Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book II: On Contrition
Chapter 7: 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 first objection contains the examples of many who, on the testimony of Scripture and the Fathers, seem to have obtained justification without a formal purpose of a better life. For in 2 Kings 12 David was justified as soon as he said with heart and mouth, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Speaking of which matter Augustine, homily 41: “There are three syllables,” he says, “peccavi; but from these three syllables the flame of a sacrifice ascended to heaven before the Lord.” And Chrysostom, homily 6 on Penance: “Say,” he says, “I have sinned, and you have loosed the sin.” Of Manasses, 2 Chronicles 33, we read nothing else than that he did penance and prayed to the Lord. Of the Ninevites, Jonah 3, we have conversion from sins, fasting, sackcloth and prayer; of a purpose of a better life no mention. The same can be said of the prodigal son, Luke 15, and of the publican, Luke 18. I answer: from the examples adduced it cannot rightly be gathered that David, Manasses and the rest were justified without a formal purpose of a better life. For even if David said nothing but “I have sinned,” yet it must be believed that that word was pronounced by him in the way in which it ought to be pronounced for so sudden a justification to follow. For not everyone who says “I have sinned” is justified; since we know that Judas said, Matthew 27, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood,” and yet was by no means justified. David, then, by a perfect conversion was changed within by God, and without doubt had both sorrow for sin and the purpose of not sinning, which he expressed both before Nathan in one word, and afterwards in many words in his psalms. Moreover, as for Manasses, since Scripture says that he did penance greatly, who forbids us to take under the name of Penance in that place not only sorrow for sin, but also the purpose of a better life, and the works of Penance? The conversion of the Ninevites too, expressed by Jonah, I do not see why we should be compelled to restrict to the detestation of sin alone, since we read in them also works of Penance which could not be performed without the purpose of living well. Finally the publican and the prodigal son, with what face would they have asked pardon for their sins, unless they had resolved no longer to offend him from whom they asked pardon? And that you may understand that judgement cannot be made of the mind of a penitent from words alone, weigh what the Apostle said when, called by Christ, he was by that call converted and justified; for he neither said that he had sinned, nor that he detested his sins, but only, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” Acts 9. As, then, it is not lawful to argue that Paul had no sorrow for his sins, even though in words he expressed nothing but the purpose of serving the Lord; so also it would not be right to gather that David, Manasses and the others brought forward as examples had no purpose of living rightly, even though in words they expressed nothing but sorrow and hatred of their sins.
The second objection: contrition or Penance, faith and hope being supposed, through the law and grace of God, suffices a Christian for obtaining pardon. But contrition does not properly include anything but the act by which we will not to have offended God; therefore without a formal purpose of avoiding sins hereafter we can be justified by the mere detestation of past sin. The minor he proves by two arguments. First, because the name of Penance, both Greek and Latin, looks to the past, not to the future. Second, because the purpose of avoiding sins is properly an act of charity, or of obedience, not of Penance. I answer: the minor of the argument is false. For the Councils of Florence and Trent cited above most openly set in the definition of contrition the purpose of not sinning for the future; and the same all the theologians teach from blessed Gregory, who define Penance: “To mourn sins committed, and not to commit what must be mourned.” And Saint Thomas, whom in this part we follow, in part 3 of the Summa, question 87, article 1: “It pertains,” he says, “to the notion of true Penance that a man not only grieve for past sin, but also purpose to beware for the future”; and he confirms the same in the reply to the first objection, and elsewhere in many places. And what is objected to the contrary about the name of Penance is vain; for, as we have often said, it is not so much etymology that is to be followed as the usage of Scripture and the Fathers in reaching the true signification of words. Nor is it true, as is objected, that the Greek word metanoia looks to the past, not to the future; for Tertullian, most skilled in the Greek tongue, book 2 against Marcion, in express words asserts the contrary, when he speaks thus: “In the Greek sound, the name of Penance is composed not from the confession of an offence, but from a change of mind.” And indeed metanoia, if you look at the etymology, is nothing else than to be wise afterwards; therefore it pertains to the future rather than to the past. But these things, as I said, are empty. And as for what was added in the proof of the minor, that the purpose of avoiding sins is an act of charity or obedience, not of Penance, it can easily be turned back on its author. For that act too by which we will not to have offended God is an act of charity, if it is considered absolutely. As, then, the act by which we would will not to have offended God is absolutely an act of charity, and yet, as it is referred to blotting out sin and reconciling friendship with God, is an act of Penance; so also the purpose of avoiding sins is absolutely an act of charity or obedience, since it belongs even to the just, who need no Penance; yet as it is taken up by him who has sinned, to compensate the injury done to God and to restore friendship, it is an act of Penance. For Penance, as Saint Thomas teaches, part 3, question 85, article 3, is a kind of potential part of justice, whose proper office is to compensate the injury done to God, that reconciliation may follow from it; and the injury is compensated by the detestation of sin, and the purpose of keeping the commandments and of applying all the other things which God requires.
