Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 2: The Necessity of Confession Is Proved from the Gospel
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).
Against all the errors now noted, the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 5 and canons 6, 7 and 8, not only declares that the confession of all mortal sins is necessary by divine law for those who after Baptism fall into sins, but also says anathema to those who dare to dispute the contrary. Being about to prove this truth from the words of the Lord, I have judged that the whole force of the divine testimonies is to be brought back to this reasoning. Those who have bound themselves by mortal sin are bound by divine law to do Penance and to seek reconciliation with God. But the necessary means to reconciliation after Baptism is the confession of all sins made to a priest. Therefore those who after Baptism have bound themselves by mortal sin are bound by divine law to confess all their sins to a priest. The proposition was proved in the preceding book from those words of Matthew 3, “Do penance,” and from those of Luke 13, “Unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish”; nor do the adversaries deny it. Wherefore the whole difficulty is placed in the assumption, which again is concluded by this reasoning. Christ instituted priests as judges upon earth with that power, that without their sentence no one who has lapsed after Baptism can be reconciled. But priests cannot judge rightly unless they know the sins. Therefore those who have lapsed after Baptism are bound by divine law to open their sins to priests; and thereby the confession of sins is a necessary means to reconciliation for those who have lapsed after Baptism. Of this argument only the proposition has to be confirmed, for the assumption is so evident of itself that it can in no way be denied; for a judgement without knowledge of the cause cannot even be feigned in thought. Wherefore the adversaries commonly are accustomed to answer our argument that the minister in this matter is not a judge but a herald of God, and does not absolve by power, but only announces indulgence to penitents.
Philip, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article on confession: “As for what they object,” he says, “that a judge ought to know the cause before he pronounces, this has nothing to do with this matter, because absolution is the execution of another’s benefit; it is not a judgement.” The same, in the Common Places of the year 1543, under the title on confession, answers the same argument in these words: “I answer to the major: a judgement and the ministry of the Gospel differ; in a judgement it is necessary that an examination be made; but the ministry of the Gospel is a certain command of imparting a benefit, namely of announcing the remission of sins, whether they are known or unknown.” And below: “The ministry,” he says, “is the testimony of the divine absolution.” And below: “That the Gospel can be applied publicly to many and privately to single persons, this sentence witnesses: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 18: “For as to what they contend,” he says, “that a judgement cannot be made unless the cause is known, the solution is at hand: that those rashly arrogate this to themselves who have been created judges by themselves.” And below: “They boast that the office of binding and loosing has been committed to them, as if some jurisdiction were joined to the question. Further, that this right was unknown to the apostles their whole doctrine cries out.” And in section 21 he declares that to remit and retain sins is nothing else than to promise from the word of God the remission of sins to believers, and to proclaim damnation to those not embracing Christ; which same he teaches more copiously in book 4, chapter 11, section 1: “This command,” he says, “of remitting and retaining sins, and that promise made to Peter of binding and loosing, ought to be referred to nothing else than to the ministry of the word; which while the Lord was committing to the apostles, at the same time he was furnishing them with this office of binding and loosing. For what is the sum of the Gospel, but that we all, servants of sin and death, are loosed and freed through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and that those who do not receive and acknowledge Christ as liberator and redeemer are condemned and consigned to eternal bonds?” Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, chapter 5, on Penance, page 129, sets out in these words the chief argument of the Catholics: “Christ,” he says, “constituted priests judges, that by the power of the keys they should pronounce the sentence either of remission or of retention of sins. But no judgement can be rightly exercised with the cause unknown; therefore all sins are to be enumerated, set out and disclosed one by one to the priest as judge in confession, when absolution is asked.” And below he sets down the answer, page 130: “But it is rightly answered,” he says, “that there is a difference between a judgement and the function of the ministry of the Gospel; for in a judgement one pronounces according to the knowledge of the cause, as it is good or bad, or as the accused brings compensation for the offence; but the ministry of the Gospel has a command of announcing and imparting another’s benefit, namely Christ’s.” And page 133: “The ministers,” he says, “only discharge an embassy, and are dispensers of another’s benefit, to whom it has not been commanded that they search hearts, but that to those who signify that they do penance and believe the Gospel they announce the remission of sins.” So he.
Wherefore if I shall have proved from the Gospel that the apostles and their successors were constituted by the Lord judges in the Church in the causes of penitents, I shall at the same time have proved also that by divine law the confession of sins in kind is to be made before a priest. There are three chief places from which this judicial power can be demonstrated. The first place is Matthew 16: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” The second, Matthew 18: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” The third is John 20: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” The first place contains a promise made to Peter alone; for neither Catholics nor heretics doubt that Peter received the keys, not only that he himself should use them, but also that he should communicate them with the other priests. The second place has a promise made to all the apostles, or a certain prediction of that power which the apostles and their successors were going to receive; and because the Truth cannot lie, even if we read nothing else, it could not be doubted that they had received that power somewhere. The third place contains the very grant of that power and the constitution of the whole sacrament. And since the adversaries do not deny that in these places the power of loosing and binding, or of remitting or retaining sins, is promised or given to the Church, but interpret this power as the ministry of preaching and announcing to penitents the remission of sins, and to the impenitent wrath and damnation, whether publicly to many or privately to one, therefore it must be proved by us that from these places it is most openly gathered that a true power of absolving by authority was given, and thereby that priests are judges in the causes of sins in the stead of Christ.
First, then, this is gathered from the metaphor of the keys, of which it is said: “I will give to thee the keys.” For in the first place keys are not accustomed to be made or given to signify that a door is shut or open, but to open and shut in fact. Then, among men keys are accustomed to be given to magistrates as a sign of power; and in the ordination of doorkeepers the keys of the material church are given not that the doorkeepers may declare whether the doors of the temple are shut or open, but that they may truly shut and open them. Lastly, when in Apocalypse, chapter 3, it is said of Christ, “He that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth,” all understand by the key a true and properly so called power, by which Christ can by judicial authority absolve and bind, not signify or declare who is bound and who loosed. Wherefore, since Christ communicated his keys with the apostles and their successors, he communicated with them a true power of loosing and binding by judicial authority. And as no one can enter a shut house unless he who has the key of that house has opened the door, so also no one to whom heaven is shut on account of guilt will be able to enter it unless it is opened by the ministry of priests. For if entrance lay open from elsewhere, the apostles would have received the keys in vain; for what would it profit to have the keys of a house if without keys, even against the doorkeeper’s will, entrance lay open? “Let no one,” says Saint Augustine, homily 49, “say to himself: I act in secret, I act before God. Then was it said without cause: What you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven? Then were the keys given without cause to the Church of God? We make void the Gospel, we make void the words of Christ.” Nor is it against these things that through Baptism even those who do not have the keys can let men into the kingdom of heaven. For the power of the keys is a judicial power, and therefore is properly exercised only towards those who are in the Church. “For what have I to do to judge them that are without?” says the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 5. So through Baptism men are admitted to the Church and subjected to the judgement and power of priests; but if afterwards they sin, they can in no way be reconciled without the benefit of the keys.
