Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 4: The Same Truth Is Confirmed from Other Places of the New Testament
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book III, the fourth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
We have spoken hitherto of the figures which preceded the institution of confession; now we shall speak briefly of the use, commendation and exhortation which followed the institution. The first place, then, is had in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 19, where we read thus: “Many of them that believed came, confessing and declaring their deeds; and many of them who had followed curious arts brought together their books, and burnt them before all.” This place is to be taken, first, of the confession of the faithful after Baptism; for they are properly accustomed to be called believers, as is plain from Acts 2 and 4, 1 Thessalonians 1 and elsewhere; nor do the adversaries deny this. Then, Scripture speaks of the confession of sins in kind, as is gathered from those words, “confessing their deeds.” Lastly, the matter in this place is a confession made not to God alone but also to a man; for they came to Paul to confess their deeds. And since at that time there was no constitution of the Church extant about making the confession of sins, it follows that confession of that kind was instituted by Christ himself. But first Luther meets us, who in his version taught that by deeds miracles are to be understood; whom John Brenz followed in the commentary on this place. But this exposition is rejected not only by the common consent of Catholics, and of the venerable Bede also, on chapter 1 of Mark, but by far the greatest part of the adversaries, as Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Sarcerius on the Acts of the Apostles, and Illyricus, century 1, book 2, chapter 4, column 347, and Chemnitz in part 2 of the Examination, page 987. Then it is unheard of that miracles should be called our deeds, since they are plainly divine works; and it is much more absurd still that to confess one’s deeds should be to boast of miracles done by oneself. Add that the cause of this confession, as Luke witnesses, was a certain huge terror from the divine vengeance on those who abused the name of Jesus and of Paul for gain; but the terror of divine vengeance is accustomed to drive men to the confession of sins, not to the preaching of their own praise. Lastly, the Syriac edition rendered in express words, “offences.”
Chemnitz, in the place cited, indicates two solutions to our argument. One is that in this place of the Acts the matter is a general confession, because the Ephesians acknowledged that their actions did not agree with the rule of the word of God. The other, that they confessed some sins in kind, by way of example, but not all. But the first solution is easily refuted. For first, those words, “their deeds,” sufficiently indicate that the confession was made in kind; for no one can properly be said to confess his deeds who only says that he is a sinner. Then, the word “declare,” and in Greek anangello, which Saint Luke uses in this place, signifies to narrate something distinctly; and in the Syriac edition there is a word which signifies the same as the Hebrew saphar; therefore it could rightly be translated, “recounting their sins.” Lastly, whence would blessed Paul have known that they had followed curious arts, so that he ordered their books to be burnt, unless they had confessed their sins in kind? The other solution, which is also Calvin’s in the commentary on Acts, and that of the Magdeburgers, century 1, book 2, chapter 4, column 300, is repugnant to the whole of Scripture; for everywhere Scripture, when it speaks absolutely of sins, is accustomed and ought to be understood of all sins; and if it were lawful to expound it of some, not of all, most absurd sentences would be found in the divine letters. Daniel 4: “Redeem thy sins with alms.” Matthew 1: “For he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 9: “Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.” Luke 7: “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” Luke 11: “Forgive us our sins.” John 1: “Behold him who taketh away the sins of the world.” Acts 22: “Wash away thy sins, invoking his name.” In these and infinite other places the universal sign is not set down, and yet no one ever doubted that it was understood, and that “Redeem thy sins with alms” and “Redeem all thy sins with alms” are the same. Wherefore according to the usage of Scripture to confess and declare one’s deeds can be nothing else than to make known all one’s sins. Besides this solution, which we have briefly refuted, it pleased Calvin in the commentary on Acts to propose some antitheses between the confession of these Ephesians and the confession which is now in use among Catholics, namely to show that this place of the Acts makes nothing for our purpose: “We read,” he says, “that they confessed this once; the law of the pope bids it be repeated at least every year. These came forward of their own accord; the pope binds all by necessity. Luke says that many came, not all; in the pope’s law there is no exception. These humbled themselves before the assembly of the faithful; the pope’s command is far otherwise, that the sinner mutter in secret whispers into the ear of his own priest. See how dexterously they fit the Scriptures to prove their fallacies.” So he. But these calumnies, plainly light and childish, we shall dissolve with no trouble. For although we read once that those Ephesians confessed, yet it does not follow that this was not done by them more often; otherwise the same Ephesians, because they are never read to have received Baptism or the Eucharist, according to this dialectic of Calvin would never have received Baptism or the Eucharist. And that they came forward of their own accord to confess ought not to seem strange, both because at that time there was no law extant about making confession at some fixed time, and because even in our time very many, outside the paschal season, in which alone they are bound by ecclesiastical law to confess, come forward to confession of their own accord. So even if it had then been provided by law that all should confess every year, yet those Ephesians could have come forward to confession of their own accord and freely. And that many came to confession, not all, what