Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 10: Testimonies of the Remaining Fathers from the Year 500 to 1200; and the Solutions of Chemnitz Refuted
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).
Now we shall add some testimonies of those writers who flourished in the following ages up to the year of the Lord 1200, at which time at last, under Innocent III, the adversaries lie that the law of the confession of all sins was passed. We have, then, after the year of the Lord 500, Saint Gregory I, who in homily 26 on the Gospels, explaining those words, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” says: “It must be seen what the fault is, or what penance has followed after the fault, so that those whom almighty God visits by the grace of compunction the sentence of the pastor may absolve. For then the absolution of him who presides is true, when it follows the judgement of the eternal judge.” But the priest cannot know whether he who desires to be loosed has done penance according to the measure of the fault, unless the penitent openly confesses the fault itself, or rather all the faults; wherefore the confession of all sins is necessary. Which the same Gregory also gathers in the same place from the raising and loosing of Lazarus: “To Lazarus,” he says, “it is said, Come forth; as if it were openly said to anyone dead in fault: Why do you hide your guilt within your conscience? Come forth now by confession, you who lie hid within yourself by denial. Let the dead man therefore come forth, that is, let the sinner confess his fault; but him coming forth let the disciples loose, so that the pastors of the Church may remove from him the punishment which he deserved who did not blush to confess what he did.” In the same century flourished John Climacus, who in his book which is entitled the Ladder, step 4, speaks thus: “But before all things let us confess our faults to our excellent judge alone; and if he shall have bidden it, let us be ready to confess to all.” And below he says that without the confession which is made to a man no one can obtain remission. After the year of the Lord 600 we have Caesarius, bishop of Arles. He in homilies 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 disputes excellently of Penance, and in the seventh indeed writes that sins are purged by confessing and doing penance; but in the tenth he speaks somewhat more fully of the necessity of confession: “Wherefore,” he says, “I have often admonished you, dearest brethren, and again I admonish and testify, that he who knows himself to have been tossed from the shore of continence by the tempest of lust into the sea of luxury, and to have suffered the shipwreck of chastity, should swiftly lay hold of the confession of sins as of a plank of the broken ship, that by it he may be able to escape from the abyss and depth of luxury, and come to the port of Penance, where now in a safer place he may fix the anchor of hope and repair his lost salvation.” Further, that Caesarius speaks of the confession of all sins in kind is clear from homily 7, where he compares sins to diseases, confession to medicine, the priest to the physician; for it is not enough, as we also said above, for curing bodily diseases, that the sick man tell the physician that he is unwell, unless he disclose in kind the disease, or the diseases, if perhaps he is vexed by several at once. After the year of the Lord 700, the venerable Bede, in the commentary on chapter 5 of the epistle of Saint James, expounding that, “Confess your sins one to another”: “In this sentence,” he says, “there ought to be this discretion, that we confess our daily and light sins one to another to our equals, and believe that we are saved by their prayer; but the uncleanness of the graver leprosy, according to the law, let us open to the priest, and at his judgement take care to be purified in what manner and for how long a time he shall have ordered.” The same Bede, book 5 of the History of his nation, chapter 14, writes a notable example of a soldier who, when he neglected or blushed to confess his sins, although he was rather often admonished by the king himself to make the confession of his sins after the Christian manner before he should be compelled to leave this world, at length, a horrible vision preceding, was snatched to the perpetual torments of hell, and paid the most just penalties of confession neglected and put off. In the same century Theodore Studites, in the life of Saint Plato, praises the same Plato because from adolescence he had been accustomed to confess to the pastor of his soul, no less frequently than diligently, all his sins, down to his inmost thoughts.
After the year of the Lord 800, Rabanus, bishop of Mainz, book 7 on Ecclesiasticus, chapter 7, speaks thus of the necessity of confession: “He who transgresses the measure in the lusts of the flesh, and is burdened by his offences, must needs vomit out the foulness through the confession of sins, and so return through fasting and the chastisement of the body to the state of his former health.” See the same, book 2 On the Institution of Clerics, chapter 30. In the same century Nicephorus Chartophylax, in the letter to Theodosius, a fragment of which is extant in volume 1 of the Library of the Holy Fathers: “Of old,” he says, “all had to come to the pontiffs themselves, and disclose to them their hidden things, and so receive either reconciliation or rejection. But I do not know how it has come about that these things are less observed; although I think that the pontiffs, wearied by the tedium of the business and the frequent tumult of the multitude, transferred that task to monks, namely to those who are truly approved and can be useful to others.” And below: “Further, if anyone is experienced and worthy, and with this discharges the priesthood, to him above all one must go.” From this place we understand that the power of absolving was communicated by the pontiffs to monks also, yet not to any whatever, but only to those who both discharged the priesthood and were endowed with learning and probity. After the year of the Lord 900, Radulphus of Flaix, book 3 on Leviticus, chapter 7: “It is fitting,” he says, “that he who makes the confession of his sins complete all those things which he can recall to memory, laying them open to the Lord; not disclosing some, hiding others.” After the year of the Lord 1000, Peter Damian, in the sermon on Saint Andrew: “The fourth step,” he says, “is the confession of the mouth; this is to be made purely, because one part of the sins is not to be told and the other kept back; nor are light ones to be confessed and grave ones denied,” and so on. And below, speaking of the priest confessor: “Let him see,” he says, “that he never make any mention of those things which he received under the seal of confession,” and so on. The same, in the letter to Desiderius on the miracles of his age, relates a notable example of the integrity of confession: “Hugh, abbot of Cluny,” he says, “when he had brought me to his monastery, a certain old brother in the house of the sick was languishing with a growing swelling of the whole body. He, when he had learned that the abbot was present, was made glad, and began to implore the divine clemency: Lord, he said, from whom nothing hidden is concealed, I beseech thee, if there is any guilt in me which I have not hitherto confessed, do thou mercifully recall it to my memory, so that to my abbot, while he is present, I may purely confess, and by him who has this right in me above others I may be judged and absolved. This said, a voice of this kind sounded in his ears: Certainly there is, certainly there is something in you which you have not yet confessed. And when he heard the voice only, but did not see from whom it proceeded, praying he added: Express to me plainly, Lord, what this is, that having confessed I may correct what I have erred. Then the voice signally expressed a certain sin, just as he was asking, which he at once recognised as committed by himself, and hastening told it to the abbot. Confession made, he was purified; and a few days after he died in holy peace.” After the year of the Lord 1100, Saint Bernard, in the sermon to the Knights of the Temple, chapter 12: “What,” he says, “shall I say of confession, in which both the sacrament of confession and the mystery