Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book II: On Contrition
Chapter 6: That in Contrition Is Included the Purpose of Living Rightly
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 fourth question follows: whether contrition includes the purpose of living rightly, or only the detestation of sin. And indeed the heretics of this time speak variously on this question. For those who make contrition later than faith, as Luther in all those places which we cited in the preceding chapter, and Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, easily admit that the purpose of living well pertains especially to contrition. But those who hold contrition to be prior to faith, and divide Penance into contrition and faith, define contrition by the terrors of conscience alone, and the detestation of sin conceived from those terrors; and they teach that the purpose of living rightly is a fruit of faith, not a part of contrition. And in this opinion the greatest part of the Lutherans seems to me to stand; the places have been adduced both in chapter 1 of this book and in chapter 18 of the preceding book.
Moreover, Catholic writers agree in this, that for true contrition both the detestation of sin and the purpose of a better life are required; but they do not agree on this, whether this purpose is necessary expressly and formally, or whether a virtual and implicit one suffices. For it cannot be doubted that he who seriously hates and detests his sins, and grieves for having committed them, at the same time desires and wills, at least implicitly and virtually, so to speak, to change his life for the better hereafter. And indeed the ancient theologians, as Peter Lombard, book 4, distinctions 14 and 15, Alexander of Hales in the Summa of Theology, part 3, question 69, member 9, article 2, Saint Thomas on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 17, question 2, article 1, and part 3, question 86, article 2, and book 3 Against the Gentiles, chapter 158, and book 4, chapter 72, Scotus, Durandus, Albert and others on book 4 of the Sentences, distinctions 15 or 17, simply teach that it belongs to the notion of contrition to include both the detestation of sin and the purpose of living well; and although they do not distinguish between a formal and a virtual purpose, yet they indicate plainly enough that they spoke of the formal. Which afterwards was more openly taught by Pope Adrian VI in the fifth Quodlibet, article 3, Thomas Cajetan in the additions to the third part of Saint Thomas, question 1, article 1, Domingo de Soto on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 17, question 2, article 1, and Melchior Cano in the relection on Penance, part 1. There were not lacking, however, a few who disputed to the contrary, and, content with the virtual purpose which is included in the detestation of sins, denied that a formal purpose is necessary and included in the notion of contrition. Among these were John Major and Jacques Almain on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 14, question 1, and he who followed them, Andreas Vega, book 13 on the Council of Trent, chapter 21.
But to us the common way, well worn by the ancients, has always seemed safer and more convenient. It is proved, then, that for contrition is required an explicit and formal purpose of a better life. First, from the divine letters. Amos 5: “Hate evil, and love good, and establish judgement in the gate; it may be the Lord the God of hosts may have mercy.” Isaiah 1: “Wash yourselves, be clean, take away the evil of your devices, cease to do perversely, learn to do well.” And presently: “If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as white as snow.” Here you see the promise of the remission of sins after good works, at least begun in desire and purpose. Again, Ezekiel 18: “But if the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my commandments, and do judgement and justice, living he shall live, and shall not die; I will not remember all his iniquities.” In this place those words, “and keep all my