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 XI.

Of the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences, without authority from God.

THat Confession to a Priest, is a Doctrine taught as necessary in the Church of Rome, is without all question; and yet that it is but the Commandment of men, I shall (I hope) clearly enough evince; and if I do, I suppose the Charge laid against the Church of Rome, which is the same Christ laid against the Pharisees, will be fully made good, as to this instance; For this is one of the sorts of that Crime, to say, Dixit Dominus, Dominus autem non dixit; to pretend a Rite to be of Divine institution when it is not so, but humanum inventum, a device of man's brain. The other (which is, still supposing an institution to be hu∣mane and positive, yet to urge it with the same severe Religion, as they do a Divine Commandment) I shall consider in other instances. For the present, the in∣quiry is concerning Auricular Confession, and it's pre∣tended necessity. The first Decree concerning it, was in the Lateran Council;* 1.1 in which every person of years of discretion, is commanded to confess all his sins to his own Priest, at least once in the year; or to another Priest, with the leave of his own; otherwise, while he is living, he must be driven from entrance into the Church; and, when he is dead, he must have no Christian Burial. This is very severe; but yet here is no damnation to them that neglect it; and the duty is not pretended to be by Divine Commandment: and therefore lest that se∣verity might seem too much to be laid upon humane

Law, they made it up in the new forge at Trent; and there it was decreed that, To confess all, and every mor∣tal sin, which after diligent inquiry we remember, and every evil thought or desire,* 1.2 and the circumstances that change the nature of the sin, is necessary for the remis∣sion of sins, and of Divine institution; and he that denies this, is to be Anathema.

Whether to confess to a Priest, be an adviseable discipline, and a good instance, instrument, and mini∣stery of Repentance, and may serve many good ends in the Church, and to the souls of needing persons, is is no part of the Question. We find that in the Acts of the Apostles, divers converted persons came to S. Paul, either publickly, or privately, and confess'd their deeds;* 1.3 and burnt their books of Exorcism, that is, did what became severe, and hearty penitents, who needed Counsel and Comfort, and that their Repen∣tance should be conducted by wise Guides. And when S. James exhorts all Christians to confess their sins to one another, certainly it is more agreeable to all spiri∣tual ends, that this be done rather to the Curates of Souls, than to the ordinary Brethren. The Church of England is no way engag'd against it, but advises it, and practises it. The Calvinist-Churches do not pra∣ctise it much, because they know not well how to de∣vest it from it's evil appendages which are put to it by the customs of the world, and to which it is too much expos'd by the interests, weaknesses, and partialities of men. But they commending it, show they would use it willingly, if they could order it unto edifica∣tion. a 1.4 Interim quin sistant se Pastori oves, quoties sacram Coenam participare volunt, adeò non reclamo, ut maximè velim hoc ubique observari. And for the Lu∣theran Churches, that it is their practice, we may see it inb 1.5 Chemnitius, who was one of greatest fame amongst them; and he is noted to this purpose by* 1.6 Bellarmin,

only they all consent, that it is not necessary nor of Divine institution; and being but of man's invention, it ought not to pass into a doctrine; and, as the Apo∣stles said in the matter of Circumcision, a burden ought not to be put upon the necks of the Disciples: and that, in lege gratiae,* 1.7 longè difficilimum too, as Maior observes truly, by far greater than any burden in the Law of Grace, the time of the Gospel. Let it be commanded to all, to whom it is needful, or profitable; but let it be free, as to the Conscience precisely, and bound but by the cords of a man, and as other Ecclesiastical Laws are, which are capable of exceptions, restrictions, cau∣tions, dispensations, rescindings, and abolitions, by the same authority, or upon greater reasons.

The Question then is, Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest, all that upon strict enquiry we can remember, be necessary to salvation? This the Church of Rome now affirms; and this the Church of England, and all Protestant Churches deny; and com∣plain sadly, that the Commandments of men are chang'd into the doctrines of God, by a Pharisaical empire, and superstition. Here then we joyn issue.

1. And in the first place, I shall represent that the doctrine of the necessity of Confession to a Priest is a new doctrine, even in the Church of Rome, and was not esteemed any part of the Catholick Religion before the Council of Trent. For first, the Gloss de poenit. dist. 5. c. in poenitentiâ, inquiring where, or when Oral Confession was institued, says, Some say it was instituted in Paradise, others say it was instituted when Joshuah called upon Achan to confess his sin: others say it was instituted in the new Testament by S. James: It is better said, that it was instituted by a certain univer∣sal tradition of the Church, and the tradition of the Church is obligatory as a praecept. Therefore confession of deadly sins is necessary with us (viz. Latins) but not

with the Greeks; because no such tradition hath come to them.] This is the full state of this affair, in the age when Semeca, who was the Glossator, liv'd; and it is briefly this. 1. There was no resolution, or agreement whence it came. 2. The Glossator's opinion was, it came from the Universal tradition of the Church. 3. It was but a kind of Universal tradition; not absolute, clear, and certain. 4. It was only a tradition in the Latin Church. 5. The Greeks had no such tradition. 6. The Greeks were not oblig'd to it; it was not necessa∣ry to them. Concerning the Greek Church, I shall after∣wards consider it in a more opportune place; here only I consider it as it was in the Latin Church: and of this I suppose there needs no better Record than the Canon Law it self, and the authentick Glosses upon it; which Glosses, although they be not Law, but as far as they please, yet they are perfect testimony as to matter of fact, and what the opinions of the Doctors were at that time. And therefore to the former, I add this; that in cap. Convertimini, Gratian hath these words, Vnde da∣tur intelligi, quod etiam ore tacente veniam consequi pos∣sumus, Without confession of the mouth we may obtain pardon of our sins; and this point he pursues in all that long Chapter; and in the chapter Resuscitatus, out of S. Austin's doctrine; and in the Chapter Qui natus, out of the doctrine of S. John's Epistle; the conclusion of which Chapter is, Cum ergo ante Confessionem (ut pro∣batum est) sumus resuscitati per gratiam, & filii lucis facti; evidentissimè apparet quod solâ cordis contritione sine Confessione oris, peccatum remittitur: and, in the Chapter Omnis qui non diligit, he expressly concludes out of S. John's words: Non ergo in confessione peccatum remittitur, quod jam remissum esse probatur: fit itaque confessio ad ostensionem poenitentiae, non ad impetratio∣nem veni••. And at the end of this Chapter, according to his custom in such disputable things; when he says,

Alii è contrario testantur; others witness to the con∣trary, that without confession Oral, and works of sa∣tisfaction, no man is cleansed from his sin; the Gloss upon the place, says thus: Ab hoc loco usque ad Sed his authoritatibus; pro aliâ parte allegat, quod scil. adulto peccatum non dimittitur sine oris Confessione, quod tamen falsum est: Only he says, that Confession doth cleanse, and Satisfaction doth cleanse: so that though by contriti∣on of the heart, the sin is pardon'd; yet these still cleanse more and more, as a man is more innovated] or amend∣ed. But these authorities brought in, (viz. that sin is not pardon'd without confession) if they be diligently expounded, prove but little.] But Frier Maurique, who by Pius Quintus, made and publish'd a censure upon the Glosses, appointed these words (quod tamen fal∣sum est) to be left out; but the Roman Correctors under Greg. 13th. let them alone; but put in the Margent a mark of contradiction upon it; saying, Imò verissimum est. But that was new doctrine, and although Semeca, the Author of the Gloss, affirm'd it expressly to be false, yet Gratian himself was more reserv'd; but yet not of the new opinion, but left the matter indiffe∣rent: for after he had alledged Scripture, and authori∣ties of Fathers on one side, and authority of Fathers on the other;* 1.8 he concludes, Quibus authoritatibus vel quibuslibet rationum firmamentis utraque sententia Sa∣tisfactionis & Confessionis innitatur, in medium bre∣viter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes & religiosos viros. Now how well this agrees with the determination of the Council of Trent,* 1.9 every man, by comparing, can easily judge; only it is certain, this doctrine cannot pretend to be de∣riv'd by tradition from the Apostles. Of the same opi∣nion was the Abbot of Panormo; saying, That opinion (viz. of the Gloss) does much please me: because there is no

manifest authority that does intimate, that either God or Christ instituted Confession to be made to a Priest. But it were endless to name the Sentences of the Cano∣nists in this question; once for all, the testimony of Maldonat may secure us,* 1.10 Juris Pontificii periti, secuti suum primum interpretem, omnes dicunt Confessionem tantum esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico. But to clear the whole Question, I shall first prove, that the neces∣sity of confessing our sins to a Priest is not found in Scripture; but very much to disprove it. 2. That there is no reason enforcing this necessity, but very much against it. 3. That there is no Ecclesiastical Tradition of any such necessity; but apparently the contrary: and the consequent of these things will be, that the Church of Rome hath introduced a new doctrine, false, and burdensome, dangerous and super∣stitious.

1. If we consider how this Article is managed in Scripture, we shall find that our Blessed Saviour said nothing at all concerning it; the Council of Trent in∣deed makes their new doctrine to relie upon the words of Christ recited by S. John,* 1.11 Whose sins ••e remit they are remitted, &c. But see with what success: for, besides that all the Canonists allow not, that Confession was in∣stituted by Christ; Aquinas, Scotus, Gabriel Clava∣sinus, the Author of the Summa Angelica, Hugo de S. Victore, Bonaventure, Alensis, Tho. Waldensis, Ferus, Cajetan, Erasmus, B. Rhenanus, and Jansenius, though differing much in the particulars of this question, yet all consent that precisely from the words of Christ, no necessity of Confession to a Priest can be concluded. 2. Amongst those of the Roman Church who did en∣deavour to found the necessity of Confession upon those words, None do agree about the way of draw∣ing their argument;* 1.12 as may be seen in Scotus, Aureolus, Johannes Maior, Thomas de Argentina, Richardus, Du∣randus,

Almain, Dominicus à Soto, Alphonsus à Castro, Adrianus, Petrus dae Aquilae, and others, before the Council of Trent. 3. Though these men go several ways (which shows, as Scotus expresses it, hoc verbum non est praecisum) yet they all agree well enough in this, that they are all equally out of the story, and none of them well performs what he undertakes; It is not mine alone, but the judgement which* 1.13 Vasquez makes of them, who confuted many of them by ar∣guments of his own, and by the arguments which they use one against another, and gives this censure of them, Inter eos qui planè fatentur ex illis verbis Joh. xx^o ne∣cessitatem Confessionis (supple, elici) vix invenias qui efficaciter deducat. And therefore this place of S. John is but an infirm foundation to build so great a structure on it as the whole Oeconomy of their Sacra∣ment of Penance, and the necessity of Confession upon it; since so many learned and acute men, master-build∣ers believe nothing at all of it; and others that do, agree not well in the framing of the Structure upon it, but make a Babel of it, and at last their attempts prove vain and useless, by the testimony of their fellow-labourers.

