Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 8: The First Controversy Is Proposed, Whether Penance Is a Sacrament Properly So Called; and the Opinions of the Adversaries Are Explained
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).
The first controversy, which is on the kind, namely whether Penance is a sacrament properly so called, will have four parts. For first the state of the question must be explained. Then the opinions of the adversaries must be reported. Thirdly the truth must be asserted and defended. Lastly the contrary objections must be dissolved.
That the state of the controversy, then, may be opened, we lay this down at the outset, that the controversy is not about any Penance whatever. For, as pertains to the present disputation, true Penance can either consist in the conversion of the mind alone and the inward detestation of sin, or also show itself by outward signs, mourning, tears, confession, affliction of the body. And that conversion of the mind to God, although it has always been necessary for reconciliation, and is a virtue by no means small, yet unless it has outward signs joined to it cannot be called a sacrament; nor is there any controversy about this matter. But that true Penance can, and for the most part is accustomed to, have outward signs joined to it, was proved a little before from the sacred letters. For the Lord, Matthew 11, says that the Tyrians and Sidonians would have done penance in ashes and sackcloth if it had been preached to them; and in Matthew 12 the same Christ praises the Penance of the Ninevites, which Jonah, chapter 3, testifies was outward. The adversaries themselves too, although they reject satisfactions, nevertheless do not reject outward laborious works as a sign of Penance. Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, section 15: “The severer we are on ourselves,” he says, “the more we ought to hope that God will be propitious to mercy; and certainly it cannot be but that the soul, struck with the horror of judgement, takes up the part of an avenger in exacting punishment of itself.” And Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, in the disputation on satisfaction, page 1072, writes that laborious works are not rejected by his people, as fruits and signs of true Penance.
About this Penance, then, which shows itself by outward signs, the question is whether it ought to be called a sacrament. But neither is the controversy about every Penance of this kind; for it is sufficiently agreed between us and the adversaries that the Penance of the Ninevites, and of others who lived before the coming of Christ, could by no means have been a sacrament of the new law, of which we are now treating. Nor do either we or the adversaries make a sacrament of Penance of this kind, even after the coming and passion of Christ, if no absolution follows. And some rite of absolution almost all acknowledge, although about the force and efficacy of absolution, about the minister who pronounces it, and about many other things pertaining to absolution, there are many questions between us and the adversaries.
This, then, is the state of the controversy: whether Penance manifested by outward signs, when the word of absolution is added to it, is a sacrament of the new law properly so called. For this rite of reconciling those fallen after Baptism, which consists of Penance shown by outward signs and of the word of absolution, Catholics affirm to be a true sacrament properly so called; the heretics deny it.
Chemnitz, after his manner, while he complains that the state of the controversy is confused by Catholics, himself confuses it with wonderful fraud. For since, the state being rightly settled, he saw that a great part of the Lutherans, and the very author of the Augsburg Confession, do not dissent from the Catholics, lest he himself should seem to fight so openly with his own people, he pretended that the state of the question is far other than it really is. He, then, on pages 905 and 908, contends that this is the state of the controversy: whether sinners after Baptism seeking reconciliation with God are to be led away from faith in the obedience, passion and satisfaction of Christ to confidence in their own action of contrition, confession and satisfaction, so that these actions, the word of absolution being added to them, are a sacrament and the efficient cause of the remission of sins. But if that question were between us, it certainly would not be the one which Catholics propose when they ask whether Penance is a sacrament properly so called; but it would be another question depending on the former, namely, what sort of sacrament Penance is. For first the controversy must be settled whether Penance is a sacrament, which Chemnitz fraudulently tries to dissemble; then it must be asked what kind of sacrament it is at last. What of this, that the question which Chemnitz paints and invents is none at all? For Catholics (as we also briefly showed in the preceding chapter) nowhere dispute that sinners are to be led away from faith in the obedience, passion and satisfaction of Christ to confidence in their own action; but on the contrary all with one mouth cry out that the whole force of the sacrament of Penance, as of all the other sacraments, depends on the merit of the obedience, passion and satisfaction of Christ, and that without faith in Christ no one can be absolved from sins or reconciled with God. Moreover, the sacramental force, which concurs efficiently and instrumentally to the remission of sins, consists properly and chiefly in the word which the priest pronounces in the name of God when he absolves, as is plain from Saint Thomas on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 18, question 1, article 2; while the actions of the penitent concur to effecting the remission of sins only in so far as they share in the sacramental force from the word of absolution, by which they are formed.
