The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved, Part 6

The Council of Trent Examined and Disproved · Part 6

p. 117VI. Of Auricular Confession.

The Council of Trent declares, that the Universal Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. de Poenit. c. 5.Church always understood that Christ did institute an entire Confession of Sins; and that it is received by Divine Right to all who sin after Baptism, because our Lord Jesus Christ before his Ascension into Heaven, did leave Priests as his Vicars, to be Presidents and Judges, to whom all mortal sins were to be made known, and of which they were by p. 118The Power of the Keys to give Sentence, so as either to remit or retain them.

It farther saith, That the most holy and ancient Fathers by a great and unanimous Consent did use this secret Sacramental Ib.Confession from the beginning.

And it denounces Anathema's,

1. Against him that denies the Sacrament of Penance to Can. 1.be of Christ's Institution.

2. Against him that denies that our Saviour's words, Receive 3.ye the Holy Ghost, Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, &c. are to be understood of the Power of remitting and retaining in the Sacrament of Penance, as the Calick Church always understood them.

3. Against him that denies Confession to be a Part of it, or to have Divine Institution, and to be necessary to Salvation; 4, 6, 7.as it relates to all mortal though secret Sins.

Thus we see the Sense of the Council of Trent in this matter; and I shall now make it evident there was no such Catholick Tradition, as is here pretended for it, by the Confession of their own Writers.

1. As to the General Sense of the Church.

2. As to the Founding it on John 22. Those sins ye remit, &c.

1. As to the General Sense of the Church. Maldonat reckons up Seven several Opinions among themselves about Maldonat de Sacr. Poenit. De Confess. c. 2.Confession. 1. Of those who denied it to be of Divine Right, but held it to be useful in the Church; and for this he quotes Rhenanus and Erasmus. 2. Of those who make it to be onelyonly of Ecclesiastical Institution; and this, saith he, is the Opinion of all the Canonists. 3. Of those who thought it came in by Apostolical Tradition; of which he reckons Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury, 4. Of some p. 119Divines who held it to be instituted only by St. James. 5. Of others who held it to be of Divine Right, and not instituted by the Apostles, but insinuated by Christ; and for this he quotes Alexander Hales, and Bonaventure. 6. Of some who thought it instituted in the Old Testament. 7, Of those who held it instituted by Christ, but not as a Precept, but by way of Council; and for this he mentions Scotus and his Followers.

Vasquez reckons up among those whose Opinions are Vasquez in 3. Th. To. 4. Q. 90. art. 1. n. 4.not condemned, The Canonists, Erasmus, Bonaventure, Alexander Hales, and Scotus, who all differed from the Council of Trent.

Suarez mentions three Opinions among them 1. Of Suarez in 3. p. Th. To. 4. Disp. 35. § 1.those who said it was instituted in the Law of Nature. 2. Of those who attributed it to the Law of Moses. 3 Of those who d…nyed any Institution of it by way of Precept from Christ in the Law of Grace; and for this he quotes Hugo de Sancto Victore, Alexandèr Hales, and Bonaventure, and they went upon this Ground, that no such Institution could be proved either by Scripture or Tradition.

Gregory de Valentia Confesses, some Catholick Authors Greg. de Valent. To. 4. Disp. 7. Q. 9. Punct. 2.denied the Divine Institution of Confession; for which he produces the Canonists, and Erasmus and Rhenanus. But he thinks they were not guilty of Heresie, because they were not obstinate; but that is not our business, which is to shew, that by their own confession there was not a constant Catholick Tradition in the Church about it.

Natalis Alexander, who hath lately pretended to answer Nat. Alex. de Sacr. Confess. p. 229.Daillè, confesses, that from the ninth to the thirteenth Age, many Catholicks did hold, that Confession to God alone was sufficient to obtain Remission of sins; and he proves it from Lombard, Gratian and the Canonists. But he saith it was no heresie in them, the point not being yet settled by a general Council.

p. 120Boileau in his Answer to Daillè cannot deny that in Hist. Confes. Auric. c. 29.the time of Lombard and Gratian men held several ways about this matter; but he answers with Thomas upon the Sentences; that it was an opinion then, but since the Council of Lateran it is become a Heresie. But if it were no heretical Opinion then, what becomes of Infallible Tradition? If the Church defines by Tradition, that Tradition must be proved before the Definition, otherwise it hath no ground to proceed upon.

The Council of Lateran under Innocent III. (it seems) made it a Heresie to deny this Sacramental Confession. Within much less than a Century before it, lived Peter Lombard and Gratian. Peter Lombard made it his business to collect a Body of Divinity out of the Sentences of the Fathers; and his work hath been universally esteemed in the Roman Church. When he comes to state this point of Confession out of the Fathers, i. e. to give an account of the Tradition of the Church about it; he tells us in the beginning, that learned men were of different opinions; Lom. sent. l. 4. dist. 17.and for what reason? because the Doctors of the Church seemed to deliver not only divers but contrary things, i. e. they had no certain and constant Tradition about them. And when he comes to the point of Confession to God only, he quotes for it, besides Scripture, S. Ambrose, and S. Chrysostem, and Prosper, and against it S. Augustine and Leo, and concludes himself for the latter; but saith not a word more to shew that the constant Tradition of the Church had been for this opinion.

