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. Goodman, John, 1625 or 6-1690. 1684 Approx. 112 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 30 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A41435 Wing G1104 ESTC R6771 12143660 ocm 12143660 54888

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A41435) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 54888) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 597:15) 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. Goodman, John, 1625 or 6-1690. [2], 56 p. Printed by H. Hills Jun. for Benj. Tooke ..., and Fincham Gardiner ..., London : 1648 [i.e 1684]. Includes bibliographical references. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Boileau, Jacques, 1635-1716. -- Historia confessionis auricularis. Catholic Church -- Doctrines. 2007-09 Assigned for keying and markup 2007-10 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2007-11 Sampled and proofread 2007-11 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

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, Concil. Trid. ſeſſ. 14. c. 2. 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 Vid. Becan. Tract. de Sacramentis in ſpecie. (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 gu 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 truſted with thoſe Sacred Records, ſo as to inform themſelves of the terms of the New Covenant, the conditions of the Pardon of ſin, and Salvation, it is then but reaſonable that the Prieſt ſhould Judge for them, and that they await their doom from his Mouth. Yet I do not ſee why in a Proteſtant Church, where the whole Religion is in the Mother Tongue, the Old and eſpecially the New Teſtament conſtantly, and conſcientiouſly expounded, and the People allowed to ſearch the Scriptures, and to ſee whether things be ſo or no, I ſee not, I ſay, Why in ſuch a caſe the Prieſt may not in great meaſure be excuſed the trouble of attending ſecret Confeſſions, without danger to the Souls of men.

But beſides this, there is a conſtant uſe of Confeſſion and Abſolution too, in the Church of England, in every Days Service; which though they be both in general terms, as they ought to be in publick Worſhip, yet every Penitent can both from his own Conſcience ſupply the generality of the Confeſſion by a remorſeful reflection upon his own particular ſins, as well as if he did it at the knees of a Prieſt; and alſo by an Act of Faith can apply the general Sentence of Abſolution to his own Soul, with as good and comfortable effects, as if it had been ſpecially pronounced by his Confeſſor.

But this publick Confeſſion doth not pleaſe the Romaniſts neither, and they know a Reaſon for their diſlike; namely, becauſe this doth not conciliate ſo great a Veneration to the Prieſt-hood, as when all men are brought to kneel to them for Salvation: Neither doth this way make them to pry into the ſecret thoughts of Men, as Auricular Confeſſion doth, wherein the Prieſt is not only made a Judge of mens eſtate, but a Spy upon their behavior, and is capable of becoming an Intelligencer to his Superiors of all the Deſigns, Intereſts, and even Conſtitutions of the People.

Moreover the Church of England allows of private Confeſſions alſo, as particularly in the Viſitation of the ſick, (which office extends alſo to them that are troubled in Mind or Conſcience, as well as to the afflicted in Body) where the Miniſter is directed to examine particularly the ſtate of the Decumbents Soul, to ſearch and romage his Conſcience, to try his Faith, his Repentance, his Charity, nay, to move him to make a ſpecial Confeſſion of his ſins, and afterwards to abſolve him upon juſt grounds.

Nay further yet, if (beſides the caſe of Sickneſs) any Man ſhall either out of perplexity of Mind, ſcrupuloſity or remorſe of Conſcience, or any other devout conſideration, think it needful to apply himſelf to a Prieſt of the Church of England for advice, eaſe, or relief, he hath incouragement and direction ſo to do in the firſt Exhortation to the Holy Communion, and may be ſure to find thoſe who will tenderly, and faithfully, as well as ſecretly adminiſter to his neceſſities. So that I ſee not what defect or omiſſion can be objected to this Church in all this Affair, or what Temptation any Man can have upon this account to go from us to the Church of Rome.

But all this will not ſatisfy them of the Church of Rome, they are neither contented with publick confeſſion, nor with private, no nor with ſecret neither, if it be only occaſional or voluntary: It is the univerſality and neceſſity of it which they inſiſt upon, for it is not with them a Matter of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline, to prevent the Scandal of the Society, to conſerve the Reverence of the Church, or to reſt rain men from ſinning, or much leſs an Office of Expediency and Prudence to be reſorted to upon exigencies, or ſuch as may accidentally become neceſſary upon emergency as ſuppoſe upon the atrocity of ſome fact committed, the ſcandalouſneſs of ſome perſons former life, which may make him more doubtful of his Pardon, the weakneſs of his Judgment, the Melancholy of his Temper, or the Anxiety of his Mind, or any ſuch like occaſion but it muſt be the ſtanding indiſpenſable duty of all men, as the condition of the Pardon of their Sins; in one word it muſt be a Sacrament of Divine inſtitution, and of Univerſal Obligation.

For ſo the Council of Trent determins, Seſſ. 4. Canon

1. Si quis, dixerit in Ecoleſiâ Catholica poenitentiam nom eſſe verè & propriè Sacramentum pro fidelibus, quoties poſt Baptiſmum in peccata labentur, ipſi Deo reconciliandi a Domino noſtro inſtitutum, Anathema ſit; i. e. Let him be accurſed, who ſhall affirm that Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament inſtituted and appointed in the Univerſal Church, by our Lord Chriſt himſelf, for the reconciling thoſe Chriſtians to the Divine Majeſty, who have fallen into Sin after their Baptiſm.

