Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 20: Answer Is Made to the Arguments of the Adversaries
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).
It remains now that we answer those objections which the adversaries make against the doctrine already explained and confirmed. First, then, John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, section 8, proves that there are two parts of Penance from those places of Scripture: “Cease to do perversely, learn to do well,” Isaiah 1; likewise, “Turn away from evil, and do good,” Psalm 33. I answer: the place of Isaiah manifestly conflicts with Calvin’s opinion. For Isaiah after those words adds: “If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as wool.” Therefore he sets Penance, which contains the detestation of past sins and the purpose of a better life, not after justification, as Calvin does, but before; and teaches that it is not the fruit but the cause of justification. As for the other place, what are numbered there are parts of justice, not of Penance. For Penance pertains to sinners only, according to that: “I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance,” Luke 5; but to turn away from evil and do good is proper to the just. So Calvin wrongly confounds Penance with justice; nor will he anywhere in the Scriptures find Penance called turning away from evil and doing good, but purging past evil deeds in weeping and mourning, in ashes and sackcloth, in alms and fasting.
Secondly, the same Calvin, in the same book 3, chapter 4, section 1, objects to Catholics that while they assign three parts of Penance they destroy the definition of Penance, which nevertheless he wished to seem to have drawn from the Fathers. For in the Master of the Sentences, book 4, distinction 14, and in the decree of Gratian, distinction 3 On Penance, these definitions of Penance are read: “To bewail past sins, and not to commit what must be bewailed.” Likewise: “To mourn past evils, and not to commit what must be mourned.” Likewise: “A certain vengeance, punishing in oneself what one grieves to have committed”; which are said to be gathered from Gregory, Ambrose and Augustine. Now with these definitions that partition of Penance into contrition, confession and satisfaction does not seem to cohere well; for someone can easily mourn past sins and not commit what must be mourned, and even punish in himself what he grieves to have committed, even if he does not confess with the mouth. I answer: we have already explained above in what sense the theologians teach that there are three parts of Penance, namely that there are three actions of the penitent which are required in the sacrament of reconciliation for the remission of sin; for otherwise we have spoken plainly enough that outside the sacrament it can easily happen that someone is justified without confession and satisfaction, by the inward Penance of the heart. Wherefore the partition of Penance will by no means conflict with its first and second definition, if the word Penance is taken in one way and another. For in the first and second definition Penance is taken for contrition, which is the primary act of the virtue of Penance; but in the partition the word Penance is taken for the whole action of the penitent, which is called the material part of the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, the third definition coheres aptly enough with the partition, since in it contrition and satisfaction are most openly expressed, as grief pertains to contrition and vengeance to satisfaction; and confession is not obscurely included in satisfaction. For since satisfaction ought to be made at the discretion of the injured party, it is necessarily understood that he who injured must submit himself by humble confession to him whom he injured, or rather to the minister and arbiter whom he has set in his place on earth; who indeed cannot enjoin a just penalty unless he knows through confession what kind of fault it is.
The third objection and those following are Chemnitz’s, in the second part of the Examination, page 942 and following. Chemnitz, then (as also the other Lutherans), proves thus that there are two parts of Penance, terrors and faith: “The divine law holds out threats to sinners who transgress the precepts of God, therefore it terrifies sinners. The Gospel then consoles, the justice and satisfaction of Christ being set forth, which is apprehended by faith. Therefore there are two parts of Penance, terror and faith.” He confirms this whole argument by those Scriptures: “Do penance, and believe the Gospel,” Mark 1; “Penance and remission of sins should be preached in my name,” last chapter of Luke; “Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” Acts 20. I answer: that the law holds out threats and the Gospel consoles is most true, but it does not follow from this that terrors and faith are parts of Penance. For those terrors struck in by the threats of the law beget Penance; therefore they are a cause, not a part, of Penance. For it is one thing to be terrified, which befits even the devils; another to repent, which does not befit them. The consolation too which the Gospel brings follows Penance, or even accompanies it; but it is not on that account to be made a part of Penance. Finally it is not enough to show from the Scriptures that terrors and consolation, or faith, have their place in the conversion or justification of the sinner, which we by no means deny, unless it is also proved at the same time that those two things, and those only, ought to be called parts of Penance; which has not hitherto been proved. And to the Scriptures adduced from Mark, Luke and Paul we have already answered before, that they all wonderfully favour our opinion, since they distinguish faith from Penance. For this is an excellent consequence: Paul preaches Penance and faith; therefore faith is not a part of Penance, as neither is Penance a part of faith.
