Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

NOTE 1. The sacrament of penance receives various names among the holy Fathers. First, it is called the sacrament of penance, or of holding to punishment, because all its parts include punishment and labor. For contrition entails sorrow, confession shame, and satisfaction labor. — Second, from priestly absolution it is sometimes called the sacrament of absolution, since its form is absolution, that is, as the Doctor says, d. 14, q. 1, n. 3, a certain definitive sentence absolving the accused. — Third, from the works of satisfaction it is called a laborious baptism. The Council of Trent indeed recalls this name in sess. XIV, ch. 2, where it distinguishes the effect and fruit of penance from the effects of baptism, saying: The effect of baptism is one thing, and that of penance another; for through baptism, putting on Christ, we are made altogether a new creature in him, obtaining the full and complete remission of all sins. Yet we cannot attain this newness and integrity through the sacrament of penance without our great tears and labors, divine justice so requiring; hence penance was rightly called by the holy Fathers a kind of laborious baptism. — Fourth, on account of the remission of sins and the manner in which they are washed away, it is called a bath of tears and a second cleansing. So St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his oration on holy baptism, calls it a baptism that may be repeated, in which it differs from the first baptism, which cannot be repeated. — Fifth, it is called the imposition of hands, taking its name from the external ceremony that has always been used in the Church up to the present: namely, that the priest, while absolving, laid his hands on the penitent as he sat. We are taught that it was so called from the Council of Carthage, can. 76: Let him be reconciled, it says, by the imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be put into his mouth; from St. Augustine, bk. III, On Baptism, ch. 16: The imposition of hands, like baptism, cannot be repeated; from St. Pacian, ep. 3: Now the hands of priests are to be offered to the pitiable brethren, etc.; and from St. Leo, ep. 62, ch. 17: Those who have used the sacrificial foods of their pagan fellow citizens can be cleansed by fasting and the imposition of hands. — Sixth, it is called a second plank after shipwreck. So the Council of Trent, sess. VI, ch. 14, and sess. XIV, can. 2. Tertullian too, bk. On Penance, ch. 14: You, a sinner like me, seize it, embrace it as a shipwrecked man embraces a place on some plank. So too St. Pacian, ep. 9: Who would take away the plank from a shipwrecked man lest he escape? Finally, St. Jerome, ep. 9: Let us not flatter ourselves about the state of penance as a support; these are remedies for the unfortunate. A wound that is cured by pain must be guarded against. It is one thing to enter the harbor of salvation with an intact ship and cargo safe; another to cling naked to a plank and be dashed by the backward surges of the fruit of one’s labors against the cruel rocks. — Seventh, it is called exomologesis, that is, confession or communion from the bread, because penitents who confess their sins are customarily granted ecclesiastical communion. Thus Tertullian, bk. On Penance, ch. 9: That act, which is more often expressed and practiced by the Greek word, is exomologesis, by which we confess our offense to the Lord, not as to one unaware, but insofar as satisfaction is remitted through confession, penance arises through confession, and God is appeased by penance. Accordingly, exomologesis is a discipline of prostrating and humbling a person, enjoining a way of life that allures mercy. St. Cyprian agrees, ep. 51. He says: When sinners do penance for lesser sins at the proper time, according to the order of discipline, let them come to exomologesis, so that by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy they may receive the right of communion. At present, while the time is still harsh and persecution continues, before the Church’s peace has been restored, they are admitted to communion: penance has not yet been done, exomologesis has not yet been made, nor has the hand been imposed by bishop and clergy; the Eucharist is given to them. It also receives other similar names. But since the Councils of Florence and Trent, the Doctors now agree that it should be called the sacrament of penance.

NOTE 2. Penance is understood in three ways: sometimes as an act, at other times as a habit, and often as an outward sign. As an act, it is displeasure at a sin committed; in this respect it pertains to the will, which determines itself to avenge the sin, detest it, accept the punishment inflicted, and patiently endure the punishment of the sin. As a habit, it is the habit acquired through such vengeance for sin, detestation, acceptance, and endurance of punishment, inclining one to elicit acts like those from which it arose. As an outward sign, it is not just any sign, but the penitent’s display, as one confessing his sin, that the sin displeases him; for this reason he submits himself to the authority of a priest who has the power to absolve him. Consequently, this sensible sign on the penitent’s part also implies the sensible absolution on the priest’s part, which is a sign of the penitent’s own interior, passive absolution. I mean a sign not natural, but arbitrary and instituted at will. In this sense penance is called a sacrament. Whether it truly has the nature and dignity of a sacrament, and from what time it acquired both, must be determined in this Question.

NOTE 3. It is certain that the sacrament of penance, as it is used and practiced in the Church, was not instituted under the Law of nature or the Mosaic Law, since the power of the keys had not yet been instituted. That power derives from Christ’s Passion and was granted by him to the Apostles before his Ascension into heaven. Consequently, it had not then been instituted that someone should be sorry for sin with the purpose of submitting himself through confession and satisfaction to the keys of the Church, in the hope of obtaining pardon through the regard and power of the Passion of Christ the Lord. Hence, although under the Law of nature and the Mosaic Law some sacrament may have been instituted as a remedy for actual sin committed after the first justification, so that a remedy for daily sickness would not be lacking, it was nevertheless not of the same nature and species as the sacrament of the Law of grace. Theologians now teach this unanimously against certain ancients who contended that the true sacrament of penance existed under the Old Law. They explain in this way the Apostle’s statement in Hebrews 9, that the high priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year, not without the shedding of blood, which he offered for his own ignorance and that of the people. But this is refuted by the same Apostle’s statement there that the blood of bulls and calves … sanctifies the defiled for the cleansing of the flesh; the Apostle therefore does not consider that blood to have had power to sanctify for the cleansing of the spirit. Add that it would follow that this sacrifice was more excellent and efficacious than the sacrifice of the Mass, which by the work performed does not erase sins in the person for whom it is offered, even if he has attrition; indeed, it would also be more excellent than the sacrament of penance of the New Law, since one and the same sacrifice in number would sanctify at once both the one offering it and those for whom it is offered, and that without any obligation to confess individually every kind and number of sins. Yet this is certainly necessary for a sacrament of the New Law to be valid.

It remains, therefore, to determine: first, whether penance expressed by outward signs, to which the word of priestly absolution has been added, is a true and properly so-called sacrament of the New Law; second, whether it is distinct from baptism; third, whether it was instituted by Christ the Lord, and at what time.

