Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book II: On Contrition
Chapter 12: That Contrition Is a Cause of the Remission of Sins; and That by Perfect Contrition, with the Vow of the Sacrament, Sins Are Forgiven before the Priest's Absolution
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 seventh controversy follows in order: whether contrition forgives sins. The Lutherans, although they require contrition for the remission of sins, nevertheless do not bear that contrition be called a cause of justification; which they do lest anything be taken from faith, to which alone they attribute justification. Luther, in the assertion of article 12, after he had taught that faith justifies, even if per impossibile a man were not contrite, adds: “But I said, per impossibile, because it has been said enough above that faith cannot exist without contrition, since grace is not infused without a great shaking of the soul; for I wished to declare and commend the virtue of faith, which alone avails for the remission of sins and the justification of peace. Which I say lest anyone think I deny contrition, or that disturbance of the heart stirred up in the knowledge of sins. I will it; but I say that it does not work justification, or the remission of sins; for faith in the word of God justifies and purges.” John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 3: “We too,” he says, “have said in a certain place that the remission of sins never comes without Penance; but at the same time we added that Penance is not the cause of the remission of sins.” Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 960: “The obtaining of pardon,” he says, “and reconciliation with God, they (the Catholics) manifestly attribute to the act or work of our contrition, and that before absolution, which is the voice of the Gospel, freely, on account of the merit of Christ, announcing and imparting to faith reconciliation with God and the remission of sins. But what else is this than to take reconciliation with God and the remission of sins away from the Gospel and from faith, nay from the gratuitous mercy of God and the merit of Christ, and to transfer it to the merits of our works?”
But Catholics with common consent teach that contrition is a cause of the remission of sins; which the Council of Trent teaches, both in session 6, chapter 6, and in session 14, chapter 4. From which places also it may be understood that contrition is a cause of justification in two ways: namely because it disposes to justification, and obtains the remission of sins. In session 6, chapter 6, the council numbers the act of Penance among the dispositions for justification; and since a disposition is not only on the part of the matter, but also on the part of the agent, therefore the act of Penance, in so far as it proceeds from the help of grace and free will and disposes a man for justification, can be called a cause of that justification, in some way even efficient. In session 14, chapter 4, the same council writes that contrition was at every time necessary for obtaining pardon; and to obtain is to be also in some way a cause. The Scholastic theologians seem to disagree only in this, that some hold the act of Penance, as also the act of faith and love, to be a disposition for the remission of sins, but not a merit, either condign or congruous, of the remission of sins; and of this opinion are John Capreolus on book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 40, the sole question, and Domingo de Soto, book 2 On Nature and Grace, chapter 4. But others, and they very many, hold acts of this kind to be not only a disposition, but also a congruous merit of justification; which is the opinion of the Master of the Sentences, book 2, distinction 27, and of Saint Thomas on book 2, distinction 27, question 4, reply to the fourth, of Albert on book 1, distinction 41, article 2, reply to the fifth, of Saint Bonaventure on book 2, distinction 28, article 2, question 3, and on book 4, distinction 15, article 1, question 5; moreover of Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel and others on book 2, distinction 28, and among more recent writers of Andreas Vega, book 8 on the Council of Trent, the last ten chapters, and in the opuscule on justification, question 7. And although this latter opinion seems to us truer and more conformed to the Scriptures and Fathers, yet we shall labour chiefly in this, to prove that Penance or contrition is a cause of the remission of sins, whatever may be the case with the word merit.
We have first the divine letters, to whose most open testimonies I have not yet read any answer of the adversaries. Ezekiel, chapter 18: “When the wicked turneth himself away from his wickedness, he shall save his soul alive.” What clearer? Is to save one’s soul alive not to do something towards one’s own justification? In the same chapter: “Make to yourselves,” he says, “a new heart and a new spirit”; and how a man makes for himself a new heart and a new spirit the prophet had explained a little before, saying: “Be converted, and do penance; cast away from you all your transgressions.” But if, while we are converted and do penance, we make for ourselves a new heart and a new spirit, who can deny that conversion and Penance are a cause of justification? Jonah 3: “And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way; and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.” In this place certainly the reason is given why the Lord had mercy on the Ninevites: because they were turned from their evil way, and did the works of Penance. Psalm 50: “A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit.” But a sacrifice is accustomed to appease God and obtain grace; and therefore it is added: “A contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Daniel 4: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms.” Tobit 12: “Alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins.” These places do not seem to be understood of alms done with any mind whatever; for those who wish to persevere in sin will never be saved through alms. Nor can they be understood of the alms of the just, who, according to the opinion of Catholics, redeem temporal punishments after the remission of guilt; since Nebuchadnezzar, whom Daniel addresses, was impious; and the angel in Tobit would not attribute to alms the power of delivering from death, if he were speaking only of the alms of the just. Wherefore those places are to be understood of the alms of penitents, who at least congruously, by contrition and the works of Penance, appease the Lord. Luke 7: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.” In this place love, or contrition from love, which her tears testified, is most openly said to be the cause of the remission of sins; since that particle “because” is causal.
But let there be added the testimonies of the Fathers, who everywhere say that through contrition sins are blotted out, washed away, purged; likewise affirm that by contrition God is appeased and satisfaction made to him; finally do not fear to call contrition a merit and a price. Tertullian, book 4 against Marcion, before the middle: “I see,” he says, “that King Ahab too, husband of Jezebel, guilty of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, merited pardon by the name of Penance.” And in the book On Penance: “By Penance,” he says, “the Lord is appeased.” Origen, homily 11 on chapter 20 of Leviticus: “The purging of sin,” he says, “stands through Penance; whether one performs it worthily, so as to be able to merit pardon for it, let him see.” Cyprian, in sermon 5, On the Lapsed, at the end, after he had said that Penance is the medicine of sin, and that by it the Lord is appeased, and had exhorted to true contrition, closed his discourse thus: “He who has so satisfied God, who by Penance for his deed, by shame for his offence, has conceived more of virtue and faith from the very grief of his fall, being heard and helped by the Lord, will make the Church glad which he had saddened, and will now merit from God not only pardon but a crown.” By which words he teaches that by true contrition satisfaction is made to God and pardon obtained, so that the man thence justified merits even the crown of glory itself through martyrdom or other holy works. Athanasius, in the book On Virginity, beyond the middle: “See,” he says, “what a remedy there is in tears; look, I pray, how great an iniquity they have blotted out. For what is more foul than this vice? For he who thrice with an oath denied the Lord nevertheless blotted out so great a crime by tears.” Basil, in the sermon on Penance: “At once,” he says, “David hastened to the medicine”; where he calls contrition the medicine of sin. And below: “A third time Peter denied the Lord; he wept; his tears moved him who had mercy on us.” And in the letter to a Fallen Virgin, at the end, he says that through Penance the soul is purged; and in the book On True Virginity, beyond the middle, and Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 3, speaking of the prodigal son: “So quickly,” he says, “does he merit pardon, that the Father runs to meet him coming and still far off, and gives the kiss which is the mark of sacred peace.” And book 10 on Luke, on that of Luke 22, “The Lord looked on Peter,” and so on: “Tears,” he says, “do not ask pardon, but merit it.” And below: “And you, if you wish to merit pardon, wash away your fault with your tears.” And in the preface on Psalm 37: “Who would doubt to afflict his soul, when so great a prophet afflicted his, paying the price of tears for the redemption of sin?” Ephrem, in the book on the day of judgement, chapter 5: “Compunction,” he says, “is the health of the soul, is the illumination of the mind; compunction acquires for us the remission of offences.” Jerome, in the epitaph of Fabiola, explaining her contrition and penance: “What sins,” he says, “would this weeping not purge? What inveterate stains would these laments not wash away?” And below: “O happy Penance, which draws the eyes of God to itself.” And in book 2 against the Pelagians: “Those who simply confess their sins,” he says, “merit by humility the clemency of the Saviour.” John Chrysostom, in book 2 On Compunction of Heart: “Compunction of heart alone,” he says, “like fire, burns up and removes every vice of the soul; and whatever evils it finds in it, it wipes all away and utterly blots out.” Augustine, in letter 54 to Macedonius: “Some,” he says, “we remove from the fellowship of the altar, that by doing penance they may be able to appease him whom by sinning they had despised.” And on Psalm 50: “The Ninevites,” he says, “did penance and merited a certain mercy”; to which opinion Gregory subscribes, book 3, chapter 4, on the first book of Kings, in these words: “The Ninevites, while they cast themselves down in heavy Penance as for a difficult reconciliation, easily merited the mercy of almighty God.” We have, then, from the testimonies of the ancients that contrition or Penance is truly a cause of justification, since it blots out, washes away, wipes off, heals sins; since it appeases God, satisfies him, obtains his mercy, and in its own way merits.
