I come now to the discussion of those things which have been advanced by the sophists of the schools concerning Repentance, which I shall run over as briefly as possible; for it is not my design to pursue the subject at large, lest this book, which I am endeavouring to make a compendium of doctrine, should be drawn out to an immoderate extent. They have involved a subject, otherwise not very intricate, in so many perplexities, that those who have entered but a little way into their labyrinths will not find it easy to extricate themselves. In the first place, the definition they have given of repentance, clearly shows that they never understood what it was; for they catch at some passages in the writings of the fathers, which by no means express the nature of repentance; as, “that to repent is to weep for sins previously committed, and not to commit sins to be wept for.” Again: “that it is to lament evils that are past, and not to commit new ones to be lamented.” Again: “that it is a kind of mournful vengeance, punishing in ourselves what we bewail having committed.” Again: “that it is a sorrow of heart and bitterness of soul on account of the evils which a man has committed, or to which he has consented.” But though we concede that these expressions were properly used by the fathers, which, however, a contentious man would find no difficulty in denying, yet they were used not with a view to describe repentance, but only to exhort their readers to avoid relapsing into those crimes from which they had been delivered. But if we are disposed to convert all observations of this kind into definitions, others may be added with equal propriety. As this of Chrysostom, “Repentance is a medicine which destroys sin, a gift bestowed from heaven, an admirable virtue, a grace exceeding the power of laws.” Moreover, the doctrine which they afterwards advance is still worse than these definitions; [pg 561] for they are so obstinately riveted to external exercises, that one can collect nothing else from immense volumes, but that repentance is an austere discipline, which serves partly to subdue the flesh, partly to chastise and punish vices; but concerning the internal renovation of the mind, which is attended with a real reformation of the life, they observe a wonderful silence. Of contrition and attrition, indeed, they treat largely; they torment souls with a multitude of scruples, and drive them to extreme trouble and anxiety; but when they appear to have thoroughly wounded the heart, they heal all the bitterness by a slight sprinkling of ceremonies. Having thus quaintly defined repentance, they divide it into contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work—a division which is no more agreeable to the rules of logic than their definition, though they would be thought to have spent their whole lives in composing syllogisms. But should any one reason from the definition, (which is a kind of argumentation common among logicians,) that a man may weep for sins previously committed, and commit no more to be wept for; may lament evils that are past, and commit no more to be lamented; may punish what he mourns that he has committed, &c., although he makes no confession with his mouth; how will they defend their division? For if he who confesses not, be nevertheless truly penitent, repentance may exist where there is no confession. But if they reply that this division refers to repentance as a sacrament, or is to be understood of the complete perfection of repentance, which they comprehend not in their definition, they have no reason to accuse me; let them impute the blame to themselves, for not giving definitions with more correctness and perspicuity. For myself, indeed, according to my dull capacity, in all controversies I refer every thing to the definition, which is the hinge and foundation of the whole argument. But, admitting this to be their magisterial license, we proceed to an attentive examination of the parts themselves in order. When I neglect, and pass over as frivolous, things which, with supercilious gravity, they represent as mysteries, I never do it without design; not that I should find it very laborious to canvass the arguments in which they conceive themselves to have discovered most shrewdness and subtilty; but I could not conscientiously fatigue my readers with such impertinences to no good purpose. From the questions which they raise and agitate, and with which they miserably embarrass themselves, it is easy to see, that they talk of subjects of which they are utterly ignorant; such as this: Whether repentance for one sin be pleasing to God during an obstinate continuance in others. Again: Whether punishments inflicted by God be available for satisfaction. Again: Whether repentance may be [pg 562] frequently repeated for mortal sins. On this point they shamefully and impiously determine, that repentance is daily practised only for venial sins. They also torment themselves much with a gross error, in an expression of Jerome, “That repentance is a second plank after a shipwreck;” thus giving proof, that they have never been awakened from their brutish stupidity, so as to have even the most distant view of the thousandth part of their sins.
II. I wish the reader to consider, that this is not a contention about an insignificant trifle, but a question respecting the most serious of all subjects—remission of sins. For by requiring, in repentance, compunction of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work, they maintain, that these three things are necessary to procure the remission of sins. But if it be important for us to know any thing in the whole science of religion, it is certainly of the greatest importance to apprehend, and fully to understand, by what means, by what law, on what condition, and with what facility or difficulty, remission of sins may be obtained. Unless this knowledge be clear and certain, the conscience can have no rest, no peace with God, no confidence or security; but is the subject of perpetual trepidations and fluctuations, is disturbed, tormented, and harassed, and dreads, hates, and avoids the presence of God. But if remission of sins depend on those conditions to which they confine it, we are in a most miserable and deplorable situation. They make contrition the first step towards obtaining pardon, and require such as is due from us, that is, such as is just and perfect; but they have not determined, when a man may be assured that he has arrived at this degree of perfect contrition. I grant, indeed, that every man ought to be sedulously and earnestly urged, that by bitterly mourning for his sins, he may continually augment his displeasure and hatred against them. For this “sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of.”1692 But when such an anguish of sorrow is required as may correspond to the magnitude of the guilt, and may be weighed in the balance with confidence of pardon, then the wretched conscience is wonderfully tormented and agitated, when it sees a due contrition for sins imposed on it, and understands not the extent of the debt so as to be able to decide with itself that it has discharged what was due from it. If they say that we must do what we can, we still return to the same point; for when will any man presume to flatter himself that he has exerted all his power in bewailing his sins? Consciences, therefore, that have been long striving with themselves, and exercised in tedious conflicts, but without finding [pg 563] at length any place of rest, endeavour to procure some small alleviation, extorting from themselves some sorrow, and forcing out some tears to complete their contrition.