repugnance has it with that law which bids all confess their sins at least every year? For neither does the law include all absolutely, but all who have consciousness of deadly sin; nor does it bind those all at any time whatever, but only once a year. Wherefore if the ecclesiastical law had been in force in the time of blessed Paul, certain Ephesians could still have come to make confession when not all were coming. Lastly, that they humbled themselves before the assembly of the faithful Calvin drew from his own head, for Luke wrote nothing of the sort: “Many of them that believed,” he says, “came, confessing and declaring their deeds.” But whether they came before the assembly of the faithful, or privately, to Paul or to some other, Luke does not say. Then, do not Catholics also at this time humble themselves before the assembly of the faithful, when in the midst of the basilicas, with the whole Church looking on, they cast themselves at the feet of priests, although they set out their confession in secret? You have, then, how dexterously Calvin fits his antitheses to the weaving of calumnies.
The second place is 2 Corinthians 5, in those words: “He hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation, and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation; for Christ therefore we are ambassadors,” and so on. That these words pertain to the power of the keys John Calvin confesses, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 1, section 22, and willingly acknowledges that the use of those keys ought to be both public and private among the baptised faithful. But surely those who are sent as ambassadors with power of reconciling the king’s enemies with the king himself cannot rightly discharge their office unless they learn from the accused themselves what they have done, how gravely they have wronged the royal majesty, what satisfaction they are ready to pay, and so on. Wherefore that ministerial power of reconciling them necessarily carries with it the power of taking knowledge of the causes of the accused, and so of exacting and hearing confessions; for it is not lawful for ministers at their pleasure to reconcile anyone whatever even unheard.
The third place is had in James 5, where Saint James exhorts to confession, saying: “Confess your sins one to another.” Which exhortation indicates clearly enough that confession had already then been instituted, and indeed of sins, and to be made to a man. And this sentence coheres clearly enough with the preceding words according to the explanation of the Catholics. For a little before the apostle James had admonished the sick to send for the presbyters, by whom they should be anointed with holy oil with prayers, and had added that the effect of that sacred anointing and of the prayers would be that the sick man should be relieved and healed, and if he were in sins, they should be forgiven him. But lest perhaps one who read these things should think that even those deadly sins of which a man has consciousness could be blotted out through the sacred anointing, he added, “Confess your sins one to another”; for the sacred anointing does not remit the deadly sins of which someone has consciousness, since those are to be purged through the sacrament of confession, but either venial sins, or even deadly ones of which we have no consciousness, which are accustomed to be called the remains of sins. But the adversaries object, and especially Philip in the Apology of the Confession, article on confession and satisfaction, and John Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 13, and in the annotation on this place, that particle, “one to another.” For that particle seems to compel us to say that Saint James speaks not of sacramental confession, which can be made to a priest alone, but of the confession of an offence which one makes to the other whom he has offended, to obtain from him peace and pardon, as Philip thinks; or of the confession of sins which is made to a spiritual man, so that he, having learned our spiritual disease, may be able to instruct us and pour out prayers for us to God, as Calvin teaches; which exposition of Calvin seems to be confirmed from the following words: “And pray one for another, that you may be saved.” But this objection can easily be solved. For Origen, homily 2 on Leviticus, Chrysostom, book 3 On the Priesthood, Augustine, homily 12 from the book of fifty homilies, and Bernard, in the book of Meditations, chapter 9, seem to have taken this place simply of the confession which is made to a priest; and as Bede rightly expounds in the commentary on this place, and Hugh of Saint Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 14, chapter 1, those words, “one to another” and “for one another,” are to be taken as the fitness of the words of divine Scripture demands. So “Confess one to another” is nothing else than: confess, men to men; you who need absolution, to those who have the power of absolving. Just as in 1 Peter 4, when the Apostle says, “Using hospitality one towards another, without murmuring; as every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another; if any man speak, let him speak as the words of God,” and so on, he does not signify that all ought without distinction to be received in hospitality, or taught, or cured, and so on, by all; but that those who need a roof are to be received in hospitality by those who have a house; the unskilled to be instructed by the learned; the sick to be cured by physicians; the poor to be sustained by the rich; not on the contrary the rich to be nourished by the poor, or physicians to be cured by the sick, or the learned to be taught by the unskilled, or lastly those who abound in houses to be received in hospitality by those who lack a roof. So then those who are held bound by the bonds of sins ought to come to those to whom it was said, “Whatsoever you shall loose,” and so on. What also follows in the words of James, “Pray one for another, that you may be saved,” signifies that the presbyters should pray for the sick, not the sick for the presbyters; for James looks back to what he had said before: “Is any man sick among you? let him bring in the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him.” Which the Greek reading also indicates, which, where we have “Pray one for another, that you may be saved,” has the word iathete, which is properly referred to the health of the body.