The fourth objection of the same Chemnitz: “The parts of the sacrament of Penance ought to be visible, for a sacrament is a visible sign; therefore by contrition not inward grief of mind but external signs of grief are to be understood, and by confession not that which is made to God, but that which is made to a man, is signified. But that external signs of grief, and confession made to a man, are necessarily required for the remission of sin no Scripture teaches. Therefore those two parts have been devised without testimony of Scripture. Again, by satisfaction the Papists understand works not owed, that is, not commanded by the word of God; therefore they have all the parts of Penance without Scripture.” I answer: signs of grief are so evidently commended in the divine letters, and required for Penance, that it is a wonder why Chemnitz should wish to deny it. For what is it that the prophet says: “Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning,” Joel 2? Are not weeping and mourning most open signs of grief? That confession of single sins to be made to a priest is required by divine law we shall prove in the following book; but that some visible confession, at least in general, is to be used, and was also used in the Old and New Testament, we proved from the divine letters in the preceding chapter. Moreover, works not owed, even if they are not commanded absolutely, yet are commanded in the divine letters to those who have sinned and desire to do penance, and from not owed become owed. Daniel 4: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms.” Joel 2: “Be converted to me,” and so on, “in fasting,” and so on. But of these things we have both said more above, and shall say more below in their place; now it is enough to have briefly shown that the parts of visible Penance are founded in the word of God.
The fifth objection of the same: “The parts of Penance which the Papists enumerate hypocrites also can feign and perform; and yet they attribute to them the remission of sins.” I answer: if this argument is worth anything, it will overthrow not only the parts of Penance but also Baptism and the Eucharist. For hypocrites can receive Baptism and the Eucharist; and yet to these sacraments Chemnitz attributes the remission of sins. If he answers that the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist can both be received by hypocrites and have the power of forgiving sins, but nevertheless do not forgive them except to those who receive them seriously and as they ought, let him answer himself altogether the same about the sacrament of Penance. For although contrition, confession and satisfaction can be feigned by hypocrites, and at the same time those three parts, with the form of absolution added, forgive sins, yet they do not forgive them to those feigning, but to those truly and seriously doing penance, contrite, confessed, and prepared to undergo satisfaction.
The sixth objection of the same: “Judas, destitute of that special faith, though he had the parts of Papist Penance, namely contrition, confession and satisfaction, nevertheless hanged himself with a noose.” I answer: the same Judas had also already been baptised, and had received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, and yet hanged himself with a noose. Will the force of Baptism and the Eucharist, then, be denied because it did not profit Judas? Next, that the reason why Judas’s Penance was useless was not that he lacked that special faith, Scripture affords us the fullest testimony, since in Jonah 3 it witnesses that the Ninevites did penance usefully, although they lacked that special faith and said, “Who knows if God will turn and forgive?” Finally it is false that Judas had the three parts of Penance which Catholics require in the sacrament; nay, he had none at all. True contrition he certainly did not have, which cannot exist without hope of remission. Confession too he did not have, such as is required, that is, of single crimes, and made to a priest to obtain pardon. Nor did he have satisfaction, especially one enjoined by a priest; for it had not been commanded him by anyone to hang himself; nor is killing oneself a good work, such as satisfactory works ought to be.
The seventh objection: “That enumeration of the parts of Penance was taken from the rites of public Penance; afterwards, those rites being partly abrogated and partly changed, it was unlearnedly accommodated to the general doctrine of Penance.” I answer: all these things could easily be despised, since they are fortified by no reason or testimony; yet I shall not grudge to refute that calumny in a word. How, I ask, were those three parts accommodated to the general doctrine of Penance from the rites of public Penance, when they were in use even in the Old Testament, as we showed above by the example of David and the Ninevites, and are gathered from the very reason and nature of Penance, as was demonstrated a little before? For that the rite of public Penance was instituted after Christ’s ascension into heaven no one, I think, will deny. Next, since the ancients openly make mention of Penance both public and private, as I shall demonstrate in the following chapter, whence will Chemnitz prove that that enumeration was taken from the rites of public Penance, and not of private?