III. If they charge me with calumny, let them come forth and produce a single individual, who has not, by this doctrine of contrition, either been driven into despair, or endeavoured to avert the Divine judgment by a pretended sorrow instead of real compunction. We have said ourselves, that forgiveness of sins is never enjoyed without repentance, because none but those who are afflicted and wounded with a consciousness of sins, can sincerely implore the mercy of God; but we have likewise added, that repentance is not the cause of remission of sins. But those torments of soul, which they say are duties to be performed, we have put aside. We have taught the sinner not to look on his compunction or on his tears, but to fix both his eyes solely on the mercy of God. We have only declared, that Christ called the labouring and heavy-laden, when he was sent “to preach the gospel to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound, and to comfort all that mourn.”1693 This would exclude the Pharisees, who, satisfied with their own righteousness, acknowledge not their poverty; and despisers, who, careless of the wrath of God, seek no remedy for their disease; for such neither labour, nor are heavy-laden; they are not broken-hearted, or in bondage, or in captivity. But there is a considerable difference, whether a man be taught to merit remission of sins by a true and perfect contrition, (which no sinner can ever perform,) or be instructed to hunger and thirst for the Divine mercy, that by the knowledge of his misery, by his disquietude, fatigue, and captivity, he may be shown where he ought to seek for consolation, rest, and liberty, and may learn to glorify God by his humility.
IV. Concerning confession, there has always been a great controversy between the canonists and the scholastic divines; the latter contending, that confession is commanded by the word of God; the other, on the contrary, maintaining that it is enjoined only by the ecclesiastical constitutions. But this controversy has discovered the singular impudence of the theologians, who have corrupted and violently distorted all the passages of Scripture which they have cited in favour of their argument. And when they perceived that they could not even thus obtain what they desired, those who would appear more shrewd than others, resorted to this subterfuge, that confession, as to the substance of it, came from the Divine law, but afterwards derived its form from a positive law. In a similar manner [pg 564] the most foolish lawyers pretend, that citations originated from the Divine law, because it is said, “Adam, where art thou?”1694 and exceptions also, because Adam answered, as if by way of exception, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,” &c.; but that both received their form from the civil code. But let us examine by what arguments they prove this confession, either formal or informal, to have been commanded by God. The Lord, say they, sent leprous persons to the priests. What then? Did he send them to confession? Who ever heard that the Levitical priests were appointed to hear confessions? Therefore they resort to allegories: it was enacted by the Mosaic law, that the priests should distinguish between leprosy and leprosy; sin is a spiritual leprosy, concerning which it is the office of the priests to decide. Before I reply to this, I would inquire, by the way, if this passage constitutes them judges of the spiritual leprosy, why do they arrogate to themselves the cognizance of the natural and corporeal leprosy? Is not this trifling with the Scriptures? The law commits to the Levitical priests the cognizance of the leprosy; let us usurp this to ourselves. Sin is a spiritual leprosy; let us also take cognizance of sin. Now, I reply, “The priesthood being changed, there is made, of necessity, a change also of the law.”1695 All the priestly functions have been transferred to Christ; in him they are fulfilled and finished; therefore every privilege and honour of the sacerdotal office has been transferred to him alone. If they are so extremely fond of pursuing allegories, let them propose Christ to themselves as the only priest, and accumulate on his tribunal the unlimited jurisdiction over all things; this we shall easily admit. Besides, this allegory of theirs is very absurd, since it places among the ceremonies a law that was merely political. Why, then, does Christ send leprous persons to the priests? To preclude the priests from calumniating him with a violation of the law, which commanded him that was cured of the leprosy to show himself to the priest, and to be purged by the oblation of a sacrifice. “Go (said he) show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”1696 And truly this miracle was to be a testimony to them; for they had pronounced him leprous, now they pronounce him healed. Are they not, whether willingly or reluctantly, constrained to become witnesses of the miracles of Christ? Christ gives them his miracle for their examination; they cannot deny it; but because they still cavil, this work is a testimony to them. Thus it is said, “This gospel shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto [pg 565] all nations.”1697 Again: “Ye shall be brought before governors and kings, for a testimony against them.”1698 That is, that they may be more powerfully convicted at the judgment of God. But if they would rather coincide with Chrysostom, he also teaches, that Christ did this on account of the Jews, that he might not be deemed a transgressor of the law. Though on a point so clear I am ashamed to adduce the suffrage of any man; when Christ declares that he leaves the legal rights entirely to the priests, as the professed enemies of the gospel, who were always ready to cavil, if their mouths were not stopped. Wherefore the Popish priests, in order to retain this possession, should publicly espouse the party of those whom it is necessary to restrain by force from uttering their curses against Christ. For with this his true ministers have no concern.
