Penance (Lat. pænitentia), in Roman Catholic theology, means both the sorrow for sin and also the sacrament by which absolution is conveyed. It means also the voluntary or accepted self-inflicted punishment by which a repentant sinner manifests his sorrow for sin, and seeks to atone for the sin, and to avert the punishment which, even after the guilt has been remitted, may still remain due to the offence. Penance is believed in the Roman Catholic Church to be one of the sacraments of the New Law. It will be necessary to explain it briefly both under its relations as a sacrament and as a private personal exercise.
Penance as a state of mind is simply sorrow for evil-doing, accompanied with a purpose of amendment. Penance is the fruit or the manifestation of this sorrow, and it is commonly accompanied or expressed by some of those external acts which are the natural manifestations of any deep sorrow, either negative, as the neglect of ordinary attention to dress, to the care of the person, to the use of food, or positive, as the direct acts of personal mortification and self-inflicted pain, such as fasting, wearing haircloth, strewing the head with ashes, watching of nights, sleeping on hard boards, &c. Such manifestations of sorrow, whether from motives of religion or from merely natural causes, are common among the Eastern races, and are frequently alluded to in the Scriptures. In the personal practice of the early Christians penance found a prominent place, and the chief and acknowledged object of the stated Fasts (q.v.), and other works of mortification which prevailed, was that of penitential correction, or of the manifestation of sorrow for sin.
A still more striking use of penance, however, in the early church, was the disciplinary one; and this, in the Roman Catholic view, is connected with the sacramental character of penance. Any discussion of this purely theological question would be out of place here, and it will be enough to state briefly that Roman Catholics number penance among the Seven Sacraments, and believe it to be of direct divine institution (Matt. xviii. 18; John xx. 23; 1 Cor. v. 5). The matter of this sacrament consists, in their view, of the three acts of the penitent—contrition, or heartfelt sorrow for sin, as being an offence against God; confession, or detailed accusation of one's self to a priest approved for the purpose; and satisfaction, or the acceptance and accomplishment of certain penitential works, in atonement of the sin confessed. The form of the sacrament is the sentence of absolution from sin pronounced by the priest who has received the confession, and has been satisfied of the penitential disposition of the self-accusing sinner. In all these points, of course, they differ from Protestants. Even in the apostolic times the practice prevailed of excluding persons of scandalous life from the spiritual fellowship of the Christian community (see EXCOMMUNICATION); and, without attempting to fix the date, it may be stated as certain, from the authority of Tertullian and other writers, that from a very early time the persons so excluded were subjected to certain penitential regulations. The class of offenders so treated were those who had been notoriously guilty of the grievous crimes of idolatry or apostasy, murder, adultery, and other scandalous offences. The period of penitential probation differed in different times and places, but in general was graduated according to the enormity of the sin, some going so far in their rigour (see NOVATIAN) as, contrary to the clearly-expressed sense of the church, to carry it even beyond the grave. In the earlier ages much depended upon the spirit of each particular church or country; but about the 4th century the public penitential discipline assumed a settled form, which, especially as established in the Greek Church, is so curious that it deserves to be briefly described. Sinners of the classes already referred to had their names enrolled, and were (in some churches, after having made a preliminary confession to a priest appointed for the purpose) admitted, with a blessing and other ceremonial, by the bishop to the rank of penitents. This enrolment appears to have commonly taken place on the first day of Lent. The penitents so enrolled were arranged in four grades, called—1. (Gr. prosklaiontes, Lat. flentes) 'Weepers;' 2. (Gr. akroōmenoi, Lat. audientes) 'Hearers;' 3. (Gr. hypomiptontes, Lat. prosterntes) 'Prostraters;' 4. (Gr. systantes, Lat. consistentes) 'Standers.' Of these classes the first were obliged to remain outside of the church at the time of public worship, and to ask the prayers of the faithful as they entered. The second were permitted to enter and to remain in the place and during the time appointed for the Catechumens (q.v.), but, like them, were required to depart before the commencement of the solemn part of the Liturgy (q.v.). The third were permitted to pray with the rest, but kneeling or prostrate, and for them were prescribed many other acts of mortification. The fourth were permitted to pray with the rest in a standing posture, although apparently in a distinct part of the church; but they were excluded from making offerings with the rest, and still more from