The eighth objection: “The ancients in many places speak of Penance not in so far as it seeks and receives the remission of sins, but in so far as it is a change and amendment of life. The monks, not attending to this, made from this three parts of Penance, by which the remission of sins is acquired.” I answer: if Chemnitz had read the ancient Fathers diligently, he would not pronounce so rashly. For, to omit that confession, of which the Fathers everywhere speak, does nothing for the change of life; and to pass over also that fasts, tears, ashes, sackcloth and other works or instruments of Penance of that kind, of which there is most frequent mention in the Fathers, are most openly referred not to changing life but to chastising past sins; you will find nothing more often in the Fathers than that by those three parts of Penance the remission of sins is acquired. “By Penance,” says Tertullian in the book On Penance, “the Lord is appeased.” Cyprian in the sermon On the Lapsed: “As greatly as we have sinned, so greatly let us weep; let a deep wound not lack a careful and long cure,” and so on; where you clearly see that Penance is the medicine of past sin, not only a change of life. Ambrose, in the preface on Psalm 37: “Who would doubt to afflict his soul, when so great a prophet afflicted his, knowing the price of tears for the redemption of sin?” Augustine, in letter 54 to Macedonius: “Some,” he says, “we remove from the fellowship of the altar, that by doing penance they may be able to appease him whom by sinning they had despised, and by punishing themselves.” But why do I delay over the Fathers? Does not Scripture itself everywhere teach these things? What is it, I ask, that Ezekiel says, chapter 18: “If the wicked do penance,” and so on, “I will not remember all his iniquities”? And what Daniel says, chapter 4: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms”? And so much for the objections; for those lies about faith, which he falsely says is condemned by Catholics, have already been set out and refuted above, chapter 6.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Rospondelur ad argumcnta Adversariorum. Uestat nunc ut iis objectionibus respondeamus, quas adversarii conlra doclrinam jam explicalam ot confirmalam IVicinnt. Primuin igilur Joari. Cal- vinus lib. :\. Inslitnl. cap. 3. § 8. prol)al duas esse Poenilentiae partes , ex illis Scriplnrae locis : Quiescite agere ])erverse , discite bene facere. Isaiae 1. ilein : Dcclina a malo, elfac bonum. psalm. 34. Respondeo: Locuslsaiae, Calvini scntentiae ma- nifiiste repngnat. Nam Isaias post ijla verba , sub- jniigit:St fucrint pcccata vestra ut coccinum,sicul tanaalba erunt. Proinde Poenitentiam, quae con- tinot praelorilornin (lctoslalioiicm, cl proposilnm vilae mehuris, non post juslilicalionem consliluil, iit Calvinns facil.sed anlo:neque fructum.sed caus- sam juslificalionis esso docel. Quod auleni atlinet ad allcrnm locum: quae ihi nunierantur, parles ju- slilia(\ non poenilcnliae sunl. Nam Poenilenlia ad peccatores lanlum perlinel, juxta illud: Non veni vocare ju>itos, sed peccatores ad Poenitentiam. Luc. 3. at declinare a malo, ct facere boniim, ju- slornm est proprium. Ilaque perperam Calvinus confundil Poonitcnliam cum juslitia : neque us- qnam in Scripluris inveniel Poonitenliara appella- ri, declinarc a malo et 1'acere bonum: sed , in Helu et planclu, in cinere et cilicio , eleemosynis eljejunio, praelcrita male facla purgare. Secundo: Idem Calvinus eodem lib. 3. cap. 4. § 1. calliolicis objicil. quod dum Ires partes Poe- nilentiae assignanl , definilionem Poenitenliae de- slrnant, quam ipse lamen ex Patribus hausisse vi- deri