Gratian puts the same Question, and for Confession to Grat. de Paenit. Dist. 1.God alone he quotes S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, and Prosper, besides Scripture, and argues largely for it after c. Convertimini, &c. Then he sets down the Arguments on the other side from c. 38. and after c. 60. he sums up the force of them, and again after c. 87. and when he hath p. 121said all on one side and on the other, he concludes after c. 89. that he left all to the Readers Judgment; for both Opinions had wise and pious Defenders; and produces that saying as out of Theodore's Penitential; that some think that we ought to confess only to God, as the Greeks others that we ought to do it to the Priest too, as almost all the Church besides; but then he adds, that Confession to God purges away Sin, but that to the Priest shews how they are purged, i. e. by Contrition. So the Gloss interprets it. Bellarmin thinks that, ut Groeci, was foisted into the Canon, Bell. de poenit. l. 3. c. 5.and I shall not dispute against it, provided that which answers to it, ut tota ferè sancta Ecclesta, be allowed to be so too, as the Roman Correctors do confess.

Boileau hath taken another course, for he saith, this whole Distinction is without ground attributed to Gratian; Hist. Confess. Auric. p. 388.but how doth he prove it? From Ant. Augustinus his Dialogue, where a MS. is cited that this was not Gratian's, but an elder Author's. And what is gotten by this? But the other answers, it must be Gratian's, because of the citation out of the Digests, and other Books of Civil Law then lately found. If this will not do, he saith, Gratian hath many Errours, as the Roman Correctors observe. Yes truly do they; and about this Point several times; for the Councils of Lateran and Trent have otherwise determined. But what is all this to the Tradition of the Church in Gratian's time?

Innocent III. in the Council of Lateran, enjoyns strictly the Practice of Confession once a year, under the Penalty of Excommunication, and of being deprived of Christian Burial; but there is not a Word of the Churches Tradition before, for the Ground of it. But finding several Opinions about it, and the Waldenses then opposing it, he resolves by his Authority to bind all Persons to it. But after this the Canonists allowed no more than Ecclesiastical p. 122Institution for it; as is plain by the Gloss on the Canon Law, Dist. 5. de Poenit. Tit. In Poenitentia; but the Roman Correctours quote against it Council. Trident. Sess. 14. c. 5. i. e. a Council some 100 years after, must tell what the Tradition then was; but the Gloss saith, the Greeks had no such Tradition, and therefore were not bound to Confession. So that we have no evidence for any Catholick Tradition in this matter, before the Lateran Council.

2. But the Council of Trent hath gone beyond the Council of Lateran, and hath fixed the Divine Right of Confession on John 20. Whose sins ye remit, &c. and therefore I am now to shew, by the Confession of their own Writers, that this hath not been the Traditionary Sense of this Place.

Cajetan, not long before the Council first sate, in his Notes on this place confesses, that no Precept of Sacramental Confession is contained in it. But how should it be of Divine Right in the sense of the Council of Trent, if there be no Command for it? Tes, by Cons quence, if they will obtain Remission of Sins; but this can by no means be inferred from hence, because the Remission of Sins by Baptism is implied in it; but none of them plead for particular Confession before Baptism, in order to Remission; and therefore not after, unless some Command of Christ made it more necessary after Baptism than before, Vasquez saith, that Cajetan means no more, than that it cannot Vasquez ubi supr. Catharin. in Cajet. p. 446.be proved out of this place; but Catharinus saith, that neither there nor in any other place doth Cajetan allow, that Auricular Confession can be proved out of Scripture.

Gabriel Biel confesses, he cannot find sufficient force to Biel in 4. sent. Dist. 17. q. 1. a. 1.conclude the Necessity of Confession from the Power of Absolution here granted; because it may be valid upon voluntary Confession of the Party; and therefore he resolves it into an unwritten Tradition.

p. 123Guide Brianson takes great pains to prove it out of this Brianson q. 8. Doc. 1. f. 138.place, but at last yields, that Christ's instituting such a Power, doth not bind Persons to confess their Faults to them that have it. For the Power of retaining doth not imply that no sins are retained which are not retained by the Priest upon Confession; neither then doth the Power of Absolution imply that no sins are remitted but such as are confessed to a Priest. And therefore he betakes himself as Biel doth, to unwritten Tradition; and so doth Nicol. De Orbellis ad l. 4. Dist. 17. Almain in 4. Dist. 17.de Orbellis.

Jac. de Almain debates the matter at large; and he says only that it is a probable Opinion, that this Confession is of divine Appointment; but he yields, that Christ's granting a Power of Absolution, d…th not make it a duty to confess to a Priest; and he saith, it is a false proposition, that where a Power of judging is given, others are bound to submit to it; for all that follows is, that their Sentence is valid if they do submit.

