Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book II: On Contrition
Chapter 8: That Contrition Is Altogether Necessary for Justification; 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 fifth controversy was on the necessity of contrition. We speak in this place of contrition in general, so as to comprise both the perfect, which is properly contrition, and the imperfect, which is called attrition; and we wish the question to be understood not only of the necessity which they call of means, but also of precept. And Luther indeed and Calvin acknowledge no contrition which precedes justification. For Calvin, since he teaches that the whole of Penance is the fruit of justifying faith, as we showed above from book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, section 1, without doubt judges no part of Penance, and therefore not contrition itself, to be necessary for obtaining justification. Luther, in the assertion of his articles, seemed to some to have utterly denied the necessity of contrition, on account of those words of article 11: “If you have obtained the priest’s absolution, believe firmly that you are absolved, and you will be absolved, whatever may be the case with contrition.” But nevertheless in article 12 he affirms that it is impossible for anyone to be truly absolved without contrition: “If, per impossibile,” he says, “one who has confessed were not contrite, or the priest had absolved not seriously but in jest, if nevertheless he believes himself absolved, he is most truly absolved”; and a little below he declares that this is impossible for this reason, that faith cannot exist without contrition: “I said,” he says, “per impossibile; because it has been said enough above that faith cannot exist without contrition, since grace is not infused except with a great shaking of the soul.” Wherefore Luther did not deny contrition absolutely, but denied that it is necessary for the remission of sins, since he sets it after faith, which (in his opinion) alone justifies, as he very often repeats in the same articles. There are not lacking, however, among Luther’s disciples those who teach that contrition is necessary before confession. Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 901: “This too,” he says, “is beyond controversy among us, that no one can be reconciled to God and obtain the remission of sins unless he does penance.” And a little below he says that contrition is a means for acquiring justification; and adds these words: “To those so terrified and contrite God offers and sets forth grace and the remission of sins through the ministry of the Gospel.” The same he also repeats on pages 956 and 957: “Contrition is necessary,” he says, “but it is not a merit,” and so on. And below: “The divine order is that he wills indeed to evangelise, but the poor; he wills to heal, but the contrite,” and so on. Philipp too has the same in the Commonplaces last published, under the title of contrition; and all those of the Lutherans who hold the first part of Penance to be contrition, the second faith. But leaving these, we shall set up, according to the common opinion of Catholic theologians, two propositions.
The first proposition: Contrition, at least imperfect, is altogether necessary in adults, with the necessity of means, for obtaining the remission of sins and justification. This proposition is gathered plainly enough from the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 14, and session 14, chapter 4. For when the council says that contrition was at every time necessary for justification, it speaks without doubt of the necessity of means; for those things which are necessary by the necessity of precept alone are not accustomed so universally to embrace all times. And this proposition is proved from those words of the Lord, Luke 13: “Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish”; for these words are so clear that they leave no doubt at all. Moreover, the same is openly proved by those words of Saint Peter, Acts 3: “Be penitent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” And those of blessed Paul, Romans 2: “Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgement of God.” And those of Christ himself in chapter 2 of the Apocalypse: “Be mindful from whence thou art fallen, and do penance, and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.” Finally Ezekiel, chapter 18, preaches nothing else to sinners than that they do penance if they wish to be saved. The same all those Fathers teach who called Penance the second plank after shipwreck, whose testimonies we reported in the first book; to whom can be added the testimony of Saint Augustine, who in letter 48 to Vincentius speaks thus at the end of the letter: “Nor think that anyone can pass from error to truth, or from any sin, whether great or small, to correction, without Penance.”
