Note M. On The Absolute Necessity Of Confession, Page 367.

Note M. On The Absolute Necessity Of Confession, Page 367.

OF REPENTANCE

[The de Pœnitentia furnishes no materials for determining its date; its whole tone is however Catholic; Lumper objects, that T. no where distinctly says, that the pardon which he speaks of as open once for all sin, was given through the Church also, and so that what he says of Exomologesis might equally have been written by him as a Montanist,—since they too held the necessity and benefit of penitence, although they denied to the Church authority, in great crimes, to pronounce upon it. But since T. says there was one penitence after Baptism, and one only, he plainly is speaking of a public restoration to the Communion of the Church, after the public penitence which he describes; for none denied that a person might repent even after a relapse, although the Church did not receive such. Repentance towards God might take place more than once; T. then in limiting it to one, plainly means one, upon which the Church would pronounce. There seems no doubt that T. in rejecting his former agreement with the Church’s doctrine on penitence (de Pudic. c. 1.) alluded to this Treatise. It seems strange that Erasmus should have questioned its genuineness on the ground of style, which is so fully Tertullian’s.]

I. THE men of this world, such as we ourselves also were in time past, blind without the light of the Lord, know, as far as nature teacheth, that repentance is a certain affection of the mind, which ariseth from dislike of some worse opinion: but from the reason of the thing they are as far distant as from the Author of reason Himself. For reason is a thing of God; seeing that God, the Creator of all things, hath provided, hath disposed, hath ordained nothing without reason, and hath willed that nothing should be handled and understood save by reason. All therefore who are ignorant of God, must needs be ignorant of the thing which is His; for no treasure is ever opened to strangers. Wherefore, floating through the whole business of life without the pilotage of reason, they know not how to avoid the storm that hangeth over the world. But how unreasonably they demean themselves in the act of penitence it will suffice to make plain by this one fact, that they apply it even to their good deeds. They repent them of their faith, love, simplicity, patience, compassion. According as an act hath met with ingratitude, they curse themselves because they have done a good deed, and they fix in their heart that sort of repentance chiefly, which is employed upon the best acts, taking care to remember never again to perform any good service: on repentance for evil deeds, on the contrary, they lay but a light stress. In fact, they more readily sin through this same repentance, than act rightly by its means.

II. But if they acted with a right apprehension of God, and hence of reason also, they would first weigh the merits of repentance, and would never use it as an aggravation of the change from the better to the worse: finally, they would regulate the limit of their repentance, because they would have reached the limit of their sin also, that is, by fearing the Lord. But where there is no fear, there is therefore no amendment; and where there is no amendment, repentance is of necessity vain, because it wanteth its proper fruit, unto which God hath sown it, that is, unto the salvation of man. For God, after so many and so great sins of human rashness, beginning in Adam the first of human kind, after that man had been condemned together with his portion in this world, after that he had been cast out from Paradise, and made subject to death, when He had hasted back to His own mercy, from thenceforth He made a solemn beginning of repentance in His own self, in rescinding the sentence of His former wrath, covenanting to pardon him who was His own work and image. Wherefore also He gathered together a people unto Himself, and cherished them with many gifts of His goodness, and though He so often found them most unthankful, He ever exhorted them to repentance, and sent forth the voices of all the prophets in prophecy: promising them presently His grace, the light of which He would in the last days pour forth by His Spirit upon the whole world; He commanded that the baptism of repentance should go beforehand, that, by the seal of repentance, He might fit beforehand those, whom He called by grace unto the promise appointed unto the seed of Abraham. John is not silent hereupon: ‘Begin,’ saith he, ‘to repent, for now shall Salvation come nigh unto the nations,’ that is, the Lord that bringeth salvation, according to the promise of God; to whom he, fore-ministering, appointed repentance, set over the work of purifying minds; that whatsoever former error had defiled, whatsoever within the heart of man ignorance had polluted, this repentance sweeping, and scouring, and casting out of doors, might make ready the house of the heart, thus cleansed, for the Holy Spirit that should come after, whither He might willingly enter in with heavenly graces. The title of these good gifts is one, The salvation of man, the abolition of former sins having gone before. This is the cause of repentance, this its task, tending the work of divine mercy; in that it hath been man’s profit, God’s service. But the inward character of repentance, which through knowledge of the Lord we learn, maintaineth one determinate shape, such that violent hands, so to speak, are never to be laid upon good works or thoughts. For God doth not sanction the reprobation of such things as be good as being His own, whereof since He is the Author and Defender, He must therefore needs be also the Accepter; and if the Accepter, then also the Rewarder. Away then with the ingratitude of men, if it compel repentance even for good works: away with their gratitude also, if the desire of gaining this be a motive for doing good. Both are earthly, mortal. For how little is the gain, if thou doest good to a grateful, or the loss if to an ungrateful, man! A good work hath God for a debtor, as also hath an evil one; for the judge recompenseth in every cause. But since God sitteth over us as a Judge to exact and to maintain that righteousness, which is most dear to Him, and, with a view to this, establisheth the entire sum of His law, is it to be doubted that, as in all our acts, so, in the cause of repentance also, righteousness must be fulfilled unto God? which indeed can then be fulfilled, if it be employed only in the case of sins. Moreover none but an evil work deserveth to be called a sin, nor doth any one sin by doing good: but if he sinneth not, why doth he meddle with the repentance of sinners? why doth he lay upon his own goodness an office proper to evil doing? So it cometh to pass that, when any thing is used where it ought not, it is neglected where it ought.

III. The occasion therefore requireth me to note what those things are, for which repentance seemeth to be just and due, that is, which are to be accounted sin: yet this may seem superfluous, for, when the Lord is known, the spirit looked upon by its Author, maketh its way, of itself, to a knowledge of the truth, and, being admitted to the Lord’s commands, is straightway taught by them that that is to be accounted sin, which God forbiddeth. For since it is granted that God is some great Good, Him being good, surely nought else than evil could displease, because between things contrary to each other there is no agreement. Nevertheless it shall not irk to state briefly that of sins, some are carnal, that is, of the body, and some spiritual. For since man is made up of this union of two substances, he doth not sin except in those parts whereof he is made. But because the body and the spirit are two things, these sins do not therefore differ: on the contrary, they are rather of the same nature, because these two things make up one; lest any should distinguish between their sins according to the difference of the two substances, so as to esteem one lighter or heavier than another. For both the flesh and the spirit are things of God, the one moulded by His hand, the other made perfect by His Spirit. Seeing then that they equally pertain to the Lord, whatever in them sinneth, equally offendeth God. Canst thou distinguish between the acts of the flesh and those of the spirit? between which there is both in life, and in death, and in the resurrection, so much union and fellowship, that at that Day they shall be raised together either for life or for condemnation, because doubtless they have equally either sinned or lived innocent. Thus much I would premise, that we may understand that, if any sin be committed, no less necessity for repentance attacheth to either part of man than to both: both have a common guilt, and a common Judge, that is God; they have therefore also a common cure in repentance. Hence they are named spiritual and bodily, because every sin is either in deed or in thought; so that that which is in deed is bodily, because a deed can be seen and handled even as a body; but that which is in thought is spiritual, because a spirit is neither seen nor comprehended: whereby it is shewn that sins not only of deed, but of will also, must be avoided, and must be cleansed by repentance. For although the littleness of man judgeth only by deed, because it is no match for the coverts of the will, we may not therefore be careless of the sins of this will before God also. God is sufficient unto all things. Nothing, whence any sin at all cometh, is removed from His sight. Because He is not ignorant of it, neither doth He pass it by without determining to bring it into judgment. He is not one that dissembleth and dealeth falsely with His own knowledge. How when the will is the source of the deed? for I heed not what are imputed to chance, or necessity, or ignorance; which being excepted, it remaineth that sin is not committed save by the will. Seeing then that it is the source of the deed, ought it not to be the first to be punished, inasmuch as it was the first to sin? not being moreover acquitted of the sin, even when any hindrance preventeth its commission; for the will to sin is imputed to the will, and it cannot be excused on account of a failure in the performance, having fulfilled that which was its own work. Finally, after what manner doth the Lord shew that He addeth a superstructure to the Law, save by forbidding the sins of the will also? seeing that He determineth an adulterer to be not only one who hath had actual conversation with another’s wife, but him also who hath defiled her by the lust of the eye. And so the mind, perilously enough, representeth to itself, what it is forbidden to realize, and, by the will, unguardedly completeth the act. And seeing that the power of this will is so great, that though not satisfying to the full its own pleasure, it may be taken for the deed, for this cause it shall be punished for the deed. It is most idle to say, ‘I willed, yet did not.’ But thou must needs do, because thou willest; or not will, because thou doest not. But thou givest sentence by the confession of thine own conscience: for if thou desiredst a good thing, thou wouldest have longed to do it; and so, since thou doest not a bad thing, neither oughtest thou to have desired it. Take thy stand on which side thou wilt, thou art held guilty; for either thou hast willed evil, or not fulfilled good.

IV. For all sins therefore, whether committed in the flesh or in the spirit, whether by deed or will, He that hath appointed punishment through condemnation, hath also promised forgiveness through repentance: saying unto the people, Repent, and I will make thee whole: and again, I live, saith the Lord: and I will have repentance rather than death. Wherefore repentance is life, seeing that it is preferred to death. To this repentance do thou, O sinner like unto myself, (yea less than myself, for I acknowledge that I surpass in sins,) so press, so embrace it, as doth the shipwrecked the protection of some plank. This shall hold thee up, when sunk beneath the waves of sin, and shall bring thee onwards to the haven of Divine mercy. Seize the opportunity of unlooked-for happiness; so that thou, the creature that wast once nothing in the sight of God, save a drop in a bucket, and the dust of the threshing-floor, and the vessel of the potter, mayest henceforth become that tree which is planted by the waters, and withereth not in its leaves and bringeth forth its fruits in due season, which shall not see the fire nor the axe. Repent of thine errors, having found the truth. Repent that thou hast loved the things which God loveth not, since even we ourselves do not suffer our own petty menials not to hate the things by which we are offended; for the nature of obedience consisteth in a sameness of feelings. For setting forth particularly the good of repentance, the materials are large, and therefore must be committed to great eloquence. But we, according to our narrow powers, impress one truth, that that which God commandeth is good and is best. I account it boldness to reason about the good of a Divine command; for it is not because it is good that we ought to obey, but because God hath commanded it. For the rendering of obedience, the first cause is the majesty of the Divine power. The authority of Him That commandeth is before the profit of him that serveth. Is it good to repent or no? Why considerest thou? God commandeth it. But He doth not only command, but exhorteth likewise. He inviteth us by a reward, salvation: swearing also, saying, I live, He desireth that we should believe Him. O happy we, for whose sake God sweareth! O most miserable, if we believe not the Lord even when He sweareth! That therefore which God so much commendeth, which He even after the manner of men attesteth by an oath, we ought surely to approach and to guard with the greatest seriousness, that, abiding in the assurance of Divine grace, we may thence be able to abide also in its fruit and benefit.

V. For this I say, that the repentance which, being by the grace of God shewn and commanded us, bringeth us again into favour with the Lord, when once it hath been known and undertaken by us, we ought never again to rescind by a repetition of the sin. Now indeed no pretence of ignorance pleadeth for thee, because having come to the knowledge of the Lord, and having received His commandments, and finally, having fulfilled the work of repentance for thy sins, thou betakest thyself to those sins again. Wherefore the farther thou art removed from ignorance, the more closely dost thou cleave to wilful disobedience. For if thou didst therefore once repent of having sinned, because thou hadst begun to fear the Lord, why hast thou chosen to annul that, which thou didst undertake on account of thy fear, unless it be that thou hast ceased to fear? for no other thing, save wilful disobedience, overthroweth fear. Seeing that no exception protecteth from punishment even those who know not the Lord, (because that God, being clearly manifested and to be understood even from His heavenly gifts themselves, may not be unknown,) how perilous that, being known, He should be despised! Now he despiseth Him, who having obtained from Him the understanding of good and evil, in taking up again that which he understandeth ought to be shunned, and which he hath already shunned, doeth despite to his own understanding, that is, to the gift of God. He rejecteth the Giver, when he abandoneth the gift: he denieth the benefactor, when he honoureth not the benefit. How can he please Him with Whose gift he is not pleased? So then he appeareth not only wilfully disobedient to the Lord, but ungrateful also. Moreover he sinneth not lightly against the Lord, who having renounced His enemy the Devil by repentance, and having, by this token, put him in subjection unto the Lord, doth again exalt that same Devil, by returning to him, and make himself a cause of triumph to him, so that the Evil One, having recovered his prey, rejoiceth anew against the Lord. Doth he not—it is perilous even to speak it, but for the sake of edifying it must be brought forward—doth he not set the Devil over the Lord? For he seemeth to have made comparison between them, who hath known both, and to have pronounced a solemn judgment that he is the better, whose he hath chosen to be again. He therefore that had begun to make satisfaction to God by repenting of his sins, will make satisfaction to the Devil by again repenting of his repentance, and will be so much the more hateful to God, as he is acceptable to His enemy. But some say that God is content, if he be reverenced in the heart and the mind, though this be not done in the outward act; and that so they sin without prejudice to their fear of God and their faith; that is, that they defile the marriage-bed without prejudice to their chastity, mix poison for a parent without prejudice to their filial love. So also then will they themselves be thrust into hell-fire without prejudice to their pardon, when they sin without prejudice to their godly fear. Here is the first example of their perverseness: because they fear, they sin! if they feared not, I suppose they would not sin! He therefore that would fain not offend God, let him not reverence Him at all, if fear be a plea of sin. But these tempers are wont to spring up from the seed of hypocrites, whose friendship with the Devil is undivided, whose repentance is never faithful.

VI. Whatsoever argument therefore my poor wit hath endeavoured to furnish for laying hold on repentance once for all, and ever after retaining it, pointeth indeed at all who are given to the Lord, as those who seek salvation entirely in earning the favour of God; but it especially presseth upon those novices, who are just now beginning to bedew their ears with the speech of the Lord, and who as whelps while yet in early infancy, and with eyes imperfect, creep about uncertainly: and they say indeed that they have renounced their former doings, and take upon themselves repentance, but neglect to make it fast; for the very closing of their desires doth of itself call them back a while to desire something of their former doings; as fruits, which are already beginning to turn sour or bitter from age, do in some one part still court their proper charms. Besides this, a presuming upon Baptism bringeth in all the evil of delaying and turning back from repentance: for being assured of the undoubted pardon of their sins, they steal to themselves the time which interveneth, and make it rather a day of grace for sinning than a training not to sin. How foolish, moreover, how [unjust], not to fulfil repentance, and still to expect the pardon of sins! that is, not to pay the price, and yet to stretch forth the hand for the merchandize! For at this price the Lord hath determined to grant His forgiveness: by the payment of this repentance He promiseth that freedom from punishment shall be re-purchased. If therefore those who sell, first examine the money which they covenant to receive, lest it be cut, or scraped, or of false metal, we believe that the Lord also will first test our repentance, when about to grant us so great a reward, to wit, that of everlasting life. But (thou wilt say) let us put off our actual repentance until that time. It shall then, I suppose, be seen that we are amended, when we are absolved. By no means. But it must be when, pending the pardon, punishment is before our eyes: when we have not yet earned our deliverance, that we may be able to earn it: when God is threatening, not when He is pardoning. For what servant, after that he hath been changed into a free man, chargeth himself with his thefts and desertions? What soldier, when he hath been discharged from his camp, maketh satisfaction for his brands? The sinner ought to bemoan himself before he is forgiven, for the time for his repentance is the same with that of his danger and his fear. Nor do I deny that the good gift of God, that is, the blotting out of sins, is entirely secured to those, who are about to enter into the water; but that it may be their lot to attain thereunto, it is for this that they must labour. For who will furnish to thee, a man so unfaithfully repenting, one single sprinkling of any water? It is easy for thee to come thither by stealth, and for him who is set over this business to be cheated by thy affirmations. But God provideth for His own treasure, and suffereth not the unworthy to creep into it. What, in fact, doth he say? There is nothing covered, which shall not be revealed. Whatever darkness thou shalt spread over thy deeds, God is Light. Some, however, thus think, that God must needs perform what He hath promised, even to the unworthy; and they make His free bounty a bounden service. But if He granteth to us the likeness of death from necessity, He therefore doeth it unwillingly: for who alloweth that gift to continue, which he hath bestowed unwillingly? For do not many afterwards fall away? is not that gift taken away from many? These are they in truth who creep in unawares, and who, having undertaken the engagement to repent, are building upon the sand an house that shall fall. Let no one therefore flatter himself, because he is numbered among the young classes of ‘Hearers,’ as though on that account he hath even now a licence to sin. As soon as thou knowest the Lord, fear Him: as soon as thou hast seen Him, give Him reverence. But what doth it profit that thou knowest Him, when thou abidest in the same things, as when heretofore ignorant of Him? And what distinguisheth thee from a full servant of God? Is there one Christ for the Baptized, another for the Hearers? Have they a different hope, or reward? a different fear of judgment? a different need of repentance? That laver is the sealing of faith, which faith beginneth with the faithfulness of repentance, and is commended thereby. We are not washed in order that we may cease from sinning, but because we have ceased, because we have already been washed in heart. For this is the first baptism of the Hearer, namely, an entire fear of God; and next, from the time when thou turnest thy thoughts towards the Lord, a sound faith, a conscience that hath once for all embraced repentance. But if we cease from sinning from the time of our washing, we put on innocence of necessity, not of free-will. Whether then of the two is the more excellent in goodness, he that is not permitted, or he that liketh not, to sin? he that is commanded, or he that is delighted, to be free from sin? If then no one, who is devoted to the Lord, is to cease from sinning, unless bound by his Baptism, neither let us keep our hands from stealing, unless the hardness of bars resisteth us: nor refrain our eyes from the lusts of fornication, unless hindered by those who guard the persons. But if any one be thus minded, I know not whether, when he is baptized, he doth not sorrow more for having ceased from sin, than rejoice for having escaped from it. Wherefore it is fitting that Hearers desire Baptism, not take it to themselves too soon. For he that desireth it, treateth it with honour: he that taketh it too soon, with disdain. In the one there appeareth modesty, in the other petulance: the one satisfieth, the other neglecteth it: the one desireth to deserve the gift, but the other promiseth it as a thing due to himself: the one receiveth, the other seizeth it. Which canst thou judge the worthier, but him who is the most reformed? which the most reformed, but him who hath the most fear, and therefore hath fulfilled the work of true repentance? for he was afraid to sin any more, lest he should not deserve to receive the gift. But the other presumer, when he promised it to himself, having forsooth no anxiety, could have no fear, and so neither fulfilled the work of repentance, because he was without the instrument of repentance, that is, fear. Presumption is a part of immodesty: it puffeth up the asker, despiseth the Giver. Wherefore it sometimes deceiveth: for it promiseth the thing before it be due, whereby he who is to give it, is ever offended.

