Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book IV: On Satisfaction
Chapter 4: That Laborious Works May Be Undertaken of One's Own Accord; and That They Are Rightly Enjoined by Priests
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book IV, the fourth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The third question was whether the laborious works by which the guilt of temporal punishment is to be expiated are both to be undertaken of one’s own accord and also to be enjoined by priests. The Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 9, teaches that satisfaction is made to the Lord in three ways: by bearing patiently the punishments and scourges sent by God; by undertaking laborious works of one’s own accord; and by undergoing the penalty enjoined at the judgement of priests. Of which ways the adversaries admit only the first without controversy; the second and third Philip, in the Common Places, under the title on Satisfaction, near the end, seems altogether to reject, when he speaks thus: “Rightly, they say, does the Church impose some mortifications on those doing penance. Here again the pious are to be admonished to distinguish hypocritical or undue works from due mortification. Mortification not feigned is either true grief in contrition, or patience sustaining true afflictions; as David, rebuked by Nathan, when he truly dreaded at the knowledge of the wrath of God and was in true grief; the same then, when he bore the calamities which followed, sustained mortification.” And below: “Lacerations of the body summoned without the command of God are not mortifications, as the sacrificers of Baal made themselves wounds. Such torments summoned of one’s own accord pertain to the rule, In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men; likewise they fight with these precepts, Thou shalt not kill; likewise, Have honour for the body.” Martin Chemnitz also, in his Examination, part 2, page 1079, rejects those two ways clearly enough, where, treating the place of the Apostle, “If we would judge ourselves,” and so on, 1 Corinthians 11: “He does not use,” he says, “the word krinein, as the papists interpret it, of punishments chosen, which are either voluntarily undertaken or enjoined by the confessor as satisfactions or compensations for sins.” And below, page 1092, he denies that the enjoining of Satisfaction pertains to the keys; and on page 1093 he writes thus: “What was said, that the best and most fitting penance is a new life, has this sense: after the remission of sins received by faith on account of Christ, Satisfaction or expiation for sins is not required besides, since we are consummated in Christ; but that is required which Scripture prescribes: Cease from evil and do good.” Martin Luther, in the assertion of article 5, admits indeed that the Church does rightly when, as a pious mother punishing her sons with certain chastisements, she forestalls the hand of God; yet he does not admit that this pertains to the keys, since (as he himself notes) sins are bound and loosed, but confession or Satisfaction cannot rightly be said to be bound or loosed. But it will be easy for us to demonstrate from the divine letters and the testimonies of the Fathers both ways of making satisfaction, both by punishments undertaken of one’s own accord and by those enjoined by priests.
And first, of punishments undertaken of one’s own accord there are so many examples and testimonies in the Scriptures that it is a wonder it could come into anyone’s mind to deny it. Who compelled Saint Job to do penance in dust and ashes for that fault which he had committed in word? For so he himself says in the last chapter: “I have spoken unwisely, therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes.” Who compelled David to fast and lie on the ground, 2 Kings 12, and to make sackcloth his garment, Psalm 68, and to eat bread as ashes and mingle his drink with weeping, Psalm 101? Did not Saint David do all these things, and many others of that kind, of his own accord, that he might take punishment of himself for sins committed against God? Did not Achab also of his own accord put on sackcloth next his flesh to appease God, and fast and sleep in sackcloth, as we read in 3 Kings 21, and the Lord said of him to Elias: “Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before me? Therefore because he hath humbled himself for my sake, I will not bring the evil in his days.” What of the king of the Ninevites; did he not of his own accord rise from his throne, and, casting away his robe, put on sackcloth, and sit in ashes, and proclaim a fast to his whole people? If those punishments undertaken of one’s own accord were hypocritical, and fought with the divine precepts, as Philip with the new Epicureans says, how would they have appeased God and averted the ruin already impending, as is written in Jonah 3? Further, the books of the ancient Fathers, and especially Tertullian in the book On Penance, Saint Cyprian in the sermon On the Lapsed, Pacian in the exhortation to Penance, Saint Ambrose in the book to a Fallen Virgin, are most full of exhortations to undertake diligently the laborious works of penance. And among others Pacian, in the exhortation to Penance, after Tertullian says thus: “In so far as you shall not spare your own punishment, in so far will God spare you.” And Saint Gregory, in the place cited above, book 9 of the Morals, chapter 27: “The Lord,” he says, “by no means spares the offender; for either the man himself, repenting, punishes this in himself, or God, avenging it with the man, strikes it.” With which agrees what Saint Augustine writes, in Bede, in the commentary on chapter 11 of the first to the Corinthians, on that, “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged”: “For those sins which the law of the decalogue contains, and of which the Apostle says, They who do such things shall not possess the kingdom of God, in penance each ought to exercise a greater severity on himself, that, judged by himself, he be not judged by the Lord, as the same Apostle says: For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged by the Lord.” From which we understand that it makes little for the matter what Chemnitz noted, that the Apostle did not use the word krinein but diakrinein when he says, “If we would judge ourselves”; since the Apostle by the word diakrinein understood indeed to examine and discern, as the word itself properly signifies, but without doubt willed that those who examine themselves, if they find evil deeds in themselves, should correct and punish them, lest they be more gravely punished by the Lord, as Saint Augustine rightly expounded. Whom Anselm follows on the same place; and the commentary which is attributed to Ambrose does not differ from these, which by diakrinein understands not only to discern errors but also to correct them; with whom Chrysostom most openly agrees, homily 42 on Matthew: “Hear,” says Chrysostom, “Paul saying: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. And in what manner, you will say, shall I exact from myself the account of my living, and the punishment? Pour out copious rivers of tears, afflict yourself with labours and vigils,” and so on.