The fourth place is had in 1 John 1: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” From this place the sacramental confession of single sins is probably gathered. For it cannot be doubted that the apostle John speaks of the confession of sins, and indeed of single sins in kind; for those words signify this: “If we confess our sins”; for he does not say, “If we acknowledge, or confess, that we are sinners,” but, “If we confess our sins.” And since the following words, “He will forgive us our sins,” are by the consent of all understood of the remission of all and single sins in kind, the preceding words cannot without the fault of equivocation be taken otherwise than of the confession of all and single sins in kind. But the adversaries answer that the Apostle speaks of the confession of sins which ought to be made to God, not of that which is made to a man. But this solution can be refuted without difficulty. For first, those words, “He is faithful and just,” and so on, are referred to the divine promise; for God is called faithful and just when he remits sins to those confessing, because he stands by his promises and does not break faith. But a promise of remitting sins to those who confess their sins to God does not seem to be extant anywhere in the divine letters; but there is extant a most open promise to those who come to those to whom it was said, John 20, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” and so on. Wherefore, if any confess their sins to a priest, God is faithful and just, so that according to his institution and promise he remits to them their sins. Besides, if in this place the Apostle promised remission to those who confess their sins to God, it would have been said in vain by Christ to the apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive,” and so on, and, “Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth,” and so on; for since it is much easier to confess to God than to men, there would be no one who would seek remission from men if he could obtain remission by confessing to God alone. Lastly, if a priest judged that someone was not to be absolved, and so retained his sin, he would do this in vain if through a confession made to God alone, even against the priest’s will, that man were absolved. Wherefore neither would that sentence be true: “And whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,” and, “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven.” That all things, therefore, may aptly cohere among themselves, and one place of Scripture may not fight with another, but rather the one be explained from the other, it is altogether probable that Saint John spoke of sacramental confession.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV
Confmnalur cadevi veritas cx aliis locis
novi Tcstamcnti.
Diximus hacteiius de liguris, quae confcssionis
iiislittitionein praeccsseninl: luiiic de usu, com-
mendalionc. ahiue exhortiilionc. quac inslilutio-
nem cotiso(iuut;i sunt, brovitor dictMiuis.
Priiuus igitur locus habctur in Aclis apostoli-
cis, cap. 19. ubi sic legimus: Mulli crcdcnlium
vcnicbat.confitcnles cl annunciantes actus suos:
nudli autem cx cis, qui cranl curiosa seclali,
contulerunt lihros , cl combusscrunt coram o-
mnihus.
Ilic locus accipiondus csl Tn primis de confes-
sioiie fidclium, post IJaplismum; illi enim propric
dici solenl crcdentes ut palet Aclor.3. el 4. ^i. 1.
Thess. i. cl alibi: neque hoc neganl advcrsarii.
Deindc loquilur Scriptiira de confessione pccca-
loruin in specie, ul ex illis verbis colligitur: Con-
fitenlcs actus suos. Denique agitur hoc loco dc
confessionc faclii noii soli Dco, sed ctiam Iiomi-
ni: nam ad P;iulum vcniobant, ul confitercntur a-
ctus suos. Et quoniam co lempore nulla cxslabiit
Ecclesiae conslilulio de confessionc peccatorum
facienda, id sequilur , ut ab ipso Christo ejusmodi
confessio fueril instilula.
