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

NOTE 1. As was said just above, for present purposes there is a twofold necessity with respect to salvation: namely, that of the end or means, and that of a precept, or divine command. That is called necessary by necessity of the end or means which is simply necessary for attaining eternal life, even if no obligation of a precept exists; conversely, that is called necessary by necessity of a precept which is ordered to salvation solely by divine precept. Hence, if someone is excused from the obligation of a precept, either through lack of mental capacity or bodily infirmity, he can attain eternal life without that means. Thus infants and the mentally incapable, because they do not possess the use of reason, can be saved without observing the precepts of God and the Church; likewise the infirm can be saved even if they do not satisfy the precept of fasting, from which they are excused on account of infirmity.

NOTE 2. Those things that are necessary by necessity of the end fall into two classes. Some have intrinsic necessity from an intrinsic connection found between the means themselves and the ultimate end, namely eternal life; in this way grace, or charity, is necessary by necessity of the end. Others are necessary solely by the institution of God, who so establishes and orders some means as necessary for salvation for a particular period, though otherwise it was not necessary in this way. Thus baptism is necessary for salvation under the Gospel Law, although before then it did not impose such necessity under the natural Law or the written, that is, Mosaic Law. Moreover, there is this difference between these two kinds of means: the means of the first kind are necessary for eternal salvation in every state and in every way, whereas those of the second kind are not, but only for the state for which they were instituted. The question, then, is whether the virtue of penance was necessary for salvation by intrinsic necessity and in every state, or only by divine ordinance and for a particular state.

NOTE 3. Among those things necessary by necessity of the end through God's institution, some are simply necessary, so that eternal life cannot be obtained without such means either in itself or accidentally. Thus baptism actually received is necessary for infants. Others are indeed necessary in themselves for eternal life, but accidentally, in some particular case, either because of invincible ignorance or because there is no opportunity to apply such means, they become unnecessary: salvation can therefore be attained without using those means. For this reason baptism actually received is not said to be necessary for some adults who lack the opportunity to procure it for themselves. The question, then, is whether the virtue of penance, whether taken generally for detestation of and sorrow for sins or specifically as a distinct special virtue, is necessary in itself for salvation and the remission of sin.

First conclusion. — PENANCE, INSOFAR AS IT IS A SPECIAL VIRTUE DISTINCT FROM THE OTHERS AND MEANS ONLY A WILL TO VINDICATE SIN, IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN. This is the Doctor's teaching, d. 11, q. 2, n. 23, where he says: Concerning the second principal point, namely whether repenting, as an act of virtue, is required for the deletion of sin, I say that it is not required as an act of one determinate virtue. This indeed is so.

He proves it: Because, he says, repenting in any of the four senses (that is, vindicating a sin committed, detesting that same sin, accepting an imposed punishment, and patiently bearing it) suffices, as is proved by the testimony of Ezekiel 18 and 33: “At whatever hour the sinner shall groan,” etc. But the first act and the others are not necessarily acts of the same determinate virtue: the first belongs to justice, the last to patience, and the two between them to any appetitive virtue. By these words he signifies that the virtue of penance, insofar as it is distinct from the others, is not absolutely necessary for remission of sin, and consequently is not absolutely necessary for salvation, since sin can be remitted not only through an act of love of God, as we shall say below, but also through penance taken generally, insofar as it means detestation of and sorrow for a sin committed. That, indeed, can proceed from a virtue other than penance, as we said in the preceding Section. — This truth is confirmed by the divine testimonies which, whenever they speak of the necessity of penance, express penance as turning away from sins and detesting them, as can be seen in the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 20¹, where it gathers various testimonies of Scripture to establish the necessity of penance. But in ch. 4 it indicates what sort of penance it declares so necessary: “At every time,” it says, “this movement of contrition was necessary for obtaining pardon for sins.” There it explains what it understands by that contrition, saying at the beginning of the chapter: “Contrition of heart is sorrow for and detestation of a sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning thereafter.” Thus it defines contrition as follows: “It is sorrow of heart and detestation of a sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning thereafter.” Moreover, this sorrow and detestation can be elicited by different virtues, such as charity, hope, religion, and so on. Therefore, when penance is said to be absolutely necessary for remission of sin, whether in Scripture, in Councils, or by the holy Fathers, this should not be understood in itself of penance insofar as it is a special virtue distinct from the others.

