ARTICLE TWO
PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT
QUESTION ONE
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE IN ITS INSTITUTION
The first question asked is whether the sacrament of Penance was instituted. That it was instituted would appear:
a. Because Hugh defines a sacrament in this way: “A sacrament represents by its likeness, and signifies by its institution.” Thus if Penance is a sacrament, then it is clear, etc.
b. Again, just as the Lord commanded to be baptized, in the same way he commanded that penance be done, as is clear in Matthew 4:17.1 Couple this with what is said in John 3:5: Unless a man be born again.…2 It also says in Luke 13:5, except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. Therefore just as he instituted the sacrament of Baptism by commanding to be baptized, so by commanding penance he instituted the sacrament of Penance.
c. Again, the manner of doing penance was prescribed in the Old Law, as is apparent in Leviticus chapters 4 and 5.3 Thus similarly in the New Law penance is according to the judgment of the priest. However because this manner does not come from a law of nature, it therefore becomes this way from its institution.4
To the contrary: 1. Hugh of St. Victor says that in the law of nature no sacrament was instituted “under precept, but only under counsel.”5 However, penance was in the law of nature by precept, because without it no one would ever be able to be saved. Therefore it was established in the law of nature and not by institution.
2. Again, no sacrament needs institution when it is by precept of nature. However, penance is from dictate of nature, because reason naturally dictates that the sinner and offender must be reconciled through the humility of penitence; therefore, etc.
3. Again, every sacrament that is instituted is changed. However, penance was only a matter of contrition and satisfaction, always from the beginning until now. Therefore it would seem not to be instituted by law.
4. Again, if the sacrament is instituted, the question is where and by whom. If it is instituted there, where it says in Matthew 4:17 “Do penance” it can equally be said to be instituted by John, who preached, “Do penance” in Matthew 3:2.6 It could also be instituted in Matthew 8:4, which says, “Go and show yourself to the priest,” but it is certain that this was understood of the priests of the law. It could also be here, “Whosoever’s sins you shall forgive,” in John 20:23, but to the contrary, there it is instituted that it belongs to the priestly Order.
I respond: It must be said that there are two ways of speaking of penance: either inasmuch as it reconciles to God, or inasmuch as it not only reconciles to God, but also reconciles to the Church. If we speak of the first, how it reconciles to God, then penance belongs to the decree of natural law, which dictates that there be contrition and humiliation for sin, along with a manifestation of faith. Thus, this sort of sacramental was insinuated rather than instituted.7 Furthermore insofar as it was dictated by nature, it sufficed to be insinuated.
Some held that Penance was insinuated before the fall, according to Genesis 2:17: “The moment you eat from it.…”8 However, these words would seem rather to threaten punishment than to hint at a remedy. Again, since Penance serves as a remedy from its primary institution, it would not seem that its institution would be valid except from the time when sin began.
So there is another opinion, and a better one, that the Lord both insinuated and instituted it when he called Adam after his sin in Genesis 3:9, saying, “Where are you?” The Glossa at this verse says that the Lord warned him to return to his heart. It is equally so according to the prophecy “Bear it well in mind, you rebels,” and several Glossae which are appended there insinuate this.9 And so it is apparent that Penance, insofar as it was a sacrament that reconciles with God, was insinuated there, which was sufficient for that time. Furthermore insofar as it was dictated by nature, it sufficed to be insinuated.
There is a second way of speaking of Penance, to the extent that it is a sacrament of the Church. In this respect it had its institution in the written law, whether Mosaic or Evangelical. In the Mosaic Law, because there was still no perfect unity or perfect reconciliation, it had an institution that was imperfect. This is namely with respect to a certain generality in determining offerings, which served in place of confession and satisfaction. However, in the New Law, where ecclesiastical unity is perfect and reconciliation is complete, it was instituted for the perfect state. This was both with respect to form, which is the priestly absolution and binding, and with respect to the matter, which is a clear and open confession, not only in general, but also in particular.
The first, priestly absolution and binding, the Lord instituted of himself and promulgated, namely the power of the keys, which is recorded in John 20:22-23 after the resurrection. And the second, the clear and open confession, was instituted by the Apostles. Or to put it better, it was promulgated when the Lord taught the Apostles, and they, once instructed by the Lord and having received authority, promulgated it on his authority. For, they handed on to us nothing but what they had received either from the Lord or from the Spirit of the Lord. Thus it is clear when and how, and where and by whom this sacrament was instituted. So the arguments that demonstrate this are to be conceded.
