 Section 10 of Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3. Penitence, as explained in the Sophistical Dragon of the Schoolmen, widely different from the purity required by the Gospel, of Confession and Satisfaction. The divisions of this chapter are 1. The Orthodox Doctrine of Repentance being already expounded. The False Doctrine is reputed in the present chapter. A General Summary Survey being at the same time taken of the Doctrine of the Schoolmen. Section 1. 2. Its separate parts are afterwards examined. Contrition. Section 2 and 3. Confession. Section 4 to 20. Sumptification from Section 20 to the end of the chapter. Sections. 1. Errors of the Schoolmen in delivering the Doctrine of Repentance. 1. Errors in defining it. 4 different definitions considered. 2. Absurd division. 3. Vain and puzzling questions. 4. Mode in which they entangle themselves. 2. The False Doctrine of the Schoolmen necessary to be refuted. Of Contrition. The view of it examined. 3. True and genuine Contrition. 4. Oricular Confession. Whether or not of Divine Authority. Arguments of Canonists and Schoolmen. Allegorical Argument founded on Judaism. 2. Answers. Reason why Christ sent the lepers to the priests. 5. Another Allegorical Argument. Answer. 6. A third argument from two passages of Scripture. These passages expounded. 7. Confession proved not to be of Divine Authority. The use of it free for almost 1200 years after Christ. Its nature, when enacted into a law. Confirmation from the history of the Church. A representation of the ancient oricular Confessions still existing among the papists to bear judgment against them. Confession abolished in the Church of Constantinople. 8. This mode of Confession is approved by Chrysostom as shown by many passages. 9. False Confession being thus refuted. The Confession enjoined by the Word of God is considered. Mistranslation in the Old Version. Proof from Scripture that Confession should be directed to God alone. 10. Effect of Secret Confession thus made to God. Another kind of Confession made to men. 11. Two Forms of the Later Confession. Namely, Public and Private. Public Confession either ordinary or extraordinary. Use of each. Objection to Confession in Public Prayer. Answer. 12. Private Confession of two kinds. One on our own account. Two on account of our neighbor. Use of the former. Great assistance to be obtained from faithful ministers of the Church. Mode of Procedure. Caution to be used. 13. The use of the latter recommended by Christ. But comprehended under it. Scripture sanctions no other method of Confession. 14. The power of the keys exercised in these three kinds of Confession. The utility of this power in regard to Public Confession and Absolution. Caution to be observed. 15. Popish Errors Respecting Confession. 1. In enjoining on all the necessity of confessing every sin. 2. Victitious Keys. 3. Pretended Mandate to Loose and Bind. 4. To Whom the Office of Loosing and Binding Committed. 16. Refutation of the First Error from the Impassibility of Self-Confessing. As Proved by the Testimony of David. 17. Reputed Father from the Testimony of Conscience. 18. Impassible to Observe This Most Rigid Obligation. Necessarily Leads to Despair or Indifference. Confirmation of the Preceding Remarks by an Appeal to Conscience. 18. Another Reputation of the First Error from Analogy. Some of the Whole Reputation. 3. Reputation Laying Down the Surest Rule of Confession. Explanation of the Rule. Three Objections Answered. 19. Fourth Objection Namely. That Oricular Confession Does No Harm and Is Even Useful. Answer Unfolding the Hypocrisy, Falsehood, Impiety, and Monstrous Abominations of the Patrons of This Error. 20. Refutation of the Second Error. 1. Priests Not Successors of the Apostles. 2. They Have Not the Holy Spirit Who Alone Is Arbiter of the Keys. 21. Refutation of the Third Error. 1. They Are Interant of the Command and Promise of Christ. By Abandoning the Word of God, They Run Into Innumerable Absurdities. 22. Objection to the Refutation of the Third Error. Answers Reducing the Papists to Various Absurdities. 23. Refutation of the Fourth Error. 1. Petitio Principi. 2. Inversion of Ecclesiastical Discipline. Three Objections Answered. 24. Conclusion of the Whole Discussion Against this Victitious Confession. 25. Of Satisfaction to Which the Sophists Assign the Third Place in Repentance. Errors and Falsehoods. These Views Opposed by the Terms. 1. Forgiveness. 2. Free Forgiveness. 3. God-Destroying Iniquities. 4. Buy an Own Account of Christ. No Need of War Satisfaction. 26. Objection Confining the Grace and Efficacy of Christ Within Narrow Limits. Answers by Both John the Evangelist and John the Baptist. Consequence of These Answers. 27. Two Points Violated by the Fiction of Satisfaction. First, The Honor of Christ Impaired. Secondly, The Conscience Cannot Find Peace. Objection Confining the Forgiveness of Seams to Cut the Humans. Refuted. 28. Objection Founded on the Arbitrary Distinction Between Vinyl and Mortal Seams. This Distinction Insulting the God and Repugnant to Scripture. Answer Showing the True Distinction in Regard to Vinyl Seam. 29. Objection Founded on a Distinction Between Guilt and the Punishment of It. Answer Illustrated by Various Passages of Scripture. Admirable Saying of Augustine. 30. Answer Founded on a Consideration of the Efficacy of Christ. Death and the Sacrifices Under the Law are True Satisfaction. 31. An Objection Perverting Six Passages of Scripture. Preliminary Observations Concerning a Twofold Judgment on the Part of God. 1. For Punishment. 2. For Correction. 32. Two Distinctions Hence Arising. Objection That God is Often Angry with His Elect. Answer God in Afflicting His People Does Not Take His Mercy From Them. Tis Confirmed by His Promise, by Scripture, and the Uniform Experience of the Church. Distinction Between the Reprobate and the Elect in Regard to Punishment. 33. Second Distinction. The Punishment of the Reprobate, a Commencement of the Eternal Punishment Awaiting Them. That of the Elect Designed to Bring Them to Repentance. Tis Confirmed by Passages of Scripture and of the Fathers. 34. Two Uses of Disdoctrine to the Believer. In Affliction he can believe that God, though angry, is still favorable to him. In the Punishment of the Reprobate, he sees a Prelude to their Final Doom. 35. Objection As to the Punishment of David. Answered Why All Men Hear Subjected to Chastisement. 36. Objections, Founded on Five Other Passages, Answered. 37. Answer Continued. 38. Objection, Founded on Passages in the Fathers. Answered with Passages from Chrysostom and Augustine. 39. These Satisfactions Had Reference to the Peace of the Church and Not to the Throne of God. The School Men have perverted the meaning of some absurd statements by obscure monks. 1. I come now to an examination of what the Scholastic Sophists teach concerning repentance. This I will do as briefly as possible, for I leave no intention to take up every point lest this work, which I am desirous to frame as a compendium of doctrine, should exceed all bounds. They have managed to envelop a matter, otherwise not much involved, in so many perplexities, that it will be difficult to find an outlet if once you get plunged but a little way into their mire. And first, in giving a definition, they plainly show they never understood what repentance means. For they fasten on some expression in the writings of the Fathers, which are very far from expressing the nature of repentance. For instance, that to repent is to deplore past sins and not commit what is to be deplored. Again, that it is to be well past evils and not to seem to do what is to be beweiled. Again, that it is a kind of grieving revenge, punishing in itself what it grieves to have committed. Again, that it is sorrow of heart and bitterness of soul for the evils which the individual has committed or to which he has consented. Supposing we grant that these things were well said by Fathers, though if one were inclined to dispute it were not difficult to deny it, they were not, however, said with a view of describing repentance, but only of exhorting penitence not again to fall into the same faults from which they had been delivered. But if all descriptions of this kind are to be converted into definitions, there are others which have as good a title to be added. For instance, the following sentence of Chrysostom. Repentance is a medicine for the cure of sin, a gift bestowed from above, an admirable virtue, a grace surpassing the power of loss. Moreover, the doctrine which they afterwards deliver is somewhat worse than their definition. For they are so keenly bent on external exercises that all you can gather from immense volumes is that repentance is a discipline and austerity which serves partly to subdue the flesh, partly to chasten and punish sins. Of internal renovation of mind, bringing with it true amendment of life, there is a strange silence. No doubt they talk much of contrition and attrition, torment the soul with many scruples, and involve it in great trouble and anxiety. But when they seem to have deeply wounded the heart, they cure all its bitterness by a slight sprinkling of ceremonies. Repentance thus shrewdly defined. They divide into contrition of the heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of works. This is not more logical than the definition, though they would be thought to have spent their whole lives in framing syllogisms. But if anyone argues from the definition a mode of argument prevalent with dialecticians, that a man may weep over his past sins and not commit things that cause weeping, may be wail past evils, and not commit things that are to be bewailed may punish what he is grieved for having committed, though he does not confess it with the mouth, how will they defend their division? For if he may be a true penitent and not confess, repentance can exist without confession. If the answer that this division refers to repentance regarded as a sacrament, or is to be understood of repentance in its most perfect form, which they do not comprehend in their definitions, the mistake does not rest with me. Let them blame themselves for not defining more purely and clearly. When any matter is discussed, I certainly am dull enough to refer everything to the definition as the hinge and foundation of the whole discussion. But granting that this is a license which masters have, let us now survey the different parts in their order. In omitting as