But the force of what the Council of Trent deduces from this place, lies wholly in this, as Vasquez observes, Vasquez ib. dub. 2.that because Christ hath given Authority to absolve, and they cannot exercise that Authority without Confession, therefore Confession is hereby made necessary. And he confesses, that scarce any have deduced the Argumert effectually from this place. But he saith one thing very observable, that if this place be extended to Remission of Sins in Baptism, then it can never prove the necessity of Sacramental Confession. And Greg. de Valentia as plainly owns, that the Fathers did understand it of Baptism; he names Greg. de Valent. de Necessit. Confess. c. 3. Nat. Alex. de Sacr. Confess. p. 22. Cyprian ad Jub. Ep. 73.S. Cyprian, and S. Ambrose; but Natalis Alexander allows S. Cyril of Alexandria to have so understood it; and that Jansenius and Ferus followed him; but besides these S. Augustin interprets this place as S. Cyprian had done. For as S. Cyprian from hence infers the Power of Baptizing p. 124and granting Remission of Sins in the Guides of the Church; so S. Augustin saith, the Churches Charity by the H…ly Ghost looses the Sins of those who are her Members, and retains Aug. in Joh. Tr. 121.the sins of those who are not. And it may be observed, that whereas St. Matthew speaks of the Power of Baptizing granted to the Apostles; S. John instead of that mentions this P…wer of remitting or retaining Sins, and S. Mark and S. Luke speak of Baptism; to which the one S. Mark. 16. 16. S. Luke 24. 47.Mark 16:16Luke 24:47joins S…lvation; and the other Remission of Sins. And the…efore this seems to be meant by our Saviour in the Words of S. John; and thus S. Peter exercised this Power of loosing on the converted Jews, Act. 2. 38. and his Power of binding on Simon Magus, Act. 8. 21.

Peter Lombard carries S. Augustin's meaning farther, Pet. Lomb. l. 4. Dist. 18.to the Power of Priests over the Sins of the Members of the Church; but then he limits this Power, and makes it no more than declarative; as I have observed already; and for this he quotes a notable passage of S. Jerom, Hieron. in Matth. c. 16.Matt 16who saith, that Men are apt to assume too much to themselves under pretence of this Power of the Keys, whereas God regards not the Sentence of the Priests but the Life of the Penitents.

But Natalis Alexander thinks there is no binding Power with respect to Baptism; Was there not as to Simon Magus? And as long as every year the Church judged of the competency of Persons for it? When Christ spake these words the Church was wholly to be formed, and it was a great Power lodged with the Apostles and their Successors to admit into the Church, or to exclude from it, not as private Persons, but by Authority from Christ himself. But then this Power is vain and idle in a constituted Church. By no means; they have still a Power of casting out and taking in again; and of imposing such Acts on Offenders, as may give satisfaction to the Church, whose p. 125Honour suffers, and whose Discipline is broken. But the question is, Whether by Christ's appointment under the Gospel no known mortal sin can be pardon'd to baptized Persons without Confession of it to a Priest? And whether these words of our Saviour do imply it?

Scotus is by no means satisfied with mens Reasoning out of this place, that because Christ hath given such a Power, Scot. in l. 4. Dist. 17. q. unica.therefore it is mens duty to confess their sins; For, saith he, this only implies the usefulness and efficacy of this Power if it be made use of; as in Confirmation, none think themselves damned if they do not use it though it be very useful; and therefore he goes another way to work, viz. by joyning this precept and that of loving God and our selves together with it. But how doth this prove that a man ought to take this particular way? Truly, Scotus here shews his Sub…ilty. Suppose there be another way that is harder, and this be found more easie, he thinks a man is bound to take the shortest and easiest way, viz. by Confession and Absolution.

But for all this his heart did misgive him, and he could not but see, that this proved nothing, unless this way of Confession were first proved to be a secure way. And therefore he puts the Case, that if it be not proved by these Words, it may be by S. James, Confess your faults one to ano…her. No, saith he, this will not do; for which he gives this Reason, that it holds no more for confession to a Priest than to any other; therefore, after all, he is willing to resolve it into some unwritten Tradition, since there was no convincing evidence for it either in this or any other place of Scripture. Which shew'd they ran to Tradition, when they had nothing else to say.

Bonaventure denies that Christ himself app…inted t…e Bonav. in 4. Dist. 17. q. 3.Confession of sins; for which he gives this reason, lest it should prove an occasion of sinning; ne ex verbis Domini daretur p. 126aliquibus recidivandi occasio; but afterwards he thinks the Apostles appointed it, and S. James published it; which Scotus utterly denies. But to the place of S John, Bonaventure saith it was not enough to have it implied in the Priest's Power, because it being a harder duty than Absolution, it requir'd a more particular Command. Which was but reasonably said; especially when Bellarmin after others, Bell. de Poen. l. 2. c. 12.urges, that it is one of the most grievous and burthensome Precepts; but his Inference from it is very mean, that therefore it must have a divine Command to inforce it on the People; but Bonaventure's Argument is much stronger, that it ought then to have been clearly expressed. But as to the Peoples yielding to it, other accounts are to be given of that afterwards.

Alexander Hales observes, that if Christ had intended a command of Confession, John 20. it would have been expressed Alex. Sum. 3. p. q. 18. num. 3. art. 2.to those who are to confess, and not to those who are to absolve; as he did to those who were to be baptized, John 3. Except a man be born of water, &c. so Christ would have said, except a man confess his sins, &c. and he gave the same Reasons why Christ did not himself institute it, which Bonaventure doth, who used his very words.

And now who could have imagined that the Council of Trent would have attempted to have made men believe that-it was the sense of the Universal Church that Christ instituted Confession in John 20? when so many great Divines even of the Church of Rome so expresly denied it; as I have made appear from themselves.