There are some other places of Scripture which are pretended for the necessity of Confession, but they need no particular Scrutiny;* 1.14 not only because they are rejected by their own parties as insufficient; but because all are principally devol∣ved upon the twentieth of S. John, and the Council of Trent it self wholly relies upon it.* 1.15 This there∣fore being the foundation, if it fails them as to their pretensions, their building must needs be ruinous. But I shall consider it a little.

When Christ said to his Apostles, Whose sins ye re∣mit, they shall be remitted to them; and whose sins ye retain, they shall be retained; he made (says Bellar∣mine, and generally the latter School of Roman Do∣ctors) the Apostles, and all Priests, Judges upon earth; that, without their sentence, no man that hath sinned after Baptism, can be reconciled. But the Priests who are Judges can give no right or unerring sentence, un∣less they hear all the particulars they are to judge. Therefore by Christs law they are tied to tell in Con∣fession all their particular sins to a Priest: This is the summe of all that is said in this affair. Other light skir∣mishes there are, but the main battel is here.

Now all the parts of this great Argument must be considered: And 1. I deny the argument; and sup∣posing both the premisses true, that Christ had made them judges, and that without particular cognisance they could not give judgement according to Christs intention; yet it follows not, that therefore it is ne∣cessary, that the penitent shall confess all his sins to the Priest. For, Who shall compel the penitent to appear in judgement? Where are they oblig'd to come and ac∣cuse themselves before the judges? Indeed if they were before them, we will suppose the Priests to have power to judge them; but how can it be hence de∣duc'd, that the penitents are bound to come to this Judicatory, and not to stand alone to the Divine tribu∣nal. A Physician may have power to cure diseases, yet the Patients are not bound to come to him; neither it may be will they, if they can be cur'd by other means. And if a King sends a Judge with competent autho∣rity to judge all the Questions in a Province; he can judge them that come, but he cannot compel them to come; and they may make an end of their quarrels among themselves, or by arbitration of neighbours; and if they have offended the King, they may address

themselves to his clemency, and sue for pardon. And since it is certain by their own confession, that a penitent cannot by the force of these words of Christ be com∣pelled to confess his venial sins, how does it appear, that he is tied to confess his mortal sins? For if a man be tied to repent of all his sins, then repentance may be per∣formed without the ministery of the Priest, or else he must repent before the Priest for all his sins. But if he may repent of his venial sins, and yet not go to the Priest; then to go to the Priest is not an essential part of the repentance: and if it be thus in the case of venial sins, let them shew from the words of Christ any dif∣ference in the case between the one and the other, espe∣cially if we consider, that though it may be convenient to go to the Priest to be taught and guided, yet the necessity of going to him is to be absolved by his Mi∣nistery. But that of this there was no necessity believ'd in the Primitive Church, appears in this; because they did not expect pardon from the Bishop or Priest in the greatest Crimes, but were referred wholly to God for the pardon of them: Non sine spe tamen remissionis, quàm ab eo planè sperare debebit qui ejus largitatem solus obtinet; & tam dives misericordiae est, ut nemo de∣speret: So said the Bishops of France in their Synod held about the time of Pope Zephyrinus. To the same purpose are the words of Tertullian; Salvâ illâ poeni∣tentiae specie post fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis ve∣niam ab Episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus & ir∣remissibilibus à Deo solo. The like also is in the 31^th Epi∣stle of S. Cyprian. Now first it is easie to observe how vast the difference is between the old Catholick Church and the present Roman: these say, that venial sins are not of necessity to be confessed to the Priest or Bishop; and that without their Ministery they can be pardoned: But they of old said, that the smaller sins were to be submitted to the Bishop's Ministery. On the other side,

the Roman Doctors say, it is absolutely necessary to bring our mortal sins, and confess them, in order to be absolved by the Priest; but the old Catholicks said, that the greatest sins are wholly to be confessed and submitted to God, who may pardon them if he please, and will if he be rightly sought to; but to the Church they need not be confessed, because these were onely and immediately fit for the Divine Cognisance. What is now a-days a reserved case to the Pope, was anciently a case reserved to God; and what was onely submitted formerly to the Bishop, is now not worth much taking notice of by any one. But now put these together. By the Roman doctrine, you are not by the duty of repen∣tance tied to confess your venial sins; and by the Pri∣mitive, it is to no purpose to bring the greatest crimes to Ecclesiastical repentance; but by their immediate address to God they had hopes of pardon: From hence it follows, that there is no necessity of doing one or other, that is, there is no Commandment of God for it; nor yet any necessity in the Nature of the thing requi∣ring it.

Venerable Bede had an opinion that those sins onely which are like to leprosie ought to be submitted to the judgement of the Church:* 1.16 Caetera verò vitia tanquam valetudines, & quasi membrorum animae atque sensuum per semetipsum interius in conscientiâ & intellectu Dominus sanat.* 1.17 And Goffridus Vindocinensis tells of one William a learned man, whose doctrine it was, That there were but four sorts of sins, which needed Confes∣sion, the Errour of Gentilism, Schism, Heretical pravity, and Judaical perfidiousness:* 1.18 Caetera autem peccata à Domino sine confes∣sione sanari. But besides this, I de∣mand, Whether or no hath the Priest a power to remit venial sins, and that this power (in the words

of S. John, Chap. XX.) was given to him by Christ? If Christ did in these words give him power to remit ve∣nial sins, and yet the penitent is not bound to recount them in particular, or at all to submit them to his Ju∣dicatory; it will follow undeniably, that the giving power of remission of sins to the Priest, does not inferre a necessity in the penitent to come to confess them. And these things I suppose Vasquez understood well enough; when he affirms expressly, that it may well stand with the ordinary power of a Judge, that his power be such as that it be free for the subjects to sub∣mit to it, or to end their controversies another way. And that it was so in this case, is the doctrine of* 1.19 Sco∣tus, above cited, and many others. Add to this, the Argument of* 1.20 Scotus, The Priest retains no sins, but such, which some way or other are declar'd to him to have no true signs of repentance; & yet those which are no way manifested to the Priest, God retains unto the vengeance of Hell: therefore neither is that word (whose sins ye remit) precise; that is, If God retains some which the Priest does not retain, then also he does remit some which the Priest does not remit; and therefore there is no negative affix'd to the affirma∣tive, which shews that the remission, or retention does not necessarily depend on the Priest's ministration. So that, supposing it to be true, that the Priest hath a power to remit, or retain sins, as a Judge, and that this power cannot be exercis'd without knowing what he is to judge; yet it follows not from hence, that the peo∣ple are bound to come this way, and to confess their sins to them, or to ask their pardon. But

2. The second proposition is also false: for, suppo∣sing the Priest by the words of Christ, hath given to him the ordinary power of a Judge; and that, as such, he hath power of remitting and retaining sins: yet this power of judging may be such, as that it may be per∣formed

without enumeration of all the particulars we remember. For the Judgement the Priest is to make, is not of the sins, but of the persons. It is not said Quaecunque, but Quorumcunque remiseritis peccata. Our Blessed Saviour in these words did not distinguish two sorts of sins, one to be remitted, and an other to be retained; so that it should be necessary to know the special nature of the sins: he only reckon'd one kind, that is, under which all sins are contain'd. But he distinguish'd two sorts of sinners; saying, Quorum, and Quorum; the one of Penitents (according to the whole design and purpose of the Gospel) and their sins are to be remitted;* 1.21 and an other of Impenitent, whose sins are not to be remitted, but retained. And therefore it becomes the Ministers of Souls, to know the state of the penitent, rather than the nature and number of the sins. Neither gave he any power to punish, but to pardon, or not to pardon. If Christ had intended to have given to the Priests a power to impose a punishment according to the quality of every sin; the Priest indeed had been the Executioner of the Divine wrath: but then, because no punishment in this life can be equal to the demerit of a sin which deserves the eternal wrath of God; it is certain, the Priest is not to punish them by way of vengeance. We do not find any thing in the words of Christ, obliging the Priest directly to impose penances on the penitent sin∣ner; he may voluntarily submit himself to them if he please, and he may do very well, if he do so: but the power of retaining sins, gives no power to punish him whether he will or no; for the power of retaining is rather to be exerciz'd upon the impenitent, than upon the penitent. Besides this, the word of [remitting] sins, does not certainly give the Priest a power to im∣pose penances; for it were a prodigie of interpreta∣tion to expound remittere by punire. But if by [re∣taining]

it be said, this power is given him; then this must needs belong to the impenitent, who are not re∣mitted; and not to the penitent, whose sins at that time, they remit, and retain not: unless they can do both at the same time. But if the punishment design'd, be only by way of Remedy, or of disposing the sinners to true penitence; then if the person be already truly penitent, the Priest hath nothing to do, but to pardon him in the name of God. Now certainly both these things may be done without the special enumeration of all his remembred sins. For 1. The penitent may, and often does, forget many particulars; and then in that case, all that the Priest can expect, or proceed to judg∣ment upon, is the saying in general, He is truly sor∣rowful for them, and for the time to come will avoid them: and if he then absolve the penitent, as he must, and usually does; it follows, that if he does well (and he can do no better) he may make a judgment of his penitent without special enumeration of his sins; and if the Priest pardons no sins but those which are enu∣merated, the penitent will be in an evil condition in most cases: but if he can and does pardon those which are forgotten, then the fpecial enumeration is not in∣dispensably necessary; for it were a strange thing, if sins should be easier remitted for being forgotten, and the harder for being remembred; there being in the Gospel no other condition mentioned, but the confes∣sing, and forsaking them: and if there be any differ∣ence, certainly he, who out of carelessness of Spirit, or the multitude of his sins, or want of the sharpness of sorrow (for these commonly are the causes of it) forgets many of his sins, is in all reason further from pardon, than he whose conscience being sore wound∣ed, cannot forget that which stings him so perpetually. If he that remembers most, because he is most peni∣tent be tied to a more severe Discipline, than he that

