Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 3: The Calumnies and Lies of Philipp Melanchthon
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book I, the fourth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Philipp Melanchthon, the author of the Confession and of the Apology, and as it were the proper father of the Confessionists, in order to fortify this place on Penance with especial diligence beyond the rest, thought fit to paint it over with various impostures and calumnies; and first, in the Augsburg Confession itself, article 12, he lies that Catholics do not teach that the remission of sins comes about through faith, but through our love and works; and that satisfactions are necessary for redeeming eternal punishments.
But it will be worth while to hear how variously they have expressed this lie in the various editions. For in the Confession itself, which they presented to the Emperor Charles in the year 1530, we read thus: “Those also are rejected who do not teach that the remission of sins comes about through faith, but bid us merit grace through our satisfactions.” But in the Wittenberg edition of the year 1531 they altered it thus: “Those also are rejected who do not teach that the remission of sins comes about through faith, but teach that the remission of sins comes about on account of our love and works. Those also are rejected who teach that canonical satisfactions are necessary for redeeming eternal punishments, or the punishments of purgatory.” In the edition of the year 1540 they put it thus: “They condemn those also who do not teach that the remission of sins comes about through faith, freely, on account of Christ, but contend that the remission of sins comes about on account of the worthiness of contrition, of love, or of other works; and bid consciences doubt in Penance whether they obtain the remission of sins, and affirm that this doubt is not a sin,” and so on. The same Confession, in the article on confession, which is among those on abuses, in the edition of the year 1531: “Formerly,” it says, “satisfactions were extolled beyond measure; but of faith, and of the merit of Christ, and of the righteousness of faith no mention was made.” And in the edition of the year 1540: “Nowhere,” it says, “do they teach anything certain about how the remission of sins comes about; about faith there is the deepest silence; nay, they bid men doubt perpetually of the remission of sins.” And below: “The learned,” namely among the Catholics, “imagine that eternal death is compensated by satisfactions; the unlearned thought that by these works the remission of guilt was bought.”
Now the same Philipp, in the Apology on article 12, has heaped up so many frauds and impostures that it is hard even to count them; some part of which, however, we have refuted in that little book which we entitled a Judgement on the Lutherans’ Book of Concord. But there is one lie, both in the Confession, in the article on confession of the edition of the year 1540, and in the Apology on the article on Penance, which I can in no way pass over. Philipp boasts that very great light has been brought to this place by his people. In the Confession he speaks thus: “The simple doctrine of Penance was buried under a vast heap of useless and evil opinions.” And a little after: “Therefore our people have striven above all to bring light to this article, which indeed they have so opened up and illustrated that even the saner adversaries confess that in this matter they have deserved well of the Church.” And in the Apology he adds this: “All good men,” he says, “of all orders, and even of the theological order, without doubt confess that before Luther’s writings the doctrine of Penance was in the utmost confusion. There are extant the books of the Sententiaries, in which there are infinite questions, which no theologians were ever able to explain sufficiently; the people could neither grasp the sum of the matter, nor see what was chiefly required in Penance, where the peace of conscience was to be sought. Let someone come forward to us from the adversaries to say when the remission of sins takes place. Good God, how great is the darkness! They doubt whether the remission of sins takes place in attrition or in contrition.” And below: “We, therefore, to extricate pious consciences from these labyrinths of the sophists, have laid down two parts of Penance, namely contrition and faith,” and so on.
But we on the contrary can most truly say that before Luther’s defection and those contentious writings the doctrine of Penance was most plain, if those things are regarded which pertain to receiving and administering this sacrament with fruit, which alone it is necessary should be commonly known by the people and the priests. For all knew and confessed that Penance is a sacrament, nor was there any controversy about that. They knew at what time it was necessary to do penance and to come to this sacrament. They knew what was to be done that this sacrament might be usefully received: namely that one must grieve for past sin and conceive a purpose of a better life; that all mortal sins which came to mind after examination must be confessed to the priest; and finally that the penalty which the priest imposed must be undergone. They knew that by absolution sins are forgiven, God, that is, applying the merits of Christ through the ministry of priests; and that freely, not on account of the merit or worthiness of contrition, much less of attrition, as the adversaries most falsely fasten on us. They knew, finally, from whom they ought to seek the sacrament of Penance, namely from the proper shepherd of their souls, or at least from one who had faculty for that office from the common shepherd of the whole Church. All these things were both known to all, and placed beyond controversy, and were found everywhere for the instruction of the people in catechisms and other common books. And if besides certain things were disputed more subtly by the theologians in the schools about the sacrament of Penance, these in no way hindered the faith of the people; just as neither are the disputations on the Trinity, on the Incarnation, on original sin and the other mysteries of our faith a hindrance to the common people, so as to prevent them from drawing the simple faith of the creed from sermons and catechisms.
