Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book II: On Contrition
Chapter 4: That in Contrition Is Included Hatred and Detestation of Past Sin; and the Objections Are Solved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book II, 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 third controversy was whether contrition includes hatred and detestation of past sin. For Luther, at the beginning of his defection from the Catholic Church, among many other heretical paradoxes devised and taught this also, that true contrition, or Penance, is not hatred of one’s past life, but love of justice and a new life. In the sermon on Penance, speaking of the contrition which is prepared through the examination, collection and detestation of sins, by which one recounts his years in the bitterness of his soul, he says thus: “This sadness makes a hypocrite, nay more a sinner.” And although a little after, while he strives to prove this, he does not seem to condemn the detestation of sin absolutely, but only that which arises from servile fear, yet in the following words he openly condemns the detestation of sin absolutely, when he speaks thus: “You who are about to confess must examine more how much you love justice than how much you hate sin; and with much greater labour, nay with this labour alone, you must think how you may live a good life in future, rather than how you may hate or forsake past evils. For most true is the proverb, and better than all the doctrine hitherto given about contritions: The best Penance is a new life.” So he, who, as you see, bids us labour only in this, how you may live a good life, not how you may hate past evils. The same Luther also, in the letter to Johann Staupitz, vicar of the order of Saint Augustine, which is extant in the first volume of his works, wrote not obscurely that the name of Penance does not signify hatred or sorrow for the past life, but love and affection for justice; and that it has nothing bitter or harsh, but everything pleasant and most sweet. Finally, on the first conclusion of his Resolutions: “Not therefore,” says Luther, “in the usage of sacred Scripture is Penance called sorrow, but a change of mind and counsel.” So he.
But from this paradox of Luther all the Lutherans now seem to have withdrawn; and, to omit others, Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 954, speaks thus: “Hence follows the sorrow of a conscience grievously grieving that it has sinned, and by sins offended God; it begins therefore to hate and detest sin,” and so on. So also John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 2: “I indeed confess,” he says, “that it must be diligently and sharply urged that each one, by bitterly bewailing his sins, may sharpen himself more to displeasure and hatred of them.” Luther himself too, both in the Smalcald Articles and elsewhere, as we cited in the preceding chapter, confirms that sorrow for past sins is to be conceived.
This truth, then, which the adversaries are compelled even against their will to acknowledge, is to be briefly confirmed from the divine letters, from the testimonies of the ancients, and from the very reason of natural judgement. First, then, in the Scriptures, both by himself and through the Apostles and prophets, God very frequently recalled sins to the memory of sinners; of which no other reason can be given except that they too might reconsider and detest them. Genesis 3, God said to the woman: “Why hast thou done this?” Genesis 4, the same Lord said to Cain: “What hast thou done?” Judges 2, God through the angel rebukes the people: “You would not hear my voice; why have you done this?” Isaiah 58: “Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their wicked doings, and the house of Jacob their sins.” Jeremiah 7: “And I have sent to you all my servants the prophets from day to day, rising up early and sending; and they have not heard me.” And chapter 8, explaining what it is that God complains of: “There is none,” he says, “that doth penance for his sin, saying: What have I done?” Where you clearly see Penance referred to past sins to be detested. Ezekiel 16: “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations.” Joel 2: “Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning; and rend your hearts.” Surely weeping and mourning, and the very rending of the heart, pertain not to a new life but to old sins. Finally, all the prophets laboured chiefly in this, that by their exhortations they might provoke the people to acknowledge and detest their sins. And no less in the New Testament Christ himself continually reproved the sins of the scribes and Pharisees, and especially in Matthew 23; as also Peter, Acts 2 and 3, Stephen, Acts 7, and Paul, Acts 13, recall to the memory of the Jews their sins, and that above all, that they had killed Christ. Next, the examples of the Scriptures show the same. For Job says of himself, chapter 39: “One thing I have spoken, which I wish I had not said.” And chapter 42: “I have spoken unwisely.” And a little after: “Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes.” We see certainly by the example of Job that Penance pertains to past evils. David, Psalm 50: “I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me.” Hezekiah in Isaiah, chapter 38: “I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul.” Wherefore when Luther in his sermon on Penance censures those who recount all their years in the bitterness of their soul, he censures Hezekiah, for those words are his. That sinful woman, Luke 7, watering the Lord’s feet with tears, was bewailing not a new life, but old sins. Saint Peter too, Luke 22, wept bitterly, certainly for no other reason than because by denying his Lord he had committed a grave crime.
