The advantages of confession before the minister of the church.
The advantages of confession before the minister of the church.
§ 100. What are these advantages offered by private confession before a minister of the church? And what are the reasons it is retained in our churches? There are very many, and they are quite weighty. For it is kept: (1) Because of the specific absolution and the consolation it provides for terrified consciences. When Christ gives His apostles and their successors the power to forgive sins (Matt. 18:18; John 20:22–23), He not only is entrusting them with the proclamation of the Gospel, but He also is commanding that the forgiveness of sins be announced to the truly repentant specifically. For He declares in general: “Whatever you absolve on earth will be absolved in heaven” and “Whosesoever sins you forgive, they will be forgiven.” (So also Nathan announced forgiveness of sins to David specifically [2 Sam. 12:13]; Christ, to the paralytic [Matt. 9:2] and to the sinful woman [Luke 7:48]). Thus the rite of private Absolution is not only a public testimony of this article: that those who have fallen and have now come to their senses must be accepted by the church. (With this very article Peter Alexandrinus refuted Meletius, who was embracing the madness of the Cathari, according to Epiphanius, Haeres. 68.) But it also offers a wonderful consolation to terrified and anxious consciences. For even though the promise of the Gospel pertains in general to all who are truly contrite and broken, nevertheless weak consciences, crushed [contritae] by the perception of their sins, cannot always decide in firm faith that the promise of the Gospel pertains also to them. Thus the remission of sins announced to them specifically must lift them up in a wonderful way.
(2) Because of the necessary investigation as to whether or not someone should be admitted to the Eucharist. For since the apostle gives a serious warning that everyone who wishes to eat of that eucharistic bread and drink from the eucharistic cup should test himself earnestly, “lest he eat and drink judgment to himself, and thus become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:28–29), therefore it is evident that those who are about to come to holy Communion must necessarily prepare themselves duly. But now, uninstructed people do not know the way to test and prepare themselves. Therefore they should be instructed in private confession about the atrocity of their sins, the seriousness of the wrath of God, the worthiness of the satisfaction performed by Christ, the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the holy Supper, the true repentance necessary to all who intend to come, and the serious correction of life. Again, since the ministers of the church are “stewards of the mysteries of God,” established by Christ Himself (1 Cor. 4:1), it is also their responsibility to be very careful, lest “what is sacred be given to the dogs, and pearls be cast to the swine” (Matt. 7:6). According to Cyprian (De lapsis, sermon 5): “Not only is the one who comes unworthily guilty of Christ’s body and blood but also the one who knowingly and willingly extends the Supper to the unworthy.” Whence Chrysostom “prefers to pour out his own blood rather than to distribute Christ’s sacred body and blood to the contemptuous who are guilty of divine judgment” (on Matthew 26, homily 83). Thus it remains that the examination is of the highest necessity for the minister of the church.
(3) On account of the due preparation of those who are coming to holy Communion. For since not all come with the same mind and for the same purpose, uninstructed people can be admonished in this private confession, since this discussion takes the place of a catechetical examination in which the progress of the hearers is examined, the sluggish are aroused, sinners are corrected, counsel is given to the tempted, and all the parts of the ecclesiastical ministry are administered to individuals according to the example of blessed Paul: “You know that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish each one of you with tears” (Acts 20:31). There are also ready examples of those who confessed their sins not only before God but also before the minister (Num. 14:40; 1 Kings 8:47; 2 Chron. 6:37; 2 Sam. 12:13; Matt. 3:6).
** The Weigelians: (1) completely reject private confession and Absolution (see Weigel, Postil., part 2, pp. 297, 246). (2) They write that no man can absolve (see Weigel, Alleg., 1, pp. 291, 295). (3) They teach that the forgiveness of sins is in the power of every human being, so long as he forgives the sins of his neighbor (see [Weigel,] op. cit., pp. 354, 358). The Calvinists, too, are hostile to private confession and Absolution: (1) In theory (see Calvin, Def. secund. contra Westphalum, p. 712, Geneva edition of 1593; and others). (2) In practice. Examine the Reformed churches. (3) In their hypothesis that God does not truly and effectually forgive sins through human beings but only of Himself and through Himself, that is, without means; and wherever Scripture attributes forgiveness of sins to the Gospel and the Sacraments, “it must be understood as the manner of speaking [that] refers ‘to one’ 4 which is in such a condition that effects are attributed to instruments (for the sake of honoring them), effects which otherwise are proper to the efficient cause” (Beza, Resp. ad colloq. Mompelg., part 1, p. 31; Resp., part 2, pp. 115–16; Grynaeus, Praef. theor. theol. ad Joachim. a Berga, in Disp. Heidelb., 1584, theorem 6, aphorism 4). (4) In the inevitable necessity of the absolute decree; whoever defends this is forced to decide that confession and absolution, at least as far as the reprobate are concerned, are ineffectual on the basis of God’s intent (Calvin, Instit., 3, ch. 24, no. 13; Piscator, Ad duplic. Vorstii, part 1, p. 25; etc.). But we retain private confession in our churches: (a) Because of the authority of Scripture. There are the examples of Adam (Genesis 3), David (2 Samuel 12), the paralytic (Matthew 9), the prefect of the prison (Acts 16). (b) Because of the clarity of the types. “If a man or woman sins” (Num. 5[:5]). Lepers are commanded to be cleansed specifically (Leviticus 14). (c) For the practical advantage of ministers, lest people infamous for public disgraces be admitted to the Supper. (d) For the usefulness to hearers, that their terrified consciences may be uplifted by its consolation. **
§ 101. The proclamations of honor concerning private confession which stand in Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and the rest flow forth from this. Among these B. Rhenanus writes as follows (notes on Tertullian, De poenit., p. 542):
No one can deny that private confession is very wholesome if we cut off fretfulness and scrupulousness. For what more useful thing can the church have from God immortal to maintain discipline, or what more suitable thing, than this private confession for instructing people in what is necessary? Here the space of a brief hour profits a layman more than a three-day sermon. For when the priest preaches from the pulpit, very few people listen carefully; many are distracted by thinking in other directions. Some, according to the proverb, are “asses listening to the lyres,” either because of the dullness of their intellect or the loftiness of the material which they are unable to absorb even if they listen carefully, and so they still do not understand what is being said. And yet here [in the confessional], because of their reverence both for the subject and the priest, this makes the person attentive, and the teaching which he is communicating there to the seeker is accommodated to his grasp. Therefore it seems good to me to apply to confession what the blessed Cyprian declares in praise of his disciple: that I may call it a holdfast for faith, a guide for the way of salvation, the tinder and kindling of a good talent, the teacher of virtue.
