XXXVIII. Hence we may judge, how pernicious that dogma of the schoolmen

is, that it is impossible to decide concerning the favour of God towards

us, any otherwise than from moral conjecture, as every individual may deem

himself not unworthy of it. If it must be determined by our works how the

Lord is affected towards us, I admit we cannot attain this object even by

a very slight conjecture; but as faith ought to correspond to the simple

and gratuitous promise, there remains no room for doubting. For with what

confidence, pray, shall we be armed, if we reason that God is propitious

to us on this condition, provided the purity of our life deserve it? But

having determined on a separate discussion of these points, I shall pursue

them no further at present; especially since it is manifest that nothing

is more opposite to faith than either conjecture or any thing else

approaching to doubt. And they very mischievously pervert to this purpose

the observation of the Preacher, which is frequently in their mouths: “No

man knoweth whether he is worthy of hatred or of love.”(1579) For not to

observe that this passage is falsely rendered in the Vulgate translation,

yet the meaning of Solomon, in such expressions, must be clear even to

children; it is, that if any one wishes, from the present state of things,

to judge who are the objects of Divine love or hatred, he labours in vain,

and distresses himself to no good purpose; since “there is one event to

the righteous and to the wicked; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that

sacrificeth not.”(1580) Whence it follows that God neither testifies his

love to those whom he prospers with success, nor invariably discovers his

hatred against those whom he plunges into affliction. And this observation

is designed to reprove the vanity of the human understanding; since it is

so extremely stupid respecting things most necessary to be known. He had

just before said, “That which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts;

as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so

that a man hath no preëminence above a beast.”(1581) If any one would

infer from this, that the opinion which we hold of the immortality of the

soul rests upon mere conjecture, would he not be deservedly deemed insane?

Are those persons, then, in a state of sanity, who conclude that there is

no certainty of the favour of God, because it cannot be attained from the

carnal contemplation of present things?

XXXIX. But they plead that it is rash presumption in men to arrogate to

themselves an undoubted knowledge of the Divine will. This, indeed, I

would concede to them, if we pretended to subject the incomprehensible

counsel of God to the slenderness of our understanding. But when we simply

assert with Paul, that “we have received, not the spirit of the world, but

the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely

given to us of God,”(1582) what opposition can they make to us, without at

the same time insulting the Spirit of God? But if it be a horrible

sacrilege to accuse the revelation which proceeds from him either of

falsehood, or of uncertainty, or of ambiguity, wherein do we err in

affirming its certainty? But they exclaim, that we betray great temerity,

in thus presuming to boast of the Spirit of Christ. Who could believe the

stupidity of men desirous of being esteemed teachers of the world, to be

so extreme as to stumble in this shameful manner at the first elements of

religion? It would certainly be incredible to me, if it were not proved by

the writings which they have published. Paul pronounces them alone to be

the sons of God, who are led by his Spirit:(1583) these men will have

those who are the sons of God to be led by their own spirit, but to be

destitute of the Spirit of God. He teaches, that we call God our Father at

the suggestion of the Spirit, who “beareth witness with our spirit, that

we are the children of God:”(1584) these men, though they forbid not all

invocation of God, yet deprive us of the Spirit, by whose influence alone

he can be rightly invoked. He denies them to be the servants of Christ,

who are not led by the Spirit of Christ:(1585) these men invent a sort of

Christianity, to which the Spirit of Christ is not necessary. He admits no

hope of a happy resurrection, unless we experience the Spirit dwelling in

us:(1586) these men fabricate a hope unattended by such experience. But

perhaps they will answer, that they deny not the necessity of our being

endued with the Spirit; but that it is the part of modesty and humility

not to acknowledge our possession of him. What, then, is the meaning of

the apostle in this exhortation to the Corinthians—“Examine yourselves,

whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves; know ye not yourselves,

how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”(1587) But says

John, “We know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given

us.”(1588) And do we not call in question the promises of Christ, when we

wish to be accounted the servants of God without the possession of his

Spirit, whom he has announced that he will pour out upon all his

people?(1589) Do we not injure the Holy Spirit, if we separate faith from

him, which is his peculiar work? These being the first rudiments of piety,

it is a proof of most miserable blindness, that Christians are censured as

arrogant for presuming to glory in the presence of the Holy Spirit,

without which glorying Christianity itself cannot exist. But they

exemplify the truth of Christ’s assertion, “The world knoweth not the

Spirit of truth; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be

in you.”(1590)

XL. Not satisfied with one attempt to destroy the stability of faith, they

assail it again from another quarter; by arguing, that although we may

form a judgment concerning the favour of God from the present state of our

righteousness, yet the knowledge of final perseverance remains in

suspense. Truly we are left in possession of an admirable confidence of

salvation, if we can only conclude from mere conjecture that we are in the

favour of God at the present instant, but are utterly ignorant what may be

our fate to‐morrow. The apostle expresses a very different opinion: “I am

persuaded (says he) that neither life, nor death, nor angels, nor

principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor

height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us

from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”(1591) They

attempt to evade the force of this, by a frivolous pretence that the

apostle had it from a particular revelation; but they are too closely

pressed to avail themselves of this evasion. For he is there treating of

the benefits resulting from faith to all believers in common, not of any

which were peculiar to his own experience. But the same apostle, they say,

in another place, excites fear in us, by the mention of our imbecility and

inconstancy. “Let him (says he) that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest

he fall.”(1592) It is true; but not a fear by which we may be thrown into

consternation, but from which we may learn to “humble ourselves,” as Peter

expresses it, “under the mighty hand of God.” Besides, how preposterous is

it to limit to a moment of time the assurance of faith, whose nature it is

to go beyond the bounds of the present life, and reach forward to a future

immortality! Since believers, then, ascribe it to the grace of God that

they are illuminated by his Spirit, and enjoy through faith a

contemplation of the heavenly life, such a glorying is so remote from

arrogance, that, if any one be ashamed to confess it, he rather betrays

extreme ingratitude by a criminal suppression of the Divine goodness, than

gives an evidence of modesty or humility.

XLI. Because we thought that the nature of faith could not be better or

more clearly expressed than by the substance of the promise, which is the

proper foundation on which it rests, and the removal of which would

occasion its fall or annihilation,—it is from the promise, therefore, that

we have taken our definition, which, nevertheless, is not at all at

variance with that definition, or rather description, of the apostle,

which he accommodates to his argument; where he says, that “faith is the

substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”(1593) For

by ὑποστασις, which is the word he uses, and which is rendered substance,

he intends a prop, as it were, on which the pious mind rests and reclines;

as though he had said, that faith is a certain and secure possession of

those things which are promised to us by God. Unless any one would rather

understand ὑποστασις of confidence, to which I shall not object, though I

adopt that idea which is the more generally received. Again: to signify

that even till the last day, when the books shall be opened, these objects

are too sublime to be perceived by our senses, seen with our eyes, or

handled with our hands; and that, in the mean time, they are enjoyed by us

only as we exceed the capacity of our own understanding, extend our views

beyond all terrestrial things, and even rise above ourselves; he has

added, that this security of possession relates to things which are the

objects of hope, and therefore invisible. For “hope that is seen (as Paul

observes) is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope

for?”(1594) But when he calls it an evidence, or proof, or (as Augustine

has frequently rendered it) a conviction of things not seen, (for the

Greek word is ἐλεγχος,) it is just as though he had called it the evidence

of things not apparent, the vision of things not seen, the perspicuity of

things obscure, the presence of things absent, the demonstration of things

concealed. For the mysteries of God, of which description are the things

that pertain to our salvation, cannot be discerned in themselves, and in

their own nature; we only discover them in his word, of whose veracity we

ought to be so firmly persuaded, as to consider all that he speaks as

though it were already performed and accomplished. But how can the mind

elevate itself to receive such a taste of the Divine goodness, without

being all inflamed with mutual love to God? For the plenitude of

happiness, which God has reserved for them who fear him, cannot be truly

known, but it must at the same time excite a vehement affection. And those

whom it has once affected, it draws and elevates towards itself. Therefore

we need not wonder if a perverse and malicious heart never feel this

affection, which conducts us to heaven itself, and introduces us to the

most secret treasures of God and the most sacred recesses of his kingdom,

which must not be profaned by the entrance of an impure heart. For what

the schoolmen(1595) advance concerning the priority of charity to faith

and hope, is a mere reverie of a distempered imagination, since it is

faith alone which first produces charity in us. How much more accurately

Bernard speaks! “I believe,” says he, “that the testimony of conscience,

which Paul calls the rejoicing of the pious, consists in three things. For

it is necessary to believe, first of all, that you cannot have remission

of sins but through the mercy of God; secondly, that you cannot have any

good work, unless he bestow this also; lastly, that you cannot by any

works merit eternal life, unless that also be freely given.”(1596) Just

after he adds, “that these things are not sufficient, but are a beginning

of faith; because in believing that sins can only be forgiven by God, we

ought at the same time to consider that they are forgiven us, till we are

also persuaded, by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, that salvation is

laid up for us; because God forgives sins; he also bestows merits; he

likewise confers rewards; it is not possible to remain in this beginning.”

But these and other things must be treated in the proper places; it may

suffice, at present, to ascertain wherein faith itself consists.

XLII. Now, wherever this living faith shall be found, it must necessarily

be attended with the hope of eternal salvation as its inseparable

concomitant, or rather must originate and produce it; since the want of

this hope would prove us to be utterly destitute of faith, however

eloquently and beautifully we might discourse concerning it. For if faith

be, as has been stated, a certain persuasion of the truth of God, that it

can neither lie, nor deceive us, nor be frustrated,—they who have felt

this assurance, likewise expect a period to arrive when God will

accomplish his promises, which, according to their persuasion, cannot but

be true; so that, in short, hope is no other than an expectation of those

things which faith has believed to be truly promised by God. Thus faith

believes the veracity of God, hope expects the manifestation of it in due

time; faith believes him to be our Father, hope expects him always to act

towards us in this character; faith believes that eternal life is given to

us, hope expects it one day to be revealed; faith is the foundation on

which hope rests, hope nourishes and sustains faith. For as no man can

have any expectations from God, but he who has first believed his

promises, so also the imbecility of our faith must be sustained and

cherished by patient hope and expectation, lest it grow weary and faint.

For which reason, Paul rightly places our salvation in hope.(1597) For

hope, while it is silently expecting the Lord, restrains faith, that it

may not be too precipitate; it confirms faith, that it may not waver in

the Divine promises, or begin to doubt of the truth of them; it refreshes

it, that it may not grow weary; it extends it to the farthest goal, that

it may not fail in the midst of the course, or even at the entrance of it.

