Dist. 14, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 14
Quaestio II. Utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere, hoc est poenitentiam iterare.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum contingat per poenitentiam resurgere, hoc est poenitentiam iterare. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Exemplo David, qui primo peccavit homicidio et poenituit, rursus, numerando populum, et poenituit, et Deus utrumque acceptavit1.
2. Item, auctoritate: Ezechielis decimo octavo2: Si impius egerit poenitentiam ab omnibus peccatis etc., omnium iniquitatum eius non recordabor amplius; sed non distinguit peccatorem: ergo verum est de eo qui recidivavit, quia terminus in conditionali in antecedente tenetur universaliter.
3. Item, esto quod iste semper, dum fuit in poenitentia, fuisset in culpa; constat, quod peior fuisset; sed non est ei praeclusa via3: ergo si tunc potuisset per poenitentiam surgere, et nunc potest.
4. Item, ratione videtur: quia Deus pronior est ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum4; sed quantumcumque homo Deo servierit, si poenitet de bono facto, Deus obliviscitur bonorum: ergo si poenitet de malo, remittit.
5. Item, si non potest resurgere secundo, aut hoc est, quia non potest secundo poenitere, aut quia Deus non acceptat. Non primo modo, quia liberum arbitrium est in nobis vertibile, et tota die verti videmus; non secundo modo, poenitere enim est conteri et humiliari de peccato; sed dicitur in Psalmo5: Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, cor contritum et humiliatum etc.
Contra: 1. Ad Hebraeos sexto6: Impossibile est, eos qui prolapsi sunt, rursus renovari ad poenitentiam.
2. Item, Proverbiorum vigesimo octavo7: Qui perversis graditur viis concidet semel.
3. Item, Ambrosius8 dicit, quod « unica est poenitentia, sicut unicum baptisma ». Et Origenes dicit, quod « in gravioribus criminibus semel tantum poenitentiae conceditur locus ».
4. Item, ratione videtur: quia Sacramentum poenitentiae habet effectum a Christi passione, ut baptismus; sed passio Christi est unica, et amplius non potest pati: ergo nec poenitentia iterari. Et hoc est quod dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos sexto9: Rursus crucifigentes sibi Filium Dei.
5. Item, baptismus non iteratur nec iterari potest, ne fiat contumelia Sacramento et veniat in contemptum: ergo pari ratione nec poenitentia.
Conclusio. Poenitentia semper iterari potest, quamdiu homo est in hac vita.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod pessimus error est et crudelissimus, quod poenitentia non possit iterari, quia claudit viscera divinae misericordiae10; et tunc omnes peccatores, vel fere omnes cogeret desperare. Et ideo dicendum, quod iterari potest quotiescumque, quamdiu homo est in hac vita; sed post hanc vitam non potest.
Et ratio, quare poenitentia possit et debeat iterari, et baptismus non, est triplex. Una est, quia in baptismo imprimitur character, qui est indelebilis, in poenitentia non. — Secunda ratio est, quia baptismus est contra morbum non iterabilem, qualis est morbus peccati originalis; sed poenitentia contra morbum iterabilem, qualis est morbus peccati actualis. Unde quia medicina debet aptari morbo, patet etc. — Tertia ratio est, quia baptismus habet totam efficaciam a passione Christi, sed poenitentia non tantam a passione Christi, sed ab actu nostro; et ideo baptismus non iteratur, sicut nec passio; poenitentia vero iteratur, secundum quod voluntas nostra convertitur et revertitur. Inde est, quod in baptismo omnis poena remittitur, in poenitentia non. Et si baptismus iteraretur, daretur nobis occasio peccandi; non sic est in poenitentia, quia bene punit.
Ad argumenta pro parte opposita: Ad 1 et 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de verbo Apostoli: impossibile est etc.; potest fieri vis in hoc quod dicit impossibile: quia non ex viribus humanis11; vel impossibile, id est difficile: loquitur enim de perfectis, qui difficulter resurgunt. — Vel ut fiat vis in poenitentia: quia loquitur de renovatione, quae est in poenitentia, quam sequitur
baptismus; haec enim virtutem totam habet ab hostia passionis, et de hac dicit Apostolus ad Hebraeos decimoa: Non relinquitur hostia pro peccato.