Nor is it against this that we call Penance itself, which consists in the action of the sinner, a sacrament; since the name of sacrament is accustomed to be given to the matter rather than to the form, although the form either alone or chiefly contains the force of effecting. So Baptism properly signifies the washing, that is, the material part; but those words, “I baptise thee,” and so on, we are accustomed to name not the sacrament but the form of the sacrament. So we call the consecrated bread the sacrament; but those words, “This is my body,” we do not call the sacrament. So we call the anointing of those to be confirmed, and the anointing of the sick, the sacrament, rather than the words by which those sacraments are completed. So finally we call Matrimony, or the joining of the man with the woman, and not those words, “I take thee for mine,” the sacrament. To this is added that if the actions of the penitent were called efficient causes of the remission of sins, no less properly and principally than the absolution itself, yet they would not be called causes except as instruments of God, and so nothing at all would be taken from the efficiency of God and the merit of the passion of Christ. For even the absolution itself, and the washing, and the consecration of the Eucharist, are human actions; and yet because through those actions, as through certain instruments of his own, God works and applies the merits of Christ to us, no one complains that men are led away from the merit of Christ to confidence in a human action when one is bidden to be baptised or absolved by a man, or to receive the Eucharist consecrated by a man.
The true state of the question, therefore, is that which we have set: whether Penance declared by outward signs, with the word of absolution, is truly and properly a sacrament of the new law.
Chapter IX. The opinions of the adversaries on the proposed question are explained
That Penance is a sacrament the Montanists and Novatians were the first to deny; although they removed not only the notion and name of a sacrament, but also the power of reconciling sinners, and altogether every ecclesiastical rite of reconciliation. Nor indeed, as some falsely think, did the heretics named above take away Penance and the hope of pardon to be obtained from God, but only denied that those who had fallen after Baptism could be loosed and reconciled by the Church. Of the Montanists Saint Jerome, in the letter to Marcella on the errors of Montanus: “They,” he says, “shut the doors of the Church against almost every offence; we daily read: I prefer the penance of the sinner to his death.” Of the Novatians Socrates reports, book 4 of the History, chapter 23, that Novatian himself, whom he calls Novatus, wrote to all the Churches that they should by no means admit to the mysteries those who had sacrificed to idols, but should exhort them to Penance and leave the remission to God, who can and has authority to forgive sins. The same is gathered from Cyprian, book 2, letter 4, and from Ambrose, book 1 On Penance, chapter 2. And Ambrose notes that the Novatians of his time had somewhat relaxed the rigour of their forefathers: “They say,” he says, “that, the graver crimes excepted, they grant pardon to the lighter. Not so indeed says Novatian, the author of your error, who thought Penance to be given to no one.” And a little after: “In this, then, you condemn your father by your own sentence, who make a distinction of sins, some of which you think can be loosed by you, and some you judge to be without remedy.” And since some call the author of this heresy after Montanus Novatus, others Novatian, it must be known that Novatus, a priest of Carthage, was the first who after Montanus stirred up this heresy; for that Novatian, a Roman priest, who sat in schism against Cornelius, was seduced by him, can be understood from Pacian in letter 3 to Sympronian, and from Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men, under Novatian. Wherefore the same Jerome in the second book against Jovinian, and Augustine in the book On Heresies, chapter 38, make Novatus the author of the heresy; the Greeks confuse these names, and call both Novatus.
This most ancient heresy, long ago condemned, Luther tried to stir up again, and the false prophets who rose after him, Zwingli, Calvin and the rest. For although they acknowledge a certain reconciliation of those fallen after Baptism, in which they seem to differ from the Novatians, yet the Lutherans deny to priests the true and judicial power of forgiving sins no less than the Novatians of old denied it.
