The second part of the dissuasive from popery in vindication of the first part, and further reproof and conviction of the Roman errors / by Jer. Taylor ...

SECTION X.

Of the Seal of Confession.

1. I First instance in their Seal of Confession; And the question is not, Whether a Priest is to take care of his Penitent's fame, or whether he be not in all prudent and pious ways to be careful, lest he make that Entercourse odious: For certainly he is. But whether the Seal of Confession be so sacred and im∣pregnable that it is not to be opened in the immi∣nent danger of a King, or Kingdom; or for the doing the greatest good, or avoiding the greatest evil in the world: that's now the question, and such a Broad Seal as this, is no part of the Christian Religion, was never spoken of by the Prophets or Apostles, in the Old or the New Testament, never was so much as men∣tion'd in the Books of the Ancient Fathers and Do∣ctors, not so much as named in the Ancient Councils of the Church; and was not heard of until after the time of Pope Gregory the seventh. Now how this is deter∣min'd

& practis'd in the Church of Rome, we may quick∣ly see. The first direct Rule in the Western Church we find in this affair,* 1.1 is the Canon of the Lateran Council; Cap. Omnis utriusque, in which to Confess at Easter, was made an Ecclesiastical Law; and, as an Appendix to it, this caution, Caveatautem omninò, ne verbo aut signo aut alio quovis modo aliquatenus prodat peccatorem: sed si prudentiore consilio indiguerit, illud absque ullâ ex∣pressione personae requirat. This Law concerning them that do confess their secret sins to a Priest, in order to Counsel, comfort, and pardon from God by his Mini∣stery, is very prudent and pious; and it relates only to the person, not to the crimes: these may upon the account of any doubt, or the advantage of better counsel and instruction be reveal'd; the person upon such accounts may not, Nisi veritas aut obedientia aliud exigat,* 1.2 as S. Bonaventure said well; Unless truth, or obedience require the contrary: for indeed the person is not often so material as to the inquiry of future counsel, or present judgment, as the greatness, and other circumstances of the sin. But this was an ancient Ec∣clesiastical Rule,* 1.3 as we find it related by Sozomen, Pres∣byterum aliquem vitae integritate quam maximè specta∣bilem, secretorum eitam tenacem ac sapientem huic of∣ficio praefecerunt, A penitentiary Priest was appoint∣ted for the Penitents, a man that was of good life, wise, and secret. So far was well, and agreeable to com∣mon prudence, and natural reason, and the words of Solomon;* 1.4 Qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcanum, qui autem fidelis est celat amici commissum. There is in this case, some more reason than in ordinary secrets; but still the obligation is the same, and to be governed by prudence, and is subject to contradiction, by great∣er causes. The same also, is the Law in the Greek Church,* 1.5 mentioned by S. Basil, Our Fathers permitted not that women, that had committed Adultery, and were

penitent, should be delated in publick* 1.6. This is the whole ground and foundation, on which the Seal of Confessi∣on does, or can rely, save only that in several Churches there were several Laws in after-ages to the same pur∣pose, and particularly, in the 11th. Canon of the Church of England; adding also the penalty of irregu∣larity, to every Priest that shall reveal any thing com∣mitted to him in private Confession, but with this Proviso; that it be not binding, in such cases where the concealment is made capital, by the Laws of the King∣dom: which because it is very strict, and yet very pru∣dent, I shall make it appear, that the Church of Eng∣land walks wisely in it, and according to the prece∣dents of the Ancient Catholick Church, in command∣ing the Seal to be broken up in some cases; and yet she hath restrain'd it more than formerly was observed in the Churches of God.

Burchard expres••ly affirms,* 1.7 that before the Nicene Council, the penitentiary Priest might publish what he heard in Confessions, if it were for the good of the penitent, or, for the greatness of the crime, it seem'd fit to the Confessor.

And that he says true, we have sufficient testimo∣ny from Origen.* 1.8 Tantum modo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum—Si intellexerit & praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat & curari, ex quo fortassis & caeteri aedificari poterunt, & tu ipse facilè sanari, multâ hoc deliberatione & satis perito medici illius con∣silio procurandum est. By which words he affirms, 1. That it was in the power of the Confessor, to com∣mand the publication of certain crimes, 2. That though it was not lightly to be done, yet upon great reason it might. 3. That the spiritual good of the penitent, and the edification of others, were causes sufficient for the publication. 4. That of these; the Confessor was

