Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book III: On Confession
Chapter 19: The Second, Third and Fourth Objections of Chemnitz Are Dissolved, with Those of Brenz
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 second objection of Chemnitz is had from page 1007 to page 1014, where he draws an argument from the history of Nectarius, of which this is the sum: “Public confession was abrogated and changed into private by the bishops in the time of the emperor Decius and afterwards. But private confession was abrogated in the time of Nectarius; therefore neither public nor private confession is necessary by divine law; for those holy Fathers would not have dared to take away a divine law.” Chemnitz confirms this argument also from the history of Socrates, book 5, chapter 19, where we read that a certain woman confessed to the penitentiary presbyter kata meros, that is, in part; from which it follows that it was not then necessary by divine law to confess all sins entirely. He confirms it again from the same history, where we read that there was one penitentiary presbyter in the Church of Constantinople. For hence we gather that it was not necessary at that time that each should confess all sins; for in so large a city, where there were sixty presbyters in the time of Justinian, one presbyter could not have heard so many and such long confessions. I answer that this whole argument is patched together out of ignorance. For what Chemnitz says in the first place, that public confession was abrogated by the bishops in the time of Decius, is false, and proceeds from manifest ignorance. For what Sozomen wrote according to the version of Cassiodorus in the Tripartite History, book 9, chapter 35, that it seemed good to the priests from the beginning that sins should be laid open as in a theatre, Chemnitz refers to those times which preceded the Novatian heresy and the reign of Decius. Then he would have that constitution about making public confession abrogated by the bishops who were in the time of the Novatian heresy, in the reign of Decius, and this to be that appendix of which Socrates speaks. But he wanders the whole breadth of heaven. For Sozomen, when he says (according to the version of Cassiodorus) that it seemed good to the bishops who were from the beginning that sins should be laid open as in a theatre, speaks of the constitution made in the time of the Novatian heresy, not of some other earlier one; and this very constitution, and not the abrogation of this constitution, is the appendix of which Socrates speaks; therefore so far was public confession from being abrogated in the time of Decius, that rather it was then first commanded by the bishops. And that this is so is proved, first: if the bishops in the time of Decius had abrogated public confession, and had wished only private to be retained, as Chemnitz says, that would not have been an appendix, or addition to the ancient canon, but rather a subtraction or abrogation of the ancient canon. But it was truly an addition and appendix, as Socrates witnesses, and as Chemnitz also calls it, which the bishops made in the time of Decius; therefore they did not abrogate public confession, but rather added it to private. Secondly, if in the time of Decius public confession had been abrogated, the scandal in the time of Nectarius could not have happened from confession, nor would there have been any cause why Nectarius should remove the penitentiary presbyter from the Church; for it is settled from Socrates that that scandal was born from the public confession of the woman. Thirdly, Sozomen writes that the penitentiary presbyter was constituted by those same bishops who had decreed that sins were to be laid open publicly as in a theatre. But that the penitentiary presbyter was constituted in the time of Decius Socrates writes; therefore that decree about making confession publicly was published by those bishops who were in the time of Decius, and not by more ancient ones, as Chemnitz dreams. Nor does it stand in the way that Sozomen says that that decree was made by the bishops who were from the beginning; for those who were in the time of Decius are said to have been from the beginning because they were next to the apostolic times, and were much more ancient than Nectarius, who took away their decree, or Sozomen, who related it as taken away. Fourthly, Sozomen writes that the decree of the bishops who were from the beginning, and who constituted the penitentiary presbyter, was abrogated by Nectarius. But it is settled from Socrates that the decree abrogated by Nectarius was that of the bishops who governed the churches in the time of Decius; therefore the bishops who in Sozomen are said to have been from the beginning and those who in Socrates are said to have been in the time of Decius are the same. Wherefore the appendix of which Socrates speaks is the very constitution of which Sozomen speaks, and not its abrogation, as Chemnitz feigns without any cause. Further, this foundation being overthrown, the whole edifice of Chemnitz’s argument falls. For what Chemnitz affirms in the second place, that private confession was abrogated by Nectarius, rests on a false foundation, namely that the appendix to the ancient canon which Nectarius took away was the change of public confession into private. Besides, in chapter 14 we demonstrated against Calvin that public, not private, confession was abrogated by Nectarius. And what Chemnitz says in the first confirmation, that a certain woman confessed in part, and not entirely, is born of a perverse interpretation of the Greek word; for that kata meros does not signify in this place “in part,” but “particularly,” as John Christopherson rendered it, in the judgement of all most skilled in the Greek tongue. From which we understand that that woman confessed all her sins in particular, as Catholics do, and not in general, as the Lutherans do. Lastly, what Chemnitz adds in the second confirmation, that so many confessions could not be heard by one presbyter, has already been explained above in the solution of the second objection of Calvin, chapter 14, where we showed that that presbyter did not have to hear the confessions of all penitents, but only of those who were doing public Penance.
