Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17
Quaestio III. A quo confessio fuerit instituta, utrum a Christo, an ab aliquo eius Apostolo.
Tertio quaeritur, a quo fuerit instituta confessio. Et quod fuerit instituta a Christo, videtur:
1. Quia sacerdotium fuit institutum a Christo ad remissionem peccatorum et absolutionem1; sed sacerdotes non possunt nec debent solvere, nisi sciant, a quo solvant; sed posito posteriori, ponitur prius: ergo si Christus instituit absolutionem, multo fortius confessionem.
2. Item, cuius est instituere totum, et partes; sed Dominus instituit poenitentiam, cum praedicavit et praecepit: Agite poenitentiam, Matthaei quarto2: ergo tunc instituit confessionem.
3. Item, confiteri peccata occulta, hoc est magnae perfectionis et superadditum mandatis legalibus; sed nullus potest hoc praecipere, nisi qui per omnia potest super hominem: ergo solus Christus ad confessionem peccatorum potuit obligare.
4. Item, Ioannes praecucurrit Salvatorem, et verus fuit praecursor, non tantum in verbis, sed in gestis; sed omnes qui baptizabantur a Ioanne, confitebantur peccata, Matthaei tertio3: ergo sicut praecessit in Ioanne baptismus praeparationis et confessio, ita utrumque debuit institui a Christo.
5. Item, hoc Sacramentum pernecessarium est, sicut baptismus, quia « est secunda tabula post naufragium »4, quando iam non valet baptismus; sed Christus per se ipsum nos liberavit a naufragio et primam tabulam instituit: ergo videtur, quod similiter et secundam, et ita confessionem ipsam.
Contra:
1. Sacramentis, quae Dominus instituit, ipsemet usus fuit, ut prius5 visum est in baptismo et eucharistia; sed ipse nunquam fuit confessus aliquod peccatum: ergo etc.
2. Item, Christus in factis suis nobis dedit exemplum; sed ipse absolvit sine omni confessione mulierem in adulterio deprehensam6: ergo non videtur instituisse confessionem, sed potius noluisse.
Item, quaero: ubi instituit? Si tu dicas, ibi: Agite poenitentiam; contra: nondum erant sacerdotes, quibus possent et deberent confiteri: ergo in illa praedicatione non implicabatur confessio.
Item, dicunt alii, quod instituit ibi, ubi misit leprosum ad sacerdotes. Sed contra: Matthaei octavo7 dicitur: Vade, ostende te sacerdotibus et offer munus, quod praecepit Moyses: ergo constat, quod mandavit facere quod fiebat in Lege, et illud non erat confessio vocalis: ergo etc.
Item, dicunt alii, quod ibi, Ioannis vigesimo8: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, quia, dum instituit sacerdotes, et potestatem absolvendi dedit et praecepit, ut ad eos peccata deferrent. Sed contra: difficilius est confiteri quam confessionem audire: ergo magis specialiter de hoc debuit mandatum dare.
Quaeritur igitur: quare Christus non instituit confessionem expresse, sicut instituit alia Sacramenta?
Conclusio.
Sacramentum confessionis Dominus instituit per se quoad formale, quod est potestas absolvendi; sed quoad materiale, quod est peccati detectio, non per se instituit sive promulgavit, sed per Apostolos auctoritatem dando et insinuando.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duo sunt in confessione: unum formale et completivum, et hoc est absolutio sive potestas absolvendi vel medicandi; et hanc Dominus instituit, qui9 potestatem clavium concessit; et penes hoc residet virtus. — Aliud autem est materiale, et hoc est detectio peccati sive morbi; et hoc Dominus non instituit in se, sed insinuavit.
Ratio autem, quare non instituit, ut dicunt aliqui, haec fuit, quia sufficit aegroto exponere medicum et medicinam; et ulterius confessio peccati non valet extorta, sed debet esse voluntaria: ideo Dominus insinuavit, relinquens hoc in voluntate aegrotantium. Et hoc est quod dicit Hugo10: « Medicis dixit, ut curarent, sed infirmis non dixit, ut ad medicos curandi causa venirent; hoc quasi certum esse voluit, quod aegri libenter salutem quaererent et se curandos offerrent, si medicos invenirent ».