Sed occurril in primis Lutherus, qui in sua vcr-
sionc, per aclus,miracula intelligenda esse docuit:
quem sequutus est Joannes Brentius, in commcn-
tario hujus loci.
Sed hanc exposilionera non solura rejicit com-
munis calholicorum consensus,el ipsius etiam vo-
nerabilis Bedae, in cap. 1. Marc. sod multo maxi-
ma pars adversariorum, ul Melanchlhon,Calvinus,
Beza, Bellingerus, Sarcerius in Acla apostolorum ,
cl Illyricus cenlur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 347. ot
Remnitius in 2. par. cxamin. pag. 987. Deinde
inaudilurn csl; ul miracula dicantur aclus noslri ,
cum sint opera planc divina:inuIlo etiam absurdius
est, ul confiteri aclus suos, sit, jactare miracula a
se facla. Adde, quod caussa hujus confessionis,
Luca lcsle, fuit ingens quidnm tcrror ex divina ul-
tione in eos, qui abulebanlur nomine Jcsu et Piiu-
li ad quaeslum: terror ;uilem divinae ultionis , ;id
confessionera peccalorum, non ad praedicalionem
propriae laudis, homines impellcre consuevil. De-
nique syriaca editio diserlis vcrbis reddidil, Offen-
sas.
Kemnilius loco citato duas indicat solutiones ad
nostrum argumenlum. Una est, quod in hoc loco
Actorura agaiur de confessione generali , quia E-
phesii agnoscebant, acliones suas ad normara ver-
bi Dei non congruere. Allera, quod in specie con-
fessi sint aliqua peccata, per raodura exerapli,non
taraen orania.
Sed prima solutio facile refeHilur. Nam In pri-
mis voees illae, Aclus suos, salis indicanl, confes-
sioncm faclarn esse in specie: ncmo enira proprie
diei polest confileri aclus suos, qui solum dicit se
peccatnrem esse. Deinde vox annuncio, et graeoe
av</.YY;XX(-), qiin uliliirhoo loco sanoliis Luoas, si-
LllJEi; IKIVJllJS
l»H
giiifical djslincle aliquod narrare ; el in edilione
syriaca habelur vox ■»y;iJ, quae idem significal
quod liebraicum "^2D sapliar : proinde recle verli
possel:iVwmem?i(es'pecco<a swa. Dcnique unde co-
gnovissel b. Paulus illus luissc curiosa seclulos ,
adeo ul libros eoruni coniburi juberel, nisi in spe-
cie peccala sua conlessi luissenl?
A.Uera solulio, quae cst eliani Calvini in coni-
ment. Aclor. el Magdeburgensium centur. 1. lib.
2. cap. 4. col. 300. repugual loli Scriplurae: ubi-
que eniui Scrlptura, cuui absolute de pcccatis lo-
quilur.de ouuiibus pcccaLis iutelligl solel cl dobel;
el si licerel exponere de quibusdain,non de omni-
bus, absurdissiuuie senlenliae in divinis lileris in-
venirentur. Dan. 4. Pcccala tua eleemosynis re-
dime. Maiih. I . Ipse eniin salvum faciel populum
auum apeccalis eorum. Multh. 9. Confide fili, di-
millunlur libi peccala. Luc. 7. Remiltunlur tibi
peccala. Luc. 11. DimilLe nobis pecca/a nostra.
Joan. 1. iicce qui tollit peccata mundi. Aclor.26.
/16iae3jeccaki (ua, invocato nomine ipsius.ln his
el aliis inlinitis lucis non ponilur signuni univer-
sale, el liiinen nemo dubitavil unquam, quin sub-
inlelligereiur el idem sit.i'ecca(a lua eleemosynis
ret/i/ne; et, Oinnia peccata lua eleemosynis redi-
me. ^uare secundum usum Scripturae connieri et
annunciare aclus suos, niliil polest esse aliud.nisi
palain lacere omnia sua peccala.