Chapter XX. The third objection of Chemnitz is dissolved, and at the same time the objections of Brenz
The third objection of Chemnitz, which is had on page 1019, is taken from the testimonies of the Fathers; and besides certain places of Saint John Chrysostom, to which answer has been made above in chapter 15, he adduces first Cassian, who in conference 20, chapter 8, speaks thus: “But if, shame drawing you back, you blush to reveal it before men, do not cease to confess with continual supplication to him whom you cannot escape, who is accustomed both to cure without any publication of shame, and to forgive sins without reproach.” But there can be no doubt that Cassian followed his teacher Chrysostom, and therefore that these his words are to be taken in the same sense in which we demonstrated in chapter 15 that the words of Chrysostom are to be taken; although the words of Cassian are more easily explained, since they have nothing joined to them by which private confession would seem to be excluded. For what he says in the plural number, “If you blush to reveal it before men,” pertains to public confession, which was accustomed to be made before many; but what he adds, that one must confess to God, can conveniently be taken of the confession which is made to God through the priest. For those circumstances, “who is accustomed both without publication of shame, and without reproach, to forgive sins,” indicate clearly enough that that confession is marked from which publication and reproach followed; which two are far removed from secret confession, which is made to one man alone, as holding the place of God. In the second place he adduces Origen, who in homily 2 on Leviticus enumerates various ways by which sins are purged, and among them sets confession which is made to a priest; from which it follows that, although the confession of sins made to a priest is useful, yet it is not necessary. But the answer is easy. For those ways which Origen sets down in that place are not all and each sufficient of themselves for the remission of sin, but most of them include the others, at least in vow; for these are the ways which he enumerates: Baptism, martyrdom, alms, the forgiving of injuries, the conversion of a sinner, charity and Penance, or confession. But it is certain that alms alone, or the forgiving of injuries, or the rest which are enumerated there, without Baptism in fact or in vow, do not suffice for justification, although they help in their own way; and as for the unbaptised those do not suffice without Baptism, so also for the baptised those do not suffice without confession, in fact or in vow. Lastly, let the Lutherans observe that among so many ways enumerated by Origen no place has been given to faith, to which alone they are accustomed to attribute justification; from which they are compelled to admit, even against their will, that none of those ways suffices of itself alone. Hither can be referred two other testimonies of the Fathers, which were omitted by Chemnitz, but cited by Brenz in the Württemberg Confession, chapter on confession. The first testimony is that of Augustine, book 10 of the Confessions, chapter 3, where we read thus: “What have I to do with men, that they should hear my confessions, as if they were going to heal all my sicknesses; a race curious to know another’s life, slothful to correct their own?” But this is nothing else than to impose on the simple; for no one reads those books who does not know that the confession of which Augustine speaks is not sacramental confession, but the confession of past sins, forgiven through Baptism, instituted for that end, that from it the mercy of God might be known and praised. The other testimony is that of Ambrose, book 10 on Luke, chapter 22, where we read thus: “Peter grieved and wept, because as a man he erred; I do not find what he said, I find that he wept; I read his tears, I do not read his satisfaction.” And below: “Let tears wash away the fault which it is a shame to confess with the voice.” I answer first that at that time sacramental confession had not yet been instituted, and therefore it is no wonder if Peter’s confession is not read. Then I say that Saint Ambrose speaks of tears which contain a certain confession, as when someone convicted of an error by another confesses the error not with the voice but with tears. For so Saint Peter, since he knew that his crime was known to Christ, confessed not with the voice but with tears; which altogether suffices in the confession which is made to God, who knows all things. And that Saint Ambrose acknowledged a confession in the tears of blessed Peter is clear from those words: “Peter preferred to accuse his sin, that he might be justified by confessing, rather than be burdened by denying. For the just man in the beginning is the accuser of himself; and therefore he wept.” Likewise from those: “Bashful tears speak the fault without horror; tears confess the crime without offence to bashfulness.” Wherefore all are to be taken of the confession which is made to God, or even to a man who has known the crime before.