But now to give an account by what steps and degrees and on what occasions this Auricular Confession came into the Church, these things are to be considered.

p. 1271. In the first Ages, pu…lick, scandalous Offenders after Baptism, were by the Discipline of the Church brought to publick Penance; which was called Exomologesis; which originally signifies Confession. And by this, Bellarmin Bell. de Poen. l. 3. c. 6.saith the Ancients u…derstood either Confession alone, or joyned with the other parts of Penance; but Albaspineus shews, that it was either taken for the whole course of Albasp. Obs. l. 2. c. 26.publick Penance, or for the last and solemn act of it, when the Bishop led the Penitents from the entrance of the Church up to the B…dy of the Congregation, where they expressed their abhorrence of their faults in the most penitent manner, by their Actions as well as by Words. So that this was a real and publick Declaration of their sorrow for their sins, and not a Verbal or Auricular Confession of them. The same is owned by La Cerda. But Boileau pretends La Cerda. Advers. Sacr. c. 142. p. 2. Hist. Confess. Auric. c. 4. p. 72.that it had not this sense till after the Novatian Heresie and the Death of Irenaeus; and that before that time it signified Confession according to the sense of the Word in Scripture. This seems very strange, when Baronius himself confesses, that Tertullian us…s it for that part of Baron. ad A. D. 56.Penance which is called Satisfaction; and Bellarmin grants it is so used both by Tertullian and Irenoeus; when he saith the Woman seduced by Marcus, afterwards spent her days in Exmologesi. What! in continual Confession of Iren. l. 1. c. 9.her sin? No, but in Penitential Acts for it; and so Petavius understands it, both in Irenoeus and Tertullian, Petav. Not. ad Epiphan. p. 71. De la Penit. publique, l. 2. c…. 13. n. 9.and he saith, it did not consist onelyonly or principally in Words but in Actions, i. e. it was nothing of kin to Auricular Confession, which is a part of Penance distinct from satisfaction. And to make these the same, were to confound the different parts of the Sacrament of Penance, as the …ouncil of Trent doth distinguish them.

p. 128But besides this, there were several other Circumstances. which do make an apparent difference between these Penitential Acts and the modern notion of Confession.

1. The Reason of them was different. For, as Rigaltius Rigalt. not. in. Tert. de P…n.observes, the penitential Rigour was taken up after great Numbers were admitted into the Church; and a great dishonour was brought upon Christianity by the looseness or inconstancy of those who professed it. There were such in S. Paul's time in the Churches of Corinth, and elsewhere; but although he gives Rules about such, yet he mentions no other than avoiding or excommunicating the guilty Persons, and upon due Sorrow and Repentance receiving them in again; but he imposes no necessity of Publick or Private Confession in order to Remission; much less of every kind of mortal sin, though it be but the breach of the tenth Commandment, as the Council of Trent doth; yet this had been necessary in case he had thought, as that declares, that God will not forgive upon other terms. And so much the rather, because the Evangelists had said nothing of it; and now Churches began to fill, it was absolutely necessary for him to have declared it, if it were a necessary condition of Pardon for sins after Baptism. But although the Apostles had given no Rules about it, yet the Christian Churches suffering so extremely by the Reproaches cast upon them, they resolved, as far as it was possible, to take care to prevent any scandalous Offences among them. To this end, the actions of all Persons who professed themselves Christians were narrowly watched; and their faults, especially such as were scandalous, complained of; and then if they confessed them, or they were convicted of them, a severe and rigorous Discipline was to be undergone by them before they were restored to Communion; p. 129that their Enemies might see how far the Christians were from incouraging such enormities as they were accused of. They were charged with Thyestean Suppers and promiscuous mixtures; whereas, any Persons among them who were guilty of Homicide or Adultery were discharged their society, and for a great while not admitted upon any terms; and afterwards, upon very rigorous and severe terms. And besides these, to preserve the purity of their Religion in times of Persecution, they allowed no Compliance with the Gentile Idolatry; and any tendency to this, was looked upon as a degree of Apostasie, and censured accordingly. And about these three sorts of sins the severity of the Primitive Discipline was chiefly exercised; which shews, that it proceeded upon quite different grounds from those of the Council of Trent about Auricular Confession.

2. The method of proceeding was very different; for here was no toties quoties allow'd; that men may sin, and confess, and be absolved; and then sin the same sin again, and confess again, and receive Absolution in the same manner. The Primitive Church knew nothing of this way of dealing with Sinners upon Confession. If they were admitted once to it that was all. So Pamelius himself Pamel. not. 1. in Tert. de. Poenit. Albasp. Obs. l. 2. c. 5. Petav. ad Epiph. p. 236. Append. ad Epiph. c. 3. p. 91.grants, and produces several Testimonies of Fathers for it; and so doth Albaspineus and Petavius. Dare any say this is the sense of the Church of Rome about Confession, that a man cannot be received a second time to Confess and be absolved from the same sin? How then can they pretend any similitude between their Confession and the ancient Exomologesis? Besides, none ever received Absolution from the ancient Church till full satisfaction performed. But in the Church of Rome, Absolution is given before Satisfaction; and although some p. 130have complained of this, as a great abuse; yet they have been sharply answer'd, that it is to call in question the Conduct of the Church for five hundred years; and they may as well question many other things, which depend upon the Authority of the Present Church.

3. The Obligation to Confession is very different from what it was in the ancient Exomologesis. Now by the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, a person looks on himself as bound in Conscience to confess every Mortal sin; but in the Ancient Church none can imagine that persons were bound to undergo the Exomologesis for every mortal sin, there being no Penitential Canons which did ever require it; but they had respect to some particular sins, and the Penance was proportion'd to them.

We ought to take notice of two things with respect to the Discipline of the Ancient Church, which will shew the different notion it had of these things from what is now current in the Church of Rome.