Nor do those arguments of Philip conclude anything, that punishments undertaken of one’s own accord pertain to the rule, “In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men,” and that they fight with the precepts, “Thou shalt not kill,” and, “Have honour for the body”; otherwise we should be compelled to reprehend Saint Job, the prophet David and other most holy men, whom it is agreed to have undertaken many punishments of their own accord, that they might punish sins in themselves. That, then, “In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men,” has no place in the matter proposed; both because the Lord in that place does not speak of what we do of our own accord, but of what we do at the command of men; and because obedience towards men does not displease God except when men command things contrary to God; and lastly because it is the command not of men but of God that he who has sinned should do penance; and the Scriptures everywhere describe penance by weeping, wailing, fasting, sackcloth, and so on. So when some are said to undertake punishments of their own accord, that “of their own accord” does not exclude the command of God about doing penance and undertaking laborious works, but excludes both the peculiar command of a priest and also a certain kind or measure of laborious works which Scripture or the Church has prescribed in particular. But that, “Thou shalt not kill,” to what purpose is it adduced? For none of us approves punishments of that kind which bring death or the danger of death. Further, fasts, prayers, sackcloth and the other asperities of the body are so far from killing that those ancient hermits who were exercised in works of that kind beyond other men are read to have lived very long; nor can it be denied that more have been killed by surfeit than by fasting, by delights than by labours. Lastly, that, “Have honour for the body,” which from chapter 2 to the Colossians the Lutherans, more zealous for the body than for the soul, are accustomed everywhere to bring, is most conveniently explained in two ways. For if we wish to follow the commentary of Saint John Chrysostom, the sentence of the Apostle will be that due honour be given to the body. But the due honour of the body exacts that necessary things be provided for it, which we by no means deny is to be done; but it does not exact that it be not afflicted for the salvation of the soul; otherwise Paul himself would have acted against his own precept when he chastised his body and brought it into subjection, 1 Corinthians 9. But if we hear Saint Augustine, letter 59 to Paulinus, so far will this place be from being against us that it even makes most for us. For in Augustine’s opinion blessed Paul reprehends certain men who afflicted the body from superstition, and not that they might chastise it for the salvation of the soul; where bodily affliction undertaken of one’s own accord is praised, but the bad end reprehended: “The things which these men do,” says the Apostle, “seem indeed to have a show of wisdom in superstition and humility, not for sparing the body, not in any honour to the filling of the flesh”; that is, the abstinence of these men seems indeed to have certain reasons of wisdom, because they seem to do this to humble the heart and chastise the body, not to honour and fill it; yet because they do it from superstition, not from true piety, it profits them nothing.
Chapter V. That the works by which the guilt of past sin is expiated are rightly enjoined by priests
We have demonstrated hitherto that laborious works can be undertaken of one’s own accord; it follows that we briefly show that they can and ought also to be enjoined by priests. First, then, those words of the Lord, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” Matthew 16, and, “Whatsoever you shall bind,” Matthew 18, teach this clearly enough. For rightly the Council of Trent, session 14, canon 15, teaches that the keys were given to priests not only for loosing but also for binding; and therefore, as they absolve penitents from guilt, so also they can and ought to bind the same to certain works of penance; and as they remit sins as to guilt and eternal punishment when they absolve, so also they retain sins as to temporal punishment when they impose a penalty on the penitent. But ridiculous is the objection of Luther, that sins are said to be bound and loosed, not confession or satisfaction. For neither do we say that confession or satisfaction is bound or loosed; nor properly are sins loosed or bound; but it is men who are absolved from the bonds of sins, or bound with the bonds of punishments. Further, that it is contained in the power of the keys that priests should prescribe certain laborious works to penitents, and thereby that this pertains to divine law, not to human traditions, Saint Leo witnesses in letter 91 to Theodore in these words: “The Mediator of God and men delivered this power to those set over the Church, that they should both give the doing of penance to those confessing, and admit the same, purged by a saving satisfaction, to the communion of the sacraments through the door of reconciliation.” Saint Cyprian also, in the sermon On the Lapsed, while he contends that sins ought not to be remitted to the lapsed at the prayers of the martyrs unless they have first fulfilled the penalties imposed, has recourse to the Gospel: “Against the vigour of the Gospel,” he says, “against the law of the Lord and God, by the rashness of certain men communion is relaxed to the incautious; a void and false peace, dangerous to those who give it, and of no profit to those who receive it. They do not seek the patience of health, nor the true medicine from Satisfaction.” And below: “They cannot act against the Gospel who are made martyrs from the Gospel.” And Saint Gregory, book 3 on 1 Kings, explaining chapter 7: “The affliction of Penance,” he says, “is fit for blotting out sins when it has been commanded by the judgement of the priest, when by him, the acts of those confessing having been examined, the burden of affliction is decreed to them according to the measure of the crime.” Besides these, the books of the councils are full of canons (which not even the adversaries deny) by which a fixed time for making satisfaction is prescribed to penitents. And although laborious works were of old imposed on penitents and fulfilled before absolution, yet that this was not absolutely necessary, but that they could also be fulfilled after absolution, as at this time is accustomed to be done, and thereby that those satisfactions were accustomed to be referred not so much to the expiating of guilt as of temporal punishment, is clear from those councils which order communion to be given to penitents at the point of death, even if no Satisfaction, or not a full one, has preceded, but that they be admonished nonetheless, if perhaps they survive, to fulfil entirely the penance enjoined on them. See the Council of Nicaea, canon 12, otherwise 13; the fourth of Carthage, canon 7; that of Mainz under Rabanus, canon 26; likewise chapter 83 of the Greek synods collected by Martin of Braga; and from the Penitential of Theodore in Gratian, cause 26, question 7, canon “Ab infirmis.”
