Where does Francisco Suárez agree with Bellarmine on this?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Another question about an oblique reference in Durham on Revelation. Where might Durham be refering in the Suárez corpus? I found one spot but it is off by couple of chapters.
The nature of the doctrine and errors brought-in by them, which, though exceeding agreeable to nature, yet exceeding opposite to the way of grace, and therefore, cannot but necessarily and natively be destructive to the solid consolation of souls, and beget fearful horror in the hearts and consciences of poor sinners, so that sometimes the greatest promoters of them have been forced to abandon these principles under challenges. And their greatest disputants are constrained to acknowledge this. We have one instance in Bellarmine (de justis. lib. 3 [sic 5], cap. 7),[1] who after his long dispute of indulgences, merit of works, etc., seeks to sum up all in three assertions. The first whereof, attributes merit unto works; the second allows men to confide in their own merits; yet as distrusting this foundation so largely contended for he adds a third proposition, propter incertitudinem propriæ justitiæ & periculum inanis gloriæ, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia & benignitate reponere. So that in end for uncertainty of man’s proper righteousness and hazard of vain glory he accounts it most safe to place our whole confidence in the mercy and goodness of God allanerly [only], and gives this reason, if man has no merit (he says) he should not confide; if he has (which yet is uncertain) it is no hurt or loss to flee only to God’s mercy. In which one assertion we may see: {1} The uncomfortableness of that doctrine of merit that can never comfort solidly, because at the best, it is uncertain. {2} We may see the hazard of it to foster pride and vain glory. {3} We may see the disquietness of it, by which sinners can never be secure, till they have fully renounced it. Suárez also does homologate [approve of] Bellarmine in this.


[1] Bellarmine, “Controversiarum de Justificatione. Liber Quintas,” Opera Omnia (1870) 6.359. http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080015572_C/1080015577_T6/1080015577_100.pdf
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
It's really difficult from that brief reference to know what he's referring to, but a search of the terms benignitas et misericordia dei in the writings of Suarez turns up this place, v. 3 p. 96 of his commentary on Thomas, where he connects the forgiveness of sins directly to the goodness and mercy of God, and while he doesn't mention Bellarmine, he does mention a couple decrees of the Council of Trent.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
It's really difficult from that brief reference to know what he's referring to, but a search of the terms benignitas et misericordia dei in the writings of Suarez turns up this place, v. 3 p. 96 of his commentary on Thomas, where he connects the forgiveness of sins directly to the goodness and mercy of God, and while he doesn't mention Bellarmine, he does mention a couple decrees of the Council of Trent.
For a needle in a haystack and what I'm working with, that's good enough for me! Many thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top