1. That it did not exclude those from all hopes of Salvation whom it excluded from Penance; as may be seen in the Illiberitan Council, where many are wholly shut out from the Church, whom we cannot think they …. Illiber. c. 1, 2, 3, &c.thought uncapable of Salvation. From whence it follows, that they did not look on Confession and Absolution as a necessary condition of Salvation; but now in the Church of Rome they allow Confession to all, because they think they cannot otherwise be in a state of Salvation in an ordinary way. But in the Ancient Church they could not look on the desire of Confession as necessary, for to what purpose should they make that necessary when they denyed the thing? But in the Church of Rome, they make the desire necessary, because they hold the thing it self to be so, if there be means to have it.

p. 1312. That the Penitential Canons never extended in the Primitive Church to all those sins which the Church of Rome now accounts Mortal, and therefore necessary to be confessed. The Council of Trent saith expresly, they must confess omnia & singula peccata mortalia—etiam occulta—and an Anathema is denounced against him De Poenit. can. 7.that denies it to be necessary to Remission of them. Now if we consider their notion of mortal sins, we shall easily discern the vast difference between the Obligation to Confession by the Council of Trent, and by the old Penitential Canons. For mortal sins are not only all Voluntary Acts committed against the known Laws of God, but against the Laws of the Church; and even venial sins may become mortal by the Disposition of the Person, and by other circumstances, which the Casuists set down at large; now the Council of Trent doth expresly oblige men, not only to relate the Acts themselves, but all Circumstances which change the kind of Sin. And this is a racking the Consciences of Men far beyond whatever we find in the old Penitential Canons; for, Petavius confesses that many sins now accounted mortal, Petav. not. ad Epiph. p. 238.had no Penance appointed for them by the old Canons; and therefore I need not take any pains to prove it: If any one hath a mind to be satisfied, he may see it in Gregory Nyssen's Canonical Epistle, where he owns that several of those sins, for which the Scripture excludes from Greg. Nyss. Epist. ad Let. c. 4, 5.the Kingdom of Heaven, have no Canonical Penance prescribed them by the ancient Canons of the Church. Which shews a mighty difference from the Rule of the Council of Trent.

The most plausible place in Antiquity brought for all mortal sin, is that of S. Cyprian, where he saith, that some Cypr. de lap-…is, …. 23.confessed their very thoughts, though they had not proceeded p. 132to actual sin. It is true, that he doth speak of some such; but was it for sins of thought against the tenth Command? No; but it is very plain, that he speaks of that sin which was thought to imply a renouncing Christianity, and S Cyprian elsewhere calls summum delictum, and the Sin ag…inst the Holy Ghost; viz. consenting to any Act of gentile Idolatry; and yet Saint Cypr. Ep. 10.Cyprian had much ado to perswade those who were actually guilty to submit to due Penance for it; but they obtained Tickets from the Confessors, and were admitted to communion without undergoing the Discipline of the Church, the consequence whereof would be, that the Discipline would be lost, and the Church over-run with Apostates; this makes S. Cyprian plead hard against such practices, and among other arguments he uses this of the great tenderness of some, who because they had entertained such thoughts of doing as others did, for their own safety, they offered to unburthen their Consciences before them, and desired remedy for small Wounds; how much more ought they to confess their faults whose wounds are greater? This is the whole force of his reasoning; where the Thought and Act relate to the same sin; and that said to be no less than denying Christ, and sinning against the Holy Ghost. But there is no parity in the case of other sins; which even S. Cyprian calls minora delicta, being against men Cypr. Ep. 12.immediately; and there is no intimation in him that ever the thoughts of those sins were discovered, or that Persons were under any obligation by the Rules of the Church to do it.

2. Private Offenders were sometimes advised in those first Ages for the ease of their Consciences to make Confession p. 133of their sins; of which we see an instance as to the Practice in one Case in S. Cyprian's time. And Tertullian compares such Persons who avoid it, to those who have such secret Ulcers that they chuse rather to perish than to discover them. Now in Cases of this nature he advises to Confession and publick penitential Acts, that so they may in the Judgment of the Church have the secret Wounds of their Consciences healed. And this is that which Origen doth advise to in such Cases, to seek out a wise spiritual Physician, and to make known his inward Orig. in Levit. Hom. 2. in Psal. 37. Hom. 2. in Luc. Hom. 17.Ps 37distemper to him, and to follow his advice and direction, as to the Method of Cure. Now this we never oppose; but the only Question is, whether it be necessary for all Persons, and for every Mortal Sin, to make Confession of it to the Priest, that it may be forgiven; and Origen never once supposes this; for he mentions several other ways for the Remission of Sins after Baptism, by Martyrdom, by Alms, by forgiving and converting others, by great Love to God, and in the last place he brings in this of a Laborious Penance and Confession. Either the former ways are sufficient without this, or not; if they are, then this is not necessary to the Remission of all mortal Sins; if not, to what purpose doth he mention so many ways, when this one is sufficient without them and all those are insufficient without this? For Boileau confesses, that no mortal sins according to them can be remitted, Hist. Confess. Auric. c. 5. n. 8.where there is not at least the desire of this. But Origen shews the different ways of obtaining Remission, or else he doth not answer the difficulty; which was that the Jews had several sorts of Sacrifices for the Expiation of Sins, to which we have none answerable under the Gospel, Yes, saith Origen, Baptism answers to one sort, Martyrdom to another, Alms to a third, &c. and last of all, Penance p. 134to the Offering baked in the Frying Pan. From whence it is plain, that he looked on this as one particular way proper to some Cases, and not as a general Method for the Remission of all mortal Sins. But he urges that Origen quctes Scripture for the Confession of Sins, as necessary, Hom. 2. in Psal. 37. But what Scripture? Even the Words of the Psalmist, I will confess my Iniquity. And was Confession to a Priest necessary under the Law? How then can those words prove it necessary under the Gospel? Although therefore Origen might think it very convenient in some cases for Penitents to unload their Consciences by Confession to a Spiritual Physician, yet we find no proof of any necessity of it, as to all mortal Sins. It is confessed, that publick Faults, either confessed or proved, had publick Penance appointed for them by the Penitential Canons; but Boileau, after Arnauld, pleads, that even secret Sins being mortal, were not thought remissible by the Keys of the Church, without publick Penance. But this can never be proved to have been the Doctrine of the Ancient Church, and it is unreasonable to suppose; for then, all Persons must have undergone publick Penance who had any mortal Sin, and it must have been frequently born by the same Persons, both which are inconsistent with the Ancient Discipline. But they saw there was no other way to maintain the Necessity of Confession, but by this. For they could find none but publick Penance, and that by the Penitential Canons was prescribed only for some particular scandalous Sins; and therefore they fansied, that Persons who committed other faults, were bound to confess them privately, and to undergo publick Penance for them. I do not deny, but some great Penitents, for secret Faults, would of their own accord submit to the publick Discipline; but this was a voluntary Act in them, p. 135that by this means they might assure themselves the More of the sincerity of their own Repentance; and it being looked on as an Act of Humility and Piety, it made it go down the better with Voluntary Penitents.

