The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 6 – Controversy 7

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 7 · Controversy 6 – Controversy 7

p. 523Sixth Controverſie, OF THE SEVENH BOOK. OF Auricular Confeſsion, and Of the ſecrets of Confeſsion.

CHAP. 1. Four ſorts of Confeſsion in our Churches. Anſwer to the Cardinal:

HIs Majeſty of England had ſaid, That Auricular Confeſſion, as it is practiſed in the Roman Church, was not uſed in the antient Church.

To which the Cardinal anſwereth in theſe words, It is enough for us to ſay that the antient Church held the vocall and diſtinct confeſſion of ſins to the Paſtor, to be neceſſary to obtain remiſſion of ſins. And that whereas the Church out of Indulgence, and to yield to the baſhfulneſs of men, would be contented with the ſecret and Auricular Confeſsion inſtead of the publick, ſhe doth thereby not aggravate the yoak of Confeſsion, but eaſe it. By this he acknowledgeth that in old time there was no Auricular Confeſſion, but that it was introduced to ſpare ſinners that were aſhamed of confeſſing their ſins publikely.

He addeth, that as for that vocall and diſtinct Confeſsion, the Apoſtles themſelves did inſtitute it, and that by vertue of their authority to forgive, or retain ſins, which they had received from Chriſt. That all the Fathers by that authority, underſtand the judiciary abſolution of ſins, not the bare Preaching of the Goſpel. And that as one p. 524relative preſuppoſeth another, the abſolution preſuppoſeth a precedent revealing of ſins, which cannot be done but by Confeſsion.

Pag. 643.He ſaith next, that both the Fathers and the Roman Church, hold not Confeſſion neceſſary to ſalvation, with an abſolute neceſſity, but only with a neceſſity of means, conditionate, and in caſe of poſſibility, and that contrition ſupplyeth the defect of confeſſion.

He ſaith further, We hold not Confeſſion to be a Sacrament, but only a neceſſary and eſſential condition to a Sacrament, even to the penitential abſolution. Which he proveth by(a)(a)Auguſt. de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 3. cap. 22. Auſtin, who puts impoſition of hands among the Sacraments, and ſaith upon Pſalm 146. that the cloth and ſalves about wounds are the temporall Sacraments. In which places he will have us to think that Auſtin means Sacramental abſolution.

Leaving for the preſent, that which the Cardinal ſaith of penance and Sacramental abſolution, of which it will be ſpoken afterwards, we will receive that which he grants, that Auricular Confeſſion hath not been in uſe in the antient Church. Now it is not credible, that they that brought in Auricular Confeſſion to cover the baſhfulneſs of ſinners, were more prudent then the Apoſtles, and the antient Church in her primitive purity.

The Gloſs of the firſt Canon of the fifth diſtinction of Penance, acknowledgeth the ſame thing, and freely ſaith, that the confeſſion which is made unto the Prieſt, is not inſtituted in the Word of God. Theſe are the words,(b)(b)Alii dicunt quod in Novo Teſtamento à Jacobo dicente Confitemini alterutrum peccata; Sed melius dicitur eam inſtitutam fuiſſe à quadam Univerſalis Eccleſiae traditione potius quam ex Novo vel Veteri Teſtamento authore. Others ſay that the Confeſsion was inſtituted in the New Teſtament by Saint James, ſaying, Confeſs your ſins one to another. But it is better to ſay that it was inſtituted by ſome tradition of the Ʋniverſal Church, rather then by the authority of the New or Old Teſtament.

And a little after,(c)(c)Neceſſaria eſt in mortalibus confeſſio apud nos, apud Graecos non, quia non emanavit ad illos talis traditio. Confeſsion is neceſſary among us in mortal ſins, but not among the Grecians, becauſe ſuch a tradition is not come to them. Beatus Rhenanus in the argument of Tertullians book of Penitence, acknowledgeth that ſecret Confeſsion is no where commanded, and that the antient Church did not practiſe it.

The Cardinal needed not to tell us that Confeſsion of ſins is neceſſary: We believe it, and teach it. He that covereth his tranſgreſsions ſhall not proſper, but he that confeſſeth and forſaketh them ſhall find mercy, Prov. 28. But of Confeſsion of ſins there are four kinds, which are not all of equal neceſſity. For ſins are confeſt, either to God alone, or to the Church publikely, or to the Paſtor privately, or to our neighbour whom we have offended.

Confeſsion to God is abſolutely neceſſary. Of that Saint John ſpeaketh in the firſt Chapter of his firſt Epiſtle, If we confeſs our ſins, God is faithful and juſt to forgive us our ſins, and to cleanſe us from all iniquity. Of that confeſsion David felt the fruit; for he ſaith in Pſalm 32.5. I ſaid I will confeſs my tranſgreſsions unto the Lord, and thou forgaveſt the iniquity of my ſin. For God will ſooner bear with ſins followed with a penitent confeſſion, then with pretended righteouſneſs, with pride and opinion of merit.

Publick Confeſſion, though it be not abſolutely neceſſary for ſalvation, yet the practiſe of it is neceſſary in the Church of God, to touch the ſinner with repentance, and fright others from vice by that example, and to make thoſe that are none of the flock to take notice, that vices are not ſuffered in the Church, whereby they may be invited to embrace Chriſtian Religion. The Council of Trent in the fourteenth Seſsion, chap. 8. approveth publick penances,(d)(d)Com. Trid. Seſſ. 14. in reformatione. Apoſtolus monet publicè peccantes publicè eſſe corripiendos. as grounded upon the Apoſtles ſentence, 1 Tim. 5.20. Them that ſin, rebuke before all, that others alſo may fear. It was the practiſe of the antient Church, and there was in every Church a place ſet apart for the penitent, that they might be remarkable and diſcerned from the other Chriſtians. They ſtood for a while in the Church-porch, and that firſt degree of penance was called(e)(e)foreign. Fore-weeping. About a year or two after they entred into the Church, ſtanding in the Portal or entry of the Temple: But they were not permitted to aſſiſt at the prayers of the Congregation, and were called the Hearers, and their penance Hearing: (f)(f)foreign.Having paſt a p. 525year or more in that ſecond degree of penance, according to the term aſſigned by the Canons, and according to the grievouſneſs of the ſin, they were permitted to draw nearer, and to aſsiſt at prayers, but not admitted to the holy Communion: Theſe were called the Proſtrate, and that third degree of penance was called(g)(g)foreign. Proſtrating, becauſe they were proſtrated on the ground, clothed with ſacks, with their hair foul, and their countenance ſad. The term of that proſtrating being expired, they came nearer to the ſacred myſteries, and might ſee the celebration of the holy Communion, but were not admitted to it. That degree of penance was called(h)(h)foreign. ſtanding together. After which they were admitted unto the Lords Table.

Already in the time of the Council of Nice, thoſe degrees of penance were practiſed, as it may be ſeen in the eleventh and twelfth Canon. And above fifty or ſixty years before Geregory, Thaumaturgus had made thoſe Conſtitutions which are found in Balſamon. The 59. Canon of the Epiſtle of Baſilius to Amphilochius is this,(i)(i)foreign. The fornicator ſhall be ſeven years without communicating of the holy things. He ſhall be two years a Weeper, two years a Hearer, and two years Proſtrate, and one year only a Fellow-ſtander, and in the eighth year he ſhall be received to the Communion.

The place or incloſure where the Penitents ſtood hearing the Sermon afar off, was called foreign. Of that publick penance, mention is made in the book de dogmatibus Eccleſiaſticis, aſcribed to Auſtin, chap. 53.(k)(k)Quem mortalia crimina poſt Baptiſmum premunt, hortor prius publica poenitentia ſatiſfacere, & ita Sacerdotis judicio reconciliatum communioni ſociari. Him that is preſt with mortal ſins committed ſince Baptiſm, I exhort, firſt to ſatisfie by publick penance, and after that, being reconciled by the Prieſts judgement, to be adjoyned unto the Communion. Where the Author ſpeaks of reconciliation to the Church. Of that publick penance Tertullian and Ambroſe ſpeak, in the books which they have written of penance.

As for private Confeſsion of the ſinner to his Paſtor in old time, if the ſin was not known, the ſinner that felt a load on his conſcience, before he came to the publick penance, would come privately to one of the Paſtors; not to ask abſolution, or to undergo the penances and ſatisfactions, either corporal or pecuniary, which his Paſtor would lay upon him, as it is practiſed now in the Roman Church; but to receive counſel and comfort from him. Then it was the Paſtors part to judge whether the crime was of ſuch a nature as to require a publick Confeſsion and penance. Upon which we have a very expreſs teſtimony of Origen, Hom. 2. upon Pſalm 37. where he ſpeaks thus unto the ſinner, who hath purpoſed in his heart to confeſs his ſin privately to one of the Paſtors.(l)(l)Circumſpice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum. Proba prius medicum cui debeas cauſam languoris exponere, qui ſciat infirmari cum infirmante, flere cum flente, qui condolendi & compatiendi noverit diſciplinam. Ʋt ita demum ſi quid ille dixerit, qui ſe eruditum Medicum oſtenderit & miſericordem, ſi quid conſilii dederit, facias & ſequaris. Si intellexerit & praeviderit talem eſſe languorem tuum quò in conventu totius Eccleſiae exponi debeat & curari, & quo ſortaſſis & caeteri aedificari poterunt, & tu ipſe facile ſanari, multa hoc deliberatione & ſatis periti medici illius conſilio procurandum eſt. Look diligently to whom thou ſhouldſt confeſs thy ſin. Firſt try the Phyſitian to whom thou muſt declare the cauſe of thy ſickneſs, one that knows how to become weak with the weak, and weep with him that weepeth; one that underſtands the manner of fellow-mourning and fellow-feeling; That thou mayeſt after that follow the counſel given thee by him that will ſhew himſelf a learned and compaſsionate Phyſitian. And if he hath known and foreſeen, that thy ſickneſs is ſuch that it needs to be declared and remedied in the Aſſembly of the whole Church, that others may be thereby edified, and thy ſelf cured; that muſt be executed with careful deliberation, and by the counſel of that skilful Phyſitian. That counſel is both holy and wholeſom, and it is that which we endeavour to practiſe in our Churches. For if it be a thing both commendable and profitable for an afflicted man to pour his bitterneſs into the boſom of a godly friend, and to ſhew him our wounds, to receive counſel and comfort from him: How much more when that grief is communicated unto thoſe whom God hath ſet to be Heraulds of Peace, and Miniſters of Reconciliation, and who are authoriſed by God to announce to the repenting ſinner the remiſſion of ſins by Jeſus Chriſt? Of that nature were the Confeſsions of thoſe that came to John the Baptiſt in the deſart, confeſsing their ſins: And the confeſſions of p. 526thoſe that are mentioned, Acts 19.18. Many that believed, came and confeſſed and ſhewed their deeds.

The laſt ſort of Confeſsion is that which ſinners do mutually among themſelves after they have offended one another. Of that kind of Confeſſion ſpake Saint James, chap. 5.16. Confeſs your faults one to another. (m)(m)foreign.There is in the Greek, Confeſs your ſins reciprocally or mutually; that is, I to you, and you to me; which cannot be referred to Auricular Confeſſion. Note alſo the coupling of theſe two things, Confeſs your faults one to another, and pray one for another. For as James underſtands not that we muſt pray for the Prieſts only, ſo he underſtands not that we muſt confeſs our ſins to the Prieſts only. So Auſtin underſtands it in the fifty fourth Epiſtle to Macedonius, (n)(n)Scriptum eſt confitemini invicem peccata veſtra, & orate pro vobis. Has ſibi partes humanitatis, ubi poteſt, omnis homo apud hominem vindicat.It is written, Confeſs your ſins one to another, and pray for you [mutually.] Every one attributes to himſelf that part of humanity to his neighbour when he can do it. And Cardinal Cajetan in his Comment upon Saint James Epiſtle.(o)(o)Nec hic ſermo eſt de confeſſione Sacramentali, ut patet ex eo quod dicit Confitemini invicem. Sacramentalis enim Confeſſio non fit invicem, ſed ſacerdotibus tantum. Sed de confeſſione qua mutuo fatemur nos peccatores ut oretur pro nobis, & de confeſsione hinc inde erratorum pro mutua placatione & reconciliatione. It is not here ſpoken (ſaith he) of the Sacramental Confeſsion, as it appears in that he ſaith, Confeſs one to another; for Sacramental confeſsion is not made one to another, but to the Prieſts only. But that confeſsion is meant whereby we confeſs one to another mutually that we are ſinners, that we may be prayed for, and the confeſsion of faults which is mutually made for a mutual pacification and reconciliation. Theſe four kinds of Confeſsions are good and holy, and practiſed in our Churches. But that which is made unto God is the principal, and muſt be done every day, and is abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation: The other ſorts as time and occaſions require, and according to poſsibility. Wherefore there was no need for the Cardinal to expatiate with his moral eloquence upon the neceſsity of Confeſsion, which we acknowledge and teach. He grounds the neceſſity of Sacramental Confeſſion, upon the power which the Lord hath given to his Apoſtles to forgive ſins: Which Confeſſion he ſaith to be underſtood by the Fathers of abſolution of ſins, not of the meer preaching of the Goſpel. All which he ſaith to impoſe calumniouſly upon us, that by the power of forgiving or retaining ſins, we underſtand no more but the Preaching of the Goſpel. For we know that Paſtors exerciſe that power not meerly by Preaching, but alſo by uſing Cenſures, Suſpenſions, Excommunications, Relaxations, and Reconciliations of ſinners that have ſatisfied the Church. Of which we ſhall ſpeak in the right place.

CHAP. 2. That the teſtimonies of the Fathers which Cardinal du Perron objecteth to us, to eſtabliſh Auricular Confeſsion, are to no purpoſe. Some falſifications obſerved.

Pag. 644.CArdinal du Perron makes three ſorts of Confeſſions practiſed in the antient Church. 1. Publick confeſſion for publick ſins, upon which he acknowledgeth that his Church and ours are agreed. 2. Secret confeſſion for ſecret ſins. 3. And publick confeſſion for ſecret ſins; upon which two laſt ſorts of confeſſion he brings many teſtimonies of the Fathers, preſuppoſing againſt truth, that they are not received in our Church; but we have ſhewed already, that we receive and teach thoſe two ſorts of confeſſions, as well as the firſt.

