authority to the human priesthood which Hooker regards as proper to God alone.

Hooker's position is illustrated by a passage in Jewel. Harding puts forward an argument very similar to that of Allen. "As the Son of Man remitted sins to him that was sick of the palsy ('that ye may know,' saith He, 'that the Son of Man hath power to remit sins. .') even so He hath transferred the same power unto priests, saith Chrysostom: which priests He hath sent as the Father sent Him."1 To this Jewel

...

replies, "For this cause Chrysostom2 saith... that the priest hath the same power that Christ had, for that He preacheth the same word of God that Christ preacheth. And in this sense Christ saith unto His disciples: As my living Father sent me, even so (and with like commission) do I send you.' Jewel agrees with his contemporary, Hooker, as to the kind of power given by Christ as Son of Man to His disciples-" the same power because they have the same word, and not otherwise."3

999

Hooker and Jewel therefore seem to lean to this view of Mark ii. 10. When Christ forgave the paralytic, He did so by a declarative act, 'Thy sins have been forgiven thee.' As Son of Man it was His mission to declare with authority the

1 Jewel, iii. p. 355.

2 Chrys. De Sacerdot. iii. 5 (i. 468).

3 Ib. 358.

forgiveness of sins. And no man can forgive sins save only as the Son of Man here forgave, i.e. by an authoritative but declaratory absolution. Human absolution is to declare and pronounce with effect the conditions and fact of forgiveness. The act of forgiveness is proper to God alone. The act of declaring that forgiveness belongs to

man.

The Appeal to History

CHAPTER II

THE APPEAL TO HISTORY

(I) The Doctrine and Practice of Penance

E turn from the Reformers' appeal to Scrip

WE

ture, and proceed to study their appeal to History. This was their double claim. First and last they rested their case against Rome upon "the impregnable rock" of God's Word : but they also relied on the story of successive ages, and gave full and convincing proof that those who lived nearest to the Apostles were on their side, and that theirs was really the "old learning," while that of the Schoolmen and Tridentine Divines was the " new."1 They were even able to appeal, not once nor twice, to the best of the "School authors" themselves, as enforcing principles which were at variance with Romish doctrine and practice.

The It is impossible not to be impressed with the Accuracy of the fact that, notwithstanding their limited knowReformers ledge, and imperfect means of study, the accuracy

1 See additional note, p. 89: "The New Learning."

which marks the statements of the Reformers. on this subject is beyond praise. It is seen in their statements, first, as to the practice of the primitive Church, and then, as to the stages by which the Scriptural doctrine of Repentance developed into the Romish Sacrament of Penance.

The

Our examination of this period will fall under two heads. (1) The Doctrine and Practice of Subject falls "Penance." (Ch. II.) This will include

(a) The history of the early growth of "Penance ; (b) The "Sacrament of Penance" (generally).

(2) The three parts of the so-called "Sacrament of Penance": (a) Contrition, (b) Confession, (c) Satisfaction (Ch. III.).

The doctrine of Absolution will be treated in connexion with that of Confession.

1. (a) The History of the Early Growth of "Penance."

The practice of the early Church is correctly stated in our Commination Service: 2 "In the

under two Heads

The History of Penance

66

1 By this we mean the Church during the period between the close of the Canon and what we call the Middle Ages." (Dr. Mason in Fulham Conf. Rep. p. 30.) It is the Age of the Fathers so far as we can distinguish (it) from the Age of the Schoolmen. St. Bernard is often taken as marking the point of transition.

2 It may be doubted if the American Church has not lost more than it gained by omitting this part of the Commination Service.

Public Discipline

Private Penance

Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that,
at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood
convicted of notorious sin were put to open
penance, and punished in this world. .
The passages which confirm this statement are
numerous, but it seems needless to add any of
them to the above clear witness.

With equal accuracy it is stated that this dislodged by public penitential discipline only gave place to private penance, when, in consequence of the growing corruption of members of the Church, there arose danger of a larger scandal, by making public the private confessions of voluntary penitents. A wholesome Church discipline, as these writers often point out, was evaded by the growing demands of private Confession and Absolution. They trace how, in the Middle Ages, by a mingled policy of expediency and self-seeking, this first became the rule, and in later times1 the compulsory law, of Christian life. Again and again the fact is asserted that this new discipline is a purely mediaeval and not a primitive one, and that the authority of the Church in its best days, following that of Scripture, is against it.

Tindale

A brief summary from two writers, separated in mode of thought, in destiny, and in years, may suffice to illustrate this.

Our first example is from Tindale's Exposition

1 At the Lateran Council, a.d. 1215.