Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 3: The Same Truth Is Confirmed from the Figures Which Preceded Sacramental 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).
The Christian sacraments, and especially those which are more necessary, are not simply indicated in the divine letters, but are found first shadowed forth and foretold in the law of nature and of Moses, then promised by Christ, then instituted, afterwards frequented and commended in the Scriptures. So Baptism was shadowed forth in the law of nature by the ark of Noah, and by circumcision in the written law, by the passage of the Red Sea and the pool of Bethsaida; and at last, as the law of grace drew near, by the Baptism of John; then it was promised by Christ, John 3, “Unless a man be born again,” and so on; afterwards commanded in express words, in the last chapter of Matthew, “Baptise all nations,” and so on; lastly it is read as exhibited and commended everywhere in the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles of blessed Paul. So also the Eucharist was figured first in the law of nature by the bread and wine of Melchisedech; in the written law by the paschal lamb and the loaves of proposition; in the Gospel itself by the multiplication of the loaves; then promised, John 6, “The bread that I will give”; afterwards instituted, Matthew 26, “Take ye and eat,” and so on; lastly frequented and commended by the Apostles, Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. Which same can be demonstrated of confession. For God in the law of nature more than once exacted the confession of sin; more clearly he prescribed the same in the law of Moses; the same Christ in the Gospel expressed by various figures; the same he afterwards promised and instituted; lastly there was added the use of it in the time of the apostles, and also exhortation and commendation. And since of the promise and institution, from which the chief argument is taken, we spoke in the preceding chapter, now of those things which either preceded or followed the promise and institution, and which avail not a little for confirming the same truth, we shall speak briefly.
Further, from the figures a twofold argument can be taken. For first, if the confession which God exacted in the Old Testament was a certain figure, as in truth it was, since all things happened to them in figure, 1 Corinthians 10, certainly it is necessary that in the New Testament there be also a confession of sins commanded by God, and indeed so much the more exact and perfect as the thing figured excels the figures themselves. Then, if confession was necessary before the minister of God at that time at which the power of remitting sins had not yet been given to priests, who would not gather from this that with much greater reason it was fitting that confession should be commanded as necessary in the time of the New Testament, in which we can confess with so great fruit that a certain absolution straightway follows a lawful confession?
The first figure, then, is had in Genesis 3 and 4, where God exacted the confession of sin first from Adam and Eve, then from Cain. In these places is exacted a confession not only of the heart but also of the mouth, and not only in general but also in particular, and not only before God but also before his minister; for that questioning was made by an angel appearing in human form, as is plain from this, that he was walking in paradise at the afternoon breeze. From which we understand that there was a great likeness between that confession and the one which is now made to the priest, who is also the angel of the Lord, as Malachi witnesses, chapter 2; so that not without cause the one is said to have been a figure of the other. Wherefore Tertullian, in book 2 against Marcion, weighing this figure, speaks thus: “God questions as if uncertain, and as if hence proving man of free will, in the cause either of denial or of confession, that he might give him room of his own accord to confess his fault, and on this account to be relieved; as he asks of Cain where his brother is, as if he had not already heard the blood of Abel crying from the earth, but that he too might have power, from the same power of will, of his own accord to deny his fault, and on this account to be burdened; and so there would be founded for us examples of confessing faults rather than of denying them, that already the Gospel doctrine might be begun: By thy mouth thou shalt be justified, and by thy mouth thou shalt be condemned.” Saint Ambrose also, in the book On Paradise, chapter 14, and book 2 On Cain and Abel, chapter 9, and Saint Gregory, book 22 of the Morals, chapter 13, and Saint John Chrysostom, homily 18 on Genesis, expound these places of confession, and say that God wished to draw a confession from them, that by confession they might blot out what they had committed by transgressing.
The second figure is had in Leviticus 13 and 14, where the judgement of leprosy is committed to priests alone, and lepers were compelled to present and disclose themselves to the priests, and according to their decision either to remain outside the camp or after healing to return to the camp; which law the Lord also approved, Matthew 8, when he said to the leper healed by him, “Go, shew thyself to the priest,” and so on. That this was a figure of the sacrament of confession Chrysostom teaches, book 3 On the Priesthood, and Saint Jerome on chapter 16 of Matthew. For hence Saint Jerome gathers that priests ought to know the varieties of sins; and Saint Chrysostom warns that the office of Christian priests is far more excellent than that of the Jews was of old, since to them it was granted not to cure leprosy but to show it cured, to ours not to show sins cured but truly to cure them. John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 4, seems to despise this argument, and yet labours painfully to dissolve it: “Let us see,” he says, “by what arguments they prove this confession to be a command of God. The Lord, they say, sent the lepers to the priests. What? did he send them to confession? Who ever heard it said that Levitical priests were set over the hearing of confessions?” But neither do we say that lepers were sent by Christ to the priests to confess their sins to them; but from the figure, with Chrysostom and Jerome, we draw an argument. For as in the old law the knowledge of bodily leprosy, so in the new the knowledge of spiritual leprosy pertains to priests; and therefore, when we read that lepers were sent by Christ himself to the Levitical priests, we understand allegorically that sinners are sent to the priests of the Gospel. And that Calvin was not ignorant of this, but wished to seize a handle for calumny, the following words witness: “They fly,” he says, “to allegories. It was enacted by the Mosaic law that priests should discern between leprosy and leprosy. Sin is spiritual leprosy; of this it belongs to priests to pronounce. Before I answer, I ask by the way: if this place makes them judges of spiritual leprosy, why do they draw to themselves the knowledge of natural and carnal leprosy? Namely this is not to play with the Scriptures: The law assigns the knowledge of leprosy to the Levitical priests; let us usurp this to ourselves; sin is spiritual leprosy; let us also be the judges of sin. Now I answer: the priesthood being transferred, it is necessary that a transfer of the law be made. All priesthoods have been transferred to Christ, in him fulfilled and ended; to him alone all the right and honour of priesthood has been transferred.” To the question proposed by the way I answer that Calvin lies by the way when he writes that Christian priests draw to themselves the knowledge of bodily leprosy. For he will not be able to produce either testimony or example of this thing; for among us physicians, not priests, are accustomed to answer about bodily leprosy. There is indeed extant in the canon law a title on the marriage of lepers; but that title has nothing in common with the Levitical laws on lepers. For the Levitical laws prescribe the manner of judging leprosy and the sacrifices which are to be offered for lepers; but the canon law treats neither of the manner of judging leprosy nor of sacrifices, nor prescribes that those Levitical laws be kept in any part; but only teaches that leprosy is not, as neither is any other bodily disease, a just cause of divorce between spouses. We do not, therefore, play with the Scriptures, nor usurp to ourselves the knowledge of bodily leprosy, especially by force of the Mosaic law; but we draw an argument from the figure, as we said before. But to the solution applied by Calvin to our argument I answer that the priesthood has been transferred to Christ, but that Christ discharges the priesthood on earth not by himself but through his ministers. So, as through his ministers he preaches, baptises, absolves, binds, offers sacrifice, and so on, so also through his ministers he takes knowledge of the causes of spiritual leprosy, and to spiritual ministers of that kind lepers ought to come and disclose their diseases. For if the priesthood had been so transferred to Christ alone that it in no way pertained to his ministers, or even (as Calvin speaks) were fulfilled and ended in Christ, and no priesthood now remained on earth, certainly no law either would remain on earth. For the same account holds of priesthood and of law: if the priesthood has been transferred to heaven, the law also has been transferred to heaven; if the priesthood is extinct, the law also is extinct. But if it is said only most absurdly that the law of God is so extinct or transferred to heaven that there is none on earth, surely it is said no less absurdly that the priesthood is so extinct or transferred to heaven that there is none among men.
