Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

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

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17

Textus Latinus

p. 438

Quaestio II. Utrum confessio fuerit instituta in lege scripta.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum confessio fuerit instituta in lege scripta. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Levitici decimo sexto¹ dicitur de sacerdote qui debebat hircum emissarium emittere: Confiteatur omnes iniquitates filiorum Israel et universa delicta atque peccata; sed non poterat sacerdos confiteri peccata aliorum, nisi illi prius confiterentur ea: ergo videtur, quod ibi fuit confessio instituta.

2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Salomonis, qui Proverbiorum vigesimo octavo² dicit: Qui abscondit scelera sua non dirigetur; constat, quod loquitur his qui erant tempore Legis, et constat, quod non intelligit de absconsione respectu Dei, cui omnia sunt nota: ergo respectu ministri Dei: ergo etc.

3. Item, Isaiae quadragesimo tertio³: Narra, si quid habes, ut iustificeris; sed narratio dicit actum sermonis et confessionem vocalem; et constat, quod loquitur pro tempore Legis, quia exhortando, non praedicendo: ergo videtur, quod tempore Legis esset confessio in praecepto.

4. Item, ratione videtur: plus est aliquid profiteri facto quam verbo, plus etiam confiteri peccatum coram omnibus quam coram uno; sed ipsi confitebantur se peccatores coram omnibus, dum offerebant hostiam pro peccato: ergo cum ad hanc⁴ tenerentur, videtur, quod multo fortius ad confessionem oris.

5. Item, confessio oris instituta est ad hoc, ut sacerdos sit medius arbiter; sed in lege veteri sacerdos erat mediator; unde per totum Leviticum⁵, ubi agitur de oblatione, dicitur: Orabitque sacerdos, et remittetur ei.

6. Item, vetus lex fuit lex rigoris, et magis puniebantur⁶ quam in nova; sed confusio, quae est in poenitentia, est magna poena: ergo magis fuit competens legi veteri quam novae.

7. Item, ratio, quare instituta est confessio, est, ut fiat reconciliatio Ecclesiae; sed Ecclesia erat in veteri testamento et unitas magna, quia unus iniuriabatur, dum peccabat, toti multitudini, sicut manifestum est in Actibus⁷: ergo tunc debuit institui confessio peccati.

Contra: 1. Augustinus⁸: « Oblatio sacrificiorum confessio fuit peccatorum »: ergo videtur, quod non fuerit ibi alia confessio quam oblatio.

2. Item, confessio ordinata est ad absolutionem; sed Lex transgredientes ex certa scientia faciebat occidi sine misericordia⁹: cum ergo non teneretur aliquis facere se occidi, non tenebatur confiteri.

3. Item, in confessione manifestantur quae cordis sunt et occulta; p. 439 sed « Lex prohibebat manum, non animum¹⁰ »: ergo confessio Legi non competebat.

4. Item, si confessio fuit in Lege; aut sicut morale, aut sicut sacramentale. Si ergo sicut morale: ergo similiter fuisset in lege naturae; si sicut sacramentale: ergo cum alia et alia sint Sacramenta novae legis et veteris¹¹, non deberet esse in nova.

5. Item, usque ad adventum Christi fuerunt homines sub umbra et ante non pervenerunt ad lucem¹²; sed per confessionem peccati prodit peccator in apertum: ergo ante adventum Christi non debuit esse peccati confessio.

6. Item, confessio est ordinata ad potestatem clavium, quia confitens absolvitur; sed in sola lege nova dictum est sacerdotibus: Quorum remiseritis peccata etc., ut dicitur Ioannis vigesimo¹³: ergo videtur, quod cum ante non fuerit potestas absolvendi, nec fuerit necessitas nec utilitas confitendi.

Conclusio.

Confessio vocalis ut Sacramentum, instituta est tantum in lege evangelica nec praecessit in lege veteri nisi in figura insinuata.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duo sunt principaliter in confessione, propter quae oportuit et conveniens fuit confessionem institui. Primum est propter detectionem peccati et manifestationem, et iste est finis confessionis in se. Secundus finis est propter reconciliationem faciendam Deo et eius Ecclesiae¹⁴. — Primo igitur fit propter peccati detectionem. Peccator enim, dum male agit, odit lucem¹⁵; et ideo in reversione ad iustitiam oportet redargui opera infructuosa tenebrarum; quae autem arguuntur a lumine manifestantur, ut habetur ad Ephesios quinto; hoc autem est per confessionem. Et ideo debuit in ea lege institui confessio, in qua est manifestatio veritatis, in ea, inquam, lege, in qua Verbum caro factum est¹⁶, ut intelligibile fieret sensibile et manifestum; in ea lege debent occulta et tenebrosa opera manifestari, et verba cordis formam vocis induere; haec autem est lex gratiae: et ideo confessionis institutio quantum ad primum finem competit legi gratiae.