But after Luther’s writings and contentions everything has been so confused and obscured that the Lutherans now have nothing certain on the chief heads of the doctrine of Penance; so that it is no wonder that the subtler disputations of the Scholastics have ceased among them, since they have not yet been able to agree on the first elements, and on those things which ought to be known even by the people themselves. For they still contend whether there is any sacrament of Penance; whether private confession is to be retained; which sins must necessarily be confessed; at what time confession is to be made; to whom it is to be made; and whether even women and boys can absolve; whether faith ought to precede contrition, or contrition faith. For Luther in the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Penance, cries out tragically against those who make contrition prior to faith, and who attribute it to the impious and unbelieving: “O the insupportable wrath of God!” he says. “Are these things taught in the Church of Christ?” And yet the Augsburg Confession, article 12, which is on Penance, and in the article on confession, and the Apology on article 12, teach in express words that contrition precedes and faith follows; from which it follows that contrition is never found except in the impious and unbelieving. So in the primary matter the Confession, which is to the Lutherans in the place of a certain new gospel, fights with Luther himself, who is to the same in the place of a certain new evangelist. But leaving these things, let us go on to the rest.
The same Philipp, in the disputation on Penance, proposition 7, says thus: “The Scholastics have taught foolishly and impiously that sins are forgiven through contrition without faith.” And proposition 11: “The whole doctrine of Penance among the Scholastics is full of errors and impiety, because they omit the head of the business, namely faith, because they do not teach that a man receives the remission of sins by faith.” The same, in another disputation against the articles of Louvain, proposition 9: “They detract,” he says, “from the glory of Christ when they say that sins are forgiven on account of our merits, not on account of Christ.” And the following proposition: “This foul error, by which the chief article of faith, I believe the remission of sins, is blotted out, the men of Louvain impiously defend in their decree.” The same in the Commonplaces last published, under the title of Confession: “The monks,” he says, “have invented that the enumeration of sins in confession is a worship, and meritorious of remission.” All these things are lies, and can be proved by no other testimony except that it pleased Luther to invent them; for what he said is to be held for true, and to be repeated often, although otherwise it is most false.
Finally, in the Commonplaces published in the year 1522, when Philipp boasted that he had the first fruits of the Lutheran spirit, to his lies and impostures he added contempt of the most ancient and most celebrated ecumenical Council of Nicaea; for so he wrote in that book, under the title of human laws: “In the Synod of Nicaea certain forms of Penance were laid down; I do not pronounce by what spirit the Fathers decreed them; but I see that a good part of the Gospel, nay the genuine force of the Gospel, was obscured by that tradition; for thence satisfactions were first born.” And below: “Moreover the theologasters of our times, following the ancient tradition of the Synod of Nicaea, have made satisfactions a part of Penance; than which error plainly there is none more harmful.” So he.