Finally, a twofold reason can also be brought. The first: the prayer of a penitent sinner is not empty with God, but appeases him and obtains pardon, as is plain from the example of the publican, Luke 18; much more, then, conversion and Penance, which is the cause of the prayer, will not be empty, but will do something towards obtaining remission. The second: the act of Penance is from the Holy Spirit, as the adversaries concede, and disposes for justification; therefore in its own way it is a cause of justification; for the Holy Spirit, disposing us through an act of this kind, does not do nothing, nor is what he does in order to justification of no price or merit. But the adversaries object: if we are justified by our contrition, how does the Apostle say we are justified freely? If contrition merits justification, why is it not rather paid than given? I answer what Augustine once answered to a similar objection: that we are justified freely, although we are justified by the merit of contrition, because contrition itself is a gift of God; for he would not be justified freely who was justified from his own work, that is, one acquired by the powers of free will alone. “Let him not say to himself,” says Augustine in letter 106, “If by faith, how freely? For what faith merits, why is it not rather paid than given? Let not the faithful man say these things, because when he has said, That I may merit justification, I have faith, it is answered him: For what hast thou that thou hast not received? When therefore faith obtains justification, no human merit precedes grace, but grace itself merits to be increased, that being increased it may merit also to be perfected.” So he; where he calls human merit a work done from free will alone, without, that is, the special grace of God arousing and helping; taking merit in which signification he everywhere affirms against the Pelagians that grace is not given according to our merits, as may be seen in this very letter 106, and in the preceding and following; and in the preface on Psalm 31, and in the book On Grace and Free Will, chapters 6, 7 and 8, where before justification he acknowledges no merits except evil ones. But nowhere does he deny that from works done with the special help of God, as from acts of faith, prayer, penance and the like, we can in some way merit the remission of sins itself, and the grace of working well; nay rather he most openly confesses this, letter 105: “Nor is the remission of sins itself,” he says, “without some merit, if faith obtains it. For the merit of faith is not nothing, by which faith he said: O God, be merciful to me a sinner; and he went down justified by the merit of faithful humility, because he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. It remains, therefore, that faith itself, whence all justice takes its beginning, we attribute not to human choice, by which those men are puffed up, nor to any preceding merits, since from it begin whatever good merits there are; but confess it to be a gratuitous gift of God, if we think of true grace, that is, without merits.” And letter 106: “If anyone says that faith merits the grace of working well, we cannot deny it, nay we most gravely confess it.” Nor is it true, as some say, that that proposition, “Faith merits justification,” was retracted by Augustine when he retracted that one, “The beginning of faith is from ourselves,” book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 23. For in letters 105 and 106, where he contends most of all that the beginning of faith is not from ourselves, he teaches in express words that faith merits justification, as we have already shown; and in that very book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 23, where he retracts what he had once said, that the beginning of faith is from ourselves, he affirms that it was most truly said that faith begins merit. Moreover Saint Thomas, Prima Secundae, question 114, article 5, says that this proposition, “Faith merits justification,” was retracted if faith is taken for that acquired by the powers of free will alone; in which sense neither does Saint Augustine take faith, nor do we take it when we say that faith merits justification congruously. I answer secondly to the same objection of the adversaries: not only are we justified freely, although Penance merits the grace of justification, because Penance is a gift of God, as we have already said; but also because that merit which the Fathers acknowledge before the remission of sins is not a condign but a congruous merit, nor does the reward answer to it from justice but from goodness; and in short it is not merit simply, but in a certain way, as we have always spoken. For condign merit, and merit simply, does not precede the one to be justified, but follows the one justified, as Augustine writes on Psalm 110, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 14, in book 1 to Boniface against the two letters of the Pelagians, chapter 2, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapters 29 and 30, and book 1 to Simplicianus, question 2. Of this condign merit, or merit from justice, the Council of Trent speaks, session 6, chapter 8, when it says that a man is justified freely, because neither faith nor works which precede justification merit it; for merit from justice is opposed to grace, but not congruous merit, which is founded not on justice but on liberality. And in this way of merit, namely condign, we in the first book, while we refuted the lies of the heretics, often said that contrition is not a merit, but a disposition, of justification. Finally, all the places of the Fathers adduced by us, where contrition or Penance is called a merit, a price, a satisfaction for sin, are to be taken of congruous merit, price and satisfaction; as also the places of Scripture, “Redeem thou thy sins with alms,” Daniel 4, and the like.
Chapter XIII. That by perfect contrition, with the vow of receiving the sacrament, sins are forgiven before the priest’s absolution
The eighth question is whether contrition forgives sins before priestly absolution; since Catholic doctors with common consent have been accustomed to teach that contrition, if it is perfect, and has joined to it the vow of the sacrament of Baptism or of absolution, altogether reconciles a man to God and forgives sins, even before the sacrament is actually received. But in our time Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, page 960, openly censures those who attribute to contrition the remission of sins before absolution. There was also a certain doctor a few years ago who, in a book he wrote on charity, taught against the common opinion that to catechumens and penitents, although perfectly converted and burning with charity, sins, or the guilt of eternal death, are not forgiven except when they are either baptised or reconciled by the ministry of priests, unless perhaps at the point of death. And with Chemnitz indeed the controversy can be settled with little trouble. For since he and all the Lutherans contend that a man is justified by faith alone, and require absolution only for this reason, that through it the word of God may be announced, from which faith may be conceived by the penitent; if anyone before absolution, whether from reading Scripture, or from the memory of Baptism, or from elsewhere, conceives faith, how can they deny that he is justified even before priestly absolution? Did not Luther himself, in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Baptism, write that a man is justified, provided he believes, even if he receives Baptism not in the name of the Lord, and therefore not a true and lawful one? And in the assertion of article 12, did he not write that from wherever the word is heard faith can be conceived, and thence a man justified, even if the word of God is pronounced not by way of absolution, but in jest, or to prove something else? Finally, unless Chemnitz proves, which he will never do, that faith cannot be conceived except through absolution, he will never establish that men cannot be justified and reconciled to God before they are absolved by the ministry of priests. Moreover Catholics attribute the remission of sins before absolution not to any Penance whatever, but to that alone which is perfect, and which proceeds from faith, hope and charity.