Alius finis est ad reconciliationem faciendam, humano arbitrio mediante; ideo fit homini, ut homo sit iudex et arbiter inter Deum et peccatorem. Arbiter autem talis debet esse, qui possit manum ponere in utrumque; talis autem non potuit esse, quousque Deus factus est homo; et tunc homo deificatus datus est nobis mediator et arbiter Christus, qui potuit arguere et manum ponere in utrumque¹⁷. Hic autem reliquit in Ecclesia successores, quos et arbitros constituit et rectores Ecclesiae, quibus commisit auctoritatem reconciliandi. Et quoniam haec auctoritas primo fuit in Christo et in nullo potuit esse, antequam veniret ille praecipuus mediator; et hoc solum in lege nova fuit: ideo tantum in hac lege institui confessio debuit.

Concedo igitur, quod confessio, prout est Sacramentum, confessio, inquam, vocalis, solius novae legis fuit nec praecessit in lege veteri nisi in figura, quia illi legi non competebat. Praecessit autem in hoc, quod sacerdotibus data erat auctoritas discernendi inter lepram et non lepram, sanctum et profanum¹⁸. Sed haec quidem erant corporalia et non spiritualia. Et illam figuram ostendit Dominus impletam esse in lege nova, cum mundatos ad sacerdotes mittebat, ut dicitur Matthaei octavo¹⁹, ubi volunt aliqui dicere, quod confessio fuit instituta, sed magis, ut videbitur, fuit ibi insinuata.

Ad argumenta:

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod fuit ibi confessio, quia sacerdos confitebatur; dicendum, quod talis non erat confessio sacramentalis, quae fit homini, de qua nunc loquimur, qua aliquis se accusat; sed confessio illa fiebat Deo in generali de peccatis²⁰ ipsius multitudinis, non alicuius particularis personae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de absconsione, dicendum, quod intelligit de absconsione quae est per peccati defensionem et palliationem, sicut faciunt hypocritae; et illud est falsitatis, et hoc est contra legem naturae et respectu Dei et respectu hominis. Quamvis autem sit prohibitum mentiri, non tamen est praeceptum dicere omnem veritatem²¹.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de narratione, dicendum, quod intelligitur de narratione secundum linguam et os cordis. — Vel si intelligatur secundum os corporis, adhuc intelligitur, quod fiat respectu p. 440 Dei; quemadmodum fit oratio vocalis non ad Deum instruendum, sed ad excitandum in nobis affectum pudoris, vel amoris, vel doloris, vel alicuius alterius affectionis²².

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod profitebantur facto; dicendum, quod illa oblatio non erat professiva peccati, sed oblationis hostiae pro peccato; ex consequenti autem ostendebatur peccator. Sed hoc non est in speciali, sed in generali, nec magis sacerdoti quam alii. Et hoc quidem decebat aliquo modo fieri, quia iam ecclesiastica unitas in conformitate Sacramentorum et uniformitate cultus divini coeperat inchoari.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sacerdos erat mediator; dicendum, quod etsi mediator esset ad offerendum hostias figurales, non tamen erat mediator in absolvendo; et ideo sacerdoti non debebat fieri confessio peccati, sed oblatio hirci vel vituli²³. Non sic est de sacerdote novi testamenti, qui sicut verum Christi corpus conficit et potestatem habet ad conficiendum; sic auctoritatem habet ad corpus mysticum absolvendum.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod lex vetus erat lex rigoris et oneris; dicendum, quod quamvis confessio onerosa videatur propter pudorem, tamen est sarcina miro modo allevians per absolutionem; et ideo illi legi non competebat. Hic enim fit ab omni peccato absolutio, ibi vero sine omni misericordia gravis peccatoris fiebat damnatio; propterea non competebat illi legi talis perfectio.

7. Ad ultimum de unitate Ecclesiae, dicendum, quod unitas erat, sed tamen figuralis respectu verae unitatis huius Ecclesiae; ideo, sicut sacrificium fuit figurale, ita et sacerdos, ita reconciliatio et postremo confessio, quia leprosus se sacerdotibus ostendebat²⁴.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether confession was instituted under the written Law.

Secondly it is asked whether confession was instituted under the written Law. And that it was so, it seems.

