Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 18: On the Parts of Penance, the Various Opinions of the Heretics; They Are Refuted and the Catholic Opinion Confirmed
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 other question is now to be treated with the heretics, how many are the parts of Penance, or how many actions are necessary in the penitent man that he may receive absolution and return into favour with God. For it will not be necessary to dispute with the heretics whether all these actions are material parts of the sacrament, since they (as we saw in chapter 15) acknowledge no material part, unless perhaps Baptism, or the rite by which the priest pronounces the word of absolution. Catholics, then, with the highest consent assign three parts of Penance, contrition, confession and satisfaction; nor is there any controversy among Catholics about this matter. For even Scotus himself, who placed the sacrament of Penance in absolution alone, and Durandus, who placed it in absolution and confession, teach in express words that for receiving the remission of sins in this sacrament those three are required on the part of the penitent.
But the adversaries, straying from this common, well-trodden and safest path of ecclesiastical doctrine, have gone off into various ways of error. There are chiefly three opinions among them. The first is that of those who teach that there are two parts of Penance, contrition and faith. And by contrition they understand the terrors of conscience struck in by the threats of the law; by faith, a certain confidence of the remission of sins, conceived from the promise, as they say, of the Gospel. Of this opinion Luther was the first author. For although in the year 1520, in the book against the execrable bull of Antichrist, in the defence of article 5, and again in the year 1521, in the assertion of his articles, defending the same fifth article, he wrote that he did not deny that there are three parts of Penance, contrition, confession and satisfaction, but only taught of satisfaction that that which is imposed at the discretion of the Church is not of divine law, or, if it is of divine law, cannot be taken away by the keys of the Church; yet afterwards, when he had made no small progress in the school of Satan, in the year 1545, in the refutation of the articles of Louvain, proposition 18, he condemned in these words that former opinion admitted also by himself: “The Penance handed down by the synagogue of Louvain (namely that it is contrition, confession and satisfaction) is none but that of Judas the traitor and the like; therefore it is to be condemned as heretical.” And in the Smalcald Articles, published in the year 1537, in the chapter on Penance, he teaches that there are two parts of Penance, the law and the Gospel, or, what is the same, as he himself explains in the same place, contrition conceived from the threats of the law, and faith from the promises of the Gospel; and good works he held in this place to be not a part, but the fruit, of Penance. The same was the opinion of Philipp Melanchthon, both in the Commonplaces published in the year 1521, and in the Augsburg Confession published in the year 1530. But in the Commonplaces, chapter on Penance, he calls the two parts of Penance mortification and vivification; in the Confession, article 12, he calls them contrition and faith; yet the same thing is signified by mortification and contrition, by vivification and faith. The same also very many other Lutherans teach, as the Magdeburg Centuriators, Century 1, book 1, chapter 4, column 148, and book 2, chapter 4, column 341; Johannes Wigand in the Body of Doctrine of Magdeburg, chapter 18; Tilmann Heshusius in the book on the errors of the Papists, place 9; Martin Chemnitz in the second part of the Examination, on chapter 3 on Penance, pages 942 and 943.
The second opinion is that of those who to those two parts of Penance add a third, namely good work, or new obedience. Of this opinion too Luther seems to have been the author. For in the first disputation against the Antinomians, published in the year 1538, proposition 1, he says the parts of Penance are sorrow for sin and the purpose of a better life. And in the third disputation against the same, proposition 9, he holds that to the good purpose belongs not only faith, or confidence towards God, but also all good works: “All works,” he says, “after justification are nothing else than a good purpose against sin.” The same is taught by Philipp Melanchthon, who, as the faithful Achates of Luther, easily changed with him into various forms. He, then, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in the article on Penance, and in the Commonplaces published in the year 1536 and following, under the title of Penance, assigns indeed two parts of Penance, contrition and faith; but adds that he will not object if anyone adds a third part, new obedience. But in the disputation on Penance which he held in the year 1548, and which is circulated with the works of Luther, he says in express words that new obedience is in fact the third part of conversion, or Penance; which he likewise repeats in the Examination of Ordinands, chapter on Penance. The same is taught by all those who are called the soft Lutherans, and who fence about this matter with great contention against the rigid Lutherans, or Illyricans; as the authors of the Saxon Confession, chapter on Penance; Nikolaus Selnecker in his Paedagogia, at the end of the second part, where he explains the article of the creed, the remission of sins; David Chytraeus in his catechism, place 8; and not a few others.
The third opinion is Calvin’s, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, section 8, where he sets up two parts of Penance, mortification and vivification, but in a far different sense from that in which the Lutherans take them. For by mortification he does not understand terrors struck in, as the Lutherans do, but the mortification of vices, or the denial of self and the stripping off of the whole old man; therefore he says that Penance is to be done not for some small time, but through the whole of life. By vivification he does not understand faith, or confidence, or consolation conceived from the Gospel, as the Lutherans do, but a pious zeal for living well, and an affection for good works; which works he teaches are not a part but fruits of Penance. In the same place Calvin openly refutes the opinion of the Lutherans. For in section 1 he contends that faith is prior to Penance, which is against the Lutherans, who make faith the later part of Penance. He teaches in section 2 that those terrors struck in, which the Lutherans hold to be the former part of Penance, are not a part of Penance, but a certain initial fear which precedes faith, from which afterwards Penance flows as a fruit. He acknowledges in section 3 that others before him divided Penance into mortification and vivification (for this he had without doubt read in Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces published in the year 1521), but adds that by those terms, if a right interpretation underlies them, the force of Penance is expressed conveniently enough, but that their interpretation does not please him. In section 5 he refutes those (namely all the Lutherans) who include faith under Penance, and says that they are contrary to Paul. Into Calvin’s opinion Theodore Beza, his disciple, has come down, and defends and explains it in the book which he entitled A Wiping Away of the Calumnies of Tilmann Heshusius, in the answer to the fourth calumny.
Chapter XIX. The opinions of the heretics are refuted, and the Catholic one confirmed
Now we shall briefly and by parts refute the dogmas of the new heretics, and approve the ancient and common opinion of the Catholic Church, which alone is true.
Let the first proposition, then, be: The terror struck into the mind by the law, which the Lutherans call contrition or mortification, is not rightly numbered among the parts of Penance. This proposition conforms to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 6, where terrors struck in are indeed numbered among those things which help and prepare a man for justification, yet are not set down as parts of Penance, but rather distinguished from it, since certain acts of hope and love are said to come between them and Penance. For it is one thing for something to be required for conversion and justification, another for it to be a part or act of Penance, if we speak properly of Penance, as befits theologians. So, as we do not deny that those terrors are for the most part required for conversion, so we by no means concede that they are a part of Penance. For in the first place Scripture distinguishes terror from Penance. For when we read in the second letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7, “The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation,” by sorrow must be understood a certain trouble, and fear, and shame born from that vehement rebuke and those threats which the Apostle had used with the Corinthians. For the Apostle in that place does not call sorrow the grief for sins committed, which is contrition itself, or Penance, but that trouble and shame which, received with an even mind and according to God, begets a most saving Penance. For in the same letter, chapter 2, the Apostle says: “Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you, not that you should be made sorrowful, but that you might know the charity I have more abundantly towards you.” And chapter 7: “I rejoice,” he says, “not because you were made sorrowful, but because you were made sorrowful unto penance.” But certainly the Apostle would not say these things if by sorrow he took that grief by which one is distressed at having offended God. He would not say, I mean, “I wrote to you, not that you should grieve for sin,” since he most vehemently desired this very thing; nor would he say, “I do not rejoice because you were made sorrowful,” since it is most to be rejoiced at that sinners grieve that they have sinned, and there is joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance. So, as Chrysostom and others expound, the sense of Paul is: I do not rejoice at the sorrow; I rejoice at the fruit, which is Penance. And as a physician does not rejoice that he torments the sick man with a bitter drug, or cutting, or burning, but rejoices at the health which follows from that drug, or cutting, or burning; so also Paul does not rejoice that by harsh rebuke and threats he brought terror and trouble to the Corinthians, but that that trouble and those terrors begot Penance, and that steadfast and altogether saving. You see, then, from the doctrine of the Apostle that Penance is not the terror struck in by threats, but a certain effect or fruit of that terror, as the Council of Trent rightly teaches. Next, if anyone examines all the definitions of Penance which are extant among theologians both ancient and more recent, and are set out together in the Master, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 14, and in Gratian, On Penance, distinction 3, in none of them will he find those terrors which the Lutherans make a part of Penance. Moreover, when we seek the parts of Penance, we do not seek any motions whatever which in any way pertain to Penance, but only those motions or acts which proceed from the very virtue of Penance. But terror, when threats are held out, is not the act of any virtue, but a natural affection, which we see even in children and in the very beasts. Further, terrors are often found in those who do no Penance, and do not even begin it, as in the devils, who believe and tremble, James 2; often too some do true Penance, driven by no terror of punishment, but by the love of God and of justice alone; such as it is credible that blessed woman had, of whom the Lord says, Luke 7, “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.” And if terrors can sometimes exist without Penance, and Penance without terrors, certainly those terrors ought not to be numbered among the parts of Penance. Finally, faith, as we shall presently prove, is not a part of Penance, but precedes it. But the terrors struck in by the law are, in the opinion of the adversaries, prior even to faith itself; therefore the terrors struck in by the law cannot rightly be called parts of Penance. See more in book 2, chapter 1.