Let there now be added some testimonies of the Fathers. Cyprian, in the sermon On the Lapsed, not far from the end: “But you, brethren,” he says, “whose fear is inclined towards God, and whose mind, though set in ruin, is mindful of its evil, penitent and grieving, look into your sins, acknowledge the most grievous crime of your conscience, open the eyes of your heart to the understanding of your offence,” and so on. Gregory Nazianzen, in the oration on the holy lights, writes that he receives penitents if he sees them corrected by tears. Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 10: “We grieve,” he says, “for things committed, we shut out things to be committed; and let there be from the condemnation of the fault a certain discipline of innocence.” Chrysostom, in book 1 On Compunction of Heart, near the end: “What need,” he says, “of bodily strength, when we ought to crush the heart? This alone is demanded of us, that we always remember our evils, and recall them to mind, and have the consciousness of our deeds before our eyes, that through these we may supplicate the Lord, and set hell before our sight,” and so on. Jerome, in the commentary on chapter 31 of Jeremiah, explaining that, “After I knew, I struck my thigh”: “It is the mark,” he says, “of one grieving and mourning, and weeping over his former error, that he strikes his thigh with his hand.” And below: “What time,” he says, “is not a time of our confusion, if we remember our old sins, and take up the memory of all the things we have done ill?” Augustine, in the Enchiridion, chapter 65: “In the doing of Penance,” he says, “not so much the measure of time is to be considered as of sorrow; for a contrite and humbled heart God does not despise.” Likewise sermon 7 on the season: “Nothing,” he says, “makes Penance certain except hatred of sin and love of God, when you so repent that what was once sweet in your life tastes bitter in your mind, and what once delighted you in the body torments you in the mind; then indeed you groan well before God, and say: Against thee only have I sinned,” and so on. Finally, to this belongs that common definition, “Penance is to mourn evils committed, and not to commit what must be mourned,” from Gregory, homily 34 on the Gospels; who also in part 3 of the Pastoral, chapter 31, spoke thus on this matter: “They are to be admonished who forsake what they have committed, and yet do not mourn it, lest they think the faults already remitted which, though they do not multiply them by acting, they nevertheless do not cleanse by any tears.”
And if the judgement of reason also is consulted, it cannot be doubtful that Penance or contrition includes hatred of past fault. For natural is that synderesis which scourges evil deeds within, even if outwardly they not only are not punished, but are not even known; and among the heathen those are said to be driven by the Furies who have defiled themselves with grave crimes. Further, it does not seem possible to understand how anyone should forsake his sins and transfer himself to a better life, unless his sins and former life, and so he himself, begin to displease him; for why should he forsake what has hitherto pleased him, except because it has now ceased to please? “No one,” says Augustine, homily 27 in the book of Fifty Homilies, “chooses a new life, unless he repents of the old.”
Chapter V. The objections are solved
Nor are Luther’s arguments of any weight. He objected first of all the Greek name of Penance, metanoia, which on the testimony of Lactantius signifies resipiscence. But it is vain to consider the etymology of a name rather than its usage. For the same Lactantius, book 6 of the Divine Institutes, chapter 24, where he says that that name metanoia signifies resipiscence, adds that those truly come to their senses whom their error grieves, and who chastise themselves for their folly. And Tertullian, who in book 2 against Marcion left it written that the Greek name of Penance is derived not from the confession of an offence but from a change of mind, in the book On Penance teaches most fully that true Penance requires hatred and detestation of the past life, confession of sins, laborious works, and many other things of that kind. And Ausonius, as we cited in book 1, taught that Metanoea is a goddess who exacts the penalties of deeds done and undone. Finally Aristotle, book 3 of the Ethics, chapter 1, most openly teaches that repentance is referred to a past deed; for when he wished to show that not everything is involuntary which is done through ignorance, he used this argument, that men do not always repent of the deed, nor grieve when they learn what they have done.