Nor indeed are there wanting excellent reasons on account of which it was plainly fitting that in the sacrament of Penance God should will a fixed penalty to be imposed on sinners through his ministers. For first, the difference between those who sin before Baptism and those who sin after Baptism demanded it. For those who sin before Baptism are worthy of greater mercy than those who sin after Baptism, since the former were in the darkness of ignorance, the latter in the light of faith and the knowledge of God; the former had not yet renounced the devil and his pomps and works, the latter had renounced them; the former lived without the help of sanctifying grace and without the indwelling Holy Spirit, the latter, made sons of God, had the pledge of the Spirit in their hearts; the former lastly had never before come to indulgence, the latter after indulgence and so many benefits, ungrateful, had again provoked so great a benefactor to anger. So it was altogether fitting that God should command his ministers not to admit those sinning after Baptism to the divine indulgence through the door of reconciliation without a penalty enjoined. Which reason Michael Psellus, in that disputation which he published, whether full remission is given at the end to one taking the monastic habit, has excellently comprehended in these words, from the opinion of Gregory Nazianzen: “How many tears shall we bring, that they may be made equal to the font of Baptism? For though the tears be a Tagus, that by them our iniquities may be overwhelmed, they will not be found superior to them.” And below: “The divine laver indeed, as was said above, even without tears bestows the remission of sins. Wherefore, that such power is present to the laver, and that the sins which are before Baptism can easily be forgiven, as being committed through ignorance, has been shown; but those which are after Baptism need many tears, and are not easily forgiven, since we sin prudently and knowingly.” The second reason can be sought from the mercy and justice of God, which in the divine letters are everywhere proclaimed joined; since it is most agreeable to reason that God should so forgive sins from mercy as to will also that satisfaction be made to justice, so far as it can be done. Nor is the argument solved if anyone should say that Christ has abundantly made satisfaction to God the Father for us. For although for recovering the friendship of God and escaping everlasting punishment it was fitting that the satisfaction of Christ be applied to us, since we were altogether unequal to so great a burden; yet for expiating temporal punishment, made fit through the grace of Christ, it was fitting that we ourselves, who had offended God, should make satisfaction to the same by our own labour. The third reason is drawn from the difference of the sacrament of Baptism and of Penance. For Baptism, since it is the laver of regeneration, does not require that he who is regenerated labour much in that matter; but Penance, because it is the medicine of a wounded and sick soul, plainly exacts that he who is cured sustain medicinal burnings, incisions, bitter drugs and many other things of that kind. The fourth reason is taken from the advantage of the penitent himself; for it is most useful to the sinner that he do not remain wholly unpunished, lest from the easiness of pardon he be incited to sin again. And this is the reason of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, oration 19, which he delivered at the funeral of his father Gregory: “God,” he says, “is the Lord of vengeances, who, although through clemency he is accustomed to incline from severity to remission, yet does not spare in all things those who sin, lest they be made worse by his goodness.” So he. Nor does the fear of a satisfaction to be paid with labour only restrain from sinning, but it also admonishes how great is the gravity of sin, and in that way instructs and enlightens the soul, and from that light a certain huge hatred against sin is born, so that now not from fear of punishment but from love of justice and hatred of sin one perseveres in good actions. Nor is that advantage of satisfaction small, that it conduces much to the rooting out of the habits of vices and the implanting of virtues, and that it makes us taste the cross of Christ, and suffer with Christ himself, that afterwards (according to the Apostle) we may reign with him; which reasons the Council of Trent briefly touched, session 14, chapter 8. The fifth reason is sought from the advantage which redounds to others. For often on account of the sin of one, not punished as it should have been, the wrath of God is kindled against the whole people; of which thing Joshua is witness, who in chapter 7 writes that the people of Israel turned their backs before their enemies so long as the sin of Achan was not detected and punished. Nor is that advantage small, that by the punishment of one, especially if it is public, many are often corrected. Lastly, this also is added, that, as Saint Cyprian says at the end of the sermon On the Lapsed, he who labours to make satisfaction to God for his sins, as is fitting, not only obtains pardon with God, but also makes glad the Church which he had lately saddened.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
Opcra laboriosa, qtiibus reatus poenac tempora-
lis expiatur sponte suscipi posse.
