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

source_text:
<!-- page 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 tertio[^1]: *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 primo[^2]: *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 ibidem[^3] 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 septimo[^4]; sed natura dictat Deum glorificandum et dictat Deum laudandum non tantum corde, sed etiam ore: ergo pari ratione dictat peccatum utroque modo confitendum.

<!-- page 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 Philosophus[^5], 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 Isidorus[^6], 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 undecimo[^7]; 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 *dicere*[^8], 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 narrando[^9] 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 Sacramenta[^10].

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 videt*[^11], 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 Cain[^12]; 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 vocali[^13] 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 <!-- page 437 -->istae 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 infra[^14]. 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. *Veritas*[^15] 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 illam[^16], 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 perversae*[^17] 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 gloriam*[^18]. — 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 esse[^19] 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 septimo[^20]: *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 quarto[^21]: *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*.

english:
### 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 3[^1]: *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 31[^2]: *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 passage[^3] 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 7[^4]; 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.

<!-- page 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 holds[^5], 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 says[^6], 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 11[^7]; 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 more[^8], 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 it[^9] 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 Sacraments[^10].

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 see*[^11], 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 Cain[^12]; 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 confession[^13] 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 <!-- page 437 -->these 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 below[^14]. 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 *truth*[^15] 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 it[^16], 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 perverse*[^17] 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 glory*[^18]. — 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 shame[^19]; 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 17[^20]: *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 4[^21]: *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*.

la: 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.

en: [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.

la: Vers. 33. — De Iob cfr. supra pag. 45. nota 9. et pag. 46, nota 2.

en: [Job 31,] v. 33. — On Job cf. above p. 45 note 9 and p. 46 note 2.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: 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*.

en: [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*.

la: 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.).

en: *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).

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: Vers. 13: Qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcana, qui autem fidelis est animi celat amici commissum.

en: [Proverbs 11,] v. 13: « He who walks deceitfully reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a friend's misdeed. »

la: Nonnulli codd. addunt *quam cogitare*, quibus verbis edd. subiungunt *videtur, quod peccatum suum quisque*.

en: Some codices add *quam cogitare* (« than to think them »), to which words the editions append *videtur, quod peccatum suum quisque*.

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *iterando*; pro *renovat* ed. 1 et codd. B D F H L Q *innovat*; pro *inimicitias* cod. B *iniurias*.

en: 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*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. — Pro *ut consilia* multi codd. *et consimilia*.

en: Cf. above d. 2 a. 1 q. 1 ad 2. — For *ut consilia*, many codices read *et consimilia*.

la: Epist. I. Ioan. 4, 20. — Aliquanto inferius pro *duplex* multi codd. *dupliciter*.

en: 1 John 4, 20. — A little further below, for *duplex*, many codices read *dupliciter*.

la: Gen. 3, 9. seqq. et 4, 9. seqq.

en: Genesis 3, 9 ff. and 4, 9 ff.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: Quaest. seq. Cfr. supra d. 16. p. I. dub. I.

en: Following question. Cf. above d. 16 p. I dub. I.

la: Edd. perperam *virtus*.

en: The editions wrongly read virtus.

la: 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*.

en: 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.

la: 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*.

en: 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").

la: Eccli. 4, 25: *Est enim confusio adducens peccatum, et est confusio adducens gloriam et gratiam*. — Cod. H *et verecundiae confusio*.

en: 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").

la: 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*.

en: 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.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: 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].

en: 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].

latin_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. <!-- page 438 -->supra 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_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 <!-- page 438 -->above, 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.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 48983–49274) with the PDF column-bands of printed pp. 435–438 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p43{5,6,7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative for the cascade-shattered Conclusio/Respondeo/Solutio and the Articulus I Scholion (per the VOL II OVERRIDE). Running heads on all four pages confirm "DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I." Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 455–458). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Articulus I opener folded in.** This chunk holds the short Articulus I opener (*De confessione quoad praeceptum instituentis* — "Ad intelligentiam huius partis... duo principaliter quaeruntur... Quantum ad primum quaeruntur tria" + the three-question listing). The pars-II DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM stay in the d17-p2-divisio chunk.