The second proposition: There is extant a divine precept concerning contrition. This can be proved first from the preceding proposition. For all those things which are necessary by the necessity of means are also necessary by the necessity of precept, although not all things which are necessary by the necessity of precept are also necessary by the necessity of means; for men are bound necessarily to employ those things without which they cannot be saved. Next, there are extant in the divine letters manifest words by which the precept of Penance is indicated. Joel 2: “Be converted to me, and rend your hearts.” Matthew 3: “Do penance.” Ezekiel 18: “Cast away from you your wickednesses, and make to yourselves a new heart.” Apocalypse 2: “Do penance.” Further, the observance of the commandments is a sufficient means to salvation. For the Lord answered one asking him, Luke 18, “What shall I do to possess eternal life?”: “Thou knowest the commandments.” And more openly in Matthew, chapter 19: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” And if anything else besides the observance of the commandments were required for obtaining eternal life, the Lord would seem not so much to have taught that young man as to have deceived him. It is necessary, therefore, either that we have some commandment about contrition, which we assert; or certainly that contrition is not necessary for salvation, which we have already taught above to be false. Nor can it be answered that Christ directed those words to the just, not to sinners, as if to the just the observance of the commandments sufficed for salvation, but to sinners it did not suffice; for the Lord answered in general and without any exception. And besides, although that young man to whom the Lord was speaking, Luke 18, was good and just, as can be gathered from chapter 10 of Mark, yet the lawyer who asked the Lord about the same matter and received the same answer, Luke 10, seems to have been a sinner, since he wished to tempt the Lord, not to learn anything from him. Moreover, it cannot be doubted that we are bound by divine precept not to neglect those means which are necessary for the life and health of the body; nor would he escape the sin of homicide who refused to take food at a time when he could not live without food. With how much greater reason, then, shall we be bound by divine precept to take up those means without which the life of the soul cannot be repaired? Finally, it is certain that impenitence is not only a sin, but even a most grievous sin; so much so that some have held that the sin against the Holy Spirit is nothing else than final impenitence; and the Scriptures everywhere accuse the impenitent, and threaten them with the gravest punishments. Psalm 94: “Today if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” Psalm 4: “How long will you be dull of heart?” Proverbs 1: “Because I called, and you refused,” and so on, “I also will laugh in your destruction.” Zechariah 1: “Be not as your fathers, to whom the former prophets have cried, saying: Thus saith the Lord: Turn ye from your evil ways, and from your wicked thoughts; but they did not give ear, neither did they hearken to me.” Matthew 23: “How often would I have gathered together thy children,” and so on, “and thou wouldest not.” Romans 2: “According to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath.” And if it is a new sin to refuse to be converted, to refuse to repent, to refuse to procure through contrition the pardon of one’s sins, certainly it follows that there is also a new precept by which we are bound to be converted to God and to stir up contrition in ourselves. Wherefore rightly Tertullian, in the book On Penance, proves from this that it is good to repent, because God commands it: “Is it good,” he says, “to repent, or not? Why do you turn it over? God commands it.” But some objections are to be solved which not heretics but Catholics are accustomed to propose for the sake of explaining the matter.
Chapter IX. The objections are solved
The first objection: Baptism, as also the other sacraments, confers grace on one not placing an obstacle; but he does not place an obstacle who purposes a new life and has complacency in no sin, even if perhaps he does not in fact detest sin. I answer: it cannot rightly be said that he does not place an obstacle who comes to the sacrament without the necessary disposition; otherwise not only without the detestation of sin, but even without faith, someone could be justified through Baptism. And that Penance, which is none without the detestation of sin, is a disposition for Baptism, the Apostle Peter teaches, Acts 2: “Do penance, and be baptised every one of you”; which the Council of Trent lately declared, session 6, chapter 6, and before it Saint Thomas, part 3, question 86, article 2, reply to the first, and the other theologians have been accustomed commonly to hand down. For he who by an action of his own will had been turned away from God through sin cannot be reckoned disposed for the grace of God unless by a contrary action he is converted to God. Yet it will not be necessary that the Penance which precedes Baptism contain that perfect contrition which, even without the sacrament actually received, blots out all sins; for since Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration and renewal, it has the power of truly justifying and renewing, and therefore does not necessarily require a man already justified through that perfect contrition. And this perhaps the author of the commentaries on Paul which are ascribed to Ambrose meant when, on those words of chapter 11 to the Romans, “The gifts of God are without repentance,” he left it written that the grace of God in Baptism requires neither groaning nor weeping, but only a profession from the heart. For that author did not reject the detestation of sin and Penance altogether from him who is to be baptised, but that perfect contrition which is scarcely found without an outward action.