The second proposition: Faith is not a part of Penance, although it is necessarily required for effecting it. This proposition too conforms to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 6, where faith is placed in the first rank among those things which dispose to justification, and is openly distinguished from Penance, which among those dispositions holds the fifth place. It is proved first from those very places from which the adversaries prove their opinion; for Melanchthon, Illyricus, Heshusius, Chemnitz and others everywhere bring forward two places to prove that there are two parts of Penance, terrors and faith. The former place is Mark 1: “Do penance, and believe the Gospel.” The latter, Acts 20: “Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” But these places tell most against them, since in both places faith is distinguished from Penance. For the Lord in Mark does not say, “Do penance, believing the Gospel,” but, “Do penance, and believe the Gospel”; two different things, then, are to do penance and to believe the Gospel. So also blessed Paul does not say, “Testifying penance towards God, which consists of faith and terrors,” but, “Testifying penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Next, faith precedes Penance and begets it, as the example of the Ninevites and manifest reason teach: “The men of Nineveh,” says Scripture, Jonah 3, “believed in God, and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth.” And indeed it cannot be understood that anyone should seriously begin to do Penance unless he first believes that what God both threatens to sinners and promises to penitents is true. And if faith precedes Penance, it can certainly be its cause, but in no way a part. Further, the parts of Penance, as we said above, are to be reckoned those actions which flow from the virtue of Penance. But to believe is an act not of Penance, which is a moral virtue, but of faith, a theological virtue. Finally, the ancient Fathers, when they define Penance, nowhere mention faith; which certainly they would not do if it were the most notable part of Penance, as the Lutherans hold. Gregory, homily 34, defines Penance: “To bewail past sins, and not to commit what must be bewailed.” Ambrose, in the preface of the exposition of Psalm 37: “This,” he says, “is the definition of Penance: the recalling of offences, so that each one may chastise his own sins with a kind of daily scourge of groaning, and condemn the outrages he has committed.” By which words he teaches that Penance consists in this, that one confess his sins, and by confessing chastise and condemn them; which cannot be done without detestation, which we call contrition, and without satisfaction, or the purpose of it. For how does he seriously confess sins who does not detest them? And how does he chastise and condemn them who does not desire to amend them by satisfaction? But certainly to believe that one’s sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, is by no means required for that confession. For why could not someone with sorrow of mind confess his sins and chastise them with laborious works, and so in Ambrose’s opinion do full Penance, even if he does not yet believe for certain that they have been forgiven him, or even that they are then being forgiven? Certainly the Ninevites believed in God, Scripture witnessing, Jonah 3, and yet they doubted of remission, when they said, “Who knows if God will turn and forgive?”; and that they did a Penance pleasing to God, the same Scripture testifies. So that special faith not only is not a part of Penance, but is not even in any way required for it. And what we said in the second proposition, that Penance cannot be had without faith, we understood of the true and Catholic faith, not of that figment of the Lutherans, which nevertheless is for them the justifying faith and the chief part of Penance.
The third proposition: Not all good works which are done after justification are to be numbered among the parts of Penance. This is against the soft Lutherans, who include all good works within Penance. But we do not wish to deny that the purpose of living well pertains to Penance, nor even that certain good works which tend to that end, that either the inward Penance may be shown, or satisfaction made for sins, are numbered among the parts of Penance; but we assert only this, that not every good work done after reconciliation with God is a part of Penance. Which scarcely requires any proof; for there are many good works which are done by the justified without any relation to past sins: from charity towards God, from mercy towards neighbours, from justice towards those to whom they owe something, from temperance, fortitude and the other virtues; which works they would do even if they had never sinned, or needed Penance.
The fourth proposition: Mortification and vivification are not rightly set down as parts of Penance, in that sense in which they are taken by Calvin and Beza. The reason of this proposition is most certain. For Calvin and Beza either altogether confound Penance with justification, or hold it to be later than justification; for they say that Penance is the fruit of justifying faith, and by mortification and vivification they understand the restraining of vicious affections and a pious zeal for working well, which begin in reconciliation and are then completed through the whole of life. But the divine Scriptures everywhere teach that Penance is the way to justification, and therefore prior to justification itself. Jeremiah 18: “If that nation shall repent of its evil, I also will repent.” Ezekiel 18 and 33, the Lord often repeats: “If the wicked do penance, I will not remember his iniquity.” Luke 13: “Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish.” Luke 24: “It behoved that penance and remission of sins should be preached.” Acts 2: “Do penance, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 3: “Be penitent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Acts 5: “This Prince and Saviour God hath exalted with his right hand, to give penance to Israel and remission of sins.” Acts 8: “Do penance from this thy wickedness, and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee.” Acts 11: “God then hath also to the Gentiles given penance unto life.” And if Penance is the way to the remission of sins, and prior to justification according to the Scriptures, with much greater reason will it precede that mortification and vivification which, in the opinion of the adversaries, is the fruit of justifying faith, and follows justification itself. Wherefore both Lutherans and Calvinists follow extremes; and as the Lutherans err because they place Penance in those motions which precede true Penance, so also the Calvinists err who place Penance in those actions which follow true Penance. Add that Penance in the Scriptures is not spoken of except from sins, or from dead works, according to that of Hebrews 6: “Not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, let us go on to things more perfect.” Nor is penance for all men, according to the Scriptures, but for sinners only; for God has not appointed penance for the just, as we read in the prayer of Manasses; and the Lord in Luke 15 says that the just need not penance. Not rightly, therefore, does Calvin call Penance that mortification of the affections and spiritual renewal which belongs to all men, even the just; for these pertain to progress, not to Penance.
The fifth proposition: The parts of Penance are three: contrition, confession and satisfaction. This proposition, in which all Catholics agree, is to be briefly explained and proved. First, then, it will be to be observed that in this place by the name of Penance is not signified the habit or virtue of Penance, which, as we said above, has no parts, since it is a simple quality; nor yet actual Penance absolutely, since confession and satisfaction are the signs and effects of contrition, and therefore are referred to it not as parts to a part, but as effects to a cause; but that actual Penance is designated, in so far as it is necessary on the part of the penitent for the remission of sins in the sacrament of reconciliation. For because those three acts, which flow from the virtue of Penance (though not equally immediately and principally), are necessary on the part of the penitent, therefore three parts of Penance are numbered. Secondly it is to be observed that these three parts of Penance are not only required in order to the sacrament, but also outside the sacrament are and have been in a certain way of their own necessary under every law. I have said, in their own way, for two reasons. First, because outside the sacrament there is not required a confession of all sins made to a priest, nor a satisfaction enjoined by a priest; but a certain general confession made to God suffices, and satisfaction through laborious works voluntarily undertaken. Next, because outside the sacrament, if anyone is lawfully hindered, either by shortness of time or for another reason, from being able to confess or make satisfaction, inward contrition alone will suffice him for salvation. Thirdly it is to be observed that it is not for this place to discuss accurately each of these three parts, for that pertains properly to the following book; but now we shall seem to have satisfied our office if from the divine letters, the testimonies of the ancients and the congruity of reason we can show that contrition, confession and satisfaction are, at least in general, certain acts of the virtue of Penance, and thereby parts and as it were members of actual Penance.