voluil. Siquidom opud magislrum senlenlia- rum lib. 4. dist. i4. el in decreto Gratiani , dist. 3. de Poonilentia, hae lognnlur Poenilentiae defi- u\[\oi\cs' Anteacta peccata deflere et flendanon commiltere. llem: Mala praeterila plangere et piangendanon commillere. llam^Vindicta quae- dam., puniens in se, quod dolet commisisse,quae ex Gregorio, Ambrosio, Anguslino decerplae esse dicuntur. Porro cum his definilionibus non bene cfdiacrere videlur partitio illa Poenitentiae in con- trilionem. confossionem et salisfaclionem : potest enim facile aliquis peccata praeterila plangere et piangenda non commitlere; el punire etiam in se quod dolet conimisisse , eliamsi ore non confi- teatnr. Hespondeo: Jam supra exposuimus , quo sensu theologi doceant tres esse Poenilentiae parles, ni- rnirum" trcs csse Poenitenlis actiones, quac in sa- U\m\ PRl.VLS 625 cramento reconcilialionis ad remissionem peccali Ouarla objeclio ejusdem Rcmnilii: Parfes sacra- exiganlur: iiam alioqui salis aperle Jocuimus. ox- menti Poenilenline visihHes essc debent.est enim ira sacramenlum 1'aciie posse lieri, ul sine confes- sacramenlum signum visibile: igilur per contri- sione et salisfaclione , per inlcrnam cordis Poeni- tionem, non intermis animi dolor, sed signa ex- leniiam quis jnslillcelur. Quare nequaquam parli- ierna doloris accipienda sunt: et per confessiO' lio Poenilenliae cum ejus prima cl secunda delini- nem. non ea quae fit Deo. sed quae fit fiomini , tione pugnabil, si alio el alio modo Pocnilenliae significalur. At signa exlerna doloris et confes- vox ac<;ipiatur. In Prima enim el Sccunda defini- sionem, quae fil liomini , nulla Scriptura docet liono, Poenilenlia accipitur pro contrilione , qui ad remissionem peccali necessarib exigi. Ergo primarius actus esl Poenilenliae virlulis; in parli- duae istae partes sine lestimonio Scripturae ex- lione aulem, vox Poenilenliae sumilur pro actione cogitatae sunt. Rursus.per satisfactionem intelli- inlegra Poenilenlis , quae materialis pars dicilur gunt Pontificii opera indebita. idesl , verbo Dei sacramenli Poenilenliae. Porro. definitio lertia sa- non ma^idata, omnesigitur Poenitentiae partes tis aple cum partitione cohaeret, siquidem in ea sine Scriptura hnbent. conlritio et satisfaclio, apertissime exprimunlur , Respondeo: Signa doloris lam evidcnter in di- cum dolor ad contrilionem. vindicla ad satisfaclio- vinis literis commendantur. aique ad Poenilentiam nera perlineal:Confessio aulem non obscure in sa- exiguntnr. ut mirum sit cur id Kemnilius negarc lisfaclioue includitur. INam cum salisfactio ileri de- volueril. Quid enim esl, quod ail propliela: Con- l)eat ad arbilrium partis laesae, necessario inlelli- vertimini ad me in toto corde vestro , injejunio gilur, oporlere cum qui laesit , subjicere se per et fletu el planctu? Joel. 2. an fletus et planctus, liumilem confcssionem ei, quem laesit, vel polius non sunt apcrlissima signa doloris? Confessionem rainistro atque arbitro, quem is loco suo in lerris sacerdoli faciendam singnlorum peccatorum, jure coustituil; qui quidem non polest justam mulctam divino exigi, in scquenli libro probaturi sumus : indicere, nisi per confessionem cognoscal, qualis Confessionem autem aliquam visibilem, saltem in sit culpa, genere, adhibendam esse, alquc eliam adliibilani Terlia objeclio el sequcnles , Remnilii sunt. in in feslamento veleri et novo fuisse , probavimus 2. par. exam. pag. 942. et sequcntibus. Kemnilius cx divinis literis capite supcriore. Porro, opera in- igitur (ut eliam caeleri Lutherani) ila probat dnas debita, etiamsi praecepta non sint absolule, tamen esse parles Poenitentiae; lerrores et fidom. Lex iis, qui peccaverunt.et poenilentiam agere cupiunt divina minas intentat peccaioribus.qui Deiprae- in divinis literis imperantur, el cx indcbilis debila cepta transgrediuntur . proinde terret peccalo- fiunt. Daniel. 