VII. So far, O Lord Christ, may it happen unto Thy servants to speak and to hear concerning the rule of repentance, as it behoveth not the hearers to sin: or let them henceforth know nothing of repentance, nothing need it. I am loath to subjoin any mention of the second (yea and the last) hope, lest, in treating of a benefit of repentance yet in reserve, I seem to shew that there is yet room for sinning. Far be it from any one so to understand me, as though, because a door is still open to repentance, it is therefore open to sin; and as though the abundance of Divine mercy gave a licence to human recklessness. Let no one therefore be the less, because God is the more, good; sinning as oft as he is forgiven. Otherwise he shall find an end of escaping, when he hath not found an end of sinning. We have escaped once: suffice it to have exposed ourselves thus far to dangers, though we think that we shall again escape. Men for the most part, when delivered from shipwreck, renounce thenceforward both the ship and the sea, and by remembering the danger, honour the good gift of God, that is, their own preservation. I commend their fear, I love their modesty: they would not a second time be a burden on the Divine mercy: they are afraid of seeming to tread under foot that which they have already obtained: they shun, with assuredly a righteous care, to make trial a second time of that which they have once learned to fear. The end therefore of their venturousness is the proof of their fear: but fear in man is honour unto God. But yet that most stubborn Adversary never suffereth his malice to rest, but then rageth the most when he perceiveth that man is wholly set free; then kindleth the most, when he is being quenched. Grieve and wail he needs must, when forgiveness of sins hath been granted, because so many of the works of death in man are destroyed, and so many records of his former condemnation effaced. He grieveth, because he that was a sinner, but now a servant of Christ, shall judge him and his angels. Wherefore he watcheth, he attacketh, he besetteth him, if by any means he may strike his eyes by carnal lust, or ensnare his mind by worldly allurements, or overthrow his faith by fear of earthly power, or turn him aside from the sure way by perverse traditions. He is not wanting in offences, nor in temptations. Wherefore God seeing beforehand these his poisons, although the door of pardon be shut, and the bar of Baptism interposed, hath yet suffered some opening to remain. He hath placed in the porch a second repentance, which may open unto them that knock, but now for once only, because now for the second time, and never again, because at the last time in vain. And is not even this once enough? Thou hast what thou didst not now deserve, for thou hast lost that which thou didst receive. If the kindness of God granteth thee wherewith thou mayest restore that which thou hadst lost, be thankful even for the renewal, how much more for the enlargement of the good gift: for to restore, is greater than to give, since it is more grievous to lose, than never to have received at all. But the mind is not to be forthwith cut down and overwhelmed with despair, if any one become a debtor for a second repentance. Let him indeed be loath to sin again, but let him not be loath to repent again: let him be loath to peril himself again, but not to be again delivered. Let none be ashamed. If the sickness be renewed, the medicine must be renewed. Thou wilt shew thyself thankful to the Lord, if thou refusest not that which the Lord offereth thee. Thou hast offended, but thou mayest yet be reconciled. Thou hast One to Whom thou mayest make satisfaction, and Him willing to be satisfied.

VIII. If thou doubtest this, consider what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. To the Ephesians He imputeth that they had left their first love: those of Thyatira He reproacheth with fornication and the eating of things sacrificed unto idols: the Sardians He accuseth of works not perfect: those of Pergamos He reproveth as teachers of perverse doctrines: those of Laodicea He upbraideth as trusting in riches: and yet he admonisheth all these to repent, and that even with threatenings. But He would not threaten the impenitent, if He would not pardon the penitent. This might be doubtful, if He had not in other places also shewn forth this abundance of His mercy. Saith He not, he that falleth shall arise, and he that turneth away shall return? It is He verily, it is He, that will have mercy rather than sacrifice. The heavens rejoice, and the angels that are therein, at the repentance of man. Ho! sinner, be of good cheer: thou seest where there is joy at thy return. What mean those lessons given us in the parables of the Lord? that a woman lost a piece of money, and sought it again, and found it, and called her friends to rejoice with her: is it not an emblem of the restored sinner? A shepherd also hath one sheep that wandereth, but the whole flock is not more precious than that one: that one is sought for: that one is desired in the stead of all, and at last is found and carried back on the shoulders of the shepherd Himself, for it had toiled much in wandering. Nor will I pass by in silence that most gentle father, who calleth back his prodigal son, and when, after being in want, he repenteth, willingly receiveth him, killeth the fatted calf, adorneth his rejoicing with a feast. And wherefore not? for He had found the son whom He had lost, and had felt that he, whom He had gained, was the more precious. Whom are we to understand by this father? verily it is God: none so much a father, none so fatherly in love. Thee, therefore, His own son, though thou hast wasted that which thou hast received from Him, though thou hast returned naked, yet because thou hast returned, He will receive, and will rejoice more for thy return than for the soberness of another. But this only if thou repentest from thine heart; if thou comparest thy hunger with the fulness of thy Father’s hired servants; if thou leavest the swine, that filthy herd; if thou seekest again thy Father, though He be offended, saying, Father, I have sinned, and am no more worthy to be called Thine. Confession of sins lighteneth their burden, as much as the dissembling of them increaseth it: for confession savoureth of making amends, dissembling of stubbornness.

IX. The more straightened then the work of this second and only remaining repentance, the more laborious its proof, so that it may not be only borne upon the conscience within, but may be also exhibited by some outward act. This act, which is better and more commonly expressed by a Greek word (ἐξομολόγησις), is Confession, whereby we acknowledge our sin to the Lord, not because He knoweth it not, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is ordered, from confession repentance springeth, by repentance God is appeased. Wherefore Confession is a discipline for the abasement and humiliation of man, enjoining such conversation as inviteth mercy; it directeth also even in the matter of dress and food, to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to hide his body in filthy garments, to cast down his spirit with mourning, to exchange for severe treatment the sins which he hath committed: for the rest, to use simple things for meat and drink, to wit, not for the belly’s but the soul’s sake: for the most part also to cherish prayer by fasts, to groan, to weep, and to moan day and night unto the Lord his God; to throw himself upon the ground before the presbyters, and to fall on his knees before the beloved of God; to enjoin all the brethren to bear the message of his prayer for mercy. All these things doeth Confession, that it may commend repentance; that by fearing danger it may honour God; that, by judging of itself the sinner, it may act in the stead of God’s wrath, and that, by means of temporal affliction, it may—I will not say frustrate, but—discharge the eternal penalties. When therefore it casteth down a man, it rather raiseth him up: when it maketh him filthy, it rendereth him the more clean: when it accuseth, it excuseth: when it condemneth, it absolveth. In the measure in which thou sparest not thyself, in the same, be assured, will God spare thee.

X. I presume, however, that men for the most part either shun, or put off from day to day, this work, as an open exposure of themselves, being more mindful of their shame than of their health; like those who having contracted some malady in the more delicate parts of the body, avoid making their physicians privy to it, and so perish with their bashfulness. It is forsooth intolerable to modesty to make satisfaction unto their offended Lord! to be restored to the health which they have wasted away! Brave art thou in thy modesty truly! bearing an open front in sinning, and a bashful one in praying for pardon! I allow no place to shame, when I gain the more by losing it, when it, in a manner, itself exhorteth man, saying, ‘care not for me: it were better that I should perish instead of thee.’ Certainly its peril is then, if ever, grievous, when it standeth in the presence of those, who will insult it with mocking speech, where one is exalted by another’s abasement, where men climb upwards by stepping on the fallen. But among brethren and fellow-servants, with whom there is one hope, one fear, one joy, one suffering, because there is One Spirit from One Lord and Father, why regardest thou thine own as something different from thyself? Why shunnest thou those who share thy fall, as though they rejoiced over it? The body cannot rejoice in the hurt of one of its members: all must grieve together and labour together for its cure. Where one or two are, is the Church, and the Church is Christ. When therefore thou throwest thyself before the knees of the brethren, thou handlest Christ, thou entreatest Christ. In like manner when they shed tears over thee, it is Christ that suffereth, it is Christ that prayeth the Father’s pardon. That is ever easily obtained, which a son asketh. Verily the concealment of a sin promiseth a great benefit to our modesty! namely, that if we withdraw any thing from the knowledge of men, we shall of course conceal it also from God! And is it thus then that the thoughts of men and the knowledge of God are compared? It is a miserable thing to come thus to confession. Yes, for by sin we are brought unto misery; but when we are to repent, the misery ceaseth, for it hath become healthful. Is it better to be damned in secret, than absolved openly? It is a miserable thing to be cut, and to be burnt with the cautery, and to be tormented with the corrosiveness of any powder. Nevertheless those things, which heal by unpleasant means, excuse likewise, by the benefit of the cure, their own offensiveness, and recommend the infliction of present pain by the gratefulness of the future profit.

XI. What if, besides the shame, which they think of the chief import, they shrink from the inconveniences of the body also, because they are bound to live unwashed, filthy, and without pleasure, in rough sackcloth and horrid ashes, and with a countenance wan with fasting? Doth it then become us to put up prayers for our sins in purple and Tyrian colours? Ho! fetch me a bodkin for dividing the hair, and powder for cleansing the teeth, and some double-pointed instrument of iron or brass for trimming the nails: if there be any thing which produceth a false whiteness or a forced redness, let him rub it upon the lips or cheeks. Besides this, let him seek out the most delicate baths in sequestered spots in gardens, or near the sea: let him add to his expenditure: let him get together fatlings of monstrous growth: let him refine old wines: and when any one shall ask, ‘On whom dost thou lavish these things,’ let him say, ‘I have sinned against God, and am in danger of perishing everlastingly; and therefore am I anxious, and I pine away and torture myself, that I may reconcile unto myself that God Whom I have offended by my sin.’ But those, who take upon themselves to sue for the holding of some public office, are neither ashamed nor loath to struggle in behalf of their desires through vexations of mind and body, and not vexations only, but even every sort of indignity. What meanness in dress do they not affect? what court-yards do they not take possession of with their untimely salutations ere day-break? crouching low at each meeting with any great personage, frequenting no feasts, joining in no social banquets, but banished from the happiness of liberty and pleasure: and all this for the fleeting joy of a single year! Do we, with eternity at stake, hesitate to bear that which the suitor for axes and rods endureth? and shall we be slow to offer to our offended Lord that self-chastening in food and clothing, which the Gentiles inflict upon themselves, when no one at all is injured? Such are they of whom the Scripture maketh mention, Woe unto them who bind their iniquities as it were with a long rope.

XII. If thou drawest back from confession, consider in thine heart that hell-fire which confession shall quench for thee, and first imagine to thyself the greatness of the punishment, that thou mayest not doubt concerning the adoption of the remedy. What think we of that storehouse of everlasting fire, when some of its petty vents shoot up such violence of flame, that the neighbouring cities either are no longer, or are daily expecting the same end for themselves? The proudest mountains are cleft asunder in giving birth to the fire engendered within, and, (which proveth to us the eternity of the judgment,) though they be cleft asunder, though they be devoured, yet do they never come to an end. Meanwhile, who will not regard these inflictions on the mountains as ensamples of the judgment which threateneth us? who will not agree that these sparks are a kind of missiles and skirmishing arrows from some vast and immeasurable fire. When therefore thou knowest that, after that first protection of the Baptism ordained by the Lord, thou hast yet in Confession a second aid against hellfire, why dost thou neglect thy salvation? why delay to enter on that, which thou knowest will heal thee? Even dumb and unreasoning creatures know at the proper season the medicines which are given them from God. The stag pierced with an arrow knoweth that, to force out from the wound the point of the weapon and its barbs that cannot be drawn back, he must heal himself with dittany. The swallow, if it blindeth its young, knoweth how to give them sight again with its own swallow-wort. Shall the sinner, knowing that confession hath been ordained by the Lord for his restoration, pass over that which restored the king of Babylon to his kingdom? For long time had he offered unto the Lord the sacrifice of repentance, fulfilling the work of confession in the filthiness of seven years, with his nails growing wild after the manner of an eagle’s, and his undressed hair wearing the roughness of the lion. O horrid treatment! Him, at whom men shuddered, God received. But on the other hand, the Egyptian governor, who, pursuing the once afflicted people of God, long denied to their Lord, rushed onward to the battle after the warning of so many plagues, when the sea divided, which that people alone were permitted to pass through, perished in the waves rolling back again. For he had cast aside repentance, and its attendant, confession. Why should I say more of these two planks (I may call them) for saving men, caring more for the work of my pen, than the duty of my conscience? For since I am a sinner an universe of brands, and born unto nothing save repentance, I cannot easily be silent upon that, concerning which even Adam, the author both of the race of man, and of his sin against the Lord, now restored by confession to his own paradise, is not silent.

NOTE K. PAGE 357.