**Page-footer split (hand-off picked up).** The p2-divisio writer flagged that p.435 footers 1–4 (Genesis / Job / Gloss-Gregory / Joshua) belong to this q1's fundamenta — claimed here as [^1]–[^4]. p.436 footers 1–10 → [^5]–[^13]. **p.437 footers 1–8 all belong to the body (Respondeo/Solutio ad obiecta), not to the Scholion** — corrected 2026-07-17 (J4 Class-D repair, see dated entry below); the Scholion that begins at the bottom of p.437 (spanning into p.438) carries no numbered footnote apparatus of its own in this chunk.

**2026-07-17 J4 Class-D repair (health-scan defs=14/la=15/en=14).** The p.437 body apparatus had been mis-transcribed: all 8 of Quaracchi's page-437 footnote markers (which restart at 1 on that page) had been collapsed onto a single reused global label `[^14]`, with footnotes 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 silently dropped from both body and apparatus, and footnotes 1/2/3/6's content run together into one merged def. PDF-verified via 450dpi column-band crops of printed p.437 (`raw/vision/vol4/p-437.png`, bands + custom seam crops in `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p437-*.png`): confirmed printed superscripts ¹ (at *patebit infra*), ² (*Veritas*), ³ (*illam*), ⁴ (*viae perversae*), ⁵ (*gratiam et gloriam*, first occurrence), ⁶ (*deberet esse*), ⁷ (*Deuteronomii decimo septimo*), ⁸ (*Ecclesiastici quarto*). Re-anchored all 8 body locations in both Latin and English (label [^14] kept for marker 1; added [^15]–[^21] for markers 2–8, continuing the chunk's global numbering) and split/transcribed the apparatus into 8 correct `[^N]` defs (see Apparatus section) verbatim from the p.437 footer bands. Latin/English body wording elsewhere untouched. Health-scan now clean (defs=21, la=21, en=21); `node scripts/build-content.mjs` translated/questions/books counts unchanged.

**Scholion coverage.** The Articulus I Scholion (printed at the top of p.438, above the QUAESTIO II header) has two sections and covers ALL THREE questions of the article: **§ I** addresses q1 and q2 ("Circa 1. et 2. quaestionem"); **§ II** addresses q3 ("Quoad 3. quaestionem" — the Christ-instituted-vs-promulgated reading). q2 and q3 therefore point here for their scholion; they should carry `has_scholion: false` with a note that the article scholion lives in q1.

**[?] flags.** One new: [^19]'s apparatus content contains a single word that is faint/ambiguous in the p.437 footer scan, between *deiegere* and *detegere* — printed with a `[?]` marker rather than resolved by guess. Two prior spots reconciled via PDF: (a) the OCR garble `c NcLuS 1 0.` = CONCLUSIO header (confirmed p.436 L band); (b) `Aclior`/`Achan` in [^4] — Quaracchi prints *Achor* in the body (substituted on codex-faith) and *Achan* in the apparatus quotation, both preserved as printed.

**Hand-off to q2 (d17-p2-a1-q2).** Question II ("Utrum confessio fuerit instituta in lege scripta") begins immediately after the scholion at the top-right of p.438 (raw line 49275). Its fundamenta and footer 1 (Levit. 16) start on p.438; the Articulus I scholion does NOT repeat — q2 inherits its scholion coverage from this q1 (§ I).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 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 sexto[^1] 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 octavo[^2] 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 tertio[^3]: *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 hanc[^4] 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 Leviticum[^5], ubi agitur de oblatione, dicitur: *Orabitque sacerdos, et remittetur ei.*

6. Item, vetus lex fuit lex rigoris, et magis puniebantur[^6] 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 Actibus[^7]: ergo tunc debuit institui confessio peccati.

**Contra:**
1. Augustinus[^8]: « 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 misericordia[^9]: cum ergo non teneretur aliquis facere se occidi, non tenebatur confiteri.

3. Item, in confessione manifestantur quae cordis sunt et occulta;
<!-- page 439 -->
sed « Lex prohibebat manum, non animum[^10] »: 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 veteris[^11], non deberet esse in nova.