Secondly, Luther objects that proverb, “The best Penance is a new life,” and greatly wonders what came into the mind of Pope Leo that he should wish to condemn that proverb, since proverbs by the consent of all are accustomed to be most true. But the Supreme Pontiff did not condemn the proverb, but Luther’s perverse exposition. For by that proverb men do not wish to signify that nothing else is required for Penance besides newness of life, but that newness of life is the most certain proof of true Penance. For those who so bewail their sins that they soon return to the same, or even never forsake them, profit nothing at all; which the Holy Spirit finely taught through Ecclesiasticus, chapter 34: “He that washeth himself after touching the dead, if he toucheth him again, what doth his washing avail? So a man that fasteth for his sins, and doth the same again, what doth his humbling himself profit him?” And Saint Gregory, homily 34 on the Gospels: “He who so deplores some sins,” he says, “as nevertheless to commit others, either still feigns to do penance, or is ignorant of it.” And in the book of Pastoral Care, part 3, chapter 31, he says that those wash themselves in vain by weeping who repeat their faults after tears; and in the letter to Theoctista the patrician, book 9, letter 39, he copiously refutes the error of certain persons who said that for any sin Penance is to be done for three years, and afterwards one may live in pleasures. Finally that proverb Ambrose, or whoever is the author of those commentaries, most rightly expounds on chapter 2 of the second letter to the Corinthians, where he speaks thus: “This is true Penance, now to cease from sin; for so he proves that he is sorry for himself, if for the future he desists.”
Thirdly, he objected those words of blessed Paul: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature,” Galatians 6. But blessed Paul does not oppose to the new creature Penance, which is the way to the new creature, as neither Baptism, which is the instrument by which the new creature is effected; but circumcision, which after the coming of Christ has no force for justifying, as neither has uncircumcision. So Paul would never say, “Neither Penance nor Baptism avails anything, but a new creature”; for Paul is not to be set at odds with Peter, who in Acts 2 preached, “Do penance, and be baptised every one of you,” and in Acts 8 to Simon Magus, “Do penance from this thy wickedness.” Much less would blessed Paul contradict John the Baptist and Christ himself, who began their preaching from those words, “Do penance.” Add that the Apostle in the Epistle to the Galatians does not seem to speak of justification from sin, but of the works of the justified; for the sense of his words is: for those who are in Christ, already reborn and justified through Baptism, a new life is necessary, or (as he himself speaks in the same place) faith which works by love, so that they may live justly, soberly and piously in this world; nor does any danger threaten if they remain uncircumcised, nor can circumcision bring any usefulness. Wherefore that place does nothing for Luther’s error, nor pertains to Penance, which is for those to be justified, not for the justified.
Fourthly, that place of the Apostle could be objected for Luther, 2 Corinthians 7: “The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation.” For here Paul seems so to separate sorrow from Penance that Penance does not include sorrow, although it arises from it. Which the following words also confirm, where Paul, explaining what the Penance is which that sorrow begot, sets down nothing else than certain good works, which can be called a new life: “For behold,” he says, “this selfsame thing, that you were made sorrowful according to God, how great carefulness it worketh in you; yea defence, yea indignation, yea fear, yea desire, yea zeal, yea revenge.” But the answer is not so very difficult. For that by sorrow the Apostle does not understand the grief for sins which is a part of Penance, but a certain distress born from rebuke, which leads to Penance, that is, to the detestation of sin, we showed in the preceding book, chapter 19; nor in those words, “For behold this selfsame thing, that you were made sorrowful,” and so on, does Paul explain what Penance is, but rather the effects and fruits of Penance. Add also that if blessed Paul in that place were explaining Penance itself, nothing could be gathered from it for Luther’s error, since among the other acts are numbered also indignation and revenge, which can be conveniently referred only to past sin.
Fifthly it could be objected that it seems foolish to wish that not to have been done which cannot but have been done. But those who grieve for past sin, what else do they desire and will than not to have sinned? And that he who has already sinned should not have sinned can in no way come about. It seems better, therefore, to think of setting up a good life than to be anxious about an evil one that is past. To this we answer: it seems plainly foolish to wish with an absolute will what can by no means come about. Therefore those who grieve for sin do not say (if they are sane), “I will not have sinned,” but with a condition, “If it could be, I would not have sinned; and because it once could be, and by my fault it was not brought about that I did not sin, therefore I justly grieve, and accuse and blame myself for having sinned.” Nor is that to be approved which Adrian, question 4 on Penance, teaches, that not even a conditional will of impossible things can be had. For if a desire can be had, as he himself confesses, for a thing lost, why not also a conditional will that (if it could be) that thing were not lost? Since that desire naturally begets this conditional will. Certainly those who mourn a dead friend do not mourn because they love the friend, but because they would wish that he whom they love had not perished. And David, when he said, “My son Absalom, who would grant me that I might die for thee?” 2 Kings 18, what else did he signify than that he wished, if it could be, to redeem his son’s death by his own death? And the Apostle Paul, when he said, “We would not be unclothed, but clothed upon,” 2 Corinthians 5, did not will absolutely not to die, since in the same place he adds, “We have a good will to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord”; and Philippians 1: “Having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ”; but he wished that, if it could be, man had not fallen into this necessity of dying. Christ too plainly enough wished that, if it could be, the cup might pass, although he was not ignorant that it had already been decreed and settled by the Father that he should drink it. Finally, Aristotle himself, in book 3 of the Ethics, chapter 2, denies that there is choice of impossible things, but concedes that there is nevertheless a will, namely a conditional one; for no one chooses to live for ever, since that cannot be, yet each would wish, if he could, never to die.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
In conlrilione includi odium, ac dctestationem
peccati practeriti.