He alleadgeth Baſil, who in his ſhort rules,(a)(a)229. rule. ſaith, that Confeſsion of ſins muſt be made only before them that can heal them. And in the fifth Chapter of the ſame Obſervation, which is the ſecond, the Cardinal alleadgeth the ſame Baſil, Qu, 288. ſaying, that ſins ought to be diſcovered to thoſe only to whom the diſpenſation of myſteries is committed. Theſe two places are falſified by the addition of the p. 527word only, which he puts in of his own, to exclude any other confeſſion but that which is made to the Prieſt. In the firſt place, there is according to the Greek,(b)(b)foreign. Confeſsion of ſins muſt be made before thoſe that can heal them, as it is written, You that are ſtronger, bear the infirmities of the weak; which is a text of Saint Paul, where by the ſtrong he underſtands not the Paſtors of the Church, but the godly that are more proficient in the faith: So that M. du Perron, beſides the addition of the word only, corrupts the ſenſe of that place, attributing unto the Prieſts alone, that which is ſaid of all the godly people. The ſecond teſtimony is this,(c)(c)foreign. It is neceſſary to confeſs ſins unto thoſe to whom the adminiſtration of the holy myſteries is committed. The word only is not in the Greek.

In the ſame place he alleadgeth(d)(d)Leo ad univerſos Epiſc. per Camp. Epiſt. 80. Leo, in the 80. Epiſtle, ſaying, it will ſuffice that the ſins of conſciences be ſhewed unto the Prieſt by a ſecret confeſsion. This alſo is falſe, for Leo ſaith not ſacerdoti, but ſacerdotibus; that is, to the company of Prieſts. The Cardinal hath thus corrupted that place, becauſe confeſſion made to a company, did not ſeem to him ſecret enough, or having any thing common with Auricular Confeſſion.

But when all is ſaid, To what purpoſe doth he go about to prove to us private Confeſſion made to the Paſtor of the Church, ſince we approv… it? In that point he miſtaketh the Fathers, thinking that when they ſpeak of Confeſſion made privately, they mean that Auricular or ſecret Confeſsion, whereby all adult Chriſtians are obliged once a year to make an enumeration unto the Prieſt, of all the ſins they can remember which they have committed ſince their laſt confeſsion, that they may receive the abſolution of them. Only they ſpeak of ſinners, who being grieved in their conſcience with the ſenſe of their ſins, make their private addreſs unto their Paſtor, and confeſs unto him their ſins, that the Paſtor may bring the comforts, and apply the remedies which the word of God affordeth, announcing them the remiſsion of their ſins through Jeſus Chriſt. Theſe private confeſsions were voluntarily done by ſinners, without any obligation by Eccleſiaſtical Laws. The ſinner repreſented to his Paſtor ſome ſin that ſtung him moſt, but made not an exact enumeration of all the evil deſires, words and actions of the whole year, with the circumſtances of time, place and perſons, as every man is required to do in the Roman Church. And if the ſin was ſuch, that it deſerved or needed publick repentance, as publick ſcandals, then the Paſtor diſpoſed the ſinner to publick penance, which is called by the Fathers, a ſecond plank after Shipwrack, and a ſecond cure after Baptiſm. That penance, according to the judgement of(*)(*)Tertul. lib. de Poenit. c. 4, 5, & 9. Tertullian and(e)(e)Ambroſ. lib. de Poenit. c. 10. Ambroſe, might not be done above once in a mans life; making thereby man more merciful then God, who will have us to pardon our brethren, not ſeven times only, but ſeventy times ſeven, that is, infinite times.

The ſame I ſay of the teſtimonies of Fathers, which the Cardinal brings after, to ſhew that even for ſecret ſins they required a publick acknowledgement. What is that againſt us who do not contradict that? Knowing that there are ſome hidden ſins ſo horrible, that no penance can be too ſevere or too publick to humble the ſinner.

Truly in that point we differ not from the antient Church, but that the degrees of publick penance, preſcribed by the antient Canons, are not practiſed among us, no more then in the Church of Rome, where they are altogether aboliſhed. But inſtead of them, the Pope hath laid a heavier yoak upon the conſciences, and eſtabliſhed a politick tyrannie upon them, of which we ſhall hereafter ſpeak.

p. 528CHAP. 3. Of the Penitentiary Prieſt aboliſhed by Nectarius. How Cardinal du Perron altereth and corrupteth that hiſtory. How he diſguiſeth and concealeth the Doctrine of Chryſoſtom about Confeſsion.

VNderUnder Theodoſius the great, about the year 388. of Chriſt, a memorable thing to this purpoſe happened at Conſtantinople. The Emperour Decius in the year 250. had raiſed a hard perſecution againſt the Chriſtians, which perſecution made many to bow, and to deny the Chriſtian profeſsion, to ſave their lives. The perſecution being over, they deſired to be received to repentance, and ſought to make their peace with the Church, which was not denyed them. But an African Biſhop called Novatus, and a Roman Prieſt called Novatianus, made a ſchiſm upon this, ſaying, that ſuch perſons ought not to be received to repentance, and they would not communicate with them; but ſeparating themſelves from the Church, carried away great numbers with them, who made a Sect apart. For which cauſe, the Orthodox Biſhops, being loath to fright the people, and ſcandalize the Church by a multitude of penitents, brought to publick penance, eſtabliſhed in every Church a Penitentiary Prieſt to hear ſecretly the Confeſsions of thoſe Chriſtians faln to idolatry, and ſeeking their reconciliation. That order being eſtabliſhed at the firſt, only for thoſe that were faln to idolatry, was ſoon after uſed for all ſorts of penitent ſinners. For before that time, the cuſtom had been to receive, no otherwiſe, ſinners to the communion, but after a publick confeſsion of their ſin. But when the Penitentiary Prieſts were once eſtabliſhed, many being aſhamed to be made publick examples, began to addreſs themſelves to that Penitentiary Prieſt, who having heard their confeſsion, diſpenſed them from the publick confeſſion, if he judged the ſin to be of that nature that the ſinner might be diſpenſed from it, without doing harm to himſelf, or giving ſcandal unto the Church. But in the time of the Emperour Theodoſius, Nectarius being Patriarch of Conſtantinople, ſuch an accident happened at Conſtantinople, as cauſed the aboliſhing of that office. It is related by Socrates, in the nineteenth Chapter of the fifth Book of his Hiſtory, in theſe words. A noble woman came to the Penitentiary Prieſt, and confeſſed unto him part of the ſins ſhe had committed ſince her Baptiſm: Ʋpon which the Prieſt enjoyned her to faſt and pray with aſsiduity, that with the Confeſsion ſhe might ſhew works worthy of repentance. But the woman going further, accuſed her ſelf of another ſin, and confeſſed that the Deacon of the Church had lyen with her. Which being declared, was the cauſe that the Deacon was depoſed from the Office which he had in the Church; and the multitude was ſtirred, being angry not only for that deed, but alſo for the ſcandal and diſgrace which that action had caſt upon the Church. And Eccleſiaſtical perſons being upon that occaſion reproached and reviled, a Prieſt called Eudemon born in Alexandria, gave counſel to Nectarius to aboliſh the Penitentiary Prieſt, and to permit every one to be partaker of the holy myſteries, according to the dictate of his own conſcience: Becauſe that was the only way to exempt the Church from ſcandal. I did the more boldly write this relation, becauſe I have it from Eudemon himſelf.

Sozomenus relates the ſame hiſtory in chap. 16. of the ſeventh book, where he ſaith, that Biſhops judging the cuſtom of confeſsing ſins publikely, as upon a ſtage, to be too ſevere, appointed in every Church a Prieſt of good life,(f)(f)foreign. diſcreet, and no babler, to hear ſinners, and to enjoyn them what ſatisfaction they were to make in private; and he ſaith, that the ſame cuſtom was ſtill in the Roman Church in his time: Of which he deſcribes the publick penances, the tears, the faſts, and the form of reconciling the penitent. But of all that diſcipline, no trace now remains in the Church of Rome. Sozomenus ſaith further, that Nectarius aboliſhed that Office of Penitentiary Prieſt in the Eaſt, and that he left to every perſons conſcience to participate the Sacred myſteries, as he ſhould find himſelf p. 529diſpoſed; whereupon the Author complains that the rigour of the diſcipline which already was relenting, grew thereby more looſe and ſlack. Which we muſt not underſtand, as if at Conſtantinople and in the Eaſt publick confeſſions had been aboliſhtby Nectarius, but only that they became leſs frequent when it was left to the liberty of ſinners whoſe faults were not known, to receive the holy Communion without making any other confeſſion, penance, or ſatisfaction, but ſuch as they judged themſelves in their own conſcience to be bound to do.

This hiſtory being clear and eaſie to be underſtood,In the third chapter of the ſecond Obſervation, pag. 647. Cardinal du Perron doth ſo ſtrangely confound and diſguiſe it, that one would ſay that he underſtood it not. He ſaith that the Penitentiary Prieſt charged that woman to confeſs her faults in the publick audience of the Church, and that ſhe confeſſing her faults publickly, went beyond that which the Penitentiary Prieſt had enjoyned her, declaring in the face of the Church, the ſin ſhe had committed with the Deacon. A thing of which neither Socrates nor Sozomenus make any mention, and ſay not that the Penitentiary had enjoyned her any confeſſion in publick, or forbidden her to declare in her publick confeſſion the heavieſt ſin of all. Wherefore it is with good reaſon that the Jeſuite Petavius in his Notes upon Epiphanius, diſputes againſt the Cardinals opinion, and maintains that it was apart and in ſecret that this woman confeſſed the crime to the Penitentiary Prieſt, not in publick.

Alſo the Cardinal being not able to concoct the words of Socrates and Sozomenus, that it was put to every mans conſcience to preſent himſelf to the Communion according to the dictate of every mans conſcience, by this word every man, underſtands the publick penitents, whereas it ſignifieth every perſon that feels his conſcience preſt with ſome ſin. Again, he underſtands theſe words, as if Socrates and Sozomenus had ſaid that Nectarius permitted every one to preſent himſelf to the Communion as his own conſcience ſhould indite him, after every one had undertaken the penance, not before they had undertaken it: And that the words mean, that after men had embarked themſelves in the courſe of the ſolemn penance, it was left to their conſcience to judge when they had ſufficiently performed it. That indeed is altogether falſe & impoſſible. For not only before Nectarius, but ſince alſo, ſeveral Councils have regulated publick penances, and preſcribed unto every ſin deſerving publick penance, the prefixed time how long one ſhould ſtay upon every degree of penance. How ridiculous would have been the Canons of Councils made ſince Nectarius which preſcribe that the murtherer or the adulterer be ſo many years performing his penance, if it had been lawfull to him after he had one day begun his penance, to let it fall and end the next day? and to communicate when he would, with the Communion of the holy Sacrament? Certainly the Cardinal hath here taken his meaſures amiſs, and quite miſtaken the hiſtory.

To this Nectarius ſucceeded in the Biſhoprick of Conſtantinople, John a Prieſt of Antioch ſurnamed Chryſoſtomus or golden mouth, becauſe of his eloquence. He did not content himſelf to continue the ſuppreſſion of the office of the Penitentiary Prieſt, who kept the depoſitum of all the ſecret confeſſions, but beſides he diſſwaded his hearers in his Sermons to confeſs themſelves to any man, ſaying, that it was enough for them to confeſs themſelves to God alone.

In the fifth Homily of the nature of the incomprehenſible God, he ſpeaks thus,(g)(g)foreign. For this cauſe I exhort, and beſeech, and require you, that you confeſs your ſins unto God continually. For I do not bring thee forth into a ſtage of thy fellow-ſervants, I conſtrain thee not to diſcover thy ſins unto men. Ʋncover thy conſcience before God, and ſhew him thy wounds, and ask him remedies. Shew thy ſins to him that upbraideth not, ſince although thou ſhouldſt hold thy peace, he knoweth all things.

And in the one and thirtieth Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, p. 530(h)(h)foreign, &c. foreign.He that repents muſt not diſcover his ſin [unto men] but let him pray to God that he may not remember it. And a little after, I ſay not to thee, that thou ſet forth thy ſins publickly, nor that thou accuſe thy ſelf. But obey the Prophet that ſaith, Lay open thy way unto the Lord. Confeſs them unto God. Confeſs thy ſins to thy Judge, praying, if not with thy tongue, yet with thy thought, and ſo obtain mercy.

The ſame upon Pſal. 50.(i)(i)foreign.Edit. Frontonis pag. 1004. Art thou aſhamed to ſay that thou haſt ſinned? ſay that to him every day in thy prayer. What? Do I ſay thee, that thou ſhouldſt ſay it to thy fellow ſervant that upbraideth thee? Say it to God that brings remedy to it. For though thou do not ſay it, yet God takes notice of it.

The ſame Father in the fourth Homily upon the parable of Lazarus (for he calls it alwayes a parable) ſpeaks thus,(k)(k)foreign, &c. foreign. Tell me why thou art aſhamed, or why doſt thou bluſh to declare thy ſins? For doſt thou confeſs them to a man that he may upbraid thee with them? or to thy follow ſervant, that he may ſet them forth? To thy Maſter, to the tender, to the gracious, to the Phyſitian, thou diſcovereſt them. For doth he not know them though thou ſay nothing of them to him, he that knew them even before thou didſt them?

And a little after, he perſonates God ſpeaking thus to the ſinner, I conſtrain thee not to come to the midſt of a ſtage, nor to have many witneſſes about thee. Say thy ſin unto me alone privately, that I may heal thy wound.

And in the twenty eighth homily to the people of Antioch, (l)(l)foreign. Edit. Savil. p. 608.God doth not conſtrain us to declare our ſins publickly, but commands us to make our apologies to him alone, and our confeſſions to him alone.

And in an other place,(m)(m)Chryſoſt. Hom. de Poenitentia & Confeſſione, Tomo 5. Edit. Latinae Colum. 901. Edit. Baſil. an. 1558. Let that judgement be made without witneſſes. Let none but God ſee thy confeſſion. Upon which the Jeſuite Petavius in his notes upon Epiphanius pag. 244. chideth Chryſoſtom with an unbeſeeming bitterneſs.