frivolous several things which they vend with solemn brow as mysteries, I do it not from ignorance. It were not very difficult to dispose of all those points which they plume themselves under acuteness and subtlety in discussing. But I consider it a sacred duty not to travel there either to no purpose with such absurdities. It is certainly easy to see from the questions which they move and agitate and in which they miserably entangle themselves that they are pilling of things they know not. Of this nature are the following, whether repentance of one sin is pleasing to God while there is an obstinate adherence to other sins, again whether punishments divinely indicted are available for satisfaction, again whether repentance can be several times repeated for mortal sins whereas they grossly and wickedly define that daily repentance has to do with none but venial sins. In like manner with gross error, they greatly torment themselves with the saying of Jerome that repentance is a second plank after shipwreck. Herein, they show that they have never awoke from brutish stupor so as to obtain a decent view of the thousandth part of their sins. 2. I would have my readers to observe that the dispute here relates not to a matter of no consequence but to one of the most important of all, that is, the forgiveness of sins. For while they require three things in repentance, namely compunction of heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of work, they at the same time teach that these are necessary to obtain the pardon of sins. If there is anything in the whole compass of religion which it is of importance to us to know, this certainly is one of the most important, that is, to perceive and rightly hold by what means, what rule, what terms, with what facility or difficulty forgiveness of sins may be obtained. Unless our knowledge here is clear and certain, our conscience can have no rest at all, no peace with God, no confidence or security, but is continually trembling, fluctuating, boiling and distracted, dreads, hates, and shunts the presence of God. But if forgiveness of sins depends on the conditions to which they bind it, nothing can be more wretched and deplorable than our situation. Contrition they represent as the first step in obtaining pardon and they exact it as do, that is, full and complete. Meanwhile, they decide not when one may feel secure of having performed this contrition in due measure. I admit that we are bound strongly and incessantly to urge every man bitterly to lament his sins, and thereby stimulate himself more and more to dislike and hate them. For this is the repentance to salvation not to be repented Second Corinthians chapter 7 verse 10 But when such bitterness of sorrow is demanded as may correspond to the magnitude of the offense, and be weighed in the balance with confidence of pardon, miserable consciences are sadly perplexed and tormented when they see that the contrition due for sin is laid upon them, and yet that they have no measure of what is due, so as to enable them to determine that they have made full payment. If they say, we are to do what in us lies, we are always brought back to the same point, for when will any man venture to promise himself that he has done his utmost in bewailing sin? Therefore, when consciences, after a lengthened struggle and long contests with themselves, find no heaven in which they may rest as a means of alleviating their condition in some degree, they extort sorrow and wring out tears in order to perfect their contrition. Three, if they say that this is columnary on my part, let them come forward and point out a single individual who, by this doctrine of contrition, has not either been driven to despair or has not, instead of true, opposed pretended fear to the justice of God. We have elsewhere observed that forgiveness of sins never can be obtained without repentance, because non-bate afflicted and those wounded by a consciousness of sins can sincerely implore the mercy of God, but we, at the same time, added that repentance cannot be the cause of the forgiveness of sins, and we also did away with the torment of souls, the dogma that it must be performed as do. Our doctrine was that the soul looked not to its own compunction or its own tears, but fixed both eyes on the mercy of God alone. Only we observed that those who labor and are heavily leden are called by Christ, seeing he was sent to preach good tidings to the meek, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound, to comfort all that mourn. Hence the Pharisees were excluded, because full of their own righteousness they acknowledged not their own poverty, and the Spicers, because regardless of the divine anger, they sought no remedy for their wickedness. Such persons neither labor nor are heavily leden, are not brokenhearted, bound nor imprisoned. But there is a great difference between teaching that forgiveness of sins is merited by a full and complete contrition, which the sinner never can give, and instructing him to hunger and thirst after the mercy of God, that recognizing his wretchedness, his turmoil, weariness, and captivity, you may show him where he should seek refreshment, rest, and liberty. In fine, teach him in his humility to give glory to God. 4. Confession has ever been a subject of keen contest between the canonists and the scholastic theologians, the former contending that confession is of divine authority, the latter insisting on the contrary, that it is merely enjoined by ecclesiastical constitution. In this contest, great effrontery has been displayed by the theologians, who have corrupted and violently rested every passage of scripture they have quoted in their favor. And when they saw that even thus they could not gain their object, those who wished to be thought particularly acute had recourse to the evasion that confession is of divine authority in regard to the substance, but that it afterwards received its form from positive enactment. Thus, the silliest of these squibblers refer the citation to divine authority from its being said, Adam, where art thou? Genesis chapter 3, verses 9 and 12. And also the exception from Adam, having replied as if accepting, the women whom thou gaveest to be with me, but say that the form of both was appointed by civil law. Let us see by what arguments they prove that this confession, formed or unformed, is a divine commandment. The Lord, they say, sent the lepers to the priests. Matthew, chapter 8, verse 4. What, did he send them to confession? Who ever heard tell that the levitical priests were appointed to hear confession? Here, they resort to allegory. The priests were appointed by the mosaic law to discern between leper and leper, seen is spiritual leprosy. Therefore it belongs to the priests to decide upon it. Before I answer, I would ask in passing, why, if this passage makes them judges of spiritual leprosy, they claim the cognizance of natural and carnal leprosy. This, forsooth, is not to play upon Scripture. The law gives the cognizance of leprosy to the levitical priests. Let us usurp this to ourselves. Seem is spiritual leprosy. Let us also have cognizance of sin. I now give my answer. There being a change of the priesthood, there must of necessity be a change of the law. All the sacerdotal functions were transferred to Christ, and in him fulfilled and ended. Hebrews, chapter 7, verse 12. To him alone, therefore, all the rites and honors of the priesthood have been transferred. If they are so fond then of hunting out allegories, let them set Christ before them as the only priest, and place full and universal jurisdiction on his tribunal. This we will readily admit. Besides, there is an incongruity in their allegory. It classes a merely civil enactment among ceremonies. Why then does Christ send the lepers to the priests, lest the priests should be charged with violating the law, which ordained that the person cured of leprosy should present himself before the priest, and be purified by the offering of a sacrifice? He orders the lepers who had been cleansed to do what the law required. Go and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded for a testimony unto them. Luke, chapter 5, verse 17. And assuredly, this miracle would be a testimony to them. They had pronounced them lepers. They now pronounce them cured. Whether they would or not, they are forced to become witnesses to the miracles of Christ. Christ allows them to examine the miracle, and they cannot deny it. Yet, as they still quibble, they have need of a testimony. So it is elsewhere said, this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations. Matthew, chapter 24, verse 14. Again, ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. Matthew, chapter 10, verse 18. That is, in order that, in the judgment of gods, they might be more fully convicted. But if they prefer taking the view of Chrysostom, he shows that this was done by Christ for the sake of the Jews also, that he might not be regarded as a violator of the law. But we are ashamed to appeal to the authority of any man in a matter so clear. When Christ declares that he left the legal right of the priests entire as professed enemies of the gospel, who were always intent on making a clamor if their mouths were not stopped. Therefore, let the popish priests, in order to retain this privilege, openly make common cause with those whom it was necessary to restrain by forcible means from speaking evil of Christ, for there is here no reference to his true ministers. Five. They draw their second argument from the same fountain. I mean allegory, as if allegories were of much avail in confirming any doctrine. But, indeed, let them avail if those which I am able to produce are not more specious than theirs. They say, then, that the Lord, after raising Lazarus, commanded his disciples to lose him and let him go. John, chapter 11, verse 44. Their first statement is untrue. We know a read that the Lord said this to the disciples, and it is much more probable that he spoke to the Jews who were standing by, that from there being no suspicion of fraud the miracle might be more manifest, and his power might be the more conspicuous from his racing the dead without touching him by a mere word. In the same way I understand that our Lord, to leave no ground of suspicion to the Jews, wished them to roll back the stone, fill the stench, perceive the sure signs of death, see him rise by the mere power of a word, and first handle him when alive. And this is the view of Chrysostom. But, granting that it was said to the disciples, what can they gain by it? That the Lord gave the apostles the power of losing? How much more aptly and dexterously might we allegorize and say, that by this symbol the Lord designed to teach his followers to lose those whom he raises up? That is, not to bring to remembrance the sins which he himself had forgotten, not to condemn a sinner's those whom he had acquitted, not still to upgrade those whom he had pardoned, not to be stern and severe in punishing, while he himself was merciful and ready to forgive. Certainly, nothing should more incline us to pardon than the example of the judge who threatens that he will be inexorable to the rigid and inhumane. Let them go now and vend their allegories. 