Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 15: On the Essential Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
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).
We have demonstrated hitherto that Penance is a sacrament truly and properly so called, and also distinct from the sacrament of Baptism; now we shall begin to dispute of its parts. The sacrament of Penance is accustomed to be divided by three partitions. The first is taken from the essence, which consists of two parts, matter and form, that is, the acts of the penitent and the absolution of the priest. The second from the matter, which comprises three parts, contrition, confession and satisfaction. The third from the rite, which is also threefold; for one Penance is private, another public, and this again either solemn or not solemn. Of these partitions we shall now speak briefly and in general; then in the following books we shall treat separately of the several members of the partitions, about which certain controversies are accustomed to be raised.
As regards, then, the essential parts of this sacrament, this is agreed among all, that the word of absolution pertains to the essence of this sacrament; for that without any doubt is the sign and cause of the remission of sins. And although absolution is contained in those words, according to the usage of the Church, which is altogether to be kept, “I absolve thee from thy sins,” yet if other words to the same sense were used, as, “I forgive thee thy sins,” or, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” nothing would be lost from the essential perfection of the sacrament. Nor can there be any question about the matter which they call remote; for it is certain that sins, or the sinful man, are the remote matter of this sacrament, since absolution is bestowed by priests to blot out sins, or to cure the sinful man. But neither sin nor the sinner can be called such a matter as that from which, as from the other part, the sacrament is completed, but rather one about which the sacrament works; just as a bodily disease, or a sick man, is not that of which a medicine consists, but that on which the medicine exerts its force.
The question, then, is whether besides absolution there is something else which seems to pertain to the notion and essence of this sacrament. Now four opinions are found. The first is that absolution alone constitutes the essence of this sacrament. So among Catholic theologians Scotus taught, on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 14, question 4, and distinction 16, question 1, and those who followed him, William of Ockham, John Major, Jacques Almain, and any others there may be. To this opinion also some of the heretics of our age come near, as Illyricus in the apology of the Antwerp Confession, chapter 18, and Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination, page 903. But in two things these heretics differ from the theologians cited above. For first the heretics do not acknowledge the sacrament of Penance except as imperfect and improperly so called, since it consists of the word alone, as they speak, without an element; but those Catholics hold it to be a whole and perfect sacrament properly so called, although its essence consists in absolution alone. Next Scotus, and those who follow him, although they deny that confession is an essential part of this sacrament, yet do not deny that it is necessary and instituted by Christ, which Illyricus and Chemnitz and the other sectaries deny. Add that Scotus and the other Catholic doctors lived before those councils in which all these things were more accurately explained; and if they were alive at this time, without doubt they would acquiesce in the definition and opinion of the Church.
The second opinion is that of those who hold that besides the word of absolution a certain visible rite also is used by the minister, that the essence of this sacrament may be wholly completed; although they do not sufficiently explain what that rite is. Philipp Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article 13, on the use and number of the sacraments, is the author of this opinion; for he writes that Baptism, the Eucharist and absolution are true sacraments, because they have a rite with a promise. And in the same place he distinguishes the rite from the word: “God,” he says, “moves hearts at once through the word and the rite; and as the word strikes the ears to smite the heart, so the rite itself strikes the eyes to move the heart.” And below: “The rite is received by the eyes, and is as it were a picture of the word, signifying the same as the word, wherefore the effect of both is the same.” The third is the opinion of those who constitute the sacrament of Penance from Baptism, or the remembrance of Baptism, and the word of absolution; of which we treated in the preceding chapter. The last opinion, and the truest, is that the sacrament of Penance consists of a twofold intrinsic and essential part, the absolution of the priest as form, and the acts of the penitent as matter. This opinion both was of old that of many ancient theologians, Saint Thomas, Richard, Durandus and others on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 14, and is now that of almost all who write on the sacrament of Penance.