First conclusion. — ✱ “A TRUE AND PROPERLY SO-CALLED SACRAMENT OF PENANCE EXISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BY WHICH THE PRIESTS OF THE NEW LAW HAVE THE POWER TO REMIT AND RETAIN WHATEVER SINS ARE SUBJECT TO THEM.” This is of faith against the Novatians and the more recent heretics, and was defined in various Councils, especially at Florence in the decree of Eugenius, and at Trent, sess. XIV, can. 1, in these words: If anyone says that penance is not truly and properly a sacrament in the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ our Lord for the faithful, as often as they fall into sins after baptism, to be reconciled to God himself, let him be anathema. Even the Calvinist and Lutheran heretics themselves confess that this doctrine has been most widely received in the Church for five hundred years and more. It was taught not only by the Master of the Sentences, as all the theological schools after him have taught, but also by authors of his own standing, among the very best. In truth, this sacrament was asserted and practiced by the Church not only from that time onward, but in every age

It is proved from Sacred Scripture, which states in explicit words that Christ the Lord conferred the authority to remit sins and absolve from them. For he promises this authority to his disciples in Matthew 16 and 18, and conferred it in John 20, as the Council of Trent teaches excellently, sess. XIV, ch. 1, in these words: “The Lord instituted the sacrament of penance especially then, when, having risen from the dead, he breathed upon his disciples, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. By this remarkable deed and such clear words, the universal consensus of the Fathers has always understood that the power to remit and retain sins, for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and their legitimate successors.” A little later it concludes: “Therefore, the holy Synod, approving and receiving this most true sense of those words of the Lord, condemns the contrived interpretations of those who falsely twist those words, against the institution of this sacrament, to refer to the power of preaching the word of God and announcing the Gospel of Christ.” And canon 3 of the same session defines: If anyone says that those words of the Lord and Savior, Receive the Holy Spirit, etc., are not to be understood of the power to remit and retain sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning, but twists them, against the institution of this sacrament, to mean the authority to preach the Gospel, let him be anathema.

The Fathers of the Council of Carthage also acknowledge this in the Synodical Letter to Cornelius, the supreme pontiff, in St. Cyprian, n. 54. To prove that those who had fallen must be absolved and admitted to peace only after a long penance, unless the danger of illness or persecution pressed upon them, they use that same authority to remit and retain sins. We had decided, they say, after taking counsel together, that those who had been overcome by the enemy’s assault during the persecution and had fallen, defiling themselves with unlawful sacrifice, should perform a full penance for a long time; and if the danger of illness pressed upon them, they should receive peace at the point of death. For it was neither right, nor permitted by fatherly compassion and divine clemency, to deny the aid of saving hope to those who knocked at the Church, lame, sorrowing, and praying, and to send them from this world to the Lord without communion and peace, when he himself who gave the law had allowed that what was bound on earth should also be bound in heaven, and that what was loosed there could be loosed after first being loosed here in the Church.

The same truth is likewise established by the Church’s constant tradition and teaching. For the ancient Fathers call penance a sacrament and count it among the sacraments of the New Law. Thus first Tertullian, before his fall into the heresy of Montanus, speaking in bk. On Penance, ch. 7, about sins committed after the baptism that cannot be repeated, says: Foreseeing these poisons, God, once the gate of immersion had been shut, allowed something still to remain open. In the vestibule he placed a second penance, to open to those who knock. And again, ch. 12: Since, then, you know that against hell, after those first memorials of the Lord’s baptism, there is still a second remedy in exomologesis, why do you abandon your salvation? Why do you hesitate to undertake what you know can heal you? Although he does not explicitly call penance a sacrament here, he sufficiently indicates as much by comparing its power with the efficacy of baptism. — St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches this expressly in The Life of Moses, where he says: Moses made the wilderness overflow with water through the rock; this teaches what sort of thing, and how great, the sacrament of penance is.

