What is found lacking in this partition.
What is found lacking in this partition.
§ 60. Therefore in this enumeration of the parts of repentance we find that the following are lacking: (1) That they accommodate the ancient rituals of ecclesiastical penance (especially the solemn one which was before the church), [namely,] contrition, confession, and satisfaction, to the general doctrine of repentance which takes place before God and that they establish its parts.
(2) They remove faith from the parts of repentance when, with respect to faith alone, repentance is the means through which are obtained God’s grace, the forgiveness of sins, the turning away of punishments, and life. Just as tragedies consist of three parts—protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe—so also the three actions of [their doctrine of] repentance are established from these. But in this entire tale Christ is like a silent character. No mention is made of faith in Christ, through whom alone we receive forgiveness of sins.
(3) They state that the three acts of the penitent—contrition, confession, and satisfaction—cooperate to remit sins insofar as they share in the sacramental power from the word of absolution, from which they are given form. Therefore by this reasoning they claim, without Scripture, that what Scripture attributes to faith in Christ (which contrition precedes and which good works follow in God’s order) belongs to the external acts and works of the penitent.
(4) They claim that on the basis of divine institution the three parts are required for the material parts of this sacrament, even though there is no clear testimony in the Scriptures regarding the full enumeration of sins before a priest and the punishments the priest is to impose upon penitents.
(5) The three acts would be possible in those who are not yet doing true, salutary repentance, which is pleasing to God and angels, as is clear from the example of the hypocrites and the despairing.
** “In Exod. 9:27[–28], Pharaoh acknowledges his sin; declares the righteousness of God; confesses his and his people’s sin; acknowledges that he deserves his punishment; assigns the punishment to God, its Author; seeks mitigation of it from the true God; solicits intercession; and promises to send away the Israelites. Therefore in this repentance of Pharaoh the following are discerned: (1) contrition of the heart, (2) confession of the mouth, (3) the promise of satisfaction. But the outcome shows that this was all pretense” (Runge, on Exodus, p. 329). **
(6) They introduce parts of repentance the likes of which are not mentioned even in the definitions of the fathers which Gratian and Lombard repeat.
§ 61. Bellarmine (De poenit., 1, ch. 20) objects: (I) “The three parts were also used in the Old Testament and are gathered from the very nature of repentance. Therefore they are not taken from the rituals of public penance.”
We respond. The value that ought to be assigned to this objection is clear from the paragraphs above [§§ 58–60].
(II) “The consolation which the Gospel provides follows repentance or even accompanies it, but it is not for this reason a part of repentance.”
We respond. Faith follows repentance when this is understood as contrition, but it is included essentially in repentance when this is understood generally as all of conversion, as we have shown above in § 42.
(III) “The sacramental power which has been communicated by the acts of the penitent arises from the fact that all the power of this sacrament depends on the merit of Christ’s suffering and satisfaction.”
We respond. Scripture places Christ’s merits in opposition to ours and Christ’s satisfactions in opposition to ours. Therefore these must not be made subordinates. It is the constant consensus of Scripture that man is justified and receives the forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ without works, but never is this attributed to man’s own preparation, actions, and works. [Bellarmine] asserts that the word of absolution gives form to the acts of the penitent and grants them sacramental power, but he does this without the authority of Scripture, since the promise of the Gospel is related to faith and not to our works. Therefore faith and not works obtains the status of the instrumental cause through which Christ’s benefits are applied to us.
(IV) “There are statements and examples of Scripture concerning all these parts.”
We respond. The external signs of contrition are usually present; at times they are even required by God (as in Joel 2:12). Nevertheless they are not necessary in every true contrition. For just as the best prayers at times lack voice, so also serious contrition sometimes lacks external actions visible before people. Bellarmine himself acknowledges this when he writes (in the preceding ch. 19): “Outside of this sacrament, if someone is legitimately kept away from being able to confess or make satisfaction by a lack of time or other reason, inner contrition alone suffices for salvation.” Confession and satisfaction will be debated below [§§ 97–136].
(V) “Hypocrites merely feign the parts [of repentance] and therefore do not share in the fruit of this sacrament. But the sacrament does not fail because of this.” He clarifies this with the examples of Baptism and the Eucharist. Also: “Judas had none of these parts of repentance: not contrition, which, of course, cannot exist without hope of pardon; not confession, the sort which is demanded, that is, of individual sins made before a priest to obtain pardon; not satisfaction, especially that enjoined by a priest, for he had not been ordered to hang himself. Finally, his suicide is not a good work such as works of satisfaction ought to be.”