The second objection: charity seems altogether to suffice for justification and salvation, even if it is found in someone without Penance and contrition; for “charity covereth all sins,” Proverbs 10. I answer: true charity without doubt suffices for salvation and justification; for wherever charity is present, there justice is present, and hence mortal sin is necessarily absent; for “he that loveth hath fulfilled the law,” Romans 13; and he who fulfils the law is just, nor does he lack anything for salvation, according to that of Matthew 19, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Wherefore rightly Saint Augustine, tractate 5 on the Epistle of John: “Love alone,” he says, “distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil.” And below: “This is the precious pearl, without which nothing profits you, whatever you may have; which if you have alone, it suffices you.” And Saint John himself, on the witness of Saint Jerome in the commentary on chapter 6 of the Epistle to the Galatians, pronounced that sentence on the precept of charity: “It is the Lord’s precept, and if it alone is done, it suffices.” Nevertheless true charity cannot in any way exist without true contrition in him who has the consciousness of mortal sin; and therefore, although charity even alone suffices, the theologians rightly say that contrition in him who has committed a mortal crime is a necessary means for justification and salvation. As also faith and hope are necessary to him, although charity alone (Augustine witnessing) suffices; for charity without faith and hope is none. So charity alone is said to suffice because it is never alone, but partly follows, partly precedes, the choir of the other virtues. And this is what Saint Thomas teaches, part 3, question 84, article 5, reply to the second, when he denies that charity can suffice for justification without Penance; for he gives the reason, that charity requires and effects Penance. For how can anyone truly love God unless he detests the sin through which he fell from the grace of God? But some object that sometimes a man’s mind is so suddenly converted to the love of God that it has no leisure to look back on its sins; sometimes too sinners are so hurried to martyrdom that they can indeed elicit an act of love by which they offer themselves to death for Christ, but, disturbed by that present fear, cannot think of past sins; sometimes also they are so forgetful of their sins that without a miracle they cannot recall those sins to memory. But the first and second members of this doubt can be explained without difficulty. For those who bear the consciousness of mortal sin think of nothing sooner, when they are converted to God, than their sins; for then most of all the sting of conscience is felt, when he begins to please us whom by sinning we have offended, and whose favour we desire. Which we also experience in human affairs. For those who do not make much of someone’s friendship easily forget the injuries they have done him; but when they desire to be reconciled, then all the injuries return to memory. So also imminent death, whether through martyrdom or otherwise, not only does not hinder, but even stirs up the recollection of sins. Which Chrysostom finely proves in homily 4 on Lazarus, by the example of Joseph’s brothers, who, when they had almost forgotten the injury they had done him, being afterwards brought into straits, said: “We deservedly suffer these things, because we have sinned against our brother,” Genesis 42. And Saint Cyprian shows the same in the sermon On the Lapsed, by the example of the three boys: “Ananias,” he says, “Azarias and Misael, illustrious and noble boys, did not rest even amid the flames and the burning of the glowing furnace from making their exomologesis to God.” But as regards the third member of the doubt, I indeed think that in it there is room for what some teach about virtual contrition. For although I judge that a plainly formal contrition is ordinarily required, yet in two cases I think a virtual one suffices. First, when someone after an accurate examination of his conscience cannot recall to memory his mortal sin or sins. Next, when someone neither has the consciousness of mortal sin, nor leisure to examine his life, as if perhaps he is suddenly hurried to martyrdom; for then it is credible that a man can be justified from hidden sins through an act of love, in which contrition is virtually contained. The reason is, first of all, that otherwise we should say in vain with David to God, “From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord,” Psalm 18. For if without formal contrition no sins can be blotted out, and formal contrition for hidden sins cannot be had, certainly it follows that we can by no means be freed from hidden sins; to what purpose, then, do we pray, if what we ask cannot be obtained? Next, as we read in Luke 13, “Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish,” so also we read in John 3, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” and John 6, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have life in you.” But all concede that Baptism and the Eucharist, when they cannot be had in fact, can be supplied by vow. Further, Saint Augustine in letter 48 to Vincentius writes that Cyprian either corrected that error of his, or covered it with the abundance of charity, and was purged by the heavenly Father in it by the sickle of his passion. And Saint Thomas, part 3, question 87, article 1, writes in express words that a virtual displeasure does not suffice for the remission of mortal sin, except as regards sins forgotten after diligent inquiry; in which place he admits a virtual displeasure for washing away those crimes which cannot be recalled to memory. Finally, it is strange if it does not seem absurd that it could happen that some men in the midst of the Church cannot be justified without a miracle; such as those would be who through disease or old age or some other cause had altogether lost the memory of their sins.
The third objection, against the second proposition, which was on the precept of contrition: impenitence is not some special sin, but a circumstance of all sins, as Saint Thomas teaches, Prima Secundae, question 14, article 2; therefore there will be no special precept about Penance. I answer: impenitence is sometimes a special sin, sometimes a circumstance of another sin. It is a special sin when a time occurs at which we are bound to do penance, and yet we do not do it. For the precept of doing penance does not oblige at any time whatever, since it is affirmative; but only at certain times, as when we are in danger of life, when we must come to confession, when God by a special inspiration invites us to Penance, according to that of Psalm 94, “Today if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” But outside times of this kind, impenitence is not so much a new sin as a circumstance of the sin committed; for as long as anyone sticks in sin, so long he can be called impenitent, and always makes his return to the grace of God more and more difficult. Now Saint Thomas, in the Secunda Secundae, question 14, article 2, spoke of this latter impenitence; but the same author, in part 3, question 84, article 7, reply to the first, acknowledges a natural precept of doing penance; and question 85, article 2, confirms that a special precept about Penance is extant. But let these things suffice on these matters, about which whole disputations are extant in the books of our writers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII.