Finally, hope, by continually renewing and restoring faith, causes it

frequently to persevere with more vigour than hope itself. But in how many

cases the assistance of hope is necessary to the establishment of faith,

will better appear, if we consider how many species of temptations assail

and harass those who have embraced the word of God. First, the Lord, by

deferring the execution of his promises, frequently keeps our minds in

suspense longer than we wish; here it is the office of hope to obey the

injunction of the prophet—“though it tarry, wait for it.”(1598) Sometimes

he not only suffers us to languish, but openly manifests his indignation:

in this case it is much more necessary to have the assistance of hope,

that, according to the language of another prophet, we may “wait upon the

Lord that hideth his face from Jacob.”(1599) Scoffers also arise, as Peter

says, and inquire, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the

fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning

of the creation.”(1600) And the flesh and the world whisper the same

things into our ears. Here faith must be supported by the patience of

hope, and kept fixed on the contemplation of eternity, that it may

consider “a thousand years as one day.”(1601)

XLIII. On account of this union and affinity, the Scripture sometimes uses

the words faith and hope without any distinction. For when Peter says that

we “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be

revealed,”(1602) he attributes to faith, what was more applicable to hope;

and not without reason, since we have already shown, that hope is no other

than the nourishment and strength of faith. Sometimes they are joined

together, as in a passage of the same Epistle—“that your faith and hope

might be in God.”(1603) But Paul, in the Epistle to the Philippians,(1604)

deduces expectation from hope; because in patient hope we suspend our

desires till the arrival of God’s appointed time. All which may be better

understood from the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,(1605)

which I have already cited. In another place, Paul, though with some

impropriety of expression, conveys the very same idea in these words: “We,

through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith;”(1606)

because, having embraced the testimony of the gospel concerning his

gratuitous love, we wait till God openly manifests what is now concealed

under hope. Now, it is easy to see the absurdity of Peter Lombard, in

laying a twofold foundation of hope; the grace of God, and the merit of

works. Hope can have no other object than faith; and the only object of

faith, we have very clearly stated to be the mercy of God; to which both

its eyes, if I may be allowed the expression, ought to be directed. But it

may be proper to hear what kind of a reason he advances. If, says he, you

venture to hope for any thing without merits, it must not be called hope,

but presumption. Who is there that will not justly detest such teachers,

who pronounce a confidence in the veracity of God to be temerity and

presumption? For whereas it is the will of the Lord that we should expect

every thing from his goodness, they assert that it is presumption to

depend and rely upon it. Such a master is worthy of such disciples as he

has found in the schools of wranglers! But, as for us, since we see that

sinners are enjoined by the oracles of God to entertain a hope of

salvation, let us joyfully presume so far on his veracity as to reject all

confidence in our own works, to depend solely on his mercy, and venture to

cherish a hope of happiness. He who said, “According to your faith be it

unto you,”(1607) will not deceive us.

Chapter III. On Repentance.

Though we have already shown, in some respect, how faith possesses Christ,

and how by means of faith we enjoy his benefits, yet the subject would

still be involved in obscurity, unless we were to add a description of the

effects which we experience. The substance of the gospel is, not without

reason, said to be comprised in “repentance and remission of sins.”

Therefore, if these two points be omitted, every controversy concerning

faith will be jejune and incomplete, and consequently of little use. Now,

since both are conferred on us by Christ, and we obtain both by

faith,—that is, newness of life and gratuitous reconciliation,—the regular

method of instruction requires me, in this place, to enter on the

discussion of both. But our immediate transition will be from faith to

repentance; because, when this point is well understood, it will better

appear how man is justified by faith alone, and mere pardon, and yet that

real sanctity of life (so to speak) is not separated from the gratuitous

imputation of righteousness. Now, it ought not to be doubted that

repentance not only immediately follows faith, but is produced by it. For

since pardon, or remission, is offered by the preaching of the gospel, in

order that the sinner, liberated from the tyranny of Satan, from the yoke

of sin, and the miserable servitude of his vices, may remove into the

kingdom of God,—no one can embrace the grace of the gospel, but he must

depart from the errors of his former life, enter into the right way, and

devote all his attention to the exercise of repentance. Those who imagine

that repentance rather precedes faith, than is produced by it, as fruit by

a tree, have never been acquainted with its power, and are induced to

adopt that sentiment by a very insufficient argument.

II. They argue that Jesus Christ and John the Baptist, in their preaching,

first exhort the people to repentance; and afterwards add, that “the

kingdom of heaven is at hand;”(1608) that thus the apostles were commanded

to preach, and that this (according to the account of Luke)(1609) was the

method followed by Paul. But they superstitiously attend to the connection

of the syllables, and disregard the sense and coherence of the words. For

when Christ and John preach in this manner, “Repent, for the kingdom of

heaven is at hand,”(1610) do they not derive an argument for repentance

from grace itself, and the promise of salvation? The meaning of their

language, therefore, is just as though they had said, Since the kingdom of

heaven is at hand, therefore repent. For Matthew, having related that John

preached in this manner, informs us, that in him was accomplished the

prediction of Isaiah concerning “the voice of one crying in the

wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” But,

in the prophet, that voice is commanded to begin with consolation and glad

tidings.(1611) Yet, when we speak of faith as the origin of repentance, we

dream not of any space of time which it employs in producing it; but we

intend to signify, that a man cannot truly devote himself to repentance,

unless he knows himself to be of God. Now, no man is truly persuaded that

he is of God, except he has previously received his grace. But these

things will be more clearly discussed as we proceed. This circumstance,

perhaps, has deceived them—that many are overcome or led to obedience by

terrors of conscience, before they have imbibed a knowledge of grace, or

have even tasted it. And this is the initial fear, which some number among

the graces, because they perceive it to be nearly connected with true and

righteous obedience. But we are not inquiring, at present, in how many

ways Christ draws us to himself, or prepares us for the practice of piety:

only I assert, that no rectitude can be found but where that Spirit

reigns, whom he has received in order to communicate him to his members.

In the next place, according to this passage in the Psalms, “There is

forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,”(1612) no man will ever

reverence God, but he who confides in his being propitious to him: no man

will cheerfully devote himself to the observance of his law, but he who is

persuaded that his services are pleasing to him: and this indulgence in

pardoning us, and bearing with our faults, is an evidence of his paternal

favour. The same also appears from this exhortation of Hosea, “Come, and

let us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he

hath smitten, and he will bind us up;”(1613) because the hope of pardon is

added as a stimulus, to prevent them from being stupefied in their sins.

But there is not the least appearance of reason in the notion of those

who, in order to begin with repentance, prescribe to their young converts

certain days, during which they must exercise themselves in repentance;

after the expiration of which, they admit them to the communion of

evangelical grace. I speak of many of the Anabaptists, especially of those

who wonderfully delight in being accounted spiritual; and their

companions, the Jesuits, and other such worthless men. Such are the

effects produced by that spirit of fanaticism, that it terminates

repentance within the limits of a few short days, which a Christian ought

to extend throughout his whole life.

III. But concerning repentance, some learned men, in times very remote

from the present, desiring to express themselves with simplicity and

sincerity according to the rule of the Scripture, have said that it

consists of two parts—mortification and vivification. Mortification they

explain to be the sorrow of the mind, and the terror experienced from a

knowledge of sin and a sense of the Divine judgments. For when any one has

been brought to a true knowledge of sin, he then begins truly to hate and

abhor it; then he is heartily displeased with himself, confesses himself

to be miserable and lost, and wishes that he were another man. Moreover,

when he is affected with some sense of the Divine judgment, (for the one

immediately follows the other,) then, indeed, he is stricken with

consternation, he trembles with humility and dejection, he feels a

despondency of mind, he falls into despair. This is the first part of

repentance, which they have generally styled contrition. Vivification they

explain to be the consolation which is produced by faith; when a man,

after having been humbled with a consciousness of sin, and stricken with

the fear of God, afterwards contemplates the goodness of God, and the

mercy, grace, and salvation bestowed through Christ, rises from his

depression, feels himself re‐invigorated, recovers his courage, and as it

were returns from death to life. These terms, provided they be rightly

understood, are sufficiently adapted to express the nature of repentance;

but when they explain vivification of that joy which the mind experiences

after its perturbations and fears are allayed, I cannot coincide with

them; since it should rather signify an ardent desire and endeavour to

live a holy and pious life, as though it were said, that a man dies to

himself, that he may begin to live to God.

IV. Others, perceiving this word to have various acceptations in

Scripture, have laid down two kinds of repentance; and, to distinguish

them by some character, have called one Legal; in which the sinner,

wounded by the envenomed dart of sin, and harassed by the fear of Divine

wrath, is involved in deep distress, without the power of extricating

himself: the other they style Evangelical; in which the sinner is

grievously afflicted in himself, but rises above his distress, and

embraces Christ as the medicine for his wound, the consolation of his

terrors, and his refuge from all misery. Of legal repentance, they

consider Cain, Saul, and Judas, as examples;(1614) the scriptural account

of whose repentance gives us to understand, that from a knowledge of the

greatness of their sins they dreaded the Divine wrath, but that

considering God only as an avenger and a judge, they perished under that

apprehension. Their repentance, therefore, was only, as it were, the

antechamber of hell, which having already entered in this life, they began

to suffer punishment from the manifestation of the wrath of the Divine

Majesty. Evangelical repentance we discover in all who have been

distressed by a sense of sin in themselves, but have been raised from

their depression, and reinvigorated by a confidence in the Divine mercy,

and converted to the Lord. Hezekiah was terrified when he received the

message of death;(1615) but he wept and prayed, and, contemplating the

goodness of God, recovered his former confidence. The Ninevites were

confounded by the terrible denunciation of destruction;(1616) but they

covered themselves with sackcloth and ashes, and prayed, in hope that the

Lord might be appeased, and the fury of his wrath averted. David confessed

that he had committed a great sin in numbering the people; but added, “O

Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant.”(1617) He acknowledged his

crime of adultery at the rebuke of Nathan, and prostrated himself before

the Lord; but at the same time cherished an expectation of pardon.(1618)

Such was the repentance of those who felt compunction of heart at the

preaching of Peter, but, confiding in the goodness of God, exclaimed, “Men

and brethren, what shall we do?”(1619) Such also was that of Peter

himself, who wept bitterly, but never lost his hope.

V. Though all these observations are true, yet the term repentance, as far

as I can ascertain from the Scriptures, must have a different acceptation.

For to include faith in repentance, is repugnant to what Paul says in the

Acts—that he testified “both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks,

repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;”(1620)

where he mentions faith and repentance, as two things totally distinct.

What then? Can true repentance exist without faith? Not at all. But though

they cannot be separated, yet they ought to be distinguished. As faith

exists not without hope, and yet there is a difference between them, so

repentance and faith, although they are perpetually and indissolubly

united, require to be connected rather than confounded. I am well aware,

that under the term _repentance_ is comprehended a complete conversion to

God, of which faith is one of the principal branches; but in what sense,

will best appear from an explication of its nature and properties. The

Hebrew word for repentance denotes conversion or return. The Greek word

signifies change of mind and intention. Repentance itself corresponds very

well with both etymologies, for it comprehends these two things—that,

forsaking ourselves, we should turn to God, and laying aside our old mind,

should assume a new one. Wherefore I conceive it may be justly defined to

be “_a true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere and

serious fear of God, and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and

of the old man, and in the vivification of the Spirit_.” In this sense we

must understand all the addresses, in which either the prophets in ancient

days, or the apostles in a succeeding age, exhorted their contemporaries

to repentance. For the point to which they endeavoured to bring them was

this—that being confounded by their sins, and penetrated with a fear of

the Divine judgment, they might prostrate themselves in humility before

him against whom they had offended, and with true penitence return into

his right way. Therefore these expressions, “_to repent_”(1621) and “_to

return to the Lord_,”(1622) are promiscuously used by them in the same

signification. Hence also the sacred history expresses repentance by

_seeking after_ and _following God_, when men who have disregarded him,

and indulged their criminal propensities, begin to obey his word, and are

ready to follow whithersoever he calls them. And John and Paul have spoken

of “bringing forth fruits meet for repentance,” to signify a life which,

in every action, will discover and testify such a repentance.