Now to that Catholic writer who contends that true and perfect contrition remains with the guilt of mortal sin until the reception of the sacrament, we oppose first the authority of an ecumenical council. For the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 4, declares that after the promulgation of the Gospel no one is justified without Baptism or the vow of it; in which place the council admits that a man can through true Penance with the vow of Baptism be reconciled to God before he actually receives Baptism. And session 14, chapter 4, it teaches in express words that contrition perfected by charity reconciles a man to God before the sacrament of Penance is actually received. And session 13, chapter 7, the same council declares that for the preparation for the Eucharist sacramental confession is necessary for those who have the consciousness of mortal sin; and at the same time excepts those who perhaps are bound to celebrate Mass and have no priest to whom to confess their sins; for to them it judged that contrition with the purpose of confession suffices for receiving the Eucharist not unworthily. So that council believed that through true contrition, even before the priest’s absolution, and outside the point of death, sins are forgiven; for it is not lawful to suspect that in any case a Catholic council would have permitted anyone to come to the sacrament of the Eucharist with the consciousness of the guilt of mortal sin.
Secondly, we oppose the testimonies of the Scriptures, and the explanations of the holy Fathers. For Scripture everywhere teaches that those who are converted to the Lord with the whole heart receive without delay the pardon of sins. 2 Kings, chapter 12: when David had heard his sin from the prophet Nathan, led by penance he says, “I have sinned against the Lord,” and at once Nathan added, “The Lord also hath taken away thy sin”; of which matter the same David seems to speak when he says in Psalm 31: “I said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord; and thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin.” Saint Ambrose, in the Apology for David, chapter 7: “If he said,” he says, “I will declare, and merited pardon before he declared it; how much more, when he declared against himself, saying, I know my iniquity, was every sin forgiven him? Therefore he merited the remission of his iniquity, and covered with charity, and hid his sins.” Saint Augustine, discourse 2 on Psalm 31: “He does not declare,” he says, “but promises that he will declare, and God already forgives.” Saint Gregory, in the commentary on the same Psalm 31: “Attend,” he says, “how great is the swiftness of life-giving indulgence, how great a commendation of the mercy of God, that pardon accompanies the desire of the one confessing, before Penance arrives at torment; that remission reaches the heart before confession breaks out into voice.” Isaiah 30, according to the version of the Seventy: “If, returning, thou shalt groan, then thou shalt be saved”; from which place Saint Leo gathers what we wish, letter 91 to Theodore, bishop of Forum Julii: “Of the mercy of God we can neither set measures nor define times, with whom true conversion suffers no delays of pardon, the Spirit of God saying through the prophet: When thou shalt return and groan, then thou shalt be saved.” So he; who certainly teaches plainly enough that true conversion suffers no delays of pardon, and therefore that sins are at once forgiven to the contrite, even before priestly absolution is added. Similar things we read in Ezekiel, chapter 18: “If the wicked turn himself from his injustice, I will not remember his iniquities any more”; and chapter 33: “The wickedness of the wicked shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall turn from his wickedness.” But surely wickedness hurts much as long as it makes one guilty of eternal damnation; nor can God be said to have forgotten iniquities as long as he does not remit the eternal punishments due to iniquity. To this also belongs the parable of the prodigal son, Luke 15; for we see in that parable that the father ran to meet the returning son, and before he had finished his confession gave him the kiss of peace. Adducing which parable for the consolation of penitents, Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 3: “So quickly,” he says, “does he merit pardon, that the Father runs to meet him coming and still far off, and gives the kiss which is the mark of sacred peace.”
Thirdly, we oppose all those places of Scripture and the Fathers which testify that charity cannot dwell together with sin, or with the guilt of eternal death. For if charity cannot exist without the remission of sins, and contrition is born of charity and has it as an inseparable companion, it necessarily follows that contrition too cannot exist without the remission of sins. Proverbs 8: “I love them that love me.” Proverbs 10 and 1 Peter 4: “Charity covereth all sins.” 1 John 3: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren; he that loveth not abideth in death.” Luke 7: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.” Saint John Chrysostom, homily 7 on the second letter to Timothy: “As fire,” he says, “when it has seized a wood, is accustomed to purge everything, so also the fervour of charity, wherever it falls, destroys and breaks through everything; where charity is, all things are taken away and bare.” Saint Gregory, homily 33 on the Gospels: “What,” he says, “do we believe love to be but a fire? And what fault but rust? Whence it is now said: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much; as if it were openly said: She has fully burned off the rust of sin, because she burns strongly with the fire of love.” Saint Augustine, book 15 On the Trinity, chapter 18, speaking of charity: “No gift of God,” he says, “is more excellent than this; it alone is what divides between the children of the eternal kingdom and the children of eternal damnation.” So he, who most openly confesses that the guilt of eternal death cannot exist with charity. For how would charity divide between the children of the eternal kingdom and the children of eternal damnation, if those who burn with charity could be guilty of eternal damnation? The same 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: “If you have it alone, it suffices you”; but how does it alone suffice, if it does not free a man from the guilt of eternal death? And below: “If anyone finds charity in his heart, let him be secure, because he has passed from death to life; he is already on the right hand.” But can he be said to be on the right hand who is still guilty of hell, and a child of wrath and perdition? See similar places, book On the Unity of the Church, chapter 19, and homily 50 on the words of the Lord.
Fourthly, we oppose a reason drawn from the effects and property of charity. Charity, and consequently contrition, makes children of God, as Saint Augustine demonstrates in the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter 21, from those words of Scripture: “Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and should be, the sons of God,” 1 John 3. But those who are sons of God are by that very fact heirs of the kingdom, according to that of the Apostle, Galatians 4: “Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son; and if a son, an heir also through God.” Therefore he who has charity cannot be guilty of eternal death, which includes disinheritance from the kingdom of heaven. Again, he who has charity fulfils the law and lives rightly, as the same Augustine shows in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 14, from those words of the Apostle, Romans 13: “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” But no one can live rightly, nor fulfil the law, unless regenerated and justified and made a son of God. In book 1 against the two letters of the Pelagians, chapter 2, Augustine says: “Since men do not live well unless made sons of God, what is it that this man attributes to free will the power of living well?” And in the preface to the exposition of Psalm 31: “You have done nothing good,” he says, “and the remission of sins is given you”; and in the second discourse on the same psalm, explaining that, “For this shall every one that is holy pray to thee,” he writes that no one is holy except after the remission of sins. And on Psalm 100: “No one,” he says, “works justice except the justified”; and in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 26: “Justification precedes the doers of the law.” It follows, therefore, that those who have charity are free from sin, since they are holy and fulfil the law, which no one can do unless justified from sin. Moreover charity makes friends of God, or rather is itself the friendship of man with God. Proverbs 8: “I love them that love me.” John 15: “You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you”; and what he commands he explains in the same place, saying: “This is my commandment, that you love one another.” Saint Ambrose, in letter 7 to Simplicianus: “Liberty,” he says, “makes a man free, charity makes him a friend to God.” But he who is a friend of God, how can he be guilty before God of eternal death? Can anyone think him a friend by whom he knows everlasting destruction is prepared for him?