commandments,” and so on, seem to be referred to the vow and purpose of keeping the commandments, not to the actual observance of the commandments; for all the commandments cannot be kept in one day or one hour. Nor yet is the remission of sins to be awaited for a long time, since the same prophet in chapter 33 says that on whatever day the sinner is converted he will have indulgence. To this place Vega tries to answer in the place cited, and says three things. First, he objects those words of the same chapter: “Be converted, and do penance for all your iniquities, and iniquity shall not be your ruin.” Where no mention is made of a purpose of keeping the law, and yet the remission of sins is promised. But this place most openly favours us. For when the prophet had said, “Be converted, and do penance,” he at once explained what it is to be converted and do penance, saying: “Cast away from you all your transgressions, by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.” Where you see how distinctly those two things are set down which we said are required for true Penance or contrition. Secondly, Vega adds that those words, “and keep all my commandments,” and so on, were added by the prophet that we might understand that, besides Penance for things committed, it is necessary not to add other new sins, according to that of Gregory, homily 34 on the Gospels: “What does it profit, if one bewails the sins of lust, and yet still pants with the heats of avarice? What does it profit, if he now mourns the faults of anger, and yet still wastes away with the torches of envy?” But this answer is excluded by the universal particle which Ezekiel sets down when he says, “If the wicked do penance for all his sins.” For he who does penance for all his sins is admonished in vain not to commit another while he mourns one; for it cannot come about that anyone at that time pants with the heats of avarice, or wastes away with the torches of envy, at which he mourns the faults not only of lust and anger, but of all vices. Thirdly, the same Vega answers that those words, “and keep all my commandments,” and so on, were set down against the error of those who think that after Penance is completed it is lawful to return to the former filth; so that Ezekiel meant nothing else than that after justification obtained through Penance one must remain in justice. But against this exposition stands the fact that the prophet plainly enough shows that those two things, namely Penance for sins and the observance of the commandments, in vow and purpose, that is, are a certain way to justification, and therefore ought to be prior to the remission of sins itself. For so he says: “If the wicked do penance for all his sins, and keep all my commandments,” and so on, “living he shall live, and shall not die; I will not remember all his iniquities.” By which also is refuted the error of those Lutherans who set the purpose of new obedience after justification.
Further, all those Scriptures which describe Penance by conversion, such as above all that of Joel 2, “Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning,” openly confirm our opinion; since conversion to God is the same as the will of pleasing God through the observance of the commandments, as turning away from God is the will of transgressing. As, then, contrition cannot exist without conversion, so neither without the purpose of pleasing God through the observance of the commandments. To this also belongs what the Apostle says, Ephesians 4: “Put off the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man.” And what Saint Gregory wrote, homily 34 on the Gospels, that true Penance is to mourn sins committed, and not to commit what must be mourned; which definition all the theologians have received with great consent. To this also belong the examples of human affairs; for both masters from servants, and parents from children, whom after an offence they receive into favour, seek not more the confession of the fault than the purpose of a better life. But what most moves me to embrace and defend this opinion