judge. 5. That this was no otherwise done by the consent of the party, but because he was bound to consent when the Confessor enjoyn'd it: And the mat∣ter is evident, in the case of the incestuous Corinthian; who either was restor'd without private Confession; or, if he was not, S. Paul caus'd it to be publish'd in the Church, and submitted the man to the severest disci∣pline and yet publick, that was then or since in the world. The like to this, we find in a decretal Epistle of Pope Leo;* 1.9 for when some Confessors, exceeding the ancient Ecclesiastical Rule, were not so prudent and deliberate in conducting their Penitents, as formerly they were, but commanded that all their whole Con∣fessions should be written down, and publickly read; he says, Though the plentitude of Faith might be lan∣dable, that is not afraid to blush in publick, yet the Con∣fession is sufficient, if it be made in secret first to God, and then to the Priest: and adds, Non omnium hujus∣modi sunt peccata, ut ea quae poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare; All sins are not of that nature, that are fit to be publish'd: and therefore removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo; let such a reprovable custome be taken away.] In which words of S. Leo; we find, 1. That the Seal of Confession (as at this day it is un∣derstood at Rome,) was no such inviolable, and reli∣gious secret; for by a contrary custom it was too much broken. 2. That he blames not the publication of some sins, but that they indiscriminately did publish all. 3. That the nature of some sins did not permit it: for (as he adds afterwards) men by this means were betrayed to the malice of their Enemies, who would bring them before tribunals, in some cases. 4. That this was not spoken in case of publick Crimes, delated, and brought into publick notice, but such as were spoken in private Confession. And here I cannot but desire, there had been some more ingenuity in Bel∣larmine,

who relating to this Epistle of S.* 1.10 Leo, affirms, that S. Leo says, It is against the Apostolical Rule, to reveal secret sins, declar'd in Confession; when it is plain, that S. Leo only blames the Custom of reveal∣ing all; saying, that all sins are not of that nature, as to be fit to be reveal'd. And by these precedent au∣thorities, we shall the easier understand that famous fact of Nectarius, who abolished the Custom of having sins published in the Church, and therefore took away the penitentiary Priest, whose Office was (as I prov'd out of Origen, Sozomen, and Burchard) to enjoyn the publication of some sins, according to his dis∣cretion. It hapned in Constantinople, that a foul fact was committed, and it was published in the ears of the people, and a tumult was rais'd about it; and the Remedy was, that Nectarius took away the Office, and the Custom together. Consulentibus quibusdam ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret, prout sibi ipse conscius esset & consideret, ad mysteriorum Communionem ac∣cedere, poenitentiarium illum presbyterum exauthoravit. Every man was thenceforth left to his liberty, accord∣ing to the dictate and confidence of his own conscience, to come to the Communion; and this afterwards pass'd into a Rite: for the manners of men growing degenerate, and worse sins being now confess'd than (as he supposes) formerly they had been; the judges having been more severe, and the people more modest, it was fit enough that this Custom, upon the occasion of such a scandal, and so much mischief like to follow it, should be laid aside wholly; and so it was. Here is a plain story, truly told by Sozomen, and the matter is easie to be understood. But Bellarmine, seeing the practice, and doctrine of the Church of Rome pinch'd by it, makes a distinction (deriv'd from the present Custom of his Church) of publick Confession and pri∣vate, saying, That Nectarius took away the publick,

and not the private. This I shall have occasion to dis∣cuss in the next Section. I am now onely to speak con∣cerning the Seal of Confession; which from this au∣thority is apparent was not such a sacred thing, but that it was made wholly to minister to the publick and private edification of the penitent, and the whole Church.

Thus this Affair stood in the Primitive Church. In descending ages when private Confessions grew fre∣quent, and were converted into a Sacrament; the Seal also was made more tenacious; and yet by the disci∣pline of the Church, there were divers Cases in which the Seal might be broken up. 1. There is a famous Gloss in Cap. Tua nos. lib. 4. Decretal. tit. 1. De Sponsalibus & Matrimonio; where the Pope answer∣ing to a question concerning a pretended contract of marriage, says, that the marriage is good, unless the In∣quiring Bishop of Brescia could have assur'd him, that the man did never consent, or intend the marriage, Quod qualiter tibi constiterit, non videmus: The Gloss upon these words says, Imò benè potuit constare; quia vir ille hoc ei confitebatur,

The Bishop might well know it, because the man had confessed it to him; or because he had revealed it to him in peni∣tential confession. For though in Judicial confession before a tribunal no man is to be believed to the pre∣judice of a third person, yet in penitential Confessi∣on he is to be believ'd; because it is not to be sup∣posed that he then is unmindful of his salvation.]