of the priestly ministry is contained?” And below: “And indeed the word in the heart of the sinner works a saving contrition; but the word in the mouth takes away the harmful confusion which would hinder the necessary confession.” And below he says to priests: “Let them not absolve even one who has compunction unless they have seen him also confessed.” Here we have, first, that confession is a sacrament, and therefore of divine law; secondly, that it is necessary even to those who seem to have obtained compunction of heart; thirdly, that it is to be made to a priest, and absolution to be expected from the same. And that all sins are to be confessed the same Bernard teaches, sermon 16 on the Canticle, in these words: “All that bites the conscience, confess humbly, purely, faithfully.” Here can be added the testimony of Hugh of Saint Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 14, chapter 1, where, explaining that of James 5, “Confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be saved,” he notes that it was said for this reason, “Confess, that you may be saved,” because we are not saved unless we confess. Likewise of Richard of Saint Victor, in the book On the Power of Binding and Loosing, chapter 4, where he says that true Penance is the abomination of sins, with the will of avoiding, of confessing and of making satisfaction; and he proves it both from nature and from Scripture. Lastly, the testimony of Peter of Cluny, who was contemporary of Bernard, Hugh and Richard. He in book 1 On Miracles most openly teaches that the confession of all deadly sins is altogether necessary for those who have sinned after Baptism. We have, then, testimonies of the Fathers, partly Greek, partly Latin, to the number of thirty, who all flourished before the times of Innocent III; from which is openly convicted the error of all those who teach that confession was instituted not by Christ but by Innocent III.
Chapter XI. The solutions of Chemnitz to the places of the Fathers are refuted
Martin Chemnitz, at the beginning of his censure of chapter 5 of the Council of Trent, page 976, sets up a disputation on the confession which he says is found among the Fathers; which is nothing else than nine solutions devised for eluding the testimonies of the holy Fathers which are brought forward by Catholic doctors for establishing confession. For those nine kinds of confession being explained at sufficient length, he adds thus, page 1010: “To these nine heads all the sentences of the ancients can conveniently be referred; but it is something far other about which the pontifical confession chiefly contends.” Wherefore, lest the Lutherans persuade themselves and theirs that all the places of the Fathers which we have adduced in the preceding chapters have already been answered by Chemnitz, I shall shake out in a few words this whole disputation of Chemnitz, although above also we have refuted those things which he answered to certain places of the Fathers.
First, then, Chemnitz teaches that there is a certain confession which is made to God alone, and complains that this is neglected in the Catholic Church, and says that the testimonies of the Scriptures and Fathers which properly pertain to this confession are twisted to auricular confession, which is made to a man. In this first solution, first, Chemnitz lies that the confession which is made to God is neglected in the Catholic Church. For in the first place the general confession which begins, “I confess to almighty God,” is recited daily by the priest and the people at the beginning of the most holy sacrifice; the same is pronounced in the canonical hours by the whole clergy twice a day; all the laity, both men and women, are admonished by their pastors to frequent the same. Then, the confession which is made to God alone is included in contrition; for those who recount their years in the bitterness of their soul, and from the heart detest all the sins of which they have consciousness, and ask that they be forgiven them by God, without doubt confess to God. Wherefore, since the doctrine of true contrition, with an accurate examination of conscience, flourishes more among Catholics than among Lutherans, as we showed in the preceding book, he cannot but lie who says that the confession which is made to God is neglected by Catholics and frequented by Lutherans. Lastly, the confession which is made to God is included in the confession which is made to the priest, both because it is made to the priest as holding the place of God, and because those who confess to priests expressly say, “I confess to God, and to thee.” Catholics, therefore, who teach the sacramental confession which is made to a man, at the same time teach also that which is made to God; and this is so far true that there are not wanting Fathers who, when they speak of sacramental confession, say that it is made not so much to a man as to God. Secondly, Chemnitz adduces many places of the Scriptures and Fathers in vain, as if we understood them of sacramental confession, when they pertain to the confession which is made to God alone. For none of the Catholics uses those testimonies; but he himself with his usual fraud wished to impose on the simple. To which fraud it also pertains that he omitted certain places from which his snares could most easily have been detected; as, for example, he cited the former homily of Origen on Psalm 37, where the confession which is made to God is commended, and omitted the latter homily, in which in express words the confession which is made to a man is commended. Thirdly, he drags hither certain places which speak clearly enough of the confession which is made to men and not to God alone; therefore, while he complains of Catholics that they twist places of Scripture and the Fathers from the confession which is made to God alone to sacramental confession, he himself commits that crime which he falsely attributes to others. Such is that place in Solomon, Proverbs 28: “He that hideth his sins shall not prosper; but he that shall confess and forsake them shall obtain mercy.” For there is no one who believes that he can hide his crimes from God, unless perhaps he is mad; but from men, either for shame or for some other cause, many desire their sins to be hidden. But those who are of that kind cannot prosper; for who would direct him whose depravity he does not know? And that moral sentence chiefly rebukes those who, admonished of their crimes, will not acknowledge them, but hide and deny them. Such also is that testimony of Chrysostom, from homily 3 on Matthew: “The confession of sins is the testimony of a conscience fearing God. For he who fears the judgement of God does not blush to confess his sins; but he who blushes does not fear.” For the blushing of which Chrysostom speaks has place before men, not before God; for we blush to confess to those to whom we think our evils are unknown; which each one experiences in himself. Add that if Chrysostom spoke of blushing before God, he would not say, “He who fears the judgement of God does not blush to confess his sins; but he who blushes does not fear,” but on the contrary he would say, “He who fears the judgement of God blushes to confess; but he who does not blush does not fear”; since fear makes us think much of him whom we fear, and therefore also makes us blush to seem base before him. But because a greater fear overcomes a lesser, therefore Chrysostom most rightly says that those who fear the judgement of God do not blush to confess their sins to men, because, namely, the fear of God overcomes the fear of men; and on the contrary, that those who blush to confess to men do not fear the judgement of God, because if they feared it, they would not let themselves be so overcome by human fear as to refuse the medicine of the wounds of their soul, namely confession. Fourthly, the solution of Chemnitz effects nothing, because even if the places of Origen and Chrysostom which he adduces were all to be taken of the confession which is made to God, yet there are many others, both of these two and of other Fathers, which he omitted, which can by no reasoning be twisted to the confession which is made to God alone, as anyone can learn from the places cited by us. Further, certain places of Chrysostom somewhat more obscure I shall explain when we come to the arguments of Calvin.