4. Peccata lua eleemosynis redime, rcs. Evangelium deinde consolatur , proposita Jqc\. 2. Convertimini adme etc. in jejunio etc. Chrisli juslitia et satisfaclione , quae per fidem Scd de his plura , et supra diximus , et infra apprehenditur: Ergo duae suntpartes Poeniten- infra suo loco diccmus; nunc salis cst, breviler o- iiae; terror et ftdes.Cenfirmal hoc totum argumen- slendisse.parles visibilis Poenilentiae in verbo Dei tum Scripluris illis: Poenilenliam agile et credite esse fundalas. cvangelio. Marci 1. Oportet praedicari Poeni- Quinta objeclio ejusdem: Partes Poenilenliae tenliam el remissionem peccatorum, in nomine quas enumerant Pontificii, hypocritae quoque meo. Lucae ult. Testificans Judaeis atque genti- simulare et praestare possunl:et lamen illis Iri- bus , in Deum Poenitentiam , et fidem in Do- bunnt remissionem pcccatorum. viinum nostrum Jesum Chrislum, Actor. 20. Rcspondco: Si quid argumcnlum hoc valel, non Respondeo: Quod lex minas intenlet et evange- solum Poenitenliae partes,sed ctiam Baplismum et lium consoletur, verissimum est, sed non inde se- Eucharisliam cvcrlet. Nam hypocritae Raplismum <iuilur, lcrrores el tidcm parles esse Poenitentiae. et tlucharisliam sumerc possunt: el tamcn his sa- Siquidem incussi illi tcrrores a minis legis Poeni- cramcnli? Kemnitius tribuit rcmissioncm peccalo- tentiam gignunl: proinde caussa sunt, non pars rum. Si respondeal,sacramcnla Baptismi et Eucha- i*oenitcntiae. Aliud enim est tcrreri , quod eliam risliac, ct ab hypocritis possc sumi, el pcccata re- dacmonihus convenil ; aliud, Poenitcrc, quod illis inillendi vim habere; sed lamen non ca rcmittere non convcnil. Consolalio quoque , qnain evange- nisi iis.qui scrio, et ut oportcl,iIIa sumunt.Idem o- liurn adferl, Pocnitcntiam sequitur, anl eliam co- mnino dc sacramcnlo Pocnilcntiae sibi i[)se rcs- Miitatur; scd non ideo Poonilentiae pars facicnda pondeat. Elsi cnim conlrilio, confessio cl satisfa- t'st. Denifiue non osl salis cx Scripturis ostendere, clio ab hypocrilis simuiari possint; et simul Ires icrrores et consolalioncm. sive iidcm, in conver- illae parlcs adjuncla forma ahsolulionis, peccala sione aul justificalione pcccatoris locum suum ha- rcmillant, non lanicn ca rcmittunt simulanlibus, t)crc, quod nos minime ncgamus; nisi cliarn simul scd verc ac scrio Pocnilcnliam agcnlibus, conlri- probclurdiias ilias rcs,casque lanlum,part<'S Poe- lis, oonfcssis, alque ad salislaclionem subcundam iiilcnliae dici dcbere , quod haclonus probalum paralis. nuii cst. Ad Scripliiras aulcin ox Marco cl Luca ot Soxta ol)jcclio ojusdcm: Judas fideilla specia- i*iiulo adduclas, jam antc respondimus, oas oniiios li destilulus , cum parlos Pociutcntiae Ponlifi- scnlenliae noslrae mirifico favere , cum lidern a ciac haberet , conlritionem scilicet , confessio- Poenilcnlia distinguanl. Ilaec cnim optima conse- ncm ct satisfactioncm , lamcn laqueo se su- Muenlia cst: Praedical I*auli)S Pocnilcntiam ot fi- s])endil. dcrn: non igilur lidos pars Poonilenliae csl. sinil Rospondoo:Idem .ludas ot baplizalns jam fucral, ncc Pocnilcnlia pars lldci osl. ol Kucharisliani dc manu Domiiii surnpseral, cl la- 6;'G I)E POKiMTKMI.V nifin huiiioo se siispemlil. Aii ij^Mliir noijiinila eiil vis IJiiplismi el Kucliiirisliae, qiiia Judac iioii pro- fiiil? Deinili' immi iioii esse caussiim.ciir Jiulae Poc- iiilontiu iiiulilis fiiciil, qui;i lido illa s|)ociiili ciini- oril; leslimoniuiii amplissiimiiii nohis ScripUir;i praobcl.cum Jonac 3.lost;Uur Xliiivitas