Penance or Repentance? Renaissance Humanism and Biblical Translation

No general solution to the problem may be said to have emerged during the period, at least in part due to the fact that there was a general failure to distinguish between habit, act and virtue. Anselm of Canterbury taught that infants are treated quasi iusti on account of the faith of the church. 7 In this, he was followed by Bernard of Clairvaux , who noted that, as it was impossible to please God without faith, so God has permitted children to be justified on account of the faith of others. 8 This was given some theological justification by Peter Manducator , who argued that as children are contaminated by the sins of another (i.e., Adam) in the first place, it is not unreasonable that they should subsequently be justified by the faith of others. 9 Peter Abelard was sceptical as to whether an infant was capable of an act of faith; given that this possibility appeared to be excluded, he derived some consolation from the idea that infants who die before maturity are given a perception of the glory of God at their death, so that charity may be born within them. 10 Gilbert de la Porrée is typical of the many who declined to speculate on the mysterious operation of the Holy Spirit, which none could fathom. 11

The origins of the generally accepted solution to this difficulty date from the closing years of the twelfth century, with the introduction of the Aristotelian concept of the habitus . Thus Alan of Lille , one of the more speculative theologians of the twelfth century, distinguished between virtus in actu and virtus in habitu . 12 An infant may be given the habit of faith in baptism as the virtus fidei in habitu , which will be manifested as the virtus fidei in actu only when the child reaches maturity and becomes capable of rational acts. The lack of agreement which characterised the twelfth century is well illustrated from the letter of Innocent III, dated 1201, in which he declined to give any definite positive statements on the effects of baptism, merely noting two possible opinions: (1) that baptism effects the remission of sins; (2) that baptism effects the infusion of virtues as habits, to be actualised when maturity is reached. 13

Yet although a link between justification and the sacrament of baptism was recognised at an early stage, pressure began to grow to integrate the ecclesial practice of penitence within the process of human acceptation and transformation. The ninth century saw the Anglo-Irish system of private penance become widespread in Europe, with important modifications to the theology of penance following in its wake. Although earlier writers considered that penance could be undertaken only once in a lifetime, as a ‘ second plank after a shipwreck’ (tabula secunda post naufragiam ), 14 this opinion was gradually abandoned, rather than refuted, as much for social as for pastoral reasons. Thus the eighth-century bishop Chrodegang of Metz recommended regular confession to a superior at least once a year, 15 while Paulinus of Aquileia advocated confession and penance before each mass. Gregory the Great ’ s classification of mortal sins became incorporated into the penitential system of the church during the ninth century, so that private penance in the presence of a priest became generally accepted as the norm. 16 Penitential books began to make their appearance throughout Europe, similar in many respects to those which can be traced back to sixth-century Wales.

The spread of the practice in the Carolingian church appears to have been due to the formidable influence of Alcuin, who perhaps has greater claim than any to be considered the founder of the Carolingian renaissance. 17 It is therefore of considerable significance that Alcuin explicitly links penance with justification. 18 Associated with this correlation between justification and penance is the maxim in quacumque hora ingemuerit conversus fuerit peccator, vita vivet et non morietur (‘ at whatever time a sinner is converted, he shall surely live and not die’ ). This conflation of Ezekiel 18:21 and 33:12 emphasised the importance of turning away from sin as a precondition for spiritual renewal, and implied a link with the emerging sacramental economy of salvation. 19 The essential feature of this development is that justification is understood to begin in baptism, and to be continued in penance.

A further development of this idea may be found in the works of Rabanus Maurus , who became the leading proponent of private confession in the Frankish church after Alcuin; justification is here linked not merely with the act of penance, but specifically with sacerdotal confession. 20 The relationship between justification, baptism and penance was defined with particular clarity in the ninth century by Haimo of Auxerre : 21

Peter Lombard’ s definition of a sacrament 24 is therefore as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does, as no reference is made to the need for a ‘ physical or material element from without’ . It is this decisive omission which allowed Lombard to include penance among the seven sacraments – an inclusion which is of major significance to the development of the doctrine of justification within the sphere of the western church. Peter – apparently alone among the Paris magistri of his age – considered penance to have two aspects, interior and exterior. Exterior penance is the sacramental rite itself (sacramentum tantum ), which involves expressed contrition (compunctio cordis ), oral confession (confessio oris ) and the work of satisfaction (satisfactio operis ). Interior penance is the inner reality (res ) or grace (gratia ) of the sacrament, namely, contrition and remission. 25