The third objection: sorrow for sins on account of the offence of God virtually includes the purpose of not sinning for the future; therefore it will suffice for reconciliation, even if it is not distinctly directed to the future. For he who so grieves can be no less perfectly united to God than he who had an actual purpose of that kind. I answer: if this argument concludes anything, it will also bring about that the purpose of avoiding sins, in which a virtual sorrow for past sins is contained, suffices for reconciliation without a formal and distinct sorrow for sins committed; which nevertheless he denies in express words whose arguments we are now refuting. I say therefore that it cannot come about that there should be a true sorrow in the mind for sins committed without there arising at once also a purpose of avoiding future sins; as neither, on the other hand, can it come about that one should conceive in his mind from true charity a purpose of not sinning without there at once rising up sorrow for sin committed and not yet dismissed by God’s indulgence; nor will it be true contrition which brings sorrow for past sin without the purpose of not sinning for the future; nor will it be true charity which begets love of justice without hatred of sin in one who is conscious of mortal sin.
The fourth objection: among kindly men a vehement detestation alone of a fault committed sometimes obtains its pardon; but God is far more kindly than any men are. Nor is it credible that Christ wished to wait until Peter should resolve never to sin again, but at once forgave him his sin, when he saw him weeping bitterly. I answer: kindly men forgive at the mere confession and detestation of a fault, because they do not doubt that those whom they see so detesting their faults have already conceived in their mind the purpose of not sinning for the future; for otherwise they extort that promise even by torments. And that Saint Peter, while he wept bitterly, at the same time both detested his sin, and conceived the purpose of not sinning, and also asked pardon of God, if not with his mouth, certainly with his heart, is altogether credible; for this we experience in ourselves and in others who, having received the spirit of compunction, seriously detest and bewail their sins.
The fifth objection: the petition for pardon with displeasure at sin, although it is without a formal purpose of avoiding sins, is enough for obtaining the remission of sins. Isaiah 55: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him.” Who does not see that only two things are here required of the wicked man that he may obtain mercy with God, and that God grants it him if he detests his sins and humbly begs mercy of him? “He is easily reconciled,” says Ambrose of God, book 7 on Luke, chapter 66, “when he is earnestly asked.” I answer: very often divine Scripture attributes the power of justifying, or even of saving, to various things, not because those alone can justify or save, but because they have their force towards justification or salvation, and lead to that end, if however the rest are not lacking. So we read, Romans 3: “We account a man to be justified by faith.” Ecclesiasticus 1: “The fear of the Lord driveth out sin.” Romans 8: “We are saved by hope.” Luke 7: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.” Tobit 12: “Alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins.” Titus 3: “He saved us by the laver of regeneration.” James 1: “Receive the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” These and other things of that kind are read everywhere in the sacred letters; and yet there is no one who gathers from them that fear alone, or hope alone, or alms alone, or the word alone, without faith and love and the other things required for the same end, can suffice for salvation. So then, even if Scripture somewhere attributed justification to the detestation of sins and to prayer, it would not be right to gather that those alone suffice, but that they indeed have their force and plainly justify, if the rest are not lacking. Add that in the words of Isaiah cited I do not understand why the purpose of a better life is not rather commended than the detestation of sins. For those words, “Let the wicked forsake his way,” seem to signify not so much that the wicked man ought to bewail his sins, as that he should cease from sin and set up a new life; for this is to forsake his way, not to walk in the old and accustomed path, but to seize and enter upon a new way. By like reasoning the following words, “and let him return to the Lord,” what else, I ask, do they signify than that the wicked man should strive to love God and to please him? And that cannot be done without the purpose of keeping the commandments; for, “If you love me,” says the Lord, John 14, “keep my commandments.”