Calvin then adds: “Besides, their allegory is unseasonable, which places a merely political law among the ceremonies.” But here are two errors. For first, the law on the purging of the leper was not merely political, but for the greatest part ceremonial; for if it had been merely political it would have pertained to the political prince, not to the priests. And how is that a political law, and not rather ceremonial, which bids the leper be shut up seven days, wear a garment unsewn, be washed several times, offer sparrows and lambs, be touched with blood and oil on the tip of the right ear and on the thumb of the right hand and foot, and many other things of that kind? Then, even if that law had been merely political, what would hinder it from being able to bear the figure of some mystery? Certainly the passage of the Red Sea, the manna from heaven, the water from the rock, the slaying of the idolaters, were not ceremonies but things done, and yet the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10, openly writes that all those things happened to the Hebrews in figure, and that the significations of those things pertain to us. Nor can it be called a ceremony that Abraham had two sons, one of the bondwoman and one of the free; and yet blessed Paul expounds the allegory of that thing, Galatians 4. Calvin at last concludes his answer with these words: “Although in a clear matter it is a shame to summon the vote of any man: where Christ pronounces that he leaves the legal right entire to the priests, as to professed enemies of the Gospel, who were always intent on clamouring unless their mouth had been stopped. Wherefore, that the papal sacrificers may retain this possession, let them openly go over to the party of those who must be restrained by force from cursing Christ; for this in no way pertains to his true ministers.” But what else is to beat the air and to fight without an enemy, if this is not? For so Calvin throws us back to Judaism, as if we contended that the knowledge of bodily leprosy according to the Levitical law pertained to the priests of the Gospel; whereas we (as we have often said) assign to our priests not the knowledge of bodily leprosy but of spiritual, which was signified by that bodily one. And truly, if Calvin’s reasoning were worth anything, it would also effect this, that no one could draw an argument from carnal circumcision to spiritual circumcision without seeming to go over to the party of the Jews, enemies of Christ; and yet the apostle Paul, who in the epistle to the Galatians removes Jewish circumcision from the Church with all his strength, the same in the epistle to the Colossians, chapter 2, says that all we who are baptised are circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand, in the despoiling of the body of the flesh, but with the circumcision of Christ. As therefore circumcision does not pertain to us, but Baptism does, which is signified by circumcision and is named spiritual circumcision, so also the knowledge of leprosy does not pertain to Christian priests, but the knowledge of sin does, which is signified by leprosy and is most aptly named spiritual leprosy.
The third figure is the confession which God instituted in the Old Testament, and to which he willed the offering of a sacrifice to be joined in the place of a certain satisfaction; of which we have testimony in Numbers 5 and also in Leviticus 5. For surely if the figurative confession was instituted by God and necessary by divine law, how much more ought the confession figured to be instituted by God and necessary by divine law? But since Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, page 984, contends that that confession was general (“Such confession,” he says, “there was in the Old Testament, when someone brought to the priest a victim to be offered for sin, for offence, for ignorance, for contumacy, and so on; nor was it exacted that that sin be set out to the priest in kind and one by one with all its circumstances”), I shall show briefly that that confession was of a definite sin in kind. The words of Scripture in the book of Numbers, chapter 5, run thus: “When a man or woman shall have committed any of all the sins that men are wont to commit, and by negligence shall have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and offended, they shall confess their sin.” Where two things are to be observed. First, that “they shall confess” is in the conjugation hithpael, which strengthens the signification, so that it can rightly be translated, “They shall expressly and distinctly confess.” Then, that those words, “They shall confess their sin,” are had in the Hebrew with a greater explication, for so we read: “They shall confess their sin which they have done.” From which we gather that in this place it is commanded that the sin be disclosed in kind by a manifest confession; for if it sufficed to confess only in general, Scripture would not say, “They shall openly confess that sin which they have done,” but simply, “They shall confess their sins.” In Leviticus, chapter 5, where our edition has, “Let him do penance for the sin,” in the Hebrew is that same word which is in the book of Numbers; for so we read: “And it shall be, when he shall have sinned in one of these, he shall openly confess the sin which he has sinned.” Besides these, the testimonies of the rabbis and the custom of the nation show clearly enough that this precept is to be understood of a distinct confession, and in kind, of that sin for the expiating of which sacrifice was to be made. Of the custom of the Hebrews the witnesses are Thomas Waldensis, volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 137, where he writes that in Austria he learned this custom of theirs from the Hebrews themselves; and Saint Antoninus, part 3, title 14, chapter 6, section 1 of the Summa of theology, where he says that the more learned Jews are accustomed before death to confess all their sins to some Levite, if perhaps they have found one. Of the testimonies of the rabbis see Peter Galatinus, book 10, chapter 3, where by many testimonies of the rabbis he proves that it was needful in confession to disclose the sin in kind and with its circumstances. Add that it is altogether probable that Ecclesiasticus, chapter 4, exhorts to the observance of this legal precept when it says: “Be not ashamed to confess thy sins.” For shame is not accustomed to be feared in a confession which is made to God alone, or which is made to a man in general, but only in that which is made to a man in kind, as experience sufficiently witnesses.
