Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)

II. I wish the reader to consider, that this is not a contention about an insignificant trifle, but a question respecting the most serious of all subjects – remission of sins. For by requiring, in repentance, compunction of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work, they maintain, that these three things are necessary to procure the remission of sins. But if it be important for us to know any thing in the whole science of religion, it is certainly of the greatest importance to apprehend, and fully to understand, by what means, by what law, on what condition, and with what facility or difficulty, remission of sins may be obtained. Unless this knowledge be clear and certain, the conscience can have no rest, no peace with God, no confidence or security; but is the subject of perpetual trepidations and fluctuations, is disturbed, tormented, and harassed, and dreads, hates, and avoids the presence of God. But if remission of sins depend on those conditions to which they confine it, we are in a most miserable and deplorable situation. They make contrition the first step towards obtaining pardon, and require such as is due from us, that is, such as is just and perfect; but they have not determined, when a man may be assured that he has arrived at this degree of perfect contrition. I grant, indeed, that every man ought to be sedulously and earnestly urged, that by bitterly mourning for his sins, he may continually augment his displeasure and hatred against them. For this “sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of.”1692 But when such an anguish of sorrow is required as may correspond to the magnitude of the guilt, and may be weighed in the balance with confidence of pardon, then the wretched conscience is wonderfully tormented and agitated, when it sees a due contrition for sins imposed on it, and understands not the extent of the debt so as to be able to decide with itself that it has discharged what was due from it. If they say that we must do what we can, we still return to the same point; for when will any man presume to flatter himself that he has exerted all his power in bewailing his sins? Consciences, therefore, that have been long striving with themselves, and exercised in tedious conflicts, but without finding at length any place of rest, endeavour to procure some small alleviation, extorting from themselves some sorrow, and forcing out some tears to complete their contrition.

III. If they charge me with calumny, let them come forth and produce a single individual, who has not, by this doctrine of contrition, either been driven into despair, or endeavoured to avert the Divine judgment by a pretended sorrow instead of real compunction. We have said ourselves, that forgiveness of sins is never enjoyed without repentance, because none but those who are afflicted and wounded with a consciousness of sins, can sincerely implore the mercy of God; but we have likewise added, that repentance is not the cause of remission of sins. But those torments of soul, which they say are duties to be performed, we have put aside. We have taught the sinner not to look on his compunction or on his tears, but to fix both his eyes solely on the mercy of God. We have only declared, that Christ called the labouring and heavy-laden, when he was sent “to preach the gospel to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound, and to comfort all that mourn.”1693 This would exclude the Pharisees, who, satisfied with their own righteousness, acknowledge not their poverty; and despisers, who, careless of the wrath of God, seek no remedy for their disease; for such neither labour, nor are heavy-laden; they are not broken-hearted, or in bondage, or in captivity. But there is a considerable difference, whether a man be taught to merit remission of sins by a true and perfect contrition, (which no sinner can ever perform,) or be instructed to hunger and thirst for the Divine mercy, that by the knowledge of his misery, by his disquietude, fatigue, and captivity, he may be shown where he ought to seek for consolation, rest, and liberty, and may learn to glorify God by his humility.