✳ “Proof from St. Epiphanius, Heresy 59: “For this reason,” he says, “both the divine word and the holy Church of God perpetually approve penance, not because it is more lenient and more lax, or makes those who run in that stadium more sluggish, but so that it may not reject God’s grace and kindness, and may consider the measure and reason of each case. For just as one who has lost virginity cannot restore it with respect to the body, since nature by no means permits this, so one who after baptism has fallen into certain greater crimes has, like one who has fallen from virginity, a second degree of commendation in continence. Thus he who after baptism is bound by a graver crime has a second kind of healing. Although this is not joined to as great a virtue as before, it is nevertheless not alien to the hope of attaining life and salvation; therefore the divine word does not reject the fruit and reward of those who labor in undertaking penance.” — From St. Jerome, who claims for priests the power of the keys and the authority of judging before the final day of judgment, namely in the tribunal of penance. For thus he writes in his Letter to Heliodorus: “Far be it from me to speak anything sinister about those who succeed to the apostolic rank, who consecrate the Body of Christ with their holy mouth, through whom we too are Christians; who, having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, judge in a certain manner before the day of judgment, and preserve the Bride of the Lord in sober chastity.” And in bk. 7 Against the Pelagians, ch. 10: “He who cuts wood,” he says, “if a man is killed by the axe slipping from the iron and flying from the wood, is ordered to flee to the city of refuge and remain there until the high priest arises, that is, until he is redeemed by the blood of the Savior; or in the house of baptism, or in penance which imitates the grace of baptism, through the ineffable eminence of the Savior, who wills no one to perish and takes no delight in the death of sinners, but rather that they be converted and live.” — From St. Augustine, Letter 4 to Vincent the Donatist: “If,” he says, “peace was rightly granted to adulterers who did penance, as truth holds and the Church rightly maintains, then those who shut the whole place of penance against adulterers were certainly acting impiously: they denied healing to the members of Christ, withheld the keys of the Church from those who knocked, and with hard cruelty opposed the most merciful patience of God, which allowed them to live for this very reason, that by doing penance they might be healed, after offering the sacrifice of a contrite spirit and a broken heart.” And in Letter 180 to Honoratus, speaking “of the distresses of persecution,” he says: “Do we not consider, when the extremity of these dangers is reached and there is no power to flee, how great a gathering there is usually in the Church, from both sexes and every age: some asking for baptism, others for reconciliation, and others also for that ancient consolation of penance itself, common to all, and for the consecration and distribution of the sacraments? If ministers are lacking there, what destruction follows for those who depart this age either unregenerated or bound?” And in On the Christian Contest, ch. 31, where he rebukes the Novatians in these words: “Nor should we listen to those who deny that the Church of God can forgive all sins. Thus, wretches, because they do not understand the Rock in Peter, and refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the Church, they have themselves lost those keys from their hands. These are the people who condemn widows as adulteresses if they marry, and claim to be purer than apostolic teaching. If they wished to recognize their own name, they would call themselves worldly rather than pure. For, unwilling to be corrected if they sin, they have chosen nothing else than to be condemned with this world. Those to whom they deny pardon for sins they do not preserve in any health; rather, they take medicine away from the sick, and force their own widows to burn, whom they do not permit to marry.” And in Homily 27 he explains in what sense sins are forgiven through priests: “The Lord,” he says, “was going to give the Holy Spirit to human beings, and through the Holy Spirit himself sins are forgiven to his faithful. For what are you, man, except a sick person in need of healing? Do you wish to be my physician? Seek the physician with me. For, to show clearly that sins are forgiven by the Holy Spirit whom he gave to the faithful, not by the merits of men, the Lord in one place, rising from the dead, said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ and immediately added: ‘If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven him’; that is, the Spirit forgives, not you. The Spirit is God; therefore God forgives, not you. But hear the Spirit: what are you? Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” Yet again: “Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?” God, then, dwells in his temple, that is, in his holy faithful ones and in his Church through them.” — From Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Greek edition, Rouen, p. 279: “See,” he says, “with what power the rock prevails, upon which the Church is built by Christ, and whoever says, ‘You are Christ, the Son of the living God,’ so that his judgments remain firm, as though God were judging in him, and so that, in rendering judgment in him, the gates of hell may not prevail against him. Therefore he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, opening for those who have been loosed on earth, so that they too may be loosed and free in heaven, and closing for those who by his just judgment have been bound on earth, so that they too may be bound and condemned in heaven. Since those who claim the episcopal office appropriate this saying, as Peter did, and, having received from the Savior the keys of the kingdom of heaven, teach that what they have bound—that is, condemned—is bound in heaven, and what they have loosed is loosed in heaven, it must be declared that they speak rightly, if they have also done the deed on account of which it was said to Peter, ‘You are Peter,’ and if they are such that the Church is built upon them by Christ.” — From St. Cyprian, Letter 13 to Jubaianus, where, after the scriptural testimonies cited above, he concludes: “Hence we understand that it is permitted to baptize and grant remission of sins only to those set over the Church and established in the evangelical law and the Lord’s ordinance; but outside it nothing can be bound or loosed, where there is no one who can bind or loose anything. Nor do we propose this, dearest brother, without the authority of divine Scripture, when we say that all things have been arranged by a definite law and proper ordinance, and that no one may usurp against bishops and priests anything that is not within his right and power.” But he proves the truth of this doctrine expressly against the Novatians in Letter 52 to Antonianus: “I marvel,” he says, “that some are so obstinate as to think penance should not be given to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon should be denied to those who do penance, when it is written: ‘Remember from where you have fallen, and do penance, and do the former works.’ This is surely said to one who is known to have fallen, whom the Lord urges to rise again through works, since it is written: ‘Almsgiving frees from death’; not, of course, from that death which Christ’s blood once extinguished and from which the grace of saving baptism and our Redeemer freed us, but from the death that afterward creeps in through transgressions. Elsewhere, too, a time for penance is granted, while the Lord threatens one who does not do penance. ‘I have,’ he says, ‘many things against you: you allow your wife Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants, to commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols; and I gave her time to do penance, but she does not wish to repent of her fornication. Behold, I will cast her onto a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they do penance for their deeds.’ The Lord would not exhort them to penance unless he promised indulgence to those who repent. And in the Gospel: ‘I tell you, there will be joy in heaven over one sinner doing penance.’ For since it is written, ‘God did not make death, nor does he delight in the destruction of the living,’ he who wills no one to perish certainly desires sinners to do penance and through penance return again to life. Therefore through the prophet Joel he cries out and says: ‘And now, says my Lord, return to me with all your heart … and return to the Lord your God, for he is merciful and gracious and patient and of great compassion.’ The Lord, too, showing in the Gospel the goodness of God the Father, says: ‘Which of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you, then, though wicked, know how to give good things to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him?’ Here the Lord compares an earthly father with the eternal and generous goodness of God the Father. If this wicked father on earth, gravely offended by a sinful and wicked son, nevertheless later sees him reformed, having laid aside the sins of his former life and, corrected through the grief of penance, returned to sober and good conduct and the discipline of innocence, rejoices and is glad, and embraces with the wish of paternal exultation the son whom he had earlier cast out: how much more does that one true and good Father, merciful and gracious—indeed, goodness, mercy, and graciousness itself—rejoice in the penance of his sons? He does not threaten anger to those repenting, weeping, or lamenting their punishment, but rather promises pardon and indulgence.” And below: “We think no one should be barred from the fruit of satisfaction and the hope of peace, since we know, in accord with the faith of the divine Scriptures, that by God himself as author and exhorter sinners are brought to do penance, and that pardon and indulgence are not denied to the penitent.” And below, after adducing examples of a farmer and a sailor to show it is mockery to urge sinners to penance and then take from them the remedy of satisfaction, he concludes: “But if we find that no one ought to be prevented from doing penance, and that those who beseech and implore the Lord’s mercy can be granted peace through his priests, in keeping with his being merciful and gracious, then the groaning of those who weep must be admitted, and the fruit of penance must not be denied to those who grieve.” Finally, throughout On the Lapsed, St. Cyprian supplies invincible weapons against the Novatians. — From St. Ambrose, On Penance, ch. 2, where he writes thus against the Novatians: “But they say they show reverence to the Lord, reserving for him alone the power of forgiving sins. On the contrary, they do the greatest injury to the one whose commands they wish to rescind and whose lesser commission they return. For when the Lord Jesus himself said in his Gospel, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose you retain, they are retained,’ who honors him more: the one who obeys his commands or the one who resists? In both matters the Church preserves obedience, both binding and loosing sin. Heresy is harsh in one matter and disobedient in the other: it wishes to bind what it will not loose, and does not wish to loose what it has bound; in this it condemns itself by its own judgment. For the Lord wished the right of loosing and binding to be equal, permitting both on equal terms. He who has no right to loose has none to bind either. For according to the Lord’s judgment, he who has the right to bind also has the right to loose; this assertion of theirs strangles itself, since those who deny that they have the right to loose must also deny that they have the right to bind.” And there: “It is written,” he says, “‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them’; therefore he who cannot loose sin does not have the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is the gift of the Holy Spirit; the right of the Holy Spirit lies in loosing and binding transgressions. How, then, do they claim his gift, when they distrust his right and power?” And again there: “What of the fact that they are more insolent? For since the Spirit of God is readier to mercy than to security¹, they do what he says he does not wish, and do not do what he wishes: to exact punishment belongs to a judge, to forgive to one who shows mercy. It would therefore be more tolerable, Novatian, for you to forgive than to bind … Those for whom Christ intercedes, Novatian accuses. Those whom Christ redeemed for salvation, Novatian condemns to death. To those to whom Christ says, ‘Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek,’ Novatian says, ‘I am harsh.’ To those to whom Christ says, ‘You will find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy and my burden light,’ Novatian imposes a heavy burden and a harsh yoke.” And in ch. 6 he addresses Christ thus: “You say to Peter, who refused to have his feet washed by you: ‘Unless I wash your feet, you will have no part with me.’ How, then, can these people have fellowship with you, when they do not receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, denying that they ought to forgive sins? They rightly confess this about themselves: they do not have Peter’s inheritance, since they do not have Peter’s faith, which they tear apart by their impious division. And although the chosen vessel of the Lord himself says, ‘If I forgave anything to anyone, I did so for your sake in the person of Christ,’ why do they read Paul, if they think he erred so impiously as to claim the right of his Lord? But he claimed what had been given, not what was not due.” And in ch. 7: “Why do you baptize, if it is not permitted for sins to be forgiven through a human being? In baptism there is surely remission of all sins. What difference does it make whether priests claim this right was given to them through penance or through washing? The mystery is one in both. Therefore, just as the power to forgive sins through baptism truly belongs to the Church, so too the power to forgive them through penance belongs to the same Church; and, just as baptism, penance is a sacrament entrusted to the Church’s administration.” — From St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona, in Letter 1 to Sympronianus the Novatian: “Did not,” he says, “the Prophet answer David, after the debt of murder and adultery, when he sinned concerning Bersabee: ‘The Lord has taken away your sin’? Did not exomologesis free the king of Babylon, condemned after so many deeds of idolatry? And what is the meaning of the Lord’s saying, ‘Will not he who has fallen rise again, and he who has turned away return’? What do all those arguments from the Lord’s parables answer? The woman finds a drachma and rejoices that it is found; the shepherd brings back the wandering sheep; to the returning son, after he had squandered all his goods and consorted with harlots and fornicators, the kind father runs to meet him and rebukes the envious brother for his resentment, saying, ‘This son of mine was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’ What about the man wounded on the road, passed by by the Levite and priest? Is he not healed by name? Review what the Spirit says to the Churches: he accuses the Ephesians of abandoning their love; he charges the Thyatirans with adultery; he rebukes the Sardians for ceasing from good works, the Pergamenes for teaching different doctrines, and burns the riches of the Laodiceans; yet he invites them all to the satisfaction of penance. What of the Apostle’s words to the Corinthians: ‘Lest, when I come, I mourn for many who sinned before and have not done penance for the fornication and uncleanness they formerly practiced’ …? No one commands labor without fruit. God never threatens one who does not repent unless he would forgive the one who repents.” Then he takes up the Novatians’ reply, that God can forgive sins but priests cannot, and refutes it: “‘God alone,’ you will say, ‘can do this.’ It is true; but what he does through his priests is also his own power. For what is the meaning of his saying to the Apostles, ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’? Why say this, if it was not permitted for human beings to bind and loose? Is this permitted only to the Apostles? Then it is permitted only to them to baptize, to give the Holy Spirit, and to cleanse the sins of the Gentiles, since all this was commanded to no others than the Apostles. But if in one place both the loosing of bonds and the power of the sacrament are given, then either all this has been handed down to us from the Apostles’ model and authority, or that other power too was not released by decrees … If, then, the power of the washing and anointing, especially the greater anointing, descends from the elders to bishops, the right of binding and loosing has also been handed down.” From Letter 3 to the same heretic he proves the falsehood of the Novatian doctrine from its novelty. “Novatian taught this. But when, brother, and at what time? Immediately after the Lord’s Passion? After God’s reign, that is, nearly three hundred years after the Lord’s Passion? What, then, did he do? Did he follow prophets, like the Caelaphrygians? Or some Philumene, as you might call her? Or did he alone receive such authority? Did he speak in tongues? Prophesy? Raise the dead? For he ought to have had some one of these things in order to introduce the Gospel of a new law.” After this, Pacian fights Novatian by an argument against him drawn from Novatian’s earlier position, in which he acknowledged that the Church had the power to forgive sins before Cornelius’s pontificate: “‘I do not know,’ you say, ‘whether sin can be forgiven by bishops, since the Lord said: “Whoever denies me before men, I will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”’ Why, then, did your Novatian, though not yet a priest even under a false episcopate, long before Cornelius became bishop at Rome, before he entered his episcopate, urge this? You have Cyprian’s testimony, whom you have never been able to weaken. For in one place he wrote to Antonianus in this way: ‘It was added that Novatian was then writing, and reciting in his own voice what he had written; and that Moses, then a confessor and now a martyr, subscribed: that peace should be given to the weak who had fallen and were at the point of death. These letters were sent throughout the whole world and carried throughout the Church to everyone’s knowledge.’ What do you say, brother Sympronianus? Novatian wrote these things and, to add the service of his good will, also recited his writings. His right hand is a witness, the hand that wrote is a witness, the tongue that read them is a witness. Cornelius, against whom all your envy broke out, was not yet bishop. Later, with many fellow bishops and then many confessors, and soon martyrs, he agreed with the council of the elders that peace could be granted, as Cyprian himself writes. If access to penance must be denied, Novatian is guilty, who wrote, urged, and read these things. Where then was that impatient vigor? Where that fierce censorship? If no one had preferred Cornelius to you, the authority of the one writing would have remained. Now that opinion displeases, now the weapons are hurled at us by those very people who supply the authority by which the case for those weapons grew strong.” Next, the Novatians contended that Christ’s words, “Whatever you loose,” etc., were to be referred to fraternal correction, because of the preceding words, “If your brother sins against you,” etc. St. Pacian shows that these must be understood of the power of the keys granted, or of the power to absolve from sins in the sacrament of penance. “He commanded that to one person; this he granted to many. That he himself loosed in the one admitted; this, however, the Church does. That is done without a priest, without the brethren; this is obtained by all. ‘Whatever you loose,’ he says; he makes no exception at all: ‘whatever,’ he says, whether great or small. Notice that he says below to Peter that what is sinned against a human being must be forgiven seventy-seven times, to show that otherwise it can be forgiven even once. Yet he who sins against Peter injures the Lord, as he himself indicates to Samuel: ‘They have not rejected you as insignificant, but me.’ Therefore what is commanded to us so many times is granted once to the Church.” Finally, he shows that the Novatians have departed from Christ’s teaching by the evident marks of heresy and a heretical sect. “Now consider whether this sect above all is built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. Did it begin before you? Did it believe before you? Did it not depart from the earlier foundations? Did it not migrate, separate itself from the rest of the body, set up its own teachers and its own instruments? Did it argue anything unusual, discover any new right, or judge it a small matter to reject its own body? Surely then it seems to have departed from Christ, and then to have stood outside the Prophets and Apostles.” ✳

