It is not less certain that to adults, and those having the use of reason, after the commission of mortal sin, penitence is necessary;
which penitence consists in contrition, and in sacramental confession, to be made audibly to a priest, and likewise in satisfaction.
PROOF. — It is to be noted that the Lutherans do not speak doctrinally of penitence, when they say that it is a turning unto God, which springs from hatred and displeasure at sin and love of righteousness; also, that man ought to renounce his own will that he may be governed by God. Also, that he ought to be humbled by perceiving the wrath of God and the terrors of death. For contrition is sufficient for mortal sins, in this sense, that to each single sin a single act of contrition is commensurate. In regard to confession, it is to be observed that the matter is of divine, but the form is of positive law; on this point not only the Lutherans err, but also the Canonists, who hold that the law of confession is merely positive. But the matter is proved to be of divine obligation by this that James says,
“Confess one to another.” This is the raw material; for, were it not brought into form ab extra, it would follow that priests ought to confess to laics, since “one another” means reciprocally; or that laics would not be capable of confessing, because then they could not hear the confession of others, but the form was superadded by Pope Innocent, viz., that the confession should be made to one’s own priest. This is the magisterial distinction adopted by all Schools. But the necessity of giving satisfaction to God is thus proved — without it there would be no place for what is said of works of supererogation, and, moreover, what the School holds with regard to remission of the fault, and retention of the penance, would be false. And so the Lutherans would make out their point, that there is nothing we can do which we owe not to God; also that we are reconciled to God freely through the satisfaction of Christ. But we ought never to
concede this to them, because, as will be seen farther one it drags too long a tail after it, and, in fact, would leave no room for purgatory.
ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE 3
The Spirit of God calls us to repentance every where, in the law, the prophets, and the gospel; at the same time, he also defines what he
understands by the term, when he orders us to be renewed in our hearts, to be circumcised to the Lord, to be washed, and to cease from wicked
pursuits, to loose the bond of iniquity bound within us, to rend our hearts and not our garments, to put off the old man, to renounce our own desires, and be renewed in the image of God; besides enumerating, as the fruits of repentance, acts of charity, and the exercises of a pious and holy life, (<261831>
Ezekiel 18:31; <240404>
Jeremiah 4:4; <230116>
Isaiah 1:16; 58:6;
<290213>Joel 2:13; <450606>Romans 6:6; <510310>Colossians 3:10;
<490422>
Ephesians 4:22; <510314>
Colossians 3:14.) Of confession to be made in the car of a priest there is no where any mention. Of satisfaction still less. Nay, it is even certain, that before Innocent the Third, no necessity of confession was imposed on the Christian people; for his decree, made at the Lateran Council, is extant, (Can. Omnis utriusque sexus.) Therefore, for about twelve hundred years the Christian Church had no knowledge of the dogma, that to repentance auricular confession was essentially
requisite. And the words of Chrysostom are clear: “I do not say that you must confess to your fellow servant; let it be to the Lord,” (Hom. 2 in Psalms 4.) Again, “It is not necessary to confess before witnesses. Let a searching out of sins be made in thought: let the decision be without a witness: let God alone see thee confessing,” (Serm. de Poenit. et Confess.) Again, “I call thee not into the view of men. Show thy wounds to God, the best physician, that he may cure them," (Hom. 5. Contra Anomoe, Hom.
4. de Lazaro.) I do not, indeed, deny, that the practice of confessing is very ancient. But I say that it was free, as Solomon relates in his Ecclesiastical History, where he also attests that it was abolished at Constantinople, because a certain matron, under the pretext of confessing, had been caught with a deacon, (Trip. Hist., Lib. 9.) But that a few only confessed is apparent from his mentioning that only one presbyter was allotted to the office in each bishopric. Whence it may easily be inferred, that the practice had arisen from the solemnity used in public repentance.
But public repentance does not refer to God in the forum of conscience, but looks to the judgment of the Church, that the sinner may, by some sign, declare before man what his mind is before God. In regard to satisfaction, the Scripture claims, out and out, for Christ this honor, that he is an expiator for sin, that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, that through his name only is obtained forgiveness of sins, (<620202>
1 John 2:2; <235705>Isaiah 57:5; <441043>Acts 10:43.) In regard to ourselves, it is completed gratuitously and without works, since Paul declares it to be our high privilege, that sins are not imputed to us. At the same time, we disapprove not of the satisfaction which the Church exacts of sinners in token of repentance.