Canterburys Doom, Branch 1 · Evidence 2 · Section 11
11. Paſſages deleted againſt Auricular Confeſſion of our Sinnes to Popiſh Priests.
IN Doctor Clerks Sermons, page 443. this paſſage is expunged Saint James is flat for Auricular Confeſſion.that; Auricular confeſſion. Apoſtolicall too; was it not to the Prieſts that Iudas ſaid peccavi, confeſt he had ſinned in betraying innocent blood?
In Maſter Wards Comentary on Matthew, written copy, f. 10. this is deleted.
Firſt, the Papiſts anſwer hereunto, that the parts of repentance are three, to wit firſt, contrition, or as ſome of them ſay, Attrition; ſecondly, Auricular confeſſion; Thirdly, Satisfaction of Merit.
Idem fol. 125. Secondly, confeſſe and make knowne thy temptations to ſome pious and faithfull friend. Here we blame Auricular popiſh confeſſion; firſt, becauſe it doth diſcover laſcivious and wanton women; ſecondly, becauſe it is ordinarily enjoyned; and thirdly; held to be a work deſerving pardon, opere, operato; But firſt, if men not women, would confeſſe themſelves: and ſecondly, not alwayes, but in a caſe of conſcience, when his corruptions are likely to prevaile againſt him; yea, thirdly, not the ſinnes committed already, but onelyonly the temptations and provocations and aſſaults unto ſinne; and fourthly, not to confeſſe to every one, but to ſome pious, prudent, diſcreet and grave friend or Miniſter, &c. we blame it not.
Idem fol. 227. Anſ. 4. A wounded conſcience is of all burthens the heavieſt to a circumciſed heart; thy ſinnes be forgiven thee, we ſee Chriſt here neither requires confeſſion, nor demands or reſerves ſatisfaction of this ſick man, but wholly takes away his ſinnes, to teach us that Chriſt pardons our ſinnes truly, Heb. 8. 12. Ier. 31. 31. &c. Iſa. 43. 25. Heb. 10. 17.
Anſw. 4. Popiſh auricular confeſſion, we tax for three things, namely, firſt, ob coactionem, &c. ſecondly, ob enumerationem; thirdly ob finem falſum; becauſe the end propounded therein by the Papiſts is falſe; for they teach men to confeſſe their ſinnes that by the peoples confeſsion and the Prieſts abſolution, their ſinnes may be taken away and pardoned by God; opere operato, even by the bare work wrought.
The Papiſts command Confeſsion for theſe two ends, viz. Firſt, that their confeſsion may take away ſinnes with God, and this they labour and diſpute ſtrongly for, and relate many fables to prove it; if the ſtudious Reader deſire a view of their Fables, he may find ſome in Antidot. Anim, pag. 145. Col. 3. & 149. Col. 3. & 2. they have worſe ends of their confeſsion then theſe, and that is, to reveale whores, whoredomes and the like, read Antidot. Anim. p. 145. Col. 3. 4.
Ibidem part 1. pag. 115. Queſt. 5. ſeeing that it is lawfull, and in ſome caſes requiſite, that ſome perſons ſhould ſometimes confeſſe ſome ſinnes unto their Paſtors, and that the Paſtor ſhould admoniſh and adviſe them hereunto (as was ſhewed, Mat. 3. 6.) when their conſciences are troubled with any ſinne, then whether ought Miniſters to take an oath of ſecreſie, the rather to induce men to confeſſe freely? An. There are two things here to be conſidered of for the reſolution of this queſtion, viz. Firſt, whether it be lawfull? And 2. whether it be expedient?
Firſt, we muſt conſider whether it be lawfull to take ſuch an Oath of ſecreſie or not?
Firſt, I thinke no man denies (except the Anabaptiſts) that in generall it is lawfull by Gods law to take an oath, either firſt, aſſertory; ſecondly, promiſſory (upon weighty cauſe) though it be not before a Magiſtrate.
Secondly, although the poſitive law threaten a Premunire to him who impoſeth an oath without authority, yet I know no danger to him who aſſumes it willingly and voluntarily.
But thirdly, whether this particular Oath be againſt our lawes, I want skill to determine; for on the one ſide concealment (in ſome caſes) makes a man acceſſary though after the fact; and what may not be performed muſt not be promiſed, eſpecially by oath: On the other ſide, the ancient Canons of the Church forbid (upon great penalty) to reveale confeſſions; and our Law 1. Eliz. confirme all the Canons that are not oppoſite to the Word of God, as I ſuppoſe this not to be.
Secondly, we muſt conſider whether it be expedient or not; to take ſuch an Oath?
This is the greater Queſtion, and muſt be reſolved by the grounds moving it: for whatſoever is lawfull in this, muſt be judged fit or unfit, Hypotheſi, according to the fit or unfit circumſtances which cloth it; firſt therefore, if firſt, the confitent (being burdened in conſcience, and deſirous to unfold his ſore) be hindred by feare or ſhame of publike diſcovery; and ſecondly, if there be no other end in the paſtor but to free him from this feare, I ſee no reaſon why he may not by ſuch a reverend proteſtation, aſſure him of that whereto his own office and conſcience bind him; for as the Canons cōmands concealment ſo Zozomen (ſpeaking of the times within three hundred yeers of Chriſt) ſaith, ſuch men as are burthened in conſcience, and deſire to unfold their griefes, muſt chooſe for their Confeſſor, a man upright of life, prudent, and ſecretorum tenacem, a faithfull concealer of ſecrets. But
Secondly, if the Miniſter uſe ſuch an oath as an aſſuring bait, to draw unwilling men to confeſſe, for the ſatisfying of his own curioſity or private ends, non laudo, it can neither be defended, commended, nor excuſed. But
Thirdly, I muſt adde, that ſeeing temptations lurk ſecretly in the heart, it is ſafer to leave them to the hearts great ſearcher, then to condemne them upon ungrounded ſuſpition unleſſe made evident by ſome diſcloſing circumſtances, wherein it is both more commendable and charitable to ſuſpect a great deale too little, then a little too much; hoc eſt conſilium fidele & verax, &c.