Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 5: The Same Is Proved from the Testimonies of the Councils; and from the Fathers of the Second Century
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 shall now add the testimonies of the ancient councils which were celebrated in various provinces and at various times, from which the opinion of the universal Church can be known. Further, the testimonies of the councils which we shall bring, even if they do not openly contain that confession is of divine law, yet contain the ancient custom, and often also indicate the necessity of confessing sins to priests. From which it will be easy to gather that the thing was commanded by God himself; both because the first origin of this precept is not found in any council, and also because it is in no way probable that faithful peoples would have admitted from men a precept so hard, if through a confession made to God alone, or in general, they could have obtained the remission of sins.
First, then, in the eastern Church we have the testimony of the Council of Laodicea, celebrated more than eleven hundred years ago; for so we read in canon 2: “To those who incur the lapses of divers sins, and persevere in prayer, confession and Penance, showing a perfect conversion from their evils, a time of Penance is to be assigned according to the quality of the sin.” Here we have confession, and indeed in kind, and to be made to men; for otherwise men could not assign the time of Penance according to the quality of the sin. In the canons also of the sixth synod, which were framed by the Greeks about nine hundred years ago, canon 102, we read thus: “But it behoves those who have received from God the power of loosing and binding to consider the quality of the sin, and the ready zeal of him who has sinned for conversion, and so to apply a medicine suited to the disease.” From which places, as also from the testimonies of the Greek Fathers which will be adduced in the following chapter, it can be understood to be false what some say, that the Greeks are not accustomed to confess sins except to God alone; and in what is written in Gratian, On Penance, distinction 1, canon “Quidam”: “Some say that sins ought to be confessed to God only, as the Greeks,” that phrase, “as the Greeks,” seems to have crept into the text from the margin, and to have been the marginal annotation of some unskilled person, who gathered from the deed of Nectarius that sacramental confession was wholly taken away among the Greeks. For otherwise, in the very capitulary of Theodore from which that canon was copied those two words, “as the Greeks,” are not had, nor are they had in the second Council of Châlon, chapter 33, whence Theodore seems to have taken that chapter; nor did the Master of the Sentences, in book 4, distinction 17, adducing the same sentence, add that “as the Greeks.” Nor in the Council of Florence was there any controversy about confession with the Greeks, except that Pope Eugenius privately asked of some doctors of the Greeks why their priests did not confess their sins before the celebration of the sacrifice. Lastly, Nicholas Cabasilas in the explanation of the liturgy, chapter 29, and Anastasius of Nicaea in the questions on Scripture, question 6, openly teach sacramental confession, though they are Greeks; and in our days Jeremias, patriarch of Constantinople, in the censure of the Augsburg Confession, chapter 11, reproves what the Lutherans said, that it is not necessary for all sins to be enumerated in confession by their single kinds. And so much of the Greek Church.
