etiam dicunt ex se & per se ad salutem sufficere. Adeoque rogati an omnibus hominibus detur gratia sufficiens? Respondent ita esse. Sed gratiam illam constituunt, non in interna quadam spiritus operatione, quae mentem, voluntatem, & affectus hominis moveat & excitet, ut feratur in Deum, & peccatum fugiat: sed tantum in externa divinae misericordiae praedicatione & declaratione, & invitatione ad fidem & resipiscentiam, sub spe remissionis peccatorum obtinendae, & participandae salutis; sive ista declaratio atque invitatio fiant per externum verbi praeconium; sive per effecta varia divinae providentiae, quae sese circa homines peccato corruptos exserunt.
‘Sufficient’ = physically possible to be saved if one will — not actual conversion alone§665
665They do not mean this grace alone actually converts without further help.
It makes salvation possible — he can be saved if he will.
No ‘physical’ block to salvation.
Salvation is duly offered; mind and will can embrace it if used rightly.
Latin · §665
XIX. Hanc autem gratiam sufficientem vocant, non quod, ex eorum mente, simpliciter sufficiat ad hominem actu convertendum, absque ullo alio auxilio divino: sed quia salutem homini sic possibilem reddit, ut possit salvari, si velit: nec ullum sit, ut loquuntur, Physicum impedimentum quod saluti illius obstet: cum & salus illi debite offeratur, & facultates naturales habeat, mentem, scilicet, atque voluntatem quibus possit illam amplecti, si recte iis utatur.
Yet without internal grace, right use of faculties is morally impossible§666
666Still: mind and will are sin-corrupted.
Without inward grace lighting the mind and bending the will, right use cannot happen.
Obeying the outward call needs that inward help.
Without it, obedience is morally impossible because of inherent vice.
Latin · §666
XX. Agnoscunt autem istas naturales hominis facultates, nempe mentem atque voluntatem, ita peccato corruptas & vitiatas esse, ut nisi accedat interna quaedam Dei gratia, quae mentem illuminet & voluntatem flectat, contingere non possit ut homo bene utatur suis illis facultatibus, & pareat atque obsequatur Deo vocanti & invitanti ad gratiae suae extrinsecus oblatae participationem; quod illi propter vitium inhaerens, absque interna ejusmodi gratia moraliter impossibile est.
Still inexcusable — moral impossibility sits in the will’s own hardening§667
667Refusal of the call is still inexcusable.
Moral impossibility sits in the will’s own hardening in evil.
That does not excuse sin — demons show as much.
Excuse only for blocks outside our will that we cannot remove however hard we try.
Latin · §667
XXI. Neque propterea minus inexcusabiles existimant eos qui Deo vocanti obsequium non praestant. Idque quoniam ista moralis impossibilitas sita est in ultronea voluntatis in malo obduratione & obfirmatione, quae minime peccatum excusat, ut patet exemplo daemonum: cum solum excusemur per illa impedimenta, quae a propria nostra voluntate non pendent, & quae quantum velimus, & annitamur ipsi, tollere non valemus.
Outward offer enough for ‘God wills none to perish’ — block is perverse will§668
668This common outward offer is enough to say God wills none to perish — and seriously wants all saved and converted.
Salvation is possible for all under a will-dependent condition they can meet if they will.
No external block.
Only a perverse will that spurns God’s offered means.
Latin · §668
XXII. Ac praeterea putant gratiam istam communiter hominibus omnibus oblatam satis esse, ut Deus dici possit nolle quemquam perire, sed omnium hominum salutem & conversionem velle & serio cupere: quandoquidem per id Deus salutem reddit omnibus possibilem, sub conditione quae pendet ab eorum voluntate, & quam possunt praestare si velint: cum nulla sit causa externa, aut externum impedimentum quod saluti eorum obstet, sed solum eorum perversa voluntas, quae media a Deo oblata respuit & contemnit, iisque uti obstinate renuit.
Internal grace still elect-only — Amyraut and Testard§669
669Inward grace to embrace mercy: elect-only — not common to all.
Amyraut: particular and universal grace dissertations.
Testard, On nature and grace ch. 7 — supernatural grace and salvation’s power through it.
Latin · §669
XXIII. Ceterum internam gratiam, sine qua nemo potest misericordiam divinam amplecti, volunt esse electis propriam & peculiarem, neque ullis quam electis obtingere, tantum abest ut sit omnium communis. Ut videre est apud Amyraldum in dissertationibus de gratia particulari, & de gratia universali; & apud Paulum Testardum, de natura & gratia, cap. 7. cujus titulus est, De gratia supernaturali, & potentia salutis per eam indulta, ejusque universalitate.
Their ‘universal’ grace covers infants via parents’ possible salvation§670
670Their universal grace covers infants too, not adults only.
God tied infant salvation-power to the parents’ condition.
He made every parent’s own salvation possible.
So children — as parents’ appendages — share that possible salvation.
Latin · §670
XXIV. Gratiam autem illam, quam vocant universalem, docent universalem esse, non tantum respectu adultorum, sed etiam respectu ipsorum infantium, quibus, scilicet, Deus potestatem salutis fecit, quatenus voluit ut infantes sequantur conditionem parentum: omnibus vero parentibus salutem propriam possibilem reddidit: adeoque salutem infantium qui sunt ex ipsis oriundi, & qui habentur tanquam eorum quaedam appendices.
Amyraut’s third Reformed view: universal inward grace too — elect still have a peculiar efficacy§671
671Amyraut reports a third Reformed opinion (unnamed).
Not only universal external/objective grace unto salvation.
Also a universal inward/subjective grace — without it none can believe or convert.
Elect still have a peculiar efficacy; absolute reprobation they would drive from religion.
Taught in private papers, not print — yet widely circulated.
Latin · §671
XXV. Verum hic omittendum non est clarissimum Amyraldum in sua Dissertatione de Gratia Particulari referre tertiam quandam sententiam, quam nonnullis ex Reformatis tribuit, licet nomina eorum non edat. Illi igitur, eo referente, non solum admittunt quandam Gratiam Universalem externam atque objectivam, quae sufficiat ad salutem; sed praeterea gratiam aliquam subjectivam & internam, quae sit quoque Universalis, & cujus omnes homines participes a Deo fiant, ut ejus beneficio credere possint & converti, quod absque ea fieri non posset. Quamvis praeter istam gratiam subjectivam & universalem, non negent esse aliam electis peculiarem. Addunt, inquit, utramque gratiam (tam internam scilicet, quam subjectivam vocat, quam externam, quam nominat objectivam,) aliquomodo universalem: Ut tametsi non negent in electo peculiarem quandam efficaciam sese exerere, fateantur tamen, quemadmodum Deus misericordiam suam omnibus hominibus revelat, qua ad fidem & paenitentiam invitantur, sic etiam omnium mentes intrinsecus eatenus affici, quoad objectivam gratiam, si velint, amplecti & retinere queant. Atque hos dicit doctrinam suam typis non vulgavisse, sed privatis tantum animadversionibus, quae tamen longe lateque dissipatae per manus hominum volitaverunt, gratiam subjectivam solis electis particularem carpsisse, & dogma de decreto Reprobationis absoluto, tanquam a vero abhorrens, censuisse e finibus religionis exterminandum.
Remonstrants: universal internal grace — free to use well or ill§672
672Belgian Remonstrants/Arminians make universal sufficient grace a chief dogma.
God gives it so all can repent and convert if they please.
With most modern Romans: salvation offered outwardly to each.
Also inward universal action — free to use well or ill; reject, or climb by degrees to true faith and eternal salvation.
Latin · §672
XXVI. Porro qui in Belgio Remonstrantes dicuntur, sive Arminiani, inter dogmata sua praecipua reponunt illud de Gratia quadam universali atque sufficienti, quam Deus omnibus eo fine largitur, ut possint, si libeat, resipiscere & ad Deum converti. Etenim cum plerisque hodiernae Scholae Romanae Theologis aperte docent & tuentur, non tantum omnibus & singulis hominibus salutem a Deo extrinsecus offerri, sed Deum quoque intus sic in omnium animis agere, ut plane sit ipsis liberum, & in eorum potestate situm, gratia ista interna atque universali bene vel male uti: & ita vel salutem oblatam rejicere, vel saltem sensim & per gradus ad veram conversionem & fidem pervenire, adeoque salutem aeternam adipisci.
Lutherans reject sufficient/efficacious split — call resists, not weak offer§673
673Lutherans scrap sufficient-vs-efficacious as useless.
Yet near the Remonstrants here: all are universally called.
The call is efficacious of itself and by God’s intent.
It fails in many because they resist, refuse its efficacy, or cast grace off — not because the offer was weak (Gerhard).
Latin · §673
XXVII. Illi vero Theologi Confessionis Augustanae qui Lutherani appellantur distinctionem quidem gratiae in sufficientem atque efficacem respuunt, ut inutilem atque superfluam; sed tamen in hac quaestione idem, aut prope idem cum Remonstrantibus sentire videntur. Censent enim omnes universaliter ad salutem a Deo vocari atque excitari, & quidem vocatione, quae ex se, & ex Dei intentione efficax est: quod vero effectum in multis non sortitur, inde esse quod multi Deum vocantem respuunt, & vocationi divinae resistunt, nec admittunt efficaciam gratiae ipsis oblatae, aut serius admissa non bene utuntur, sed sponte Divinam gratiam abjiciunt. Cum alii contra Deo vocanti aurem praebeant, nec spiritus in ipsis operationi impedimentum ponant. Quae pluribus deducta videre licet apud Joannem Gerhardum, Tom. 2. tractatu de Elect. & Reprob. cap. 7.
Not yet a Roman article of faith — Reformed majority still deny universal sufficient grace§674
674Rome: universal sufficient grace is not yet a binding article of faith — some still oppose.
Some Reformed today defend a universal, kind-sufficient grace.
But the commoner Reformed church opinion is against it.
What most Romans affirm for all (conversion and avoiding new sins), most Reformed simply deny.
Latin · §674
XXVIII. Porro ex dictis constat dogma de gratia quadam sufficienti, quae omnibus hominibus detur, in Ecclesia Romana nondum haberi tanquam fidei articulum, qui sine haereseos nota negari non possit, sed licet a plurimis Doctoribus teneatur, esse tamen adhuc nonnullos qui repugnent: Et vicissim non paucos ex Reformatis hodie gratiam quandam universalem, & in suo genere sufficientem tueri, quamvis in contrarium sit communior Ecclesiarum Reformatarum sententia. Adeoque quod plurimi in Schola Romana affirmant omnibus hominibus dari gratiam sufficientem, tum ad conversionem, tum ad nova peccata vitanda, a plurimis Reformatorum simpliciter negatur.
Word-agreement with Rome hides a real split: internal vs external ‘sufficient’§675
675Even Reformed who speak with Romans of universal sufficient grace still dissent in substance.
Romans mean inward/subjective grace — conversion physically and morally possible.
Those Reformed mean only external/objective grace.
With that alone and no inward grace, conversion stays morally impossible.
Latin · §675
XXIX. Illi vero ipsi Doctores reformati, qui, saltem verbis tenus, gratiam quandam universalem atque sufficientem cum plerisque Scholae Romanae Theologis confitentur, reipsa tamen ab ipsis dissentiunt. Quod enim Scholae Romanae Theologi intelligunt de gratia quadam interna atque subjectiva, quae conversionem hominis, non solum Physice, sed etiam moraliter possibilem reddit, id totum Reformati referunt ad gratiam solum externam atque objectivam; qua posita, homini interna gratia destituto, conversio nihilominus moraliter impossibilis manet.
Amyraut’s inward-universal Reformed align with recent Thomists on a further peculiar help§676
676Amyraut’s inward-universal Reformed still look like recent Thomists/Dominicans.
Universal grace (even subjective) converts no one in act by itself.
Actual conversion needs a further peculiar help.
That help is not for all — only for those who actually convert.
Latin · §676
XXX. Illi tamen qui, Mose Amyraldo testante, inter Reformatos agnoscunt gratiam quandam universalem atque sufficientem, non externam solum atque objectivam, sed subjectivam quoque & hominibus inhaerentem, eatenus non videntur a Thomistis recentioribus & Dominicanis differre: cum utrique praeter gratiam illam universalem quae neminem actu convertit, ad actualem conversionem velint necessarium esse peculiare quoddam auxilium, quod omnibus non obtingit, sed illis duntaxat qui actu convertuntur.
Historical faith: bare assent that does not move to right living§677
677Historical faith = bare assent to what God’s Word proposes.
Authority of God speaking — yet no move to right living, no betterment.
Simon Magus believed thus — heart not right; still in bitterness and iniquity (Acts 8).
Jewish leaders likewise: believed but would not confess Christ — loved men’s glory more (John 12).
Latin · §677
I. Fidem Historicam Protestantes nominant nudum & simplicem assensum quem multi praebent iis quae Verbo Dei proponuntur, propter Dei dicentis & testantis authoritatem; sic tamen ut inde ad recte agendum non moveantur, nec reddantur meliores. Tali fide dicitur credidisse Simon Magus, cujus tamen cor rectum coram Deo non erat, & qui nihilominus in felle amaritudinis, & vinculis iniquitatis, judice Petro, positus manebat, Act. 8. Et simili quoque modo credebant illi Judaeorum primores, qui Christum non confitebantur, quoniam magis diligebant gloriam hominum, quam gloriam Dei, Joan. 12.
Why called ‘historical’: idle contemplation, not content limited to narratives§678
678‘Historical’ is not ‘only Bible stories’.
It believes promises, doctrines, and precepts too.
The name tracks the manner: like reading unrelated history — bare gaze, no inward effect.
Idle speculation on the Word — not referred to practice.
Latin · §678
II. Porro fides ista dicitur historica, non quod sit eorum solum quae historice narrantur in Scripturis. Nam qui hac fide praediti sunt vera credunt quaecunque in Verbo Dei continentur, non minus promissiones, dogmata, & praecepta, quam historias & narrationes. Sed appellatio ista sumitur a modo quo versatur haec fides circa suum objectum. Nempe veluti quum legimus historias ad nos nihil attinentes, eas nude contemplamur, nec inde commovemur & afficimur intus: ita qui fidem illam habent, quae Verbum Dei docet otiose speculantur, nec ea ad praxin referunt.
James’s dead faith — no salvation; not worthy of the name ‘true faith’§679
679James calls this dead faith — no motion or action, like a corpse.
It does not save; it worsens guilt and damnation.
Demons believe God is one and tremble — same sort of faith.
Protestants deny it the name ‘true faith’: true faith alone brings justice and salvation.
Latin · §679
III. Et haec est fides quam Jacobus, epistolae capite secundo, fidem mortuam vocat; quia scilicet, omni motu & actione, non secus ac cadaver quoddam, destituta est. Adeoque nihil prodest ad salutem, sed potius culpam praegravat, & damnationem auget illorum qui in ea haerent. Juxta quod dicit ibidem Jacobus, Quid proderit, fratres mei, si fidem quis dicat se habere, opera autem non habeat? numquid poterit fides salvare eum? Quin ejusmodi fidem non veretur eodem loco daemonibus tribuere; Tu credis, inquit, quod Deus unus est, bene facis; & daemones credunt, & contremiscunt. Unde est quod Protestantes illam verae fidei nomine dignam non putant: quia videlicet, eorum judicio, ea sola fides vera meretur appellari quae justitiam & salutem affert illi qui ea praeditus est, quod ejusmodi fidei non competit.
Scripture’s praised faith is another — true, saving, justifying§680
680Scripture’s highly praised faith is another thing entirely.
John 3 / Mark 16 / Romans: believe → eternal life, salvation, justice.
Whoever has it is just before God — unlike demon/ungodly assent.
Protestants reserve ‘true, saving, justifying faith’ for this alone.
Latin · §680
IV. Unde colligunt omnino ab hac fide distinguendam esse fidem illam quam Scriptura summis laudibus & elogiis ornat, ad quam nos tam frequenter & vehementer hortatur, cuique justitiam & salutem nostram tribuere solet, tanquam indivulse cum ea cohaerentem. Ut quum apud Joannem dicitur, Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret; ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Et similiter apud Marcum, Qui crediderit, & baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit. Quibus consonat illud Pauli in Epistola ad Romanos, Finis legis est Christus ad justitiam omni credenti. Unde patet esse quandam fidem, quam quicunque habet coram Deo justus est, & Deo gratus & acceptus ad salutem & vitam aeternam; & quae proinde alia est ab ea fide quae in ipsis impiis & daemonibus reperitur. Ea vero fides piorum & justorum propria a Protestantibus sola digna censetur nomine fidei verae, salvificae, & justificantis. Joan. 3. Marc. 16. Rom. 10.
Justifying faith actually justifies — not mere remote preparation§681
681Justifying faith ≠ any mere preparation for justification (near or remote).
It actually justifies — or justification always and infallibly goes with it.
Saving faith = what truly places a man in grace and salvation.
Latin · §681
V. Et hinc apparet Protestantes per fidem justificantem non intelligere eam quae quocunque modo praeparat ad justificationem, sive proxime, sive remote; sed quae hominem reapse justificat, aut quam semper & infallibiliter comitatur justificatio. Et similiter non aliam fidem salvificam nominant, quam quae revera hominem in statu gratiae & salutis constituit.
Reformed split: ambiguous word vs analogous species (Maresius / Wittich)§682
682Reformed disagree on how historical and justifying faith differ.
Maresius: not genus/species — an ambiguous word’s senses (System XI.21).
Wittich (and Paraeus / Leiden): genus into analogous species (Theologia Pacifica 11.136).
Latin · §682
VI. Quantum vero inter se differant fides historica & fides justificans, inter Reformatos non omnino convenit. Quidam tantum inter utramque discrimen esse volunt, ut distinctionem fidei in historicam & justificantem nolint dici distinctionem generis in species, sed vocis ambiguae in sua significata. Qua in sententia est Samuel Maresius in Academia Groningana Theologiae Professor celeberrimus, ut videre est in ejus Systemate, loco undecimo, Thesi 21. Alii vero dicunt esse divisionem generis in species, non tamen univocas, sed analogas. Quae est sententia Doctissimi viri Christophori Wittichii, antehac Noviomagi, & nunc Lugduni Batavorum Theologiae Professoris; in Theologia Pacifica, cap. 11. numero 136. ubi citat Paraeum, & Professores Leydenses, tanquam idem cum ipso in hac parte sentientes.
Calvin and the common Catechism: sure knowledge and trust of God’s love in Christ§683
683Better seen from defining justifying faith and its acts/parts.
Reformed definitions vary in wording — nearly the same sense.
Calvin: firm sure knowledge of God’s goodwill to us, on the free promise in Christ, Spirit-revealed and heart-sealed.
Common Catechism: sure persuasion/trust that the Father loves me for Jesus’ sake.
Latin · §683
VII. Sed quomodo fides justificans ab historica differat, ex fidei justificantis definitione, & actuum ac partium ejus expositione melius constare poterit. Porro fides justificans a Reformatis varie describitur, & plures proferuntur ejus definitiones, quae videri possunt plus minusve commodae, sed tamen quoad sensum, eodem fere recidunt. Juxta Calvinum fides justificans est, Divinae erga nos benevolentiae firma certaque cognitio, quae gratuitae in Christo promissionis veritate fundata, per Spiritum Sanctum revelatur mentibus nostris, & cordibus obsignatur: cui consentit descriptio brevis illius Catechismi vulgaris, in quo fides dicitur esse Certa persuasio, vel fiducia quam debet habere quilibet Christianus, quod Deus pater ipsum amat propter filium suum Jesum Christum.
Beza, Ursinus, Paraeus: persuasion and fiducia that the promises are mine§684
684Beza: firm constant persuasion — God’s word true, and the free-reconciliation promises mine.
Ursinus/Paraeus: not only sure assent to all God disclosed.
Also Spirit-kindled trust through the Gospel — rest in God.
Sure that remission, eternal justice, and life are given to me too — freely, for Christ’s merit alone.
Latin · §684
VIII. Beza autem in Annotationibus in caput primum ad Romanos fidem definit esse Firmam illam & constantem animi persuasionem, qua certus est apud se unusquisque fidelium, non modo in genere verum esse verbum Dei, ac proinde promissiones de gratuita per Christum reconciliatione, sed etiam istas ad se proprie pertinere credit. Ursino & Paraeo Fides justificans est non tantum certa notitia, qua firmiter quis assentitur omnibus quae Deus nobis in verbo suo patefecit, sed etiam certa fiducia, a Spiritu Sancto per Evangelium in corde fidelis accensa, qua in Deo acquiescit, certo statuens non solum aliis, sed sibi quoque remissionem peccatorum, aeternam justitiam & vitam donatam esse; idque gratis ex Dei misericordia, propter unius Christi meritum. In Explicationibus Catecheticis, parte secunda, quaestione 21.
Rivetus and Moulin: assent plus particular fiducia — adoption’s inward witness§685
685Rivetus: Spirit-wrought firm assent to revealed things — especially saving promises in Christ.
Fiducia rests in God: remission not only in general but mine; eternal justice and life for Christ’s merit.
Du Moulin (Sedan): firm assent that Gospel promises are true and particularly mine.
Spirit of adoption inwardly witnesses sonship → peace, trust, charity’s works.
Latin · §685
IX. Eadem est quoque descriptio Riveti olim in Academia Leydensi Sacrae Theologiae Professoris celeberrimi: Salvificam, inquit, illam & justificantem fidem dicimus, ex certa revelationis divinae notitia, firmum a Spiritu Sancto per verbum Evangelii animis nostris ingeneratum assensum, omnibus quae nobis Deus in verbo suo patefecit, sed praesertim salutaribus in Christo promissionibus, quo certa fiducia in Deo acquiescens, unusquisque fidelis firmiter statuit, non solum in genere promissam esse credentibus remissionem peccatorum, sed sibi in particulari concessam, aeternamque justitiam, & ex ea vitam, Dei misericordia, propter unius Domini Jesu Christi meritum donatam esse. Similiter Petrus Moulinus, celeberrimus etiam, dum Disputatione viveret, in Academia Sedanensi Professor, idem definit esse Firmum assensum promissionibus Evangelii, quo fidelis non tantum credit eas esse veras, sed etiam ad se particulariter pertinere, spiritu adoptionis testimonium intrinsecus perhibente eum esse filium Dei; unde pax conscientiae, & fiducia, & opera charitatis. Thesibus de Justificatione & Fide justificante, parte 2. Thesi 12.
Maresius, Wendelin, Alting: gift that fiducially applies Gospel promises§686
686Maresius: faith = gift that rests in Gospel promises as true/sure and applies them fiducially.
Wendelin: elect believe divine truth; firm-will receive saving promises; apply Christ and all benefits.
Alting: knowledge of God’s grace in Christ the Redeemer + fiducial grasp applied to myself singularly.
Latin · §686
X. Samuel Maresius in Systemate, loco undecimo, fidem dicit esse Donum, quo promissionibus Evangelii in Christo, tanquam veris & certis acquiescimus, easque nobis fiducialiter applicamus. Quibus concinit Wendelinus in Academia Anhaltina Theologiae Professor notissimus, docens, fidem esse id quo electi credunt divinae veritati, & firmae voluntatis affectione promissiones gratiae salutaris in Christo accipiunt, sibique Christum cum omnibus beneficiis ejus ad vitam aeternam applicant. Christianae Theologiae lib. 1. cap. 24. Thesi 4. Nec absimilis est definitio Henrici Altingii olim in Academia Heydelbergensi Professoris, cui fides est, Cognitio gratiae Dei in Christo Redemptore, & ejusdem fiducialis apprehensio, qua quisque fidelis illam sibi singulariter applicat. Locor. commun. parte 1. pag. 117.
Bucanus: knowledge, assent, appetite — firm trust and personal application of Christ§687
687Bucanus (Lausanne): knowledge, assent, and appetite for what grace’s word promises.
Firm trust/apprehension of salvation for Christ’s sake.
Or: mind’s knowledge and approval → heart’s desire and grasp.
True believers each apply crucified Christ and His benefits (word and sacraments) to themselves.
Latin · §687
XI. Bucano vero Lausannensi Theologiae Professori, fides definitur, Notitia, assensus, & appetitio promissa in verbo gratiae, adeoque salutis propter Christum obtinendae firma fiducia & apprehensio. Vel, Ex mentis notitia & approbatione judicioque speciali, voluntatis sive cordis desiderium & apprehensio, qua Christum crucifixum cum beneficiis suis in verbo & sacramentis oblatum singuli veri fideles nobis ipsis applicamus. Loco 29. quaest. 7.
Ames, Wittich, Mestrezat: heart’s rest in God — hunger for justice; refuge to mercy§688
688Ames: faith = heart’s rest in God as author of life/eternal salvation.
Will-act embracing the good the intellect approves (Marrow I.3); virtue leaning on God’s faithfulness (I.27).
Wittich: hunger and thirst for justice + heart’s rest in God as salvation’s fountain.
Mestrezat: justifying faith = penitent sinner’s refuge to God’s mercy in Christ.
Latin · §688
XII. Juxta Gulielmum Amesium Anglum, Professorem Franekeræ, Fides est acquiescentia cordis in Deo, tanquam in authore vitae, vel salutis aeternae; id est, ut per ipsum ab omni malo liberemur, & omne bonum consequamur. Per illam autem cordis acquiescentiam intelligit actum voluntatis, quo movetur & extendit sese ad amplectendum bonum ab intellectu probatum, ut explicat ipse mentem suam in Medulla Theologiae, lib. 1. cap. 3. Ejusdem autem operis lib. 1. cap. 27. fides ab eo definitur, Virtus qua Dei fidelitati adhaerentes nitimur ipso, ut quod proponit consequamur. Amesio hac in parte consentit supra laudatus Wittichius, siquidem illo definiente, Fides est fames & sitis justitiae & acquiescentia cordis in Deo, ut fonte & authore salutis; ut ei animas nostras in angustiis & tentationibus committamus. In Theologia Pacifica, cap. 11. num. 128. Quibus affinis est fidei definitio quam tradit vir Doctissimus Joannes Mestrezatius, Verbi Divini, dum viveret Minister apud Parisienses, in Gallicis suis Homiliis: ubi fidem justificantem dicit esse perfugium peccatoris poenitentis ad Dei in Christo misericordiam.
Vermigli, Musculus, Placeus: firm assent that draws fiducia, hope, charity§689
689Vermigli: firm sure assent to God’s words, Spirit-breathed unto salvation.
‘Firm’ means efficacy that pulls fiducia, hope, charity, and good works along (as this life allows).
Musculus: constant heart-assent to what the word narrates or promises.
Placeus (Saumur): tenacious efficacious persuasion — especially remission and eternal-life promises in Christ.
Latin · §689
XIII. Apud Petrum Martyrem fides definitur, Firmus certusque animi assensus verbis Dei, a spiritu divino afflatus ad salutem credentium. Postea vero exponit quid per assensum firmum intelligat, nempe, Illum qui tantarum sit virium & efficaciae, ut secum trahat affectum fiduciae, spei, charitatis, & omnia tandem bona opera, ut praesentis vitae infirmitas patitur. Locor. commun. Classe 3. cap. 4. num. 5. Musculus similiter fidem definit, Constantem assensum cordis ad ea quae vel narrantur, vel promittuntur verbo. Loco de Fide, Sectione 1. Et eodem redit definitio fidei quae legitur apud Josuam Placeum, Professorem Salmuriensem doctissimum & acutissimum, cui Fides est Tenax & efficax persuasio veritatis eorum quae verbo Dei nobis revelata sunt, speciatim vero promissionum remissionis peccatorum & vitae aeternae nobis per Christum factae. Thesibus de Justificatione Thesi 36.
Zanchi: generic living/dead split — then a stricter fiducia in the promises§690
690Zanchi’s broad definition: God-given virtue persuading us the whole preached Word is God’s — law and Gospel.
He splits that into living (love-efficacious) and dead.
Living = justifying; so justifying faith = Word-assent efficacious through love.
Narrower later: firm undoubted assent to promises of remission, justice, eternal life in Christ — Spirit-excited fiducia.
Latin · §690
XIV. Similiter fides Zanchio definitur, Virtus a Deo nobis donata, qua quicquid propositum olim fuit nomine Dei a Prophetis & Apostolis, nunc autem nobis ex ipsorum scriptis praedicatur, persuasi sumus esse Verbum Dei, illudque totum, tam legem, quam Evangelium ut certum Dei verbum credimus ac profitemur. Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. de Fide, Thesi prima. Sed haec definitio fidei ipsi generica est. Nam postea Thesi secunda fidem sic definitam dividit in vivam & mortuam. Vivam, quae per dilectionem efficax est, & profert opera pietatis. Mortuam, quae hac efficacitate destituta est. Cum autem fides viva, & fides justificans sint reapse unum & idem, quandoquidem omnis fides justificans viva est, & vicissim omnis fides viva est justificans, inde videtur facile confici posse, ex doctrina Zanchii, vera definitio fidei justificantis. Nempe, si dicamus illam esse qua totum Dei Verbum, tam legem quam Evangelium, ut certum Dei verbum credimus ac profitemur, eo assensu qui sit per dilectionem efficax. Sed tamen in eodem & libro & capite, fidem justificantem aliter artius definit. Fides enim justificans ipsi est, Firmus & indubitatus assensus in promissiones Dei de remissione peccatorum, & justitia accipienda, aeternaque vita consequenda a Deo, per & propter filium Jesum Christum, ex afflatu Spiritus Sancti in nobis excitatus. Titulo De Fiducia, in Explicatione primae Theseos.
Public confessions: Thorun Polish Declaration and English Confession on saving faith§691
691Public Reformed confessions outweigh private doctor lists.
Toruń 1645 Polish Declaration IV.8: justifying faith fiducially embraces and applies the Gospel promise with a contrite heart — then efficacious through charity.
English Confession (~same time) ch. 14: believe all God reveals; obey, tremble, embrace promises.
Chief acts: accept and receive Christ; rest in Him alone for justification and eternal life by the covenant of grace.
Latin · §691
XV. Sed omissis aliis privatorum doctorum definitionibus, hic maxime considerandae sunt fidei descriptiones quae publice Ecclesiarum Reformatarum Confessionibus sunt veluti sancitae. Qualis est illa quae habetur in Declaratione doctrinae Catholicae Ecclesiarum Reformatarum, in conventu Thoruniensi, ab Ecclesiarum Polonicarum deputatis lecta & exhibita, Anno 1645. Et in Confessione Ecclesiae Anglicanae, Parliamenti, ut vocant, Anglicani, circa idem tempus, jussu & mandato publicata. Et Ecclesiae quidem Polonicae, Declarationis suae capite quarto, paragrapho octavo, sic suam de fide sententiam exponunt. Veram autem fidem & justificantem eam demum dicimus, qua promissionem Evangelii, qua resipiscentibus remissio & vita in Christo offertur, assensu practico seu fiduciali amplectitur, & corde vere contrito sibi applicat, quaque deinceps per charitatem est efficax: cap. 4. sect. 1. num. 8. Illa vero, quam diximus Anglicana Confessio sic describit fidem salutarem, Per hanc fidem Christianus verum credit quicquid est verbo Dei revelatum, propter Dei ipsius in verbo loquentis authoritatem, & differenter agit ac afficitur super singula quae continet istud verbum; mandatis scilicet, obsequens, ad minas contremiscens, & amplectens Dei promissiones, tam quae ad hanc vitam, quam quae ad futuram pertinent. Sed praecipua Acta salutaris illius fidei sunt acceptare & recipere Christum, & in eo solo acquiescere ad justificationem, & vitam aeternam, virtute foederis gratiae: cap. 14.
Why definitions vary: whole essence vs the differentia from historical faith§692
692Varied definitions are not random conflict.
Some sketch the whole essence (shared with historical + what is proper).
Others mark only the differentia from historical faith.
One property or another in the wording — both belong; combine, don’t oppose.
Latin · §692
XVI. Porro quod tam varie fidem definiunt Doctores Reformati, inde est quod nonnulli totam ejus essentiam describere nituntur, nempe, tam id quod habet commune cum fide, quam historicam vocant, quam id quod est illius proprium: alii vero solum id notare intendunt quo fides justificans ab historica differt. Praeterea alii fidem justificantem ex una proprietate, alii vero ex alia describunt; quae tamen non sunt inter se opponenda, sed componenda: cum tam horum, quam illorum Theologorum judicio, utramque proprietatem fides illa sibi vendicet; licet hujus, aut illius tantum expressam faciant in sua descriptione mentionem.
Complete persuasion vs the minimum without which true faith cannot stand§693
693Some define justifying faith by its complete/perfect state — firm sure persuasion of being in grace and of remitted sins.
Yet weak faith can subsist for a time without that full persuasion.
Others define by the minimum without which true faith — however small — cannot stand.
Hunger and thirst for justice; heart's rest in God. Acts of faith come next.
Latin · §693
XVII. Adde quod alii fidem justificantem describunt secundum esse suum completum & perfectum, & secundum id quod ex se apta nata est in fideli producere. Ut qui illi tribuunt firmam & certam persuasionem quod fidelis sit in Dei gratia, & quod peccata illi remissa sint, absque quo tamen fides in fideli infirmo, saltem ad tempus, potest subsistere: alii vero fidem definiunt ex iis sine quibus vera fides, quantumlibet parva & debilis, ne ad minimum quidem constare potest. Ut qui illam definiunt per famem & sitim justitiae, & cordis in Deo acquiescentiam. Quae postea distinctius & clarius intelligentur, quum sigillatim explicuerimus varios fidei actus, secundum Scholae Reformatae Doctores.
Two marks: practical assent, and particular application of the promises§694
694Reformed: two things mark living/justifying faith off from historical/dead.
Historical = theoretical — sticks in the theoretical intellect.
Justifying = practical assent — recalls belief to practice; moves will and affections.
Historical: only general assent to promises; justifying: applies them to each believer one by one.
Latin · §694
XVIII. Caeterum ex istis omnibus fidei justificantis & salutiferae definitionibus apparet duo esse quae, juxta Reformatos, fidem vivam & justificantem ab historica & mortua distinguunt. Primum est quod fides illa Historica Theoretica est, & in intellectu Theoretico haeret; fides vero Justificans est assensus practicus, per quem ea quae creduntur, quaelibet suo modo, revocantur ad praxim, & quo voluntas & affectus hominis efficaciter moventur atque afficiuntur; ut rebus creditis conformiter agant. Alterum est quod fides historica divinis promissionibus assensum duntaxat generalem praebet, fides vero justificans illas credenti cuilibet sigillatim applicat.
Justifying faith includes historical virtue — as rational soul includes lower life§695
695Justifying faith differs from historical yet includes all its virtue — perfect vs imperfect; higher degree.
Analogy: rational soul to sensitive/vegetative — embraces lower powers and adds reason.
It also believes all God teaches (as historical faith does).
Above that: brighter theoretical light, deeper practical penetration, sharper sense, firmer assent; refers revelation to life and applies it personally.
Latin · §695
XIX. Hinc quoque liquet, ex Reformatorum mente, fidem justificantem ita diversam esse a fide historica, ut omnem ejus virtutem includat; atque sic ab ea distingui, ut perfectum ab imperfecto, sive ea distinctione qua gradus superior ab inferiori differt. Etenim fides justificans ad fidem mortuam atque historicam se habet quemadmodum anima rationalis ad sensitivam & vegetativam, quarum vim & facultates, vitam, sensum, & motum eminenter complectitur, & gradum rationis addit. Nam sic quoque fides justificans facit ut omnia credamus quae verbo Dei docentur, quod praestat fides historica. Sed supra illam habet, quod mentem Theoreticam luculentius irradiat, practicam vero potenter afficit & alte penetrat; & acriorem veritatis sensum, assensumque firmiorem animis nostris ingignit, quam fides ista iners & otiosa. Tum etiam quaecunque ex verbo Dei hausit, ad actionem refert, vitamque instituendam, & credenti cuique sigillatim certa quadam ratione applicat.
Object of saving faith: all revealed things — principally the Gospel promises§696
696Next: object, parts, and acts of justifying faith.
Object commonly: all God revealed in His word — faith refuses none when proposed.
Proper and principal object: Gospel promises.
Mercy and grace through Christ offered to all who truly believe and repent.
Latin · §696
XX. Sed ut planius & manifestius fiat quid Reformati sentiant de fidei justificantis natura atque essentia, paucis exponenda sunt ea quae docent de ejus objecto, partibus, & actibus. Primum ergo quod spectat fidei salvificae & justificantis objectum, ad illud communiter pertinere affirmant omnia illa quae Deus in verbo suo revelavit. Nec enim quicquam eorum fides illa non suscipit, quum ipsi proponuntur, sed tamen proprium ejus & praecipuum objectum esse censent Evangelii promissiones, quibus misericordia & gratia Dei per Christum offertur omnibus vere credentibus & resipiscentibus.
Rivetus: special object of justifying faith — Evangelical promise of Christ the Mediator§697
697Rivetus (Leiden Synopsis): faith in breadth embraces notitia, assent, fiducia toward all revealed unto salvation.
Yet as justifying it has a special object.
That object: the Evangelical promise of Christ the Mediator — what marks it off from other senses of faith.
It justifies/saves insofar as it apprehends and embraces Christ’s merit revealed in the Gospel word.
Latin · §697
XXI. Sic docet Andr. Rivetus in Synopsi purioris Theologiae Professorum Leydensium, Quamvis, inquit, fides in sua latitudine sumpta, ut complectatur supernaturalem notitiam, assensum & fiduciam, quaecunque in Dei verbo tanquam ad salutem conducentia nobis sunt revelata, complectatur; est tamen quoddam fidei objectum speciale, quatenus est justificans. Postea vero explicat quodnam sit illud speciale fidei justificantis objectum: Fidei, inquit, quatenus est justificans, speciale objectum, & quod eam proprie a reliquis fidei acceptionibus discriminat, est promissio Evangelica de Christo mediatore. Eatenus enim proprie justificat & salvat, quatenus Christi meritum, in Verbo Evangelii sibi revelatum, apprehendit & amplectitur. Disputatione de Fide, Thesi 9, & 10.
Maresius and Alting: adequate object the whole Word — proper object Christ/Gospel§698
698Maresius: adequate object = God’s Word; proper/special/proximate = doctrine of Christ and remission in His blood (XI.36).
Alting: generally/adequately = whole Word; specifically/properly = Gospel / Christ the Redeemer in Gospel and Sacraments.
The rest of the Theologians agree — no need to pile more citations.
Latin · §698
XXII. Similiter Maresius in Systemate docet fidei justificantis objectum adaequatum esse Dei Verbum; objectum autem proprium speciale & proximum esse doctrinam de Jesu Christo, & promissionem remissionis peccatorum in ipsius sanguine. Loco undecimo, Thesi 36. Et eodem plane modo Henricus Altingius dicit objectum fidei generatim & adaequate consideratum esse totum Verbum Dei, & quicquid in eo continetur; sed specificè & proprie consideratum objectum esse Evangelium, sive Christum Redemptorem, prout in Evangelio & Sacramentis offertur. Locor. communium parte 1. pag. 218, & 219. Quibus reliqui omnes Theologi consentiunt, nec opus est plurium testimonia congerere.
Promises as object not only in general — but applied to me by sure fiducia§699
699Reformed warn: Gospel promises are object not only as generally true.
Also as pertaining to this and that person one by one — apprehended and applied by faith.
Rivetus: knowing that Christ suffered is not enough; nor assent that He suffered for all.
Need sure fiducia: remission given to me privately for Christ’s merit; received into grace; applied fiducially to myself.
Latin · §699
XXIII. Caeterum hic sedulo monent Theologi Reformati promissiones Evangelicas objectum esse fidei justificantis, non simpliciter, quatenus earum veritas in genere consideratur, exempli causa, morte & passione Christi salutem & peccatorum remissionem partam esse omnibus qui in Christum credunt & resipiscunt; sed etiam quatenus considerantur ut ad hunc & illum sigillatim spectantes, & ab eo per fidem apprehendendae, & ipsi applicandae. Non enim sufficit, inquit Andreas Rivetus, loco modo citato, si quis rei gestae historiam, nempe quod Christus passus est, norit; nec etiam si quis assentiatur & credat, Christum esse passum pro peccatis omnium hominum: Sed insuper requiritur, ut accedat fiducia certa, qua firmissime peccator credat, non solum aliis credentibus, sed sibi quoque privatim remissionem peccatorum propter Christi meritum donatam esse, & propter ejusdem satisfactionem in gratiam se esse receptum, idque sibi fiducialiter applicet.
Wendelin: proper object — Christ for me and special mercy applied by faith§700
700Wendelin (Chr. Theol. II.24, th. 11): proper/principal/proximate object = Evangelical promise of sins expiated by Christ’s death.
Penitent believers received into grace for Christ crucified apprehended by faith.
Each applies that promise to himself in particular — thus believes unto salvation.
Explanation: Christ crucified for us/me/you + free remission by His blood — special mercy applied by faith.
Latin · §700
XXIV. Quibus consona docet Wendelinus Christianae Theologiae lib. 2. cap. 24. ubi haec est ejus undecima Thesis: Proprium, principale, & proximum objectum Fidei est promissio Evangelica de peccatis per & propter Christi mortem expiatis, omnibusque peccatoribus poenitentibus & credentibus, propter Christum crucifixum fide apprehensum, in gratiam ex misericordia receptis; hanc promissionem in specie singuli fideles per fidem sibi applicant, & sic ad salutem dicuntur credere. Quibus hanc subjungit explicationem, Fidei justificantis objectum proprium est Christus pro nobis, me, te, crucifixus, & gratuita remissio peccatorum propter Christi mortem, & fusum pro nobis sanguinem, singulis per fidem applicanda; quae alias appellatur specialis misericordia.
Paraeus and Ames: generic vs specific object — quae justificat and qua justificat§701
701Paraeus: generic object = all God revealed; specific = promise of special mercy.
Ames: object of faith which justifies vs by which it justifies.
Which-justifies spans the whole Word; by-which restricts to the promise of mercy.
Special mercy follows faith — it does not precede it.
Faith justifies by fleeing to Christ for particular remission, not by believing sins already remitted.
Proper object as such: Christ Himself, not a bare proposition.
Latin · §701
XXV. Eadem est doctrina Paraei in Bellarmini librum primum de Justificatione, cap. 8. ubi affirmat objectum fidei genericum esse omnia quae Deus in verbo suo revelavit; specificum, promissionem specialis misericordiae. Affini quoque ratione Amesius distinguit inter objectum fidei quae justificat, & qua justificat. Et facile concedit fidei quae justificat objectum tam late patere quam Dei verbum; sed fidei qua justificat objectum restringit ad promissionem misericordiae: Et misericordiam illam concedit esse specialem, sed observat nos per misericordiam specialem non intelligere eam quae fidem antecedat, sed quae per ipsam fidem specialis evadit. Quibus verbis significat fidem hominem non justificare, quia credit sibi esse remissa peccata, sed quia per fidem ad Christum confugit, ut sibi in particulari peccata remittantur, & confidit sibi esse remittenda; qua fide remissionem peccatorum reipsa obtinet. Et propterea quoque in sequentibus dicit proprium objectum fidei justificantis, qua talis, non esse propositionem aliquam, sed Christum ipsum, in quo acquiescit ad justificationem a Deo consequendam. Nempe, quia vult fidem proprie non justificare, quatenus credit veram propositionem aliquam, quaecunque tamen illa sit; sed quatenus ad Christum confugit & eo innititur, ut per eum misericordiam, & peccatorum veniam consequatur. In Bellarmini Enervato, libr. 6. cap. 1. & 2. num. 22.
Trelcatius: intellect’s object divine truth — will’s object singular grace in Christ§702
702Trelcatius (Leiden): object of faith by intellect vs by will.
Intellect: divine truth. Will: singular grace promised in Christ Jesus.
Both bounded by God’s word — faith’s adequate object.
In that Word: crucified Christ with all benefits — principal, first, proximate, proper object.
Latin · §702
XXVI. Non absimili modo Trelcatius, dum viveret, in Academia Leydensi Professor, distinguit objectum fidei ratione intellectus, & ratione voluntatis. Objectum, inquit, respectu intellectus, est veritas divina; respectu voluntatis, est singularis Dei gratia, promissionibus exposita in Christo Jesu. Utrumque autem verbo Dei continetur & circumscribitur; quod totum & solum, tanquam objectum suum adaequatum amplectitur fides; & in eo Christum crucifixum cum omnibus suis beneficiis, tanquam objectum suum principale, primum, proximum, & proprium. In Institutione Locorum communium, titulo de fide.
Three acts commonly: knowledge, assent, and fiducia applying the promise§703
703Most Reformed: three acts/parts of justifying faith.
1. Notitia — know God’s word at least as needed for salvation.
2. Assensus — assent to all God revealed.
3. Fiducia — believer specially applies the general promise-word to himself.
Ursinus/Paraeus Cat. Expl. 21; Wendelin; Tilenus; Trelcatius.
Latin · §703
XXVII. Quod attinet ad fidei actus, Reformati plurimi tres fidei justificantis actus, sive partes distinguere solent. Primus est notitia qua verbum Dei, saltem secundum ea quae sunt ad salutem scitu necessaria, cognoscimus & intelligimus. Secundus est assensus quem praebemus omnibus illis quae verbo Dei revelata sunt. Tertius est fiducia qua credens generale promissionis verbum specialiter sibi applicat. Haec est doctrina Ursini & Paraei in Explicationibus Catecheticis, quaestione 21. Wendelini Christianae Theologiae lib. 2. cap. 24. Thesi 14, & 15. Tileni disputatione de fide justificante, Thesi 20. & Trelcatii quoque, loco supra citato.
Musculus: believe about God, believe God, believe in God§704
704Musculus: three degrees/parts — explained differently.
1. Believe certain things about God, Christ, and the Spirit.
2. Believe God — credit His word as infallible Word of God.
3. Believe in God — direct all hope to Him; depend with firm trust on His goodness.
Latin · §704
XXVIII. Musculus similiter fidei tres gradus sive partes assignat. Sed illas aliter explicat. Prima pars fidei ipsi est qua quaedam de Deo credimus: Veluti, quod sit Deus, quod sit unicus, omnipotens coeli & terrae creator, &c. Quod Christus sit Dei filius unigenitus, verus Deus, & verus homo, Redemptor & Mediator noster, &c. Et quod Spiritus Sanctus sit divinitate Patri & Filio aequalis, mentium illuminator, paracletus, doctor, consolator, &c. Secunda fidei pars est qua credimus Deo, hoc est, verbo ejus fidem adhibemus, tanquam Dei Verbo, de cujus veritate prorsus infallibili impium sit dubitare. Tertia fidei pars est qua credimus in Deum. Credere autem in Deum dicit esse spem omnem in Deum dirigere, firmaque fiducia ab illius bonitate pendere. In locis communibus Sacrae Theologiae, loco communi de Fide.
Bucanus: knowledge of Christ, double judgment, heart’s apprehension§705
705Bucanus: three constituting parts — with a distinctive twist.
1. Knowledge of crucified Christ and His benefits.
2. Consent / double judgment: general approval of Word-truth about Christ; special self-adjudgment that Gospel promises are mine.
3. Heart’s apprehension — will embraces what the mind judged true, holy, good, saving, and peculiarly ours.
Latin · §705
XXIX. Bucanus quoque docet tres esse partes fidem constituentes; sed in earum expositione habet etiam aliquid singulare. Prima pars fidei illi est notitia Christi crucifixi, & beneficiorum ejus. Secunda, consensus, seu judicium duplex; unum generale, approbans tanquam verum quod in verbo Dei de Christo, ejusque beneficiis docetur: alterum speciale, quo sibi credens adjudicat res illas bonas & salutares, quae offeruntur in verbo, hoc est, universales Evangelii promissiones ad se pertinere judicat; ac denique tertia pars est cordis apprehensio, qua fit ut corde & voluntate, tanquam manu apprehendamus, & ambabus ulnis amplectamur, id quod mens nostra, non verum modo, sed etiam sanctum, bonum, & salutare, & ad nos quoque peculiariter pertinere judicavit. Loco 29. quaestione 6.
Perkins: five degrees from Gospel knowledge to special Spirit-persuasion§706
706Perkins (Golden Chain 16): five degrees in faith’s rise.
1. Spirit-illumined Gospel knowledge → general assent.
2. Hope of pardon — remissible even if not yet felt remitted.
3. Hunger for grace offered in Christ.
4. Access to the throne of grace — apprehend Christ; find mercy.
5. Spirit-impressed special persuasion applying Gospel promises to myself.
Latin · §706
XXX. Perkinsius in ortu fidei quinque gradus observat. Primus est notitia Evangelii per illuminationem Spiritus Sancti; quam sequitur in illuminatis omnibus fides generalis, qua praebent assensum Evangelio: Secundus est spes veniae, qua peccator, etsi nondum sentit remissum esse peccatum, remissibile tamen esse credit: Tertius est esuries & vehemens expetitio gratiae, quae est oblata in Christo Jesu: Quartus, accessus ad thronum gratiae, ut apprehenso ibidem Christo, inveniamus misericordiam apud Deum: Quintus est specialis persuasio cordi a Spiritu Sancto impressa, qua promissiones Evangelicas quisque sibi speciatim applicat. In Armilla Aurea, cap. 16.
Ames: five concurrents — faith properly in pious affection, rest, and apprehension§707
707Ames: five things concur in divine faith.
Knowledge of what God attests; pious affection toward God; assent; rest in God; choice/apprehension of the good shown.
Knowledge required but does not constitute faith; assent is an effect.
Faith properly = pious affection + rest in God + apprehension of the proposed good.
Latin · §707
XXXI. Amesius autem sic ea de re Philosophatur: Ad fidem divinam, inquit, quinque ista concurrunt: 1. Notitia rei a Deo testatae; 2. Affectio pia erga Deum, quae facit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius testimonium; 3. Assensus qui praebetur veritati testatae, propter hanc affectionem erga Deum, ejus est ejus testis; 4. Acquiescentia in Deum ad illud quod proponitur consequendum; 5. Electio vel apprehensio rei ipsius, quae in testimonio nobis exhibetur. Primum, nempe, notitia ex ejus mente, ad fidem requiritur, sed illam non constituit. Tertium, scilicet, assensum vult esse effectum fidei. Adeoque docet fidem proprie consistere in tribus reliquis, videlicet in pia illa affectione, acquiescentia in Deum, & apprehensione boni, quod nobis in Verbo Dei proponitur. In Medulla Theologiae lib. 1. cap. 3.
Wittich: antecedent, essential, and accidental acts — remission-fiducia not of the essence§708
708Wittich: antecedent / essential / accidental (corroborated-only) acts.
Antecedent: knowledge of revelation.
Essential: general+special assent (Christ sufficient for me if I flee); sincere love of Christ; fiducia of sure help in straits.
Accidental/corroborated: fiducia of obtained remission; solid joy; peace of conscience.
Remission-fiducia is not of justifying faith’s essence — effect of fuller faith.
Weak believers may hunger for justice without yet persuading themselves of remission.
Latin · §708
XXXII. Christophorus Wittichius, jam ante memoratus, distinguit actus fidem antecedentes, actus fidei essentiales, & actus fidei accidentales, & qui solum fidei corroboratae conveniunt. Juxta ipsum, actus fidem antecedens est notitia revelationis. Actus vero fidei essentialis primus, est assensus, tum generalis omnibus revelatis, tum specialis huic veritati, quod Christus sit sufficiens salvator omnibus ad se confugientibus, adeoque etiam mihi, si serio desiderem justitiam, atque ad Christum confugere velim. Secundus actus fidei essentialis est amor Christi sincerus qui statim oritur ex quo Christus cognitus est, tanquam objectum conveniens, & sit apprehensus per assensum istum fiducialem. Tertius est fiducia, qua nobis persuademus auxilium certum nos accepturos a Christo salvatore in omnibus angustiis & tentationibus, innixi promissionibus factis omnibus ad se confugientibus. Actus vero accidentales, & qui solum fidei corroboratae conveniunt, sunt, primo, fiducia de remissione peccatorum a Deo impetrata; secundo, solidum gaudium ex illorum notitia; tertio, pax & tranquillitas conscientiae. Quod latius explicans, observat ad fidei justificantis essentiam, sive rationem formalem, non requiri fiduciam remissionis peccatorum, sive in praeterito, sive in futuro, sed eam esse effectum fidei magis corroboratae & plenae. Quoniam experientia docet infirmos quosdam fideles revera habere fidem, qui habent famem & sitim justitiae, qui tamen nondum possunt sibi propter suam imbecillitatem persuadere, quod habeant, vel sint consecuturi remissionem peccatorum. In Theologia Pacifica, cap. 11. n. 138.
Perkins: assurance of remission is faith’s perfection, not its essence — weak implicit faith§709
709Wittich is not alone: certainty of obtained/coming remission is complement of saving faith, not essence.
Perkins (Reformed Catholic, implicit faith q.6): weak sons of God may not distinctly say ‘I believe my sins remitted’.
Yet they have true implicit faith — like leaves/flowers latent in a dry grain; God accepts it unto salvation.
Catechisms that define faith only as complete persuasion of God’s love miss lower true degrees.
Mustard-seed: weak faith believes sins remissible and hates condemnation — without yet daring full ‘remitted’ certainty.
Latin · §709
XXXIII. Neque vero solus ille est qui putat certitudinem illam, quam quis habet de impetrata aut certo obtinenda remissione peccatorum suorum, non pertinere ad fidei salvificae essentiam, sed solum ad illius complementum & perfectionem. Id docet pluribus in locis Perkinsius, praesertim vero in controversia de fide implicita, quaestione sexta in Catholico ejus Reformato. Ubi dicit quendam esse fidei implicitae & indistinctae modum, respectu apprehensionis; quando nimirum, homo aliquis, nequit certo & distincte de se dicere, Credo ego remissionem peccatorum meorum: quod ait multis Dei filiis accidere, qui infima fide praediti sunt. Et tales habere fidem, sed implicitam, perinde atque in minuto aliquo & arido grano implicita sunt folia, flores & fructus; & Deum nihilominus hujusmodi fidem acceptare ad aeternam eorum salutem. Unde dicit declarandam esse Catechismorum quorundam institutionem, qui solent fidem in summo & perfectissimo sui gradu definire, dum eam esse dicunt certam atque completam mentis persuasionem de amore Dei & favore erga nos in Christo. Nam licet, inquit, omnis fides ex natura sua certa sit persuasio, sola tamen perfecta persuasio est firma & consummata fides. Ac proinde debebat fides definiri, non solum in genere & secundum summum, sed etiam variis ejus gradibus & mensuris declarari, ut & qui infirmi sunt, vere & recte de suo statu possint edoceri. Quod idem author prolixe confirmat in tractatu cui titulum fecit Granum sinapis; ubi postquam asserit firmam fidem illam esse, quae plenam apprehensionem, & Dei in Christo misericordiae persuasionem efficit & operatur: & omnibus hoc non esse concessum; ideoque esse gradum fidei inferiorem, qui vera fides est, licet infirma atque exigua, subjungit verba sequentia, Quicunque autem hanc infirmam fidem habent, possunt vere affirmare se credere omnia sua peccata esse remissibilia: Et quod eorum condemnationem oderunt, sed huc usque ea esse remissa sine dubitatione affirmare non audent; nihilominus divina misericordia eos non deficit aut destituit. In cujus rei confirmationem profert testimonia Bradfordi, Knoxii, Tassini & aliorum. In explicatione & probatione tertiae Theseos.
Ames and Pierre du Moulin the son: full certainty is supreme degree, not essential form§710
710Ames: particular intellectual assurance of grace already possessed can be falsely absent for a time while true faith lies latent.
Not all justified are at once certain of justification (Bell. Enerv. VI).
Pierre du Moulin the son (Canterbury): full fiducia that ‘my sins are remitted’ = supreme degree, not essential form.
Essential form: embrace Christ’s merits; appropriate them; seek salvation nowhere else — Belgic Confession art. 22.
Latin · §710
XXXIV. Similiter Amesius, Perkinsii vestigiis insistens, & respiciens ad assensum specialem, quo aliquis apprehendit gratiae jam factae possessionem actualem, dicit Particularem istam certiorationem intellectus interdum falsam deesse, ad tempus, qui tamen veram fidem in cordibus suis habent interim latentem, & ita docere experientiam. In Medulla Theologiae, cap. 3. num. ultimo; & in Bell. enervato concedit non omnes justificatos mox esse certos de sua justificatione, lib. 6. de Justit. cap. 1. n. 11. Sed praesertim in hanc sententiam clare & aperte concedit Petrus Molinaeus, Petri Molinaei filius, Theologiae Doctor, & praebendarius Cantuariensis, piis animabus notus libro perutili de Pace animae, aliisque piis operibus Gallice ab ipso editis. De quo tamen contemptim loquitur, & quem cum Ludovico Molinaeo ipsius fratre imprudenter confundit scriptor ille qui Reformatis imputat, quod doctrina sua de Justificatione, Christianam Ethicen subvertant. Is igitur, tractatu Gallico de forma sive natura fidei justificantis, docet fidem justificantem non satis accurate & prudenter definiri per firmam fiduciam, & plenam certitudinem, qua fidelis credit peccata sibi esse per Christum remissa; quia firma illa & plena certitudo, de propria salute & remissione peccatorum suorum, notat quidem fidei supremum gradum, & summam perfectionem, non tamen fidei formam essentialem, quae potius in his tribus consistit, 1. Ut Christi merita amplectamur; 2. Ut ea nobis appropriemus, & nostra faciamus; 3. Ut extra ipsum salutem non quaeramus, secundum quod habet Belgica Confessio, asserens veram Fidem esse, quae Jesum Christum cum omnibus suis meritis amplectitur, illumque sibi ceu proprium effectum vindicat, nihilque deinceps extra illum quaerit. Art. 22.
Pierre du Moulin the father: this fiducia is commanded and to be sought — weak sight still sees the way§711
711Pierre du Moulin the father taught the same before his son.
Those not yet at this degree of fiducia are not struck from the roll of the faithful.
God does not give that degree to all at once or in the same measure.
It is commanded, to be sought, and grown by prayer and good works.
First unfeigned faith may be smoky — bleared eyes still see the way (bronze serpent).
Latin · §711
XXXV. Quin celeberrimus Petrus Molinaeus istius Petri Molinaei pater, ante filium idem hac in parte docuit; nam postquam pluribus egit de illa persuasione qua quis promissionem Evangelii sibi applicat, credens peccata sibi per Christum esse remissa, sequentia verba subjungit, Nec tamen haec eo pertinent, ut albo fidelium expungantur, quotquot hunc fidei gradum nondum sunt assecuti, quam Deus non dat omnibus eodem tempore, nec mensura. Sed ut doceamur hanc fiduciam a Deo juberi, & ab eo obnixe petendam esse, & toto conatu in id incumbendum, ut precibus & bonis operibus roboretur & crescat. Adde quod in prima fide, sed non simulata, fumi est locus, etiam lippientibus oculis cernitur via. Nec qui a serpentis aenei aspectu sanabantur pariter erant perspicaces. Fide justif. part. 2. Thesi 39.
English Confession 1647: saving faith and assurance of being in grace are distinct§712
712English Confession (1647) separates saving faith from certainty of being in grace.
Ch. 18: that certainty is not so of faith’s essence that a true believer cannot lack it.
He may await it and struggle with many difficulties before sharing in it.
Latin · §712
XXXVI. Sed praeterea huic sententiae aperte favet Confessio Anglicana anni 1647. nam separatis capitibus agit de Fide salutari, & de certitudine quam quis habet quod sit in Dei gratia, supponens haec esse inter se diversa. Et capite 18. ubi agit de ista certitudine, dicit eam non ita esse de essentia fidei, quin vere fidelis possit eadem carere, & eam expectare, & luctari cum multis difficultatibus, priusquam certitudinis ejus particeps fiat.
Public Confessions agree — Wendelin: love also belongs among faith’s acts§713
713Not only Wittich: private doctors and public Reformed Confessions agree.
Full remitted-certainty belongs to corroborated faith.
Wendelin too: sincere love of God/Christ among faith’s acts.
Though parts are notitia/assensus/fiducia, love still belongs — will as well as intellect.
Augustine: to believe in Christ is to love Christ.
Latin · §713
XXXVII. Ex his ergo satis patet, non solum Wittichium fidei corroboratae duntaxat tribuere, quod fidelem certum reddat de impetrata, aut in futurum obtinenda remissione peccatorum; quandoquidem non tantum cum eo consentiunt privati Doctores a nobis citati, sed & ipsae Reformatorum publicae Confessiones. Nec etiam solus ille est, qui amorem Dei Christique syncerum inter essentiales actus fidei recenset. Idem hac in parte sentit cum eo Wendelinus. Quanquam enim fidei partes ad tres revocat, nimirum, notitiam, assensum, atque fiduciam, docet tamen amorem ad actus quoque fidei pertinere. Probat enim non solum intellectum, sed etiam voluntatem esse subjectum fidei, Quia fides quoque est amor, at amor est actus voluntatis: Quod confirmat testimonio Augustini dicentis, Hoc est credere in Christum, diligere Christum. Christ. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 24. in explicatione Theseos octavae.
Chamier: faith is in the will — to believe in God is to love God§714
714Chamier: same argument — faith in the will, not intellect alone.
Every love is a will-act; faith is love; therefore faith is a will-act.
True faith believes in God = loves God (Augustine).
Latin · §714
XXXVIII. Quibus plane similia leguntur apud Chamierum, qui etiam eodem argumento utitur, ut probet fidem esse in voluntate, & non solum in intellectu. Omnis amor, inquit, est actus voluntatis; at fides est amor; ergo est actus voluntatis. Fidem autem esse amorem, probat quia vera fides est ea quae credit in Deum: At credere in Deum est amare Deum, juxta illud Augustini, Quid est credere in Deum? credendo amare. Panstratiae tomo 3. lib. 12. cap. 4. numero 16.
Cocceius with Wittich: faith a species of love — vs those who keep love only as effect§715
715Wittich cites Cocceius: faith = a species of love of God as expiator and healer.
Faith connected with charity — Christ’s charity poured in the heart; who believes loves.
Opposed: Maresius, Baron, Bucanus, du Moulin, Saumur — faith in intellect alone.
They grant love is born from true faith and inseparable as effect — but not an act elicited as faith itself (lest faith = charity).
Latin · §715
XXXIX. Et Wittichius ipse loco supra citato in confirmationem sententiae suae profert verba Coccei, dum viveret, in Academia Leydensi Professoris. Fides illa, inquit, est species amoris Dei, cum diligo Deum ut expiantem peccata, & sanantem a peccati morbo & foetu, ut sim ad gloriam ejus. Ad ultima Mosis, pag. 396. Et alio in loco, Omnino igitur fides cum charitate connexa est, cum & ipsa fides nihil sit, nisi charitatis Christi effusio in cordibus nostris, & ejus sensus & reciprocatio. Jam amat qui credit; & nisi amet, nec credit. In Examine Apologiae, pag. 209. Sed contra sentiunt multi e Theologis Reformatis, ut Samuel Maresius, Robertus Baronius, Bucanus, & denique quotquot fidem in solo intellectu locant, ut Petrus Molinaeus, & Professores Salmurienses. Nam omnes illi docent quidem Dei amorem ex vera fide nasci, & esse effectum ab ea plane inseparabilem, nolunt tamen esse actum a fide elicitum, quoniam hoc esset fidem cum charitate confundere.
All agree notitia is included — not philosophical science, but some grasp of what is proposed§716
716Amid disagreement on acts, all agree: notitia of things to be believed is included in / required for saving faith.
Not philosophical scientia through causes, nor accurate grasp of mode and reason.
Divine mysteries: known that they are by revelation; cause/mode often unknown.
Notitia here = some apprehension of what the Word proposes for assent.
Latin · §716
XL. Sed quantumvis Doctores Reformati videantur inter se dissentire, in explicandis & enumerandis fidei salvificae & justificantis actibus, in eo tamen omnes conveniunt notitiam rerum credendarum fide salvifica includi, & partem ejus aliquam facere, aut saltem, ad eam requiri. Per notitiam vero minime intelligunt, scientiam proprie dictam, quae est, juxta Philosophos, cognitio rei per causam, nec accuratam aliquam rei intelligentiam, qua modus & ratio ejus percipiatur, agnoscunt enim mysteria divina, quae fidei objiciuntur, non esse res quae possint evidenter demonstrari, & accurate a nobis percipi atque intelligi; sed in eo genere solum per revelationem innotescere quod res sit, rei vero revelatae, ut plurimum, causam & modum ignorari, si non ab omnibus, saltem a maxima fidelium parte. Sed per notitiam hic tantum intelligunt rerum quae Verbo Dei credendae proponuntur apprehensionem & conceptionem aliquam, qua mens utcunque capit quid sit illud cui debet assentiri, & de quo Deus in Verbo testimonium perhibet.
Explicit knowledge of chief articles required — pure church-trust without grasp condemned§717
717Not every believer must distinctly know all Scripture contains.
Measure of knowledge differs — pastor/doctor more than a private believer.
All need some express explicit knowledge of the chief articles.
Blind church-trust with no distinct grasp of articles = condemned ‘implicit’ faith.
Enough: know the chief saving heads expressly; believe the rest at least in general.
Latin · §717
XLI. Nec etiam necesse putant ad fidem singulorum, ut explicite & distincte noverint quaecunque Dei Verbo traduntur atque continentur. Etenim absque multorum expressa notitia fatentur fidem consistere posse; nec ab omnibus eandem exigi cognitionis mensuram; sed ampliorem & distinctiorem cognitionem requiri in Ecclesiae Doctore, vel Pastore, quam in muliere, aut fideli privato. Verum hoc tantum volunt fidelibus omnibus, respectu praecipuorum fidei articulorum, necessariam esse expressam & explicatam aliquam notitiam. Neque veram esse posse & salutarem fidem illam, quae de articulis & dogmatis fidei nihil distincte apprehendit, sed confuse tantum credit quod credit Ecclesia; etsi plane nesciat quid Ecclesia credat, aut credere debeat. Qualis fides ab iis implicita vocatur, & damnatur eo nomine. Caeteroqui non negant ad fidem sufficere, si sigillatim & expresse noscantur & apprehendantur summa doctrinae salutaris capita, reliqua vero quae tradit Dei verbum, saltem generatim & confuse credantur.
Chief articles suffice for faith — yet every believer must press on in the Word§718
718Explicit knowledge of a few chief heads suffices for faith — but not as a pious rest-stop.
Each must press on in saving doctrine according to calling.
Colossians: abound in the word; Hebrews 5: leave milk for solid food.
Fostering people’s crass ignorance under ‘implicit faith’ is grave error.
Latin · §718
XLII. Neque tamen, quum dicunt ad fidem sufficere explicitam & expressam summorum aliquot fidei capitum notitiam, propterea existimant pium & laudabile esse in ejusmodi qualicunque notitia acquiescere, nec cognitionem ampliorem quaerere. Quamvis enim paucorum articulorum fides explicita & expressa tanquam ad salutem plane necessaria exigatur, pretendunt tamen unumquemque teneri omnem operam adhibere, ut pro vocationis modo, in doctrina salutis magis magisque proficiat, pleniusque & copiosius in verbo Dei instruatur. Ad quod sedulo fideles hortatur Apostolus, ut praesertim videre est in epistola ad Colossenses; ubi optat ut sint Instructi in charitate, & in omnes divitias plenitudinis intellectus, in agnitionem mysterii Dei ac Patris & Christi Jesu. Et monet ac praecipit, ut Christi verbum habitet in nobis abundanter, in omni sapientia, nos mutuo docendo & commonfaciendo Psalmis, hymnis & canticis spiritualibus: cap. 2. & 3. Unde est quod scribens ad Hebraeos ipsos graviter increpat, quod cum deberent esse magistri propter tempus, rursum tamen indigerent, ut docerentur elementa exordii sermonum Dei; & opus haberent lacte, ac non solido cibo. Hebr. 5. Ex quibus merito colligunt Reformati graviter errare & peccare illos qui, sub praetextu fidei implicitae, crassam & stupidam plebis ignorantiam fovent. Quae omnia tam clare & aperte, & tam unanimi consensu a Doctoribus Reformatis traduntur, ut minime necessarium sit eorum testimonia hac in parte citare.
Fiducia as faith’s formal act — or only its inseparable effect (Garissol)§719
719Most Reformed: fiducia = proper formal/specific act and primary part of faith.
Others: fiducia is faith’s offspring/effect — not faith’s act properly.
Garissol (Montauban): fiducia coheres inseparably with faith but is effect, not faith itself.
Latin · §719
XLIII. Praeterea plurimi Scholae Reformatae Doctores non solum, ut supra vidimus, fiduciam numerant inter actus fidei; sed eam esse volunt actum fidei proprium formalem, atque specificum, & partem ejus primariam. Alii tamen videntur in diversa esse sententia; docent enim fiduciam esse quidem partum & effectum fidei, non tamen fidei actum proprie dictum. Haec est inter alios sententia Garissolii, dum viveret, in Academia Montis Albani Professoris. Si quaeras, inquit, Annon Fides sit fiducia? Respondeo, Fiduciam quidem indissolubili nexu cum fide cohaerere; non tamen, si proprie loquamur, esse fidem, sed effectum, necessario quodam partu, a fide pullulantem. In Explicatione Catecheseos Religionis Christianae, ad Sectionem decimam octavam.
Beza, du Moulin, Faius: fiducia differs from faith as effect from cause§720
720Beza on Eph. 3: fiducia differs from faith as effect from cause — do not swap the names.
Du Moulin: faith ≠ fiducia; fiducia = inseparable fruit/effect.
Faius (Geneva): liberty of access and Abba-cry fiducia are effects of faith.
Latin · §720
XLIV. Eadem fuit sententia Bezae, qui scribens in locum Pauli Ephes. 3. In quo libertatem habemus cum fiducia per fidem ipsius; inde colligit fiduciam a fide, ut effectum a causa differre. Ex hoc loco, inquit, apparet manifeste fiduciam a fide, ut effectum a causa differre, ac proinde a nonnullis perperam pro fide substitui nomen fiduciae, quamvis ista duo semper cohaereant. Idem quoque docet Petrus Molinaeus, Disputatione secunda, de Justificatione & fide justificante, Thesi 19. & sequentibus. Censemus, inquit, aliud esse fidem, aliud fiduciam, & hanc esse illius fructum & effectum inseparabilem. Quibus accedit Antonius Fayus, in Thesibus Genevae disputatis, Thesi 20. Libertas, inquit, per quam facilis patet ad Deum accessus, & fiducia per quam clamamus Abba Pater, sunt effecta fidei.
Zanchi: generic faith ≠ bare fiducia — yet justifying faith nearly is fiducia§721
721Zanchi: faith in general ≠ mere fiducia — faith also regards the law and whole Word.
Yet justifying faith is trust, or differs little from it.
Justifying faith = firm undoubted assent to promises of remission, justice, eternal life in Christ — Spirit-excited.
Fiducia = most sure persuasion we shall obtain what God freely promised.
Latin · §721
XLV. Zanchius autem fidem in genere acceptam, prout ab ipso supra definita est, a fiducia distinguit, & refellit eos qui dicunt fidem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam. Quoniam fiducia promissionibus tantum & Evangelio nititur; fides autem ipsam quoque legem respicit, & quicquid est Dei verbum. Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. tit. De Fide. Sed in eodem capite, titulo De Fiducia, docet fidem qua justificamur aliud non esse revera quam fiduciam, aut certe parum ab ea differre. Unde colligit fidem justificantem & fiduciam idem sunt, vel certe parum inter se differre; & definitionem fidei justificantis, cum fiduciae definitione, eodem redire: Firmus & indubitatus assensus in promissiones Dei de remissione peccatorum, & justitia accipienda, aeternaque vita consequenda a Deo, per & propter filium Jesum Christum, ex afflatu Spiritus Sancti in nobis excitatus. Et quid fiducia? Certissima persuasio de veritate promissionum Dei, qua non dubitamus, quin consecuturi simus, quaecunque nobis simpliciter pro sua gratia pollicitus est Deus: Hoc est enim confidere, idem firmiter credere, & sine ulla haesitatione sperare te habiturum quod ab aliquo tibi promissum est, seu securum esse de rebus promissis propter veritatem promittentis. In Explicatione Theseos primae.
Wittich: fiducia as rest in God is of the essence — remitted-certainty may be lacking§722
722‘Fiducia’ is used in several senses — apparent verbal disputes often hide real agreement (or reverse).
Wittich’s essential fiducia = heart’s rest in God as salvation’s author.
Rest in Christ as sufficient Savior for those who flee = of faith’s essence.
Persuasion of remitted sins (past/future) can be lacking — such believers are weak.
Learned from Widmar (Maresius’s colleague).
Latin · §722
XLVI. Sed hic observandum est fiduciam apud Doctores Reformatos pluribus modis sumi, adeoque plures eorum, qui hac in parte diverse loquuntur, idem reapse inter se sentire: alios vero qui videntur eodem modo loqui, revera tamen quoad sensum inter se discrepare. Et Christophorus Wittichius quidem jam saepe memoratus, qui fiduciam ponit inter actus fidei essentiales, per fiduciam illam intelligit acquiescentiam cordis in Deo, ut authore & fonte salutis. Quod ut clarius reddat, dicit distinguendos esse diversos fiduciae actus. Et quatenus, inquit, per fiduciam intelligitur acquiescentia in Christo & Deo, tanquam unico fonte & authore salutis, tanquam sufficienti servatore omnibus ad se confugientibus, dico omnino ad fidei essentiam pertinere. Sed si per fiduciam intelligatur persuasio de remissione peccatorum, sive in praeterito, sive in futuro, dico posse esse fidem quae ea destituatur; sed praeterea addo, istos fideles esse infirmos. Et subjungit se hanc distinctionem primum didicisse olim ex Reverendo Widmario, celeberrimi Maresii collega. In Theologia pacifica, cap. 11. num. 139.
Ames: believe-into-God fiducia — general assent causes it; special remitted-assent is its effect§723
723Ames: primary essential act = believe-into-God fiducia (choose/lean on the sufficient means).
Not bare persuasion of a future good.
General Word-assent ≠ saving faith (can be lifeless).
Special ‘God is my God in Christ’ flows from faith — not faith’s first act.
General assent → causes fiducia; special remitted-possession assent ← effect of fiducia.
Particular intellectual assurance can be absent while true faith lies latent.
Latin · §723
XLVII. Sed illam proculdubio postea quoque didicerat ex Guil. Amesio, qui eodem plane modo Philosophatur de fiducia illa, quae est, juxta ipsum, fidei actus primarius atque essentialis. Fides ista, inquit, qua credimus non tantum Deum aut Deo, sed in Deum, est vera ac propria fiducia; non qua hac voce notatur certa & absoluta persuasio de bono futuro, sed qua significat electionem & apprehensionem sufficientis ac idonei medii, ac in quo persuasio & exspectatio talis fundatur. Quo sensu dicuntur homines fiduciam habere in sapientia, potentia, amicis, & opibus suis. In Medulla Theologiae, lib. 1. cap. 3. num. 13. Et postea numero 15. addit, Credere igitur in Deum, est credendo adhaerere Deo, inniti Deo, acquiescere in Deo, tanquam in vita ac salute nostra omnisufficiente. Unde concludit assensum generalem quem Dei verbo adhibemus non esse fidem salvificam, quia potest esse sine ulla vita: assensum vero specialem, quo statuimus Deum esse Deum nostrum in Christo, non esse actum primum fidei, sed actum ex fide emanantem. Nulla enim, inquit, est major in te quam in alio certitudo hujus veritatis, nec verior ejus apprehensio, antequam te ad Deum fide singulariter applicaveris. In fine tamen capitis subjungit, assensum illum solidum, qui adhibetur promissionibus Evangelii, fidem & fiduciam dici, quia nomen illud quodammodo meretur, sive consideretur ut est assensus generalis, quo firmiter credit aliquis veras esse gratiae promissiones factas credentibus & resipiscentibus: seu consideretur, ut est assensus specialis, quo credit aliquis se divinae gratiae jam esse participem; idque qua est assensus generalis parit fidem proprie dictam Amesio, id est, fiduciam, qua aliquis Deo adhaeret, & ei innititur: quatenus vero est assensus specialis apprehendens gratiae jam factae possessionem actualem, ex jam dicta fiducia fluit & enascitur. Adeoque, ex illius mente, assensus generalis est causa fiduciae, in qua proprie dicta fides consistit, assensus vero specialis est illius fidei effectus. Uterque tamen assensus improprie potest appellari fides secundum illum tropum, quo causae nomen effectui, & effectui quandoque nomen causae tribuimus. Assensus autem, inquit, ille solidus Evangelii promissionibus adhibitus dicitur fides & fiducia; partim quia parit fidem qua est assensus generalis; partim quia fluit ex illa fiducia, qua est assensus specialis & solidus apprehendens gratiae jam factae possessionem actualem. Sic enim nititur fiducia cordis, tanquam medio, vel argumento, cujus vi sola, conclusio talis potest inferri. Docet etiam experientia, particularem istam certiorationem intellectus in quibusdam deesse ad tempus, qui tamen fidem veram in cordibus suis habent interim latentem.
Ames on faith of special mercy: unto Christ before justification — of mercy already given after§724
724Ames (Bell. Enerv.): ‘faith of special mercy’ in two senses.
1. Apprehend/lean on Christ unto mercy through Him — precedes justification; most properly justifies.
2. Apprehend mercy as already given — follows justification; does not justify in that respect.
Apprehension = arriving/reaching Christ, not bare intellect-grasp.
Many still describe justifying faith by the latter assurance-act.
Latin · §724
XLVIII. Quibus consentanea docet idem Amesius in Bellarmino Enervato; ubi observat fidem specialis misericordiae duplici ratione sic vocari. Primo qua Christum apprehendit, vel innititur ipsi, ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam: Secundo qua misericordiam specialem, ut jam donatam, apprehendit. Et priore sensu dicit fidem specialis misericordiae antecedere justificationem, & maxime proprie dici justificare: fidem vero specialis misericordiae, posteriore sensu, sequi justificationem, nec eo respectu nos per eam justificari. Ibidem vero verbis Cardinalis Contareni explicat quid significet per apprehensionem illam qua Christum apprehendimus, & ipsi innitimur, ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam: Nempe non illam apprehensionem quae pertinet ad cognitionem intellectus; sed qua dicimur illud apprehendere quo pervenimus, & quod post motum nostrum attingimus. Et subjungit fidem justificantem a multis tamen Theologis describi per posteriorem illum fidei actum, quo certi reddimur de impetrata & donata nobis Dei in Christo misericordia.
Ames: proper object of justifying fiducia is Christ — not the proposition ‘my sins are remitted’§725
725Ames: the fiducia that leans on Christ is faith’s proper formal justifying act.
Its proper object = Christ / God’s mercy in Christ — not a proposition or axiom.
Not ‘my sins are remitted through Christ’ as the immediate object.
After justification, another act may reach that proposition’s certainty.
Explains why some speak as if that remitted-proposition were faith’s proper object.
Latin · §725
XLIX. Ac cum fiducia illa qua Christo innitimur & ei adhaeremus, sit juxta Amesium, proprius & formalis fidei actus, qua justificans est, non debuit idem vir doctus mirari quod Amesius, eodem in loco dicat, proprium objectum fidei justificantis, qua talis, esse illud in quo fides acquiescit ad justificationem consequendam, nempe Christum, vel Dei misericordiam in Christo; non propositionem, vel axioma: & eo nomine Amesium exagitare, tanquam hominem absurdum, & nescientem quid dicat. Clarus est enim Amesii sensus: videlicet, ejus fiduciae qua Christo innitimur, & cui Amesius tribuit justificationem, tanquam actui proprio fidei, qua justificans est, immediatum & proprium objectum esse Christum ipsum, non vero hanc propositionem, mihi sunt per Christum remissa peccata: licet fides justificans, peracta justificatione, per alium actum attingat veritatem & certitudinem ejusdem propositionis. Quae ratio est, ut notat ibidem Amesius, cur nonnulli Theologi sic loquuntur, quasi ista propositio, mihi sunt per Christum remissa peccata, esset proprium objectum fidei justificantis.
Davenant: lean-on-Mediator fiducia justifies — felt assurance is its daughter§726
726Davenant (Salisbury, Dort): ‘fiducia’ names two things.
1. Lean-on/embrace-Christ act — justification always follows, with or without felt remission at once.
2. Full vivid sense of obtained remission/favor — daughter of justifying faith, after exercises.
Proper formal act: apprehend the promise and fiducially rest on the Mediator.
Not bare notitia, general assent, or mere conditional promise-grasp — those prepare; lean-on-Mediator is the last accompanying act.
Latin · §726
L. Sed haec de Amesio satis. Ad cujus sententiam accedit Davenantius Episcopus Sarisburiensis, qui Dordracenae Synodi pars fuit. Nam, inquit, fiducia vocabulum duo designat. Ipsum actum innitendi & adhaerendi Jesu Christo, quo quasi ambabus ulnis Christum amplectimur, & per eum actum veniam, gratiam, & gloriam conamur obtinere a Deo Patre: atque hunc putamus esse illum actum, ad quem semper sequitur justificatio, id est, absolutio a peccatis, & acceptatio in gratiam favoremque divinum; sive peccator ab ipso primo momento, animo concipiat obtentam remissionem, sive non. Solet etiam aliquando fiducia denotare consequens effectum fidei justificantis, nempe plenam persuasionem, & quasi vividum sensum remissionis impetratae, & obtenti favoris divini. Fatemur hanc fiduciam non esse fidem justificantem, sed fidei justificantis filiam; quam anima justificata, nonnisi post multa fidei & sanctitatis exercitia solet eniti. Concludimus ergo fiduciam illam in Mediatorem a Deo constitutum, nobisque in Evangelio propositum, esse illum actum cui Deus remissionem peccatorum, sive justificationem peccatoris dignatur indulgere. In libro cui titulus est, Determinationes quarundam quaestionum Theologicarum, quaest. 37. Et in quaestionis ejusdem principio docet proprium & formalem actum fidei quae justificat esse illum quo peccator promissionem salutis in Christo omni credenti factam apprehendit, & in hunc Mediatorem toto corde pro eadem obtinenda fiducialiter recumbit: Atque ut rem magis illustraret, ostendit fidei actum, quem semper & immediate sequitur justificatio, non esse nudam notitiam verbi divini: nec assensum generalem, quo agnoscimus & admittimus pro veritate divinitus revelata quicquid traditum est in Scripturis: nec etiam gratuitarum promissionum apprehensionem conditionalem: illis quidem actibus, qui communes sunt resipiscentibus & impoenitentibus, homines parari ad justificationem recipiendam: Sed descriptam fiduciam, perquam peccator in oblatum sibi Mediatorem recumbit, & illi innititur, ac divinae misericordiae se justificandum subjicit, esse ultimum illum actum cujus praesentiam ipsa justificatio concomitatur.
Du Moulin the son: fiducia of refuge justifies — fiducia of sense follows§727
727Pierre du Moulin the son: twofold fiducia.
Fiducia of refuge — flee to God / lean on Him (Ps 31; Isa 50) — instrument and essential form.
Fiducia of sense — Spirit-witness that God is reconciled and life is ours — born from the former (Eph 3:12).
Promises belong to those coming hungry to Christ, not to those who already possess Him.
Sense-fiducia presupposes justification — cannot cause it.
Direct act justifies; reflex sense may lag — many justified without yet feeling they have Christ.
Latin · §727
LI. Horum autem vestigia sequitur Pet. Molinaeus, Petri Molinaei filius, jam supra nominatus. Nam tractatu supra citato, de forma, sive natura fidei justificantis, duplicem quoque fiduciam distinguit. Prior est per quam ad Deum confugimus, & ipsi innitimur, de qua dicitur apud Psaltem, In te Domine confido, non confundar in aeternum, Psalm. 31. & apud Isaiam, cap. 50. Confidat in nomine Domini, & innitatur super Deum suum. Posterior est qua, Spiritu Dei contestante Spiritui nostro, confidimus Deum nobis esse in Jesu Christo reconciliatum, & vitam aeternam ad nos pertinere; unde nascitur pax conscientiae, & sancta quaedam securitas. Quae posterior fiducia ex priori nascitur, juxta illud Apostoli, In quo habemus fiduciam & accessum in confidentia per fidem ejus, Ephes. 3. 12. Priorem fiduciam vocat fiduciam perfugii, posteriorem fiduciam sensus. Quibus positis affirmat, non fiduciam sensus, sed solam fiduciam perfugii, sive motum illum conscientiae, quae reatus sui conscia Dei per Christum misericordiam amplectitur atque apprehendit, esse instrumentum justificationis nostrae, & formam essentialem fidei justificantis. Idque quoniam Dei promissiones factae sunt illis qui ad Christum veniunt, & justitiam ac Dei gratiam in Christo quaerunt atque esuriunt, non vero illis qui jam Christum possident, & compotes gratiae facti sunt. Ac praeterea quoniam fiducia illa sensus, justificationem jam factam praesupponit; ac proinde non potest esse illius causa, aut instrumentum. Et postea observat duplicem esse in fide actionem: unam directam, per quam Christum amplectimur, eique adhaeremus; alteram vero reflexam per quam actionem illam nostram recognoscimus, & sentimus nos Christum apprehendisse; ex quo sensu posterior fiducia nascitur. Et per priorem actum nos proprie credere in Christum, & justificari, non vero per posteriorem. Adeoque multos esse qui Christum vere apprehendunt, nec dum tamen sentiunt se illum apprehendisse; qui nihilominus coram Deo vere justificati sunt, etsi de eo nondum certi & persuasi sint; quoniam haec persuasio non pertinet ad fidei essentiam, sed solum ad ejus perfectionem, & est verae ac robustae fidei fructus, ac consequens quoddam.
Mestrezat and Perkins: refuge/access justifies — special persuasion is perfection§728
728Mestrezat: justifying faith = penitent’s refuge to God’s mercy in Christ.
Perkins’s fourth degree (access to the throne, apprehend Christ) = fiducia of refuge — justification follows at once.
Fifth/special Spirit-persuasion applying promises = fiducia of sense — follows justification; perfection, not essence.
Latin · §728
LII. Atque haec quoque fuit proculdubio sententia viri celeberrimi Joannis Mestrezatii, qui ut supra observavimus, fidem justificantem definit variis in locis, Perfugium peccatoris poenitentis ad Dei misericordiam in Christo. Nec etiam alia mens fuit Guil. Perkinsii, ut videre est ex iis quae docet de ortu & gradibus fidei justificantis. Postquam enim quatuor gradus, sive motus cordis in fide observavit, quorum primus est notitia Evangelii, & assensus illi praebitus per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem. Secundus spes veniae, qua peccator, etsi nondum sentit remissum esse peccatum, remissibile tamen esse credit. Tertius, esuries & vehemens expetitio gratiae, quae est oblata in Christo Jesu. Quartus, accessus ad thronum gratiae, ut apprehenso ibidem Christo, inveniamus misericordiam apud Deum, subjungit hunc gradum sequi immediate remissionem peccatorum coram Deo, quae est ipsa nostra justificatio. Et tandem succedere quintum & summum fidei gradum, qui est specialis persuasio cordi a Spiritu Sancto impressa, qua promissiones Evangelicas quisque sibi speciatim applicat. Nam accessus ille ad thronum gratiae, ut apprehenso ibidem Christo, inveniamus misericordiam apud Deum, est illa ipsa fiducia perfugii, quae a nobis modo descripta est, quam immediate, juxta authorem illum, sequitur justificatio. Specialis autem persuasio, qua promissiones Evangelicas quisque sibi speciatim applicat, non aliud est quam quae dicitur fiducia sensus, quae ex mente Perkinsii, justificationem jam factam consequitur, ac proinde non est illius organum, nec ad intimam fidei essentiam, sine qua fides, nequidem ad momentum constare potest; sed solum ad fidei perfectionem pertinet; ut supra quoque vidimus Perkinsium docentem.
Walaeus: justifying fiducia is a will-act receiving Christ — not intellect’s remitted-assent§729
729Walaeus faces the objection: if faith = trust of remitted sins, justification can’t be faith’s effect.
Answer: first justifying act is receiving Christ with His merit unto coming remission — not believing sins already remitted.
Will’s fiducia from general Gospel assent — precedes special remitted-assent.
Proper object = Christ and His merit, not the remitted-proposition.
Agrees with Ames.
Latin · §729
LIII. Et eodem etiam redire videntur quae docet Antonius Walaeus in locis communibus, titulo De nostri Justificatione coram Deo. Postquam enim sibi proposuit illam objectionem, qua videtur probari fidem non esse fiduciam: Si fides est fiducia remissionis peccatorum, tum per fidem non possemus justificari, quia justificatio est effectus fidei: effectum autem fidei non potest esse ejus primum objectum, cum omne objectum actum potentiae, a qua apprehenditur, antecedat. Respondet, negando Actum primum fidei quo justificamur, esse actum illum quo creditur remissio peccatorum, sed quo recipitur Christus cum merito ejus in remissionem peccatorum, non praeteritam, sed sequentem; Atque istud non tam per assensum particularem, quam per fiduciam illam voluntatis a generali assensu sequitur. Non possumus enim, inquit, assentiri rei nisi verae. Atqui quum nondum apprehendimus Christum per fidem, nondum est verum nobis esse remissa peccata, sed si verum ipsum credimus. Unde patet juxta Walaeum fiduciam qua justificamur esse actum voluntatis, non intellectus, eamque nasci ex assensu generali quem promissionibus Evangelii adhibemus, & praecedere assensum specialem quo certi sumus de remissione peccatorum nostrorum, quae proprium & directum ejus objectum non est, sed Christus cum merito ejus. Quae plane consonant cum supra exposita Amesii sententia.
English Confession: receive and rest in Christ — assurance of grace is not faith’s essence§730
730English Confession 1647: chief acts = accept/receive Christ; rest/lean on Him alone for justification, sanctification, life (14.2).
Separates saving faith from certainty of being in grace (ch. 18).
True believers may long lack that certainty — so sense-fiducia is not faith’s formal essence.
Essence: lean-on/rest-in-Christ fiducia unto mercy.
Latin · §730
LIV. Nec alia quoque potuit esse mens eorum qui Confessionem Anglicanam conscripserunt Anno 1647. Etenim praecipuos fidei salutaris actus dicunt esse acceptare & recipere Christum, & in eo solo acquiescere, sive illi soli inniti, ad justificationem, sanctificationem, & vitam aeternam, cap. 14. num. 2. Et praeterea distinguunt fidem salutarem a certitudine quod aliquis sit in Dei gratia, de qua separatim agunt cap. 18. Ubi ut supra notavimus, dicunt illam certitudinem non ita esse de fidei essentia, quin vere fidelis possit ea diu carere. Unde manifestum est, secundum eorum doctrinam, fiduciam illam sensus, quae est haec ipsa certitudo, non esse formalem & proprium actum qui essentiam fidei constituit, quandoquidem fides sine illo, saltem ad tempus subsistere potest: sed fiduciam aliam per quam Christo innitimur, & in eo acquiescimus, ut misericordiam a Deo consequamur.
Wendelin: fiducia as persuasion we are counted just — required beyond general assent§731
731Other Reformed: proper specific act = persuasion I am accepted and given life for Christ’s merit.
Wendelin: fiducia = third/principal part — apply general Gospel promises; persuaded we are reputed just and heirs.
Respect of this fiducia: faith called saving/justifying.
God justifies none who do not trust in Christ and firmly believe sins remitted for His merit.
Notitia or general assent alone does not suffice.
Latin · §731
LV. Alii tamen Scholae Reformatae Theologi aliter explicant fiduciam istam, quam dicunt esse proprium & specificum actum fidei justificantis: nempe docent eam esse persuasionem qua fideles singuli certo apud se statuunt, se propter Christi meritum Deo gratos & acceptos esse, sibiique donatam esse salutem & vitam aeternam. Sic Wendelinus explicat fiduciam quam fidei tribuit. Fiducia, inquit, est tertia & principalis pars fidei justificantis, qua generales Evangelii promissiones nobis applicamus, & nos propter Christi meritum justos a Deo reputari, aeternaeque vitae haeredes fore, plane persuasum habemus. Lib. 1. cap. 24. Thesi 15. Et in Explicatione addit, Respectu fiduciae hujus fides appellatur salvifica & justificans. Neminem enim justificat Deus, nisi qui fiduciam in Christo collocat, & propter ejus meritum sibi peccata remitti firmiter credit. Itaque ad salutem non sufficit notitia mysteriorum divinorum, vel assensus etiam generalis; sed necessario requiritur quoque fiducia.
Rivetus and Sohn: certain fiducia that remission and life are granted to me in particular§732
732Rivetus: sure fiducia — remission not only in general but mine; eternal justice and life for Christ’s merit.
Sohn (Heidelberg): chief part of justifying faith = apply the grace-promise to myself.
Not only others — I too have God propitious; rest and rejoice in God through Christ.
Latin · §732
LVI. Similiter Rivetus, in fidei definitione quam supra attulimus, tribuit illi Certam fiduciam per quam unusquisque fidelis, in Deo acquiescens firmiter statuit, non solum in genere promissam esse credentibus remissionem peccatorum, sed sibi in particulari concessam, aeternamque justitiam, & ex ea vitam, ex Dei misericordia, propter unius Jesu Christi meritum donatam esse. Eodem modo Sohnus, saeculo superiori Theologiae Professor in Academia Heydelbergensi, fiduciam, quam habet pro parte potissima fidei justificantis, dicit esse Qua non tantum promissioni gratiae generaliter assentimur, sed etiam nobis quisque promissionem istam applicamus, certo statuentes eam ad nos quoque pertinere; id est, non tantum alios, sed nos quoque Deum habere propitium, juxta promissionem gratiae; ideoque in Christo, & per Christum in Deo prorsus acquiescimus & laetamur. Oper. Sohnii, t. 2. p. 789.
Paraeus: sure fiducia — remission, justice, and life granted to me in particular§733
733Paraeus: faith = sure fiducia resting in God.
Sure that remission, eternal justice, and life are given not only to others in general but to me/you in particular.
From God’s mercy for Christ’s merit alone.
Latin · §733
LVII. His accedit Paraeus, dum fidem dicit esse certam fiduciam, qua in Deo acquiescimus certo statuentes, non solum aliis in generali, sed & mihi, tibi, in particulari, remissionem peccatorum, aeternam justitiam, & vitam donari, ex Dei misericordia, propter unius Christi meritum. In lib. 1. Bell. de Justif. c. 4. in Appendice.
Baron of Aberdeen: four senses of fiducia — persuasion, rest, fortitude, peace§734
734Baron (Aberdeen): four senses of fiducia to clear ambiguity.
1. Firm intellectual persuasion — redeemed by Christ’s blood; sins remitted; future deliverance and glory.
2. Inward rest in God’s goodwill — depend wholly on it.
3. Spiritual fortitude against temporal/spiritual evils.
4. Peace/serenity of conscience — quiet from servile fear.
Latin · §734
LVIII. Sed omnium accuratissime mentem suam hac de re exponit Robertus Baronius Scotus, dum viveret, in Academia Aberdonensi Professor. Ac ne quid hic supersit obscuritatis & ambiguitatis, distinguit multiplices fiduciae acceptiones, & quatuor hujus vocis significata enumerat. Fiducia, inquit, primo modo accipitur, pro firma persuasione, seu pro firmo & stabili judicio intellectus, quo apud nos statuimus, & propter Dei testimonium in verbo suo credimus, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, pretioso suo sanguine nos redemisse, & Deum patrem propter ejus meritum, omnia nostra peccata remisisse; eundem etiam, propter illud Christi meritum & sacrificium in cruce oblatum, liberaturum nos ab omnibus hujus vitae miseriis & calamitatibus, & tandem donaturum nos ineffabili illius gloriae aeternitate. Secundo accipitur pro intima acquiescentia in divina benevolentia & gratia, per quam toti ab illa pendemus, non aliunde auxilium salutemve exspectantes. Tertio pro spirituali fortitudine & animositate, qua animi nervos & robur opponimus malis & periculis, sive temporalibus, sive spiritualibus, cum quibus in hac lacrymarum valle conflictamur. Quarto pro pace, tranquillitate, & quasi serenitate conscientiae, seu securitate spirituali, quae quietem a servili timore importat.
Baron’s first sense grounds the rest — yet omits the refuge-fiducia of Ames and Wittich§735
735Baron: first-sense fiducia (apply promises) founds rest, fortitude, and peace.
Le Blanc: he still misses refuge-fiducia — flee/lean on Christ to become a partaker, not rest as already one.
Refuge-fiducia is born from solid Gospel assent but precedes special ‘already mine’ assent.
Baron’s first sense = special remitted-assent; his second = rest as already persuaded — not simple fleeing to obtain.
Latin · §735
LIX. Quibus subjungit fiduciam primo modo acceptam esse basin & fundamentum trium sequentium. Quia enim, inquit, firma persuasione, & certo judicio mentis evangelicas promissiones nobis ipsis applicamus, ideo in Dei benevolentia & misericordia acquiescimus; ideo contra mundum, satanam, & carnem nostram fortiter praeliamur; ideo denique conscientiam tranquillam & serenam habemus. Unde patet quod quamvis plures notiones fiduciae proponat, illum tamen omittere, aut non satis attingere, & recte explicare, fiduciam illam perfugii, quae juxta authores supra memoratos, est proprius & formalis actus fidei justificantis. Quippe per eam non acquiescimus in divina gratia & misericordia, quasi jam ejus simus participes; sed ad hoc ut ejus participes fiamus, ad Christum confugimus, & illi innitimur, eoque adhaeremus. Deinde fiducia ista, nascitur quidem ex firmo & solido assensu quem promissionibus Evangelicis adhibemus; sed tamen praecedit assensum specialem, quo bona promissa ad nos pertinere, & nostra jam esse judicamus, ut patet ex iis quae supra relata sunt. Cum contra Baronius velit tres posteriores fiduciae species nasci ex prima, quae ex ejus mente, est ille ipse specialis assensus, quo statuimus Deum nobis omnia nostra peccata remisisse, nosque propter Christum esse in gratiam receptos. Ac praeterea per secundam, juxta Baronium, fiduciae speciem, quae proxime ad descriptam fiduciam accedit, acquiescimus in Dei gratia & misericordia, tanquam de ea jam certo persuasi; non vero simpliciter ad Christum confugimus ut eam consequamur; quod proprium est fiduciae illius, quae verbis Amesii, Wittichii, & Petri Molinaei prolixe fuit a nobis exposita.
Baron: senses 2–4 are effects — only first-sense fiducia is faith’s proper act§736
736Baron on ‘Is fiducia an act of faith?’ — two assertions.
Senses 2–4: not faith’s act but faith’s effect/consequent.
Sense 1: true proper act of saving faith — even its chief specific act.
Latin · §736
LX. Sed quicquid de eo sit, postquam Robertus Baronius quatuor illas fiduciae acceptiones proposuit, ad quaestionem istam, An fiducia sit actus fidei? respondit duabus assertionibus: Prima est haec, fiducia secundo, tertio, aut quarto modo accepta, non est fidei actus, sed est effectum & consequens fidei: Secunda vero illius assertio sic habet, Fiducia primo modo accepta est verus & proprius Actus fidei salvificae actus, imo est praecipuus & specificus ejus actus. In Philosophia Theologis ancillante, Exercitatione tertia, Articulo 18.
Baron: instrumental act is fiducia of pardon to be obtained — not already obtained§737
737Baron art. 20: object — remitted already, or to be obtained?
Instrumental justifying act = fiducia of pardon to be obtained — not of pardon already gotten.
One who prays for remission, trusting he is among those for whom Christ died, obtains remission.
No need to make already-obtained-pardon fiducia the instrumental cause.
Latin · §737
LXI. Articulo tamen vigesimo ejusdem Exercitationis cui titulus est, Utrum objectum fidei salvificae sit remissio peccatorum jam impetrata? An vero sit remissio peccatorum impetranda & obtinenda? affirmat & multis argumentis probat, Actum fidei salvificae, qui est causa instrumentalis justificationis, non esse fiduciam veniae, aut remissionis peccatorum impetratae; sed fiduciam veniae impetrandae. Nam, inquit, inter alia, Quicunque Deum orat, ut ei peccata remittat, confidens se esse unum ex eorum numero pro quibus Christus est mortuus; Deumque audientem ejus preces propter Christum, is proculdubio remissionem peccatorum consequitur. Nulla igitur necessitas nos cogit asserere actum fidei salvificae, qui est causa instrumentalis justificationis, esse fiduciam veniae impetratae.
Baron’s reconciliation: two fiducial acts — one before justification, one after§738
738Already-obtained-pardon fiducia can be a saving-faith act — but not the instrumental cause (it follows justification).
Object of fiducia: both remission to-be-obtained and already-obtained.
Two acts: before (instrumental cause) / after (effect).
Before: persuasion of Christ’s satisfaction for me + remission to be obtained.
After: persuasion of remitted sins + perseverance to life’s end.
Not all acts of justifying / special-mercy faith precede justification.
Latin · §738
LXII. Ut autem istud conciliat cum doctrina Articuli decimi octavi a nobis exposita, monet se propterea non negare quod fideles habeant ejusmodi fiduciam veniae impetratae per meritum Christi: aut quod haec fiducia non sit fidei salvificae actus: sed hoc solum se velle, quod fiducia illa veniae impetratae non sit ille actus fidei qui est causa instrumentalis justificationis nostrae; quoniam est natura posterior justificationi, & quid eam consequens. Et postea sic de re tota concludit: De objecto igitur fidei salvificae haec tenenda sunt. Primo tenendum est, objectum fiduciae non solum esse remissionem peccatorum impetrandam & obtinendam, sed etiam eorum remissionem jam impetratam. Secundo, fiduciam in haec duo tendere per duos distinctos actus, quorum alter praecedit justificationem, ut ejus causa instrumentalis; alter eam sequitur, ut ejus effectum & consequens. Tertio, actum fiducialem, qui justificationem praecedit, ut ejus causa, esse persuasionem de Christi satisfactione pro nobis in particulari, & de remissione peccatorum obtinenda per & propter ejus satisfactionem. Quarto, actum fiducialem, qui justificationem sequitur, esse persuasionem de remissione peccatorum jam impetrata, & de nostra perseverantia in eo statu, usque ad finem vitae. Denique in fine Articuli, ad quoddam Bellarmini argumentum respondens, dicit fidem justificantem praecedere justificationem, sed non secundum omnes ejus actus, quosdam enim actus fidei justificantis justificationem sequi. Et similiter fidem specialis misericordiae justificatione posteriorem esse, sed non secundum omnes ejus actus: etenim persuasionem de venia seu remissione peccatorum impetranda esse actum illius fidei, quam specialis misericordiae vocant: eam autem justificationem praecedere, saltem ordine naturae.
Wendelin: special-mercy faith — future, present, and past remission as object§739
739Other Reformed also split special-mercy fiducia into acts before/after justification.
Wendelin: before the act, not ‘already remitted to me’; rather ‘will come to me’.
In the justifying act: believes sins are being remitted — receives remission (Acts 26).
After: past application + future remissions.
Special object = remission future, present, and past.
Latin · §739
LXIII. Eodem modo plures alii Theologi varios actus distinguunt in fiducia illa, quae alias ab iis dicitur fides specialis misericordiae; & observant quosdam praecedere justificationem, quosdam vero minime. Istud videre est apud Wendelinum. Fides, inquit, specialis misericordiae, quantum praecedit justificationem (si modo tempore, & non ordine tantum praecedit) non credit homo sibi, jam ante fidei actum, remissa esse peccata, quoad applicationem; sed peccatorum remissionem Christi merito impetratam sibi quoque eventuram, in ipso justificationis actu credit peccata sibi remitti; & sic accipit remissionem peccatorum: Unde expressius dicitur peccatorum remissio accipi per fidem Act. 26. Post justificationem credit praeteritam applicationem; credit quoque sibi remissum iri futura peccata, per futuram applicationem. Habet igitur fides justificans pro objecto suo speciali, remissionem peccatorum futuram, praesentem, & praeteritam. Christ. Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 24. ad Thesin 11.
Leiden Censure: present-tense remitting fiducia justifies — past-tense follows§740
740Leiden Censure (Rivetus): justifying fiducia ≠ already-perceived remission.
Formal act: believe sins are remitted to me now (present), not past/future as such.
General truth + personal ‘this promise is mine and received’ — then remission and fiducia are simultaneous.
‘I will be justified if I believe’ alone does not justify — need present reception of justice.
Past-tense belief follows justification.
One faith, three acts: disposing / properly justifying / conscience-pacifying.
Latin · §740
LXIV. Haec est quoque doctrina Professorum Leydensium, in Censura capitis undecimi Confessionis Remonstrantium, cujus author Andreas Rivetus. Non dicimus, inquiunt, fiduciam illam qua justificamur, esse remissionis peccatorum jam perceptae, vel objectum illius fiduciae esse remissionem peccatorum antea perceptam: sed fiduciam illam qua credimus quisque, nobis remitti peccata in praesenti, non proprie in praeterito, nec in futuro, etsi etiam utrumque ad fidem justificantem pertineat, sed non ad justificandi actum, ut ita dicam, formalem. Dum ergo per verbum Evangelii offertur a Deo cuilibet credenti misericordia & remissio peccatorum per Christum, non solum fides credit in genere hoc verum esse, remissum iri nempe peccata omnibus vere in Christum credentibus, sed etiam hic sibi fidenter persuadet qui credit, promissionem illam ad se pertinere, & illo fiduciae actu recipi; proinde ipsi tum remitti peccatum, suam esse beatitudinem illam de qua Apostolus ad Romanos 4. vers. 7. Quomodo extensa manu, & accepto munere, fit beneficii particeps, qui veniam accesserat. Itaque simul sunt remissio peccatorum, & fiducia de eadem remissione in homine fideli; & ut fide recepta est misericordia illa, & gratia specialis, eadem posita retinentur; & quae de futuro credebatur, in praesenti annexa est, de praeterito posita certa manet. Sed qui credit se justificatum iri, si credat in Jesum Christum, nondum eatenus justificatus est; nisi etiam & in praesenti credat sibi justitiam dari, quam eodem actu accipiat. Quod autem postea credit de praeterito, non eum justificat, sed supponit justificatum. Sunt autem omnes illi actus unius & ejusdem fidei justificantis, primus quidem ad justificationem disponens, secundus proprie justificans, tertius conscientiam pacificans.
Maresius: threefold faith-act — disposing, formally justifying, consoling§741
741Maresius (System, locus 11, Th. 57): a threefold act of faith must be marked in justification.
Disposing act: I believe Christ has merited remission for his own, and that my sins will be remitted if I repent and rest in his merit — with law-bred misery and the hunger of Matt. 5:6 setting the guilty under an absolving sentence yet to be heard.
Formally justificatory act: by the Spirit of adoption the absolving sentence is spoken into me now — present remission of past and future weakness-sins, never imputed to condemnation, innocence from Christ's imputed righteousness, and certain eternal life; simultaneous with actual justification.
Consolatory act: past-tense confidence that all sins were already remitted and condemnation is gone (Rom. 8:1), with trust that absolution stretches to daily falls sought in the Lord's Prayer — this follows justification.
So faith is saving condition three ways: before, with, and after justification.
Latin · §741
LXV. His plane gemina docet Samuel Maresius, in Systemate, loco undecimo, Thesi 57. Triplex, inquit, fidei actus venit in justificatione consideratione & distinguendus: Unus dispositivus, quo credo Christum suis meruisse remissionem peccatorum, juxta doctrinam Evangelii, adeoque & mihi remissum iri mea peccata, si resipuero, & vera fide acquieuero in merito Christi. Et cum hunc fidei actum comitentur miseriae nostrae ex Dei lege agnitio, & illa fames & sitis justitiae, de quibus Matth. 5. vers. 6. his simul reus ponitur in statu, ut loquuntur Pragmatici, sententiae sibi absolutorium consequendae & audiendae. Quare ut fides quoad hunc actum praeit actualem remissionem peccatorum in foro poli & conscientiae, ita etiam praescribitur in Verbo ad illam obtinendam. Secundus justificatorius formaliter, quo mihi per Spiritum adoptionis ipsa justificatoria & absolutorium sententia pronunciatur & intimatur: credo in praesens mihi hic peccato dolenti, & serium emendationis studium deinceps posidenti, Deo per Christum esse remissa omnia mea peccata, tum ea quae hactenus commisi, tum ea in quae possum labi deinceps per infirmitatem; & Deum illa nunquam mihi imputaturum ad condemnationem, sed ex imputata Servatoris mei justitia me pro innocente habiturum, & certo donaturum vita aeterna. Atque hic actus simul est tempore cum actuali justificatione & remissione peccatorum. Tertius consolatorius, quo in praeterito credo fuisse jam mihi remissa omnia mea peccata, & me nulli amplius subesse condemnationi, ut loquitur Paulus, Rom. 8. vers. 1. atque confido illam sententiam absolutorium mihi antea intimatam, extensum & applicatum iri Dei misericordia ad peccata quotidianae incursiones, quorum etiam quotidie to sensu remissionem peto in Oratione Dominica. Et hic fidei actus justificationem & remissionem peccatorum subsequitur. Unde liquet quo sensu & quousque fides sit conditio ad salutem perquisita; nam primo sensu fides se habet ad justificationem antecedenter, secundo simultanee, tertio consequenter.
Paraeus: special-mercy fiducia — before, in, and after justification§742
742Paraeus: special-mercy fiducia in the repenting sinner precedes justification by nature-order — as in the Publican who first cries for mercy, trusting pardon will come.
It accompanies the justifying act (sins are remitted to me now) and follows it (sins have been remitted — he goes home justified).
Special object: Gospel promise in future, present, and past tenses to me/you/him believing in the Son.
Before the act (by nature, not time): will be remitted; in the act: are remitted; after: have been remitted.
Latin · §742
LXVI. Simile quoque apud Paraeum videre est. Fiducia, inquit, specialis misericordiae in peccatore resipiscente naturae ordine praecedit justificationem: ut videri est in Publicano, qui prius ex fide implorat misericordiam, propitius esto mihi peccatori, hoc est, confidit se accepturum veniam peccatorum: concomitatur in actu enim justificationis confidit sibi remitti peccata: tandem & sequitur; justificatus enim eadem fiducia sibi esse remissa peccata descendit in domum suam. Unde postea colligit objectum speciale fidei justificantis esse promissionem Evangelii de futuro, & praesenti, & praeterito, cuivis, mihi, tibi, illi, credenti in Filium, per Filium in sanguinem ejus remittentur, remittuntur, remissa sunt peccata. Et tandem concludit his verbis, Et sic ante justificationis actum, ante dico natura, non tempore, fides vel fiducia nostra, pro objecto habet propositionem hanc de futuro, mihi credenti remittentur peccata; in ipso actu justificationis hanc de praesenti, mihi remittuntur peccata; post actum justificationis hanc de praeterito, mihi remissa sunt peccata. In l. 1. Bel. de Justif. c. 10. Responsione ad secundam rationem.
Rivetus and Baron: past-remission persuasio is faith’s fruit, not its justifying instrument§743
743Rivetus (and Baron’s stronger wording): faith defined as sure fiducia that remission is granted not only in general but to me in particular — even called saving faith’s chief specific act.
Yet their mind is not that past-tense persuasion (“sins have been remitted”) is the act by which we are justified.
They describe faith that way because such persuasion is a property true faith is apt to produce, and belongs to its perfection.
It is a real act of justifying faith (vs dead/historical), precious for peace and piety — but it follows justification; it is not the instrument.
Latin · §743
LXVII. Ex quibus patet Theologos illos, quum fidem definiunt per certam fiduciam, qua unusquisque fidelis firmiter statuit, non solum in genere promissam esse credentibus remissionem peccatorum, sed sibi in particulari concessam; ut facit Andreas Rivetus: aut etiam dicunt talem fiduciam esse verum & proprie dictum fidei salvificae actum; imo esse praecipuum & specificum ejus actum, quae sunt Roberti Baronii verba: mentem tamen eorum non esse persuasionem istam quod peccata nobis remissa sint, esse illum fidei actum quo justificamur: sed illos fidem ita describere, quia talis persuasio est quaedam verae fidei proprietas, quam apta nata est ex se producere, & quae pertinet ad ejus perfectionem. Et quoniam haec persuasio est revera quidam actus fidei justificantis, quo a fide mortua & historica distinguitur, & qui maximi momenti est ad fidelium pacem atque tranquillitatem, & pietatem in eis fovendam; licet justificationem sequatur, non praecedat, nec sit justificationis instrumentum, sed consequens quoddam.
Why define justifying faith by the consequent act — Ames on contested certainty§744
744Why define justifying faith by an act that does not justify but follows justification already done?
Because the later act presupposes the earlier, shows faith’s perfection more clearly, and most consoles believers.
Above all: the believer’s certainty of his own grace was the flashpoint with Roman doctors.
Ames (Bellarmine Enervated V.2): one faith both applies mercy in Christ and makes that application sure; enemies of grace attack that certainty — so many describe justifying faith by it, though sense of it may for a time be parted from faith.
Latin · §744
LXVIII. Sed si quis jam quaerat cur fidem justificantem definiunt ab actu qui revera non justificat, sed sequitur jam factam justificationem, potius quam ab actu quo revera justificamur: Ad istud eo videntur inducti quod actus iste posterior praecedentem supponat, & clarius fidei perfectionem explicet, & ad consolationem fidelium maxime faciat. Praesertim vero inde quod certitudo illa, quam fideli tribuunt de propria gratia & justificatione, in controversiam maxime vocaretur a Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae quibuscum ipsis res est. Quod significat Amesius his verbis in Bellarmino Enervato. Quia, inquit, una & eadem est fides quae misericordiam in Christo specialiter applicat apprehendendo, & applicationem illam jam factam certam reddit; & perfectio, vel consolatio ejus in hac certitudine apparet, quam etiam hostes gratiae praecipue impugnant: idcirco per istam certitudinem (quae tamen quoad sensum ab ea potest ad tempus separari) fides justificans solet a multis describi. Lib. 5. de Fide justificante, cap. 2.
Alting: sins deleted two ways — decree/death of Christ, and efficacious application§745
745Some Reformed seem to grant that the justifying act is persuasion that our sins are already deleted and remitted through Christ.
No clash, they say, in God remitting because we believe them remitted — if “deleted” is heard two ways.
First: as to God’s decree and Christ’s death already undergone from that decree.
Second: as to efficacious application — Christ giving remission, believers receiving it by faith.
Alting: remission is given and applied while with sure fiducia we embrace Christ, persuaded that by decree his death has blotted out and expiated our sins.
Latin · §745
LXIX. Sunt tamen inter Reformatos, qui concedere videntur fidei actum quo justificamur, esse persuasionem quod peccata nostra per Christum deleta atque remissa sint. Nec putant ullam esse repugnantiam, si dicamus Deum nobis peccata remittere, & peccata nostra delere, propterea quod illa remissa & deleta esse credimus. Sed observant peccata nostra deleta dici posse duobus modis: primo quoad decretum Dei, & mortem Christi ex decreto illo jam obitam: secundo vero quoad efficacem applicationem, tum ex parte Christi donantis remissionem peccatorum; tum ex parte credentium, fide eam accipientium. Adeoque mens eorum est, nobis donari atque applicari remissionem peccatorum, dum certa fiducia Christum amplectimur, & persuasi sumus Christum, juxta Dei decretum, peccata nostra morte sua delevisse atque expiasse. Quae est doctrina Henrici Altingii, locorum communium parte secunda, Controversia secunda de Fide justificante, contra Samosatenianos.
Chamier: sins remitted before we believe — yet that faith does not justify§746
746Chamier: sins remitted to us before we believe; faith later than justification.
Yet the faith that sins are already remitted does not justify — it is wrought in, and required of, the already-justified.
No one of sound reason is justified without this faith; no one has this faith who is not justified.
Panstratia Catholica XIII.6.
Latin · §746
LXX. Chamierus autem simpliciter concedit peccata nobis esse remissa antequam credamus, & fidem justificatione posteriorem esse. Fidem tamen qua credimus peccata nobis jam esse remissa non justificare, quia efficitur in justificato, & requiritur a justificato; adeo ut nemo, qui quidem fruatur usu rationis, justificatus sit, nisi qui habeat hanc fidem, neque ullus habeat hanc fidem qui non sit justificatus. Panstratiae Catholicae. lib. 13. cap. 6.
Molinaeus: justification from eternity — faith gives the sense of it§747
747Du Moulin (Sedan): justification is from eternity — part of the election decree — unlike regeneration, which begins in time.
Sense of justification is given to believers at a certain time; regeneration’s start is first sparks of faith and first motions of repentance.
On his hypothesis: sins remitted before the sinner believes.
Faith justifies only inasmuch as through faith we have the sense of justification.
Latin · §747
LXXI. Nec videtur ab hac sententia alienus Petrus Molinaeus, saepius jam citatus, & Theologiae in Academia Sedanensi Professor. Hic enim justificationem censet esse ab aeterno, & in eo differre a regeneratione, quae fit in tempore, & habet initium. Nam loquens de justificatione hominis coram Deo, Illa, inquit, est ab aeterno & ante saecula, quippe pars decreti electionis, quamvis ejus sensus detur fidelibus certo tempore. At haec nempe regeneratio, fit in tempore, & habet quoddam initium, nempe primas scintillas fidei, & primulos motus poenitentiae. De Justificatione & Fide justificante, part. 1. Thesi 54. Proinde, ex ejus hypothesi, peccatori peccata remissa sunt antequam credat, nec aliter fides justificat, quam quia per fidem habemus justificationis sensum.
Molinaeus: fiducia is faith’s inseparable fruit — hope, security, quiet joy§748
748Du Moulin sets fiducia apart from that persuasion: fiducia rises from it as justifying faith’s perpetual companion — not faith itself, but faith’s effect, without which faith is not true.
Fiducia = firm hope, constancy, security, tranquillity against terror and trembling.
In his words: terrors shaken off, will quieted in peace, joy poured out, the believer calling on God with familiar liberty.
Faith is one thing, fiducia another — its inseparable fruit: once the mind firmly assents that Gospel promises are for me, that quiet joy follows by the Spirit of adoption.
Latin · §748
LXXII. Caeterum ab ea persuasione distinguit fiduciam, quae ex illa oritur, & quam vult esse fidei justificantis perpetuam comitem, nec fidem ipsam, sed fidei effectum, sine quo non est vera fides. Per fiduciam enim intelligit spem firmam, & animi quandam constantiam, securitatem, & tranquillitatem; oppositam terrori & trepidationi, per quam, ut verbis ejus utar, terrores excutiuntur, & voluntas placida pace componitur, & laetitia perfunditur, & fidelis Deum familiariter & multa cum libertate compellat. Censeo, inquit, aliud esse fidem, aliud fiduciam. Hanc esse illius fructum & effectum inseparabilem. Nam simulac mens firmo assensu credidit promissiones Evangelii ad se pertinere, illico terrores excutiuntur, & voluntas placida pace componitur, & laetitia perfunditur; per quam fit ut animus plenus fiducia, docente Spiritu adoptionis, Deum familiariter, multaque cum libertate compellat. De Justit. & Fide justific. parte 2. Thesi 19.
Beza and Garissolius: fiducia is faith’s inseparable effect — verbal clash only§749
749Beza, Garissolius (and du Moulin with them): fiducia is not a part of faith but its inseparable effect — coheres with faith, yet is distinct from it.
Those who make fiducia faith’s chief part mean by the name that sure persuasion of God’s grace toward me and that Gospel goods are peculiarly mine.
Beza’s side grants that persuasion as part of faith, but reserves “fiducia” for the quiet, liberty, and constancy that rise from it.
Same thing; only the wording differs.
Latin · §749
LXXIII. Neque per fiduciam aliud intelligunt Beza & Garissolius, aliique supra a nobis citati, qui cum eo docent fiduciam non esse fidei partem, sed solum effectum inseparabilem, qui cum fide quidem indivulse cohaeret, veruntamen est ab ea distinguendus. Unde patet Molinaeum, Bezam, & Garissolium reipsa consentire cum Theologis illis, qui volunt quidem fiduciam fidei praecipuam partem constituere; sed fiduciae nomine intelligunt certam illam persuasionem, qua fidelis de divina erga se gratia & benevolentia plene persuasus est, & bona in Evangelio fidelibus promissa ad se peculiariter pertinere judicat. Nam Theologi modo nominati istam quoque persuasionem pro fidei parte agnoscunt: Sed eam nolunt fiduciam dici, & hoc nomine potius designandam existimant animi tranquillitatem, libertatem, atque constantiam, quae ex tali persuasione de Dei erga nos benevolentia oritur. Et sic cum in re ipsa utrique consentiant, modo solum loquendi differunt.
Reformed consensus: justifying faith specially applies the Gospel — schools differ how§750
750Common Reformed consent: justifying faith specially applies the general Gospel word and grace-promises to each believer.
Schools differ on what “application” means.
Many reduce it to the judgment that Gospel goods are peculiarly mine, and that I am and will be partaker of them.
So du Moulin, Ursinus, Paraeus, and Tilenus.
Latin · §750
LXXIV. Porro ex iis quae fuerunt hactenus a nobis exposita facile videre est, ex communi quidem Reformatorum consensu, ad naturam fidei justificantis pertinere, ut generale Verbum Evangelii, & promissiones gratiae credenti cuique speciatim applicet. Sed tamen non omnes Scholae Reformatae Doctores applicationem istam eodem modo exponere & intelligere. Nam eorum multi sic loquuntur quasi per applicationem istam non aliud intelligerent, quam judicium illud quo fidelis statuit bona per Evangelium promissa & oblata peculiariter ad se pertinere, seque bonorum illorum & esse & fore compotem: Ut exempli gratia celeberrimus Petrus Molinaeus, Ursinus, Paraeus, & Daniel Tilenus.
Baron: two applicative acts — mind’s persuasion and will’s ardent love§751
751Baron: the regenerate apply Christ’s merit and God’s mercy by two acts, not one.
First: sure mind-persuasion on God’s testimony — Christ has fully satisfied for our sins; remission, eternal justice, and life are given to us too, freely, for Christ’s merit alone.
Second: ardent love — the will embraces grace, looking for fuller sense now and clear vision hereafter.
Both required for fiducia (firm persuasion + desire); yet the first is fiducia’s formal essence, the second only concomitant — so grace is chiefly applied by the prior act.
Latin · §751
LXXV. Nonnulli vero, ut Robertus Baronius, expresse docent fideles, seu renatos, non uno actu, sed duobus actibus, meritum Christi & Dei misericordiam sibi applicare. Prior actus est certa persuasio, seu judicium mentis Dei testimonio nitens, quo apud nos statuimus Salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum pro nostris peccatis plenissime satisfecisse, & per consequens non solum aliis, sed nobis quoque remissionem peccatorum, aeternam justitiam & vitam donatam esse, idque gratis ex Dei misericordia, propter unius Christi meritum. Posterior actus applicativus gratiae est ardens amor quo voluntas gratiam Dei complectitur, serio expectans perfectionem istius gratiae sensum in hac vita, & claram Dei visionem in futura. Quae verba sunt Baronii in Philosophia Theologiae ancillante, Exercit. 3. Artic. 19. Ubi docet quoque utrumque hunc actum ad fiduciam requiri, quia nemo dici potest confidere, seu fiduciam habere de bono obtinendo, nisi & firmam habeat persuasionem in intellectu, & desiderium vel amorem istius boni in voluntate. Prior tamen actus, juxta ipsum, est ipsa essentia, seu ratio formalis fiduciae; posterior vero est tantum actus ei annexus & concomitans. Unde est etiam quod applicationem gratiae per priorem actum praecipue fieri docet.
Bucanus: apply Christ by mind’s judgment and heart’s desire — with Wendelin and Chamier§752
752Bucanus: Christ is applied not by mind’s judgment alone but also by the heart’s desire and apprehension.
Faith = from mind’s knowledge, approval, and special judgment, the will’s desire and grasp by which each privately applies crucified Christ with his benefits offered in Word and Sacraments.
Same line as Baron for all who count love and desire among justifying faith’s acts — Wendelin, Chamier, and others.
Latin · §752
LXXVI. Similiter Bucanus docet Christum nobis applicari, non tantum per judicium & approbationem mentis, sed etiam per cordis desiderium & apprehensionem: ut patet ex illa ejus fidei descriptione quam supra attulimus. Dum scilicet, dicit, Fidem esse ex mentis notitia & approbatione, judicioque speciali, voluntatis sive cordis desiderium & apprehensionem, qua Christum crucifixum cum beneficiis suis in Verbo & Sacramentis oblatum singuli privatim nobis ipsis applicamus. Et idem etiam hac in parte, cum Baronio & Bucano, sentire necesse est, omnes illos qui amorem & desiderium numerant inter actus fidei justificantis; quod faciunt Wendelinus, Chamierus & alii.
Perkins to Ames: post-justification persuasion vs pre-justification refuge-fiducia§753
753More carefully: after justification the believer applies promises by sure persuasion that the goods are his.
Before justification the repenting sinner applies them by refuge-fiducia — fleeing to God’s glory and mercy in Christ, seeking and longing with the whole heart, resting on God’s goodness, expecting liberation and saving good from God through Christ alone.
So Perkins, Davenant, Wittich, Ames — and that refuge-motion is what they mean by fiducia as faith’s chief part.
Latin · §753
LXXVII. Alii vero distinctius ea de re loquentes, docent fidelem quidem, post justificationem, sibi promissiones divinas applicare per certam persuasionem quod bona promissa ad eum pertineant; sed peccatorem poenitentem, ante justificationem, applicare sibi easdem promissiones, per fiduciam illam qua confugit ad Dei gloriam & misericordiam in Christo, eamque toto corde & quaerit & exoptat, Dei vero bonitate & fidelitate nitens, non aliunde quam a Deo per Christum a malis suis liberationem, & salutaris boni communicationem expectat. Quae est doctrina Perkinsii, Davenantii, Wittichii, Amesii, & plurium aliorum, qui per fiduciam istam, quam fidei partem potissimam faciunt, jam dictum animi motum intelligunt.
Living faith applies the whole Word practically — not Gospel promises only§754
754Some: the application that marks living saving faith vs historical/dead is not limited to Gospel promises — though those are its chief object.
True faith applies grace-promises and the rest of God’s Word, each in its own way.
Practically: refer everything in the Word to one’s own action and use.
Promises → judge highest good and blessedness there; redemption mysteries → seek consolation and conscience-peace; precepts → resolve to live by them.
Latin · §754
LXXVIII. Denique sunt qui existimant applicationem istam, per quam viva & salvifica fides ab historica & mortua distinguitur, restringendam non esse ad promissiones Evangelii, quanquam illae sint potissimum & praecipuum illius objectum; sed fideles per veram illam fidem qua salvantur & justificantur, non solum sibi applicare promissiones gratiae, sed & caetera quae continet Dei verbum; quodque, scilicet, suo modo. Istam vero applicationem in eo consistere, quod vere fidelis omnia quae verbo Dei continentur practice considerat, & ad actionem atque usum suum peculiarem refert. Ita credit, verbi causa, Evangelii promissionibus de remissione peccatorum, de felicitate & gloria aeterna, ut in istis summum suum bonum & beatitudinem, ad quam ipsi sit totis viribus aspirandum, sitam esse firmiter & efficaciter judicet: Ita fidem adhibet Redemptionis nostrae mysteriis, ut in iis consolationem, & pacem conscientiae sibi quaerendam plane existimet: denique sic divina praecepta considerat, ut secundum ista sibi vitam esse exigendam certo apud se constituat, & constanter proponat.
English Confession: faith differently affected by each part of the Word — chiefly receiving Christ§755
755The mid-century English Confession seems to share that whole-Word application sense.
By this faith the Christian believes whatever God reveals, on God’s speaking authority, and is differently moved by each part: obeys commands, trembles at threats, embraces promises for this life and the next.
Chief saving acts: accept and receive Christ, and rest in him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.
Latin · §755
LXXIX. Atque hanc de illa quae sit per fidem applicatione, sententiam fuisse eorum qui Confessionem fidei in Anglia ante aliquot annos ediderunt, colligi posse videtur ex ea quam tradunt fidei salvificae descriptione, quam supra attulimus. Nam ex eorum sensu, Per hanc fidem Christianus verum credit quicquid est verbo Dei revelatum, propter Dei ipsius in verbo loquentis authoritatem, & differenter agit ac afficitur super singulis ejus quae continet istud verbum: mandatis scilicet, obsequens, ad minas contremiscens, & amplectens Dei promissiones, tam quae ad hanc vitam, quam quae ad futuram pertinent. Sed praecipui actus salutaris illius fidei sunt acceptare & recipere Christum, & in eo solo acquiescere ad justificationem, sanctificationem, & vitam aeternam.
Placeus, Vermigli, Musculus: essential act is practical assent — especially to Gospel promises§756
756On that line, saving faith’s proper essential act = practical assent to the whole Word, specially to Gospel promises.
Placeus (Saumur): tenacious, efficacious persuasion of what God reveals — specially remission and eternal life through Christ.
Vermigli: assent so strong it draws fiducia, hope, charity, and good works as present weakness allows.
Musculus: consenting heart-assent to what the Word narrates or promises.
Latin · §756
LXXX. Itaque si quis quaerat quis sit proprius & essentialis fidei salvificae actus, secundum mentem Doctorum illorum respondendum est, hunc actum esse assensum practicum toti Verbo Dei adhibitum, sed speciatim promissionibus Evangelii. Quae sententia est Josuae Placei in Thesibus Salmuriensibus, ubi ut supra vidimus, fides ab eo definitur, Tenax & efficax persuasio veritatis eorum quae Verbo Dei nobis revelata sunt, speciatim vero promissionis de remissione peccatorum, & vita aeterna nobis per Christum parta. Et Petri quoque Martyris, cui fides est assensus praebitus Verbo Dei, qui tantarum sit virium & efficaciae, ut trahat secum affectum fiduciae, spei, charitatis, & omnia tandem bona opera, ut praesentis vitae infirmitas patitur. Denique Wolfgangi Musculi, qui fidem definit, Consensum assensum cordis ad ea quae vel narrantur, vel promittuntur Verbo.
Historical vs saving faith — bare theoretical assent vs practical applying faith§757
757Common Reformed judgment: historical faith and saving/justifying faith must be sharply distinguished.
Historical: bare simple assent to God’s Word — from the Spirit, but stuck in theoretical intellect, not moving will or affections.
Saving: lights the mind and moves practice — will and affections; refers the Word to the believer’s use; specially applies God’s promises.
Historical faith only idly contemplates what it believes as if it did not touch him.
Latin · §757
LXXXI. Porro ut de singulis istis quae a nobis hactenus exposita fuerunt, & circa quae Scholae Reformatae Doctores varie sentire & loqui videntur, mentem nostram aperiamus, ostendimus ex communi Reformatorum sententia, fidem historicam a fide salvifica & justificante accurate distinguendam esse, & inter utramque magnum esse discrimen. Nempe fidem historicam esse nudum & simplicem assensum praebitum Verbo Dei; profectum quidem a Spiritu Sancto, sed in solo intellectu theoretico inhaerentem, & qui voluntatem & affectus non moveat: Fidem vero salvificam non solum theoreticam mentem illuminare, sed practicam quoque afficere, ac voluntatem & affectus permovére; & quod inde consequens est, eandem salvificam fidem ea quae Verbum Dei docet ad credentis usum referre, & speciatim Dei promissiones credenti applicare: quod non praestat fides historica, siquidem illa quae credit otiose contemplatur, tanquam res ad se nihil attinentes.
Same genus or mere homonym? — a philosophical quarrel, not a theological one§758
758Reformers quarrel: are historical and justifying faith species under one genus (univocal or analogical), or only homonyms?
Le Blanc: the question is merely philosophical — once the real difference is clear, Theology need not care which school-word names it.
If we keep school usage: nothing blocks calling them species of one genus — common name and common thing: assent to God revealing, from the Spirit’s light.
Latin · §758
LXXXII. Veruntamen inter se disceptant iidem Reformati, An fides historica & justificans sint species comprehensae sub eodem genere, aut univoco, aut saltem analogo; an vero solum vocis homonymae diversae acceptiones? Sed hanc quaestionem putamus esse mere Philosophicam: Et modo constet qua in re inter se differant fides historica atque justificans, Theologiae nihil interesse qua voce Philosophica discrimen illud designetur. Si tamen volumus uti vocibus Philosophicis secundum morem in Scholis usitatum, non video quid obstet, quominus fides historica & justificans dicantur species ejusdem generis; cum non tantum utrique sit nomen quoddam commune, sed etiam id quoddam per nomen significatum; quandoquidem utraque est assensus quidam Deo revelanti adhibitus, ex Spiritus Sancti illuminatione.
Why Reformed definitions of justifying faith diverge — omit the common, mark the difference§759
759Reformed definitions of justifying faith diverge for two reasons.
First: many omit what it shares with historical faith and mark only the difference — so they skip the assent justifying faith still gives to the whole revealed Word.
Second: some define from one property, others from another.
Latin · §759
LXXXIII. Supra quoque docuimus fidem justificantem a Reformatis pluribus & discrepantibus modis describi atque definiri. Quae discrepantia inde primo oritur, quod multi in sua definitione omittunt id quod fides justificans commune habet cum fide historica: & solum notare volunt id quo fides justificans ab historica differt. Ut qui in sua definitione mentionem non faciunt assensus quem fides justificans praebet toti Verbo Dei ipsi revelato atque proposito. Deinde sunt qui fidem justificantem ab una proprietate, alii vero qui ab alia describunt.
Calvin, Beza, catechisms: define faith by persuasion of God’s goodwill — Molinaeus, Maresius, Alting§760
760Calvin, Beza, and popular catechisms define faith from the fiducia/persuasion of God’s grace and goodwill that saving faith carries.
Calvin/Beza: firm certain knowledge of divine goodwill, founded on grace promised in Christ, revealed and sealed by the Spirit.
Short catechism: sure trust that the Father loves me for Christ.
Near them: du Moulin (firm assent that Gospel promises are true and peculiarly mine); Maresius (gift resting in and fiducially applying those promises); Alting (knowledge plus fiducial apprehension of grace in Christ the Redeemer).
Latin · §760
LXXXIV. Ita Calvinus, & Beza, & vulgares quidam Catechismi, fidem describunt solum ab illa fiducia, seu persuasione, quam secum trahit fides salvifica & justificans de gratia Dei, & ejus erga nos benevolentia. Nam Calvino & Bezae, ut supra retulimus, fides justificans est, Divinae erga nos benevolentiae firma certaque cognitio, quae gratiae in Christo promissae veritate fundata, per Spiritum Sanctum revelatur mentibus nostris & cordibus obsignatur. Et brevis quidam Catechismus vulgaris fidem definit esse, Certam fiduciam seu persuasionem, quam debet habere quilibet Christianus, quod Deus Pater ipsum amet, propter Filium suum Jesum Christum. Ad quas definitiones proxime accedit descriptio celeberrimorum virorum, Petri Molinaei, & Samuelis Maresii, & Henrici quoque Altingii. Nam Petro Molinaeo fides est, Firmus assensus promissionibus Evangelii, quo fidelis credit eas non tantum esse veras, sed etiam ad se peculiariter pertinere. Maresio vero, Donum quo promissionibus Evangelii in Christo, tanquam veris & certis acquiescimus, easque nobis fiducialiter applicamus. Denique Altingio, Cognitio gratiae Dei in Christo Redemptore, ejusdemque fiducialis apprehensio, qua quisque fidelis illam sibi singulariter applicat.
Ames, Wittich, Mestrezat: define faith by refuge-fiducia fleeing to mercy in Christ§761
761Another definitional path: faith = the refuge-fiducia by which the repenting sinner flees to God, adheres, and leans on him for mercy through Christ.
Ames: heart’s rest in God as author of life/eternal salvation — freed from every evil, gaining every good.
Wittich: hunger and thirst for righteousness plus heart-rest in God as salvation’s fountain — committing the soul in straits and temptations.
Mestrezat: the repenting sinner’s refuge to God’s mercy in Christ.
Latin · §761
LXXXV. Alii vero fidem definiunt ab alio actu, scilicet, ab illa fiducia, qua peccator poenitens ad Deum confugit, & Deo adhaeret, eique innititur, ut misericordiam per Christum consequatur. Ita Amesio fides definitur, Acquiescentia cordis in Deo, tanquam in authore vitae, vel salutis aeternae; ut per ipsum ab omni malo liberemur, & omne bonum consequamur. Wittichio, Fames & sitis justitiae, & acquiescentia cordis in Deo, ut fonte & authore salutis; ut ei animas nostras in angustiis & tentationibus committamus. Et Joanni Mestrezatio, Perfugium peccatoris poenitentis ad Dei misericordiam in Christo.
Neither side denies the other’s act — assent, refuge, and consequent persuasion cohere§762
762Those who omit whole-Word assent in the definition still confess it is included or required.
Grace-persuasion definers do not deny prior refuge-fiducia fleeing to God for mercy.
Refuge-fiducia definers do not deny consequent persuasion of God’s love and goodwill.
The acts cohere; definitions spotlight different moments.
Latin · §762
LXXXVI. Caeterum omnes illi quanquam in sua definitione mentionem non faciunt assensus quem fides salvifica praebet toti Verbo Dei, nihilominus fatentur talem assensum in fide includi, aut ad eam requiri, ut satis manifestum est ex iis quae ante fuerunt a nobis exposita. Nec etiam qui fidem describunt ab ea persuasione quam habet fidelis de Dei erga se gratia & benevolentia, negant in fide praecedere fiduciam illam qua quis Deo adhaeret, & ad eum confugit ut misericordiam ab eo consequatur. Sicut vicissim qui fidem definiunt a fiducia illa, qua quis in Deum recumbit, ut veniam & misericordiam ab eo obtineat, non negant in fide sequi alteram istam fiduciam, qua quis de Dei amore & benevolentia erga se persuasus est.
Do not define justifying faith by the consequent persuasion — or by refuge alone§763
763Ill-formed: defining justifying faith as sure persuasion that God’s goodwill and Gospel goods are ours.
That persuasion follows justification already done; weak faith can briefly stand without it.
Unreasonable to define justifying faith by an act that presupposes justification — and can be parted from faith — rather than by the act through which we are justified.
Also unreasonable to pin the definition on one act when several necessary acts concur — including those who mention only refuge-fiducia fleeing to God for grace.