Tertia quaeslio crat, Ulruin opera laboriosa,qui-
bus poeniie lemporalis realus e.xpiandus csl. lum
sponle assumenda sint, luin eli;iiu ;i saccrdolibus
injiingenda.
Codcilium trident. sess. 14. cap. 9. docct,lribus
moclis Doinino siilislicri: poeuas cl nagclla a Dco
immissa palienler ferendo; opera laboriosa spoiile
assumendo: ol miilctiiin siicerdolum arbilrio injun-
clam siibciiiido. Ex (piibus modis solum priiuum
sinc conlrovcrsiii iidvcrsiirii ;idiiiitlunl: uiodiim se-
cundiim el lcrlium. Philippus in locis, lil. de Sa-
lisfaclionc. prope lincm. vidctiir omiiino rcjiccre,
cuin sic loquiliir: Hcctc. iii(|uiun[, Kcclcsia iiiipo-
nil aliquas movlilicationcs agcntibus pocnilcn-
tiam: llic itcruin admonciidi sunl pii, ut disccr-
nant lijjpdcrisimscuopcraindcbila a morlifica-
tionc (icl)ita. tUarlHicalio non simidata , est aut
verus dolor in conlritioncaul palicnlia suslinens
veras alJlictioncs: ut David objurgatus a ISatUan,
718
oc imu:mti:.mi\
rum verc expavi^scl nrjnitionc irnc Dci cl cshcI
in xcro dolorc: idcni dcindc cuni cnhiniilatcfi ,
(luac seqiintac aunt. pcrforrct. austinuit niorlili-
calioneni. Klinrra: .\o/i sunt nntrtificalioncs sine
vuindato Dci acccrsitac corpori^ laccralioncs.
^icut sacrificuU Uaal sihi vulncra facichanl. Ta-
les uttro acccrsiti cruciatua . ■jnn-tincnl ad rcfju-
laui. frustra colunt nic nunulatis honiinuni: ilcin
jtuinnnt cuin /iis pracccplis. .Yo/i occic/o': itcni ,
Hahcto hunorcin corpori.
.Miirlinus eliani KtMnnilins in oxiimin. suo parl.
2. pa-:. lOTD.salis apcrlo rojicil iliuis illos modos,
nbi Iraclans lucnm Apostoli: Si iios ipsoa judica-
rcnius ctc. 1. Corinlli. II. i\'on uli lur. \nquii. ver-
ho x?iv;tv. sicut Pontificii intcrjyrclantur dc clc-
ctiliis pocnii>. quac taini}uani satiafaclinnci^, aut
ronipcnsalioncs pro pcccalis , vcl colunlaric su-
scipiunlur, vcl a confcssario injiuKjunlur. Kl in-
fra paj,'. 1092. uc'^[\i piMMinorc ad cl.ivos. injiin-
(iionom Saiisfaclionis: ol pag. lODIi. iln scribil :
Quod dicluni cst, Opliinain cl aplissiniain poeni-
tcntia messe.novamvHani:lianc habcl senlentiani:
post acccptani fidc propter Chrislum rcniissioncni
peccatorum. non rcquiri praclcrca cdiam Saiis-
factioncm, aut expiationem pro peccalis, cnm
simus in Christo consummali. scd requiri illud
fjuod Scriplura pracscrihit: Desine a malo cl fac
bonum.
Uurliniis Lnlberus in nsscrl. art. o. admillitqui-
dem. recle faccre Ecclesiam. dum. ul pia maler
quibusdam caslifiationibus filios suos piiniens ,
praevenit manum Dci:non lamen admiltil boc, per-
linere ad clavcs, cum (ut ipse notat) licfcntur ct
solvanlur peccah. non aulom confessio vel Satis-
faclio bgari aul solvi roclc dici possil.
Sed facile nobis eril. nlrumque modum solisfa-
fiendi. et per poenas sponle assnmplas. el pcr in-
junctas a sacordolibus, cx diviiiis lileris,el Patrum
tesiimoniis demonslrare.
Ac Primum de poeiiis sponle assumplis tol sunt
in Scripliiris exempla ac lestimonia.ul inirum sit,
poluisse in menlom abcujus cadere, ul id negaret.