In the Latin Church there is extant first canon 31 of the third Council of Carthage, celebrated more than eleven hundred years ago, where we read thus: “That for penitents, according to the difference of sins, the times of Penance be decreed at the judgement of the bishop.” And the same canon is found repeated in the African Council, canon 10. But there can be no doubt that all sins must be disclosed in confession if the times of Penance are decreed according to the differences of sins. Then there is extant canon 8 of the first Council of Châlon, celebrated about a thousand years ago, in these words: “That Penance be assigned to penitents by priests, confession having been made, the whole body of priests is known to agree.” There is extant also canon 32 of the second Council of Châlon, about eight hundred years ago, where we read thus: “But this also we have perceived to need amendment, that some, when they confess their sins to priests, do not do it fully. Since therefore it is settled that man is of two substances, namely soul and body, and sin is committed sometimes by the motion of the mind, sometimes by the frailty of the flesh, the sins themselves ought to be inquired into by careful investigation, that from both a full confession be made; namely that they confess both those things which were done through the body, and those in which offence is committed in thought alone.” In the third Council of Tours, celebrated about the same time, chapter 22, we read thus: “It must be handled by bishops and presbyters with diligent caution how they assign a time of abstinence to men confessing their offences to them.” Similar things are had in the Council of Rheims, of the same antiquity, canons 12 and 16, and in that of Paris, chapters 32 and 46. And all these councils are of the Gallican Church. Nor have we less clear testimonies of the churches of Germany; for in the Council of Mainz under Archbishop Rabanus, chapter 26, it is thus enacted: “From the sick placed in danger of death a pure confession is to be inquired by presbyters; yet the quantity of Penance is not to be imposed on them, but made known.” See also chapter 27. In the Council of Worms, celebrated in the year of the Lord 868, as we read at the beginning of the same council, chapter 25, it is thus written: “For penitents, according to the difference of sins, Penances are decreed at the judgement of the priest. Therefore the priest in giving Penance ought to consider the causes of single persons singly, and diligently to examine and clearly to know the origin also and the manner of the faults, and the affections and groans of the offenders, to inspect also the qualities of times and persons, of places also and ages, so that in consideration of places, ages or times, or of the quality of the offences and the groans of each offender, he may not turn his eyes from the sacred rules.” From these testimonies it sufficiently appears that the ancient churches of Germany thought and taught of confession far otherwise than the sectaries and Lutheran innovators now think and teach. To these let the general councils be added: the Lateran under Innocent III, chapter 21; that of Constance, session 8; that of Florence, in the instruction of the Armenians; and that of Trent, session 14; which, although they are despised by the adversaries because they are more recent, yet are despised unjustly; for they have delivered a faith and doctrine agreeing with the most ancient councils, and contain the opinion of the whole Catholic Church which has flourished these four hundred years; so that they cannot be said to have erred without the whole Church being said to have erred, and so to have succumbed to the gates of hell.
Chapter VI. The same is proved from the tradition of the ancient Fathers who flourished from the year of the Lord 100 to 200
To the testimonies of the councils may deservedly be joined the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, Greek and Latin, who taught in the Church in the single ages. First, then, let be Saint Irenaeus, who flourished in the very first century after the departure of the apostles, and who succeeded next to the age of the apostles. He in book 1, chapter 9, writes thus of certain women whom Marcus the heretic had deceived: “These very often, converted to the Church of God, confessed that, with their body defiled, they had loved him exceedingly, as if with lust and inflamed.” And below, of another likewise seduced: “When with great labour the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in exomologesis, weeping and lamenting for this corruption which she had suffered from this magician.” And book 3, chapter 4: “Cerdon,” he says, “often coming into the Church and making exomologesis, so ended, now indeed teaching secretly, now again making exomologesis.” In which place it is to be observed that by the name of exomologesis among the ancients sometimes is understood not confession only, but also contrition and satisfaction, as is clear both from Tertullian in the book On Penance and from the place of Irenaeus cited from book 1, chapter 9; but sometimes confession alone is understood, as is plain from Cyprian in the sermon On the Lapsed; but never is contrition or satisfaction without confession signified by that word. So exomologesis is confession, either alone, or with the other parts of Penance joined. Nor is it true what Chemnitz says, page 1000, that by exomologesis Irenaeus understands the public confession of public crimes, for which men deserved to be excommunicated. For in book 1, chapter 9, he speaks of a hidden crime, nay, even of a hidden lust, which could not have been known except from the confession of those women; and in book 3, chapter 4, Irenaeus most openly says that Cerdon made exomologesis after he had secretly taught his heresy; wherefore in both places he speaks of the confession of secret or hidden crimes.