5. Item, usque ad adventum Christi fuerunt homines sub umbra et ante non pervenerunt ad lucem[^12]; 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 vigesimo[^13]: 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 Ecclesiae[^14]. — Primo igitur fit propter peccati detectionem. Peccator enim, dum male agit, odit lucem[^15]; 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 est*[^16], 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 utrumque[^17]. 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 profanum*[^18]. 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 octavo[^19], 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 peccatis[^20] 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 veritatem[^21].

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
<!-- page 440 -->
Dei; quemadmodum fit oratio vocalis non ad Deum instruendum, sed ad excitandum in nobis affectum pudoris, vel amoris, vel doloris, vel alicuius alterius affectionis[^22].

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 vituli[^23]. 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 ostendebat[^24].

---

english:
### 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 sixteen[^1] 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-eight[^2] 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-three[^3]: *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 this[^4], 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 Leviticus[^5], 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 new[^6]; 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 Acts[^7]: therefore confession of sin ought to have been instituted then.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine[^8]: « 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 mercy[^9]: 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;
<!-- page 439 -->
but « the Law prohibited the hand, not the mind[^10] »: 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 different[^11], 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 light[^12]; 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 twenty[^13]: 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 Church[^14]. — Firstly, then, it is done on account of the detection of sin. For the sinner, while he does evil, hates the light[^15]; 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 flesh*[^16], 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 both[^17]. 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 profane*[^18]. 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 eight[^19], 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 sins[^20] 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 truth[^21].

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
<!-- page 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 affection[^22].

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 calf[^23]. 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 priests[^24].

---

la: Vers. 21. — Inferius pro *aliorum* plures codd. *alienorum,* Vat. *aliena.*

en: [Leviticus 16,] v. 21. — Below, for *aliorum* ("of others") several codices read *alienorum,* the Vatican [edition] *aliena.*

la: Vers. 13. — Post pauca pro *his* edd. *de his.*

en: [Proverbs 28,] v. 13. — A little further on, for *his* the editions read *de his.*

la: Vers. 26.

la: Cfr. Num. 5, 6. seqq.

en: Cf. Numbers 5:6 ff.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1. et 3. — Edd. *magis puniebat quam nova.*

en: See III Sent., d. 40, q. 1 and 3. — The editions read *magis puniebat quam nova* ("punished more than the new").

la: Ios. 7, 1. seqq.

en: Joshua 7:1 ff.

la: 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.*

en: *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. »

en: Cf. Exodus 21:12 and 14 ff.; Leviticus 24:17.

la: Vide tom. III. pag. 890, nota 7.

en: See [Opera Omnia] tom. III, p. 890, note 7.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 5. et d. 2. a. I. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, p. I, q. 5, and d. 2, a. I, q. 2.

la: Cfr. Hebr. 10, 1. seqq. — In plurimis codd. *desideratur homines.*

en: Cf. Hebrews 10:1 ff. — In very many codices *homines* ("men") is wanting.

la: Vers. 23. — Superius pro *quia* codd. U *qua.*

en: [John 20,] v. 23. — Above, for *quia* codices U read *qua.*

la: 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.*

en: 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.*

en: John 1:14. [Rightly: John 3:20, on hating the light.]

la: Supple cum cod. H *Deo et eius Ecclesiae,* codd. FG (C a secunda manu) addunt *Deo.*

en: 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").

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: Vers. 4. Cfr. Luc. 17, 14. — De institutione confessionis agitur quaest. seq.

en: [Matthew 8,] v. 4. Cf. Luke 17:14. — On the institution of confession the following question treats.

la: In codd. LVZaa additur *suis,* in codd. K (et a secunda manu) *suis et.*

en: In codices LVZaa is added *suis* ("their"); in codices K (also by a second hand) *suis et.*

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 844, nota 1.

en: Cf. [Opera Omnia] tom. III, p. 844, note 1.

la: Vide supra d. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro *affectionis* codd. FG *timoris.*

en: See above, d. 15, p. II, a. 2, q. 3. — For *affectionis* ("affection") codices FG read *timoris* ("fear").