The necessity of sacerdotal confession for the remission of sins in penance was insisted upon by many of the earlier medieval theologians. Honorius of Autun , Hervaeus of Bourg-Dieu and Bruno of Asti all use the Pentateuchal leper-cleansing ritual (Leviticus 14:1– 32) to illustrate the need for sacerdotal confession; the sinner’ s faults are cleansed only when they are confessed before a priest. 26 Just as baptism effects the remission of original sin, so confession effects the remission of actual sin. 27 This distinction leads to the obvious conclusion that regular confession is to be encouraged, in order to receive absolution. Such exhortations to confession were generally accompanied with an appeal to texts such as Isaiah 45:22, Joel 2:12 or Zechariah 1:3. 28 It must be emphasised, however, that these exhortations to confession are set within the context of the reconciliation of a lapsed believer, a justified sinner who wishes to be restored to fellowship within the church, and are not open to a Pelagian interpretation. They refer to the restoration of justification, rather than to its inception – that is, the second rather than the first justification, to use the terms of a later period. The use of such texts indicates a growing awareness of the association of the recovery of justification with the sacrament of penance, which involves the confession of sin, penance and absolution. It may be noted, however, that there was no general agreement upon the necessity of sacerdotal confession: in the twelfth century, for example, the Abelardian school rejected its necessity, while the Victorine school insisted upon it. 29

The integration of justification within the context of the sacrament of penance was greatly assisted by two developments. First, the general acceptance of Peter Lombard’ s Sentences as the basis of theological discussion during the thirteenth century led to justification being discussed with reference to the locus of distinction 17 of the fourth book of the Sentences – that is, within the specific context of the sacrament of penance. Second, the conceptual elaboration of the processus iustificationis had led to contrition and remission of sins being identified as its third and fourth elements respectively – both of which could easily be correlated with the theory and practice of the sacrament of penance. The justification of the sinner was therefore explicitly linked with the sacramental system of the church. This connection may be regarded as having been unequivocally established through the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which laid an obligation upon believers to confess their sins to their priest annually. 30

The early discussion of penance involved the distinction of three elements: contritio cordis , confessio oris and satisfactio operis . 31 It seems that the earlier medieval discussion of the matter led to the greatest emphasis being placed upon the third element, satisfaction – an observation which is of considerable importance in connection with Anselm of Canterbury ’ s understanding of the incarnation of the Son of God. For Anselm, the satisfaction-merit model provided by the penitential system of the church of his time provided a suitable paradigm for the divine remission of sin through the death of Christ, which his readers would have accepted as just.

By the early twelfth century, however, the focus appears to have shifted from satisfaction to contrition, with increasing emphasis being placed upon the inner motivation of the penitent, rather than on external achievements made as satisfaction for sin. While Peter Abelard defined poenitentia in generally psychological terms, his respect for tradition is such that he does not deny the de facto necessity of both confession and satisfaction, subject to qualification on account of possible mitigating circumstances. 32 This contritionism was developed by Peter Lombard, who stressed that contrition was the sole precondition for forgiveness; the function of the priest in the sacrament of penance is purely declarative, in that he merely certifies that the penitent has been justified and reconciled to the church. The priest cannot be considered to play a causative role in this matter. 33

The precise relationship between justification and penance was the subject of considerable debate during the twelfth century. Peter of Poitiers drew attention to a possible misinterpretation of the relationship between the two: as people can lose the first grace through sin, and subsequently have it restored through penance, it might appear that the first grace can be merited by penance. Peter rejected this interpretation on the basis of its failure to recognise that humans can only regain the first grace in this manner; it is only the person who has already received gratia prima who can be justified again by penance. 34 Simon of Tournai argued that while prayers and alms qualify humans for becoming good, they cannot be said to make them good in themselves – humans only become good through the grace of God. Penance, apart from grace, does not justify. Alan of Lille similarly emphasised the unmerited character of grace in his discussion of the relation between justification and penance; the true efficient cause of justification is not penance, as might be thought, but the gracious will of God. Penance is merely the occasio and conditio sine qua non of justification. 35

However, it will be clear that the location of any type of cause of justification within the penitent is of significance, in that it naturally leads to the discussion of the nature of the act or disposition – required of the penitent if justification is to occur. It is for this reason that the establishment of the triple order of contritio cardis , confessio oris and satisfactio operis within the sacramental system of the church is of such importance, as it allows the necessary steps for the justification of penitents to be definitely established, in order that penitents may be assured that they have been justified. The psychological aspects of the sacrament of penance must not be overlooked.