V. Their second argument they derive from the same source, that is, from allegory; as though allegories were sufficient for the confirmation of any dogma. Let them be admitted as sufficient, if I do not prove that those very allegories may be urged by me with more plausibility than they possibly can by them. They plead, therefore, that the Lord commanded his disciples to loose Lazarus from his bandages, when he was raised from the grave.1699 Here, in the first place, they are guilty of falsehood; for it is nowhere recorded, that the Lord said this to his disciples; and it is much more probable that he said it to the Jews who were standing near him, that the miracle might be rendered more evident, beyond all suspicion of fraud, and that his power might appear the greater, from his raising the dead to life without the least touch, solely by the call of his voice. For I apprehend, that the Lord, in order to remove from the minds of the Jews every unfavourable suspicion, chose that they should roll back the stone, should perceive the fetid odour, should see the certain tokens of death, should behold him rising by the sole energy of a word, and be the first to touch him on his restoration to life. And this is the opinion of Chrysostom. But admitting this to have been addressed to the disciples, what will they gain by it? That the Lord gave his apostles the power of loosing; but with how much more aptitude and skill might these words be handled in an allegorical sense, if we should say, that God intended by this emblem to instruct believers, that they ought to loose those whom he has raised to life; that is, that they should not recall to remembrance the sins which he had forgotten; that they should not condemn as sinners those whom he had absolved; that they should not continue to upbraid with offences [pg 566] which he had forgiven; that where he is merciful and ready to spare, they should not be severe and rigorous to punish! Nothing, surely, ought to be a stronger motive to the exercise of forgiveness by us, than the example of that judge, who threatens to be implacable towards them who are too rigorous and cruel. Let them go now and boast of their allegories.
VI. They come to a closer contest, when they oppose us with what they apprehend to be plain passages. Those who came to the baptism of John confessed their sins;1700 and James directs us to confess our sins one to another.1701 It is no wonder, if those who desired to be baptized confessed their sins, for it is said, that John “preached the baptism of repentance,” and “baptized with water unto repentance.” Whom, then, should he baptize, but such as confessed themselves sinners? Baptism is an emblem of remission of sins; and who should be admitted to this emblem but sinners, and those who acknowledged themselves to be such? They confessed their sins, therefore, in order to be baptized. Nor is it without reason that James directs us to confess one to another. But if they would observe what immediately follows, they would perceive, that this also affords them very little support. “Confess (says he) your faults one to another, and pray for one another.” He connects mutual confession and mutual prayer. If our confessions must be made only to priests, then our prayers ought to be offered up for them alone. But would it not follow from the language of James, that priests alone might make confessions? For when he enjoins mutual confession, he addresses such only as have a right to hear the confessions of others. Αλληλοι implies mutually, by turns, successively, or reciprocally. But none can reciprocally confess, but those who are qualified to hear confessions. And since they dignify the priests exclusively with this prerogative, we also relinquish to them alone the task of making confession. Then let us dismiss such impertinences, and attend to the real meaning of the apostle, which is simple and clear; it is, that we should reciprocally communicate our infirmities to each other, to receive from one another mutual advice, mutual compassion, and mutual consolation; and, also, that being mutually conscious of the infirmities of our brethren, we should pray to the Lord on their behalf. Why, then, do they quote James in opposition to us, when we so strongly urge a confession of the Divine mercy? But no man can confess the mercy of God, if he has not previously confessed his own misery. Indeed, we rather pronounce an anathema against him who has not confessed himself a sinner before God, before his [pg 567] angels, before the Church, and, in a word, before all mankind. “For the Scripture hath concluded all under sin—that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God;”1702 and that he alone may be justified and exalted.
VII. But I wonder with what face they can presume to contend, that the confession of which they speak is of Divine appointment. The practice we admit to be very ancient, but we can easily prove, that Christians were formerly quite at liberty as to the use of it. That there was no fixed law or constitution respecting it till the time of Innocent III., is certain from the testimony of their own histories. Surely, if there had been a more ancient law, they would rather have cited it, than, by being content with a decree of the Council of Lateran, have rendered themselves ridiculous even in the eyes of children. They hesitate not in other cases to fabricate fictitious decrees, which they ascribe to the most ancient councils, that they may dazzle the eyes of the simple by a veneration for antiquity. In this instance they never thought of obtruding such a forgery. Therefore, according to their own testimony, three hundred years have not yet elapsed, since Innocent III. introduced the snare, and imposed the necessity of confession. But, to say nothing respecting the time, the barbarism of the diction is, of itself, sufficient to deprive that law of all credit. For the good fathers enjoin, that every person, of both sexes, shall, once in every year, make a particular confession of all sins to the proper priest; but some wits facetiously object, that this precept binds none but hermaphrodites, and relates to no one who is either a male or a female. Moreover, their disciples have betrayed still greater folly, in their inability to explain what is meant by the proper priest. Whatever may be clamorously pretended by all the Pope's mercenary disputants, we are certain, that Christ was not the author of this law, which compels men to enumerate their sins, and that twelve centuries passed away after the resurrection of Christ, before any such law was promulgated; so that this tyranny was not introduced till after the extinction of piety and learning, when masques, occupying the place of pastors, had assumed an unlimited license of doing whatever they pleased. There are also plain testimonies, in histories and other ancient writings, which inform us, that this was a political discipline instituted by bishops, not a law given by Christ or his apostles. Of a great number, I shall produce only one, which will be a clear proof of this assertion. Sozomen, in his Ecclesiastical History, relates, that this ordinance of the bishops [pg 568] was diligently observed in all the Western Churches, and especially at Rome. He fully implies that it was not the universal custom of all the churches, and says, that one of the Presbyters was peculiarly appointed to this office. In this, he abundantly confutes the false pretensions of these men, that the keys were given promiscuously, for this use, to the whole sacerdotal order, since it was not the common function of all priests, but the peculiar department of one who was chosen to it by the bishop. This is the same, who, in the present day, in every cathedral church is called the Penitentiary, who takes cognizance of crimes of peculiar enormity, and such as are censured for the sake of example. The historian immediately adds, that this was the custom also at Constantinople, till a certain matron, pretending to go to confession, was discovered to have concealed, under this specious pretext, a criminal connection with the deacon of that church. On account of this crime, Nectarius, the bishop of the church, (a man eminent for sanctity and erudition,) abolished the ceremony of confession. Here let them erect their asinine ears. If auricular confession had been a law of God, how could Nectarius have presumed to reverse and disannul it? Will they accuse Nectarius of heresy and schism, who is acknowledged by all the fathers to have been a holy man of God? But the same sentence would condemn the Constantinopolitan church, in which Sozomen affirms the custom of confession not only to have been discontinued for a season, but to have been altogether disused down to his time. And they would accuse of apostasy, not only the church of Constantinople, but all the Oriental churches, who neglected a law which they maintain to be inviolable and obligatory on all Christians.