Fifthly, we oppose the consent of the whole Church. For in the Church indulgences are often granted by the Pontiffs to those having contrition for their sins with the purpose of sacramental confession to be made in its time; and these indulgences are gladly and with thanksgiving received by the faithful throughout the whole Christian world. But it is certain that indulgences require this, that he who takes them be already in the state of grace and free from the guilt of eternal death, and be bound to satisfy only for temporal punishments; for indulgences free men from temporal punishments, if however they have first been freed from the guilt of eternal ones. Wherefore the universal Church believes that through contrition with the vow of confession a man is freed from the guilt of mortal sin, and returns into favour with God. Lastly, we oppose what even the adversary admits: at the point of death, if there is no one present to reconcile the penitent or baptise the catechumen, they can through true contrition with the desire of receiving the sacrament not only be justified, but even at once arrive at eternal glory. For this Ambrose teaches in the oration on the death of Valentinian the younger, Augustine in book 4 On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 22, Bernard in letter 77 to Hugh, and Innocent III in the chapter Ad apostolicam, on the unbaptised priest. But certainly it is not the point of death which justifies those men, but true conversion and contrition of heart with the desire of receiving the sacrament. For the point of death only excuses from transgression of the precept, and brings it about that he is not guilty of the sacrament not received who lacked the sacrament not because he would not, but because he could not. Therefore wherever the same cause is found, that is, true contrition with the purpose of receiving the sacrament, the same effect also will at once follow.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII.
Co7ilritionem ca,ussam esse remissionis
peccatorum.
Seplima controversia ordine scquitur,lJtrum con
trilio peccata remittat. Lulberaiii ctiamsi contri-
lionein requirant ad remissionem pcccalorum, la-
iiieii non ferunl, ut conlritio dicatur caussa juslili-
cationis: quod ideo faciunl, ne ulla ralionc fidci
derogctur, cui soli justificationem Iribuunl.
Lutberus in assert. art 12. postcaquam docue-
ralfidem juslificarc, etiamsi per impos^ibilc bomo
non csset conlritus. sul).jungit: Dixi autem, per
impossibile, quia salis supra dictum est , lidcm
sine contrilioneessenon posse, cumgralia non
infundalur sine m.(\gna concussionc animae: vo-
iui enim fldei virtutem declarare ct commcnddrc,
quam sola faciat ad remissioncm pcccaturum
et justificationem pacis. Quod dic.o , ne qiiis me,
pulet conlritionem.seu perturbalionem illam cnr-
dis in eognilione peccatorum sui^cHatam negare.
Volo eam: sed dico eam non operari juslificatio-
nem, aul remissionem peccatorum : fidcs ctiim
inverbum Deijustificat etpurgat. Joaniics Gal-
vinus lib. .'{. Iiislil. cap. i. § 3. Diximus , iiiquil ,
et nos quodam loco, nunquam sine Pocnilcntia
obvenire pcccatorum remissiou.em;sed simul ud-
jecimus, Poenilcnitam non esse ca^issamrcmis-
sionis peccatorum: .Miuliiius Kcmuilius in 2. par.
e\am. pag. IKW). Imprlrationem, inquil, veniac .
et reconciliationcm cum Dco, manifesle tribuunt
(i52
DK POIIMTKMIA
(ciilliolici) actui scu operi contrilionis nostrac: ot
<iuidcm antc absitlutioncm, (/jaic (\s/ vux evan-
(jclii, tfratis proptcr mcrilnm Cliristiannnncians
ct impcrticns fulci rcconciliatiuncm ciim Dco c/
romissionevi peccatorum. Quid vero aliud csl
lioc, (jnam rccunciliationcm cuin Dco, ct rcmis-
sioncm pcccatorum aitimcrc cvangclio ct (idci ,
immo (jratuitae misericordiae Dci etmcrilo Cliri-
sti: ct translcrre illavi in inerita nostrorum opc-
rum *
Al calliolici communi consensii docenl: Conlri-
lionem caiissiuu essc remissionis poccalorum:qu(»'I
iiitMn IridcMilinum cuiicilium docel . lum scss. 0,
cu|>. (i. lum sess. 11. cap. 4.1']x (luibus eliam locis
Inlcliijiere licet, duobus modis conlrilioncm caus-
snuj esse jusliliealionis; quia vidclicel disponil ad
jusUlicaliimem cl impelral rcmissionem pcccato-
rum, Sess. ('). caj). G. numeral concilium acluin
Poenilenliae inler disposiliones jusliiicalionis: cl
(luin uisposilio non S(diun se lenel ex parle raale-
nae. seii cliam cx parle agenlis: ideo aclus Pociii-
tenliae qualcnus al) auxiiio praliac el libcro arbi-
Irio proccdil cl lujminem disponit ad justificalio-
nem.ipsius juslificationis caussa dici polest aliquo
modo cliam cfliciens. Scss. 14. cap. 4. idem con-
cilium scribil: Contritionem omni icmpore neces-
sariam fuissc ad veniam impelrandam : porro im-
jiclrare csl esse etiam aliquo modo caussam.
Tbeologi vScbolastici in eo soliirn dissenliro vi-
denlur. quod nonnulli volunt aclum Poenilenliae,
ut etiam aclum lidei cl dileclionis, esse disposilio-
ncm ad rcmissionem pcccatorum, scd non meri-
liim ncque de condigno, ncque de congruo remis-
sionis peccatorum: cl bujus senlenliae sunl Joan-
ncs Caprcolus m 2. scntenl. disl.40.quaesl.unica,
et Dominicus a Solo lib. 2. dc nalura el gratia ,
cap. 4. Al alii, iique plurimi, non solum disposi-
lii)nem. sed eliam merilum de congruo juslificalio-
nis esse volunl ejusmodi aclus. quae senteiitia esl
Magislri scnlcntiar. in 2.1ib.senl.disL27. ets.Tlio-
mae in 2. disl. 27. quacst. 4. ad 4. Alberli in pri-
mum, disl. 41. arl. 2. ad quinlum. S. Bonaventu-
rae in 2. disl. 28. arl. 2. quaesl. 3. et iii 4. disl.
lo. arl. 1. quaesl. 5. Praelerea Scoti , Durandi ,
Oabrielis. el aliorum. in 2. disl. 28. et ex recen-
lioribus Andreae Yegae lib. 8. in concilium Iriden-
tinum. decem ullimis capilibus, el in opusculo
de justificatione quaest. 7. El quamvis poslerior
baec scntenlia nobis vcrior, el Scripluris acPalri-
bus conformior videatur, tainen in eo polissimum
laborabimus, ut probcmus, Poenitenliam sive con-
trilionem caussam esse remissionis peccatorum ,
quidquid sit dc vocabulo nieriti.
Habemus Primum divinas literas , ad quarum a-
perlissima testimonia nullam adbuc legi adversa-
liorum responsionem. Ezecb. cap. 18. Cumaver-
tcrit sc impius ab impictatc sua, ipse anirnam
suam vivilicabil. Quid clarius? an vivificare ani-
niam suam, non esl aliquid facere ad propriam ju-
slificationcm? In eodem capite : Facite, inquil .
vobis cor noviim et spiritum novum , quomodo
aulem facial bomo sibi cor novum etspirilum no-
vum. paulo anlc propbela explicaverat dicens :
CuViVcrlimini ct agitc Poenilentiam: projicite a
vobis omnes pracvaricationes vcstras. (Juod si
dum convcrtimur el Poenitenliam agimus, Tacimus
iidbis cor novum et si.iriluiii iioviim: quis inliciii-
ri potcst, conversioiicm ac Poenitcntiam caussam
esse justilicatiouis?
Jouae li. Et vidil Dcus opera curum. quiacon-
vcrsi sunt dc via sua nuda ct miscrtus csl Dcus
supcr maiitia. (juam lociuulus csl ul faccrel eis ,
cl non 1'ccit. IIoc certe loco caussa reddilur cur
miscrtus sil Dominus Ninivilarum , (piia conversi
suiit (l(! via sua inala, PoiMiilciiliae opera leceruiit.
Psalm. 5U. Sacrillcium Dcospiritusconiributa-
tus. At sacrificium Dcuin placare et gratiam im
pelrarc solcl: el idco subjuugilur: Cor cuntrituvi
et humiiiatum Dcus nun despicics.