Quis s. Job. coegil poenilenliam agere in favilla
et cinere. ejus delicli, quod verbo commiscral?
sic onim ipse ail cap.ull. //isjpiejner loquulus sum,
idcirro ipsc me rcprchendo. et ago pocnilentiam
in favilla el cinere. Oiiis Davidem coegil jojuna-
ve et buini j;icoro'? 2. Hogum 12. el ponere vosli-
nienlum suum cilicium? Psal. G8. et panom sicul
cinerem manducare et polum cum flotu miscere?
Psalm. 101. nonne bf.ec omnia, el alia id geniis
mulla. s. David sponle sua faciebat,ut de so poe-
nas sumerel. ob peccala in Doum admissa? INonne
cliam Achab sponle sua cilicium ad carnem induil,
ut Doum placaret. jejiinavilque ol dorinivitin sac-
co, ul legimus ^. liegiiin 21. ol Dominus de eo ad
Kliam dixil: Nonne vidisli ItumHiatum Ackab co-
rnm mc? quia inilur hujnilialus est mei ca,ussa,
non inducam malum in dicbus e/us. Quid rox Ni-
nivil.-irum. nonne sponle sua surrexil de solio. et
abjeclo vesiimento suo. indulus esl sacco, et sedit
in cinore. el jejunium loli populo suo indi.xil? Si
p(jen;ie islae sponte assnmplae, bypocrilao ossoni.
el cuni praeccplis divinis pugnarent, ul Pbilippus
cum novis Kpicurcis diril; qna rationo Deum pla-
cassonl. ot riiinam jam impcndcnlom avorlissont,
iit scribilur Junao ."{.
Porro libri vclcrum Patrum. ac piacsertim Tcr-
tiiiliaiii in lib. di^ Pooiiiiont. s. (lypriani in sormo-
nc do lapsis.Paciani in iiaraonosi ;id Pdoiiilontiam,
s. Ambrosii in lib. ad Virginom corrupUiin: plonis-
simi siinl cxbortalionibus. ad opora poenitenliao
biboriosa spdulo siisci|Meii(l;i.
Ac inlcr alia Paci;iiius in par;ienosi ;i(l poonilcn-
tiam, post Tertnlliannm sic ait: In quanlum poe-
nac veslrae non pcpcrceriiis , in lanlnm volns
Dcus parcet. Kl s. Grogorius loco supr;i cil. Iib.1).
Moral. cap. 27. Dclinqibcnti, iiKiuil, Domimis nc-
quaquam parcil: aut enim ipse homo in se /loc
pocnitcns pii:nil. aul hoc Dcus cum hfiminc vin-
dicans pcrcu.tit. Cui consonal quod scribil s. Au-
giistinus apud Bcdam in comm. cap. M.prioris nd
Corinlli. in illud: Sinosipsos judicarcmus, non
uliquejudicaremur. Pro illis j)cccatis, quac le-
fjis decalofius continct, el de quib^is Apostolns
ail: Qiwniam qui talia afjunt. rcfjiiuni Dei non
possidcMunl: in poenitentia majorem in se quis-
qiie severitalem debel exercere, ut a se ipso ju-
dicatus, non judicctxir a Domino, nt idem Apo-
slolus ait; Si cnim nos juclicarcmus, a Domino
non, judicfircmur .
Kx quo inlelligimus, parum ad rcm facere, quod
nolavil Kemnilius. Apostolum non usiim esse ver-
bo xpivciv . sed Sia/.oivciv , cum ail: Si nos jufli-
Cfiremus: siquidtMn Apostolus per vocem 6'.axj>ivc'.v,
inlellexit quidem disculere ac discernere, ul vox
ipsa propric signiticat, sed baud dubie voluit, ut
qu; so discnliuol, si malefacla in se inveniunl, c;\
corrig;int et puniaiil,ne a Domino gr;ivius puniaii-
lur, iil s. Aiigustinus recte exposuil. Quem soqui-
lur Anselmus in eundom locum; ol ab liis non di-
screpiil coinmonlarius, qui Iribuilur Ambrosio,qui
per &'.a/.p'!vciv inlolligit orrala non solum discor-
nere, sed eliam corrigerc: cuin quibus apcrlissimc
sonlil Cbrysosloinus bom. 42. in 3I;illb. Audi, in-
quil Chrysoslomus, Paulum, dicentem: Si nos ip-
sos judicaremus , non utique judicarfmur. El
quonam modo, infjuics, a mcApso rationes viven-
di, et supplicium exigam? Largos laclirymarum
cflunde lluvios, laboribus ac vigiliis te ipsum af-
flige etc.
Neque argnmenla illa Pbilippi, quod pertineant
poenae sponle assiimplae ad regulam: Fruslraco-
lunl me mandalis liominum.rA quod pugnenlcum
praeceplis: Non occides, et, Habeto honorem cor-
pori. Concludiint aliquid: alioqui rcprebenderc
cogoremur s. Job, Davidem propbetam et alios
sanclissimos homines, quos constat poenas mullas
sponic suscepisse, ul peccala in se punirenl.