Terlia conlroversia eral.utrum contrilio includat
odium ac deteslationem peccati praelerili. Lulbe-
rus enim inilio defecliouis suae a calholica Eccle-
sia inter alia mulla baeretica paradoxa, boc eliam
excogilavil ac docuil, non esse vcram Contritio-
nem, sive Poenitentiam, odiumvitae praeteritae ,
sed amorem juslitiae el novam vitam.
In scrmone de Poeniicutia, loquens de Conlri-
lione, quae paralur per discussionem,collectionem
el delestalioncm peccalorum, qua quis recogitat
annos suos in amariludine animae suae, sic ait :
Hacc tristitia facit hypocritam, imnio magis pec-
catorem. El quamvis paulo post, dum hoc proba-
re nititur, non videalur damnare pcccali delesla-
tionem absolute, sed solum eam quae oritur ex ti-
more servili:tamen in consequentibus verbis aper-
te damnat absolute peccali detestalionem, cum ita
loquilur: Plus tibi disculiendum est confessuro ,
quanlum diligas justitiam.quam quanluni odias
peccatum: muUoque niajore , immo solo hoc la-
bore tibi cogitandum est, quomodo futuram vi-
tam agas bonam, quam quomodo odias, aut dc-
seras praclerila mala. Verissimum est enim pro-
verbium. el omni doctrina de conlrilionibus hu-
cusque dala praeslantius , Optima Poenitenlia ,
novavita. Haec ille, qui, ul vides, solum in eo la-
borandum jubel, quomodo vilam agas bouam, non
quomodo praelerita oderis mala.Idem etiam Luthc-
rus in episl. ad Joannem Slaupilium vicarium or-
dinis s. Auguslini, quae extat in primo tomo ope-
rum ejus, non obscure scripsit, noraen Poeniten-
tiae non significare odium , vel dolorem de vila
LllilllJ SIXLNDUS
639
praelerila, sed amorem, dileclionemqiie jusliliae;
neque eiiim aiiquid habere amarum vel acerbum ,
sed omnia grata et dulcissima. Denique circa pri-
mam conclusionem resolulionum suarum: iYon er-
go, inquil Lulherus , in usu Scriplurae sacrae
Poenitentia dolor dicilur , sed mutalio menlis
et consilii. llaec iile.
Sed ab hocLutlieri paradoxo.jam omnes Lulhe-
rani recessisse videntur: ac, ul alios omillam.Mar-
tinus Kenmilius in 2. port. exam. pag. 954. sic
loquilur: Hinc sequilur dolor conscieniiae gravi-
ter dolenlis se peccasse , el peccalis offendisse
Deunt: incipil igiiur peccalum odisse et dete-
stari etc. Sic eliam Joannes Galvinus lib. 3. Instil.
cap. 4. § 2.Equideni,\nqu\l, sedulo et acriter iU'
slandum esse fateor, ut qui^que o,mare deflen-
do sua peccata, se ad eorum displicentiam et o-
dium magis acuat. Ipse etiam Lulherus, cum in
articulis Smalchaldicis, lum alibi, ul capile supe-
riore citavimus, dolorem de peccalis praetentis
concipiendum esse confirmat.
Haec igitur veritas, quam adversaril vel invili
coguntur agnoscere, ex divinis lileris, ex velerum
teslimoniis,et ex ipsa naturalis judicii ratione bre-
viter confirmanda est.
Primum igitur in Scripturis, lum per se, lum
per aposlolos et prophelas, Dens peccata frequen-
lissime in memoriam poccaloribus revocabal, cu-
jus nuUa alia ralio reddi potest, nisi ul ipsi quo-
que ea recogilarent et detestarentur. Gen. 3. di-
xil Deus mulieri: Quare hoc fecisti? Genes. 4. di-
xit idem Dominus Cain: Quid fecisti? Judic. 2.