Chapter XXI. The fourth objection of Chemnitz is solved
The fourth objection of Chemnitz is had on page 1021, where six causes are enumerated on account of which the Lutherans rejected the confession in which all sins are enumerated: “This is,” he says, “that old butchery of consciences, which our churches have shaken off with the sword of the Spirit, for many most grave causes. First, because it is imposed on consciences, though it has neither the precept nor the example of Christ or of the apostles. Secondly, it has no promise in the word of God. Thirdly, it transforms the Gospel into law; for it makes remission depend on enumeration. Fourthly, it substitutes for gratuitous forgiveness the merit of enumeration and satisfaction; that confession is meritorious for the remission of guilt, the diminution of punishment, the opening of paradise and the confidence of salvation the Scholastics expressly hand down. Fifthly, it brings the conscience into doubt and despair by that scrupulous enumeration; for seeing that it cannot gather all its offences, it never rests; but doubt extinguishes faith. Sixthly, it exacts an impossible thing, for it is settled that we neither understand nor remember very many sins, according to that: Who can understand sins?” I answer that those causes are as true as that sentence is elegant in which it is said that a butchery is shaken off with a sword. And that the first cause is false can be learned from those things which have been disputed by us above, where from the Gospel, from the Acts of the Apostles and from the epistles of Paul, John and James we deduced the confession of all sins. That the second cause is false those words of the Lord witness, John 20: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” For (as we taught above) priests cannot know which sins it behoves them to remit and which to retain unless they know the sins themselves fully and entirely. Likewise those of 1 John 1: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins.” The third cause contains a manifest calumny and lie. For Catholics do not teach that remission so depends on enumeration that unless someone can enumerate all his sins he cannot be reconciled; since it can easily happen that, either through forgetfulness or through ignorance, someone opens scarcely the least part of his crimes, and yet is absolved, and is believed truly absolved from all his sins. Nor indeed does whoever exacts the condition of some work for justification convert the Gospel into law, unless we wish to deny the whole Gospel. For what do those words sound, “Unless a man be born again,” and so on, John 3, and, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” and so on, John 6, and, “Unless you shall do penance,” and so on, Luke 13, and, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” Matthew 19, and very many others, but a condition? Then, if whoever said that the remission of sins depends in some way on the enumeration which is made in confession before a priest converted the Gospel into law, he would fall into the same error who said that remission depends on the enumeration which is made in confession before God. But this very thing Chemnitz affirms in express words from the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, page 982, where he speaks thus: “The Fathers say that sins are to be revealed in confession, weighed in kind, more curiously examined, explained, disclosed, enumerated; they say that sins are loosed through confession; that it is impossible to be saved without confession. But Chrysostom adds the interpretation, that these things are to be understood not of the outward confession to be made to a man, but of the inward, which is made to God.” So he. I do not now dispute whether the sentences of the Fathers admit that interpretation, and whether they pertain to that confession alone which is made to God; but yet no one, I think, will be so senseless as not to see that Chemnitz admits from the opinion of the Fathers what a little after he reprehends in Catholics, namely that remission depends on enumeration. The fourth cause is like the third. For the Scholastic doctors do indeed hand down that both confession and satisfaction contribute much to salvation; but they neither say that through confession we merit the remission of sins, except perhaps by congruity, nor do they substitute the merit of enumeration for gratuitous forgiveness; for these are lies of Chemnitz, not the opinions of theologians. Further, far greater praises of confession are extant among the Fathers than among any Scholastics, so that it is a wonder that Chemnitz reprehends in the Scholastics what he cannot deny is found much more abundantly in the ancient Fathers. And to relate a few by way of example: that sentence is Saint Ambrose’s, book 2 On Penance, chapter 6: “The bashful confession of sins looses the knots of crimes.” Those are the words of Saint Pacian, in the exhortation to Penance: “Remember hell, which exomologesis extinguishes for you.” That is Saint John Chrysostom’s, homily 20 on Genesis: “The confession of sins is the abolition of offences”; who also in homily 5 on Genesis had said before that by confession sins are washed away, and the confidence of salvation given at the end. And (to omit the rest) did not Chemnitz himself a little before note from the Fathers that sins are loosed through confession, and that it is impossible to be saved without confession? Nor does it matter that Chemnitz would have the sentences of the Fathers understood of the confession which is made to God. For if the power and efficacy which the Scholastics attribute to the confession which is made to a priest were repugnant to gratuitous forgiveness, the power and efficacy which the Fathers attribute to the confession which is made to God would be repugnant too; for each confession is our work. The fifth and sixth causes, that that enumeration is impossible and leads to despair, have already been refuted above, and can again be refuted from Chemnitz himself. For if the enumeration in the confession which is to be made before a priest leads to despair and is impossible, the same certainly can be said of the enumeration in confession before God; or rather those will far more easily despair who will have to enumerate all their sins before God, who can in no way be deceived, than those who are going to do it before men. But Chemnitz admitted, page 982, that sins are to be explained, enumerated and confessed in kind before God, and that without that confession it is impossible for a man to be saved. Wherefore he is now necessarily compelled either to embrace and defend that butchery which he had boasted he had shaken off with the sword of the Spirit, or certainly to concede that the enumeration which Catholics exact is neither impossible, nor leads to despair, nor can be called a butchery.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX.