IV. Concerning confession, there has always been a great controversy between the canonists and the scholastic divines; the latter contending, that confession is commanded by the word of God; the other, on the contrary, maintaining that it is enjoined only by the ecclesiastical constitutions. But this controversy has discovered the singular impudence of the theologians, who have corrupted and violently distorted all the passages of Scripture which they have cited in favour of their argument. And when they perceived that they could not even thus obtain what they desired, those who would appear more shrewd than others, resorted to this subterfuge, that confession, as to the substance of it, came from the Divine law, but afterwards derived its form from a positive law. In a similar manner the most foolish lawyers pretend, that citations originated from the Divine law, because it is said, “Adam, where art thou?”1694 and exceptions also, because Adam answered, as if by way of exception, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,” &c.; but that both received their form from the civil code. But let us examine by what arguments they prove this confession, either formal or informal, to have been commanded by God. The Lord, say they, sent leprous persons to the priests. What then? Did he send them to confession? Who ever heard that the Levitical priests were appointed to hear confessions? Therefore they resort to allegories: it was enacted by the Mosaic law, that the priests should distinguish between leprosy and leprosy; sin is a spiritual leprosy, concerning which it is the office of the priests to decide. Before I reply to this, I would inquire, by the way, if this passage constitutes them judges of the spiritual leprosy, why do they arrogate to themselves the cognizance of the natural and corporeal leprosy? Is not this trifling with the Scriptures? The law commits to the Levitical priests the cognizance of the leprosy; let us usurp this to ourselves. Sin is a spiritual leprosy; let us also take cognizance of sin. Now, I reply, “The priesthood being changed, there is made, of necessity, a change also of the law.”1695 All the priestly functions have been transferred to Christ; in him they are fulfilled and finished; therefore every privilege and honour of the sacerdotal office has been transferred to him alone. If they are so extremely fond of pursuing allegories, let them propose Christ to themselves as the only priest, and accumulate on his tribunal the unlimited jurisdiction over all things; this we shall easily admit. Besides, this allegory of theirs is very absurd, since it places among the ceremonies a law that was merely political. Why, then, does Christ send leprous persons to the priests? To preclude the priests from calumniating him with a violation of the law, which commanded him that was cured of the leprosy to show himself to the priest, and to be purged by the oblation of a sacrifice. “Go (said he) show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”1696 And truly this miracle was to be a testimony to them; for they had pronounced him leprous, now they pronounce him healed. Are they not, whether willingly or reluctantly, constrained to become witnesses of the miracles of Christ? Christ gives them his miracle for their examination; they cannot deny it; but because they still cavil, this work is a testimony to them. Thus it is said, “This gospel shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations.”1697 Again: “Ye shall be brought before governors and kings, for a testimony against them.”1698 That is, that they may be more powerfully convicted at the judgment of God. But if they would rather coincide with Chrysostom, he also teaches, that Christ did this on account of the Jews, that he might not be deemed a transgressor of the law. Though on a point so clear I am ashamed to adduce the suffrage of any man; when Christ declares that he leaves the legal rights entirely to the priests, as the professed enemies of the gospel, who were always ready to cavil, if their mouths were not stopped. Wherefore the Popish priests, in order to retain this possession, should publicly espouse the party of those whom it is necessary to restrain by force from uttering their curses against Christ. For with this his true ministers have no concern.

V. Their second argument they derive from the same source, that is, from allegory; as though allegories were sufficient for the confirmation of any dogma. Let them be admitted as sufficient, if I do not prove that those very allegories may be urged by me with more plausibility than they possibly can by them. They plead, therefore, that the Lord commanded his disciples to loose Lazarus from his bandages, when he was raised from the grave.1699 Here, in the first place, they are guilty of falsehood; for it is nowhere recorded, that the Lord said this to his disciples; and it is much more probable that he said it to the Jews who were standing near him, that the miracle might be rendered more evident, beyond all suspicion of fraud, and that his power might appear the greater, from his raising the dead to life without the least touch, solely by the call of his voice. For I apprehend, that the Lord, in order to remove from the minds of the Jews every unfavourable suspicion, chose that they should roll back the stone, should perceive the fetid odour, should see the certain tokens of death, should behold him rising by the sole energy of a word, and be the first to touch him on his restoration to life. And this is the opinion of Chrysostom. But admitting this to have been addressed to the disciples, what will they gain by it? That the Lord gave his apostles the power of loosing; but with how much more aptitude and skill might these words be handled in an allegorical sense, if we should say, that God intended by this emblem to instruct believers, that they ought to loose those whom he has raised to life; that is, that they should not recall to remembrance the sins which he had forgotten; that they should not condemn as sinners those whom he had absolved; that they should not continue to upbraid with offences which he had forgiven; that where he is merciful and ready to spare, they should not be severe and rigorous to punish! Nothing, surely, ought to be a stronger motive to the exercise of forgiveness by us, than the example of that judge, who threatens to be implacable towards them who are too rigorous and cruel. Let them go now and boast of their allegories.