VI. But before we proceed any further, it will be useful to amplify and

explain the definition we have given; in which there are three points to

be particularly considered. In the first place, when we call repentance “a

conversion of the life to God,” we require a transformation, not only in

the external actions, but in the soul itself; which, after having put off

its old nature, should produce the fruits of actions corresponding to its

renovation. The prophet, intending to express this idea, commands those

whom he calls to repentance, to make themselves a new heart.(1623)

Wherefore Moses, when about to show how the Israelites might repent and be

rightly converted to the Lord, frequently teaches them that it must be

done with all their heart, and with all their soul; and by speaking of the

circumcision of the heart, he enters into the inmost affections of the

mind. This mode of expression we find often repeated by the prophets; but

there is no passage from which we may obtain clearer ideas of the true

nature of repentance, than from the language of God in the fourth chapter

of Jeremiah: “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto

me. Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise

yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.”(1624)

Observe how he denounces that they shall labour in vain in the pursuit of

righteousness, unless impiety be previously eradicated from the bottom of

their hearts. And in order to make a deeper impression upon them, he

apprizes them that they have to do with God, with whom subterfuges are of

no avail, because he abhors all duplicity of heart. For this reason,

Isaiah ridicules the preposterous endeavours of hypocrites, who did indeed

strenuously attempt an external repentance by the observance of

ceremonies, but at the same time were not concerned “to loose the bands of

wickedness,”(1625) with which they oppressed the poor. In that passage he

also beautifully shows, in what duties unfeigned repentance properly

consists.

VII. In the second place, we represented repentance as proceeding from a

serious fear of God. For before the mind of a sinner can be inclined to

repentance, it must be excited by a knowledge of the Divine judgment. But

when this thought has once been deeply impressed, that God will one day

ascend his tribunal to exact an account of all words and actions, it will

not permit the miserable man to take any interval of rest, or to enjoy

even a momentary respite, but perpetually stimulates him to adopt a new

course of life, that he may be able to appear with security at that

judgment. Wherefore the Scripture, when it exhorts to repentance,

frequently introduces a mention of the judgment; as in Jeremiah; “Lest my

fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of

the evil of your doings:”(1626) in the address of Paul to the Athenians;

“The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men

every where to repent; because he hath appointed a day in which he will

judge the world in righteousness:”(1627) and in many other places.

Sometimes, by the punishments already inflicted, it declares that God is a

judge; in order that sinners may consider with themselves that worse

calamities await them, unless they speedily repent. We have an example of

this in the twenty‐ninth chapter of Deuteronomy. But since conversion

commences with a dread and hatred of sin, therefore the apostle makes

godly sorrow the cause of repentance.(1628) He calls it godly sorrow when

we not only dread punishment, but hate and abhor sin itself, from a

knowledge that it is displeasing to God. Nor ought this to be thought

strange; for, unless we felt sharp compunction, our carnal sluggishness

could never be corrected, and even these distresses of mind would not be

sufficient to arouse it from its stupidity and indolence, if God, by the

infliction of his chastisements, did not make a deeper impression. Beside

this, there is a rebellious obstinacy, which requires violent blows, as it

were, to overcome it. The severity, therefore, which God uses in his

threatenings, is extorted from him by the depravity of our minds; since it

would be in vain for him to address kind and alluring invitations to those

who are asleep. I forbear to recite the testimonies with which the

Scripture abounds. The fear of God is called the beginning of repentance

also for another reason; because though a man’s life were perfect in every

virtue, if it be not devoted to the worship of God, it may indeed be

commended by the world, but in heaven it will be only an abomination;

since the principal branch of righteousness consists in rendering to God

the honour due to him, of which he is impiously defrauded, when it is not

our end and aim to submit ourselves to his government.

VIII. It remains for us, in the third place, to explain our position, that

repentance consists of two parts—the mortification of the flesh and the

vivification of the spirit. This is clearly expressed by the prophets,

although in a simple and homely manner, according to the capacity of a

carnal people, when they say, “Depart from evil, and do good.”(1629)

Again: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from

before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment;

relieve the oppressed,” &c.(1630) For when they call men from the paths of

wickedness, they require the total destruction of the flesh, which is full

of wickedness and perverseness. It is a thing truly difficult and arduous

to put off ourselves, and to depart from the native bias of our minds. Nor

must the flesh be considered as entirely dead, unless all that we have of

ourselves be destroyed. But since the universal disposition of the flesh

is settled “enmity against God,”(1631) the first step to an obedience of

the law is this renunciation of our own nature. They afterwards designate

the renovation by its fruits—righteousness, judgment, and mercy. For a

punctual performance of these external duties would not be sufficient,

unless the mind and heart had previously acquired a disposition of

righteousness, judgment, and mercy. This takes place when the Spirit of

God has tinctured our souls with his holiness, and given them such new

thoughts and affections, that they may be justly considered as new, [or

altogether different from what they were before.] And certainly, as we

have a natural aversion to God, we shall never aim at that which is right,

without a previous renunciation of ourselves. Therefore we are so

frequently commanded to put off the old man, to renounce the world and the

flesh, to forsake our lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of our mind.

Besides, the very word mortification reminds us how difficult it is to

forget our former nature; for it implies that we cannot be formed to the

fear of God, and learn the rudiments of piety, without being violently

slain and annihilated by the sword of the Spirit. As though God had

pronounced that, in order to our being numbered among his children, there

is a necessity for the destruction of our common nature.

IX. Both these branches of repentance are effects of our participation of

Christ. For if we truly partake of his death, our old man is crucified by

its power, and the body of sin expires, so that the corruption of our

former nature loses all its vigour.(1632) If we are partakers of his

resurrection, we are raised by it to a newness of life, which corresponds

with the righteousness of God. In one word I apprehend repentance to be

regeneration, the end of which is the restoration of the Divine image

within us; which was defaced, and almost obliterated, by the transgression

of Adam. Thus the apostle teaches us, when he says, “But we all, with open

face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the

same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”(1633)

Again: “Be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind; and put on the new man,

which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”(1634)

Again, in another place: “And ye have put on the new man, which is renewed

in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”(1635) Wherefore, in

this regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the

righteousness of God, from which we fell in Adam; in which manner the Lord

is pleased completely to restore all those whom he adopts to the

inheritance of life. And this restoration is not accomplished in a single

moment, or day, or year; but by continual, and sometimes even tardy

advances, the Lord destroys the carnal corruptions of his chosen, purifies

them from all pollution, and consecrates them as temples to himself;

renewing all their senses to real purity, that they may employ their whole

life in the exercise of repentance, and know that this warfare will be

terminated only by death. And so much the greater is the wickedness of

that impure and quarrelsome apostate Staphylus, who idly pretends that I

confound the state of the present life with the glory of heaven, when I

explain the image of God, according to Paul, to be righteousness and true

holiness. As if, indeed, when any thing is to be defined, we are not to

inquire after the completeness and perfection of it. It is not denied that

there is room for further advances; but I assert, that as far as any man

approaches to a resemblance of God, so far the image of God is displayed

in him. That believers may attain to this, God assigns them the race of

repentance to run during their whole life.

X. Thus, therefore, the children of God are liberated by regeneration from

the servitude of sin; not that they have already obtained the full

possession of liberty, and experience no more trouble from the flesh, but

there remains in them a perpetual cause of contention to exercise them;

and not only to exercise them, but also to make them better acquainted

with their own infirmity. And on this subject all sound writers are

agreed—that there still remains in a regenerate man a fountain of evil,

continually producing irregular desires, which allure and stimulate him to

the commission of sin. They acknowledge, also, that saints are still so

afflicted with the disease of concupiscence, that they cannot prevent

their being frequently stimulated and incited either to lust, or to

avarice, or to ambition, or to other vices. There is no need of a

laborious investigation, to learn what were the sentiments of the fathers

on this subject: it will be sufficient to consult Augustine alone, who

with great diligence and fidelity has collected the opinions of them all.

From him, then, the reader may receive all the certainty he can desire

concerning the sense of antiquity. Between him and us, this difference may

be discovered—that while he concedes that believers, as long as they

inhabit a mortal body, are so bound by concupiscence that they cannot but

feel irregular desires, yet he ventures not to call this disease by the

name of _sin_, but, content with designating it by the appellation of

infirmity, teaches that it only becomes sin in cases where either action

or consent is added to the conception or apprehension of the mind, that

is, where the will yields to the first impulse of appetite. But we, on the

contrary, deem it to be sin, whenever a man feels any evil desires

contrary to the Divine law; and we also assert the depravity itself to be

sin, which produces these desires in our minds. We maintain, therefore,

that sin always exists in the saints, till they are divested of the mortal

body; because their flesh is the residence of that depravity of

concupiscence, which is repugnant to all rectitude. Nevertheless, he has

not always refrained from using the word sin in this sense; as when he

says, “Paul gives the appellation of sin to this, from which all sins

proceed, that is, to carnal concupiscence. This, as it respects the

saints, loses its kingdom on earth, and has no existence in heaven.” In

these words he acknowledges that believers are guilty of sin, inasmuch as

they are the subjects of carnal concupiscence.

XI. But when God is said “to cleanse his church”(1636) from all sin, to

promise the grace of deliverance in baptism, and to fulfil it in his

elect,—we refer these phrases rather to the guilt of sin, than to the

existence of sin. In the regeneration of his children, God does indeed

destroy the kingdom of sin in them, (for the Spirit supplies them with

strength, which renders them victorious in the conflict;) but though it

ceases to reign, it continues to dwell in them. Wherefore we say, that

“the old man is crucified,”(1637) that the law of sin is abolished in the

children of God, yet so that some relics remain; not to predominate over

them, but to humble them with a consciousness of their infirmity. We

grant, indeed, that they are not imputed, any more than if they did not

exist; but we likewise contend that it is owing to the mercy of God that

the saints are delivered from this guilt, who would otherwise be justly

accounted sinners and guilty before him. Nor will it be difficult for us

to confirm this opinion, since there are clear testimonies of Scripture to

support it. What can we desire more explicit than the declaration of Paul

to the Romans?(1638) In the first place, that he there speaks in the

character of a regenerate man, we have already shown; and Augustine has

evinced the same by the strongest arguments. I say nothing of his using

the words evil and sin. However those who wish to oppose us may cavil at

those words, yet who can deny that a resistance to the Divine law is evil?

who can deny that an opposition to righteousness is sin? finally, who will

not admit that there is guilt wherever there is spiritual misery? But all

these things are affirmed by Paul respecting this disease. Besides, we

have a certain demonstration from the law, by which this whole question

may be briefly decided. For we are commanded to love God with all our

heart, with all our mind, and with all our strength. Since all the powers

of our soul ought to be thus occupied by the love of God, it is evident

that the precept is not fulfilled by those who receive into their hearts

the least desire, or admit into their minds any thought, which may draw

them aside from the love of God into vanity. What then? Are not these

properties of the soul,—to be affected with sudden emotions, to apprehend

in the sensory, and to form conceptions in the mind? When these,

therefore, open a way for the admission of vain and corrupt thoughts, do

they not show that they are so far destitute of the love of God? Whoever,

therefore, refuses to acknowledge that all the inordinate desires of the

flesh are sins, and that that malady of concupiscence, which they call an

incentive to sin, is the source of sin, must necessarily deny the

transgression of the law to be sin.