Deus per angelum populum incrcpat: ISoluistis
audire vocem meam: quare hoc fecistis? Isai. o8.
Clama, ne cesses^quasi tuba exaltavocem tuam,
annuncia populo meo scelera eorum, et domui
Jacob peccata eorum. Hierem. 7. Et misi ad vos
omnes servos meos prophetas per diem. consur-
gens diluculo, et miltens , ct non audierunt me.
Et cap.8. explicans quid sil, de quo queritur Deus:
lyullus est, inquit, qui agat Poenitentiam supcr
peccato suo, dicens: Quid feci? ubi perspicue vi-
des, Poenitenliam referri ad peccata praelerila de-
leslanda. Ezcch. i^.Notas fac Uierusalem abomi-
nationes suas. ioe\. 2. Convertimini ad me in
toto corde vestro, injejunio, et fletu, et planctu,
et scindite corda vestra. Sane fletus el planclus,
et ipsa scissio cordis, non ad vitam novam. sed ad
peccata vetera perlinent. Denique propiietae o-
mnes in hoc maxiine laborabant,ut cohortationil)us
suis ad peccata agnoscenda ac detestanda popu-
lum provocarent. Nec minus in Teslamento novo
Christus ipse assidue peccata scribarum et phari-
saeorum arguebat, ac praesertim Matth. 23. ul el-
iam Pctrus Act. 2. el 3. Stcphanns Act. 7. Paulus
Acl. 13. rcvocant in memoriam .ludaeis peccala
ipsornm, atque illud maxime,quod Christum inter-
fecerint.
Deinde idem oslendunt Scriplurarum exempla.
Kam Job de seipso dicil cap. 31). Umim verbum
loquiUus sum, quod utino.m non dixissem. Et
cap. 42. Insipienter loquutus suvl. Va piiiilo posl:
Jdcirco me repreiieiido, et ego Voenilcntiam in
favilla cl cincre. Vidomus cerhi cxemplo Job, ad
praeterita mala Poftnilenliara pcrlinere.David psal.
50. Iniquitatem meam ego cogno&co,et peccatum
meum contra me est semper.Ezechias apud Isaiam
cap. '.\H.Recogitabo omnes annos meos in amari-
tudine animaemeae.Quare cum Lulherus in ser-
mone suo de Poenitentia reprehendit eos, qui re-
cogilant omnes annos suos in amariludine animae
suae, Ezechiam reprchcndit: ejus enim sunt verba
illa: Mulier illa peccalrix. Luc. 7. lachrymis ri-
gans pedcs Domini, nun vilain novam , sed velera
peccala deflebat. Sanctus eliam Petrus Lucae 22.
flevit amare, non ob aliud ccrte. nisi quia Domi-
num suum ncgando , grave scelus admiseral.
Accedant nunc teslimonia aliqua Palrum, Cy-
prianus in sermone de lapsis, non procul a flne :
Vos vero fratres, inquit, quorum timor in Deum
pronus est, el in ruina licct animus constilutus ,
mali sui memor est, poenitentes ac dolentes, pec-
cata vestra perspicite, gravissimum conscientiae
crimen agnoscite, ad intelligentiam delicti vestri
oculos cordis aperite etc. Gregorius nazianzenus
orat. m sancla lumina, scribil, se poenilentes reci-
pere, si lachrymis conreclos videat. Ainbrosius
lib. 2. de Poenilentia cap. 10. Deum dolemus ,
inquit, admissa, admittenda excludimus; et sit
quaedam de condemnatione culpac , disciplina
innocenliae. Chrysostomus in 1. lib. de compun-
ctione cordis, prope exlremo: Quid corporis , in-
quil , viribus opus est , cum cor conterere de-
beamus, hoc solum est, quod a nobis exposci-
tur, ut semper recordemur mala nostra, et ad
animum revocemus, et conscientiam gestorum
noslrorum habeamus anle oculos , ut per haec
supplicemus Domino, et gehemiam ponamus in
conspectibus ctc. Hieronymus in commenlar. ad
cap. 31. Hieremiae, explicans illud: Poslquam co-
gnovi,percussi femur meum. Dolentis , iwqnii ,
et plangcntis , et super errore pristino ploran-
tis indicium est, ut femur manu percutiat. Et
infra: Quod tempus, inquit, non est confusionis
7ioslrae, si recordemur antiqua peccata , et o-
mnium quae male egimus , capianius, memo-
riam? Auguslinus in enchiridio cap. Q^. In actio-
ne, inquii, Poenitentiae non tam consideranda
est mensura tcmporis, quam doloris: cor enim
conlritum et humiliatum Deus non spemit. l-
tem serm. 7. de tempore: Poenitentiam, inquit,
eertam non facit, riisi odium peccati , et amor
Dci, quando sic poenites , ut tibi amarum sa-
piat in animo, quod anle dulce fuit in vita ; et
quod te prius oblectabat in corpore , ipsum le
rrucial in mente: jam tunc benc ingemiscis a-
pud Deum, el dicis: Tibi soli pcccavi etc.