Second conclusion. — PENANCE TAKEN GENERALLY, AND INSOFAR AS IT IS SORROW OF HEART AND DETESTATION OF A SIN COMMITTED, WITH THE PURPOSE OF NOT SINNING THEREAFTER, WAS NECESSARY FOR SINNERS AT ALL TIMES IN ORDER TO OBTAIN PARDON FOR SINS. This is defined as a matter of faith by the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 1, where it says: “Penance was indeed necessary at every time for all men who had stained themselves with some mortal sin, in order to attain grace, even for those who could have been washed in the sacrament of baptism: so that, casting off and correcting their perversity, they might detest so great an offense against God with hatred of sin and devout sorrow of heart. Hence the Prophet says: ‘Turn, and do penance for all your iniquities, and iniquity will not bring you to ruin.’ The Lord also said: ‘Unless you do penance, you will all likewise perish.’ And Peter, Prince of the Apostles, commending penance to sinners about to be initiated by baptism, said: ‘Do penance, and let each of you be baptized.’”

The Doctor clearly explains this conclusion, d. 14, q. 1, n. 9, where, speaking of the remission of mortal sin, he says: “Second, I say that it is not remitted without a punishment equivalent in divine acceptance. For by every sin God is offended, as Scripture cries out plainly; but His offense, or anger—as was said—is His will to vindicate, or to require something sufficient to appease Him. Therefore, given any sin, God wills to vindicate Himself against the sinner; but to will to vindicate is to will to punish. Therefore, after a sin has been committed, some punishment, or its equivalent in divine acceptance, is required for its deletion. And further on: By ordinary power this is the universally prescribed way by the law of divine ordinance, namely, that sin be punished by a penalty as its proper counterpart. Moreover, n. 10: As a matter of fact, this conclusion holds: that ordinarily a penalty or voluntary punishment is required for the deletion of sin.”

YOU WILL SAY 1: The Lord Christ several times remitted sins without any prior penance; therefore penance is not necessary for the remission of sin according to the ordinary course. The antecedent is proved from Luke 5, where we read that when some men carrying a paralytic lowered him through the roof before Jesus, He said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” Likewise, in John 8, Christ remitted the sins of the adulterous woman, who had given no signs of penance beforehand. For when He asked her, “Has no one condemned you?” and she answered, “No one, Lord,” He immediately said, “Neither will I condemn you; go, and sin no more.” Therefore penance is not necessary for the remission of sin. — I deny the consequence. As for the antecedent, I say first that the Lord Christ, by His absolute and divine authority in remitting sins, could remit and pardon sins without prior formal penance, but with only virtual penance, which that paralytic certainly had virtually. For faith and hope shone forth greatly in him, since Matthew 9 records that the Lord Himself said to him, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven you.” The word “take heart” suggests not only the faith and confidence of those carrying him, but also the paralytic's own hope of pardon through faith; for unless he had believed and trusted, he would never have allowed himself to be lowered through the tiles. And so, since faith and hope in a sinner produce penance, he seems to have had at least virtual penance. To the second point I say that the woman likewise had penance and sorrow for the sin committed, as St. Ambrose indicates in Letter 52, where he says: “The adulterous woman deserved to be absolved: when her Jewish accusers withdrew, she remained alone with Christ; by that very remaining, she seems to have confessed her crime and, through sincere penance, borne witness to it.”

YOU WILL SAY 2: The Lord Christ says in Luke 11, “Give alms, and behold, all things are clean for you.” And in Matthew 6: “If you forgive men their sins, your heavenly Father will likewise forgive you your sins.” Therefore penance is not required for the remission of sin according to the ordinary course. — I deny the consequence: for perfect charity is opposed to sins and destroys them outside the sacrament, whereas imperfect charity does not. But perfect charity either presupposes penance, produces it, or at least includes it virtually. Hence, when the giving of alms and the forgiving of injuries are said to have the power to remit sins, they necessarily presuppose perfect charity and, consequently, at least virtual penance.

YOU WILL SAY 3: What God can do in children He can also do in adults, for His power toward adults is no less than toward infants. But God remits sins in infants without penance; therefore He does so in adults as well. — I distinguish the major: concerning what is common on equal terms to both, I grant it; otherwise, I deny it. The justification of an infant and that of an adult are not on an equal footing. For infants have only original sin, which does not consist in an actual disorder of the will, but only in a certain habitual depravity of nature. Thus their sin is remitted through a merely habitual change, by the infusion of grace and virtues, not through an actual change made by the exercise of some act. The case is otherwise with an adult, who has actual sins; since these consist in an actual disorder of the will, their remission—even through baptism—requires an actual change of will, which occurs only through penance.