And in the Doctrinal part of that Decree they teach and aſſert more particularly; Firſt, That our Saviour inſtituted this Sacrament expreſly, Joh. 20. 22.

2. That this Sacrament conſiſts of two parts, viz. the Matter and the Form; the Matter of the Sacrament Seſſ. 14. Cap. 2. (or quaſi materia as they cautiouſly ſpeak) is the act or acts of the Penitent, namely, Contrition, Confeſſion, and Satisfaction; the Form of it is the act of the Prieſt in theſe words, Abſolvote.

3. That therefore it is the duty of every Man who hath fallen after Baptiſm, as aforeſaid, to confeſs his ſins Cap. 3. at leaſt once a year to a Prieſt.

4. That this confeſſion is to be ſecret; for publick Confeſſion Cap. 5. they ſay is neither commanded nor expedient.

5. That this confeſſion of Mortal ſin be very exact and Ibid. particular together with all circumſtances, eſpecially ſuch as ſpeciem facti mutant , alter the kind or degree of ſin, and that it extend to the moſt ſecret ſins, even of thought; or againſt the 9th. and 10th. Commandment. Ibid.

6. That the Penitent thus doing, the Abſolution of Cap. 6. the Prieſt hereupon pronounced is not conditional or declarative only, but abſolute and judicial.

Now in oppoſition to this Doctrine and Decree of theirs, and the practice of that Church purſuant thereof, as well as in defence of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England in that particular, I will here endeavor to make good theſe Three things.

1. That our bleſſed Lord and Saviour hath neither in his Goſpel inſtituted ſuch an Auricular Confeſſion as aforeſaid, nor much leſs, ſuch a Sacrament of Penance as the Church of Rome ſuppoſes in the recited Decree.

2. That Auricular Confeſſion hath not been of conſtant and univerſal uſe in the Chriſtian Church, as the Romaniſts pretend, much leſs looked upon as of Sacramental and neceſſary Obligation.

3. That Auricular Confeſſion as it is now uſed in the Church of Rome, is not only unneceſſary and burdenſome, but in many reſpects very miſchievous to Piety, and the great ends of Chriſtian Religion.

If the firſt of theſe appear to be true, then (at the worſt) the want of ſuch an Auricular Confeſſion in the reformed Churches, can be but an irregularity, and no eſſential defect.

If the 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 it is very evident that all things of this Nature ought to be appointed very plainly and expreſly, or elſe they can carry no obligation with them; for ſeeing the whole Reaſon of their becoming matter of Law or Duty, lies in the will of the Legiſlator, if that be not plainly diſcovered, they cannot be ſaid to be inſtituted, and ſo there can be no Obligation to obſerve them, becauſe where there is no Law, there can be no Tranſgreſſion; and a Law is no Law in effect which is not ſufficiently promulged. Is it not therefore a very ſtrange thing to tell us of an Inſtitution by implication only, and yet at the ſame time to tell us that the matter ſo (pretended to be) inſtituted, is no leſs then abſolutely Seſſ. 14. C. 2. neceſſary to the Salvation of Sinners?

2. The ſecond of theſe will eaſily be reſolved by conſidering what we obſerved before from the Council of Trent, viz. that this Sacrament of Penance conſiſts of Seſſ. 14. C 3 Matter and Form; the Form is the Prieſts Abſolution, but the Matter or Materials of this Sacrament are Contrition, Confeſſion to a Prieſt, and Satisfaction or Performance of the Penance enjoyn'd by him; now it is evident that not only Auricular Confeſſion (of which we have ſpoken hitherto but alſo Contrition and Satisfaction, are wholly omitted and paſt over in ſilence by the Evangeliſt in this paſſage of Scripture, from whence they fetch their Sacrament of Penance; and is it not a wonderfully ſtrange thing, that our Saviour ſhould be ſuppoſed to inſtitute a Sacrament without any Materials of it at all? Surely therefore this muſt be either a very Spiritual Sacrament, or none at all.

Let us gueſs at the probability of this in proportion to either of the other undoubted Sacraments. Suppoſe our Saviour inſtead of that accurate form in which he inſtituted the Euchariſt had only ſaid, I would have you my Diſciples and all that ſhall believe on my Name to keep a Memorial of me when I am gone: Or ſuppoſe he ſaid only as he doth, Joh. 6. 55. My Fleſh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed, would any one have concluded here, that our Saviour in ſo ſaying, had appointed Bread and Wine to be conſecrated, to be received in ſuch a manner, and in a word that he had (without more ado) inſtituted ſuch a Sacrament as we uſually celebrate? No certainly, and therefore we ſee our Saviour is the moſt expreſs and particular therein that can be, for he takes Bread, bleſſes it, breaks it, gives it to them, ſaying, Take eat, this is my body, &c. and after Supper he takes the Cup, bleſſes it, gives it to them, ſaying, Drink ye all of this, for this is the New Teſtament in my Blood, &c. and then adds, do this in remembrance of me. Now who is there that obſerves this accuracy of our Saviour in the Euchariſt, can imagine that he ſhould intend to inſtitute a Sacrament of Penance, and that as neceſſary to Salvation (in the Opinion of the Romaniſts) as the other, only with this Form of words, Whoſoever ſins ye remit they are remitted, &c. and without the leaſt mention of Confeſſion, Contrition, or any other Material or neceſſary Part of Circumſtance of it.