Et licet hoc sit satis probabile, potest tamen et aliter dici, quod Dominus confessionem per se non instituit, quia est in remedium recidivantium. Quia Christus erat Ecclesiae fundator, et venientibus omnium peccatorum per baptismum fiebat remissio; ideo ab eo non debuit institui confessio, ne ex verbo Domini daretur aliquibus recidivandi occasio. Cum autem Ecclesia fuit instituta, labi homines coeperunt; et tunc remedium, ne desperarent, vel contemnerent, publicari oportuit: et ideo per Apostolos confessio debuit institui auctoritate sibi a Domino tradita in clavibus sibi datis, in quibus potestatem acceperant sanandi, et ita imperandi modum convenientem saluti; et hoc quidem erat per morbi detectionem et peccantis humiliationem et sacerdotalem absolutionem. Et ideo confessio fuit a Domino insinuata, ab Apostolis instituta, ab episcopo Ierosolymitano, scilicet Iacobo, promulgata, sicut et sententia de non servandis legalibus promulgata fuit, Actuum decimo quinto; sic et confessio omnibus peccantibus indicta et imposita fuit, Iacobi quinto: Confitemini alterutrum etc.
Et iterum, non solum haec est ratio, sed etiam ulterior esse potest. Confessio enim hominis est opus pure; unde non est data virtus Sacramenti ipsi confessioni, sed absolutioni11; et ideo recte hominibus puris institutio debuit reservari.
Ex his quae dicta sunt, quatuor possunt rationes elici, quare Dominus immediate confessionem et expresse non instituit: prima quidem, quia non oportuit; secunda vero, quia in hoc voluntariam esse debere docuit; tertia, quia est Sacramentum recidivantium; quarta, quia quantum est de se, est opus humanum. Unde credo, quod per se non instituit; et si dicatur instituisse, hoc est intelligendum insinuando et auctoritatem dando.
Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:
Ad 1, 2. Ex hoc patet responsio ad primum et secundum. Dominus enim formale poenitentiae instituit per se, materiale autem non; et ratio visa est supra.
Ad 3. Ad tertium patet responsio: quia Apostoli hoc poterant praecipere auctoritate clavium sibi datarum, quia aliter frustra essent datae.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod confitebantur etc.; dicendum, quod utrumque Salvator implevit, sed unum per se, quia decebat ipsum, sed alterum per alios, quia eos decebat uti confessione. Christus enim, qui omnia sciebat, sine confessione oris absolvebat; sed hoc Apostoli facere non poterant, quia nisi per aegrotum non poterant nosse plagam.
Ad ult. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, dicendum, quod Christus instituit secundum hoc quod erat ibi completionis, non tamen totum, sicut baptismum; quia non conveniebat ei ita fabricare totam tabulam recidivantium, sicut primam accedentium12.
---
Question III. By whom confession was instituted: whether by Christ, or by some Apostle of his.
Thirdly it is asked, by whom confession was instituted. And that it was instituted by Christ seems [to be the case]:
1. Because the priesthood was instituted by Christ for the remission of sins and for absolution1; but priests cannot and ought not to absolve unless they know from what they absolve; but when the posterior is posited, the prior is posited [with it]: therefore if Christ instituted absolution, much more strongly [did he institute] confession.
2. Likewise, to whom it belongs to institute the whole, [to him belongs to institute] the parts also; but the Lord instituted penance, when he preached and commanded: Do penance, Matthew four2: therefore he then instituted confession.
3. Likewise, to confess hidden sins is [a thing] of great perfection and superadded to the commands of the Law; but no one can command this except him who has power over man in all things: therefore Christ alone could oblige to the confession of sins.
4. Likewise, John ran before the Savior, and was a true forerunner, not only in words, but in deeds; but all who were baptized by John confessed their sins, Matthew three3: therefore, just as in John there preceded a baptism of preparation and confession, so both ought to have been instituted by Christ.
5. Likewise, this Sacrament is most necessary, as is baptism, because « it is the second plank after shipwreck »4, when baptism no longer avails; but Christ by his very self freed us from shipwreck and instituted the first plank: therefore it seems that [he instituted] the second likewise, and thus confession itself.