Third conclusion. — MORTAL SIN CAN BE REMITTED THROUGH VIRTUAL PENANCE ALONE, THAT IS, THROUGH AN ACT OF EXCEEDING CHARITY IN WHICH SORROW FOR SINS IS INCLUDED VIRTUALLY. This is the more common view, against Soto, In IV Sent., d. 15, q. 1, a. 2, where he teaches that formal penance must be so necessarily presupposed for the remission of sin that no act of charity, however outstanding, suffices for it, except the act of martyrdom; and also against Cano, Relectio de Poenitentia, pt. 3, § On Charity, who does not even except the act of martyrdom. It is proved first by the authority of the Lord Christ, who says in John 14: “Whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him,” etc. And in Matthew 10: “Whoever confesses me before men, I also will confess before my Father… He who loses his life” (that is, bodily life) “for my sake will find it.” By these words He plainly signifies that an act of love, and also martyrdom, suffices for salvation and the remission of sins.

The same truth is explained by the Doctor, n. 17, where, speaking of the penance he had said was necessary for remitting sins, he says: “The conclusion is understood also of being required not with absolute necessity, the opposite of which involves a contradiction, since God could remit without any act at all on the part of the one to whom He remits; but it is not understood of being required with necessity on the supposition of an act by the person to whom He remits. For God could remit through some fervent movement of love of God, without any of the four aforesaid acts under their proper description, as, for example, in an act of fervor toward undergoing martyrdom at once, where perhaps there would be no thought of some mortal sin previously committed, and consequently none of the aforementioned forms of repenting; and this would be formally so, although virtually there would be repenting in that movement, according to the second meaning. This is proved because no one is excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven who does what is simply necessary. But it is possible for someone who, until an instant A, exists in mortal sin, from instant A onward to be compelled to devote his whole heart to acts that distract him from thinking of the sin committed, as when he is immediately exposed to an extremely severe martyrdom. For this reason the conclusion said that it is required for mortal sin to be deleted ordinarily: for an act is said to occur ordinarily when it occurs according to rules determined by divine Wisdom. One such rule is that a sin committed is not deleted without displeasure at the sin committed. This seems highly reasonable: just as sin turns one away from the end and turns one toward a creature, so it is reasonable that sin be deleted only through an opposing movement that turns one away from sin, or from the creature toward which one turned in sin, and turns one toward God. The other three elements of what it means to punish can be reduced to this displeasure at sin, etc.”

From all this the Doctor teaches three things. First, that penance is necessary for remission of sin according to the ordinary course, because God ordained that remission of sin should not occur according to the common and ordinary disposition of things. — Second, that by His absolute power God could pardon sin without any act of sorrow or detestation on the penitent's part. This can also be further confirmed: both because penance, which precedes the infusion of grace and the remission of sin, has only the character of a fitting disposition by divine ordinance. For if it were required by the nature of the thing, it would follow that grace of baptism could not be conferred on those in immediate danger of death, since they cannot perform acts of penance, which adults are bound to perform before baptism; consequently those acts are required for justification only by divine ordinance. But what is required only by divine ordinance can be removed by extraordinary power. Therefore, independently of those acts, God can confer sanctifying grace and remission of sin on penitents. Also because, as the Council of Trent defines it, justification in fact includes remission of sin and the infusion of grace, or renewal of the inner person; but neither consists in an act of the sinner, as Hiquaeus rightly observes in his commentary on the Doctor's aforesaid words. For remitting sin belongs precisely to God, just as infusing grace freely does. Therefore justification can take place without an act of the sinner. Finally, because if there were some absolutely necessary connection between penitential acts and justification, it would be chiefly in the respect of merit or satisfaction; but neither can be maintained. Not the first, otherwise sinners would merit justification and it would not be given freely, contrary to the Council of Trent, sess. VI, ch. 8. Nor the second: by His absolute power God can require no such satisfaction and can freely release the sinner from it out of clemency. Therefore, and so on. — Third, the Doctor also teaches that justification and the remission of sins sometimes occur through the sole act of love of God above all things, without explicit sorrow or formal penance for sin. This is clear from the example of a man unexpectedly seized for martyrdom who had forgotten some mortal sin and did not recall it, while he underwent martyrdom, burning with the fire of charity. In that case this man would be justified through an act of charity and through martyrdom, without an act of formal penance.