3. But in the third and laſt place, let us ſuppoſe that our Saviour had in the Text before us inſtituted Penance, and had appointed particularly all thoſe things, which they call the Material parts of it, (as it is evident he hath not) yet even then, and upon that Suppoſition, Penance would not have proved to be a Sacrament properly ſo called.

I confeſs according to a looſe acceptation of the word Sacrament, ſomething may be ſaid for it; for ſo there are many things have had the name of Sacrament applied to them. Tertullian ſomewhere calls Eliſha's Ax the Sacrament of Wood, and in his Book againſt Marcion he ſtiles the whole Chriſtian Religion a Sacrament. St. Auſtin in ſeveral places calls Bread, Fiſh, the Rock, and the Myſtery of Number, Sacraments, for he hath given us a general Rule in his Fifth Epiſtle, viz. That all ſigns when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments: And in conſideration hereof it is acknowledged by Caſſander, that the Number of Sacraments was indefinite in the Church of Rome it ſelf, until the times of Peter Lombard. But all this notwithſtanding, and properly ſpeaking, this Rite of Penance taking it altogether (and even ſuppoſing whatſoever the Romaniſts can ſuppoſe to belong to it) cannot be reputed a Sacrament, according to the allowed definitions of a Sacrament delivered by their own Divines. Some of them define a Sacrament thus, Hugo de S. Vict. lib. de Sacram. Sacramentum eſt corporale elementum foris ſenſibiliter propoſitum, ex ſimilitudine repraeſentans & ex inſtitutione ſignificans, & ex Sanctificatione continens inviſibilem gratiam. And the Magiſt. Sent. lib. 4. diſt. 1. Maſter of the Sentences himſelf deſcribes it ſomewhat more briefly, but to the ſame effect in theſe words: Sacramentum eſt inviſibilis gratiae viſibilis forma, ejuſdem gratiae imaginem gerens & cauſa exiſtens; both which definitions are acknowledged and applauded by the Jeſuite Becanus Tract. 2. de Sacramentis. Becanus: And the plain truth is a Sacrament cannot be better expreſt in ſo few words, then it is by St. Aug. c. Fauſt. Lib. 19. C. 16. Auſtin when he calls it verbum viſibile a viſible Word or Goſpel: For it pleaſed the Divine Wiſdom and Goodneſs by this inſtitution of Sacraments to condeſcend to our weakneſs, and thereby to give us ſenſible Tokens or Pledges of what he had promiſed in his Written word, to the intent that our dulneſs might be relieved, and our Faith aſſiſted; foraſmuch as herein, our Eyes and other Senſes as well as our Ears are made Witneſſes of his gracious intentions. Thus by Baptiſmal waſhing he gives us a ſenſible token and repreſentation of our regeneration, and the waſhing away of our ſins by the Blood of Chriſt; and by the participation of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper we have a Token and Symbol of our Union with Chriſt, our Friendſhip with God and Communion with each other.

But now it is manifeſt there is no ſuch thing as this in their Sacrament of Penance (as even Bellarmine himſelf confeſſes.) For they do not ſay or mean that the Abſolution of the Prieſt is a Token or Emblem of God's forgiveneſs, but that the Prieſt actually pardons in God's ſtead, by Virtue of a Power delegated to him. So that according to them, here muſt be a Sacrament, not only without any material parts inſtituted, but alſo without any thing Figurative, Symbolical or Significative which ſeems to be as expreſly contrary to their own Doctrine in the aforeſaid definitions as to the truth it ſelf.

Nay, further to evince the difference of this Rite of Penance from all other proper Sacraments; it deſerves obſervation, that whereas in thoſe other acknowledged Sacraments, the Prieſt in God's Name delivers to us the Pledges and Symbols of Divine Grace. Here in this of Penance we muſt bring all the material Parts and Pledges our ſelves, and preſent them to God, or to the Prieſt in his ſtead: My meaning is, that whereas (for inſtance) in Baptiſm the Prieſt applies to us the Symbol of Water, and in the Euchariſt delivers to us the conſecrated Elements in token of the Divine Grace, contrary-wiſe here in Penance we muſt on our parts bring with us Contrition, Confeſſion, and Satisfaction too, in which reſpect we may be rather ſaid to give Pledges to God, then he to us; which is widely different from the Nature of other Sacraments, and ſeems no leſs to be contrary to the Reaſon and Notion of a Sacrament in general.

The Sum of what we have hitherto diſcourſed, amounts to this; Firſt, That here is no Auricular Confeſſion inſtituted by our Saviour, Joh. 20. 22. as was pretended. Secondly, Nor, any Sacrament of Penance in which it can be included or implied; no nor indeed any Sacrament at all.

I confeſs I might have ſpared all the words I have uſed in proving the latter, for ſo long as I have made appear that private Confeſſion is not inſtituted, it was not ſo very material to conſider whether Penance could be a Sacrament or no; but this I added to ſhew the imperious dictates of that Church, and their extravagancy in impoſing the moſt Sacred Names upon their own inventions, thereby to give them the greater veneration with the People.

