Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 16: The Objections Are Solved
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).
Now the objections are to be dissolved, both of Chemnitz and also of certain Catholics. Chemnitz, then, in the second part of the Examination, page 933, strives to refute the doctrine of the Council of Trent on the essential parts of the sacrament of Penance, and first objects that this disputation, whether in Penance there is a sacramental matter and form, was unknown to antiquity. I answer: the names of matter and form in the sacraments were invented by later doctors to explain the matter more easily; so it is no wonder if they are not read in the ancients. For neither in Baptism and the Eucharist did the holy Fathers so distinguish the word from the element as to call the one form and the other matter; and yet Chemnitz does not deny that in Baptism the water is rightly called matter and the word form. It ought therefore to be enough for us that, as the ancient Fathers taught that in Baptism water and the invocation of the Trinity ought to be present, so also in Penance they taught that the action of the penitent and the reconciliation of the priest must necessarily be used.
Secondly he objects that not even among the Scholastics is anything settled on this matter, since some hold sins to be the matter, others the sinner confessing, others the actions of the penitent, others the action of the priest pronouncing absolution with certain rites: “So too for the form,” he says, “some set down the words of absolution; some say the very acts of the one absolving stand for the form, even if they are not done with limited and determined words.” I answer: Chemnitz is always like himself, a calumniator and a liar. For in the first place there are none of the Catholics who have made the matter of this sacrament the action of the priest pronouncing absolution with a certain rite, if you except Gropper alone, or whoever was the author of the Cologne Enchiridion, who seems sometimes to have spoken not carefully enough. For the theologians either hold the sacrament to consist in absolution alone, and these do not distinguish matter from form; or (which is the common opinion of almost all) assign the matter on the part of the penitent and the form on the part of the priest. Moreover, those who say the matter is sins, or the sinner confessing, or the confession itself, do not disagree among themselves, as Chemnitz would wish, but thinking altogether the same, speak of the same thing in a different respect; just as if some said that in Baptism the matter is water, others the washing, others the man who is washed. For sins are called the matter when the remote matter is treated, for removing which the sacrament was instituted. He who confesses sins is called the matter when the disputation is about the matter concerning which, or the subject on which the sacramental virtue acts. Finally, the action of the penitent is called the matter when that matter is discussed from which the sacrament, the form being added, is constituted. We see something similar in the medicine of bodies (for Penance is the medicine of souls); for the disease, and the sick man, and the sick man’s walking, can rightly be called the matter of medicine; since the disease is removed by medicine, the sick man is cured by the same, and walking is part of the saving treatment, and together with the drug administered by the physician restores health. As regards the form, those who say that certain words of absolution are the form, and those who contend that there are no determined words by which absolution is bestowed, do not disagree among themselves. For if the sound and number of syllables is in question, there are no determined words which are necessarily required for the essence of the sacrament; for whether one says, “I absolve thee,” or, “I forgive thee thy sins,” and whether he pronounces this in Latin, or Greek, or some barbarous tongue, the sacrament is always effected. But if the sense of the words is spoken of, no Catholic denies that the words are determined, and drawn from the divine letters. We see the same in Baptism; for no certain sound or number of syllables is determined in the Scriptures in which the form of Baptism ought to be pronounced, but only the sense of that form can be gathered from the Gospel. Wherefore, as from that which the Lord says, last chapter of Matthew, “Teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” the Church gathers that form, “I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” and yet those would not be reckoned not to baptise truly who said, “I wash thee,” or, “I dip thee,” or, “I sprinkle thee,” and so on; so also from that which the same Lord says, Matthew 16, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose shall be loosed,” and John 20, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” the Church gathers that form, “I absolve thee from thy sins,” and yet those would not be reckoned not to absolve truly who uttered the same sense in other words.