The words satisfacere, satisfactio, when used of works of repentance, have not, in the fathers, any technical sense, as in recent Romish theology, as though the sinner any how made satisfaction to the Divine justice; they simply mean “make amends;” and are used of such outward acts of contrition as, being opposed to the former sins, serve to express and deepen the repentance for them, and thereby turn away the Divine wrath. Thus Estius (a Romanist) states it to be equivalent to “penitence,” and adopts the explanation of that word in the de ver. et fals. pœnit. c. 8. §. 22. (ap. Aug. t. 6. App. p. 236.) “Penitence [which word (he says) among the ancients is very often used for satisfaction] is a certain voluntary ‘revenge’ of one grieving, punishing in himself what he grieves that he has committed;” although he gives us a fuller explanation, “Satisfaction is the desire of appeasing God, being offended, by voluntary self-chastisement,” or “voluntary self-chastisement or punishment as a sort of compensation of the injury done by sin,” in 4. Sent. dist. 15. §. 9. Heraldus (Digr. ii. 4.) illustrates the use from classic authors, “The Latins spoke of ‘satisfying’ (satisfacere) when any one besought him whom he had offended, and confessed his fault in such wise as to signify that he was exceeding sorry for it, and wished it had not been done, which Terence eloquently calls ‘to pay with words,’ because ‘satisfying’ stands in lieu of payment. Wherefore that satisfaction which was rendered to him who had been offended, and wherewith he was content, came in the place of punishment, and did away the offence. Of which very many examples occur in the best writers, especially that most signal one in which Amphitryo in Plautus ‘satisfies’ Alcmena.” (Lacerda, a Romanist, on Tert. de Pœnit. c. 8. follows Heraldus, adducing the same instance: Alc. “Either I will leave him, or let him satisfy me.” Amph. “satisfies” her with these words, “By thy right hand, I pray, beseech, thee, Alcmena, shew me this mercy, forgive, be not angry.” “This,” Lac. subjoins, “was a most true satisfaction, for whoso asks forgiveness, confesses his fault; whence Alcmena, content with this satisfaction, remained. That of Tully pro Ligario is a most excellent ‘satisfaction,’ ‘I have erred, have done rashly; I repent, I flee to your clemency, I ask pardon of my offence; I pray you to forgive; if no one have obtained it, I ask too much; if very many, do thou aid, who hast given hope. This is satisfaction in human authors; in ours too the same, if to words you add deeds, which the heathen had not.” “Hence” he notices “Tertullian, c. 9. joins to satisfaction, acts of prostrating, humbling, himself.”) Heraldus adds, “In this very same meaning the holy Fathers used this word on the same subject. For they held, that God being offended and angered by our sins was, first by confession, then by tears by sorrow and by penitence, to be satisfied, i.e. that His wrath was in this way to be appeased and deprecated;” hence S. Cyprian de Laps. (§. 19. p. 172. Oxf. Tr.) uses as equivalent ‘satisfy Him,’ and ‘appease the wrath of God.’ In the same book, (ib. p. 173.) he joins ‘to hold fast humility and make amends (satisfacere) to the Lord;’ and Tertullian calls ‘defiled dress,’ ‘the garb of satisfaction,’ (de Cult. Fem. i. 1.) and says that ‘God is drawn to one (inlici) by these offices of humiliation,’ (de Anim. c. 48.) The Greek fathers called this ἑλεοῦσθαι and ἐξιλεοῦσθαι τὸν Θεὸν, Greg. Naz. Paneg. in S. Cypr.” c. 11. [‘propitiating God by faith and humiliation. For by nothing is God so gained as by bearing hardness; and mercy is bestowed upon tears.’]

This result, which these writers draw from the word itself, is yet more established by the context in which it is used by the Fathers. For it is used in connection with all those habits of mind or actions, which express contrition, without having in themselves any thing punitive, much less any payment to the Divine Justice. Thus S. Cyprian urges to “the prayer by which amends is made,” (precem satisfactionis de Laps. §. 11. p. 162. Oxf. Tr.) “if He laboured and watched and prayed for us and our offences, how much more ought we to be earnest in prayer, and first pray the Lord Himself, and then through Him make amends to the Father,” Ep. 11. (8.): he speaks of being reconciled by “sadness” (ib. §. 19. p. 172.) of “tears which make amends to God” (satisfacientibus Deo fletibus, Ep. 31. (26.) p. 64.): “This is to take pains, that offences be not redeemed by satisfactions and due bewailings, that wounds be not washed away by tears,” Ep.59. [55.] p. 134. he frequently joins “satisfaction” with “prayer” as equivalent to it; “in making amends to God and deprecating,” Ep. 17. (12.) “continuing in making peace (satisfactionibus) and imploring the mercy of God,” Ep. 65. (64.) to have sinned and not to make amends, (satisfacere) to have offended and not weep the offences,” (de Laps. §. 19. p. 173. Oxf. Tr.) “or if any have more prevailed on Him by his satisfactions, if he have appeased His anger by due entreaty,” (ib. fin.) “if they come [to the Church] with prayers and satisfactions, be they heard,” Ep. 59. (55.) fin. and these combined with alms;—”may by their prayers and works appease (satisfacere) God, as a merciful Father,” Ep. 16. (10.) Elsewhere, he uses “satisfaction” as altogether equivalent to “repentance;”—(“they must come to a right understanding of themselves and make amends,” Ep. 3. (65.) fin. “declining to perform penitence and make amends to God,” Ep. 43. (40.) fin. “the appointed and full time of making peace” (satisfactionis), Ep. 64. (59.) init. add de Unit. Eccl. §. 16. p. 145. Oxf. Tr. and de Laps. fin. “whoso shall thus have made amends (satisfecerit) to God, whoso by repentance for his deed, &c.”)—or of the qualities which make up true repentance, (“whose penitence you shall see most approach to making amends; satisfactioni proximam, Ep. 15. (11.) to the Martyrs.) He speaks also of those “amends” being made to Christ, so shewing that He does not think of them as paid to the justice of God, but as putting us in such a frame of mind as Christ can intercede for, God pardon; (“They” [such as interfered to obtain a premature restoration of the lapsed] “intercede that Christ, Who declares that He will deny those who deny Him, be not won by prayers and satisfactions,” Ep. 59. [54.] p. 134. “if you shall make most full amends to God and His Christ,” Ep. 66. [69.] see also above, from Ep. 11.) He also uses it, as altogether equivalent to “appease, soften the anger of, God,” “having said (Is. 58.) that neither by prayers and fastings could they make satisfaction for sins, (satisfacere pro delictis,) nor by lying in sackcloth and ashes, could they soften the anger of God, (iram Dei lenire,) he, at the last, shewing that God could be appeased (placari) by alms-deeds alone, added, &c.” (de Op. et Eleem. §. 4. p. 234. Oxf. Tr.)

In like way, S. Augustine uses “satisfaction” in the case of lighter sins of infirmity, the remedy for which is the daily petition for forgiveness in the Lord’s prayer, and this in the same place in which he speaks of “satisfaction” for greater sins proportioned to the offence, shewing that in this case also he is not thinking of any compensation to God’s justice, but of acts implying, and worthy of, repentance. “We must beware, lest any think that those dreadful sins, which ‘they who commit shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ may be committed daily, and daily be bought off by almsdeeds. For the life must be amended, and God by alms-deeds is to be propitiated for past sins, not to be bought in a manner, to allow these things to be continually committed with impunity. For ‘He hath given no man license to sin,’ although in His mercy He blotteth out past sins, if corresponding amends (satisfactio) be not neglected. For the daily prayer of the faithful maketh peace (satisfacit) for those daily slight and brief sins, without which life cannot be past. For it is for these to say, ‘Our Father Which art in heaven,’ who have ‘by water and the Spirit,’ been re-born to such a Father.” (Ench. 70, 71.) In the same work he speaks of “amends made to the Church also,” i.e. “such proofs of penitence as the Church also may accept,” so that the “satisfaction” which he here implies to be made to God, also consists in penitence such as God will approve. “Since the sorrow of one man’s heart is mostly hidden from another, and neither by words nor any other signs comes forth to the knowledge of others, being open to Him to Whom that is spoken, ‘my groaning is not hid from Thee,’ periods of penitence are rightly appointed by those who are set over the Churches, so that satisfaction may be made to the Church also, in which sins are remitted.” (ib. c. 65.) Elsewhere, he uses it of all the acts of repentance in common, whether punitive or no, “It sufficeth not to amend the life, and cease from evil deeds, unless for what has been done, amends be made to God, by the grief of penitence, the groaning of humility, the sacrifice of a contrite heart, with the cooperation of almsdeeds. For ‘blessed are the merciful, for God shall have mercy’ upon them. For we are not only bidden to abstain from sins, but ‘for things past also,’ he saith, ‘entreat the Lord, that they be forgiven thee.’ “ Serm. 351. de Pœnit. c. 5. §. 12. In like way, Pacian, “if ye return to your Father with true amends, by erring no further, by adding nothing to your former sins, by saying also humbly and with tears, ‘Father, we have sinned,’ &c.” de Pœnit. init. S. Leo refers the efficacy of “satisfaction” to its effects on the penitent, in that he speaks of persons being “cleansed by the healthful satisfaction of penitence,” (Ep. 108. ad Theod. add Ep. 159. ad Nicet. c. 5. Ep. 167. ad Rust. inq. 14.) “which,” he adds, “is to be appreciated not so much by length of time, as by compunction of heart,” (Ep. ad Nic.) S. Ambrose in one place uses “satisfaction” as equivalent to “verbal confession,” in the original sense of the word, (as pointed out by Her.) “making amends by acknowledging a fault.” “Peter grieved and wept, because, being man, he went astray. I find not, what he said; I find, that he wept. I read of his tears; of his making satisfaction I read not.” Lib. 10. in Luc. c. 22. S. Leo also uses it as altogether equivalent to repentance, or making peace with God, in cases of imminent danger, which precluded the use of long and laborious penances; “To those who in extremities, and under the pressure of urgent peril, earnestly desire the succour of penitence, and of reconciliation shortly thereupon, neither is satisfaction to be forbidden nor reconciliation to be denied, because we can prescribe neither measures nor periods to the mercy of God, Who interposeth no intervals between conversion and pardon,” (Ep. ad Theod. c. 4.) and shortly after, for what is here called “satisfaction,” we have “tears and groans,” or “penitence,” “we ought not to neglect the tears and groans of those who accuse themselves, believing as we do that the very feeling of repentance is derived from God, as the Apostle says, 2 Tim. 2:25.” and thereon he again uses the word satisfaction, c. 5. “that he defer not to turn to God from day to day, nor set for himself a period of satisfaction at the close of his life, because it is perilous for human frailty and ignorance, to reserve itself to the uncertain space of a few hours, and whereas it may by a fuller satisfaction obtain forgiveness, choose that narrow period, wherein space can scarcely be found either for the confession of the penitent, or the reconciliation of the priest.” Cassian uses it altogether of acts whereby a person becomes reconciled to God, and of his reconciliation, Coll. xx. 5. “A sign of amends having been made and pardon given,” (satisfactionis et indulgentiæ,) “—establisheth the completion of making amends, and the grace of remission,” xx. 7. “that he has attained to the completion of satisfaction, and to be accounted meet for forgiveness,” (indulgentiæ merito.) Maximus uses it as equivalent to penitential acts, “He is not blamed, who having with wandering heart and slippery steps long gone aside from the path of salvation, laboureth to become whole (redintegrare se) with God by the sorrowful amends of penitence, as is read in the 50th Psalm, ‘A broken and contrite heart God despiseth not.’ “ Gennadius says, “The ‘satisfaction’ of penitence is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to allow entrance to their suggestions,” (de Dogm. Eccl. c. 54. ap. Aug.) A Latin translation of S. Chrysostom, received in Gratian, substitutes “satisfaction” for the simple term “repentance;” “though any cannot exhibit a complete repentance, [“satisfaction” in Grat.] He does not send away empty even that which is for a brief space,” (ad Theod. Laps. 1. §. 6. quoted by Gratian de Pœnit. Dist. 3, c. 28.) S. Gregory the Great, using the word “revenge” (2 Cor. 7:11.) in the same sense, in like way speaks of its effects, solely with reference to its effect on the penitent, (1. 6. in 1 Reg. c. 2. §. 33.) “What avails it to confess iniquities, if the affliction of penitence follow not the confession of the lips? For three things are to be considered in every true penitent, conversion of the mind, confession of the mouth, and revenge for the sin. This third sort is as a necessary medicine; that so the impostume of guilt, pricked by confession, be purified by conversion, and healed by the medicine of affliction. The sign of true confession [conversion?] is not in the confession of the mouth, but in the affliction of penitence. For then do we see that a sinner is well converted, when by a worthy austerity of affliction, he strives to efface what in speech he confesses. Whence John Baptist rebuking the ill-converted Jews, who flocked to him, says, ‘O generation of vipers—Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.’ “ Isidore, (vi. ult.) after speaking of sin being “purged by satisfaction,” adds as a formal explanation of “satisfaction,” “Satisfaction is to shut out the causes and suggestions of sins, and not again to repeat sins.”

But although it is clear, on the one hand, that “satisfaction” is used by the Latin Fathers in no technical sense, and there is no corresponding term in the Greek, yet it is equally plain that self-affliction, in token of displeasure at one’s sins, and as a means of keeping up that displeasure, was held by the Ancient Church to be acceptable to God, and turn away His wrath; and this truth they derived from S. Paul’s mention of “revenge” as a part of penitence, (2 Cor. 7:11.) or his exhortation, “Judge yourselves, brethren, that, ye be not judged of the Lord,” or God’s acceptance of the self-affliction of Ahab and the Ninevites. see above, c. 9. p. 365. and n. S. Cypr. de Laps. §. 21. 22. p. 175. Oxf. Tr. S. Ambrose de Pœnit. ii. 10. §. 96. de Laps. Virg. Consecr. c. 8. §. 35–38. where he speaks also of amends being thus made; “If the sinner spare not himself, he will be spared by God. And if in this short space of life he shall have balanced the pains of hell which shall be for ever, he shall free himself from eternal judgment. A great wound needeth a deep and lengthened process of healing; and great wickedness requireth great amends,” [satisfactionem.] Thus S. Jerome describes the repentance of Paula, Ep. 108. ad Eustoch. §. 15. “On my frequently admonishing her to spare her eyes that she might keep them for the reading of the Gospel, she was wont to say, ‘The face must be befouled, which against God’s command I often painted; the body must be afflicted which was wholly given to manifold pleasures; long laughter must be balanced by continual weeping; soft linen and silks most costly must be exchanged for the roughness of hair-cloth. I who pleased my husband and the world, now desire to please Christ.” And in a very aggravated case of exceeding sin, he relates, “I exhorted thee to do penance, to lie in hair-cloth and ashes, to betake thyself to solitude, to live in a monastery, to implore the mercy of God by continual weeping.” Ep. 147. ad Sabinian. §. 8. and on Joel c. 1. “let him lie and sleep on sackcloth, and by the austerity of his life make amends for the past pleasures whereby he had offended God,” add Ep. 77. ad Ocean. de morte Fabiolæ, §. 4. Origen. Hom. 2. in Levit. §. 4. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 39. in S. Lumina, §. 17. S. Greg. Nyss. de pœnit. circ. fin. S. Basil, in Ps. 32. §. 3. p. 310. Pacian. Ep. 3. ad Sympronian. “who came to life through the destruction of the flesh.” Cassian, Coll. 23. 15. Epiphanius Expos. Fid. Cath. c. 22. speaks of the fasts of the Church as “a confession to our salvation of the Passion of the Lord which He underwent for us,” and, “that our fasts may be acceptable to God for our sins.” He says also, “He who after Baptism runneth into more grievous sin, hath a second cure, not of such eminence as the first, yet not cast off from life. The Divine word annulleth not then the reward of those who toil in penitence,” Hær. 59. c. 2. And since this chastisement was a part of repentance, it followed (as an instinctive feeling implies) that it should be proportioned to the sin. Thus S. Augustine, Serm. 351. c. 4. “The third sort of penitence is that to be undergone for the sins contained in the Decalogue, of which the Apostle says, ‘They who do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ In this penitence then, every one ought to exercise on himself a greater severity, that judged by himself, he be not judged of the Lord, as the same Apostle says, 1 Cor. 11:31.” And Serm. 278. (al. de div. 34.) c. 12. “All past things are forgiven to the converted; but some things in this life are so grievous and deadly, that they are not remitted, except through the most vehement trouble of humiliation of heart, and contrition of spirit, and tribulation of penitence. These are remitted by the keys of the Church. For if thou beginnest to judge thyself, to be displeased with thyself,” &c. ab. p. 365. n. see S. Cypr. de laps. v. fin. Cler. Rom. Ep. 30. ad Cypr. §. 4. “be not the medicine less than the wound, nor the remedies slighter than the disease.” S. Ambrose de Virg. laps. c. 8. §. 36. “How great or what sort of penitence, thinkest thou, is necessary? Such as shall equal or exceed your sins. A mighty wound needeth a profound and lengthened cure. A mighty wickedness needeth mighty amends;” and de pœnit. i. 2. “Whoso hath heaped up the offence, heap he up also the penitence. For mightier sins are washed away by mightier tears.” S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 39. §. 19. “If he (Novatus) received not those who repented not, he did well; for neither do I receive those not bowed down, or who do not proportion their correction to their sins.” S. Basil, Hom. in verba Attende tibi ipsi, §. 4. T. 2. p. 19. “Take heed to thyself, that in proportion to the fault thou admit also the restoration from the remedy. Great and grievous is the sin; thou hast need of much confession, [ἐξομολόγησις, see Note L.] of bitter tears, of intense watching, of an unbroken fast. Is the offence light and bearable; be the penitence also proportioned. Only take heed to thyself, that thou know thy mind’s health and disease.” add Theodoret. Hær. Fab. v. 28. de pœnit. fin. (against the Novatians,) “The wounds therefore received after Baptism are also curable; but not so that remission should be given as before, through faith alone, but through many tears, lamentations, and weepings, and fasting, and prayer, and toil, proportioned to the greatness of the sin committed.”

