Page images
PDF
EPUB

"confess your sins one to another," signifies something of a more private nature, than the mere general declaration, in which all the community join, or in saying what even a hardened sinner will not hesitate to unite in saying, when all around repeat it, that he has sinned before God. It seems to imply an act of greater humiliation, of a more close communication between one member of the church and another. But still I only bring it forward to show, that there was not an end to the obligation of manifesting sin; that there is nothing said in the New Testament to show us, that such a natural and obvious method of obtaining relief was abandoned or abolished in the new law. But in the text which is prefixed to this discourse, have we not something much more specific ? Christ is there addressing not the flock in general; he is giving a special charge to his own apostles-in other word to the pastors of the church: for I have, on other occasions shown you at length, that when commissions are given to the apostlesa commission, not a special privilege, like that of working miracles, but connected with the welfare, with the salvation of the flock-these are permanent institutions, which go to their successors, and which are to be perpetuated in the church. What then did he tell them? "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

There is, in the first place, a power to forgive sins, and this expression, “to forgive sins," in the New Testament, always signifies truly and really to clear the sinner from his guilt against God. "Woman, thy sins are forgiven thee," says our Saviour. What does he mean? That she is purged; that she is cleansed of her transgressions. 66 Son, thy sins are forgiven thee." Those who heard our Saviour say these words, thought him guilty of blasphemy. These expressions, therefore, were supposed to signify an assumption of a privilege reserved to God alone. The words were understood in their primary and obvious meaning, of actually cleansing, blotting out the sins of the man committed against the Almighty, and our Saviour confirms those who heard him in this interpretation, by the words which follow, "Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins," &c. Therefore, to forgive sins always signifies, "To pardon, to absolve, to cleanse the soul from sin." The apostles, consequently, and their successors received that power; and, therefore it was given them to absolve, to clear, to purge the soul from transgression against God.

But there is also another power given to them, and that power is to retain sins. What is the meaning of retaining sins? It signifies, of course, with the promise that is annexed, that what they retain shall be retained also in heaven: that there is no other means of obtaining for

giveness, but through their pardon: for, would it not be absurd to say, "Whose sins ye retain," or, in other words, refuse to forgive, "those sins shall not be forgiven," if there were other means besides that of applying to them whereby pardon was to be obtained? If a judge were sent forth with a commission couched in these words, That whomsoever he should absolve, that person should go free; but that to whomsoever he should refuse to forgive his transgression, to forgive his offences, that that person should not be forgiven, would it not imply that there are no other means of forgiveness except through him? Would not the commission be insulting, would not the commission be a mockery, would not the commission be a nullity, if there were at the same time another means, by applying to a third person with just equal power to forgive the culprit; could it be said that all which that one did not forgive should not be forgiven? Thus, therefore, there is not only a full power of forgiving sins, but such a power as to exclude any other instrument or means of obtaining forgiveness in the new law for when Christ makes an institution for a special purpose, that ipso facto excludes all others. When he appointed baptism, as the means of being united to the church, as the means of obtaining regeneration, as the means of being purged from the guilt of original sin, that very institution excluded all other means of obtaining that benefit. When any other act depends solely on the will of God, it cannot be obtained by any other means but what he chooses to institute; and when he institutes one means, of course, it is the only one; but if he institutes more, of course there are a variety of methods. When, therefore, our Saviour institutes this as the means of obtaining forgiveness in his church; when he delegates persons to pardon offences committed against himself, he obviously appoints that as the only instrument, the only means for that purpose. As I said before, the very words themselves of the second commission, the being empowered to refuse forgiveness; the certainty, that if they refused it, it was refused also in heaven, implies also that there is no other means of forgiveness. But what is the nature of this power? Can you suppose any judge, sent forth on a circuit with this commission, "Go forth, those on whom you pronounce sentence shall be punished according to your sentence; those whom you acquit shall be acquitted;" and that he could possibly understand, or that mankind could possibly understand, that this discretionary power was lodged in his hands, that it was exercised simply by his going into the prisons, and saying to one man, "You are acquitted," to another, "you are to be punished," "you are guilty," or, "you are not guilty," without investigating into the case, without having the slightest ground for pronouncing sentence of absolution on the one, and sentence of condemnation on the other. Does not the two-fold power imply the necessity of knowing the different conduct of

the individuals themselves? Does it not necessarily suppose, that the whole case is laid before the judge; that the judge examines minutely into it, and that he pronounces his sentence conscientiously, according to what he thinks is in the evidence before him? Can we then believe, that our Saviour gives also this two-fold commission; that he appoints it the only means for obtaining pardon, and sends forth men to use it at their discretion, and that he does not expect of them to decide conscientiously, according to the special merits of each case? That if they retain sins, they have reason for their retention? that if they forgive them, they know what motives there were for that forgiveness. And how is this to be obtained, but by the case being laid before the judge? Who, in this case, can lay it at the feet of the judge but the offender alone? And it therefore implies, that whoever seeks for the remedy through that channel, and it is the only channel appointed most manifest, and must expose the guilt which he has committed-must expose it in such a way, that the whole case comes under the notice of the judge and it is only by hearing the case that the judge can pronounce a proper sentence. This, therefore, is the basis; this is the ground-work in the Scripture of the Catholic doctrine, that sin is to be forgiven by the pastors of the church, in consequence of the institution of Christ, who has appointed them his vicegerents, or judges, or ministers, for that purpose; and that, in order to obtain this forgiveness, it is necessary that those who wish to have it should lay their case, should lay their transgression before him, who is entrusted with responsibility as to the sentence which he pronounces.

