Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 17: The Fifth Argument of Calvin Is Dissolved; and the First Objection of Martin Chemnitz
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book III, the fourth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The last objection of Calvin is had in the same section 18, where he boasts that he has demonstrated from the word of God that men can be justified without confession or the vow of it: “The remission of sins,” he says, “is now no other than it always was. All who are read to have obtained the remission of sins from Christ are not read to have confessed into the ear of some sacrificer, nor indeed could they confess, where there were neither sacrificing confessors nor confession itself; and for many ages afterwards this confession was unheard of, in which sins were remitted without this condition. But that we may not dispute longer as about a doubtful matter, the word of God is clear, which remains eternal: Whenever the sinner shall groan, I will not remember all his iniquities. He who dares to add anything to this word binds not sins, but the mercy of the Lord.” This objection is contained in four members, as it were, which are to be sifted one by one. First Calvin assumes that the remission of sins is now no other than it always was; and because auricular confession was not always, he would have it gathered thence that it is not necessary for the justification of the wicked. But if this argument truly concluded anything, not only confession but Baptism also would be brought into peril; for as confession, so also Baptism was not always; and yet we read written, John 3, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”; which in the time of the old law was nowhere read. Wherefore if the remission of sins is now that which it always was, either Baptism is not now necessary, and Christ (which God forbid) lies; or from the beginning of the world Baptism of water and the Holy Spirit was necessary, which no one of sound mind can say. But as we demonstrate from the Gospel that Baptism is now required for the remission of sins, which in the old law was not required, because it is written, “Unless a man be born again,” and so on; so also we demonstrate from the Gospel that the confession of sins is necessary for justification at this time, which in the time of the Fathers of the Old Testament was not necessary, because it is written, John 20, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained”; which was not written in the old law. Then Calvin assumes that all those to whom Christ forgave sins were justified without auricular confession; from which he would have it concluded that now also men can be justified without auricular confession. But the solution is easy, and threefold. For first, at the time when Christ was justifying men by the ministry of his own voice, he had not yet instituted the sacrament of confession; therefore it is no wonder if he reconciled penitents without confession. Then, Christ, the author of the sacraments, did not depend on his sacraments, and therefore sometimes remitted sins not only without confession but even without Baptism. Lastly, Christ was God, and therefore could simply forgive sins committed against himself and his law; but we are ministers, and we loose or bind not as lords, but as judges constituted by the Lord; wherefore we must needs weigh the causes diligently, and judge from the very confession of the guilty what is to be done by us in so great a matter, lest perhaps we bind or loose wrongly, and while we remit sins to men, offend the Lord. Thirdly, Calvin assumes that for many ages afterwards this confession was unheard of. But that this is false Calvin himself witnessed in this same chapter, section 7, when he says: “I wonder with what face they dare contend that the confession of which they speak is of divine law, whose most ancient use we indeed confess.” And although Calvin did not say this, the testimonies brought by us, of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian and others, to which Calvin looked when he confessed the use of the confession of which we speak to be most ancient, would plainly prove that what the same Calvin says in this place is false, that for many ages after Christ this confession was unheard of. Fourthly and lastly he adds those words of Ezekiel, chapter 33: “Whenever the sinner shall groan, I will not remember all his iniquities.” From which he thinks it evidently concluded that sins can be remitted without confession or the vow of it. But Saint Leo was so far from fearing this argument that in the same letter 91 to Theodore he adduced this very place of Ezekiel, where a little before he had written that God had ordained that without the supplication of priests the divine indulgence cannot be obtained. And rightly it did not come into the mind of Saint Leo to fear this argument, since he was not ignorant that there is no one who groans as he ought who does not desire that those remedies be applied to the wounds of his soul which God has instituted according to the variety of times. Otherwise, if any groaning whatever simply sufficed for salvation, not only confession but Baptism also would not be necessary; I add also that men would be justified without faith, hope and charity; for who forbids that someone should groan for a temporal loss alone? As therefore in that groaning to which salvation is promised by God is included faith, hope, charity, the detestation of sin and the purpose of a better life, so also the vow and purpose of Baptism or of confession is contained; and as he does not add to the words of the Lord, but expounds them suitably, who for justification requires besides groaning faith, hope, charity and the other things we have said, so also he does not add, but expounds, who besides groaning requires the vow of Baptism or of confession.
