Dist. 22, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/22/q/bon-sent-IV-d22-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On penance in its character as a Sacrament.*

Consequently, as to the second part of the distinction, inquiry is made concerning penance in its character as a Sacrament. And since two things concur toward the character of a Sacrament, namely institution and signification, of which two the text treats, therefore concerning this two things are asked.

First it is asked concerning penance as to its institution.

Second, as to its signification.

### Question I. *On the Sacrament of penance as to its institution.*

As to the first it is asked whether the Sacrament of penance was instituted. And that it was, is shown.

1. Thus does Hugh define a Sacrament: « A Sacrament is that which by likeness represents, [and] by institution signifies » etc.: if therefore penance is a Sacrament, it is clear etc.

2. Likewise, just as the Lord commanded [men] to be baptized, so He commanded [them] to do penance, as is clear from Matthew, chapter four; and as it is said in John, chapter three: *Unless one be reborn* etc., so it is said in Luke, chapter thirteen: *If you do not do penance, you shall all likewise perish*: therefore just as by commanding to be baptized He instituted the Sacrament of baptism, so by commanding to repent He instituted the Sacrament of penance.

3. Likewise, the manner of doing penance in the Old Law was prescribed, as is clear from Leviticus, chapter four and five; likewise in the New [Law] according to the priest's judgment; but such a manner is not from the dictate of nature: therefore it is from institution.

**On the contrary:** 1. Hugh of Saint Victor says that in the law of nature no Sacrament was instituted « under a precept, but only under a counsel »; but penance in the law of nature was under a precept, since no one was ever able to be saved without it: therefore it was not instituted.

2. Likewise, no Sacrament that is from the natural dictate needs institution; but penance is from the natural dictate, since reason naturally dictates that one who sins and offends ought to be reconciled through the humility of penance: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, every Sacrament that was instituted has been varied; but penance has always existed from the beginning until now, at least as to contrition and satisfaction: therefore it does not seem to have been instituted through the law.

Likewise, if the Sacrament was instituted, it is asked where and by whom. If there, where it is said, in Matthew four: *Do penance*; likewise it can be said to have been instituted by John, who preached: *Do penance*, Matthew three. If there, in Matthew eight: *Go, and show yourself to the priests*; but it is agreed that this was understood of the legal priests. If there: *Whose sins you shall remit*, John twenty; but on the contrary: there is instituted that which belongs to the priestly order.

> **Conclusion.** The Sacrament of penance, inasmuch as it is reconciliative to God, was already before the Law in some measure intimated; but inasmuch as it is properly a Sacrament, it was instituted by the Lord and, as to its material element, promulgated through the Apostles.

**I respond:** It must be said that penance may be spoken of in two ways: either as it is reconciliative to God, or as it is not only reconciliative to God, but also to the Church. If we speak of it as it reconciles to God, thus it is from the dictate of the natural law, which dictates that one ought to be contrite over sin and to be humbled, with some illumination of faith; and thus such a sacramental had rather an intimation than an institution; for by the very fact that nature dictated [it], to be intimated sufficed.

And some have wished to say that it was intimated before the fall in that word, Genesis two: *In whatever day you shall eat* etc. But that word seems rather to threaten punishment than to institute a remedy. And again, since penance is [given] as a remedy by its primary institution, its institution does not seem fitting except from the point when sin began.

And therefore there is another and better position, [namely] that the Lord then intimated and instituted [it], when after [his] sin He called Adam, Genesis three: *Where are you?* where the Gloss says that He was admonishing him to return to [his] heart, according to that prophetic word: *Return, transgressors, to the heart*: and many Glosses which are placed there suggest this. And thus it is clear that penance, as it was a Sacrament reconciling to God, was there intimated, as much as sufficed for that time; and that intimation together with the natural dictate sufficed in place of institution.

There is also another way of speaking of penance, according as it is a Sacrament of the Church; and thus it had its institution in the written law, whether Mosaic or evangelical. In the Mosaic law, since there was not yet perfect unity nor perfect reconciliation, it had its institution according to [that] imperfection, namely as to a certain generality in the determination of the oblations, which were in place of confession and satisfaction. But in the new law, where ecclesiastical unity is perfect and reconciliation full, it was instituted according to the state of perfection, both as to the formal [element], which is priestly absolution and binding, and as to the material [element], which is indeed a clear and open confession not only in general, but also in particular. And the first the Lord instituted through Himself and promulgated, namely the power of the keys, John twenty, after the resurrection. But the second was instituted through the Apostles, or, that I may say it better, promulgated, since the Lord taught the Apostles, and they, taught by the Lord and by the authority received from Him, indeed by His authority promulgated [it]. For they handed down to us nothing except what they received from the Lord, or from the Spirit of the Lord. — And thus it is clear when and how and where and by whom this Sacrament was instituted. — The reasons proving this are therefore to be granted.

1. To that which is objected, that it was not instituted in the law of nature; it must be said that properly it was not instituted by a precept of discipline, or by a sacramental precept, but rather from a natural precept, upon which the excitation and visitation of God shed light, whereby He rebuked men by an audible sign and rebukes [them] spiritually through the pain in the bed, and makes all the bones of a man to waste away.

2. To that which is objected, that it is from the natural dictate; it must be said that this concludes truly according to that acceptation; nevertheless, since nature by itself does not suffice, it is clear etc.

3. To that which is objected, that it has not been varied; it must be said that inasmuch as it is a Sacrament of the Church, it has been varied; and the written law added something over that which was of the natural dictate, and the evangelical law did not void that addition, but rather fulfilled it more fully in adding by a perfect addition. — As to what is asked, where and by whom it was instituted, this is now clear from what has been said.