receiving the communion. The time to be spent in each of these grades at first differed very much according to times and circumstances, but was afterwards regulated by elaborate laws, called penitential canons. Still it was in the power of the bishop to abridge or to prolong it; a power the exercise of which is connected with the historical origin of the practice of Indulgence (q.v.). Of these four grades the first two hardly appear in the Western Church. It is a subject of controversy whether, and how far, this discipline was extended to other than public sinners; but it seems certain that individuals, not publicly known as sinners, voluntarily enrolled themselves among the penitents. All four grades wore a distinguishing penitential dress, in which they appeared on all occasions of public worship, and were obliged to observe certain rules of life, to renounce certain indulgences and luxuries, and to practise certain austerities. In some churches they were employed in the care of the sick, the burial of the dead, and other of the more laborious works of charity. The penitent, in ordinary cases, could only be restored to communion by the bishop who had excluded him, and this only at the expiration of the appointed time, unless the bishop himself had shortened it; but in case of dangerous illness he might be restored, with the condition, however, that if he recovered from the illness the whole course of penance should be completed. The reconciliation of penitents took place commonly in Holy Week, and was publicly performed by the bishop in the church, with prayer and imposition of hands. It was followed by the administration of communion. If any of the clergy were guilty of a crime to which public penance was annexed, they were first deposed from the rank of the clergy, and then subjected to the ordeal, like the laity themselves. This public discipline continued in force with greater or less exactness in the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries, gradually, however, being replaced by semi-public, and ultimately by private penance. In the 11th and 12th centuries the public penance had entirely disappeared. The nature and origin of private penance is a subject of controversy between Catholics and Protestants; the former contending that it had existed from the first, and that it held the same place even in the ages of public penance for secret sins which the public penance did for public offences. At all events, from the date of the cessation of the public discipline it has existed universally in the Roman Church. The priest, in absolving the penitent, imposes upon him the obligation of reciting certain prayers, undergoing certain works of mortification, or performing certain devotional exercises. These acts of the penitent are held to form an integral part of the sacrament of penance. See CONFES-
SION; and Morinus, De Pœnitentiâ (1651).
By Protestant churches penance is not recognised; yet a confession was made and a penance inflicted publicly in a church at East Clevedon in Somersetshire in 1882; and there is a curious letter from Dr Pusey to Mr Hope-Scott, then abroad (1844), desiring him to procure a 'discipline' and 'send it by B. What was described to me was of a very sacred character: five cords each with five knots, in memory of the five wounds of our Lord. . . . I should be glad to know also whether there were any cases in which it is unsafe—e.g. in a nervous person.' An approach to the Roman Catholic polity on the subject was in use among the English Puritans of the 17th century, and more particularly in the Church of Scotland during that and the succeeding century, when it was common 'to make satisfaction publicly on the Stool of Repentance' (q.v.). In Ayrshire the kirk-sessions were accustomed regularly to provide sackcloth suits for ecclesiastical offenders as late as 1781; a heinous breach of the seventh commandment might involve the penitents' standing in the 'public place of repentance' in church, arrayed more or less completely in sackcloth, every successive Sunday for six months on end (see Edgar's Old Church Life in Scotland, 1885). It does not seem to have occurred to the Reformers or their more immediate successors in the Protestant churches that their system of discipline, with its public rebukes and enforced humiliations of various kinds, was liable to be interpreted in a sense very different from that of a mere expression of sorrow for sin; but the belief is now very general among the most zealous adherents of their doctrinal opinions that in all this they adopted practices incongruous with their creed, and in harmony rather with that of the Church of Rome. Nor do they seem to have perceived that Church Discipline (q.v.), in its proper sense, as relating to ecclesiastical rights and privileges, is wholly distinct from the imposition of penalties by churches or church courts. Penitential humiliations, imposed by ecclesiastical authority, are now no more in favour where church discipline is most strict than where the utmost laxity prevails. The commutation of penalties deemed shameful, for a fine to the poor of the parish, was an abuse once prevalent in Scotland, but never sanctioned by the higher ecclesiastical authorities.