VIII. But this abrogation is plainly attested by Chrysostom, who was himself also a bishop of the church of Constantinople, in so many places, that it is surprising how they dare to open their mouths in contradiction of it. “Confess your sins, (says he,) that you may obliterate them. If you are ashamed to tell any one what sins you have committed, confess them daily in your soul. I say not, that you should confess them to your fellow-servant, who may reproach you; confess them to God, who cures them. Confess your sins on your bed, that there your conscience may daily recognize its crimes.” Again: “But, now, it is not necessary to confess in the presence of witnesses; let an inquisition into your transgressions be the work of your own thoughts; let there be no witness of this judgment; let God alone see you confessing.” Again: “I conduct you not into the public view of your fellow-servants; I do not oblige you to reveal your sins to men; lay open your conscience in the presence of God. Show your wounds to the Lord, who is the best physician, and implore a remedy from him; show [pg 569] them to him, who upbraideth not, but most mercifully heals.” Again: “You certainly should not tell it to a man, lest he reproach you; nor is confession to be made to a fellow-servant, who may publish it; but show your wounds to the Lord, who exercises his care over you, and is a most merciful physician.” He afterwards introduces God, speaking thus: “I constrain you not to come forth into the midst of a theatre, and assemble a multitude of witnesses; declare your sin privately to me alone, that I may heal your wound.” Shall we say, that Chrysostom proceeded to such a degree of temerity, when he wrote those and similar passages, as to liberate the consciences of men from obligations imposed on them by the Divine law? Certainly not. But he dares not to require as necessary what he knows is never prescribed in the word of God.
IX. But to place the whole subject in a more plain and familiar light, we will first faithfully state what kind of confession is taught in the word of God; and then we will subjoin an account of those inventions of the Papists, not indeed of all, (for who could exhaust that immense ocean?) but only of those which comprise the substance of their doctrine respecting secret confession. Here it grieves me to mention, how frequently the old translator has translated confess instead of praise; which is well known even to the most unlearned; only it is necessary to expose their audacity, in transferring to their own tyrannical edict what was written with reference to the praises of God. To prove the virtue of confession to exhilarate the mind, they produce this passage from the Psalmist: “With the voice of exultation and confession.”1703 But if such a metamorphosis of the passage be admitted, we shall be able to infer any thing from any thing. But since they are thus lost to all sense of shame, let the pious reader remember, that they have been consigned over to a reprobate mind by the righteous vengeance of God, to render their presumption the more detestable. If we are satisfied with the simple doctrine of the Scripture, we shall be in no danger of being deluded by such fallacies; for there one method of confession is prescribed; which is, that since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and obliterates sins, we should confess our sins to him, that we may obtain pardon. He is a physician; to him, then, let us discover our wounds. He is injured and offended; let us pray to him for peace. He is the searcher of hearts, and privy to all thoughts; let us hasten to pour out our hearts before him. Finally, it is he who calls sinners; let us not delay to approach him. David says, “I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my [pg 570] transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.”1704 Similar to this is another confession of David: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies.”1705 Such, also, is the confession of Daniel: “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts.”1706 And such are the other confessions, which frequently occur in the Scriptures, the recital of which would almost fill a volume. John says, “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”1707 To whom must we confess? To him, certainly; and this we do, if we prostrate ourselves before him with a distressed and humbled heart; if we sincerely accuse and condemn ourselves in his presence, and pray to be pardoned by his goodness and mercy.
X. Whoever from the heart makes this confession before God, will also, without doubt, have a tongue prepared for confession, as often as it shall be necessary to proclaim the Divine mercy among men; and not only to whisper the secret of his mind once into the ear of an individual, but frequently and publicly, and in the hearing of the whole world, ingenuously to declare, both his own ignominy, and the magnificence and glory of God. In this manner, when David was reproved by Nathan, he felt compunction of conscience, and confessed his sin both to God and to men: “I have sinned (said he) against the Lord;”1708 that is, I now make no excuse, nor use the least subterfuge to prevent all men from condemning me as a sinner, and what I wished to conceal from the Lord, from being revealed also to men. The secret confession, therefore, which is made to God, is followed by a voluntary confession before men, whenever it contributes either to the Divine glory or to our humiliation. For this reason, the Lord anciently enjoined upon the Israelites, that all the people should confess their iniquities publicly in the temple, by the mouth of the priest.1709 For he foresaw this assistance to be necessary for them, to bring every person to a proper view of himself. And it is reasonable, that, by the confession of our misery, we should glorify the goodness and mercy of God, both among ourselves and before the whole world.