Ad 3. Ad illud Ambrosii et Origenis, dicendum, quod intelligi debet de poenitentia solemni, et hoc secundum morem aliquarum ecclesiarum, sicut patet in litterab.
Ad 4 et 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo et contumelia Sacramenti, patet responsio ex praedictisc, quod non est simile. Hic enim non fit contumelia Sacramento, quia sic institutum est et efficaciam habet, sed secundus baptismus nullius est efficaciae. Non fit etiam contumelia passioni, quia non sic totam et plenam efficaciam a passione recipit, ut baptismus, sicut in praecedentibus visum est et infra de poenitentia videbitur.
[Quaestio II habet scholion proprium nullum: scholion articuli I (quaestiones I–III complectens) cum quaestione I redditur — vide bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q1.]*
---
Question II. Whether one can rise again through penance, that is, whether penance is repeated.
Secondly it is asked whether one can rise again through penance, that is, whether penance is repeated. And that it can be, seems thus:
1. By the example of David, who first sinned by homicide and repented, and again, by numbering the people, sinned and repented, and God accepted both1.
2. Likewise, by authority: Ezekiel the eighteenth chapter2: If the wicked man do penance for all his sins etc., I will not remember all his iniquities any more; but it does not distinguish the [kind of] sinner: therefore it is true of the one who relapsed, because a term in a conditional, [placed] in the antecedent, is taken universally.
3. Likewise, granted that this man, the whole time he was in penance, had been in fault; it is established that he would have been worse; but the way was not closed to him3: therefore if he could then have risen through penance, he can also now.
4. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn4; but however much a man has served God, if he repents of the good he has done, God forgets the good [deeds]: therefore if he repents of evil, God remits it.
5. Likewise, if he cannot rise a second time, this is either because he cannot repent a second time, or because God does not accept [it]. Not in the first way, because free choice in us is changeable, and we see it change all day long; not in the second way, for to repent is to be contrite and humbled over sin; but it is said in the Psalm5: A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit, a contrite and humbled heart etc.
On the contrary: 1. To the Hebrews, chapter six6: It is impossible for those who have fallen away to be renewed again unto penance.
2. Likewise, Proverbs the twenty-eighth chapter7: He that walketh in perverse ways shall fall at once.
3. Likewise, Ambrose8 says that « penance is one, just as baptism is one ». And Origen says that « in graver crimes only one place for penance is granted ».
4. Likewise, by reason it seems so: because the Sacrament of penance has its effect from Christ's passion, as does baptism; but Christ's passion is one, and he can suffer no more: therefore neither can penance be repeated. And this is what the Apostle says to the Hebrews, chapter six9: Crucifying again to themselves the Son of God.
5. Likewise, baptism is not repeated nor can it be repeated, lest contumely be done to the Sacrament and it come into contempt: therefore by parallel reasoning neither can penance.
Conclusion. Penance can always be repeated, so long as a man is in this life.
I respond: It must be said that it is a most wicked and most cruel error that penance cannot be repeated, because it closes up the bowels of the divine mercy10; and then it would drive all sinners, or nearly all, to despair. And therefore it must be said that it can be repeated however often, so long as a man is in this life; but after this life it cannot.
And the reason why penance can and ought to be repeated, while baptism cannot, is threefold. One is that in baptism a character is imprinted, which is indelible, [but] in penance not. — The second reason is that baptism is against a non-repeatable disease, such as the disease of original sin; but penance is against a repeatable disease, such as the disease of actual sin. Hence, because the medicine must be fitted to the disease, the point is clear, etc. — The third reason is that baptism has its whole efficacy from Christ's passion, but penance not so much from Christ's passion as from our own act; and therefore baptism is not repeated, just as neither is the passion; but penance is repeated, according as our will turns and returns. Hence it is that in baptism all penalty is remitted, [but] in penance not. And if baptism were repeated, an occasion of sinning would be given to us; it is not so in penance, because it punishes well.