Similarly, Victor of Cartenna, a bishop who flourished around the year 160, in bk. On Penance, ch. 20, says: “Hear the Lord in the Gospel, by what torches he strikes the sinner, so that you may understand how highly he esteems the sacrament of penance.”

They wish it to be a sacrament not only improperly, but properly, because they compare it with the Eucharist and with baptism, which two sacraments the Innovators admit are properly so called. From Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, bk. 3: “Not only do priests have the power of forgiving sins when they regenerate, but afterward as well.” From the Council of Alexandria, On John, bk. 12, chs. 22 and 23: “In two ways people filled or inspired by the Spirit of God forgive and retain sins: either when they admit the worthy to baptism and exclude the unworthy, or when they rebuke the sinning children of the Church and forgive those who do penance.” — From St. Leo, Letter 91 to Theodore: “God’s manifold mercy so comes to the aid of human falls that the hope of eternal life is restored not only through the grace of baptism but also through the remedy of penance.”

The Subtle Doctor proves this truth in In IV Sent., d. 14, q. 4, n. 3: first, because it is possible for a sacrament to be instituted by which sins are remitted by way of washing, or of a definitive sentence; second, because this is fitting; third, because it has happened. “The first,” he says, “is shown by this: it is possible for God to absolve a soul from sin, in accord with the words of the Creed, ‘the remission of sins’; consequently it is possible to institute some sign of that absolution, and this sign is efficacious, as was explained above in the matter of the sacraments in general; and by equal reasoning, any words at all, uttered by any minister whatsoever. Thus the broad possibility of this account is clear. As for fittingness, this is proved as follows. First,” says the Doctor, “it is fitting that there be some sensible sign of this absolution, for the same reasons for which the fittingness of a sacrament in general was stated in d. 1. For the same reasons, it is fitting that this be a sign instituted by God, because it will move more, lead the intellect to certainty, and incline the affections more toward readiness to receive that sign. It is also fitting in this case that this sign of interior absolution be instituted in words signifying absolution, so that the sign may present what is signified. It is also fitting that this exterior absolution be made by a priest, because it is fitting that extremes be brought back to the extreme through a middle term, and thus, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, that those at the extreme, namely sinners, be brought back to God through the hierarchy, that is, through the priest, just as occurs in the Church triumphant. It is also fitting that it be done by one who has jurisdiction, because a sentence pronounced by a judge who is not their judge is null. It is also fitting that due intention be required, as was explained above concerning the other sacraments. It is also fitting on the part of the recipient that he be penitent, that is, have some displeasure at the sin committed. We see the same thing among temporal judges: they condemn the insolent by sentence, but in their own way absolve the penitent, that is, pronounce him not guilty or not to be punished.” Thus far the Doctor, who clearly demonstrates the possibility and fittingness of this sacrament. That it was in fact instituted, he teaches in the same place, n. 5, in these words: “Third, I say that this has happened. The basis for this,” he continues, “is taken from the authorities adduced for the opposing position”—namely, the authorities of Sacred Scripture that we set out above.

Confirmed: A perpetual sensible sign instituted by Christ the Lord and effective of sanctifying grace is properly called a sacrament of the New Law. But external penance, together with the priest’s absolution received, has all these characteristics. First, it is a sensible sign, both on the penitent’s part, in confessing his sins and being sensibly grieved over them, and on the priest’s part, in absolving. For the priest has authority granted by Christ to remit sins, not indeed through purely interior acts; that mode is not proper to a human being, who knows interior things through exterior things, spiritual things through bodily things. For Christ the Lord conferred this authority on the Apostles so that they might exercise it over penitents as judges over the accused, after the pattern of an external court. Hence St. Jerome, in his Letter to Heliodorus: “Far be it from me to speak anything sinister about those who succeed to the apostolic rank, who consecrate the Body of Christ with their holy mouth, through whom we too are Christians; who, having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, judge whatever they judge before the day of judgment.” But judges cannot judge a case they do not know; and consequently there must be some sensible sign by which the penitent manifests his sins to the priest, and in turn the priest signifies to the penitent that he remits them in God’s stead and by God’s authority. — Second, it is a perpetual sign, because that power was granted by Christ the Lord to the Apostles and their successors without limitation of time or duration, so that they might exercise it over all sinners whatsoever who have recourse to them. Therefore, just as there will never be a time in the Church when there are no people who sin after baptism, so this power to absolve from such sins will always be necessary in the Church. — Third, this sign was instituted by Christ the Lord. For in Matthew 16, addressing the disciples in the person of Peter, he says: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on earth,” etc. Hence in Matthew 17², addressing all the Apostles, he says: “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” etc. — Likewise in John 20, addressing all the disciples gathered together, he declares distinctly: “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them.” By these words Christ the Lord granted the Apostles authority to bind and loose, to retain and remit sins; this authority did not exist under the Old Law, and consequently it is a new institution. — Finally, this sign is effective of grace, for in the ordinary course the remission of sins occurs only through the infusion of grace, as we said when treating of justifying grace. Therefore the power to remit sins includes a promise of grace and a supernatural effect.

THE NOVATIANS REPLIED that, according to St. Pacian, Letter 3, the aforesaid words of Christ the Lord in John 20 refer only to catechumens, of whom he speaks in Matthew 28, saying to the Apostles, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc., so that what Matthew had not completed John completed, namely by indicating that the power to remit sin, promised to the Apostles, ought to be exercised only through the conferral of baptism. — Against this, first: the Evangelists’ manner of speaking (as St. Pacian answers very well) gives a complete and perfect sense, not a half and imperfect one. Second, what Christ the Lord granted in John 20, he had promised in Matthew 18; but there he did not promise to give this power to be exercised only with respect to Gentiles who were to be baptized, since he speaks indefinitely and says, “Whatever you bind on earth,” etc. Third, what Christ the Lord granted in John 20, he had promised to Peter in Matthew 16, saying, “Upon this Rock I will build my Church: whatever you bind on earth,” etc. But there he promises Peter the power to bind the Faithful and absolve them: for the power Christ promised to Peter concerns the Church and the sheep, and the Church is made up only of the faithful. Therefore, etc.

THEY REPLIED 2. The words in Matthew 18 were spoken there only about forgiving offenses committed against people, not against God; for immediately before the aforesaid words Christ the Lord was saying, “If your brother sins against you, go and correct him,” etc. — Against this: the preceding words are spoken to Peter alone as a particular person; hence they concern absolutely all the faithful, who are bound to offer fraternal correction and are also obliged to release offenses and forgive injuries done to them. But the following words were spoken to all the Apostles. Second, the particle “whatever” includes absolutely all sins, even those committed against God. Therefore the Novatians’ reply is useless and empty.

THEY REPLIED 3. In St. Ambrose, bk. 1 On Penance, ch. 2, the aforesaid words of Christ the Lord mean that the Apostles were granted by Christ the power to remit lesser sins, but not graver ones. — Against this, first: Christ the Lord speaks without any exception, saying, “Whatever.” Hence St. Ambrose, in the same place: “God makes no distinction: he promised his mercy to all, and granted his priests permission to forgive without any exception.” Second, no one doubts that a sin committed in the heat of passion is very grave; but St. Paul had power to bind and loose that sin. For he bound the incestuous Corinthian when he excommunicated him and handed him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit might be saved; and he absolved him when he writes in 2 Corinthians 2: “If I forgave anything to anyone, I did so too; for what I forgave, if I forgave anything, I did for your sake in the person of Christ”—that is, by the authority granted to me by Christ. Hence St. Ambrose there, ch. 6, concludes: “Why, then, do they read Paul, if they thought he had erred so impiously as to claim the right of his Lord? But he claimed what had been given, not what was not due.”

THE CALVINISTS REPLY 4 that the authority to remit sins is nothing other than the ability to preach the Gospel and awaken faith, by which the sinner is converted to God and believes that God’s divine mercy helps him. Therefore by that authority no judicial power to absolve from sins is understood. — Against this: In John 20 Christ gives the Apostles a power he had not given them before his Passion. But before the Passion he had given them the power to announce the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles and Samaritans, Matthew 10: “Do not go on the road of the Gentiles, and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans, but go rather to the sheep of the house of Israel that have perished.” Likewise, the power he gives them in Matthew 28 and Mark 16 to announce the Gospel to all the Gentiles is far different from that which he confers in John 20 to absolve from sins. “For,” says St. Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, bk. 3, “by these words Christ gave human beings a power which he did not wish to be given to angels or archangels. For it was not said to angels: ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’; rather, he gave angels the power to announce the Gospel. For in Luke 2 the Angel said to the shepherds, ‘Behold, I bring you good news of great joy.’” Therefore the power to loose from sins is not the same as the power to preach the Gospel. Moreover, a preacher of the Gospel announces absolution and remission but does not effect it; Christ, however, expressly asserts that sins are remitted through his ministers, for he says, “Whatever you loose,” etc. For he did not say, “Whatever you declare to have been loosed or bound,” but “whatever you loose and bind.” Again, when the Savior promises this power while addressing Peter, he says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” But keys are not merely signs and images of opening; they are also its true instruments when applied by someone. They do not merely signify, but actively and efficaciously contribute to closing and opening. Therefore the power granted to blessed Peter and his successors does not concern only preaching, or declaration and signification, but truly contributes, at least instrumentally and morally, to the remission of sins. Finally, the preaching of the Gospel can rightly be done before pagans so that they may be converted to the faith; but pagan unbelievers cannot be absolved of their sins through the keys of the Church and sacramental absolution, since this absolution is an act of jurisdiction, and the Church has no authority over pagans and those not yet baptized, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3: “What have I to do with judging those who are outside? God will judge those who are outside.”