But that Penance is a true sacrament properly so called, Luther was the first in this our age to deny, but timidly and inconstantly; for in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, not far from the beginning: “In the first place,” he says, “I must deny the seven sacraments, and set down for the time being only three, Baptism, Penance, the Bread.” But in the same book, at the end, he refers Penance back to Baptism, and out of three makes two: “It has seemed proper,” he says, “to call those sacraments which are promised with signs annexed; whence it comes about that, if we wish to speak strictly, there are only two sacraments in the Church of God, Baptism and the Bread, since in these alone we see both a sign divinely instituted and a promise of the remission of sins. For the sacrament of Penance, which I counted with these two, lacks a visible and divinely instituted sign, and I have said that it is nothing else than a way and return to Baptism.” So he. Yet the same Luther, both often elsewhere and in the propositions against the men of Louvain, which he published in the year 1545, proposition 34, granted that Penance is a sacrament. Philipp Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces published in the year 1522, openly denied this sacrament; for so he speaks under the title of Penance: “That Penance is not a sign is nothing obscure; for Penance is the mortification of our old man and the renewal of the spirit. Its sacrament, or sign, is nothing else than Baptism; and this may most rightly of all be called the sacrament of Penance.” Yet the same Philipp, following his Luther, in books published afterwards taught that Penance is a sacrament, and especially in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. And since Matthias Flacius Illyricus, in the apology of the Antwerp Confession, chapter 18, and Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 910, are not afraid to write that the Apology of the Augsburg Confession does not acknowledge this sacrament except improperly and in a certain manner, but not simply and properly, the very words of the Apology are to be adduced, that these two Lutherans may be understood to have fallen away not only from the Catholic Church, but also from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, to whose words they had sworn. So then the Apology has it, in the chapter on the number and use of the sacraments: “If we call sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace is added, it is easy to judge which are properly sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be sacraments properly so called; for it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Wherefore those instituted without the command of God are not certain signs of grace, even if perhaps they teach or admonish the rude of something. Truly, therefore, the sacraments are Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, absolution, which is the sacrament of Penance; for these rites have the command of God and the promise of grace, which is proper to the New Testament. For hearts ought to hold for certain, when we are baptised, when we eat the body of the Lord, when we are absolved, that God truly forgives us on account of Christ.” So there; where the Apology, first, calls the sacrament of Penance properly and truly a sacrament. Secondly, it says it has a rite divinely instituted and a promise of grace, whereas Chemnitz denies that Penance is properly a sacrament for this reason alone, that he thinks it lacks a rite divinely instituted. Thirdly, it joins it perpetually with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which are by the consent of all truly and properly sacraments. Fourthly, it separates and distinguishes it from human rites, which are not properly sacraments. Could the Apology, then, have asserted more clearly that the sacrament of Penance is truly and properly a sacrament? Add that in the Commonplaces published in the year 1545, under the title of the number of the sacraments, the same Philipp speaks thus: “But when the word sacrament is understood of ceremonies instituted in the preaching of Christ, let these sacraments be numbered: Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, absolution, which are outward rites and are signs of the whole Gospel, and indeed properly are testimonies of the remission of sins, or of reconciliation, of which especially it is said in the usual definition: A sacrament is a sign of grace, that is, of gratuitous reconciliation, which is given on account of Christ and preached in the Gospel.” It is sufficiently clear, then, that Philipp and Luther recalled that former opinion which they had taught at the beginning.
But for the error introduced by these men and afterwards deserted, there were not lacking those who would undertake its patronage; and first Zwingli, in the book On True and False Religion, chapter on the sacraments, and all the Zwinglians, remove Penance from the number of the sacraments. John Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 15 and following, not only denies the sacrament of Penance, but even tries by many arguments to show that there is no sacrament of this kind; which he likewise does in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 15. Calvin is followed by his Beza in the Confession of Faith, chapter 7, article 11. Nor are there lacking many of those who wish to be called Lutherans, and have sworn to the words of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, who in the present question have deserted to the Sacramentarians: as Nikolaus Selnecker in the second part of his Paedagogia, where he treats of the number of the sacraments; Johannes Wigand in the Method of the Doctrine of the Church of Magdeburg, chapter 13; Matthias Flacius Illyricus in the preface of the book entitled On the Sects and Dissensions of the Papists; Martin Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination of the Council of Trent, in the first disputation on Penance; and finally not a few others, whom it is of no importance to recount.