6. They now come to close their quarters while they support their view by passages of Scripture, which they think clearly in their favor. Those who came to John's baptism confessed their sins, and James bids us confess our sins one to another. It is not strange that those who wished to be baptized confessed their sins. It has already been mentioned that John preached the baptism of repentance, baptized with water unto repentance, whom then could he baptize but those who confessed that they were sinners. Baptism is a symbol of the forgiveness of sins, and who could be admitted to receive the symbol, but sinners acknowledging themselves as such. They therefore confessed their sins that they might be baptized, nor without good reason does James enjoin us to confess our sins one to another. But if they would attend to what immediately follows, they would perceive that this gives them little support. The words are confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another. He joins together mutual confession and mutual prayer. If then we are to confess to priests only, we are also to pray for them only. What? It would even follow from the words of James that priests alone can confess. In saying that we are to confess mutually, he must be addressing those only who can hear the confession of others. He says, alleluys, mutually, by turns, or if they prefer it, reciprocally. But those only can confess reciprocally who are fit to hear confession. This being a privilege which they bestow upon priests only, we also leave them the office of confessing to each other. Have done then with such frivolous absurdities, and let us receive the true meaning of the apostle, which is plain and simple. First, that we are to deposit our infirmities in the breasts of each other, with the view of receiving mutual counsel, sympathy, and comfort. And secondly, that mutually conscious of the infirmities of our brethren, we are to pray to the Lord for them. Why then quote James against us who so earnestly insist on acknowledgment of the divine mercy? No man can acknowledge the mercy of God without previously confessing his own misery. Nay, we pronounce every man to be anathema who does not confess himself a sinner before God, before his angels, before the church, in short, before all men. The scripture has concluded all under sin, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. That God alone may be justified and exalted. Galatians chapter 3 verse 22, and Romans chapter 3 verses 9 and 19. 7. I wander at their effrontery, Inventuring to maintain that the confession of which they speak is of divine authority. We admit that the use of it is very ancient, but we can easily prove that at one time it was free. It certainly appears, from their own records, that no law or constitution respecting it was enacted before the days of innocent III. Surely if there had been a more ancient law, they would have fastened on it, instead of being satisfied with the decree of the council of lateral, and so making themselves ridiculous even to children. In other matters, they hasten not to coin fictitious decrees, which they ascribe to the most ancient councils, that they may blind the eyes of the simple by veneration for antiquity. In this instance, it has not occurred to them to practice this deception, and hence, themselves being witnesses, three centuries have not yet elapsed since the bridle was put, and the necessity of confession imposed by innocent III. And to say nothing of the time, the mere barbarism of the terms used destroys the authority of the law. For when these worthy fathers enjoined that every person of both sexes, must once a year confess his sins to his own priest, men of wit humorously object that the precept binds hermaphrodites only, and has no application to anyone who is either a male or a female. A still-grocer absurdity has been displayed by their disciples, who are unable to explain what is meant by one's own priest, proper used to Seltos, that all the hard ravers of the Pope Babel as they may, we hold that Christ is not the author of this law, which compels men to enumerate their sins. Nay, that twelve hundred years elapsed after the resurrection of Christ before any such law was made, and that consequently, this tyranny was not introduced until piety and doctrine were extinct, and pretended pastors had usurped to themselves unbridled license. There is clear evidence in historians and other ancient writers to show that this was a politic discipline introduced by bishops, not a law enacted by Christ or the apostles. Out of many, I will produce only one passage, which will be no obscure proof. Sosomen relates that this constitution of the bishops was carefully observed in the western churches, but especially at Rome, thus intimating that it was not the universal custom of all churches. He also says that one of the presbyters was specially appointed to take charge of this duty. This abundantly confutes their falsehoods as to the keys being given to the whole priesthood indiscriminately for this purpose, since the function was not common to all the priests, but especially belonged to the one priest whom the bishop had appointed to it. He it was the same who at present in each of the cathedral churches has the name of penitentiary, who had cognizance of offenses which were more heinous, and required to be rebuked for the sake of example. He afterwards adds that the same custom existed at Constantinople until a certain matron, while pretending to confess, was discovered to have used it as a cloak to cover her intercourse with a deacon. In consequence of that crime, Nectarius, the bishop of that church, a man famous for learning and sanctity, abolished the custom of confessing. Here then, let these asses prick up their ears. If oricular confession was a divine law, how could Nectarius have dared to abolish or remodel it? Nectarius, a holy man of God, approved by the suffrage of all antiquity, who they charged with heresy and season. With the same vote, they will condemn the church of Constantinople, in which sozamen affirms that the custom of confessing was not only disguised for a time, but even in his own memory, abolished. Nay, let them charge with the factions not only Constantinople, but all the eastern churches, which, if they say true, disregarded an inviolable law enjoined on all Christians. Institutes of the Christian Religion This abrogation is clearly attested in so many passages by Chrysostom, who lived at Constantinople, and was himself prelate of the church, that it is strange they conventure to maintain the contrary. Tell your sins, says he, that you may efface them. If you blush to tell another what sins you have committed, tell them daily in your soul. I say not, tell them to your fellow servant who may upbrade you, but tell them to God who cures them. Confess your sins upon your bed, that your conscience may there daily recognise its iniquities. Again, now, however, it is not necessary to confess before witnesses. Let the examination of your faults be made in your own thought. Let the judgment be without a witness. Let God alone see you confessing. Again, I do not lead you publicly into the view of your fellow servants. I do not force you to disclose your sins to men. Review and lay open your conscience before God. Show your wounds to the Lord, the best of physicians, and seek medicine from him. Show to him who upbrades not, but cures most kindly. Again, certainly tell it not to man, lest he upbrade you. Nor must you confess to your fellow servant who may make it public. But show your wounds to the Lord, who takes care of you, who is kind and can cure. He afterwards introduces God speaking thus. I oblige you not to come into the midst of a theatre, and have many witnesses. Tell your sins to me alone in private, that I may cure the ulcer. Shall we say that Chrysostom, in writing these and similar passages, carried his presumptions so far as to free the consciences of men from those chains with which they are bound by the divine law? By no means. But knowing that it was not at all prescribed by the word of God, he dares not exact it as necessary. Nine. But that the whole matter may be more plainly unfolded. We shall first honestly state the nature of confession as delivered in the word of God, and thereafter subjoin their inventions. Not all of them indeed who could drink up that boundless sea, but those only which contain summary of their secret confession. Here I am grieved to mention how frequently the old interpreter has rendered the word confess instead of praise. A fact notorious to the most illiterate were it not fitting to expose their effrontery in transferring to their tyrannical edict what was written concerning the praises of God. To prove that confession has the effect of exhilarating the mind, they obtrude the passage in the psalm, with the voice of joy and praise. Psalm 42 verse 4. But if such a metamorphosis is valid, anything may be made out of anything. But as they have lost all shame, let pious readers reflect how, by the just vengeance of God, they have been given over to a reprobate mind, that their audacity may be the more detestable. If we are disposed to acquiesce in the simple doctrine of Scripture, there will be no danger of our being misled by such glosses. There one method of confessing is prescribed, since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets and wipes away sins. To him let us confess them, that we may obtain pardon. He is the physician, therefore let us show our wounds to him. He is hurt and defended, let us ask peace of him. He is the discerner of the heart and knows all one thoughts. Let us hasten to pour out our hearts before him. He it is, in fine, who invites sinners. Let us delay not to draw near to him. I acknowledge my sin unto thee, says David, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Psalm 32 verse 5. Another specimen of David's confessions is as follows. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness. Psalm 51 verse 1. The following is Daniel's confession. We have sinned and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and thy judgments. Daniel chapter 9 verse 5. Other examples everywhere occur in Scripture. The quotation of them would almost fill a volume. If we confess our sins, says John, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. 1 John chapter 1 verse 9. To whom are we to confess? To him, surely, that is, we are to fall down before him with a grieved and humbled heart, and sincerely accusing and condemning ourselves, seek forgiveness of his goodness and mercy. 10. He who has adopted this confession from the heart, and as in the presence of God, will doubtless have a tongue ready to confess whenever there is occasion among men to publish the mercy of God. He will not be satisfied to whisper the secret of his heart for once into the ear of one individual, but it will often and openly, and in the hearing of the whole world, ingenuously make mention both of his own ignominy and of the greatness and glory of the Lord. In this way David, after he was accused by Nathan, being stung in his conscience, confesses his sin before God and men. I have sinned unto the Lord, says he. 2 Samuel chapter 12 verse 13. That is, I have now no excuse, no evasion. All must judge me a sinner, and that which I wished to be secret with the Lord must also be made manifest to men. Hence the secret confession which is made to God is followed by voluntary confession to men, whenever that is conducive to the divine glory or our humiliation. For this reason the Lord anciently enjoined the people of Israel that they should repeat the words after the priest, and make public confession of their iniquities in the temple, because he foresaw that this was a necessary help to enable each one to form a just idea of himself. And it is proper that by confession of our misery we should manifest the mercy of our God both among ourselves and before the whole world. 11. It is proper that this mode of confession should both be ordinary in the church and also be specially employed on extraordinary occasions, when the people in common happen to have fallen into any fault. Of this latter description we have an example in the solemn confession which the whole people made under the authority and guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah, Nehemiah chapter 1 verses 6 and 7. For their long captivity, the destruction of the temple and suppression of their religion, having been the common punishment of their defection, they could not make meat acknowledgement of the blessing of deliverance without previous confession of their guilt. And it matters not though in one assembly it may sometimes happen that a few are innocent, seeing that the members of a languid and sickly body cannot boast of soundness. 8. Nay it is scarcely possible that these few have not contracted some taint and so bear part of the blame. Therefore as often as we are afflicted with pestilence or war or famine or any other calamity whatsoever, if it is our duty to retake ourselves to mourning fasting and other signs of guiltiness, confession also on which all the others depend is not to be neglected. 9. That ordinary confession which the Lord has more over expressly commended, no sober man who was reflected on its usefulness will venture to disapprove. Seeing that in every sacred assembly we stand in the view of God and angels, in what way should our service begin but in acknowledging our own unworthiness? But this you will say is done in every prayer, for as often as we pray for pardon we confess our sins. I admit it. But if you consider how great is our carelessness or drowsiness or sloth you will grant me that it would be a salutary ordinance if the Christian people were exercised in humiliation by some formal method of confession. For though the ceremony which the Lord enjoined on the Israelites belonged to the tutelage of the law, yet the thing itself belongs in some respect to us also. And indeed in all well-ordered churches, in observance of a useful custom, the minister, each Lord's day, frames a formula of confession in his own name and that of the people, in which he makes a common confession of iniquity and supplicates pardon from the Lord. In short, by this key a door of prayer is opened privately for each and publicly for all. 12. Two other forms of private confession are approved by Scripture. The one is made on our own account, and to it references made in the passage in James. Confess your sins one to another. James chapter 5 verse 16. For the meaning is that by disclosing our infirmities to each other, we are to obtain the aid of mutual counsel and consolation. The other is to be made for the sake of our neighbour to appease and reconcile him if by our fault he has been in any respect injured. In the former, although James, by not specifying any particular individual into whose bosom we are to disburden our feelings, leaves us the free choice of confessing to any member of the church who may seem fittest. Yet, as for the most part, pastors are to be supposed better qualified than others, our choice ought chiefly to fall upon them. And the ground of preference is that the Lord, by calling them to the ministry, points them out as the persons by whose lips we are to be taught to subdue and correct our sins, and derive consolation from the hope of pardon. For as the duty of mutual admonition and correction is committed to all Christians, but especially enjoined on ministers, so while we ought all to console each other mutually and confirm each other in confidence in the divine mercy, we see that ministers, to assure our consciences of the forgiveness of sins, are appointed to be the witnesses and sponsors of it, so that they are themselves said to forgive sins and lose souls. Matthew chapter 16 verse 19, chapter 18 verse 18. When you hear this attributed to them, reflect that it is for your use. Let every believer therefore remember that if in private he is so agonised and afflicted by a sense of his sins that he cannot obtain relief without the aid of others, it is his duty not to neglect the remedy which God provides for him, namely to have recourse for relief to a private confession to his own pastor, and for consolation privately implore the assistance of him whose business it is, both in public and private, to solace the people of God with gospel doctrine. But we are always to use moderation, lest in a matter as to which God prescribes no certain rule, our consciences be burdened with a certain yoke. Hence it follows first that confession of this nature ought to be free, so as not to be exacted of all, but only recommended to those who feel that they have need of it. And secondly, even those who use it according to their necessity must neither be compelled by any precept nor artfully induced to enumerate all their sins, but only insofar as they shall deem it for their interest, that they may obtain the full benefit of consolation. Faithful pastors, as they would both eschew tyranny in their ministry and superstition in the people, must not only leave this liberty to churches, but defend and strenuously vindicate it. 13. Of the second form of confession our Saviour speaks in Matthew. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember that thy brother has ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Matthew chapter 5 verses 23 and 24. Thus love, which has been interrupted by our fault, must be restored by acknowledging and asking pardon for the fault. Under this head is included the confession of those who by their sin have given offence to the whole church. For if Christ attaches so much importance to the offence of one individual, that he forbids the sacrifice of all who have sinned in any respect against their brethren, until by due satisfaction they have regained their favour. How much greater reason is there that he, who by some evil example has offended the church, should be reconciled to it by the acknowledgement of his fault. Thus the member of the Church of Corinth was restored to communion after he had humbly submitted to correction. 2 Corinthians chapter 2 and verse 6. This form of confession existed in the ancient Christian church as Cyprian relates. They practice repentance says he, for a proper time, then they come to confession, and by the laying on of the hands of the bishop and clergy are admitted to communion. Scripture knows nothing of any other form or method of confessing, and it belongs not to us to bind new chains upon consciences which Christ most strictly prohibits from being brought into bondage. Meanwhile, that the flock present themselves before the pastor whenever they would partake of the holy supper, I am so far from disapproving that I most desire as it should be everywhere observed. For both those whose conscience is hindered may then obtain singular benefit, and those who require admonition thus afford an opportunity for it, provided always no countenance is given to tyranny and superstition. 