remembers least; then according to this discipline, the worst man is in the best condition. But what if the sinner, out of bashfulness, do omit to enumerate some sin? Is there no consulting with his modesty? Is there no help for him, but he must confess, or die? S. Ambrose gives a perfect answer to this case, Lavant la∣chrymae delictum quod voce pudor est confiteri,* 1.22 & veniae fletus consulunt, & verecundae lachrymae sine horrore culpam loquuntur. Lachrymae crimen sine offensione vere∣cundiae confitentur. And the same is almost in words affirm'd by Maximus Taurinensis.* 1.23 Lavat lacryma deli∣ctum, quod voce pudor est confiteri: lachrymae ergo verecundiae pariter consulunt & saluti; nec erubescunt in petendo, & impetrant in rogando. And that this may not seem a propriety of S. Peter's repentance, be∣cause Sacramental Confession was not yet instituted (for that Bellarmine offers for an answer;) besides that Sacramental Confession was (as I have made to ap∣pear) never instituted, either then, or since then, in Scripture, by Christ, or by his Apostles; besides this, I say, S. Ambrose applies the precedent of S. Peter to every one of us.* 1.24 Flevit ergo amarissimè Petrus: flevit ut lachrymis suum posset lavare delictum; & tu si ve∣niam vis mereri, dilue culpam lachrymis tuam. And to the same sense also, is that of Cassian; Quod si, ve∣recundiâ retrahente, revelare [peccata] coram homini∣bus erubescis, illi quem latere non possunt, confiteri ea jugi supplicatione non desinas, ac dicere, Tibi soli pec∣cavi, & malum coram te feci, qui & absque illius ve∣recundiae publicatione curare, & sine improperio peccata donare consuevit. To these I shall add a pregnant te∣stimony of Julianus Pomerius, or of Prosper (de vitâ contemplativa lib. 2. cap. 7.) Quod si ipsi sibi Judices fiant, & veluti suae iniquitatis ultores hic in se volunta∣riam poenam severissimae animadversionis exerceant, temporalibus poenis mutaverint aeterna supplicia, & la∣chrymis

ex verâ cordis compunctione fluentibus re∣stinguent aeterni ignis incendia. And this was the opi∣nion of divers learned persons in Peter Lombard's time,* 1.25 that if men fear to confess lest they be disgrac'd, or lest others should be tempted by their evil example; and therefore conceal them to man, and reveal them to God; they obtain pardon.

Secondly,* 1.26 for those sins which they do enumerate; the Priest by them cannot make a truer judgement of the penitent's repentance and disposition to amend∣ment, than he can by his general profession of his true and deep contrition, and such other humane indica∣tions, by which such things are signified. For still it is to be remembred he is not the judge of the sin, but of the man. For Christ hath left no rules by which the sin is to be judged; no penitential tables, no Chance∣ry tax, no penitential Canons; neither did his Apostles: and those which were in use in the Primitive Church, as they were vastly short of the merit of the sins, so they are very vastly greater than are now in use, or will be endur'd: By which it plainly enough appears, that they impose penances at their pleasure, as the people are content to take them; and for the greatest sins we see they impose ridiculous penances; and themselves profess they impose but a part of their pe∣nance that is due: which certainly cannot be any com∣pliance with any law of God, which is always wiser, more just, and more to purpose. And therefore to ex∣act a special enumeration of all our sins remembred, to enable the Priest onely to impose a part of penance, is as if a Prince should raise an army of 10000 men to sup∣press a tumult raised in a little village against the petty Constable. Besides which, in the Church of Rome they have an old rule which is to this day in use among them;

Sìtque modus poenae justae moderatio culpae; Quae tanto levior, quanto contritio major.

And therefore, fortiter contritus leviter plectatur; He that is greatly sorrowful, needs but little penance. By which is to be understood, that the penance is but to supply the want of internal sorrow; which the Priest can no way make judgement of, but by such signs as the penitent is pleased to give him. To what purpose then can it be to enumerate all his sins; which he can do with a little sorrow, or a great one, with At∣trition, or Contrition, and no man knows it, but God alone; and it may be done without any sorrow at all, and the sorrow may be put on, or acted; and when the penance is impos'd, as it must needs be less than the sin, so it may be performed without true repen∣tance. And therefore neither is the imposing penance any sufficient signification of what the Priest inquires after. And because every deliberate sin deserves more than the biggest penance that is impos'd on any man for the greatest, and in that as to the sin it self there can be no errour in the greatness of it; it follows that by the particular enumeration the Priest cannot be helped to make his judgement of the person; and by it or any thing else he can never equally punish the sin; therefore supposing the Priest to be a judge, the necessi∣ty of particular confession will not be necessary: espe∣cially if we consider,

Thirdly, That by the Roman doctrine it is not ne∣cessary to salvation that the penitent should perform any penances, he may defer them to Purgatory if he please; so that, special Confession cannot be necessary to salvation for the reason pretended, viz. that the Priest may judge well concerning imposing penances, since they are necessary onely for the avoiding Purga∣tory, and not for the avoiding damnation. 4. This

further appears in the case of Baptism; which is the most apparent and evident use of the power of the Keys, it being truly and properly the intromission of Catachumens into the house of God, and an admitting them to all the Promises and Benefits of the Kingdom, and, which is the greatest, the most absolute and most evident remission of all the sins precommitted; and yet towards the dispensing this pardon, no particular Con∣fession of sins is previous, by any necessity or Divine Law. Repentance in persons of choice and discretion is and was always necessary: but because persons were not tied to confess their sins particularly to a Priest be∣fore Baptism; it is certain, that Repentance can be per∣fect without this Confession. And this argument is yet of greater force and persuasion against the Church of Rome; for since Baptizing is for remission of sins, and is the first act of the power of the Keys, and the evi∣dent way of opening the doors of the house of God, and yet the power of baptizing is, in the Church of Rome, in the absence of a Priest, given to a lay-man, and frequently to a Deacon; it follows, that the power of the Keys, and a power of remitting sins is no Judi∣ciary act; unless a Lay-man be declar'd capable of the power of judging, and of remitting sins. 5.* 1.27 If we consider, that without true repentance no sin can be pardon'd; and with it all sins may; and that no one sin is pardon'd as to the final state of our souls, but at the same time all are pardon'd: it must needs follow, that it is not the number of sins, but the condition of the person, the change of his life, the sorrow of his heart, the truth of his Conversion, and his hatred of all sin, that he is to consider. If his repentance be a true change from evil to good, from sin to God, a thousand sins are pardon'd as soon as one; and the infinite mercy of God does equally exceed one sin and one thousand. Indeed, in order to counsel or comfort, it may be

very useful to tell all that grieves the penitent, all that for which he hath no rest, and cannot get satisfaction: but as to the exercising any other judgment upon the man, either for the present, or for the future; to rec∣kon up what is past seems not very useful, or at all reasonable: But as the Priest, who baptizes a Convert, judges of him, as far as he can, and ought; that is, whether he hath laid aside every hindrance, and be dispos'd to receive remission of sins by the Spirit of God in Baptism: so it is in Repentance, the man's con∣version and change is to be considered; which cannot be by what is past, but by what is present, or future.

And now, 3:* 1.28 Although the judicial power of the Priest cannot inferre the necessity of particular Confes∣sion; yet if the judicial power be also of another na∣ture than is supposed, or rather be not properly judi∣cium fori, the judgment of a tribunal, coercive, poe∣nal, and exterminating by proper effect, and real change of state and person; then the superstructure, and the foundation too, will be digged down. And this therefore shall be consider'd briefly. And here the Scene is a little chang'd, and the words of Christ to S. Peter, are brought in as auxiliaries, to prove the Priest's power to be judicial; and that, with the words of Christ to his Apostles, John XX, must demonstrate this point. 1. Therefore I have the testimony and opini∣on of the Master of the Sentences, affirming that the Priest's power is declarative, not judicial; the Sen∣tence of an Embassadour,* 1.29 not of a Judge; Sacerdoti∣bus tribuit potestatem solvendi & ligandi; id est, osten∣dendi homines ligatos vel solutos;]

The Priest's power of loosing and binding, is a power of shewing and declaring who are bound, and who are loosed. For when Christ had cur'd the Leper, he sent him to the Priest, by whose judgment he was to be declar'd clean: and when Lazarus was first restor'd

to life by Christ, then he bade his Disciples loose him and let him go.]

And if it be inquir'd, To what purpose is the Priest's Solution, if the man be pardon'd already? It is answer'd; that

Although he be ab∣solv'd before God, yet he is not accounted loosed in the face of the Church, but by the judgment of the Priest.]

But we have the Sentence of a greater man in the Church,* 1.30 than Peter Lombard; viz. of S. Hierom himself, who discourses this affair dogmatically and fully, and so as not to be capable of evasion: speaking of those words of Christ to S. Peter, I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind ••n Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and what∣soever thou shalt loose in Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven: This place (saith S. Hierom) some Bishops and Priests not understanding, take upon them something of the su∣perstitiousness of the Pharisees, so as to condemn the Innocent, or think to acquit the Guilty; whereas God inquires not, what is the Sentence of the Priest, but the life of the Guilty. In Leviticus, the Lepers were com∣manded to shew themselves to the Priests, who neither make them leprous, nor clean; but they discern, who are clean, and who are unclean. As therefore there, the Priest makes the leprous man clean, or unclean: So here, does the Bishop, or the Priest bind or loose; i. e. according to their Office, when he hears the variety of sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who is to be loosed.] S. Ambrose adds one advantage more, as consequent to the Priest's absolving of penitents; but expresly declares against the proper judicial power. [Men give their Ministery in the remission of sins,* 1.31 but they exercise not the right of any power: neither are sins remitted by them in their own, but in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Men pray, but it is God who forgives: It is mans obsequious∣ness,

but the bountiful gift is from God. So likewise, there is no doubt, sins are forgiven in Baptism, but the operation is of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.] Here, S. Ambrose affirms the Priest's power of pardoning sins, to be whol∣ly Ministerial, and Optative or by way of Prayer. Just as it is in Baptism, so it is in Repentance after Baptism: Sins are pardon'd to the truly penitent; but here is no proper Judicial power. The Bishop prays, and God pardons: the Priest does his Ministery, and God gives the gift. Here are three witnesses against whom there is no exception; and what they have said, was good Catholick doctrine in their ages; that is, from the fourth age after Christ, to the eleventh: How it hath fallen into Heresie since that time, is now not worth in∣quiring; but yet how reasonable that old doctrine is, is very fit to consider.

