Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17

Textus Latinus

p. 435

Articulus I. De confessione quoad praeceptum instituentis.

Iam secundum quaestionis articulum inspiciamus.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeritur de confessione vocali. Et circa hoc duo principaliter quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur de confessione quantum ad praeceptum instituentis. Secundo, quantum ad obligationem exsequentis. Quantum ad primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum mandatum de confessione pertineat ad legem naturae. Secundo, utrum pertineat ad legem scriptam, vel legem gratiae. Tertio quaeritur, a quo fuerit instituta, utrum a Christo, an ab aliquo eius Apostolo.

Quaestio I. Utrum mandatum de confessione pertineat ad legem naturae.

Circa primum, quod in lege naturae fuerit instituta, videtur.

1. Super illud Genesis tertio¹: Adam, ubi es? pro Glossa: « Verba increpantis sunt et ad confessionem cogentis, non ignorantis »; sed Adam non tenebatur nisi ad legem naturae: ergo confessio est de iure naturali, confessio scilicet vocalis, quia vocaliter ei Dominus loquebatur, et ille vocaliter respondebat.

2. Item, Iob trigesimo primo²: Si abscondi quasi homo peccatum meum et celavi iniquitatem meam in sinu meo, quasi dicat: non: ergo peccatum erat abscondere peccatum, et ut peccatum reprobabat Iob; sed ipse non tenebatur nisi ad ius naturale: ergo ius naturale prohibet absconsionem peccati: ergo praecipit vel suadet confessionem.

3. Item, Gregorius ibidem³ in Glossa: « Vere humilis et mala sua cognoscit et voce confessionis aperit »; sed humilitas de peccatis commissis est de iure naturali: ergo et vox confessionis peccati.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia duplex est confessio, scilicet confessio laudis et confessio peccati, et utraque est in gloriam Dei; sicut patet, quia dixit Iosue ad Achor: Confitere peccatum et da gloriam Deo, Iosue septimo⁴; sed natura dictat Deum glorificandum et dictat Deum laudandum non tantum corde, sed etiam ore: ergo pari ratione dictat peccatum utroque modo confitendum.

p. 436 5. Item, poenitentia tres habet partes, scilicet contritionem, confessionem et satisfactionem; sed contritio et satisfactio sunt de lege naturali: ergo pari ratione et confessio.

6. Item, omne opus virtutis spectat ad dictamen naturae; sed confessio peccati est opus virtutis: ergo etc. Probatio minoris: « Veritas, ut vult Philosophus⁵, est virtus », et veritas est illa quae habilitat ad dicendum verum; sed maxima difficultas est in enarrando suum peccatum vere: ergo maxime circa hunc actum consistit virtus: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. « Ius naturale, ut dicit Isidorus⁶, est idem apud omnes »; sed confessio peccati non est eadem apud omnes: ergo confessio peccati non est de iure naturali.

2. Item, videtur, quod sit contra naturam: quia naturale est cuilibet et de natura recta celare amici commissum, sicut dicitur Proverbiorum undecimo⁷; sed magis se debet quisque diligere quam proximum ex dictamine naturae: ergo natura dictat, peccata propria esse celanda.

3. Item, naturale est cuilibet celare verenda corporis: ergo similiter verenda spiritus; sed peccata sunt turpitudines animae: ergo peccatum confiteri potius est contra naturam quam secundum naturam.

4. Item, recta ratio, quae est naturae conformis, erubescit turpia cogitare: ergo si plus est referre sive dicere⁸, per naturam erubescit dicere: ergo cum cogitare turpia et facere sit contra naturam et rationem rectam, pari ratione et referre.

5. Item, per naturam recordatio iniuriarum est occasio inimicitiae confirmandae; sed peccator per peccatum est iniuriatus Deo: ergo recordando peccatum et narrando⁹ renovat inimicitias. Sed quod facit hominem inimicum Deo vel magis inimicum est contra naturam et rationem rectam: ergo et confessio sceleris.

Conclusio. Vocaliter confiteri Deo non dictat natura specialiter et per modum necessitatis nisi in casu; sed homini confiteri dictat tantum in generali.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod dupliciter sunt aliqua de dictamine iuris naturalis: aut in generali, aut in speciali. In speciali, ut honorare parentes; in generali vero dictat natura ea quae superaddit lex evangelica, sicut sunt aliqua supererogationis ut consilia, vel etiam aliqua Sacramenta¹⁰.