Conlrilionem ad justificationem omnino
necessariam esse.
Quinta controvprsia eral de necessitale Conlrilio-
nis.Loquimur aulem hoc loco de Contritione in ge-
nere, ui tam perfectam, quac proprie Conlrilio ,
quam imperfeclau). quae attrilio dicilur, compre-
hcndiimus: et quaeslionem non solum de necessi-
tate, quam vocant, medii, sed etiam praecepti, in-
teliigi volumus.
Ac Lullierus quidcra et Calvinus, Coftlrilionem
ouae jiistificationem praecedat, nullam agnoscunl.
Nam Calvinus, cum lotam Poenilenliarn , fructum
fidci justificantis esse doceat, ul supra ostendimus
»'.\ lib. 3. Inslilul. cap. 3. § 1. sine dubio nuiiani
Poenilentiae parlem, proinde neque ipsam Contri-
tionem.ad juslificalionem obtinendam necessariam
csse censet.
Lutherus in assertione articulorum suorum,non-
iiullis visus cst Conlrilionis necessitalem perne-
gasso, propter illa verba artic. 11. Si sacerdotis
absolutioneni obtinueris, crede forliler te abso-
lutum , cl absoLulus eris, quidquid sit de contri-
tione. v^ed tamcn in arl. 12. affirmat, impossihile
esse, ul quis sinc Contritione vere absoliilus sit :
Si per impossibile , in(iuit , confessus non csset
contriius, aulsacordos non serio , sed joco ab-
^olvissct. si lamen credat sc absolutum, verissi-
me est absolutm: et pauloinfra, declaral, ideo es-
se id impossibilc, (luia lides sine conlrilione esse
non polesl: Dixi. iiH|iiil. per impossUntc : quiri
>iatissupra dirium est.lidem sinc contritiouc es.se
71071 posse, cuni (jraiia noninfundalur, iiisi cuui
magna concussione animae. Ouare non nec^avii
llEI.L/kRni\l Vi)l. III.
Lutherus coiilrilionem absolule, sed eam negavil,
ad remissioiiem peccatorum [iecessariam,cura eam
postponat lidei, quae (ipsius opinione) sola justifi-
cat. Uiin iisdem arliculis saepissimc re|)elil.
Non dcsunl lamen ex Lullieri discipulis.qui coii-
tritionem anle confcssionem nccessariam esse do-
ceanl.Marlinus Remnilius in 2.parlfi c.xaminis.pag.
901. f^s^inquil, el lioc.cxtra conlroversiam apud
nos, neniineni possc Deo reconciliari.et remissio-
nenipeccatorumconsequi.nisiagatPocnitenliam.
ElpauloinlVa diciUCoiilritioiiem cssemediuin ad ac-
quirendam iustilicationem;et addit liaec verba:Sic
territis et contritis. Deus gratiam et reniissionem
peccatorum pcr ministerium evangelii offerl et
proponit. Idom eliam repetil. pag. 1>j6. ei 957.
ISccessaria, inquit, est contritio. nou aulem me-
rilum est. etc. Et infra: Ordo dicinus est, quod
vult quidem evangclizare. sed pauperibus; vult
sanare. sed contritos etc. Idem hahet eliam Phi-
lippus in locis ultimo edilis, titulo de Conlritione:
el omncs illi ex Lulheranis, qui priorem partem
Poenitenliae, conlritionem. posleriorem, fidera es-
se volunl. Sed his dimissis, nos ju.xta commuiicm
Iheologorum calholicorum scntciilia:n,duas propo-
sitiones constituemus.
Prirna proposilio: Conlrilio saltem imperfecta,
nmnino ncccssaria est in adultis, necessitale ine-
dii, ad, remissionem peccatorum el justilicalio-
ncni oblinendani. Ilaec proposilio ex conciiio tri-
dentino soss. 6. cap. H. et sess. 1i. cap. 4. satis
aperte colligiliir. Cuin enim concilium dicil. con-
Irilionem oinni lempore ad juslificationem noces-
sariam fuisse. de neccssitale medii sine diibio lo-
quitur: quae enim sola praecepti uecessitnte ne-
cessaria sunt,non ila universe omnia lcmpora com-
plecti solent.