Thirdly he objects that the sacraments are actions of God; therefore if human works, such as the acts of the penitent, are an essential part of the sacrament, a certain divinity is attributed to human works, so that their throne is exalted beside the stars, as Isaiah speaks of the king of Babylon. But this has already been solved above, chapter 6, in the third lie of Chemnitz, where we briefly indicated that the actions of the penitent do not have the sacramental force of justifying except as they are instruments of God; just as also the word of the priest, although it is a certain action produced by the tongue and windpipe and breath of a man, yet as an instrument of God effects a divine thing, that is, the grace of justification.
Fourthly he objects that a hundred years ago, in the time of Gabriel, there was nothing certain in the Church about the matter of the sacrament of Penance. I answer: after his manner Chemnitz says, but does not prove; for Gabriel, on book 4, distinction 14, question 2, article 1, teaches from the common opinion that the actions of the penitent stand for the matter of this sacrament and the words of the priest for the form, and cites Alexander, Thomas and Richard. Nor ought it to trouble us that he does not say the action of the penitent is the matter, but stands for the matter, because he says the same of the matter of all the sacraments, distinction 3, question 1, article 1. For in no sacrament is there found matter properly so called, if we speak exactly of matter after the manner of speaking of the philosophers; and yet in every sacrament there is found a certain thing which can be said to be in the place of matter. And in the same way the Council of Florence speaks in the instruction for the Armenians, when it says that the sacraments are completed by three things, things as matter, words as form, and the intention of the minister. From which council also we understand that what Chemnitz writes is most false, that a hundred years ago, and in the age of Gabriel, it was still doubtful and uncertain what was the matter of the sacrament. For the Council of Florence, in which the matters and forms of all the sacraments are explained in express words, was concluded in the year of the Lord 1439; therefore a hundred and forty years ago, and before the age of Gabriel, there was already in the Church not only an undoubted and certain doctrine about the matter of the sacrament of Penance, but one explained more diligently than ever before.
Fifthly he objects the words of the Council of Trent, which seems not to have dared to write openly that the action of the penitent is the matter of this sacrament, but wrote that it is the matter, or as it were. From which Chemnitz thinks he finely gathers that the sacrament of Penance is a sacrament, or as it were; and that its effect is the remission of sins, or as it were. I answer: I omit that Chemnitz has not reported the words of the council faithfully enough, so as to make room for his witticism; for the council did not set down, “is the matter, or as it were,” but simply, “is as it were the matter,” session 14, chapter 3. I omit also that that word “as it were” does not always weaken the thing in question; otherwise in John 1, where Christ is said to be “as it were the only-begotten of the Father,” one could argue with Chemnitz and say that Christ is the only-begotten, or as it were. But these things omitted, the Council of Trent, as also before it that of Florence, preferred to call the actions of the penitent “as it were the matter” rather than absolutely “the matter,” not because they are not truly and properly such matter as the sacraments require, but because they are not some solid, permanent and tangible thing, such as is seen in many other sacraments. Which, that it may be more plainly explained, it must be observed that the matter of the sacraments can be considered in two ways. In one way, as it is a certain part of the sacrament. In another way, as it has a likeness with the matter of natural things, whence it took its name. And indeed in the former way nothing else is required for the matter of a sacrament than that it be an external and sensible sign, which is completed and as it were formed by the word; and in this way the action of the penitent is truly and properly the matter of the sacrament. But in the latter way, of no sacrament indeed, as Gabriel rightly affirms, is the matter properly and simply matter, but matter only metaphorically; yet most of all the matter of the sacrament of Penance is distant from the perfection of physical matter, since, as we said, it is not something solid and tangible, but a certain passing action. Wherefore, as the water of Baptism, if it is compared with physical matter, can be called as it were matter, so also the action of the penitent, if it is compared with the water of Baptism, is rightly called as it were matter, although in order to the sacrament each is truly and properly, simply and absolutely, matter.