Secondly, the same is gathered from the metaphor of binding and loosing. For to bind and to loose do not signify to denounce or declare, but in fact to cast on or take off bonds; and especially in Matthew 16 and 18; otherwise the Lord would not have said, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose, it shall be loosed,” or, “Whatsoever you shall loose, they shall be loosed,” but, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose was loosed,” and, “Whatsoever you shall loose were loosed.” You will say: granted that priests can loose and bind, yet it will not therefore be necessary to come to their tribunal; for the Lord does not say, “And whatsoever you shall not loose shall not be loosed.” So they will indeed be able to loose, if anyone wishes to use their ministry, but the sinner will also be able to be reconciled in another way without their ministry. Just as, when public judges are constituted by the authority of kings, they can indeed judge all who wish to use their services; yet those who have suits are not compelled to come to those public judges, but can choose arbiters, or even settle their cause themselves by themselves. But this objection is easily solved. For although private men can settle the suits which they have among themselves without the sentence of public judges, yet they cannot settle those suits which they have with the king himself unless they go to him whom the king has willed to be judge in his place. Now all sins are causes which we have with God himself; and therefore, since God has committed the judgement of sins to priests in his Church, those who are in the Church, if they have causes of that kind, cannot be reconciled with God without the judgement of priests. Wherefore that negation, “Whatsoever you shall not loose shall not be loosed,” although it was not expressed in that place of the Gospel, yet is openly gathered, both from that affirmation, “Whatsoever you shall loose shall be loosed,” by which priests are said to be future judges in causes against God, and also from that, “Whatsoever you shall bind shall be bound”; for to bind is not only to add a new bond, as of excommunication, but also to confirm and retain the bond of sin, as is explained in the other evangelist, and in short to be unwilling to loose. For if the guilty could be absolved from sins without the sentence of priests, the promise of Christ would not be true: “Whatsoever you shall bind shall be bound.”
Thirdly, the same is gathered from those words of John 20: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” For in this place power is expressly given not only of remitting sins but also of retaining; but what is to retain, but to be unwilling to remit? Therefore remission is denied to those to whom priests have been unwilling to remit. Add that the Lord does not say, “Whose sins you shall forgive were forgiven,” which he certainly would have said if by remission he had wished to signify declaration; but he says, “They are forgiven them,” because, namely, Christ holds as ratified the sentence passed by the priest in his name. Fourthly, it is gathered from that word “Whose”; for the Lord does not will that sins be remitted to all indefinitely, but to certain men, namely those whom priests have judged to be absolved. But the Gospel is to be preached to all indefinitely, according to that of the last chapter of Mark, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”; and to all without exception can be given that conditional absolution of Calvin, “Thy sins are forgiven thee, if thou believest.” Therefore the Lord speaks not of the preaching of the Gospel, but of a true power of remitting sins. Fifthly, it is gathered from the ceremony of breathing which the Lord used when he bestowed on the apostles the power of remitting sins. For as the same Christ in Acts 2 gave the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues, because at that time he gave the gift of preaching, so also in John 20 he gave the Holy Spirit by breathing, because he gave the gift of remitting sins, not by preaching, as the adversaries dream, but plainly by extinguishing and dissolving. For as a breath extinguishes fire and scatters clouds, so also the absolution of the priest disperses sins and makes them vanish; according to which metaphor we read in Isaiah 44: “I have blotted out thy sins as a cloud.”
Sixthly, the same is proved from the Fathers, who so expound the places noted as openly to signify that priests were made judges by Christ, and dismiss sins by power, and do not by preaching announce that they are remitted. And first Saint John Chrysostom, book 3 On the Priesthood, confirms our opinion in many ways. “For those who inhabit the earth,” he says, “and dwell in it, to them it has been committed to dispense the things which are in heaven; to them it has been given that they should have a power which God willed to be given neither to angels nor to archangels; for it was not said to them: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth,” and so on. But surely angels can announce to men that sins are remitted if they believe, not remitted if they do not believe; therefore not a power of announcing, but of truly absolving and binding, was given to priests in the opinion of Chrysostom. Chrysostom goes on in the same place: “Earthly princes indeed also have the power of binding, but of bodies only; but that which I speak of, the bond of priests, touches the very soul also, and reaches even to the heavens, so far that whatever priests have done below, those same things God holds as ratified above, and the Lord confirms the sentence of his servants.” But the princes of the earth are not accustomed to announce who is bound and who loosed, but plainly by command bind and loose the bodies of their subjects. Therefore priests also, when they bind or loose souls, do not announce who is bound or who loosed, but plainly by command, in the stead of Christ, cast on or take off bonds, if the comparison of Chrysostom is worth anything. Chrysostom goes on: “Whose sins you shall retain, he says, they are retained. What power, I pray, could be greater than this one?” But to announce that sins are remitted to the faithful and retained for unbelievers is no great matter, for anyone can do that who only knows how to read the Gospel, not only priests but also laymen; and not only Catholics but also heretics, nay, even the devils themselves. He goes on: “The Father gave all power to the Son; but I see that same whole power delivered by the Son to them; for as if already translated into heaven and set above human nature, and freed from our passions, so have they been brought to that principality.” But the Father did not give to the Son a bare faculty of announcing the Gospel, but plainly of dismissing sins by authority. Otherwise the Lord, Matthew 9, when he had said to the paralytic, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” and certain Pharisees had added, “He blasphemeth,” could with one word have repelled the calumny and said that he did not properly remit sins, but only announced that they were remitted; but he did not do this, but from the wondrous power of suddenly curing bodies showed that he had also the wondrous power of curing souls. Chrysostom adds: “Why say more? If some king had conferred this honour on one of his subjects, that he should have power of casting into prison whomever he wished, and of releasing the same again, that man would be blessed and admired in the judgement of all. But he who has received from God a power so much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, as souls also excel bodies, must this man seem to some to have received a dignity so cheap that it can even come into their thought that someone can sometimes be found of the number of those to whom those great things which I said a little before have been entrusted, to whom his own office grows vile, and who despises the gift given him by God?” Chrysostom could not have declared more openly that the power of priests is truly and properly judicial than he has done by that likeness; for he compares the priest not with the king’s herald, who only announces what has been done or is to be done, but with him who by power thrusts into prison or frees from prison. Chrysostom adds lastly in the same place: “To purge the leprosy of the body, or (to speak more truly) not indeed to purge it, but to approve the purged, was lawful to the priests of the Jews alone; nor are you ignorant with how great ambition, with how great zeal and contention, the priestly dignity was acquired at that time. But to our priests it has been granted, not the leprosy of the body, but the filth of the soul, I do not say to approve as purged, but wholly to purge.” In this place Chrysostom so clearly condemns the opinion of the adversaries that nothing at all can be answered against it.