is the sacrosanct authority of the Synods of Florence and Trent. In the Council of Florence, in the instruction for the Armenians, and in the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 4, contrition is so explained as to be a sorrow for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. Nor can it be answered that those councils speak of an implicit purpose. For since an implicit purpose can in no way be separated from the detestation of sin, the councils would have added those words without reason: “with the purpose of not sinning for the future.” For to what purpose that expression, if a purpose is not expressly required? If the councils had put it thus, contrition is the detestation of sin committed with an implicit purpose of not sinning for the future, there would be no one who would not judge that latter part of the definition superfluous, since the detestation of sin is never found without that implicit purpose. Therefore either those words are to be understood of a formal purpose, or certainly, which is most absurd, they are superfluous. What of this, that in the same chapter 4 the Council of Trent a little after adds that the purpose of a new life is principally contained in contrition, when it says thus: “The holy synod therefore declares that contrition contains not only cessation from sins and the purpose of a new life, but also hatred of the old”? Finally, as the detestation of sin includes an implicit and virtual purpose of not sinning, so also, on the other hand, the purpose of not sinning includes an implicit and virtual detestation of sin. Wherefore if the detestation of sin committed, without a formal purpose of not sinning for the future, sometimes suffices for justification, then also the purpose of not sinning for the future will sometimes suffice, without a formal detestation of sin committed; for no reason can be given why these should not be on a par. But Vega himself too, in the place cited, rightly denies that without a formal detestation of sin committed, by the mere purpose of not sinning for the future, the impious can be justified; it must therefore also be denied that without a formal purpose of not sinning for the future, by the mere detestation of sin committed, the impious can be justified. But answer must be made to the arguments which are objected to the contrary by Vega.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPIT \f. In Conlrilione includi proposilum recle vivendi. Quarta sequilur quaeslio; Includal ne Conlritio proposilum reclc vivcndi, an solam pcccali dcte- slationem. El quidem hncrclici hujus temporis va- rie de (piaestione isiii loquunliir. Qui enim contri- tionein lide posleriorem faciunt. ul Lulherus in il- lis omnibus locis.qiios cnpit(3 suporiore cilavimus, el Calvinus lib. 'i. ln>tilul. cii|). 3. ii lacilc admil- liinl, proposilum l)cne vivcndi ad conlrilioncm maxime pcrtinere. Qui anlem contriiionem fidc priorciii esse volunl. cl PocniliMilirun dividunt in corilrilioncm ct lidcm, il conlrilionem solis lcrro- ribus conscienliae, el pecciili deteslalione cx ler- r(uibus illis conceplam dcfiniunl: [iroposilum au- tem rccti> vivcndi. friictiun fidei. non contritionis partcm esse docent.Alque in hac scnlciilia Lulhc- ranorum pars maxima vcrsari niihi videtur: loca allala sunt. lum in 1. cap. hujus libri, tuin cap. '18. iibri superioris. Porro: Catliolici Scriplores in eo quidem con- sentiunl, ul ad veram Cnntritioncm. et peccali de- leslalio, el vilae melioris propositum requiriitur: sed in eo iion conveniunt, iilruin hoc proposilum expresse, et lorinalilcr nccessarium sit, an sunicial virtuiile, alque implicilum. Nequi' enim dubilari pidest. quin is, qui serio pecc.ata sua odii, ac dc- testatur, et ob ea peipelrala dolcl: cupialsimul ac velil saltem iinplicile el virlualiler. ul sic loqua- mur, deinceps in melius vilam inulare. Et quidem veteres Iheologi, ul Pelrus Lombar- dus lib. I. disl. 14. et 13. Alexandcr alensis in summa theologica par. 3. quaesl. C9. m. 9. arl. 2. S. Thomas in 4. senl. disliucl. 17. quaest. 2. art. 1. ct 3. part. qunesl. 