Praeier lianc solulioneni, quam breviler refula-
viiuus, libuil Cclvino in coinmenl. Aclor. ali(iuot
aulillieses proponere, inter conlessioncm horum
Eplicsiurum el coiifessionem, quae nunc esl in
nsu ai)ud cathulicus; ut videlicet ostenderet, niliil
hunc locum Actorum ad rem nostram facere: Uoc,
'iuiiuil, semcL legimus confessos esse: papae tex
quolannis uL mininiumrepeti jubet. hli sponte
prodierunt: Vapa necessitate omnes obli(jat. Lu-
cas niultos venisse dicit,non omnesiin lege papae
nulla exceplio. Isti coram jidelium coetu sc liu-
miliarunl: papae longe aliudmandatum,ut clan-
culariis susurris in aurem proprii sacerdotis ob-
murmuret peccalor. En quam dexire Scripluras
ad probandas suas fatlacias accommodenl. Ilacc
ille.
Sed has caiumiiias, plane leves ac puerilcs,
nulli» iKigolio (Jissolvemus. Nam cliamsi scmd le-
gamus Ephesios illos coufessos, non lainen sequi-
lur, nou sacpius id ab eis facluni: alioqui iidcm
Ephesii, quia numqnam lcguntur Baplismum aul
Eucharisliam susc(q)isse, juxla dialecticam islam
Calviiii, numquam Haplismum, aul Eucharisliam
suscepissent. -
Ouod autetn illi sponlc prodicrinl ad confilen-
duin, niirum vidori iioii (lelxit , tum quod iiulia
tunc exslarcl lc\ (Je confcssione cerlo alujuo lem-
pore laciemJa , lum quod etiam nostro lempore
plurimi exlra tcmpus piischale, in (pio solo. lege
«icclesiaslica conlileri leiKMilur.sponti! sua prodeant
ad conlessionem. lliiqiKi etiamsi lunc Icge caiilum
fuisscl, ut (|uulaiinis omnes confitcrentur. potuis-
sent liimeii Ivftlicsii illi spunte ac liberc ad cuiifes-
sionem prudire.
Multos aulem venisse ad confcssionem . non o-
mnes; (|uid habel n;pugnanliae cuni ca lege, (iu;«e
liMltltlllM \n III
jubel utomnes quolannis ul minin)uin,peccala sua
foiifiteantur? neque euim Icx omnes absolule in-
cludit,sed omnes (lui conscienliam habenl j)eccali
lelhalis. neciue islus oinnes (luuvis lempore obli-
gat, scd taiituin semel per aiiiium. Ouarc si lex ila
ecclesiastica tempore beati Pauli viguissel, adhuc
potuisscnl Ephcsii quidain ad coufessionem fucien-
dam accedcre, quaiido non omues accedebant.
Dcmque quod iili corum coelu lidelium se humi-
liaverint, ex capile suo deprompsil Calvinus, noa
eiiiin Lucas lale aliquid scripsit: iflutti , inquit ,
credentium veniebant, confitentes et annuncian-
tes actus suos. Utrum uutein veneriut coram coelu
lidclium, uul privalim, ad Paulum, aul aliquem a-
lium, Lucas non dicil.Deinde nonne cliam catholi-
ci hoc tempore corain coetu fidelium se humiliant,
cum in mediis basilicis, tota inspectaule Ecclesia,
ad sacerdolum pedes se abjiciuul , licet confessio-
ncrn secrelo exponanl? llabes igilur quam (Jexlre
Culvinus anlilheses suas ad caluiunias perlexendas
accoramodel.
Secundus locus est, 2. Corinlh."). in illis vcrbis:
Dedil nobis ministeriu7n reconciiialionis, cl po-
suil in nobis verbumreconciiiationisipro Cliristo
ergo legatione fungimur etc. haec veroa ad pote-
stutem clavium perliuere, hitelur Joaiines Calvinus
lib. 4. Inslil. cup. 1. § 22. el lam publice , quain
privalim apud fichdcs buptizatos esse debere usuni
jiarum clavium, libenler agiiuscil. At profecto qui
miltuiilur legali cuin poleslale reconciliandi iniini-
cos regis cuni ipso regc, non possunt recle mune-
re suo defungi, nisi cognoscant ex ipsis rcis ,
quid egerinl, quam graviler regiam majeslutem
lueserint. quam salisfuclionem persolvere sinl pa-
ruli elc. Quare poleslus isla ministerialis reconci-
liaiidi eos, neccssurio fert secum poleslatem co-
gnoscendicaussas r(^-orum.at(iue adeo confessioiies
exigeiidi el audiendi: neque eniin minislris licet
pro arbitrio quoslibet etiam noii audilos reconci-
liare.