Intelligendum est igitur, quod est confessio duplex peccati mentalis et vocalis. Mentalis confessio est recognitio peccati et offensae; et haec est de dictamine naturae in speciali, secundum quod cognitio offensae est de dictamine naturae. Cognitio autem offensae humanae est de dictamine naturae per se, secundum quod est rationalis; sed cognitio offensae divinae est de dictamine naturae adiutae aliquo modo per fidem. Quomodo enim scit homo, se offendere Deum, quem non videt¹¹, nisi per aliquem radium fidei hoc cognosceret? Cum autem hoc cognoscit, quod Deum per praevaricationem inhonorat; natura dictat, quod ab ipso est misericordia humiliter petenda; et hoc nunquam est, nisi recognoscatur culpa.

Vocalis vero confessio est duplex, scilicet quae fit Deo, et quae fit homini. Vocaliter confiteri Deo dictat natura non simpliciter, sed in casu, ut puta, quando Deus exigit, sicut exegit ab Adam et a Cain¹²; vocaliter autem confiteri homini non dictat natura nisi in generali. Dictat enim, quod omnibus modis reconciliari oportet Deo, quibus ipse statuit. Unde natura dictabat, quodsi Deus arbitrum constitueret inter se et peccatorem, quod ipsi esset culpa revelanda; et ita dictabat in generali; dictabat etiam, quod illi essent dicenda vera.

Et sic patet, quomodo confessio spectat ad legem naturae. Quaedam enim est de dictamine naturae per modum necessitatis, quia natura dictat illam simpliciter et specialiter. Quaedam etiam est de dictamine naturae per modum expedientis simpliciter, sed necessitatis in casu, ut confessio vocalis facta Deo. Quaedam vero dictabat in universali solum, et haec est confessio facta homini.

1. 2. 3. Ex his patent obiecta ad primam partem; nam auctoritates procedunt secundum primam viam, vel secundam, ut patet.

4. Similiter prima ratio inducta ex simili in confessione vocali¹³ laudis, quia, sicut in casu laudare oportet ore, tamen semper debet actu vel habitu laudare in corde; sic etiam intelligendum de confessione peccati.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de partibus aliis, scilicet contritione et satisfactione; dicendum, quod p. 437istae tres partes respiciunt poenitentiam, secundum quod est virtus et secundum quod est Sacramentum; sed specialiter contritio et satisfactio respiciunt virtutem, sed confessio magis est poenitentiae, ut est Sacramentum, sicut melius patebit infra¹⁴. Confessio enim peccati, quae fit homini, ortum habet non tantum a natura, sed etiam ab institutione divina.

6. Et ex hoc patet responsio ad ultimum, quod dicit, quod est opus virtutis. Dico enim, quod re vera opus virtutis est, sed non omnino, sed virtutis cum adiunctione institutionis Sacramenti. Veritas¹⁵ enim non dictat, quod peccata occulta dicantur homini; similiter nec poenitentia dictat illud per se, quantumcumque homo doleat; sed cum Deus instituit, tunc virtus obedientiae imperavit, poenitentia acceleravit, et veritas actum direxit. — Et ita patet, ad quam virtutem spectet confiteri, et quomodo sit opus virtutis et cuius. Unde poenitentia in generali dictat illam¹⁶, secundum quod est virtus volens facere emendam; obedientia per mandatum specificat; veritas elicit et regulat.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur in oppositum, quod non est idem apud omnes; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de eo quod natura dictat in particulari, non in universali.

2. 3. 4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod manifestare peccatum est contra rationem; dicendum, quod peccati propalatio potest fieri dupliciter: vel ad sui ipsius commendationem, sicut faciunt peccatores, qui laetantur, cum male fecerint, et exsultant in rebus pessimis, quorum viae perversae¹⁷ etc., quibus est facta frons mulieris meretricis, et de quibus dicitur: Peccatum suum sicut Sodoma praedicaverunt etc.; et haec est contra naturam et contra rationem rectam et ad provocandam divinam inimicitiam; et verecundia et confusio huic opposita est adducens gratiam et gloriam¹⁸. — Alia est confessio ad sui accusationem ad inveniendam divinam propitiationem; et haec est ordinata ad faciendam emendam et ad curandam plagam occultam. Unde sicut natura dictat, vulnus etiam in locis secretis aperiendum medico ad curationem, quamvis dictet pudenda operienda; sic est de peccatis. Et sicut, si aliquis nollet vulnus ostendere, iudicaretur superbus et stultus et faceret contra naturam et salutem suam; sic intelligendum est in proposito.