Let the first proposition, then, be: It can only be said absurdly that the sacrament of Penance consists of Baptism and absolution. This proposition has been sufficiently proved in the preceding chapter; and certainly it ought to suffice that neither a Baptism performed many years ago, nor the remembrance of it, can be called sensible signs; since for the essence of a sacrament this is especially required, that when the sacrament is received a bodily sign be presented to the bodily senses.
The second proposition: There is no rite used by the minister, besides the word of absolution, which can rightly be called the matter of this sacrament. I could wish Philipp had explained more clearly what that rite is which strikes the eyes of the penitent while the word of absolution strikes the ears of the same penitent; for we should labour less in refuting his opinion. Nevertheless, unless I am mistaken, there are only three actions of the minister about which there can be any doubt; and if all these are evidently excluded, Philipp’s opinion also will be evidently refuted. First, then, the minister, when he reconciles penitents, is accustomed to lay his hand on them. But this rite, although it was in use in the ancient Church, and even now is used in most places, nevertheless does not pertain to the essence of this sacrament, as Saint Thomas teaches in opuscule 22, on the form of absolution, where he briefly refutes the objections which could be made against it. And this will be much more certain still if the doctrine of the adversaries has place, since from the word of God it cannot in any way be demonstrated that the imposition of hands must necessarily be used in reconciliation; and not only no testimony, but not even any example of this imposition of hands is found in the sacred letters. “Whose sins you shall forgive,” says the Lord, “they are forgiven them,” John 20; but he did not add, “and on whom you shall lay hands.” Nor is it gathered from the words just cited that hands are to be laid on, as it is indeed gathered that sins are to be confessed, as we shall show in its place; for what hinders sins from being forgiven, even if hands are not laid on? Nor is the Lord, when he said to the paralytic, Matthew 9, and to the Magdalene, Luke 7, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” read to have laid hands on them. And what is said in the fourth Council of Carthage, canon 78, that penitents who on account of danger of life receive the viaticum of the Eucharist should not think themselves absolved without the imposition of hands if they survive, is not against what we have said. For the council takes the imposition of hands for the action of Penance itself, in which hands were frequently laid on; for in the same council, canon 80, it is prescribed that on each day of fasting hands be laid by the priest on the penitents. So this is the opinion of that council: those who on account of danger of life are privately absolved by priests, the action of public Penance not yet completed, if they survive, let them return to the order of penitents, and with them receive the imposition of hands in its seasons; and unless they do this, let them not think themselves absolved from the bond of excommunication, or from the temporal punishment which had been prescribed to them by the priests. For that they were absolved from guilt cannot be doubted, since they received the viaticum of the Eucharist, which the Church never bestows except on those whom it believes free from mortal guilt. The other rite which Catholic priests are accustomed to use in the reconciliation of penitents is the sign of the cross made over the penitent himself by the hand of the priest. But about this rite there can be no doubt; for neither are the adversaries accustomed to use this sign in anything, and that the same sign is not of the essence of the sacrament of Penance, as neither of the Eucharist, Saint Thomas teaches, part 3, question 84, article 4, whom no Catholic contradicts in this matter. A third rite could be imagined, that visible motion of the tongue and lips which is exercised in the pronunciation of the words; which I hear is the opinion of certain Lutherans. And indeed nothing else seems able to be imagined, if that opinion of Philipp is in any way to be explained, who distinguishes in the pronunciation of absolution the rite which is presented to the eyes from the word which strikes the ears. But the opinion is altogether absurd and plainly ridiculous. For in the first place it is common to every bodily word that it is not made without the motion of tongue and lips, and yet no one hitherto, in the word by which we make Baptism or the Eucharist, has distinguished the rite from the voice. Next, the motion of tongue and lips signifies nothing of itself, but is only the cause of the voice, which indicates the conceptions of the mind. So if some deaf man were to see a man speaking, he would no more conjecture from the motion of the lips what is signified by the speaker than if he saw the same motion of the lips in a beast. No rite, therefore, can be imagined on the part of the minister.
