_In this same century_, St. Pacian, who died Bishop of Barcelona about 373, and who wrote on Baptism and Penance, a.s.serts: "'But you will say you forgive sin to the penitent, whereas in baptism alone it is allowed you to loose sin.' Not to me at all, but to G.o.d only, who both in baptism forgives the guilt incurred, and rejects not the tears of the penitent. But what I do, I do not by my own right, but by the Lord's. * * * Wherefore, whether we baptize, whether we constrain to penitence, or _grant pardon to the penitent_, Christ is our authority.

It is for you to see to it, whether Christ hath this power, whether Christ have done this. Baptism is the Sacrament of our Lord's pa.s.sion; _the pardon of penitents is the merit of confession._"[46]

_In the latter half of this same century_, St. Ambrose, born in Gaul about 340, who lived till 397, the last twenty-two years Bishop of Milan, writes: "Sins are remitted by the word of G.o.d, of which the Levite is the interpreter and also the executor; they are also remitted by the _office of the priest and the sacred ministry._"[47]

"It seemed impossible," says this writer elsewhere, "that water should wash away sin. Then Naaman the Syrian believed not that his leprosy could be cured by water; but G.o.d, who has given so great a grace, made the impossible to be possible. In the same manner, it seemed impossible for _sins to be forgiven by penitence_. Christ _granted this_ to His Apostles, which has been from the Apostles _transmitted_ to the offices of the priests."[48]

And, in similar strain, does St. John Chysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, who was born about 344, and died in 407, comment on the words "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth," etc., etc.: " * * *

this bond touches the very soul itself, and reaches even unto heaven; and _what the priests shall do below_, the same does G.o.d ratify above, and the Lord confirms the sentence of his servants."[49]

The great St. Jerome, born in 342, and after a life spent at Alexandria, at Rome as Secretary to Pope Damasus, in Syria, and finally in Bethlehem translating the Scripture, died in 420. He writes: "In the same way, therefore, that _there_ (among the Jews) the priests make the leper clean or unclean, so also here (in the Church) does the _bishop or priest bind and loose_ not those who are innocent or guilty, but, according to his office, after _hearing the various kinds of sins_, he knows who is to be bound and who loosed."[50]

And St. Augustine, born 354, who was converted by the preaching of St.

Ambrose, mentioned above, who was later made Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa, and who died in 430, writes: "For this end are sins signified by these curtains, that they may be _expressed by confession_, and may, by the grace which _is given to the Church, be abolished_."[51]

This same Father says: "Let a man judge himself of his own will, whilst he has it in his power, and reform his manners, lest, when he shall have it no longer in his power, he be judged by the Lord against his will; and when he shall have pa.s.sed upon himself the sentence of a most severe remedy, but still a remedy, let him come to _the prelates by whom the keys are ministered_ to him in the Church, and as one now beginning to be a good son, let him receive the manner (or amount) of his satisfaction from those who are set over the sacraments."[52]

Writer after writer continues in the same strain, in this and the following century. The pa.s.sages cited clearly indicate that confession and absolution are a.s.sumed to be the ordinary channel whereby sin is pardoned. Throughout they, as the Fathers of the preceding centuries, make the true dispenser of forgiveness, G.o.d in general, or, at other times, Jesus Christ, or again, the Holy Spirit; but they are equally explicit in declaring the earthly visible organ whereby the pardon is exercised to be, the Bishop, the Priest, the Ministers of the Church. These Christian writers constantly prove the Ministry of Reconciliation by reference to the pa.s.sages concerning loosing and binding, in the eighteenth chapter of St. Matthew, and forgiving and retaining sin, in the twentieth chapter of St. John.

The authors we have cited, and in whose writings many other pa.s.sages are to be found, are representatives during the first five centuries of the Church in North Africa, in Egypt, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in Greece, in Italy, in Gaul, and in Spain. They are unanimous in upholding the power of absolution and the necessity of confession.

6. But a most unexpected witness is to be found in one of the great Protestant Communions. The English Government, under the Tudor dynasty, threw off its allegiance in things ecclesiastical to the Holy See. The sovereigns of England then claimed that spiritual authority heretofore exercised by the Pope. Henceforth, the Church was not _in_, but _of_ England. It became a State Department, the archbishops and bishops receiving their appointment, care of souls, and jurisdiction, from the king, just as the judges, the officers of the army and navy, are commissioned to their circuits, their regiments, and their ships.

The Crown is not only the fountain-head of all spiritual governing-power, but the Crown, aided later by its Council, became the final Court of Appeal in all disputes about doctrine.