Since this is so, there must be an inherent fitness in it, i.e. it must have some reference to the Divine attributes; and this S. Augustine states in respect of the Divine truth; that since God has said that sin shall not go unpunished, the sinner must punish himself if he would escape the punishment of the Lord. Thus on Ps. 50. (51.) v. 6. “ ‘Thou hast loved truth,’ i.e. Thou hast not left unpunished the sins even of those whom Thou hast pardoned. Thou hast so dispensed mercy, as to preserve truth. Thou pardonest one confessing, but on his punishing himself. Thus mercy and truth are preserved; mercy, because man is freed; truth, because sin is punished.” But S. Augustine more frequently rests this necessity of self-punishment, in that thereby the sinner comes to regard his sin as God sees it, is displeased with it and with himself as God is, and so is brought into a harmony with God’s will, with which, while in sin, he had been at variance. Thus in Serm. 29. fin. (on Ps. 117:1.) “Every one who is penitent, and in penitence confesseth his sins, is angry with himself, and in a manner by penitence avengeth in himself what displeaseth himself. For God hateth sin. If thou also hatest in thyself what God also hateth, thou art in a degree united in will to God, in that thou hatest in thyself what God also hateth. Exercise severity on thyself, that God may intercede for thee, and not condemn thee. For sin is certainly to be punished. This is due to sin, punishment, condemnation. Sin is to be punished either by thee or by Him. If it is punished by thee, then it will be punished without thee, but if it is not punished by thee, it will be punished with thee.” In this last sentence S. Augustine (as he on other occasions states more scientifically and in a system, what in the rest of Catholic antiquity is given as a simple truth,) speaks of this law as required by God’s justice, i.e. as we should speak, a rule of His moral Government, an Attribute discovered in His dealings with us. This is, however, very different from speaking, with the Romanists, of making satisfaction to that Justice, as a definite debt, to be paid accurately, if not here, in Purgatory. S. Augustine speaks in the same way elsewhere, yet shewing that he has no technical theory of compensation to God, but rather is inculcating generally the strictness of God’s law and the severity of His judgment. Thus in contrast with careless contempt, Ep. 653. ad Maced. c. 3. “Some whose crimes are open, freed from your [the civil power’s] severity, we yet remove from the communion of the Altar, that repenting they may appease Whom in sinning they had despised, and also by punishing themselves. For he who truly repents doth nothing else, than not allow the evil he had done to be unpunished; for thus punishing himself He spareth him, Whose deep and just judgment no despiser escapeth.”

NOTE L. ON THE TERM EXOMOLOGESIS, P. 364.

Tertullian declares the term “exomologesis” to be more appropriate than the Latin “confession,” and as such, to have been adopted by Latin writers. It is then, on this ground alone, not mere confession, and T. presently explains it to be the acts of public penance. Confession comes in chiefly as acknowledgment to God, (“we acknowledge our sin to the Lord,”) leading to acts of p. discipline, and repentance, whereby God is appeased. It is then “a course of public penance, whereby the penitent humbles himself before God;” confession is rather incidentally involved in it, (in that such a course could not be entered upon without it,) than an integral part of it, or required for its own sake. In the whole description of exomologesis which follows, confession is not even mentioned; it is wholly taken up with penitential actions; a public bewailing of sins, not a private confession of them. T. expressly terms it “the act,” “the discipline of humbling, &c.;” “a misery,” “wretchedness,” c. 10; in the de Orat. c. 7. it is bewailing sins before God; in the de Pœnitentia itself (c. ult.) it is the seven-years’ humiliation and suffering of the king of Babylon. (comp. de Pat. c. 13.) In like way, in the places quoted by Bellarmine (de Pœnit. iii. 6. §. 1.) S. Irenæus (1. 13. (9.) 5.) speaks of an adulteress, who “having been converted, continued the whole period (of her life) in a state of penitence (ἐξομολογουμένη in exhomologesi old Lat. trans.) weeping and lamenting what she had undergone through the corruption of the impostor” (Marcus): and of Cerdon, (3, 4. 3.) “coming into the Church, and performing penitence (ἐξομολογούμενος exomologesin faciens) he thus continued to the end, at one while teaching privily, at another performing penitence, (ἐξομολ. exom. faciens,) at another convicted by some as to the things which he taught perversely, and put out of the society of the brethren.” In six places in S. Cyprian, exomologesis is used for the last act of penitence and public humiliation previous to absolution, and reconciliation, and so altogether distinct from private confession. (Ep. 12. Pam. 17. Fell. ad pleb.) “For when in lesser offences, [than total denial of the faith,] which are not committed [directly] against God, penitence is performed for a due period, and the exomologesis takes place, after examination of the life of him who performs penitence, nor can any such come to the communion, before hands be laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy, &c.” (add Ep. 20. Fell. 15. Pam. ad Cler. Ep. 4. Fell. 62. Pam. ad Pompon.) “Let her perform a full penitence—afterwards the exomologesis made, let her be restored to the Church.” S. Cyprian has in two places the entire order in nearly the same words, 1) penitence, 2) exomologesis, 3) imposition of hands, 4) communion, Ep. 10, (Pam. 16. Fell.) ad Clerum. Ep. 11, (Pam. 15. Fell.) ad mart. “before penitence has been performed, before exomologesis of this most grievous and extreme sin, before hands have been laid upon them by the Bishop and Clergy to repentance, they dare to offer for them and give the Eucharist.” The three last occur (the state of penitence being presupposed) Ep. 15. Pam. 20. Fell. ad Cler. Rom. fin. Ep. 13. Pam. 18. Fell. ad Cler. Carth. 14. Pam. 19. Fell. ad eosd. “if they should begin to sink under any weakness or danger, having made the exomologesis, and hands having by you been laid on them in penitence, let them be transmitted to the Lord with the peace promised them by the Martyrs.” The Roman clergy, (Ep. 31. Pam. 30. Fell. fin.) as Albaspinæus observes, (Obss. ii. 26.) substitute for the term, the expression of detestation and grief for the sin, and so explain it; “that they, the immediate approach of whose life’s close admits of no delay, having performed penitence, and often professed their detestation of their deeds, if by tears, by groans, by weeping, they give signs of a grieved and truly penitent mind, then at length, when in human sight there is no hope of life, may with caution and anxiety be bestead,” [i.e. absolved and admitted to Communion.] In two other places, S. Cyprian uses the term of the humble acknowledgment of sin; in the one case, of “The three children,” a general confession only to God, (de Laps. c. 19. p. 173. Oxf. Tr.) in the other, a public bewailing of sins, and sharing in public penitence by those who had been less guilty than others. (ib. c. 18. p. 171.) In another place (Ep. 55. Fell. 52. Pam. ad Antonian. fin.) he uses “confession,” “exomologesis,” and “penitence,” apparently as equivalent. “And because there is no confession in hell, (Ps. 6:6.) nor can there be any exomologesis there, they who repent with their whole heart, and entreat, ought for the time to be received into the Church.” Elsewhere he expresses the same by the word “penitence,” ad Demetrian. fin. Pacian follows Tert. in the use of the word, of Nebuchadnezzar (paræn. ad pœnit. p. 317.) in speaking of “the remedies of penitence and the very acts of exomologesis.” (ib. p. 315.) Salvian (Ep. 9. ad Salon. p. 213. ed. Baluz.) joins together exomologesis and satisfactio as equivalent; and in speaking of a death-bed repentance, denies that either could be practised there, (whereas oral confession continually is,) and throughout, like T., speaks of acts: “When shall he mourn, who has lost the days for mourning? When shall he reconcile himself, (satisfaciet,) who has lost the time of reconciling? He will forsooth betake himself to long fasts? This is something, if it be united with almsgiving, according to that, ‘Good is fasting with almsgiving.’ But how shall a lengthened exomologesis aid him, who is lying in extremities? But he will wear his flesh with hair-cloth, and defile it with dust and ashes, so that the hardness of his present austerities may compensate for the softness of past pleasure? But when shall he do these so great things, shut out, as he is, by his approaching end, from doing even slight things?” (adv. Avarit. i. 10.) The Council of Laodicea uses the term of the whole course of penitence. “As to those, who sin by divers offences, and persevere in the prayer of confession (ἐξομολογήσις) and repentance, and turn perfectly from the evil ways, a period of repentance being assigned to such, proportioned to the offence, let them be admitted to Communion through the mercies and goodness of God.” (Can. 2.) Isidore vi. ult. explains it of confession to God only, “Exomologesis, is that wherewith we confess our offences to the Lord, not as though He were ignorant, from Whose knowledge nothing is hid.” S. Chrysostom remarkably uses the word alternately with repentance (μετάνοια) as equivalent to it; “Let us also then imitate him (John Baptist), and laying aside luxury and excess, change to an abstemious life. For now [Passion week] is the time of Confession, both for the baptized and unbaptized: for the one, that, having repented, they may obtain the Holy Mysteries; the other, that having in Baptism washed away their sins, they may with a pure conscience approach the Table. For it cannot, cannot, be, that people should at one and the same time be in confession and in luxury. Forsake we then this soft and relaxed life.—If you cannot do this, [live like John Baptist,] let us, even while dwelling in cities, exhibit repentance.—Wherefore we have need of large confession and many tears;—but although they [our sins] be unworthy of pardon, let us repent, and we shall obtain a crown. But repentance I call, not only to forsake the former ills, but, (which is better,) to shew forth what is good.” (Hom. 10. in Matt. §. 5.) He speaks of it also as what he could not impose, only exhort to. “What then? saith one, biddest thou be thus austere? I bid not, but I counsel and exhort.” In another place he uses it, in the same way, of the confession of the Paschal week, and since what he joins with it, relates to the whole Church, it seems certain that he means the confession and detestation of sin on the part of the whole Church to God; if not, it must have been the last act of penitents expressing publicly a general abhorrence of their sins; for their preliminary confession was now long past. “Since by the grace of God we have come to this great week, it becomes us now especially to urge on the course of our fasting, and to make our prayers fuller, and to shew forth a large and accurate confession of sins, and diligence about good works, abundant almsgiving, gentleness, mildness, and all other virtues, that with these good works, coming to the Lord’s Day, we may share the mercy of the Lord.” (Hom. 30. in Gen. init.)

NOTE M. ON THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF CONFESSION, PAGE 367.

The point at issue between the Romanists and ourselves, as to Confession, relates, (as themselves admit,) not to its general advantage, or its necessity in particular cases, or its use as a means of discipline, or to the desirableness of public confession before the whole Church, or the great difficulty of true penitence often without it, or the duty of individuals to comply with it, if the Church requires it; but it is whether confession to man be so essential to absolution that the benefits of absolution cannot be had without it. Thus Tournely says even of Protestant bodies. “The question is not whether the confession which is made to man be useful and to be recommended, for this they both praise and commend; but it is whether it be free or, of Divine right and command, necessary.” (q. 9. art. 2. t. 1. p. 315.) Accordingly it is not the question whether a Church have a right to impose it upon its members, but whether a Church, as our own, have a right to dispense with it. The Roman Church, as well as our own, confesses that her practice is not the same as that of the ancient Church, and that, if the times would bear it, it would be desirable to restore it; only the Roman Church claims that, having changed every thing besides, characteristic of the ancient discipline, she has preserved its essentials, and that what she has preserved is essential. Public penitence implied confession before man, in part also to the Priest, who had to decide whether certain cases required a course of public penitence or no; it implied that the penitent at the close of his public penitence, and before his re-admission to Communion, should bewail his sins before the Priest, in presence of the congregation, and receive absolution from him; since also this was the prescribed discipline of the Church, one who withdrew himself from it, for fear of the public shame, had reason to fear that he shrunk also from the necessary discipline and humiliation. Again, the penitent, by shrinking from public penitence, lost the continued intercessions of the congregation, which are equally lost now in the Roman Church by the substitution of private confession. The Roman Theologians separate from these several grounds of confession, the one of taking shame before man, which is mentioned incidentally only in the fathers, as not being a sufficient ground to deter from public penitence. They insist on private confession as essential, on authority of the fathers, when these are insisting on public humiliation, or on private, with a view to public, confession; and this of flagrant overt sins of a more deadly nature, whereas the Council of Trent anathematizes “any who says that in the sacrament of penance, it is not, of Divine right, necessary to the remission of sins, to confess all and each mortal sin, whereof memory is had, after previous, due, and diligent thought, including secret sins, and such as are against the two last commands of the decalogue, [the tenth commandment, and so sins of thought only,] and the circumstances which change the character of the sin,” &c. (Sess. 14. can. 7.) In all the places in which the fathers speak of the necessity of confession, they have regard to it, 1) as the door to a course of public penance, which humbled the penitent, subjected him to a healthful discipline, (which, privately, it were to be feared, few would practise,) and kept him for a while from the Holy Communion which might be hurtful to him; 2) as obtaining for individuals spiritual counsel for the specific case of each; 3) as gaining the intercessions of the Church, and so of Christ. To take the passages cited by Bellarmine, and examined in detail by Daillé.

The confessions mentioned by Irenæus are acts of public penance for grievous sin, heretical teaching, and adultery, (see ab. note L, p. 377.)

Origen refers to public penance, and that as a painful remedy for sin. “There is yet a seventh remission of sin, although hard and laborious through penitence, when the sinner ‘washeth his bed with his tears,’ and his ‘tears become his bread day and night,’ and when he shrinks not from shewing to the priests of the Lord his sin, and to seek a remedy according to Ps. 31:[32] 5. and Jas. 5:14;” for in a corresponding description shortly after, he describes a public penance after the manner of Tertullian, “But if in the bitterness of thy weeping thou shalt be overwhelmed with grief, tears, and lamentation, if thou make lean thy flesh and dry it up by fasting and much abstinence,” &c. (see de Pœn. c. 9.) In like way in the next passage, Hom. 3. in Lev. §. 4. (on Lev. 5:5. ‘If he have sinned in any of these things, let him declare the sin which he hath sinned.’) “There is herein a wonderful mystery. For [in the Day of Judgment] things of every kind are to be uttered, and all which we have done is to be manifested; if we have done any thing in secret, if in words only, or even within the secret places of our thoughts we have committed it, all must needs be published, all produced; produced by him who is both the accuser of sin and the instigator, for he now instigates us to sin, he also, when we have sinned, accuses. If then we anticipate him in life, and are ourselves our own accusers, we escape the malice of the Devil, our enemy and accuser, for so the Prophet elsewhere says, ‘tell thou thine iniquities before [thou be accused] that thou mayest be justified;’ and David also in the same Spirit saith in the Psalms, ‘I made bare mine iniquity, and hid not my sins.’ “ 1) The confession relates not to man but to God, as appears from the Scriptures quoted. 2) as far as it does involve acknowledgment before man, it relates to public penance, (referring also to the former passage which also speaks of it,) for there follows, “if thou utter it first, and offerest the sacrifice of penitence, offering according to what we have said above, and hast ‘given thy flesh to destruction that the spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord,’ it is said to thee also, that thou in thy lifetime hast received thy evil things, but now do thou rest.”

The third passage in Origen (whether his or no, even Bellarmine doubts, “auctor Hom. 2. in Ps. 37.”) relates to taking advice whether public penitence be performed or no for secret sins. “See what Divine Scripture teacheth us, that we must not hide sin within. For they too, who are oppressed by undigested food or phlegm, if they eject it, are relieved; so they who have sinned, if they conceal and retain the sin within them, are oppressed within and almost suffocated by the phlegm or humour of sin; but if he become his own accuser, while he accuses himself and confesses, he at the same time both ejecteth the sin, and digesteth the whole cause of the disease. Only look diligently to whom thou oughtest to confess thy sin; prove first the physician, to whom thou shouldest set forth the causes of thy sickness, who knoweth how to be weak with the weak, to weep with the weeping, who is trained in sympathy and compassionating, that so thou mayest do and follow whatever counsel he may give, who shall first shew himself a skilful and compassionate physician; if he perceive that thy sickness is such as ought to be published in the congregation of the whole Church, that so others may be edified thereby, and thyself readily cured, this must be prescribed with much deliberation, and on the very experienced advice of such a Physician.” It is plain that the writer is not speaking of the prudence and sympathy necessary in any spiritual adviser, but of the extraordinary skill and tenderness necessary in one who is to advise in such a case as this. Again in the sequel it appears that the confession is to be made, not for its own sake, but with the view of putting the sinner on a course of life whereby the sin may be healed; it relates also to sins which should exclude from Communion. “It is good that he who transgresses, be not secure, nor entertain no anxiety, as one who hath not, thinking not how to blot out his sin. If some spot or ulcer arise in thy body, thou art anxious and seekest diligently what remedy shall be applied, how the former soundness may be restored to the body;—when thy soul is sick and oppressed with the languor of sins art thou secure, despisest and settest at nought hell and the punishment of eternal fire? countest little of the judgment of God, and despisest the Church which warneth thee? fearest not, approaching to the Holy Eucharist, to partake of the Body of Christ, as though clear and pure, as though there were nothing unworthy in thee, and amid all this, thinkest that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?”