Et ex hoc patet responsio ad omnes rationes. Nam si vulnus amici deberet curari per meam confessionem, sicut et proprium; dictaret ratio et natura, quod ego deberem ipsum prodere. Quamvis autem naturae dictamini consonum sit erubescere, et nunquam deberet esse¹⁹ sine confusione; propter illam tamen non est confessio dimittenda; et hoc propter multiplicem utilitatem, quam habet. Et propter hanc instituit eam Deus.

Valet enim ad peccati cognitionem, propter instructionem sacerdotis; Deuteronomii decimo septimo²⁰: Si difficile et ambiguum apud te etc. — Ad cogniti deletionem; Psalmo: Dixi, confitebor etc.; si propositum valet, quanto magis valet opus? — Ad cogniti et deleti satisfactionem, quia erubescentia in confessione est magna pars satisfactionis; Ecclesiastici quarto²¹: Est confusio adducens gratiam et gloriam. — Ad poenae diminutionem vi clavium; Matthaei decimosexto: Quodcumque solveris super terram etc. — Ad Dei laudem; Iosue septimo: Da gloriam Deo et confitere etc., et: Indica mihi, quid feceris. — Ad intercessorum multiplicationem; Iacobi ultimo: Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra, et orate pro invicem etc. — Ad conscientiae assecurationem; unde David statim, cum dixit: Peccavi, audivit: Transtulit Dominus etc., secundi Regum duodecimo. Et hoc magnum bonum est, secundae ad Corinthios primo: Gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae.

Scholion

I. Circa 1. et 2. quaestionem doctores satis consentiunt; S. Bonav. tamen aliis distinctionibus et attentione dignis utitur. De utraque quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 2. a. 2. et a. 3. § 1. 2. — Scot., de his et de 3. q. in utroque Scripto d. 17. q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. 3. Suppl. q. 6. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. p. 438supra d. 16. et 17. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — De his et de 3. q. Durand., hic q. 8, et Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

II. Quoad 3. quaestionem nonnulli, cortici verborum inhaerentes, tribuerunt S. Bonav. doctrinam, quod Christus ipse per se et iure divino non instituerit confessionem, et per consequens nec Sacramentum poenitentiae. Falsa haec interpretatio inde orta est, quod adversarii primo non attenderunt verum scopum huius quaestionis, qui in fine argumentorum praeciso ponitur; unde patet, quod S. Doctor totus est in quaestione levioris momenti discutienda, scilicet quare in s. Scriptura Christus ipsam confessionis obligationem, sive partem materialem huius Sacramenti non sic disertis verbis docuerit, sicut formale eiusdem, scilicet potestatem clavium cum potestate absolvendi, quam immediate et instituit et ipse promulgavit (hic et a. 2. q. 2, p. III. a. 1. q. 1, d. 18. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. 2.). — Secundo iidem non attenderunt usum verborum instituendi et insinuandi apud S. Bonaventuram occurrentem, licet ex ipso contextu satis clare se prodat. Nam hoc saltem loco sumitur instituere secundum usum, quem iuris adagion adhibet, quod « leges tunc instituuntur quando promulgantur » (cfr. supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. scholion n. III.). Item insinuare non excludit manifestationem voluntatis omni modo, sed tantum publicam sive promulgationem formalem. Ita S. Doctor se ipsum explicat infra d. 22. a. 2. q. 1. in corp., ubi dicit, quod « primum [potestatem clavium] Dominus instituit per se et promulgavit... Secundum vero [confessio] institutum fuit per Apostolos, vel melius dicam, promulgatum, quia Dominus Apostolos docuit, et ipsi a Domino docti et auctoritate ab ipso accepta promulgarunt. Non enim nobis tradiderunt nisi quod a Domino vel a Domini Spiritu acceperunt ». — Hic modus loquendi invenitur non tantum apud Alexandrum Hal. (loc. cit. m. 3. a. 2; et cfr. a. 1.) dicentem: « Non instituit Dominus lucide, sed insinuavit »; sed etiam apud Petrum a Tar. (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4.), qui ait: « In hoc, quod eis potestatem suam iudiciariam ligandi et solvendi dedit, confessionem eis tanquam iudicibus fieri insinuavit; ergo instituit confessionem tacite, sed Apostoli promulgarunt expresse ». Similiter argumentatur Richard. a Med. (loc. cit. q. 1.).