THEY REPLY 5. Others say that by those words in John 20 the Apostles are given power to remit sins only insofar as they are given the ability to announce that the sins have been remitted. — Against this: Christ the Lord did not say, “Whose sins you declare remitted,” but “whose sins you remit,” etc. Next, keys are not needed to declare sins remitted, but only a voice and a trumpet, as kings and princes sometimes announce by a herald’s voice that they forgive an offense to subjects who were formerly traitors. Again, Christ the Lord gave the Apostles a similar authority to remit sins in John 20 to the authority he himself possessed, for he says, “As the living Father sent me, so I send you.” Hence St. Chrysostom, Homily 85 on John: “He was about to leave them his own ministry there.” And in On the Priesthood, bk. 3: “Therefore the Father has all power in every respect, and handed this power to the Son, and the Son to the Apostles,” through these words: “Whose sins you remit,” etc. Hence the Apostle says in 2 Corinthians 5: “He gave us the ministry of reconciliation … therefore we act as ambassadors for Christ.” But Christ reconciled not only by exhorting, but also by actually remitting, as he himself indicates in Matthew 9: “So that you may know that the Son of Man has the power to remit sins,” etc. Therefore, etc. Finally, the holy Fathers teach that the priests of the New Law have the power to forgive sins after baptism, and truly to purge and cleanse us from sins, not merely to prove and declare that we have been cleansed by them. For St. Chrysostom says, On the Priesthood, bk. 3: “To cleanse the leprosy of the body—or, more truly, I should say, not to cleanse it, but to prove that it has been cleansed—was permitted only to the priests of the Jews. But our priests have been granted not to prove that the stains of the soul have been cleansed, but to cleanse them entirely.”

They object 3. A word and an element applied by some minister are required for every sacrament; for St. Augustine says, Tractate 80 on John: “The word comes to the element and a sacrament is made.” And blessed Isidore, Etymologies, bk. 6, ch. 19: “Baptism, chrism, the Body and Blood of Christ are called sacraments for this reason: under the covering of bodily things, divine power secretly works.” But in penance there is no element, and no bodily things are applied under which divine power might work salvation. Therefore, etc. — I ANSWER, I distinguish the major premise: no bodily things or element properly so called are applied, as happens in baptism, about which alone St. Augustine speaks there, I grant; an element improperly so called, I deny. For the signs by which the penitent declares his sins and shows his grief conceived over them, as well as the words of priestly absolution, are sensible—not to touch or sight, but to hearing—and signify a true removal from sin. That St. Augustine does not mean an element properly so called is apparent; otherwise it would follow that the Eucharist is not a true sacrament, since it is not made from an element properly so called.

They object 4. No penance other than that in the Old Law is preached in the New Law, as St. Paul indicates in Acts 26, saying nothing beyond what the Prophets and Moses spoke as future events. But penance was not a sacrament in the Old Law; therefore neither is it in the New. — I DISTINGUISH THE MAJOR PREMISE: no other penance is preached insofar as it is a virtue, let it pass; insofar as it is a sacrament, I deny it. For in the Old Law it was not said as it was in the New: “Whose sins you remit,” etc. Add that heretics twist the Apostle’s words into a perverse sense: for the Apostle does not say that he preaches no other penance than that preached by Moses and the Prophets, but that he announces nothing except what the Prophets had foretold about Christ the Lord and declared would happen.

The Novatians objected, as St. Ambrose reports, Sermon 8 on Psalm 118: “Ease of pardon provides an incentive to the sinner.” But God cannot institute an incentive to sin; he would have done so if he had given human beings the power to absolve from sins. Therefore, etc. — I ANSWER, I distinguish the major premise: ease of pardon arising solely from the indulgence and forgiveness of the one offended provides an incentive to sin when no penalty and laborious satisfaction are required of the offender, I grant; when they are required, I deny it. But through sacramental penance sins are not remitted without a penalty on the offender’s part, since satisfaction is one of the parts of penance. Add that the major premise can be denied: for, as Augustine teaches splendidly in Homily 27 from the Fifty, where he resolves this objection: “If the entrance to penance were closed, would not that sinner add still another sin all the more, the more he despaired of being forgiven? For he would say to himself: ‘Behold, I have sinned; behold, I have committed a crime; now there is no place for pardon for me; penance is fruitless. I am condemned; why should I no longer live as I wish? Since I do not find love there, at least here let me feed my desire … Therefore, if you remove the yoke of penance, sins will increase,” etc.

THE NOVATIANS ALSO OBJECTED, in St. Ambrose, bk. 1 On Penance, ch. 7, that saying in 1 Samuel, ch. 2: “If a man sins against a man, they will pray for him to the Lord; but if a man sins against the Lord, who will pray for him?” — I ANSWER, FIRST, that oracle concerns the Old Testament, not the Law of the Gospel, in which the Church’s priests have been granted authority to loose from sins. I ANSWER, SECOND, that if those words were used in the Novatians’ sense, it would follow that no human being could pray for another sinner. Third, I say with St. Ambrose in the same place that it is not written, “No one will pray for him,” but “Who will pray?” That is, the question is who is the person able to pray in such a case; he is not excluded. Finally, you have in Psalm 15: “Lord, who will dwell in your tabernacle, or who will rest on your holy mountain?” For it does not mean no one will dwell there, but that the proven person will dwell there. Nor does it say that no one will rest there, but that the chosen one will rest there. To show that this is true, not much later in Psalm 23 it says: “Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord, or who will stand in his holy place?” That is, not just anyone from the crowd, nor someone of ordinary truth among the common people, but one of outstanding life and singular merit. And to show that when it says “who,” it does not mean “no one,” but signifies “someone,” after saying, “Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord?” it adds: “The innocent of hands and pure of heart, who has not received his soul in vain.” And elsewhere: “Who is wise, and will understand these things?” Does it mean that no one will understand them? And in the Gospel: “Who is the faithful and prudent steward whom the Lord will set over his household, to give them their measure of wheat in due season?” And to make clear that he spoke of one who truly exists, not one who does not exist, he added: “Blessed is that servant whom the Lord, when he comes, will find doing so.” I think that saying was also spoken in this way: “God, who is like you?” Certainly not “no one,” because the Son is the image of the Father. In the same way, therefore, “Who will pray for him?” must be understood to mean that someone of singular life ought to pray for one who has sinned against the Lord, because the greater the guilt, the greater the intercessions that must be sought. It was not just anyone from the crowd who prayed for the people of the Jews, but Moses, when they worshiped the head of a calf, forgetful of the faith. Did Moses err? Certainly not: because he did not err in praying, he both merited and obtained what he sought. For what could such affection not obtain, when he offered himself for the people, saying, “And now, if you forgive their sin, forgive it; but if not, blot me out of the book of life”? You see that he did not consult for himself like an indulgent intercessor, full of disdain, for fear of incurring offense, as the Novatian says he fears; rather, mindful of everyone and forgetful of himself, he did not fear to incur offense himself in order to rescue and free the people from the danger of offense. Therefore it was rightly written, “Who will pray for him?” That is, let someone such as Moses offer himself for sinners; someone such as Jeremiah, to whom, although it had been said by the Lord our God, “Do not pray for this people,” nevertheless prayed and obtained pardon.” So says St. Ambrose.

