SECTION 36.

PENANCE.

XIV. In the next place, they add penance; of which they treat in such a confused and disorderly manner, that the consciences of men can deduce no certain or solid conclusion respecting their doctrine. In another part of this treatise, we have stated at large what we learn from the Scriptures respecting repentance, and likewise what is inculcated on that subject by the Romanists. Our present business is only to inquire briefly into the reasons of those persons who promulgated the opinion which has prevailed for a long period in the churches and in the schools, that penance is a sacrament. In the first place, I will make a few remarks on the practice of the ancient Church, the pretence of which they have abused for the introduction and establishment of their foolish invention. The order observed by the ancients in public penitence was, that persons who had completed the satisfactions enjoined upon them, were reconciled to the Church by solemn imposition of hands. This was a sign of absolution, to encourage the sinner himself with an assurance of pardon before God, and to admonish the Church that they ought to obliterate the memory of his offence, and kindly to receive him into favour. This Cyprian often calls “giving peace.” To increase the importance of this act, and give it a greater recommendation among the people, it was ordained that it should always be done by the authority of a bishop. Hence that decree of the second Council of Carthage: “Let no presbyter be permitted to reconcile a penitent publicly at the mass.” And another decree of the Council of Arausium: “Let those who, during the period of their penitence, depart out of this life, be admitted to the communion without the reconciliatory imposition of hands. If they recover from their illness, let them complete the period of their penitence, and then let them receive from the bishop the reconciliatory imposition of hands.” Also the decree of the third Council of Carthage: “Let not a presbyter reconcile a penitent without the authority of the bishop.” The design of all these decrees was, to prevent the severity which they wished to preserve in this matter from falling into disuse. Therefore they committed it to the cognizance of the bishop, who was likely to be more circumspect in conducting the examination. But Cyprian states that it was not the bishop alone who laid hands on the penitent, but that all the clergy also united in this act. These are his words: “They do penance for a proper time, and then they come to the communion, and are restored to the right of communion by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy.” Afterwards, in process of time, the custom was corrupted, so that they used this ceremony in private absolutions, without any public expression of penitence. Hence that distinction in Gratian, between public and private reconciliation. I consider that ancient custom, which is mentioned by Cyprian, to have been holy and useful to the Church, and could wish it were revived in the present day. This more recent one, though I venture not to condemn or censure it with severity, yet I consider less necessary. We see, however, that imposition of hands on repentance is a ceremony of human, not of Divine institution, and is to be placed among indifferent things and external exercises, such as are not to be despised, but ought to hold a station far below the sacraments, which are enjoined upon us by the word of God.

XV. Now, the Romish theologians and schoolmen, who are in the habit of corrupting every thing by misinterpretation, take very great pains here to discover a sacrament, but to no purpose. Nor ought this to be wondered at, for they seek it where it is not to be found. When they have done their best, they leave the subject perplexed, doubtful, uncertain, and confounded with a variety of opinions. They say, then, that external penitence is a sacrament, and if it be so, that it ought to be considered as a sign of internal penitence, that is, of contrition of heart, which is the substance of the sacrament; or that both together constitute the sacrament, not two sacraments, but one complete one; but that external penitence is merely the sacrament; while that which is internal is both the sacrament and the substance of the sacrament; and remission of sins is the substance only, and not the sacrament. Let those who bear in mind the definition of a sacrament which we have already given, apply it to the examination of this pretended sacrament, and they will find that it is not an external ceremony instituted by God for the confirmation of our faith. If they plead that my definition is not a law which they are bound to obey, let them hear Augustine, whom they profess to regard with the greatest reverence. He says, “Visible sacraments are instituted for carnal persons, that by the steps of the sacraments they may be led from those things which are visible to the eye, to those which are intelligible to the mind.” What resemblance to this do they themselves see, or are they able to point out to others, in that which they call the sacrament of penance? The same writer says in another place, “It is therefore called a sacrament, because one thing is seen, another is understood in it. That which is seen has corporeal form; that which is understood has spiritual fruit.” These things are not at all applicable to the sacrament of penance, which they have invented, in which there is no corporeal form to represent any spiritual fruit.

XVI. And to vanquish these champions on their own ground, if any sacrament be sought for here, would it not be far more plausible to say that the sacrament consists in the absolution of the priest, rather than in penitence, either internal or external? For it would be easy to say, that this is a ceremony appointed for the confirmation of our faith in the remission of sins, and has what they call the promise of the keys: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”

[1379]

But some would have objected, that many who are absolved by priests, derive no such benefits from their absolution; whereas, upon their principle, the sacraments of the new law actually accomplish that which they represent. To this it might be replied, that, as in the eucharist there is a twofold eating,—sacramental, which is equally common to the good and the wicked; and spiritual, which is peculiar to the good—why might they not also imagine the reception of a twofold absolution? Yet I have never yet been able to comprehend what they intended by that principle of theirs, respecting the efficacious virtue of the sacraments of the new law; which we have proved to be altogether at variance with the truth of God, when we professedly discussed that subject. Here I only mean to show that this difficulty is no objection to their calling sacerdotal absolution a sacrament. For they might answer, in the language of Augustine, “That sanctification is sometimes without the visible sacrament, and that the visible sacrament is sometimes unaccompanied by internal sanctification.” Again: “That the sacraments effect that which they represent in the elect alone.” Again: “That some persons put on Christ as far as the reception of the sacrament, and others even to sanctification;” that the former is equally the case with the good and evil; and the latter with none but the good. Surely they have betrayed more than the weakness of children, and shown themselves blind to the broad day, who, in the midst of such difficulty and perplexity, have not discovered a thing so plain and obvious to every one.

XVII. Yet let them not flatter themselves, for in whatever part they place their sacrament, I deny that it ought to be considered as a sacrament at all; first, because it is not accompanied with any special promise of God, which is the only foundation of a sacrament; secondly, because all the ceremony exhibited here is the mere invention of men; whereas it has been already ascertained that sacramental ceremonies cannot be instituted, except by God himself. All that they have fabricated, therefore, respecting the sacrament of penance, is nothing but falsehood and imposture. This counterfeit sacrament they have adorned with a suitable title, calling it “a second plank after a shipwreck;” for that, if any one by sin has soiled the garment of innocence received in baptism, he may purify it by penance. But this, they say, is the language of Jerome. Whose language soever it may be, it cannot be exculpated from manifest impiety, if it be explained according to their notion of it. As if baptism were effaced by sin, and ought not rather to be recalled to the memory of the sinner whenever he thinks of remission of sins, that it may serve to comfort his mind, inspire him with courage, and confirm his confidence of obtaining the remission of sins, which was promised to him in baptism. But that which Jerome has expressed with some degree of harshness and impropriety, that baptism, from which those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church have fallen away, is repaired by penitence, these admirable expositors apply to their impiety. We shall speak with the greatest propriety, therefore, if we call baptism the sacrament of penitence; since it is given for a confirmation of grace, and seal of confidence, to those who meditate repentance. And this must not be considered as an invention of ours, for, beside its conformity to the language of Scripture, it appears to have been generally received in the ancient Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, which is attributed to Augustine, it is called “the sacrament of faith and repentance.” And why do we resort to uncertain testimonies? Nothing can be required more explicit than what is recited by the evangelists, that “John did preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

[1380]