Quaestionem hanc accessoriam, quare Christus ipse in s. Scriptura non promulgaverit debitum confessionis, alii auctores praeter Alexandrum Hal. et Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 2.) vix tangunt. Ceterum non constat, Christum Apostolis nihil de hac re explicite ore proprio tradidisse, cum multa eius dicta, ut saepius monet etiam S. Bonav., in s. Litteris non sint scripta; quod etiam loc. cit. idem insinuat.

---

English Translation

Article I. On confession with respect to the precept of the one instituting it.

Now let us examine the second article of the question.

For the understanding of this part there is an inquiry concerning vocal confession. And concerning this two things are principally asked. First, there is an inquiry concerning confession with respect to the precept of the one instituting it. Second, with respect to the obligation of the one carrying it out. With respect to the first, three things are asked.

First, it is asked whether the precept of confession belongs to the natural law. Second, whether it belongs to the written law, or to the law of grace. Third, it is asked by whom it was instituted, whether by Christ, or by some Apostle of his.

Question I. Whether the precept of confession belongs to the natural law.

Concerning the first — that it was instituted in the natural law — it seems so.

1. On that text of Genesis 3¹: Adam, where are you? the Gloss says: « These are the words of one rebuking and compelling to confession, not of one ignorant »; but Adam was bound only to the law of nature: therefore confession is of the natural law — namely vocal confession, because the Lord spoke to him vocally, and he answered vocally.

2. Likewise, Job 31²: If I have hidden my sin as a man, and have concealed my iniquity in my bosom — as if to say: I have not — therefore to hide a sin was a sin, and Job reprobated it as a sin; but he himself was bound only to the natural law: therefore the natural law forbids the hiding of sin: therefore it commands or counsels confession.

3. Likewise, Gregory on the same passage³ in the Gloss: « The truly humble person both acknowledges his evils and discloses them by the voice of confession »; but humility about sins committed is of the natural law: therefore so too is the voice of confession of sin.

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because confession is twofold, namely confession of praise and confession of sin, and each is unto the glory of God; as is clear, because Joshua said to Achor: Confess the sin and give glory to God, Joshua 7⁴; but nature dictates that God is to be glorified and dictates that God is to be praised not only in the heart but also with the mouth: therefore by parity of reasoning it dictates that sin is to be confessed in both ways.

p. 436 5. Likewise, penance has three parts, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction; but contrition and satisfaction are of the natural law: therefore by parity of reasoning so too is confession.

6. Likewise, every work of virtue pertains to the dictate of nature; but confession of sin is a work of virtue: therefore etc. Proof of the minor: « Truth, as the Philosopher holds⁵, is a virtue », and truth is that which fits one for speaking the truth; but the greatest difficulty lies in narrating one's own sin truthfully: therefore virtue consists especially about this act: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. « The natural law, as Isidore says⁶, is the same among all »; but confession of sin is not the same among all: therefore confession of sin is not of the natural law.

2. Likewise, it seems that it is against nature: because it is natural to anyone, and of right nature, to conceal a friend's misdeed, as is said in Proverbs 11⁷; but each one ought to love himself more than his neighbor, by the dictate of nature: therefore nature dictates that one's own sins are to be concealed.

3. Likewise, it is natural to anyone to conceal the shameful parts of the body: therefore likewise the shameful parts of the spirit; but sins are the disgraces of the soul: therefore to confess sin is rather against nature than according to nature.

4. Likewise, right reason, which is conformed to nature, blushes to think base things: therefore, if to report or to say them is more⁸, it blushes by nature to say them: therefore, since to think base things and to do them is against nature and right reason, by parity of reasoning so too is to report them.

5. Likewise, by nature the recollection of injuries is an occasion for confirming enmity; but the sinner by sin has injured God: therefore by recollecting the sin and narrating it⁹ he renews enmities. But what makes a man an enemy of God, or more an enemy, is against nature and right reason: therefore so too is the confession of a crime.

Conclusion. That one should confess to God vocally, nature does not dictate specially and by way of necessity except in a particular case; but that one should confess to a man, it dictates only in general.