Latin · §763
LXXXVII. Sed tamen incommode & imperfecte fidem justificantem definiunt, qui dicunt illam esse certam persuasionem de Dei erga nos benevolentia & misericordia, & quod bona Evangelio promissa ad nos pertineant. Nec enim ista persuasio est actus quo justificamur, sed qui justificationem jam factam consequitur; & sine illo fides, saltem infirma, potest ad tempus subsistere. Jam autem est contra rationem, ut fides justificans describatur ab eo actu qui justificationem jam factam praesupponit, potius quam ab eo per quem justificamur; imo a tali actu sine quo fides consistere potest, & a quo potest separari: Adde quod est etiam a ratione alienum fidem justificantem ab unico actu describere, cum tamen ad eam concurrant alii actus eo non minus necessarii. Contra quod peccant illi quoque qui in fide definienda mentionem faciunt solius istius fiduciae per quam ad Deum confugimus, & gratiam ab eo quaerimus & expectamus.
Prefer fuller definitions — English Confession 1647: whole Word, chiefly receiving Christ§764
764Le Blanc prefers fuller, clearer definitions of justifying faith.
English Confession 1647: saving faith believes whatever God reveals, on God’s speaking authority, and is differently moved by each part — obeys commands, trembles at threats, embraces promises for this life and the next.
Chief acts: accept and receive Christ, and rest in him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by the covenant of grace.
Latin · §764
LXXXVIII. Itaque magis probamus definitiones illas, quae naturam fidei justificantis plenius & distinctius exponunt & declarant. Qualis est descriptio Fidei quae reperitur in Confessione Anglicana Anni 1647. dum dicit fidem salutarem esse per quam Christianus verum credit quicquid est Verbo Dei revelatum, propter Dei ipsius in Verbo loquentis authoritatem, & differenter agit ac afficitur super singulis quae continet istud Verbum; mandatis scilicet, obsequens, ad minas contremiscens, & amplectens Dei promissiones, tam quae ad hanc vitam, quam quae ad futuram pertinent. Sed fidei illius, praecipuos actus esse, acceptare & recipere Christum, & in eo solo acquiescere ad justificationem, sanctificationem, & vitam aeternam, virtute foederis gratiae.
Placeus preferred — tenacious efficacious persuasion; Vermigli, Musculus, Le Blanc’s own formula§765
765Le Blanc ranks Placeus’s definition most convenient, full, and brief: tenacious efficacious persuasion of what God reveals — specially remission and eternal life through Christ.
“Persuasion of revealed truth” marks what it shares with historical faith; “tenacious and efficacious” marks what sets justifying faith apart.
Vermigli: firm certain Spirit-breathed assent strong enough to draw fiducia, hope, charity, and good works.
Musculus: constant heart-assent to what the Word narrates or promises.
Le Blanc’s own: firm, practical, fiducial assent to all God reveals — specially Gospel promises.
Latin · §765
LXXXIX. Sed omnium commodissima, plenissima & brevissima simul, videtur definitio supra allata Josuae Placei, cui fides justificans est, Tenax & efficax persuasio veritatis eorum quae Verbo Dei nobis revelata sunt, speciatim vero promissionis de remissione peccatorum, & vita aeterna nobis per Christum parta. Nam cum dicit fidem illam esse persuasionem veritatis eorum quae Verbo Dei nobis revelata sunt, exprimit totum illud quod haec fides habet commune cum fide historica. Quum vero addit persuasionem illam esse tenacem atque efficacem, sub verbis istis complectitur totum illud quod fidem justificantem, ab historica, discernit atque discriminat. Cum Placei autem definitione coincidit jam ante memorata Petri Martyris descriptio, dum ait Fidem esse firmum certumque assensum Verbis Dei, a Spiritu Sancto afflatum, ad salutem credentium. Et assensum firmum exponit per eum, qui sit tantarum virium & efficaciae, ut secum trahat affectum fiduciae, spei, charitatis, & omnia tandem bona opera, ut praesentis vitae infirmitas patitur. Et etiam Musculi fidem definientis, Constantem assensum cordis ad ea quae vel narrantur, vel promittuntur verbo. Verbis meis dicerem fidem salutarem esse, assensum firmum, practicum, atque fiducialem adhibitum omnibus quae sunt a Deo revelata, speciatim autem promissionibus Evangelii.
Generic object = whole Word; special object = Gospel promises — as saving, not as exclusive§766
766Most Reformed: adequate/generic object of faith = the whole Word; proper/special = Gospel promises.
Not that promises belong only to justifying faith — historical faith also believes them true, as it believes the histories.
Promises are “proper” because faith as saving and justifying is specially conversant about them.
So: whole Word is object of the faith that justifies; Gospel promises are the object whereby it justifies.
Latin · §766
XC. Quod spectat fidei salvificae objectum, observatum est Doctores Reformatos plerosque distinguere inter objectum fidei adaequatum, genericum & commune, & inter ejus objectum proprium, & speciale, sive specificum. Objectum genericum & commune dicunt esse totum Dei Verbum, seu quicquid est credenti a Deo revelatum. Proprium vero, specificum, & speciale, promissiones Evangelii. Quod ut recte intelligatur, notandum est, dum Reformati dicunt objectum speciale & proprium fidei salvificae & justificantis, esse promissiones Evangelii, mentem eorum non esse, quod objectum istud ita sit justificantis fidei proprium, ut non sit etiam objectum fidei historicae. Fides enim historica, ex eorum hypothesi, credit veras esse Dei promissiones, non minus quam historias, quae in Verbo Dei narrantur. Sed promissiones Evangelicas docent esse proprium objectum fidei justificantis, quia fides quatenus salvat & justificat, circa promissiones illas proprie versatur. Et hoc est quod alii dicunt, totum Dei Verbum esse objectum fidei quae justificat, sed promissiones Evangelii esse objectum ejus qua justificat.
“Proprie” means chiefly, not uniquely — covenant faith embraces mysteries too (Rom. 10)§767
767“Proprie” here = chiefly/principally, not uniquely — justifying faith is not only about promises.
Faith saves as condition of the gracious covenant (living faith working through love), not as perfect law-keeping.
Moses: do and live; Gospel: believe and be saved — and that faith also covers precepts and dogmas (e.g. the Resurrection).
Rom. 10: heart-belief and mouth-confession — so justifying faith includes assent to Gospel mysteries, not grace-promise alone (though that remains chief).
Latin · §767
XCI. Quum vero fides quatenus justificat & salvat, dicitur circa promissiones Evangelii proprie versari, ibi proprie idem significare debet, quod praecipue atque potissimum, non vero idem quod unice. Nec enim fides, quatenus salvat atque justificat, circa promissiones illas unice versatur. Nam fides nos salvare & justificare dicitur, quatenus est conditio foederis gratuiti, quo Deus non amplius a nobis praecise exigit, sub poena aeternae mortis & maledictionis, omnibus suis numeris perfectam & absolutam legis observationem, quod postulabat foedus legale sive operum; sed fidem vivam, & quae per dilectionem operetur. Cum enim lex Mosis diceret, fac & vives, Evangelium dicit, crede & servaberis. Fides autem illa quam postulat Evangelium, ut conditionem sub qua salutem nobis offert, non respicit solas Evangelii promissiones, sed etiam ejus praecepta & dogmata; quale est illud de Resurrectione Jesu Christi Domini nostri, ut manifestum est ex istis Pauli verbis, Quod si confitearis in ore tuo Dominum Jesum, & in corde tuo credideris quod Deus illum suscitavit a mortuis, salvus eris. Corde enim creditur ad justitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem, Rom. 10. Adeoque fides illa, sub cujus conditione, Deus nos propter Christum a peccatis absolvit, & tanquam justos habet, non est ille solus mentis & voluntatis actus quo promissiones gratiae amplectimur, sed etiam ille quo mysteriis Evangelicis, ut veris assentimur. Et idcirco non probamus eos qui videntur objectum fidei qua justificans est, ad promissionem gratiae restringere; licet haec promissio sit praecipuum illius objectum.
“Special mercy” as object — prefer saying grace-promises fiducially applied§768
768“Special mercy is justifying faith’s proper object” means: unlike historical faith, it applies divine-mercy promises personally — before justification trusting sins will be remitted, after believing they have been.
The phrase is obscure and open to slander.
Le Blanc prefers (with many): principal object = grace-promises apprehended with practical fiducial assent and applied to oneself — same substance, clearer words.
Latin · §768
XCII. Quod autem multi ex Protestantibus dicunt, misericordiam specialem esse proprium objectum fidei justificantis, per hoc non aliud significare volunt, quam proprium esse fidei justificantis, prout distinguitur a fide historica, ut promissiones divinae misericordiae sigillatim cuique credentium applicet: ea ratione ut ante justificationem peccata sibi esse remittenda confidat, & post justificationem credat sibi esse remissa. Sed quoniam hic loquendi modus obscurus est, & etiam calumniae obnoxius, mallem, quod multi faciunt, ab eo abstinere, & simpliciter dicere potissimum fidei justificantis objectum esse promissiones gratiae, prout sunt assensu practico & fiduciali a credente apprehendendae, & ipsi applicandae, quod eodem recidit.
Notitia is prerequisite, not a constitutive part of faith — against Bucanus, with Ames and Wittich§769
769Reformed disagree on faith’s parts/acts.
Notitia (apprehension of what is to be believed), apart from assent: constitutive part (Bucanus) or only prerequisite (Ames, Wittich)?
Le Blanc sides with Ames/Wittich: you cannot rightly believe without some notion, but faith does not consist in that notion.
Bare notitia can sit in profane minds — even atheists know what Christians are told to believe — without a spark of faith.
Latin · §769
XCIII. Quod attinet ad partes, sive actus fidei, vidimus quoque Scholae Reformatae Doctores inter se non consentire, qui & quales illi sint, eosque pluribus modis enumerare. Et primo quidem quaeritur de notitia, prout ab assensu distinguitur, & significat quandam rei, quae ad credendum proponitur, apprehensionem & praeconceptionem, an sit pars fidem constituens, ut Bucanus & alii censent; an vero solum actus ad fidem praerequisitus & antecedaneus, quae est sententia Guilielmi Amesii, & Christophori Wittichii. Ad quam posteriorem sententiam accedimus. Quamvis enim nemo rite credere possit, qui non habeat aliquam notitiam & conceptionem rei quae credenda est, fides tamen non consistit in illa notitia, quae sine ulla fide in aliquo consistere potest, & inest etiam mentibus prorsus profanis, & in qua nemo possit vere dicere, vel minimum esse fidei initium. Siquidem multi Athei non ignorant quae sint illa quorum fides a Christianis exigitur.
Assent belongs to faith’s essence — Ames departs from common Reformed doctrine§770
770Some (Ames) doubt whether assent is faith’s formal essential act — calling assent an act of faith but locating faith itself in certain will-acts.
Le Blanc: Ames leaves common Reformed (and all Christian schools’) doctrine that assent belongs to faith’s essence.
To believe the Gospel as one ought is nothing but due assent — and Paul names believing God raised Jesus as a saving-faith act.
Latin · §770
XCIV. De ipso assensu dubitant nonnulli an sit actus fidei formalis & essentialis: ut observavimus supra de Amesio, qui docet assensum esse actum fidei, non proprie ipsam fidem; quam constituit potius in quibusdam voluntatis actibus a nobis ante recensitis. Sed Amesius in eo deserit communem doctrinam Scholae Reformatae, quae statuit cum reliquis omnibus Scholis Christianis, assensum ad fidei essentiam pertinere. Et certe quis cum aliqua ratione negare possit credere Evangelio sicut oportet, esse fidei actum? At credere sicut oportet Evangelio, quid est aliud quam ei debito modo assentire? Et nonne Paulus ipse expresse ponit ut actum fidei salvificae, credere quod Deus Jesum suscitavit a mortuis?
Love: not formal when faith is precise; essential when faith means faith working through love§771
771Is love a formal essential act of faith? Chamier, Wendelin, Wittich, Cocceius say yes; others no.
Le Blanc distinguishes: take faith precisely (apart from hope and charity) → love belongs to charity, not as faith’s formal act.
Take faith as the aggregate “faith working through love” (how most Reformed take it here) → intellect and will together; sincere love of God and Christ is essential — living faith cannot be conceived without it.
Latin · §771
XCV. Similiter dubitatur, An amor sit actus fidei formalis & essentialis? Affirmant viri doctissimi Chamierus, Wendelinus, Wittichius & Cocceius; alii vero negant. Quantum ad me attinet, puto hic esse aliqua distinctione opus. Fides enim potest duplici modo sumi. Primo praecise, secundum id quod habet a spe, charitate, ac reliquis Christianis virtutibus distinctum. Hoc sensu amor non est fidei actus formalis; sed ad aliam virtutem, nempe charitatem pertinet. Secundo fides sumitur, pro aggregato quodam plurium actuum sive habituum, qui comprehenduntur sub nomine fidei per charitatem operantis. Et ita, plerique Reformati notant se fidem sumere in hac quaestione, nempe, non pro uno actu vel habitu simplici, sed pro complexu plurium actuum vel habituum. Unde est quod illam locant non in solo intellectu, sed etiam in voluntate, quia complectitur actus, tum ab intellectu, tum a voluntate elicitos, & habitus facultatem utramque informantes. Ut videre est apud Chamierum, Wendelinum, Paraeum, & alios, ubi de subjecto fidei disputant. Ad fidem autem prout comprehendit omnes actus, quos complecti solemus sub nomine fidei per charitatem operantis, proculdubio pertinet, tanquam actus ei essentialis, amor Dei Christique sincerus, sine quo fides viva & per dilectionem operans concipi non potest.
Four senses of fiducia — rest in God, grace-persuasion, fortitude, conscience-quiet§772
772Reformed speak variously of fiducia: some call it faith’s primary proper act; others only faith’s offspring/effect — and the name itself shifts.
Four acceptations Le Blanc repeats: (1) reclining on God as salvation’s fountain; (2) firm persuasion of obtained grace, pardon, and reconciliation; (3) spiritual fortitude against life’s evils; (4) conscience-quiet / spiritual security against servile fear.
Latin · §772
XCVI. Praecipue vero Scholae Reformatae Theologi de fiducia varie loquuntur: dum quidam dicunt, ut supra visum est, fiduciam esse partem fidei primariam, & proprium illius actum, alii vero istud negant, & docent fiduciam esse quidem fidei prolem atque effectum, sed non tamen actum ejus proprie dictum: ac praeterea fiduciae nomine, alii quidem istud, alii vero aliud intelligunt. Qua de re ut mentem nostram aperiamus, repetendae sunt variae fiduciae acceptiones, quae supra fuerunt a nobis recensitae. Primum ergo fiduciae nomine intelligitur actus ille per quem in Deum recumbimus, illi innitimur, & ei adhaeremus; tanquam fonti & authori salutis, ut vitam & salutem ab eo consequamur. Secundo, fiducia apud multos designat firmam persuasionem de gratia & venia a Deo impetrata, & de nostra cum eo reconciliatione. Tertio, fiducia sumitur pro spirituali fortitudine, & animositate, qua animi nervos & robur opponimus iis malis & periculis quibuscum in hac vita mortali confligimus. Denique, fiducia sumitur pro conscientiae serenitate & tranquillitate, seu pro spirituali quadam securitate, quae opponitur timori servili.
Fiducia as fortitude or conscience-quiet — fruits only, not constitutive acts§773
773Fiducia as spiritual fortitude (sense 3) or conscience-quiet against servile fear (sense 4) is only faith’s fruit and effect.
Not a constitutive part or faith’s act properly so called.
All Reformed doctors agree here.
Latin · §773
XCVII. De fiducia tertio & quarto modo accepta nullo modo dubitari debet quin sint fidei fructus & effectus solummodo, non vero partes fidem constituentes, aut fidei actus proprie sic dicti. Et de hoc consentiunt omnes Scholae Reformatae Doctores.
Refuge-fiducia: not formal when faith is precise; included in living faith’s aggregate§774
774Refuge-fiducia (leaning on God / fleeing to him for life and salvation) follows the same rule as love.
Take faith precisely (apart from other virtues) → not faith’s formal act.
Take faith as living faith working through love’s aggregate → this fiducia is included as a part.
Latin · §774
XCVIII. Quod spectat fiduciam primo modo acceptam, nempe pro actu illo, quo Deo innitimur & ad eum confugimus, ut vitam & salutem ab eo consequamur, de illa idem dicendum videtur, quod de amore jam dictum: nempe eam non esse formalem fidei actum, si fides praecise sumatur, & prout a caeteris virtutibus omnibus distinguitur, ac eis opponitur. Sed si fides sumatur pro aggregato illo variorum actuum, qui fidei vivae, & per dilectionem operantis nomine designantur, dubitari non debet quin fiducia haec partem ejus faciat, & ea includatur.
Grace-persuasion fiducia: primary essential act, or only perfection’s fruit?§775
775Chief quarrel: second-sense fiducia = firm persuasion that I have obtained grace and that Gospel goods are mine.
Baron, Rivetus, Ursinus, Paraeus, Wendelin (and others): define faith by it; call it primary, chief, specific saving act — as if saving faith could not stand without it.
Perkins, Ames, Davenant, Wittich, Widmar, young du Moulin, English Confession 1647: it belongs to faith’s perfection, not inmost essence; proper to corroborated, not weak, faith; many truly justified lack it.
So: accidental/secondary/reflex act — better called faith’s fruit than its chief act.
Latin · §775
XCIX. Sed praecipua quaestio est de fiducia sumpta secundo modo, videlicet pro firma illa persuasione qua quis statuit gratiam se a Deo consecutum esse, & bona Evangelio promissa ad se pertinere. Multi ut supra ostendimus, ab hac fiducia fidem definiunt, & sic loquuntur quasi fides salvifica & justificans sine illa constare non posset, & vocant illam partem fidei primariam, & praecipuum atque specificum fidei salvificae actum, ut videre est in iis quae ante relata sunt ex Roberto Baronio, Riveto, Ursino, Paraeo, Wendelino, & aliquot aliis. Alii vero contra contendunt talem fiduciam & persuasionem, ad fidei quidem perfectionem, sed non ad intimam ejus essentiam spectare; illam esse quid proprium fidei corroboratae, sed non fidei infirmae; multos ad vere fidelium justificatorum numerum pertinere, qui tamen fiducia illa destituti sunt: proinde vocant illam fidei salvificae actum accidentalem, & non essentialem; non primarium, sed secundarium; non directum, sed reflexum: & censent illam rectius dici fructum & effectum fidei, quam praecipuum ejus actum. Ut manifestum est ex iis quae prolixe satis citavimus ex Perkinsio, Amesio, Davenantio, Wittichio, Widmario, Petro Molinaeo filio, & Anglicana ipsa Confessione Anni 1647.
Le Blanc holds the latter — grace-persuasion presupposes faith already in the heart§776
776Le Blanc’s earlier theses already took the Perkins–Ames side — and he still holds it.
Persuasion that I am reconciled and received into grace is secondary/accidental, not primary/essential.
Without special revelation it is only the conclusion of a syllogism: living faith working through love → reconciled; I find such faith in myself → therefore reconciled.
So the persuasion presupposes faith already in the heart — it cannot be faith’s essence.
Latin · §776
C. Et nos quoque Thesibus editis annis superioribus posteriorem illam sententiam amplexi sumus, & omnino tenendam esse existimamus. Quod enim ista fiducia qua quis certo statuit, & sibi persuadet, se Deo esse reconciliatum, & ab eo per Christum in gratiam receptum, non sit actus fidei primarius & essentialis, sed solum secundarius atque accidentalis, evidenter probari & demonstrari potest. Quippe nemo potest istud vere & legitime sibi persuadere, & apud se certo statuere, quin prius in se animum reflectens, & propriam conscientiam discutens atque examinans, veram vivamque fidem, ex contentis ejus in Scriptura notis, in se agnoverit atque perceperit. Nam talis persuasio, absque revelatione quadam speciali & extraordinaria, vera esse non potest, quin sit conclusio talis Syllogismi, Qui credit in Christum fide viva & operante per dilectionem Deo reconciliatus est, & ab eo per Christum in gratiam receptus. At dum ego propriam conscientiam excutio, agnosco in me talem fidem. Ergo sum Deo reconciliatus, & ab eo per Christum in gratiam receptus. Ac proinde haec persuasio praesupponit fidem jam in corde existentem, & sic non potest ejus essentiam constituere.
Pious doubters still belong among the faithful — do not drive them to despair§777
777Experience: many godly people trust God’s Word and promises, flee to him, and plead for mercy — yet are not sure grace is already theirs, anxious about whether their faith and repentance are sincere enough.
No reason to cast them out of the truly faithful.
Console them: the faith by which they flee and thirst is itself the faith to which God promised remission and salvation.
To demand certainty of obtained grace as if without it there is no true faith is to pave the way to despair.
Latin · §777
CI. Adde quod testatur experientia multos homines pios atque Dei timentes, quiique nullo modo dubitant de veritate Verbi Dei, & promissionum in eo contentarum, ac jugiter & serio ad Deum confugiunt, & ejus gratiam ac misericordiam ardentibus precibus implorant, nondum tamen esse certos de illa impetrata, quoniam scrupulis variis vexati anxii sunt de propria sua dispositione, & de propria fide & poenitentia dubitant, an satis seria atque syncera sit. Quos certe nulla ratio est, cur e vere fidelium numero excludamus. Nec videtur quomodo possimus conscientias eorum afflictas solari atque erigere, nisi doceamus eos hanc fidem per quam ad Deum confugiunt, & gratiam ejus sitiunt, & implorant, esse illam ipsam cui Deus peccatorum remissionem & salutem promisit. Imo vero viam ad desperationem sterneret, qui simpliciter eos hortaretur, ut certi sint de Dei gratia, quasi sine hoc vera fides esse nequiret.
Even Baron’s line admits grace-persuasion follows justification — it is not the justifying act§778
778Separate question: which act is the one through which faith justifies?
Oddly, even those who call past-tense redemption/remission persuasion faith’s chief specific act (Baron, Rivetus, Wendelin, Ames, Paraeus) still admit it is not the act by which faith justifies.
It follows justification already done — they teach both at once.
Latin · §778
CII. Sed praeterea hic est quaestio specialis de actu per quem fides justificat, & ratione cujus justificatio fidei tribuitur. Nam illi ipsi qui docent firmam persuasionem, qua statuimus Christum nos pretioso suo sanguine redemisse, & Deum Patrem propter ejus meritum omnia nostra peccata remisisse, esse praecipuum & specificum actum fidei justificantis, illi, inquam, quod mirum videri possit, agnoscunt nihilominus hanc persuasionem non esse actum quo fides justificat, sed qui justificationem jam factam consequitur: ut supra ostendimus de Roberto Baronio, Riveto, Wendelino, Amesio, & Paraeo. Qui omnes fidem describentes per fiduciam illam qua de Dei gratia erga nos certi sumus, & persuasum habemus peccata nostra esse per Christum condonata, simul tamen docent hanc persuasionem non esse actum per quem justificamur.
Against Chamier: believing sins already remitted cannot be the justifying act§779
779Chamier (and some): justify by the act of believing sins are already remitted — Le Blanc: wholly false.
That fiducia presupposes justification already done.
They concede a man is justified and sins remitted before he believes — against all Scripture: wrath remains on the unbeliever; faith and repentance are conditions of promised remission.
The justified are in grace and accepted for eternal life — yet without faith one cannot please God, and still serves sin.
Absurd to justify by what only follows justification.
Latin · §779
CIII. Chamierus tamen, & alii nonnulli volunt justificationem fidei tribuendam esse, ratione illius actus, quo credimus peccata nobis esse remissa. Sed haec sententia a vero prorsus aliena est. Quomodo enim possemus justificari per actum, qui justificationem jam factam praesupponit? Sed fiducia qua persuasum habemus peccata nobis jam esse condonata, supponit jam factam justificationem, siquidem jam justificatus est ille cui peccata remissa & condonata sunt. Concedit Chamierus, & qui cum eo sunt in ea sententia, hominem justificatum esse, & peccata esse remissa antequam credat. Sed hoc est toti Scripturae contrarium, quae perpetuo docet iram Dei super eum qui non credat manere, & fidem ac poenitentiam esse conditiones sub quibus nobis promittitur remissio peccatorum, & sine quibus illa haberi nequit. Adde quod qui justificatus est, hoc ipso est in statu gratiae, & Deo acceptus ad vitam aeternam. Sed impossibile est Deo placere sine fide; & qui nondum credit adhuc peccato servit, & filius est Diaboli & gehennae. Ut omittam quod jam dictum, omnino absurdum esse, si dicamus hominem justificari, per illud quod non praecedit justificationem, sed solum jam factam sequitur.
Chamier’s ‘all the justified have this faith’ proof proves too much — election parallel§780
780Chamier’s escape: faith “justifies” because every justified person eventually has this faith, and no one has it who is not justified.
Le Blanc: that proves too much — by the same logic we could say we are elected to grace through faith and good works, since every elect person eventually has them, and no one has them who is not elect.
Latin · §780
CIV. Nec tollit difficultatem quod dicit Chamierus, fidem dici justificare, quia omnes justificati, tandem ejus participes fiunt; nec in ullo reperitur qui non sit justificatus. Nam sic quoque dici possemus per fidem & bona opera electi esse ad gratiam: quia in omnibus electis ad gratiam reperiuntur tandem fides & bona opera, nec fides & bona opera in ullo reperiuntur, qui non sit etiam ad gratiam electus.
Many Reformed still call non-justifying grace-persuasion faith’s specific act — against reason§781
781So not a few Reformed doctors, seeing the force of the argument, deny that grace-persuasion (certainty that my sins are forgiven in Christ) is the act by which faith justifies.
Yet they still call that same persuasion justifying faith’s proper and specific act, and feature it in their definitions.
Le Blanc: that too leaves right reason — you cannot make a non-justifying fruit the specific differentia of justifying faith, or define saving faith by what only perfects it.
Latin · §781
CV. Itaque non pauci Scholae Reformatae Doctores, vim rationis istius penetrantes, negant persuasionem per quam certo aliquis confidit peccata sibi esse per Christum condonata, actum illum esse cujus respectu fides nos justificare dicitur: licet eandem persuasionem dicant esse actum proprium & specificum fidei justificantis, & praecipuam ejus in fidei definitione mentionem faciant. Qua in re ipsi quoque a recta ratione discedunt. Nec enim ratio patitur, ut dicamus, actum qui non justificat esse proprium & specificum actum fidei justificantis, prout distinguitur a fide historica & non justificante: & ut salvificam fidem definiamus ab actu qui ex ea manat & enascitur quidem, sed tamen essentiam ejus non constituit, & solum ad ejus perfectionem spectat.
Triple fiducia (future / present / past remission) — dispositive, formal, consolatory§782
782To save calling applying-fiducia the justifying act, some distinguish three moments in it: future (sins will be remitted), present (sins are being remitted), past (sins already remitted).
On their scheme: first only disposes; second formally justifies; third consoles by sensing justification done.
They call the consolatory sense “chief” because it most immediately comforts the faithful.
Latin · §782
CVI. Ut autem explicent quomodo nihilominus fiducia illa, quae promissiones gratiae credenti cuique sigillatim applicat, sit actus ille per quem justificamur, in fiducia ista triplicem actum distinguunt, ut verbis eorum supra exposuimus. Primus actus est quo credimus in futuro, peccata nobis esse remittenda: secundus, quo in praesenti credimus, peccata nobis remitti: tertius, quo credimus in praeterito peccata jam esse remissa. Per primum actum, juxta illos, homo disponitur quidem ad justificationem, sed donec in eo haeret, nondum est justificatus; per secundum accipit remissionem peccatorum, & actu justificatur; per tertium percipit & sentit jam factam justificationem; unde oritur ejus consolatio. Unde est quod dicunt primum actum esse dispositorium ad justificationem, secundum formaliter justificatorium, & tertium consolatorium. Quae ratio videtur, cur dicant illum esse in fide praecipuum, quia ad fidelium animarum consolationem maxime & proxime facit.
Justification is instantaneous — present-tense fiducia cannot be required of the pious§783
783Le Blanc: this triple cut is too subtle. Reformed doctrine holds justification indivisible and instantaneous — the moment the required condition is met, wrath ceases and acceptance begins for Christ’s sake.
No one can clock the instant of that last disposition so as to believe “sins are being remitted to me right now.”
Requiring present-tense fiducia traps many sincere penitents in scruples.
Enough for remission: sincere refuge to God’s mercy in Christ with trust of obtaining pardon.
Latin · §783
CVII. Sed in eo nimis subtiliter, & minus solide videntur Philosophari. Nam secundum Scholae Reformatae doctrinam, hominis justificatio consistit in indivisibili, & proinde fit in instanti. Quippe in eo sita est, quod simul ac peccator implevit eam conditionem, quam Deus ab eo postulat, ut peccata ipsi remittantur, cessat esse irae divinae obnoxius, & incipit esse Deo gratus, & acceptus ad vitam aeternam, propter Christi meritum & satisfactionem. Sed quomodo potest homo praecise observare & notare illud instans, quo conditio ista primum in eo impleta est, & formata ultima & proxima dispositio ad justificationem, ut in praesenti credat sibi tum remitti peccata? Et si ad justificationem hominis requiritur, ut in praesenti credat sibi peccata remitti, in quos scrupulos necesse est conjici multos viros pios & bonos, qui non potuerunt unquam instans istud animadvertere, in quo ipsis in praesenti peccata remitterentur? Nec quis potest ulla cum ratione negare, in homine seria poenitentia ducto, ad obtinendam a Deo remissionem peccatorum, sufficere syncerum ad Dei misericordiam in Christo perfugium, cum fiducia veniae impetrandae.
Instrument / condition / moral disposition coincide — no split of disposing vs formally justifying act§784
784Splitting a “disposing” act from a “formally justifying” act is not solid.
Reformers: faith justifies not as an infused form, but as instrument apprehending Christ’s merit, or as covenant-of-grace condition God imputes for Christ — which carefully weighed are the same.
Faith is not a physical instrument; only a moral one, because God promised remission to believers through living efficacious faith — i.e., the gracious covenant’s condition.
Moral disposition = the condition under which the benefit is received; so moral instrument, moral disposition, and condition coincide.
Therefore do not distinguish disposing faith from formally justifying faith.
Latin · §784
CVIII. Deinde non satis solidum & accuratum videtur, quod distinguunt actum qui disponit ad justificationem, ab eo quem dicunt esse formaliter justificatorium. Nec enim, ex sententia Reformatorum, fides justificat, tanquam forma quaedam per quam justificamur; sed vel ut instrumentum Christi meritum apprehendens, sicut loquuntur multi; vel ut alii non pauci loqui malunt, tanquam conditio foederis gratiae, quam Deus propter Christum ad justitiam imputat. Quae tamen, si accuratius perpendantur, eodem recidunt. Nec enim ullus dixerit fidem esse nostrae justificationis instrumentum Physicum; neque aliter potest hic intervenire fides, quam ut instrumentum morale. Instrumentum autem morale justificationis fidei esse non potest, nisi quatenus Deus credentibus promisit remissionem peccatorum, quam nemo assequi potest, nisi fidei vivae & efficacis interventu. Quod idem plane est, ac esse conditionem foederis gratuiti, quo Deus gratiam & gloriam offert credentibus & resipiscentibus. Similiter fides ad justificationem, non disponit Physice, sed tantum moraliter. Sed dispositio moralis ad beneficium aliquod, non aliud est quam conditio, sub qua illud obtinendum & recipiendum est. Ac proinde fides non aliter justificat, quam per modum cujusdam dispositionis; siquidem eodem hac in parte redeunt, instrumentum morale, dispositio moralis, & conditio sub qua aliquid recipitur. Unde sequitur, hic non esse distinguendum inter actum fidei qui disponit ad justificationem, & inter eum qui formaliter justificat.
The question means last proximate disposition — not Rivetus’s present-remission fiducia§785
785Some faith-acts dispose nearer, some remoter, to justification.
Among the Reformed the real question is: which act makes faith the last proximate disposition on which justification follows immediately and infallibly?
Rivet, Wendelin, Pareus, and Maresius answer: present-tense fiducia that my sins are specially being remitted now.
Le Blanc cannot assent, for the reasons already given.
Latin · §785
CIX. Sed inter actus fidei quidam sunt qui propius, alii qui remotius ad justificationem disponunt & praeparant. Quum vero apud Reformatos quaeritur, quis sit actus ille, per quem justificamur, sensus quaestionis est, ratione cujus actus, fides sit ultima illa & proxima dispositio, ad quam immediate & infallibiliter sequitur justificatio? Hunc autem actum Theologi jam dicti, Rivetus, Wendelinus, Paraeus, Maresius, volunt esse fiduciam, qua nobis persuademus peccata in praesenti speciatim nobis remitti; cui sententiae propter rationes jam dictas, assentiri non possumus.
Baron’s fiducia of pardon-to-be-obtained more probable — Wittich denies certainty as essential§786
786More probable: Robert Baron — the instrumental justifying act is fiducia of pardon to be obtained.
Others deny this if “fiducia” means certain faith-persuasion of remission (past or future) as essential; so Wittich.
They still allow, among required acts, hope of obtaining pardon — Scholastic fiducia spei.
Latin · §786
CX. Sed probabilior est sententia Roberti Baronii, qui docet actum fidei salvificae, qui est causa instrumentalis justificationis, esse fiduciam veniae impetrandae. Quod tamen negant alii, si per fiduciam intelligatur certa ex fide persuasio. Negant enim certam persuasionem de remissione peccatorum, vel in praeterito, vel in futuro, esse actum essentialem fidei justificantis; ut videre est apud Wittichium in locis citatis: Quanvis non negant inter actus ad justificationem hominis requisitos, locum habere spem veniae impetrandae, seu fiduciam illam, quae dicitur in Scholis fiducia spei.
Ames/Davenant refuge-fiducia still only part of the last disposition — do not isolate one act§787
787Still more probable: Ames, Davenant, Pierre Du Moulin fils, and others — the chief specific act is refuge-fiducia: clinging to God, leaning on him, fleeing to his mercy for grace and pardon.
Le Blanc’s candid caveat: do not tear saving faith’s acts apart so justification is pinned on one alone.
Refuge-fiducia is part of the last proximate disposition that infallibly brings justification — but not the whole; other acts belong there too.
Latin · §787
CXI. Plus ergo probabilitatis habet adhuc sententia Amesii, Davenantii, Petri Molinaei filii, & multorum aliorum superius allegatorum. Quae est praecipuum & specificum actum fidei justificantis, cui justificatio proprie tribuenda est, esse fiduciam illam qua Deo adhaeremus, eique innitimur, & ad misericordiam illius confugimus, ut gratiam & veniam ab eo impetremus. Sed ut ingenue dicam quid hac de re sentiam, non puto ita discerpendos & disjungendos esse fidei salvificae actus, ut uni, caeteris exclusis, tribuatur justificatio. Nam descripta fiducia est quidem pars illius ultimae, & proximae dispositionis cui promissum est Justificatio, & qua posita ponitur immediate & infallibiliter. Sed non sola illam constituit, & ad eandem dispositionem plures alii quoque actus pertinent.
Formal justifying act is complex — intellect and will informed together§788
788So the formal proper act by which saving faith justifies should be stated more generally — as including several particular acts that constitute that faith.
Most Reformed doctors agree: justifying faith is not one simple habit or act, but a complex of acts/habits informing intellect and will together.
Latin · §788
CXII. Itaque puto formalem & proprium fidei salvificae actum, & ratione cujus justificare dicenda est, generalius concipi & exprimi debere; & ita ut in se includat & involvat plures actus particulares fidem illam constituentes. Quandoquidem, ut jam est a nobis observatum, ex consensu maximae partis Doctorum Scholae Reformatae, fides illa non est unus simplex vel habitus, vel actus, sed complexum plurium actuum, vel habituum, qui non solum intellectum, sed ipsam quoque voluntatem informant.
Formal justifying act = practical fiducial assent to the whole Word, esp. Gospel promises§789
789So the formal act of saving justifying faith — the condition by which we are proximately disposed to justification, and through which Scripture says we are justified — is best stated as practical fiducial assent to the whole Word of God, especially the Gospel promises.
That assent embraces every act that constitutes living saving faith; it is God's appointed means of sharing Christ's benefits and the condition to which Scripture attaches remission and the rest of salvation.
As soon as such assent is present, for Christ's sake one ceases to be under wrath and begins to be accepted to eternal life — which is justification itself. No one shares those benefits before that assent.
Latin · §789
CXIII. Proinde meo judicio, nihil dici potest convenientius, quam actum formalem fidei salvificae & justificantis, qui proponitur tanquam salutis conditio, quo proxime disponimur ad justificationem, & per quem propterea Scriptura dicit nos justificari, nihil, inquam, convenientius dici potest, quam actum illum esse assensum practicum atque fiducialem adhibitum toti Dei Verbo, sed speciatim atque potissimum Evangelii promissionibus. Nam assensus ille practicus atque fiducialis sub se complectitur, & secum involvit omnes actus vivam & salvificam fidem constituentes: Et medium est a Deo destinatum per quod beneficiorum Christi participes simus; ac conditio illa cui Scriptura promittit remissionem peccatorum, & reliqua quibus constat hominis salus. Denique statim atque talis assensus in homine reperitur, propter Christum cessat esse irae divinae obnoxius, & incipit esse Deo gratus & acceptus ad vitam aeternam, quibus in rebus consistit hominis justificatio. Nec quisquam beneficiorum istorum particeps est, priusquam tali assensu praeditus sit.
Justifying application extends to practical use of the whole divine Word§790
790I also side with those who refuse to restrict justifying faith's distinctive application to either grace-persuasion or refuge-trust alone.
Extend it to practical consideration of the whole Word: trembling at threats, obeying commands, fixing hope on promises, and drawing consolation, gratitude, and love from redemption's mysteries.
Latin · §790
CXIV. Et ita quoque ad eorum sententiam accedo qui censent applicationem illam, quae justificantis fidei propria est, & per quam ab historica & mortua fide distinguitur, non esse restringendam ad illam persuasionem, per quam aliquis credit bona Evangelio promissa ad se pertinere, nec etiam ad illam fiduciam perfugii, qua quis in Deum recumbit, tanquam in authorem salutis, ut a malis suis liberetur, & bona salutaria a Deo consequatur; sed illam extendendam esse ad practicam totius Verbi Divini considerationem, per quam fit ut homo fidelis singulas ejus partes ad peculiarem suum usum referat, nempe ad minas contremiscens, & mandatis obsequens, & spem suam in divinis promissionibus figens; ac denique ex mysteriis redemptionis nostrae materiam consolationis, gratitudinis, & amoris erga Deum hauriens.
Opponent wrongly attacks Le Blanc for denying assurance is justifying faith's formal act§791
791From the Reformed doctrine just unpacked, that learned opponent who charges the Reformed with subverting Christian ethics attacks me without cause — as if my Certainty theses deserted common Reformed teaching.
His grievance: I deny that certain absolute trust that one's sins are already remitted is justifying faith's proper formal act — the condition or instrument of justification before God.
Latin · §791
CXV. Porro ex doctrina Scholae Reformatae, hactenus fideliter & syncere deducta, apparet quam immerito & absque ratione, vir ille doctus & disertus, qui nuper scripsit adversus Reformatos, tanquam Christianam Ethicen subvertentes, operis sui libro decimo, capite quarto, aggressus me sit, ut eum qui communem Reformatorum doctrinam deseruerim, Thesibus ante editis, De Certitudine quam quis habere possit & debeat de sua coram Deo justificatione. Idque quia ibi affirmo fiduciam certam atque absolutam de obtenta a Deo remissione peccatorum, & nostra per Christi gratiam reconciliatione, non esse proprium & formalem actum fidei justificantis, ratione cujus sit conditio, vel instrumentum nostrae coram Deo justificationis.
Ames: justifying trust leans on Christ — special assurance is later and separable§792
792Most Reformed doctors — Ames clearest — do not make already-granted remission the condition or instrument of justification.
Ames: we are justified by will's trust that leans on Christ / God's mercy — which naturally precedes believing sins are already remitted. Faith's justifying object is Christ (or mercy in him), not the proposition 'my sins are forgiven.'
Saving 'trust' here means choosing and resting on a sufficient means, not absolute persuasion of a future good — as one trusts friends or wealth.
General Word-assent is not saving; special 'God is my God' assent flows from faith rather than being its first act. Justifying trust sits between general assent and special grace-possession — and the latter can be temporarily absent in true believers.
Latin · §792
CXVI. Nam manifestum fecimus longe plurimos Scholae Reformatae Doctores, fiduciam illam non habere pro conditione sub qua, vel instrumento per quod justificemur. Et primo quidem istud ita clare de Amesio ostendimus, ut nullus possit esse dubitationi locus. Quandoquidem, ut patet, ex testimoniis ejus ante citatis, docet proprie peccata remitti, adeoque nos justificari, per actum illum fiduciae qua Christo innitimur, vel in misericordiam Dei per ipsum reclinamus: qui natura praecedit actum istum quo credimus peccata jam esse remissa. Fiduciam illam per quam justificamur esse actum voluntatis, non autem intellectus; adeoque objectum fidei quatenus justificat non esse veritatem alicujus propositionis, qualis est haec, mihi sunt per Christum remissa peccata; sed Christum ipsum, vel Dei misericordiam in Christo. Item salvificam fidem qua in Deum credimus, esse quidem veram ac propriam fiduciam: Verum non qua hac voce notatur certa & absoluta persuasio de bono futuro, sed qua significat electionem & apprehensionem sufficientis ac idonei medii, ac in quo persuasio & exspectatio talis fundatur. Quo sensu dicuntur homines fiduciam habere in sapientia, potentia, amicis, & opibus suis. Et sic credere in Deum, esse credendo adhaerere Deo, inniti Deo, acquiescere in Deo, tanquam in vita & salute nostra omni sufficiente. Proinde quemadmodum assensus generalis quem Dei Verbo adhibemus non est fides salvifica, quia potest esse sine ulla vita; ita quoque assensum specialem, quo statuimus Deum esse Deum nostrum in Christo, non esse actum primum fidei, sed solum actum ex fide emanantem. Verum fiduciam illam quam habet pro actu fidei proprio, & cui tribuit nostram justificationem, esse medium inter assensum generalem, quo firmiter credit aliquis veras esse promissiones factas credentibus & resipiscentibus, & inter assensum specialem, quo credit aliquis se divinae gratiae jam esse participem. Quoniam assensus ille generalis fiduciam istam parit, assensus vero specialis ex eadem fiducia fluit. Nec tamen vult ex ista fiducia qua Deo innitimur & ei adhaeremus, sic fluere istum assensum specialem, quo percipimus & apprehendimus gratiae jam factae possessionem actualem, quin possit, saltem ad tempus, ab ea separari: non enim omnes justificatos mox certos esse de sua justificatione; & experientiam docere, particularem istam certiorationem intellectus in quibusdam deesse ad tempus, qui tamen fidem veram in cordibus suis habent interim latentem.
Davenant: refuge-embrace always justifies; vivid sense of pardon is faith's daughter§793
793Davenant agrees with Ames: 'trust' names two things.
First — embracing Christ with both arms to obtain pardon, grace, and glory — always followed by justification, whether or not the sinner instantly feels remission gained.
Second — vivid persuasion of pardon already obtained — is justifying faith's daughter, born only after much exercise of faith and holiness.
Latin · §793
CXVII. Probavimus quoque idem cum Amesio sentire hac in parte Davenantium. Nam juxta ipsum, fiduciae vocabulum duo designat. Primo, ipsum actum innitendi & adhaerendi Jesu Christo, quo quasi ambabus ulnis Christum amplectimur, & per eum actum veniam, gratiam & gloriam conamur obtinere a Deo Patre: atque hunc putat esse illum actum, quem semper sequitur justificatio, id est, absolutio a peccatis, & acceptatio in gratiam favoremque divinum; sive peccator illo ipso primo momento animo concipiat obtentae remissionis, sive non. Secundo, solet etiam aliquando fiducia denotare consequens effectum fidei justificantis, nempe plenam persuasionem, & quasi vividum sensum remissionis impetratae, & obtenti favoris divini. Et fatetur hanc fiduciam non esse fidem justificantem, sed fidei justificantis filiam, quam anima justificata, nonnisi post multa fidei & sanctitatis exercitia solet eniti.
Young Du Moulin: refuge-trust justifies; sense-trust is perfection, often delayed§794
794Young Du Moulin uses Davenant's distinction: refuge-trust (fleeing to God, embracing Christ) is justifying faith's formal cause and instrument.
Sense-trust — feeling one has already grasped Christ and received pardon — is perfection, not essence; many justified believers lack it for a time.
Latin · §794
CXVIII. Eadem distinctione cum Davenantio utitur etiam, ut supra ostensum est, Petrus Molinaeus, Petri Molinaei filius Theologiae Doctor & Canonicus Cantuariensis, cujus quoque testimonio usi sumus in Thesibus, istis quas vellicat author ille, quicum jam nobis res est. Docet enim fiduciam illam, quae est causa formalis fidei justificantis, & instrumentum justificationis nostrae, esse fiduciam quam vocat perfugii, per quam ad Deum confugimus, & ipsi innitimur, Christumque amplectimur, & ei adhaeremus; non vero fiduciam, quae fiducia sensus ab eo appellatur; per quam sentimus nos Christum apprehendisse, & per eum veniam a Deo esse consecutos. Quinimo multos esse qui Christum vere apprehendunt, necdum tamen sentiunt se illum apprehendisse; & qui sunt coram Deo vere justificati, etsi de eo nondum certi & persuasi sint. Quoniam haec persuasio non pertinet ad fidei essentiam, sed solum ad ejus perfectionem; & est verae ac robustae fidei fructus & consequens quoddam.
Perkins: access to the throne justifies; 'I believe my sins remitted' is highest, often absent§795
795Perkins: the faith-act justification immediately follows is access to the throne of grace to find mercy in Christ.
The fifth, highest degree — distinct 'I believe my sins are remitted' — is often missing in true children of God whom mercy does not forsake.
Catechisms that define faith as full persuasion of God's love toward us describe faith at its summit, not its essence.
Latin · §795
CXIX. Similia docuimus apud Perkinsum haberi in pluribus ejus operibus. Nam actum illum fidei, quem immediate sequitur peccatoris justificatio, dicit esse accessum ad thronum gratiae, ut apprehenso ibidem Christo, inveniamus misericordiam apud Deum. Et postea tandem succedere quintum & summum fidei gradum, qui est specialis persuasio, qua promissiones Evangelicas quisque sibi applicat. Hunc autem fidei gradum summum & perfectissimum pertendit abesse a multis fidelibus, qui nequeunt distincte & certo de se dicere, credo ego remissionem peccatorum meorum. Quorum licet fides infirma sit, vere tamen sunt Dei filii, Et nihilominus eos divina misericordia non deficit, aut destituit. Adeoque Catechismos quosdam, qui fidem dicunt esse certam & plenam persuasionem de amore Dei & favore erga nos in Christo, fidem in summo & perfectissimo sui gradu definire.
Wittich (via Widmar): remission-assurance accidental; essential acts are assent, love, refuge-trust§796
796Wittich (Leiden), following Widmar: trust that sins are already remitted is accidental — an effect of strengthened faith, not justifying faith's essence.
Weak believers may truly believe yet be unable to persuade themselves they have or will receive remission.
Essential acts: general assent to revelation; special assent that Christ is sufficient Savior for those who flee to him (including me if I desire righteousness); sincere love of Christ; trust of certain help in trials.
Resting in Christ as sole fountain of salvation is essential; persuasion of past/future remission can be lacking in weak but real faith.
Latin · §796
CXX. In eandem quoque sententiam citavimus Wittichium Professorem Leydensem, qui inter actus fidei salvificae accidentales, & qui fidei tantum corroboratae conveniunt, ponit fiduciam de remissione peccatorum a Deo impetrata. Et observat ad fidei justificantis essentiam, sive rationem formalem, Non requiri fiduciam remissionis peccatorum, sive in praeterito, sive in futuro, sed eam esse effectum fidei magis corroboratae & plenae. Quoniam experientia docet infirmos quosdam fideles revera habere fidem, qui tamen nondum possunt sibi, propter suam imbecillitatem, persuadere, quod habeant vel sint consecuturi remissionem peccatorum. Actus autem fidei essentiales docet esse, assensum tum generalem omnibus revelatis, tum specialem huic veritati, quod Christus sit sufficiens salvator omnibus ad se confugientibus, adeoque etiam mihi, si serio desiderem justitiam, atque ad Christum confugere velim. Deinde amorem Christi syncerum inde orientem. Ac tertio fiduciam qua nobis persuademus, auxilium certum nos accepturos a Christo salvatore in omnibus angustiis & tentationibus, innixi promissionibus factis omnibus ad se confugientibus. Denique distinguit fiduciam illam, per quam acquiescimus in Christo & Deo, tanquam unico fonte & authore salutis, & servatore sufficienti omnibus ad se confugientibus, quam dicit ad fidei essentiam omnino pertinere, a fiducia prout significat persuasionem de remissione peccatorum, sive in praeterito, sive in futuro, qua dicit fidem posse destitui, sed ejusmodi fidem infirmam esse. Quam doctrinam testatur se primum accepisse a praeceptore suo reverendo Widmario Professore Groningano.
Walaeus & Mestrezat: we are justified by receiving Christ, not by believing remission already past§797
797Walaeus: the first justifying faith-act is receiving Christ with his merit unto coming remission — not believing remission already past — via will's trust after general assent.
Mestrezat's definition matches: justifying faith is the penitent sinner's refuge to God's mercy in Christ.
Latin · §797
CXXI. Praeterea his adjungimus Antonium Walaeum, qui negat Actum primum fidei quo justificamur, esse actum illum quo creditur remissio peccatorum, sed quo recipitur Christus cum merito ejus, in remissionem peccatorum, non praeteritam, sed sequentem; atque istud non tam per assensum particularem, quam per fiduciam illam voluntatis a generali assensu sequitur. Nec alia potest esse mens Joannis Mestrezatii, cui fides justificans definitur perfugium peccatoris poenitentis ad Dei misericordiam in Christo.
Martyr, Musculus, Zanchi define faith without making remitted-sins persuasion the primary act§798
798Martyr and Musculus never make already-obtained remission the primary justifying act — their definitions omit it.
Musculus: constant heart-assent to what the Word narrates or promises. Martyr: firm Spirit-breathed assent that draws trust, hope, charity, and good works — trust as will's affection (effect), not mind's persuasion (formal act).
Zanchi locates the formal act in trust of obtaining pardon/righteousness/life through Christ — not persuasion that they are already ours.
Latin · §798
CXXII. Promptum est quoque colligere ex fidei definitione, quam tradunt Petrus Martyr, & Volfgangus Musculus, illos non existimasse firmam persuasionem de impetrata a Deo remissione peccatorum, esse primarium & specificum actum fidei salvificae, & illum ipsum quo justificamur: quandoquidem nullam omnino mentionem ejus faciunt in definitione fidei justificantis, quam, ut saepius jam indicavimus, Musculus dicit esse Constantem assensum cordis ad ea quae vel narrantur, vel promittuntur Verbo. Martyr autem, Firmum certumque assensum Verbis Dei, a Spiritu divino afflatum ad salutem credentium. Et per firmum assensum declarat se intelligere, eum qui sit tantarum virium & efficaciae, ut secum trahat affectum fiduciae, spei, charitatis, & omnia tandem bona opera. Ubi per fiduciam intelligit, ut patet, affectum voluntatis, non mentis persuasionem, & illam facit effectum fidei, non vero actum proprium & formalem. Sicut & Musculus exponit credere in Deum, quod ipsi est tertia & potissima fidei pars, per spem omnem in Deum dirigere, firmaque fiducia ab illius bonitate pendere. Ac praeterea certum est ex definitione fidei justificantis, quam ex Zanchio retulimus, illum non constituere proprium & formalem actum fidei justificantis in fiducia seu persuasione de justitia & peccatorum venia quam a Deo consecuti sumus; sed in fiducia de illa obtinenda. Siquidem fidem dicit esse firmum & indubitatum assensum in promissiones Dei, de remissione peccatorum & justitia accipienda, aeternaque vita consequenda a Deo per & propter Christum.
Westminster 1647 separates saving faith (ch. 14) from assurance (ch. 18)§799
799The 1647 Anglican Confession's framers are especially clear: formal essential faith is not assurance of grace already received.
Ch. 14 treats saving faith; ch. 18 treats certainty of being in grace — and says a true believer may long lack that certainty, await it, and struggle before obtaining it.
Latin · §799
CXXIII. Sed praesertim manifestum est, ex iis quae supra retulimus, Theologos illos, quorum opera edita est Anglicana Confessio Anni 1647. Formalem & essentialem fidei actum non ponere, in illa persuasione, qua quis certus & securus est de Dei erga se gratia & benevolentia, & de impetrata suorum peccatorum remissione. Siquidem separatim agit illa Confessio de Fide salvifica, cap. 14. & de Certitudine quam quis habet quod sit in gratia Dei, cap. 18. Et ibi agens de ista certitudine, docet eam non sic esse de essentia fidei, quin vere fidelis possit ea diu carere, & eam expectare, & luctari cum multis difficultatibus, priusquam certitudinem illam adipiscatur.
Even Baron, Rivet, Wendelin, Pareus, Maresius deny past-remission trust is the justifying act§800
800Even the doctors the opponent cites — Baron, Rivet, Wendelin, Pareus, Maresius — expressly deny that trust in already remitted sins is the act by which we are justified.
Baron: trust of pardon still to be obtained instruments justification; trust of pardon already obtained follows it.
Rivet and company distinguish three tenses (sins to be remitted, now being remitted, already remitted) and make only the present tense formally justifying — a subtlety Le Blanc rejects, yet it still refutes pinning past remission persuasion on them as the justifying act.
They may call assurance chief or specific for consolation and to discriminate saving from historical faith, and because Rome contested it — not because it instruments justification.
Latin · §800
CXXIV. Imo illi ipsi Scholae Reformatae Doctores, quorum testimonio praecipue nititur autor ille, qui corruptae Christi Ethices Reformatos accusat, ut toti eorum Scholae tribuat eam sententiam, quod actus fidei per quem justificamur, sit certa fiducia de obtenta a Deo peccatorum venia, expresse & diserte negant se istud sentire; ut abunde supra probatum est, allatis verbis & testimoniis Roberti Baronii, Riveti, Wendelini, Paraei, Maresii. Baronium nempe, distinguere inter fiduciam veniae impetrandae, & fiduciam veniae impetratae: utramque ipsi esse actum proprium fidei justificantis; sed priorem praecedere justificationem, & esse ejus instrumentum; posteriorem vero sequi justificationem, nec ejus instrumentum esse. Rivetum autem, Wendelinum, Paraeum, & Maresium subtilius adhuc distinguere inter fiduciam, qua credit aliquis peccata sibi remittenda, illam qua credit peccata sibi in praesenti remitti; & illam qua credit sibi remissa esse. Primum actum juxta ipsos, hominem disponere ad justificationem, secundum eum actu & reipsa justificare, tertium vero minime, sed per eum percipi jam factam justificationem, & inde fidelis animae solatium pendere. Quam subtilitatem quamquam non probemus, certum est iis tribui non posse, nisi per injuriam, & contra veritatem, quod doceant actum illum per quem justificamur, esse illum quo statuunt fideles singuli per Christum sibi remissa esse peccata, quandoquidem verbis expressis istud negant. Idque in illis ipsis tractatibus & quaestionibus, ubi eundem actum dicunt esse praecipuum & specificum fidei salvificae actum, & per eundem fidem justificantem definiunt. Nempe dicunt illum esse praecipuum actum fidei salvificae, quia praecipue facit ad pacem conscientiae, & fidelium consolationem; & specificum quoque, quia fidem salvificam ab historica discriminat: Et expressam ejus mentionem faciunt in fidei definitione, quia de tali fiducia & persuasione maxima erat mota controversia inter Scholam Romanam, & inter Reformatam.
Elder Du Moulin defines by complete faith yet keeps weak faith without full assurance§801
801Elder Du Moulin defines faith as assent that Gospel promises are true and mine — yet refuses to expunge from the faithful those who have not reached that degree.
God commands such trust but does not give it to all at the same time or measure; weak unfeigned faith without that persuasion remains saving.
His definition describes faith's complete perfect stature — not the bare essence without which faith cannot exist (as Ames and Perkins noted).
Latin · §801
CXXV. Quin ipse Petrus Molinaeus pater, in Thesibus illis ubi fidem definit per assensum adhibitum promissionibus Evangelii, quo fidelis non tantum credit eas esse veras, sed etiam ad se peculiariter pertinere, observat tamen se non albo fidelium expungere quotquot hunc fidei gradum nondum sunt assecuti, & fiduciam illam a Deo quidem juberi, sed non dari omnibus fidelibus eodem tempore, vel mensura: & dari fidem infirmam, nec tamen simulatam, quae certa ejusmodi persuasione adhuc destituitur; & quae non propterea definit esse salutaris. Ex quibus patet virum illum celeberrimum, dum fidem definit per assensum quo quis credit promissiones Evangelii, non tantum esse veras, sed etiam ad se peculiariter pertinere; per id significatum velle qualis fides esse debeat, secundum esse suum completum & perfectum, & ita ut nullus actuum, quos producere apta nata est, illi desit: non vero definire quid ad fidei essentiam necessario requiratur, ita ut sine eo consistere non possit; juxta illud quod superius fuit ex Amesio & Perkinsio notatum.
Le Blanc's denial of remitted-sins persuasion as formal act has wide Reformed backing§802
802Fair readers — and the opponent's conscience — should judge whether denying remitted-sins persuasion as faith's formal justifying act deserts universal Reformed doctrine, or foists a novel fringe view.
Le Blanc's side includes Zanchi, Martyr, Musculus, Perkins, Davenant (Dort subscriber), Ames, Mestrezat, young Du Moulin, Walaeus, Widmar, Wittich, and the Anglican Confession (~30 years earlier).
Even Rivet, Wendelin, Pareus — plus Baron and Maresius — teach the same point in express words, though Le Blanc does not fully approve their wider account on this question.
Latin · §802
CXXVI. Quae cum ita sint, judicet aequus lector, & ipsa Viri Docti, qui Theses meas carpit, conscientia, num ab ipso jure reprehendar, tanquam is qui deseruerim doctrinam in Schola Reformata universim hactenus receptam; ac dolose & dissimulanter, & contra propriam meam conscientiam, obtrudere coner, seu doctrinam in eadem Schola probatam, opinionem quandam novitiam, & ante paucos tantum annos propositam & admissam a duobus vel tribus solum obscuri nominis inter Reformatos Ministris: Idque propterea quod negem actum formalem fidei salvificae, & cujus respectu ipsi tribuitur justificatio, esse persuasionem qua fideles singuli statuunt sibi esse remissa peccata? Quandoquidem palam est ea in re me sequi, aut astipulantes habere Viros in Schola Reformata, tum hoc seculo, tum superiori, Doctissimos & Celeberrimos, Zanchium, Martyrem, Musculum, Perkinsium, Davenantium Episcopum Sarisburiensem, qui Synodo Dordracenae & interfuit & subscripsit, Amesium Franekeranae Theologiae Professorem, Joannem Mestrezatium, apud Parisienses V. D. M. notissimum, Petrum Molinaeum filium, Theologiae Doctorem & Canonicum Cantuariensem, Antonium Walaeum Professorem Leydensem, Widmarium Professorem in Academia Groningana, & Christophorum Wittichium ante hac Noviomagi, & nunc Lugduni Batavorum Theologiae itidem Professorem, ac denique ipsam Confessionem Anglicanam, ante annos paulo minus quam triginta, Theologorum Presbyterianorum communi consensu conscriptam & editam. Ut omittam Theologos ipsos quorum testimonia mihi objicit vir Doctus, Rivetum, Wendelinum, & Davidem Paraeum; quibus addere possunt Robertum Baronium Professorem Aberdonensem, & Samuelem Maresium Professorem Groninganum, idem mecum hac in parte sentire, & docere verbis disertis & expressis; licet alioqui mihi non omnino probetur eorum in hac quaestione doctrina.
Judge Reformers by what they teach ex professo, not by strained inferences§803
803The opponent boasts no Reformer would accuse him of misrepresentation while claiming their common sense makes obtained-remission trust faith's formal act.
Better to judge Reformers by what they teach when they treat this question head-on than by strained side-inferences — especially when many doctors expressly reject his 'common' doctrine.
Latin · §803
CXXVII. Judicandum etiam lectoribus relinquo, quam vana sit viri Docti gloriatio, qua jactat se non timere, ut ullus Reformatorum audeat ipsum accusare, quod quicquam iis imponat, dum intrepide asserit, ex communi eorum sensu, proprium & formalem actum fidei justificantis esse certam fiduciam de obtenta a Deo remissione peccatorum? & praeterea annon aequius sit de Reformatorum sententia judicare, ex illis quae ipsi diserte docent & affirmant, dum ex professo tractant hanc Quaestionem, quam ex consequentis aliunde petitis, quales sunt eae quibus plurimum utitur vir Doctus, quicum jam mihi res est, ut probet eam esse communiter receptam Scholae Reformatae doctrinam, quam a plurimis ejus Doctoribus expresse tamen rejici ostendimus.
Second charge: Le Blanc calumniates Rome for stating what is truly Reformed consensus§804
804Second charge: not only do I hide true Reformed doctrine under a novel private opinion, but I falsely brand Rome as calumnious for stating what really is Reformed consensus.
Le Blanc will answer this calumny charge next from his own opening thesis.
Latin · §804
CXXVIII. Nec difficilius est alterum crimen eluere quod mihi impingit vir Doctus. Nempe, si ipsi creditur, ego non tantum dissimulo quae sit vera Scholae Reformatae doctrina, ut ejus loco substituam, opinionem quandam novitiam & privatam, ultimis hisce demum annis, a duobus vel tribus obscuri nominis inter Reformatos hominibus admissam & probatam: Sed ulterius in mea dissimulatione pergens, audeo calumniae accusare Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, quod eam dicant esse Reformatorum communem sententiam, quae revera talis est.
Opponent quotes Le Blanc's Thesis I listing Rome's four imputed calumnies on justification§805
805To convict Le Blanc, the opponent cites Thesis I's list of calumnies Rome often pins on Protestants regarding justification:
(1) all persons can/ought by certain faith believe their sins remitted and themselves just before God;
(2) with the same firmness as believing Christ is God's Son and world's Redeemer;
(3) such persuasion so necessary that without it none is truly faithful/just;
(4) true saving faith consists in that persuasion as its proper chief act — justifying even the vicious without good works.
Le Blanc names Bellarmine and Becanus as sources who suppose or expressly fasten these on the Reformed.
Latin · §805
CXXIX. Atque ut criminis illius me convincat, profert primam Thesium illarum quas vellicandas sibi proposuit. Verba Theseos sunt, Inter varias calumnias quibus Protestantium Doctrina in Justificationis negotio impetitur, hae quoque frequenter occurrunt. Quod communi consensu doceant, omnes & singulos Homines posse & debere certa fide credere sibi fuisse remissa peccata, & se coram Deo justos esse. Id illis tam firmiter persuasum esse debere, quam hoc, Jesum Christum esse Dei filium & Mundi Redemptorem, & similia fidei dogmata. Talem persuasionem ita necessariam esse, ut absque ea nemo vere fidelis & justus esse possit, non secus ac si credere detrectaret aliquem ex praecipuis & fundamentalibus fidei articulis. In ejusmodi persuasione fidem veram & salvificam constituendam esse, tanquam in ejus actu proprio atque praecipuo: adeoque homines tali fide, & quidem sola, coram Deo justificari, licet alioqui vitiis indulgeant, nec studeant bonis operibus. Istud praesertim videre est apud Bellarminum & Becanum Jesuitas, qui talia vel supponunt, vel etiam expresse & diserte nobis affingunt, in suis contra nos disputationibus.
Issue is common-consent dogma — not whether some Reformed gave occasion for the charge§806
806The real question is not whether some Reformed gave occasion for the charge.
It is whether Reformed theologians teach those four points by common consent as received faith-articles nearly all subscribe — as the opponent claims. Le Blanc says affirming that is calumny.
Defense needs only many celebrated Orthodox Reformed who reject the imputation; a few who taught or seemed to imply it does not prove school-wide dogma while others contradict without being branded heterodox.
Latin · §806
CXXX. Ubi diligenter observatum velim inter me & virum Doctum quaestionem non esse, An quidam ex Reformatis occasionem dederint ista ipsis imputandi? Nec enim Thesis asserit ista non posse absque calumnia ullis ex Doctoribus Reformatis tribui. Sed hoc quaeri, An Scholae Reformatae Theologi ista communi consensu doceant, tanquam fidei inter ipsos receptae dogmata atque articulos, quibus subscribant omnes hactenus noti & alicujus nominis Reformati, exceptis solum duobus vel tribus novis hominibus? quod affirmat vir Doctus. Et quod in Thesi asserui, & de novo constanter assero, non posse absque calumnia poni & affirmari. Itaque ad Thesis meae defensionem suffecerit, si manifeste ostendam multos ex Reformatis veteribus & recentioribus, qui scriptis suis sunt apud suos celebres, & in Schola Reformata pro viris piis & Orthodoxis habentur, quae nobis imputat vir Doctus rejicere & repudiare. Contra vero nihil egerit vir Doctus, etiamsi proferre posset aliquot ex Reformatis, qui, vel ista docuerint, vel saltem ea scripserint ex quibus videntur aperte deduci; dummodo sint qui contrariam asserant, & aliud hac in parte se sentire profitantur, nec propterea tamen pro Heterodoxis a suis habeantur.
First calumny answered: remitted-sins persuasion is not Reformed formal act of faith§807
807Briefly, taking the charges in reverse: it is calumny to say Reformed theologians teach by common consent that faith's formal justifying act is each believer's certain persuasion that sins are remitted and he is just before God — and that without that persuasion none is truly faithful, as if denying a fundamental article.
Perkins, Davenant, Ames, Mestrezat, Du Moulin, Walaeus, and Wittich following Widmar expressly deny that saving faith's formal act is already-obtained-grace certainty; it is rather fleeing to God and leaning on him for mercy through Christ — and the former trust can be absent even from the justified for a time, as also the Presbyterian Anglican Confession teaches.
Musculus and Peter Martyr likewise place faith's essence in Spirit-wrought firm heart-assent that draws fiducia, hope, charity, and good works — not in remitted-sins persuasion.
Latin · §807
CXXXI. Sed jam breviter singula perstringamus. Atque ut ea ordine retrogrado resumam, incipiendo a posterioribus; Annon clarum est, ex iis quae fuse supra deduximus, Per calumniam Theologis Reformatis tribui, quod communi consensu doceant proprium & formalem fidei actum, per quem justificamur, esse certam persuasionem quae singulis fidelibus inest, quod peccata ipsis remissa sunt, & quod sunt coram Deo justi: adeoque talem persuasionem ita necessariam esse, ut absque ea nemo vere fidelis & justus esse possit, non secus ac si credere detrectaret aliquem ex praecipuis & fundamentalibus fidei articulis? Nam saepius jam allata sunt testimonia Perkinsii, Davenantii, Amesii, Mestrezatii, Petri Molinaei, Antonii Walaei, & Wittichii, qui in eo sequitur Widmarium, qui expresse negant fiduciam, quae est fidei salvificae actus formalis atque praecipuus, eam esse qua certi & persuasi sumus de gratia jam impetrata; sed eam per quam ad Deum confugimus eique innitimur, ut misericordiam per Christum consequamur: & priorem illam fiduciam posse a vere fideli & justificato abesse, & saltem ad tempus a fide separari: quae est etiam aperta doctrina Confessionis Anglicanae, a Theologis Presbyterianis conscriptae atque publicatae. Num igitur citra calumniam dici possunt communi consensu docere Reformati, quod negant tot inter eos Theologiae Professores scriptis suis celebrati, imo illae ipsae, quibus plurimi eorum subscribunt, fidei Confessiones? Ut omittam eos qui quaestionem illam expresse non moventes, alia tamen in re formam & essentiam fidei constituunt quam in illa persuasione de obtenta jam a Deo remissione peccatorum, ut Musculum & Petrum Martyrem, quibus fides est simpliciter firmus & constans assensus cordis ad ea quae vel narrantur, vel promittuntur Verbo, a Spiritu Sancto afflatus ad salutem credentium: quique firmum assensum exponunt, per eum qui sit tantarum virium & efficaciae, ut secum trahat affectum fiduciae, spei & charitatis, & omnia tandem bona opera; & similiter credere in Deum, qui ipsis est praecipuus actus fidei salvificae, exponunt per spem omnem in Deum dirigere, firmaque fiducia ab illius bonitate pendere.
Second point: own-justification certainty is not held as firm as faith that Christ is God's Son§808
808Not all Reformed doctors teach that each believer must be as firmly sure of personal justification and eternal salvation as of the dogma that Christ is God's Son and the world's Redeemer — so calling that common consent is false calumny.
Many Reformed already grant that own-salvation persuasion can be separated from faith for a long time and belongs only to faith's accidental perfection — so it cannot bind with the same firmness as the Christ-article, which no one can lose even briefly and still remain truly faithful.
Latin · §808
CXXXIII. Nec minus evidenter probare possum non omnes Scholae Reformatae Doctores sentire & docere, quod singuli fideles tam firmiter & certo persuasi esse debeant se esse justos coram Deo, & sibi esse remissa peccata, adeoque salutis aeternae se fore compotes; quam certo credere tenentur Christum esse Dei filium, & mundi Redemptorem, & similia fidei Christianae dogmata: ac per consequens falsum & calumniosum esse, si quis dicat a Reformatis istud communi consensu doceri. Et primo quidem ex eo quod plurimi ex Reformatis, sicut jam ostensum est, agnoscunt talem persuasionem de propria salute, & remissione peccatorum suorum, posse saltem ad longum tempus, a fide separari, & non esse fidei salvificae essentialem, sed ad perfectionem ejus accidentalem solummodo pertinere, ex eo, inquam, manifeste sequitur, juxta eorum sententiam, id fidelibus tam firmiter persuasum esse non debere, quam hoc quod Jesus Christus sit Dei filius, & mundi Redemptor. Nam certa persuasio de hoc articulo non potest a vera fide separari: neque potest aliquis ea persuasione ad tempus destitui, & tamen vere fidelis manere, secundum receptam & omnibus probatam Scholae Reformatae doctrinam.
British Dort deputies: assurance persuasion may be vivid, languid, or null — below dogmatic faith§809
809The British Dort deputies, chiefly Bishop George of Llandaff and Davenant, state for their church: assurance-persuasion lacks certainty that forever rules out contrary fear — sometimes vivid, sometimes weak, sometimes null in heavy temptation.
Its weakness comes first because personal trust sits below dogmatic faith: Catholic articles bind assent as immediate principles, while special-faith truth is only assumed; the conclusion cannot be firmer than its weaker premise — experimental marks often doubted or clouded by temptation.
Latin · §809
CXXXIV. Sed praeterea mentem suam ea de re diserte & clare aperiunt Theologi Magnae Britanniae, ex Anglicano Clero ad Dordracenam Synodum deputati, in judicio suo super quintum Articulum Doctrinae Remonstrantium, quod actis Synodi illius insertum est. Illi ergo numero quinque, quorum praecipui erant Georgius Episcopus Landavensis, & Davenantius qui postea fuit Episcopus Sarisburiensis, Ecclesiae suae nomine, loquentes de persuasione, quam habere potest quivis fidelium de gratia & salute propria, hanc Thesin constituunt: Persuasio haec non habet illum certitudinis gradum, qui omnem contrarii formidinem perpetuo excludat; sed aliquando vivida est, aliquando languida, aliquando, ut in gravissimis tentationibus, nulla. Et postea in ejusdem Theseos explicatione, assertionis suae rationem reddentes, dicunt debilitatem istius persuasionis inde primo oriri, quod non habet eundem certitudinis gradum cum fide dogmatica. Primo, inquiunt, debilitas oritur ex ipsa fundamentali hujus personalis fiduciae dependentia, quae infra fidei dogmaticae certitudinem videtur subsidere. Assensum quippe nostrum afficiunt fidei Catholicae articuli, ut principia immediata, ac prima. Fidei autem specialis veritas, non inde deducitur, ut quiddam necessario consequens, sed tantum subjungitur per modum assumptionis. Ergo illius quae hanc persuasionem facit conclusionis, non potest esse firmitudo major, quam quae praemissarum debiliori inest. Subsumptio autem illa experimentalibus nititur indiciis per privatam hominis conscientiam pensitatis. Quae cum nonnunquam in dubium vocentur, an sint signa genuina; saepe autem tentationum nube occultentur, ne ad praesens solatium effulgeant; quid mirum si non semper in promptu sit vegeta & valida fidelium de sua aeterna salute persuasio?
Opponent misreads Dort V.9 as equating assurance with divine-faith certainty§810
810Given that the British deputies' votes shaped Dort's Canons and their judgment stands in the acts, the opponent has little ground to read Dort V.9 as defining own-grace persuasion equal in kind and certainty to divine faith in immediately revealed articles.
Dort V.9 says the faithful can and are certain, according to the measure of faith, that they remain living church members, have remission, and eternal life — not that this certainty matches assent to the chief revealed articles.
Readers should ask whether the carping Learned Man reads Dort better than the deputies who drafted and first signed its decrees.
Latin · §810
CXXXV. Porro ex hac Doctrina Theologorum Britannorum, secundum quorum suffragia conditi sunt Canones Synodi Dordracenae, & quorum hocce judicium actis, ut dixi, Synodi illius insertum est, colligere licet quanta cum ratione vir ille Doctus qui meas Theses carpit, profert verba ejusdem Synodi, quasi definierit persuasionem quam habent fideles de gratia & salute propria, esse ejusdem rationis, firmitatis, & certitudinis cum divina illa fide, qua fidei articulis immediate a Deo revelatis assentimur. Verba unde istud exsculpere conatur, habentur in quinto doctrinae capite, articulo nono, qui sic habet: De hac electorum ad salutem custodia, veraeque fidelium in fide perseverantia, ipsi fideles certi esse possunt, & sunt, pro mensura fidei, qua credunt se esse & perpetuo mansuros, vera & viva Ecclesiae membra, habere remissionem peccatorum, & vitam aeternam. Quibus verbis judicet lector; An definitum sit fidem qua fideles certi sunt, se remissionem peccatorum & vitam aeternam habere, aequalis esse certitudinis, firmitatis & necessitatis cum divina illa fide, qua praecipuis fidei articulis assentimur? Et num verisimile sit virum Doctum melius sensa Dordracenae Synodi percipere; quam illos ipsos qui ad conficienda ejus decreta operam contulerunt, & primi illis subscripserunt?
Ames with the British: 'my sins are remitted' is a deduced conclusion, lesser certainty than principles§811
811Ames aligns with the British: answering Bellarmine's framed question — can one without special revelation be certain with divine-faith certainty that sins are remitted? — Ames says Bellarmine fails to distinguish degrees: principles immediately revealed versus deduced conclusions, and faith-in-itself versus fiducia in apprehension or hope.
Once ambiguities are cleared, Ames defends the affirmative against Rome's denial — but not with equal certainty across all that is called divine faith.
Because 'my sins are remitted' is a deduced conclusion, not an immediately revealed principle, faith holds it with lesser certainty than the principles.
Latin · §811
CXXXVI. Deinde cum Theologis illis Magnae Britanniae, idem hac in parte sentire Amesium, clare ostendunt ejus verba quae alicubi citat in rem suam vir doctus. Dixerat Bellarminus statum quaestionis de certitudine quam quis habere possit, vel debeat de sua justificatione, & remissione peccatorum suorum, si absque fallacia & ambiguitate constituatur, hunc esse: Utrum debeat, aut possit aliquis, sine speciali revelatione, certus esse certitudine fidei divinae, cui nullo modo potest subesse falsum, sibi esse remissa peccata. Respondet Amesius his verbis: Sine omni fallacia & ambiguitate, non ponitur in hoc statu certitudo fidei divinae; quia non distinguit Bellarminus inter gradus certitudinis hujus, respectu principiorum quae immediate revelantur, & conclusionum ex illis evidenter deductarum, & inter certitudinem fidei in sese & illam quae est ex fide vel in apprehensione, vel in spe. Sed istis ambiguitatibus, admittimus hunc statum quaestionis, & affirmativam partem tuebimur contra Pontificiorum negativam. Sensus Amesii satis manifestus est illis qui sunt in Amesii lectione & doctrina versati, nempe in omnibus, quae dicuntur fide divina credi, non esse parem certitudinis gradum: Nam fide divina creditur non tantum principia immediate revelata, sed etiam conclusiones, quae ex principiis illis evidenter deducuntur; fidem autem non pari cum certitudine versari circa conclusiones & circa principia. Proinde cum haec propositio, mihi sunt remissa peccata, non sit immediate a Deo revelata, sed solum conclusio ex principiis revelatis deducta, fidem minori cum certitudine illam amplecti, quam ipsa principia.
Ames: faith-in-itself requires greater certainty than fiducia born from faith§812
812Ames further distinguishes faith-in-itself from fiducia that rises from faith — the trust by which we grasp a present good or hope a future one.
Greater certainty belongs to faith itself than to that born fiducia, even when the fiducia is loosely called faith.
So when believers are said to be divinely certain of accepted grace or coming salvation, Ames means fiducia from faith, not justifying faith as such — and that fiducia has lesser certainty.
Latin · §812
CXXXVII. Praeterea indicat Amesius distinguendum esse, inter fidem in sese, & respectu actuum qui ad ejus essentiam requiruntur, consideratam; & inter fiduciam ex fide orientem, per quam vel praesens aliquod bonum apprehendimus, vel futurum speramus. Majorem autem certitudinis gradum in ipsa fide esse & requiri, quam in fiducia ex fide nascente, per quam, vel de bono praesenti, vel de futuro persuasi sumus; licet eadem fiducia, fidei quoque nomine designetur. Jam vero juxta Amesium, quum fideles dicuntur fide divina certi, vel de accepta gratia, vel de salute obtinenda, per fidem ibi intelligenda est, non fides justificans & salvifica in sese, sed fiducia ex fide oriens, per quam, vel apprehendimus jam concessam a Deo remissionem peccatorum, vel futuram salutem speramus. Proinde fiduciae isti, quae ex fide nascitur, ex mente Amesii minor competit certitudo, quam fidei, si in sese consideretur.
Many Reformers: calling assurance an act of faith does not equalize it with 'Christ is God's Son'§813
813Many Reformers expressly teach graded certainty within faith: some assents rest on revelation alone; others mix revelation with report, reason, or sensory experience — yet both count as acts of faith.
Equal firmness does not follow: maximum certainty belongs to revelation-alone articles; mixed conclusions vary with the weaker premise — as Le Blanc already taught, and many Reformed doctors openly say.
So calling own-grace persuasion an act of faith does not prove common Reformed consent that it matches certainty that Christ is God's Son and the world's Redeemer.
Latin · §813
CXXXVIII. Patet igitur, secundum expressam Reformatorum multorum doctrinam, inter ea quae ad fidem pertinent, varios esse certitudinis gradus, quoniam fides eorum respectu, non eodem modo se habet. Sunt enim quaedam circa quae assensus noster unice & immediate nititur divina revelatione: alia vero circa quae partim divina revelatione, partim alius generis mediis atque argumentis nititur; cujusmodi sunt conclusiones ex una propositione revelata deductae, & ex altera, quae vel fama constanti, vel rationis lumine, vel sensuum tum externorum, tum internorum experientia, cognita nobis & manifesta est. Et haec & illa ad fidem referuntur, & assensus uterque pro actu fidei apud Reformatos habetur. Verumtamen in utrisque, ex eorundem Reformatorum sensu, par firmitas & certitudo non est: sed maxima in iis quae sola revelatione nituntur; in aliis vero major vel minor pro proportione certitudinis & evidentiae, quae inest propositioni, quae revelatae adjungitur, ut ex ea haec vel illa conclusio deducatur, sicut jam exposueram, in Thesibus quas reprehendit vir doctus: idque non solum ex mea privata, sed ex plurium Scholae Reformatae Doctorum aperta sententia. Unde apparet quam vana sit illius probatio, dum ex eo quod Reformati actum fidei vocant, persuasionem illam, quam vere fidelis & justus habet de propria gratia & remissione peccatorum suorum, colligit secundum communem Reformatorum sententiam, unumquemque fidelem, pari cum certitudine & firmitate persuasum esse de remissione peccatorum suorum, ac est de eo quod Christus est Dei filius & mundi Redemptor.
Even Rome: not every 'divine faith' assent equals Catholic dogmatic certainty — Catharinus & Vasquez§814
814Even inside the Roman school, not every assent labeled divine faith matches Catholic dogmatic certainty.
At Trent, Catharinus held a just man can be divinely certain of his own grace; Vasquez calls divine faith both the penitent's trust of pardon-to-come and the justified man's trust of pardon obtained — yet neither equates that private faith with Catholic certainty.
Trent's canon that none can know with faith-certainty he has obtained grace added 'to which falsehood cannot be subject' with an eye to Catharinus — who afterward still kept his view and re-read the decree.
Latin · §814
CXXXIX. Et certe non solum inter Reformatos, sed in ipsa Schola Romana, non quicunque assensus ad fidem divinam refertur, hoc ipso statim aequatur firmitate & certitudine cum assensu fidei Catholicae, sive dogmaticae. Nam in ipso Concilio Tridentino Catharinus contendit hominem justum fide divina certum esse posse de propria gratia. Et Vasquez quoque Jesuita fidem divinam vocat, fiduciam quam peccator poenitens habet de venia a Deo impetranda, & quam homo justificatus potest habere de illa impetrata. Nec tamen isti viri putant illam privatam fidem, parem habere cum fide Catholica certitudinem. Et ad Catharini sententiam respexit Concilium Tridentinum, dum definiens, quod nullus scire valeat certitudine fidei, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum, post verbum illud fidei inserit, cui non potest subesse falsum, ut aliqua evadendi rima Catharino superesset, nec videretur simpliciter Decreto Concilii damnatus. Ut & revera post Canonem illum in sententia priori perstitit, & conatus est verba Concilii, secundum suum sensum, interpretari.
Rivet and Daillé citations: dispute heat can force soft readings; they would not desert Ames/British sense§815
815The opponent's Rivet and Daillé citations fail: from a few words he claims they gave own-grace fiducia the same certainty as faith in the fundamentals.
Even the most learned, caught in dispute heat, let slip things that need softening back to a sound sense.
Le Blanc doubts that, if warned, those doctors would have left the Ames/British sentence already laid out.
Latin · §815
CXL. Frustra vero vir Doctus objicit testimonia virorum, qui sunt multum inter Reformatos celebres, Andreae Riveti, & Joannis Dallaéi; quos ex quibusdam eorum verbis probare conatur, eandem certitudinem tribuisse fiduciae, quam quis habet de gratia & salute propria, quae convenit eorum judicio fidei, quae adhibenda est ipsis fundamentalibus fidei articulis. Sed certe notum omnibus est, viris etiam doctissimis, dum disputationis aestu abripiuntur, incaute multa excidere, quae emollire & torquere quodammodo opus est, ut ad bonum sensum reducantur; nec dubito viros illos Doctos, si hac de re moniti fuissent, mentem suam fuisse declaraturos ea ratione, ut ab exposita jam sententia non discessissent.
Two celebrities' opinions are not common Reformed consent against Ames and the British deputies§816
816Even granting Daillé and Rivet differed from Ames and the British — giving own-remission fiducia the same certainty as article-faith — that does not make their view common Reformed consent.
Both men held peculiar opinions many Reformed opposed.
Why weigh Reformers by those two rather than by Ames and the Anglican deputies to Dort?
Latin · §816
CXLI. Sed ad institutum meum non necesse est, ut operam ponam in eorum dictis emolliendis atque excusandis. Esto enim Joannes Dallaéus & Andreas Rivetus hac in parte aliud senserint, quam Amesius, & Theologi Britanni, quorum sententia jam exposita est; & eandem certitudinem tribuerint fiduciae quam singuli fideles habere dicuntur de remissione peccatorum suorum quae competit ipsi fidei qua debemus amplecti fidei articulos: An inde sequitur posse tribui Reformatis, quod idem communi consensu cum duobus illis viris de re proposita doceant? Et quis nescit utrumque illorum habuisse peculiares quasdam opiniones, quibus hinc & inde multi ex Reformatis sese opposuerunt? Ac etiam quare potius ex duorum illorum virorum sententia Reformatorum fidem metiri deberemus, quam ex doctrina Amesii, & Theologorum Britannorum Ecclesiae Anglicanae nomine loquentium, & ab ea ad Synodum Dordracenam deputatorum?
Last charge: opponent reads 'all and each men' as 'all the faithful' and cites Pareus§817
817Last calumny charge: Le Blanc said Rome calumniously pins on the Reformed a common-consent teaching that all and each men can and ought by certain faith believe their sins remitted and themselves just.
The opponent re-reads 'all and each men' as 'all the faithful,' then cites Pareus to make that the real Reformed common doctrine — hence not calumny.
Latin · §817
CXLII. Unicum restat in quo vir Doctus me calumniae convincere tentat. Nempe in eo quod dixi per Calumniam Reformatis tribui, quod communi consensu doceant, omnes & singulos homines certa fide posse & debere credere sibi fuisse remissa peccata, & se coram Deo justos esse. Et ut intentum suum assequatur, interpretatur mea verba, & conjicit me intelligere per omnes & singulos homines, omnes & singulos fideles. Et postea probat ex Paraeo, hanc esse revera communem Reformatorum doctrinam, quod omnes & singuli fideles debeant & possint certa fide credere se esse coram Deo justos, & sibi fuisse remissa peccata, ac proinde istud citra calumniam Reformatis imputari posse.
'All men' means Gospel hearers in external communion — even the vicious — not only the faithful§818
818Pareus was unnecessary: Le Blanc's own theses already prove Reformed common doctrine that each of the faithful can and ought be certain of grace without special revelation, and that such certainty is commonly called faith-certainty — so lack of it marks infirmity, not unbelief of the fundamentals.
The opponent's conjecture fails: 'all and each men' did not mean only the faithful.
Nor did Le Blanc mean Rome charges a duty on absolutely every human without exception; he meant all Gospel hearers in external church communion — even the vicious.
Latin · §818
CXLIII. Sed nihil opus fuit viro docto hic citare Paraeum. Nam ipsae meae Theses, quas illi carpere libuit, integrae fere in eo insumuntur, ut probent secundum communem Reformatorum doctrinam, 1. Fideles singulos absque speciali revelatione, posse certo credere se esse in Dei gratia: 2. Fideles singulos, non tantum posse, sed etiam debere ea de re certo persuasos esse; & si de eo certi non sint, istud quendam defectum & quandam infirmitatem, in eorum fide arguere: 3. Denique Certitudinem illam communiter apud Reformatos certitudinem fidei vocari. Itaque vir Doctus in sua conjectura fallitur. Nam per omnes & singulos homines, non intellexi solummodo omnes & singulos fideles. Nec tamen mens mea fuit Reformatos accusari ab Ecclesiae Romanae Doctoribus, quod doceant omnes homines in universum, absque ulla exceptione, teneri certo credere se esse in Dei gratia. Verum per omnes & singulos homines intellexi omnes & singulos quibus annuntiatur Evangelium, & qui sunt in externa Ecclesiae communione; etiamsi alioqui flagitiose vivant & vitiis indulgeant.
Rome assumes even the vicious must believe themselves just; Reformed teach they are on the path of perdition until living faith§819
819Le Blanc did not claim Rome expressly says the Reformed teach every Gospel hearer in external communion — however he lives — must by certain faith believe himself just; rather Rome's anti-Reformed disputations manifestly assume that.
The opponent's book keeps pressing that, for Calvinists, even the vicious and dying flagitious need only firm belief that grace is theirs — as if that were the formal justifying act.
If that assumption were right, every external church member would be bound to believe himself just whatever his life; but Reformed sense is the opposite: such persons must believe they are on the path of perdition until they truly renounce vice and believe with a faith efficacious through love (Galatians 5:6) — only then may they believe themselves just and reconciled through Christ. The contrary is atrocious calumny.
Latin · §819
CXLIV. Neque etiam dixi a Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae expresse & verbis totidem affirmari, quod communi consensu Reformati doceant, omnes & singulos quibus praedicatur Evangelium, & qui sunt in externa Ecclesiae communione, posse & debere certa fide credere, quomodocunque vivant, se justos esse coram Deo, & sibi esse remissa peccata; sed hoc manifeste supponi in illorum contra Reformatos disputationibus: Cujus rei liber viri Docti plenam fidem facere potest. Quid enim aliud toto libro inculcat, quam juxta Reformatos, illos ipsos qui in vitiis volutantur, & atrocium criminum sunt rei, posse & debere certo & firmiter credere se gratiam Dei esse consecutos, & sibi esse peccata remissa; ac in eo consistere actum fidei per quem justificamur: & nihil aliud in Calvinistarum communione requiri, a peccatore etiam flagitiosissimo, ut moribundus in coelum evoleat? Jam vero si juxta Reformatos, illi ipsi qui totos libidinibus & vitiis se dedunt, tenentur certo credere peccata sibi esse condonata, & in hoc consistit formalis fidei actus per quem justificamur, nec aliud ab ipsis ad peccatoris salutem exigitur, annon secundum eorum doctrinam, omnes & singuli quibus Evangelium praedicatur, & qui sunt in externa Ecclesiae communione, tenentur istud credere, qualiscunque sit eorum vita; cum teneantur omnes fidei justificantis formalem actum elicere? Et tamen falsissimum est, ex Reformatorum sensu, omnes & singulos qui vivunt in externa Ecclesiae communione, quanquam perdite vivant, & in vitiis volutentur, debere certa fide credere se fore salvos, & sibi esse remissa peccata. Imo docent & inculcant apud suos Reformati, ejusmodi homines teneri credere quod sunt in via perditionis, nec aliter possunt ad vitam pertinere, quam serio & reapse criminibus & vitiis suis renunciando, & credendo fide quae sit per dilectionem efficax. Qua fide demum posita, & in se ab ipsis agnita, credere possunt & debent se justos esse coram Deo, & Deum sibi per Christum reconciliatum esse. Neque contrarium potest Reformatis tribui, vel de iis supponi, absque atroci calumnia.
Pars I close: Le Blanc kept common Reformed doctrine; Rome's four imputations are calumny; opponent's charges fall§820
820Pars I close: Le Blanc has not deserted common Reformed doctrine or foisted a private opinion as school teaching.
His complaint stands: Rome calumniously imputes the four points as if by Reformed common consent.
The opponent's charges of deceitful dissimulation and of Le Blanc's own calumny are undeserved; the eloquent declamations built on that rotten base collapse without needing a line-by-line chase.
Latin · §820
CXLV. Jam ergo clarum est, & abunde probatum, me in Thesibus, quas arguit vir Doctus, communem Scholae Reformatae doctrinam non deseruisse, nec privatam quandam sententiam, pro doctrina in eorum Scholis recepta falso obtrusisse: nec injuria de Scholae Romanae Doctoribus me questum esse, quod per calumniam Reformatis imputent quatuor illa, de quibus hactenus prolixe actum est, quasi communi consensu ab illis doceantur: adeoque Virum Doctum immerito me dolosae dissimulationis, & animi parum synceri accusasse; & mihi ipsi crimen calumniae impegisse, quod injuste & absque ratione Scholae Romanae Doctores, ut Reformatos hac in parte calumniantes traducam. Unde sequitur varias conclusiones & declamationes, quas tam putri fundamento inaedificat vir facundissimus per se corruere & evanescere, ut non opus sit singula minutatim excutere & persequi.
Pars II opens: Roman absolute faith is Spirit-moved assent to all God has revealed§821
821Pars II opens the Roman comparison: for Rome's doctors, faith taken absolutely is Spirit-moved and Spirit-inspired assent to everything God has revealed to human beings.
The motive of that assent is the truth and authority of God who reveals.
Latin · §821
I. Fides absolute spectata, secundum Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, non aliud est quam assensus, Spiritu Sancto movente & inspirante, adhibitus omnibus iis quae sunt hominibus a Deo revelata; idque propter Dei revelantis veritatem & authoritatem.
Same faith is dead/idle apart from love, or living/effective joined to good works§822
822Rome distinguishes two states of that same faith: it may stand apart from God's love and other pious works — as in many sinners — or be joined to love and good works.
Apart from love it is called dead and idle; joined to love it is living and effective.
Latin · §822
II. Caeterum fides illa, vel a Dei dilectione, aliisque piis operibus separatim existit, ut contingit in multis peccatoribus; vel cum amore Dei, & aliis bonis operibus juncta est. Priori respectu dicitur mortua atque otiosa, posteriori viva & efficax.
Jaubert: credere Deo without charity is dead; credere in Deum living in the just alone§823
823Jaubert of Arles, against Molinaeus's Clypeum, unfolds the split at length.
Credere Deo is supernatural mind-assent to whatever God revealed because God said it — possible without charity, and then called dead for lack of charity's life.
Credere in Deum is living faith animated by charity, found only in the just, and through it the person hopes for the fulfillment of the promises.
Latin · §823
III. Hanc fidei distinctionem prolixe & accurate tradit Jaubertus Archiepiscopus Arelatensis, Tomo primo adversus Molinaei clypeum, cap. 40. in cujus initio observat fidem bifariam sumi: Primo pro actu vel habitu supernaturali mentis, per quem credimus verum quicquid in Scriptura continetur, & quicquid Deus revelavit, idque quia Deus dixit & revelavit; qui actus exprimitur in Scholis per credere Deo, & potest esse sine charitate, & bonis operibus; ac tum fides mortua vocatur, quoniam charitatis vita destituitur: Secundo vero aliam esse fidem quae dicitur viva, quia charitate animata est, atque per eam operatur: & fidei hujus actus exprimitur per credere in Deum, eaque in solo justo reperitur; ac per eam homo sperat & expectat promissionum divinarum complementum.
Formed vs unformed: charity is external improper form making faith meritorious§824
824The usual Roman School distinction is formed versus unformed faith: unformed is faith alone without charity; formed is faith joined to charity and love.
Charity is called faith's form — not an internal essence-constituting form, but an external, improper form that gives faith a relative standing: it profits to eternal life and is, they say, meritorious of salvation.
Latin · §824
IV. Eodem redit distinctio in Scholis Romanis plurimum usitata, per quam fidem distinguunt in formatam atque informem. Nam fidem informem vocant illam quae sola est & sine charitate, fidem vero formatam illam quae est cum charitate & dilectione conjuncta. Docent enim charitatem esse fidei formam, non quidem internam & proprie dictam, quae fidei absolute & in se consideratae essentiam constituat; sed formam quandam externam & improprie dictam, quae esse quoddam externum & respectivum fidei tribuit; nempe quod prosit ad vitam aeternam, & sit, ut loquuntur, salutis meritoria.
Estius: charity perfects faith so it merits; one habit is not another's subject§825
825Estius: charity is not faith's essential form, and one habit is not another's subject.
Rather, through charity faith is perfected and formed so as to be meritorious and to profit to eternal salvation — as charity is called the form of all other virtues.
Latin · §825
V. Sic Scholae Romanae mentem explicat Gul. Estius: Non enim, inquit, charitas forma fidei dicitur, quasi ad essentiam fidei pertinens, aut quia fidem proprie informet, cum unus habitus non sit subjectum alterius. Sed hactenus, quia per charitatem aliud, fides perficitur & formatur, ut meritoria sit, & ad aeternam salutem proficiat, quomodo & aliarum omnium virtutum forma charitas appellatur. Ad Distinct. 23. lib. 3. Sententiarum, paragr. 3.
Valencia: charity is metaphorical form only; faith and charity are distinct virtues§826
826Gregory of Valencia agrees: theologians say charity perfects faith as a form, yet not as an essential or even accidental proper form — faith and charity are species-distinct virtues perfecting different powers.
Charity may only metaphorically be called faith's form by analogy to a proper form that perfects its subject.
Latin · §826
VI. Quibus consona sunt quae observat Gregorius de Valentia, eandem fidei distinctionem in formatam & informem explicans. Theologi, inquit, affirmant fidem a charitate tanquam a forma perfici. Nec tamen sentiunt, quod charitas proprie sit forma fidei, aut essentialis, ut Anima dicitur forma hominis, aut accidentalis & extrinseca, ut albedo corporis. Hoc enim falsum esse ex eo perspicuum est, quod charitas & fides sunt duae virtutes specie distinctae, quae duas diversas potentias perficiunt. Solum igitur volunt Theologi, charitatem, quoniam perfectionem aliquam addit fidei, metaphorice dici posse formam ipsius, secundum analogiam videlicet ad formam proprie dictam, quae suo modo subjectum perficit. Tom. 3. in Summam Thomae, Disput. 1. quaest. 4. puncto 5.
Scripture cue: faith working through love and James's dead faith make charity like soul to body§827
827Their cue for calling charity faith's form is Scripture: Paul describes saving faith as faith that works through love, and James calls faith without charity's works dead.
Form is what something lives and acts by; so charity stands to faith as soul to body.
Latin · §827
VII. Porro quod dedit illis occasionem vocandi charitatem fidei formam, illud est quod fides quae valet ad salutem, ab Apostolo describitur fides quae per charitatem operatur. Et quod Jacobus fidem sine charitatis operibus mortuam vocat. Etenim forma est illud per quod aliquid vivit & operatur, loca vero ista docent & innuunt fidem per charitatem vivere & agere; adeoque charitatem esse respectu fidei, quod est anima respectu corporis. Spiritus autem, seu anima est forma corporis viventis.
Dead faith is still God's gift and true in itself; the wicked assent inwardly but use faith badly§828
828Rome still calls dead, unformed faith a divine gift that merits the name of true faith — even while saying its holders do not believe well or as they ought.
Bad Christians' assent to the Word is inwardly real and God-inspired, yet they misuse faith, miss its due end, and omit what faith commands.
Stapleton: the act without charity is good in itself, but not well done because it is not aimed at the ultimate good.
Latin · §828
VIII. Caeterum docent Scholae Romanae Theologi illum qui fidem solum mortuam & informem habet, non bene credere, neque sicut oportet, ut videre est apud Bellarminum, lib. 1. de Justificatione, pluribus in locis. Sed pertendent nihilominus illam esse Dei donum, & ad gratiam pertinere, & titulum ac nomen verae fidei mereri. Nempe, ex ipsorum mente, assensus ille quem praebent verbo Dei multi mali Christiani, in se quidem bonus est, & a Deo inspiratus, ac per eum intus & reipsa, non externe tantum atque simulate, assentiuntur doctrinae divinae atque verissimae, male tamen credunt & non sicut oportet, quia fide sua non recte utuntur, nec ad debitum finem illam referunt, neque faciunt illa quae fides facienda dictat. Hoc est quod docet Stapletonus. Etsi, inquit, actus fidei sine charitate bonus est, tamen non bene fit, adeoque post bonus non est. Ideo autem non bene fit, quia ad finem boni ultimum talis actus non dirigitur. De Justif. lib. 8. cap. 9.
Dead faith can be called true or not by respect; only charity-animated faith truly profits§829
829Rome allows dead faith to be called true or not by respect, and can reserve the title of true faith for formed faith.
The Ethicen opponent's analogy: a legitimate king, bishop, or baptized believer may still fail the perfection due to the name — yet the name is not simply denied.
So faith left in those who fell from baptismal grace by other sins than unbelief is true faith; yet in a good sense only charity-animated faith is called true, because that alone profits, makes us God's children, and seats Christ in the heart — backed by Fathers and Rome's public Office.
Latin · §829
IX. Agnoscunt tamen fidem mortuam & informem diverso sensu & respectu posse dici veram & non veram, & verae fidei titulum posse ad fidem formatam restringi. Ut praesertim videre est apud authorem illum qui in Reformatos nuper insectus est tanquam Christianam Ethicen subvertentes. Notat enim in rebus verum saepe sumi pro eo quod est in perfectionis sibi debitae statu. Ita verum Regem dici qui facit quod in se est ut regnum suum recte administret: verum Episcopum illum qui continuo gregis sibi commissi saluti invigilat: verum Christianum qui vivit ut Christiano homine dignum est. Sed tamen non esse nomen veri Regis simpliciter denegandum illi qui, quamvis Rex legitimus sit, Regis officio non recte fungitur, veri Episcopi illi qui rite vocatus atque ordinatus non implet partes boni Episcopi, & veri Christiani illi, qui Christi Baptismate tinctus, & Christianae doctrinae mysteriis omnibus non simulate credens, indulget operibus carnis, nec vitam agit suae professioni respondentem. Unde concludit, quamvis quod superest fidei in Christianis illis, qui ex accepta in Baptismo gratia, non per infidelitatem, sed per alia peccata exciderunt, vera fides sit & dici debeat, bono sensu tamen dici posse eam solam fidem esse veram, quae est per charitatem animata: quoniam scilicet ea sola est quae nobis prodest, quae nos reddit Dei filios, & Christum in cordibus nostris habitare facit. Quod postea multis Patrum testimoniis probat, & ex publico ipso Officio Ecclesiae Romanae.
Stapleton: dead faith fictive for perfect justice, not fictive as to faith's own virtue§830
830Stapleton likewise: dead, unformed faith may be called feigned or hypocritical with respect to the life and truth of perfect justice.
It is not feigned with respect to faith itself and the virtue proper to faith.
Latin · §830
X. Et eodem modo Stapletonus concedit fidem mortuam & informem dici posse fictam & hypocriticam, quantum ad justitiae vitam & veritatem spectat. Est autem, inquit, haec fides sine charitate mortua quidem, & ficta seu hypocritica, quantum ad perfectae justitiae vitam & veritatem spectat, non autem quantum ad seipsam, sibique propriam virtutem. De Justif. lib. 8. cap. 9.
Scholastics dispute whether unformed faith is a virtue: name-fight, not thing-fight§831
831Scholastics split on whether unformed faith is a virtue: Thomas says no; Durandus and Bonaventure say even dead faith is a virtue — but the fight is largely about the name.
Affirmers take virtue generally as a habit of mind agreeing with right reason and divine law; in that sense Rome does not deny unformed faith is a virtue, binding the intellect in obedience of faith.
Deniers reserve virtue for what makes one live rightly and simply good; on that sense all concede that without charity neither faith nor any morally good habit is a virtue.
Latin · §831
XI. An autem fides informis sit virtus, inter se disputant Doctores Scholastici. Virtutem esse negat Thomas. Alii vero ut Durandus & Bonaventura simpliciter affirmant fidem etiam mortuam & informem esse virtutem. Sed inter eos est de nomine certamen. Etenim qui affirmant mortuam istam fidem virtutem, virtutem esse sumunt sensu generali, prout describitur habitus animi rectae rationi consentaneus, idemque inclinans ad actum legi divinae consentaneum. Quo sensu in Schola Romana nemo negat fidem informem virtutem dici posse. Quae quantumlibet informis sit, manet semper juxta eos, habitus, quo intellectus voluntatis imperio captivatus in obsequium fidei firmiter ea credit quae divinitus credenda praecipiuntur. Qui vero negant fidem informem esse virtutem, virtutis nomen restringunt ad illam qua recte vivitur, & quae simpliciter bonum facit habentem. Juxta eam acceptionem concedunt omnes nec fidem, nec ullum habitum moraliter bonum, seclusa charitate virtutem esse; ut docet Estius ad distinctionem 23. lib. 3. Sentent. paragr. 9.
Living and dead faith are one species; charity adds only external relative perfection§832
832Rome refuses to make living and dead faith different species: they differ only by accidental perfection and remain one faith in species.
Faith may be found with or without charity while keeping its essence; charity when present adds only an external, relative perfection.
Latin · §832
XII. Quodcunque vero discrimen constituant Scholae Romanae Theologi inter fidem vivam & mortuam, formatam & informem, nolunt tamen illas esse diversas fidei species, sed accidentali tantum perfectione inter se differre, & utramque esse unam & eandem specie fidem. Nempe fidei accidit, ut modo charitati conjuncta reperiatur, quandoque ab ea separatim existat, quod fidei est essentiale in utroque statu retinens, & a charitate quum adest accipiens perfectionem solum externam atque respectivam.
Same-number faith with/without charity is common teaching, not defined dogma like same-species§833
833Common Roman teaching even allows the same numerical faith to be formed or unformed as charity comes and goes — Peter's faith intrinsically the same under either label.
Same-species living/dead faith is defined dogma; same-number continuity is common and approved by modern doctors, but not equal in certainty and not a dogma — some older Scholastics opposed it.
Latin · §833
XIII. Imo communis Scholae Romanae doctrina est eandem numero fidem modo formatam & vivam, modo mortuam & informem esse posse. Nempe Petri fides eadem in se & intrinsece manens, alias fides informis & mortua dicitur absente charitate, alias vero fides viva & formata si charitas adsit. Sed prior sententia quae statuit fidem vivam & mortuam ad eandem fidei speciem pertinere, est in Ecclesia Romana definita, & inter dogmata fidei recensetur: Posterior vero quae ponit eandem numero fidem modo formatam, modo informem esse, non est paris certitudinis, nec tanquam dogma fidei habetur: & contrarium tenuerunt quidam veteres Scholastici, licet Doctores hodierni calculo suo illam communiter approbent.
Valencia/Tapper/Estius: Trent defined species-same faith without charity; number-same is certain but not defined§834
834Valencia: accidents do not multiply the essence — formed or not is accidental to faith — so same-species faith with or without charity is of the faith.
Trent settled against heretics that true Catholic theological faith can exist without charity in faithful sinners; it did not define numerical identity.
Numerical sameness is now so common that the opposite is called rash; Tapper and Estius concur that species-sameness is de fide and number-sameness highly probable.
Latin · §834
XIV. Ista docet inter alios Gregorius de Valentia. Primo enim probat eandem fidem posse esse tum formatam per charitatem, tum etiam informem; Constat, inquit, ea quae non pertinent ad essentiam rei, sed rei accidunt, non multiplicare ipsam, cum potest eadem res variis accidentibus subesse; sed quod fides per charitatem sit formata, aut non sit, accidit ei, nec ad ipsius essentiam per se pertinet. Postea vero observat ex fide certum esse quod eadem fides vera secundum speciem constare possit cum charitate & sine charitate, quod vero etiam eadem numero non esse ex fide certum. Neque fuit, inquit, in Concilio Tridentino de hoc controversia adversus haereticos, sed solum voluerunt Patres statuere, quod fides etiam vera Catholica & Theologica possit esse sine charitate, & reipsa sit in peccatoribus fidelibus. Non autem definierunt quod etiam eadem numero. Subjungit tamen id jam adeo certum esse, ut communiter Theologi sentiant, oppositum esse temerarium, eo quod repugnet in re gravi communi Doctorum sententiae. Tom. 3. in Summam Thomae, Disput. 1. quaest. 4. puncto 4. Quibus consentit Ruardus Tapperus; postquam enim conclusit tanquam de fide certum, quod eadem fides secundum speciem maneat sine charitate; addit, Perisimile etiam esse, quod eadem quoque numero maneat. Tom. 2. art. 8. pag. 64. Et idem etiam observat Estius loco supra citato.
Rome rejects calling dead faith historical: it assents to all God's Word on God's testimony§835
835Rome refuses the Protestant label historical for dead faith.
Dead faith does not traffic in histories alone: it assents to histories, dogmas, and promises in God's Word alike.
And it does not believe on human historian-authority, but on the testimony of God speaking and revealing in the Word.
Latin · §835
XV. Porro fidem mortuam historicam dici nolunt, Primo quia non circa solas historias versatur, sed assentitur omnibus quae Verbo Dei continentur, sive sint historiae, sive dogmata, sive promissiones. Deinde quoniam ista non historice credit, hoc est, non propter humanam aliquam authoritatem, quomodo credimus iis quae narrant historici; sed propter testimonium Dei in Verbo loquentis, & revelantis ea quae credenda proponuntur.
All Rome: only living, charity-formed faith actually justifies; Aquinas and Becanus§836
836Setting the historical label aside: all Roman doctors confess dead faith without charity does not profit to salvation or justice, and no faith actually saves and justifies unless it is living and effective through love.
Aquinas: unformed faith is not a virtue; formed faith is, because we are justified only through what has the nature of a virtue.
Becanus for Catholics generally: faith can exist unformed, but justifies only when formed by charity.
Latin · §836
XVI. Sed hoc misso, fatentur Doctores omnes Ecclesiae Romanae fidem mortuam, & quae cum charitate juncta non est, ad salutem non prodesse, nec ad justitiam assequendam valere, neque fidem ullum actu servare & justificare, nisi quum viva est, & per dilectionem efficax. Haec est praesertim Thomae Aquinatis doctrina. Etenim negans fidem informem esse virtutem, fidem formatam virtutem esse probat, ex eo quod per illam justificamur, quia scilicet, non justificamur, nisi per illud quod habet rationem virtutis. 2. 2. Quaest. 4. art. 5. Idem vero post Thomam expresse docet Martinus Becanus Jesuita, eandemque sententiam omnibus suis Catholicis tribuit. Catholici, inquit, docent fidem non justificare, nisi sit formata charitate. Item, Catholici docent eam fidem posse informem existere, non tamen, nisi formatam justificare. In Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, tom. 2. tractatu 4. cap. 2. num. 7.
Dead unformed faith still first disposition to justice (Stapleton)§837
837Even after granting with Stapleton that dead unformed faith profits neither salvation nor justice, Roman doctors still call faith as such, charity present or absent, the first and most necessary disposition toward justice.
In itself faith is the soul first act of union with God; by not-yet-formed faith charity is sought so that faith may later be formed, provided the prayer faith prompts is used (Stapleton, De Justif. 8.17).
Latin · §837
XVII. Porro quamvis Scholae Romanae Theologi fateantur & agnoscant fidem mortuam & informem ad salutem non prodesse, & ad justitiam esse inutilem, quod inter alios expresse, idque multis in locis, asserit Thomas Stapletonus, docent tamen fidem in se, & ex sua natura, sive adjunctam habeat charitatem, sive non, esse primam & maxime necessariam dispositionem ad justitiam consequendam. Quoniam, scilicet, fides in se spectata est primus animae actus quo Deo conjungimur. Adeoque per fidem quae nondum formata est impetratur charitas qua postea formetur, si tamen id fiat quod fides suggerit, id est, si oratio fidei adhibeatur. Ut videre est apud eundem Stapletonum de Justificatione, lib. 8. qui est de Fide justificante, cap. 17.
Absolute faith is justification foundation and root (Jaubert/Arnold)§838
838Rome therefore calls absolute faith, Spirit-moved assent to the whole Word, justification foundation and root: from it justice before God begins to sprout, and without it no one reaches justice.
Yet bare assent without charity cannot carry anyone to justice or salvation, any more than a foundation without walls and roof makes a house; Jaubert via Arnold says faith without charity-working is a roofless house and fruitless tree (Adv. Molinaei Clypeum 1.40.5).
Latin · §838
XVIII. Proinde fidem absolute spectatam, nempe, prout est assensus, movente Spiritu Sancto, toti Verbo Dei adhibitus, dicunt esse nostrae justificationis fundamentum & radicem; unde videlicet nostra coram Deo justitia incipere & veluti progerminare solet, & sine qua impossibile est ad eam pervenire; quamvis si in illo nudo assensu haereatur, nec charitas accedat, quae illum perficiat, fides ejusmodi non possit hominem ad justitiam & salutem perducere. Non secus ac fundamentum est principium domus, & id quod ad illius aedificationem primo & praecipue requiritur; sed tamen ut fiat domus ad habitationem, necesse est accedant parietes & tectum, sine quibus positum fundamentum nullius est usus. Quod sic verbis Arnoldi Jesuitae docet Jaubertus Arelatensis Archiepiscopus. Quamvis, inquit, in Ecclesia Catholica teneamus impossibile esse sine vera fide Deo placere, & esse justum, & fidem esse radicem arboris, & fundamentum domus: nihilominus si fides non sit per charitatem operans, domus est sine tecto, & arbor sine fructu, quorum neutrum quicquam Domino suo prodest. Adversus Molinaei Clypeum, Tom. 1. c. 40. num. 5.
Only formed faith actually justifies; unformed may be called justifying as disposition§839
839Common Roman teaching: only formed living faith actually justifies; yet not-yet-formed faith is still a necessary prerequisite disposition and may be called justifying in that preparatory sense, though alone it remains useless and justifies no one.
On Paul justified by, from, and through faith, some Romans read living formed faith working through love; others take faith absolutely as the first disposition without which justification cannot be reached. Stapleton records both without rejecting either (De Justif. 8.16-17).
Latin · §839
XIX. Haec est ergo communis doctrina Scholae Romanae solam quidem fidem formatam & vivam actu justificare, sed tamen fidem, etiam quum nondum formata est, esse dispositionem quandam ad justificationem, & hoc respectu quoque posse justificantem dici, nempe per modum dispositionis necessariae & praerequisitae, quanquam, nisi alia accedant, inutilis maneat, nec ullum actu justificet. Inter se vero non omnino consentiunt quomodo sint interpretanda illa Paulinarum Epistolarum loca, ubi toties affirmat & contendit Apostolus hominem justificari fide, ex fide, & per fidem. Et multi quidem existimant Paulum ibi per fidem intelligere illam quae viva atque formata est, & mentem ejus esse, nos coram Deo reddi, ac haberi justos per fidem illam quae per dilectionem operatur. Alii vero putant Paulum ibi fidem absolute sumere, & prout abstrahit a fide tum viva, tum mortua; & sensum ejus esse, fidem esse primam & maxime necessariam dispositionem ad justitiam consequendam, hominemque per fidem disponi ad justificationem, & sine fide non posse ad eam pervenire. Quam utramque sententiam refert, nec improbat Thomas Stapletonus citato libr. 8. de Justif. cap. 16. & 17.
Unformed justifying faith means active faith birthing charity, not idle speculation (Vasquez)§840
840When Romans call not-yet-formed faith justifying as root and foundation, they do not mean idle speculative faith, but an active faith that begins to work through good works, somehow generates charity, and presses toward it without yet fully possessing it.
Vasquez: only the faith-act that stirs affection counts as root and foundation in act (Disp. 210.7.54); Stapleton likewise ties not-yet-formed faith to obtaining charity through the prayer faith prompts (De Justif. 8.17).
Latin · §840
XX. Caeterum quum dicunt Scholae Romanae Theologi fidem, etiam nondum formatam, justificantem esse suo modo, quoniam scilicet disponit ad justificationem, & est justitiae hominis coram Deo radix & fundamentum, per fidem nondum formatam non intelligunt fidem inertem atque otiosam, & quae mere speculativa sit; sed fidem quandam actuosam, & quae incipit esse per bona opera efficax, quaeque charitatem quodammodo parturit, & ad eam contendit, licet illam nondum adepta dici possit. Istud aperte docet Vasquez. Postremo, inquit, observandum est, quum dicimus fidem esse reipsa fundamentum & radicem aedificii & fructus spiritualis, non esse intelligendum de quocunque actu fidei, sed de eo qui ita congruit cum affectu, ut ipsum excitet & moveat. Fides autem quae affectum non movet, neque ex se actuosa est, ut alliciat voluntatem ad bonum, non habet rationem radicis & fundamenti, saltem actu, tametsi vera fides dicenda sit. Tom. 2. in primam secundae, Difput. 210. cap. 7. num. 54. Quibus consona sunt quae supra citavimus ex Stapletono, dum ait, Per fidem quae nondum formata est impetrari charitatem qua postea formetur, si tamen id fiat quod fides suggerit, id est, si oratio fidei adhibeatur. De Justif. lib. 8. cap. 17.
Justifying faith object includes all revealed: promises, threats, precepts, dogmas§841
841Roman doctors place in justifying faith object everything revealed to the Church in God Word: grace-promises, but also threats, precepts, and dogmas.
Faith saves and justifies not only by embracing grace-promises, but also by assenting to dogmas, believing mysteries, and receiving threats and precepts with fitting obedience and reverence.
Latin · §841
XXI. Quod spectat ad fidei justificantis objectum, sedulo notant & accurate docent Doctores Scholae Romanae ad illud pertinere quaecunque Verbo Dei Ecclesiae tradita atque revelata sunt, nempe non gratiae promissiones tantum, sed minas etiam, praecepta & dogmata, qualiacunque Deo revelare visum est, & Ecclesiae proponere. Nec solum docent fidem quae salvat atque justificat objecta illa omnia spectare & considerare, verum etiam id facere quatenus justificans atque salvifica est: adeo ut fides justificet, non simpliciter quatenus promissiones gratiae amplectitur, sed etiam quatenus dogmatis assentitur, & mysteria credit, minasque & praecepta eo quo par est obsequio & reverentia suscipit. Haec enim singula fides in justificationis negotio varie respicit ex ipsorum sententia.
Principal object still Christ grace and mercy (Stapleton; Trent sess.6)§842
842Rome still grants that justifying faith chief object is God grace and mercy in Christ offered in the Gospel to believing penitents; Stapleton confirms this from Trent sess. 6 c. 6.
Christ the Mediator and his redemption are principal when faith disposes to justification, yet not the sole proper object; faith also regards the other revealed objects while that disposition is underway.
Latin · §842
XXII. Non negant tamen fidei justificantis objectum praecipuum & potissimum esse Dei gratiam & misericordiam in Christo peccatoribus credentibus atque poenitentibus per Evangelii promissiones oblatam. Id inter alios concedit & agnoscit Thomas Stapletonus, suamque hac in parte doctrinam verbis Concilii Tridentini confirmat, libro 8. de Justificatione, cap. 12. ubi loquens de facta per Christum redemptione, Hoc, inquit, objectum non unicum respicit fides, sed certe maxime & potissimum, quando hominem disponit ad justificationem. Quod & his verbis Patres Tridentini docuerunt, Sess. 6. cap. 6. Disponuntur ad justitiam credentes vera esse quae divinitus revelata & promissa sunt: atque illud in primis a Deo justificari impium per gratiam ejus, per redemptionem quae est in Christo. Fides ergo justificans, seu disponens ad justitiam, principaliter quidem respicit Christum ut Mediatorem, & redemptionem per illum factam, non tamen unicum & proprium est illud fidei justificantis objectum, ut volunt haeretici, cum tot praeterea alia objecta fides respiciat, dum ad justificationem disponimur, ut dictum est.
Special mercy certain promise is presumption, not faith necessary object (Bellarmine)§843
843Roman doctors refuse to count a certain promise of special mercy among justifying faith objects; Bellarmine treats that as presumption rather than faith (De Justif. 1.4; 1.8).
Vasquez and others deny special mercy is a necessary faith-object, as they say heretics invent, while still requiring particular trust in divine promise for justification; what they reject is that each must believe his own sins already remitted as faith necessary object.
Latin · §843
XXIII. Sed inter varia illa fidei justificantis objecta Doctores Scholae Romanae negant esse promissionem specialis misericordiae, quin potius certam promissionem specialis misericordiae, non tam ad fidem quam ad praesumptionem pertinere contendunt: ut testatur Bellarminus, lib. 1. de Justif. cap. 4. sub finem. Et cap. 8. probare conatur fidem esse justificantem, quamvis non respiciat misericordiam specialem; imo non esse justificantem, si eam misericordiam forte respiciat. Quin ipse Vasquez contendit, cum caeteris, misericordiam Dei specialem non esse objectum fidei necessarium, ut haereticos confingere dicit: cum tamen ad justificationem requirat particularem fidem & fiduciam divinae promissionis & misericordiae, ut uberius infra explicabitur. Sed quod negare intendit illud est ad fidem justificantem necessarium esse, ut quisque credat sibi peccata esse remissa. Quod & alii intelligunt, dum negant misericordiam specialem ad objectum fidei justificantis spectare.
Proper act of justifying faith is assent; notitia denied as faith act (Bellarmine)§844
844Rome unanimously locates justifying faith proper act in assent to everything God revealed in the Word delivered to the Church, because of divine authority and testimony.
They deny that notitia (acquaintance, knowledge, or understanding) is faith act; Bellarmine even says faith stands against scientia and is better defined by ignorance than by notitia (De Justif. 1.7).
Latin · §844
XXIV. Jam autem, si quis quaerat de fidei salvificae & justificantis actibus, qui & quales illi sunt, in eo consentiunt Doctores omnes Ecclesiae Romanae proprium fidei justificantis actum consistere in assensu quem Fideles adhibent iis omnibus quae Deus revelavit per Verbum suum Ecclesiae traditum, & propter divinam authoritatem & testimonium. Negant vero notitiam esse fidei actum, & fidem esse notitiam, scientiam, seu intelligentiam. Imo pertendit Bellarminus fidem in contrario scientiae, & melius per ignorantiam quam per notitiam definiri. Lib. 1. de Justif. cap. 7. sub finem.
Notitia means evident distinct knowledge; rude confused apprehension suffices for faith§845
845When Romans deny faith is notitia and oppose faith to scientia, they mean evident or at least distinct accurate cognition, not every grasp of the object.
Believers need not see evidence in the mysteries themselves, nor have the clear grasp of teachers who explain and defend them; a rude confused apprehension, as in the unlearned who believe Trinity and Incarnation, is enough, and faith properly sits in assent rather than in that apprehension.
Latin · §845
XXV. Verum ut hac in parte mens eorum percipiatur, observandum est illos, dum negant fidem esse notitiam, & asserunt fidem opponi quodammodo scientiae & intelligentiae, illos, inquam, per notitiam, scientiam & intelligentiam designare cognitionem aliquam evidentem, aut saltem distinctam atque accuratam. Itaque per hoc significatum volunt, primo fideles evidenter non cognoscere mysteria quae credunt, nec iis assentiri propter aliquam, quam in ipsis percipiant, evidentiam, sed solummodo propter authoritatem Dei testimonium ipsis in Verbo perhibentis. Deinde quoque ad fidem necessario non requiri distinctam & perspicuam apprehensionem eorum quae creduntur; qualis est in iis qui fidei mysteria aliis explicare, argumentis probare, & adversus contradicentes tueri & vindicare possunt: sed ad fidem concipiendam sufficere rudem quandam & confusam apprehensionem mysteriorum divinorum, qualis est in idiotis, qui credunt mysteria Trinitatis & Incarnationis, etiamsi mysteria illa distincte & accurate nec intelligant ipsi, nec aliis explicare possint. Ac tandem qualicunque mysteriorum divinorum conceptio & apprehensio in credente reperiatur, fidem in apprehensione illa proprie non consistere, sed potius in assensu quem mysteriis istis praebet ille qui credit.
Faith never without some apprehension; apprehension precedes faith but is not faith§846
846Rome still grants that faith never lacks some apprehension, at least rude and confused, of what is believed.
In the believer there are two: apprehension and judgment or assent; apprehension properly is not faith but something that precedes it.
Latin · §846
XXVI. Caeterum non negant, imo expresse docent fidem non esse sine apprehensione aliqua, rudi saltem & confusa, eorum quae creduntur: ac proinde in eo qui credit haec duo reperiri, 1. apprehensionem, 2. judicium sive assensum, licet apprehensio illa proprie non sit fides, sed aliquid fidem praecedens.
Implicit Church-faith alone insufficient; explicit Creed articles required for salvation§847
847Rome concedes that merely believing in general what the Church believes, with no explicit grasp of any mystery, does not suffice for salvation.
Private persons may hold many dogmas only implicitly, but each believer needs some express explicit cognition of at least the principal Creed articles; that cognition may still be rude and confused.
Latin · §847
XXVII. Ultro quoque concedunt ad salutem non sufficere, ut aliquis generatim & implicite credat quod Ecclesia credit, etiamsi nullius mysteriorum divinorum expressam & explicitam cognitionem habeat. Quanquam enim doceant, respectu multorum fidei dogmatum, privatis sufficere generalem quandam & implicitam fidem, nihilominus requirunt in fidelibus singulis, tanquam ad salutem necessariam, cognitionem aliquam expressam & explicitam primorum saltem & praecipuorum fidei articulorum, cujus generis sunt qui Apostolorum Symbolo continentur. Licet cognitio illa quamvis explicita sit, rudis tamen adhuc & confusa maneat.
Accurate divine science useful and laudable though not required for salvation§848
848Even while holding that implicit faith in most dogmas, and only rude confused notitia of the principal articles, can suffice for salvation, Rome does not deny the usefulness of deeper divine science.
Such science kindles love of God; learners who advance deserve praise, while perpetual learners who never reach truth deserve blame.
Latin · §848
XXVIII. Denique etsi doceant ad salutem sufficere, si quis implicite credat pleraque fidei dogmata, neque putent ad salutem necessario requiri primorum etiam & praecipuorum articulorum fidei accuratam & distinctam notitiam, sed rudem tantum & confusam, nihilominus non negant utilem & laudabilem esse scientiam rerum divinarum, quippe quae amorem Dei magis ac magis accendit: & sicut laude digni sunt qui discendo proficiunt, ita merito reprehendi, qui semper discunt, & ad scientiam veritatis nunquam perveniunt.
Bellarmine De Justif. 1.7 summarizes apprehension, double assent, faith vs science§849
849Bellarmine De Justif. 1.7 gathers the preceding points: believer has apprehension plus assent; rude rustic apprehension is not properly notitia; distinct theological notitia is not required for faith.
He splits assent into evidence-following (notitia) and authority-following (faith), citing Augustine; mysteries above reason are believed not understood, so faith is better defined by ignorance than science, yet divine science remains useful and laudable.
Latin · §849
XXIX. Quae omnia satis aperte tradita reperiuntur apud Bellarminum capite illo septimo jam citato, ubi diserte monet in eo qui credit duo esse, apprehensionem, & judicium sive assensum, quamvis ejus apprehensio non sit fides, sed aliquid fidem praecedens. Deinde apprehensionem non dici proprie notitiam, si sit rudis & confusa, qualis reperitur in fidelibus rusticis: distinctam autem & perspicuam, qualis est Theologi, vel Philosophi, non necessario requiri ad fidem. Ac praeterea distinguit duplicem assensum, unum qui sequitur rationem & evidentiam rei, alterum qui sequitur authoritatem proponentis, & vult priorem tantum dici notitiam, si proprie loqui velimus; posteriorem vero assensum dici fidem; juxta illud Augustini, Quod intelligimus aliquid, rationi debemus; quod autem credimus, authoritati. Unde colligit mysteria fidei quae rationem superant credi, non intelligi; ac per hoc fidem a scientia distingui, & hoc respectu melius per ignorantiam quam per scientiam definiri. Ac denique caput illud septimum concludit his verbis: Tametsi distinguatur fides a scientia, tamen utilis est etiam, & laudabilis scientia rerum divinarum, quippe quae amorem Dei semper magis & magis accendit: & sicut laude digni sunt qui discendo proficiunt, ita merito reprehenduntur qui semper discunt, & ad scientiam veritatis nunquam perveniunt.
Vasquez: justifying faith is assent not perfect understanding; against Calvin exact knowledge§850
850Vasquez Disp. 209.3: justifying faith is assent, not perfect understanding of the mysteries.
Against a Calvinist-sounding demand for accurate distinct cognition able to explain and defend dogmas, he holds that rude believers assenting on testimony alone have enough for justifying faith; only explored exact science is excluded, not every notitia.
Latin · §850
XXX. Similia docet Vasquez in primam secundae, Difput. 209. capite 3. ubi titulus Capitis est, Fidem justificantem non esse perfectam intelligentiam mysteriorum, sed assensum, monstratur. Ex eo enim quod dicit Calvinus lib. 3. Institutionis, cap. 2. Non ignorantia, nec sensus nostri submissio, sed cognitione certa & explorata regnum caelorum adipisci. Colligit Calvinum, & qui eum sequuntur, in fidelibus singulis requirere tanquam ad fidem plane necessariam accuratam & distinctam cognitionem dogmatum fidei, per quam aliquis novit ea recte explicare, defendere, & aliis tradere. Contra quod ibi pertendit fidem non requirere exactam rei creditae intelligentiam & scientiam, sed solum assensum rei creditae propter testimonium. Sicut, inquit, experimento didicimus rudes revera credere multa quae neque aliis tradere, nec defendere sciunt rationibus, sed sola authoritate testimonii muniti eorum assensum habent. Et hoc sat est ad fidem justificantem. Itaque non removet a fide tanquam minus necessariam simpliciter omnem rei creditae notitiam & apprehensionem, sed exploratam tantum, ut loquitur, & exactam notitiam & scientiam, quae multo magis penetrat rem creditam, quam simplex cognitio fidei.
Valencia: explicit faith for Apostles Creed; implicit enough for other truths in laypeople§851
851Valencia distinguishes explicit faith (immediate assent to a truth) from implicit faith (assent wrapped inside another act with a different immediate object), as when believing Scripture is God Word implies all it contains.
In the time of grace everyone must explicitly believe the Apostles Creed articles; other scriptural or defined truths may be held only implicitly by lay faithful not charged to teach and confirm others.
Latin · §851
XXXI. Gregorius autem de Valentia tractans quaestionem hanc, An scilicet necessarium sit ad salutem credere explicite omnia quae fidei sunt, vel sufficiat aliqua credere explicite? Observat primo nos habere fidem explicitam de aliqua veritate, quum elicimus assensum immediate circa ipsam: implicitam vero, quum assensum alicujus veritatis non habemus secundum seipsam, sed habemus illum quasi implicitum in alio actu nostro, qui habet aliud immediate objectum. Ut exempli causa, quum explicite & immediate credimus Scripturam esse Dei Verbum, implicite credimus omnia quae sacra Scriptura continentur, etiamsi eorum expressam notitiam non habeamus, nec de illis unquam cogitaverimus. Postea vero mentem suam explicans de proposita quaestione, asserit hoc gratiae tempore, omnibus necessarium esse explicite credere articulos illos fidei qui continentur in Symbolo Apostolorum: alias vero fidei veritates, quae praeter articulos illos in sacris literis, vel in Ecclesiae definitionibus continentur, non necessarium esse explicite credi a vulgaribus fidelibus, quibus in Ecclesia non incumbit ex officio alios erudire, & confirmare in fide; sed satis iis esse credere implicite ejusmodi veritates. Commentariorum Theologicorum in Summam Thomae, tom. 3. disput. 1. quaest. 1. puncto 5.
Estius: explicit faith of life-necessary articles and publicly taught dogmas§852
852Estius: every Christian owes distinct explicit faith to articles whose distinct cognition is needed to order life rightly.
Dogmas publicly obvious in church teaching — by preaching, feasts, ceremonies — must be held explicitly by all not justly hindered from hearing them, especially where the Church presses hard against grave heresies (Sent. 3 Dist. 25 q. 2).
Latin · §852
XXXII. Estius vero propositam quaestionem solvit his verbis: Sane dicendum videtur in primis unumquemque Christianum teneri ad distinctam seu explicitam fidem eorum articulorum, quorum distincta cognitio ad vitam recte instituendam est necessaria. Deinde ea fidei dogmata quae publice sunt satis obvia in Ecclesiastica doctrina, sive per praedicationem Pastorum, sive per frequentationem festorum, & usum ceremoniarum, explicite tenenda sunt omnibus iis qui justa ratione non impediuntur, quominus ea sic publice in Ecclesia proponi atque doceri videant, audiant & intelligant; eoque magis quo circa talia docenda major versatur Ecclesiae cura. Cujusmodi fere sunt quae diligentius inculcari solent contra graves haereses. In libr. 3. Sent. Dist. 25. q. 2.
Today Rome denies persuasion of own remitted sins as faith-act; Cologne/Cassander dissent noted§853
853Present Roman consensus refuses to make persuasion that one has obtained mercy and remitted sins part of saving justifying faith; such persuasion is treated as rash presumption, not the act by which one is justified.
Cassander cites earlier Cologne Enchiridion theologians who required believing not only general remission for penitents in Christ, but also that one own sins are remitted through faith, together with a new penitent affection.
Latin · §853
XXXIII. Praeterea Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, hodie saltem, communi consensu ad fidem salvificam & justificantem pertinere nolunt, ut quis persuasus sit se misericordiam a Deo consecutum esse, & sibi remissa esse per Christi gratiam peccata. Ac ejusmodi persuasionem negant esse fidei actum, & potius ad temerariam quandam praesumptionem spectare existimant: nedum ut putent per illam hominem justificari. Fuere tamen nonnulli superiori saeculo in Ecclesia Romana Theologi, iique non incelebres, qui senserunt & scriptis publice mandaverunt ad justificationem hominis omnino requiri, ut homo certo credat, non tantum generaliter quod propter Christum vere poenitentibus remittantur peccata, sed etiam quod ipsi homini remissa sint propter Christum per fidem. Hanc sententiam Georgius Cassander, in consultatione ad articulum quartum Confessionis Augustanae, tribuit Theologis Coloniensibus, quorum verba recitat ex libro quem ediderunt anno superioris saeculi trigesimo sexto in Concilio quodam suae dioeceseos, cuique titulum fecerunt Enchiridion Christianae Religionis. Ubi, teste eodem Cassandro, sic legitur: Dicimus hominem per fidem donum justificationis tum demum accipere, quum & perterrefactus & concussus in poenitentia rursus erigitur per fidem, credens sibi esse remissa peccata propter meritum Christi, qui in se credentibus remissionem peccatorum pollicitus est, & quum novum in se sentit affectum, quo detestatur malum, & carnis infirmitati resistens, ad bonum secundum Deum accenditur, tametsi affectus nondum perfectus sit.
Catharinus: private divine faith of remitted sins possible without being Catholic faith-act§854
854Catharinus denies that persuasion of obtained pardon is an act of Catholic faith or a requirement for justification.
Yet he allows the justified, without special revelation, a private divine faith that their sins are remitted when they experience in themselves the conditions under which God promised remission; Vasquez notes such assent can be divine faith if drawn from revealed principles plus evident experience (Disp. 209.3).
Latin · §854
XXXIV. Ambrosius Catharinus autem qui Concilio Tridentino ut Episcopus interfuit, negat quidem persuasionem, quam quis habet de obtenta a Deo peccatorum suorum venia & remissione, esse fidei Catholicae actum, aut omnino aliquid ad justificationem hominis requisitum; sed tamen existimat quemlibet justificatum, sine peculiari revelatione, posse fide divina, non Catholica, sed privata, certo credere sibi esse remissa peccata, dum scilicet in se sentit & experitur ea sub quorum conditione Deus nobis in verbo promisit peccatorum remissionem. Ut enim assensus aliquis censeatur esse divinae fidei, non opus esse ut revelationi proxime innitatur, & ab ea solum oriatur, sed sufficere si colligatur ex principiis revelatis, junctis aliis quae experimento, aut alia ratione evidenter nota sunt, prout Catharini sententiam explicat Vasquez, in 1. 2. Difput. 209. cap. 3.
Vasquez: persuasion of being justified can be private divine faith and somehow aids justification§855
855Vasquez classifies duly believing one sins are remitted and that one is justified as private divine faith, specifically different from Catholic dogmatic faith (Disp. 209.4).
Such belief can arise from conjectures under the Spirit impulse rather than as a revealed proper object; even when it does not remove all fear without special revelation, it is God gift and somehow helps toward justification.
Latin · §855
XXXV. Et Vasquez ipse putat persuasionem illam qua quis debite credit sibi jam peccata remissa, & se per Dei gratiam justificatum esse, posse fidem divinam vocari, licet ejusmodi fides a fide Catholica & dogmatica specie differat, & pertineat ad fidem privatam: Cujus postquam varias species enumeravit, subjungit sequentia verba; Hujus etiam generis est fides qua quis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit, vel spirituale, vel temporale ad spiritualia tendens. Addamus etiam fidem qua quis credit se justificatum esse. Disput. 209. cap. 4. Qualis autem sit ista fides explicat capite quarto Disputationis sequentis: Speciem, inquit, existimo fidem qua quis credit se justificatum esse & sanctum apud Deum, non quia hoc revelatum sit a Deo, & ratione revelationis, tanquam proprii objecti, sed per alias conjecturas id credat, impellente ad hoc Spiritu Sancto, ut aliquando contingit. Quae quidem credulitas, quamvis non pellat omnem formidinem, nisi quando speciali revelationi innititur, nihilominus Dei donum est, & ad justificationem aliquo modo confert.
Cassander: adoption-certainty follows justification; not required to obtain it§856
856Cassander grants that justifying faith naturally yields certainty of adoption and reconciliation, and a sensed grace wrought by the Spirit.
Yet that certainty of remitted sins follows justification; it is not a condition required to obtain justification or under which remission is promised.
Latin · §856
XXXVI. Cassander autem jam dictus admittit quidem hanc esse naturam fidei justificantis ut fidelem certum reddat adoptionis suae & reconciliationis cum Deo propter meritum Christi, & sensum divinae gratiae, quem in nobis efficit Spiritus Sanctus, percipiat. Verum haec certitudo remissionis peccatorum nostrorum, juxta ipsum, sequitur justificationem, non vero est aliquid quod requiratur ad illam obtinendam, & sub quo remissio peccatorum nobis promissa sit.
Common Rome: fiducia of mercy to be obtained is not justifying faith act but distinct from faith§857
857Roman school common teaching: fiducia of pardon and mercy still to be obtained from God is not an act of justifying faith but something distinct from faith.
They urge this hard against Protestants in the faith-nature disputations of Bellarmine, Valencia, Stapleton, and others.
Latin · §857
XXXVII. Praeterea communis Theologorum in Schola Romana doctrina est fiduciam veniae & misericordiae a Deo impetrandae non esse fidei justificantis actum, sed aliquid a fide distinctum; quod vehementer urgent & contendunt contra Protestantes, ut videre est in eorum de fidei natura Disputationibus apud Bellarminum, Gregorium de Valentia, Stapletonum & alios.
Yet Trent lists hope and fiducia of divine mercy among dispositions to justification§858
858Rome still counts that fiducia among the necessary prerequisite dispositions to justification; Trent sess. 6 c. 6 lists hope and trust of divine mercy among adult dispositions.
Trent sequence: grace-stirred hearing-faith, free movement to God, belief of revealed promises especially justification of the ungodly in Christ, salutary fear, turning to mercy, hope with trust God will be propitious for Christ sake, and beginning to love him as justice fountain.
Latin · §858
XXXVIII. Nec tamen negant fiduciam illam unam esse ex conditionibus, sive dispositionibus ad justificationem necessariis & praerequisitis: ut videre est in ipso Concilio Tridentino, Sessione sexta, capite sexto, ubi inter dispositiones in adultis necessarias ad justitiam consequendam, spem & fiduciam divinae misericordiae collocat. Disponuntur autem, inquit, ad ipsam justitiam, dum excitati divina gratia & adjuti, fidem ex auditu concipientes, libere moventur in Deum, credentes vera esse quae divinitus revelata & promissa sunt, atque illud in primis, a Deo justificari impium per gratiam ejus, per redemptionem quae est in Christo Jesu: & dum peccatores se esse intelligentes, a divinae justitiae timore, quo utiliter concutiuntur, ad considerandam Dei misericordiam se convertendo, in spem eriguntur, fidentes Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore, illumque tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt.