The fourth place (Hom. 17. in Luc. fin.) equally refers to taking counsel in difficult cases. “If we do this and confess our sins not only to God but to those also who can heal our wounds and sins, our sins will be blotted out by Him Who saith, ‘Behold I blot out as a cloud thy iniquities.’ “ Origen had spoken also a little before of “evil thoughts, which were therefore revealed, in order that by being brought out, they might be destroyed, and He might slay them Who died for us. For as long as they were hid, and not brought out, it was impossible for them wholly to be extirpated. Wherefore we too, if we have sinned, ought to say, ‘I acknowledge my sin unto Thee,’ “ &c.

The passages out of S. Cyprian have been already considered in Note L, p. 378. as has the Canon of the Council of Laodicea (p. 379): both plainly relate to public penance.

Lactantius (though of little authority) is in both places speaking of the course of public penitence; in the one case in contrast with contumacy, in the other with the Novatian heresy, which denied it. In the first (iv. 17.) he says, “God, willing in His everlasting lovingkindness to provide for our life and salvation, did, under that Circumcision, set forth to us Penitence, that, if we cleanse our heart, i.e. if confessing our sin, we make amends to God, (satis Deo fecerimus,) we may obtain pardon, which, to the contumacious and to such as conceal their sin, is denied by Him Who, not, as man, seeth the face, but the inmost secrets of the heart.” In the other (c. ult.) he joins, “Confession and Penitence, which healthfully cure all the sins and wounds to which the frailty of the flesh is subject.” Where (as Daillé observes) the confession is (as in Tertullian) equivalent to exomologesis, the action of penitence, (the more so perhaps in an African writer, as it is so used by Tertullian and S. Cyprian.)

The passage quoted from S. Athanasius (in verba, Profecti in pagum, invenietis pullum ligatum) had been acknowledged to be spurious and of no account by Nannius and Erasmus, (see Daillé, iii. 9.) and since, virtually, by the Benedictines, (Opp. t. ii. p. 73.)

S. Hilary (cap. 18. in Matt. §. 8.) speaks of confession generally, without explanation; there is nothing to imply private confession or any thing but the acknowledged discipline of the Church, “To produce a terror of deep fear, whereby all might for the time be restrained, He premised the immoveable judgment of Apostolic severity, that whom they ‘bound on earth,’ i.e. left tied in the bonds of their sins, and whom they ‘loosed,’ i.e. by Confession received into saving pardon, these, on the terms of the Apostolic sentence, should in heaven also be either bound or loosed.”

S. Basil, in the two passages quoted, is simply answering the question, “when sins are to be laid open, to whom should they be opened?” he answers, to one experienced in the disease (as our own Church “some learned Minister in God’s word.”) de Reg. brev. q. 229. “Whether forbidden actions ought to be laid open to all, or to whom, and of what sort?” Answ. “The discovering of sins has the same rules as the making known of bodily ailments. As then men do not reveal the ailments of the body to all, but to those skilled in their cure, so also the discovering of sins ought to be made to those able to cure them, as is written, ‘ye that are strong, bear the infirmities of the weak,’ i.e. by care remove them.” In the other passage (q. 288.) the point of enquiry is still more explicitly worded, “He who willeth to confess his sins, ought he to confess them to all, or to any chance persons, or to whom?” In the answer the object is distinctly stated to be, to obtain advice. “The end of God’s love is the sinner’s conversion—since then the mode of repentance must be suited to the sin, and there must be ‘fruits worthy of repentance,’ it is necessary to confess the sins to those entrusted with the oracles of God.” This advice of S. Basil corresponds with the then known discipline of the Greek Church, in which the public penitentiary decided, whether sins were to be openly confessed or no.

S. Ambrose (de Pœnit. ii. 6.) contrasts confession with impenitence, “If thou wilt be justified, confess thine offence. For humble confession looses the bonds of sins.” This he says in contrast with such as “make a boast of their innocence, and by justifying themselves are the more burthened.” The words being God’s words, there is (as Daillé observes) no ground to think that confession to man is here spoken of; and indeed the Benedictines admit it to be probable that there is none.

In the other place (ib. 9. 10.) he speaks of such as having taken the previous steps for public confession, drew back from it. The benefit obtained by the public confession, he, like T., places in the humiliation attending public penance, and the prayers of the people. “Very many, out of fear of future punishment, conscious of their sins, seek admission to penitence, and having obtained it, are drawn back by the shame of public entreaty. Will any one endure that thou shouldest be ashamed to ask of God, who art not ashamed to ask men? that thou be ashamed to supplicate from Whom thou art not hid, when thou art not ashamed to confess thy sins to man, from whom thou art hid?”

A third place, quoted by Card. Perron, (ap. Daillé, iii. 11.) relates to those who did public penitence for secret sins of such guilt as to exclude from Communion. It does not at all imply that this punishment was compulsory; S. Ambrose is only contending against the Novatians, that they who took it on themselves should not lose the fruit of their deep, and it should seem voluntary, penitence. “If then any, having hidden sins, do yet for Christ’s sake [apparently, not compelled] zealously perform penitence, how does he receive a reward, if Communion is not restored to him? I will that the criminal hope for pardon, seek it with tears, with groans, with the weepings of the whole people; let him entreat pardon: and if twice or thrice his communion be deferred, let him think that he entreated too remissly; let him increase his tears; let him return afterwards more pitiable; let him hold the Feet in his arms, kiss Them, wash Them with his tears, nor let Them go, that the Lord Jesus may say of him, ‘his many sins are forgiven, because he loved much.’ I know some who in penitence furrowed their countenance with tears, traced their cheeks with continued weepings, laid their body on the ground to be trodden on by all, and in a breathing body, did, by the wan countenance of fastings, exhibit the appearance of death.” (de Pœnit. i. 16.) All this relates to the severity of public penitence; and Romanists themselves admit, that “by no Ecclesiastical law was there imposed a necessity of publicly declaring secret sins.” (Tourneley de Pœnit. q. 6. art. 4. p. 450.) This therefore was voluntary.

The practice of S. Ambrose, as related by Paulinus, in his life, plainly refers (like the passages in S. Basil and S. Ambrose himself) to such as consulted him with a view to public penance. “Whenever any one confessed his falls to him in order to perform penitence, he so wept as to force the other also to weep. For he seemed to be cast down with him who had been cast down. The nature of the offences, which they confessed to him, he uttered to none but God only, with Whom he interceded.” The specific offence for which public penance was done, was in many cases certainly not published.

S. Gregory of Nyssa in one place (Ep. ad Letoium Init.) does not speak of confession at all [only a Latin version], but of the reception of penitents at Easter Eve. “It were well on this day to bring unto God not those only who by regeneration are transmuted through the grace of the Laver, but those also who through repentance and conversion from dead works again return to the living way, and to guide these to the saving hope whence they were estranged through sin.” In another place, (de Pœnit. §. pen. et ult. t. 2. p. 173–5.) he (like the preceding Fathers of the fourth century) recommends at once public penance in order to gain the prayers of the people, and disclosure to the priest, that he may prescribe the fitting remedies. But the whole relates to public penitence; it is addressed to those “who need conversion” and were separated from the Communion. Such are exhorted to follow the example of the penitent sinner of the Gospel, in her humility, and as furnishing “a rule of penitence,” in that she “shrunk not from the multitude of those sitting at meat, she who mourned her sins thus publicly and manifestly, how much more in private!” Among other points, he censures them for retaining the ordinary mode of life, cheerfulness in mien, the same dress, long sleep, distractions of business and thought, and contrasts the pains to regain the favour of an earthly king, how people are ill at ease, mourn, think life intolerable, and by the wasting and habit of their countenance, shew the depth of their sorrow,” i.e. he blames them for retaining what was laid aside in public penance, omitting what was practised in it; and then after exhorting to a change of life, he tells them how the sick lay on a narrow pallet, severed from all worldly concerns and enjoyments, fed on bread and water, is with his physicians night and day; he exhorts the penitent, “Afflict thyself as much as thou canst; seek also the grief of like-minded brethren to aid thee to be freed; shew me thy bitter and abundant tears, that I may mingle mine; take also the priest as partaker of thy affliction as a father; be of good courage toward him who begat thee as to God, more than toward earthly parents. Shew him without shame the things hidden. Bare the secret places of the soul, as shewing to the physician a hidden malady; he will take care of both thy modesty and thy cure.”

Pacian closely imitates Tertullian, and, with him, is speaking of public penance and of the benefits of the intercession of the Church, and, with S. Ambrose, of those who having sought a course of penitence afterwards shrunk from it; he is speaking also of such sins as made the reception of the Holy Communion, without previous penitence, dangerous. The passages quoted are, “I call you then first, brethren, who having been guilty of sins, refuse to perform penitence; you, I say, first impudent, then timid; after sin, bashful; who blush not to sin and blush to confess; who with an evil conscience touch the holy things of God, and fear not the altar of God.”—Lo, again, the Apostle says to the Priest, ‘Lay hands suddenly on no one, and share not others’ sins.’ What dost thou, who deceivest the Priest, deceivest him, if ignorant, or, if knowing imperfectly, bafflest him by the difficulty of proof? I entreat you, then, brethren, even for my own peril’s sake, by that Lord, from Whom no secrets are hid, cease to veil a wounded conscience. The sick, when wise, dread not the physicians.—Now, to address those who well and wisely confessing their sores, yet know not what penitence is, or the medicine for their sores, and are like those, who lay open their sores and swellings, tell all to the physicians, as they sit by, but when bidden, neglect what is to be applied, are disgusted at what is to be taken.” What they refused, he goes on to say, were the sackcloth and ashes, the fastings and tears of the royal penitent David, the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar.

Of S. Chrysostome two passages have already been considered, Note L, p. 379. In addition to these Bellarmine adduces two from the de Sacerdot. ii. 3 and 4. “Wherefore there is need of much contrivance, that the sick be persuaded to subject themselves to the remedies from the priests, and not this only, but to be thankful for them,” and “I could mention many, who were driven upon the worst of evils, from being required to undergo penalties worthy of their sins. For we must not simply proportion the penalty to the offence, but must consider also the good-will of the offenders, lest wishing to mend the rent, you make it worse.” Bellarmine infers, that in order to know how to proportion the remedy to the weakness of the offender, the priest must know all, even the most hidden sins, and so, that S. Chrysostome must have required their confession. But S. Chrys. is speaking only of laying on no heavier burthens than men can bear; not of proportioning the penance to all a person’s sins, (which alone would require this full confession,) but of not imposing in any case, what he foresees the offender will draw back from. The context itself implies that confession was not absolutely required. For S. Chrys. is contrasting the office of pastors of sheep and of men; shepherds know the diseases of their sheep, and could subject them to what process of cure they would; pastors could do neither. “First of all it is not easy for man to know the sicknesses of man, for ‘no one knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him.’ How then can one apply the cure to a disease, the nature whereof he knows not, and often cannot tell whether he be diseased or no? And when it has become manifest, then it gives him yet greater difficulty. For he cannot apply the remedy to all with the same power, as the shepherd to his flock; for in their case he may tie up, and debar from food, and cauterize, and cut; but the power of receiving the remedy lies not with him who administers it, but rather with the sick.” This could not have been written, when the duty of confessing all the most secret sins to the priest was recognized.

Bellarmine’s other passage is, [Hom. 34. al. 33. in Joann. c. 3.] “In our sins let us not be ashamed of man, but let us, as we ought, fear God, Who now also seeth what is done, and will punish then those who repent not now;” and, “Hast thou done or thought any wickedness, and hidest it from man? but from God thou hidest it not. But for all this thou carest not; for the eyes of men, this is thy only fear.” “I exhort therefore, although none see what we do, that each of us should enter into his own conscience, and set thought as a judge over himself, and bring before him all his offences. And if he would not be publicly exposed on the fearful Day, let him apply the remedies of repentance and heal his wounds.” But this last extract rather shews (as Daillé observes) that S. Chrys., here as elsewhere, was referring men only to their own consciences, of their applying remedies for their own sins. And these he goes on to describe; first, to break off the sin, secondly, to cultivate the opposite grace. “Hast thou robbed and made unlawful gains? cease from rapine, and apply almsgiving to the wound. Hast thou committed fornication? cease from it, and apply chastity to the wound. Hast thou spoken evil of thy brother, and injured him? cease evil-speaking, and apply kindliness. And so let us do severally to all our offences, and not pass them by.” S. Chrys. also is not speaking of persons shrinking from taking shame by public confession, but of such as are withheld from sin by fear of man, not of God; and who therefore forthwith sin, so soon as man’s eye is withdrawn. “Whoso regardeth the shame of man only, and is not ashamed to do any wickedness when God seeth,” &c. and, “Him Who shall judge, we fear not; but those who cannot hurt us, of these we stand in awe, and fear shame from them.” The contrast is not between confessing to God only, (which S. Chrys. encourages, see below,) and not confessing to man, but fearing man and not fearing God. Greg. of Valentia (ap. Daillé) quotes another passage, which may shew how similar passages need not apply to private confession to man. (Hom. 20. in Gen. §. 3.) “He who has done these things [grievous sin] if he would use the assistance of conscience for his need, and hasten to confess his sin, and shew his sore to the Physician, Who healeth and reproacheth not, and converse with Him alone, none knowing, and tell all exactly, he shall soon amend his falls. For confession of sins is the effacing of offences.” The words in themselves, (the more, when compared with other language of S. Chrys.) imply Who the Physician is, Who alone can “heal;” but S. Chrys. goes on to speak of the offensiveness of refusing to “confess to Him Who knoweth accurately all our offences,” “Who knoweth all things before they are,” “Who requireth of us nothing heavy and grievous, but only a broken heart, the pricking of the conscience, confession of the fall, continued cleaving to Him, and He not only grants us healing of our wounds, and cleanses us from our sins, but makes him righteous who before was weighed down by the burthen of innumerable sins.” It appears from this, that the Fathers, when speaking of opening our wounds to a physician, do not, as Romanists seem to think, necessarily mean a human physician.

The passage of Innocent I. relates exclusively to public penance. The question proposed to him is only, when the term of public penitence should be closed; Innocent answers, “As to penitents, whether they are performing penitence for graver or lesser sins, if no sickness intervenes, the practice of the Roman Church shews that they are to be forgiven on the Thursday before Easter. But in estimating the weight of the offences, it belongs to the priest to judge, attending to the confession of penitent and his weeping and tears when amending, and then bid him be set free, when he sees that the amends has corresponded. (Ep. 25. ad Decent. c. 7. Constant. Epp. Rom. Pontif, p. 862.)

S. Jerome, in the first place alleged, is speaking only of confessing in order to obtain advice; on Eccl. 10, 8. he says, “If the serpent, the Devil, secretly bite any, and infect him with the poison of sin, no one knowing; if he who is wounded is silent, and does not perform penitence, and will not confess his wound, either to a brother, or a master, the master who hath a tongue which could heal it, cannot easily profit him. For if the sick blush to confess his wound to the physician, medicine healeth not what it knoweth not of.” In the second he is speaking of the duties of the priest, to whom confession is made, not of the duty of all to make confession. “Bishops and Priests not understanding this place (Matt. 16:19.) take to themselves something of Pharisaic pride, so as either to condemn the innocent, or think that they loose the guilty, whereas with God not the sentence of the priest, but the life of the criminals, is the object of enquiry. In Leviticus, we read of the leprous, that they are commanded to shew themselves to the priests, and if they have the leprosy, then the priests reckon them unclean, not that the priests make them leprous and unclean, but that they have the knowledge of what is leprous or not, and can discern who is clean, who unclean. As then there the priest maketh the leprous clean or unclean, so here the Bishop or Priest binds or looses, not those who are innocent or guilty, but, according to his office, when he has heard the various natures of the sins, he knows who is to be bound, who loosed.” (L. 3. in Matt. 16.) A third passage, referred to by Bellarmine, (Ep. 84. ad Pamm. et Occam. §. 6.) “The simple confession of a fault is a second plank after shipwreck,” relates simply to the admission of having been in error [those of Origen], and forsaking them. “Ye have followed me erring; follow me also amended. Young, we have erred; old, be we amended. Let us join our groans, unite our tears, weep and be turned to the Lord, Who made us. Await we not the repentance of the Devil.”

