Third, it transforms Gospel into Law.
Third, it transforms Gospel into Law.
§ 106. (III) Anything that transforms Gospel into Law and snatches away the comfort necessary to the consciences of the truly repentant who believe in Christ cannot and should not be approved. The confession which the Romanists demand changes Gospel into Law and snatches away the comfort necessary to the consciences of the truly repentant who believe in Christ. Therefore the confession which the Romanists demand cannot be approved. The truth of the major premise is obvious because the distinction between Law and Gospel must be carefully retained in the church, as we have shown in its own place [On the Gospel (Commonplace XVII), §§ 52, 55], and because “all things that were written were written for our teaching, so that by patience and the consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).
We prove the minor premise in this way. The Gospel teaches that the forgiveness of sins comes to the truly repentant who believe in Christ freely from faith, not because of the merits of our works. “Therefore it is from faith, freely, that the promise may be firm” (Rom. 4:16). But the Romanists claim that the promise of the Gospel depends upon the specific enumeration of sins as upon merit. And since no one can be certain whether or not he has applied the due diligence necessary in this enumeration, the promise is thus made uncertain, and the conscience is forced to be assailed by constant doubts.
Scotus (Sent., 4, q. 4) writes: “Confession confers the remission of blame upon him who comes with attrition and sets up no obstacle. Otherwise penance would not be the sacrament of the new Law.”
Biel (Sent., 4, dist. 17, q. 1):
There are various fruits of confession. (1) Remission of all or part of one’s punishment, for remitted fault through previous or concomitant contrition continues to be another debtor of temporal punishment. The punishment is forgiven totally or partially according to the disposition of the one who is confessing; and this occurs as much from the power of the Keys by which the confessor has the power to forgive anything as from the merit of the person confessing, for confession is strongly tied to punishment. Therefore it is also a part of satisfaction. (2) The merit of a blessed reward on account of obedience shown to God’s Law and to the church. The more difficult the task, the greater the merit. (3) The individual instruction of the penitent, which is much more fruitful than general instruction. (4) The appraisal of the satisfaction made by the confessor which, by virtue of the power of the Keys, makes the satisfaction more effective for the remission of punishment than if it were assumed solely by the will of the confessing person. (5) The merit of obedience in keeping and fulfilling the imposed satisfaction. Many other fruits could be listed.
Bellarmine (De poenit., 1, ch. 4): “Confession frees from death, opens paradise, and gives the hope of salvation.” “The embarrassment we experience while confessing is a part of satisfaction for sins committed. By the insignificant consternation we suffer before one of our fellow pilgrims we ransom the enormous consternation we would otherwise suffer on Judgment Day” (De poenit., 3, ch. 12). Chapter 21: “The Scholastics are not saying that we merit the remission of sins through confession, except perhaps congruously.”
Here pertains a story quite often told for increasing the usefulness and necessity of confession. In accord with custom, an adulterous woman began to enumerate her sins to the sacrificer. Not far from that scene was some father, I do not know if he was from the family of Dominic or Francis, who was endowed with a singular gift for looking into spiritual matters. So when the adulterous woman began to list minor sins, that father seemed to see one toad after another coming out of—or, rather, leaping out of—the woman’s mouth. After the toads leaped out onto the pavement and looked around at where they were, lo and behold, another toad of unusual size seemed to alternate poking his head out of her mouth and then pulling it back in again, until he again went back through her throat into her belly from which he had come up. When this happened, it seemed a marvelous sight for me to behold: all the toads which had come out earlier leaped back as one into the adulterous woman’s mouth, and she appeared to eat them up. The holy man was thunderstruck at this. When he thought about what this vision might mean to him, a voice came from heaven and interpreted it this way: the toads were sins, and those which had come out in the beginning signified the sins which the woman had confessed freely. The one which first stuck its head out of her mouth and then pulled it back in again signified adultery, which the wretched woman had thought and planned to confess but about which she had said nothing, overcome as she was by shame. So it also happened that the rest of her sins which she had confessed before were considered before God just as if she had not confessed them nor been forgiven.
Yet if confession is the merit for the remission of sins, how are we justified freely by faith without the works of the Law, by believing and not by working, from the Gospel and not from the Law, etc.? And furthermore, certain canons state that auricular confession is not of service for the remission of sins. For in them we read ([Ius canonicum,]De poenit., dist. 1, ch. Qui natus): “Since we were raised up through grace and became the children of light before confession, it is quite clear that sin is remitted solely by contrition of the heart without confession of the mouth.” Chapter Omnis: “Sin, which has been proven to have already been forgiven, is not forgiven in confession. Therefore confession takes place to show repentance, not to obtain pardon.” Chapter Quidam Deo: “The confession which one makes to God alone cleanses sin, because it is a confession of the righteous. But the confession which is made to the priest teaches the way in which sins are washed away.”
Bellarmine counters (De poenit., 3, ch. 21): (1) “Even in the Gospel there stands the requirement of a condition of works for justification.” We spoke about this in detail in our treatise On the Gospel [Commonplace XVII, §§ 22–25], and more will be said in the treatise On Justification [Commonplace XIX, §§ 83–88].
(2) “On the basis of our position, the remission of sins depends on the enumeration before God.”
We respond. Not as if from merit nor in the way that an enumeration of all sins is simply necessary, but the confession, provided it is salutary, is a declaration before God of earnest contrition and confidence about the forgiveness of sins. In the case of hypocrites and those filled with despair, it is far removed from confidence in Christ. Therefore it also is not salutary and does not please God.
(3) “It is a lie, that the merits of enumeration and satisfaction should be substituted for free forgiveness.”
We respond. Are they not clearly attacking our position, by which we claim that contrition and new obedience are required in true repentance and yet that sins are forgiven us freely by faith alone in Christ? Is the apostle’s contrast not clear: “If it is of grace, it is no longer of works” (Rom. 11:6)?
(4) “Similar praises of confession are extant in the fathers.”
We respond. They are speaking about salutary confession before God. Because this is connected with true contrition, faith in Christ, and the correction of life, they attribute to a part what belongs to repentance with respect to saving faith in Christ. Furthermore, the necessary contrition is taken away from the contrite through the doctrine of confession as the Papists propose it, as is clear also from the fact that they approve of such a confession only if it proceeds from a heart sufficiently contrite, if worthy diligence in confession is used, and if due satisfactions follow. But now, no one knows whether he is sufficiently contrite, whether he is using worthy diligence in confession, or whether he is perfectly fulfilling the satisfactions. Nor does any consolation remain in absolution, as Bellarmine points out (De poenit., 2, ch. 14): “ ‘I absolve you’ does not affirm that he absolves absolutely, because he is not unaware of the many ways in which it may happen that he does not absolve even though he may pronounce these words: namely, if a person who seems to receive the sacrament perhaps does not have the intent to receive it or is not rightly disposed or sets up some obstacle.” “When the word of absolution comes to the element of confession, the sacrament is completed as far as the essence is concerned, but this does not happen completely and perfectly if the integral parts are considered” (De poenit., bk. 1, ch. 17). In previous sections, he had taught that satisfaction was required for these [integral parts].