The Established Communion, in its doctrinal code, the Thirty-nine Articles, which each clergyman declares he accepts _ex animo_, a.s.serts that "Penance is not a sacrament of the Gospel." And in the Book of Homilies, which the said Articles commend as containing "good and wholesome doctrine," do we read: "We ought to acknowledge none other priest for deliverance from our sins but Jesus Christ. * * * It is most evident and plain that this auricular confession hath not the warrant of G.o.d's word. * * * I do not say but that, if any do find themselves troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned curate or pastor, _or to some other G.o.dly learned man_, and show the trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of G.o.d's word; but it is against the true Christian liberty that any man should be bound to the numbering of his sins, as it hath been used heretofore in the time of blindness and ignorance."[53] It is clear that both the Articles and the Book of Homilies deny the power of absolution and the necessity of confession as essential conditions, in the ordinary course of things, for the forgiveness of sin.

The Book of Common Prayer--the Liturgy of the Anglican Communion--in the office for visiting the sick, does urge the confession of the sick person, and gives the form of absolution to be used by the minister.

It also bids the minister to exhort those approaching communion, who cannot quiet their conscience, to seek absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice. In the Book of Common Prayer used by the Episcopalians in the United States, these directions concerning confession and absolution are omitted.

The result of the teaching of the Articles was the complete destruction, in the mind of the people of England, during three centuries, of the need of confession and absolution. And, until some fifty years ago, it was unknown for Anglicans to go to confession.

They lived and died without the faintest conception that such an ordinance was divinely inst.i.tuted, or that it was necessary or even advisable. A change came, and certain of the clergy of the Established Communion began to teach the necessity of confession. This produced open revolt in their camp; the matter became so serious that the Convocation sitting in 1873 gave it consideration, and the Bishop of Salisbury boldly said: "Habitual confession is unholy, illegal, and full of mischief." The Bishop of Lichfield, in indignation, declared: "I would rather resign my office than hold it, if it was supposed that I was giving young men the right to practice habitual confession." The Archbishop of Canterbury said: "I am ready to revoke the license of any curate charged with hearing confessions." And the Bishop of Ely declared: "In no other communion would it be possible for a man to set himself up as the general confessor of a district, without any other authority than his own."

The a.s.sembled bishops, who of course represented the living teaching body of the Establishment, published a formal doc.u.ment, wherein they declare: "The Church of England, in the Twenty-fifth Article, affirms that penance is not to be counted for a sacrament of the Gospel, and, as judged by her formularies, knows no such words as Sacramental Confession." And in this same declaration, commenting on the two instances wherein the Book of Common Prayer recommends seeking the aid of a clergyman, is it said: "Thus special provision, however, does not authorize the ministers of the Church to require, of any who may resort to them to open their grief, a particular or detailed enumeration of their sins; or to require private confession previous to receiving the holy communion; or to enjoin, or even encourage, any practice of habitual confession to a priest; or to teach that such practice of habitual confession, or the being subject to what has been termed the direction of a priest, is a condition of attaining to the highest spiritual life." By far the greater majority of the clergy and laity endorse, heart and soul, this declaration.

Notwithstanding these clear utterances in Convocation, young curates and vicars took to themselves authority, and began to hear confession and p.r.o.nounce absolution. These gentlemen had never been prepared for the work: in their course of ecclesiastical studies the hearing of confessions and the absolving from sin were never contemplated; they had to obtain their knowledge from the manuals in use among Catholic priests. Their bishops neither would nor could give them authority; and so these clergymen became an authority to themselves, and declared they had power to forgive sin, merely because they were ordained priests. Such a pretension could not be made by any priest or bishop of the Catholic Church, however valid may be his orders. To the sacramental power of orders must be added juridical authority to absolve. This, in the divine economy, as will be shown later, is the means whereby the exercise of such a power can be duly controlled.

Such was the movement in England. I find it transported to the United States. And I am told by honorable trustworthy people that in Boston, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other cities, there are Episcopalian clergymen who insist that their penitents shall confess at regular intervals.[54] That such a fact is possible, or that persons should be found ready to submit themselves to such a self-a.s.serted ministry, is simply incredible in face of the clear declaration of the Thirty-nine Articles, the official commentary of the Book of Homilies cited above, the formal condemnation of the English bishops, and the intentional omission of the only two pa.s.sages referring to confession from the Book of Common Prayer used in America.