I respond: It must be said that things are of the dictate of the natural law in two ways: either in general, or in particular. In particular, as to honor one's parents; but in general nature dictates those things which the evangelical law superadds, such as certain works of supererogation as counsels, or even certain Sacraments¹⁰.

It must be understood, therefore, that confession of sin is twofold, mental and vocal. Mental confession is the recognition of sin and offense; and this is of the dictate of nature in particular, insofar as the knowledge of the offense is of the dictate of nature. Now the knowledge of a human offense is of the dictate of nature in itself, insofar as it is rational; but the knowledge of a divine offense is of the dictate of nature aided in some way by faith. For how does a man know that he offends God, whom he does not see¹¹, unless he knew this by some ray of faith? But when he knows this — that he dishonors God by transgression — nature dictates that mercy is to be humbly sought from him; and this never happens unless the fault be recognized.

But vocal confession is twofold, namely that which is made to God, and that which is made to a man. That one should confess to God vocally, nature dictates not absolutely, but in a particular case, as for instance when God demands it, as he demanded it of Adam and of Cain¹²; but that one should confess to a man vocally, nature dictates only in general. For it dictates that one ought to be reconciled to God in every way by which he himself has appointed. Hence nature dictated that, if God should appoint an arbiter between himself and the sinner, the fault would have to be revealed to him; and thus it dictated in general; it also dictated that true things were to be told to him.

And thus it is clear how confession belongs to the law of nature. For some confession is of the dictate of nature by way of necessity, because nature dictates it absolutely and specially. Some also is of the dictate of nature by way of being absolutely expedient, but necessary in a particular case, as vocal confession made to God. But some it dictated in general only, and this is confession made to a man.

1. 2. 3. From these things the objections to the first part are clear; for the authorities proceed according to the first way, or the second, as is evident.

4. Likewise the first reasoning, drawn from the similar case of vocal confession¹³ of praise: because, just as in a particular case one must praise with the mouth, yet one ought always to praise in act or in habit in the heart; so too it is to be understood of the confession of sin.

5. To that which is objected concerning the other parts, namely contrition and satisfaction; it must be said that p. 437these three parts regard penance, insofar as it is a virtue and insofar as it is a Sacrament; but contrition and satisfaction regard the virtue specially, whereas confession belongs rather to penance as it is a Sacrament, as will better appear below¹⁴. For confession of sin, which is made to a man, takes its origin not only from nature, but also from divine institution.

6. And from this the answer to the last [objection] is clear, which says that it is a work of virtue. For I say that it is indeed a work of virtue, but not wholly, but a work of virtue with the addition of the institution of the Sacrament. For truth¹⁵ does not dictate that hidden sins be told to a man; likewise neither does penance dictate that of itself, however much a man may grieve; but when God instituted it, then the virtue of obedience commanded it, penance hastened it, and truth directed the act. — And thus it is clear to which virtue confessing belongs, and how and of what [virtue] it is a work. Hence penance in general dictates it¹⁶, insofar as it is a virtue willing to make amends; obedience by the precept specifies it; truth elicits and regulates it.

1. To that which is objected to the contrary — that it is not the same among all — it must be said that this is understood of what nature dictates in particular, not in universal.

2. 3. 4. 5. To that which is objected — that to manifest a sin is against reason — it must be said that the publishing of a sin can be done in two ways: either to one's own commendation, as sinners do who rejoice when they have done evil and exult in the worst things, whose ways are perverse¹⁷ etc., who have made themselves the face of a harlot woman, and of whom it is said: They have proclaimed their sin like Sodom etc.; and this is against nature and against right reason and tends to provoke divine enmity; and the bashfulness and shame opposed to it is bringing grace and glory¹⁸. — The other is confession unto one's own accusation, to find divine propitiation; and this is ordered to making amends and to healing the hidden wound. Hence, just as nature dictates that a wound, even in secret places, is to be opened to a physician for healing, although it dictates that the private parts are to be covered; so it is with sins. And just as, if someone were unwilling to show his wound, he would be judged proud and foolish and would act against nature and his own welfare; so it is to be understood in the matter at hand.

And from this the answer to all the reasonings is clear. For if a friend's wound had to be cured through my confession, as also one's own; reason and nature would dictate that I ought to betray him. But although it is consonant with the dictate of nature to blush, and it ought never to be without shame¹⁹; nevertheless confession is not on that account to be omitted; and this on account of the manifold usefulness which it has. And on account of this God instituted it.