And these indeed are the chief arguments of Chemnitz; for to the rest of his calumnies we answered above, when we refuted the lies of the heretics. Now let us hear those arguments which are used by those who, following Scotus, place the whole notion of the sacrament of Penance in absolution alone, and call the action of the penitent not a part of the sacrament, but a certain disposition for receiving the sacrament. They object, then, first: that a sacrament ought to be a sign of that thing which is effected through the sacrament; and the effect of this sacrament, that is, the remission of sins, is finely signified by absolution, but not by confession or contrition or satisfaction. I answer: the remission of sins, as we said above, is signified not only by absolution but also by confession. For as the priest absolving signifies that he drives out sin, so the penitent confessing signifies that he withdraws from sin. Secondly they object: that that is the sacrament which is conferred by the minister; but in the sacrament of Penance only absolution is conferred by the minister, not confession or contrition. And besides, that it is unheard of in the Church that he who does Penance should be called the minister of the sacrament of Penance; therefore the action of the penitent is not the sacrament, or a part of the sacrament. I answer: he is properly called the minister of a sacrament who makes either the whole or the chief part of the sacrament; but if someone, ordered by that minister, does something, he is not properly named the minister but the minister’s cooperator. And in this way the priest, who pronounces the form of absolution, and by whom the penitent is questioned and examined, and receives the satisfaction enjoined, is properly called the minister of the sacrament; but the penitent, although he does something pertaining to that sacrament, ought nevertheless to be called not the minister but the minister’s cooperator, because his action is not a part of the sacrament except in so far as it is subjected to the priestly power, and directed or ordered by the priest. It is similar in the cure of a bodily disease, if perhaps the physician orders the sick man to walk after taking the drug; for although the sick man does that which pertains to a part of the treatment, yet he is not on that account called his own physician, but only he who provided the drug and ordered the walking. Thirdly they object: that absolution alone is the cause of grace, since the whole sacramental force resides in the keys; and the keys belong to the priest, not to the penitent; therefore the action of the penitent cannot be a part of the sacrament; for that is not a part of the sacrament which does not concur to the effect of the sacrament. I answer: first, that the consequence of this argument can be denied. For as a man consists of body and spirit, and yet understands by the spirit alone, so also it could easily be that some sacrament consisting of two parts should work through one only. And this solution is followed by those who place the sacramental force in absolution alone; which was formerly the opinion of Saint Thomas, and Saint Bonaventure, and certain other ancients on book 4 of the Sentences, distinctions 18 and 22, and among more recent writers of Andreas Vega on the Council of Trent, book 13, chapter 13, and of Francis of Ferrara in the commentary on chapter 72 of book 4 Against the Gentiles. Next, it can also be answered that absolution is indeed the chief cause of justification, but not the only one; therefore it could be denied that the sacramental force resides in the keys alone, but partly, and indeed chiefly, in the keys, by whose force the priest absolves, partly in the action of the penitent, in so far as God uses it as an instrument for signifying and effecting justification. And this seems to be the opinion of Saint Thomas, part 3, question 86, article 6, where he retracted what he had written on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 18, question 1, article 3, and distinction 22, question 2, article 1. We in book 2 On the Sacraments in General, chapter 11, followed the former opinion; but we think the latter no less probable, although it seems able to be defended with a little more difficulty.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPIT XVF.
Solvuntur objeclioncs.
Nunc olijoctiones diluondae siint, tiiin Remnilii,
tiim oli;im ;ili(pu)riim callKtliconim. Kemiiiiius igi-
lur iii 2. p;ir. oxain. pag. J);j,>.rolV,llerc niliiiircon-
cilii irideiitini doctriuam de partibus essenlialibus
sacramcnli Poonitonii;ie,ac Priino objicit: Autiqui-
l;ili ossc iguolam lianc (lispiit;ilionem. an in Poe-
iiiloiilia sii maieria et forma s;icramontalis.
Ucspondeo: Nomina maieri.ie ei formae in sa-
cr;imenlis,invenla siint a postorioribiis doctoribus
;ul rom facilius explicandam:ideo nibil esl mirum,
si apud vetores non leganiur. Nam neque in Ba-
l)tismo cl Eucharislia, sancti P;itres ila verbum ab
clemcnto distinxerunt, ut unum formam, allorum
iiialeri;un appollareni: et lamen non neg;il Romni-
!ius, aquam in Bapiismo recle voc;iri maleri;im el
vorbum formam. Salis igitur nobis esse dcbet,
quod quemadmoduin antiqui Palres in Baptismo,
aquam el invocalionera Trinitatis adesse dcbcre
docuorunt: sic cli;im in Poeniientia,aciionem poe-
niteulis el reconciliationem sacerdoiis necessario
adhibenda esse docuerini.
