b. Refutation of the Aforesaid Proof

67. Against this reasoning it can be argued:

First as follows, that it belongs to the same person, and as the same person, to take cognizance in a case and to give sentence in it (this is manifest because it is this person and as this person who is for this purpose taking cognizance). But a priest does not give sentence in God’s person but in his own when absolving a confessing penitent; therefore as such does he hear and take cognizance. Proof of the minor: a priest does not absolve principally but ministerially; but to absolve ministerially only belongs to him in his own person. For if he were to speak in the person of God when absolving a confessing penitent he could, without preceding prayer (which is “May the Lord absolve you”), say “I absolve you principally and I infuse grace into you,” as the angel truly said in the person of God, “I brought you out of the land of Egypt” [Exodus 20.2].

68. Again, in the forum of confession a priest does not hear or absolve in the person of God more than he confects the Eucharist in the person of God, because the former act is excellent just as the latter is and a sacramental act where divine virtue operates as here. Indeed, the priest seems to act more in the person of God or in the person of Christ in the latter than the former; for in the latter he speaks the words of Christ ‘my body’ and in the person of Christ, about which words he prefaces, “Who on the day before he died etc.,” such that he himself says the whole of “Take etc.” and “this is etc.,” by reciting the words of Christ. It is not so in the issue at hand. Hence the priest does not preface in confession “Christ, wishing to absolve the sinner, spoke thus, ‘I absolve you’,” but the ‘I’ stands here for the person of the minister himself. From this is it plain that the priest confects in the person of Christ more not less than he absolves or hears confession. But he confects in his own person, and what he knows as confecting he knows in his own person; hence he does not lie when after mass he says, “I know that I consecrated today.” Therefore in confession too.

69. Again, to speak of sins uncovered in confession, albeit universally and not referred in particular to the person confessing, is to speak according to the same way and according to the same truth [n.68], as will be proved later [n.97].

70. This is also proved by Gregory IX, Decretals V tit.38 ch.9, ‘On Penitences and Remissions’, where Innocent III responds to a certain cardinal legate who had written to him of a case he had heard in confession and sought his advice. The Pope did not refute him as to the revelation in general, in writing too, but replies how one should advise such a person confessing.

71. This is also plain from the common practice of confessors for, whether in common speech or in preaching, they sometimes say, “Such a case occurred,” “Someone sinned in such or such a way.” The proposition, therefore, is obtained that a confessor can licitly state outside confession a sin confessed to him, but so that he in no way state something related to the person confessing from which knowledge of him could be reached.

72. But if the aforesaid reasoning [of Richard, n.66] were valid this would not be licit, because the confessor would be lying. Proof: because he who does not know a particular save as a determinate singular does not know the particular if he not know the singular; but this confessor does not know that some person has done such a sin save as this person confessed by him and as this sin confessed to him; therefore if he would be lying about this person and this sin because ignorant of them [sc. outside confession], he would be lying similarly about other person and other sin.Richard claims [n.66] that a confessor who says outside confession what he knows in confession would be lying, since he does not know it outside confession. Scotus counters that this claim entails confessors would be lying if outside confession they speak, as they do [n.71], of such and such sin and sinner without mentioning singular instances. For confessors only know such cases because they know the singular instances; so if they do not know the singular instances outside confession, neither do they know the cases outside confession and would be lying if they said they did. ⁶²

73. I concede, therefore, these arguments [nn.67-72], for it is not because a revealer may be lyingThe Latin text misprints ‘mentiarur’ for ‘mentiatur’. ⁶³ that revelation [of confession] is against the law of nature. And so I do not hold this first argument [n.66].

74. I reply to the argument, therefore, that it is not the same thing to speak in the person of another and to speak with his authority or as his minister. For commonly he who speaks in the person of another simply projects the person, as is commonly the case in those who jokingly imitate others. For when he imitates the stutterer or the like in a like act, and does so by talking as he would talk, it is in his person that he is speaking or doing what he does; and therefore as soon as he fails to act as that person would and to talk as he would it is said to him ‘You are lying’ or ‘you are doing it wrong’, although then he is acting or speaking in his own proper voice. This is how it is with the speakings of angels in the person of God [n.66].

75. Not thus does a priest hear confession or absolve in the person of God, but he is only a minister of God in the act and as a minister he acts; therefore he acts in his own person.

76. I concede, therefore, that if he were to hear in the person of God and to speak in the person of God, he could say something truly that he could not say in his own person; for in the person of God he would truly say this, ‘I am God’, ‘I created the world’, and the like; but speaking so in his own person he would lie. But the priest in confession neither hears nor speaks in the person of God but in his own person, although with the authority of God and as his minister. The same way in other sacraments. Hence as minister of God he baptizes and consecrates, and yet as man or in his own person he knows that he has baptized, and he can say without lying that he has baptized.