ulililcr l*oc- nitcnliam cgisse, licet lido illa spcci;ili caroreiil ac dicoroiit: Quis scit si voiivcrtatur ct iijnoscal Dcns? Doiiique falsum est; Judam habuisse trcs roeniteiiliac partos, quas calholici in sacramcnlo roquirunl: inimo nullam liabuil omnino. Vcram conlrilioncm ccrlc non liabuit, (piae sinc spc rc- missionis essc non potest. Coiifossioncm (juoquc non liahiiit, qualis cxigilur, idcst, sinirulorum cri- miiium, alquc ad vcniam impc'randaiii saccrdoli factam. Nec salisfactioiicm liabuit, pracserlim a saccrdole injunclam: noquc cnim illi, ul sc ipsc suspcndcrct, ab ullo fueral impcratum; ncquc sc ipsuin nccarc, opus csl bonuin,quaIia cssc dcbenl npcra salisfacloria. Septima objoclio: jfV//ia illa eimmcraiio par- tiam Pocnitentiac, cx lyublicac PocnHentiae ri- lihus sumpla: poslea ritibus iUis parlim abroga- lis, partim mutatis. indocte ad (jcneralem Poe- nitentiac doctrinam accommodata est. Respondco: Ilacc omnia facile posscnl contcra- ni, cum nulla ralionc vel lestimonio muniantur: lamcn non gravabor uno verbo caluniniam islara refcllere. Quomodo, quacso, ad gcneralcm doctri- nnm dc Poenilenlia tres illae parles ex ritibus pu- blicae Poenitcntiae accommodatae sunt, cum el- iam in veleri Teslaracnto in usu fuerint, ul supra oslendiraus e.\emplo Davidis et Ninivitarum: et ex ipsa ratione ac natura Poenitentiae colliganlur, ut paulo anle dcmonstralum esl? ritum enim publi- cae Poenitentiac, posl Christi ascensioncm in coc- iuin institulum esse, nemo, opinor, inficiabitur. Deinde,cum aperle veleres mentionem facianl Poe- nitonliae, et publicae et privalae, ut in sequcnli ciipite demonstrabo: unde probabit Rcmnilius, c- numerationera illam ex ritibus publicae Poenilen- tiae, et non ex privatae sumptara esse? Oclava objectio: yeleres in multis locis loquun- tur de Poenitentia, non quatenus quacril ct ac- cipil remissionem j)eccatorum, sed qualcnus esl vilae mutatio et emendalio. Ilaec non attcnden- tes monachi, fecerunt indc tres partcs Poenilen- tiae, quibus acquiratur remissio pcccatorvm. Respondco:Si Remnilius veleres Palres diligen- ler legissel, non ita lemere prcnunciarel. I\am ul omillam, quod confessio, de qua Palrcs passira loquuntur, nihil facit ad vitac nuitalionera; ul el- iam illud praetcroara, quod jejunia,lachrymae, ci- neres, cilicia, et alia id genus opcra, vel inslru- menla Poenitenliae, de quibus frequcnlissima a- pud Palrcs menlio csl, non ad vilam mulandam, sod ad poccala praelcrila casliganda apcrlissime refcruntur: iiihil saepius apud Patres invcnies, quam Iribus illis Poenitcntiae partibus remissio- nem peccatorum acquiri. Poenitentia, inquit Tcrtullianus in lib. de Poe- nilentia, Bominus mitigalur. Cyprianus in serm. de lapsis: Quam magna dcliquimus, tam gran- diter defleamus: allo vulneri diiigens, el longa medicina non dcsil clc. iibi porspiciK! vidos.Poc- nileiiliam medicinam cssc peccati praclorili, iion sohim viUit; mulatiunom. Ambrosius praofiitionc in psaliii. M. Quis dubitct alpigcre aninunii suain, cum prophcta tantus alJU.vcnt, soiicns prctium lachnjmarum pro rcdcmptione peccati/ Augusti- nus in opist. al. ad Miiccdoiiium: Quosdam. in- quil, a sociotate removemus altaris. utpoenilrn- do placa,re jwssint, quem peccando contcinpsc- rant, scqiie ipsos puniendo. Scd quid cgo iu Pa- Iribus moror? annon Scriptiira ipsa passiin ha(!c doccl? quid esl quaoso, (piod idl Ezcchicl ca|). 18. Si impius egcrit Poenitentiam elc. omnium iniquilalum ejus non recordalwr? El quod ail Danicl cap. i. Peccata tua elccmosijnis rcdimc? Alquc hacteiiiis do objeclionibus: nam racnda- cia illa de fide, quam a catholicis damnari men- tilur , jam suprii cap. G. cxposita cl rcfulata sunl.