Illud igi[ur:Fn/,s/?'a colunl me mandalis homi-
num, non babcl locum in re proposita: lum (piia
Dominus eo loco non loquilur dc eo, quod sponle
agimus, sed de eo, quod facimus ex bominum im-
pcrio: luin quia non displicet Deo obedienlia erga
liomincs, nisi qiiando conlraria Deo praocipiunl
lioinin(!s: tum dcniquc (piia non hominum sciJ Dci
mamhiliim esl, ut ipii pocc;ivit poenilentiam agal;
cl pocnilcntiam Scripturae p;issim dcscribiinl pcr
Um\ QIJARTIS
7iy
llclum, plnncluin, jcjunium, saccum elc. llnquo
cuin (Jicuulur aliqui pocnas sponlc su;i iissumcrc;
illud, sponiesua non cxcludil raiHKliilum Dci de
pocnilenlia agenda. el opcribus hiboriosis assu-
mendis; sed cxcludil lum pcculiiirc snccrdolis im-
perium; tum cliiuu ccrlum t^enus iml uKmsuriim
operum liiboriosorum.quam Scriplura aul Ecclcsia
in parliculari pracscripserit.
Illud aulcuK.Vou occ<(:/cs,quorsnm adducilur?ne-
que cnim ullus noslrum |)robiil cjusmodi pocuiis,
quae morlcm, aul morlis periculum adlcrat. Porro
jejunia, preces, saoci et caclcrac corporis iispcrila-
les,adcononoccidunt. nleremilacilli veleres,qui in
cjusmodi opcribus praelcr caeleros liomines cxcr-
cebanlur, diulissime vixisse leganlur: ncquc illud
negari potesl, quin plures crapula,quam jejunium:
deliciae, quam laborcs occidcrint.
Denique iliud. /ia6efo honorem corpori, quod ex
cap. 2. ad Coloss. Lulhcrani, corporis, quam ;ini-
mac sludiosiorcs, passim adfcrre solcnt, duobus
raodis commodissinic exj)Iicatur. Nam si coinmcn-
tarium sancli Joannis chrysoslomi sequi vclimus,
senlenlia Apostoli cril ul debilushonor corpori tri-
bualur. Exigil aulcm debilus honor corporis, ul ei
neccssaria provideiuitur, quod liicicndum cssc nos
niinime ncgiimus; non autem exigit, ul ob animae
salutem non allligatur. alioqui Paulus ipsc conlra
suum pracccplum cgisscl, quando castigabal cor-
pus suura, etin servitulem redigebat, 1. Cor. 9.Si
vero sanctum Augustinum audiamus in epist. 59.
ad Paulmum, taulum aberil,ul hic locus sit contra
nos.ul eliiim maxime facial pro nobis. Nam ex Au-
gusliui sentcntia, b. Paulus reprchcndil quosdam,
qui ex superstilione corpus affligebanl, non aulcm
ut illud ob animae salutcm casligarenl: ubi cor()0-
ralis aflliclio spontc assumpta laudatur, sed liiiis
inalus reprehendilur: Videnlur quidcm, inquit A-
postolus, quae isli fatiunl ralionem liabeniia sa-
•pimliae in superslilione el humililate, non ad
parcendum corpori.non in honore aliquo ad sa-
iurHatem carnis, hoc cst, Vidctur quidcm absli-
Dcnlia istorum habere quasdara riitioncs sapicn-
liae.quia hoc facerc videnlur ad humiliandum cor,
el castigandum corpus, non honorandum el satu-
randum: tamen quia ex supcrstilione id faciunt,
non ex vera pietale, nihil eis prodesl.
CAPUT V.
Opora quibus rcatus peccati praetcriti expielur,
recle a saccrdolibiis injungi.
Demonslravimus harlcnus opcra liiboriosii spon-
lc assuini possc: sc(|uilur. ul ea possc quoque ac
debcre a sacerdotibus injungi , brcviler oslcnda-
mus.
Primum igitur vcrba illa Domini. Quodcnmque
liqaveris. Matth. 10. et, Quaccu,mque aHi(javeri-
tis, Matlh. 18. salis apcrte hoc (! icent. Kcclc eniin
concilium Iridcnlinum scss. 14. can. 1.'». doccU:
Ciavcs saccrdolibus dalas non lantuin ad solvcn-
(lum, scd eliam ad ligandum:el ideo siculi a cuipa
poenilentcs absolvunt, ita ctiiim posse ac deberc
cosdem ad ccrla pocnileiUiac opcra aliigarc: et
qucmadmodum peccata rcmittunl quoad culpam ct
pocnam aclcrnam, dum absolvunt, sic cliam pcc-
catii rctinenl quoad poeiiiim icmporalcm,dura mul-
clain pocnilciili imponunt.