On the contrary:
1. The Sacraments which the Lord instituted he himself made use of, as was seen before5 in baptism and the eucharist; but he himself never confessed any sin: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, Christ in his deeds gave us an example; but he himself absolved the woman taken in adultery without any confession6: therefore he does not seem to have instituted confession, but rather to have refused [to institute it].
Likewise, I ask: where did he institute it? If you say, there: Do penance; on the contrary: there were not yet priests, to whom they could and ought to confess: therefore in that preaching confession was not implied.
Likewise, others say that he instituted it there, where he sent the leper to the priests. But on the contrary: in Matthew eight7 it is said: Go, show thyself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded: therefore it is established that he commanded [them] to do what was done in the Law, and that was not vocal confession: therefore etc.
Likewise, others say that [he instituted it] there, in John twenty8: Receive ye the Holy Spirit, because, when he instituted priests, he both gave and commanded the power of absolving, that sins should be brought to them. But on the contrary: it is more difficult to confess than to hear confession: therefore he ought to have given a command about this more specially.
It is asked therefore: why did Christ not institute confession expressly, as he instituted the other Sacraments?
Conclusion.
The Lord instituted the Sacrament of confession by himself as to the formal [element], which is the power of absolving; but as to the material [element], which is the disclosure of sin, he did not institute or promulgate it by himself, but through the Apostles, by giving authority and by insinuating it.
I respond: It must be said that there are two things in confession: one formal and completive, and this is absolution or the power of absolving or healing; and this the Lord instituted, who9 granted the power of the keys; and with this resides the virtue [of the Sacrament]. — But the other is material, and this is the disclosure of sin or sickness; and this the Lord did not institute in itself, but insinuated.
But the reason why he did not institute it, as some say, was this: because it suffices to set before the sick man the physician and the medicine; and further, the confession of sin does not avail when extorted, but ought to be voluntary: therefore the Lord insinuated it, leaving this in the will of the sick. And this is what Hugh says10: « To the physicians he said that they should cure, but to the sick he did not say that they should come to the physicians for the sake of being cured; he willed this to be as it were certain, that the sick would gladly seek health and offer themselves to be cured, if they found physicians ».
And although this is probable enough, yet it can also be said otherwise: that the Lord did not institute confession by himself, because it is a remedy for those who relapse. For Christ was the founder of the Church, and to those who came there was made a remission of all sins through baptism; therefore confession ought not to have been instituted by him, lest by the word of the Lord an occasion of relapsing should be given to any. But when the Church was instituted, men began to fall; and then the remedy, lest they despair or hold [it] in contempt, had to be published: and therefore through the Apostles confession had to be instituted by the authority handed to them by the Lord in the keys given to them, in which they had received the power of healing, and thus of commanding a manner suited to salvation; and this indeed was through the disclosure of the sickness and the humiliation of the sinner and the priestly absolution. And therefore confession was insinuated by the Lord, instituted by the Apostles, promulgated by the bishop of Jerusalem, namely James, just as the sentence concerning the not-observing of the legal [precepts] was also promulgated, Acts fifteen; so too confession was enjoined and imposed upon all sinners, James five: Confess your sins one to another etc.
And again, this is not the only reason, but there can also be a further one. For the confession of man is a purely [human] work; whence the virtue of the Sacrament has not been given to confession itself, but to absolution11; and therefore rightly the institution had to be reserved to mere men.
From the things which have been said, four reasons can be drawn, why the Lord did not institute confession immediately and expressly: the first indeed, because it was not necessary; the second, because in this he taught that it ought to be voluntary; the third, because it is a Sacrament of those who relapse; the fourth, because as far as it is in itself, it is a human work. Whence I believe that he did not institute it by himself; and if he be said to have instituted it, this is to be understood by insinuating and by giving authority.
To the arguments for the affirmative part:
To 1, 2. From this is plain the response to the first and second. For the Lord instituted the formal [element] of penance by himself, but not the material; and the reason was seen above.
To 3. To the third the response is plain: because the Apostles could command this by the authority of the keys given to them, since otherwise they would have been given in vain.
To 4. To that which is objected, that they confessed etc.; it must be said that the Savior fulfilled both, but the one by himself, because it befitted him, but the other through others, because it befitted them to make use of confession. For Christ, who knew all things, absolved without oral confession; but this the Apostles could not do, because except through the sick man they could not know the wound.