Probalur aiitom haoc proposilio cx verbis illis
Domini Luc. I.**!. Nixi Poenilentiani habueritis. o-
nmes simililer peribitis:hacc enim verba tam sunt
perspirtia, ut nullarn omnino dubilationera relin-
quant. Praoloroa. idem aperle probant verha illa
s. Pelri, .4ct. 3. Poenitemini et convertimini, ut
delea.nlurpeccatavestra.FAUhh. Paiili ad Ho-
man. 2.lgnoras quia henignilas Deiad Poenilen-
tiam le adducil?secundum aulem duritiam tuam,
et inipoenilem cor, thesaurizas iibi iram, in die
irac et revelationis jusiijudicii Dei. Et illa Chri-
sli ipsiusin 2. cap. Apocal. ?lemor csto unde ex-
cideris, et agc Poenitentiam,et prima opera fac:
sin autem. veniam tibi cito et movcbo randola-
brum tuum de ]aco suo.nisi Poenilenliam egcris.
Denique Ezechiel cap. 18.nihil aliud peccaloribus
concionalur, nisi ut Poenitenliam aganl, si salvi
essc velinl. Hoo idem illi omiios Palres docent,
qiii Poenilonliam.sociindam posl naufragium lahti-
lam appollarunl. quoriim teslimonia in primo libro
retiilimus: qiiibtis addi polosl s.Auguslini lcstimo
riiiim. qiii in episl. '58. ad Vincoiiliiim, ila loqtii-
lur in exlroiiia opislola: /Voc quemquam pulcs ab
errore ad veritalem, vel a quocumque seu ma-
guo. scu parvo pcccalo, ad corrcclionem sine
Poenitentia ])osse transire.
Secunda proposilio:/)o ronlritione pracceplum
dirinnm pxslat. Hnoc Primnm ox stiperiore pro-
646
Di: rot.MiiiMiv
bari polesl. Siqiiidem r;t oinni;i. q\n\o noc.essari;!
sunl neccssil;ile medii, conscnliir nocessari;i ne-
cessiUilo pr;iecopli, licol non qn;iocnn>(iiie noces-
saria sunl necessilalo pr;u'ccpli. siiil t'liam ncces-
sari;i necessilalc moilii: lencnlur cnim homines ca
necessario adhiberc, sinc (|uibus salvi esse non
possuiil.
HiMo.it^ oxslanl in divinis lilcris manifcsla vcr-
ba quibus Pocnilcnliac praeccplum indicalur.Joel.
2. Convorlimini (id mc. ol ^c.indUc corda vcslrn.
.Mallii. i?. Pocnilonliam agifo. Kzccli. 18. Projici-
tc a vobis pravitalcs. o.i facHc vobis cor novum.
Apocal. 2. Aije Poonilcnliam.
.\dhaecobscrv;dio ni;iiidalorum.sunicicnscsl inc-
(lium ad sahdcm. Doniinus ciiim inlcrrojjanli cui-
(iam.Luc. \^.Quidfaciens. viUim aclcrnampossi-
('r/)().^rcspondit: .Vandn(a nosti. VA ;ipcrlius apud
Mailii.cap.U). Si ns ad vilam infiredi,serva man-
(/a/a.Quod si quidaliudpraelcrmandalorumobser-
valioiicm requircrctur ad vilam aclcrn;im oblincn-
dam,Dominus illiim adolesccnlcm non lam docuis-
sc, quani decepissc vidcrctur. Oporlcl igilur,ul vcl
de conlrilione mandalum aliquod habeamus, quod
nos asserimus:aul ccrtenon sil cimlrilio ad saiulem
nccessaria.quod ialsum esse jam supra docuimus.
Ncque vcro responderi polcstXliristum ea verba ad
juslos, non ad peccalores direxisse, quasi juslis
observalio mandalorum suiru'iut ad salulcm, pec-
caloribus non suiricial: nam Dominus gcncralim et
sine ulla exceplione rcspondil. El praelerea licel
juvenis ille, cui Dominus loqucbalur. Luc. 18. bo-
nus ac juslus lueril, ul cx cap. 10. Marci colligi
polcsl: lamen Icgisperilus, qui de eadem re Do-
minuin inlerrogavil, el candein responsionein ac-
cepil , Luc. 10. pt^ccalor videtur fuisse , cum
Doininum lentare, non ab eo ;iliquid discere vo-
lucrit.
Praelerea dubium esse non potest, quin divino
praecepto teneamur ea media non negligerc, quae
;id vitamet salutcm corporis iiecessaria sunt:neque
peccatum homicidii ille evaderel.qui cibum capere
nollet. quo lempore sine cibo vivcre non posset.
Quanto igilur majori ratione, divino praecepto te-
nebimur ea niedia assumere, sine quibus animac
vila rcparari ncquil?
