would not discharge all their lives before tho not then neither without signs of Attrition and contrition too but these pretend to quite another thing namely to release men in foro Conscientiae and to give them a Pass-port to Heaven without Repentance which is a very strange thing to say no worse of it Or to instance one thing more what is the meaning of their practice of giving Absolution before the Penance is performed as is usual with them unless this be it that whether the Man make any Conscience at all how he lives hereafter yet he is pardoned as much as the Priest can do it for him and is not this a likely way of reformation I conclude therefore now upon the whole matter that Auricular Confession as it is used in the Church of Rome is only an Artifice of greatening the Priest and pleasing the People a trick of gratifying the undevout and impious as well as the Devout and Religious the latter it imposes upon by its outward appearance of Humility and Piety to the former it serves for a palliative Cure of the Gripes of Conscience which they are now and then troubled with in reality it tends to make sin easie and tolerable by the cheapness of its Pardon and in a word it is nothing but the Old Discipline of the Church in Dust and Ashes And therefore though the Church of England in her Liturgy piously wishes for the Restauration of the Ancient Discipline of the Church it can be no defect in her that she troubles not her self with this Rubbish FINIS A POST-SCRIPT AFter I had finished the foregoing Papers and most part of them had also past the Press I happened to have notice that there was a Book just then come over from France written by a Divine of the Sorbone which with great appearance of Learning maintained the just contrary to what I had asserted especially in the Historical part of this Question and pretended to prove from the most Ancient Monuments of the Holy Scriptures Fathers Popes and Councils that Auricular Confession had been the constant Doctrine and Universal and Uninterrupted usage of the Christian Church for near 1300 years from the Times of our Saviour to the Laterane Council So soon as I heard this I heartily wished that either the said Book had come out a little sooner or at least that my Papers had been yet in my hands to the intent that it might have been in my Power to have corrected what might be amiss or supplied what was defective in that short Discourse or indeed if occasion were to have wholly supprest it For as soon as I entered upon the said Book and found from no less a Man than the Author himself that he had diligently read over all that had been written on both sides of this controversy and that this work of his was the product of Eighteen years study and that in the prime of his years and most flourishing time of his parts that it was published upon the maturest deliberation on his part and with the greatest applause and approbation of the Faculty I thought I had reason to suspect whether a small Tract written in haste by a Man of no Name and full enough of other Business could be fit to be seen on the same Day with so elaborate a work But by that time I had read a little further I took Heart and permitted the Press to go on and now that I have gone over the whole I do here profess sincerely that in all that learned Discourse I scarcely found any thing which I had not foreseen and as I think in some measure prevented But certain I am nothing occurred that staggered my Judgment or which did not rather confirm me in what I had written for though I met with abundance of Citations and a great deal of Wit and Dexterity in the management of them yet I found none of them come home to the point for whereas they sometimes recommend and press Confession of Sin in general sometimes to the Church sometimes to the Priest or Bishop as well as to God Almighty Again sometimes they speak great things of the Dignity of the Priest-hood and the great Honour that Order hath in being wonderfully useful to the relief of Guilty or Afflicted Consciences other while they treat of the Power of the Keys and the Authority of the Church the danger of her Censures the Comfort of her Absolution and the severity of her Discipline c. but all these things are acknowledged by us without laborious proof as well as by our Adversaries That which we demand and expect therefore is where shall we find in any of the Ancient Fathers Auricular Confession said to be a Sacrament or any part of one Or where is the Universal necessity of it asserted Or that secret sins committed after Baptism are by no other means or upon no other terms pardoned with God then upon their being confessed to men In these things lies the hinge of our dispute and of these particulars one ought in Reason to expect the most direct and plain proof imaginable if the matter was of such Consequence of such Universal practice and notoriety as they pretend but nothing of all this appears in this Writer more than in those that have gone before him In contemplation of which I now adventure this little Tract into the World with somewhat more of Confidence then I should have done had it not been for this occasion But lest I should seem to be too partial in the Case or to give too slight an account of this Learned Man's performance the Reader who pleases shall be judge by a Specimen or two which I will here briefly represent to him The former of them shall be the very first argument or Testimony he produces for his Assertion which I the rather make my choice to give instance in because no Man can be said ingenuously to seek for faults to pick and choose for matter of exception that takes the first thing that comes to hand The business is this Chap. 2. Page 11. of his Book he cites the Council of Illiberis with a great deal of circumstance as the first Witness for his Cause and the Testimony is taken from the Seventy Sixth Canon the words are these Si quis Diaconum c. i. e. If any Man shall suffer himself to be ordained Deacon and shall afterwards be convicted to have formerly committed some Mortal or Capital Crime if the said Crime come to light by his own voluntary Confession he shall for the space of Three years be debarred the Holy Communion but in case his sin be discovered and made known to the Church by some other hand then he shall suffer Five years suspension and after that be admitted only to Lay Communion Now who would have ever thought this passage fit to be made choice of as the first proof of Auricular Confession or who can imagine it should be any proof at all much