Chapter XVIII. The first objection of Martin Chemnitz is dissolved
Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, page 976 and following, adduces many arguments against the necessity of confession, which, since they are almost all drawn from the Institutes of Calvin, can seem dissolved. Nonetheless I shall run through them all, either to solve them or to show that they are already solved. The first objection is had on page 986, where Chemnitz makes this argument: “Christ did not send the apostles otherwise than he himself had been sent, John 20: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. But he imparted absolution on a general confession, expressed either by the mouth or by other signs, and did not exact the enumeration of single sins, as is plain from Luke 7 of the sinful woman, and Matthew 9 of the paralytic; therefore ministers ought not to exact from penitents the enumeration of single sins.” I answer that those words, “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you,” are not so to be taken as if the apostles ought to have done all things in the same manner in which they were done by Christ himself; for otherwise the apostles ought not, Acts 2, to have baptised for the remission of sins, because Christ remitted sins without Baptism to Magdalen and the paralytic; nor ought they, Acts 8, to have given the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, because Christ gave the Holy Spirit not by imposing hands but by breathing, John 20. Christ therefore sent the apostles as he himself had been sent by the Father, because he gave them the power of binding and loosing, as he himself had received it from the Father; which is the exposition of Chrysostom. But yet he himself received it as Son, and therefore such and so great that he could justify even without the sacraments; but he gave it to the apostles as ministers and servants, and thereby far less, and bound to the sacraments and other means instituted by himself. Christ also sent the apostles as he himself had been sent by the Father, because he sent them for that for which he himself had been sent, namely to reconcile men to God, to preach the Gospel, to propagate the Church; which is the exposition of Cyril. Lastly, Christ sent the apostles as he himself had been sent by the Father, because he sent them not to delights but to the cross, although he loved them vehemently; as he himself was loved by the Father with infinite love, and yet was sent to passion and death, not to the joys of the world; which is the explanation of Saint Gregory, homily 26 on the Gospels.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Ultima Calvini objectio habetur in eadem sectio-
ne 18. ubi ex verbo Dei jactat se demonslrasse,si-
ne confessione ant ejus voto, posse homines jusli-
lioari: Non alia, inquit, nunc est peccatorum re-
m.issio, quam sempcr fuit.Quotquot remissionem
pcccatorum a Christo ohtinuisse leguntur , non
lcgunlur in aurcm sacrificuli cujusdam confessi,
iiec sane confiteri polerant , ubi nec sacrificuli
confessionarii erant,nec ipsa etiam confessio : et
multis poslea saeculis inaudita fuit liaoc confes-
sio, quihus sine liac condilio7ie remiUebantur
peccata. Sed ne quasi dc re dubia longiwi disce-
plemus: verbum Dei apertum est^qnod aelernum
mancl: Qnotiescumque ingemuerit peccalor. o-
mnium iniquitafum ejus non reeordahor. lluic
verho, qvi aliquidaudet adjiccrc, non peccaia
ligat, sed Doniini misericordiam.
Ilaec objeclio (|ualuor quasi mcmbris continc-
tur, qiiae singillalim excutienda sunl. Primum as-
suinit Calvinus. non alia esse nunc remissionem
peccatorum, quam sempcr fuit: et quia confessio
auricularis non semper luit, inde colligi vult, eam
non esse ad justificationem impii nccessariani.
Sed si liaec argumentatio aliquid vere conclude-
rel, non solum confessio. scd eliara Baptisraus in
discrimen adduceretur: Nam ut confessio, ita et-
iain Baptismus non semper fuil.et tamen scriptum
legiraus Joan. ^.Nisi quis renatus fuerii cx aqua.
et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in rcgnum coelo-
rmH.-quae tempore lcgis vetcris nusquam legeban-
tur. Quare si nunc est remissio peccatorum, quae
semper iuit; aul Baplismus nunc necessarius non
est, et Chrislus (quod absil) mentilur; aut ab ini-
tio saeculi,Baptismus ex aqua et Spiritu sancto nc-
cessarius fuit, quod nemo sanae mentis dicere po-
test. Quemadmodum autem ex evangclio dcinon-
slramus, nunc Daplismum ad reinissionem pecca-
torura requiri.qui in legc veteri non recjuirebatur:
quia scriplum est: Nisi quis renaius fuerii e^c.sic
eliain ex evangelio deraonstraraus, confessionem
pcccalorum ad jiistilicationem hoc terapore neces-
sariara esse, quae lempore Patrura Testamenli ve-
leris necessaria non eral: quia scriptum est Joan.