The Cardinal(n)(n)Chap. 3. of the ſecond Obſervation pag. 648. ſpeaking ſuperficially of Chryſoſtom, takes no notice of theſe places, by which it is evident that not only Chryſoſtom did not require a publick confeſſion from ſinners, but that he did not ſo much as oblige his people to any particular confeſſion, and that therefore his advice was contrary to that of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, (o)(o)Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 14. Can. 6. Si quis negaverit confeſſionem Sacramentalem vel inſtitutam vel ad ſalutem neceſſiariam jure divino, &c. Anathema ſit. Et Can. 7. Si quis dixerit in Sacramento poenitentiae ad remiſſionem peccatorum neceſſarium non eſſe jure divino confiteri omnia & ſingula peccata mortalia quorum memoria cum debita & diligenti praemeditatione habeatur, etiam occulta & quae ſunt contra duo ultima praecèpta Decalogi, & circumſtantias quae peccati ſpeciem mutant, &c. anathema ſit.who in the fourteenth Seſſion anathematize them that ſay, that to have remiſſion of ſins, it is not neceſſary by divine right to confeſs in the Sacrament of penitence, all ones mortal ſins that can be remembred, and all the circumſtances that alter the nature of the ſin; and that the confeſſion of the Church, which is called auricular, is not inſtituted by God, and is not neceſſary to ſalvation, by divine right. For that holy Doctor, who was verſed in Scripture as much as the Fathers of Trent, or more, did not find in it that Law which obligeth every one, before he do his Eaſter-devotions, to confeſs all his mortal ſins unto a Prieſt, and all the circumſtances of ſin, upon pain of damnation.

All that the Cardinal anſwereth to theſe teſtimonies of Chryſoſtom is this, that Chryſoſtom taught, that it was enough for a man to confeſs unto God, that is, in reſpect of the ſatisfactory, not of the judiciary confeſſion.

p. 531By the judiciary confeſſion he underſtands that which is made unto the Prieſt: By the ſatisfactory, that which is done in publick. Whence the abſurdity of that Diſtinction is made evident: For neither the private, nor the publick cenfeſſion can be called judiciary, ſeeing that it is not the action of a Judge, but that of a ſinner appearing as guilty. Wherefore the Council of Trent acknowledgeth no other judiciary action in the Sacrament of Penitence, but the abſolution, calling it(p)(p)Conc. Trid. Seſſ. 14. cap. 6. Sed ad inſtar. actus judicialis quo ab ipſo velut à judice ſententia pronunciatur. a judiciary act whereby the ſentence is pronounced by the Prieſt, as by a Judge. Beſides Chryſoſtom in the forealleadged places doth expreſly diſſwade confeſſion in that reſpect of confeſſing to a man as to a Judge, and will have it made unto God alone, becauſe unto him it belongeth to be Judge. As in the one and thirtieth Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Confeſs thy ſins unto God, Confeſs them to thy Judge. And the words of that Father take away all diſtinction, when he perſonates God ſpeaking thus, Tell thy ſin unto me privately. And Let none ſee thy confeſſion but God.

Wherefore the Cardinal hath cut off theſe laſt words, and clipt Chryſoſtoms tongue. But he alleadgeth other words of his out of the thirtieth Sermon to the people of Antiochia, It is enough for thee to confeſs to God alone, not to thy fellow ſervant that upbraideth thee with it. Again, I do not conſtrain thee to come up upon a ſtage before a great multitude of witneſſes. But he ſuppreſſeth the following words,(q)(q)foreign. It is againſt me that ſin is committed; Say it unto me alone in private.

Chryſoſtom was not alone of that opinion. Auſtin in the tenth book of Confeſſions, chap. 3. ſpeaks thus,(r)(r)Quid mihi ergo eſt cum hominibus ut audiant confeſſiones meas quaſi ipſi ſanaturi ſint omnes languores meos? What have I to do that men hear my confeſſions, as if they ought to heal all my diſeaſes.

And Hilary upon Pſalm 51.(ſ)(ſ)Confeſſionis cauſam addidit dicens, Quia feciſti authorem univerſitatis hujus Dominum eſſe confeſſus, nulli alii docens confitendum quam qui fecit olivam, &c. David gives a reaſon of his confeſſion, ſaying, becauſe thou haſt done it, acknowledging that it was God, the Author of this Ʋniverſe, teaching that we muſt confeſs to none elſe.

Caſſian in the twentieth Collation, chapter 8.(t)(t)Quod ſi verecundia retrahente revelare ea hominibus erubeſcis, illi quem latere non poſſunt confiteri ea jugi ſupplicatoine non deſinas. If being kept back by baſhfulneſs thou art aſhamed to reveal thy ſins unto men, ceaſe not to confeſs them by continual prayers unto him to whom they cannot be hidden.

The Canon Petrus, (u)(u)Dict 1. Can Petrus, Lachrymas Petri lego, ſatisfactionem non lego.in the firſt diſtinction of penitence, alleadgeth theſe words of Ambroſe, I read that Peter wept, but I read not that he made ſatisfaction. And the following Canon ſaith**Lachrymae lavant delictum quod pudor eſt confiteri. Tears waſh away the ſin which a man is aſhamed to confeſs. The Gloſs of thoſe Canons ſaith(x)(x)Ibid. Gloſſa. Fortè tunc non erat facta conſtitutio confeſſionis quomodo eſt. Perhaps in thoſe dayes the cuſtom of confeſſion as it is now, was not yet inſtituted. (y)(y)Ibid. Gloſſa, Lachrymae interiores, id eſt, in quo habet tantam erubeſcentiam ut ad lachrymas veniat occultè etiam non coram ſacerdote.The Gloſs addeth, Theſe tears are inward, that is, he is ſo aſhamed that he weeps in ſecret, not before the Prieſt.

Yet the Cardinal to prove that Chryſoſtom approved auricular confeſſion, ſaith that it hath perſevered and perſevereth ſtill in the Church of Conſtantinople. If it were ſo, he would have brought us a cloud of witneſſes. But he brings none but the laſt Canon of the ſixth Council of Conſtantinople, which ſaith, that they that have received of God the power of binding and looſing muſt conſider the quality of the ſin. But he is miſtaken, if he think that in that Canon auricular confeſſions are meant. The Canon ſpeaks of the abſolutions of thoſe that did publick penance, for the publick penances, and the diverſe degrees of penance were ſtill obſerved at Conſtantinople at that time, as it may be ſeen in the eighty eighth Canon of the ſame Council whereby the antient Canon is confirmed, made againſt thoſe that forſake their lawfull wives. That(z)(z)foreign. ſuch men be Weepers a year, Hearers two years, Proſtrate three years, and the ſeventh year be Fellow-ſtanders with the faithful, and then be admitted to the oblation. For Nectarius had not aboliſht the penitents and publick confeſſions, but in ſuch faults as were not publick, he had taken away the neceſſity of ſubmitting ones ſelf to that publick confeſſion, and had left it to every mans conſcience. The ſame I ſay of the Nomocanon of the Grecians which the Cardinal alleadgeth, but produceth not, p. 532where auricular confeſſion is neither mentioned nor underſtood. Likewiſe that teſtimony is falſe, which he brings from the Patriarch Jeremy in his anſwer to the German Doctors, chap. 11. The Cardinal ſaith, that the German Proteſtants had ſaid, That auricular confeſſion is not neceſſary for penitence, and that Penitence is not a Sacrament; but that the Patriarch Jeremy doth cenſure them for theſe two aſſertions. But rather theſe are two untruths of the Cardinal. For I find not that in any of the three Treatiſes of theſe Germans, they do ſo much as ſpeak of auricular confeſſion, or that they deny that Penitence is a Sacrament, whence it followeth, that the Cardinal falſly affirmeth that the Patriarch Jeremy doth cenſure them about theſe two points. I find only that theſe Germans ſay, that(a)(a)Pag. 12. private Confeſſion ought to be retained in Churches, although it be not neceſſary in the Confeſſion to make an enumeration of all our ſins. That is no otherwiſe contradicted by the Patriarch Jeremy, but that he maintaineth that(b)(b)Pag. 87. ſinners ought to confeſs all their ſins as far as they are able. Upon that only he inſiſteth, and I wonder how the(c)(c)He cites in the 651. page the fourteenth Epiſtle of the fourth book in the ſecond new Edition. Cardinal dares thus forge things that are not.(d)(d)In the fifth chapter of his ſecond Obſervation. He uſeth the like falſe dealing with Cyprian, whom he makes to ſay, That penitence is done by a ſet time, and the confeſſion whereby the life of him that doth penance is diſcovered. And [Penitents] cannot come to the communion unleſs hands be laid on them by the Prieſt or the Clergy. He hath taken away the word Biſhop, and put or inſtead of and, becauſe theſe words ſhew that Cyprian ſpeaks of publick penitence and confeſſion, in which the Biſhop, not the Prieſt did reconcile the penitents, and which only was uſed in the firſt ages of the Church. As Beatus Rhoenanus acknowledgeth in the argument of Tertullians book of penitence,(e)(e)Ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clancularia iſta admiſſorum confeſſione nihil locutum, &c. Nec enim uſquam praeceptam olim legimus. Let none wonder that Tertullian ſaid nothing of the ſecret confeſſion of ſins, &c. For we read not that in old time it was commanded in any place.

The Council of Cabillonum (now Chalons upon Saone) held in the year eight hundred and thirteen in the thirty third chapter, ſpeaks of that ſecret confeſſion, as of a point not yet agreed upon,(f)(f)Concil. Cabillonenſ. Quidam ſolum modo Deo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidam, vero Sacerdotibus confitenda eſſe percenſent. Some ſay that ſins ought to be confeſt unto God alone, others ſay that we muſt confeſs them unto the Prieſts alſo. The judgement of the Council is, that both are done with fruit.

Yet in Lombards time, who writ about the year 1160. of Chriſt, auricular confeſſion was not yet held neceſſary, many holding that it was enough to confeſs ſins unto God alone, without any confeſſion to the Prieſt. For theſe are his words;(g)(g)Lombard. Sentent l. 4. Diſt. 17. litera C. Quibuſdam viſum eſt ſufficere, ſi ſoli Deo confeſſio fiat ſine judicio ſacerdotali & confeſſione Eccleſiae; quia dixit David, Dixi confitebor Domino, &c. Non ait ſacerdoti & tamen remiſſum ſibi peccatum dicit, &c. Some are of opinion, that it is enough to confeſs unto God alone without the Prieſts judgement, and the confeſſion of the Church; becauſe David ſaid, I ſaid I will confeſs unto the Lord. &c. He ſaith not unto the Prieſt, & yet he ſaith that his ſin was forgiven him, &c. He had ſaid before.(h)(h)Litera A. In his enim docti diverſa ſentire inveniuntur. Ʋpon that the Learned are found to be different in opinion, becauſe upon theſe things the Doctors ſeem to have taught diverſe, and welnigh contrary things.

In the ſame time Gratian writ, who in the firſt Diſtinction of Penitence, after he hath repreſented the diverſity of opinions about the neceſſity of the confeſſion made unto the Prieſt, concludeth thus,(i)(i)Diſt. 1. de Poenit. c. 89. Quamvis: Quibus authoritatibus vel quibus rationum firmamentis utraque ſententia initatur, in medium breviter expoſuimus. Cui autem harum potius adhaerendum ſit, lectoris judicio reſervatur. We have briefly declared upon what authorities, and upon what reaſons both the one and the other opinion is grounded. But which of theſe two opinions one ſhould rather adhere unto, it is left to the Readers judgement, for both are maintained by wiſe and religious perſons. Upon which the Jeſuite Gregory de Valentia, in the third chapter of the neceſſity of Confeſſion, ſeverely rebuketh Gratian, as having erred as well in that point, as in many others. Yet, next to the Councils approved by the Pope and the Decretals of the Roman Church, there is nothing more authentical then the Decree of Gratian.

But ſhortly after came the Council of Lateran under Innocent the third, held in the year 1225. which hath decided that difference, and hath laid an abſolute p. 533neceſſity, by expreſs command upon all to make a ſecret Confeſſion unto the Prieſt, upon pain of excommunication all their life time, and of being deprived of burial among Chriſtians after their death.(k)(k)Concil. Later. c. 21. Omnis utriuſ que ſexus fidelis, poſtquam ad annos diſcretionis pervenerit, omnia ſua ſolus peccata confiteatur fideliter, ſaltem ſemel in anno, proprio ſacerdoti, &c. Alioqui vivens ab ingreſſu Eccleſiae arceatur, & moriens Chriſtiana careat ſepultura. Let every faithful perſon, (ſaith that Council) both of the one and the other ſex, when he is come to years of diſcretion, confeſs all his ſins alone faithfully to his own Prieſt, at leaſt once in the year; and let him endeavour to fulfill with all his power, the penance that ſhall be laid upon him, at leaſt when he ſhall reverently receive the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, &c. Otherwiſe let him be forbidden the entry of the Church all his life, and when he dyeth, let him be denyed Chriſtian burial. Theſe four things we owe to that venerable Council. 1. That it was the firſt that eſtabliſhed the Word of Tranſubſtantiation by an Article of Council. 2. That it gave power to the Pope to give and take away Kingdoms. 3. That it put an abſolute neceſſity upon Auricular Confeſſion. 4. And that in it the Pope promiſed to the Pilgrims of Syria a degree of glory in Paradiſe above the common ſort.

CHAP. 4. Why Cardinal du Perron contradicteth the Councils of Trent and Florence, making Confeſsion not to be part of the Sacrament of Penitence. That Penitence cannot be called a Sacrament.

OUr Adverſaries hold that the Univerſal Councils approved by the Pope cannot err. This goeth for a prime principle and a fundamental maxime of the Church of Rome. If any thing hath been concluded in the Univerſal Councils which the Pope approveth not, it is not received. Now the Popes approbation comes only after the Council is done. Whence it follows, that the Council could err while it ſate, becauſe the Pope had not yet approved it: But when it ſits no more it cannot err, and becomes infallible when it is diſſolved. Which is ſpeaking againſt common ſenſe.