persuade to and incourage publick Confessions and to apply them to Auricular or Clancular Confessions thus particularly the aforesaid Author does by Tertullian in his Citation of him 4. And Lastly Whereas it is also true that several of those Holy Men of Old do in some cases very much recommend Confession of secret sins and persuade some sorts of Men to the use of it namely those that are in great perplexity of Conscience and that needed Ghostly Counsel and Advice or to the intent that they might obtain the assistance of the Churches Prayers and make them the more ardent and effectual on their behalf whereas I say they recommended this as an expression of Zeal or a prudent expedient or at most as necessary only in some cases pro hîc nunc These great Patrons of Auricular Confession do with their usual artifice apply all these passages to prove it to be a standing and universally necessary duty a Law to all Christians this is a very common fault amongst them and particularly St. Cyprian is thus misapplied by the same forementioned Writer Lib. 3. Cap. 7. Hitherto inquiring into the most Ancient and Purest times of the Church by the Writings of the Fathers of those times we have not been able to discover any sufficient ground for such an Auricular Confession as the Church of Rome pretends to much less for a constant and uninterrupted succession of it But now after all I must acknowledge there is a passage in Ecclesiastical History which seems to promise us satisfaction herein and therefore must by no means be slightly passed over without due consideration it is the famous story of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople and Predecessor to St. Chrysostom which happen'd something less then Four hundred years after our Saviour The Story as it is related by the joint Testimony of Socrates and Sozomen runs thus In the time of this Nectarius there was it seems a Custom in that Church as also in most others that one of the Presbyters of greatest Piety Wisdom and Gravity should be chosen Penitentiary that is be appointed to the peculiar Office of receiving Confessions and to assist and direct the Penitents in the management of their Repentance Now it happens that a certain Woman of Quality stricken with remorse of Conscience comes to the Penitentiary that then was and according to Custom makes a particular Confession of all such sins as she was conscious to her self to have committed since her Baptism for which he according to his Office appointed her the Penance of Fasting and continual Prayers to expiate her Guilt and give proof of the Truth of her Repentance But she proceeding on very particularly in her Confessions at last amongst other things comes to declare that a certain Deacon of that Church had lien with her upon notice of which horrid Fact the Deacon is forthwith cashier'd and cast out of the Church By which means the miscarriage takes Air and coming to the knowledge of the People they presently fall into a mighty commotion and rage about it partly in detestation of so foul an Action of the Deacon but principally in contemplation of the Dishonour and Scandal thereby reflected on the whole Church The Bishop finding the Honour of the whole Body of his Clergy extreamly concern'd in this accident and being very anxious what to do in this case at last by the Counsel of one Eudaemon a Presbyter of that Church he resolves thenceforth to abolish the Office of Penitentiary both to extinguish the present flame and to prevent the like occasion for the future and now by this means every Man is left to the Conduct of his own Conscience and permitted to partake of the Holy Mysteries at his own peril This is the matter of fact faithfully rendered from the words of the Historian but this if we take it in the gross and look no further then so will not do much towards the deciding of the present Controversy we will therefore examine things a little more narrowly by the help of such hints as those Writers afford us perhaps we may make good use of it at last and to this purpose 1. I observe in the first place that though at the first blush here seems to be an early and great example of that Auricular Confession which we oppose forasmuch as here is not only the Order of the Church of Constantinople for Confession to a Priest but that to be of all sins committed after Baptism and this to be made to him in secret notwithstanding upon a more thorough view it will appear quite another thing from that pleaded for and practised by the Church of Rome and that especially in the respects following First In the Auricular Confession in the Story there is some remainder of the ancient Discipline of the Church whose Confessions used to be open and publick as I have shewed in that here a publick Officer is appointed by the Church to receive them such an one as whose Prudence and Learning and Piety she could confide in for a business of so great nicety and difficulty and it is neither left to the Penitent to choose his Confident for his Confessor nor at large for every Priest to represent the Authority of the Church in so ticklish an Affair as that of Discipline but to a publick Officer appointed by the Church for this purpose so that Confession to him cannot be said to be private seeing it is done to the whole Church by him To confirm which Secondly This Penitentiary it seems was bound as there was occasion to discover the matters opened to him in secret to the Church as appears in the Crime of the Deacon in the Story there was no pretence of a Seal of Confession in this Case as in the Church of Rome by Virtue of which a Man may confess and go on to sin again secretly without danger of being brought upon the Stage whatsoever the atrocity of his Crime be and indeed without any effectual course in Order to his Repentance and Reformation Again Thirdly This Confession in the Story doth not pretend to be of absolute necessity as if a Mans sins might not be pardoned without it but only a prudent Provision of the Church to help Men forward in their Repentance to direct the Acts and Expressions of it and especially to relieve perplexed and weak Consciences and to assist them in their preparations for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and this appears amongst other things by the account which the Historian gives us of the consequence of abolishing it viz. That now every Man is left to his own Conscience about his partaking of the holy Mysteries but it is not said or intimated that he was left under the guilt of his Sins for want of Confession To which add in the last place that this Office whatever it was was not reputed a Sacrament but rather as I noted before an expedient to prepare men for it for doubtless neither that
A DISCOURSE CONCERNING Auricular Confession As it is prescribed by the COUNCIL OF TRENT And practised in the CHURCH of ROME With a Post-script on occasion of a Book lately printed in France called Historia Confessionis Auricularis LONDON Printed by H. Hills Jun. for Benj. Tooke at the Sign of the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard and Fincham Gardiner at the Sign of the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1648. OF Auricular Confession THE Zealots of the Church of Rome are wont to Glory of the singular advantages in the Communion of that Church especially in respect of the greater means and helps of Spiritual comfort which they pretend are to be had there above and beyond what are to be found amongst other Societies of Christians Which one thing if it could be as substantially made out as it is confidently asserted could not fail to sway very much with all Wise men and would undoubtedly prevail with all devout persons who were made acquainted with the secret to go over to them But if contrariwise it appear upon search that their pretensions of this kind are false and groundless and that the methods of Administring consolation which are peculiar to that Church are as well unsafe and deceitful as singular and unnecessary Then the same Prudence and Sincerity will oblige a man to suspect that Communion instead of becoming a proselyte to it and to look upon the aforesaid boastings as