First, then, that contrition pertains to Penance the Scriptures everywhere teach. Deuteronomy 4: “When thou shalt seek the Lord, thou shalt find him, yet so if thou seek him with all thy heart, and all the affliction of thy soul.” Joel 2: “Rend your hearts.” Psalm 50: “A contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” That confession also is a part of Penance is plain from infinite places. Numbers 5: “A man or woman, when they shall have committed any of all the sins that men are wont to commit, they shall confess their sin,” and so on. Psalm 31: “I said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord.” Matthew 3: “They were baptised by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” Acts 19: “Many of them that believed came confessing and declaring their deeds.” 1 John 1: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins.” Finally, satisfaction through laborious works Scripture very frequently commemorates. 2 Esdras, chapter 9: “The children of Israel came together with fasting and with sackcloth, and earth upon them; and they confessed their sins.” Daniel 4: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms.” Joel 2: “Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning.” Matthew 11: “They would long ago have done penance in sackcloth and ashes.” Moreover, the same can be demonstrated by examples of the Scriptures. Illustrious is the example of David, 2 Kings 24, where, when David had ordered the people to be numbered, and in that matter had sinned from a certain elation of mind, Scripture says, describing his Penance: “And David’s heart struck him” (behold contrition), “and David said to the Lord: I have sinned very much in this deed” (behold confession), “but I beseech thee, O Lord, to take away the iniquity of thy servant, because I have done exceeding foolishly.” And a little below: “It is I that have sinned, and I have done wickedly; these that are the sheep, what have they done? Let thy hand, I beseech thee, be turned against me.” And a little after he offered a sacrifice, and so the Lord was appeased; in which satisfaction appears, through prayer and submission to the scourges of the Lord, and at last through the offering of a sacrifice. Another example is that of the Ninevites, whose Penance the Lord praised in the Gospel, Matthew 12; and it is thus described in Jonah 3: “Let every man turn from his evil way” (behold contrition), “and let them cry to the Lord with all their strength” (behold confession), “and let neither men nor beasts taste anything, nor feed, nor drink water, and let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth” (behold satisfaction). A third example we have in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 18, where the penitent publican is described, who as a sign of contrition did not dare to lift his eyes to heaven; and confessed his sin, saying, “O God, be merciful to me a sinner”; and finally struck his breast, which pertains to satisfaction. Similar to this is the example of the prodigal son, Luke 15, who first returns to himself and detests his state; then confesses, saying, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee”; lastly submits himself to the punishment to be inflicted by his father: “I am not now worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.”
The same truth could be copiously proved from the testimonies of the Fathers; but because those testimonies will have to be brought forward below in their places, where these three parts will be treated separately, now I shall only briefly note those in which mention is made of all three parts together. Tertullian, in the book On Penance, after he had said of contrition that the penitent ought to cast down his mind with griefs, to groan, to weep and to roar day and night; and in the same place of satisfaction, to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to disfigure the body with squalor, to feed prayers with fasts, and so on; adds of confession: “All this exomologesis does, that it may commend penance, that it may honour the Lord by fear of danger, that by itself pronouncing against the sinner it may act in the place of God’s indignation.” And a little after: “When therefore it casts a man down, it raises him the more; when it makes him squalid, it renders him more cleansed; when it accuses, it excuses; when it condemns, it absolves.” Saint Cyprian in the sermon On the Lapsed: “Finally,” he says, “how much greater in faith and better in fear are those who, though bound by no crime of sacrifice or certificate, yet because they even thought of this, confess this very thing before the priests of God with sorrow and simplicity, make the exomologesis of their conscience, lay open the weight of their mind, and seek out a saving remedy for wounds though small and slight.” So he; where you see first that faith and fear are numbered not among the parts but among the causes of Penance; then that the three parts of Penance are shown distinctly and clearly: contrition in that word, “with sorrow”; confession in that, “they confess”; satisfaction in those, “they seek out a saving remedy for wounds.” Saint John Chrysostom, in the sermon on Penance which is found in the fifth volume after the ten homilies on Penance: “In his heart,” he says, “is contrition, in his mouth confession, in his work all humility: this is perfect and fruitful Penance.” Saint Augustine, tractate on Psalm 146, expounding those words, “Who healeth the broken of heart”: “He heals,” he says, “the contrite of heart, he heals those who confess, he heals those who punish themselves”; where you clearly have the three parts of true Penance.
Let there be added lastly also a reason drawn from the very nature of Penance. For the Penance of which we here treat is not any detestation and punishment whatever of sin, but the detestation and punishment of sin as it is an offence against the divine majesty, and as it is ordered to removing sin and repairing friendship with God. For hence in Acts 20 it is called penance towards God; and in Acts 26 it is joined with conversion to God; and everywhere in the divine letters, and especially in Ezekiel 18 and 33, the end of Penance is said to be justification and reconciliation. Now this is the difference between avenging justice and reconciling Penance: that for avenging justice it is enough if the guilty man pays the penalty prescribed by the judge, whether he does it willingly or unwillingly, and whether he who was injured approves or disapproves; but in reconciling Penance the penalty must be undergone with a ready mind by him who injured, and at the discretion of him who was injured. Wherefore here it is necessarily required, first, that he who sinned grieve that he has sinned and violated friendship; for when would he desire to recover a friendship who did not grieve that it was lost? Next, that he submit himself to punishment at the discretion of God, who was injured. And because God deals with us through his ministers, it is necessary that he who sinned voluntarily submit himself to that man who holds the place of God. And this cannot be done unless he both open his faults to him through confession, and undertake the penalty which he shall prescribe. Those three, then, are necessary: the detestation of sin with the purpose of a better life, which is called contrition; confession; and satisfaction. Further, these three we see present daily, nature herself leading, when either children with parents, or servants with masters, or wives with husbands return into favour; for they both show signs of sorrow, and confess the fault, and submit themselves to chastisement, or at least ask indulgence. “Before judges,” says Marcus Tullius for Ligarius, “it is usual to plead thus: he did not do it, he did not think of it, the witnesses are false, the charge is invented. But before a parent: I erred, I acted rashly, I repent, I flee to your clemency, I ask pardon for my fault, I beg you to forgive.” And the sacred letters teach in more than one place that God holds towards men the place of a father, a master and a bridegroom; therefore the Penance and conversion of men to God ought to be not unlike that of a son to a parent, a servant to a master, a wife to a husband. Isaiah 63: “Thou art our father, and Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us; thou, O Lord, art our father, our redeemer, from everlasting is thy name.” Psalm 122: “As the eyes of servants are on the hands of their masters, as the eyes of the handmaid are on the hands of her mistress, so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy on us.” Jeremiah 3: “Thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers; nevertheless return to me, saith the Lord.” Lastly, neither does that congruity seem to be despised, that as there are three instruments of sinning, the heart, the tongue and the hand, for we sin by heart, word and deed, so it is fitting that there be three as it were instruments of Penance, and that we fight against the sin of the heart by contrition, of the mouth by confession, and of deed by satisfaction; that in this way, according to the Apostle in Romans 6, “as we have yielded our members to serve uncleanness and iniquity unto iniquity, so now we may yield our members to serve justice unto sanctification.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII.
De partibus Poenitentiae,^enlenliae variae
haereticorum .