To the last. To that which is objected last, it must be said that Christ instituted it according to that which was there of completion, yet not the whole, as [he did] baptism; because it was not fitting for him so to fashion the whole plank of those who relapse, as [he fashioned] the first [plank] of those who come [to baptism]12.
---
- 1Vide supra d. 13. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro pudoris codd. F G timoris.See above, d. 13, p. II, a. 2, q. 3. — For pudoris ("of shame") codices F G [read] timoris ("of fear").
- 2Cod. B professionis, codd. A V W professivum. Superius pro profitebantur [permulti codd. profitebatur, alii sunt dubiae lectionis] facto edd. plus est facto profiteri quam verbo.Codex B [reads] professionis, codices A V W professivum. Above, for profitebantur ("they confessed") [very many codices read profitebatur, others are of doubtful reading], at facto the editions [read] "it is more to confess in deed than in word."
- 3Cfr. Levit. 16, 5. seqq.Cf. Leviticus 16, 5 ff.
- 4Cfr. Levit. 14, 2; Matth. 8, 4; Luc. 17, 14. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.Cf. Leviticus 14, 2; Matthew 8, 4; Luke 17, 14. — See the scholion to the preceding question.
- 5Cfr. Matth. 18, 18, et Ioan. 20, 23. seq. — De altera minori cfr. supra pag. 423, nota 3.Cf. Matthew 18, 18, and John 20, 23 f. — Concerning the other minor [premise] cf. above, p. 423, note 3.
- 6Vers. 17. — Superius post cum codd. F G addunt eas.Verse 17. — Above, after cum, codices F G add eas.
- 7Vers. 6: Baptizabantur ab eo in Iordane, confitentes peccata sua. — Pro praeparationis cod. H praeparatorius.Verse 6: They were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. — For praeparationis codex H [reads] praeparatorius.
- 8Ut dicit Hieron. supra lit. Magistri, d. XIV. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. I. dub. 1. — Superius pro pernecessarium codd. E R S T V W X par necessarium.As Jerome says above in the Master's text, d. XIV, c. 1. Cf. ibid., the Commentary, p. I, dub. 1. — Above, for pernecessarium codices E R S T V W X [read] par necessarium.
- 9Vers. 22. seq. — Inferius verbo praecepit cod. K (1 a secunda manu) praemittit per consequens, edd. legunt: praecepit per consequens aliis, ut etc.Verse 22 f. — Below, before the word praecepit, codex K (1 by a second hand) prefixes per consequens; the editions read: he commanded by consequence to others, that etc.
- 10Cod. bb quoniam. — Libr. II. de Sacram. p. XIV. c. 1, ubi textus originalis post curandi omittit causa. — Superius pro non valet extorta codd. A X Y non debet esse coacta (plures alii codd. exhibent etiam coacta). Hugo, loc. cit.: Audi, quare voluit Christus, ut a temetipso surgeret, ut non quasi extorta vel coacta videretur confessio tua.Codex bb [reads] quoniam. — Book II, On the Sacraments, p. XIV, c. 1, where the original text after curandi omits causa. — Above, for non valet extorta codices A X Y [read] non debet esse coacta (very many other codices also exhibit coacta). Hugh, in the place cited: Hear why Christ willed that it should arise from thyself, that thy confession should not seem as it were extorted or coerced.
- 11Cod. et quia, cod. I a secunda manu quia enim, edd. sed quia. — Edd. transponunt et ante labi. — Vers. 19. seq. — Secundus locus est Iac. 5, 16. Cfr. Hug. a S. Vict., loc. cit. — Pro Sicut et Vat. cum pluribus codd. Sicut enim.A codex [reads] et quia, codex I by a second hand quia enim, the editions sed quia. — The editions transpose et before labi. — Verse 19 f. — The second place is James 5, 16. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, in the place cited. — For Sicut et the Vatican [edition], with very many codices, [reads] Sicut enim.
- 12Vide Hug. a S. Vict., loc. cit. — Post opus pure edd. addunt humanum. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.See Hugh of St. Victor, in the place cited. — After opus pure the editions add humanum. — See the scholion to the first question of this article.