Secundo ol)jicil: Ne inler Scholasticos quidem
hac re quidqmim constare. cum alii peccat;i volint
esso in;itori;im, alii poccaiorum conlitenlem, alii
actiones poenitentis, alii actionem sacerdolis pro-
fereniis cerlis riiibus absolalionem:Sic etiam for-
mam quidam j)onunl , inquit. verba absolutio-
nis; quidam ipsos actus absolventis dicunt esse
pro forma, etiamsi non fianl per limitata el de-
lerminata verba.
Rospondeo: Remnitius semper esl sui similis
calumnialor et mendax. Nam in primis nulli sunt
calholicorum, qui maieriam hujus sacraiuenli fe-
ccrinl actionem sacerdoiis, cerio riiu pronuncian-
lts'absolulionem, si unum excipias Gropperum,
aul quicumque fuii aucior Encliiridii coloniensis,
qui non salls cauie interdum loquulus videlur.The-
ologi enim aut volunt in sola absolutione sacra-
montum consislere:el ii non distinguunt materiam
a forma:aut (quae est communis fere omnium sen-
ienlia) materiam ex parte poenileniis, formam ex
parie sacerdolis assignant. Porro, qui rnaleriam
esse dicunt peccala, aut pcccaicrera confilenlem,
aut ipsam confessionem; non dissentiuni inter se,
ut Remnilius cuperet, sed idera omnino sentien-
tos, de re eadem diversa ralione loquuntur, nou
secus ac si alii dicerent in Baplismo materiam es-
se aquam,alii ablutionem, alii hominem, qui ab-
Juitur. Nam peccala dicuntur maleria cum de ma-
teria remota agitur,ad quam lollendam sacramen-
lum institutum est. Qui peccata confiteiur, mate-
ria dicitur, cura de maieria circa quam, sive de
subjecto in quod agil virtus sacramenl;dis, dispu-
tiitio est. Aclio denique poeniientis materia voca-
lur, cum de maleria illa disseritur, ex qua sacra-
mentum adjuncta forraa conslituilur. Simile quid
ceruimus in corporum medicina (esl enim Poeni-
leniia medicina animorum) nam el morbus etae-
groius et aegroli deambulatio, maleria medicinae
LIBI-H PRI.MLS
617
recle dici possunl: siquldem morbus per mcdici-
nam toUilur; aegrolus per eandem curalur; deam-
bulatio pars esl medicamenti snlutaris , et una
cum pbarmaco a medico propinato sanilalem re-
stiluil.
Quod aliinct ad formam, uon disscnliunt inler
se, qui certa verba absolutionis formam esse di-
cunt, et qui conlendunt nulla essc verba delermi-
nala.quibus absolulio impendalur. Nam si de sono
et nuracro syllabarum agalur,nulla sunl vcrba de-
lerminala, quac ad sacramcnli essentiam necessa-
rio requiranlur: sive enim quis dixeril: Absolvo
te, sive, RcmiUo tibi peccala; et sivc id laline,
sive graece, sive barbara aliqua lingua pronuncia-
veril, semper eflicilur sacramentum. Si vero dc
senlenlia verborum sermo sit, nemo calholicorum
negal, verba esse delerminata, alquc ex divinis li-
teris deprompla. Quod idem cernimus in Baptis-
mo: neque enim cerlus sonus aut numerus sylla-
barum in Scripluris delerminatur, quo forma Ba-
plismi pronunciari debeat, sed solum sculcnlia
ejus formae ex evangelio colligi polest. Quare
quemadmodum ex eo quod Dominus ait Mallh.ult.