For it avails unto the knowledge of sin, on account of the instruction of the priest; Deuteronomy 17²⁰: If you perceive a matter difficult and ambiguous etc. — Unto the blotting out of what is known; the Psalm: I said, I will confess etc.; if the resolve avails, how much more does the deed avail? — Unto the satisfaction for what is known and blotted out, because the bashfulness in confession is a great part of satisfaction; Ecclesiasticus 4²¹: There is a shame that brings grace and glory. — Unto the diminution of punishment by the power of the keys; Matthew 16: Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth etc. — Unto the praise of God; Joshua 7: Give glory to God and confess etc., and: Tell me what you have done. — Unto the multiplication of intercessors; James, last chapter: Confess your sins one to another, and pray for one another etc. — Unto the assurance of conscience; whence David, immediately when he said: I have sinned, heard: The Lord has taken away etc., 2 Kings 12. And this is a great good, 2 Corinthians 1: Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience.

Scholion

I. Concerning the 1st and 2nd questions the doctors agree well enough; St. Bonaventure, however, employs other distinctions also worthy of attention. On both questions: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV q. 18 m. 2 a. 2 and a. 3 §§ 1, 2. — Scotus, on these and on the 3rd question, in both Scripta, d. 17, q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. 3 a. 1 quaestiunc. 2, 3; Supplement q. 6 a. 1, 2. — Blessed Albert, on this and the following question p. 438above, d. 16 and 17. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3 quaestiunc. 2, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. 3. — On these and on the 3rd question Durandus, here q. 8, and Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

II. As to the 3rd question, some, clinging to the bark of the words, have attributed to St. Bonaventure the doctrine that Christ himself did not by himself and by divine right institute confession, and consequently neither the Sacrament of penance. This false interpretation arose from the fact that the adversaries, first, did not attend to the true scope of this question, which is set down precisely at the end of the arguments; whence it is clear that St. Bonaventure is wholly engaged in discussing a question of lighter moment, namely why in holy Scripture Christ did not teach in such express words that very obligation of confession, or the material part of this Sacrament, as he did its formal part, namely the power of the keys together with the power of absolving, which he immediately both instituted and himself promulgated (here and a. 2 q. 2; p. III a. 1 q. 1; d. 18 p. 1 a. 1 q. 1, 2). — Secondly, the same persons did not attend to the usage of the words to institute and to insinuate occurring in St. Bonaventure, although it sufficiently clearly betrays itself from the context. For in this place at least to institute is taken according to the usage which the legal adage employs, that « laws are then instituted when they are promulgated » (cf. above d. 7 a. 1 q. 1 scholion n. III). Likewise to insinuate does not exclude the manifestation of the will in every manner, but only the public or formal promulgation. Thus St. Bonaventure explains himself below, d. 22 a. 2 q. 1 in the body, where he says that « the first [the power of the keys] the Lord instituted by himself and promulgated... but the second [confession] was instituted by the Apostles, or, to put it better, promulgated, because the Lord taught the Apostles, and they, taught by the Lord and by the authority received from him, promulgated it. For they handed down to us nothing except what they received from the Lord or from the Lord's Spirit. » — This manner of speaking is found not only in Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. m. 3 a. 2; and cf. a. 1) who says: « The Lord did not institute it openly, but insinuated it »; but also in Peter of Tarentaise (loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4), who says: « In this, that he gave them his judiciary power of binding and loosing, he insinuated that confession was to be made to them as to judges; therefore he instituted confession tacitly, but the Apostles promulgated it expressly ». Richard of Mediavilla argues similarly (loc. cit. q. 1).