But let us hear the other Fathers also. Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in the oration to the citizens stricken with fear and the angry prince or governor: “The very law of Christ,” he says, “subjects you also, governors, to my command and my throne; for we too are with power, I will add even greater and more perfect.” Saint Ambrose, book 1 On Penance, chapter 2 and following, proves from the places alleged, Matthew 16 and John 20, that the power of remitting sins was given by Christ to priests. And that Ambrose speaks of a true power of remitting, not of the ministry of preaching the Gospel only, is clear both because the Novatians did not deny that the Gospel can be preached to all, but denied that sins can be remitted by authority; and because in chapter 7 Ambrose writes that Christ communicated with priests that power which he himself has; but that Christ has a true power of remitting, and not of announcing only, we showed a little before. Saint Jerome, in the letter to Heliodorus on the solitary life: “Far be it,” he says, “that I should say anything sinister of those who, succeeding to the apostolic rank, make the body of Christ with their sacred mouth, through whom we also are Christians; who, having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in a manner judge before the day of judgement.” Saint Augustine, book 20 of the City of God, chapter 9, explaining that of the Apocalypse, “And I saw seats, and them that sat upon them, and judgement was given,” speaks thus: “This is not to be thought to be said of the last judgement, but the seats of the rulers, and the rulers themselves, are to be understood, by whom the Church is now governed. And no better sense of the judgement given seems able to be received than that which was said: What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whence the Apostle: For what have I to do, he says, to judge them that are without? do not you judge them that are within?” Saint Innocent I, in letter 1 to Decentius, chapter 7: “Of the weight of offences to be estimated,” he says, “it belongs to the priest to judge.” Saint Gregory, homily 26 on the Gospels, expounding those words of the Lord, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” and so on: “They obtain,” he says, “the principality of the supernal judgement, that in the stead of God they retain sins for some, and for some relax them.”
Seventhly, it is proved by reasons. And first, if priests were not judges, and did not truly remit sins, but only announced that they were remitted, no one would perish from this alone, that he could not have a priest to reconcile him; for he who believes, in the opinion of the adversaries, already has remission, even if there is no one to attest it in words. But Saint Augustine, in letter 180 to Honoratus, openly writes that some desiring to be reconciled, and therefore believing in Christ, perish for ever because they die before they could be absolved by a priest. “Do we not consider,” he says, “when the extremity of these dangers is reached, and there is no power of fleeing, how great a concourse of both sexes and of every age is accustomed to take place in the church, some demanding Baptism, others reconciliation, others even the doing of penance itself, all consolation and the making and dispensing of the sacraments? Where, if ministers are wanting, how great a destruction follows those who depart from this world either not regenerated or bound? How great also is the mourning of their faithful, who will not have them with themselves in the rest of eternal life?” So he. Nor does Saint Leo write things unlike these in letter 91 to Theodore. From which places we understand that sacramental reconciliation has the power of justifying, and is not only an announcement of justification received or to be received. Then, if the priest remitted sins no otherwise than by announcing the divine promises, certainly the deaf would be absolved only in vain and to no purpose, and those who through the violence of disease are bereft of their senses. “Pour not out thy words,” says the Wise Man, Ecclesiasticus 32, “where there is no hearing.” But in the ancient Church not only the deaf, but also those who through the violence of disease were beside themselves, were sometimes reconciled, as is plain from Augustine, book 1 On Adulterous Marriages, last chapter, and Leo in the letter cited a little before to Theodore, and from the fourth Council of Carthage, canon 76, and that of Orange, canon 12. Thirdly, if absolution were an announcement of the remission of sins, it would be either rash or superfluous. For when the minister says, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” he pronounces this either absolutely or on a hypothesis, namely if you believe and do penance as you ought. If absolutely, he pronounces it rashly, since he does not know whether he who asks reconciliation is truly penitent and has faith such as is required for justification; and besides, even if the minister knew it in some way, yet the penitent himself knows it better, and therefore does not need that announcement of the minister, which can add nothing of certainty to him. But if the absolution is conditional (as Calvin admits), such an absolution cannot make the penitent certain and secure, since it depends on an uncertain condition; and yet the adversaries acknowledge scarcely any other end of absolution than that it make a man certain of justification received. Fourthly, if absolution is not a judicial act, but a simple announcement of the divine promise which stands written in the Gospel, a layman will be able to absolve no less than a priest, nay, even a woman, or a boy, or some unbeliever, or the devil, or even a parrot, if it is taught those words. And although the adversaries concede this, because it follows evidently from their principles, yet it is against the confession of all the ancients, and against the custom of all churches and all ages, of which matter we shall say more in its place.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II.
Prohaliir confessionis necessitas cx cvangeHo.
Advcrsus omncs jam notalos crrores, concilium
Irideulinum sess. li. cap. o. et can. 0. 7. cl 8.
non soliim declarol. conlessionem omnium pecca-
torum inorlalium jurc divino necessariam csse iis,
qui post Daplismum in pcccata labuntur; sed el-
iam analhema dicit iis, qui contra ausi fuerint dis-
pulare.