la: Cod. H *professionis,* codd. AVW *professivum.* Supra pro *profitebantur* [permulti codd. *profitebatur,* alii sunt dubiae lectionis] *facto* edd. *plus est facto profiteri quam* ...

en: 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...").

la: 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.]

en: 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.] ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the vol4 PDF column-bands for printed pp. 438–440 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p43{8,9}-` and `vol4-p440-`, L column top→bottom then R column), against IA djvu OCR raw lines 49275–49475. Per the Vol II Override, the PDF bands are authoritative for the cascade-shattered two-column regions (Respondeo + all page-footers); the OCR is the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (verified: running heads "DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II." on p. 439; "440 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.").

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The Art. I scholion physically prints at the **top of p. 438**, *above* the QUAESTIO II header (band `vol4-p438-R` ends with "QUAESTIO II."), so it belongs to **q1** (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a1-q1`). No scholion header falls inside this question's raw range (49275–49475). See `bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a1-q1` for the Art. I scholion.

**Page-footer split.** Footnote numbering restarts each printed page. p. 438 footer = an unnumbered head-note (*supra pag. 435, nota 4. — Quartus Iac. 5, 16. — Quintus II. Reg. 12, 13. — Sextus II. Cor. 1, 12. — Inferius pro asse-curationem cod. bb alleviationem*) + numbered 1–9 (rendered as [^1]–[^9]); p. 439 footer = numbered 1–12 (rendered as [^10]–[^21]); p. 440 footer = numbered 1–5 (rendered as [^22]–[^24], the last folding the p.440 nn. 4–5 cross-refs). The p. 438 unnumbered head-note glosses the *Quartus/Quintus/Sextus* superscripts on args 4–6 (right column) and the *assecurationem/alleviationem* variant; it is carried into [^4]/[^5]/[^6]/the args rather than as a standalone marker, since those Roman-ordinal superscripts have no inline anchor in the OCR.

**[?] flags.**
- [^15]: OCR footer for the p.439 marker on *odit lucem* reads only "loan. 1, 1 4." (John 1:14), but the cited text "the sinner... hates the light" is John 3:20 (already the locus of [^14]). The "1,14" is almost certainly an OCR/typesetting slip or a stray cross-ref to *Verbum caro factum est* (John 1:14) two clauses later. Rendered the OCR verbatim with a bracketed `[Recte: loan. 3, 20.]`. **[?]** — confirm against a cleaner copy whether the footer belongs to *odit lucem* (John 3:20) or to *Verbum caro factum est* (John 1:14); marker placed on *odit lucem* per body order.
- [^17]: the codex-siglum gloss on *homo deificatus* is heavily cascade-fragmented in both OCR and bands ("cod. L Dei Filius... masc. quidem insinuat"); the *Deus deificans / homo deificatus* contrast and the *d. 7. dub. 2.* cross-ref are secure, but the intervening siglum sequence (cod. L vs. cod. ...) is **[?]** partly illegible.
- [^23]: p.440 nn. 1–2 conflated into one apparatus entry; the *professionis/professivum* sigla (cod. H / codd. AVW) and the *plus est facto profiteri quam* edition-variant are secure, but the bracketed tail is reconstructed from the OCR.

**Hand-off to q3 (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a1-q3`).** q3 ("Utrum confessio fuerit a Christo instituta" / *A quo confessio fuerit instituta*) opens **mid-p. 440 left column** ("Tertio quaeritur, a quo fuerit instituta..."): band `vol4-p440-L-1` onward, and the **p. 440 footer notes 3–5** (*Cfr. Levit. 16, 5. seqq.; Cfr. Levit. 14, 2; Matth. 8, 4; Luc. 17, 14; Cfr. Matth. 18, 18, et loan. 20, 23. seq. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 425, nota 5*) are **shared** — the *Levit. 16,5 / Matth. 8,4 / Matth. 18,18 / minori-p.425* portions belong to q3's body, not q2. q2 took p.440 nn. 1–2 (its solutions 4–5 variants). Verify the split when promoting q3.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 440 -->

### 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 absolutionem[^1]; 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 quarto[^2]: 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 tertio*[^3]: 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 prius[^5] 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 deprehensam[^6]: 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 octavo[^7] 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.

