Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 1: Of the Errors Concerning the Necessity of Confession
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book III, the fourth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
We have discoursed in the preceding book of contrition, which is the first part of the sacrament of Penance; it follows that we discourse of the second part, which is called confession. In explaining which controversy this order will be kept: that in the first place the errors which are current among the adversaries on this matter be reported. Then, that the opinion of the Catholic Church be confirmed from the divine letters. Thirdly, that the sanctions and decrees of the councils be brought forward. Fourthly, the testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Fifthly, various reasons. Lastly, that the arguments of the adversaries be set out and dissolved.
Chapter I. Of the errors concerning the necessity of confession
The first who took away confession are to be reckoned those ancient heretics who took away the power of absolving, namely the Montanists and the Novatians, of whom we spoke in the first book; for there is no necessity of confession if no absolution follows. There was another heresy, of the Audians, in the times of the elder Valentinian, which (as can be understood from Theodoret, book 4 On the Fables of the Heretics) did indeed command the confession of sins and bestow absolution, but imposed no penalty on penitents; and therefore the penitents, because they understood that confession was exacted of them for a joke and a game, concealed their grave sins and confessed only some few light ones; plainly in the manner in which the Lutherans are now accustomed to confess their sins before their ministers. The Messalians also, who arose in the same times (as Damascene witnesses in the book On the Hundred Heresies), dismissed sins with no account taken of Penance and of the canons of the Church. Afterwards John Wyclif (as Thomas Waldensis witnesses, volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 138) began openly to attack sacramental confession, asserting that it is neither founded in the Scriptures and was introduced by papal institution alone. There arose also, about a hundred years ago, a certain Peter of Osma, who affirmed that the confession of sins in kind is not of divine law, but from some statute of the universal Church; of whom see the summary of the councils in the decrees of Pope Sixtus IV. In our age Erasmus of Rotterdam and Beatus Rhenanus were engaged in the same error: the former in the annotations on the letter of Saint Jerome to Oceanus on the death of Fabiola, and in the annotation on chapter 19 of the Acts, and in the Method of Theology; the latter in the annotations on the book of Tertullian On Penance; for each teaches that the secret confession of single sins not only was not instituted or commanded by divine law, but was not even in use in the ancient Church.
Further, the Lutherans, and all the sects of heretics that have arisen from them, although they think variously of confession, yet all agree in this, that it is not necessary to confess all sins to priests; from which this also follows, that the entire confession of sins, such as is accustomed to be exacted in the Catholic Church, is not divinely instituted. Martin Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Penance, does indeed write that secret confession, as it is now celebrated, greatly pleases him and is useful, or rather necessary; yet he adds three errors. First, that it cannot be proved from the Scriptures. Secondly, that it is not necessary to confess all things to priests. For if anyone, rebuked by a brother whom perhaps he has wronged, acknowledges his sin before him and asks pardon, Luther teaches that he is not bound to open that sin to priests. Thirdly, he condemns altogether those who teach that the circumstances of sins are to be disclosed in confession: “I,” he says, “would advise to despise wholly whatever there is of circumstances.” Likewise, in the sermon On Penance, he teaches that venial sins are not to be confessed, nor all mortal, but only those which are manifestly mortal. From which place were drawn the articles which Leo X condemned. For article 8 denies that all mortal sins are to be confessed, and adds that in the ancient Church only manifestly mortal sins were accustomed to be brought to confession; and article 9 writes that while we wish to confess all things purely, we do nothing else than leave nothing to the mercy of the Lord to be pardoned; and in the assertion of the same article he calls it a most bloody butchery if anyone exacts of penitents the confession of all and single sins. It is usually doubted what Luther understood by manifest sins, which alone he wished to pertain to confession; for there were not wanting some of old who wished to excuse him. Either, then, he opposed manifest sins to hidden ones, or to doubtful ones, or to those wholly unknown even to the sinner himself. Of those wholly unknown he cannot have spoken, since not even Catholics wish those to be confessed; nor would Luther have called the opinion of the Catholics a butchery if he himself had been of the same opinion. That he did not speak of hidden ones either, he himself witnesses in the assertion of article 8; wherefore this alone remains, that he understood it of doubtful ones; which is certainly no small error. The same, in the sermon on confession and the Eucharist, published in the year 1519, says that the confession which is made before a priest is not commanded by God but by the pope. Likewise, in the book On the Manner of Confessing, chapter 6, he greatly doubts whether sins of the heart are to be confessed. Likewise, in the book against Latomus, in the year 1521: “I deny,” he says, “that confession is to be exacted in whole”; and in the sermon on the Eucharist, in the year 1526, he would have no one compelled to make confession. In the Saxon Visitation, in the year 1528, he again repeats that confession is not commanded, although it is useful. Lastly, in the Smalcald articles, in the year 1537, in the article on confession, he says that the enumeration of sins ought to be free, so that each may enumerate those he wishes.