The third proposition: The action of the penitent as matter, and the word of the priest as form, complete the notion and essence of the sacrament of Penance. It is not to be proved in this place from the divine letters that the action of the penitent, namely confession and the rest which are required on his part, is either altogether necessary or instituted by Christ; for that will be treated below in its place, as we said above. But this being laid down, it is only to be proved that the action of the penitent pertains to the essence of the sacrament as the matter from which, if the form is added, the sacrament is constituted. And since, that hypothesis being made, the question is only among Catholics, our opinion will be proved from those testimonies which are admitted by all Catholics. First, then, the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 3, teaches that the form of the sacrament of Penance is those words, “I absolve thee,” and so on, and that the acts of the penitent are as it were the matter; and a little after it adds that both the absolution and the acts of the penitent pertain to the integrity of the sacrament. By which decree the council seems to have taught plainly enough that the whole sacrament is not contained in absolution alone; for the form ought not to have been distinguished from the matter, if one simple action of the priest constitutes the whole sacrament. And how, I ask, is the action of the penitent no less required for the integrity of the sacrament than the absolution of the priest, if absolution alone completes the sacrament? Next, the Council of Florence, in the instruction for the Armenians, calls Penance itself a sacrament, and says that its material parts are the acts of the penitent, and its form the words of the priest, “I absolve thee,” and so on; in which manner Pope Lucius III also speaks, in the chapter Ad abolendam, on heretics, where he calls sacraments Baptism, the confession of sins, and Matrimony. But how is confession a sacrament, if it in no way pertains to the essence of the sacrament? Nor ought Scotus to seem to have spoken aptly enough when he says, on book 4, distinction 14, question 4: “Penance is the absolution of the penitent, made with certain words,” and so on. For Penance is the action of the penitent, not of the priest; and absolution is the priest’s, not the penitent’s. For who speaks so as to say that a man does Penance while he is absolved, and not rather while he weeps, confesses, fasts? The same council, moreover, says that all the sacraments are completed by three things, matter, form and the intention of the minister; therefore the sacrament of Penance cannot consist of the form of absolution and intention alone. Finally, the action of the penitent is a sensible sign of justifying grace instituted by God, and by his promise concurs to the remission of sins; why, then, will it not be some part of the sacrament? For that it is a sensible sign cannot be called in question, since the priest ought not to absolve any but one whom from sensible signs he knows to be penitent; and that it is a sign of justifying grace is manifestly gathered from this, that he who confesses sin and asks pardon of God shows that he hates sin and is now withdrawing from it in mind and will, and therefore being justified; which is more openly signified and completed by absolution. Moreover, that this sign was instituted by God is to be proved elsewhere, as we said, nor is it denied by Scotus and his followers. Finally, that it concurs in some way to the remission of sins Saint John testifies, who in the first letter, chapter 1, writes: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” And as we truly say that someone is justified because he is absolved, so also we can rightly say that someone is justified because he humbly confesses his sins. But of this matter we shall say more in the following chapter.