Denique huc perlinel definitio illa communis :
Poenitentia o.st , perpctrata mala plnngere, et
plangenda nonperpetrare, ex Gregorio hom. 34.
in evangclia; qui etiam 3. par. Pastoralis cap. 31.
ita de hac re loquulus est: A<Lmonendi sunl, qui
admissa deserunl.neque lamen idangunl^ne jam
relaxalas aestiment culpas^quas elsi agendo non
mulliplicant, nullis tamcn llelibus mundant.
Quod si etiam ratinnis judicium consulalur, du-
hinm esse non polerit, quiu Pocnitentia sivc Con-
iritio, includal odium culpac praelcrilac. Nam ot
(40
i)K r(ji:.Mii;.NiiA
luluralis esl illii Siiiderosis . quaf» iu;il.i liicla iii
tunlo na^jellat, oliamsi exlerius uoii luoilo nou
puniautur. sfii ue fo-^iiDscaiUur quiMoiii : o,l apuil
elliiiicos liicuulur funis aj^ilari , qui gravibus se
scelorihus inquiuarunl. •
Aiihiioc. niMi vuliMiir inlollini posso. quo paolo
quis pocc;it:i (icsor;il.ol ;ul vil;im iiiolioroni sc Iriins-
fciMl. uisi poccala el vila prisiina. ;it(]uo a»loo ipse
sibi displicoro incipiat : cur onim (lcsonl. qood
liaclenus placuit. nisi quia phicoro jaiu (losiil?
ycmo, inquit Aujzuslinus liom. 27. in lib. *>(). Iio-
niiliaruin, eUgil vitamnovam, nisi qacmveleris
poenilet.
CAPIT V.
Sokuntur ohjectiones.
.^equc Lullicri argunientu uUius suiil ponderis.
()b)icicl)al illo, in primis nouien irraecum Pocni-
lentiae ji.i-dv5'.a. quoJ Laclnnlii leslimonio rcsipi-
scenliam si,initical.
Scd vanum esl. elymoloiiiam polius nominis ,
quam usum ejus considerare. Nam idem Laclan-
lius lib. T). divinarum institulionom cap. 24. ubi
iiomen illud \i.i-dvo'.a. resipiscenliam signilicarc
■ hcit: addil.eos vcre rosipiscere.quos errati pocni-
lel, el qui sc ipsi castiiianl dcnieiiliao. Kl TfMtul-
lianos, (pii lib. 2. in Marcioncm scriptum roliqiiil,
nomeu i^raccum Poonilentiac non a delicli conles-
sione, sed a mentis domulalione diclum esse ; in
lib. de Poonitentia fusissime docel . vcram Poeni-
tenliam exigerc odium ac deleslationem vilae
praelcnlae, conlossionem peccatorum , opera la-
horiosa. el alia id genus mulla. El Ausonius, ul in
l.lib.cilavimus..Metanoeam esse docuit Deam,quae
facti, non lactique poenas exit^il. Denique Arislo-
leles lib. 3. de moribus cap. 1. apertissime docet
Poenilenliam ad praeteritum faclum referri : nam
cum vellol oslendere , non esse involuntarium ,
quidquid fil per ignorantiam ; eo argumento usus
esl, quia non semper homines poenilel facli, ne-
quc dolenl cum lesciscunt quid fecerinl.
Secundo: Lutherus objicil Proverbium ilhid: 0-
ptima Poenilentia, nova vila. El valde miralur ,
quid m mentem veneril Leoni pontifici, ul prover-
hium illud damnnre volueril, cum proverbia con-
sensu oranium verissima esse soleanl.