1. In Leviticus sixteen¹ it is said of the priest who was to send forth the scapegoat: Let him confess all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions and sins; but the priest could not confess the sins of others unless they first confessed them to him: therefore it seems that confession was there instituted.

2. Likewise, this seems [to be shown] by the authority of Solomon, who in Proverbs twenty-eight² says: He who hides his crimes shall not prosper; it is established that he speaks to those who were in the time of the Law, and it is established that he does not understand it of hiding with respect to God, to whom all things are known: therefore [it is] with respect to the minister of God: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Isaiah forty-three³: Tell, if you have anything, that you may be justified; but "telling" denotes an act of speech and vocal confession; and it is established that he speaks for the time of the Law, since [he speaks] by exhorting, not by foretelling: therefore it seems that in the time of the Law confession was under a precept.

4. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason: it is something more to make profession by deed than by word, and more also to confess a sin before all than before one; but they themselves confessed that they were sinners before all when they offered a victim for sin: therefore, since they were bound to this⁴, it seems that much more strongly [they were bound] to confession of the mouth.

5. Likewise, confession of the mouth was instituted for this, that the priest might be the intermediary arbiter; but in the old Law the priest was a mediator; whence throughout all of Leviticus⁵, where the offering is treated, it is said: And the priest shall pray, and it shall be forgiven him.

6. Likewise, the old Law was a law of rigor, and they were punished more [there] than in the new⁶; but the shame which is in penance is a great punishment: therefore it was more fitting for the old Law than for the new.

7. Likewise, the reason why confession was instituted is that reconciliation of the Church may come about; but the Church existed in the Old Testament, and [there was] a great unity, because one man, when he sinned, wronged the whole multitude, as is manifest in the Acts⁷: therefore confession of sin ought to have been instituted then.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine⁸: « The offering of sacrifices was a confession of sins »: therefore it seems that there was no other confession there than the offering.

2. Likewise, confession is ordered to absolution; but the Law caused those transgressing from certain knowledge to be put to death without mercy⁹: since therefore no one was bound to have himself put to death, he was not bound to confess.

3. Likewise, in confession are made manifest the things that are of the heart and hidden; p. 439 but « the Law prohibited the hand, not the mind¹⁰ »: therefore confession did not befit the Law.

4. Likewise, if confession was in the Law, [it was] either as something moral or as something sacramental. If then as moral: therefore it would likewise have been in the law of nature; if as sacramental: therefore, since the Sacraments of the new law and of the old are different¹¹, it should not be in the new.

5. Likewise, until the coming of Christ men were under a shadow and beforehand did not arrive at the light¹²; but through confession of sin the sinner comes forth into the open: therefore before the coming of Christ confession of sin ought not to have been.

6. Likewise, confession is ordered to the power of the keys, because the one confessing is absolved; but only in the new law was it said to the priests: Whose sins you shall forgive etc., as is said in John twenty¹³: therefore it seems that, since beforehand there was no power of absolving, there was neither necessity nor usefulness in confessing.

Conclusion.

Vocal confession as a Sacrament was instituted only under the law of the Gospel, nor did it precede under the old Law except as insinuated under a figure.

I respond: It must be said that there are principally two things in confession, on account of which it was needful and fitting that confession be instituted. The first is on account of the detection and manifestation of sin, and this is the end of confession in itself. The second end is on account of reconciliation to be made to God and to His Church¹⁴. — Firstly, then, it is done on account of the detection of sin. For the sinner, while he does evil, hates the light¹⁵; and therefore in returning to justice it is necessary that the unfruitful works of darkness be reproved; but the things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, as is held in Ephesians five; and this is through confession. And therefore confession ought to have been instituted in that law in which there is the manifestation of truth, in that law, I say, in which the Word was made flesh¹⁶, so that the intelligible might be made sensible and manifest; in that law the hidden and dark works ought to be made manifest, and the words of the heart to put on the form of a voice; but this is the law of grace: and therefore the institution of confession, as to its first end, befits the law of grace.

The other end is for making reconciliation, by the mediation of human judgment; therefore it is done [through] a man, so that a man may be judge and arbiter between God and the sinner. But such an arbiter ought to be one who can lay his hand on both; but such a one could not exist until God was made man; and then a deified man was given to us as mediator and arbiter, Christ, who could both reprove and lay his hand on both¹⁷. And He left in the Church successors, whom He constituted both as arbiters and as rulers of the Church, to whom He committed the authority of reconciling. And since this authority was first in Christ and could be in no one before that pre-eminent mediator should come; and this was only in the new law: therefore confession ought to have been instituted only in this law.