Allera quaeslio jam cum haerelicis Iractandaest,
quol sint parlbs Poenitentiae, sive quol sint actio-
ncs in homine poenitentc nccessariae, ut absolu-
lioncm pcrcipcro, ct ciim Dco in graliam rcdire
possil.iV*3que cnim cuin haercticis dispulare neccs-
sc erit,an islac oinnes aclioncs sinl malcrialcs sa-
cramcnli parlcs, cum illi (ul vidimus cap.l.").)niil-
lam partom malcrialcm agnosi;anl, nisi fortc Ka-
ptismum, aul rilum quo saccrdos verbum ahsolu-
lionis pronunciat.
Igilur catholici summo consensu Ircs assignaut
Pocnilcnliae parles, conlritioncm, confessioncm et
salisfai;lioncm; ncquo de hac rc ulla inler catholi-
cos conlrovcrsia est. Nam ipse, eliam Scolus, qui
Pocnitcnliac sacramenlum in sola ahsolutionc, el
Durandus, qui in absoluliouc ct confcssione con-
sliluit, diserlis verbis doccnt, ad pcrcipicndam in
lioc sacramcnto peccatorum remissionem, tria illa
ex parle pocnitcnlis rc(|uiri.
Porro Adversarii a communi, frequenlato, tulis-
simoque hoc doctrinae ccchisiaslicae Iramilc aher-
ranlcs, in varias crrorum vias abicrunl. Trcs prac-
cipuc sunt apud cos scnlcnliae.
Prima eorum.qui docenl duas esse Poenitciiliac
parlcs.conlrilioncm ct ndcm. Ac por conlrilionom
(luidom inlclligunt lcirorcs conscicnliac ox UHuis
Icgis incussos:pcr ridcm aulcm.liduciam (piandam
certiim rcmissionis peccalorum cx evangclii, ul
ipsi dicuiil, pollicitalionc conccplam.
llujus soiilcntiac piimus iiuclor Uutherus fuit.Is
cniiii cliamsi anno l.')20. in libro contra cxccriibi-
lcm liulliim Aulichrisli, in dcfcnsioiic iirlio. 5. el
rursiis iiniio l.'J2l. iii iissorlioiK! aitioulorum suo-
rum,oiiiid(un illum (luinlum arliculum propugiians,
scripserit, se non ncgare trcs csse parles Pocni-
tenliac, coulritioiicm, confcssioncm cl satisfaclio-
(•.20
1>K POKMTK^TIA
lUMu; scil lanliiin ilo snlisriiclione (lorore,(\nn (|n;ic
jirbilrio Koolesiiie imponilnr.non essc jnris divini,
jiul si jnris divini esl, non possc por clavos Ecclc-
siae lidli: Uiinon posloa oiiin non parnin in sohola
Sallianao prorooissol.anno 1")4'). in rofnialionc ar-
liculorum Lovanicnsinni, proposilionc IH.his ver-
bis prioroni illain sonlonliain a se (jnoqne admis-
sain damnavil: PuvniUiUia a Lovanicn^iuni s//-
iHKjnga Iradila (scilicet (jaod sil contrUio, con-
fessio ct satisfoctio) cst imUa nisi Judac prodi-
toris ct similium: idco ut hacrctica cst dnninan-
da.VA in arlioulis SmalohalJiois anno 1 j."{7. cdiiis.
in cap. de Poenilentia,dnas parlcs I*oenilenliae cs-
se doool, logoni cl cvaiiiioiinin, sivc. (^uod csl i-
dom, ul ipsc iiiidcm cxplical, conlrilioncm cx mi-
nis lcgis, ol lidcm cx cvangclii promissis concc-
plam; porro opera bona hoc loco. non parlcm,scd
finoluin Pooniloniiae osso voluil. Eadcm scnlcnlia
luil Piiilippi .Mclanolillu)nis,lum in iocis cdilis an-
no 1521. lum in conlessione Anguslana edila anno
l.*)30. Sed in locis cap. de Poenilenlia, dnas Poe-
nilculiae pnrles vocal mortilicationcm cl riu//ica-
tionem: in c(uifcssionc aulciu, arl. 12. vocal con-
lrili(mom et lidom; ros lamen eadcm pcr morlili-
calionem ct conlriliDnen"!. per vivificalionem el li-
dom si^nidcakir. Idom qnoqnc piirmulli alii Lu-
thcranornm doccnl, nl Centurialorcs Magdebur-
genses. Centur. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4. col. 148. el lib.
2. cap. 4. col. 341. Joan. Wigandus in corpore
doctrinac Magdcburgensis , cap. 18. Tilmannus
Hesbusius in lib.de erroribusPonlificiorum,loco 9.
Marlinus Kemnilius in 2. par. exam. ad cap. 3.de
Poenitenlia, pag. 9i2. el 943.
Allera cornm senlenlia esl, qui ad illas duas
Poenilentiae parles adjungunl lerliam, videlicel o-
pus bonum. sivc novam obedienliam.
Hujus scnlenliae videlnr eliam anctor Lulhcrus
fuisse. Kara in prima dispulalione conlra Anlino-
nios, cdila anno 1538. proposilione prima, dicit
parles Poenilenliae esse dolorem de pcccalo, et
proposilum melioris vilae. In lertia aulem dispu-
lalione conlra cosdem, proposilione 9. ad bonum
proposilum non solum perlinere vull li(lem,seu fl-
(iuciain erga Deiira. sed etiain omnia opera bona:
Omnia, inquil, opera posl justificationem, sunt
aliud nihiUquam bonumpropositumconlrapec-
calum. Idera docel Philippus Melanchthon, qui ut
fidus Acbales Lutberi, cum ipso in forraas varias
facile mulabatur. Is igilur in apologia confessio-
nis Auguslanae, arliculo de Poenilenlia, et in locis
edilis anno 1536. el sequenlibus, lilulo de Poeni-
lenlia, duas quidem partes Poenilenliae assignat,
contrilionem el fidem: addil tamen, se non repu-
gnaturum, si quis lertiam partem adjungat, novam
obedienliam. Sed in dispulatione de Poenilenlia,
qiiam anno 1548. habuit, et cum Lutheri operibus
circumferlur; diserlis vcrbisdicit, reipsa novamo-
bedientiam, tertiam parlem esse conversionis, seu
Poenilenliae: quod Idem repelit in examine ordi-
nandorum, cap. de Poenilenlia. Idem docent illi
omnes.qui Lntherani molles appcUanlur, etconlra
rigidos Lulberanos, sive Illyricianos, de hac re
magna conlentione digladianlnr, ut auctores con-
fessionis Saxonicae, cap. de Poenitenlia, Nicolaus
Siilnccooiiis iii sua Paodagogia ad lincm sccundae
j)arlis. nbi oxplioat arliciilnm symboli: Ucniissio-
ncnipcccalorum; l)i\\'n\ Chylhracus in sua calC"
ciiosi. looo 8. ct alii non pauci.
Terlia sontonlia Calvini csl, libro 3. Inslitnlion.
cap. 3. § 8. nbi duas Poonilcnliac parles consli-
tnit, morlificalioncni ol vivificalioncni, sed longe
alio sensn.(piain Luliicrani laciunl. Nain per mor-
tificalioncm non inlclligit lerrores incussos. ul
Lnth(M-ani. scd morlificationem viliornin, sive ab-
ncgalionom sni ot spoliationcm tolins vcteris ho-
minis; proindc non parvo aliipjo lcmporc, sod tola
vila Poenilcntiam agendam csse dicil. Pcr vivifi-
calionem iion inlclligit fidem. vcl fidnciam, aiit
consolalioncm ex cvangclio conceptam, ut Lulhe-
rani, sed pium benc vivcndi sludiura , alque aire-
clum ad opera bona; quae opera non parlem, sed
frucUis Poenilentiae csse docet.