4. Of necessity it must be true; because what ever kind of absolution, or binding it is, that the Bishops and Priests have power to use; it does it's work intended, without any real changing of state in the penitent. The Priest alters nothing; he diminishes no man's right; he gives nothing to him but what he had before. The Priest baptizes, and he absolves, and he commu∣nicates, and he prays, and he declares the will of God; and, by importunity, he compells men to come, and if he find them unworthy, he keeps them out; but it is such, as he finds to be unworthy: Such who are in a state of perdition, he cannot, he ought not to admit to the Ministeries of life. True it is, he prays to God for pardon, and so he prays that God will give the sinner the grace of Repentance; but he can no more give Pardon, than he can give Repentance; he that gives this, gives that.

And it is so also in the case of Absolution; he can ab∣solve none but those that are truly penitent: he can give thanks indeed to God on his behalf; but as that Thanks∣giving

supposes pardon, so that Pardon supposes re∣pentance: and if it be true Repentance, the Priest will as certainly find him pardon'd, as find him peni∣tent. And therefore we find in the old Penitentials and Usages of the Church, that the Priest did not ab∣solve the penitent in the Indicative or Judicial form. To this purpose it is observed by Goar,* 1.32 in the Eucholo∣gion; that now, many do freely assert, and tenaciously defend, and clearly teach, and prosperously write that the solemn form of reconciling, Absolvo te à peccatis tuis, is not perhaps above the age of 400 years; and that the old form of Absolution in the Latin Church, was composed in words of deprecation, so far forth as we may conjecture out of the Ecclesiastical history, ancient Rituals, Tradi∣tion, and other Testimonies without exception.] And in the Opuscula of Thomas Aquinas,* 1.33 he tells that a Doctor said to him, that the Optative form, or deprecatory, was the Usual; and that then it was not thirty years since the Indicative form of, Ego te Absolvo, was us'd; which computation, comes neer the computation made by Goar. And this is the more evidently so, in that it ap∣pears, that in the ancient Discipline of the Church, a Deacon might reconcile the penitents, if the Priest were absent:* 1.34 Si autem necessitas evenerit, & Presbyter non fuerit praesens, Diaconus suscipiat poenitentem, ac det Sanctam Communionem: And if a Deacon can minister this affair, then the Priest is not indispensably necessa∣ry, nor his power judicial and pretorial.

But besides this, the power of the Keys is under the Master in the hands of the Steward of the house; who is the Minister of Government: and the power of re∣mitting and retaining being but the verification of the Promise of the Keys, is to be understood by the same analogy, and is exercised in many instances, and to ma∣ny great purposes, though no man had ever dreamt of a judicial power of absolution of secret sins; viz. in

discipline and government, in removing scandals, in re∣storing persons overtaken in a fault to the peace of the Church, in sustaining the weak, in cutting off of cor∣rupt members, in rejecting hereticks, in preaching peace by Jesus Christ, and repentance through his name, and ministering the word of reconciliation, and interceding in the ministery of Christ's mediation; that is, being God's Embassadour, he is God's Messenger in the great work of the Gospel, which is Repentance and For∣giveness. In short, Binding and Loosing, remitting and retaining, are acts of Government, relating to publick discipline. And of any other pardoning or retaining, no Man hath any power but what he ministers in the Word of God and prayer, unto which the Ministery of the Sacraments is understood to belong. For what does the Church, when she binds a sinner, or retains his sin, but separate him from the communication of publick Prayers and Sacraments? according to that saying of Tertullian,* 1.35 Summum futuri judicii prae∣judicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut à communicatione orationis & conventus & omnis sancti commercii rele∣getur.* 1.36 And the like was said by S. Austin, Versetur ante oculos imago futuri judicii, ut cum alii accedunt ad altare Dei, quo ipse non accedit, cogitet quàm sit con∣tremiscenda illa poena, qua percipientibus aliis vitam aeternam, alii in mortem praecipitantur aeternam. And when the Church, upon the sinner's repentance, does restore him to the benefit of publick Assemblies and Sacraments; she does truly pardon his sins, that is, she takes off the evil that was upon him for his sins. For so Christ prov'd his power on Earth to forgive sins by ta∣king the poor man's palsie away: and so does the Church pardon his sins by taking away that horrible punishment of separating him from all the publick communion of the Church: and both these are, in their several kinds, the most material and proper pardons.

But then▪ is the Church gives pardon propertion∣able to the evil she inflicts, which God also will verifie, if it be done here in truth, and righteousness; so there is a pardon, which God onely gives. He is the injured and offended Person, and he alone can remit of his own right. But yet to this pardon the Church does co-operate by her Ministery. Now what this pardon is we understand best by the evils that are by him inflicted upon the sinner. For to talk of a power of pardoning sins, where there is no power to take away the punish∣ment of sin, is but a dream of a shadow: sins are only then pardoned, when the punishment is removed. Now who but God alone can take away a sickness, or rescue a soul from the power of his sins, or snatch him out of the Devils possession? The Spirit of God alone can do this, It is the spirit that quickneth, and raiseth from spiritual death, and giveth us the life of God. Man can pray for the spirit, but God alone can give it; our Blessed Saviour obtain'd for us the Spirit of God by this way, by prayer; I will pray unto the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, even the spirit of truth; and therefore much less do any of Christ's Ministers convey the spirit to any one, but by prayer and holy Ministeries in the way of prayer: But this is best illustrated by the case of Baptism.* 1.37

It is a matter of equal power (said Alexander of Ales) to baptize with internal Baptism, and to absolve from deadly sin. But it was not fit that God should communicate the power of baptizing internally unto any, lest we should place our hope in Man.

* 1.38 And S. Austin (if at least he be the author of the Scala Paradisi) says,

The office of baptizing, the Lord granted unto many; but the power and authority of remitting sins in Baptism, he retained unto himself alone;

wherefore S. John, antonomasticè & discretivè, by way of di∣stinction and singularity, affirms, that He it is who

baptizes with the holy Ghost. And I shall apply this to the power of the Keys in the ministery of repentance, by the words of S. Cyprian;* 1.39 Remissio peccatorum, sive per Baptismum sive per alia Sacramenta donetur, propriè Spiritûs Sancti est, & ipsi soli hujus efficientiae privi∣legium manet. As therefore the Bishop, or the Priest, can give the holy Ghost to a repenting sinner; so he can give him pardon, and no otherwise: that is, by prayer, and the ministery of the Sacraments to per∣sons fitly disposed, who also can and have received the holy Ghost, without any such ministery of man; as appears in S. Peter's Question, What hinders these men to be baptized, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? And it is done every day, and every hour, in the Communion of Saints, in the Immissions and visitations from heaven, which the Saints of God daily receive and often perceive and feel. Every man is bound by the cords of his own sins, which ropes and bands the Apostles can loose, imitating therein their Master, who said to them, Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Solvunt autem eos Apostoli, sermone Dei,* 1.40 & testimoniis Scripturarum, & exhortatione vir∣tutum, saith S. Hierom. For the word of God, which is intrusted to the Ministery of the Church, is that rule and measure by which God will judge us all, at the last day; and therefore by the word of God we stand or fall, we are bound or loosed: which word when the Ministers of the Gospel dispense rightly, they bind or loose; and what they so bind or loose on earth, God will bind and loose in heaven. That is, by the same measures he will judge the man, by which he hath commanded his Ministers to judge them by; that is, they preach remission of sins to the penitent, and God will make it good; and they threaten eternal death to the impenitent, and God will inflict it. But other powers of binding and loosing than what hath been al∣ready

instanc'd, those words of Christ prove not. And these powers, and no other, do we find us'd by the Apostles.* 1.41 To us (saith S. Paul) is committed the word of reconciliation: Now then we are Embassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christs stead, be ye reconciled to God. Christ is the great Minister of Reconciliation; we are his Embas∣sadours to the people to that purpose: and we are to preach to them, and to exhort them; to pray them, and to pray for them; and we also by our Ministery reconcile them; and we pardon their sins; for God hath set us over the people to that purpose: but then it is also in that manner that God set the Priest over the leprous;* 1.42 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The priest with pol∣lution shall pollute them; and the priest shall cleanse him, that is, shall declare him so. And it is in the same manner that God set the Prophet Jeremy over the na∣tions,* 1.43 to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, to throw down, to build, and to plant; that is, by put∣ting his word into his mouth to do all this, to preach all this, to promise or to threaten respectively, all this. The Ministers of the Gospel do pardon sins, just as they save men;* 1.44 This doing, thou shalt save thy self, and them that hear thee; that is, by attending to and continuing in the doctrine of Christ: and he that converts a sinner from the errour of his way, saves a soul from death, and covers a multitude of sins.* 1.45 Bringing the man to re∣pentance, persuading him to turn from vanity to the living God; thus he brings pardon to him, and salva∣tion. And if it be said, that a lay-man can do this: I answer, It is very well for him if he does; and he can, if it please God to assist him: but the ordinary mini∣stery is appointed to Bishops and Priests: so that al∣though a lay-man do it extraordinarily, that can be no prejudice to the ordinary power of the Keys in the hands of the Clergy; which is but a ministery of prayer,

of the Word and Sacraments: according to the saying of their own Ferus upon this place;

Christ in this word shews how, and to what use, he at this time gave them the Holy Ghost,* 1.46 to wit, for the remission of sins: neither for the Apostles themselves alone; sed ut eun∣dem Spiritum, eandemque remissionem peccatorum Ver∣bo praedicationis, & Sacramentis verbo annexis, di∣stribuerent.

And again, he brings in Christ saying, I therefore chuse you, and I seal your hearts by the Holy Ghost unto the word of the Gospel, and confirm you, that going into the world, ye may preach the Gospel to every Creature, and that ye may distribute that very remission by the word of the Gospel, and the Sacraments.] For the words of Christ are general and indefinite; and they are comprehensive of the whole power and mini∣stery Ecclesiastical: and in those parts of it which are evident, and confessed, viz. preaching remission of sins and Baptism, a special enumeration of our sins is neither naturally necessary, nor esteemed so by custom, nor made so by vertue of these words of Christ; there∣fore it is no way necessary, neither have they at all proved it so by Scripture. And to this I add only what Ambrosius Pelargus, a Divine of the Elector of Triers, said in the Council of Trent;* 1.47 That the words of our Lord, Quorum remiseritis, were perhaps not expounded, by any Father, for an institution of the Sacrament of Penance: and that by some they were understood of Bap∣tism; by others, of any other thing by which pardon of sins is received.]