XII. If it be thought absurd, that all the natural appetites of man should

be thus universally condemned, since they were implanted by God, the

author of nature,—we reply, that we by no means condemn those desires,

which God implanted so deeply in the nature of man at his first creation

that they cannot be eradicated from it without destroying humanity itself,

but only those insolent and lawless appetites which resist the commands of

God. But now, since, through the depravity of nature, all its powers are

so vitiated and corrupted, that disorder and intemperance are visible in

all our actions; because the appetites are inseparable from such excesses,

therefore we maintain that they are corrupt. Or, if it be wished to have

the substance of our opinion in fewer words, we say, that all the desires

of men are evil; and we consider them to be sinful, not as they are

natural, but because they are inordinate; and we affirm they are

inordinate, because nothing pure or immaculate can proceed from a

corrupted and polluted nature. Nor does Augustine deviate from this

doctrine so much as he appears to do. When he is too much afraid of the

odium with which the Pelagians endeavoured to overwhelm him, he sometimes

refrains from using the word _sin_: yet when he says, “that the law of sin

remains in the saints, and that only the guilt is abolished,” he

sufficiently indicates that he is not averse to our opinion.

XIII. We will adduce some other passages, from which his sentiments will

more fully appear. In his second book against Julian: “This law of sin is

both abolished in the spiritual regeneration, and continues in the mortal

flesh; abolished, since the guilt is removed in the sacrament, by which

believers are regenerated; but continues, because it produces those

desires against which also believers contend.” Again: “Therefore the law

of sin, which was in the members even of so great an apostle, is abolished

in baptism, but not finally destroyed.” Again: “The law of sin, the

remaining guilt of which is removed in baptism, Ambrose has called

_iniquity_; because it is iniquitous for the flesh to lust against the

spirit.” Again: “Sin is dead in that guilt in which it held us; and,

although dead, it will rebel till it is cured by the perfection of

burial.” In the fifth book, he is still more explicit: “As blindness of

heart is both a sin, which consists in a man’s not believing in God; and a

punishment for sin, by which a proud heart is deservedly punished; and

also a cause of sin, when any is committed through the error of a blind

heart; so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit

lusteth, is both a sin, because it is a disobedience against the

government of the mind; and a punishment for sin, because it is inflicted

for the demerits of the disobedient; and also a cause of sin, consenting

by defection, or produced from contagion.” Here he styles it _sin_,

without any ambiguity; because, having overthrown error and confirmed the

truth, he is not so much afraid of calumnies; as also in the forty‐first

homily on John, where he undoubtedly speaks the real sentiments of his

mind: “If in the flesh you serve the law of sin, do what the apostle

himself says—’Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey

it in the lusts thereof.’(1639) He says not, let it not exist; but, let it

not reign. As long as you live, sin must necessarily exist in your

members; let it at least be divested of its kingdom, so that its commands

may not be fulfilled.” Those who contend that concupiscence is not sin,

commonly object this passage of James—“When lust hath conceived, it

bringeth forth sin.”(1640) But this objection is easily repelled; for,

unless we understand him there to speak of evil works exclusively, or of

actual sins, even an evil volition cannot be accounted sin. But from his

calling flagitious and criminal actions the offspring of lust, and

attributing to them the name of sin, it does not necessarily follow that

concupiscence is not an evil thing, and deserving of condemnation in the

sight of God.

XIV. Some Anabaptists, in the present age, imagine I know not what frantic

intemperance, instead of spiritual regeneration—that the children of God,

being restored to a state of innocence, are no longer obliged to be

solicitous to restrain the licentiousness of the flesh, but that they

ought to follow the leadings of the Spirit, under whose direction it is

impossible ever to err. It would be incredible that the mind of man should

fall into such madness, did they not publicly and haughtily disseminate

this opinion. It is indeed truly prodigious; but it is just and

reasonable, that those who have persuaded themselves to pervert the truth

of God into a falsehood, should suffer such punishment for their

sacrilegious presumption. Must all distinction, then, of honour and

turpitude, justice and injustice, good and evil, virtue and vice, be

annihilated? This difference, they say, proceeds from the malediction of

the old Adam, from which we are delivered by Christ. Then there will be no

difference now between chastity and fornication, sincerity and knavery,

truth and falsehood, equity and rapine. Dismiss (they say) all vain fear;

the Spirit will command you nothing that is evil, provided you securely

and intrepidly resign yourself to his direction. Who is not astonished at

these monstrous notions? Yet this is a popular philosophy among those,

who, blinded by the violence of their appetites, have discarded common

sense. But what kind of a Christ, and what kind of a Spirit, have they

fabricated for us? For we acknowledge one Christ and his Spirit alone;

whom the prophets have celebrated, whom the gospel proclaims as revealed,

but of whom it gives us no such account as this. That Spirit is not the

patron of murder, fornication, drunkenness, pride, contention, avarice, or

fraud; but the author of love, chastity, sobriety, modesty, peace,

moderation, and truth. He is not a Spirit of fanaticism, rushing

precipitately, without any consideration, through right and wrong; but is

full of wisdom and understanding, rightly to discern between justice and

injustice. He never instigates to dissolute and unrestrained

licentiousness; but, discriminating between what is lawful and what is

unlawful, inculcates temperance and moderation. But why should we spend

any more labour in refuting this monstrous frenzy? To Christians the

Spirit of the Lord is not a turbulent phantom, which they have either

spawned themselves in a dream, or received from the invention of others;

but they religiously seek the knowledge of him in the Scriptures, where

these two things are delivered concerning him—first, that he is given to

us in order to our sanctification, to purify us from all our pollutions,

and lead us to obey the Divine righteousness; which obedience cannot exist

without the subjugation of the appetites, to which these men would allow

an unlimited license: in the next place, that we are so purified by his

sanctification, that we are nevertheless still encompassed with numerous

vices and great infirmity, as long as we are burdened with the body.

Wherefore, being at a great distance from perfection, it behoves us to

make continual advances; and being entangled in vices, we have need to

strive against them every day. Hence, also, it follows that we ought to

shake off all slothful security, and exert the most vigilant attention,

lest, without caution, we should be surprised and overcome by the snares

of our flesh; unless we are well assured that we have made a greater

progress than the apostle; who, nevertheless, was buffeted by the

“messenger of Satan,”(1641) that his strength might be “made perfect in

weakness;”(1642) and who faithfully represented the conflict between the

flesh and the Spirit, which he experienced in his own person.

XV. When the apostle, in a description of repentance, enumerates seven

things, which are either causes producing it, or effects proceeding from

it, or members and parts of it, he does it for a very good reason. These

things are, carefulness, excuse, indignation, fear, vehement desire, zeal,

revenge.(1643) Nor ought it to be thought strange that I venture not to

determine whether they should be considered as causes or effects; for

arguments may be adduced in support of both. They may also be styled

affections connected with repentance; but as we may discover the meaning

of Paul without discussing these questions, we shall be content with a

simple exposition of them. He says, then, that godly sorrow produces

_solicitude_. For a person who is affected with a serious sense of

displeasure because he has sinned against his God, is at the same time

stimulated to diligence and attention, that he may completely extricate

himself from the snares of the devil, and be more cautious of his

insidious attacks, that he may not in future disobey the government of the

Spirit, or be overcome with a careless security. The next thing is _self‐

excuse_, which in this place signifies not a defence by which a sinner

tries to escape the judgment of God, either by denying his transgressions

or extenuating his guilt, but a kind of excuse, consisting rather in

deprecation of punishment than in confidence of his cause. Just as

children, who are not absolutely lost to all sense of duty, while they

acknowledge and confess their faults, at the same time deprecate

punishment, and, in order to succeed, testify by every possible method

that they have not cast off that reverence which is due to their parents;

in a word, they excuse themselves in such a manner, not to prove

themselves righteous and innocent, but only to obtain pardon. This is

followed by _indignation_, in which the sinner laments within himself,

expostulates with himself, and is angry with himself, while he recollects

his perverseness and ingratitude to God. The word _fear_ denotes that

trepidation with which our minds are penetrated, whenever we reflect upon

our demerits, and on the terrible severity of the Divine wrath against

sinners. For we cannot but be agitated with an amazing inquietude, which

teaches us humility, and renders us more cautious for the future. Now, if

the solicitude before mentioned be the offspring of fear, we see the

connection and coherence between them. He appears to me to have used the

word _desire_ to denote diligence in duty and alacrity of obedience, to

which the knowledge of our faults ought to be a most powerful stimulus.

Similar to this is the meaning of _zeal_, which he immediately subjoins;

for it signifies the ardour with which we are inflamed, when we are roused

with such thoughts as these: “What have I done? Whither had I precipitated

myself, if I had not been succoured by the mercy of God?” The last thing

is _revenge_, or punishment; for the greater our severity is towards

ourselves, and the stricter inquisition we make concerning our sins, so

much the stronger hope ought we to entertain that God will be propitious

and merciful. And, indeed, it is impossible but that a soul, impressed

with a dread of the Divine judgment, must inflict some punishment on

itself. Truly pious persons experience what punishments are contained in

shame, confusion, lamentation, displeasure with themselves, and the other

affections which arise from a serious acknowledgment of their

transgressions. But let us remember that some limit must be observed, that

we may not be overwhelmed in sorrow; for to nothing are terrified

consciences more liable than to fall into despair. And with this artifice,

also, whomsoever Satan perceives to be dejected by a fear of God, he

plunges them further and further into the deep gulf of sorrow, that they

may never arise again. That fear, indeed, cannot be excessive, which

terminates in humility, and departs not from the hope of pardon.

Nevertheless, the sinner should always be on his guard, according to the

direction of the apostle,(1644)lest while he excites his heart to be

displeased with himself, he be _wearied_ with excessive dread, and _faint

in his mind_; for this would drive us away from God, who calls us to

himself by repentance. On this subject, Bernard also gives a very useful

admonition: “Sorrow for sin is necessary, if it be not perpetual. I advise

you sometimes to quit the anxious and painful recollection of your own

ways, and to arise to an agreeable and serene remembrance of the Divine

blessings. Let us mingle honey with wormwood, that its salutary bitterness

may restore our health, when it shall be drunk tempered with a mixture of

sweetness; and if you reflect on your own meanness, reflect also on the

goodness of the Lord.”

XVI. Now, it may also be understood what are the fruits of repentance.

They are, the duties of piety towards God, and of charity towards men,

with sanctity and purity in our whole life. In a word, the more diligently

any one examines his life by the rule of the Divine law, so much the more

certain evidences he discovers of his repentance. The Spirit, therefore,

in frequently exhorting us to repentance, calls our attention, sometimes

to all the precepts of the law, sometimes to the duties of the second

table; though in other places, after having condemned impurity in the very

fountain of the heart, he proceeds to those external testimonies which

evidence a sincere repentance; a view of which I will soon exhibit to the

reader, in a description of the Christian life. I shall not collect

testimonies from the prophets, in which they partly ridicule the follies

of those who attempt to appease God by ceremonies, and demonstrate them to

be mere mockeries; and partly inculcate, that external integrity of life

is not the principal branch of repentance, because God looks at the heart.