Al non damnavit suramus pontilex proverbium ,
sed pravam Luthori exposilionem, Neque enim
proverbio illo significare volunt homines,ad Poeni-
lentiam nihil aliud exigi praeler vitae novilalem :
sed.vilae novilatem esse certissiinum verae Poeni-
tenliao argumentum. Qui enim sic peccala deflenl,
ul mox ad cadem revertantur. aul etiam numquain
deseranl: nihil omnino proficiunl: id quod polchre
dncnil Spirilus sanctus per Ecclesiaslicum cap.34.
Qui baptizatur a mortuo, et iterum tangit eum ,
quid proticil lavatio illius? sic homo qui jejunat
in peccatis suis, et iterum eadem faciens, quid
proficit liumiliando se? Et s. Gregorius hom. 34.
jrj evapgeha: Qui sic, inquit, alia peccata deplo-
rat. ut tumen aiia cominiltal: Pocnilcnliam agerc
inil itiasimulal. aut iiiimriit. Et iii lih. de cur;i
p:istor;ili piir. 3. c;ip. .31. dicil, ons lloiulo inaiiiier
se lav.ire. (lui culpas posl lachrymas ropotunt: el
iii epist. ad Tliootistani p;ilriti;ini Iih.O. opisl(iI.3{).
oiqiioso rofollit errorem qonriind^im, (|ui dicoI);inl,
(h- qiiolihcl |)occ;ilo Pociiitenli;im trioniiio iigcnihim,
;ic posl in volupliiiilms vivoiidum, Denique prover-
hiuiii ilhiil rcitissimo Amhrosiiis. seu quicuiiupio
osl aiiclor ooruin cominoiil;iriorum . cxponil . iii
c;ip 2. posterioris ad Coriolh. ubi sic loquilur :
Jlaec vera Poenilcnlia esljam. cessare q peccato:
sic cnim probat dolere se sihi, si de caetero de-
siaal.
Terlio: Obiiciehat vorba illa b. P;iuli: In Chri-
sto enim Jesu. neque circumcisio neque pracpu-
tium aliquid vaiel. sed nova creatura. Gi\\. (>.
At b. l';iiilus noii o|)ponit uov.ie crealuriie, Poc-
nilenti;im, quae est via ad noviint) crealuram. sicut
ikm; llaplismum, qiii esl inslrumonium. quo oilici-
hir iii)v;i ci'e;iUira; sed circumcisionem , quac post
Christi adventum nullara vim habet ad justilic;in-
dum, ut ncc pr;io,puliuin. ll;ique numqiiain Paulus
dicorot: Nequo Pocnitenlia, neque Baplisinus ali-
(luid valenl,sed nov;i creatura: neque enim Paiilus
cuiii Polro coinmillondus esl , qui Aclor. 2. con-
cioii;ih;itiir: Poenitenliam aqile, et baptizclur u-
nusquisque vestrum. Ei Actor. 8. ad Simoiiom
m;igiiiu: Poc.nitentiam age ab hnc nequiiia Lua.
3Iullo eli;im miniis b. Paiilus Joaniii B;iplislae et
Ciirislo ipsi repugiiiirel, qui praediciilioncm ah il-
lis vorbis exorli sunt: Poeniteniiam aqile.
Adde, qiiiid Aposiolus in e[)isl. ad Galatas, non
vidctur loqiii de juslificiiliono a peccalo, sed de o-
porihus justificalurum: esl onim sonsus verhoruin
ojiis;Iis qui suiil iii Chrislo jam pcrBaplismum re-
Uiili el juslificati, nova vita nccessaria esl. sive (ut
ibiilem i[)se loquilur) fides , quae per dileclionem
o|)era;ur, ut iiimiruin jusle, sobrio et pie vivant
in hoc saeculo: neque periculum ullum imminet si
pracpiilium gerant, noqiie ulililalem ullam adferre
[lolerit circumcisio : Quocirca locus isle nihil fa-
cit pro errore Lulheri ; neque ad Poenilentiam
perlinel, quae juslificandorum est, non juslifica-
toruiii.
