Article VI: _Of Confession and Satisfaction._
Good men can easily judge that it is of the greatest importance that
the true doctrine concerning the abovementioned parts, namely,
contrition and faith, be preserved. [For the great fraud of
indulgences, etc., and the preposterous doctrines of the sophists
have sufficiently taught us what great vexation and danger arise
therefrom if a foul stroke is here made. How many a godly conscience
under the Papacy sought with great labor the true way, and in the
midst of such darkness did not find it!] Therefore, we have always
been occupied more with the elucidation of these topics, and have
disputed nothing as yet concerning confession and satisfaction. For
we also retain confession, especially on account of the absolution,
as being the word of God which, by divine authority, the power of the
keys pronounces upon individuals. Therefore it would be wicked to
remove private absolution from the Church. Neither do they
understand what the remission of sins or the power of the keys is, if
there are any who despise private absolution. But in reference to
the enumeration of offenses in confession, we have said above that we
hold that it is not necessary by divine right. For the objection,
made by some, that a judge ought to investigate a ease before he
pronounces upon it, pertains in no way to this subject; because the
ministry of absolution is favor or grace, it is not a legal process,
or law. [For God is the Judge, who has committed to the apostles,
not the office of judges, but the administration of grace namely, to
acquit those who desire, etc.] Therefore ministers in the Church have
the command to remit sin, they have not the command to investigate
secret sins. And indeed, they absolve from those that we do not
remember; for which reason absolution, which is the voice of the
Gospel remitting sins and consoling consciences, does not require
judicial examination.
And it is ridiculous to transfer hither the saying of Solomon, Prov.
27, 23: Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks. For
Solomon says nothing of confession, but gives to the father of a
family a domestic precept, that he should use what is his own, and
abstain from what is another's, and he commands him to take care of
his own property diligently, yet in such a way that, with his mind
occupied with the increase of his resources, he should not cast away
the fear of God, or faith or care in God's Word. But our adversaries,
by a wonderful metamorphosis, transform passages of Scripture to
whatever meaning they please. [They produce from the Scriptures
black and white, as they please, contrary to the natural meaning of
the clear words.] Here to know signifies with them to hear
confessions, the state, not the outward life, but the secrets of
conscience; and the flocks signify men. [Sable, we think means a
school within which there are such doctors and orators. But it has
happened aright to those who thus despise the Holy Scriptures and all
fine arts that they make gross mistakes in grammar.] The
interpretation is assuredly neat, and is worthy of these despisers of
the pursuits of eloquence. But if any one desires by a similitude to
transfer a precept from a father of a family to a pastor of a Church,
he ought certainly to interpret "state" [V. _vultus_, countenance] as
applying to the outward life. This similitude will be more
consistent.
But let us omit such matters as these. At different times in the
Psalms mention is made of confession, as, Ps. 32, 5: I said, I will
confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest the
iniquity of my sin. Such confession of sin which is made to God is
contrition itself. For when confession is made to God, it must be
made with the heart not alone with the voice, as is made on the stage
by actors. Therefore, such confession is contrition, in which,
feeling God's wrath, we confess that God is justly angry, and that He
cannot be appeased by our works, and nevertheless we seek for mercy
because of God's promise. Such is the following confession, Ps. 51,
4: Against Thee only have I sinned, that Thou mightest be justified
and be clear when Thou judgest, i.e., "I confess that I am a sinner,
and have merited eternal wrath, nor can I set my righteousnesses, my
merits, against Thy wrath; accordingly, I declare that Thou art just
when Thou condemnest and punishest us, I declare that Thou art clear
when hypocrites judge Thee to be unjust in punishing them or in
condemning the well-deserving. Yea, our merits cannot be opposed to
Thy judgment but we shall thus be justified, namely, if Thou
justifiest us, if through Thy mercy Thou accountest us righteous."
Perhaps some one may also cite Jas. 5, 16: Confess your faults one to
another. But here the reference is not to confession that is to be
made to the priests, but, in general, concerning the reconciliation
of brethren to each other. For it commands that the confession be
mutual.