Dihiitur II. objcctio Kemnilii.
Secunda objectio Kemnitii habelur pag. 1007.
iisque ad pag. 1014. ubi argumentura ciucit ex hi-
sloria Noclarii, cujus haec surama: Confessio pu-
blica abrogata fuil et mutata in privatam ab e-
piscopis, lempore Decii imperaloris et postea.
Confessio autem privata abrogata fuit temporc
Nectarii: igitur nec publica, nec privata confes-
sio necessaria estjure divino; neque enim sancti
illi Patres jus divinum tollere ausi fuissent.
Connrmat eliam hoc argumentura Ivemnitius ex
Iiisloria Socratis lib 5. cap. 19. ubi legimus raulie-
reiu quaiidam coufessara esse presbylero poenilcu-
liario xa-a \}.if^i,, idest, ex parle : ex quo se-
quilur, non fuisse lunc necessariura, confilcri o-
mnia peccala integre jure divino.Confirraal rursus
et eadem hisloria, ubi legiraus, unuin luisse pre-
sbylerura poeuitenliariura in Ecclesia constanlino-
poiilana. Ilinc enim colligimus, non fuisse neces-
sariura eo lempore, ut singuli peccala omuia cou-
fitftrenlur;neque enim in tam ampla urbe,ubi eranl
60. presbyleri, tempore Jusliniani, poluissel unus
presbytcr, tol ac tam longas conlessiones audire.
Kespondeo: Tolura hoc argumenluin ex imperi-
lia coagmentalura esse.Nam quod prirao loco Rem-
nitius dicil.confessionem publicatn abrogalam fuis-
se tempore Decii ab episcopis, falsuin est, el ex
ignorantia manifesla profectura. Nam quod Sozo-
mcnus scrlpsit juxta GdemCassiodori inhisl.Tripar-
lila. lib. 9 cap, 33. visum esse sacerdolibus ab
inilio;ut peccata tamquam in theatro panderentur;
refert Remnilius ad ea tempora, quae Novalianam
haeresira, et iinperium Decii praecesscrunl. Dein-
de, vult istam constitutiouem de publica confessic-
LIBHH TKliTllS
7oy
110 facienJii aljiugalaiii lulsseab episcnpis,qiii fne-
runt leinpore hacrcsis INovalianae, Decio impcraii-
tc: el iiaiic esse appeiidicein illain,(Je qua lo(juitur
Socralcs.
Sed toto coelo aborral. Sozomcnus enim cuin di-
cit (juKla tidom Cassiodori) visum esse episcopis,
qiii al) initio fiieriiiU, ul poccala lainquaiii iu lliea-
tro pandorenlur; loquitur de constdutione facta
lempore iNovatianae liacresis; non de aliqua alia
prioro: et liaec ipsa conslitutio. noii autem tiujns
constilulionis abrogalio. ost appciidix, de qua lo-
quitur Socrates; proinde tantuni nbest. ut lempore
])t'cii fuorit abro^^ita confessio publica, ul polius
lunc primum fuoril ab opiscopis imporata.
Id autom ita essc probatur primo: Si episcopi
tcnipnre Decii abrogassenlconfessionem publicam,
ot snlum privalnm retineri voluissent.ul Remnitius
dicil: illii non fuissot appendix, sivc addilio ad ve-
lerem canonem, sed potius delractio, sive abroga-
tio votoris canonis. Al vera fuil additio atque ap-
j)endix, tcsle Socrate, ut eain etiain vocat Kemni-
tius, quam episcopi tempore Dccii fecerunt: crgo
non abrogarunl confessionein publicam, s<'d eain
potius addidorunt ad privatain.
Socundo: Si tompore Decii abrogala fuissel con-
fossio publica, non potuissel accid(!re scandalum
tempore Nectarii cx confessione, ncque ulla luis-
sel caiissa cur Nictarius presbyterum poenitentia-
rium de Ecclosia loUeret: constatenim ex Socralo,
scandalum illud cx publica conJessione mulieris
naliim esse.
Terlio: Sozomenus scribit, ab illis ipsis cpisco-
pis constjtutum fuisse presbytorum poonitonlia-
rium, qui decrevcranl,peccata quasi in tlieatro pu-
blice esse pandenda.Sed prcsbytcrum poenitentia-
rium constitutum fuisse lemporo Decii, scribil So-
crales: ergo decretum illud de confessione publice
facienda, ab episcopis illis editum ost, qui fuorunt
lemporo Decii,non autem ab antiquioribus,ut Kcm-
nitius somnial.