20. Quorum remiserUis peccala, remittuntur eis,
ei quorum reiinueriiis, retenta sunt :{)uo(\ in lege
vcteri scriplum non erat.
Deinde assumit Calvinus,eos omnes,quibusChn-
slus peccata dimisit, sine confessione auriculari
justiiicatos fuisse; ex quo concludi vult; nunc et-
iain sine confessionc auriculari homines justificari
posse. *
Sed facilis est solutio. eaque triplex. Primum e-
nim quo tempore Cnristus propriae voois rainistc-
rio horainesjuslilicabal,nondum sacramenlumcon-
fessionis instiluerat: proinde nihil est mirum, si
absque conlcssione poenitenles reconciliavit.Dein-
de Christus auctor sacramentorura, a sacrainenlis
suis non dependebat, et ideo non rnodo sine con-
fessione, sed etiam sine Baptismo peccata inter-
dum remillebat.
Denique Christus Deus eral,cl ideo peccata con-
tra se, suamque legem facta, simpliciler donare
poteral: nos autcm ministri sumus.neque ut Domi-
ni, sed ut judiccs a Domino consliluli, vel solvi-
mus vel ligamus: quare necesse habemus, causs.is
diligenter expendere,et cx ipsa reorura confessio-
ne dijudicarc, quid in re tanla sit nobis agendum,
ne forle perperara ligemus, aut solvamus, cl dum
hominibus peccata remittimus, Dominum offen-
damus.
Tertio Calvinus assumit, multis poslea sacculis
inauditam fuisse hanc confessionem.
Sed hoc falsum essc, Calvinus ipse tesialiis csl
in hoc eodem capite § 7.cum ail:Mi/ior qua fronte
ausint contendcre . confessionem , de qua lo-
quuniur.juris cssc divini:cujus equidemvetustis-
simum es.se usuni fatemur.VA (piamvis id Calvinns
noii (licerol,lcslimonia a nobis allata, Ircnaei,Tcr-
tulliani, Origenis, Cypriani ct aliorum , ad quac
Calvinus rcspcxit, cuin usuin confessionis, dc (|ua
loqiiimur, vetustissiiniim essc confessus cst, planii
evinccrent, falsiim csse quod lioc loco idcm Calvi-
nus ait, multis saeculis posl Clirisltim inaudilam
fuisse lianc confessionem.
ios
l)i: POI-INITKINilA
tjuarlo diMiiqin* jidjuii}-!! vi'r!)a illa Kzecliiolis,
«•ap. j:i. Quolie^cumqitc iiuicniucvH pcvvdtor o-
viJiiuin iniquidiluin cju^ noii rccovdahor.llK (lui-
bus evideiilor fDUcludi evisliinal, siue coulossioiie
uul ejus volo, reinilli posse peccala.