Nevertheleſs, although oppoſing that maxime be juſtling againſt the foundation of Papacy, yet Cardinal du Perron made bold to contradict the Council of Trent, which is approved by ſo many Popes. That Council in the fourteenth Seſsion, makes an enumeration of the parts of the Sacrament of penance. The title of the Chapter is, De partibus & fructu hujus Sacramenti: Of the parts and uſe of this Sacrament. Theſe parts according to the definition of the Council are two, the form and the matter: The form conſiſting in the abſolution, the matter conſiſting in contrition, confeſſion, and ſatisfaction. The Catechiſm of the Council ſpeaks yet more clearly in the chapter of the Sacrament of Penitence. For after they had ſaid,(a)(a)In corde ejus contritio, in ore confeſſio, in opere tota humilitas vel fructifera ſatiſfactio. Hae autem partes ex earum partium genere eſſe dicuntur, quae ad aliquod totum conſtituendum neceſſariae ſunt. Contrition is in the heart of the penitent, confeſsion in the mouth, humility or fruitful ſatisfaction in the work. They add; Now theſe parts are of that kind of parts which are neceſſary to compound a whole. And a little after, Let us come now to confeſsion, which is the ſecond part of penitence. In the end of the Council of Florence, there is a Decree directed to the Armenians, where the Pope determineth that(b)(b)Quartum Sacramentum eſt Poenitentia, cujus quaſi materia ſunt actus Poenitentis, qui in tres diſtinguuntur partes; Quarum prima eſt cordis contriti…, &c. Penitence is a Sacrament whoſe matter hath three parts, Contrition, Confeſsion, and Satisfaction.

But Cardinal du Perron, in the third Chapter of the ſecond Obſervation, made no difficulty to oppoſe theſe Councils and Popes, teaching that Confeſsion is only a condition both neceſſary and eſſential unto the Sacrament, namely to the Penitential Abſolution, which he ſaith to be a true Sacrament. He makes the Sacrament to conſiſt in the Abſolution alone, and as for the Confeſsion, he will have it only a neceſſary and eſſential condition, which may alſo be ſaid of faith, and of the knowledge of God, and of his love, which are neceſſary and eſſential conditions, becauſe without theſe things there can be no true contrition, nor true penitence. p. 534Truly, whoſoever ſaith, that Confeſsion is only a condition of the Sacrament, denyeth it to be a part of the ſame. That man ſhould be very ignorant that would call the body or the ſoul conditions of man, or the foundation and the walls the conditions of a houſe.

Which I ſay, not to correct the Cardinal, but to commend his prudence, for acknowledging that neither contrition, nor confeſsion, nor ſatisfaction can be Sacraments, or parts of a Sacrament. For Sacraments, both for the matter and the form, are adminiſtred by the Paſtors, not by the people: Now theſe three things are done by the Penitent, not by the Prieſt. And yet the Prieſt muſt gueſs or preſuppoſe the ſinners contrition, and preſume that his confeſsion is true, not hypocritical, for if it be falſe it ſhall be no part of this Sacrament, it being very unlikely that lyes can be part of a Sacrament. Thus that Sacrament is a preſumptive Sacrament; and the Prieſt knoweth not whether it be a Sacrament, but by conjecture only. Beſides, contrition being either a vertue, or an affection of the ſpirit, or a ſorrow, there is nothing more remote from right reaſon, then to make a vertue or ſorrow part of a Sacrament. As if one made repentance or faith part of the holy Communion. And our Adverſaries ſay, that a Sacrament is a viſible ſign of an inviſible grace. Now contrition is not a viſible ſign, ſeeing that it is hid in every mans heart.

By the ſame reaſon Confeſſion cannot be part of a Sacrament, for it ſerveth not to ſignifie grace, but to ask for it: It is not a ſignification of Grace, but of ſin. And ſome Abſolutions are given without ſatisfaction, ſo that ſatisfaction is neither part of the Sacrament, nor a neceſſary condition to it. There are alſo ſome ſatisfactions of many years impoſed upon ſinners, and ſatisfactions with many pauſes and intervalls, whereby the celebration and adminiſtration of a Sacrament ſhall laſt many years. All that being a Chaos of abſurdities, it is not without reaſon that M. du Perron oppoſeth in that point both Popes and Councils.

Perhaps alſo, he conſidered that in holy Scripture no Sacrament is found made up of ſuch pieces, nor any text where ſatisfaction is enjoyned after confeſſion and Sacramental abſolution: Unleſs they think to find it in David, contrite and confeſſing his ſin, and making ſatisfaction by his humiliation, to whom Nathan announceth the remiſſion of his ſin. But our Adverſaries will not have that penitence of David to be a Sacrament; neither did Nathan lay any ſatisfactory pain upon him.

Yet the Cardinal did not ſee, that by avoiding an inconvenience, he caſt himſelf into another far worſe. For by giving the title of Sacrament to the Abſolution only, he ſtrips that pretended Sacrament naked, and leaveth nothing to it but the name: For Abſolution cannot be called a Sacrament, no more then the other three parts of Penitence: Seeing that the word Penitence is fit to repreſent the nature of contrition and confeſſion, but cannot be proper at all to abſolution. How can the name of Penitence fit Abſolution, ſeeing that in Abſolution there is no Penitence? Abſolution is no penitence, but an eaſe of the Penitent, and a plaiſter to his ſore. Theſe men give to the remedy the name of the ſickneſs; as if one would call Rhubard a Fever, and a Diuretick potion the Gravell. They ſpeak as if the Grace given by the King unto a Felon ſorry for his offence, were called ſorrow. If they ſay that Abſolution is called Penitence, becauſe it comes after penitence; by the ſame reaſon night may be called day, becauſe it comes after day. And yet Abſolution goeth before the penances which the Prieſt impoſeth, and which are not fulfilled but after the Abſolution.

Beſides (according to the rule of our Adverſaries, borrowed from Auſtin) in every Sacrament(c)(c)Auguſt. Tract. 80. in Joh. Accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum. the word muſt be joyned unto the Sacrament, that it may be made a Sacrament. Now in this abſolution there is no element: For words are no element, otherwiſe preaching alſo ſhall be an element. Unleſs we will believe Bellarmine, who to avoid that objection ſaith, that(d)(d)Bell. lib. 1. de poenit. c. 10. §. nam cum. Verbum autem ſignum corporale ac ſenſibile eſt. the word is a corporal ſign.

If theſe words, Abſolvo te, &c. are an element, in Baptiſm alſo theſe words, Baptizo te, are an element.

p. 535The Council of Trent puts the form of the Sacrament in the Abſolution; now in the Sacraments, the element is not the form of the Sacrament, but the matter.

The laying on of hands in the Abſolution can no more be an element, ſince it is an action; otherwiſe we ſhould ſay alſo, that the action of baptizing is an element. And Thomas proveth fully,Thom. 21. Opuſc. c. 4. that the impoſition of hands is not neceſſary in this Sacrament: But the principal reaſon againſt it, is, that elements and outward ſigns in Sacraments ought to be inſtituted by Chriſt; but Chriſt did not inſtitute that impoſition of hands, nor the words of the Abſolution neither. So here is a Sacrament, where no outward ſign can be produced, nor any element inſtituted by Chriſt.

It is very conſiderable, that the Council of Trent in the fourteenth Seſſion, and(*)(*)Pag. 642. Cardinal du Perron, find the inſtitution of this Sacrament of penance in theſe words of Chriſt to his Apoſtles after his reſurrection, John 20.22. Receive ye the holy Ghoſt, Whoſeſoever ſins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whoſeſoever ſins ye retain, they are retained; where it is not ſpoken of contrition, nor of confeſſion, nor of ſatisfaction. If they ſay that theſe things are requiſite to obtain abſolution, the ſame I will ſay of the knowledge of God, and of his love, and of faith in Chriſt, for without theſe things God granteth no pardon.

But that which is moſt to be noted, is, that theſe words in which the inſtitution of the Sacrament of penance is made to conſiſt, were ſaid by Chriſt after his reſurrection. Whence it follows, that this Sacrament was inſtituted ſince Chriſt roſe from the dead. This being once granted, it will follow, that not only under the Old Teſtament Penitence was no Sacrament, but alſo that Penitence preached by John the Baptiſt, and by Chriſt, and by his Apoſtles before Chriſts reſurrection, was no Sacrament. As for our part, we cannot be blamed if we be contented with the Penitence which John the Baptiſt and Chriſt and his Apoſtles preached before Chriſts reſurrection: For it is not likely that they preached another penitence after Chriſts reſurrection then before.

Obſerve alſo, that in this text Chriſt giveth power to his Apoſtles, as to preach the Goſpel, ſo to remit ſins to perſons not baptized, and to Pagans converted unto the Faith, who according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, were not capable to receive the Sacrament of Penitence.

This alſo is obſervable that of other Sacraments we have in holy Scripture, not only the inſtitution, but alſo the practiſe. But here they forge unto us an inſtitution of a Sacrament without practiſe, a Sacrament, the practiſe whereof is not found in the Word of God.

It is true that Saint Peter, Act. 2. ſaid to the Jews Repent, and according to the vulgar verſion, Agite Poenitentiam; and that the Spirit of God, Rev. 2.5. exhorteth the Epheſians to repent, or to do penitence. But that penitence cannot be the Sacrament of the Roman Church, becauſe that Sacrament is adminiſtred to every man privately, but theſe texts are exhortations unto a multitude, and give no abſolution: Then that Penitence which they make a Sacrament, is adminiſtred to Baptized perſons only, as Tertullian ſaith in the Book of Penitence, chap. 2.(e)(e)Praeire intinctionem Poenitentiae juſſit. The Lord commanded that Baptiſm ſhould go before Penitence. But theſe Jews to whom Saint Peter ſpeaketh, were not baptized.

Here is then a Sacrament compounded with four parts, whereof three are rejected by Cardinal du Perron, and the fourth hath nothing agreeing with the nature of a Sacrament. In a word, it is a Sacrament, of which neither the inſtitution nor the practiſe is found in the Word of God.

Yet to defend that imaginary Sacrament, the Cardinal brings two teſtimonies of Auſtin. The one ſaith,(f)(f)Aug. de Baptiſmo contra Donat. l. 5 c. 20. Si ad hoc valet quod dictum eſt in Evangelio, ut per peccatorem Sacramenta non celebrentur, quomodo exaudit homicidam deprecantem vel ſuper aquam Baptiſmi vel ſuper oleum vel ſuper Euchariſtiam vel ſuper caput eorum quibus manus imponitur? If out of this, that God heareth not ſinners, it follows that the Sacraments cannot be celebrated by a ſinner, how doth God hear a murtherer praying over the water of Baptiſm, or over the Euchariſt, or over the laying on of hands? And the ſame Father(g)(g)Aug. in Pſal. 146. Qui ſanat contritos corde & alligat contritiones illorum. Quae ſunt iſta alligamenta? Corporalia Sacramenta.Ps 146 expounding this text of Pſalm 146.3. He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds, ſaith, What are theſe p. 536ſwathes? The temporal Sacraments. I anſwer, that Auſtin by the impoſition of hands, underſtands that which is done in the Ordination of Eccleſiaſtical perſons, which impoſition is done with prayers; and God hears thoſe prayers, although he that conferreth the Ordination be a murtherer. And as for thoſe temporal or corporal Sacraments, who told the Cardinal that by them Auſtin underſtands rather the Sacrament of Penitence, then that of Baptiſm and the Lords Supper? For God by them ſwatheth wounds, and blotteth out ſins, and healeth conſciences wounded with the ſenſe of their ſin. And Auſtin juſtifieth that expoſition, adding,(h)(h)Quicquid in Eccleſia geritur temporaliter, alligamenta ſunt contritionum. All that is done temporally in the Church, is ſwathing of bruiſes. But though I ſhould grant that Auſtin calls Penitence a Sacrament, who knows not that it is ordinary with the Fathers to call every myſterie and every ſacred thing a Sacrament? They call the Ark of the Flood a Sacrament, and Chriſts Incarnation, and Trinity, and Redemption, Sacraments. And ſo the vulgar Bible calls the Doctrine of Piety a Sacrament, 1 Tim. 3.16. And the will of God revealed in his Word, and the benefit of Chriſt, and the myſtical union of Chriſt with the Church are called Sacraments, Epheſ. 1.9. & 3.3. & 5.32. And the myſterie of the ſeven Stars, Rev. 1.20. and of the great harlot, Rev. 17.7. are in the ſame verſion called Sacraments.

But when it is queſtioned of ſpeaking of the ſacred ſigns of Gods Covenant which Chriſt hath inſtituted to be adminiſtred in his Church, Auſtin makes them but two, as in the third Book of Chriſtian doctrine, chap. 9.(i)(i)Hoc tempore poſtquam reſurrectione Domini noſtri manifeſtiſſimum indicium noſtrae libertatis illuxit, ne eorum quidem ſignorum quae jam intelligimus operatione gravi onerati ſumus; ſed quaedam pauca pro multis eademque factu facillima, & intellectu auguſtiſſima, & obſervatione caſtiſſima ipſe Dominus & Apoſtolica tradidit diſciplina, ſicuti eſt Baptiſmi Sacramentum, & celebratio corporis & ſanguinis Domini. In this time, after that a moſt evident ſign of our liberty hath appeared by the reſurrection of the Lord, we are not charged with the painful exerciſe of ſigns, not ſo much as of thoſe which we underſtand. But the Lord, and the diſcipline of the Apoſtles, have given us a few ſigns inſtead of many, and thoſe moſt eaſie to do, and whoſe intelligence is moſt venerable, and the obſervation moſt chaſt; ſuch as is the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.

Tertullian made a book of Penitence, where he treateth of the publick ſatiſfactions which the Penitents made in the Church, and of their publick Reconciliation and Abſolution; but he never calls Penitence nor Abſolution a Sacrament. Yea in the laſt Chapter he brings for an example of Penitence King Nebuchadnezzar, in whoſe time according to our Adverſaries doctrine, that Sacrament was not yet inſtituted.

I find indeed in the Word of God, that Baptiſm is called(k)(k)Mark 1.4. John preached the Baptiſm of repentance.Mark 1:4 the Baptiſm of Penitence or Repentance. No other Sacrament of Penitence do I find in Scripture. I find alſo that repentance or penitence is often recommended in the Word of God. But that penitence is not a Sacrament, but a vertue: As for the power of remitting or retaining ſins, wherein they make the form of this Sacrament to conſiſt, we ſhall ſpeak of it hereafter. Only I cannot forgive(l)(l)p. 642. a childiſh ignorance in Philoſophie unto the Cardinal, when he ſaith that as one relative preſuppoſeth another, ſo the judiciary abſolution preſuppoſeth the revelation of ſins, which cannot be made but with confeſsion. He makes abſolution and confeſſion relative, which yet have no relation: For there may be a confeſſion without abſolution, and abſolution without confeſſion. It is falſe alſo that a relative preſuppoſeth another, for relatives are together by nature. One relative affirmeth another, but doth not preſuppoſe it. That which is preſuppoſed goeth before both in order and nature.

p. 537CHAP. 5. What we find amiſs in the Auricular Confeſsion of the Roman Church.

