{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18270/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18270","id":"gutenberg_18270","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18270","summary":null,"tags":["Absolution","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Confession"],"text":"Produced by Geoff Horton, Richard J. Shiffer and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION.\n\nBY\n\nRIGHT REV. MONSIGNOR CAPEL, D. D.\n\n\nDomestic Prelate of His Holiness, Leo XIII, happily reigning,\n        Member of the Congregation of the Segnatura,\n         Priest of the Archdiocese of Westminster.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"_He hath placed in us the Ministry of Reconciliation.\"--2 Cor. v, 18._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA: CUNNINGHAM & SON, 817 ARCH STREET.\n\nNEW YORK: D. & J. SADLIER & CO., 31 BARCLAY STREET.\n\n                      1884.\n\nCopyright,\n\nPETER F. CUNNINGHAM & SON,\n\n1884.\n\n\n\n\nCONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION.\n\n\nIn the series of twenty-four conferences delivered in the Cathedral at\nPhiladelphia, during this Lent, was one on \"God's Conditions for\nPardoning Sin.\" At the request of many, it is now published, but under\nthe title of \"Confession and Absolution.\" There have been made such\nmodifications and additions as are necessitated by publication, and\nsuch others as will cover aspects of the question treated by me\nelsewhere in the United States.\n\nThe extracts from the Fathers which appear in the following pages are\ntaken from the accurate and judicious collection known as \"Faith of\nCatholics,\" a work in three volumes, well worthy the attention and\nstudy of those who, not having a library of the Fathers, or not\nconversant with the classical languages, are nevertheless anxious to\nknow the evidence of the early Christian writers concerning the\ndoctrines and practices of the Catholic Church.\n\n                                   T. J. CAPEL.\n\n     PHILADELPHIA:\nFeast of Our Lady's Sorrows, 1884.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo this SECOND EDITION there have been added certain statements and\npassages, to meet sundry questions addressed to the Author on the\nsubject of Confession and Absolution.\n\n     Feast of the Patronage of St. Joseph, 1884.\n\n\n\n\nCONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION.\n\n     TEXT: \"God hath reconciled us to Himself by Christ, and hath\n     given to us the ministry of reconciliation. For God indeed\n     was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, and He hath\n     placed in us the word of reconciliation; we are therefore\n     ambassadors for Christ.\"--2 COR. v, 18.\n\nNo more important question can be submitted for consideration to those\nwho believe in the existence of God, in man's responsibility to his\nCreator, and in divine revelation, than what are God's conditions for\npardoning sin committed after baptism. For however much men may doubt,\ndeny, or dispute about religion, they can never impugn the fact that\nthey are individually sinners. \"If we say we have no sin, we deceive\nourselves, and the truth is not in us;\"[1] \"in many things we all\noffend;\"[2] even \"the just man shall offend seven times.\"[3]\n\nGood sense, as well as faith, tells us that having willingly committed\nor consented to any thought, word, or deed prohibited by God, or\nhaving knowingly and wilfully omitted any duty imposed by the divine\nlaw, then have we revolted against our God. And should this be done\nwith full knowledge and deliberation in a matter deemed grave by the\nLawgiver, or grave in its own nature, or rendered so by circumstances,\nthen has there been a grievous transgression of our duty to God.\n\nThe moment we so act, are we and our crime abominable in the sight of\nthe All Holy. \"Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity;\"[4] and to the\nLord \"the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike.\"[5] Our sin\ninstantly merits eternal punishment: \"If the just man turns himself\naway from his justice, and do iniquity according to all the\nabominations which the wicked man useth to work, shall he live? All\nhis justices which he had done shall not be remembered.\"[6] \"But the\nfearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and\nwhoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall\nhave their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which\nis the second death.\"[7] Finally, by our grievous sin do we destroy\nhabitual or justifying grace, the supernatural life of the soul,\nrendering it incapable of doing aught that will have everlasting\nreward. \"When concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; but\nsin, when it is completed, begetteth death.\"[8] Well, therefore, are\nwe told: \"Flee from sins as from the face of a serpent; for if thou\ncomest near them, they will take hold of thee; the teeth thereof are\nthe teeth of a lion, killing the souls of men.\"[9]\n\nDeadly sin accordingly puts us at enmity with God, and deprives us of\nall claim on His justice. These are days when men talk much of their\nown rights. Little do they think to assert and uphold the rights of\nthe King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. And so it escapes them that\nhaving violated their obligations to their Creator, their Redeemer,\ntheir Sanctifier, by grievous sin, they have no claim for pardon on\nthe ground of justice; they can only appeal suppliantly to the\ninfinite mercy and goodness of God, that their iniquities may be\nblotted out, that they may be restored to the position whence they\nhave fallen, and that they may regain the habitual grace necessary for\nkeeping the solemn obligations of baptism. This being the case, the\nAlmighty can and does impose His conditions for reconciling the sinner\nand for restoring the prodigal child to the lost sonship. It is not\nfor sinful man to dictate what such terms shall be. It is for an\noutraged God to enact, for the transgressor to comply with the\ncommand.\n\nOf these conditions, one flows from the infinite holiness of His own\nnature, namely: contrition or repentance. The other, which is judicial\nabsolution from sin, implying previous confession of it, is imposed by\nthe revealed law of God, and is therefore a divine command obliging\nall--popes and bishops, priests and people. Let us deal with these\nseparately.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] John i, 8.\n\n[2] James iii, 2.\n\n[3] Prov. xxiv, 16.\n\n[4] Ps. v, 6.\n\n[5] Wisd. xiv, 9.\n\n[6] Ezech. xviii, 24.\n\n[7] Rev. xxi, 8.\n\n[8] James i, 15.\n\n[9] Ecclus. xxi, 2.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\nThe necessity of repentance as the essential condition for the sinner\nobtaining God's forgiveness is plainly taught both in the Jewish and\nChristian dispensations.\n\nProphets and penitents throughout the Old Testament bear evidence to\nthis truth. The words of the Psalms of David, the exhortations of\nJeremias and Isaias to the people of God to be converted, have become\nhousehold words in our books of piety, exciting the soul in sin to\narise and go to the God of mercy.\n\nThe New Dispensation was ushered in by the Forerunner of Christ\npreaching the Gospel of Repentance: \"Do penance, for the kingdom of\nGod is at hand.\" Our Lord announces His own mission to be to call\nsinners to repentance: \"Unless you all do penance, you shall all\nlikewise perish.\" He sent His Apostles that \"penance and remission of\nsin should be preached in His name among all nations.\" And, while on\nearth, Jesus sent them, two and two, to preach that \"men should do\npenance.\"\n\nAnd, after the ascension of the \"Saviour whom God hath exalted with\nHis right hand to give penitence to Israel, and remission of\nsins,\"[10] the Apostles proclaimed the same truth. Peter's very first\nsermon is: \"Do penance and be baptized, every one of you.\"[11] He, on\nthe occasion of the cure of the lame man, preaches: \"Be penitent and\nbe converted, that your sins may be blotted out.\"[12] The same Apostle\nwrites: \"The Lord beareth patiently for your sake, not willing that\nany should perish, but that all should return to penance.\"[13] St.\nPaul, in like manner. \"God commandeth all men, everywhere, to do\npenance.\"[14] And again: \"The benignity of God leadeth thee to\npenance.\"[15]\n\nThis contrition or repentance does not mean a mere cessation from\nwrong doing, and starting anew in the way of goodness, drowning in the\npast the evil done. On the contrary, as by sin we turned our backs on\nGod to go into a far-off country, to spend there our substance, so by\ncontrition must we turn main, retrace our steps, and journey to that\nFather and home whence we departed. Hence is the process named\nconversion to God, just as sin is defined to be an aversion from God.\nMoses, expressing this thought, says: \"When thou shalt be touched with\nthe repentance of thy heart, and return to Him, the Lord thy God will\nhave mercy on thee.\"[16] And still more explicitly does the prophet\nJoel declare: \"Be converted to Me with all your heart, in fasting, and\nin weeping, and in mourning; and rend your hearts, and not your\ngarments, and turn to the Lord your God: for He is gracious and\nmerciful, patient and rich in mercy.