80. art. 2. et lib. 3. con- Ira gcnles cap. 158, cl lib. 4. cap. 72. Scotus.Du- rnndiis. Albcrius et alii in 4. sent. dist. 13. vel 17. simpliciler doccnt de ralioiu! conlritionis esse, cum dctcslalioncm peccali. luin prnposilum bcnc vivcndi: el quamvis non disliiiguiinl inler formale et virliiiile proposilum.lamen Si.tis aperle indicant de formali esse loquulos. Id quod iipcrlius poslea docuerunl Adrianus ponlifex Yl. in qninlo qiiodli- belo art. 3. Thomas Cajctanus in addilionibus ad 3, partem s. Thomne quaest. 1. arl. 1. Dominieus a Soto in 4. sent. dist. 17 quiiesl. 2. art. 1. el Mclchior Canus in releclione dc Pocnitcntia par. 1 . Non defucrunl lamcn pauci quidnm. qui conlra dispiilaverinl ac virtuali proposito, quod in pcc- calorum detestalione includitiir, conlcnli: formalc proposilum necessarium cssc el in riilione con- Irilioiiis includi negavcrinl. In \is fucrunt Joannes major, el Jacobus Almnynus in 4. scntenl. disl. 14. (lunest. 1. et qui eos scquulus csl. Andrcas Vcgii lil). 13. in coiicilium tridfulinuin cnp. 21. Sed nobis cominunis ac Irila a vclcribus via scmper visa cst Inlior el comuiodior. Probnlur igi- tur. iid Conlrilionem reqiiiri cxidicituiu ac formalc |)roposituiii vilnc melioris. Primo, e\ divinis lilc- ris. Amos .">. Odile mnlum. et dili(jile bonum, el cont^lilnile in porla jii(liciu.in. si forle miserea- lur Dominus Deas exerciluuui. Jsiiiae \.Lniuuni- ni, mnndi eslola. auferle vKduui cufiHalionaui veslrarum, quiescite ncje.rc parverse.discite benc facere. Et mox; Sf fuerint pecrala vestra ul coc- cinum, quasi nix deaibahuntur. llic vides pro- missioncm rcmissionis pccculorurn posl bona opc- Gi2 I)K POOIIEMIA r.i, sallein desiderio el proposilo incliOiilii. Uiirsus K/ecli. 1H. ^'i aitlcm impim cgi^ril Po&nilGntiam ah omnihnif pcccalis .suis, quac opcralus cti/, ct custodicril otnnia pracccpla mca, cl fcccril ju- dicium et juslHiam: vUa vivct,cl non moriclur, omnium iniquilalum cjus non rccordabor. Hoc loco vcrba illa: El custudierit omnia praeccpta ctc. ii(J voliiin el proposilmn cuslotliondi inandala rereicnda csse vidcnlur, non ad ipsain maudalo- runi obscrvalionein: nciiuc cnim uiio dic, aul una liora, servari possunl omnia mandala. Ncque la- men expeclanda esl remissio peccalorum ad lon- •lum lcmpus. cum idcm proplicla cap. 33. dical : Quacumquc dic peccator conversus fueril, indul- gcnliam habilurum. .Vd Iiunc locuin rcsponderc conalur Vega loco ci- Inlo, ac Iria dicil. Primum: Objicil verba illa ejus- dem capilis: Convertimini el agile Poenitentiam nb omnihus iniquilatibus vestris, ct non eritvo- bis in ruinam iniquilas. Ubi nulla fii menlio pro- posili scrvandae legis: el lamen promillilur remis- sio peccalorum. Sed hic locus nobis apcrlissimc favel. Nam cum dixissel propbeta : Converlimini ct agile Poenitentiam: conlinuo explicuil quid sit converli el agere Poenilenliam, dicens: Projicite a vobis omnes pracvaricationcsvestras, inqui- bus praevaricali cstis, c( facite vobis cor novuni cl spirilum novum. Ubi vides quam dislincle duo illa ponanlur, quac nos ad veram Poenilenliam , sive conlrilioncm requiri diximus. Secundo Vega addil, illa verba: El custodieril oinnia praecepta etc. a propheta adjecta fuisse, ul inlelligeremus, praelcr Poenilentiam de admis- sis, necessarium esse, non adjicere alia nova pec- cala.juxla illud Gregorii hom. 34. in evangel.Qwid prodest, si peccata quis luxuriae defleat, el la- men adhuc avaritiae aestibus anhelct ? quid prodest si irae culpasjam lugeat el tamen adhuc invidiae facibus tabescat? Sed iiaec responsio ex- cludilur per universalem parliculam , quanTi Eze- chiel ponil, cum ail: Si impius egeril Poeniten- tiam ab omnibus peccalis suis. Qui enim agit Poenilenliam ab omnibus peccalis,fruslra admone- tur, ne dum unum lugel, aliud commiltal: neque enira fieri polest, ut quis eo lempore avaritiae ae- slibus anhelel, aut invidiae facibus tabescat , quo non solum luxuriae, alque irae, sed omnium vitio- rum culpas lugel. Terlio idem Vega respondet, illa verba; Et cu- stodierit omnia praecepla etc. posila esse contra illorum errorem, qui posl Poenitenliam