the effect either of designed imposture or at the least of Ignorance and Delusion Amongst other things that Church highly values it self upon the Sacrament of Penance as they call it and as deeply blames and condemns the Church of England and other Reformed Churches for their defect in and neglect of so important and comfortable an Office And under that specious pretext her Emissaries who are wont according to the phrase of the Apostle to creep into houses and lead Captive silly Women c. insinuate themselves into such of the People as have more Zeal then knowledge and now and then wheadle some of them over into their Society To that purpose they will not only harangue them with fine stories of the ease and benefit of it as of an Ancient and useful Rite but will also Preach to them the necessity of it as of Divine Institution and that it is as important in its kind as Baptism or the Lords Supper For that Confession to a Priest and his Absolution thereupon obtained is the only means appointed by God for the procuring of Pardon of all mortal sins committed after Baptism As for Original sin or whatsoever actual transgressions may have been committed before Baptism all those they acknowledg to be washed away in that sacred Laver. And for sins of Infirmity or Venial sins these may be done away by several easy methods by Contrition alone say some nay by Attrition alone say others by Habitual Grace says a third c. But for mortal sins committed after a man is admitted into the Church by Baptism for these there is no other door of Mercy but the Priests Lips nor hath God appointed or will admit of any other way of Reconciliation then this of Confession to a Priest and his Absolution This Sacrament of Penance therefore is called by them Secunda Tabula post naufragium the peculiar refuge of a lapsed Christian the only Sanctuary of a guâ—lty Conscience the sole means of restoring such a person to Peace of Conscience the Favour of God and the hopes of Heaven And withal this method is held to be so Soveraign and Effectual a remedy that it cures toties quoties and whatever a mans in fearriages have been and how often soever repeated if he do but as often resort to it he shall return as pure and clean as when he first came from the Font. This ready and easie way say they hath God allowed men of quitting all scores with himself in the use of which they may have perfect peace in their Consciences and may think of the day of Judgment without horror having their Case decided beforehand by Gods Deputy the Priest and their Pardon ready to produce and plead at the Tribunal of Christ What a mighty defect is it therefore in the Protestant Churches who wanting this Sacrament want the principal ministry of reconciliation And who would not joyn himself to the Society of that Church where this great Case is so abundantly provided for For if all this be true he must be extreamly fool-hardy and deserve to perish who will not be of that Communion from whence the way to Heaven is so very easie and obvious no wonder therefore I say if not only the loose and vicious are fond of this Communion where they may sin and confess and confess and sin again without any great danger but it would be strange if the more Virtuous and Prudent also did not out of more caution think it became them to comply with his expedient For as much as there is no man who understands himself but must be conscious of having committed sins since his Baptism and then for fear some of them should prove to be of a mortal nature it will be his safest course to betake himself to this refuge and consequently he will easily be drawn to that Church where the only remedy of his disease is to be had But the best of it is these things are so oner said then proved and more easily phansied by silly People then believed by those of discretion And therefore there may be no culpable defect in the reformed Churches that they trust not to this remedy in so great a Case And as for the Church of England in particular though she hath no fondness for Mountebank Medicines as observing them to be seldom successful yet she is not wanting in her care and compassion to the Souls of those under her guidance but expresseth as much tenderness of their peace and comfort as the Church of Rome can pretend to Indeed she hath not set up a Confessors Chair in every Parish nor much less placed the Priest in the Seat of God Almighty as thinking it safer at least in ordinary Cases to remit men to the Text of the written word of God and to the publick Ministry thereof for resolution of Conscience then to the secret Oracle of a Priest in a corner and advises them rather to observe what God himself declares of the nature and guilt of sin the aggravations or abatements of it and the terms and conditions of Pardon then what a Priest pronounces But however this course doth not please the Church of Rome for reasons best known to themselves which if we may guess at the main seems to be this they do not think it fit to let men be their own carvers but lead them like Children by the hand my meaning is they keep People as much in Ignorance of the Holy Scripture as they can locking that up from them in an unknown Tongue now if they may not be
second of these assertions be made good then it can be no defect at all in those Churches that use not such a Rite but a novelty and imposition on their parts who so strictly require it But if the third be true it will be the corruption and great fault of the Church of Rome to persevere in the injunction and practice of it and the excellency and commendation of those Churches which exclude it I begin with the first that it doth not appear that our Saviour hath instituted such an Auricular Confession of such a Sacrament of Penance as the Church of Rome pretends and practises I confess it is a Negative which I here undertake to make good which is accounted a difficult Province but the Council of Trent hath relieved us in that particular by founding the Institution expresly upon that one passage of the Gospel Joh. 20. 22. So that we shall not need to examine the whole Body of Scripture to discover what footsteps of Divine Institution may be found here or there for the Council wholly insists and relies upon that Text of St. John and therefore if that fail them the whole Hypothesis falls to the ground Now for the clearing of this let us lay the words before us and they are these He breathed on them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained Now here I appeal to any Man that hath Eyes in his Head or Ears to hear whether in this Text there be any one word of Auricular Confession or much less of such a circumstantiated one as they require And this is so manifest and notorious that their own ancient Canonists and several of their learned Divines are ashamed of the pretence of Divine Institution founded upon this or any other passage of Scripture and therefore are content to defend the practice of the Church of Rome in this particular upon the account of the Authority and general usage of the Church which we shall come to examine by and by in its due place In the mean time I cannot choose but admire the mighty Faith of a Romanist who can believe in spight of his own Eyes It seemed to us an unsuperable difficulty heretofore for a Man to persuade himself that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Bread