\"[17] Again, the inspired Word\nsays: \"Cast away from you all your transgressions, by which you have\ntransgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit; and\nwhy will you die, O house of Israel?\"[18]\n\nThe Lord God, whom we have outraged by sin, knows no past. \"I am who\nam,\" is His name. In His holy sight, we who have sinned, and our\ntransgressions, are ever abominable, unless we make to ourselves a new\nheart and a new spirit. \"Be converted to Me, and I will be converted\nto thee,\" are the words of Him who exercises on us His great mercy.\n\nHoly Church, in her General Council assembled at Trent, defined this\ncontrition or repentance to be \"a sorrow of mind, and a detestation of\nsin committed, together with a determination of not sinning for the\nfuture\"--\"_animi dolor, ac detestatio de peccato commisso, cum\nproposito non peccandi de catero_.\"[19] Or, as the same Council says:\n\"Penitence was indeed at all times necessary for all men who had\ndefiled themselves with any mortal sin, in order to the obtaining\ngrace and justice, * * * that so, their perverseness being laid aside\nand amended, they might, with hatred of sin and a pious grief of mind,\ndetest so great an offence of God.\"[20] And, as the Roman Catechism\nexplains, this means no mere feeling, but a genuine act of the will. A\nmother may show more sensible signs of grief at the loss of her only\nchild than when sorrowing for sin, yet this is not in the least\ninconsistent with the most perfect contrition or repentance.\n\nThere are times when the intense sorrow for sin arouses the whole\nbeing of man: exciting not only the higher, but also the lower and\nsensitive part of his nature. St. Mary Magdalen, David, and many other\ngreat penitents, wept bitter tears of sorrow for their past wrongs.\nThis, though a heavenly favor, is no necessary part of repentance.\nIndeed, it is possible to weep and to have sensible sorrow without\nhaving a contrite heart. The three essential elements in contrition\nare: hatred of past sin, grief at having sinned, and a determined\npurpose at all costs to avoid, in the future, sin and the occasions of\nsin. These emanate from the will of man, not from the feelings; they\nmust be strong or intense enough to make the sinner prefer to endure\nany evil, or sacrifice any good, rather than again offend God, so\ninfinitely good in Himself, and so infinitely good to man.\n\nUnhappily, it is within our power to hate, to grieve, and to purpose\namendment very sincerely, and yet not have that sorrow which fulfills\nGod's condition for the pardon of sin. Some human motive--such as loss\nof health or wealth, injury to reputation and influence, the ignominy\nand servitude of wrong-doing--may lead a man to detestation of the\npast and to a firm resolve to avoid wrong in the future. Excellent as\nmay be such a change of mind, yet it is not sufficient to obtain\nforgiveness from on high. It is based entirely on the injury and loss\naccruing to self. God is excluded from the whole idea; and yet it is\nagainst Him, and against Him alone, that we have sinned.\n\nThe only sorrow acceptable to God is that which springs from a\nsupernatural motive, the soul excited thereto by divine grace. In this\nis our utter helplessness shown; for while it is within our own power\nto do wrong, we cannot return to the path of duty and repent without\nthe help of God. It is by the heavenly gift of grace operating within,\nand by the co-operation of the sinner, that the heart is made\ncontrite. The remembrance of God's infinite love and perfections,\naccompanied by earnest prayer for mercy, may rouse the soul to hatred\nand grief for its sin, and thus is generated that contrition perfect\nthrough charity for having offended God so sovereignly good, who is to\nbe loved above all things. For His own sake, and regardless of the\npenal consequences of sin, the soul is touched with sincere\ncompunction. This sorrow, with the implicit or explicit desire to have\nrecourse to the Sacrament of Penance, reconciles the soul at once with\nGod, and restores the justifying or habitual grace lost by grievous\nsin. \"There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,\nwho walls not according to the flesh, but after the spirit. For the\nlaw of the spirit of life iii Christ Jesus hath delivered me from the\nlaw of sin and of death.\"[21] The soul about to go before God's\njudgment-seat, if it be in deadly sin, and have not at hand the means\nfor obtaining absolution, is obliged to have this perfect contrition,\nor otherwise the sin remains unforgiven.\n\nAgain, the soul, contemplating in the sight of God the turpitude of\nsin, as made known to us by revelation, or the terror of God's\njudgment on those condemned to hell, or the irreparable loss of the\nsight of God consequent on sin, may be excited by fear of Him who hath\npower to cast into everlasting prison. The soul, awe-stricken by the\npainful sight of its own guilt, and by the sense of the judgment of\nGod, yet hoping for pardon and resolved to sin no more, makes an\ninitial act of the love of God, and appeals to His goodness for\nforgiveness. Though the motive is less perfect, yet \"He who desireth\nnot the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live\" does\nin His exceeding mercy accept this as sufficient for pardon, if there\nbe added to it the actual reception of the Sacrament of Penance. In\nother words, in this case, unless the sinner shows himself to the\nauthorized minister of reconciliation and receives his absolution,\nthere is no pardon.\n\nWhether this sorrow be of the perfect kind, arising purely from love\nof God, or whether it be less perfect, caused by fear of God: in\neither case, it is _internal_, seated in the mind and heart; it is\n_supernatural_ in its motive, and springs from grace; it is\n_universal_, extending to every deadly sin committed; it is\n_sovereign_, displeasing the will more than any ill which could\nhappen. \"The sorrow which is according to God worketh penance unto\nsalvation which is lasting: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.\nFor behold this selfsame thing that you were made sorrowful according\nto God, how great carefulness doth it work: in you; yea defence, yea\nindignation, yea fear, yea desire, yea zeal, yea revenge.\"[22] This,\nthen, is contrition: the first and necessary condition for the pardon\nof sin. It is begun and perfected in the soul by the impulse and by\nthe assistance of the Holy Ghost. The grace of God, obtained through\nthe precious blood of Jesus Christ, commences and completes the work\nof repentance. God, who is rich in mercy, through His exceeding\ncharity with which He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath\nquickened as together in Christ, by whose grace you are saved.[23]\n\"The blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin.\"[24] \"We have\nredemption through His blood, the remission of sins, according to the\nriches of His grace.\"[25]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[10] Acts v, 31.\n\n[11] Acts ii, 38.\n\n[12] Acts iii, 19.\n\n[13] Peter iii, 9.\n\n[14] Acts xvii, 30.\n\n[15] Rom. ii, 4.\n\n[16] Deut. xxx, 1.\n\n[17] Joel ii, 12.\n\n[18] Ezech. xviii, 31.\n\n[19] Con. Trid. Sess. xiv, cap. 4.\n\n[20] Sess. xiv, c. 1.\n\n[21] Rom. viii, 1, 2.\n\n[22] 2 Cor. vi, 11.\n\n[23] Eph. ii, 4.\n\n[24] 1 John i, 7.\n\n[25] Eph. i, 7.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\nIt has pleased God, as we learn by the Christian revelation, to\ninstitute a human and visible Ministry of Reconciliation for sinners.\nSt. Paul expresses this in the clearest way, writing to the\nCorinthians: \"If, then, any be in Christ, a new creature: old things\nare passed away: behold, all things are made new. But all things are\nof God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Christ, and hath given to\nus _the ministry of reconciliation_. For God indeed was in Christ,\nreconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their sins; and\nHe hath placed in us _the word of reconciliation_; we are therefore\nambassadors for Christ.\" In this passage does the Apostle teach the\ntruth declared elsewhere: \"Christ died for our sins, the just for the\nunjust, that He might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in\nthe flesh.\"[26] Herein is it taught very plainly that we are redeemed\nby Jesus, and that there is no other name under heaven given to men\nwhereby they must be saved. He alone paid the price of our redemption;\nby His precious blood alone are we redeemed; and through Him alone is\nsin forgiven.\n\nBut, in the same passage, St. Paul is equally explicit in declaring:\n\"He hath given to us\"--namely, the Apostles--\"the Ministry of\nReconciliation\"--\"the word of reconciliation.\"[27] In this there is no\npretension that the Apostles were the reconcilers by inherent right;\ntheirs is an agency of reconciliation, and hence does St. Paul speak\nof their as ambassadors of Christ. And in virtue of this does the\nApostle, when exercising the office on the incestuous Corinthian,\nunhesitatingly declare: \"If I have forgiven anything, for your sakes\nhave I done it _in the person of Christ_.