The second kind of confession, from which Chemnitz seeks his second solution, is when someone has wronged his neighbour, and, led by Penance, confesses to the same neighbour that he has sinned, and asks that he be forgiven. But this solution makes nothing at all for our matter, since it can be accommodated to no testimony of the holy Fathers of those which we have adduced, as is clear both from the testimonies themselves, and also because not even Chemnitz has tried to refer any of those testimonies to this kind of confession; for he brought forward only two testimonies, one of Saint Augustine, the other of Theophylact, neither of which is of those which we adduced. The third kind of confession is when someone confesses not only to God, or to the neighbour whom he had wronged, but also to the ministers of the Gospel, yet only in general acknowledges himself a sinner, or in kind discloses to the minister some one sin which more burdens him, but does not enumerate all sins in kind. And to this kind of confession he would have many testimonies of Scripture and the Fathers pertain. But meanwhile he alleges from the Fathers none but Basil, in the shorter questions, question 288, of which testimony we discoursed in chapter 8, where we also refuted the solution of Chemnitz. From the Scriptures he alleges many testimonies, but such as make nothing for the matter, since all (one excepted) treat of that confession which was in use before sacramental confession was instituted, of which alone we speak. The single testimony from Acts 19 makes for the matter, but of it we discoursed above in chapter 4, where we also sifted the disputation of Chemnitz. The fourth kind of confession is when someone publicly, before the assembly of the Church, confesses crimes; to which kind the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth also pertain. Of which nothing will have to be said in this place; for the places of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian, which Chemnitz expounds of public confession, have been explained by us above, chapters 6 and 7. But of the history of Nectarius, and the testimonies of Chrysostom and Leo, from which Chemnitz tries to demonstrate that public confession was changed into private, and that neither is necessary by divine law, we shall discourse a little later. For those pertain to the arguments by which the truth is attacked by the adversaries, not to the explaining of the testimonies of the Fathers which we have adduced for the truth; but here we have undertaken not to dissolve the arguments of the adversaries, but to vindicate ours, which have been sought from the testimonies of the Fathers, from the calumnies of Chemnitz.
There is, then, the ninth and last kind of confession in Chemnitz, when someone confesses his sins privately to a priest, not because it is necessary by divine law to confess all sins in kind for obtaining the remission of sin, but because that private confession, by which some sins are disclosed to the priest, is a useful discipline: first, for the instruction of the ruder; secondly, for remedies against future sins; thirdly, for taking counsel in doubtful matters; fourthly, for receiving consolation from private absolution; fifthly, for discerning whether he who asks absolution is truly penitent or not. And hither Chemnitz refers many places of the Fathers, of Chrysostom, Origen, Cyprian, Basil, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and Cassian. About this solution, which is the chief, three things are briefly to be observed. The first is that Chemnitz came down to this solution plainly against his will. For since he had often said before that private confession was born from public confession, and had noted also the time at which public confession was changed into private, namely the year 450 from the coming of the Lord, and lastly had added that auricular confession was generated, as he himself speaks, in later times, nothing could have been said more consequent than that the ancient Fathers who wrote before the year of the Lord 450 never mentioned private confession. But the evidence of the matter did not permit him to lie so openly; and therefore, though unwilling, he admitted that many sentences of the ancient Fathers are extant on private confession: “And those indeed,” he says, page 1015, “which we have hitherto noted from the Fathers regard the most grave crimes, on account of which one deserved to be excommunicated, as Augustine says, whether they were committed openly, or secretly, or only by the purpose of the will. Yet it is not to be dissembled that there are extant besides among the ancients many sentences by which they exhort the people to set out other sins also to the priest by confession.” And below: “But the holy Fathers had other reasons on account of which they both kept and commended private confession.” Secondly, it is to be observed that in this last solution of Chemnitz two things are proposed, one by denying, the other by asserting. For Chemnitz denies that the holy Fathers commend the private confession of all sins as necessary by divine law; but he asserts that they commend the private confession of some sins as a useful discipline for the instruction of the ruder, for a remedy against future sins, for counsel, for consolation, for a sign of true Penance: “It must be considered,” he says, page 1015, “by what reasoning, in what sense, and to what end they commended that private confession; for in no way did they think that it is necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to enumerate all sins in kind and one by one to the priest according to all the circumstances.” And below: “But they had other reasons on account of which they both kept and commended private confession, namely because it is a useful discipline, first for the information of the ruder,” and so on. Of these two, what is proposed by asserting we willingly admit; for sacramental confession has those five usefulnesses, and not a few others besides; but what is assumed by denying we say to be altogether false, and not only not proved by Chemnitz, but not even capable of being proved. For the Fathers whom Chemnitz adduces in this place (Cassian alone excepted, of whom we shall speak in the solution of the arguments) teach nothing else than that sins are to be confessed to the priest in the manner in which diseases are disclosed by the sick to the physician. But from this likeness it does not follow that confession ought not to be of all sins, or is not necessary by divine law; but rather the contrary follows, for both all diseases must necessarily be disclosed to the physician, and by divine law we are bound to seek the medicine of the soul no less than of the body, as we deduced above when we adduced those very testimonies of the Fathers. Wherefore, although the Fathers whom Chemnitz cites do not say in express words that the confession of all sins is necessary by divine law (which alone he urges), yet neither do they say in express words that the confession of all sins is not necessary by divine law; which indeed would suffice us in this place for refuting the vanity of Chemnitz; and from the likeness which they adduce we gather that they thought what we think, and what all the other Fathers thought and taught. Thirdly and lastly, it is to be observed that Chemnitz did not altogether rest even in this ninth solution. For after he had said all that he had judged should be said for explaining the testimonies of the Fathers, he added, page 1020, that there are found among the Fathers sentences even harder, which incline to the necessity of confession; but that to these other unlike sentences of the Fathers are to be opposed. So at last he was compelled to confess that all the places of the ancient Fathers which Catholics adduce for themselves cannot conveniently be answered.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
C.VPUT X.