John Oecolampadius wrote a book that confession is not burdensome to a Christian; but he does not acknowledge confession to be commanded by God, nay, not even by the Church, except of manifest crimes. Philip Melanchthon, in the Augsburg Confession itself, article on confession: “Of the confession of sins,” he says, “our men teach that private absolution is to be retained in the churches, although the enumeration of offences is not necessary; for the enumeration of all offences is impossible, according to that: Who can understand sins?” So he, who, although from the reason he brings he may seem to signify that only that enumeration is not necessary which is of all sins, whether they are known by us or unknown, yet without doubt wished to reprehend that enumeration which is in use in the Catholic Church, namely of all the sins which after examination occur to the mind. For in the Apology of the article on confession and satisfaction he repeats rather often that the enumeration which is now made, and which was among the ancients, is not necessary by divine law: “Further,” he says, “our adversaries will condemn many most received doctors if they contend that the enumeration of offences in confession is necessary by divine law. For although we approve confession, and judge that a certain examination is profitable, so that men may be better instructed, yet the matter is so to be moderated that snares be not cast on consciences, which will never be tranquil if they think that they cannot obtain the remission of sins unless that scrupulous enumeration is made.” Likewise, in the examination of those to be ordained, where he treats of confession: “No enumeration of offences,” he says, “is necessary, because it is manifest that nowhere is there extant a divine precept on the enumeration of single sins.” He has similar things in the Common Places, under the title on confession, where nevertheless he judges some enumeration to be useful, and therefore at sufficient length sets up a method of examining the conscience through all the precepts of the decalogue. John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 7: “I wonder,” he says, “with what face they dare contend that the confession of which they speak is of divine law; whose most ancient use we indeed confess, but which we can easily prove was of old free.” Then in section 11 he admits a general confession, which the minister may make for himself and the people in the church. And in section 12 he admits also private confession before a pastor, when someone is so troubled and afflicted by the sense of sins that he cannot extricate himself except by another’s help; but he adds this moderation: “Hence it follows,” he says, “that such confession ought to be free, so that it be not exacted of all, but be commended only to those who understand that they have need of it. Then, that those themselves who use it for their necessity be neither compelled by any precept nor induced by art to enumerate all sins, but so far as they will think it their interest, that they may carry off a solid fruit of consolation.” Lastly, section 19, of confession such as is made among Catholics: “No wonder,” he says, “if we condemn that auricular confession, a thing so pestilent and harmful to the Church on so many counts, and desire it removed from the midst.” Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, chapter 4, on Penance, page 970 and following, disputes of confession; but on page 121 he thus explains the use of confession which he says is observed among his people: “The use of private confession,” he says, “is kept among us, so that by a general profession of sin and a signification of Penance absolution is asked. And since the key, whether loosing or binding, is not to be used without judgement, in that private conversation the pastors explore the judgements of their hearers, whether they rightly understand the doctrine of outward and inward sins, of the degrees of sins, of the wages of sin, of faith in Christ; they are led to the consideration of sins; it is explored whether they seriously grieve for their sins, whether they fear the wrath of God and desire to flee it, whether they have a purpose of amendment; they are questioned also if they are thought to stick in certain sins; doctrine and exhortation on amendment is delivered to them; either counsel or consolation is sought in burdens of conscience; and to such confession absolution is imparted.” So he, who seems to be far removed not only from the Catholic rite, but also from the doctrine of Luther and Melanchthon, whom he boasts that he has as masters. For they teach that confession of sins is to be made in kind, although not of all nor by precept of the divine law; but Chemnitz is content with a general confession and the instruction of the penitent. With the same general confession and instruction of the penitent John Brenz is content, in the Württemberg Confession, article 11, on confession; and others, whom it would be long, and by no means necessary, to enumerate.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PKIMUM
Dc eyvoribus circa confesswnts necessilafcm
Primi qui confessioueQi sublulerunt, veleres illi
haerelici censendi sunt, qui polcstalem absolvendi
suslulerunl. Montanislae videlicct el Novatiani, de
quibus in primo libro diximus: neque enim ulla
neccssitas confcssionis esl, si nulia sequitur abso-
lulio.