And thus I would diſmiſs the firſt part of my undertaking, but yet the Romaniſts will not forego their pretenſions for Auricular Confeſſion; for they will yet urge, that whether or no we will call it a Sacrament which our Saviour inſtitutes in the Text before us, it is however certain here is a Power conferred on the Apoſtles, and their Succeſſors, of remitting and retaining ſins; for by theſe words, Whoſoever ſins ye remit they are remitted, &c. Chriſtus conſtituit Sacerdotes ſui ipſius Vicarios. Seſſ. 14. Praſides & Judices Ib. c. 4. Our Saviour hath made the Prieſt a judge of Mens conſciences and conditions; 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. wherefore that he may not proceed blindly and indiſcriminately it is neceſſary that he know the merits of the Cauſe, and not only underſtand the matter of fact, but all the circumſtances which may aggravate or extenuate it, all which cannot be attained without the Confeſſion of the party, therefore Auricular Confeſſion is as neceſſarily implied in the Text, as Abſolution or Retention of ſins is expreſt in it. So they.

But I crave leave to demand in the firſt place, Is it certain that upon ſuch a Confeſſion as they require, the Prieſt (as ſuch) will be able to make a right judgment of a Mans caſe that addreſſes himſelf to him, eſpecially conſidering the intricacy of ſome Caſes, and the ignorance of ſome Prieſts; upon this account are thoſe memorable words of St. Auſtin Confeſſ. lib. 10. c. 3. Quid mihi ergo eſt cum hominibus ut audiant Confeſſiones meas, quaſi ipſi ſanaturi ſint omnes languores meos, & unde ſciunt cum à meipſo de meipſo audiunt, an verum dicam? Quando quidem nemo ſcit hominum quid agitur in homine, niſi ſpiritus hominis qui in ipſo eſt. i. e. To what purpoſe ſhould I Confeſs my ſins to Men who cannot heal my wounds? For how ſhall they (who know nothing of my heart but by my own Confeſſion) know whether I ſay true or no? For no one knows what is in Man, but the Spirit of Man that is in him. O yes, they will ſay clave non errante, that is to ſay, if he judge right, he judges right, and no more, and this is mighty comfort to a diſtreſſed conſcience.

Secondly, Though we grant our Saviour hath given the Prieſt Authority to Remit and Retain ſins, yet how doth it appear that this extends to Secret ſins; ſins; in thought only, or as the Council expreſſes it againſt the ninth and tenth Commandments? Of open ſins and publick ſcandals the Church hath cognizance, and hath a right which ſhe may inſiſt upon, or recede from, if ſhe ſee cauſe, becauſe ſuch ſins are an injury to the Society as well as an offence againſt God, and therefore here the Officers of the Church may diſpenſe her Authority, and Remit or Retain (as we ſhall ſee more by and by;) but in ſecret ſins where only God is injured, and to which he is only privy, what hath the Church to do, unleſs they be voluntarily diſcovered to her? Otherwiſe they are properly reſerved Caſes to the Tribunal of God.

Thirdly, I would be bold to enquire further, why may not ſins, eſpecially ſuch as we laſt named, be Remitted upon Confeſſion to God, without Confeſſion to the Prieſt alſo? And I the rather ask this for theſe two reaſons, Firſt I obſerve that this very Council of Trent ſaith, that until the times of our Seſſ. 14. c. 1. Saviour, and his Inſtitution of this Sacrament, ſins were remitted upon contrition only, and application to the mercies of God, without Auricular Confeſſion. They cannot therefore now ſay, remiſſion implies this Confeſſion, for that cannot be ſaid to be implied in the nature of a thing, when the thing it ſelf can be had without it.

They will anſwer that it is ſufficient, that it is now made neceſſary by our Saviour. But I reply, Then that Inſtitution which now makes it neceſſary, muſt be better proved then yet it hath been, or elſe Men will be very apt to hope they may now under the Goſpel obtain Pardon (at leaſt) upon as eaſie terms as it was to be had at before.

My Second reaſon of asking that Third Queſtion is this; I obſerve that their own Schoolmen acknowledg Aquinas ſumm. part. 3. Q. 68. ſins to be remitted under the Goſpel by the Prieſt without any Confeſſion to Men, particularly in the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, by which it plainly appears, that Confeſſion is not implied in the nature of Remiſſion, but one may be had without the other, and then why may not a ſinner after Baptiſm, hope for Pardon upon his contrite and devout application to the Word and Sacraments, without this new device and pick-lock of Conſcience, Auricular Confeſſion.

But ſo much for that.

Sect. 3. I proceed now to the ſecond thing propounded, namely, to inquire hiſtorically whether or no Auricular, or ſuch a ſecret, and Sacramental Confeſſion, as aforeſaid, hath been of conſtant and univerſal uſe in the Chriſtian Church, as the Romaniſts pretend, and as the Council of Trent aſſerts, Seſſi. 14. Chap. 5.

This inquiry is not into matter of Law or Divine Right, as the former was, but of Fact only, yet never the leſs it is of great moment upon a double account:

1. Becauſe this is the ground which the Old Roman Canoniſts wholly went upon, (as I noted before;) they exploded all pretence of Divine Inſtitution in the caſe, as having more modeſty (it ſeems) then to pretend ſo high upon no better evidence, or at leaſt they contented themſelves to preſcribe for it only upon the Authority of conſtant and univerſal practice; now if we ſhew the falſeneſs, of this ground, as well as of the other, then will their Hypotheſis of Auricular Confeſſion have no foot to ſtand upon.