The classic medieval representation of the three steps leading to penitential justification may be found in Dante Alighieri ’ s Purgatorio. As the poet awakes from his dream, he finds that he has been carried up to the gate of purgatory, before which lie three steps that he must first climb. The three steps represent the three penitential elements, which Dante presents in the different order of confession, contrition and satisfaction . As the poet faces the first step of polished white marble, he sees himself reflected as he really is, and so is moved to recognise, admit and confess his sin. The second step is black, cracked in the shape of a cross, symbolising the contrite heart, while the third, redder than blood spurting from a vein, represents Christ’ s atoning death, to which must be added the satisfaction of the penitent if it is to be made complete. 36

The first alternative clearly allows the possibility of extrasacramental justification. If the attrition is of sufficient intensity, God informs it by grace, converting it to contrition directly by the extrinsic denomination of the acceptatio divina , and thereby effectively bypassing the sacrament of penance. In the second alternative, Scotus defines the concept of parum attritus as not placing an obstacle in the path of sacramental grace (non ponere obicem ) through the avoidance of mortal sin – a teaching which has frequently been criticised for its moral laxity. This device allows the ex opere operata efficacy of the sacrament of penance to be maintained. Whereas Thomas Aquinas integrated contrition within the sacrament of penance, thus effectively excluding the possibility of extrasacramental justification, Scotus allows for this possibility by means of an attrition of sufficient intensity to merit de congruo its conversion to contrition, and thus to merit the first grace. It may be noted that the two modes of penitential justification are essentially the same, the difference lying in the fact that they are mediated through different secondary causes. Both presuppose, and are based upon, the divine acceptation.

Scotus’ s doctrine of the parum attritus appears to challenge the medieval consensus concerning the inability of the viatores to know with absolute certainty whether they are in a state of grace; if they can assure themselves that they are parum attritus , they may rely upon the ex opere operata efficacy of the sacrament to assure themselves that they are in a state of grace. 38 Although Scotus does indeed state that a greater degree of certitude may be achieved by this mode of justification than by the extrasacramental mode, he does not retract or qualify his specific magisterial rejection of the possibility of certitude of grace made elsewhere. It must therefore be assumed that Scotus did not intend to teach the absolute certitude of grace in this matter.

Scotus’ s position was criticised by many of his contemporaries and successors, particularly by Gabriel Biel . 39 Biel insisted that justification by perfect attrition (i.e., Scotus’ s extrasacramental mode of justification) must always be taken as implying the intention of confession, and is therefore implicitly linked with the sacrament of penance. 40 In this, Biel appears to be reverting to a principle established by the early Franciscan school, that the intention to confess (propositum confitendi ) is an integral element in the definition of true penance; people cannot be truly penitent if they do not wish to confess their sins to a priest. Biel does not exclude the possibility of presacramental justification, but declines to allow that this may be considered to be ‘ extrasacramental’ , a second path to justification apart from the sacrament of penance. 41

It will be evident, however, that Biel’ s emphasis upon the need for contrition in penance lays him open to the same charge which Scotus earlier directed against Peter Lombard – that sacramental efficacy is thence defined ex opere operantis rather than ex opere operato. Biel himself avoids this difficulty by stating that viatores are able, through the use of their own natural faculties, to elicit an act of love of God for his own sake, on the basis of which the infusion of gratia prima takes place. This act of love of God for his own sake is to be set within the context of the sacrament of penance, even though Biel observes that it is not necessary, in principle, for justification and sacramental absolution to coincide in time; the reconciliation of humanity to the church must be brought about through the sacrament of penance, which is therefore necessarily implicated in justification. In effect, Biel appears to be saying that human presacramental justification must be declared in foro ecclesiae by sacramental absolution before it can be deemed to be justification. 42