Fiducia not act of absolute faith but included in living formed faith (credere in Deum)§859
859When Romans say fiducia is not a faith-act, they mean absolute faith in its proper nature, not living formed faith (credere in Deum), which alone actually saves and which includes fiducia and love among its acts.
Jaubert (Clypeus 1.40.8-11) and Lombard via Augustine: living faith is not assent alone but also mercy-trust flowing from charity; believing in God means loving, going into, clinging, and being incorporated into his members.
Latin · §859
XXXIX. Quum autem docent fiduciam non esse partem sive actum fidei, loquuntur de fide absolute spectata, & secundum propriam naturam, non vero de fide viva, quam formatam appellant, & quam solam actu servare & justificare concedunt, cujusque actus exprimitur per credere in Deum. Fides enim hoc modo considerata fiduciam includit, & fiducia inter illius actus numerari debet, ut & ipsa dilectio Dei, ex confessione Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae. Licet secundum eorum doctrinam, dilectio non sit actus fidei simpliciter spectatae, & prout est virtus a charitate distincta. Qua de re videndus est Jaubertus Arelatensis Archiepiscopus, in Clypeo fidei Catholicae, contra Molinaei Clypeum, Tom. 1. capite 40. Ubi pluries affirmat & repetit fiduciam & dilectionem includi in fide viva, & fidem vivam constare non solum assensu qui praebetur veritati divinae, sed etiam fiducia quae ex charitate manat. Praesertim numero 8, 9, & 11. ubi etiam observat, neminem esse Doctorum Catholicorum qui non admittat in fide cognitionem aliquam supernaturalem, & in fide viva fiduciam divinae misericordiae, & qui non fateatur Deo injurium esse qui credit Deo, nec tamen in eum sperat, & eum diligit. Quomodo etiam Lombardus verbis Augustini dicit, quod credere in Deum est credendo amare, credendo in eum ire, credendo ei adhaerere, & membris ejus incorporari. Lib. 3. Sententiarum, Distinctione 23.
Vasquez: private faith of the promise necessary alongside Catholic faith for hope and justification§860
860Vasquez not only puts fiducia inside living faith but names as faith the penitent persuasion that God will remit one sins and justify him.
Beside Catholic faith of universal dogmas and promises he requires a private promise-faith that God will not fail with efficacious help; without that peculiar faith, hope of pardon — itself a necessary disposition — cannot stand, so Trent sess. 6 c. 8 faith as salvation beginning/root covers both Catholic and private promise-faith (Disp. 210.5).
Latin · §860
XL. Est autem hic observandum Gabrielem Vasquez non solum agnoscere fiduciam esse fidei vivae partem, sed etiam illum nomen fidei tribuere persuasioni illi, qua aliquis per veram poenitentiam se ad Deum convertens, confidit Deum sibi peccata remissurum, seque justificandum esse. Nam ad justificationem docet non tantum conducere, sed necessariam esse, non solum fidem Catholicam dogmatum, historiae, & promissionum quae universe factae sunt, sed etiam fidem privatam promissionis, qua quisque credat sibi Deum non defuturum, neque negaturum auxilium efficax, & se tandem a Deo justificandum. Nam, inquit, si aliquis existimaret Deum negaturum auxilium efficax ad salutem, omnis ad justificationem progressus & dispositio impediretur, ut manifeste constat. Inter reliqua enim necessaria ad justificationem primam debet esse spes veniae; haec autem sine fide peculiari esse non potest. Nam quamvis aliquis crederet ea quae universe promissa sunt, nempe, vere poenitentibus peccata remitti, & poenitentiae adeoque operibus bonis a Deo obtineri veniam & justificationem; tamen nisi etiam credat se iis operibus quae exercet a Deo veniam consecuturum, quae sane est fides peculiaris promissionis, non poterit nunc veniam sibi a Deo sperare, ac proinde neque justificationis compos erit; siquidem spes non minus necessaria est dispositio ad justificationem quam fides. Quocirca fidem illam quam Concilium Tridentinum Sessione sexta, cap. 8. docet esse humanae salutis initium & fundamentum, & radicem omnis justificationis, & sine qua cum Apostolo dicit esse impossibile placere Deo, & ad consortium filiorum pervenire, fidem, inquam, illam non solum esse fidem Catholicam & dogmaticam, sed etiam fidem privatam promissionis; & pertendit verba Concilii de utraque exponenda & intelligenda esse, ut videre est cap. 5. Disputationis 210. jam citatae.
Romans distinguish two special applications of promises (Jaubert)§861
861Roman doctors do not simply deny special self-application of grace and salvation promises; they distinguish two appropriations.
Divine-faith certainty that one is already among God true sons they reject; moral certainty with trust expecting fulfillment they approve (Jaubert, Clypeus 1.40.9).
Latin · §861
XLI. Praeterea Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae non simpliciter & absolute negant fidelem posse & debere promissiones gratiae & salutis speciatim sibi applicare. Sed duplicem distinguunt promissionum divinarum specialem applicationem, sive appropriationem. Unam qua aliquis sic sibi appropriat, & ad se pertinere putat promissiones veris Dei filiis factas, quasi fide divina certus esset se de eo numero esse. Alteram, qua aliquis moraliter certus atque persuasus se esse Dei filium per gratiam ejus adoptatum, promissionibus divinis confidit, & earum erga se complementum expectat. Priorem illam applicationem damnant & rejiciunt, posteriorem vero probant & amplectuntur. Ut videre est apud eundem Jaubertum Archiepiscopum Arelatensem, Tom. 1. adversus Molinaei Clypeum, cap. 40. num. 9.
Both schools: Spirit-wrought faith is idle or love-working§862
862From this slice and what precedes, both Roman and Reformed schools agree Spirit-authored divine faith is either idle without good works or active working through love.
Latin · §862
XLII. Porro ex iis quae tum hisce Thesibus, tum praecedentibus fuerunt exposita, circa naturam fidei salvificae & justificantis, ejusque distinctionem a fide mortua sive otiosa, patet Theologos utriusque Scholae, tum Romanae tum Reformatae, in eo consentire, quod fides illa divina, quae ad Spiritum Sanctum ut authorem referenda est, vel est otiosa & bonis operibus destituta, vel actuosa, & per dilectionem operans.
Romans with Reformed: idle faith dead, hypocritical, useless to save§863
863Rome with the Reformed grants idle workless faith is rightly called dead and hypocritical, useless for salvation and justice, saves and justifies no one, and is not believing well as one ought.
Latin · §863
XLIII. Rursus ostendimus Doctores Scholae Romanae, non minus quam ipsos Reformatos fateri fidem illam otiosam & vacuam bonis operibus jure merito dici mortuam & hypocriticam, eamque esse ad salutem & justitiam inutilem, neque quenquam per illam servari & justificari, & etiam illum qui credit tantum istiusmodi fide non credere bene & sicut oportet.
Reformed grant historic faith a Spirit gift and intellect perfection§864
864Reformed freely grant Rome that historic faith — assent to the Word that does not yet move the will to well-doing — is among God gifts and an intellect perfection lighting saving truth.
Those so gifted are greatly culpable for not using that light for their own salvation, since by nature it shows the way of justice and salvation.
Latin · §864
XLIV. Ex alia vero parte, ut etiam ex antedictis liquere potest, Reformati non negant, & ultro Scholae Romanae Doctoribus concedunt, illam etiam fidem quam historicam vocant, & per quam mens ita praebet assensum Dei Verbo, ut tamen inde voluntas non moveatur ad bene agendum, inter Dei dona debere recenseri, & esse quandam humani intellectus perfectionem, per quam hominum mentes illuminantur in cognitione veritatis illius quae per se salutaris est: & illos qui sunt ista fide donati in maxima culpa esse quod ad propriam salutem tali lumine non utantur, quod scilicet, ex se & sua natura justitiae & salutis viam hominibus ostendit.
True faith name-fight: Reformed reserve true for saving; Rome allows both senses§865
865Whether dead idle faith is true faith is largely a name fight: Reformed reserve true for saving faith; Rome often allows true also for real Spirit-gifted assent.
Even Romans who restrict true to living faith still call dead faith true as non-feigned assent, Scriptural faith, and a Spirit gift lighting saving good — which Reformed do not deny.
Latin · §865
XLV. An autem fides illa mortua atque otiosa vera fides dici debeat, inter se disputant Scholae utriusque Doctores. Veram esse communiter affirmant Scholae Romanae Theologi, Reformati vero negant. Sed videtur esse merum de nomine certamen. Nam Doctores Reformati verae fidei titulum tribuendum putant illi soli fidei quae revera homines salvat & justificat, quo sensu fidem mortuam veram esse non docent Scholae Romanae Doctores: imo eorum nonnulli patiuntur eo respectu, ut vidimus, verae fidei nomen ad fidem vivam restringi. Sed tamen fidei etiam mortuae atque otiosae verae fidei titulum jure tribui posse volunt, quoniam est assensus, qui non omnino ficte, sed vere Dei verbo adhibetur, quique reapse fides in Scriptura vocatur, & revera est donum Spiritus Sancti, & perfectio quaedam mentis humanae, qua in boni salutaris notitia illustratur, quod Theologi Reformati non negant.
Historic vs dogmatic: Romans misread Reformed historic faith§866
866Rome dislikes the Reformed historic label and prefers dogmatic, but most Romans misread historic as mere human assent to Scripture stories.
Reformed historic faith names divine assent to the whole Word that remains idle and speculative — commonly called dead faith.
Latin · §866
XLVI. Non probant quoque, ut supra notatum est, Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores quod Reformati fidem illam historicam appellant, & dogmaticam potius dici malunt. Sed ut patet ex dictis, falluntur eorum plerique, dum putant Reformatos per historicam fidem intelligere solum illum assensum qui historiis Scripturae adhibetur, & quo historiae illae verae esse creduntur fide tantum humana, qualis etiam profanis historicis adhiberi solet. Etenim, ut jam dictum, Reformati fidei historicae nomine designant illam etiam quae divina quidem est, & toti Dei Verbo assensum praebet, sed otiosa tamen est & mere speculativa, quae communiter nomen fidei mortuae obtinet.
Formed and unformed: external form for salvation-profit, not essence§867
867Reformed reject informis/formata as if charity were faith inner form; Rome means only an external form that makes faith profit for salvation, not essence.
Aside from the barbarous, unscriptural phrasing, Le Blanc finds nothing else to blame in that Roman usage.
Latin · §867
XLVII. Vicissim vero Theologi Reformati non probant quod Schola Romana fidem illam mortuam & otiosam, fidem informem vocat, fidem vero formatam illam quae activa est, & per dilectionem operans; quasi charitas esset forma fidei. Sed per hoc Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae significatum volunt charitatem esse fidei formam internam & proprie dictam, quae essentiam illius absolute constituat, quod merito videtur Reformatis absurdum; sed solummodo formam quandam externam, a qua fides non habet simpliciter quod sit, sed tantum quod valeat & prosit ad salutem: in quo certe praeter locutionem ipsam, quae in se barbara est, & Scripturae inusitata, nihil est quod merito reprehendi debeat.
Seeming clash: same species as dead faith yet dead faith profits nothing§868
868Rome common teaching that saving justifying faith is not specifically distinct from dead unformed faith seems to clash with their own admission that dead faith profits nothing for salvation or justice.
Latin · §868
XLVIII. Videri posset majoris momenti quod communi consensu docent Scholae Romanae Theologi; nempe fidem salvificam atque justificantem non esse quid diversum & specie distinctum ab ista fide mortua & informi; quod etiam non satis concordare videtur cum eo quod jamjam diximus eos fateri atque agnoscere, nimirum fidem mortuam & informem ad salutem nihil prodesse, & ad justitiam esse inutilem. Quomodo enim ista constare possunt, fidem mortuam nihil ad salutem prodesse, & tamen illam esse unicam & eandem cum fide salvifica atque justificante, nec ab ea specie distingui?
Resolution: same species or number; only living faith actually justifies§869
869Rome holds living formed faith the same species (even same number) as dead, yet living surpasses by external accidental perfection; only living efficacious faith actually saves and justifies.
Salvation-texts they refer to living formed faith; not-yet-formed as disposition means active faith beginning to work and birth charity, not idle speculation (Stapleton; Vasquez).
Latin · §869
XLIX. Sed ad mentem eorum penitius intelligendam, in memoriam revocandum est illos docere quidem fidem vivam & charitate formatam esse eundem specie habitum cum informi & mortua fide: imo eandem numero fidem ex mortua vivam, & ex viva mortuam successive fieri posse: sed tamen eos non negare quin fides viva mortuam superet perfectione, saltem externa & accidentali, per quam una ab altera merito distinguitur. Deinde illos quoque communi consensu fateri solam fidem vivam atque efficacem posse hominem actu servare & justificare, illam vero quae mortua & otiosa manet salutem hominis nihil promovere, neque quicquam facere ad hominem justificandum. Adeoque longe plurimi Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores loca illa ubi salus & justitia fidei tribuitur, de fide viva & formata exponenda esse contendunt, & ad eam solam referenda, ut supra fuit a nobis observatum. Quod si qui dicant fidem nondum formatam ad justitiam hominem disponere, & esse justitiae & salutis initium, fundamentum & radicem, per fidem nondum formatam non intelligunt fidem otiosam & mere speculativam, sed fidem quandam actuosam, quae incipit esse per bona opera efficax, quaeque charitatem quodammodo parturit, licet illam adhuc non sit plene adepta, ut patet ex iis quae supra ex Stapletono & Vasquez citata sunt.
Whole question reduces to specific vs accidental difference — small once living alone saves§870
870Rome can say justifying faith is not specifically other than dogmatic/historic yet still join Reformed in granting only living efficacious faith actually saves.
The dispute shrinks to specific/generic vs merely accidental difference — scholastic and small once both sides attribute salvation to living not dead faith.
Latin · §870
L. Itaque quamvis Doctores illi dicant fidem justificantem specie non differre a fide dogmatica, quam historicam Reformati appellant, nihilominus cum Reformatis agnoscunt solam fidem vivam atque efficacem hominem, ut jam dictum est, actu servare & justificare, minime vero istud convenire fidei mortuae atque otiosae. Ac juxta eorum hypotheses ista simul consistunt solam fidem vivam justificare & tamen fidem justificantem a fide mortua & mere dogmatica non esse specie diversam, quia, scilicet, supponunt fidem vivam tantum accidentaliter a fide mortua differre. Ac proinde huc redit tota quaestio, An scilicet fides viva & per charitatem operans a fide mortua specie, vel genere differat, quod tenent Reformati: An vero inter utramque sit accidentale tantum quoddam discrimen; quod communiter docet Schola Romana? Quae quidem quaestio mere Scholastica & Philosophica est, nec admodum magni momenti, dum constet salutem atque justitiam non fidei mortuae, sed vivae tribuendam esse, quod utrinque in confesso est.
If Romans call dead faith justifying, they mean remote disposition only§871
871When some Romans label dead idle faith justifying, they mean remote disposition, not actual justification.
Reformed press only that living efficacious faith disposes infallibly and proximately — and Rome agrees on that point.
Latin · §871
LI. Quod si nonnulli Scholae Romanae Theologi justificantis nomen quandoque ipsi fidei mortuae & otiosae attribuunt, per id non significant illam actu justificare, sed solum illam ad justificationem non proxime, sed remote disponere. In hac autem quaestione Reformati non agunt de remota quadam dispositione, nec multum laborant, An fides etiam mortua sit istiusmodi quaedam ad justificationem remota dispositio. Sed id solum docere & asserere intendunt, nullam aliam fidem quam vivam atque efficacem homines ad justificationem infallibiliter & proxime disponere: qua in re assentientes habent Scholae Romanae Theologos.
Definition clash: Roman firm assent vs Reformed fiducia definitions§872
872Rome unanimously defines faith as firm assent to all God has revealed because of the Revealer authority; Reformed definitions of justifying faith look more varied.
Some Reformed keep assent but add efficacy and focus on grace-promises; most define by fiducia applying Christ merit, or heart-rest in God as author of eternal life.
Latin · §872
LII. Jam autem in definienda fide justificante multum dissentire videntur a Reformatis Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Nam hi quidem fidem unanimi consensu definiunt firmum assensum adhibitum omnibus iis quae sunt Verbo Dei revelata propter Dei revelantis authoritatem & testimonium: Reformati vero varias, & quae multum diversae videntur, fidei justificantis definitiones tradunt. Et quidem nonnulli sunt qui jam allatam fidei definitionem probant & usurpant, nisi quod addunt fidem salvificam assensum esse efficacem, & qui potissimum circa promissiones gratiae versetur. Alii vero plerique fidem definiunt, certam fiduciam qua nobis Christi meritum applicamus, aut salutis per Christum obtinendae certam fiduciam & apprehensionem. Vel etiam, ut ante latius expositum fuit, acquiescentiam cordis in Deo, tanquam in authore vitae & salutis aeternae, ut per ipsam ab omni malo liberemur, & omne bonum consequamur, & quae sunt in hunc aut similem sensum.
Rome defines faith absolutely (living and dead); Reformed define the living add-on§873
873Rome scopes the definition to absolute faith common to living and dead — a definition Reformed also use for faith as genus.
Reformed justifying-faith definitions mostly name only what living faith adds beyond faith in general.
Latin · §873
LIII. Verum observandum est scopum Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae hic esse fidem definire, prout absolute & in se consideratur, & eam tradere fidei definitionem quae non soli fidei vivae, sed etiam mortuae competat. Quo respectu nemo inter Reformatos fidem ab eis recte definiri negabit. Etenim dum illi fidem simpliciter definiunt, & prout est genus ad fidem historicam atque justificantem, eadem omnino definitione utuntur. Reformati vero dum fidem justificantem definiunt, definitione sua plerunque solum includere intendunt quod fides viva atque justificans fidei generatim consideratae superaddit.
Loose Roman and tight Reformed definitions do not negate shared content§874
874Rome loose definition does not deny living faith is practical efficacious assent including mercy-trust.
Reformed tight definitions do not deny firm assent to the whole Word; they spotlight what most distinguishes living justifying faith from historic dead faith.
Latin · §874
LIV. Itaque dum Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae ita laxam fidei definitionem tradunt, per id negare nolunt fidem vivam, quam tamen solam actu servare & justificare fatentur, esse assensum practicum atque efficacem, imo etiam includere divinae gratiae & misericordiae fiduciam. Et vice versa Doctores Reformati, dum fidem justificantem tam arcte definiunt, per id docere non intendunt ad naturam ejus nihil pertinere quod definitione ista non exprimatur, aut negare quod sit firmus assensus omnibus quae Verbo Dei continentur adhibitus, sed tali definitione istud solum exponere volunt quod fidei vivae atque justificantis maxime proprium esse existimant, & quod juxta ipsorum mentem illam a fide historica sive mortua potissimum distinguit atque disterminat.
Object: both sides — whole Word, yet grace-promises principal (Stapleton/Trent)§875
875Reformed grant Rome that justifying faith object covers all God Word contains; Rome wrongly charges a promises-only restriction.
Rome likewise grants Gospel promises as principal (Stapleton from Trent) while refusing restriction to promises alone — so little controversy remains here.
Latin · §875
LV. Circa fidei objectum patet ex antedictis Reformatos Ecclesiae Romanae concedere omnia in universum quae Dei Verbo continentur ad fidei justificantis objectum pertinere; adeoque frustra Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae cum Reformatis disputant, quasi fidei objectum ad solas promissiones gratiae restringerent. Vicissim vero Theologi Ecclesiae Romanae, licet contendant fidei justificantis objectum tam late patere quam patet Dei Verbum, non negant tamen fidem justificantem circa promissiones Evangelicas potissimum versari, quemadmodum ex ipso Concilio Tridentino Thomas Stapletonus supra deduxit & probavit: ita ut nulla videatur hactenus ea de re esse controversia, quandoquidem utrique concedunt promissiones gratiae esse praecipuum fidei objectum, & tamen objectum fidei ad promissiones illas non esse restringendum.
Special mercy object: antecedent remitted vs to-be-remitted (Cassander/Cologne)§876
876The live fight is whether special mercy is justifying faith object and chief part — Protestants usually yes, Rome no.
Special mercy may be antecedent (already remitted) or still to be obtained; some Reformed and even Cologne/Cassander treat antecedent remitted-sins persuasion as justifying, but many Reformed put to-be-remitted trust as the justifying object.
Latin · §876
LVI. Proinde id solum hic videtur controverti, An misericordia Dei specialis pertineat ad fidei justificantis objectum, & sit ejus praecipua pars? quod Protestantes communiter affirmant, negant vero Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Verum hic observandum est misericordiam illam specialem dupliciter considerari posse, ut jam superioribus Thesibus ostendimus, nempe, vel ut gratiam quandam antecedentem, & quam ille qui credit jam adeptus est, veluti quum quis credit sibi jam esse remissa peccata; vel ut aliquid per fidem obtinendum, veluti quum credimus peccata nobis esse remittenda. Et videntur quidem ex Reformatis nonnulli actus illius fidei per quem justificamur objectum constituere misericordiam quandam specialem antecedentem, quasi justificaremur per actum illum fidei quo certo statuimus peccata per Christum nobis esse remissa. Qua in re quoque nonnullos ex Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae astipulantes habent, sicut patet ex iis quae supra de Theologis Coloniensibus ex Georgio Cassandro relata sunt. Sed Theologi Reformati complures, non misericordiam quandam antecedentem, sed quam fidelis a Deo se consecuturum confidit, illius fidei actus per quem justificamur objectum constituunt. Neque dicunt nos justificari per fidem qua credimus peccata nobis jam esse remissa, sed qua credimus peccata per Christum esse remittenda.
Vasquez requires such to-be-remitted faith; most Romans deny particular remitted/to-be-remitted as faith object§877
877Vasquez requires that to-be-remitted faith for justification and reads Trent justifying-faith Canon of it.
Most Roman doctors still deny special mercy however taken as faith object — denying particular remitted or certainly-to-be-remitted belief as faith proper act.
Latin · §877
LVII. Qualem etiam fidem ad justificationem necessariam esse expresse docet Vasquez locis ante citatis, & de tali fide putat exponendum ipsius Concilii Tridentini Canonem, ubi agitur de fide per quam justificamur. Veruntamen plerique Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae misericordiam specialem quoquomodo consideratam negant esse fidei objectum, hoc est, negant fidei proprium actum esse ut credamus nobis in particulari peccata vel remissa, vel certo remittenda esse.
Yet Rome requires mercy-fiducia for justification — partly logomachy§878
878Rome still requires resting trust on divine mercy with hope of remission, so some of the clash is a fight over words.
Reformed special mercy as object usually means non-antecedent mercy under trust counted as faith; Romans deny chiefly antecedent mercy as faith object while distinguishing faith from trust, yet still require trust of divine mercy for justification.
Latin · §878
LVIII. Nec tamen propterea negant ad justificationem requiri fiduciam divinae misericordiae, qua scilicet quis in divinam misericordiam recumbat, & speret sive confidat, se peccatorum suorum remissionem a Deo obtenturum. Adeo ut hic quoque videatur aliquid esse logomachiae. Nam dum Doctores Reformati plerique affirmant misericordiam specialem esse fidei quatenus justificat objectum, non agunt de misericordia speciali antecedente, ac praeterea sub fide fiduciam includunt, & statuunt specialem istam misericordiam objectum esse fidei, quia circa illam versatur fiducia quam fidei actum esse existimant. Dum vero negant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae misericordiam specialem esse fidei justificantis objectum, agunt potissimum de misericordia speciali antecedente, ac praeterea fidem a fiducia distinguunt. Neque idcirco negant misericordiae divinae fiduciam ad justificationem requiri, & omnino necessariam esse.
Reflex certainty of already-received grace: Reformed secondary act; Rome allows sure fiducia§879
879Most Reformed make antecedent remitted-sins certainty a reflexive secondary faith-act after justification, not the primary justifying act — which Rome denies as faith.
Yet Rome allows so sure a fiducia of obtained remission that it expels doubt and anxiety, nearly Protestant; and Catharinus/Vasquez even call that persuasion an act of private divine faith.
Latin · §879
LIX. Licet autem plerique ex Theologis Reformatis misericordiam illam specialem antecedentem non faciant objectum fidei respectu actus illius primarii atque praecipui per quem remissionem peccatorum consequimur, constanter tamen docent fidem justificantem circa illam versari actu quodam reflexo atque secundario, hoc est, illum qui fide justificatus est, per actum fidei reflexum certum esse posse de gratia quam est a Deo consecuturus. Quod negant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Sed si negent fideles & justos de impetrata a Deo remissione peccatorum suorum per fidem certos esse posse, concedunt tamen illos de ista remissione fiduciam posse concipere, & quidem ita certam, ut pellat ex animo dubitationem atque anxietatem, quod a Protestantium sententia vix differt. Adde quod non desunt in Schola Romana qui persuasionem sive fiduciam illam quam homo fidelis & justus concipit de remissione peccatorum suorum, pertendant esse cujusdam fidei divinae actum, quod supra de Catharino & Vasquez ostensum est.
Notitia: Rome grants apprehension, explicit chief articles, and useful growth in knowledge§880
880On notitia Rome grants Reformed that some apprehension is needed to conceive faith, and explicit knowledge of chief articles for saving faith.
Implicit or rude cognition may suffice for many dogmas, yet clearer knowledge is useful and praiseworthy and should be pressed according to calling and capacity.
Latin · §880
LX. Quod attinet ad fidei actus, quaeritur primo de notitia & cognitione rerum credendarum, An & quousque ad fidem pertineat & necessaria sit? Concedunt autem, ut ante visum est, Reformatis Doctores Scholae Romanae ad fidem concipiendam aliquam objecti credendi conceptionem & apprehensionem necessariam esse: imo ad fidem salvificam requiri expressam atque explicitam praecipuorum aliquot articulorum fidei notitiam. Denique, etsi dicant ad salutem sufficere plerorumque dogmatum religionis fidem implicitam, imo praecipuorum ipsorum mysteriorum rudem & confusam tantum cognitionem, non negant tamen utilem & laudabilem esse distinctiorem & accuratiorem notitiam rerum divinarum, ut quae magis ac magis animos in Dei amorem accendat: ac proinde fideles hortationibus posse & debere compelli, ut pro modo vocationis, & singulorum captu, in mysteriorum fidei notitia magis ac magis proficiant.
Reformed grant essence in assent not notitia; notitia not strict science§881
881Reformed grant Rome that faith essence is assent rather than notitia, though some knowledge is included or presupposed.
That included knowledge is not strict science (evident cognition through causes) nor even always distinct accurate perception of mode.
Latin · §881
LXI. Vicissim vero Doctores Reformati Scholae Romanae Doctoribus concedunt fidei naturam atque essentiam in assensu potius quam in notitia consistere; licet notitia quaedam in fide includatur, aut ad eam praesupponatur. Fatentur quoque notitiam illam, quam includit aut praesupponit fides, non esse scientiam stricte & proprie dictam, id est, cognitionem evidentem rei per causas; nec etiam, si non evidentem, saltem distinctam atque accuratam aliquam notitiam, qua non tantum res, sed etiam modus rei percipiatur.
Not every dogma needs explicit grasp; privates need not pastor-level defense§882
882Reformed do not require from every believer explicit apprehension of every dogma; knowing fundamental principal mysteries expressly is enough.
Even for those principal mysteries, privates need not the distinct accurate intelligence by which doctors and pastors defend and prove them.
Latin · §882
LXII. Praeterea non negant ad fidem salvificam non necessario a singulis requiri singulorum fidei dogmatum expressam, seu distinctam & explicitam apprehensionem, sed sufficere si expresse noverint fundamentalia atque praecipua fidei mysteria. Imo nequidem respectu praecipuorum istorum fidei mysteriorum necessario a privatis exigunt distinctam atque accuratam illorum intelligentiam, qua istiusmodi mysteria tueri, explicare & probare possint. Quod quidem in Doctore & Pastore necessarium est, in privato ex eorum sententia non item.
Rome disputes in vain as if Reformed put faith in notitia and exact science§883
883Rome argues in vain as if Reformed located faith in notitia rather than assent, and as if every believer must have exact accurate distinct cognition able to explain and defend mysteries like a doctor or minister.
Latin · §883
LXIII. Itaque frustra disputant Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores contra Reformatae Scholae Theologos, quasi fidem non tam in assensu, quam in notitia rei creditae constituant. Item quasi ad fidem singulorum requirant exactam, accuratam, & distinctam cognitionem mysteriorum fidei, per quam aliquis illa explicare, tueri ac defendere possit; ut tenetur facere Doctor aliquis, & Verbi Divini Minister.
Reformed should not over-read Bellarmine ignorance over science line§884
884Reformed should not charge Rome with requiring zero cognition for private faith or preferring ignorance to knowledge.
Bellarmine faith better by ignorance than science is harsh phrasing, but means science as evident knowledge we lack regarding faith-objects — not dissent from Reformed doctrine.
Latin · §884
LXIV. Et similiter Reformati Scholae Romanae Doctoribus imputare non debent, quod ad fidem privatorum nullam rerum credendarum cognitionem requirant, & quod in iis rerum divinarum ignorantiam illarum scientiae atque cognitioni praeferendam censeant. Ac supra modum videntur exagitare illud Bellarmini, nempe, quod fides contra scientiam distinguitur, & quod fides melius per ignorantiam, quam per scientiam definitur. Etenim licet istud dure atque incommode dictum sit, ex Bellarmini tamen sensu, per hoc nihil significatur, quod ab ipsa Reformatorum doctrina dissentiat, ut patet ex iis quae antea fuerunt exposita. Ubi ostendimus Bellarminum scientiam ibi proprie sumere pro notitia quadam evidenti, qualem non habemus respectu eorum quae ad fidem pertinent.
Assent: common to historic and living; specific justifying act beyond bare assent (Ames)§885
885A few Reformed deny assent is a faith-act; most number it among faith acts. Rome puts principal act in assent to the whole Word; Reformed deny that for living faith specifically.
Rome speaks of absolute faith; Reformed say assent is common to historic and living, so the specific saving act lies beyond bare assent — Ames means assent does not mark off saving from historic faith.
Latin · §885
LXV. Quod spectat ad assensum, reperiuntur inter Reformatos unus & alter qui negant illum esse fidei actum, sed solum quid fidem praecedens, & ab ea praesuppositum. Caeteri vero communiter assensum inter actus fidei numerare solent. In eo tamen videtur esse aliquis dissensus inter Theologos Ecclesiae Romanae, & inter Scholae Reformatae Doctores, quod priores illi quidem praecipuum fidei actum consistere velint in assensu qui toti Verbo Dei adhibetur, id vero negant Reformati. Verum si quis propius inspiciat mentem Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae, agnoscet illos, dum docent fidem in assensu proprie consistere, loqui de fide simpliciter & absolute considerata, & prout abstrahitur a fide tam viva quam mortua, minime vero agere de eo quod fidem vivam, quae sola actu justificat, a mortua distinguit. Reformatorum vero mens est assensum esse quid commune fidei mortuae, quam historicam vocant, & fidei vivae, quae sola salutem & justitiam affert: ac proinde proprium & specificum actum fidei, quatenus salvat & justificat, alia in re quam in nudo & simplici assensu statuendum & collocandum esse. Et ita quoad rei summam videntur utrique, hac etiam in parte inter se consentire. Amesius autem, & si qui alii sint qui negent assensum esse fidei salvificae actum, id solum sibi volunt, assensum non esse id quod fidem salvificam ab historica & mortua discernit.
Special application as practical use of the Word — Rome agrees faith must be efficacious§886
886Reformed commonly teach special application of grace and salvation promises; Rome seems to reject it.
But if application means living faith is not idle speculation but turns the Word to practice and the believer use, Rome already grants faith must be efficacious and active to justify and save.
Latin · §886
LXVI. Praeterea patet ex iis quae supra fuerunt dicta & exposita, Doctores Reformatos communi consensu docere proprium esse fidei salvificae & justificantis promissiones gratiae & salutis speciatim cuilibet credenti applicare, quam specialem applicationem Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores rejicere videntur. Sed primo quod attinet ad illos ex Reformatis qui applicationem istam in eo consistere volunt, quod fides viva atque justificans otiosa non sit & speculativa, sed quaecunque in Dei Verbo ipsi objiciuntur ad praxin & proprium credentis usum referat, manifestum est illos nihil hac in parte docere quod a Theologorum Ecclesiae Romanae doctrina abhorreat. Illi enim, ut supra visum est, ultro fatentur fidem, nisi efficax & actuosa sit, justificare & servare non posse.
Persuasion-application: same twofold Roman distinction as in XLI§887
887If special application means persuasion that grace and salvation promises specially belong to me, Rome rejects it only with the XLI distinction.
Divine-faith certainty of already being among God sons is condemned; moral certainty with trust expecting fulfillment is approved.
Latin · §887
LXVII. Si quis vero, ut plerunque fieri solet, per applicationem specialem intelligat persuasionem illam qua fidelis statuit promissiones gratiae & salutis specialiter ad se pertinere; talem applicationem non simpliciter & omnino, sed cum distinctione aliqua rejiciunt Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores. Etenim, ut ante diximus, observant duplicem esse promissionum divinarum specialem applicationem. Unam qua aliquis sic sibi applicat, & ad se pertinere putat promissiones veris Dei filiis factas, quasi fide divina certus esset se de eorum numero esse. Alteram, qua aliquis moraliter certus atque persuasus sese esse Dei filium per gratiam ejus adoptatum, promissionibus divinis confidit, & earum erga se complementum expectat. Priorem illam applicationem damnant & rejiciunt, posteriorem probant & amplectuntur.
Issue is whether application is faith-act or only fiducia-act (Vasquez names it faith)§888
888The real question is not whether the believer may/should apply grace promises, but whether that application is a faith-act (Reformed) or only a fiducia-act (Rome).
Even so, some Romans including Vasquez still name that persuasion about obtained or future grace as faith.
Latin · §888
LXVIII. Itaque quaestio non est, An fidelis possit & debeat gratiae promissiones sibi applicare, sed an applicatio ista sit fidei actus? quod tenent Reformati: An vero non fidei, sed fiduciae tantum actus censeri debeat? quae est sententia Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae. Et tamen inter ipsos Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores non desunt qui istam persuasionem, quam fidelis aliquis concipit de gratia Dei, sive jam obtenta, sive in futurum obtinenda, fidei nomine donent, quo de numero esse Gabrielem Vasquez Jesuita manifestum faciunt quae supra ex ipso allata fuerunt.
Most Reformed join fiducia to faith; Rome distinguishes absolute faith but includes fiducia in living faith§889
889Most Reformed admit application belongs to fiducia yet call it a faith-act because they join fiducia to faith; a minority treat fiducia as effect only.
Rome distinguishes fiducia from absolute faith, but expressly includes fiducia in living faith.
Latin · §889
LXIX. Vicissim vero Reformati plerique applicationem istam ad fiduciam pertinere non negant, sed ideo contendunt illam esse fidei actum, quod fiduciam cum fide conjungant, & fidei partem facere existiment. Nam sunt quidem inter Reformatos qui fiduciam a fide distinguunt, & fiduciam non fidei partem, sed effectum esse sentiunt; at Reformatorum plurimi fiduciam inter actus & partes fidei numerant, & per fiduciam fidem definiunt, tanquam per id quod est in ea praecipuum. Doctores autem Ecclesiae Romanae communi consensu pertendunt fiduciam esse a fide distinguendam, nec illam fidei partem aut actum constituere. Verum dum sic docent, fidem considerant simpliciter & absolute, & prout a fide tam viva quam mortua praescindit: sed si quis fidem ut vivam consideret, hoc respectu non negant, imo expresse docent, fiduciam fide includi, ut liquet ex iis quae supra citavimus.
Love likewise: not absolute-faith act for Rome, yet included in living formed faith§890
890On dilectio some Reformed deny it is a faith-act, others affirm; all Romans say love is not an absolute-faith act but another virtue.
Yet they freely grant living formed faith includes love, and credere in Deum means loving God and tending into God.
Latin · §890
LXX. Similiter quoque res se habet de Dilectione. Nam vidimus quosdam inter Reformatos negare dilectionem esse fidei actum, alios vero istud docere atque affirmare. Omnes vero Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae in ea esse sententia, quod dilectio non sit fidei actus, sed ad aliam virtutem pertineat, nempe ut jam dictum, si fidei natura absolute consideretur. Alioquin ultro fatentur fidem vivam & formatam dilectionem includere, & credere in Deum, qui est illius actus, esse Deum amare, & in Deum tendere.
Closing logomachy: both sides agree living faith includes trust and love§891
891Much of the fiducia/love fight is verbal: Reformed mean living faith as distinct from historic when they number trust and love among faith acts.
Rome denies those as acts of absolute faith common to dead and living, yet grants that living faith as such includes trust and love as its acts — so the Roman comparison block closes in shared substance.
Latin · §891
LXXI. Unde patet hic quoque multum esse logomachiae & verbalis contentionis. Nam dum Reformati plerique Theologi fiduciam & amorem ad fidem pertinere dicunt, & inter ejus actus numerari debere affirmant, fidem ut vivam considerant, & prout a fide mortua seu historica distinguitur: & asserunt fiduciam & dilectionem esse fidei actus, quoniam amor & fiducia, quae a fide viva separari non possunt, fidem vivam a mortua discriminant. Caeteroqui non negant, si quis in communi fidem definiat, & per illa tantum quae fidei tam mortuae, quam vivae competunt, hoc respectu nec amorem, nec fiduciam esse fidei partem, nec ejus ingredi definitionem. Et vice versa, dum Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae negant amorem atque fiduciam esse fidei actus, & fidem per amorem aut fiduciam esse definiendam, fidem ut saepius dictum est, considerant secundum id quod commune habet fidei tam mortuae, quam vivae. Si quis vero fidem vivam ut talem consideret, minime diffiteantur fiduciam & dilectionem ea includi, & tanquam actus ejus considerari posse.
Reformed disagree: some place faith subject in intellect alone (Molinaeus, Baron)§892
892Reformed are not of one mind on which faculty is faith's subject.
Molinaeus and Baron place the proper subject in intellect alone: no faith-act not elicited by mind.
Latin · §892
I. DE facultate cui fides inhaeret, & quae pro fidei subjecto habenda est, non idem sentiunt Doctores Reformati. Non desunt inter eos viri celeberrimi qui putant proprium fidei subjectum esse intellectum, non vero voluntatem. Nec enim ullum actum fidei tribuendum esse, qui non ab intellectu & mente eliciatur. Haec est sententia Petri Molinaei, ut manifeste colligitur ex Thesibus illius de Fide justificante, parte secunda, Thesi 18, & 19. Hanc quoque sententiam tenet Robertus Baronius in Philosophia Theologiae Ancillante: Fides, inquit, est in solo intellectu, proprie, subjective, & respectu suae essentiae. Exercit. 3. artic. 2. num. 5.
Amyraut: faith's subject is intellect beyond controversy§893
893Amyraut (Theses de Fide 1.15ff) treats intellect as faith's seat beyond serious dispute.
To have faith = to believe = to be persuaded of truth; persuasion enters by reasons into the intellect.
Latin · §893
II. Praesertim vero istud, tanquam rem certam atque exploratam, affirmat Moses Amyraldus, Thesibus de Fide, parte 1. Thesi 15. & seqq. Subjectum, inquit, cui habitus fidei innascitur, atque inhaeret, facultatem eam esse quae in homine intellectus appellatur, debet esse extra controversiam apud omnes, qui saltem rem istam considerant non omnino oscitanter. Nempe, cum habere fidem nihil aliud sit quam credere, credere autem sit esse persuasum de veritate alicujus rei, fieri nequit quin fides pertineat ad intellectum. Nam & veritas est objectum intellectus; & persuasio non fit aliter, quam admittendo, aut introducendo in intellectum eas rationes, eaque argumenta, quibus unaquaeque res sese veram esse demonstret.
Intellect-only party: whole form of faith resides in mind assent§894
894For this party the whole essence of faith sits in intellect alone.
Proper acts: know the Word and assent — both intellective, none other.
Latin · §894
III. Illi ergo Theologi censent propriam fidei sedem esse solum hominis intellectum, & fidem, secundum totam formam & essentiam in solo intellectu esse & residere. Quippe integram fidei naturam constituunt in apprehensione veritatis coelestis a Deo revelatae, & in judicio atque assensu quodam qui circa eandem veritatem versatur. Nec alium proprium fidei actum agnoscunt, quam Verbum Dei nosse, eique, ut par est, credere atque assentiri, quae duo ad intellectum, non ad ullam aliam facultatem, pertinent.
Yet they mean practical intellect: assent moves the will by effects§895
895Intellect here = practical mind: faith's proper act is practical assent that moves the will.
Subjectively in intellect alone, yet effectively in the will by inseparable effects.
Latin · §895
IV. Verum hic per intellectum, non mentem theoreticam sed practicam intelligunt: quandoquidem fidei proprium actum esse docent, non assensum quemvis, sed assensum practicum, qui voluntatem movet atque afficit. Ac proinde quamvis existiment fidem subjective esse in solo intellectu, illam tamen volunt esse in voluntate effective, id est, per suos effectus. Nempe, quia licet proprius ejus actus in mente recipiatur, multos tamen illa motus & operationes in voluntate excitat, quae necessario illam comitantur, & sine quibus vera & salvifica fides nec esse, nec dici meretur.
Tilenus: primarily in intellect, secondarily in will as it moves it§896
896Tilenus: faith primarily and properly in intellect; secondarily in will as mover.
Like moral knowledge: subjective in mind, effective in will when it commands action.
Latin · §896
V. Sic rem istam explicat Tilenus, Disputatione de Fide justificante: Fides, inquit, est in intellectu primò per se, & proprie; in voluntate secundariò, nempe συναπτικῶς, quatenus eam movet & afficit. Sicut scientia, qua bonum a malo internoscimus, subjective inest menti, voluntati effective, quum elicit, aut imperat actiones quas ratio dictat.
Baron: faith in intellect by essence, yet belongs to will by origin, annexed act, fruits§897
897Baron: essence in intellect (even fiducia), yet faith touches will by origin, annexed love-act, and fruits.
Assent is often called will-commanded and free (Augustine: none believe unwilling); love co-instant; sanctification follows.
Latin · §897
VI. Similia docet Rob. Baronius Articulo supra citato. Quamvis enim numero quinto asserat fidem esse in solo intellectu proprie subjective, & respectu suae essentiae, idque quoniam omnes fidei partes, notitia, scilicet, assensus, & etiam, ipso judice, fiducia in intellectu consistunt; numero tamen septimo affirmat fidem ad voluntatem pertinere multis modis. Et primo quidem ratione originis: secundo, ratione actus annexi: tertio, ratione fructuum, qui ex fide in voluntate nascuntur. Quod postea explicans, Pertinet, inquit, ad eam ratione originis, quia intellectus noster sine voluntatis inclinatione, & imperio ad assentiendum movetur, & in captivitatem redigitur. Unde assensus fidei appellari solet actus imperatus a voluntate; item denominari solet voluntarius & liber actus; videlicet quia dependet a principio libere agente, hoc est, a voluntate; atque hinc est quod dixit Augustinus, Neminem credere nisi volentem. Pertinet etiam fides ad voluntatem ratione actus annexi & concomitantis; nam in eo ipso instanti, quo fides in intellectu assentitur Evangelicis promissionibus, easque certo & stabili judicio sibi applicat, voluntas ardenti amore gratiam & favorem Dei amplectitur. Denique pertinet ad eam, ratione fructuum & operationum, quia illuminationem fidei in mente sequitur sanctificatio & emollitio voluntatis.
All grant will-fruits; Amyraut denies will-command needed for assent§898
898Reformed agree faith's fruits touch the will; they quarrel whether assent is will-commanded.
Amyraut: faith follows Spirit-disposed intellect like sensation follows a fit organ — no will-imperium needed.
Latin · §898
VII. Caeterum fidem salvificam ad voluntatem pertinere ratione multorum actuum & fructuum fidei annexorum, & eam concomitantium, nemo est inter Doctores Reformatos qui dubitet. An autem assensus ille quem Verbo Dei praebemus, ratione originis ad voluntatem pertineat, & censeri debeat a voluntate imperatus, inter eos omnes non habetur pro comperto. Saltem Moses Amyraldus istud non videtur fuisse concessurus. Nam Thesibus de Causa Fidei docet fidem necessario oriri & produci ex appulsu objecti, id est, doctrinae Evangelicae, ad intellectum rite affectum atque dispositum per immediatam Spiritus Sancti operationem: quemadmodum sensatio necessario sequitur ad praesentiam objecti sensibilis, si sensus organum naturae convenienter se habeat. Unde sequitur ad fidei actum a mente eliciendum nullum voluntatis imperium requiri.
Others with Baron: pious affection must precede assent (Ames)§899
899Baron's side: some will-affection must precede assent.
Ames: pious affection toward God is among assent's antecedents (Medulla 1.5).
Latin · §899
VIII. Contra tamen sentiunt praestantes alii Scholae Reformatae Doctores, & cum Rob. Baronio docent ad fidei assensum praerequiri motum & affectum aliquem voluntatis, quo mens ad assentiendum veritatibus fidei impellatur. Id manifeste colligitur ex Amesii doctrina. Nam inter ea quae praecedunt assensum, quem veritati divinae praebemus, unum est, juxta ipsum, Affectio pia erga Deum, quae facit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius testimonium. In Medulla Theol. lib. 1. cap. 5.
Chamier: faith is voluntary intellect-act commanded by will (Thomas)§900
900Chamier (Panstratia 3.12.4): faith is a will-commanded intellect act (with Thomas).
Science assents by evidence; theology's obscure truths need the will to move assent — else no assent at all.
Latin · §900
IX. Sed praesertim multus est super ea re Daniel Chamierus, Panstratiae Tom. 3. lib. 12. cap. 4. de Fide, paragr. 6. & sequentibus. Ubi multis argumentis probat fidem esse voluntariam, id est, a voluntate ortum suum habere, & esse actum intellectus a voluntate imperatum; alios enim actus intellectus a voluntate pendere, alios vero non pendere, fidem vero esse de priorum numero; adeoque quemadmodum omnia bona opera sunt a voluntate nostra, tanquam a causa, ita etiam fidem ab eadem nostra voluntate ut a causa secunda esse. Itaque tanquam suum adoptat illud Thomae, Credere ad intellectum pertinet, prout est a voluntate motus ad assentiendum. Cujus rei hanc rationem affert par. 13. Nempe quod motus quo fertur intellectus ad verum, & qui dicitur assensus, fit dupliciter. Alias, per rationem, id est, evidentiam rei; quomodo in scientiis plerisque conclusiones persuadentur ex vi principiorum. Et hic assensus necessarius est, nempe quia quodammodo cogitur animus vi rationum. Alias, is motus fit a voluntate, nimirum, quum res est obscura, id est, remotior a captu mentis humanae, quae tum cogitur quasi palpare in tenebris, luce illa rationum destituta. Itaque, quomodo in tenebris non potest oculus objectum apprehendere, propter subtractionem lucis intermediae, ita intellectus obscuras res non potest percipere, deficiente rationum lumine. Proinde tum voluntatis partes esse necesse est, haec enim intellectum movet ad assensum rei alioquin incognitae. Jam in Theologia quis nescit non esse rationum evidentiam. Oportet ergo in Theologia, vel assensum nullum esse, vel esse a voluntate movente intellectum. Hactenus Chamierus.
Ames places faith essentially in will alone (five concurrents)§901
901Ames (Medulla 2.5): faith's constituting acts are will-acts; knowledge does not constitute; assent is effect.
Essentially in will alone — nearly the reverse of the intellect-only party.
Latin · §901
X. Sed hoc misso, quod spectat facultatem cui fides inhaeret, reperiuntur inter Theologos Reformatos nonnulli qui putant illam non esse mentem, sive intellectum, sed voluntatem solam. Omnes enim illos actus quibus proprie constat fides nolunt esse actus mentis, sed voluntatis. Haec est sententia Guil. Amesii in Medulla Theologiae, lib. 2. cap. 5. num. 12. & seqq. Postquam enim dixit quinque ad fidem concurrere, quorum primum est, Notitia rei testatae: 2. Affectio pia erga Deum, quae facit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius testimonium: 3. Assensus qui praebetur veritati testatae: 4. Acquiescentia in Deo ad illud quod proponitur consequendum: & 5. Electio vel apprehensio rei ipsius quae in testimonio nobis exhibetur: subjungit, Primum horum est in intellectu, sed non constituit fidem. Secundum, quartum, & quintum sunt in voluntate, & constituunt fidem. Tertium est in intellectu, sed prout movetur a voluntate, neque est proprie fidei virtus, sed effectum. Unde patet illum ita fidem in voluntate collocare secundum propriam formam & essentiam, ut tamen aliquos actus in intellectu praerequirat, & quidam etiam illius effectus ad intellectum pertineant; ut quasi e diametro sententia ejus primae supra relatae opponatur.
Ames in Bellarmine Enervatus: will-seat with antecedent intellect assent — seeming clash§902
902Ames (Bellarmine Enervatus 4.4.1) seats justifying faith in will yet requires antecedent intellect-assent and grants consequent intellect virtue.
Apparent clash with assent-as-effect is eased if assent follows pious affection but precedes resting/election acts.
Latin · §902
XI. In Bellarmino vero Enervato eadem de re sic philosophatur, Observandum est nos ita in voluntate fidem quae justificat collocare, ut antecedentem intellectus assensum ad fidem requiri doceamus, & vim ac virtutem fidei in intellectu consequentem agnoscamus. Qua utraque ratione fidem populariter ita describere solemus, quasi partim esset in intellectu, & partim in voluntate. Tom. 4. lib. 4. cap. 1. Ubi obiter notandum in priori loco, quem modo citavimus, Amesium ponere assensum, tanquam effectum fidei, in hoc vero posteriori, illum antecedentem intellectus assensum ad fidem requirere; inter quae videtur esse manifesta contradictio. Nam si assensus est effectum fidei, quomodo fidem antecedit? Nisi quis ista sic conciliare velit, ut dicat, juxta Amesium, assensum esse fidei effectum, quia sequitur unum ex illis quae fidem constituunt, ex Amesii mente, nempe piam illam erga Deum affectionem, quae facit, ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius testimonium; Eundem tamen assensum, secundum Amesium, fidem antecedere, respectu aliorum actuum, quibus etiam constat fides qui sunt illa, quam vocat, Acquiescentia in Deo ad illud quod proponitur consequendum, & electio vel apprehensio rei ipsius, quae in testimonio nobis exhibetur.
Middle Reformed view (most common): faith in both faculties as aggregate§903
903Most Reformed take a middle: justifying faith formally in both intellect and will.
Not one simple habit — an aggregate of intellect- and will-elicited acts.
Latin · §903
XII. Porro inter duas istas sententias, quae in hoc negotio videri possunt extremae, & quasi e regione oppositae, est tertia quaedam media, quae in Schola Reformata longe communior est. Illa est quae statuit fidem justificantem, nec in solo intellectu, nec in sola voluntate esse, sed utrique facultati proprie, formaliter, & subjective inesse. Et hoc quia constat actibus partim ab intellectu, partim a voluntate ortis & elicitis. Nec enim est unus simplex habitus, vel actus, sed aggregatum plurium actuum, vel habituum.
Chamier: faith is love (credere in Deum = loving) hence will-act§904
904Chamier: faith is in intellect and will; syllogism — love is will-act; faith is love; therefore will-act.
True faith = believing in God = loving by believing (Augustine).
Latin · §904
XIII. Hanc sententiam tenet Daniel Chamierus, qui probat primo fidem esse in intellectu, deinde etiam illam esse in voluntate. Et inter alia hoc argumento utitur; Omnis amor est actus voluntatis: At fides est amor: Ergo est actus voluntatis. Fidem autem esse amorem, inde probat quod vera fides est ea qua credimus in Deum. Credere autem in Deum, teste Augustino, est credendo amare. Panstrat. tom. 3. lib. 12. cap. 3. & 4.
Wendelin: faith not simple virtue — knowledge, assent, trust span powers§905
905Wendelin: same will-argument; faith is not a simple virtue.
Parts (knowledge, assent, trust) do not all belong to one power.
Latin · §905
XIV. Eodem quoque argumento utitur Wendelinus, ut probet, fidem non in solo haerere intellectu, sed ad voluntatem quoque pertinere. Theol. Christ. lib. 1. cap. 24. in explicatione 1. theses cretavae. Ubi etiam observat fidem non esse virtutem simplicem; sed diversis constare partibus, notitia, assensu & fiducia, quae ad eandem potentiam non pertinent.
Bucanus: subject is the soul — mind knows/judges; will/heart embraces§906
906Bucanus: faith's subject is the human soul.
Mind: knowledge, judgment, consent to Word/promise; will and heart: apprehension/embrace.
Latin · §906
XV. Bucanus vero ad quaestionem illam, Quod est subjectum fidei in nobis? Respondet sequentibus verbis: Anima hominis, & in mente quidem tum notitia seu intelligentia, tum judicium & consensus acquiescens in verbo & promissione divina; in voluntate vero & corde, apprehensio, sive complexus. Loc. 10. quaest. 18.
Rivet: intellect + will; justifying faith an aggregated habit§907
907Rivet: justifying faith's subject is intellect and will (knowledge/assent vs trust).
Justifying faith is one habit by aggregation/coordination, not one simple numerical habit.
Latin · §907
XVI. Rivetus similiter proprium & speciale fidei justificantis subjectum in homine, est non solum intellectus, sed etiam voluntas. Notitia enim, inquit, & assensus ad intellectum pertinent, fiducia autem ad voluntatem. Nec ad justificationem sufficit, ut intellectus comprehendat quae Dei sunt, nisi voluntas eadem apprehendat & amplectatur, non solum in thesi, sed etiam in hypothesi. Et postea monet fidem, quatenus est justificans, Non esse habitum unum numero simplicem absolute, sed esse unum habitum aggregatione, & quodammodo compositum ex duobus, qui coordinatione tantum unum sunt, nempe quatenus fides simul involvit habitum existentem in voluntate, quo voluntas prompta sit ad credendum & confidendum Deo, quomodo duo habitus possunt esse una virtus, & duae res unus actus, & multae scientiae dicuntur habitus, tantum coordinatione unum, &c. In Synopsi purioris Theologiae, Disput. 31. Thes. 14. & 16.
Alting and many: promise offered to mind and will as true and good§908
908Alting: faith's subject is partly intellect, partly will — grace-promise known as true and embraced as good.
Walaeus, Trelcatius, Paraeus, and many agree (Alting Loci 1.13).
Latin · §908
XVII. Denique Altingius docet proprium fidei subjectum esse partim intellectum hominis, partim voluntatem, quia promissio gratiae offertur in verbo, non modo cognoscenda & approbanda ut vera, sed etiam amplectenda ut bona; adeoque menti simul & voluntati offertur, & tam hac accipi, quam illa approbari certum est. Locor. comm. parte 1. loco 13. De Vocatione interna, & Fide justificante. Quibus consentanea tradunt Antonius Walaeus, Trelcatius, Paraeus, & complures alii, quorum testimonia sigillatim citare prolixum nimis & superfluum foret.
Le Blanc's own: saving faith depends somehow on will as free good work (1 Peter 1)§909
909Le Blanc's own first point: saving faith somehow depends on the will by origin.
It is a free good work God rewards with salvation (1 Peter 1) — hence voluntary.
Latin · §909
XVIII. Ut autem aperiam quid mihi quoque hac de re videatur, illud primo ut certum habeo, fidem veram & salvificam, ratione originis suae, a voluntate quodammodo pendere. Nec enim a quoquam in dubium vocari potest quin ejusmodi fides sit opus bonum, ac laude & praemio dignum, cui Deus salutem animae, tanquam mercedem ejus gratuitam promisit, ut docet Petrus Apostolus capite primo prioris Epistolae. Omne autem opus bonum & laudabile liberum, & voluntarium est, & a voluntate libera ortum habet.
Yet true faith is not bare arbitrary assent without solid reasons§910
910True faith is not bare arbitrary assent without reason.
Word-objects are obscure in themselves, yet believers are moved by fit reasons that God truly testifies.
Latin · §910
XIX. Illud tamen non minus certum est, veram & legitimam fidem non esse assensum pure arbitrarium, & qui certa & solida ratione destituatur. Res enim quae in Verbo Dei credenda proponuntur, in se quidem sunt obscurae atque inevidentes, sed tamen qui illis eam, quam oportet, fidem adhibent, & convicti sunt Deum esse veracem, & rationibus certis & idoneis moventur, ut credant rebus illis testimonium a Deo perhiberi.
Perceiving those reasons depends on grace-changed will affections§911
911Grasping faith's reasons somehow hangs on the will: as one is affected, so one judges.
Grace must change will-affections so the mind can weigh motives; faith rises from judged truth, not bare will-imperium — yet pious affection opens the door.
Latin · §911
XX. Verum ut rationum istarum vim percipiamus, & ad illas mentem, ut decet, advertamus, quodammodo pendet a nostra voluntate. Etenim ut quisque est affectus, ita judicat. Ac cupiditates terrenae quae voluntatem nostram a coelestibus avertunt, mentem etiam obscurant, & distinent, ne se applicet iis quae cupiditatibus ejusmodi repugnant, aut vim penetret rationum quae nos ab iis abducere debent, quales sunt illae quibus veritates fidei comprobantur. Ac proinde ut fidem concipiamus, necesse est per Dei gratiam voluntatem nostram immutari, & novos affectus in ea excitari, ne quicquam impediat quominus animum, sicut convenit, applicemus ad ea quae fidem suadent meditanda & consideranda, & vim eorum ita percipiendam, ut eorum ponderi credamus, & fides animis nostris ingeneretur, non ex mero aliquo voluntatis imperio, sed quia omnibus expensis vera esse fidei mysteria judicamus, eo certissimis argumentis adducti, & motivis maxime momentosis impulsi. Quod tamen ut fiat requiritur bonus aliquis voluntatis motus, & pia quidem ejus affectio, quae quodammodo veritati aditum in mentem aperiat, ut ex dictis manifestum est.
From will as cause ≠ in will as subject (like commanded contemplation)§912
912Will-dependence does not by itself make the will faith's subject.
Like free contemplation: commanded by will, yet elicited and seated in mind alone.
Latin · §912
XXI. Nec tamen hoc sufficit, ut dicamus fidei subjectum non esse solum intellectum, sed etiam voluntatem, ut nonnullis Doctoribus Reformatis videtur. Nam inde sequitur quidem fidem esse a voluntate, non tamen in voluntate, sicut in subjecto recipi. Sicut libera quaevis contemplatio a voluntate quidem imperata est, sed a sola mente elicitur, & in sola mente, tanquam in subjecto proprio, recipitur.
Faith precisely vs other virtues: simple assent habit in intellect alone§913
913Take faith precisely against hope/charity: one simple deep assent-habit to the Word.
So taken, seat is intellect alone — truth is intellect's object, good is will's.
Latin · §913
XXII. Ut autem recte fidei subjectum assignetur, notandum est fidem posse duplici modo sumi. Primo quidem praecise, prout spei & charitati, ac caeteris omnibus virtutibus opponitur. Et tum fides est unus simplex habitus, neque aliud quam firmus ac serius, & animum alte penetrans assensus, quem adhibemus Dei Verbo, & omnibus quae sunt in eo revelata. Fides hoc modo sumpta est in solo intellectu, nec ulla sui parte voluntati inhaeret. Nam veritati assensum praebere, intellectus est, non vero voluntatis. Et hactenus verum objectum intellectus, ut bonum voluntatis objectum habetur.
Living faith as aggregate: includes love, desire, trust — will also subject (Galatians 5:6)§914
914Usually 'faith' names an aggregate: assent plus love, desire of grace, and resting trust.
That living/saving/formed faith (faith working through love, Galatians 5:6) has will as subject too.
Latin · §914
XXIII. Sed ut plurimum fidei nomine, tum in Scriptura, tum apud scriptores Ecclesiasticos, designatur aggregatum quoddam pluribus actibus vel habitibus constans, & quod praeter jam dictum assensum, includit synceram Dei dilectionem, & ardens gratiae ejus desiderium, ac fiduciam qua ad Deum confugimus, & in favore ejus acquiescimus. Et haec est quam fidem vivam, salvificam & justificantem, solemus appellare, & quae a Paulo dicitur fides per dilectionem operans, quamque Schola Romana fidem formatam vocat. Fidei autem sic acceptae subjectum non est sola mens, sed etiam voluntas, cujus actus est Dei amor, & desiderium gratiae divinae, ac fiducia qua Deo innitimur & illi adhaeremus.
Conciliation of intellect-only and both-faculties; Ames will-only improbable§915
915Intellect-only and both-faculties views can be reconciled by the twofold sense.
Ames's will-only view is improbable: dropping assent as faith-act rewrites the word's common sense.
Latin · §915
XXIV. Et ita quidem conciliari possunt sententiae eorum qui dicunt fidem esse in solo intellectu, & eorum qui, contra, contendunt fidem intellectum & voluntatem occupare, & utrique facultati, tanquam subjecto inesse. Sed omnino improbabilis est sententia Amesii & eorum qui cum illo censent fidem esse in sola voluntate, cum alienum sit a recta ratione statuere fidem in assensu, saltem ex parte, non consistere, & assensum non esse fidei actum. Neque hoc statui potest, quin immutetur communis & usitata notio vocabuli fidei, quod a viro sapiente & cordato fieri non debet.
Rome: faith subjectively in intellect alone, yet will commands assent (Estius; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 10; Romans 4)§916
916Rome seats faith subjectively in intellect alone, yet grants will concurs as commanding principle (Estius Sent. 3 dist. 23).
Religious objects rarely admit reason's exam (1 Corinthians 1:18); will must lead assent into Christ's obedience (2 Corinthians 10), as Abraham did not consider his dead body (Romans 4).
Latin · §916
XXV. Quod spectat ad Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, communis Scholae Romanae doctrina est, fidem esse subjective in intellectu solo, non autem in voluntate. Nec tamen negant fidem ad voluntatem aliquo modo pertinere, & non intellectum solum, sed etiam voluntatem concurrere ad fidei actum. Quam rem explicat Guil. Estius in tertium Sententiarum, Distinctione 23. ubi dicit fidem partim intellectus esse, partim voluntatis; intellectus quidem tanquam subjecti, & propriae potentiae, quoniam ipsum credere, sive assentiri, qui est fidei actus, est cognitivae partis; voluntatis vero quia fides ab ea dependet, tanquam ab imperante & consentiente principio. Cum enim, inquit, humanae menti proprium sit ratione disceptare & examinare, sitne rebus propositis assentiendum, annon? Ea vero quae ad religionem pertinent talia fere sint quae rationis examen non admittant, utpote judicio humanae sapientiae ut plurimum improbabilia, ut docet Apostolus 1. Cor. 1. 18; profecto vel nunquam, vel raro intellectus noster rebus hujusmodi acquiesceret, nisi voluntatis imperio & inclinatione in assensum duceretur, & ut loquitur Apostolus, 2. Cor. 10. in captivitatem redigeretur in obsequium seu obedientiam Christi. Necessaria est igitur intellectui in credendo haec benigna voluntatis inclinatio, tum ut ad eas rationes se convertat quae fidem gignant nutriantque, vel saltem ostendant id quod creditur non esse absurdum, tum ut eas rejiciat quae assensum impedire aut remorari possint. Unde de Abrahamo dicitur Rom. 4. quod non consideravit corpus suum emortuum, &c. Est igitur assensus fidei ex consequenti etiam voluntatis actus, nimirum a voluntate imperatus, tum quoad ejus initium, tum quoad ejus continuationem.
Thomas and Sylvester: believe with the heart = by will (Romans 10:10)§917
917Thomas on Romans 10:10: believing with the heart = by the will; one can do outward cult unwilling, but not believe.
Sylvester: heart-belief excludes fiction and marks will-commanded saving faith vs coerced demonic/sign-faith (Romans 10:10).
Latin · §917
XXVI. Quibus conformia sunt quae scribit Thomas Aquinas in illa verba Pauli, Corde enim creditur ad justitiam. Corde creditur, inquit, id est, voluntate. Nam caetera quae ad exteriorem Dei cultum pertinent, potest homo nolens; sed credere non potest, nisi volens. Intellectus enim credentis non determinatur ad assentiendum veritati, ex necessitate rationis, sicut intellectus scientis, sed ex voluntate. Et in eadem verba Sylvester: Ait corde credere, ad excludendam fictionem, cum qua multi accedunt ad Baptismum, & ad indicandum quod fides conferens justitiam a voluntate imperatur, ad differentiam fidei coactae, qualis est in daemonibus, & erat in illis qui crediderunt in eum a signis coacti, ipse autem Christus non credebat semetipsum eis. Nam haec fides justitiam non affert: nam ut scientia virtute rationis demonstrantis gignitur, ita fides non demonstratur, sed virtute suscipitur voluntatis captivantis intellectum in obsequium Christi, qui illam infundit.
Rome's intellect-only subject is of absolute faith; living formed faith occupies will too§918
918Rome's intellect-only claim covers absolute faith in itself.
Living formed faith, even for them, seats trust and love in the will as elicited acts.
Latin · §918
XXVII. Porro quum dicunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae subjectum fidei non esse voluntatem, sed intellectum solum, id proculdubio intelligendum est de fide absolute & in se considerata. Nam si sermo sit de fide viva, & per dilectionem operante, quam formatam appellant, dubitari non potest, quin illa, etiam ex eorum mente, non intellectum tantum, sed voluntatem etiam occupet, & in ea sedem habeat: quandoquidem includit, ipsis agnoscentibus, fiduciam & dilectionem, qui actus a voluntate non imperantur tantum, sed eliciuntur quoque: ac proinde in ista facultate, tanquam in subjecto proprio recipiuntur.
Contarini and Cajetan: faith begins and ends in will; Bonaventure both powers§919
919Contarini: faith begins in obedient will, yields intellect-assent and promise-trust, and ends again in will.
Cajetan (John 6) and Bonaventure: believing in God joins intellect and will / cognitive and affective powers.
Latin · §919
XXVIII. Huc spectant verba illa Cardinalis Contareni, in tractatu de Justificatione: Fides incipit a voluntate, quae obediens Deo & fidei, efficit ut intellectus assentiatur, absque haesitatione, traditis a Deo, & ideo promissionibus divinis confidat, & conceptat ex illis firmam fiduciam, quae pertinet ad voluntatem; ut quasi circulo quodam incipiat a voluntate haec fides, & desinat in voluntatem. Quibus consonat illud Cardinalis Cajetani, Credere in Deum est credendo confidere, & tendere in Deum, quod continet in se actum intellectus & voluntatis: in Joh. 6. Et eadem fuit sententia veterum Scholasticorum; qui teste Bonaventura in 3. Sent. dist. 23. docuerunt, fidem quodammodo esse in potentia cognitiva, & quodammodo in potentia affectiva; & ipse docet fidem, ut est virtus, & principium meriti, respicere liberum arbitrium, ut subjectum.
Verbal clash: absolute-faith subject vs living-faith subject§920
920Some Reformed concede intellect-alone as proper subject; most claim both faculties — Rome usually denies.
Much is verbal: Rome means absolute faith (dead or living); Reformed mean living faith, which Rome also seats partly in will via trust and love.
Latin · §920
XXIX. Porro, ut liquet ex dictis, nonnulli Scholae Reformatae Doctores Theologis Scholae Romanae concedunt, fidem in solo intellectu esse, tanquam in proprio subjecto; licet voluntatem quoque moveat & afficiat: sed Reformati plerique utramque facultatem, tam voluntatem, quam mentem subjectum esse fidei contendunt: quod communiter negant Doctores Scholae Romanae. Verum ex iis quoque quae supra fuerunt exposita, patet hic etiam esse contentionem de verbis. Nam quum negant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae fidem esse in voluntate, tanquam in proprio subjecto, fidem, ut jam dictum est, absolute considerant, & secundum illa quae ipsi conveniunt, sive viva, sive mortua sit; quo respectu nullus inter Reformatos affirmabit voluntatem esse fidei subjectum. Quum vero dicunt Doctores Reformati fidem non esse in solo intellectu, sed etiam in voluntate, loquuntur de fide viva & per charitatem operante, prout fidei mortuae & historicae opponitur: Quo respectu Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae non inviti fatentur non solum intellectum, sed voluntatem etiam esse fidei subjectum, quandoquidem ipsis ultro concedentibus, fides sic considerata includit fiduciam & dilectionem ipsam, quae sunt voluntatis actus.
Whole subject-of-faith dispute is philosophical, not piety§921
921Le Blanc: the subject-of-faith fight is philosophical, not piety.
Piety needs living embrace of the Gospel; mind-vs-will faculty questions can wait for philosophers.
Latin · §921
XXX. Caeterum hic observandum est totam hanc Disputationem de Fidei Subjecto, uti plures alias, esse Philosophicam, & nihil ad pietatem & Religionem attinere. Nam ad hanc quidem maxime pertinet, ut sciamus quid nobis agendum & faciendum sit, ut Christi Domini nostri mandata obsequamur de Evangelio vera vivaque fide amplectendo: An autem actus illi quibus constat vera fides sint mentis vel voluntatis, ad pietatem nihil omnino facit, non magis quam illa quaestio, An mens & voluntas sint duae facultates realiter distinctae, an vero una eademque diversimode solum considerata? Item, quod hodie quoque vocatur in controversiam, An judicium sit actus mentis, an voluntatis? Quae Philosophis possunt per otium discutienda & examinanda relinqui.
Next: faith's connection with love and works — Reformed: inseparable§922
922Shift: connection of faith with love and good works.
Reformed consensus: true saving faith is inseparable from charity — light never without heat.
Latin · §922
XXXI. Atque hactenus de fidei subjecto. Superest paucis exponendum, quid Scholae, tum Reformatae, tum Romanae Doctores sentiant circa connexionem fidei cum dilectione & bonis operibus. Et quidem Reformatorum concors sententia est veram & salvificam fidem esse a charitate penitus inseparabilem: ita ut vera fides in eo esse non possit qui charitatem non habet, & in quo Dei & proximi dilectio non reperitur. Quia scilicet ea est verae fidei indoles, ut charitatem & virtutes caeteras in anima fidelis necessario gignat, quemadmodum lux solis sine calore non est, sed perpetuo illum comitem habet.
Reformed grant illuminated yet vicious assent — but refuse true/saving name (James)§923
923Reformed grant Spirit-lit theoretical assent in the vicious — yet deny it the true/saving name.
James: such faith does not save; 'true' is reserved for living efficacious faith inseparable from charity (James 2).
Latin · §923
XXXII. Agnoscunt tamen non solum humanam quandam fidem & persuasionem Dei Verbo & Doctrinae Christianae adhiberi posse, ab iis qui perdite & flagitiose vivunt, & dilectione Dei destituuntur; sed etiam multos esse quorum Spiritus Sanctus mentes illuminavit, ut verbi divini veritatem agnoscant, & theoretice illi assentientur, qui nihilominus vitiis indulgent, nec Deum syncere diligunt. Sed quanquam tales in Scriptura saepius credere dicantur, & Dei Verbum quandam illis fidei speciem tribuat, illam tamen fidem veram & salvificam dici nolunt; quoniam, juxta ipsos, illa sola fides verae & salvificae titulum meretur, quae justitiam & salutem homini actu confert, quod praestare non potest modo descripta fides. Nam ad salutem homini, teste Jacobo, nihil prodest. Et propterea quanquam a Spiritu Sancto procedat, & assensum non omnino fictum veritati divinae praebeat, illam tamen simpliciter & absolute veram dici nolunt: sed historicae nomine eam distinguere solent a fide viva atque salvifica, cui nomen verae fidei appropriant. Ac proinde quod dicunt veram fidem esse penitus a charitate inseparabilem, ex eorum mente intelligendum est, de fide viva atque efficaci, quae sola ad salutem prodest, & hominem actu justificare valet.
Rome: true saving faith separable from charity and works§924
924Rome: true saving faith can exist without charity and works — and remain after charity is cast away.
Spirit-moved real assent counts as true faith even when dead and unformed.
Latin · §924
XXXIII. Contra vero Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae unanimi consensu statuunt, veram & salvificam fidem a charitate & bonis operibus esse separabilem: ac fieri posse ut aliquis Evangelio vere credat, & veram fidem concipiat, Spiritu Sancto inspirante, nec tamen bonis operibus studeat, & Deum sincere diligat: & rursus ut aliquis charitatem abjiciat, & veram fidem retineat, quod in multis reapse contingere existimant. Nimirum, juxta illos, quicunque Spiritu Sancto movente & illuminante, Verbo Dei & iis quae sunt in eo revelata reapse assentitur, vere credere censendus est, & fides talis quantumlibet mortua & informis vera fides dici meretur.
Rome still titles dead faith saving/justifying as remote disposition§925
925Rome admits dead faith does not actually save, yet still titles it saving/justifying as remote disposition.
On that naming, saving faith can exist apart from charity and works.
Latin · §925
XXXIV. Imo quamvis fidem mortuam ad salutem nihil prodesse, & ad justitiam esse inutilem fateantur, quia neminem actu salvat & justificat, nihilominus illam ornant saepe titulo salvificae & justificantis, quoniam, remote saltem, hominem ad salutem & justitiam disponit. Et sic, secundum ipsos, fides salvifica atque justificans a charitate & bonis operibus separata existere potest.
Can living faith separate from charity? Divided vs composed sense§926
926Rome distinguishes: in divided sense living faith can become dead by losing charity.
In composed sense living (=actually saving) faith cannot exist without charity.
Latin · §926
XXXV. Si quis autem in specie quaerat, An fides viva, quam solam ad salutem & justitiam prodesse concedunt, a charitate separari possit? secundum ipsorum doctrinam per distinctionem quandam respondendum est. Nam in sensu diviso a charitate separari potest, id est, fieri potest, ut fides quae viva est a charitate separetur, & sic non amplius viva, sed mortua sit. Sed in sensu composito fides viva, quae sola actu salvat & justificat, a charitate non potest separari, quia fides sine charitate viva esse non potest, & ad salutem utilis. Nec ista sunt compatibilia, ut fides viva maneat, & tamen sine charitate existat.
Common ground + name fight over calling remote-disposing faith saving§927
927Both sides: Spirit-gifted assent without charity exists in the wicked and actually saves no one; Reformed allow remote preparation.
Name-fight: should remote-disposing faith be called true/saving? Better style reserves those names for faith that actually saves.
Latin · §927
XXXVI. Porro, ut clarum est ex iis quae dicta sunt, Theologi Scholae Reformatae Ecclesiae Romanae Doctoribus concedunt, esse quandam fidem, quae sit Spiritus Sancti donum, & per quam aliquis reipsa Dei Verbo assentitur, quae tamen juncta non est cum charitate & bonis operibus; & in multis improbis hominibus reperitur. Consentiunt etiam utriusque Scholae Doctores, ejusmodi fidem actu neminem servare & justificare; neque negabunt Reformati illam esse quandam remotam ad salutem praeparationem. Quaestio solummodo est, an propterea quod remote ad justitiam & salutem disponat, illi tribui debeat nomen salvificae & justificantis, & nomen verae fidei; quia vero objecto, Spiritu Sancto movente, revera assentitur, quamvis de caetero credenti maneat inutilis. Quae quaestio, ut apparet, de nomine tantum est, cum de re ipsa constet. Quanquam rationi, & Scripturae stylo congruentius sit, eam solum fidem justificantem & salvificam vocare, quae actu servat atque salvificat, non vero eam quae actu & reipsa ad justitiam & salutem habentis nihil prodest. Ut & verae fidei nomen merito appropriari potest, illi quae finem suum assequitur, & per quam aliquis credit bene & sicut oportet. Praesertim cum saepe Scriptura fidem simpliciter nominans, ejusmodi fidem, & non aliam intelligat.
Rome grants living faith never without charity; Reformed grant fall from living love§928
928Rome grants: living faith never without charity; no actually-saving faith without works of love.
Reformed also grant: once-living faith can lose love, cease justifying for a time, and leave the person unaccepted.
Latin · §928
XXXVII. Vicissim Scholae Romanae Doctores Reformatis concedunt, fidem vivam a charitate & bonis operibus separatam nunquam existere; nec ullam fidem actu servare & justificare, quae cum charitate & bonis operibus juncta non sit. Quod vero dicunt fidem quae jam per dilectionem operatur, & hominem in statu gratiae & salutis constituit, a dilectione separari posse, & in eo remanere in quo non amplius est ea charitas, & illud studium bonorum operum quae ad salutem necessaria sunt: quo casu fides ab actu justificandi cessat, nec pro illo tempore hominem Deo gratum reddit, & acceptum ad vitam aeternam, a Reformatis non negatur.
Polish Thorun Confession: regenerate can lose true faith while in known sin§929
929Polish Reformers at Thorn: false charge that the once-justified cannot lose grace while sinning at will.
Regenerate persevering in known sin retain for that time neither true faith nor justifying grace — new damnation-guilt unless renewed to repentance.
Latin · §929
XXXVIII. Certe istud plane congruit cum doctrina Reformatorum in Regno Poloniae, ut manifestum facit eorum Confessio in Colloquio Thoruniensi exhibita. Falso, inquiunt, accusamur quasi statuamus semel justificatos, Dei gratiam, ejusve certitudinem, & ipsum Spiritum Sanctum non posse amittere, quamvis in peccatis pro lubitu volutentur, cum contra potius doceamus ipsos etiam renatos, quoties in peccata contra conscientiam recidunt, in iisque aliquandiu perseverant, nec fidem veram, nec Dei gratiam justificantem, nedum ejus certitudinem, aut Spiritum Sanctum, pro illo tempore, retinere; sed novum irae ac mortis aeternae reatum incurrere, ac propterea, nisi speciali gratia Dei excitante (quod in electis fieri non dubitamus) ad resipiscentiam iterum renoventur, reipsa etiam damnandos esse. Cap. 4. de Gratia. sect. 2. num. 11.
Paraeus and Baron: habitual faith in mortal fallers does not justify§930
930Losing true faith in known sin means separation from love — faith ceases saving/justifying.
Paraeus and Baron: habitual-only faith in mortal fallers is interrupted and does not justify for that time.
Latin · §930
XXXIX. Nec enim possunt Renati, quum in peccatis contra conscientiam perseverant, amittere veram fidem, quin fides eorum separetur a Dei & proximi dilectione, & sic desinat esse vera, id est, salvifica atque justificans, quia cessat ab actu salvandi & justificandi, neque talis est, ut Deo hominem gratum & acceptum reddat. Quod etiam conforme est sententiae Davidis Paraei; Fides, inquit, in lapsis habitualiter tantum manens, proprie justificans dici, aut eos justificare non potest. In lib. 1. Bellarm. de Amissione Gratiae, cap. 7. sub finem. Quod probans Rob. Baronius, dicit Fidem, quoad actum illum vivum, quo justificat, in renatis mortaliter peccantibus interrumpi, & deliquium pati; ita ut durante eo statu, eos justificare, aut fides justificans dici non possit. Disput. de Peccato mortali & veniali, sect. 1. num. 5.
David's fall shows living faith can separate from charity's works for a time§931
931Saints' falls prove living justifying faith can for a time lose charity's works without becoming absolute unbelief.
David's months of adultery and Uriah's murder (2 Samuel 11) kept Word-assent yet not saving love — under damnation-guilt for that interval.
Latin · §931
XL. Ac sane rem ita se habere, & fidem quae nunc viva est & efficax, & per quam aliquis jam justificatus & sanctificatus est, a charitatis aliisque bonis operibus separari posse, & talem evadere, ut habentem non amplius justificet atque sanctificet, convincunt exempla virorum sanctorum, & viva ac salvifica fide proculdubio praeditorum, qui tamen in atrocia scelera inciderunt, & charitati plane repugnantia, & ad tempus notabile in iis perseverarunt; neque tamen propterea simpliciter & absolute infideles facti sunt, & Verbo Dei assensum praebere destiterunt. Ut res clara est in Davide, qui per aliquot menses non solum adulterio se polluit cum uxore Uriae, sed nefandum adulterium, proditione & caede ipsius Uriae viri optimi cumulavit: nec tamen interea fidem omnem Dei Verbo & Legi Mosis denegavit. Quis enim dicere ausit & sustineat, Davidem quamdiu tam diris criminibus indulsit, nihilominus eo ipso tempore dilectionem Dei & proximi retinuisse, & habuisse eam fidem, eumque Dei amorem, quae ipsum Deo placentem redderent, & ad vitam aeternam acceptum, & quae sunt illa conditio cui salus & gloria aeterna promissa est: ac non potius illum, isto temporis intervallo, aeternae damnationis reatu constrictum mansisse?
British Dort judgment on David and Peter: justifying faith can cease for a time§932
932British Dort theologians: regenerate David and Peter could fall into damnable guilt and lose present fitness for heaven.
Election made their final salvation certain; yet if death had taken them impenitent in those sins, neither could have been saved — justifying faith can cease for the interval before renewed repentance.
Latin · §932
XLI. Profecto istud de Davide & aliis sanctis similiter lapsis expresse docent & affirmant Theologi Magnae Britanniae, in suo judicio circa quintum Remonstrantium articulum, quod actis Dordracenae Synodi insertum est. Ubi exemplis Petri & Davidis probant regenitos ac justificatos quandoque suo vitio in atrocia peccata incidere, & iis damnabilem reatum contrahere, & eorum merito, secundum Dei ordinationem, morti aeternae subjacere, & praesentem ad regnum coelorum ingrediendum aptitudinem amittere. Et consequenter affirmant, quanquam certum fuerit electos Dei servos Davidem & Petrum ad regnum coelorum perventuros, propter Dei electionem; tamen non minus certum esse, quod si ille in adulterio & homicidio, hic in Christi abnegatione & perjurio impoenitentes fuissent a morte deprehensi, neuter eorum salvus esse potuisset. Quibus subjungunt hanc Thesin, In illo interstitio, quod est inter contractum, ab homine, scilicet, electo & justificato, ex gravi peccato reatum, & fidei ac poenitentiae actum renovatum, stat talis peccator suo merito damnandus, Christi merito & firmo proposito absolvendus: non prius autem, quam per excitatam fidem ac poenitentiam veniam impetraverit, actu absolutus. Ex quibus aperte sequitur, juxta Theologos illos, fidem quae jam justificat, & per charitatem operatur, posse a charitatis operibus, quae sunt ad salutem necessaria, separari, & sic etiam ab actu justificandi cessare, & relinquere illum in quo inest damnationi aeternae obnoxium, pro illo tempore.
Justificare in Scripture usually forensic: declare just, not make just§933
933Justificare (Heb. hitsdik, Gk. dikaioo) is usually forensic in Scripture.
It means declaring or acknowledging as just the one accused—not making the unjust just.
Latin · §933
I. Justificare, quod est Hebraice hitsdik, Graece dikaioo, in Scriptura sacra sumitur plerunque sensu forensi, id est, non significat ex injusto justum facere, sed justum declarare, habere, agnoscere illum qui fuerat alicujus criminis, vel culpae accusatus, aut vocatus in suspicionem.
God justified by men; wisdom justified by her children§934
934Wherever God is justified by men (Ps 51), the sense is forensic victory in judgment.
Mt 11: wisdom justified by her children; Lk 7: people baptized by John justified God against Pharisees.
Latin · §934
II. Haec est proculdubio hujus verbi significatio ubicunque Deus dicitur justificari ab homine, sive inter homines, quod satis frequens est in Scriptura Veteris & Novi Testamenti. Sic Psal. 51. Tibi soli, inquit Propheta, peccavi & malum coram te feci, ut justifieris in sermonibus tuis, & vincas quum judicaris. Ubi justificari exponitur per in judicio vincere. Deus autem in judicio vincit, quum apparet illum ita sese erga homines gerere ut semper verax & justus maneat, sive puniat, sive misereatur, frustra vero profani de providentia illius querantur. Sic quoque apud Matthaeum, cap. 11. justificata dicitur sapientia a filiis suis, quia qui fuerant vera sapientia donati atque illuminati, agnoverunt & praedicaverunt summam Dei sapientiam in vita & doctrina, tum Christi, tum Joannis, splendentem atque elucentem, contra varias calumnias Scribarum atque Pharisaeorum. Qua ratione etiam populus & publicani, audito Christi de Joanne Baptista testimonio, justificaverunt Deum, baptizati baptismo Joannis: Pharisaei autem & legisperiti consilium Dei spreverunt in semetipsos, non baptizati ab eo. Ut legitur apud Lucam, cap. 7. vers. 29.
Man justifying himself: asserting innocence§935
935Same forensic sense when a man justifies himself—asserts innocence or claims righteousness.
Lk 10 lawyer; Lk 16 Pharisees who justify themselves before men.
Latin · §935
III. Eodem sensu sumitur verbum justificandi, ubi dicitur homo seipsum justificare, quando vel suam innocentiam asserit, vel suam justitiam vendicat. Ut quum apud Lucam, cap. 10. Legisperitus quidam volens justificare seipsum, dixit ad Jesum, Quis est proximus meus. Et quum in eodem libro, cap. 16. sic increpat Christus Pharisaeos, Vos estis qui justificatis vos coram hominibus, Deus autem novit corda vestra.
Justify as a judge's act: defend the humble; condemn bribery§936
936Justify also names a judge's act: Ps 82 justify the humble and orphan.
Isa 5 woe on judges who justify the wicked for bribes.
Latin · §936
IV. His adde loca ubi justificare ponitur tanquam actio judicis, veluti quum Psal. 82. jubentur judices, quibus eo loco tribuitur Deorum, & filiorum Dei appellatio, justificare humilem & orphanum; apud Esaiam vero cap. 5. vae dicitur judicibus qui improbum justificant pro muneribus.
Justification opposed to condemnation§937
937Clearest forensic use: justification set against condemnation (Prov 17; Matt 12).
Job 9: self-justification still meets the mouth's condemnation.
Latin · §937
V. Sed maxime manifesta est ista vocis hujus acceptio in locis illis in quibus justificatio opponitur condemnationi. Cujus rei exemplum habemus Prov. 17. Qui justificat impium, & qui condemnat justum, abominabilis est uterque apud Deum; & Matth. 12. Per verba tua justificaberis, & per verba tua condemnaberis. Quibus jungi potest illud Jobi cap. 9. Si memet justifico, meum ipsius os me condemnabit.
Some Protestants make forensic sense perpetual; most allow real change§938
938Some Protestants claim forensic sense is perpetual and never means real change.
Most (and Le Blanc) disagree: Dan 12 justify many = instruct unto righteousness.
Latin · §938
VI. Porro hanc perpetuam esse vocis justificandi in Scriptura sacra significationem, neque unquam illa designari realem immutationem, per quam aliquis ex impio justus sanctusque efficitur, affirmant quidam inter Protestantes. Sed plerique aliter sentiunt, & meo quidem judicio, magna cum ratione. Nam verbum istud in aliquot Scripturae locis non, nisi dure & coacte admodum, potest admittere sensum illum forensem, neque justificari significat solum justum declarari, vel pronunciari, sed revera pium justumque fieri. Talis est omnium fere judicio locus qui habetur apud Danielem, cap. 12. Qui docti fuerint fulgebunt quasi splendor firmamenti; & qui justificant multos, quasi stellae in perpetuas aeternitates. Ubi per eos qui multos justificant, non intelliguntur illi qui multos justos habent, sive declarant, sed, ut habet versio Vulgata, qui ad justitiam erudiunt multos; aut, ut vertit nostra vernacula, qui ad justitiam multos introducunt: adeo ut justificare idem ibi sit quod justum reddere doctrina & exemplo vitae.
Ecclesiasticus 18: do not wait until death to be justified§939
939Ecclus 18:22 resists a bare forensic gloss.
Aim: repent and become holy now—vernacular: do not wait till death to be good.
Latin · §939
VII. Neque etiam quadrat sensus forensis loco qui habetur Ecclesiastici cap. 18. vers. 22. Ne expectes usque ad mortem justificari. Ubi scopus scriptoris est homines monere ut resipiscant, & probi sanctique fiant per verum ac syncerum pietatis studium. Unde est quod verba illa vernacula nostra vertit, Nattendez point a estre homme de bien jusqua la mort.
Rom 8:30: learned Protestants include sanctification under justification§940
940Rom 8:30: some top Protestants read justify as Spirit-wrought making holy, not bare acquittal.
Inhering holiness must sit somewhere in the chain; stuffing it under glorify is forced.
Latin · §940
VIII. Imo in ipsis Paulinis Epistolis reperiuntur quaedam loca ubi viri inter Protestantes doctissimi & celeberrimi, existimant justificari non esse simpliciter in judicio divino absolvi, & pronunciari justum, sed sanctum & justum effici per Spiritus Sancti innovationem: Ejusmodi est celebris ille locus qui legitur Rom. 8. vers. 30. Quos praedestinavit, hos & vocavit; & quos vocavit, hos & justificavit; quos autem justificavit, hos & glorificavit. Cum enim ibi Paulus catenam quandam texat divinorum beneficiorum, quorum sumus per Christi gratiam participes, ab ipsa nostra praedestinatione, usque ad gloriam illam quam in coelis expectamus, nullo modo videtur omissurus fuisse illud singulare atque praecipuum, quo, scilicet liberamur a peccati servitute, & vera sanctitate & justitia nobis inhaerente donamur; neque tamen illius distinctam & expressam mentionem facit. Unde sequitur illud comprehendi sub aliquo beneficiorum ab Apostolo enumeratorum. Ad nullum autem convenientius revocari potest quam ad justificationem, quam plerique Theologi agnoscunt gratiam istam quandoque in Scriptura connotare atque includere. Quod enim dicunt quidam eo loci Paulum sanctificationem sub glorificatione complecti, durum est atque alienum, nec congruit stylo & usui Scripturae, ex qua nullus omnino potest proferri locus, in quo glorificare sit sanctitate & justitia donare.
1 Cor 6:11: justified with washed and sanctified—real change§941
9411 Cor 6:11: justified listed with washed and sanctified—Spirit renews inwardly.
Bare penalty-acquittal would anticlimax after washed; washing includes real cleansing.
Latin · §941
IX. Similiter putant viri illi Docti justificationem non designare solam a peccati poenis absolutionem, sed realem in nobis abolitionem, veramque nostri immutationem & innovationem, 1. Cor. 6. Et haec quidem fuistis, scil. avari, ebriosi, rapaces, maledici, fornicarii; sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed justificati estis, in nomine Domini Jesu, & in Spiritu Dei nostri. Paulus enim ibi tribuit justificationem nostram Spiritui Sancto, cujus proprium est nos interius innovare. Deinde manifestum est per justificationem Paulum significare mutationem aliquam, per quam Corinthii cessaverunt esse id quod antea erant, nempe fornicarii, ebriosi, &c. quales regnum Dei possidere non possunt. Per solam autem a peccati poenis absolutionem, non desinit aliquis his vitiis infectus esse, sed per internam Spiritus Sancti renovationem. Adde quod, si justificati non aliud ibi significat quam a peccati poenis absoluti, frigida & diluta erit oratio Pauli, qui postquam dixit quod magis est, quasi tamen exaggerans subjungit id quod minus. Plus enim est abluti, quam simpliciter a poena absoluti: nam ablutio praeter condonationem poenae, includit veram a peccati sordibus purgationem.
Titus 3: regeneration needed that we may be justified§942
942Titus 3: God regenerates by the Spirit so that, justified by grace, we hope for life.
If regeneration is prerequisite to being counted justified, justification here includes sanctification.
Latin · §942
X. Tertius locus istius generis reperitur in epist. ad Titum, cap. 3. ubi dicitur quod Deus salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis, & renovationis Spiritus Sancti, quem effudit in nos abunde per Jesum Christum servatorem nostrum, ut justificati gratia ipsius, haeredes simus secundum spem vitae aeternae. Nam ut manifestum est, Apostolus ibi docet Deum nos regenerasse per Spiritum Sanctum, quem in nos abunde effudit; ut sic per gratiam ejus justificati, haereditatem vitae aeternae legitime sperare possimus; adeoque supponit necesse esse nos regenerari, & renovari per Spiritum, ut justificemur, quo sensu sumit ibi vocem justificationis. Si autem nobis opus est regeneratione, & interna per Spiritum Sanctum renovatione, ut pro justificatis apud Deum habeamur, certe justificatio ex mente Apostoli eo loco complectitur nostram sanctificationem.
Beza: justification broadly includes imputation and sanctifying efficacy§943
943Beza, Zanchi, Bullinger, Leyden: justification can include inward righteousness given.
Beza: broad justification = imputation plus Spirit's sanctifying efficacy.
Latin · §943
XI. Porro inter Doctores illos qui existimant in locis allegatis justificationem non includere solam peccati remissionem, sed etiam internae cujusdam justitiae donationem, numerari possunt Beza, Zanchius, Bullingerus, & Professores Leydenses, in sua purioris Theologiae Synopsi. Sic enim loquitur Beza in notis suis majoribus ad locum ex Epistola ad Titum modo citatum. Justificationis nomen large accipio, ita ut complectatur quicquid a Christo consequimur, tum per imputationem, tum per Spiritus in nobis sanctificandis efficaciam, ut simus perfecti & integri in eo. Sic quoque accipitur justificandi verbum, Rom. 8. 30.
Zanchi: second sense of justify is to make the unjust just§944
944Zanchi: justify (1) acquit vs condemn; (2) make the unjust just—parallel to sanctify.
Cites 1 Cor 6:11 washed / sanctified / justified.
Latin · §944
XII. Zanchius vero in epist. ad Ephes. cap. 2. vers. 4. loco de Justificatione, Thes. 13. postquam observavit verbum justificandi duplicem habere significationem, ac primum verbo condemnandi opponi, & significare aliquem a criminibus de quibus accusatur absolvere, justumque & innocentem in judicio pronunciare, subjungit, Altera verbi significatio est hominem ex injusto justum fieri, sicut etiam sanctificari est ex profano sanctum fieri. Qua ratione dixit Apostolus, 1. Cor. 6. 11. Et haec eratis quidam; sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed justificati estis, in nomine Domini Jesu & per Spiritum Dei nostri.
Thysius / Leyden: justification sometimes seems to embrace sanctification§945
945Leyden Thysius: given tight connection, justification sometimes seems to embrace sanctification as consequent.
Cites Rom 8:30; Tit 3:7.
Latin · §945
XIII. Anthonius Thysius etiam in Synopsi purioris Theologiae Professorum Leydensium, Disp. 33. Thesi 5. testatur in eadem se esse sententia: Neque tamen diffitemur, inquit, propter summam & arctissimam connexionem, justificationem quoque sanctificationem ipsam, ut consequens, videri nonnunquam complecti. Rom. 8. 30. Tit. 3. 7. &c.
Bullinger: washed, sanctified, justified name the same thing diversely§946
946Bullinger on 1 Cor 6:11: diverse words for the same reality.
Washed→baptism; sanctified→Spirit; justified→justifying faith.
Latin · §946
XIV. Henricus autem Bullingerus in eundem locum 1. Cor. 6. 11. sic scribit; Diversis verbis eandem rem significat Apostolus, quum ait, Abluti, sanctificati & justificati estis. Abluti vero dixit propter sanctum Baptisma, sanctificati propter Spiritum sanctum, justificati autem propter fidem justificantem, &c.
Calvin: regeneration under justification possible but not necessary§947
947Calvin: Rom 8 / Tit 3 could stretch justification to regeneration's continuous grace—but usual Pauline sense is free imputation.
He allows rare wider use; nothing blocks restricting to remission.
Latin · §947
XV. Quin Calvino ipsi probabile videtur locis istis ipsam regenerationem comprehendi sub justificatione, quanquam hoc non esse necesse existimet. Nam in suis in Epistolas Pauli Commentariis, exponens illud Apostoli Rom. 8. Quos vocavit, hos & justificavit; Justificatio, inquit, non male ad continuum divinae gratiae tenorem posset extendi, a Vocatione ad mortem usque: sed quia hoc verbum in tota epistola pro gratuita justitiae imputatione usurpat Paulus, nulla necessitas cogit ab hoc sensu deflectere. Et similiter ad Tit. 3. 7. haec habet: Si regenerationem accipimus proprio & usitato sensu, videri posset Apostolus justificatos ponere pro regeneratis; atque hoc aliquando significat, sed rarius. Nulla tamen necessitas cogit a propria & magis genuina significatione discedere. Et paulo post, Hoc quidem constat, Paulum justificationem asserere gratuitum esse Dei donum: tantum quaeritur quid per nomen justificationis significet. Contextus videtur postulare ut longius quam ad justitiae imputationem extendatur: in quo sensu rare, ut dixi, invenitur apud Paulum. Nihil tamen impedit quin ad remissionem peccatorum possit restringi.
Apoc 22:11: justify means grow more just, not bare declaration§948
948Almost all Protestants deny forensic sense at Rev 22:11.
Justify there = grow more just/pious from already just—progress in righteousness.
Latin · §948
XVI. Inter Protestantes autem pauci reperiuntur qui non agnoscant verbum justificandi sensum forensem non habere Apoc. 22. vers. 11. Qui justus est, justificetur adhuc; & qui sanctus est, sanctificetur adhuc. Ubi satis apparet, ex mente Spiritus Sancti, justificare illic non esse justum declarari, imo nec simpliciter ex injusto justum fieri, sed ex jam pio justoque magis justum ac pium: adeoque justificari, eo loco significat in pietate & justitia pergere, progredi, atque augescere.
Roman doctors: Becanus—justify three ways in Scripture§949
949Roman consensus (Becanus): Scripture uses justify three ways—make just, make more just, declare just.
Justification likewise: acquisition, increase, or declaration of righteousness.
Latin · §949
XVII. Porro Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae communi consensu fatentur justificationem omnibus istis modis in Scriptura sacra sumi: neque justificari significare solum, vel justitiam acquirere, vel in justitia crescere: sed frequenter etiam declarari, vel agnosci justum. Id videre est apud Becanum Jesuitam in Summa Theol. tom. 2. tract. 4. cap. 3. q. 1. Justificare in sacra Scriptura tripliciter, inquit, usurpatur. Primo ut sit idem, quod justum facere, ut Rom. 4. 5. Credenti in eum qui justificat impium. Secundo ut sit idem quod justiorem facere, ut Jacob. 2. 24. Videtis quoniam ex operibus justificatur homo, & non ex fide tantum. Et Apoc. 22. 11. Qui justus est justificetur adhuc. Tertio ut sit idem quod declarare, seu pronunciare aliquem justum, ut Prov. 17. 15. Qui justificat impium, & qui condemnat justum, abominabilis est uterque apud Deum. Hinc fit ut justificatio sumatur etiam tribus modis. Primo pro acquisitione justitiae. Is enim quem Deus justificat, id est, justum facit, dicitur acquirere justitiam. Secundo pro augmento justitiae. Cum enim justitia latitudinem habeat, is qui semel justitiam nactus est, potest in ea crescere & proficere. Tertio pro declaratione justitiae. Nam qui antea sanctus, aut etiam reus esset injustitiae, potest pronunciari & declarari tanquam justus, etiamsi justus non sit.
Bellarmine: acquisition, increase, and forensic declaration§950
950Bellarmine: justification = acquire righteousness, increase it, or forensically declare it.
Summer-heat analogy: not only cold→hot but hot→hotter = just→more just.
Latin · §950
XVIII. Similia docet Bellarminus de Justif. lib. 1. cap. 3. inter alia enim observat nomen justificationis in sacris litteris accipi pro acquisitione justitiae, ut 1. Cor. 6. Haec quidem fuistis, sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed justificati estis. Ad Rom. 8. Quos vocavit hos justificavit. Deinde, pro incremento justitiae. Nam, inquit, quemadmodum aestate dicitur calefieri, non solum qui fit calidus ex frigido, sed etiam qui ex calido fit calidior; sic etiam justificari dicitur, non solum is qui ex impio fit justus, sed ille quoque qui ex justo fit justior. Sic loquitur Ecclesiasticus, cap. 18. Ne verearis usque ad mortem justificari; & Jacobus in Epistola sua, cap. 2. Videtis quod ex operibus justificatur homo, & non ex fide tantum: & Joannes in Apoc. cap. 22. Qui justus est, justificetur adhuc. Denique, pro declaratione justitiae, modo quodam forensi, ut ille dicatur justificari, qui cum esset absens, aut etiam reus alicujus iniquitatis, a judice per sententiam declaratur justus, atque absolvitur. Sic utitur hac voce Salomon, Proverb. 17. Qui justificat impium, & qui condemnat justum, abominabilis est uterque apud Deum: & Isai. 5. Vae qui justificatis impium pro muneribus, & justitiam justi aufertis ab eo: & Luc. cap. 7. Justificata est sapientia ab omnibus filiis suis; & cap. 10. Ille autem volens justificare seipsum.
Romans admit forensic sense: Rom 2:13 factores legis§951
951Romans themselves grant forensic justify at Rom 2:13 (Estius: held/declared just).
Tapper + Augustine: sometimes pronounce/reckon just, not only gift with righteousness.
Latin · §951
XIX. Imo in ipsis Pauli Epistolis occurrunt quaedam loca, ubi Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae fatentur & observant justificandi vocem accipi forensi significatione. Talis est locus qui habetur Rom. 2. 13. Factores legis justificabuntur. Ad quem Estius in suis Commentariis notat justificari idem illic esse quod justum haberi, sive declarari, usitatissima phrasi Scripturae, ut ipse loquitur. Adeoque juxta ipsum, sensus illius loci est, Qui legem satis observant justi judicabuntur, declarabuntur, habebuntur a Deo. Quam interpretationem probat quoque Ruardus Tapperus ad Art. 8. pag. 32. Circa praedicta, inquit, considerandum est, quod in Scripturis justificari non solum significat, justitia imbui, donari & ornari, sed quandoque etiam justum pronunciari, declarari, judicari, comprobari ac deputari. Secundum quam significationem interpretatur beatus Augustinus sententiam Apostoli Pauli, Factores legis justificabuntur, id est, inquit, justi habebuntur, justi deputabuntur.
Rom 8:33 forensic: God who justifies vs accusation§952
952Rom 8:33: many Roman interpreters read justify forensically against accusation/condemnation.
Toletus, Pererius, Sasbout/Estius: judge-pronouncing the elect just.
Latin · §952
XX. Similiter sensu forensi accipiunt multi Ecclesiae Romanae interpretes verba Pauli, Rom. 8. 33. Quis accusabit adversus electos Dei? Deus est qui justificat. Sic enim scribit ad hunc locum Toletus; Justificandi verbum in hoc loco, in ea significatione accipitur, quae est opposita antitheto, nempe condemnationi, ut idem sit hoc loco justificare, ac justum pronunciare, sicut judex sua sententia innocentem absolvit & pronunciat. Qua ratione quoque eundem locum exponit Pererius, ut idem etiam antea docuerat, referente Andrea Riveto in Summa Controversiarum, Tractatu 4. quaest. 1. Adamus Sasbout; Deus est qui justificat, id est, qui a peccatis & intenta accusatione absolvit. Quae verba retinuit Estius in Commentario.
Protestant schools adopt only the forensic sense in justification disputes§953
953Protestant school disputes adopt only the forensic sense of justification.
Before God it means absolving the sinner from due penalties—condonation of punishment.
Latin · §953
XXI. Porro ex variis vocis justificandi in Scriptura receptis sensibus, Schola Protestantium, in suis de hominis justificatione Disputationibus, primum illum solum adoptarunt, juxta quem justificatio sumitur forensi significatione. Nam per justificationem hominis coram Deo nihil aliud intelligunt quam peccatoris absolutionem, qua liber pronunciatur a poenis peccato debitis, quae sunt a regno coelesti exclusio, & damnatio ad cruciatus aeternos. Adeoque ex eorum mente, justificatio reapse nihil aliud dicit quam poenae condonationem.
Protestants distinguish justification from sanctification; Chamier on word swap§954
954Protestants distinguish justification (absolution) from sanctification (inward cleansing)—inseparable yet distinct.
Chamier allows occasional Scriptural word-swap; Rev 22:11 is inherent-progress sense.
Latin · §954
XXII. Inde est quod hominis justificationem distinguunt ab illius regeneratione, sive sanctificatione, quae docent esse duo beneficia, natura sua distincta, licet ab invicem separari non possint. Deus enim, ex illorum sententia, neminem a poena peccatorum absolvit, quin eum a peccati servitute liberet, & peccati sordes ab eo abstergat, ejusque animum nova justitia exornet, & vero ac syncero Dei amore perfundat & imbuat. Sed justificationis nomine solam absolutionem, per sanctificationem vero purgationem a peccati foeditate, & internae justitiae donationem significare solent. Quamvis hasce voces quandoque in Scriptura sacra permutari; ut observat Chamierus, tom. 3. lib. 10. cap. 5. num. 6. Non sum, inquit, tam inepti vocabulorum aestimatores, ut nesciamus, aut tam importuni Sophistae, ut nolimus justificationis sanctificationisque voces permutari; imo sanctos hac praecipue ratione scimus appellari, quod in Christo habeant remissionem peccatorum. Et legimus in Apocalypsi, Qui justus est justificetur adhuc, quod nisi de profectu inhaerentis justitiae, nequeat intelligi, & aliis forte locis non negamus promiscue venire in usum.
Denying justification by inherent works does not deny true grace-wrought righteousness§955
955Denying justify-by-inherent-works does not deny real grace-wrought righteousness God accepts and rewards.
Point: no inherent work survives strict justice without mercy—acquittal is mere grace in Christ.
Latin · §955
XXIII. Proinde quum negant fideles justificari per opera, aut per ullam justitiam quae ipsis inhaereat, per id negare nolunt fidelibus inesse veri nominis justitiam, quam Deus per Christum gratam & acceptam habeat, ipsosque Dei gratia movente atque excitante, multos & varios fructus edere bonorum operum, quae Deus, juxta liberalem suam promissionem, coelesti & aeterna gloria remuneretur; sed eorum sententia est solummodo docere, nullam esse in fidelibus inhaerentem justitiam, nec ulla bona opera ab ipsis, etiam per Dei gratiam profecta, quae possint ferre rigidum & districtum examen divinae justitiae, si Deus velit cum ipsis in judicium intrare, absque clementia & misericordia: neque quenquam in Dei judicio absolvi posse, si Deus vitam & opera ejus severe discutiat, adeoque fideles coram Dei tribunali a peccati poenis, quas lex interminatur, absolvi, & immunes pronunciari, per meram Dei gratiam in Christo, non vero propter aliquam justitiam quae illis insit, ejusque merito atque intuitu.
Imputed Christ's righteousness: passion and obedience made ours§956
956Imputed Christ's righteousness = his passion and obedience given as truly ours.
By its merit we are loosed from the law's curse—exclusion and eternal fire.
Latin · §956
XXIV. Quum autem affirmant nos, per imputatam Christi justitiam, coram Deo justificari, ista formula nihil aliud significant, quam Christi passionem & obedientiam, a Deo nobis ita donari, & communicari, ut vere nostra sit, & censeri debeat, eamque sic nobis donatam esse justitiam illam, cujus merito atque intuitu solvimur a legis maledictione, quae constat, ut dictum est, perpetua a regno Dei exclusione, & abjectione in ignem aeternum.
Faith alone means living efficacious faith as sole instrument§957
957Sola fide means living, work-bearing faith—not dead idle faith—as sole condition/instrument.
Romans agree on the thing itself when calumny is stripped away.
Latin · §957
XXV. Denique quando dicunt nos fide, & quidem sola, justificari, intelligunt fidem vivam & efficacem per bona opera, minime vero fidem mortuam atque otiosam, esse solam conditionem, quam Deus a nobis exigit, ut per Christum simus participes remissionis peccatorum, Deoque ad vitam aeternam accepti: sive solum & unicum ex parte nostra instrumentum, quo tantum beneficium percipimus & apprehendimus; quae certe omnia tantae sunt veritatis & evidentiae, ut citra calumniam exposita atque intellecta, a nullo cum aliqua specie negari possint, imo de illis nobiscum, quoad rem ipsam, consentiant Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores, sicuti jam aliquot Disputationibus manifestum fecimus.
Protestants not abusing words: distinct names for distinct benefits§958
958Two inseparable but nature-distinct benefits deserve two school names: justification vs sanctification.
Scripture most often uses justify for judicial absolution / being reputed just.
Latin · §958
XXVI. Neque merito possunt accusari Protestantes, quod saltem hac in parte vocibus abutantur. Cum enim nostra a peccati poenis absolutio, & realis peccati in nobis deletio per infusionem novae justitiae, sint duo beneficia, connexa quidem & inseparabilia, sed natura tamen distincta; quidni Protestantibus licuerit, duo haec per naturam distincta, distinctis quoque vocibus, accuratioris doctrinae causa, in Scholis suis signare, ac priori gratiae nomen justificationis, posteriori vero sanctificationis nomen tribuere: Praesertim cum omnium consensu, justificandi vox in Scriptura sacra saepissime designet absolutionem judiciariam; & justificari dicatur, non qui reipsa justus efficitur, sed ille qui pro justo habetur atque reputatur.
Roman school: justification includes real abolition and infused righteousness§959
959Romans: justification = not only penalty remitted but sin abolished and inward righteousness obtained.
First vs second justification: make the ungodly just; then make the just more just.
Latin · §959
XXVII. Doctores vero Ecclesiae Romanae justificandi vocem in Scholis suis aliter usurpant. Nec enim apud eos justificatio designat solam poenae peccato debitae condonationem, sed praeterea realem peccati abolitionem, & internae cujusdam justitiae adeptionem. Et sic, ex eorum sensu, dicitur justificari, non solum qui a peccati reatu absolvitur, sed cui justitia de novo infunditur, aut qui in accepta jam ante justitia progreditur & crescit. Unde duplex apud eos distinguitur justificatio, prima scilicet, & secunda. Prima, per quam aliquis ex peccatore, injusto, & impio, sanctus & justus efficitur. Secunda vero per quam, qui ante justus erat, ex justo fit justior, & quoddam justitiae incrementum accipit. Sed quum de justificatione simpliciter loquuntur, ordinarie primam intelligunt, quae ex eorum usu justificatio impii dici solet.
Roman inherent righteousness: accepted and rewarded, not strict-law standing§960
960Roman justify-by-inherent-righteousness does not mean surviving strict law without mercy.
Means grace-given inherent righteousness God accepts and will reward with kingdom glory.
Latin · §960
XXVIII. Itaque quum dicunt homines per justitiam inhaerentem coram Deo justificari, haec non est eorum mens, Christi fidelibus talem inesse justitiam, per quam possint coram Dei tribunali subsistere, si Deus illos ad strictum legis rigorem, omni misericordia semota, examinet: aut cujus merito atque intuitu a peccatis suis absolvantur. Sed istud solum significare volunt, fideles per Christi gratiam nova & inhaerente justitia indui, quae apud Deum pro vera & syncera habetur, quamque Deus gratam & acceptam habet, & in extremo judicio regni sui gloria remuneraturus est.
Denying imputed justification: form of just/holy from new inward righteousness§961
961Romans denying imputed justification still grant Christ's merit frees from hell's pains.
They deny imputation is the form of the name just/holy—that comes from new Spirit-wrought righteousness.
Latin · §961
XXIX. Similiter quum negant nos per imputatam Christi justitiam justificari, negare non intendunt quin Christi justitia fidelibus donetur atque communicetur, quinque ejus unius & solius merito evadant inferni poenas, peccatis suis alioqui debitas, sed sensus eorum est, Christi meritum & obedientiam non esse formam illam, a qua fideles in Scriptura justi sanctique nominantur, sed istam eorum denominationem a nova justitia sumi, qua intus Spiritus Sancti virtute donati sunt.
Not by faith alone but also by works: conversion acts and growth§962
962Roman not-faith-alone-but-works does not mean properly meriting remission.
Means: bare assent is not the sole condition—conversion acts needed; the justified grow by works—Protestants concede the substance.
Latin · §962
XXX. Quando vero docent nos, non sola fide, sed etiam per opera justificari, per id minime significatum volunt fideles bonis quibusdam operibus remissionem peccatorum suorum, proprie loquendo mereri, eamque non esse omnino gratuitam: sed hoc solum fidei actum, a spe, a fiducia, ab odio peccati, a dilectione Dei, distinctum & sejunctum, non esse unicam & solam conditionem, quam Deus a nobis exigit, ad hoc ut spiritus sanctificantis donum, & remissionem peccatorum nostrorum ab ipso consequamur. Neque ut salutaris istius gratiae participes fiamus, sufficere nudum assensum Evangelii verbo adhibitum, sed praeterea requiri peccati detestationem, novae vitae propositum, aliquos divinae dilectionis actus, spem veniae, & fiduciam in Deum, & si quae alia sint quibus constat vera ad Deum conversio. Ac praeterea hominem, quem gratia Christi semel justum reddidit, exercitio bonorum operum in justitia & sanctitate crescere, & acceptae justitiae, juxta divina promissa, recipere augmentum; quae omnia facile Protestantes concedunt, nec iis adversus illa pugnare est animus, quando cum Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae, de justificatione gratuita disputant.
Chemnitz: no fight over words if Fathers teach reconciliation rightly§963
963If remission is free in Christ's merit alone, extending justify to cover inward renewal is no crime.
Chemnitz: no word-fights with Fathers who rightly teach reconciliation, remission, adoption.
Latin · §963
XXXI. Neque etiam, modo quis fateatur remissionem peccatorum nostrorum omnino gratuitam esse, & in solo Christi merito fundatam, nec ullam esse piorum justitiam & opera bona, quae possint ferre severum & rigidum judicii divini examen, crimen esse existimant, si quis ita extendat vocem justificationis, ut internam nostram renovationem sub ea complectatur. Agnoscunt enim a Patribus vocem istam saepius hoc sensu usurpatam esse, nec tamen iis propterea litem movendam censent. Sic enim loquitur Chemnitius in Examine Concilii Tridentini, Nequaquam tales sumus turbatores, qui verae & solidae, & salutaris concordiae ita simus iniqui, & adeo cupidi contentionum, ut etiamsi de rebus ipsis constituta esset pia & salutaris consensio, quaesituri tamen essemus materiam rixarum, ex verborum pugnis. Patribus enim, licet plerunque verbum justificare accipiant pro renovatione, qua efficiuntur in nobis per Spiritum opera justitiae, non movemus litem, ubi juxta Scripturam recte & commode tradunt, quomodo & quare persona Deo reconcilietur, acceptat remissionem peccatorum & adoptionem, & acceptetur ad vitam aeternam. In Exam. Conc. Trid. de Justif. pag. 129.
Brentius takes justification to include renovation; Protestants spare him§964
964Brentius folded renovation into justification; Melanchthon pushed back on the mechanism.
Gerhard: wider Latin sense of the term is not itself the Pontifical error—Protestants spare Brentius.
Latin · §964
XXXII. Imo inter Theologos Confessionis Augustanae celeberrimus Joh. Brentius ita accipit vocem justificationis, sub qua hominis renovationem comprehendi existimavit, eamque suam sententiam Epistola ad Melancthonem hac de re scripta testatus est, ut patet ex Melancthonis ad ipsum responsione, quae legitur in Consiliis ejusdem Melancthonis, pag. 245. Imaginaris, inquit ad Brentium, fide justificari homines, quia fide accipiamus Spiritum Sanctum, ut postea justi esse possimus; videlicet, impletione legis, quam efficit in nobis Spiritus Sanctus. Neque tamen propterea quisquam Protestantium gravioris censurae notandum putavit Brentium. Quem, inquit Johannes Gerardus, ut propterea erroris Pontificii de justificatione reum suspicari velimus, quod termino justificationis, in latiori significatione, Latinae vocis compositionem secutus utatur. Loc. Theol. tom. 3. cap. de Justit. per fidem, num. 245. ubi prolixum citat Brentii hac de re locum, ex ejus Apologia Confessionis Wirtembergensis, de Justificatione.
Borrheus and Reformers: Scripture sometimes uses justification for sanctification§965
965Even many Reformers grant Scripture sometimes uses justification to cover sanctification.
Borrhaus (if citations hold): Pauline justify/glorify packs reconciliation, Christ's righteousness, regenerating gift—dissension verbal, not real.
Latin · §965
XXXIII. Et certe quum vox justificationis, etiam plerorumque Reformatorum judicio, in Scriptura eo sensu quandoque usurpetur, ut ipsam hominis sanctificationem videatur complecti, jure damnari non possunt, qui caeteroqui sanam doctrinam retinentes, hoc vocabulo notione in Verbo Dei consecrata utuntur, quod inter Reformatos fecit Martinus Borrheus, olim in Academia Basiliensi Professor, si vera sunt quae citari video ex illius Commentario in Gen. cap. 15. ubi haec verba illi tribuuntur, inter plura ejusdem generis: Ut igitur Beatus Paulus, in justificatione nostra, quum ait, Quos justificavit eos glorificavit, comprehendit omnia, quae ad reconciliandos nos Deo Patri, & ad renovationem nostri aptam assequendae gloriae pertinent, ut sunt fides, justitia Christi, & donum justitiae a Christo exhibitum, quo regeneremur ad implendam justificationem quam lex requirit, ita etiam nos omnia in hac causa, quae recuperatione justitiae & innocentiae continentur, complecti volumus. Haec autem quum traduntur, non nova, sed confessa omnibus & veteribus & nostris, sacrarum litterarum Professoribus, qui quidem recte & vere dicerent, traduntur: nisi fortassis quadam distinctione dicuntur a nobis, quam vulgo dicunt in hoc justificationis negotio, sed in re ipsa abesse dissensionem, nequaquam dubitamus. Etenim omnes in impiorum justificatione, haec comprehendi monent, Christum justitiam nostram; remissionem peccatorum morte illius nobis partam; Spiritum Sanctum ob imputatae & ascriptae justitiae Christi nobis donatum; quo freti & peccatorum gratiam nobis fieri per fidem credamus; & renovationem nostri, qua Deum syncere diligendo, mediitemur, &c. Sed liber iste nobis ad manum non est.
Open question: Paul's justify—forensic only or also inward renewal?§966
966Still open: in Paul, is justify only forensic absolution (Protestants) or also Spirit-wrought renewal (Romans)?
Where doctrine agrees and analogy of faith holds, leave lexical liberty—Protestants already differ among themselves on Dan 12, Rom 8, etc.
Latin · §966
XXXIV. Caeterum semper quaestio remanet quo sensu apud Paulum sumatur justificatio, ubi affirmat Deum justificare impium, & nos justificari gratis, per Dei gratiam, non ex operibus, sed fide. An, scilicet, ibi justificatio designet solum absolutionem quandam judicialem a reatu peccati, & quae sit ab hominis sanctificatione distincta, ut volunt Protestantes; an vero praeterea significet internam nostri renovationem, per Spiritus Sancti gratiam, in qua consistit nostra regeneratio & sanctificatio, ut volunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Ad quam quaestionem, Observamus primo, Ubi de ipsa re & doctrina convenit, neque Scripturae tribuitur sensus ab analogia fidei alienus, non multum laborandum & contendendum esse, circa diversam alicujus loci interpretationem, & variam hujus, aut illius vocis, in eo acceptionem, sed liberum cuique suum hac in re judicium linqui solere, & debere. Quemadmodum Protestantes, qui quoad rei summam inter se consentiunt, facile patiuntur quosdam ex suis, hanc ipsam justificandi vocem, certis in locis, aliter atque aliter accipere, ut Dan. 12. 3. Rom. 8. 30. 1. Cor. 6. 11. Tit. 3. 7. Apoc. 22. 11. Ubi quibusdam videtur sensus forensis retineri posse; alii vero aliter existimant; sicut supra pluribus a nobis expositum est.
Either sense of justify still fits Paul: free absolution and free sanctification§967
967On contested Paul texts, either lexical take still yields an Apostolic, analogy-of-faith sense.
Absolution and sanctification alike are free by Christ's grace and faith—not of works.
Latin · §967
XXXV. Secundo observandum est, aliis illis locis magis contentiosis, & de quibus nulla lis est Protestantibus inter se, sed cum Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae, quocunque sensu sumatur justificandi verbum, sive, scilicet, restringatur ad solam absolutionem a reatu peccati; sive nostram quoque sanctificationem complecti censeatur, sensum semper fore commodum, & Apostolico stylo, ac analogiae fidei congruentem. Sicut enim verum est nos a peccatis absolvi, gratis per Christi gratiam, sic etiam gratis, & per Christi gratiam sanctificamur, & regeneramur. Item sicut Deus impium a peccatis absolvit, ita quoque eundem Spiritu suo sanctificat. Sicuti per fidem remittuntur peccata, sic etiam fide corda purificantur & sanctificantur. Denique quemadmodum absolutio nostra non est ex operibus, ita quoque nostra sanctificatio, seu regeneratio, juxta stylum & phrasin Apostoli, ex operibus esse dicenda non est.
What is not of grace is of works—so sanctification is not of works§968
968Paul: grace and works mutually exclude (Rom 11:6).
Sanctification is free singular grace—hence not of works.
Latin · §968
XXXVI. Primo enim, secundum Pauli doctrinam, & loquendi modum, id quod gratiae non est, ex operibus est. Quippe res sunt oppositae, & quae se invicem destruunt, gratiam esse, & esse ex operibus. Si autem gratia, inquit Apostolus, jam non ex operibus. Alioquin gratia, jam non est gratia. Si ex operibus, jam non est gratia: quandoquidem opus, jam non est opus. Rom. 11. 6. Hominis autem sanctificationem, esse donum Dei gratuitum, & gratiam plane singularem, nemo est qui possit in dubium vocare, ac proinde, juxta Apostoli doctrinam, ex operibus non est.
Of works means according to debt—new holiness is free, not owed§969
969Of works = according to debt (Rom 4:4 wage).
New holiness in Christ is free—so we are not sanctified of works.
Latin · §969
XXXVII. Denique quod eodem recidit, ex Apostoli mente, quod est ex operibus, est secundum debitum. Nam, ut ipse ait, Ei qui operatur, merces imputatur, non secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum. Rom. 4. 4. Jam autem sanctitas & justitia nova, quam in Christo adipiscimur, datur nobis gratuito, non secundum debitum, ut cuivis manifestum est; adeoque certum etiam est ex operibus nos non sanctificari, sanctosque & justos apud Deum effici.
Salvation includes liberation and image-renewal—yet not of works (Eph; 2 Tim; Tit)§970
970Salvation in Eph/2 Tim/Tit includes liberation and image-renewal—not remission only.
Yet Paul says not saved of works; so even a wide justify still means by grace through faith, not works.
Latin · §970
XXXVIII. Praeterea salus illa qua per Christum salvari dicimur, Ephes. 2. 8. 2. Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 3. 4. non consistit in sola condonatione peccatorum nostrorum, sed etiam in liberatione a servitute vitiorum, & in nostri reformatione ad Dei imaginem, quae consistit in vera justitia & sanctitate, ac proinde nostra sanctificatio, in salute ista, & quidem praecipue, includitur & comprehenditur. Et tamen Apostolus omnibus istis locis, affirmat nos non esse salvatos ex operibus, & secundum opera. Sic enim ad Ephesios scribit; Gratia estis salvati per fidem; & hoc non ex vobis, Dei enim donum est: non ex operibus, ut ne quis glorietur. Et Timotheo commemorat, quod Deus nos liberavit, seu salvos fecit; & vocavit vocatione sancta, non secundum opera nostra, sed secundum propositum suum, & gratiam quae data est nobis in Christo Jesu ante tempora secularia. Quibus similia sunt de quibus monet Titum, Cum autem, inquit, benignitas, & erga homines amor apparuit Salvatoris nostri Dei, non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam, salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis, & renovationem Spiritus Sancti, quem effudit in nos abunde per Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum. Ac proinde quantumvis extendatur justificatio, & complecti censeatur utramque partem salutis illius, qua per Christum in hac vita fidelibus obtingit, remissionem, scilicet, peccatorum, & renovationem interioris hominis, non minus tamen vere dicimur justificati, per Christi gratiam, fide, non operibus, quam si strictius sumatur pro sola a peccati reatu absolutione.
Titus 3: renovation by the Spirit opposed to works of righteousness we did§971
971Titus 3: Spirit's renovating wash—not works of righteousness we did—is the saving means.
Therefore sanctification itself must not be called of our righteous works.
Latin · §971
XXXIX. Adde quod Apostolus ultimo illo loco, ex epistola ad Titum desumpto, non vult operibus justitiae tribui, id quod tribuendum est renovationi per Spiritum Sanctum. Salvos, inquit, nos fecit, non ex operibus justitiae quae fecerimus nos, sed per lavacrum regenerationis & renovationis Spiritus Sancti. Unde sequitur nostram sanctificationem, quae per lavacrum illud regenerationis, & spiritum renovantem in nobis peragitur, ex sensu Pauli non debere dici ex operibus justitiae quae nos fecerimus. Quandoquidem opposita sunt, aliquid per spiritus renovationem fieri, & esse ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos.
Eph 2: good works are fruit of new creation—so sanctification too is by faith not works§972
972Eph 2: good works are fruit of new creation—hence not salvation's cause.
Same logic: works follow sanctification (Augustine's order for justification)—sanctified by grace/faith, not works.
Latin · §972
XL. Praeterea postquam Apostolus, verbis ex epistola ad Ephesios allegatis, posuit nos salvatos esse fide, & non ex operibus, hoc inde confirmat, quod bona nostra opera sunt salutis nostrae fructus atque effectus, adeoque causa ejus esse non possunt. Ipsius enim inquit factura sumus: creati in Christo Jesu ad bona opera, quae praeparavit Deus ut in illis ambulemus. Quibus verbis significat opus esse ut per Dei gratiam praeparemur, atque instauramur, quae est novae cujusdam creationis species, priusquam possimus bona opera exercere. Nam in ultimis Apostoli verbis hypallage quaedam est, ac dum ait, Deum bona opera praeparasse, ut in illis ambulemus, dicere vult Deum nos gratia sua praeparare, ut ambulemus in bonis operibus. Haec vero ratio non minus clare probat nos sanctificari fide, & non ex operibus. Nam eodem plane modo, bona nostra opera non sunt causa, sed fructus nostrae sanctificationis, per quam ex impiis, quales natura sumus, vere sancti & justi reddimur. Atque, ut dixit Augustinus, bona opera sequi justificatum, non praecedere justificandum, ita quoque dicere possumus eadem bona opera sanctificandum non praecedere, sed sequi sanctificatum. Quia non prius bene operamur, quam Deus nos sua gratia sanctificet: sed Deus nos sua gratia sanctificat, ut postea bene operari possimus.
Without works of the law we are also sanctified—same Pauline sense as justification§973
973As we are justified without works of the law, so we are sanctified without them—same debt-vs-grace sense.
God counts living charity-working faith holy despite legal shortfalls—parallel to forensic absolution of the guilty believer.
Latin · §973
XLI. Denique quemadmodum saepius dicit Apostolus nos sine operibus legis justificari, ita non minus vere, & ad Apostoli stylum accommodate, dicere possumus nos sine operibus legis sanctificari. Nam per opera legis Apostolus intelligit talem legis observationem, quae divinae gratiae necessitatem excludat, & cui merces reddenda sit, secundum debitum, non secundum gratiam; juxta illud ante citatum, Ei autem qui operatur, merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum. Item, Si ex operibus, jam non est gratia: quandoquidem opus jam non est opus. Adeoque ex operibus legis justificari, est eam praestitisse legi obedientiam, cui vita debeatur, juxta legis promissa; & ratione cujus, ex pacto foederis legalis, in Dei judicio, ab omni poena absolvi quis debeat. Justificari vero sine operibus legis, est in judicio divino absolvi, & ab omni reatu immunem pronunciari, eum quem lex reum peragit, quique non id legi praestitit obsequium, ut juxta legis rigorem absolvi mereatur. Jam vero quis non videt hoc sensu nos quoque sine legis operibus sanctificari. Nec enim, ut sancti apud Deum habeamur & simus, requiritur ut legi divinae, secundum totum ejus rigorem, satisfecerimus, & si ad eam akribeian, quam foedus operum exigit, simus examinandi, nullo modo in legem peccasse reperiamur. Sed quemadmodum Deus a reatu absolvit impium, id est, eum quem lex peccati arguit & convincit, dummodo fide viva & efficaci Christi meritum amplectatur: sic quoque illum in quo reperitur fides per charitatem operans, tanquam vere sanctum & justum probat atque agnoscit, licet alioqui legem saepius transgressus sit, & deficiat in multis, quae necessaria essent, in eo qui ex legali foedere, sanctus & justus pronunciandus esset.
Without Mosaic ceremonies we are justified and sanctified (Galatians)§974
974Justify without works of the law especially means without Mosaic ceremonies (Galatians).
Same for sanctification: ceremonies not required to be holy before God.
Latin · §974
XLII. Praeterea dum Apostolus affirmat hominem justificari sine operibus legis, speciatim docere vult ad nostram coram Deo justificationem, necessarium non esse ut observemus legis Mosaicae ceremonias, sicut praesertim videre est in Epistola ad Galatas. Qua ratione quoque sine operibus legis sanctificamur. Nec enim magis necesse est nos observare legis ceremonias, ut sancti simus apud Deum, quam ut ab omni reatu in judicio illius absolvamur.
Either acceptation of justification: free by faith; quarreling superfluous§975
975Whether justify = bare acquittal or also inward righteousness, we are still free by faith, not of works/law.
Paul's aim stands either way—living love-working faith, not Do this and live; lexical quarrel is superfluous.
Latin · §975
XLIII. Cum ergo, sive vocabulum justificationis restringatur ad solam a reatu absolutionem, sive etiam ad novae & internae justitiae adeptionem extendatur, aequaliter verum sit nos gratis, per Christi gratiam, fide, non ex operibus, & sine operibus legis justificari: nec etiam, sive hoc, sive illo modo sumamus justificationem, quicquam officiat Apostoli scopo, qui unicus est docere, ad hoc ut simus salutis & justitiae participes, non opus esse legem Mosaicam, & foedus operum, sive legale observare, juxta solemnem clausulam, Fac & vives: sed sufficere ut Christi Evangelio credamus, fide viva, & quae per dilectionem operetur, neque alia ratione homines peccatores, justos coram Deo fieri & reputari posse: cum haec, inquam, ita se habeant, superfluum videtur hac de re litigare, nec est quod propterea cuiquam molesti simus, quod apud Apostolum justificationem sic, vel sic accipiat, quandoquidem in eo vera fides, & sana doctrina nihil periclitatur.
Scripture: justified by faith; theologians dispute the sense§976
976Scripture plainly says we are justified by / through / from faith.
Theologians still dispute the sense; this tract seeks clarity amid the clash.
Latin · §976
I. Nos fide, per fidem, & ex fide justificari, Scriptura ita diserte & frequenter inculcat, ut nemo Christianus hac de re dubitare possit. Sed non consentiunt inter se Theologi, qua ratione id sit intelligendum, & quo sensu justificatio hominis peccatoris a Spiritu Sancto fidei tribuatur. Resque est quam multum obscurant Theologorum disputationes, & magna contentione agitatae controversiae, quibus aliquid lucis, quantum Deus dabit, afferre est animus.
What faith justifies: bare assent can exist without obedience§977
977Scripture sometimes calls 'faith' bare assent without obedience.
John 12:42 leaders and Simon Magus believed yet stayed unconfessing or corrupt.
Latin · §977
II. Ante omnia vero scire oportet quae sit illa fides quae justificare dicitur. Ad cujus rei intelligentiam, notandum est in Scriptura sacra quandoque dici credere, & fidem habere, illos ipsos qui Verbo Dei qualemcunque assensum praebent, & de veritate doctrinae coelestis convicti & persuasi sunt; etiamsi praeceptis ejus non obtemperent, nec vitam suam ei studeant conformare. Sic apud Joannem cap. 12. v. 42. multi ex prioribus Judaeorum dicuntur in Christum credidisse, qui tamen Christum non confitebantur, propter metum Judaeorum, & quia, ut notat Joannes, gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam Dei diligebant. Et ita quoque Simon Magus, praedicante Philippo, credidisse narratur, & ad signa & virtutes magnas quae ab eodem Philippo edebantur, obstupuisse, Act. 8. v. 13. Et tamen hoc ipso tempore, Cor ejus, arguente Petro, non erat rectum in conspectu Dei, & ipse in felle amaritudinis & iniquitatis nexu positus erat, ut videre est ejusdem capitis commate 21. & 23.
Usually 'faith' means living assent that bears love, trust, obedience§978
978Usually 'faith' means assent that yields love, trust, and obedience.
Only that faith is tied to salvation, adoption, and victory—not bare belief.
Latin · §978
III. Sed tamen Scriptura plerumque fidei nomine designat, non assensum quemlibet qui doctrinae a Deo revelatae praebetur, sed illum solum qui hominem sic movet & afficit, ut inde nascatur amor, & fiducia in Deum, & debita praeceptis illius obedientia. Haec est illa fides quam divinae litterae tantopere laudant & commendant: cui victoriam de mundo tribuunt; & cum qua salutem, vitam, & adoptionem individuo nexu cohaerere testantur. Ut quum dicit Joannes, Omnis qui credit Jesum esse Christum ex Deo natus est, & haec est victoria quae vincit mundum, fides nostra, 1 Joh. 5. v. 1. & 6. Et Christus ipse, Deus ita dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Joann. 3. v. 16. Item, Haec est voluntas ejus qui misit me, ut omnis qui videt Filium, & credit in eum, habeat vitam aeternam; & ego suscitabo eum ultimo die. Joann. 6. v. 40. Etenim non omnes qui quomodocunque Christo, & verbis ejus credunt, vitam habent aeternam, & adoptantur a Deo in filios, & victoriam de mundo reportant, sed illi soli qui debitam ex fide obedientiam Deo praestant, & fidem habent in bonis operibus efficacem.
Dead vs living faith: believe God vs believe in God (Augustine)§979
979Speculative assent ('believe God') is dead; practical trust-love ('believe in God') lives.
Augustine: believing in God is loving and joining his members; James: faith without works is dead.
Latin · §979
IV. Itaque prior illa fides in multis impiis & hypocritis reperitur: posterior duntaxat in vere piis & bonis. Prior assensus est mere speculativus, qui in intellectu theoretico haeret. Posterior est assensus practicus, qui affectum movet, & voluntatem afficit. Quocirca prioris actum Scholae exprimunt per credere Deo, quod significat simpliciter Deo loquenti assentiri: posterioris per credere in Deum, quod cum assensu fiduciam in Deum, & Dei amorem includit; juxta illud Augustini, Quid est credere in Deum? credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, & ejus membris incorporari: Proinde prior illa fides mortua & otiosa est. Sicut enim corpus sine Spiritu mortuum est, ita & fides sine operibus mortua est, ut testatur Jacobus epistolae cap. 2. altera vero viva est, & per charitatem operans, totamque quam Christus a nobis exigit, obedientiam secum trahit.
Historic/dead faith cannot justify—James and Galatians§980
980Historic/dead faith—possible even in demons—cannot justify.
Paul equates justifying faith with love-working faith, new creation, and obedience.
Latin · §980
V. Porro fides illa mortua, iners, & otiosa, quam Protestantes historicam vocant, justificare non potest. Nam diserte docet Jacobus ejusmodi reperiri posse in ipsis Daemonibus, illamque ad salutem, adeoque ad justitiam consequendam nihil prodesse. Quid proderit, inquit, fratres mei, si fidem dicat aliquis se habere, opera autem non habeat? numquid poterit fides salvare eum? Jac. 2. v. 14. Et postea, Tu credis Deum unum esse; bene facis: & Daemones credunt, & contremiscunt. v. 19. Unde est quod Paulus, scribens ad Galatas, affirmat nihil in Christo valere, nisi fidem quae per dilectionem operatur: & per consequens fidem ipsam, nisi per dilectionem operetur, eorum in numero esse quae nihil in Christo valent. Nam, inquit, in Christo Jesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet, neque praeputium, sed fides quae per charitatem operatur. Gal. 5. v. 6. Ac ne quis in eo fallatur, & charitate ac bonis operibus vacuus, fidei cujusdam inertis & otiosae nomine sibi blandiatur, aliis in locis eandem sententiam repetens, pro fide quae per charitatem operatur, modo novam creaturam, modo observationem mandatorum Dei substituit. Sic enim idem Apostolus, epistolae jam citatae cap. 6. commate 15. loquitur, In Christo Jesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet, neque praeputium, sed nova creatura. Et 1 Cor. 7. v. 19. Circumcisio nihil est, & praeputium nihil est, sed observatio mandatorum Dei. Ita ut Apostolo haec tria sint aequivalentia, Observatio mandatorum Dei, Nova creatura, & Fides per charitatem operans.
Living faith justifies us—but is not the righteousness we stand in§981
981Only living, efficacious faith is in view when Scripture says we are justified by faith.
Even that faith is not the righteousness we stand in before God—it flees to mercy.
Latin · §981
VI. Quoties ergo fide justificari dicimur, id intelligendum est, non de fide mortua, sed viva, non de otiosa, sed de efficaci, ex qua nova obedientia, & bona opera prodeunt, & quae secum affert vitae totius immutationem. Porro inter Theologos Protestantes certum est fidem, etiam vivam & efficacem, non esse justitiam illam per quam coram severo Dei judicio stamus, aut justitiae illius partem vel initium. Etenim, cum fidei praecipuum officium sit ad misericordiam divinam confugere, qua ratione per eam, & illius virtute posset homo ferre rigidum justitiae divinae examen? cum repugnantia sint, egere Dei misericordia, & posse justitiam illius provocare.
Faith does not justify by its own merit or dignity§982
982Faith does not justify by its own merit; grace alone binds God to the believer.
If faith earned justification, it would be debt not free grace (Rom 3–4).
Latin · §982
VII. Nec minus inter eos constat fidem nos non justificare, aut justitiam nobis a Deo impetrare, proprio merito atque dignitate. Quamvis enim divinae bonitati congruum & consentaneum sit, ut in gratiam recipiat credentem & resipiscentem, ac omnino polliceatur summa Dei aequitas atque sapientia, ut peccata condonet, potius peccatori per fidem & poenitentiam ad misericordiam ipsius confugienti, quam impoenitenti atque incredulo qui divinam gratiam respuit atque contemnit: ex justitia tamen non tenetur Deus credenti peccata remittere, illumque justitiae Christi participem facere, & acceptare ad vitam aeternam. Quodque Deus erga credentem ita benigne & paterne se gerit, ad meram ejus gratiam & misericordiam omnino referendum est. Quod Scriptura frequenter & evidenter docet, dum pluribus in locis inculcat, nos justificari gratis, secundum gratiam, non secundum debitum, praesertim vero tertio, & quarto capite epistolae ad Rom. Nam, si fides mereretur justificationem, justificatio gratuita non esset, & non ex mera gratia, sed ex debito justificaremur.