14. The power of the keys has place in the three following modes of confession. Either when the whole church, in a formal acknowledgement of its defects, supplicates pardon, or when a private individual who is given public offence by some notable delinquency testifies his repentance, or when he who from disquiet of conscience needs the aid of his minister acquaints him with his infirmity. With regard to the reparation of offence, the case is different. For though in this also provision is made for peace of conscience, yet the principal object is to suppress hatred, and reunite brethren in the bond of peace. But the benefit of which I have spoken is by no means to be despised that we may the more willingly confess our sins. For when the whole church stands as it were at the bar of God, confesses her guilt and finds her only refuge in the divine mercy, it is no common or light solace to have an ambassador of Christ present, invested with the mandate of reconciliations by whom she may hear her absolution pronounced. Here the utility of the keys is justly commended when that embassy is duly discharged with becoming order and reverence. In like manner, when he who has as it were become an alien from the church receives pardon, and is thus restored to brotherly unity, how great is the benefit of understanding that he is pardoned by those to whom Christ said, whosoever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them. John chapter 20 and verse 23. Nor is private absolution of less benefit or efficacy when asked by those who stand in need of a special remedy for their infirmity. It not seldom happens that he who hears general promises which are intended for the whole congregation of the faithful, nevertheless remains somewhat in doubts, and is still disquieted in mind as if his own remission were not yet obtained. Should this individual lay open the secret wound of his soul to his pastor, and hear these words of the gospel specially addressed to him, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee. Matthew chapter 9 verse 2. His mind will feel secure, and escape from the trepidation with which it was previously agitated. But when we treat of the keys, us must always beware of dreaming of any power apart from the preaching of the gospel. This subject will be more fully explained when we come to treat of the government of the church. Book 4 chapters 11 and 12. There we shall see that whatever privilege of binding and loosing Christ has bestowed on his church is annexed to the Word. This is especially true with regard to the ministry of the keys, the whole power of which consists in this, that the grace of the gospel is publicly and privately sealed on the minds of believers, by means of those whom the Lord has appointed. And the only method in which this can be done is by preaching. 15. What say the Roman theologians? That all persons of both sexes, so soon as they shall have reached the years of discretion, must once a year at least confess all their sins to their own priest. That the sin is not discharged unless the resolution to confess has been firmly conceived. That if this resolution is not carried into effect when an opportunity offers, there is no entrance into paradise. That the priest moreover has the power of the keys, by which he can loosen bind the sinner. Because the declaration of Christ is not in vain. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Matthew chapter 18 verse 18. Concerning this power, however, they wage a fierce war among themselves. Some say there is only one key essentially, namely the power of binding and loosing. That knowledge indeed is requisite for the proper use of it, but only as an accessory, not as essentially inherent in it. Others seeing that this gave to unrestrained license have imagined two keys, namely discernment and power. Others again, seeing that the license of priests was curbed by such restraint, have forged other keys, the authority of discerning to be used in defining, and the power to carry their sentences into execution. And to these they add knowledge as a counsellor. This binding and loosing, however, they do not venture to interpret simply to forgive and wipe away sins. Because they hear the Lord proclaiming by the prophet, I, even I am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour. I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions. Isaiah chapter 43 verses 11 and 25. But they say it belongs to the priest to declare who are bound or loosed, and whose sins are remitted or retained. To declare moreover either by confession when he absolves and retains sins, or by sentence when he excommunicates or admits to communion in the sacraments. Lastly, perceiving that the knot is not yet untied, because it may always be objected that persons are often undeservedly bound and loosed, and therefore not bound or loosed in heaven. As their ultimate resource, they answer, that the conferring of the keys must be taken with limitations, because Christ has promised that the sentence of the priest, properly pronounced, will be approved at his judgment seat, according as the bound or loosed asked what they merited. They say moreover that those keys which are conferred by bishops at ordination were given by Christ to all priests, but that the free use of them is with those only who discharge ecclesiastical functions, that with priests excommunicated or suspended the keys themselves indeed remain, but tied and rusty. Those who speak thus may justly be deemed modest and sober compared with others, who on a new anvil have forged new keys, by which they say that the treasury of heaven is locked up. These we shall afterwards consider in their own place. Chapter 5, Section 2. 16. To each of these views I will briefly reply. As to their binding the souls of believers by their laws, whether justly or unjustly, I say nothing at present, as it will be seen at the proper place. But they are enacting it as a law that all sins are to be enumerated. They are denying that sin is discharged except under the condition that the resolution to confess has been firmly conceived. Their pretense that there is no admission into paradise if the opportunity of confession has been neglected are things which it is impossible to bear. Are all sins to be enumerated? But David, who I presume had honestly pondered with himself as to the confession of his sins, exclaimed, Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Psalm 19 verse 12. And in another passage, My iniquities have gone over my head. As a heavy burden they are too heavy for me. Psalm 38 verse 4. He knew how deep was the abyss of our sins, how numerous the forms of wickedness, how many heads the hydro carried, how long a tale it drew. Therefore he did not sit down to make a catalogue, but from the depths of his distress cried unto the Lord, I am overwhelmed and buried and sore vexed. The gates of hell have encircled me. Let thy right hand deliver me from the abyss into which I am plunged and from the death which I am ready to die. Who can now think of a computation of his sins when he sees David's inability to number his? 17. By this ruinous procedure, the souls of those who were affected with some sense of God have been most cruelly wracked. First they retook themselves to calculation, proceeding according to the formula given by the schoolmen, and dividing their sins into bows, branches, twigs, and leaves. Then they weighed the qualities, quantities and circumstances, and in this way for some time matters proceeded. But after they had advanced farther when they looked around, naught was seen but sea and sky, no road, no harbour. The longer the space they ran over, the longer still met the eye. Nay lofty mountains began to rise and there seemed no hope of escape, none at least till after long wanderings. They were thus brought to a dead halt, till at length the only issue was found in despair. Here these cruel murderers to ease the wounds which they had made applied certain fermentations. Everyone was to do his best. But new cares again disturbed, nay, new torments excruciated their souls. I have not spent enough of time. I have not exerted myself sufficiently. Many things I have omitted through negligence. Forgetfulness, proceeding from want of care, is not excusable. Then new drugs were supplied to alleviate their pains. Repent of your negligence, and provided it is not done supinely, it will be pardoned. All these things, however, could not heal the wound, being not so much alleviations of the sore as poison besmeared with honey, that its bitterness might not at once offend the taste but penetrate to the vitals before it could be detected. The dreadful voice, therefore, was always heard peeling in their ears, confess all your sins, and the dread thus occasioned could not be pacified without sure consolation. Here let my readers consider whether it be possible to take an account of the actions of a whole year, or even to collect the sins committed in a single day. Seeing every man's experience convinces him that at evening, in examining the faults of that single day, memory gets confused, so great is the number and variety presented. I am not speaking of dull and heartless hypocrites, who, after animadverting on three or four of their grosser offenses, think the work finished. But of the true worshipers of God, who, after they have performed their examination, feeling themselves overwhelmed, still add the words of John, if our heart condemns God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things. 1 John 3 verse 20, and therefore tremble at the thought of that judge whose knowledge far surpasses our comprehension. 18. Though a good part of the world rested in these soothing suggestions, by which this fatal poison was somewhat tempered, it was not because they thought that God was satisfied, or they had quite satisfied themselves. It was rather like an anchor cast out in the middle of the deep, which for a little interrupts the navigation, or a weary worn out traveller who lies down by the way. I give myself no trouble in proving the truth of this fact, everyone can be his own witness. I will mention generally what the nature of this law is. First, the observance of it is simply impossible, and hence its only results to destroy, condemn, confound, to plunge into ruin and despair. Secondly, by withdrawing sinners from a true sense of their sins, it makes them hypocritical and ignorant both of God and themselves. For while they are wholly occupied with the enumeration of their sins, they lose sight of that lurking hydra, their secret iniquities, and internal defilements, the knowledge of which would have made them sensible of their misery. But the surest rule of confession is to acknowledge and confess our sins to be an abyss so great as to exceed our comprehension. On this rule we see the confession of the publican was formed, God be merciful to me a sinner, Luke chapter 18 verse 13. As if he had said, how great, how very great a sinner, how utterly sinful I am, the extent of my sins I can neither conceive nor express. Let the depth of thy mercy engulf the depth of sin. What you will say, are we not to confess every single sin? Is no confession acceptable to God, but that which is contained in the words I am a sinner? Nay, our endeavour must rather be as much as in his lies, to pour out our whole heart before the Lord. Nor are we only in one word to confess ourselves sinners, but truly and sincerely acknowledge ourselves as such. To feel with our whole soul how great and various the pollutions of our sin are. Confessing not only that we are impure, but what the nature of our impurity is, its