Rcfollil ibidem Calvinus aportc senlenliam Lu-
Iheranorum. Nara § 1. contendit fidem priorem es-
se Poenitenlia,quod esl contra Lutheranos, qui fi-
dem posleriorem partem Poenilenliac faciunt.Doccl
§ 2. incussos illos terrores, quos Luthcrani prio-
rem parlein , Poenilenliae esse volunt, non esse
parlem Poenilentiae, sed esse timorem quendnni
initialem, qui fidera praecedil, ex quo poslea Poe-
nitenlia ut fruclus, emanal. Agnoscil § 3. alios an-
te se Poenitenliani esse partilos in morlificalioneui
el vivificalionem (id enim sine dubio legerat apud
Melanchthonein in locis communibus editis anno
1521.) sed addit, vocibus isiis, si recta subsit in-
torprelatio, vim Poenitenliae satis commode ex-
primi: sed non sibi placere eornm inlerprelatio-
nem. Refellil § 5. illos ( Lulheranos videlicel o-
mnes) qni fidera sub poenitenlia complectuntur,ac
dicil eos Paulo repugnare.
In Calvini sententiam Theodorelus Beza disci-
pulus ejns descendit.eamque tueturet explicat. in
libro quem inscripsil, Abslersio calumniarum Til-
manni Ilcshusii, jn responsione ad quarlain ca-
luinniam.
CAPUT XIX.
Refellunlur senlcnliae haerelicorum el
catholica confiirmaluv.
Nunc breviler, et per paries novorum haerelico-
rnm dogmata refellemus, ac velerem et coramu-
nem Ecclesiae calholicae, quae sola vera est,sen-
lenliam comprobabimus.
Sil igilur proposilio Prima^Tcrror animo incus-
sm a lege, qucm Lutherani conlriiionem, sive
mortijicationem appellant, non rocte inter par-
tes Poenilentiae numeratur. Haecproposilio con-
formis est Iridentino concilio sess. 6. cap. 6. ubi
numerantur quidera lerrores incussi inler ea,quae
hominera ad juslificationem juvant et praeparanl:
tamen non ponuntur Poenileniiae partcs , sed ab
ea polius dislinguunlur, cum inler eos el Poeni-
llKh PIUMLS
(21
tenliam actusquidam ppoj ot (lilccliunis iiilorcodt'-
r(! dicniiliir. AImkI oniui csl. iiliquid aii cimv(M'si((-
nem el juslitic.iliunem requiri . ;iliud. pnrlem sive
aclum csse Poenilenline.si de Poouileiili;i,iil llieo-
Jogos decel, proprie loquamur. Igilur ul illos \('.v-
roros nd couversiouem . ui plurimuiii re(|uiii uoii
iipgainus, ilii parlem esse Poenilenliae uiiuime
coiicodiuius.
.Vam in primis Scriplura dislinguil lorror(un a
Poeuilcniia. Ubi cuim logimus in epistoI;i posle-
riore ad Corinlti. cap. 7. Qaae secunduiii Deuiii
est IrisiUia, Poenilenliam in salutein slabilein o-
pe/'a<u?".P(M' Irisliliam inlolligi debol mulcsliiMiu;ie-
dam, el limor, ac pudor nalus ex objurgalioue illa
veliemcnli et minis, quibus Aposlolus ii[)ud Co-
rinlliios usus lueral. Non enim vocal Aposlidus eo
Joco Irisliliam, dolorom de peccalis admissis, quae
esl ipsa conlritio, sive Poenilenlia, sed molcsiiam
illain cl verecundiam, (juae ae^iuo iiuimo aixcpla
el secuiuJum l)eum . Poenilenliam saluberriiiiiim
giguit. !>am in eadem epist. cap. 2. Aposlolus iul:
Ex multa Iribulalione el anguslia cordis, scripsi
vobis, non ut conlristemini, sed ut scialis. quain
cliaritatem liabeant abundanlius invos. Ei cap.
7. Gaudco, inquil. non quia contrislali eslis, sed
quia conlrislati eslis ad Poenilenliam. At coric
Aposlolus non liaoc dicerel, si per lrisliliam,«iolo-
rem illum acciperel quo qnis augilur, quod Dimm
olTonderit. Non diceret . inquam ; Scripsi vobis ,
non iit doleatis de peccalo. cum lioc ipsuin vebe-
meulissime cuporol: ueque dicerel: i\on gaudco ,
quia contrislati csiis.cum maxime gaudendum sil,
quod peccatores pecciisse se doleaiit , et gaudium
sil in coelo super uno peccalore Poeuileutiam a-
gonle. Ilaque. ut Cbrysoslomus el alii exponunl ,
seiileutia riiuli esl: Non gaudco de Irislitia; g.mdeo
de iVuclu, qui est Pocuiteutia. Et qucmiKiiuodum
niedicus non gaudol . quod iimaro pbariiiaco , vel
seclione, aul aduslione aegrotum cruciel;scd gau-
del de sanilale, quao ex illo phiirm;ico , vcl seclio-
ne, aul aduslione conscquilur ; sic etiam Paulus
non gaudct, quod iispera objurgalioue el miiiis ,
lerrorem el molestiam Coriutliiis attiilcril , sed
quod ea moleslia ac lerrores , Poenileuliiim , e;iiu-
que slabilem el omnino s;ilul;ircm peperonnl.Vides
igitur ex doctrina Apostoli Poenilenliam iion esse
terr(U'em ex miiiis inciissum, scd enoclum , s(!u
Iruclum quendam ojus tcrroris , ut concilium iri-
dent. recte docet.
Dcinde.si quis inspicial definiliones omncs Poc-
nil(mli;ie, quiie iipud llioologos lum veloi(!s . Iiim
lecenliores exsl;inl, ol simul iipouiuiilur apud IVlii-
gistrum in 4. lib. Scnlentiar. dist. 14. el apud
Gr;ili;inum dc roonil. disl. .'i. iii null;i tiarum lor-
lorcs islos iiivcniol, <|uos Lutbcrani partcm Poeni-
tcnliae liiciuul.
Praelerca, cum parlos Pocnitcnliae qiiaerimus ,
non (piosvis molus, (pji (|iiociiin(iue modo ;id 1'oe.
iiitcnliain porlineiit. (iu;ierimus, s(.'d eos moliissi-
ve aclus dumti-xal, qui ex ipsa virlule Pocnileiitiae
prodciiul. Porro torrori , cuin iiitontantur mimio;
Jioii csl iillius virliilis ac.lus , sed ii<itur;ilis ;ilTo-
clio . qiinm eliam iii pueris el in ipsis bcstiis
cernimus.
Bkj,i,iu»ii\i. V,,I III
Adiiaec . saope lerrores in iis inveniunlur.qui
Poonileutiam nullam agunt . ac iie inclioant qui-
dcm, ul in daemonibus. qui crcdunt et contromi-
scunt. Jacobi 2. saepe etiam nonnulli veram Poe-
uiteutiam aguut, nuilo poenac lorrore , sed solo
Doi ot jusliliae ;iinorc impulsi , qualem credibile
csl luisse bealam illain foeminiim . de qua Domi-
nus ait, Luc. 7. Dimitlunlur ei peccata niulta ,
quoniam dilexilmullum. Quod si lerrores sine
Poeuilentia,cl Poonilcntia siiie terroribus aliquan-
do esse potest, certe uon debent terrores illi ir\ter
partes Poenileuliae numerari.
Dcuique iides, ut mox probabimus. non est pars
Pocnilcntiae, sed eam praecedil.Atqui lerrores iu-
cussi a legc cx scutcnlia a(lvorsariorum,ipsa etiani
lide priorcs sunt: non igilur lcrrores incussi a lege
parles Poenitentiae recte dici possunt. Vidc plura
in 2. lib. cap. 1.
Secunda proposilio : Fides non esl pars Poeni-
lenliae, licel ad eam efficiendam necessario re-
quiratur. Ilaec etiam propositio conformis est Iri-
dentiuo concilio, sess. 6. cap. G. ubi fides primo
loco ponitur iuter ea, quae ad justilicationem dis-
ponuiil ; el a Poeniteutia , quae intor cas dispo-
siiioues (luintum locum obtiuct , aperle dislin-
guilur.