Again, our adversaries will condemn many most generally received
teachers if they will contend that in confession an enumeration of
offenses is necessary according to divine Law. For although we
approve of confession, and judge that some examination is of
advantage in order that men may be the better instructed [young and
inexperienced persons be questioned], yet the matter must be so
controlled that snares are not cast upon consciences, which never
will be tranquil if they think that they cannot obtain the remission
of sins unless this precise enumeration be made. That which the
adversaries have expressed in the _Confutation_ is certainly most
false, namely, that a full confession is necessary for salvation.
For this is impossible. And what snares they here cast upon the
conscience when they require a full confession! For when will
conscience be sure that the confession is complete? In the
Church-writers mention is made of confession, but they do not speak
of this enumeration of secret offenses, but of the rite of public
repentance. For as the fallen or notorious [those guilty of public
crimes] were not received without fixed satisfactions [without a
public ceremony or reproof], they made confession on this account to
the presbyters, in order that satisfactions might be prescribed to
them according to the measure of their offenses. This entire matter
contained nothing similar to the enumeration concerning which we are
disputing. This confession was made, not because the remission of
sins before God could not occur without it, but because satisfactions
could not be prescribed unless the kind of offense were first known.
For different offenses had different canons.
And from this rite of public repentance there has been left the word
"satisfaction." For the holy Fathers were unwilling to receive the
fallen or the notorious, unless as far as it was possible, their
repentance had been first examined into and exhibited publicly. And
there seem to have been many causes for this. For to chastise those
who had fallen served as an example, just as also the gloss upon the
degrees admonishes, and it was improper immediately to admit
notorious men to the communion [without their being tested]. These
customs have long since grown obsolete. Neither is it necessary to
restore them, because they are not necessary for the remission of
sins before God. Neither did the Fathers hold this, namely, that men
merit the remission of sins through such customs or such works,
although these spectacles [such outward ceremonies] usually lead
astray the ignorant to think that by these works they merit the
remission of sins before God. But if any one thus holds, he holds to
the faith of a Jew and heathen. For also the heathen had certain
expiations for offenses through which they imagined to be reconciled
to God. Now, however, although the custom has become obsolete, the
name satisfaction still remains, and a trace of the custom also
remains of prescribing in confession certain satisfactions, which
they define as works that are not due. We call them canonical
satisfactions. Of these we hold, just as of the enumeration, that
canonical satisfactions [these public ceremonies] are not necessary
by divine Law for the remission of sins, just as those ancient
exhibitions of satisfactions in public repentance were not necessary
by divine Law for the remission of sins. For the belief concerning
faith must be retained, that by faith we obtain remission of sins for
Christ's sake, and not for the sake of our works that precede or
follow [when we are converted or born anew in Christ]. And for this
reason we have discussed especially the question of satisfactions,
that by submitting to them the righteousness of faith be not obscured,
or men think that for the sake of these works they obtain remission
of sins. And many sayings that are current in the schools aid the
error, such as that which they give in the definition of satisfaction,
namely, that it is wrought for the purpose of appeasing the divine
displeasure.
But, nevertheless, the adversaries acknowledge that satisfactions are
of no profit for the remission of guilt. Yet they imagine that
satisfactions are of profit in redeeming from the punishments,
whether of purgatory or other punishments. For thus they teach that
in the remission of sins, God [without means, alone] remits the guilt,
and yet, because it belongs to divine justice to punish sin, that He
commutes eternal into temporal punishment. They add further that a
part of this temporal punishment is remitted by the power of the keys,
but that the rest is redeemed by means of satisfactions. Neither
can it be understood of what punishments a part is remitted by the
power of the keys, unless they say that a part of the punishments of
purgatory is remitted, from which it would follow that satisfactions
are only punishments redeeming from purgatory. And these
satisfactions, they say, avail even though they are rendered by those
who have relapsed into mortal sin, as though indeed the divine
displeasure could be appeased by those who are in mortal sin. This
entire matter is fictitious, and recently fabricated without the
authority of Scripture and the old writers of the Church. And not
even Longobardus speaks in this way of satisfactions. The
scholastics saw that there were satisfactions in the Church; and they
did not notice that these exhibitions had been instituted both for
the purpose of example, and for testing those who desired to be
received by the Church. In a word, they did not see that it was a
discipline, and entirely a secular matter. Accordingly, they
superstitiously imagined that these avail not for discipline before
the Church, but for appeasing God. And just as in other places they
frequently, with great inaptness, have confounded spiritual and civil
matters [the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual, and the kingdom
of the world, and external discipline], the same happens also with
regard to satisfactions. But the gloss on the canons at various
places testifies that these observances were instituted for the sake
of church discipline [should serve alone for an example before the
Church].