Where the Gloss observing that he did or might have received it in Confession, and yet make use of it in Consultation with his superiors, and upon that answer was to pronounce it to be, or not to be, a marriage, and to treat the persons accordingly; it follows that the thing it self might be revealed for the good of the penitents soul, and this was done by the Cardinal of

S. Laurence in the case of a woman introducing a sup∣posititious Child to the inheritance of her husband;* 1.11 and this revelation of the Confession produc'd a de∣cretal Epistle from the Pope in that particular case;* 1.12 and of this the Doctors give this reason;* 1.13 because a thing so odious, and that would bring so certain ruine to souls, might not be permitted, with so great scandal, and so great mischief. 2. And that Confession may [ 2] be revealed for the regulating a doubtful case of marriage, is the opinion of many great Canonists. 3. That it may be revealed in the case of Heresie con∣fess'd, [ 3] I think there was no doubt of it at any time. 4. And that every Confessor may reveal the Confes∣sion [ 4] by the Penitent's leave, is taught by Durandus, Almain, Medina, and Navar; and generally by all the ancient Scholars of S. Thomas. Now if a law be made that in certain cases, the Confessor shall publish the Confession, then every mans consent is involved in it, as his private right is in the publick interest; of which it is a part, and to which it is subordinate and must yield. But who pleases to see how this affair once did stand in the Church of Rome, and more especially in the Catholick Church, if he be not yet, may be satis∣fied by the proofs which Altisiodorensis gives of the lawfulness of publishing Confessions in certain cases. 5. Lastly, if a sinful intention of committing a grievous [ 5] Crime be revealed in Confession, and the person con∣fessing cannot desist from, or will not alter his purpose; then that the Seal of Confession may be broken open, is affirmed bya 1.14 Alexander of Ales, by theb 1.15 Summa Ange∣lica, which also reckons five cases more, in which it is lawful to reveal Confessions. The same also is taught byc 1.16 Panormitan,d 1.17 Hostiensis, thee 1.18 Summa Sylvestrina, and by Popef 1.19 Innocent himself.

But now if we consider how it is in the Church of Rome at this day, and hath been this last age for the

most part; we shall find that this humane constitution, relying upon prudent and pious considerations, is urged as a Sacramental Obligation, and a great part of the Religion; and is not accounted obliging onely for the reasons of its first Sanction; nor as an act of obedience to the positive law, but as a Natural, Essential, Divine and unalterable Obligation. And from thence these doctrines are derived. 1. That what a Priest knows in Confession, he knows it not as a man, but as God: which proposition (as it is foolish, and too neer to blasphemy, and may as well inferr, that the Priest may be then ador'd by the penitent with the distinction, viz. not as man, but as God; so) is expressly confuted by the Gloss above-cited,* 1.20 and by Scotus; but taught by the Modern Casuists, and is the ground of a strange practice. For 2. as a consequent of the former, it is taught in the Church of Rome by their greatest Guides, that if a Priest having heard a thing onely in Confession;a 1.21 If being asked, and sworn, he shall say, he never heard that thing, he neither lies nor forswears. So Emanuelb 1.22 Sa teaches; and adds, that in the same manner the peni∣tent may also swear, that he said nothing, or no such thing in Confession. But how this should be excus'd, or whether they think the Penitent to have spoken to none but God; I am not yet satisfied. 3. It is not law∣ful to reveal any thing that is told onely in Confession, though it be to avoid the greatest evil that can happen, so saidc 1.23 Bellarmine; to save a whole Commonwealth from damage temporal or spiritual, sod 1.24 Suarez; to save the lives of all the Kings in Christendom, soe 1.25 Binet told Isaac Causabon in the Kings Library at Paris. The same is openly avowed by Eudaemon Johannes,f 1.26 That there is no evil so great, for the avoiding of which it can be lawful to reveal Confession; and that this may appear to be a Catholick doctrine, the same Author reckons up so many Moderns teaching the same, that

the very names of the Authors and Books fills up se∣veral pages: and that it is the Catholick doctrine, is expressly taught by the Author of the famous Apo∣logy made for the Jesuites, after the horrid parricide of Henry the fourth of France. They adde, even be∣yond this, all the Curiosity of the very circumstances of silence; That this silence does not onely oblige in the case of perfect Confession, but, if it be begun, not onely in case of Confession clear and express, but if it be so much as in relation to Confession: not onely the Confessor, but the Messenger, the Interpreter, the Coun∣sellour, he that hears it by chance, or by stealth: and he that was told of it by him that should but did not conceal it; the Seal is to be kept by all means, direct∣ly and indirectly, by words and signs, judicially and extrajudicially, unless the penitent give leave: but that leave is to be express, and is not to be ask'd but in the case of a compelling necessity; neither can the Confessor impose a publick penance upon him, who hath confessed privately. Which things, especially the last, are most diametrically opposed to the doctrine and discipline of the Primitive Church, as I have already proved; but these things are expressly taught as the doctrine of the most famous Casuists of the Church of Rome,* 1.27 by Escobar, who comparing his Book in method to the seven Seals of the Revelations, which the four living Creatures read; Suarez the Ox, Molina the Man, Vasques the Eagle, and Valentia the Lion; and 24. El∣ders, that is, 24. Jesuites also read these seven Seals; though when they come to be reckon'd, they prove 25. so fatal is that Antichristian number to the Church of Rome, that it occurs in every accident: but his mean∣ing is, that the doctrines he teaches are the doctrines of all those 25. famous leading men; Penes quos Imperium I••∣terarum & Conscientiarum. If now it be not the Ca∣tholick doctrine, then is it heretical? and then, why is it