Dciiique impoeiiitenliam non solum peccalum,
sed cliam gravissimum peccalum essc constat; us-
(pifi ;ideo, ut nonnulli peccatum in Spiritum s;in-
ctum nihil aliud esse voluerinl. nisi finalem im-
poeiiilentiam:el Scriplurac passim accusanl impoe-
nitenles, el pocnas cis gravissimas comminantur.
Psalm. 94. Bodie si vocem ejus audieritis, nolile
obdurare corda veslra. Psalm. 4. Usquequo gravi
co)-dp.' Provcrb. 1. Quia vocavi et renuistis etc.
ego quoque in interitu vcslro ncic6o.Zachar. I.Ae
silissicul Patresvestri. ad quos ciamabant pro-
phetae priores. dicentes: Haec dicil Dominus.
Convertimini de viis vestris malis , et de cogi-
tatioftibus vestris pessimis : el non audierunt .
ncque attendorunt ad me. Mattli. 'ili. Quoties
volui congro.fjare filios tuos etc. et noluisti. Ho-
man. 2. Secundum duritiam luam . et impoe-
nilen^ cor . thesaurizas tibi iram. Quod si no-
vum peccalum est , nolle convcrii , nollc poeni-
lorc . nolle pcr conlrilioncm vciiiam pocpatorum
suoruin iirocurare ; cerlc sc(piiliir ut iiovum cl-
iain pracrcpimn sil , (pio bMicinur coiivcrli ad
Dciiin. cl coiitrilioncm in iiohis cxoiiiuv^ Ouocirca
reclc TerluIIianus in lib. de Pocniiciilia.cv co pro-
bal, bonum esse pocnitcrc, qu'a Dcus id praeci-
pil: llonum cst. inquil, pocnitoro. a.n non? quid
rovolvis? Ueus praecipii.
Sed objcctioncs aliquac solvcndac siint, quas
non hacrclici, scd calholici, cxplicandac rci gra-
lia, proponcre solcnl.
CAPUT IX.
Solvunlur objectionos.
Prima objeclio. Uaplismus, iil ctiam sacramenla
caetera, non ponenli obiccin, grali;im coi^lcrt: sed
obicem non ponil, qui vilam novam proponil, ct
nullius pccc;ili coiiipiaccnliam habct, eliamsi forle
non dclestclur re ips;i pccc;itum.
Respondeo: Non potcst rectc dici. non poncrc
obi(;cm. qui siiic dispositione ncccssaria ad s;icra-
mentum ;iccedil: alioqui non solnin sinc detcslu-
lione peccali,sed cti;im sine fide posscl aliquis pcr
Baplismum, juslificari. Esse autem Poenitenliam,
quae sine pcccali delcslalione nulla est,disposilio-
nem ad Bnptismiim; docet Aposlolus Pelrus Aclor.
2. Poenitenliam agile, cl baplizetur unusquisque
vestrum, quod idein nupcr Iridenlinum coiicilium
declaravil sess. G. cap. 0. el anlea s. Thomas 3.
par. quaest. 80. art. 2. ad 1. et alii theologi com-
muniter traderc cousueverunt. Qui enim propri;i
voluntalis actione a Deo aversus per peccatum fue-
rat, noii polcst ;id graliam Dei censeri dispositus,
nisi per coiilrari;im aclioncm convcrtalur ad Dcum,
Neque taiiien necessc eril, ul Poenitentia,quae Ba-
plismum praecedil. coiilrilionem ill;im perfeclam
contineat, quae eliam sine sacramenlo rcipsa su-
sceplo, peccata omnia dclel: nam cum B;iptismus
sacramentum sit regeneralionis el renovationis,
vim habel vere justificandi et renovandi, proinde
non necessario exigit hominem jam per conlritio-
ncm illam perfcctam juslificatum. Et boc forlasse
sibi voluil auctor commcnlariorum in Paulum,c,ri?.e
Ambrosio adscribunlur; cum in illa verba csp. ii.
ad Rom. Sine Pocnitentia sunl dona Dei, scri-
ptum reliquit, gratiam Dei in Baptismo neque ge-
milum, neque planctum rcquirere, sed soiarTi ex
corde professioneui. Non enim auctor ille peccati
deleslalionem ac Poenitenliam omnino rejecil ab
eo. qui baplizandus est, sed perfeclam illan:i con-
Irilionem, quae sine extcriore actione vix repe-
ritur.
Secunda objectio. Charitas videlur omnino suf-
ficere ad juslificationem et salutem, etiamsi abs-
quc Poenitenlia el conlritione in aliquo repe-
riatur ; nam Vniversa delicta operil charitas.
Prov.lO.