<!-- page 441 -->

Item, dicunt alii, quod ibi, Ioannis vigesimo[^8]: *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, qui[^9] 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 Hugo[^10]: « 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 absolutioni[^11]; 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 accedentium[^12].

---

english:
### 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 absolution[^1]; 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 four[^2]: 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 three*[^3]: 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 before[^5] 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 confession[^6]: 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 eight[^7] 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 twenty[^8]: *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, who[^9] 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 says[^10]: « 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 absolution[^11]; 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].

---

la: Vide supra d. 13. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. — Pro *pudoris* codd. F G *timoris*.

en: See above, d. 13, p. II, a. 2, q. 3. — For *pudoris* ("of shame") codices F G [read] *timoris* ("of fear").

la: Cod. 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.

en: 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."

la: Cfr. Levit. 16, 5. seqq.

en: Cf. Leviticus 16, 5 ff.

la: Cfr. Levit. 14, 2; Matth. 8, 4; Luc. 17, 14. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. Leviticus 14, 2; Matthew 8, 4; Luke 17, 14. — See the scholion to the preceding question.

la: Cfr. Matth. 18, 18, et Ioan. 20, 23. seq. — De altera minori cfr. supra pag. 423, nota 3.

en: Cf. Matthew 18, 18, and John 20, 23 f. — Concerning the other minor [premise] cf. above, p. 423, note 3.

la: Vers. 17. — Superius post *cum* codd. F G addunt *eas*.

en: Verse 17. — Above, after *cum*, codices F G add *eas*.

la: Vers. 6: *Baptizabantur ab eo in Iordane, confitentes peccata sua*. — Pro *praeparationis* cod. H *praeparatorius*.

en: Verse 6: *They were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins*. — For *praeparationis* codex H [reads] *praeparatorius*.

la: Ut 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*.

en: 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*.

la: Vers. 22. seq. — Inferius verbo *praecepit* cod. K (1 a secunda manu) praemittit *per consequens*, edd. legunt: *praecepit per consequens aliis, ut* etc.

en: 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.

la: Cod. 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.

en: 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.

la: Cod. *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*.

en: 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*.

la: Vide Hug. a S. Vict., loc. cit. — Post *opus pure* edd. addunt *humanum*. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: 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.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV two-column PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p440-{L,R}`, `vol4-p441-{L,R}`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 49476–49651) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Vol IV cascade-shatters the Conclusio/Respondeo/footers, so the column-band PDF read is authoritative there. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads verified: p440 (top-of-question, q3 title sits low in the left column under q2's solutions), p441 "DIST. XVII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III. — 441". Catchword "QUAESTIO III." printed at foot of p440 R. The chunk ends on p441 R at "sicut primam accedentium" (note 8); ARTICULUS II ("De confessione quoad obligationem exsequentis") opens on p442.

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: false. No SCHOLION header falls in this range. The Art. I scholion is rendered with q1 (`bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a1-q1`); this q3 explicitly defers to it — note [^4] reads "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." and note [^12] "Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest." (= the scholion attached to Art. I, q. 1).

**Page-split / footers.** Both printed pages 440 and 441 are wholly inside this chunk (q3 opens partway down p440 L and closes on p441 R), so no cross-chunk footer split occurs. The footer block at the foot of p440 L (notes 1–5) and the partial right-column footer continuation (notes 6–8) all belong to q3; p441 footers (notes 1–8 there, renumbered) cover the remainder — rendered here as [^1]–[^12] in a single continuous sequence with the per-page boundary noted in the apparatus blockquote.

**[?] flags.** None. The garbled marginal labels ("Argg. pro parte affirmativa", "Notandum", "Ratio 3", "Epilogus", "Ad argg. pro parte affirmativa") are editorial side-glosses, not body text, and were trimmed per the marginalia rule. Reading "*Agite poenitentiam*, Matthaei quarto" (raw OCR `Agite poenitentiam,'^\d.\,{\\K(;,\ ciuarto`) confirmed against the PDF band.