Let us see, moreover, how in the Confutation which they had the
presumption to obtrude upon His Imperial Majesty, they prove these
figments of theirs. They cite many passages from the Scriptures, in
order to impose upon the inexperienced, as though this subject which
was unknown even in the time of Longobard, had authority from the
Scriptures. They bring forward such passages as these: Bring forth,
therefore, fruits meet for repentance, Matt. 3, 8, Mark 1, 15. Again:
Yield your members servants to righteousness Rom. 6, 19. Again,
Christ preaches repentance, Matt. 4, 17: Repent. Again, Christ Luke
24, 47, commands the apostles to preach repentance, and Peter
preaches repentance Acts 2, 38. Afterward they cite certain passages
of the Fathers and the canons, and conclude that satisfactions in the
Church are not to be abolished contrary to the plain Gospel and the
decrees of the Councils and Fathers [against the decision of the Holy
Church]; nay, even that those who have been absolved by the priest
ought to bring to perfection the repentance that has been enjoined,
following the declaration of Paul, Titus 2, 14: Who gave Himself for
us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself
a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
May God put to confusion these godless sophists who so wickedly
distort God's Word to their own most vain dreams! What good man is
there who is not moved by such indignity?" Christ says, Repent, the
apostles preach repentance; therefore eternal punishments are
compensated by the punishments of purgatory; therefore the keys have
the power to remit part of the punishments of purgatory; therefore
satisfactions redeem the punishments of purgatory"! Who has taught
these asses such logic? Yet this is neither logic nor sophistry, but
cunning trickery. Accordingly, they appeal to the expression repent
in such a way that, when the inexperienced hear such a passage cited
against us they may derive the opinion that we deny the entire
repentance. By these arts they endeavor to alienate minds and to
enkindle hatred, so that the inexperienced may cry out against us
[Crucify! crucify!], that such pestilent heretics as disapprove of
repentance should be removed from their midst. [Thus they are
publicly convicted of being liars in this matter.]
But we hope that among good men these calumnies [and
misrepresentations of Holy Scripture] may make little headway. And
God will not long endure such impudence and wickedness. [They will
certainly be consumed by the First and Second Commandments.] Neither
has the Pope of Rome consulted well for his own dignity in employing
such patrons, because he has entrusted a matter of the greatest
importance to the judgment of these sophists. For since we include
in the Confession almost the sum of the entire Christian doctrine,
judges should have been appointed to make a declaration concerning
matters so important and so many and various, whose learning and
faith would have been more approved than that of these sophists who
have written this Confutation. It was particularly becoming for you,
O Campegius, in accordance with your wisdom, to have taken care that
in regard to matters of such importance they should write nothing
which either at this time or with posterity might seem to be able to
diminish regard for the Roman See. If the Roman See judges it right
that all nations should acknowledge her as mistress of the faith, she
ought to take pains that learned and uncorrupt men make investigation
concerning matters of religion. For what will the world judge if at
any time the writing of the adversaries be brought to light? What
will posterity judge concerning these reproachful judicial
investigations? You see, O Campegius, that these are the last times,
in which Christ predicted that there would be the greatest danger to
religion. You, therefore, who ought, as it were, to sit on the
watch-tower and control religious matters, should in these times
employ unusual wisdom and diligence. There are many signs which,
unless you heed them, threaten a change to the Roman state. And you
make a mistake if you think that Churches should be retained only by
force and arms. Men ask to be taught concerning religion. How many
do you suppose there are, not only in Germany, but also in England,
in Spain, in France, in Italy, and finally even in the city of Rome,
who, since they see that controversies have arisen concerning of the
greatest importance, are beginning here and there to doubt, and to be
silently indignant that you refuse to investigate and judge aright
subjects of such weight as these; that you do not deliver wavering
consciences; that you only bid us be overthrown and annihilated by
arms? There are many good men to whom this doubt is more bitter than
death. You do not consider sufficiently how great a subject religion
is, if you think that good men are in anguish for a slight cause
whenever they begin to doubt concerning any dogma. And this doubt
can have no other effect than to produce the greatest bitterness of
hatred against those who, when they ought to heal consciences, plant
themselves in the way of the explanation of the subject. We do not
here say that you ought to fear God's judgment. For the hierarchs
think that they can easily provide against this, for since they hold
the keys, of course they can open heaven for themselves whenever they
wish. We are speaking of the judgments of men and the silent desires
of all nations, which, indeed, at this time require that these
matters be investigated and decided in such a manner that good minds
may be healed and freed from doubt. For, in accordance with your
wisdom, you can easily decide what will take place if at any time
this hatred against you should break forth. But by this favor you
will be able to bind to yourself all nations, as all sane men regard
it as the highest and most important matter, if you heal doubting
consciences. We have said these things not because we doubt
concerning our Confession. For we know that it is true, godly, and
useful to godly consciences. But it is likely that there are many in
many places who waver concerning matters of no light importance, and
yet do not hear such teachers as are able to heal their consciences.