IT is ordinary with our Adverſaries, when we find ſomething amiſs in a doctrine or practice received in the Roman Church, to ſay that we take it quite away. But there is great difference between correcting and aboliſhing, between killing a man and dreſſing his wound. If we find fault with them for teaching that works are meritorious, thence they take occaſion to ſay, that we aboliſh good works, and hold them to be ſuperfluous. If we blame diſtinction of meats, and faſting with opinion of ſatisfaction, they inferr thence that we reject faſting altogether. Likewiſe becauſe we note many abuſes in Confeſſion, as it is practiſed in the Roman Church, they cry out that we reject Confeſſion utterly, and expatiate upon the praiſes of Confeſſion and proofs to maintain it.

By that I ſaid before, it is evident enough that we praiſe and approve the confeſſion of ſins, and hold it altogether neceſſary, and therefore that the Cardinal did in vain labour to prove unto us the neceſſity of the ſame. It was expected from him, that he ſhould clear the aſperſions laid upon Auricular Confeſſion, whereby it is made odious, not to us only, but to great part of the Roman Church: But he durſt not enter upon that matter, as being aſhamed of his Religion. We will make bold to enter upon it, and to give the reaſons why that Auricular or Sacramental Confeſſion is not practiſed in our Churches.

I. Firſt, Whereas we find our ſelves obliged by the Word of God, to confeſs our ſins unto him, and to our neighbours, and to the Paſtors that feed the flock; we find not every Chriſtian obliged by the Word of God to preſent himſelf (when he is come to years of diſcretion) at leaſt once a year unto his Parſon, and to confeſs unto him all his mortal ſins, with all the circumſtances that carry the nature of the ſin, as much as he can remember; or that a ſinner without that cannot obtain the remiſſion of his ſins. God in his Word did not lay that yoak upon the conſciences, neither is there any example of it found in Scripture. He never promiſed to pardon the ſinner upon that condition. If any diſcover all his ſins to his Paſtor, without retaining or concealing any thing, we blame him not for it, for it is a teſtimony that he is touched with a ſerious repentance: But God ſaith not, that without ſuch a punctual declaration unto the Prieſt, a ſinner cannot obtain pardon. Yea there be many things, the particulars whereof cannot be honeſtly related, and which are better expreſt in general. A vertuous and chaſt Paſtor will chuſe rather not to know them, then to foul his ears with them.

The Apoſtle exhorting the Corinthians to prepare themſelves worthily for the holy Communion, will have every one to prove his own ſelf, and examine his conſcience, but ſends him not to be examined by his Paſtor, and obligeth him not to a punctual confeſsion of his ſins in the Prieſts ear.

In vain do they reply that the Prieſt muſt know all the particulars and circumſtances of ſins that aggravate or diverſifie them, that being well informed of the quality of the fact, he may impoſe upon the ſinner a ſatisfaction proportionate unto the nature of the ſin. For theſe ſatisfactions are humane inventions. God gave not to the Miniſters of his Word the power of impoſing corporal or pecuniary puniſhments upon the ſinner, or to oblige him to the labour of a Pilgrimage, leaving his family or trade, or to bind him unto private faſts. It is a tyrannie brought in to eſtabliſh a temporal domination over the people, and more yet upon Kings and Princes, from whom the Pope by that means hath drawn great emoluments, and ſubjected their Crowns unto his See; ſo far as to cauſe them to be beaten and whipt, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.

II. The ſecond cauſe why we reject that abſolute neceſsity of particular Confeſsion of all the mortal ſins that the ſinner can remember, to obtain abſolution p. 538from them, is becauſe ſinners thereby are brought to great ſcruples and agonies, and engaged in a greater ſin. It being certain, that many would rather ſuffer all extremities, then confeſs all that ſin, of which they are conſcious to themſelves, and diſcover to any man the diſhonour of their houſe, or the crimes which being known would bring them to the gallows. And ſo they return from their Confeſſor with a belief that their ſins are not forgiven, becauſe they have not confeſt all.

III. And if it be ſo, that(a)(a)Catech. Trid. cap. de poenit. Sacram. Neque pecca torum veniam à Domino impetramus, niſi ea poenitentiae Sacramentum per poenitentiam deleat. none can obtain of God the remiſsion of his mortal ſins without that Sacramental Confeſsion, what will become of the confeſsing ſinner, if he forget ſome of them? If gaming, or multitude of buſineſſes hath put part of his actions out of his memory, Muſt thoſe ſins remain for ever without remiſsion? Is it not in deriſion that Tolet a Jeſuite and a Cardinal(b)(b)Tolet. de Inſtruct. Sacerd. l. 3. c. 15. Unde fit ut qui in villis & pagis confitentur non teneantur tam exacte ſcire omnia ſicut in civitalibus. Rurſus non tenentur Confeſſarii ſimplicium civium, ſicut mercatorum negotiatorum, judicum. Debet igitur ſcientia major eſſe pro poenitentium qualitate. will have the inhabitants of Cities to confeſs their ſins more exactly and particularly then Peaſants: And the Confeſſors that hear the ſimple people to be content with a lighter and leſs exact Confeſsion, then when they hear the Confeſsions of Judges and Merchants. For (ſaith he) the knowledge of ſins muſt be according to the quality of the perſons.

IV. I add in the fourth place, that the Council of Trent obliging not the ſinner with abſolute neceſsity to confeſs venial ſins, but mortal only, conſciences find themſelves very much perplexed upon that diſtinction: For, how can a ſimple man of the loweſt ſort diſcern venial ſins from mortal? He hath in his Hours the enumeration of the ſeven mortal ſins, among which idolatry is not comprehended, nor hereſie, nor treaſon, nor atheiſm; nor ſcorning, nor the life of a juggler or tumbler. Neither is reviling put in that liſt, although Saint Paul ſaith, 1 Cor. 6.10. that revilers ſhall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Nor the ordinary ill words that railing neighbours beſtow one upon another, as calling their brother a fool, of which Chriſt, Matth. 5.22. ſaith that whoſoever ſhall ſay to his brother thou fool, ſhall be in danger of hell fire. In that judgement of diſcerning mortal ſins from venial, if it be put to the conſcience of confeſsing ſinners, it may eaſily happen, that he that committed a mortal ſin, will flatter himſelf, and imagine that his ſin is venial. Truly, if it belong to any to define how many mortal ſins there be, it belongs not to men who are all guilty, but unto God who is the judge of ſins. It belongs not to Felons to preſcribe unto Judges what ſins they ought to puniſh with death. Seeing then that the Word of God defineth not what ſins are mortal and what ſins are venial, it belongs not to the Roman Church to define the number of them, and to give Laws unto God.

One thing makes that diſtinction harder between mortal and venial ſins, that by repentance mortal ſins become venial, that is pardonable, and by impenitence venial ſins become mortal, becauſe the ſinner perſevereth in them till death, and dying impenitent, is puniſhed with eternal death. And ſtill any ſin, whatſoever it be, makes the ſinner to fall from the perfection of this rule, Curſed be he that continueth not in all the words written in this Law to do them. Yea, I find by the rules of the Roman Church, that(c)(c)Emanuel Sa in verbo Abſolutio ab excommunicatione. Ab excommunicatione minori quam quis incurrit ob peccatum veniale. a man can be excommunicated for a venial ſin, that one may not think that a venial ſin is ſuch a light thing. So the poor ſimple people are put to an impoſsibility, when their Doctors bind them to diſcern venial ſins from mortal, ſince by the Laws of the Roman Church, the people are bound only to confeſs mortal ſins.

V. And ſince(d)(d)Synod. Trid. Seſſ. VII. Can. 2. Si quis dixerit in Miniſtris dum Sacramenta conficiunt & conferunt non requiri intentionem ſaltem conficiendi quod facit Eccleſia, Anathema ſit. by the Laws of the Council of Trent, the Sacraments are void and are not conferred, unleſs he that adminiſtreth them hath intention to conferr them, and that eſpecially concerning the Sacrament of Penitence, the ſame Council(e)(e)Et Seſſ. XIV. c. 6. Non debet poenitens adeo ſibi de ſua ipſius fide blandiri ut etiam ſi multa ipſi adſit contritio, aut ſacerdoti animus ſerio agendi & vere abſolvendi deſit, putet tamen ſe propter ſuam ſolum fidem verè & coram Deo eſſe abſolutum. Nec enim fides ſine poenitentia remiſſionem ullam praeſtaret. declareth that the ſinner, what faith or contrition ſoever he may have, ought not to perſwade himſelf that God hath pardoned him, unleſs the p. 539Prieſt who hath given him the abſolution, had intention ſo to do, ſeeing that (ſaith the Council) by Faith without Penitence (meaning the Sacrament of Penitence) one cannot have the remiſsion of ſins: how can a Penitent be certain of the Prieſts intention, without which the abſolution is void? Is not that doctrine injurious againſt God, ſeeing that it ſubjecteth God to a wicked mans intention? teaching that a prophane Prieſt whoſe mind is wandring abroad, can hinder the grace of God towards a ſinner that hath a ſerious repentance. True it is, that by faith without repentance one cannot get the remiſſion of ſins. But that God will not pardon without the Sacrament of Penitence, as the Council of Trent will have it, that is, without Auricular Confeſſion, and without the Prieſts abſolution, it is more then Scripture ſaith. It is a tyrannie and impiety which tyeth the Grace of God to the miniſtry of man; as if God could not pardon, unleſs the Prieſt put his hand to the work. For theſe cauſes and others(f)(f)Pelagius Alvarez de planctu Eccleſiae, l. 2. Art. 78. Vix aut rariſſimè aliquis talium confitetur, niſi per verba generalia & vix unquam aliquid grave specificant. Quod dicunt una die, dicunt & altera, ac ſi in omni die aequaliter offendant. Pelagius Alvarez, a famous Doctor among our Adverſaries, ſaith; that many in the Roman Church content themſelves with a general Confeſſion, without a particular ſpecification of ſins, and will not ſay their greater ſins; and confeſs themſelves alwayes much in the ſame manner, as if they had led alwayes the ſame kind of life, and ſinned alike every day.

VI. One of the main abuſes of Auricular Confeſſion, is that we ſee by the books of Confeſſions and of caſes of Conſcience, the multitude whereof is infinite, what that Law tends to, which obligeth ſinners to confeſs to the Prieſt all the circumſtances of mortal ſins which diverſifie the nature of ſin. For by this means, Confeſſors will ſearch into the ſecrets of the marriage bed, and enquire of things which ought not to be named: And under colour of examining the conſciences, they play with libidinous interrogations, and teach all kinds of vices, even the moſt horrible and extravagant. You ſhall find there a thouſand ſorts of charms, philters, vices againſt nature, and meretricious tricks, under colour of awaking benummed conſciences, and bringng them to confeſſion. Whoſo will learn ſome of that impure ſcience, let him read the book of Benedict's Confeſſions, Cardinal Tolet of the Inſtitution of Prieſts, Navarrus, Sanchez, the Roman Penitential, and the Decree of(g)(g)Burchard. lib. 39. ſic interrog. mulierem. Feciſti quod quaedam mulieres facere ſolent? Tollunt piſcem vivum & eum mittunt in puerperium ſuum, & tamdiu ibi detinent donec mortuus fuerit, & decocto piſce vel aſſato maritis ſuis ad comedendum tradunt. Ideo faciunt ut plus in amorem earum exardeſcant: ſi feciſti, duos annos per legitimas ferias poeniteas. Idem Ibid. Feciſti quod quaedam mulieres facer… ſolent? Proſternunt ſe in faciem, & diſcoopertis natibus jubent ut ſuper nudas nates conficiatur panis, & eo d…cocto tradunt maritis ſuis ad comedendum. Hoc faciunt ut plus in amorem earum exardeſcant. Si feciſti, duos annos per legitimas ferias poeniteas. Idem ibid. Concubuiſti cum u…ore tua vel cum alia aliqua retro canino more? Si feciſti, decem dies in pane & aqua poeniteas. Idem ibid. Concubuiſti cum uxore tua die Dominica? Quatuor dies in pane & aqua poenitere debes. Idem ibid. Feciſti fornicationem cum matre tua? &c. Idem ibid. Si cum maſculo inter co…as, &c Ibid. Feciſti fornicationem ut quidam facere ſolent? ita dico, ut tu in manum tuam veretrum alterius acciperes, & alter tuum in ſuam, &c. Ibid. Feciſti fornicationem in lignum perforatum? &c. Comediſti ſcabiem corporalem & pediculos? &c. Idem ibid. Feciſti quod quaedam mulieres facere ſolent, ut faceres quoddam molimen aut machinamentum in modum virilis membri ad menſuram tuae voluntatis? &c. Idem ibid. Feciſti quod quaedam mulieres facere ſolent; quando libidinem ſe vexantem extinguere volunt, quae conjungunt invicem puerperia ſua? &c. Si feciſti, tres quadragenas per legitimas ferias debes poenitere. Idem, Feciſti quod quaedam mulieres facere ſolent, ut ſuccumberes jumento? &c. Idem, Guſtâſti de ſemine viri tui? &c. Idem, Feciſti quod quaedam mulieres facere ſolent ut cum filiolo tuo parvulo fornicationem faceres, ita dico ut filium tuum ſupra turpitudinem tuam poneres? &c. Tolet de Inſtruct. Sacerd. lib. 5. c. 13. Peccatum eſt inordinatus concubitus, cum nempe foemina in copula eſt deſuper aut cum mas retro accedit vaſe non mutato. Hoc autem peccatum ex ſe non eſt mortale. Navarrus Conſiliorum, lib. 5. Conſil. 6. de Poenit. & remiſſ. peccatorum. Maritus qui antequam naturali in ſexu uxoris ſeminet prius membrum in vaſe non naturali ad delectationem citra animum ſodomiam complendi immittit, peccat peccatum tactus illiciti. Burchard Biſhop of Worms. I will not bring that ſink of odious ordure into the text of this Book, and will not tranſlate any part of it into our natural tongue. Only that I may not be thought to ſlander them, I have put ſome paſſages of their books in the margin, as ſcantlings of the whole pieces. Benedicti who made a great volume of the doctrine of Confeſsions, was not aſhamed to publiſh them in French, that women might learn that doctrine. The Jeſuite Sanchez hath made a great Book of Queſtions upon matrimony, with a wicked ſubtilty and an abominable curioſity. He diſputeth whether for lying with a woman over the roof of the Church, the Church be p. 540polluted▪ and whether it ought to be newly conſecrated, and many things far worſe, and not to be ſpoken. All that diſcipline could not be forged but upon Satans anvill. And I cannot conceal that ſome vertuous women of the Roman Church are come to me, declaring that they could live no longer in the Roman Church, being offended with the licentious and filthy interrogations made to them in Confeſſion.