In these words three things seem to me to be noted. First, the incredible audacity of this man, who, although at that time he was a young man, and had scarcely touched the sacred letters, being accustomed to frequent only the schools of the grammarians, yet, already drunk with the heretical spirit, dared to pronounce that by the general Synod of Nicaea, the most ancient and most holy of all, the genuine force of the Gospel had been obscured. Secondly, intolerable ignorance in one who professed himself a censor of the Synod of Nicaea; for it is not true that satisfactions were first born from the Council of Nicaea, since the Councils of Neocaesarea and Ancyra, which are older than Nicaea, are full of penitential canons; and Saint Cyprian’s sermon On the Lapsed, and Tertullian’s book On Penance (to omit others now), sound of almost nothing else than satisfactions. And that Saint Cyprian flourished about eighty years, and Tertullian more than a hundred years, before the Synod of Nicaea, no one can deny. Thirdly, admirable inconstancy. For whereas they everywhere cry out that our doctrine of Penance, which they attack, is new, and are accustomed to call it the inventions of the Papists, here Philipp did not hesitate to affirm that the theologasters of our time, in making satisfaction a part of Penance, followed the Fathers of the Synod of Nicaea. And if this is so, one must confess that the doctrine of the Catholics is most ancient, and that of the Lutherans, which is repugnant to it, new.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT lll. Caliunniac et incndacia Mclanchllionis. Philippus Melanchlhon confcssionis et apologiae auclor, et Confessionislarum qiiasi proprius pa- rens, ul locum liunc dc Pocnilenlia praeter caele- ros diligenter niunirel , variis imposturis el ca- ]umniis fucandum censuil: ac primum in ipsa con- fessionc Augustana art. 12. menlilur , calholicos non docere reraissionem peccalorum per fidem contingere. sed per nostram dileclionem ct opera; el saiisfacliones essc necessarias ad redimendas poenas aelernas. Sed operacpretium erit audire, quam varie hoc niendacium in variis editionibus expresserinl.Nam in ipsa confessione quam anno 1530. Imperalori Carolo exhibucrunl . ila legimus: Rejiciunliir et isti, quinon doccnl remissioncnipeccatorum per jidem continqere, sedjubent nos mcreri graliam per satisfacliones nostras. In edilione aulem Wir- tcmbcrgensi anno 1531. ita mularunl: Rcjiciunlur el isti. qui non docent reniissioncrn peccatorum per fideni contingere, sed docent remissionem peccatovum conlingere propler nostram diiectio- nem et opera. Rejiciuntur et isti, qui canonicas satisfactiones docent necessarias esse ad redi- mendas poenas aelernas, autpoenas purgatorii. In edilione anni 1540. ita posuerunt: Damnant et illos. qui non docent remissionem peccaturum per fidcm gratis propler Cliristum contingerc : sed contendunt remissionem peccatorum contin- gerc propter dignitatem coniritionem , Mectio- nis , aut aliorum operum ; et jubent dubitare coiiscienlias in Poenitentia. an consequanlur re- missionem peceatorum. et affirmant hancdubita- iionem non esse peccalum, etc. Eadem confessio in articulo de confessione, quae est inler eos de abusibus, in edilione anni 31. Antea, inquit, m- modicc extollebaniur satisfactiones: fidei vero et meriti Christi ac justiliae fidei nulla fiebat mentio. Et in editione anni 40. Nusquam, inquit, confessio, quidquam ccrti docent quomodo con- tingal remissio peccatorum: dc fide prorsus est allissimumsilcntium, inunojubent pcrpoluo du- bilarc deremissionc pcccatorum. Va inlra: Uocli, iiiliM- oalholicos sciliccl, finnunl por salisfiicUoncs componsari aclcrnam morlcin: tndocli puiabant his opcribus emi remissioncm cutpae. Jain vero idcin Philippnsin apologia ad art. 12. tol fraudcs cl imposluras congcssil, ul diniciic ^il vel numerum inire: quarum lamcn partcin alKjuam rofutavimus in eo