VI. They come to a closer contest, when they oppose us with what they apprehend to be plain passages. Those who came to the baptism of John confessed their sins;1700 and James directs us to confess our sins one to another.1701 It is no wonder, if those who desired to be baptized confessed their sins, for it is said, that John “preached the baptism of repentance,” and “baptized with water unto repentance.” Whom, then, should he baptize, but such as confessed themselves sinners? Baptism is an emblem of remission of sins; and who should be admitted to this emblem but sinners, and those who acknowledged themselves to be such? They confessed their sins, therefore, in order to be baptized. Nor is it without reason that James directs us to confess one to another. But if they would observe what immediately follows, they would perceive, that this also affords them very little support. “Confess (says he) your faults one to another, and pray for one another.” He connects mutual confession and mutual prayer. If our confessions must be made only to priests, then our prayers ought to be offered up for them alone. But would it not follow from the language of James, that priests alone might make confessions? For when he enjoins mutual confession, he addresses such only as have a right to hear the confessions of others. Αλληλοι implies mutually, by turns, successively, or reciprocally. But none can reciprocally confess, but those who are qualified to hear confessions. And since they dignify the priests exclusively with this prerogative, we also relinquish to them alone the task of making confession. Then let us dismiss such impertinences, and attend to the real meaning of the apostle, which is simple and clear; it is, that we should reciprocally communicate our infirmities to each other, to receive from one another mutual advice, mutual compassion, and mutual consolation; and, also, that being mutually conscious of the infirmities of our brethren, we should pray to the Lord on their behalf. Why, then, do they quote James in opposition to us, when we so strongly urge a confession of the Divine mercy? But no man can confess the mercy of God, if he has not previously confessed his own misery. Indeed, we rather pronounce an anathema against him who has not confessed himself a sinner before God, before his angels, before the Church, and, in a word, before all mankind. “For the Scripture hath concluded all under sin – that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God;”1702 and that he alone may be justified and exalted.

VII. But I wonder with what face they can presume to contend, that the confession of which they speak is of Divine appointment. The practice we admit to be very ancient, but we can easily prove, that Christians were formerly quite at liberty as to the use of it. That there was no fixed law or constitution respecting it till the time of Innocent III., is certain from the testimony of their own histories. Surely, if there had been a more ancient law, they would rather have cited it, than, by being content with a decree of the Council of Lateran, have rendered themselves ridiculous even in the eyes of children. They hesitate not in other cases to fabricate fictitious decrees, which they ascribe to the most ancient councils, that they may dazzle the eyes of the simple by a veneration for antiquity. In this instance they never thought of obtruding such a forgery. Therefore, according to their own testimony, three hundred years have not yet elapsed, since Innocent III. introduced the snare, and imposed the necessity of confession. But, to say nothing respecting the time, the barbarism of the diction is, of itself, sufficient to deprive that law of all credit. For the good fathers enjoin, that every person, of both sexes, shall, once in every year, make a particular confession of all sins to the proper priest; but some wits facetiously object, that this precept binds none but hermaphrodites, and relates to no one who is either a male or a female. Moreover, their disciples have betrayed still greater folly, in their inability to explain what is meant by the proper priest. Whatever may be clamorously pretended by all the Pope's mercenary disputants, we are certain, that Christ was not the author of this law, which compels men to enumerate their sins, and that twelve centuries passed away after the resurrection of Christ, before any such law was promulgated; so that this tyranny was not introduced till after the extinction of piety and learning, when masques, occupying the place of pastors, had assumed an unlimited license of doing whatever they pleased. There are also plain testimonies, in histories and other ancient writings, which inform us, that this was a political discipline instituted by bishops, not a law given by Christ or his apostles. Of a great number, I shall produce only one, which will be a clear proof of this assertion. Sozomen, in his Ecclesiastical History, relates, that this ordinance of the bishops was diligently observed in all the Western Churches, and especially at Rome. He fully implies that it was not the universal custom of all the churches, and says, that one of the Presbyters was peculiarly appointed to this office. In this, he abundantly confutes the false pretensions of these men, that the keys were given promiscuously, for this use, to the whole sacerdotal order, since it was not the common function of all priests, but the peculiar department of one who was chosen to it by the bishop. This is the same, who, in the present day, in every cathedral church is called the Penitentiary, who takes cognizance of crimes of peculiar enormity, and such as are censured for the sake of example. The historian immediately adds, that this was the custom also at Constantinople, till a certain matron, pretending to go to confession, was discovered to have concealed, under this specious pretext, a criminal connection with the deacon of that church. On account of this crime, Nectarius, the bishop of the church, (a man eminent for sanctity and erudition,) abolished the ceremony of confession. Here let them erect their asinine ears. If auricular confession had been a law of God, how could Nectarius have presumed to reverse and disannul it? Will they accuse Nectarius of heresy and schism, who is acknowledged by all the fathers to have been a holy man of God? But the same sentence would condemn the Constantinopolitan church, in which Sozomen affirms the custom of confession not only to have been discontinued for a season, but to have been altogether disused down to his time. And they would accuse of apostasy, not only the church of Constantinople, but all the Oriental churches, who neglected a law which they maintain to be inviolable and obligatory on all Christians.