Probatur aulem Primo ex illis ipsis locis . undc
adversarii scnlentiam suarn probant:proferuntcniin
iHelanclillion, Illyricus. Hesbusius , Remnilius, et
alii passim, cJuo loca. ut probont duas csse Poeni-
lonliae partos, lerrorcs el lidcm. Prior locus est
Marc. 1. Poenilentiam ogite . cl credile evange'
lio. Aller Act. 20. Testilicons Judaois, atquc gen-
tilibus in Deuin Poenitentiam, c/ lidem in Domi-
nuin nostrumJesum Ckristum. Al liaec loca ma-
xime Jacluut coiitra eos: siquidem distinguitur in
ulroque loco fidcs a Poenittuiliii. .\on eniin Domi-
uus apud Marciiin ait: Poeuilonliiim agile crcdcn-
les evaugclio; sed: Poenilentiom agite el credile
evangelio: duo sunt igiuir ac diversa , Poeniien-
tiaui iigere el crcdcrc evangelio. Sic ctiam b.Pau-
lus uon ait:Teslilicaiis iii Deuiu l*oenilenli;im.quiic
ox (ide cl terroribus cousliil; sed: Testilicans in
Deum Pecnitentiam, el fidem in Dominum no-
strum Jc.sum Cliribtum.
Deinde fidcs Poeniteutiam pracccdil.eamque gi-
gnil. ut cxcmpluui Ninivitiirnm. ol ratio m;iuifosta
docet: Credidernnt, inquit Scriplura .lon. \\. ISini-
vilaeinDeum, ct praedicaverunt Jejunium . et
indutisunt saccis. El sane inlelligi noii polest ,
(piod serio ;iliquis Poeiiilonli;im agorc incijiiat, nisi
prius credat vorii cssi;, qu;ie Dous luiii jioccalori-
l)us comminalur , tuin poenilentibus pollicetur.
Qiiod si iidos Poeniloiitiam pr;ioco(iil. ccrlc caussa
ejus esse polost, pars aiilo.iu nullo modo.
Adbaec parles i*ocuilenliac, iit supra diximus ,
illiic aclioiics ccnsendae sunl, quae a virtule Poe-
nilonliao iiuiuaiil, AUpii crodoro. non Poonilenliao,
(|uac virtus ost moriili-^. sed lidci virtulis tboologi-
cac aclio csl.
Doniiiuc voloros Palros cum Poonilontinm doli-
niiint. iius(|u;im lidoi iiieminornul: quod corl«i non
riicor(!iil, si Cii iiolissiniii i*ooiiilcnti;io pars esscl ,
iil I.iitlicraui voliinl. ("irogoriiis limn. 'M. Pocnilen*
012
Di; POENIlIvMIV
linin tloliiiil: PraclcvHa poccuta }>lai\gcre cl plan-
(jcnUa non admiltcrc. .\iiil)ii)siiis in pnierntioiKr
t'n;irr.itioiiis in psal. 'M. /*/'•/)</. in(;iiil. (>s/ (lcjini-
lio Pocnilcndac, coninicnioralio ilclniorum. , ul
unn^iqnisqHC pcccalasua.vclnl qnodani qnolidia-
ni ^cmuniis casli(icl jlaticUo.cl conijni^sa sibi jla-
;;ilia condcnmcL Qiiilnis vorbis ciocol , Poeniloii-
ti.iiii in 00 coiisistorc, iit quis pcconlii siia conti-
loatnr, cl confitcndo castigcl ac damncl: qnod si-
no dolcslationc. qiiain nos contrilionom vooamns.
ot sino salislafliono. vol cjiis proposilo liori iion
polcst. Quomodoeniin scrio pcccala connicatnr ,
qni ca iion doioslaliir? cl qiiomodo ca casligol
cl damncl , qui salislaoliono cmoiularo iion cu-
pial?
Al cerle credcrc sibi remitti . vcl rcmissa csse
pcocala. ad cain confossiom.Mii minimo ro(iiiirilur.
O.ii- enim iion possil aliquis cum doiore animi pec-
cala sua faleri.ol ea laboriosis oporibus caslignre,ct
proinde e.\ Amhrosii sonlenlia plcnam aijere Poe-
nilcnliam. cliamsi nondum ccrlo crodat ca sibi os-
se romissa, aul oliam tiinc remitli? Cerlo Ninivilao
crcdiderunl in Deum, lesle Scriplura .lonae 3. cl
tamon de rcmissioiie diibitabaiil , cum diceronl :
(Juis scil si convcrlalur.cl ifinoscal Dcus? cos aii-
tem Pocnilcnliam cgisse cfratam Deo. cndem Scri-
plura teslalur. Itn(]uo lidcs isla specialis, non mo-
do non cst Pocniloiitine pars , sed neque ad enin
ullo modo roquiriUir.
Quod vcro nos in secunda propositionc di.ximus
sine fide Poenitenlinm tinbcri non possc: de fidc
vern ct catludica inlcllexiimis . non de isio Liillie-
ranorum figinenlo. quod tamen ipsis fides juslifi-
cans, cl pars praecipua Pocnitenliae esl.
Terlia propositio: ^on sunt omnia bonn opora,
qnac podjuslilicationcm flunt, inler parles Poe-
nitenliae numerandn. IIoc est adversns molles
Lnlliornnos. qiii omnia opera boiia inlrn Poeniten-
linni includunl. Noii volumus aulem nogare, quin
proposilum bcne vivendi ad Poenitenliam perti-
neal, neque eliam quin opera qiiaedara bona,quac
ad enm fincra tcndunl. ut vol Poonitenlia inlerior
osleiidalur, vel pro pecoalis salisfial, in parlibus
Pocnileniine nuraerenlur: sed id solum asserimus,
non ouine bonum opus post reconcilialionem cum
Dco factum, pnrleni osse Poenitontiae. Id quod vix
ullnni probalionem cxigit: mulla sunl eiiim opcra
bona, quae a justiUcatis fiunl , sinc ulla reialione
ad pcccala praetenln; e.\ chnrilnte in Deum,ex mi-
sericordia in proximos. cx juslilin in oos quibus
aliqiiid debent, ex lcmperarilia , forliludine , cae-
terisque virlulibus . (pialia opera facerent el-
iamsi numquam pcccassent, aul Poenilenlia eguis-
seni.
Quarln proposilio:A'o?i?'ec/e po?iim/i(rPoeni7cn-
liae partcs , morlificalio cl vivilicatio , ad cuni
scnsum quo a Calvino et Beza accipiimlur. Ra-
lio proposilionis hujus cerlissima esl. Nam Calvi-
nus el Beza, vel confundunl omnino Poenilenliam
cum juslificnlione, vel posleriorem juslificatione
esse volunt: dicunt enim, Poenilenlinm esse fru-
clum fidei juslificanlis,el permorlificalionem el vi-
vificalionem, iijtelligunl refraenalionem viliosarum
airecliuuum, ei pium sludium bene operandi.. quae
in rcconcilialionc inchonnlur, ;]{' iloinde lotn viln
porliciunliir.
Al Scri|)liirno divinno pnssim docciil. Poonilen-
tiniu viaiii osso ad jiistilicntidiioni. ol pioindi! prio-
rom ipsa juslilicnliono. Ilierem. 1S. Si fooiitcn-
liam eijcrit ijcns illa a malo, a(jam el c<jo Poeni-
lcntiam. Iv/,(U"liieIis 17. et 'M\. siiopo ri^pcMit Domi-
iiiis: Si pocuilcnliani exjcril iinpiiis. iniiiuihitnm
cjusnon recordabor. Luc. :\. .Msi Pocnitcnliam
lialnicrili^. omucs siinHilcr pcrihiiia. Luc. 21. 0-
porlcbat pracdicari Pocnilcntiam ct remissioncni
peccatorum. Actor. 2. Poenilenliam ngile el bn-
ptizelnr unusqnisque vestruui in noniine Jesu
Clirisli in remissionem pcccalorum, el ncxipielis
doiinm Spirilns sancli. Aclor l^ Poenilemini el
converliniini. ul deleantur peccnln res/ra. Aclor.