The fourth figure is Matthew 3 and Mark 1, where we read that very many ran to the Baptism of John, confessing their sins. For as the Baptism of John was a figure of the Baptism of Christ, so also the confession which was made to John was a figure of the confession which was to be made to the ministers of Christ. But what Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 6, and Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, page 980, say, that those who confessed to John did not confess their sins in kind, but only acknowledged in general that they were sinners, is not conformable to the words of the evangelists. For each evangelist set down in express words, “confessing their sins,” and the Greek, exomologoumenoi tas hamartias auton; but it is one thing to acknowledge oneself a sinner, another to confess one’s sins to someone. Nor does it matter much that that confession which was made before John was joined with Baptism, whereas our sacramental confession has place only in those who sin after Baptism. For the Baptism of John did not remit sins from the work done, and therefore it was fitting enough that those who came to John should not only be baptised but also confess, that they might be stirred up in various ways to true contrition and satisfaction. But the Baptism of Christ, for one not placing an obstacle, wholly remits from the work done all sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment; and therefore the apostles are nowhere read to have exacted confession before Baptism, or to have imposed any satisfaction.
The fifth figure is had in John 11, in the history of Lazarus. For that the Lord bade Lazarus come forth from the tomb, and willed those funeral bands with which he was bound to be loosed by the apostles, the Fathers say signifies that sinners, roused by the divine voice, come forth by confession and by the ministry of priests are freed from the bonds of sins by absolution. Saint Irenaeus, book 5, chapter 13: “This was a symbol,” he says, “of that man who had been bound in sins; and on this account the Lord says: Loose him, and let him go.” Saint Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 7; Saint Augustine, tractate 49 on John, on Psalm 101, discourse 2, sermons 8 and 44 on the words of the Lord, and homily 27 in the book of fifty homilies; and Saint Gregory, homily 26 on the Gospels and book 22 of the Morals, chapter 13, acknowledge and expound the same figure. But John Calvin meets us, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 5, and first says that arguments from allegories are not of much force for confirming dogmas. But neither do we place the chief foundation for confirming dogmas in arguments of that kind, unless the allegories are explained in Scripture itself, or it is settled by the common consent of the Fathers, or by some certain definition of the Church, whither they pertain; yet that a probable argument can be taken from them, when great men, such as are those we have cited, expound the allegories, ought in no way to be denied. Then Calvin adds that they lie who write that Christ commanded the disciples to loose Lazarus: “They say,” he says, “that the Lord commanded the disciples to loose and free the raised Lazarus from his bands. In this first they lie; for nowhere is it read that the Lord said this to the disciples, and it is much more likely that he said it to the Jews standing by, that without any suspicion of fraud the miracle might be made more evident, and his power shine forth the greater, in that with no touch, but by his voice alone, he raised the dead.” I wonder at the impudence of Calvin, who does not fear so boldly to charge Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory with lying. For it is Augustine who, in sermons 8 and 44 on the words of the Apostle, wrote that those words, “Loose him, and let him go,” were said by Christ to the disciples; which same Gregory repeats more than once, homily 26 on the Gospels. But by what argument, I pray, will Calvin convict Augustine and Gregory of having lied? Since in the Gospel we read only, “He said to them, Loose him,” and so on; nor does anything precede whence we may certainly gather that that pronoun, “them,” is not referred to the disciples. It seems, however, that “them” is referred to those to whom a little before it was said, “Take away the stone”; for to the same he said, “Take away the stone,” and, “Loose him.” Now “Take away the stone” he said to those standing round, not expressing these or those; for so we read: “Jesus said: Take away the stone.” But when the Lord absolutely commanded something to those standing round, it is certainly credible that the disciples obeyed, either alone or among the first. Wherefore, although it cannot be certainly gathered from the Gospel who they were that loosed Lazarus, yet there is a great conjecture that they were the apostles. Nor is Chrysostom against this exposition, or any others there may be who attribute that deed to certain others besides the apostles. For it could happen, and it is credible that it so happened, that at the Lord’s bidding many ran up together, both of the apostles and of others, and these with joined strength took away the stone, and then some loosed the hands of Lazarus, others the feet, others drew the covering from his face, others freed the rest of the body; nor from this, that the apostles with other Jews loosed Lazarus, is anything taken from the greatness of the miracle. And let these things be said of the calumny of lying; for otherwise it matters nothing to our purpose whether the apostles or certain others loosed Lazarus; for that this loosing of Lazarus be a figure of priestly absolution it is enough if those who loosed Lazarus were in that matter ministers of Christ, and did it at Christ’s bidding. For this we contend, that those only have the power of remitting sins to whom Christ committed it; as those only loosed Lazarus coming out of the tomb to whom Christ had said, “Loose him.” Wherefore Saint Augustine, tractate 49 on John, does not name the disciples, but in general the ministers, when he treats of those to whom Christ said, “Loose him.” Calvin adds lastly another explanation of this allegory: “But grant,” he says, “that this was said to the disciples: what then will they obtain? That the Lord gave the apostles the power of loosing. How much more aptly and more dexterously could these things be treated allegorically, if we said that by this symbol God wished to instruct his faithful to loose those raised by him; that is, not to recall to memory the sins which he himself had forgotten; not to condemn as sinners those whom he himself had absolved; not still to upbraid what he himself had pardoned; not, where he himself was merciful and easy to spare, to be severe and morose to punish? Certainly nothing ought to bend us more to forgiveness than the example of the judge, who threatens that he will be implacable to the too rigid and inhuman. Let them go now and hawk their allegories.” So he. Of which explanation it is no wonder if it came into the mind of none of the ancient Fathers, since it is most inept. For what the Fathers say, that by the dead man is signified the sinner; by the raising, conversion; by the coming out of the tomb, confession; by the bands, sins; by the loosing, remission; all that has the greatest likeness of the sign with the thing signified, and can be confirmed from the holy Scriptures. But what Calvin says has no foundation either in the Scriptures or in the likeness of the thing. For who ever read that not to upbraid, or not to remember, is to loose? Or who in his senses would say that not to upbraid is to loose, since to loose is to do something, and not to upbraid is not to do? But these trifles omitted, let us come to the matter.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III.