(Juarto:PosselobJ!ci proLulheroloousilleApostoli
I.CovmWx.l.QuaesecundumBewmlristiliaest.Poe-
nitenliam in salulem stahileni operalur.Hic enim
vidoliir Piiulus ila Irisliliam a Poenilentia separare,
ut Poeoilenlia lrislili;im non includaljicet ab ea o-
ri;itur. Quod etiam conlirmanl veiba scquonlia.ubi
P;mlus explicans quid sil Poenileniia, quam tristi-
tia illa pcperil; nihil aliud pnnil. nisi opora quae-
d;im hona, quae nova vila dici possunl: Ecce, in-
quit, /)oc ipsum ,sec.unduni Deuvi contrislarivos,
quanlam. in vobis operotur sotliciludinem,, sed
defensioneni. sed indiynalionem, sed iimorem,
scd desideriuni, sed aemulalionem, sed vindi-
clam.
Sed non est usque adeo diflieilis responsio.Nam
per Iristitiam non inlelligi ab Aposlolo dolorem de
pecc;itis. qui pars Poenilenliae esl, sed moerorem
quendam ex objurgatione nalum, qui ad Poeniten-
liam, idesl, ad peccali detestationem inducit, o-
i.iiu:r, si:(;l.M)Is
C41
slenflirrms in li!). snpcriorc cnp. 11). ncqiic in illis
vcrbis: Ecce enim hoc ipsum. contristari ro.s etc.
explioiit P;iulus quid sil Poenilenlin, sed eiri^clus
polius ac fruclus Pocnilenliac. Adde cliam, quod
si b. Piiulus eo loco Pocnilenliiiiu ipsiirn explicii-
rel: niliil inde pro Liillicri errorc colligi possel,
siquideru inter alios acUis nuineranlur eliiirn indi-
griatio el vindicla. quae non iiisi ad praelcritum
peccalum conimode possunl reiVrri.
Quiiilo possel objici: Quod slullum essc videa-
lur. nolle id esse laclum. quod non polesl non es-
se factum.Qui autem de pcccalo prii(!li'rilo dolent,
quid aiiud cupiunl ac volunl.quam se non pecciis-
se? ul vero non peccaverit qui jam peccavil, nullo
niodo fieri potesl. Saliiis igitur vidclur esse, cogi-
tare de bona vila instituenda, quam iinxiuin esso
de mala transiicta.
Ad hoc ricspondemus: Slullum plane vidfri,iib-
solula volunlalc id optare, quod niilla ratione tieri
polesl. Proinde qui de pecralo doleiit,non dicuiit,
(si sani sunt) Nolo mc peccasse: sed cum condi-
tione: Si ficri posset, nollem peccnsse:ct quiii ficri
poluit iiliqiiiindo. el mea culpa non esl fiicluin ul
iion pccciirem, ideo jusle doleo. rneque ipse ac-
cuso ac reprchendo, quod peccaverim.
Neque enim probandum esl quod Adriiinns qu.
i. de Pocnileiilia, doccl.nc condilionalem quidcm
volunlatem haberi posse impossibilium.lNani si de-
siderium liaberi poiest,ut ipse falctur,rei iimissiie,
cur non eiiam volunlas condilionnlis, ut (si fieri
possel) rcs illa non essel amissii? siquidem desi-
derium illud naluraliter hanc volunlalem conditio-
nalem paiit. Certe qui inortuum dcflenl amiciim,
non ideo lugent. quiii diligunt nmicuin: sed quia
noilent periisse quern diligunl. Ki Diivid cum di-
cerel: Absalon (ili mi, quis mild Iribuul, ul ecjo
moriar pro le? 2. Ucguin 18. qiiid aliud significa-
bat, quam oplare se. si lieri posscl, filii iiiortem
propria niorle redirnere? Et Aposltdus Paulus cum
diceret: Nolumus expoliari. sed supcrvesliri. 2.
Corinlh. li. non id voIcbiil,absolule iion mori.cum
in eodem loco subjungal: Bonam voluntatem lia-
bcmus, peregrinari a corpore. et praesentes esse
ad Dominnm. Et Pliilip. 1. Desiderium liabens
dissolvi, el esse cum Cliristo: sed volcbat, si licri
possel, non incidisse Iiominem in hanc moriendi
necessilatcm. Chrislus quoque satis iiperle vole-
bat, si lieri possel. ul calix transirel, liimetsi non
ignorabal, id jiirn esse a Palre slalulum iu; deliui-
iiim. utbiberet illum. Denique ipse etiam Arislo-
(eles in '\. lib. de moribus Ciip. 2. negal impossi-
i)ilium esse eleclionem, sed volunlalcm tamen es-
se concedil nimirum condilionnlem: nemo enim
eligit st^mper vivere , cum id fieri ne(iu(!al, sed
vellel lamen unusquisque , si posscl, numqu;im
inori.