Of the passages attributed to S. Augustine, the de vera et falsa pœnitentia is of later date, nor does Bellarmine claim any authority for it, except what may result from its being cited as of authority by P. Lombard and Gratian; the two homilies quoted by Bellarmine are also spurious; the former is acknowledged to be so by many, and the Benedictines who produce parallels out of S. Augustine for most of the homily, adduce none for c. 1., where the passage occurs, (Hom. 253. App. olim 12. inter 50.) However, even it speaks not of private, but of public, confession, for it begins, “We are admonished—to confess our sins—not only to God, but also to the saints and those who fear God,” [i.e. Christian people,] and in like way the other (Serm. 393. which is very unlike S. Augustine) relates to sins, whereby any has “violated the Sacrament by living ill and profligately, and so has been removed from the Altar;” and to persons, who delayed performing penitence and being reconciled, until their death-bed. In one homily (Serm. 392. al. 49. e. 50.) S. Augustine does speak strongly against persons trusting to a private, but it is in contrast with the severe discipline of public, penitence. He is addressing adulterers, and urging them to do penance in the Church, that they might obtain the prayers of the Church. “If ye have defiled yourselves—do penance, as it is done in the Church, that the Church may pray for you. Let no one say, ‘I do it secretly, I do it in the presence of God; God knoweth, Whose pardon I hope for, that I do it in my heart.’ Is it then said without ground, ‘What ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven?” Were the keys given groundlessly to the Church? Do we set at nought the Gospel, set at nought the words of Christ?” As Daillé has further noticed, the text which S. Augustine alleged from Job, “If I blushed to confess before the people my sins;” his words, “blushes to kneel to receive the blessing of God,” as well as the example of Theodosius, refer to public penitence: S. Augustine is warning against the self-deceit which shrunk from public humiliation, and neglected or despised the absolution given thereupon through the power of the keys.

From his commentary on Psalm 66, Bellarmine quotes the following, “Be downcast, before thou hast confessed; having confessed, exult; now shalt thou be healed. While thou confessedst not, thy conscience collected foul matter; the imposthume swelled, distressed thee, gave thee no rest; the Physician foments it with words, sometimes cuts it, employs the healing knife, rebuking by tribulation. Acknowledge thou the hand of the Physician; confess; let all the foul matter go forth in confession; now exult, now rejoice; what remains will readily be healed.” Bellarmine argues, “all foul matter signifies all sins,” so that “in the judgment of Augustine, all sins were to be laid open in confession.” But to whom? The whole context in S. Aug., before and after, is of confession to God, and to Him only. S. Aug. is commenting on the words, “Sing unto the Lord all the earth; let the people confess to Thee, O Lord.” He says, “The very singing is confession; confession of thy sins and of the power of God. Confess thy iniquity; confess the grace of God. Accuse thyself, glorify Him; blame thyself, praise Him; that He, when He cometh, may find thee thine own chastener, and shew Himself thy Saviour.” Again he asks, “Fearest thou to confess to God, that confessing He may not condemn thee?” then contrasting confession before man’s tribunal and before God, “if robbers confessing before men grieve, let the faithful confessing before God, rejoice;” and on the words, “ ‘Let the nations rejoice and exult;’ wherein? in confession itself. why? because He is good, to Whom they confess. To this end He requireth confession, that He may set the humble free; to this end He condemneth the unconfessing, that He may condemn the proud.” And he sums up the words quoted by Bellarmine with the text, “Let the people confess to Thee.” The whole is a remarkable instance of the way in which Romanists cite her fathers; Bellarmine never could have alleged the passage, had he seen the context, or even considered the words he quotes, where the Physician, to Whom confession is made, is spoken of as able to “rebuke by tribulation.”

The Council of Carthage, (at which S. Augustine was present,) decreed, “That to penitents, there be prescribed, according to the judgment of the Bishop, periods of penitence, according to the difference of their sins.” “Penitents” signifying “those who publicly performed penitence;” this implies only, that the Bishop knew the sins for which they did penitence.

Sozomen, in like way, (H. E. vii. 16.) is speaking of such sins only as subjected to public penance. He is relating what occasioned the office of the public penitentiary priest to be abolished. He says, in the words quoted by Bellarmine, “Since to be altogether free from sin required a more divine nature than man’s, but God enjoined forgiveness to be given to those who repented, though often sinning, in asking pardon it was necessary to confess the sin;” but for the nature of this discipline he refers to the practice of the Western, and especially the Roman Church, where it was “diligently kept up.” And this, which he describes, is altogether the discipline of public penitence, how the penitents stood in a place apart, downcast and mourning, remaining excommunicate, weeping, the Bishop and congregation weeping with them, and at last were rejoined to the Church. “This the Roman priests observe from the first,” he adds, “and even down to our times.” The only Roman practice then known to Sozomen was one in which sins were privately confessed with a view to public penance. For these, besides the public humiliation, “each in private willingly afflicted himself, either by fastings, or by foregoing washing, or by abstinence from food, or by other things enjoined him,” (ib.) so that in the public penitence, the priest directed a private self-affliction corresponding with it; whence passages, which speak of opening the sins to the priest, for him to impose fitting remedies, do not imply mere private penance.

Two passages of S. Leo may yet be added both for his name, and their intrinsic interest. The first relates to an innovation of some Italian Bishops, in publishing the sins for which penitents did public penitence. “That presumption, contrary to the Apostolic rule, which I have lately learnt to be practised by some, taking unduly upon themselves, I direct should by all means be removed, and that a written statement of the nature of the crimes of each should not be publicly rehearsed, since it suffices that the guilt of the conscience be laid open to the priests alone in secret confession. For although that fulness of faith, which out of the fear of God fears not to take shame before men, seems to be praiseworthy, yet because the sins of all are not of such sort, that they who ask to do penitence, fear not their being published, let so unadviseable a custom be done away, lest many be kept from the remedies of penitence; either being ashamed, or fearing that actions, for which they may be punished by the laws, should be discovered to their enemies. For that confession suffices, which is made first to God, then to the priest also, who draweth near to pray for the sins of the penitents. For so at length may more be stirred up to penitence, if the sins confessed by the penitents (pœnitentia confitentis) be not published in the ears of the people.” (Ep. 136. al. 80. ad Episc. Camp. &c. fin.)

Of this, Bellarmine quotes only the sentence, which speaks of confession to the priest alone sufficing; but S. Leo is neither arguing for the substitution of private for public penance, (as now in the Roman Church,) nor for the confession of all sins, but only maintaining the ancient practice as to public discipline, and preventing an additional burthen being laid upon those who did penitence publicly.

The other passage of S. Leo is in answer to Theodorus, “enquiring, what the rule of the Church prescribed as to the order of penitents.” S. Leo answers, “The manifold mercy of God in such wise succours man in his falls, that not only by the grace of Baptism, but also by the medicine of penitence, the hope of eternal life is restored; so that they who have violated the gift of regeneration, condemning themselves by their own sentence, may come to the remission of their crimes (criminum), the succour of the Divine goodness being so ordered, that the forgiveness of God cannot be obtained but through the supplication of the priest. For the ‘Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus,’ hath delivered this power to those set over the Church, that they should admit to the doing of penitence those who confess, and when cleansed by a healthful satisfaction, should, through the door of reconciliation, admit them to the participation of the Sacraments.” Ep. 108. (ol. 91.) ad Theod. c. 1.

Bellarmine argues, “That S. Leo is speaking of secret confession, and that, of all even secret sins, is clear, both from the former passages, and in that the priests could not appoint the doing of the befitting penitence, without an accurate knowledge of all sins;” but (as Daillé observes, iii. 18.) all the language of S. Leo relates to public penitence, and such sins for which penitence was then done. The enquiry of Theodorus relates to these alone; the answer speaks of those only which “violated the gift of regeneration;” of grievous sins, which shut out the sinner from the communion of the Church; it relates to his restoration to that communion, not to the confession of those who continued in it, and whose sins did not exclude them from it.

Such being the evidence which Romanists produce in the five first centuries, it is needless to examine further; it exhibits the system of public discipline in that period, and shews that, in the latter part of it from the fourth century, grievous sins were privately laid open to the priest, with a view to his assigning a course of public penance proportionate to them. Throughout, there is nothing corresponding with the modern practice of the Church of Rome, established by the Council of Trent, to be held as a Divine ordinance, under pain of anathema. On the contrary, the sins so to be confessed were of a very grievous kind, such as were to be blotted out through a long and painful course of public penance, sins which excluded from Communion, and for a time even from presence at the prayers, and into which if the absolved penitent relapsed there was no second reconciliation open to him, but he remained until the end of his life excommunicate. The penance allotted to them was prescribed by Canons; and sins which did not fall under these Canons were neither confessed nor made subject of penance. This S. Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. ad Letoium, can. 6.) expressly says of “avarice.” “The other sort of ‘idolatry,’ for so the Divine Apostle calls ‘covetousness,’ I know not how it was overlooked by our fathers and left without any remedy prescribed (ἀθεράπευτον); whence it happens that this malady abounds very much in the Church, and no one troubles those, who are brought to the Clergy, whether they be defiled with such sort of idolatry.” [i.e. when they are accused of other sins, that they may be put out of the Church, and so their life becomes the subject of examination, no one enquires as to this.] “But as to these things, since they have been passed by by our fathers,—we think it sufficient to heal them, as we best may, by the word of teaching, purging by the word these plethoric diseases of covetousness.” But, besides the Canons, the fathers themselves explain what they mean by “capital” sins, shewing that their distinction between “capital” and “venial” is not the same as that of “mortal” and “venial” in the Roman Church. Thus Tertullian (de Pudic. c. 19.) enumerates as such “murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of the faith, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication, and any other violation of the ‘temple of God,’ “ and even when writing with the severity of a Montanist, he classes as venial “unjust anger beyond the going down of the sun, or laying hands on, or rash swearing, or breaking a covenant, or lying either out of shame or necessity.” In another place, (e. Marc. iv. 9.) he recounts “seven spots of capital offences, Idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, adultery, fornication, false-witness, fraud.” Above, de Idol. c. l. p. 220. he counts “idolatry, murder, adultery, fornication, fraud,” as “swallowing up salvation,” and separates from them, apparently, “covetousness of the world, lasciviousnesses and drunkenness, injustice, vanity, lying.” Origen (Hom. 2. in Jud. §. 5.) distinguishes sins into two classes, one for which public penitence was done, and there was public excommunication: the other (mental sins) came under the cognizance of God only, and the sinner is by Him at last excommunicated, by the withdrawal of His Holy Spirit. “We for whom these things are written ought to know, that if we sin against the Lord, and worship as God the lusts of our mind and of the flesh, we also are delivered and by apostolic authority given over into the hands of Satan. Hear himself saying of him who had sinned, ‘I have given,’ &c. (1 Cor. 5:5.) Thou seest that not only by His Apostles did God deliver offenders into the hands of the enemy, but by those also who preside over the Church, and have the power not only of loosing but of binding, sinners are given for the destruction of the flesh, when for their sins they are separated from the body of Christ. And, as seems to me, men now also are from the Church delivered into the power of Satan, 1) as we said above, when his offence is manifest to the Church, and by the priests he is expelled from the Church, that being noted of all, he may be ashamed, and on his conversion what follows, may belong to him, ‘that the spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord:’ 2) when his sin is not manifest to men, but God Who seeth in secret, perceiving his mind and soul serving vices and passions, and in his heart not only the love of the world, but avarice also, or lust, or vain-glory, or the like, the Lord Himself delivers such an one to Satan. How? He departs from his mind, and turns away, and flees his evil thoughts, and unworthy desires, and leaves the house of his heart empty.” S. Cyprian de Pat. c. 9. recounts three chief classes, “adultery, fraud, homicide.” Pacian (Paræn. ad Pœnit. p. 315.) and others, idolatry, murder, fornication, as founded on Acts 15. (see ab. note A on Apol. fin. p. 109.) S. Augustine (Tr. 12. in Joann. §. ult.) counts “murders, thefts, adulteries,” and contrasts with them, “what seem slight sins of the tongue or of the thoughts, or want of moderation in things lawful.” Elsewhere, explaining Tit. 1:7. he classes as “crimes” “from which every Christian should be free,” (as opposed to venial sins,) “murder, adultery, any uncleanness of fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege, and the rest of this sort.” Tract 41. in Joann. Ep. 185. ad Bonif. In Hom. 352. de Util. pœnit. §. 8. he gives as instances, “murders, sacrilege, adulteries,” and this with reference to public penitence and confession. “There remaineth a third sort of penitence. It is a heavier and more mournful penitence, to which they who are subjected are those properly called ‘penitents’ in the Church, being severed also from partaking of the Sacrament of the Altar, lest by receiving unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves. That penitence then is mournful. The wound is grievous; perhaps adultery has been committed, perhaps murder, perhaps some sacrilege; a grievous thing, a grievous wound, deadly, mortal; but the Physician is Almighty. Now then after the deed has been suggested, entertained, consented to, perpetrated, like a ‘four-days’ corpse he stinketh;’ but not even him hath the Lord forsaken, but hath cried, ‘Lazarus, come forth.’ The weight of the tomb hath yielded to the voice of mercy; death hath yielded to life; he who is from beneath to Him above. Lazarus is raised; hath come forth from the tomb; and was bound, as men are in the confession of sin, while performing penitence. They have already come forth from death; else they would not confess. The very act of confession is to come forth from the hidden place of darkness. But what saith the Lord to the Church? ‘What ye loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.’ Accordingly, when Lazarus was coming forth, because the Lord fulfilled the goodness of His mercy, to bring forth to confession the dead, buried, stinking, the ministry of the Church fulfils the rest, ‘Loose him and let him go.’ “ Here we have the whole course of fall and recovery; sin, grievous, by which a man becomes as a putrid corpse, with no power to rise again; the voice of Christ awakening him and giving him life, by giving him repentance, whereby he publicly confesses and bewails his sin, absolution “freeing him from the bonds of the sins which he had committed.” But no Romanist would contend that all the sins which his Church calls “deadly” take away life wholly, as S. Augustine here describes. In another place, (as Daillé observes, iv. 20.) S. Augustine distinguishes from the sins figured by this death of Lazarus, sins of concupiscence, of those “who have the sin within in the heart, not as yet in deed;” and these, having sinned within, are, he says, like Jairus’ daughter, raised within. “This resurrection of the dead soul takes place within, in the secret places of the conscience.” (Serm. 98. in Luc. vii. §. 5.) Sins of concupiscence were then, according to S. Augustine, healed, without confession, within the soul by Christ Himself. Yet confession of these is expressly required by the Council of Trent, and they form the dangerous part of the Roman confessional. In another place, S. Augustine equally limits the remission through confession and penance to great crimes, great overt acts of sin. “Those whom you see do penance, have committed great crimes, either adulteries, or some enormous deeds; for if their sins were only light, the daily Prayer would suffice to blot out them. Sins then are remitted in three ways in the Church, in Baptism, in [the Lord’s] Prayer, in the humility of the greater penitence.” de Symb. ad Catech. fin. t. vi. p. 555. In another (Ep. 265. ad Seleucian. §. 7.) making the same threefold division, he limits penance to sins which require excommunication, and says, that the term “penitent” was limited to these. “Men do penitence, if after Baptism they so sin, as to deserve excommunication and subsequent restoration; such are they who in all Churches are properly called ‘penitents.’ “ The same statement as to the meaning of “penitents,” with the same contrast between sins so grievous as to require excommunication, and those cleansed by the daily use of the Lord’s Prayer, recurs de Fid. et Op. c. 26. (add on this last Ench. c. 70. 71.) In the de Fid. et Op. c. 19, he identifies again, “mortal” with such as “subject to excommunication.” “Even they who think that the rest are readily compensated by alms, yet doubt not that there are three sins deadly and to be punished by excommunication, unchastity, idolatry, homicide.”