Tes^limonia reliquorum Palrum ab anno
500. ad 1200.
IVonc addemus lcslimonia aliqua eorum scriplo-
ru;n, qui floruerunt consequenlibus aetalibus us-
que ad annum Domini 1200. quo dcmuin temporo
siib Innocentio HI. confessionis omnium pecca-
torum logem lalam fuisse, adversarii mentiunlur.
Hahemus igilur posl annum Domini 500. san-
c!iim Gregorium I. qui homil. 26. in evangelia ex-
plicans illa verba: Quoruni remiserilis peccata ,
remilluntur eis. Videndum esl, inquil, quae cul-
pa.aul quae sit poenitenlia sequula post culpam:
ut quos omnipotens Deus , per compunclionis
graiiam visilat, illos pasloris sententia absolvat.
Tunc enim vera est absolutio praesidentis, cuni
aelerni arbilriuni sequitur judicis.^on potest au-
lem sacerdos cognoscere an pro ratione culpac
poenilenliam egorit, qui solvi desiderat . nisi cul-
pam ipsam, vel potius culpas omnes poenilens a-
perte confilealur: quare necessaria esl confessio
oranium peccalorum. Quod eliam eodem in loco
idem Gregorius colligil, ex Lazari excilalione et
LIBEK Ti:UTIUS G9:>
solulioiie: Lnzaro, wiquii. dicUur, veni fonis; ac Posl annum Doraini 800. Riibanus cpiscopus
ai aperle cuilibel morluo in ciilpa diceroAur: Cur mogunlinus lib. 7. in EcGlesiasticum. cap. 7. de
reatuinluumintraconscienliainabscondis^foras conlessionis necessilale ila \oqm[\iT:Qui transgre-
jam per confessionem efjrcderc. qui apud le in- diiur mensuram in concupiscenliis carnis, el ag-
terius per negationem lalcs. Yeniat ilaque foras ravatur ejus delictis, neccsse est , ut per confes-
viortuus, idest, culpam confitcalur peccator: ve- sionem peccatorum, foeditatcm evomal , et sic
nientcm vero foras.solvant discipidi, ut pastorcs per jejunium et castigationem corporis , ad sta-
Ecclesiae ci poenam debeant amovere.quam mc- tum prislinae sanitatis redeal. Vide cuiidem lib.
ruit. qui non erubuit confitcri quod fecit. 2. de inslilulione clericor. cap. 30.
Eodem saeculo lloriiit Joannes Ciimacus, qui in Eodeinsaeculo Nicephorus Carlopliylax in epist.
suo libro, qiii inscribilur Climax. gradu 4. ita lo- ^d Tlieodosium, cujus fragmenlum exstal in 1. to-
quitur:A?i/e omiiia vero culpas noslras praeclaro mo bibliolliecae sanctorum Palnim: Olim, inquil,
judicinostro soli confitcamur: omnibusque si illc omnes oportebat adipsos pontifices accedere,sua-
jusserit, confitcrisimus parati; el inlra dicit siiie gue illis occulta prodere, et sic veL reconcilialio-
confessione, qnae lil bomini , nulluin posse cun- nem, velrepudium ferre. Ignoro autem qui fa-
sequi remissionem. ctum sit, cur haec minus observentur: quamvis
Posl annum Domini GOO. babemus Caesarium c- existimem pontifices negotii taedio, frequentique
piscopum arelatensem. Is liomil. 6. 7. 8. 9. el 10, muliitudinis turbulenlia defatigatos, id operae
de Poenitenlia ep;regie disputat , et in sfptima ad moiiaclios transmisisse, ad ens sciiicet, qui
quidcra scribil,peccala conlitcndo el poenitentiam vereprobati sint, aliisque valeant esseutiles. £t
agendo purgari: in dccima vero paulo fusius de infra: Porro si quis expertus sit, et frugi, et cum
necessilate confessionis loquitur:Unc/e i-os,inquit. Iioc, sacerdotio fungalur, ad ilium in pnmifs ac-
frequenler admonui. fraires ckarissimi , ilerum cedendum. E\ hoc loco inlelligimus, communica-
admoneo et contestor. ut qui se cognoscii de iit- lam fuisse a pontificibus absolvendi poleslatera et-
lore continentiae, tcmpestate libidinis, in pelago iam monachis, non tamcn (|uibuscumque, sed iis
luxuriae fuisse jactatum. et casiitatis incurrisse lanlum qui el sacerdolio fungerenlur, et doclrina
naufragium; peccatorum confessionem velut la- ac probilale praedili essenl.
bulamfractac navis velociter apprchendal , ut Post annum Domini OOORadulplius Flaviacensis,
per ipsam de abysso ac profundo luxuriae possil bb. .3. in Levilic. cap. 7. Dignum est, inquil, ul
cvadere, et ad portum Poenilentiae pervcnire , qui peccatorum suorum confessionem facit, con-
ubijam tuliori loco spei anchoram (igere et sa- summet ea omnia, quae ad memoriam revocare
lutem perditam valeat reparare. Porro.loqui Cae- polest, Domino pandens; non aiia prodens, alia
sarium de confessione omnium peccalorum in spe- abscondens.
cie, perspicuum esl ex hom. 7. ubi comparat pec- Post annum Domini 1000. Pelrus Damianus in
cala niorbis, confessionem medicinae, sacerdotem serm. de s. Andrea: Quartus gradus , inquit, est
uiedico: neque enim, ut etiam supra diximus. sa- coiifessio oris: haec pure facienda est, quia non
tis csl ad sanandos morbos corporales, si medico cst pars pcceatorum dicenda,el altera rclinenda:
aegrolus dicat, se male habcrcnisi in specie mor- neque levia confitenda, el gravia difjitenda etc.