But since there is no necessity declar'd in Scripture of confessing all our sins to a Priest, no mention of sacra∣mental penance, or confession, it must needs seem strange that a doctrine of which there is no Command∣ment in Scripture, no direction for the manner of do∣ing so difficult a work, no Office, or Officer describ'd to any such purpose; that a doctrine, I say, of which

in the fountains of salvation there is no spring, should yet become in process of time to be the condition of salvation: And yet for preaching, praying, bapti∣zing, communicating, we have precept upon precept, and line upon line; we have in Scripture three Epistles written to two Bishops, in which the Episcopal Of∣fice is abundantly describ'd; and excellent Canons established; and the parts of their duty enumerated: and yet no care taken about the Office of Father Con∣fessor. Indeed we find a pious exhortation to all spiri∣tual persons, that; If any man be overtaken in a fault, they should restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; restore him, that is, to the publick peace and commu∣nion of the Church, from which by his delinquency he fell; and restore him also, by the word of his proper Ministery, to the favour of God; by exhortations to him, by reproving of him, by praying for him: and besides this, we have some little limits more, which the Church of Rome, if they please, may make good use of in this Question;* 1.48 such as are, That they who sin should be rebuk'd before all men, that others also may fear; which indeed is a good warranty for publick Disci∣pline, but very little for private Confession. And Saint Paul charges Timothy, that he should should lay hands suddenly on no man, that he be not partaker of other mens sins; which is a good caution against the Roman way of absolving them that confess, as soon as they have confess'd, before they have made their Satis∣factions. The same Apostle speaks also of some that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women; I should have thought he had intended it against such as then abus'd Auricular Confession; it being so like what they do now; but that S. Paul knew nothing of these lately-introduced practices: and lastly, he com∣mands every one that is to receive the Holy Commu∣nion to examine himself, and so let him eat: he forgot,

it seems, to enjoyn them to go to confession to be exa∣min'd: which certainly he could never have done more opportunely than here; and if it had been necessary, he could never have omitted it more undecently. But it seems, the first Christians were admitted upon other terms by the Apostles, than they are at this day by the Roman Clergy. And indeed it were infinitely strange, that since in the Old Testament remission of sins was gi∣ven to every one that confessed to God, & turn'd from his evil way,* 1.49 that,* 1.50 in the New Testament,* 1.51 to which liberty is a special priviledge,* 1.52 and the imposed yoke of Christ infinitely more easie than the burden of the Law;* 1.53 and Repentance is the very formality of the Gospel-Covenant; and yet that, pardon of our sins shall not be given to us Christians on so easie terms as it was to the Jews; but an intolerable new burden shall be made a new condition of obtaining pardon. And this will appear yet the more strange; when we consider that all the Sermons of the Prophets concerning Repentance, were not derivations from Moses's Law, but Homilies Evangelical, and went before to prepare the way of the Lord; and John Baptist was the last of them; and that, in this matter, the Sermons of the Prophets were but the Gospel antedated; and in this affair there was no change but to the better and to a clearer manifesta∣tion of the Divine mercy, and the sweet yoke of Christ: The Disciples of Christ preach'd the same do∣ctrine of Repentance that the Baptist did, and the Bap∣tist the same that the Prophets did, and there was no difference; Christ was the same in all, and he that commanded his Disciples to fast to God alone in pri∣vate, intended that all the parts of Repentance trans∣acted between God and our consciences, should be as sufficient as that one of Fasting, and that other of Pray∣er: and it is said so in all; for if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse

us from all unrighteousness. It it is God alone that can cleanse our hearts, and he that cleanses us, he alone does forgive us; and this is upon our confession to him: his justice and faithfulness, is at stake for it; and therefore it supposes a promise: which we often find upon our confessions made to God, but it was never promised upon confession made to the Priest.

But now in the next place if we consider, Whether this thing be reasonable, to impose such a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, which upon their Fathers was not put in the Old Testament, nor ever command∣ed in the New; we shall find that although many good things, might be consequent to the religious and free, and prudent use of Confession; yet by changing into a Doctrine of God, that which at most, is but a Com∣mandment of man, it will not, by all the contingent good, make recompence for the intolerable evils it intro∣duces. And here first I consider, that many times things seem profitable to us, and may minister to good ends; but God judges them useless and dangerous: for he judges not as we judge. The worshipping of Angels, and the abstaining from meats, which some false Apo∣stles introduc'd, look'd well, and pretended to humi∣lity, and mortificatioh of the body; but the Apostle approv'd them not: and of the same mind was the suc∣ceeding ages of the Church, who condemned the dry Diet, and the ascetick Fasts of Montanus, though they were pretended only for discipline; but when they came to be impos'd they grew intolerable. Certainly, men liv'd better lives, when by the discipline of the Church, sinners were brought to publick stations and penance, than now they do by all the advantages, real or pretended, from Auricular Confession; and yet the Church thought fit to lay it aside, and nothing is left but the shadow of it.

2. This whole topick can only by a prudential con∣sideration,

and can no way inferre a Divine institution; for though it was as convenient before Christ, as since, & might have had the same effects upon the publick or private good, then, as now; yet God was not pleased to appoint it in almost forty ages; and we say, He hath not done it yet. However let it be consider'd, that there being some things which S. Paul says are not to be so much as nam'd amongst Christians; it must needs look undecently, that all men & all women should come and make the Priests Ears a Common-shoar to empty all their filthiness; and that which a modest man would blush to hear, he must be us'd to, and it is the greatest part of his imployment to attend to. True it is, that a Phy∣sician must see and handle the impurest Ulcers; but it is, because the Cure does not depend upon the Pa∣tient, but upon the Physician, who by general adver∣tisement cannot cure the Patient, unless he had an Universal medicine, which the Priest hath; the medi∣cine of Repentance, which can indifferently cure all sins, whether the Priest know them or no. And there∣fore, all this filthy communication is therefore intole∣rable because it is not necessary: and it not only pol∣lutes the Priest's Ears, but his Tongue too; for, lest any circumstance, or any sin be concealed, he thinks himself oblig'd to interrogate, and proceed to particu∣lar questions in the basest things. Such as that which is to be seen in Burchard,* 1.54 and such which are too large∣ly describ'd in Sanchez,; which thing does not only deturpate all honest and modest conversation, but it teaches men to understand more sins then ever they (it may be) knew of. And I believe, there are but few in the world at this day, that did ever think of such a Crime, as Burchard hath taught them by that question; and possibly it might have expir'd in the very first in∣stances, if there had been no further notice taken of it. I need not tell how the continual representment

of such things to the Priest, must needs infect the fancy and the memory with filthy imaginations, and be a state of temptation to them that are very often young men and vigorous, and always unmarried and tempted. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aretines Tables do not more pollute the heart through the eyes, than a foul narrative of a beastly action with all the circumstances of perpetration do through the ears; for, as it was said of Thomas Cantipratanus,* 1.55 Vexatis exteriùs auribus, inte∣riùs tentationum stimulis agitabitur. And Marcus Ere∣mitae that liv'd in that age in which this Auricular Con∣fession began to be the mode of the Latine Church,* 1.56 he speaks against it severely.* 1.57 If thou wilt offer to God an unreproveable Confession, do not recount thy sins parti∣cularly, for so thou doest greatly defile thy mind; but generously endure their assaults, or what they have brought upon thee. We need no further witness of it, but the Question and Case of Conscience which Ca∣jetan puts,* 1.58 Vtrum Confessor cognoscens ex his quae audit in Confessione, sequi in seipso Emissionem seminis sibi displicentem, peccet mortaliter audiendo vel prosequendo tales Confessiones? The question is largely handled, but not so fit to be read; but in stead of it, I shall onely note the answer of another Cardinal:* 1.59 Confessarius si fortè dum audit Confessiones in tales incidit pollutiones non ob id tenetur non audire alios, nisi sit periculum complacentiae in pollutione;* 1.60 tunc enim tenetur relin∣quere confessiones, & auferre peccati occasionem; secus non. This Question and this Answer I here bring to no other purpose, but to represent that the Priests dwell in temptation; and that their manner of receiving Confessions is a perpetual danger, by which he that loves it may chance to perish. And of this there have been too many sad examples remark'd, evidencing that this private Confession hath been the occasion and the opportunity of the vilest crimes. There happened but

one such sad thing in the ancient Greek Church, which became publick by the discipline of publick Confession, but was acted by the opportunity of the private Enter∣course; and that was then thought sufficient to alter that whole discipline: but it is infinitely more reaso∣nable, to take off the law of private Confession, and in that manner as it is enjoyned; if we consider the in∣tolerable evils which are committed frequently upon this scene. Erasmus makes a sad complaint of it, that the penitents do often light upon Priests, who under the pretext of Confession,* 1.61 commit things not to be spoken of; and, in stead of Physicians, become partners, or masters, or disciples of turpitude. The matter is notorious and very scandalous, and very frequent: in∣somuch that it produc'd two Bulls of two Popes contra sollicitantes in Confessione; the first was of Pius quar∣tus to the Bishop of Sevil, A. D. 1561. April the 16. The other of Gregory the fifteenth, 1622. August 30. which Bulls take notice of it, and severely prohibit the Confessors to tempt the women to Undecencies when they come to confession. Concerning which Bulls, and the sad causes procuring them, even the intolerable and frequent impieties acted by and in Confessions, who desires to be plentifully satisfied may please to read the book of Johannes Escobar à Corro,* 1.62 a Spanish Lawyer, which is a Commentary on these two Bulls;* 1.63 and in the beginning he shall find sad complaints and sadder stories.* 1.64 But I love not to stir up so much dirt. That which is altogether as remarkable, and, it may be, much more, is, that this Auricular Confession not onely can, but oftentimes hath been made the most advantageous way of plotting, propagating, and carrying on treason∣able propositions and designs. I shall not instance in that horrid design of the Gun-powder treason; for that is known every where amongst us; but in the Holy Ligue of France.

When the Pulpits became unsafe for tu∣multuous

and traiterous preachers, the Confessors in private Confessions did that with more safety; they slandered the King, endeavoured to prove it lawful for Subjects to Covenant or make Leagues and Con∣federacies without their King's leave; they some∣times refus'd to absolve them, unless they would en∣ter into the Ligue; and perswaded many miserable persons to be of the faction. But this thing was not done so secretly, but notice enough was taken of it; and complaint was made to the Bishop, and then to Franciscus Maurocenus the Cardinal Legat; who gave notice and caution against it: and the effect it produced was onely this; they proceeded after∣wards more warily; and began to preach this do∣ctrine; That it was as great a fault if the Confitent reveal what he hears from the Confessor in Confessi∣on, as if the Priest should reveal the sins told him by the penitent.