Against this error the Synod of Trent published canon 1 of session 14, in these words: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful to God himself, as often as they fall into sins after Baptism, let him be anathema.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPIT VIII PropoiiiUir coulroversia priina An Voenilentia sil sacramentinn proprie diclum. Conlroversia Prima, quae esl dc gencrc , sitne videliccl Poenilentia sacramentuni proprie dielum, qualuor partes babebit. Primo enim explicandus erit quaestionis stalus. Deinde adreremlac senlen- tiae adversariorum. Tertio asstMHnda el propu- giianda verilas. Postremo oljjectioncs contraric diluendae. Ul igilur controversiae slalus aperialur , illud initio ponimus, non de quavis Poenitenlia contro- versiam esse: potesl eniin, nl ad praesentem dis- putalionem pertinet , vera Poenitenlia vel in sola mentis conversione, alque inlerna peccali delesla- tione consistere, vel etiara exlcrnis signis , moe- rore, lachrymis, confessione, corporis alTliclatioue se prodere. Et quidem conversio illa mentis ad Deum, etsi semper necessaria fueril ad reconci- liationcm, el virlus quaedam sil non exigua: la- inen nisi signa externa adjuncta habeal, sacramen- lum dici non potcat: neque de liac re ulla contro- versia esl. Posse autfim, et ut plurimum solere,verara Poe- nitenliain signa externa adjuncta haberc,ex sacris lileris paulo ante probalum est. Domiims enira Maltli. 11. in cinere el cilicio Poenilentiam actu- ros fuisse dicit Tyrios et Sidonios, si praedicatum eis fuissel; etMaith. 12. laudatidem Chrislus Poe- nitentiam iVinivitarura, quam exlernam luisse tesla- tur Jouas cap. .'}. Ipsi eliam adversarii licetsatisfacliones rejicianl, lamen opera externa laboriosa in sigmim Poeni- tenliae, non rejiciunl. Calvmus lib. 3. Institut. cap. ."i. § 15. Qiio severiores, inquil . in nos su- mus. eo debere sperare magis propilium ad mi- serieordiam Deiun, el certc fierinonpolest. quin aniynajudicii horrore perculsa, parles ullionis in exigenda de se poena occupet. Kt Kemniiius in 2. par. exam. in dispulatione de salisfactione pag. 1072. scribit,non rejici a suis opera laboriosa, ut fructus et signa verae Poenitentiae. De hac igilur Poenilenlia, quae signis exlernis proditurquaeslio esl,an sacramentum dici debeat. Sed neque de omni ejusmodi Poenitentia contro- versia est: salis enira inter nos et adversarios con- venit. Poenilenliara Ninivitarum , el aliorura qui ante Chrisli adventura vixerunt, sacramentum no- vac lcgis. di'' qno mme agimn^;, neqnnqiinm osse poluisse. Sed neqne PoiMiitcnliam cjiismodi, eliani post Chrisli adveiitum (M passioncm saeraiiuMilum raeimns vel nos, vel adversarii , si iinlla sequalur absoliitio. Absolutionis autiMii riliim alicpuMii ferc omues agnosiMint. IumM de vi (M cnicacia Aiisolu- lionis, de ministro, qui cani pronnnciat.deipic aliis mullis rebus ad absolulionem perlinenlil)iis, inul- tae sint inter nos (M adversarios (piaestiones. llic igilnr slaliis ennlrov(M'siiie est: An Poenilen- lia signis cxlernis manifeslala . accedente ad oam v(mI)o iibsolnlionis. sil sacrjuiuMiliim noviic l(>gis pioprie dicUim. Isluin enim riliim reconciliaiuli lapsos post Haptisinuin. qui