Orthodox: faith does not justify as a meritorious work—mode still disputed§983
983Denying that faith justifies 'as a work' means it is not formal/meritorious cause.
Reformed agree on that—but still dispute how faith justifies.
Latin · §983
VIII. Ad ista respiciant Doctores Orthodoxi, dum negant fidem nos justificare ut opus. Nec enim per hoc aliud significatum intendunt, quam quod fides non sit justificationis causa, ut loquuntur Scholae, formalis, vel meritoria, id est, ut jam diximus, justitiae illius, qua coram districto Dei judicio stare possimus, pars, vel meritum, seu pretium quo illa acquiratur, atque obtineatur. Sed, quamvis de his consentiant Theologi Reformati, non convenit tamen inter illos, qua ratione fides justificare dicatur.
Some: faith only senses a justification already done before belief§984
984Some say faith only senses a justification already done—eternal or at the promise of Christ.
On that view faith's only role is to make us know and feel secure about it.
Latin · §984
IX. Quidam enim volunt fidem proprie non justificare, & justificationem fidei, nonnisi admodum improprie tribui: quia, scilicet, per fidem habemus sensum justificationis jam ante illam, & sine illa factae. Nam existimant justificationem esse aliquid quod fidem praecedit; & electos Dei justificatos esse, etiam antequam credant, & convertantur. Atque, quoniam ex eorum mente, justificatio vel ab aeterno facta est, vel saltem tum quum hominibus promissus est Christus Mediator, qui peccata nostra in se susciperet, & se pro nobis sponso rem justitiae divinae offerret; Itaque justificatio proprie accepta ipsis aliud non est, quam certa Dei voluntas de electis a peccato, propter Christum, absolvendis: nec, respectu hujus justificationis, fides aliam vim, aut officium habet, quam ut nos in ejus notitiam ducat, & de illa certos & securos reddat.
Justification is actual remission in time—not the eternal will to justify§985
985Justification is actual remission, not the eternal will to remit.
Decree precedes faith; actual justification follows faith in time.
Latin · §985
X. Sed abutuntur illi voce Justificatio. Nam justificatio non est Dei voluntas de hominibus a peccato absolvendis, seu de remittendis homini peccatis, sed ipsa actualis remissio peccatorum, & ab iis absolutio. Atque, ut aliud est voluntas salvandi, sive sanctificandi; aliud vero salus, & sanctificatio ipsa: sic plane distingui debent, decretum seu voluntas de quibusdam justificandis & condonandis eorum peccatis; & ipsa actualis eorum justificatio, & peccati condonatio. Nam voluntas justificandi, & peccata remittendi, aeterna quidem est, & fidem praecedit: sed ipsa remissio, & justificatio in tempore fit, & fidem sequitur.
Remission = ceasing to be liable to punishment—requires repentance and faith§986
986Remission means ceasing to be liable to sin's punishment—same substance as justification.
While one persists in sin without conversion and faith, wrath remains; sins are not yet remitted.
Latin · §986
XI. Quod manifestum fiet, si diligenter attendamus quid sit, & qua in re consistat remissio peccatorum quae, quoad substantiam, idem est cum peccatoris justificatione. Remittuntur enim alicui peccata, quum cessat esse poenae propter peccata obnoxius. Atque idem plane sunt remissionem peccatorum consequi, & desinere esse poenae peccato debitae obnoxium. Jam autem nemo definit obnoxius esse poenae quam admissa peccata merentur, priusquam illa per veram poenitentiam derelinquat, & ad Dei misericordiam in Christo confugiat. Nam lex Dei est firma & stabilis, & in verbo ejus saepius inculcata, quod quicunque peccato indulget, nec ab eo per veram ad Deum conversionem recedit, judicio & irae divinae obnoxius manet. Quo pertinet illud Davidis, Non habitabunt injusti ante oculos tuos. Psal. 5. 6. Odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem. Vultus autem Domini super facientes mala. Psal. 34. Item illud Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Nisi poenitentiam habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis. Et, Qui non credit in Filium non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum. Quamdiu ergo aliquis in peccato perseverat, necdum ad Deum conversus est, & fide Christum Redemptorem amplexus, tamdiu objectum est odii & irae divinae, & certa Dei lege perditioni aeternae obnoxius. Ac proinde in eo statu peccata nondum illi remissa sunt. Nam cui Deus peccata remisit, illum amplius odio non habet, nec illum vultu irato aspicit; aut est illi propter peccatum iratus. Nec amplius versatur talis in damnationis aeternae periculo, aut reatum ejus in se habet.
Eternal decree frees elect by giving converting grace in time—not by suspending the law§987
987The eternal decree frees the elect by giving converting grace in time—not by voiding the law.
Scripture ties remission to living faith, repentance, and turning (Rom 10; Acts; Prov; Ezek).
Latin · §987
XII. Ab aeterno quidem decrevit Deus electos, a poena peccatis ipsorum debita, immunes praestare; verum, non infringendo legem, cujus vi damnationi aeternae subjiciuntur, qui in peccato manent, nec ei renunciant; aut illos ab ista lege excipiendo: sed in tempore iis impartiendo gratiam, per quam in Christum credant, & ad Deum vere convertantur. Qua demum accepta, non prius, desinunt esse irae & damnationi aeternae obnoxii, sicut erant quum peccato inserviebant. Idque virtute ordinationis illius Evangelicae, qua Deus statuit a poenis peccati liberare, & pro justis habere, omnes illos qui in Christum viva fide crederent, a peccato sese averterent, & studium novae vitae amplecterentur. Juxta illud Pauli ad Romanos, Si confessus fueris ore tuo Dominum Jesum, & credideris in corde tuo quod Deus eum suscitavit ex mortuis, salvus eris. Rom. 10. 9. Et ad custodem carceris Philippensis, Crede in Dominum Jesum Christum, & salvaberis. Act. 16. 31. Quo spectat etiam illud Solomonis, Qui abscondit scelera sua non prosperabitur; qui autem confessus fuerit, & reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Prov. 28. 13. Et quod dicit Deus apud Ezechielem, Si impius egerit poenitentiam ab omnibus peccatis suis quae operatus est, & custodierit omnia praecepta mea, & fecerit judicium & justitiam; omnium iniquitatum ejus, quae operatus est, non recordabor: in justitia sua, quam operatus est, vivet. Numquid voluntatis meae est mors impii, dicit Dominus Deus, & non ut convertatur a viis suis, & vivat? Ezech. 18. 21. Unde est quod Petrus ad Judaeos dicit, Resipiscite, & convertite vos, ut deleantur peccata vestra. Et ad Simonem Magum, Poenitentiam age ab hac nequitia tua, & roga Deum, si forte remittatur tibi haec cogitatio cordis tui.
Remission is a promised benefit under condition—not an eternal decree already done§988
988Remission is a conditional gospel promise, not a finished eternal decree before faith.
We pray 'forgive us' for what is future to us—not for a past absolute decree.
Latin · §988
XIII. Quibus in locis, ut apparet, remissio peccatorum proponitur tanquam beneficium quoddam a Deo consequendum, & nobis ab eo promissum, idque sub certa tantum conditione. Unde patet illam minime concipiendam esse, tanquam decretum aliquod, ante tempora secularia factum, a nulla, ex parte hominis, conditione pendens, & per quod peccata, actu & reipsa, homini remissa sint, etiam antequam credat & convertatur. Nec enim decreta Dei sunt promissionum divinarum objecta, & quidem promissionum quae sub conditione fiunt: ut nec pertinent ad eorum numerum, quae, cum ratione, precibus a Deo postulamus; quo de genere non sunt praeterita, sed futura, cum tamen peccatorum nostrorum remissio unum sit ex praecipuis, quae Christus Dominus noster jubet nos a Deo assidue petere, inserta hac, in orationem ab eo dictatam, clausula, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos remittimus debitoribus nostris.
No Scripture makes justification an eternal decree; it follows faith and the Spirit§989
989Scripture never equates justification with an eternal decree.
It is a temporal gift after faith/conversion, done by the poured-out Spirit (Tit 3; 1 Cor 6).
Latin · §989
XIV. Et certe si quis percurrat omnia Scripturae loca, ubi de justificatione hominis mentio fit, ne unum quidem reperiet, ubi vel minimum indicium appareat, per justificationem intelligi aeternum quoddam Dei decretum. Imo vix unus est, ubi non occurrat aliquid, unde facile colligere liceat, per illam designari beneficium quoddam in tempore collatum, quodque hominis fidem & conversionem sequitur, non vero antecedit. Nam, ut omittam plurima illa loca, ubi dicimur, ex fide & per fidem justificari, & credere in Christum ut ex fide justificemur, quibus in locis fides manifeste proponitur, tanquam aliquid ad justificationem praerequisitum, justificatio semel tribuitur Spiritui Sancto in electos Dei effuso, & per illum fieri dicitur; argumento manifesto neminem, juxta mentem Scripturae Sacrae, justificatum esse, priusquam Spiritum Sanctum a Deo acceperit. Nam Tit. 3. v. 6. testatur Apostolus Deum in nos Spiritum Sanctum abunde effudisse, ut ex gratia ipsius haeredes simus secundum spem vitae aeternae. Et 1 Cor. 6. v. 11. fideles quos alloquitur dicit sanctificatos & justificatos fuisse, in nomine Domini Jesu, & per Spiritum Dei nostri.
1 Cor 6: once you were such—but you were washed, sanctified, justified§990
990Paul contrasts their justified state with their former vices (1 Cor 6).
That contrast collapses if they were already justified while still immersed in sin.
Latin · §990
XV. Praeterea eodem in loco, Apostolus satis evidenter opponit praesentem fidelium statum, in quo a peccatis justificati erant, conditioni eorum praecedenti in qua flagitiis variis indulserant. Quae oppositio vana & nulla esset, si, etiam antequam illis renunciarent, & quum illis adhuc immersi jacerent, jam tum nihilominus erant justificati. Et haec quidem, inquit, eratis, nempe scortatores, idololatrae, moechi, masculorum concubitores, fures, avari, ebriosi, maledici, rapaces; sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed justificati estis, in nomine Domini Jesu, & per Spiritum Dei nostri.
Rom 8:30 golden chain: calling precedes justification§991
991Rom 8:30 orders calling before justification in the golden chain.
Justification sits between calling and glorification—not before faith's call.
Latin · §991
XVI. Praecipue vero hic valde observandus est Pauli locus, qui habetur Rom. 8. v. 29. 30. Ubi Apostolus seriem & catenam contexens gratiarum & beneficiorum, quae ex aeterno Dei in electos amore manant, & singula suo ordine recensens, vocationem diserte praeponit justificationi, tanquam aliquid quod eam antecedit. Nam, inquit, quos praescivit, etiam praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Quos autem praedestinavit, hos & vocavit, & quos vocavit, hos & justificavit, quos autem justificavit, hos & glorificavit. Nam, ultro caecus sit oportet, qui non agnoscat, ex mente Apostoli, justificationem esse aliquid medium inter vocationem & glorificationem.
If justified before conversion: absurd—death/life and love collapse§992
992Actual justification before conversion yields absurdities against the apostles.
Justified = passed from death to life; unconverted lovelessness still 'remains in death.'
Latin · §992
XVII. Adde quod, si dicamus justificationem esse aliquid vocatione prius, & electos, non tantum in divino decreto, sed actu & reipsa justificatos esse, priusquam in Christum credant, & convertantur, multa sequuntur absurda, & quae Apostolicae doctrinae plane adversantur. Nam qui justificatus est, & remissionem peccatorum suorum a Deo consecutus, transit a morte ad vitam, nec amplius in morte manet. Qui vero nondum est ad Deum conversus, adhuc in morte manet; quandoquidem, nec Deum, nec proximum vera charitate diligit. Nam ut affirmat Joannes, Qui non diligit fratrem manet in morte, 1 Joh. 3. 14. Posita autem illa, quam refutamus, hypothesi, vel necesse est aliquem, qui justificatus est, in morte adhuc manere, nec transiisse de morte ad vitam: vel, contra expressum Apostoli dictum, aliquem nec proximum, nec Deum diligere, & in morte tamen non manere.
Justified = God's child; persisting sinner = of the devil—cannot both be true§993
993The justified are God's children; unrepentant sinners are of the devil (1 John 3).
Pre-faith justification would make someone God's child and the devil's at once.
Latin · §993
XVIII. Praeterea quicunque jam justificatus est, hoc ipso Dei filius est, a Deo adoptatus, & haeres vitae aeternae constitutus: sed quicunque peccato indulget, nec ab eo per veram poenitentiam recessit, ille ex diabolo est. Nam, ut idem Joannes testatur, qui facit peccatum ex diabolo est. Et per hoc manifesti sunt filii Dei, & filii diaboli: Quisquis non dat operam justitiae non est ex Deo. 1 Joh. 3. 8. & 10. Igitur, vel necesse est neminem qui dat operam peccato, & ei mancipatus est, habendum esse pro justificato: vel admittendum, contra manifestam Apostolorum sententiam, aliquem peccatum facere, & justitiae operam non dare, & tamen illum non esse ex diabolo, sed ex Deo; aut, quod veritati non minus repugnat, illum actu simul esse filium Dei, & filium diaboli, vel saltem aliquem justificatum esse qui nondum tamen sit Dei filius.
If already justified, death cannot shut one from heaven—yet Paul bars the unrepentant vicious§994
994Full remission fits one for heaven if death comes in that state.
Paul bars the unrepentant vicious from the kingdom—so they are not yet justified.
Latin · §994
XIX. Praeterea qui jam justificatus est, & cui peccata omnia remissa sunt, hoc ipso idoneus est qui admittatur in regnum coelorum. Et si supponatur in eo statu mori, nihil est propter quod debeat in infernum detrudi, & ab ingressu regni Dei arceri. Nam cui revera sunt omnia peccata remissa, ille est ab omni poena peccati liber, praesertim vero a tormentis inferorum, & gloriae ac felicitatis coelestis privatione. Apostolus autem saepius affirmat, illos qui scelerate vivant, & patrant ea quae carnis opera vocat, non ingressuros in regnum coelorum. Nolite, inquit, errare, neque fornicarii, neque idolis servientes, neque adulteri, neque masculorum concubitores, neque fures, neque avari, neque ebriosi, neque maledici, neque rapaces, regnum Dei possidebunt. 1 Cor. 6. v. 10. Et alibi, postquam varia carnis opera recensuit, subjungit, Quae praedico vobis, sicut praedixi, eos qui talia agunt, regni Dei non fore haeredes. Gal. 5. v. 21. Vel ergo falsum dixit Apostolus, vel falsum est illos, qui scelera jam enumerata designant, necdum illis renunciarunt, jam justificatos esse; aut dicendum, contra sensum communem Christianorum, & manifestam veritatem, peccata quae jam remissa supponuntur, & a quibus aliquis censetur jam justificatus, posse tamen obstare, si mors illum rapiat, quominus in gloriam coelestem admittatur, & etiam efficere, ut aeternis in inferno suppliciis adjudicetur.
No one actually justified until the Spirit applies Christ by faith and repentance§995
995Actual justification waits until the Spirit applies Christ by creating faith and repentance.
Westminster/Anglican art. and most Reformers who call faith the means agree.
Latin · §995
XX. Itaque plane dicendum putamus neminem actu & revera justificatum esse, priusquam Spiritus Sanctus fidem & resipiscentiam in eo creans & excitans, Christum ipsi applicuerit. Quae est expressa sententia Confessionis Anglicanae: Parlamenti, ut vocant, Anglicani, ante aliquot annos authoritate edita. Sic enim habet cap. 11. art. 4. prout ex translatione Gallica vertere licuit, Deus ab aeterno decrevit justificare omnes electos. Et in complemento temporum Christus pro peccatis eorum mortuus est, & propter justificationem eorum resurrexit. Attamen justificati non sunt, donec Spiritus Sanctus illorum unicuique suo tempore Christum reapse applicuerit. Atque idem sentire, si sibi constare velint, necesse est omnes illos qui existimant fidem esse medium cujus interventu justificemur, qui proculdubio longe maximam partem Reformatorum constituunt.
How faith concurs: instrumental, relative/objective, or covenant condition§996
996Most: faith is the instrumental cause receiving Christ's offered righteousness.
Others: relative/objective apprehension; others: gospel covenant condition.
Latin · §996
XXI. Porro qui sunt in hac sententia, non eodem modo explicant qua ratione hic fides interveniat, & concurrat ad peccatoris justificationem. Nam hic varii varie loquuntur. Plurimi dicunt fidem justificare, quoniam est nostrae justificationis causa instrumentalis, per quam Christi justitia Evangelii verbo oblata accipitur, & nobis applicatur, in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum. Nec alia videtur esse mens eorum qui docent fidem justificare relative sive objective. Per hoc enim aliud significatum volunt, nisi quod fides propria virtute non justificat, sed solummodo quatenus apprehendit Christi meritum & obedientiam, per quam solam proprie coram Deo justificamur. Alii dicere malunt fidem justificare quoniam est conditio quam foedus gratiae, sive Evangelium, postulat a nobis ut justificemur. Siquidem remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine, & vitam aeternam omni credenti offert.
Simplest: faith justifies because it is imputed to the believer for righteousness§997
997Simplest: faith justifies because it is imputed to the believer for righteousness (Rom 4).
God counts the living believer just for Christ's death and obedience.
Latin · §997
XXII. Simplicissimum nobis videtur si dicamus, fidem justificare, quia credenti, sua fides imputatur ad justitiam. Sic enim Apostolus ipse mentem suam explicat, de justificatione per fidem ex professo agens, Rom. 4. Credenti, inquit, in eum qui justificat impium, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam. Et in hunc finem citat illud Mosis, Credidit Abraham Deo, & reputatum est ei ad justitiam. Fides autem ad justitiam imputari dicitur, quia Deus illum qui viva fide in Christum credit pro justo habet & reputat, eum a poena peccati liberans, & ad vitam aeternam acceptans, propter Christi mortem & obedientiam.
Covenant-condition view comes to the same: living love-working faith required§998
998Faith-as-covenant-condition means the same: cling to Christ with living love-working faith.
Under that—not another—condition the gospel promises salvation and remission.
Latin · §998
XXIII. Eodem vero redit sententia eorum qui docent fidem nos justificare ut est foederis gratiae conditio. Etenim in eo mens eorum alia non est, quam Deum, ut nos pro justis habeat, & propter Christum ad vitam & gloriam aeternam acceptet, non aliud in Evangelio a nobis exigere, quam ut Christo fide viva & per dilectionem operante adhaereamus; & sub hac, non vero alia conditione, salutem & remissionem peccatorum nostrorum, Evangelii verbo nobis offeri & promitti: atque hanc esse rationem cur in Scriptura fide justificari dicimur.
Instrument language must mean moral condition—not physical tool or mere notice§999
999Calling faith an 'instrument' cannot mean a physical tool—only a moral prerequisite condition.
'Apprehend/receive' is metaphor for God's granting remission to living believers—not mere notice of prior justification.
Latin · §999
XXIV. Quin huc tandem necesse est devenire illos ipsos, qui dicunt fidem nos justificare per modum instrumenti, quod apprehendit Christi justitiam, & remissionem peccatorum accipit, si velint mentem suam verbis claris & distinctis, & quae cum veritate & ratione congruunt exponere. Nam, quum dicunt fidem esse instrumentum justificationis, intelligere non possunt instrumentum physicum & proprie dictum. Nec enim fides physice & proprie remissionem peccatorum, in qua justificatio consistit, operatur. Morale vero instrumentum justificationis quomodo potest esse fides, nisi quatenus est conditio quaedam, ad illam ex parte nostra praerequisita? & similiter, quum dicitur fides apprehendere Christi justitiam, propter quam absolvimur in Dei judicio, & remissionem peccatorum oblatam accipere, planum est voces illas acceptionis, & apprehensionis, non esse sumendas proprio, sed metaphorico sensu. Etenim fides non alia de causa dicitur accipere remissionem peccatorum, & apprehendere Christi justitiam, quam quia Deus solis credentibus remissionem peccatorum concedit, & Christi justitiam imputat, ac necesse est in Christum viva fide credere, ut ejus fiamus compotes, & propter Christi meritum & obedientiam acceptemur ad vitam aeternam. Ac plane frigidum esset, & alienum a mente eorum quibuscum agimus, apprehensionem illam exponere de notitia, quam per fidem habemus, de imputata nobis Christi obedientia, remissione peccatorum, merito ejus a Deo impetrata, quia scilicet, dicimur apprehendere quae mente percipimus. Idque jam a nobis satis refutatum est, argumentis iis quibus ostendimus, fidem aliter nos justificare, quam praebendo nobis sensum & notitiam nostrae justificationis.
Faith is the gospel condition for being held just—then: does faith alone justify?§1000
1000Best: faith is the gospel condition under which God holds us just in Christ.
Next question: sola fide—Protestant consensus, but teach it carefully against abuse.
Latin · §1000
XXV. Nihil ergo probabilius, simplicius, Scripturae magis congruum dici potest, quam justificationem ideo fidei tribui, quia fides conditio est quam Evangelium a nobis exigit, ut apud Deum justi & insontes habeamur, ac sicut cum talibus nobiscum agat Deus, nos propter Christum a poenis peccato debitis eximens, & regni coelestis haeredes instituens. Sed venit hic alia quaestio discutenda, nempe, An fides sola justificet? Solam justificare communis & recepta est Protestantium doctrina; quae tamen cum cautione tradenda & exponenda est, ne quis sit errori & calumniae locus.
Sola fide does not deny causes outside us—mercy, merit, word, sacraments§1001
1001Sola fide does not deny mercy, Christ's merit, word, or sacraments as causes outside us.
On our part, only faith justifies—opposed to works, not to gospel means.
Latin · §1001
XXVI. Et primo quidem hic observandum est, quum justificationem soli fidei ascribimus, per id nos non negare, quin justificatio, praeter fidem quae ad eam ex parte nostra requiritur, multas causas extra nos habeat, sive principales, ut Dei misericordiam, & Christi meritum; sive instrumentales, ut Evangelii verbum & Sacramenta. Itaque per istud solum significamus, intra nos, & ex parte nostra, unam fidem esse per quam justificemur. Adeo ut fides hic opponatur solis operibus: nec per hoc aliud intelligi, quam fidem justificare, opera vero minime.
Paul: Abraham justified by faith not works; conclude faith without works of law§1002
1002Paul's Rom 4: Abraham justified by faith, not works; God justifies the believer.
Conclusion (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16): justified by faith without works of the law.
Latin · §1002
XXVII. Qua in re praeeuntem habemus Apostolum Paulum, qui in suis Epistolis idem frequenter urget & inculcat, praesertim cap. 4. epist. ad Rom. ubi docet Abrahamum non esse justificatum ex operibus, sed ex fide, juxta illud Scripturae, Credidit Abraham Deo, & imputatum est ei ad justitiam. Unde colligit Deum justificare non operantem, sed credentem, & imputare homini justitiam absque operibus, etiam Davidis testimonio confirmat. Capite vero praecedenti, haec est ejus conclusio, multis ante argumentis probata & confirmata, Concludimus hominem fide justificari absque operibus legis. Quibus consentanea sunt quae scribit ad Galatas, cap. 2. v. 16. Scientes, inquit, non justificari hominem ex operibus legis, sed per fidem Jesu Christi, etiam in Christum Jesum credidimus, ut justificaremur ex fide Christi, & non ex operibus legis: propterea quod non justificabitur ex operibus legis ulla caro.
Sola fide is not idle faith apart from works—only living faith justifies§1003
1003Sola fide does not mean idle faith severed from works can justify.
Only living faith that itself produces good works is justifying faith.
Latin · §1003
XXVIII. Praeterea, quando cum Paulo asserimus, hominem justificari sola fide & sine operibus, ex ante dictis satis patet, ab eo nos multum abesse, ut sentiamus fidem quae sola est, & seorsim a bonis operibus existit, vim habere justificandi. Siquidem non aliam fidem justificantem agnoscimus, quam quae viva est, & ex se bona opera producit.
Sola fide does not make inward righteousness faith-only, nor deny other prerequisite acts§1004
1004Inward Spirit-wrought righteousness is not faith alone—charity and virtues belong too.
Other repentant acts precede habitual renewal; grace grows by good works (Habenti dabitur).
Latin · §1004
XXIX. Nec etiam, dum sic loquimur, affirmare volumus justitiam illam novam, quam Spiritus Sanctus in fidelibus creat, & a qua saepe in Scriptura justi sanctique nominantur, constare sola fide, non vero etiam charitate, caeterisque virtutibus, ad quas divinae gratiae beneficio formantur, & Christo conformes redduntur. Item neque per id negare intendimus, praeter fidei actum, multos alios a Deo praerequiri, & per gratiam ejus in nobis excitari, priusquam donemur illa justitia habituali, cujus respectu novi homines facti, & de novo ad Dei imaginem creati in Scriptura dicimur. Quales actus sunt timor judicii divini, peccati detestatio, serium vitae emendandae studium, pia nominis Dei invocatio, & si qui sint similes. Quin ultro quoque confitemur, justitiam illam semel nobis a Deo donatam, exercitio bonorum operum quotidie magis ac magis augeri atque increscere, Deumque illos, qui accepta gratia recte utuntur, bonis operibus sedulo vacantes, ampliori indies gratia ornare, atque cumulare; juxta illud Christi solenne promissum, Habenti dabitur.
Sola fide is not bare believing act vs love/hope/repentance—living faith includes them§1005
1005Sola fide is not the bare believing act cut off from love, hope, and repentance.
Living charity-working faith includes conversion's required acts as prerequisite.
Latin · §1005
XXX. Imo, quum solam fidem justificare dicimus, ne id quidem significamus, solum credendi actum praecise sumptum, prout actibus amoris & spei opponitur, & distinguitur a resipiscentia, sive poenitentia, esse conditionem, quam novum foedus, sive Evangelium postulat, ut peccatorum nostrorum remissionem consequamur, & propter Christum ab iis absolvamur. Nam veniae spes & Dei dilectio, itemque dolor de peccato, & novae vitae propositum, ac uno verbo, actus omnes ad veram & seriam conversionem requisiti, sunt etiam quiddam necessarium & omnino praerequisitum, ut aliquis a Deo in gratiam recipiatur, & ab eo deinceps habeatur pro justificato. Imo fides illa viva & per charitatem operans, quam justificare solam affirmamus, omnia ista includit, & involvit.
Scripture also requires repentance as a condition of remission—not its merit§1006
1006Repentance is as truly a gospel prerequisite of remission as faith—without meriting it.
Solomon, Christ, and Peter tie blotting out of sins to confessing, forsaking, and turning.
Latin · §1006
XXXI. Ac quemadmodum Scriptura frequenter asserit, nos per fidem habere remissionem peccatorum: Ita, non minus saepe, & expresse docet, resipiscentiam, & totam peccatoris conversionem ad Deum, esse conditionem, sine qua remissio peccatorum a Deo obtineri non potest, & quae, non minus quam fides, ad illam praeexigitur, licet illam nec efficiat, neque promereatur. Quo pertinet illud Solomonis jam antea citatum, Qui abscondit scelera sua non prosperabitur, qui autem confessus fuerit, & reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Et quod dicit Christus apud Lucam, Nisi resipiscatis, omnes similiter peribitis. Unde est quod Petrus sic Judaeos hortatur, Poenitentiam agite, & baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum. Act. 2. v. 38. Et, Poenitemini & convertimini, ut deleantur peccata vestra. Act. 3. v. 19.
Sola fide means: not by law's perfect works, but by living efficacious faith§1007
1007Sola fide: not law's uninterrupted perfect obedience, but living efficacious faith in Christ.
Law's justifying works = flawless observance—Fac et vives—or the curse.
Latin · §1007
XXXII. Sed quum Scriptura dicit hominem justificari fide, & non operibus, seu sine operibus, quod nos dicimus sola fide justificari, sensus simpliciter est, neminem justificari posse praestando opera quae lex ab homine requirit, ut per eam justificetur: sed solum credendo in Christum fide viva & efficaci, quod postulat Evangelium, ut apud Deum pro justis habeamur. Per opera autem quae lex proprie sumpta, & ut opponitur gratiae, sive Evangelio, exigit ad hominis justificationem, intelligitur, perfecta & nullo unquam peccato interrupta, omnium mandatorum legis observatio, quae omnem transgressionem, & omne peccatum excludit. Lex enim dicit, Fac & vives, &, Qui fecerit ea vivet in eis. Maledictionem vero districte denunciat omnibus peccatoribus atque transgressoribus, dum ait, Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis hujus, ut faciat ea.
Law justifies the worker by debt, never the sinner—even if penitent§1008
1008Law justifies only the perfect worker by debt—never the sinner by grace.
Born in sin, no one can be justified by law-works.
Latin · §1008
XXXIII. Itaque lex justificat non credentem, sed operantem, idque secundum debitum, non secundum gratiam. Nec enim lex rigide accepta ulli gratiam facit, aut promittit, sed unicuique severe denunciat quod illi ex stricto jure debetur. Ac proinde nullum impium & peccatorem justificat; quantumvis supponatur poenitentia ductus redire ad meliorem frugem. Adeoque cum omnes homines & in peccato nati, & multi peccatores sint, nullus omnino potest ex legis operibus, & per legem justificari.
Gospel justifies every living believer by grace—Crede et servaberis, not Fac et vives§1009
1009Gospel justifies every living love-working believer by grace—even great sinners who repent.
Not Fac et vives but Crede et servaberis.
Latin · §1009
XXXIV. Sed ab omnibus, a quibus non possumus per legem Mosis justificari, per Christum omnis qui credit justificabitur. Nam Deus in Evangelio promittit se, propter Christum, credentes omnes in gratiam recepturum, & liberationem a maledictione legis, ac remissionem peccatorum omnium, in Christi sanguine, offert omnibus indiscriminatim, qui Christum fide viva, & per dilectionem operante, amplexi fuerint; illisque tanquam justis vitam & gloriam aeternam pollicetur. Ideoque Evangelium ad justificationem maximos etiam peccatores admittit, modo peccatis suis renunciantes, & edentes fructus poenitentia dignos, in Christum fide viva & efficaci credant. Nec enim justificat ex debito, sed ex gratia. Nec dicit, Fac & vives, verum, Crede & servaberis.
Paul's 'not by works but by faith' = not by legal covenant observance but sincere gospel faith§1010
1010Paul's contrast: not legal-covenant perfect observance, but sincere gospel faith with its obedience.
God freely remits and counts just those who receive the gospel from the heart.
Latin · §1010
XXXV. Quoties ergo affirmat Apostolus nos non justificari operibus, sed fide, non aliud docere intendit, quam nullum omnino justificari posse per observationem legis, quam foedus legale postulat, ut per illud vitam habeamus, & vitemus Dei maledictionem: sed Deum pro justis habere, ac remissionem peccatorum omnium ex mera sua gratia donare, omnes illos qui corde syncero Evangelium suscipiunt, illique veram ex fide praestant obedientiam.
Romans and Galatians: justification from works = by law; from faith = without works§1011
1011For Paul, justification from works = by law; from faith = without works.
Law demands perfect doing; gospel sum is confess-and-believe (Rom 10).
Latin · §1011
XXXVI. Hanc esse Apostoli mentem, agnoscet facile quisquis attente considerabit quae Paulus hac de re disserit in Epist. ad Rom. & Epist. ad Galatas. Nam Paulo justificari ex operibus simpliciter, justificari ex operibus legis, & justificari per legem, idem sunt. Sicut pro eodem habet justificari ex fide, & justificari sine operibus. Justitia autem legis, secundum Pauli doctrinam, in eo consistit ut quis accurate faciat omnia quae lege jubentur, quemadmodum justus ex fide est ille qui viva fide credit in Christum, quoniam tali sua fides ad justitiam imputatur. Nam opponit sedulo legem, quae fidem non postulat, sed perfectam obedientiam, & dicit, Qui fecerit ea homo, vivet in eis. Item, Execrabilis quisquis non manserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea. Verbo fidei sive Evangelio, quod justitiam & salutem gratuito offert, utpote cujus summa haec sit, Si professus fueris ore tuo Dominum Jesum, & credideris in corde tuo quod Deus eum suscitavit ex mortuis, servaberis, Rom. 10. & Gal. 5.
Believer 'does not work' means lacks law's perfect obedience—not empties of pious acts§1012
1012Rom 4 'does not work' = lacks law's perfect wage-earning obedience—not lacks pious acts.
Living faith necessarily has sorrow, trust, love, prayer; God still imputes apart from legal perfection.
Latin · §1012
XXXVII. Proinde juxta Paulum, per legem, sive opera nemo justificatur, nisi qui nullius est transgressionis reus, quique plane isti clausulae satisfecit, Qui fecerit ea homo vivet in eis. Illi vero qui credit in eum qui justificat impium, Deus justitiam sine operibus imputat, quoniam Deus illum pro justo habet, etiamsi non sit defunctus operibus quae lex exigit ad justificationem. Et similiter, quum credentem & operantem opponit Apostolus, docetque Deum justificare non operantem, sed credentem, per operantem intelligit illum qui opera lege praescripta sic praestitit, ut gratia opus non habeat, sed debeatur illi ex justitia merces: sicuti videre est cap. 4. epist. ad Rom. Ei qui operatur, inquit, merces non imputatur ex gratia, sed ex debito. Ei vero qui non operatur, sed credit in eum qui justificat impium, imputatur fides sua ad justitiam. Ubi, quum dicit Apostolus non operari eum qui credit, manifestum est eum dicere nolle, quod qui credit sit bonis omnibus operibus vacuus. Nam in eo qui viva & salutari fide credit, necessario multa bona opera reperiuntur, qualia sunt, dolor de peccatis admissis, & anteactae vitae detestatio, votum & studium vitae melioris, veniae spes, & fiducia in Deum, denique & timor, & amor, & pia nominis ejus invocatio. Sed dicitur non operari qui credit, quoniam non praestat opera juxta legem ad vitam obtinendam necessaria. Ac quamvis fidem ejus multa pia & sancta opera comitentur, Deus tamen, ut loquitur Apostolus, justitiam illi imputat sine operibus, quoniam caret operibus legis; id est, perfecta illa & exacta obedientia, sine qua lex nullum justum pronunciat.
Imputation without works follows because blessedness needs remission (Psalm 32)§1013
1013Psalm 32: blessedness requires remission—so imputation is without law-perfect works.
Anyone needing forgiveness already lacks the flawless obedience law demands.
Latin · §1013
XXXVIII. Unde est quod Apostolus in sequentibus probat Deum imputare homini justitiam sine operibus, quia nemo pervenit ad vitam & beatitudinem, & ex consequenti justus apud Deum habetur, nisi cui Deus peccata remittit; juxta illud Davidis, Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, & quorum tecta sunt peccata. Nam ut multa bona opera reperiri possint in eo qui opus habet remissione peccatorum, si tamen Deus illum pro justo habet, necessario imputat illi justitiam sine operibus illis quae lex gratiae opposita exigit ad hoc ut hominem justum pronunciet. Siquidem opera illa constant omnibus numeris absoluta legis observatione, qua destitutus est ille qui vel semel legem transgressus est, quique ulla peccati remissione opus habet.
Paul and James reconciled: no legal perfect works vs no bare assent without works§1014
1014Paul denies justification by law-covenant perfect works; James denies bare gospel assent.
Both require living love-working faith—James's 'not faith only' matches Paul's own teaching.
Latin · §1014
XXXIX. Atque hinc sese aperit via commoda & facilis conciliandi Paulum cum Jacobo, qui in speciem Paulo contradicit. Paulus enim, ut jam vidimus, affirmat Deum credenti imputare justitiam sine operibus, & justificare eum qui credit, & non operatur; & multis in locis vehementer contendit hominem justificari per fidem sine operibus legis. Jacobus vero contra disertis verbis asserit, & multis argumentis probat, quod ex operibus justificatur homo, & non ex fide tantum. Sed quamvis eorum verba videantur inter se pugnare, sensus tamen optime concordat. Paulus enim negare vult hominem justificari faciendo opera, quae lex, ut foederi gratiae opposita, exigit ad hominis justificationem: quod Jacobus minime affirmat. Jacobus autem asserere intendit, hominem non justificari solo & nudo assensu qui verbo Evangelii adhibetur, sed fide tali quae sit per dilectionem operans, & quam multa bona opera comitentur, quod Paulus ipse expresse docuit, tantum abest ut illud neget. Adeoque, quum dicit Jacobus, Videtis igitur ex operibus justificari hominem, & non ex fide tantum, idem est ac si diceret, Videtis Deum pro justo non habere illum qui verbo Dei simpliciter & nude credit & assentitur: sed illum qui cum fide conjungit bona opera, & qui fidem habet in bonis operibus efficacem.
Faith's role and exclusion of works sufficiently set; next: Roman school on these heads§1015
1015Exposition of faith's role and how works are excluded is enough for now.
Next: briefly ask what Roman-school theologians hold on these heads amid the clash.
Latin · §1015
XL. Porro his sufficienter expositum putamus quae sint fidei partes in justificatione, & quo sensu opera ab illa excludantur. Sed quoniam hic multae quaestiones motae sunt, & non parva animorum contentione agitatae inter Scholam Romanam & Scholam Reformatam, operae pretium erit breviter inquirere quid de supra expositis capitibus sentiant Scholae Romanae Theologi; ut ita facilius & clarius percipi possit quaenam proprie in quaestionem vocentur, ac quanti momenti sint quae hic agitari solent controversiae.
Roman school distinguishes living and dead faith as we do§1016
1016Romans distinguish living vs dead faith as we do: idle assent vs faith working through love.
Dead faith: believe God; living: believe in God—with love and trust.
Latin · §1016
XLI. Primum igitur sciendum est Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae fidem, ut & nos, distinguere in vivam & mortuam, & distinctionem illam eodem modo exponere. Nam per fidem mortuam intelligunt assensum otiosum & inertem qui verbo Dei adhibetur: quemque nec Dei dilectio, nec ulla vere bona opera comitantur. Et per fidem vivam illam quae activa est, & operans per dilectionem, quaeque & Dei amorem, & fiduciam in eum includit. Et prioris etiam actum per credere Deo, posterioris per credere in Deum, significare solent. Quae distinctio apud eos ita recepta atque vulgaris est, ut superfluum sit eorum hac de re hic referre testimonia.
Only living/formed faith justifies; Stapleton, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Becanus§1017
1017Rome agrees: only living faith that works through love justifies; dead faith profits nothing.
Stapleton, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Becanus: formed faith (with charity) alone justifies.
Latin · §1017
XLII. Praeterea fatentur fidem mortuam atque otiosam hominem non justificare, illamque nihil omnino prodesse ad justitiam & salutem: ac proinde nos sola fide viva, & quae per dilectionem operetur, justificari. Ita Thomas Stapletonus Anglus in Academia Duacensi Professor, asserit pluribus in locis, fidem sine charitate & opere obedientiae mortuam esse, id est, ut ipse exponit, ad salutem & justitiam prorsus ineptam, vanam, & inutilem. Sicuti videre est libro de Justificatione, cap. 2. & cap. 13. Et Prolegomenis in librum quintum, ex Apostolo docet, fidem ad justitiam consequendam nihil valere, nisi operetur per dilectionem. Similiter Bellarminus lib. 1. de Justif. cap. 14. multis argumentis probat fidem quae separata est a spe & dilectione, ac proinde quae viva non est, justificare non posse. Quibus accedit Vasquez, tom. 2. in primam secundae disput. 110. cap. 7. num. 54. ubi observat fidem, quam Concilium Tridentinum docet habere rationem radicis & fundamenti in nostra justificatione, esse illam quae movet & excitat affectum: fidem autem quae affectum non movet, neque ex se actuosa est, ut alliciat voluntatem ad bonum, rationem istam radicis & fundamenti non habere. Ideoque merito Becanus Jesuita, in Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, tom. 2. tract. 4. cap. 2. num. 7. Catholicis suis tribuit, quod communi consensu docent solam fidem formatam, quo nomine Schola Romana designat illam quae cum charitate juncta est, justificare. Catholici, inquit, docent fidem non justificare, nisi sit formata charitate. Item, Catholici docent, cum Augustino, fidem posse informem existere, non tamen nisi formatam justificare.
Justifying faith believes in God: trust, hope of pardon, and love (Trent sess. 6)§1018
1018Justifying faith is believing in God: trust and hope of pardon, from which love arises.
Trent sess. 6 ch. 6: grace-stirred disposition toward righteousness through faith, fear, hope, love.
Latin · §1018
XLIII. Itaque non aliam fidem justificare docent, quam illam qua, non tantum Deo, sed etiam in Deum credimus, id est, quae junctam habet fiduciam in Deum, & spem veniae ab eo obtinendae. Unde nascitur Dei amor & dilectio, ut colligere est ex ipso Concilio Tridentino, sess. 6. cap. 6. Disponuntur autem, inquit, ad ipsam justitiam, dum excitati divina gratia, & adjuti, fidem ex auditu concipientes, libere moventur in Deum, credentes vera esse quae divinitus revelata & promissa sunt, atque illud in primis, a Deo justificari impium per gratiam ejus, per redemptionem, quae est in Christo Jesu; & dum peccatores se esse intelligentes, a divinae justitiae timore, quo utiliter concutiuntur, ad considerandam Dei misericordiam se convertendo, in spem eriguntur, fidentes Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore, illumque tanquam omnis justitiae fontem, diligere incipiunt, &c.
Faith not meritorious cause; first justification mere grace (Trent sess. 6 ch. 8)§1019
1019Rome: faith is not the meritorious cause; passage into grace is mere gift through Christ alone.
Trent: nothing preceding justification—faith or works—merits justifying grace.
Latin · §1019
XLIV. Praeterea Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae agnoscunt fidem non justificare, tanquam causam meritoriam remissionis peccatorum nostrorum, & doni justitiae: quumque homo ex statu peccati in statum gratiae transfertur, justificationem ejus esse mere gratuitam, nec ullis nostris meritis deberi, sed divinae gratiae, per Christi solius merita nobis partae, unice esse ascribendam. Quod expresse definivit Concilium Tridentinum, eadem Sess. 6. cap. 8. Gratis autem ideo justificari dicimur, inquit, quia nihil eorum quae justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam justificationis gratiam promeretur; si enim gratia est, jam non ex operibus: alioquin, ut Apostolus inquit, gratia jam non est gratia.
Pontifical dispute: does faith merit justification de congruo?§1020
1020Rome divided: Stapleton—faith merits neither de condigno nor de congruo.
Bellarmine/Vasquez—Trent bars only condign merit; congruous merit of faith allowed.
Latin · §1020
XLV. Inter se disputant Theologi Pontificii, An fides, saltem de congruo, non mereatur justificationem. Et quidem eorum nonnulli pretendunt fidem neque de condigno, neque de congruo mereri remissionem peccatorum, & primam quam vocant justificationem, qua homo ex peccatore & non justo fit justus, idque quia Concilium Tridentinum simpliciter excludit a fide meritum justificationis, neque ullam hac in re distinctionem adhibet; qui in sententia est Thomas Stapletonus prolegomenis in librum 5. de Justificatione. Alii vero putant Concilium Tridentinum excludere solum meritum de condigno, non vero negare quin fides de congruo mereri possit justificationem hominis peccatoris per fidem Christum amplectentis, quae est Bellarmini & Vasquezii sententia.
Condign vs congruous merit: all grant free gift; some call living faith congruous§1021
1021Condign = wage from justice; congruous = fitting gift from goodness—no debt.
All Rome: first justification is free gift; 'congruous merit of faith' only means living faith fittingly obtains pardon.
Latin · §1021
XLVI. Porro per meritum de condigno intelligunt opus cui merces ex justitia debetur, per meritum autem de congruo opus cui nihil quidem debetur ex justitia, sed quod a bonitate divina aliquid impetrat, cuique decet bonitatem & aequitatem divinam aliquid tribuere. Itaque consentiunt Doctores omnes Ecclesiae Romanae peccatorum remissionem, & justificationem hominis peccatoris esse donum Dei gratuitum, & ex justitia non deberi fidei. Quod vero dicunt eorum nonnulli fidem illam mereri de congruo, per hoc non aliud significatum volunt, quam fidem quae per dilectionem operatur peccatorum veniam & justificationem a bonitate divina impetrare, & congruum esse divinae bonitati & sapientiae, ut peccatorem, qui fide efficaci per bona opera, ad misericordiam Dei in Christo confugit, a peccatis absolvat & justitia donet.
Faith justifies as disposition (act) or as part of formal cause (habit)§1022
1022Rome: faith-as-act disposes for justification; faith-as-habit is part of infused righteousness.
Their 'justification' includes forgiveness and interior renovation (sanctification).
Latin · §1022
XLVII. Caeterum fidem justificare dicunt per modum dispositionis, aut etiam tanquam justitiae partem & initium; quo respectu revocatur fides ad causam formalem justificationis. Ad cujus rei intelligentiam, observandum est Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae per justificationem non significare solam a peccatis absolutionem, sed renovationem quoque interioris hominis, quam sanctificationis nomine designamus. Ac praeterea fidem duobus modis ab illis accipi: Et 1. quidem pro actu fidei, qui per actuale Dei auxilium in anima excitatur, priusquam adepta sit gratiam habitualem: 2. Pro fidei habitu, qui cum habitibus spei & charitatis, in jam credentis animam infunditur. Priori modo sumpta fides justificat, ex eorum mente, per modum dispositionis: quia per illam anima praeparatur & disponitur ad accipiendam a Deo remissionem peccatorum, & simul quoque justitiam illam habitualem, a qua justi sanctique fideles in Scriptura vocantur. Fides vero sumpta posteriori modo pertinet ad causam formalem justificationis: quoniam est pars novae illius justitiae, quam Spiritus Sanctus in fidelibus creat, & per quam illos vere & reapse justos, sanctosque constituit.
Not faith alone as opposed to other virtues; other acts also dispose§1023
1023Rome denies faith alone if opposed to other virtues: fear, hatred of sin, hope, resolve, love also dispose.
Infused righteousness = faith + hope + charity habits, not faith alone.
Latin · §1023
XLVIII. Verum quod fidei hac in parte tribuunt, reliquis quoque virtutibus Christianis convenire putant, & operibus ex gratia Dei factis. Itaque fidem solam si praecise consideretur, & prout virtutibus aliis opponitur, justificare negant. Nam sicut, ex eorum doctrina, fidei actus hominem disponit ad consequendam a Deo gratiam justificationis, & eatenus illum justificare dicitur, ita quoque timor judicii divini, peccati odium & detestatio, spes misericordiae, propositum vitae emendandae, inchoata Dei dilectio, & actus alii similes, ad veram poenitentiam & conversionem ad Deum requisiti, sunt dispositiones, ex ordinatione divina, necessariae ut aliquis a Deo remissionem peccatorum impetret, & habituali justitia donetur. Ac quemadmodum fidei habitus pars est justitiae, quam Deus in justificatione peccatori infundit, sic quoque partes illius sunt habitus spei, & charitatis: nec constat illa sola fide, sed virtutibus Christianis omnibus. Adeoque ex eorum sensu, virtutes reliquae, non minus quam fides, pertinent ad causam formalem justificationis, & bona multa opera, quae cum fidei actu justificationem peccatoris praecedunt, non minus quam actus ille, justificant per modum dispositionis.
Infused virtues real righteousness, yet cannot stand strict divine judgment§1024
1024Infused faith-hope-charity is real righteousness in God's sight—yet cannot stand strict judgment without mercy.
Even the perfect must pray Ps 143:2; last-day reward is of gospel promise, not bare legal standing.
Latin · §1024
XLIX. Sed quamvis existiment justitiam illam, per quam formaliter coram Deo justificamur, constare fide, spe & charitate, nolunt tamen fidem, & virtutes caeteras constituere justitiam ullam, quae possit ferre rigidum judicii divini examen: ita ut, si Deus fideles districte judicare velit, nec uti erga eos ulla clementia & misericordia, possint per justitiam sibi infusam atque inhaerentem, damnationem vitare, & sperare vitam aeternam. Agnoscunt enim fideles, etiam maxime perfectos, quum se coram severo Dei tribunali sistunt, teneri cum David dicere, Ne intres in judicium cum servo tuo; non enim coram te justificabitur ullus vivens. Idque tum propter peccata, quae justificationem eorum antecedunt: tum propter illa in quae justificati ex infirmitate quotidie labuntur. Itaque mens eorum solum est, virtutes ipsas per Spiritum Sanctum fidelibus infusas, esse formam illam a qua fideles in Scriptura justificati, & justi coram Deo denominantur: & constituere justitiam veram & synceram, non tantum hominum, sed Dei quoque ipsius judicio: quamque Deus quum judex sedebit ultimo die, ex Evangelio mundum judicaturus, solenniter probabit, laudabit, & praemiabitur vita & gloria aeterna.
Penitent acts are moral conditions, not physical causes of first grace§1025
1025Penitent acts with faith are moral conditions God requires—not physical causes that produce first grace.
Rome (mostly): remission and renovation remain mere gifts; a minority still speaks of congruous merit.
Latin · §1025
L. Et similiter, quamvis dicant actus poenitentiae, timoris, spei, & dilectionis, esse cum fidei actu dispositiones quasdam ad justificationem, non intelligunt propterea opera ejusmodi, proprie loquendo, justificationem, vel efficere, vel mereri. Non sunt enim, ex eorum mente, dispositiones physicae, quae propria sua virtute remissionem peccatorum, & justitiam novam efficiant, vel attingant: sed dispositiones solummodo morales, id est, conditiones, quae juxta divinam ordinationem, remissionem peccatorum, & justitiae habitualis donum, in nobis praecedere debent, & sine quibus Deus beneficia ista homini non vult, nec solet conferre, ut videre est apud Petrum a Sancto Joseph in Idea Theologiae Speculativae, lib. 4. cap. 9. Resolutione 3. nec etiam, ut ante ex ipso Concilio Tridentino probatum est, ullis operibus tribuunt vim promerendi gratiam justificationis, quae, ut notat idem Concilium, non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed & sanctificatio, & renovatio interioris hominis: quam remissionem & renovationem Theologi omnes Ecclesiae Romanae agnoscunt esse mere gratuitam, & nullis nostris actibus, aut dispositionibus ex justitia deberi: licet quidam eorum, non probantibus caeteris, dicant poenitentiam, ut & fidem, gratiam istam mereri de congruo: quoniam congruum & consentaneum est bonitati divinae, ut eam credentibus & poenitentibus benigne largiatur.
First justification free; second (growth) from condign merit of works§1026
1026Rome: first justification (sinner→just) is free gift.
Second justification (growth) they ground in condign merit of good works.
Latin · §1026
LI. Attamen Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae distinctionem hic adhibent inter justificationem primam, qua homo ex peccatore & impio fit justus & sanctus, per peccati remissionem, & per adoptionem gratiae sanctificantis atque regenerantis, & inter justificationem secundam, qua homo jam justificatus in justitia & sanctitate crescit, & ex justo justior, ex sancto sanctior evadit. Et prima quidem illa est quam gratuitam esse volunt; sed quod attinet ad secundam justificationem, docent illam esse ex meritis, & hominem justum sic per bona opera in justitia & sanctitate crescere, ut etiam ex condigno, mereatur augmentum gratiae sanctificantis, atque justificantis.
Nine heads where Roman and Reformed schools commonly agree§1027
1027Nine shared heads: living vs dead faith; only living justifies; repentant conditions; free gift of remission/renovation; fitting mercy to penitents; virtues beyond faith-habit; growth by good works; true Spirit-wrought righteousness God will vindicate; yet none stands strict judgment without mercy.
Latin · §1027
LII. Ex iis vero quae jam exposita sunt, manifestum est Doctores, tam Scholae Romanae, quam Scholae Reformatae, agnoscere communi consensu, 1. Fidem recte distingui in mortuam & vivam, otiosam & activam; unam quae est bonis operibus vacua, alteram vero quae per dilectionem operatur, & secum involvit fiduciam in Deum. 2. Solam fidem vivam justificare, mortuam autem nihil ad justitiam & salutem prodesse. 3. Non solum credendi actum praecise sumptum, sed multos alios quoque, qui ad veram poenitentiam, & seriam ad Deum conversionem concurrunt, esse conditiones a Deo praerequisitas, ut aliquis ab eo peccatorum veniam & infusionem novae & habitualis justitiae impetret. 4. Remissionem peccatorum, & renovationem interioris hominis esse donum Dei mere gratuitum; quod nec fidei, nec ullis operibus quantumcunque ex gratia Dei factis, ex justitia debetur. 5. Divinae bonitati & sapientiae congruum & conveniens esse, ut peccatori quem serio poenitet, & qui per fidem ad Dei misericordiam confugit, remittantur peccata, & Spiritus Sancti gratia donetur: non vero incredulis & impoenitentibus. 6. Novam justitiam quam Spiritus Sanctus in fidelibus creat, constare non solo fidei habitu, sed etiam reliquis virtutibus Christianis. 7. Justitiam illam exercitio bonorum operum non conservari solum, sed etiam augeri, illosque qui gratia jam accepta recte utentes, bonis operibus vacant, ampliorem in dies gratiam accipere. 8. Justitiam quae per Spiritus Sancti gratiam fidelibus inest, veram & synceram esse, non tantum hominum, sed Dei ipsius judicio: adeoque fore ut Deus, quum judicabit vivos & mortuos, solenne & gloriosum testimonium illi perhibeat, & vitae aeternae praemium retribuat. 9. Nullam esse in piis justitiam quae possit ferre rigidum judicii divini examen, si Deus hominem absque misericordia judicet, & erga ipsum nulla indulgentia & clementia uti velit.
Dispute remains how faith justifies: disposition/form vs Reformed sense§1028
1028Still disputed: Rome—faith as disposing act and part of infused form; Reformed reject that framing.
Once Rome's broad 'justification' (=forgiveness+renovation) is heard, much of their sense is not alien to Reformed doctrine.
Latin · §1028
LIII. Sed quamvis in his consentiant Doctores utriusque Scholae, nihilominus inter eos controversitur, quomodo fides justificet. Nam Pontificii sicuti jam diximus, docent fidem justificare per modum dispositionis, aut etiam tanquam partem formae, id est, justitiae per quam justificamur: quod Reformatis non probatur. Verum cum justificatio Pontificiorum sensu, non solum remissionem peccatorum, sed sanctificationem quoque, & renovationem interioris hominis complectatur, dum sic loquuntur sensus eorum est, actum fidei, a quo incipit nostra ad Deum conversio, esse moralem dispositionem, id est, conditionem quam Deus praeexigit ut ab eo accipiamus peccatorum veniam, & justitiae habitualis donum: tum quoque fidei habitum esse partem novae illius justitiae, quam Spiritus Sanctus in nobis efficit, & per quam justi sanctique vere nominamur & sumus; non tantum apud homines, sed etiam apud ipsum Deum, qui justitiam illam ita probat & gratam habet, ut eam vita & gloria aeterna, in extremo judicio, juxta promissiones Evangelii, remuneraturus sit: quod a Scholae Reformatae doctrina non est alienum.
Reformed deny faith as disposing/formal cause of forensic absolution§1029
1029Reformed: justify = forensic absolution; faith neither merits nor is the righteousness that absolves—Christ's obedience alone is.
Faith is the necessary condition; this need not clash with Rome once senses are sorted.
Latin · §1029
LIV. Cum autem Reformati distinguant justificationem a sanctificatione, & per justificari non aliud intelligant, quam in judicio divino absolvi, quando negant fidem nos justificare per modum dispositionis, aut per modum formae, id est, ut justitiam, seu partem justitiae per quam justificamur, mens eorum est, fidem non esse talem dispositionem, quae remissionem peccatorum nostrorum mereatur, vel efficiat: & etiam fidei, vel actum, vel habitum, non esse partem justitiae illius, propter quam, & cujus merito a reatu peccatorum nostrorum absolvimur, quae est sola Christi obedientia; licet sit conditio sine qua istam absolutionem consequi non possumus: quod non pugnat cum doctrina Ecclesiae Romanae.
Sola fide: not legal perfection, free pardon; Rome can admit this sense§1030
1030Reformed sola fide: not legal-covenant perfection, but living faith; pardon free, no inherent justice that stands strict judgment.
Rome can easily admit this sense of the exclusion of works.
Latin · §1030
LV. Praeterea in quaestione est, an fides sola justificet, an vero etiam opera. Et quidem fidem solam justificare, non opera, pretendunt Doctores Scholae Reformatae, sicuti jam observavimus. Sed in eo mens eorum est, ad hoc ut justi habeamur, & absolvamur in Dei judicio, non exigi a nobis opera, quae lex, gratiae opposita, postulat ad peccatoris justificationem, id est, omnibus numeris absolutam legis observationem, quae omne peccatum, & omnem omnino transgressionem excludit, sed sufficere ut credamus in Christum fide viva, & per bona opera efficaci: etiamsi ante peccato servierimus, & postea non desinamus multis, ex infirmitate, lapsibus esse obnoxii. Ac praeterea, quum opera justificare negant, per id significare volunt, condonationem peccatorum nostrorum, & absolutionem ab illorum reatu in Dei judicio, gratuitam esse, & nullis operum meritis deberi: tum etiam nullas virtutes, nec ulla nostra constituere justitiam talem, quae possit districto Dei judicio opponi, & per quam, si Deus nos severe examinet, nec ullam nobis gratiam faciat, mortem aeternam evadere, & ad beatam immortalitatem pervenire queamus: quae omnia facile admittit Schola Romana.
Rome's 'justified by works too': moral conditions + infused virtues God will crown§1031
1031Rome's 'works justify' = repentant moral conditions before grace, plus infused virtues God will crown.
Reformed already concede both; so far the fight looks verbal.
Latin · §1031
LVI. Quum vero Scholae Romanae Theologi affirmant nos, non fide sola, sed operibus quoque justificari, sententia eorum est, non solum credendi actum, praecise consideratum, sed multos alios, quales sunt timor judicii divini, dolor de peccato, ejus detestatio, propositum novae vitae, spes misericordiae a Deo obtinendae, & inde oriens Dei amor & dilectio, & si qui sunt istiusmodi, esse morales dispositiones, id est, conditiones quae, ex ordine a Deo constituto, in nobis praecedere debent remissionem peccatorum, & renovationem internam per Spiritum Sanctum; & sine quibus Deus non solet gratiam istam nobis largiri. Deinde cum fide virtutes caeteras, constituere veri nominis justitiam, a qua fideles in Scriptura sancti justique nuncupantur: & quam etiam Deus judicio suo comprobabit, quum illam in ultimo die vita aeterna remunerabitur: quorum utrumque patet ex ante dictis a Theologis Reformatis concedi. Adeo ut hactenus hic de vocibus tantum, non de reipsa contendi videatur.
Congruous merit of penitential works: private opinion, not common Rome§1032
1032Congruous merit of penitential works is a private Pontifical opinion, not common Roman doctrine.
Even they mean fitting divine goodness—not a justice-debt; Reformed grant the fittingness, reject the word 'merit'.
Latin · §1032
LVII. Quod autem dicunt nonnulli Theologi Pontificii, bona quaedam opera mereri de congruo remissionem peccatorum, & donum justitiae, peculiaris est eorum sententia, ut jam indicavimus, non vero doctrina communis Ecclesiae Romanae. Neque tamen per hoc significare volunt, justitiae infusionem, & peccati remissionem operibus poenitentiae ex justitia deberi, & non esse donum Dei gratuitum, sed hoc tantum, decere bonitatem divinam, eique congruum & conveniens esse, ut illis qui vere ad Deum convertuntur, & edunt fructus poenitentia dignos, peccata remittantur, & habitualis justitia donetur: quod Theologi Reformati non negant; licet in hoc negotio, merito vocem meriti repudiant, quia non est in Scripturae usu, & sonat aliquid superbum.
Rome: works condignly merit second justification; Reformed deny 'merit' vs grace§1033
1033Rome unanimously: works condignly merit 'second justification' (growth in grace).
Reformed admit growth by good works under Christ's promise, but deny 'merit'—grace and debt conflict (Rom 4; 11).
Latin · §1033
LVIII. Sed praeterea Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, alio sensu opera justificare docent; quia, scilicet, juxta mentem illorum, merentur ex condigno secundam, quam vocant, justificationem, id est, augmentum gratiae illius, per quam homo in sanctitate & justitia crescit; quae est unanimis eorum sententia. Verum admittimus quidem exercitio bonorum operum hominem in justitia & sanctitate proficere, & majorem a Christo, secundum illius promissa, gratiam obtinere. Sed tamen negamus propterea dicendum esse, quod opera nostra gratiam istam mereantur. Quoniam, videlicet, inter se pugnant gratia, & debitum. Nec gratia est, id est, donum Dei gratuitum, quod operibus nostris ex justitia debetur. Siquidem Apostolus diserte opponit illud quod est secundum gratiam, ei quod est secundum debitum. Rom. 4. v. 4. Quo pertinet illud ejusdem Apostoli, Si ex gratia, jam non ex operibus; alioquin gratia jam non est gratia: si autem ex operibus, jam non ex gratia; alioquin opus jam non est opus. Rom. 11. v. 6. Sed quaestionis hujusce momentum accuratius alias, Deo favente, expendemus, quum de Meritis operum ex professo agemus.
On these questions: common Rome and Reformed often agree in substance; caveats§1034
1034On these precise heads, common Rome and Reformed often agree in substance despite word-fights.
Caveats: private oddities; other Roman loci may still undercut this truth; even sound disputants need a benign reading.
Latin · §1034
LIX. Caeterum quod diximus, in multis illis ante expositis quaestionibus, Scholam Romanam in re ipsa cum Reformata consentire, etsi verbis multum inter se contendant, verum, quod has praecise quaestiones attinet, reperietur, si quis communem & solennem Scholae Romanae doctrinam, cum ea quae communi calculo in Scholis quoque nostris recepta est, comparet. Non negamus autem, quin privati Doctores nonnulli, circa praedictas quaestiones, in utraque Schola, quaedam singularia doceant, quae ab adversae partis sententia non verbis tantum, sed reipsa discrepant. Nec enim affirmare volumus ipsam communem doctrinam Ecclesiae Romanae, in aliis controversiis, non pugnare cum illa eadem veritate, quam hic agnoscere coguntur, & eam, ex consequenti saltem, non evertere. Denique fatendum est etiam iis, qui recte in hac parte sentiunt, inter disputandum multa excidere, in quibus sibi ipsis contradicere videntur, & quae benigno egent interprete, ut ad bonum & commodum sensum revocari queant.
Roman calumny: Protestants deny inherent righteousness§1035
1035Roman doctors charge Protestants with denying all internal inherent righteousness and Spirit-wrought renovation.
Bellarmine and Becanus pin on Calvin: only Christ's external justice imputed, nothing infused.
Latin · §1035
I. Solenne est Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae in Protestantes invehi, quasi nullam in fidelibus internam & inhaerentem justitiam agnoscerent, nec concederent ullam interioris hominis per Spiritus gratiam renovationem & sanctificationem. Sic Bellarminus affirmat Calvinum cum Lutheranis nullam inhaerentem justitiam admittere, De Just. lib. 2. cap. 3. Becanus eidem Calvino tribuit hanc propositionem, In justificatione non infundi gratiam & justitiam, qua homo interius renovetur, & in se fiat justus & sanctus; sed tantum imputari illi externam justitiam Christi, qua extra se justus esse censeatur. Vt Inst. Calvini, cap. 2.
Campion and Duraeus amplify the calumny§1036
1036Campion: even the regenerate are mere corruption within; grace is only God's favor outside us.
Duraeus: Calvin denies interior renovation even of the blessed.
Latin · §1036
II. Similiter Campianus, Rat. 8. de Protestantibus loquens, Docent, inquit, ne renatos quidem & sanctos quenquam esse aliud intrinsecus nisi meram corruptionem & contagionem. Et paulo post, Praeclaram isti partem assignant gratiae, quam neque in-fusam cordibus nostris, neque ad resistendum sceleribus validam esse latrant; sed extra nos in solo Dei favore collocant, qui favor non emendet impios, sed veterem istam sen-tinam adhuc manentem & foetentem, ne deformis & odiosa putetur, Deo connivente, dissimulet. Quibus audacius adhuc clamitans Duraeus, Minime miror, inquit, Cal-vinum nullam in nobis interioris hominis renovationem agnoscere, cum beatos ipsos sce-leribus suis, etiam in beatissimis illis sedibus, perpetuo esse contaminatos existimet. Rat. 8.
Plan: briefly treat Spirit-wrought inherent righteousness§1037
1037To rebut the calumny, briefly treat the Spirit's justice and holiness in the believing soul.
State what and how much the Reformed ascribe to it.
Latin · §1037
III. Ad calumniae hujus depulsionem visum est paucis agere de justitia & sanctitate illa quam in anima fideli Spiritus Sanctus operatur, ac quid & quantum ei Reformati tribuant breviter exponere.
Reformed confessions affirm infused renovation§1038
1038Reformed consensus: God inwardly renews and sanctifies those he receives, infusing new justice imaging Creator and Redeemer.
Polish 1645, Anglican sanctification article, and French Confession all teach living faith with inward vivification and growth in holiness.
Latin · §1038
IV. Igitur communi consensu Theologi Reformati & Orthodoxi docent, Deum fideles, quos in gratiam recipit, intus renovare & sanctificare, illisque novam ju-stitiam & sanctitatem infundere, qua Dei creatoris & Redemptoris sui imaginem re-ferant. Qua de re privatorum sententias congerere superfluum foret, & infinitae operae. Sed tamen, ut clarius & certius appareat quam pudenda sit ista calumnia, visum est quaedam proferre publicis Ecclesiarum Reformatorum Confessionibus testata atque ex-posita. Sic ergo habet Confessio Reformatorum ex Polonia publice in Conventu Thoruniensi lecta Ann. 1645. cap. 4. sect. 2. num. 7. Falso accusamur quasi omnem inhaerentem justitiam fidelibus negemus, eosque sola externa justitiae Christi impu-tatione, quae sit sine ulla interna renovatione, justificari statuamus: cum tamen solis poenitentibus, & viva fide in Christum credentibus justitiam imputari, simulque per eandem fidem a Spiritu Sancto corda contrita vivificari, ad ardentem erga Christum charitatem & novae obedientiae studium excitari, a pravis videlicet cupiditatibus mun-dari, atque ita justitiam & sanctitatem vitae novae inchoari, & in dies perfici doceamus. Quibus consona tradit Anglicana Confessio eodem anno publicata, cap. 13. de Sanctificatione, ubi docet illos qui sunt efficaciter vocati realiter & personaliter magis ac magis sanctificari virtute mortis & resurrectionis Christi, totius corporis peccati dominium in ipsis prosterni, eosque magis ac magis in omni salutari gratia roborari, ut studeant verae sanctitati, sine qua nemo videbit Dominum. Similiter Gallica Refor-matorum Confessio, articulo 22. diserte asserit nos per fidem in vitae novitatem rege-nerari, & per eandem fidem accipere gratiam sancte vivendi, & in timore Dei, cum per naturam servi peccati simus.
Fallen man wholly infected outside grace§1039
1039Outside grace man is wholly sin-infected, averted from God, faculties prone to evil.
Original stain darkens mind, warps will, disorders affections—Rom 8:8: the fleshly cannot please God.
Latin · §1039
V. Quippe homo sibi relictus, & extra Dei gratiam, totus peccato infectus est, & a Deo aversus: facultates ejus omnes in malum pronae, & imago illa Dei primitus homini impressa, originali labe, quam a primo nostro parente contraximus, miseran-dum in modum foedata & dissipata est. Nam inde caligo summa mentem hominis occupavit, & voluntatem perversitas, & in affectibus maxima perturbatio coorta est, adeo ut homo carnalis, & nondum per gratiam a servitute peccati redemptus, Dei sit inimicus, nec se divinae legi subjiciat; imo nequidem id facere possit, ut docet Apostolus Rom. 8. vers. 8.
God heals the called: new habitual holiness§1040
1040In the mercifully called, God dispels mental darkness, softens the hard heart, orders disordered appetites.
New holiness rises chiefly as an internal lasting habitual grace, not merely isolated good works.
Latin · §1040
VI. Verum Deus in iis, quos misericorditer per fidem ad se vocat, tantis malis me-detur. Ex mente siquidem tenebras per peccatum inductas dispellit, illamque coelesti quadam & divina luce collustrat. Pravam voluntatem corrigit, & cor durum emollit, bonique amore accendit & inflammat. Denique perturbatos & inordinatos affectus & appetitus componit, & cogit in ordinem, ipsamque rebellem concupiscentiam do-minio spoliat, & quasi sub jugum mittit. Ex quibus omnibus exurgit sanctitas & justitia illa nova, quam, verbo Dei duce, in fidelibus ultro agnoscimus, quaeque, ut satis ex dictis apparet, in solis quibusdam bonis operibus non consistit, sed potissimum in interna quadam & permanenti gratia, quae per modum habitus animam afficit & ex-ornat.
Scripture: new creature, rebirth, Spirit renewal§1041
1041Scripture: new creature, God's workmanship, born of God, seed remaining, raised from sin's death, renewed by the Spirit.
Change is moral—holy habits disposing to right, pious, just action—not a change of physical essence.
Latin · §1041
VII. Rem autem ita se habere ex multis Scripturae locis evidenter colligitur. Et primo quidem ex eo quod fideles dicuntur novae creaturae, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Galat. 6. & Dei ποιημα, id est, factura, sive opus, Ephes. 2. 10. Item ex Deo nati, Joh. 1. 13. 1 Joh. 4. 7. & 5. 4. & quidem ita ut semen Dei manens in seipsis habeant, 1 Joh. 3. 9. A morte quoque peccati excitati & vivificati, ut deinceps per Spiritum vivant; Eph. 2. 5. Coloss. 2. 13. & denique, quod ipsis tribuitur renovatio per Spi-ritum Sanctum, Tit. 3. 5. Etenim his omnibus verbis & loquendi modis magna quaedam & totalis mutatio, virtute Spiritus Sancti in fidelibus effecta, designatur: mutatio, inquam, talis atque tanta, ut per eam novum quoddam esse, & novam quan-dam vitam acceperint: per quam, ut per aliquid ipsis insitum & immanens, distinguuntur a caeteris hominibus, qui ex carne tantum nati sunt, & in veteri statu ac morte peccati manent. Cum autem in fidelibus & regenitis idem esse Physicum & facultates eaedem maneant, nec in iis quicquam immutetur, quantum spectat ad hominis simpliciter consi-derati naturam atque essentiam; necesse omnino est mutationem illam moralem esse, & consistere in donis & habitibus sanctis, quibus Spiritus illos intus exornat, & ad recte pieque & juste agendum disponit.
Partakers of divine nature; new man in true holiness§1042
1042Believers are partakers of the divine nature; washed, sanctified, clothed with the new man in true justice and holiness.
This righteousness is real, not feigned—an image of divine holiness.
Latin · §1042
VIII. Huc quoque spectat quod fideles dicuntur θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, divinae consortes naturae, & lapsi ex corruptione, quae est in mundo per cupiditatem, 2 Pet. 1. 4. Item a peccatis abluti, sanctificati, purgati, & induti novo homine, qui creatus est secundum Deum in justitia & sanctitate veritatis, 1 Cor. 6. 11. Act. 20. 32. quique renovatur in agnitionem secundum imaginem ejus qui creavit illum, Ephes. 4. 24. Quibus verbis aperte tribuitur justitia & sanctimonia, & quidem non ficta & appa-rens tantum, sed realis & vera, & in qua sanctitatis & justitiae divinae imago quae-dam reluceat; adeoque cujus ratione fideles divinae quodammodo naturae participes fiunt.
Renewed mind, new heart, flesh crucified§1043
1043Scripture gives a renewed mind, light in the Lord, new heart and Spirit, flesh crucified with its lusts.
These pieces describe the Spirit-wrought holiness we affirm in the faithful.
Latin · §1043
IX. Praeterea Scriptura speciatim fidelibus tribuit mentem renovatam, Rom. 12. 2. & testatur illos non amplius esse tenebras, sed lucem in Domino, Eph. 5. 8. Dat illis cor novum & Spiritum novum, & affirmat ab illis auferri cor lapideum, & in ejus locum cor carneum substitui, Ezech. 36. 26. ac docet illos carnem crucifixisse cum ejus concupiscentiis, Galat. 5. 24. Quibus in locis describitur per partes sanc-titas & justitia illa quam fidelibus virtute Spiritus Sancti inesse asserimus.
Habitual and actual righteousness as good fruit§1044
1044As a good tree bears good fruit, the renewed bear holy works also called righteousness.
Schools call the former habitual, the latter actual justice.
Latin · §1044
X. Sicut autem arbor mala fert fructus malos, & arbor bona bonos fructus pro-ducit, ita fideles per Christi gratiam renovati & sanctificati, & justitia jam descripta donati, edunt bona & sancta opera, quae in Scriptura quoque justitiae nomine ve-niunt; ut quum dicit Joannes, Qui facit justitiam justus est sicut ipse justus est, 1 Joh. 3. 7. Et Christus ipse discipulis suis, Dico vobis, quod nisi abundaverit ju-stitia vestra plusquam Scribarum & Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelo-rum, Matth. 5. 20. Et prior illa quidem justitia habitualis, posterior actualis in Scho-lis appellatur.
Believers called just and holy over against the wicked§1045
1045Scripture often names believers just and holy over against the wicked.
Noah, Lot, Joseph of Arimathea are singled out as just.
Latin · §1045
XI. Ab utraque vero fideles in Scriptura frequenter justi sanctique nominantur, & quidem opposite ad impios & peccatores, a quibus illos Scriptura justorum titulo distinguit. Ut quum apud Petrum dicitur, Oculi Domini super justos, & aures ejus in preces eorum: vultus autem Domini super facientes mala, 1 Pet. 3. 12. Item, Si justus vix salvatur, impius & peccator ubi comparebit? 1 Pet. 4. 18. Neque fide-les in genere solum justi sanctique nuncupantur; sed & sigillatim ex fidelibus multi hoc titulo insigniuntur, ut exempli gratia, Noe qui dicitur fuisse vir justus & integer in generationibus suis, Gen. 6. v. 9. & Lot, quem Petrus Apostolus justi nomine desi-gnat, 2 Petr. 2. v. 7, 8. item Joseph ab Arimathaea, Luc. 23. 50.
Scripture names them just before God himself§1046
1046Because Scripture is God's voice, those it names just from inherent righteousness are truly such before God, not only before men.
Luke 1:6: Zechariah and Elizabeth were just before God.
Latin · §1046
XII. Quandoquidem autem Scriptura Dei vox est, ex eo quod fideles a justitia ipsis inhaerente sanctos & justos denominat, certum est illos tales apud Deum cen-seri, & revera sanctos atque justos esse, non solum coram hominibus, & eorum opinione; sed etiam Dei ipsius judicio. Id docet manifeste Lucas, dum de Zacha-ria atque Elizabeth parentibus Joannis Baptistae testatur Ambos illos fuisse justos in conspectu Dei, incedentes in omnibus praeceptis & constitutionibus Domini inculpate, Luc. 1. 6.
Spirit-wrought holiness is true and God-pleasing§1047
1047Spirit-formed holiness is true sanctity of truth—not hypocrisy—and bears a likeness to divine justice.
Therefore it pleases God; Peter: in every nation whoever fears God and works righteousness is accepted.
Latin · §1047
XIII. Et certe cum sanctitas & justitia illa quam in fidelibus format & efficit Spi-ritus Sanctus, sit, Apostolo docente, sanctitas & justitia veritatis, id est, sanctitas vera, germana & syncera, non simulata & hypocritica, & in ea sit quoddam imi-tamentum, & similitudo quaedam ipsius sanctitatis & justitiae divinae, fieri non potest quin Deo placeat & probetur, juxta illud Prophetae, Justus Dominus justitiam diligit; illum qui rectus est aspicit vultus ejus, Psal. 11. Quo respiciens Petrus, agno-scit in qualibet gente acceptum esse Deo quemvis, qui Deum timet & justitiam ope-ratur, Act. 10. 35.
God magnificently rewards this holiness§1048
1048God richly rewards this holiness now and hereafter; piety has promise of this life and the next.
At the last judgment he will solemnly attest believers' righteousness and crown it with eternal life—the crown of righteousness.
Latin · §1048
XIV. Quantopere vero Deus gratam habeat sanctitatem & justitiam quae fidelibus inest, inde patet quod ea non tantum in hoc saeculo, sed etiam in futuro magnifice remuneratur. Nam, ut ait sapiens, Justis retribuuntur bona, Prov. 13. 21. & pietas, quae sanctitate & justitia illa constat, promissiones habet non solum hujus, sed futurae vitae, ut docet Apostolus 1 Timoth. 4. 8. Quumque Deus olim vivos & mortuos judicabit, justitiae fidelium testimonium solenne perhibebit, eamque coram universo mundo laudaturus & praemiaturus est vita & gloria aeterna, quam gratuito promisit omnibus qui sanctitati & justitiae student. Nam, ut Christus ipse Dominus noster ait, Justi fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris sui, Matth. 13. 43. Unde est quod vita illa, & gloria aeterna vocatur ab Apostolo Corona justitiae, 2 Tim. 4. 8. Reposita est, inquit, mihi corona justitiae, quam Deus justus judex mihi reddet in die illa.
True righteousness is infused, not humanly acquired§1049
1049This God-pleasing justice differs from civil/human virtue gained by repeated acts.
It must be divinely infused; those who receive it are said to be vivified, regenerated, newly created.
Latin · §1049
XV. Porro Justitia haec quae Deo tantopere placet, cuique vitam & gloriam aeter-nam pollicetur, multum ab humana & civili discrepat. Sed in eo praesertim, quod justitia humana industria & viribus humanis acquiritur. Constat enim habitibus vir-tutum moralium, quae crebro repetitis earundem actibus in anima paulatim forman-tur. Ad justitiam autem illam quam Deus gratam & acceptam habet humanae vires attingere non valent: nec quisquam ex se & propriis viribus, ad eam sese disponere & praeparare potest: sed, ut ex jam dictis satis evidens est, necesse est illam divi-nitus infundi, & in nostris animis coelesti gratia operante formari. Quandoquidem illi qui talem justitiam adipiscuntur, & Dei beneficio sancti justique evadunt, a Deo vivificari, regenerari, & de novo creari dicuntur. Cum ante essent in peccatis mortui, Joh. 3. 6. & ex carne geniti nihil essent nisi mera caro, Rom. 8. 8. in qua qui sunt Deo placere non possunt, sed sunt inimici Dei mente & operibus malis, Col. 1. 21.
God ordinarily prepares by preventing grace§1050
1050Though none can reach or dispose himself to true holiness unaided, God ordinarily first prepares by preventing grace.
He excites inward acts and affections before creating that justice in the soul.
Latin · §1050
XVI. Verum quamvis nullus ex se ad veram justitiam & sanctitatem pervenire, aut ad eam sese disponere possit; sed necesse sit illam a Deo modo quodam naturam superante in animam infundi, non solet tamen Deus justitiam istam in anima creare, & homines Spiritu sanctificante donare, quin prius ipse illos ad hoc disponat & prae-paret quibusdam actibus atque affectibus intus in animis eorum excitatis, vi & au-xilio gratiae illius qua Deus homines a se alienos, & adhuc mortuos in peccatis prae-venit.
Preparatory acts: sense of sin, fear, faith, hope§1051
1051Preparatory acts: sense and acknowledgment of sin, fear of judgment, purpose of better life, hatred of past sin, some hope and trust, love, above all efficacious faith.
Before sanctifying Spirit and habitual grace, one must believe, be stricken, and flee to mercy intending amendment.
Latin · §1051
XVII. Tales actus ad veram justitiam & sanctitatem dispositorii seu praeparatorii sunt peccati sensus atque agnitio, timor judicii divini, propositum vitae melioris, & anteactae vitae odium & detestatio; tum veniae spes quaedam & misericordiae divinae fiducia, aliqua etiam Dei dilectio, in primis vero fides efficax atque actuosa, ex qua spes, dilectio, & fiducia illa oriuntur. Nam priusquam homo accipiat Spiritum sancti-ficationis, & internam illam gratiam per quam anima renovatur, & Christianis virtuti-bus ornatur, secundum ordinem a Deo constitutum, & legem ab eo positam, necesse est illum verbo Dei credere, & timore perculsum, deque peccatis attritum & dolentem, ad misericordiam divinam confugere cum proposito vitae emendandae, & a peccatis in posterum abstinendi.
Sanctifying Spirit promised only to believers and penitents§1052
1052The sanctifying Spirit is promised only to believers and penitents—Jn 7; Acts 2:38.
One must hunger and thirst for righteousness before being filled—Matt 5:6.
Latin · §1052
XVIII. Spiritus enim ille sanctificans, & animam gratia replens atque exornans, non promittitur in Evangelio nisi credentibus & poenitentibus. Qui credit in me, inquit Christus, flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquae vivae. Hoc autem dicit de Spiritu quem ac-cepturi erant credentes in eum. Joan. 7. 38. Petrus vero Judaeos jam corde compun-ctos alloquens, sic exponit iis quid esset eorum officii, Poenitentiam agite, & baptize-tur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu Christi in remissionem peccatorum, & accipietis donum Spiritus Sancti. Act. 2. 38. Ac priusquam aliquis justitia satietur, requiritur ut illam sitiat & esuriat, juxta Christi pronunciatum, Beati qui esuriunt & sitiunt justitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. Matth. 5. 6.
Sanctification is free gift, not earned by prior acts§1053
1053Prior acts do not merit or efficiently cause sanctification; it is God's free gift.
Rom 6:23 with Diodati/Beza: eternal life as predicate of the free gift of justifying/regenerating grace.
Latin · §1053
XIX. Nec tamen gratia illa per quam intus sancti justique in conspectu Dei reddimur, tribuenda est actuum illorum, qui etiam ex divina ordinatione praecedunt, merito & efficaciae. Etenim sanctificatio & adoptio fidelium Dei donum est plane gratuitum, nec eam aut poenitentia, aut fides praerequisita per se efficere aut promereri potest. Ideoque ab Apostolo simpliciter δωρεὰν, donum Dei gratuitum vocatur Rom. 6. vers. ult. Stipendia peccati mors; donum autem Dei vita aeterna. Quippe, juxta sententiam doctissimorum interpretum, Diodati scilicet & Bezae, vita aeterna ibi rationem non habet subjecti, sed praedicati. Nec simpliciter intendit Apostolus dicere vitam aeter-nam esse quid quod gratis a Deo donatur, sed potius justitiam τὴν δικαιοσύνην, quam Deus gratuito nobis donat, dum nos Spiritu & Verbo regenerat, nos ad vitam aeter-nam, tanquam ejus finem & praemium ducere; sicut peccatum impoenitentibus, & pec-cati servis mortem aeternam affert.
Regeneration not ex operibus per apostolic rule§1054
1054Since regeneration is wholly of grace, it is not ex operibus by apostolic rule—Rom 11:6.
Grace and works as meritorious cause exclude each other.
Latin · §1054
XX. Proinde cum nostra regeneratio, seu sanctificatio in solidum gratiae divinae tribui debeat, certum est, juxta sensum & stylum Apostolicum, illam non esse ex operibus; ne-que nos ex operibus regenerari, seu sanctificari, id est, operum nostrorum merito & efficacia sanctos justosque coram Deo reddi. Nam Apostoli sententia sive regula gene-ralis haec est, Si per gratiam, non ex operibus, alioqui gratia jam non est gratia: si ex ope-ribus, jam non est gratia, alioquin opus jam non est opus. Rom. 11. 6.
Titus 3: salvation by mercy, not works of righteousness§1055
1055The salvation we already share is chiefly freedom from sin's slavery and true holiness—yet Titus 3 denies it is from works of righteousness we did.
It is by mercy through washing of regeneration and Spirit renewal.
Latin · §1055
XXI. Et certe pars illa salutis, cujus per Dei gratiam in hac vita sumus participes, prae-cipue consistit in liberatione a servitute peccati, & adeptione verae justitiae & sanctitatis: Et tamen Apostolus salutem illam operibus abrogat, cap. tertio epistolae ad Titum. Quum autem, inquit, benignitas & erga homines amor apparuit Salvatoris nostri Dei, non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit, per lavacrum regenerationis, & renovationem Spiritus Sancti, quem effudit in nos abunde per Jesum Christum Servatorem nostrum. Ubi opera justitiae quae ipsi fecimus oppo-nit lavacro regenerationis, & renovationi per Spiritum Sanctum: ac salutem nostram (id est, redemptionem a peccato, sive a servitute & sordibus peccati, cum vera justitia & sanctitate conjunctam) tribui non vult operibus illis, ut causae efficienti, sive merito-riae; sed operationi Spiritus nos renovantis atque regenerantis, ut ita res sint oppositae, ex operibus esse & per Spiritus gratiam fieri.
Eph 2: created in Christ for good works§1056
1056Eph 2: made alive with Christ, saved by grace through faith, not of works; God's workmanship created for good works.
Grace both pardons and newly creates so we live justly afterward.
Latin · §1056
XXII. Quo respiciens idem Apostolus, Eph. 2. dicit nos Christo convivificatos, & servatos esse gratia per fidem; non ex operibus, ne quis glorietur. Quoniam sumus Dei opus, sive factura, creati in Christo Jesu ad opera bona, quae praeparavit Deus ut in illis am-bulemus. Ubi docet nos a peccatis nostris servari, seu liberari, non vi & merito operum nostrorum, sed per gratiam illam qua Deus non solum nobis peccata condonat, sed nos etiam virtute Spiritus Sancti quasi de novo creat, ut novi homines facti, deinceps pie & juste vivamus, & studeamus operibus bonis.
Inherent holiness never reaches the summit in this life§1057
1057In this life inherent holiness never reaches the summit; it must always grow.
Paul near death had not attained; the Apocalypse still urges the just to be justified yet more.
Latin · §1057
XXIII. Porro justitia & sanctitas illa, ad quam fideles per Spiritus Sancti gratiam renovantur, quandiu durat hujus vitae tempus, nunquam pervenit ad summum, sed per-petuo opus habet augeri & perfici. Adeoque illi ipsi qui progressus in ea quam maximos fecerunt, ad mortem usque agnoscere debent se nondum perfectos esse; & assidue in id incumbere, ut in Christi gratia magis ac magis proficiant, sanctificationem perficientes in timore Dei. Id exemplo suo docet ipse Paulus, quem sanctitate nullus Apostolorum su-perasse videtur. Jam enim morti proximus, profiteretur se nondum metam apprehen-disse, neque jam perfectum aut consummatum esse. Et postea subjungit, Unum autem ago, ea quidem quae a tergo sunt obliviscens, ad ea vero quae a fronte sunt contendens, scopum versus pergo ad palmam supernae vocationis Dei in Christo Jesu. Phil. 3. 14. Idcirco homines etiam sanctissimos spectat Angeli vox illa ultimo Apocalypseos, Qui justus est justificetur adhuc, & qui sanctus est sanctificetur adhuc.
Even the holy still stumble from weakness§1058
1058Holiness is also spotted by many blemishes; the holy still fall from weakness.
Jas 3:2; 1 Jn 1:8; Eccl 7:20: no one on earth always does good without sinning.
Latin · §1058
XXIV. Neque vero sanctitas & justitia fidelium simpliciter a summo perfectionis gradu in hac vita deficit, sed multis quoque naevis est obscurata; nec obstat quominus qui ea praediti sunt in peccata saepius ex infirmitate labantur. Hae sunt enim ipso-rum Apostolorum voces; In multis offendimus omnes. Jac. 3. 2. Item, Si dixeri-mus nos peccatum non habere, ipsi nos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est. 1 Joh. 1. 8. Ac propterea Salomon universe pronunciat, Non est homo justus in terra, qui faciat bonum, & non peccet. Eccl. 7. 20. id est, sic justus ut semper bonum faciat, absque ullo peccato.
Protestant imperfecta means incomplete in degree§1059
1059When Protestants call inherent justice inchoate and imperfect, they mean it never reaches the highest degree on earth.
It must daily advance until consummated hereafter; the regenerate keep defects until death.
Latin · §1059
XXV. Huc vero non alio spectant quae Theologi Protestantes docent de imperfec-tione justitiae illius quae per Christi gratiam fidelibus inhaeret. Etenim, quum per-tendunt illam inchoatam duntaxat & imperfectam esse, non perfectam atque absolutam; id non aliud significatum volunt, quam justitiam istam in terris nunquam attingere ipsum perfectionis & excellentiae gradum, quin plurimum ab eo abesse: ideoque per gradus varios quotidie augendam, & promovendam esse; donec tandem in vita fu-tura plene consummetur & perficiatur. Ac praeterea fideles quantumcunque in justitia & sanctitate profecerint, suos semper habere defectus, & multis lapsibus manere ob-noxios, donec corpus hoc mortale exuerint.
Incomplete in degree, complete in essential parts§1060
1060Inchoate does not deny completeness of essence and integrating parts; imperfect does not mean lacking what belongs to true justice.
They distinguish perfection of degrees (denied here) from perfection of essential/integrating parts (affirmed).
Latin · §1060
XXVI. Caeterum quum justitiam quae fidelibus inest inchoatam nominant, per id negare nolunt illam completam esse quoad essentiam & partes integrantes. Et similiter, quum imperfectam affirmant, per id non significant aliquid ei deesse, quod necessario pertineat ad veram rationem justitiae & sanctitatis. Imo enim illi concedunt perfectio-nem partium essentialium atque integrantium. Nec putant illam esse justitiam & san-ctitatem, vel mancam & mutilam, vel apparentem & falso sic dictam; sed veram & synceram, suis omnibus membris & partibus constantem: utpote per quam homo toti legi divinae, licet non exacte, conformis reddatur, & quae proinde justitiae & sanctitatis verae totam & integram rationem habeat. Unde est quod in hoc negotio saepe distinguunt inter perfectionem graduum, & perfectionem partium, sive essentia-lium, sive integrantium. Ac priorem eam illi inhaerenti nostrae justitiae convenire pernegant, sed posteriorem illi non deesse fatentur & asserunt.
Romans say perfect/absolute in essence, not degree§1061
1061Roman doctors verbally reject inchoate/imperfect language, calling it perfect and absolute—yet when explained, they mean essence, not degree.
They admit remaining blemishes and need of mercy; absolute = truly such, not fictively.
Latin · §1061
XXVII. Hic autem certe tanta est veritatis evidentia, ut etiam qui verbis videntur con-tradicere, reipsa tamen idem dicere comperiantur. Nam Scholae Romanae Doctores plane quidem adversa Reformatis loquuntur. Nolunt enim justitiam per Spiritum Sanctum fide-libus infusam, inchoatam solum & imperfectam dici: & acriter contendunt illam esse, & dici debere, perfectam atque absolutam. Sed, quum mentem suam distinctius expli-cant, in eundem plane sensum cum Theologis Reformatis recidunt. Quippe quando justitiam, de qua agimus, absolutam vocant, non intelligunt talem esse ut pervenerit ad summum, & ei nihil addi possit. Et similiter, quum dicunt perfectam, non in-telligunt perfectam simpliciter, & talem cui nihil omnino desit. Fatentur enim justos in hac vita suos adhuc habere naevos, & in varia peccata incidere; non ita gravia quidem, ut propter illa justitia excidant, sed quae tamen egeant divina misericordia & condonatione. Et hominum etiam sanctissimorum docent justitiam esse ejusmodi, quae quotidie per-fici, & augmentum sumere possit. Itaque justitiam fidelium in hac vita propterea tan-tum absolutam vocant, quoniam absolute, simpliciter, & revera talis est: non vero tantum justitia quaedam improprie, secundum quid, & per aliquam fictionem sic di-cta. Et similiter illam perfectam vocant, quoniam illi nihil deest quod ad essentiam verae justitiae pertineat: licet desit illi quaedam perfectio accidentaria, & multis gra-dibus a summa perfectione absit.
Vasquez: perfect = nothing lacking to true justice§1062
1062Vasquez: our justice is true and perfect because nothing needed for the ratio of justice is missing—not because it is at the highest degree.
He equates true with perfect as to essence, not degrees.
Latin · §1062
XXVIII. Quod autem haec sit Doctorum Scholae Romanae sententia, dum justitiam quae regenitis inhaeret, perfectam & absolutam vocant, clarissime docet Vasquez, tom. 2. in primam secundae, disput. 202. cap. 4. num. 26. ubi haec sunt illius verba: Porro autem nostram justitiam, & sanctitatem veram esse, & perfectam manifeste patet. Nam si Scriptura docet nos justos, immaculatos, & mundos esse, ut cap. 2. memoravi-mus, efficitur justitiam nobis inhaerentem veram & perfectam esse. Dico autem per-fectam, non quod in summo, aut excellenti gradu sit, sed quod ad rationem justitiae nihil prorsus ei desit, quominus ea vere justi constituamur & simus. Et paulo post haec addit: Si ergo Scriptura absolute nos justos pronunciat, sequitur quidem tum nobis ju-stitiam inesse, tum etiam veram & perfectam esse. Idcirco perfectio nostrae justitiae non debet probari ex quibusdam Scripturae testimoniis, in quibus commendatur perfecta & insignis charitas, sed potius ex illis in quibus docemur nobis inesse justitiam: nam justitia non est quae vera & perfecta non est, eo sensu quo perfectam & justitiam hactenus explicuimus. Ubi manifestum est illum verum & perfectum pro eodem sumere, & agere de perfectione essentiae, non graduum.
Bellarmine: infused virtues still need daily remission§1063
1063Bellarmine: infused virtues are perfect in a mode yet must daily be perfected; they need daily remission of venials.
Habitual justice makes us just absolutely; actual justice is somehow imperfect by venial mixture.
Latin · §1063
XXIX. Bellarminus vero non minus aperte significat quo sensu renatorum justitiam & sanctitatem perfectam & absolutam vocet, lib. 2. de Justif. cap. 13. nam ibi fatetur virtutes infusas, quibus fidelium justitia constat, ita suo quodam modo perfectas esse, ut quotidie magis ac magis perfici debeant. Et paulo post subjungit virtutem semel infusam egere quotidie nova remissione peccati. Justi enim, inquit, tametsi multa bona & justa opera faciunt, tamen saepe etiam labuntur in peccata levia & venialia. Capite vero sequenti justitiam habitualem, ita & non aliter perfectam esse asserit, ut per eam abso-lute, simpliciter, & proprie justi nominemur & simus. De justitia vero actuali sic loquitur, Quamvis aliquo modo sit imperfecta, propter admixtionem venialium delictorum, & egeat quotidiana remissione peccati; tamen, non propterea desinit esse vera justitia, & sua etiam quodam modo perfecta.
Contarini: our inherent justice is inchoate and imperfect§1064
1064Milder Romans (Contarini, Paris-approved) frankly call inherent justice inchoate and imperfect.
It cannot keep us from often offending.
Latin · §1064
XXX. Atque hi quidem loquuntur ac docent rigidiores ex Pontificiis. Sed qui sunt inter eos aequiores, rotunde, simpliciter, & aperte fatentur justitiam quae nobis inhaeret tenuem, inchoatam, & imperfectam esse. Quo de numero in primis est Cardinalis Con-tarenus: is enim Tractatu de Justificatione, anno 72. superioris saeculi, post Conci-lium Tridentinum edito; idque cum approbatione Doctorum regentium Theologicae facultatis Parisiensis, clare & expresse docet & inculcat justitiae fidelibus inhaerentis im-perfectionem. Haec nostra justitia, inquit, est inchoata & imperfecta, quae tueri nos non potest quin in multis offendamus, quin assidue peccemus.
No one stands the strict tribunal by inherent justice alone§1065
1065Given imperfect inherent holiness and ongoing falls, no one can stand God's strict tribunal by his own justice and works alone.
Without indulgence, none would be cleared or judged worthy of eternal life.
Latin · §1065
XXXI. Porro cum justitia & sanctitas fidelium, seu quis habeat rationem virtutum quibus interius a Deo ornati sunt, seu bonorum operum quae inde promanant, & in qui-bus se exercent, imperfecta tantum & inchoata sit: nec solum illi sint in peccatis mortui, antequam Deus illos in gratiam recipiat: sed etiam post acceptam gratiam, variis lapsi-bus adhuc obnoxii maneant: certum est neminem, vi propriae justitiae, & bonorum suorum operum, posse coram severo tribunali Dei consistere, & ferre rigidum divini judicii examen; neque quemquam hominum damnationem vitaturum, & apud Deum infontem, & vita aeterna dignum pronunciandum fore, si Deus respiciat tantum ad ju-stitiam quae illi inhaeret, & bona illius opera, nec erga ipsum ulla indulgentia & cle-mentia uti velit, sed cum eo agere secundum legis praecise consideratae rigorem.
Psalm, Job, and the Lord's Prayer prove the need of mercy§1066
1066Ps 130:3; Job 9; Ps 143:2; and the daily Our Father prove all need mercy.
Even the holiest must pray forgive us our debts.
Latin · §1066
XXXII. Id manifeste docet Psaltes, Si iniquitates, inquit, observaveris Domine, Domine quis sustinebit? Psal. 130. 3. Quod Job etiam agnoscit his verbis, Vere scio quod ita sit, & quod non justificetur homo compositus Deo. Si voluerit contendere cum eo, non poterit ei respondere unum pro mille. Job. 9. 2, 3. Unde est quod Propheta hac deprecatione apud Deum utitur, Et non intres in judicium cum servo tuo: quia non justificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens. Psal. 143. 2. Quo pertinet etiam quotidiana illa precatio, qua ex Christi praecepto, vel qui sunt inter homines sanctissimi, uti debent, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut & nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
Rome too admits none can stand without divine pardon§1067
1067Even strong assertors of inherent justice concede none can stand if God judges without mercy.
Gregory: all human justice is injustice under strict judgment; post-justification falls still need pardon.
Latin · §1067
XXXIII. Atque hic quoque est tanta vis veritatis, & tam vividus conscientiae sensus, ut ultro ei dent manus, nec repugnare audeant, etiam qui plurimum justitiae inhaerenti tribuere videntur. Nam Doctores Scholae Romanae agnoscunt neminem, per justitiam sibi inhaerentem & infusam, posse in judicio divino subsistere, siquidem Deus severe & absque misericordia, agere cum homine velit. Probant enim illud Gregorii primi, Omnis humana justitia, si districtum Dei judicium requiratur, injustitia esse convincitur. Et ultro fatentur, ac docent hominem quemlibet egere divina condonatione, non tantum respectu peccatorum illorum quae justifica-tionem illius praecesserunt: sed etiam propter lapsus varios ex infirmitate, in quos, etiam postquam justificatus est, identidem incidit; & propter quos merito coelo excluderetur, nisi clementia divina subveniret.
Vasquez on Ps 142: even after justification, venials remain§1068
1068Vasquez on Ps 142/143: the Psalmist rightly asks not to be judged without prior mercy.
Even after mortal-sin justification, uncleared venials would damn without mercy.
Latin · §1068
XXXIV. Testis sit Vasquez ipse inter Pontificios rigidissimus justitiae inhaerentis assertor, is enim Tom. 2. in primam secundae disput. 222. cap. 6. num. 44. ad locum sibi objectum ex Psalmo 142. juxta versionem vulgatam, respondet. Psalmista me-rito a Deo postulat ne intret cum ipso in judicium, hoc est, ne ipsum judicet non prae-via misericordia gratiae suae. Nam, inquit, nisi prius Deus misericordia sua ipsum praeveniat, ut a peccatis justificetur, non poterit non in judicio Dei damnari; hoc autem quisque nostrum dicere potest, etiam post justificationem a mortali, quia adhuc multa venialia manent, quae, nisi Dei misericordia deleantur, priusquam ad judicium Dei vocentur, non poterit homo absoluto justificari, hoc est, omnino sine Dei judicio & damnatione liberari.
Contarini: lean on Christ's justice, not inherent grace§1069
1069Contarini: when we think of judgment we must lean on Christ's donated justice as sure foundation—not on inherent holiness.
Inherent justice is inchoate and cannot keep us from continual sin.
Latin · §1069
XXXV. Praecipue vero Cardinalis Contarenus, jam citato tractatu de Justificatione, candide agnoscit justitiam, quae per gratiam Christi fidelibus inhaeret, non posse severo Dei judicio opponi: sed cum judicium illud cogitamus, debere nos Christi justitiae niti, ut salutis nostrae fundamento. Ego, inquit, prorsus existimo pie & christiane dici, quod debeamus niti, niti, inquam, tanquam re stabili, quae certo nos sustentat, justitia Christi nobis donata, non autem sanctitate & gratia nobis inhaerente. Haec etenim nostra justitia est inchoata & imperfecta, quae tueri nos non potest, quin in multis offen-damus, quin assidue peccemus. Idcirco in conspectu Dei non debemus ob hanc justitiam nostram haberi justi & boni, quemadmodum deceret filios Dei esse bonos & sanctos.
Remission is free, not merited by inherent justice§1070
1070Inherent holiness does not remove need of free pardon for sins before and after justification.
Remission is not merited by any justice or preparatory works in us.
Latin · §1070
XXXVI. Sicut autem sanctitas & justitia illa, quam fidelibus indit Spiritus Sanctus, non obstat quominus egeant divina clementia, & misericordia, ad remissionem pec-catorum suorum, tam quae admiserunt ante suam justificationem, quam quae post illam quotidie admittunt: ita quoque remissio illa, respectu nostri, plane gratuita est; nec putandum est Deum nos in gratiam recipere, & peccata nobis condonare, pro-pter justitiam ullam quae nobis inest, sive propter illa opera, quibus ad veram justi-tiam & sanctitatem disponimur: quasi opera quaedam nostra aut justitia nobis per Spiritum Sanctum impressa, meritoria essent remissionis peccatorum nostrorum.
Scripture: free forgiveness; Christ's passion the sole merit§1071
1071Scripture: God freely forgives all offenses; we are saved/justified by grace, not works.
Christ's passion and obedience unto death is the sole merit moving God to pardon.
Latin · §1071
XXXVII. Id manifeste Scriptura Sacra docet, dum ait, Deum gratuito donare nobis omnes offensas, Coloss. 2. 13. Item quum toties repetit & inculcat nos servari & justificari gratia, per Dei gratiam, & non ex operibus, Rom. 3. Ephes. 2. Tit. 3. Nec enim cuiquam dubium esse potest, quin salus illa & justifi-catio remissionem peccatorum includat. Adeoque Christi passio & obedientia usque ad mortem crucis, unicum est illud meritum quo Deus movetur ad nobis largiendam delictorum veniam, nosque a peccati reatu liberandos. Unde est quod Apostolus ait, Nos in Christo habere redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, id est, remissionem peccatorum: nosque justificari per redemptionem quae est in Christo Jesu; quem proposuit Deus pro-pitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius.
Trent: meritorious cause is Christ's passion alone§1072
1072Romans agree first justification is free; Trent's sole meritorious cause is Christ's passion.
Nothing preceding justification—faith or works—merits the grace of justification.
Latin · §1072
XXXVIII. Atque hac etiam in parte, consentientes habemus ipsos Pontificios. Nam totam hominis impii & peccatoris justificationem, quae juxta eos constat peccatorum remissione, & renovatione interioris hominis, gratuitam esse agnoscunt. Nec statuunt ullam ejus causam meritoriam praeter Christi mortem & obedientiam, ut videre est in ipso Concilio Tridentino. Nam Sess. 6. cap. 7. enumerans causas justificationis, non aliam ejus causam meritoriam recenset quam passionem Christi. Hujus, inquit, justificationis causae sunt finalis quidem gloria Dei & Christi, & vita aeterna. Efficiens vero misericors Deus, qui gratuito abluit: meritoria dilectissimus unigenitus suus Do-minus noster Jesus Christus, qui cum essemus inimici, propter nimiam charitatem, qua dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis justificationem meruit, & pro nobis Deo patri satisfecit. Capite vero sequenti, expresse negat quicquam eorum quae justificationem praecedunt, ipsam justificationis gratiam promereri. Gratis autem, in-quit, justificari ideo dicimur, quia nihil eorum quae justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam justificationis gratiam promeretur. Si enim gratia est, jam non ex operibus; alioquin, ut Apostolus inquit, gratia jam non est gratia.
Becanus and Bellarmine deny first justification from merits§1073
1073Becanus: first justifying grace and remission are not from merits; dispositions do not merit them.
Bellarmine: we are not received for any merit in us or for inchoate newness as meritorious reconciliation.
Latin · §1073
XXXIX. Ideoque Becanus queritur suos calumniam pati, quasi docerent impii justificationem, & remissionem peccatorum, esse ex meritis, non vero gratuitam: & asserit dispositiones quae praecedunt justificationem, tametsi bona opera sint, non ta-men mereri primam gratiam justificantem, & remissionem peccatorum: & consequen-ter primam justificationem esse mere gratuitam, nec ullo modo deberi nobis ex justitia. In Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, tom. 2. tract. 4. cap. 4. Similiter Bellarminus Re-mnium malae fidei accusat, quod dicat inter Protestantes & Ecclesiam Romanam in controversiam vocari, quid sit id, propter quod Deus hominem in gratiam recipiat? An sit meritum Filii Dei, an inchoata in nobis novitas? Ac proinde agnoscit nos in gratiam non recipi propter meritum ullum quod nobis insit, nec novitatem vitae esse meritoriam nostrae cum Deo reconciliationis. De Just. lib. 2. cap. 2.
Main dispute: are we formally justified by inherent justice?§1074
1074Despite much agreement on nature of regenerate holiness, a heated question remains: are we formally justified before God by inherent justice?
Rome after Trent says yes; Protestants with great consent say no—minds must be stated clearly.
Latin · §1074
XL. Quamvis autem in multis quae hactenus recensuimus, circa naturam & meri-tum justitiae, & sanctitatis quae regenitis inest, inter se consentiant Protestantes & Pontificii; inter eos tamen quaestio est magna contentione animorum agitata, An per justitiam quae nobis inhaeret formaliter coram Deo justificemur? quod affirmant Pontificii, post Concilium Tridentinum, Protestantes vero magno consensu negant. De cujus quaestionis statu atque momento, ut recte judicetur, necesse est partium con-tendentium mentem distinctius & clarius exponere.
Protestants take justify forensically: absolve before God§1075
1075Protestants take justify forensically: to be absolved and pronounced innocent before God under law's rigor.
Denying justification by inherent justice means no one's own holiness clears him if God examines without mercy.
Latin · §1075
XLI. Quod spectat ergo Protestantes, verbum justificare in hac quaestione sumunt sensu forensi, nec per justificari aliud intelligunt, quam a peccato absolvi, & infon-tem pronunciari. Hae vero voces coram Deo, ipsis idem sunt atque in districti Dei judicio, & secundum legis rigorem instituto. Itaque, quum negant nos per inhae-rentem justitiam coram Deo justificari, eorum mens est, neminem ratione sanctitatis & justitiae ullius quae in ipso reperiatur, & bonorum quae fecerit operum, posse in severo Dei judicio infontem pronunciari, & ab omni culpa absolvi: nec quemquam posse in Dei judicio damnationem effugere, & ad vitam aeternam, ut ea dignum acceptari, si justitiam & opera nostra Deus rigide examinet, nec ulla utatur erga nos clementia & misericordia.
Yet they affirm true God-pleasing holiness in the regenerate§1076
1076They do not deny true God-approved holiness in the regenerate—real before God, imaging divine virtues.
In the last evangelical judgment God will solemnly attest and reward it with eternal life.
Latin · §1076
XLII. Caeterum minime negant, ut clarum est ex iis quae fuerunt ante exposita, in iis qui per Dei gratiam renati sunt, reperiri justitiam & sanctitatem veram; per quam sancti justique & revera sunt, & vere dici possunt, idque non solum coram hominibus, sed etiam in conspectu Dei, qui justitiam illam agnoscit & probat, ut germanam & syn-ceram, nec potest illam non amare, atque gratam habere, ut in qua virtutum ipsarum divinarum similitudo quaedam, & imago splendeat. Quapropter etiam Deus in ultimo judicio in quo homines misericorditer, & ex Evangelii foedere judicabit, non autem secundum legis praecise sumptae rigorem, renatorum justitiae & bonis operibus, glorio-sum & solenne testimonium perhibebit, & vitam aeternam illis benigne retribuet, secun-dum gratuita quidem Evangelii promissa, sed in quorum complemento justitia quoque divina elucebit.
Polish Confession: not justified forensically by inherent justice§1077
1077Polish Confession: we deny being forensically justified by inherent justice so as to be cleared of death's guilt and declared heirs of life for it.
Broadly one may say infused virtues make us just/holy, yet that justice cannot stand the severe tribunal.
Latin · §1077
XLIII. Ne quis autem adversariorum calumniari possit, hanc non esse germanam Reformatorum sententiam, dum negant nos formaliter coram Deo justificari per justi-tiam quae nobis inhaeret, illosque plus detrahere justitiae inhaerenti quam tribuamus, hic inserere visum est, quae paucis hac de re tradit jam citata Confessio Reformatorum ex Polonia, cap. 4. sect. 2. num. 13. Negamus etiam, inquit, per justitiam illam inhaerentem propriam nos ita justificari, ut per, & propter eam coram judicio Dei a reatu mortis absolvamur, in filios adoptemur, & vita aeterna digni pronunciemur, quo sensu forensi vox justificandi a Spiritu Sancto in hac doctrina usurpatur. Etsi enim lato sensu dici possit, nos per charitatem, aliasque virtutes infusas justificari, id est, justos, sanctosque fieri, haec tamen justitia in hac vita imperfecta est, eaque, ut supra dictum, coram severo Dei judicio nequaquam potest consistere; quod solum in hac doctrina maxime spectatur.
Davenant: inherent justice not formal cause of strict justification§1078
1078Davenant allows calling inherent justice a formal cause in a loose sense, but not of justification that answers the Judge's strict exam.
Reformed sayings that none is just before God by inherent justice are comparative—not absolute denial of true holiness.
Latin · §1078
XLIV. Quibus consona sunt quae docet Joannes Davenantius Sarisburiensis nuper in Anglia Episcopus, qui de justitia habituali & actuali tractatum edidit accuratissimum. Is enim disputatione de Justitia habituali, cap. 22. sic loquitur, Concedimus esse in omnibus justificatis justitiam quandam inhaerentem, quam si formalem causam statuamus justificationis (liceat enim vocabulum procedere) haud repugnabimus, sed praedictae ju-stificationis, quae respondet stricto examini caelestis judicis, nec formalis, nec meritoria causa ullo modo potest. Tertio vero capite; probat ab hac, infusa, sive inhaerente justitia, fideles, seu renatos omnes vocari & censeri justos; idque ab ipso Deo. Non quidem, quod haec sanctitas infusa, aut inhaerens justitia perfecta sit: sed quod vera, ac minime hypocritica, Deoque nota & grata, qui illam infudit mentibus renatorum. Quod autem saepe apud Reformatos occurrit, per justitiam inhaerentem neminem justum esse coram Deo, cap. 3. docet intelligendum, non quasi simpliciter & absolute dictum, sed comparate solum, & secundum quid. Nempe non aliud significari per hoc, quam nos justitiam nullam habere, qua niti possimus, si stricte discutiamur coram tribunali di-vino: vel nos justitiam non habere quam lex Dei exigit, ad maledicti vitationem, & vitae aeternae consecutionem.
Rome takes justify morally as sanctify and cleanse§1079
1079Rome takes justify morally as sanctify and cleanse from sin's filth.
Formal justification by inherent justice = Spirit-infused form naming and making them holy before God, lasting to final reward.
Latin · §1079
XLV. Jam vero Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, justificari sumunt non forensi, sed morali sensu. Estque justificari ipsis idem ac sanctificari, & a peccati sordibus mun-dari. Itaque quum pretendunt hominem formaliter justificari coram Deo per justitiam inhaerentem, id sibi volunt justitiam a Spiritu Sancto infusam, esse formam a qua fideles in Scriptura sancti justique nominantur, & per quam reapse tales constituuntur; non solum apud homines, sed etiam apud ipsum Deum, qui justitiam quam ipsis indidit probat & acceptat, ut veram & synceram: quae proinde in igne ultimi judicii, quum Christus vivos & mortuos judicabit, mansura & constitura est; & a Christo laudem & praemium vitae, & gloriae aeternae acceptura.
Rome denies standing the strict tribunal by inherent works§1080
1080Rome does not claim inherent justice stands the severe tribunal without mercy.
Remission is free; some say faith/penance merit it de congruo—Stapleton and others refuse that phrase.
Latin · §1080
XLVI. Caeterum, ut supra satis probatum est, non sentiunt homines per justitiam sibi inhaerentem, & bona sua opera, posse coram severo tribunali Dei consistere, & damnationem vitare, ac vitam aeternam consequi, si Deus ipsos, & eorum opera, rigide excutiat, nec quicquam ipsis misericorditer condonet, atque indulgeat. Itaque facile concedunt neminem eo sensu coram Deo justum reperiri, sed omnes egere divina cle-mentia, & delictorum suorum venia & remissione. Quin ultro fatentur remissionem illam, esse donum Dei plane gratuitum, quod nullis hominum meritis ex justitia de-betur: licet ipsa naturae divinae bonitas & aequitas quodammodo postulet, ut in gra-tiam recipiat eos, qui per fidem & poenitentiam, ad misericordiam ipsius confugiunt. Quo respiciunt nonnulli Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, ut Bellarminus & Becanus, dum dicunt fidem & poenitentiam mereri de congruo remissionem peccatorum. Quem tamen loquendi modum alii repudiant, ut Thomas Stapletonus.
Verbal clash; substance often agrees on this head§1081
1081On this question words clash, but the thing often agrees once ambiguous terms are removed.
Difficulty hangs on different uses of justificare.
Latin · §1081
XLVII. Ex his vero facile colligitur, Protestantes & Pontificios, in hac quae-stione quidem, sibi invicem verbis contradicere, sed tamen de re ipsa inter eos esse consensum. Etenim, si tollantur voces ambiguae & contentiosae, & res eadem terminis aliis exprimatur, Pontificii non affirmant, ut patet, quod Protestantes negare inten-dunt, dum inficiantur quemquam per justitiam inhaerentem coram Deo justificari. Neque vicissim Protestantes impugnant quod defendunt Pontificii, dum verbis plane contrarium affirmant, nempe justitiam illam inhaerentem esse causam formalem nostrae coram Deo justificationis. Ita ut tota difficultas pendeat ex vario usu vocis justificandi, quam illi quidem uno sensu, hi vero alio usurpant.
Affined question: dispositions preparing for justification§1082
1082Affined dispute: is the sinner prepared by certain works for justification? Rome yes, Protestants no—in words.
Rome means preventing grace excites prior acts of faith, hope, love, fear, sorrow, new-life purpose as conditions before habitual infusion.
Latin · §1082
XLVIII. Idemque judicium faciendum videtur de affini controversia, An scilicet homo peccator quibusdam operibus ad justificationem praeparetur & disponatur? quod similiter docent & tuentur Pontificii, Protestantes vero negant. Nam quum istud affirmant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, mens eorum alia non est, quam Deum, prius-quam hominem peccatorem Spiritu suo sanctificante donet, illique fidei, spei, & cha-ritatis, aliarumque virtutum Christianarum habitus infundat, consuevisse illum gratia sua praevenire, per quam in eo quosdam actus excitat fidei, spei, & dilectionis, ut timoris judicii divini, doloris de peccato, & propositi novae vitae, & si qui sunt similes, qui sunt veluti quaedam conditiones praeviae, & morales dispositiones, sine quibus Deus non solet Spiritum illum suum in peccatores effundere.
Ames and thesis 16+: Reformed admit preparatory dispositions§1083
1083This does not clash with Reformed teaching from thesis 16 onward.
Ames: in every convert after reason's use, some dispositions ordinarily precede, in differing degrees.
Latin · §1083
XLIX. Quam autem hoc non abhorreat a doctrina Reformatorum, patet ex iis quae ante docuimus Thesi 16. & sequentibus. Quibus conformia sunt quae satis prolixe disputat Amesius, Disput. Theologica de praeparatione peccatoris ad conversionem, quae subjuncta est ejus rescriptioni ad Nicolaum Grevinchovium, ubi disertis verbis Th. 3. asserit, in omni peccatore post usum rationis convertendo & regenerando, ex ordine praecedere dispositiones quasdam eo facientes, quamvis dispari gradu, secundum sa-pientiam dispensationis divinae.
Dordt British: external and internal preparatories§1084
1084British at Dort: some external works ordinarily required before regeneration; also internal effects—knowledge of God's will, sense of sin, fear, hope of pardon.
As natural generation has prior dispositions, so spiritual birth follows many antecedent grace-acts.
Latin · §1084
L. Quae sint autem illae dispositiones, explicat postea verbis Theologorum Britan-norum qui Synodo Dordracenae interfuerunt. Qui sic loquuntur in judicio suo ad Art. 3. & 4. Sunt quaedam opera externa, ab hominibus ordinarie requisita, priusquam ad statum regenerationis, aut conversionis perducantur, &c. Sunt etiam quaedam ef-fecta interna ad conversionem, sive regenerationem praevia, quae virtute Verbi, Spiri-tusque, in nondum justificatorum cordibus excitantur. Qualia sunt, notitia voluntatis divinae, sensus peccati, timor poenae, cogitatio de liberatione, spes aliqua veniae. Quibus postea subjungunt, Nam sicut in generatione hominis naturali, multae sunt praeviae dispo-sitiones, quae formae inductionem praecedunt, ita & in Spirituali, per multas anteceda-neas gratiae actiones, ad Spiritualem nativitatem pervenitur.
Caveat: not by free will or meritorious works§1085
1085Reformed carefully deny that natural free will can prepare for grace, or that any works—even grace-aided—merit remission or the Spirit.
That is what they fight when opposing Roman preparation-talk.
Latin · §1085
LI. Quod autem hic sedulo cavendum putant Reformati illud est, ne putetur homo viribus naturalibus liberi arbitrii, posse se quadantenus ad gratiam praeparare, aut ope-ribus quibuscunque, etiam gratiae auxilio factis, remissionem peccatorum, & eorum ablutionem, aut Spiritus Sancti donum quoquomodo promereri: quo tendere putant illa quae Pontificii docent de praeparationibus, & dispositionibus variis ad gratiam justi-ficantem, & sanctificantem. Nec alio animo & fine disputant contra Pontificios, & impugnant dispositiones seu praeparationes.
Dispositions allowed if not efficient or meritorious causes§1086
1086Otherwise they gladly allow many prerequisites before forensic justification/remission, call them dispositions if not efficient or meritorious causes.
Sense, acknowledgment, detestation of sin, fear, desire and hope of grace, some love—Acts 3:19.
Latin · §1086
LII. Nam caeteroquin non inviti concedunt ante ipsam justificationem, sensu forensi sumptam, seu quod idem est, ante peccatorum remissionem, in homine multa prae-requiri, quae facile patiuntur vocari dispositiones: modo ne putentur esse justifica-tionis causae efficientes, vel meritoriae. Qualia sunt ea quae jam saepius memoravimus, peccati, scilicet, sensus, agnitio, & detestatio, timor judicii divini, gratiae divinae desiderium & spes, aliqua Dei dilectio, & quae sunt hujusmodi. Ad quae respiciens Petrus, Act. 3. 19. sic Judaeos hortatur, Poenitemini & convertimini, ut deleantur peccata vestra.
Paraeus, Ames, British: prior conditions, not causing causes§1087
1087Paraeus: dispositions may precede justification; justification is not acquired by them as causes.
Ames and the British: prior conditions under the Word, not sudden enthusiasm—Acts 2:37.
Latin · §1087
LIII. Qua de re videri potest Paraeus in Bellarminum lib. 5. de Justif. cap. 7. Secundo, inquit, tenendum est, non esse idem dicere dispositiones praecedere justifica-tionem, seu requiri ante justificationem, & dispositiones requiri ad justificationem, seu justificationem acquiri per dispositiones. Nos posterius negamus. Prius recte intelle-ctum concedimus. Similiter Amesius in Bellarmino Enervato, Tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 4. responsione ad quartum argumentum, concedit dilectionem aliquam esse priorem remis-sione peccatorum, sive justificatione, ut conditionem praerequisitam; licet dilectio nulla remissionem praecedat ut dispositio causans. Et resp. ad quintum argumentum, poenitentia quae est dolor & detestatio peccati, ipso fatente antecedit quidem justifi-cationem, ut dispositio ex ordine praerequisita; sed non ut causa. Quibuscum con-sentiunt quae Theol. Britanni in judicio jam citato dicunt. Ad statum justificationis, in quo pacem habemus apud Deum per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, non solet gratia divina homines perducere per subitum enthusiastum, sed multis praeviis actio-nibus ministerio Verbi subactos, & praeparatos. Hoc videre licet in illis, qui audita Petri concione, peccati onus sentiunt, timent, dolent, liberationem desiderant, spem ali-quam veniae concipiunt: quae omnia ex illis verbis concipi possunt, Act. 2. 37. Quum haec audivissent, compuncti sunt corde suo, & dixerunt ad Petrum & reliquos Apo-stolos, Viri Fratres, quid faciemus?
Davenant: concurrent conditions, not meritorious causes§1088
1088Davenant: some good works are necessary as concurrent/precursory conditions, not as efficient or meritorious causes.
Mercy does not justify logs or stubborn mules but contrite followers of Word and Spirit—like a patient cooperating yet healed by the physician's remedy (Christ's blood).
Latin · §1088
LIV. Praesertim vero hac in parte Reformatorum sententiam accurate exponit & illustrat Davenantius, de Justitia actuali, capite 31. ubi haec est quinta illius conclusio: Bona quaedam opera sunt necessaria ad justificationem, ut conditiones concurrentes, vel praecursoriae, licet non sint necessaria, ut causae efficientes, aut meritoriae. Cui statim subjungit, In hisce bonis operibus numero illa interna, quae apud Deum magni momenti sunt, quamvis in hominum oculos non incurrant, ut dolere de peccato, detestari pecca-tum, humiliter se Deo subjicere, ad Dei misericordiam confugere, in Christo Media-tore spem figere, novae vitae propositum inire, aliaque consimilia. Divina enim mise-ricordia non justificat stipites, hoc est, nihil agentes; neque equos & mulos, hoc est, recalcitrantes, & libidinibus suis obstinate adhaerescentes; sed homines, eosdemque com-punctos & contritos, ac Verbi Spiritusque divini ductum sequentes. Quemadmodum igitur ad sanitatem aegrotantis requiritur, ut morbum sentiat, sanitatem appetat, me-dicum adeat, morbum detegat, pharmacum recipiat; neque tamen ulla harum actionum, aut illis omnibus conjunctim sumptis, tanquam causis proprie meritoriis, aut proprie ef-ficientibus, consequitur valetudinem, sed sola opera medici, & virtute pharmaci: sic ad justificationem obtinendam requiruntur quidem actus, aut praecedentes aut concurren-tes; non tamen illorum efficacia, aut merito justificationem adipiscimur, sed gratia Dei miserantis & opitulantis nobis, atque virtute divini illius pharmaci, sanguinis Christi scilicet, quo animae leprosae & morbidae abluuntur & curantur.
Protestants deny only free-will or meritorious dispositions§1089
1089Protestants do not simply deny all preparatory dispositions before justification in either school's sense.
They deny only dispositions ascribed to free will's powers or counted as efficient/meritorious causes.
Latin · §1089
LV. Quae paulo latius referre visum est, ne adversariis sit obtrectandi locus, ac ne quis dubitare possit, Protestantes non simpliciter negare in peccatore requiri quas-dam dispositiones, sive conditiones praeparatorias, ante justificationem, quocunque modo sumitur, sive Pontificiorum, sive Protestantium sensu: sed ejusmodi solum ad justificationem dispositiones negare, quae vel viribus liberi arbitrii tribuantur, vel concurrere censeantur ad justificationem efficienter, aut meritorie.
Most Romans deny natural or congruous merit of first grace§1090
1090Most Roman doctors deny such meritorious/natural dispositions—Trent: nothing preceding merits justification grace; dispositions are from preventing grace.
Stapleton: not from our powers; not even de congruo; pure moral works do not prepare for Christian justice.
Latin · §1090
LVI. Verum ipsi Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, aut eorum saltem plurimi, nullas ejusmodi dispositiones agnoscere videntur. Quandoquidem profitentur cum Concilio Tridentino, nihil eorum quae praecedunt justificationem, justificationis gratiam pro-mereri; & illas qualescunque dispositiones tribuunt, non naturalibus liberi arbitrii viri-bus, sed auxilio gratiae excitantis & praevenientis. Testis sit unus pro omnibus Tho-mas Stapletonus Anglus, Protestantium hostis infestissimus, & acerrimus justitiae in-haerentis defensor, quique omnium accuratissime doctrinam Pontificiorum de justifi-catione tractavisse videtur. Is enim Prolegomenis in librum quintum de Justificatione, postquam enumeravit varias dispositiones ordinarie ad illam requisitas, juxta Con-cilii Tridentini mentem, inter alia duo monet. Unum est, Non per opera tanquam a nostris viribus profecta, sed tanquam effectus gratiae praevenientis, & adjuvantis, nos disponi ad primam justitiam. Alterum, Non sic disponi nos per ista opera, ut mereamur primam justitiam, ne quidem ex congruo. Et postea adhuc diligenter in-culcat, opera pure moralia, & solius naturae viribus producta, ad justitiam Christia-nam non disponere, neque praeparare; nec ullo modo quicquam, quod ad vitam, aut gloriam Spiritualem pertinet mereri. Ac denique notat ex dispositionibus non con-sequi ipsam justitiam, tanquam ex sua causa effectum. Qua in re plurimos Docto-res Ecclesiae Romanae ipsi adstipulantes hic citare liceret, sed brevitatis causa superse-demus.
On dispositions: real agreement; only a logomachy remains§1091
1091Since Protestants allow moral conditions/dispositions before justification, and Rome does not make them efficient/meritorious causes—the one point Protestants solely reject—no real controversy remains, only a logomachy.
Latin · §1091
LVII. Itaque cum Protestantes non simpliciter negent ante justificationem conditio-nes quasdam, & dispositiones morales praerequiri, quo nihil amplius hac in parte exigit Ecclesia Romana, nec Pontificii velint has dispositiones rationem habere causae efficientis, vel meritoriae, respectu nostrae justificationis, a quo hic unice Protestantes abhorrent: hinc concludere licet, nullam inter utrosque de istis dispositionibus con-troversiam realem existere, sed solummodo quandam logomachiam, quae, formularum varia interpretatione sublata, facile tolli potest.
Fallen man freed only by free divine pardon§1092
1092Once guilty of eternal death, man cannot escape sin’s due penalty or gain eternal life except by God’s free pardon and acceptance.
Latin · §1092
I. Homo semel per peccatum factus mortis aeternae reus non potuit a poena peccato debita liberari, & jus ad vitam aeternam habere, nisi per summam clementiam Dei peccata illi condonantis, eumque ad vitam aeternam gratuito acceptantis.
God is merciful yet also just§1093
1093God’s nature is merciful toward the wretched, yet also just.
Mercy urges pardon; justice forbids leaving sin unpunished.
Latin · §1093
II. Porro Deus natura quidem ad hoc propensus est ut miseris succurrat, verum non misericors solum, sed & justus est, ac quemadmodum misericordia ut peccatori ignoscat compellit, ita postulat justitia ne peccatum impunitum sinat, sed legum suarum vim & majestatem tueatur, poenam de peccatis sumendo.
Pardon requires satisfaction somehow taken§1094
1094Divine wisdom will not pardon without justice satisfied and a fitting penalty somehow exacted.
Latin · §1094
III. Proinde sapientiae divinae visum non est peccata condonare, nisi justitiae foret satisfactum, & poena de peccato condigna quodammodo sumpta.
Sinner cannot be both remitted and condignly punished§1095
1095The same sinner cannot both receive remission and undergo sin’s full condign penalty.
Eternal death’s desert bars simultaneous salvation and exacted punishment in him alone.
Latin · §1095
IV. Sed impossibile erat homini peccatori simul peccatum remitti, & tamen illum pro merito puniri. Cum enim peccatum mortem & perditionem aeternam mereatur, fieri non potuit ut peccator servaretur, fieretque vitae & salutis particeps per divinam misericordiam, & tamen simul poenam peccato condignam subiret.
A surety must bear the owed penalty§1096
1096Mercy and justice both require a surety onto whom men’s due penalty is transferred.
Latin · §1096
V. Ut igitur Dei misericordia erga homines sese exereret, & tamen justitiae etiam suus esset locus, oportuit vadem aliquem & sponsorem intervenire, in quem poena hominibus debita derivaretur.
Surety must be man, yet without our guilt§1097
1097The surety must be human—punishment in the nature that sinned—yet not himself under our common guilt.
Latin · §1097
VI. Ejusmodi vero vadem hominem quoque esse conveniebat, ut peccatum puniretur in eadem natura in qua patratum fuit; sed hominem non eodem cum caeteris hominibus reatu involutum. Etenim qui pro peccatis propriis mortis & maledictionis in judicio divino reus ipse fuisset, non potuisset ultro poenam eandem pro aliis subire.
Mere man cannot bear infinite curse-weight§1098
1098A bare man would sink under the divine curse and cannot equal the race’s desert.
The Surety must be both God and man.
Latin · §1098
VII. Neque etiam id potuit simplex & nudus homo, qui oneri maledictionis divinae succubuisset, nec potuisset ferre poenas aequivalentes iis quas totum genus humanum commeruerat, ad quod vis & dignitas infinita requirebatur. Unde sequitur talem Vadem Deum & hominem simul omnino esse debuisse.
God sent the eternal Son as Mediator-surety§1099
1099God sent his eternal Son—true God and true man—as Mediator and surety.
He exhausts our due penalties, turns wrath, and satisfies divine justice for us.
Latin · §1099
VIII. Hinc est quod Deus Optimus Maximus generis humani misertus, illudque ex debita perditione eripere volens, aeternum suum Filium, & eundem cum ipso Deum in mundum misit, qui in personam eandem assumpta natura humana, ac proinde simul verus Deus & verus homo, per omnia nobis similis existens, sese pro nobis Deo Patri Mediatorem & sponsorem obtulit, qui poenas nobis debitas exantlaret, iramque divinam a nobis averteret, justitiae divinae pro nobis satisfaciendo.
Incarnate Son obedient unto the cross§1100
1100At the prophesied time the Son took servant form, sinless human weakness, and holy life.
Willingly he obeyed unto cursed, shameful cross-death in our name.
Latin · §1100
IX. Quod ut effectum daret, tempore per divinam providentiam praestituto, & propheticis oraculis praedicto, Filius ille Dei, qui rapinam non ducebat se esse aequalem Deo, accepta servi forma inter homines comparuit, omnesque naturae humanae miserias atque infirmitates, excepto peccato, ultro in se suscepit; vitaque sanctissima & innocentissima per aliquot annos in his terris peracta, sponte tandem morti maledictae & probrosae nostro nomine se objecit, Deo Patri factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis.
Isaiah 53 foretold the Messiah’s passion for us§1101
1101Isaiah 53, speaking future as past, depicts the Messiah bearing our griefs and iniquity.
Wounded for our transgressions; by his bruise we are healed; soul poured out for many.
Latin · §1101
X. Qua de re multis ante Christi adventum saeculis clare admodum fuit vaticinatus Isaias, cap. 53. ubi juxta morem propheticum, de rebus futuris verbis praeteriti temporis loquens, sic venturi Messiae passiones pro nobis describit. Vere languores nostros ipse tulit, & dolores nostros portavit; nos autem reputavimus eum plagis afflictum, percussum & humiliatum a Deo. Ipse autem vulneratus est propter praevaricationes nostras, attritus est propter iniquitates nostras: castigatio pacis nostrae super eum, & livore ejus sanati sumus. Omnes nos quasi oves erravimus, unusquisque in viam suam declinavit; & posuit Dominus in eo iniquitatem omnium nostrum. Et postea, Propter praevaricationem populi mei plaga fuit ei. Item, Effudit in mortem animam suam, & cum praevaricatoribus annumeratus est, ipseque peccatum multorum tulit, & pro peccatoribus oravit.
Peter and Paul: just for unjust; made a curse§1102
1102Peter: Christ suffered, the just for the unjust, bearing our sins on the tree.
Paul: made a curse for us—cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.
Latin · §1102
XI. Quo respiciens Petrus Apostolus dicit, Christum passum esse pro peccatis nostris, justum pro injustis; & ipsum peccata nostra pertulisse in corpore suo super lignum. Et Paulus, Christum factum esse pro nobis maledictum, quia scriptum est, Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno.
Christ’s death as sacrifice and redemption-price§1103
1103Scripture casts Christ’s death as expiating sacrifice and redeeming price.
He gave himself as ransom; we are bought with his precious blood, not gold.
Latin · §1103
XII. Et hinc quoque est quod Scriptura Sacra de morte Christi frequenter loquitur, ceu de sacrificio quo peccata nostra fuerunt expiata; ut praesertim videre est in epistola ad Hebraeos, & apud Isaiam cap. jam citato; ubi dicitur Messias animam suam posuisse oblationem pro peccato. Ac praeterea tanquam de pretio quo sumus a morte & perditione redempti: ut quum dicit Paulus Christum se ipsum αντιλυτρον dedisse pro omnibus. Et Christus ipse, Filium hominis non venisse ut sibi ministretur, sed ut ministret, detque animam suam in redemptionis pretium pro multis. Unde est quod Petrus affirmat nos non fuisse redemptos corruptibilibus, auro, & argento, sed pretioso sanguine agni immaculati & incontaminati Christi.
Satisfaction by a surety is imputed to the debtor§1104
1104Deny imputation only if you deny Christ’s death satisfied for our sins.
A surety’s accepted payment is imputed to the debtor in whose name it was made.
Latin · §1104
XIII. Porro Christi passionem, & obedientiam illam Deo Patri pro nobis praestitam usque ad mortem crucis nobis a Deo imputari, donari & communicari ii soli negare possunt, qui Christum morte sua pro peccatis nostris Deo satisfecisse negant. Neque enim percipi potest quomodo exhibita a vade satisfactio non imputetur ei cujus nomine facta est: Aut quomodo censeatur fidejussor aliquis creditor pecuniam pro debitore solvisse, & solutionem istam acceptasse creditor, & tamen solutam pecuniam non imputari debitori illi pro quo soluta est. Proinde quicunque fatetur Christum pro fidelibus morte sua satisfecisse, & poenas illis debitas dependisse, per evidentem & necessariam consequentiam agnoscit meritum mortis Christi & obedientiam ejus fidelibus a Deo donari atque imputari.
Imputed obedience alone absolves and adopts§1105
1105Christ’s donated, imputed obedience is the sole righteousness that absolves and adopts.
By it we escape due perdition and become heirs of eternal life.
Latin · §1105
XIV. Illa vero Christi obedientia sic nobis donata atque imputata, ea sola justitia est propter quam & cujus merito a reatu peccatorum nostrorum absolvimur, & perditionem aeternam nobis debitam effugimus, adeoque ex filiis irae & perditionis, quales omnes per naturam sumus, in Dei filios & vitae aeternae haeredes adoptamur.
Inherent holiness given with remission, not its meritorious cause§1106
1106God never absolves without also clothing in true habitual holiness growing toward future perfection.
That inherent righteousness is not the meritorious cause of remission or adoption—both are free gifts for Christ’s sake.
Latin · §1106
XV. Verum est quidem Deum neminem propter Christum a peccatis absolvere, quin simul illum induat habitu justitiae & sanctitatis verae, quae a primis initiis paulatim contendit ad perfectionem, ad quam demum in futuro saeculo perveniemus. Sed justitia illa licet Deo probetur, & promissionem habeat vitae & gloriae aeternae, nullo modo tamen causa est propter quam, & cujus merito a sempiterna poena peccatis nostris debita liberamur, & filii Dei per adoptionem, adeoque regni coelestis haeredes instituimur: Verum simul cum remissione peccatorum nostrorum justitiam ejusmodi propter Christi meritum & satisfactionem a Deo accipimus. Estque tam justitia ista quam remissio peccatorum respectu nostri mere gratuitum Dei donum. Neque haec ab illa tanquam a causa meritoria & impulsiva pendet.
Living faith and repentance required, yet not meritorious§1107
1107God requires living faith and serious repentance before imputing Christ’s merit.
Those acts are prerequisite conditions, not meritorious causes—grace remains wholly free for Christ’s sake.
Latin · §1107
XVI. Praeterea fatendum est Deum, ut nobis Christi satisfactionem & meritum imputet, & propter Christum nos peccatorum venia & filiorum adoptione donet, istud a nobis exigere, ut in Christum fide viva & efficaci credamus, veramque & seriam peccatorum nostrorum poenitentiam agamus. Nec enim deceret Dei sapientiam peccata remittere illis qui obstinate in peccatis perseverare volunt, & gratiae ac salutis participes facere illos qui Christi gratiam aspernantur, eumque tanquam Servatorem & Redemptorem suum, uti par est, agnoscere & colere recusant. Sed ne fides & poenitentia sint conditio quaedam a Deo praerequisita ut beneficium istud ab eo accipiamus, & sine qua non convenit nos ejus fieri compotes; nec fides tamen, nec poenitentia remissionem peccatorum & adoptionem filiorum merentur; neque causae sunt propter quam, & cujus dignitate, merito, & efficacia, tam eximiam gratiam consequimur. Sed tota & in solidum ad Christi obedientiam & meritum est referenda: quantum vero nos spectat simpliciter, & omni ex parte gratuita est, nec ullis nostris actibus, sive operibus, debetur.
Scripture: justified freely by Christ’s blood§1108
1108Scripture repeatedly: saved and justified freely by Christ’s blood, not by works.
Rom 3, Eph 2, Tit 3: grace, redemption, propitiation, heirs by mercy.
Latin · §1108
XVII. Id plane & aperte docet Scriptura Sacra, dum toties inculcat nos per Christi sanguinem atque redemptionem, non ex operibus, sed gratis servari, justificari, & remissionem peccatorum consequi. Ut in illis Apostoli verbis, Omnes enim peccaverunt, & egent gloria Dei. Justificati gratis, per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem quae est in Christo Jesu; quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius. Rom. 3. verf. 23 seqq. Item, Gratia enim estis salvati per fidem, & hoc non ex vobis; Dei enim donum est. Non ex operibus, ne ne quis glorietur. Ipsius enim sumus factura, creati in Christo Jesu in bonis operibus, quae praeparavit Deus ut in illis ambulemus. Ephes. 2. verf. 8, 9, 10. Quibus consona sunt quae scribit ad Titum, Quum autem benignitas & erga homines amor apparuit Salvatoris nostri Dei, non ex operibus justitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis & renovationis Spiritus Sancti: quem effudit in nos abunde per Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum; ut justificati gratia ipsius haeredes simus secundum spem vitae aeternae. Tit. 3. verf. 4, 5, 6.