Confirmalur eadcm veritas ex figuris , quae
confessionem sacramentalem praecesse-
runt.
Sacraraenla cbristiana , ac praeserlim ea quae
magis necessaria sunl, non siraplioiler in divinis
liteVis indicanlur, sed primum in lcge naturac ct
Moysis adumbrala ac pracnunciata,dcindc a Cliri-
slo promissa, tum inslilula, poslea frequcntala ct
commendala in Scripturis invcniuntur.
Sic Baplismus in Icgc naturae adumbratus luil
|)cr :ircam Noc, cl ciroiimcisionem in lcgc scripta,
pcr Iransitum maris rubri ct probaticam piscinam;
ac dcmum proiiin^iuante lcgc gratiac, pcr Baptis-
1
LiBLiR Ti:imus
(iSI
mum Joannis,doin(]c a Clirislo promissus fuil Joan.
.'J. Nisi quis renalus facril e/c.poslea discrlis vor-
l)is ."5. impcralus iMallliaei uWimo: Baplizalcomnes
(jenles elc. denique in Aclis aposlolorum, cl in e-
pislolis bcali Pauli passim exhibilus ct commcnda-
luslegilur.
Sic eliam Eucharislla flgurala primum fuilinlc-
ge naturac per pancm cl vinum Mclchisedcch; in
icge scripla per agnum paschalcm ol pancs propo-
silionis;in ipso evangclio per mulliplicationcm pa-
num: deindc, promissa Joan. C. Panis quem cgo
dabo, poslea instituta Matt. 26. Accipile et man-
ducate etc. denique frequentala el commendata
ab Apostolis Acl. 1. ct 2. Corinth. 10. cl 11.
Oiiod idcm de confessione dcmonslrari potcst.
Dcus enim in lege iiaturae non semel cxcgit con-
fcssionem peccati: clarius eandcm praescripsit in
lcge Moysis: candem Christus in evangelio variis
figuris exprcssit: eandcm postea promisil elinsti-
luil: accessit dcnique usus ejus tcmpore apostolo-
rum, necnon exhortatio cl commendalio.
p]t quoniam de promissione et inslilutione, ex
quibus praccipuum argumcnlum sumitur,diximus,
cap. superiore: nunc de iis, quae promissionem el
instilutionem, vcl praeccsscrunl, vcl scquiila sunl,
quacquc ad eandem vcritalcm conOrmandam non
parum valcnt, brevilcr diccmus.
Porro cx figiiris duplcx argumcnlum sumi po-
lcst. Primum enim si cnnfessio. quam Dcus in Te-
slamenlo velcri cxigcbat, Cgura quaedam cral, ut
revera erat, cum omnia contingerent illis in flgu-
ram 1. Corinth. 10. cerlc neccsse cst, ul in Testa-
mcnlo novo sit etiam confessio peccalorum a Deo
praecepta. cl quidem lanto exaclior el perfeclior,
quanto rcs figurala figuris ipsis pracstat. Dpindc,si
confessio neccssaria erat coram Dei ministro, eo
tcmporc. quo nondum data erat sacerdolibus po-
lestas remitlendi peccala: quis non indc colligat,
mullo majore ralione acquum fuisse, ut confossio
lamquam necessaria imperarelur,tcmpore novi Te-
slamenli,quo lanlo cum fructu confileri possumus,
ut legitimam confessionem conlinuo cerla absolu-
lio consequatur?
Prima igitur figura habelur Genes. 3. cl 4. ubi
Deus primum ab Adamo ct Eva,deinde a Cain con»
fessioncm peccati cxcgit.Tn his locis cxigilur con-
fesslo, non solum cordis,sed ctiam oris, ncc solum
in gcnere, scd cliam in speciali,nec tantum coram
Deo, sed cliam coram cjus ininislro: Nam interro-
gatio illa facla cst pcr angclum in forma hnmana
apparentem, ut patcl cx eo,quod ambulabat in pa-
radiso ad auram post mcridicm. Ex quo inlclligi-
mus magnam fuissc simililudincm intcr illarn con-
fcssioncm, ct cam. quac nunc fit saccrdoti, qui est
cliam angclus Domini, teste Malachia cap. 2. ul
non sinc caussa, una dicalur hiissc figura allcrius.
Quarc TcrtuIIianus in lib. 2. advcrsus Marcio-
ncrn, hanc liguram cxpcndcns, ita iocjuilur: Inler-
roqat Deus quasi incerlus. et ut liinc libori arbi-
Irii probans hominein, in ca.v.ssa vcl neqaUonis,
vel confcssionis , ut daret ei locum sponlc confi-
lendi deiichtm, v.t lioc nomine rcvelandi.sicul de
Cain sciscilatur, nbi nam fraler ejns, qiuisi nnn
jam vociferalum a lcrra sanquinem Abclis audis-
set.scd ut el illc habere polcslalem cx cademar-
bilrii potestalc sponte negandi delicli. et hoc no-
mine cjravandi: alque ita nobis conderentur e-
xempla conlilendorum polius deliclorum. quam
negandorum. ut jam iniliarelur evangelica do-
clrina: Ex ore tuo jusUlicaberis, et ex ore tuo
damnaberis.
Sanclus etiam Ambrosius in lib.de paradiso,cap.