was transubstantiated into Flesh because it was against the express Testimony of Sense yea although for that there was the countenance of Five figurative but mistaken words to support the credulity but this of the Sacrament of Penance clearly out-does it for here a Man must believe a thing to be when as there is not so much as one word for the ground of his Faith or the proof of the thing in question How many Sacraments may not such men have if they please What voluminous Creeds may not they swallow and digest What Mountains may not such a wonderful Faith remove But let us hear what they have to say for themselves perhaps in the first place they will plead the Authority of the Council of Trent which hath peremptorily determined the sense of the passage of the Gospel to the purpose aforesaid Indeed that Council in the third Canon of their fourteenth Session doth damn all those who deny that a Sacrament of Penance and Auricular Confession is prescribed in that Text of St. John or who apply it to any other purpose But in so doing they both usurp a Prerogative which was never pretended to or practised by any Council before them and withal they betray a consciousness that the Text it self yielded no sufficient evidence of the thing which they designed to countenance by it for what Councils ever till now brought a Text and then imposed an Interpretation upon it contrary to the words And then backt that Interpretation with an Anathema If the Text were plain or could be made so why was not that done And to be sure if that cannot be done by other means the curse will not do it at least to any but very obedient Roman Consciences Besides if this course be allowed I see not but a Council may bring in what Religion they please having first made a Nose of Wax of the Holy Scripture and then writhed it into what shape they best phansy for in such a case if the words of the Gospel do not favour me I can govern the sense and if the letter be silent or intractable I can help that with an Interpretation and if I have authority or confidence enough to impose that under the peril of Anathema I am no longer an Interpreter or a Judg but a Law-giver and need not trouble my self with Scriptum est but may if I will speak plain say decretum est and the business is done But if neither the Letter of Scripture nor the Authority of a Council will do in this case then in the second place they think they have at least some colour of Reason to relieve them and if they cannot find Auricular Confession in the Text yet they will by consequence infer it thence for they say although indeed it is true it is not here expresly mentioned yet it is certain that our Saviour in the Text before us instituted a Sacrament of Penance and therefore Auricular Confession must necessarily be implied because absolution cannot be without Confession Here the Reader will observe that the point in Question between us is very much altered for we are now fallen from the consideration of the Divine Institution of Auricular Confession in particular to that of a Sacrament of Penance in general i. e. from a direct proof to a subintelligitur But we will follow them hither also and for the clearing of this matter we will briefly consider these three things 1. Whether that can properly be said to be of Divine institution and necessary to Salvation which depends on an inference and is proved only by an innuendo 2. Whether it can be reasonable to assert that our Saviour there institutes a Sacrament of Penance where not only Auricular Confession but the whole matter of such a Sacrament is lest undefined 3. Whether if our Saviour had done that which it is plain he hath not that is had here instituted and appointed all those things which by the Church of Rome are required as the material parts of Penance yet this could have been esteemed a Sacrament 1. For the first of these we have no more to do but to consider the force and signification of this word Institution Now that in the common use of men especially of those which speak distinctly and understandingly implies a setting up de novo or the appointing that to become a duty which was not knowable or at least not known to be so before it became so appointed For this word Institution is that which we use to express a positive command by in opposition to that which is Moral in the strictest sense and of natural obligation Now
Priests kneels to all holy people and intreats all the Brethren to be his Intercessors with God Almighty for his Pardon This is penitential Confession c. And in his Apology more plainly Coimus in Caetum c. ibidem exhortationes castigationes censura divina nam judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est si quis it a deliquer it ut à communione c. religetur we have saith he in our Ecclesiastical Assemblies a Spiritual Judicature and with great gravity censure offenders c. But I need say no more of this for we have the Testimony of Beatus Rhenanus one of the Roman Church and of great insight into Ecclesiastical Affairs who gives us this account of Tertullian and his times nihil illum de clancularia illa poenitentiâ loqui quae id temporis penitus ignorabatur there was no such thing as secret or Clancular Confession in use in Tertullian's time which was a thing not so much as known by the Christian Church in those days 5. To go a little lower such was the manner of proceedings in St. Cyprian's time as he himself describes it the sinner by outward gestures and tokens shew'd himself to be sorrowful and penitent for his sin and then made humble Confession thereof before the whole Congregation and desired all the Brethren to pray for him which done the Bishop and Clergy laid their hands upon him and so reconciled him So it was also in Origen's time and once for all to deliver the Custom of the Church in those times touching this particular I will add the words of the Historian Rei ad terram se pronos abjiciunt c. they that are Conscious to themselves to have offended fall down flat upon the ground with Weeping and Lamentations in the Church on the other side the Bishop runs to them with tears in his Eyes and falls down to the ground also in token of Sorrow and Compassion and the whole Congregation in the mean while Sympathizing with both is overwhelmed with tears c. 6. If we go lower yet to the times of St. Chrysostom and St. Austin we find those Holy Men speaking very slightly of Confessions to Men so little did they think of Auricular Confession being a Sacrament St. Austin's Judgment in the case we have heard before in the Tenth Book of his Confessions and third Chapter and for the other the Testimonies out of him are so many and so well known that I cannot think it necessary to transcribe them and as for St. Jerom who lived about the same time I think it sufficient to repeat the account of Erasmus who was very conversant in his Writings and indeed of all the other Fathers and who had no other fault I know but that he did use Mordaci radere vero to be too great a Tell-truth which sure will not invalidate his Testimony his words are these Apparet tempore Hieronimi nondum institutam fuisse secretam admissorum Confessionem Verùm in hoc labuntur Theologi quidam parum attenti quòd quae veteres scribunt de publica generali confessione ea trahunt ad occultam longe diversi generis i. e. It is evident saith he that