Neque obstat. quod Sozomenus dicat, decrctum
jlhid faclum esso ab episcopis, qui ab inilio fue-
rnnl: Nam qui luerunt tenipore Docii.dicunlur fuis*
se ab inilio, quia proximi fuerunt temporibus apo-
slolicis, ct rnullo antiquiores erant,quam essot I\e-
ctarius. qui docroturn illorum sustulit.aut Sozonie-
nus. qui sublatum retulit.
Quarto: Sozomenus scribil, decretum episcopo-
rum. qui ab inilio luerunt, quiqiie presbytorum
poenitontiarium constituerunt, a i>ectario abroga-
tum fiiisse.Constal autem exSocrate.a iVeclario ab-
rogatiim (lecrctum episcoporum, qui tomporoDe-
cii ocdosias giibornabanl:iidcin igitiir suntepisco-
pi. (pii ab inilio •ipud Sozomoniim. et qiii tomi)ore
I)ccii apud Socralem fuisse dicunlur.Quare appon-
dix. dc (pia lo(iuitur Socratos, ost ipsa (^onstitutio,
de qua loqiiilur Sozomonus, non aulcm ejiis abro-
galio. ut sine ulla caiissa (ingil Kemnilius.
Porro hoc fundamonto evorso,ruil aedificium to-
liim argiimonti K(!mnitiani.I\am quod sccundo lcco
Komnilius aHirnial.confessionom iirivatam abroga-
lam fuisse a Keclario, falso nititur hindamenlo,
quod vidolicet aiqjondix ad veterem canonom.quaiii
Nectarins siistulil, fuorit mutaiio confossiunis pu-
liEILAUMIiM Vol. II (.
blicae in privalam. Praclerea cap. 14. demonstra-
vimus contra Calvinum, confessionem publi(iam,
non aiitom privatam, a Neclario abrogalam Cuisse.
Quod ciiaiii Komnitius dicit in coiilirmalione pri-
ma; mulierem quandam confossam esse ex parle,
non autem integre: cx perversa interprelatione
graecae vocis natuin csl: illud eniin xa-a |J.2o6g
non significat lioc loco, ex parlo.scd particiilatim,
iit reddidit Joannes chrislopliorsonus. omnium ju-
dicio graocao lingiiac pcritissimus. Kk quo inlolli-
giinus, foeminam illam confossam osso in parlicu-
lari omnia peccala, ul catholici faciuiil,non aulem
gonor;ilim, ut faciunt Lutherani.
Quod donique in 2. conlirmationo Kemnilius ad-
dit: noii poluisse lol confossioiujs ab uno presby-
tero audiri jam supra explicalum esl in solutionc
2. objoctionis Calvini cap. 1i. ubi ostondimus,
presbyterum illuin;non oninium pocnitcntium con-
fessiones audire debuisse, sed corum tanlum, qui
publicam Poonitenliam agebant.
C.4PUT X.\.
DUiUiur III. objccUo hcmniln. cl simul
ohjeclioncs Brcntii.
Torlia objoctio Kcmnitii.quac habetur pag.1011).
siimilur a lostimoniis Patrunuao praoter loca quae-
dam s. Joannis clirysostomi, ad quae rcsponsuni
(\sl supra cap. 14. adducil primo Cassianum, qui
collal. 20. cap. 8. sic loquitur: Qnod si verccun-
dia rclrahcnle rcvelarc coram liominibus erubc-
scis. iUi quem Udere non possun/, confiteri ju()i
suppUealionc nondcsinas , qui et absque, uIUuh
verceundiae puhUcaiione eurare, ct sinc impro-
pcrio peccaUt donarc consuevll.
Scd iion potost dubium osse.(iuin Cassianusdu-
ctoreni suum Clirysoslomum sequulus sit.ot idoo in
ciindoin sensum haoc ejusvorba aocipicnda smt.in
quem accipienda esse diemonstravimus verba Cliry-
sostomi cap. 15. quamquam Cassiani verba facilius
cxplicentnr, cum nihil adjunclum habcanl, unde
excludi vidoatur confossio iirivala. Quod enim ille
dicil in nuiiicro mullitudinis: Si rcveUire cora.m
Iwminibus cruhescis, ad confessioncm publicam
porlinot, quao coram mullis liori sololial: quod au-
tem addit, Deo cssii conlitcndum. commodc accipi
potest (le conlessione, quae iil Dco per sacerdo-
tem. Nam ciroumslanliae illae: Qui el ahsque ce-
recunduie puhUcalione. et abs^iuc imnropcrio
peccala donare consucvU, salis apcrlc iiidicanl .
confcssionem illam nolari, ex qua publicalio . el
improporiiim scquebatiir: (luao duo longc; absunt
a confessione socrela, (piae sil uui soli , ut locum
Dei (enol.