Ridicula aulem est objcclio Luthcri, quod pcc-
cata, Ii"ari el solvi dicantur: non coiifcssio.aul sa-
lisfaclio. l\am ncquc nos dicimus, Iigiiri vcl solvi
confossioncm, aut salisfactioncra: ncquc propric
peccata solvuntur, aut liganlur; scd homincssunt,
qui a vinculis pcccalorurn absolvuuliir, vcl poena-
rum vinculis alliganlur.
Porro in polcslalc clavium conlincri, ut sacer-
dolcs pocnilcnlibus opcra quacdam laboriosa prae-
scribant; ac pcr hoc, ad jus divinum, non ad hu-
manas iraditiones hoc pcrlinere, teslalur s. Leo in
cpist. 91. ad Thcodorum his verbis: Medialor Dei
cl liominum. lianc praeposifis Ecclesiae Iradidit
potestatem.cl ul confitentibus aclioncm poeniten-
tiae darent, et eosdem salubri salisfactione pur-
(jalos, ad communionem sacramentorum per ja-
nuam reconcilialionis admitlerent.
Sanctus eliam Cyprianus in serm.de lapsis,duin
contendit non oportere ad marlyrum prcccs,rcinil-
lcrc pcccata lapsis, nisi prius cxplcvcrinl imposi-
tiis mulctas, ad cvangclium rccurril: Contra evan-
(jelii. inquit, vigorem, contra Domini ac Dei le-
(jem iemeritale quorumdam laxatur incautis com-
municalio. Irrita et folsa pax, periculosa dan-
tibus.et nihil accipientibus profutura. JSon quae-
funl sanctilatifi palienliam, nec veram de Salis-
facdone medicinam, el infra: Contra evangelium
facere non possunt, qui de evangelio marlijrcs
fiunt.
El s. Grcgorius lib. 3. in 1. Rcguin, explicans
cnp. 7. Aflliclio, inquil, Poenilentiae. ad delenda
peccata idonea est, cum sacerdolis fueril judicio
imperala.cum ab eo confitenlium actibus discus-
sis. pro modo criminis, onus eis decernilur ajfli-
ctionis.
Ad hacc pleni sunt conciliorum libri canonibus
(quod ncc advcrsarii neganl) quibus ccrlum lcm-
pus ad snlisfacicndum pocnilcniibus pra(>scribilur.
El (luamvis opcrn laboridsa , pocnitcntibus olim
anteabsolulioncm imponcbanlur cl cxplcbnnlur ;
tamcn nou fuissc id absolute micessarium.scd po-
luissc oliam cxpleri posl nbsolulioncm.nt hoc lcm-
l)orc ficri solcl; ac pcr Iioc satisfaclioncs illas non
lam iid culpam, quam ad pocnam lcinporalcm cx-
piandnm. rcfcrri consucvissc, pcrspicuum csl ex
conciliis illis, (piac in arliculo morlis jubcnt poe-
nilcntibus communioncm dari, eliamsi nulla: aut
non plciin pracccsscril Satisfaclio; scd tamcn ad-
inoncri. ul si forle supcrvixcrinl.intcgrc pocnitcn-
liam sibi iniumdnm explcant. Vidc conciliuni ni-
cacniim, can. 12. alias 1.^. carthnginicnsc IV.cnn.
:?. moguntinum sub Rnbano, cnnoii. 2('t. Itcm c:ip.
Hii. grnccnrum syiiodorum ii Miirliiio nrncnrcnsi
coIlcclarum:el cx Pocnilentinli Thcodori apud Gra-
tinnum, 20. qunesl. 7. can. Ab inlirmis.
l\cc vcro dcsnul oplimnc ratioucs,ob quns plane
congrucns fuerit, ul In sacramculo Pocnilcnliafj
720
Di; POliMTK.MIA
I>eus Tfllol per ininislrus suos cerluin inulctain
poccatoribus iin|HMii.
Primuni eniin iil oxigebal ilifrerenliii inter eos ,
qui aiilo Haplisinuin, el qui posl Baplismuin pec-
cant. Qui eiiiin pecoaiil ante I>a|)lisimiin , niajori
misericorilia ili}ini siml.<iuain (pii post llaplisimiin,
(1111) illi in tenohris igiioranliae : isli in Imniiie li-
dei el agnilionis Dei versartMitur: illi ilialiolo et
pompis, atque operihiis ojiis noiulmn mincium rc-
misissenl: isti rfini^isseiil: iili siiie atljulnrio ^ra-
liae jjraluin facienlis, el absque Spirilu saiiclo in-
habilante viveront: isti niii Dci ollVcti. pijimis bpi-
ritos in cordibns siiis liabcront: illi (loniqiio nmn-
(pKiin anto ad iiulul-ioiiliam iiorvonissonl: isti posl
indulixonliam, el lot benelicia, ingrati, lantum be-
tioraciorom ilcrmn ad iracundiam provocassont.