In the second place we have Tertullian, who flourished at the end of the same century, under the emperor Severus, as he himself is witness in the Apology, chapter 4. He in the book On Penance teaches many things which are to be noted, since Chemnitz depraves this place also. First, then, Tertullian explains what exomologesis is, and says that it is the act of Penance by which we confess our fault to the Lord: “That act,” he says, “which is more often expressed and frequented by the Greek word, is exomologesis, by which we confess our fault to the Lord.” But when he says that exomologesis is made to God, he signifies that it is made to God through the priest, not to God alone; which is openly gathered from what follows. For he straightway adds that through confession satisfaction is disposed and Penance is born; because, namely, the priest, having heard the confession, disposes and orders what satisfaction is necessary, and enjoins it on the penitent. Then a little after he adds that some from a certain shame and human bashfulness shrank from confession; which bashfulness has no place in a confession which is made to God alone: “Most men,” he says, “either shun this work as a publishing of themselves, or put it off from day to day, more mindful of shame than of salvation; like those who, having contracted some ailment in the more private parts of the body, avoid the knowledge of physicians, and so perish with their bashfulness.” And a little below he writes thus in irony: “A grand advantage to bashfulness, plainly, the hiding of a fault promises; namely, if we withdraw something from human knowledge, we shall likewise hide it from God. Are the estimation of man and the consciousness of God so to be compared? Or is it better to lie hid condemned than to be absolved openly?” And at the end of the book he teaches that this exomologesis was instituted by God, and so is necessary, when he says: “If you draw back from exomologesis, consider hell in your heart, which exomologesis extinguishes for you.” And below: “Does the sinner, knowing exomologesis instituted by the Lord for his restoration, pass by that which restored the Babylonian king to his kingdom?” Chemnitz, in the place noted, says two things to this testimony of Tertullian. First, that he speaks of public Penance only. Secondly, that he speaks of a confession which was made not to presbyters alone, but also to laymen; for Tertullian speaks thus: “When therefore you stretch yourself at the knees of the brethren, you handle Christ, you entreat Christ.” I answer: Tertullian speaks perhaps of public Penance, but of that which was made after secret confession. For often Penance was done publicly, and yet the sin in kind was not opened except to priests; for only public sins were to be confessed publicly, but those which were secret no one was compelled to confess publicly. But Tertullian speaks of secret sins, as is clear from his words. For he would not say that men shun or put off confession for the sake of bashfulness; nor would he compare men of that kind with those who are vexed by a disease in the secret parts of the body; nor would he add that, if we withdraw something from human knowledge, yet it cannot be hidden from God; unless he were speaking of hidden and most secret sins. So Tertullian thought the confession of hidden and secret sins, to be made to a man, necessary to salvation; but the confession of such sins ought not to be public, nor was it exacted by the Church except secret. But if Tertullian even meant that the confession of secret sins ought to be made publicly, certainly much more would he grant that at least a secret one is