Quam verilatem ex verbis Domini comprobalu-
rus, ad Iiauc r;iliocinationem,tolam vim divinorum
lestimoniorum revocandam esse censui:Qui morla-
11 peccalo se obslrinxerunt, tenentur jure divino
Poenilenliam agere ct rcconcilialionem cum Dco
quaerere: Sed mediiim necessarium ad reconcilia-
tionem post Baptismura, esl confessio peccatorum
omnium sacerdoti facla.Ergo lenenlur jure divino.
(|ui post Bapllsmum morlali pcccalo sc obslrinxe-
runt saccrdoti peccala omnia confiteri.
Propositio in libro superiore probala csl. ex illis
verbis Mallli. 3. Poenilen\ia.m agite, Kx illis Luc.
13. Nisi Poenilcnliam halyuerilis, omnes simililer
'peribilis: neque adversarii eam neganl. Quare tota
diiricuUas it) assumplione posila cst , quae rursus
liac rallocinatione concludilur : Cliristus instituil
sacerdoles judices super terram cum ca polcslole,
ul sine ipsorum senlenlia ncmo posl Baptismum
lapsus reconciliari possil. Sed ncqueunt sacerdo-
tes recte judicare. nisi pcccata cognoscanl: Ergo
jurc divino tenenlur qui post Baplismum lapsi sunt
peccala sua sacerdolibus aperire; ac per lioc cst
eonfessio peccalorum medium nccessarium ad ro«
concilialioncm iis, qui post Baplismum lapsi sunl.
Ilujus argumenli sola proposilio confirmanda
est, nam assumplio ila per se esl evidens.ut millo
modo negari possit:judicium enim sine eognilionc
(laussae, ne cogitalioiie quidem lingi polcsl. Quo-
circa adversarii communitcr ad noslrum argumen-
luin respondere solent, minislrum in liac re non
judicem. sed praeconem esse Dci, nequc pro po-
leslale absolvere,sed tantum annunciarc poeniten-
tibiis indulgenliam.
IMiilippiis in apologia confcssion. augiislanae.
arl. de confess. Quod ubjiciunl. inquil , judicem
(lehere cognoscere canssam priusfpiam 'pronun-
ciel, lioc niltil ad hanc mn perlinct, quia. ahso-
luiio cst e:rj'(iuulio alieni heneficii, non cstjudi-
cium. Idem in locis anni 1543. lit. de confessio-
ne, ad Idcni argiimcnliim liis verbis rcspondel: Bi'-
sjxmdco (id majovcui: dilfcrunt, judicium clmi-
niHlcrium ('vangclii. injudicio ncccsse cst ficri
cjxjnitioncrn: al miaisterinm cvangeiii csl man-
daluin ccrlum iniiicrlicndi hcncficii, scilicct (in-
nunciandac rciniisionis peccaloruiii, sirc nota
sinl, sivc ignota. VA infra: Ministcriuni, inqiiil.
iiEI.LAinilM Vdl. III.
pst testimonimn divinac idisohilionLs. El inlra:
Ouod evangcUum publicc nudtis ct privatitii sin-
gulis applicari possit, lcslatur liaec sententia:
Quorum rcmiserilis peccata, remiltunlur cis.
•Toannes Calvinus lib. 3. Insliliil. cap. i. § 18.
Nam, inquil, quod contendunt, non possc fieri
judicium, nisi caussa cognita; in promptu esl
solutio. temere hoc sibi arrogare qui snnt a sei-
psisjudices creati. Et infra: Jactant sibi ligandi
et solvendi mnnus esse mandatum, ac si quae-
dam esseljurisdictio quaestioni adjuncla. Porro
lioc jus apostoUs fuisse incognilum. tola eoruin
doctrina cUimat: El ^ 21. declarat. remilterc ac
relinere peccata nihil esse aliud. nisi polliceri ex
verbo Dci remissionem peccalorum credcnlibus,
et edicere damnalionem non ampleclentibiis Chri-
stum: quod idem copiosius docet lib. 4. cap. 11.
§ 1. IIoc, inquil , de remitlendis et relinendis
peccatis mandatum, et iUa de ligando ct solven-
do, Petro factapromissio. non aUo debcntrcfcr-
ri. quam ad verhi ministerium: cjuod dum apo-
stoUs committebat Dominus simul lioc Ugandi,
solvemUque munerc ipsos instruebat. Quae enim
est summa evangeUi, nisi quod omnes servi pec-
cati et morlis, solvimur oc lihcramur per redcm-
ptioncm. quae esl in Christo Jesu:* qui vcro Chri-
slum Uheratorcm ac redemptorem , non susci-
piunl, nec agnoscunt,eos aetcrnis vincuUs dam-
nalos. addiclosque essc?
Marlinus Reninitiiis in 2. parl. examinis. cap.5.
de Pocnilenlia png. 129.proponil liis verbis |)ulis-
simum calliolicorum argumenUim: Christus, in-
quit. saccrdotisjudices constituil.iU propotcstate
clavium pronuncient scntentiam vcl remissionis.
vcl retcntionis pcccatorum. Scd nuUumjudicium
recte exerceri potesl incognita caussa: Ideo o-
mnia pcccata saccrdoli ul judici. in confc^sione
([uando pctitur ahsohUio,sigiUatim enumcranda,
oxponenda et detegcnda sunt. Et infra poiiit re-
sponsionem png. 130. Scd rc.cte. in(|uit. rcspon-
dcltir (Uscrimcn esse inlc.r judicium ct functio-
ncm ministerii evangcUci:ln judicio cnimjuxla
canssae cognitionem pronunciatur, proul bona.
velmaUiest. vclproutreus adfcrl compcnsalio-
no.m pro dcUcto:ministcrium vcro cvangelii man-
dntum hahcl annunciamU cl impertieniU alie-
nuni hcncficium, Christi sciUcet. Et pagina 1033.
iflinislri. inquil, tantum lcgaiionc fungtinlur. o.l
sunt dispcnsalorcs aUeni heneficii. quibus non
mandaliim esl, ut corda scrutontur, sod ul iis,
qui fiignificanl sc PoonUcntiam agoro cl oidugo'
lio crodcre. annuncient rcmissioncm porcato-
rum. Haec illc.