* 1.65 This Narrative I have from Thuanus. To which I adde one more, related in the life of Padre Paolo; that Hippolito da Lucca fù in fama sinistra d' haver nelle confessioni, e raggi onamenti corrotto con larghe promesse e gran Speranza persuaso alla Duchessa d' adherir alla fattione Ecclesiastica.] Hippolitus of Lucca was evil reported to have in discourse or in confession persuaded the Dutchess of Vrbin against Caesar d' Este, and to have corrupted her into the facti∣on of the Church.* 1.66 For which he was made a Bishop, and in Rome was always one of the Prelates deputed in the examination of that controversie. If it were possi∣ble, and if it could be in the world, I should believe it to be a baser prostitution of religion to temporal designs,* 1.67 which is written of F. Arnold the Jesuite, Con∣fessor to Lewis the thirteenth of France; that he caused the King at Confession solemnly to swear, never to dis∣like what Luines the great favourite did, nor himself to meddle with any State-affair. Now what advantage

the Pope hath over Christian Princes in this particular, and how much they have, and how much more they may suffer by this Oeconomy, is a matter of great consideration: Admonetur omnis aetas posse fieri, quod jam factum vidimus.

3. There is yet another very great evil that attends upon the Roman way of Auricular Confession; and that is, an eternal scruple of conscience, which to the timerous and to the melancholy, to the pious and con∣sidering, and zealous, is almost unavoidable. For, be∣sides that there is no certainty of distinction between the mortal and venial sins; there being no Catalogues of one and the other, save only that they usually reckon but seven deadly sins; and the rest are, or may be easily by the ignorant supposed to be venial; and even those sins which are under those seven heads, are not all mortal; for there are amongst them many ways of changing their mortality into veniality; and, conse∣quent to all this, they are either tempted to slight most sins, or to be troubled with perpetual disputes concerning almost every thing: besides this, I say, there can be no peace (because there can be no certain rule given) concerning the examination of our Con∣sciences; for who can say, he hath done it sufficiently, or who knows what is sufficient; and yet if it be not sufficient, then the sins which are forgotten by careless∣ness, and not called to mind by sufficient diligence, are not pardon'd, and then the penitent hath had much trouble to no purpose. There are some Confessions imperfect but valid, some invalid for their imperfecti∣on, some perfect, and yet invalid: and they that made the distinction, made the Rule, and it binds as they please; but it can cause scruples beyond their power of remedy; because there is no certain principle from whence men can derive peace and a certain determi∣nation, some affirming, and some denying, and both

of them by chance, or humour. There are also many reserv'd cases; some to the Bishop, some to the Patri∣arch, some to the Pope; and when you shall have run through the fire for these before the Priest, you must run once or twice more; and your first absolution is of no force: and amongst these reserv'd cases, there is also great difference; some are reserved by reason of censures Ecclesiastical, and some by reason of the great∣ness of the sin; and these things may be hidden from his eyes, and he supposing himself absolv'd, will per∣ceive himself deceiv'd; and absolv'd but from one half. Some indeed think, that if the superiour ab∣solve from the reserv'd cases alone, that grace is given by which all the rest are remitted; and on the other side, some think if the inferiour absolves from what he can, grace is given of remitting even of the reserved: but this is uncertain, and all agree, that the penitent is never the nearer but that he is still oblig'd to confess the reserv'd cases to the superiour, if he went first to the inferiour; or all to the inferiour, in case he went first to the superiour, confessing only the reserved. There are also many difficulties in the Confession of such things, in which the sinner had partners: for if he confess the sin so, as to accuse any other, he sins; if he does not, in many cases he cannot confess the circum∣stances that alter the nature of the crime. Some there∣fore tell him, he may conceal such sins till a fitter op∣portunity; others say, he may let it quite along: others yet say, he may get another Confessor; but then there will come another scruple, whether he may do this with leave, or without leave; or, if he ask leave whether or no in case it be denied him, he may take leave in such an ac∣cident. Upon these and many other like accounts, there will arise many more Questions concerning the iter∣ation of his confession; for if the first confession be by any means made invalid, it must be done over again.

But here in the very beginning of this affair, the peni∣tent must be sure that his former confession was invalid. For if it was, he cannot be pardon'd unless he renew it; and if it was not, let him take heed: for to confess the same things twice, and twice to be absolv'd, it may be is not lawful;* 1.68 and against it, Cajetan, after the scho∣lastical manner, brings divers reasons. But suppose the penitent at peace for this, then there are very many cases, in which Confession is to be repeated; and though it was done before, yet it must be done over again. As if there be no manner of contrition, without doubt it must be iterated; but there are many cases concerning Contrition: and if it be at all, though im∣perfect, it is not to be iterated. But what is, and what is not contrition; what is perfect, and what is imperfect; which is the first degree that makes the Confession va∣lid, can never be told. But then there is some com∣fort to be had; for, the Sacrament of Penance may be true,* 1.69 and yet without form or life, at the same time. And there are divers cases, in which the Confession that is but materially half, may be reduc'd to that which is but formally half: and if there be but a propinquity of the mind to a carelessness concerning the integrity of confession; the man cannot be sure, that things go well with him. And sometimes it happens that the Church is satified, when God is not satisfied, as in the case of the informis confessio; and then the man is ab∣solved, but his sin is not pardon'd; and yet, because he thinks it is, his soul is cozen'd. And yet this is but the beginning of scruples. For, suppose the penitent hath done his duty, examin'd himself strictly, repent∣ed sadly, confess'd fully, and is absolved formally; yet all this may come to nothing by reason that there may be some invalidity in the Ordination of the Priest, by crime, by irregularity, by direct deficiency of something in the whole Succession and Ordination; or it may

be he hath not ordinary, or delegat jurisdiction; for, it is not enough that he is a Priest, unless he have another authority,* 1.70 says Cajetan; besides his Order, he must have Jurisdiction, which is carefully to be inquir'd after, by reason of the infinite numbers of Friers, that take up∣on them to hear Confessions; or if he have both, yet the use of his power may be interverted or suspended for the time, and then his absolution is worth nothing. But here there is some remedy made to the poor di∣stracted penitent; for by the constitution of the Coun∣cil of Constance, under Pope Martin the 5th. though the Priest be excommunicate, the confession is not to be iterated: but then this also ends in scruples; for this constitution it self does not hold, if the excommunica∣tion be for the notorious smiting of a Clergy-man; or if it be not, yet if the excommunication be denounc'd, be it for what it will, his absolution is void: and therefore the penitent should do well to look about him; espe∣cially since, after all this, there may be innumerable deficiencies; yea some even for want of skill and knowledge in the Confessor; and when that happens, when the confession is to be iterated, there are no cer∣tain Rules but it must be left to the opinion of an∣other Confessor. And when he comes, the poor peni∣tent, it may be, is no surer of him than of the other; for if he have no will to absolve the penitent, let him dis∣semble it as he list, the absolution was but jocular, or pretended, or never intended; or, it may be, he is secret∣ly an Atheist, and laughs at the penitent & himself too, for acting (as he thinks) such a troublesome, theatrical Nothing; and then the man's sins cannot be pardon'd. And, is there no remedy for all this evil? It is true, the cases are sad and dangerous, but the Church of Rome hath (such is her prudence & indulgence) found out as much relief as the wit of man can possibly in∣vent. For though there may be thus many and many

more deficiencies; yet there are some extraordinary ways to make it up as well as it can. For, to prevent all the contingent mischiefs, let the penitent be as wise as he can, and chuse his man upon whom these defailances may not be observed; For a man in necessity, as in dan∣ger of death, may be absolved by any one that is a Priest; but yet, if the penitent escape the sickness, or that dan∣ger, he must go to him again, or to somebody else; by which it appears that his affair was left but imperfect. But some persons have liberty by reason of their dignity, & some by reason of their condition, as being pilgrims or wanderers; and they have greater freedom, and cannot easily fall into many nullities; or they may have an ex∣plicite, or an implicit licence: but then they must take heed; for, besides many of the precedent dangers, they must know that the license extends only to the Paschal Confessions, or the usual; but not the extraordinary or emergent: and moreover, they can go but to the appoint∣ed Confessors, in the places where they are present; and because under these there is the same danger, as in all that went before, the little more certainty which I hop'd for in some few cases, comes to nothing. But I go about to reckon the sands on the shore. I shall there∣fore summe this up with the words of a famous preach∣er,* 1.71 reported by Beatus Rhenanus to have made this observation, that Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, men too subtle, have made Confession to be such, that, accord∣ing to their doctrines, it is impossible to confess: and that the consciences of penitents, which should be ex∣tricated and eased, are (by this means) catch'd in a snare,* 1.72 and put to torments, said Cassander; so that al∣though Confession to a Priest prudently manag'd, with∣out scruple, upon the case of a griev'd and an unquiet conscience, and in order to Counsel and the perfections of Repentance, may be of excellent use; yet to enjoyn it in all cases, to make it necessary to salvation, when God

hath not made it so; to exact an Enumeration of all our sins in all cases, and of all persons; to clog it with so many questions and innumerable inextricable diffi∣culties, and all this, besides the evil manage and con∣duct of it, is the rack of Consciences, the slavery of the Church, the evil snare of the simple, and the arti∣fice of the craftie: it was or might have been as the brazen serpent, a memorial of duty, but now it is Nehushtan, aes eorum; something of their own fra∣ming.

And this will yet further appear in this, That there [ 3] is no Ecclesiastical tradition of the necessity of con∣fessing all our sins to a Priest in order to pardon. That it was not the established doctrine of the Latine Church, I have already prov'd in the beginning of this Section; The case is notorious; and the Origi∣nal law of this we find in Platina, in the life of Pope Zephyrinus. Idem praetereà instituit, ut omnes Christia∣ni, annos pubertatis attingentes, singulis annis in solenni die paschae publicè communicarent. Quod quidem in∣stitutum Innocentius tertius deinceps non ad Communio∣nem solum, verum etiam ad Confessionem delictorum tra∣duxit. Platina was the Pope's Secretary, and well un∣derstood the interests of that Church, and was suffi∣ciently versed in the records and monuments of the Popes; and tells, that as Zephyrinus commanded the Eucharist to be taken at Easter; so Innocent 3. com∣manded Confession of sins.] Before this, there was no command, no decree of any Council or Pope en∣joyning it: only in the Council of Cabailon, Can. 8. it was declared to be profitable, that Penance should be enjoyn'd to the penitent by the Priest, after Confession made to him. But there was no command for it; and in the second Council of Cabailon,* 1.73 it was but a disputed case, Whether they ought to confess to God alone, or also to the Priest. Some said one, and some said an∣other,

Quod utrumque non sine magno fructu intra san∣ctam fit Ecclesiam.* 1.74 And Theodulsus Bishop of Or∣leans, tells the particulars.