14. ct lib. 2. de Cain el AbcI.cap.O.cl s. Gregorius
lib. 22. Moral. cap. 13. ct s. Joannes chrysostomus
hom. 18. in Genes.hacc loca dc confcssionc expo-
nunt ac dicunl: Deum ab illis confessioncm cxtor-
qucre voluisse.ut confcssionc deIercnl,quod Irans-
grcdiendo couuniserant.
Secunda figura habetur Levil.l3. cl 14.ubi jiidi-
ciura leprac solis comniitlitur saccrilotibus, cl co-
gcbantur lcprosi sc sacerdolibus sislere ac prode-
re,ct juxta corum arbitrium vel exlra castra manc-
re, vcl post curalioncm ad castra rcverti: quam ct-
iam legcm Dominus approbavit Matlh. 8. cum le-
proso a sc curalo dixil: Yade ostendc lc saccrdo-
ti etc.
Ilanc figuram fuissc sacramcnti confcssionis ,
doccnl Chrysostomus lib. 3. dc saccrdolio , et s.
llicronymus in cap. 10. Mallhaci. llinc enim colli-
git s. Ilioronymus oporlcrc saccrdotcs cognosccrc
peccatorum variclales; ct s. Chrysostomus moncl,
ofiicium saccrdolum Christianorum lougc cxcelleu-
tius csse quam olim fucrit Judaeorum, ciiin illis,
lcpram non curarc, sed curatam osleudcrc;ii()slris,
peccala non curala ostcnderc,scd vcre curarc con-
ccssum sit.
Joanncs Cidvinus lib. 3. Iristitut. cap. 4. § 4.hoc,
argutnentum conlcmncrc vidclur, el tamcn opero-
KC dilucre cona\m: Videawus, inquH, quibus argu-
mentis confessionem hanc Dei essc mandalum
probant. Misit, inquiunl,leprosos Dominus ad sa-
cerdotes? Quid? misitnc ad confessvmem? quis
unquam fando audivit, audicndis confessionibus
praefectos levilicos sacerdotcs? At nequc nos dici-
mus, missos lcprosos a Christo ad saccrdolcs . ul
illis peccata sua confilcrcnlur, sed cx figura, ciim
Chrysostomo ct Ilicronymo.ducimus arginncntum.
Ul (mim in lcgc veteri cognilio lcprac corporalis:
ila in nova cognitio lcprac spirilualis ad sacerdo-
lcs pcrtinet; ct idco cum leginms ab i|)so Christo
lc|»rosos ad sacerdolcs lcvilicos missos, allcgorice
inlelligimus,missos pcccalorcs ad saccrdotcs cvan-
gclicos.
Ncquc hoc Calvinum ignorasse, scd ansam ca-
lumniandi acci|)crc vohiisse, lcstanlur vcrba sc-
(|ucntia: Co?i/"(///t?mf, inquil , adallogorias. Snn-
citum. ernl lcgc mosaica, ut sarerdoles discerne-
renl intcr lepram et lepravi. Peccatum spirilua,'
lis cstlepra: de hac '})ronunciare,sacer(lolum est.
Anlequam respondeo,quaero obiler: Sihiclocus,
s])irilualis lcprac cos judiccs facil, cur nahiralis
ct carnalbi icprac cognilioncm ad se trahunl?sci-
licel lioc non est Scriphiris ludcre: l.ex cognilio-
nem leprae dcfert sacerdolif)Us lcvilici.s.hancno-
bis usurpemus: pcccahini c.^t lc})r(is})irilu(iUs:si-
mus cl pcccali cogiiilores.Dunc rcspondro; Irans-
lato sacerdolio , neccsse cst Irgis Iranslationcni
jicri. Omnia sarcrdolia ad (^hrisluni IransUiln
C«2
l)K POKNirKNIIA
butil, in eu iiniiUUa cl lintta: ad euin inHur u-
nuinjna oinni;,vt honor sacirdolii translalus c»t.
A(l tiu.u-stioiuMii i)l)ili;r propoMliun: Ut^spoiuloo:
(liilviiuuii obiler luciiliri, cuiu scribil, s;icor(Jotos
clirisliiuiosad sc lr;iluMO coj^iiiliniicii) lc|)r;u^ corpo-
ralis. Keque pnini luijiis rei vcl leslinioniuin, vol
cNotnpIiun proilnoore potoril: ;ipiui luis oniin dc
lcpra corporiili UKHlici rospoiulcrc solonl non s;i-
ccrtloles. Exslal quidem in jure c^inoiiioo liluliis
(lc conjujzio loprosorutii: secl is litulus niliil luibcl
communc cuin Ic^ibus loviliois clc lcprosis. Le-jos
cuim lcvilicae praescribuul ralioncm diiudican(l;ie
leprac elsacrilicia quaeprolcprosisoffcrendasuiit;
Jus voro c;moniciiin ncqiio de r;ilione Icpr;i»3 diju-
dicandae, nc(iuc de sacriliciis Iraclal, ncquc lcgcs
illas levilicas ulla cx parlc scrvandas praescribil;
sed solum docel, non csse lcpram, ulncqneul-
luin alium morbntn corpornlom, .juslain oaussam
(livorlii intor oonju?;os. Xon igitur in Scripliiris
ludimus.ncque copnilionem leprae oorporalis no-
bis usnrp;innis. pra(>sorlim ox vi legis mosaicae:
>cd arguiucnlum cx figur;i ducimus , ul anlc dixi-
mus
Ad solulionem autcm argumenlo nostro a Cal-
vino a(lliibit;im. Kespondco: Saccrdolium in Cliri-
slum cssc Iranslaium, scd Christum non pcr se,
sed pcr suos ministros in lerris fungi saccrdolio.
Ilaque sicut per minislros suos concionatur, ba-
ptizat. absolvil,ligal,sacrilicium offerl elc. ila quo-
quepcrsuos minislros cognoscil caussas leprae
spiritualis, cl ad ejusmodi minislros spiriluales le-
prosi accedere. el morbos suos delegere debenl.