peractam, licilum esse putant, ad sordes pristinas reverli; ut Ezechiel nihil aliud voluerit, quam posl justifica- lionem per Poenitenliam adeplam, in juslilia per- manendum esse. Sed repugnal huic expositioni , nuod propheta salis aperte demonstral , duo illa , Poenilentiam videlicet a peccalis , et mandalorum nbservalionem, in voto scilicet et proposilo, viam quandam esse ad juslificalionem; et proinde prio- ra esse debere ipsa remissione peccatorura. Sic cnim ail: Siimpius egerit Pocnitenliam ab omni- buspeccatissuis, et custodierit omnia praecepta ctc. vita vivet et non morietur; omniwn iniqui; latum ejus nonrecordabor. Ex quo etiam refelli- lur error eoruiii Lutheraiiorum.qiii novae obcdien- tiae proposilum, post juslilicationem cousliluuiit. Adliacc, illac omncs Scripturae, (]uac Pociiilcn- liam pcr couvcrsioncm describiinl , qualis csl illa in primis, Joel. 2. Convertimini ad me in toto cordc vcslro, in jcjunio, ct flctu. ct planctu, sen- lentiam noslram apcrtc conUrmaiil: siqiiidcin coii- versio ad Dcuin, idem est, ac volunlas placcndi Dco per obscrvaiioncm mandalorum; sicul aversio a Deo volunlas est praevaricandi. Quemadmodum igilur sine conversione coulrilio osse non polcsl , ila nec sine proposito placendi Deo per mandalo- rum observalionem. Iluc eliam facit, quod Aposlolus ait ad Ephes. 4. Deponitc vos vctercm hominem, qui corrum- pilur secundum dcsideria crroris : rcnovamini autem spiritu mcntis vestrae et induitc novum hominem. Et quod s. Gregorius scripsit hom. 34. in evang. vcram Poenilenliam esse, admissa pec- cala plangere, et plangenda non commillerc:quarn definitiouem Iheologi omnes magno couseusu re- ceperunt. Huc perlinent quoque exempla rerum humana- rum: nam etdomini a scrvis, el parenles a filiis , quos post offensionem in graliam recipiunt, non magis peccali coiifessioncm, quam propositum vi- tae melioris exquirunl. Sed quod me maxime ad hanc sentenliam am- plectendam ac defendendam movet, est sacrosan- cta florentinae ac tridenlinae synodi auctorilas. In concilio florenlino, in instructione Armenorum; et in concilio Iridenlino sess. 14. cap. 4.ita Contritio explicalur, ut sit Dolor de peccato commisso, cum proposilo non peccandi de caetero. Neque vero responderi potest, concilia ista loqui de proposito implicilo. Wam cum proposilum implicilum a pec- cali detestatione nullo modo separari possit; sine caussa concilia addidissent illa verba :Cwmpropo- sito nou peccandi decactero. Quorsum enim isla cxpressio, si proposilum non expresse requirilur? Si concilia ila poluissenl , Conlritio est detestatio peccali commissi cum proposilo implicito non pec- candi de caelero, nemo esset qui non judicaret supervacancam partem illam posleriorem definitio- nis, cum deleslatio peccali sine proposito illo im- plicito numquam reperiatur. Igitur aut verba illa de furmali proposito intelligenda sunt, aut certe , qiiod absurdissimum est, supervacanea sunt.Quid, qaod in eodem cap.4. concilium Iridentinum pau- lo post adjungit, propositum novaa vitae principa- liler in Contritione conlineri, cum sic ait:Dec/araf igitur sancta synodus , Contritionem non solum cessationeni a peccatis et vitae novae proposi- tum, sed etiam veleris odium continere? Denique sicut peccati delestalio , proposilum non peccandi implicitum el virluale includil : sic eliam contra proposiluin non peccandi, delesla- tionem peccali implicilam et virlualem includil. Quare si detestalio peccati commissi sinc proposi- to formali non peccandi de caelero, adjuslificatio- nem aliquando sufficit , sufficiet etiam aliquan- do proposilum non peccandi de caetero , sine forraali delestalione peccati commissi : nulla e- nim ralio reddi potest , cur haec paria non sinl. LIBER SECUiSDUS C4:i Alqui ipse etiam Vei^a , loco citalo, recte ne- gat, sine deleslatione formali peccali commissi per solum propositum non peccandi de caetero , impium posse juslilicari: negandum igilur eliam esl, sini; proposilo formali nun peccandi do caete- ro. persoiam delestationem peccali commis5i,im- pium posse juslificari. Sed respondendum esl ar- gumenlis, quae contra objiciunlur a Vega.