bum, vel morbos, si forle pluribus simul vexalur, El infra de sacerdote confessario Joqucns: Yideat,
aperiat. inquit, ne unquam de liis. quae sub signaculo
Posl annum Domini 700. venerabilis Beda in confessionis accepit, aliquam faciat mentionevi
commcnlar. ad cap. 5. episi. s. Jacobi , exponens clc.
illud: Confitemini altcrutrum peccatavestra. In Idem in epist. ad Desidp>rium, de miraculis sui
hac. inquil, sententia, illa debet esse discrctio.ut sacculi, referl insignc exemplum de integrilate
quolidiana leviaque peccata, alterutrum coae- confessionis: Hugo, inquil, CLuniacensis abbas ,
qualibus confiteamur, eorumque credamus ora- cum ad suum me monasterium perduxisset, fra-
lione salvari: porro gra,vioris leprae immundi- tcr quidam senex in infirmorum domo ingrave-
1iam,juxta lcgcm.saccrdoli pandamus alque od scentc lotius corporis tuinore languebat. Ilic por-
ojus arbitrium, quaiiter et quanto temporejus- rocumabbatis comperissetadessc praescntiam ,
serit, purificari curemus. ' laetus effcctus,divinam cocpit implorare cle^nen-
[<lem Beda lib, ,">. hislor. Gcnlis suac. cap. 11. liam: Domine, inquil, quem nuLluin lalet occul-
scribil insignc exemplum mililis, qui cum conlilc- tum. quaeso, si quid rcatus in mc cst. quod non
ri peccala sua negligercl, vcl erubcsccret,ctiamsi sim hucusquc confessus, tu mihi misericorditer
ab ipso rege saepius moncrelur, ul morc christia- in mcmoriam rcvoca, quatcnus abbatimeo, dum
no confcssiorKMii pcccaloruiii suoruin faccrcl, an- pracsens est,pure con filear.alque ah eo. quijus
lcquam de hoc saeculo exirc compellcrclur: lan- hocinmepraecaeterishabet.judicntusabsolvnr.
dcm horribili jiracccdente visione , ad infcrni lloc dicto hujusmodivox auribus ojus insonuit :
perpcluos crucialus raplus, ncgleclae dilataequc Ccrtc est, ccrte est atiquid in te, quod confessus
confessionis pocnas jiislissimas dcdit. adhucnon cs. Cumque itle vocem soldm avdi-
Eodcm saccuIoTlicodorus Stiidytcs in vila s.Pla- rct, so.d a quo pro'icderot , no7i vidorct ; oraiido
timis, laudatcundem Platoncm, (piod ab adolcsccn- suhjunxil: Exprimc Domino manifosle quid hoc
lia paslori animiic siiac coiililcn '•oosucvisscl, noii sil,utconl'essus corrigani quod orravi. Porro,vox
ininiis frcquenler quam diligcnltr, pcccala omriia, r.ndem peccaium quoddam sicut quaorebal, si-
ad inlimas usquc cogilaliones. gnanler expressit, quod Hlc a sc commissum il-
r.9.;
I)K POLMiKNllA
iico reiognintt. vl uhbali leslinanter itccitu. I'acl<i.
fon/V.vsio'»»' pufjocit: pauci^tniv poat dicbus in
s.iMfM IMUr' d('l'umtns ('!iL
}'usl aniuiin Duuuni \HH). >. IhMn;iitlus in scr-
inunc ad milites lenipli. ciip. \'l. ijuid. in()uil, dc
r, ' ' ■ic dicavi. nhi ct confcssionis sticnnncn-
tu,... . iaccrdolnli^ ininislcrii niiistcriuiii conti-
netur? El infra: Et quidcni vcrhuni in cordc pcc-
calnris.opc^ralur salulifcrani conlrilioncm: vcr-
htun vcro in orc . noxiain tollil confusioiicm ,
«f impcdiat ncccssariam confcssioncm. VA infra
s:u*prilolibus dicil: .Vou ahsolvanl cliam coinpun-
ctum iiisi vidcrint cl confcssum. llic. Iiahcmus
Prinin. cdnfossiiMicin sai rimicnlmn ossc. ac prdiii-
dc juris tiivini. Secundo. necessariani csse ciumi
iis,»iui cordis comiuiiuiioiicm viilcnliir ;ulc|ili.T('r-
lio. saccrdoli cssc racieiulain. ci iib oodom iihsolii-
lionein exspeclanilain.
Esse jiuleni peeciiiiiomniii (•onrilendiudocel ideni
Bcrnardus serni. 1(». in Ciinl. liis vorbis: Oinnc
quod rcmordcl consciculiain,cunlilerc huniiULcr,
pure, tidelitcr.
Ilur iidli poli'Sl leslirnoniuni Iluj^onis dc s. Vi-
clore.lib. 2. de Siicranienl. piir, li. oap. 1. nbi ox-
plicans ilUul. Jiicob. .*>. Confilcm'ini altcrulrum
peccata vestra. cl oratc pro invicem. ut salveuii-
ni. nionel. ideo dicliim es^^c.confilcmim lUsalve-
mini, qnia non siilvauiur, nisi confileamur. Ilom
Ricbardi dc s. Viclore. in lib. de poleslalc ligaiidi
elsolvcndi, ciip. 4. ubi dicil, Poonilonliam verain
esse aboniiiialiononi pocciitornm, cum vnlo oiivon-
di. conlilendi el salisriiciendi: cl probal lum ex iia-
lurn.lnm ex Scripliirii. Dcnique leslimonium Pelri
riimincensis. qwi Bornardi , Iliigonis el Uioliardi
aequalis ruil. Is lib. 1. de miraculis, apcrlissime
doceirOonrossionoin uniniuin peccalorum lelbaliuin
omnino necessariam esse iis, qui posl Baplismum
peccaveriinl.