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAI'UT XV. I)e parlibus cssentiaUbus sacramenli Poeniteniiae. Dcmonslravimus liaclenus, Poenitenliam sacra- raeiitum esse vere proprieque diclum.alque eliam a sacramento Ba|)tismi dislinclum, nunc de parli- bus ejus dispnlare incipicmus. Tnbus parlitionibus dividi solel Pocnilcnliae sacramcnlum. Prima sumitur ab essenlia , quae duabuspartibus conslal. materia el forma, idesl . aclibus poenitentis et absolutione sacerdolis. Se- cunda a materia, quae trcs partes comprehendil , conlritionem, coiifessioiiem et salisfaclionem. Ter- tia a ritu quae esl etiam Irimenibris: alia enim est Poenilentia privata, alia pubiica,et iiaec rursus aul soiemnis, aul non soiemiiis. De bis partilio- nibus nunc breviter etgeneralim dicemus: deiii- dein sequenlibus hbris seorsim de singulis parti- linnuni memliris, de quibii.^ conlrovcrsiae aliquae agilari solenl, dissoremiis. Igitur de parlibus essentialiiiiis liujiis sacra- lueiiti. illiid coiiviMiit intiM" oiiincs, Vcrliiiiii abso- lulionis ad liujiis sacranuMili esstMitiaiu pcrlinere: illiid (Miiiii sinc, iillo dubio si},Muiin esl el caussa remissiouis |)cccatoruni. lOl (piainquam absoliitio illis vcrbis, jiixla iisiim Kcclcsiac.qui omniiio mm'- vandus esl, coiiliiK-tur: Abaolw) /c apcccatis luis; lamen si in oandem sententiam alia vcrba adhibi;- rentiir. iil. Remifo liliipeccata lua: vcl, licmil- tuntur tibi pcc.cala tua, niliil dc sacramenti cs- sentiali [^erlcctione decederet.Ncque vero quacstio esse potesl de materia,quam dicunl rcmolam:con- slat enim peccata, sive homincm peccalorem. uia- lcriam esse sacramcnti liujiis reinolam , cuin ad peccala delenda, sive ad liominem peccatorem cu- raiuluni absolutio a sacerdotibiis impendalur. Sed neque pcccatum, neque peccalor.talis materia dici polest, ex qua tamquam ex allera parlc, sacramen- tum perliciatur: sed polius circa quam sacramen- tum operetur; qucmadmodum corporaiis morbiis, aut aegrolus, non csl id ex quo mcdicarnenlum constet, scd in quod viiu suam mcdicarncnlum ex- crat. Quaeslio igitur esl, Utrum praeter absoliitionem, aliquid aliud sit. quod ad sacrameuti Iiujus ralio- nem, alque essenliam pertinere videatur. Quatiior niitein sententiae inveniuutur. Prima est, solam absoiutionem sacrameiili hujus essentiam consti- tucre. lla ex catlioiicis theologis Scotus docuil in 4. Sent. disl. 14. quaest. 4. et disl. 1(). quaest. 1. et qui eum sequuti sunt, Guiieimus Oliam, Joan- nes major, Jacobus Aimayn, et si qiii sunt alii. Ad quam senlenliam accedunt etiam aliqui ex baereti- cis noslri saeculi, ut lllyricus in apologia conless. Antuerpiens. cap. 18. ct Kemnitius in 2. par.exa- min. pag. 903. Sed in duobus dissident haerelici isli a Iheologis supra citalis. Piimum ciiim haeretici non agiio- scunt sacramentum Poenilentiae.nisi imperfeclum el improprie diclum, cum solo verbo , ut ipsi lo- qiiuntur, sine elemenlo constet: al cathoiici illi integrum et imperfeclum