To the arguments for the opposite side: To 1 and 2. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary from the word of the Apostle, it is impossible etc.; force can be put on his saying impossible: because [it is] not by human strength11; or impossible, that is, difficult: for he is speaking of the perfect, who rise again with difficulty. — Or so that force be put on penance: because he is speaking of the renewal which is in penance, which baptism follows;
for this [baptism] has its whole power from the victim of the passion, and concerning this the Apostle says to the Hebrews, chapter tena: There is left no sacrifice for sin.
To 3. To that of Ambrose and Origen, it must be said that it should be understood of solemn penance, and this according to the custom of certain churches, as is clear in the text [of Lombard]b.
To 4 and 5. To that which is objected concerning baptism and contumely of the Sacrament, the answer is clear from what was said beforec, that it is not alike. For here no contumely is done to the Sacrament, because it is so instituted and has [its] efficacy, whereas a second baptism is of no efficacy. Nor is contumely done to the passion, because it does not receive its whole and full efficacy from the passion in the way baptism does, as was seen in what preceded and will be seen below concerning penance.
[Question II has no scholion of its own: the scholion of Article I (covering questions I–III) is rendered with Question I — see bon-sent-IV-d14-p2-a1-q1.]*
---
- 1Libr. II. Reg. 11, 15; 12, 13. et 24, 1. 10. — Pro utrumque multi codd. utramque, scil. poenitentiam.2 Kings (II Samuel) 11:15; 12:13; and 24:1, 10. — For utrumque (both) many codices read utramque, namely penance.
- 2Vers. 21. seq., ubi Vulgata post eius addit quas operatus est, omisso subinde amplius. — Pro ratione conclusioni addita notetur haec regula ex libro Syncategoremata (inter opera Petri Hispani), c. de Modo syllogizandi ex conditionalibus: Prima [regula] est, quod si termini communes ponantur in antecedente, sub eis potest fieri descensus [ad singularia], consequente permanente immobili, ut si homo currit, animal currit: ergo si Plato currit, animal currit, et si Socrates currit, animal currit etc. Cfr. Boeth., de Syllogismo hypothetico; Averroes, Epitome Prior. Analytic. c. 5. seq. et Quaesit. Priorum Analytic. q. 7.Verses 21 ff., where the Vulgate after his adds which he hath done, omitting thereafter any more. — For the reasoning added to the conclusion, let this rule be noted from the book Syncategoremata (among the works of Peter of Spain), chapter on the mode of syllogizing from conditionals: The first [rule] is that if common terms are placed in the antecedent, a descent [to singulars] can be made under them, the consequent remaining unchanged, as: if a man runs, an animal runs; therefore if Plato runs, an animal runs, and if Socrates runs, an animal runs, etc. Cf. Boethius, On the Hypothetical Syllogism; Averroes, Epitome of the Prior Analytics c. 5 ff., and Questions on the Prior Analytics q. 7.
- 3Vat. non fuisset ei praeclusa salutis via.The Vatican edition: the way of salvation would not have been closed to him.
- 4August., Serm. 18. (alias 220. de Tempore) c. 2. n. 2: Non enim amat Deus damnare, sed salvare. Vide etiam C. Quia Divinitatis natura clemens est et pia magisque ad indulgentiam quam ad vindictam prona (73.), de Poenitentia, d. 1. — De minori cfr. Ezech. 18, 32. — Codd. Haa miserandum vero miserendum.Augustine, Sermon 18 (alias 220, de Tempore) c. 2, n. 2: For God does not love to damn, but to save. See also the Canon Quia Divinitatis natura clemens est et pia magisque ad indulgentiam quam ad vindictam prona (73), de Poenitentia, d. 1. — On the minor [premise] cf. Ezekiel 18:32. — The Haa codices [read] miserandum, but [we read] miserendum.