He that is but ordinarily acquainted with the Scripture, will discover of

himself, without being informed by any one, that in our concerns with God,

we advance not a single step unless we begin with the internal affection

of the heart. And this passage of Joel will afford us no small assistance

in the interpretation of others: “Rend your heart, and not your

garments.”(1645) Both these ideas are briefly expressed in these words of

James—“Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double

minded;”(1646) where there is indeed an addition made to the first clause;

but the fountain, or original, is next discovered, showing the necessity

of cleansing the secret pollution, that an altar may be erected to God

even in the heart. There are likewise some external exercises which we

use, in private, as remedies either to humble ourselves, or to subdue our

carnality; and in public, to testify our repentance. They proceed from the

revenge mentioned by Paul;(1647) for it is natural to an afflicted mind to

continue in a squalid condition, groaning and weeping, to avoid every kind

of splendour and pomp, and to forsake all pleasures. He who experiences

the great evil of the rebellion of the flesh, seeks every remedy to

restrain it. He who properly considers what a grievous thing it is to have

offended the justice of God, can enjoy no repose till he has glorified God

by his humility. Such exercises are frequently mentioned by the old

writers, when they speak of the fruits of repentance. And though they by

no means make repentance wholly to consist in them, yet the reader will

pardon me if I deliver my opinion, that they appear to me to insist upon

them more than they ought. And I hope every one, on a sober examination,

will agree with me, that they have gone beyond all due bounds in two

respects. For when they so strongly urged and so extravagantly recommended

that corporeal discipline, the consequence was indeed that the common

people adopted it with great ardour; but they also obscured that which

ought to be esteemed of infinitely greater importance. Secondly, in the

infliction of castigations, they used rather more rigour than was

consistent with ecclesiastical gentleness. But we shall have to treat of

this in another place.

XVII. But as some persons, when they find weeping, fasting, and ashes

mentioned, not only in many other passages of Scripture, but particularly

in Joel,(1648) consider fasting and weeping as the principal part of

repentance, their mistake requires to be rectified. What is there said of

the conversion of the whole heart to the Lord, and of rending not the

garments, but the heart, properly belongs to repentance; but weeping and

fasting are not added as perpetual or necessary effects of it, but as

circumstances belonging to a particular case. Having prophesied that a

most grievous destruction was impending over the Jews, he persuades them

to prevent the Divine wrath, not only by repentance, but also by

exhibiting external demonstrations of sorrow. For as it was customary, in

ancient times, for an accused person to present himself in a suppliant

posture, with a long beard, dishevelled hair, and mourning apparel, in

order to conciliate the compassion of the judge, so it became those who

stood as criminals before the tribunal of God, to deprecate his severity

in a condition calculated to excite commiseration. Though sackcloth and

ashes were perhaps more suitable to those times, yet it is evident that

the practice of weeping and fasting would be very seasonable among us,

whenever the Lord appears to threaten us with any affliction or calamity.

For when he causes danger to appear, he, as it were, denounces that he is

prepared and armed for the exercise of vengeance. The prophet, therefore,

was right in exhorting his countrymen to weeping and fasting; that is, to

the sadness of persons under accusation, into whose offences he had just

before said that an examination was instituted. Neither would the pastors

of the church act improperly in the present age, if, when they perceived

calamity impending over the heads of their people, they called them to

immediate weeping and fasting; provided they always insisted with the

greatest fervour and diligence on the principal point, which is, that they

must rend their hearts, and not their garments. It is certain, that

fasting is not always the concomitant of repentance, but is appointed for

times of peculiar calamity; wherefore Christ connects it with mourning,

when he frees the apostles from any obligation to it, till they should be

affected with grief at the loss of his presence.(1649) I speak of solemn

fasting. For the life of the pious ought at all times to be regulated by

frugality and sobriety, that through its whole progress it may appear to

be a kind of perpetual fast. But as the whole of this subject must be

discussed again, when we come to treat of Ecclesiastical Discipline, I

touch the more slightly upon it at present.

XVIII. I will again remark, however, that when the word _repentance_ is

transferred to this external profession, it is improperly changed from the

genuine signification which I have stated. For this external profession is

not so much a conversion to God, as a confession of sin, with a

deprecation of punishment and guilt. Thus to “repent in sackcloth and

ashes,”(1650) is only a declaration of our displeasure against ourselves,

when God is angry with us on account of our grievous offences. And this is

a public species of confession, by which condemning ourselves before

angels and men, we prevent the judgment of God. For Paul rebukes the

sluggishness of those who indulge their sins, saying, “If we would judge

ourselves, we should not be judged.”(1651) It is not necessary, in all

cases, publicly to make men witnesses of our repentance; but a private

confession to God is a branch of true penitence which cannot be omitted.

For nothing is more unreasonable than that God should pardon sins, in

which we encourage ourselves, and which, lest he should bring them to

light, we conceal under the garb of hypocrisy. And it is not only

necessary to confess the sins which we commit from day to day; more

grievous falls ought to lead us further, and to recall to our remembrance

those which appear to have been long buried in oblivion. We learn this

from the example of David;(1652) for, being ashamed of a recent and

flagitious crime, he examines himself back to the time of his conception,

and acknowledges that even then he was corrupted and contaminated with

carnal impurity; and this not to extenuate his guilt, as many conceal

themselves in a multitude, and endeavour to escape with impunity by

implicating others with themselves. Very different was the conduct of

David, who ingenuously aggravated his guilt, by confessing that he was

corrupted from his earliest infancy, and had never ceased to accumulate

crimes upon crimes. In another place, also, he enters on such an

examination of his past life, that he implores the Divine mercy to pardon

the sins of his youth.(1653) And certainly we shall never give proof that

we have shaken off our lethargy, till, groaning under the burden, and

bewailing our misery, we pray to God for relief. It is further to be

remarked, that the repentance which we are commanded constantly to

practise, differs from that which arouses, as it were, from death those

who have either fallen into some great enormity, or abandoned themselves

to a course of sin with unrestrained license, or by any rebellion shaken

off the Divine yoke. For when the Scripture exhorts to repentance, it

frequently signifies a kind of transition and resurrection from death to

life; and when it states that the people repented, it means that they

departed from idolatry and other gross enormities; in which sense Paul

declares his grief for sinners, who “have not repented of their

uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness.”(1654) This difference

should be carefully observed, lest, when we hear that few are called to

repentance, we fall into a supine security, as though we had no more to do

with the mortification of the flesh, from which the depraved appetites

that perpetually disturb us, and the vices that often arise in us, will

never permit us to relax. The special repentance, therefore, which is only

required of some whom the devil has seduced from the fear of God, and

entangled in his fatal snares, supersedes not that ordinary repentance,

which the corruption of nature obliges us to practise during the whole

course of our lives.

XIX. Now, if it be true, as it certainly is, that the whole substance of

the gospel is comprised in these two points, repentance and remission of

sins,—do not we perceive that the Lord freely justifies his children, that

he may also restore them to true righteousness by the sanctification of

his Spirit? John, the “messenger sent before the face” of Christ to

“prepare his way before him,”(1655) preached, “Repent ye, for the kingdom

of heaven is at hand.”(1656) By calling men to repentance, he taught them

to acknowledge themselves to be sinners, and every thing belonging to them

to be condemned before God, that they might earnestly desire and pray for

a mortification of the flesh, and new regeneration in the Spirit. By

announcing the kingdom of God, he called them to exercise faith; for by

“the kingdom of God,” the approach of which he proclaimed, he intended

remission of sins, salvation, life, and in general all the benefits that

we obtain in Christ. Wherefore, in the other evangelists, it is said, that

“John came, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of

sins.”(1657) What was intended by this, but that, oppressed and wearied

with the burden of sins, men should turn themselves to the Lord, and

entertain a hope of remission and salvation? Thus, also, Christ commenced

his public ministrations. “The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and

believe the gospel.”(1658) First, he declares that the treasures of mercy

are opened in himself; then he requires repentance; and lastly, a reliance

on the Divine promises. Therefore, when he would give a brief summary of

the whole gospel, he said, that “it behoved him to suffer, and to rise

from the dead; and that repentance and remission of sins should be

preached in his name.”(1659) The apostles also, after his resurrection,

preached that he was exalted by God, “to give repentance to Israel and

remission of sins.”(1660) Repentance is preached in the name of Christ,

when men are informed, by the doctrine of the gospel, that all their

thoughts, their affections, and their pursuits, are corrupt and vicious;

and that therefore it is necessary for them to be born again, if they wish

to enter the kingdom of God. Remission of sins is preached, when men are

taught that Christ is made unto them “wisdom, and righteousness, and

sanctification, and redemption;”(1661) in whose name they are gratuitously

accounted righteous and innocent in the sight of God. Both these blessings

of grace, as we have already shown, are apprehended by faith; yet since

the goodness of God in the remission of sins is the peculiar object of

faith, it was necessary that it should be carefully distinguished from

repentance.

XX. Now, as a hatred of sin, which is the commencement of repentance, is

our first introduction to the knowledge of Christ, who reveals himself to

none but miserable and distressed sinners, who mourn, and labour, and are

heavy laden; who hunger and thirst, and are pining away with grief and

misery;(1662) so it is necessary for us, if we desire to abide in Christ,

to strive for this repentance, to devote our whole lives to it, and to

pursue it to the last. For he “came to call sinners,” but it was to call

them “to repentance.”(1663) He was “sent to bless” the unworthy; but it

was “in turning away every one from his iniquities.”(1664) The Scripture

is full of such expressions. Wherefore, when God offers remission of sins,

he generally requires repentance on the part of the sinner; implying that

his mercy ought to furnish a motive to excite us to repentance. “Keep ye

judgment, and do justice; for my salvation is near.”(1665) Again: “The

Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in

Jacob.”(1666) Again: “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon

him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous

man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy

upon him.”(1667) Again: “Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be

blotted out.”(1668) Here it must be remarked, however, that this condition

is not annexed in such a manner, as though our repentance were the

fundamental and meritorious cause of pardon; but rather, because the Lord

has determined to have mercy upon men, in order that they may repent, he

informs them what course they must take if they wish to obtain his favour.

Therefore, as long as we inhabit the prison of our body, we shall have to

maintain an incessant conflict with the vices of our corrupt nature, and

even with our natural soul. Plato sometimes says, that the life of a

philosopher is a meditation of death. We may assert with more truth, that

the life of a Christian is perpetually employed in the mortification of

the flesh, till it is utterly destroyed, and the Spirit of God obtains the

sole empire within us. Wherefore I think that he has made a very

considerable proficiency, who has learned to be exceedingly displeased

with himself: not that he should remain in this distress, and advance no

further, but rather hasten and aspire towards God; that being ingrafted

into the death and life of Christ, he may make repentance the object of

his constant meditation and pursuit. And this cannot but be the conduct of

those who feel a genuine hatred of sin; for no man ever hated sin, without

having been previously captivated with the love of righteousness. This

doctrine, as it is the most simple of all, so also it appears to me to be

most consistent with the truth of the Scripture.