To the objections: 1. To the objection that it was not instituted in the law of nature, it must be said that properly speaking it was not instituted by a disciplinary command or by a sacramental precept, but more by a natural precept. Thus the divine prompting and visitation enlightened the natural precept by means of which he chided people in audible signs and chides them spiritually by sorrow in the bed, and he makes all human bones to wither.10
2. To the objection that it was through a natural dictate, it must be said that the truth is reached following that understanding. Nevertheless, because nature does not in itself suffice, it is clear etc.
3. To the objection that it is not changed, it must be said that, inasmuch as it is a sacrament of the Church, it is changed. The written law added something beyond what came from the natural dictate, and the Gospel Law did not evacuate that added dimension but, rather, fulfilled it even more by adding a perfect addition.
4. Further, the question, where and by whom it was instituted, should be clear from what has been said.
CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE INSOFAR AS SIGNIFICATION
The second question concerns Penance and its signification. The question is, What is the sign, and what is the signified? It would seem that external penance is a sign of the interior, thus:
a. A sacrament signifies from its institution what it naturally represents. External penance naturally represents interior penance; therefore this is what it signifies from its institution.
b. Again, just as corporeal Baptism is related to the spiritual, so external penance is related to the interior. The Baptism of water signifies the Baptism of flame. Therefore external penance signifies the interior.
c. Again, Penance as sacrament liberates from shipwreck. It is impossible that the sinner actually be liberated from a shipwreck except through interior penance. Therefore Penance as sacrament contains interior penance within itself. However this is not by the reason of the sign but rather by the reason of what is signified.11
d. Again, perfect penance aims to return one to the purity of Baptism. However, the sinner is never restored to that purity except through the penance of the heart. Therefore external penance signifies the interior.
To the contrary: 1. According to Hugh, “A sacrament is the material element shown outwardly to the senses, that represents by its similitude.”12 External penance is not such, because it is not an element. Therefore it is neither a sacrament nor a sign.
2. Again, interior penance is a virtue or an act of a virtue. The graces of virtues and sacraments are different. Therefore interior penance is not the res of any sacrament.
3. Again, whenever the sign and the thing signified are rightly ordered in a sacrament, the sign is the cause of what is signified, by way of the definition of a sacrament laid out above. However, exterior penance is not the cause of the interior, nor is the latter its effect, but rather the other way around; therefore, etc.
4. Again, since in the perfection of penance there are three things, namely contrition, confession and satisfaction, the question is, By reason of which of these is it called exterior and by reason of which is it interior? If it is said to be interior by reason of contrition, and exterior by reason of confession and satisfaction, the contrary argument is that these do not signify contrition, but rather the will to be contrite and make satisfaction. If it is replied that it is exterior by reason of all three, then, since they are three diverse things, there will be three sacraments. If you should say that they are united, I ask the question, By what type of unity are they joined?
I respond: It must be said that just as in the previous understanding about institution, it is necessary in regard to penance that this judgment vary in two ways: insofar as it is a sacrament that reconciles with God, and insofar as it reconciles not only with God, but also with the Church.13
For, insofar as Penance is a sacrament that reconciles with God, its res is the remission of sin, and its signum is exterior humiliation, whether in disposition or in word, and its res et signum is the interior repentance. Nor is it required that the first be the cause of the middle term, but rather the other way around.14 This is because Penance proceeds from a natural dictate.15 Hence Penance proceeds outwardly from the interior, and the exterior does not bring about the interior.
Insofar as it is a sacrament of the Church, which has institution,16 so it has the reason of cause and of sign, just like the other sacraments.17 The reason of causality resides in the power of that which is formal, and indeed the reason of the sign resides in the power of that which is material. The material in this sacrament is the humbling of the penitent, both in the act of contrition and in the accusatory word, and in the penance of satisfaction. In form, however, it is the absolution of the priest. These two joined together signify interior penitence in such manner that through it there is the perfect remission of sin with respect to punishment as well as to guilt.18 With respect to the remission of sin and its guilt, it has the reason of the external sign of the sacrament. With respect to the remission of punishment, it possesses in some respect the reason of cause.
And thus it is clear what the res is in this sacrament, namely the perfect remission of sin. Also the signum is clear, namely exterior penance according to the ecclesiastical form, in which there is humiliation and absolution. The res et signum is interior repentance. Hence the arguments for the first part are to be conceded.