Iliibomus i^Mlur lesliinonia Palrum, parlim grae-
coruin. parlim lalinorum . ad triginta. qui omnes
anle Innoconlii III. lempora florucrunl: ex quibus
iiperb; lorivincilur oorum omniurn orror qiii con-
fessionein non a Chrislo.sed ab Innoccnlio 111. in-
slilutam csse docent.
CAPIT XI.
RrfeUunlar s(jlutiones Kemnilii adloca
Palrum.
Miirlinus Kemnilius inilio censurae suac ad ctip.
.>. concilii trideniini. pag. 1)76. instiliions dispii-
liilionem de confessionc, quae apud Palres invc-
niri dicil: quae iiibil aliud sunl, nisi novcm solu-
iionos. excogilatae ad eludenda lcsliinonia sanclo-
rum Pnlrum, quae a calbolicis <locloribus ad con-
fessionem sUibiliendam proferunlur. Illiscnim no-
vem generibus confessionis salis proli.xe explica-
tis. ila subjunjril. pagina 1010. ,1(Z haec novcyn ca-
pita. onmes vctcrnni senlcnliac conimode rcfcrri
p^Jssunt: lonrjc aliud vero est, dc ^iuo praecipae
pontijicia confcssio dimicat. Ounre iie Lulberuni
sibi iic. suis porsniuleiinl, iul omniii locii Palruin ,
(|niie in snpcriuribus capilibus iuldiiximus, jiim ii
Kcmnilio osse responsiim; o\cnliiiin paiicis loliim
banc dispulalionem Kemnilii, licet eliam supra re-
ruliiviMim oa, quiie ad corlii locii Piilrum ipsii rc-
spondc.riil.
Primuin igilur docel Kemnilins : Confcssioncm
(luandam essc, quae soli Doo lii, el (iiicriUir li:mc
iiotj;ligi in Mcclcsia calbolica; id ScripUirarum iu;
P.ilruiu leslimonia, quae ad baiic confessionem
proprie perlinenl . dclorqucri dic.il ad confessio-
iiem iiuriculiirom. (|u;ie liomini lit.
In liiic priiiiii soliilioiio, Piimo mcnlilur Kcmni-
liiis, c.oidessionem, (]uae Dco lll negligi in Ecclc-
siii calbolicii. Niim iii primis conUsssio generalis ,
(]Uiio inci|)il: Conjileor Dco omnipolcnli, (juolidie
rocilaUir a sacordole cl pojjulo. iid inilium siinclis-
siini siicrilicii: eadcm in boris ciMionicis a lolo cle-
ro bis iii die pronuncialiir; eandom frequonliiro o-
miics laici, Uiin viri, liiin focminac, a pasUiribus
iulmonenlur. Deinde: Confossio quaesoli Dco lil ,
in conlrilionc includilur, qui enim recogilanl an-
iios suos in amariludine aiiimae suae, cl pcccala
oinnia, quorum conscicnliam babcnt , cx animo
deleslanlur, eaque sibi dimilli a Deo pelunt, sine
dubio confilenlur Deo. Quarc cum doclrina de vc-
ra conUiUonc, cuin accurala discussione conscicii-
tiae. magis apiid catliolicos, quam apud Lutlicra-
iios vigcal, ul libro superiore oslendimus, non |)o-
lesl non rnculiri, qui confessionem quae Deo lil ,
a catbolicis negligi,a Lulboranis frcquenlari dicil.
Deniquc: Confessio quae Dco fil,inclu(iilur in con-
fcssione quae fil saccrdoli, lum quia sacerdoU fil
ul locum Dei lencl,luni quiii qui sacerdoUbus con-
lilenlur, exprcssc dicunl: Confileor Dco, cl tihi.
Calliolici igitur, qui confessiouein sacramenlalem,
quae fil bomini, (Jocenl; simul eliam docenl cam ,
(]uae Deo fil: alquc boc usque adco veruin csl, ul
non desinl Palres, qui cum de confessionc sacra-
menlali loquunlur, cam non lam liomini, quam
Deo fieri dicanl.
Secundo: Wulla loca Scriplurarum el Palrum
fruslra Kcmnitius adducil, quasi nos ca de confes-
sionc sacrameiilali inlclligamus.cum ad confcssio-
nem, quae soli Deo fil, porlinoanl. iVullus enim
catholicorum leslimoniis illis ulilur; sed ipse soli-
la fraude imponerc voluil simplicibus. Ad quam
eliam fraudem perlinel,quod locaquuednm omisil,
ex quibusfacillimc delegi ojus insidiae poluisscnl:
ut, exempli gralia,citavil homiliam priorcm Origc-
iiis in psiilm. 37.iibi commendiilur confessio quac
fil Deo; el omisil homiliiim poslcriorein,in qua di-
serlis vcrbis commendalur conlessio, quae fil ho-
mini.
Terlio: Quaedam loca huc lr;ihit , quae salis a-
perle loqiiunlur de confessionc qmie fit bominibus
el non soli Deo; proinde cum queritur de caUioli-
c.is. quod loca Scriplurae el Palrum a confessione,
quac Deo soli fit, ad confessionem sacrameiitalem
delorqu(!ant, ipse id crimen committil, quod aliis
falso tribuil.
Talis est locus ille apud Salomoncm , Prover.
28. Qui ahocondil scelera sua, non diri(jelur:qui
LiuKK ii:ivriLs
€97
aiilem confessm fucril, el reUqucrU ea, miseri-
cordiam consequeiur. Neque enim ullus e>l. qui
scelcra suii Deo se ubscondere posse credat, iiisi
torle insanial: sed hominibus, vel ob pudorem, vel
;ilia dc Cimssa, rauIU peccala sua abscondita esse
cupiunt. Qui autem ojusmodi sunt, dirigi non pos-
sunl:quis enim dirigat eum,cujus pravilalem igno-
ral? ac polissimum sentenlia isla moralis illos ob-
jurgal, qui admonili scelcrum suorum , nolunl ea
agnoscere, sed abscondunt el negant.
Tale esl eliam lcstimonium illud Chrysostomi,
ex hom. 3. in Mattli. Coiifessio peccalorum. testi-
monium est consclenliae timeniis Deum. Qui e-
711771 timel iudicium Dei, peccaia sua non erube-
scil confiteri: qui autem erubescit , 7io7i limet.
