The Faith of Our Fathers Part 31

That Confession was not invented since the days of the Apostles is manifest as soon as we attempt to fix the period of its first establishment. Let us go back, step, by step, from the nineteenth to the first century.

It had not its origin in the present century, as everybody will admit.

Nor did it arise in the sixteenth century, since the General Council of Trent, held in that age, speaks of it as an established and venerable inst.i.tution and Luther says that "auricular Confession, as now in vogue, is useful, nay, necessary; nor would I," he adds, "have it abolished, since it is the remedy of afflicted consciences."(456) Even Henry VIII., before he founded a new sect, wrote a treatise in defence of the Sacraments, including Penance and Confession.

It was not introduced in the thirteenth century, for the Fourth Council of Lateran pa.s.sed a decree in 1215 obliging the faithful to confess their sins at least once a year. This decree, of course, supposes Confession to be already an established fact.

Some Protestant writers fall into a common error in interpreting the decree of the Lateran Council by saying "Sacramental Confession was never required in the Church of Rome until the thirteenth century." The Council simply prescribed a limit beyond which the faithful should not defer their confession.

These writers seem incapable of distinguishing between a law obliging us to a certain duty and a statute fixing the time for fulfilling it. They might as well suppose that the revenue officer creates the law regarding the payment of taxes when he issues a notice requiring the revenue to be paid within a given time.

Going back to the ninth century we find that Confession could not have had its rise then. It was at that period that the Greek schism took its rise, under the leadership of Photius. The Greek schismatic church has remained since then a communion separate from the Catholic Church, having no spiritual relations with us. Now, the Greek church is as tenaciously attached to private Confession as we are.

For the same reasons Confession could not date its origin from the fifth or fourth century. The Arians revolted from the Church in the fourth century, and the Nestorians and Eutychians in the fifth. The two last-named sects still exist in large numbers in Persia, Abyssinia and along the coast of Malabar, and retain Confession as one of their most sacred and cherished practices.

In fine, no human agency could succeed in inst.i.tuting Confession between the first and fourth century, for the teachings of our Divine Redeemer and of His disciples had made too vivid an impression on the Christian community to be easily effaced; and the worst enemies of the Church admit that no spot or wrinkle had yet deformed her fair visage in this, the golden age of her existence.

These remarks suffice to convince us that Sacramental Confession _was not inst.i.tuted since the time of the Apostles_. I shall now endeavor to prove to your satisfaction _that its introduction into the Church, since the Apostolic age, was absolutely impossible_.

There are two ways in which we may suppose that error might insinuate itself into the Church, viz.: suddenly, or by slow process. Now, the introduction of Confession in either of those ways was simply impossible.

First, nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that Confession was immediately forced upon the Christian world. For experience demonstrates with what slowness and difficulty men are divested of their religious impressions, whether true or false. If such is the case with individuals, how ridiculous would it seem for whole nations to adopt in a single day some article of belief which they had never admitted before. Hence, we cannot imagine, without doing violence to our good sense, that all the good people of Christendom went to rest one night ignorant of the Sacrament of Penance, and rose next morning firm believers in the Catholic doctrine of auricular Confession. As well might we suppose that the citizens of the United States would retire to rest believing they were living under a Republic, and awake impressed with the conviction that they were under the rule of Queen Victoria.

Nor is it less absurd to suppose that the practice of Confession was introduced by degrees. How can we imagine that the Fathers of the Church-the Clements, the Leos, the Gregories, the Chrysostoms, the Jeromes, the Basils and Augustines, those intrepid High Priests of the Lord, who, in every age, at the risk of persecution, exile and death have stood like faithful sentinels on the watch-towers of Israel, defending with sleepless eyes the outskirts of the city of G.o.d from the slightest attack-how can we imagine, I say, that they would suffer the enemy of truth to invade the very sanctuary of G.o.d's temple? If they were so vigilant in cutting off the least withered branch of error, how would they tamely submit to see so monstrous an exotic engrafted on the fruitful tree of the Church?

What gives additional weight to these remarks is the reflection that Confession is not a speculative doctrine, but a doctrine of the most practical kind, influencing our daily actions, words and thoughts-a Sacrament to which thousands of Christians have constant recourse in every part of the world. It is a doctrine, moreover, hard to flesh and blood, and which no human power, even if it had the will, could impose on the human race. It is only a G.o.d that, in such a case, could exact the homage of our a.s.sent.

In whatever light, therefore, we view the present question-whether we consider the circ.u.mstances of time, place, manner of its introduction-the same inevitable conclusion stares us in the face: that Sacramental confession is not the invention of man, but the inst.i.tution of Jesus Christ.