Quod si sacerdolium ita ad solum Chrislum trans-
lalum esset, ul ad ejus minislros nullo modo per-
lineret, vcl eliam (ut Calvinus loquitur) in Cbrislo
completum ac finilum esset, cl nullum jam in ler-
ris saccrdolium remaneret: cerlc ncc lex uUa in
terris remaneret. Eadem enim ralio sacerdolii el
legis est: si translatum esl sacerdotium in coelum,
ct |t'\ in coelum translala csl: si exlinctura est sa-
cerdotium. cxtincta quoque esl lex.Si vero nonnisi
absurdissimc dicitur, lex Dei ita esse extincta, ant
iii coelum translata. ut nuUa sitin terris: profecto
non minus absurde dicitur. sacerdotium ita exlin-
olum, aul in coelum esse Iranslalum, ut inler ho-
mines nullum sit.
Addit deinde Calvinus: Adhaec, invporluna est
ipsorum allegoria. quae lcgem mere politicam in-
tcr caeremonias rcponil. Al hic duo sunt errata.
Primum cnim lex de purgatione leprosi, non raere
politica, sed maxima ex parle caeremonialis erat :
Nam si mere poliiica fuisset, ad principem politi-
cum, non ad sacerdoles perlinnisset. Et quomodo
politica lex est, et non polius cacremonialis, quae
juhel lcprosum recludi septem diebus. dissutum
gerere vestimontum, lavari aliquolies. offerre pas-
seres et agnos, tingi sanguinc el oleo in exlremo
;mriculae dexlrac. et in pollice mnnus ac pcdis
dextri, et alia id genus multa?Dcinde etiamsi mere
liolitica lex illa fuisset. quid prohibcret quo minus
alicujus mysterii figuram gerere possel?ccrle trans-
iius maris rubri, manna dc coclo, aqiia de petra,
idololalrarum inlerfectio , non cacrcmoniae , sed
rc5 gcstae fucrunl et tumen Apoglolus 1. Corinlli.
10. ;q)crlc scribit, oimii.i ill.t lu ngiM;tm Hcbraeis
conligisse, elad nos earnm renim sig!»ilic;ilioiics
porlinerc. Neqne caeremonia dici |)olesl, quod A-
br;ili;iin diios lilios h;it)uoril, iiiitiiu dc aiicilbi el ti-
num do libcr;i: et l;imen ejus rei ;illog()ri;im b,
IVinlus exponil Galat. i.
Coiu-lndil laiidem C;)lvinus responsionom sii;un
his vorbis: Qnamquam in re clara nuffraqium
uUiuf. hominis acccrscrc pudet:uhi Chrislus })ro-
nunciat, sc jus lcgalc rclinquerc sacerdotibus
intc(frum, fainquam profo^sis cvanqclii hostibus,
quiscmpcrad obstrcpcndum intenti crant, nisi
os fuissct occlusum. Quarc ut hanc possessionem
rctincant Papalcs sacrilici, palam concedant in
eoinini parlcs. quos necct^sc cst vi compcsci, nc
Chrislo malcdicant, nam ad veros ejus ministros
nihil hoc perlincl.
At quid csl aliud aerein verberare, ct sine hosto
pugnare, si boc iion est? sic enim nos Calvinus ad
judaismum rcjicit, quasi contendcremus , cogiii-
lionem leprae corporalis juxta legem leviticam, ad
sacerdotes evangelicos pertinerc; cum nos (ul sae-
pe diximus) non cognilionem leprae corporalis ,
sed spiritnalis, quae per corporalem illam signifi-
cabalur, noslris sacerdolibus deferarnus. Et vero
si Calvini raliocinalio quidqnam valeret,illud etian»
efliceret, neminem posse a circnmcisione carnali
ad circumcisionem s[)iritualem argumentum duce-
rc, quin ad partes .Tiidaeorum Christi hoslium,con-
cedere vidcrelur: ct lafnen aposlolus Paulus, qui
in epislola ad Galalas, cireumcisioncm judaicam
ab Ecclesia totis viribus amovct, idem in epist. ad
Coloss. cap. 2. dicit nos omnes qui baptizati su-
mus. circumcisos esse circumcisione non manufa-
cta, in expoliationc corporis carnis, sed circumci-
sione Christi. Sicut igilur circumcisio ad nos non
perlinet, pertinet aulem Baptismus, qui per cir-
cumcisionem significatur,el circuracisio spirilualis
nominalur: sic eliamcognilio leprae ad sacerdotes
chrislianos non pertinel, pertinct autem cognilio
peccali, quod per lepram significatur, et lepra spi-
ritualis aptissime nominatur.
Terlia figura cst confessio, quam Deus instiluit
in Testamento veteri,et cui adjungi voluit loco cu-
jusdam salisfactionis, oblaliouom sacrificii:de qua
Num. 5. et Levilici eliam S.teslimonium habemus.
Nam profeclo si confessio figuralis eral a Deo insti-
lul;i ct necessaria jure divino, quanlo m;igis con-
fossio figurata esse debel a Deo instiluta el neces-
saria jure divino?
Sed quoniam Martinus Remnilius in 2. part. e-
xaminis pag. 984. contendit . confessionem illam
fuisso genoralem {To.lis confcssio, inquil, in vete-
ri Testamento erat. quando aliquis ad sacerdo-
tem adducebat hosliavi offcrendam pro peccalo,
pro deliclo, pro iqnorantia, pro contumacia ctc.
nec exigebalur ut peccatum illud in specie, el si-
gillatim cum omnibus circumstantiis saccrdoli
cxponerctur), ostendam breviter confcssionem il-
lam cerli peccati in specie fuisse.
Verba Scripturae in lib. Num. cap.3. sic habenl:
Vir, sivc mulier cum fecerint ex omnibus pecca-
tis, quac solcnt hominibus acciderc et per negli-
gcjitiam transgressi fuerint mandalum Domini ,
LIBEU TKRTIUS
683
atque deUquerint,con[ttebunlur peccaluin suum.