All this is confirmed by those testimonies of Scripture in which the efficacy of remission of sins is attributed to formal love of God, with no mention of penance, sorrow, or detestation of sin. Thus Luke 7: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much”; but “the one to whom less is forgiven loves less.” Proverbs 8: “I love those who love me.” Ecclesiasticus 34: “The eyes of God are upon those who love Him.” 1 John 4: “Everyone who loves is born of God.” And in v. 16: “God is charity, and whoever abides in charity abides in God, and God in him.” John 11: “Whoever loves me will be loved by my Father.” And in v. 23: “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him” (through sanctifying grace) “and make our dwelling with him.” Zechariah 1: “Turn to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will turn to you, says the Lord of hosts.” Who of sound mind could doubt that through love of God alone, for His own sake and above all things, a person is perfectly turned to God? Therefore, where the Lord is good, let our eye not be evil, begrudging the remission of sins to those to whom God has promised it. Nor is it an objection that in other places Scripture mentions penance as necessary for the remission of sins: Ezekiel 28.² “Turn, and do penance for all your iniquities, and iniquity will not bring you to ruin.” Luke 13: “Unless you do penance, you will all perish together.” Acts 2: “Do penance, and let each of you be baptized.” I say this is no objection because these passages can suitably be understood either of formal and explicit penance or of an act equivalent to it, such as an act of love of God above all things. Otherwise, a person to whom no sin, in general or in particular, occurred as something to detest could not be justified, and consequently could not be saved. I do not deny, however, that an act of love above all things contains an act of penance virtually: both because when occasion arises, that act determines one to penance, since perfect charity cannot coexist with consideration of sin without sorrow for sin insofar as it is an offense against God; and because an act of love of God above all things contains the whole motive of this sorrow. For to love God above all things is to love Him above every sin; moreover, it is to prefer Him to all things not only for the future and present, but also for the past, and therefore implicitly to will not to have sinned. But this is to hate having sinned and to grieve that one did it. Therefore such an act of love of God suffices for justification.

YOU WILL SAY: Penance is no less necessary for a sinner's salvation than faith is for an unbeliever; but faith is necessary as a means, so that without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore without formal penance it is impossible for a sinner to be justified. — I deny the major. For although penance is necessary for a sinner as a means to justification according to the ordinary course, just as faith is for an unbeliever, there is this difference between faith and penance: faith cannot be supplied by some other act in which it is virtually contained, whereas penance can be supplied by an act of love of God in which it is virtually contained.

YOU WILL INSIST: An act of love suffices for justification without formal penance either because by its nature it is opposed to sin as a form, or because by the divine will it is accepted as a merit of congruity. But neither can be maintained. Not the first, otherwise it would justify formally and not merely dispositively. Nor the second, for it would follow that it contributes to justification and is required for it according to God's ordinary disposition, which is certainly untrue. — I answer: An act of love is considered a sufficient disposition by divine will, just as penance is, whose efficacy is drawn from the root of charity when charity is perfect. But this love of God above all things is never accompanied by consideration and memory of sin without also having penance attached to it in a wayfarer guilty of some crime; for no one loves God above all things without grieving vehemently that he has offended Him. In that case both acts concur in justification.

Fourth conclusion. — PENANCE, INSOFAR AS IT IS SORROW OF HEART AND DETESTATION OF SINS, IS NECESSARY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, SO THAT ABANDONING THE OLD LIFE AND BEGINNING A NEW ONE DO NOT SUFFICE. This is against Luther, as appears from his articles condemned by the sacred Faculty of Paris, one of which was: “Contrition, which is prepared by examining, gathering, and detesting sins, as a person recalls his years in bitterness of soul, weighing the gravity, number, and enormity of his sins, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the attainment of eternal damnation—this contrition, I say, makes a person a hypocrite, indeed a greater sinner.” The sacred Faculty rightly condemns this proposition as follows: “This proposition is false, obstructs the way to penance, and is at variance with the sacred Scriptures and the teaching of the Saints.”