XXI. That repentance is a peculiar gift of God, must, I think, be so

evident from the doctrine just stated, as to preclude the necessity of a

long discourse to prove it. Therefore the Church praises and admires the

goodness of God, that he “hath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto

life;”(1669) and Paul, when he enjoins Timothy to be patient and gentle

towards unbelievers, says, “If God, peradventure, will give them

repentance, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the

devil.”(1670) God affirms, indeed, that he wills the conversion of all

men, and directs his exhortations promiscuously to all; but the efficacy

of these exhortations depends on the Spirit of regeneration. For it were

more easy to make ourselves men, than by our own power to endue ourselves

with a more excellent nature. Therefore, in the whole course of

regeneration, we are justly styled God’s “workmanship, created unto good

works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”(1671)

Whomsoever God chooses to rescue from destruction, them he vivifies by the

Spirit of regeneration: not that repentance is properly the cause of

salvation, but because, as we have already seen, it is inseparable from

faith and the mercy of God; since, according to the testimony of Isaiah,

“the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from

transgression in Jacob.”(1672) It remains an unshaken truth, that wherever

the fear of God prevails in the heart, the Spirit has operated to the

salvation of that individual. Therefore, in Isaiah, where believers are

bewailing and deploring their being deserted by God, they mention this as

a sign of reprobation, that their hearts are hardened by him.(1673) The

apostle also, intending to exclude apostates from all hope of salvation,

asserts, as a reason, that “it is impossible to renew them again unto

repentance;”(1674) because God, in the renewal of those whom he will not

suffer to perish, discovers an evidence of his paternal favour, and

attracts them to himself with the radiance of his serene and joyful

countenance; whilst, on the contrary, he displays his wrath in hardening

the reprobate, whose impiety is never to be forgiven.(1675) This kind of

vengeance the apostle denounces against wilful apostates, who, when they

depart from the faith of the gospel, deride God, contumeliously reject his

grace, profane and trample on the blood of Christ, and do all in their

power to crucify him again. For he does not, as is pretended by some

preposterously severe persons, preclude all voluntary sinners from a hope

of pardon. His design is to show that apostasy is unworthy of every

excuse, and therefore it is not strange that God punishes such a

sacrilegious contempt of himself with inexorable rigour. “For it is

impossible (he tells us) for those who were once enlightened, and have

tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they

crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open

shame.”(1676) Again: “If we sin wilfully after that we have received the

knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a

certain fearful looking‐for of judgment.”(1677) These are the passages,

from a misinterpretation of which the Novatians formerly derived a

pretence for their extravagant opinions; and the apparent harshness of

which has offended some good men, and induced them to believe that this

Epistle is supposititious, though every part of it contains unequivocal

evidences of the apostolic spirit. But as we are contending only with

those who receive it, it is easy to show that these passages afford not

the least countenance to their error. In the first place, the apostle must

necessarily be in unison with his Master, who affirms that “all sin and

blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy

Ghost, which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the

world to come.”(1678) The apostle, I say, must certainly have been content

with this exception, unless we wish to make him an enemy to the grace of

Christ. Whence it follows, that pardon is denied to no particular sins,

except one, which proceeds from desperate fury, and cannot be attributed

to infirmity, but clearly proves a man to be possessed by the devil.

XXII. But, for the further elucidation of this subject, it is necessary to

inquire into the nature of that dreadful crime which will obtain no

forgiveness. Augustine somewhere defines it to be an obstinate

perverseness, attended with a despair of pardon, and continued till death;

but this is not consistent with the language of Christ, that “it shall not

be forgiven in this world.” For either this is a vain assertion, or the

sin may be committed in this life. But if the definition of Augustine be

right, it is never committed unless it continue till death. Others say,

that a man sins against the Holy Ghost, who envies the grace bestowed on

his brother. I know no foundation for this notion. But we will adduce the

true definition; which when it shall have been proved by strong

testimonies, will of itself easily overturn all others. I say, then, that

the sin against the Holy Ghost is committed by those who, though they are

so overpowered with the splendour of Divine truth that they cannot pretend

ignorance, nevertheless resist it with determined malice, merely for the

sake of resisting it. For Christ, in explanation of what he had asserted,

immediately subjoins, “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,

it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,

it shall not be forgiven him.”(1679) And Matthew, instead of “blasphemy

against the Spirit,” says, “blasphemy of the Spirit.”(1680) How can any

one cast a reproach on the Son, that is not also directed against the

Spirit? Those who unadvisedly offend against the truth of God, which they

know not, and who ignorantly revile Christ, but at the same time have such

a disposition that they would not extinguish the Divine truth if revealed

to them, or utter one injurious word against him whom they knew to be the

Lord’s Christ,—they sin against the Father and the Son. Thus there are

many, in the present day, who most inveterately execrate the doctrines of

the gospel, which if they knew to be the evangelical doctrine, they would

be ready to venerate with their whole heart. But those who are convinced

in their conscience, that it is the word of God which they reject and

oppose, and yet continue their opposition,—they are said to blaspheme

against the Spirit, because they strive against the illumination which is

the work of the Holy Spirit. Such were some among the Jews, who, when they

were not able to resist the Spirit(1681) that spake by Stephen, yet

obstinately strove to resist. Many of them were undoubtedly urged to this

conduct by a zeal for the law; but it appears that there were others, who

were infuriated by a malignant impiety against God himself, that is,

against the doctrine which they knew to be from God. Such also were the

Pharisees, whom the Lord rebuked; who, in order to counteract the

influence of the Holy Spirit, slanderously ascribed it to the power of

Beelzebub.(1682) This, then, is “blasphemy of the Spirit,” where the

presumption of man deliberately strives to annihilate the glory of God.

This is implied in the observation of Paul, that he “obtained mercy,

because” he had “ignorantly in unbelief” committed those crimes, the

demerits of which would otherwise have excluded him from the grace of the

Lord.(1683) If the union of ignorance and unbelief was the reason of his

obtaining pardon, it follows that there is no room for pardon where

unbelief has been attended with knowledge.

XXIII. But, on a careful observation, you will perceive that the apostle

speaks not of one or more particular falls, but of the universal

defection, by which the reprobate exclude themselves from salvation. We

need not wonder that those whom John, in his canonical Epistle, affirms

not to have been of the number of the elect from whom they departed,

experience God to be implacable towards them.(1684) For he directs his

discourse against those who imagined that they might return to the

Christian religion, although they had once apostatized from it; to whom he

contradicts this false and pernicious notion, declaring, what is

absolutely true, that it is impossible for persons to return to the

communion of Christ, who have knowingly and wilfully rejected it. And it

is rejected, not by those who simply transgress the word of the Lord by a

dissolute and licentious life, but by those who professedly renounce all

his doctrines. Therefore the fallacy lies in the terms _falling away_ and

_sinning_; for the Novatians explain _falling away_ to take place, when

any one, after having been instructed by the law of the Lord that theft

and fornication ought not to be committed, yet abstains not from either of

these sins. But, on the contrary, I affirm that there is a tacit

antithesis understood, which ought to contain a repetition of all the

opposites of the things which had been previously mentioned; so that this

passage expresses not any particular vice, but a universal defection from

God, and if I may use the expression, an apostasy of the whole man. When

he speaks, therefore, of some who fell away, “after they were once

enlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers

of the Holy Ghost, and the powers of the world to come,”(1685) it must be

understood of persons who, with deliberate impiety, have smothered the

light of the Spirit, rejected the taste of the heavenly gift, alienated

themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit, and trampled on the word

of God and the powers of the world to come. And the more fully to express

that decided determination of impiety, he afterwards, in another place,

adds the word _wilfully_. For when he says, that “if we sin wilfully after

that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more

sacrifice,”(1686) he denies not that Christ is a perpetual sacrifice to

expiate the iniquities of the saints, which almost the whole Epistle

expressly proclaims in describing the priesthood of Christ, but intends

that there remains no other where that is rejected. But it is rejected,

when the truth of the gospel is avowedly renounced.

XXIV. The objection of some, who conceive it to be severe and inconsistent

with the Divine clemency, that pardon should be refused to any who flee to

the Lord imploring his mercy, is easily answered. For he affirms not that

pardon is denied to them if they turn themselves to the Lord; but he

absolutely denies the possibility of their attaining to repentance,

because they are stricken with eternal blindness by the righteous judgment

of God, on account of their ingratitude. Nor is it any objection that the

same apostle afterwards accommodates to this subject the example of Esau,

who vainly endeavoured with weeping and lamentation to recover his lost

rights of primogeniture. Nor that the prophet utters this denunciation:

“though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.”(1687) For

such forms of expression signify neither true conversion nor invocation of

God, but the anxiety felt by the impious in extreme calamity, which

constrains them to consider, what before they carelessly disregarded, that

nothing can do them any good but the assistance of the Lord. And this they

do not so much implore, as bewail its being withheld from them. Therefore

the prophet intends by _crying_, and the apostle by _weeping_, only that

dreadful torment which excruciates the impious with the agonies of

despair. This requires to be carefully observed, because otherwise this

procedure of God would contradict his proclamation by the mouth of the

prophet, that as soon as the sinner shall have turned, he will be

propitious to him.(1688) And, as I have already remarked, it is certain

that the human mind is not changed for the better, except by the previous

influence of his grace. Nor will his promise respecting those who call

upon him, ever deceive; but it is improper to apply the terms _conversion_

and _prayer_ to that blind torment by which the reprobate are distracted,

when they see that it is necessary for them to seek God in order to find a

remedy for their miseries, while at the same time they continue to flee

from his approach.

XXV. But it is inquired, since the apostle denies that God is appeased by

a hypocritical repentance, how Ahab obtained pardon, and averted the

punishment with which he had been threatened, though he appears, from the

subsequent tenor of his life, to have been only terrified by a sudden

consternation. He clothed himself with sackcloth, sprinkled ashes upon his

head, lay on the ground, and, as it is declared concerning him, “humbled

himself before God;”(1689) but it was nothing to rend his garments, while

his heart remained perverse and inflated with wickedness. Yet we see how

God is inclined to clemency. I reply, that sometimes hypocrites are thus

spared for a season, yet that the wrath of God always abides upon them,

and that this is done not so much for their sakes, as for a public

example. For what benefit did Ahab receive from the mitigation of the

threatened punishment, but a respite from it during his continuance in

this world? The malediction of God, therefore, although concealed, fixed

itself in his family, and he himself went forward to eternal perdition.

The same may be observed in the case of Esau; for though he suffered a

repulse, yet a temporal benediction was granted to his tears.(1690) But

since the spiritual inheritance, according to the oracle of God, could

remain only with one of the brothers, when Jacob was chosen and Esau

rejected, that preterition shut out the Divine mercy; yet this consolation

was left to him as to a man on a level with the brutes, that he should be

enriched with “the fatness of the earth and the dew of heaven.” This is

what I have just observed ought to be considered as an example to others,

that we may learn to devote our minds and our exertions with more alacrity

to sincere repentance; because it is not to be doubted that those who are

truly and cordially converted will find God readily disposed to

forgiveness, whose clemency extends itself even to the unworthy, as long

as they manifest any appearance of contrition. At the same time, also, we

are taught what dreadful vengeance awaits all the obstinate, who, with

impudent countenances and hardened hearts, despise, disregard, and

ridicule the Divine threatenings. Thus he frequently extended his hand to

the children of Israel, to alleviate their distresses, notwithstanding

their supplications were hypocritical, and their hearts full of duplicity

and perfidy; as he complains in one of the Psalms,(1691) that they

immediately after returned to their former courses. He designed by his

merciful kindness, either to bring them to a serious conversion, or to

render them inexcusable. Yet, by the temporary remission of punishments,

he imposes on himself no perpetual law, but sometimes arises against

hypocrites with the greater severity, and enhances their punishments, to

manifest his extreme displeasure against hypocrisy. But he exhibits, as I

have observed, some examples of his readiness to pardon, in order to

animate the pious to a correction of their lives, and the more severely to

condemn the pride of those who obstinately kick against the goads.

Chapter IV. The Sophistry And Jargon Of The Schools Concerning Repentance,

Very Remote From The Purity Of The Gospel. On Confession And Satisfaction.