Redeemed from curse; made God’s righteousness in him§1109
1109Christ became a curse; God made him sin that we become God’s righteousness in him.
He is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption; one obedience constitutes many just.
Latin · §1109
XVIII. Eodem quoque spectat quod dicit idem Apostolus Christum nos redemisse ab execratione legis, dum factus est pro nobis ipse execratio: Gal. 3. Deum fecisse peccatum eum qui non noverat peccatum, ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in ipso: 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christum a Deo nobis factum fuisse sapientiam, justitiam, sanctificationem & redemptionem: 1 Cor. 1. 30. Et sicut per unius hominis inobedientiam peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita per unius obedientiam multos esse constituendos justos: Rom. 5. 19.
What Reformed mean by imputed Christ’s righteousness§1110
1110Reformed “imputed righteousness” means Christ’s cross-obedience given as truly ours—the sole ground of absolution and adoption.
No inherent works can stand law’s rigor; conscience flees only to Christ’s merit.
Latin · §1110
XIX. Huc autem, non alio respiciunt Scholae Reformatae Doctores, quum dicunt Christi justitiam nobis imputari, nosque justificari & justos esse coram Deo per imputatam Christi justitiam, non vero per justitiam ullam quae nobis inhaereat. His enim & similibus formulis nihil aliud significare volunt quam Christi obedientiam usque ad mortem crucis, Deo Patri nostro nomine praestitam, ita nobis a Deo donari ut vere nostra censeatur, eamque esse unicam & solam illam justitiam propter quam & cujus merito & virtute absolvimur a reatu peccatorum nostrorum, & in Dei filios ac vitae aeternae haeredes adoptamur: Nec ullam in nobis esse justitiam, aut ulla bona opera quibus beneficia tanta promereamur; quaeve ferre possint districtum judicii divini examen, si Deus juxta legis suae rigorem nobiscum agere velit. Ac proinde, quum severum Dei tribunal cogitamus, & maledictionem transgressoribus a lege intentatam, juxta terribilem illam clausulam, Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis hujus, ut faciat ea; nihil nos ei posse opponere, nisi Christi meritum & satisfactionem; in qua sola, peccatorum conscientia exterriti, tutum adversus iram divinam perfugium, & animarum nostrarum pacem & solatium invenire possumus.
Faith, repentance, and renovating grace not denied§1111
1111Imputation does not cancel required living faith and sincere repentance.
Christ also merited renovating grace; inherent holiness, though imperfect, is accepted and promised glory.
Latin · §1111
XX. Caeterum minime per id negare volunt fidei verae vivaeque, & seriae ac syncerae poenitentiae actus in nobis a Deo requiri, ut propter Christi mortem & obedientiam, remissionis peccatorum nostrorum, & adoptionis in Dei Filios participes fiamus. Ac praeterea Christum morte & passione sua non solum fideles reatu peccatorum solvere, sed eam quoque ipsis gratiam promeruisse, per quam ad Dei Christique imaginem renoventur, veraque justitia & sanctitate induantur. Quae justitia, licet his in terris ad summum perfectionis gradum non proveniat, & multis ex infirmitate lapsibus obscuretur, non deficit tamen in essentialibus, Deoque grata atque accepta est: ac quamvis per eam fideles non possint coram Deo justificari, si Deus erga ipsos nulla indulgentia & clementia uti velit, nihilominus promissionem habet vitae & gloriae aeternae; quam Deus illi olim ultimo die, juxta Evangelium gratiae mundum judicans, misericorditer & fideliter reddet.
Polish deputies at Thorn: justify and sanctify together§1112
1112Thorn Polish declaration: for Christ’s alone-imputed merit God absolves and adopts.
At once by poured-out charity he renews and sanctifies unto new obedience.
Latin · §1112
XXI. Hanc autem esse genuinam Doctorum Ecclesiae Reformatae sententiam dubitare non possunt qui eorum scripta candide expenderunt, ut innumeris eorum testimoniis manifestum fieri possit. Instar multorum esse debet quod protestantur hac de re Reformatorum in regno Poloniae deputati, in declaratione suae sententiae, quam in Thoruniensi conventu obtulerunt. Ibi enim capite quarto, quod est de Gratia, dicunt Deum vocatos & sincere resipiscentes, non tantum propter solum Christi meritum ex mera gratia imputatum, a peccatis justificare, seu absolvere, & in filios adoptare; sed simul etiam spiritu charitatis in corda nostra effuso, ad syncerum sanctimoniae & obedientiae novae studium in dies magis magisque renovare, & sanctificare, seu justos & sanctos facere.
Calumny rejected: inherent justice not denied§1113
1113False charge: Reformed deny all inherent justice and teach bare external imputation.
We impute only to living faith with Spirit-wrought renovation; imperfect inherent justice cannot absolve at the severe bar.
Latin · §1113
XXII. Et postea multas a se calumnias amolientes testantur nos falso accusari, quasi omnem inhaerentem justitiam fidelibus negemus, eosque sola externa justitiae Christi imputatione, quae sit sine ulla interna renovatione, justificari statuamus. Cum tamen solis poenitentibus, & viva fide in Christum credentibus justitiam imputari, simulque per eandem fidem a Spiritu Sancto corda contrita vivificari, ad ardentem erga Christum charitatem & novae obedientiae studium excitari, a pravis videlicet cupiditatibus mundari, atque ita justitiam & sanctitatem vitae novae inchoari, & in dies perfici doceamus. Id tantum addimus, inquiunt, per hanc inhaerentem justitiam propriam, quia in hac vita imperfecta est, neminem coram severo Dei judicio posse consistere, aut in ea confidere, ut a reatu mortis per eam justificetur, seu absolvatur; sed per & propter solam perfectissimam Christi justitiam & meritum viva fide apprehensum.
Called just from inherent form; justified by imputed§1114
1114Scripture’s “just/holy” names ordinarily from inherent renewed holiness as formal denomination.
Yet they are justified and constituted just through Christ’s imputed obedience.
Latin · §1114
XXIII. Cum vero fideles in Scriptura Sacra frequenter justi sanctique nominentur, fatentur Ecclesiae Reformatae Doctores appellationem istam ordinarie non sumi a Christi justitia ipsis donata atque imputata tanquam a forma quadam, quae, licet externa sit, ipsos tamen denominet: sed potius a justitia & sanctitate illa ad quam per Christi gratiam & meritum renovati sunt, adeoque fideles recte quidem & vere dici per & propter Christi justitiam & obedientiam justificari & justos constitui, non tamen ab illa tanquam a forma justos sanctosque nominari; sed causam formalem istius denominationis esse justitiam quae nobis inhaeret.
Davenant: just from inherent; justified from imputed§1115
1115Davenant: “just” from inherent inchoate form; “justified” from Christ’s perfect imputed righteousness.
All justified receive infused habitual justice by which God also calls them just.
Latin · §1115
XXIV. Monet istud Davenantius Episcopus Sarisburiensis, qui de doctrina Justificationis Reformatorum omnium accuratissime scripsit, & maximo cum Scholae Orthodoxae applausu. Nam libro de Justitia habituali, cap. 27. Illud, inquit, obiter observetis velim, nos haud affirmare denominationem justi in Scriptura sumi a forma extrinseca, sed justificati. Justi enim quemadmodum & sancti in Scripturis vocantur nonnulli ab inchoata justitia in ipsis inhaerente: sed justificati dicuntur a perfectissima Christi justitia ipsis imputata. Et ejusdem libri capite tertio duas hasce propositiones sigillatim probat & explicat, Primo, Donari sive infundi omnibus justificatis habitualem quandam, sive inhaerentem justitiam. Deinde, In hac infusa, sive inhaerente justitia fideles & renovatos omnes vocari & censeri justos, idque ab ipso Deo.
Rome distorts Reformed denial of inherent formal justification§1116
1116Rome hears “justified by imputed, not inherent” and charges denial of all inward holiness.
Calumny: believers stay impure within; imputation only covers, never removes, sin.
Latin · §1116
XXV. Porro haec sententiae Orthodoxae explicatio probe animadvertenda est contra Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, qui Reformatorum hac in parte doctrinam aut non intelligunt, aut malitiose detorquent. Quum enim audiunt Scholae Reformatae Doctores passim dicentes, nos coram Deo justificari, & justos constitui per justitiam Christi quae nobis imputatur, non vero per ullam nobis inhaerentem justitiam, inde colligunt nos non agnoscere justitiam ullam quae fidelibus insit, & cujus ratione vere apud Deum justi & sancti censeantur, nosque traducunt quasi doceremus fideles semper in se impios, immundos, & injustos manere: Christi vero justitiam ad hoc solum illis imputari ut peccata eorum tegantur, non tollantur. Ac proinde, quum fideles justi & sancti in Scriptura vocantur, denominationem istam non sumi ab aliqua forma, sive justitia quae ipsis inhaereat, sed a sola justitia Christi, quae cum extra eos sit, illos tamen denominet, quoniam illis a Deo imputatur.
Becanus’s five-point caricature of Calvinists§1117
1117Becanus’s Calvinist cartoon: sins covered not removed; no infused justice; man stays impious within.
All works mortal sins under a cover; justification = occultation only.
Latin · §1117
XXVI. Ita Becanus Jesuita Theologorum nostrorum sententiam proponit & interpretatur in Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, Tom. 2. tract. 4. cap. 2. cujus titulus est De Justificatione ex sententia Calvinistarum, ubi audacter asserit ex Calvinistarum, quos vocat, sententia: 1. In justificatione non tolli peccata, sed tantum tegi & non imputari. 2. Nec infundi homini justitiam inhaerentem qua interius renovetur, & in se fiat justus; sed imputari illi justitiam Christi qua extra se justus habeatur. 3. Hominem manere igitur in se peccatorem immundum & impium, & solum censeri pro mundo, pio & justo propter alienam justitiam ipsi imputatam. 4. Et omnia ipsius opera esse immunda, spurca, inquinata, atque adeo peccata mortalia; tametsi non obstent illi quia per justitiam Christi teguntur & occultantur. 5. Hinc fieri ut justificatio non consistat in interna renovatione animi, aut sanctificatione, sed in sola peccatorum occultatione & non imputatione.
Reformed confess inherent justice and a secondary formal sense§1118
1118Rome fights a monster we do not teach: we confess Spirit-cleansing and infused inherent justice.
Besides forensic absolution we allow with Davenant/Poles a secondary formal justification by inherent virtue.
Latin · §1118
XXVII. Atque inde est quod Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, existimantes nos ejusmodi monstra sub doctrina de imputatione justitiae Christi tegere & alere, illam tam acriter impugnant. Sed, quam ab eo simus alieni ex vera & genuina sententiae nostrae expositione manifestum fecimus. Siquidem ultro confitemur, & eum qui justificatur simul intus a peccatis per Spiritum Sanctum mundari, & fidelibus infundi justitiam inhaerentem, qua interius renoventur, & in se justi fiant. Neque dicimus fideles apud Deum pro mundis, piis & justis censeri, licet in se impii & immundi maneant, sed illos revera pios, mundos, & sanctos per Spiritus Sancti gratiam fieri: Multa quoque eorum opera agnoscimus pia, sancta & justa esse, non simpliciter spurca & immunda, atque adeo peccata mortalia. Ac denique praeter justificationem illam judiciariam, quam ad solum Christi meritum & justitiam referimus, quamque constituimus in absolutione a reatu mortis & perditionis, quam legem Dei violando, apud severum ejus tribunal commeriti sumus, fatemur cum Davenantio, de Just. habituali, c. 21. Damus quandam, ut ita loquamur, justificationem, cujus causam formalem justitiam nobis inhaerentem dici non improbamus. Et cum Theologis Polonis, in sua Confessione, cap. 4. Non negamus etiam dici posse fideles per charitatem aliasque virtutes infusas justificari, id est, justos effici & censeri.
Why inherent justice cannot justify at the severe bar§1119
1119Denial of inherent formal justification means: none stand law’s rigor without mercy.
Freedom and adoption are owed solely to Christ’s communicated passion-merit, not our works’ dignity.
Latin · §1119
XXVIII. Quo vero Theologi nostri negant nos justificari, sive justos esse coram Deo per justitiam propriam, & nobis inhaerentem, verum per solam Christi justitiam nobis imputatam, mens eorum est, neminem tam justum & sanctum reperiri, quin apud Dei tribunal mortis & damnationis reus comperiatur, si Deus nolit cum ipso misericorditer agere, sed juxta legis rigorem illum districte judicare. Quoniam videlicet omnes per legem divinam peccati convincuntur, neque maledictionem quam lex peccatoribus omnibus denuntiat, ullo modo vitare & effugere possunt virtute & merito propriae justitiae, & bonorum quae fecerint operum, si Deus nullam ipsis gratiam facere velit, sed jure suo erga eos uti. Quod vero fideles liberantur a morte & perditione aeterna, quam peccatis suis juste commeruerunt, & in Dei filios & regni coelestis haeredes adoptantur, id unice deberi merito mortis & passionis Christi, quam Deus ita nobis donat & communicat, ut vere nostra sit & censeri debeat, non autem ulla ex parte bonis quibusdam nostris operibus, aut alicui justitiae nostrae, cujus merito atque dignitate Deus moveatur atque impellatur, ut nos ab exitio nobis alioqui debito liberet, & jus ad vitae aeternae haereditatem concedat.
Genuine Reformed imputation doctrine Rome dare not openly deny§1120
1120Plain Reformed imputation is so clear that Rome dare not openly deny it when simply stated.
Latin · §1120
XXIX. Haec est vera & germana Reformatorum doctrina de justificatione nostra per Christi Domini nostri justitiam nobis imputatam, quam ita manifestam reddit, tum fidei analogia, tum ipse communis Christianorum sensus, & interna conscientiae vox, ut nequidem Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae illi aperte contradicere audeant; sed quum simpliciter & nude proponitur, cogantur ei dare manus, & veritati illius subscribere.
Stapleton and Vasquez: none stand without mercy§1121
1121No Roman doctor dares claim inherent justice stands God’s severe bar without mercy.
Stapleton and Vasquez: say with the Psalmist—enter not into judgment; venials still need mercy.
Latin · §1121
XXX. Quippe nullus eorum est, quantum equidem novi, qui dicere audeat fideles propria & sibi inhaerente justitia fretos, posse coram severo tribunali Dei consistere, & in eo reos non peragi, etiamsi Deus illos absque misericordia judicet: Aut qui reclamet Stapletono fatenti, Si secundum severum judicium Deus homines judicaret, nullam hominis justitiam in isto judicio stare posse: Lib. de Justif. cap. 14. Et Vasquezio agnoscenti unumquemque nostrum, tam ante justificationem, quam post justificationem, teneri cum Psalmista dicere, Ne intres in judicium cum servo tuo; Quoniam, nisi Deus nos misericordia sua praeveniat, ut a peccatis justificemur, non poterimus non in judicio Dei damnari. Et adhuc post justificationem a peccato mortali, multa venialia manent, quae, nisi Dei misericordia deleantur, priusquam ad judicium Dei vocemur, non poterit homo omnino justificari, hoc est, omnino effugere Dei judicium & ultionem. Tom. 2. in 1. 2. Disp. 222. Cap. 6. num. 44.
Trent: remission and adoption free; no preceding works merit§1122
1122Rome too: all need free remission and adoption; Trent Sess. 6.8—nothing preceding merits justifying grace.
Justification includes remission plus sanctifying renovation; benefits are gratis.
Latin · §1122
XXXI. Nec etiam, quod inde consequens est, ullus est Doctorum Ecclesiae Rom. qui non agnoscat nos omnes apud Deum egere remissione peccatorum, ut possimus mortem aeternam vitare, & adoptari in Dei filios, ac vitae aeternae haeredes: illam vero remissionem & adoptionem in filios Dei respectu nostri gratuitam esse, nec ullis nostris operibus deberi. Id expresse docet ipsum Concilium Tridentinum, Sess. 6. cap. 8. declarans, Nos ab Apostolo dici justificari gratis, quia nihil eorum quae justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam justificationis gratiam promeretur. Nam sub justificatione remissionem peccatorum cum sanctificatione, & renovatione interioris hominis complectitur, ut videre est Sess. 6. cap. 7. Et cap. 3. ejusdem Sessionis justificationem impii describit, Translationem ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae, & adoptionis filiorum Dei, per secundum Adam Jesum Christum Salvatorem nostrum. Inde patet ex mente illius Concilii, remissionem peccatorum, & renovationem nostram, ac adoptionem in Dei filios esse beneficia quae nobis a Deo gratis conceduntur, & quae nulla nostra opera promerentur.
Trent’s meritorious cause is Christ’s passion—same as our imputation§1123
1123Trent: meritorious cause is Christ’s cross-passion communicated—else none is just.
That is what Reformed mean by imputing Christ’s righteousness: free remission and adoption by his alone-communicated merit.
Latin · §1123
XXXII. Idem vero Concilium, Sess. 6. cap. 7. docet istius justificationis quae juxta ipsum non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed & sanctificatio, & renovatio interioris hominis, per quam homo fit ex injusto justus, & ex inimico amicus, ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae aeternae, causam meritoriam esse Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, qui sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis, nobis justificationem meruit, & pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit; ac neminem posse esse justum, nisi cui merita passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi communicantur. Quod certe reipsa idem est cum eo quod Theologi nostri significare intendunt; quando dicunt justitiam Christi nobis imputari, & nos per illam coram Deo justificari. Quid enim, ut jam saepius inculcatum, dum sic loquuntur, aliud sibi volunt quam remissionem peccatorum nostrorum, & adoptionem in Dei filios, & regni coelestis haeredes, nullis nostris meritis deberi: sed soli Christi merito & satisfactioni, quae nobis a Deo vere donantur & communicantur?
Bellarmine allows imputation in a sound sense—ours§1124
1124Rome concedes a sound sense of imputing Christ’s righteousness—as becoming ours.
Bellarmine: if heretics mean donated merits we may offer the Father, the opinion is right.
Latin · §1124
XXXIII. Imo ne quidem nostrum loquendi modum simpliciter damnare audent Scholae Romanae Theologi; concedunt enim sano sensu dici posse justitiam Christi nobis imputari, & fieri nostram. Quin sanus ille sensus juxta quem locutionem istam interpretantur est ille ipse quem nos intendimus. Id manifeste patet ex Bellarmino, lib. 2. de Justif. cap. 7. §. Quarto refellitur. Nam, inquit, si solum vellent haeretici nobis imputari Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi, recta esset eorum sententia.
Bellarmine: Christ our righteousness by donated satisfaction§1125
1125Bellarmine: Christ is our righteousness because his satisfaction is donated as ours in justifying us.
Inherent justice is an effect of that satisfaction; imputation language is fine if inherent justice is not denied.
Latin · §1125
XXXIV. Quibus consona sunt quae addit ejusdem libri cap. decimo, Resp. ad primum argumentum. Dicitur, inquit, Christus justitia nostra, quoniam satisfecit Patri pro nobis, & eam satisfactionem, ita nobis donat & communicat, quum nos justificat, ut nostra satisfactio & justitia dici possit. Nam etiamsi per justitiam nobis inhaerentem vere justi nominemur & simus, tamen non per eam satisfacimus Deo pro culpa nostra & poena aeterna. Sed est illa justitia inhaerens, cum remissione culpae & sempiternae poenae, effectus satisfactionis Christi, quae nobis in justificatione confertur & applicatur. Et hoc modo non esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam & merita; cum nobis donentur & applicentur, ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus: modo non negetur esse in nobis praeterea justitiam inhaerentem, eamque veram & absolutam esse justitiam, cui justo Dei judicio non debeatur poena, sed gloria.
Vasquez: Trent’s communicantur equals imputantur§1126
1126Vasquez: Trent’s “communicated” passion-merits = “imputed.”
As meritorious cause, imputation = application and communication of Christ’s merits.
Latin · §1126
XXXV. Similia quoque habentur apud Gabrielem Vasquez, Tom. 2. in 1. 2. Disp. 222. cap. 1. nam verba ista Concilii Tridentini, Quanquam nemo possit esse justus, nisi cui merita passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi communicantur, dicit idem omnino significare ac si diceret, nisi cui merita passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi imputantur. Disputatione vero 203. affirmat recte dici posse merita Christi nobis imputari, quum agitur de causa meritoria justificationis, Quoniam imputari nobis Christi merita idem est quod merita illa nobis applicari, & communicari.
Our imputation means satisfaction’s effect—not denial of inherent justice§1127
1127Imputation language means: donated satisfaction is ours; remission is its alone effect—not inherent justice’s merit.
We still confess real though imperfect inherent holiness; Rome’s attack is undeserved.
Latin · §1127
XXXVI. Jam vero quis nostrum aliud cogitavit, quum nos per solam Christi justitiam nobis imputatam justificari dixit, quam hoc ipsum Christum Deo Patri pro nobis satisfecisse, & eam satisfactionem ita nobis a Deo donari, & communicari, quum nos justificat, ut nostra satisfactio & justitia dici possit: adeoque remissionem culpae & sempiternae poenae, quam in justificatione nostra a Deo consequimur, esse effectum solius satisfactionis Christi, non vero justitiae ullius nobis inhaerentis? Aut quis inde collegit in nobis non esse justitiam per gratiam Christi productam, a qua vere justi nominemur & simus: quaeque vera sit atque absoluta, quoad essentiam, & partes integrantes, licet in gradibus a summa perfectione deficiat, eique multi naevi & maculae adhaereant ex quotidianis fidelium lapsibus: quod fatentur Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, & nominatim Bellarminus ipse, ut in Thesibus de Justitia per Christi gratiam fidelibus inhaerente antea fuit a nobis probatum? Unde patet Scholae Romanae Theologos immerito carpere nostram de imputatione justitiae Christi doctrinam, quandoquidem nihil hac in parte revera sentimus, quod vis veritatis ipsos non cogat agnoscere.
Whether glory is due inherent justice: deferred; promise by fittingness§1128
1128Whether glory is strictly due inherent justice is deferred to merits; works per se are owed nothing.
God promised the crown and will keep it by fitting goodness and promise-faithfulness—as saner Rome grants.
Latin · §1128
XXXVII. An autem justitiae quae per Spiritus Sancti gratiam fidelibus inest gloria debeatur, ut contendit Bellarminus, alia quaestio est, quam, Deo favente, alias expendemus, quum de bonorum operum meritis ex professo agemus. Id solum breviter dicimus, quantumlibet bonis hominum operibus per se nihil a Deo deberi: attamen Deum justitiae, & sanctitati fidelium, coronam vitae & gloriae coelestis liberaliter promisisse, & juxta promissa sua misericorditer simul & fideliter esse redditurum, quum olim mortuos & vivos judicabit. Qua in re non exercebit proprie dictam illam justitiam, qua aliquis exsolvit quod stricto jure debet, sed tantum justitiam communi quadam ratione sic dictam, quae est, ut vetustiores Scholastici loquuntur, condecentia bonitatis divinae, & ad quam pertinet fides in promissis servandis. Quod major & sanior pars Scholae Pontificiae nobiscum ultro fatetur & agnoscit.
Scripture clearly teaches sin is taken away in the justified§1129
1129Among Christians it is settled that God takes away sin in those he receives into grace.
Scripture teaches this so plainly that no one who respects its authority can doubt it.
Latin · §1129
I. Peccatum tolli in iis quos Deus in gratiam recipit; res est quae constat inter Christianos, & quam Scriptura ita clare atque aperte docet, ut a nemine, qui ejus authoritatem reveretur, in dubium vocari possit.
Scripture: God removes, transfers, deletes, casts sins into the sea§1130
1130Scripture often says God takes away, transfers, deletes, even casts the faithful's sins into the sea (Exodus 34; Micah 7).
Micah's sea-image alludes to Egypt drowned in the Red Sea.
Latin · §1130
II. Nam Scriptura Sacra, Dei erga homines bonitatem commendans, saepe testatur eum fidelium peccata tollere, transferre, delere, imo projicere in profundum maris. Ita Moses in Exodo hanc Deo gloriam tribuit: Domine Deus, misericors & clemens, patiens & multae miserationis, ac verax, qui custodis misericordiam in millia, qui aufers iniquitatem, & scelera atque peccata, Exod. 34. Quod imitatus Michaeas Propheta, Quis Deus, inquit, similis tui, qui aufers iniquitatem, & transfers peccatum reliquiarum haereditatis tuae? Non immittet ultra furorem suum, quoniam volens misericordiam est. Revertetur & miserebitur nostri, deponet iniquitates nostras, & projiciet in profundum maris omnia peccata nostra. Mich. 7. Quibus verbis alludit Propheta ad Aegyptios, populi Dei hostes, quos Deus olim aquis rubri maris obruit, & in profundum illius submersit.
Isaiah and David: God blots out iniquities; Acts calls to repentance§1131
1131Isaiah 43-44: God blots out iniquities and will not remember sins.
David (Psalm 51) and Peter (Acts 3) seek and invite that blotting-out.
Latin · §1131
III. Sic vero Deus ipse apud Isaiam populum suum solatur, Ego sum, ego sum ipse qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me, & peccatorum tuorum non recordabor, Isa. 43. Item, Delevi ut nubem iniquitates tuas, & quasi nebulam peccata tua. Isa. 44. Unde est quod fideles a Deo fidenter hanc gratiam implorant, quemadmodum David, Psal. 51. Avertere, inquit, faciem tuam a peccatis meis, & omnes iniquitates meas dele. Et ejusdem gratiae spe peccatores ad poenitentiam & conversionem invitantur. Poenitemini & convertimini, inquit Petrus Apostolus, ut deleantur peccata vestra, Act. 3.
Christ the Lamb takes away the world's sins§1132
1132John the Baptist calls him the Lamb of God who takes away the world's sins (John 1).
1 John and Hebrews teach he appeared and was offered once to abolish many's sins.
Latin · §1132
IV. Quoniam autem Deus tantum beneficium nobis confert per & propter Christum, idcirco dicitur a Joanne Baptista, Agnus Dei qui tollit peccata mundi. Joan. 1. Quo spectat alter Joannes, dum ait in prima epistola, Scitis quia ille apparuit, ut peccata nostra tolleret. Et Apostolus Paulus in epistola ad Hebraeos docens Christum apparuisse sine peccato ad destituitionem, sive abolitionem peccati; & illum semel oblatum fuisse ad exhaurienda, sive tollenda multorum peccata.
Sin's two aspects: foulness and obligation to penalty§1133
1133Sin has two sides: moral foulness that stains and God-hates, and obligation to the law's due penalty.
Latin · §1133
V. Verum ut distinctius intelligatur quomodo Christus tollat hominum peccata, observandum est in peccato duo esse. Unum est pravitas & foeditas quaedam, quae peccatorem maculat & deturpat, Deoque odiosum reddit, ac rationi & legi divinae adversatur: Alterum est obligatio & ordinatio ad poenam quam justitia divina exigit, & lex interminatur.
Christ's grace frees from due penalty; cross bears curse (Isa 53)§1134
1134Christ's grace frees serious seekers from sin's due eternal-death obligation.
As our surety he bore cross-penalties—the just for the unjust—and redeemed from the law's curse (Isaiah 53:5-6).
Latin · §1134
VI. Utrumque per Christi gratiam tollitur. Et primo quidem certum est Christum eos qui ad ipsum serio confugiunt a poena peccato debita liberare, & in fidelibus ac poenitentibus solvere obligationem illam, qua, propter admissa peccata, aeternae mortis coram Deo rei sunt atque debitores. Quam gratiam Christus nobis meruit atque impetravit, dum, tanquam vas noster atque nostro nomine, poenas dirissimas in cruce pertulit, & pro nobis passus est, justus ipse pro injustis. Quo respectu dicitur peccata nostra pertulisse in corpore suo super lignum. Item nos redemisse de maledicto legis, dum factus est pro nobis maledictum. Juxta quod ab Isaia Propheta praedictum fuerat, Vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter scelera nostra. Omnes nos quasi oves erravimus, unusquisque in viam suam declinavit; & posuit Dominus in eo iniquitatem omnium nostrum. Isa. 53. 5, 6.
Remission is not bare penalty-relaxation while we stay unrenewed§1135
1135Cross-remission is not a prince's bare stay of punishment while the sinner stays inwardly unchanged.
Latin · §1135
VII. Sed Christus non simpliciter morte sua nos praestat a peccato immunes. Neque putandum est Deum, quum nobis peccata propter Christum remittit, solummodo poenam peccati relaxare, dum peccatores interim, sicut antea, in nobis remanemus: quemadmodum Principes terreni dicuntur facinoroso crimina remittere, quum illum justo alioquin supplicio eximunt, etiamsi per id nihil interius immutetur, sed maneat talis qualis antea erat.
God frees from penalty only while correcting foulness by the Spirit§1136
1136God never frees from penalty without also correcting sin's foulness by repentance and the Spirit.
Christ suffered both to spare due punishment and to make the impious just and holy.
Latin · §1136
VIII. Nec enim quenquam Deus a poena liberum pronunciat, quin simul in eo pravitatem peccati corrigat; & foeditatem tollat, per veram poenitentiam efficaciam ac vim Spiritus Sancti. Neque Christus tantum in hunc finem passus est, ut quod nostra peccata justissime merentur supplicium evaderemus, sed etiam ut nos a peccati corruptione vindicaret, & ex impiis ac peccatoribus justos sanctosque coram Deo redderet.
Paul and Peter: Christ gave himself to rescue and make us live to him§1137
1137Christ gave himself to rescue us from this evil age and make the living live for him (Galatians 1; 2 Corinthians 5).
Peter and Titus tie his bearing of sins to dead-to-sin, sober, pious, just life.
Latin · §1137
IX. Nam ut testatur Paulus, Dominus noster Jesus Christus dedit semetipsum pro peccatis nostris, ut eriperet nos de praesenti saeculo nequam, Galat. 1. Et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, ut qui vivunt jam non sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est, & resurrexit, 2 Cor. 5. Quibus concinit illud Petri, Peccata nostra ipse pertulit in corpore suo super lignum, ut peccato mortui justitiae vivamus. 1 Pet. 2. Denique, juxta Apostolum, huc tendit illa gratia salutaris, quae in Evangelio nobis apparuit, ut abnegantes impietatem, & saecularia desideria, sobrie, pie, & juste vivamus in hoc saeculo. Tit. 2.
Scripture paints sin as defiling filth from the heart (Mark 7; Rev 22)§1138
1138Grace's efficacy is imaged against sin's filth: what comes from the heart defiles (Mark 7).
Revelation 22 warns the filthy to stay filthy—sin as abominable uncleanness before God.
Latin · §1138
X. Porro hanc gratiae Christi efficaciam, qua peccatum in nobis destruit, ut nos vera justitia & sanctitate induat, Scriptura variis vocibus exprimit, & metaphoris pluribus adumbrat: prout etiam varie describit peccati malitiam atque turpitudinem. Primo enim Scriptura peccata considerat tanquam sordes quasdam atque immunditias, quae animam turpiter foedant atque maculant, Deoque odiosam & abominabilem reddunt, juxta illud Christi in Evangelio, Quae de homine procedunt illa sunt quae coinquinant hominem. Ab intus enim de corde hominum malae cogitationes procedunt, adulteria, fornicationes, homicidia, furta, avaritia, nequitiae, dolus, impudicitiae, oculus malus, blasphemiae, superbia, stultitia: Omnia haec mala ab intus procedunt, & coinquinant hominem. Marc. 7. Quo pertinet etiam quod legitur in Apocalypsi, Qui in sordibus est sordescat adhuc. Apoc. 22.
God washes and cleanses: Ezekiel, Titus, Ephesians, 1 Cor, Psalm 51§1139
1139Taking away sin's malice means washing and cleansing (Ezekiel 36; Titus 2; Ephesians 5).
Corinthians were washed, sanctified, justified (1 Corinthians 6); David begged hyssop-washing (Psalm 51).
Latin · §1139
XI. Ideoque quum Deus tollit ex nobis peccati malitiam dicitur nos abluere, purgare, & mundare. Et huc spectat illa Dei promissio apud Ezechielem, Effundam super vos aquam mundam, & mundabimini ab omnibus inquinamentis vestris, Ezech. 36. Et quod dicit Paulus ad Titum, Christum dedisse semetipsum pro nobis, ut nos mundaret sibi populum acceptabilem, sectatorem bonorum operum. Tit. 2. Quibus consonat quod scribit ad Ephesios, nempe, Christum seipsum tradidisse pro Ecclesia, ut eam sanctificaret, mundans eam lavacro aquae per verbum. Eph. 5. Eaque ratione mundati & abluti erant Corinthii, quibus dicit idem Paulus, Haec quidem fuistis, sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed justificati estis, in nomine Domini Jesu, & per Spiritum Dei nostri. 1 Cor. 6. Atque hanc spiritualem lotionem petebat David, Psal. 51. Asperges me Domine hyssopo, & mundabor; lavabis me, & supra nivem dealbabor.
Sin as slavery; Christ redeems into liberty and service of righteousness§1140
1140Scripture casts indulged sin as hard slavery (John 8; 2 Peter).
Christ redeems captives into liberty; under grace sin no longer masters—old man crucified, servants of righteousness (Romans 6).
Latin · §1140
XII. Praeterea de iis qui peccatis indulgent Scriptura loquitur tanquam peccati servis, & mancipiis vitiorum, qui duro quodam peccati dominio premuntur, & sub eo sunt quasi venundati. Omnis, inquit Christus, qui facit peccatum servus est peccati. Joan. 8. Et Petrus impios illos, in quos posteriore epistola invehitur, affirmat esse servos corruptionis, a quo enim quis superatus est, hujus, inquit, & servus est. Unde est quod dicitur Christus nos redimere ab iniquitate, quasi qui sub ea captivi essemus, & nos a foeda peccati servitute in libertatem vindicare. Peccatum, inquit Paulus, vobis non dominabitur; non enim estis sub lege, sed sub gratia. Rom. 6. Nam, ut ibidem docet, Vetus noster homo simul cum Christo crucifixus est, ut destruatur corpus peccati, ut ultra non serviamus peccato. Et sub finem illius capitis, Liberati, inquit, a peccato, facti estis servi justitiae.
Sin as disease; healed by grace and Christ's bruise (Ps 103; Mal 4)§1141
1141Sin is also disease and wound; God heals infirmities (Psalm 103).
By Christ's bruise we are healed; Malachi's sun of righteousness brings healing in his wings (Malachi 4).
Latin · §1141
XIII. Peccata quoque nostra comparantur morbis atque vulneribus, quibus animae nostrae aegrae & sauciae sunt: & propterea Deus dicitur per gratiam suam nostras infirmitates, sive morbos sanare. Quod Dei beneficium agnoscit & celebrat David, Psal. 103. Benedic, inquit, anima mea Domino, & noli oblivisci omnes retributiones ejus. Qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis; Qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas. Ac quia Christus ille est qui morte sua nobis gratiam illam impetravit, dicimur ejus livore sanati, Cujus livore, inquit Petrus, sanati estis. Et propterea Malachias etiam Propheta vocat illum justitiae solem, in cujus alis, id est, radiis sanitas est: Orietur vobis timentibus nomen meum sol justitiae, & sanitas in pennis sive in alis ejus. Mal. 4.
Sin as death; grace vivifies with Christ (Eph 2; Col 2)§1142
1142Sin is also death; grace raises us into new life with Christ (Ephesians 2; Colossians 2).
Baptismal burial with Christ means rising with him.
Latin · §1142
XIV. Verum Scriptura de peccato non loquitur simpliciter tanquam de morbo, sive infirmitate, sed etiam tanquam de morte, in qua sine Dei gratia jacemus, & a qua per illam excitamur, & in novam vitam resurgimus. Nam, ut ait Apostolus, Deus qui dives est in misericordia, quum essemus mortui in peccatis, convivificavit nos Christo, cujus gratia estis salvati. Eph. 2. & similiter Col. 2. Vos, inquit, cum mortui essetis in delictis convivificavit cum illo. Et antea dixerat fideles in baptismo Christo consépultos, simul cum illo resurgere.
Grace removes both reatus and macula—else washing language fails§1143
1143Grace removes sin both as reatus (penalty-obligation) and as macula (soul-infecting foulness).
Mere penalty-relaxation without cleansing would leave us still enslaved, sick, and dead—unable to be called washed or Spirit-walkers.
Latin · §1143
XV. Ex quibus omnibus certo & evidenter colligitur peccatum per Christi gratiam in fidelibus tolli, non tantum quoad reatum, seu obligationem ad poenam, sed etiam quoad maculam & pravitatem ipsam, quae animam inficit. Nam si Deus solummodo poenam peccatoribus debitam relaxaret, propter Christi meritum & satisfactionem, peccata vero quibus illam commeruerunt in animis eorum, sicut antea, haerere sineret; non obstaret ista poenae relaxatio, quominus in se peccato infecti, & servitute illius mancipati; vitiis aegri, imo in peccatis mortui, sicut prius manerent: adeoque dici non possent per Christi gratiam a peccatis abluti, mundati, & sanctificati; a servitute peccati liberati, a spiritualibus infirmitatibus sanati; ac denique a morte excitati, ut novam vitam cum Christo inchoent, non ambulantes amplius secundum carnem, sed secundum spiritum.
Cleansing is gradual; perfect holiness grows (2 Cor 7; Rev 22)§1144
1144Cleansing is not once-for-all total; it advances by degrees.
Paul urges sharers of grace to perfect sanctification (2 Corinthians 7); Revelation 22: the righteous and holy still grow.
Latin · §1144
XVI. Porro ista a peccatis purgatio & emundatio tota simul & semel non fit, sed sensim & per gradus varios promovetur. Unde est quod Apostolus illos ipsos quos supponit gratiae Christi participes, & quorum numero ipse se includit, hortatur ut se magis ac magis mundent, & perficiant sanctificationem. Has ergo, inquit, habentes promissiones, charissimi, mundemus nos ab omni inquinamento carnis & spiritus, sanctificationem perficientes in timore Dei. 2 Cor. 7. Quo spectat illud Apocalypseos, Qui justus est justificetur adhuc; & sanctus est sanctificetur adhuc. Apoc. 22.
Washed disciples still need foot-washing; sanctify them in truth§1145
1145Even the blood-washed still gather foot-dust and need ongoing cleansing (John 13).
Christ prays the Father to sanctify already-clean disciples in the truth of the word (John 17).
Latin · §1145
XVII. Propterea Christus Dominus, loquens de illis qui sunt ipsius sanguine & spiritu abluti, Qui lotus est, inquit, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus. Joan. 13. Quibus verbis innuit illis ipsis qui sunt per ejus gratiam mundati & sanctificati, semper aliquid terrenarum sordium adhaerescere, a quo purgari & ablui debeant: quemadmodum illi qui corpus abluerunt, non possunt quin pedibus quibus terram contingunt, pulveris aliquid colligant, quo saltem illa parte contaminantur. Ideoque Patrem orat pro discipulis, quos jam ante mundos pronunciaverat, ut illos verbo suo sanctificet; Sanctifica, inquit, eos in veritate tua; verbum tuum est veritas. Joan. 17.
Native corruption remains fractured but not eradicated in this life§1146
1146Native corruption's remains stay in mortal life: fractured so they no longer reign or damn the grafted-in, yet not eradicated.
Believers feel strong evil-tilt and flesh-Spirit war until death.
Latin · §1146
XVIII. Etenim quamdiu in hoc mortali corpore degimus, perpetuo manent in nobis pravitatis & corruptionis nativae reliquiae. Illa quidem eos qui sunt per veram atque vivam fidem Christo inserti amplius damnare non potest, & felicitate aeterna excludere: ac praeterea per Christi gratiam ita fracta & debilitata est, ut amplius in iis non regnet, sed spiritui cedat atque subjiciatur. Veruntamen non est penitus sublata & eradicata. Unde est quod fideles ipsi sentiunt se multum ad malum proclives, & in bene agendo difficultatem magnam experiuntur. Nec in iis ad mortem usque cessat, carnis adversus spiritum rebellio, quae legi divinae repugnat, illosque in diversum trahit, & contra quam ipsis perpetuo luctandum.
Vicious habits from past sins still incline the pious§1147
1147Remitted past sins still leave vicious habits that boost inborn corruption and push even the pious toward fresh sins.
Grace slowly deletes those habits but does not yet fully uproot them.
Latin · §1147
XIX. Adde quod ingenitam istam corruptionem in ipsis quoque piis augent habitus vitiosi, per peccata anteacta, & jam remissa contracti; qui paulatim quidem per Christi gratiam delentur atque abolentur: sed tamen non sunt penitus exstirpati, ac propterea non desinunt fideles ad varia peccata inclinare atque impellere.
Justified still stumble daily (James, Eccl, Prov, 1 John)§1148
1148Even the justified stumble daily from weakness (James 3; Ecclesiastes 7; Proverbs 20).
1 John 1: claiming sinlessness is self-deceit.
Latin · §1148
XX. Unde fit ut qui sunt per Christi gratiam justificati & sanctificati, nihilominus in varia peccata ex infirmitate quotidie incurrant, juxta illud Jacobi, In multis offendimus omnes, Jac. 3. Et Salomonis in Ecclesiastae, Non est homo justus in terra, qui faciat bonum, & non peccet. Eccl. 7. Item in Proverbiis, Quis potest dicere, Mundum est cor meum, purus sum a peccato? Prov. 20. Quo respiciens Joannes pronunciat, Quod si dixerimus nos peccatum non habere, ipsi nos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est. 1 Joan. 1.
Purged yet residual weakness; sin no longer reigns but leftovers remain§1149
1149Grace purges stain and breaks disease-force—out of death's danger—yet residual languor remains.
Sin no longer reigns; its strength wears down daily, but leftovers demand continual fight.
Latin · §1149
XXI. Illi ergo quos Deus per Christum in gratiam recepit a peccatorum quidem maculis purgati sunt, verum non ita ut nihil sordium in iis supersit. Anima quidem eorum Christo medente curata convalescit; vis morbi in iis fracta est, & sunt extra mortis periculum; sed tamen semper est aliquid ex languore & infirmitate priori residuum. Denique peccatum in iis regnum amplius non obtinet, & vires ejus quotidie magis ac magis atteruntur; sed tamen haerent adhuc quaedam illius reliquiae, quibuscum est ipsis assidue pugnandum.
Reformed mean: sin remains (not imputed) yet true cleansing and inherent justice§1150
1150When Reformed say sin remains (unimputed, covered), they do not mean the justified stay unrenewed wallowers.
God truly cleanses and gifts inherent justice; yet daily debts and innate concupiscence remain to fight.
Latin · §1150
XXII. Atque hoc est quod sibi volunt Theologi Reformati, dum quandoque contendunt peccatum per Christi gratiam, cujus in hac vita participes sumus, non tolli, nec extingui, sed in nobis manere; licet non imputetur, & per Christi meritum & justitiam coram Deo tegatur. Nec enim intelligunt peccatorem, quum justificatur, talem in se manere qualis antea erat, ac in iisdem sordibus volutari, & esse eodem modo peccatis obnoxium; sed solum per Christi mortem & satisfactionem justo quod meretur supplicio eximi. Agnoscunt, ut jam diximus, Deum illos quibus poenam peccatorum condonat a peccati quoque sordibus & maculis mundare, veraque justitia & sanctitate donare, ita ut peccato non amplius serviant, sed membra sua sistant arma justitiae Deo. Verum eorum mens est, peccatum non ita ex fidelibus tolli, quin aliquid peccati in iis reliquum sit, quatenus quotidie in multa peccata labuntur, quorum respectu dicere opus habent in precibus quotidianis, Dimitte nobis debita nostra. Ac praeterea, quoniam etiam in sanctissimis & perfectissimis quibusque manet prava illa concupiscentia, & vitium nobis innatum, quod continuum cum mente bellum gerit, eosque ad malum impellit, & in bene agendo impedit & retardat, motusque repugnantes rationi & legi divinae in iis subinde excitat.
Concupiscence is sin broadly (ψεικτόν); strict forensic sense distinguished (Davenant/Augustine)§1151
1151Reformed call remaining concupiscence sin in the broad moral sense—blameworthy ψεκτόν against creation's order.
Strictly (Augustine/Davenant) it is not always forensic guilt-obliging sin; the broad/strict distinction reconciles Augustine.
Latin · §1151
XXIII. Nam istam concupiscentiam peccatum merito appellari contendunt, quoniam est aliquid malum in genere morum, Deo displicens atque odiosum, quodque rationi & legi divinae adversatur, & ab ordine a Deo in ipsa creatione constituto recedit. Quippe peccatum in genere, istis est qualibet mala dispositio, vel actio creaturae rationalis sua natura repugnans alicui legi creatoris, quae aut indita, aut praescripta fuit eidem creaturae. Ideoque pravas dispositiones, & vitiosos habitus, seu innatos, sive acquisitos, in fidelibus ipsis post justificationem eorum residuos, peccati rationem & naturam habere docent, quatenus personam in qua reperiuntur afficiunt modo contrario illi qui fuit a Deo in prima creatione positus: & sunt aliquid ψεκτόν, id est, vituperabile & malum, non simpliciter Physicum, sed Morale; quod cum peccato, in tota sua latitudine sumpto, converti & reciprocum esse censent. Concedunt tamen concupiscentiam quae in ipsis regenitis haeret non esse peccatum strictissima hujus vocis significatione, juxta quam peccatum quandoque, & ab Augustino praesertim, significat Malum ex ordinatione divina puniendum, & quod personam in qua reperitur in judicio divino ream actu constituit, & ad poenam obligat: ut videre est apud Joannem Davenantium, de Justitia habituali, cap. 9. & 13. Ubi distinguit, ut jam expositum est, peccatum in latius & strictius sic dictum; atque utitur ista distinctione ut conciliet dicta quaedam Augustini, quae in speciem contraria videntur, nempe, in quibus modo negat, modo affirmat concupiscentiam, quae in renatis manet, esse peccatum.
Roman calumny: Reformed allegedly teach only covering, not real removal§1152
1152Rome (Becanus, Vasquez) charges that Reformed leave the justified inwardly unclean with only alien cover, even mortal works hidden.
Hold the orthodox explanation against that calumny.
Latin · §1152
XXIV. Atque haec sententiae orthodoxae explicatio probe tenenda & observanda est, propter Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, qui nostros exagitant, quasi docerent in justificatis non tolli peccata, sed tantum tegi & non imputari: adeoque hominem, etiam post justificationem, manere in se immundum, injustum & impium, & solum censeri pro justo, pio & mundo, propter alienam justitiam ipsi imputatam: ac proinde omnia justificatorum opera esse immunda, spurca & inquinata, imo peccata mortalia, tametsi non obsint illis, quia per Christi justitiam teguntur & occultantur, ut videre licet apud Becanum Jesuitam, in Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, tom. 2. tract. 4. cap. 2. cujus titulus est, de Justificatione ex sententia Calvinistarum: & apud Gabr. Vasquez tom. 2. in 1. 2. disputat. 202. cap. 4. ubi affirmat haereticos, quos vocat, dogmatizare quod in justificatis peccata non vere tollantur atque eradicentur, sed maneant, quamvis tecta & occultata.
We confess real purification into piety, justice, and holy works§1153
1153We freely confess God truly purges the justified from sin into piety, justice, and holiness.
The Spirit makes them deny ungodliness and bear repentance-worthy works.
Latin · §1153
XXV. Sed ista falso atque injuria nobis tribui patet ex iis quae diximus, siquidem ultro confitemur Deum illos quos justificat, atque in gratiam recipit, a peccatis purgare, & ex peccatoribus, immundis & impiis, pios, justos & sanctos reddere; & ita per Spiritum in illis operari, ut abnegata omni impietate, & mundanis cupiditatibus, bonis operibus studeant, & proferant fructus poenitentia dignos.
Yet something of sin remains; even Rome must grant this§1154
1154We still hold that in this life some sin remains in the justified, who always need mercy.
Even Roman doctors are forced to grant that explored truth.
Latin · §1154
XXVI. Quod autem nihilominus contendimus per Christi gratiam peccatum non sic tolli & aboleri, quin aliquid peccati, dum hanc vitam vivimus, in ipsis fidelibus & justificatis supersit: cujus ratione semper Dei misericordia & gratia egeant, prout supra fuit a nobis expositum; res ita certa & explorata est, ut ipsi Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae cogantur ei dare manus, & veritati illius subscribere.
Rome grants daily venials coexist with justifying grace (Bellarmine)§1155
1155Rome admits no one ordinarily lives sinless; daily lighter sins coexist with justifying grace.
Bellarmine vs Pelagians: grace is cast off by graver flesh-works, not by those venials.
Latin · §1155
XXVII. Primo enim ultro confitentur neminem in hac vita, saltem juxta legem ordinariam, absque omni peccato vivere; sed illos ipsos qui justificati sunt & justificantem gratiam conservant, obnoxios manere multis quotidianis, & levioribus peccatis; quae cum gratia justificante simul consistere possunt: nec illam statim excutiunt, quemadmodum excuti putant peccatis gravioribus, & atrocioribus, quae Apostolus carnis opera vocat. Quod ex professo probat & tuetur Bellarminus contra Pelagianos, lib. 1. de Amissione gratiae & statu peccati, cap. 5. & 6.
Rome: remitted sins' stain wiped, yet vicious habits remain to be deleted§1156
1156Rome says remission wipes the whole leftover stain, yet admits vicious habits remain after remitted acts.
Those habits are slowly deleted by grace—and that is part of sanctification progress (Bellarmine).
Latin · §1156
XXVIII. Deinde quamvis dicant Scholae Romanae Theologi in eo qui justificatur peccata tolli & aboleri prorsus, & quum peccata a Deo remittuntur relictam ex iis maculam totam elui: attamen non negant habitus vitiosos per actualia peccata contractos, etiam post illa remissa remanere, vique & auxilio gratiae divinae paulatim delendos & abolendos esse, eaque in re ex parte consistere fidelium in virtute & sanctificatione progressum, ut videre est apud Bellarminum de Amissione gratiae & statu peccati, lib. 1. cap. 13.
After original sin remitted, material fomes/concupiscence remains§1157
1157Even after original sin's remission, Rome keeps the 'material'—proneness to evil, difficulty in good, nature's disorder.
That is scholastic concupiscence or fomes: lower powers rebel; the whole man tilts to evil.
Latin · §1157
XXIX. Praesertim vero remisso per gratiam justificantem peccato originali, agnoscunt nihilominus in justificatis manere id quod in hoc peccato materiale vocant, nempe, pronitatem ad malum, & difficultatem in bono, & quandam, ut loquuntur, deordinationem & perversitatem naturae contra ordinem in prima creatione positum. Qua deordinatione fit ut inferiores animae facultates pronae sint ad resistendum & rebellandum rationi, atque legi divinae, totusque homo sit ad malum proclivis, & magnam in bene agendo difficultatem sentiat. Et ista ad malum pronitas & naturae depravatio, est id quod vulgo in Scholis concupiscentia & fomes appellatur.
Remaining concupiscence is morally blameworthy and to be crucified§1158
1158Rome grants remaining concupiscence opposes the law and is moral vice to bridle, destroy, and crucify.
Progress in that fight marks greater perfection and sanctity.
Latin · §1158
XXX. Porro hanc concupiscentiam, qualis in ipsis renatis remanet, non negant legi divinae repugnare, quatenus incitat ad ea quae lege prohibentur, & retrahit ab iis quae lex divina jubet. Itaque fatentur illam esse aliquid illaudabile & vituperabile, adeoque defectum, vitium, & malum morale, cui obstinendum sit quodque frenandum atque cohibendum, imo destruendum & crucifigendum est. Qua in re fidelibus sedulo laborandum & connitendum censent, quoque plus in hoc opere processerint, eo majorem fore ipsorum perfectionem atque sanctimoniam.
God hates concupiscence without hating the regenerate person (Bellarmine duplex odium)§1159
1159Rome: God hates remaining concupiscence as a displeasing thing, yet not with person-damning hatred (Trent 'hates nothing in the regenerate').
Bellarmine: God consumes it gradually so the regenerate are healed—not damned for it.
Latin · §1159
XXXI. Quin concedunt concupiscentiam, etiam qualis est in justificatis, esse rem quam Deus damnat atque odit. Ut autem istud concilient cum eo quod definit Tridentina Synodus, nempe in renatis Deum nihil odisse, distinguunt duplex in Deo odium; unum quod in personam redundat, alterum quod non redundat in personam. Priori modo dicunt Deum non odisse concupiscentiam quae reliqua est in renatis; quia non reddit personam in qua est Deo odiosam. Sed posteriori modo fatentur Deum odio habere concupiscentiam, quia res est Deo displicens, quamque Deus ex renatis sublatam vult, & auferendam curat, licet illa non obstet quominus persona fidelis Deo grata sit atque accepta. Non enim, inquit Bellarminus, apud quem est illa distinctio, Deus propter concupiscentiam, quae est in renatis, vult renatos damnare: sed potius vult concupiscentiam paulatim consumere, ut renati perfecte sanentur & liberentur. De Amissione gratiae, lib. 5. cap. 13. sub finem.
Rome allows improper 'sin' for concupiscence; little distance from Protestants§1160
1160Rome denies proper 'sin' for regenerate concupiscence yet allows broader/improper sin-language (from sin, to sin, disordered lower powers).
That reading covers Paul's Romans usage (Bellarmine)—so Rome stands little off from Protestants while still railing bitterly.
Latin · §1160
XXXII. Denique quamvis negent concupiscentiam, quae est in regenitis, peccatum vocari debere, secundum veram & propriam hujus vocis acceptionem, agnoscunt tamen illam dici posse iniquitatem & peccatum largiori, & improprio quodam sensu: quatenus scilicet, ex peccato orta est, & ad peccatum ducit: imo in seipsa habet quandam inordinationem, quatenus, scilicet, per eam facultates inferiores quae, secundum ordinem a Deo primitus institutum, parere debent superioribus, illis inobedientes & refractariae redduntur. Adeoque in hunc sensum interpretantur plura Apostoli loca in epist. ad Rom. ubi concupiscentiam peccati nomine designat; ut videre est apud eundem Bellarminum, lib. 5. de Amissione gratiae, & statu peccati, cap. 13. Ex quibus omnibus prudenti cuivis colligendum relinquo, quam parum absint ipsi Scholae Romanae Doctores a Protestantium in hoc Articulo doctrina, in quam tamen tam odiose declamant, & tam acerbe invehuntur.
Roman calumny: Protestants make absolute certainty of pardon the essence of justifying faith§1161
1161Romans often charge that Protestants make a firm persuasion of personal pardon the essence of saving faith.
They claim this certainty must match assent to Christ’s deity, that without it no one is truly faithful, and that it alone justifies even the vicious.
Latin · §1161
I. Inter varias calumnias quibus Protestantium Doctrina in Justificationis negotio impetitur, hae quoque frequenter occurrunt, Quod communi consensu doceant, Omnes & singulos homines posse & debere certa fide credere sibi fuisse remissa peccata, & se coram Deo justos esse. Id illis tam firmiter persuasum esse debere, quam hoc Jesum Christum esse Dei Filium & mundi Redemptorem, & similia fidei dogmata. Talem persuasionem ita necessariam esse, ut absque ea nemo vere fidelis & justus esse possit; non secus ac si credere detractaret aliquem ex praecipuis & fundamentalibus fidei articulis. In ejusmodi persuasione fidem veram & salvificam constituendam esse, tanquam in ejus actu proprio atque praecipuo. Adeoque homines tali fide, & quidem sola, coram Deo justificari, licet alioqui vitiis indulgeant, nec studeant bonis operibus.
Bellarmine and Becanus especially fasten these charges; this disputation answers by Reformed sense§1162
1162Bellarmine and Becanus especially pin these charges on the Reformed.
This disputation answers them by the same clear exposition already used on justification.
Latin · §1162
II. Istud praesertim videre est apud Bellarminum & Becanum Jesuitas, qui talia vel supponunt, vel etiam diserte & expresse nobis affingunt, in suis contra nos Disputationibus. Cum ergo Thesibus nostris praecedentibus de Justificatione, & quaestionibus annexis, multas jam ejusmodi calumnias discussimus nuda & perspicua veritatis expositione; juxta Doctorum Reformatorum sensum, his quoque consimili modo occurrere visum est praesenti Disputatione.
No one may rightly claim justification without heartfelt renunciation of worldly vices§1163
1163Reformed doctrine first denies lawful assurance to anyone still clinging to unrepented vice.
Claims of pardon without serious repentance are Satanic security, not gospel mercy.
Latin · §1163
III. Primum ergo apud nos certum atque constitutum est neminem legitime & vere statuere posse, se a peccatis suis coram Deo justificatum, seque Deo gratum esse & acceptum ad vitam aeternam, nisi qui ex corde vitiis & cupiditatibus mundanis renuntiaverit, ut juxta quam nos docet gratia Evangelica, sobrie, pie & juste in praesenti saeculo vivat. Ac proinde quicunque in peccatis suis haerent, & indulgent carnis affectibus, quantumlibet fidem Christi profitentur, & assensum aliquem Evangelicae Veritati praebeant, si quacunque ratione in animum suum inducant se apud Deum esse misericordiam consecutos, Deumque sibi in Christo placatum & propitium esse, proculdubio mera est haec fallacia Satanae, & securitas carnalis atque perniciosissima: Nec enim remissio peccatorum promittitur, ac misericordia & gratia divina offertur, nisi illis qui serio resipiscunt, & peccata sua non modo confitentur, sed etiam deserunt. Juxta illud Salomonis, Qui abscondit scelera sua non prosperabitur; qui autem confessus fuerit, & reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur.
Those who repent and obey in true faith may be secure of God’s mercy and of remitted sins§1164
1164Serious penitents who trust Christ and obey him may be secure of mercy and remitted sins.
The holiness they pursue is accepted by God unto eternal life.
Latin · §1164
IV. Sed quod attinet ad eos qui seria peccati poenitentia ducti ad Dei clementiam in Christo confugiunt, & Christi praeceptis ex vera fide, & animo syncero obtemperare student, existimamus eos securos esse posse de Dei erga se misericordia, & certo confidere sibi esse remissa peccata: adeoque sanctitatem & justitiam illam quam sectantur, & cui assiduam operam navant, ad vitam aeternam Deo acceptam esse.
David’s Psalms show saintly confidence of righteousness and eternal life before God§1165
1165David’s Psalms display confident assurance of righteousness and eternal life before God.
Psalm 17 and 103 especially voice forgiveness, healing, and redemption as present mercies.
Latin · §1165
V. Id patet variis exemplis sanctorum tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti. Nam David de sua in Dei conspectu justitia confidit, & certam vitae aeternae fiduciam prae se fert, dum sic ait Psal. 17. Ego autem in justitia apparebo conspectui tuo, satiabor quum apparuerit Gloria tua. Sive, ut habet veritas Hebraica, Ego in justitia videbo faciem tuam, & similitudine tua satiabor quum evigilavero. Quibus consentanea sunt quae leguntur Psalmo sequenti: Retribuet mihi Dominus secundum justitiam meam, & secundum puritatem manuum mearum retribuet mihi. Quia custodivi vias Domini, nec impie gessi a Deo meo. Quoniam omnia judicia ejus in conspectu meo, & justitias ejus, ejus non repuli a me. Et ero, sive fui, immaculatus cum eo, & observabo me ab iniquitate mea. Et eandem quoque fiduciam ostendit, dum animae suae ita gratulatur, Psal. 103. Benedic anima mea Domino, & noli oblivisci omnes retributiones ejus. Qui propitiatur omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, qui sanat omnes infirmitates tuas. Qui redimit de interitu vitam tuam: Qui coronat te in misericordia & miserationibus. Qui replet in bonis desiderium tuum: renovabitur ut aquila juventus tua.
Hezekiah near death dares to plead his piety and integrity before God§1166
1166Hezekiah, near death, still confides in grace and dares to recall his sincere walk before God.
Latin · §1166
VI. Neque minus de Dei gratia confidebat, seque vera in Dei oculis justitia praeditum credebat pius Rex Ezechias, quum aeger ac morti proximus, suam inter precandum audet commemorare pietatem & integritatem, apud Esaiam, cap. 38. Obsecro, inquit, Domine, memento quaeso quomodo ambulaverim coram te in veritate, & in corde perfecto; & quod bonum est in oculis tuis fecerim.
Paul often speaks as wholly secure of God’s kindness and of Christ living in him§1167
1167Paul often speaks as secure of God’s mercy and of Christ living in him.
Galatians 2 and the Pastorals voice obtained mercy and a laid-up crown of righteousness.
Latin · §1167
VII. Quam saepe vero Paulus loquitur tanquam omnino securus de Dei erga ipsum benignitate & misericordia, & ut sentiens atque percipiens Christum per gratiam suam in ipso viventem atque habitantem. Vivo autem, inquit, jam non ego; vivit vero in me Christus. Quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo filii Dei, qui dilexit me, & tradidit semetipsum pro me. Gal. 2. Quibus consona sunt quae scribit 1 Tim. 1. Gratias ago ei qui me confortavit in Christo Jesu Domino nostro, quia fidelem me existimavit, ponens in ministerio, qui primum blasphemus fui, & persecutor, & contumeliosus. Sed misericordiam Dei consecutus sum, quia ignorans feci in incredulitate. Superabundavit autem gratia Domini nostri cum fide & dilectione quae est in Christo Jesu. Unde est quod 2 Tim. 4. sic in Domino gloriatur, Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi. In reliquo reposita est mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet mihi Dominus in illo die justus judex.
Scripture shows ordinary believers, not only especial saints, may be certain they are in grace§1168
1168Assurance is not a rare privilege of a few saints; Scripture gives it to all living believers.
Romans 8’s witness of the Spirit, self-examination in 2 Corinthians 13, and 1 John 5’s knowing eternal life show ordinary certainty is possible.
Latin · §1168
VIII. Neque vero putandum est id in sanctis illis viris fuisse peculiare, caeteros vero fideles, qui nullo singulari privilegio gaudent, non posse similiter apud se certo statuere an sint in Dei gratia, & beneficiorum nobis per Christum partorum revera participes. Nam multis modis ex Scriptura colligitur omnes qui Christo per veram vivamque fidem insiti sunt, absque ulla temeritate, certo ea de re posse concipere fiduciam & persuasionem. Primo enim Apostolus Rom. 8. docet fideles omnes accipere spiritum adoptionis, per quem Deum ut patrem agnoscunt & invocant, & spiritum Dei spiritui eorum testimonium perhibere quod sunt filii Dei, & Christi cohaeredes. Non enim accepistis, inquit, spiritum servitutis iterum in timore; sed Spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus Abba Pater. Ipse enim spiritus testimonium reddit spiritui nostro quod sumus filii Dei. Si autem filii, & haeredes; haeredes quidem Dei, cohaeredes autem Christi. Annon autem jure merito certi esse possumus de eo quod spiritus Dei nobis testatur suis in nobis motibus & effectis? Deinde Apostolus 2 Cor. 13. jubet Corinthios seipsos probare, an sint in fide; & explorare an Christus sit in ipsis. Quod frustra praeciperetur, nisi fidelis posset de seipso certo judicare. Denique Apostolus 1 Joan. 5. Haec scribo vobis, inquit, ut sciatis vos vitam aeternam habere, qui creditis in nomen Filii Dei. Unde manifestum est fideles posse certo scire se vitam aeternam habere, sibi esse remissa peccata, & nos per gratiam ejus renovatos in justitiam & sanctitatem veram, quae Deo grata atque accepta sit.
The Spirit’s peace and joy in believers imply persuasion of divine favor§1169
1169Spirit-wrought peace and joy cannot sit with doubt that one is accepted by God.
Believers who taste that joy may rightly conclude they stand in grace.
Latin · §1169
IX. Praeterea spiritus Christi in fidelium animis generat coelestem quandam pacem, & gaudium innarrabile. Nam ut docet Apostolus, Gal. 5. Fructus spiritus est charitas, gaudium, pax. Et Rom. 14. Regnum Dei est justitia & pax & gaudium in Spiritu Sancto. Quod gaudium & quam pacem experiri non potest, qui dubitat an sit Deo acceptus, & in ejus filiorum numero. Unde colligitur fideles qui tali gaudio & pace fruuntur, certo sibi persuadere posse se esse in Dei gratia. Neque enim quicquam delectare & exhilarare potest animum, nisi ex intimo & vivido sensu divini erga se amoris & favoris, & certa fiducia beatitudinis & gloriae aeternae.
Certainty of the indwelling Spirit entails certainty of justification§1170
1170If one knows the Spirit dwells within, one cannot doubt true justifying faith.
Paul and John treat the gift of the Spirit as a known mark of abiding in Christ.
Latin · §1170
X. Deinde quicunque certus est se habere spiritum Dei inhabitantem, dubitare non potest quin sit per veram fidem justificatus, & Deo acceptus. Nec enim spiritus ille datur aliis quam vere credentibus. Sed fideles possunt certo scire se Spiritum Sanctum habere. Nam Apostolus 1 Cor. 2. dicit se & alios fideles Spiritum qui ex Deo est accepisse, ut sciant quae a Deo donata sunt ipsis. Et 1 Joan. 3. In hoc, inquit, scimus quoniam in ipso manemus, & ipse in nobis, quoniam de Spiritu suo dedit nobis. Quod argumentum? Et quomodo ex eo quod spiritum Dei habemus colligere possumus quod in nobis maneat Christus, & nos in ipso.
Paul’s command to prove whether Christ is in us implies discernible marks of living faith§1171
1171Self-examination would be pointless if living faith had no certain marks.
Christ’s indwelling yields a sense of himself clear enough for believers to read.
Latin · §1171
XI. Similiter, nisi ex signis certis & indubitatis dignoscere possemus, an Christus per fidem veram & vivam in nobis habitet, frustra jubet Paulus ut nos ipsos probaremus & excuteremus, An Christus sit in nobis, & an simus in fide. 2 Cor. 13. Unde colligitur fideles ex signis evidentibus dignoscere posse, an sint fide in Christum praediti; Christumque fidelibus inhabitantem sui sensum non obscurum illis praebere.
Constant thanksgiving for remitted sins is absurd without certainty of the gift§1172
1172Believers must thank God for remission and rescue in Christ.
Thanksgiving without certainty of the gift is mockery, not gratitude.
Latin · §1172
XII. Praeterea perpetuum fidelium officium est Deo gratias agere, propter beneficia ipsis in Christo collata, remissionem, scilicet, peccatorum in Christi sanguine, & vindicationem a servitute peccati & potestate tenebrarum. Col. 1. Gratias agentes Deo & Patri, qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis sanctorum in lumine: qui eripuit nos de potestate tenebrarum, & transtulit in regnum Filii dilectionis suae, in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum. Et Ephes. 1. In quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum, secundum divitias gratiae ejus. Quae gratiarum actio frustranea esset & ridicula, si de acceptis beneficiis certi non essemus. Nam qui gratias agit de eo quod incertus est an ipsi donatum sit necne, illudere potius videtur quam gratum animum testari.
Those in grace not only may but ought to be certain; doubt marks weak faith§1173
1173Those in grace ought to be certain of it, not merely able to be.
Wavering about grace signals weak faith, a fault to be amended.
Latin · §1173
XIII. Inde quoque manifestum est fideles qui sunt in Dei gratia, de eo non tantum posse, verum etiam debere certos esse. Et si de eo certi non sint, ac super ea re fluctuent & dubitent, istud in iis arguere defectum & infirmitatem fidei. Nam quum fides vera & viva hujusmodi certitudinem gignat, & ad eam naturali quodam modo tendat, inde consequens est talem certitudinem iis inesse debere, & vitio ipsis ac culpae vertendum si ea destituti illa reperiantur.
Spiritual joy in Christ is both Spirit’s fruit and believers’ commanded duty§1174
1174Joy in Christ requires certainty of grace and is both Spirit-fruit and commanded duty.
Philippians 4 and Romans 12 make rejoicing a standing office of the faithful.
Latin · §1174
XIV. Et certe gaudium illud spirituale quo fideles in Christo laetantur, quodque non potest esse sine certitudine de propria gratia, & ex ea sponte nascitur, non tantum est fructus quidam Spiritus Sancti optabilis, sed etiam fidelium officium. Gaudete, inquit Apostolus, in Domino semper; iterum dico, gaudete. Phil. 4. Et fidelium varia officia describens Rom. 12. inter alia ponit illud, Spe gaudentes.
Perfect love casts out fear; doubt of justification cannot coexist with perfect charity§1175
1175Perfect love drives out punitive fear; lingering doubt of grace cannot coexist with it.
John’s teaching makes uncertainty about one’s justification a defect charity excludes.
Latin · §1175
XV. Praeterea, non potest non esse defectus vituperabilis id quod perfecta charitas expellit, quodque cum ea consistere non potest. Sed cum incertitudine de justificatione & gratia propria perfecta charitas non potest consistere. Nam, ut docet Joannes, Perfecta charitas foras mittit timorem; quoniam timor poenam habet: qui autem timet non est perfectus in charitate. 1 Joan. 4. Adeoque qui de Dei erga se amore & favore dubitat, necessario timet; nec potest non timere, timore illo qui poenam secum habet. Adeoque perfecta charitas compati non potest secum ejusmodi dubitationem.
Bold access to the throne of grace is incompatible with uncertainty whether God is appeased§1176
1176Scripture bids bold access to grace’s throne.
Uncertainty whether God is for or against us yields only anxious fear, not confidence.
Latin · §1176
XVI. His adde, quod jubemur adire cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae, Hebr. 4. quodque dicimur in Christo habere fiduciam sive audaciam, & accessum in confidentia per fidem ejus, Ephes. 3. Sed qua cum audacia, qua cum fiducia accedemus ad thronum gratiae, si incertum sit an Deus nobis sit placatus, an infensus? quidve potest aliud in animo gignere talis incertitudo, quam timorem anxium, & meram trepidationem.
Doubt of grace marks weak faith, yet does not cast one out of the number of true believers§1177
1177Some doubt of one’s grace is a fault of weak faith, not proof of unbelief.
Certainty scales with the strength of faith.
Latin · §1177
XVII. Porro quamvis fideles de propria gratia & remissione peccatorum suorum, sine aliqua culpa dubitare non possint, attamen de vere fidelium numero excludendi non sunt quicunque ea de re non sunt omnino certi. Istud enim argumentum est fidei infirmae atque languidae, non vero fidei nullius. Nam prout fides est major vel minor, firmior vel infirmior: ita quoque certiorem vel minus firmam, eo etiam nos reddit de Dei gratia magis, vel minus certos, nosque de ea magis, vel minus dubitare sinit.
Many true believers lack full certainty before death because they look too much at their unworthiness§1178
1178Sincere believers may lack full certainty even until death.
The cause is fixation on personal unworthiness, not distrust of God’s promises.
Latin · §1178
XVIII. Itaque non pauci sunt syncera fide in Christum praediti, & per consequens vere Deo reconciliati, qui tamen de accepta gratia certi non sunt, & quidam ante mortis articulum certitudinem illam non assequuntur. Quod non fit quia circa veritatem promissionum divinarum haesitent, sed quia nimium spectant propriam indignitatem atque infirmitatem.
Prophets themselves were tossed with doubts about God’s favor, as the Psalms show§1179
1179The Psalms record prophets tossed by doubts about God’s abiding mercy.
Psalms 77 and 88 voice fear that God has cast off and shut up his compassions.
Latin · §1179
XIX. Patet id exemplis Prophetarum ipsorum quae leguntur in sacra Scriptura. Qualem enim animi aestum experiebatur in se sanctus Propheta, & quibus jactabatur dubitationibus, circa Dei gratiam, favorem atque auxilium, dum sic queritur Psal. 77. Num in aeternum projiciet Deus? & non apponet ut complacitior sit adhuc? Aut in finem misericordiam suam abscindet, a generatione in generationem? Aut obliviscetur misereri Deus? Aut continebit in ira sua misericordias suas? Et Psal. 88. Domine Deus salutis meae, in die clamavi, & nocte coram te. ... Quare Domine repellis orationem meam: avertis faciem tuam a me? ... Transierunt irae tuae: & terrores tui conturbaverunt me. Circundederunt me sicut aqua: tota die circundederunt me simul.
Such prophetic doubt is infirmity to fight, not virtue to imitate; make calling sure by good works§1180
1180Prophetic doubt is weakness to resist, not humility to cultivate.
Fight it by Word, prayer, and holiness, making calling sure by good works.
Latin · §1180
XX. Verum in sanctis illis viris id fuit magnum humanae infirmitatis argumentum, non autem opus virtutis imitandum. Itaque si qua talis fidelium animis occurrat dubitatio, minime fovenda est, sub humilitatis praetextu; sed omnibus modis impugnanda & expellenda, per assiduam verbi Dei meditationem, per seria & ferventia vota, & per sanctitatis studium. Juxta quod monet Petrus Apostolus, dum vult nos satagere ut per bona opera nostram vocationem & electionem certam faciamus. 2 Pet. 1.
Absolute trust that pardon is already obtained is not the essential formal act of justifying faith§1181
1181Weak true faith can temporarily lack absolute assurance of already-obtained pardon.
Therefore that assurance is not faith’s essential formal act.
Latin · §1181
XXI. Porro cum fides vera, licet infirma, saltem ad tempus consistere possit absque fiducia certa & absoluta de obtenta a Deo remissione peccatorum, & nostra per Christi gratiam reconciliatione, inde patet fiduciam istam non esse essentialem & formalem actum fidei salvificae atque justificantis. Nec enim fides justificans unquam consistere potest sine actu suo proprio & formali.
Assurance of already-received pardon presupposes prior faith and arises from sensing that faith§1182
1182Assurance that pardon is already mine reasons from sensed living faith; it follows faith.
Faith’s formal act constitutes faith; it does not arise from reflecting on faith already there.
Latin · §1182
XXII. Adde quod fiducia illa de jam impetrata per Christum reconciliatione, & condonatione peccatorum suorum, praesupponit veram fidem in corde praeexistentem. Nec enim quisquam istud legitime sibi persuadere potest, nisi propriam fidem sentiens atque percipiens, sic apud se ratiocinetur; Quicunque credit in Christum vera fide vivaque, remissa sunt ipsi peccata, & juxta Evangelium justus est apud Deum. Atqui talem fidem sentio atque experior. Ergo mihi sunt remissa peccata, & apud Deum justus propter Christum habeor. Unde manifestum est fiduciam qua ista conclusione exprimitur, esse aliquid fidem sequens ac praesupponens, quodque nascitur ex propriae fidei sensu & consideratione. Sed fidei actus proprius & formalis non praesupponit fidem, sed illam constituit; nec est quiddam oriens ex fidei jam existentis sensu, sed in quo ipsa fidei essentia consistat.
Assurance of already being justified is posterior to justification; justifying faith’s act is prior§1183
1183Persuasion that one is already justified comes after justification itself.
Justifying faith’s proper act is naturally prior, as faith is justification’s instrument.
Latin · §1183
XXIII. Praeterea modo descripta fiducia est aliquid posterius justificatione, & quod justificationem jam factam consequitur. Prius enim necesse est aliquem justificatum esse, quam ut vere sibi persuadere queat se jam esse justificatum. Sed fidei justificantis actus proprius atque specificus est aliquid, natura saltem, justificatione prius. Quandoquidem juxta Scripturae doctrinam, & Theologorum communem sententiam, fides est nostrae justificationis conditio, sive instrumentum.
Two fiduciae: refuge-adherence (essence of living faith) versus sense-assurance (fruit, not always felt)§1184
1184Learned Reformed distinguish refuge-trust (faith’s essence and instrument) from sense-assurance (a fruit not always felt).
Salvation does not necessarily hang on the felt persuasion of already-obtained pardon.
Latin · §1184
XXIV. Plurimi quidem Theologi docent fiduciam in Deum per Christum esse ipsum formalem & specificum actum fidei vivae & justificantis. Verum observant Viri docti duplicem esse fiduciam. Unam quam vocant perfugii, atque adhaerentiae, qua fidelis Deo adhaeret, & in Christo salutem & justitiam quaerit, quae fiducia in Scriptura voce בטח & חסה exprimi solet. Alteram quam dicunt fiduciam sensus; qua quis de justitia & salute jam impetrata confidit, & ad Deum accedit absque timore atque formidine. Quae fiducia Hebraica voce מבטח significatur, & in Novo Testamento παρρησία & πεποίθησις dicitur. Prior illa pertinet ad essentiam fidei vivae & justificantis, & justificationis nostrae instrumentum est; seu conditio sine qua nemo justificatur. Altera vero est fidei fructus, sive effectus, quem perpetuo non exercent; quique non semper apparet & sentitur in fidelibus & justificatis, & unde non pendet necessario salus & justificatio. Petrus Molinaeus, Petri Molinaei filius, Tract. Gallico de Fide Justificante.
Two doubts answer the two trusts: deadly doubt of the promise versus non-mortal doubt of one’s own faith§1185
1185Doubt of the promise’s truth kills faith; doubt of one’s own interest, born of sensed weakness, can coexist with true though languid faith.
James 1’s warning targets the first doubt, not the second.
Latin · §1185
XXV. Atque ut res magis illustretur, ab iisdem Viris Doctis recte observatum est, duplici isti fiduciae, duplicem opponi dubitationem, & haesitationem. Unam qua quis dubitat circa Dei promissiones, an scilicet, verae sint, necne; & an debeat quaerere in Deo perfugium, & salutem in Christo. Alteram vero qua quis de veritate divinae promissionis minime dubitans, & certus ad Deum confugere, ac salutem in Christo quaerere, de propria tamen salute & peccatorum suorum remissione dubitat, ex propriae suae infirmitatis sensu; & quia concussus tentationibus, non videtur fidem satis firmam in se agnoscere, ut nec fructus satis poenitentia dignos. Prior illa dubitatio perniciosa & mortifera est, & cum fidei natura & veritate simpliciter pugnat. Posterior non item. Etenim quamvis fides perfecta illam expellat, ex quodam fidei defectu, & quasi morbo nascatur; cum fide tamen vera, licet infirma atque languida, consistere potest. Et dum fidei morbum quendam arguit, simul tamen est fidei adhuc vivae, necdum mortuae, argumentum. Quod dicit Jacobus, Epist. cap. 1. Eum qui dubitat a Domino expectare debere, de priori dubitatione intelligendum est, non de posteriori.
Certainty of one’s justification is not the same kind as certainty of revealed articles of faith§1186
1186Dogmatic certainty about revealed articles is necessary to remaining a believer.
Personal certainty that I am justified is not the same genus and is not itself a dogma of faith.
Latin · §1186
XXVI. Inde vero manifestum est certitudinem quam quis habet de sua coram Deo justificatione, non esse plane ejusdem generis & rationis, cum certitudine illa quam habemus de Fidei articulis, & dogmatibus quae Deus in Verbo suo revelavit. Haec enim in fideli omnino necessaria est. Nec quisquam potest fidelis permanere, & pro tali merito haberi; & tamen dubitare de fidei articulis, exempli causa, An Jesus sit Christus, & Dei filius; &, An mortui sint olim resurrecturi. Cum tamen, ut jam dictum, omnis qui dubitat an sit justificatus, & acceptus Deo ad vitam aeternam, non statim propterea judicandus sit carere vera fide, nec esse in Dei gratia, ut nec ullo modo potest pro dogmate fidei haberi, quod hic, vel ille sit justificatus, & gratiae divinae particeps.
Why Reformed call assurance ‘certainty of faith’: it rests partly on a revealed premise, partly on experience§1187
1187Reformed call assurance ‘certainty of faith’ because one premise is revealed and the other is experiential self-knowledge of living faith.
Not everything referred to faith’s assent shares the same necessity as truths resting wholly on divine testimony.
Latin · §1187
XXVII. Solenne quidem est Scholae Reformatae Theologis certitudinem fidei vocare, illam qua quis confidit, se esse Deo reconciliatum, & sibi per Christi sanguinem peccata fuisse remissa: sed id ab illis ideo fit quod certitudo illa nitatur altera propositione in verbo Dei revelata, hac scilicet, Quicunque credit in Christum remissionem habet peccatorum in sanguine ejus. Altera vero quae fideli nota est interno sensu & experientia, nempe quod ipse vere credit in Christum, & fiduciam suam in morte illius collocat. Fidelis enim, dum seipsum excutit, & animi sui motus occultos examinat, proculdubio sentire & percipere potest se non ficte in Christum credere, seque Deum serio amare, & illius timore duci; quae vivae fidei sunt signa & τεκμήρια. Hoc autem sufficere putant ut aliquid ad fidei assensum referatur; nimirum, si deducatur ex una propositione quam Deus in Verbo suo revelarit, & ex altera quae experientia, aut alia quadam ratione certa sit. Nec tamen propterea censent quicquid ad fidei assensum refertur, esse ejusdem omnino rationis & necessitatis. Nam ad fidem aliqua ratione pertinet quicquid testimonio divino ullo modo nititur. Sed sunt quaedam quae testimonio divino nituntur in solidum: alia vero quae ex parte quidem divino testimonio; ex parte vero humano sensu, testimonio, vel ratiocinio. Quae autem sunt prioris generis proculdubio majus aliquid habent, quam quae sunt posterioris.
In saving faith distinguish the direct act (embracing Christ) from the reflex act (recognizing one’s faith)§1188
1188Assurance is not justifying faith’s formal act, yet may be called a reflex secondary act of that faith.
The direct act embraces Christ; the reflex act reads one’s own faith and its fruits.
Latin · §1188
XXVIII. Imo quamvis, ut jam probatum est, certa illa persuasio, quam fidelis habere potest de remissione peccatorum suorum, & sua cum Deo per Christum reconciliatione, non sit formalis actus fidei justificantis, aliqua tamen ratione pro fidei illius actu haberi potest. Quod ut intelligatur, in fide salutari atque justificante duplex actus distinguendus est. Unus directus, atque primarius. Alter reflexus & secundarius. Directus est ille quo fidelis Christum, ut Redemptorem & Servatorem nostrum, agnoscit atque amplectitur, & in eo salutem & justitiam quaerit. Reflexus vero ille est quo fidelis in propriam fidem reflectitur, eamque recognoscit; illiusque effecta, timorem, videlicet, & dilectionem Dei, & charitatem erga proximum, in corde suo sentit & experitur. Unde colligit se Christo vere insertum esse, ejusque gratiae & beneficiorum revera participem.
The persuasion treated here is reflex, secondary, for faith’s perfection—not justification’s instrument§1189
1189Assurance is a reflex secondary act for faith’s perfection, not its essence.
It follows justification already made and cannot be justification’s instrumental condition.
Latin · §1189
XXIX. Itaque illa de qua agimus persuasio, fidei quidem actus est, sed reflexus, non directus; non primarius, sed secundarius. Nec ad fidei essentiam, sed ad perfectionem ejus solum pertinet. Prior ille est quo justificamur, cuique promittitur salus, & peccatorum remissio. Alter vero non item. Hic enim posterior, ut jam diximus, praesupponit fidem, tanquam in nobis ante existentem, & justificationem, ut jam factam sequitur: ac proinde in eo ipso fidei natura & essentia consistere nequit, sed quidam ejus est fructus & complementum. Nec potest esse justificationis conditio, sive causa instrumentalis; sed solum quidam ejus sensus & apprehensio.
As faith grows or weakens, so the sense of God’s favor and our standing in grace strengthens or fades§1190
1190Assurance tracks faith’s vigor: as faith grows, confidence of divine favor strengthens; as faith flags, assurance softens.
Latin · §1190
XXX. Caeterum, prout fides, vel major, vel minor est; vividior sive languidior: ita quoque sui sensum majorem, vel minorem, acriorem, vel remissiorem animis nostris ingignit. Unde est quod crescente & augescente fide, fiducia illa de Dei erga nos amore & favore, & nostra apud Deum gratia atque justitia, eadem proportione roboratur atque invalescit; & ex adverso minuitur, atque debilitatur, qua ratione fides decrescit atque remittitur.
Roman doctors preface object- vs subject-certainty; the question concerns the latter§1191
1191Roman doctors begin with Bellarmine’s distinction between certainty of the object and of the believing subject.
Object-certainty is the thing’s immutability; subject-certainty is firm assent without doubt—and that latter sense is the one at issue here.
Latin · §1191
I. Ut suam hac de re sententiam exponunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, multas certitudinis distinctiones praemittunt; ut videre est apud Bellarminum de Justificatione, lib. 3. cap. 2. Primo enim ipsis una est certitudo objecti, id est, rei cognitae, vel creditae; altera vero subjecti, id est, hominis cognoscentis, vel credentis. Prior certitudo est immutabilitas rei, quae revera aliter se habere non potest, quam creditur, vel cognoscitur. Qua ratione dicimus certum esse Deum esse bonum, peccatum esse malum. Posterior certitudo est firmitas quaedam assensus nostri ad rem quae credenda, vel cognoscenda proponitur. De qua certitudine loquimur, quum dicimus hac de re certus sum, hoc mihi compertum est; id est, ita firmiter adhaereo huic sententiae, ut prorsus de illius veritate non dubitem. Ad praesentem autem quaestionem pertinet certitudo non prioris, sed posterioris generis.
Assent may be firm yet groundless; true certainty needs a legitimate foundation in the thing§1192
1192Firm assent without a real foundation is persuasion, not true certainty.
This controversy concerns only certainty that is both firm and legitimately grounded in the thing.
Latin · §1192
II. Porro ista assensus firmitas quandoque nullum habet in re ipsa fundamentum; sed oritur solum ab assentientis errore, affectu, vel pertinacia, & tum non est veri nominis certitudo. Qui enim certo credunt quae falsa sunt, non tam certi, quam persuasi dici debent. Alias vero firmus ejusmodi assensus clara perceptione, aut solida ratione, vel legitimo aliquo testimonio nititur. Et tum demum vera est, & proprie dicta certitudo: quae locum non habet, nisi ubi persuasio, non modo firma, sed vera atque legitima est. In praesenti vero quaestione ratio non habetur certitudinis illius prioris, & improprie dictae; sed posterioris solum certitudinis, quae non tantum notat firmitatem assensus in credente, vel cognoscente; sed etiam legitimum ejus, ex parte rei, fundamentum.
Evident certainty: first principles, scientific conclusions, and sense experience§1193
1193Schools divide true certainty into evident and obscure, each with three grades.
Evident certainty runs from self-evident principles through scientific conclusions to sense experience.
Latin · §1193
III. Rursus certitudo vera & legitima dividitur in Scholis in evidentem & obscuram. Et in utraque tres quasi gradus distingui solent. Certitudo Evidens est earum rerum quae aliquo modo videntur, id est, clare percipiuntur. Cujus certitudinis primum gradum obtinent prima principia quae per se nota sunt, id est, quae solis vocabulis explicatis, sine alia ratiocinatione, ab omnibus vera esse cognoscuntur. Ut non posse idem simul esse & non esse: Totum esse majus sua parte, & quae similia sunt. Secundum gradum certitudinis Evidentis obtinent conclusiones ex primis principiis evidenter deductae, atque haec dicitur certitudo scientiae. Tertium gradum obtinent ea quae sensibus corporis percipiuntur, quae dicitur certitudo experientiae.
Obscure certainty: divine faith, then moral human faith that excludes rash doubt§1194
1194Obscure certainty begins with divine faith, to which no falsehood can attach.
Next is moral or human-faith certainty—like believing famous cities exist—strong enough that contrary doubt is rash, though not absolutely infallible.
Latin · §1194
IV. Certitudo Obscura est earum rerum quas sola fide, vel opinione tenemus. Cujus certitudinis primum gradum habent quae propter divinam authoritatem certo creduntur. Et haec est certitudo fidei divinae, estque simpliciter & absolute certitudo, quoniam nulla ratione potest ei subesse falsum. Secundum gradum obscurae certitudinis habent ea quae creduntur ob authoritatem humanam, sed ita confirmatam & celebrem, ut omnem prorsus formidinem excludat. Qualia sunt Ciceronem & Virgilium fuisse insignes viros, Augustum magnae parti Orbis terrarum feliciter imperasse, multas esse civitates praeclaras in provinciis a nobis longe dissitis, Constantinopolim in Thracia, Goam in India, Mexico in America. Atque haec dicitur certitudo fidei humanae, sive certitudo moralis. Quae tametsi non tanta sit, ut ei nullo modo falsum subesse possit (si quidem omnis homo mendax), tamen tanta est, ut temerarius merito judicetur, qui contra sentiat, aut disputet.
Conjectural certainty: signs that secure the mind without banishing all fear§1195
1195Lowest obscure certainty is conjectural: many signs quiet anxiety without removing every fear.
Handwriting recognition and medical diagnosis illustrate this opinion-level certainty.
Latin · §1195
V. Tertium gradum habent illa quae tot signis & conjecturis nituntur, ut securum hominem reddant, & anxietatem expellant, non tamen excludant omnem formidinem. Atque haec dicitur certitudo conjecturalis, & opinionis est potius quam fidei. Veluti quum quis ex stylo atque dicendi modo, sive ex ipsis characterum ductibus, agnoscit epistolam, aut librum ab aliquo scriptum; vel ex variis indiciis colligit aegrum aliquem tali, vel tali morbo laborare.
Catholic vs private faith-certainty: public revelation versus private disclosure§1196
1196Romans split faith-certainty into Catholic (public Church revelation) and private (personal revelation).
Only the former binds all as the common object of faith.
Latin · §1196
VI. Praeterea Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae hic distinguunt certitudinem fidei in certitudinem fidei Catholicae, qua creduntur ea quae per Ecclesiae doctrinam & testimonium omnibus constare debent a Deo esse revelata; & in certitudinem fidei privatae, qua creduntur ea quae privatae alicui personae, non vero toti Ecclesiae a Deo revelata sunt; aut saltem quod ad commune fidei objectum non pertinent.
Even conjectural certainty excludes doubt proper, which suspends judgment§1197
1197For Romans even the lowest certainty still excludes doubt proper.
Doubt suspends assent; certainty, even conjectural, determinately takes one side.
Latin · §1197
VII. Caeterum ex Scholae Romanae sententia, certitudo quaelibet etiam conjecturalis, quae infimum obtinet gradum, excludit dubitationem, & illi opponitur. Nec enim ullo modo certus de aliqua re dici potest qui de ea dubitat. Nam qui proprie loquendo dubitat neutri parti contradictionis assentiri audet, & inter utramque judicium suspendit. Qui vero certus est, quamvis conjecturaliter tantum, alteri parti tamen assentitur, & determinate judicat rem ita se habere.
Doubt vs fear: determinate assent may remain with fear that things could be otherwise§1198
1198Romans separate doubt (suspended judgment) from fear (firm assent that still allows the opposite).
Recognizing a familiar signature can be certain yet still admit fear of clever forgery.
Latin · §1198
VIII. Verum licet omnis certitudo dubitationem excludat, juxta mentem Doctorum Ecclesiae Romanae, non excludit tamen omnem formidinem. Nam secundum eorum doctrinam, aliud est dubitare, aliud vero formidare. Qui dubitat, ut jam dixi, judicium plane suspendit, & inter utramque partem contradictionis quasi neuter & medius haeret. Qui vero circa unam contradictionis partem judicium definitum & determinatum format, & statuit rem ita se habere; & simul tamen judicat fieri posse ut res aliter se habeat, ille non dubitare quidem, sed formidare proprie dicitur. Sic, exempli gratia, qui accepta syngrapha alicujus hominis ipsi noti nomen praeferente, postquam scripturae modum & literarum ductus atque figuras diligenter inspexit, determinate & absque haesitatione judicat illam esse illius hominis, de eo certus dici potest: & tamen simul judicat non impossibile esse quin daemon, aut aliquis exercitatus & insignis impostor tale quidpiam effingeret. Ac proinde juxta Scholae Romanae stylum, in eo quidem homine circa rem propositam non erit dubitatio, sed tamen circa istud non carebit omni formidine.
Vasquez: fear can accompany determinate opinion; doubt is hesitation between both sides§1199
1199Vasquez defines doubt as intellective hesitation between contradictories.
Fear is a reflex judgment that principles might fail—compatible with firm opinionated assent.
Latin · §1199
IX. Sic formidinem & dubitationem distinguit & explicat Vasquez: Omnis, inquit, formido sine dubitatione oppositae partis esse potest. Dubitatio enim est haesitatio intellectus inter utramque partem contradictionis, ita ut in neutra parte ei appareat convenientia extremorum inter se, in cujus cognitione assensus consistit. Formido autem non oritur ex dubio inter utramque partem contradictionis, si quidem esse potest cum determinato assensu opinionis: sed oritur ex judicio quodam reflexo, quo quis expendens principia, ex quibus deduxit assensum, judicat ea talis esse naturae, ut fortassis illud de quo est opinio in re aliter sit quam apparet: quod judicium esse potest extrinseca principia, & ita cum assensu determinato alterius partis reperiri supra monuimus. In primam secundae, Tom. 1. Disp. 200. cap. 8. sub finem.
Doubt taken strictly vs broadly: Romans sometimes call fear itself ‘doubt’§1200
1200Proper doubt is more than fear, yet Romans often stretch ‘doubt’ to cover fear.
Strict doubt freezes assent; broad doubt can coexist with choosing one side.
Latin · §1200
X. Quamvis autem, juxta Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, dubitatio, proprie loquendo, sit plusquam formido; neque omnis qui formidat propterea dubitet; quandoque tamen formidinem ipsam sub dubitatione comprehendunt, & ad significandam formidinem utuntur ipsa voce dubitationis. Adeoque, juxta ipsos, dubitatio bifariam sumitur. Primo stricte & proprie, secundo late atque improprie. Dubitatio priori modo sumpta significat eam animi dispositionem, per quam neutri parti assentiri quis audet; illi enim proprie dubii sunt, qui ita fluctuant ut nihil decernere audeant. At per dubitationem latius & improprie sumptam intelligitur ipsa quoque formido, quam interdum habemus de contraria parte, etiamsi uni parti assentiamur. Uti videre apud Bellar. de Justif. lib. 3. cap. 10. §. Dices ergo.
Faith-certainty vs hope/trust-certainty: promise alone versus promise plus disposition§1201
1201Faith-certainty hangs on God’s promise alone and excludes even fear.
Hope-certainty also weighs one’s own disposition, so it is only moral or conjectural and may retain some fear while still banishing fluctuating doubt.
Latin · §1201
XI. Denique distinguunt illi inter certitudinem fidei & certitudinem spei seu fiduciae. Certitudo fidei a solo Dei verbo & sola Dei promissione pendet, nec ullo alio fundamento nititur: ideoque ex suo genere absoluta est, & infallibilis, & omnem non modo dubitationem, sed formidinem etiam excludit. Certitudo vero spei, seu fiduciae, duplici fundamento nititur. Unum est ex parte Dei, quod est ipsa Dei promissio. Ex hoc respectu certitudo spei ipsam fidei certitudinem aequat. Alterum est ex parte hominis, quod est dispositio, qualem Deus in verbo suo exigit ut homo fiat promissi beneficii particeps. Ut enim aliquis legitime speret sive gratiae, sive gloriae dona, non sufficit ut certus sit promissiones divinas veras & firmas esse, sed praeterea requiritur ut in se sentiat & agnoscat conditiones illas, sub quibus Deo placuit gratiam & gloriam hominibus polliceri. Haec autem ex parte spei & fiducia nostra non habet certitudinem tantam quantam ipsa fides: sed certitudinem solummodo moralem sive conjecturalem, quatenus aliquis diligenter seipsum excutiendo atque examinando, colligit ex variis signis & animi sui motibus, se vera peccatorum poenitentia duci, & syncere Deum amare, aliaque praestare quae Deus a nobis postulat, ut bonis ab ipso promissis potiamur. Quae certitudo non est prorsus infallibilis, nec excludit omnem timorem & sollicitudinem, sed tamen ex animo tollit dubitationem atque anxietatem.
Bellarmine: adversaries confuse faith-certainty with trust-certainty§1202
1202Bellarmine charges Protestants with confusing faith-certainty and trust-certainty.
Trust is absolute on the promise side but only conjectural about one’s disposition, yet still enough for security; faith’s certainty touches intellect alone.
Latin · §1202
XII. Ita philosophatur hac de re Bellarminus, lib. 3. de Justif. cap. 2. sub finem, Deinde. Adversarii, inquit, ut fidem cum fiducia, ita certitudinem fidei cum certitudine fiduciae confundunt. Multum autem interest inter utramque certitudinem. Nam certitudo fidei, quae nititur sola Dei authoritate, omni ex parte dubitationem excludit. Certitudo fiduciae partim nititur divina promissione, partim propria dispositione: & quod attinet ad divinam promissionem, omnem similiter formidinem excludit, & est absolute, & simpliciter certitudo; quod attinet ad propriam dispositionem, non excludit quidem penitus formidinem, neque est certitudo simpliciter, sed secundum quid, & conjecturalis; tamen tanta est, ut satis esse possit ad securitatem gignendam. Quae eadem fusius persequitur atque amplificat ejusdem libri cap. 11. Quod autem. Ubi praeterea observat duplicem in spe certitudinem considerari posse: unam ex parte intellectus, quam modo verbis illius descripsimus; alteram ex parte voluntatis, quae est firma adhaesio voluntatis ad rem speratam: quae maxima esse potest, etiamsi ex parte intellectus non sit homo certus se rem illam consecuturum. Certitudo vero illa quae in fide est, solum intellectum afficit.
Stapleton: heretics’ faith-certainty vs Catholics’ hope-certainty; moral certainty suffices for peace§1203
1203Stapleton distinguishes Protestant ‘faith-certainty’ of pardon from Catholic hope-certainty.
Hope is infallible on God’s promise, weaker about one’s disposition, yet still a firm moral certainty—not endless anxious fluctuation.
Latin · §1203
XIII. Similia docet Thomas Stapletonus, lib. 9. de Justif. cap. 11. Hoc, inquit, in loco fidei certitudo quam ponunt haeretici, a spei certitudine, quam ponunt Catholici, diligenter distinguenda est; ut ita intelligatur, an negando certitudinem fidei, sinamus fideles in perpetuis dubitationibus; sicuti ergo spes a fide, sic & certitudo spei a certitudine fidei distinguitur. Fides soli verbo Dei nititur tanquam suo proprio objecto, ideoque certitudo fidei ex verbo Dei nascitur, sine ulla consideratione ullius qualitatis ex parte credentis. Verum enim est quod fides dicit, qualiscunque ille sit, vel qualicunque affectu sit qui credit. Itaque haec certitudo est prorsus & omni modo infallibilis. Spes autem nititur non solum verbo Dei, sed etiam studio humano & diligentia per Christi gratiam praestita: ideoque ejus certitudo ex utroque nascitur. Itaque certitudo ejus, ex parte verbi & promissionis Dei, non minor est quam certitudo fidei; ex parte autem conditionis sperantis hominis, dubia & infirma est. Et postquam aliquot argumentis ostendit spem fidelium non niti sola promissione Dei, sed etiam propria fidelis cujusque dispositione, subjungit, Pendet ergo certitudo spei non solum a promissionibus divinis, (ex qua parte est firmissima non secus quam certitudo fidei) sed etiam a conditione & dispositione nostra qui speramus: & ex hac parte licet spei certitudo certitudine fidei minor sit, (quia de nostra dispositione legitima ex fide certi esse non possumus sine speciali revelatione,) tamen non est dubitatio aliqua fluctuans modo in hanc partem, modo in illam, secundum quam modo se acceptum Deo, modo non acceptum aliquis cogitet, alternantibus ex aequo sententiis, semperque anxius & suspensus, id est, neutri parti firmiter assentiens; ut haeretici nos docere mentiuntur: sed est certitudo ex parte subjecti certa & firma, qualis est certitudo omnis moralis, quae magnis argumentis gravique authoritate nititur, quaeque ad animi quietem & tranquillitatem plane sufficit.
Romans agree the just can have some certainty without special revelation; they differ on its kind§1204
1204All Roman doctors grant the truly just some real certainty of grace without special revelation.
They disagree on its grade; Bellarmine counts three Catholic opinions.
Latin · §1204
XIV. His ita expositis, inter omnes Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae convenit, eos qui vere fideles & justi sunt, posse de propria gratia aliquo modo certos esse, & ad aliquam veram & legitimam de remissione peccatorum suorum, & sua coram Deo justificatione, certitudinem pervenire, etiam citra ullam specialem revelationem. Sed quae & qualis sit illa certitudo, & ad quod genus pertineat, inter eos non constat, & quaedam est in eorum Scholis sententiarum hac de re diversitas. Ut videre est apud Bellarminum, lib. 3. de Justif. cap. 11. §. Tres enim; ubi dicit inter Catholicos tres numerari de hac quaestione sententias.
First opinion (Catharinus): private divine-faith certainty of one’s justification without special revelation§1205
1205Catharinus allows private divine-faith certainty of being in grace without special revelation.
He argues that revealed sacramental principles plus evident experience of due disposition yield a divine-faith conclusion about one’s justification.
Latin · §1205
XV. Prima est eorum qui censent homines justos, sine speciali revelatione, habere posse de sua justificatione certitudinem fidei divinae, non Catholicae quidem, sed privatae. Ita sensit & docuit Ambrosius Catharinus, unus ex iis Episcopis quibus constitit Tridentina Synodus, cujus sententiam prolixe refert & explicat Vasquez in 1. 2. Tom. 2. Disp. 200. cap. 3. Ubi notat ex Catharino duobus modis haberi posse hunc fidei assensum de propria justificatione. Uno modo directe & proxime per revelationem Dei internam, & testimonium Spiritus Sancti, cui interius attestanti assentiamur: altero modo non ex directa revelatione, sed ex quibusdam certo revelatis, adjunctis aliis quae sensu percipiuntur, & experimento intra seipsum, homo didicit. Ut enim assensus aliquis censeatur esse divinae fidei, non opus esse revelationi proxime inniti, & ab ea solum oriri; sed sufficere, si colligatur ex principiis revelatis, junctis aliis quae experimento, aut alia ratione evidenter nota sunt. Atque hoc posteriori modo censuit Episcopus iste quemcunque justificatum certum esse posse divina fide privata se esse in gratia. Quia, scilicet, omnis adultus qui justificatur Catholica fide credit illum justificari, qui ad Sacramentum rite dispositus accedit, aut qui extra Sacramentum contritione & dilectione disponitur: hujus autem dispositionis habere potest quilibet justus evidens experimentum, adeoque potest etiam divina fide credere se justificatum esse. Porro dispositionem illam ad justificationem necessariam & sufficientem evidenter notam esse ipsi justificato, inde probat quia, nisi ita esset, sugillaretur divina providentia, quae requireret aliquid a nobis, quo ad gratiam remissionis peccatorum disponamur, ita occultum & absconditum ut nobis ipsis manifestum non sit. Adde quod necesse est ut stupidus ille sit, qui de se ipso nosse non potest, utrum ex animo & recta conscientia, an vero ficte ad Sacramentum accedat.
Catharinus hard to square with Trent sess. 6 cap. 9; commonly rejected after the Council§1206
1206Trent session 6 chapter 9 denies faith-certainty that one has obtained grace.
After Trent Catharinus’s view is commonly rejected, though he still claimed the Council did not condemn him.
Latin · §1206
XVI. Verum haec Ambrosii Catharini sententia difficulter videtur conciliari posse cum Tridentinae Synodi decreto, quod habetur Sess. 6. cap. 9. sub finem. Ubi asseritur quod Nullus scire valeat certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum. Ideoque post Concilium Tridentinum, sententia haec, tanquam erronea, communiter in Schola Romana rejecta est: licet Catharinus ille, qui Concilii istius pars fuit, eam non tantum semper retinuerit, sed publice quoque defenderit, tanquam minime damnatam in Concilio Tridentino, cujus verba pretendit, ex mente eorum qui decretum condiderunt, dogma illud suum non ferire.
Second opinion: perfect just may reach moral certainty excluding fear, like historical human faith§1207
1207The second Roman view denies divine-faith certainty of grace but allows moral certainty without fear.
It likens that security to our firm historical belief about Caesar, Virgil, or distant cities never seen.
Latin · §1207
XVII. Secunda sententia quae circa hanc quaestionem locum habet in Schola Romana, non docet quidem teste Bellarmino, justos habere posse de propria gratia certitudinem fidei divinae; tamen affirmat posse, imo etiam solere praesertim homines perfectos, pro hujus vitae statu, ad eam securitatem venire, ut nullam habeant de sua justificatione formidinem: plane ad eum modum quo credimus sine ulla haesitatione, & formidine deceptionis, Caesarem imperasse in Italia, Alexandrum in Graecia; Ciceronem Oratorem, Livium Historicum, Virgilium Poetam fuisse; Constantinopolim esse Urbem in Thracia, & Antiochiam in Syria, quamvis neutram viderimus. Quae certitudo illa est quae proprie moralis dicitur, & distinguitur a conjecturali.
Vasquez assigns the moral-certainty view to Soto, Vega, and Tapper§1208
1208Vasquez ties the moral-certainty line to Soto, Vega, and Tapper.
Tapper allows that clear spiritual signs can yield fearless though not infallible certainty of present grace.
Latin · §1208
XVIII. Hanc sententiam Vasquez Disput. modo citatae cap. 8. tribuit Dominico Soto, Andreae de Vega, & Ruardo Tappero. Et revera Tapperus ille ad Art. 9. Lovan. de praesenti quaestione disserens, In hoc, inquit, omnes Scholastici conveniunt, quod omnimoda certitudo gratiae a nobis haberi non potest, sed probabiliter eam assequi licet per signa, atque hoc sunt certiora quo clariora & manifestiora. Aliquando autem tam aperta sunt, ut nulla formido, nulla vacillatio sit conjuncta hujusmodi cognitioni. Et pag. sequenti, postquam proposuit tanquam quaestionem problematicam, & utrinque probabiliter disputabilem, An multo tempore in vitae sanctimonia exercitati, imo & poenitentes, sine revelatione Dei, ex signis, Scripturarum testimoniis, & experimentis visitationum Spiritus Sancti, certitudinem habere possint sine temeritate, justaque ratione, non quidem infallibilem, sed quae sit sine metu & formidinem, ne fortassis ita non sit sicut arbitrantur, hoc est, se gratiam non habeant: satis indicat quo inclinat ipse, addens, fieri posse quod efficacissima habeantur argumenta pro praesentia gratiae, & nulla occurrat causa verisimilis dubitandi, vel formidandi.
Vega’s signs: deathbed desire for Christ, martyrs’ joy, Bernard on sudden conversion§1209
1209Vega points to peaceful deaths, longing to be with Christ, and martyrs’ joy as signs of moral certainty of grace.
Bernard’s sudden conversion under heavenly light likewise yields fearless assurance short of strict faith-certainty.
Latin · §1209
XIX. Quae sint vero illa argumenta postea explicat ipsius Vegae verbis quae citat ex ejus lib. 9. super Concilium Trid. cap. 48. Illa, inquit Vega, pax & securitas quae plerosque migrare de hac vita, illud ardens desiderium quo charitas, quum fuerit perfecta, clamat, Cupio dissolvi & esse cum Christo; & laetitia, qua exultant, dum intelligentes sibi propinquum esse diem mortis, dicunt cum Davide, Laetatus sum in his quae dicta sunt mihi, in domum Domini ibimus. Heu mihi, quia incolatus meus prolongatus est. Alacritas etiam & admiranda constantia Martyrum, & despicientia tormentorum, quid aliud sunt nisi testimonia apertissima hujusmodi certitudinis, quam de sua justitia & gratia apud Deum habent? Non sic exultarent advenientem mortem, non sic illam desiderarent, non sic laetarentur in tormentis, neque tanta quiete & placiditate animi de hac vita discederent, qui haesitarent, & dubii seu ancipites essent de suo statu, vel quovismodo formidarent. Deinde postquam multa in hanc sententiam citavit ex Bernardo, ac praesertim haec verba ex Epistola ejus 107. Si superna eum miseratio respexerit, immiseritque spiritum compunctionis, ut ingemiscat, resipiscat, mutet vitam, domet carnem, amet proximum, clamet ad Deum, proponatque de caetero vivere Deo: ex hac superni luminis gratuita visitatione, & subita mutatione dexterae Excelsi, agnoscit se merito quidem, non jam irae, sed gratiae filium, quippe qui aeternum erga se divinae bonitatis experitur affectum. Tandem concludit, quod sicuti ii, qui ista in se sentiunt atque experiuutur, certi sunt secundum Bernardi sententiam, sine metu & formidine, de gratiae praesentia, ita certo noverunt se certos esse, neque in aliquo falli ita arbitrando. Nec tamen hic ulla contingit temeritas. Denique subjungit fidem quae est virtus infusa, mediate ad illam certitudinem inclinare, quia certitudo ista a sententiis Scripturae pendet, quamvis sit certitudine fidei multo inferior.
Moral certainty excluding fear rejected by most Romans as clashing with Trent’s ‘may fear’§1210
1210Most Roman theologians now reject fear-excluding moral certainty of grace.
Trent’s ‘anyone may fear regarding his grace’ is taken to bar certainty that banishes all fear.
Latin · §1210
XX. Verum haec sententia quae statuit homines justos, saltem perfectiores, habere posse de propria gratia atque justitia certitudinem, non quidem fidei, sed moralem, quae omnem non modo dubitationem, sed formidinem etiam excludat, hodie a maxima parte Theologorum Scholae Romanae rejicitur; idque quoniam ipsis non videtur satis congruere cum Tridentini Synodi decreto. Haec enim sunt verba istius Synodi, Sess. 6. cap. 9. Nam sicut nemo pius de Dei misericordia, de Christi merito, deque Sacramentorum virtute & efficacia dubitare debet; sic quilibet dum seipsum, suamque propriam infirmitatem, & indispositionem respicit, de sua gratia formidare & timere potest: cum nullus scire valeat certitudine fidei, cui non potest subesse falsum, se gratiam Dei esse consecutum. Ubi cum Concilium decernat quemlibet justum de sua gratia formidare & timere posse, planum est, ex ejus mente, fideles in hac vita non posse pervenire ad eam de propria gratia certitudinem, quae omnem formidinem & timorem ex iis, hac in parte, expellat.
Third and commonest opinion: only conjectural hope-certainty joined with some fear§1211
1211The common Roman third view allows only conjectural hope-certainty of one’s justification.
Some fear remains, yet fluctuating doubt is expelled enough for peace of conscience—absent special revelation.
Latin · §1211
XXI. Igitur in Ecclesia Romana plurimum obtinet, & longe communior est tertia quaedam sententia, quae non tantum fidelibus negat certitudinem fidei circa propriam justitiam, sed etiam moralem illam certitudinem quae excludit omnem formidinem & timorem deceptionis, & nisi adsit quaedam specialis revelatio, locum hic habere vult eam solum certitudinem quam conjecturalem vocant, & certitudinem spei, seu fiduciae, quae cum quadam formidine & timore conjuncta est, sed tamen ex animo expellit dubitationem & fluctuationem, per quam quis non auderet judicare se Deo acceptum, & de peccatorum suorum remissione confidere, & proinde sufficit ad animum tranquillandum, & pacem conscientiae in fidelibus & justis gignendam.
Bellarmine prefers the middle way: no perpetual doubt, yet not faith-certainty of pardon§1212
1212Bellarmine rejects both Catharinus’s faith-certainty and fearless moral security.
His middle way clears anxious doubt while still denying divine-faith certainty; penitential signs yield persuasion, not Catholic faith-certainty.
Latin · §1212
XXII. Huic sententiae accedit Bellarminus, lib. 3. de Justif. cap. 11. Responsione ad postremam rationem. Ubi postquam asseruit nullum esse Catholicum scriptorem, qui doceat oportere homines perpetuo dubitare, & haesitare de sua cum Deo reconciliatione, tres refert Catholicorum suorum sententias. Primam Catharini, qui justis tribuit certitudinem fidei divinae de sua justificatione: secundam, eorum qui putant posse justos ad eam securitatem venire, ut nullam habeant de sua justificatione formidinem: & tertiam, quam ipse probat, ut veriorem & communiorem, quae non tollit quidem omnem formidinem, tamen tollit omnem anxietatem & haesitationem, & ipsam etiam dubitationem, si dubius dicatur qui non audet alteri parti assentiri. Neque enim, inquit, bona est argumentatio, Catholici non habent certitudinem fidei de sua justificatione, igitur semper dubitant, haerent, anxii sunt; sicut neque contra quis recte concluderet: Catholici non sunt anxii, neque haesitant de sua justificatione, igitur certi sunt certitudine fidei sibi remissa esse peccata. Datur enim aliquid medium inter haec extrema, videlicet, certitudo quaedam moralis ex parte intellectus, & spes, ac fiducia, ex parte voluntatis. Quibus consona sunt quae scribit ejusdem libri cap. 3. §. Deinde. Neque enim, inquit, Catholici negant, certam fiduciam in Deo collocandam esse, & certo confidendum post actam legitime poenitentiam, & Sacramentum Baptismi, vel Absolutionis rite perceptum, remissa esse peccata. Sed adversarii, ut fidem cum fiducia, ita certitudinem fidei cum certitudine fiduciae confundunt. Cap. vero decimo, §. Vides igitur, concedit ex poenitentiae fructibus, ut ex signis quibusdam, gigni persuasionem & securitatem gratiae, non tamen certitudinem fidei Catholicae, vel Divinae.
Stapleton’s analogies: moral/hope certainty of pardon without faith-certainty or endless fluctuation§1213
1213Stapleton compares assurance of pardon to certainty of crowning, inheritance, safe travel, or one’s baptism—moral/hope certainty, not faith-certainty.
Catholics claim a middle path: firm hope on the promises plus dispositional signs, without Protestant absolute security or endless fluctuation.
Latin · §1213
XXIII. Similia docet Thomas Stapletonus, lib. 9. de Justif. cap. 11. Quemadmodum, inquit, qui legitime certat, certo credit se coronandum; & qui filius est primogenitus, patris haeredem se futurum; & qui itineri se commitit, se ad finem salvum perventurum; denique ut omnis Christianus certo credit se infantem baptizatum fuisse & esse, qui filius matris suae quae dicitur filium se esse? & tamen nihil horum certitudine fidei habetur, sed solum certitudine, partim spei & fiduciae bonae, partim morali; sic de remissione peccatorum & gratia Dei certo credere potest se eam esse consecutum, qui quae Deus praecipit ad ea consequenda sese praestitisse sibi conscius est: nec tamen, vel certitudine fidei idem credere potest, aut debet: vel quia talem certitudinem non habet, propterea, incertus, anceps, aut dubius est, aut per modum fluctuantis se habet. Talis enim ut describit Jacobus, similis est fluctui maris, qui a vento movetur & circumfertur. Nec ergo Protestantium extremam sententiam, (quae est certitudo fidei excludens omnem formidinem & timorem propriae indispositionis, cum securitate illa qualis huic peregrinationi non competit); nec animi perpetuo suspensi fluctuationem incertam & inconstantem, quae huc illucque momento impellitur, docent Catholici circa remissionem peccatorum aut praesentem justitiam; sed mediam sententiam docent: quae est certitudo spei ex parte promissionum divinarum firmissima, & certitudo, vel conjecturalis, vel etiam moralis, ex parte propriae dispositionis, cujus quisque sibi conscius est, qui legitime dispositus est: quae sane utraque & omnem dubitationem in sensu Protestantium, id est, qua neutri parti assentitur excludit, & firmam conscientiis pacem & consolationem affert contra omnes luctas tentationum, vel diffidentiae, vel pusillanimitatis, vel denique desperabundae dubitationis.
Vasquez’s close: determinate true assent yes; fearless or infallible faith-certainty no§1214
1214Vasquez sums up: the just may have determinate true assent about grace.
He denies both fearless assent and infallible faith-certainty in this debate’s sense of ‘certainty.’
Latin · §1214
XXIV. Denique his consentit Vasquez, sic claudens cap. 9. Disputationis illius 200. saepius jam citatae: Concludamus igitur, posse quidem justum certum esse de sua gratia, certitudine sumpta pro determinato & vero assensu, non tamen certitudine sumpta pro assensu sine formidine ulla, neque pro certitudine cui non possit subesse falsum, & ita de certitudine loquimur in hac controversia.
How Roman doctors seem to contradict themselves: divine-faith doubt vs conjectural certainty§1215
1215Roman polemic sounds self-contradictory: sometimes allowing certainty, sometimes calling the faithful doubtful.
The key is equivocation—denying divine-faith certainty while granting conjectural certainty, and calling residual fear ‘doubt’ in a broad sense.
Latin · §1215
XXV. Unde patet quomodo secum sint conciliandi Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores, qui in hac quaestione loqui videntur repugnantia & contradictoria. Quando enim nostrorum argumentis respondent, aut hujus controversiae statum explicant, atque constituunt, negant se fidelibus tollere omnem de propria gratia certitudinem; concedunt illos esse posse de sua coram Deo justificatione vere persuados, certos, & securos; neque necessarium esse ut de remissione peccatorum suorum perpetuo haesitent, fluctuent, & dubitent: Et tamen quando contra nos disputant, aut apud plebem suam concionantur, multis argumentis probare contendunt fideles circa propriam justitiam dubios & incertos esse, nescire an sint in Dei gratia; nec illos nisi temere, posse certo & absque dubitatione statuere, peccatorum remissionem se per Christum esse consecutos. Verum quum affirmant fideles & justos nescire an sint in Dei gratia, neque id certo cognoscere & judicare posse, loquuntur de certitudine quam vocant fidei divinae, aut de ea saltem quae omnem formidinem oppositae partis excludit; non vero de conjecturali illa certitudine, quae opponitur quidem proprie dictae dubitationi, & significat verum & determinatum assensum alterius partis contradictionis, sed quae tamen cum aliqua formidine consistere potest. Et quum fidelibus tribuunt aliquam dubitationem de sua apud Deum gratia atque justitia, per id non intelligunt proprie dictam dubitationem, sive haesitationem & fluctuationem mentis, quae neutri parti contradictionis assentiri & accedere audet, sed dubitationem solum latius sumptam, quae consistit cum judicio mentis fixo atque determinato, & dicit solum aliquam formidinem oppositae partis. Quamvis enim, inquit Vasquez, cum assensu determinato alterius partis per propria principia, non possit esse dubitatio inter utramque partem per eadem principia, bene tamen potest esse formido illa quam diximus, per principia extrinseca & universalia, per quae intelligimus posse rem illam aliter se habere, & fortassis aliter tunc esse quam opinamur; quae sane formido videtur esse genus quoddam dubitationis. Cap. illo nono jam citato, ubi pluribus rem illam explicat.
Romans teach the just not only may but ought to be firmly persuaded of remission§1216
1216Roman doctors say the justified ought to be firmly persuaded of pardon, not left in double-mindedness.
Assurance should grow with holiness; inability to trust adoption marks infirmity, not the perfect’s norm.
Latin · §1216
XXVI. Porro Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae docent fideles & justos non tantum posse, sed etiam debere de remissione peccatorum suorum, & sua coram Deo justificatione non dubios atque ancipites, sed certo persuasos esse; hancque certitudinem in iis crescere atque augescere, secundum quod in justitia & sanctitate proficiunt: Ideoque ad illorum officium pertinere, ut majorem ac firmiorem indies ea de re certitudinem acquirant: quod fit, dum toto studio in pietate & bonis operibus sese exercent, & in eo animadvertunt clariora & manifestiora divinae adoptionis, & Spiritus Sancti, in se inhabitantis signa. Proinde, si justi nonnulli sibi suadere & confidere non audeant se Deo gratos & acceptos esse, & ab eo in numerum filiorum adoptatos, istud in iis defectum & infirmitatem aliquam arguere. Perfectiores enim, ut jam dixi, solere aliter affectos & dispositos esse, & certam de sua cum Deo reconciliatione fiduciam habere, non vero super eo fluctuare atque ambigere.
Vasquez: Trent allows fearing, not doubting; the just must absolutely believe they are in grace for the sacraments§1217
1217Roman authorities insist the prudent just must not live in suspended doubt about grace.
Vasquez reads Trent as allowing fear, not doubt, and requires absolute belief one is in grace to use the sacraments.
Latin · §1217
XXVII. Haec manifeste colliguntur ex iis quae jam ex Vega, Stapletono, & ipso Bellarmino retulimus, ubi docent fideles & justos non oportere suspensos, dubios & anxios esse circa hoc an sint in Dei gratia, & ab iis alienam esse ejusmodi fluctuationem & haesitationem; adeoque qui sunt inter illos perfectiores, eo ipso habere pleniorem & firmiorem de propria gratia & justitia persuasionem. Sed praeterea diserte & expresse fatentur Theologi Scholae Romanae, justos de sua justificatione non posse dubitare, si prudenter se gerant; imo debere illos absolute credere se esse in gratia, si velint ea operari ad quae requiritur gratia, ut videre est apud Vasquezium, disp. pluries allegata, cap. 8. Observa, inquit, non dixisse Concilium quemlibet de sua gratia dubitare posse, sed de sua gratia timere posse, quod idem est atque formidare; omnis autem formido sine dubitatione oppositae partis esse potest. Dubitatio enim est haesitatio intellectus inter utramque partem contradictionis, ita ut in neutra parte ei appareat convenientia extremorum inter se, in cujus cognitione assensus consistit. Quamvis autem justus non sit dubius de sua justitia, quinimo sine dubio debeat absolute credere se esse in gratia, si velit aliqua operari ad quae requiritur gratia, ut administrationem & receptionem Sacramentorum; tamen etiam cum hoc absoluto assensu potest habere formidinem de sua justitia, &c. Cum igitur dicimus quemlibet justum de sua justificatione posse prudenter formidare, non intelligimus posse dubitare, si prudenter se gerat, & de neutra parte contradictionis judicare.
Stapleton denies the calumny: penitents should by certain trust, not by infallible faith, judge sins remitted§1218
1218Stapleton rejects the charge that Catholics strand penitents in endless doubt.
Penitents should judge sins remitted by certain trust of hope, not by infallible faith-certainty.
Latin · §1218
XXVIII. Praesertim vero expressa est hac de re Stapletoni doctrina, lib. 9. de Justif. cap. 20. ubi postquam questus est Catholicis per calumniam a Protestantibus tribui, quod doceant peccatorem in seria poenitentia & vera fide constitutum, nec posse, nec debere certa fiducia statuere peccata sibi remitti: posse quidem bene sperare, & de Dei misericordia optima quaeque sibi polliceri; sed haec tamen sine certa fiducia in medio fluctuantis dubitationis suspensa esse relinquenda, quia fidei possit subesse falsum, & spes possit fallere, sic inter alia suorum sententiam exponit: Non negamus, inquit, debere poenitentes certa fiducia statuere sibi remitti peccata; sed negamus certa fide, cui subesse falsum non potest, hoc esse a quoquam statuendum. Certam autem fiduciam, qualem spei certitudo affert, agnoscimus & docemus. Et postea, Non relinquimus peccatorem in medio fluctuantis dubitationis suspensum, postquam poenitentiae rite peractae sibi conscius est. Et cap. sequenti, loquens de Patribus & de Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae, Docent, inquit, vere poenitentes, & qui suam indispositionem serio corrigunt, non debere de remissione peccatorum suorum dubitare, sed certa fiducia confidere.
Roman ‘doubt’ targets application and disposition, not God’s promised benevolence in general§1219
1219Romans do not distrust God’s general promised mercy; their caution concerns personal disposition and application.
They want firm assent from examined signs of faith and repentance, admitting residual fear—much as many Protestants distinguish direct and reflex certainty.
Latin · §1219
XXIX. Itaque Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae non habent dubitationem, sive diffidentiam, de gratia Dei, & ejus erga nos benevolentia, prout in genere consideratur, & verbo Dei proponitur: sed de nostra erga Deum dispositione, & de applicatione ad nos particulariter ejus promissorum. Nec volunt fideles perpetuo fluctuare & haesitare, an sint in Dei gratia; sed volunt eos firmiter assentiri, se esse in gratia, modo seriose seipsos examinent, & in se inveniant signa verae fidei & poenitentiae: etsi interim fateantur aliquam formidinem oppositae partis cum ea persuasione consistere posse, quia de propria dispositione non sumus aeque certi ac de Dei promissis. Quod ipsum, ut jam dictum, etiam a multis Protestantiibus conceditur, qui distinguunt inter certitudinem fidei qua articuli creduntur, & certitudinem illam reflexam qua quis de propria justificatione persuadetur.
Shared ground: Roman and Protestant doctors agree the living faithful can and ought to trust their reconciliation§1220
1220On Le Blanc’s reading the live dispute is not whether justified believers may firmly trust their reconciliation.
Roman doctors openly teach that living faith both can and ought to yield certain persuasion of pardon—common ground with Protestants.
Latin · §1220
XXX. Porro ex iis quae a nobis tum in hac disputatione, tum in praecedenti exposita sunt patet, inter Theologos Ecclesiae Romanae & Protestantes quaestionem non esse, An fideles per Christi gratiam justificati adeo possint, & debeant firmiter esse persuasi, & suae cum Deo reconciliationis certam habere fiduciam; quandoquidem, jam ostendimus, communi cum Protestantibus consensu, id fateri Doctores Scholae Romanae: quorum aperta doctrina est eos qui viva fide in Christum praediti sunt, non tantum posse, sed etiam debere, de remissione peccatorum suorum, & sua apud Deum justitia confidere, & certam habere persuasionem.
Doubt whether one is in grace is a defect to fight, not a virtue to foster§1221
1221Roman doctors do not praise lingering doubt about one’s gracious standing.
With Stapleton they treat such hesitation as a defect and temptation to be fought—especially when no unrepented grave sin accuses the conscience.
Latin · §1221
XXXI. Nec etiam, quod inde consequens est, inter eos quaeritur, Num dubitatio illa qua quis haesitat & fluctuat, super eo num sit in Dei gratia, & an Deum habeat propitium atque benevolum, sit aliquid in fideli laudandum & fovendum, An vero defectus & tentatio quaedam contra quam ipsi luctandum est, & ex qua modis omnibus niti debet ut se expediat: Istud enim audivimus modo fatentem Stapletonum, nec dissentiunt reliqui Scholae Romanae Theologi, qui facile concedunt fideles esse nimium, ut loquuntur, scrupulosos, si non arguente eos conscientia gravis alicujus peccati, cujus poenitentiam non egerint, de propria gratia dubitent.
No dispute that certainty of justification suffices for peace and thanksgiving§1222
1222Both sides grant that justified believers’ certainty can quiet anxiety and underwrite thanksgiving.
Roman doctors do not deny that such trust belongs to peace of conscience.
Latin · §1222
XXXII. Praeterea hic non controversitur, An certitudo & fiducia illa quam fideles possunt & debent habere de justificatione & adoptione sua, tanta sit ut sufficiat ad pellendam omnem mentis anxietatem, & tranquillitatem ac pacem conscientiae gignendam, fidelesque monendos ad hoc ut serio & toto affectu, de tanto beneficio Dei gratias agant. Utrinque enim res est in confesso, nec negatur a Doctoribus Ecclesiae Romanae.
Full persuasion of pardon is not so necessary that the weak of faith are cut off§1223
1223Protestants do not make absolute assurance of pardon the gate of true faith.
Weak believers who still fear may remain truly faithful and reconciled in Christ.
Latin · §1223
XXXIII. Hic quoque quaestio non est, Num persuasio plena & absoluta de impetrata peccatorum venia, & sua cum Deo reconciliatione, in fidelibus tam necessaria sit, ut sine ea nullo modo justi, & accepti Deo esse possint, imo pro fidelibus haberi non debeant. Nam superiori disputatione manifestum fecimus Theologos Protestantes communiter agnoscere, multos esse fideles qui nondum adepti sunt plenam illam persuasionem, quique nimium oculos in infirmitatem propriam figentes, saepe non parum formidant & dubitant, an sint divinae gratiae participes, & fidem illam habeant cui promittitur salus & remissio peccatorum: qui propterea tamen non debent numero vere fidelium excludi, nec desinunt Deum habere propitium & placatum in Christo.
No warrant to claim justification while persisting in unrepented sin§1224
1224Neither school licenses presuming justification while clinging to unrepented sin.
Protestants tie true assurance to a good conscience and love’s fruits, not carnal security.
Latin · §1224
XXXIV. Nec etiam ulla controversia est, An aliquis legitime possit sibi persuadere se justificatum esse, & Deo gratum, qui tamen in se Dei amorem non sentiat, nec agnoscat fructus poenitentia dignos, sed perseveret in suis peccatis, absque vitae in melius mutandae proposito. Quicquid enim Protestantibus imputare soleant eorum adversarii, perpetuo illi docent & inculcant praesumptionem vanam & temerariam esse, si quis peccatis indulgens confidat se Deo placere, & per Dei misericordiam eximendum esse poenis, quas peccata ejus alioqui merentur: nec putant ullam veram fiduciam, & de gratia Dei certitudinem nasci, nisi ex conscientiae bonae testimonio, & dilectionis Dei experimento.
Certainty arises from promise plus inward sense of living faith and repentance§1225
1225Assurance is not bare assent to general gospel promises.
It requires the reflective subsumption: I myself have the living, loving faith God requires.
Latin · §1225
XXXV. Et certe qualiscunque tandem sit illa certitudo, & quocunque nomine in Christianis Scholis appelletur, in eo conveniunt omnes omnino Theologi illam non oriri solum ex divina promissione, sed etiam ex interno sensu propriae fidei & resipiscentiae, sine quo nemo recte concludere & statuere potest justitiam, vitam & salutem Verbo Dei promissam ad se pertinere, & se ejus esse, vel fore participem. Nam ut hoc aliquis legitime concludat, non sufficit ut assentiatur generalibus illis Scripturae pronunciatis, Quicunque credit in Christum remissionem habebit peccatorum in nomine ejus, Qui credit in Filium non veniet in judicium, sive damnationem, sed transivit a morte ad vitam; Sed necesse est ut vere subsumat, Atqui ego credo, id est, in me sentio & experior fidem illam quam Deus exigit, scilicet fidem vivam, quae operatur per dilectionem, & quae nunquam est sine studio bonorum operum, & serio vitae in melius mutandae proposito.
Even strong certainty keeps company with pious solicitude, not carnal security§1226
1226Mature assurance still keeps a godly fear of solicitude.
Protestants cast out distrustful fear, not the watchful fear that wars against carnal security.
Latin · §1226
XXXVI. In eo quoque consensus est, quantacunque sit illa fiducia & certitudo, ad quam omnes fideles eniti & contendere debent, & ad quam qui sunt inter eos perfectiores perveniunt, illam tamen non omnem timorem expellere, sed esse quendam timorem qui cum eo compatiatur, & qui debeat ejus esse perpetuus comes. Etenim hic distinguunt Protestantium Theologi inter timorem dubitationis, sive diffidentiae, & inter timorem piae sollicitudinis, qui securitati carnali opponitur, cum quo jubemur nostram salutem operari. Illum foras mittit charitas, ex qua fiducia apud Deum oritur, hic vero cum spe & fiducia firmissime stat & conciliatur.
Assurance of one’s justification is not the same necessity as assent to articles of faith§1227
1227Doubting a gospel article unbelief; doubting one’s own sincerity need not.
Protestants refuse to equate assurance of status with assent to the creed.
Latin · §1227
XXXVII. Praeterea juxta communem Protestantium doctrinam, ut clarum est ex iis quae superiori disputatione exposita fuerunt, certitudo quam quis habet de sua coram Deo justificatione non est ejusdem omnino rationis, cum certitudine illa quam habemus de fidei articulis, & dogmatibus illis quae verbo Dei expresse continentur, nempe, neque tanta est, neque paris necessitatis: cum pro infideli merito habeatur qui revocat in dubium an Jesus sit Dei filius; non vero statim quicunque dubitat an peccatorum suorum remissionem adeptus sit, quia pro certo statuere non audet suam fidem & poenitentiam satis veram & synceram esse. Adeoque hic quaestio non est, An eadem omnino fide qua fidei dogmata creduntur, teneatur quisque fidelis credere se esse in Dei gratia, seque vere regeneratum & justificatum esse; cum inter haec diversitatem quandam agnoscant Protestantes.
Trust in pardon already obtained is not the formal act of justifying faith; hope of mercy is required§1228
1228Justifying faith’s prior act is refuge-trust toward mercy, not assurance of pardon already sealed.
Trent itself requires hope of pardon in the disposing sinner—common ground Le Blanc presses.
Latin · §1228
XXXVIII. Nec etiam inter Scholam Romanam & Reformatam controversia est, An certa fiducia de impetrata a Deo peccatorum venia sit proprius, formalis, & specificus actus fidei justificantis, ratione cujus in Scriptura dicimur fide justificari. Neque enim id communiter asserunt Protestantes. Referunt quidem illi in peccatore poenitente & justificando, fiduciam de obtinenda peccatorum remissione a Dei per Christum misericordia, tanquam conditionem necessariam & praeviam ad justificationem, minime vero fiduciam de remissione illa jam impetrata. Sicut autem Protestantes ultro fatentur fiduciam de jam impetrata remissione peccatorum non esse illud per quod justificatur impius, sive aliquid ad ejus justificationem praevium: ita quoque Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae non negant ad hoc ut aliquis a peccato justificetur, necessariam esse in eo spem veniae, & fiduciam de obtinenda a Deo misericordia. Imo res est quam sanxit & definivit ipsa Tridentina Synodus, Sess. 6. cap. 6. Ubi inter alia docet homines ad justificationem disponi, Dum peccatores se esse intelligentes, a divina justitia timore, quo utiliter concutiuntur, ad considerandam Dei misericordiam se convertendo, in spem eriguntur, fidentes Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore. Quod probat ex illo Christi dicto ad paralyticum, Confide fili, remittuntur tibi peccata tua. Marc. 2.
Vasquez: private faith of the promise, with hope of pardon, is needed for justification§1229
1229Vasquez requires more than catholic assent to general promises.
A private faith that God will not fail me—and hope of pardon—belongs to the disposition for justification.
Latin · §1229
XXXIX. Quibus consentanea sunt quae leguntur apud Vasquezium in 1.2. Tom. 2. disp. 200. cap. 4. Ubi diserte docet ad justificationem tum primam, tum secundam, non tantum conducere, sed necessarium esse, non solum fidem Catholicam dogmatum, historiae & promissionum, quae universe factae sunt; sed etiam fidem privatam promissionis, qua quisque credat sibi Deum non defuturum, neque negaturum auxilium efficax, & se tandem a Deo justificandum. Nam, inquit, si aliquis existimaret Deum sibi negaturum auxilium efficax ad salutem, omnis ad justificationem progressus & dispositio impediretur, ut manifeste constat. Inter reliqua enim necessaria ad justificationem primam debet esse spes veniae; haec autem sine fide peculiari esse non potest. Nam quamvis aliquis crederet ea quae universis promissa sunt, nempe, vere poenitentibus peccata remitti, & poenitentia aliisque operibus bonis a Deo obtineri veniam & justificationem: tamen, nisi etiam credat se iis operibus quae exercet a Deo veniam consecuturum, quae sane est fides peculiaris promissionis, non poterit hanc veniam sibi a Deo sperare, ac proinde neque justificationis compos erit, siquidem spes non minus necessaria est dispositio ad justificationem quam fides.
Cologne Catholics once spoke like some Protestants about certain belief of personal pardon§1230
1230Even sixteenth-century Cologne Catholics once urged certain personal belief of pardon.
Le Blanc notes both Rome and many Reformed now refuse to make already-granted reconciliation the prior act of justifying faith.
Latin · §1230
XL. Verum est quidem Protestantes nonnullos sic loqui de illa persuasione quam fideles habent de gratia Dei & remissione peccatorum suorum, quasi in ea proprie consisteret fides justificans: sed eodem etiam modo loquuntur quidam quos Schola Romana pro Catholicis habet. Nam in libro edito a Canonicis Coloniensibus Anno 1536. in Concilio quodam Provinciali, qui liber Enchiridion Coloniense vocatur, haec expressa verba leguntur, Non jubemus ut perpetuo de justificatione & acceptatione sua dubitent homines, &c. Fatentur enim verum esse ad justificationem hominis omnino requiri ut homo certo credat, non tantum generaliter quod propter Christum vere poenitentibus remittantur peccata, sed quod ipsimet homini credenti remissa sunt propter Christum per fidem, &c. Quibus consentit liber qui dicitur Antididagma, & cujus authores sunt iidem Colonienses. Dicunt enim authorem illi, titulo de Justificatione, Nos justificari per fidem, qua absque dubitatione firmiter confidimus nobis qui veram poenitentiam habemus, peccata nostra propter Christum esse remissa. Ac quemadmodum Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae aliud jam hac de re sentiunt, sic rem eandem aliter explicant plerique saltem Theologi Ecclesiae Reformatae, nec inter actus fidei ad justificationem coram Deo praevios ponunt, ut diximus, persuasionem de facta jam nostri cum Deo reconciliatione, sed solum fiduciam de illa obtinenda.
The live dispute: is assurance certainty of divine faith, or only of hope/conjecture?§1231
1231The real clash is nomenclature and grade: divine-faith certainty versus hope’s moral or conjectural certainty.
Rome (almost unanimously) ranks status-assurance below article-faith; Protestants commonly call it faith’s certainty.
Latin · §1231
XLI. Igitur eo redire videtur controversia quae hic inter Protestantes & Romanenses intercedit, An scilicet, certitudo quam fideles Christi gratiae participes habere possunt & debent de sua coram Deo justificatione, sit certitudo Fidei divinae; An vero solum certitudo alterius generis, & alio nomine vocanda. Prius affirmant communi consensu Protestantes: posterius, paucissimis exceptis, Schola Romana, juxta quam ista certitudo non est fidei, sed spei, seu fiduciae, cui competit certitudo certitudine fidei inferior, moralis, scilicet, vel conjecturalis, quae aliquid minus est quam certitudo moralis stricte dicta, quae gravi prorsus argumento & authoritate nititur, cum conjecturalis ex signis probabilibus colligatur; quanquam certitudo illa conjecturalis saepe latiori sensu moralis etiam dicitur.
Roman denial of divine-faith certainty often means unequal firmness/necessity, not total absence§1232
1232Rome’s denial often means: status-assurance lacks the firmness and necessity of creed-articles.
Both sides still allow a syllogism from gospel promise plus sincere inward faith-signs.