To theſe Laws and Rules of interrogations the Doctors have added others for the Confeſſors themſelves, becauſe of the accidents and pollutions that happen to them, while they are confeſſing women; which Laws are to be ſeen(h)(h)Tolet. Inſtr. Sac. l. 5. cap. 13. Confeſſarius ſi forte dum audit confeſſiones, in tales incidit pollutiones, non ob id tenetur non audire alios, niſi ſit periculum complacentiae in pollutione, &c. in book 5. of Cardinal Tolets inſtruction of Prieſts.

VII. By the ſame Confeſſions Prieſts make themſelves formidable unto Kings, and Princes, and Princeſſes, whoſe ſecrets they diſcover by that means, and know their weakneſſes, and learn their intentions, of which they will be ſure to inform the Pope. Scire volunt ſecreta domus atque inde timeri. Did not that Spaniſh Confeſſor underſtand himſelf, who hearing the King confeſſing his ſins on his knees, ſaid that ſuch a man is not to be deſpiſed who hath God in his hands, and a King at his feet?

VIII. The tumults of the League which brought France into a wofull condition in the time of two Kings, Henry the third, and Henry the fourth, have made the world to know what powerfull means Confeſſions are to make a Nation riſe againſt their King. For Pariſh Prieſts by Confeſſions would pour blood and rebellion into the ſpirits of the people, and the heads of that riſing made thoſe Prieſts their confiding friends, and by them knew how many, and what men they had on their ſide in the Kingdom. No wonder that Confeſſions were imployed for that, ſince the keyes of his Holineſs were imployed for the ſame end. For over all the Kingdom Indulgences were ſeen ſet againſt the Church-doors, granting nine years pardon to every one that would ſide with the League againſt the King.

IX. By the ſame Confeſſions the Popes have uſurped a power over the temporals of Kings, and over their perſons, impoſing ſatisfactory penances upon them after confeſſion, and not granting them abſolution but upon conditions burdenſom to their Crowns, and ignominious to their perſons. Of which we will give inſtances hereafter.

X. I paſs by the ſordid traffick of taking ten or twelve pence for a confeſſion. It ſeems they hold it unreaſonable that a man ſhould forgive ſins for nothing; or foul his ears with all the ordure of a Town, and get nothing by it.

XI. One of the great abuſes in this point, is, that our Adverſaries put Confeſſion among meritorious works, as if a murtherer deſerved recompences for freely confeſſing his crime. By that reckoning it will prove an uſefull and a ſalutary courſe to commit a multitude of ſins; to get multitudes of merits by confeſſing them.

XII. I leave out a thouſand rules given by the Doctors and Caſuiſts who have written of Confeſſion. Cardinal Tolet hath made a Collection of them in his third book of the inſtruction of Prieſts.(i)(i)Tolet. lib. 3. de Inſtruct. Sacerd. c. 5. Contritionem non eſſe neceſſariam venialium, haec enim abſque contritione remitti poſſe, &c. Quorum homo putat ſe habuiſſe contritionem & confeſſionem, non eſt neceſſaria contritio nova. He ſaith that contrition for venial ſins is not neceſſary, and that a man may have the remiſſion of ſins without that. And that it is not neceſſary for a man to have new contrition for ſins, which he thinks he hath already been contrite for. (e)(e)Id. Ibid. Probabilius dico cum aliis, quod non teneatur ſtatim conteri, etiamſi recordetur ſaepius commiſſi peccati. Solum eorum tenetur tunc in ipſo non complacere, tamen non tenetur tunc poenitere, ſed poteſt mentem alio divertere.(k) That a man is not obliged to be contrite for his ſins preſently after he hath ſinned, although he remember that he hath often committed that ſin, and that it is enough at that time to take no delight in it; but that he is not obliged to repent at that time, but may divert his mind about ſomething elſe. And (l)(l)Contritio vera licet remiſſa poteſt delere quodcunque peccatum quamvis graviſsimum, nec homo tenetur magis conteri de uno peccato quam de alio, dummodo conteratur.that contrition, though ſlack, can blot out any ſin, though never ſo grievous. That a man needs not to have more contrition for one ſin then for another, if only he may have contrition. p. 541(m)(m)Si etiam eſt in ſtatu peccandi, ſufficit exprimere tempus, videlicet ſi meretrix eſt, ſe per duos aut tres annos fuiſſe expoſitam cuique accedenti.That he that confeſſeth, muſt ſay how many times he hath ſinned, but yet for a perſon which is in the ſtate of ſin, it is enough to expreſs the time. As if it be an harlot, it is enough for her to ſay that ſince two or three years ſhe was expoſed unto all comers. But the Jeſuite Emanuel Sa (n)(n)Em. Sa voce Confeſſioſpeaks againſt that, ſaying, Ego vero non eſſem tam generali confeſſione contentus. As for me, I would not be content with ſuch a general confeſſion. This is of the ſame vein, and of the ſame Cardinal, in the ſeventh chapter: Iſti qui peccatum mollitei patiuntur propriis ſe polluentes manibus, tenentur exprimere perſonam quam mente concipiebant ſi aliquam tenebant mente mulieris ſpeciem, & tenentur etiam exprimere in uno actu ſucceſſive ſi plures intendebant, & Confeſſarius debet iſta exigere. And in the eighth chapter,(o)(o)Si quis occidit fratrem Confeſſarii & timet, &c. non tenetur tale confiteri, ſed diſsim…lare. If any hath killed his Confeſſors brother, &c. he is not bound to confeſs ſuch a fact, but muſt conceal it. And in the ſame place he ſaith(p)(p)Si eſt foemina quae confitetur. (quia nimirum Confeſſarius illam ſollicitabit) debet diſsimulare tale peccatum. that if a woman hath ſinned carnally, ſhe muſt conceal that in her confeſſion, when it is likely that the Confeſſor will ſollicite her. And in the ninth chapter(q)(q)Mentiri in confeſsione grave peccatum eſt, quamvis non ſemper ſit mortale. Lying in the Confeſſion is a great ſin, yet it is not alwayes a mortal ſin. In the ſame place he rejects Cardinal Cajetans (r)(r)Cajetanus tenet, quod poteſt poenitens non acceptare poenitentiam à Confeſſario & dicere ſe velle eam in Purgatorio à Deo accipere.opinion who ſaith that the Penitent that confeſſeth himſelf may refuſe to accept the penance impoſed upon him by the Prieſt, ſaying I chuſe rather to ſatisfie in Purgatory. The ſame tenth chapter(ſ)(ſ)Iteranda eſt confeſsio, ſi fuit tam ignarus, Confeſſarius ut debitam abſolutionis formam ignorarit, quod ſuperioribus diebus de quodam audivimus qui abſolvendo dicebat Pater Noſter. will have the Confeſſion to be reiterated when the Confeſſor is an ignorant, as I have heard (ſaith he) of one but lately who when he gave the abſolution, ſaid Pater Noſter.

The Jeſuite Emanuel Sa in his Aphoriſms in the words Confeſſio and Confeſſor giveth us ſome no leſs gallant rules,(t)(t)Mentiri in confeſsione de peccatis venialibus aut de alias confeſsis mortalibus veniale tantum peccatum eſt. Lying in the Confeſſion about venial ſins, or about mortal ſins already confeſſed, is but a venial ſin. Again,(u)(u)Mutum teneri ad perficiendam confeſsionem nutibus putat Navarrus & Angles, ex communi Theologorum ſententia, Thomas, Soto. A dumb man is obliged to confeſs himſelf by ſigns, according to the common opinion of Divines. That rule ſeems to be made to make the Readers merry: For there are ſome ſins which muſt not be repreſented by geſtures, for ſuch geſtures might be more contrary to good manners, then words. Again, A woman though ſhe be a Virgin, muſt confeſs a mental fornication. And a little after,(x)(x)Cum quis in neceſsitate plures ſimul audit, poteſt ſimul abſolvere dicendo, Ego vos abſolvo, &c. A Confeſſor who in caſe of neceſſity hears many together, may abſolve them together, ſaying, Ego vos abſolvo, &c.(y)(y)Meretrices non comprehenduntur Statutis Synodalibus excommunicantibus non confitentes aut non communicantes in Paſcha, itaque tales nunqaum denuntiantur. The ſame Jeſuite tells us in the ſame place, Harlots are not comprehended within the ſtatutes of Synods, whereby thoſe that confeſs not themſelves, and receive not the Sacrament at Eaſter, are excommunicated; wherefore they are never denounced. He ſaith that, becauſe in places where the inquiſition reigneth, and where Brothel-houſes are ſet up by the Popes or the Princes authority, as at Rome, Venice, Sevil, &c. every man that goeth neither to the Confeſſion, nor to the communion at Eaſter, makes himſelf ſuſſpect of hereſie, and is preſently denounced to the Inquiſition. Publick harlots only have that priviledge, that they are not obnoxious to the Inquiſition, nor to excommunication, though they neither confeſs nor receive at Eaſter; becauſe they exerciſe that trade, by the permiſſion of his Holineſs. I have ſearcht and inquired whether when thoſe harlots go to Confeſſion, their Confeſſors forbid them to continue that ſin, and I could not find that they forbid it. For ſhould they be ſo bold as to forbid that which the Pope permits, who (as Bellarmin (z)(z)Bell. in Barckl. cap. 31. In bono ſenſu Chriſtus dedit poteſtatem Petro faciendi de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccatum.ſaith) can make ſin to be no ſin, and no ſin to be ſin?

It is alſo a rule of theſe Doctors,(a)(a)Eman. Sa verbo Abſolutio. Poteſt per partes abſolvi, &c. & partem uni partem alteri explicare & partem omittere. Corona p. 4. & p. 156. that a ſinner may confeſs part of his ſins to one Confeſſor, and part to another, and ſo have from each of them a demi-abſolution.

Theſe conſiderations made Caſſander a Divine of Collen to ſpeak theſe words p. 542in the eleventh Article of his Conſultation.(b)(b)Equidem credo de hac re controverſiam nullam fuiſſe futura, ſi non ſalutaris haec confitendi medicina ab importunis & imperitis medicis multis inutilibus traditiunculis infecta & contaminata fuiſſet, quibus conſcientiis quas extricare & levare debebant laqueum injeccrunt, & tanquam tormentis quibuſdam excarnificârunt. I believe that there would be no controverſie about this matter, if this wholeſome medicine of Confeſſion had not been infected and polluted by many troubleſome and ignorant Phyſitians with many petty uſeleſs traditions: whereby they have inſnared the conſciences, and wracked them with cruel torments, whereas they ſhould rather have untangled and eaſed them.

Beatus Rhenanus in his Preface before Tertullians book of Penitence, ſaith that(c)(c)Thomas & Scotus homines nimium arguti confeſſionem talem reddiderunt, ut Johannes ille Gilerius gravis ac ſanctus Theologus teſtatus ſit juxta illorum deuteroſes impoſſibile eſſe confiteri, &c. Erat Carthuſianus quidam qui propter confeſſionem quae ei ſemper ob inexplicabilem circumſtantiarum vim imperfecta videbatur, ſed ipſe perfectiſſimam eſſe f…uſtra contendebat, huc miſeriarum venerat ut omnem ſalutem deſponderet, & apocartereſim cogitaret. Thomas and Scotus by their ſubtilties have made Confeſſion to become an impoſſible thing in our dayes. Then he deſcribes the wracks whereby they torture conſciences in Confeſſion. He ſaith that both the Monks and the the Nuns complain of it, and ſpeaks of a certain Carthuſian, who by Confeſſions was fallen into deſpair, and into a purpoſe of eating no more.

This matter might be extended to an endleſs diſcourſe, for the abuſes are numberleſs. But that I may not tyre the Reader I will ſtay only upon that which Cardinal du Perron brings us to, namely to the ſecret or ſecrecy of Confeſſion, whereby the life of Kings hath been expoſed to deſtruction, as France hath found it by experience not long ſince, and England was thereby brought to the brink of an horrible ruine, when the King, and all the Royal houſe, and the Parliament ſhould have been blown up with Gunpowder. Which plot had been revealed in Confeſſion to ſome Confeſſors that were Jeſuits. This is juſtified by the proceſs of the conſpirators, and by their own Confeſſion.

CHAP. 6. Examination of the ſixth and the ſeventh Chapters of the ſecond Obſervation, wherein Cardinal du Perron treats of the ſecret of Confeſsion, and of the danger thereby created unto the life of Kings.

HIS Majeſty of Great Britain having had an experience in his own perſon, what danger is created unto the life of Kings by the ſecret of auricular confeſſions, puts this among the fruits of ſecret Confeſſion, as it is practiſed in the Roman Church in our dayes, that this doctrine is gone ſo far, that in our age killing Kings, and ſuffering them to be killed, ſeems to be nothing in compariſon of revealing the ſeal of Confeſſion. In the ſame place, the famous Caſaubon, who ſent his pen unto the King, witneſſeth that the Jeſuit Binet affirmed to him at Paris, that it was better that all Kings ſhould be killed, then to reveal one Confeſſion, becauſe the inſtitution of Kings was but of humane right, but Confeſſion was of divine right. The ſame Caſaubon in the Epiſtle to the Jeſuit Fronto, ſaith that the ſaid Jeſuite Binet maintained that doctrine to him in the Kings Library. The Jeſuite Eudemonojohannes ſaith the ſame in chap. 13. of his Apology for Garnet. (a)(a)Nullum tantum malum eſſe poteſt, cujus vitandi cauſa confeſsionem prodere liceat.No evil can be ſo great, that to avoid it, it ſhould be lawfull to reveal a Confeſſion, that is, although the danger were no leſs then to ſuffer our own Father, or our King to be ſlain. The Jeſuite Emanuel Sa in his Aphoriſms(b)(b)Voce Confeſſor. Neque ad probationem matrimonii (ut indocti quidam dixere) neque ad vitandam graviſsimam Reip. perniciem frangi poteſt ſacrum ſigillum peccatore prodito. ſaith, that the holy ſeal of Confeſſion cannot be broken by diſcovering the ſinner, no not to prove a marriage (as ſome unlearned have ſaid) or to avoid the moſt grievous ruine that can happen unto a State. And he addeth, that this is according to the common opinion of Divines. And becauſe p. 543upon ſuſpicion a Confeſſor may be apprehended, and urged to reveal the Confeſſion, to avert the danger of the Kings life, the ſame Jeſuite in the ſame place ſets down this rule,(c)(c)Poteſt Confeſſor jurare ſe nihil ſcire, imò nihil ſe audiviſſe tale in confeſſione, ſubintelligendo, ſic ut dicere teneatur. Eodemque modo poteſt poenitens jurare ſe nihil aut nihil tale dixiſſe in Confeſsione. Gabriel Biel in 4. Diſt. 21. ſaith that the Prieſt may confidently ſwear that he knows nothing of it, becauſe he knows it as God, not as man. The Confeſſor may ſwear that he knows nothing of it, yea that he heard no ſuch thing in Confeſſion, ſecretly meaning ſo that he be bound to tell. The Penitent likewiſe may ſwear that he ſaid nothing, or no ſuch thing, in Confeſſion. And he defends that doctrine with the authority of Navarrus, and of the Jeſuite Gregorius de Valentia. By that reaſon it ſhall be lawfull to deny Chriſtian Religion in judgement, ſaying, I am no Chriſtian, but meaning reſervedly, to tell it you. According to that goodly doctrine and diſcipline of parricide, Cardinal Bellarmin in his Confutation of the Kings book of the Oath of Allegiance, commendeth the Jeſuite Garnet, becauſe having known the conſpiracy againſt the Kings life, and againſt the States of the Kingdom, he would not reveal it. For this cauſe was Garnet put in the liſt of Martyrs. Which opinion Cardinal du Perron alſo defendeth, returning that recompence for the great benefits which he had received from the King his Maſter.