ex Poeniteiitia signis exlernis prodila, et viMbo absolulioiiis conslel, ca- lludici veriiin ac prnprie diclnm Siiciamenlum esse allirmiinl: Ilaerelici n(!ganl. Kemnitius more suo dum qneritnr a catholicis eonlrovcrsiae sl.ilum confundi , ipse etim inira friuide confnndil. Qnia enim slalu recte constituto, videbat magnam Lutheranorum parleni, et ipsum confessionis Augustanae auclorem a catholicis nou dissenlire. ne ipse cnm suis tara ap(M"te pugnare videreliir, stiitum (juaestionis longe alium esse fin- xil , quam revera sil. Is igitur pag. 90.''>. et 908. hunc esse contendit staliim controversi.ie : Ulrum jieccalores posl 15aplismum quaerenles reconci- iialionera cum Peo abducendi sinl a fide obedien- tiae, passionis et satisfactionis Chrisli,ad fiduciam aclionis propriae conlritionis, confessionis el Sii- lisfactionis, ila ul isliic actiones, accedenle ad eas verbo absolulionis, sint sacramenlum , el caussa cfTuMens remissionis peccatorum. Al isla quaeslio si inler nos esset,non esset cer- te iila quam catholici proponunl , cum quaerunt . Sitne poenitenlia sacramentum proprie dictum;sed esset iilia quaeslio a priore dependens, nimirnm : Quale sit Poenilentiae sacrainentura. Prius eniin componenda est controversia , An Poenitentia sa- cramenlum sit, quam Kemnitius fraudulenler dis- simulare conatur: deinde quaerendum, Quale tan- dem sacramenlum sil. Quid. quod quiiestio quam Kemnitius depingit ac finait, nulla eslomniiio? non enim catholici (ut etiam superiorecapitebreviterostendiraus)usquam disputant, peccatores a fide obcdientiac, passionis et salisfaclionis Christi abducendos esse ad fidn- ciam aclionis propriiie; sed conlra omnes uno ore clamanl , tolam viin sacriimenti Poenilentiae, nt a- liorura omnium sacramenlornm, a merito obedien- liae, passionis et satisfaclionis Chrisli pendere , neque absque fide in Chrisium, ullum a peccatis absolvi, vel reconciliari cum Deo posse. Porro vim sacrainentalem, quae eiricienter alque instrumen- talitcr concurritad remissionem peccatorum, prc- prie ac praecipue in verbo, quod sacerdos Dei no- mine pronunciat, dum absolvit, consistunt;ul per- spicuum est ex s.Thoma in 4. senl.dist.18. quiiesl. 1. artic. 2. actiones aulem poenitentis soluin con- currunt ad remissionem peccatorum efliciendam . quatenus vim sacramejitalem a verbo absolutionis, a quo formantur, parlicipinit. Keque his repugnal, quod Poenitenliam ipsam , quae in actionc peccatoris consistit, sacramenlum I ui;i-:!i piUMus 599 appelliiinus: noinen siquidem sncramonli.miileriiie yplius Iribui soiet. qu;im forniae. licel forma ;iul soia, aul praecipue vim elficiendi conlinciil. Sic Baplismus abiulionem, hoc esl.malerialem parlem proprie significal: illa aulem verba: Ego te baptizo etc. non sacranienlura, sed ibrmain sacramenli no- rninare solemus. Sic panem consecralum , sacra- nienlum dicimus: illa aulem verba: Hocest corpus meum, sacramenlum non dicimus. Sic unclionem confirmandorum. el unclionem aegrolanlium. sa- cramenlum vocamus polius, quam verba qiiibus sacramenla illa perficiunlur.Sic denique Malrimo- iiium, sive conjunclionem viri cum foemiiia; non aulera illa verba: L(jo tc accipio in^ncam, sacra- inenlum appellamus. IIuc