Latin · §1232
XLII. Verum hic est animadvertendum non eadem mente, nec eodem sensu, a Romanensibus negari certitudinem de qua hic agimus esse fidei divinae, quod istud communiter a Protestantibus affirmatur. Quando enim Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae negant fideles & justos fide divina certos esse quod sint in Dei gratia, id solum sibi volunt istud ab iis nec tanta firmitate, nec etiam tanta necessitate credi, quanta credi possunt & debent fidei articuli in verbo Dei expresse revelati, quod facile concedunt Scholae Reformatae Doctores, ut pluribus expositum est superiori disputatione. Quod autem nihilominus certitudinem istam dicunt esse fidei divinae, inde est quod putant ad fidem divinam pertinere non tantum ea quae solo Dei verbo nituntur, sed etiam illa quae ex verbo Dei colliguntur, adjunctis aliis quae vel humano sensu & experientia, vel alia quadam ratione nota sunt, licet haec posteriora partim ex Dei verbo, partim aliunde deducta prioribus illis certitudine cedant. Jam vero qui fide viva veraque Christo insiti sunt certo colligere possunt se justificatos & Deo gratos esse, ex generalibus verbi Dei pronunciatis, quibus asseritur Corde credi ad justitiam, &, Credenti suam fidem ad justitiam imputari, adjuncto interno sensu & experientia, qua quis sentit se non ficte, sed syncere in Christum credere, seque fiduciam in Deo collocare, & illius amore duci, quae sunt certa fidei vivae signa & indicia. Quod ipsum ultro fatentur Scholae Romanae Theologi.
Much of the fight is logomachy over calling assurance divine-faith certainty§1233
1233Shared foundations, quarreling labels: Protestants still say ‘divine faith’; Rome refuses because of the weaker experiential premise.
Le Blanc flags a classic logomachy under the syllogism’s weaker-part rule.
Latin · §1233
XLIII. Unde jure merito videri potest hic multum esse logomachiae, & verbalis contentionis; quandoquidem non eodem sensu negant & affirmant Doctores utriusque communionis certitudinem fidei divinae inesse illi persuasioni, quam qui fide per charitatem operante praediti sunt habere possunt & debent de sua coram Deo justificatione. Cum enim inter utrosque conveniat unde nascatur, & quibus fundamentis nitatur illa certitudo, nempe, altera propositione diserte & clare verbo Dei expressa, altera vero quae nobis innotescit conscientiae nostrae testimonio, & interno quodam sensu, quo fidem & poenitentiam propriam percipimus, Protestantibus talis certitudo videtur dici posse fidei divinae, quia Dei testimonio, etiamsi non solo nititur; Romanensibus vero contrarium videtur, quia non nititur solo Dei testimonio, sed altera propositione, quae non aeque certa est, ac illa quae expresse verbo Dei traduntur: juxta Philosophos autem in Syllogismis conclusio censetur sequi partem debiliorem.
Vega allows calling it faith’s certainty if not equated with catholic dogmatic certainty§1234
1234Vega softens the label: call it faith’s certainty if you refuse equality with catholic dogma.
Trent (on his reading) blocks ‘certainty of faith,’ not every knowing ‘through faith.’
Latin · §1234
XLIV. Neque tamen illi ipsi Scholae Romanae Doctores qui certitudinem istam nolunt dici fidei divinae, multum repugnant quin nomen istud ei tribuatur, modo non aequiparetur certitudini fidei illius quam Catholicam & dogmaticam vocant. Id videre est apud Vegam, qui concedit propter Ecclesiae pacem hanc certitudinem posse commodo sensu certitudinem fidei appellari, quia a fide divina bona ex parte profluit; & ad eam fides mediate concurrit, & qui certi sunt de sua justitia, certitudinis ejus bonam partem fidei debent. Nisi enim, inquit, per fidem assentirentur illis majoribus illis propositionibus de fide, Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam; Convertens se ad Deum toto corde, invenit & obtinet gratiam ipsius, Nunquam illi certitudinem aliquam haberent de sua gratia, &c. Additque per fidem sciri posse, An simus in gratia; neque id negare Conc. Tridentinum, sed tantum negare sciri hoc posse certitudine fidei: nimirum haec duo distinguit, scire per fidem, &, scire certitudine fidei; Et prius hic vult habere locum, non vero posterius, juxta Conc. Tridentini mentem. In Conc. Trident. decret. de Justif. lib. 9. cap. 47.
Vasquez elsewhere ranks believing oneself justified as a species of private faith§1235
1235Vasquez’s anti-Catharinus zeal sits oddly beside his own ‘private faith’ taxonomy.
He lists believing oneself justified among non-catholic faith-species tied to God’s gift.
Latin · §1235
XLV. Sed quod mirum est ille ipse Vasquez, qui tam operose refutat Catharinum, certitudinem fidei divinae justis de sua gratia tribuentem, disputatione supra saepius allegata, alibi tamen ex professo docet, & probare contendit fidei nomen & rationem convenire illi persuasioni, qua quis credit se justificatum esse, quam vult esse quandam fidei speciem a Catholica, sive dogmatica distinctam. Nam fidei privatae, quae Catholicae opponitur, & quae non convenit omnibus, sed aliquibus tantum, cujusque objectum toti Ecclesiae ad credendum propositum non est, enumerans varias species, dicit ad eam pertinere fidem, qua aliquis credit se justificatum esse. Postquam enim primam in eo ordine collocavit fidem, qua aliquis credit ea quae sibi peculiariter revelata sunt; secundam vero fidem miraculorum subjungit, Tertia fides est huic similis, nempe, qua quis credit se a Deo consecuturum aliquid quod tamen sibi soli specialiter promissum non est, ut cum quis credit se habiturum auxilium congruum ad justificationem, & perseverantiam, se etiam aeternam salutem adepturum, quia sibi gratia Dei efficax non denegabitur. Hujus etiam generis est fides, qua quis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit, vel spirituale, vel temporale ad spiritualia pertinens. Addamus etiam fidem qua quis credit se justificatum esse. Haec enim etiam ad donum Dei pertinet, si homo id credat sicut oportet. In 1.2. Tom. 2. Disp. 200. cap. 4.
Even amid equivocation, a real split remains vs. those who allow only conjectural certainty§1236
1236Word-fights with moral-certainty Romanists can be largely verbal.
The hard disagreement is with conjectural-only doctors who never shut out fear of deception.
Latin · §1236
XLVI. Quaecunque autem aequivocatio lateat in ista voce certitudo fidei, quae in Schola Rom. strictius, pro sola certitudine quam articulis fidei, sive expresso Dei verbo praebemus: Apud Protestantes vero latius usurpatur, & extenditur ad ea quae non ex solo Dei verbo proxime & immediate, sed ex aliis etiam aliunde notis deducuntur, ac proinde jure merito videri possit certamen solum de vocibus esse, inter Protestantes & eos Scholae Rom. Theologos qui agnoscunt in fidelibus reperiri posse certitudinem tantam de accepta gratia, ut excludat omnem formidinem, licet istam certitudinem non fidei divinae, sed moralem solum dici velint, nihilominus aliquod reale dissidium manet, inter eosdem Protestantes, & Doctores illos Ecclesiae Rom. qui volunt, absque quadam speciali revelatione, locum hic habere posse certitudinem tantum conjecturalem, quae sit jam dicta morali inferior, nec ut illa omnem formidinem deceptionis excludat, a quo vehementer omnes Protestantes abhorrent.
Roman doctors still admit true fixed assent that yields peace—and redefine leftover fear§1237
1237Rome grants fixed, peace-giving assent that one is in grace.
Their leftover ‘fear’ is meta-epistemic: I am not deceived—yet I do not believe deception is impossible.
Latin · §1237
XLVII. Et tamen dissidium istud obscurius redditur, si consideremus quae partes dissidentes, dum inter se disputant, hinc & inde proferunt. Quandoquidem omnes Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae hic admittant veri nominis certitudinem, quae consistit in vero determinato, & fixo assensu, qui excludit omnem fluctuationem, & haesitationem, nec animum dubium & suspensum relinquit: & tantam in homine fideli fiduciam, ut sufficiat ad pacem & tranquillitatem animi, & spirituale gaudium, & hominem securum reddat de Dei gratia: adeoque fatentur bonos fideles certissime credere se esse in gratia, nec se falli in hac sua opinione; & formidinem illam, quae cum ista fidelium persuasione consistit, aiunt in eo constituendam esse, quod boni isti fideles credunt quidem se in eo non falli, sed tamen non credunt se falli non posse; talem quippe certitudinem propriam esse solius fidei divinitus infusae.
Reformed also refuse creed-grade certainty and keep Calvin’s struggle with unbelief§1238
1238Reformed refuse to equate status-assurance with creed-assent and keep watchful fear.
Calvin’s Antidote—faith fights unbelief—lets Le Blanc draw the parties near.
Latin · §1238
XLVIII. Doctores vero Scholae Reformatae fatentur certitudinem quam habent fideles quod ipsorum fides & poenitentia vera & syncera sit, & ex consequenti quod sunt coram Deo justificati, non aequare certitudinem, quae requiritur in assensu quem articulis fidei debemus, & quo credere tenemur Christum esse Dei filium, & Mundi servatorem. Non negant etiam esse quendam timorem piae sollicitudinis securitati carnali oppositum, qui nunquam a fidelibus in hac vita abesse debet: imo saepe fideles de gratia Dei erga se dubitare atque formidare, neque hoc obstare tamen quominus fideles & justi maneant; adeoque non improbant Calvini verba quae leguntur in Antidoto Conc. Trid. ad Sess. 6. ubi loquens de eo quod experiuntur fideles in recognoscenda erga se gratia, Nec certe, inquit, dum fidem docemus esse debere certam & securam, eam certitudinem aliquam imaginamur, quae nulla tangitur dubitatione, nec securitatem, quae nulla inquietudine sollicitatur, quin potius dicimus perpetuum esse fidelibus certamen cum sua ipsorum infidelitate. Tantum abest, ut eorum conscientias in placida aliqua quiete collocemus, quae nullis omnino turbis interpellatur. Item, Sentit hanc in se divisionem suam pectus, quod partim ob divinae bonitatis agnitionem suavitate perfunditur: partim ob suae calamitatis sensum amaritudine angitur, & ob suae iniquitatis testimonium trepidat, & mortem exhorrescit; quae variatio ex fidei imperfectione contingit. Quae certe dum utrinque conceduntur atque proferuntur, in eo videntur partes dissidentes proxime ad se invicem accedere.
Stapleton-style residual fallibility does not make every non-faith assent fearful§1239
1239Grant Stapleton’s fallibility note about self-judgment—deny that it makes ordinary certainties ‘fearful.’
Only God’s speech yields impossibility-of-falsehood; that bar would absurdly frighten snow-white and geometry.
Latin · §1239
XLIX. Et certe si Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, quum dicunt certitudinem de qua hic quaestio est, non esse sine aliqua formidine, non aliud intelligunt quam quod, dum homo fidelis & pius credit se esse in gratia, credit quidem se in eo non falli, non tamen credit se falli non posse, quia facile contingit errare & falli in judiciis quae de seipsis ferunt; quomodo videtur formidinem istam explicare Thomas Stapletonus: facile concedemus certitudinem quam habent fideles de sua justitia, conjunctam esse cum tali judicio: sed negamus hujusmodi judicium sufficere ad hoc, ut assensus aliquis dicatur non esse sine formidine. Nam recte agnoscit ipse Stapletonus tale judicium abesse a solo assensu, quem per fidem verbo Dei praebemus, non vero ab ullo alio assensu. Quoniam, dum fidem Deo loquenti adhibemus, non solum judicamus verum esse quod dicit, sed simul impossibile esse ut verum non sit, quia impossibile est mentiri Deum, qui est ipsa veritas. Quando vero judicamus verum esse quod sensus, ratio, vel humanum aliquod testimonium nobis persuadet, non possumus ita judicare impossibile simpliciter esse ut in eo fallamur, quia omnis homo mendax, & ratio saepissime fallit, & sensibus potest multis modis illudi: nec denique impossibile est ut aliquid verum non sit, hoc ipso quod percipitur sensu, aut ratione colligitur, aut quotlibet humanis testimoniis confirmatur: sicut fieri nequit ut verum non sit quod Deus testatur, hoc ipso quod a Deo testimonium habet. Adeoque quilibet assensus, non modo moralis, aut conjecturalis, sed etiam qui ratione nititur, & experientia, formidinem adjunctam haberet; quod nec verum est, nec dicunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Quis enim dicat non sine formidine credi quod nix alba sit, ignis calidus, & glacies frigida; aut quod omne triangulum habeat tres angulos aequales duobus rectis; imo quod Augustus olim Romae imperaverit: quoniam nulla est tam constans inter homines fama, nulla demonstratio, nulla perceptio sensuum, quae mereatur tam certum assensum, quam Dei ipsius loquentis authoritas.
Vasquez’s standing ‘perhaps otherwise’ judgment cancels even conjectural certainty§1240
1240A live ‘perhaps I’m wrong’ veto is incompatible even with conjectural certainty.
Ordinary moral certainty says ‘doubtless thus,’ while still admitting absolute possibility otherwise.
Latin · §1240
L. Si vero dicatur aliqua formido deceptionis nunquam abesse a certitudine quam fideles habent de sua justitia, quia cum illa semper stat judicium istud, Fortasse oppositum in re est, &, Forte res habet aliter quam opinor, prout formidinem illam exponit Vasquez; dicimus tale judicium pugnare cum quacunque certitudine quae veri nominis sit, non excepta morali, sive conjecturali. Etenim omnis certitudo, etiam moralis, sive conjecturalis, excludit fluctuationem & haesitationem, fatentibus ipsis Scholae Romanae Doctoribus, nec reperitur, nisi in assensu fixo & determinato, quorum ita se habere judicamus. Qui vero opinans atque conjiciens quod res eo modo se habet, nihilominus judicat fortasse eam aliter se habere, non caret hac in parte haesitatione, & fluctuatione; & licet ad unam partem magis inclinet, non tamen habet ad eam assensum fixum atque determinatum, ac proinde non habet, vel minimum illum certitudinis gradum, qui reperitur in certitudine quam conjecturalem appellant. Conjicit ergo ille, suspicatur atque opinatur, nullo vero modo certus est. Cum enim aliquis certo colligit & statuit, ex variis signis atque indiciis, rem sic, vel secus, se habere, ut, exempli gratia, hunc & illum aegrotum hydrope, vel phthisi laborare; hanc epistolam, ab eo amico, vel cognato, missam vel scriptam esse; non amplius apud se dicit, Fortasse non ita est, sed, Proculdubio res eo modo se habet, nec ratiocinatur in judicando eam aliter se habere: quamvis simul judicet, absolute loquendo, non impossibile esse, ut sese aliter habeat.
Complaint: Roman doctors are not consistent when answering Protestant charges§1241
1241Under Protestant fire Rome grants peace-giving moral or conjectural certainty and a duty to pursue it.
Le Blanc’s complaint is inconsistency with how they speak when on the attack.
Latin · §1241
LI. Sed quod maxime querimur illud est, Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores in hac quaestione non satis sibi ipsis constare. Nam quum Protestantium argumentis, aut accusationibus, ipsis occurrendum est, testantur se non negare fidelibus & justis omnem de gratia Dei certitudinem: se quidem hic non agnoscere certitudinem illam quae fidei divinae dicitur, sed tamen admittere certitudinem aliam inferioris generis, nempe, moralem, juxta quosdam, quae in perfectioribus formidinem excludat: aut saltem, juxta plures, conjecturalem, quae semper cum aliqua formidine juncta sit, nisi adsit specialis quaedam revelatio: Et istam tamen tantam, ut non sinat hominem haesitare atque fluctuare, nec illum ancipitem & suspensum relinquat, & sic abunde sufficiat ad conscientiae pacem gignendam & fovendam, & hominem spirituali laetitia mulcendum. Adeoque palam affirmant fideles, pios & justos non debere de sua justitia, & remissione peccatorum suorum ambiguos & dubios haerere, verum certam de illa concipere fiduciam, quam si nondum adepti sint, eorum officium est ad eam precibus & votis frequentibus, & studio bonorum operum contendere.
Yet against Protestants they argue believers cannot safely judge their faith sincere§1242
1242In polemic they stress radical uncertainty about one’s own sincerity.
Self-examination, they say, yields many grounds for doubt—and rashness if one settles the question.
Latin · §1242
LII. Verum, ut supra notavimus, quando adversus Protestantes disputant, & eorum sententiam refellere conantur, multa proferunt argumenta quibus probare contendunt, fideles non esse certos de adepta justitia, ipsos nescire an sint in gratia, & an Dei odio, vel amore digni sint, eos qui convertuntur & poenitentiam agunt dubios & ambiguos esse de remissione peccatorum suorum, & dum fideles propriam conscientiam excutiunt, & inquirunt an habeant fidem vivam & synceram, & poenitentiam veram, multa se iis dubitandi argumenta offerre, nec sine temeritate judicare & statuere posse, quod ipsorum fides & poenitentia habeat eas veritatis & synceritatis notas, quas Deus necessario in justificandis exigit.
They reconcile by narrowing ‘uncertain’ to lack of divine-faith certainty, and ‘doubt’ to fear§1243
1243Their harmonizing move: ‘ignorant’ means lacking divine-faith certainty; ‘doubt’ means fear.
Le Blanc calls that either contradiction or verbal abuse.
Latin · §1243
LIII. Qua in re aut sibi aperte contradicunt, aut vehementer vocibus abutuntur. Dicunt quidem ut ista inter se concilient, ut jam quoque fuit a nobis observatum, quum aiunt homines justos incertos esse, nescire, ignorare an sint in gratia, mentem suam esse quod ea de re non habeant certitudinem fidei divinae, neque istud sciant & cognoscant, quomodo res fidei noscuntur: Caeterum, dum ita loquuntur, se nolle a fidelibus & piis excludere notitiam & certitudinem moralem, aut conjecturalem, de sua apud Deum gratia atque justitia. Et similiter quum tribuunt fidelibus aliquam dubitationem de propria gratia, se non intelligere dubitationem proprie sic dictam, per quam aliquis neutri parti contradictionis audet assentiri, sed dubitationem quandam latius sumptam, quae alias in Scholis formido dici solet.
Absurd to call someone ignorant of what he knows by sense, proof, or common fame§1244
1244Lack of divine-faith certainty does not license the word ‘ignorance.’
Demonstration, sense, and common fame still yield knowledge in ordinary speech.
Latin · §1244
LIV. Sed absurde omnino, & contra rationem dicitur aliquis hoc vel illud nescire, & de eo incertus esse, propterea quod de eo fide divina certus non est: Nam sic dici possemus illa ipsa nescire, ac de iis incerti esse, quae demonstratione tenemus, sicut, terram esse sole minorem, aut quae percipimus sensu, ut saccharum esse dulce; vel quae testatur fama constans, ut Romanos olim hisce provinciis imperasse, & Homerum atque Virgilium fuisse Poetas insignes, quoniam de nullo istorum fide divina nos certos reddit. Quis tamen ferat dicentem quod ista incerta sint, aut quod aliquid horum, & similium, a peritis & doctis ignoretur atque nesciatur?
Nor may we say a physician or letter-reader ‘does not know’ what signs have settled§1245
1245Settled medical and documentary judgments are still knowledge in common speech.
Le Blanc’s analogies press Rome’s ‘nescire’ rhetoric as verbal inversion.
Latin · §1245
LV. Imo non videretur vim vocum invertere, & contra communem hominum sensum loqui, qui diceret quempiam de iis dubitare, atque incertum esse, eaque nescire atque ignorare, quae tamen ex variis signis certo colligit, quaeque vere atque determinate judicat ita esse? An quaecunque signa atque indicia indicent aegrum pleuritide, vel arthritide laborare, de eo tamen semper poterit dici medicus incertus & dubius? An qui syngrapham, sive epistolam ab amico, vel noto accipit, quaecunque signaturae & testimonia concurrant, ut judicet illam ejus esse, eumque revera de hoc certum reddant, nihilominus simpliciter istud nescire dicendus est?
Popular Roman preaching of ignorance clashes with the Schools’ moral certainty—FINIS Certitudine§1246
1246School usage itself refuses to call fixed moral judgment ‘ignorance.’
Yet popular Roman preaching of not-knowing trains hearers into suspended minds—Le Blanc’s closing charge as Certitudine ends.
Latin · §1246
LVI. Profecto non fert communis hominum, imo nec ipse Scholae usus, ut dicamus aliquem ignorare, dubitare, incertum & ancipitem esse, quum non solum vere, sed etiam firmiter & determinate judicat rem ita se habere, quanquam solum moralem, vel conjecturalem, habeat certitudinem. Quum vero dicitur quispiam dubius & incertus, sive rem aliquam nescire, statim concipimus illum inter utramque partem contradictionis haerere, nec quicquam circa id de quo quaestio est, determinate apud se judicare atque statuere. Quod manifestum est ipsa plebis Romanensis experientia. Quum enim assueta sit audire Doctores suos publice disputantes, & asserentes in suis apud eam concionibus, fideles ignorare an sint in Dei gratia, & nescire an Deus ipsos vel amet, vel oderit, eosque dubios & incertos esse, num revera adepti sint peccatorum remissionem, & justitiae donum, inde colligit fideles circa ista esse debere animo suspenso atque ancipiti, neque posse de istis firmum & determinatum apud se ferre judicium absque temeritate atque arrogantia: ac proinde pios & justos circa haec ne quidem habere certitudinem quam Scholae concedunt, nempe, moralem, sive conjecturalem. Et sic Scholae Romanae hac in parte dogmata, multum discrepant a sensu, quem ipsius Doctores, plebi ipsi auscultanti, praedicationibus suis ingenerare solent.
Roman doctors: three senses of ‘venial’—from cause, event, or nature§1247
1247Roman School usage splits ‘venial’ three ways: by cause, by event, and by the sin’s own nature.
Sins of ignorance or weakness can still be mortal, yet are called venial insofar as something softens guilt and draws nearer to pardon.
Latin · §1247
I. Observant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae peccatum veniale triplici modo dici, vel a causa, vel ab eventu, vel ex ipsa natura & ratione peccati. Peccatum veniale a causa vocant peccatum quod ex ignorantia, vel ex infirmitate committitur. Quod genus peccati non dicitur veniale, ut distinguatur contra quodcunque mortale; sed contra peccatum mortale ex malitia. Tametsi enim peccata ex ignorantia, vel ex infirmitate saepe sint mere mortalia, tamen dicuntur omnia venialia, quia est in eis aliquid imminuens culpae pravitatem, & ratione cujus is qui peccavit vicinior est indulgentiae. De quo genere peccati loquitur Apostolus, quum ait, Qui blasphemus, & contumeliosus, & persecutor fui; sed misericordiam consecutus sum, quia ignorans feci in incredulitate. 1 Tim. 1.
‘Venial from the event’: any sin that actually obtains pardon§1248
1248‘Venial from the event’ means any sin that repentance actually clears and God pardons.
In that loose sense it is not set against mortal sin as such, but against sins that never are forgiven.
Latin · §1248
II. Peccatum veniale ab eventu ipsis dicitur peccatum quodlibet, quod per poenitentiam expiatur, & actu veniam a Deo consequitur, quantumlibet alioqui in se grave & atrox fuerit. Adeoque peccata hoc sensu venialia non opponuntur absolute peccatis mortalibus; sed eis solum quae reipsa nunquam remittuntur; ac per hoc ad mortem perducunt aeternam.
Proper sense: lighter sins that do not break charity or earn hell§1249
1249In the proper Roman sense, venial sins are lighter faults that do not war with charity or incur hell’s debt.
Mortals are the graver acts that cannot coexist with love of God and make one liable to eternal punishment.
Latin · §1249
III. Denique peccata venialia ex natura & ratione peccati, illis dicuntur peccata leviora, quae, ut ipsi judicant, cum proximi charitate non pugnant, & aeternae poenae reatum non inducunt. Et haec est apud ipsos propria venialis peccati acceptio. Atque hoc sensu sumpta peccata venialia simpliciter & absolute opponi censent peccatis mortalibus; quo nomine designant peccata graviora, quae cum charitate & amore Dei consistere non possunt, & hominem apud Dei tribunal aeternae poenae reum constituunt.
Mortal sin: turns from God, kills spiritual life, risks hell if death finds it§1250
1250Roman doctors treat mortal sin as incompatible with charity: it turns the soul from God and kills spiritual life.
If death finds such a sinner unraised by new grace, hell follows—and even the formerly just lose their standing.
Latin · §1250
IV. Igitur existimant esse quaedam peccata quae cum charitate & amore Dei compati nullo modo possunt, & in quae homo cadere non potest, quin a Deo prorsus avertatur, & inimicus ejus fiat, atque sic in totum privetur vita spirituali, quae consistit in nostra cum Deo conjunctione, per gratiam ejus in nobis habitantem, & incidat in novum reatum gehennae & mortis aeternae; quam vitare nullo modo potest, si in eo peccato a morte deprehendatur, & nisi ante mortem, ex eo peccato, per novam Dei gratiam resurgat, & de novo Deo se reconcilietur. Itaque si quis justus talia peccata committit, excidit omnino justitia sua; nec amplius pro justo & sancto haberi potest: neque in eo reperitur sanctificatio illa, sine qua nemo videbit Dominum. Et haec sunt quae vocant peccata lethalia; quia sunt veluti quaedam plagae lethales, quae mortem animae inferunt, vitam gratiae prorsus in ea extinguentes, & hominem gehennae, quae mors secunda in Scripturis dicitur, reum constituentes.
Venial sin: wounds charity’s fervor without extinguishing grace or earning hell§1251
1251Lighter sins check zeal and love’s fervor without casting out grace or making God an enemy.
They merit temporal penalty only—so death in such a fault does not, of itself, damn.
Latin · §1251
V. Verum praeter ista peccata, docent esse quaedam peccata leviora, quae nonnihil quidem retardant hominis cursum ad Deum, & amoris Dei fervorem imminuunt; sed tamen hominem non plane a Deo avertunt, nec amorem Dei in eo extinguunt. Ac proinde per ejusmodi peccata homo non fit Deo inimicus, neque privatur vita spirituali, quoniam gratiam, quae est vitae illius principium, non excutiunt. Nec etiam talia peccata mortis aeternae reatum afferunt; sed solum poenae cujusdam temporalis: ut nec per illa homo justus justitia sua spolietur, & amittat sanctitatem illam, quae necessaria est, ut quis Deum videre possit. Adeoque quamvis mors in ejusmodi peccato hominem deprehendat, non propterea tamen est in aeternum salute excludendus, & aeternis inferni tormentis adjudicandus. Unde colligitur hujusmodi peccata esse quidem animi vulnera, sed facile curabilia; non vero morbos aut plagas lethales: Et propterea peccata, non mortalia, sed tantum venialia recte appellari.
Venials subdivided: of their kind vs. from imperfect performance§1252
1252Roman casuistry splits venials again: some venial by their kind, others only by imperfect performance.
The second class turns on how the act is done, not on a milder species of object.
Latin · §1252
VI. Porro peccata ista venialia in duo rursus genera dividunt. Docent enim quaedam esse venialia ex genere suo; alia vero tantum ex imperfectione operis.
Venial of its kind: disordered object that still does not fight charity§1253
1253A venial-of-its-kind act aims at something disordered that still does not war with charity—idle talk, excess mirth, and the like.
Mortals of their kind (perjury, adultery) openly clash with love of God and neighbor.
Latin · §1253
VII. Peccata venialia ex genere suo vocant, ea quae habent quidem pro objecto rem malam & inordinatam; sed quae charitati Dei & proximi non repugnat. Quale est verbum otiosum, risus nimius, & alia id genus. Et his opponunt peccata mortalia ex genere suo, ut perjurium, adulterium, & similia; quae aperte cum charitate Dei & proximi pugnant.
Venial from imperfect work: could be mortal in kind, softened by how it is done§1254
1254Some acts would be mortal by kind, yet imperfect performance keeps them from being judged as war on charity—hence venial.
Imperfect performance alone can keep an otherwise mortal kind from being judged as war on God’s love.
Latin · §1254
VIII. Venialia ex imperfectione operis ea dicunt, quae tametsi ex genere suo, mortalia esse possent, tamen ob imperfectionem operis venialia efficiuntur: quia videlicet, sola imperfectio operis facit, ut cum charitate & amore Dei pugnare non judicentur.
Imperfect-work venials: by surprise (semi-voluntary) or smallness of matter§1255
1255Surprise-venials are sudden, not fully deliberate motions—still culpable if reason could have watched, yet not fully willed.
Small-matter venials are light thefts and the like that do not notably wound neighbor or friendship.
Latin · §1255
IX. Rursus vero peccata venialia ex imperfectione operis in duo membra secant. Alia enim ipsis dicuntur venialia ex subreptione; alia ex parvitate materiae. Ex subreptione venialia vocant ea quae non sunt perfecte voluntaria. Quales sunt subiti motus irae, cupiditatis, invidentiae, & alii similes, qui prius in animo existunt, quam ratio plane deliberare potuerit, essent necne admittendi. Quae quidem & peccata sunt, cum praeveniri, aut continuo repelli potuissent, si ratio vigilasset: & tamen venialia sunt, cum pleno voluntatis assensu caruerint. Ex parvitate materiae venialia vocant ea quae in re parva ac levi committuntur. Quale est furtum unius oboli; quod neque proximum notabiliter laedit, neque ejusmodi est, ut apud aequos homines amicitiam tollere queat.
Open question: are light sins venial by nature, or only by God’s kindness?§1256
1256Romans agree on lighter vs. graver sins in effect—yet divide on whether light faults are venial by nature or only by God’s milder law.
Some hold eternal damnation for them would clash with justice; others that God could damn them strictly but chooses temporal penalties.
Latin · §1256
X. Caeterum quamvis Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae communi consensu doceant, esse peccata quaedam leviora, quae cum vera justitia & sanctitate simul stant; & hominis amicitiam cum Deo non dissolvunt, nec hominem involvunt reatu poenae & mortis aeternae; ac propterea dicuntur peccata venialia: alia vero graviora, quae hominem statim ex justo injustum constituunt, illumque Deo inimicum reddunt, ac proinde morti & poenae aeternae obnoxium, ideoque vocantur peccata mortalia: Nihilominus inter eos non omnino certum & definitum est, An peccata illa leviora id habeant ex natura sua, & talia per se sint, ut justitiae divinae repugnet illa ad mortem aeternam imputare, & propter illa hominem in perpetuum & prorsus abjicere; cum propter levitatem suam, non nisi poenam & iram temporalem juste mereri possint: An vero per se quidem possent juste puniri perpetua a Dei regno exclusione, & sempiternis gehennae ignibus & cruciatibus; sed quod ad tantam poenam non imputentur, verum ad temporalem duntaxat, id referendum esse ad Dei voluntatem atque benignitatem, quae solum gravioribus & atrocioribus peccatis mortis aeternae poenam lege sua constituit: levioribus autem supplicia tantum quaedam temporalia in lege sua minatur, & reipsa infligit, cum si stricto jure uti ipsi liberet, longe severius & acerbius posset cum homine agere.
Gerson: every offense against God is of itself deadly; veniality is mercy§1257
1257Gerson and allies: every sin could justly earn eternal death; milder imputation is God’s clemency, not the act’s own mildness.
He concludes that any offense against God is of itself deadly and cuts off from glory under justice’s rigor.
Latin · §1257
XI. Etenim nonnulli sunt inter Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, & quidem non infimae notae, qui docent omnia peccata juste a Deo morte aeterna puniri posse; quod vero quaedam eorum ad poenam solummodo temporalem imputantur, nec mortis aeternae reatum in peccantem inducunt, & idcirco a peccatis mortalibus distinguuntur, id tribuendum esse Dei clementiae atque indulgentiae, quae hac in parte toto suo jure erga hominem uti non vult. Haec est sententia Joannis illius Gerson, qui ante annos plus minus ducentos sexaginta Academiae Parisiensis Cancellarius fuit, & inter Theologos Sorbonicos celeberrimus, quam prolixe tradit & tuetur in tractatu quem inscribit de Vita Spirituali, lectione prima. Ubi agens de quidditate & quantificatione peccatorum, ut loquitur, hanc ponit conclusionem, Omne peccatum, pro quanto est offensa Dei, & contra legem ejus aeternam, est de sua conditione & indignitate mortiferum, secundum rigorem justitiae, & a vita gloriae separativum.
Gerson’s proofs: any offense outweighs even annihilation§1258
1258Gerson argues any offense against God can justly draw death—even annihilation—because no penalty matches that evil.
Better suffer any punishment than commit the slightest offense against God; else offense could become licit to avoid death.
Latin · §1258
XII. Atque hanc suam sententiam in sequentibus multis argumentis confirmat. Nam omnem offensam in Deum de se mortiferam esse probat ex eo quod potest juste a Deo puniri poena mortis, tam temporalis quam aeternae; imo annihilationis poena. Et hoc quia nulla poena talis ita mala est, quantum mala est quaevis offensa Dei. Mortem autem & annihilationem non esse tam malam, quam ipsam Dei offensam, inde deducit, quod potius toleranda esset omnis mors poenalis & annihilatio, quam committenda quantumlibet parva offensa in Deum, quoniam opposito dato, dari posset casus in quo offensa Dei licite fieri posset. Nempe, si aliter vitari non posset mors & annihilatio.
Unremitted offense would exclude forever; pardon is pure liberality§1259
1259Without remission, any offense would forever bar glory and never stop being punished.
Pardon is pure liberality; infinite goods still cannot justify offending God.
Latin · §1259
XIII. Praeterea, inquit, quaelibet offensa Dei nisi remitteretur, repelleret a gloria Dei perpetuo, & absque termino puniretur. Alioqui maneret dedecus culpae sine decore justitiae. Quod autem offensa dimittitur, aut remittitur, est ex pura liberalitate Dei remittentis, & non amplius imputantis. Denique non minus est fugibilis offensa Dei, quam sit eligibile illud bonum, pro quo adipiscendo nullo modo deberet committi. Sed pro infinito bono non debet fieri offensa Dei. Et si quis infinita bona possideret, posset juste omnibus a Deo spoliari, si caderet in offensam Dei.
Corollary: no offense is venial of itself—only relative to mercy§1260
1260Gerson’s first corollary: nothing is venial of itself—only because mercy declines to impute every offense unto death.
Mortal and venial then differ not by essence but by how grace imputes penalty.
Latin · §1260
XIV. Postea vero ex ista conclusione plura corollaria deducit, quorum hoc primum est; Nulla offensa Dei est venialis de se, nisi tantummodo per respectum ad divinam misericordiam, quae non vult de facto quamlibet offensam imputare ad mortem, cum istud posset justissime. Et ita concluditur quod peccatum mortale & veniale, in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsece & essentialiter, sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam, quae peccatum istud imputat ad poenam mortis, & aliud non.
Thanksgiving owed that venials are not imputed unto death§1261
1261Even venials, for Gerson, deserve thanks that God does not impute them unto death—as with remitted mortals.
He extends the same mercy-logic toward our righteousnesses as filthy rags apart from grace.
Latin · §1261
XV. Tertium autem ejus corollarium sic habet: Obligamur Deo ad gratificationem, & gratiarum actionem, ex hoc quod peccata nostra venialia non imputat ad mortem, sicut tenemur ex remissione mortalium; quoniam utrobique concurrit misericordia Dei, non imputans peccata, nisi ad poenam temporalem, quae de sua indignitate imputabilia sunt ad mortem, unum de possibili, aliud de lege statuta. Imo forsan ita diceretur de omnibus justitiis nostris; quae quantum de se sunt, sunt sicut pannus menstruatae; praesertim post peccatum, aut absente gratia.
Fisher of Rochester: agrees veniality is of mercy; difference is grace-flight§1262
1262Fisher grants Luther that ‘venial’ is of mercy, yet marks the real divide: mortal drives out grace and sets one in God’s hatred; venial does not.
Strictly judged, venial may be damnable—but that does not make it mortal in Fisher’s sense.
Latin · §1262
XVI. His consentanea docet Joannes Roffensis in Anglia Episcopus, in refutatione assertionis Lutheranae, ad articulum trigesimum secundum. Ubi postquam induxit Lutherum dicentem, veniale peccatum non natura sua, sed Dei misericordia tale esse, subjungit, Quod veniale peccatum solum ex Dei misericordia tale sit, in hoc tecum sentio. Sed quoniam & nos mortale quoque peccatum per Dei misericordiam fieri posse veniale credimus, vellem apertius nobis exponeres quid ipse discriminis arbitreris inter mortale & veniale peccatum statui debere. Illud vero discrimen ipse postea in eo constituit, quod mortale protinus effugit ab animo gratiam, & in odio Dei constituit ipsum peccatorem; at veniale non ita. Et paulo post concedit veniale peccatum esse damnabile; si districte judicetur. Inde vero negat sequi veniale peccatum mortale esse. Nam, inquit, mortale peccatum fugat a nobis gratiam, propter quam & merito damnandum venit, non autem identidem veniale. Quod discrimen abunde satis est, ut veniale dici mortale nequeat.
Pius V & Gregory XIII condemn ‘no sin venial by nature’§1263
1263Late-sixteenth-century Belgian denials that any sin is venial by nature were condemned under Pius V and Gregory XIII.
Bellarmine cites the Bull’s article: every sin merits eternal punishment—is rejected as erroneous.
Latin · §1263
XVII. Verum quum haec sententia sub finem superioris saeculi, ab aliquot Theologis in Belgio teneretur, & publice assereretur, singulari Bulla cum multis aliis eorum assertionibus, damnata fuit, tanquam erronea, a Pontificibus Pio V. & Gregorio XIII. Qua in Bulla inter multos alios articulos hunc quoque damnant, Nullum est peccatum ex natura sua veniale, sed omne peccatum meretur poenam aeternam. Ut refert Bellarminus, lib. 1. de Amissione Gratiae, & statu peccati, cap. 10. parag. Confirmatur.
Present Roman School: some sins venial by nature—not yet a defined article§1264
1264Today’s Roman consensus: some sins are venial by nature, not merely by mercy.
Le Blanc notes the point is common doctrine, not yet a defined article of faith.
Latin · §1264
XVIII. Unde est quod Schola Romana hodie communi consensu contrarium statuit, videlicet, quaedam peccata natura sua venialia esse, & non tantum ex Dei misericordia, atque indulgentia: licet istud nondum habeat pro fidei articulo, & re omnino certa & definita.
Yet venials with mortals in the damned draw everlasting penalty (Thomas)§1265
1265Even while denying venial sin merits hell of itself, the School teaches it is punished eternally in those who die in mortal sin.
Thomas: with mortal sin in the damned, venial draws endless penalty because hell has no remission.
Latin · §1265
XIX. Porro quamvis communis Scholae Romanae doctrina sit peccatum veniale natura sua mortem aeternam non mereri, docet illa nihilominus peccatum veniale aeterna poena puniri, in iis qui cum peccato mortali ex hac vita decedunt, & inferis adjudicantur. Idque post Thomam Aquinatem, qui asserit peccato veniali deberi poenam aeternam, si cum peccato mortali inveniatur in aliquo damnato, quia in inferno nulla potest esse remissio. In 1.2. quaest. 87. art. 5. in 3. arg.
Scotus dissents: venial penalty in hell eventually ends§1266
1266Scotus alone here: venial penalty joined to mortal in hell finally ceases; only mortal debts remain forever.
Le Blanc flags him as the noted dissent before stating the common opposite.
Latin · §1266
XX. Scotus quidem aliter sensit. Nam in quartum Sententiarum, distinctione vigesima prima, docet peccato veniali, quod conjunctum permanet cum mortali, non deberi poenam aeternam in alia vita, sed tandem poenam illius in inferno finiri, permanente sola poena quae peccatis mortalibus debetur. Quaest. 1. parag. In ista quaestione.
Common School: venial stain in the damned persists forever—no repentance there§1267
1267Against Scotus, the common line keeps venial punishment perpetual in the damned—no repentance can clear the stain there.
While the stain remains, even light fault keeps them worthy of endless penalty.
Latin · §1267
XXI. Sed communis Scholae Romanae sententia contrarium tenet, scilicet, poenam peccati venialis in damnatis fore perpetuam. Idque quoniam peccatum quodvis quantumlibet leve, hominem supplicio & poena dignum reddit, quamdiu in eo manet, & nisi per poenitentiam aliquam retractatum & expiatum non est. Jam autem in damnatis nulla datur poenitentia, & peccati expiatio: adeoque in iis perpetuae manent maculae ex peccatis etiam venialibus contractae. Nec enim ullum omnino peccatum per aliquem dilectionis, sive contritionis actum retractare possunt: quoniam ista locum in inferno non habent. Et sic cum peccati venialis macula & pravitas aeternum in iis perseveret, in aeternum quoque per eam supplicio & poena digni manent.
Still venial by nature: endless hell-penalty for it is only accidental§1268
1268Perpetual hell-penalty for venial sin does not prove it merits hell of itself—the stuckness is accidental to dying in mortal sin.
In the living not under mortal sin, love and contrition can clear venial fault; unpaid debt would still be only temporal.
Latin · §1268
XXII. Inde tamen sequi negant peccatum veniale natura sua veniale non esse, & ex se poenam aeternam mereri. Quoniam qui non sunt in peccato mortali, si venialiter peccent, non propterea privantur gratia, charitate, & vita spirituali: ac proinde in iis peccatum istud facile tolli & deleri potest, per aliquem dilectionis & contritionis actum. Quo posito, etiamsi Deus poenae isti peccato debitae nihil condonare vellet, non ad poenam aeternam, sed ad poenam tantum temporalem obligati manerent. Quod autem in damnatis peccatum istud, nec quoad culpam tolli, nec etiam quoad poenam remitti potest; id esse tantum per accidens, & quia in illis conjunctum reperitur cum peccatis mortalibus, propter quae sunt in aeternum Dei gratia, & vita spirituali privati.
Two intrinsic differences: residual principle of repair; eternal vs temporal debt§1269
1269Mortal sin leaves no inward principle of repair—God must raise as from the dead; venial leaves grace’s life intact.
Even after contrition, unpaid mortal debt can still be eternal; cleared venial guilt leaves only temporal dues—Bellarmine’s line.
Latin · §1269
XXIII. Unde colligunt peccatum veniale, ex se & natura sua, a peccato mortali dupliciter differre. Primum in eo quod peccatum mortale, cum vitam animae extinguat, & Dei gratiam ex anima expellat, nullum in homine principium relinquit, cujus vi tolli & deleri queat: sed ad hoc opus est ut Deus de novo quasi hominem ex mortuis excitet. Cum res secus se habeat in peccato veniali, sicuti jam dictum est. Deinde in eo quod, si cogitemus peccatum mortale retractatum fuisse per aliquem actum contritionis & dilectionis, & ita ex anima sublatum, quoad pravitatem, & maculam ex eo relictam: at nihilominus Deum de jure suo, & poena quam exigere potest, nihil homini remittere velle, qui peccatum tale admisit ad poenam aeternam obligatus manet; propter legem Dei semel per illud violatam. Cum sublata culpa peccati venialis, nullum poenae aeternae debitum in homine manere possit, sed solummodo debitum poenae cujusdam temporalis. Quae est Bellarmini doctrina, De Amissione Gratiae, lib. 1. cap. 13. Responsione ad 3. Objectionem.
Dispute: is venial sin against the law, or only beside it?§1270
1270Roman doctors split: Bellarmine’s camp sets venial ‘beside’ the law, mortal ‘against’ it.
Vasquez and others keep both venial and mortal as against God’s law.
Latin · §1270
XXIV. Quaerunt autem hic Theologi Ecclesiae Romanae, An peccatum veniale sit contra Dei legem, An vero tantum praeter Dei legem. Et quidem sunt inter eos multi, qui existimant peccatum veniale non tam esse contra legem, quam praeter legem. Et in eo constituunt discrimen peccati mortalis & venialis, quod mortale sit contra legem, veniale solum praeter legem. Quae est Bellarmini sententia, lib. 1. de Amiss. Grat. & statu Peccati, cap. 11. in Explicatione quinti Argumenti. Alii vero censent tam veniale, quam mortale peccatum esse contra Dei legem. Quam sententiam tenet Vasquez, Tom. 1. in 1.2. Disput. 143. cap. 3.
‘Beside the law’ softened: material breach, not formal war on charity’s end§1271
1271‘Beside the law’ advocates still admit a forbidding precept—venial breaks the law materially.
Formally, they say, it is not against the law’s end (charity), because it does not destroy charity—Eustachius’s softening.
Latin · §1271
XXV. Verum qui dicendum putant peccatum veniale non tam esse contra legem, quam praeter legem, multa observant, quibus hanc suam sententiam exponunt atque emolliunt. Et primo dicunt se nolle negare, quod sit aliqua lex, quae peccatum veniale prohibeat: proindeque quin peccatum veniale sit contra legem spectatam materialiter, id est, secundum rem jussam, vel prohibitam. Sed mentem suam esse, quod peccatum veniale non sit contra legem formaliter consideratam, id est, in ordine ad finem legis, qui est charitas; quia peccatum veniale charitatem non tollit. Ut videre est apud Eustachium a Sancto Paulo, in 2a parte Summae Theologicae, tract. 5. disp. 7. quaest. 1. sub finem.
Another softening: ‘God’s law’ often means only precepts binding under mortal§1272
1272Some reserve ‘God’s law’ for precepts binding under mortal and needful for salvation—hence venial is not ‘simply’ against that law.
They still admit every sin transgresses law broadly, and venial wars with right reason as law’s imprint.
Latin · §1272
XXVI. Alii notant peccatum veniale non dici simpliciter esse contra Dei legem, quia per legem Dei intelliguntur communiter praecepta obligantia sub mortali, & quorum observatio necessaria est ad salutem, juxta illud, Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. Concedunt tamen aliquo sensu verum esse quod peccatum veniale sit contra legem, quia generatim omne peccatum est praevaricatio legis: ac praeterea quia dubitari non potest, quin peccatum veniale repugnet rectae rationi, quae est quaedam in nobis impressio divinae legis. Ista Petrus a Sancto Joseph, in Idea Theologiae Moralis, lib. 2. cap. 3. Resolutione 5.
Bellarmine: venials are beside the law—imperfect will or imperfect lex§1273
1273Bellarmine: surprise-venials lack perfect voluntariness, so they are not perfectly against law except materially.
Fully willed minor precepts (idle words) are not ‘law’ in rigor, since charity barely measures them.
Latin · §1273
XXVII. Bellarminus vero contendit recte dici peccata venialia, cujuscunque tandem generis sint, non esse contra legem, sed praeter legem: quia si sunt contra praeceptum aliquod legis proprie dictae, ut peccata venialia, quae dicuntur ex subreptione, quale est desiderium rei illicitæ non plane deliberatum, non sunt perfecte voluntaria: adeoque hoc ipso non sunt perfecte contra legem, nisi materialiter, quia lex proprie voluntati tantum nostrae ponitur. Vel si perfecte voluntaria sunt, praeceptum quod transgrediuntur non est perfecte & in rigore lex. Nam, inquit, cum finis praecepti sit charitas, & ex fine mensurentur praecepta, si quod praeceptum constituatur de re, quae parum admodum ad eum finem pertineat, ut si speciali praecepto caveatur, ne quis verbum otiosum loquatur; id praeceptum non poterit esse perfecte & in rigore, & ut alii ajunt, antonomastice lex. De Amiss. Grat. & statu Pecc. lib. 1. cap. 11. sub finem.
Vasquez’s camp: venial against lesser precepts, not against those needful to charity§1274
1274Vasquez’s side: venial is not against salvation-necessary precepts—yet still against some real, lesser precept.
So ‘beside’ the chief law need not mean ‘not against any precept at all.’
Latin · §1274
XXVIII. Qui vero docent peccatum veniale esse contra legem, & praeceptum aliquod, non autem solum praeter legem; distinguunt inter praecepta necessaria ad charitatem servandam, & salutem consequendam: & inter praecepta quae ad hoc utilia quidem sunt, sed non necessaria, & quorum violatio non impedit salutem. Et dicunt peccatum veniale non esse, sicut peccatum mortale, contra praeceptum aliquod necessarium ad salutem consequendam, & charitatem servandam, sed praeter illud. Verum propterea negari non debere peccatum veniale esse contra praeceptum aliquod, quod simpliciter praeceptum sit, licet non sit ex praeceptis praecipuis, & necessariis ad salutem. Ut videre est apud Gabr. Vasquez, modo citata Disputatione, cap. 3.
Becanus: no venial is properly against the law’s end; all are somehow against law§1275
1275Becanus: venial sin is never properly against the law’s end (charity).
Yet every venial is somehow against the law—perfectly or imperfectly.
Latin · §1275
XXIX. Quibus consentanea tradit Becanus Jesuita in Summa Theologiae Scholasticae, tomo secundo, tractatu secundo, capite secundo, quaestione septima, ubi haec est ejus prima conclusio, Nullum peccatum veniale est proprie contra finem legis. Secunda vero haec, Tametsi nullum peccatum veniale sit contra finem legis, omne tamen veniale est aliquo modo contra legem, sive perfecte, sive imperfecte.
Becanus: kind- and small-matter venials perfectly against law if deliberate§1276
1276Deliberate kind-venials and small-matter thefts Becanus counts as perfectly against the law.
Sudden indeliberate motions are only imperfectly against precepts like ‘You shall not covet.’
Latin · §1276
XXX. Et quidem dicit esse perfecte contra legem peccata venialia ex suo genere; ut risum immodicum, & verbum otiosum, & etiam venialia ex parvitate materiae, ut furtum rei exigui momenti; si talia peccata deliberate fiant. Peccata vero quae venialia sunt ex defectu perfectae deliberationis, quales sunt subiti & indeliberati motus irae, odii, invidiae, superbiae, luxuriae, &c. esse imperfecte contra legem: ut exempli gratia, motum indeliberatum concupiscentiae esse imperfecte contra legem illam Decalogi, Non concupisces.
Becanus’s close: three ways mortal and venial are not alike against the law—FINIS Prior§1277
1277Becanus closes Prior: mortal alone wars also with the law’s end, and always perfectly, against precepts needful to salvation.
Deliberate venials lack that triple sameness—so the Roman map of mortal vs venial ends here before the Protestant Pars Posterior.
Latin · §1277
XXXI. Unde colligit peccatum veniale & peccatum mortale non esse eodem modo contra legem. Primo, quia mortale est ita contra legem, ut sit etiam contra finem legis; non item veniale. Secundo, quia omne mortale est perfecte contra legem; multa venialia imperfecte. Tertio, quia omnia mortalia sunt contra legem aliquam, quae simpliciter necessaria est ad salutem; venialia deliberata non item.
Protestants: every sin by nature merits eternal death and God’s wrath§1278
1278Reformed consent opens Posterior: every sin, even the lightest in our eyes, deserves everlasting death if God deals by strict right.
The Mosaic curse on imperfect law-keeping sets the frame before any talk of lighter and heavier faults.
Latin · §1278
I. Theologi Protestantes ante omnia uno consensu constituunt peccatum omne natura sua, mortem aeternam, & Dei odium atque iram mereri; nec ullum esse peccatum, quantumlibet leve hominum judicio videri queat, quod non possit a Deo poena sempiterna puniri, & hominem Dei amore excludere, si Deus cum homine rigide agere velit. Juxta illud legis Mosaicae, Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis hujus.
In the reprobate even the least sins will be punished eternally§1279
1279For the impenitent, even idle words meet everlasting punishment in fact after judgment.
Christian schools agree: past that day only eternal penalty remains.
Latin · §1279
II. Imo docent in reprobis & impoenitentibus, peccata quaelibet, etiam minima, quale est verbum otiosum, poena aeterna actu & reipsa aliquando punienda esse. Juxta illud Christi in Evangelio, Dico autem vobis, quoniam omne verbum otiosum, quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent rationem de eo in die judicii. Nec enim, ex communi Christianarum Scholarum doctrina, post diem judicii, ulli alii poenae quam aeternae locus erit.
No sin too great for mercy—except the sin against the Holy Spirit§1280
1280Faith and repentance open mercy for any atrocity—save the sin against the Spirit.
That sin means deliberate, malicious casting off of known truth; Hebrews 6 says renewal to repentance is impossible.
Latin · §1280
III. Vice versa vero docent nullum esse peccatum tam grave & tam atrox, quod veniam a Dei misericordia consequi non possit, mediante peccatoris fide & poenitentia: Excepto solum peccato, quod vocant in Spiritum Sanctum. Quo nomine intelligunt totalem, & ultroneam atque deliberatam, ex destinata malitia, divinae veritatis semel agnitae & gustatae abjectionem. Quod peccatum, nec in hoc, nec in futuro saeculo remittitur: Propterea quod impossibile est, qui in tale peccatum lapsi sunt renovari ad poenitentiam; juxta doctrinam Apostoli Heb. 6.
In the elect all sins are freely remitted through faith in Christ§1281
1281For the elect, even atrocious sins are freely remitted—not repaid by strict penalty.
Grace turns them before death to flee by faith to Christ’s merit and righteousness.
Latin · §1281
IV. Quin docent in electis omnia peccata, quantumvis atrocia, gratis remitti atque condonari, nec ulla poena proprie & stricte sic dicta puniri. Idque quoniam, Deo per gratiam suam eos movente atque excitante, ante finem vitae serio convertuntur, atque peccato renunciant, & per fidem ad Christi meritum & justitiam confugiunt: ac propter eam a Deo peccatorum suorum remissionem consequuntur.
Yet sins are not equal—against the Stoic parity of vices§1282
1282Intrinsic desert of death does not make all sins Stoic equals—gravity and penalty have degrees.
Luke’s knowing and ignorant servants mark unequal stripes even where none go free.
Latin · §1282
V. Caeterum quamvis contendant peccatum quodlibet ex se mortem aeternam mereri, & rejectionem a Dei amore & benevolentia, multum tamen ab eo absunt, ut cum Stoicis sentiant peccata omnia paria & aequalia esse. Si quidem fatentur inter peccatum & peccatum magnum discrimen reperiri; & unum altero longe gravius & atrocius esse: adeoque licet peccatis singulis aeterna quaedam poena respondeat, inter peccatorum poenas varios tamen esse gradus, & unum altero longe mitius puniendum esse. Prout docet Evangelium servum illum, qui cognita heri sui voluntate, illam non executus est, pluribus & durioribus plagis caedendum fore, quam illum qui eam ignorans violavit, licet & iste non sit hoc impune laturus.
Second Helvetic Confession: sins unequal; Pelagians and Jovinians condemned§1283
1283Helvetic II—and its Reformed subscribers—deny equal sins and cite harsher judgment than Sodom’s.
Pelagians and Jovinianists who Stoicize vice-parity are expressly damned.
Latin · §1283
VI. Super hac re diserta est Confessio Helvetica posterior, quae in Confessionum Harmonia, sive Syntagmate habetur, & quam subscriptione sua comprobarunt, non solum Ecclesiae vicinae Tigurinorum & Bernensium, aliorumque quorum est Confessio; sed & remotiores Hungaricae, Polonicae, Scoticae, Gallicae, aliaque Reformatae. Nam in ista Confessione haec ad verbum leguntur, Fatemur non omnia peccata esse aequalia, licet ex eodem corruptionis & infidelitatis fonte fluant; sed alia aliis esse graviora, sicut Dominus dixerat, tolerabilius fore Sodoma, quam civitati quae verbum Evangelii contemneret. Damnamus ergo omnes qui his contraria docuerunt; in primis Pelagium, cum omnibus Pelagianis, una cum Jovinianistis, peccata cum Stoicis paria facientibus.
Lighter daily sins tolerated in the regenerate without loss of heaven§1284
1284Under the gospel covenant God bears the regenerate’s lighter daily faults without barring heaven.
Idle words, vain thoughts, and flaws in good works can coexist with peace of conscience and hope of salvation.
Latin · §1284
VII. Porro ex hac peccatorum inter se disparitate & inaequalitate, & aliorum prae aliis levitate, sive gravitate, fit ut Deus cum filiis suis, quos adoptavit in Christo, & Spiritu suo regeneravit, juxta gratiosum foedus Evangelii benigne agens, peccata quaedam leviora in iis eatenus toleret, ut etiamsi non sint sine ejusmodi peccatis, in quae quotidie incurrunt, & in aliquo eorum moriantur, non tamen eos propterea declaret indignos qui in coelum admittantur, & gloriae ac felicitatis aeternae participes fiant. Adeoque peccata talia consistere possunt cum bona conscientia, & munditia cordis, eaque mensura sanctificationis, quam Deus a nobis exigit in hac vita, ut in altera ipso frui, ipsumque videre possimus. Neque ejusmodi peccata ex homine fideli & pio excutiunt conscientiae pacem, & gaudium spiritus, ac remissionis peccatorum ipsius, & salutis aeternae spem atque fiduciam. Cujus generis peccata sunt, exempli gratia, verbum otiosum, risus immoderatus, cogitatio vana, & naevi ac defectus omnes adhaerentes bonorum piorum operibus, in quibus a summa legis exactitudine semper deficiunt.
Graver sins cannot stand with a good conscience or title to heaven§1285
1285Grave sins—adultery, idolatry, deliberate murder—cannot share a good conscience or present fitness for heaven.
While they last, peace, assurance, and Spirit-given joy depart; sudden death in them leaves no ground for hope.
Latin · §1285
VIII. At vero sunt alia peccata graviora, quae simul stare non possunt cum bona conscientia, & justitia ac sanctitate illa sine qua nemo videbit Dominum, & ad quam omnes qui sunt vere pii & fideles, in hac vita per Christi gratiam renovantur. Unde est quod ipsum gratiae Evangelium illos quibus ordinarium est talia peccata patrare, & qui in aliquo eorum a morte deprehenduntur, absolute pronuntiat regno coelorum excludendos. Ac proinde qui incidunt in ejusmodi peccata, & aliquandiu in iis perseverant, aeternae mortis reatu constricti sunt, & praesentem, ut sic dicam, aptitudinem amittunt ad ingrediendum in regnum coelorum: nec pro tempore illo retinere possunt conscientiae pacem, salutis fiduciam, & gaudium quod est Spiritus Sancti fructus, ac syncerae pietatis & probitatis comes. Neque bene sperare licet de salute ejus quem mors derepente opprimit ejusmodi aliquod grave scelus patrantem. Quale est, verbi causa, adulterium, idololatria, & deliberatum homicidium.
Scripture: no one is without sin—so some sins coexist with true holiness§1286
1286James, Ecclesiastes, and 1 John prove no believer lives sinless.
Therefore some sins must coexist with true holiness, a good conscience, and the Spirit’s fruits.
Latin · §1286
IX. Quae certe ex Scripturis sacris evidenter colliguntur. Nam Scriptura sacra docet multis in locis neminem sine peccato vivere. Ut quum dicit Jacobus, In multis offendimus omnes. Et Salomon in Ecclesiaste, Non est homo justus in terra, qui faciat bonum, & non peccet. Et Joannes similiter, Si dixerimus nos peccatum non habere, nos ipsos seducimus, & veritas in nobis non est. Unde necessario sequitur, cum fideles nulli, quantumlibet pii & justitiae studentes, sine peccatis in hac vita degant, quaedam esse peccata quae cum vera justitia & sanctitate simul stent, & cum quibus servare liceat bonam conscientiam, eaque dona & fructus Spiritus, quae piorum in hac vita propria esse Scriptura declarat. Jac. 3. Eccl. 7. 1 Joan. 1.
Scripture equally bars works of the flesh from the kingdom§1287
1287Paul’s catalogs of fleshly works shut their doers out of the kingdom—gospel covenant as well as law.
While someone stays in those crimes, good conscience and lawful assurance of salvation cannot hold.
Latin · §1287
X. At vero haec eadem Scriptura non minus aperte & frequenter inculcat peccata illa graviora, quae vocat opera carnis, hominem regno coelorum excludere; nec qui ejusmodi peccata committit posse Deo placere, & regni ipsius haeredem fieri. Nolite errare, inquit Paulus, neque fornicarii, neque idolis servientes, neque adulteri, neque molles, neque masculorum concubitores, neque fures, neque avari, neque ebriosi, neque maledici, neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt. Item, Manifesta sunt autem opera carnis, quae sunt adulterium, immunditia, impudicitia, luxuria, idolorum servitus, veneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, aemulationes, irae, rixae, dissensiones, sectae, invidiae, homicidia, ebrietates, comessationes, & his similia, quae praedico vobis, sicut praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non consequentur. Unde non minus evidenter patet illos qui consueverunt istiusmodi flagitia patrare, & quos mors opprimit alicui illorum operam dantes, esse non posse salutis aeternae participes, ac proinde omnia ejusmodi peccata omnino pugnare cum sanctitate illa, cui vita & gloria aeterna promissa est; nec cum illis posse bonam conscientiam retineri, ac legitimam salutis aeternae fiduciam: sed quamdiu aliquis in ullo peccatorum istiusmodi manet, tamdiu mortis & perditionis aeternae reum teneri, non tantum juxta legis rigorem, sed quoque juxta ipsum Evangelii foedus. 1 Cor. 6. Gal. 5.
British Dort judgment: daily lighter sins do not shake justification§1288
1288Britain’s Dort judgment: elect justified believers still sin lightly every day.
Those surprise and negligence faults do not shake justification or cut off heavenly inheritance.
Latin · §1288
XI. Hanc doctrinam aperte tradunt Theologi Magnae Britanniae, in suo judicio circa quintum Remonstrantium Articulum, quod insertum est actis Synodi Dordracenae. Ubi haec est eorum Thesis secunda: Electi, regenerati, & justificati, quamvis non peccare non possint, & leviora peccata subreptionis, negligentiae & inadvertentiae quotidie committant, eatenus tamen nec justificationis status concutitur, nec juris ad regnum coeleste haereditarii usus intercipitur.
British explanation: law’s rigor vs gospel fatherly dealing with infirmities§1289
1289Law’s rigor makes every sin deadly; yet God does not always so deal with adopted sons.
Sudden lust-motions, flaws in best works, and unplanned daily slips leave no condemnation in Christ—and do not cast off justification.
Latin · §1289
XII. Cui Thesi hanc statim subjungunt declarationem & confirmationem. Ex legis quidem rigore quodvis, vel levissimum peccatum est mortiferum, & excludit peccatorem a favore Dei, & regno coelorum. Sed cum filiis cum Christo jam adoptatis Deus non agit semper secundum legis rigorem. Sunt quidem peccata aliqua in quae si filii Dei incidant, & in quibus si perseverent, Deus eos ira sua prosequitur, & a regno coelorum excludendos denuntiat. 1 Cor. 6. 10. Gal. 5. 21. Coloss. 3. 6. de quibus in Thesibus sequentibus dicetur. Sunt autem & alia quaedam peccata, ob quae Deus misericors non solet filios suos, vel ad tempus, lumine vultus sui privare, nec metum condemnationis, aut mortis illis incutere. Hujusmodi sunt subiti & indeliberati rebellis concupiscentiae motus, de quibus conqueritur Apostolus Rom. 7. Item defectus & naevi, qui etiam optimis renatorum operibus adhaerescunt. Denique ea quotidiana humanae infirmitatis delicta, quae committuntur absque certo aliquo proposito ea committendi, & quotidiana remissionis postulatione dimittuntur. De hisce Jacobus 3. 2. In multis offendimus omnes; 1 Joh. 1. 8. Si dixerimus quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus. Hisce peccatis non obstantibus recte dixerit quivis fidelium, Nihil condemnationis est iis qui sunt in Christo Jesu. Imo in medio harum calamitatum, cuivis justificato Deus dicit quod Apostolo dixit, Sufficit tibi gratia mea; nam virtus mea in infirmitate perficitur. Non excidunt a statu justificationis suis infirmitatibus, quarum infirmitate virtus Dei perficitur, quique interim gloriari possint virtute Christi in se habitare, ut eodem loco habetur.
British third thesis: atrocious falls bring paternal anger and damnable guilt§1290
1290Britain’s third thesis: regenerate saints can plunge into atrocious sins by their own fault.
Then they meet paternal wrath, damnable guilt, and loss of present fitness for heaven.
Latin · §1290
XIII. Postea vero haec est eorum tertia Thesis: Iidem regeniti & justificati quandoque suo vitio incidunt in atrocia peccata, atque hisce indignationem Dei paternam incurrunt, reatum damnabilem contrahunt, praesentem ad regnum coelorum ingrediendum aptitudinem amittunt.
David and Peter prove regenerate can fall—and remain death-liable while impenitent§1291
1291David and Peter show regenerate saints can plunge into grievous sin under God’s permission for humility.
While they rest impenitent they owe damnable guilt, lose present fitness for heaven, and must not pretend safety.
Latin · §1291
XIV. Quam Thesin sic in sequentibus confirmant: Exemplis Davidis ac Petri constat posse renatos in gravissima peccata seipsos praecipitare, Deo ita quandoque permittente, ut discant cum humilitate agnoscere, non suis viribus aut meritis, sed solius Dei misericordia se fuisse a morte aeterna servatos, & vita aeterna donatos. Dum hujusmodi peccatis inhaerent, iisque secure acquiescunt, indignatio Dei paterna contra eos laborat. Si justitias meas profanaverint, & mandata mea non custodierint, visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum, & in verberibus peccata eorum. Tribulatio & angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum. Quin etiam reatum damnabilem contrahunt, ita ut dum in eo statu impoenitentes persistunt, nec debeant, nec possint aliter sibi persuadere, quam se esse morti obnoxios. Si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini. Sunt enim capitali crimine constricti, cujus merito, secundum divinam ordinationem morti subjacent, quamvis nondum morti traditi sint, neque si paternam Dei amorem spectemus, tradendi, sed ab hoc peccato prius eripiendi, ut sic ex mortis reatu eripiantur. Denique, pro praesenti conditione, amittunt aptitudinem ad ingrediendum regnum coelorum; quia in illud regnum non intrabit aliquid coinquinatum, aut abominationem faciens. Coelestis enim corona non imponitur nisi iis, Qui bonum certamen certarunt, & cursum suum in fide & sanctitate consummarunt. Ineptus ergo ad hanc coronam adipiscendam quisquis impietatis operibus adhuc adhaerescit. Psalm. 89. 31. Rom. 2. 9. & 8. 13. Apoc. 21. 27. 2 Tim. 4. 8.
Fourth British thesis: the wanderer must return by renewed faith and repentance§1292
1292God’s fixed order: a wandering believer must first return by renewed faith and repentance.
Only then can he be brought to the heavenly goal.
Latin · §1292
XV. Thesis autem quarta sic habet, Dei immota ordinatio postulat, ut fidelis si exorbitans, per renovatum fidei & poenitentiae actum prius redeat in viam, quam ad viae metam, hoc est, regnum coeleste, perduci possit.
Means as sure as the end: elect dying in impenitent vice are not saved§1293
1293Election’s end travels a fixed road of means; the broad path of impenitent vice never reaches heaven.
Paul’s shipwreck word and David/Peter show: elect dying unrepentant in grave sin would not be saved.
Latin · §1293
XVI. Atque huic Thesi haec subditur explicatio: Ex electionis decreto ita ad finem praedestinantur fideles, ut non aliter quam per media a Deo instituta, quasi per viam quandam regiam, ad eundem finem perducantur. Nec minus rata & certa sunt haec Dei decreta de mediis, de modo, ac ordine eventorum, quam de fine ac ipsius eventu. Si quis igitur insistat viam divinae ordinationi contrariam, scilicet latam illam viam immunditiae & impoenitentiae, quae recta ducit ad gehennam, nunquam poterit in coelum ista calleo pervenire. Imo si mors illum oppresserit in hac via errantem, non poterit non ad tartara descendere. Neque fornicarii, neque adulteri, &c. regni Dei haereditatem possidebunt. Frustra ergo sperant qui opinantur electum in talibus flagitiis se volutantem, & ita morientem, vi electionis nihilominus necessario salvandum esse. Nec enim sine poenitentia, & sanctitate nemo videbit Dominum. Sicut ergo certum fuit ex Dei decreto & promissione, illos omnes, qui in eadem cum Paulo navi navigabant, incolumes e naufragio emersuros; & tamen illud Pauli dictum simul certum fuit, Nisi hi manserint in navi, salvi esse non potestis: ita certum fuit, electos Dei servos, Davidem, & Petrum ad regnum coelorum perventuros: & tamen non minus certum, si ille in adulterio & homicidio, hic in abnegatione & perjurio impoenitentes permansissent, quod neuter eorum salvus esse potuisset. Luc. 13. 1 Cor. 6. 9. Heb. 12. 14. Act. 27. 31.
Fifth thesis: between grave guilt and renewed repentance the sinner stands damnable yet to-be-absolved§1294
1294Between grave guilt and renewed faith-repentance the sinner stands damnable by desert.
Christ’s merit and God’s purpose mark him for absolution—but not actually absolved until pardon is sought in living faith.
Latin · §1294
XVII. Denique quibusdam in hanc sententiam interjectis, addunt Thesin istam quintam: In illo interstitio, quod est inter contractum ex gravi peccato reatum, & fidei ac poenitentiae actum renovatum, stat talis peccator, suo merito damnandus, Christi merito, & firmo Dei proposito absolvendus; non prius autem, quam per excitatam fidem ac poenitentiam veniam impetraverit, actu absolutus.
Bremen at Dort: grave falls cost good conscience; lighter daily sins do not§1295
1295Bremen’s Dort eleventh thesis matches Britain: grave falls strip conscience, purity, and joy.
Daily lighter slips do not work that loss.
Latin · §1295
XVIII. Porro Britannis istis Theologis Reformatos caeteros quoad rem ipsam consentire ostendere non est difficile. Nam in illis ipsis Actis Synodi Dordracenae Theologi Bremenses, in suo circa eundem articulum judicio Thesi undecima docent, Renatos quum in gravia aliqua peccata labuntur, bonam conscientiam, cordis puritatem, & laetitiam spiritus, amittere; quod ipsis non accidit, quum in peccata leviora quotidie incurrunt.
Paraeus: fallen faith is sick—habitual only, and does not justify until repentance§1296
1296Paraeus: David-like falls cost heart-cleanness, joy, and conscience; justifying faith then lies sick.
Only habitual faith remains—and God still imputes until repentance restores the act of receiving pardon.
Latin · §1296
XIX. Quibus consentit Paraeus, in Bellarminum de Amissione Gratiae, lib. 1. cap. 7. Ubi docet fidelem in grave peccatum, ut David, prolapsum, amittere munditiem cordis, laetitiam salutis, solatium gratiae, bonitatem conscientiae, &c. Et postea docet in fideli qui hoc modo lapsus est, fidem justificandi actum non exercere. Fides, inquit, tunc dicitur justificare, quum actum proprium accipiendi remissionem peccatorum exercere potest, atque exercet. Hunc vero actum non exercet, neque exercere potest fides aegra, saucia, sordibus carnis oppressa, peccatorum compedibus quasi ligata. Et infra: Justificatis vero lapsis Deus non imputat peccata, nempe resipiscentibus; ante resipiscentiam certe imputat, infligendo poenas temporales, & imputaret etiam infligendo poenas aeternas, nisi resipiscerent. Ac tandem sic concludit, Tunc igitur fides in lapsis habitualiter tantum manens, proprie justificari dici, aut eos justificare, non potest.
Polish Thorn declaration: sins against conscience forfeit justifying grace for a time§1297
1297At Thorn the Poles deny once-justified antinomian security: conscience-wounding relapse forfeits justifying grace and the Spirit for that time.
Infirmity-slips differ; without special exciting grace unto late repentance such falls leave the sinner damnable in deed.
Latin · §1297
XX. Poloni vero Theologi in declaratione suae sententiae, in colloquio Thoruniensi oblata, expresse docent renatos, quoties in peccata contra conscientiam recidunt, in iisque aliquandiu perseverant, nec gratiam justificantem, nec Spiritum Sanctum, pro illo tempore retinere; sed novum irae ac mortis aeternae reatum incurrere: cum res secus se habeat, quando non peccant contra conscientiam, sed ex infirmitate & inadvertentia. Etenim haec sunt eorum verba, Falso accusamur quasi statuamus semel justificatos Dei gratiam, ejusve certitudinem, & ipsum Spiritum Sanctum non posse amittere, quamvis in peccatis pro lubitu volutentur. Cum contra potius doceamus ipsos etiam renatos, quoties in peccata contra conscientiam recidunt, in iisque aliquandiu perseverant, nec fidem veram, nec Dei gratiam justificantem, nedum ejus certitudinem, aut Spiritum Sanctum pro tempore illo retinere; sed novum irae ac mortis aeternae reatum incurrere: ac propterea, nisi speciali Dei gratia excitante (quod in electis fieri non dubitamus) ad resipiscentiam serum renoventur, reipsa etiam damnandos esse. Titulo de Gratia, sect. 2. num. 11.
Ames and Crocius: sin that wastes the conscience vs sin that does not§1298
1298Reformed schools (Ames, Crocius) split sins that waste the conscience from those that do not.
Conscience-wasting sin cannot share true piety; infirmity-slips can remain in a godly good conscience.
Latin · §1298
XXI. Huc facit distinctio peccati in Reformatorum Scholis usitata, qua distinguitur peccatum in illud quod conscientiam vastat, & in illud quod non vastat conscientiam. Quae distinctio habetur apud Gul. Amesium & Lud. Crocium. Etenim per peccatum vastans conscientiam intelligitur illud quod cum vera pietate, & bona conscientia consistere non potest: per peccatum vero quod non vastat conscientiam, illud quod ex infirmitate & negligentia commissum reperiri potest in eo qui & vere pius est, & bonam habet erga Deum conscientiam. Ames. in Medulla Theologiae, lib. 1. cap. 14. num. 11. Lud. Croc. in Syntag. Sacr. Theolog. lib. 3. cap. 38. num. 23. & 24.
Ursinus/Paraeus: reigning vs non-reigning sin§1299
1299Ursinus (via Paraeus): reigning sin is unresisted and actually death-liable—found in all the unregenerate and in some regenerate falls.
Non-reigning sin is Spirit-resisted; saints keep faith and comfort amid remaining infirmities they hate.
Latin · §1299
XXII. Eodem vero recidit distinctio peccati in regnans & non regnans; prout illam tradit & explicat Ursinus in Catecheticis explicationibus Davidis Paraei opera recognitis. Peccatum regnans, inquit, est cui peccans non repugnat per gratiam Spiritus Sancti, ideoque fit obnoxius aeternae morti, nisi poenitentiam agat, & veniam per Christum consequatur. Seu est omne peccatum quod non deploratur, & cui non resistitur per gratiam Spiritus Sancti, & propter quod, non tantum ex ordine justitiae Dei, sed ex reipsa, aeternarum poenarum reus est qui illud habet. Talia sunt omnia peccata in non renatis: quaedam etiam in renatis, ut error in fundamento fidei, & lapsus contra conscientiam, cum quibus fiducia remissionis peccatorum, & consolatio vera non consistit, donec resipiscant. Quod enim etiam renati possint cadere in peccatum regnans, satis ostendunt tristissimi lapsus sanctissimorum hominum, ut Aaronis, Davidis, &c. Non regnans peccatum est cui peccans repugnat per gratiam Spiritus Sancti: ideoque non est obnoxius aeternae morti, quia poenitentiam agit, & veniam consequitur per Christum. Talia peccata sunt omnes defectus, inclinationes, & cupiditates pravae, & multa peccata ignorantiae, omissionis & infirmitatis, reliquiae in sanctis, quamdiu sunt in hac vita, quae tamen agnoscunt, deplorant, & oderunt, & in quibus etiam fidem & consolationem retinent. Parte prima, titulo De peccato Actuali.
Reformed map: two kinds—lighter compatible with holiness; graver death-liable until repentance§1300
1300Reformed doctors thus own two kinds: lighter faults compatible with holiness even at death.
Graver falls, until repentance, make one actually death-liable and unfit for heaven.
Latin · §1300
XXIII. Ex quibus omnibus evidenter constat Doctores Scholae Reformatae duo peccatorum genera, ut diximus, agnoscere. Unum leviorum quae simul stare possunt cum bona conscientia, & puritate illa cordis, sine qua nemo videbit Dominum, & quae proinde personam fidelem in qua reperiuntur aeternae damnationi actu obnoxiam non reddunt, & ineptam quae in regnum coelorum ingrediatur; etiamsi in aliquo ejusmodi peccato a morte deprehendatur: Alterum vero graviorum, in quae lapsus aliquis, & antequam ex iis per poenitentiam resurget, servare non potest bonam conscientiam, & cordis munditiem necessariam ad Deum videndum: sed per ea fit actu mortis aeternae reus, eaque obnoxius, & ineptus ut in regnum coelorum admittatur, adeo ut, si mors illum in eo statu opprimeret, in aeternum damnandus esset, & a gloria coelesti excludendus.
Reformed reject Rome’s intrinsic venials—yet allow a commodious use of the names§1301
1301Reformed deny Rome’s claim that some sins are by nature non-mortal.
They still allow mortal/venial labels when taken in a careful, commodious sense.
Latin · §1301
XXIV. Porro ex iis quae dicta sunt apparet Reformatos non probare distinctionem peccati in mortale & veniale, prout in Schola Romana communiter exponitur. Cum enim existiment omne peccatum per se, & natura sua poenam & mortem aeternam mereri, concedere non possunt peccata quaedam esse per se non mortalia, sed venialia. Attamen distinctionem istam non prorsus rejiciunt, sed commodo sensu illam usurpari posse fatentur.
Commodious sense: venial by event (pardoned) vs mortal by event (actually damning)§1302
1302First commodious use: ‘venial’ for sins actually pardoned through faith and repentance—even if huge in themselves.
‘Mortal’ then marks sins that in fact damn through unbelief and impenitence—Rome’s ‘from the event.’
Latin · §1302
XXV. Et primo quidem patiuntur venialia dici peccata quae actu veniam consequuntur, propter peccatoris fidem & resipiscentiam, utut in se gravissima sint: singulari vero quadam ratione mortalia, quae mortem & perditionem aeternam peccantibus reipsa afferunt, propter ipsorum incredulitatem & impoenitentiam. Quod Schola Romana vocat mortale & veniale ex eventu, ut antea observatum fuit.
Venial from cause: infirmity and ignorance obtain mercy more readily than destined malice§1303
1303Second sense: sins of infirmity and ignorance are ‘venial’ as nearer mercy—Paul’s persecuting ignorance.
Destined-malice sins win pardon harder and more often meet eternal death; Rainolds backs the distinction.
Latin · §1303
XXVI. Similiter agnoscunt aliquo sensu venialia dici posse peccata, quae ex causa sua hoc habent, ut facilius veniam consequantur: quoniam non ex certa & destinata malitia sunt; sed ex infirmitate & ignorantia. Prout Apostolus ait se fuisse blasphemum, & persecutorem, & contumeliosum; sed misericordiam consecutum, quia ignorans fecerat in incredulitate. Unde Deus pater miserationum facilius est commotus, ut ei qui non ex malitia peccaverat, veniam largiretur. Et hoc sensu venialia peccata opponuntur iis, quae cum ex destinata malitia committantur, rarius & difficilius misericordiam & veniam impetrant, & saepius morte aeterna puniuntur. Quam distinctionem refert & probat Joannes Rainoldus Anglus de Libris Apocryphis, lectione 26.
Gomarus and Piscator: only the sin against the Spirit is mortal as irremissible§1304
1304Some Reformed reserve ‘mortal’ for the irremissible sin against the Spirit—all else ‘venial’ as remissible.
That matches 1 John’s sin unto death and Gomarus/Piscator’s usage.
Latin · §1304
XXVII. Praeterea nonnulli Doctores Reformati venialia quandoque appellant peccata omnia quae possunt, mediante poenitentia, remissionem & veniam consequi: mortale vero illud quod remitti non potest, sed mortem aeternam necessario affert. Quo sensu mortale est solum peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum, reliqua vero omnia peccata venialia. Adeo ut haec distinctio, eadem sit cum illa Joannis, capite quinto primae epistolae, ubi distinguit peccatum ad mortem, & peccatum quod non est ad mortem: & cum ea qua Scholae vulgo distinguunt peccatum in remissibile & irremissibile. Hoc sensu peccatum distinguunt in mortale & veniale Gomarus in Syntagmate Disputationum Leydensium, disp. 13. thes. 10. & Piscator, volumine primo Thesium Theologicarum, loco 7. disp. 3. th. 64.
Ursinus: reigning sin singularly mortal; non-reigning singularly venial§1305
1305Ursinus/Paraeus: call reigning sin singularly mortal—the unresisted, actually death-liable fall against conscience.
Non-reigning remains singularly venial: Spirit-resisted infirmities where faith and comfort still dwell.
Latin · §1305
XXVIII. Sed sunt adhuc qui distinctionem peccati in mortale & veniale alio sensu sumunt. Nam Zacharias Ursinus in Explicationibus Catecheticis, & David Paraeus qui illas recognovit, dicunt peccatum regnans singulari modo mortale, peccatum vero non regnans singulari modo veniale dici posse. Et sic peccatum mortale est cui peccans non resistit per gratiam Spiritus Sancti, & propter quod fit, actu & reipsa, morti aeternae obnoxius. Cujusmodi sunt in renatis ipsis lapsus contra conscientiam, cum quibus fiducia remissionis peccatorum, & consolatio vera non consistit, donec resipiscant. Veniale vero cui peccans resistit per gratiam Spiritus Sancti, & propter quod, Deo miserante, non fit actu morti aeternae obnoxius. Cujus generis peccata sunt, Omnes inclinationes & cupiditates pravae, & multa peccata ignorantiae, omissionis & infirmitatis, reliquiae in sanctis, quamdiu sunt in hac vita, quae tamen agnoscunt, deplorant, & oderunt, & in quibus etiam fidem & consolationem retinent, ut habet locus jam ex Ursino citatus, titulo De Peccato actuali.
Davenant: conscience-wasting falls are singularly mortal; defects in good works are not§1306
1306Davenant: singularly mortal are conscience-wasting falls that newly bind believers under death-guilt.
Flaws mixed into good works, though truly sinful by law’s rigor, are not appropriately called mortal.
Latin · §1306
XXIX. Simili modo videtur explicare distinctionem peccati in mortale & veniale, Joannes Davenantius Episcopus Sarisburiensis. Nam mortalia vocat ratione singulari peccata illa graviora quae conscientiam vastant, & novo mortis aeternae reatu constringunt fideles ipsos qui in ea labuntur, eosque, quamdiu ab iis non resurgunt, ineptos reddunt qui in regnum coelorum ingrediantur. Ad quod genus peccatorum non pertinere docet defectus qui bonis ipsorum operibus adhaerent atque intermixti sunt, licet peccati rationem habeant, & juxta summum legis rigorem mortem mereantur. Unde concludit ejusmodi defectus, peccata mortalia appropriate dici non debere. Ut apud ipsum videre est, De Justitia actuali, cap. 35.
Davenant’s triple ‘mortal’: irremissible Spirit-sin; remissible kingdom-barring guilt§1307
1307Davenant’s first mortal: only the Spirit-sin’s irrevocable death-desert.
Second: remissible yet kingdom-barring guilt—Paul’s flesh-work catalogs until repentance restores life.
Latin · §1307
XXX. Notandum est, inquit, peccatum dici posse mortale, vel mortiferum tripliciter. Primo quod trahit secum meritum aeternae mortis absolutum, certum, & irrevocabile. Hoc sensu peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum solummodo habetur mortale. Secundo usitate vocatur mortale peccatum quod peccantem involvit reatu mortis aeternae, sed remissibili, quodque illum partem in regno Dei habere non sinit, donec per poenitentiam ad vitam redeat. Hujusmodi sunt illa omnia quae recensentur ab Apostolo 1 Cor. 6. Nolite errare, neque fornicatores, &c. regnum Dei possidebunt. Eadem doctrina Galat. 5. repetitur, Manifesta sunt opera carnis, quae sunt adulterium, fornicatio, &c. qui talia agunt regnum Dei non consequentur.
Second class widened: all Spirit-opposed fleshly acts until repentance§1308
1308The second mortal class covers every flesh-obedient act—outer or inner—until repentance quits the hellward road.
Romans 8: flesh-living dies; Spirit-mortifying lives.
Latin · §1308
XXXI. In hac classe ponenda sunt, non modo illa quae nominatim enumerantur ab Apostolo, sed caetera omnia sive externa, sive interna quae sunt ejusdem rationis, ut aperte indicavit Apostolus in hoc loco posteriore, in quo dixit, quod qui faciunt haec & similia, excludentur e regno Dei. Similia autem habentur omnia in quibus carni concupiscenti adversus Spiritum praestatur obedientia, usque ad perpetrationem actionis impiae. Haec enim omnia mortalia usitate dicuntur, quia statuunt peccantem sub novo reatu mortis, & in via ad infernum, donec per resipiscentiam ab hujusmodi peccatis desistat: juxta dictum Apostoli Rom. 8. Si secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini; si autem spiritu facta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis.
Third sense: law-rigor ‘mortal’ remains that do not damn those in Christ walking not after the flesh§1309
1309Third ‘mortal’: law-rigor deserts of remaining corruption that mercy in Christ does not impute unto death.
Romans 8’s ‘no condemnation’ holds for those not walking after the flesh—grave fleshly falls still need renewed repentance.
Latin · §1309
XXXII. Tertio peccatum quodvis dicitur mortale quibusdam nostris Theologis, quod habentem, vel peccantem, ex rigore legis morte involveret, si persona absque misericordia Dei in Christo, judicaretur: quamvis jam insito in Christum ad mortem non imputetur, sed remissum sit etiam illi, qui adhuc eodem implicatur. In hisce peccatis ponimus reliquias originalis peccati, quae regeneratis inhaerent, defectus plenariae dilectionis, qui bonis illorum operibus miscuntur, vitiosas denique cupiditates, & motiones quibus repugnant, quasque Sancti gratiae motibus superant, & mortificant, atque in mortali hoc suo corpore dominari non permittunt. Haec omnia, si rei naturam spectes & legem Dei, mortalia sunt; & tamen non damnant eos, iis qui sunt insiti in Christum. Nec simpliciter dixit, Nulla est condemnatio iis qui sunt in Christo Jesu; sed cum additamento hoc, qui non incedunt secundum carnem. Nam quoties renati frena laxantes carni, & concupiscentiis ejus obedientes, incidunt in fornicationem, homicidium, aut consimilia peccata, implicantur reatu mortifero, nec unquam perfrui poterunt vita aeterna, nisi per renovatum actum poenitentiae & fidei ab eodem liberentur.
Davenant’s close: defects in regenerate works are not appropriately second-sense mortal§1310
1310Davenant’s hinge: work-adhering defects are true sins by law, yet not appropriately ‘mortal’ in the second sense.
They add no new death-guilt while the new man resists the old Adam’s tumult—unlike capital falls needing fresh repentance.
Latin · §1310
XXXIII. Quibus observatis probat defectus culpabiles, qui bonis renatorum operibus adhaerent, licet vere peccata sint, & secundum strictum legis rigorem mortem mereantur, & propterea quandoque a scriptoribus nostris mortalia nuncupentur, interea tamen non debere singulariter & appropriate, secundo, scilicet, sensu jam explicato, mortalia peccata vocari. Quod inter alia hoc argumento demonstrat; Illud peccatum appropriate mortale appellatur, quod inducit novum reatum mortiferum, donec eluatur novo actu poenitentiae. Sed peccatum quod adhaeret bonis operibus renatorum, utcunque juxta rigorem legis, posset damnare hominem extra Christum, tamen renatum & in Christo insitum non modo non damnat; sed neque novo aliquo reatu involvit. Nam cum quilibet renatorum habeat in se quasi duos homines, novum & veterem Adamum, quicquid vetus Adamus tumultuetur, & reluctetur legi, non imputatur homini renato & novo normam legis pro posse suo sequenti, & rebellionem concupiscentiae aversanti, & quantum in se est refrenanti.
Baron of Aberdeen: every sin mortal of itself; in the regenerate some mortal, some venial§1311
1311Baron’s Aberdeen disputation joins Reformed consent: every sin is mortal of itself; none venial except by accident.
Yet in the regenerate he still distinguishes heavier falls that threaten wrath from daily lighter faults that leave favor and pardon-confidence intact.
Latin · §1311
XXXIV. His affinia sunt quae prolixe & accurate tradit circa distinctionem peccati in mortale & veniale Rob. Baronius ante aliquot annos in Academia Abredonensi apud Scotos Theologiae Professor, Disputatione Theologica de vero discrimine peccati mor-talis & venialis. Ibi enim cum reliquis Reformatis asserit omne peccatum ex se mor-tale esse, nec ullum peccatum esse veniale nisi per accidens: ac praeterea omnia peccata reproborum mortalia esse & dici debere; tum quod mortem aeternam natura sua mereantur, tum quod in illis actu morte aeterna puniantur. Sed pertendit tamen in fidelibus & renatis peccata quaedam mortalia, alia vero venialia summa cum ratione dici. Et mortalia quidem peccata graviora & atrociora in quae fideles ipsi aliquando labuntur. Venialia vero peccata leviora in quae quotidie incurrunt: quia Deus ob illa iram & indi-gnationem iis denunciat, imo exclusionem e coelis mortemque aeternam ipsis intermi-natur: ob haec vero condemnationis aut mortis aeternae metum iis non incutit; imo nec sensum favoris sui, aut fiduciam de remissione peccatorum ab iis aufert.
Baron’s first assertions: all sin mortal of itself; reprobate sins mortal; elect atrocious sins still deadly§1312
1312Baron’s opening axioms: no venial sin by nature; reprobate sins mortal both by desert and by event.
Elect atrocious, conscience-wasting falls still actually cut favor-degree and would forever shut heaven if persevered in—against flat ‘all elect sins are venial.’
Latin · §1312
XXXV. Nam jam dicta Disputatione parte prima, Sessione secunda, haec est ejus assertio prima, Omne peccatum ex se est mortale, nullumque est veniale, nisi per ac-cidens. 2. Omnia peccata reproborum peccata sunt mortalia: ideoque non tantum ex merito, sed etiam ab eventu. 3. Etsi omnia reproborum peccata sunt mortalia, non tamen e contrario dicendum est omnia electorum peccata esse venialia. Nam, inquit, peccata eorundem atrocia, & conscientiam vastantia non solum merentur exclusionem a favore Dei, & a regno coelesti; sed etiam ab eo favoris gradu, quo antea a Deo diligebantur, eos actu excludunt, & si in iis perseverarent, eos e regno coelesti in aeternum excluderent. De quibus peccatis Scriptura affirmative docet, quod quicunque ea facit regni coelestis, & vitae aeternae particeps esse nequeat, 1 Cor. 6. & alibi; & Deum odisse & abominari qui talia faciunt, Prov. 6. & 22.
Baron’s fourth assertion: some regenerate sins rightly called venial under the gracious covenant§1313
1313Under the gracious covenant Baron names some regenerate sins ‘venial’: they do not cut kingdom-hope or prior favor-degree.
He classes involuntary lust-motions, work-adhering blemishes, and small-matter faults—backed by James, John, and Ecclesiastes on universal stumbling.
Latin · §1313
XXXVI. Quarta vero ejus assertio haec est, Quaedam regenitorum peccata recte dicuntur venialia; quia juxta gratiosum Dei foedus, & paternam benignitatem, non excludunt illos a spe regni coelestis, aut ab eo favoris gradu quo prius a Deo diligebantur. Cujusmodi pec-cata dicit esse rebelles & involuntarios concupiscentiae motus; item defectus & naevos, qui bonis renatorum operibus adhaerescunt. Denique ea quae ex materiae parvitate venialia vocantur; quia videlicet in re levi, aut minoris momenti committuntur. De quibus peccatis Scripturam loqui censet Jac. 3. In multis offendimus omnes, & 1 Joh. 1. Si dixerimus nos peccatum non habere fallimus nos ipsos, & veritas in nobis non est, & Ecclesiastae 7. Non est homo justus in terra, qui faciat bonum & non peccet.
Baron’s fifth–sixth: non-exclusion is from mercy; comparative lightness explains why some are venial§1314
1314Absolutely, non-exclusion from favor is mercy, not the sin’s nature.
Comparatively, lighter regenerate faults are lighter in themselves—so grace’s covenant punishes them more mildly than conscience-wasting atrocities.
Latin · §1314
XXXVII. Postea vero quintam & sextam assertionem his verbis enunciat, Quod hujusmodi regenitorum peccata eos non excludant a favore Dei, & a spe regni coelestis, id simpliciter & absolute habent, non ex natura sua, sed ex Dei misericordia. Si vero peccata regenitorum leviora comparative considerentur, (hoc est, si conferantur cum eorundem peccatis gravioribus,) sique quaeratur cur illa potius quam haec sint venialia, & a favore Dei non excludant? dicendum est ea ex se & sua natura hoc habere. Etsi enim, inquit, absolute loquendo, haec peccata sunt gravia, comparative tamen levia sunt: & haec comparativa eorum levitas, quae in ipsorum natura est fundata, procul-dubio est ratio, ob quam Deus voluit ea sub foedere gratiae clementius punire, quam atrocia & conscientiam vastantia peccata.
First difference: avoidability—habitual and assisting grace can shun atrocities, not daily lighter faults§1315
1315Baron’s first cut: avoidability under grace.
Habitual plus assisting grace can keep the regenerate from Paul’s listed atrocities; daily ‘venial’ slips no saint outruns for life.
Latin · §1315
XXXVIII. In sequentibus autem prolixe recenset varia discrimina inter peccatum quod mortale, & inter illud quod veniale vocat. Et primo quidem dicit peccata mortalia a venialibus differre ratione evitabilitatis, hoc est, ratione virium quas per Dei gratiam habemus ad ea vitanda. Potest enim, inquit, homo regenitus vi & subsidio gratiae, partim internae, seu inhaerentis, quae habitualis dicitur, partim externae seu assistentis, quam gratiam auxilii specialis vocant, potest, inquam, vitare illa carnis opera manifesta, illa peccata atrocia, quae 1 Cor. 6. 9, & 10. & Galat. 5. 19, 20, 21. recensentur. Illa vero leviora peccata, quae venialia vocantur, nullus sanctorum per eam gratiae mensuram quam Deus iis in hac vita admetiri solet, diu vitare potest, nedum toto tempore vitae suae.
Second difference: obligation—works-covenant exacts all; grace-covenant still binds toward perfection§1316
1316Works-covenant: strict, precise duty to shun even the lightest fault under eternal peril.
Grace-covenant does not erase that aim—it still obliges striving, grieving shortfall, and daily plea for pardon.
Latin · §1316
XXXIX. Secundo peccata ista inter se differre dicit ratione obligationis, qua ad ea vitanda obligamur. Ad cujus rei intelligentiam, notat primo foedus operum, sive legem praecise sumptam, obligare ad omnia & singula legis praecepta perfecte, quoad omnes particulas, conditiones, & circumstantias exactae obedientiae, servanda: & proinde ad vitanda omnia, etiam levissima peccata; idque stricte & praecise, sub peri-culo & poena aeternae damnationis. Secundo, foedus gratiae non simpliciter tollere obligationem legis qua nos ad omnes gradus, conditiones, & circumstantias perfectae obedientiae praestandas, & per consequens ad omnia, etiam levissima peccata fugienda obligat. Quoniam adhuc tenemur ad perfectionem illam, quantum in nobis est, eniti atque aspirare, & serio dolere quod ab ea deficiamus, ejusque rei veniam quotidianis a Deo precibus implorare.
Grace softens rigor: precise duty for attainable measure; vow-and-endeavor for degrees beyond ordinary grace§1317
1317Grace removes the law’s terror without erasing the duty: attainable ordinary-grace obedience is still exacted under eternal peril.
Beyond that, ‘degrees’ perfection is owed in vow and endeavor—not as a strict act-condition of life.
Latin · §1317
XL. Tertio foedus gratiae, etsi obligationem istam simpliciter & omnino non tollat, tollere tamen rigorem, seu severitatem & terribilitatem istius obligationis. Quamvis enim, inquit, universam justitiae perfectionem nobis ob oculos ponat ut affectandam, & pro viribus assequendam, non tamen stricte & praecise sub periculo & poena aeternae dam-nationis eam exigit. Nam ad certam quidem obedientiae mensuram, quae videlicet per gratiam ordinariam est possibilis, stricte & praecise, hoc est, sub aeternae damnationis periculo obligat, exigendo ut eam actu habeamus. Ad ulteriorem vero mensuram, quam viribus gratiae ordinariis assequi non possumus, obligat minus stricte, videlicet, exi-gendo ut eam habeamus saltem in voto & conatu. Verbi gratia, ad perfectionem partium, ut vocant, obligat praecise. Nam non aliter vitam aeternam promittit, quam hac conditione ut eam actu habeamus. Ad perfectionem vero eam, quae graduum dicitur, non tam stricte & praecise obligat; sed tantum exigit, ut pro viribus gratiae nobis concessa eam assequi studeamus & conemur.
Evangelical equity: precise duty to quit mortal sins; not to live without every lightest fault§1318
1318Even under gospel equity: quit ‘mortal’ sins in act—repent and stay clear (John 5:14).
Living without every lightest ‘venial’ slip is degrees-perfection, not the precise life-condition.
Latin · §1318
XLI. Unde colligit fideles, etiam secundum epieikeian Evangelicam, stricte & praecise, sub periculo aeternae mortis obligari ad vivendum sine omnibus illis peccatis, quae mortalia vocantur. Quoniam ad perfectionem partium attinet, ut non solum de peccatis illis gravioribus poenitentiam agamus, sed etiam ut ab iis omnino abstineamus, hoc est, ut in posterum ea non committamus; juxta illud Christi, Ecce sanus factus es, ne pecca amplius. At non sic obligari, ut vivant in posterum sine omni peccato, etiam levissimo. Quoniam vivere sine levioribus illis peccatis, quae venialia vocantur, pertinet ad per-fectionem graduum, quae omnes obedientiae humanae naevos & defectus excludit.
Third difference: act-deformity—three scholastic venial species excused before a gracious Judge§1319
1319Venial acts carry less deformity: something softens the offense before a gracious Judge.
Baron tracks the three scholastic species—by genus, by surprise, by small matter—each ‘light’ only comparatively or by accident.
Latin · §1319
XLII. Tertio dicit peccatum mortale & veniale differre ratione ipsorum actuum; quoniam foeditas, sive deformitas, quae in peccatis venialibus invenitur, multo minor est ea quae peccatis mortalibus inest: propterea quod in omni peccato veniali est ali-quid quod offensam per illud commissam attenuat, & apud gratiosum judicem quodam-modo excusat. Quod postea probat percurrens tres illas peccati venialis species, quae a Scholasticis distingui solent. Nam earum primam, hoc est, peccatum veniale ex genere suo, apud Deum gratiose, & secundum multitudinem miserationum suarum judicantem, excusat, ut ait, offensae levitas (comparativa scilicet, cum nullum pec-catum absolute sit leve) quam habet ex ipsa natura specifica actus in se considerati, absque respectu ad modum agendi, aut ad particularem materiam in qua committitur. Ut patet, verbi causa, in verbo otioso, in risu nimio, &c. Secundam vero peccati venialis speciem, hoc est, peccatum ex subreptione, excusat levitas offensae quam habet, non ex natura specifica actus in se considerati, sed ex modo quo actus ille ab agente procedit; quia videlicet, agens non plene & sufficienter deliberavit: ut, ex-empli gratia, in subito appetitu vindictae, aut libidinis. Quoniam appetitus vindictae, ex natura sua specifica, non est peccatum leve; sed per accidens est leve, quia fit ex indeliberatione. Tertiam vero speciem, hoc est, peccatum veniale ex parvitate materiae, excusat levitas offensae quam habet, non ex propria natura talis actus, sed ex limitatione ejus ad particularem materiam; ut in furto unius oboli. Nam furtum ex natura sua specifica non est peccatum leve, sed ex accidente; quia committitur in re minoris mo-menti.
Fourth difference: repentance required—ordinary for venial; singular after David- and Peter-like falls§1320
1320Daily ordinary repentance clears venial faults.
Mortal falls demand rare, exact, extraordinary repentance—David after adultery and murder; Peter after denial.
Latin · §1320
XLIII. Quarto differre dicit peccata mortalia & venialia, ratione poenitentiae ad eorum remissionem requisitae. Primo, quia ordinarium & quotidianum poenitentiae exercitium gratiose a Deo acceptatur, & pro sufficienti habetur ad expurganda peccata venialia. Sed sicut ipsa peccata mortalia sunt gravia, horrenda, & in vitae Chri-stianae cursu rara & extraordinaria; ita poenitentia quae ad ea expurganda necessario re-quiritur, singularis, magis accurata, & extraordinaria esse debet; qualis fuit Davidis post adulterium & homicidium, & Petri post Christi abnegationem.
Mortal guilt needs special confession and sorrow; venial mostly covered by general humble acknowledgment§1321
1321Mortal guilt: name it, confess it, grieve it specially.
Most venials hide from us—so a humble general corruption-plea (‘cleanse me from secret faults’) can cover them, without canceling special sorrow for noticed slips.
Latin · §1321
XLIV. Deinde, quia ad expurgandum peccatorum mortalium reatum requiritur specialis eorum agnitio & confessio, specialis item dolor & contritio. At pro venia-lium maxima parte expurganda acceptatur generalis, sed humilis, seria, & dolorosa nostrae corruptionis agnitio, adjunctam habens generalem illam deprecationem, Ab occultis munda me. Propterea quod leviora illa & quotidianae incursiones delicta, multo maxima ex parte scientiam nostram fugiunt. Licet ea hujus generis peccata, quae a nobis observantur, speciatim quoque agnoscenda atque deploranda sint.
Mortal repentance must be perfectly practical cessation; venial repentance cannot be§1322
1322Mortal repentance must actually quit the whole class—or grace and glory are lost (Paul’s vice-lists).
Venial repentance cannot be ‘perfectly practical’ in that sense: no one lives without such faults, yet the godly are not thereby damned.
Latin · §1322
XLV. Tertio denique, quia poenitentia ad peccatorum mortalium remissionem, & ad salutem eorum qui ea committunt necessaria debet esse perfecte practica, hoc est, exire debet in realem & actualem ab omnibus hujus generis peccatis cessationem, ut videre est Prov. 28. 13. Joh. 5. 14. Nam si aliquis uno aut altero peccato mor-tali relicto, in alia subinde labatur, is neque gratiam in hac vita, nec gloriam in futura consequi poterit, ut docet Apostolus 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. Galat. 5. 21. Contra vero poenitentia ad venialium peccatorum remissionem requisita, nec est, nec esse potest perfecte practica, quoad hujus generis peccata. Nam ut omnes fatentur, nemo sine hujus generis peccatis vivere potest: & per consequens, non periclitatur piorum salus, etsi ante finem vitae non possint hoc peccati genus effugere.
Fifth difference: effects—mortal falls bring heavier losses under the grace-covenant than lighter faults§1323
1323Effects differ: mortal falls cost the regenerate far more than daily lighter faults.
Baron will track three covenant-ordered damages that trail mortal—not venial—slips.
Latin · §1323
XLVI. Quinto peccata mortalia a venialibus differre affirmat ratione effectuum qui peccati actus consequuntur, hoc est, ratione detrimenti quod peccantibus afferunt; quia calamitates & damna, quae ex peccatis mortalibus fidelibus accidunt, multo gra-viora & tristiora sunt iis quae consequuntur peccata leviora, sive venialia. Postea vero singillatim exponit tria mala sive damna, quae mortalia renatorum sequuntur, juxta vero dispensationem providentiae divinae sub foedere gratiae, non sequuntur peccata leviora ab ipsis commissa.
First damage: temporary loss of prior favor-degree—hatred while the fall lasts, election unrevoked§1324
1324First loss: while a grave fall lasts, the regenerate loses the prior degree of divine favor and incurs hatred.
Election’s saving purpose stands; present pleasing does not.
Latin · §1324
XLVII. Primum malum sive damnum est exclusio peccantis ab eo gradu favoris divini quo prius a Deo diligebatur. Quamvis enim, quum renatus & electus in grave quoddam peccatum labitur, & aliquandiu in eo perseverat, Deus non propterea re-vocet aeternum propositum eum salvandi & glorificandi, juxta quod futurum est, ut Deus det ipsi gratiam a lapsu illo resurgendi, & sic ad destinatum finem perveniendi; tamen pro tempore illo quo peccato isto involutus manet, non amplius placet Deo, sicut antea placebat, sed incurrit in Dei odium atque displicentiam, secundum generalia Scripturae pronunciata, quibus declarat Deum odisse omnes qui iniquitatem operantur, & eum non delectari in iis qui se subducunt.
In mortal state even prayers displease; lighter daily faults do not cast out gospel acceptance§1325
1325During a mortal fall even regenerate prayers and thanks are unacceptable for the time.
Daily lighter faults do not cast out Spirit-walk acceptance: God in Christ receives imperfect obedience, eyes off its clinging blemishes.
Latin · §1325
XLVIII. Praeterea durante hoc statu non solum Deo displicent peccata a renatis commissa; sed etiam eorum obedientia, orationes, & gratiarum actiones. Imo nihil ab iis procedere potest quod pro tunc Deo gratum & acceptum sit. Illo vero favore atque complacentia qua Deo grati atque accepti sunt qui incedunt non secundum car-nem, sed secundum spiritum, non excidunt fideles propter leviora peccata, in quae quo-tidie incurrunt. Ac quamvis ea in se, non solum Deo displiceant; sed etiam merito efficere possint, ut universa nostra obedientia foeda sit in oculis Domini, eique peni-tus displiceat, Deus tamen iis non obstantibus, imperfectam nostram obedientiam in Christo acceptat, & oculos suos ab ei adhaerescentibus naevis quasi avertens, synceri-tatem & humilitatem ejusdem gratiose intuetur, & ex iis complacentiam & oblectatio-nem capit.
Second damage: mortal falls block remitted peace and Spirit-gifts; lighter faults do not§1326
1326Atrocious falls bind God’s goodwill: while they last, remission-sense, conscience-peace, and Spirit-gifts are blocked.
Daily lighter faults leave ordinary saving testimonies flowing—though even they deserve unworthiness by nature.
Latin · §1326
XLIX. Deinde quum renati vitio suo in atrocia peccata labuntur, tunc benevolentia Dei erga ipsos ita ligata & impedita est, per obicem quem eorum peccata illi ponunt, ut non possit, hoc statu durante, in eos referre remissionem peccatorum, aut pacem & gaudium conscientiae, & similia Spiritus Sancti dona. Nihil tale vero sequitur ex levioribus & quotidianis fidelium peccatis, quae non obstant quominus Deus semper promptus & paratus maneat ad conferendum in eos solita atque ordinaria gratiae suae salutaris effecta & testimonia; nimirum fiduciam remissionis peccatorum, pacem con-scientiae, & laetitiam spiritualem: quamvis peccata etiam levissima, ex se & sua natura, nos reddant incapaces & indignos gratiae divinae donis.
Why the difference: mortal falls quit covenant-necessary obedience; lighter faults do not§1327
1327Mortal falls break the obedience the grace-covenant requires for further gifts and the beatific vision—until extraordinary practical repentance.
Lighter infirmity-slips leave that precise salvation-obedience standing: Spirit-walk and whole-hearted following still named.
Latin · §1327
L. Hujus vero discriminis inter utriusque generis peccata rationem esse dicit, quod renati in atrocia, & conscientiam vastantia peccata prolapsi, praestare desinunt eam obedientiam quam foedus gratiae a nobis exigit, ut necessariam ad consequenda ulte-riora gratiae dona in hac vita, & ad obtinendam visionem Dei beatificam in vita fu-tura. Adeoque quamdiu fideles & renati gravibus & atrocibus illis peccatis impliciti manent, incapaces sunt istorum beneficiorum, non tantum demerito suo, sed etiam secundum sententiam foederis gratiae, donec per singularem, extraordinariam, & perfecte practicam poenitentiam ad Deum redeant, & omnem hujusmodi malignitatem actionum suarum ex adverso oculorum Dei amoveant. At quando electi & justificati leviora illa peccata, ex inadvertentia, aut infirmitate committunt, non desinunt prae-stare obedientiam illam, quam foedus gratiae, ut praecise necessariam ad salutem exigit. Atque iis non obstantibus, dicuntur secundum spiritum ambulare; imo & Deum toto corde sequi, & incedere in omnibus mandatis & constitutionibus Domini incul-pate.
Second effect: multiple loss of intenseness of inherent faith, hope, and charity§1328
1328Second mortal effect: grace inherent by the Spirit is multiply diminished.
Faith, hope, and charity habits are not erased, yet weakened outwardly in fervor and inwardly in entity—within a latitude that contrary acts can remit.
Latin · §1328
LI. Secundum effectum peccati gravioris, quod mortale appellat, & quo dif-ferre dicit a peccatis levioribus, quae venialia dicuntur, est multiplex gratiae per Spiri-tum Sanctum nobis inhaerentis amissio. Quamvis enim per peccata etiam graviora, non omnino deleantur & tollantur, juxta ipsum, habitus fidei, spei, & charitatis, multum tamen per illa minuuntur & debilitantur, idque non tantum, ut ait, extrin-sece quoad fervorem & facilitatem, seu promptitudinem his habitibus utendi; sed etiam intrinsece, quoad ipsam eorum entitatem. Habent enim, inquit, hi habitus sufficientem latitudinem, intra quam sicut de facto augentur, ita etiam remitti possunt per actus contrarios.
Habit remnants may remain, but justifying acts and peace cease in mortal falls—not in lighter slips§1329
1329Even if habit-remnants linger after capital falls, justifying acts, peace, and consolation stop.
Infirmity’s lighter slips leave faith, hope, and Spirit-wrought confidence still acting with mercy-trust and pardon-sense.
Latin · §1329
LII. Ac praeterea quamvis reliquias habituum istorum manere doceat etiam in iis qui gravissime peccant, monet tamen eorum praecipuos actus & operationes in illis cessare, atque intercidere. Nec enim in eo statu, fidei justificantis, & fiduciae ac spei de propria salute, & remissione peccatorum suorum, actus ab iis exerceri posse, & spiritualem consolationem ac pacem retineri. Nihil vero tale renatis accidit, quum in peccata leviora ex infirmitate labuntur: Nec enim ejusmodi peccata impediunt, quominus fides & spes, sanctaque illa fiducia, quam Spiritus Sanctus nobis ingenerat, solitos actus in iis exerceant: sed cum talibus peccatis simul in iis manent misericordia divinae fiducia, & salutis certa spes, ac remissionis peccatorum suorum sensus ac per-suasio.
Third effect: present fitness for heaven lost in mortal guilt—not by lighter faults under grace§1330
1330Third mortal effect: present kingdom-fitness is lost while defilement and unfinished course remain.
Under grace’s providence, lighter faults alone do not strip that fitness—even if death finds someone only in them.
Latin · §1330
LIII. Denique docet tertium effectum peccati mortalis esse, quod homo justificatus, quum ejus reatum contrahit, praesentem aptitudinem ad ingrediendum regnum coelo-rum amittat: quoniam in illud regnum non intrabit aliquid coinquinatum, aut abo-minationem faciens: & coelestis corona non imponitur nisi iis qui bonum certamen certarunt, & cursum suum in fide & sanctitate consummarunt, adeoque ineptus est ad hanc coronam adeundam quiquis impietatis operibus adhuc adhaerescit. Quamvis autem peccata quaelibet quantumvis levia exclusionem e regno coelesti, ex justitiae rigore mereantur, tamen juxta providentiae divinae administrationem sub foedere gratiae, peccata istius generis praesentem aptitudinem ad coeleste illud regnum ingre-diendum non tollunt: Sed si mors hominem in hujusmodi tantum peccato depre-hendat, non propterea coelo excluditur, & privatur aeterna gloria & beatitudine.
Augustana theologians: all sins mortal by nature; in regenerate some mortiferous, some not§1331
1331Lutheran consensus: every sin mortal by nature—none venial in the unregenerate.
In the regenerate they still mark mortiferous/reigning falls (against conscience, from malice) versus non-mortiferous infirmity slips that do not cast out Spirit and faith.
Latin · §1331
LIV. Quod spectat Theologos Confessionis Augustanae, in eo quoque omnes con-veniunt omnia peccata esse natura sua mortalia, adeoque in irregenitis nullum esse pec-catum veniale. Verum in regenitis peccata quaedam mortalia, seu mortifera potius dici posse, quoniam eos novo mortis aeternae reatu involvunt, ac vitam in eis spiritualem extin-guunt: alia vero venialia, seu potius non mortifera, quoniam ad mortem illis non imputantur, sed propter Christum benigne condonantur. Prioris generis, juxta illos, est peccatum omne contra conscientiam, & ex malitia profectum; posterioris vero, peccata infirmitatis, pravae concupiscentiae, & similes humani lapsus. Cum hac au-tem distinctione coincidere volunt alteram illam, qua peccatum distinguitur in regnans & non regnans. Ac per peccatum mortale, sive regnans, docent renatos excutere fidem & Spiritum Sanctum, ac amittere gratiam & vitam aeternam: minime vero in haec mala incurrere per peccata quae venialia dicuntur.
Gerhard: venial/mortal labels track mercy and person, not the act’s nature—with four cautions§1332
1332Gerhard: ‘venial/mortal’ labels track Trinitarian mercy toward the regenerate, not the act’s nature under law.
Four marks of resisting infirmity, then four cautions—prefer ‘mortiferous/reigning’ and ‘infirmity-falls’ over the Roman names.
Latin · §1332
LV. Qua de re tota prolixe agit Joannes Gerhardus in locis Theologicis, ubi circa hanc distinctionem mentem suam explicat his verbis. Quod peccata quaedam dicuntur venialia, quaedam tantum mortalia, id non fit propter naturam peccatorum, sed propter misericordiam Patris, meritum Filii, & sanctificationem Spiritus; ac respicit haec divisio non omnes homines in genere, sed tantum renatos; nec desumenda est ex lege, quae omnia peccata qualiacunque & quantulacunque sint, accusat & damnat; sed ex Evan-gelio, quod ostendit credentibus in Christum peccata infirmitatis, ignorantiae, & pravas concupiscentias non imputari, si eis resistant, hoc est, si renati 1. Haec mala in corde habitantia agnoscant: 2. De illis serio doleant: 3. Merito Mediatoris velut umbra-culo tegi petant & credant: 4. Frena eis nequaquam laxent, sed Spiritu eis resistant, crucifigentes carnem cum concupiscentiis. Ex quibus omnibus apparet, 1. In non re-natis nulla esse peccata venialia, sed omnia mortalia: 2. Venialia peccata esse talia non ex natura ipsius actus, sed ex conditione personae delinquentis, quae si est in Christo per fidem, peccata infirmitatis teguntur: 3. Nomen mortalis peccati non esse satis commodum, dicendum potius erat mortiferum ac regnans: 4. Nec venialium pecca-torum nomen satis commodum est, dicenda potius erant peccata infirmitatis, lapsus hu-mani, pravae concupiscentiae, &c. Neque enim ideo dicuntur venialia, quod in se & ex se venia sint digna; sed quod Deus credentibus ea dimittere veniaque dignetur. Tom. 2, tract. 13. de Peccatis actualibus, cap. 19, num. 92.
Gerhard vs Bellarmine: some regenerate sins exclude from the kingdom in act; others do not cast out Spirit§1333
1333Against Bellarmine Gerhard grants a real sin-discrimination among the regenerate.
Ignorance/infirmity blemishes leave spiritual life if resisted in Christ; conscience-sins cast out Spirit, faith, and life.
Latin · §1333
LVI. Postea vero ad quaedam loca a Bellarmino objecta respondens, Hoc saltem inquit, ex illis & similibus dictis probari potest, esse quoddam peccatorum discrimen; ita ut quaedam a renatis committantur, nec tamen e regno coelorum actu eos excludant, quae-dam vero, si a renatis committantur, fidem & Spiritum Sanctum excutiant, quod nos non negamus. Capite jam citato num. 100. Deinde numero sequenti subjungit, quod Renatis saepe in levissimis, aliquando incautis obrepat peccatum per quod non desinunt esse justi. Et quibusdam interjectis, Ubi vera, inquit, in Christum fides, per cha-ritatem efficax, ibi homo spiritualiter vivit, hanc spiritualem vitam non amittit per naevos peccata ignorantiae & infirmitatis, modo ea agnoscat, deploret, & Christo ad-haerens spiritu concupiscentias carnis mortificet, sed per peccata contra conscientiam ad-missa, per quae Spiritus Sanctus excutitur, fides & vita spiritualis amittitur.
Most Roman doctors hold some sins venial by nature—yet not as a defined article of faith§1334
1334Dominant Roman school: some sins venial by nature—no eternal-death guilt, no extinguished spiritual life.
Not yet a defined article: celebrated Roman voices still hold every sin mortal of itself, venial only by mercy.
Latin · §1334
LVII. Porro ex iis quae Thesibus hisce & superioribus exposita fuerunt, patet longe maximam partem Doctorum Scholae Romanae statuere communi consensu, quod sint quaedam peccata quae per se & sua natura non sunt mortalia, sed venialia: quo-niam per se reatum mortis aeternae non inducunt; nec animae vitam spiritualem, quae in Dei amore & gratia consistit, extinguunt: Veruntamen istud apud eos nondum haberi pro fidei articulo, & re plane certa atque definita: quia in Schola Romana Theologi nonnulli sunt, & quidem ex celeberrimis, qui contrarium tenent, & qui peccata omnia per se & sua natura mortalia esse existimant, nec ulla esse venialia cen-sent, nisi per Dei clementiam & misericordiam.
Roman doctors still grant: even ‘venial’ sins in those dying outside grace meet eternal penalties justly§1335
1335Rome still grants: so-called venial sins, in those who die outside grace, are justly punished forever.
Eternal penalty for the graceless end is not denied even for the ‘light’ class.
Latin · §1335
LVIII. Inde quoque manifestum est eosdem Scholae Romanae Doctores non ne-gare, quin omnia peccata, adeoque illa ipsa quae venialia dicuntur, in iis qui extra Dei gratiam vitam finiunt, aeternis poenis plecti possint, & talibus poenis de facto puniantur, & quidem justissime, & juxta Dei judicium, quod est secundum verita-tem.
Reformed concede unequal malice and unequal penalties among sins§1336
1336Reformed freely grant graded malice among sins—not Stoic equality.
Penalties likewise unequal: some far milder, some far heavier at the last judgment.
Latin · §1336
LIX. Vicissim vero liquet ex iis quae diximus, Theologos Scholae Reformatae ultro fateri & docere inter peccata esse varios malitiae gradus, & omnia peccata non esse inter se paria: nec etiam omnia paribus poenis a Deo puniri, sed quaedam longe mitius, alia vero longe gravius in Dei judicio olim esse plectenda.
Reformed grant grave conscience-wasting sins vs lighter faults compatible with peace and seeing God§1337
1337Reformed mark conscience-wasting graves that bar piety, peace, and salvation-confidence while they last.
Lighter daily faults leave good conscience, the holiness-measure needed to see God, and lawful pardon-trust.
Latin · §1337
LX. Praeterea docuimus Reformatos agnoscere quaedam esse peccata gravia & atrocia, quae conscientiam vastant: ita ut, quamdiu homo in iis perseverat, actuque & reipsa ab iis non recedit, non possit pro pio & sancto haberi, & in eo statu bonam servare conscientiam, & laetitiam spiritus, ac fiduciam salutis retinere: Alia vero esse peccata leviora, quae non obstant quominus fidelis etiamsi in ea quotidie incurrat, bo-nam conscientiam servet, & eam justitiae ac sanctitatis mensuram retineat, quae in hac vita necessaria est, ut aliquis in futura Deum videre possit; adeoque quae non tol-lunt ex homine pacem internam, & legitimam salutis atque remissionis peccatorum fiduciam.
Most Reformed: some falls add new eternal-death guilt until repentance; lighter faults do not§1338
1338Most Reformed: capital falls add new death-guilt and bar heaven until real repentance—death mid-crime would damn.
Lighter thoughts, laughter, idle words, and work-blemishes add no such new guilt even if death finds them.
Latin · §1338
LXI. Quin ostendimus Reformatos, saltem plerosque, aperte docere quaedam esse peccata, in quae fidelis incurrens novo mortis aeternae reatu actu involvitur, & ineptus redditur qui ingrediatur in regnum coelorum, donec per poenitentiam iis renun-tiarit, & ab iis reipsa & in totum abstinuerit: ita ut si mors illum deprehenderet in ejusmodi peccato, verbi causa latrocinantem atque adulterantem, & vitae proximi sui insidiantem, minime servari posset, & vitae ac gloriae coelestis particeps fieri: alia vero peccata novum mortis aeternae reatum non inducere, nec hominem ineptum red-dere qui admittatur in regnum coelorum, etiamsi mors illum in aliquo hujusmodi peccato deprehendat. Cujusmodi sunt ex eorum mente peccata quaedam leviora, ut cogitatio frivola, risus immodicus, verbum otiosum, & defectus bonis operibus fide-lium adhaerentes, & ratione quorum a perfectione summa, quam legis rigor exigit, deficiunt.
Many Protestants admit a good-sense mortal/venial distinction for grave vs lighter regenerate sins§1339
1339Augustana across the board, and some Reformed, keep a good-sense mortal/venial vocabulary.
Mortal = conscience-wasting new death-guilt; venial = lighter faults compatible with peace, pardon-sense, and heaven-fitness even at death.
Latin · §1339
LXII. Praeterea patet ex dictis plurimos ex Protestantibus, nempe Theologos omnes Confessionis Augustanae, & nonnullos ex ipsis Reformatis, distinctionem peccati in mortale & veniale bono sensu sumptam admittere, & peccata mortalia singulari qua-dam ratione vocare peccata graviora atque atrociora, quae conscientiam vastant, & novo mortis aeternae reatu actu involvunt ipsos renatos & justificatos, quum in ea in-currunt: venialia vero peccata illa leviora, quae cum bona conscientia & sensu remis-sionis peccatorum consistere possunt, & per quae persona fidelis novo mortis aeternae reatu non obstringitur, nec inepta sit quae in regnum coelorum admittatur, etsi in aliquo tali peccato moriatur.
Status controversiae: are any sins non-excluding and non-deserving of eternal death by nature?§1340
1340The live quarrel narrows to one question: sins venial by nature—non-excluding, non-deserving eternal death even under rigid right?
Rome generally yes; Protestants no.
Latin · §1340
LXIII. Itaque id solum in controversia manet; inter Scholam Romanam & Theo-logos Protestantes, An sint quaedam peccata quae natura sua Dei gratiam non exclu-dant, nec aeternam mortem mereantur, & propter quae sola Deus non posset juste hominem abjicere, & ab amicitia sua in aeternum & prorsus repellere, si rigide cum eo agere vellet? Quod communiter affirmant Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae; Protestantes vero negant.
First Protestant reason: every sin defiles; nothing defiled enters heaven apart from mercy§1341
1341First proof: shut out mercy, and even the lightest fault forever bars heaven—so by nature it is mortal.
Defilement is universal; nothing unclean enters; cleansing and pardon alone reopen the gate.
Latin · §1341
LXIV. Rationes autem praecipuae quibus nituntur hae sunt. Et primo quidem omnia peccata ex se & sua natura mortalia esse probant, ex eo quod peccata etiam levissima, seclusa Dei misericordia & gratiosa condonatione, peccantem regno coe-lesti in perpetuum excludunt, ac proinde poenae aeternae mancipant. Quod enim peccato competit seclusa Dei misericordia, illi proculdubio natura sua & per se com-petit. Jam vero peccatum omne, quantumlibet leve videatur, in perpetuum regno coelesti excludere, seclusa Dei misericordia, inde manifestum est, quod peccatum quodlibet etiam levissimum, peccantem maculat atque coinquinat. Nihil autem coinquinatum ingreditur in regnum coelorum. Adeoque etiam ille qui vel levissime peccavit regnum coelorum intrare non potest, nisi prius Deus illum misericorditer emundet, & peccatum ei gratiose condonet.
Second reason: after judgment every unrepented sin—even idle words—meets eternal penalty§1342
1342Second proof: post-judgment, no temporal penalties remain—so idle words in the impenitent meet everlasting pain.
If God justly forever-punishes them, they deserve it; theologians already say he punishes below desert—so ‘mortal’ fits.
Latin · §1342
LXV. Praeterea peccata quaelibet, utut levia nobis appareant, post diem judicii, in impoenitentibus poena aeterna punientur; juxta illud Christi apud Matthaeum, Dico autem vobis, quoniam omne verbum otiosum quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent ra-tionem de eo in die judicii. Nec enim post diem judicii ullus locus erit poenis tem-poralibus. Si autem peccata quaevis possunt poena aeterna puniri, & de facto punien-tur in impoenitentibus, proculdubio poena tali digna sunt, & aeternam poenam me-rentur; alioqui Deus injuste ageret, peccatum puniens graviori poena quam ipsi de-beatur: cum contra communis sit sententia Theologorum, Deum peccatores punire infra condignum. Omne autem peccatum quod aeterna poena dignum est mortale dici & vocari potest.
Third reason: what may never be remitted may justly be forever punished—even in the just, absolutely speaking§1343
1343Third proof: never-remissible ⇒ justly forever-punishable.
Remission is mercy by definition—so absolutely, even for the just, God could withhold pardon of the lightest faults and punish them forever.
Latin · §1343
LXVI. Tertio peccata quae dicuntur venialia, ex se poenam aeternam mereri sic probatur, Quod potest nunquam remitti, potest in aeternum puniri, idque juste. Peccata autem quaevis, etiam levissima, in quacunque tandem persona reperiantur, ab-solute loquendo, possent nunquam remitti: quoniam peccatum quodvis, quum a Deo remittitur, ex misericordia & gratia remittitur; quod importat ipsum nomen remis-sionis. Quicquid autem Deus ex gratia & misericordia facit, id simpliciter & absolute loquendo, posset non facere: & proinde ipsis justis, simpliciter loquendo, & sine respectu ad promissiones in Evangelio gratuito factas, posset Deus ipsa levissima peccata non remittere, adeoque illa in aeternum punire.
Fourth reason: the legal covenant demanded flawless obedience—any lightest fault lost life and incurred curse§1344
1344Legal covenant with upright Adam: life only by number-perfect obedience—any lightest fault lost life and drew the curse.
No pardon-lane under law-alone; repentance and remission belong to the gospel covenant—so every sin is mortal by nature.
Latin · §1344
LXVII. Praeterea Deus cum homine integro foedus legale pangens ab eo exigebat obedientiam undequaque perfectam, & omnibus suis numeris absolutam, tanquam conditionem sine qua non poterat vitam aeternam & beatam assequi, & maledictionem divinam effugere. Jam autem perfectio illa, quam lex in rigore suo, & prout primum fuit homini lata postulat, excludit omne peccatum, etiam levissimum. Ac proinde quolibet peccato etiam levissimo, homo integer poterat vita aeterna excidere, & ma-ledictionem divinam incurrere. Unde manifesto sequitur omne peccatum, quantum-libet leve, esse natura sua mortale, non veniale. Quod vero sub foedere legali, homo integer quolibet peccato promissione vitae aeternae excidisset, inde patet quod sub illo foedere, nullus erat locus veniae & remissionis, cujus promissiones Evangelico foe-deri propriae sunt. Neque lex praecise sumpta, & ut Evangelio & gratiae opponitur, locum dabat poenitentiae, absque qua peccatum omne vita coelesti in aeternum exclu-dit.
Fifth reason: every sin—even ‘venial’—offends infinite Majesty and deserves objectively and extensively infinite penalty§1345
1345Closing proof: even so-called venial sin strikes infinite Majesty—objective infinite malice—and leaves an unending stain apart from mercy.
Due penalty is infinite in object and in everlasting extent; therefore every sin is mortal by nature under justice.
Latin · §1345
LXVIII. Denique omne peccatum, etiam illud quod veniale dicitur, infinitam Dei Majestatem offendit, ac proinde habet malitiam quodammodo, nimirum ob-jective, infinitam. Atque etiam macula ex quovis peccato contracta, ex se & seclusa Dei misericordia, in aeternum durat. Unde sequitur cuilibet peccato deberi poenam objective infinitam, quae nempe privet bono infinito; & praeterea, quae sit infinita extensive, id est, quae in aeternum duret, ut ita poena cum culpa proportionem habeat. Et sic peccatum quodvis natura sua mortale dici debet, utpote poena aeterna ex justitia plectendum.
Sin excludes from favor and binds under just penalty—debtor before God§1346
1346Sin against God’s nature and law offends infinite Majesty and shuts a man out of favor.
Justice then holds him debtor to the penalties that such offense requires.
Latin · §1346
I. Peccatum cum sit aliquid Dei naturae & legibus adversum, & quo summa Dei Majestas offenditur, hominem Dei favore & gratia excludit, eumque reddit obnoxium poenis, quibus divina justitia postulat talem offensam vindicari, earumque debitorem apud Deum illum constituit.
Remission defined: the debt is paid and liability to penalty ceases§1347
1347Remission = the debt paid and penalty-liability ended; retention = still bound to punishment.
So pardon is the end of exclusion-from-favor and of law-threatened obnoxiousness.
Latin · §1347
II. Quum debitum illud solvitur, & cessat homo obnoxius esse poenis illis quas justitia divina a peccatoribus exigit, homini peccata remitti dicuntur: retineri vero quamdiu peccator, eorum respectu, manet apud Deum ad poenam obligatus. Adeoque remissio peccatorum in eo consistit, quod qui antea erat a favore Dei exclusus, & poenis quas lex Dei transgressoribus minatur obnoxius, talis esse definit.
Eternal decree to remit vs actual remission in time—do not confuse them§1348
1348Eternal decree prepares every grace the elect will enjoy—including pardon.
Yet decree ≠ actual remission: God remits only by making them cease to be penalty-liable.
Latin · §1348
III. Porro Deus ab aeterno decrevit electis omnibus omnia omnino peccata remittere. Nec enim in tempore ulla gratia fruuntur, quae ipsis ab aeterno praeparata & destinata non sit. Sed multum distingui debet decretum de condonandis, sive remittendis electorum peccatis, ab actuali peccatorum illorum remissione & condonatione. Aliud est enim praestare ut electi definant reapse obnoxii esse poenis quas peccatum meretur, & aliud decretum formare de hoc ipso olim praestando. Sicut aliud est electum sanctificare, & aliud futuram ejus sanctificationem decernere. Deus autem non aliter electis peccata remittit, quam praestando ut cessent obnoxii esse poenis, ad quas peccatum eos obstringit.
No remission without Christ’s satisfaction as surety under justice and wisdom§1349
1349Justice and wisdom required a fitting mode: no immunity without satisfaction to avenging justice.
Only through Christ the surety’s death and passion—never without that merit in view.
Latin · §1349
IV. Non decrevit autem Deus electis suis peccata remittere, nisi modo qui deceret ejus justitiam & sapientiam. Ideoque noluit ut immunes fierent a poenis quas peccata ab ipsis admissa merentur, nisi aliqua ratione satisfaceret justitiae ipsius peccatorum vindici, & sic manifestaretur quanto odio prosequitur peccatum. Ac proinde statuit nulli peccata condonare, aliter quam interveniente morte & passione Christi filii sui, quem dedit hominibus vadem, qui in se eorum peccata susciperet, & poenas eis debitas exantlaret: gravissimos cruciatus, tum anima, tum corpore perferendo, & tandem mortem crucis maledictam & ignominiosam pro eis ultro subeundo. Nec enim ulli peccata remittuntur, aut remissa sunt unquam, nisi merito atque intuitu satisfactionis Christi, olim aliquando praestandae, & nunc suo tempore praestitae.
Satisfaction must be applied: adults receive fruit only by true repentance and living faith§1350
1350Satisfaction alone does not equal remitted sins until applied under God’s institution.
For reasoning adults: true repentance plus living, love-working faith mediate the fruit.
Latin · §1350
V. Nec tamen, etiam posita Christi satisfactione, electorum ulli peccata remissa dici possunt, nisi fuerit ipsis secundum Dei legem & institutum applicata. Adultis autem usum rationis habentibus non applicatur Christi meritum & satisfactio, id est, fructum ex Christi merito non percipiunt nisi, mediante vera poenitentia, ac fide viva & per dilectionem efficaci.
No release from wrath until sin is retracted by serious repentance joined to faith§1351
1351Christ’s death frees no one from provoked wrath while he still perseveres in sin.
Eternal law: renounce sin with contrite faith-seeking, and the penalty-obligation lifts.
Latin · §1351
VI. Nemo enim propter Christi mortem & passionem cessat obnoxius esse irae divinae, quam peccata ejus provocarunt, quin prius peccata sua retractaverit ac deseruerit per seriam poenitentiam, cui juncta sit fides, per quam ad Dei misericordiam in Christo confugiat. Quippe haec est lex ab aeterno a Deo constituta, ut quicunque in peccato perseverat ad poenas peccato debitas maneat obligatus: ab illa vero obligatione immunis fiat peccator statim atque peccato renunciat, & corde contrito quaerit & implorat Dei gratiam & misericordiam.
Gospel always sets faith and repentance as prior conditions of remission§1352
1352Gospel never detaches pardon from prior faith and repentance—Luke 13; Acts 3:19; Prov. 28:13.
John 3: belief escapes judgment; unbelief already judged, wrath remaining.
Latin · §1352
VII. Unde est quod Evangelium perpetuo ponit fidem & poenitentiam, tanquam conditiones ad remissionem peccatorum praevias. Si, inquit Dominus Jesus, poenitentiam non egeritis, omnes similiter peribitis. Luc. 13. Et post eum Petrus Apostolus, Poenitemini & convertimini, ut deleantur peccata vestra. Act. 3. 19. Quibus consonat quod ait Salomo, Qui abscondit scelera sua non dirigetur, (seu non prosperabitur): Qui autem confessus fuerit, & reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Prov. 28. 13. Similiter haec sunt verba Christi. Qui credit in eum, nempe Dei Filium, non judicatur: qui autem non credit jam judicatus est, quia non credit in Nomen unigeniti Filii Dei. Joan. 3. Quibus consonat quod subdit eodem capite Joannes Baptista. Qui est incredulus Filio non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum.
Divine wisdom abhors pardon for the obstinate who trample Christ’s blood§1353
1353Wisdom will not spare the obstinate who will not leave sin.
Nor share Christ’s death-benefit with those who trample his blood and refuse him as Savior.
Latin · §1353
VIII. Et certe a sapientia divina prorsus abhorret, ut poenas peccato debitas vitet ille qui in peccato se obfirmat, nec vult ab eo desistere: & ut fiat beneficii mortis Christi particeps, qui sanguinem Christi conculcat, & recusat ipsi parere, eumque tanquam Servatorem & Redemptorem suum colere atque agnoscere.
Heavier vs lighter sins need different repentance—special contrition vs general humble confession§1354
1354Daily lighter faults vs flesh-works that cannot coexist with true holiness—two repentance modes.
Heavier: special contrition; lighter: humble general confession of corruption (Ps 19).
Latin · §1354
IX. Non abs re autem hic fuerit observare, quemadmodum sunt quaedam peccata leviora, quibus ipsi fideles & justi nunquam in totum in hac vita carent, alia vero graviora, quae Apostolus vocat opera carnis, & quae cum vera justitia & sanctitate compati non possunt; ita quoque diversam esse rationem poenitentiae, quae ad horum, & illorum remissionem requiritur. Nam ad peccatorum istorum graviorum remissionem impetrandam, opus est speciali quoque dolore seu contritione: At pro peccatis illis levioribus, & quae Theologi vocant quotidianae incursiones, acceptatur a Deo generalis, sed humilis & seria corruptionis nostrae agnitio, adjunctam habens generalem illam deprecationem, qua utitur Propheta, Psalm. 19. Ab occultis munda me Domine. Quia delicta illa leviora multo maxima ex parte scientiam nostram fugiunt.
Heavier-sin repentance must be perfectly practical; lighter cannot be—Baron of Aberdeen§1355
1355Heavier pardon demands perfectly practical repentance—real cessation, or no grace/glory.
Lighter faults cannot be perfectly fled in this life; pious salvation is not thereby lost (Baron).
Latin · §1355
X. Praeterea poenitentia quae necessaria est, ut peccata graviora homini condonentur, debet esse perfecte practica, hoc est, exire debet in realem & actualem, ab omnibus ejusmodi peccatis cessationem. Nam si quis uno aut altero hujus generis peccato relicto, in alia subinde labatur, is neque gratiam in hac vita, nec gloriam in vita futura consequi poterit. Nam qui talia faciunt regnum Dei non possidebunt, ut pluribus in locis repetit Apostolus. Contra vero poenitentia ad peccatorum leviorum remissionem requisita, nec est, nec esse potest perfecte practica, quoad ejus generis peccata. Nam nemo sine ejusmodi peccatis vivere potest: & per consequens non periclitatur piorum salus, etsi ante finem vitae, non possint hoc peccati genus in totum effugere, ut recte observat Robertus Baronius Abredonensis in Scotiae Academia Professor. Disput. Theologica de peccato Mortali & veniali part. 1. sect. 6. num. 11. & 12.
From man’s side: active faith and worthy repentance-works; what then is God’s remitting action?§1356
1356Man’s side: active efficacious faith fleeing to grace in Christ, plus repentance-worthy works.
God’s remitting act is best read by asking how the opposed guilt-relation is contracted.
Latin · §1356
XI. Porro ex iis quae dicta sunt patet, ut homo peccatorum remissionem consequatur, ex ejus parte nil amplius requiri, quam ut actuosa & efficaci fide ad Dei gratiam per Christum confugiat, & studeat operibus poenitentia dignis. Sed quaeritur quae sit illa Dei actio, per quam homo a reatu peccatorum absolvitur, & fit remissionis peccatorum particeps. Istud autem non videtur melius intelligi posse, quam si consideremus quomodo contrahatur reatus ille quem tollit remissio peccatorum, & cui opponitur quasi a diametro.
Guilt is a relation resulting from sin by eternal law—no new temporal condemning sentence needed§1357
1357Guilt = relational liability under eternal law once sin is posited—debtor while he remains in sin.
No extra temporal condemning act required; relations result from the foundation (white-wall likeness).
Latin · §1357
XII. Reatus autem ille in eo consistit, quod homo per peccatum Majestatem Divinam offendens, obnoxius sit poenis quas Deus justus judex a peccatoribus exigit. Proinde talis reatus est relatio quaedam, quae, posito peccato, in homine resultat, vi legis illius aeternae, qua statutum est ut peccator, quamdiu in peccato manet, subjaceat ejusmodi poenis, & earum debitor apud Deum existat. Nec ad reatum illum producendum opus est praeterea ulla alia Dei actione, quae in tempore ad eum terminetur; aut ut Deus singularem quandam sententiam pronunciet, qua peccator iste declaretur addictus poenis quas peccatum meretur. Relationes enim non producuntur per actus aliquos qui proxime & per se ad illas terminentur, sed ad positionem fundamenti resultant, absque ulla nova alia actione. Ut exempli gratia, statim atque paries albus hic extructus est, hoc ipso exurgit quaedam cum eo similitudo, in omnibus aliis parietibus albis, quantumcunque hinc distantibus: neque opus est alia actione, quae per se & immediate producat tales similitudines.
Remission: guilt-relation ceases; reconciling relation arises by the gospel law of faith and repentance§1358
1358Remission = guilt-relation ends; a reconciling, life-accepting relation rises in its place.