in St. Jerom's time which was about Four hundred years after our Saviour there was no such thing as Secret Consession in use but the mistake is that some few later and inconsiderate Divines have taken the instances of general and publick Confession then practised for arguments of that Auricular Confession which is now used though quite of a different nature from it Thus we have traced the Current of Antiquity for Four or Five hundred years to search for the Head of this Nilus the source and rise of that kind of Confession which is so highly magnified by the Church of Rome but hitherto we have found nothing of it and this methinks should be sufficient to stagger an impartial inquirer at least it is as much as can be expected in so short a Treatise as this is intended to be and may satisfy the unprejudicate that there is as little of Antiquity to favour this Rite as there is of Divine Institution to be pleaded for it But yet I know on the other side that the Romanists pretend to bring abundance of Testimonies for it and Bellarmine particularly goes from Century to Century with his Citations to prescribe for the constant and uninterrupted use of it but I do sincerely think that these Four following short Observations will inable a Man to answer them all 1. I observe that whereas this word Exomologesis is commonly used by diverse of the Fathers as the Phrase whereby they intend to express the whole nature of Repentance in all the parts and branches of it as is evident by the passage I cited out of Tertullian de Poenit. even now and is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself nevertheless merely because that word signifies Confession properly and nothing else these Romish Sophisters where they find this word Exomologesis force it into an Argument for that Confession which they contend for and so several Discourses of the Fathers concerning Repentance in general are made to be nothing but Exhortations to or Encomiums of Confession in particular and that must be nothing else neither but Auricular Confession the thing in Question A cast of his skill in this way Bellarmine gives us in Irenaeus the very first Author he cites for Auricular Confession in the last quoted Book and Chapter of his Writings De Sacramentis 2. Whereas the Novatians excluded all hopes of Repentance or Pardon for sins committed after Baptism but the true Church contrariwise admitted to hopes of Pardon upon their Repentance upon this occasion when some of the Fathers justly magnify the advantages and comfortableness of the true Church above the Schismatical as that it set open a Door of Hope to those who confessed their sins and applied themselves to her Ministry Hence these witty men will persuade the World that every true Church had a Confessors Chair and such a formal way of pardoning as they now practise at Rome as if there was no remission of Sin where there was no Auricular Confession and as if all that excluded the latter rejected the former too and were no better than Novatian Hereticks whenas in Truth the Power of the Keys is exercised in all the Ministries of the Church and she Pardons and retains Sins otherwise than by the Oracle of a particular Confessor as we have seen already This piece of jugling the same Bellarmine is also guilty of in his Citation of Lactantius 3. Whereas the Ancient Writers are much in the Commendation of Confession of Sins whether it be to God or to the Church but generally intending that which is Publick it is common with those of the Church of Rome to lay hold of all such sayings as were intended to
Bishop nor that Church would have ever consented to the abolition of a Sacrament for the sake of such a Scandal as happen'd in the mismanagement of it or if they had done so much less can it be imagined that the greatest part of the Christian Church would have concurred with them in it as we shall by and by see they did 2. I observe concerning the beginning of this Penitentiary Office the time and occasion of this usage namely that the Historians do not pretend it to have been Apostolical much less of strictly Divine Institution but they lay the Heat of its first rise about the time of the Decian Persecution which was about Two hundred years after our Saviour I confess Nicephorus would persuade us of its greater Antiquity and that it was rather revived then instituted at that time for he speaking of the bringing it into use at the Decian Persecution saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Church pursuant of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Canons constituted a Penitentiary c. And Petavius is so addicted to the Roman Hypothesis as very unreasonably to favour this Conceit but the Truth seems to be as Valesius very ingenuously acknowledges only this that here was a mistake of the import of the words of the Historian who saith only that when the Church had chosen their Penitentiary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they added him to the Canon that is to the number of those in the Matricula or Roll of such as were to be maintain'd in and by the Church or as we would say they made him Canon of the Church not that he was Constituted in such an Office pursuant of an Ancienter Law or Canon as Nicephorus carelesly or willfully mistakes Besides afterwards when the Historian observes that the Novatians universally withstood this Order from the beginning of it he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q. d. this new Institution or Addition or Supplement of the Ancient Rites of the Church so that there is no reason we should date this Institution higher then the Historian doth namely after the Decian Persecution But what should be the ground and reasons of erecting this new Office and Officer in the Church then if it was not before Of this I give two accounts First The Church being now very numerous and the Zeal and Devotion very great and what by the compassionate reception which the Church gave to Penitents and her ardent Prayers for them what by the earnest harangues of Holy Men to move People to repentance abundance were inclined to confess their sins and this Confession being till that time accustomed to be open and publick in the face of the Congregation it must needs happen all those circumstances considered together that a great many things would be brought upon the Stage the Publication of which would be attended with great inconveniences for some sins are of that Nature that they scarce can take Air without spreading a Contagion some Confessions would make sport for light and vain Persons and besides abundance of other inconveniences easy to be imagined by any one the publication of some sins might expose the Penitents to the Severity of the Pagan Criminal Judge upon these and such like considerations the Church thought fit therefore I as have intimated before to appoint one wise and very grave Person in her stead to receive the Confessions who by his discretion might so discriminate matters that what things were fit for silence might have private Methods applied to them but what were fit to be brought upon the Stage might be made Publick examples of or receive a Publick remedy Secondly But the Historian leads us to a more special Reason of this Institution at that time namely that the rage of the Decian Persecution cruelly shook the Church and abundance