\"[28] What is here so\npositively claimed and acted on by the Apostle was very definitely\ninstituted by our Lord, as is recounted in the Gospels.\n\nTo the Apostles and their successors did Jesus Christ impart the power\nto baptize all nations. By baptism is man purified from original\nsin--from his own personal or actual sins, if there be any; there is\ninfused into him habitual or justifying grace, accompanied by faith,\nhope, charity, as well as the gifts of the Holy Ghost; and he is made\nthe adopted child of God. The efficient cause of such spiritual\nregeneration is Jesus Christ; and yet it is by a Minister of\nReconciliation, pouring water and saying the words \"I baptize thee in\nthe name of the Father,\" etc., etc., that the cleansing is effected.\nIt is passing strange that those who believe in baptism as the\nappointed means, whereby a minister reconciles a soul in original sin\nshould hesitate to admit the ministerial power of forgiving actual\nsin. The principle is the same. Nearly fifteen hundred years ago, St.\nAmbrose, writing against the Novatians, said: \"If it be not lawful for\nsins to be forgiven by man, why do you baptize? For, assuredly, in\nbaptism there is remission of all sins. What matters it whether\npriests claim this right as having been given them by means of baptism\nor penitence? One is the mystery in both. But thou sayest: 'It is the\ngrace of the mysteries that operates in baptism.' And what operates in\npenitence! Is it not the name of God? Where you choose, you claim for\nyourselves the grace of God: where you choose, you repudiate.\"[29]\n\nFor, in like manner, in the Sacrament of Penance, does the Minister of\nReconciliation say: \"I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the\nFather,\" etc., etc. Thereupon the words _produce_ what they signify,\nif the penitent is genuinely contrite. But the Reconciler is Jesus\nChrist, who uses priests as His delegated agents for effecting\nforgiveness. On the day of the resurrection, Jesus Christ appeared to\nthe eleven, whom He had made priests at the Last Supper, and said:\n\"Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent one, I also send you. When\nHe had said this, He breathed on them, and He said to them: receive ye\nthe Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;\nand whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.\"[30]\n\nThe passage is exceptionally clear, and for fifteen centuries was\naccepted in its plain grammatical signification. Our Lord, who is\npossessed of all power in heaven and on earth, makes His Apostles\n\"workers together with Him\" in the forgiving of sin. They derive the\npower from Him, and receive it by the inbreathing of the Holy Spirit.\nIt is no product of their learning, or experience, or piety, nor is it\nany right inborn in them; but it is a divine gift, given by the\nredeemer to His priests for the sanctification of souls. By it are His\nlegitimate ministers made co-operators in the work of reconciliation.\nAlready had the Scribes thought that Jesus blasphemed when He said to\nthe man sick of the palsy: \"Son, be of good heart: thy sin is forgiven\nthee.\" They realized not that the Almighty could impart the power of\npardoning to His creatures. To convince them that the Son _of Man_\nhath power to forgive sin, Jesus performed this special miracle, and\nhealed the man of the palsy. The multitude, seeing this, feared and\nglorified God, who had given such power _to men_.[31] The power is of\nGod, who alone can forgive sin, though He exercises it through men as\nchannels of His grace. The power of working miracles in like manner\nbelongs to God's omnipotence; yet did He condescend to allow His\nApostles and others to share in it. In this they were but His\ndelegates.\n\nThe passage, in the next place, expresses judicial power: for the\ncommission draws the distinction between remitting sin and retaining\nsin. This exercise of discretionary power does not depend on the\narbitrary will of the Apostles, but has to be decided according to the\nGospel law of true repentance described previously. The Apostles are\nappointed ministerial judges of the dispositions of penitents, and of\nthe sins on which they are to pronounce sentence of remission or of\nretention, and their sentence is as efficacious as if it were\npronounced by Christ himself.\n\nNow, it is a primary condition of just judgment that the judge should\nnot only be cognizant of the law which is to be administered, but also\nof the cause submitted for judgment. Applying this to the exercise of\nthe judicial power with which the Apostles are invested, two things\nare needed: the first, that they should know the law and the\nconditions on which sin is to be retained or remitted. This they can\nonly learn of God. The second, that they should know the sin\ncommitted, its nature and its circumstances. This can only be learned\nfrom the sinner; for sin is a deliberate and voluntary transgression\nof God's law. And, therefore, as St. Thomas of Aquinas has it, \"the\nprinciple of sin is the will.\" It is in the recesses of the knowledge\nand liberty which the soul has, that the guilt of sin is to be sought.\nWho then but the individual offender can know the sins for which\nforgiveness is asked? The disclosure can only come from the\nwrong-doer. Clearly then, confession, in the ordinary course of\nthings, is the necessary and preliminary condition for seeking\nabsolution from sin. Whether this confession be made in public or in\nprivate is a mere matter of convenience, to be decided by those who\nabsolve. The honest humble accusation of all deadly sins constitutes\nthe essential character of such confession or avowal of\ntransgressions. \"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to\nforgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.\"[32]\n\nThat interior and supernatural contrition is to be followed by the\njudicial sentence of a duly-appointed priest, to whom confession of\nall deadly sins has been previously made, is the unanimous teaching of\nthe Christian writers from the earliest date. The existence of Penance\nas the Sacrament of Reconciliation, at all times in the Church, is\npermanent evidence to the belief and practice of early Christians.\n\n1. In the History of the Church given in the Acts of the Apostles, we\nlearn that many of those who believed at Ephesus, after St. Paul's\npreaching, \"came _confessing and declaring their deeds_. And many of\nthose who had followed curious things brought their books together,\nand burnt them before all.\"[33] Here is a clear instance of\ncontrition, confession, and determination of purpose.\n\nAgain, the incestuous Corinthian is judged by St. Paul, and sentenced\nin the strongest language: \"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you\nbeing gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord\nJesus, to deliver such a one to Satan.\"[34] The offender repented, and\nlest he should \"be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow,\" the Apostle\nreversed sentence, and forgave the wrong done, \"in the _person of\nChrist_.\" A clearer case of retaining and remitting is unnecessary.\n\nThese instances are sufficient to show that the Apostles themselves\nexercised the power of the keys in binding and loosing.\n\n2. Among the living Greek Communions are to be found descendants of\nthose sects which either separated from or were cast off by the Church\ncenturies ago. The Photians date back to the tenth century; the\nNestorians, the Jacobites, the Abyssinians, the Copts, to the fifth\nand sixth centuries. Differing as these do in some points of doctrine,\nand parted by the bitterest antipathies, yet on the matter of\nabsolution and confession they have the same teaching and practice. It\nis no question of unburdening a troubled conscience for peace and\ncounsel, but confession is exacted as a necessary condition for\nobtaining pardon. In 1576, the patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople\nsent to the Protestant theologians of Tuebingen a declaration of the\nbelief of the Greeks. In it, among other doctrines, that of the\nabsolute necessity of detailed confession to a priest is asserted.\nThese sects then are, by their practice and teaching, witnesses to the\ntruth concerning the sacrament of reconciliation as taught by Holy\nChurch in our day.\n\n3. Early heresies contribute, in like manner, their part to the mass\nof irrefragable evidence in support of the doctrine. As early as the\nsecond century, Eusebius says A. D. 171, the Montanists arose in Asia\nMinor. Among other things, Montanus, their founder, taught that were\nany to \"commit grievous sin after baptism, to deny Christ, or have\nbeen stained with the guilt of impurity, murder, or like crimes, they\nwere to be for ever cut off from the communion of the Church.\" While\nadmitting that power to forgive sin was given by Christ to the\nApostles and their successors, Montanus wished to restrict that power,\nexcluding from its domain idolatry, impurity, and homicide.