Respondeo: Charilas vera sine dubio sufTicil ad
I.IBEH SKCUISIJUS
6i7
salulcm et juslilicaUonem: nam ubicumque adesl
charilas, ibi adesl juslitia,cl inde necessario abesl
peccalum lelhale; nam: Quidiligit,legemwiplevU.
Rom. 13. qui autem legem implet, juslus esl, ne-
que ei decsl aliquid ad salulem, juxla iihjd Malih.
19. Si vis ad vilamingredi. serva mandala.Qnd-
re recle sanclus Auguslinus tracl.a. in episl.Joan.
DilecUo, inquil , sola discernit inter (ilios Dei
et filios diaboli. El infra: Haec esl pretiosa mar-
garita. sine qua niliil libi prodest, quodcumque
habueris: quam si solam liabcs , sufficit tibi.
El ipse cliam s. Joannes, tesle s. Hieronymo in
commenl. cap. 0. epist. ad Galal. de praeceplo
charilatis senlenliam illam pronunciavil; Praece-
ptum Domini est et sisolum fial, sufjicil. Verum-
tamen charilas vera.sine vera conlritione in eo,qui
peccali mortalis conscienliam habel, nullo modo
existere potesl: el ideo, licel charilas eliam sola,
sufficiat; recle dicunl Iheologi, contrilionem in eo,
qui crimen lethale commisit, esse medium neces-
sarium ad jnstificationem et salulem. Quemadmu-
dum ei fides ac spes necessariae sunt,lamelsi so-
]a charitas (Auguslino tesle) sulTicial: nam chari-
las sine fide et spe nuiia est. Itaque sola charitas
sulTicere dicilur, quia numquam est sola, sed cho-
rum aliarum virtutum parlim sequilur,parlim prae-
cedit. Et hoc est, quod s. Thomas docel 3. par.
quaest. 84. arl.5. ad 2.cum negat, charitalem sine
Poenitenlia ad justificationem posse sufficere: ra-
tionem enim reddit, quia charilas Poenilenliam
requirit et eflicit. Qnpmodo enim polesl aliquis
vere Deum diligere, nisi peccalum deleslelur, per
quod a gratia Dei excidil?
Sed objiciunt quidam; inlerdum raenlem bomi-
nis ila repenle ad amorem Dci converti, ut otiura
non habeat in peccala respicicndi: inlerdum eliam
pcccatores ad marlyrium ita rapi, ul possint qui-
(lem dilectionis actum elicerc, quo se ad morlcm
propter Christum ollerant, sed melu illu praescnli
lurljatos, dc peccalis praelerilis cogitarc non pos-
se: interdum quoque iia essc oblilos pcccalorum
suorum, ut sinc miraculo ncqueanl ca peccata ad
raemoriam revocare.
Scd primum el sccundum membrum hujus du-
bilalionis, non diHicuIler explicari possunt. IVam
qui conscientiam peccali morlalis gerunt, niiiil
prius cogilant, cum convorluntur ad Deum, quam
peccata sua: tunc enim maxime conscicnliae sti-
mulus senlilur, cum is placere incipit, quem pec-
cando ofVendimus, cl cujus graliam desidcramus.
Quod eliam expcrimur in rebus humanis. Quid e-
nim non magnilaciunl amiciliam alicujus, facilc o-
bliviscuntur injurias, quas illi fcccrunt; sed cum
reconciliari cupiunt, luric ad mcmoriam redeunt
omnes injuriae: sic etiam mors imminens. seu pcr
marlyrium,seu alia ralione,non modo non iinpcdil,
sed eliam excital rccordalionem pccoalorum.Quod
Chrysostonms pulchre probat in homil. 4. d(; La-
zaro, cxemplo fralrum Joseph, qiii ciim perie jam
obliti csscnt injuriam, quam in illum corrlulerant,
redacti postea ad aiigustias, dixcruiil: Merilo liaec
palimur, quia peccavimus in 1'ratvem nostrum.
(icncs. 42. Et s.Cyprianus idoin ostcndil iri scrm.
dclapsis, excmplo tiium pucroruin: Ananias, iii-
quit, Azarias, Misaiil, illustres ac nobiles pueri,
quo minus exomologesin Deo fecerint, nec inler
llammas ct camini exaesluantis incendia quie-
verunt.
De lerlio vero membro dubitalionis, equidem
arbilror in eo locum babere, quod quidam docent
de contrilione virtuali. Nam eliamsi conlrilionem
plane formalem ordinarie requiri censeam; tamen
in duobus casibus sufficere exislimo virlualem.
Priinum, quaiido aliquis posl accuratam discus-
sionera conscicnliae suae, non polesl ad memo-
riam peccalum, vel peccala sua hitluilia revocare.
