Arguments in favor of establishing the sacrament of penance.
Arguments in favor of establishing the sacrament of penance.
§ 30. But with what arguments do they prove that penance is a sacrament properly so called? They look for the most powerful support of their case in Christ’s words: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they will be retained” (John 20:23). But they will need many cords to stretch out of this passage the sort of sacrament of penance which the Papists have established. Thus let us listen to Bellarmine (De poenit., 1, ch. 10) as he discusses this subject:
From these words the two things which are required and suffice to establish every sacrament properly so called are concluded: the divinely instituted external ritual or symbol and the promise of justifying grace connected to that external ritual or symbol. Since the Lord gave the apostles the power to remit sins, there can be no doubt that He wanted them to exercise that power with some external sign, for people who are corporeal would not understand that their sins were being forgiven them if they were not being forgiven orally or with some external sign they could sense. But a word is a corporeal and sensible sign. And not only the external ritual of the absolver but also that of the penitent is correctly deduced from the same testimony, because sins should not be remitted except for those who testify that they do have sins and that they are displeased by them.
We respond. (1) If in this passage Christ is instituting the sacrament of penance, then by the force of that statement every repentance and every absolution will be a sacrament, because Christ’s words are general. I will clarify this with an example of which Bellarmine himself will be unable to disapprove. God forgave the sins of and pronounced the word of absolution to the paralytic (Matthew 9) and to the sinful woman (Luke 7). Therefore we can entertain no doubts that He showed this power with some external sign (otherwise those corporeal people would not have understood that their sins were being forgiven them); and those very people whose sins Christ forgave testified that they were sinners and that they were displeased by it. Therefore we have the sacrament before the administration of the institution of the sacrament. In the same way, John the Baptist preached a Baptism of repentance unto the forgiveness of sins, and the apostles preached the Gospel before Christ’s resurrection, which Gospel includes the promise of the forgiveness of sins. Therefore they used an external ritual—namely, the word of absolution—and therefore they administered the sacrament of penance.
Of course, Bellarmine (in the following ch. 11) denies that John and the apostles pronounced a word of absolution, but the contrary comes forth from amid this argument. Those whose sins they were remitting were human beings; therefore they were using an external sign. There is no need to resort to the sacrament of Baptism, for the question concerns the forgiveness of sins announced to people who have fallen after Baptism. It will have to be conceded that this forgiveness either was never conferred by John the Baptist and the apostles on anyone, or it was administered by them as a sacrament properly so called.
By force of the argument which Bellarmine presents, it would also have to be asserted that in the Old Testament sins were never forgiven to a believer after circumcision or that the sacrament of penance was never administered to anyone. The prophet Nathan announced the forgiveness of sins to David, and David himself bore witness with external signs, but especially with his confession that he had sins and that they displeased him [2 Sam. 12:13]. Therefore had a particular sacrament been administered there? The judgment is the same concerning the repentance of Hezekiah [2 Chron. 30:18], the Ninevites [Jon. 3:6–10], and others.
(2) What, then, is this conclusion? Christ gave to the apostles the power to forgive sins; therefore He instituted the particular sacrament of penance. Where is mention made of the sacramental material and form? Indeed, by giving the power to remit sins, Christ tacitly mandates repentance, since only the sins of the repentant should be forgiven. Yet from this it does not yet follow that He instituted a sacrament with this command, for in the same way we can infer the following: Christ commands that repentance and forgiveness of sins be preached in His name (Luke 24:47). Therefore the ministry of the Word, in which repentance and forgiveness of sins is preached, is a particular sacrament. We confess that, in general, through the preaching of the Law the wrath of God, the retaining of sins, and eternal condemnation should be announced to the impenitent and unbelievers and that through the preaching of the Gospel the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life should be announced to the penitent and to those who believe in Christ. But also, in particular, we admit that sins must be retained in the case of individuals who are impenitent and hardened despisers, and sins must be forgiven individually to those who are penitent and believe. Yet it does not yet follow from this that it becomes a particular sacrament.
(3) Lombard (Sent., bk. 4, dist. 22, letter C) mentions some people who claim that this sacrament was instituted from the beginning of the world. They will not acknowledge that it was instituted in these words of Christ.
(4) There immediately follows in Christ’s words: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you” [John 20:21]. From this the sort of power to remit and retain sins which Christ confers upon His disciples is understood. He Himself is the one true God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit and thus can forgive sins primarily [authentice] and by His own power. But He did not concede this power to forgive sins to the apostles; indeed, that power is and remains the property of God. Also He Himself was established as the Mediator who earned the forgiveness of sins by giving up His body and shedding His blood on the altar of the cross, but He does not send the apostles to this part of His office, because He is the “only Mediator” (1 Tim. 2:5). Besides this office of Mediator, the Father sent Christ into this world to be a prophet and teacher (Isa. 61:1; Luke 4:18): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He has anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal the contrite in heart, to preach remission to the captives,” etc. Christ received the apostles into the fellowship of this office and made them dispensers and stewards of the benefit He had purchased at great price so that as His ministers they might bestow the forgiveness of sins on the repentant in His name and place.