But the doctrine of priestly absolution and the private confession of sins is not confined to the Roman Catholic and Oriental schismatic churches.

The same doctrine is also taught by a large and influential portion of the Protestant Episcopal Church of England.

The Rev. C. S. Grueber, a clergyman of the Church of England, has recently published a catechism in which the absolving power of the minister of G.o.d, and the necessity and advantage of confession, are plainly set forth. I will quote from the Rev. gentleman's book his identical words:

_Question._ What do you mean by absolution?

_Answer._ The pardon or forgiveness of sin.

_Q._ By what special ordinance of Christ are sins committed after Baptism to be pardoned?

_A._ By the sacrament of absolution.

_Q._ Who is the minister of absolution?

_A._ A Priest.

_Q._ Do you mean that a Priest can really absolve?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ In what place of the Holy Scripture is it recorded that Christ gave this power to the priesthood?

_A._ In John xx. 23; see also Matt. xviii. 18.

_Q._ What does the prayer-book (or Book of Common Prayer) say?

_A._ In the office for the ordaining of Priests the Bishop is directed to say, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of G.o.d. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven." In the office for the visitation of the sick it is said, "Our Lord Jesus Christ hath left in His Church power to absolve all sinners that truly repent and believe in Him." In the order for morning and evening prayer we say again, "Almighty G.o.d hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and p.r.o.nounce to His people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins."

_Q._ For what purpose hath Christ given this power to Priests to p.r.o.nounce absolution in His name?

_A._ _For the consolation of the penitent; the quieting of his conscience._

_Q._ What must precede the absolution of the penitent?

_A._ _Confession...._ Before absolution privately given, confession must be made to a Priest privately.

_Q._ In what case does the Church of England order her ministers to move people to private, or, as it is called, to auricular confession?

_A._ When they feel their conscience troubled with any weighty matter.

_Q._ What is weighty matter?

_A._ Mortal sin certainly is weighty; sins of omission or commission of any kind that press upon the mind are so, too. Anything may be weighty that causes scruple or doubtfulness.

_Q._ At what times in particular does the Church so order?

_A._ In the time of sickness, _and before coming to the Holy Communion_.

_Q._ Is there any other cla.s.s of persons to whom confession is profitable?

_A._ Yes; to those _who desire to lead a saintly life. These, indeed, are the persons who most frequently resort to it._

_Q._ Is there any other object in confession, besides the seeking absolution for past sin and the quieting of the penitent's conscience?

_A._ Yes; the practice of confessing each single sin is a great check upon the commission of sin and a preservative of purity of life.(457)

Here we have the Divine inst.i.tution of priestly absolution and the necessity and advantage of Sacramental confession plainly taught, not in a speculative treatise, but in a practical catechism, by a distinguished minister of the Church of England; taught by a minister who draws his salary from the funds of the Protestant Episcopal church; who preaches and administers in a church edifice recognized as a Protestant Episcopal church, and who is in strict communion with a Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of England.

And these doctrines are upheld, not by one eminent Divine only, but by hundreds of clergymen, as well as by thousands of the Protestant Episcopalians of England.

What a strange spectacle to behold the same church teaching diametrically opposite doctrines! What is orthodox in the diocese of Bath and Wells is decidedly heterodox in the diocese of North Carolina. An ordinance which Rev. Mr. Grueber proclaims to be of Divine faith is characterized by Rt.

Rev. Bishop Atkinson(458) as the invention of men. What Dr. Grueber inculcates as a most salutary practice Dr. Atkinson anathematizes as pernicious to religion. Confession, which, in the judgment of the former, is a great "check upon the commission of sin," is stigmatized by the latter as an incentive to sin. "Behold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity."(459)

Suppose that the venerable Protestant Episcopal Bishop of North Carolina, in pa.s.sing through England, were invited by the Rev. Mr. Grueber to preach in his church in the morning, and that the Rt. Rev. Prelate chose for his subject a sermon on confession; and suppose that the Rev. Mr. Grueber selected in the evening, as the subject of his discourse, the doctrine advanced by him in his catechism.

Let us imagine some benighted dissenter attending Mr. Grueber's church at the morning and evening service, with the view to being enlightened in the teachings of the Protestant church. Would not our dissenter be sorely perplexed, on returning home at night, as to what the Protestant Episcopal church really _did teach_?

Some Episcopalians are pleased to admit that confession may be resorted to with spiritual profit in certain abnormal cases-for instance, in time of sickness. So that, in their judgment, a religious observance which is salutary to a sick man is pernicious to him in good health. For the life of me, I cannot see how the circ.u.mstances of bodily health can affect the moral character of a religious act.