Second conclusion. — PENANCE IS A SACRAMENT DISTINCT FROM BAPTISM; AND THEREFORE THE REMISSION OF SINS THAT TAKES PLACE THROUGH PENANCE DOES NOT TAKE PLACE THROUGH THE MERE REMEMBRANCE OF BAPTISM ONCE RECEIVED. This is of faith, defined by the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, can. 2: “If anyone, confusing the sacraments, says that baptism itself is the sacrament of penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct, and therefore that penance is not rightly called a second plank after shipwreck, let him be anathema.”

The Council proves this authority by five reasons drawn from the essence, minister, subject, effect, and name of each sacrament: “Moreover, this sacrament (penance) is known to differ from baptism in many respects. For, besides the fact that the matter and form by which the essence of each sacrament is effected differ (for the matter and form of baptism are ablution together with words signifying that it is performed in the power of the most holy Trinity, whereas the acts of the penitent are, as it were, the matter of penance, and its form is priestly absolution expressed in words), it is certain that the minister of baptism ought not to be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered it through the gate of baptism. For what have I,” says the Apostle, “to do with judging those who are outside?” It is otherwise “with those within the household of faith, whom Christ the Lord once made members of his body by the washing of his baptism. For if they later defile themselves with some crime, he willed that they should no longer be cleansed by a repeated baptism, since this is in no way permitted in the Catholic Church, but should be brought before this tribunal as defendants, so that by the sentence of priests they might be freed, not once only, but whenever, repenting of the sins they have committed, they have fled to it.” By these words the Council plainly declares that the difference between penance and baptism is manifest not only in the matter and form of each sacrament, but especially in their ministers: for in a case of necessity any person may be the minister of baptism, whereas only a priest may minister penance. Likewise, their subjects are distinct: baptism may be administered to anyone, even a pagan or gentile, whereas penance is for the faithful alone, because it is exercised in the manner of a judgment, which has force only over the children and subjects of the Church. Moreover, baptism can be conferred even on children and the insane, but the sacrament of penance only on adults who have the use of reason. — The difference between the two sacraments also appears from the diversity of their effects and application: “For,” says the Council, “the fruit of baptism differs from that of penance. For through baptism, putting on Christ, we are made altogether a new creature in him, obtaining the full and complete remission of all sins; yet we can by no means attain this newness and completeness through the sacrament of penance without great tears and labors of our own, divine justice so requiring, so that penance was rightly called by the holy Fathers a kind of laborious baptism”—namely, by Cyprian, in De Lapsis; by Nazianzen, in the Oration on the Holy Lights; and by Damascene, bk. I, On the Faith, ch. 10. — This is confirmed: Christ the Lord, in John 20, gave the Apostles power not only to remit sins, but also to retain them. But this power would be altogether pointless if the remission of sins that takes place through penance were merely remembrance of baptism once received: for priests cannot prohibit the faithful from remembering the baptism they received. Therefore the sacrament of penance is not a mere remembrance of baptism.

YOU WILL SAY 1: The penance of the New Law is no different from that preached by St. John. But Mark 1 says, “John was in the desert, baptizing and preaching a baptism of penance for the remission of sins.” Therefore the penance of the New Law is not distinct from baptism. — I DISTINGUISH THE MINOR: penance as a virtue is no different, I grant; the sacrament, I deny. For penance is twofold: one is indeed a virtue, which has always been necessary for all people who have stained themselves with some mortal sin, in order to attain grace—even for those who wished to be initiated by the sacrament of baptism, as we said. The other is that which Christ instituted as a sacrament, when he gave the Apostles the power to absolve from sins; the holy Fathers wholly distinguish it from baptism, as we have already said.

YOU WILL SAY 2: St. Augustine, bk. I, On Marriage and Concupiscence, ch. 11, explaining Ephesians 5, “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, cleansing her with the washing of water in the word of life,” teaches that it is to be understood thus: “that by the same washing of regeneration and word of sanctification”—that is, baptism—“all the evils of regenerated human beings are entirely cleansed and healed; not only the sins which are all now remitted in baptism, but also those contracted later through human ignorance or weakness: not so that baptism is repeated as often as one sins, but because by that very baptism, which is given once, it comes about that the pardon of any sins whatsoever is obtained for the faithful, both before and afterward.” — I ANSWER that he means nothing other than that penance, both as a virtue and as a sacrament, cannot in any way obtain remission of sins without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it. For he continues: “For what would penance avail either before baptism, unless baptism followed, or afterward, unless it went before? In the Lord’s Prayer itself, which is our daily cleansing, with what fruit or effect would ‘Forgive us our debts’ be said, unless it were said by those who have been baptized? Likewise, how could the generosity and beneficence of almsgiving avail anyone to have his sins forgiven, if he had not been baptized? Finally, whose will be the very blessedness of the kingdom of heaven, where the Church will have no spot, or wrinkle, or anything of that kind, where there will be nothing blameworthy, nothing feigned, where not only will there be uprightness, but no concupiscence of sin at all—whose, unless of the baptized?” By these words St. Augustine signifies that penance is necessary for adults before baptism, but that for it to avail, the desire for baptism is necessarily required; and hence, unless baptism followed where and when it could conveniently follow, it would avail nothing. So too the sacrament of penance avails nothing unless the actual reception of baptism preceded it, since baptism is the gate of all the sacraments.

YOU WILL PRESS: St. Augustine’s opinion was no different from that of his disciple St. Fulgentius. But St. Fulgentius, bk. On the Faith to Peter, ch. 30, calls baptism “the sacrament of faith and penance,” in keeping with what is written in Luke 3, that John preached a baptism of penance for the remission of sins. — I ANSWER that he calls baptism “the sacrament of penance and faith” for this reason: in adults who have sinned mortally, baptism must necessarily presuppose faith and penance, as is gathered from these words of St. Peter, Acts 2: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized.” That this is St. Fulgentius’s meaning, and no other, is clear from his words, for he says: “Hold most firmly and doubt in no way that, except for those who are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no one will receive eternal life who here has not turned from his evils through penance and faith, and been freed through the sacrament of faith and penance, that is, through baptism.” Understand this not of penance of every kind, but of that which must be performed before baptism, that is, the virtue of penance. For he immediately adds: “For adults, indeed, it is necessary both to do penance for their evils, to hold the Catholic faith according to the rule of truth, and to receive the sacrament of baptism. But for infants, who can neither believe by their own will nor do penance for the sin they inherit by origin, the sacrament of faith, which is holy baptism, suffices for salvation so long as they cannot yet be capable of things at the age of reason.”