ac proprie diclum sacra- raentum esse volunt, iicet in sola absolutione es- senlia ejus consislat. Deiude Scotus, et qui eum sequuntur, elsi negcnt confessionem esscntialera parlcin esse sacramcnli hujus, tamen non negant eam esse necessariam,et a Chrislo inslilutam,quod Tllyriciis el Kcmnilius et caeteri sectarii negaul. Adde. quod Scotus, el caeteri doctores calholici, ante concilia illa vixerunt , in quibus accuratius haec omnja explicata sunt: quod si hoc tempore superesscnt, sine dubio Ecciesiae definitioni ac senlenliae acquiescerent. Altera sentcntia eorura est, qui praeter verbum absoiutionis, rilum eliam quendam visibilem a mi- nislro adhiberi volunt, ut essentia sacramenli hu- jus inlegre periiciatur, quamquam non saiis expli- cant, quis sit iile rilus. Philippus Meianchthon in apoiogia confess. Augustanae art. 13.de usu et nu- mero sacramenlorum, hujus sentenliae auclor esi: scribit enim, Baplismum, Eucharisliam et absolu- tionem vera sacramenta esse, quod habeanl ritutn LIBER PRIMUS 6115 cum promissione. El ibidom , disUnguit rilum ii verbo. Corda, inquit, simiU per verbam el ritam movet Deus: sicut autemverbam incurrit in au- res, ul feriat corda,ita ritus ipse incarrit in oca- los, ul moveal corda. Et inrra: Rilas ocalis acci- pilur, et esl quasi pictara verbi, idem significans quod verbam, qaareidem est ulriasque ejfeclas. Terlia esl eorinn sentenlia, qui ex Baplismo,seu Baplisrni recordalione, el verho absolutionis, sa- cramenlum Poenilcnliae constituunl: de qua supe- riore capite disseruimus. Poslrema senlenlia, eaque verissima est sacra- inentum Poenilenliae duplici parle intrinseca at- que essenliali conslare . absolulione sacerdolis lamquam lorma, el aclibus poenilentis lamquam uialeria. Quae senlenlia. et fuit olim mullorum ve- terum theologorum, s. Thomae, Richardi,Duranfii et aliorum in 4. Sentent. dist. 14. et nunc est fer- rne omnium, qui de Poeriilenliae sacramenlo scri- bunt. Sit igitur propositio Prima: iVo»i nisi absurde dici polest,Pocailentiae sacramcnlam ex Bablis- mo et absolutioae constare. Haec propositio salis capite superiore probata esl: el certe sullicere de- beret, quod nec Baplismus anle multos aiinos per- actus, nec ejus recordalio , signa sensibilia dici possunt; cum ad sacramenti essentiam id maxime requiralur, ut cum sacramenlum percipilur,corpo- rale signum corporaUbus sensibus objiciatur. Secunda propositio: Nullus cst ritus a ministro adhibilus, praetcr verbam absolationis , qui sa- cramenti liujas maleria recle dicipossiLOplarem Philippus clarius explicuisset quisnam sil ritus,qui in oculos poenilentis incurrit, dum verbum abso- lutionis, ejusdem poenitentis aures feril: minus e- nim in ejus senlenlia refellenda laboraremus. Ve- runtameu, nisi falior, Ires sunt ministri actiones (lumlaxat, de quibus aliqua ratione ambigi polest: (|uae si omnes evidenter cxcludanlur,evidenler cl- iam Phiiip[)i senlenlia refutala erit. Primum igilur minislcr dum poenilenlcs recon- cilial , eisdem manum imponerc consuevit. Sed liic rilus ctsi et in antiqua Ecclesia in usu fuil, et nunc cliam in plerisque locis adhibetur; ad essen- liam lamen sacramcnti hujusnon pertinet.ut s.Tlio- mas docet in opusculo 22, de forma absolulionis, iibi breviler rcfellit objccliones, quae contra fieri poterant. Erit aulcm hoc mullo eliam certius , si adversariorum doclrina locum liabeat, siquidem ex verbo Dci non polcsl ullo modo demonslrari, ma- nus iinposilioncm