Quarc si cx nvangclio probavcro, apnstolos et
enriim successores iudiccs esse a Domino in Ec-
clcsia constitulos in caussis poonilcnlium. simul
etiam probavero, jure divino confessionem pccca-
tonim in s|>erie coram saccrdot«> essc racicmlain.
Tria sunt loei praeci[>ua,ex (|uibus.iudiciaria isla
l>olestas demonslrari polest. Piimus lociis cst Mal-
Ihaei 10. Tihi daho clavcs ro.gni coolornm. e.L
quodcumqnc Ugavcris f^npcr tcrram.oril Ugaltim
cl in coe/is: ot (iiKnlcuttuiti.o sofrcrts stipor lor-
ram, crU solnlum ri in odolis. All^^r Mallli. 18.
67S
l)K POtMiliiSilA
QniuH-iimiiut' (iUiii<ivcritis ^upcv lovvuui, cruul
litlnUi el iii cvcht: cl tiuaviunuqup iiDhcvitia su-
pt-r lernuu, emnt nulula et in vt^clo. 'rcrlius «'sl
Jonn. -0. Qut^ruui rcviiscritis pccctilti, rcwiliuu-
tur ci.<: cl qvorum rcliuucrili)>. rctcnUi i^unt.
Pnmus lofiis ronlinel promissionem soli Pelro
r;uM;mi: i^PA\ ncqur o:Ulio]ici, ncqno luicictifi (iuhi-
liuil, (luin PtMnis iicccpcril chivcs, non tiinUini iil
ipse cis iilcrclnr.stMl cliiiin nl c;is cum ciicloris s;i-
.•crdolihus cominuniciircl. All<'r locus halicl pro-
missionem. riici;uii ;ipost()lis omnihus, sive priic.ii-
clionem qn.uniam cjus potcstatis. (inam npostoli cl
corum succcssorcs iicccpluri craiit.Kl quia verilas <''>ul (lenunciare vcl declarare, sed reipsa vincula
i;mi (|ui chivcs non liahcnl. iutromillcrc possunl
hoinmcs iii rc^niuni coclorum. Ninii polcsliis cia-
viuni, csl polcslas judiciariii. cl idco propric epfra
cos liinlum cxcrcclnr. <iui suiil in Kcclcsia. Quid
vjiiui tid uic dc iis qui foris auut judiviircyiw^nh
Aposlolus 1. Corinlh. (i. lUiquc piM- naptisnium ad-
mitluntur homiiics ;i(l Ecclcsiam cl sacerdotum ju-
dicio ;ic potcslali suhjiciuntur: scd si (lciiidc pcc-
c;ivcrinl siuc cliivium hcnclicio iiullo niodo recon-
('ili;iri qucunt.
Sccuiido: Idcm collijj;iiur cx nicl;ipliora ligan<li
cl solvcndi: Lii:;;irc ciiim cl solvcrc, uon signili-
mcnliri non polcsl. eli.imsi nihil aliud lcj^crcmus.
noii possci iunhijzi. quin eam potcstatcm alicuhi
acccpisscnt. Tcrlius locus contincl ipsani conccs-
sioncm cjns poleslalis el sacramenli lotius consli-
tuUoncm.
Kl quoniam advcrsnrii non nc«iant, in his locis
promitli vcl dari Kcclcsiac poleslatcm solvendi Cl
ligandi. sive peccala rcmillcndi aul rclinendi; sed
hanc polcstalcm inlcrprclanlur ministcrium prac-
dicandi cl annnnciandi pocnitcnlihus rcinissioncm
ppccatorum, et impocnitciitihus iram cl damnatio-
nein. sive puhlice mullis, sivc privatim uni: idcir-
co prohandum nohis esl. cx his locis aperlissime
collitji. (latam cssc vcram polcstalcm ex auclorila
injiccrc. aul dcmerc: cl pracscrlim Mallh. 16. cl
1^<. ;iii()(]ui non dixissct Dominus: Quodcumque
bolvv.ris, e.ril sohLlwm, ^ivaiQuecumqi^c solverilis,
crunt soluta; Scd: QuGdcumque solveris erat so-
lutu))i: cl: Quecumquesolvcrilis, envnl soluta.
Diccs: Kslo.possinl saccrdotcs solvere elligare,
non lamen idcirco nccesso eril iid corum Iribunal
accedcrc; non cnim Dominus ail: Kl quaecumque
non solvcritis. non crunl solnla, Ilaque polcrunt
illi (]uidcm solvcrc, si (juis eoruin minislerio uti
voIucril,scd poterit cliam pcccilor alia ralione siuc
i[)Sorum rninistcrio rcconciliari. Quemadmodum
ciini rcgum ;iuclorilate jiidiccs puhlici constiluun-
lur, possuiil iiii quidcm jiidicarc omnes. qni ipso-
le ahsolvcndi, ac per hoc sacerdotcs judices esse lum opcra uti volanl; non tamen coguntur qui li-
^ " tcs hiihcnl ad puhlicos illos judices accederc, scd
possunl arhilros cligcrc.aul etiam ipsi pcr se caus-
sam suam componcre.
Scd haec objeclio facile solvitur. Nam eliamsi
possint privali homincs, lites, quas intcr sc ha-
i)cnl,sine publicorum judicum sentenlia compone-
re: non possunl lamen eas lites componere, quas
in c;iussis pcccatorum vicc Clirisli
Primum igilur id colligilur cx mctaphora clavi-
um. de quihijs dicilur: Tibi dabo claves. l\am in
primis claves noii solcnl fieri. vel dari ad signifi-
candiim. ostium cssc clausum vd apcrtum, sed ad
apericndum cl claiidcndum rcipsa. Deindc. apud
linmines claves dari solcnl magistralihus in signum
polcslalis:el in oniinalione osliariorwm danlur cla- »'"in regc ipso hahcnt, nisi illum adeant, quem lo-
ves Kcclesiae malcrialis non ul osliarii dcclarent, co suo rcx judicem csse voluit. Porro peccala o-
sinliip Inres lempli clausae, vcl ;.pcrlae,sed ut eas mn"» caussae sunt, quos cum Dco ipso habemus.
vcre claudanl alque apcrianf. Dcnique. cum in A
pocal. cap. 3. de Chrislo dicilur: Qui habet cla-
vem David. aperil, et nemo claudil ; claudil el
nemo aperil, omnes inlelligunt perclavem, veram
et proprie dictam polcstatcm, qiia possit Clirislus
ex auctoritale judiciaria absolvcrc ctligare.non au-
lem significare aut dcclarare, quis sil ligalus, quis
solutus.