of her weaker members fell off in the Storm and which was worst of all the Church was distracted about the restitution or final rejection of those that had so miscarried for though the best and wisest of the Church were so merciful and considerate of humane infirmity as to be willing to receive those in again upon Repentance over whom the Temptation of fear had too much prevailed yet the Novatians a great and Zealous part of Christianity looked upon such as desperate who had once broken their baptismal Vow and would rather separate from the Church themselves than suffer such to be restored to it Here the Church was in a great strait either she must be very severe to some or she shall seem very unkind to others she must either let the weak perish or she must offend them that counted themselves strong Now in this case she being both tenderly compassionate towards those that had fallen and withal willing to satisfie those Novatian Dissenters or at least to deliver her self from Scandal takes this course she requires that those who had fallen and desired to be restored again to her Society should acknowledge their faults and make all the Penitent satisfaction that was possible for them to perform that so neither they may be too easily tempted to do so again by the gentleness of the remedy nor the Novatians reproach her Lenity or take pet as if no difference was made between the sound and the lapsed for these causes though the most publick Penance was thought little enough to be undergone by the lapsed but yet on the other side considering wisely the inconveniences of publick Penance in some cases as I specified before she therefore took this middle course namely she appointed a publick Confessor who having first heard privately the several cases of the Penitents should bring into publick only such of them as without incurring any of the aforesaid dangers might be made exemplary And this appears to be the true reason of this Institution and the bottom of this affair by this remarkable passage in the Historian That whereas the generality of the Orthodox closed presently with this wife temperament the Novatians only those self conceited Non-conformists rejected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this expedient as a new invention they were too humoursome to comply with such a temperament But here another Question arises viz. How far this new expedient was imbraced by the Orthodox Churches for if it was only received by that of Constantinople the Authority would not be so great for it is possible to imagine that other Churches might allow every private Priest to confess and so admit of no publick Penitentiary To which I answer that by the History it seems plain enough that this was not the peculiar manner of the Church of Constantinople only but the usual Method in that time of most other Churches also but I must needs say I do not find that the Church of Rome complied with them herein though it was not much to her Honour to be singular where there was so much Prudence and Piety to have inclined her to Uniformity However this is gained which is my point that the Church
Church of Rome is mischievous to Piety This remains yet to be demonstrated and we will do it the rather in this place because it will be an abundant Confirmation of all that which hath been discoursed under the two former Heads and might indeed have saved the labour of them but that we were unwilling to leave any pretence of theirs undiscussed for if this practice of theirs appear to be mischievous to Prety it will never by any sober man be thought either to have been instituted by our Saviour or to have been the sense and usage of the Catholick Church whatever they pretend on its behalf Now therefore this last and important part of my charge I make good by these Three Articles following First This Method of theirs is dangerous to Piety as it is very apt to cheat People into an Opinion that they are in a better Condition then truly they are or may be in towards God as that their sins are pardoned and discharged by him when there is no such matter The Church-men of Rome complain of the Doctrine of some reformed Divines touching assurance of Salvation that it fills men with too great confidence and renders them careless and presumptuous but whatsoever there is in that it is not my business now to dispute it however methinks it will not very well become a Romanist to aggravate it till he have acquitted himself in the point before us for by this Assurance Office of theirs they comply too much with the self flattery of Mens own Hearts they render Men secure before they are safe and furnish them with a confidence like that of the Whore Solomon speaks of who wipes her Mouth and saith I have done no evil For Men return from the Confessors Chair as they are made to believe as Pure as from the Font and as Innocent as from their Mothers Womb as if God was concluded by the act of the Priest and as if he being satisfied with an humble posture a dejected look and a lamentable murmur God Almighty would be put off so too Ah nimium faciles qui tristia crimina c. Ah cheating Priests who made fond Men believe That God Almighty pardons all you shrieve Perhaps they will say this is the fault and folly of the Men not of the Institution of the Church But why do they not teach them better then Nay why do they countenance and incourage them in so dangerous mistakes For whither else tend those words in the Decree of the Council of Trent ipsi Deo reconciliandis q. d. that by this way of Confession c. men are reconciled to the Divine Majesty himself or those other forecited where the Priest is said to be the Vicar of Christ and in his stead a Judge or President or especially what other meaning can those words have where it is said that this Rite is as necessary as Baptism for as in that all sins are remitted which were committed in former time so in this all sins committed after Baptism are likewise remitted Now I say what is the natural tendency of all this but to make People believe that their Salvation or Damnation is in the Power of the Priest that he is a little God Almighty and his discharge would certainly pass current in the Court of Heaven But there is sophistry and juggle in all this as I thus make appear for 1. The Priest cannot pardon whom he will let him be called Judex and Praeses never so for if his Sentence be not according to Law it will be declared Null at the Great Day only it may be good and valid in the mean time in foro Ecclesiae and here lies the cheat 2. Nor are all sins retained or unforgiven with God that are not pardoned by the Priest it is true in publick Scandals till the Sinner submit to the Church God will not forgive him For what that binds on Earth is in this sense bound in Heaven but what hath the Church to do to retain or to bind the Sinner in the case of secret sins where it can charge no guilt on him 3. Nor is it properly the act of the Priest which pardons but the Tenor of the Law and the disposition of Mind in the Penitent agreeable thereunto qualifying him for Pardon to which the Pardon is to be imputed As it is not the Herald which pardons but the Prince who by his Proclamation bestows that Grace upon those who are so and so qualified 4. Nor Lastly Can the Priest be said to pardon so properly by those Majestick words absolvo te as by his whole