Dan. 4. Peccala tua cleemus]/nis redime. To-
biae 12. Eleemosyna a murte libcral, el ipsa esl,
quae p\ir(jat pcccata. liaec loca non vidcntur in-
tclligenda de eleemosyna quocumque animo facta:
nam qui in peccalo perseverare volunt , num^iuam
per eleemosynas salVabunlur. Ne(|ue inlelligi pos-
sunt de eleemosynis juslorum, qui poeuas leinpo-
rarias posl culpae remissionem , juxla catbolico-
rum sentenliam, redimunt: siquidiMH Nabucliodo-
nosor, quem Daniel alloquitur, impius eral; et an-
gclus apudTobiam non Iribucret eleemosynae vin»
liberandi £ morle,si de juslorum tanlum eleemosy-
nis loqueretur.Quare loco illa de eleemosynis poe-
nitentium inlelligenda sunl,qui sallem ex coiigruo
per conlrilionem el opcra Poenilentiae, Domiuum
placant.
Luc. 1 .Remittuntur eipeccatamuUa,quoniam
dilcxil multum. Hoc loco diiectio , sive conlritio
ex dileclione, quain laobryraac leslabantur , aper-
lissime dicilur essc caussa remissionis peccalo-
rum: siquidem parlicula illa Quoniam.causalis esl.
Sed accedanl teslimonia Palrum,qui passim per
conlrilionein peccata delcri, abliii, piirgari diconl;
ilem contrilione/Deura placari, eique salisQcri aflir-
maiit; deuique conlrilionem merilum ac pretium
appellare non verentur.
Teriullianus lib. 4. in Jliircionem. anle medium:
\idco. inquit, et Acliab rcfjem niariium Jezabei ,
reum idololatriae et sawjuinis Nabulhae,vc7iiam
meruisse Puenitentiae numine.Ei iii libro de Poe-
nitenlia; Po(im7e?i/ia, inquii, Duminus miiigatur.
Origenes bom. M. in cap. 20. Levilici Puvijatio,
inquit, peccati pcr Puenitcntiam cunstat : quam
utrum quis di(jne (jcrat, ita ut mereri pru eavc-
niam jiussit, videtu. Cypnanus iii serm. 5. de la-
psis, exlrcmo, posteaquam dixerat, Poenileiitiam
esse medicinam peccali.et pcr eam Domiuum pla-
cari: ct ad veram coiilrilionem fueral coborlalus ,
ita sermonem clausil: Qui sic Deu satisfcccrit ,
qui Puenitentia facll sui , qui pudore delicti ,
plu's virtuiis et fidei de ipsu lapsus sui duiure
cunceperil.exaudilus et adjutus a Dominu.quam
contrislavcrat, laetam facict Ecclesiam, nccjam
sulum Deiveniam merebilur, sed curonam. Qui-
bus verbis docet, vera conlrilione salisfieri Dco el
veniam impelrari, ut inde justificalus bomo, eliam
ipsam gloriae coronam per marlyrium , vel alia
sancla opera merealur. Athanasius in lib. de vir-
ginitate. ullra medium: Yidc, inquit, qiuile remc
LIBEU SLCLiNDlS
6S;i
dium in lachrymis: fipecta,quaeso, qaaminiqui-
lalem deleveriiil. Qaid enim lelriiis lioc vilio ?
quippe qui ter jurejurando Domiimm abnega-
verit, laiUum lamcnscelus per laclirymas dele-
vit. Basilius \n serin. de Pocnileiilia: Statim, iii-
quit, David ad pliarmacum properavit; ubi con-
Inlionem phannacuni peccali appeUat. Et inira :
Tertio Dominum Petrus negavit; lachrymatus est;
^lexeruiit lachrymae eum,quinostri misertus est.
El in epislola ad Virgineni lapsani, in fine, dicit
per Poenileniiara pnrgari animam : el in libro de
vera virginiUile, ulira inediuin : Poenitentia, cap.
3. loquens de filio prodigo: Tain cito , inquil, i;e-
riiani merelur, ul venieiiti,et adhuc longe posito
occurrat Pater et oscutum tribuat, quod iiisigne
estsacrae pacis. Et iib. 10. ia Lucam.in iliud Luc
22, Respexit Dominus Petrum etc. Lachryinae ,
inquil, veniain nun postutant , sed mereiUur. Et
inlra: Et tu si veniam vis mereri , ditue cutpam
lachrymis mxam. El praefalione in psal. 37. Quis
dubitet ajfliyere animam suam, cum propheta
ianlus aj]lixerit, solvens pretium lachrymarum
pro redemptione peccati? Eplirem in libro de die
judicii, cap. o. Compunctio, inquit , sanitas ani-
mae est, illuminatio mentis est: compunctio re-
missionem delictorwn nobis acquw^iLlIieronymus
in epilaphio Fabiohie , exphcans conlritionem ac
poenitenliam e\[}s:Quae peccata, inqml , fletus iste
non purget? quas inveteratas maculas liaec la-
menta non abtuant? Et inlra: 0 felix Poenilentia
quae ad se Dei trahit ocutos. Et in hb. 2. conlra
Pelagianos: Quipeccata, inqmi, simpliciter confi-
tentur, merentur hainititate ctementiam Salvato-
ris. Joannes chrysostomus in 2. hb. de corapun-
ctione cordis: Sola es^inquil, cordis compimctio,
quae sicul ignis, omne aniinae vitium peruritet
adimit: et quanlacuinque in ea reperit mala ,
absteryitunivcrsa et penitus detel. Augustinus in
episl. o4. ad iMacedonium: Qitosciam,inquit, a so-
cietate removemus altaris, ut poenitendo placare
possint, quem peccando contempserant. Et in
psalm. 50. iyinivitae, inquit , Poenitentiam ege-
runt el certam misericordiam merueruiU ; cui
senlenliae Gregorius subscribit lib. 3. cap. 4. in
primum hbrum liKgum, in haec verba: Mnivitae
dum velutipro dif(icili reconciliatione,gravi Poe-
nitentia se dejiciunt,omnipotenlis Dei misericor'
diain facite meruerunt.
llabemus igilur ex lestimoniis vclerum conlrilio-
nem sive Poenitentiam vere caussam esse juslifi-
cationis, cum peccala deleat, ablual, abslergat, sa-
net, cum Deum placel, illi satisfacial, ejus miseri-
cordiam impetret, ac suo modo mcr<^alur.
Denique adfcrri polesl eliara duplex ratio. Prima
oralio peccaioris poenitentis non csl inanis apud
Deum, sed euin placat et veniam impetrat, ut pa-
lct excmplo publicani, Lucae 18. mnllo igilur ma-
gis conversio ac Poenilenlia , (jiiae orationis est
caussa, non eril inanis, sed aliquid faciet ad rc-
raissionem impetrandara. Secunda , aclus Poeni-
lentiae a Spiritii sancio est , ul adversarii conce-
dunt, cl ad juslificalionemdisponit;ergo suo modo
caussa esl justificationis: nequc enim Spirilus san-
clns per cjusmodi aclum nos disponens,niliil facil,
Blllauuim. Vol- III'
aut nullius prclii sive merili est, quod facit in or-
dine ad justificalionem.