necessary. Therefore by the testimony of Tertullian either that very thing is required which we teach, or something graver and harder; but in no way that which Chemnitz and the Lutherans wish, who confess only in general, or of public sins. As to what Tertullian says, that penitents were accustomed to prostrate themselves before the brethren, it can be answered in two ways. For either he calls the presbyters themselves brethren, since a little before he had said that penitents prostrate themselves before the presbyters; and he could rightly call them brethren, because he was treating of them as they are distinguished from God, who is the common Father of all; or certainly, when he says that penitents prostrate themselves before the brethren, he speaks of prayer, not of confession, especially in kind. For penitents were accustomed to cast themselves at the feet of all the brethren, that they might commend themselves to their prayers; for this those words sound: “When you stretch yourself at the knees of the brethren, you handle Christ, you entreat Christ.” And a little before, distinguishing all things more openly, he says: “To prostrate oneself before the presbyters, to kneel to the altars of God, to enjoin on all the brethren the embassies of one’s entreaty.” And of Tertullian enough.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Idem probatur ex teslimoniis conciliorum. Addemus nnnc leslimonia conciliorum veterum, quae in diversis provinciis, variis(iue lemporibns celebrala sunt, ex quibus cognosci poteril Eccle- siae universae senlenlia. Porro testimonia conci- liornm qnae adleremus. eliamsi non apertc conti- neant, confessionem esse jnris divini, conlinenl tamcn anliquam consneludinem, et saepe eliain iudicanlnecessilalem confitendi peccata saccrdo- libns. Ex quibus facile eril colligere, rem esse a Deo ipso praeceptam; tum quia nori invenitur pri- nia origo hujus praecepti in uUo concilio; lura ei- iam quia non esl ullo modo probsbile, populos fi- deles praeceplum lam ardmim ab hominibus ad- missurosfuisse, si per conlcssionem soli Oeo, aut generatim factam, remissionem peccatorum obli- nere poluissenl. LIBLU Ti:iVlIUS 6j7 Primum igilur in Kcclesia orifiniali habenius le- sliiuonium concilii laodiceni. anle 1100. annos co- lebrati: sic cnim legimus can. 2. Uis qai diverso- rwn peccaioriim lapsus incurrunt . ct instant o- ralioni, co?i/e.ssioni ac Pocnitcnliae . rnalorum suorum perfectam conversionem denionstranlcs, pro qualilate peccali tempusPoenitentiac Iribucn- dumest. llic hahemns conlessionem , el qnidem in specie, el hominibus facienilani : nam alioqui non po^senl homines pro qualilale peccali, lem- pus Poenilenliae assignare. In canonibus qnoque sexlae synodi. qui a Grae- cis condili sunl anle annos circiter 900. canon. 402. ita legimus: Oportct aiitem eos, qui solvendi et ligandi potestalem a Deo acceperc,peccati qua- lil.atem co7mderare. ct ejus qui pcccavit ad eam conversationem promptum studium, et sic morbo convenientem adferre medicinam. Ex quibus locis. ut etiam ex leslimoniis Palrum graecorum, quae in sequenti capite adduccnlur , inielligi polesl, falsum esse quod quidam dicunt Graecos non solere confileri peccata,nisi soli Deo: etin eo quod scribitur apud Graliarnnn, de Poeni- lcnlia, dislincl. 1. cnn. Quidam : Quidam Deo so- lummodo confUeri debere peccata dicunt,ut Grac- ci; illnd. ut Graeci. videlur irrepsisse in lexlum cx margine, el marginalcm annolalionem imperili aiicujus luisse, qui ex facto Nectarii collegil, sub- lalam omnino confessionem sacramenlalem apud Graccos. Nam alioqui in ipso capilulari Theodori nnde canon ille descriptus csl,non habenlur duae illae voces, ut Gracci, neque eliam habentur in concilio II. cabilonensi, cap. .33. unde Thcodorus capilulum iliud accepissc videlur : sed nee Magi- sler senlenliarum in 4. libro dislincl. 