Ubi diio suiil observniuJa. Priiniim illud, Con(ile-
buntur. osse iii coiijuijalioiie hili)ael, quae aui^ot
sigiiilii-alionein.ila ul illud l^linn recle verli pos-
sil: Ex])re.sse et distinctc confitebuntur. Deinde
illa \(!rl)a: Confitebuntur peccatum ^mini, in he-
braeo liaberi cuin majori e.\|)Iicali()ne,sic eiiim !(;-
gimus: Confitebuntur peccatum suum i^>y 1^*X,
idesl. quod feccrunt. Ex (^iiibus culiii^imus tioc
loco imperari, iil peccalum iii specie per manire-
slam conressionem prodalur: si enim in generc
lanlum confileri. sufficprel. non dicercl Scriplnra:
Confifebuntur ajicrle pecaatum illud. quod fece-
rv.nt. sed simplicilcr. Conlllebunlur peccala siia.
In Levii. cap. ;>. ubi noslra edilio liabel: Agal
Poenitentiampro peccato; in licbr. esl illud idem
vocabuliim, qiiod iii lib. Num. sic enim lcgiiruis.
n*nmn> nbxa nnx"? D'*iJS' u n>m t^isn *ii:;i<
Et erit cum peccaverit in uno ex his , confUebi-
tur apcrte j^eccalum quod peccavit.
Ad liaec leslimonia rabinorum el consneludo
genlis, satis aperle oslendil. praeceplum hoc in-
lelligendum esse de confessione distincla. el, in
specie ejus peccali, pro quo expiando sacrifican-
dum eral. De consueludine llebracorum , lesles
sunl Tliomas waldensis tomo 2. de siicranienlis
cap.i37.ubi scribil se in Auslria ab ipsis Hebraeis
cognovisse hanc eorum consneUidinem : et s. An-
loninus-3. parl. lit. 14. cap. G. § l.summae theo-
Jogicae. ubi dicil, solere Judaeos docliores aiile
inorlem confileri omnia peccala levilac alicui, si
(piem Ibrte nncli luerinl.De teslimoniis rabiiiorum
vide Pelrum Galalinum lib. 10. cap. 3. ubi niullis
lestimoniis rabinorum probat. oporluisse in con-
lessione detegere peccatum in specic el cum suis
circumstanliis.
Adde quod omnino probabile est.EccIesiaslicum
cap. 4. ad lioc praeceplum legale nbservandum
exhorlari,cum ait: tyon confundaris confiteri pec-
cata tua. Porro confusio timeri non solet in con-
fessione, quae soli Deo fit. aut (piae filhomini ge-
neratim, sed in ea solum. (juae iit homini iii spc-
cie, ul experienlia satis teslalur.
Quarla figura esl Jlallli. I>. el Marci 1. ubi legi-
mus phirimos accurrisse ad Baplismiim Joaiinis ,
conlil(.'nles pecrata sua. Sicut «jnim I)a[)lismus Jo-
annis figura rnil Baplismi Chrisli, ila quoque el
confessio. quae Joanni fiebat,figura fuit confessio-
nis, qiiac Clirisli minislris facienda eral.
Quod aulem Calviiujs lib.;>. luslilut. cap.4 § 0,
ei Kemiiilius iii 3. parle examinis pag. 980. di-
cunl, eos (pii (•onlilebanlur Joanni, non in specie
peccata siia confessos, sed in genere taniuin se
peccatores agnovisse: non csl conforme vcrbis e-
vaiigelistarum. L'ler(pie enim evangelisla disertis
vcrbis posuit: Confilentes peccata sua. et graiu^e
s^o;7.oAOYOu;;.3vo'. xaq a[jLa&"'.a? a'jTiov, aliiid autem
esl, ngiioscere sc peccatorem, aliud, pcccata sua
aliciii coiditeri.
iNequemiiltum referl, (iiiod illa conressio (piae
coram Joaiine fiebat, cum Ha|)lismo conjuiicla es-
sel. cum noslra confessio sacramentalis solum in
iis locum liabeal. qiii posl Baplismum peccant.
!>ain Baplismus Joannis non remillebal peccala ex
opere operalo, el ideo satis erat convcniens,ul non
solum baplizarentur qui ad Joamiem accedebant :
sed eliam confiterentur, ut variis modis ad veram
contritionem et salislaclionem cxcil.irenlur. Clirisli
vero Baplismus non ponenti obicein, ex opere ope-
rato peccata omnia, lum quoad culpam.tum quoad
poenam omiiino remillit,el idco nusquam lcguntur
apostoli anle Baptismum confessionein exegisse ,
aut satisfaclionem iillam indixisse.
Quinla figura habolur Joan.Il. in hisloria Laza-
ri. Oiif>d eiiim Dominus e sepulchro prodire jusse-
ril Lazaruin,el ab apostolis solvi volueril funeraiia
illa vincula qiiibus ligalus eral , significari Palres
dicunl, peccalorcs divina voce excilaios^foras pro-
dire per confessionem el ministerio sacerdolum li-
berari a peccatorum vinciilis pcr absolulionem.
S. Irenaeus lib. 5. cap.13. nocsnmbotum. inquil,
ejus liominis, qui inligalus fuerat in peccaiis et
propter hoc ait Dominus: Soivite illu7n ct dimit-
lite cumabire. S. Ambrosius lib. 2. de Pneniten-
tia cap. 7. S. .Auguslinus tract.iy. in Joan.in psal.
101. concione 2. serm. 8. el44. de verbis Domini,
el liomil. 27. in lib. 50. homiliariim, et s. Grego-
rius hon?. 20. in evangel.et lib. 22. Moral. cap.I3.
eandcm figuram agnoscunlet exponunl.
Sed occurril Joannes Calvinus lib.3. Inslilulion.
cap. 4. § .j. ac primum dicit, argumenla ex allogo-
riis non mulluin valero ad doginala connrmanda.
Sed neque nos in ciusmodi argumenlis praecipuum
fundamenlum ad conlirmanda dogmala colloca-
miis, nisi allegoriae in ipsa Scriplura explicenlur,
vel communi Patrum consensu.aut certa aliqua Kc-
clcsiae definilione constet, quorsum pcrtineanl :
quin lamen probabile argumentum inde siimi pos-
sil. quando magni viri,qual(;s sunl (pios cilavimus.
allegorias exponiint, ncgari nullo modo dcbct.