Same relational logic under the eternal gospel law of contrition, mercy-seeking, and living faith.
Latin · §1358
XIII. Jam vero remissio peccatorum in eo sita est, quod in homine cesset relatio illa quae reatus vocatur, & ejus loco alia exurgat, ratione cujus homo dicitur Deo reconciliatus, & a peccato absolutus. Sicut ergo reatus, posito peccato resultat, vi aeternae legis jam dictae, & in verbo Dei publicatae: ita quoque peccato per veram poenitentiam retractato atque derelicto, & posita fide actuosa, qua peccator ad Dei clementiam in Christo confugiat, cessat relatio illa per quam peccator obnoxius erat maledictioni & irae divinae, & exurgit alia per quam Deo gratus est, & ad vitam aeternam acceptus, idque vi legis alterius, qua Deus etiam ab aeterno sanxit, ut peccator omnis per veram contritionem a peccato recedens, & misericordiam divinam serio implorans, ac per fidem vivam & efficacem amplectens, immunis esset a poenis quae peccato debentur, & Deo fieret gratus & amicus, jusque ad vitam aeternam haberet: quam legem Deus quoque in verbo suo publicari curavit.
Bringing to repentance and generating living faith suffices—no separate temporal absolving sentence required§1359
1359Grace that brings true repentance and living faith is enough for actual absolution and reconciliation.
No extra temporal courtroom sentence—any more than guilt needed a fresh condemning sentence.
Latin · §1359
XIV. Proinde ut peccata homini remittantur, & ab iis censeatur apud Deum absolutus, ac Deo reconciliatus, sufficit ut Deus per gratiam suam peccatorem ad veram poenitentiam adducat, illique fidem vivam & efficacem ingeneret. Hoc enim posito, statim cessat homo obnoxius esse maledictioni & irae divinae, & incipit esse Deo gratus & acceptus ad vitam aeternam, vi alterius illius jam memoratae legis ab aeterno a Deo sancitae. Nec opus est praeterea alia quadam Dei actione, per quam remissio peccatorum in homine producatur proxime & immediate: aut ut Deus in tempore sententiam quandam pronuntiet, per quam peccator iste in singulari declaretur a Deo absolutus, & in gratiam a Deo receptus. Nec enim talis sententia magis necessaria est, ut homo apud Deum reus esse desinat, quam opposita quadam sententia opus est, ut homo post peccatum admissum, apud Deum reus poenae aeternae fiat. Cum ad utrumque abunde satis sit aeternum Dei decretum circa tum peccatores, tum poenitentes & fideles constitutum, & Evangelio solenniter promulgatum.
Elect sins not remitted from eternity—only in time when contracted guilt is actually loosed§1360
1360Decree ≠ execution: elect pardon is not eternal-actual but temporal-actual.
Guilt is contracted in time (original + actual); only then can it be actually loosed.
Latin · §1360
XV. Porro ex iis quae dicta sunt patet, Electis ab aeterno peccata remissa non esse, sed illis demum in tempore remitti. Contrarium quidem afferunt Theologi nonnulli: sed perperam confundunt Dei decretum cum ejus executione. Nam Deus ab aeterno quidem decrevit electis peccata remittere, sed in tempore tantum peccata illis actu remittuntur. Quid enim est peccata remitti, nisi actu solvi reatum mortis aeternae, qui peccatis ante contractus est? Jam autem reatum illum electi solum in tempore contrahunt: dum, scilicet, peccato originali infecti nascuntur, & postquam adoleverunt in varia peccata incidunt: adeoque reatu illo possunt actu solum in tempore solvi.
‘God does not will to punish’ is ambiguous—actual remission vs decree to transfer into a non-punishable state§1361
1361‘God will not punish’ splits: (1) already in the faith-repentance order → actual remission; (2) only decreed to be moved there → not yet.
Paul pre-conversion shows decree-not-to-punish without actual pardon while still in perdition.
Latin · §1361
XVI. At, inquies, cujuscunque Deus peccata punire non vult, peccata illi actu remissa sunt. Sed Deus ab aeterno non vult electorum peccata punire. Ergo electis ab aeterno peccata actu remissa sunt. Respondeo illam propositionem, Cujuscunque Deus non vult peccata punire, peccata illi actu remissa sunt, aut falsam esse, aut saltem veram solum cum distinctione. Nam duobus modis dicitur Deus nolle peccata alicujus punire. Et primo quidem, quoniam aliquis est in eo statu, in quo secundum ordinem a Deo constitutum, peccata hominis punienda non sunt. Sic Deus punire non vult peccata hominis cujus peccati poenitet, & qui Christum fide amplectitur, quia secundum ordinem a Deo constitutum, peccata hominis credentis & poenitentis punienda non sunt. Et cui Deus peccata hoc sensu punire non vult, peccata illi actu remissa sunt. Secundo dici potest Deus nolle peccata alicujus punire, quia decrevit illum in eum statum transferre, in quo secundum divinae justitiae ordinem, peccata ejus amplius punienda non erunt, licet nondum actu sit in eum statum translatus. Sic Deus nolebat punire peccata Pauli ante conversionem, quia decreverat illum per gratiam suam immutare, & efficere ut Christum, quem tum persequebatur, vera vivaque fide amplecteretur, qua ratione illum ex eo statu erepturus erat, in quo damnationi aeternae subjacebat. Falsum est autem actu remissa esse peccata illi, cujus hoc sensu & modo duntaxat Deus dicitur nolle peccata punire. Quia ille quem Deus in statum gratiae transferre decrevit, potest adhuc aliquantisper in statu perditionis haerere. Qui autem est adhuc in statu mortis & perditionis, nondum illi actu peccata remissa sunt. Uno verbo, cujuscunque Deus non vult peccata punire, peccata illi vel actu remissa sunt, si priore modo Deus ea punire nolit: Vel aliquando saltem remittenda, si solum Deus ea punire nolit posteriori modo.
No one has sins actually remitted before true faith and serious repentance§1362
1362Actual remission never precedes true faith and serious repentance.
Serving sin / unbelief = wrath remaining and death—cannot coexist with actual pardon.
Latin · §1362
XVII. Et hinc quoque manifestum est nemini peccata actu remissa esse priusquam per veram fidem, & seriam poenitentiam ad Deum conversus fuerit. Cujus contrarium tamen Theologi nonnulli videntur asserere. Sed in eo vel male sentiunt, vel non bene loquuntur. Nam quicunque peccato servit, & in Christum non credit, ira Dei manet super eum, sententia Dei damnatus est, a Deo dicitur, manet in morte, necdum transiit a morte ad vitam. Peccato autem servit, & in Christum non credit, qui nondum est ad Deum per fidem & poenitentiam conversus. Quis autem capere valeat haec duo simul consistere posse, ut actu alicui peccata remissa sint, & tamen ille maneat in morte, & ira Dei maneat super eum?
Pre-faith actual remission would void gospel conditions and contradict alien enmity (Col 1:21; 1 John 3)§1363
1363If elect already had actual pardon pre-faith, gospel conditions of faith/repentance would be empty.
Col 1:21 enmity and 1 John 3’s ‘still in death’ cannot be called blessed covered-sin status.
Latin · §1363
XVIII. Ac profecto si ante fidem & conversionem electis peccata actu remissa essent, frustra & sine ratione Scriptura proponeret fidem & poenitentiam, tanquam conditionem sub qua nobis offertur remissio peccatorum, & sine qua illam consequi non possumus. Adde quod ille cui peccata remissa sunt pacem habet cum Deo, & est ipsi reconciliatus. At quomodo hoc convenire potest illis qui sunt adhuc a Deo alienati, & inimici ejus mente & operibus malis? Qualis fidelium & electorum ipsorum ante vocationem & conversionem suam, conditio describitur ab Apostolo Paulo, Coloss. 1. 21. Denique Scriptura sacra beatum praedicat illum cujus tecta sunt peccata, & iniquitates remissae. Sed quis praedicare audebit beatum eum qui adhuc peccatum faciens, nondum ex Deo, sed ex Diabolo est, & charitate vacuus, ac fratrem odio habens, vitam aeternam non habet in seipso manentem, nec translatus est de morte ad vitam, teste Apostolo Joanne Epistolae primae capite tertio? Qui facit peccatum, inquit, ex Diabolo est. Item, Omnis qui non facit justitiam non est ex Deo, & qui non diligit fratrem suum. Et, Qui non diligit manet in morte.
Cross-payment does not actually cancel anyone’s debt until applied by faith and repentance§1364
1364Surety-payment on the cross opens a mediated path; it does not automatically clear each person’s debt.
Sufficient price is ours only when faith-and-repentance apply it—until then liability remains.
Latin · §1364
XIX. At, inquies, antequam Electus aliquis credat & convertatur, Christus jam in cruce persolvit poenas peccatis illius debitas: ac proinde illarum amplius debitor non est apud Dei tribunal: nec enim amplius quis tenetur debito quod vas ejus pro illo exsolvit. Qui autem non est amplius apud Deum debitor poenae, quam peccata ejus alioqui merentur, annon actu illi peccata remissa sunt? Respondeo quod Christus pro nobis in cruce praestitit illud est, ut mediante fide atque poenitentia, possimus a Deo veniam peccatorum consequi, non obstante amplius justitia divina, cui per mortem Christi satisfactum est. Sed mortis Christi pretium nullius debitum & reatum actu tollit, nisi prius ipsi applicetur per fidem & poenitentiam. Adeoque in morte Christi habemus quidem pretium sufficiens quod pro peccatis nostris Deo offerre possimus, sed eorum nomine & reatu poenae semper rei tenemur, donec pretium illud fide amplexi nostrum fecerimus, ac tale factum Deo obtulerimus. Itaque Christi morte & passione remissio peccatorum nobis quidem impetrata est, sub conditione fidei, quae comitem habet poenitentiam & resipiscentiam: sed remissio peccatorum nobis actu concessa minime censeri debet, priusquam conditionem illam impleverimus, & mors Christi nobis fuerit per fidem applicata.
Alting’s two modes of ‘deleted’ sins: decree/death vs effective application—absolute pre-faith talk is dangerous§1365
1365Alting’s two senses: decree-and-cross vs efficacious application at believing.
Absolute ‘remitted before faith’ still misleads hearers toward actual granted pardon—dangerous and calumny-prone.
Latin · §1365
XX. Et certe non alia mens videtur esse illorum ipsorum Theologorum, qui dicunt prius nobis peccata esse remissa, quam credamus. Nam eorum nonnulli, ut inter alios Henricus Altingius, observant peccata nostra deleta dici posse duobus modis: primo quoad decretum Dei, & mortem Christi ex decreto illo jam obitam: Secundo vero quoad efficacem applicationem, tum ex parte Christi donantis remissionem peccatorum, tum ex parte credentium fide eam accipientium. Et primo quidem modo peccata nostra deleta & remissa esse, priusquam credamus; secundo modo vero non nisi quum actu credimus, illa deleri & remitti. Sed certe hoc non sufficit, ut simpliciter & absolute dicamus peccata nobis esse remissa ante fidem. Quum enim audimus nobis remissa esse peccata, statim in mentem nobis venit remissio peccatorum non decreta solum & sub certa conditione impetrata, sed actu concessa atque applicata. Ac proinde sic loqui periculosum est, nec satis accuratum, & calumniae non parum obnoxium. * Locor. comm. part. 2. Controv. 2. de Fide Justif. contra Samosatenianos.
Only past sins of which one seriously repents are actually remitted—not future uncommitted sins§1366
1366Actual remission at faith/repentance covers past sins seriously repented—not futures not yet done.
No guilt-relation without posited sin; pre-fall Adam needing pardon is a contradiction.
Latin · §1366
XXI. Igitur nulli debent dici peccata remissa, priusquam in Christum crediderit, & peccatorum suorum poenitentiam egerit. Quum vero aliquis credit & convertitur, tum demum ei remissio peccatorum actu conceditur; Sed peccatorum quae hactenus ab ipso commissa sunt, & quorum illum serio poenitet, non vero, ut nonnulli videntur, etiam futurorum. Omnino enim est contra rationem, ut dicamus peccata quae nondum commissa sunt actu esse remissa. Etenim tum demum peccatum remittitur, quum solvitur reatus, quo aliquis constrictus ob peccatum tenetur. Ac proinde peccatum remitti non potest, ubi nullus est ortus ex peccato reatus. Sed nemo reus est ob peccatum futurum, & nondum admissum. Quandoquidem reatus est relatio quaedam ex posito peccato resultans, & quae ad positionem peccati consequitur. Et certe si aliquis esset ob futurum peccatum reus, homo in statu innocentiae ante peccatum jam reus fuisset, & opus habuisset remissione peccatorum. Sed implicat contradictionem, aliquem simul reum & innocentem esse, & cum prorsus peccato careat, illum tamen remissione peccatorum egere. Nec ullus Theologus de Adamo ante lapsum istud dicere sustineat, nempe illum in eo statu jam tum indiguisse ut Deus illi peccata remitteret.
Future-sin blanket remission would call David pardoned while compounding adultery and Uriah’s murder§1367
1367No repentance of uncommitted sin → no remission; persevering sinners stay bound.
Blanket future-pardon would bless David mid-adultery and Uriah-plot—against 1 John and Christian sense.
Latin · §1367
XXII. Praeterea neminem poenitere potest peccati quod nondum admissum est. Sed sine poenitentia peccatum remitti non potest, & ut aliquis peccati veniam a Deo impetret, necesse est ut prius peccati poenitentia ducatur. Neque potest aliquis solvi reatu peccati illius in quo perseverat, & a quo recedendi propositum non habet. Sed si peccata omnia futura simul remittuntur ei qui se ad Deum convertit, homini qui semel ad Deum conversus est omnia peccata, quantumlibet gravia, in quae postea labitur, censeri debent illi remissa esse, etiam quum illa committit, & tantum a vera poenitentia abest, ut peccatum peccato graviori cumulet. Exempli gratia, censeri debebit remissum fuisse Davidi adulterium cum uxore Uriae, etiam quum non solum in adulterio illo persistebat, sed ipsius Uriae mortem machinabatur, & illum in ebrietatem impellere tentabat, & proditorie illi blandiebatur. Adeoque dicendum erit, Davidem in eo statu non fuisse morti aeternae obnoxium, sed acceptum Deo ad vitam aeternam, & idoneum qui regnum coelorum ingrederetur, & ita falsum esse, quod Scriptura per os Joannis pronunciat, Qui non diligit manet in morte. Et scitis quoniam omnis homicida non habet vitam aeternam in semetipso manentem. Nisi quis dicere velit, Davidem proximum suum sicut ad salutem oportet dilexisse, dum uxorem ejus constuprabat, & injuste mortem illi moliebatur. Aut peccata illi actu esse remissa, qui tamen manet mortis aeternae reus, & merito suo vita aeterna excludendus, si mors illum deprehenderet: a quibus abhorret communis Christianorum sensus.
Union with Christ covers sins retractable by present faith-repentance—not sins not yet incurred§1368
1368Faith-union applies Christ’s sufficient price to sins already incurred and sincerely retracted.
Not to unincurred futures; no absolute ‘paid in Christ’ without the condition-acts for that sin.
Latin · §1368
XXIII. Verum hic dicet aliquis, Quicunque per veram fidem & poenitentiam ad Deum se convertit, hoc ipso unitur Christo, tanquam membrum capiti, & fit unum cum Christo corpus, adeoque censetur in Christo passus & mortuus, & in eo lytrum sufficiens pro peccatis suis omnibus dependisse. Qui autem lytrum sufficiens solvit debito suo manet exsolutus: nec potest amplius esse poenae luendae reus, qua in re peccatorum remissio sita est. Respondeo Christi mortem & passionem, quum illi per fidem unimur, ita nostram fieri, ut censeamur in eo pretium sufficiens solvisse pro peccatis omnibus quorum hactenus rei sumus, & quae per poenitentiam veram atque synceram retractavimus & deseruimus: non vero pro peccatis illis quorum adhuc rei non sumus, & ratione quorum remissione nondum indigemus, & de quibus nondum etiam potuimus agere poenitentiam, sine qua nullius peccati remissio propter Christi mortem conceditur: cum remissionem illam non aliter Christus nobis meruerit, quam sub conditione fidei & poenitentiae, per quam nobis meritum Christi applicandum est. Unde sequitur nos dici non debere absolute pretium sufficiens in Christo solvisse pro aliquo peccato, nisi per necessarios actus fidei & poenitentiae impleverimus illius respectu conditionem illam sub qua pro nobis Christus satisfecit, & remissionem illius promeruit.
Believers have a ready remedy for future falls—not already-remitted futures; Maresius’s dangerous speech§1369
1369Ready Christ-remedy for future falls requires renewed faith-repentance acts—not already-done pardon.
Even Maresius’s ‘extend justification by new faith-acts’ implies pre-act non-application; absolute speech invites calumny.
Latin · §1369
XXIV. Verum est quidem illos qui fide Christum amplexi sunt, in Christo paratum remedium habere ad peccata etiam futura: hoc est illos certos esse posse, quod quum in peccata quaelibet inciderint, eorum veniam & condonationem sint per Christi mortem adepturi, modo per renovatos poenitentiae & fidei actus ad eam confugiant, ut panaceam illam ad novum istud malum quo prementur applicent. Sed inde non sequitur peccata futura jam illis remissa esse, sed solum per Christi gratiam remittenda, modo illi sibi non desint. Neque aliud sibi velle videntur illi ipsi qui aliter ac nos hac parte loquuntur: cum dicant per varios fidei actus subinde elicitos, nostram absolutionem & justificationem applicari & extendi ad quotidiana nostra peccata, reflectendo versus meritum Christi, & reconciliationem nobis in eo partam & oblatam. Ut videre est apud Samuelem Maresium loco 11. Th. 58. Si enim nostra justificatio per novos fidei actus applicatur atque extenditur ad peccata in quae quotidie labimur, ante actus illos novos ad ea se non actu extendebat, nec erat iis actu applicata: ac proinde peccata illa antequam committerentur, ex mente doctorum illorum virorum, actu remissa nondum erant. Sed fatendum est illos periculose loqui, & praetextum ac occasionem praebere doctrinam nostram calumniandi: ut manifestum est ex iis quae inde contra Reformatos deducere conatur author ille famosus, qui Christianae Ethices subversae illos, magna cum verborum pompa, non ita pridem accusavit.
Many in Rome deny image-adoration and call the charge a Protestant calumny—so the true Roman doctrine must be sought§1370
1370Many Romans—lay and some doctors—deny they adore images and call the charge a calumny.
They claim their Church gives adoration-cult only to the one true God.
So Le Blanc will dig out Rome’s real doctrine on image-cult, lest Reformers be falsely blamed for inventing it.
Latin · §1370
I. In Ecclesia Romana permulti, praecipue qui sunt de plebe cordatiores, & Doctores etiam nonnulli, queruntur se calumniam pati, quum dicuntur a Protestantibus imagines Dei Christique, & etiam sanctorum mortuorum adorare, ac profitentur non tantum se, sed Ecclesiam quoque suam ab hac adoratione esse alienissimam, nec eam cultum adorationis rei ulli omnino deferre, quam uni soli vero Deo. Igitur operae pretium duximus diligenter inquirere in veram Ecclesiae & Scholae Romanae doctrinam circa imaginum cultum & adorationem, tum ne quis ipsi sententiam alienam affingat, tum etiam ut pateat an merito Reformati calumniae accusentur, quum Ecclesiae Romanae adorationem imaginum tribuunt.
True Roman doctrine on images is drawn from general Councils, universal practice, and common doctor-consensus§1371
1371Three wells yield Rome’s real teaching on images: general Councils Rome owns, her universal practice, and the received doctors’ consensus.
What those three agree on may safely be called Roman dogma.
Latin · §1371
II. Ut autem certo habeatur, quae sit vera doctrina Ecclesiae Romanae de cultu imaginum, primo consulenda sunt Concilia quae apud ipsam habentur pro generalibus, & a Pontifice Romano probatis. Praeterea videndum est quae sit Universalis & apud omnes recepta Ecclesiae istius praxis. Denique examinandum est quid ea de re statuat communis doctorum in ea receptorum consensus. Nam ex tribus hisce fontibus hauriri potest vera & genuina Ecclesiae Romanae doctrina. Ac tanquam fidei Romanae dogma tuto haberi potest quod est in Generalibus Ecclesiae Romanae Conciliis definitum, quod firmat ejus praxis Universalis, & quod communi consensu Doctores illius tenent & amplectuntur.
Three Councils Rome counts as universal on images: Nicaea II (787), Constantinople (869), and Trent§1372
1372Rome owns three ‘universal’ Councils on images: Nicaea II (787), Constantinople (869), and Trent in the sixteenth century.
Latin · §1372
III. Porro tria sunt Concilia quae Ecclesia Romana Universalibus accenset, quae de imaginibus & earum cultu agunt. Primum & antiquissimum est Nicenum secundum, celebratum anno Christi 787. Imperantibus Constantino & Irene illius matre. Secundum est Concilium Constantinopolitanum celebratum anno Christi 869. Imperante Basilio. Tertium est Tridentinum saeculo decimo sexto per plures annos celebratum ut omnibus notum est.
Nicaea II’s constant teaching: Christ’s and the saints’ images are to be adored—and doubters are anathematized§1373
1373Nicaea II (Rome’s ‘seventh’) steadily teaches that Christ’s and the saints’ images are to be adored and saluted.
Whoever hesitates about that adoration is anathematized.
Latin · §1373
IV. Quod spectat secundum Concilium Nicenum, quod in Schola Romana Universale septimum appellatur, constans & manifesta illius doctrina est, adorandas esse Christi & sanctorum imagines. Nam in epistola hujus Concilii ad Constantinum & Irenem circa finem haec verba habentur. His ita se habentibus in confesso & sine ulla dubitatione credimus, acceptam & placitam coram Deo esse venerandarum imaginum depictionem, & earum quae dispensationem Domini Nostri Jesu Christi exprimunt, & Virginis quoque Deiparae intemeratae, quinetiam gloriosorum Angelorum, & omnium Sanctorum, has quoque adorandas & salutandas putamus. Qui vero ita non est animatus, sed circa Venerandarum imaginum adorationem laborat & dubitat, eum anathematizat sancta & veneranda nostra Synodus. Tom. 3. Conc. Edit. Coloniensis Anni 1606. pag. 391. litt. A.
Tarasius and the Synod receive and adore image-pictures in Christ’s and the saints’ names—‘so the whole holy Synod believes and teaches’§1374
1374At Nicaea II Tarasius, with the Synod, receives image-pictures by ancient tradition and adores them in Christ’s and the saints’ names.
The whole Synod seals it: ‘thus we believe and teach.’
Latin · §1374
V. In eodem quoque Concilio, Actione secunda, perlecta Adriani Papae Epistola ad Tharasium, Rogantibus Papae Legatis num illi consentiret nec ne, inter alia respondet Tharasius, Concordamus & vim litterarum istarum confirmamus: & imaginum picturas, secundum priscam Patrum nostrorum traditionem, recipimus, & has desiderio nostro adoramus, ut in nomine Christi Dei nostri, & intemeratae Dominae nostrae Deiparae Virginis, sanctorumque Angelorum & omnium sanctorum factas. Quibus Tharasii verbis ipsa Synodus subjunxit, Universa sancta Synodus sic credit, & sic docet. Ejusdem Tomi pag. 313. litt. B.
Nicaea II’s fathers distinguish adoration from mere veneration—and call hypocrites those who venerate but refuse to adore§1375
1375The Synod’s adoration is more than bare veneration.
Those who say they venerate images but will not adore them are branded hypocrites who insult the saints.
Latin · §1375
VI. Porro Patres istius Synodi adorationem illam, quam imaginibus deferendam putant, a veneratione distinguunt, tanquam quae plus aliquid importet quam simplex veneratio. Etenim damnant illos qui se quidem imagines venerari confitentur, sed tamen illas adorare recusant. Ut videre est Actione quarta, ubi post Lecta quaedam verba Anastasii Episcopi Theopolitani, sic loquitur Tharasius Patriarcha, Omnes igitur qui sacras imagines se venerari confitentur, adorationem autem recusant a sancto Patre tanquam hypocritae redarguuntur. Nam cum vere adorationem, quod est honoris symbolum recusant, contrarium facere cognoscuntur, nimirum sanctis convitia dicere. Tomi jam citati pag. 335.
Yet Nicaea II reserves latria—faith, hope, trust, invocation—to the one true God alone§1376
1376The same Council walls off ‘latria’—inward faith, hope, trust, invocation—as God’s peculiar cult.
Tarasius: we adore images, yet we refer latria and faith only to the one true God.
Latin · §1376
VII. Caeterum, Concilium istud accurate distinguit adorationem quam jubet imaginibus deferri, a cultu quodam quem Deo vult esse peculiarem; quem cultum quandoque Latriam simpliciter, & quandoque etiam Latriam in spiritu vocat, quia, scilicet, praecipue in internis actibus fidei, spei, fiduciae, invocationis, & similibus consistit. Sic Tharasius post citata verba, quibus litteris Adriani Papae consentire se profitetur, & cum eo imagines Christi, Deiparae Virginis, & Sanctorum adorare, immediate subjungit, Sed apertis verbis testamur nos duntaxat in unum Deum verum latriam & fidem nostram referre & reponere.
Anastasius: ‘adore’ need not mean latria—Moses adds ‘only’ to latria-service, not to bare adoration§1377
1377Anastasius: do not stumble at the word ‘adore’—we even ‘adore’ men and angels without giving divine latria.
Moses’ ‘alone’ (Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10) binds latria-service to God, not the bare verb ‘adore.’
Latin · §1377
VIII. Similiter Actione quarta referuntur & probantur verba Anastasii Episcopi Theopoleos, Nemo autem offendatur in adorationis vocabulo. Siquidem & homines, & sanctos Angelos adoramus, non autem quod latreian hoc est, divinum cultum exhibeamus. Inquit enim Moses: Deum tuum adorabis, & illi soli latreian praestabis: quo loco diligenter observabis, qua ratione posteriori dicto, nimirum Latriae, adjecit soli, adorabis vero, hoc ipsum non est appositum. Quamobrem adorare licet: Latria vero nequaquam: neque etiam licebit proskunein quod est proprie Deum adorare.
Synodical letter: Scripture says ‘adore’ absolutely, but ‘serve/cult’ with ‘alone’—so latria is referred to God only§1378
1378The Synod’s letter to the emperors: Scripture’s ‘adore’ stands without ‘alone,’ so the word is equivocal.
‘Serve/cult’ carries ‘alone’—hence latria is ascribed and referred to God only (Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10).
Latin · §1378
IX. His consona sunt quae leguntur Actione septima in epistola Synodica ad Augustos, quam supra citavimus. Divina Scriptura dicens, Deum tuum adorabis, & illi soli cultum exhibebis: adorabis absolute ponit, neque adjicit, soli, ut significetur vox diversae notionis & aequivoca. Cultum vero exhibebis sive servire soli dixit: quam ob causam latriam uni Deo tribuimus, adque illum referimus.
Image-adoration is called ‘honorary’—outward honor-signs; refuse them and you are a hypocrite even if you claim to ‘venerate’§1379
1379They brand image-adoration ‘honorary’—an outward emphasis of honor, not latria.
Kiss, bow, and the other signs are required; refuse them while claiming ‘veneration’ and you are still a hypocrite.
Latin · §1379
X. Istam autem adorationem quam imaginibus deberi existimant, & a cultu latriae distinguunt, honorariam vocant, & docent esse honoris emphasim, seu demonstrationem, prout habetur in verbis Anastasii Episcopi Theopoleos, jam supra memoratis, Quid enim aliud est, inquit, quam honoris alicui exhibiti, veluti emphasis adoratio? Istam autem honorationis emphasim constituunt in externis quibusdam honoris signis atque testimoniis, quae si quis imaginibus Christi & sanctorum deferre recuset, illum habent pro hypocrita, etiamsi alioqui eas se venerari, id est, reverenter habere profiteatur. Ut videre est in Tharasii verbis, quae subjuncta sunt verbis Anastasii, & supra fuerunt a nobis relata.
Nicaea II names the honor-signs: kisses, embraces, lights, incense—honor passes to the prototype§1380
1380Nicaea II lists kisses, embraces, lights, and incense as the honor owed to images.
Images stand in churches not only to remind, but to receive honorary adoration (not latria).
Honor paid to the image ‘results’ upon the prototype.
Latin · §1380
XI. Quae vero sint ista honoris testimonia, Imaginibus Christi & sanctorum debita, Synodus explicat variis in locis. Nempe, juxta ipsam, talia sunt, oscula, amplexus, item luminarium & suffituum oblatio. Istud colligere est ex iis quae leguntur in Synodi definitione, quae habetur initio actionis septimae. Ubi docet Jesu Christi, Deiparae Virginis, & omnium Sanctorum imagines dedicandas & collocandas in templis, & aliis locis publicis & privatis, non solum ut per hanc imaginum pictarum inspectionem, omnes qui contemplantur, ad prototyporum memoriam, & recordationem, & desiderium veniant, sed etiam ut illis salutationem & honorariam adorationem exhibeant, non, inquit, secundum fidem nostram, veram latriam, quae solum divinae naturae competit: sed quemadmodum typo venerandae & vivificantis crucis, & sanctis Evangeliis, & reliquis sacris, oblationibus suffituum & luminarium reverenter accedimus, quemadmodum veteribus erat in consuetudine adductum est. Imaginis enim honor in prototypum resultat, & qui adorat imaginem in ea quoque adorat descriptum argumentum. Tomi jam citati pag. 386.
Synodical letter: to ‘adore’ images is to kiss and love them—Greek prosechein/proskunein as embrace and strong love§1381
1381The synodical letter equates ‘adoring’ images with kissing and loving them.
Greek usage (proskunein and kin) is pressed to mean embrace and strong affection, not latria.
Latin · §1381
XII. Consona sunt quae leguntur in epistola Synodica prima ad Augustos. Sunt autem haec, nempe Christi & sanctorum imagines, adorandae quoque, hoc est, exosculandae & amandae, idem enim significant haec, juxta antiquam Graeciae Dialecton. Nam prosechein, id est, adorare, & aspazesthai, id est, amplecti, & philein, id est, amare significat. Praepositio autem pros, intentionem significat desiderii, quemadmodum in proskunein. Unde concludit epistola vocem proskunein significare amplexum, & vehementem amorem. Tomi saepius allegati pag. 390.
Constantinople VIII (869): Christ’s image to be honored like the Gospels—refuse adoration and miss His face at the Second Coming§1382
1382The ‘eighth’ Council ranks Christ’s image with Gospel-veneration: paint teaches as syllables teach.
Refuse to adore Christ’s image, and you are cursed not to see His face at His return.
Greek Gospel-book rites explain the parallel.
Latin · §1382
XIII. Doctrinam istius Synodi confirmat Concilium quod octavum Generale dicitur, celebratum, ut diximus, in urbe Constantinopoli, anno Christi 869. Nam Actione decima hic est tertius ejus Canon. Sacram Domini Nostri Jesu Christi effigiem, eadem qua sancta Evangelia veneratione colendam statuimus. Quemadmodum enim per syllabas ex Evangelio pronunciatas salutem consequuntur omnes, ita per imagines arte coloribusque pictas & expressas, docti juxta & indocti ex objecta re utilitatem capiunt. Quaecunque enim in syllabis oratio, hoc in coloribus pictura docet & repraesentat. Ergo quicunque Christi salvatoris imaginem non adorat, is in secundo Christi adventu non videat ipsius faciem. Eadem ratione intemeratae genitricis ejus effigiem, Sanctorumque Angelorum, quemadmodum illos sacrarum literarum paginae describunt, ac divorum omnium veneramur & adoramus. Qui aliter sentiunt Anathema sunto. Quod autem Concilium istud imagines, ratione cultus & venerationis, cum Evangelio comparat, respicit morem Graecorum, qui ipsum codicem Evangeliorum certis ritibus colunt & adorant, ut fit de imagine Crucis.
Trent Session 25: keep images; honor them by kiss and bow—honor passes to prototypes; no divinity or trust in the image itself§1383
1383Trent Session 25 keeps Christ’s and the saints’ images in churches and bids due honor—kiss, bare head, prostration.
No divinity or trust is to be pinned on the wood; honor is referred to the prototypes (Nicaea II).
Latin · §1383
XIV. Denique priorum istorum Conciliorum decretis subscribit & consentanea sancit Tridentina Synodus, docens quidem imaginibus non inesse divinitatem, vel virtutem aliquam, propter quam sint colendae; nec etiam in eis fiduciam esse figendam: sed tamen illis venerationem & honorem deberi, illasque osculandas, & coram eis caput aperiendum, & procumbendum esse; quoniam honor qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant: ut per imagines Christum ipsum adoremus, & sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt. Synodi istius verba sunt Sessione vigesima quinta, Imagines porro Christi, Deiparae Virginis, & aliorum sanctorum, in templis praesertim habendas & retinendas, eisque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in eis Divinitas, vel virtus, propter quam sint colendae: vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum, vel quod fiducia in imaginibus sit figenda: veluti olim fiebat a gentibus, quae in idolis spem suam collocabant: sed quoniam honor, qui eis exhibetur, refertur ad prototypa, quae illae repraesentant: ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus & procumbimus, Christum adoremus; & sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur, id quod Conciliorum, praesertim secundae Nicenae, decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum.
Sum of Roman Councils: relative honorary adoration is owed—kiss, bow, incense—not latria; ask nothing from the image§1384
1384Roman Councils agree: images are owed cult—kiss, salute, bow, incense, lights—and may be called ‘adoration.’
But only relative/subaltern adoration, ending in the prototype—not latria, not petitions, not trust or divinity in the image.
Latin · §1384
XV. Ex quibus manifestum est, juxta doctrinam Ecclesiae Romanae, & Conciliorum illius placita, primo cultum aliquem, honorem & venerationem imaginibus Christi & sanctorum deberi. Secundo cultum illum legitime exhiberi imagines osculando, salutando & amplectendo, coram eis procumbendo, & caput aperiendo, ac ipsis offerendo suffitus & luminaria. Denique cultum illum adorationis voce recte exprimi. Non tamen imagines ut Deos adorandas esse, & cultu latriae colendas, id est, adoratione summa & absoluta, quae uni vero Deo reservanda est; sed adorationem quae illis exhiberi debet, subalternam esse sive relativam, & referri ad prototypa, atque in eis terminari. Adeoque ab imaginibus nihil esse petendum, nec ponendam esse in iis fiduciam, nec ullam divinitatem & virtutem iis tribui debere.
What that adoration really is is clearest from Rome’s solemn universal temple-practice, approved or silently allowed by pastors and Pope§1385
1385Rome’s real image-adoration is best read from her public temple practice.
Bishops, pastors, and Pope either approve or stay silent while the people make it part of piety.
Latin · §1385
XVI. Verum quae & qualis sit illa adoratio quae, juxta mentem Ecclesiae Romanae, imaginibus Christi & Sanctorum debetur, certius colligi non potest quam ex istius Ecclesiae praxi solenni & universali. Hoc autem nomine merito donandus est cultus ille, qui in templis Ecclesiae Romanae imaginibus palam exhibetur, scientibus & videntibus omnibus, ac per solennes quasdam & publicas ceremonias, in quibus plebs Romana pietatis suae partem constituit; non repugnantibus, nec improbantibus Pastoribus ordinariis, nec Episcopis, neque Papa; sed contra cum multorum Doctorum & Episcoporum expressa approbatione, & aliorum tacito consensu; quandoquidem ea de re silent, neque quicquam contra proferunt.
Received practice: salute, kiss, kneel, offer incense and lights; set images on altars; process, vow, gift, and pilgrimage to them§1386
1386Beyond Council-approved kiss and kneel come altar-placement, rich adornment, street processions, vows, offerings, and pilgrimages to images.
Latin · §1386
XVII. Talis est non solum consuetudo imagines Christi & Sanctorum salutandi, osculandi, & genu coram eis flectendi, ac etiam suffitus & luminaria ipsis offerendi, quae, ut modo vidimus, expresse probant Ecclesiae Romanae Concilia; sed praeterea mos ille receptus, quo imagines super altaribus locantur, vestibus & monilibus pretiosis ornantur, solenni pompa per vias publicas circumferuntur, vota eis nuncupantur, donaria consecrantur, & religiosae peregrinationes ad eas suscipiuntur.
Coster the Jesuit defends kneeling prayer before Christ’s image, adorning images, candles, and carrying statues in processions§1387
1387Jesuit Coster publicly defends kneeling prayer before Christ’s image, rich adornment, saint-candles, and statue processions as commendable Church custom.
Latin · §1387
XVIII. Ista enim passim in tota Ecclesia Romana fiunt, nec diserte & publice improbantur ab ullis, qui in Ecclesia illa authoritate, doctrina & dignitate eminent, ac pro Orthodoxis habentur, sed contra a multis publice probantur, atque defenduntur. Ut, exempli gratia, a Costerio Jesuita in Enchiridio Controversiarum capite de usu & veneratione imaginum. Proinde, inquit, reprehendendi non sunt Christiani qui Christum in sua imagine flexis genibus, apertis capitibus, junctis manibus adorant & precantur, ab eoque misericordiam, auxilium & opem implorant. Neque illi qui imagines vestibus, monilibus, & id genus aliis ornare solent. Nec reprehensione digna, sed commendanda est Christianorum consuetudo, qua cereos, in honorem sanctorum, coram imaginibus accendunt. Denique Ecclesiae consuetudo circumferendi statuas & imagines in supplicationibus antiquo usu comprobata est, & merito commendanda.
Molanus of Louvain likewise defends carrying images in processions, setting them on altars, and clothing them in gold and precious garments§1388
1388Louvain’s Molanus champions processions, altar-images, and gold-and-garment adornment against the ‘superstition’ charge.
Latin · §1388
XIX. Similia videre est apud Joannem Molanum Theologum Lovaniensem, qui in libro de historia sacrarum Imaginum, earum publicam circumgestationem, & positionem super altaria, studiumque illas vestibus pretiosis ornandi, tuetur & propugnat. Nam libro secundo capitis trigesimi quarti, lemma est, Imaginum in supplicationibus circumgestatio a superstitione contra haereticos defenditur. Et tricesimi noni capitis titulus est Sanctorum imaginibus non profane & Ethnice, sed religiose altaria exornari. Sequentis vero capitis, Imagines Sanctorum recte auro & argento tegi, & coronis, vel pretiosis vestibus exornari.
Yet public prayers addressed to the images themselves seem to clash with Nicaea II and Trent’s ban on seeking anything from an image§1389
1389Practice strains the Councils: Nicaea II and Trent bar seeking from an image, yet Rome’s public use aims prayers at the images themselves.
Latin · §1389
XX. Sed in quibusdam videtur Ecclesiae Romanae praxis non satis cum decretis Conciliorum ipsius concordare. Nam, ut supra vidimus, Synodus Nicena secunda, cum Anastasio, docet, Imagini non licere proskunein. Et similiter Synodus Tridentina ab imagine nihil esse petendum. Et tamen in publico Ecclesiae Romanae usu sunt quaedam precationes quae ad imagines ipsas diriguntur.
Breviary prayer (Pius V / Trent) addresses the Cross as distinct from Christ—‘O Cross … save the present throng’§1390
1390The restored Roman Breviary aims a feast prayer at the Cross as distinct from Christ: ‘O Cross … save the present throng.’
Latin · §1390
XXI. Nam in Breviario Ecclesiae Romanae, juxta Synodi Tridentinae decretum restituto, & jussu Pii Papae V. in lucem edito, reperitur haec ad crucem a Christo distinctam directa precatio, O Crux splendidior cunctis astris, mundo celebris, hominibus multum amabilis, sanctior universis, quae sola fuisti digna portare talentum mundi, dulce lignum, dulces clavos, dulcia ferens pondera, salva praesentem catervam in tuis hodie laudibus congregatam. In Festis Maii ad diem III. & in Festis Septembris ad diem XIV.
‘Vexilla Regis’ praises the Cross apart from Christ, then prays: ‘O cross, hail, only hope… grant pardon to the guilty’§1391
1391The Passion hymn Vexilla Regis first praises the Cross as distinct from Christ, then prays to it as ‘only hope’ for justice and pardon.
Latin · §1391
XXII. In hymno qui incipit, Vexilla Regis prodeunt, & qui decantari solet Sabbato ante Passionem, & solennibus aliis diebus, ornatur primo Crux variis Elogiis quibus a Christo distinguitur, & vocatur Arbor decora & fulgida, Ornata regis purpura, Electa digno stipite tam sancta membra tangere, Beata cujus brachiis secli pependit pretium. Deinde haec ad eam oratio concipitur, O crux ave spes unica, hoc Passionis tempore, Auge piis justitiam, Reisque dona veniam.
Aquinas infers latria for Christ’s Cross (and even for other cross-effigies by representation) from ‘O cross, hail, only hope’§1392
1392Aquinas reads the hymn as prayer to the cross-as-distinct and concludes the true Cross is owed latria (representation plus contact), and other cross-images latria by representation alone (ST III q.25 a.4).
Latin · §1392
XXIII. Hanc vero precationem ad crucem, ut a Christo distinguitur, dirigi, sicut ex ipsius hymni verbis manifestum est, agnovit Thomas Aquinas Scholae Romanae princeps. Inde enim colligit crucem esse cultu Latriae adorandam, hoc utens argumento, Illi exhibemus latriae cultum in quo ponimus spem salutis. Sed in cruce Christi ponimus spem salutis: cantat enim Ecclesia, O crux ave spes unica, Hoc Passionis tempore, Auge piis justitiam, Reisque dona veniam. Ergo Crux Christi est adoranda adoratione latriae. Articuli vero conclusio his verbis concepta est, Crux Christi in qua Christus crucifixus est, tum propter repraesentationem, tum etiam propter membrorum Christi contactum, latria adoranda est: crucis vero effigies in alia quavis materia, priori tantum ratione latria adoranda est. In Summa parte tertia quaestione 25. Articulo quarto.
Calling ‘cross’ a mere metonymy for Christ breaks where the hymn opposes and distinguishes the cross from Christ§1393
1393Modern metonymy (‘cross’ = Christ) cannot rescue texts that oppose, distinguish, and praise the cross by bodily contact apart from Christ.
Latin · §1393
XXIV. Vim autem manifestam verbis ipsis faciunt, qui, ut absurdum istud vitent, hodie volunt crucem, per Metonymiam quandam, pro Christo ipso accipi in ejusmodi precationibus. Nam quae loquendi leges patiuntur, ut crux pro Christo crucifixo sumatur, iis ipsis in locis ubi Christo opponitur, & a Christo contradistinguitur, & celebratur tanquam contactu corporis Christi nobilitata?
John XXII’s Veronica prayer (with huge indulgences) is aimed at Christ’s face-image on the sudarium, asking it to purge and lead to the blessed§1394
1394John XXII’s indulged Veronica prayer is directed to the sudarium face-image itself—asking the ‘holy face’ / ‘blessed image’ to purge, enlighten, and bring the devout to Christ’s pure face.
Latin · §1394
XXV. Reperitur & Oratio quaedam, quae fertur a Johanne Papa XXII. edita, cum concessione indulgentiarum decies mille dierum illam devote dicentibus, inspiciendo Veronicam, ad quam oratio illa dirigitur. Vocatur autem Veronica effigies quaedam vultus Christi impressa Sudario, quod in aede Sancti Petri Romae asservari dicitur, ut etiam in quadam civitate Hispaniae, teste Marineo Siculo libro quinto de rebus Hispanicis. Ista vero Imago Veronica dicitur nomine mulieris, a qua Sudarium traditur faciei Christi sanguine & sudore aspersae admotum esse, & vultus ejus effigiem in se retinuisse. Porro sic se habet oratio illa quae legitur in libro qui Antidotarius animae inscribitur. Salve Sancta facies Nostri Redemptoris, In qua nitet species divini splendoris, Impressa panniculo nivei candoris, Dataque Veronicae signum ob amoris. Salve decus saeculi, speculum Sanctorum, Quod videre cupiunt spiritus coelorum; Nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum, Atque nos consortio junge beatorum. Salve vultus Domini imago beata, Ex aeterno munere mire decorata: Lumen funde cordibus ex vi tibi data, Et a nostris sensibus tolle colligata. Salve robur fidei nostrae Christianae, Deliruens haereticos qui sunt mentis vanae: Horum auge meritum qui te credunt sane. Salve nostrum gaudium in hac vita dura, Labili & fragili, cito peritura: Nos deduc ad propria, O felix figura, Ad videndum faciem quae est Christi pura.
Cross-consecration in the Roman Pontifical asks Christ’s true Cross to sanctify a stone/metal cross so its ‘merit’ frees souls—against Trent’s ‘no virtue in images’§1395
1395Trent denies inherent virtue in images; yet Pontifical cross-blessing asks Christ to load a new stone/metal cross with true-Cross holiness so its ‘merit’ cleanses souls—and the Veronica prayer already ascribed light-giving power to an image.
Latin · §1395
XXVI. Praeterea Concilium Tridentinum statuit non esse credendum, imaginibus inesse virtutem aliquam, propter quam sint colendae. Sed contrarium supponit Ecclesiae Romanae praxis, non tantum in illa modo descripta oratione, in qua imagini vultus Christi tribuitur vis per quam lumen fundat cordibus, sed in aliis etiam, quae in Ecclesia illa sunt magis solennes atque usitatae. Nam cum Episcopus benedicit crucem ex lapide, vel metallo, ad Christum Dominum nostrum orationem habet, quae Pontificali Romano inserta est, titulo de benedictione novae crucis. In qua oratione opponens veram crucem cui Christus affixus est, cruci isti ex metallo vel lapide, A Christo Domino petit, ut crucem illam consecrandam, verae suae crucis sanctitate sanctificet, ac praestet ut merito crucis istius lapideae, vel argenteae, animae famulorum Christi omni careant perpetrato peccato. Orationis verba sunt, Nullum tibi debitum amplius munus est, quam quod tibi tunc corporis dedicavit affixio, nec tibi est magis familiaris oblatio, quam quae familiari manuum tuarum extensione sacrata est. Illis ergo manibus hanc crucem accipe, quibus illam amplexus es; & de sanctitate illius hanc sanctifica; & sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est a reatu, ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimae hujus crucis merito, omni careant perpetrato peccato.
Another Pontifical prayer asks the Father to make the held cross-sign a saving remedy and shield—implying God-given virtue in the material cross§1396
1396A second Pontifical prayer asks the Father to make the held cross a saving remedy and shield.
If the prayer is trusted, the material cross must be thought to receive real virtue from God—Trent’s denial notwithstanding.
Latin · §1396
XXVII. Ibidem est oratio ad Deum Patrem directa, in qua ab ipso petit Episcopus, ut signum crucis quod prae manibus habet, sit remedium salutare generi humano, & protectio ac tutela contra jacula inimicorum. Oratio his terminis concepta est, Rogamus te Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, sempiterne Deus, ut digneris benedicere hoc signum crucis tuae, ut sit remedium salutare generi humano; sit soliditas fidei; perfectio bonorum operum; redemptio animarum; sit solamen & protectio ac tutela contra saeva jacula inimicorum, &c. Quam orationem qui ad Deum habent, si fidant se exaudiri, necesse est ut credant, istam lapideam, vel metallicam crucem exinde a Deo habere virtutem, per quam hominibus procurare possit varias benedictiones, tum temporales, tum spirituales, contra quam definit Synodus Tridentina. Nam alioqui quomodo dici posset, illam factam fuisse, ut petit oratio, remedium humano generi salutare, & tutelam contra saeva inimicorum jacula?
Papal consecration of wax Agnus Dei images begs God to give them power against devil, storm, plague, and epilepsy§1397
1397Wax Agnus Dei tokens—symbolic ‘Lamb’ images—are consecrated with papal prayers that they receive power against demons, storms, plague, and epilepsy (cf. John 1:29).
Latin · §1397
XXVIII. Idem dico de cereis illis imagunculis, quae agnus Dei vulgo nominantur, & quas Papa consecrare solet anno primo sui Pontificatus, & etiam post, septimo quoque anno, ut sint symbolicae quaedam imagines Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui est verus Dei Agnus qui tollit peccata mundi. Nam Papa, dum illas consecrat, multis iteratis precibus Deum rogat, ut imagines illae virtutem accipiant contra diabolicas versutias, contra tempestates, contra pestem, contra morbum caducum, aliaque mala atque incommoda. Ut videre est in libro sacrarum ceremoniarum capite cui titulus est de consecratione Agnus Dei. Ubi inter plures alias orationes similes, una est in qua Papa quaedam praefatus sic Deum alloquitur, sicut ille Agnus de cujus sanguine postes & superlimina domus liniebantur, immolatus, populum tuum a persecutione Aegyptiaca, media nocte liberavit: & quemadmodum ille Agnus innocens tua voluntate immolatus in ara crucis Jesus Christus filius, Protoplastum nostrum de diabolica potestate eripuit, sic isti agni immaculati virtutem accipiant, quos consecrandos offerimus in conspectu Divinae Majestatis tuae. Tu eos benedicere, sanctificare, & consecrare digneris, ut tua larga benedictione sanctificati eandem virtutem accipiant contra omnes Diabolicas versutias, & fraudes maligni spiritus.
Urban V’s verses with Agnus Dei gifts claim the wax lamb repels lightning, breaks sin, guards childbirth—so these imagelets escape Trent’s ‘no virtue’ class§1398
1398Urban V’s gift-verses treat the wax Agnus as lightning-ward, sin-breaking, and childbirth-guarding.
On the Pope’s own mind, such imagelets sit outside Trent’s ‘images have no cult-virtue’ rule—or expose its hollow edge.
Latin · §1398
XXIX. Urbanus vero Papa V. plane confidebat orationem suam exauditam fuisse, cum ad Imperatorem Graecorum misit tres Agnus Dei, cum hisce versibus, qui sunt in fine capitis jam citati transcripti. Balsamus & munda cera, cum Chrismatis unda Conficiunt Agnum, quod munus do tibi magnum, Fonte velut natum per mystica sanctificatum. Fulgura de sursum depellit, omne malignum Peccatum frangit, ut Christi sanguis, & angit. Praegnans servatur, simul & partus liberatur, Dona defert dignis, virtutem destruit ignis. Portatus munde, de fluctibus eripit unde. Quae cum ita sint, juxta mentem Papae, qui Ecclesiae Romanae caput est, excipiendi sunt illi agni cerei de numero imaginum, quibus Concilium Tridentinum declarat, nullam inesse virtutem, propter quam colendae sint.
Doctors who ‘deny’ image-adoration mean only absolute latria—they still allow the relative honor the Councils sanction§1399
1399Some Roman doctors ‘deny’ image-adoration and cry calumny—yet Nicaea II, Constantinople VIII, and Trent anathematize refusal to adore images.
Their escape: they deny only absolute latria to images, while still allowing the Councils’ relative honor-cult.
Latin · §1399
XXX. Quod spectat Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, videntur quidam eorum contraria docere iis quae ab istius Ecclesiae Conciliis definita jam ostendimus. Sunt enim qui simpliciter negant adorandas esse imagines, & clamant sibi per calumniam objici, quod Imagines Christi & Sanctorum adorent, ut fuit jam supra a nobis observatum. Cum tamen Ecclesiae Romanae Concilia, nempe Nicenum secundum & Constantinopolitanum, quod octavum Generale vocant, a Concilio Tridentino probata, anathemate sanxerint imaginibus esse deferendam adorationem. Verum mens istorum Doctorum non est Concilia jam dicta damnare, aut ab eorum doctrina ullo modo recedere. Etenim quum imagines negant esse adorandas, istud intelligunt de adoratione summa & absoluta, qua adoratur aliquid tanquam summus finis, & primum principium, ac omnis boni primarius author, quam adorationem soli Deo deberi agnoscunt; non vero de adoratione relativa, vel inferiori, qua imagines coli posse non negant, & quam solam etiam imaginibus tribuendam esse, Ecclesiae Romanae Concilia sanciunt.
Others teach images of God and Christ are to be adored with latria—yet call it relative or per accidens, so Councils still ‘agree’§1400
1400Some leading Schoolmen even assign latria to images of God and Christ.
They salvage Council language by calling that latria relative or per accidens—joined to the prototype—not absolute latria per se.
Latin · §1400
XXXI. Contra vero inter eos qui in Schola Romana eminent reperiuntur multi, qui non docent simpliciter imagines esse adorandas, sed pertendunt imagines Dei Christique esse adorandas latria, quo nomine Schola Romana designare solet summum illum cultum qui Deo proprius est. Cum tamen Ecclesiae Romanae Concilia a latria sedulo distinguant adorationem quam volunt imaginibus Christi & Sanctorum deferri, ut pluribus ante ostendimus. Sed nec illi videri volunt a Conciliis illis dissentire, & sententiam suam cum Synodorum suarum definitionibus conciliari facile posse putant. Nempe dicunt imagines Dei Christique latria quidem esse colendas, non tamen propter se, sed propter prototypa, adeoque latriam illam, non absolutam, sed relativam esse; aut saltem cultum latriae illis deferri, non per se, sed per accidens, quatenus considerantur cum prototypo junctae, & unum quid cum illo constituentes. Jam vero Concilia quae nullis Imaginibus latriam deferri volunt, intelligenda esse de latria absoluta, non vero de relativa; aut de latria per se, non de latria per accidens.
Despite diverse talk, Roman doctors agree with the Councils: images are owed cult and ‘adoration,’ with bow, kiss, incense, and lights as legitimate signs§1401
1401Beneath the quarrel, Roman doctors lock step with the Councils on three points: images are for cult not bare memory; ‘adoration’ is a fair name; bare head, kiss, kneel, incense, and lights are lawful honor-signs.
Latin · §1401
XXXII. Itaque Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, utut paulum diverse loquantur, de his tamen, quae sunt ab istius Ecclesiae Conciliis sancita & definita, inter se consentiunt. Primo, scilicet, imagines non ad simplicem commemorationem, in templis habendas & retinendas esse, sed imaginibus Christi, & Beatae Virginis, ac aliorum etiam sanctorum, aliquem cultum & honorem deberi, & merito posse tribui. Secundo honorem illum voce adorationis recte & bono sensu exprimi posse. Tertio reverentiae & submissionis signa, quae imaginibus illis exhibentur eas apertione capitis salutando, item eas osculando, genu coram illis flectendo, ac denique incense & luminaria offerendo, honoris illius esse notas legitimas, & minime culpandas.
Vasquez: Catholic truth is that images are owed adoration-signs; iconomachs who withhold kiss and bow are heretics under Nicaea II§1402
1402Vasquez: owed image-adoration (kiss, lights, incense, bare head) is Catholic truth.
Seventh-Synod ‘iconomachs’ who kept images for memory but refused bodily honor-signs were condemned—veneration without adoration is not enough.
Latin · §1402
XXXIII. Ac proinde merito Vasquez asserit, juxta Scholae Romanae mentem, Catholicam veritatem esse, quod imaginibus deferenda sit adoratio, hoc est, signa servitutis & submissionis, amplexu, luminaribus, oblatione suffituum, capitis nudatione, &c. Adeoque non simpliciter errantibus, sed Iconomachis haereticis accenset eos, qui tempore septimae Synodi, judicarunt imagines ubique retinendas esse, non ad solum ornatum, sed etiam ad excitandam fidelibus memoriam exemplaris, ut coram eis ipsum venerarentur, imaginibus tamen nullum signum honoris, aut submissionis, neque osculo, nec inclinatione corporis, nec alio modo exhibebant, quia istud dicebant esse idololatriam. Quare nec osculabantur imagines, neque ipsis corpus inclinabant, nec thurificabant: sed recti coram eis, in memoriam exemplaris excitati, in ipsum mente sola ferebantur. Quo nomine fuerunt in Synodo septima damnati; & contra eos in illa Synodo definitum est, non sufficere si quis dicat imagines se venerari, nisi illas etiam adoret. * In 3. part. Tho. tom. 1. disputat. 106. cap. 1. & 2.
Vasquez clears Holcot, Durandus, and Pico: they still required embrace and kiss—calling refusal to adore images in any way an intolerable crime§1403
1403Holcot, Durandus, and Pico, on Vasquez’s reading, still required kiss and bare head—even if they called it improper adoration of the image.
Vasquez: to teach images must not be adored at all is crime and intolerable error.
Latin · §1403
XXXIV. Ab eo vero, ut putat, errore Vasquez ibidem vindicat Holcot, Durandum, & Picum Mirandulanum, quos ostendit non negavisse amplexari nos debere imagines, salutare & osculari, atque ipsis caput nudare; etiamsi dixerint imagines per hoc improprie tantum adorari, & illam non esse proprie adorationem imaginis, sed exemplaris. Quapropter in fine capitis secundi modo citatae disputationis, affirmat scelus & crimen esse imagines non adorare, & errorem intolerabilem judicari debere, si quis doceat eas nullo modo esse adorandas.
Consensus that images are somehow to be cultivated and adored—yet Schoolmen still quarrel over the mode and nature of that cult§1404
1404Roman Schoolmen agree images somehow deserve kiss, incense, lights, and kneeling.
They still split on the mode and nature of that cult—Vasquez: unity against iconomachs, diversity on how adoration works.
Latin · §1404
XXXV. Sed quanquam Scholae Romanae Theologi communi consensu agnoscant imagines, aliquo saltem modo, colendas & adorandas esse, adeoque pium & laudabile esse, ipsas devote osculari, thus ipsis adolere, luminaria accendere & coram eis genu flectere, sive procumbere, minime tamen inter se consentiunt quae & qualis istius cultus ratio atque natura sit. Quod observat Vasquez tomi jam allegati disput. 108. cap. 1. Cum Catholici omnes, inquit, contra Iconomachos in aliquo cultu & adoratione imaginibus deferenda facile conveniant, variant in modo seu ipsa natura adorationis.
Three School distinctions opened: honor per se vs per accidens (king, purple, accidents)§1405
1405Schoolmen preface the quarrel with distinctions: honor per se vs per accidents.
Per se: the subject that carries the reason of veneration; per accidents: what is merely joined to it.
King example: the man who is king is honored per se; purple and other adjuncts only per accidents—royal dignity is the reason, not an accidental add-on.
Latin · §1405
XXXVI. Ut autem dissensus iste melius percipiatur, ante omnia notandae atque explicandae sunt quaedam distinctiones, quibus uti solent in hac quaestione, ut mentem suam clarius exponant. Primum igitur observant, aliquid honorari vel per se, vel per accidens. Per se, honoratur, inquiunt, suppositum in quo inest ratio venerationis: per accidens, id quod est conjunctum rei quae adoratur, nec est ipsa ratio adorationis. Ut cum honoratur Rex, per se honoratur homo ille, qui est Rex; per accidens honoratur purpura, & reliqua adjuncta, & accidentia omnia ejus, excepta regia dignitate: quae licet non sit id quod honoratur, est tamen id quo homo ille honoratur. Itaque persona honoratur per se, ut quae; regia dignitas honoratur per se, ut qua; reliqua honorantur per accidens.
Second distinction: honor propter se vs propter aliud—rational nature vs sacred signs§1406
1406Second cut: honor on account of itself vs on account of another.
Only rational nature is venerable propter se; sacred signs are venerable only propter aliud, because their excellence hangs entirely on the holy thing they represent.
Latin · §1406
XXXVII. Secundo dicunt posse aliquid honorari propter se, vel propter aliud. Id honoratur, inquiunt, propter se, quod habet in se rationem venerationis non dependentem aliunde; & hoc modo sola natura rationalis est venerabilis. Propter aliud honoratur id, quod habet in se quidem causam honoris, sed illa causa tota pendet ab alio. Et hoc modo signa rerum sacrarum sunt venerabilia: habent enim in se relationem similitudinis, sive repraesentationem rei sacrae, & proinde quandam excellentiam, sed illa tota pendet ab ipsa re sacra.
Third distinction: honor proprie vs improprie—legate, funeral statue; from Bellarmine§1407
1407Third cut: proper vs improper honor.
Proper: honored by reason of itself; improper: honored in another's place — legate for the king; funeral statue for the corpse.
Bellarmine, De Ecclesia triumphante II.20, is the source for all three distinctions.
Latin · §1407
XXXVIII. Tertio notant posse aliquid honorari proprie, vel improprie. Id, ut aiunt, proprie dicitur honorari, quod vere ratione sui ipsius honoratur. Improprie dicitur honorari, quod honoratur loco alterius. Legatus Regis aliquando honoratur ut legatus, & tunc ipse proprie honoratur, licet propter alium honoretur: aliquando honoratur loco Regis, honore proprio Regibus, & tunc ipse improprie honoratur, proprie autem Rex in ipso tunc honoratur. Id clarius apparet cum funus celebratur absente corpore, circa statuam, & fiunt erga statuam omnia quae circa corpus fierent, &c. Quae distinctiones omnes sunt Bellarmini libro secundo de Ecclesia triumphante capite vigesimo.
Question: are images adored properly or only improperly? Some older Scholastics say only improperly§1408
1408Roman School question: proper or only improper adoration of images?
Some older Scholastics allow kiss, prostration, and honor-signs, yet call that adoration improper or abusive—acts toward images terminate on the prototype, not the image.
Latin · §1408
XXXIX. His ita observatis quaeritur in Schola Romana An Imagines sint proprie adorandae, an vero solum improprie? Et fuerunt inter veteres Scholasticos nonnulli qui fatentur quidem imagines aliquo modo adorandas esse, & licitum esse eas osculari, & coram iis procumbere, & circa illas alia honoris signa exercere, non tamen per hoc imagines proprie, sed improprie tantum & abusive adorari: quia, scilicet, actiones illae, quanquam circa imagines fiant, non tamen fiunt in honorem imaginum, sed in honorem prototypi, nec imagines sunt terminus ad quem refertur illa adoratio.
Durandus, Holcot, Pico: improper-only view rejected as rash by recent Scholastics§1409
1409Durandus, Holcot, and Pico are tagged with the improper-only view.
Recent Schoolmen — Vasquez, Suarez, Bellarmine, Valencia, Puteanus — reject it as rash and insist images are adored properly and truly.
Latin · §1409
XL. Haec sententia tribuitur Durando, & Holcot, & Pico Mirandulano, sed communiter rejicitur a Scholasticis recentioribus, & habetur pro temeraria. Ut videre est apud Vasquezium, Suarezium, Bellarminum, Gregorium de Valentia, Puteanum, & alios, qui communi consensu statuunt imagines proprie & vere adorandas esse.
Agreement that images are adored properly—but split on whether the image alone can be integral object§1410
1410Recent Schoolmen agree images are properly adored, but quarrel over the mode.
All say images are not adored for themselves but for the exemplar.
The live question: can the image alone be an integral, proximate object of a distinct adoration—like a legate honored for the king yet with his own inferior honor?
Latin · §1410
XLI. Sed quamvis recentiores in eo consentiant, imagines proprie & vere adorandas esse, nihilominus inter eos controvertitur quis sit illius adorationis modus atque ratio. Fatentur quidem illi omnes imagines non debere adorari propter se, sed tantum propter exemplar quod repraesentant, & cujus similitudinem gerunt. Sed quaestio est, An, licet imago propter exemplar adoretur, tamen per se, & in se possit esse integrum objectum adorationis, ita ut adoretur adoratione diversa ab ea qua ipsum exemplar adoratur, & quae sic terminetur in ipsam imaginem, ut ejus materia proxima & immediata sit imago sola, non autem exemplar. Quemadmodum Legatus Regis honoratur propter Regem cujus nomine Legationem obit, sed tamen potest & solet honorari, honore cujus ipse terminus proximus est, & quo Rex, directe saltem, non honoratur, ac proinde qui est diversus ab eo, & inferior eo quo Rex ipse honorandus est.
Vasquez rejects image-alone adoration as superstitious—must co-venerate the prototype§1411
1411Vasquez brands image-alone adoration superstitious: a rational creature must not subject itself to an irrational one.
An image without its prototype cannot lawfully be adored; the adorant must also venerate the exemplar in and through the image as terminus.
Cited: Vasquez on ST III, disp. 108, c. 3.
Latin · §1411
XLII. Quidam, ut Gabriel Vasquez, hunc adorationis modum tanquam superstitiosum & stultum rejiciunt, quia, videlicet, stultum est creaturam rationalem se subjicere creaturae irrationali, & servam illius sese exhibere. Adeoque pertendunt imaginem per se, sine prototypo, vel ab eo separatam adorari licite non posse: Non solum quia necesse est propter exemplar, tanquam propter rationem remotam, sicut legatum propter Regem, imaginem coli: sed quia qui imaginem adorat, in ea quoque, & per eam, exemplar, ut terminum, & materiam proximam venerationis, venerari debet. Quae sunt verba Gabrielis Vasquez, tomo primo in tertiam Thomae disputat. 108. cap. 3.
Suarez and others allow images adored as proximate terminus without directly adoring the exemplar§1412
1412Many disagree with Vasquez: images may be adored without simultaneously adoring the exemplar, as proximate terminus.
Suarez: images cannot be adored except because of the exemplar, yet can be adored in themselves and properly without directly adoring the exemplar as quod.
Cited: Suarez on ST III, disp. 54, sect. 5.
Latin · §1412
XLIII. At vero plures alii docent licitum & honestum esse imagines adorare non adorato simul exemplari, & ita ut ipsae sint proximus & integer terminus adorationis. Quo de numero est Franciscus Suarez, qui affirmat, licet verum sit imagines non posse adorari, nisi propter exemplar, nihilominus illas in se & proprie adorari posse, non adorato directe, & ut quod, exemplari. Tomo primo in tertiam Thomae, Disputatione quinquagesima quarta Sect. 5.
Bellarmine: images of Christ and the Saints venerated per se and properly, not only as stand-ins§1413
1413Bellarmine's proposition: images of Christ and the Saints are venerated per se and properly.
They terminate veneration as considered in themselves—not only as stand-ins for the exemplar (De Ecclesia triumphante II.21).
Latin · §1413
XLIV. Ita quoque sentit Bellarminus cujus haec est propositio, Imagines Christi & Sanctorum venerandae sunt, non solum per accidens, vel improprie, sed etiam per se et proprie, ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem ut in se considerantur, & non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris. De Ecclesia triumphante libro secundo capite vigesimo primo.
Puteanus: the material object of our adoration can be the image alone§1414
1414Puteanus agrees: Christ's image—and any saint's—can be adored so that the material object is the image alone (on ST III q.25 a.3).
Latin · §1414
XLV. Eadem est etiam Puteani Doctrina, qui agnoscit imaginem Christi, ac proinde sancti cujusvis imaginem, sic adorari posse, ut adorationis nostrae objectum materiale sit imago sola. In tertiam partem Thomae quaestione vigesima quinta Articulo tertio.
Bellarmine on the genus of image-cult: imperfect, analogical dulia/hyperdulia/latria§1415
1415What genus of cult terminates on the image alone? Bellarmine: an imperfect, analogical cult.
Images get neither proper latria, hyperdulia, nor dulia—those belong to intelligent natures—but inferior reductive analogues keyed to what they represent.
Cited: De Ecclesia triumphante II.25.
Latin · §1415
XLVI. Inter hos vero Theologos, qui docent imagines adorari posse, non adorato simul exemplari, & peculiari cultu qui in ipsas terminetur, quaeritur Cujus generis sit cultus ille & quo nomine vocandus. Juxta Bellarminum. Cultus, qui per se, proprie debetur imaginibus, est cultus quidam imperfectus, qui analogice & reductive pertinet ad speciem ejus cultus qui debetur exemplari. Rem autem sic explicat ipse. Imaginibus non convenit proprie nec latria, nec hyperdulia, nec dulia, nec ullus alius eorum qui tribuuntur naturae intelligenti. Non enim est capax res inanima, & rationis expers ejusmodi cultuum: sed cultus quidam inferior & varius pro varietate imaginum. Itaque imaginibus sanctorum non debetur proprie dulia, sed cultus inferior, qui dici potest dulia secundum quid, vel dulia analogice, sive reductive. Similiter imaginibus Beatae Virginis non debetur hyperdulia simpliciter, sed hyperdulia secundum quid, sive analogice & reductive. Denique imaginibus Christi non debetur latria vera, & simpliciter, sed cultus sine comparatione inferior, qui tamen reducitur ad latriam, ut imperfectum ad perfectum. De Ecclesia triumphante lib. 2. cap. 25.
Puteanus: image of Christ alone gets relative latria, not absolute§1416
1416Puteanus's line: when Christ's image alone is the material object, the latria owed is relative, not absolute.
Absolute latria tracks uncreated excellence in the thing; respective latria tracks excellence only by relation.
Latin · §1416
XLVII. Juxta alios vero simpliciter dicendum est, Imagini Christi, cum adoratur sola, & seorsim ab exemplari, deberi quidem latriam, sed relativam, non autem absolutam. Haec est enim Puteani conclusio prima ad articulum tertium quaestionis vigesimae quintae modo citatae. Quando objectum materiale adorationis nostrae est sola imago Christi, & ratio adorandi solus Christus, per imaginem istam repraesentatus, adoratio haec non est proprie adoratio latriae, aut, ut alii loquuntur, non est adoratio latriae absoluta. Caeterum adoratur latria absoluta quod adoratur propter excellentiam increatam, quae reipsa est in re quae adoratur. Adoratur autem latria respectiva quod adoratur quidem propter excellentiam increatam, verum quae reipsa non est in re quae adoratur, sed ad quam res illa habitudinem aliquam & relationem habet.
Same rule for Mary and the Saints: respective hyperdulia and dulia§1417
1417On Puteanus's scheme: Marian images get respective hyperdulia; other saints' images get respective dulia—not the absolute grades.
Latin · §1417
XLVIII. Porro secundum istam Puteani doctrinam, similiter dicendum est, imagines Virginis Mariae adorandas esse hyperdulia, non absoluta, sed respectiva: imaginibus vero sanctorum reliquorum deberi quoque duliam respectivam & non absolutam.
Further question: one act adorning image and exemplar together? Peresius and Catharinus deny§1418
1418Next quarrel: can one act adore image and exemplar together as one mental object?
Peresius de Ayala and Ambrosius Catharinus say no—image-adoration is always a distinct act from exemplar-adoration.
Latin · §1418
XLIX. Praeterea quaeritur inter Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae An uno & eodem adorationis actu imago & exemplar simul adorari possint & debeant, nempe dum consideratur exemplar tanquam imagine vestitum, imago vero ut exemplar continens, & ipso velut animata; ita ut in adorantis mente imago & exemplar unum quid constituant. Hunc Imagines adorandi modum quidam ex Doctoribus Scholae Romanae non agnoscunt, & imaginis adorationem existimant semper actum esse diversum ab eo quo ipsum exemplar adoratur. Quae est opinio Martini Peresii de Ayala libro de Traditionibus ubi de cultu imaginum agit, & Ambrosii Catharini opusculo singulari de adoratione imaginum, ut testantur Vasquez & Suarez disputationibus saepius jam citatis.
Suarez: one act can adore prototype in the image via representative presence§1419
1419Majority Roman line (Suarez): one act can adore image-for-prototype and prototype-in-image together as adequate object.
The image does not really contain the prototype, but contains it in representative being—so the mind takes both as one without mistaking paint for Christ.
Latin · §1419
L. At vero contra plurimi Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores in ea sunt sententia, imaginem adorari posse & debere eadem adoratione cum exemplari, ita ut imago propter prototypum, & prototypum in imagine adoretur uno eodemque actu, cujus objectum adaequatum sint exemplar & imago simul. Hanc sententiam prolixe tuetur & explicat Franciscus Suarez, tomo primo in tertiam Thomae, disputatione quinquagesima quarta jam saepe memorata. Ubi, ut clarius mentem suam exponat, observat imaginem, quamvis in se revera non contineat prototypum, secundum proprium esse reale illius, continere tamen in esse repraesentativo: Unde fit ut homo, proposita hujusmodi imagine, ipsum exemplar apprehendat, ac si revera in illa adesset, & per modum unius utrumque simul concipiat: ea igitur posita apprehensione, animum adorantis, uno adorationis motu, primario in exemplar, concomitanter vero in imaginem ferri, quam deosculando Christum ipsum adorat; non per deceptionem, quia non judicat imaginem esse Christum, sed per simplicem ac vivam repraesentationem exemplaris in imagine, ac si adesset.
Vasquez: images may—and must—be adored only with the exemplar, never alone§1420
1420Vasquez goes further: images can and must be adored only with the exemplar—never alone even in thought.
Apart from the joined exemplar the image is not capable of veneration; together they make the integral proximate terminus.
Latin · §1420
LI. Vasquez vero non tantum existimat imaginem uno eodemque actu cum exemplari adorari posse, sed imagines non nisi cum exemplari adorari posse & debere contendit. Perutilis, inquit, & antiqua Theologorum sententia, quam ego veram existimo, est motum adorationis in imaginem, ita in ejus prototypum & exemplar transire, & utrumque sub eandem venerationem cadere, ut nec sola cogitatione, imago per se sine illo, vel ab eo separata adorari possit: Et postea docet, non solum imaginem cum exemplari eodem motu adorationis posse adorari, verum etiam ipsam per se, nisi exemplar contineat, & cum eo conjungatur, non esse alicujus venerationis, & adorationis capacem, ac proinde non nisi cum exemplari, cum quo integrum proximum terminum adorationis constituit, esse colendam. Disputationis centesimae octavae, jam supra allegatae capite tertio.
Vasquez's ground: no irrational thing is capable of honor per se—alone-adoration risks idolatry§1421
1421Vasquez's ground: nothing irrational is capable of honor per se, because adoration is willed submission to a superior excellence.
Image-alone veneration can be branded folly or idolatry—servitude to the irrational, or attributing deity or dignity to it (Gentile error, not Christian religion).
Latin · §1421
LII. Fundamentum autem sententiae ejus est quod nulla res inanima, aut irrationalis sine rationali, capax est secundum se honoris, cultus, & reverentiae, seu adorationis. Et hoc quia adoratio est voluntas exhibendi alicui excellenti notam, & signum submissionis, excellentiae ipsius debitum: Jam vero animus submissionis, & servitutis erga illum ipsum versatur, quem quis apprehendit, ut sibi superiorem, & excellentia majori praeditum, qualis respectu hominis non est imago sine exemplari considerata. Ut pluribus exponit ipse disputationis jam dictae capite nono. ubi etiam affirmat, illum qui imaginem per se, non adorato in ipsa exemplari, veneratur, stultitiae, seu idololatriae infimulari posse: aut quia rei irrationali se subjicit, & contra rectam rationem se servum exhibet: aut quia dum illi se submittit, aliquod numen, aut dignitatem, aut virtutem ei tribuit; quod est error gentilium, non Christianorum religio.
Vasquez: adoration's one act has exterior mark plus interior affect of submission§1422
1422Vasquez: one adoration-act has two parts—exterior mark (kneel, bare the head) plus interior affect of submission.
Without the affect, the gesture is not cult (it could be a joke); both together make one honor-act, as virtue's interior and exterior do.
Latin · §1422
LIII. Caeterum, quod etiam ex jam dictis satis colligitur, observat idem Vasquez, actum adorationis duobus constare. Unum est nota exterior submissionis, ut genuflexio, capitis apertio, &c. Alterum est submissionis affectus, quo quis ex apprehensione excellentiae, & dignitatis, alicui ut excellenti, notam illam vult exhibere; sine quo nota exterior non esset adoratio, & cultus; cum ea fieri posset animo quoque joci aut irrisionis. Nec enim nota exterior, & interior affectus submissionis, duae sunt adorationes: sed ex utroque unus actus reverentiae & honoris constat: sicut in universum actus virtutis, interiori, & exteriori constituitur.
Does the interior affect terminate on the image too? Vasquez: only the exterior mark does§1423
1423Follow-up: when one act covers both, does the interior affect terminate on the image too?
Vasquez: only the exterior mark terminates on the image; the interior affect aims at the exemplar alone, and the mark is transmitted to it (disp. 108, c. 7).
Latin · §1423
LIV. Rursus ergo quaeritur, An quum imago & exemplar simul uno eodemque actu adorationis coluntur, utraque pars istius actus, id est, tam interior submissionis affectus, quam ejus nota exterior, non ad solum exemplar, sed ad imaginem quoque pertineat, atque terminetur? Et quidem Vasquez, conformiter fundamento ab eo posito, existimat, quum Imago & exemplar simul adorantur, solam exteriorem notam submissionis ad imaginem pertinere, atque ad eam terminari; interiorem vero submissionis affectum circa solum exemplar versari, & illud solum respicere. Nam Capite septimo saepius dictae Disputationis 108, ex variis Conciliorum & Patrum testimoniis manifeste colligi dicit, unam eandemque adorationem esse imaginis, & exemplaris, non sicut quidam Theologi putant, sed ita ut unus sit affectus submissionis, qui in solum exemplar feratur: nota autem exterior illius, solum imaginem respiciat, & per illam ex affectu illo submissionis, cogitatione, & desiderio, in ipsum exemplar transmittatur.
Suarez counters: interior submission also terminates on the image in the one joint act§1424
1424Suarez answers Vasquez: in the joint act, interior submission terminates on the image too—not only the sensible mark.
One interior-and-exterior act adores prototype-in-image and image-for-prototype as one object, truly and properly—not merely abusively.
Latin · §1424
LV. Contra vero Franciscus Suarez, quando uno eodemque actu, imago cum exemplari conjunctim adoratur, pertendit non tantum exterius submissionis signum, sed ipsam quoque internam animi submissionem ad imaginem terminari, & submissionem illam non exemplar solum respicere, sed ipsam etiam cum exemplari imaginem: ita ut illius adorationis totius & integrae, objectum sit imago, non vero ejus duntaxat quod in illa adoratione exterius & sensibile est. Dicendum est, inquit, posse recte fieri, ut prototypum in imagine, & imago propter prototypum, uno actu interiori, & exteriori adoretur. Tom. 1. in 3. Tho. disp. 54. Sect. 3. Et ibidem addit; quum aliquis imaginem & prototypum per modum unius objecti apprehendit, hominem ferri ad colendum illud objectum, sicut unico corporis motu, ita etiam unico voluntatis actu: neque oportere in tali actu rationes formales distinguere. Postea vero inde infert, per hanc adorationem, adorari etiam imaginem, non solum actu externo, qui ad adorationem non sufficit, sed etiam interiori motu & intentione adorantis, atque non ita abusive tantum, sed vere ac proprie.
From joint-act hypothesis: images share the exemplar's cult genus—dulia, hyperdulia, even latria§1425
1425If one act covers image and exemplar, images share the exemplar's cult genus.
Saints' images: dulia; Mary's: hyperdulia; God's and Christ's: latria—as Aquinas and most Scholastics teach.
Latin · §1425
LVI. Porro ex hac hypothesi, quod imago possit & debeat, uno eodemque adorationis actu cum exemplari ipso coli, sequitur, imagines coli posse & debere eodem genere cultus, quo colitur ipsum exemplar. Ac proinde sanctorum imagines coli posse dulia, qui est cultus sanctis peculiaris: Imagines vero Beatae Virginis coli posse hyperdulia, qui cultus est ipsi proprius; ac tandem imagines Dei Christique coli posse latria, qui cultus est Deo debitus; quod etiam fatentur & docent cum Thoma Aquinate plerique Scholastici.
Bellarmine's first escape from idolatry: improper latria when the mind stays fixed on the exemplar alone§1426
1426How can image-latria avoid idolatry? Bellarmine's first route: improper latria.
Mind fixed only on the exemplar while Good-Friday crucifix rites use the image as stand-in—latria properly goes to Christ alone, improperly said of the image.
Latin · §1426
LVII. Quomodo vero imago latria adorari possit, neque tamen in eo committatur crimen idololatriae, variis modis ostendere conantur Scholae Romanae Theologi. Et primo quidem dicit Bellarminus, imaginem quandoque vicem gerere exemplaris, & ea quae fierent circa ipsum exemplar, si adesset praesens, fieri circa imaginem, mente tamen unice defixa in exemplari, non in imagine, & tunc dici posse imaginem coli eodem cultu quo exemplar, non proprie tamen, sed improprie. Sic ex illius mente in die parasceves, seu feria sexta ante Pascha, cum crucifixus paulatim detegitur, & adorandus proponitur, multa quae pertinent ad latriae cultum, circa imaginem crucifixi fiunt; sed omnia illa per imaginem ipsi Christo vero exhiberi intelliguntur: tunc autem proprie loquendo honor ille latriae non defertur imagini, sed soli exemplari: tamen improprie dici potest ipsa etiam imago latria honorari.
Bellarmine's second route: proper latria per accidents—yet do not tell the people images are owed latria§1427
1427Bellarmine's second route: proper latria per accidents—Christ adored as shining in the image, like king-plus-clothes.
Latria per se to the image remains forbidden; yet he forbids telling the people that images are owed latria, preferring the contrary for popular speech (II.22-23).
Latin · §1427
LVIII. Praeterea docet imaginem Christi adorari posse latria, non improprie tantum, sed etiam proprie, verum per accidens, non per se: ut si quis Christum adoret, prout objective in sua imagine relucet, ut ipsum sic repraesentatum, & quasi vestitum imagine veneretur. Tunc enim necessario adorari imaginem eodem cultu quo Christum ipsum; quoniam imago concipitur eo tempore conjuncta cum exemplari quod adoratur: qui autem adorat aliquem, adorat etiam omnia quae cum illo conjuncta sunt; sicut qui adorat Regem vestitum, adorat simul Regem & vestes. Sed adorationem illam esse per accidens, non per se: quia, in eo casu imago nec est ipsum suppositum quod adoratur, nec ratio adorationis, sed quiddam adjunctum. Existimat autem Bellarminus prohibitum quidem imaginem colere latria proprie & per se, non tamen illam latria colere improprie, vel per accidens. Quoniam tamen non debet simpliciter affirmari, id quod verum est solum improprie, vel per accidens, idcirco non vult dicendum esse imaginibus deberi cultum latriae, sed contrarium potius, praesertim si sermo ad populum habeatur. De Ecclesia triumphante lib. 2. cap. 22. & 23.
Vasquez's latria fix: interior submission to God alone; images get only the exterior mark§1428
1428Vasquez's fix: one act, but split—interior submission aims only at the exemplar or God; the image gets only the exterior mark.
Latria names the interior servitude-affect toward God, not the bare gesture—so II Nicaea rightly denies latria to images.
Latin · §1428
LIX. Vasquez autem difficultatem istam aliter expedit, juxta posita ab ipso principia. Quamvis enim pertendat unico adorationis actu, imaginem cum exemplari coli, nec aliter esse colendam: in actu tamen illo, ut jam explicuimus, duas partes distinguit, unam quae est ipsa animi submissio, alteram quae est ejus submissionis signum. Et priorem illam partem, quae est animi submissio, non vult ullo modo respicere imaginem secundum se, atque ad eam terminari, sed referri ad solum exemplar: solam vero partem alteram, quae est submissionis nota quaedam exterior, imagini vult exhiberi, & per illam ad exemplar transire. Nempe cum aliquis coram imagine procumbit, aut genua flectit, id facit, ex ejus sententia, in signum servitutis atque reverentiae, quam deferendam putat, non imagini, sed prototypo soli. Jam vero latriae vocem significare vult, non notam exteriorem submissionis, & reverentiae secundum se, sed affectum subjectionis, ipsam vero notam prout subest, & perficitur interno servitutis affectu erga Deum. Unde colligit recte a Synodo Nicena secunda negari imaginibus deferendam esse latriam: quia, scilicet, illis non est exhibenda illa animae submissio, in qua latria proprie consistit.
Vasquez still allows saying images are adored with latria—per accidents, via exterior signs§1429
1429Vasquez still allows absolute speech that images are adored with latria—but only per accidents.
Exterior signs drawn from latria-servitude toward the exemplar make the image latria-adored with the prototype, not per se.
Latin · §1429
LX. Caeterum tamen pertendit, absolute dici posse imagines adorari adoratione latriae. Quanquam enim imaginibus non sit deferendus ille servitutis affectus, qui latria dicitur, per accidens tamen latria coluntur: idque quoniam imaginibus defertur exterior adoratio, per signa derivata ab affectu servitutis latriae circa exemplar; quod satis esse putat, ut dicatur imago per accidens cum prototypo, non per se, adoratione latriae adorari.
Suarez closes the Roman locus: true proper latria of Christ's image with Christ—relative toward the image, absolute toward Christ§1430
1430Suarez closes the Roman locus: one true proper latria-act can terminate on Christ and his image together.
Per se the act aims first at Christ; the image is only co-adored concomitantly—like royal purple with the king—so Councils forbidding creature-latria are not breached.
Toward Christ the act is absolute latria; toward the image, respective latria for God's sake, not the creature's.
Latin · §1430
LXI. Denique Franciscus Suarez qui putat imaginem, cum exemplari, adorari posse uno & eodem adorationis actu, tam interno, quam externo, idque non abusive tantum, sed vere & proprie; consequenter etiam docet imaginem Christi, cum Christo ipso adorari posse vere & proprie adoratione latriae, cujus actus, qui sit unus atque indivisibilis, ad prototypum simul & imaginem terminetur. Neque tamen id pugnare putat cum Conciliis Ecclesiae Romanae, quae prohibent latriam deferri imaginibus, ut nec aliis ullis creaturis. Quoniam, quum imago Christi predicto modo adoratur, actus latriae per se primo tendit in Christum, in imaginem vero concomitanter tantum; licet autem creatura, ipsius judicio, non possit per se primo latria adorari, latria tamen coadorari potest: Sicut, inquit, purpura Regis coadoratur honore Regio. Addit eundem illum adorationis actum, quo adoratur Christus, & ipsius imago, esse respectu Christi, latriam absolutam, respectu vero imaginis latriam respectivam; quia honor ille Christo defertur, propter excellentiam quae in ipso est; imagini vero, propter excellentiam Christi, quem repraesentat. Nihil autem repugnare quin creatura latria adoretur, modo latria illa relativa sit, & non absoluta, id est, modo cultus ille creaturae deferatur, propter Deum, & non propter ipsam.
Roman Councils deny absolute god-cult of images, yet require relative cult of Christ, Mary, and saints§1431
1431Roman Councils refuse to call images gods or to vest them with absolute, highest cult.
Yet they steadily require some cult of Christ’s, Mary’s, and the saints’ images—for the prototype, not for the image as such.
Latin · §1431
I. Ex iis quae Thesibus praecedentibus allata sunt, liquido patet, Concilia Ecclesiae Romanae, non docere quidem ullas imagines habendas esse pro diis, aut aliquam virtutem iis esse tribuendam, ob quam coli debeant cultu summo atque absoluto: eadem tamen concilia constanter statuere imagines, non solum Christi, sed etiam Deiparae Virginis, & reliquorum Sanctorum aliquo cultu dignas esse, non propter se, sed propter exemplar quod repraesentant.
Roman image-cult is rightly called adoratio; praxis is prostration, kneeling, uncovering, kiss, candles, incense§1432
1432School and Councils name the image-cult adoratio without embarrassment.
The living praxis is bodily: prostration, genuflection, bare head, kiss, candles, and incense.
Latin · §1432
II. Manifestum quoque fecimus cultum quem Ecclesia Romana imaginibus defert, juxta communem scholae ipsius usum, imo & conciliorum quibus se subjicit definitiones, adorationis voce recte exprimi; adeoque cultum illum, ex conciliorum eorundem doctrina, & Romanae Ecclesiae praxi, imaginibus rite & pie exhiberi, coram iis procumbendo, genua flectendo, & caput aperiendo, itemque eas osculando, & offerendo cereos & incensum.
Protestants do not calumniate Rome by charging image-adoration—Councils anathematize the contrary§1433
1433Rome’s own school teaches image-adoration; her Councils anathematize refusal.
Calling that adoration is not Protestant slander—it is Rome’s self-description.
Latin · §1433
III. Unde liquet, Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae immerito queri de Protestantibus, quod Ecclesiae Romanae tribuant imaginum adorationem, quasi, scilicet, istud calumniosum esset. Quaenam enim est calumnia, si Ecclesiae Romanae tribuamus id, quod non tantum ejus schola faciendum esse docet, sed quod ipsa in suis Conciliis facere se protestatur, & sub anathemate recte & pie fieri decernit?
Relative/inferior adoration does not clear Rome—Protestants never charged absolute god-cult of images§1434
1434Rome’s refuge—only relative, inferior adoration—is the very thing Protestants meant.
Even thoughtful pagans denied their statues were gods; Protestants do not charge Rome with that stupidity.
So the accusation tracks Rome’s own relative cult, not a forged absolute one.
Latin · §1434
IV. Nec est quod dicant adorationem quam deferunt imaginibus non esse summam & absolutam illam, quam soli Deo deberi agnoscunt; neque se habere imagines pro Diis, sed eas colere tantum adoratione quadam inferiori, quae ad Prototypa refertur. Etenim quum Protestantes Ecclesiam Romanam incusant ut adorantem imagines, nolunt Ecclesiae Romanae tribuere quod Imagines pro Diis habeat, adeoque quod imagines colat alia adoratione quam relativa, & quae sit infra summam. Quin ab eo tantum absunt, ut ne quidem ipsis Ethnicis, cordatioribus saltem & non plane stupidis, simile quid citra injuriam tribui posse arbitrentur: cum eorum sapientes & Philosophi saepius declarent se lapideas aut ligneas imagines Deos non existimare; nec se alia mente eas colere, quam ut in iis, & per eas honorem deferant iis numinibus, quorum ipsae sunt signa & simulacra. Cum ergo Protestantes non alio modo credant & dicant imagines ab Ecclesia Romana adorari, quam eo quem ipsa probat & profitetur, planum est eos hac in parte, nihil illi per calumniam imputare.
Suarez’s three modes of adoration toward an image: exemplar alone; exemplar+image as one; image alone for the exemplar’s sake§1435
1435Rome agrees images get some adoratio, yet Schoolmen split on how.
Suarez lists three modes: mind wholly on the exemplar; exemplar and image as one adequate object; image alone as matter, exemplar as reason.
Thomas III, disp. 54.4 is his locus.
Latin · §1435
V. Caeterum quanquam tota Ecclesia & Schola Romana in eo consentiat, Imaginibus Christi & Sanctorum cultum aliquem exhiberi & posse & debere, eumque cultum recte & convenienter adorationis voce significari; pluribus tamen ostensum est in cultus illius natura explicanda, multum inter se discrepare Scholae Romanae Doctores, ac super eo in varias abire sententias. Quae varietas ut melius capi possit & breviter ob oculos poni, advertendum est cum Francisco Suarez tribus modis intelligi posse fieri adorationem ad imaginem, seu in praesentia imaginis. Primo dirigendo totam mentis intentionem ad exemplar in imagine repraesentatum, tanquam ad objectum proprie, per se, & corde adoratum, & non ad imaginem. Secundo dirigendo adorationem tam ad exemplar repraesentatum, quam ad imaginem in qua repraesentatur, ex utroque, mente & animo conficiendo unum objectum adaequatum, ad quod per se terminatur, & quod sit adaequata materia circa quam versetur adoratio, ex intentione adorantis. Tertio, dirigendo adorationem ad solam imaginem, tanquam ad materiam, seu rem per se adoratam, ad exemplar vero solum, ut ad rationem adorandi. Tomo primo in tertiam Thomae disput. 54. Sect. 4.
Older Scholastics allow only mode one (improper adoration); recent School rejects that as rash§1436
1436Older Schoolmen: bodily honors yes, but intention only on the exemplar—so image-adoration is improper/abusive.
Recent School throws that out as rash and insists images are adored properly and truly.
Latin · §1436
VI. Jam vero nonnulli sunt inter veteres Scholasticos qui putant imagines primo tantum modo adorandas esse; nempe licere quidem coram iis procumbere, & genua flectere, & cereos ac incensum offerre, sed tamen illum qui exercet istos actus adorationis totam mentis intentionem dirigere debere, non ad imaginem ipsam, sed ad solum exemplar imagine repraesentatum, ut ad objectum quod per se & proprie adoratur. Unde colligunt imagines non adorari, nisi improprie atque abusive. Sed in schola recentiori sententia ista, tanquam temeraria & improbabilis omnino rejicitur: & statuitur tanquam certum quid & indubitatum, imagines proprie & vere adorandas esse.
Some allow modes one and two, but reject mode three (image alone as per-se adored thing)§1437
1437Middle party: modes one and two are licit—adoration may terminate on exemplar-plus-image as one total object.
Mode three (image alone as the per-se adored thing) they brand illicit, even when the exemplar is the reason.
Latin · §1437
VII. Alii ergo docent imagines non tantum primo modo jam dicto, sed etiam secundo licite coli posse; nempe non solum exemplar coram imagine posse adorari, sed adoranti licere adorationem suam referre atque terminare ad exemplar & imaginem simul, unum, scilicet, objectum totale ex duobus hisce mente conficiendo. Sed rejiciunt, tanquam illicitum, tertium modum adorationis, in quo imago sola est res per se adorata, quamvis adoretur propter exemplar, quod est ratio adorationis illius.
Others reject mode two and allow modes one and three—image loved per se as a means for the end§1438
1438Opposite party: drop mode two’s single total object; keep modes one and three.
Image may be the per-se terminus, yet only because of the exemplar—like loving a means for an end.
Latin · §1438
VIII. Contra vero nonnulli sunt qui rejiciunt secundum illum adorandi modum, in quo uno & eodem adorationis actu, exemplar & imago simul, tanquam unum objectum totale adorantur; sed putant imagines posse & debere coli, non tantum primo, verum tertio quoque modo: ita ut adoratio dirigatur ad solam imaginem, tanquam rem per se adoratam; exemplar autem non nisi indirecte respiciat, nempe, ut illud propter quod imago adoratur: quanquam enim imago in se & per se adorari debeat, non tamen illam adorari, nisi propter exemplar: quemadmodum medium per se, & in se amatur, quanquam non nisi propter finem ametur.
Majority of Roman theologians: all three Suarez modes are right and pious§1439
1439The Roman majority blesses all three Suarez modes as right and pious.
Adoration may terminate on exemplar alone, image alone, or both as one total object.
Latin · §1439
IX. Denique maxima pars Theologorum Ecclesiae Romanae censet imagines tribus hisce modis recte & pie adorari posse: Nimirum adorationem proprie & per se dirigendo, vel ad solum exemplar, vel ad solam imaginem, vel ad exemplar & imaginem simul, tanquam unum objectum totale.
Among joint-act adorers: some send only the exterior sign to the image; others the interior submission too—latria/dulia/hyperdulia debate§1440
1440Joint-act camp still splits: Vasquez-style exterior-only toward the image vs interior submission aimed at both.
Many then assign latria/dulia/hyperdulia to Christ’s, saints’, and Mary’s images; others keep image-cult a lower, analogical order.
Latin · §1440
X. Rursus qui censent uno & eodem adorationis actu imaginem & exemplar simul posse & debere coli, in eo inter se dissentiunt; quod quidam id solum quod est in adoratione externum, ad imaginem referri & terminari existimant, internum vero cordis motum referendum esse ad solum exemplar: At vero plures alii contendunt imaginem cum exemplari simul adorari posse, non tantum eodem actu adorationis externo, sed etiam eadem interiori mentis subjectione, ut latius expositum fuit thesibus superioribus. In quibus etiam ostensum, cultum qui defertur imagini, juxta multorum sententiam, ejusdem esse generis & rationis cum eo qui defertur exemplari; ita ut imagines Christi latria colendae sint, Sanctorum vero dulia, Beatae autem Mariae Virginis hyperdulia: juxta alios vero cultum qui proprie & per se imaginibus exhibetur alterius esse generis & ordinis inferioris, quam cultum exemplaris ipsius; sed tamen analogice ad eum referri & reduci.
Beneath School diversity, three Roman agreements: some cult owed; rightly called adoratio; bodily honors licit§1441
1441Diversity aside, Rome’s Doctors lock three points: some cult is owed to the images; adoratio is the right word; uncovering, kneeling, lights, and incense are legitimate.
Latin · §1441
XI. Sed quicquid sit de ista sententiarum in Schola Romana diversitate, omnes ejus Doctores in eo, ut saepius jam dictum, conveniunt: 1. Cultum aliquem imaginibus Christi & Sanctorum esse deferendum. 2. Cultum illum adorationis vocabulo recte significari posse. 3. Cultum illum legitime exhiberi, coram imaginibus caput aperiendo, & genua flectendo, ipsisque luminaria & thura offerendo.
Status controversiae: Protestants reject all such cult as superstition; Rome affirms it under anathema and solemn praxis§1442
1442Protestants with one mouth refuse every such rite as superstition against God’s word.
The quarrel’s status is simply whether kneeling, bare head, incense, and candles before images please God—Rome says yes under anathema and universal praxis.
Latin · §1442
XII. Omnem vero ejusmodi cultum, quocunque tandem nomine vocetur, Protestantes communi consensu rejiciunt, ut superstitiosum, & verbo Dei contrarium. Atque in eo consistit hujus controversiae status, inter Ecclesiam Romanam, & Protestantium Ecclesias omnes, An, scilicet, pium sit, Deoque gratum & acceptum, coram imaginibus, vel Christi, vel Sanctorum, procumbere, caput aperire, incensum adolere, cereos accendere, & ritus alios similes exercere religionis ergo? Quod uno ore negant Protestantes, affirmant vero Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae tanquam aliquid ab Ecclesia sua sub anathemate sancitum, & solenni ac universali praxi illius confirmatum.
Protestant ground: Decalogue Non facies tibi sculptile—no likeness of heavenly or earthly things to be adored§1443
1443The engine is the Decalogue ban on making and adoring any likeness of heaven, earth, or waters.
Christ’s and the saints’ images are exactly such heavenly likenesses—so the precept strips them of cult.
Latin · §1443
XIII. Porro quod Protestantes movet ut sic sentiant expressum est Dei mandatum Decalogo contentum, & saepius in Sacra Scriptura repetitum. Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem eorum quae sunt in coelo desuper, & quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis, sub terra. Non adorabis ea neque coles. Ubi cum Deus simpliciter vetet ne similitudinem ullam eorum quae sunt in coelo, vel in terra, vel sub terra, adoremus & colamus, inde merito colligunt, imagines Dei, vel Christi, vel Sanctorum in coelis regnantium, nulla adoratione, vel cultu prosequendas esse, ut nec ullas omnino alias; quandoquidem imagines tum Christi, tum Sanctorum, sunt de numero similitudinum, quibus repraesentantur ea quae sunt in coelo, quibus Dei lex omnem cultum abrogat.
Roman reply A: Vazquez and others call the ban a positive ceremonial law abrogated by the Gospel§1444
1444First Roman escape: grant the ban’s breadth, then reclassify it as positive ceremonial law canceled by the Gospel.
Vazquez (Thomas III, disp. 104) leads; Lorinus, Catharinus, Ayala, and Soto follow.
Latin · §1444
XIV. Ad hoc varia respondent Doctores Scholae Romanae, sed quae refellere difficile non est. Primo enim nonnulli sunt, qui concedunt quidem isto Dei praecepto, omnem prorsus imaginum adorationem & cultum prohiberi, qualiscunque tandem ille sit, ac in eo mentem Dei esse ne ullae effigies, vel alicujus creaturae, vel Dei ipsius colendae proponantur, & modo adorationi accommodato erigantur, atque constituantur. Sed pertendunt istud praeceptum positivum esse & ceremoniale; adeoque fuisse Evangelio abrogatum, ut caetera quae ad ritus legales pertinebant: neque amplius Ecclesiam Christianam eo teneri, & ad observationem ejus esse obstrictam. Haec est sententia Gabrielis Vazquez, quam fuse proponit, & tueri conatur Tomo primo in Tertiam Thomae, Disputatione centesima quarta. Eam quoque amplectitur Lorinus Jesuita scribens in caput decimum septimum Actuum Apostolicorum. Qui in re sequuntur Ambrosium Catharinum, Martinum de Ayala, & Dominicum a Soto, superioris seculi scriptores.
If the image-ban is a separate positive precept, Rome’s Decalogue becomes an eleven-word Hendralogus§1445
1445Separate the image-ban from Non habebis Deos alienos and you mint an eleventh precept.
Moses still calls the Law’s breviary ten words—so Rome’s split (plus her two covetings) drives a Hendralogus, not a Decalogue.
Latin · §1445
XV. Sed si prohibitio ista, Non facies tibi sculptile, &c. sit lex quaedam positiva, ad tempus solum vetans ne ulla Dei ipsius, vel creaturae cujusvis Imago ad cultum proponatur, profecto lex illa praeceptum singulare constituit, quod non debet confundi cum primo, Non habebis Deos alienos coram me, quod praeceptum morale est, & juris mere naturalis. Ac plane aliud est, unicum Deum agnoscere, nec ullum alium pro Deo habere, & Deum illum in nulla imagine colere, nec figuram aliquam ad adorationem & cultum fabricare; praesertim ex Scholae Romanae hypothesi, quae putat eos qui Dei & Sanctorum imaginibus adorationem & cultum deferunt, nihil facere contra legem illam, non habebis Deos alienos coram me. Ac proinde in Decalogo non decem, sed undecim praecepta numerari debent: nec Decalogus sed potius Hendralogus nominari debet: cum tamen istud divinae Legis breviarium Moses nominet decem verba, id est, decem praecepta. Siquidem, prout vult Ecclesia Romana, lex de non concupiscendo duo praecepta continet, unum quo prohibetur concupiscentia Uxoris, alterum quo prohibetur concupiscentia domus alienae. Unde sequitur in secunda tabula septem esse praecepta, quibus adjungenda erunt non amplius tria, sed quatuor praecepta primae tabulae, quandoquidem prohibitio de nullis imaginibus ad cultum faciendis, necessario singulare quoddam praeceptum constituet.
No NT word marks the image-ban ceremonial—unlike the Sabbath shadow in Colossians 2.16§1446
1446Colossians 2.16 flags Sabbath/feast shadows as ceremonial; nothing parallel softens the image-ban.
The NT never whispers that Christians may now cult God or saints in images.
Latin · §1446
XVI. Sed unde colligunt illi, praeceptum quo Deus prohibet ne imagines ullae colendae proponantur, positivum esse & ceremoniale? In quarto quidem praecepto aliquid esse ceremoniale, quatenus praecise Sabbatum, id est, septimum diem cujusque septimanae sanctificari jubet, colligimus ex Pauli Apostoli verbis disertis, Coloss. 2. 16. Ubi monet fideles non esse damnandos in cibo, vel in potu, aut in parte, seu distinctione diei festi, aut Neomeniae, aut Sabbatorum, quae omnia erant umbrae futurorum, quarum corpus in Christo est: sed ubi Christus, sive Apostoli tale quid significaverunt de prohibitione qua vetantur imagines ullae ad cultum fieri? Et num in toto Novo Testamento, vel unum verbum exstat, quo insinuetur Christianis licere Deum & Sanctos ejus in imaginibus colere, quod ante non licebat?
The ban is moral and perpetual—Gentiles are reproached for image-cult, not for breaching Moses’ positive rites§1447
1447Prophets blame Gentiles for making and culting images—proof the ban is moral for all, not a Jew-only positive rite.
Gentiles are not charged with breaking Moses’ ceremonial code, but with violating nature’s moral law.
Latin · §1447
XVII. Et certe legem illam positivam non esse, quae solos Judaeos spectaret, sed moralem quae omnes homines in universum, & semper obstringit, inde manifestum est, quod imaginum cultus, & earum fabricatio, ad numen repraesentandum, in Dei verbo gentibus exprobratur, ut passim apud Prophetas videre est. Nec enim gentibus vitio verti solet, quod leges positivas, Israelitico populo a Mose datas, transgressae sint; sed solum quod legem moralem, per naturam hominum cordibus impressam violarint.
Romans 1: Gentile wise men charged with exchanging God’s glory for corruptible image-likenesses§1448
1448Romans 1 puts Gentile image-making under NT indictment, not OT ceremonial only.
Paul’s charge: swapping incorruptible God’s glory for likenesses of man, birds, beasts, and serpents.
Latin · §1448
XVIII. Nec in veteri solum, sed in Novo quoque Testamento, crimini gentibus vertitur, quod Deum in imaginibus depingere ausi sint, & sub hominum forma, & diversorum animalium figuris repraesentare. Nam Paulus in epistola ad Romanos capite primo, gentium sapientes stultitiae in eo arguit, quod Mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei, in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, & volucrium, & quadrupedum, & serpentum.
Gentile sages were not crude corporealists—they used images as thin symbolic signs, yet still fell under Paul’s charge§1449
1449Don’t rescue Romans 1 by saying only crude corporealists are meant.
Egypt’s sages treated images as thin symbolic signs—not literal God-bodies—and Paul still brands that folly.
Latin · §1449
XIX. Nec est quod quis regerat, sapientium illorum ex gentibus stultitiam in eo fuisse, non quod simpliciter Deo imagines collocarent, sed quod fingentes Deum corporeum, & membris variis distinctum, similem illum putarent, quoad externam formam, hominum, vel brutorum variorum imaginibus. Quicquid enim esse possit de rudi & Ethnica plebe, & de Epicureis Deo illi suo inerti, nec colendo, humanam similem formam tribuentibus, certum est illos gentium sapientes, de quibus agit Apostolus, qui Deum sub variis brutorum, vel hominum figuris exprimabant, ut in iis Deum colerent, ac praesertim Aegyptios, ad quos speciatim respicere videtur, non existimasse hominum, vel brutorum simulachra, quae Deo consecrabant, quoad externam formam, & corporis lineamenta, similia Deo fuisse, sed solum tenuiter, & symbolice Deum adumbrasse, ac fuisse duntaxat numinis tenues similitudines, & obscura signa, ut loquuntur Plutarchus, & Maximus Tyrius.
Plutarch and Varro: Egyptian animals and human-shaped gods are mystical vessels, not crude bodies of deity§1450
1450Plutarch’s Isis treatise reads Egyptian animal cult as mystical symbolism of divine virtues.
Varro (via Augustine, Civ. 7.5): human-shaped gods are vessels signifying rational soul— Liber’s wine-jar for the vine.
Latin · §1450
XX. Et quidem quod attinet animalium figuras, aut etiam ipsa animalia viva ab Aegyptiis culta, Plutarchus idem, tractatu de Iside & Osiride, prolixe docet varias numinis virtutes, atque beneficia, iis fuisse mystice & symbolice adumbrata. Apud Augustinum vero de Civitate Dei Varro testatur, Antiquos, qui Deorum simulachra hominis specie fecerunt, hoc videri secutos, quod mortalium animus qui est in corpore humano, simillimus sit immortalis animi: tanquam si vasa ponerentur causa notandorum Deorum, & in Liberi aede Oenophorum sisteretur quod significaret vitem, per id quod continet, id quod continetur: ita per simulachrum quod formam haberet humanam, significari animam rationalem, eo quod velut vase, natura ista soleat contineri, cujus naturae volunt Deum esse, vel Deos. lib. 7. cap. 5.
Maximus of Tyre: statues of words, men, beasts, gold and ivory help reach a God beyond sense§1451
1451Maximus asks whether gods should have statues, then answers with a ladder of aids—words, men, beasts, precious figures—toward a God beyond sense.
Latin · §1451
XXI. Quibus consona leguntur apud Maximum Tyrium, oratione qua disquirit, Utrum statuae sint ponendae Diis? Ubi postquam praestituit Deum esse omnium quae sunt Patrem ac conditorem, sole antiquiorem, antiquiorem coelo, tempore & aevo majorem, subjungit, Cum vero ejus essentia nostros sensus excedat, petimus subsidium a verbis, ab hominibus, & animalibus, ab auri eboris argentique figuris, &c. ut per haec ad intelligentiam numinis pertingamus.
Even mystical-symbolic image-cult is moral sin—Decalogue binds all men forever against exposing God’s likenesses for cult§1452
1452Symbolic paganism still counts as grave sin—mystical intention does not sanitize image-cult.
The Decalogue’s ban is moral and perpetual for every human likeness set out for cult.
Latin · §1452
XXII. Ex quibus patet gentium sapientes gravissime peccasse, quum Deum expresserant sub variis figuris, & in iis colendum illum proposuerunt, etiamsi mysticam & symbolicam tantum significationem fictitiis illis tribuerent: adeoque non lege positiva duntaxat, sed morali, quae omnes homines perpetuo obligat, in Decalogo prohiberi, ne ullae Dei similitudines, ut nec cujusquam alterius rei, ad cultum exponantur.
Primitive Doctors: Decalogue is the moral-natural sum—only the Sabbath’s seventh-day rigor is ceremonial§1453
1453Fathers read the Decalogue as the moral-natural sum binding everyone.
Only Sabbath’s exact seventh-day stoppage is ceremonial; sanctifying some solemn day remains moral.
Latin · §1453
XXIII. Unde est quod Prisci Ecclesiae Doctores communi consensu affirmant Decalogum nihil aliud continere, quam brevem summam legis Moralis atque naturalis, ad cujus observationem omnes communiter tenentur, excepto solum praecepto de sanctificatione Sabbati, seu diei septimi; in quo observarunt aliquid esse ceremoniale, nempe, praecisam & rigidam diei a creatione septimae observationem, & scrupulosam in ea cessationem ab omni opere: quamvis, quoad substantiam, & quatenus certam diem solemniter Deo sanctificari jubet, etiam morale sit.
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine: second commandment and Decalogue still bind Christians (Sabbath flesh excepted)§1454
1454Irenaeus: Decalogue words remain, extended not dissolved by the Incarnation.
Tertullian universalizes the ban on likeness-making; Cyprian applies the second commandment to Christians; Augustine keeps the whole Decalogue except carnal Sabbath.
Latin · §1454
XXIV. Id videre est apud Irenaeum libr. 4. cap. 34. Decalogi, inquit, verba omnibus similiter Dominus locutus est: ideo permanent apud nos, extensionem & augmentum, sed non dissolutionem accipientia per carnalem ejus adventum. Tertullianus vero, libro de idololatria cap. 4. loquitur de lege quae vetat fieri ullam similitudinem eorum quae sunt in coelo, vel in terra, tanquam a Deo toti mundo lata. Lex divina, inquit, proclamat, Ne feceritis idolum. Et conjungens, Neque similitudinem eorum quae in coelo sunt, & quae in terra, & quae in mari. Toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit. Et capite sequenti, Si, inquit, eundem Deum observas, cum eo, scilicet, qui est legis author, babes legem ejus, Ne feceris similitudinem. Et similiter Cyprianus, verba haec secundi praecepti, Non facies tibi cujusquam similitudinem, tanquam ad Christianos pertinentia refert, lib. 3. ad Quirinum cap. 59. Praesertim vero Augustinus disertis verbis affirmat ad nos pertinere maxime Decalogum, qui duabus illis lapideis tabulis continetur, excepta sabbati observatione carnali. Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum lib. 3. cap. 4.
Most Roman doctors admit the ban is moral—but shrink it to forbidding only absolute god-cult of images§1455
1455Mainstream Rome drops Vazquez’s ceremonial dodge and owns the ban as moral for Christians.
Their new escape: the precept only bars absolute god-cult of an image—relative, inferior cult of God’s and the saints’ images supposedly survives.
Latin · §1455
XXV. Ac propterea longe maxima pars Doctorum scholae Romanae, commentum istud quorundam recentiorum repudiat, & fatetur ad legem moralem atque naturalem pertinere interdictum istud, Non facies tibi sculptile, nec similitudinem omnium quae in coelo sunt desuper, & quae in terra deorsum, & quae versantur in aquis sub terra: non adorabis ea, & non coles: adeoque non minus hodie Christianos, quam olim Judaeos ad ejus observationem teneri. Sed ut hodiernum imaginum cultum cum interdicto tam expresso concilient, dicunt eo solum vetari, ne quis imaginem ullam, vel picturam pro Deo habeat, eamque ceu Deum adoret, exhibens illi cultum summum & absolutum, qui uni Deo servandus est: minime vero eo prohiberi, ne quis imagines, vel Dei ipsius, vel sanctorum hominum & Angelorum colat adoratione quadam inferiori, sive relativa, qualem profitentur se deferre imaginibus, quas non propter se, sed tantum propter exemplaria colunt.
Relative cult is exactly what the precept forbids—no sane painter treats the panel as absolute God§1456
1456Everyday sense: anyone who paints God and bows to the panel means relative honor through it—not absolute godhood of paint.
The precept targets precisely that relative move; absolute tablet-worship is too absurd to need its own ban.
Latin · §1456
XXVI. Quam vanum sit autem istud effugium, inde manifestum est, quod sensus communis dictat, eum qui pingit, vel fingit imaginem aliquam Dei qui in coelis est, aut aliarum quae sunt in eis potestatum, eique imagini aliquem cultum & honorem religiose defert, id eo animo facere, ut per illam Deum honoret, & alia ad quorum similitudinem facta est; ac proinde honorem qui in isto casu imagini defertur, ad alium referri, & sic non absolutum, sed relativum esse. At hoc ipsum est praecise quod Deus hoc praecepto vetat; non vero solum ne quis imaginem Dei faciat, eique cultum exhibeat, non propter Deum quem illa exprimi existimat, sed tantum propter ipsam, quam habeat pro summo Deo, qui illa exprimitur: quod ita absurdum est & contradictorium, ut cadere non possit in eum, qui saltem adhuc aliquo modo ratione utitur. Quo modo enim ille ipse, qui Dei imaginem in tabula pingi curat, in animum suum inducere poterit, tabellam illam esse ipsum Deum, quem in ea voluit esse repraesentatum, eique tabellae deberi summum religionis cultum, non propter numen cujus imago est, sed propter ipsam quam scit meris coloribus & lineis constare? Quae insomnia tam rara est atque inusitata, ut non opus fuerit illam singulari interdicto in lege cohiberi.
Scripture condemns relative image-cult too—transgressors meant to honor the true God through their images§1457
1457Biblical offenders often intended relative cult of the true God through images—and are still condemned.
So the mandate reaches subordinate/relative adoration, not only absolute god-cult.
Latin · §1457
XXVII. Praeterea Deum in isto mandato, non prohibere solum imaginum adorationem summam & absolutam, sed relativam quoque & subalternam, inde colligi potest, quod in scriptura multi graviter arguuntur, tanquam mandati divini transgressores, quod imagines fecerint, quibus verum Deum exprimi putabant, & in quarum cultu Deo vero religiosum honorem deferre intendebant.
Golden calf: Israel meant Jehovah under a bovine symbol—plural Elohim with singular sense; not literal bovine deity§1458
1458The calf was Egypt-style bovine symbolism aimed at Jehovah, not a sudden belief that jewelry had become God.
Plural Elohim with singular force is ordinary Hebrew—even of the true God (Gen 20.13; 2 Sam 7.23).
Calling the image by the prototype’s name is stock; absolute bovine deity is psychologically incredible.
Latin · §1458
XXVIII. Crimen istud fuit Israelitarum, quum vitulum aureum in deserto fuderunt. Mens enim ipsorum erat in figura ista exprimere, & colere Jehovam Deum Patrum suorum, qui eos de terra Aegypti eduxerat: forte quia viderant in Aegypto summum numen sub bovis symbolo coli & adorari. Id testantur ipsi, vitulo conflato, exclamantes, Ecce Deus tuus Israel, qui te eduxit de terra Aegypti. Quanquam enim in textu hebraeo sint verba pluralis numeri, sensum tamen habent singularem, cum de unico vitulo dicantur, & in scriptura satis usitatum sit, etiam quum de vero Deo sermo est, vocem Elohim, quae Deum significat, verbo pluralis numeri jungere. Ut quum Abraham dicit, Gen. 20. v. 13. Postquam errare fecerunt me Elohim de Domo Patris mei. Quod vulgata recte vertit numero singulari Postquam eduxit me Deus. Et similiter quum David Deum sic alloquitur, Quae est autem gens ut populus tuus Israel, in terra, propter quam iverunt Elohim, ut redimeret eam sibi in populum, id est, propter quam ivit Deus, ut habet etiam vulgata, Sam. 2. 7. v. 23. Quum vero de vitulo dicunt, illum esse Deum qui ipsos eduxit e terra Aegypti, proculdubio non aliud sibi volunt, quam vitulum istum illius fuisse figuram, & visibile signum: prout nihil usitatius est, quam imaginem vocare nomine rei quam illa repraesentat. Nec enim puto quemquam, qui rem attente consideraverit, sibi persuadere posse populum tam numerosum, uno quasi instanti, in eam insaniam incidere potuisse, ut crederet vitulum, quem recenter ex propriis monilibus fabricaverant, non tantum in signo & repraesentatione, sed revera & proprio sensu, esse illum ipsum Deum, qui priusquam de vitulo conflando cogitarent, tanta & tam miranda, ipsis inspectantibus, & in eorum liberationem, opera ediderat.
Aaron’s feast: Cras solemnitas Jehovae—honor of the cast image referred to the true patriarchal God§1459
1459Aaron’s proclamation names Jehovah’s feast, not a rival god’s.
So the calf-honor was explicitly referred to the patriarchal true God.
Latin · §1459
XXIX. Similiter quum Aaron, in honorem vituli a se fusi, festum indixit, praeconis voce clamavit, Cras solemnitas Domini est. Ubi textus Hebraeus habet, Cras solemnitas est Jehovae, quod nomen proprium est veri illius Dei, quem Patriarchae coluerunt. Argumento manifesto, Israelitas ad verum Patrum suorum Deum retulisse honorem illum, quem imagini a se conflatae exhibebant.
Micah’s graven/molten image vowed to Jehovah—relative cult still called a most grave crime§1460
1460Micah’s household shrine: silver vowed to Jehovah, Levite priest, hope of Jehovah’s blessing.
The cult is textbook relative—and Scripture still brands it a most grave crime.
Latin · §1460
XXX. Ejusdem quoque criminis reus fuit Micha ille & Mater ejus, de quibus narratur historia quaedam in libro Judicum capite decimo septimo. Nempe quum ille matri suae furatus esset mille & centum argenteos, & illa super eo perplexa & anxia esset, ultro tandem fassus est penes se esse istam pecuniam, & eam matri suae restituit. Illa vero dixit se consecravisse & vovisse hoc argentum Domino, seu Jehovae, ut habet textus Hebraicus. Atque ex ea pecuniae summa tulit ducentos argenteos, & dedit eos argentario, ut faceret ex eis sculptile atque conflatile, quod fuit in Domo Michae. Qui aediculam quoque in ea Deo separavit, & consecravit unum filiorum suorum, qui factus est ei Sacerdos. Cumque postea filio substituisset Levitam, qui in ista aedicula, Sacerdotio fungeretur, dixit se in posterum sperare quod Jehovah benefaceret ipsi, habenti Levitici generis Sacerdotem. Ex quibus patet sculptile & conflatile istud, ex eorum mente, fuisse vero Deo, nempe, Jehovae consecratum, & eos cultum istum retulisse ad Jehovam, a quo remunerationem illius expectabant. Unde clare sequitur, adorationem ab illis imagini exhibitam non fuisse nisi relativam, quae tamen ut scelus gravissimum in scriptura reprehenditur.
Jeroboam’s calves: Jehu’s zeal for Jehovah coexisted with Bethel and Dan—cult referred to the true God§1461
1461Jehu can burn for Jehovah against Baal and still keep Jeroboam’s calves.
Those calves were image-vehicles of Jehovah-cult—relative, and still sinful.
Latin · §1461
XXXI. Eadem fuit ratio cultus vitulis exhibiti a Rege Jeroboam & successoribus ejus. Quod enim in istis vitulis, se Jehovam verum Deum colere professi sint, patet exemplo Jehu: qui cultores omnes Baalis deleturus, gloriabatur de suo erga Jehovam Zelo, sic dicens amico suo Jonadab filio Recab, Veni mecum & vide Zelum meum pro Domino. Et tamen non recessit a peccatis Jeroboam filii Nabat, qui peccare fecit Israel, nec dereliquit vitulos aureos, qui erant in Bethel, & in Dan: Deum, scilicet, non aliter colens, quam in illis imaginibus, quarum proinde cultum referebat ad verum Deum Jehovam. Ut videre est libro 2. Regum cap. 10.
Joram’s calf-cult judged less than Baal-statues—because it claimed the true God, wrongly imaged§1462
1462Spirit ranks Joram’s calf-sin below Baal-sun worship: calves claimed Jehovah; Baal swapped in a creature.
That ranking collapses if the calves were taken as literal gods or Apis—so relative Jehovah-cult is the better reading, and still condemned.
Latin · §1462
XXXII. Ac praeterea idem aperte colligitur, ex iis quae dicuntur de Joram filio Achab, ejusdem libri capite tertio. Sic enim de isto Joram loquitur historicus sacer, Fecit malum coram Domino, sed non sicut pater suus & mater. Abstulit enim statuas Baal quas fecerat pater ejus. Veruntamen in peccatis Jeroboam filii Nabat, qui peccare fecit Israel, adhaesit, nec recessit ab eis. Ubi Spiritus Sancti judicio, quanquam graviter peccaret Rex Joram colens vitulos aureos; peccatum tamen ejus minus grave declaratur, quam peccatum eorum qui statuas Baalis, id est, solis colebant. Unde hoc, nisi quia cultores Baal creaturam simpliciter creatori substituiebant, Solem, scilicet, in suis statuis loco veri Dei colentes; Jeroboam vero & ejus successores, in eo tantum peccabant, quod verum Deum Israel se colere professi, illum colebant in imaginibus, contra voluntatem ejus, ab ipsis excogitatis. Si enim qui colebant vitulos, illos pro diis habebant, aut in iis colebant Apim Aegyptiorum bovem, profecto illorum impietas, hac in parte major adhuc & absurdior erat, quam eorum qui adorabant solem, quo nulla creaturarum visibilium videtur admiratione dignior, & propius Dei imaginem referre.
Jeroboam’s political craft: minimize religious change so ten tribes stay—cannot have swapped Jehovah for Apis§1463
1463Jeroboam’s aim was political: stop Jerusalem pilgrimages without revolting the tribes.
Swapping Jehovah for Apis or a brand-new calf-god would have been religious overthrow, not crafty minimal change.
Latin · §1463
XXXIII. Et certe, cum cultus ille vitulorum, ut ex Scriptura sacra manifeste colligitur, a Rege Jeroboam fuerit astu quodam excogitatus, ut, scilicet, subditis suis non amplius esset necesse Hierosolymam proficisci, ad solemnem cultum Deo exhibendum, ne frequens istud cum urbe Jerusalem commercium, occasio ipsis esset in gratiam cum Domo Davidica redeundi, proculdubio, modo finem illum obtineret, in recepta religione quam minimum immutavit, ne subditorum suorum animos a se alienaret. Religionem autem, apud decem tribus ipsi adhaerentes receptam, non simpliciter immutasset, sed funditus subvertisset, si Jehovae Dei Israelis cultu penitus abrogato, pro summo Deo populo suo proposuisset, vel bovem Aegyptium, vel vituli figuram nuper a se fabricatam.
Ecce Dii tui Israel: plural form with singular sense; naming the image God means symbol, as papal ‘God the Father’ panels today§1464
1464Plural Dii on the calves tracks Hebrew idiom, not a pantheon.
Calling the symbol God mirrors modern panels labeled God the Father—representation, not literal identity.
Latin · §1464
XXXIV. Neque est quod quis objiciat Jeroboam de vitulis a se consignatis dixisse, Ecce Dii tui Israel qui eduxerunt te de terra Aegypti, quod de vitulo aureo Israelitae jam in deserto dixerant. Etenim ex iis quae ante dicta sunt patet, primo verba quamvis sint pluralis numeri, sensum tamen ibi habere singularem, secundum linguae Hebraicae genium, & frequentem Scripturae usum. Deinde nomen Dei vitulis illis tribui, quia Dei symbola & imagines erant, non quod crederentur in se esse numen illud ipsum, quod antequam formarentur, Israelitas ex Aegypto miraculose eduxerat. Quemadmodum hodie, qui imaginem quandam habitu imperiali vel Papali effictam, dicunt esse Deum Patrem, non propterea credunt imaginem istam, sine ulla figura, & ad litteram esse Deum Patrem, sed solum ejus symbolum & repraesentationem.
Bellarmines Ps 106 forgotten God does not prove absolute calf-cult—Scripture calls willful disobedience forgetting God§1465
1465Bellarmines Ps 106 forgetfulness does not equal atheism about Jehovah.
Scripture also calls thieves and adulterers forgetters of God while they still profess him—same idiom covers calf-cult disobedience.
Latin · §1465
XXXV. Leve est etiam quod opponit Bellarminus, ut probabile reddat Israelitas in vitulo non intendisse verum Deum colere, nimirum quod dicuntur obliti Dei servatoris sui, quum vitulum adoraverunt, Psal. 106. Fecerunt vitulum in Horeb & adoraverunt sculptile: & obliti sunt Deum, qui salvavit eos, qui fecit magnalia in Aegypto, mirabilia in terra Cham, terribilia in mari rubro. Etenim in Scriptura illi Deum obliti dicuntur, non solum ex quorum mente fides & cogitatio de Deo prorsus deleta est, sed qui agunt quasi Dei non meminissent, mandatis ejus aperte obluctantes, quantumlibet in verum Deum credere se profitantur. Sic Psal. 50. propheta fures, moechos, & maledicos graviter reprehendit, accusans illos quod Deum obliti sint: quamvis plurimi, qui vitiis ejusmodi indulgent, aliquam de Deo fidem retineant, nec omnem memoriam de Deo exuerint.
Deos alienos & conflatiles: unauthorized Jehovah-images still count as alien gods because God never willed that mode§1466
1466Prophetic Deos alienos still fits relative Jehovah-calves: God never authorized that mode.
Human-invented image-cult of the true God is as offensive as foreign-god cult.
Latin · §1466
XXXVI. Sed majori cum specie opponi potest quod Deus Jeroboamo per prophetam exprobrat, fecisti tibi Deos alienos & conflatiles, ut me ad iracundiam provocares. Verum si Jeroboam, ut supra ostensum, non alium Deum in vitulis colebat, quam Jehovam, quomodo dicuntur ei facti dii alieni? Respondetur, imagines istas, quamvis ad veri Dei cultum fabricatae fuerint, nihilominus jure optimo Deos alienos appellari, quia Deus eas non agnoverat, nec unquam voluerat eo modo coli; ac proinde cultus ille, qui imaginibus illis deferebatur, non erat cultus a Deo institutus, sed ab hominibus inventus, & Deo perinde ingratus ac si alienis numinibus exhibitus fuisset.
Some Roman doctors grant Jeroboam meant the true God—and still call the cult illicit, a blade that cuts today’s images too§1467
1467Honest Roman voices admit relative Jehovah-calf cult can still be idolatry—wrong mode, unauthorized images.
They concede the same knife can cut today’s image-cult if God has not approved it.
Latin · §1467
XXXVII. Sed sunt inter Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae qui agnoscunt Jeroboam & Israelitas in vitulis verum Deum colere voluisse, & nihilominus eorum cultum fuisse illicitum & idololatricum: non quod vitulos pro Diis haberent, sed quod Deum colerent modo ab ipso non praescripto, & imaginibus adorarent quas ipse non instituerat. Quo argumento, fatentur, etiam hodiernum imaginum cultum, si Deus eum non approbet, eadem ratione damnari posse.
Claim that Jeroboam culted Apis is free invention—Scripture never says so; his craft aimed away from Jerusalem, not from Jehovah§1468
1468Apis-in-the-calves is assertion without Scripture.
Jeroboam’s counsel was anti-Jerusalem, not anti-Jehovah—sudden Egypt-reversion is psychologically forced.
Latin · §1468
XXXVIII. Sed quod ad primum attinet, gratis fingitur, & dicitur Jeroboam & posteros ejus, in vitulis, Apim Aegyptium, vel nescio quod aliud numen coluisse. Nam Scriptura nusquam id affirmat; imo contrarium potius innuit, ut thesibus superioribus ostensum est. Nec est cur putemus populum, qui nuper tanta Dei miracula viderat, tam subito ad Aegyptiacas superstitiones revolvendum fuisse, praesertim quum Rex ipse id minime intendisse videatur, cujus consilium erat populum a Jerusalem, non a Jehova, avertere.
Ten-tribe politics: proposing Apis would be madness—far likelier Jehovah under calf-symbols like cherubim or the bronze serpent§1469
1469A Mosaic people would revolt at Apis; empire-hope rules that out.
Better parallel: calves as presence-symbols like cherubim or the bronze serpent.
Latin · §1469
XXXIX. Et certe cum Israelitae, quos Jeroboam sibi subjicere, & a Domo David abducere volebat, Jehovam solum Deum agnoscerent, & ex lege Mosis viverent, non potuit ille, nisi summa dementia, iis proponere cultum Apis, vel alterius numinis Aegyptiaci, salva spe retinendi imperii. Quare longe probabilius est, eum voluisse Jehovam coli in vitulis, tanquam in symbolis praesentiae divinae, ad instar Cherubinorum, vel serpentis aenei.
Jeroboam never denied Jehovah—calf-cult was relative, referred to him, and still branded gravest idolatry§1470
1470No rival deity was preached—only Jehovah via calf-symbols.
Scripture’s idolatry verdict on that relative cult proves the law bans relative image-adoration too.
Latin · §1470
XL. Adde quod Jeroboam, dum vitulos conflavit, ut essent divinitatis symbola quae populus adoraret, non ideo negavit Jehovam esse verum Deum, nec alium Deum populo proposuit. Unde sequitur, cultum illum relativum fuisse, & ad Jehovam referri: qui tamen cultus in Scriptura tanquam idololatria gravissima damnatur. Quod evidens argumentum est, non solum absolutam, sed etiam relativam imaginum adorationem lege divina prohiberi.
Calf as strong-God symbol like Apis attributes—Scripture still allows relative reference and gravest condemnation together§1471
1471Optional reading: ox-strength as Jehovah’s power symbol, Apis-style attributes.
Either way Scripture holds together relative reference to Jehovah and gravest condemnation.
Latin · §1471
XLI. Nonnulli vero censent, nec omnino improbabiliter, Jeroboam in vitulis voluisse exprimere Jehovam, tanquam Deum fortem & potentem, cujus virtus bovis robore symbolice significaretur; quemadmodum Aegyptii in Apide quaedam numinis attributa mystice adumbrabant. Sed quicquid sit de ista conjectura, certum est ex Scriptura, cultum vitulis exhibitum ad Jehovam referri potuisse, & nihilominus gravissime damnari.
Rome’s sacrifice-only censure of Jeroboam clashes with her own per-accidens latria of divine images§1472
1472Rome says Jeroboam’s fatal step was sacrifice—latria’s chief exterior act.
Yet she already allows per-accidens / relative / concomitant latria of God’s images in other acts—so why not in sacrifice on the same terms?
Latin · §1472
XLII. Quod vero dicunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, Jeroboam, etiamsi verum Deum in vitulis colere voluerit, nihilominus graviter peccasse, quod vitulis illis sacrificaverit, quoniam sacrificium soli Deo debetur, & inter externos latriae actus praecipuus est: hoc, inquam, non satis concordat cum ipsorum hypothesibus. Docent enim, ut thesibus praecedentibus probatum est, nihil prohibere quo minus imagines personae divinae latria colantur, id est, cultu summo qui Deo proprius est, modo id fiat non per se, sed per accidens: non absolute, sed relative: non primario, sed solum secundario, & concomitanter. Si semel autem conceditur, Israelitas in vitulis coluisse verum Deum, manifestum est totum illum cultum relativum fuisse, non autem absolutum: & vitulos non propter se sed propter Deum adoratos; nec primario, sed tantum concomitanter, & secundario. Jam vero, si Dei imagines caeteris Latriae actibus, tum internis, tum externis, ea ratione jam dictum est, Deo coadorari possunt, cur non quoque sacrificiis, & victimarum oblationibus, eodem modo coli potuerint? nimirum, aut improprie, aut per accidens, aut concomitanter, quomodo, & non aliter, ex eorum hypothesi, Israelitae vitulos coluerunt.
Vazquez’s sacrifice exception (protestation of omnipotence) would ban every relative latria-act toward images§1473
1473Vazquez fences sacrifice off because it protests omnipotence and dominion.
But every latria-act protests some uncreated excellence—so the fence would outlaw all relative image-latria, not sacrifice alone.
Latin · §1473
XLIII. Vazquez quidem, cum aliis Scholasticis, rationem aliquam affert, cur imagines sacrificiis coli, ne quidem per accidens, aut relative possint; nempe, quia in sacrificiis Protestatio quaedam est divinae omnipotentiae & dominationis. Verum si haec ratio bona est, ut revera est, inde quoque sequitur reliquos Latriae actus, ne quidem relative sive concomitanter, imaginibus exhiberi posse. Nec enim ullus Latriae actus est, in quo non includatur agnitio & Protestatio virtutis cujusdam & excellentiae divinae, absque quo Latriae actus dici non posset. In hoc enim, juxta Scholae Romanae usum, Latria differt a Dulia, Quod Dulia sit honor qui debetur excellentiae creatae; Latria vero honor qui debetur excellentiae increatae. Quod si agnitio divinae alicujus excellentiae, quae est in caeteris Latriae actibus, non obstat quin imaginibus relative exhiberi possint, cur obstabit, quae est in sacrificiis, Omnipotentiae & Dominationis divinae protestatio?
Thomas puts hope of salvation in the cross—an image—so hope’s protestation is no weaker than sacrifice’s§1474
1474Hope’s claim on God is as strong a protestation as sacrifice’s.
Thomas still assigns latria to the true cross and its effigy because hope of salvation is set there—O crux Ave spes unica.
Latin · §1474
XLIV. Certe in sacrificiis, & victimarum immolationibus, divinae omnipotentiae protestatio major non est, quam in actibus spei, quibus salutem nostram a Deo expectamus. Et tamen, juxta Thomam Aquinatem Scholae Romanae principem, in cruce, quae est imaginis species, ponimus spem salutis. Probat enim crucem illam in qua Christus crucifixus est, & etiam ejus effigies, Latria colendas esse; quoniam illi exhibemus Latriae cultum, in quo ponimus spem salutis. In cruce, vero, ex illius mente, ponimus spem salutis. Secundum illud quod cantat Ecclesia Romana, O crux Ave spes unica, Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis justitiam, Reisque dona veniam.
Hezekiah smashed the bronze serpent because Israel burned incense to it—piety praised§1475
14752 Kings 18: Hezekiah destroys Moses’ bronze serpent for incense-cult.
Scripture praises that piety—so even minimal religious cult of an image is banned.
Latin · §1475
XLV. Sed quod, juxta rei veritatem, non solum non liceat imaginibus immolare, sed ne vel minima quidem Religionis cultus pars ipsis impendenda sit, evidenter colligi potest, ex historia quae habetur capite decimo octavo libri secundi Regum. Ubi dicitur, Ezechias Rex Judae confregisse Serpentem aeneum, quem fecerat Moses: quoniam filii Israel adolebant ei incensum: eoque nomine pietas Regis istius commendatur.
If any image deserved honor, the bronze serpent did—yet incense alone brought it down; Nicaea II’s lights clash with that§1476
1476Bronze serpent had divine mandate, saving use, memorial force, and Christ-typology—best-case image.
Incense alone justified smashing it; Nicaea II’s incense-and-lights approach collides with that verdict.
Latin · §1476
XLVI. Nam si unquam extitit imago, quae venerationem aliquam mereretur, procul dubio fuit ille serpens. Nam expresso Dei mandato Moses vir tantus illum fabricaverat. Instrumentum fuerat insignis admodum liberationis, Israelitis in deserto concessae, & memoriam ejus in populo isto conservabat; ac denique eximius erat Christi olim venturi, & in crucem tollendi typus. Et tamen Ezechias, Deo instigante, non solum prohibuit ne Judaei illum colerent; sed propter istud tantum, quod filii Israel adolebant ei incensum, indignabundus illum confregit atque comminuit. Quomodo ergo cum Dei voluntate congruit quod sanxit Synodus Nicena secunda, scilicet, ad imagines reverenter accedendum esse oblationibus suffituum, atque luminarium? Et quantula pars est honoris, qui Christi & Sanctorum imaginibus defertur, in Ecclesia Romana, Thuris accensio, atque oblatio?
If the precept only bans absolute god-cult, it never touched the wise Gentiles’ relative simulacrum-cult§1477
1477Narrow the precept to absolute god-cult and pagan sages walk free—they already distinguished sign from god.
Their relative referral is the same structure Rome now claims.
Latin · §1477
XLVII. Denique, si praecepto quo prohibemur facere & colere similitudinem ullam eorum quae sunt in coelo, vel in terra, vetamur solummodo imagines pro Diis habere, easque cultu absoluto, tanquam Deos colere, inde sequetur hoc praecepto non fuisse vetitum cultum simulachrorum a sapientibus gentium institutum. Ut enim jam indicavimus, disputationis hujus initio, distinguebant imagines a numinibus ipsis, nec eas colebant cultu absoluto, sed qui, ex colentium mente, referebatur ad numina, quorum ipsae simulachra erant.
Celsus and Arnobius’s opponents: statues are dedications and social bridles, not gods with sense§1478
1478Celsus: only a fool thinks the polished metal is God—statues are dedications to gods.
Arnobius’s pagan spokesmen: ancients knew signs lack sense; images bridle the crowd toward civil virtue under felt divine presence.
Latin · §1478
XLVIII. Id saepius Protestatur Celsus apud Origenem praecipue lib. 7. Ubi postquam dixit ridiculam esse sapientiam, si quis contemnat statuas, ideo quod lapis, aut lignum, aut aes, aut aurum, ab hoc vel illo expolita, non sit Deus, subjungit: Quis enim alius, nisi sit totus fatuus, has Deos credit, non Diis dedicatas statuas? Et similiter, Arnobio teste lib. 6. adversus Gentes, illud dicere simulachrorum assertores solebant, Non ignorasse antiquos nihil habere numinis signa, neque ullum omnino inesse his sensum; sed propter indomitum atque imperitum vulgus, salutariter ea consilioque formasse, ut velut quadam specie objecta his numinum, abjicerent asperitatem metu; arbitratique praesentibus sese sub Diis agere, facta impia deponerent, & ad humana officia, morum immutatione transirent.
Pagan confession: we adore visible images unto the honor of the invisible God—Recognitiones and Lactantius§1479
1479Pagan line in the Clementine Recognitions: visible images for invisible God’s honor.
Lactantius records the same: fear the named gods, not the crafted things.
Latin · §1479
XLIX. Proinde profitebantur se in suis simulachris invisibilem Deum adorare. Nos, inquiunt, ad honorem invisibilis Dei, imagines visibiles adoramus. Apud authorem Recognitionum, quae Clementi Romano tribuuntur, libro quinto. Et similiter apud Lactantium, Non ipsa, inquiunt, timemus, sed eos ad quorum imaginem facta, & quorum nominibus consecrata sunt. Institutionum libro secundo capite secundo.