17. eandem sentenliam adducens , addidit illud, lU Graeci. IVeque in concilio florenlino ulla fuit conlroversia de confessione cum Graecis. eo excepto, quod Eu- genius pontifex a nonnuUis Graecorum doctoribus privatim quaesivit , cur sacerdoles ipsorum ante sacrificii celebrntionem peccata sua iion confile- rentur. Denique Nicolaus Cabasihis in cxplicalione litnrgiao , cap. 29. et .\naslasius nicenus in quac- stionibus super Scripluram, quaest. G. aperte do- cent confessionem sacramentalem , cum tamen Graeci sinl; et noslris diebus Ilicremias patriarcha conslanlinopohlanus in censura confessionis au- gustanae, cap. 11. rcprendil quod Lulherani dice- banl, non csse necessnrium omnia peccata per singulas species, in confessione cnumerari. Alque liaec de Ecclesia graeca. In Ecclesia lalina, cxstat la primis can. iU.con- cilii III. carlhaginiensis anle annos UOO.celebrati, ubi sic legimus: Ul PoenUcntibus secundum pcc- catorum dilfercntiam, episcopi arbitrio, Poeni- lenliae tempora decernanlur. El idcm canon le- pctitus invcnitur in concilio africano, can. 10. Du- hium vero esse non polesl, (|uin oporlcat pcccala oiimia iu confessionc delogi , si juxla pcccalo- rum diirercntias Poenilcntiae lempora dcccrnun- lur. Deinde exstat canon 8. conciTi 1. cal)ilonensis anle 1000. circitcr aiinos celehiiili, iii liacc vcrh.r. Ut pocnilentibus a sacer(lolilni.s,facla confcssione indicalur Poenitentia , universitas sacerdotuvi nosciiur convenire. Exstal etiam canon. 32. concilii U.cabiloneusis. antc annos circiler 800. ubi sic legimus: Scd ef. hoc cmendatione indiqere perspcximus , quod quidani dum confilentur peccala sua sacerdoti- bus. non plene id faciunt. Quia crijo constat, ho- minem cx duabus essc subslantiis. aniina vidC' iicei et corpore. el interdum animi molu. inler- dum carniii fragilitate peccalur: solerti indaya- lione debent inquiri ipsa peccata . iil ex ulris- que plcna fit confessio:scilicel ut el ea confi- teantur. quac per corpus gesta sunt, et ea quibus in sola cogitalione delinquitur. In concilio luronico III. circa idem tempus ce- lebralo. cap. 22. ita legimus:i'ipi.scopt8 et presby- leris diligcnli cautcta perlractandum est, quali- ler liominibus sibi sua dclicta confitentibus. tem- pas abslinendi adscribant. Similia habenlur in cDucilio rcmensi ejusdem anliquitalis, canon. 12. cl IG. ct parisiensi cap. 32. el 46. Atque haec o- mnia conciha sunl ecclcsiae gallicanae. i\ec minus perspicua leslimonia hibemus eccle- siarum Germaniae: nam in concilio moguiUino siih llabano archiepiscopo , cap. 2G. ita statuilur: /16 infirmis in mortis periculo positis, per presbgte- ros pura inquirenda est confessio. non tamcn il- lis imponenda quantitas Pocnitentiae. sed inno- tescenda. Vide eliam cap. 27. In concilio wormaciensi celebrato anno Doinini 808. ul inilio ejusdem concilii legimus. cap.lo.ila scriptum esl: Pocnilentibus secundum diffcren- tiam peccatorum, sacerdotis arbilrio Pocniten- tiac. decernuntur. Debet itaque sacerdos in Poc- nilcntia danda singulorum caussas singulatim considerare. origincmquoquc. modumque cul- jiariiin et affectus.gcmilusque delinquenlium di- Liqenter examinarc, manifesteque cognoscere , temporum etiam el personarum,locorum quoque ct actatum qualitates inspiccre. ut pro conside- ratione locorum. aetatum, vel temporum.scu pro qualilatc dclictorum , alquc gemituuni unius- cujusquc dclinquentis , a sacris regulis oculos non dcflectat. Ex his tesliinoniis salis apparet,an- liciuas Germaniae ecclcsias loiige aliler de confes- sione