in reconciliatione neccssario es- .se adhibendam: nec solum leslimonium , sed nc- «pie excmplum ullum hujus inanus imposilionis in sacris lileris invcnilur. Qaorum remis,erilis pec- cnla, Dominus ait, remiltanlur eis. Joan. 20. non aulem addidit: Et quibus imposucrilis manus. Ne- ipic c.x vcrbis jam cilatis colligilur , impoiicndas cssc manus, quemadmodum sane colligilur, confi- lenda esse pcccala, ut suo loco ostcndcmus: quid cnim prohibel, quo minus pecicata remiltantur , cliamsi nianus non imponanliir? Ncqiic Dominus , (miii paralilico Mallli. 0. ct Magdalcnaii I.iicac 7. (Iixil: liPjiiiLlunlur tibi peccata , manus cis impo- suissc lcgilur. Quod aulem in concilio IV. carlhaginiensi, ca- none 78. dicilur, ul poenilentes,qui ob vitac peri- culum, viaticum Eucharistiae accipiunt, non se e- xistimcmt absolulos sine manus impositione si su- pervixerint: non repugnal iis, quae diximus. Acci- pit enim concilium manus imposilionem pro ipsa Pocnilcnliae actione, in qua riequenter manus im- ponebanlur: nam in eodcm concilio can. 80. prae- scribilur, ut siiigulis diebus jejuniorum, munus a saccrdole poenitcnlibus impunantur. Itaque haec est concilii illius senlenlia;Qui ob vilae f)ericulum privatim a saccrdolibus absolvunlur,non(lum cora- pleta Poenitentiae publicae actione , ii si supervi- xttrint, redeant ad ordinem poenilentium, ct cum illis manus imposilionem suis temporibus perci- pianl; et nisi id fccerint. non se exisliment abso- lutos a vinculo excommunicationis , vel a poena tcmporali.quae illis praescripla a sacerdotibus fue- ral. i\am quod a culpa absoluti 1'uerint dubitari non potesl,cum viaticumEucharisliae perceperint, quod Ecclesia numquara tribuil, nisi iis , quos a culpa lethali liberos credit. AUcr ritus, quo in rcconciliatione poenitentiura uti solent catholici saserdotes, cst signum crucis super ipsum poeniteniem manu sacerdolis expres- sum. Sed de hoc rilu nulla dubilatio esse polest; nam neque hoc signura adversarii ulla in re adhi- berc solent, et idem signum non esse de essentia sacramenli Poenitentiae , ut ncque etiam Eu- charistiae s. Thomas docet 3. par. quaest. 84. arl. 4. cui nullus catholicorum in hac re conlra- dicit. Tertius rilus fingi posset, molus ille visibilis lin- guae et labiorum.qui in verborum pronuncialione excrceiur : quam sentenliam Lulhcranorum quo- riindam esse audio. Et sanc nihil aliud lingi posse videtur, si quo modo explicanda cst opinio illa Pliilippi, dislinguentis in pronunciatione absolu- tionis ritum, qui objicitur oculis , a vcrbo , quod incurrit in aures. Sed absurda omnino ac plane ridicula senlcnlia est. Nam in primis commune esl omni verbo corporali.ut non fial sine motu linguae cl Iabiorum,ct tamen ncmo hactciuis in verbo,quo B;/plismum vel Eucharisliain (onficimus, dislinxil rilum a vocc. Deinde molus Iiiiguae ct labioruin niliil |)er sc significat, scd soliim csl caussa vocis, quac indicat animi conc(^|)lioncs. Itaquc si surdus quispiam vidcat liomincin loqucntcm , nnn nlagis cx molu labiorum conjicict quid a loqucnle signi- ficclur.(]iMiii si cundcm molum labioruin ccriniret iii pccudc. INon igilur fiiigi pulest rilus ullus cx parte minislri. Tcrlia propositio: Aclio poenilenlis qunsi viatc- ria, ct verlnim sacerdotis qunsi fnrma , sacra- menti Poenilenliae ralioncjn alqut^ essentiam complent. Non cst boc locn cx divinis lilcris pro- bandum, actioncm pocnitcnlis. conff.ssioiicm vide- liccl, ct rcliqua, quac cx partc ejus rcipiirunlur , vcl omnino nccessaria ossc.vcl a Chrislo iustilula; id eniin infra suo loco traclahiliir, ul siipra dixi- rnus. Scd lioc posilo, probandum cstsolum, aclio- iicni pocnilcntis ad sacramcnli (\sscnliam pcrlinere ul malcriam, ex qua, si forma accedat, sacramen- lum consliluilur. Et quoniam illa hy]>olhcsi facta , 6l(i i>h roi:.