On this ground alone, then, it would be clear, that when S. Augustine (Serm. 351. de util. pœnit. 1) speaks of this third sort of penitence as relating to the sins against the Decalogue, (c. 4. §. 7.) he means, as in other places, palpable overt acts of sin, not those committed in thought only; and this the more, since he explains himself by reference to Gal. 5:21, where St. Paul is speaking of overt sins of the flesh. “The third performing of penitence is that which is to be undergone for those sins, contained in the Decalogue of the Law; and of which the Apostle says, ‘They who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ “ They are also, again, sins involving excommunication by ecclesiastical discipline, and it is the subjection to this discipline which he is recommending. “Lastly, let such a sentence issue from the mind itself, that a person judge himself unworthy to partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord; so that he who dreads lest by the final sentence of the Supreme Judge he be severed from the kingdom of heaven, be by the ecclesiastical discipline severed for the time from the Sacrament of the heavenly Bread.” In the de Dono Perseverantiæ, c. 4. he, as well as S. Cyprian, on whom he is commenting, identifies sins which exclude from the Body of Christ and from “His body, which is the Church,” as though those only should exclude from the one which shut out from the other. S. Cyprian’s words are, “This bread we pray may be daily given us, lest we who are in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist, as the food of salvation, be, through the intervention of some heavier sin, separated from the body of Christ, while, held back and not communicating, we are forbidden the heavenly bread.” S. Augustine’s comment; “These words of the holy man of God shew, that the saints pray for perseverance from the Lord, when with this view they say, ‘Give us this day our daily Bread,’ that they be not separated from the body of Christ, but remain in that holiness, whereby they are guilty of no sin, whereby they may deserve to be separated from it.” The same is stated by a class of persons, anxious for daily communion amid daily infirmities, spoken of by S. Augustine, Ep. 54. ad Januar. c. 39. “But if the sins be not so great that a person ought to be excommunicated, he ought not to separate himself from the daily medicine of the Body of the Lord.”

Such then being the sins which were the subjects of S. Augustine’s “Third sort of penitence,” he is a distinct witness that in his day, no confession was required of any other. For the three sorts of remission upon penitence, upon which he so often insists, are, 1) in Baptism, for the sins of the previous life; 2) by the daily use of the Lord’s prayer with fasting and alms, for those of daily incursion; and, 3) public penitence. Serm. 351. §. 2 sqq. 352. §. 2 sqq. Ep. ad Seleuc. l. c. &c.

This use of the Lord’s prayer he sets forth as in itself a sufficient cleansing for the Holy Communion, (accordingly without any distinct confession,) “For sins incident to men and bearable, and the more frequent because the less, God hath established in the Church now in the season of mercy, a daily medicine that we should say, ‘Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,’ that with face cleansed through these words we may approach to the Altar; with face cleansed through these words, we may partake of the Body and Blood of Christ.” (Serm. 17. §. 5.) Again he makes this very act the confession whereby a man is cleansed, and still in contrast with great overt sins. “Thou who speakest, art thou ‘without spot or wrinkle?’ What dost thou here in the Church, which saith, ‘Forgive us our debts?’ She confesseth that she hath debts to be remitted. They who confess not, are not therefore without them, but therefore will not have them remitted. Confession heals us, and a heedful life, a humble life, prayer with faith, contrition of heart, tears unfeigned flowing from the source of our hearts, that the sins, which we cannot be without, be forgiven us. Confession I say as the Apostle John saith, ‘If we confess our sins,’ &c. But, because I say we cannot be here without sin, we may not commit murders or adulteries, or other death-bringing sins, which slay at one blow. These things doth not the Christian, who hath a good faith and good hope; but those only which are wiped away with the daily sponge of prayer. Let us say daily, humbly, and devoutly, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ yet so as to do what follows, ‘as we also forgive our debtors.’ “ (Serm. 181 fin.) Again he speaks of it, as in a manner our daily Baptism for sins of infirmity, and so washing them out without further confession; “What the Apostle says of the ‘washing of water by the word,’ is so to be taken, that by the same washing of regeneration and word of sanctification all the ills of regenerate men are cleansed and healed; not only the sins which are at once altogether remitted in Baptism, but those also afterwards contracted by human ignorance and infirmity; not, that Baptism be repeated as often as men sin, but that by the fact that it is once given, there is obtained for the faithful, pardon of all sins both before and after. For what would penitence avail either before Baptism, unless Baptism followed, or after, unless it preceded? In the very Prayer too of the Lord, which is our daily cleansing, with what fruit, what effect, would men say, ‘forgive us our trespasses,’ unless they who said it, were baptized?” (de Nupt. et Concup. i. 33. add op. imp. c. Jul. ii. 212. de Pecc. Mer. iii. fin. de Perf. Just. Hom. c. 8. §. 18.)

It is plain from these passages that S. Augustine knew of no other confession, than that of great sins, for which men were excommunicated, and that lesser sins he believed to be remitted on daily confession to God only, in His Son’s words by us as members of His Son.

Other of the passages also, above adduced from Bellarmine, so far from proving the indispensable necessity of confession, do, in fact, furnish arguments of the contrary; thus, the way in which S. Cyprian (de Laps. c. 4.) praised those who did penance for, and therewith confessed, the thought of denying the faith, implies that they were not ecclesiastically bound so to do. Origen, again, many ways implies the absence of any such discipline; 1) in the very difficulty which gives rise to one of the statements, quoted by Bellarmine. It is in reference to the different sacrifices appointed in the law, for sin; “But perhaps some Hearers in the Church will say, The ancients were better off than we, in that various sacrifices were provided whereby pardon was granted to sinners. With us there is only one forgiveness of sin, which is at the beginning given through the grace of Baptism. After this no mercy or freedom is allowed to the sinner.” For, (as Daillé argues, iii. 7.) such a difficulty never could have existed, had the discipline of the Ancient Church been such as that of the Roman now, wherein a second Sacrament is provided for the remission of the sins committed after Baptism, and any one, daily confessing, may be daily and that plenarily absolved. The difficulty implies that the remedy was at least indefinite or rare, not distinct and frequent, like the Sacrifices of the Old Law. 2) Origen meets the difficulty first by admitting the fact; “It is fitting that a severe discipline should belong to the Christian, for whom Christ died.” 3) In setting forth the remedies, which God had laid up in the New Covenant, he speaks of them as so many ways in which forgiveness might be had for sin, and this as corresponding to the different Sacrifices of the Old. “Thou hast heard how many sacrifices there are for sin in the Law. Hear now how many remissions of sins there are in the Gospel. The 1st is that, whereby we are baptized to the remission of sins. The 2d in the suffering of martyrdom. The 3d that given for almsgiving, for the Saviour saith, ‘but give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you.’ The 4th that, whereby we also forgive our brethren their sins, for thus saith our Lord and Saviour Himself, ‘if ye forgive your brethren from the heart their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you your trespasses.’ The 5th is when one turneth a sinner from the error of his way, (S. Jas. 5:19, 20.) A 6th is also through the abundance of love, as also the Lord Himself saith, “Verily I say unto you, ‘her sins, being many, are remitted to her, because she loved much.’ “ And then follows the 7th, the laborious and painful course of public penitence, in which alone confession is spoken of.

Since then the remission of sins in these is promised, upon our Lord’s own authority, to the qualities of mind or actions spoken of, and no mention is made of confession in them, but mention is made of it in that one, in which we know it to have been used, it seems obvious that in it only was it required. Bellarmine tries to set this aside, by arguing, that these several modes of remission were not independent of each other, “but that most included the others, at least ‘in desire’ (in voto); for that almsgiving or forgiveness of injuries alone and the rest (though of benefit in their degree) did not suffice to justification without Baptism, actually or in desire, and as these suffice not for the unbaptized without Baptism, so neither for the baptized without confession actually or in desire.” But this is not so; for first, the several modes of remission are set forth by Origen, as being each complete in itself and for its own end; Baptism is admitted to be so for the time plenarily; Martyrdom was held to take the place of Baptism, or renew it, if wasted; (see ab. on Apol. fin. p. 106. n. the others after Baptism are set forth as belonging to Christians; the very question is, “What remedies has a Christian after the first remission in Baptism?” Origen answers, “Martyrdom, &c.;” the very case presupposes that they are appointed for baptized persons; it is then no argument that because they would not be available alone to unbaptized persons, therefore they are not so without another condition, confession, of which no mention is made at all. Then also it suffices that the absence of any one does not destroy the value of another in itself; almsgiving is sufficient without the forgiveness of brethren, if any one, (as may often be,) have none to forgive; forgiveness, without almsgiving, if any one have nothing to give; and so on. It is not the mere absence of any of these means, but the presence of some positive quality, in itself offensive to God, which would vitiate the rest; as, if any were unforgiving, churlish, unloving, &c.; else Origen, presupposing of course “an honest and true heart,” states each of these ways to be appointed means whereby God severally forgave sins, as He did through the several sacrifices under the law. Origen sums up, by paralleling these means severally with the sacrifices; but as those sacrifices were not all offered together, so it is plain that he did not suppose these means to be necessarily required together; almsgiving, forgiveness of brethren, exceeding love, conversion of a sinner, if existing in such degree as to be indeed sacrifices to God, had, Origen states, the promise of forgiveness of sin annexed to them. In the same way, the several means pointed out in Holy Scripture for effacing past sin, are inculcated, as separate, by S. Chrysostome and Cassian.

It has been above remarked, how S. Gregory of Nyssa, in the Epistle quoted in proof of private penance, expressly leaves cases for which public penance had not been assigned, to be ‘healed by the word of teaching only.’ S. Chrysostome also in the passages cited to prove private confession, shews that the sins of the people were unknown to the priests.

But besides these, there is other distinct evidence that confession was not regarded as essential to remission. This is chiefly furnished by S. Chrysostome, who yet, as alleged by Bellarmine, recommends public penitence, and himself enforced it; still he most distinctly alleges that confession to God suffices for forgiveness, and this so repeatedly, and so strongly, as to leave no question as to his meaning. Certainly no words could be used, which should exclude any other meaning, if his do not. Thus he says, “Not this alone is wondrous, that He remits us our sins, but that He does not reveal, nor make them manifest or open, nor compels us to come forward and speak out our transgressions, but bids us plead before Him Alone and confess to Him;” (he uses the very technical word ἐξομολογήσασθαι,) again, “confess to God Alone thy sins; ‘against Thee only have I sinned, and done evil before Thee,’ and thy sin is forgiven,” (Hom. de Pœnit. 3. (ol. 9.) t. ii. p. 300.) and after contrasting the willingness with which men would even with shame confess to an earthly judge, “despising the shame through longing for safety,” he adds, “but here this is not so, but He remits the sins also, and compels not to parade them in the presence of others, but seeks this one thing only, that he who enjoyeth the benefit, should learn the greatness of the gift. How then is it not preposterous, if when, wherein He benefits us, He is satisfied with the testimony from us alone, we, wherein we serve Him, seek to have others as witnesses, and do any thing for display?” (Catech. 2. ad illum. §. 4. t. 2. p. 240. ol. Hom. 21. ad Pop. Ant.) This language he uses in other places as even with reference to grievous sins, fornication or adultery, “if he [the sinner] will converse alone with Him, no one knowing, and will utter every thing accurately, he shall soon repair his offences.” (Hom. 20. in Gen.) and putting the words in the very mouth of God, “ ‘I compel thee not,’ He saith, to come into the midst of a theatre, surrounded by many witnesses. Tell Me Alone thy sin apart, that I may heal the sore, and free from the pain.” (Hom. 4. de Laz. §. 4. t. i. p. 758.) Again, in a passage remarkable for acknowledging what Romanists seem to forget, that there is shame in confessing sin at all, even though man be not by, if any but realize what his defilements are, and how holy God is; “But thou art ashamed and blushest to utter thy sins; nay, but even were it necessary to utter these things before men and display them, not even thus shouldest thou be ashamed; (for sin, not, to confess sin, is shame,) but now it is not even necessary to confess before witnesses. Be the examination of transgressions in the thoughts of conscience. Be the judgment-seat unwitnessed. Let God Alone see thee confessing, God Who upbraideth not sins, but remitteth sins on confession. But thou hesitatest even thus, and drawest back? I know that conscience endures not the memory of its own transgressions. For if we come to recall our transgressions, the mind starts, like an untamed, ungoverned, colt. But hold it to, rein, soothe it with the hand, pacify it, persuade it, that if it confess not now, it shall confess there, where the punishment is greater, the exhibition fuller; here the judgment-seat is without witnesses, and thou who hast sinned judgest thyself; there every thing will be done in the midst of the theatre of the whole world, unless we anticipate it here, and efface them.” (Hom. non esse ad gratiam concionand. §. 3. t. 2. p. 663.) Again, (speaking of the approach to the Lord’s Table,) “Wherefore he (the Apostle) says, ‘Let each prove himself, and then let him come, and he biddeth us not prove ourselves, the one to the other, but each himself, making the Judgment-seat private, the proof unwitnessed.’ “ (Hom. 28. in 1 Cor. §. 1.) In another place (Hom. de Pœnit. 2. init. ol. de Pœnit. Achab t. ii. p. 287.) he words it differently, that he requires nothing else but confession to God; “Hast thou sinned? say to God, ‘I have sinned;’ what toil is there herein? what long course? what difficulty to say the word, ‘I have sinned?’ For unless thou confess thyself a sinner, hast not thou the devil as accuser? Be beforehand, and take from him his prerogative, to accuse. Why then art thou not beforehand with him, uttering the sin and blotting it out, knowing that thou hast an accuser who cannot keep silence? Thou hast sinned; enter the Church; say unto God, ‘I have sinned;’ I ask of thee nothing else but only this: for Holy Scripture says, ‘tell thou first thine iniquities that thou mayest be justified,’ tell thy sin that thou mayest be free from thy sin.” In another (Hom. 31. in Hebr. §. 3.) he expresses it, that confession in thought suffices; “Let us persuade ourselves that we have sinned. Let us not say so with the tongue only, but with the mind; let us not call ourselves only sinners, but let us also count up our sins, recounting each severally. I tell thee not, expose thyself to public show, nor accuse thyself to others, but I counsel thee to obey the Prophet who saith, ‘Reveal thy way unto the Lord;’ confess these things to God; confess thy sins to the Judge; praying, if not with the tongue, yet with the memory, and so obtain mercy.” Again, in the same contrast with “a theatre” and “witnesses,” he says, “Within, in the conscience, none being present except the All-seeing God, enter into judgment and examination of sins, and reviewing thy whole life bring thy sins into the judgment of thy mind; correct thy transgressions; and thus with a pure conscience, touch the Holy Table and partake of the Holy Sacrifice.” (Hom. de Pœnit. 6. (ol. 8.) fin. t. 2. p. 326.) Again, as he exhorted to confess “to God, Who upbraideth not,” so also as “to Him Who already knoweth,” (which could not be said of confession to God in presence of a priest,) “If this Lamech declined not to confess the murders he had committed, how should we be objects of pardon if we will not confess our sins to Him Who accurately knoweth all our transgressions? For doth He wish to learn because He knoweth not? He Who knoweth all things before they are, requireth confession from us, not because He knoweth not, but willing, at once, that we through the Confession, should come to a sense of our offences, and shew forth our thankfulness.” (Hom. in Gen. l. c.) And to obviate all doubt he contrasts this confession with that to a single fellow-servant. “Nothing is so destructive to sin, as to accuse and condemn it with repentance and tears. Hast thou condemned the sin; thou hast put off the burden. And who saith so? God Himself, Who judgeth. ‘Tell thou first thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.’ For why art thou ashamed and blushest, to tell thy sins? Tellest thou them to man, that he may reproach thee? Confessest thou to thy fellow-servant, that he make a show of thee? Thou shewest the wound to the Lord, Who careth for thee, The Friend, The Physician. For though thou tellest not, is He ignorant, Who knew, even before it was done? Why then not tell it? Does sin, on thy confession, become more burthensome? Nay, but milder and lighter. And He therefore bids thee tell, not to punish but to pardon thee; not that He may Himself know the sin (for how should He Who knoweth?) but that thou mayest learn what a debt He pardoneth.” (Hom. 4. in Laz. l. c. p. 758.) This also S. Chrysostome sets forth as the provision for the whole tenor of life, continual confession of sin, as he elsewhere (Hom. 31. in Hebr. 12. c. 2.) dwells on the necessity of holding it continually in remembrance, “Wherefore I exhort and beseech and entreat you to confess (ἐξομολογεῖσθαι) unto God continually. I do not bring thee into any theatre of thy fellow-servants, nor compel thee to reveal thy sins to men; unfold thy conscience to God, and to Him shew thy wounds, and of Him ask the remedies; shew them to Him who reproacheth not, but healeth. For though thou be silent, He knoweth all things. Speak then, that thou mayest gain; speak, that here putting off (thy sins) thou mayest depart thither clean, and be freed from that intolerable display there.” (Hom. 5. de incomprehens. Dei nat. §. 7. t. i. p. 490.)