VIII. But this abrogation is plainly attested by Chrysostom, who was himself also a bishop of the church of Constantinople, in so many places, that it is surprising how they dare to open their mouths in contradiction of it. “Confess your sins, (says he,) that you may obliterate them. If you are ashamed to tell any one what sins you have committed, confess them daily in your soul. I say not, that you should confess them to your fellow-servant, who may reproach you; confess them to God, who cures them. Confess your sins on your bed, that there your conscience may daily recognize its crimes.” Again: “But, now, it is not necessary to confess in the presence of witnesses; let an inquisition into your transgressions be the work of your own thoughts; let there be no witness of this judgment; let God alone see you confessing.” Again: “I conduct you not into the public view of your fellow-servants; I do not oblige you to reveal your sins to men; lay open your conscience in the presence of God. Show your wounds to the Lord, who is the best physician, and implore a remedy from him; show them to him, who upbraideth not, but most mercifully heals.” Again: “You certainly should not tell it to a man, lest he reproach you; nor is confession to be made to a fellow-servant, who may publish it; but show your wounds to the Lord, who exercises his care over you, and is a most merciful physician.” He afterwards introduces God, speaking thus: “I constrain you not to come forth into the midst of a theatre, and assemble a multitude of witnesses; declare your sin privately to me alone, that I may heal your wound.” Shall we say, that Chrysostom proceeded to such a degree of temerity, when he wrote those and similar passages, as to liberate the consciences of men from obligations imposed on them by the Divine law? Certainly not. But he dares not to require as necessary what he knows is never prescribed in the word of God.