Nam erubescentia, de qua Chrysostomus loquitur
apud homines locum habel, non apud Dcum: illis
enim conGleri erubescimus , quibus arbilramur i-
gnota esse mala nostra; id quod unusquisque in
sc experitur. Adde, quod si Chrysostomus loque-
retur de erubcscentia coram Deo, non diceret: Qui
limet judicium Dei. peccata sua non crubescit
confUeri; qui autcm erubescit, non limet , sed e
«onlrario dicerel: Qui timel judicium Dei, erube-
scil, confileri; qui aulcm non erubcscil.non timet:
siquidcm limorfacit, ul niagniraciamus eum,quem
limcmus, cl proiiide etiam lacil, ul erubescamus
coram illo turpes vidcri.Sed quia major timor vin-
cil minorem. idco rectissime Chrysoslomus dicit ,
eos, (jui timent judicium Dei,non erubescere pec-
cata sua hominibus confiteri , quia videlicet limor
Dei vincil limorcm hominura; ct conlra , cos qui
confiteri hominibus crubescunt, non timcre judi-
ciumDei, quia si illud limcrenl, non sinercnl se
ab humono limore ila superari, ul medicinam vul-
nerum animae suae, conressionem scilicet, recu-
sarent.
Quarlo: vSolutio Rcmnitiana nihil cnicil, quia et-
iamsi ioca Origenis el Chrysostomi, quae ipse ad-
ducit.accipienda ossent omnia dc confessionc quae
Deo lit,lamen multa sunlalia,tum horum duorum ,
lum aliorum Patrum, quae ipse omisit, quae nulla
rationc dolorqucri possunt ad conrcssioncm (juae
lit soli Dco ; ul ex locis a nobis cilalis , quivis (;o-
gnoscerc [)Otest. Porro, loca quacdam Chrysoslomi
paulo obscuriora, cum ad Calvini argumcnta vcn-
lum lucrit. cxplicabo.
Secundum gcnus confcssionis,cx quo sccundam
solutioncm Remnitius pctit, cst , cum ali(iuis pro-
ximiim laesil, cl Pocnilcnlia ductus . conlitctnr ci-
dem |)roximo se peccassc'. alque ul sihi ignosc^a-
lur. rogat. Sed liacc solutio nihil omnino ad rcm
noslram facit, cum ad iinllum lcslimonium sancto-
riim {'aliiim cx his. (puui nos adduximus, acfom-
inodari |)ossil, iit perspicuum cst. tiim ex ipsis tc-
stimoniis, tiim ctiam qiiia ncque Rcmnilius ad lioc
genus confcssionis , ullum corum lcslimonioriim
rcferrc conaliis (;st: soliim enim protulil diio lcsli-
moiiia, uniim sanrli Aiigustini, allcriim Theoithy-
lacli, (|ii()niin iiculrum ex liis cst, (piac nos addii-
ximiis.
Tertium gciiiis c<onfessionis esl,ciim ali(|uis coii-
filetur fioii soliim Deo, vcl proximo queni lacse-
ral, sed etiain ministris evangclii, vennnlamcn gc-
ncralim tantum se peccatorcm agnoscil.aut in spc-
cie unum aliquod pcccatuiu magis gravans mini-
stro dctegit: non aulem in specie omnia peccal.i
enumerat. Alqm; ad hoc genus conlcssionis peili-
nerc vull mulla lcslimouia ScripUirae et Palruin.
Sed inlerim non. allegal ex 1'alribus.nisi Basiiium,
in quaestionibus brevioribus. quat^st, 288. de quo
leslimonio disscruimus cap. 8. ubi cUam soiuUo-
ncm Remnilii refutavimus, Ex Sciipturis allegal
mulla testimonia: sed quae nihil ad rem faciunt ,
cum omnia (uno excepto) de confcssione illa tra-
ctent, quae erat in usu,anlequam conlessio sacra-
menlalis instilueretur, dc qua sola nos loquimur.
Tcstimonium unicum ex Act. 10. ad rcm lacit,sc(l
de co disseruimus supra cap. 4. ubi ctiain dispu-
tationem Remnilii excussimus.
Quarlum genus conlcssionis esL , cum aliquis
publice, coram coetu Ecclesiaecrimina confitcliir:
ad quod geiuis pcrlinenl ctiam V. VI. Vll. ct Vlll.
De quibus nihil hoc loco dicendum crit: nam loca
Irenaei. TertuIIiani, Origenis et Cypriani , quac
Remnitius de confessione publica cxponit , supra
a nobis sunt explicata, cap. G. ct 7. De historia
autem Neclarii, et testimoniis Chrysoslomi et Leo-
nis, cx quibns demonslrarc conatur Rcmnilius ,
confcssionem publicam mulatam fuisse in priva-
lam, et neutram esse necessariam jure divino ,
paulopost disseremus. Isla enim ad argumenla
perlincnl. quibus veritas ab adversariis oppugna-
tur, non ad explicanda lcstimonia Palrum, quae
nos pro vcritatc addr.ximus:hic vcro non argumcn-
ta a(Jvcrsariorum dissolvcnda. sed noslra, quae w
tcstimoiiiis Patrum pelila sunt, a Remnilii cuhim-
niis asscrcnda sus(;epimiis.
Est igitur Nonum ac poslrcmum genus confcs-
sionis apud Rcmnitium.cum aliquis conlilclur pri-
vatim sacerdoti peccata sua, non quia sit necessa-
rium jure divino confiteri omnia pcccata in spo-
cie, ad remissionem pcccali ohtincndam, sed quia
est iililisdisciplina confcssio ilja privala , qua sa-
cerdoti pcccata aliqua dctcgiinliir. Primo , ad in-
slructionem rudiorum. Secundo, ad remcdia con-
Ira pcccata fiilura. Tcrtio,ad consilium capiendum
in rebiis dubiis. Quarlo, ad consolationcm rcci-
picndam cx privala absoliitionc.Quinlo, ad disccr-
ncndum, an qiii absoluUonem pclit, sit vcre poc-
nilcns. nccne? Atque huc rcfcrt Remnitiiis mulla
loca Patrum. Chrysoslomi, Ongcnis, Cypriani, l>a-
silii. Ilieronymi, AiigiisUni, Ambrosii et Cassiani.