Fuilalia haeresis Audianorum , lemporibus Va-
lentiniani senioris, quae (ut exTheodorelo lib. 4.
dc fabulis haereticorum intelligi potest) confessio-
ncm quidem peccalorum jubebat , el absolutio-
nem largiol)alur, scJ nullam injungebat poeni-
tentibus mulclam; et ideo pocnilenles , quia per
jociim ac luduni confcssionem a se exigi inlelli-
gcbant, gravia prccala caelabant, et sohim pauca
quacdam ac lcvia lalebanlur: plane ad eum mo-
dum, quo nunc Lulherani confileri peccati coram
suis ministris solent.
Messaliani quoquciisdem lemporibusexorli (Da-
masccno leste.in libro dc ccntum haeresibus) pcc-
cata dimitlebanl.nulla habila ralione Poenitenliae,
cl canonum Ecclesiae.
Postmodum .loanncs Wiclcfus (lesteThomaVVal-
densi lom. 2. dc sacramcntis cap. WS.) confcs-
sionem sacramcntalcm apcrtc oppugnare cocpil,
asscrcns cam ne(|uc in Scripluns fiindari, et cx
sola inslikilione papali introduclam esse.
Extilit ctiam ante annos ciiciler centum, quidam
Pclrus oxonionsis, qui confcssioncm pcccalorum
in spccie, alliruiid);jl non csse dc jurc divino, scd
ex aliquo statulo univcrsalis Ecclcsiac: de quo vi-
de summam conciliorum iii d(u:rctisSixti papacIV.
IVoslro sacculo in eodcm crrore vcrsati sunt E-
rasmus Ilolcrodamus, el b. Rticiianus. lllc, in Aii-
not. ad epist. s. Hicronymi ad Oceanum de obitu
Fabiolae.et in annolalionc ad cap. lO.Actor. ct in
Methodo Iheologiae: Ilic, in annotationihus ad li-
brum Tertulliani de Poenitenlia: ulerque enim do-
cel, confessionem secrelam singulorum pcccalo-
rum,non modo non csse jure divino instilulain aul
imperalam, sed neque in usu antiquae Ecclesiae
fuisse.
Porro Lulherani,et quolquot ab illis sectae hae-
reticorum exortae sunl,licet varie sentiant de con-
fessione, omnes tamen in eo conveniunl , ut noii
sit necessarium omnia peccala sacerdotibus (onfi-
teri: ex quo illud eliam sequilur , ut coulcssio in-
tegra peccatorum, iqualis in Ecclesia catholica exi-
gi solet, non sitdivinitus inslituta.
Marlinus Lutherus in lih. dc caplivil. babylon.
cap. de Pocnitcnlia scribil quidcm confcssioncm
secretain. quae modo celebralur, sihi valdc plact>-
re ct csse utilem , vcl potius neccssariaiii: lamcn
addit Ircs errorcs. Primo, non possc eaiu probari
ex Scripturis.Scciindo. non csse neccssarium con-
filcri omiiia saccrdotihus. Si quis euim concpliis
a fralrc, quem fortc lacsit,agnoscat coraiu ilh» |)cc-
catum siium, et vcniain pclat , docct Lulhcrus ,
cum non lencri peccatum illud saccrdolihus apc-
riic. Terlio, damnal ooinino cos , qiii dociMit cir-
ciimslaulias pcccatorum iu conrcssionc cssi^ dclc-
gcndas: AV/o, inquit, quidquid esl circuimlanlia-
rum, consuluorim po.niiuii conlo.mnorc.
licm in scrm. de Pocuilciilia , doccl nou essc
coiilileuda vcnialia, nec omnia mortalia, scd ca
tantiim quac sunl manifcslc mortalia. Ex quo loco
deprorn[)li sunt arliculi, (pios Lco X. damnavil.