I come now to the discussion of those things which have been advanced by

the sophists of the schools concerning Repentance, which I shall run over

as briefly as possible; for it is not my design to pursue the subject at

large, lest this book, which I am endeavouring to make a compendium of

doctrine, should be drawn out to an immoderate extent. They have involved

a subject, otherwise not very intricate, in so many perplexities, that

those who have entered but a little way into their labyrinths will not

find it easy to extricate themselves. In the first place, the definition

they have given of repentance, clearly shows that they never understood

what it was; for they catch at some passages in the writings of the

fathers, which by no means express the nature of repentance; as, “that to

repent is to weep for sins previously committed, and not to commit sins to

be wept for.” Again: “that it is to lament evils that are past, and not to

commit new ones to be lamented.” Again: “that it is a kind of mournful

vengeance, punishing in ourselves what we bewail having committed.” Again:

“that it is a sorrow of heart and bitterness of soul on account of the

evils which a man has committed, or to which he has consented.” But though

we concede that these expressions were properly used by the fathers,

which, however, a contentious man would find no difficulty in denying, yet

they were used not with a view to describe repentance, but only to exhort

their readers to avoid relapsing into those crimes from which they had

been delivered. But if we are disposed to convert all observations of this

kind into definitions, others may be added with equal propriety. As this

of Chrysostom, “Repentance is a medicine which destroys sin, a gift

bestowed from heaven, an admirable virtue, a grace exceeding the power of

laws.” Moreover, the doctrine which they afterwards advance is still worse

than these definitions; for they are so obstinately riveted to external

exercises, that one can collect nothing else from immense volumes, but

that repentance is an austere discipline, which serves partly to subdue

the flesh, partly to chastise and punish vices; but concerning the

internal renovation of the mind, which is attended with a real reformation

of the life, they observe a wonderful silence. Of _contrition_ and

_attrition_, indeed, they treat largely; they torment souls with a

multitude of scruples, and drive them to extreme trouble and anxiety; but

when they appear to have thoroughly wounded the heart, they heal all the

bitterness by a slight sprinkling of ceremonies. Having thus quaintly

defined repentance, they divide it into contrition of heart, confession of

mouth, and satisfaction of work—a division which is no more agreeable to

the rules of logic than their definition, though they would be thought to

have spent their whole lives in composing syllogisms. But should any one

reason from the definition, (which is a kind of argumentation common among

logicians,) that a man may weep for sins previously committed, and commit

no more to be wept for; may lament evils that are past, and commit no more

to be lamented; may punish what he mourns that he has committed, &c.,

although he makes no confession with his mouth; how will they defend their

division? For if he who confesses not, be nevertheless truly penitent,

repentance may exist where there is no confession. But if they reply that

this division refers to repentance as a sacrament, or is to be understood

of the complete perfection of repentance, which they comprehend not in

their definition, they have no reason to accuse me; let them impute the

blame to themselves, for not giving definitions with more correctness and

perspicuity. For myself, indeed, according to my dull capacity, in all

controversies I refer every thing to the definition, which is the hinge

and foundation of the whole argument. But, admitting this to be their

magisterial license, we proceed to an attentive examination of the parts

themselves in order. When I neglect, and pass over as frivolous, things

which, with supercilious gravity, they represent as mysteries, I never do

it without design; not that I should find it very laborious to canvass the

arguments in which they conceive themselves to have discovered most

shrewdness and subtilty; but I could not conscientiously fatigue my

readers with such impertinences to no good purpose. From the questions

which they raise and agitate, and with which they miserably embarrass

themselves, it is easy to see, that they talk of subjects of which they

are utterly ignorant; such as this: Whether repentance for one sin be

pleasing to God during an obstinate continuance in others. Again: Whether

punishments inflicted by God be available for satisfaction. Again: Whether

repentance may be frequently repeated for mortal sins. On this point they

shamefully and impiously determine, that repentance is daily practised

only for venial sins. They also torment themselves much with a gross

error, in an expression of Jerome, “That repentance is a second plank

after a shipwreck;” thus giving proof, that they have never been awakened

from their brutish stupidity, so as to have even the most distant view of

the thousandth part of their sins.

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.

XII. Moreover, the Scripture sanctions two kinds of private confession;

one to be made for our own sake, which is referred to in the direction of

James, that we should “confess our faults one to another;”(1710) for he

means, that, revealing our infirmities to one another, we should assist

each other with mutual advice and consolation; another, which is to be

made for the sake of our neighbour, to pacify and reconcile him to us, if

we have done him any injury. In the former species of confession, though

James, by not expressly appointing any one into whose bosom we should

disburden ourselves, leaves us quite at liberty to confess to any member

of the church who shall appear most suitable; yet, since the pastors must

generally be considered more proper than others, we ought chiefly to make

choice of them. I say that they are more suitable than others, since, in

their very vocation to the ministry, they are designated by the Lord, to

instruct us to subdue and correct our sins, and to console us with a

confidence of pardon. For though the office of mutual admonition and

reproof is committed to all, yet it is especially confided to ministers.

And so, while we all ought mutually to console and confirm each other in a

confidence of the Divine mercy, yet we see, that ministers are constituted

witnesses and sureties of it, that they may afford our consciences a

stronger assurance of the remission of sins; insomuch that they themselves

are said to remit sins and to loose souls.(1711) When you find this

attributed to them, consider that it is for your benefit. Therefore, let

every believer remember that it is his duty, if he feels such secret

anguish or affliction from a sense of his sins, that he cannot extricate

himself without some exterior aid, not to neglect the remedy offered him

by the Lord; which is, that in order to alleviate his distress, he should

use private confession with his pastor, and, to obtain consolation, should

privately implore his assistance, whose office it is, both publicly and

privately, to comfort the people of God with the doctrine of the gospel.

But we should always observe such a degree of moderation, as to lay no

yoke on the conscience, where God has given no positive command. Hence it

follows, that such confession ought to be free, so as not to be required

of all, but only to be recommended to those who conceive themselves to

need it. It follows also, that they who practise it on account of their

need of it, should neither be compelled by any precept, nor be induced by

any artifice, to enumerate all their sins; but only so far as they shall

think beneficial to themselves, that they may receive solid consolation.

Faithful pastors ought not only to leave the churches in possession of

this liberty, but also to defend and vindicate it with all their power, if

they wish to preserve their ministry from tyranny, and the people from

superstition.

XIII. Concerning the other species of confession, Christ says, in the

Gospel of Matthew, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there

rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift

before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and

then come and offer thy gift.”(1712) Thus is that charity, which has been

broken by our offence, to be repaired by acknowledging the fault we have

committed, and imploring forgiveness. In this kind is comprehended the

confession of those who have sinned to the offence of the whole Church.

For, if Christ esteems the private offence of one man of such importance,

as to prohibit from the sacred ordinances all those who have sinned

against their brethren till they have been restored to favour by an

adequate satisfaction,—how much stronger is the reason, that he who, by

any evil example, has injured the whole Church, should reconcile it to

himself by an acknowledgment of his guilt! Thus was the Corinthian

readmitted to the communion, after having submitted to reproof.(1713) This

mode of confession is stated by Cyprian to have been practised in the

ancient Church. “They repent (says he) in due time; and afterwards they

come to confession; and by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and

clergy, they receive a right to communion.” The Scripture knows nothing of

any other method or form of confession; and it is not our province to

impose new chains on men’s consciences, which Christ most strictly forbids

to reduce under the yoke of bondage. But that the sheep should present

themselves to their pastor, whenever they desire to partake of the sacred

supper, I am so far from opposing, that I earnestly wish it were

universally observed. For those who experience distress of conscience may

receive singular benefit from such an interview; and those who require to

be admonished, will thus afford an opportunity for admonitions; provided

that care be always taken to guard against tyranny and superstition.

XIV. The power of the keys is exercised in these three kinds of

confession: either when the whole church implores pardon by a solemn

acknowledgment of its transgressions; or when an individual, who, by any

remarkable crime, has occasioned a common offence, declares his

repentance; or when he who needs the assistance of the minister on account

of the disquietude of his conscience, discloses his infirmity to him. The

removal of an offence proceeds on a different principle; because, though

it is also designed to produce peace of conscience, yet the principal end

is, that animosity may be destroyed, and the minds of men united in the

bonds of peace. But this advantage, which I have mentioned, is by no means

to be despised, that we may confess our sins with the greater readiness.

For, when the whole church stands, as it were, before the tribunal of God,

when they confess themselves guilty, and have no refuge but in the Divine

mercy,—it is no mean or trivial consolation to have Christ’s ambassador

present, furnished with the mandate of reconciliation, by whom they may

have their absolution pronounced. Here the usefulness of the keys is

deservedly celebrated, when this embassy is rightly performed, with

becoming order and reverence. So, when he who had, in some measure,

alienated himself from the Church, is pardoned and restored to the unity

of the brethren, how great a blessing does he experience in knowing

himself to be forgiven by them, to whom Christ has said, “Whose soever

sins ye shall remit on earth, they shall be remitted in heaven!”(1714) Nor

is private absolution less efficacious or beneficial, when it is requested

by those who need a particular remedy for the relief of their infirmities.

For it frequently happens, that he who hears the general promises, which

are addressed to the whole congregation of believers, nevertheless remains

in some suspense, and his mind is still disquieted with doubts of the

forgiveness of his sins. The same person, if he discloses to his pastor

the secret distress of his mind, and hears this language of the gospel

particularly directed to him, “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven

thee,”(1715) will encourage his mind to an assurance, and will be

liberated from that trepidation with which he was before disturbed. But

when we are treating of the keys, we must always be cautious not to dream

of any power distinct from the preaching of the gospel. This subject will

again be discussed more fully in another place, where we shall have to

treat of the government of the Church; and there we shall see, that all

the power of binding and loosing, which Christ has conferred on the

Church, is inseparable from the word. But this is chiefly applicable to

the ministry of the keys, the whole force and meaning of which consist in

this, that the grace of the gospel should be confirmed and sealed, as it

were, to the minds of the faithful, in public as well as private, by those

whom the Lord has ordained to this office; which cannot be done but by

preaching alone.

XV. But what is the doctrine of the Romish divines? They maintain, that

all persons, of both sexes, as soon as they shall have arrived at years of

discretion, should, once at least in every year, confess all their sins to

their own priest; that there is no remission of sin, unless they have

firmly resolved to confess it; that unless they fulfil this resolution,

when opportunity offers, there is no admittance for them into Paradise;

and, moreover, that the priest has the power of the keys, with which he

may loose the sinner or bind him; because Christ has not said in vain,

“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”(1716) But

concerning this power, they have obstinate contentions among themselves.

Some say, that there is essentially but one key, namely, the power of

binding and loosing; that knowledge is required, indeed, for the good use

of it, but that it is only like an accessory, not an essential

concomitant. Others, perceiving this to be too unlimited a license, have

mentioned two keys, discretion and power. Others, again, observing that

the wickedness of the priests was restrained by such moderation, have

invented other keys, an authority of discerning which they might use in

pronouncing decisions; and a power, which they might exert in executing

their sentences; with knowledge, to assist as a counsellor. But they

venture not to explain this binding and loosing simply to mean, forgiving

and obliterating sins; because they hear the Lord proclaiming by the

prophet, “I am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour. I, even I, am

he which blotteth out thy transgressions.”(1717) But they say, that it

belongs to the priest to pronounce who are bound or loosed, and to declare

whose sins are remitted or retained; and that he declares it, either by

confession, when he absolves and retains sins; or by his sentence, when he

excommunicates, and when he receives to the communion of the sacraments.

Lastly, when they perceive that they are not yet extricated from this

difficulty, but that it may always be objected, that their priests

frequently bind and loose improper persons, who are not therefore bound or

loosed in heaven,—as their last resource, they reply, that the commission

of the keys must be understood with some limitation, Christ having

promised, that the sentence of the priest, which has been justly

delivered, according to the merits of the persons bound or loosed, shall

be confirmed at his tribunal. They add also, that these keys were given by

Christ to all priests, who receive them from the bishops on their

promotion to the sacerdotal office; but that the free use of them belongs

only to those who exercise ecclesiastical functions; that the keys

themselves remain, indeed, with the excommunicated or suspended ones, but

that they are rusty and disused. And those who advance these things may

justly be considered modest and sober, in comparison with others, who, on

a new anvil, have fabricated new keys, with which they tell us the

treasure of the Church is locked up; which we shall examine in the proper

place.

