Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### 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; 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: 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*: 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 », 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 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: 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 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: *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 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: « 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; 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].

---