This accessory question — why Christ himself did not in holy Scripture promulgate the obligation of confession — other authors besides Alexander of Hales and Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 2 q. 2) scarcely touch. Moreover it is not established that Christ handed nothing on this matter explicitly to the Apostles by his own mouth, since many of his sayings, as St. Bonaventure also frequently notes, are not written in holy Scripture; which he also insinuates in the place cited.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Vers. 9. — De Glossa, quam ut interlinearem exhibet Lyranus, cfr. Ambros., de Paradiso, c. 14. n. 70; August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 34. n. 45, et XIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 15.
[Genesis 3,] v. 9. — On the Gloss, which Lyra presents as interlinear, cf. Ambrose, On Paradise, c. 14 n. 70; Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter XI, c. 34 n. 45, and On the City of God XIII, c. 15.
2
Vers. 33. — De Iob cfr. supra pag. 45. nota 9. et pag. 46, nota 2.
[Job 31,] v. 33. — On Job cf. above p. 45 note 9 and p. 46 note 2.
3
Glossa est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum. Gregor., XXII. Moral. c. 15. n. 30: Haec sunt namque verae humilitatis testimonia, et iniquitatem suam quemque cognoscere et cognitam voce confessionis aperire. — Pro mala sua codd. I K peccata sua.
The Gloss is the Ordinary one in Strabo and Lyra. Gregory, Moralia XXII c. 15 n. 30: « For these are the testimonies of true humility, that each should both acknowledge his own iniquity and, once acknowledged, disclose it by the voice of confession. » — For mala sua codices I K read peccata sua.
4
Vers. 19: Et ait Iosue ad Achan: Fili mi, da gloriam Domino Deo Israel et confitere atque indica mihi, quid feceris, ne abscondas. (Fide codd. pro Achan substituimus Achor, cfr. supra pag. 345, nota 1.). — Duplicem hanc divisionem confessionis August. in Enarrat. Psalmorum refert multis in locis; cfr. in Ps. 7. n. 19; in Ps. 29. enarrat. 2. n. 19; in Ps. 78. n. 17; in Ps. 94. n. 4; in Ps. 105. n. 2. Vide supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Superius pro quia dixit cod. U per hoc quod dixit.
[Joshua 7,] v. 19: « And Joshua said to Achan: My son, give glory to the Lord God of Israel and confess, and tell me what you have done; do not hide it. » (On the faith of the codices we substitute Achor for Achan, cf. above p. 345 note 1.) — This twofold division of confession Augustine reports in many places in the Enarrationes on the Psalms; cf. on Ps. 7 n. 19; on Ps. 29 enarr. 2 n. 19; on Ps. 78 n. 17; on Ps. 94 n. 4; on Ps. 105 n. 2. See above d. 1 p. II a. 1 q. 3. — Above, for quia dixit, cod. U reads per hoc quod dixit.
5
Libr. II. Ethic. c. 7, IV. c. 7; 1. Magnor. Moral. c. 30. (c. 33.); II. Moral. Eudem. c. 5. (c. 3.). — Ed. 1 Virtus, ut vult Philosophus [II. Ethic. c. 3.], consistit circa difficile. Cod. A ut Tullius vult philosophus (cfr. tom. III. pag. 728, nota 2.).
Ethics book II c. 7, IV c. 7; Magna Moralia I c. 30 (c. 33); Eudemian Ethics II c. 5 (c. 3). — Ed. 1: Virtue, as the Philosopher holds [Ethics II c. 3], is concerned with the difficult. Cod. A: as Tully holds, the philosopher (cf. tom. III p. 728 note 2).
6
Iisdem verbis, quae magis supra pag. 11, nota 5. ex Boethio relatis respondent, Scholastici exhibent etiam sententiam Isidori, tom. II. pag. 901, nota 3, et C. Ius naturale (7.), d. 1. allegatam.
In the same words, which correspond more to those reported above from Boethius at p. 11 note 5, the Scholastics also present the opinion of Isidore, cited at tom. II p. 901 note 3, and in C. Ius naturale (7), d. 1.
7
Vers. 13: Qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcana, qui autem fidelis est animi celat amici commissum.
[Proverbs 11,] v. 13: « He who walks deceitfully reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a friend's misdeed. »
8
Nonnulli codd. addunt quam cogitare, quibus verbis edd. subiungunt videtur, quod peccatum suum quisque.
Some codices add quam cogitare (« than to think them »), to which words the editions append videtur, quod peccatum suum quisque.
9
Edd. cum paucis codd. iterando; pro renovat ed. 1 et codd. B D F H L Q innovat; pro inimicitias cod. B iniurias.
The editions, with a few codices, read iterando; for renovat, ed. 1 and codices B D F H L Q read innovat; for inimicitias, cod. B reads iniurias.
10
Cfr. supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Pro ut consilia multi codd. et consimilia.