But let us return to the main point. The Scriptures cited by the
adversaries speak in no way of canonical satisfactions, and of the
opinions of the scholastics, since it is evident that the latter were
only recently born. Therefore it is pure slander when they distort
Scripture to their own opinions. We say that good fruits, good works
in every kind of life, ought to follow repentance, i.e., conversion
or regeneration [the renewal of the Holy Ghost in the heart].
Neither can there be true conversion or true contrition where
mortifications of the flesh and good fruits do not follow [if we do
not externally render good works and Christian patience]. True
terrors, true griefs of mind, do not allow the body to indulge in
sensual pleasures, and true faith is not ungrateful to God, neither
does it despise God's commandments. In a word, there is no inner
repentance unless it also produces outwardly mortifications of the
flesh. We say also that this is the meaning of John when he says,
Matt. 3, 8: Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance.
Likewise of Paul when he says Rom. 6, 19: Yield your members servants
to righteousness; just as he likewise says elsewhere, Rom. 12, 1:
Present your bodies a living sacrifice, etc. And when Christ says
Matt. 4, 17: Repent, He certainly speaks of the entire repentance, of
the entire newness of life and its fruits, He does not speak of those
hypocritical satisfactions which, the scholastics avail for
compensating the punishment of purgatory or other punishments when
they are made by those who are in mortal sin.
Many arguments, likewise, can be collected to show that these
passages of Scripture pertain in no way to scholastic satisfactions.
These men imagine that satisfactions are works that are not due
[which we are not obliged to do]; but Scripture, in these passages,
requires works that are due [which we are obliged to do]. For this
word of Christ, Repent, is the word of a commandment. Likewise the
adversaries write that if any one who goes to confession should
refuse to undertake satisfactions, he does not sin, but will pay
these penalties in purgatory. Now the following passages are,
without controversy, precepts pertaining to this life: Repent; Bring
forth fruits meet for repentance; Yield your members servants to
righteousness. Therefore they cannot be distorted to the
satisfactions which it is permitted to refuse. For to refuse God's
commandments is not permitted. [For God's commands are not thus left
to our discretion.] Thirdly, indulgences remit these satisfactions,
as is taught by the Chapter, _De Poenitentiis et Remissione_,
beginning _Quum ex eo_, etc. But indulgences do not free us from the
commandments: Repent; Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
Therefore it is manifest that these passages of Scripture have been
wickedly distorted to apply to canonical satisfactions. See further
what follows. If the punishments of purgatory are satisfactions, or
satispassions [sufferings sufficient], or if satisfactions are a
redemption of the punishments of purgatory, do these passages also
give commandment that souls be punished in purgatory? [The
above-cited passages of Christ and Paul must also show and prove that
souls enter purgatory and there suffer pain.] Since this must follow
from the opinions of the adversaries, these passages should be
interpreted in a new way [these passages should put on new coats]:
Bring forth fruits meet for repentance; Repent, i.e., suffer the
punishments of purgatory after this life. But we do not care about
refuting in more words these absurdities of the adversaries. For it
is evident that Scripture speaks of works that are due, of the entire
newness of life, and not of these observances of works that are not
due, of which the adversaries speak. And yet, by these figments they
defend orders [of monks], the sale of Masses and infinite observances,
namely, as works which, if they do not make satisfaction for guilt,
yet make satisfaction for punishment.