In the United States it is the more inexplicable, inasmuch as by the Declaration of Independence there could be no jurisdiction derived from the Crown of England. And, consequently, the Episcopal Church, formed as it was after the Independence, could not, from the nature of the case, receive jurisdiction from without. It formed itself into a corporation, and its only authority was generated by itself. But that of confessing and absolving from sin could not have been so created: no more than it could have been done by the Episcopal Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Quaker, or any other religions corporation. It is not unreasonable in a matter so grave, affecting the eternal salvation of men, to ask of these gentlemen, calling themselves Reverend Father Confessors, by what authority do they these things, and who gave them this authority. a.s.suredly, their bishops declare they do not, and cannot. Excellent and beyond reproach as are these clergymen, well-instructed as they may be in the casuistry of the Roman Catholic moral, theological, and ascetical works, their absolutions are null and void, and of no more avail than if p.r.o.nounced by mere laymen. The joy and peace produced in the souls of many who submit to these ministrations, arise not from the genuineness of the ordinance. G.o.d in His goodness rewards the honest intentions, the good dispositions, and faith of those who receive them. The same manifestations of grace are found among Methodists and Presbyterians; Episcopalians would be the first to deny the reality and truth of Sacraments in these bodies.

But, it may be asked, how has such a change been wrought in the minds of Episcopalians on both sides of the Atlantic? The Oxford movement of some forty-five years ago turned men's minds to the early history of the Church: and, finding confession and absolution then to be the ordinary and necessary conditions for reconciliation with G.o.d, the practice was introduced, but without seeing the important truth that, besides valid ordination, there is needed jurisdiction from the Church, so as to make absolution of avail.

This new school of religions opinion among Anglican and Protestant Episcopalians contributes its share of testimony to uphold what the Church of G.o.d has always taught, namely, that over and above having a genuine supernatural sorrow for sin, there is ordinarily required on the part of the sinner confession of sin, followed by the judicial absolution of G.o.d's minister, approved and commissioned by the Church, who alone possesses the power of the keys to remit or retain sin, and who has therefore the sole right to approve and authorize confessors.

The constant practice of the Roman Church; the belief and practice of the earliest schismatics; the existence of the Penitential Canons; the statements of the Fathers, representatives of all Christian lands in the first five centuries, when Latins and Greeks were in the "Undivided Church"; the discovery made by High Churchmen in our day: render, separately and c.u.mulatively, evidence to the belief in "Confession and Absolution" which no reasonable man can or ought to reject. It is plain that had so painful a task as the confessing of sin to man not been of Apostolic origin, a.s.suredly its introduction to the Christian Church would have caused the bitterest struggle, and the date of such a movement would have been indelibly impressed on the page of history. But no such strife is recorded.

Well, therefore, did the Church, a.s.sembled in General Council at Trent, having first taught and defined the nature of contrition or repentance, sum up the question of confession: "It is certain that, in the Church, nothing else is required of penitents but that, after each has examined himself diligently, and searched all the folds and recesses of his conscience, he confess those sins by which he shall remember that he has mortally offended his Lord and G.o.d; whilst the other sins, which do not occur to him after diligent thought, are understood to be included, as a whole, in that same confession; for which sins we confidently say with the prophet: 'From my secret sins cleanse me, O Lord.' Now, the difficulty of a confession like this, and the shame of making known one's sins, might indeed seem a grievous thing, were it not alleviated by the so many and so great advantages and consolations which are most a.s.suredly bestowed by absolution upon all who worthily approach to this sacrament. For the rest, as to the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, although Christ has not forbidden that a person may, in punishment of his sins, and for his own humiliation, as well for an example to others for the edification of the Church that has been scandalized, confess his sins publicly, nevertheless, this is not commanded by a divine precept; neither would it be very prudent to enjoin, by any human law, that sins, especially such as are secret, should be made known by a public confession. Wherefore, whereas the secret sacramental confession, which was in use from the beginning in Holy Church, and is still also in use, has always been commended by the most holy Fathers with a great and unanimous consent, the vain calumny of those is manifestly refuted who are not ashamed to teach that confession is alien from the divine command and is a human invention."[55]

FOOTNOTES:

[26] 1 Pet. iii. 18.

[27] 2 Cor. v. 18.

[28] 2 Cor. ii. 10

[29] De Poent. c. viii.

[30] John xx, 21.

[31] Matt. ix, 2.

[32] 1 John i, 9.

[33] Acts xix, 18.

[34] 1 Cor. v, and 2 Cor. ii.

[35] Ap. Con. ii, 16.

[36] De Poent. c. 9.

[37] Ep. ii, ad Cor. n. 8.

[38] Adv. Haeres. l. i. cxiii, n. 4, 5, 6, 7.

[39] De Paenit. n. 8-12.

[40] Hom. in Levit. n. 4.

[41] In Ps. x.x.xvii, n. 6.

[42] Hom. xvii in Lucam.

[43] Divin. Inst. l. iv, c. 30.

[44] Hist. Ecc. Bk. vi, c. 34.

[45] Tract. in Ps. cx.x.xviii.

[46] Ep. iii, n. 7-9.

[47] De Cain et Abel, l. 2, c. 4.

[48] De Paenit. cii, n. 12.

[49] Vol. I, Lib. iii, n. 5, de Sacerd.