I grant therefore that confession, as it is a Sacrament, vocal confession, I say, belonged only to the new law, nor did it precede under the old Law except in a figure, because it did not befit that law. But it did precede in this, that to the priests was given the authority of discerning between leprosy and non-leprosy, the holy and the profane¹⁸. But these things indeed were bodily and not spiritual. And the Lord showed that figure to be fulfilled in the new law, when He sent the cleansed to the priests, as is said in Matthew eight¹⁹, where some wish to say that confession was instituted, but rather, as will be seen, it was there insinuated.

To the arguments:

1. To that, then, which is objected — that confession was there, because the priest confessed — it must be said that such was not sacramental confession, which is made to a man, of which we now speak, by which one accuses himself; but that confession was made to God in general concerning the sins²⁰ of the multitude itself, not of any particular person.

2. To that which is objected concerning the hiding, it must be said that he understands the hiding which is through defense and palliation of sin, as hypocrites do; and that belongs to falsity, and this is against the law of nature both with respect to God and with respect to man. But although it is forbidden to lie, it is nevertheless not commanded to tell the whole truth²¹.

3. To that which is objected concerning the telling, it must be said that it is understood of telling according to the tongue and the mouth of the heart. — Or if it be understood according to the mouth of the body, even so it is understood that it is done with respect to p. 440 God; just as vocal prayer is made not to instruct God, but to excite in us an affection of shame, or of love, or of grief, or of some other affection²².

4. To that which is objected — that they made profession by deed — it must be said that that offering was not a profession of sin, but of the offering of a victim for sin; consequentially, however, the sinner was shown forth. But this is not in particular, but in general, nor more to the priest than to another. And this indeed it was fitting should come about in some manner, since now ecclesiastical unity in the conformity of the Sacraments and the uniformity of divine worship had begun to be initiated.

5. To that which is objected — that the priest was a mediator — it must be said that, although he was a mediator for offering figural victims, he was nevertheless not a mediator in absolving; and therefore confession of sin ought not to be made to the priest, but the offering of a goat or a calf²³. It is not so with the priest of the new testament, who, as he confects the true body of Christ and has power to confect [it], so he has authority to absolve the mystical body.

6. To that which is objected — that the old Law was a law of rigor and burden — it must be said that, although confession seems burdensome because of shame, it is nevertheless a burden marvelously lightening through absolution; and therefore it did not befit that law. For here absolution from every sin takes place, but there, without any mercy, the condemnation of the grave sinner came about; therefore such a perfection did not befit that law.