Quare cum suas clnves Chrislus cum aposlolis,
eorumque succcssorihus communicaveril. veram
polcslaten*. ex auctoritatc judiciaria solvcndi el li-
gandi cum illis commnnicavit. El qucmadmodum
ifemo in clausnm domum ingredi polest. nisi qui
liabct ejus domus clavem. oslium aperuerit: sic et-
iam nemo cui coelura ob culpam sil clausum, in
illiid ingrcdi polerit, nisi sacerdotum ministerio a-
perialur. Nam si aliuridc palcret aditus.fruslra cla-
ves aposloli acccpisscnt: quid cnim prodcsscl ha-
bere claves domus, si absque clavibus;invito etiam
osiiario. nditiis paleret? yemo. inquil s. Augusti
ct ideo cuin Deus judicium de peccatis, sacerdoti-
hus pcrmiserit in Ecclesia sua, non possuntqui in
Ecclesia sunt, si ejusmodi caussas habcant. sine
sacerdotum judicio cum Deo rcconciliari. Quarc
illa negalio. Ouaecumque non solverilis.non erunt
soluta. quamvis cxprcssa non fuerit in co loco e-
vangclii: lamcn aperle colligitur, tum cx illa afTir-
malione: Quaccumque solverilis, erunt soluta^qua
sacerdotcs judices futuri dicunlur in caussis conlra
Dcum, lum eliam cx illa: QuaecuTaque ligaveritis,
erunt ligala, ligare enim non solum est novum
vinculum addcre, ut excommunicationis:sed etiam
vinculum peccali confirmare ac retinere,ut in alio
evangelisla cxplicatur, et denique nollc solvcre.
Quod si posscnt rei sine sacerdotum senlentia ;i
pcccalis absolvi, non esset vcra Chrisli promissio:
Qunecumque Hgaveritis erunt ligata.
Tcrtio: Colligilur idcm cx illis verbis Joan. 20.
Quorum remiseritis peccala, remiltuntur eis; et
(juorum retimteritis. retentasunt. Hoc cnim loco
nus hom. 49. sibi dicat. Occulte ago. apud Deum exprcsse datur potestas non solum remitlemJi pec-
ago, Ergo sine caussa d.ictum est; Quae solveri- cata, scd etiam relinendi: relinere autem quid esl,
tis in tcrra.soluta erunt in coelo? ergo sine caus- nisi nolle remillere? proinde negalur remissio il-
i^a smil vlaves datae Ecclesine Dei? Irustramus lis, quibus nolucrint sacerdotes remittere. Adde,
et^anqvlium. fruAitramus verba Cfiristi. quod non ait Dominus, Quorum rftmiseritis pecca-
^)lequc his repugnat.quod per Baplisuiuiu i!li et- la, remissa eranl, quod certe dlxisset,si per remis-
LIBtU TKHTIl S
G79
sioncm, iloclar.Uionem significnre voluisset. sed
;iil: Reiniliuniur cia, quia niiuiruni niluin li(ibct
Cliristus senleiili;im ;i s;icer(iole,noniine suo,l;il;ini.
Ounrlo: Colligilur ex iila vi)ce.Ouorum,nec cnini
viill Dofninus oinnihus indefinile pecc;il;i reniitli,
sed cerlis hominibus. iis videlicel. quos s;icerdo-
lcs nlisolvendos jndicaverinl. Al ev;ing(diuni oinni-
bus indeliniti' pr;iedicandum cst, juxla ilind Marc.
nll. Pracdicatc cranpclium omni crealurac, ct
omnihus omnino dari polesl condilionalis illa ah-
solutio Calvini. Remilluniur libi peccalU, si cre-
dis. IVon ijfitur Dominus de praedicalione evangc-
lii, se(i de vera poleslale peccala remiUendi lo-
quilur.
Quinlo: Colligitur ex caereraonia insnillalionis,
qua Dominus usns esl, cuin poleslatem rcmilten-
dorum peccalorum apostolis Iribuil. QucinaiJmo-
dum enim idcm Chrislns Actor. 2. Spiritum s;in-
clum dedil in specic lingu;irum,quia dedil eo tsm-
pore donum concionandi: sic eliam Joan. 20. de-
dil Spiritum sanctum insufllando.quia dedil donum
peccata remiltendi, non concionando, ul advcrsa-
rii somnianl. scd plane cxlinguendo acdissolven-
do. Ut enim flalus exlinguil ignem et dissipal ne-
bulas: sic eliam absolutio sacerdotis peccala dis-
pergit et evanescerc facil; jnxla quam melapho-
ram legimus Isaiae 44. Delevi, ut nubem jjccca-
ta tua.
Sexto: Idem probatur ex Palribus.qui loca nola-
ta ita exponiuil. ul apcrte significenl, sacerdotes
a Cliristo judiccs factos, ct peccala ex poteslale di-
mitlere, non aulcm concionando annunci;ire csse
remissa.
Ac primum s. Joannes clirysostomus lib. 3. de
sacerdolio, mullis modis senlentiam nostram con-
firmat: Elcnim. inqnit. qui lerram incolunl. al-
quc in ea vcrsanlur. iis commissum esl. ui ea
quac in coclis sunt dispcnsenl: iis dalum csl, ul
poleslatem habeant. quam Dcus noquc angelis
ncquc arclianficlis datam c^^sc voluil :nequc cnim
ad illos dictum csl: Quaecumquc aUifiavcrilis in
terra etc. Al cerle possunt angcli annunciare ho-
minibus. remitti pecc;il;i si credant, non remilli.si
non credanl: non igilnr polcstas annunciaiidi, sed
vere absolvendi ac ligandi dala cst sacerdolibus cx
senlcntia Chrysoslomi.