not disown'd? why are not they that say so, censur'd? why is not the doctrine condemned? why is it pub∣lickly maintain'd and allowed by authority? why is it pleaded in bar against execution of justice in the case of treason; as it was by F. Garnet himself, and all his Apologists? But if this be the Catholick doctrine, then let it be consider'd how cheap are the lives of Kings in their eyes, who consult more with the safety of a Villain, whom they dare not absolve* 1.28, than of a King, who is worthy ten thousands of his people; and let it be also considered, that by using all the ways in the world to make Confession easie to Traitors and Homicides, they make it odious to Kings and Princes, and to all that love the safety of their Sovereigns, and of the publick. We find that the laws of God yield to charity and necessity, and Christ followed the act of David; who, when he was hungry, eat the Shew-bread, which was unlawful to be eaten but by the Priest alone: and he that commanded us to go, and learn what that means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, intended not that the Seal of Confession should upon pretence of Religion be us'd to the most uncharitable ends in the world; no, though it had been made sacred by a Di∣vine Commandment; which it is not, but is wholly introduc'd by Custom and Canons Ecclesiastical: And when we see that things dedicated to God, and made sacred by Religion, and the laws of God confirming such Religion, can be alien'd and made common in cases of extreme necessity, or great charity; it is a strange superstition, that shall hold that fast with teeth and nails, and never let it go, no not to save a soul, not to preserve the life of Kings, not to prevent the greatest m••schief in the world; This is certainly a making the Commandments of men greater and more sacred than the Commandments of God, and a passing them into a doctrine, great, necessary and unalterable, as a Funda∣mental Article.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Decretal. de poenitent••is & remissionibus.
• * 1.2

  In 3. dist. 21.
• * 1.3

  ••ib. 7. cap. 16. hist. Eccles.
• * 1.4

  Prov. 11. 13.
• * 1.5

  Epist. ad Am∣philochium.
• * 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A. D. 1603.
• * 1.7

  Lib. 19. De∣creti sui. c. 37. Concil Mogua••. cap. 10. & 21.
• * 1.8

  Homil. 2. in Psal. 37.
• * 1.9

  Epist. 80. ad Epist•• Compa∣niae.
• * 1.10

  De poenitentiâ lib. 3. cap. 14. Sect. Denique cum secreta.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 5. decret. tit 38.
• * 1.12

  Cap. officii. de poenit. & remiss.
• * 1.13

  Vide Suarez. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Paz. in practica▪ Criminal. Ec∣cles. cap. 10••.
• a 1.14

  Part. 4. Q. 28. memb. 2. art. 2. in resp ns.
• b 1.15

  Confessio ult. num. 7.
• c 1.16

  Cap. Omnis. de poenit. & remis. num. 24.
• d 1.17

  Super 5. cap. Omnis.
• e 1.18

  In Confess. 3. num. 2.
• f 1.19

  In Cap. Omnis. verb. prodit.
• * 1.20

  In quartum li∣brum sent. dist. 21.
• a 1.21

  Vide Richard. in l••b 4. sent. d••st. eâd. art. 4. q. ••.
• b 1.22

  Aph••r. v. Con∣fessor. n. 23.
• c 1.23

  Apolog. adv. Reg. M. Brit.
• d 1.24

  Disp 33. in 3. part. ••. Thom. Sect. 1. n. ••.
• e 1.25

  Praestaret Re∣ges omnes pe••i∣re quam si vel semel Confessio∣nis sigillum violaretur. Epist. ad Fon∣tonem Ducaeum. p. 140.
• f 1.26

  Apolog. pro Garnett••. c. 13.
• * 1.27

  Moral. Theol. 1 act. 7. Exa∣m••n. 4. de poe••it. Sect. 6. n. 63, 64, 65, &c.
• * 1.28

  Script. Gar∣netti apud Is. Casaub ni Epist. ad Fron. Du caeum, p. 13••.