:

But, my brethren, clear and simple as this reasoning may be, we, perhaps, might feel ourselves less secure concerning it, were we not so completely supported by the conduct and by the authority of all antiquity. You have, perhaps, many of you heard it said, again and again, that auricular confession, as it is called, is not to be heard of in the first and second centuries of the church. It may be so, and supposing I allow it for a moment, yet you will see that the assertion is not correct. I will tell you the reason why it is not so much mentioned. The reason is, because, instead of auricular confession in the first and second centuries of the church, we read a great deal more of public confession. We read, that the sinner was obliged to manifest his hidden crimes in the presence of the whole church assembled, and to undergo a course of severe penance in consequence of it; and those then who are such sticklers for antiquity, and for rejecting auricular confession, because they think it is not so clearly spoken of in the first centuries, should surely take antiquity to its extent: and if they reject this as a hardship, let us know upon what grounds they do not adopt the mode consistent with the lessons taught by the ancient church. That, therefore, is the fact. With regard to the extent of manifest

ation in the church, that may be a matter of secondary or disciplinary consideration; for the church might have authority, in certain cases, to demand from the sinner, not merely the private confession of his offences, but his public confession before all the people. That is a matter of discipline; it is sufficient for us to establish, that from the beginning it was understood that there could be no forgiveness except by a manifestation of the crime, and that the essential persons to receive that manifestation, that those who alone were supposed to be empowered by God to forgive were not the congregation, but the priests of the church; and that the practice of confession is precisely the same now, with this only difference, that the church, in those days of fervour, when crimes were more rare than they are now, thought proper to demand, that those few who did transgress grievously, should not be content with manifesting their crimes in secret, but that they should also come before the whole congregation, and manifest them in public.

Thus, therefore, instead of any arguments to be drawn from any apparent silence on the subject, in the very first ages of Christianity, on the contrary, the only conclusion that can be drawn would be, that there had been a mitigation or modification of the rigour of the institution, but not in the least of its essence. It is sufficient to show, that confession was considered the only means of obtaining forgiveness, and that the only individuals who could impart it were the pastors of the church.

Now, therefore, I will proceed to read to you several passages from the early fathers; for I will not come later than four hundred years after Christ, after which time the texts increase immensely. I will divide them into two classes. I will give one or two general instances, where the practice of this public confession is manifestly alluded to; but at the same time, sufficiently marking the feelings of the church, as to the only means of obtaining forgiveness. We have, in St. Irenæus, one hundred years after Christ, in the second century, mention made of a woman, who, repenting of a secret crime, came to the church and accused herself of it. She did not do it vaguely, but mentioned this special sin, which was not known to others. He speaks of other persons, some touched in their conscience, who publicly confessed; and of others again in despair, who renounced the faith. That was the alternative; there were no other means; those who had not courage to confess renounced the faith. If there had been any other means of forgiveness, which did not expose them to that dreadful alternative, assuredly there was no reason why they should have abandoned the faith, because they had not courage to make a confession. A writer, still more clear upon the necessity of confession, though he generally refers to more public confession that preceded penance, in the second century-the oldest Latin writer-Tertullian, says, "Of this penitential disposition, the proof is more laborious as the business is more

pressing, in order that some public act, not the voice of conscience alone, may show it. This act, which the Greeks express by the word Lokoλóynois (or confession), consists in the confession of our sin to the Lord; not as if he knew it not, but inasmuch as confession leads to satisfaction, whence also penitence flows, and by penitence God is mollified." Therefore this confession is to draw down mercy. It recognizes, among other penitent acts, fasting, weeping day and night before the Lord, falling down before the priests, kneeling before the altar, and invoking intercession and prayer. This is said simply with reference, more or less, to the public practice. more clearly, as to the necessity of this practice, “As you are not ignorant, that against that fire, after the baptismal institution, the aid of confession has been appointed, why are you an enemy to your own salvation?"

He says, however, still

Coming down to the other class of passages-for as I have spoken to you more at length than I intended, I pass over several much to the same purpose-but still speaking of the necessity of confession, I will give those which speak of the manifestation of hidden or secret sins in public, and the confession of these to the clergy, to the priests, as the means of obtaining forgiveness. St. Cyprian says, "God sees into the breasts of all men, and he will judge not their actions only, but their thoughts and words, viewing the most hidden conceptions of the mind. Hence, though some of these persons be remarked for their faith and the fear of God, and have not been guilty of the crime of sacrificing to idols,”—that is, not guilty of the outward act of sacrificing—“ nor of surrendering the Holy Scriptures.-Yet, if the thought of doing it have ever entered their minds, this they confess with grief, and without disguise, before the priests of God, unburdening the conscience, and seeking a salutary remedy, however small and pardonable their failing may have been. God, they know, will not be mocked." Again he says, in speaking of smaller faults, "All you, brethren, must confess their faults, while he that is offended enjoys life, while his confession can be received, and while the satisfaction and pardon, imparted by the priests, are acceptable before God." So that here we have two important points, first, that those even who were guilty only of petty sins or smaller offences, not of great or deadly sins, yet went to the priest and acknowledged and confessed those sins. And in the second place, that pardon and penance were to be received through the hands of the priests, and that we must do for the pardon to be useful to us.

There are a great many other passages which are very strong in this father, which I also pass over, but I will take one from the Greek church of the same century. Origen observes, after having spoken of baptism," There is yet a more severe and arduous pardon of sins by penance, when the sinner washes his couch with his tears, and when he

« PreviousContinue »