Pcrgit ibidem Chryso,sIomus: Ilabcnl quidcm ct
tcrreslrespnncipcs vincuii poleslalem.vcrum cor-
porum solum: id aulcm quod dico, sacerdolum
vinculum. ipsam eliam animam conlinfjil.alquc
ad coelos usque pervadit. usque adeo, ui quac-
cumque infcrne saccrdotcs confecerinl, iUa ca-
dem Deus superne rala haboal,ac servorum sen*
teniiam Dominus confirmel. At principes lcrrae
non soleiil ;mnunci;irc (juis vinctus sil, qiiis soln-
Ins, sed plane pro imperio corpora snhdilornm li-
gant et solvunl. Igilur et sacerdoles cum aniin;is
ligant, vel solvunt.non annunci;inl quis ligatus sil,
quisve solulns: sod phine pro imperio.Cliristi vice,
vincula injiciunl, vel tollunt,si conipjiralio Chryso-
slomi aliqnid v;ilet.
Pergil CI)rysosloiniis:(}M07'W?"cu/>/.7Jtc {ail) pec-
cata rclinueriiis, rclcnlasunl. Quaenam. quac-
so, potcslas hac una major cssc ^uca/.^At annun-
ci;ire peccala fidclibus remilli. infidelibus detine-
ri: non magna res csl, id eniin quilibel lacere po-
test, qui modo evangeiiiim legere noveril, non so-
liim sacerdolcs, sed eliam laici; nec hinlum ca-
lliolici, sed etiain haerelici. (luin eliam ipsi dac-
inones,
Pergil: Paler omnifariam Filio polcslalemde-
dil; caclerum video ipsam eandem omnifariam
polcslatem a Filio iUis Iradilam: nam quasijam
in coelum tramlali.ac supra humanam naiuram
posili. alquc nostris ah clfcc.llbns excmpti.sic illi
ad principalam islum perducli sunl. At Pater Fi-
lio non nudam evangelii annuncianli facultatem de-
dil: sed plane ex auctorilatc pcccala dimillendi. A-
lioqui Dominus Malth. 9. cum dixisset paralylico:
Diniittunlur tibi peccata tua:cl quidam pharisaei
adjecissent: Ric blasphemal: potuissel uno verbo
caiumniam repellcre ac dicere, non se peccala
proprie remiltcre, sed solum annunciare esse re-
missa; caeterum non hoc fecil, sed ex poleslatc
mirabili repente curandi corpora, demonstravil se
babere eliam potcslalem admirabilem curandi a-
nimas.
Addit Chrysoslomus: Quid muUa? liex aliquis
si cui ex subditis suis honorem Iiunc dclulerit.
ul potcstalem habeat quoscumque velit in carce-
rcm conjicendi. eosdemquc rursus laxandi: bea-
ius iUe, et admirandits judicio omnium fuerit.
At vero qui a Deo tanlo majorem accepil polesla-
tem, quanto coelum tcrra prcliosius est. quanto
ctiam animae corporibus praestanl: hicvilcmco
usque dignitalem. accepisse nonnuUis videri de-
bet, ul vcl in iUorum cogilaiionem dcsccndere
qvcal. reperiri quondoque possc aliquem ex eo-
nim numcro, quibus lanta iUa, quaepauJo ante
(lixi. fuerint concrcdita, cui ipsi munus suum
sordcscat, quiquc donum sibi a Dco datum dcs-
picial? i\on polerat Clirysoslomus aperlins decla-
rare, sacerdotum poleslalem vere ac proprie judi-
ciariam esse, quam ea simililudine feceril: compa-
ral enim s;icerdolem non ciim praeconc rcgis, qui
solum nunciet quid faclum. faciendumve sit; sed
cum co,qui pro potcshite in c;ircerem dclrudal,aul
cx c;irccribus liberel.
Addit nllimo ibidem Clirysostomus: Corporis le-
prani purgare. scu (vcrius dicam) haud purqarc
quidcm. scd purqalos probare.Judaeorum sacer-
dotibus soiis iiccbat: ncquc ncscis quanla cum
ambilionc. quanto cum studio et concertationc
sacerdolalis diqnitas id lemporis acquircrclur.Al
vcro noslris sacerdotibns non corporis lcpram,
verum animac sordes, non dico purgalas proba-
re, scd purgarc prorsus concessum esl. IIoc vero
loco, lain perspirue Chrysostonius senlcnlinm ad-
versariornm (lainn;il, ul nihil oinnino fonlra re-
sponderi qnc;il.
Sed ;indi;iiiiiis etiam alios Palres. S. Gregorius
n;i7,i;iii7,enns oriilione ;id civcs liniore percnlsos, et
principem, sive praesidem irascenlcm: Ipsa, in-
(luit, Chrisli lex, vos qnoiiuc praesides, meo im-
pcrio, luvi solio subjicii: N<rm ct nos vum pote-
slalc sumus, addam ciiam ampliorc, pcrfcctio-
rcque.
S. Ambrosius lib. 1. dc Pocnilenlia, cap. 2. et
68U
UK i'()i:Mri;.\TiA
srqiuMililiiis. prt»l>''l «'X locis ;illej;iilis Jl.illli. lli.i;l
Jiciii. 20. siiciTilnlilHis il;il;iiii ;i Clirisli) itutcslateiii
itMDillemli pe('c;il;i. l.injiii ;iulem .\mbii»siiis de vc-
i;i poicsUil»' remilleiidi, iion de .solo miiiisleiio o-
viiiif^olizandi, pcrspiemim esl; liim (jiiia Nov;iliani
non no}i;il>iml pnsse ev;in;:eliuiii omnilms praodi-
cari, s(id nejrabanl peccat;i ex ;uicloril;ile remilii
posso; Inm (luia cap. 7. Ambrosius S(;ribil, Cliri-
siiim cominunic;isse cnm s;icerdotibus e;iin pole-
slatem. quain ipse li;ibet. Clirislum vero vcr;ini po-
liislalem remillendi, non ;iutc(n solum aniiuiician-
di habere. paulo anle oslcndimus.