Tertius locus habelur Jacobi a. ubi s. Jacohus
ad confcssionem cohorlalur, diccns: Conlitonini
allcrulrum pcccata vcstra: (luuc cohorlalio salis
aperte indicul: Cunfcssionem jum tuiii fuisse inst!-
lutam. ct (luidem peccalorum,atque homini facien-
(lam. El satis apcrte cohueret hacc senlentia cum
superiorihiis viMbis.secundum calholicorum cxpli-
cationem. INum paulo aute apostolus Jucobus mo-
nuerat acgrotos , ul presbyteros accerserenl, a
quihus olen sunclo cum preeihus ungcrenlur. ct
adjcceral eneclum illius sacrae unctionis cl prc-
cum, fulurum, ut allevuretur acgrotus cl sanare-
tur , cl si in pcccalis esscl, ea illi remittereiilur.
Scd ne forte qui liaec lcgerel.exislimarcl illa cliam
peccala letliulia.(iuorum hoino couscientiam habei,
per sacram unclionem posse deleri , subjunxil :
Confitemini alterulrum peccata vistra: non cnim
sacra uiiclio pecculu letliulia remitlit, (luurum ali-
quis conscienliam habet, cum ea per confessionis
sacramcnlum purgandu sinl. sed aiil vcuialia, aul
eliam lethuliu.(|uuruin conscienliam non hubeinus,
quu(! reli(|uiue peccutoriim dici soleni.
Sed ohjiciunl adv(«rsarii,acpraescrliin Philippus
in apologia confessionis url. dc conlessione el su-
87
68J
l)K. POLiMIMiNilA
lisr;irtiont\ fl J»»aiiiirs C.iUimis lib. !{. Jiislil. cap.
4. § U. t'l iii aniittlalKme ad luiiu' locuin. parlicu-
l.uu illain. AUorutrum. Vulclur (Miiiu i a parliciila
co"crc. ul «liranuis s. Jacubuin non hxpu dc con-
fcssioiu: saciainciilaii, ipiac soli sacertloli licri po-
l«'Sl. sed dfi conrcssionc olTcnsiouis, (inue nUialri
olTcn.Mi. ad nbiinendam .ib co |>accin cl vcniam.ul
c\i.»liinanl iMnlippus. vcl dc conlossiune poccalo-
rmn. (piac lil bomini spirilnali.ul is cottnilo noslro
spiriUiali morbo. nos inslrucrc , cl pro nobis ad
Dcmii procrs liindcrc valcat. ul docel Calvinus :
(jiiae CaUuH cxposilio contirmari \idclnr cx vcibis
sc?(iuentibus : El orale pro inviccm, ul salvemini.
Sed haec obicclio lacilo solvi polesl.Nam Oiijie-
nrs iiomil. 2. in Lcvit. Cbrysoslomus iil). 3.de sa-
cerdolio, .Uiiznslinus boniil. 12. e\ lib. 50. Iioinil.
el Bernardus libro meditationum, cap. 9. bunc lo-
cnm de confcssione (inae lit sacerdoli , simphcilcr
accepisse vidcnlur, cl ut reclc cxponunl licda in
conuncntario bujns loci. elilugo dc s. Viclorc lib.
2. dc saeramenlis, par. 14. c. 1. voces iilac, Allr.-
rutntm el Invicem, accipiendae sunl proul exigil
consciinenlia vcrbornm Scripliirae divinac.llatine:
Contitemini alterutnim, nibil esl aliud, nisi,Con-
lilcmini bomines hominibus; qui absolulionc indi-
gclis.illis,qni poleslatemliabonl absolvendi.Ouem-
Ldmodum 1. Pciri 4. cum Aposlohis dicil: Hospi-
taios inviccm, sine murmuralione . unusquisque
sicut acccpit gratiam. in altcrutrum illam admi-
iiistrantes: si quisloquitur quasi sermones Dei
etc. non signiOcal.sine discrimine oporlere omnes
ab omnibus liospitio recipi. aul doceri, aut curari
eic. sed. eos qui teclo indigenl, liospilio recipien-
dos esse ab his. qui domuni habenl : imperitos a
doclis inslruendos: aegrolos a medicis curandos ;
paupcres a divilibns snstentandos: non conlra nu-
Iricndos diviles a pauperibns . anl curandos medi-
cos ab aegrotis. aul doclos ab impcrilis erudien-
dos. aul denique qui domibus abundant, excipien-
dos liospilio ab bis. qui tecto carent: sic igitnr qui
j>ecculorum vincuiis conslricli lenenlur , ad eos
accedere debenl, quibus diclum esl: Quaecumque
sohcriiis etc.