accedil, quod si acliones poenitenlis elfi- cienles caussae dicerenlur remissionis pecc;ilo- rum.non minus proprie et principaliler quam ipsa absolulio: non lamen eae caussac dicerentur, nisi ul instrumenla Dci. el ideo nihil omnino detrahe- relur de elficienlia Dei, el meriio passionis Chri- sti. Nain ipsa eliam absolulio el ablutio el Eucha- risliae consecratio, actiones humanae sunt : et ta- nien quia per eas acliones , ul per sua quaedam inslruraenta. Deus operalur el Christi merita nobis applicat; nemo querilur abduci homines a merito Cliris»! ad fiduciam actionis humanae , quando ab hoinine bapliziiri, vel absolvi, vel Eucharistiam ab horaine consecralam sumere jubelur. Verus igilur status quaestionis esl , quem nos constiluimus: Utrum Poenilenlia signis externis declarata. cum verbo absolulionis , sit vere , pro- prieque dictum novae legis sacramentum. CAPIT IX. Explicanlur scntentiae Adversariorum de proposita quaestione. Poenilentiam sacramenlum esse,primi negarunt Monlanislae el Novaliani: quamquam ii non sacia- inenti solum ratiunom ct nomen , sed eliam pole- statem reconciliandi peccalores, et omnein omni- no ritum ecclesiasticum reconciliationis sustule- runl. Nequc vero, ul nonnulli falso e.xistimaiil , Poenilentiam, el spem veniae a Dco obtincndiie , hacretici supra nominali tollebant e medio , scd solum ab Ecclesiii solvi ac reconciliari posse eos, qui post IJaplisnium fucranl lapsi, negabant. Do Monlanistis s. Ilieronymus in epist. ad Mar- cellam de erroribus Monliini: 1111, inqiiit,atZ omne pene delictum Ecclcsiae ohserant fores: nos quo- lidie le(jimus::Valo poenitcntiam peccatoris,quam mortcm. De Novatianis referl Socrales lih. 4.hist.cap.23. Novatianum ipsum, (|uem ipse IVoviilum vociil. ud Ecclesias oinnes scripsisse, ul eos qui simulachris iramnlas.^^ent, miniuie ;id niystcria admilterenl, .sed horlarentur ad PocnJleiitiiirn.rfmissioneirupie pcr- inittcrcnt Dco.qui polcst el habcl auclorilcilcm re- iniltendi peccala. Idem c.x Cypriano lib. 2. episl. 4. el ex Aml)rosio lib. 1. de Poenitentia cap. 2. colligilur. Monet autem Ambrosius. Novalianos sui teraporis nonnihil reniisisse de rigore majorum suoruni: Ajunt. inquit , exceptis gravioribus cri- minilms relaxarc vcniam levioribus. l\on hoc quidem auctor vcstri crroris l\'ovatianus ait. qui ncmini Voenitentiam dandam putavit. El paulo posl: In eo iifilur patrem vcstrum propria dam- nalis scntentia , qui distinctionem peccatoruvi facitis. qua.c solvenda a vobis putelis, ct quae si- nc remcdio esse arbitrcmini. Quia vcro auclorera hujus haeresis post Monta- num alii Novalum, alii Novalianum vocanl: scien- dum est, Novatum presbylerum carlhaginiensem , primum fuisse, qui post Monlanum hanc haercsim excilavil: ab illo enim seduclum fuisse Novatianum Romanuin presbylerum.qui cnm Cornelio in schis- inale sedit, inlelligi polesl ex Paciano in episl. 