The sixth objection: it can happen that some are so overtaken by sudden death that they can indeed remember the sins they have committed, and, grieving for them and crying, “Lord, have mercy,” depart from life before they have been able to think or resolve anything about the future. Will they lack pardon? What can be said more rigid, more harsh, more unmerciful? Add that that happy thief who hung on the cross with Christ is not read to have had a purpose of a better life, but only to have detested his sins and fled to the mercy of Christ, Luke 23. And in the sacrament of Penance he is judged to be absolved who shows signs of sorrow for sins, even if by no sign he declares what he purposes for the future. I answer: I do not easily concede that it can happen that someone from true love of God bewails his sins and asks indulgence for them without at least purposing in his mind not to offend God any more; nor is there danger that he forgets this purpose, since not only charity but nature itself suggests that peace cannot be made with God unless the purpose is present of not sinning for the future. As regards the thief, he is not openly read either to have detested his sins or to have purposed a better life, but only to have acknowledged his just punishment, and to have said to Christ, “Remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom”; yet from the pardon obtained we manifestly gather that he was converted to God with true faith and ardent charity, and performed all those things, though in a very short space of time, which are required for true and lawful inward Penance. Moreover, those who show signs of sorrow, even if perhaps they cannot speak, are rightly absolved in the Church, because they are not rashly judged to bear in their heart a true detestation of sins, with the purpose of avoiding sins hereafter.
The seventh objection: the ancient Fathers, and the Council of Trent itself, session 6, chapter 14, when they called Penance the second plank after Baptism, without doubt looked to the detestation of sins; it can happen therefore that someone is sometimes justified, without the purpose of not sinning for the future, by the mere detestation of sins. I answer: neither the Fathers nor the synod referred the likeness of the plank to the detestation of sin alone, but to the whole and entire Penance; nay, the council called not so much Penance as the sacrament of Penance the second plank.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII.
Solviintnr objecliones.
Priraa objcctio contincl exempla multorum, qui
lestimonio Scriplurae el Palrom, juslificalionem
adepli esse videnlur sine formali proposilo vilae
melioris. Nam 2. Reg. 12. David mox juslificatus
esl, ut corde el ore dixit: Peccavi Domino. De qua
re loquens Auguslinus homil. 41. Tres. inquit,
syllabae simt. Peccavi, sed de liis Iribiis sylla-
bis flamma sacrificii coram Domino ascendit
in coelum: et Chrysostomus homil. 0. de Poeni-
tentia: Dic, inquit, peccavi; etsolvisti peccalum.
De Manasse 2. Paralip. 33. nihil aliud legimus ,
nisi eum Poenilenliam egisse el orasse Dominum.
De Ninivilis Jonae 3. habemus conversioncm a
peccatis, jejuniura, saccum et oralionem: propo-
sili melioris vitae nulla menlio. Idem dici polest
de filio prodigo. Luc. 15. et Publicano, Luc. 18.
Respondeo:Ex allalis exemplis non polest recle
colligi, Davidem, Manassem et caeteros, sine for-
mali proposilo vitae melioris juslificatos esse. I\am
eliamsi David non dixerit nisi , Peccavi : lamen
credendum est, eo modo verbum illud ab eo pro-
nuncialum, quo pronunciari oporlebat, ut tam su-
bita sequerctur juslificalio.Neque enim quicumque
dicit, Peccavi, juslilicatur: cum sciamus Judam
dixisse Matili. 27. Peccavi tradens sanguinem
juslum, ct lamen juslificalum minime fuisse.David
igilur perfecla conversione a Deo inlus mulatus est
cl dolorem de peccalo, el propositum non peccan-
di, sine dubio habuil, quod et coram INathan uno
verbo, ct mullis verbis in psalmis suis poslmodum
expressil. Porro dcManasse cum Scriplura dical ,
eum cgisse Poenilenliam valde: quis prohibel ,
nomine Poenilentiae non solum dolorem de pecca-
to, sed cliam proposilum viliie melioris, et opera
Pocnilenliae eo loco acciperc?Conversionem quo-
que Ninivilarum a Jona expressam, non video cur
ad solam peccati detestationem reslringere coga-
mur, eum eliam opera Poeniletitiae ineis legamus
quae sine proposilo bene vivendi ellici non pole-
ran(. Denique publicanus el filius prodigus, qua
froale veniam peccalorum po3luIasscnt,nisi decre-
Tissenl non amplius cum olTendcrc , a quo veniam
postulabanl? Ac ul inUdligas , non posse cx solis
verbis judicium lieri de animo poenilenlis; expen-
de quid Aposlolus dixcrit, cum a Clirislo vocalus ,
et ea vocalione conversus el justificalus fuil: nani
nequc pcccasse se dixit. neque pcccata detestarl,
sed solum: Domine quidmevis facerc? Aclor. 9.