Nam art. H.ncgat oinnia pcccala morlalia csse coii-
fitcnda, et addit, in anliqua Ecclcsia, sola peccala
manifcste morlalia adconfcssioncm addiici coiisuc-
vissc: cl art. U. scribit. diim voliiuiiis piirc oimiia
r.7G
l)i: POKNIiKNTIA
i-iinniftri. no> niliil aliinl fiioon*. nisi iil niisoricor-
iliao Doinini iiiliil i^inoscotuluni rpliniinamiis: ol in
assorliono ojosdoin arliculi, carnili(.'ina:n crnonlis-
simani appellal. si (luis a poonilonlihiis oiiiniuni,
ol sinjzuloriiiii porcalorom confi^ssionom oxij^at.
Dubilari solel. (luid per manirosla [)occa(a. qiiao
sola ad confossionoin porlinon! volnit Lullioriis,
inlelicxoril: non onim dofueriiiil nlim , qiii cuin
e\ciisarc vollonl. Aul i^^ilur manif(>sla poccala oc-
cnllis opposuil. aul duhiis. aut ommiio incoijnilis
oliain ipsi peccalori. Dc oinnino incopnilis noii
|iolcsl esso loquulns. ea si(]iiidom iio oalholici
(piidom volunl esse confilonda: no(]uo carniticinam
I.ullicrus appellasscl scnlonliam calholicorum . si
in cadem sonliMilia cliain ipse fuissel. Dc occullis
non so elinin loquulum. tostalur ipse in assorl.
arlic. 8. quaro id soluin rcslal, ul clo dubiis inlel-
lcxeril: qui cerle non parvus esl error.
Idcm in scrin. de confoss. ol Eucharislia . edilo
anno 1.'>I*.). dicil: Coufessioneni quae lil coram sa-
ccrdole, non osse pracccplam a Doo, sed a papa.
Iiom in libro de ralione conlitcndi. cap. 0. valde
«hibitat. an poccala cordis sinl confilcnda. Ilem in
]il)ro conlra Latomum. anno 1521 . ^'eqo, iuquil ,
iii lotum confcfisionem esse exigendam, el in ser-
mone de Eu(diaristia. anno 1j26. neininem vull
corri ad confcssioncm faciendam. In visilalione Sa-
xonica. anno l.")28, ilerum repetit, confessionem
non esse praeceplam. licel sil utilis. Denique in
arliculis Smalchaldicis. anno 1527. in arliculo de
confessione. dicil, enumerationem peccalorum de-
bore esse liberam, ul quisque enumerel illa , quae
voluerit.
Joannes Oecolampadius librum scripsit, quod
coufessio non sil onerosa Chrisliano: sed non a-
c;noscil confessionem a Deo praeceptam, iramo ne
ab Ecclesia quidera. uisi manifeslorum criminura.
Philippus Melanchthon in ipsa confessione au-
j^uslana. art. de confessione: De confessione pec-
calorum. inquil. docenL noslri , quod absolulio
privata in eccksiis retinenda sit , quamquam
non sit nocessaria dclictorum enumeralio: est e-
nim ijnpossibilis enumeratio omnium delicto-
rum. juxta illud: Delicta quis intelligit? Haec il-
lo,qni quamvis ex ralione quam adfert, eam solum
onumcrationem non neccessariain esse significa-
ro videalur. quae est omnium poccalorum, sive ea
co!?noscaiilur a nobi^, sive ignorentur: tamen sino
dubio rcprohondere voluit enumorationem illam,
qnae esl in nsu calholicae Ecclesiae, vidolicet o-
mninm poccalorum. quae post examen animo oc
currunt. i\am in Apologia arlicuii de confossione et
salisfactione. saepius ropetit. enumcrationem quae
modo fil. cl qiiae erat apud veleres, non csse ne-
ccssariam juro divino: Porro. inquil, adversarii
nostri multos doctores receptissimos damnabunt,
M conlendent , enumerationem deliclorum in
confpssione necessariam esse jure divino. Quam-
quam enim confessionem probamus^et quandam
examinatlonem prodc>^s('iudicamus , ul instituL
homines melius possint: lamen ita moderanda
rcs est. ne conscieniiis injiciantur laquei , quae
numquam erunt tranquiltae, si existimabunt, se
non posae consequi remissionem peccalorum,nisi
facta illa scrupulosacnumeratione. Mom in o\a-
inino ordinandoruni.uhi (\t\ confossionc ;i!^nl:A'?///((,
inipiil , cniiDwralio dcUctorum ncrcssaria cs/ ,
(juia nianifcstum esl, nusquam exlarc praece-
ccptum diviiunn de cnumcralionc sin(fulorum.