3. ad Sympronianum, et ex Hieronyrao in libro de viris illuslribus, in Novaliano. Quarc idem Hiero- nymus in secundo libro adversus Jovinianum, el Augustinus libro de Haeresibus cap. .38. i\ovatum auclorem haeresis faciunt: Graeci haec nomina confundunl, et ulrumque Novaturn vocanl. Hanc anliquissimam haeresim jain olim damnii- lam iteruu) excitare conalus esl Lulherus . el qui post eum snrrexerunl f;ilsi prophelae, Zvvinglius , Calvinus clcaeteri. Nam etiamsi reconciliationem quandarn lapsorum post Baplismum agnoscunl , in quo discrepare videnlur a Novalianis: lamen ve- rara et judiciariam polestalem peccata remillendi , non mirius sacerdolibus negant Lutherani , quam olim negarenl Novaliani. Verum aulem el proprie dictum sacramcntum esse Poenilenliam. primus negavil hoc noslro sae- culo Lulherus. sed timide el inconslanter : nam in libro de caplivit. babyl. non procul ab inilio : Principio, in(|uit. neganda mihi sunt septem sa- cramcnta. et tavtum triapro tempore ponenda , Baptismus, Poenilentia. Panis. Sed in eodom 11- bro, extremo.Poenilenliam ;i(l Flaplismum revocat, et ex Irihus duo facit. Vroprie, in^piit, ea sacra- menla vocari visum est.qvnc annexis sifinis pro- missa su.nl: quo [U. ul si ritjidc loqui volumus , lanlum duo .si?ii in Ecclesia Dci sacramenta , liapli.^imus ct Panis, cumin his solis ctinstitu- tum divinitus siqnum. el promissionem remissio- nispcccalorum videamus. AVim Vocnilentiac sa- cr(niu'nlu.m, <iuo(l effo his duotms accensui , si- qno visibid et divinitus instituto carel, et aliucL non esso dixi. quam viam ac redilum ad Itaplis- mu7n. Haec ille. Idem tainen Lutherus , cuin alibi s;ie|)i% tum in propositionihns adversns Lov;)nien- ses, quas edidil anno 1;)4"). propnsilione 3.i. Poe- nitenliiim siicramenlum esse cnncessil. Philippus Hlehmchllion in locis communihus e- ditis anno l.')22. aperte ncgavil hoc sarramenlum: sic eiiiin hxiuitur in tilid. de Poenilonti;i: Poeni- lenliam n<m cssc si<innm, niliit obscurum csl: est enim Pocnitcnlia veluslalis noslrae mortificiilio , ctrcnovalio spiritus. Sacr(in\cnlum. cjus, vel si- ijnum n(m (diud nisi Uaplistniis cst: alquc hic omniuvi rcclissimc vocclur sacramcnlum Vocni- 0'.« DK i'()i;.mii:mi\ /rrWme.ldcm lamcn riiilippus Lulhonim siimu sc- (imilus. in libns po>lc;i o.iilis . IVh-iiiIcuIkiiu s;i- t:nimenlum ossc clocuil, iic pnicsiMlim lu ^ipuluyiu conressiuuis Auj^usUiuiie. Kl (luoimuu M;iillii;is lllyrirus iu :ipologi;< ron- Vossiouis Aulucrpiousis o;ip. l><. cl .M;irUiius Kom- uiiius 111 2. p:ulo e\;imiuis p;ii,'. 'M\. soribere non verenlur. ;ipolot,Mam coulossiyuis .\uj;uslaii;io uoii agnosooro lioo s;ioramonluni uisi imiu-oprio el nu)- ilo quodam, non aulom siniplioilor (>l proprioivor- ba ipsa Apolojjiae luirorenihi suiil. ul duo isli Lu- iherani nou sulum ab Kcclosia r^iiholica , sod ol- iam ab apolo-ji^i oonrossionis Au^mslanae , iu ru- jus vorba juravoraul . (lolVoisso iiilolliiianlur. Sic igilur InibcL Apologia iu cap. de numoro ol usu sa- «•nuuoulorum: 5/ ^acramvnla vnvamiinrUuH. (]ni habent mandaluin Dci. cl quibus addi(a cs/ pro- missio ijraliac. facHc est judicarc.quac sintpro- prie satramcnta. ISam ritus ab hominibus insli- luli, non erunt hoc modo propric dicla sacra- vicnla: non a^l cnim aucloritalis humanae. pro- miltcre yraliam. Quare si(pia sine mandaio Dci institula, non sunt ccrla sitjna (iratiae . ciiamsi lortasse rndes doccnl aut admonenlaliquid. Ve- rc i(jilur sunl sacramcnta , Baplismus , coe?ia Domini. (ibsolutio. quae est sacramentum poe- nilcntiae: nam hiriius habcnt mandatum Dei , et promissioncm (jratiae, quac est propria novi Testamenli.Ccrlo enim dcbcnlstatuere. corda,cum baptizamur. cum vcscimur corpore l)omini,cum absolrimur. quod vere i(jnoscal nobis Dcus ^m)- plcr Chrislum. \h\cc ibi: ubi Apolu^^ia Primo ap- pellal Poonilenliac sacramonlum, proprie ac verc sacr;imoiilum. Seoundo, dicil babcre rilum divi- nilus instilulum, elgralijie promissioncm, cum la- men Kemnilius Ldco solum net^el csse propne sa- cramenlum Poenilenliam, quod eam carere oxisli- mcl rilu divinilus inslilulo. Tertio conjungil pcr- poluo cum Baplismo el coena Domini , quae suul omnium consensu vere ac proprie sacramcnla. Quailo, separat nc dislinguit a rititms liumanis , (jui uon sunt propric s;'.cramenla. Poleraluo igilur Apidogia clarius asserere, Poenilenliae sacramen- luin vero ac proprie sacramenlum esse? Adde, qudd in locis communibus edilis anno 1;)'«:'). in tilulo de numero sacnimentorum idcm Philippus sic loquitur: Cum a.utem vocabulum sci- cramenti de caeremoniis intcUigitur instilutis in pruodicalionc Christi: numerentur haec sacra- menla, Baptismus . coena Domini , absolulio , quae sunl exlerni rilus, et sunt signa iotius e- van^jclii. et quidcni proprie sunl tcslimonia re- misuonis peccalorum . seu reconcilialionis, de quapraecipue diciiurin dejinilione usilata: Sa- cramenlum esl signum graliae, idest, reconciiia- lionis graluitae, quae proplcr Chrislum donatur el in cvangelio pracdicalur. Satis igitur constal, Philippum el Lulherum revocasse priorcm illam soulenli;im, qu;iin inilio docuerant. Sed erroris ab istis introducti, ac postca descrli, non dclueiunt qui palrocinium suscipcrent: ao primuin Zwinglius in libro de vera el ialsa reli* jiionc, c;ip. de s;)onimentis, et Zwingliani omnes , Poenitenliam u numero saciamcnlorum rcmovcul. Jo;in. C^ilvinus lib. i. lusliliil. c;ip. 11). § I.'». et stM|uoulil)iis. iioii iicgjil siduiii P(>ciiiloi:li;io s;icra- nuMiluiii, s(mI oluuii niullis ;irgiini(Miiis iiiilliiin e- jusmodi sacnimenlum esse conalur oslendere : (pmd idiMii fiicil iu Antidoto (MUicilii IridiMiliiii scss. (i. c;i|). l.").C;ilvinuiii S(Miuiliir suiis lJoz;i in coiiles- sioiie lidei o;ip. 7. arlicul. H.uec dosunl iiiulti e\ liis (pii LiillKMMui dici voluiil , et in verba conros- sioiiis Aiii;usl;iu;i(! ol ejiis ;i|/ologi;ie juranint, qui ;id S;i(M;iiii(Mil;in()s in |)r;iosciili (pj^icslioiK! delecc- riiil: ut i\icol;ius Selneccerns iu 2. parte suac Pae- (i;ii;()gi;i(\ iibi de nuiii(M'o s;i(M';iiueiil()riiin tr;ict;it: Jo;iniios Wig;iiidiis in Melhodo d()olrin;i(! Ecolcsiac M;ig(loburgensis cap.li.M;iltlii;is lllyricusin prae- hiiioiK! Iibri, (pii iu^cribilur: de sectis etdissidiis 7*o7i,f///cto?'n?/HM;uliiius Kemnitius in 2. p;ir. exa- uiiiiis Irideutitii oonoilii , iu prima dispulnlium; di; Poeuitentui: ;ilii(pie deuique non pauci, (jbos niliil iillinot receiisere. Advcrsus liunc errorcMn edidit synodns Iridou- tin;i c;inonein 1. sess. 14. in baec vorbir Si quis dixcril. in catholica Ecclesia Puenilcnliam non esse vcre ac pnrprie sacramentum. pro lideiibus. quotics post Ixipii^mum peccata labuntur , ipsi Deo reconciliandis, a Christo Domino nostro in- stitulum, anathema sit.