3. For the sake of such Voluntary Penitents in great Churches, whose Cases required particular and private Examination and Direction, there was a Penitentiary appointed, whose Office it was to receive their Confessions, and to direct and order the Method of their Penance. Of this we have a famous Instance in the Church of Constantinople, in the time of Nectarius, about which so much pains hath been taken for different purposes. That which seems most probable to me, is, that the Penitentiary was appointed to examine and judge of such Penitential Causes which were brought before him, (not being notorious,) and to give sentence according to the Canons; but especially of Voluntary Confessions of Persons, whose Consciences were oppressed with the Guilt of Secret Sins; and to those he was to appoint Penance without revealing their Faults. Where the Facts were notorious and scandalous, I suppose the ancient Discipline of the Church (part whereof is to be seen in the Canonical Epistles) to Pandect. Canon. Vol. 2.have still continued at Constantinople, as well as in other Churches. But there were many private miscarriages, wherein great Prudence and Judgment was required, both to determine the Penance, and to manage it so, that it did not break out into an open Scandal. And for Cases of this Nature the Penitentiary was appointed; to whom all Persons might resort in private cases, and open their Consciences to him, and take his Directions how to perform their Penitential Acts. So it was with that Person of Quality at Constantinople, who gave occasion to the p. 136abolishing the Office of Penitentiary, both there, and in all the Eastern Churches. She first went to the Penitentiary, as a voluntary Penitent, and confessed her Faults to him, and took his directions; and while she was performing her Penance in the Church, the Fact was committed with the Deacon, which she afterwards confessed to the Penitentiary. Who being enraged at the Deacon, in probability through his desire to have him punished, the Fact came to be discovered, and the People to be highly offended: And it is not reasonable to suppose that the Penitentiary put her upon a publick Confession of her secret fault; but that it came out by his means; and therefore Nectarius thought fit no longer to put such a Trust into any Man's hand, which through his discovery might redound to the Dishonour of the Church, as that did.

What the effect was of abolishing this Office, is the great Question, whether the taking away publick or private Confession. If the Historians may be believed, it was the Necessity of making any Confession at all in secret; for the Right of receiving such Confessions, was devolved upon the Penitentiary; therefore when his Office was put down, where the Case was not notorious, every one must be left to his own Conscience; and that both Socrates Socr. l. 5. c. 19. Soz. l. 7. c. 16.and Sozomen affirm was the consequence of it. If only publick Confession was taken away, as some imagine, a secret Confession was still continued, how was it possible for the Historians to mistake the matter so grosly, by making that the consequence of it? For, is every Man left to his own Conscience, where he is bound to go to Confession before he partakes of the Eucharist? And why should publick Penance be taken away on this occasion, where there seems to have been none; for that Person underwent p. 137to publick Penance upon her former Confession, for then her Penance would not have been done in the Church, but out of it, among the Penitents. But as the former was voluntary, so was the latter too; for here was no Accuser but her self; and for what Reason should publick and solemn Penance for notorious Cri…es, be taken away for the sake of the discovery of a Secret Confession? Whether the punishment of the Deacon were the Occasion of its coming out, or whatever it was, it seems evident to me, that she was not obliged to any publick Consession; because Sozomen saith, the Penitentiary was chosen for his Gravity, Silence and Wisdom; but what Silence was there, if the Confessions were to be made publick. And on the other side, it is impossible to conceive, that if all Persons were then obliged to confess all mortal Sins after Baptism, that one Penitentiary should be sufficient in so vast a City as that of Constantinople was. Therefore I think it most probable, that the case of notorious and scandalous Offenders stood as it did, and so continued in S. Chrysostom's time; but this Office of Penitentiary relating to voluntary and secret Offenders was taken away; because a greater Scandal came to the Church by the discovery, when such a publick Disgrace made the Fact become notorious. And so this Act of Nectarius in taking away the Penitentiary's Office, and the Approbation of it by other Churches following the Example, evidently proves, that they did not look on Confession of s… cret Sins, as necessary to the Remission of them.