Sed objiciunt adversarii. Si contrilione nostra
justificainur, quoinoilo gralis justificari nos dicit
Apostolus? si conlrilio jusliHcalionein merelur, cur
non potius reddilur, quam donatur.
llespondeo: Quotl ad sirailem objeclionem olim
respondil Augustinus: idco gralis nos justiUcari, li-
celconlrilionisinerito juslificemur,quia ipsacontri-
tio donuin Dei est; ille enim non gratis juslificare-
tur, qui ex opere proprio, idosl. solius liberi ar-
bilrii viribus acquisilo, jusliticarelur. Non dicat,
inquil Augustinus in cpisl. 100. sibi, Si ex fide ,
quomodo gralis? quod enim fides meretur, cur
non potius reddUur. quam donatur ? Non dicat
ista homo fidelis, quia cuiii dixerit. Ul merear
juslijicationem, habeo fidem: respondetur eUQuid
eiiiiii liabes, quod non acccpisli? Cum ergo fides
iiiipelrat justijicationein , non gratiam aliquid
meriti praecedit liumani,sed ipsa gratia mcretur
augcri, ut aucla mereatur et pcrlici. Ilaec ille ,
ubi meritum humanum, vocat opus ex solo libero
arbilrio faclum, sine speciali videlicet gralia Dei
excilante el adjuvante:qua significalione accipien-
do inerituin, passira affirraat coiilra Pelagianos ,
gratiara non secundura raerila noslra dari; ul vi-
dere licel in hac ipsa episl. lOG. et in praecedente
et sequente; el praefatione in psalm. 31. et libro
de gralia el libero arbilrio, cap. 0. 7. et 8. ubi
ante juslificalionem nulla agnoscil raerita,nisi ma-
la. Sed nus(|uara negat, ex operibus cura auxilio
Dei speci.ili faclis, ut ox aclibus fidei , oralionis,
poenitenliae el similibus , non posse nos mereri
aliquo modo ipsam reinissionem peccatorum. et
graliam bcne operandi: quin polius id apertissime
confiletur, episl. 10.>. Kec ipsa, inquit. remissio
peccatorum sine aliquo merito est, si fides hanc
impetrat. Nequc eniin nullum est meritum fidei.
qua jide itle dicebat: Deus propUius csto mihi
peccatori; et descendit justificatus merito fidetis
humiliatus, quoniam qui se humiliat , exaltabi-
lur. Ilestat igitur ut ipsain fidem, unde omnis
justitia sumit initium, non humano, quo isti ex-
tolluiUur, tribuamus arbitrio, nec lUtis praece-
dentibus meritis, quoniam inde incipiunt bona
quaecumque sunt merita: sed gratuitum Dei do-
num esse fatcamur, si gratiam veram, idest ,
sine meritis cogitamus. Et epist. 100. Si quis di-
xerit. quod gratiam bcne operandi fides mcrea-
lur; negare non possumus, immo gravissiine
confitemur.
Neque verum csl, quod qnidam dicuntab \ugu-
slino rclraclalam fuisse istam [)roposilionein; Fi-
des inerelur justificalionein; qiiando rclraclavil il-
\i\nt: Initium lidei est ex nobis: lib. 1. Uelracl.
cap. 23. Nara in cpist. 105. el 100. ubi maxime
conlendit iniliiim lidei non esse ex nobis, disoiiis
verbis doccl, (idera mereri justilicalionem, ut jam
ostendinius: et in illo ipso lib. 1. Uclracl. cap.
23. nbi relractal qiiod olira dixeral; inilmin lidei
«;ssc ex nol)is;anirinat venssimc di(;lum cssc,»iuud
jides inclioat racriliiin. Porro s. Thoinas in 1. 2.
quaesl. 114. ^rt. 5. dicil hanc proposiiionem: Fi-
dcs merctur juslificatioiwm; esac relractalara. si
83
()S4
DK IMiKMUmNIIA
liiJcs jicoipi.iliir pro li.ic solis vinlnis lilieri iirbilrii
:iri|uisil;i: in qno soiisu ncquo s. Augusliiius aoci-
pil rulcm, neipic nos nocipimus. rum tlicimus, li-
ili'in nuTcri ilo coni^ruo juslilionlioncm.
IJospondoo: .Scoumlo ;ul eiiiulcm objoolioncm
julversoriorum, non solum gnilis nos juslilic;iri li-
oel Poonilonlia juslilicalionis graliam mcroalur,
quia Poonilcnlia (ionum Dci csl, ul jam tliximus:
soil cliam quia mcrilum islud. quod Palrcs agno-
scunt anlc remissionem pcccalorum. non esl mc-
ntum e\ ooiuligno. scd ox conpruo.ncquc illi mcr-
ocs ox juslilia, scd c\ benignitalo rcspondcl, ac
broviler non csl morilum simplioiler, scd aliquo
modo: ul sempor loquuli sumus. Morilum cnim ex
oondigno el simplicitcr. non pracoodil jusliHoaii-
diim.scd sequilur juslificalum^ul Auguslinus scri-
bil in psalm. 110. libro de Hdc cl opcribus. cap.
1'i.lil). I. ad Honiracium. conlra duas epislolas
l'elauManorum . oap. 2. libro ^W spirilu el lilc-
ra, oap. 21). el 30. ellib. 1. ad Simplicianum,
quoesl. 2.
Dc boc mcrilo cx oondi?;no, sivc ex juslilia lo-
quons conciiium tridentinum, scss. G. cap. 8. di-
oit. juslificari bominem gralis, quia ncque fidcs,
uoque opera.quac justificalionem praeccdunt, ip-
sam merentur: nicrilum cnim cx juslitia, opponi-
tur graliae, non aulcm mcrilum c.x congruo. quod
iuin'in justilin, scd in libcralitalc lundatur. El boc
modo tle morilo, nimirum ex condit,nio. nosin pri-
mo libro dum mendacia liacrciicorum rcfularemus,
saepc diximus: Conlrilionom non esse merilum,
sed disposilionem juslilicationis. Denique omnia
locaPatrum a uol)is' adducla.ubi conlritio sivc Poe-
nitcnlia dicitur merilum, prclium, satisfaclio pro
peccalo; de mcrilo. prctio ct salisraclione ex con-
iznio aroipicnda sunt. nl etiam loca Scripturae:
Pcrcata lua cleanosynis redimc. Dan. 4. el si-
niilia.
CAPLT XIII.
Contritione perfecta cum voto sacramenti susci-
picndi, remitli peccala ante sacerdolis ahsolu-
tionem.
Octava quacstio esl: Utrum conlritio anle abso-
luliononi sacerdotalem peccata rcmillal: siquidcm
«atliolici doclores communi consensu docere so-
lcbanl, Contritionem si perfecta sit, ol volum sa-
cramenli Baplismi, aul absolulionis adjunctum ha-
beat, oranino reconciliare liominein Deo, el pec-
eata remillere, etiam antequam sacramenlum rei-
psa peroiperiMur.
Caelerum, noslro tempore Marlinus Remnilius
in 2. parle exam. pag. DGO. aperle reprebendit,
eos. qui Contritioni remissionom peocalorum tri-
buunt ante absolulinnem. Fuil eliam doctor qui-
dam ante paucos annos. qui in libro. quem de
«'barilate consoripsit , adversus communcin sen-
leniiam docuil: calecbumenis et poenitentibus ,
quamvis perfecte conversis, el charitate flagranti-
bus, non remilti peccala sive reatum morlisaeter-
iiae, nisi cum vel baptizantur, vel reconcilianlar
ministcrio .sacerdotu«ii. nisi lorlc iii morlis arli-
oulo.