2. Becauſe the Credit of what hath been already ſaid under the former head doth very much depend upon this, and that Diſcourſe will be confirmed or impaired reſpectively to what ſhall be evidently made out in this ſecond point. Foraſmuch as if on the one ſide it be made apparent that ſuch a Rite hath been of conſtant uſe in the Chriſtian Church, it will afford a great preſumption that it took its riſe at firſt from Divine Inſtitution, notwithſtanding all we have offered to the contrary. So on the other ſide, if the Evidence here anſwer not the Pretenſion, and no ſufficient footſteps of conſtant and univerſal practice appear: Then will all that which we have hitherto diſcourſed, be greatly ſtrengthened and confirmed; becauſe it is by no means probable, that if there had been a Divine Law in the caſe, that ſuch a thing would have been generally neglected by the Chriſtian Church.

Now for the clearing of this, though I am here only upon the defenſive, and ſo bound to no more then to examine the proofs which the Romaniſts bring for their pretenſions, yet I will deal ingenuouſly, as ſeeking not to find Flaws, but to diſcover the Truth, and therefore give theſe inſtances as ſo many reaſons for the Negative.

In the firſt place I crave leave to premiſe this: If Auricular Confeſſion were ſo great a Goſpel myſtery, ſo wonderfully efficacious a method of ſaving Souls, as to be typified in the Law (as the Romaniſts teach) as well as inſtituted in the Goſpel and practiſed by the whole Church, one might ſeem juſtly to wonder how it comes to paſs that there ſhould be no mention, nor appearance of it in the whole courſe of our Saviours own Miniſtry; he uſed to be an example, as well as a Law-giver to the Church, he waſhed his Diſciples Feet, before he enjoined them to waſh one another; he exemplified the other Sacraments before he preſcribed his Apoſtles to adminiſter them, & one would have thought ſuch an Inſtance of his example had been more neceſſary in this buſineſs of Penance, rather than any other, if it had been but to make way for the Underſtanding of ſo obſcure an Inſtitution; ſince eſpecially, one would have thought to find ſome Traces of this in the Miniſtry of our Saviour, becauſe he daily converſed with ſinners, he reproved them, inſtructed them, healed them, pardoned them, but never brought any of them to ſuch a Confeſſion as we are treating of; viz. To a particular enumeration of their ſins with the circumſtances, nor upon ſo doing formally abſolved them. His very Diſciples (ſome of which had been great ſinners) were admitted without it; the Woman of Samaria was told by him all that ever ſhe did, but ſhe was not brought on her knees to make her own Confeſſion; but moſt ſtrange of all it is, that the Woman taken in Adultery, when he had made her accuſers ſlink away, was not privately brought to it; it may be they will ſay, there was no need of Confeſsion to him who knew all before, but yet it might have been neceſſary to bring theſe Sinners to be aſhamed of themſelves by that means to work Repentance, and fit them for Pardon, at leaſt if this Method had been of ſuch mighty uſe and wonderful neceſſity as is pretended.

2. But to let paſs that; in the next place it is matter of wonder that nothing of this practice appears in the Miniſtry of the Apoſtles; they went about preaching the Goſpel, calling Men to Repentance, erecting and governing Churches, but never ſet themſelves down in a Confeſſors Chair for penitents, ſecretly to tell them in their Ear, the Story of their vicious Lives; indeed we read, Acts 19. 18. That ſome came in and ſhewed their deeds; but firſt it was voluntary, and in a fit of Holy Zeal, for we cannot find that they were required to do it, as of Sacramental Obligation; & beſides, the Confeſſion was publick before the Church, not clancular, and whiſpered in ſecret; it is true alſo that St. James, chap. 5. 16. adviſes the Chriſtians to confeſs their faults one to another, (which is made a mighty evidence in this Caſe;) but it is as true, that this was ſpoken in an extraordinary Caſe, as appears v. 14. in bodily ſickneſs and diſtreſs of Conſcience, they are adviſed to lay open their condition, in order to relief and ſuccour, by the more ardent and affectionate Prayers of thoſe who ſhould be made privy to it, but it is not made a ſtanding and univerſal rule for all Men to comply with, whether they be ſick or well, in proſperity or adverſity, perplexed or quiet in their Conſciences, much leſs of Sacramental and Neceſſary Obligation, as in the Roman Church.

3. Let us go on in the next ages after the Apoſtles, for about two hundred years we find not one word of this kind of Confeſſion, which we enquire for. Indeed the writings of that time which are extant, are not many, but if this buſineſs had been of ſuch conſequence as is pretended, it is ſtrange that thoſe Holy Men Ignatius, Clemens and Juſtin Martyr, ſhould not have any mention of it.

Indeed Bellarmine brings us one inſtance within this Period, and that is from Irenaeus, who ſpeaking of Certain Women who had been abuſed by Marcion the Heretick, ſaith they afterwards came and Confeſſed all, with ſhame and ſorrow, to the Church. But what is this to the purpoſe? We diſpute not againſt publick Confeſſion, which is acknowledged to be truly Primitive, and we wiſh it had been conſtantly maintained in after ages, it is only the neceſſity of Clancular Confeſſion that we are unſatisfied in and this paſſage ſpeaks nothing at all to that Caſe.