Secundo loco adducit Origenom, qui liomil. 2.
iii Lovit. (•numorat viuios modos, quibiis peocala
piirganliir, (;l inlcr oos ponit conli;ssioiioin. quae
iit saccrdoli: e,\ quo socpiitnr, ul licct confessio
pi;ccalorum sacerdoti lacta. sit iitilis,non sillumon
necessaria.
90
710
UK l'Oi;.MII MIA
Scd Hicilis rsl lospoiisio. Modi siiiiiiiloin illi ,
«liios eo loi'o poiiil Orinfiics, iioii siiiil omiics ct
Miij^uli poy sc sulliciiMiU^s 11(1 pecroti roinissioiiLMi).
sed plcrique coiuiii iiicliKlunl ;ilios.s;\lUMii in volo:
iil suiil (Miiin niodi. (luos illo (MnimtMiil: lUtplia-
mns. maWiyrMtMJ.c/ctM/iosynd, injuriavv.m comlo-
nalio. convcrsio peccaloris. clLarilas ct Pocnihm-
lio, sivc confcssio. Cfrliim iiuUmii osl. sohim oIim;-
inosyiwnn. :iul iiijuri.K» coniionaliomMn. aul caclc-
r;i, quao ibi cniiimM;inlur sinc Baplismo in re vel
in volo. non snnicijrc lul juslilicalioiHMn. licot siio
nimlo juvcnl: cl (jncminlmodiim noii bapli/^Uis ill;i
nmi sullioiuiil sino Baplismo, il;i cliam l).ipli/.;ilis
illa non suflioiunt sinc confcssionc. in rc. v(M iii
volo. Doniiiuc obscrvcnl Liillicrani.inlcr tol modos
ab Orijicnc numcralos. luilhim locum lldci ossc
Inbutum. cui soli Iribuerc solcnl ipsi juslilic;itio-
nein: ex quo admitterc vel invili cos^nnlur. nulluin
eorum modorum pi^r sc sohim siilTiccrc.
Huc rcfcrri possunt duo ;ilia tcstimonia Palrum,
(juae omissa siinl a Rcmnilio. sed citala a Brcn-
lio in confessione wirtembergcnsi cap. de confes-
sione.
Primum lestimoninm esl Augnslini lib. 10. Con-
fcss. cap. li. ubi sic legimiis: Quid mihi csl cum
liominibmi. ut andianl confcssiones meas, quasi
ipsi sanaiuri !<inl omnes languores meos: curio-
snm genus ad cognoscendam alienavi vitam, de-
sidiosum ad corrigendam suam?
.Sed lioc nihil cst ;il!ud. nisi simplicibiis imiio-
ncre: nemo enim libros illos lcgit.qui nesci;U.con-
fessionem. de qua loquilur Aiigustinus, non cssci
confessionem s;icramciU;iIpm . scd confessioncm
peccatorum pr;u;lcrilorum. ac per Bnplismum di-
inissorum, ad eiim liniMn inslilulam.iU inde co^no-
scaiur et laudclur miscricordia Dei.
.\llerum lestimonium csl Ambrosii lib. 10. in
Luc. cap. 90. uhi sic iegimus: Petrus dohiit. ot
Jlevil. quia nt homo erravit, non invenio quid
dixe.rii. invenio quod flevit. lachrymas ejns le
go . saiisfaclionem non lego. Et Inlra: Lavent
laclirgmae delictum , quod voce pudor esl con-
fito.ri.
Ilt!spondco primum: Eo tcmporc nondiim insli-
liilam fuisse conressionem sacramerilalem, ac per
lioi- iiihil esse mirum, si Pelri confessio non lega-
lur. Dlco deindc s.Ambrosium loqui de lachrymis.
(liiae conlKSsionem qu;indam continenl, ul cum
quis conviclns erroris ab alio, non voce. sed la-
clirymis faletur errorem. Sic enim s. Petrus, cum
sciret Christo nolum fuisse crimen suum, non vo-
ce. scd iachryinis confessus est: id quod omuino
sulTicit in confessione, quae fit Deo.qul omnia no-
vil. Ouod aulem s. Ambrosiiis in lachrymis b. Pe-
iri cunfessionem agnovcrit. perspicuum esl ex illis
verbis: .llaluit Petrus suum accusare peccatum,
ut justificarelur fatendo , quani gravaretur ne-
g^uido. Justus cutm tn principio accusator est
sui: ct ideo flevil.hem i'\ illis:Fe?-ecimcZae lachrij-
mac sine horrore culpam loqmmtur: lachrgmae
crimen siae offemione verecundiae fatenlur.