Doccte omncs genles baptizantes eos in nomine
Patris, et Filii et Spiritus sancfi.colligil Ecclesia
formam lllam: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patri, et
Filii el Spirilus sancti, nec tamen ccnserenlur
non vere baptizarc, qui dicerent; Ego te abluo,
seu lingo, sive aspergo elc. sic eliam ex eo quod
idem Dominus ait Malth. 16. Quodcumque solve-
ns, erit solutum. Et Joan. 20. Quorum remiseri-
tis peccala, remittuntur eis, coliigit Ecclesia for-
mam iliam: Ego te absolvo apeccatis am.nec la-
men censerenlur non vere absolvere,qui aliisver-
bis eandem sentenliam proferrenl.
Tertio objicit: Sacramenla esse actiones Dei:
proinde si opera humana, quales sunt actus poo-
nitentis, sint pars essentialis sacramenti; huma-
nis operibus divinitatem quandam allribui, ul sci-
licet solium ipsorum juxta astra exaltetur,sicut de
rege Babylonico Isaias loquilur.
Sed hoc jam solutum esl supra cap. 6. in tertio
mendacio Remnitii , ubi breviler indicavimus , a-
ctioncs poenitenlis non habere vim sacramenlalem
justificandi, nisi ut inslrumenta sunt Dei,quevna(l-
modum eliam verbum sacerdotis, eliamsi actio
quaedam sit, ab hominis lingua et artcria, spirilu-
(lue producta, tamen ut instrumenlum Doi esl,rem
divinam, idest, gratiam justificalionis cnicit.
Qiiarlo nb.jicil: Ant5 ccnlum annos, lemporc Ga-
brielis, nihil certi de maleria sacramcnli Poeni-
lenliae in Ecclesia fuissc.
Resporidco: More suo dicit Remnilius, sed non
probal, nam Gabriel in i. dist. li. quaesl. 2. art.
i. docet ex ctmimuni sentcnlia.aclioncs pociiilcn-
lis essc pro malcria Iiiijus sacramcnti,ct vcrba sa-
cerdotis pro forma, et cilat Alcxandrum, Thomam
cl Bicliardum. [Vcque movere dcbet, quod non di-
c-it, aoliorHMn pociiilcntis cssc mal(;riam, scd j^ro
malcria, quia idcm dicit de maleria omnium sa-
• ramentorum dist. 3. quacst. 1. arl. 1. In nullo e-
nim sacraincnlo invcnitnr malcria proprie dicla,
si exacle loquamnr dc malcria ad modum loqiicn-
di philosophuriim: ct lamcn in omni sacrauicnlo
invenitur res quaedam, quae instar materiae dici
possil. Et eodem modo loquitur concilium floren-
tinuni in instrucl.Armenor. cum dicit: Sacramenta
tribus perfici, rebus tamquarn materia,verbis lam-
qnain fonna ct inlenlione minislri. Ex quo eliam
coiicilio intclligimus, fals ssimum esse (iiiod scri-
bit Rcmnilius, anle cenlum aiinos, et Gabrielis
aelate, adhuc fuissc dubiuin el incertum, quae
esscl malcria sacriimenli. Nam cnnciliiim florcnli-
num, in quo diserlis vcrbis cxplicanlur materiae
et formae omniuin sacrainenlorum, anno Domini
1439. absuluUim esl: proinihi anle annos cenlum
et quadraglnla, el ante Gabriclis aclatem.jam crat
in Ecclesia non solum indubilata et cerla doctri-
na de materia sacramenli Poenitcntiae, sed eliarn
diligcntius quam unquam antca explicata.
Quinto objicil: Vcrba conciiii tridenlini, quod
non videlur ausum fuisse apertc scribere, actio-
nem pocnilenlis esse materiam sacramcnti hujus,
sed scripsit csse maleriam , vel quasi. Ex quo
pulchre sibi videtur Remnilius colligere, Poeni-
tenliae sacramentum esse sacramentum.vel quasi;
et eircctum ejus esse remissionem peccalorum,
vel quasi.