4. As the taking away the Penitentiary's Office shewed the Sense of the Church at that time against the Necessity of Confession in order to Pardon, so it did likewise in order to the partaking of the Eucharist. For Socrates p. 138saith, that Eudaemon gave that Counsel to Nectarius, that Socr. l. 5. c. 19.he should remove the Penitentiary, and give every one leave to pass J…dgment on himself in his own Conscience, and so to partake of the Mysteries. The same is affirmed by Sozomen. Which respects not the publick Discipline about Soz. l. 7. c. 16.Notorious Offenders, but the private Applications made by scrupulous Persons and secret Offenders to the Penitentiary in order to a right preparation for the Eucharist. And it is very probable, that it was then believed by many, that they could not be duly fitted for that Sacrament, unless they had first unburthened their Consciences by a voluntary Confession to the Penitentiary, and followed his Directions. But this Office being taken away, the Question now is, whether it were thought necessary to confess privately to any other? The Council of Trent declares, Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 7. Can. 11.that Sacramental Confession is necessary to a worthy partaking of the Eucharist, to every one that is conscious to himself of any mortal sin; and whosoever holds the contrary is declared excommunicate ipso facto. But these Historians plainly deny it, and they are justified by S. Chrysostom, who speaks to the very Case; not about C…techumens, but such as would fit themselves for the Holy Eucharist. And he several times declares, that a man needs not reveal his sins to any but to God alone, in order to it. Nothing can be more Emphatical than what he saith to that purpose. For this Cause S. Paul saith, Let a man examin himself, and so let him eat of that foreign. S. Chrys. To. 6. p. 837. Hom. 8. d… Poenit. H…m. 28. in 1 ad Corin….Bread, and drink of that Cup; he doth not lay open the secret Ulcer; he doth not bring the Accusation into a Theatre; he appoints no Witnesses of thy Transgressions; pass judgment within thine own Conscience, there examin thy faults, and call thy self p. 139to an account for the …ins of thy Life, where …o…e but God is present, who sees all things; amend thy faults, and so with a pure Conscience draw near to the holy Table, and partake of the Sacrifice there offered.

But left this should be thought one of those sudden eloquent heats which Petavius saith, are hardly capable of Petav. Not. ad Epiphan. p. 244.good sense, if too strictly examined; we find him very cooly delivering the same Doctrine in his Exposition of those words of S. Paul. Than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, which makes Confession of our Sins to a Priest a necessary Preparation for the Eucharist. Catharinus saith, that if the Church had not limited the time, yet every Person Cathar. c. Cajetan. p. 453.would be bound to confess to a Priest, as often as he communicated. And although he knew no mortal sin by himself, yet he would deserve the severest Censure for not confessing, because he took upon himself to be his own Judge. Can any 451.thing be more contrary to S. C…rysostom than this? Boileau confesses, that S. Chrysostom doth not here refer at Hist. Confess. Auric. p. 201.all to Confession to a Priest; then it follows, that he thought it not necessary to right participation of the Holy Eucharist. Here he speaks not of daily Examination of Conscience by the faithful; but of the solemn Judgment of Conscience by way of due Preparation; and so justifies the Fact of Nectarius in taking away the Penitentiaries Office. But we are not to suppose so great and so zealous a Man would have done it against his Conscience, as he must, if he still thought Confession to a Priest necessary; and he doth not say, they need not go now to the Penitentiary, but that they need not diselose their sins to any. Not to a multitude, or in a theatrical manner, as some expound p. 140it; but to none but God, which excludes the knowledge of a sin…le Priest, as well as of a great number. I n…ed not insist on the other places in S. Chrysostom to that purpose, since these are sufficient for my design.

Cassian was a Disciple of S. Chrysostom, and he supposes Cassian. Collat. 20. c. 8.Confession to God alone to be sufficient for Remission of Sin, where mere modesty hinders men from consessing to men. Boileau answers, that he doth not speak of Sacramental Confession made to Priests; but of an Ascetick Confession among Hist. Confess. Auric. c. 18. p. 286.the M…nks. But he speaks of a Confession to God as sufficient for Remission of Sins, and therefore must exclude the Necessity of any other.