His Majeſty of Great Britain addeth, that another Jeſuite in France, but lately had the confidence to ſay, that if our Lord Jeſus Chriſt was yet living upon earth, paſſible and ſubject unto death, and one had revealed to the ſame Jeſuite in confeſſion that he intended to kill Jeſus Chriſt, rather then he would reveal the Confeſſion, he would ſuffer Jeſus Chriſt to be ſlain.

Here our Cardinal is miſerably put to his ſhifts, yet ſo, that under pretence of providing for the ſafety of Kings, he leads them ſtraight to the ſlaughter. He would perſwade us that it is for the ſafety of Kings that the Confeſſion of a parricide be not revealed, becauſe no man ſhall ever confeſs ſuch an enterpriſe to his Confeſſor, when he knows that it is lawfull to reveal his confeſſion. That Kings get this benefit thereby, that Prieſts diſſwade their ſecret enemies from undertaking any thing againſt the Soveraign, and give to the King a general warning that he look to himſelf, yet without naming the perſon or revealing the Confeſſion. That if Ravaillac had not believed that his confeſſion ſhould have been revealed, he would have confeſt himſelf about his deſign, and had heen diſwaded from it by his Confeſſors, and the King had had a warning to ſtand upon his guards. That Barriere having undertaken to kill King Henry the IV. of glorious memory revealed it to a Jeſuite, who laboured to diſwade him from it. He would not add, for fear of offending the Jeſuits, that the Jeſuite that heard that confeſſion, gave no warning about it; But he ſaith, that Barriere having addreſt himſelf ſince to a Dominican to confer with him about it by way of conſultation,(d)(d)Note that the Cardinal calls that conference a conſultation not a Confeſſion, becauſe it ſhall not be ſaid that any of the Roman Clergy hath revealed or might reveal a confeſſion. the ſaid Dominican preſently gave advice of the ſame to an Italian Gentleman named Brancaleon. But ſtill this Prelat ſtands ſtiff upon that aſſertion, that for nothing in the world, whether it be to procure ſome good, or to avoid ſome evil (by that evil, underſtanding the Kings death, for that is the thing in queſtion) a confeſſion ought to be revealed. He ſaith that it is a mortal ſin to reveal it, and a crime againſt the Law of Nations, and againſt the right of nature, and that evil muſt not be done that good may come. He approveth that Jeſuits ſaying, who maintained that rather he would ſuffer Chriſt to be killed, then to reveal a confeſſion, and ſaith that Chriſt would not have any of his Diſciples to commit that ſin to preſerve him from death. He addeth (to what purpoſe I know not) that Chryſoſtom affirmeth that ſuch as make ſchiſms, and divide the myſtical body of Chriſt, which is the Church, are more guilty, I ſay not then they that ſuffered Chriſt to be ſlain, but then thoſe very men that ſlew him. Yet he ſaith that ſuch rumours ought not to be lightly believed, and that Caſaubon having told him how the Sorbon held, that in caſe of High Treaſon thoſe that confeſs themſelves may be revealed, he had ſince learned the contrary from the chief Doctors of that Faculty.

I could have wiſht that the Cardinal, having ſpoken of Kings, and of Chriſt himſelf, and declared his opinion that a Confeſſion muſt not be revealed, though the Kings life, or Chriſts life ſhould hang upon it, would alſo have told us his p. 544opinion about the Popes life: For the Doctors avoid that queſtion, whether it be becauſe they will exempt the Pope from the common rule, or becauſe they are afraid of offending and diſparaging his Holineſs, by putting his life in the ſame rank as that of Kings, or that of the Son of God. Matthew Paris in the life of Henry the third of England pag. 702. ſpeaks of a Confeſſor who having learned in confeſſion a conſpiracy againſt the Popes life, did preſently reveal it.

In all this diſcourſe the Cardinal doth as he did in the full Aſſembly of States at Paris the fifteenth of January 1615. The third State [that is, the Houſe of Commons] did remember the parricide committed on the perſon of Henry the third by James Clement a Dominican, and how John Caſtel a Diſciple of the Jeſuits had ſtabbed Henry the IV. and how the ſame King was tragically murthered by the hands of a monſter. By whoſe interrogatories it was made evident that he was inſtructed in the caſes of conſcience, and in the Diſcipline of the Jeſuits, and that he had confeſt himſelf to Father d' Aubigni a Jeſuite.

(e)(e)Emanuel Sa Aphoriſm. in verbo Tyrannus. Tyrannicè gub…rnans juſtè acquiſitum dominium non poteſt ſpoliari ſine publico judicio. Lata vero ſententia poteſt quiſque fieri executor. Poteſt autem deponi à populo. Bellarm in Barklaium cap. 21. Pontifex poteſt diſpenſare in votis & juramentis, quae Deus ipſe juſsit reddi, & quorum ſolutio de jure divino eſt. Idem cap. 7. Papa Conſuererunt ſubditos eorum à juramento fidelitatis abſolvere, & authoritate regia ſi opus eſt privare. executio ad alios pertinet. Suarez lib. 6. lib. in Reg. Jacob. cap. 4. Si Papa Regem deponat, ab illis tantùm poterit expelli vel interfici quibus ipſe id commiſerit. Papa Urbanus Cauſa 23. qu. 5. Can. Excommunicatorum. Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur, quos adverſus excommunicatos zelo matris Eccleſiae ardentes aliquos eorum trucidâſſe contigerit. Toletus lib. 1. de Inſtitut. Sacerdotis cap. 13. Excommunicatus non poteſt exercere actum juriſdictionis abſque peccato. Imò ſi publica excommunicatio eſt facta, ſententiae nullae ſunt. Idem. lib. 3. cap. 16. Obligatio ſigilli eſt tanta, ut nulla prorſus cauſa, neque etiam propter ſalvandam vitam propriam nec propter ſalutem totius. Reip. poſsit Conſeſſarius peccatum poenitentis revelare, &c. Quod ſi aliquando contigerit Confeſſarium ab iniquo judice compelli ut revelet, & ſub juramento, po…eſt Confeſſarius dicere ſe neſcire tale peccatum, quamvis enim ſciat, non tamen ſcit ut revelet. Mariana lib. 1. de Rege & Regis inſtitutione cap. 6. agens de Jacobo Clemente. Supra veſ…cam altum vulnus inflixit, inſignem animi confidentiam, facinus memorabile. &c. Coeſo Rege ingens ſibi nomen fecit: caede caedes expiata, ac manibus Guiſii Ducis perfidè perempti regio ſanguine eſt parentatum. Ibid. Tyrannicidae ſi evaſerint, inſtar magnorum heroum in omni vita ſuſpiciuntur. Si ſecus accidat, grata Superis, grata hominibus hoſtia cadunt, nobili conatu ad omnem poſteritatis memoriam illuſtrati. Eman. Sa in verbo Clericus in Edit. Antwerp. Clerici rebellio in Regem non eſt crimen laeſae Majeſtatis, quia non eſt ſubditus Regi. Becanus lib. de Controv. Anglicana p. 123. Jojada Pontifex priùs privavit Athaliam regno, deinde vita. Itaque privavit eam regno, ut Reginam & publicam perſonam: Privavit autem vita ut privatam perſonam. Et pag. 125. Quicquid poteſtatis & juriſdictionis permiſſum fuit Pontifici in Veteri Teſtamento, hoc etiam in Novo permiſſum eſt. Bellarm. lib. de Clericis cap. 28. Summus Pontifex Cicricos exemit à ſubjectione Principum; Non ſunt amplius Reges Clericorum ſuperiores. Antonius Santarelli Jeſuita Tractatu de haereſi, ſchiſmate, &c. Papa ſine conſilio deponit Imperatorem, quia Papae & Chriſti unum eſt tribunal. Idem. Papa poteſt Reges movere & mortis poena punire, &c.They remembred alſo ſo many books publiſht by the Jeſuite Mariana, Francis Verona, Bellarmin, Ribadenera, Becanus, Gretſer, Emanuel Sa, Eudemonojohannes all Jeſuits, and by many others; In which books the execrable parricide of Henry the third committed by the Dominican James Clement is exalted and praiſed as an heroick action, and maxims fatal unto the life of Kings are taught; That the Pope hath power of depoſing Kings, and cauſing them to be killed (as Jehojadah the High Prieſt cauſed Queen Athaliah to be put to death) and to transfer their crowns unto others. That the Pope hath power either direct or indirect over the whole temporal of Kings. That the rebellion of a Clark againſt the King is no Treaſon, becauſe he is not the Kings ſubject. That killing a King depoſed by the Pope, is not properly killing a King, but a private man. That the ſentences, writs, and judgements of a ſecular Judge excommunicated by the Eccleſiaſtical Judge, are void, and without authority. That it is better to ſuffer a King to be killed, then to reveal a confeſſion. That a man being taken when he is about ſuch an attempt, may uſe equivocations in juſtice, to ſave himſelf. That he is no murtherer, that kills an excommunicate perſon, being moved with zeal towards the Catholick Church. That the Pope can abſolve ſubjects from the Oath of Allegiance made to their King, and give Commiſſion to ſome one to kill the King, and give his Kngdom to another or to put an interdict upon it, and expoſe it as a prey to the next Conquerour. Which books were indeed condemned by the Court of Parliament of Paris, and publickly burnt by the hand of the hang-man, yet without doing any harm to the Authors of the books, or to the approvers of the Maximes.

p. 545The ſame third State knew that Pope Gregory the VII. had made bold to degrade the Emperour Henry the IV. That in the year 1212. Innocent the III. had degraded John King of England, and given his kingdom to Philip Auguſt King of France for the remiſſion of his ſins, upon condition that he ſhould conquer it with his own danger and coſt. And after the ſaid Philip had raiſed a mighty army with great coſt, the ſame Pope gave abſolution to King John, upon condition that he ſhould become the Popes vaſſall, and his crown tributary; And that England and Ireland from that time forward ſhould be fees of the Roman Church, paying for his homage a thouſand marks of ſilver for an acknowledgement of ſubjection. Which was punctually executed. But of that more hereafter.

The ſame third State knew that in the year 1225. the ſame Pope aſſembled a Council at Lateran, in which(f)(f)Significetur hoc ſummo Pontifici ut vaſſallos ab ejus fidelitate denuncies abſolutos & terram exponat occupandam. power was given to the Pope to abſolve ſubjects from the Oath of Allegiance ſworn to their Lord, and to give their lands to other Catholick Lords. And that his Succeſſor Innocent the IV. in the year 1245. in full Council at Lyons, declared the Emperour Frederick the ſecond deprived of the Empire. And that in the year 1302. Pope Boniface the VIII. (becauſe Philip the Fair of France retained the right of inveſtitures and collations of benefices as his predeceſſors had done) excommunicated the ſaid King, and gave France to the Emperour Albert, if he could get it. And that in the year 1511. Pope Julius the ſecond depoſed John d' Albert King of Navarra, and gave his Kingdom to Ferdinand King of Caſtilia, and that at the ſame time the good King Lewis the XII. was excommunicated by Julius the ſecond, and his kindgdom expoſed to conqueſt, becauſe he would defend himſelf againſt the invaſions of Julius, who from a Pope was become a Captain. And that of late Henry the third of France had been depoſed by Sixtus the fifth and excommunicated, whence followed afterwards the murther of that King, and the deſolation of that Kingdom. And that in the year 1592. Monitorial Bulls of Pope Gregory the fourteenth came from Rome, whereby Henry the fourth was declared uncapable of the Crown of France. Which Bulls by the authority of the Court of Parliament then reſiding at Tours were publickly torn and burnt, the fifth of Auguſt, by the hand of the hang-man.

For theſe cauſes, the ſaid third State the repreſentative of all the people of France being frighted ſtill with the late parricide of their good King Henry the fourth of glorious memory, and acknowledging that all theſe funeſt diſaſters proceeded from theſe maximes fatal unto Kings, and tending unto the ſubverſion of Kingdoms; and from the ſecret of confeſſion, and from that doctrine of perjury, required that in the States then ſitting, a courſe ſhould be taken for the ſecuring of the Kings life, and ſetting his Crown free. And that it might be declared by an expreſs Act that in temporal things the King is ſubject to none but God alone; That his life and Crown are independent from any man, and that it is not in any mans power, whoſoever he be, to diſpoſe of it, for any cauſe whatſoever. That propoſition of the third State tended to no other end, but that the King might be acknowledged to be truly King, and Soveraign in his kingdom. To that propoſition, as directly regarding the Pope, the Clergy of France made a vigorous oppoſition, ſpeaking by Cardinal du Perrons mouth, who ſince publiſht his ſpeech, the ſumm whereof is this.