\n\nSome eighty years later, two schisms were created: the one in North\nAfrica, led by the priest Novatus, aided by the deacon Felicissimus,\nthe other by the anti-pope Novatian, in Rome. Both were prompted by\nthe question of receiving into the communion of the Church those who\nhad lapsed into idolatry, or had denied the faith during the times of\npersecution. The African schism insisted on the laxest possible line\nof action, namely, to receive indiscriminately without proof of\npenitence. The schism in Rome pursued the most unyielding rigorism.\n\"Whoever,\" said Novatian, its leader, \"has offered sacrifice to idols,\nor stained his soul with the guilt of sin, can no longer remain within\nthe Church; and if he be of those who have denied the faith, he can\nnot again enter her communion: for her members consist only of pure\nand faithful souls.\"\n\nThese contentions had one great advantage: they brought into\nprominence the teaching of the Church concerning \"the forgiveness of\nsin,\" and occasioned a more scientific and dogmatic statement of the\ndoctrine concerning the Sacrament of Penance. In the controversy,\nfigure the names of St. Cornelius, Pope, of St. Cyprian, of St.\nAthanasius, of St. Pacian, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, of Tertullian.\nUntil the schismatics were driven to extremities, it is plain both\nsides take it for granted that the Ministry of Reconciliation was\ngiven to the Church by Jesus Christ, and that the exercise of the\nministry consisted in pronouncing judicial sentence of pardon on those\nwho had shown repentance and had confessed their grievous sins.\nReligious strife in this case produces the interesting evidence that,\nas early as the second and third centuries, Confession and Absolution\nwere held and practised as necessary for the pardoning of sin under\nthe Christian dispensation.\n\n4. The Penitential Canons of the first ages of the Church are another\nevidence to the doctrine of Absolution and Confession. The Apostolic\nConstitutions,[35] and Tertullian,[36] give us a picture of the severe\npenitential discipline to which sinners were subjected. Many painful\ncircumstances obliged the Church modify and almost abrogate these\npublic penances.\n\nThe accounts of the suppression given by the historians, Socrates and\nZozomen, afford ample proof of confession made publicly, of the\nretaining of certain deadly crimes until a long time had been spent in\nrigid penitential exercises, and, lastly, of the absolution finally\ngranted by bishops and priests.\n\nThese authors, as well as many who come after them, are clear in\ndiscriminating between the _public_ confession, which is a matter of\ndiscipline, and confession the necessary condition for the pardon of\nsin. \"Since,\" says Zozomen, the Greek ecclesiastical historian of the\nfifth century, \"it is absolutely necessary to confess our sins in\norder to receive the pardon of them, it was thought too onerous and\ntoo painful to exact that this confession should be made in public, as\nin a theatre.\"\n\n5. We may now turn to the writings of the Fathers of the first five\ncenturies. It will be seen that throughout, when treating of the\nforgiveness of sin, it is always assumed that the priests of Holy\nChurch were endowed with the power of absolution, and exercised it on\nthose who had sinned after baptism. The sacrament of pardon is\nconstantly referred to under different names: \"penance,\" \"confession,\"\n\"absolution,\" \"exomologesis,\" \"reconciliation,\" \"the second baptism,\"\n\"the laborious baptism,\" \"the second plank after the shipwreck.\" Of\nthese, \"exomologesis\" occurs very frequently. Its meaning varies: at\none time it signifies manifestation of sin, whether in private or in\npublic, and at another it expresses the public penance and confession\nin vogue in the first ages of the Church.\n\n_At the end of the first century_, St. Clement of Rome, the third Pope\nafter St. Peter, who died in the year one hundred, and whom St. Paul,\nin his Epistle to the Philippians, numbers among \"his fellow-laborers\nwhose names are in the book of life,\" writes, in the Second Epistle\nascribed to him and addressed to the Corinthians: \"As long as we are\nin this world, let us repent with our whole heart of the evil deeds\nwhich we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord\nwhilst we have time for repentance. For after that we have gone forth\nfrom this world, we are no longer able _to confess_ or repent\nthere.\"[37]\n\n_In the middle of the second century_, appeared the \"Teaching of the\nTwelve Apostles,\" causing, at this moment, no small attention in the\nreligious world. Its date is variously stated from 120 to 160 A. D. To\nit does St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived into the second decade of\nthe third century, make reference. The text, together with a\ntranslation, is now published. Therein (Chap. IV) do we read: \"Thou\nshalt by no means forsake the Lord's commandments, but shalt guard\nwhat thou hast received, neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom.\nIn the Church thou shalt _confess thy transgressions_, and thou shalt\nnot come forward for thy prayer with an evil conscience.\" And again\n(Chap. XIV): \"But on the Lord's Day do ye assemble and break bread,\nand give thanks, after _confessing your transgressions_, that your\nsacrifice may be pure.\"\n\n_In the latter part of the second century_, the pupil of the great St.\nPolycarp, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, born about 120 A. D., and who\ndied in 202, writing against the Valentinians and certain Gnostics led\nby Marcus, states explicitly that many of the women who had been led\ninto heresy and impurity, and who afterwards returned to the Church,\n_confessed even publicly_, and wept over their defilement. \"But\nothers, ashamed to do this, and in some manner secretly despairing\nwithin themselves of the life of God, apostatized entirely.\"[38]\n\nThe same writer, styled \"the Light of the Western Gauls,\" mentions\nthat \"Cordon who appeared before Marcion, he also under Hyginus, the\neighth bishop, having come into the Church _and confessing_, thus\ncompleted his career.\"\n\n_In the last decade of the second century_, and in the first twenty\nyears of the third century, the famed Tertullian, who was born at\nCarthage about the year 160, and who lived and labored in Rome and\nNorth Africa, ending his life, it is variously stated, from 220 to\n240, wrote, before joining the Montanist sect: \"If thou drawest back\n_from confession (exomologesis), consider in_ thine heart that\nhell-fire which _confession shall quench for thee_; and first imagine\nto thyself the greatness of the punishment, that thou mayest not doubt\nconcerning the adoption of the remedy. * * * When, therefore, thou\nknowest that against hell-fire, after that first protection of the\nbaptism ordained by the Lord, there is _yet in confession\n(exomologesis) a second aid_, why dost thou abandon thy salvation? Why\ndelay to enter on that which thou knowest will heal thee? Even dumb\nand unreasoning creatures know at the season the medicines which are\ngiven them from God. * * * Shall the sinner, _knowing that confession\nhas been instituted by the Lord_ for his restoration, pass over that\nwhich restored the king of Babylon to his kingdom? * * * Why should I\nsay more of _these two planks_, I may call them, for saving men?\"[39]\n\n_In the middle of the third century_, Origen, pupil of St. Clement of\nAlexandria, was born in that town about 184, labored there for a time,\nand afterwards at Caesarea in Palestine. He died at Tyre in 253. Again\nand again does he make reference to confession of sin and its\nabsolution by a priest. \"Hear therefore now,\" says he, \"how many are\nthe remissions of sin in the Gospels. The first is this by which we\nare baptized unto the remission of sins. * * * There is also yet a\nseventh, although hard and laborious: the remission of sins through\npenitence when the sinner washeth his bed with tears, and his tears\nbecome his bread day and night, and when he is not _ashamed to declare\nhis sin to the priest of the Lord, and seek a remedy_.\"[40] And\ncommenting on the words of the Psalmist--\"Because I declare my\niniquity\"--Origen writes: \"Wherefore see what divine Scripture teaches\nus, that we must not hide sin within us. * * * But if a man become his\nown accuser, while he accuses himself and confesses, he at the same\ntime ejects the sin, and digests the whole cause of the disease. Only\nlook diligently round to whom then oughtest _to confess thy sin_.\nProve first the physician, * * * that so in fine then mayest do and\nfollow whatever he shall have said, whatever counsel he shall have\ngiven.\"[41] Again does Origen write: \"For if we have done this, and\nrevealed our sins not only to God, but also to _those who are able to\nheal our wounds and sins_, our sins will be blotted out by Him who\nsaith: 'Behold, I will blot out thy iniquities as a cloud, and thy\nsins as a mist.'\"[42]\n\n_In the first half of the third century_, flourished St. Cyprian,\nBishop of Carthage. Born in North Africa, he became a Christian about\n240, and was beheaded in 238 \"as an enemy of the gods, and a seducer\nof the people.