4. In Tertullians time, which was alſo much about Two hundred Years after our Saviour, we find great things ſaid of Confeſſion, but it is of that which was publick, and in the face of the Church, not to a Prieſt in a Corner, and this indeed was greatly incouraged and required by the Holy Men of thoſe times, as that which in the Caſe of open and ſcandalous ſins, freed the Church both from the guilt, and from the reproach of them, and in the Caſe of ſecret ſins, was a means (by open ſhame) to bring Men to Repentance, and ſo to Pardon. And the Confeſſion was principally directed to God, who was the perſon offended by the ſin, yet it was made before Men to raiſe a fervency in their Prayers, as is noted before, and to obtain their effectual interceſſion with God on behalf of the penitent. This that Ancient writer makes manifeſt to be his Senſe in his Book de Poenitentia in theſe words Plerumque vero jejuniis preces alere, ingemiſcere, lachrymari, & mugire dies noctéſque ad Dominum Deum tuum, Presbyteris advolvi, & aris (or rather charis) dei adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes ſaae deprecationis injungere, haec omnia ex homologeſis ut poenitentiam commendet, &c. the penitent often joyns Faſting to his prayers, weeps, wails and moans night and day before God, caſts himſelf at the feet of the 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, Tertull. Apol. c. 39. &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, ſummum que 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 Beatus Rhenan. in praef. ad Tertull. de poeitent. 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 St. Syprian. Lib. 3. Eph. 15. 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 Origen in Pſ. 37. particular, I will add the words of the Hiſtorian, Rei Sozomen L. 7. Cap. 16. 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 St. Chryſoſt. ad Hebr. Homil. 31. Id. in Serm. de Confeſſ. & poenit. &c. 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 Bellarm. de Poenit. Lib. 3. C. 8. 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 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. Id. Lib. 3. C. 6.

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 Socrat. Hiſt. Lib. 5. Cap. 19. Sozomen. Lib. 7. C. 16. 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 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 Nicephor. Lib. 12. Cap. 28. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 of Rome is not countenanced in her practice of private and clancular Confeſſions, by the general uſage of the Church, as they pretend.

3. I obſerve concerning this Office of Penitentiary, that as it was erected upon prudential conſiderations, ſo it was upon the ſame grounds aboliſhed, by the ſame Authority of the Church which firſt inſtituted it, and that after about Two hundred years continuance in the time of Nectarius, as we have ſeen; & therein he was followed, ſaith Sozomen by almoſt all the Biſhops and Churches in the World; this therefore was far from being thought either a Divine or Apoſtolical Conſtitution: Petavius would here perſuade us, that it was only publick Confeſſion, and not private, which was upon this occaſion ſo generally laid aſide, as we have ſeen, but this is done by him more out of tenderneſs of Auricular Confeſſion, than upon good reaſon; and Valeſius goes beyond him, and will needs perſuade us, that neither publick nor private Confeſſion were put down in this juncture, but only that the lately erected Officer of Penitentiary was caſhier'd; but I muſt crave leave to ſay, there is no ſufficient reaſon for either of theſe conjectures, but on the contrary plain Evidence againſt them, for Socrates, who is the firſt and principal relater of this whole ſtory ſaith he was perſonally acquainted with this Presbyter Eudemon, who gave the advice to Nectarius to make this change in the Diſcipline of the Church, and that he had the aforeſaid relation of it from his own Mouth, and expoſtulated with him about it, giving his reaſons to the contrary, and ſuggeſted his ſuſpicions that the ſtate of Piety would be much endamaged by this change, and in plain words tells him, that he had now bereft men of aſſiſtance in the conduct of their Conſciences, and hindred the great benefit men have, or might have one of another by private advice and correption. Now this fear of his had been the abſurdeſt thing in the World, if upon this counſel and advice of his, only one certain Man in the Office of publick Confeſſioner had been laid aſide, but both the uſe of publick and private Confeſſions had been kept up and retained.

But after all (for ought appears) the Church of Rome kept her old Mumpſimus, ſhe tenacious of her own cuſtoms eſpecially of ſuch as may advance her Intereſt and Authority, complies not with this Innovation or Reformation (be it for better or worſe) but her Prieſts go on with their Confeſſions, and turn all Religion almoſt into Clancular Tranſactions, in deſpight of the example of other Churches. It may be ſhe met with oppoſition ſometimes, but ſhe was forced to diſemble it till the Heroick Age of the School-men, and then thoſe luſty Champions with their Fuſtian-ſtuff of videtur quod ſic, & probatur quod non, make good all her pretenſions. After them in the year 1215 comes the Fourth Lateran Council, and that decrees Auricular Conſeſſion to be made by every body once a year at the leaſt; and laſt of all comes the Council of Trent, and declares it to be of Divine Inſtitution, neceſſary to Salvation, and the conſtant and univerſal cuſtom of the Chriſtian Church: And ſo we have the Pedigree of the Romiſh Auricular Confeſſion.

Sect. 4. I come now to the third and laſt Stage of my undertaking, which is, to ſhew that Secret or Auricular Confeſſion, as it is now preſcribed and practiſed in and by the Church of Rome, is not only unneceſſary, and burdenſom in it ſelf, but alſo very miſchievous to Piety, and the great ends of Chriſtian Religion.