Quod eliani sequitur in vcrbis Jacobi: Orate pro
invicem, ut salvemini: id signilical, ul presbyle-
ri pro inOrmis, non ut infirmi pro presbyleris o-
renl: respicit enim Jacobus ad id. quod anlca di-
y.0Ts[:lnfir7natur quis in vobis?induat presbyteros
Ecclesiae, el orent super ew7?i.Quod eliam iudicat
leclio graeca, quae ubi nos habemus: Orale pro
invicem, ut salvemini, iiabel vocem ioBr-^z, quae
ad sanilalem corporis proprie rcferlur.
Quartns locus babetnr 1. Joan. 1. Si cnnfitea-
mur peccata noi^tra, fidelis est, etjustus. ut re-
remittal nobis peccata nostra, el emundct nos ab
omni iniquitale. Ex hoc loco probabililer coliigi-
tur confessio sacramenlalis singuloriim peccaio-
rum. IVeque enim dnbilari pole.^l , quin loqualur
aposlolus Joannes de confessione pcccalorum, et
quidem singiilorum in specie : nam id significanl
ilia verba: Si contileamur peccata nostra : non e-
nim ail, Si agnoscamns, aul confileainiir nos pec-
calores; sed, Si confileamur peccata noslra. El
cum verba sequcntiu: Remiltel nobis peccalano-
slni. omniuin conscusn, dc rcmissione pcccalo-
lorum omninin, ct singuloium in S|)ccic, intclli-
ganlur: non possunl vcrba pracccdcnlia sine vitio
atMiuivocationis aliler accipi (pi.im di! (M)iiressione
oinniuin,el singnloriim pcccalorum in spccie.
Scd rcspoudent adversarii: Apostolum loqni de
conlcssione pcccaloriiin, qnae Dco lieri dcbct.non
dc c;i, quac lil hoinini.
Al solutio haec non dilliculler rerclli polesi. Pri-
muin cnim vcrba illa:Fitfei/.s est eljustus etc. rcfc-
riinlnr ad promissioncm divinam: idco enim Dciis
lidclis cl juslus dicilur, dum peccala confilenlibiis
rcmitlil, quia slal promissis snis nec fidcm fallil.
Al promissio de rcmillendis peccalis iis, ipii con-
filonlur Deo |)eccala sua, non vidclur iilla cx-^lare
iii (livinis lileris; exstal aulem promissio apertissi-
ma iis, qui ad illos accedunt . quibus dictum est
Joannis 20. Quorum remiseritis peccata. remit-
tuntur eis elc. Quare, si qui confilentur saccrdoli
pcccala ,«ua, Dens fidelis et justns est , ntjuxta
suam instilulionem et promissionem, remiltat els
peccala ipsorum.
Practerca si boc loco promitlerct Apostolns re-
missionem iis, qni Deo confilenlnr peccata sua,
IViislra diclum essel a Christo apostolis: Quorum
rcmiseritis peccata, etc. ct, Quaecumquc solveri-
tis super terram elc. nam cum mullo l'aciIiuS'Sit ,
Dco. quam hominibus confiteri; nemo essel qiii ab
hominibus remissionem qiiaereret.si soli Deo con-
lilendo remissionem oblinere posset.
Denlque si quem sacerdos absolvendum nonesso
judicarel, alque adeo peccatum ejus retineret, fru-
slra id faceret, si per confessionem soli Deo l'a-
c!am. invilo eliam socerdote , ille absolveretur.
Quocirca nec vera esset illa senlenlia: Elquorum
rctinueritis, relenta sunt, et, Quaecumque alliga-
veritis super terram, erunl ligata etin coelo.
Ut igilur omnia inler se apte cohaercant.et unus
Scripturae locns non pugnet cum altero.sed aller
potius ex allero explicelur: omnlno probabile esl.
s. Joannem de sacramcnlali confessione esse lo-
quuium.