\" He repeatedly refers to the practice of confession and\nabsolution. The following passage from his work \"De Lapsis\" will\nsuffice to show his mind: \"God perceives the things that are hidden,\nand considers those that are hidden and concealed. None can escape the\neye of God: He sees the heart and breast of every person, and He will\njudge not only our actions, but also our words and thoughts. He\nregards the minds of all, and the wishes conceived in the hidden\nrecesses of the breast. In fine, how much loftier in faith and in fear\n(of God) superior are they who, though implicated in no crime of\nsacrifice, or of accepting a certificate, yet because they have only\nhad thought thereof, this very thing _sorrowingly and honestly\nconfessing before the priests of God, make a confession (exomologesis)\nof their conscience_, expose the burthen of the soul, seek out a\nsalutary cure even for light and little wounds, knowing that it is\nwritten 'God will not be mocked.'\"\n\n_In the early part of the fourth century_, Lactantius, who is said to\nhave been converted about the year 290, and to have been put to death\nabout 326, writes: \"As every sect of heretics thinks its followers are\nabove all other Christians, and its own the Catholic Church, it is to\nbe known that is the true Catholic Church wherein _is confession and\npenitence_ which wholesomely heals the wounds and sins to which the\nweakness of the flesh is subject.\"[43]\n\n_In the first half of the fourth century_, Eusebius, the well-known\necclesiastical historian and Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, who was\nborn about 270, flourished during the reigns of Constantine and\nConstantius, and died in 340, leaves on record that the Emperor\nPhilip, who wished to join in the prayers of the Church, was not\npermitted to do so \"until he made his _exomologesis_ (_confession_),\nand classed himself with those who were separated on account of their\nsins.\"[44]\n\n_In the same century_, St. Hiliary, Bishop of Poietiers, in Gaul, who\ndied in 368, writes: \"There is the most powerful and most useful\nmedicine for the diseases of deadly vices _in their confession_. * * *\n_Confession of sin is this_, that what has been done by thee thou\nconfess to be a sin, through thy conviction that it is sin.\"[45]\n\n_In the fourth century_, St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, born\nabout the year 296, who lived till 373, and whose name is identified\nwith the General Council of Nice, is equally explicit. \"As man,\" says\nhe, \"is illuminated with the grace of the Holy Spirit by the priest\nthat baptizes, so also _he who confesses in penitence receives through\nthe priest_, by the grace of Christ, the remission of sin.\"\n\n_In this same century_, St. Pacian, who died Bishop of Barcelona about\n373, and who wrote on Baptism and Penance, asserts: \"'But you will say\nyou forgive sin to the penitent, whereas in baptism alone it is\nallowed you to loose sin.' Not to me at all, but to God only, who both\nin baptism forgives the guilt incurred, and rejects not the tears of\nthe penitent. But what I do, I do not by my own right, but by the\nLord's. * * * Wherefore, whether we baptize, whether we constrain to\npenitence, or _grant pardon to the penitent_, Christ is our authority.\nIt is for you to see to it, whether Christ hath this power, whether\nChrist have done this. Baptism is the Sacrament of our Lord's passion;\n_the pardon of penitents is the merit of confession._\"[46]\n\n_In the latter half of this same century_, St. Ambrose, born in Gaul\nabout 340, who lived till 397, the last twenty-two years Bishop of\nMilan, writes: \"Sins are remitted by the word of God, of which the\nLevite is the interpreter and also the executor; they are also\nremitted by the _office of the priest and the sacred ministry._\"[47]\n\n\"It seemed impossible,\" says this writer elsewhere, \"that water should\nwash away sin. Then Naaman the Syrian believed not that his leprosy\ncould be cured by water; but God, who has given so great a grace, made\nthe impossible to be possible. In the same manner, it seemed\nimpossible for _sins to be forgiven by penitence_. Christ _granted\nthis_ to His Apostles, which has been from the Apostles _transmitted_\nto the offices of the priests.\"[48]\n\nAnd, in similar strain, does St. John Chysostom, Archbishop of\nConstantinople, who was born about 344, and died in 407, comment on\nthe words \"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,\" etc., etc.: \" * * *\nthis bond touches the very soul itself, and reaches even unto heaven;\nand _what the priests shall do below_, the same does God ratify above,\nand the Lord confirms the sentence of his servants.\"[49]\n\nThe great St. Jerome, born in 342, and after a life spent at\nAlexandria, at Rome as Secretary to Pope Damasus, in Syria, and\nfinally in Bethlehem translating the Scripture, died in 420. He\nwrites: \"In the same way, therefore, that _there_ (among the Jews) the\npriests make the leper clean or unclean, so also here (in the Church)\ndoes the _bishop or priest bind and loose_ not those who are innocent\nor guilty, but, according to his office, after _hearing the various\nkinds of sins_, he knows who is to be bound and who loosed.\"[50]\n\nAnd St. Augustine, born 354, who was converted by the preaching of St.\nAmbrose, mentioned above, who was later made Bishop of Hippo, in North\nAfrica, and who died in 430, writes: \"For this end are sins signified\nby these curtains, that they may be _expressed by confession_, and\nmay, by the grace which _is given to the Church, be abolished_.\"[51]\n\nThis same Father says: \"Let a man judge himself of his own will,\nwhilst he has it in his power, and reform his manners, lest, when he\nshall have it no longer in his power, he be judged by the Lord against\nhis will; and when he shall have passed upon himself the sentence of a\nmost severe remedy, but still a remedy, let him come to _the prelates\nby whom the keys are ministered_ to him in the Church, and as one now\nbeginning to be a good son, let him receive the manner (or amount) of\nhis satisfaction from those who are set over the sacraments.\"[52]\n\nWriter after writer continues in the same strain, in this and the\nfollowing century. The passages cited clearly indicate that\nconfession and absolution are assumed to be the ordinary channel\nwhereby sin is pardoned. Throughout they, as the Fathers of the\npreceding centuries, make the true dispenser of forgiveness, God in\ngeneral, or, at other times, Jesus Christ, or again, the Holy Spirit;\nbut they are equally explicit in declaring the earthly visible organ\nwhereby the pardon is exercised to be, the Bishop, the Priest, the\nMinisters of the Church. These Christian writers constantly prove the\nMinistry of Reconciliation by reference to the passages concerning\nloosing and binding, in the eighteenth chapter of St. Matthew, and\nforgiving and retaining sin, in the twentieth chapter of St. John.\n\nThe authors we have cited, and in whose writings many other passages\nare to be found, are representatives during the first five centuries\nof the Church in North Africa, in Egypt, in Asia Minor, in Palestine,\nin Greece, in Italy, in Gaul, and in Spain. They are unanimous in\nupholding the power of absolution and the necessity of confession.\n\n6. But a most unexpected witness is to be found in one of the great\nProtestant Communions. The English Government, under the Tudor\ndynasty, threw off its allegiance in things ecclesiastical to the Holy\nSee. The sovereigns of England then claimed that spiritual authority\nheretofore exercised by the Pope. Henceforth, the Church was not _in_,\nbut _of_ England. It became a State Department, the archbishops and\nbishops receiving their appointment, care of souls, and jurisdiction,\nfrom the king, just as the judges, the officers of the army and navy,\nare commissioned to their circuits, their regiments, and their ships.\nThe Crown is not only the fountain-head of all spiritual\ngoverning-power, but the Crown, aided later by its Council, became the\nfinal Court of Appeal in all disputes about doctrine.\n\nThe Established Communion, in its doctrinal code, the Thirty-nine\nArticles, which each clergyman declares he accepts _ex animo_,\nasserts that \"Penance is not a sacrament of the Gospel.\" And in the\nBook of Homilies, which the said Articles commend as containing \"good\nand wholesome doctrine,\" do we read: \"We ought to acknowledge none\nother priest for deliverance from our sins but Jesus Christ. * * * It\nis most evident and plain that this auricular confession hath not the\nwarrant of God's word. * * * I do not say but that, if any do find\nthemselves troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned\ncurate or pastor, _or to some other godly learned man_, and show the\ntrouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receive\nat their hand the comfortable salve of God's word; but it is against\nthe true Christian liberty that any man should be bound to the\nnumbering of his sins, as it hath been used heretofore in the time of\nblindness and ignorance.\"[53] It is clear that both the Articles and\nthe Book of Homilies deny the power of absolution and the necessity of\nconfession as essential conditions, in the ordinary course of things,\nfor the forgiveness of sin.