FINIS: even if the crowd sometimes took signs for gods, the institutors’ relative cult still violates the likeness-ban—so say the primitive Doctors§1480
1480Institutors of pagan cult knew gold is not God per se—they venerated divinity through it.
Alien-gods precept may catch their false companions; the likeness-ban still catches their relative image-work if Rome’s narrow reading stands—yet the Fathers say they broke that interdict badly.
Pars altera closes here; next frontier is Angelorum & Hominum Sanctorum Cultu.
Latin · §1480
L. Quicquid ergo esse possit de rudi & stolida plebe, quae forte, inter Ethnicos, simulachra quandoque, tanquam si essent ipsa numina, suspexerit; saltem qui Ethnicam superstitionem instituerant atque tuebantur, Non censebant, ut idem Arnobius loquitur, auri argentique materias esse per se Deos, & religiosa numina, sed ex his Deos colebant, & in iis numen ipsum Venerabantur. Adeoque, licet peccaverint contra Dei mandatum, Non habebis Deos alienos coram me, quando vero Deo, falsos alios adjunxerunt, dici tamen non possunt, in fabricatione & cultu imaginum, transgressi esse interdictum illud de nulla similitudine colenda atque facienda, si tantum per illud vetamur, imagines ut Deos habere & colere; cum nihilominus, non obstantibus istis eorum coloribus & excusationibus quas referunt, prisci Ecclesiae Doctores interdictum istud graviter violasse, ab iis censantur.
Cult has three acts: intellect of excellence, will’s inward bow, and outward signs of subjection§1481
1481Roman doctors (Bellarmino first) say cult wraps three acts.
Intellect grasps the excellence; will bows inward and wills a protest of that excellence and our subjection.
Outward signs follow—head bowed, knee bent, or the like.
Latin · §1481
I. Ante omnia Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, ac Bellarminus in primis, observant cultum in genere tres diversos actus complecti. Et primo actum intellectus quo apprehendimus ejus quem colimus excellentiam. Secundo actum voluntatis, quo nos illi interius inclinamus, & aliquid volumus facere actu interiore, vel exteriore, quo protestemur ejus excellentiam, & nostram subjectionem. Tertio actum exteriorem, quo caput inclinamus, vel genu flectimus, vel aliquod aliud signum subjectionis ostendimus. De Sanctorum Beatitudine lib. 1. cap. 12.
Three excellences, three cults: latria for God, civil honor for natural dignity, dulia for supernatural grace and glory§1482
1482Cult species track excellence species—three for this debate.
Latria answers infinite divine excellence; civil observance answers natural human dignity.
Dulia answers the mid-rank supernatural grace and glory of the Saints.
Latin · §1482
II. Secundo observant tot esse species cultus, sive honoris, quot sunt species excellentiae: quoniam honor, sive cultus debetur personae propter excellentiam. Sed quod ad praesens institutum attinet, tres esse species excellentiae. Prima est excellentia divina & infinita, cui respondet prima species cultus, quae ab Ecclesiae Romanae Theologis Latria dicitur. Secunda est excellentia humana, seu naturalis, quae posita est in humanis virtutibus, dignitatibus, gradibus, &c. Cui respondet secunda species cultus, quae dici potest cultus civilis, & observantia quaedam humana. Tertia est excellentia quaedam media inter divinam & humanam, qualis est gratia & gloria Sanctorum, quae dona sunt supernaturalia; & huic respondet tertia species cultus, quae in Schola Romana Dulia appellatur.
Scholastics split dulia: hyperdulia for Mary as Lady and Queen, proper dulia for the other Saints§1483
1483Mary’s maternity of the Son of God lifts her above other Saints as Lady and Queen.
Hence Schoolmen bisect dulia: hyperdulia for her, proper dulia for the rest.
Latin · §1483
III. Caeterum quoniam Beata Virgo, ut Mater filii Dei, ita praestat aliis Sanctis ut juxta doctorum illorum sententiam, dici possit Domina & Regina nostra, quod aliis Sanctis non convenit, nisi admodum imperfecte; ideo Scholastici hanc tertiam speciem, quam vocant Duliam, dividunt in Duliam proprie dictam, & Hyperduliam, hanc tribuentes Beatae Virgini, illam vero caeteris Sanctis.
Dulia/hyperdulia names lack conciliar sanction; Pérez dislikes ‘dulia’ as implying servitude to fellow-servants§1484
1484School use of dulia/hyperdulia is not yet fixed by Roman Councils.
Pérez (via Bellarmino) dislikes calling saint-cult ‘dulia,’ since the word means servitude and we are conservi, not their slaves.
Latin · §1484
IV. Porro, quanquam Theologi Ecclesiae Romanae, cultum Beatae Virginis & Sanctorum proprium, communiter Duliam & Hyperduliam vocent, ut a caeteris cultus speciebus distinguant, iste tamen vocis Duliae & Hyperduliae usus, nondum est authoritate publica Conciliorum in Ecclesia Romana sancitus atque definitus. Ac propterea Martinus Pereziius Episcopus Hispanus, in suo opere de traditionibus, referente Bellarmino, testatur sibi non multum probari nomen Duliae sumptum pro cultu Sanctorum, cum Dulia proprie significet servitutem, & nos non simus servi Sanctorum, sed conservi.
Even latria/dulia champions admit scriptural mix-up of the terms, yet defend the School distinction as anti-equivocation coinage§1485
1485Even latria/dulia partisans admit the Greek terms blur in pagan use and Scripture—latreia sometimes of human service, duleia often of God’s own cult.
They still defend the School coinage: the thing differs, so the names must, to kill equivocation.
As the old Church coined homoousios against heretics, so the later Church may rebaptize words against later errors.
Latin · §1485
V. Imo illi ipsi qui hunc vocum Latriae & Duliae usum, prout in Schola Romana usurpantur, maxime probant, agnoscunt tamen voces illas apud profanos Scriptores, & in usu communi confundi: imo in sacra Scriptura apud Graecos interpretes; latreian quandoque dici de servitio humano: saepe vero tam in Novo quam in Veteri Testamento duleian pro cultu solius Dei summi. Veruntamen pertendunt Scholam Theologicam non sine causa excogitavisse distinctionem illam Latriae & Duliae. Nam cum in re inveniatur manifesta distinctio inter cultum Dei & Sanctorum, oportuisse etiam, ad vitandam aequivocationem, utrumque cultum distincto vocabulo designari. Nec sine ratione ad hoc delectas volunt Latriae & Duliae voces; quia latreia in Novo Testamento ad solum Dei cultum significandum adhibetur: duleia vero sumitur pro omni servitute tam Dei quam hominum. Quicquid vero de eo sit, quemadmodum licuit antiquae Ecclesiae contra Veteres haereticos nova invenire vocabula, ut voces homoousios, Trinitatis, &c. Sic etiam licuisse Ecclesiae Posteriori, contra Haereticos posteriores, vocabula quaedam nova invenire, aut saltem vocabulis antea usitatis in alia significatione uti.
‘Fellow-servants’ still fits dulia: Scripture’s honorable subjection (Galatians 5) and imperfect ‘service’ by example and intercession§1486
1486Being conservi does not bar dulia: Scripture also uses dulia for honorable subjection—“through love serve one another” (Galatians 5:13).
Imperfectly we are their servants by their example and intercession—and by the majesty and glory that still outrank us pilgrims.
Latin · §1486
VI. Quod autem non simus Sanctorum proprie servi, sed conservi, non obstat, ex eorum sensu, quominus Duliae vox apta sit ad significandam observantiam qua Sanctos colimus, quia in Scripturis Dulia non solum accipitur pro servitute mancipiorum, sed etiam pro honoraria subjectione, ut quum dicit Apostolus per charitatem duleuete servite invicem, Galat. 5. Jam vero, quanquam non simus Sanctorum mancipia; quodam tamen imperfecto sensu Sanctorum servi sumus, quatenus illi nos movent & juvant ad bene operandum exemplo suo, & intercessione apud Deum. Ac praeterea quoniam ratione majestatis & gloriae quam possident, nos qui adhuc peregrinamur a Domino multo sumus eis inferiores.
The three cult-species are analogical, not univocal under one genus§1487
1487Roman doctors deny one univocal genus for the three cults—only analogy of proportion.
As ‘excellence’ is not univocal of God and creatures, neither is ‘cult’ owed for excellence.
Latin · §1487
VII. Praeterea observant Scholae Romanae Doctores has tres cultus species non esse univocas, id est, ejusdem rationis, nec sub eodem univoco genere contineri: sed esse tantum analogas propter quandam proportionis similitudinem, quae est inter excellentiam divinam & cultum qui illi debetur, & excellentiam creatam ac cultum qui illi respondet. Caeterum quemadmodum excellentia non dicitur univoce, & eadem ratione, de excellentia Dei & creaturarum: ita cultum debitum ob excellentiam docent non posse univoce dici de cultu Dei & creaturarum.
‘Religious’ cult of Saints: denied strictly (religion’s object is God), allowed broadly or secondarily§1488
1488Strictly, religion’s object is God’s cult—so saint-cult is another species of observance.
Broadly (or secondarily) they still call saint-honor religious, as opposed to mere civil polity.
Latin · §1488
VIII. Si quis vero quaerat an cultus qui Sanctis impendendus est dici debeat religiosus, necne, respondent Religionem, proprie & stricte loquendo, significare virtutem specialem quae habet pro objecto cultum Dei, & quae distinguitur specie ab ea virtute qua colimus Sanctos; quae observantia quaedam est alius plane rationis: aliquando vero latius accipi Religionis nomen, videlicet, pro omni illa virtute qua colimus Deum, vel amicos Dei, aliasque res sacras, & quae distinguitur a cultu politico & mere humano. Ac priori sensu negant cultum Sanctorum esse religiosum actum, concedunt vero posteriori sensu. Sive quod eodem recidit, dicunt Sanctos coli debere cultu Religionis non primario sed secundario.
Are Saints ‘to be adored’? Strict latria—no; broader human cult—yes§1489
1489‘Adoration’ strict = latria for God alone—Saints out.
‘Adoration’ broad = creaturely honor—Saints in, and their cult may wear the name.
Latin · §1489
IX. Similiter quum quaeritur an Sancti sint adorandi, & an cultus Sanctis debitus adoratio dici debeat, annon: respondent eodem modo adorationem alias stricte sumi pro cultu Latriae, qui soli Deo convenit; & hoc sensu Sanctos non esse adorandos: alias vero largius accipi, & extendi ad cultum humanum, & qui debetur creaturis, & latiori hac significatione Sanctos adorari debere, & eorum cultum dici posse adorationem.
Scholastic ‘adoration’: whole cult, or the special bodily signs (prostration, genuflection) Thomas ranks first among exterior latria acts§1490
1490Scholastics stretch ‘adoration’ from the whole cult-package to a special exterior act.
Thomas (2a2ae q.84) puts bodily exhibition—prostration, genuflection—first among exterior latria acts.
Strict adoration = outward submission-signs springing from inward affection.
Latin · §1490
X. Obiter autem hic notandum apud Doctores Scholasticos adorationis vocem alio adhuc respectu, modo strictiorem, modo vero ampliorem significatum habere. Nam latiore sensu adoratio comprehendit totum cultum qui sive Deo, sive Sanctis exhibendus est, sed quandoque strictius sumitur pro specialibus quibusdam actibus cultus sive Deo, sive Sanctis debiti. Unde est quod Scholastici quandoque inter actus adorationis numerant sacrificium, collationem & susceptionem Sacramentorum, petitionem gratiae & veniae, percussionem pectoris, templorum constructionem, institutionem festorum, vota denique & juramenta: quandoque volunt adorationem esse specialem religionis actum a Sacrificio, ab oratione, voto, juramento, &c. distinctum. Ut videre est apud Thomam Aquinatem in secunda secundae quaestione 84. Ubi adorationi primum locum inter actus exteriores latriae assignat, & adorationis nomine intelligit eam per quam aliquis corpus suum ad Deum venerandum exhibet. Adeoque Adoratio stricto illo sensu sumpta consistit in externis submissionis signis ex interno affectu ei quem colere volumus exhibitis. Qualia signa sunt prostratio corporis, genuflexio, aut aliquid simile.
Interior latria vs dulia: supreme will-prostration to God as first principle and last end, vs lesser creaturely inclination§1491
1491Interiorly latria and dulia part cleanly.
Latria is the will’s highest prostration to God as first principle, last end, and supreme good.
Dulia is a lesser bow to more-than-human yet still creaturely excellence.
Latin · §1491
XI. Porro Latriam, id est, cultum Deo proprium a Dulia, id est, cultu creaturis debito docent facile & optime distingui quoad actus interiores. Nam latria interior est quaedam summa voluntatis prostratio, & inclinatio, cum apprehensione Dei ut primi principii, & ultimi finis, atque adeo summi boni, qualis adoratio soli Deo convenit. Dulia vero interior ipsis est longe minor inclinatio voluntatis, cum apprehensione alicujus excellentiae plusquam humanae quidem, sed multum infra divinam.
Exterior acts mostly shared—except sacrifice, temples, altars, and priests reserved to latria§1492
1492Outwardly almost every cult-sign is shared between dulia and latria.
They reserve sacrifice—and temples, altars, priests tied to it—to latria alone.
No one may offer sacrifice or dedicate those things except to God.
Latin · §1492
XII. Sed quantum ad actus exteriores dicunt non esse facile distinguere Duliam a Latria. Quoniam omnes fere actus exteriores quibus uterque cultus exhibetur communes sunt tam Duliae quam Latriae. Excipiunt tamen Sacrificium, & quae ad illud referuntur, templa, altaria, sacerdotes, quae ad solum Latriae cultum pertinere existimant. Nec enim licere cuiquam sacrificium offerre quam Deo, & templa, altaria, Sacerdotes, dicare.
No sacrifice to Saints—yet Masses ‘of’ Saints offer Christ’s body to God for their honor, merit, and intercession§1493
1493Rome refuses sacrifice to Saints, yet allows sacrifice to God in their honor.
Masses named for Saints still immolate Christ’s true body to the Father.
Such Masses commemorate the Saint and plead by his merit and intercession.
Latin · §1493
XIII. Quanquam autem Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae sacrificium Sanctis offerri nolint, licitum tamen esse putant in honorem Sanctorum sacrificium offerre, non ipsis Sanctis, sed Deo. Adeoque frequens est in Ecclesia Romana Missas celebrare in honorem Sanctorum. Quamvis, ex ipsius Ecclesiae doctrina, Missa sit proprie dictum sacrificium, in quo verum Christi corpus quotidie immolatur & offertur Deo Patri. Unde est quod Missas vocant de nomine Sanctorum, ut quum dicitur Missa Sancti Rochi, Missa Sancti Antonii, &c. Sic autem vocant Missas ubi singularis commemoratio fit alicujus Sancti, & per ejus meritum & intercessionem imploratur Dei auxilium, Deoque solemnes aguntur gratiae pro gloria, isti vel illi Sancto collata.
Though sacrifice is withheld, votive offerings and dedicatory gifts fill Saints’ named churches and chapels§1494
1494Sacrifice aside, Rome still loads Saints with oblations and consecrated gifts.
These mark benefits thought received from or through them—crowding their named shrines.
Latin · §1494
XIV. Praeterea licet in Ecclesia Romana sacrificia Sanctis non offerantur, illis tamen variae fiunt oblationes, & solemne est eis donaria consecrare, in memoriam beneficiorum quae putantur ab illis accepta, sive per eos impetrata: qualia plurima visuntur in templis & sacellis de illorum nomine vocatis.
Temples ‘of’ Saints: many deny building them to Saints, yet name churches after them as thanks to God and plea to the Patron§1495
1495Doctors deny temples built to Saints—yet churches everywhere bear Saints’ names.
Explanations diverge; one line: sacrifice still goes to God in thanks for the Saint’s glory, while the Patron is appealed as advocate.
Latin · §1495
XV. Etenim quamvis Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae negent templa Sanctis esse construenda, in ea tamen consuetudo est ut templa, sive Ecclesiae, ut vocant, hujus aut illius Sancti nomine appellentur, & dicantur, verbi causa, Ecclesia Beatae Virginis, Sancti Petri, Pauli, Francisci, &c. Qua de re mentem suam non omnes ejus Ecclesiae Doctores eodem modo exponunt. Proinde quum aliquod templum, aut aedes sacra dicitur, exempli causa, Sancti Petri, non ideo dicitur, quod sacrificium offeratur Petro, sed quod offeratur Deo in gratiarum actionem pro gloria Sancto Petro data, & simul interpellatur Petrus, tanquam Patronus, & Advocatus apud Deum. De cultu Sanctorum Libro III. cap. 4.
Bellarmino: sacred houses may be built to Saints as basilicas (relic-chests), not as temples of sacrifice—else idolatry§1496
1496Bellarmino allows sacred houses to Saints—as basilicas, not sacrifice-temples.
Temple-ratio to Saints would be idolatry; basilica-ratio is a great relic-chest and memorial.
Mass of Peter ≠ Basilica of Peter: Mass to God, basilica the Saint’s monument.
Latin · §1496
XVI. At Bellarminus ipse est in alia sententia. Nam capite jam allegato haec est ejus quarta propositio. Sacrae domus non solum Deo sed etiam Sanctis recte aedificantur. Ac ut mentem suam exponat & illustret, observat aedem sacram sub duplici ratione considerari posse: primo ut templum est, secundo ut est Basilica. Aedes sacra habet rationem templi, quatenus ad offerenda sacrificia erigitur. Basilica vero dicitur quatenus erigitur ad ornatum sepulchri alicujus Sancti, & commoditatem visitantium ejusdem reliquias. Jam vero fatetur Idololatriam fore, si quis domos sacras Sanctis erigeret sub ratione templi, sed negat esse Idololatriam si quis erigat illis Basilicas. Sicut etiam, inquit, non est Idololatria donare Sanctis thecas aureas, vel argenteas, quibus includantur reliquiae eorum. Nihil enim aliud sunt basilicae, quam magnae quaedam thecae, quibus minores thecae, & ipsa sepulchra clauduntur. Unde colligit, aliter dici Missam S. Petri, aliter Basilicam S. Petri, quoniam Missa offertur Deo, Basilica vero Sancti est monumentum, Basilica, vel memoria.
Pontificale simply calls them ‘Churches’ dedicated in Saints’ honor and name—without Bellarmino’s temple/basilica split§1497
1497The Pontificale skips temple/basilica jargon and simply consecrates ‘Churches’ in Saints’ honor and name.
Litanies name the title Saint; the bishop asks God to purify the church in that Saint’s memory.
Latin · §1497
XVII. Caeterum Pontificale Romanum de aedium sacrarum dedicatione sive consecratione agens, nec templi, nec basilicae nomine eas designat, sed simpliciter Ecclesias vocat, ac sub ea appellatione dicit eas in honore & nomine Sanctorum dedicari. Nam pag. 173. editionis Parisiensis anni 1615. Jubet ut in litaniis quae in ejusmodi solemni dedicatione recitari solent, suo loco ibi nominetur Sanctus ille in cujus honore & nomine Ecclesia dedicatur. Et postea Pontifex saepius Deum rogat ut Ecclesiam quam consecrat, velit in memoriam hujus vel illius Sancti purificare; & benedicere.
Popular books still say temples and altars are dedicated to Mary without scruple—Alexis de Salo and the Liège Manual§1498
1498Popular Roman books freely say temples and altars are consecrated to Mary and the Saints.
Alexis de Salo’s Method and the Liège Sodality Manual put that praxis in print—altars first to God, yet in Mary’s honor and memory.
Latin · §1498
XVIII. Verum in usu communi, & in libris popularibus, qui plebis Romanae manibus teruntur, absque scrupulo dicuntur templa Sanctis, ac praesertim Beatae Mariae Virgini dicari atque consecrari. Sic in vulgari libello cui titulus est, Methodus colendae & honorandae Virginis Mariae, cujusque author est Alexis de Salo Capucinus caput octavum hisce verbis incipit: Ecclesia quae semper Spiritu Sancto dicitur ab omni tempore templa & Altaria erexit & consecravit Matri Dei. Et postea vota consecrare. Et similiter in Manuali Sodalitatis impresso Leodii An. 1624. leguntur haec verba pagina 110. Ipsam colimus atque veneramur templis, oratoriis & altaribus, erectis quidem primo Deo, Sed in honorem & memoriam carissimae ipsius matris.
Bellarmino’s basilica-as-relic-chest is not limited to relic sites—basilicas also summon the named Patron for cult and prayer§1499
1499Do not over-read Bellarmino’s relic-chest image as relic-only.
He also allows basilicas so the name itself summons worshippers to honor and pray to that Patron.
Latin · §1499
XIX. Porro quod supra dixit Bellarminus aedes sacras erigi Sanctis, ut ornentur eorum sepulcra, & ad commoditatem illorum qui visitant Sanctorum reliquias; adeoque basilicas, quae de Sanctorum nomine vocantur, esse thecas quasdam majores, quibus minores thecae, & ipsa Sanctorum Sepulchra clauduntur; sic accipiendum non est, quasi, juxta Bellarmini mentem, non liceret aedem sacram aedificare Sancto, nisi ubi sunt ejus reliquiae: aut quasi aedes sacra non alia ratione Sancto dicata diceretur, quam quia servandis ejus reliquiis destinata est. Nam Bellarminus ipse eodem in loco mentem suam explicans, docet Basilicas erigi posse Sanctis, in hunc finem ut qui illuc conveniunt, ipso Basilicae nomine admoniti, ibi tanquam Patronum colant & deprecantur Sanctum cujus nomen praefert, & in cujus honorem & memoriam consecrata dicitur.
Sacred houses may rise where Saints lived or wrought wonders—even for Angels and Mary without bodily relics, or by image and name alone§1500
1500Relics are not required: houses may mark dwellings, deeds, or apparitions.
Mary and the Angels get churches without bodily relics; image or bare name can carry the memorial.
Latin · §1500
XX. Ac praeterea pertendit aedes sacras Sanctis erigi posse, non tantum ubi sunt proprie dictae eorum reliquiae, verbi causa, ossa & Vestes; sed etiam in locis, ubi habitaverunt, aut aliquid praeclari gesserunt. Quo nomine dicit multas Ecclesias extructas fuisse Beatae Mariae, & Angelis etiam ipsis, quorum nullae possunt haberi reliquiae, scilicet, in locis ubi apparuerunt, & miracula aliqua ostenderunt. Imo addit, quod etiam passim fieri videmus, posse erigi Basilicas Sanctis ad memoriam eorum conservandam, vel per imaginem, vel per ipsum solum nomen. Sic Ecclesiae multae Beatae Virginis nomine vocantur, & illi dicatae sunt, in quibus tamen nullae visuntur ejus reliquiae, nec etiam ullum ante miraculum eo in loco fecisse perhibetur.
Altars ‘of’ Saints: same stone is God’s altar and a martyr’s tomb—dedication to Saints only under tomb-ratio, else idolatry§1501
1501One stone: altar to God, tomb over a martyr’s bones—every altar a Saint’s sepulcher.
Dedication ‘to Saints’ is licit only as tomb-ratio; altar-ratio to Saints would be idolatry.
Latin · §1501
XXI. Quod spectat ad altaria, quae de Sanctorum quoque nomine appellantur, & dicuntur illis esse consecrata, Notat similiter Bellarminus unum eundemque lapidem dici altare, quatenus in eo sacrificatur Deo; & eundem dici tumulum vel sepulchrum, quatenus tegit ossa Martyris alicujus. Omnia enim altaria esse sepulchra Sanctorum. Jam vero quae dicuntur altaria dicari Sanctis, non sub ratione altaris, sed sub ratione sepulchri. Nam esse Idololatriam erigere Sanctis altaria; sed tamen non esse Idololatriam, erigere illis lapideos tumulos.
Practice jars Bellarmino: countless Marian altars bear her name without her tomb or relics§1502
1502Roman practice undercuts Bellarmino’s tomb-only rule.
Marian altars everywhere take her name without her sepulcher or relics.
Latin · §1502
XXII. Sed cum ista Bellarmini Doctrina & observatione non satis quadrat praxis Ecclesiae Romanae. Nam quam innumera altaria Beatae Virgini in ea dicata sunt, & de ejus nomine vocantur, de qua tamen non sunt ejus tumulus vel sepulchrum, imo in quibus nullae servari dicuntur illius reliquiae?
Pontificale consecrates the same altar twice—once as sepulcher, once as altar—with distinct forms§1503
1503The Pontificale splits consecration: sepulcher-form and altar-form for the same stone.
That public rite is not Bellarmino’s tomb-only permission scheme.
Latin · §1503
XXIII. Sed quod maxime notandum est, Alia plane ratione, quam qua statuit Bellarminus, altaria Sanctis dedicari docet Pontificale Romanum, qui liber est publica Pontificum Romanorum authoritate sancitus. Etenim in eo libro separatim habetur consecratio altaris, ut sepulchrum quoddam est; & ejusdem ut altare est. Et quidem ut sepulchrum consecratur his verbis, Consecretur & sanctificetur hoc sepulchrum in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti. Cum vero ut altare consecratur, alia sunt verba. Pontificale Parisiensis An. 1615. pag. 229.
Every altar is also sanctified in honor of God, Mary, and all Saints—beyond any single tomb-ratio§1504
1504Each altar gets a title Saint (possible tomb-ratio)—and also a general sanctification to God, Mary, and all Saints.
That universal honor outruns Bellarmino’s tumulus-only leave.
Latin · §1504
XXIV. Ubi observandum est altare quodlibet sanctificari quidem in nomen & memoriam singularis alicujus Sancti, a quo suam accipit denominationem, & cujus respectu poterit habere rationem tumuli, ut loquitur Bellarminus: Verum omnia & singula altaria sanctificari praeterea, non tantum in honorem Dei omnipotentis, sed & in honorem Virginis Mariae, ac omnium Sanctorum, ad quos nihil pertinet ratio illa tumuli, sub qua solum licitum est, ex nuper allata Bellarmini doctrina, altaria Sanctis dedicari.
No priests to Saints—yet confraternities and sodalities uniquely adore and invoke them, especially Mary§1505
1505Rome bars priests of Saints, yet proliferates confraternities and sodalities.
Those societies specially adore and invoke their patrons—Mary foremost.
Latin · §1505
XXV. Quamvis autem non liceat, secundum Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae, instituere Sanctis Sacerdotes, attamen quod proxime accedit, usitatum est in illa Ecclesia in honorem Sanctorum, ac praesertim Mariae Virginis instituere confraternitates atque sodalitia, quae se eorum cultui ac venerationi peculiariter dicant, ac pro instituto suo, singulari quadam ratione illos adorant & invocant.
Feasts ranked as God’s own cult—yet Saint-days abound; many say they are God’s feasts in Saints’ memory§1506
1506Feasts are classed with Godward cult—yet Saint-days fill the calendar.
Many resolve it: feasts (like temples and Masses) go to God, in the Saints’ memory and honor.
Latin · §1506
XXVI. Ad festa quod attinet, Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores solent quidem illa numerare inter ea quae ad cultum Deo proprium pertinent: et tamen in Ecclesia Romana solemne est dies festos instituere in honorem Sanctorum. Ut autem ista concilient, Dicunt eorum multi festa quae dicuntur Sanctorum, non Sanctis proprie, sed Deo dicari, verum in memoriam & honorem Sanctorum. Quemadmodum templa soli Deo sacrantur, sed in Sanctorum quoque honorem atque Memoriam. Et similiter Missae sacrificium non offertur ulli quam Deo, & tamen hoc non obstat quominus in honorem Sanctorum Missa celebretur, ut antea fuit expositum.
Bellarmino: feast-honor terminates also on the Saints secondarily—dulia under ‘religion’ in the general sense§1507
1507Bellarmino lets feast-honor terminate on Saints too—primarily God, secondarily Saints.
He calls that dulia, and ‘religion’ only in the broad genus, not the special Godward virtue.
Latin · §1507
XXVII. Sed pertendunt alii, ac praecipue Bellarminus, honorem dierum festorum immediate & terminative pertinere etiam ad Sanctos, quanquam ad Deum primario, ad Sanctos tantum secundario spectet. Cujusmodi cultum dicunt esse duliae, non Latriae, & proinde religionis quidem cultum; sed religionis, non ut est nomen specialis virtutis, quae hominem erga Dei cultum bene disponit, sed ut est nomen generale. Sicut videre est apud Bellarminum de cultu Sanctorum lib. 3. cap. 16.
Vows to Saints are common; Thomas’s escape: the Saint-promise is vow-matter, the God-promise is the formal vow§1508
1508Saint-vows (especially Marian) are everyday Roman praxis—yet vows are latria-acts.
Thomas’s patch: the Saint gets promise-matter; God alone gets the formal vow (tacitly guaranteeing fulfillment).
Latin · §1508
XXVIII. Ad cultum quoque Sanctorum pertinere volunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae vota quae illis nuncupantur. In ea enim Ecclesia, valde usitatum est, nuncupare vota Sanctis, ac praesertim Beatae Virgini, quod licite fieri Doctores illius pertendunt. Verum cum Theologi votum ponant inter actus religionis soli Deo debitos, inde nascitur difficultas, quomodo ergo Sanctis vota fieri possint absque Idololatria. Ad hoc juxta doctrinam Thomae respondendum est, vota proprie Sanctis non fieri. Nam vota quae Sanctis fieri dicuntur includere duas promissiones: Unam quae fit Sanctis, & illam non esse formaliter votum, sed materiam voti: alteram vero quae Deo fit, & vere est votum. Nempe qui Virgini aliquid promittit, & tacite promittit Deo, se impleturum promissionem Virgini factam, & haec secunda promissio est vere votum.
Bellarmino rejects Thomas here: Saint-vows aim to honor Saints, and some formulas vow to God and Saints together§1509
1509Bellarmino: Thomas fits prelate-obedience vows, not Saint-directed fasts and pilgrimages that mean to honor Saints.
Some formulas vow to God and Mary and all Saints at once—so the Saint-clause is inside the formal vow.
Latin · §1509
XXIX. Verum haec solutio Bellarmino non satisfacit: quoniam ita Thomae observatio recte quidem applicari potest ad vota quae includunt promissionem homini mortali factam. Nam qui vovet, verbi causa, obedientiam Praelato, revera votum non Praelato, sed Deo soli facit, licet ipsi Praelato obedientiam promittat. Nec enim illo voto Praelatum, sed Deum colere & honorare intendit. At qui vovet jejunium vel peregrinationem Sanctis intendit ipsos Sanctos religiose honorare. Adde quod fiunt Sanctis quaedam promissiones quas apparet non solum esse materiam voti sed votum quoddam formaliter. Ut quum quis se addicturus ordini Religioso, votum hac forma concipit, Voveo Deo, & Beatae Mariae, & omnibus Sanctis, me Praelato tali vel tali obediturum. Ibi enim sola promissio Praelato facta est materia voti, altera vero quae ad Deum & Sanctos simul dirigitur, est formaliter ipsum votum.
Cajetan/Bellarmino: vows to Saints as ‘gods by participation’—vows made to God in the Saints§1510
1510Backup line (Cajetan via Bellarmino): vow to Saints as gods-by-participation where God dwells in glory.
Thus the vow is to God in the Saints—as cursing Saints blasphemes God in them.
Latin · §1510
XXX. Itaque aliud respondet, cum Cajetano, Bellarminus, nempe vota fieri Sanctis, non ut sunt creaturae quaedam rationis participes, sed quatenus sunt Dii per participationem, & ut in iis Deus habitat per gloriam, ita ut vota, quae fieri dicuntur Sanctis, fiant Deo in Sanctis: quomodo maledicta in Sanctos dicuntur blasphemia, quia Deus in Sanctis maledicitur.
Those vows still terminate on Saints too—like alms to Christ in the poor; same promise, different end (latria vs dulia)§1511
1511Even ‘God-in-the-Saints’ vows still land on the Saints—as alms to Christ in the poor land on the poor.
Same true promise, different end: God as first author (latria) vs Saints as mediators (dulia).
Latin · §1511
XXXI. Nihilominus pertendit vota illa quae fiunt Deo in Sanctis non terminari ad solum Deum, sed etiam ad ipsos Sanctos, quemadmodum eleemosyna quae datur Christo in paupere, vere datur ipsi pauperi. Ac ut ostendat in eo nullam esse Idololatriam, dicit non eadem ratione votum fieri Sanctis, & Deo. Nam Sanctis quidem aliquid vere & proprie promitti, quemadmodum proprie & vere Deo promittitur: Verum non eodem fine, neque eadem mente aliquid Deo & Sanctis promitti. Nempe quia, quum aliquis Deo quippiam vovet & promittit, id facit in signum gratitudinis erga primum principium omnium bonorum, & in recognitionem beneficii ab ipso, tanquam a primo authore accepti, & proinde illa promissio est cultus Latriae; at Sanctis promittitur aliquid in signum gratitudinis solum erga mediatores, & intercessores, per quos a Deo beneficia accepimus; & proinde illa promissio non est cultus Latriae sed Duliae.
Others keep Thomas: ‘vow’ analogically covers God-promises and Saint-promises—absolute vs relative§1512
1512Another School path: Church usage stretches ‘vow’ analogically to Saint-promises.
God-vows absolute; Saint-vows relative—ending finally in God’s glory.
Latin · §1512
XXXII. Alii vero facilius se explicant, a doctrina Thomae non recedentes, in qua fatetur votum de sola promissione Deo facta dici; verum ex usu Ecclesiae. Juxta quem, votum est nomen quoddam generale quod analogice dicitur de promissione facta Deo & Sanctis. Inter quae vota alii hoc discrimen constituunt, quod votum Deo factum sit absolutum, illud vero quod fit Sanctis relativum: nimirum quia licet ad Sanctos, ut jam dictum, quodammodo terminetur, ultimo tamen ad Dei gloriam refertur.
Popular Manual of Mary’s sodality: vows honor her as witness and terminate the promise in her§1513
1513Bellarmino’s terminating Saint-vows are not niche—they sit in popular sodality manuals.
Mary’s Manual: vow to God with Mary as witness and intercessor—and terminate the promise in her.
Latin · §1513
XXXIII. Caeterum doctrina illa Bellarmini jam exposita, de votis quae Sanctis nuncupantur, atque ad ipsos terminantur, in Ecclesia Romana communis & popularis est, utpote tradita libris, qui sunt in communi usu plebis Romanae. Sic enim habet liber qui dicitur Manuale sodalitatis Beatae Mariae, Ad haec votis illi nuncupatis honorem tribuimus, non tantum quatenus Deo Vovemus, ex parentis ejus Mariae amore & reverentia, illam quasi testem obligationis, qua nos Deo obstringimus appellantes, ac illius gloriosa ac potenti intercessione statuentes & Sperantes ratam promissionem reddi votumque dependere, sed etiam ipsum votum & promissionem in eam terminantes. cap. 2. part. 3. num. 7.
Oaths are latria-acts—yet swearing by Saints is allowed secondarily as divine truth shines in them (Thomas 2a2ae q.89 a.6)§1514
1514Oaths belong to latria—yet Rome swears by Saints.
Scholastics allow it secondarily: swear by the divine truth shining in them (Thomas 2a2ae q.89 a.6), not by the Saints as such.
Latin · §1514
XXXIV. Porro Theologi Ecclesiae Romanae juramentum etiam numerant inter actus Latriae, sive Religionis, id est, cultus qui soli Deo debetur. Et tamen in Ecclesia Romana usitatum est per Sanctos jurare. Verum dicunt Scholastici licere per Sanctos jurare, saltem secundario; nempe, quatenus in ipsis divina veritas elucet. Et ita per Sanctos jurari, non secundum se, sed in quantum veritatem divinam crediderunt & observarunt. Ut apud eundem Thomam videre est 2.2. quaest. 89. art. 6.
Singular ‘adoration’: bodily submission-signs; Vázquez defends sacred adoration of Saints as Catholic tradition§1515
1515Rome pushes a named ‘adoration’: exterior submission from true inward reverence—prostration, genuflection, bare head.
Vázquez (on Thomas III) calls sacred Saint-adoration Catholic by perpetual use and tradition.
Latin · §1515
XXXV. Sed inter cultus Sanctis debiti partes in Ecclesia Romana non parum commendatur singulariter sic dicta adoratio, quae consistit in externis submissionis & reverentiae signis, ex interno & vero animi affectu profectis, qualia sunt totius corporis prostratio, vel inclinatio, genuflexio, capitis apertio, & si quae sunt istius modi. Haec est adoratio qua Gabriel Vasquez contendit & pluribus probare conatur Sanctos esse adorandos, In tertiam partem Thomae tomo primo disputatione 97. ubi sic incipit secundum ejus caput: opposita sententia Catholicae est, perpetua Ecclesiae usu, & traditione confirmata, nempe Sanctis deberi sacram adorationem.
Popular Method books demand frequent bows and genuflections to Mary privately and in church—Alexis de Salo’s program§1516
1516Handbooks pressed on the people push Marian adoration—bows and genuflections at home and in church.
Alexis de Salo’s approved Method trains deep reverences to the Queen of heaven and maps them into practice.
Latin · §1516
XXXVI. Praecipue vero libri illi vulgares, quos Ecclesiae Romanae Doctores & Rectores in manus plebis tradunt, Beatae Virginis adorationem internam & externam vehementer commendant; & a suis devotis exigunt, ut crebris corporis inclinationibus, & genuflexionibus suam erga sanctam Virginem reverentiam testentur, tam domi privatim, quam in Ecclesiis publice. Id speciatim videre est in Methodo colendae & honorandae Virginis, quam Italice edidit Alexis de Salo Capucinus, & quae postea fuit in Gallicam linguam versa & saepius impressa cum pluribus Doctorum approbationibus. Etenim author ille in praefatione testatur scopum suum esse docere multos devotos & egregios modos reverendi & adorandi cum profundissimis, ut loquitur reverentiis, id est, corporis inclinationibus, seu genuflexionibus, Reginam coelorum heram atque Dominam nostram. Et postea pollicetur primo se ostensurum adorationum talium praestantiam. Secundo quam sint Sanctae Virgini gratae. Tertio se quatuor rationibus evicturum dignissimam illam esse quae adoretur. Denique se acturum de ratione qua istae adorationes, seu genuflexiones sint, ad praxim redigendae, & devote fieri possint tam interne quam externe.
Mendoza: Mary may receive latria by contact with Christ—secondary and respective, if scandal is avoided (Cajetan on Thomas)§1517
1517School baseline: Saints get dulia, Mary hyperdulia—yet Mendoza asks if she may also take latria.
Three dignities: holiness (dulia), maternity (hyperdulia), contact with Christ (latria), as cross and nails do.
Cajetan’s Thomas: allowed as secondary respective latria if scandal is kept off—so Mendoza concludes.
Latin · §1517
XXXVII. Caeterum quamvis Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae adorationem qua Sancti coluntur, non ad Latriam, verum ad Duliam pertinere doceant, quam vero Beatae Virgini deferunt, ad Hyperduliam; nihilominus nonnulli eorum in quaestionem vocant, an non etiam Latria Virgo Maria possit adorari? Et ad quaestionem illam affirmative Respondent. Id praesertim videre est apud Franciscum Mendoza Jesuitam. Proposita enim ista quaestione, Utrum Beata Virgo adoratione Latriae adorari queat? Ad eam solvendam notat tria dignitatis genera in Virgine observari posse. Prima dignitas consistit in illius sanctitate, ob quam adoratione Duliae colendam esse dicit. Secunda in eo quod est mater Dei, propter quam Hyperduliae cultu adorandam esse statuit. Tertia in eo quod tetigit Christum Dominum nostrum, ratione cujus existimat Virginem adoratione Latriae coli posse. Sicut, ex sententia Thomae, crux, & clavi, aliaque quae Christi corpus tetigerunt, Latriae cultu colenda sunt. Postquam enim sibi multa in contrarium opposuit, quaestionem sic tandem concludit, Nihilominus dicendum est posse Beatam Virginem ratione solius contactus adorari adoratione Latriae. Neque divus Thomas absolute hoc negat, sed quando est scandalum aut periculum Idololatriae, ut ejus interpres Cajetanus exponit. Quare si quis idoneus sit ad discernendas rationes adorationis, & cavendum omne scandalum, poterat Beatam Virginem ratione contactus adorare adoratione Latriae: quamvis enim haec adoratio Latriae non sit primaria & absoluta, est tamen secundaria & respectiva, ab uno eodemque habitu Religionis proficiscens. In Virid. lib. 2. de Floribus sacris problem. 4. Ut refertur apud Carolum Drelincurtium de honore Beatae Virgini debito Tom. 1. pag. 355.
Suárez agrees contact-latria is speculative, not for common public use—prefer absolute inferior cult for her own holiness and maternity§1518
1518Suárez too allows extrinsic contact-latria—Mary touched Christ and cooperated in redemption more than cross or nails.
Speculatively fine; publicly he bars common use lest divine excellence be ascribed, and lest inferior absolute cult for her own holiness and maternity be the greater honor.
Latin · §1518
XXXVIII. Cui doctrinae consentanea sunt quae leguntur apud Franciscum Suarez celeberrimum quoque Jesuitam. Inquirens enim ob quam potissimum rationem Beata Virgo sit adoranda, docet triplicem posse rationem adorationis in Virgine intelligi. Et primam rationem, propter quam Virgo potest adorari, dicit esse extrinsecam, qualis in cruce, vel clavis Christi reperitur. Sicut enim, inquit, crux, & Christum tetigit, & instrumentum fuit nostrae Redemptionis, ita multo perfectius Beatissima Virgo, & Christum tetigit, & ad nostram Redemptionem est cooperata. Hoc igitur modo adorabilis est Beata Virgo ratione extrinseca id est, quatenus Christum tetigit, ita ut tota ratio hujus adorationis sit Christus. Loquitur autem de adoratione Latriae, respective saltem & secundariae, quam hujusmodi ratio, juxta ipsum, exigit. Et propterea statim subjungit, Est tamen observandum, quanquam haec ratio speculative considerata sufficiens sit ut propterea Virgo sit adorabilis: practice tamen, seu in usu non esse hoc modo adorandam praesertim communi, ac publica Ecclesiae adoratione, non quia hoc sit intrinsece malum, nam revera non est. Nam si quis idoneus sit ad discernendas rationes adorationis, & cavendum omne periculum, & ad scandalum vitandum, nulla est in hujusmodi adoratione deordinatio, aut malitia. Qui tamen communem hujus adorationis usum vitandum esse dicit tum propter periculum ne quis Virgini divinam excellentiam tribuat: tum quod major est honor personae adoratae, quod propter intrinsecam & propriam excellentiam, absolute colatur adoratione quadam inferiori, quam si adoretur, Latria respectiva propter personae divinae contactum. Proinde vult ut Virgo communiter adoretur propter alias rationes, nempe tum propter intrinsecam sanctitatem quam habet, tum propter dignitatem matris Dei, quibus Respondet cultus Latria inferior, & a Latria distinctus. In tertiam partem Thomae quaest. 37. Art. 4. disput. 22. sect. 2.
No real contradiction: deniers refuse absolute supreme adoration; affirmers mean adoration below the supreme§1519
1519Famous Jesuits say Saints are to be adored; many Romans say only God is—yet Le Blanc finds no contradiction.
Deniers mean absolute supreme latria; affirmers mean inferior adoration the deniers still allow.
Latin · §1519
XXXIX. Nec est quod quis miretur viros, ita celebres in schola Romana, ut sunt Vasquez, Suarez & Mendoza, aliique non pauci, palam asserere, tanquam veritatem Catholicam, quod Sancti sint adorandi; cum tamen id a plurimis in Ecclesia Romana negetur, multique contra fateantur Deum solum esse adorandum, nec se alium quam Deum adorare. Etenim nulla est inter eos propterea contradictio. Nam qui negant Sanctos esse adorandos, hoc intelligunt de adoratione plane summa & absoluta, qualis soli Deo competit. Qui vero dicunt adorandos esse, istud intelligi volunt de adoratione quadam infra supremam, quam priores isti Sanctis non denegant.
Chief cult-part: invocation—Saints know at least what touches their beatitude, including living prayers for their help§1520
1520Invocation is the chief Roman cult of Saints and Angels—spoken aloud or by heart alone.
School premise: reigning Saints need not know all earthly events, yet know what touches their beatitude—including cult and pleas for their aid.
Hence it is certain for them that the dead Saints hear the living’s prayers.
Slice closes at XL; next frontier is Romana XLI–LXXVII (how they hear; merits; patrons; Marian dominion), then Pars Secunda Reformata.
Latin · §1520
XL. Sed praecipua pars cultus qui Sanctis hominibus & Angelis impenditur in Ecclesia Romana consistit in eorum invocatione, & precibus quae ad illos diriguntur, tum voce, tum etiam solo cordis affectu, & interna mentis loquela. Qua de re ut accuratius teneatur Scholae Romanae Doctrina, observandum est Theologos illius communiter supponere Sanctos cum Christo regnantes, non quidem omnia & singula quae hic geruntur nosse; sed ea saltem omnia quae ad ipsorum beatitudinem pertinent & faciunt. Ad Sanctorum autem Beatitudinem facere existimant, ut noscant cultum qui illis exhibetur, & preces ac orationes, quibus fideles in terris degentes ad eorum opem confugiunt. Ac proinde apud istos Theologos certum est, Sanctos defunctos viventium preces percipere & intelligere.
How Saints hear living prayers—opinions vary; Costerus: by angels, migrants, and divine revelation for their glory§1521
1521How Saints hear the living’s prayers is unsettled among Roman doctors.
Costerus: heaven knows earthly deeds by angel messengers and by the newly departed—and especially by revelation of what advances the Saints’ glory.
God hides from them nothing that can heighten that joy; living prayers and glory-works belong to that class.
Latin · §1521
XLI. Quomodo vero Sancti orationes viventium audiant atque percipiant, res non est inter eos certa & definita, sed de qua varii varie opinantur. Costerus in Enchiridio dicit dubium non esse, quin Sancti in coelis cognoscant, quae in terris gerimus internunciis Angelis, & iis qui ex hac vita migrant: praesertim vero quin divina revelatione ipsis innotescant quae ad ipsorum gloriam promovendam ab hominibus fiunt. Deus enim qui Sanctorum suorum perfectum gaudium desiderat, nihil eorum ipsos celare, quae aliquo modo vel augere id, vel perficere possunt: Ejusmodi vero esse orationes, quae ad ipsos a viventibus effunduntur, & quaecunque in ipsorum gloriam ab iisdem suscipiuntur.
Living vs beatified: occult inspiration vs vision in the divine essence; distance no bar if God opens hearts§1522
1522Living learn hidden things by occult inspiration; the beatified see them in God’s essence as in a mirror—more perfectly than in themselves.
No bodily bulk or distance bars Saints from prayers, acts, and opened thoughts.
Unwilling minds stay closed except to God alone, who searches hearts.
Latin · §1522
XLII. Caeterum, ex illius sensu, longe aliter viventibus absentia revelantur, atque Sanctis qui aeterna gloria fruuntur. Illis enim nota fiunt occulta inspiratione, his autem contemplatione divinae essentiae, in qua veluti in speculo res omnes & ab illis videntur, & sunt longe perfectius, quam in semetipsis existant. Addit non esse inconveniens, si fateamur Sanctos in coelis videre opera nostra in terris. Cum enim nulla corporis mole praepediantur, non impediri etiam locorum distantia, nec corporibus interjectis, quo minus preces nostras audiant, actiones intueantur, adeoque in cordibus nostris & cogitationibus illa videant, quae volumus ipsis esse manifesta. Quemadmodum enim sine externa voce, aut sensibili signo, Angeli tum sibi mutuo, tum animabus loquuntur, & vicissim ab illis audiuntur, & intelliguntur: ita homines sola voluntate sua spiritibus tam bonis, quam malis, interna desideria & cogitationes aperire posse, & ab illis intelligi, non obstante corpore quo vestiuntur, vel quavis loci intercapedine, tametsi magna. Nolentium vero cogitationem, & mentem nemini patere praeter unum Deum, qui solus scrutatur corda & renes, & cui voluerit Deus revelare. Cap. 12. de Veneratione Sanctorum in explicatione propositionis secundae.
Holden: pure spirit by natural reason knows all corporeal natures and motions—denying prayer-hearing is crass ignorance§1523
1523Holden (Paris): natural reason shows a pure spirit knows every corporeal nature, motion, and act.
Calling heaven deaf to mortal prayer is, for him, dense ignorance.
Latin · §1523
XLIII. Imo Henricus Holden Doctor Parisiensis affirmat ipsa ratione naturali demonstrari posse, quod quivis pure Spiritus perfecte cognoscat & intelligat, rerum omnium corporearum naturas, motus & actiones omnes: ac propterea ignorantiam crassam bardamque tribuit illis, qui existimant Sanctos in caelo regnantes non audire mortalium preces. In Divinae fidei analysi lib. 2. cap. 7.
Bellarmino’s two probable views: see all relevant things in God from beatitude’s start, or revelation when we pray§1524
1524Bellarmino favors two lines: Saints see in God from beatitude’s dawn all that touches them—including our prayers—or God reveals prayers only when we offer them.
He leans to the first as simply likelier; the second as better for answering heretics.
Latin · §1524
XLIV. Bellarmino vero ex multis hac de re sententiis duae videntur maxime probabiles. Una eorum qui dicunt Sanctos videre in Deo, a principio suae beatitudinis omnia quae ad ipsos aliquo modo pertinent, & proinde etiam orationes nostras ad se directas. Altera eorum qui putant, Sanctos non videre in Verbo orationes nostras a principio suae beatitudinis, sed solum tunc revelari eis a Deo orationes nostras, quando eas fundimus. Quomodo Prophetae, Deo revelante, cognoverunt futura, & multi Sanctorum hic in terris donum a Deo habuerunt, quo cognoscerent cogitationes hominum, & facta etiam occultissima. Quarum sententiarum prior Bellarmino videtur simpliciter probabilior, posterior vero magis idonea ad convincendos haereticos. De Sanctorum Beatitudine lib. 1. cap. 20.
Second premise: Saints know needs, pray with greater charity, and are mediators of intercession not redemption§1525
1525Roman premise two: heaven knows living needs and prays with greater charity than on earth.
They plead both for the Church militant and for individuals who seek their patronage.
Called intercessors and advocates—mediators of intercession, never of redemption.
Latin · §1525
XLV. Secundo supponunt Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae Sanctos in coelis non solum viventium necessitates nosse; sed majori, quam dum in terris agerent, charitate Deum pro illorum salute deprecari. Neque tantum illos in communi pro Ecclesia militante orare; sed etiam in particulari pro necessitatibus singulorum, qui ad illorum opem, & patrocinium confugiunt. Ac proinde Sanctos merito dici posse intercessores nostros, & Advocatos apud Deum & Mediatores, non quidem Redemptionis, quod soli Christo competit, sed intercessionis.
Saints do not intercede immediately—their petitions rest on Christ’s merit (Bellarmino)§1526
1526Intercession is not immediate: it rests on Christ’s merit.
Bellarmino: Saints obtain from God for us only through Christ.
Latin · §1526
XLVI. Monent tamen Sanctos non immediate intercedere apud Deum pro nobis, sed eorum intercessionem niti merito Christi, per quem beneficia pro nobis a Deo petunt. Haec enim sunt Bellarmini verba, Sancti non sunt immediati intercessores nostri apud Deum, sed quicquid a Deo nobis impetrant, per Christum impetrant. Lib. 1. de Beatitudine Sanctorum cap. 17. propositione 2.
Only Christ mediates redemption; yet Saints’ merits move God to grant favors—Mass ‘through the merits of Saints’§1527
1527Christ alone mediates redemption; Saints still ‘benefit’ by merits that move God—without strict right or promise.
Mass liturgy asks ‘through the merits of Saints,’ holding their deeds and sufferings before God’s eyes.
Latin · §1527
XLVII. Praeterea quamvis doceant Scholae Romanae Theologi nullum esse Mediatorem Redemptionis praeter Christum, cujus mors & obedientia Deo patri praestita unicum est pretium, quo sumus a morte aeterna redempti; pertendunt tamen Sanctos non solum orationibus, sed etiam meritis suis nobis prodesse. Non quod bonis suis operibus nobis proprie meriti sint gratiam & salutem, aliaque quibus egemus beneficia, ut Christus nobis illa promeruit: sed quia Deus Sanctis illorum operibus, & ea qua excelluerunt pietate atque charitate, saepe movetur atque inducitur, ut nobis beneficia varia impertiat; licet ad id nullo jure, aut speciali aliqua promissione obstrictus. Unde est quod in Missae Liturgia Deum orare solent per merita Sanctorum, quorum se putant habere reliquias. Nempe per id Deo quasi ob oculos ponentes egregia illa quae Sancti pro ejus gloria fecerunt, & passi sunt, ut inde facilius & libentius flectatur, ad ea quae petunt ab ipso largiendum.
Living ruled by Angels and blessed human spirits—Costerus: Saints as administrators of God’s goods§1528
1528Roman school: Angels and blessed human spirits both rule the living.
Costerus: reigning Saints administer earthly goods—compel the impious, rescue the pious—matching angelic wonders.
Latin · §1528
XLVIII. Praeterea statuunt Doctores Scholae Romanae, non solum ab Angelis, sed etiam a spiritibus beatorum hominum, regi & gubernari fideles viventes. Quod pluribus probare contendit Bellarminus de Sanctorum Beatitudine lib. 1. cap. 18. Similiter Costerus constare putat ex Scripturis Sanctos in caelo regnantes cum Christo haec terrena curare & administrare. Dari, scilicet, Sanctis authoritatem impios cogendi, cohibendi, puniendi, & pios ex ipsorum manibus eripiendi. Item eos esse bonorum Dei administratores. Addit Sanctos posse beneficio gloriae suae quicquid Reges potestate, quicquid opulenti divitiis, quicquid docti sapientia unquam praestare valeant. Si ergo Reges, inquit, exercitus hostiles profligant, divites egenis subveniunt, Medici arte curant; id praestare poterunt Sancti non minus, quam id praestiterunt Angeli, quorum unus 185. millia una nocte prostravit, alius Tobiae lumen reddidit, pecuniam a Gabello tulit, & nuptiis filii parentum pauperiem totamque familiam ditavit, tertius Petrum carcere liberavit, &c. In Enchiridio controversiarum cap. 12. in explicatione propositionis quartae.
Patron Saints by realm, craft, and need—Luke, Ivo, Crispin; sea, childbirth, plague, toothache§1529
1529Every realm, town, and craft keeps a singular patron Saint.
Luke for doctors, Ivo for lawyers, Crispin for shoemakers; James for Spain, Mark for Venice.
Special needs: Paul and Nicholas at sea; Margaret in childbirth; Roch in plague; Apollonia for toothache.
Latin · §1529
XLIX. Porro in Ecclesia Romana solenne est ut singula regna, Urbes atque pagi, singula quoque collegia, tum artificum, tum eorum qui honestioribus professionibus vacant, aliquem ex Sanctis habeant pro patrono quodam singulari, cujus tutelae sese peculiariter commendant. Sic Lucas Medicorum, Yvo Advocatorum, Crispinus Cerdonum Patroni habentur. Et Hispania Jacobum Apostolum, Dominium Venetorum Marcum Evangelistam sibi Patronos pridem asciverunt. Et ita de caeteris. Ac praeterea quoque mos est, ut in certis morbis, periculis, & necessitatibus, ad unum potius Sanctorum quam ad alium confugiatur. Sic qui in mari periclitantur implorant opem Pauli Apostoli, & Nicolai Myrensis Episcopi. Margareta parturientibus, Rochus laborantibus peste, Apollonia illis quos torquet dentium dolor, peculiari quadam ratione subvenire putantur.
Any Saint may aid any need; particular patrons arise from craft, death, gifts, miracles, or name-play§1530
1530Any Saint can intercede for any need; the faithful may approach any.
God did not fence offices so tightly—patrons stick by craft, martyrdom, gifts, miracles, or even name-affinity.
Luke for medicine; Paul and Nicholas for seafarers (Acts shipwreck; Myra miracle).
Latin · §1530
L. Monent tamen ejus Ecclesiae Doctores omnes Sanctos aequaliter pro quibuscunque necessitatibus intercedere posse; & liberum esse singulis fidelibus ad singulos Sanctos recurrere, ut eorum ope atque auxilio quaelibet bona sibi necessaria impetrent. Nec putandum Deum inter Sanctos sic officia divisisse, ut unius rei cura huic, aut illi demandata sit, aliis vero minime: Sed ad unum potius Sanctorum, quam ad alium, ab hominibus hujus, aut illius gentis & professionis, & in his atque illis necessitatibus recurri occasione sumpta, vel ex arte & professione quam exercuisse Sancti perhibentur; vel ex supplicii & mortis genere, quo vitam suam gloriose clauserunt, vel ex singularibus gratiae divinae donis, quibus eminuerunt, vel ex insigni aliquo miraculo, sive ante mortem, sive post mortem ab ipsis patrato, sive etiam simpliciter ex quadam vocum & nominum allusione & affinitate. Ut, exempli causa, Lucam Medici sibi patronum delegerunt, quia Medicinam ipse exercuit. Et qui navigant ad Paulum, & Nicolaum confugiunt, quia in gratiam Pauli, Deus ex naufragio servavit animas ducentas & septuaginta sex qui cum ipso navigabant; & similiter quia ad preces Nicolai Episcopi Myrensis Deus miraculose navem a naufragio servasse perhibetur. Ut videre est apud Cardinalem Perronium, in refutatione responsionis Regis Magnae Britanniae lib. 5. cap. 3. Et etiam apud Jaubertum Archiepiscopum Arelatensem tom. 2. contra Molinei Clypeum, c. 1. Sect. 24.
How to invoke: pray God to give/free; ask Saints to take patronage and obtain from God—Miserere vs Ora pro nobis§1531
1531Trent Catechism: God and Saints are not asked the same way.
Ask God to give goods or free from evils; ask Saints, gracious before God, to take patronage and obtain from Him.
Formulas: to God ‘Have mercy / Hear us’; to a Saint ‘Pray for us.’
Latin · §1531
LI. Atque haec quidem sunt quibus Scholae Romanae Doctores invocationem Sanctorum superstruunt. Caeterum quomodo Sancti sint invocandi, & quod discrimen sit inter invocationem illam, quam Deus sibi, ut propriam vindicat, & eam qua Sanctorum auxilium imploramus, sic exponit Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini editus. Non enim, inquit, eodem modo Deum, & Sanctos ejus imploramus. Nam precamur Deum ut ipse vel bona det, vel liberet a malis; a Sanctis autem, quia gratiosi sunt apud Deum, petimus ut nostri patrocinium suscipiant, ut nobis a Deo impetrent ea quorum indigemus. Hinc duas adhibemus formulas modo differentes: ad Deum enim proprie dicimus, Miserere nobis, Audi nos; ad Sanctum, Ora pro nobis. Catech. Rom. part. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 1. num. 3.
Bellarmino/Perron: no asking Saints as authors of grace—absolute prayer to God alone; relative ‘pray for us’ to Saints§1532
1532Bellarmino: never ask Saints as authors of glory or grace—only that they obtain from God.
Perron: absolute prayer (author of goods) for God alone; relative prayer (‘pray for us’) for Saints.
Latin · §1532
LII. Similiter haec est assertio Bellarmini, Non licet a Sanctis petere, ut nobis tanquam authores divinorum beneficiorum, gloriam, vel gratiam aliaque ad beatitudinem media concedant. Adeoque, juxta ipsum, nihil debemus a Sanctis petere, nisi ut a Deo impetrent quae nobis utilia sunt. De Sanct. beatitudine lib. 1. cap. 17. Cardinalis Perronius Priorem invocationem, qua aliquis invocatur, ut ipse bonorum author: orationem absolutam vocat: Posteriorem, qua aliquis rogatur, ut pro nobis oret, orationem relativam, quae scilicet, non in ipso, sed in Deo terminatur. Et priorem illam quoque soli Deo reservandam, sola vero posteriori apud Sanctos utendum docet. Adversus Regis Magnae Britanniae responsum lib. 5. cap. 1.
Yet public hymns and litanies ask Mary to pity, free, and give goods—not merely to pray§1533
1533Public hymns still ask Mary to pity, free, and confer goods—not only to pray.
Ave Maris Stella, Alma Redemptoris, and Bonaventure-style litanies even say ‘Spare us / Free us, Lady’ and ‘Have mercy.’
Latin · §1533
LIII. Veruntamen in publico Ecclesiae cultu, orationes multae ad Sanctos diriguntur, in quibus non simpliciter rogantur, ut pro nobis orent, sed ut nostri misereantur, nosque liberent a malis corporis & animae, ac ea bona quibus egemus donent. Sic in hymno qui incipit, Lux Mundi Beatissima, haec ad Beatam Virginem dicuntur: Te adesse deposcimus, Supplicibus nunc vocibus, Jam veni dulcis Domina, Nostra tolle incommoda, Dona confer caelestia. Et in hymno, Ave Maris Stella, ad eandem haec habetur Oratio, Virgo singularis, Inter omnes mitis, Nos culpis solutos, Mites fac & castos. Vitam praesta puram, Iter para tutum, Ut videntes Jesum, Semper collaetemur. In hymno quoque Memento salutis author haec leguntur, Maria Mater gratiae, Mater Misericordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege, Et hora mortis suscipe. Denique in Antiphona, Alma Redemptoris mater, sic compellatur eadem Maria, Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore Sumens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere. In Litaniis vero, non usu publico Ecclesiae Rom. receptis, sed Bonaventurae Psalterio adjectis, & in usum plebis Romanae editis, postquam saepius Beatae Virgini sub variis titulis & Elogiis invocatae dictum est, Ora pro Nobis, tandem illi quoque dicitur Propitia esto, Parce nobis Domina, Ab omni malo, libera nos Domina, Ab ira Dei & indignatione ejus, A periculosa desperatione, A superbia praecipitante, A luxuria deturbante, &c. Libera nos Domina. Veni, Peccatores, Te rogamus Audi nos, Ut Sanctam Ecclesiam piissima Domina conservare digneris, Te Rogamus audi nos. Denique dicitur illi Mater cum Filio tuo sanctissimo, Miserere nobis, Mater charissima Domina, Miserere nobis. In Psalterio Dominae nostrae Gallice edito Parisiis apud Claudium Chappelet Anno 1601.
Hymns to John the Baptist and John the Apostle ask cleansing, healing, and vision of the Word§1534
1534Baptist hymns beg pity, loosing of faults, and cleansing of polluted lips.
Apostle John is asked to lift plague and scandal and grant sight of the Word’s face.
Latin · §1534
LIV. Similiter his verbis incipit Hymnus quidam de Johanne Baptista, Baptista Christi inclyte, Qui Christum prodis indice, Nos miserando respice, Culpas solve nostras, Ablue. Et in alio Hymno ad eundem dicitur, Solve polluti labii reatum Sancte Johannes. Ad Joannem autem Apostolum haec habetur oratio: Te rogamus, te precamur, Sancte Dei Apostole, Tolle pestem, aufer ulcus, & foveto languidos: Pelle morbum, cede hostem, & remove scandalum. Et in alio Hymno Eidem Joanni dicitur, Te promis alme cordibus, Caeli senator poscimus: Da Verbi vultum cernere, Qui Verbum doces credere.
Martin, Benedict, Nicholas hymns: foster prelates, clothe with justice, grant perennial kingdoms and life’s aid§1535
1535Martin’s hymn asks him to foster the feast, clarify prelates, and clothe us as he once shared his cloak.
Benedict: help climb the narrow way to perennial kingdoms; Nicholas: strip death’s losses and grant life’s aid unto glory.
Latin · §1535
LV. Ad Sanctum quoque Martinum cani solet hic hymnus, Martine par Apostolis, Festum colentes tu fove, Qui vivere Discipulos Vis aut mori, nostros respice. Fac ut quod olim gesseras, Nunc praesules clarifica, Auge decus Ecclesiae, Fraudes elude Satanae. Qui ter Chaos eviceras, Mersos reatu suscita: Diviseras ut Chlamydem, Nos indue justitia. Denique Sancto Benedicto dicitur in hymno de ejus translatione, Angustum per iter scandere largiens, Dona regna perennia. Et in hymno de Sancto Nicolao qui incipit, Exultet aula caelica, haec dirigitur ad ipsum precatio, O Venerande Pontifex, Pius nec tardus opifex, Cunctis qui corde credulo, Te quaerunt in periculo, Aufer mortis dispendia, Confer vitae subsidia; Ut post carnis exilia, Tecum simus in gloria.
Bellarmino reconciles bold verbs: ‘save me / give me’ mean by praying and merits, not as author§1536
1536Bellarmino: the ban is on sense, not wording.
You may say ‘Save me / Give me’ to a Saint if you mean by his prayers and merits—not as author of the gift.
Latin · §1536
LVI. Ut autem istas preces, & plures alias similes, quae sunt in Ecclesia Romanae usitate, Bellarminus cum supra posita doctrina conciliet, notat, quum dixit, non debere peti a Sanctis, nisi ut orent pro nobis, se non agere de verbis, sed de sensu verborum. Nam quantum ad verba, inquit, licet dicere, Sancte Petre miserere mei, Salva me, aperi mihi aditum caeli: item Da mihi sanitatem corporis, da patientiam, da mihi fortitudinem, &c. dummodo intelligamus, salva me, & miserere mei, orando pro me; Da mihi hoc, & illud tuis precibus & meritis. De Sanctor. Beatitudine lib. 1. cap. 17.
Roman Catechism correction: one may also ask Saints themselves to pity and help by grace and deprecation§1537
1537After ‘Ora pro nobis,’ the Catechism corrects: you may also ask Saints themselves to pity you.
Moved by our misery, they help before God by their grace and prayer.
Latin · §1537
LVII. Et similiter Catechesis Romana, postquam dixit ad Deum dici Miserere nobis, ad Sanctum, Ora pro nobis, per correctionem quandam, ut mentem suam explicet, subjungit, Quanquam etiam licet alia quadam ratione petere a Sanctis ipsis ut nostri misereantur: sunt enim maxime misericordes: itaque possumus precari eos, ut conditionis nostrae miseria permoti, sua nos apud Deum gratia, & deprecatione juvent.
Bellarmino’s ‘by praying only’ sense fails prayers that ask by command, precept, and power§1538
1538Bellarmino’s ‘they only pray it in’ reading does not fit public texts.
Some hymns ask Saints to act by command, precept, and power—not merely by obtaining.
Latin · §1538
LVIII. Verum modo allati Bellarmini expositio, qua dicit preces ad Sanctos conceptas, quibuscunque verbis exprimantur, hunc sensum habere, secundum Ecclesiae Romanae mentem, ut Sancti quae postulantur, praestent orando, atque impetrando, non alia vero ratione: haec, inquam, expositio non satis quadrat illis ad Sanctos orationibus, in quibus non simpliciter rogantur ut peccata solvant, corda sanctificent, & caelum aperiant, sed ut id faciant jussu, praecepto, potestate: quales orationes in publico cultu Ecclesiae Romanae non paucae reperiuntur.
Apostles’ and Peter’s hymns: ‘loose us by command’; Peter binds and opens heaven by word§1539
1539Apostles’ hymn: shut/open heaven by word; loose sins ‘by command.’
Peter is asked to loose sin-bonds by the power given him; the Baptist to clear the heart’s hard stones by his merits.
Latin · §1539
LIX. Sic in hymno qui incipit Exultet caelum laudibus, ad Apostolos dicitur, Qui caelum verbo clauditis, Serasque ejus solvistis, Nos a peccatis omnibus, Solvite jussi, quaesumus. Quorum praecepto subditur Salus & languor omnium, Sanate egros moribus, Nos reddentes virtutibus. Quibus consona sunt illa quae in Breviario ad Apostolos eosdem dici solent, Qui templa caeli clauditis, Serasque verbo solvitis, Nos a reatu noxio, Solvi jubete, quaesumus. Praecepta quorum protinus, Languor salusque sentiunt, Sanate mentes languidas, Augete nos virtutibus. Ad Petrum vero speciatim concipitur haec precatio: Jam bone Pastor Petre, clemens accipe Vota precantum, & peccati vincula Resolve tibi potestate tradita, Qua cunctis caelum verbo claudis, aperis. Quo pertinet etiam illud ad Joannem Baptistam: Nunc potens nostri meritis opem Pectoris duros lapides, repelle, Asperum planans iter & reflexos Dirige calles, Ubi Sanctus ille rogatur, ut ista nobis praestet, tanquam potens nostri per merita sua effectus.
Reason: what God grants by prayer is not done by Saintly command—authors treat Saints as sub-God givers (Costerus)§1540
1540Reason: God’s gifts answered by prayer are not done by a Saint’s command.
Hymn authors treat Saints as under-God givers and administrators—Costerus: ask them both to intercede and to help.
His Ave Maris Stella gloss: loose by prayers, merits, authority, empire.
Latin · §1540
LX. Certe ratio non patitur, ut quae precibus a Deo impetramus, ea dicamus facere jussu, potestate, praecepto. Ac proinde precum illarum authores aliud sibi voluisse videntur, quam ut simpliciter a Sanctis peterent, ut bona quae ipsos rogabant, precibus suis a Deo impetrarent; ac videntur Sanctos habuisse, non tantum pro suis apud Deum intercessoribus, sed etiam pro bonorum illorum, sub Deo, largitoribus, ac administratoribus; quales etiam Costerus, loco supra citato, testatur illos se existimare, asserens Sanctos esse administratores bonorum Dei. Unde postea concludit, Sanctos esse rogandos, tum ut pro nobis apud Deum intercedant, tum ut ipsi nobis opitulentur. Enchirid. cap. 12. in expositione quintae propositionis. Juxta quod idem Costerus scribens in hymnum, Ave Maris Stella, in verba istius hymni, solve vincla reis, hac utitur glossa, Solve precibus, solve meritis, solve authoritate, solve imperio. Externa omnia vincula solo nutu & voluntate removere potes. Et alia ejusdem hymni verba Mala nostra pelle, explicans: Mala igitur, inquit, nostra pelle oratione, meritis, potestate.
Much cult is titles and eulogies—Mary called Queen, Door of heaven, Refuge of sinners, ‘by thee the world is saved’§1541
1541Much Roman Saint-cult is piled titles and eulogies—especially Mary’s.
She is absolute Queen, Door of heaven, Refuge of sinners, Help of Christians.
Hymns even say: through her the world is saved and life given.
Latin · §1541
LXI. Praeterea bona pars cultus quem Sanctis deferre solent in Ecclesia Romana consistit in laudibus, titulis, atque elogiis, quibus illos ornare intendunt, quaeque in suis precibus & hymnis, ac quibuslibet suae devotionis libris magno studio accumulant. Quo genere honoris Beatam praecipue Virginem prosequuntur. Itaque passim illam in suis hymnis atque Litaniis vocant absolute Reginam, & Dominam. Reginam coeli, Reginam & Dominam mundi: Reginam Angelorum: Imo Monarcham inclytam. Vocant illam matrem Misericordiae, Matrem gratiae, & Fontem omni gratia scatentem. Item, Januam coeli, Foelicem caeli portam, Foenicem Paradisi, Foederis arcam, Stellam Maris, Stellam Matutinam, Salutem infirmorum, Refugium peccatorum, Auxilium Christianorum, Lucem mundi pellentem cuncta schismata. Ibidem salutatur, spes mundi, spes & vita nostra, & lux cuncta schismata & quaeque nubila pellens. Illi etiam dicitur: Per te Mundus salvatus est: Per te sursum levatus est: Per te jam mors damnata est: Per te vita donata est. Quorum singulorum exempla reperiuntur, tum in ordinariis Sanctae Virginis Litaniis, tum in hymnis Ecclesiasticis, cum libro Psalmorum impressis Parisiis apud Gulielmum Chaudiere anno 1582. Ubi quoque reperiuntur hymni superius citati.
Paris Breviary Assumption: Mary alone slew heresies; Bellatrix who crushes the serpent; Mediatrix hymns§1542
1542Paris Assumption texts: Mary alone slew all heresies; near God of hosts she is ‘our Bellatrix’ who crushes the serpent.
Philip of Valois vowed horse and arms to her after Flanders.
Public hymn: Mediatrix, washer of crimes; Bonaventure litanies: Salvation and Beatitude.
Latin · §1542
LXII. Praeterea in Breviario Parisiensi, in Festo Assumptionis, eidem Virgini dicitur, Gaude Virgo Maria cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo. Et secunda die infra octavam Assumptionis, de eadem haec verba leguntur, Illa est quae proxime juncta Deo exercituum, meretur & ipsa suo modo, exercituum & virtutum potens vocari. Haec est nostra Bellatrix, de qua serpenti antiquo dictum est: Ipsa conteret caput tuum. Quo nomine postea narratur Rex Philippus Valesius, qui insignem victoriam de rebellibus Flandris obtinuerat, equum & arma in quibus vicerat gloriosissimae Virgini devovisse. Denique extat hymnus in fine operum Almaini, quem studiose testatur in Ecclesia Romana publice cani, in quo haec dicuntur ad Mariam Virginem, Mediatrix hominum, Ablutrix criminum, Consolatrix omnium, Peccatorum venia, Munda sordes scelerum. Ac in Litaniis illis Bonaventurae Psalterio adjectis, quarum supra facta mentio est, Virgo Maria vocatur Salus & Beatitudo, ac Cordium illuminatrix.
Private doctors pile titles: Viegas, Voragine, Costerus, Salazar, Mendoza—Queen by natural maternal right§1543
1543Private doctors escalate: prince of all creatures; ruler in heaven, world, and hell; Queen of Queens.
Salazar/Mendoza: proper Queen and Empress by natural maternal right—not metaphor—plus spiritual empire over souls.
Latin · §1543
LXIII. Privati vero Doctores certatim conantur istis elogiis aliquid addere, novasque laudes, ac novos titulos excogitant, quibus Beatam Virginem extollant. Sic Viegas in Apocalypsin dicit illam esse principem & dominam omnium creaturarum. Jacobus de Voragine illam in coelo, in mundo, & in inferno dominari. Costerus illam esse Reginarum Reginam, & absolute Reginam appellari tanquam omnium locorum, & omnium creaturarum. Qui sub nomine Anselmi de Beatae Virginis Excellentiis scripsit, Mariam esse Dominam summam, & unicam Dominatricem coeli & terrae. Salazar vero Jesuita Virginem Deiparam vere & proprie, & non per similitudinem Reginam & supernam Imperatricem esse, ex eo quia mater est summi Regis & Imperatoris rerum omnium: non electione aliqua aut privilegio, sed jure ipso naturali. Mendoza similiter hoc Virginis imperium, non esse Metaphoricum sed proprium ac Germanum, ex materna dignitate deductum. Nec solum illam esse Reginam orbis, sed orbis Reges facere. Denique jam dictus Salazar illam esse Reginam ob politicum & civile imperium: Dominam ob directum dominium rerum omnium, & Heram ob potestatem in servos & mancipia. Eamque jure divino spirituale animarum imperium adeptam esse.
Empire even over reigning Christ—old rhythmic prose and Paris Missal: ‘by mother’s right command the Redeemer’§1544
1544They claim empire not only over creatures but over Christ reigning in glory.
Old rhythmic prose and Paris Missal: mother stands over the Son—‘by mother’s right command the Redeemer.’
Latin · §1544
LXIV. Neque tantum creaturas omnes Virgini tanquam Dominae proprie dictae subjiciunt, sed etiam imperium & authoritatem illi tribuunt in ipsum Christum jam gloriose in coelo Regnantem. Quo spectat vetus illa prosa Rhythmica, a nostris saepius citata, Gaude Matrona caelica, Tu ancillam Jesu Christi, Te vocare noli, Sed ut docet lex divina, Tu illius es Domina. Nam lex docet & ratio; Matrem praeesse Filio. Ergo ora suppliciter, Et praecipe sublimiter, Ut nos in mundi Vespere, Ad regna ducat suprema. Quibus concinunt illa veteri Missali Parisiensi inserta, O felix puerpera, Nostra pians scelera, Jure matris impera Redemptori.
Though erased from some Missals, doctors still defend: Damian, Albert, Pelbart, Bustis—Virgin’s empire even over God§1545
1545Erased from some Missals, restored in others—and many doctors still defend the claim.
Damian: she commands at God’s tribunal as Lady not handmaid; Albert: prays as daughter, commands as mother.
Bustis: ‘By the Virgin’s empire all things serve—even God.’
Latin · §1545
LXV. Ac quanquam ista fuerint ex Missalibus quibusdam erasa, in aliis non ita pridem excusis reposita sunt, & rem ipsam probant ac tuentur non pauci Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae. Sic Cardinalis Damianus de Maria Virgine postea: Accedit, inquit, ad illud aureum divinae majestatis tribunal, non rogans, sed imperans, Domina non ancilla. Sic Albertus Magnus in iis quae Biblia Mariae dicuntur, Maria, inquit, orat ut filia, jubet ut soror, imperat ut mater. Sic Pelbartus Temeswariensis, Vere igitur maximum dominium Beatae Virginis, quae non solum creaturis, sed etiam ipsi Deo tanquam mater filio principatur. Item, Pro salute supplicantium sibi, non solum potest filio supplicare, aliorum Sanctorum more, sed etiam potest filio authoritate materna imperare. Ideo sic Ecclesia orat, Monstra te esse matrem, Quasi diceret Virgini, Imperiose & materna authoritate supplica pro nobis. Sic Denique Bernardinus de Bustis, apud quem haec verba leguntur, Haec est vera propositio, Domini imperio omnia famulantur etiam & Virgo, Et iterum haec est vera, imperio Virginis omnia famulantur etiam Deus.
Modern Jesuits unashamed: Costerus, Salazar, de Argento—maternal power over Christ; Mary as Domina Dei§1546
1546Recent Jesuits double down: Costerus—mother heard by authority, not as a servant.
Salazar: lasting maternal/royal power over Christ, used especially when she intercedes.
De Argento: throne above God’s; title Domina Dei—God subjected to her dominion.
Latin · §1546
LXVI. Nec etiam istorum recentiores pudet. Testis sit Franciscus Costerus Jesuita, qui sic Virginem alloquitur, Alii omnes precantur ut servi; tu ut mater authoritatem habens, exaudiris pro tua reverentia. Item, Quid enim est matrem esse Dei? mater causa est filii; mater est superior filio; matri debetur honor a filio; matri tenetur morem gerere filius. Testis sit quoque Jesuita Salazar, cui constare videtur Virginem sanctissimam patriam in filium potestatem obtinuisse, ne quid universalem ejus ditionem efugeret. Et Mariam jure materno, quadam supra Christum potestate regia fuisse gavisam. Atque adeo Christum Deum & hominem, fuisse aliquid illius proprium, sub illius patria potestate & quasi Dominio constitutum, non alio modo quam alios filios. Neque enim verisimile esse ratione divinitatis, cui humana natura erat sociata, Christum a patria potestate emancipatum fuisse, quam alii parentes jure naturali obtinent in filios. Quin putat hoc jus etiamnum apud Sanctam Virginem manere, illamque eo adhuc saepius uti. Sane, inquit, Virgo Sanctissima hoc jure & potestate sua saepius usa est: Sed tum maxime, quum apud filium pro nobis intercedit. Testis denique sit P. de Argento etiam ipse Jesuita, cujus ista verba citantur de Beata Virgine, Quasi sexus conditionis oblita, in filium Dominium suscipiens, supra ipsum Dei thronum solium suum collocavit. Et hic praeterea, quibus sentire se & nunc adhuc Mariae servire, Domine Jesu Salvator amabilissime permitte me aliquid matri tuae praestare. Et si non vis hoc mihi credere saltem permitte te, ut dum matri tuae servis ego serviam tibi. Unde est quod inter Beatae Virginis excellentias hunc titulum ponit, quod sit Domina Dei. Haec est, inquit, suprema Beatissimae Virginis dignitas; Haec summa & adoranda ejus potestas, ut Deus subjiciatur illi & ipsa in illum Dominium habeat.
Dea title in poems and prose—Lipsius, Mendoza, Catharinus, Bembo; Bustis prefer ‘Queen of mercy’§1547
1547Many even give Mary the name Goddess—in verse (Lipsius) and prose (Mendoza, Beroaldus, Catharinus).
Bembo for Leo X speaks of ‘the Goddess’ at Loreto; Bustis allow ‘Goddess of Goddesses’ but prefer Queen of mercy.
Latin · §1547
LXVII. Neque solum omnium Domina & Regina in Ecclesia Romana Sancta Virgo dicitur, sed ipsum Deae nomen a multis illi tribuitur. Frequens id est in sacris eorum Poematis, ut in illo Lipsii, Hae tibi laudes Dea dicet omnis, Sexus & aetas. Item, An sudat Dea sanguinem hoc in aevo. Et in illo Caesaris, Nec terra ad superos trade Dea calle secundo, & pluribus aliis. Sed & illi qui scribunt oratione soluta non raro Deae nomen Beatae Virgini tribuunt. Sic Mendoza Jesuita dicit, per Orationem Virginem fieri universae tanquam Deam creaturae. Sic Philippus Beroaldus, Quid majus, inquit, in laudem Deae nostrae dicitur, quam quod materno affectu & indulgentia nos foveat? Sic Ambrosius Catharinus unus ex Patribus Synodi Tridentinae, aliquid ex Augustino citans, Verbum protulit, inquit, Augustinus pro Domina Dea nostra, quod non pigebit referre. Verum, Non hominem dici eam sit fas quae mater est Dei, quae amicta sole & coronata duodecim stellis lunam habet sub pedibus. O Dea certe quae adeo particeps fuisti divinitatis, ut sola servata sis tanquam paradisus Dei, Dei manibus excolendus. Quin ipse Cardinalis Bembus nomine Leonis X. ad quandam Italiae civitatem scribens, monet ut meliora ligna in usum aedis Lauretanae donent, Ne tum nos, inquit, tum etiam Deam ipsam, indigna inutilium lignorum donatione lusisse videamini. Antoninus vero & Bernardinus de Bustis, saepe Beatam Virginem Deam Dearum recte dici posse, sed in solatium peccatorum, eam tamen dici malunt Reginam misericordiae.
Alexis de Salo & Tanner: God in the Virgin not only by essence/power/presence or grace but by Identity§1548
1548Alexis de Salo and Tanner: God dwells in Mary beyond essence, power, presence, or grace—by Identity.
Latin · §1548
LXVIII. Eo quoque referri potest quod dicunt Alexis de Salo & Tanner de Argento, Deum esse in Virgine, non solum per essentiam, potentiam, & praesentiam, ut in caeteris creaturis; nec solum per gratiam, ut in anima justi: sed modo longe excellentiori, id est, per Identitatem.
Marian dominion is real power: she dispenses all grace—Salazar, Lapide, Pelbart as treasurer of divine gifts§1549
1549Marian dominion is real power, not an empty title—she dispenses God’s grace to all.
Salazar: every grace-flow via Mary as moon; Lapide: treasurer of divine graces; Pelbart: no Spirit-gift without her dispensation.
Latin · §1549
LXIX. Porro Dominium istud quod Virgini tribuunt, juxta ipsorum doctrinam, non est nomen inane, aut solum titulus quidam honorarius, sed vera & realis potestas, quam multis modis erga genus humanum, exercere censetur. Etenim illam esse dicunt quae Dei gratiam & dona varia caeteris omnibus dispensat. Ita Jesuita Salazar affirmat omnem gratiae & auxilii defluxum, media Virgine, ceu luna, ad nos deportari: & cuncta bona spiritualia in potestate Virginis & arbitrio esse. Imo, si fides illi habenda est, Fideles, quamdiu agunt in mundo, utero suo bajulat Virgo, qui nihil boni spiritus seu inspirationis hauriunt quod non illis inspiret Maria. Liceat sic dicere Omnes Mariae filii sunt. Conforme est quod dicit Cornelius de Lapide illam esse gratiarum divinarum thesaurariam. Et Christum in ea totius boni plenitudinem posuisse, eo quod nihil Dominus nos habere voluit, quod per ejus manus non transiret. Similia docet Pelbartus, nimirum Mariam esse dispensatricem omnis gratiae, illamque jurisdictionem & authoritatem obtinuisse in omni processione temporali Spiritus Sancti: ita quod nulla creatura aliquam gratiam, vel virtutem Spiritus Sancti obtinuit nisi secundum ipsius dispensationem. Adeoque, si ipsi creditur, Omnia dona, omnes virtutes & gratiae, & omnia bona, quibus vult, quando vult, quomodo vult, & quantum vult, per manus ipsius administrantur.
Mary as God’s cellarer and neck of the body—Salazar: other Saints’ influx only as moon mediating§1550
1550Bustis: God made Mary His cellarer—nothing reaches us but by her hands.
Alexis: she is the Church’s neck and grace-basin; Osorius: every good hangs on her.
Salazar: other Saints’ help only through Mary as mediating moon.
Latin · §1550
LXX. Propterea Bernardinus ille de Bustis saepius nominatus, dicit Deum fecisse Virginem Cellariam suam: quia in tantum eam Deus dilexit, ut nihil nos habere voluerit, quod per manus ejus non transiret. Unde est quod Alexis de Salo dicit Virginem Mariam esse collum, per quod servator noster qui caput est, in Ecclesiam influit omnem motum & sensum spiritualem; esse truncum per quem radix vitam ramis suppeditat, & flores, fructus, ac folia producit. Et pelvim quae abundantiam vivarum gratiae aquarum excipit, easque per suos canales aliis distribuit secundum uniuscujusque meritum & capacitatem. Quod suo calculo confirmat Osorius Jesuita, dicens omne bonum nostrum a Virgine pendere. Et filium, ut mater honoretur, omnem dispensationem gratiae ei commisisse. Quinimo decernit Salazar reliquos omnes Sanctos nihil posse, nihilque boni ab eis defluere, nisi Virgine ceu luna intercedente, atque illorum influxus moderante.
Even temporal goods: Salazar’s householder analogy—Mary holds the keys of worldly expenses§1551
1551Not only spiritual goods: Salazar compares Mary to a trusted wife holding the household keys.
God gives her guardianship of temporal goods—worldly outlays pass through her hands.
Latin · §1551
LXXI. Neque id tantum de bonis spiritualibus intelligi volunt, sed etiam de temporalibus. Sic enim idem Salazar ea de re Philosophatur, solent, inquit, viri generosi & uxorum amantes, eisdemque plurimum fidentes, pecuniae claves & tutelam eis committere, & quicquid domesticarum expensarum est eis tradere: ipsi vero aliis gravioribus muneribus vacant. Ergo ad eundem modum Deus Opt. Max. sanctissimae sponsae suae Mariae tantundem tribuit, ac fidit, ut ipsi temporalium bonorum tutelam, & claves dederit; adeo ut quicquid horum bonorum, in hac magna mundi domo expenditur, id per Mariae manus recensitum transeat, illius arbitrio distribuatur.
Some say Mary made and governs the world—Biel, Alanus, Salazar after Bonaventure§1552
1552Some go further: Mary as cause who made, conserves, and governs the world.
Biel and Alanus speak so; Salazar after Bonaventure: by her disposition the world she founded with God perseveres.
Latin · §1552
LXXII. Quin eo usque nonnulli progrediuntur in Ecclesia Romana, ut dicant Mariam esse rerum causam, & mundum fecisse, eumque conservare & gubernare. Quippe haec sunt verba Gabrielis Biel, Ad illam enim, scilicet Mariam, sicut ad medium, sicut ad arcam Dei, sicut ad veram causam, sicut ad negotium saeculorum respiciunt, & qui in caelo habitant: & qui in inferno: qui nos praecesserunt: & qui nos sumus: & qui sequentur: & Nati natorum, & qui nascentur ab illis. Et de eadem Alanus, qui ut Sanctus colitur, totidem verbis dicit, Haec Maria est omnium Domina, quae mundum fecit universum, & quae in eo sunt omnia conservat & gubernat. Idcirco Salazar post Bonaventuram, non veretur virgini dicere, Dispositione tua Virgo sanctissima perseverat mundus, quem & tu cum Deo ab initio fundasti.
Bernardinus of Siena: Mary did more for God than God for man—Rivet and Drelincourt collect the sayings§1553
1553Bernardinus of Siena: Mary did more for God than God for humankind—so God is much obliged to us for her sake.
Rivet and Drelincourt gather such sayings; Le Blanc sends the curious reader there.
Latin · §1553
LXXIII. Neque haec adhuc videntur ipsis satis. Addunt Virginem plus fecisse Deo, quam videtur ipse Deus fecisse generi humano. Postquam enim Bernardinus alter, nempe Senensis, qui fuit in numerum Sanctorum relatus, longam comparationem inter Deum & Beatam Virginem instituit, concludit tandem his verbis, Reddendo ergo singula singulis scilicet quod fecit Deus homini, & quod fecit Beata Virgo ipsi Deo, videtis, ut pro solatio dicere liceat, quod plus Maria Deo, quam ipse Deus homini fecit: Unde Deus propter Virginem obligatur nobis plurimum. Quae pluribus deducta, & suis locis citata videre est, apud Andream Rivetum, lib. 2. Apologiae pro Sanctissima Virgine Maria. Et apud Carolum Drelincourtium libris accurate & prolixe scriptis de Honore Beatae Virgini Mariae debito: ex quibus haec modo de multis excerpta sunt: & ad quos curiosum lectorem remittimus, si cui plura hujusmodi legere, & apud authores inquirere libeat.
Private only, yet not disapproved: sainted speakers, approved books, pastors fostering popular devotion§1554
1554These sayings are private, not conciliar definitions—yet Rome does not disapprove.
Evidence: the harshest speakers are canonized; books carry episcopal and even papal approbation; pastors foster them in popular devotion.
Latin · §1554
LXXIV. Caeterum ista quidem a privatis tantum Doctoribus dicuntur: nec sunt authoritate publica definita, verum ea Ecclesia Romana non improbari, non pauca nec levia manifestum faciunt. Et primo quidem hoc inde colligitur, quod qui durius sunt ea de re locuti, in Sanctorum numero habentur, ut Bernardinus Senensis, Antoninus, Alanus, Bonaventura. Non leve quoque hujus rei indicium est, quod libri in quibus talia leguntur, sunt plerique Doctorum atque Episcoporum approbatione muniti, imo nonnulli Pontificum ipsorum. Praesertim vero quod ista magno studio inserta sunt & diligenter inculcata libris qui in manus populi traduntur, & devotionis plebis fovendae destinati sunt, idque non prohibentibus, neque reclamantibus, sed potius aperte faventibus Episcopis, & reliquis Pastoribus.
When Protestants object, grave Romans excuse rather than openly damn—Bellarmino, Richelieu, Camus§1555
1555Protestant objections meet excuse, not open damnation, from heavy Roman names.
Bellarmino, Richelieu, and Camus vs Drelincourt illustrate the pattern.
Latin · §1555
LXXV. Praeterea hujus rei argumentum est, quod quum Protestantes ista objiciunt, viris in Ecclesia Romana gravibus, & magni nominis, ea nolunt aperte damnare; sed modis omnibus excusare conantur: ut videre est apud Cardinales, Bellarminum, atque Richelium. Et apud Petrum le Camus, Episcopum illum multitudine scriptorum, ante paucos annos, celebrem, in sua collatione cum Carolo Drelincourtio, circa honorem Beatae Virgini Mariae debitum.
Expurgatory Indices leave Marian extremes untouched while cutting Augustine’s anti-temple-to-Saints lines§1556
1556Expurgatory Indices scrub suspects—but leave these Marian extremes untouched.
They even cut Augustine’s lines against temples to Saints/Angels, while Bernardinus, Bembo, Costerus, Catharinus pass.
Latin · §1556
LXXVI. Denique idem probant Indices expurgatorii, qui accurate notant & deleri quoque jubent quae suspecta, aut etiam ambigua videntur, in scriptoribus Ecclesiae Romanae: Et tamen intacta sinunt quae in hoc negotio, scandalum Reformatis movent, & quotidie ab illis observantur & objiciuntur, ut modum & rationem omnem longe excedentia. Nec enim quae ex Bernardino, Bembo, Costero, Catharino, citavimus, ulla censura notantur in Indicibus expurgatoriis. Qui tamen Indices jubent, ex Indicibus Augustini deleri sequentes propositiones, Sanctis nec templa statuimus, nec sacrificia. Templa Angelis non sunt constituenda. Sanctis aedificare templa non licet. Templa creaturis aedificare sacrilegium est. Unde merito colligimus illis quibus censura librorum in Ecclesia Romana commissa est, has quidem propositiones aut improbari aut suspectas esse; minime vero illas de quibus jam agimus, & in quibus elogia supra citata B. Virgini tribuuntur.
Relics and images deferred; of faith that Saints may be invoked—yet not necessary that each Catholic actually invoke them (Holden)§1557
1557Relics and images matter most for Saint-honor but are reserved for a later dispute.
Of faith: Saints may be licitly invoked—yet not that every Catholic must actually invoke them.
Holden: invocation is useful, not a binding actual duty; some Catholics are saved who never invoked Saints.
Romana closes at LXXVII; next frontier is Pars Secunda (Reformata).
Latin · §1557
LXXVII. Porro ad honorem Sanctorum in Ecclesia Romana, maxime facere videtur cultus qui defertur eorum reliquiis, & imagines quae illorum locis sacris statuuntur, & variis modis coluntur, sed ista speciali disputationi reservare visum est. Hic solum monendum superest rem quidem esse de fide in Ecclesia Romana, ut credamus Sanctos licite & pie invocari posse: caeterum fatentur non esse necesse, ut fideles singuli Sanctos orent & invocent: posse enim aliquem ad salutem pervenire, Deum per Christum invocando, absque tali invocatione. Ut videre est apud Henricum Holden de resolutione fidei lib. 2. cap. 7. Profitemur quidem, inquit, posse Sanctos haud inutiliter invocari: sed teneri Catholicos omnes ad actuale hujusmodi invocationis exercitium, nullatenus tanquam veritatem Christianam asserimus. Poterunt namque salvari, imo & reipsa salvantur forsan aliqui Catholici, qui Sanctos in caelo coronatos nunquam invocaverunt.
Sum of the Roman doctrine: a middle cult between divine majesty and merely civil honor§1558
1558Le Blanc opens Pars Secunda by compressing the Roman account he has already given.
Rome, on that account, assigns angels and canonized people a middle honor.
That honor sits above civic respect for outstanding neighbors and below the worship God's majesty requires.
The lower comparison is with rank, power, and natural gifts, not with anything beyond nature.
Latin · §1558
I. Thesibus superioribus, quam breviter & dilucide a nobis fieri potuit, exposuimus doctrinam Ecclesiae & Scholae Romanae, circa Angelorum & hominum Sanctorum cultum & venerationem. Eorum autem quae paulo fusius a nobis dicta sunt haec summa est. Ecclesiam Romanam Angelis & hominibus Sanctis cultum aliquem deferre, qui medius est inter eum quem Dei Majestas exigit, & eum qui debetur illis, qui inter homines caeteros eminent, vel dignitate ac potestate civili, vel donis, virtute, ac praestantia quadam, quae tamen ordinem naturae non excedunt.
Roman cult of Saints is analogical, and only loosely called religious or adoration§1559
1559Rome does not put Saint-honor in the same univocal class as worship that belongs to God alone.
The link is analogy, not identity of kind.
Religious and adoration may be used of it only in a looser, less proper sense.
In the stricter use, adoration stays reserved for God.
Latin · §1559
II. Cultum eum non contineri sub eodem univoco genere cum eo qui Deo proprius est, sed cum eo solum quandam analogiam habere. Illum tamen posse religiosum dici, non proprie & stricte loquendo, sed latiori & minus propria significatione. Et similiter illi accommodari posse adorationis nomen, licet adoratio saepe ad cultum Deo proprium restringatur.
Latria and dulia, with hyperdulia for Mary, though Scripture does not keep the distinction exactly§1560
1560The Schools coined Latria for worship of God and Dulia for honor of holy angels and people.
Dulia is then split: Hyperdulia for the Blessed Virgin, and Dulia in the strict sense for the other Saints.
They admit Scripture itself does not keep that Latria–Dulia split with exactness.
Latin · §1560
III. Ut vero cultus ille facilius posset a divino distingui, Scholas utrumque cultum proprio quodam nomine signavisse: & divino cultui quidem Latriae vocem, illi vero qui Sanctis Angelis & hominibus debetur, Dulia nomen appropriavisse. Quae Dulia rursus distinguitur in Hyperduliam, quae Beatae Virgini, & Duliam proprie sic dictam, quae Sanctis reliquis competit: quamvis agnoscant in Scripturae usu discrimen istud inter Latriam & Duliam exacte non servari.
Interior acts differ easily from divine worship; exterior signs mostly do not, except sacrifice§1561
1561On Rome's account, inward acts of Saint-honor are easy to tell apart from inward worship of God.
Outward signs are mostly shared by both cults.
The stated exception is sacrifice, together with altars, temples, and priests that belong to it.
Latin · §1561
IV. Caeterum honorem illum quem Sanctis deberi contendunt, a divino quoad actus internos multum distare, & facile distingui posse: non item vero quoad actus externos, & externa cultus & honoris signa, quae pleraque communiter in cultu Dei & Sanctorum adhibent, excepto sacrificio, & quae ad sacrificium proprie referuntur, qualia sunt arae, templa, sacerdotes.
No sacrifice to a creature, yet Masses in Saints' honor that commend the offering by their merits§1562
1562Rome refuses a sacrifice properly so called to any creature.
It still honors saints by offering sacrifice to God in their name.
The Mass does more than give thanks: the saint is invoked, and Christ's body and blood, as they hold it, is commended to God by that saint's merits and prayers.
The secret prayers of Andrew and James are cited as the working formulas.
Latin · §1562
V. Nec enim licitum putant sacrificium proprie sic dictum ulli creaturae offerre, quanquam apud ipsos valde usitatum sit sanctos colere atque honorare sacrificiis Deo in eorum honorem oblatis. Idque non tantum ea ratione, ut gratiae Deo agantur pro gratia & gloria in ipsos a Deo collata; sed sic etiam, ut ipsi in Liturgia solemni invocentur, & per eorum preces ac merita divinum imploretur auxilium, & quod magis est, ut ipsum quod offertur sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Christi, ut existimant, per eorum merita & preces Deo commendetur. Veluti quum in Missa Sancti Andreae dicunt, Sacrificium nostrum tibi, Domine, quaesumus, Beati Andreae Apostoli precatio sancta conciliet: ut in cujus honore solemniter exhibetur, ejus meritis efficiatur acceptum. Et in Missa Sancti Jacobi, Oblationes populi tui quaesumus, Domine, Beati Jacobi Apostoli passio sacra conciliet.
Altars as tombs, yet every altar sanctified to Mary and all Saints; temples as basilicas§1563
1563Rome's doctors will not consecrate an altar to a Saint as an altar, but they will as a tomb.
In practice every altar is sanctified to God and also to the Virgin and all the Saints.
Temples are not built for Saints precisely as temples, yet they are raised and dedicated as sacred houses and basilicas where Saints are ritually honored and invoked.
Latin · §1563
VI. Similiter, quamvis altaria, sub altarium ratione, ex Scholae Romanae doctrina, Sanctis proprie consecranda non sint, ostendimus tamen illius doctores existimare quod possint, sub ratione saltem tumuli, illis consecrari: imo, juxta praxin Ecclesiae Romanae, altaria singula sanctificari, non solum in honorem Dei, sed etiam in honorem Beatae Virginis, & omnium Sanctorum: ac eodem modo templa, ex illius Ecclesiae sententia atque usu, non praecise qua talia Sanctis esse construenda; sed tamen illis extrui & dicari posse ac debere, sub ratione aedium sacrarum, & Basilicarum, in quibus solemniter, & variis ritibus colantur, atque invocentur.
The Roman practice: relics, images, feasts, sodalities, and vows§1564
1564Across the Roman Church, Saints are honored in churches named for them.
The rites include bows and kneeling before relics, statues, and images, with candles, incense, and offerings.
Feast days, named confraternities, and vows made and paid to the Saints belong to the same practice.
Latin · §1564
VII. Itaque per totam Ecclesiam Romanam usitatum esse Sanctos in aedibus illis dicatis, & de illorum nomine nuncupatis, variis ritibus colere, coram eorum reliquiis, statuis, & imaginibus corpus inclinando & genua flectendo, cereos accendendo, & adolendo thura, ac donaria omnis generis illis offerendo. Quibus addunt dies festos qui sunt peculiariter Sanctorum cultui dicati; & sodalitia quoque de Sanctorum nomine vocata, & in eorum honorem singulariter instituta: atque etiam frequentia vota, quae Sanctis religiose nuncupant & exsolvunt.
Invocation is the chief part: Saints as guardians who hear even silent prayers§1565
1565The main Roman act toward the Saints is calling on them, in private and in public.
They are supposed to intercede for the Church at large and for each believer.
They are treated as guardians who see each person's need and hear prayers that are never spoken aloud.
Latin · §1565
VIII. Sed praecipuam partem cultus qui Sanctis exhiberi solet positam esse docuimus in eorum invocatione, per quam Sanctorum in Christo defunctorum opem & auxilium, privatim & publice implorant: supponentes eos non tantum in genere pro Ecclesia Militante, sed etiam pro singulis fidelibus intercedere; quin eos constitutos esse generis humani custodes, patronos, atque protectores, qui singulorum necessitates, non solum videre possint, verum etiam preces solo corde conceptas audire.
Saints invoked as intercessors, yet often with the same formulas used toward God§1566
1566Roman doctors say Saints are asked to obtain goods from God, not to be the authors who give them.
In practice people still ask Saints outright for every bodily and spiritual good.
They use the same prayer-forms as toward God, and explain the difference as a difference of sense.
Latin · §1566
IX. Profiteri tamen Doctores Ecclesiae Romanae Sanctos invocandos esse, non ut ipsi dent bona quibus egemus, quasi eorum essent authores atque largitores, sed ut illa a Deo precibus & meritis suis nobis impetrent. Quod non obstat quominus saepe bona quaecunque corporis & animae simpliciter a Sanctis postulent, & apud Sanctos utantur iisdem precandi formulis, quibus utuntur apud Deum; etsi dicant alio sensu se illas ad Sanctos quam ad Deum dirigere.
Reformers do not deny all honor to Saints; greater excellence deserves greater honor§1567
1567Rome often says the Reformed refuse the Saints every kind of honor.
Le Blanc answers that they unanimously say the opposite.
Created excellence, as well as divine excellence, is owed its own honor.
Grace and glory outrank civil rank and natural gifts, and the honor should rise with them.
Latin · §1567
X. Quod spectat autem Theologos Ecclesiae Reformatae, solent illis imputare Scholae Romanae Doctores, quod Sanctis omnem cultum & honorem denegent, & simpliciter doceant Sanctos non esse colendos. Verum ab eo multum absunt, & contrarium omnes unanimiter profitentur. Concedunt enim non tantum divinae, sed etiam creatae excellentiae cultum & honorem suum deberi: atque etiam quo major est excellentia gratiae & gloriae quam Sanctis Deus communicat omni civili dignitate, omnibusque naturae donis & privilegiis, eo etiam majori honore & observantia colendam illam & prosequendam esse.
Saint-honor differs only in degree from civil honor, but in kind from divine worship§1568
1568However high the respect due to people adorned with saving grace and crowned with glory, the Reformed hold it differs from ordinary civil honor only by degree.
The people compared are those who excel by office, rank, or natural excellence.
From the honor God's majesty requires, the same respect differs in its whole kind.
Latin · §1568
XI. Sed quantalibet sit illa observantia qua colere & honorare debemus quos Deus in hac vita salutifera gratia ornavit, & in altera gloria coronavit, pertendunt illam solo gradu differre ab honore illo quo colere tenemur eos qui potestate & dignitate civili, aut naturali aliqua virtute atque praestantia, inter alios eminent & excellunt; ab eo vero quem divina Majestas postulat & exigit toto genere discrepare.
The name may be civil, after Augustine, taken from the heavenly city rather than the earthly§1569
1569What the honor is called matters less to them than what it consists in and how it is shown.
They refuse the bare name religious, because religion properly looks only to God's cult.
They prefer civil, or Augustine's phrase, a cult of fellowship and love.
Civil here is taken from the heavenly city of grace and glory, and it still outranks earthly civic respect in degree.
Latin · §1569
XII. Quo vero nomine sit honor iste signandus, parum referre existimant; dummodo de re ipsa constet, quibus, scilicet, in rebus ille constituendus sit, & quibus actibus & signis testandus atque exhibendus. Nolunt tamen simpliciter Religiosum dici, quoniam religio solum cultum divinum proprie & directe spectat; sed potius civilem, vel ut loquitur Augustinus, societatis & dilectionis. Non quod eum confundant cum illo cultu quem civilis dignitas, & naturae quaedam praestantia requirit: hunc enim, ut dictum, gradu saltem superat. Sed cum duplex sit civitas, una terrena, & altera caelestis, civilem dici posse putant denominatione sumpta, non a civitate terrena, sed caelesti, ad quam pertinet gratia & gloria, cui cultus & honor ille deferendus est.
Rambour: religious honor for God alone; civil honor of the heavenly city for Saints and angels§1570
1570Rambour divides honor into religious honor owed to God alone and civil honor given to creatures.
Civil honor of the earthly city covers reverence, love, and fear even toward people outside the faith.
Civil honor of the heavenly city is how the household of faith is treated, including mutual esteem in Romans 12 and Philippians 2.
Saints and angels receive that second civil honor: charity and fellowship, not servitude, by praise, love, imitation, and the stirring of zeal.
Latin · §1570
XIII. Sic mentem suam ea de re explicat Abrahamus Ramburtius. Sciendum est, inquit, duplicem esse honorem. Est religiosus soli Deo debitus: est civilis creaturis adhibitus. Civilis rursus impenditur, vel respectu civitatis mundanae, qui complectitur omnia officia reverentiae, amoris, timoris, qui hominibus debetur etiamsi sint a fide alieni. Sic principes, parentes, senes, sapientes, concives honoramus. Vel civilis dicitur ratione civitatis supernae, quo honore domesticos fidei prosequimur: atque huc pertinet mutua illa qua nos invicem complectimur, Rom. 12. 10. & professio officiosae opinionis quam concipimus de fratribus nostris, Philip. 2. 3. & sollicitudo qua invicem afficiuntur membra. Deinde observantia & reverentia, juxta varias conditiones, excellentiae dotes, atque etiam gloriam eorum, qui civitatem illam supernam constituunt. Atque hoc sensu honoramus Sanctos & Angelos, charitate, ut loquitur Augustinus, non servitute, cultu dilectionis & societatis, quo in hac vita coluntur Sancti Dei, ut supra dictum est. Laudamus eos debito modo, amamus, imitamur quantum possumus, eorundem virtutes praedicamus, ut zelus noster augeatur & incalescat. In Thesauro thesium Sedanensium, tom. 2. Thesibus de cultu Religioso & Idololatrico, th. 16.
Voetius: the honor is human and civil; one commonwealth of pilgrims and those in the homeland§1571
1571Voetius denies that honor of holy angels and people is religious cult or servitude; it is human and civil.
Against Bellarmine he notes that the Saints were human and, with the angels, fellow-citizens who share one commonwealth with us.
Bellarmine mixes the city of nature with the city of grace.
Pilgrims and those already home are one people, so honor paid to heavenly citizens is still civil, though higher in degree.
Latin · §1571
XIV. Similia docet Voetius in Thesibus Theologicis. Ubi postquam posuit honorem, qui Sanctis Angelis & hominibus debetur, minime dici debere cultum Religiosum, aut servitutis, cum tantum sit cultus humanus ac civilis, immediate subjungit. Ridicula quidem Bellarmino haec appellatio videtur, sed immerito; quia & Sancti illi homines fuerunt, & una cum Angelis συμπολῖται, teste Apostolo, qui eos docet commune nobiscum πολιτευμα habere. Sed confundit Bellarminus civitatem saecularem & Ecclesiasticam, quarum illa naturae, haec gratiae est. Nam non minus hujus quam illius ratione cives unius civitatis, una Respublica, unus populus dicimur. Pars quidem in patria est, pars a patria peregrinatur, ut Apostolus loquitur; sed quantumvis illi a nobis, nos ab illis absumus, tamen & illi inter se, & nos inter nos praesentes sumus, & utrisque praesens Deus in Filio per Spiritum Sanctum. Quare cum nihil obstet quominus unius civitatis cives dicamur, nec causa quicquam erit quominus aeque civilis honor dicatur qui civibus caelestibus exhibetur, quam qui civibus terrenis: nam gradu quidem honores isti differunt, sed uterque est πολιτικός. Disput. 7. thesi 47. & seqq.
Chamier: formally civil even when the cause is supernatural glory§1572
1572Chamier splits civil cult into what it is in itself and what causes it.
A cult can be formally civil even when its cause is supernatural.
Honor of the Saints reigning with Christ is of that sort: not causally civil, because their dignity is supernatural, yet wholly distinct from religious cult, and so formally civil.
He allows the alternative name officiosus, dutiful.
Latin · §1572
XV. Paulo aliter vero ea de re philosophatur Daniel Chamierus. Nam observat civilem cultum dupliciter intelligi posse: vel formaliter, vel causaliter. Civilis cultus formaliter ipsi est, ille qui in se revera civilis est, & distinctus, imo separatus a religioso. Civilis cultus causaliter, quicunque tandem in seipso sit, est tamen a causis mere civilibus. Cum alioqui cultus formaliter civilis possit esse a causis non civilibus, sed supernaturalibus. Et talis est, ex ejus mente, honor qui Sanctis cum Christo regnantibus debetur. Quamvis enim eorum dignitas sit supernaturalis, ideoque cultus qui illis debetur non sit causaliter civilis, est tamen omnino distinctus a cultu Religioso, ac proinde formaliter civilis: nisi quis malit eum officiosum dicere. Panstratia tom. 2. lib. 19. cap. 5. num. 2. & 3.
Chamier: the honor flows from religion as a commanded act, not as the elicited act of religion§1573
1573Chamier will not call Saint-honor religious; he calls it civil or dutiful.
He still says it flows from religion as a commanded act, not as the act religion itself elicits.
Worship of God is religion, as loving is love; civil cult only comes from that worship, as the Samaritan's care of wounds came from love.
An effect of religion is not religion itself.
Latin · §1573
XVI. Porro quanquam honorem quo Sancti colendi sunt religiosum dici nolit, sed potius civilem, sive officiosum, agnoscit tamen illum a religione fluere, & esse religionis actum, non elicitum quidem, sed imperatum. Ut videre est libri jam citati capite primo num. 11. Ubi docet cultum Dei a cultu hominum religione distingui essentialiter. Hoc est, duplicem esse cultum: alium religiosum, alium civilem. Illum religionis actum elicitum: hunc vero ejusdem actum imperatum. Nam colere Deum, inquit, est ipsa Religio: quomodo amare est ipse amor: & religio est colere Deum: quomodo amor est amare. At vero cultus civilis fluit a religione, id est, cultu Dei: quomodo in Samaritano vulnera lavare, & obligare, fluxit ab amore. Nimirum ut sit effectus Religionis, non ipsa Religio: quomodo effectus non est causa.
Drelincourt: religious in the strict sense is God alone; in a wider sense, honor paid for God's sake§1574
1574Drelincourt uses religious in a strict sense for what binds the soul to God and sets the manner of worshiping him.
In that sense only God is worshiped religiously, and Saint-honor is the same kind as honor of living believers, higher only in degree.
In a wider sense, religious covers whatever hangs on religion and is done to honor God.
In that wider sense he allows the honor of blessed spirits and of Christ's mother to be called religious.
Latin · §1574
XVII. Carolus vero Drelincurtius observat aliquid religiosum duplici modo dici: primo rigide & exacte, prout religio proprie significat id quod animas Deo religat, & modum illum colendi praescribit. Et hoc sensu solum Deum religiose colendum esse docet: nec ea ratione religiosum esse honorem quo Sancti coluntur, cum sit ejusdem plane speciei cum eo quo fideles in terra degentes colimus, & gradu solum ab eo differat. Sed quandoque Religiosum latiori significatu id omne dici quod non solum religionis essentiam constituit, sed etiam ex ea pendet, & ab ea fluit. Et sic Religiosum dici posse honorem, qui personis & rebus quibuscunque defertur Dei honorandi causa, quia, scilicet, vel divino cultui inserviunt, vel in eis elucent divinae gratiae & gloriae dona. Et hoc sensu concedit religiosum esse honorem quo Beatos Spiritus, & Sanctam Virginem Christi matrem colimus. Responsione ad quaestionem Petri le Camus Episcopi jam dicti pag. 27.
Reformers commonly reject the Latria–Dulia split, because one cult is properly religious and Scripture mixes the words§1575
1575Reformed doctors generally reject dividing religious cult into Latria and Dulia.
Only the cult proper to God deserves the name religious in the proper and simple sense; creature-honor is religious only improperly.
Scripture also mixes the words: latreia sometimes means human service, and douleia is often kept for God's cult alone.
Latin · §1575
XVIII. Caeterum vulgatam distinctionem cultus Religiosi in Latriam & Duliam communiter improbant Scholae Reformatae Doctores. Idque duplici nomine. Et primo quidem, quoniam unicus est cultus qui proprie & simpliciter Religiosus dici mereatur: nempe, cultus qui Deo proprius est. Ille vero qui creaturis, etiam praestantissimis & sanctissimis, defertur, religiosus dici nequit, nisi improprie & aequivoce. Deinde quia in Scripturae usu saepius confunduntur Latriae & Dulia voces. Siquidem apud Graecos interpretes Veteris Testamenti λατρείαν aliquando de servitio humano usurpatur: frequenter vero δουλείαν tam in Veteri quam in Novo Testamento ad solum cultum divinum restringitur.
Some Reformed, with Chamier, may reserve latria and dulia as names of different kinds, not degrees§1576
1576Some Reformed writers will still keep Latria for God's cult and Dulia for creature-honor, as a useful distinction.
Chamier allows the Greek words only if they name different kinds, not higher and lower degrees.
Religious cult and civil cult are not synonyms and not analogues of one another.
Latin · §1576
XIX. Theologi tamen Reformati nonnulli testantur sibi non incommodum videri, si Latriae vox divino cultui reservetur, tanquam illi propria; honori vero & observantiae qua creaturae colendae sunt, singulariter aptetur vox Dulia, illique a divino & religioso cultu distinguendo inserviat. Id videre est apud Chamierum. Postquam enim pro certo constituit cultum Religiosum in solidum Deo concedendum, civilem vero ad creaturas pertinere: addit huic rei significandae nos uti posse vocabulis δουλείας & λατρείας: dummodo sciamus non esse ea nomina diversorum graduum, quasi secundum plus & minus, sed diversorum generum: ut omnino diversi sit generis cultus religiosus & cultus civilis, neque συνώνυμα neque ἀνάλογα ambo inter se comparari. Panstratia tom. 2. lib. 19. cap. 1. num. 11.
Vossius: the Latria–Dulia split is not scriptural or classical, yet not wholly rejected§1577
1577Vossius says neither Scripture nor the classics observe a Latria for God and a Dulia for creatures, as Valla and Vives also grant.
Taken strictly, douleia fits God more than the Saints, since religious service makes us God's servants; Perezius saw this, and Bellarmine's objection fails.
He still does not condemn the distinction, as a guard against ambiguous names, and because Augustine did not refuse it.
The quarrel with Rome is the thing, not the word: they do not leave God's cult whole, but hand a large part of divine honor to the Saints.
Latin · §1577
XX. Quibus similia tradit Gerardus Joannes Vossius in Thesibus Theologicis. Discrimen, inquit, vocabulorum λατρείας & δουλείας, quo illa uni Deo, haec creaturis etiam dicitur convenire, nec in Scripturis sacris, nec in scriptoribus classicis observatur: ut etiam Valla, Vives, aliique agnoscunt. Imo δουλείας vox, nisi eam metaphorice sumamus, Sanctis minus quam Deo competit: quia ratione cultus religiosi, non creaturae, sed Dei δοῦλοι sumus: quemadmodum ex Pontificiis Pereziius agnovit, frustra improbante Bellarmino. Nihilominus eos qui distinctionem hanc probant minime improbamus: partim quia vitanda est viro prudenti omnis ὁμωνυμία; partim quia nec inutile videtur, si cultibus toto genere differentibus, qualis est Dei & creaturae, ad homonymiam vitandam diversa imponantur nomina: partim denique quia nec ab ea abhorruit Augustinus. Nec idcirco praevaricamur, vel Pontificiorum causam juvamus quicquam; quia (ut Calvinus hac de distinctione agens agnoscit) de re non de voce quaestio est. Nempe hoc est quod in Pontificiis damnamus, quod cultum suum Deo illibatum non servant, sed divinum honorem magna parte transcribunt Sanctis. Appendice ad disputationem decimam, quae est quarta de Invocatione Sanctorum.
Only such cult is lawful toward the blessed as suits an absent creature§1578
1578The next question is what honor the Reformed actually grant the blessed, whether human or angelic.
Their general rule is that nothing may be shown them beyond what fits a creature who is absent, or as good as absent.
There is no mutual commerce with such a creature on which a richer cult could rest.
Latin · §1578
XXI. Caeterum ut jam videamus qua in re consistat honor, quem Beatis in caelo spiritibus, sive hominum, sive Angelorum, deberi fatentur Scholae Reformatae Doctores, ante omnia in genere statuunt nullum cultum licite illis exhiberi posse, quam qui competit creaturae absenti, aut quae instar absentis est, & cum qua nullum nobis est mutuum commercium.
Divine cult is whatever cannot truly suit a creature, even if the worshiper denies he takes the object for God§1579
1579Whatever Scripture counts as divine worship is first stripped away from honor of the blessed.
A cult is divine even if the worshiper does not consciously take its object for the supreme God, the first principle and last end.
It is enough that the act cannot really suit a creature, because it assumes something divine in that creature.
The worshiper's mistaken explanation does not change the nature of the act.
Latin · §1579
XXII. Itaque ab eo cultu primo removent omnia quae, secundum Scripturae doctrinam, ad divinum cultum pertinent. Ut autem cultus pro divino habeatur non necesse est, ex eorum mente, ut qui illum exhibet, objectum quod colit habeat pro supremo Numine, a quo omnia pendeant, ipsum vero a nullo, & quod sit rerum omnium primum principium & finis ultimus: adeoque cultum suum absolute in eo terminet, nec ad alium ullum superiorem referre intendat. Sed sufficit ut cultus sit talis, qui revera creaturae convenire non possit: propterea quod quiddam divinum in ea supponit; etiamsi aliter per errorem judicet ille a quo cultus ejusmodi defertur.
A cult is divine which treats its object as present everywhere and able to hear every silent prayer at once§1580
1580Divine cult, on this account, treats its object as watching every worshiper, in every place and time, though unseen.
It also treats that object as hearing countless different prayers at once, including unspoken ones, and as able to help each person in a single moment.
Calling the object only God's friend and minister does not change the act.
Majesty and power of that size belong to God alone, whatever people imagine.
Latin · §1580
XXIII. Proinde cultus ipsis divinus est, qui supponit eum qui colitur, licet ipse sit inconspectus, nec sensibus ullis expositus, nihilominus omnes ipsum colentes, quovis tempore & loco, tanquam praesentem intueri; & quamvis, vel ab innumeris, ubivis terrarum dispersis hominibus, diversissimis votis simul rogetur atque invocetur, omnium tamen vota, etiam quae sola mente concepta sunt, percipere & intelligere, & singulis quam ab ipso petunt opem, uno momento ferre posse. Etiamsi qui cultu hujusmodi utitur, illum quem ita colit profiteatur se non habere pro Deo, sed tantum pro Dei amico & ministro, in quo se summum ipsum Deum honorare cogitet: quia quicquid homines fingere & praesumere possint, revera tanta majestas & potestas nulli competit, nisi Deo.
Feasts, sacred houses, gifts, oaths, vows, and prayers for grace are as divine as sacrifice§1581
1581Feasts, sacred buildings, dedicated gifts, oaths, vows, and prayers for bodily goods and especially for grace and glory count, for the Reformed, as signs of God's own cult, no less than sacrifice.
Rome itself would not excuse sacrifice to a creature by calling it relative, or offered to God's friend so as to be referred at last to God.
The same plea does not excuse dedicating churches, offering gifts, vowing, swearing, or asking grace and glory of a creature.
Latin · §1581
XXIV. Caeterum ad actus & signa cultus Deo proprii, Theologi Reformati plurima pertinere putant, non minus quam sacrificia. Qualia sunt, secundum eorum sententiam, dies festi, aedes sacrae, & donaria in aedibus sacris dicata & appensa, juramenta, vota, & preces, quibus bona corporis & animae, ac praesertim dona gratiae & gloriae, ab aliquo poscimus. Proinde quemadmodum, Scholae Romanae judicio, Latriam creaturae deferre censeretur, qui sub quocunque praetextu illi sacrificaret, nec excusaretur dicendo, se creaturae cuipiam sacrificium offerre, non absolute, sed relative, nec tanquam Deo ipsi, sed tanquam amico cuidam & ministro ipsius Dei, ad quem tandem honor ille sacrificii, ex ejus intentione, sit ultimo referendus: sic quoque, juxta Reformatos, a crimine divini cultus creaturis oblati non purgatur ille qui creaturis ullis aedes sacras dicat, donaria offert, illis vota facit, & per eas jurat, ab iisque petit gratiam & gloriam, quantumlibet profiteatur se illa creaturis praestare atque exhibere, aliter quam ipsi Deo, & sic ut velit ista ad Dei cultum & gloriam referre.
Sacred houses may not be dedicated to angels or Saints for cult, though ancient memorials of martyrs are not condemned§1582
1582Dedicating a sacred building to angels or to Saints in heaven is held altogether unlawful.
The ban covers not only offering them sacrifice there, but honoring and invoking them with any rites.
The old custom is not condemned when churches kept the martyrs' memory, thanked God for their victories, and offered the Eucharist to God, which honored holy men greatly.
Rivet's note on the Apology for the Blessed Virgin is the reference.
Latin · §1582
XXV. Itaque prorsus illicitum putant Angelis, & hominibus Sanctis in caelum receptis, aedes sacras dicare, non tantum ut illis ibi sacrificium offeratur, sed etiam ut illic ritibus quibuscunque colantur atque invocentur, quanquam non damnent morem Ecclesiae veteris, in qua solenne fuit aedes sacras inter alia eo fine struere ut ibi memoria Martyrum conservaretur, & gratiae Deo agerentur de victoriis per Dei gratiam ab iis reportatis, eoque nomine sacrificia Eucharistica Deo offerrentur, quod in Sanctorum virorum maximum honorem cedebat. Ut apud Andream Rivetum videre est, in consideratione ad articulum tertium Judicii viri docti, de ejus Apologia pro Beata Virgine, quod in fine illius Apologiae legitur.
Feasts are not consecrated to angels or Saints, though a solemn commemoration, as in the English liturgy, is allowed§1583
1583Feast days may not be consecrated to angels or the blessed, because feasts belong to God's solemn worship.
A set day may still solemnly remember certain Saints, thank God for benefits given to them and through them, and propose their virtues for imitation.
Such days are consecrated to God alone, even while they honor holy men.
The English liturgy, which remembers apostles and other holy men, is the example.
Latin · §1583
XXVI. Eodem modo negant licitum esse dies festos Angelis, & hominibus Beatis consecrare, cum festa ad cultum Dei solemnem pertineant, quamvis nihil obstare putent quin certis diebus Sanctorum quorundam fiat peculiaris & solemnis commemoratio, & gratiae Deo agantur pro beneficiis in ipsos, & per ipsos collatis, eorumque virtutes ac egregia facta populo Christiano imitanda proponantur. Nam ejusmodi festa Deo soli consecrata sunt, quanquam in magnum Sanctorum virorum honorem cedant, ut in Ecclesia Anglicana obtinet, in cujus Liturgia memorantur Apostolorum, & quorundam aliorum virorum Sanctorum festa.
Swearing by Saints is as forbidden as sacrificing to them§1584
1584Swearing by the Saints is rejected outright.
An oath by any creature is as forbidden as a sacrifice to that creature, because Scripture condemns both swearing by what is not God and sacrificing to any but God.
A secondary oath, on the ground that divine truth shines in the Saints, has no more excuse than a secondary sacrifice on the ground that God's power and goodness appear in them.
Latin · §1584
XXVII. Similiter omnino improbant consuetudinem jurandi per Sanctos, nec minus vetitum censent per creaturas quaslibet jurare, quam illis sacrificare, quoniam Scriptura non minus illos damnat, qui jurant per eos qui Dii non sunt, quam illos qui offerunt sacrificium praeterquam Deo soli. Nec plus rationis vident ut secundario juretur per Sanctos, quatenus in iis elucet divina veritas, quam ut iis secundario quoque sacrificetur, quatenus in illis apparent insignia Omnipotentiae & Bonitatis divinae documenta.
Vows belong to the Lord alone, not to Saints as gods by participation or as obtainers of goods§1585
1585Vows, Scripture says, are to be made and paid to the Lord alone.
To vow to Saints as gods by participation, or as those who obtain what we need, is as contrary to true piety as offering them sacrifices under the same title.
Latin · §1585
XXVIII. Idem sentiunt de votis, quae Scriptura Domino soli concipi & exsolvi jubet, nec putant minus a vera pietate abhorrere, ut quis voveat Sanctis, quatenus sunt Dii quidam per participationem, vel impetratores bonorum quibus egemus, quam ut quis sub eodem titulo iis offerat sacrificia & victimas.
Praying to Saints in the same forms used to God is treason against the divine majesty§1586
1586Using toward the Saints the same prayer-forms used toward God, and asking them for grace, glory, and any bodily or spiritual good, is treated as an offense against God's majesty.
It does not help to call the Saints not the first authors but only givers and stewards under God.
The same pretext would not excuse sacrificing to them.
Latin · §1586
XXIX. Denique non existimant illos effugere crimen laesae majestatis divinae, qui in suis precibus iisdem formulis Sanctos compellant atque Deum, poscentes ab iis gratiam & gloriam, ac bona quaelibet corporis & animae: licet non habeant Sanctos pro primis bonorum illorum authoribus, sed solum tanquam eorum sub Deo largitores & administratores: sicuti crimen illud non effugeret, qui sub praetextu simili Sanctis immolare vellet.
Many honors lawful toward the living are not lawful toward the spirits of the dead§1587
1587It is not only divine worship that may not be moved over to angels or Saints in heaven.
Many honors that are lawful toward people living with us on earth are, by reason and piety, forbidden toward the spirits of the dead.
Latin · §1587
XXX. Praeterea Scholae Reformatae Doctores non solum censent illicitum esse, quae ad cultum divinum pertinent, ad Angelos, vel Sanctos in caelum receptos transferre, sed etiam multae sunt cultus & honoris species, quibus erga homines nobiscum in terra viventes uti licet, quas tamen, eorundem doctorum judicio, ratio & pietas vetat erga mortuorum spiritus adhibere.
Bowing and kneeling suit the present, not a Saint in America or China, still less one in heaven§1588
1588Greeting, uncovering the head, and bowing are used toward holy people we actually live with, and only when they are present.
It would be absurd to bow or kneel in France, at home or in church, to honor a holy man traveling in the Americas or in China.
Saints reigning with Christ are as far from us as heaven from earth, so those signs toward them are held contrary to reason.
Latin · §1588
XXXI. Sic viros sanctos quibuscum versamur officiose salutamus, caput illis aperimus, & corpus inclinamus: sed talibus honoris signis uti solemus tantum erga praesentes. Et absurdum esset, si quis in honorem hominis Sancti, apud Americanos, aut Sinenses peregrinantis, hic in Gallia domi suae, vel in loco sacro, corpus inclinaret, aut genua flecteret. Ideoque cum Sancti in caelo cum Christo regnantes tantum a nobis absint, quantum a terra caelum, a ratione putant omnino alienum esse, ut honoris ejusmodi signa erga illos adhibeamus.
Chamier: absent-capable honors are due; genuflection, greeting, and gifts to the needy are not§1589
1589Chamier holds that honor of the Saints is the same in kind as honor of the living, and differs only by being stronger or weaker.
Degree does not change the species.
Acts that can be paid to people who are absent are due; genuflection, greeting, and bowing, which need presence, are not.
Still less are gifts for the needy, such as clothes, lights, bread, and wine.
Latin · §1589
XXXII. Id inter alios observat Daniel Chamierus. Postquam enim constituit eum honorem qui Sanctis deferendus est, esse eundem specie, cum eo quem vivis deferri oportet, & ab eo differre tantum intensione & remissione, quae varios quidem gradus efficiunt, sed non variant species: notat distinguendum esse quoad actus honoris illius. Quosdam enim Sanctis deberi: ut qui deferri possunt quibuslibet hominibus absentibus. At quaecunque praesentibus tantum deferuntur, ut genuflexiones, salutationes, inclinationes, similiaque multa, ea non deberi Sanctis: & multo magis quae indigentibus, ut vestes, lumina, panem, vinum. Panstratia tom. 2. lib. 19. cap. 2. num. 20.
Asking the living to pray with us does not extend to the dead, with whom we cannot communicate§1590
1590Asking trusted pious people to pray with us and for us belongs to honor among those with whom we have real dealings.
No one addresses, aloud or in the heart, a pious man too far away for even a letter, as if someone in Jerusalem had silently begged the help of Paul's prayers while Paul was in prison at Rome.
For that reason Protestants do not ask the dead in Christ, as they ask the living, to help them before God.
The blessed are far off in glory, and there is no way left to tell them what we feel.
Latin · §1590
XXXIII. Ad eum autem honorem, quem deferimus iis quibuscum hic versamur, aut quibuscum nobis est mutuum aliquod commercium, illud quoque pertinet, quod eos de quorum sumus pietate persuasi, rogare solemus, ut nos apud Deum precibus suis juvent, ac nobiscum postulent ea quibus egemus bona & auxilia. Nec enim quisquam virum pium procul degentem, & cum quo nullum potest epistolarum commercium habere, voce, vel corde rogabit, ut pro ipso Deum oret: ut si quis olim Hierosolymis Paulum Romae vinctum allocutus fuisset, & verbis, vel tacita & interiori loquela, precum ejus apud Deum auxilium implorasset. Inde est quod Protestantes & Reformati omnes, Sanctos in Christo defunctos, non perinde ac vivos, rogant ut illos suis orationibus apud Deum adjuvent. Quoniam, scilicet, illi procul a nobis beatitudine & gloria caelesti fruuntur: nec ulla ratio superest, qua possimus cum illis animi nostri sensa communicare.
To suppose the Saints see all men and hear all thoughts is to give them something divine§1591
1591If the Saints in glory are supposed to see everyone everywhere at once, hear their prayers, know their thoughts, give the help asked, and notice everything done in their honor, something divine has been given them.
The signs of honor in question then cease to be human cult and become divine cult.
Latin · §1591
XXXIV. Quod si quis supponat Sanctos in caelo cum Christo regnantes, posse simul omnes homines, in quacunque mundi parte positos, intueri, eorumque preces audire, & cogitationes nosse, atque etiam opem quam ab ipsis postulant ferre, & quaecunque fiunt in eorum honorem percipere atque agnoscere: hoc ipso putant Sanctis divinum quid tribui, & ea de quibus jam agimus honoris signa, non amplius ad humanum, sed ad divinum cultum pertinere.
What remains is pious memory, praise, and imitation of faith, hope, and the other virtues§1592
1592Asked what honor of the Saints is left, Le Blanc answers from the Reformed doctors.
It is frequent pious remembrance, a high estimate, praise when there is occasion, and a careful recall of their virtues and great deeds.
Above all it is following their example, receiving their teaching, and striving to match their hope, faith, love, zeal, courage, patience, and humility.
Latin · §1592
XXXV. At, inquies, quid ergo restat ex Doctorum Ecclesiae Reformatae sententia, quo Sanctos honorare & colere possimus? Respondeo, juxta ipsos, honorem illum consistere in pia & frequenti illorum commemoratione; in eo quod magnifice de ipsis sentiamus, laudes eorum, quum se fert occasio, celebremus, eorumque virtutes & egregia facta sedulo recolamus, & in animum revocemus. Praesertim vero in eo, quod eorum exemplum sequamur, doctrinam amplectamur, & spem, fidem, charitatem, zelum, fortitudinem, patientiam & humilitatem, qua nobis praeluxerunt, toto animi conatu aemulemur.
Spanheim: Mary's honor is grateful thought, preaching of her virtues, and commendation of her glory§1593
1593Spanheim's account of the honor due to Mary is also the pattern for other Saints.
First comes honoring remembrance that God, in sheer goodness, made her the mother of the Lord who is Father of all.
Second, preaching the virtues Scripture records in her, as an example.
Third, commending the glory and blessedness she enjoys in heaven.
Latin · §1593
XXXVI. Sic Frederico Spanhemio Honor Beatae Virgini Mariae debitus (ex quo de honore Sanctis aliis convenienti judicium fieri potest) est primo cogitatio & commemoratio honorifica insignis illius honoris, quo Deus illam prae omnibus creaturis pro gratiosa sua bonitate dignatus fuit, ut mater illius & esset, & diceretur, qui omnium Pater est, & Dominus. Secundo praedicatio virtutum ejus, quae nobis in sacris litteris describuntur, pietatis, charitatis, humilitatis, constantiae, & aliarum id genus virtutum, quae singulariter in eximio hoc Dei organo eminuerunt, & omnibus in exemplum proponi debent. Tertio commendatio gloriae & beatitudinis qua fruitur in caelis. Dubiorum Evangelicorum part. 2. dub. 48. num. 4.
Drelincourt: memory, thanks for gifts given through her, her faith, her example, and her blessedness§1594
1594Drelincourt's honor of the Virgin begins with reverent memory, speech, and delight in her praises.
Next the whole heart praises God for grace and benefits given through her.
Her words are believed, her faith is embraced, and the Spirit's lessons through her are followed.
She is an example of believing and of living, her Christian virtues are imitated, and her blessedness is extolled.
Latin · §1594
XXXVII. His consimilia sunt quae de honore quem Beatae Virgini exhibemus, docet Carolus Drelincurtius. Honor, inquit, quem ipsi reddimus in pluribus consistit. Primo enim memoriam illius veneramur, de illa cum omni reverentia loquimur, & plurimum ejus laudibus delectamur. Deinde toto corde, & omnibus animae viribus Deum laudamus propter gratiam & beneficia quae per illam nobis exhibuit. Tertio credimus verba quae ex ejus ore exierunt: fidem & religionem illius amplectimur, & conamur sequi documenta quae Spiritus Sanctus per illud gratiae suae organum nobis reliquit. Praeterea ipsam, ut in bene credendi, ita etiam in bene vivendi exemplum proponimus. Illius pietatem, charitatem, zelum, puritatem, humilitatem, patientiam, constantiam, ac in genere omnes virtutes Christianas, quibus in excellenti gradu ditata fuit, nitimur imitari. Denique beatitudinem ac felicitatem illius extollimus. Libello de honore Beatae Virgini Mariae exhibendo, cap. 2.
Rivet: angels, if present, would be received; being unseen and not everywhere, they are not greeted§1595
1595Rivet treats honor of rational creatures, angels and humans, together.
If angels are present we do not know when or where, unless they appear visibly as they once did.
Some are often near and helpful, but there is no conversation with them, they are not everywhere, and they do not search the heart, so we neither speak to them nor greet them with outward signs.
The patriarchs did greet angels whom they received as men; apart from that, angels are spoken of with honor, and their obedience is magnified for imitation.
Latin · §1595
XXXVIII. Andreas Rivetus autem sic pluribus philosophatur de honore qui debetur creaturis rationalibus, sive Angeli, sive homines sint. Si adsint, inquit, Angeli, id nobis incognitum est quando, & ubi, nisi aliquando visibili specie, ut olim factum est, nobis appareant. Alioquin aliquos nobis adesse saepius, & nos juvare novimus: sed quia nobis non est cum eis sermonis commercium, nec ubique sunt, nec cordium nostrorum recessus scrutantur: ideo non solemus cum iis verba commutare, neque signis externis eos salutare. Quod cum praesentibus hominibus facimus, & cum Angelis olim fecerunt Patriarchae, qui domi suae exceperunt, quos homines putarunt. Extra hanc occasionem de Angelis loquimur (Angelus suos intelligo) cum honore & reverentia, eorum naturam, officia, obediendi Deo promptitudinem magnifacimus, & hanc nobis imitandam proponimus.
Rivet: the holy memory of great servants, praise without flattery, and nothing that requires them to hear§1596
1596People illustrious for virtue, above all for piety toward God and service of the Church, have a holy and venerable memory.
They are spoken of reverently, their virtues are recalled, they are proposed for imitation, and they receive due praise.
Any further honor must be such as can be paid to people we do not see and who do not hear us.
That kind is worth more because it cannot be flattery or self-interest.
Latin · §1596
XXXIX. De hominibus vero loquens, Si qui fuerint, inquit, qui claruerint magnis virtutibus, maxime pietate in Deum, & meritis erga Ecclesiam, eorum memoria nobis sancta est & veneranda; de iis reverenter loquimur, eorum virtutes recolimus, nobis & aliis ad imitandum proponimus, eos prosequimur debitis laudibus. Et si quid aliud sit quod iis quos non videmus, & qui non audiunt nos, deferre possimus: quod genus honoris & cultus eo magis est aestimandum, quod ab omni adulatione alienum est, nec potest proficisci nisi ab ea mente, quae de eorum excellentia persuasa est, & eorum dignitatem magni facit, citra ullum propriae utilitatis respectum.
Honor rises with God's gifts; the dead are not served as masters but followed as fellow heirs§1597
1597Rivet has observance rise with the gifts God gave, and praise is proportioned, not flattened.
Servitude properly so called is not given to anyone who does not need our work and cannot be served by it.
The dead Saints are not our masters; we are to share their inheritance and follow their steps.
What they most wanted, by imitating Christ, was that we should imitate them.
Pars Secunda is not closed: thesis XLI takes up the honor of the Virgin in particular.
Latin · §1597
XL. Postea vero monet, pro ratione donorum Dei in talibus, & excellentiae majoris vel minoris, nos etiam augere observantiae & venerationis gradus: & laudes iis debitas non aequare, sed cuique pro ea quam in eo agnoscimus mensura, tribuere quod suum est. Neminem vero qui opera nostra non habet opus, & cui non potest usui esse, nos colere servitute proprie dicta. Nec enim nos Sanctorum qui obierunt servos esse, sed ejusdem haereditatis consortes futuros, eorumque vestigia, quantum possumus, etiam premere: quod maxime voluerunt, dum in terris versantes, exemplo praeiverunt, Christum imitando, ut eos imitaremur.