Respondeo: Omillo quod Remnitius non satis fi-
deliler retulil verba concilii. ul locum facerct ar-
giitiae sua(!: non enim concilium posuit, esse ma-
tcriam, vel qiiasi; sed simplicitcr. esse quasi ma-
teriam, scss. 14. cnp. 3. Omillo etiam, quod vox
illa quasi. non scinpcr cxlcnuat rcm, dc qua agi-
lur: alioqui Joan. 1. ubi dicilur Chrislus quasi u-
nigcnitus a Palre, licerel argumcnlari cum Rem-
nilio, ac diccre, Christum esse unigcnilum, vel
qnasi. Sed liis omissis. conciliiim Iriilcntinum, ut
cliam anlea Uorentinuin: aclioiics pocnilenlis ma-
luerunt dicere, quasi malcriam, quam nbsolute,
materiam, non quod non sinl vcrc ct proprie talis
maleria. qiialcm sacramenla requiiunl; scd quod
non sint res aliqua solita, pcrmanens ac tractabi-
lis, qualis in mullis aliis sacramentis ccrnitur.
Quo(J ut plnnius cxplicclur. nnimaiiverlcndum
cst, duobus niodis sacramcnlornm iiialcrinm posse
considerari. Uno modo.ut est pars quacdam sacra-
mcnli. Alio modo, ut cum mal(>ria rcrum nalurali-
uni. undc nomen accepil, simililudincm habct. Kt
quidem priore modo nihil aliud rcquirilur ad sa-
cramenti maleriam, nisi ut sit extcrnum ac scnsi-
bilc signum, quod pcr vcrbum perficiatur et quasi
fonnctur; ct hoc niodo vcre ac proprie nclio poe-
nitentis esl mnteria sacramenli. Poslcriore aulcm
modo, nullius quidem sacramcnti, ntrcctc Gabricl
allirmnt, mntcria est proprie ac simpliciter , sed
melapliorice lantuni materia: sed mnxiuic lamcn
omnium, maleria sacramcnti Pocnilcntiac distat a
pfMTcctione physicne matcrine. cum. ut diximus,
iion sit nli(iui(l solidum ct trnclnliile , scd nclio
quncdnm trnnsicns. Quare qucmadmodiim aqua
Baplismi, si cum mntiMia physica coinparclur.qua-
si mntcria dici polcsl: sic ctiam aclio poenitenlis,
si ciim arpin Bnptismi confcratur, qiiasi malcria
rccte dicilur, liccl in ordine ad sacramenlum, u-
tra(iuc verc ct proprie, simpliciter cl absolute ma-
tcria sit.
Atque haet; quidcin praecipua sunl Kcmnilii ar-
6ta
i)i: Poi:.Mri:i\ii V
piiiiKMil.t; iiiim lul roliiiiiiis fjiis c;ihiiiiiii.is siipra
rcs|iuu(liiiuis. ciiin liaoroliooium meiuJacia lorula-
rciiius. .Nuiic aiidiMiuis illa argiimenln, (luibiis u-
UiiUur,(|ui ScuUim sc(]iiuli, in sola absoluliouii lo-
lain sacrainoiUi PoiMiiUiiUiao ralionom |)(i!uiiU . a-
cUonom vcro pocniloiUis.iion parlcin sacrameiUi,
scd disposilioncm quanJam ad sacramenlum su-
sci|u'oiulum vocanl.
Objiciunl igilur Primo: Sacramcnlum csse de-
hcre sijznum ojus rei, ()uae pcr sacramonlum ef-
licilur: cflVclum aulcm sacramcnli hujus, idesl,
rcmissionom pcccalorum, pcr absolulionom pul-
clirc signiiicari, non aulcm por confessionem aul
contrilionem vel salisfaciioncm.
Rospondco: Rcmissioncm peccalorum. nlsiipra
dixinius, non solum Absolulionc. scd cliam con-
fessionc signilicari. Nam ul sacerdos absolvcns si-
iinificat sc pcccatum cxpellcre, ita poonilens con-
litens, siirnifical sc a poccalo rcccdore.