XI. This kind of confession ought to be both ordinary, in the Church; and extraordinary, to be practised in a particular manner whenever the people at large are chargeable with the guilt of any common crime. We have an example of the latter in that solemn confession which was made by all the people under the auspices of Ezra and Nehemiah. For as [pg 571] their long exile, the destruction of their city and temple, and the subversion of their religion, were punishments of the common defection of all, they could not properly acknowledge the blessing of deliverance, unless they had first confessed their guilt. Nor is it of any importance if, in a congregation, there be sometimes a few innocent persons; for as they are members of a languid and diseased body, they ought not to boast of health. Nor is it possible, indeed, but they must contract some of the pollution, and sustain part of the guilt. Therefore, whenever we are afflicted with pestilence, or war, or sterility, or any other calamity, if it be our duty to resort to mourning, to fasting, and other expressions of guilt,—confession itself, on which all these other things depend, ought by no means to be neglected. The ordinary confession is not only recommended from the mouth of the Lord, but no judicious man, who has considered its usefulness, will venture to condemn it. For since, in every religious assembly, we introduce ourselves into the presence of God and angels, how shall we commence our services, except by an acknowledgment of our unworthiness? But this, you will say, is done in every prayer; for whenever we pray for pardon, we make a confession of our sins. This I acknowledge. But, if you consider our extreme carelessness, or drowsiness, or stupidity, you will admit to me, that it would be a salutary regulation, if the generality of Christians were accustomed to humble themselves by some solemn act of confession. For though the ceremony, which the Lord enjoined on the Israelites, was a part of the tutelage of the law, yet the thing itself, in some measure, belongs also to us. And, indeed, we see that in all well-regulated churches this custom is advantageously observed; that on every Lord's day the minister makes a formal confession, in which he represents all as guilty of sin, and supplicates pardon from the Lord on behalf of all. Finally, by this key the gate of prayer is opened, both to individuals in private, and in public to all the congregation.
XII. Moreover, the Scripture sanctions two kinds of private confession; one to be made for our own sake, which is referred to in the direction of James, that we should “confess our faults one to another;”1710 for he means, that, revealing our infirmities to one another, we should assist each other with mutual advice and consolation; another, which is to be made for the sake of our neighbour, to pacify and reconcile him to us, if we have done him any injury. In the former species of confession, though James, by not expressly appointing any one into whose bosom we should disburden ourselves, leaves us quite at liberty to confess to any member of the church who shall appear most [pg 572] suitable; yet, since the pastors must generally be considered more proper than others, we ought chiefly to make choice of them. I say that they are more suitable than others, since, in their very vocation to the ministry, they are designated by the Lord, to instruct us to subdue and correct our sins, and to console us with a confidence of pardon. For though the office of mutual admonition and reproof is committed to all, yet it is especially confided to ministers. And so, while we all ought mutually to console and confirm each other in a confidence of the Divine mercy, yet we see, that ministers are constituted witnesses and sureties of it, that they may afford our consciences a stronger assurance of the remission of sins; insomuch that they themselves are said to remit sins and to loose souls.1711 When you find this attributed to them, consider that it is for your benefit. Therefore, let every believer remember that it is his duty, if he feels such secret anguish or affliction from a sense of his sins, that he cannot extricate himself without some exterior aid, not to neglect the remedy offered him by the Lord; which is, that in order to alleviate his distress, he should use private confession with his pastor, and, to obtain consolation, should privately implore his assistance, whose office it is, both publicly and privately, to comfort the people of God with the doctrine of the gospel. But we should always observe such a degree of moderation, as to lay no yoke on the conscience, where God has given no positive command. Hence it follows, that such confession ought to be free, so as not to be required of all, but only to be recommended to those who conceive themselves to need it. It follows also, that they who practise it on account of their need of it, should neither be compelled by any precept, nor be induced by any artifice, to enumerate all their sins; but only so far as they shall think beneficial to themselves, that they may receive solid consolation. Faithful pastors ought not only to leave the churches in possession of this liberty, but also to defend and vindicate it with all their power, if they wish to preserve their ministry from tyranny, and the people from superstition.
XIII. Concerning the other species of confession, Christ says, in the Gospel of Matthew, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”1712 Thus is that charity, which has been broken by our offence, to be repaired by acknowledging the fault we have committed, and imploring forgiveness. In this kind is comprehended the confession of those who have sinned to [pg 573] the offence of the whole Church. For, if Christ esteems the private offence of one man of such importance, as to prohibit from the sacred ordinances all those who have sinned against their brethren till they have been restored to favour by an adequate satisfaction,—how much stronger is the reason, that he who, by any evil example, has injured the whole Church, should reconcile it to himself by an acknowledgment of his guilt! Thus was the Corinthian readmitted to the communion, after having submitted to reproof.1713 This mode of confession is stated by Cyprian to have been practised in the ancient Church. “They repent (says he) in due time; and afterwards they come to confession; and by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy, they receive a right to communion.” The Scripture knows nothing of any other method or form of confession; and it is not our province to impose new chains on men's consciences, which Christ most strictly forbids to reduce under the yoke of bondage. But that the sheep should present themselves to their pastor, whenever they desire to partake of the sacred supper, I am so far from opposing, that I earnestly wish it were universally observed. For those who experience distress of conscience may receive singular benefit from such an interview; and those who require to be admonished, will thus afford an opportunity for admonitions; provided that care be always taken to guard against tyranny and superstition.