.'). llunc principcm et Snlvatorcm Deus exalta-
vil dcxtern sun,ad dandam Poenitentiom Israeli
et remissionem peccntornm. Aclor. 8. Poeniten'
linm agc ab liac nequitia tun, et roga Deum ,
si forle remillatur tibi liaec cogHatio cordis lui.
\c\or. W. Ergo ct genlibus Poenitenliam dedil
Dcus ad vitnm.
Quod si Poenilcnlia via esl nd remissionom pec-
caloriim; cl prior juslificalione.secundiim Scriptu-
ras; multo majori rnlione mortificnlionem illam ct
vivificalionem praecedel , quae opinione advcrsa-
rionim, fruclus csl fidci juslificnntis, cljnslifica-
tioncin ipsam consecpiilur. Quarc lam Lutherani ,
qiinm Calvinislae, exlrema seclanlur: el sicul Lu-
lliernnt crranl, quia Poonilenlinm in liis molibus
consliluunt. qui vernm Poenilenlinm anlecedunt ;
iln quoquoerrnnt Cnlvinistne, qui Poenilentinm iii
his nclionibus ponunt , qui veram Poenilenlinm
consequuiilur.
Adde.quod Poenilenlia in Scripluris non diciUir
nisi a peccalis, sive ab operibus mortuis, juxla il-
lud Hehr. G. Non rursus jacienles fundmnentum
Poenitentiae ab operibus mortuis, ad perfectio-
nem feraniur. Nec pocnilenlia est omniura homi-
num, secundum Scripluris, sed peccatorum laii-
tum: juslis cnim Oeus non posuil Poenilenliam, ul
legimus in orntionc Manassc; el Dominus Lucne
15. dicit. juslos non egere Pocnilcnlia. INon igiiur
rccte Calvinus Poenilenlinm vocal morlilicalionem
illnm afflictionum el renovationem spiritualcm ,
quae esl omnium hominum. etiara justorum : ista
enim ad profeclum , non ad Poenilenliam per-
linenl.
Quinla proposilio: Tressu?i/par/esPoe?ii7en/?'ac.-
conlrilio. confessio etsatisfactio. Haec propositio,
in qua conveniunl omnes catholici, breviter expli
cnnda ac probanda esl. Primo igilur observandum
crit, hoc loco nomine Poenilenliae non significari
habilum, seu virlulcm Poenilenliae,quae, ut supra
diximus, partes non habet, cum simplex qualilas
sil; neque eliara aclualem Pocnitentiam absolule ,
cura confessio et satisfactio, conlritionis signa el
eireclus sinl, ct proinde ad enm non ut parles ad
pnrlem, sed ut ofTeclus ad caiissam referantur: sed
designari aclualein Poenilenliam , quatenus ea cx
pnrte poenilentis ad rcmissionem peccatorum in
sacramenlo reconcilialionis neccssaria est. Quia
cnim Ires isli aclus, qui ex virlule Poenilentiac (li-
LIUEli PlilMUS
623
ccl non acque iinmciJiale el principaliler) uiiuii-
lur ex parle Poenilonlis necessarii sunl , ideo trcs
parles Poenilenliac nuineranlur.
Secundo esl observandum.lres islas Poenilenliae
parlcs non solum rcquiri in ordine ad sacramcn-
tum. sed eliiira exlra sacramenlum suo quodani
modo essc ac fuissc nccessarias in omni lege. Di-
xi autcm,suo modo.propter duas caussas.Primum,
(juia cxlra sacramciilum non rc^iuiritur conCessio
omnium peccalurum , quae sacerduli lial. neque
salislacliu a saccrdole injun^a: sed satis csl cun-
fcssio quacdam generalis lacla Deo, el salislaclio
per opera laboriusa spoiitc assumpta. Dcindc, quia
cxlra sacramenlum, si (piis aulangusliis lempuris,
aul alia de caussa legilimc impediatur, quu ininus
connieri aul salisfacere qucal, sola contrilio inlc-
rior ad salulcm illi sullicicl.
Terlio observandum esl, non esse hujus loci,de
singulis his Iribus parlibus accurale dissercre, id
enim ad libruni sequentcm proprie pertinet: nuiic
vero muneri noslro satisfecisse videbimur . si ex
divinis lileris, leslimoniis vclcrum et congrueiitia
ralionis oslendere polucrimus conlritionem , con-
fcssionem el salisfaclioiiem saltem in gencre.actus
quosdain esse virlulis Puenitentiae , ac per hoc
partes ac veluli membra Poenitenliae aclualis.
Primum igilur conlrilionem ad Poenilenliam per-
tinere, Scriplurae passim docenl. Deul. I. Ciivi
quaesieris Dominum, invenies , si tamen quae-
sicris in tolo corde, et tota tribulalione animae
iuac. Jocl. 2. Scindite corda vestra. Psalin. 50.
Cor contrHu7n ct liumilialum Deus non despicies.
Confessionem quoque Poenitentiae parleni esse ,
pcrspicuum esl ex infinilis locis. l\um. 5. Vir sive
midier, cum fccerinl ex omnibus peccatis, quac
solent hominibus accidere. confltebuntur pecca-
lum suum etc.Psalm. 31. Dixi, confitebor adver-
sum me injusliiiam meam Domino.MMh. 3. Pa-
ptizabantur ab eo in Jordane. confdcntes pcc-
cafa sua. Aclor. 19. DluUi credcntes venicbant
confHcnles et annuncianles actus suos. 1. Joan.
1 . Si confitcamur pcccata nostra , fidelis est et
jusius. ul remittatnobis peccata nostra. Deniquc
salisfaclionem pcr opera laboriosa, frcquenlissime
Scriplura commemoral, 2. Esdrae cap. 9. Con-
vencrunt filii Israelinjcjunio et insaccis el liu-
mus suuer cos, et confitebantur peccala sua. Da-
uiel. 4. Peccata lua elccmosynis rcdime. Joelis
2. Converlimini ad me in loto corde vestro,inje
janio el flctu et pianctu. Hlalth. W. Olim in ci-
iiere et cilicio Pocnitentiam egissenl.
Praelerea idem Scnpturarum cxcm|)!is demon-
sirari [lolcsl. llluslre esl exemplum Davidis 2.15cg.
21. ubi cum David jussisscl |)opuIuni numcrari el
111 ea rc ex quadam animi clationc pcccasscl ,
inquil Scriplura. describens Pocnitentiam cjus :
Percussit autcm cor David eum, cccc Contrilio-
nem, el dixil David ad Dominum: Pcccavi valdc
in lioc facto, ecceCunfessioncm, sed prccor Do-
minc, ut transfcrns iniquilalcm sorvi tni , quia
sluUe o.(fi nimis.VA paulo iiifia: K(jo sum (jui pcc-
cavi, ci ego iniquc o.(ji: isli qui ovcs sunt, quid
fcccrunt? vcrlatur.obsccro vtanus lua conlra nic.
lil paulo posl oblulil sacrilicium , cf sic Duminus
placatus esl: iii quo apparel salisfaclio, pcr oralio-
iiem el subjeclioncm ad flagclla Domini , el lan-
dcin i)ef sacrilicii oblalionem.
Ahud excmplum esl Ninivilarum, quorum Poeni-
tcnliam Dominus in evangclio laudavil Malth. 12.
ila vcro ca dcscribilur Juiinc 3, Convertatur vir a
via sua nuda. eccc Cuiitritioncm . ct ciament ad
Dominum in forlitudinc , ecce Confcssionem, e/
liomincs et jnmenta non (justcnt quidquam, ncc
pdscantur. cl aquam non bibanl, ct opcriantur
saccis liomines cl jumenta, ecce Satislaotionem.