We respond. Hypocrites receive the complete sacrament of Baptism and of the Eucharist but do not receive the fruit of the sacrament. This happens because they do not have true, saving faith, the forerunner of which is contrition and the handmaids of which are good works. In the same way, hypocrites pretend repentance but do not receive forgiveness of sins because they lack serious contrition and true faith. Bellarmine declares that the only reason why hypocrites do not receive remission of sins is the absence of inner contrition. But it is necessary for faith to be added to contrition, for by faith alone the evangelical promise of the forgiveness of sins is attained. And even if someone is truly and seriously contrite over his sins, makes confession of them, and takes up the satisfaction imposed, he still does not receive forgiveness of sins without lifting himself up by faith in Christ and including himself within the promises of the Gospel.
We are not very concerned about the repentance of Judas, yet it is still certain that his contrition was true and serious. Scripture expresses it with the word μεταμέλεια. The hope of forgiveness and pardon pertains to faith, not to contrition, since contrition arises from the Law, and the hope of forgiveness arises from the Gospel. Contrition mortifies and presses down; the hope of pardon vivifies and lifts up. Contrition is serious grief and sadness; the hope of pardon is comfort and joy. How, then, could the hope of pardon be assigned to contrition? It is also clear that Judas specifically confessed his enormous crime to the priests when he said, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood” [Matt. 27:4]. Although no punishment was imposed upon him by the priests, nevertheless he accepted it voluntarily. But now, Bellarmine himself argues that the word “satisfaction” must mean not only punishments imposed by priests but also those taken up voluntarily. Also, even though committing suicide is not truly and really a good work, nonetheless it could have been a good work on the basis of Judas’s intent, who perhaps planned not only to cut short his life but also to make satisfaction for his sin. But now, the Papists claim that things which are done with good intent, even though they may not be prescribed expressly in the divine Law, are also good works.
(VI) “In the definitions of the ancients, either repentance is described as a virtue but not as a sacrament, or an implicit mention of these parts is made.”
We respond. Where is repentance described as a sacrament? We shall not allow two species of repentance, differing completely in their genus, to be foisted upon us when Scripture proposes to us the description of just one repentance. In the definitions of the ancients, the word “vengeance” does not mean satisfaction, as Bellarmine asserts beyond their intent, but rather inner contrition and serious grief over the sins committed.
1 AC XII 3–6 (cf. Concordia, 38).
2 See SA III III 2–6.
3 See FC Ep V and FC SD V.
4 See Ap XIIa (V) 28–43.
5 Ap XIIa (V) 45 (cf. Concordia, 163).
6 elenchus consequentis. A “refutation” [elenchus] is a syllogism that disproves something, and the term can be used for both true refutations and sophistical, deceptive refutations. Here Gerhard means the latter. In this case, a fallacy of the consequent is an argument that posits two propositions, refutes one, and then claims that the other is refuted as well. This can only be true if the two propositions are convertible with each other, or if the one that is refuted first necessarily entails the refutation of the other. A classic example is: “There is a man here, so there is an animal here. Therefore if a man is not here, neither is an animal here.” This does not hold true since there can be other kinds of animals besides men; the two terms are not convertible. Here Gerhard means that the proposition “contrition of heart or fears of conscience are not by their own nature salvation-producing” does not, as Beza claimed, refute the proposition “contrition of heart or fears of conscience are properly a part of repentance.” Refuting the former does not entail the refutation of the latter, as Gerhard explains here. See Aristotle, Prior Analytics 2.20 (LCL 325 [1938], pp. 496–99); Micraelius, Lexicon Philosophicum, s.v. “elenchus”; Scherzer, Vade Mecum, part 2, 83–84 [111–12].
7 Read fidem ad poenitentiam requiri instead of poenitentiam ad fidem requiri.
8 consecutivum non est rei constitutivum
9 pro ejus formali et constitutivo, sed etiam ejusdem consecutivo. See below, On Repentance (Commonplace XVIII), § 55.
10 Commentary on Psalm 90 (1541), WA 40/3:553 (cf. AE 13:117).