That it belongs not to the third State, to make Laws againſt the murtherers of Kings, becauſe they are Laws of conſcience. That the Council of Conſtance hath ſufficiently provided for that, having made a Decree againſt murtherers of Kings; but that it muſt not be laid for an undoubted maxime, that a King violating the oath made unto God, may not be depoſed; thereby acknowledging a power above the King. That the doctrine which makes the King not ſubject to be depoſed, is a doctrine that cauſeth ſchiſm, and opens the gate unto all hereſies; And that thence it would follow, that ſince many ages there hath been no Church in the world, and that the Pope is the Antichriſt. He exhorteth the hearers to hold at leaſt that doctrine as problematick, not neceſſary; and in the p. 546mean while to ſubmit themſelves to the Popes judgement. He offers to ſuffer martyrdom rather then to ſubſcribe that doctrine, which makes Kings not obnoxious to be depoſed by the Pope, which doctrine yet he ſaith that the Pope ſuffereth the French to hold as problematick. He denounceth anathema and curſe to the murtherers of Kings; But in the ſame ſpeech he ſaith that he ſpeaks of Kings while they are Kings, and before their depoſition.

Whence it followeth, that James Clement by killing Henry the third, did not kill a King, becauſe the Pope had depoſed him. He likes not indeed that any ſhould kill a King; but he would have him ſtript of his Royal dignity, that he may not defend himſelf when his enemies will have a mind to kill him. He approves not the ſtabbing of a King, leaſt that his ſoul be loſt with his body, but he approveth that he be killed in battell, when he will maintain himſelf in the kingdom after his depoſition. He ſaith that a depoſed King retains ſtill an habit to the Royal dignity, and a politick character, which (when he comes to amendment) brings him again to the lawfull uſe of his Royal power. For he preſuppoſeth that he to whom the Pope ſhall transfer the kingdom will ſuffer the depoſed King to live, and that if he ſeeth repentance in him, he will leave him the room, and quietly reſtore him the Royal Throne. He acknowledgeth no other cauſe of the depoſition of a King but hereſie, apoſtaſie, and infidelity. Yet to prove that, he brings examples of Emperours and Kings excommunicated or depoſed, not for hereſie, but for incapacity, or for matrimonial cauſes.

With the like untruth he alleadgeth Scripture, ſaying that Samuel depoſed Saul. That the Prophet Ahija depoſed Rehoboam from his royal right over the ten tribes. That Azariah the Prieſt expelled King Ʋzziah from the converſation of the people, whereby the adminiſtration of the kingdom was taken from him. All which allegations in great number out of Scripture and Hiſtories were convinced of falſhood by the late King James, in his anſwer to the ſaid ſpeech. The quality of a great King, and the importance of the matter deſerved that the Cardinal ſhould reply. But the caſe was ſo clear, and the Cardinals ſoul dealing ſo evident, and his ungratefulneſs to the King his Maſter, ſo odious, that he choſe rather not to anſwer, and to ſwallow that affront without noiſe, although he lived five years after the publiſhng of the Kings book.

Other conſiderations then the ſtrength of the Cardinals reaſons made his opinion to prevail. So that the third State got no other proviſion for the ſafety of the life of Kings then the order of the Council of Conſtance, a Council which the Popes approve not. And after all, when one looks into that Council, it is clear that he ſpeaks not of Kings, and of ſecuring their life: But only that the Council rejecteth the propoſitions of John Petit, who maintained that it was lawfull for a private man, either by wiles or by ſtrength, to kill a ſubject that riſeth againſt his King, which ſubject he calls a Tyrant. For the ſaid John Petit by his propoſitions went about to juſtifie the murther committed by John Duke of Burgundy on the perſon of Lewis Duke of Orleans, who in thoſe propoſitions is unjuſtly called a Tyrant. The Council rejected thoſe propoſitions, holding it unjuſt that a private man ſhould ſtab one of the Kings ſubjects without any form of Law, under colour that ſome call him a Tyrant, or becauſe he goeth about to trouble the State, and is diſobedient to the King. So that the Council inſtead of providing for the ſafety of Kings, diminiſheth their ſafety, forbidding private men to kill a ſubject that would attempt againſt his Kings life, or trouble his State. So did the Cardinal ſecure the Kings life, openly abuſing the Aſſembly of States, when he turned them over to a Council which the Pope approveth not; and to a Decree of that Council, where nothing is found of that he ſaith, yea, to a Decree that puts the life of Kings in greater danger.

That heroical act having been ſucceſsfull to the Cardinal, it is no wonder that he goeth on in the ſame ſtrain in his book, maintaining that it is better to ſuffer the King to be killed, then to reveal a Confeſſion. In an age in which the crowns of Kings ſhould not be in bondage, as they are now, and where ſome p. 547breathings of liberty ſhould remain, any Prieſt made Secretary of ſuch a confeſſion that would not reveal it, and all men ſpeaking as the Cardinal doth, ſhould be proceeded againſt as guilty of high treaſon, and conſcious, and partakers of the parricide. But in our dayes the Majeſty of Kings being become contemptible to Clergy-men, who deny themſelves to be ſubject unto Kings, and Popes aſcribing to themſelves the power of diſpoſing of their crowns and their lives, theſe propoſitions are impunedly maintained, although the death of ſo many Kings lately ſlain by Clergy-men, oblige Kings to think on their own preſervation.

How plainly doth our Cardinal abuſe Kings? ſaying that a Confeſſor to whom ſome enterpriſe againſt the Kings life was diſcovered, muſt give warning to the King that there is an enterpriſe againſt his life, but muſt not name the perſon, nor reveal his confeſſion. Certainly by ſpeaking thus, he forgeth to himſelf á King wanting common ſenſe, or weary of his life: For in that caſe ſhould not a King prove himſelf to be out of his wits, or angry againſt his own ſafety, if he did not cauſe that Confeſſor to be apprehended, and put to ſuch a tryal as would make him confeſs the name of the conſpirator againſt his life, and in caſe of obſtinacy in ſilence uſe him as a conſpirator? It is enough (ſaith the Cardinal) to advertiſe the King to ſtand upon his guard. But what muſt be done, if he that will kill the King is one of his guards, and liveth near his perſon? Who knows not, that he that deſpiſeth his life, is Maſter of any mans life? and that a King may be ſtabbed in the midſt of an Army?

But (ſaith the Cardinal) it is a mortal ſin, and a crime againſt the right of Nations, and againſt nature, to violate the publick faith which the Church giveth unto all penitents that come to Confeſſion. I anſwer, that the Church never made that promiſe to penitents to keep any confeſſion ſecret, and that though the Church had made ſuch a promiſe, it ought not to be kept, when it cannot be kept without violating the faith due unto God, and diſobeying his word. No promiſe ought to be kept, which derogates to a promiſe made before, which is juſt, and holy, and conformable unto the word of God. Obeying our parents and the Princes to whom God hath ſubjected us, are obligations which lye on us from our birth grounded upon the word of God, and not to be broken by any promiſe made ſince. Now for a man to ſuffer his Father, or his King to be ſlain when he may ſave his life, is not only diſobedience, but parricide, prodigious treaſon, and unnatural diſloyalty. All promiſes that oblige us to violate Gods commandment are void. It is a diſloyal and cruel fidelity, which for fear of breaking promiſe to a penitent, breaks the faith due to God, and violates the natural obligation, more antient, not only then that pretended promiſe made unto penitents, but alſo then the Roman Church. That man cannot but be very wicked, into whoſe boſome counſels of treaſon, and enterpriſes of parricide are ſafely poured and depoſed: Who that he may be faithfull to a villain and a traitor, himſelf becomes a traitor to his Father or his King. That man is very cruel, who by a pertinacious ſilence ſuffers ruine to fall upon a countrey, and the deſtruction of whole Provinces, and his own Father to be killed, rather then reveal a confeſſion. Why doth not the Confeſſor in that occaſion uſe at leaſt the Jeſuitiſh flight, ſaying, I have revealed that confeſſion, becauſe I took it not for a confeſſion, but for a conſultation? Which was the language of the Jeſuite Garnet conſcious and partaker of the Gun-powder-treaſon to blow up King, Prince, Counſel, Parliament, and an innumerable quantity of men, women and children.

One thing clearly diſcovereth the wickedneſs. For theſe Gentlemen that keep to the rule ſo ſtrictly when the queſtion is of the Kings life, or of the life of the Confeſſors Father, and will not have the confeſſion revealed in thoſe caſes; yet will abate of that ſtrictneſs in far leſſer things. For this is one of the Aphoriſms of the Jeſuite Emanul Sa. (g)(g)Si nequeas tuum crimen confiteri ſine revelatione auditi criminis in confeſsione, dubium eſt an id explicandum. Probabilius quod ſit. Navar. Soto.If thou canſt not confeſs thy crime without diſcovering the crime which thou haſt heard in confeſſion, ſome doubt is made whether it muſt be diſcovered. It is more probable that it muſt. See in p. 548Navarrus many caſes(h)(h)Navar. in cap. pen. Sacerdos de poenit. Diſt. 6. pag. 577. Quaero an ſit aliquis caſus in quo liceat Confeſſario auditam confeſſionem revelare, & videntur multi eſſe, primus quando crimen haereſeos det…gi tur &c. in which the Doctors hold that confeſſion ought to be revealed, the caſe of hereſie eſpecially, of which he affirmeth that the common ſaying is, Haereſis eſt drimen quod nec confeſſio celat.

The laſt refuge of theſe Doctors of parricide, is to ſay that Confeſſion is inſtituted by God, and of divine inſtitution, but the Royal power is but an humane inſtitution, and is but of humane right; and therefore it is better that a King ſhould be killed, then to reveal a Confeſſion. I anſwer, that although Confeſſion were of divine inſtitution, yet it would not follow, that the ſecret of Confeſſion is alſo of divine inſtitution. But the clean contrary of that they ſay is true. For auricular Confeſſion, and the ſecret of that Confeſſion are humane inſtitutions, of which the word of God ſaith nothing: Whereas the power of Kings and Princes is inſtituted by God, and recommended in his word. Let every ſoul be ſubject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. Whoſoever therefore reſiſteth the power, reſiſteth the ordinance of God, and they that reſiſt ſhall receive to themſelves damnation. Rom. 13.1. And a little after He (meaning the Prince) beareth not the ſword in vain, for he is the Miniſter of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; Wherefore ye muſt needs be ſubject not only for wrath, but alſo for conſcience ſake, that is, not only for fear of drawing upon you the wrath of the Prince, but for fear of offending God. And 1 Pet. 2.17. Fear God, Honour the King, joyning the honour due to the King with the fear of God. Moſes and Joſhuah were the two firſt Princes of Gods people, both eſtabliſhed by name by the ordinance of God. And the three firſt Kings in Iſrael, Saul, David, and Solomon were promoted to the kingdom by an oracle, and by expreſs declaration of Gods will. The Prophet Daniel, chap. 2. ſpeaks thus to Nebucadnezzar, though a perſecutor of the Church, Thou King art the King of Kings, for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and ſtrength, and glory. Chriſt himſelf appearing before Pilats judicial ſeat acknowledged that Pilate had received that power from God, ſaying to him John 19.11. Thou couldſt have no power at all againſt me except it were given thee from above.

This is not contradicted by St. Peter when he ſaith 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit your ſelves to every ordinance of man for the Lords ſake, whether it be to the King as ſupream, or to the Governours, &c. For he calls the power of Kings and Magiſtrates an ordinance of man, becauſe that order is received among all Nations by a natural inſtinct, and is not an ordinance proper unto the Church of God, ſuch as the ordinance of the Miniſtery of the Goſpel. Alſo becauſe many Kings attain to the Kingdom by humane means, as by conqueſt or by election, and becauſe they eſtabliſh Laws about things civil and humane, which concern not the ſervice of God, as the prohibition of hunting in a certain ſeaſon of the year, or to go in the ſtreets in the night without a light, or to walk near the walls of a Citadell. But all this proveth not but that the people is obliged by Gods commandment to obey the King. Yea, if God command us to obey ſome ordinance of man, the obedience to that humane right is of divine inſtitution. Wherefore Peter will have us to ſubmit our ſelves to that ordinance of man for the Lords ſake, that is, becauſe God will have it to.

In vain it is anſwered, that there is no commandment of God that injoyns us to obey Lewis or Henry. For they that hold that the Popes power is of divine right, cannot find a commandment in Gods word that obliges us to obey Ʋrban or Boniface, whom (though promoted to the Papal dignity by factions, and wayes worſe then humane) they hold to be eſtabliſht by divine right. By the ſame reaſon it would follow that neither William nor Anthony, nor any private man, is obliged to believe in Jeſus Chriſt, for there is no text in Scripture that obliges them to it by name. But it is enough that they are comprehended under the general rule, which obligeth every private perſon without naming. Thus then Gods command to obey the King, binds us to obey Lewis and Henry, becauſe they are Kings. Neither is the queſtion here of the means whereby a Prince attains to the Crown, but whether God will have him obeyed, when he hath got p. 549it, and when he is ſettled in the throne. We obey not Lewis becauſe he is Lewis, but becauſe he is King.

All that the Cardinal addeth, deſerveth no anſwer. He tells us ſtories, which if the world will believe, it will never trouble us, although we know the contrary to be true. It is nothing to us whether the Dominican that accuſed Barriere, had heard the ſaid Barriere in conſultation or in confeſſion. Nor whether the Jeſuite that heard him, laboured to diſſwade him. Nor whether the Sorboniſts agree among themſelves about the ſecret of confeſſion. Who ſo will examine them ſeverally, ſhall find them of different tenents in that point. But when they all ſpeak in a body, it is no wonder that the power of the Jeſuites and the ſervitude which other Clergy-men are brought to, makes them ſpeak againſt their own ſenſe.

Againſt that fraudulent ſhift whereby a Jeſuite queſtioned by the Magiſtrate whether he hath learned any thing in confeſſion about a plot againſt the Kings death, anſwereth ſwearing, that he knows nothing of it, and that he heard nothing of it, with this reſerved meaning, to ſay it to you; we have the Law of God ſaying, Thou ſhalt not bear falſe teſtimony: For the thought is no part of the teſtimony. There being nothing then that bears teſtimony but the mouth, it follows that ſuch a teſtimony is falſe. Yea, the forgers of ſuch a perjury confeſs that by that proceeding the Judge that examineth them is deceived, and that it is done purpoſely to deceive.

p. 550Seventh Controverſie, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. OF The Authority and Power of the Paſtors of the Church to pardon Sins. And of Sacramentall Abſolution.