Similia liabol in locis commiinibus. litnlo do con-
fossiono, uhi lamoii utihMu osso iudical ali(]iia(n o-
numerationem.cl idcirco .salis prolixo inslitnil nio-
Ihodum disciiliendi conscienliam pcr omnia j)rac-
copla dccalo^i.
Joannes Calvinus lih. 3. Inslil. cap. 4. § 7. Mi-
ror.. \ni]\\\\, qua fronlc ausint contcndere, con-
fcssioncm,. dc qiia toquuntur, juris csse divini :
cujus equidcm vetuslissiinum usuin osso fatemiir:
sed quem facilc evincere possumus olim fuisse li-
berum. Doinde § 11. admiltit confossionein gene-
ralora, quam rainister pro se el populo in Ecclcsia
facial. El § 12. adraitlit eliam confcssionem priva-
tam coram paslore. quando quis ita angilnr ct af-
fliclatur poccalorum scnsu, ul so oxplicare nisi a-
liono adjiitorio nequoat; sed addil hanc modcra-
WoviCHi: Hinc sequitur, in^pjil, cjusmodi confes-
sionem liberam essc oporlerc,ut non ab omnibus
exigatur, sed iis lantum commcndetur, quia ea.
se opus habcre inteUigenl. Deinde ne ii ipsi, qui
illa utuntur pro sua necessitatc, ad enumera,nda
omnia peccata vel praeceplo aliquo coganlur,vel
arle inducantur: sed quoad interesse sua puta-
bunt, utsolidum consolationis fructumreferant.
Denique § 11), de confessione. qualis fil apud ca-
tholicos: Nihil, inquit , mirum si auricularem
istam confessionem. rem adeo pcstilentem, tolque
nominibus Ecclesiae noxiam, damnamus, ac su-
blatam e medio cupimus.
Marlinus Remnilius in 2. par. exara, cap. li. de
Poenitentia, pag. 970. et soquenlibus de confes-
sione dispulat; sed pag. 121. ita explicat nsura
confessionis, quera apud suos observari dicil: Pri-
valae. inquit. confessionis usus apud nos serva-
tur, ul generali profcssione peccali, ct si^jnHica-
tione Poenitentiae petatur absolutio.Cumquc non
sine judicio usurpanda, sit clavis, vcl solvens ,
vel ligans, in privato illo coUoquio pastores ex-
'plora.nt audilorum judicia, an recte intelliganl
doctrinam de peccatis exterioribus et intcriori-
bus, de gradibus pcccalorum, de stipendio pec-
cati. defidein Christum: dcducuntur ad consi-
dcrationcm. pecca.toru,m : explorantur an serio
doleant dc peccatis, an iram Dci limea.nl et cu-
pia.nt illam effugcre. an habeant propositum c-
mendaiionis: interrogantjur etiamsiin certis qui-
biisda.m pcccalis hacrere exislimantur: traditur
iUis doctrina et exhortatio de eincndatione ,
quaeritur vel consilium vcl consolatio in grava-
minilm.s conscientiae: ct tali confessioni imperli-
tur absolulio. Haoc ille,qui non solura a calbolico
rilu, scd eliam a Lulheri el Melanchthonis , quos
magislros habere se glorialur, doclriiia longe ab-
esse videtur. Illi onim confossionom poccalorum
in specie facicndam esse docent,licet non omnium
neque ex legis divinae praecopto: at Rcmnilius ge-
nerali confessione et poenilentis instruclione con-
lentus est.
Eadem senerali confessione. ac poonilentis in-
]M',VA\ TKnTllS
G71
slruclione conlcnlus esLToannPs Brcnlius in con-
lcssionc wirtcmbcrKcnsi arlic. 11. de conlessione;
el alii, quos longuni csscl, et niininic necessarium
enuraerure.