Sed lioc iir^nimcnlum ;i{lco uoii limuil s. Leo. ut
in eadcMn epi>l. i)l. .id Tli'.'oduruiu,liuiic ipsuiu h)-
cuin KzecliJelis adduxenl, ubi paulo anlc scripse-
ral, Deuiii ordinassc, ul sine sacerdoluiii supplica-
lione indulj^enlia diviiia nO(]ueal oblineri. Ki jure
iion vcuit lu mouleiu s. Leoui,ul hoc arguiueiiliiiii
linieret, cuin non ij^noraret neuiinem esse, qui, ul
oporlcl, iii^einiscal. qui non cupial ea rcmedia a-
iiimae suae vulneribus applicari, quae Deus pro
lomporuin varietale instituil. Aliocpii si simpliciler
j,'einilus quicuinque sulllcerol ad saluiem, non so-
lum coiilessio, scil etiaiu l}a[)lisinus neccssarius
iion csset; addo etiaiu, sine lidc, spc ct charilatc
homincs juslilicandos; quis enim prohibel,quo nii-
nus ol) sokiiu lcmporale damiiuin aliquis ingeini-
scal? OueuKulmodum ij^ilur iu eo geinitu,cui salus
a l)'^o proiuillilur, includilur lides, spes, charitas,
pcccati detestalio el proposituir» vilae mcli()ris,ila
cliam Baplismi aul confcssionis votiim ac proposi-
lum coulinelur; ct sicul non addil ad vcrba Domi-
ni. sed iUa congruenler exponlt, qui ad juslifica-
tionem pracler gemilum. Iidcm, spem, charilalem,
cl alia quae dixiinus, cxigil; sic ctiaui uon addit,
scd expouil. qui praeler gcinilum, votum Baplismi
aul confessionis reipiirit.
CAI»UT .Wlil.
DUuitur I. ohjeclio Marlini Kemnilii.
Marlinus Rcmnilius in 2. par. exam. pag. 976.
et sequentibus mulla argumenla contra necessita-
teru cnnfessionis adducit,quae cum ex Calvini insti-
tuiionibus fere deprompia sinl , dissolula videri
possunt. Percurram nihilorainus omnia, ul vel ea
solvam, vel jam solula esse oslendam.
1'rima objcclio habelur pagina 986. ubi hoc ar-
gumentura Remnilius facit: Non aliter Chrislus
aposlolos misit, quam ipsc inissiis fuerat. Joan.
20. .Sicut misil mc, Pater. et eyo mitto vos. At ipse
ad rjeneralem confessionem, vel ore, vel siqnis
iiliis cxpressam, absolutionemimpertiebatur,ne-
que singulorum peccatorum enumerationem exi-
qpbat. utpaiel Luc. 7. de peccatrice, ct Mitth.d.
de paralytico: nonigitur debenl ministri a poe-
mtenlibus exigere singulorum peccatorum enu-
merationem.
Respondeo: Yerba illa: Sicut niisit mc Paler et
cgo milto vos. nou ila accipienda esse, quasi eo-
dem modo debuerinl aposlolis omnia facere.quo a
Clirislo ipso Gebanl: alioqui enim iion debuissent,
Actor. 2. aposloli baplizare in remissionera pecca-
toruin, quia Christus sine Bnplismo peccala remi-
sil Magdalenae et paralylico; nec debuissent Acl.
8. per iraposilioncm nianuum Spirilum sanclum
dare, (|uia Cliristus non manus imponendo,sc(l in-
sumaiido S;)iritiiiu sanclum dedit, .loan. 20.
Igiliir luisil Chrislus aposu^los, sicut i|)sc niis-
sus luoral a Patre: quia polcslalom eis dodil ligaii-
di el solvendi. ul ipsc a Patre acceperat: quac csl
Chrysoshjmi oxposilio. Sod tamcn uccepil ipse ul
Filius. cl proiiulc tidom ac laiilam , ut possot et-
iam sine sacramentis juslilicare: dedit autvMu eam
aposlolis, ul minislris ac sorvis, ac per hoc lorigc
miuorom ol saorauiculis, aliisque lucdiis a se in-
slilulis aiii^alam.
Misit cliani Chrislus aposlolos, ut ipse a Patro,
raissus fiicral, (piia ad id eos misit, ad quod ipso
fucrat uiissus,videlicot ad rcconciliandos houiincs
Deo, ad evangelium praodicandum, ad Ecclcsiam
propagandam; quae esl exposilio Cyrilli.
Donique misit Christus aposlolos, ul ipse a Pa-
tre niissus fuerat: quia misit eos, non ad delicias,
sed ad crucem, licel vehementer an)aret:qucuiad-
moduin ipse a Palre inlinilo amore diligebatur, el
tamen ad passionera cl morlein , non ad miindi
gaudia miltebatur: quae est explicalio s. Gregoni
homil. 26. in evangelia.