The Confession we make to the Priests gives us this help, that, having received his salutary counsel, by the most wholsom duties of repentance, or by mutual prayers, we wash away the stains of our sins. But the Confession we make to God alone, avails us in this, because by how much we are mindful of our sins, by so much the Lord for∣gets them; and on the contrary, by how much we forget them, by so much the Lord remembers them, according to the saying of the prophet, and I will remember thy sins.]

But the Fathers of the Council gave a good account of these particulars also. Con∣fessio itaque quae Deo fit, purgat peccata: ea verò quae sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata? Deus enim, salutis & sanitatis Author & Largitor, plerunque hanc praebet suae potentiae invisibili admini∣stratione, * 1.75 plerunque medicorum operatione: which words are an excellent declaration of the advantages of Confession to a Priest, but a full argument that it is not necessary, or that without it pardon of sins is not to be obtained. Gratian quoting the words cites Theo∣dore Archbishop of Canterbury; but falsly: for it is in the second Council of Cabailon, and not in Theodore's Penitential. But I will not trouble the Reader further, in the matter of the Latine Church; in which it is evident, by what hath been already said, there was concerning this no Apostolical Tradition.

How it was in the Greek Church is onely to be in∣quir'd. Now we might make as quick an end of this also,* 1.76 if we might be permitted to take Semeca's word, the gloss of the Canon Law; which affirm's that, Con∣fession of deadly sins is not necessary among the Greeks, because no such tradition hath not descended unto them. This acknowledgement and report of the Greeks

not esteeming Confession to a Priest to be necessary, is not only in the Gloss above cited;* 1.77 but in Gratian himself, and in the more ancient Collection of Canons by Burchard, and Ivo Carnotensis. Bellarmine fancies that these words [ut Graeci] are crept into the Text of Gratian out of the Margent. Well! suppose that; but then how came they into the elder Collections of Burchard, and Ivo? That's not to be told; [but creep in they did, some way or other; because they are not in the Capitular of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury; and yet from thence this Canon was taken; and that Capitular was taken from the second Council of Ca∣baillon;* 1.78 in which also, there are no such words ex∣tant:] So the Cardinal. In which Bellarmine betrays his carelessness, or his ignorance, very greatly. 1. Be∣cause there is no such thing extant in the world, that any man knows and tells of, as the Capitular of Theo∣dore. 2. He indeed made a Penitential, a Copy of which is in Benet College Library in Cambridge, from whence I have receiv'd some Extracts, by the favour and industry of my friends; and another Copy of it, is in Sir Robert Cotten's Library. 3. True it is, there is in that Penitential no such words as [ut Graeci] but a direct affirmation, Confessionem suam Deo soli, si ne∣cesse est, licebit agere. 4. That Theodore should take this Chapter out of the second Council of Cabaillon, is an intolerable piece of ignorance or negligence in so great a Schollar as Bellarmine; when it is notorious that the Council was after Theodore, above 120. years. 5. But then lastly, because Theodore, though he sate in the Seat of Canterbury, yet was a Greek born; his words are a good Record of the opinion of the Greeks, that Confession of sins is (if there be need) to be made to God alone. But this I shall prove with firmer testi∣monies; not many,* 1.79 but pregnant, clear and undeniable.

S. Gregory Nyssen observ'd that the ancient Fathers

before him in their publick discipline, did take no notice of the sins of Covetousness, that is, left them without pub∣lick penance, otherwise than it was order'd in other sins; and therefore he interposes his judgment thus. [But con∣cerning these things, because this is praetermitted by the Fathers, I do think it sufficient to cure the affections of Covetousness with the publick word of doctrine, or in∣struction, curing the diseases, as it were, of repletion by the Word. That is plainly thus: The sins of Covetous∣ness had no Canonical Penances impos'd upon them: and therefore many persons thought but little of them: therefore, to cure this evil, let this sin be reprov'd in publick Sermons, though there be no imposition of publick penances. So that here is a Remedy without Penances, a Cure without Confession, a publick Ser∣mon instead of a publick or private Judicatory.

But the fact of Nectarius in abrogating the publick penitentiary-Priest upon the occasion of a scandal, does bear much weight in this Question. I shall not repeat the story; who please, may read it in Socrates, Sozo∣men, Epiphanius, Cassiodore, and Nicephorus; and it is known every where.* 1.80 Only they who are pinch'd by it, endeavour to confound it, as Waldensis and Canus; some by denying it,* 1.81 as Latinus Latinius; others by dis∣puting concerning every thing in it; some saying, that Nectarius abrogated Sacramental Confession; others, that he abrogated the publick only, so very many say: and a third sort (who yet speak with most probability,) that he only took away the office of the publick Peni∣tentiary, which was instituted in the time of Decius, and left things as that Decree found them; that is, that those who had sin'd those sins which were noted in the Penitential Canons, should confess them to the Bishop, or in the face of the Church, and submit themselves to the Canonical penances. This pass'd into the office of the publick Penitentiary; and that into nothing, in the Greek

Church. But there is nothing of this that I insist up∣on; but I put the stress of this Question upon the pro∣duct of this. For Eudaemon gave counsel to Nectarius and he followed it, that he took away the penitentiary Priest,* 1.82 ut liberam daret potestatem utì pro suâ quisque conscientiâ,* 1.83 ad mysteria participanda accederet. So Socrates, and Sozomen, to the same purpose; ut Vni∣cuique liberum permitteret, prout sibi ipse conscius esset & confideret, ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere, poenitentiarium illum Presbyterum exauthoravit. Now if Nectarius by this Decree took away Sacramental con∣fession (as the Roman Doctors call it) then it is a clear case, the Greek Church did not believe it necessary; if it was onely the publick Confession they abolished, then, for ought appears, there was no other at that time; I mean, none commanded, none under any law, or under any necessity: but whatever it was that was abolished, private Confession did not by any decree succeed in the place of it; but every man was left to his liberty, and the dictates of his own Conscience, and according to his own persuasion, to his fears or his con∣fidence, so to come and partake of the Divine myste∣ries. All which is a plain demonstration, that they under∣stood nothing of the necessity of Confession to a Priest of all their sins, before they came to the holy Sacrament.

And in pursuance of this, are those many Exhorta∣tions and discourses of S. Chrysostom, who succeeding Nectarius, by his publick doctrine could best inform us how they understood the consequence of that de∣cree, and of this whole Question. The summe of whole doctrine is this; It is not necessary to have your sins revealed, or brought in publick, not onely in the Congregation, but not to any one, but to God alone.* 1.84 Make a scrutiny, and pass a judgement on your sins inwardly in your Conscience, none being present but God alone that seeth all things. And again, Declare

unto God alone thy sin,* 1.85 (saying) Against thee onely have I sinned and done evil in thy sight; and thy sin is for∣given thee.* 1.86 I do not say, tell to thy fellow-servant, who upbraids thee, but tell them to God who heals thy sins.] And,* 1.87 that after the abolition of the Penitentiary-Priest nothing was surrogated in his stead, but pious Homi∣lies and publick Exhortations, we learn from those words of his, [We do not bring the sinners into the midst, and publish their sins; but having propounded the com∣mon doctrine to all, we leave it to the Conscience of the Auditors, that out of those things which are spoken every one may find a medicine fitted for his wound.]* 1.88 Let the discussion of thy sins be in the accounts of thy Conscience; let the judgement be pass'd without a witness:* 1.89 let God alone see thee confessing; God who upbraids not thy sins, but out of this Confession blots them out.] Hast thou sinned, enter into the Church, say unto God, I have sinned. I exact nothing of thee, but that alone.]* 1.90 The same he says in many other places: Now against so many, so clear and dogmatical testimo∣nies it will be to no purpose to say, that S. Chrysostom onely spake against the Penitentiary-Priest set over the publick penitents;* 1.91 and this he did,* 1.92 in pursuance of his predecessors act. For, besides that some of these Ho∣milies were written before S. Chrysostom was Bishop, viz. his one and twenty Homilies to the people of An∣tioch, and the fourth Homily of Lazarus which was preach'd at Antioch before he came to Constantinople, when he was but a Priest under Flavianus his Bishop; and his Homilies on S. Matthew; besides this, it is plain that he not onely speaks against the publick judicial Penance and Confession; but against all, except that alone which is made to God; allowing the sufficiency of this for pardon, and disallowing the necessity of all other. To these things Bellarmine, Perron, Petrus de Soto, Vasquez, Valentia, and others, strive to find out an∣swers;

but they neither agree together, neither do their answers fit the testimonies; as is evident to them that compare the one and the other, the chief of which I have remark'd, in passing by. The best An∣swers that can be given are those which Latinus Lati∣nius, and Petavius, give; The first affirming, that these homilies 1. are not S. Chrysostom's. Or 2. that they are corrupted by hereticks; and the latter confessing they are his, but blames S. Chrysostom for preaching such things. And to these answers I hope I shall not need to make any reply.* 1.93 To the two first of Latinus, Vas∣quez hath answered perfectly; and to that of Petavius, there needs none; Petavius, in stead of answering, making himself a Judge of S. Chrysostom. I suppose if we had done so in any question against them, they would have taken it in great scorn and indignation; and therefore we choose to follow S. Chrysostom, rather than Master Petavius.

I do not deny, but the Roman Doctors do bring many sayings of the Greek and Latine Fathers, shewing the usefulness of Confession to a Priest, and exhorting and pressing men to it: But their arts are notorious, and evident; and what (according to the discipline of the Church at that time) they spake in behalf of the Exomologesis or publick discipline, that these Doctors translate to the private Confession; and yet what ever we bring out of Antiquity against the necessity of con∣fession to a Priest, that they will resolvedly under∣stand onely of the publick. But, besides what hath been said to every of the particulars, I shall conclude this point with the sayings of some eminent men of their own, who have made the same observation. In hoc labuntur Theologi quidam parùm attenti, quòd, quae veteres illi de hu jusmodi publicâ & generali confessione, quae nihil aliud erat quàm signis quibusdam & pia∣minibus ab Episcopo indictis, se peccatorem, & bonorum

communione indignum agnoscere,* 1.94 trahunt ad hanc occul∣tam & longè diversi generis: So Erasmus. And B. Rhe∣nanus says, Let no man wonder that Tertullian speaks nothing of the secret or clancular confession of sins;* 1.95 which, so far as we conjecture, was bred out of the (old) Exomologesis, by the unconstrained piety of men. For we do not find it at all commanded of old.