For the former part of this charge, if it be not evident enough already, it will eaſily be made out from the Premiſes, for they cannot deny that they make this kind of Confeſſion neceſſary to Salvation, at leaſt as neceſſary as Baptiſm it ſelf is, (ſuppoſing a Man hath ſinned after Baptiſm) now if it be neither made ſo by Divine Inſtitution, nor acknowledged to be ſo by the conſtant Opinion of the Church, what an horrible impoſition is here upon the Conſciences of Men, when in the higheſt and worſt ſenſe that can be they teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, and make Salvation harder than God hath made it, and ſuſpend mens hopes upon other terms then he hath done? If it was preſcribed by the preſent Church as a matter of Order and Diſcipline only, or of convenience and expediency, we ſhould never boggle at it upon this account, or diſpute the point with them; or if it was only declared neceſſary pro hîc & nunc, upon extraordinary emergency, by the peculiar condition of the Penitent, his weakneſs of judgment, the perplexity of his Conſcience, his horrible guilt or extream Agonies, we would not differ with them upon that neither; but when it is made neceſſary univerſally, and declared the indiſpenſable duty of all men whatſoever who have ſinned after Baptiſm (when God hath required no ſuch thing, but declares himſelf ſatisfied with true contrition and hearty remorſe for what is paſt, and ſincere Reformation for the time to come; this I ſay is an intolerable Tyranny and uſurpation upon the Conſciences of Men. And that is not all neither, for beſides its burdenſomneſs in the general, it particularly aggravates and increaſes a Mans other burdens, for inſtead of relieving perplexed Conſciences, which is the true and principal uſe of Confeſſions to Men, this prieſtly Confeſſion as it is preſcribed by the Council, intangles and afflicts them more; for that injoyns that the Penitent lay open all his ſins, even the moſt ſecret, although but in thought or deſire only, ſuch as againſt the Ninth or Tenth Commandment, (according to their Diviſion of the Decalogue,) now this is many times difficult enough; but that's not all, he muſt alſo recount all the circumſtances of theſe ſins, which may increaſe or diminiſh the guilt, eſpecially ſuch as alter the ſpecies and kind of ſin: Now what ſad work is here for a Melancholy Man? All the circumſtances are innumerable, and how can he tell which are they that change the Species of the act, unleſs he be as great a School-man as his Confeſſor. Beſides all this, it may be he is not very skilful in the diſtinction between venial and mortal ſins, and if he omit one mortal ſin, he is undone; therefore it is neceſſary for him (by conſequence) to confeſs all venial ſins too, and then where ſhall the poor Man begin, or when ſhall he make an end Such a Carnifieina ſuch a rack and torture, in a word, ſuch an Holy Inquiſition is this buſineſs of Auricular Confeſſion become. And that Eminent Divine of Strasburgh (of whom Beatus Rhenanus ſpeaks) ſeems very well to have underſtood both himſelf, and this matter who pronounces that Scotus and Thomas had with their tricks, and ſubtilties, ſo perplexed this plain Buſineſs of Confeſſion, that now it was become plainly impoſſible And ſo much for that.

But as for the ſecond part of this impeachment, viz. That the Auricular Confeſſion now uſed in the 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. Seſſ. 14. Can. 1. 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 Ibid. Cap. 5. 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 Ibid. Cap. 2. 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; Ʋt 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 Theod. Cantuar. apud Beat. Rhen. in praef. ad Tertul. depoenit. 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 Conc. Trident. Seſſ. 14. Cap 4. 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 Prieſt in a corner, and that under the inviolable Seal of Confeſſion, what great ſhame can this put me to? What remorſe is it likely to work in me? What ſhall diſcourage me from going on to ſin again, if no worſe thing happen to me?

2. And then for the multitude of Confeſſions in the Church of Rome, that alſo takes off the ſhame, and weakens the efficacy of it, ſo that if it do no harm, it is not likely to do any good; for who is concern'd much in the doing that which he ſees all the World do as well as himſelf; if only notorious Sinners were brought to Confeſſion (as it was in the Primitive Church) then it might probably and reaſonably provoke a bluſh, and cauſe a remorſe in him to whom ſuch a remedy was preſcribed; but when he ſees the whole Pariſh, and the Prieſt too brought to it, and Men as generally complying with it, as they approach to the Lord's Table; What great wonders can this work? What ſhame can it inflict upon any Man! What effect can be expected from it, but that it ordinarily makes Men ſecure and careleſs, and grow as familiar with ſin as with the remedy, or at leaſt think as well of themſelves as of other Men, ſince it ſeems they have as much need of Confeſſion and abſolution as himſelf?

3. To which the frequency and often repetitions of theſe kind of Confeſſions adds very much; it is very likely that modeſty may work much upon a Man the firſt or ſecond time he goes to Confeſſion, and it may ſomething diſcompoſe his Countenance when he lays open all his ſecret miſcarriages, to a Perſon eſpecially for whom he hath a Reverence (for we ſee every thing, even ſin it ſelf is modeſt in its beginnings;) and no doubt it is ſome reſtraint of ſin whilſt a Man is ſenſible that he muſt undergo a great deal of pain and ſhame in vomiting up again his ſweet Morſels which he eats in ſecret: But by that time he hath been uſed to this a while, it grows eaſie and habitual to him, and cuſtom hath made the very puniſhment pleaſant as well as the ſin; eſpecially, if we add,