Deinde addit Calvinus, menliri eos, qui scri-
bnnt. Chrislum imperasse discipulis, ul Lazarum
dissolverent: Dicunt, inquil, Dominus discipulis
praecepil, ul suscitatum Lazarum fasciis solvo,-
rent ct expedirent . Uoc primum menliunlur :
nusquam enim legitur. hoc dixisse Dominum di-
scipulis. eslque multo vcrisimilius , dixi!<se Ju-
daeis astantibus, qno citra ullani fraudis suspi-
cionem evidentius fieret miraculum,el innjor sua
virtvs elucerct, quod nutto tactu , sed sola voce
mortuos suscitaret.
Hliror impudentiam Calvini , qui lam aiidacler
s. Auguslinum, et s. Ciriigoiium mendacii argiiere
non verelur. Augustinus i;nim est, (jui serm. 8. cl
44. de verbis Aposloli, scripsit, verl)a illa: Solvite
illvni et sinite atrire, ad discipulos dicla a Christi»
hiisse; quod Idem noii semcl rcj^elit Gregorius ,
homil. 20. in evangelia.
Sed (pio argiimcnto, quaeso, Calvinus Augiisti-
niim et Gregorium menlitos csse ('onviiicel? si(pii-
dem in evangelio lanlum legimus : /)/./'/7 eis, s(d-
vite illum etc. noA\iic aliquid praeccdil, unde ccrlo
colligamus, illiid pronomen, cis, non refcrri ad
discipiilos.
Vidclur aiilem illud, eis. nd eos rcferri, (piibiis
paiilo autc dicluin esl: Toltile lapidem, iisdiMH e-
iiiiii dixil: Tollite la]>iilemj\[. Sitlrile e]im. Porro:
Tollile lajndem, dixil eircuiii' liinlibus, non e\pri-
b.si
1)K POKNITKMI V
mt^ndo iios ;iul illos; sii* piiiin loj^iiiuis, MlJosua:
Tiillitc /(/./)t7e/;i.Domino milcin ;il)Soliile |)i';iooi|)i(Mi-
li^ ;ili(|iiiii i-ir('nin>[;inlil)us. c.o.rUi crtMlibiic (;sl: di-
scipulus, :uil solos. ;hiI cuin |)riinis oboilivis^e.
yuarc licetox evangclio nou possil cerlo colligi ,
(Iiii riiiM-iiU , qui Lai{;inmi solvorunl: lamcn mayiKi
coiijcclura esl, ;i|)oslolos fuisso.
.Noque liuic exposilioni repugnalClirysostomus,
aul si qui sunl alii. qui id facluui aliis (]uil)usdam
praPtor aposlolos tribuuiit. Poluil oiiiiu tieri. cl
credibilc csl ii;i r;ictum csse. ul Domiiio jubonle
niulli simul accurrcrinl, lum e.v aposlolis, lum e.x
aliis. cl hi coiijMnclis viribus la|iidcm sustuloriiil ,
:ic dciiidcalii nuiiuis l-az;iri, alii pedes solveriiil ,
alii vclamen cx lacie dclraxcriiit, ;ilii roli(iuum cor-
pus expcdierinl: ncque cx lioc, (piod aposloli cum
aliis Jihlacis L;izarum solvcriiit, aliquid dctr;iliitur
{\c magniludiiic miraciili.
Atquc liacc dicla sinl de calumnia mondacii:nain
;iIioqui ad rcm nostr;im niliil rcfcrl. utrum aposto-
li. ;iii alii quiibim L;iziirum sohcniil: ut cnim b;icc
L;iziiri soUitio figura sil ;ibsolulioiiis saccrdotalis ,
salis est, si ii. qui Lazarum solvcrunl, in ca re nii-
iiislri Cliristi fucritil.el Christo jubciitc id leccrint.
lliic cnim contcndimus, cos dumlaxat potcstatcm
liabcrc pcccala rcmittcndi , quibus id Christus
mandavil: qucmadmodum ii soli L;izarum de mo-
numcnlo prodciiiitcm solverunl, quibus Christus
dixcrat: SolvUe cum. Qiiare s. Augustinus tract.
49. in Joan. p.on nomin;it discipulos , scd genera-
lim. minislros. cum de iliis agit, quibus Christus
dixil: Solvitc eiim.
Addil postrcmo Calvinus aliam allegoriac hujus
explicalioiiem: Seddeiiius, inquit, hoc diclum dl-
scipulis:quid tum ohtinehunl? Dominum dedisse
(ipostolis solvendi potestatem. Quanlo aplius, el
macfis dextrc haec allegoricc Iractari poteruni,
si dica.mns, hoc symbolo Deum voluisse (ideles
suos instHucrc, ut solverent a se suscitatos: hoc
est. 91C in memoriam peccata rcvocarenl , quae
ipse obli.tua essel: ne ccu peccatores damnarent ,
quos ipse absolvisset: ne adhuc exprobrarcnt ,
quac ipsc condonassct: nc uhi misericors ipse
csset,ct ad parccndum facilisApsi adpuniendum
scveri et morosi essent? ccrtc nihil ad i<jnosccn-
liam flectcre nosmacjis debet, quam judicis e-
xcmplum. qui se nimium rigidis el inhumanis
implacafnlcm forc minatur. Eant nunc et allego-
rias suas vendilent. Iluec ille.
Q;!;ie Siiiio explicatio nihil est mirum , si nulii
vclerum Patrum in mentem venerit , cum ineptis-
sima sit. Xam quod Palres dicunt , per mortuum
significari peccatorcm; per excitationem,conversio-
nem: per cgrcssionem ex nionumenlo, confessio-
nem; per vincula, peccala; per solutionem, remis-
sioncm: id totum el maximam habet signi cum re
significala similitudinem, el ex Scripturis sanclis
confinnari polest. Al quod Calvinus dicit, nullum
liabet neque in Scripturis, neque iu rei sirailitudi-
ne fundamenlum. Quis cnim usquam legil, nori ex-
probiare. aut nou recordari,essc solvere? aut quis
sanus diceret, non exprobare esse solvere, cum
solvere sil aliquid agere, non exprobare sil non
agere? .^od his nugis omissis. ad iiiin voni:imus.