Since, therefore, the passages of Scripture cited do not say that
eternal punishments are to be compensated by works that are not due,
the adversaries are rash in affirming that these satisfactions are
compensated by canonical satisfactions. Nor do the keys have the
command to commute some punishments, and likewise to remit a part of
the punishments. For where are such things [dreams and lies] read in
the Scriptures? Christ speaks of the remission of sins when He says
Matt. 18, 18: Whatsoever ye shall loose, etc. [i.e.], sin being
forgiven, death eternal is taken away, and life eternal bestowed.
Nor does Whatsoever ye shall bind speak of the imposing of
punishments, but of retaining the sins of those who are not converted.
Moreover, the declaration of Longobard concerning remitting a part
of the punishments has been taken from the canonical punishments; a
part of these the pastors remitted. Although, we hold that
repentance ought to bring forth good fruits for the sake of God's
glory and command, and good fruits, true fastings, true prayers, true
alms, etc., have the commands of God, yet in the Holy Scriptures we
nowhere find this, namely, that eternal punishments are not remitted
except on account of the punishment of purgatory or canonical
satisfactions, i.e., on account of certain works not due, or that the
power of the keys has the command to commute their punishments or to
remit a portion. These things the adversaries were to prove. [This
they will not attempt.]
Besides, the death of Christ is a satisfaction not only for guilt,
but also for eternal death, according to Hos. 13, 14: 0 death, I will
be thy death. How monstrous, therefore, it is to say that the
satisfaction of Christ redeemed from the guilt, and our punishments
redeem from eternal death, as the expression, I will be thy death,
ought then to be understood, not concerning Christ, but concerning
our works, and, indeed, not concerning the works commanded by God,
but concerning some frigid observances devised by men! And these are
said to abolish death, even when they are wrought in mortal sin. It
is incredible with what grief we recite these absurdities of the
adversaries, which cannot but cause one who considers them to be
enraged against such doctrines of demons, which the devil has spread
in the Church in order to suppress the knowledge of the Law and
Gospel, of repentance and quickening, and the benefits of Christ.
For of the Law they speak thus: "God, condescending to our weakness,
has given to man a measure of those things to which of necessity he
is bound and this is the observance of precepts, so that from what is
left, i.e., from works of supererogation, he can render satisfaction
with reference to offenses that have been committed." Here men
imagine that they can observe the Law of God in such a manner as to
be able to do even more than the Law exacts. But Scripture
everywhere exclaims that we are far distant from the perfection which
the Law requires. Yet these men imagine that the Law of God has been
comprised in outward and civil righteousness; they do not see that it
requires true love to God "with the whole heart," etc., and condemns
the entire concupiscence in the nature. Therefore no one does as
much as the Law requires. Hence their imagination that we can do
more is ridiculous. For although we can perform outward works not
commanded by God's Law [which Paul calls beggarly ordinances], yet
the confidence that satisfaction is rendered God's Law [yea, that
more is done than God demands] is vain and wicked. And true prayers,
true alms, true fastings, have God's command; and where they have
God's command, they cannot without sin be omitted. But these works,
in so far as they have not been commanded by God's Law, but have a
fixed form derived from human rule are works of human traditions of
which Christ says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me with the
commandments of men, such as certain fasts appointed not for
restraining the flesh, but that, by this work, honor may be given to
God, as Scotus says, and eternal death be made up for; likewise, a
fixed number of prayers, a fixed measure of alms when they are
rendered in such a way that this measure is a worship _ex opere
operato_ giving honor to God, and making up for eternal death. For
they ascribe satisfaction to these _ex opere operato_, because they
teach that they avail even in those who are in mortal sin. There are
works which depart still farther from God's commands, as [rosaries
and] pilgrimages; and of these there is a great variety: one makes a
journey [to St. Jacob] clad in mail, and another with bare feet.
Christ calls these "vain acts of worship," and hence they do not
serve to appease God's displeasure, as the adversaries say. And yet
they adorn these works with magnificent titles; they call them works
of supererogation, to them the honor is ascribed of being a price
paid instead of eternal death. Thus they are preferred to the works
of God's commandments [the true works expressly mentioned in the Ten
Commandments]. In this way the Law of God is obscured in two ways,
one, because satisfaction is thought to be rendered God's Law by
means of outward and civil works, the other, because human traditions
are added whose works are preferred to the works of the divine Law.