Terlium cxemplum Iiabemus in cvangclio Lucae
18. ubi dcscribilur publicanus poenitcns . qui in
signum contriliunis non audebal oculos ad coelum
levare; el pcccatum conntebalur , dicens : Dcus
propitius csi.o mihi pcccatori. ac dcnique peclus
suum pcrculiebat,quod perlinet ad salisfactionem.
iluic siinilc esl cxemplum lilii prodigi Lucae la.
qui Primum ad se reverlitur, ac statum dclet;lalur
suum. Deinde conGlelur. dicens: Patcr peccavi in
coclum e( co?'ttr?i ie. Postremo subjicil se poenae
a parte infercndae. Jam non sum dujnus vocari
fdius tuus, fac me sicut unum ex mcrcenariis
luis.
Eadem veritas ex Palrum tcslimoniis copiose
probari possel, sed quia lestimonia illa suis locis
iiifra adfereiida erunt. ubi de Iiis tribus |)arlibus
scorsim disserelur: nunc soluin illa brevilcr anno-
labo, inquibus omnium Iriuiii partium simul mcn-
tiofit.
Terluliianus in lih. de Poenilenlia, posleaquam
de conlrilione dixeral , oportel poenilentem ani-
mnin moeroribns dcjicere, ingemiscere,Iachrymari
et mugirc dics ac noctes: et ibidem de satisfactio-
nc: sacco el cincri incubare, corpus sordibus ob-
scurarc, jcjuniis prcccs alcre etc. subjungit dc
confessionc: Ilaec omnia cxomologcsis, utpoeni-
tcntiam commendet. ut de periculi timore Domi-
num honorct,ut in peccalorcm ipsa pronuncians
pro Dci indiijnatione fumjalur. Et paulo posl:
Cuni i(jitur provolvil hominem , magis relevat:
cum squalidum facit, magis mundalum reddit :
cum accusat, excusat; cum condemnat, absolvit.
S. Cyprianus in serm. de Inpsis: Dcnique, inquil,
quanto cl fide majore, cl timorc mcliore sunt ,
qui quamvis nuUo sacrificii, aul libcUi facinore
constricti . quia tamen de hoc vel cogilaverunt ,
lioc ipsum apiul saccrdotcs Dei dolcnlcr, et sini-
pUcitcr covfitcntur . oxomologesim c(mscicnti(Ui
faciunt. animi sui pondus exponunt, salularem
mcdclamparvis Ucct, ct modicis vulncribus cx-
quirunt. ILiec ille: ubi vidcs primiim lidein el li-
inurem. non intcr i)arlcs, scil inlcr caussas Pucni-
lcnliae luimcrari: Deiiide Ires Pociiitcnliac partes
distincle ct pcrspicue ostcndi , Conlritioiiom in
vcrho iliu: DoUmler; Cunft>ssioiicm iii illo: Confi-
leniur; Satisfactionem in illis.Na/u^ire»i, 7/iC(((;/a»i
vulncrilms c.i:(iuirunt. S. Joan. chrysostonuis in
scrni. de Pocnitenlia, qui liid)ctiir in .">. toiuo post
homilias dcciMii d(! Pocnilciilia: Iii cordo, iii([iiil ,
ojus, contriiio o.st, in orc confo.ssio, in opcrc tota,
liumilitas: hacc osl pcrfccta el fructifora Poc.ni-
lcntia. S. Augii.slinus triicl.in psalni. l'i(>. llla ver-
ba cxpoiiens: Qui mnat oonirUos oordc. Sanal ,
«2»
Di: poi:.mt!:miv
inquil, cunlrilos cordo, aanai tunfitentfti, sanat
.seipsos punientcs: ubi per.«jpicue Jiuilis li es parles
venie Pofiiiifiiliae.
.Acoedal pDSlreino eliaui ralio ex ipsa (latiira Poe-
mleiiliae liucla. Poeniloiilia eniiii de qna hic aj3[i-
inus. non esl qnaclihel peccali deleslalio ac pnni-
lio. sed ileleslalio ac punilio pcccali. nt csl olTen-
MO ilivinae inajeslalis. cl ui ad pi'ccaluin lollen-
«luiii, el iiiniciliain cum Deo resarciendain ordina-
tiir. llinc eniin Aclor. 20. vocalnr Poenitcnlia in
Deuni: et Aclor. 20. conjnnf^ilnr cnni conversionc
ad Denni; el passim in divinis lileris , ac pracser-
lini K/.ech. 18. el W^. Pocnilenliae linis dicitur ju-
siificalio el reconciliatio. lloc anlom intercsl in-
ler jnsliliam vindicanlem et PoeniliMiliani rccon-
ciliantem; quod ad jusliliain vindicanlcm satis esl,
si reus poenam lual a jndice praescriptam, sive is
libenler id lacial.sive iiiviuis. el sive is qui Inesns
i'Sl, ul probet. sivc improbel: al mulcta in Poeni-
lenlia reconcilianle subennda esl prompto animo
ab 00. qui laesil. el ad arl)itrinin eins qui lacsns
esl. Qnaro necossario hic exi^ilur Priinnm, nl qni
peocavil. doleat se peccnsse el amiciliam violas-
se: quando enim recuporare amiciliam cuperet ,
(]ui non doleret amissam? Dcindo . nl snbjiciat se
l)oeiiae ad arbilrinm Dei, qui biesns est. Et, quia
Deus per minislros suos nobiscum agit ; oportet ,
iil qni peccavil. illi liomini se sponte snhjiciat, qui
U(.i locum lcnol. Id voro ficri nequit. nisi et culpas
suas ei per conlessionem aperial , el mulctam su-
scipial, qnain illc praescripsorit. Snnl if^ilur tria
illa necessaria: Doteslatio pecoali cum proposito
viiac melioris, quae coiitrilio dicilur; confessio et
salisfaclio.
Adliaec. tria isla, nalnra ipsa duce. quotidie ad-
esse vidomus. cum anl liberi cum parenlibus, aut
servi cum dominis, aul uxores cnm viris in graliam
redeunl: nam el signa doloris oslendunl et pecca-
lum rtilenlur el se caslirjalioni subjiciunt, ant corle
indiili^oniiam po lii n l. /It/. /udices, inqnil pro Liga-
rio .M. Tullins. sic agi solet; Non fecit, non cogi-
lavit, falsi lestes, fictum crimen. Ad parentcm
aiitem. Erravi. temerefcci. poenitet, adclemen-
liam taani confagio. dclicti veniani pelo,ul igno-
scas oro. Docenl aulem sacrae lilerae non uno in
loco, Deuiu erga homines, et palris , et domini, et
sponsi locum lenere; proinde non absimilem esse
debere Poenitenliam. el conversionem hominum
ad Deum illi. quae osl filii ad parentem , servi ad
domimim, uxoris ad virum. Isaiae 03. Tu pater
noster el Abralinm nescivitnos. et Isrnel ignora-
vil nos: lu Domine pater nosler, Redemptor no-
sler, a sneculo nomen lunm. Psiilm. 122, SiciU
oculi servorum in manibns dominoruni suorum:
sicul oculi anciliae in manibus dominae suae.ita
ocuti noslriad Dominum Deum nostrum, donec
m^sf-realur nostri. lhe[em.:\.Tu fornicala es cum
amatorihus muUis, tamen reverlere ad me dicit
Dominus.
Poslrenio, neque illa congrucnlia conteranenda
videtur, quod quemadmoduni Iria sunt instrumen-
•a peccandi, cor, lingua. manus ; peccamus enim
corde, verbo el opere: ita par est, ut Iria sint vc-
luli insUumenta Poenitenliae ; et adversus pccca-
Uiiii oordis, conlriliuno; oiis. oonfossiono; (^l ope-
ris. salislactiono pugnomus. nt hao ralione juxtn
\|>itslolnm ad Kom. (>. Sicui cxliihuimus memhra
nosirascrvirc immuudiliae. el iniquilali ad ini-
<iuilalem: ila nu.nc exliihoamus mcml)ra nostra
servire justiliae in sanclificalionem.