VA (piidcm ouin Komnilio, facile ncj^olio contro-
vcrsia liniri pol(>sl. I\;mi cum ipsc ct oiniies I.u-
llicrani contondant, sola fide homincm juslificari
et absolutioncm ca lantum de caussa requiranl, ut
por cam annunciotur vcrbum Dci. (;x quo fides a
poeniteiUe concipialur: si (piis anlo ;d)soiutionem,
vel ex lcclionc Scriplurae, vcl e\ memori;i Maptis-
mi. vol aliundc fidem concipial, quomodo negare
possunt eum juslificari etiam anlc sacerdolalem
absolutionem ? INonne Lutlicrus ipsc in Jib. de
capliv.nabyl. cap. de Baptismo. scripsit, hominem
juslificari, modo cro,d;it, eli;iinsi IJaptismnm noii
m iiomino Domiiii. cl proindc iion voruin cl lcgiti-
inuin accipial? ol in asscrlione arliculi 12. nonnc
scripsil, undecum(|uc vcrbum audialur,fidcm con-
cipi possc, cl indc hoininem juslificari, eliamsi
non per modum absolulionis, sed pcr jocum, vcl
ad aliud opiniguandum, verbum Dci prVinuiiciclur?
Dcniqiie nisi Kcmuilius probct, quod numquam
faciel, fidem concipi non posse, nisi per ;ibsolulio-
nem; numquam obtinebil, non possc hominesan-
tc juslificari, Dcoquc rcconciliari, quam sacerdo-
lum ministcrio ;ibsoh'anlur. Porro cathohci non
cuicumquc Pocnilcnliac, scd illi soli remissioncm
peccalorum, tribuunl anlc absolutionem,quac pcr-
fecta est; quaeque cx fide, spc cl charitalc pro-
ccdil.
Jain vcro scriplori illi calholico. qui vcram per-
fcctamque Contntionein, cum reatu Icth;dis peccali
usqne ad sacraincnli pcrceplioncm, manerc con-
lcndit, opponimus Primum concilii oecumenici au-
ctorit;itein. IVam conciliuui tridcnlinura, sess. 6.
cap. 4. dcclarat posl evangclium promulgatum ne-
minem justifican sine Baptismo, aul ejus volo:quo
loco admillit conci!ium,posse hominem per veram
Pocnitcntiam cum volo Baplismi, Deo rcconciliari,
antequam Baplismum reipsa percipiat. Et scss.l4.
cap. 4. discrlis verbis docet: Conlrilionem chari-
tate perfeclam, reconciliare hominem Deo, prius-
quam sacramentum Poenilenliae aclu suscipiatur.
Et sess. 13. cap. 7. idem concilium dcclaral ad
pracparationem Eucharistiae, confessionem sacra-
mentalem necessariam esse iis, qui conscientiam
habent pecoati Icthalis- et simul excipii eos, qui
forte missam celebrare lenentur, neque habent sa-
cerdotem. cui peccala sua confiteanlur; iis enim
conlrilionem cum proposito confessionis ad Eu-
charistiam non indignc pcroipiendam sulTicere ju-
dicavil. Ilaque concilium illud credidit, perveram
conlrilioncm, etiam anle sacerdolis absolutionem,
el oxtra morlis nrticulum, pcccata rcmitli; ncque
enim suspic;iri fas est, in ulio casu conoilium ca-
lliolicum perinissurum fuisse, ut cum conscienli;i
rcalus pcccali morlalis, ad sacramenlum Euchari-
sliae ;iccederctur.
Secundo: Opponimus lestimonia Scriplurarum.
et sanclorum Palrum explicationes. Scriptura e-
nim passim docel, eos,qui tolo cordead Dominum
oonvcrluntur, siae mora veniam peccatorum ac-
cipere.
Lib. 2. Reg. cap. 12. cum audisset David a «a-
than prophela peccatum suum, poenitentia duclus
UhEW SIXUNDUS
6o5
ail: Peccavi Domino, el conliniio subjocil NaUian:
Domiims quoqiic transtiiUt pcccatuni luuni ; (ic
qua re loqui videlur idem David,cum ail in psaim.
31. Dm , Confitehor adversum me injustitiani
meam: el tu rcmisisti impietatem peccali mei.
S. Ambrosius in npologia David, cap. 7. Si dixil,
inquil, Pronunciabo; et veniam mcruit antcquam
pronunciarel: quanto ma()is ubi de se pronun-
ciavil diccns: Iniquitatem menni ego cognosco ;
remissum esl ei onine peccatum? ergo rcmissio-
nem meruit iniquitatis. et texit cJiaritale, atque
operuil peccata sua. S. Auguslinus concionc 2.
in psalm. 31. i\'o?i jjrommciat, inquil, scd pro'
mittit se pronunciaturum, et illc jam diniittit.
S. Gregorius in cominentario ejusdem psalm. 31.
Attende, inquil. quanta sit indulgcntiae vitalis
velocitas. quanta misericordiae Dei comnienda-
tio, ut confitentis desidcrium coniilctur venia ,
antequam ad cruciatum pcrveniat Poenitenlia:
ante remissio ad cor perveniat, quam confessio
171 vocem erumpat.
Isaiac 30. secundum versioncm LXX. Inlcrpre-
inm: Si reversus ingemucris , tunc salvus cris;
ex quo loco ila colligil quod volumus, s.Leo epist.
91. ad Theodorum Foiojulii episcopum : Miseri-
cordiae Dei nec mensuras possumns ponere, nec
tempora definire, apud quem nutlas patitur ve-
niae moras vera conversio, dicente Spiritu Dei
per prophetam: Cum convcrsus ingeniueris,tunc
salvus erit. llaee ille.qui ccrlc salis apcrlc doccl,
vcram convcrsionem nullas pali vcniac moras,
proindc conlinuo remilli contntis pcccala, eliam
antequam absolulio saccrdolalis acccdat.
Similia icgiraus apud Ezcchiclem, cap. 18. Si
impius averteril se ab injustitia sua,iniquitatum
ejus non recordabor amplius; el cap. 33. Impic-
tas impii non nocebit ei. in quacumque die con-
versus fueril ab impietate sua.M piofeclo mullum
nocel impiclas, quamdiu rcum facil aclcrnac dam-
nalionis: ncc polcsl Dcus dici o!)lilus iniqiiilalum,
quamdiu pocnas aelernas iniquilati dcbitas non
rclaxal.
lluc eliam pcrlincl parabola filii prodigi, Lucac
15. videmus enim in ea parabola, patrcm occiir-
rissc filio rcverlciUi.cl antcquam illc confcssioncm
suam absolvissct, dedissc osculum pacis. Qunm
parabolam ad pocnitcnlium consolationcm addu-
ceiis; Ambrosius lib. 2. dc Pocnilcntia , cap. 3.
Tam cito, in(|uil, vcniam meretur. ut venienli ,
cl adhuc longe posito occurrat Pater,el osculum
tribuat, quod insignc cst sacrac pacis.
Tertio: Opponimiis ea omnia loca Scriplurac cl
Patrum, quae charitalcm cum peccalo, sivc reatu
mortis aclernac, simul liabilarc non i^ossc tcslan-
tur. Si cnim cliaritas sine rcmissionc pcccalonim
essc nequit, et conlrilio nascilur cx cliarilale,cam-
quc comitcm individuam habcl, nccessario ellici-
lur, ut etiam conlritio sine remissionc pcccatorum
csse iic(jucat.
Proverb. 8. Erjo diiigcntes me diligo. Proverb.
10. cl 1. Pclr. i.Universa dcUcta operit charilas,
. 1. .loan. 3. Aos scinms quia translali sumns de
morlc ad vitam, quoniam diUginius fralres: qui
non diUgit , manclin 7nortc. Lucae 7. Hcmit-
tuntur ei peccata multa , quoniam dilexit niul-
luni.