Sccundo objiciiuU: Id sacramciUuni essc quod
a ministro conlcrUir; in sacramcnto aulem Poeni-
tiMUiae solam absoiiUiononi a minislro conferri,
non autcai confossiononi.vol conlrilioncm. Elprae-
lerca csse inaudilum in Ecclcsia. ul qui Pocniton-
liam agit, minisler sacr-jraenti PoenUenliae esse
dicalur: proinde non cssc aclioncm pocnilentis sa-
cramcntum, aut parlcm sacramcnli.
Respondeo: Ministrum sacramcnli proprie dici,
qui vcl tolum, vel polissimam sacramenli partem
conficil: si quis aulem a ininislro illu jussus ali-
quid faciat, cum non propric minislrum, scd mi-
nislri coopcralorem nominari.Alquc hoc modo sa-
cerdos, qui forraam absolulionis pronuncinl, cl a
(luo poenilens inlerrogatur, examinatur, el injun-
ctam satisfaclionem accipil, proprie minisler sa-
cramcnli dicitur; pocnitens aulem,licel aliquid fa-
cial ad sacramenlum illud perlinens, non lamen
minister, scd minislri coopcrator dici debel, quia
ipsius aclio non est pars sacramenli,nisi qualcnus
potoslati sacerdolali subjicilur, el a saccrdolc di-
rigitur, vel jubetur. Similc est in curalionc morbi
corporalis, si forle mcdicus jubeal aegrotum posl
sumplum pliarrancum inambulare: tamelsi enim
aegrolus id facil, quod ad partem mediramenti
perlinel.lameii non propterca ipse sui medicus di-
cilur, sed is tantura, qui pharmacam pracbuit, et
inambulationem jussit.
Objiciunt Terlio; Solam absolulioncm esse caus-
sam gratiae cura tota vis sacramenlalis iri clavibus
rcsideat; claves aulem sacerdotis sinl, non poeni-
tentis:proinde actionem poenilentis partem sacra-
mcnU csse non posse; non cnim pars s:^cramenli
est, quae ad sacramenli cffectum non concurrit.
Respondco: Primum negari posse conscquen-
liam hujus arguraenli. Nam queinadraodura horao
corpore ct spirilu conslal, o.t tamcn solo spirilii
intciiigil: sic eliam facile fieri posset,ut sacramen-
tura aliquod duabus parlibus conslans,per alleram
Umtum operaretur. Et hanc solulionem sequun-
tur, qui vim sacramentalem in sola absolulione
constiluunt; quae sententia fuit olim s. Thomae,
el s. Bonavenlurae, et aliorum quorundam vete-
Fum in 4. Senlent. dist 18. et 22. et ex recentio-
ribus Andrsae Yegae in concilium tridentinum
lih. i;{. cap. i:;. ct Francisci fcrrariensis in com-
monlario cap. 72. lib. 4. contra gonlos.
Doiiidc pulosl ctiam rcspondori; Absolulionom
ijuidom essc potissimam caussam justiiicalionis,
sod iion solam; proiiulc nogari possct, viin sacra-
niriUalcin in solis clavibus rcsidorc, sod partim.ct
quidein praecipuc in clavibus, qiiaruin vi sacordos
absolvil, parlim in aclioiic poonitcnlis, qualcnus
ca Deus ulilur iit iuslruracnlo ad siguincandara el
cnicieiidam jusUficalioiiera. Kl haec essc vidctnr
senleiUia s. Tliomae. 3. par. quacst. 80. art. 0.
ubi revocavil qiiod scripscral in 4. Sentent. dist.
18. (|uacsl. 1. arl. li. cl disl. 22. quaest. 2. art.
1. IVos in 2. hb. de sacram. in generc cap. 11.
priorem scnlcnliamscquuti sumus;sedpostcriorem
non minus probahilcin cxistimainus.Iicct ea paulo
dilllcilius dcfendi possc videatur.