IX. But to place the whole subject in a more plain and familiar light, we will first faithfully state what kind of confession is taught in the word of God; and then we will subjoin an account of those inventions of the Papists, not indeed of all, (for who could exhaust that immense ocean?) but only of those which comprise the substance of their doctrine respecting secret confession. Here it grieves me to mention, how frequently the old translator has translated confess instead of praise; which is well known even to the most unlearned; only it is necessary to expose their audacity, in transferring to their own tyrannical edict what was written with reference to the praises of God. To prove the virtue of confession to exhilarate the mind, they produce this passage from the Psalmist: “With the voice of exultation and confession.”1703 But if such a metamorphosis of the passage be admitted, we shall be able to infer any thing from any thing. But since they are thus lost to all sense of shame, let the pious reader remember, that they have been consigned over to a reprobate mind by the righteous vengeance of God, to render their presumption the more detestable. If we are satisfied with the simple doctrine of the Scripture, we shall be in no danger of being deluded by such fallacies; for there one method of confession is prescribed; which is, that since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and obliterates sins, we should confess our sins to him, that we may obtain pardon. He is a physician; to him, then, let us discover our wounds. He is injured and offended; let us pray to him for peace. He is the searcher of hearts, and privy to all thoughts; let us hasten to pour out our hearts before him. Finally, it is he who calls sinners; let us not delay to approach him. David says, “I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.”1704 Similar to this is another confession of David: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies.”1705 Such, also, is the confession of Daniel: “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts.”1706 And such are the other confessions, which frequently occur in the Scriptures, the recital of which would almost fill a volume. John says, “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”1707 To whom must we confess? To him, certainly; and this we do, if we prostrate ourselves before him with a distressed and humbled heart; if we sincerely accuse and condemn ourselves in his presence, and pray to be pardoned by his goodness and mercy.

X. Whoever from the heart makes this confession before God, will also, without doubt, have a tongue prepared for confession, as often as it shall be necessary to proclaim the Divine mercy among men; and not only to whisper the secret of his mind once into the ear of an individual, but frequently and publicly, and in the hearing of the whole world, ingenuously to declare, both his own ignominy, and the magnificence and glory of God. In this manner, when David was reproved by Nathan, he felt compunction of conscience, and confessed his sin both to God and to men: “I have sinned (said he) against the Lord;”1708 that is, I now make no excuse, nor use the least subterfuge to prevent all men from condemning me as a sinner, and what I wished to conceal from the Lord, from being revealed also to men. The secret confession, therefore, which is made to God, is followed by a voluntary confession before men, whenever it contributes either to the Divine glory or to our humiliation. For this reason, the Lord anciently enjoined upon the Israelites, that all the people should confess their iniquities publicly in the temple, by the mouth of the priest.1709 For he foresaw this assistance to be necessary for them, to bring every person to a proper view of himself. And it is reasonable, that, by the confession of our misery, we should glorify the goodness and mercy of God, both among ourselves and before the whole world.

XI. This kind of confession ought to be both ordinary, in the Church; and extraordinary, to be practised in a particular manner whenever the people at large are chargeable with the guilt of any common crime. We have an example of the latter in that solemn confession which was made by all the people under the auspices of Ezra and Nehemiah. For as their long exile, the destruction of their city and temple, and the subversion of their religion, were punishments of the common defection of all, they could not properly acknowledge the blessing of deliverance, unless they had first confessed their guilt. Nor is it of any importance if, in a congregation, there be sometimes a few innocent persons; for as they are members of a languid and diseased body, they ought not to boast of health. Nor is it possible, indeed, but they must contract some of the pollution, and sustain part of the guilt. Therefore, whenever we are afflicted with pestilence, or war, or sterility, or any other calamity, if it be our duty to resort to mourning, to fasting, and other expressions of guilt, – confession itself, on which all these other things depend, ought by no means to be neglected. The ordinary confession is not only recommended from the mouth of the Lord, but no judicious man, who has considered its usefulness, will venture to condemn it. For since, in every religious assembly, we introduce ourselves into the presence of God and angels, how shall we commence our services, except by an acknowledgment of our unworthiness? But this, you will say, is done in every prayer; for whenever we pray for pardon, we make a confession of our sins. This I acknowledge. But, if you consider our extreme carelessness, or drowsiness, or stupidity, you will admit to me, that it would be a salutary regulation, if the generality of Christians were accustomed to humble themselves by some solemn act of confession. For though the ceremony, which the Lord enjoined on the Israelites, was a part of the tutelage of the law, yet the thing itself, in some measure, belongs also to us. And, indeed, we see that in all well-regulated churches this custom is advantageously observed; that on every Lord's day the minister makes a formal confession, in which he represents all as guilty of sin, and supplicates pardon from the Lord on behalf of all. Finally, by this key the gate of prayer is opened, both to individuals in private, and in public to all the congregation.