XIV. The power of the keys is exercised in these three kinds of confession: either when the whole church implores pardon by a solemn acknowledgment of its transgressions; or when an individual, who, by any remarkable crime, has occasioned a common offence, declares his repentance; or when he who needs the assistance of the minister on account of the disquietude of his conscience, discloses his infirmity to him. The removal of an offence proceeds on a different principle; because, though it is also designed to produce peace of conscience, yet the principal end is, that animosity may be destroyed, and the minds of men united in the bonds of peace. But this advantage, which I have mentioned, is by no means to be despised, that we may confess our sins with the greater readiness. For, when the whole church stands, as it were, before the tribunal of God, when they confess themselves guilty, and have no refuge but in the Divine mercy,—it is no mean or trivial consolation to have Christ's ambassador present, furnished with the mandate of reconciliation, by whom they may have their absolution pronounced. Here the usefulness of the keys is deservedly celebrated, when this embassy is rightly performed, [pg 574] with becoming order and reverence. So, when he who had, in some measure, alienated himself from the Church, is pardoned and restored to the unity of the brethren, how great a blessing does he experience in knowing himself to be forgiven by them, to whom Christ has said, “Whose soever sins ye shall remit on earth, they shall be remitted in heaven!”1714 Nor is private absolution less efficacious or beneficial, when it is requested by those who need a particular remedy for the relief of their infirmities. For it frequently happens, that he who hears the general promises, which are addressed to the whole congregation of believers, nevertheless remains in some suspense, and his mind is still disquieted with doubts of the forgiveness of his sins. The same person, if he discloses to his pastor the secret distress of his mind, and hears this language of the gospel particularly directed to him, “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee,”1715 will encourage his mind to an assurance, and will be liberated from that trepidation with which he was before disturbed. But when we are treating of the keys, we must always be cautious not to dream of any power distinct from the preaching of the gospel. This subject will again be discussed more fully in another place, where we shall have to treat of the government of the Church; and there we shall see, that all the power of binding and loosing, which Christ has conferred on the Church, is inseparable from the word. But this is chiefly applicable to the ministry of the keys, the whole force and meaning of which consist in this, that the grace of the gospel should be confirmed and sealed, as it were, to the minds of the faithful, in public as well as private, by those whom the Lord has ordained to this office; which cannot be done but by preaching alone.
XV. But what is the doctrine of the Romish divines? They maintain, that all persons, of both sexes, as soon as they shall have arrived at years of discretion, should, once at least in every year, confess all their sins to their own priest; that there is no remission of sin, unless they have firmly resolved to confess it; that unless they fulfil this resolution, when opportunity offers, there is no admittance for them into Paradise; and, moreover, that the priest has the power of the keys, with which he may loose the sinner or bind him; because Christ has not said in vain, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”1716 But concerning this power, they have obstinate contentions among themselves. Some say, that there is essentially but one key, namely, the power of binding and loosing; that knowledge is required, indeed, for the good use of it, but that it is only like an accessory, not an essential concomitant. [pg 575] Others, perceiving this to be too unlimited a license, have mentioned two keys, discretion and power. Others, again, observing that the wickedness of the priests was restrained by such moderation, have invented other keys, an authority of discerning which they might use in pronouncing decisions; and a power, which they might exert in executing their sentences; with knowledge, to assist as a counsellor. But they venture not to explain this binding and loosing simply to mean, forgiving and obliterating sins; because they hear the Lord proclaiming by the prophet, “I am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour. I, even I, am he which blotteth out thy transgressions.”1717 But they say, that it belongs to the priest to pronounce who are bound or loosed, and to declare whose sins are remitted or retained; and that he declares it, either by confession, when he absolves and retains sins; or by his sentence, when he excommunicates, and when he receives to the communion of the sacraments. Lastly, when they perceive that they are not yet extricated from this difficulty, but that it may always be objected, that their priests frequently bind and loose improper persons, who are not therefore bound or loosed in heaven,—as their last resource, they reply, that the commission of the keys must be understood with some limitation, Christ having promised, that the sentence of the priest, which has been justly delivered, according to the merits of the persons bound or loosed, shall be confirmed at his tribunal. They add also, that these keys were given by Christ to all priests, who receive them from the bishops on their promotion to the sacerdotal office; but that the free use of them belongs only to those who exercise ecclesiastical functions; that the keys themselves remain, indeed, with the excommunicated or suspended ones, but that they are rusty and disused. And those who advance these things may justly be considered modest and sober, in comparison with others, who, on a new anvil, have fabricated new keys, with which they tell us the treasure of the Church is locked up; which we shall examine in the proper place.
XVI. I shall briefly reply to each of these things; though without noticing, at present, the justice or injustice with which they bind the souls of the faithful by their laws; as that will be considered in due order. But when they impose a law respecting the enumeration of all sins; when they deny that sin is forgiven, but on condition that a firm resolution has been formed to confess it; when they say that there remains no entrance into Paradise, if the opportunity of confession has been neglected,—this is altogether intolerable. Must all sins [pg 576] be enumerated? David, who (I suppose) had often meditated the confession of his sins, nevertheless exclaimed, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.”1718 And in another place: “Mine iniquities are gone over mine head; as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.”1719 He had just apprehensions of the vast abyss of our sins, of the numerous species of our crimes, of the many heads this monster bore, and the long tail it drew after it. Therefore he attempted not to detail his transgressions, but from the abyss of his distresses cried to the Lord. “I am afflicted and ready to die; my spirit is overwhelmed within me; I dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead;”1720 “the sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me;”1721 “I sink in deep mire; deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink.”1722 Who can now think of recounting his sins, when he sees that David was unable to enter on an enumeration of his?