XVI. I shall briefly reply to each of these things; though without

noticing, at present, the justice or injustice with which they bind the

souls of the faithful by their laws; as that will be considered in due

order. But when they impose a law respecting the enumeration of all sins;

when they deny that sin is forgiven, but on condition that a firm

resolution has been formed to confess it; when they say that there remains

no entrance into Paradise, if the opportunity of confession has been

neglected,—this is altogether intolerable. Must all sins be enumerated?

David, who (I suppose) had often meditated the confession of his sins,

nevertheless exclaimed, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me

from secret faults.”(1718) And in another place: “Mine iniquities are gone

over mine head; as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.”(1719) He had

just apprehensions of the vast abyss of our sins, of the numerous species

of our crimes, of the many heads this monster bore, and the long tail it

drew after it. Therefore he attempted not to detail his transgressions,

but from the abyss of his distresses cried to the Lord. “I am afflicted

and ready to die; my spirit is overwhelmed within me; I dwell in darkness,

as those that have been long dead;”(1720) “the sorrows of death compassed

me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me;”(1721) “I sink in deep mire;

deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink.”(1722) Who can now think

of recounting his sins, when he sees that David was unable to enter on an

enumeration of his?

XVII. The souls of those who have been affected with any discoveries of

God, have been most cruelly tormented by this fatal delusion. First, they

called themselves to an account; they divided sins into boughs, branches,

twigs, and leaves, according to the distinctions of these confessors: then

they examined the qualities, quantities, and circumstances; and the

business made some little progress. But, when they had advanced further,

they were surrounded on all sides by the sea and the sky, no port, no

haven in prospect; the more they had passed over, the greater mass was

always accumulating on their view; they beheld, as it were, lofty

mountains rising before them, and no time or labour seemed to encourage

the least hope of escaping. Thus they remained in extreme distress, and

after all, found it terminate in nothing but despair. Then the remedy

applied by those cruel murderers, to alleviate the wounds which they had

made, was, that every one should do to the uttermost of his ability. But

new cares again disturbed, and new agonies again excruciated, these

miserable souls: I have not devoted sufficient time; I have not applied

with proper diligence; I have omitted many things through negligence, and

the forgetfulness which arises from negligence is inexcusable. To assuage

such pains, other remedies were now added: Repent of your negligence; if

it be not too great, it will be forgiven. But all these things cannot heal

the wound; nor do they act as alleviations of the malady, but rather as

poisons concealed in honey, that they may not by their harshness offend at

the first taste, but may penetrate into the inmost parts before they are

perceived. This terrible injunction, therefore, is always pursuing them

and resounding in their ears: “Confess all your sins;” nor can that terror

be appeased but by some certain consolation. Here let the reader consider

the possibility of taking an account of the actions of a whole year, and

selecting the sins of every day; since experience convinces every man

that, when at evening he comes to examine the delinquencies of only one

day, his memory is confounded by their great multitude and variety. I

speak not of stupid hypocrites, who, if they have noticed three or four

gross sins, imagine they have discharged their duty; but of the true

worshippers of God, who, when they find themselves overwhelmed with the

examination they have made, conclude, in the language of John, “If our

heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.”(1723) They tremble,

therefore, before that Judge, whose knowledge far exceeds our

apprehension.

XVIII. The acquiescence of a great part of the world in such soothing

arts, employed to temper this mortal poison, was not indulged from a

belief that God was satisfied, or because they were altogether satisfied

themselves; but that, like mariners, having cast anchor in the midst of

the sea, they might enjoy a short respite from the toils of navigation, or

like a fatigued and fainting traveller, might lie down in the road. I

shall not take much trouble to establish this point for every man may be

his own witness of it. I will briefly state the nature of this law. First,

it is absolutely impracticable; therefore it can only destroy, condemn,

confound, and precipitate into ruin and despair. In the next place, it

diverts sinners from a true sense of their sins, and makes them

hypocrites, ignorant both of God and themselves. For while they are wholly

employed in enumerating their sins, they forget, in the mean time, that

latent source of vices, their secret iniquities and inward pollutions, a

knowledge of which is above all things necessary to a consideration of

their misery. But the most certain rule of confession is to acknowledge

and confess the abyss of our guilt to be vast beyond all our

comprehension. The publican’s confession appears to have been composed

according to this rule—“God be merciful to me a sinner.”(1724) As though

he had said, “All that I am is utterly sinful; I cannot reach the

magnitude of my sins, either with my tongue or with my mind; let the abyss

of thy mercy swallow up this abyss of sin.” But you will say, Are not

particular sins, then, to be confessed? Is no confession accepted by God

unless it be comprised in these precise words, “I am a sinner?” I reply,

that we should rather endeavour, as far as we possibly can, to pour out

our whole heart before the Lord; and not only confess ourselves sinners in

a single expression, but truly and cordially acknowledge ourselves such;

and consider in all our reflections, how great and various is the

pollution of sin; not only that we are unclean, but the nature and extent

of our impurity; not only that we are debtors, but the magnitude and

number of the debts with which we are burdened; not only that we are

wounded, but what a multitude of mortal wounds we have received. Yet when

the sinner has wholly unbosomed himself before God in this acknowledgment,

let him seriously and sincerely reflect, that more sins still remain, and

that the secret recesses of his guilt are too deep to be entirely

disclosed. And therefore let him exclaim with David, “Who can understand

his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.”(1725) Now, when they

affirm, that sins are not forgiven without a strong resolution having been

formed to confess them, and that the gate of Paradise is shut against him

who has neglected an opportunity afforded him of confessing,—far be it

from us to make them such a concession. For there is no other remission of

sins now than there always has been. Among all those who are said to have

obtained remission of sins from Christ, none are said to have made a

confession in the ear of any priest. Nor, indeed, was it possible for them

thus to confess, when there were no confessionary priests, and confession

itself was altogether unknown. And this confession was unheard of for many

ages after, during which sins were forgiven without this condition. But,

not to debate any longer as respecting a doubtful point, “the word of God

which abideth for ever,”(1726) is perfectly clear: “If the wicked will

turn from all his sins, all his transgressions that he hath committed,

they shall not be mentioned unto him.”(1727) He who presumes to make any

addition to this declaration, does not bind sins, but limits the mercy of

God. When they contend that judgment cannot be given without a trial of

the cause, we are prepared with an answer—that they are guilty of arrogant

presumption in creating themselves judges. And it is surprising that they

so securely fabricate principles for themselves, which no man of sound

understanding will admit. They boast that the office of binding and

loosing is committed to them, as though it were a kind of jurisdiction

annexed to examination. That the apostles were strangers to this

authority, their whole doctrine proclaims; and to know certainly whether

the sinner be loosed, belongs not to the priest, but to Him of whom

absolution is implored; since the priest who bears the confession, can

never know whether the enumeration of sins be true and perfect. Thus there

would be no absolution, but what must be restricted to the words of the

person to be judged. Besides, the loosing of sins depends entirely on

faith and repentance; which both elude the knowledge of man, when sentence

is to be given respecting another. It follows, therefore, that the

certainty of binding and loosing is not subject to the decision of an

earthly judge; because a minister, in the legitimate execution of his

office, can pronounce only a conditional absolution; but that the

declaration, “_Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted_,” is spoken

for the sake of sinners, to preclude every doubt that the pardon, which is

promised according to the command and word of God, will be ratified in

heaven.

XIX. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if we condemn and desire the

total removal of this auricular confession—a thing so pestilent, and in so

many respects injurious to the Church. Even if it were a thing

abstractedly indifferent, yet, since it is of no use or benefit, but has

occasioned so much impiety, sacrilege, and error,—who can refuse to admit,

that it ought to be immediately abolished? They mention, indeed, some

uses, which they boast of as very beneficial; but these are mere fictions,

or productive of no advantage whatever. One circumstance they state as a

peculiar recommendation, that the shame of the person who confesses is a

grievous punishment, by which the sinner is rendered more cautious in

future, and prevents the vengeance of God by punishing himself. As though

we humble not a man with a sufficient degree of shame, when we summon him

to the supreme tribunal of heaven—to the cognizance of God! It is a

wonderful advantage, indeed, if we cease to sin through a shame of one

man, but are never ashamed of having God for a witness of our evil

conscience! Though this very notion is utterly false; for it is

universally observable, that nothing produces a greater confidence or

licentiousness in sinning, than the idea entertained by some men, after

they have made their confession to a priest, that they may “wipe their

mouth and say, I have done no wickedness.”(1728) And they not only become

more presumptuous in their sins throughout the year, but, having no

concern about confession for the rest of the year, they never aspire after

God, they never retire into themselves, but accumulate sins upon sins,

till they disembogue them, as they imagine, all at once. But when they

have done this, they conceive themselves to be exonerated of their burden,

and to have transferred from God the judgment they have conferred on the

priest; and that they have deprived God of remembrance, by the information

they have communicated to the priest. Besides, who rejoices to see the day

of confession approaching? Who goes to confess with alacrity of heart; and

does not rather come with unwillingness and reluctance, as though he were

forcibly dragged to a prison; except perhaps the priests, who pleasantly

entertain themselves with mutual narrations of their exploits, as with

humorous anecdotes? I will not soil much paper by relating the monstrous

abominations with which auricular confession abounds. I only remark, if

that holy man was not guilty of indiscretion, who, on account of one

rumour of fornication, banished confession from his church, or rather from

the memory of his people,—we are thus reminded of what ought to be done in

the present day, when rapes, adulteries, incests, and seductions exceed

all enumeration.

XX. As the advocates of confession plead the power of the keys, and rest

upon it all the merits of their cause, we must examine the weight that is

due to this argument. Are the keys, then, (say they,) given without any

reason? Is it without any cause that it is said, “Whatsoever ye shall

loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven?”(1729) Do we, then, frustrate

the declaration of Christ? I reply, that there was an important reason why

the keys should be given; as I have already stated, and shall again more

explicitly show, when I come to treat of excommunication. But what if I

refute the whole of their pretensions with one argument, that their

priests are not vicars, or successors of the apostles? But this, also,

will be discussed in another place. Now, they set up, as their principal

defence, an engine by which their whole structure may be completely

demolished. For Christ never conferred on his apostles the power of

binding and loosing, till after he had given them the Holy Ghost. I deny,

therefore, that the power of the keys belongs to any, who have not

previously received the Holy Ghost. I deny that any one can use the keys,

unless the Spirit guide and instruct him, and direct him how he ought to

act. They impertinently pretend, that they have the Holy Ghost; but in

reality they deny it; unless perhaps they imagine, as they certainly do,

that the Holy Ghost is a useless and worthless thing; but they will not be

believed. By this weapon they are completely vanquished. Of whatever door

they pretend to have the key, they should always be asked, whether they

have the Holy Ghost, who is the arbiter and governor of the keys. If they

reply in the affirmative, they must be questioned again, whether it be

possible for the Holy Ghost to err. This they will not dare expressly to

avow, though they obliquely insinuate it in their doctrine. We may justly

infer, therefore, that no priests have the power of the keys, who, without

discrimination, frequently loose what the Lord had designed to be bound,

and bind what he had commanded to be loosed.