Deinde cum aliquis neque peccali lelhalis con-
scienliam habel, neque olium vitam suam excuti-
endi, ul si forle rapialur subilo ad marlyrium:Iunc
enim credibile est, posse hominem per aclum di-
leclionis, in qua conlrilio virlule conlinetur,a pec-
calis occullis justificari.
Ralio est in primis,quoniara alioqui fruslra cum
Davide diceremus Deo: Ab occuUis meis munda
me Domine, psalm. IS.Nam si absque foimali con-
trilione nulla peccata deleri possunl, et contritio
formalis de occullis haberi nequil: cerle sequitur,
nt ab occullis nulla ralione liberari possimus;quor-
sum igilur oramus, si quod petimus.impetrari non
potest? Deinde, sicullcgimus Luc. 13. Msi Poe-
nitenliam habuerilis, omnos similiter pcribilis:
sic eliam legimus Joan. 3. Disi quis renatus fue-
rit ex aqua ot Spirilu sancto, non potest introi-
re in regnum Dei. El Joan. 6. ISisi manducave-
rilis carnem jilii hominis.non habebitis vitamin
vobis, Alqui omnes conce.dunl, Raplismum el Eu-
charistiam, cuin re ipsa haberi nequeunl, pcr vo-
tum posse suppleri. Adhaec s. Auguslinus in epi-
stola 48. ad Vincenlium, scribil, Cyprianum aul
eorrexissc errorem illum suum, aut texisse uberc
charilalis, el a Palre coelesli purgalum in eo lalce
passionis. El sanclus Thomas 3. par. quaest. 87.
artic. 1. diserlis verbis scribit,virtualcm displiccn-
liam non suiricere ad remissionem peccali morla-
lis, nisi quanlum ad peccala oblila |)0sl diligcnlern
inquisitionem: quo loco adniitlil displicenliam vir-
lualem, pro iis diluendis criminibus, quae ad me-
inoriam revocari non possunt.Doniquc mirum esl,
si non absurdum vidcatur. possc contingere, ul
iiomines aliqui in media Ecclesia, sinc miraculo
juslificari ncqueanl; qualcs nimirum illi essent,
(|ui aut morbo aut scneclute , aul alia dc caus-
sa omnino peccatorura suorura meraoriam pcrdi-
dissenl.
Terlla objeclio adversus allei'am proposilionem,
(|ua(! cral dc praccepto conlritionis. Impocnitentia
nmi cst speciale alitpiod peccalum, scd circura-
slantia omnium peccalorum, ul s. Thomas docet
in 1. 2. q. 14. arl. 2. non igiliir speciale aliquod
praecepliim de Poenitentia cxslabit.
Rcspondco:Impoenitcntia iiilerdum speciale pec-
caluin csl, inlcrdum circumslaiitia allcrius pccca-
ti. Speciale peccalum est,quan(lo occurril teinpus,
quo leneruur Poonilenliam agere,cl cam tamcn nou
iigimus. Ncquc enim praci^cptum dc Pocnitcnlia
agcnda, quovis lemporc obligal, cuin sil alTirmati-
vlun; scd solum ccrtis lcmporibiis , ul cum vcrsa-
mur in pcriculo vilac,cum ad confcssioncm csl ac-
t.V-i
hli ritLl.NHKNTI.V
cctlciulum ctim Duus pcculiiin iiispiralioiui aii Poe-
iulciilMin iio.s iinilal. jnxla illuil psalin. Oi. Iludio
sivocemejtu^ aniiicHUs nulile obdiirarc corda
vestra. Al exlra ('jiisiuotii UMiipora . impoiMiilfntia
noii laiii poccaUim novu;n . (piain |)i'oi'ali paU"ali
ciri-umslanlia esl: (luamdiu enim quisqne iii pec-
ralo liaerel , lamdiu imiioiMiiUMis tlioi polcst, ct
sfinpor m :i<^is ac. ina-iis «lini'ilem sibi roilitum ad
},'raU;im Dei faoil. l*(»iro s. Tlioniiis in 2.2. (piacsl.
H. arl. 2. de. impoenilenlia isl;i posleriorc loipiii-
los esl: itlem vero anclor in ^. par. quaesl. Si.arl.
7. atl I. ajjnoscil praeceptuin naturale dc Poeiii-
lenlia agenda; cl (lunesl. 8a. arl. 2. speeialc prae-
oeplnm de Poeniteiilia exslare coiifirmal. Scil de
liis ista sulTiciant.de qnibns inlegrae dis|)iitalioncs
in libris noslrorum exsliuil.