Like the earlier Franciscan school, Biel anchors justification to the sacrament of penance by means of the propositum confitendi . 43 A further criticism which Biel directs against Scotus’ s doctrine of the modus meriti de congruo (as he terms Scotus’ s extrasacramental mode of justification) is that it is based upon an act of attrition, whose intensity, degree and duration are unknown to anyone, and are not specified by Holy Scripture; as such, it is therefore impossible to be sure that the correct act has been performed for the correct duration. 44 Biel rejects the idea of a fixed duration and intensity on the part of the penitent, insisting upon the need for amor amicitie super omnia propter Deum in its place. It will be clear that this doctrine is essentially an extension of Biel’ s interpretation of facienti quod in se est from the first justification to the second justification. De potentia ordinata God is obliged to reward the individual who does quod in se est with grace, an obligation which exists as much in regard to the sacrament of penance as to the bestowal of the first grace. As Biel pointed out, we do penance not so that God ‘ would change his judgement in response to our prayer, but so that by our prayer we might acquire the proper disposition and be made capable of obtaining what we request’ . 45

The rise of the new critical philology in the Quattrocento called this link into question. The Italian writer Lorenzo Valla challenged the Vulgate translation of several New Testament texts, including this, on the basis of a knowledge of the original Greek text. 47 In this, he was followed by Desiderius Erasmus , whose Novum instrumentum omne (1516) reproduced Valla’ s challenge to the Vulgate translation of metanoiete. Thus, in the 1516 edition, Erasmus translated the Greek imperative as poeniteat vos (‘ be penitent’ ), and in the 1527 edition as resipiscite (‘ change your mind’ ), further weakening the link between the inward attitude of repentance and the sacrament of penance. The full significance of this philological development would, however, be appreciated only in the first phase of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and did not pose a serious challenge to the correlation of justification and the sacraments in the late medieval period.

Its impact was arguably blunted by Luther, who found himself unable to render Erasmus’ s modified Latin translation of metanoiete in German. The first of the celebrated Ninety-Five Theses on Indulgences (1517), for example, declares: ‘ In saying “ Do penance” , our Lord and Master Jesus Christ willed that the entire life of believers to be one of penance.’ 48 Luther used various German translations of metanoiete , including bessert euch (‘ improve yourselves’ or ‘ make yourselves better’ ) and tut Buße (‘ do penance’ ). None of these can really be said to convey the force of Erasmus’ s challenge to the adequacy of the Vulgate translation.

The medieval period thus saw the justification of the sinner firmly linked to the sacramental economy of the church, a sound theological link having been established between justification and the sacraments. 49 This linking of justification to the sacramental system of the church has profound theological and pastoral consequences, of which the most important is the tendency to assert iustificatio extra ecclesiam non est . 50 Although the theologians of the medieval period were aware that God was not bound by the sacraments, the tendency to emphasise the reliability of the established order of salvation ensured that the only manner in which God’ s gates could be entered was through the sacraments of baptism and penance.

This insight that the sacramental structures of the church were the sole guarantors of salvation was rapidly assimilated into church architecture. The great portals of Romanesque churches were often adorned with elaborate sculptures depicting the glory of heaven as a tactile affirmation that it was only by entering the church that this reality could be experienced. Inscriptions were often placed over the great west door of churches, declaring that it was only through entering the church that heaven could be attained. The portal was allowed to be identified with Christ for this purpose, speaking words directed to those passing by, or pausing to admire its magnificent ornamentation. An excellent example is provided by the Benedictine priory church of St.-Marcel-lès-Sauzet, which was founded in 985 and extensively developed during the twelfth century. The portal to the church depicts Christ addressing these words to all who draw near: 51 ‘ You who are passing through, you who are coming to weep for your sins, / Pass through me, since I am the gate of life.’ Although the words are clearly to be attributed to Christ (picking up on the image of Christ as the ‘ gate of the sheepfold’ from John 10), a tactile link has been forged with the building and institution of the church itself. This was often reinforced visually through the physical location of the baptismal font close to the door of the church, thereby affirming that entrance to heaven is linked with the sacrament of baptism .