Ministry in instructing People in the Terms of the New Covenant and making Application of that to them by the Sacraments this he hath Commission to do but those big words I cannot find that he hath any where Authority to pronounce and therefore as I think I observed before the Ancient Church had no form of Absolution but only receiving Penitents to the Communion And the Greek Church had so much modesty as to Absolve in the third Person not in the first to shew that their Pardon was Ministerial and Declarative only All these things notwithstanding the People are let to go away with such an Opinion as aforesaid because it is for the Grandeur and Interest of the Priesthood that they should be cheated but these misapprehensions would vanish if their teachers would be so just as to distinguish between God's Absolution and the Absolution of the Church the first of which extends to the most secret sins the latter to open Scandals only the one delivers from all real guilt the other from external Censure only of the latter the Priest may by the leave of the Church have the full dispensation so that he is really pardoned with her that hath satisfied the Priest but of the former he dispenses but conditionally To confirm all which I will here add only two Testimonies of the judgment of the Ancient Church The first is of Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in his Epistle to St. Cyprian reckoned the Seventy Fifth of St. Cyprians where speaking of holding Ecclesiastical Councils every Year he gives these reasons for it Vt si qua graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur lapsis quoque fratribus post lavacrum salutare à Diabolo vulneratis per poenitentiam medela quaeratur non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequantur sed ut per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur Domino plenius satisfacere cogantur partly saith he that by joint advice and common consent we may agree upon an uniform Order in such weighty Affairs as concern our respective Churches partly that we may give relief and apply a remedy to those who by the temptation of the Devil have fallen into sin after Baptism not that we can give them Pardon of their sin but that by our Ministry they may be brought to a knowledge of their sins and directed into a right course
to obtain Pardon at the Hands of God The other is of Theodorus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury whose words are these Confessio quae soli Deo fit purgat pecoata Ea vero quae Sacerdoti fit docet qualiter purgentur Confession to God properly obtains the Pardon of Sin but by Confession to Men we are only put into the right way to obtain pardon Thus they But now in the Church of Rome the case is otherwise there the Priest sustains the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ himself and is not so much his Delegate as his Plenipotentiary and his Pardon is as full and good as if the Judge of the World had pronounced it pro Tribunali so that if the most lewd and habitual Sinner have but the good fortune to go out of the World under the Blessing of his Ghostly Father that is to say either death came so soon after his last Absolution or the Priest came so opportunely after his last sin that he hath not begun a new score he is sure to go Heaven without more ado This I represent as the first mischief attending their Doctrine and Practice of Auricular Confession But this is not all for Secondly It corrupts and debauches the very Doctrine and Nature of Repentance which the whole Gospel lays so much stress upon Making Attrition which is but a slight sorrow for sin or a dislike of it in Contemplation of the Wrath of God impendent over it pass for Contrition which implies an hatred and detestation of it for its own moral evil and deformity with a firm resolution of amendment This they many of them are not ashamed to teach and their practice of Absolution supposes and requires it The Jesuites in particular who have almost ingrost to themselves the whole Monopoly of Confessions avow this as their Principle Father Bauny Escobar and Suarez declare their Judgment that the Priest ought to absolve a Man upon his saying that he detests his sin although at the same time the Confessor doth not believe that he does so And Caussin saith if this be not true there can be no use of Confessions amongst the greatest part of Men. These things it 's true are disliked by some others of the Romanists and the Curees of France are so honest as to cry shame of it before all the World for say they Attrition is but the work of Nature and if that alone will serve for Pardon then a Man may be pardoned without Grace But therefore say the others the Sacrament of Penance doth it alone and this is for the Honour of the Sacrament greatly for the Honour of it say I that it is of greater power then our Lord Jesus Christ and his Gospel which cannot help a wicked Man to Heaven whilest he continues so but this Sacrament it seems can Nor can they excuse this matter by saying these odious assertions are but the private Opinions of some Divines For they are plainly favoured by the determinations of the Council of Trent I confess that Council delivers it self warily and cunningly in this point as it uses to do in such cases yet these are their words Illa vero contritio imperfecta quae attritio dicitur quamvis sine Sacramento Poenitentiae perse ad justificationem perducere peccatorem nequeat tamen eum ad Dei Gratiam in Sacramento Poenitentiae impetrandam disponit c. Which is as much as to say though Attrition or a superficial Sorrow for Sin barely alone and without Confession to a Priest will not justify a Man before God yet Attrition and Confession together will do it for then they are as good as true Repentance And in this sense Melchior Canus long since thought he understood the Council well enough Thirdly This business of Auricular Confession as it is practised in the Church of Rome is so far from being a means to prevent and restrain sin as it highly pretends to be and I am sure as it ought to be if it be good for any thing that contrariwise it is either lost labour and a meer Ceremony or it greatly incourages and imboldens and hardens Men in it both by the Secrecy the Multitudes and the Frequency of these Confessions by the cursory hypocritical and evasive ways of confessing by the slight Penances imposed and the cheapness easiness and even prostitution of Absolutions It were easy to be copious in instances of all these kinds but it is an uncomfortable subject and I hasten to a conclusion therefore I will only touch upon them briefly 1. For the privacy of these Confessions In the Ancient Church as I have noted before the Scandalous Sinner was brought upon the Stage before a great Assembly of Grave and Holy Men he lay prostrate on the ground which he watered with his Tears he crept on his Knees and implored the Pitty and Prayers of all present in whose countenances if for shame he could look up he saw abhorrence of his fact indignation at God's dishonour conjoined with compassion to his Soul and joy for his Repentance his Confession was full of remorse and confusion the remedy was as sharp and disgustful to Flesh and Blood as the Disease had been pleasant and the pain of this expiation was able to imbitter the sweet of Sin to him ever after Or if the Confession was not made