Qucmadraodum igitur non licet argumenlari, pau-
lum nou habuisse de peceatis snis doIorem,eliamsi
verbis nihil aliud expresserit, nisi proposilum Do-
mino serviendi: sic eliam non oporlerel collgere
Davidem, Manassem et caeteros in exemplum ad-
duclos, non habuisse proposilum recte vivendi ,
eliamsi verbis nihil aliud expressissent, nisi dolo-
rem alque odium peccalorum.
Secunda objectio: Contritio seu Poenitentia ,
supposila fide et spe. per legem et gratiam Dei,
sufficit Cliristiano ad veniam obtinendam. At
coniritio non incladit propric, nisi actum, quo
notumus Deum ojfendisse: igilur sine proposilo
formali vilandi deinceps peccata per solum pec-
cati praetcriti deteslationem justiflcaripossumus.
Assumpliotiem probat duobus argumcnlis. Primo,
quia notnen Poenilenliae, tum graecum lutn lali-
num, ad praelerilutn, non a(i fulurum respicil. Se-
cundo, quia proposilum vilandi peccala, proprie
aclus csl charilalib, sive obedienliae, non Poeni-
tenliae.
Respondeo: Assumplio argumenli falsa csl.Nam
concilia. florentinum el Iridenlinum supra cilala ,
aperlissimc ponunt in definilione conlrilionis,pro-
posilum non peccandi de caelero; et idem doceiil
ex b. Gregorio theologi omnes, qui Poenitenliam
definiunt:.4d?7iissa peccala plangerc etplangenda
non admillere. El sanctus Thomas, quem in hac
parte sequimur; in 3. par.Summac quaesl. 87,ar(.
l. Pcrtinet, inquil, ad ralionem verae Poeniten-
tiae, quod non solum homo doleat dc peccato
praelerilo, sed etiam proponat caverc de fuluro,
et idem confirmat in responsione ad primum, et
alibi mullis in locis.
Quod autem conlra objicitur de nomine Poeni-
tentiae, vanum esl: nam , ut saepe diximus, non
tam sequenda est elymologia, quam usus Scriplu-
rae et Patrum, in vera significalione vocabulorum
assequenda. INeque verum est , quod objicitur ,
graecam vocem [i-cTavoiav, ad praelcrilum. non ad
fulurum respicere: nam Terlullianus graecae lin-
guae peritissimus, lib. 2. in Marcionem , disertis
verbis conlrarinm asseril , cum sic luqnilur; hi
graeco sono, Poenitentiae nomen non ex delicti
confessione, scd ex animi demulatione compo-
situm es/.El sane.iAexavotav, si elymologiam inspi-
cias, nihil est aliud nisi post Siipcre : [)ruindcad
fulurum potius, quam ;ul praclcriliim perlinct.Sed
haec, ul dixi, inania sunl.
Quod vero addebalur in probalione assumplio-
nis, proposilum cavendi peccala essc aclum cli;i-
rilalis, vel obediciiliae, non Pocnilcntiae;faciIe re-
turqueri polcsl in auctnrcm. Nam eliam aclus illo,
quo nolumiis Deum offendisse , chiiril;ilis cst, si
ahsolule considerelur.Qucmadmodum igilur aclus,
qiio nollemus Dciim offendissc, absolule charilalis
csl.el lam;n ut refcrlur ad pcccaliim dclendum, cl
amiciti;im cum Deo reconciliandam Pocnili;nli;ie
esl: sic cliam proposilum vilandi pcccala, absuhi-
le charilalis, vcl obedicntiae esl.cum ctiam jiislis
convcnial, qiii nun indigcnt Pocnitenlia: lanien ut
assumitur ab eo qui peccavil , ad cumpcnsandam
in)uriam Deo f;«clam el amicili;im redinlcgrandam ,
Poetiilenliae est. Siquidem Pocnilcntia, ul sanclus
ai
UK POEMTKMl.V
Thonias docol 3. ();ir. quaost. Sr».arl.l{. pars quaii-
iluin osl polenlialis jusliliae. cujus pro[)riuni olli-
ciuuj osl, couipfnsaro injuriani I)(M) faclain. ut in-
(lc rcconcilialio consc^iualuru-onipcnsalur vcro in-
juria per delesiationcm pcccali.ct proposilum scr-
vanili maiKlata clcaetera omnia ailhil)cndi, quae
Dcus rcquirit.
icrlia objoctio: Dolor depeccatisproplor offeii-
sam Dci.iirlule includil proposilum nonpeccan-
di (/c ciwWro : inilur ad reciniciltdlioiiem sulJi-
cicl. cliamsi non dislinctc fcratur in fulura. Qui
enim sic dolcl. non minu^ pcrfecle nniri poleril
Deo, quam illc. quiacla habcrel ejusmodi pro-
positum.