sensissc ac docuisse, quam nunc seclarii ac novatores Lulherani sentiant el doceant. His acccdanl concilia gencralia: Laleranense , sub Innocenlio 111. cap. 21. conslanliense sess.8. llorentinum in instrucl. A.rmenorum,et tridenlinuni scss. 14. qiiae licet, quod reccnliora sint, ab ad- vcrsariis contemnantur, lamen injuria conliunnun- liir: iiain el anliquissimis conciliis congruentem lidcm ac doclrinam tradidcrunt, et tolius Ecclcsiae (alliolii'ac. qiiae his 400. aiiiiis floruil, senlcnliam conlinenl.ut enarenon polucrinl,(iniii lotaKcclcsia crrasse.alque adeo porlis inferi succubuisse dicatur. CAPirr VI. Idem prolxitnr ex IradiUinu' vrlcrum Palnnn, qui llin-ucrunt afninni) Dumini 100. ad'H)U. Tcslimoniis conciiiorum nicrito adjungi possunl teslimuiiia vetcrum Palruin graccuruin cl lalino- f.88 in: poi:mii;.mi,\ rimi. (lui siiiv:iilis iicl;ilil)us lu l']folesia iloiiuMunt. Priiiuis i^Mlur sil s. IrtMKicus , qui iu ipso Priiiio saeculo posl iiposlolorum e.xccssum nuruil.quique proxiiuo .iposlolorum ;u»t;ili succossit. Is iu 1. li- tiro o;i[». i>.ilii scribil lio (piil)iis(l;uu rooiuiiiis.quas .M;u-ous luierolious circumvencrat: //ae saopis.sime vnnvorsiic (id Kcclosiani Dci confossdo i<unl,ol no- vundmn oor/xrs oxlorniindlus se ab on vclu,l cu- pidine et inlhimnialas, valdo, sc. illuni diloxi^se. Ki inrra de alia pariter se(lucla:CjiHi inaijno laho- ro fratres cam convertisnont. unme toniints in c- jonioloqosi consunimavil.planfiens et lamentans ob hanc quani -passa esl ab lioc mago corruptc- lani. VA lib. '^. o;qi, 4. Cerdon , iuquil, saepe in Ecclesiani venicns, e[ cxomolocjesini faciens. sic consunnnavil, modo quideni latenler doccns , modo rcro exomologesim facicns. Quo looo Observ;Hi(iuiii csl: i\ominc exomologc- sis, apiiiJ vclores inlerdum noii inlcliigi solam oonfessioncm, sed eliam conlritionom ct salisfa- otionem, ut pcrspicuum est,lum e.\ Terlulliano in lib. de Poenitcnlia. tum ex loco Iron;iei cilulo e.\ lib. 1. cap. 0. inlerdnm aulem inlelligi solam con- fessionem, ul palel ex Cypriano in serm.de lapsis. .\uinquam vero oonlrilionem vcl salisfaclionera si- ne confcssione pcr oam vocem significari. Ilaque exomologcsis confossio est, vel sola, vel cum ad- junclis aliis Poenilenliae parlibus. Neque vera sunl quae dicilRcmnitius pag.1000. per exomoiogesim inleiligi ab Ircnaeo confessio- iiem publicam publicorum scelerum , ob quac cx- oommunicari boinincs merebanlur. i\am in I. lib. cap. 9. loquilur de oceulto crimine.immo eliam de occulta oupidilate. quae nisi ex confessione foemi- naram illarum cognosci non poiuisset: in lib. au- lem .3. cnp. 4. aportissime Irenaeus dicit, Cerdo- nem exomologesim recisse,pos!quamlatenler hae- resim suam docuerat: Quare loquitur in ulroque loco de confessione secrelorura, sive occultorum scelerum. Secundo loco habemus Tortullianum, qui floruil ad e.xilum cjusdem saeculi, Severo imperante, ul ipse lestis esl in apologelico, cap. 4. Is in libro (le Poenitentia, mulla docet, quac nolauda sunt , quoniam Kemnitius hunc cliam locum depravat. Primum igilur explical Tertullianus, quid sil e- xomologesis. ac dicit esse aclum Poenileiitiae,quo (leliclum noslrum confilemur Domino: Is act\is, inquil. qui magis graeco vocahulo exprimitur et frequentatur . exomologesis est.qua delictum no- strum iJomino confitemur. Quod aulcm dicil: E- xomologesim ficri Deo.significal, Dco fieri per sa- cerdolem. non autem soli Deo: id quod ex sequen- lihus aperte colligiliir. i\am conlinuo adjungit, per conressionem disponi satisfaolionem et Pociiilen- tiam nasci: quia videlicet sacerdos audita confes- sione. disponil atque ordin;it. quae satisfaclio ne- tessaria sil. c! eam poeniicnli