4. The formal, curſory, hypocritical, and illuſive ways of Confeſſion in frequent uſe amongſt them; as that a Man may chooſe his own Prieſt, and then to be ſure the greateſt Sinner will have a Confeſſour right for his turn, that ſhall not be too ſevere and ſcrupulous with him; that a Man may confeſs in tranſitu, in a hurry or huddle, and then there can be no remark made upon his Perſon nor his ſins; that a Man may make one part of his Confeſſion to one Prieſt, and reſerve the other part for another, ſo that neither of them ſhall be able to make any thing of it; that he may have one Confeſſour for his Mortal ſins, and another for his Venial; ſo that one ſhall ſave him, if the other damn him; nay, for failing, the forgetful ſinner may have another Man to confeſs for him, or at leaſt he may confeſs, that he hath not confeſſed; theſe and abundance more ſuch illuſive Methods are in daily uſe amongſt them, and not only taken up by the licentious and unconſcionable People, but allowed by ſome or other of their great Caſuiſts; now let any Man judge whether this be a likelier way to reſtrain ſin, or to encourage it; whether the eaſineſs of the remedy (if this be one) muſt not of neceſſity make the Diſeaſe ſeem not very formidable; in a word, whether this be not a ridiculing their own Religion, and, which is worſe, a teaching Men to be ſo fool hardy as to make a mock of ſin.

5. This ſad reckoning will be inflamed yet higher if we conſider the ſlight Penances uſually impoſed by theſe Spiritual Judges upon the greateſt Crimes. The Council determines that the Confeſſour muſt be exactly made acquainted with all the circumſtances of the ſin, that ſo he may be able to adjuſt a Penance to it; now when ſome great ſin is confeſſed and that in very foul circumſtances, if the Penance proportioned to it, by the Prieſt be to ſay two or three Pater Noſters, or Ave-Maria's extraordinary, to give a little Money in Alms to the Poor or ſome Pious uſe, to kneel on his bare knees before ſuch a Shrine, to kiſs ſuch an Image, to go on Pilgrimage a few Miles to ſuch a Saint, or at moſt to wear an Hair Shirt, or it may be to faſt with Piſh, and Wine, and Sweetmeats, &c. doth not this make that ſin which is thus mawled and ſtigmatized, look very dreadfully, can any Man find in his Heart to ſin again, when it hath coſt him ſo dear already?

Oh, but they will tell us theſe Penances are not intended to correſpond with the guilt of the ſin, but only to ſatisfy the debt of Temporal puniſhment. But we had thought that the end of Penance had been, to work in the Penitent a diſpoſition for Pardon, by giving him both opportunities and direction to expreſs the ſincerity of his Repentance; and this was the uſe of Penance in the Primitive Church, together with the taking off the Scandal from the Society; and for that other end how doth the Church of Rome know ſo certainly that there is a debt of Temporal puniſhment remaining due, after the ſin is pardoned before God; it is true, God may pardon ſo far only as he pleaſes, he may reſolve to puniſh temporally thoſe whom he hath forgiven eternally, as we ſee he did in the caſe of David; but that this is not his conſtant Method appears by this that our Saviour releaſes the Temporal puniſhment to many in the Goſpel, whoſe diſeaſes he cured, ſaying to them, Your ſins are forgiven you, when as yet it did not appear that all Scores were quitted with God ſo, but that they might have periſhed eternally, if they did not prevent it by Faith and Repentance.

6. But laſtly, to come to an end of this ſad ſtory, the eaſineſs and proſtitution of their abſolutions in the Church of Rome contributes, as much to the encouraging of Vice and careleſneſs in Religion as any of the former; for what elſe can be the natural effect and conſequence of that ruled caſe among their Caſuiſts (as I ſhew'd before) that the Prieſt is bound to abſolve him that confeſſes, and ſaith, he is ſorry for his ſin, though he doth in his Heart believe that he is not contrite, but that either the Prieſts Pardon is a very cheat, or elſe that Pardon is due of courſe to the moſt impenitent Sinner, and there is no more to do but Confeſs and be Saved? or what is the meaning of their common practice to abſolve men upon their Death-beds, whether they be contrite, or attrite, or neither, at leaſt when they can give no Evidence of either? If they intended this only for abſolution from the Cenſures of the Church it might be called Charity, and look ſomething like the practice of the Primitive Church, which releaſed thoſe upon their Death-beds, whom it 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 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 be ••… 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 Reforma •… thought of no other Confeſſor but this, nor imagi •• Men now bound to make any other Confeſſion, this (which if it was not Auricular was very ſe ••… for otherwiſe how comes it to paſs that he expo ••• lates the matter with Eudaemon who adviſed change, and bewail'd the danger of this liberty wh ••• was hereby given men, if they were as ſtrictly bo •••… ſtill to confeſs to their Biſhop as they were before the Penitentiary; therefore the Truth of the Buſi •••… ſeems evidently to be this, that men were now at •• berty to make their Confeſſions of ſecret Sins volu ••• rily, as they were no doubt before the Inſtitution Penitentiary. And now what hath this Learned G •• tleman gotten by muſtering up this ſtory; well h ••… ever the Concluſion muſt be held, let the Prem •••… look to themſelves.

I could find in my Heart (now my hand is in) proceed further and to obſerve; what pittiful ſ •••… he is put to, in his Thirteenth Chapter, to evade Teſtimonies brought by Monſieur Daillè out of ••• Chryſoſtom againſt his Hypotheſis. And the ra ••… becauſe (out of mere tediouſneſs of writing) I in foregoing Papers omitted to ſpecify the moſt remar •• ble diſcourſes which that excellent Author hath up •• 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 Argume •• againſt the neceſſity of Auricular Confeſſion.

FINIS.