S. .loannes clirysostoinns homil. 7. in posterio-
rcm ad Timolhoum: Sicut, inqiiil, ignis ubi syl-
vani occupaverit, omnia purgare consucvit; ita
et cliaritaiis fei^vor quocunique incideril, omnia
pcrimit, alque pcrrumpit: uhi charitas est,omnia
sublala sunt nuda. S. (jregorius hnmil. 33. in e-
vangelia: Quid, inqiiil, csse dileclionem credimus
nisi igncm? e/ quid culpani, 'tiisi igneni? el quid
culpam, nisi rubigincnv? undc nunc dicilur: Di-
mitlunlur ei pcccala muUa, quoniam dilexit
multum: ac si aperte diceretur: Incendit plenc
pcccati rubigincni, quia ardet valide per igncni
amoris. S. Augustinus lib. 15. dc Trinil. cap. 18.
de charitale loquens: ISuUumcsl, inqiiit,isfo do?iy
Dei cxcellenlius: soUini est, quod dividit inlcr fi-
iios regni aetcrni,ct fiiios damnationis acternae.
Ilaec illc, qui reatum mortis aelcrnae cum chari-
tale essc non posse, apcrlissimc confitetur. Quo-
modo enim charilas dividerct inlcr filios rcgni ac-
terni et filios damnationis aelernae, si possenl qui
charilalc flagrant essc rci damnationis aelcrnae? l-
dem Augustinus tract. 5.in episl.Joannis: Dilectio,
inquit, sola disccrnit inter filios Dei ct fiUos dia-
boU. Et infra: Si solam }iabes,su]Jicit tibi: al quo-
modo sola sulTicil.si honiincm non libcral a rcalu
morlis aeternae? Et infra: Si quis in cordesuo in-
vcncril charitatem, is securus sit.quia Iransiit a
morlc advitam, jam in dexlcra est. Al num in
dextera esse dici polest,qui adhuc reus cst gclien-
nae, cl filius irac ac perdilionis? Vide similia loca.
lib. dc unitatc Ecclesiac, c. 1!>. ct hom. 50. de
vcrbis Domini.
Qiiarlo: Opponimns rationem ex clTcclis el pro-
prielatc charitatis duclam. Charilas ct conseijuen-
tcr conlritio, eflicil filios Dci, ut s. Angustinns
demonslral libro dc gratia Christi, cap. 21. cx illis
v(;rbis Scripturac: Videtc qualem charilatem de-
dit nobis Patcr,iU fiiii Dri nominemur ct simus.
1. Joan. 3. At qui filii Dei sunt, hoc ipso haercdcs
rcgni sunl, juxta illnd Aposloli Gal. 4. Ilaqucjani
non esl scrvus, scd fdius: quod si fdius cl hacrcs
pcr Dcum; non igitur poliist qiii charilatcm hahcl
reus csse morlis actcrnac, quac cxhaercdalionem
a rcgno coclorum includil.
Rcrsus: Qui cliaritalcm habct , implcl legcm el
rcctc vivit, ut idcm Augnstinus ostcndil in libro dc
fidc ct opcrihus. cap. ii. ex illis Aposloli vcrbis
Homan. 13. Plenitudv lcgis csl dilcclio. At ncmo
rccte viverc, noquc logcm implerc potcst, nisi rc-
gcncralus ct justificalns el lilius Doi cnoclus. Li-
bro primo conlra duas epistolas Pclagianorum.cap.
2. inquil Auguslinus: Cuni non vivant bcnc homi-
tics nisi effcctifiUi Dci. quid csl. quod isle Ubcro
(irbiirio tribuit bcnevivcndi potcslatcm? Et prae-
falionc in ex|)ositionom psalm. 31. M/iii, inquil,
boiu feciHti cl datur libi rcnussio pcccnlorum ;
ct concionc secuiida in ounilem psalimim , oxpli-
cans iltud: Pro hac orabil ad lc onmis sanctus ,
scribit ncminem cssc sancliim, nisi post rcmissio-
ncm peccatorum. Et in psalm. 100. JusUtiam, in-
(piil, non opcralur, nisi juslifi(uitus , (!t libro de
spirilucl lilcra, cap. 20. Faclorcs lcgisiuslifica-
fMG
ni. roiLMit.MiA
tio pniecfdH. St'(|uilur i^ilur, ul (jui cli;iiilatem
habonl, libori siul u i>ectiilo.(|uainJu(|uiilein sancli
suiil, el lojTeni iniplenl , (luod nemu polosl nisi ii
|)eccaU> jusliticaliis.
IMaelcrea cliaritns faeil amicos Dei, vel polius
ipsa esl ainieilia liominis cum I)eo. Proverb. 8.
/>j//f/('/i/es rnc (////f;o. .loannis IT). )'o.s omici mvi
latis, si fo.ccritis ijuac C(/o pr(ivci])io vobis : qui(i
auteiu ipse praecipial, explical in eodem loco, di-
cens; Uoc csl praccoptum mcum, ul diligalis m-
viccm. S. Ambrosins in e|iisl. 7. nd Simplicinn.
Libcrtas, in^iuit, libcru)n facii homini.bus, chari-
tas ainicum Dco. Al qui nmicus Dci esl. quomodo
polesl reus essc apud Deuin morlis acloniae ? po-
Ipsine nli^juis nniicum putare.n quo scialsibi seiii-
piternum e\itiuin praeparatnm?
Quinto: Oppoiiimns Ecclesiae lotius consensum.
Nam in Ecclesia saepe concpdiintiM' a l*oiililicibus
induli^entiae habenlibus coiilrilioiiem peccnloriim
suorum cum proposilo confessionis sncrnmenlalis
suo lempore facicndae: el enedem iiiduli,'enliac a
fidelibus tolo orbe christianolibenlercl cumc[ratin-
lum aclioiiesuscipiuntur. Atcertumcsl, indulgen-
lias hoc rcquirere.ul qui eas sumil.jnm sil in slalu
graliae el liber a rcalii mortis neternac, et soliim
pro temporalibus poeiiis sntisfncere tencalur: In-
ilulc^entiae enim a tempornlibus poenis homines
libcranl. si Inmcn prius ab aelernarum reatu libe-
rali fuerint: Qunre (iniversn Ecclesia crcdit, per
conlrilioncm cuin voto confessionis, n realu pcc-
• ali morlalis iiominem liberari. alque in graliam
cum Deo redire.
Poslremo: Opponimus id, quod eliam adversa-
rius admittil: in arliculo morlis, si non adsit, qui
reconciliel poenilenliain , vel baptizet catcchume-
nun, i)osse eos per vernm conlrilionem cum dcsi-
derio sacrainenii percipiendi, non solum justifica-
ri, sed eliam continuo ad aeternam gloriam perve-
nire. Id enim docet Ambrosius in oratione de obi-
lu Valentininni junioris. Auguslinus lib. o. de Ba-
ptismo conlra Donalistns, cap. 22. Bernardus in
epist, 77. ad Hugonem el Innocenlius III. cap. Ad
aposlolicam, de presbylero non bnptiznto.Al certe
non est articulus morlis, qui homines illos jusliQ-
cal, sed vera conversio el cordis conlrilio cum de-
siderio sacramenti suscipiendi. Artieuhis enim
mortis solum excusat a praevaricatione praecepli,
ac facil ut non sit reus sacramenli non percepli ,
qui non ideo sacramentum non habuit quin noluit,
sed quia non potuil.Ergo ubicumque eadem caus-
sa reperietur, idest. vera contritio cum proposito
sacramenli suscipiendi, idem eliam continuo se-
quetnr eirectus.