The Conclusion of these Premises is this, That the old Ecclesiastick discipline being pass'd into desuetude and indevotion, the Latine Church especially, kept up some little broken planks of it; which so long as cha∣rity and devotion were warm, and secular interest had not turn'd religion into arts, did in some good measure supply the want of the old better discipline; but when it had degenerated into little forms, and yet was found to serve great ends of power, wealth, and ambi∣tion, it pass'd into new doctrines, and is now bold to pretend to divine institution, though it be nothing but the Commandment of men, a snare of Consciences, and a ministery of humane policy; false in the Proposition, and intolerable in the Conclusion.

There are divers other instances reducible to this charge, and especially the Prohibition of Priests mar∣riage, and the abstinence from flesh at certain times; which are grown up from humane-Ordinances to be established Doctrines, that is, to be urged with greater severity than the Laws of God; insomuch that the Church of Rome permits Concubinate and Stews at the same time when she will not permit chaste Mar∣riages to her Clergy. And for abstinence from flesh at times appointed, Veluti parricida penè dixerim rapitur ad supplicium, qui pro piscium carnibus gustârit carnes suillas.* 1.96 But I shall not now insist upon these; having so many other things to say, and especially, having al∣ready in another place verified this Charge against them in these Instances.* 1.97 I shall onely name one testimo∣ny

of their own, which is a pregnant Mother of many instances:* 1.98 and it is in their own Canon Law. [They that voluntarily violate the Canons, are heavily judged by the Holy Fathers, and are damned by the holy Ghost, by whose instinct they were dictated.* 1.99. For they do not incongruously seem to blaspheme the holy Ghost.] And a little after [Such a presumption is manifestly one of the kinds of them that blaspheme against the holy Ghost.] Now if the laws of their Church,* 1.100 which are discor∣dant enough, and many times of themselves too blame∣able, be yet by them accounted so sacred, that it is taught to be a sin against the holy Ghost, willingly to break them; in the world there cannot be a greater verification of this charge upon them: it being con∣fessed on all hands, that, Not every man who voluntarily violates a Divine Commandement does blaspheme the holy Ghost.

The End of the First Book.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Can. 21.
• * 1.2

  Sess. 14. Capp. 6. & 7.
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. magicas incan¦tationes; simile illud ibidem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nimirum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.4

  Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sect. 12. 13.
• b 1.5

  2. Part. Exam. Concil. Trid. cap. 5. de poenit.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 3. de poenit. cap. 1. Sect. Martinus Kemnitius.
• * 1.7

  In ••. dist, 17. q. 2. ex Scoto.
• * 1.8

  De poe••it. ••. ••. cap. Quamvis plentitudo.
• * 1.9

  Lib. de 5. de∣cret. de poeni••. & rem. in cap. Omnis utrius{que} sexus.
• * 1.10

  Disp. de Sacr. tom. 2. de Con∣fess. Orig. c. 2.
• * 1.11

  John 20. 21.
• * 1.12

  In lib. 4. sent. dist. 17.
• * 1.13

  Qu. 90. in 3••. Thom. dub. 2.
• * 1.14

  Primum istorum esse•• magis conveniens lenen∣d••m, si posset evidenter haberi istud praeceptum ex Evangelio. Nec oporiet ad hoc adducere illud Matthaei 16. Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, quia non est nisi promissio de datio∣ne futura. Sed si aliquid in Evangelio, vi∣delicet, ad hoc videtur illud Joh. xx. Accipi••e Spir. S. Quorum remiseritis, &c.
• * 1.15

  Dicitur quod sic, de illo verbo Jacob. 5. Confiremini alter utrum peccata, &c. sed nec per hoc videretur mihi quod Jacobus prae∣ceptum hoc dedit, nec praecepum à Christo promulgavit. Scotus in l. 4. dist. 17. Sect. De Secundo.
• * 1.16

  In Lucae Evang. cap. 69. tom. 5. Colon Agripp. 1612.
• * 1.17

  Lib. 5. ep. 16.
• * 1.18

  Concil. T••id. sess. 14. c. 5. Nam venialia quibus à gratia Dei non excludimur, & in quae fre∣quentiùs labimur, quanquam rectè & utiliter citráque omnem praesumptionem in confessione dicantur, quod piorum h••minum usus demon∣strat, tateri tamen citrà culpam, multisque al••is remediis expiari possunt.
• * 1.19

  Vide Vasquez. in 3. tom. 4. q. 90. art. 1. dub. 2. Sect. 3.
• * 1.20

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.21

  Vid. Padre Paolo hist. Conc. Trid. lib. 4.
• * 1.22

  In Lucam. lib. 10. cap. 22.
• * 1.23

  Homil. 2. de poenitentiâ Petri.
• * 1.24

  Collat. 20. c. 8.
• * 1.25

  Lombard. se••t. l. 4. d. 7. ad finem lit. C.
• * 1.26

  2
• * 1.27

  5
• * 1.28

  3
• * 1.29

  Sent. lib. 4. dist. 18. lit. F.
• * 1.30

  S. Hierom in Matth. lib. 3. ad cap. 16.
• * 1.31

  Homines in remissione peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non jus alicujus potestatis exercent: Neque enim in suo, sed in Nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, peccata di∣mittuntur. Ist••rogant, Divinitas donat, &c. S. Ambrose: de Spir. S. lib. 3. cap. 19.
• * 1.32

  Pag. 676.
• * 1.33

  Opusc. 22.
• * 1.34

  Aleuin. de Di∣vini Offic. cap. De••jejunio.
• * 1.35

  Apolog. c. 39.
• * 1.36

  Homil. 50. c. 9.
• * 1.37

  Summ. part. 4. q. 21. memb. 1.
• * 1.38

  Tom. 9. operum Aug••st. Scola Parad. cap. 3.
• * 1.39

  De operibus Card••nalibus Christi inter Cy∣priani opera; sed varius Ar∣n••l••i Bonae∣valle••sis.
• * 1.40

  Lib. 6. Com∣ment. in Isai. cap. 14.
• * 1.41

  2 Cor. 5. 19, 20.
• * 1.42

  Lev. 13. 44. v. 5. 7.
• * 1.43

  Jer. 1. 10.
• * 1.44

  1 Tim. 4. 16.
• * 1.45

  Jam. 5. 20.
• * 1.46

  John 20.
• * 1.47

  Hist. Concil. T••id. A. D. 155. sub Ju∣lio Te••••io.
• * 1.48

  1 Tim. 5. 20.
• * 1.49

  Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18.
• * 1.50

  Ezek. 18. 22.
• * 1.51

  Ezek. 33. 15. 16.
• * 1.52

  Isai. 30. 15. secundum.
• * 1.53

  LXX. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.54

  Lib. 19. decret. de Matrimonio.
• * 1.55

  In vitâ ejus apud Hagiolog. B••a••ant.
• * 1.56

  De ••is qui pu∣tant se operibus justificari.
• * 1.57

  Biblioth. Pa∣tram, tom. ••. Gr. Lat.
• * 1.58

  Opusc. Cajet. tract. 22.
• * 1.59

  Lib. ••. inst. S••cerd. c. ••3. subfig. 5. edit.
• * 1.60

  Paris. 1619. p. 372.
• * 1.61

  In Exomolog. p. 128, 129, &c.
• * 1.62

  Videatur etiam Orlandini hist.
• * 1.63

  Societ. J. lib. 9.
• * 1.64

  Sect. 70.
• * 1.65

  Hist. l. ••5. pag. 100. in Leida. 1646.
• * 1.66

  By Card. Aldobrandino ••he Nephew of P. Clement 8.
• * 1.67

  Memoires da Duc de Roban. lib. 1.
• * 1.68

  Qaest quod libet Quaest. 6. de confess.
• * 1.69

  Cajetan: summ. verb. Confessio.
• * 1.70

  Summ. verb. Absolutio.
• * 1.71

  Praesat. in lib. Tertul. de poeniter.
• * 1.72

  Consult. art. 11. videatur etiam Johannes de Sylva in fine tractat. de ju∣rejurando.
• * 1.73

  C. 33.
• * 1.74

  In Tom. 2. Con∣ci. Gallic. c. 30. p. 219.
• * 1.75

  Sola contri∣tione, ait glossa, ibid. & habetur de poenit dist. 1. cap. Quidam Deo.
• * 1.76

  De poenit. dist. 5. c. In poenit.
• * 1.77

  De poenit. dist. 1. c. Quidam Deo.
• * 1.78

  De poenit. lib. 3. cap. 5.
• * 1.79

  Epist. Canon. ad Letorum.
• * 1.80

  Relect. de poe∣nit. part. 5. Sect.
• * 1.81

  Ad sextum. p. 31. edit. Sal∣manticae. 1563. per Matthiam Gartium.
• * 1.82

  Lib. 5. cap. 19.
• * 1.83

  Eccl. hist. lib. 7••. cap. 16.
• * 1.84

  Homil. 56. si∣ve 8. de Poe∣nit. tom. 1.
• * 1.85

  Homil. 9. de Poenit. sive Homil. 59.
• * 1.86

  Homil. 2. in Psal. 50.
• * 1.87

  Homil. Quod peccata non sint evulganda. vid. tom. 57.
• * 1.88

  Homil. de Poe∣nit. & Con∣fessione. tom. 58. tom. 5.
• * 1.89

  Homil. 68. tom. 5.
• * 1.90

  Homil. 31. in Ep. ad Hebr. Homil. 2o. in Matth.
• * 1.91

  Homil. 28. in 1 Cor.
• * 1.92

  Homil. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Homil. 4. de Lazaro.
• * 1.93

  In 3. part. Th••. tom. 4 q. 90. a. 1. dub. 3. n. 31.
• * 1.94

  In. S. Hierom. Epist. ad Ocea∣num, sive Epi∣taph. Fabiolae.
• * 1.95

  Praefat. in l. Tertul. de Poeni••.
• * 1.96

  Rule of Con∣science, lib. 3. cap. 4.
• * 1.97

  Rule 13. and Rule 19. and 20.
• * 1.98

  Caus. 25. qu. 1. c. Violatores Canonum.
• * 1.99

  Dicati pro¦dictati.
• * 1.100

  Vide quae supra annotavi e•• Decreto Gra∣tiani. Sect. 1.