XVII. The souls of those who have been affected with any discoveries of God, have been most cruelly tormented by this fatal delusion. First, they called themselves to an account; they divided sins into boughs, branches, twigs, and leaves, according to the distinctions of these confessors: then they examined the qualities, quantities, and circumstances; and the business made some little progress. But, when they had advanced further, they were surrounded on all sides by the sea and the sky, no port, no haven in prospect; the more they had passed over, the greater mass was always accumulating on their view; they beheld, as it were, lofty mountains rising before them, and no time or labour seemed to encourage the least hope of escaping. Thus they remained in extreme distress, and after all, found it terminate in nothing but despair. Then the remedy applied by those cruel murderers, to alleviate the wounds which they had made, was, that every one should do to the uttermost of his ability. But new cares again disturbed, and new agonies again excruciated, these miserable souls: I have not devoted sufficient time; I have not applied with proper diligence; I have omitted many things through negligence, and the forgetfulness which arises from negligence is inexcusable. To assuage such pains, other remedies were now added: Repent of your negligence; if it be not too great, it will be forgiven. But all these things cannot heal the wound; nor do they act as alleviations of the malady, but rather as poisons concealed in honey, that they may not by their harshness offend at the first taste, but may penetrate into the inmost parts before they are perceived. This terrible injunction, therefore, is always pursuing them and resounding in their ears: “Confess [pg 577] all your sins;” nor can that terror be appeased but by some certain consolation. Here let the reader consider the possibility of taking an account of the actions of a whole year, and selecting the sins of every day; since experience convinces every man that, when at evening he comes to examine the delinquencies of only one day, his memory is confounded by their great multitude and variety. I speak not of stupid hypocrites, who, if they have noticed three or four gross sins, imagine they have discharged their duty; but of the true worshippers of God, who, when they find themselves overwhelmed with the examination they have made, conclude, in the language of John, “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.”1723 They tremble, therefore, before that Judge, whose knowledge far exceeds our apprehension.
XVIII. The acquiescence of a great part of the world in such soothing arts, employed to temper this mortal poison, was not indulged from a belief that God was satisfied, or because they were altogether satisfied themselves; but that, like mariners, having cast anchor in the midst of the sea, they might enjoy a short respite from the toils of navigation, or like a fatigued and fainting traveller, might lie down in the road. I shall not take much trouble to establish this point for every man may be his own witness of it. I will briefly state the nature of this law. First, it is absolutely impracticable; therefore it can only destroy, condemn, confound, and precipitate into ruin and despair. In the next place, it diverts sinners from a true sense of their sins, and makes them hypocrites, ignorant both of God and themselves. For while they are wholly employed in enumerating their sins, they forget, in the mean time, that latent source of vices, their secret iniquities and inward pollutions, a knowledge of which is above all things necessary to a consideration of their misery. But the most certain rule of confession is to acknowledge and confess the abyss of our guilt to be vast beyond all our comprehension. The publican's confession appears to have been composed according to this rule—“God be merciful to me a sinner.”1724 As though he had said, “All that I am is utterly sinful; I cannot reach the magnitude of my sins, either with my tongue or with my mind; let the abyss of thy mercy swallow up this abyss of sin.” But you will say, Are not particular sins, then, to be confessed? Is no confession accepted by God unless it be comprised in these precise words, “I am a sinner?” I reply, that we should rather endeavour, as far as we possibly can, to pour out our whole heart before the Lord; and not only confess ourselves sinners in a single expression, but truly and [pg 578] cordially acknowledge ourselves such; and consider in all our reflections, how great and various is the pollution of sin; not only that we are unclean, but the nature and extent of our impurity; not only that we are debtors, but the magnitude and number of the debts with which we are burdened; not only that we are wounded, but what a multitude of mortal wounds we have received. Yet when the sinner has wholly unbosomed himself before God in this acknowledgment, let him seriously and sincerely reflect, that more sins still remain, and that the secret recesses of his guilt are too deep to be entirely disclosed. And therefore let him exclaim with David, “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.”1725 Now, when they affirm, that sins are not forgiven without a strong resolution having been formed to confess them, and that the gate of Paradise is shut against him who has neglected an opportunity afforded him of confessing,—far be it from us to make them such a concession. For there is no other remission of sins now than there always has been. Among all those who are said to have obtained remission of sins from Christ, none are said to have made a confession in the ear of any priest. Nor, indeed, was it possible for them thus to confess, when there were no confessionary priests, and confession itself was altogether unknown. And this confession was unheard of for many ages after, during which sins were forgiven without this condition. But, not to debate any longer as respecting a doubtful point, “the word of God which abideth for ever,”1726 is perfectly clear: “If the wicked will turn from all his sins, all his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him.”1727 He who presumes to make any addition to this declaration, does not bind sins, but limits the mercy of God. When they contend that judgment cannot be given without a trial of the cause, we are prepared with an answer—that they are guilty of arrogant presumption in creating themselves judges. And it is surprising that they so securely fabricate principles for themselves, which no man of sound understanding will admit. They boast that the office of binding and loosing is committed to them, as though it were a kind of jurisdiction annexed to examination. That the apostles were strangers to this authority, their whole doctrine proclaims; and to know certainly whether the sinner be loosed, belongs not to the priest, but to Him of whom absolution is implored; since the priest who bears the confession, can never know whether the enumeration of sins be true and perfect. Thus there would be no absolution, but what must be restricted to the words of the person to be [pg 579] judged. Besides, the loosing of sins depends entirely on faith and repentance; which both elude the knowledge of man, when sentence is to be given respecting another. It follows, therefore, that the certainty of binding and loosing is not subject to the decision of an earthly judge; because a minister, in the legitimate execution of his office, can pronounce only a conditional absolution; but that the declaration, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted,” is spoken for the sake of sinners, to preclude every doubt that the pardon, which is promised according to the command and word of God, will be ratified in heaven.