- 5Psalm. 50, 19. — Non pauci codd. post sed omittunt dicitur.Psalm 50(51):19. — Not a few codices after sed omit dicitur.
- 6Vers. 5. et 6.Verses 5 and 6.
- 7Vers. 18.Verse 18.
- 8Libr. II. de Poenitentia, c. 10. n. 95. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2; ibid. c. 3. habentur etiam verba Origenis, in Levit. homil. 15. n. 2. — Arg. ex auctoritate Origenis, quod in codd. et ed. 1 desideratur, retinuimus cum Vat., quia ipsius in solut. obiectorum expressa fit mentio.Book II On Penance, c. 10, n. 95. See here the text of [Lombard] the Master, c. 2; in the same place, c. 3, are also found the words of Origen, in his Homilies on Leviticus 15, n. 2. — The argument from the authority of Origen, which is wanting in the codices and the first edition, we have retained with the Vatican [edition], because express mention is made of it in the solution of the objections.
- 9Vers. 6. Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 6. et dub. 2, ubi etiam rationes in corp. allatae insinuantur.Verse 6. Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 6, and dub. 2, where the reasons brought forward in the body [of the question] are also intimated.
- 10Respicitur Luc. 1, 77. seq. Cfr. 1. Ioan. 3, 17. — Inferius pro cogeret cod. X cogerentur. Subinde post quotiescumque supplevimus ex cod. U (E a secunda manu) quamdiu, pro quo cod. F dum.There is a reference to Luke 1:77 f. Cf. 1 John 3:17. — Below, for cogeret codex X [reads] cogerentur. Then after quotiescumque we have supplied from codex U (E by a second hand) quamdiu, for which codex F [reads] dum.
- 11Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 4, tres affert expositiones huius verbi Apostoli. Prima est: « Sic intelligendum est, quod per se cadere potuerunt, sed per se surgere non possunt, atque ideo illis impossibile esse, Deo non esse ». Secunda est, quod impossibile sit, renovari lapsum, ita quod non sit lapsus. Tertia est, quod impossibile sit iis qui in peccatis voluntarie persistunt (Hebr. 10, 26.). Cfr. eius Epist. II. ad Ranulph. de Mauriaco. De secunda solut. (difficile) cfr. tom. II. pag. 991, nota 3. — Mox pro perfectis Vat. imperfectis.Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments II, p. XIV, c. 4, brings forward three expositions of this word of the Apostle. The first is: « It must be understood thus, that they were able to fall by themselves, but cannot rise by themselves, and therefore it is impossible for them, [though] not for God ». The second is that it is impossible for one fallen to be renewed in such a way that he has not fallen. The third is that it is impossible for those who persist willingly in sins (Heb. 10:26). Cf. his Letter II to Ranulph of Mauriac. On the second solution (difficult) cf. tome II, p. 991, note 3. — Shortly after, for perfectis the Vatican [edition reads] imperfectis.
- a(p. 334, footer 1) Vers. 26, ubi Vulgata pro peccatis. Ita Haymo Hebr. 6, 6. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. in fine.(p. 334, footer 1) Verse 26, where the Vulgate [reads] pro peccatis (for sins). So Haymo on Hebrews 6:6. Cf. here the text of [Lombard] the Master, c. 4, at the end.
- b(p. 334, footer 2) Hic c. 3. Cfr. infra dub. 9. seq.(p. 334, footer 2) Here, c. 3. Cf. below, dub. 9 f.
- c(p. 334, footer 3) Dist. 6. p. I. q. 6. et dub. 2; infra d. 15. p. I. q. 1. de hac quaest. Alanus ab Insulis, l. Contra Haereticos, c. 47. seqq. — Vide schollon ad praecedentem quaest.(p. 334, footer 3) Dist. 6, p. I, q. 6, and dub. 2; below, d. 15, p. I, q. 1. On this question [see] Alan of Lille, book Against the Heretics, c. 47 ff. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---