Rcspondeo: Si quid hnc argumf^nluni concludil,
eiliciet ctiain, ul propositum peccata vilandi,in quo
virlualis dolor dc practcnlis contiuf^lur . sunioial
ad rcconcilialioncm, sinc formali ac distincto do-
Jore de peccalis admissis: quod lainen discrlis vcr-
bis negal is, cujos nunc argumcnta n^fellimus. Di-
co igilur non posse ficri, ut vcrus sit in aniino do-
ior de pcccatis admissis, quin conlinuo orialur el-
iain propositum viiandi peccata fulura: siculncqne
cconlrario Qeri polcsl, ul quis cx vcra charitale
proposilum animo concipiat non peccandi , quin
conlinuo cxsurgal dolor de peccalo admisso, et
nondum per indulgcnliain Dci dimisso; nequc erit
vera conlrilio, qonc dolorcm adferal de peccalo
praeterilo.sine proposilo non peccandi de caelero;
neque cril vera charilas, quae amorem jusliliae si-
ne peccali odio gignal in eo, qui sibi peccati le-
Ihalis conscius &it.
Ouarta objcclio: Apud homines henignos sola
vehemenspalratae culpae delestatio , nonnum-
quam impelrnl illius veniam: Deus autem lomje
magis beninnus est. quam uUi homines sinl. !Se-
que credibile csl. Chrislum expeclare voluisse ut
Pelrus decernoret numquam ampUuspeccare;sed
continuo jteccatum ei remisisse.cum eum amare
jiloranlem vidil.
Kespondeo : lienigni hominss ad solam culpae
confcssionem ac delcslationem ignoscunl , quia
non dubilanl. quin ii, quos ita cuipas (hneslari vi-
dcnt. jam animo proposilum conceperinl non pec-
candi de caelero: nam alioqui eliam per lornienta
promissioncm illain extorquent. Porro s. Petrum
duin ainare flebal, simul et pcccalum deleslalum
esse, el proposilum non peccandi concepisse, et
vcniam eliam a Deo. si non ore, cerle corde po-
slulasse, omnino credibiie esl: id enim expcrimur
in nobis el in aliis, qui spirilu compuiictionis ac-
cepto, serio pcccala sua deteslantur ac dcflent.
Quinta objeclio. Pelilio veniae cum displicenlia
peccali, licet sil absque formali proposilo dcvitan-
di peccala, satis est ad obliiiendam remissionem
peccaiorum. Isaiae oo. Derelinquai impius viam
suam.et vir iniquus cogilaliones suas et reverta-
tur ad Dominum el miserebilur ejus. Ouis nou
videt. sola hic duo requiri ab impio . ul oblincat
apud Deum misericordiam.el eam illum praeslarc,
si deteslelur peccala sua,el miscricordiam ab ipso
humiliier flagitet? Facile , inquil Ambrosius de
Dno, lib. 7. in Lucam. cap. G6. reconciliatur ,
quando inipense rogatur.
l{espondco:Saepcnumcro Scriptura divina lril)uil
vim justiliitandi, aul ctiam salvandi.divcrsis rcbus
non (iiiod sohic ill.ic justilicarc,aul salvarc possint.
S(!d (juod illae viiu suain habeaiil ad jiislilicalio-
nem, aul salulem et ad pum nnein pcrdui-aiil , si
lainen cactera non dc^inl. ,Sic, lcgimus llom. 3.
Arl)ilr(imurjnstificari hominom pcr /if/c/n. Kcclcs.
1. Timor Di)inini cxpcltit pr.ccalum. iioin. S. Spc
salvi factisumus. Lncae 7. Dimillunlnr ei pccca-
ta miilla. (juoiiiaindilc.vil iniUlum.'\\>b. M.Klee
mosi/iKi a morte iibcrai, et tpsa cst, qu(i.e purgal
pcccata. Tit. ;j. Sidi^os nos fccii per lavacrum rc-
gencralionis. Jacob. l.Suscipilc insitumverbum.