magnitude and its extent. Not only that we are debtors, but what the debts are which burden us, and how they were incurred. Not only that we are wounded, but how numerous and deadly are the wounds. When thus recognising himself, the sinner shall have poured out his whole heart before God. Let him seriously and sincerely reflect, that a greater number of sins still remains, and that their recesses are too deep for him thoroughly to penetrate. Accordingly, let him exclaim with David, who can understand his errors, cleanse thou me from secret faults. Psalm 19 verse 12. But when the schoolmen affirm that sins are not forgiven, unless the resolution to confess has been firmly conceived, and that the gate of paradise is closed on him who has neglected the opportunity of confessing when offered, far be it from us to concede this to them. The remission of sins is not different now from what it has ever been. In all the passages in which we read that sinners obtained forgiveness from God, we read not that they whispered into the ear of some priest. Indeed, they could not then confess, as priests were not then confessionaries, nor did the confessional itself exist. And for many ages afterwards this mode of confession by which sins were forgiven on this condition was unheard of. But not to enter into a long discussion as if the matter were doubtful, the word of God which abideth forever is plain. When the wicked shall turn away from all his sins that he has committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Ezekiel chapter 18 verse 21. He who presumes to add to this declaration binds not sins, but the mercy of God. When they contend that judgment cannot be given unless the case is known, the answer is easy, that they usurp the right of judging, being only self-created judges. And it is strange how confidently they lay down principles which no man of sound mind will admit. They give out that the office of binding and loosing has been committed to them as a kind of jurisdiction, annexed to the right of inquiry. That the jurisdiction was unknown to the apostles, their whole doctrine proclaims. Nor does it belong to the priest to know for certainty whether or not a sinner is loosed, but to him from whom acquittal is asked, since he who only hears can ever know whether or not the enumeration is full and complete. Thus there would be no absolution without restricting it to the words of him who is to be judged. We may add that the whole system of loosing depends on faith and repentance, two things which no man can know of another, so as to pronounce sentence. It follows therefore that the certainty of binding and loosing is not subjected to the will of an earthly judge, because the minister of the word, when he duly executes his office, can only acquit conditionally. When for the sake of the sinner he repeats the words, whosoever sins ye remit, lest he should doubt of the pardon which by the command and voice of God is promised to be ratified in heaven. 19. It is not strange therefore that we condemn that auricular confession as a thing pestilent in its nature and in many ways injurious to the church and desire to see it abolished. But if the thing were in itself indifferent yet seeing it is of no use or benefit and has given occasion to so much impiety, blasphemy and error, who does not think that it ought to be immediately abolished? They enumerate some of its uses and boast of them as very beneficial, but they are either fictitious or of no importance. One thing they specially commend at the blush of shame in the penitent is a severe punishment which makes him more cautious for the future and anticipates divine punishment by his punishing himself. As if a man was not sufficiently humbled with shame when brought under the cognisance of God at his supreme tribunal. Admirable proficiency, if we cease to sin because we are ashamed to make one man acquainted with it and blush not at having God as the witness of our evil conscience. The assertion however as to the effect of shame is most unfounded for we may everywhere see that there is nothing which gives men greater confidence and license in sinning than the idea that after making confession to priests they can wipe their lip and say I have not done it. And not only do they during the whole year become bolder in sin but secure against confession for the remainder of it. They never sigh after God, never examine themselves but continue heaping sins upon sins until as they suppose they get rid of them all at once. And when they have got rid of them they think they are disburdened of their load and imagine they have deprived God of the right of judging by giving it to the priest, have made God forgetful by making the priest conscious. Moreover who is glad when he sees the day of confession approaching. Who goes with a cheerful mind to confess and does not rather as if he were dragged to prison with a rope about his neck go unwillingly and as it were struggling against it with the exception perhaps of the priests themselves who take a fond delight in the mutual narrative of their own misdeeds as a kind of merry tales. I will not pollute my page by retailing the monstrous abominations with which auricular confession teams. I only say that if that holy man, Nectarius, did not act unadvisedly when for one rumour of Hordom he banished confession from his church or rather from the memory of his people the innumerable acts of prostitution, adultery and incest which it produces in the present day warners of the necessity of abolishing it. 20. Asked the pretense of the confessionaries respecting the power of the keys and their placing in it so to speak the sum and substance of their kingdom we must see what force it ought to have. Were the keys then they ask given without a cause? Was it said without a cause whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven? Matthew chapter 18 verse 18. Do we make void the word of Christ? I answer that there was a weighty reason for giving the keys as I lately explained and will again show at greater length when I come to treat of excommunication. Book 4 chapter 12. But what if I should cut off the handle for all such questions with one sword namely that priests are neither vicars nor successors of the apostles but that also will be elsewhere considered. Book 4 chapter 6. Now at the very place where they are most desirous to fortify themselves they erect a battering ram by which all their own machinations are overthrown. Christ did not give his apostles the power of binding and loosing before he endued them with the Holy Spirit. I deny therefore that any man who has not previously received the Holy Spirit is competent to possess the power of the keys. I deny that anyone can use the keys unless the Holy Spirit proceed teaching and dictating what is to be done. They pretend indeed that they have the Holy Spirit but by their works deny him unless indeed we are to suppose that the Holy Spirit is some vain thing of no value as they certainly do feign but we will not believe them. With this engine they are completely overthrown. Whatever be the door of which they boast of having the key we must always ask whether they have the Holy Spirit who is arbiter and ruler of the keys. If they reply that they have we must again ask whether the Holy Spirit can air. This they will not venture to say distinctly although by their doctrine they indirectly insinuate it therefore we must infer that no priestlings have the power of the keys because they everywhere and indiscriminately loose what the Lord was pleased should be bound and bind what he has ordered to be loosed. End of Section 11. Section 12 of Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Nicola K. Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 by John Calvin. Translated by Henry Beverage. Chapter 4 Part 3. 21. When they see themselves convicted on the clearest evidence of loosing and binding worthy and unworthy without distinction they lay claim to power without knowledge. And although they dare not deny that knowledge is requisite for the proper use they still affirm that the power itself has been given to bad administrators. This however is the power. Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Either the promise of Christ must be false or those who are endued with this power bind and loose properly. There is no room for the evasion that the words of Christ are limited according to the merits of him who is loosed or bound. We admit that none can be bound or loosed but those who are worthy of being bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel and the church have the word by which they can measure this worthiness. By this word preachers of the gospel can promise forgiveness of sins to all who are in Christ by faith and can declare a sentence of condemnation against all and upon all who do not embrace Christ. In this word the church declares that neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor adulterers, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6 verses 9 and 10. Such it binds in sure fetters by the same word it looses and consoles the penitent. But what kind of power is it which knows not what is to be bound or loosed? You cannot bind or loose without knowledge. Why then do they say that they absolve by authority given to them when absolution is uncertain? As regards us, this power is merely imaginary if it cannot be used. Now I hold either that there is no use or one so uncertain as to be virtual when it is not used. For when they confess that a good part of the priests do not use the keys duly and that power without the legitimate use is ineffectual, who is to assure me that the one by whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he is a bad one what better has he given me than this nougatory dispensation what is to be bound or loosed in you I know not since I have not the proper use of the keys but if you deserve it I absolve you. As much might be done I say not by a lack since they would scarcely listen to such a statement but by the Turk or the devil. For it is just to say I have not the word of God the sure rule for loosing but authority has been given me to absolve you if you deserve it. We see therefore what their objective was when they defined c. section 16 the keys as authority to discern and power to execute and said that knowledge is added as a counselor and counsels the proper use. Their object was to reign libidinously and licentiously without God and his word. 22. Should