Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/17/q/bon-sent-IV-d17-p2-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 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 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: *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, 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, 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; 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: therefore confession of sin ought to have been instituted then.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine: « 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: 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;

but « the Law prohibited the hand, not the mind »: 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, 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; 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: 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. — Firstly, then, it is done on account of the detection of sin. For the sinner, while he does evil, hates the light; 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*, 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. 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*. 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, 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 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.

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

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.

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. 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.

---