7. To the last [argument], concerning the unity of the Church, it must be said that there was a unity, but yet a figural one with respect to the true unity of this Church; therefore, just as the sacrifice was figural, so also the priest, so the reconciliation and finally the confession, since the leper showed himself to the priests²⁴.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Vers. 21. — Inferius pro aliorum plures codd. alienorum, Vat. aliena.
[Leviticus 16,] v. 21. — Below, for aliorum ("of others") several codices read alienorum, the Vatican [edition] aliena.
2
Vers. 13. — Post pauca pro his edd. de his.
[Proverbs 28,] v. 13. — A little further on, for his the editions read de his.
3
Vers. 26.
[Isaiah 43,] v. 26.
4
Cfr. Num. 5, 6. seqq.
Cf. Numbers 5:6 ff.
5
Cap. 5, 16; 12, 8; 19, 22.
[Leviticus] chapters 5:16; 12:8; 19:22.
6
Vide III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1. et 3. — Edd. magis puniebat quam nova.
See III Sent., d. 40, q. 1 and 3. — The editions read magis puniebat quam nova ("punished more than the new").
7
Ios. 7, 1. seqq.
Joshua 7:1 ff.
8
Quaestion. ex vet. test. (inter opera August.) p. II. q. 12: Manifestum est, holocaustis Deum non delectari, sed pro satisfactione peccati gemitu et dolore cordis veniam posse mereri. Sacrificium autem testimonium peccati voluit esse, ut se peccator per oblationem sacrificii confiteretur peccasse.
Questions on the Old Testament (among the works of Augustine) pt. II, q. 12: « It is manifest that God is not delighted by holocausts, but that pardon can be merited for the satisfaction of sin by the groaning and grief of the heart. But He willed the sacrifice to be a testimony of sin, so that the sinner might confess through the offering of the sacrifice that he had sinned. »
9
Cfr. Exod. 21, 12. et 14. seqq.; Lev. 24, 17.
Cf. Exodus 21:12 and 14 ff.; Leviticus 24:17.
10
Vide tom. III. pag. 890, nota 7.
See [Opera Omnia] tom. III, p. 890, note 7.
11
Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 5. et d. 2. a. I. q. 2.
Cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 5, and d. 2, a. I, q. 2.
12
Cfr. Hebr. 10, 1. seqq. — In plurimis codd. desideratur homines.
Cf. Hebrews 10:1 ff. — In very many codices homines ("men") is wanting.
13
Vers. 23. — Superius pro quia codd. U qua.
[John 20,] v. 23. — Above, for quia codices U read qua.
14
loan. 3, 20. — Seq. locus est Eph. 5, 11. et 13: Et nolite communicare operibus infructuosis tenebrarum, magis autem redarguite... Omnia autem, quae arguuntur etc. — In praemissis pro detectionem, quod bis occurrit, permulti codd. et ed. I deletionem et detestationem. Post Primo igitur fit cod. X supplet confessio.
John 3:20. — The following passage is Ephesians 5:11 and 13: « And do not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them... But all things that are reproved » etc. — In what precedes, for detectionem ("detection"), which occurs twice, very many codices and ed. I read deletionem ("deletion") and detestationem ("detestation"). After Primo igitur fit codex X supplies confessio.
15
loan. 1, 14. [Recte: loan. 3, 20.]
John 1:14. [Rightly: John 3:20, on hating the light.]
16
Supple cum cod. H Deo et eius Ecclesiae, codd. FG (C a secunda manu) addunt Deo.
Supply with codex H Deo et eius Ecclesiae ("to God and to His Church"); codices FG (C by a second hand) add Deo ("to God").
17
Vide III. Sent. d. 19. a. 2. q. 2. — De dictione homo deificatus (cod. R Dei Filius) quam Deus deificans, cod. L. ... masc. quidem insinuat, sed ut propriam non admittit, cfr. ibid. d. 7. dub. 2.
See III Sent., d. 19, a. 2, q. 2. — On the expression homo deificatus ("a deified man"; cod. R Dei Filius, "Son of God") rather than Deus deificans ("a deifying God"), cod. L... [the masculine] indeed insinuates [it], but does not admit it as proper; cf. ibid., d. 7, dub. 2.
18
Levit. 10, 10: Et ut habeatis scientiam discernendi inter sanctum et profanum, inter pollutum et mundum. Ibid. c. 13. et 14. de cognitione leprae sacerdotibus commissa. Pro inter lepram et non lepram codd. IK inter lepram et lepram, quae lectio respondet Deut. 17, 8 superius pag. 437, nota 7. allegato.
Leviticus 10:10: « And that you may have knowledge to discern between the holy and the profane, between the polluted and the clean. » Ibid., chapters 13 and 14, on the diagnosis of leprosy committed to the priests. For inter lepram et non lepram ("between leprosy and non-leprosy") codices IK read inter lepram et lepram, which reading corresponds to Deuteronomy 17:8, alleged above on p. 437, note 7.
19
Vers. 4. Cfr. Luc. 17, 14. — De institutione confessionis agitur quaest. seq.
[Matthew 8,] v. 4. Cf. Luke 17:14. — On the institution of confession the following question treats.
20
In codd. LVZaa additur suis, in codd. K (et a secunda manu) suis et.
In codices LVZaa is added suis ("their"); in codices K (also by a second hand) suis et.
21
Cfr. tom. III. pag. 844, nota 1.
Cf. [Opera Omnia] tom. III, p. 844, note 1.
22
Vide supra d. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro affectionis codd. FG timoris.
See above, d. 15, p. II, a. 2, q. 3. — For affectionis ("affection") codices FG read timoris ("fear").
23
Cod. H professionis, codd. AVW professivum. Supra pro profitebantur [permulti codd. profitebatur, alii sunt dubiae lectionis] facto edd. plus est facto profiteri quam ...
Codex H reads professionis, codices AVW professivum. Above, for profitebantur ("they made profession") [very many codices profitebatur; others are of doubtful reading], facto the editions read plus est facto profiteri quam ("it is more to profess by deed than...").
24
Cfr. Levit. 14, 2; Matth. 8, 4; Luc. 17, 14. — Hoc scholion ad praecedentem quaest. [Cfr. Matth. 18, 18, et loan. 20, 23. seq. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 425, nota 5.]
Cf. Leviticus 14:2; Matthew 8:4; Luke 17:14. — [Cf. Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 f. — On minori cf. above, p. 425, note 5.] ---