<iuod potcsl salvare animas vestras. llacc cl alia
id gcinis iii sacris lilcris passim lcguiiliir: nequc
tamcn ullusesl. qui inde colligat. solum timorcm,
aiil solam spcm, aui solam clcemosynam. aul so-
Itiin vcrhiim. siiie ridc cl dilcclione , aliisquc ad
ciindcm nncm rcquisilis, suflicen; possc ad salu-
lem. Sic igitur eliamsi deteslationi peccalorum cl
orationi alicubi Scripliira justilicalionem tribneret;
non liiincn colligcre oporlcrct, sola illa suflic(!re ,
sed illa quidem vim suam liabere cl plaiie Jusiili-
ficare, si caetcra non dcsinl.
Adde, qiiod in verbis Isaiae cilaiis. non inlelligo
cur non polius proposilum vilae melioris , quam
pcccatorum detcslalio commendetur. Nam illa vcr-
l)a: Derelinqual impius viam suam. non lam si-
gnificare vidcnlur, oporterc ul impius poccala sua
dcfleat, quam, ul cesset a peccalo et novam vitain
inslituat; hoc enim esl derclinquere viam suam ;
non incedere antiquo et usilalo iliiiere, sed novam
arripere alque iugrcdi viam. Pari ralione verba illa
seqncnUa: Et revertalur ad Dominum, quid aliud,
quaeso.signillcant, quam ul iiiipius Deom diligcre,
ciqiie placere studeal? id vero sine proposilo scr-
vandi mandala, Ueri non potesl : nam, Si diligitis
me. Dominus ail Joan. 14. mandata mea servale.
Sexia objeclio: Potest contingere, subita morte
aliquos ita praeveniri,ut meminissc quidem pos-
siiit peccatorum, quae admiserunt, et de eis do-
lenli-s et clamantes: Domine miserere.de vita dis-
cedanl , anlequam quidquam de futuris cogitare
vel decernere (}uiverint. Nwnquid iivenia care-
hunt? quidrigidius'?quid durius? quid inclemcn-
tius dici polest? Accedil , quod fclix ilLc latro ,
qui cuni Clirislo pendcbal in cruce , non legiiur
propositum vitae mclioris iiabuisse , sed lantum
peccata sua detestatuni.ad Cliristimisericordiam
confugisse. Luc. 23. Etinsacramenlo Poeniten-
tiae abf^olvendus censetur , qui signa doloris de
peccatis ostendit, etiamsi nullo signo declarct
quid in futurum proponat.
Kcspondco: Noafacile conccdo id possc conlin-
gcre.ul quis c.x vera dileclione Dei peccala defleat,
et eorundem iiidulgentiam poslulet, quin sallem a-
nimo proponat, Deum non amplius ofTcndere: nc-
quc periculum esl, ul hujus proposili obliviscatur;
cum non solum charitas, sed cliam natura ipsa
suggeral, non posse pacem cuin Deo componi,nisi
proposilum adsit non peccandi de cactero. Oood
ad latronem altinet , is neque pcccata dctcstatus,
neque vilam meliorem proposuisse aperle legilur;
sed solum juslum supplicium suum agnovisse [
M1U:U SHCU.NDUS
C4i)
Clivisloque di\i.>S(;: MemenLo mei dumveneris in
regnum tumn: veruiiilaraeii ex irnpelrala venia ma-
niiesle colligimus , eum vera fide , alque ardenli
charilale ad Deum fuisse conversum, et ea omnia,
licet brevissimo lcmporis spalio, praestilisse,quae
ad veram el legitimam Poenilenliam internam re-
quirunlur. Porro, qui signa doloris oslendunl, et-
iamsi forte loqui nequeant.reclc in Ecclesia absol-
vuntur, quia veram peccatoruin detestalionem,cum
proposito peccata deinceps vilandi, in corde gere-
re, non temere judicanlur.
Seplima ohjectio: Pairesveleres, etipsum con-
ciUum tridenlinum, sess. G. cap. 14. cum Poeni-
ieniiam, secundam post Baplismum tabulam ap-
pellarunt, ad peccatorum detestationem sinc du-
bio respexerunt: jieri potest irjitur, ut aliquis in-
tcrdum, sine proposito non peccandi de caetero,
per solam deteslationem peccalonimjtistilicctur.
Respoudeo: Nec Palres. nec synodus , ad solam
peccali deteslalionem, labulae simililudinem retu-
lerunt, sed ad tolam,alque integram Poenitentiam:
immo concilium non tam Poenilenliam, quam Poe-
nilenliae sacramenlum, secundam tabulam appel-
lavil.