\n\nThe Book of Common Prayer--the Liturgy of the Anglican Communion--in\nthe office for visiting the sick, does urge the confession of the sick\nperson, and gives the form of absolution to be used by the minister.\nIt also bids the minister to exhort those approaching communion, who\ncannot quiet their conscience, to seek absolution, together with\nghostly counsel and advice. In the Book of Common Prayer used by the\nEpiscopalians in the United States, these directions concerning\nconfession and absolution are omitted.\n\nThe result of the teaching of the Articles was the complete\ndestruction, in the mind of the people of England, during three\ncenturies, of the need of confession and absolution. And, until some\nfifty years ago, it was unknown for Anglicans to go to confession.\nThey lived and died without the faintest conception that such an\nordinance was divinely instituted, or that it was necessary or even\nadvisable. A change came, and certain of the clergy of the Established\nCommunion began to teach the necessity of confession. This produced\nopen revolt in their camp; the matter became so serious that the\nConvocation sitting in 1873 gave it consideration, and the Bishop of\nSalisbury boldly said: \"Habitual confession is unholy, illegal, and\nfull of mischief.\" The Bishop of Lichfield, in indignation, declared:\n\"I would rather resign my office than hold it, if it was supposed that\nI was giving young men the right to practice habitual confession.\" The\nArchbishop of Canterbury said: \"I am ready to revoke the license of\nany curate charged with hearing confessions.\" And the Bishop of Ely\ndeclared: \"In no other communion would it be possible for a man to set\nhimself up as the general confessor of a district, without any other\nauthority than his own.\"\n\nThe assembled bishops, who of course represented the living teaching\nbody of the Establishment, published a formal document, wherein they\ndeclare: \"The Church of England, in the Twenty-fifth Article, affirms\nthat penance is not to be counted for a sacrament of the Gospel, and,\nas judged by her formularies, knows no such words as Sacramental\nConfession.\" And in this same declaration, commenting on the two\ninstances wherein the Book of Common Prayer recommends seeking the aid\nof a clergyman, is it said: \"Thus special provision, however, does not\nauthorize the ministers of the Church to require, of any who may\nresort to them to open their grief, a particular or detailed\nenumeration of their sins; or to require private confession previous\nto receiving the holy communion; or to enjoin, or even encourage, any\npractice of habitual confession to a priest; or to teach that such\npractice of habitual confession, or the being subject to what has been\ntermed the direction of a priest, is a condition of attaining to the\nhighest spiritual life.\" By far the greater majority of the clergy and\nlaity endorse, heart and soul, this declaration.\n\nNotwithstanding these clear utterances in Convocation, young curates\nand vicars took to themselves authority, and began to hear confession\nand pronounce absolution. These gentlemen had never been prepared for\nthe work: in their course of ecclesiastical studies the hearing of\nconfessions and the absolving from sin were never contemplated; they\nhad to obtain their knowledge from the manuals in use among Catholic\npriests. Their bishops neither would nor could give them authority;\nand so these clergymen became an authority to themselves, and declared\nthey had power to forgive sin, merely because they were ordained\npriests. Such a pretension could not be made by any priest or bishop\nof the Catholic Church, however valid may be his orders. To the\nsacramental power of orders must be added juridical authority to\nabsolve. This, in the divine economy, as will be shown later, is the\nmeans whereby the exercise of such a power can be duly controlled.\n\nSuch was the movement in England. I find it transported to the United\nStates. And I am told by honorable trustworthy people that in Boston,\nNew York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other cities, there are\nEpiscopalian clergymen who insist that their penitents shall confess\nat regular intervals.[54] That such a fact is possible, or that\npersons should be found ready to submit themselves to such a\nself-asserted ministry, is simply incredible in face of the clear\ndeclaration of the Thirty-nine Articles, the official commentary of\nthe Book of Homilies cited above, the formal condemnation of the\nEnglish bishops, and the intentional omission of the only two\npassages referring to confession from the Book of Common Prayer used\nin America.\n\nIn the United States it is the more inexplicable, inasmuch as by the\nDeclaration of Independence there could be no jurisdiction derived\nfrom the Crown of England. And, consequently, the Episcopal Church,\nformed as it was after the Independence, could not, from the nature of\nthe case, receive jurisdiction from without. It formed itself into a\ncorporation, and its only authority was generated by itself. But that\nof confessing and absolving from sin could not have been so created:\nno more than it could have been done by the Episcopal Methodist, the\nPresbyterian, the Quaker, or any other religions corporation. It is\nnot unreasonable in a matter so grave, affecting the eternal salvation\nof men, to ask of these gentlemen, calling themselves Reverend Father\nConfessors, by what authority do they these things, and who gave them\nthis authority. Assuredly, their bishops declare they do not, and\ncannot. Excellent and beyond reproach as are these clergymen,\nwell-instructed as they may be in the casuistry of the Roman Catholic\nmoral, theological, and ascetical works, their absolutions are null\nand void, and of no more avail than if pronounced by mere laymen. The\njoy and peace produced in the souls of many who submit to these\nministrations, arise not from the genuineness of the ordinance. God in\nHis goodness rewards the honest intentions, the good dispositions, and\nfaith of those who receive them. The same manifestations of grace are\nfound among Methodists and Presbyterians; Episcopalians would be the\nfirst to deny the reality and truth of Sacraments in these bodies.\n\nBut, it may be asked, how has such a change been wrought in the minds\nof Episcopalians on both sides of the Atlantic? The Oxford movement of\nsome forty-five years ago turned men's minds to the early history of\nthe Church: and, finding confession and absolution then to be the\nordinary and necessary conditions for reconciliation with God, the\npractice was introduced, but without seeing the important truth that,\nbesides valid ordination, there is needed jurisdiction from the\nChurch, so as to make absolution of avail.\n\nThis new school of religions opinion among Anglican and Protestant\nEpiscopalians contributes its share of testimony to uphold what the\nChurch of God has always taught, namely, that over and above having a\ngenuine supernatural sorrow for sin, there is ordinarily required on\nthe part of the sinner confession of sin, followed by the judicial\nabsolution of God's minister, approved and commissioned by the Church,\nwho alone possesses the power of the keys to remit or retain sin, and\nwho has therefore the sole right to approve and authorize confessors.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe constant practice of the Roman Church; the belief and practice of\nthe earliest schismatics; the existence of the Penitential Canons; the\nstatements of the Fathers, representatives of all Christian lands in\nthe first five centuries, when Latins and Greeks were in the\n\"Undivided Church\"; the discovery made by High Churchmen in our day:\nrender, separately and cumulatively, evidence to the belief in\n\"Confession and Absolution\" which no reasonable man can or ought to\nreject. It is plain that had so painful a task as the confessing of\nsin to man not been of Apostolic origin, assuredly its introduction to\nthe Christian Church would have caused the bitterest struggle, and the\ndate of such a movement would have been indelibly impressed on the\npage of history. But no such strife is recorded.\n\nWell, therefore, did the Church, assembled in General Council at\nTrent, having first taught and defined the nature of contrition or\nrepentance, sum up the question of confession: \"It is certain that, in\nthe Church, nothing else is required of penitents but that, after each\nhas examined himself diligently, and searched all the folds and\nrecesses of his conscience, he confess those sins by which he shall\nremember that he has mortally offended his Lord and God; whilst the\nother sins, which do not occur to him after diligent thought, are\nunderstood to be included, as a whole, in that same confession; for\nwhich sins we confidently say with the prophet: 'From my secret sins\ncleanse me, O Lord.' Now, the difficulty of a confession like this,\nand the shame of making known one's sins, might indeed seem a grievous\nthing, were it not alleviated by the so many and so great advantages\nand consolations which are most assuredly bestowed by absolution upon\nall who worthily approach to this sacrament. For the rest, as to the\nmanner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, although Christ has\nnot forbidden that a person may, in punishment of his sins, and for\nhis own humiliation, as well for an example to others for the\nedification of the Church that has been scandalized, confess his sins\npublicly, nevertheless, this is not commanded by a divine precept;\nneither would it be very prudent to enjoin, by any human law, that\nsins, especially such as are secret, should be made known by a public\nconfession. Wherefore, whereas the secret sacramental confession,\nwhich was in use from the beginning in Holy Church, and is still also\nin use, has always been commended by the most holy Fathers with a\ngreat and unanimous consent, the vain calumny of those is manifestly\nrefuted who are not ashamed to teach that confession is alien from the\ndivine command and is a human invention.