(5) If Christ had here instituted a particular sacrament of repentance in addition to the public ministry of the Word, He would have expressed an external sacramental symbol with clear words. But He expresses this neither here nor elsewhere. Therefore we urge the Papists to express in particular what sort of external sign this is, for we cannot ourselves be content with this indeterminate generality, because an appropriate sacramental sign must be given to every sacrament and, in fact, from its own seat of institution [ex propria institutionis sede]. If they were to express this or that sign, we would demand from them the testimony of Scripture, for without the manifest testimony of Scripture it is very rash to want to invent a sacramental sign and to introduce a new sacrament beyond Scripture, since the institution of sacraments belongs to God alone, as Thomas proves ([ST,] part 3, q. 64, art. 2).
(6) Besides, if the devout and faithful of the Old Testament could have been certain about the forgiveness of sins without any sacramental symbol and particular sacrament of penance, it follows that the logical sequence of their argument is slippery, that, since people are corporeal, they do not understand that their sins are forgiven them except through a sacramental sign. For we have seen earlier what must be stated about the fact that Bellarmine places the Word also among the sacramental signs. In the preaching of the Gospel and in the absolution the very same Word is announced; the only difference is that the general promises of the Gospel are being announced and applied to believers in particular through the word of absolution. But now, a species is contained in its genus and is not of a different nature from it.
(7) Finally, Bellarmine’s argument proceeds from the particular: “People do not understand that their sins are forgiven them except from the sacramental sign. Therefore in penance the sacramental sign and thus the sacrament itself are set forth.” In addition to the word of promise in the Gospel and besides the sacrament of Baptism, Christ instituted the holy Supper, in which to us are given, by means of the blessed bread, the body of the Lord which was given over into death for us, and, by means of the blessed wine, the blood of the Lord shed for us on the altar of the cross for the forgiveness of sins. By this utterly certain and very precious pledge the truly repentant become certain about the forgiveness of their sins promised and offered in the word of the Gospel.
§ 31. Bellarmine objects:
With these words [John 20:23] Christ indeed gave the apostles the power to remit and to retain sins for both the faithful and unfaithful, but not in the same way. He wanted the sins of the unfaithful to be remitted through Baptism and to be retained through exclusion from Baptism, if by chance they were determined to be unworthy of it. But in the case of the faithful, He did not want them to be remitted through Baptism but through a different rite, namely, through the reconciliation of the penitent. Therefore just as the power to remit sins to the unfaithful is not exercised without a sacrament, so also with the power to remit them to the faithful. Thus the reconciliation of the faithful after Baptism is a sacrament.
We respond. (1) It is too harsh to claim that sins are remitted to the unfaithful through Baptism. Bellarmine is taking the word “unfaithful” to mean those who are converted from heathenism to Christ, but people are not to be baptized before they profess faith in Christ and show serious repentance for their transgressions. Therefore they are no longer unfaithful at that time.
(2) If someone were to put forward the example of baptized infants, we still would not concede that their sins are forgiven them as unbelievers in their Baptism, for through Baptism the Holy Spirit gives to infants both faith and the forgiveness of sins, because Holy Scripture everywhere connects forgiveness of sins and faith with a bond of adamant. Bellarmine himself (De baptism., bk. 1, ch. 11, col. 332) attributes the habit of faith to baptized infants. Therefore they should not be considered in the number and register of unbelievers, just as it should not be said that an ignorant person has been equipped with the habit of knowledge.
(3) If you say that the word “unfaithful” means not those who simply lack faith in Christ but those who have not yet been grafted through Baptism into the church and fellowship of Christians, then we make a distinction between the external fellowship of the church, which consists of the external confession of doctrine and the use of the Sacraments, and the inner fellowship of faith and the Holy Spirit. The catechumens who truly believe in Christ, even if they may have been excluded from the former and die before receiving Baptism, cannot and should not be excluded from the latter.
(4) Let that be enough about the manner of speaking. As far as the thing itself is concerned, we ask that the strength of this connection be proved from the Scriptures: as sins are forgiven to the unfaithful—that is, to those who have not yet been grafted into the external assembly of the church—through a sacrament, namely, through the sacrament of Baptism, so sins are forgiven to the faithful—that is, to those who have been baptized and have fallen into sins—also through a sacrament, namely, through the sacrament of penance. Why? The Israelites in the Old Testament were grafted into God’s covenant through circumcision, but if they fell into sins after circumcision, were they taken back into the covenant through a particular sacrament of penance? If someone were to say that the nature of the Old Testament is different from that of the New, he would obviously be begging the question.
(5) When the devout pray in true repentance and faith, according to the command of Christ, “Lord, forgive us our debts” [Matt. 6:12], they can be certain of the forgiveness of their sins on the basis of this general promise: “Amen, amen, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father in My name, He will give it to you” (John 16:23). “This is the confidence we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us” (1 John 5:14). And the specific promise: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity” (1 John 1:9). Moreover, the Papists themselves claim that contrition can be so great that sins are remitted without the addition of confession, satisfaction, or absolution. How, then, will a sacrament be simply and absolutely necessary to gain the forgiveness of sins?
(6) But did it escape Bellarmine that Christ, out of His immense and indescribable goodness, instituted the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, in which He makes us certain of the forgiveness of our sins by His most precious body and blood? But if a sacrament is utterly necessary to confirm the remission of sins to those who have fallen into sins after Baptism and who repent seriously, why would we want to omit the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper or to introduce something else besides it?