Itaque omnino par oral.ut Dous minislris suis mau-
d.irot, ut pcccanlos posl Baptismuni:non sine mul-
cla injuncta ad indul<iontiam divinam perjanuam
rcconcilialionis adniittoront,
Quain ratioiiem Micluiol Psollus in ca di^pula-
iione quam edidil. An plena rcmissio delur in line
suscipienli babitum moiiaclialom: egrot^MC liis vor-
bis coinploxus est, ox sontonlia Grciiorii nazianzo-
ni: Quot ajferemus laclirymas, ul fonti Baptismi
exaequcnlur? ctcnim lusitantnc fucrinl luchry-
mae. utpcreas nostrac iniquitatcs obrunntur,
)ion invcnientur eissuperiores.E[ infra: Divinum
(fuidem lavacrum. sicul supcrius est dictum, ct-
iani sinc lachriimis InrfiHur rcmissionem pecca-
tornm. Quamobrcm.quod tnlis lavacro adcst po-
testas. et quod facilc condonari possunt, quae
ante Baplismum pcccata sunt. ut quac sint ad-
missa proptcrignornntiam, ostensum est: quae
autcm post Bnptismum. muUis laclirymis indi-
tjent. el nonfacilc condonantur , quoniam pru-
dentes. scientesquc peccamus.
Allora ralio peti poiesl a raisericordia et juslitia
Dei.quae in divinis lileris passira conjunctae prae-
dicantur: siquidera maxiine consenlaneum eslra-
tioni, ul sic Deus ex misericordia peccata condo-
net. ut etiain jusliliae, quoad ejus fieri potest, sa-
tisfieri velit.
Neque solvitur argumontum.si quis dixeril,Chri-
sliim pro nobis Deo Patri abunde satisfecisse. Nam
etiams; ad ainiciliam Dei recuperandam et poenain
sempiternam evadendam congruens fuerit , ul no-
bis Cliristi satislaclio applicarelur, cum nos lanto
oneri omnino impares essemus; lamcn ad expian-
dam poenain temporalem, per Cbrisli groliam ido-
nei effocti, par erat, ul nos ipsi, qui Deum cffcn-
doramos, oidcm noslro labore salisfacertimus.
Terlia ralio ducilur a diirorentia sncramcnli Ba-
plismi et Poenilentiae. Nam Baplismus, cum sit la-
vacrurn rof^eneralionis, non roquirit , ut is qui re-
genoralur, in ea re multum laboret: at Pocnilenlia
quia medicamonlum esl animac vulneralae ac ae-
rrrolaiitis. id plane exigit, ut qui curatur , medici-
nales ustiones, incisiones, pharmaca amara , alia-
que id genus multa sustineal.
Quartaralio sumilurab utililale ipsius pocnilcn-
lis: ulilissimum enim peccalori esl,ut non maneat
penilus impmitus, ne ex veniac facililalc ad pec-
candum ilerum incilelur. Atque hacc cst ratio
s. (icegorii nazianzcni, orat. li-. quam habuit in
fiinoro paiontis sni Crogorii: Dcus. impiit , ultio-
num csl DominJis, qui licct ob clcmcntiani a sc-
veritatc ud reniissioneni incJinare consucverit ,
non Inmcn m omnibus parcit pcccnnlil)us, ncilli
bonilntc sua liant dclcriorcs. Ibioc illo.
l^e^pie solum tiinor salislactionis cmn laborc ex-
solvendae, coercel a pcccando,scd eliam admonet
(pianla sit poccali p;ravitas, el eo modo aiiimain e-
rmlil el illuslral,alque cx oo Iiimiuc ingcns quod-
dam odiuin crga peccalum nascilur, ul jam non li-
morc poonae, sod amore justitiac cl odio pcccali
in lionis actiombus |)ersovorotur.
Notpie (ixigiia (!st illa ulililas satisfaclionis, qnao
mullmn conducil ad iiabilus viliorum eradicandos
ol virlulum insorendos, (piodque Clirisli crucctn
guslarc nus facit, el Christo ipsi compati , ut cum
eodem postea (juxla Apostolum) regnemus: quas
raliones brcvitcr attigit concilium Iridenlinum ,
soss. 14. cap. 8.
Quinla ratio pclitur ab utililate , quae in alios
redundat. Nam saepe ob peccalum unius, non pu-
nitum, ul oporlebal, in totum populum Dei furor
acccnditur: cujiis rei lcstis cst Josue , qui cap. 7.
scribit, populum Israel taindiu coram hostibus ter-
ga vcrtisse, doncc peccatum Achan detcctum et
punilum non fuit. Nequc exigua est illa ulililas ,
quod ex poeiia uiiius, praesertim si publica iit ,
saepenumero corrigunliir mnlli. Denique. illud
quoqup accc(Jil, quod ut sanctus Cyprianus ait in
sormone tle hipsis, exlremo: Is qui Deo pro pec-
catis suis salisfacere, ut par cst, laborat, non so-
lum vcniam apud IJeum impelrat.sed eliam quam
contristaverat nuper laetam facit Ecclesiam.