\"[55]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[26] 1 Pet. iii. 18.\n\n[27] 2 Cor. v. 18.\n\n[28] 2 Cor. ii. 10\n\n[29] De Poent. c. viii.\n\n[30] John xx, 21.\n\n[31] Matt. ix, 2.\n\n[32] 1 John i, 9.\n\n[33] Acts xix, 18.\n\n[34] 1 Cor. v, and 2 Cor. ii.\n\n[35] Ap. Con. ii, 16.\n\n[36] De Poent. c. 9.\n\n[37] Ep. ii, ad Cor. n. 8.\n\n[38] Adv. Haeres. l. i. cxiii, n. 4, 5, 6, 7.\n\n[39] De Paenit. n. 8-12.\n\n[40] Hom. in Levit. n. 4.\n\n[41] In Ps. xxxvii, n. 6.\n\n[42] Hom. xvii in Lucam.\n\n[43] Divin. Inst. l. iv, c. 30.\n\n[44] Hist. Ecc. Bk. vi, c. 34.\n\n[45] Tract. in Ps. cxxxviii.\n\n[46] Ep. iii, n. 7-9.\n\n[47] De Cain et Abel, l. 2, c. 4.\n\n[48] De Paenit. cii, n. 12.\n\n[49] Vol. I, Lib. iii, n. 5, de Sacerd.\n\n[50] Com. in Matt. c. xviii.\n\n[51] In Exod. n. cviii.\n\n[52] Serm. cccli, n. 9.\n\n[53] Homily on Repentance, part ii.\n\n[54] While this Second Edition is passing through the press, the\nfollowing statement is reported by the New York Herald, May 5th, to\nhave been made the precious Sunday, by the new pastor of St. Ignatius'\nEpiscopal Church, New York: \"And of the confessional, we believe that\nauricular confession is a part of the preaching of God's ministers. I\nshould be unfaithful to my trust if I held back from proclaiming, by\nmy words and by my practice, _that confession is necessary to\nsalvation, and that God's ministers have the poorer to forgive sins_.\"\n\n[55] Con. Trent, Sess. xiv, cap. 5.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n\nSo far, the doctrine concerning God's conditions for reconciling the\nsinner has been limited to the interior supernatural repentance,\ntogether with absolution and confession. The other\nelement--satisfaction--which is not of the essence of contrition, but\nperfects it, has not been treated, simply because in another\nconference it is intended to deal with this question in connection\nwith the works of penance and the doctrine of indulgences.\n\nBefore closing the question now under consideration, it is right that\ncertain objections, urged oftentimes in good faith, sometimes in\nignorance, sometimes in malice, should be duly met.\n\n1. It is, as was said elsewhere, by no inherent power that the\nApostles and their successors are able to remit sin. God, and God\nalone, can do so, though He can delegate this to others. This He has\ndone. But to secure so transcendent an authority from abuse, two\nelements are necessary before it can be exercised.\n\nFirst, from God, and through the appointed sacrament, must man be\nconstituted a priest--that is, an offerer of sacrifice. This comes\ndirect from God, and is called the power of Order, and is obtained by\nordination. This was given to the Apostles at the Last Supper, when\nour Lord said: \"Do this in commemoration of me.\" After His\nresurrection, there was given the power or capability to forgive sin,\nby the words \"Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive,\nthey are forgiven; and whose sins you shall retain, they are\nretained.\"\n\nThe second element comes also from God, but indirectly, as it reaches\nthe individual minister through the Church. It is the authority or\ncommission of the Church to a priest or bishop to exercise the power\nof pardoning which he has received of God. This is called\njurisdiction. It is included in the words said to Peter: \"To thee will\nI give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind\non earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever then shalt\nloose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.\"[56] Of the which,\nTertullian, writing more than sixteen centuries ago, says: \"For if\nthen thinkest heaven is still closed, remember the Lord left here the\nkeys thereof to Peter, and through him to the Church.\"[57] Many a man\nhas all the innate and acquired talent to be an excellent judge, a\nproficient ambassador, an efficient naval or military officer; but\nover and above capability, there is needed commission or appointment\nby competent authority. So, in like manner, bishops and priests\npossess the power to pardon, but jurisdiction is needed to say on whom\nand where this power is to be exercised. Merely because a man is\nordained validly, this does not give him the power to absolve; without\njurisdiction, his absolution has no more value than would that of a\nlayman.\n\nIt will be evident that as jurisdiction comes from God but through the\nChurch, she can control those who are to exercise the power of\npardoning sin. Hence, she insists that her priests shall carefully\nstudy the moral law, just as a lawyer does civil law. She exacts that\nthose who hear confessions shall, by examination, prove their\ncompetency in the way of knowledge. She trains from boyhood her\nLevites to the sacred work they have to do, and she permits only those\nto be admitted to the Ministry of Reconciliation whose piety, past\nconduct, and judgment commend them for confessions. To those so\napproved she gives jurisdiction--or, as it is technically called,\n\"faculties\"--specifying where and on whom such power may be exercised.\nThis jurisdiction is always granted for a limited period of time,\nduring which it may be withdrawn if deemed advisable by the grantor.\n\nThus, then, is every care taken in the selection and in the\npreparation of priests for the work of hearing confessions and\nabsolving from sin. Even after they are duly appointed, the\nrestriction of the power to time, places, persons, and causes,\ntogether with the varied tests of competency afforded by the\nconferences on cases of conscience and other theological knowledge,\nheld at frequent and regular intervals in each diocese, under the\ndirection of the bishop, constitute a solid control over those\nexercising the Ministry of Reconciliation. Then the priest's own\nbelief and conscience, as well as the obligation to confess his sins\nand seek absolution for them, add to the faithful exercise of his\nduties as confessor.\n\nBeyond these human precautions and considerations, the very fact that\nGod instituted the Tribunal of Penance as the usual channel for\npardoning sin, obliges us to realize that He himself would protect the\nadministration of the sacrament. For this sacred work, His priests,\nduring many years, are trained to a life of piety, prayer, and\nmortification. The spiritual education of their own souls, by\nmeditation and examination of conscience, fits them to know the\nworkings of the souls of others. Before undertaking the study of\npainfully distressing treatises on certain parts of the moral law, the\nLevite strengthens his soul by prayer, enters thereon simply for the\nglory of God and the good of souls, and is aided by experienced\ndiscreet professors.\n\nMedical men and lawyers are not trained and selected for their\nprofession as are priests, nor are they aided in their duties by\nspecial divine protection. Yet, relying on them as gentlemen and on\ntheir professional honor, clients, without fear or suspicion, entrust\nto these, themselves and their affairs.\n\nWhy then not concede to priests at least this same measure of\nhonorability? They, like doctors and lawyers, must for their work be\ntheoretically cognizant of the crimes, iniquities, and weaknesses of\nmankind. But they, no more than doctors or lawyers, speak of these\nthings, unless the penitent has been guilty of and confesses some such\noffence. On the contrary, those who enter the Ministry are taught to\nbe most prudent and discreet in putting questions; never to ask more\nthan what may be necessary. The rule is to err on the side of too\nlittle. Nay, rather than suggest or make known that which a penitent\nmay be ignorant of, the minister must consult more what is for the\ngood of the soul than for the integrity of the Confession.\n\n2. Again, let it be remembered that it is not as in a court of\njustice, where the plea of \"not guilty\" is set up, and all has then to\nbe wormed out by examination in the most detailed manner. For the\npenitent enters the confessional as self-accuser, states the offence,\ntogether with the number of times it has happened, and any\ncircumstances which may alter or aggravate the deed. There are,\ntherefore, in Confession, none of the nauseous details and\ndescriptions of crime which may be heard in our courts and read in our\nnewspapers.