XIX. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if we condemn and desire the total removal of this auricular confession—a thing so pestilent, and in so many respects injurious to the Church. Even if it were a thing abstractedly indifferent, yet, since it is of no use or benefit, but has occasioned so much impiety, sacrilege, and error,—who can refuse to admit, that it ought to be immediately abolished? They mention, indeed, some uses, which they boast of as very beneficial; but these are mere fictions, or productive of no advantage whatever. One circumstance they state as a peculiar recommendation, that the shame of the person who confesses is a grievous punishment, by which the sinner is rendered more cautious in future, and prevents the vengeance of God by punishing himself. As though we humble not a man with a sufficient degree of shame, when we summon him to the supreme tribunal of heaven—to the cognizance of God! It is a wonderful advantage, indeed, if we cease to sin through a shame of one man, but are never ashamed of having God for a witness of our evil conscience! Though this very notion is utterly false; for it is universally observable, that nothing produces a greater confidence or licentiousness in sinning, than the idea entertained by some men, after they have made their confession to a priest, that they may “wipe their mouth and say, I have done no wickedness.”1728 And they not only become more presumptuous in their sins throughout the year, but, having no concern about confession for the rest of the year, they never aspire after God, they never retire into themselves, but accumulate sins upon sins, till they disembogue them, as they imagine, all at once. But when they have done this, they conceive themselves to be exonerated of their burden, and to have transferred from God the judgment they have conferred on the priest; and that they have deprived God of remembrance, by the information they have communicated to the priest. Besides, who rejoices to see the day of confession approaching? Who goes to confess with alacrity of heart; and does not rather come with unwillingness and reluctance, [pg 580] as though he were forcibly dragged to a prison; except perhaps the priests, who pleasantly entertain themselves with mutual narrations of their exploits, as with humorous anecdotes? I will not soil much paper by relating the monstrous abominations with which auricular confession abounds. I only remark, if that holy man was not guilty of indiscretion, who, on account of one rumour of fornication, banished confession from his church, or rather from the memory of his people,—we are thus reminded of what ought to be done in the present day, when rapes, adulteries, incests, and seductions exceed all enumeration.
XX. As the advocates of confession plead the power of the keys, and rest upon it all the merits of their cause, we must examine the weight that is due to this argument. Are the keys, then, (say they,) given without any reason? Is it without any cause that it is said, “Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven?”1729 Do we, then, frustrate the declaration of Christ? I reply, that there was an important reason why the keys should be given; as I have already stated, and shall again more explicitly show, when I come to treat of excommunication. But what if I refute the whole of their pretensions with one argument, that their priests are not vicars, or successors of the apostles? But this, also, will be discussed in another place. Now, they set up, as their principal defence, an engine by which their whole structure may be completely demolished. For Christ never conferred on his apostles the power of binding and loosing, till after he had given them the Holy Ghost. I deny, therefore, that the power of the keys belongs to any, who have not previously received the Holy Ghost. I deny that any one can use the keys, unless the Spirit guide and instruct him, and direct him how he ought to act. They impertinently pretend, that they have the Holy Ghost; but in reality they deny it; unless perhaps they imagine, as they certainly do, that the Holy Ghost is a useless and worthless thing; but they will not be believed. By this weapon they are completely vanquished. Of whatever door they pretend to have the key, they should always be asked, whether they have the Holy Ghost, who is the arbiter and governor of the keys. If they reply in the affirmative, they must be questioned again, whether it be possible for the Holy Ghost to err. This they will not dare expressly to avow, though they obliquely insinuate it in their doctrine. We may justly infer, therefore, that no priests have the power of the keys, who, without discrimination, frequently loose what the Lord had designed to be bound, and bind what he had commanded to be loosed.
XXI. When they find themselves convinced, by evident [pg 581] experience, that they promiscuously loose and bind the worthy and the unworthy, they arrogate to themselves the power without knowledge. And though they dare not deny that knowledge is requisite to a good use of it, yet they tell us, that the power itself is committed to improper dispensers of it. But this is the power—“Whatsoever thou bindest or loosest on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven.” Either the promise of Christ must be false, or the binding and loosing is rightly performed by those who are endued with this power. Nor is there any room for them to quibble, that the declaration of Christ is limited according to the merits of the person that is bound or loosed. We also acknowledge, that none can be bound or loosed, but such as are worthy to be bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel, and the Church, have the word as the standard of this worthiness. In this word, the ministers of the gospel may promise to all remission of sins in Christ through faith; they may denounce damnation against all and upon all who receive not Christ. In this word, the Church pronounces, that fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and extortioners, have no part in the kingdom of God; and binds such with the firmest bonds. In the same word, the Church looses and comforts those who repent.1730 But what kind of power will it be, not to know what ought to be bound or loosed? and not to be able to bind or loose without this knowledge? Why, then, do they say, that they absolve by the authority committed to them, when their absolution is uncertain? Why should we concern ourselves about this imaginary power, if it be quite useless? But I have already ascertained, either that it has no existence, or that it is too uncertain to be considered of any value. For, as they confess that there are many of the priests who make no right use of the keys, and that the power has no efficacy without a legitimate use of it, who will assure me, that he by whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he be a bad one, what else does he possess but this frivolous dispensation of them: “What ought to be bound or loosed in you, I know not, since I am destitute of the proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you?” But as much as this might be done, I will not say by a layman, (since they could not hear that with any patience,) but by a Turk or a devil. For it is equivalent to saying, “I have not the word of God, which is the certain rule of loosing; but I am invested with authority to absolve you, on condition that your merits deserve it.” We see, then, what they intended, when they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power of executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good [pg 582] use. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own licentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.