Ouari omnia accipienda sunt dft confcssione quae
tii Ueo . aul eliaiu ho-iiini , qui crimen aiUea no-
verit.
CAPIT \XI.
Solvitur IV. objcclio licmnUii.
Ouarla Ivcmnilii objectio Inibclur pag. 1021. uhi
Sf'\ caussae numcraiUiir. oU (luas liiithcraiii reje-
ciMiiiU conrcssiDneiii, in qu:i (MiuiiKM-anliir omiiia
p(!cc;ila: llacc esl, imjuil. vetus illa carnificina
conscientiarum. quam gladio spirilus Kcclesiae
noslrae excusserunl, propter multas gravissimas
canssas. Primo , quia imponitar conscieiitiis,
cum nec Chrisii . nec apostolorum. vclpraccc-
■ptum. vel exemplum liabcat. Sccundo ,nullam in
verho Dci promissioncm habct. Tcrlio . cvangc-
lium transformat in legeni: slatuit cnini rcmis-
si(mcm penderc exenumeratiouc. Quarto, gra-
Ivilac condonalioni substitu.il merilum enumcra-
lionis cl sal.isfacllonis. Confcssionem meriloriam
esse ad culpae rcmissioneni, poenae diminutio-
nem. paradisi opertionem, el salulis fiduciam ,
Scholastici expresse tradunt. Quinto , conscien-
tiam adducit in dvbitationem ct dcsperationem,
scrupulosa illa enumeralionc : vidcns enim se
non possc omnia delicta colligerc, numquam ac-
quiescit: dubitalio vero extinguil fidem. Sexto ,
cxigii rem impossibilem, constat enim plurima
peccata nos inlclligere, nec mcminisse, juxta il-
lud. Dclicla quis intelligit.
Respondeo: Tam esse veras islas caussas, quam
esl elegans illa senloiitia, qua dicilur; carni!i(Mii;i
gladio exciiti. Ac primam quidem caussam falsain
esse. cognosci polesl ex iis, quae supra a nobis
dispulala sunl. ubi cx evangelio , ex Aclis apo^lo-
loriim et cx epislolis Pauli, Joannis et Jacobi,con-
fessionem dednximus omnium peccalorura.
Secnndam c;iussam f;ilsam esse . leslantur ilhi
verb;i Domini Joan. 20. Qiiorum remiseritis pec-
cata, remitluntur eis, el quorum retinueritis, re-
tenla sunt. Noque enim (ut supra docuimus)scire
possunt sacerdolos.quae peccala remittere,elquae
retinere eos oporle;il, nisi peccala ipsa plone al-
que integre noverint. Ilem illa 1. Jo. 1. Si confi-
ie.amnr peccata nostra, fidelis est eljustus,ulre-
miltat nobis peccata nostra.
Tertia caussa calumniam manifestam ac menda-
cium continel. Neque enim ita pendere remissio-
nem ab enumeratione. calholici docent , ul nisi
qiiis omnia pecc;ila enumerare potuerit, reconci-
Ii;iri ncqueat: siquidcm facile polest accidere , ut
vel propler oblivionem, vel propler ignorantiam ,
vix minimam parlem suorum criminum quis ape-
riat, cl tamen absolvilur, el vere absolulus crcdi-
lur ab omnibus pecc;Uis.
Neque vero evangclium in legem convertit, qui-
(Munqiie conditionem alicujus operis exigit ad ju-
stificationem, nisi lolum evangelium negare vcli-
mus. Qiiid enim sonant verba illa: Msi q^iis rcriu.-
tus fuerit etc. Joan. 3. et, Nisi ma,nducaveritis
carnemfilii hom.inis elc. Joan. 6. el. !\isi Poeni-
lentiam habueritis etc. Luc. 13. et, Si vis ad vi-
tam ingredi. serva mandata.Mnllh .M) .gI oUu per-
mulla.nisi condilionem? Deindc si evangelium in
logem converlerel,quicumque diccrcl rcmibsioncm
LlliKH IKUTIUS
711
peccalorum, pendere aliquo uiodo ab enuuieralio-
iie. quae fil iii conressiune coraui sacerdolc: in e-
undeni errorein inciderel,qui dicerel, reniissioneui
l^endere ab enuineralione. quac iit in confessione
corain Deo. At hoc ipsuni. ex doclrina velcruui Pa-
trum, diserlis verbis aifirmal Remnitius paii. 982.
ubi sic loquilur: Dicunl Palres pecrMta cunfessio-
nc revelanda, in specie expendenda, curiosius
disculienda, explicanda, delegenda, enumeran-
da: dicunt peccalasolviper con{'essionem:impos-
sibile esse salvari cHra confessioneni. Sed Cliry-
sostomus addil inlerprelatiunemjliaec inleUigen-
da esse non dc externa cunfessione homini /a-
cienda. sed de inleriori. quae fit Deo. Haec ille.