S. Kioronynuis iii epist. ;id lleliodoriim dc vil;i
solil;iri;i: AbsU. inquit, ut dc liis (/(a"cr/iia//i sini-
stnnn loquar, qui apotiloUco gradui succeden-
les, Clirisd corpus sacro orc conliviunt, per quos
cl 710S Christiani sunius. qui claves rcfini coelo-
runi li(il)cntes. quodaniniodo anle dieni judicii
judicant.
S. Aii^rusline.s lib. 20. de Civ. Dci cap. 9. oxpli-
(■;ins illud .\poo;iIypsis: Kl vidi sedes, ct sedenles
s}ipor c.as. et judiciuni datuni cst. ila loquitur:
.Vo7i hoc pulanduni cst de lill inio judicio dici,scd
s''(/os pracpositoruin.ct ipsi praeposili inlcliigen-
di sunt, per quos Ecclcsia nunc (jubcrnalur. Ju-
iliciuni autcju datuni nullum melius accipien-
itvni videtur. quani id quod dictuni est: Quae li-
qaverilis in terra. ligata erunlincoclo. Vndc A-
postofus: Quid enim milii est, inquil, de his, qui
/ori.s sunt jndicarC? nonne dc his.quiinlussuat,
ros judicatis?
S. Innocentius I. in opislola 1. ad Deccnlium
oap.7. De ponderp,mqu'\[,acstimando delicloruni,
sacerdotis est judicare.
S. Gregorius liom. 20. in evangclia. cxponens
illa vorba Domini: Quorum remiscritis peccala,
reniittuntur eis etc. Principaluni, inquit, superni
judicii sorliunlur. ut vice Dei quibusdam pecca-
ta relinf.ant, quibusdam relaxent.
Soplimo probatnr rationibus. Ac primum si non
esscnt sacordotes judiccs, ncc vere pcccola rcmil-
tcronl. sod solum aniiuncinicnt essc remiss;i:nemo
poriret ox co solum, qiiod sacerdolcm reconcilian-
lem luiboro non posscl; qui enim credil, cx sen-
lonlia adversarioriim. jam Iiabel rcmissioncm, el-
i;imsi nomo sit. qiii id vorbis proteslctur. At s. Au-
iiuslinus in opist. 180. ad honoratum apcrle scri-
bit, aliquos reconciliari cupicntes, el proinde cre-
denles in Chrislum,in octcrnum perirc. quod aiilc
iiioriantur, quam a saccrdole absolvi poluerinl. An
oion cofiitamns. inquit, cum adislorumpericulO'
rum pervcnitur exlrema.nec est poleslas rdla fa-
fiiendi, quantus in Ecclesia peri soleat ab utro-
que sexu, atque ab omni aetate concursus, aliis
Jlaptismnm flaqilanlibus, aliis reconciliationem,
aliis eliam pocjnlenliae ipsius actionem. omni-
bus consolalionem et sacramentorum confeclio-
nem el erogationem? ubi si minislri desint,quan-
tum exilium sequalur eos.qui de islo saeciUo vel
71071. regenerati exeunt, vel ligali? ([uanlus esl et-
iam tuctus fidelium suorvm.qui eos secum invi-
lae aeternae requie non habcbunt? IFacc illc^Ncc
his dissimili;i scribil s. I.oo iii episl Dl. ad Tlic(j-
doruni. Kx (luibus locis iiilcllii,Mmus. saciamcnla-
lciii rocoiicili.ilionein \iiii Ihibcrc jii^liliiMudi, nc-
{\[ic. esse sohiiii aiiiiiiiicialionciii acccpliic, vel ac-
cipieiiiliK! juslilicalionis.
Dciiide: Si siicordos noii ;ililcr poccal;i romillc-
rel, (pniiii annunciiiiulo divinas promissiones: ccrle
non iiisi rrustra ac ridiculo absolvoronliir surdi, ct
ii, (pii ob vim morbi sonsibus sunl deslilnti. A'(! cf-
fundas scrmonenimeuni, inquil Sapiens Kcclcs.
;»2. ubi non cst audilus. At iii Kcclcsia velcri.noii
soluin surdi, sed etiain ii, qiii ob viin morbi (ixlrii
se posili'eranl, ali(pi;in(lo rcconciliabanlur, ul pa-
lcl ex Au^nislino lib. 1. de adullerinis conju^iis
c;ip. nlt. (;l Leonc in cpisl. paulo antc oitiila ad
Tlicodorum, cl ex concilio carlliaginieusi iV. can.
70. el arausicano can. 12.
Tcrtio: Si absolutio csscl annuncialio rcmissio-
nis pcccatorum. vcl lcmeraria csset, vcl supcrllua.
INam cum minislcr dlcii: Jiemittuntur tibipeccata,
aul absolulc hoc pronuncial, aut cx liypolhcsi, si
vidcliccl crcdas, cl ut oportcl pocnilcnliam OQ;as.
Si absolulc; tcmorc id pronuncial, cum iffnorcl,an
is, qui rcconcilialioncm pctit, sil vcre pocnilcns
el lidcm liabcal. qualis rcquiritur ad jusli(lcatio-
ncm: el praclcrca cliamsi aliquo modo id minislcr
nosscl, melius lamcn novil ipse pocnitcns. proin-
de non egel annunciatione illa minislri, quae iiiliil
ei adderc polcst ccrtiludinis. Si vcro esl condilio-
iialis absolulio (ul Calvinus admillil) non potcst lii-
lis absolulio corliim ac socurum clTicoro pocnilcn-
lcm cum cx iucerta conditionc dependcat: el ta-
mcn advcrsarii vix aliuin fiucm absolulionis agno-
scunl. quam ul ccrlum reddat bominem acceplae
juslilicalionis.
Quarlo: Si absolulio non est aclus judicialis,sed
siinplcx annuucialio divinae promissionis, quac iti
eviiugclio scri|)la cxtal,non minus absolvere pote-
ril laicus, immo cliam focmina, aut pucr, oul infi-
(iclis qiiispiam. aut diabolus, vcl cliam psitacus,si
(ioccatur ca vcrba, quam saccrdos. El quiimquani
odvcrsarii id conccdant, quia sequilur evidcnter ex
ipsorum principiis, tariicn cstcontra omnium velc-
riim conrcssioncm , el contra consuctudinem o-
mnium ecclcsiarum et omnium saeculorum,de qua
re suo loco plura dicemus.