anyone object first that the lawful ministers of Christ will be no less perplexed in the discharge of their duty because the absolution which depends on faith will always be equivocal and secondly that sinners will receive no comfort at all or cold comfort because the minister who is not a fit judge of their faith is not certain of their absolution. We are prepared with an answer. They say that no sins are remitted by the priest but such sins as he is cognizant of. Thus according to them remission depends on the judgment of the priest and unless he accurately discriminate as to who are worthy of pardon the whole procedure is null and void. In short the power of which they speak is a jurisdiction annexed to examination to which pardon and absolution are restricted. Here no firm footing can be found nay there is a profound abyss because where confession is not complete the hope of pardon also is defective. Next the priest himself must necessarily remain in suspense while he knows not whether the sinner gives a faithful enumeration of his sins. Lastly such is the rudeness and ignorance of priests that the greater part of them are in no respect fitter to perform this office than a cobbler to cultivate the fields while almost all the others have a good reason to suspect their own fitness. Hence the perplexity and doubt as to the Popeshab solution from their choosing to found it on the person of the priest and not on his person only but on his knowledge so that he can only judge of what is laid before him investigated and ascertained. Now if any should ask at these good doctors whether the sinner is reconciled to God when some sins are remitted I know not what answer they could give unless that they should be forced to confess that whatever the priest pronounces with regard to the remission of sins which have been enumerated to him will be unavailing so long as others are not exempted from condemnation. On the part of the penitent again it is hence obvious in what a state of pernicious anxiety his conscience will be held because while he leans on what they call the discernment of the priest he cannot come to any decision from the word of God. From all these absurdities the doctrine which we deliver is completely free for absolution is conditional allowing the sinner to trust that God is propitious to him provided he sincerely seek expiation in the sacrifice of Christ and accept of the grace offered to him. Thus he cannot err who in the capacity of a herald promulgates what has been dictated to him from the word of God. The sinner again can receive a clear and sure absolution when in regard to embracing the grace of Christ the simple condition annexed is in terms of the general rule of our master himself a rule impiously spurned by the papacy according to your faith be it unto you. Matthew chapter 9 verse 29 23 the absurd jargon which they make of the doctrine of scripture concerning the power of the keys I have promised to expose elsewhere the proper place will be in treating of the government of the church that's book 4 chapter 12 meanwhile let the reader remember how absurdly they rest to auricular and secret confession what was said by Christ partly of the preaching of the gospel and partly of excommunication. Wherefore when they object that the power of loosing was given to the apostles and that this power of priests exercised by remitting sins acknowledged to them it is plain that the principle which they assume is false and frivolous for the absolution which is subordinate to faith is nothing else than an evidence of pardon derived from the free promise of the gospel while the other absolution which depends on the discipline of the church has nothing to do with secret sins but is more a matter of example for the purpose of removing the public offense given to the church as to their diligence in searching up and down for passages by which they may prove that it is not sufficient to confess sins to God alone or to layman unless the priest taken cognizance it is vile and disgraceful for when the ancient fathers advised sinners to disburden themselves to their pastor we cannot understand them to refer to a recital which was not then in use then so unfair or Lombard and others like-minded that they seem intentionally to have devoted themselves to spurious books that they might use them as a cloak to deceive the simple they indeed acknowledge truly that as forgiveness always accompanies repentance no obstacle properly remains after the individual is truly penitent though he may not have actually confessed and therefore that the priest does not so much remit sins as pronounced and declare that they are remitted though in the term declaring they insinuate a gross error surrogating ceremony in place of doctrine but in pretending that he who has an already obtained pardon before God is acquitted in the face of the church they unseasonably apply to the special use of every individual that we have already said was designed for common discipline when the offense of a more heinous and notorious transgression was to be removed shortly after they pervert and destroy their previous moderation by adding that there is another mode of remission namely by the inflection of penalty and satisfaction in which they arrogate to their priests the right of dividing what God has everywhere promised to us entire while he simply requires repentance and faith their division or exception is altogether blasphemous for it is just as if the priest assuming the office of tribune were to interfere with God and try to prevent him from admitting to his favor by his mere liberality anyone who had not previously lain prostrate at the tribunitial bench and there been punished 24 the whole comes to this when they wish to make God the author of this fictitious confession their vanity is proved as I have shown their falsehood in expounding the few passages which they cite but while it is plain that the law was imposed by men I say that it is both tyrannical and insulting to God who in binding consciences to his word would have them free from human rule then when confession is prescribed as necessary to obtain pardon which God wished to be free I say that the sacrilege is altogether intolerable because nothing belongs more peculiarly to God than the forgiveness of sins in which our salvation consists I have moreover shown that this tyranny was introduced when the world was sunk in shameful barbarism besides I have proved that the law is pestiferous in as much as when the fear of God exists it plunges men into despair and when there is security soothing itself with vain flattery it blunts it the more lastly I have explained that all the mitigations which they employ have no other tendency than to entangle obscure and corrupt the pure doctrine and cloak their iniquities with deceitful colors 25 in repentance they assigned the third place to satisfaction all their absurd talk as to which can be refuted in one word they say that it is not sufficient for the penitent to abstain from past sins and change his conduct for the better unless he satisfy God for what he has done and that there are many helps by which we may redeem sins such as tears fastings oblations and offices of charity that by them the Lord is to be propitiated by them the debts due to divine justice are to be paid by them our faults are to be compensated by them pardon is to be deserved for though in the riches of his mercy he has forgiven the guilt he yet as a just discipline retains the penalty and that this penalty must be bought off by satisfaction the sum of the whole comes to this that we indeed obtain pardon of our sins from the mercy of God but still by the intervention of the merit of works by which the evil of our sins is compensated and due satisfaction made to divine justice to such false views i oppose the free forgiveness of sins one of the doctrines most clearly taught in the scripture first what is forgiveness but a gift of mere liberality a creditor is not said to forgive when he declares by granting a discharge that the money has been paid to him but when without any payment through voluntary kindness he expunges the debt and why is the term gratis free afterwards added but to take away all idea of satisfaction with what confidence then do they still set up their satisfactions which are thus struck down as with a thunderbolt what when the Lord proclaims by isaii even i am he that blotted out thy transgressions for mine own sake and will not remember thy sins does he not plainly declare that the cause and foundation of forgiveness is to be sought from his goodness alone besides when the whole of scripture bears this testimony to christ that through his name the forgiveness of sins is to be obtained acts chapter 10 verse 43 does it not plainly exclude all other names how then do they teach that it is obtained by the name of satisfaction let them not deny that they attribute this to satisfactions though they bring them in a subsidiary aids for when scripture says by the name of christ it means that we are to bring nothing pretend nothing of our own but lean entirely on the recommendation of christ thus paul after declaring that god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them immediately adds the reason and the method for he has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin second chrithians chapter 5 verses 19 and 20 26 but with their unusual perverseness they maintain that both the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation take place at once when we are received into the favor of god through christ in baptism that in lapses after baptism we must rise again by means of satisfactions that the blood of christ is of no avail unless insofar as it is dispensed by the keys of the church i speak not of a matter as to which there can be any doubt for this impious dogma is declared in the plainest terms in the writings not of one or two but of the whole schoolman their master after acknowledging according to the doctrine of peter that christ bear our sins in his own body on the tree first peter chapter 2 verse 24 immediately modifies the doctrine by introducing the exception that in baptism all the temporal penalties of sin are relaxed but that after baptism they are lessened by means of repentance the cross of christ and our repentance thus cooperating together saint john speaks very differently if any man's sin we have an advocate with the father jesus christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins i write on to you little children because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake first john chapter 2 verses 1 2 and 12 he certainly is addressing believers and while setting forth christ as the propitiation for sins shows them that there is no other satisfaction by which an offended god can be propitiated or appeased he says not god was once reconciled to you by christ now seek other methods but he makes him a perpetual advocate who always by his intercession reinstates us in his fathered favor a perpetual propitiation by which sins are expiated for what was said by another john will ever hold true behold the lamb of god which take it away the sins of the world john chapter 1 verse 29 he i say took them away and no other that is since he alone is the lamb of god he alone is the offering for our sins he alone is the expiation he alone is satisfaction for though the right and power of pardoning properly belongs to the father when he is distinguished from the son as has already been seen christ is here exhibited in another view as transferring to himself the punishment due to us and wiping away our guilt in the sight of god when sit follows that we could not be partakers of the expiation accomplished by christ were he not possessed of that honor of which those who try to appease god by their compensations seek to rob him 27 here it is necessary to keep two things in view that the honor of christ be preserved entire and unimpaired and that the conscience assured of the pardon of sins may have peace with god isaac says that the father has laid on him the iniquity of us all that with his stripes we are healed isaac 53 5 and 6 peter repeating the same thing in other words says that he bear our sins in his own body on the tree first peter chapter 2 verse 24 paul's words are god sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh being made a curse for us roman's chapter 8 verse 3 and galatians chapter 3 verse 13 in other words the power and curse of sin was destroyed in his flesh when he was offered as a sacrifice on which the whole weight of our sins was laid with their curse and execration with the fearful judgment of god and condemnation to death here there is no mention of the vain dogma that after the initial cleansing no man experiences the efficacy of christ's passion in any other way than by means of satisfying penance we are directed to the satisfaction of christ alone for every fall now call to mind their pestilential dogma that the grace of god is effective only in the first forgiveness of sins but if we afterwards fall our works cooperate in obtaining the second pardon if these things are so do the properties above attributed to christ remain entire how immense the difference between the two propositions that our iniquities were laid upon christ that in his own person he might expiate them and that they are expiated by our works that christ is the propitiation for our sins and that god is to be propitiated by works then in regard to pacifying the conscience what pacification will it be to be told that sins are redeemed by satisfactions how will it be able to ascertain the measure of satisfaction it will always doubt whether god is propitious will always fluctuate always tremble those who rest satisfied with petty satisfactions form too contemptible an estimate of the justice of god and little consider the grievous heinousness of sin as shall afterwards be shown even were we to grant that they can buy off some sins by due satisfaction still what they will do while they are overwhelmed with so many sins that not even a hundred lives the holy devoted to the purpose could suffice to satisfy for them we may add that all the passages in which the forgiveness of sins is declared refer not only to catechumens but to the regenerate children of god to those who have long been nursed in the bosom of the church that embassy which paul saw highly extols we pray you in christ's stead be ye reconciled to god second corinthians chapter five verse 20 is not directed to strangers but to those who had been regenerated long before setting satisfactions altogether aside he directs us to the cross of christ thus when he writes to the Colossians that christ had made peace through the blood of his cross to reconcile all things unto himself he does not restrict it to the moment at which we are received into the church but extends it to our whole course this is plain from the context where he says that in him we have redemption by his blood even the forgiveness of sins Colossians chapter one verse 14 it is needless to collect more passages as they are ever occurring 28 here they take refuge in the absurd distinction that some sins are venial and others are mortal that for the latter a weighty satisfaction is due but that the former are purged by easier remedies by the lord's prayer the sprinkling of holy water and the absolution of the mass thus they insult and trifle with god and yet though they have the terms venial and mortal sin continually in their mouth they have not yet been able to distinguish the one from the other except by making impiety and impurity of heart to be venial sin we on the contrary taught by the scripture standard of righteousness and unrighteousness declare that the wages of sin is death and that the soul that sin it shall die Romans chapter 6 verse 23 Ezekiel chapter 18 verse 20 the sins of believers are venial not because they do not merit death but because by the mercy of god there is now no condemnation to those which are in christ jesus their sin being not imputed but effaced by pardon i know how unjustly they culminate this our doctrine for they say it is the paradox of the stoics concerning the equality of sins but we shall easily convict them out of their own mouths i ask them whether among those sins which they hold to be mortal they acknowledge a greater and a less if so it cannot follow as a matter of course that all sins which are mortal are equal since scripture declares that the wages of sin is death that obedience to the law is the way to life the transgression of it the way to death they cannot evade this conclusion in such a mass of sins therefore how will they find an end to their satisfactions if the satisfaction for one sin requires one day while preparing it they involve themselves in more sins since no man however righteous passes one day without falling repeatedly while they prepare themselves for their satisfactions number or rather numbers without number will be added confidence and satisfaction being thus destroyed what more would they have how do they still dare to think of satisfying 29 they endeavor indeed to disentangle themselves but it is impossible they pretend a distinction between penalty and guilt holding that the guilt is forgiven by the mercy of god but that though the guilt is remitted the punishment which divine justice requires to be paid remains satisfactions then properly relate to the remission of the penalty how ridiculous this levity they now confess that the remission of guilt is gratuitous and yet they are ever and unantelling as to merit it by prayers and tears and other preparations of every kind still the whole doctrine of scripture regarding the remission of sins is diametrically opposed to that distinction but although i think i have already done more than enough to establish this i will subjoin some other passages by which these slippery snakes will be so caught as to be afterwards unable to ride even the tip of their tail behold the days come sayeth the lord that i will make a new covenant with the house of israel and with the house of judah i will forgive their iniquity and i will remember their sin no more jeremiah chapter 31 verses 31 and 34 what this means we learn from another prophet when the lord says when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness all his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned again when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he is committed and does that which is lawful and right he shall save his soul alive chapter 18 verses 24 and 27 when he declares that he will not remember righteousness the meaning is that he will take no account of it to reward it in the same way not to remember sins is not to bring them to punishment the same thing is denoted in other passages by casting them behind his back blotting them out as a cloud casting them into the depths of the sea not imputing them hiding them by such forms of expression the holy spirit has explained his meaning not obscurely if we would lend a willing ear certainly if god punishes sins he imputes them if he avenges he remembers if he brings them to judgment he has not hid them if he examines he has not cast them behind his back if he investigates he has not blotted them out like a cloud if he exposes them he has not thrown them into the depths of the sea in this way augustine clearly interprets if god has covered sins he will not to advert to them if he will not to advert he will not to animate vert if he will not to animate vert he will not to punish he will not to take knowledge of them he rather willed to pardon them why then did he say that sins were hid just that they might not be seen what is meant by god seeing sins but punishing them but let us hear from another prophetical passage on what terms the lord forgives sins though your sins be a scarlet they shall be white as snow though they be red like crimson they shall be as well i say a chapter 1 verse 18 in Jeremiah again we read in those days and in that time sayeth the lord the iniquity of israel shall be sought for and there shall be none and the sins of Judah they shall not be found for i will pardon them whom i reserve Jeremiah chapter 50 verse 20 would you briefly comprehend the meaning of these words consider what on the contrary is meant by these expressions that transgression is sealed up in a bag that the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up his sin is hid that the sin of Judah is written with a pan of iron and with the point of a diamond jub chapter 14 verse 17 hosea chapter 13 verse 12 Jeremiah chapter 22 verse 1 if they mean as they certainly do that vengeance will be recompensed there can be no doubt that by the contrary passages the lord declares that he renounces all thought of vengeance here i must entreat the reader not to listen to any glosses of mine but only to give some deference to the word of god end of section 12 a recording by Nicola