\n\nThe remarkable testimony of a Protestant gentleman--Doctor Forbes--may\nhere be of much value. In his memorandums, made in Ireland in the\nautumn of 1852, he says: \"At any rate, the result of my inquiries is\nthat--whether right or wrong in a theological or rational point of\nview--this instrument of Confession is, among the Irish of the humbler\nclasses, a direct preservative against certain forms of immorality at\nleast.\"[58] \"Among other charges preferred against Confession in\nIreland and elsewhere, is the facility it affords for corrupting the\nfemale mind, and of its actually leading to such corruption. * * * So\nfar from such corruption resulting from the Confessional, it is the\ngeneral belief in Ireland--a belief expressed to me by many\ntrustworthy men in all parts of the country, and by Protestants as\nwell as by Catholics--that the singular purity of female life among\nthe lower classes there is, in a considerable degree, dependent on\nthis very circumstance.\"[59] \"With a view of testing, as far as was\npracticable, the truth of the theory respecting the influence of\nConfession on this branch of morals, I have obtained, through the\ncourtesy of the Poor Law Commissioners, a return of the number of\nlegitimate and illegitimate children in the work-houses of each of\nthe four provinces in Ireland, on a particular day, viz: the 27th of\nNovember, 1852. * * * It is curious to mark how strikingly the results\nthere conveyed correspond with the confessional theory: the proportion\nof illegitimate children coinciding almost exactly with the relative\nproportions of the two religions in each province; being large where\nthe Protestant element is large, and small where it is small.\"[60]\n\nGood sense ought to make objectors remember that priests have mothers\nand sisters and relations whom they love; and priests would be the\nfirst to prevent these beloved ones from the demoralizing influences\nwhich enemies ignorantly attribute to the confessional.\n\n3. Once more let it be remembered that the Tribunal of Penance is for\nthe accusation and absolution of sin. Name, nor abode, nor fortune,\nnor domestic concerns, have any place there. The priest is the\nspiritual physician, and it is the disease which is submitted to him;\nall else is foreign to his office, nor has he the right to ask of\nother matters. Nay, more: a sacramental secret surrounds his work;\nthis involves obligations greater than any natural or promised\nsecrecy. Information obtained in Confession the priest can never use,\nbe it in his own interest, or in that of a family, or of the State, or\nof the Pope, or of the Church. Therefore, to imagine the Tribunal of\nPenance to be an engine for obtaining and using information in\ndomestic concerns and family secrets, is to be sorely ignorant of the\nnature of confession and of the obligations of a confessor.\n\n4. Objectors of another kind urge that confession induces persons to\nsin more readily, or at least it transfers the keeping of conscience\nto the priest.\n\nSeeing that all which is demanded by Protestants for repentance must\nbe in the mind of the Catholic before he can be absolved, it is clear\nthe objection comes ill from them, and can have no foundation. Of\ncourse, for those who believe that Catholics obtain pardon by payment\nof money, the objection would have weight. But it can hardly be\nimagined that in the nineteenth century, among an intelligent people\nlike Americans, there are to be found persons who believe that\nCatholics are so bereft of reason as to imagine that sin can be\nforgiven by the giving of silver and gold.\n\nEvery Catholic knows that to speak falsely in Confession would be to\nlie to the Holy Ghost, as did Ananias and Saphira; that to confess as\nJudas did, without sorrow, would not only bring no pardon, but, on the\ncontrary, would add the sin of sacrilege to his soul. The Catholic\nknows that without a firm efficacious determination of purpose to\navoid sin and its occasions, and to satisfy for injuries done, there\ncan be no forgiveness of sin.\n\nNowhere is the soul of man more prone to self-deception than in the\nmatter of true repentance. Temptation may cease, and with it comes\ncessation of wrong-doing. This, under self-deception, may be easily\nconstrued into conversion. Self-interest and passion may so blind a\nman that he may imagine himself truly repentant, notwithstanding that\nhe has not pardoned injuries, or reconciled himself to enemies, or\nrestored ill-gotten goods, or retracted calumny, or compensated for\nwrongs inflicted, or is not disposed to avoid occasions of sin, and\nthe like.\n\nThe confessor has to intervene, remind the penitent of these duties,\nand secure that they shall be done, before he can absolve from sin.\nInstead of becoming the keeper of the sinner's conscience, the\nconfessor is but its instructor: duty and responsibility remain in all\ntheir extent to the penitent. And the penitent has to test the\ngenuineness of his contrition by unmistakable obligations to be\ncomplied with, if forgiveness of sin is to be obtained.\n\nAll this, instead of encouraging the sinner, as opponents have it, to\nreturn and wallow in the mire of iniquity, does, on the contrary, make\nhim gird up his loins, and walk with a firm but cautious step for the\nfuture. And this apart from the fact that one of the supernatural\neffects of this sacrament of penance is the bestowal of actual\nmedicinal graces, whereby the soul is strengthened against relapsing,\nand for which reason regular and frequent confession is so earnestly\nencouraged.\n\n5. To have a wise prudent spiritual adviser, to have an experienced\nphysician of the soul, to have a merciful but strict judge of moral\nduty: is to have the greatest spiritual support on earth, even apart\nfrom the superadded sacramental character of such a minister. It is\nthis blessed gift which the Catholic has in his legitimately-approved\nand authorized confessor.\n\nPrejudice or ignorance can alone construe such an inestimable\ntreasure, which brings peace of conscience and heavenly consolation,\ninto \"making the priest the keeper of a man's conscience, and the\ndestroyer of man's spiritual liberty and of his responsibility to his\nCreator.\"\n\nHow different are the opinions of thoughtful men, concerning this\nTribunal of Penance, will be seen from the following: One is a\nFrenchman, who, unhappily, apostatized from the Catholic Church; the\nsecond is a distinguished German philosopher, who lived and died a\nProtestant; the third is one of the profoundest thinkers of our day,\nwho, born in the Episcopal Church in England, served her some forty\nyears, and then left her to enter the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman\nChurch.\n\nThe first of these--Voltaire--thus writes:\n\n\"The enemies of the Roman Church, who have assailed the salutary\ninstitution of confession, appear to have removed the strongest\nrestraint which can be put upon secret crimes. The sages of antiquity\nthemselves felt the importance of it.\"[61]\n\nThe second--Leibnitz--in his \"System of Theology\" says:\n\n\"The institution of sacramental confession is assuredly worthy of the\ndivine wisdom, and, of all the doctrines of religion, it is the most\nadmirable and the most beautiful. It was admired by the Chinese and\nthe inhabitants of Japan. The necessity of confessing sin is\nsufficient to preserve from it those who still preserve their modesty;\nand yet, if any fail, confession consoles and restores them. I look on\na grave and prudent confessor as a great instrument of God for the\nsalvation of souls. His counsels regulate the sentiments, reprove\nvices, remove occasions of sin, cause the restitution of ill-acquired\nproperty, and the reparation of wrongs; clear up doubts, console under\nafflictions--in fine, cure or relieve all the evils of the soul; and\nas nothing in the world is more precious than a faithful friend, what\nis the value of that friend when he is bound by his functions and\nfitted by his knowledge to devote to you all his care, under the seal\nof the most inviolable secrecy?\"\n\nThe third--Cardinal Newman--says, in \"Anglican Difficulties\":\n\n\"If there is a heavenly idea in the Catholic Church--looking at it\nsimply as an idea--surely, next after the Blessed Sacrament,\nconfession is such. And such is it ever found, in fact; the very act\nof kneeling, the low and contrite voice, the sign of the\ncross--hanging, so to say, over the head bowed low--and the words of\npeace and blessing. Oh, what a soothing charm is there which the world\ncan neither give nor take away! Oh, what piercing heart-subduing\ntranquility, provoking tears of joy, is poured almost substantially\nand physically upon the soul--the oil of gladness, as Scripture calls\nit--when the penitent at length rises, his God reconciled to him, his\nsins rolled away for ever! This is confession as it is in fact, as\nthose bear witness to it who know it by experience.\"[62]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[56] Matt. xvi, 19, and xviii, 18.\n\n[57] Scorpiace, n. x.\n\n[58] Vol. ii, p. 81.\n\n[59] Vol. ii, p. 83.\n\n[60] Vol. ii, p. 215.\n\n[61] Annales de l'Empire, vol. i, p. 41.\n\n[62] Card. Newman, Ang. Diff. p. 351.","title":"Confession and Absolution","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":12260}