17. Natural Law And Divine Positive Law
PART V The Moral Law in General
17. NATURAL LAW AND DIVINE POSITIVE LAW
(Ordinatia IV, dist. I7) By what precept is one obliged to confess sins to a priest?
As for the sort of obligation involved here we could find no precept obliging one to confession were it not of natural law, or divine or ecclesiastical positive law.
[Re natural law] Now, a practical truth of natural law is either one whose truth value can be ascertained from its terms (in which case it is a principle of natural law, even as in theoretical matters a principle is known from its terms) or else one that follows from the knowledge of such truths (in which case it is a demonstrated conclusion in the practical order). And strictly speaking, nothing pertains to the law of nature except a principle or a conclusion demonstrated in this fashion.
Nevertheless, something is said in an extended sense to pertain to the law of nature if it is a practical truth that is immediately recognized by all to be in accord with such a law.
From this it is clear that Gratian does not speak correctly about the law of nature when he has in mind to include all that is in the Old and New Testament Scriptures under the law of nature, because not all of this represents practical principles known from their terms or practical demonstrated conclusions, or even truths that are evidently in accord with such. One should interpret him, then, as extending "law of nature" to the positive law of the author of nature, namely, as distinct from such positive law as stems from one who is not nature's author.
[Re divine positive law] This clarifies, secondly, the notion of divine positive law as well. Whatever law the Scriptures contain for the dura-
The Moral Law in General tion for which it obliges that is not known from the terms, nor immediately known to accord with such, pertains purely to divine positive law. Such would be all the Jewish ceremonies during the period that law obtained, or the Christian ceremonies at the time of our present law. For it is not known from the terms of the law that God ought to be worshiped by the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament, and that for all times, or by our ceremonies, for instance, the eucharistic oblation or chanting the psalms, even though these may be consonant with the law of nature in the sense that they are not opposed to it.
This is also clear from the fact that whatever pertains to the law of nature, either properly or extensively, is uniform, whereas these ceremonies are not so, being different during the span of the other law's jurisdiction.
[Re positive Church law] The third source [from which the obligation of confession could arise] is also evident, because in addition to the divine positive law contained in Sacred Scripture, the Church has established many things that moral observance be more upright and that the sacraments be received and administered with greater reverence.
[Scotus' reply to the question] To the question at issue, then, I say that no one is obliged to confess his or her sins by any precept of naturallaw-which is the question we set out to answer. The reason is that if it were a matter of natural law, the obligation would have held for any state of law-which is false. For no such obligation existed in the state of innocence or during the tenure of the Mosaic law.
[Objections to this solution] You may protest-on the basis of the gloss on Genesis 3: "Adam, where are you?"-that after the Fall, the law of nature did require confession. For the gloss says: "The voice is one of rebuke and is asking for a confession," etc.
Similarly, we read [in Scripture] that Aaron and his sons must confess all the sins of the people of Israel [Leviticus 16:20], and elsewhere, that a person who has sinned against the law should confess his sins and offer such and such a sacrifice.
Many authorities in the Old Testament confirm the need for confessing. See what is said about this text: "A person is regarded as just before his accuser cross-examines him" [Proverbs 18:17].
Any conclusion that is based upon the principle of natural law is obviously proved as follows. Every guilty person, we know, must be judged; and no one ought to be a judge in his own case; therefore, the guilty party must be judged by another. Now, no one can be judged by another unless the other person accuses him; and-if his sin is se-
Natural Law and Divine Positive Law
cret-he can be accused only by himself; therefore, he is obliged to accuse himself to that person who will judge him. And it is more in line with reason that his accusation be private than that it be public.
Indeed, it may even be sufficiently known to natural reason that if the sin is secret, the accusation must also be private. From these propositions, then, known to be of the law of nature, or at least very much in accord with it, it follows that private confession of personal sins must be made to some other person, and to no one more reasonably, then, than to a priest.
(Scotus' reply to the objections] I reply to the first: Adam ought not to have hid his sin, for the judge was none other than the one to whom all sin is manifest, and before whom every sinner is obliged to acknowledge his sin. It was this confession that God required of him.
Not only did Adam not make it, but he excused his fault by blaming it on the woman, saying: "The woman you gave me [as my companion offered me the fruit, and I ate it" (Genesis 3:12)]. But this does not entail that according to the law at that time, confession must be made to another human being, although there would have been an obligation to do so to God, who asked for it.
As for the second objection [about the time when the Mosaic law was in force]' there is no instance of the sort of confession we speak of, but only of confessions of secret sins to God. Where certain faults were public, involving legal observances, the confession occurred when a sacrifice was offered in atonement for the same, and there was the general confession of the priests-"We have sinned and have acted unjustly!" This public confession by the priest was a quasi-disposition, begging God's mercy on the people, just as it is in the Church at present. But the sort of confession we are inquiring about is one where we admit we have sinned and we ask mercy for ourselves and all the people.
As for the third, I maintain that all the instances cited from the Old Testament to prove the existence of this sort of confession refer to one that is merely vocal and not judicial. To what kind of confession, then, do these texts refer? I claim it is that general sort of confession such as the priests, Daniel, and many other holy Jews made, or the confession of public violations of those legal observances that made them unclean or irregular before the law.
As for the supporting argument from reason, I grant that we know by the natural light of the mind that a guilty person must be judged, or at least we recognize that this is highly in accord with a proposition that is known in this way. For no sin should be left unpunished anywhere if there is one ruler of the universe and he is just-something