before the whole Church but to the Penitentiary only yet he was a Grave and Holy Person chosen by the Church and representing it a Person resident in that Church and so able to take notice of and mind the future Conversation of those that addressed themselves to him a Person of that Sanctity and Reverence that he could not choose but detest and abhor all base and vile actions that should come to his knowledge Now it must needs be a terrible cut to a Sinner to have all his lewdness laid open before such an one and then to be justly and sharply rebuked by him to have his sins aggravated and to be made to see his own ugly shape in a true glass held by him besides to be enjoined the performance of a strict Penance of Fasting and Prayer and after all if this do not do to have the Church made acquainted with the whole matter as in the case of the Deacon aforesaid This course was likely to work something of remorse in the Sinner for what was past and to make him watchful and careful for the time to come But what is the way of the Church of Rome like to this Where a Man may confess to any Priest to him that knows him not and so cannot observe his future life and carriage nay perhaps that knows not how to value the guilt of sin or to judge which be Venial and which Mortal Sins or especially what circumstances do alter the species of it and it may be too he may be such an one that makes no Conscience himself of the sins I confess to him Now when all is transacted between me and such a
less a clear or direct one Oh but here is Confession It may happen so if the party please but it is not enjoyned but voluntary and that not Auricular neither but unto the Church at least for ought appears And it is confession of a secret Sin too True it was so till it was either confessed or betrayed And here is Penance imposed for a secret sin True when it was become publick And here is a different degree of Penance imposed upon him that ingenuously confesses from him that stays till he is accused and hath his sin proved upon him And good Reason for the one gave tokens of Repentance and the other none But then here is What no Sacrament of Penance no declared absolute necessity of Confession to Men in order to pardon with God but only a necessity that when the Fact is become notorious whether by the Confession of the Party or otherwise that the Church use her endeavours to bring the Sinner to Repentance and free her self from Scandal by making a difference betwixt the Good and the Bad the more hopeful and the less If this be a clear and proper Argument for the necessity of Auricular Confession God help poor Protestants that cannot discern it but oh the Wit of Man and the Power of Learning and Logick What may not such Men prove if they have a mind to it The other passage I instance in is in his Tenth Chapter Pag. 156. viz. the Critical and Famous Business of the Nectarian Reformation at Constantinople of which I have spoken somewhat largely in the foregoing Papers Now for this This Learned Gentleman after he hath acknowledged very frankly that publick Confession of sins was the Ancient use of the Church in the times of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian and Origen that is for the space of about Three hundred years and that instead of that ancient usage upon occasion of the Decian Persecution a public Penitentiary was appointed at Constantinople and most other Orthodox Churches and in short after he had with more ingenuity then some others of his party owned the undoubted Truth of the Relations of Socrates and Sozomen touching this Affair and made some Observations thereupon not much to the advantage of his cause he at length delivers that which would be very much to his purpose if it could be credible namely that upon the whole matter Nectarius in abolishing the Penitentiary neither abolished publick nor private Confessions but instead of obliging Men to go to the Penitentiary left every Man bound to resort to his respective Diocesan and confess his sins to him and so Auricular Confession is after this change every whit as necessary as it was beâ—â—…e very true say I it is as necessary now as it was before for it was only voluntary before and so it may be after But if the intention of Nectarius and the effect of that alteration was only the change of the Person and every Man still obliged to confess to some body how comes it to be said in the story that every Man was left to his own Conscience doth that word signify the Bishop then we have found out a right Fanatic Diocesan for they will all readily confess to this Bishop and believe his Absolution as sufficient as any Romanist of them all doth And yet it seems to be undeniably plain that Socrates after this Reformaâ—… thought of no other Confessor but this nor imagiâ—â— Men now bound to make any other Confession this which if it was not Auricular was very seâ—â—… for otherwise how comes it to pass that he expoâ—â—â—lates the matter with Eudaemon who advised change and bewail'd the danger of this liberty whâ—â—â— was hereby given men if they were as strictly boâ—â—â—… still to confess to their Bishop as they were before the Penitentiary therefore the Truth of the Busiâ—â—â—… seems evidently to be this that men were now at â—â—berty to make their Confessions of secret Sins voluâ—â—â—rily as they were no doubt before the Institution Penitentiary And now what hath this Learned Gâ—â—tleman gotten by mustering up this story well hâ—â—… ever the Conclusion must be held let the Premâ—â—â—… look to themselves I could find in my Heart now my hand is in proceed further and to observe what pittiful sâ—â—â—… he is put to in his Thirteenth Chapter to evade Testimonies brought by Monsieur Daillè out ofâ—â—â— Chrysostom against his Hypothesis And the raâ—â—… because out of mere tediousness of writing I in foregoing Papers omitted to specify the most remarâ—â—ble discourses which that excellent Author hath upâ—â— this Subject But the Authorities are so plain and answerable and the Evasions of this Gentleman forced and palpable that I think it needless to about to vindicate the one or confute the other in spight of Art this same Thirteenth Chapter speak of will afford no less than Thirteen Argumeâ—â— against the necessity of Auricular Confession FINIS Concil Trid. sess 14. c. 2. Vid. Becan Tract de Sacramentis in specie Sess 14. Cap. 2. Cap. 3. Cap. 5. Ibid. Ibid. Cap. 6. Sess 14. C. 2. Sess 14. C 3 a Hugo de S. Vict. lib. de Sacram. b Magist Sent. lib. 4. dist 1. c Becanus Tract 2. de Sacramentis * Aug. c. Faust Lib. 19. C. 16. * Christus constituit Sacerdotes sui ipsius Vicarios Sess 14. Prasides Judices Ib. c. 4. Sacerdos solvit peccata potestate quadam praetoria Bellar lib. 1. de sacram c. 10. Christus ratam habet sententiam à Sacerdote latam id lib. 3. c. 2. Sess 14. c. 1. Aquinas summ part 3. Q. 68. Tertull. Apol. c. 39. Beatus Rhenan in praef ad Tertull. de poeitent St. Syprian Lib. 3. Eph. 15. Origen in Ps 37. Sozomen L. 7. Cap. 16. St. Chrysost ad Hebr. Homil. 31. Id. in Serm. de Confess poenit c. Bellarm. de Poenit. Lib. 3. C. 8. Id. Lib. 3. C. 6. Socrat. Hist Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Sozomen Lib. 7. C. 16. Nicephor Lib. 12. Cap. 28. Sess 14. Can. 1. Ibid. Cap. 5. Ibid. Cap. 2. Theod. Cantuar apud Beat. Rhen. in praef ad Tertul. depoenit Conc. Trident. Sess 14. Cap 4.