Therefore the symbolic writings of our churches also approve it. The Augsburg Confession (art. 11): “Regarding confession they teach that private Absolution should be retained in the churches, though in the confession an enumeration of all sins is unnecessary.”5 Smalcald Articles (part 3, art. 8): “By no means should confession and absolution be abolished in the church, especially because of weak and fearful consciences and because of untamed and wanton youth, that they may be heard, examined, and instructed in Christian doctrine.”6
Finally, from here the judgments of Luther and Philipp regarding this confession flow forth. Luther (Letter ad Francof., written in 1533) says, “If there were a thousand and then another thousand worlds, I would prefer to lose them all rather than permit the slightest particle of this rite to be abolished.” (See Wittenberg edition, vol. 2, fol. 252;7 vol. 6, fol. 114; vol. 7, fol. 12; vol. 8, fol. 351; vol. 9, fol. 547; vol. 12, fol. 362.8)
** See also Warnung an die zu Frankfurt am Main, Jena edition, vol. 1, fol. 110a;9 Jena German edition, vol. 6, fol. 109.10 **
Philipp [Melanchthon] writes (in his Explicat. evangel. dominical., left as a manuscript in the last year of his life, First Sunday after Easter): “Love this custom of private Absolution; for if that custom were abolished, what kind of church would there be? Also, this custom is a witness that forgiveness of sins is in the church.”
** [Philipp] lists the advantages of private confession in Opera, vol. 4, p. 736. **
How is it that Calvin and those who follow him, though they by no means observe this private confession in practice, nevertheless approve of it here and there? Calvin (Instit., 4, ch. 1, § 22): “The presbyters should confirm devout consciences in a hope of pardon and forgiveness with the evangelical promises, both publicly and privately as necessity demands. For there are very many people who need to be calmed on account of their own individual weakness. Paul is said to have testified of faith in Christ and to have admonished individuals not only before the public assembly but even in private homes (Acts 20).”
Peter Martyr [Vermigli] (Loc. comm., class. 3, ch. 38, § 28): “We do not remove the usefulness which can come from confession and which belongs to the learned and devout person so that people may have consolation and be firmly established—only let it be a free matter. Thus if a confession of this kind which is free and does not drive one to an enumeration of sins be retained here and there, we do not cause schisms as a result, only let them not establish a special worship of God. If anyone thinks this can be done for himself usefully, he should not refuse help of this sort.”
** Similar statements occur in Zwingli (De vera et falsa religione, p. 297), Calvin (Instit., bk. 3, ch. 4, § 13, line 21), Beza (bk. 1, Letter 20, p. 126), and Zanchi (Miscell., p. 63). Brantius writes (Exam. apostasiae Cudsemii, part 1, ch. 16): “We certainly do not condemn private Absolution as it is accepted in some Evangelical churches, but we also know that it is a free and indifferent matter.” **
Bucanus (locus 30, p. 296):
Nothing impedes a private citizen from consulting his pastor, disclosing to him a secret wound of his heart, and awaiting from him the consolation of the Gospel. Indeed, let the sheep even present themselves to their shepherd as often as they want to partake of the holy Supper, that they may receive consolation or instruction or admonition privately, adapted to themselves—just let it be free of tyrannical superstition. For it is the duty of the pastor to teach and console God’s people with the evangelical doctrine in the assembly and from house to house, that is, publicly and privately. An example of this is David with Nathan (2 Sam. 12:13).
In this respect they are correct in departing from Zwingli, who writes (De vera et falsa religione): “It is audacity on the part of those who have said that a man becomes certain by the Keys, though a man is certain only inwardly by faith. You say in vain: ‘You are free.’ For with your words you cannot make him more certain than you make a fly an elephant when you say, ‘You are an elephant,’ etc.” (The absolution and faith of the penitent are being put in opposition to each other incorrectly, since the former confirms the latter.)