Cf. above d. 2 a. 1 q. 1 ad 2. — For ut consilia, many codices read et consimilia.
11
Epist. I. Ioan. 4, 20. — Aliquanto inferius pro duplex multi codd. dupliciter.
1 John 4, 20. — A little further below, for duplex, many codices read dupliciter.
12
Gen. 3, 9. seqq. et 4, 9. seqq.
Genesis 3, 9 ff. and 4, 9 ff.
13
Ita codd. A G H K V W, alii codd. et edd. non bene non simpliciter. Subinde edd. cum paucis codd., verbis transpositis, sed in casu necessitatis. — Codd. H K (I a secunda manu) vocalis.
Thus codices A G H K V W; other codices and the editions, not well, read non simpliciter. Then the editions, with a few codices, with the words transposed, read sed in casu necessitatis. — Codices H K (I in a second hand) read vocalis.
14
Quaest. seq. Cfr. supra d. 16. p. I. dub. I.
Following question. Cf. above d. 16 p. I dub. I.
15
Edd. perperam virtus.
The editions wrongly read virtus.
16
Ex codd. F G supplevimus illam, quod Vat. cum paucis codd. omittit, pro quo alii codd. naturam, ed. 1 et cod. M legunt: Unde poenitentiam in generali dictat natura.
From codices F G we have supplied illam, which the Vatican edition with a few codices omits; for it other codices read naturam, and ed. 1 and cod. M read: Unde poenitentiam in generali dictat natura.
17
Prov. 2, 14. — Secundus textus est Ier. 3, 3; tertius Isai. 3, 9, ubi Vulgata quasi pro sicut. — Inferius post naturam cod. aa addit contra Deum.
Proverbs 2, 14. — The second text is Jer. 3, 3; the third Isai. 3, 9, where the Vulgate reads quasi for sicut. — Below, after naturam, cod. aa adds contra Deum ("against God").
18
Eccli. 4, 25: Est enim confusio adducens peccatum, et est confusio adducens gloriam et gratiam. — Cod. H et verecundiae confusio.
Ecclesiasticus 4, 25: « For there is a shame that brings sin, and there is a shame that brings glory and grace. » — Cod. H reads et verecundiae confusio ("and the shame of modesty").
19
Supplendum: confessio, quae vox fortasse propter similitudinem excidit ante sine confusione, eo magis, quia multi codd. falso habent sine confessione pro sine confusione. Ceterum codd., exceptis F G M W, debere esse; edd. legunt: et nunquam deberet esse [?] peccatum per confessionem, propter illam tandem causam [in nostra lectione illam refertur ad confusionem] non est etc. Aliquanto superius pro et proprium edd. et propria. Subinde pro Quamvis autem cod. aa Quamvis enim, et codd. A E I K W omittunt dictamini. Paulo inferius pro Et propter hanc cod. E et ed. 1 et propter quam.
To be supplied: confessio, which word perhaps fell out before sine confusione on account of the similarity, the more so because many codices falsely have sine confessione for sine confusione. Moreover the codices, except F G M W, read debere esse; the editions read: et nunquam deberet esse [reading uncertain in the source — printed as what appears to be detegere] peccatum per confessionem, on that final account [in our reading illam refers to confusionem] non est etc. Somewhat above, for et proprium the editions read et propria. Then for Quamvis autem cod. aa reads Quamvis enim, and codices A E I K W omit dictamini. A little below, for Et propter hanc cod. E and ed. 1 read et propter quam.
20
Vers. 8. seqq.: Si difficile et ambiguum apud te iudicium esse perspexeris inter sanguinem et sanguinem, causam et causam, lepram et lepram... Et facies, quodcumque dixerint qui praesunt (Cod. H integrum textum usque ad haec verba exhibet). — Seq. locus est Ps. 31, 5. Glossa interlinearis apud Petr. Lombard.: Quasi dicat: ita dixi, et ita proposui, et tu remisisti etiam impietatem peccati mei etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.
V. 8 ff.: « If you perceive that there is among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy » ... « and you shall do whatsoever they that preside over [that place] shall say » (cod. H gives the full text down to these words). — The following passage is Ps. 31, 5. The interlinear Gloss in Peter Lombard: « As if to say: thus I said, and thus I resolved, and you also forgave the wickedness of my sin » etc. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.
21
Vers. 25. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. — Seq. textus est Matth. 16, 19. Cfr. 18, 18. — Tertius est Iosue 7, 19. Vide [apparatu praecedentium notarum].
V. 25. See here the text of the Master, c. 3. — The following text is Matt. 16, 19. Cf. 18, 18. — The third is Joshua 7, 19. See [the apparatus to the preceding notes].