lihcllo, quem inscripsimus judi- ciuin dc libro concordiac l.ullicranorum. Sed u- num cst mcndacium tuin in oonfcss. in art. dc confessione, cdilionis anni 1540. luin in apologiii ad articulum de Poenilentia , quod nullo modo praelerirc possum. Gloriatur Philippus maximani huic loco a suis csse luccm allalam.In coiifcssione sic loquitur:FtAi7 obruta ingenti accrvo inutilium ac malarum opinionum , simplex docirina de Poenilcntia. El paulo pnst : Idco huic articulo maxinie studuerunt nostri lumcn adferrc, quem quidcm ita patefecerunt, aique illustravcrimt , ul eliam adversarii saniorcs fateantur hac in ro bene mcrilos cssc dc Ecclesia. In apologia ve- ro haec addit: Omncs. inquit , boiii viri omnium ordinum, ac Ihcologici ordinis etiam, haud du- bie fa.tcntur. ante Lutheri scripta confusissimam fuisse doctrinam Poenitcntiac.Exstant libri scn- lentiariornm.ubi sunt infinitae quaestiones,quos nulli theologi unquam salis explicarc potucrunt: populus ncquc rei summam complecti potuit,ncc videre quae praecipue requirerentur in Poeni- tentia, ubi quaerenda esset pax conscicntiae. Prodeal nobis aliquis ex adversariis, qui dical quando fiat remissio peccatorum: Bone- Deus , quantae tenebrae sunl. Dubitant utrum in at- trilionevelin contnlione fiat remissio peccato - rum, Et infra: Nosigitur , ut explicaremus pias conscientias ex his labyrinthis sophistarum , conslituimus duas partes Pocnitenliae, videlicel contrilionem et fidcm eic. Al nos contra verissime dicere possumus, anle Lulheri defectionem, et scripla illa contentiosa , planissimam fuisse doclrinam de Poenitentia,si ca spectentur, quae ad hoc sacramentum cum fruclu suscipiendum et minislrandum perlinent, quae so- la a populo el sacerdolibus communiter sciri ne- cesse est. Sciebanl enim el faiebanlur omnes,Poe- nilentiam sacramentum essc; neque dc ea re ulla conlroversia eral. Scicbant quo teinpore necesse esset Poenilenliam agorc, atque ad hoc sacramen- tum accedere. Sciebant quid esset agcndum , ut sacramentum hoc ulililer perciperetur , nimirum dolendum esse de peccato praeterito , et proposi- lum concipiendum vilae melioris ; confitenda sa- cerdoti omnia peccala mortalia, quae ad menlem post examen venirenl: mulctara denique subeun- dam.quara sacerdos imposuisset. Scicbant per ab- solutionem remilli peccala, Deo nimirum Christi merila per sacerdotum ministerium applicante: id- que gralis, non ob meritum vel dignilalem contri- tionis, nedum attritionis, ul mendacissime Adver- sarii nobis imponunt. Sciebant dcnique a quo Poe- nitenliaesacramcntum petere deberent, a proprio videlicet animarum siuirnm pastorc . vel cerle ah 00, qui a coramuni paslorc lolius Ecclesiae «d id LIBER PRIMliS 567 niufius facullaleiu liaberet. Haec omnia, et nota c- lant omnil)us, el extra conlroversiam posita, el ad popu^li iftsiructionem in catechismis,aliisque com- munibus libris passim inveniebanlur. Quod si praelcrea quaedam sublilius a theologis dispulabanlur in schoiis de Poenilenliae sacramen- fo, ea nihil populi fidem impediebant, quemadmo- dum nec disputaliones de Trinilate , de incarna- tione, de peccato originis , aliisque fidei noslrae mysteriis irapedimento sunt plebi, quo minus sim- plicem syraboli Ddcm ex concionibus et catechis- mis haurire possint. Al post Luthcri scripla et concertationes, ita confusa el obscurala sunt omnia, ut nihil certi jam habeanl Lulherani de praecipuis capitibus doctri- nae de Poenitentia, ul mirum non sit, disputatio- nes subliliores ^Scholaslicorum apud eos cessasse , c.um in primis elementis,ei iis.quac ab ipso etiam populo cognosci debent,nondum convenire potue- rint. Conlendunt enim adhuc; sitne ullura Poeni- lentiae sacraraentum; an sil retinenda privata con- l'essio;quae peccata sint confitenda necessario;quo tempore sit facienda confessio; cui sit facienda; et uum etiam foeminae ac pueri possint absolvere ; Fidesne contritionera, an conlritio fidem praece- dere debeal. Nam Lulherus in captivit. babylon. cap. de Poenitentia, tragice vociferatur in eos,qui conlritioncm fide priorem faciunt, quique eara im- piis el infidelibus tribuunt: 0 iram, inquit, Dei insuslentahilem. Haeccine in Ecclesia Chnsti doceri? Et tamen confessio Augustana arlic. 