Non disputo nunc, an seutenliae Patrum paliaii-
tur inlerprelalionem islam, el num ad eam solam
confessionem perliueanl, quae Deo fit: sed tamen
neino, opiiior, lam excors erit.qui non videat Rem-
nitium cx sentcntia Patrum id admitlere, quod pa-
ulo post in calliolicis repreliendit, nimirum remis-
sionem ab enumeratione pendere.
Quarla caussa simiiis est tertiae. Scholaslici e-
nim doctores tradunl quidem, muilum conlerre
tum confessionem, lum salisfaclionem ad saiutem;
sed nec dicunl, per conlessionem nos mereri re-
missionem peccatorum, nisi forle ex congruo, nec
substiluuut meritiim enumeralionis graluitae con-
donationi: liaec enim mendacia Kemnilii, non tlie-
ologorum senlentiae sunt.
Porro encomia confcssionis longe majora extant
apud Palres, quam apud ullos Scholasticos, ut mi-
ruin sil, Remnilium ea in Scholaslicis reprehende-
rc, quac negare non potesl, multo uberius in anli-
quis Patribus inveniri. Ac ul pauca exempli gralia
referam: s. Ambrosii est illa sententia lib. 2. de
Poenilentia cap. 6. Solvil criminum nexus vere-
cunda confessio j^cccatorum. S. Paciani verba
sunl, in paraenesi ad Pocnitenliam:Ge/ie7i?ia??ire-
cordemini, quam vobis cxomologesis exlinguil.
S. Joannis chrysostomi est illud liomil. 20 in Ge-
nes.Co?i/essto peccatorum aboliiio est deliclorum,
qui eliam hom. 5. in Gen. antea dixerat, confes-
sione peccala lavari, el fiduciara salulis in fine
praeberi.
Ac (ut omillam caetera) uonne ipse Remnitius
paulo anlc ex Palril)us annotavil,peccala soki per
confessionem.et im[)Ossibile esse siue confessione
salvari? Neque refert,quod Palrum seutentias Rem-
nilius inlelligcndas esse velit,de confessione.quae
fit Deo. Nam si gratuitae condonationi repugnaret
virlus et efficacia, quam tribuunt Scholastici con-
fessioni, quae fit sacerdoli; repugnarct eliam vir-
tus elefTicacia, quam tribuunt Palres confessioni,
quae fit Deo: ulraque enim confessio est opus no-
strum.
Quinta et sexla caussa, quod illa enumeratio sit
impossibilis, et ad desperationera adducat,jam su-
pra refulatae sunt, et rursus ex ipso Remnitio re-
iulari possunt. Nam si enumeratio in confessione,
quae coram sacerdote facienda est, in desperatio-
nem adducit,et impossibilis est:idem profecto dici
poleril de enumeratione in confessione coram Deo,
vel potius longe facilius desperabunt, qui coram
Deo, qui falli nuUo modo polest, orania peccala e-
Tiumerare debebunt, quam ii,qui coram hominibus
id facluri erunl.
Admisit autera Remnitius pagina 982. peccata
coram Deo in specie explicanda , enuraeranda et
confilenda esse,el citra istam confessionem irapos-
sibile esse hominem salvari.Quare necessario jain
cogitur, aut carnificinara illara, quam gladio spiri-
tus excussisse jactaverat , araplecti ac tueri: aut
certe concedere, enuraerationem, quara calholici
cxigunt, neque impossibilem esse, neque ad de-
sperationem adducere, neque carnificinara nomi-
uari posse.
•
\A\m\ Ql AIMLS
POEKITESTIA iS (]U0 DE SATlSlfACTl()i\E Af.lTUR
Rcslal Sulisr;iclio , quac lerlia csl I*oenilciiliao Porro iiiiiversa ha(x dispulalio Iribus parlibus
pars, (lc qua brcviler disscremus, lum quod liaec conlinctur. Pn»m?/i, enim o.\plicandus esl cunlro-
dispulalio fcre pcrlincal ad locum dc iuslificalio- vcrsiae slalus. DemfiCjquoniam slalu conlroversiae
ne, queni lomo 4. rescrvamus. lum quod advcrsa- cxplicalo , quiiiquc cxislcril (luacsliones. Iraclaii-
rii calholicorum dispulalionibus crudili , aul con- dac crunl singulac scorsum. Puslreiiio, dissol-
viclijnulla jam conccdanl, quod allinclad Salisla- venda erunl argumcnla, quac ab adversariis adlc-
clioncm, dc quibus acerrimc anloa dimicabant. runlur.