\ui;.Mi.\ tliuifslio solum iriler Ciilliolicos esl,proli;ibilur sen- lenlia noslra ex lcsllnioiiiis illis, quae a caiholicis oinniluis ;uliniltiinliir. l*nuiuiu ij;iliir truioiiliiunii conciliuin, sess. 14. cap. 3. docel.fonnani sacranienli Poenilenliac esse verba ill;i: Ktjo tc absolvo elc. aclus vero poiMii- loiilis esse (juasi maleri^ini: el jiaiilo posl addil , laiii absolulionein. quain aclus poonil(Milis, ad iii- lej^rilalem sacrainenli parlinere. Quo decrelo salis ;i(uMio conciliuin ducuisso vidotur. non sola abso- iulione ii.loj^rum sacramoulum coiiiincri: non e- nim dislingui debuit forina a materia,si nnica siin- pIo.\ aciio sacerdolis iolum sacrainonluin consli- luil. Et quomodo, quaeso, ad sacramoiili iniogri- lalem non minns roquirilur aclio poonitoniis,qii';iin ubsolulio sacerdoiis,si sola absoluiio sacramcnluin perllcil? IJeindc concilium floronlimim in inslruclionc Arinenorum. ipsaiii Poonilcnliam vocai sacramen- iiim.el ojus parles materiales esse dicil acius poe- niieniis, iormam auiein vorba saccrdolis: Ego tc absolvo ctc. ad quem modum loquilur eliam Lu- cius papa III. cnp.Ad abolendam, de haerclic.ubi sacramenia vocai, Baplismum. Confessionen\ pec- caiorum ei Mairimonium. Ai quomodo confossio sacramenlum est,5i ad esseniiani sacramenli nullo inodo perlinei? IVequc v^colus saiis aple loquuius videri debet, curn ait in i. dist. li.quaesl. 4. Poe- nUentia est absolulio poenitcnlis.facta certis ver- bis etc. Poeniientia enim aclio poeniloniis est . non sacerdolis; absoiutio autein sacerdoiis , non poeniienlis. Quis enim ita loquitur. ut dicat iio- minem agere Poeniientiam.dum absolvilur, et non poiius dum ploral. confitetur, jejunai? Idem praetcrea concilium omnia sacramenla Iri- luis perlici dicit , materia , forma et inlcntione minislri : non it,'ilur sacramentum Poenilentiae sola forma absolulionis el intentione constare potcst. Denique aclio poenitentis signum esl sensibile jjr;iti;ie justificanlis a Deo inslilutum. et ex ejus- dom promissioiie concurriiad remissionem pecca- loruuj: cur igilur pars quaedam sacramenli non erii? i\am seusibile signum esse, in quaesiionem verti non polesl, cum non debeat sacerdos absol- vere, nisi quem ex signis sensibilibus poenilen- lem esse cognoscil: esse aulem signum gratiae ju- slilicaniis, manifeste colligilur ex eo, quod qui peccatum confilolur, et veniam a Deo pelit, indi- cat se [jeccalum odissc, et ab eo jam, animo et volunlate recodcre ac proinde justificari, quod a- pertius significatur et compleiur per absoluiionem. Porro hoc signuni a Deo inslituium esse, alibi, ui dixinius, esi probandum, noque a Scoto ejusque seclaloribus negaiur. Denique ad remissionem j>eccatoium aliquo modo concurrere, lesiaiur s. Joannes, qiii in epist. 1. cap. 1. scribit: Si confi- teamur peccata nostra, fidelis est et justus, ut remittat nobis pcccata, et emundet nos ab omni iniquitate. El quemadmodum vcre dicimus ali- Muem jusiificari, quia absolvilur, sic eiiam recte dicere possumus, aliquem justificari, quia peccata humiliier confiteiur.Scd de hac re in sequenti ca- l'ite plura dicemus.