To the objections: 1. To the objection, then, that there is no element, it must be said that Hugh takes the term elementum very broadly in the sense of whatever appears externally to the senses. Or, if it be limited to corporeal sacraments, then it can be understood only of the sacraments proper to the New Law.19
2. To the objection that the graces of the virtues differ from the grace of the sacraments, it must be said that this is in some way true. However, it is not necessary that it be true with respect to essence. Rather it is enough that it be true with respect to the effect, as was demonstrated above at the beginning.20 So it is in this case, for interior penance is the res of the exterior, to the extent that beyond the uprightness of the virtue it adds a further effect, namely that of perfect remission with respect to guilt and punishment, when the external is perfect. It is similar to Baptism, as was demonstrated above.21
3. To the objection that the interior is the cause of the exterior, it must be said that because this sacrament is partially of natural dictate and partly by institution, hence the external sign is in some way caused, and in some way causes. For the internal detestation, to the extent that it is detestation, is effective in humiliating the person externally. However, to the extent that it totally absolves from guilt and punishment, this it possesses from the external absolution and penitence. And thus it is clear that the ordering in signifying and causing is most fitting according to that which coincides to each.
4. To the objection by what reason it is the sign of these three,22 I reply that it is by reason of them all. This is because contrition is taken as an outward cry of sorrow. However, these three are not three sacraments, but the three are one perfect sign signifying perfect repentance. This is apparent, because, if one truly repents from the heart, he or she is then saddened, and this is signified through the lament of contrition. Thus, this one detests guilt and refutes the self, and this is signified by the expression of confession. Thus that one possesses the will to make amends, and this is signified by satisfaction. Interior repentance contains all three of these, which is the one and true virtue. Hence all the exterior signs coalesce into one perfect sign and are one sacrament and possess the unity of a sacrament. This is a special mode of unity, since several modes are designated out of diverse things. If you should object that they are not simultaneous, it must be said that at least with respect to the purpose or desire of the will, the one remains within the other, as in the one who is truly contrite who proposes to confess and make satisfaction.23 Otherwise it is not true contrition. So is it to be understood with respect to the rest.
_______________
1 The Vulgate at Matt 4:17 reads, exinde coepit Iesus praedicare et dicere paenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum, which the Douay-Rheims translates From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
2 The Vulgate of John 3:5 reads, respondit Iesus amen amen dico tibi nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potest introire in regnum Dei, which the Douay-Rheims translates Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kindgom of God. This is being used as an instance of Christ instituting Baptism.
3 In this section of Leviticus, offerings for sins committed are prescribed, which are to be performed by the priest.
4 Thus, the argument states that since there is a connection between the way this sacrament is prescribed in the Old and New Laws, the practice of the New Law must have been instituted.
5 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, I, p. 11, c. 4 (PL 176:345A; Corpus Victorinum, 244): Ex quo conicimus quod deus quidem hominem a principio ad hoc exercenda consilio erudivit, sed precepto non obligavit.
6 Again, this is according to the Vulgate text.
7 Latin: …et sic tale sacramentale potius habuit insinuationem quam institutionem; eo enim quod natura dictabat, insinuari sufficiebat.
8 Gen 2:17.
9 Biblia cum glossa ordinaria, vol. 3, Isa 46:8, 71; See also PL 113, 1289D: Intellectum, qui quasi bestiae vixistis, simulacra venerantes, ut furiosi in ligna et lapides impingentes.
10 Job 33:19.
11 Latin: …sed non in ratione signi: ergo in ratione signati.
12 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, I, p. 9, c. 2 (PL 176, 317D; Corpus Victorinum, 209-10): Si quis autem plenius et perfectius quid sit sacramentum diffinire voluerit, potest dicere quod sacramentum est corporeale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum ex similitudine representans et exstinctione significans, et ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam.
13 In approaching the signification of the sacrament of Penance, Bonaventure introduces a variable with regard to how we consider the sacrament, namely how it reconciles with God and how it reconciles with the Church. He doesn’t do this with any other of the sacraments. This distinction provides the context for his understanding of the signification of Penance.
14 Thus, in Penance the interior is the cause of the exterior.
15 In other words, this is naturally how Penance works, from the interior.
16 Latin: …institutionem habens.
17 Similar to the way Bonaventure distinguished between the sacrament of reconciliation with God and the sacrament of reconciliation with the Church, here he distinguishes between the reason of signs and the reason of causes. It is through the reason of signs that we proceed from the signum to the res et signum to the res. It is by reason of causes quodam modo that the exterior sign causes removal of exterior punishment.
18 Latin: Haec duo simul iuncta significant poenitentiam interiorem… The absolution is so joined to the interior act of the penitent that there is no sacrament without internal penance which brings about the exterior actions of penance conjoined with the absolution of the priest.
19 See the previous question on the institution of penance just after the fall.
20 Cf. the beginning of the respondeo.
21 Cf. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1.
22 Bonaventure here refers to contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
23 Thus, in one act of the will, the penitent is contrite, and resolves to confess and make the sin right with others.