There could, if Romanists would fairly consider this, be no way in which confession to God alone, exclusive of man, could be expressed, if not here. S. Chrysostome says, “to God Alone,” “apart in private,” (κατʼ ἴδιαν) “to Him Who knoweth beforehand,” “no one knowing,” “no one present save Him Who knoweth,” “God Alone seeing,” “unwitnessed,” “not to man,” “not to a fellow-servant” “within” “in the conscience,” “in the memory,” “judging thyself,” [in lieu of the Priest being the judge,] “proving ourselves, each himself, not the one to the other,” “in Church, to God.” [i.e. in the general Confession.] Accordingly, one Romanist writer boldly pronounces all these passages spurious; and (since they are unquestionable) another of great name, Petavius, condemns them as “being uttered in a declamatory way to the ignorant multitude for the sake of impressiveness.” But certainly, poor as such an excuse would be for what, according to Romanists, is false teaching, the passages are too numerous and too uniform, to admit of it; they manifestly contain S. Chrysostome’s settled teaching, and Petavius condemns them as “devoid of sound meaning, if fitted to the rule of the exact truth.”

The statements of S. Chrysostome do not stand alone; in his comment on our Lord’s prayer, there is a remarkable parallel with S. Augustine, in that he also speaks of that prayer, as the means of obtaining forgiveness of sins, which occurs so continually in S. Augustine; “Since even after the washing of regeneration, we fall into sin, here too shewing His great loving-kindness, He bids us for the remission of these sins to approach the All-merciful God, and say thus, ‘Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors.’ Seest thou the exceeding loving-kindness? After taking away so many evils, and a gift so unspeakably great, He deigns to forgive us, again sinning.” Hom. 19. al. 20. in Matt. c. 6. §. 8. There is, again, much correspondence with the language of other fathers, in what he says of taking shame, or laying open the wounds to the physician; or of being beforehand with the accuser, by accusing ourselves [not of necessity to the priest, as Romanists require, but to God.] On the other hand, from the frequent use of the word “compels thee not,” it seems that S. Chrysostome does not mean to disparage the value of voluntary confession, as a means of discipline or for obtaining absolution, but only to assert, that it was not essential.

Besides Cassian (who Collat. xx. 8. follows S. Chrysostome,) S. Ambrose further, S. Hilary and S. Augustine in the Latin Church, and S. Basil in the Greek, all write, as certainly one would not write who had the notions of modern Romanists on the absolute necessity of confession. The passages are; S. Hilary in Ps. 51. contrasting confession in this life with the state after death, where there is no confession, “teaching to confess to none other, but to Him Who, in the mercy we hope for, hath made us a fruit-bearing olive for ever and ever.” S. Basil (Hom. in Ps. 37, 8.) remarkably corresponding with S. Chrysostome, thus paraphrases the Psalmist’s words, “I roared from the groaning of my heart;” “for I do not confess with the lips, that I be made manifest to people, but within, in the very heart, closing my eye, I shew the groanings within me to Thee only, Who seest in secret, roaring within myself. For neither had I need of many words for confession; for the groans of my heart sufficed for confession, and the mournings sent up from the depth of the heart to Thee, O God.” The passage of S. Ambrose is an application of the penitence of S. Peter to ourselves, “I find not what he said; I find that he wept; I read of his tears; I read not of his excusing himself [satisfactionem], but what cannot be excused, can be washed away. Let tears wash away the guilt, which one is ashamed to confess with the voice. Tears express the fault without alarm; tears confess the sin, without injuring bashfulness; tears obtain the pardon they ask not for. Peter wept most bitterly, that with tears he might wash out his offence. Do thou also, if thou wouldest obtain pardon, wash out thy fault with tears.” in Luc. 1. 10. c. 22. Bellarmine’s answer to this relates only to the case of S. Peter, that “at that time Sacramental Confession was not instituted;” that S. Peter’s tears were in fact a confession of his fault, since our Lord knew it: but the force of the passage is in the case being made our own; tears can confess sin only to one who knows it; but men know not our sin for the most part; therefore they are confession to God only, and, on such confession, S. Ambrose says, He remitteth our sin. This is, in fact, admitted by Bellarmine when he says, “All this is to be taken of Confession made to God, or even to man who knows the crime beforehand.” The tears also are plainly a confession to Him, from Whom they obtain pardon, i.e. to God. S. Augustine (on Ps. 31. 5. §. 15.) has the same contrast as others, between confession and concealment, but, from the language itself, as well as from the passage commented upon, it is clear that the confession insisted on is to God only, “ ‘I acknowledged my sin, and my unrighteousness I hid not.’ This is what I said long since, ‘Seek not thou to hide, and God hideth.’ ‘Blessed are they whose unrighteousnesses are forgiven and their sins covered.’ Who hide sins, are bared; but he bared them that they might be hid. What means ‘hid not?’ I had long-time been silent. What now, ‘I said?’ Somewhat contrary to that silence. ‘I said.’ What saidst thou? ‘I will declare my unrighteousness against myself to the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart.’ ‘I said.’ What saidst thou? he does not as yet declare; he promises that he will declare, and He at once forgives. Take heed, brethren; it is a great thing; he said, ‘I will declare;’ he said not, ‘I declared and Thou forgavest,’ he said, ‘I will declare, and Thou forgavest;’ for by his very saying, ‘I will declare,’ he shews that he had not as yet declared with his mouth, but with his heart. This very saying, ‘I will declare,’ is to declare, therefore ‘Thou also forgavest the iniquity of my heart.’ My confession had not as yet come to my mouth; for I had said, ‘I will declare against myself,’ but God heard the voice of my heart. My voice was not yet on my lips, but the ear of God was already in my heart. ‘Thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart,’ because ‘I said, I will declare.’ “

In this passage, S. Augustine is not speaking of confession to man one way or the other; but one who thought it essential, would not have written thus of forgiveness being immediate upon confession to God only.

Besides the above, there are two other classes of positive testimony, (adduced by Daillé,) which prove that “confession” in the ancient Church, did not relate to offences, incidental to all Christians, but to certain deeper sins only; and consequently that confession was not of universal obligation. The 1st consists of passages, in which the fathers say, that Confession was not necessary previous to Communion; the 2d of such, in which they state that they were unacquainted with the sins of their people.

Of the first, the testimonies are, S. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 1. “Both these [teachers and hearers] must needs examine themselves, the one whether he be fit to speak, and leave treatises behind him; the other whether he be entitled to hear and read. According as some, having divided the Eucharist, as is usual, allow each individual of the people to take his portion. For conscience is the best guide to take or avoid rightly. But its best foundation is a right life, with fitting instruction.” (The leaving each communicant to take his portion seems to have been used as a sort of symbol, that he must judge himself, whether he be fit.) Origen, on the words “Jesus lift up His eyes,” leaves it to the responsibility of each, whether he will take upon himself that penance which excludes from the Holy Eucharist, or partake of it. “If any one oppose the case of the publican, ‘who would not so much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast, and said, God be merciful to me a sinner,’ we must say to him, that as this ‘sorrow according to God, which worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repented of,’ is not by all and at all times to be undertaken, but only by those, and by all those, who have done things worthy of such sorrow—so, perhaps, it fitteth not for all, not to will to lift up the eyes, or to stand afar off. But let each judge himself as to such things, and ‘so’ not only ‘eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup,’ but ‘lift up his eyes’ also, and raise them aloft in prayer; submitting himself to God, and humbling himself to Him.” (In Joann. t. 28. §. 4. t. 4. p. 372, 3.) S. Chrysostome again expressly; “if we do this [reconcile ourselves with our brethren], we shall be able with a pure conscience to approach His Holy and awful Table, and to utter boldly those words joined to our prayers, (those admitted know what I mean); wherefore I leave to every one’s conscience, how, fulfilling that command, we may at that fearful moment utter these things with boldness.” (Hom. 27. in Gen.) It almost amounts to the same sort of evidence, that S. Chrysostome, enumerating with much detail, how they who have their “conscience filled with sins,” may, within the five days remaining, become fit for the Holy Communion, does not mention confession; he does not suggest that they should unload to the priest “the very heavy burthen” which he supposed some to “bear upon them.” (Hom. de B. Philogon. §. 4.) S. Augustine, in like way, leaves it entirely to the conscience of his hearers, whether they will approach the Holy Table or no; “Considering your several degrees, and adhering to what ye have professed, approach ye to the Flesh of the Lord, approach to the Blood of the Lord. Whoso proveth himself not to be such, let him not approach. Be ye rather pricked by my words.” (Serm. 132. §. 4.) Ambrosiaster: (ad loc.) “He teaches, that with devoted mind and fear we must approach to the Communion, that the mind may know it oweth reverence to Him, to receive Whose Body he approaches. For this he ought to judge with himself, that it is the Lord, Whose Blood he in a mystery drinks, which is a witness of the lovingkindness of God.” And the author of the Quæstt. ex V. et N. Test. (q. 102. ap. Aug. t. 3. p. 98. App.) answers the Novatian objection, “Why do they give the Body of Christ to those whom they know to be sinners?” “As though the same could be accusers and judges! For if they [the sinners] be accused and manifested, they can be cast out;” and alleging our Lord’s bearing with Judas, “we must employ this instance, in proof, that we may not cast out, who is not publicly detected.” Pelagius (ad loc.) is a witness of the prevailing practice; and the more as he affected strictness. He paraphrases, “First the conscience is to be thoroughly examined, whether it reprove us in any thing, and so ought we to offer or communicate.” (ad loc.)

The other class of passages has been noted out of S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, Innocent I. and S. Leo. (Daillé iv. 12.) One strong statement of S. Chrysostome has already occurred; (see ab. p. 386.) Again, in the same work, expressly on the duties of the priesthood, after inculcating the necessity of sowing daily, that at least by continuance the word of doctrine might abide with the hearers; and, mentioning some hindrances to its coming to the very surface, he adds, “but of sins, not the very smallest proportion can become manifest to them, [the priests]; for how should they, where most they know not even by face?” de Sac. 6, 4. It need scarcely be said how different a modern Romanist treatise on the priesthood must needs be. Again: “since the priests do not know all sinners and those who partake of the mysteries unworthily, God ofttimes doth this, and delivereth them to Satan.” (Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. §. 3.) and “since many, full of innumerable evils, when they see the festival approaching them, as though driven by the very day, touch the sacred mysteries; which persons, so minded, should not even see, such of them as are manifest to us, we will ourselves assuredly exclude: but those who are unknown to us, we will leave to God, Who knoweth the hidden things of every man’s heart.” Hom. in eos qui absunt a divinis off. §. 4. (de Bapt. Christi, t. ii. p. 373.) add Hom. i. adv. Jud. §. 4. “Believe me, I will rather lay down my head, than overlook any who are thus disordered, if I see it; but if I know it not, God will surely forgive me.”

S. Augustine (Serm. 392. ad conjug.) and Innocent I. (Ep. 3. al. 2.) both speak of the sins of adulterers becoming known to them by the accusation of their wives, and of their not knowing them in any other way. S. Leo (de quadr. Serm. 5. c. 3.) speaks of those “who passed well-nigh the whole period of the year carelessly or negligently; and warns such, out of the love he owes them, not to flatter themselves, because the consciences of individuals cannot be open to us; whereas no hidden places separate from the eyes of God, Who seeth all things at once; nor are thoughts and actions only, but what is about to be done and thought, known to him.”

Even negative evidence has much weight, when the materials are adequate; if under parallel circumstances equally detailed, and in a sufficient number of instances, mention is uniformly made of a religious practice at one period, while it is omitted at another, it does imply a different view as to the virtue of the practice. Religious persons would not, without some adequate ground, uniformly neglect at one period, what was practised at another; and such ground is furnished by the different view of the Church respecting it; at the one time, when recommended by the Church, they performed it: if at another they neglect it, when obedience to the Church was equally recognised as a duty, it would be, because the Church did not require it. The instances, then, being in each case very numerous, the absence of any mention of confession in the early Church under the following circumstances, does, when contrasted with the uniform mention of it in the later, put beyond question that at the earlier period it was not the received practice. The evidence is given at great length by Daillé. 1) “secret confession has, among the modern Latins, a chief place in the religious acts of all the faithful; clergy, monks, lay; princes, private persons; nobles, people; men and women; but nowhere in the Ancient Church;” (D. iv. 3.) “especially at the close of life, as a bounden duty, it is universal among the moderns, unknown among the ancients;” (ib. c. 5.) “or in sudden perils, as sickness, wars, shipwrecks, journeys, &c.;” (c. 6.) “in persecution or by Martyrs;” (c. 7.) “at great festivals;” (c. 8.) and certainly the details are given so fully, that it is inconceivable, that the practice of confession should have been so uniformly mentioned with praise in the later, and wholly omitted in the earlier Church, had the practice of the earlier been the same as that of the later.

An argument of the same sort is deduced from the body of writings, the great number and variety of questions and discussions, to which the modern confessional has given rise, and from its very nature must give rise. (D. iv. 14.) It again is inconceivable that with the large remains of antiquity which we have, and the notices of lost works, there should be no vestige of any thing corresponding to all this, had the practice which occasioned it, existed.

Another, and unquestionable, ground has been furnished (D. iv. 40.) by the different use of the word “penitents” and “penitence” at different periods; in the early Church, it signified in itself public penitents, (as above, Conc. Carth. p. 390. S. Augustine, p. 393. Conc. Tolet. (A. 400.) can. 2.) “From the 8th to the 13th” the nature of the penitence is distinguished by the addition “public” or “private;” then “public” penitence being wholly disused, the terms again ceased to be distinguished by any addition, and as in the first period, when used alone, it signified “public,” so now, “private” “penitence” or “penitent.” This variation would not have been, had the modern private penitence existed in the early Church.

Daillé has shewn further that the “necessity” of confession remained an open question to a later period. P. Lombard (himself holding it to be necessary) says, “Some think it sufficient, if confession be made to God only, without the judgment of the priest, or confession to the Church, (Sent. L. iv. dist. 17.) Gratian says nearly the same, but leaves the question undecided, saying that there were “wise and religious men on both sides.” (de Pœnit. dist. i. c. 89.) Auricular confession is still unknown to the sects, parted at an early period from the Greek Communion, the Æthiopians, S. Thomas’ Christians, Babylonians, Armenians, Jacobites. (D. iv. 1) It appears also that in the time of Theodorus, our Archbishop, it was not in the Greek Church itself.

Although, however, it is certain from the above evidence, that the early Church had no obligatory confession, except that of overt acts of sin, with a view to public penitence, and consequently that confession, as now practised in the Roman Communion, is not essential to the validity of the general exercise of the power of the keys, still, as a matter of discipline, it belongs to the Christian prudence of any Church to imitate or lay it aside; it does not follow that because it was not practised in the early Church, it may not be a salutary check in the degraded state in which the Church now is; if a Church have it, it should not be looked upon as a burthen, but as a privilege, as must any check upon our self-willed, forgetful, ways be; if a Church have laid it aside, there is no ground for misgiving, as though it had parted with any thing essential to the benefits of absolution, so that individuals do not omit the “works meet for repentance,” self-chastisement, almsgiving, prayer; and these three remedies S. Augustine speaks of, as instruments for the cleansing even of our daily, lighter sins. “Weak is human nature, which can be slain even by the smallest animals. Such also are small sins; ye observe that they are small; beware of them, because they are many. How exceeding small are grains of sand! Yet if too much sand be put into a vessel, it sinks it that it be lost. How small are drops of rain! Fill they not rivers, and cast down houses? Therefore despise them not. But ye will say, ‘Who can be without them?’ That thou mayest not say thou canst, (because none can so say truly,) the gracious God, seeing our frailty, set some contrary remedies. What remedies? Alms, fasting, prayer; these are three. But that thou mayest speak truth in prayer [“as we forgive,” &c.] thou must fulfil the measure of perfect alms. What are these? That whereof thou hast abundantly, thou givest to him who hath not, and when any injure thee, forgivest him.” (Serm. 9. §. 17.) Again and with the same metaphor of the ship sunk though slowly filled: “What is to clear out the water, other than, by good works, by groaning, fasting, giving, forgiving, to provide that sins sink it not?” add Ep. ad Seleucian. fin. de Perf. Just. Hom. c. 8. §. 18.

↑ Back to top