12. qui est de Poenitenlia, et in arl. de confessione ct apologia ed artic, 12. diserlis verbis docent: Con- tritionem praecedere, fidem autera subsequi; ex (|«io sequitur, ut contritio numquam nisi in impiis etinfidelibus reperiatur. Ita in reprimaria pugnat confessio,quae est Lutheranis loco novi cujusdam evangelii, cum ipso Luthero , qui est iisdera loco novi cujusdam evangelislae. Sed his omissis , per- garaus ad caetera. Idem Philippus in disputatione de Poenitentia , proposit. 7. sic ait: Slulte et impie docuerimt Sc}ioLaslici,pcccata remitti per contrilionem sine ftde. Kt proposil.tl.To(a,inquit, doctrinade Poe- nilentia apud Scholasticos, plena cst errorum et ■impielatis. quia omittunt caput negolii, videlicet fidem, quia non docent homincm fide accipere remissionem peccatorum. Idem in aiia disputat. cont. arl. Lovanienses proposil. 9. Delrahunt , in- quit, gloriae Chrisli, quandodicunt remiltipec- cata propter noslramcrita,non propter Chrislum. Et propos. seq. Hunc letrum errorem, quo dele- tur praecipuus articulus fidei; Credo remissio- nem peccatorum, impic defendunt Lovanienscs in suo decreto: Idem in locis communibns ultimo editis, lit. de Confess. Mo7iac/ii,inquit, finxerunt enumerationem peccalorum in confessione esse cultum ct mcritoriam rcmissionis. llaec orania mendacia sunt, neque alio teslirao- nio probari possunt. nisi quia Luthero libuit ea confingere; quod enim ilic dixit, pro vero haben- dum, el saepius repelendum esl, licct alioqui fal- sissimum sit. Denique in locis communibus edilis anno 1322. cum primilias spirilus Lutherici se habere gloria- retur Philippus, mendaciis et imposturis contem- plura addebat antiquissimi et celeberrimi concilii oecumenici nicaeni: sic enim scripsit in eo lib. tit. de huraanis legibus: Insynodo nicaena con- stilulae sunt quaedam Poenilentiae formae: non pronuncio quo spiritu decreverint Patres ; at vi- deo bonam evangelii parlem, immo vim germa- nam evangelii obscuratam esse ea traditione; naminde primum natae sunl satisfacliones. El infra: Porro nostrorum temporum theologastri sequuli priscam tradilionem synodi nicaenae, fecerunt ex satisfaclionibus parlem Poenilenliae quo errore plane non est alius nocentior. Haec ille. In quibus verbis Iria mihi animadvertenda essc videnlur. Primo, incredibilis audacia hujus homi- nis, qui cura eo teraporc juvenis essel , " et sacras literas vix atligisset , in scholis grammaticorum tantum versari solitus;tamen jam spirilu haerctico ebrius, pronunciare ausus sit , a nicaena generali synodo oraniura antiquissima et sanctissima , vim germanara evangelii esse obscuratara. Secundo; Inscitia intolerabilis in eo,qui se cen- sorem nicacnae synodi profilebalur: neque cnim verum est, ex concilio nicaeno primum natas esse salisfactioneSjCum concilium neocaesariense el an- cyranura, quae sunt nicaeno vetustiora, plena sinl canonibus poenitentialibus: et s. Cypriani sermo de lapsis, ac Tertulliaoi liber de Poeniteniia (ul a- lios nunc oraittara) nihil fere aliud sonent nisi sa- tisfacliones. Floruisse autem s. Cyprianum annis circiter octoginta, et Terlullianum annis plus cen- tum ante synodura nicacnara , nemo inficiari po- test. Tertio: Admirabilis inconstantia. IN'ara cum do- clrinara nostram dc Poenitenlra, quam oppugnant- passim novam esse clamilent, el Papistarum com, menta appellarc soleanl , hic Philippus alTirmarc non dubitavit, theologastros noslri temporis in eo quod satisfactionem partemPoenilenliae fecerunt, sequutusessePatres synodi nicaenae. Quod si ita est, anliquissimara fateri oporlet calholicorum do- ctrinam: novam aulem, quae illi repugnat, Luthe- ranorum.