Third conclusion. — THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE WAS INSTITUTED IMMEDIATELY BY CHRIST THE LORD, AND THAT AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, NAMELY IN JOHN 20, WHEN HE SAID TO THE APOSTLES: “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT; WHOSE SINS YOU FORGIVE,” etc. This conclusion has two parts: namely, that the sacrament of penance was instituted by Christ the Lord, and that it was instituted only after the Resurrection of Christ the Lord.

The Council of Trent plainly teaches the first part, sess. XIV, can. 1, in these words: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for the faithful, to reconcile them to God himself whenever they fall into sins after baptism, let him be anathema.” Nor is it an objection that the Council does not assert this sacrament to have been instituted immediately by Christ the Lord. For although it does not add that word immediately, it is nevertheless clearly gathered from its teaching, since it recognizes no other author of the sacraments than Christ the Lord. Moreover, in canons 5 and 6 it teaches that confession, about which controversy could chiefly arise, is by Christ’s command, as we shall prove in the following article.

The same Council teaches both parts there, ch. 11, when it says: “The Lord, however, instituted the sacrament of penance especially then, when, raised from the dead, he breathed upon his disciples, saying: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive,’ etc.”

No reason a priori can be offered for this truth other than the will of Christ the Lord, who instituted the sacraments as he pleased, when and how he willed. Nevertheless, there are fitting reasons why he deferred the institution of this sacrament until after his Resurrection. First, it was not fitting that power over the mystical body of Christ be given before power over the true Body of Christ. The Apostles received the latter only at the Last Supper. Although perhaps at that time Christ taught the disciples the entire future state of the Church and consequently gave instruction about the sacrament of penance to be instituted later, it can in no way be inferred that this sacrament was instituted there: both because Scripture nowhere teaches this, and because the power to remit sins had not yet been conferred, without which this sacrament could have no efficacy at all. Moreover, the Resurrection of Christ is the exemplar of perfect justification and mystical resurrection, by which a person rises through penance from the death of sin. Hence St. Paul says in Romans 4: “He was handed over because of our transgressions, and rose again for our justification,” that is, to set before us the perfect exemplar of justification. Therefore Christ the Lord had to rise first before this sacrament was instituted, by which a sinner, recalled and restored to the life of grace, might not die again by the death of sin, just as the Apostle says there: “Christ the Lord, rising from the dead, dies no more; death shall no longer have dominion over him.”

YOU WILL SAY 1: The sacrament of penance was instituted when the power of the keys was conferred on the Apostles. But Christ the Lord handed that power to the Apostles before his Passion, namely in Matthew 18, when he said: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Therefore the sacrament of penance was then instituted by Christ the Lord. — I DENY THE MINOR: for in that passage the power of the keys for remitting or retaining sins was only promised to the Apostles; it was not actually conferred on them, because this power pertains only to priests, as we shall prove below. But when Christ said this in Matthew 18, the Apostles were not yet priests, since they obtained this dignity only on the night of the Supper. Hence what took place there was rather a promise of the power of the keys to be conferred than its true and actual bestowal.

YOU WILL INSIST: Catholics therefore wrongly adduce those words of Christ the Lord, spoken to Peter in Matthew 16, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,” and in Matthew 18, when he said to all the Apostles, “Whatever you loose,” etc., to assert the institution of this sacrament. — I DENY THE INFERENCE; for even if Christ the Lord exhibited the power to absolve only after the Resurrection, he had nevertheless expressly promised it already in the aforesaid passages. Since, therefore, he can neither lie nor deceive, those promises were like pledges and, as it were, the first tokens and beginnings of the institution to come after the Resurrection.

YOU WILL PRESS: If Christ the Lord gave the Apostles the power to absolve only in John 20, it follows that only those who were present when he spoke these words had this power, and therefore St. Thomas lacked it. For immediately after the aforesaid words, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” it is added: “But Thomas, one of the Twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.” But this consequence is absurd; otherwise St. Thomas would have had an altogether incomplete and imperfect apostolic authority. Therefore, etc. — I DENY THE MAJOR’S CONSEQUENCE: for, as St. Cyril of Alexandria says, bk. XII, On John, ch. 56: “We say that the power of the Spirit passed to all the disciples by the intention of Christ, the giver; for he gave it not to some, but to all the disciples. Therefore, by the generosity of the giver, not only the Apostles who were present but also those who were absent received the Holy Spirit. That this is not a forced but a secure and true account, we shall show by the authority of Holy Scripture. God once commanded Moses (Numbers 11) to choose seventy elders of the Jews. He said that he would take from the Spirit who was in Moses and place it upon them. But when Eldad and Medad remained in the camp, apart from the number of the seventy elders, and the Spirit had come upon all those seventy, those who were with Moses prophesied, and those two who were absent also prophesied, etc. Therefore Thomas was not deprived of participation in the Spirit by being absent, since he belonged to the number of those to whom the Spirit was owed, as they had been honored with the dignity of the Apostolate.”

YOU WILL SAY 2: Christ the Lord gave the Apostles in John 20 the same authority to remit sins that he himself had received from the Father, as we said above, p. 291. For he says: “As the living Father sent me, I also send you.” But he reconciled sinners without the ministry of any sacrament. Therefore by those words, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” etc., he is not considered to have instituted any sacrament which the Apostles and their successors would necessarily have to use to wash away sins committed after baptism. — I distinguish the major: that they had the same, that is, complete and identical, authority, I deny; that is, a similar and participated authority, I grant. For although Christ the Lord handed the Apostles a power to reconcile sinners similar to the one he himself had received from the Father, it does not follow that he handed them the same and altogether equal power. For Christ had the power of excellence, which was bound to no external signs, since he was true God and the true Son of God, who has the ability to pardon sins by plenary right and independently of every sensible sign. The Apostles, however, had only a participated power, bound to the external signs of baptism and penance. As for the authority of St. John, I say that this mission can be understood as that in which Christ sent the disciples to announce the Gospel amid the persecutions of men, just as he himself had been sent by the Father, as St. Gregory interprets it in hom. 26, On the Gospels. Explaining those words, he says: “The Father sent the Son, whom he appointed to become incarnate for the redemption of the human race, whom he willed to come into the world for the Passion; yet he loved the one whom he sent to the Passion. The Lord sends his chosen Apostles into the world not to its joys, but to sufferings, just as he himself was sent. Therefore, just as the Son is loved by the Father and yet sent to the Passion, so the disciples are loved by the Lord and yet sent into the world to the Passion. Thus it is rightly said, ‘As the living Father sent me, I also send you’: that is, I love you with the same love with which the Father loves me, when I send you amid the scandals of persecutors, as he sent me to endure the Passion.”