And rightly so. Sacred Scripture bears witness in its oracles that penance is necessary to appease divine indignation and attain remission of sin. Thus Ezekiel 18: “But if the wicked man does penance for all his sins that he has committed, and keeps all my precepts, and does judgment and justice, he shall live and not die. I will remember none of all his iniquities that he has committed.” By these words God promises remission of sin to a penitent who does judgment and justice. For a penitent sinner to do judgment and justice means nothing other than to vindicate sin and make satisfaction to God through due satisfaction, turning back from creatures and turning toward God. This turning back and conversion must take place especially through laborious and penitential works, according to that oracle in which God admonishes through Joel: “Turn to me with all your heart, in fasting, weeping, and mourning; rend your hearts,” etc. But this contrition of heart and mourning concern not merely the beginning of a new life, but especially the purging of sins, according to Revelation 2, where John is commanded to write to the bishop of Ephesus in God's name: “I have this against you: you have abandoned your first charity. Remember, therefore, from where you have fallen, and do penance and perform your first works; otherwise I am coming to you, and I will move your lampstand from its place, unless you do penance.” By these words, not only renewal of life but also remembrance and mourning for the past are prescribed as salutary penance. — Hence David, in Psalm 50, not only pleads for the present and future: “Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,” but cries out concerning the past: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your great mercy… For I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me.” Thus Christ in Luke 13 requires from a sinner not only the institution of a new life but also the vindication and correction of the former life, when He says: “Unless you do penance, you will all perish together.” The word penance signifies holding a penalty. But one does not bear a penalty for instituting a new life, which is good, but for the wickedness of the past; for a penalty arises only from an evil that is repudiated.

Therefore the Council of Trent rightly says, speaking of contrition in sess. XIV, ch. 1: “The holy Synod declares that this contrition contains not only cessation from sin, a purpose of new life, and its beginning, but also hatred of the old life, according to the words: ‘Cast away from yourselves all your iniquities in which you have transgressed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit.’” Hence, in canon 5, condemning the Lutheran doctrine, it says: “If anyone says that contrition, which is prepared by examining, gathering, and detesting sins, by which a person recalls his years in bitterness of soul, weighing the gravity, number, and enormity of his sins, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the incurring of eternal damnation, together with a purpose of better life, is not true and beneficial sorrow, nor does it prepare for grace, but makes a person a hypocrite and a greater sinner; or, finally, that it is forced sorrow, not free and voluntary, let him be anathema.”

The holy Fathers teach the same truth, especially St. Cyprian in his little book De lapsis. He indeed promises pardon for their error to the faithful who had fallen into idolatry, provided they implore it through laborious penance: “Do you think,” he says, “that you can quickly appease the Lord, whom you denied with treacherous words?” etc. “Do you think He will easily show mercy to you, when you said that you did not belong to Him? You must pray to Him more earnestly and entreat Him, spend the day in grief, pass the nights in vigils and tears, occupy all your time with tearful laments, lie prostrate on the ground, cling to sackcloth, roll in sackcloth and ashes; having lost Christ's garment, desire no garment hereafter; having tasted the devil's food, prefer fasting; devote yourself to good works, by which sins are purged; persist frequently in almsgiving, by which souls are freed from death.” And a little later: “If anyone prays with his whole heart, if he groans with true lamentations and tears of penance, if by just and continual works he moves the Lord toward pardon for his offense, He can show mercy to such people, etc.; He can grant indulgence, He can turn aside the sentence.” — St. Ambrose adds in bk. I of De Poenitentia, ch. 4: “He awaits our groans, but temporary ones, so that He may remit eternal ones; He awaits our tears, so that He may pour out His mercy.” And in bk. II, ch. 5: “Whoever does penance must not only wash away his sin with tears, but also cover and veil earlier offenses by making amends, so that the sin may not be charged against him. Therefore let us cover our falls with later deeds and cleanse them with tears, so that the Lord our God may hear us groaning,” etc. — St. Augustine teaches this especially in various places, above all in Serm. 34, De diversis, ch. 12: “There are certain grave and deadly sins which are not remitted unless through the most vehement distress of humbled heart, contrite spirit, and the tribulation of penance.” Hence, in Serm. 1, De Communibus, he defines penance as follows: “Penance is a remedy for a wound, hope of salvation, by which God is moved to mercy. Penance takes its name from punishment, because the soul is tormented and the flesh is mortified.” Thus in Serm. 7, De Tempore, he says strikingly: “Many constantly call themselves sinners, and yet they still take pleasure in sinning. It is a profession, not a correction. The soul is accused, but not healed.”