Circa lianc sohiUoncm, ipiati polissima cst, Iria
hrevilcr observaiida sunt. Primnm. esl lUMiiniUum
plaiic invitiim ad hanc solulioiicm dcsccndissc.
Na'n cum sacpe antea dixissei , confcssioncm pri-
valam nalam esse ex confcssiom" puhlica.cl nolas-
sct eliam tcmptis, quo confcssio puhlica in priva-
lam fucrit coinmutata. anmim vidcliccl i.">(). ab ad-
vcntii Domini, ct dcniquc addidissel, conlcssio-
ncm aiiricularcm poslcrioribiis tciuporil)Tis,ut i|)sc
loquilur, gcneralain: nihil conse^piciitius dicijrii
poliiissct, qiiam vctercs Patres , (pii antc annum
I)omini ^'M). scripsenint , privatac conft!ssioiii.s
niimqiiam mcminisse. Sed non permisit cum cvi-
(lcnlia rci lam apertc menliri: ct ideolicel invitu.-5,
admisil, imillas cxslare scnlenlias vclcrum Palruiii
r.08
1)K POLMrKNTIA
dp rmiressionc privala: El ilhi (/u/(/e»i.iiuiiiil p;ii».
1015. (/H(i<*/t(ic/eM»s ex Patribus nnnolaviinus ,
mt ea fnttissitnum criminn spfi-ltint.proptor ijnad
rj'communicari (i/k/ujs mcrrtxilur, sicul Auiju-
^Unus inquil, sji'c Ula csM'nt palam, sivc clani ,
!,ive lunluni voluntatis proposito commissa. I\'on
dissimuUmdum tamcn cst, cxstarc praclcrca a-
pud iclcrcs, inullas scntcnlias, quihus cvliortan-
tur populum,ut alia ctiam pcccala sacordoti pcr
tonfcssioncm cxpon mt. Kl iiirra: .•l//(fs vcro lia-
Inierunt rationcs sancti 1'atrcs. pro])lcr quas ct
>cn'arunt cl commcndarunt privatam confcssio-
netn.
Seciitulu: ObsiMv.uuhim ost, in Ii;u" pnslroin;i
hoiniiilii solulioiio. (luo (]ii;ieiliiiii pri)|u)iii. Unuiii
iicgando. Alloruin ass(^rtMuln. I\e|?;il eniin Remiii-
lius, sanctos Palres comm(Miil;ire confessioncm
privataui omnium pi^cciilorum.ul necessarinm juro
.iivino .\sseril aulem. eos coinmendarc privalam
confcssioncm aliquorum |)eccalorum. tamquam u-
lilem (li>cipliiiam ;ul nuliiim inslruclionem : aiJ
rcinedium coiUra fiilura [)eccala; ad consiiium ;
;id consolalionem: ad sijjnum verae Poftnilenliac :
t^onsidcrandumcst. iiiquil pngina 1015. quara-
tione. quo scnsu, el in (picm ftnem privatam il-
tam confcssionem commcndnrint: nullo modo
cnivi senserunt jure divino ad rcmissionem pec-
I atorum neccssariam cssc . omnia pcccata in
specic, ct siiimalini saccrdoli juxta omnes cir-
cum.^^tantias enumcrare. El infra : Alias vero ha-
huerunl rationcs. proptcr quas, el servarunl et
commcndarunl privatam confcssionem . quia
scilicet sil utilis disciplina, pnmo ad rudiorum
informationem etc.
Ex liis aulem duobus, id quod asserendo propo-
iiilur. libenler adinillimus: babet enim sacramcn-
l.ilis confessio quinque illas utililales , et alias
praeterea non paucas: sed quod negando assumi-
lur, id oninino falsum csse dicimus, ct a Remni-
iio non modo non esse probalum, sed ne probari
tpiidcm potuisse. Palresenira. quos hoc loco ad-
»!ucil Remnilius (uno excepto Cassiano, de quo in
solulione arj^umentorum dicemus) nibil alind do-
cenl, nisi. confilondum esse peccala sacerdoli ad
eiim modum, quo morbi :ib aegrotis aperiunlur
medico. Ex bac aulein similitudine non scquitur ,
confessionem non debcrc essc omnium peccato-
rum. aul non esse necessariam jure divino: sed
conlrarium potius sequitur, nam el morbi neccs-
sario dfbeut omnes apcriri medico, et jure divino
lenemur noii minus animae, quam corporis medi-
cinam quaerere, ut nos supra dedu\imus,cuni isla
ipsa P.ilrum leslimonia adducercmus. Quarc ta-
inelsi P.ilres. quos cil;it Reninilius, non dicant di-
serlis verbis confcssionem omiiium peccatorum
uccessari.im esse jure divino (quod unum ipse ur-
:,'»'l) liimen neque diserlis verbis dicunt,confe5sio-
iiem oninium peccatorum non esse neces^ariam
iure divino:quod quideni boc loco nobis sufTiccrct,
ad refellendam Remnilii vanilatem: el ex similitu-
dine. qiiam adducunt, colligimus id eos sensisse.
<|uod iios .sentimus , quodque alii omnes Patres
ienserunl cl docuerunt.
lerlio ac po.tremo obscrvanduriL esl , Kerani-
lium nc in liac quidcm lUMia snlulione oiiiniiio ;u'-
(piievisse. I\am poslea(piani omnia dixcral . quae
;ul cxplicaiida lcstimoiii;i l\ilruin dicciid;\ esse ju-
dic;iverat, iiddidit p;ig. 1020. iiivciiiri ;ipud Palrcs
seiitciitias cliam duriorcs, (piiic ad ncccssil;item
coiifcssionis inclincnt: sed iis opponcndas cssc a-
li;is dissimilcs i';itruin senlcntias. llnqiic landcm
coiilitcri co;iclus cst, iioii possc ad omni;i Ioc;i vc-
lcrum Piitrum, quae calbolici pro sc adducunl ,
commodc rcsi)ondcri.