injungit. Deinde paulo posl addit, nonnullos ex pudore quodain, el hu nana verecundia a coiifessione ab- horruisse; quae verecundia non h;ibet locum in ronfessione quae soli Deo fit: Plerosque , inquil , /joc opus, ut pnhlicatione.m sui, aut mjfugere , o\a de die in die.m differre praesumunf, pudoris magis ntomoros quani saJutis: velut Hli, qui iii partihus vororundiorihus corporis ovnlracta ve- xatione, conscienliain medentium vitant, ct ila cuni orubosconiia sua pcrount: el [laulo infni per ironiam il;i soribit: Grande pla.ne emol.umcntum verccundiae, occ.nllatio delicti pollic.c.tur, videli- cel. si quid humanae notitiae suhduxcrimus , proinde et Denm celahimus. Adeo7ie existimatio liominis, et Dei conscientia comparantur ? an melius est damnatum latere.quampalam nl)Solvi'/ el iii libro cxtriMiio, luinc exomologesim a Doo in- stitutam , atque adeo neccssariam esse docet.cum iu\: Si de exomologesi rclraclas , gehennamin corde considcra, qnam libi exomologesis cxtin- guit. VA infra:/*ecctt/o?' restitucndo sihi institutam a Domino exomologcsim sciens, praeterifnt illam quae Bahylonium rcgem in regna restituit? Kcmiiilius loco nolalo duo dicit ad hoc tcslimo- niuiu TerluUiani. Primo, loqui eum dc Poenilentia public;i tanlum. Secundo, loqui de confessione , quae fiebal non solis preshyteris, scd eliam laicis: nam sic loquitur TerluIlianus^E^-f/o cum te ad fra- trum genua protendis, Cliristum contrcctas,Chri- stum exoras. Rcspondeo: Loquitur fortasse Tcrlullianus de Poeniteiilia publica, scd quae fiebat posl confes- sionem secretam. Sacpc enim agebalur publice Poenilentia, et lamen peccalum in specie non a- periebatur, nisi sacordotibiis, nam peccata solum publica publicc coiilitonda erant , quae autem se- oreta eraut, nemo cogcbatur publice confiteri. Tertullianus aiitem loquilur de peccalis secrelis , ut ex verbis ojus perspicuum esl. Non enim dice- rel, homiuos suirugere aul differre confessionem vereciindiae causs.i; neqiie compararet ejusmodi homines cum iis, qui morbo vexantur in partibus oorporis secretis; neque iilud adderet, si qiiid hu- niniiae nolitiae subduxerimus,non tamen Deo pos- se celari; nisi de peccalis occuUis ac secretissi- mis loquoretur. Itaque occullorum ac secreto- ruin confessionem homini faciendam , necessa- riam ad salutem exislimavit Tertullianus : talium aulem peccalorum oonlessio publica esse non dcbet , neque ab Ecclesia exigebalur , nisi se- creta. Quod si eliam Terlullianus vellet, secrelo- rurn peccalorum confessionera publicam esse fa- ciendam, certe mullo magis concederet, saltem secretam esse necessariam. Proiude Terlulliani leslimonio aut idipsum requiritur, quod nos doce- mus, aul aliquid gravius et durius: nullo autem niodo id quod Remuilius el Lullierani volunl, qui solum in genere, aul de peccatis publicis confi- tonlur. Quod atlinel ad id, quod Terlullianus dicil poe- nitenles advohi consuovisse fralribus;duobus rao- dis responderi polest. Nam aut ipsos presbyteros vooal fralres. siquidem paulo ante dixerat , poeni- tenles advolvi presbyleris; et recle vocare poterat eos fralres, quia de illis traclabat,ut dislinguuntur H Deo. qui esl communis omnium Pater: aul cerle cum dicit, poenitentes advolvi fratribus , loquilur dc oralione, non de confessione,praeserlim in spe- cift. Solebat enim poenilentes abjicere se ad pedes omnium fratrum, ul eorum prccibns se cornmen» LIBEU TICUTIFJS f89 (larenl: hoc enim sonanl illa verba: Cum te ad fralnim genua protmdis. Cliristum contreclas , Cliristum exoras. El paulo ante aperlius oinnia (lislinguens ail: Presbyteris advolvi, aris Dei ag- geniculari, omnibus fralribus logationes depre- cationis suae injungere. Ac de Tcrtulliano saiis.