“The offense is declared, but not removed. Nothing makes penance sure except hatred of sin and love of God. When what was sweet in life before becomes bitter to you in your soul, and what once delighted you in the body now torments you in your heart, then you groan well before God and say: ‘Against you alone have I sinned³, and done evil before you.’ I have indeed sinned against you alone, because no human being is without sin. And therefore I have sinned against you alone, because you alone are without sin. Show mercy to the wretched man, you who have spared the criminal for so long. Let the humility of the penitent incline Him to a remedy, when the long duration of the sinner's offense could not move Him. Say to Him in the weeping of your heart: ‘Look upon the unhappy one, boundless mercy; regard the cruel one, universal compassion. In despair I come to the Almighty; wounded, I run to the physician. Preserve the mercy of gentleness, you who have so long suspended the sword of vengeance. Remove the multitude of crimes by the multitude of mercies.’”

The other holy Fathers teach the same: true and sincere penance requires not only instituting a new life, but also expiating the former one. Tertullian supplies an excellent reason for this in ch. 9 of bk. De Poenitentia: our penance must take the place of divine Justice; for that reason it must punish the sinner and amend earlier offenses through sorrow and tears. “All these things,” he says, “Exomologesis does, both to commend penance, to honor the Lord through fear of danger, and, by pronouncing sentence against the sinner, to act in place of God's indignation; by temporary affliction, I will not say to frustrate eternal punishments, but to cancel them. And in ch. 11: ‘I have sinned,’ I said to God, ‘and am in danger of perishing eternally.’ Therefore now I hang in suspense, mourn, and am tormented, so that they may reconcile to me the God whom I injured by sinning. And at the beginning of ch. 12: ‘If you hesitate about Exomologesis, consider hell in your heart, which Exomologesis will extinguish for you; first imagine the magnitude of the punishment, so that you may not doubt attaining remedies.’ A little later he compares Exomologesis in its effect and efficacy to baptism. ‘Therefore,’ he says, ‘since you know that, after those first lessons of the Lord's instruction, there are still second aids in Exomologesis against hell, why do you abandon your salvation? Why do you cease to undertake what you know can heal you?’” He takes Exomologesis as the external act and all the labors by which the Church purges a sinner, as he himself had defined it shortly before in ch. 9, before the first words quoted, to which all this pertains, etc.

St. Ambrose teaches the same in Ad virginem lapsam, ch. 8, where, after describing the afflictions and labors the penitent must undergo, he adds: “Therefore, if a sinner has not spared himself, God spares him; and if he has made compensation in this short span of life for the future punishments of hell, he frees himself from eternal judgment.” St. Prosper agrees, in bk. II of De vita contemplativa, ch. 7, concerning laypeople who voluntarily confess their crimes and willingly undertake penance for them: “If they themselves become judges and, as avengers of their own iniquity, willingly inflict on themselves here the punishment of the severest correction, they will exchange eternal torments for temporal punishments and, with tears flowing from true compunction of heart, will restrain the fires of eternal flame.” Therefore we must conclude with St. Peter Damian, ch. 2 of the book he entitled Gomorrhianus: “Whoever has defiled himself with the contagion of that shameful depravity in any of the ways we distinguished above, unless he is cleansed by the satisfaction of fruitful penance, will never be able to have God's grace, will never be worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ, and will never enter the threshold of the heavenly homeland.”

LUTHER OBJECTS various oracles of Scripture in which God requires nothing else of the sinner than ceasing from sins, observing the commandments, and beginning a new life. Thus Isaiah 55: “Seek the Lord while He can be found; call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked man abandon his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He is rich in forgiving.” Likewise, in Matthew 19, Christ answers a man who asks what he must do for salvation: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” But there is no commandment in the entire Decalogue that orders us to remember or detest our former life. Therefore, for remission of sin it is enough for a person to begin a new life and walk in the way of God's commandments. Likewise, in Galatians 5 and 6: in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any force, but a new creation. Therefore detestation of one's former life is not necessary for obtaining pardon of sins; renewal of the present and future life suffices. — I deny the consequence. As for the first oracle, I say that the wicked man must abandon his ways, not merely by ceasing from sins in a negative sense, but positively, through a purpose to avoid sin thereafter. This purpose pertains to contrition and detestation of one's former life: for a person is properly said to cease from or abandon sins when they displease him, and he grieves that he committed what he earnestly desires to abandon. As for the second, I deny the minor, for, as will appear in the following Question, the precept to do penance is included at least virtually in the precept to love God. For no one can love God perfectly without willing to restore the honor taken from Him and render Him due satisfaction. As for the third, I say that a new life established through grace does indeed avail for salvation; but it cannot be perfect unless it presupposes detestation of the former life and the rendering of due satisfaction to God for the injuries inflicted.