5. After the taking away the Penitentiary's Office, the Publick Discipline of the Church, as to open and scandalous Offenders continued for some time in the Eastern as well as the Western Churches. No one speaks more fully to this than S. Chrysostom; which makes me wonder at those who say the publick Penance was taken away by Nectarius, for in his 82. Homily on S. Matthew, towards the Conclusion he insists very much upon it; and not only charges the People not to come with their sins upon them; but he speaks to those who ministred, to deny the Eucharist to open Offenders. And he saith, it would be charged as a great Fault upon them, if they knew such and permitted them to communicate. But how shall we knew them? I speak not, saith he, of those who are not, but of those who are known; and if any such did thrust themselves in, he bid them not be afraid to deny them; and if they durst not, he tells them, they should bring them to him, and he would rather lose his life than give that Sacrament to such unworthy receivers. But still he saith he speaks of open and notorious Offen…ers. Which p. 141shews plainly, that even S. Chrysostom never thought the publick Discipline was changed; since he declares so much Resolution to maintain it. And this could not be spoken by him while he was a Presbyter at Antioch, but after he came to the See of Constantinople. There was no doubt some alteration as to the Penitents, after the taking away the Penitentiary; but it was no more than his Office was concerned in. The old Penitential Canons remained still in force and were executed, as Occasion served; as appears by the Canons in Trullo so long after S. Chrysostom's time which refer to them. If all the publick Discipline had been laid aside so long before, to what purpose do those Bishops speak of them, as if they were still in force? See Canon 44, 46, 53, 54, 87. In the last Canon indeed they leave it to those who had the Power of binding and loosing to temper the severity of the Canons as they should judge convenient; but doth it hence follow, that the ancient Discipline as to publick Offenders was destroy'd? S. Chrysostom himself several times S. Chrys. in Matth. Hom. 71. In 2 Ep. ad. Cor. Hom. 18. Hom. 3 in Ep. ad Ephes.mentions those who were in the state of Penitents and the Prayer that was made for them; to what purpose, in case the whole Order of Penitents was taken away? He likewise speaks of the charge for the Penitents to go out. What a mockery, were this, if there were no Publick Discipline then left? And lest it should be said, that these things were said by him at Antioch, before the fact of Nectarius, I have shew'd already that the latter Homilies on S. Matthew were made by him at Constantinople; and in his Liturgy there used the dismission of the Penitents was continued.

6. While the publick Discipline was kept in the several Churches none were injoyned to undergo it, but open and publick Offenders. The Evidence being so clear p. 142in Antiquity for the publick Penance of those who were bound to give the Church satisfaction before they receiv'd Absolution from it; there was a necessity found by some learned Men of the Roman Communion to set up a new Hypothesis, viz. that by the Ancient Rules of the Church all Persons conscious to themselves of secret si…s were bound to undergo publick Penance for the Remission of their sins. The occasion of the debate was this. Some in the Church of Rome held no more necessary in case of mortal Sin to prepare men for Communion than Confession to a Priest and Absolution; others saw the fatal Petav. de la Penitence publique, l. 5. ch. 10. p. 64.Consequence of this, and therefore insisted on the Necessity of Penance; both Parties made their Appeal to the Ancient Church; and both were mistaken. For, on the one side, there was no such Doctrine then held that Confession and Absolution did sufficiently prepare Persons for the Eucharist; and on the other, there was no good Evidence that any were enjoyned publick Penance for secret faults. But in the Case of such sins, the Confession was left to God in Secret; and a true and hearty Contrition for them was thought the best as well as most necessary Preparation for the Eucharist.

Monsr. Arnauld saw well enough that without his Arn. de freq. Communione, Part. 2. c. 3. p. 205.Hypothesis, it was impossible to prove the Necessity of Confession in the Ancient Church; for he yields that the Church did not use the Power of the Keys but in Publick. On the the other hand, Petavius urges, that on the Petav. l. 2, c. 5. n. 3.same Ground that they would reduce, as they pretended, the Ancient Discipline they must make many other alterations in the Church, and so justifie the Reformers. But Monsr. Arnauld was defective in his Proofs, as Petavius at large shews; not when he proves that the Penance was publick; but that all Persons under mortal sins were bound to undergo it. For Petavius makes it appear, p. 143that all such as are accounted mortal si…s in the modern sense, were not then thought necessary to be expiated by publick Penance; but only such as were notorious and scandalous, and he at large answers all Monsr. Arnauld's l. 6. c. 2, &c.Arguments. Notwithstanding which Morinus took up Monsr. Arnauld's Opinion, and without any Morin. Com. de Poenit. l. 10. c. 17.colour charges it on Theodore Archbishop of Ca…terbury, that …e first in his Penitential appointed publick Penance to be onelyonly for publick Offences. But the learned Editor of the Abstract of Theodore's Penitential, hath fully vindicated him in this matter.Theod. Vind. p. 61, &c.

But after these, Boileau resumes the Opinion of Monsr. Arnauld, and lays it for the Foundation of his History of Auricular Confession. But he grants, that all the solemn Hist. Confess…. Auric. c. 2.and ceremonial Penance imposed by the Penitential Canons did not extend to all kind of mortal sins, but chiefly to Idolatry, Adultery and Homicide; but this he insists upon, that some part of this publick Penance, viz. Exclusion from the Communion was inflicted on Persons guilty of secret mortal sins. But this will by no means do his business; for he is to prove that no secret mortal sin could be forgiven without Confession to a Priest; and that all persons were required by the ancient Church in case they were conscious to themselves of any such sins, to make them known, and to undergo publick Penance for them, before they could obtain Remission of them. We do not deny that Persons under Trouble of Conscience for secret sins, were from time to time advised to resort to their Guides, to make known their Cases to them, and to take their Directions; we do not deny that such Persons might be required by such Guides to withdraw themselves from joyning in the most solemn Acts of publick Communion till they had manifested the sincerity of p. 144their Repentance, by Fastin…, and Prayers, and other penitential Acts; we do not deny, that some of these Persons might either by Advice or of their own Accord joyn themselves with the publick Penitents, as is well known in the Case of Fabiola at Rome so much magnified by S. Jerom; but this is the thing we desire to see proved, that no sin whatsoever of a mortal nature (as it is defined in the Church of Rome) was then thought capable of Remission by the penitential Acts of the Party, (especially by true Contrition) without Confession to a Priest and Absolution from him. And this is the true state of the Case; and I can find nothing produced by him to this purpose which deserves to be considered.

7. As the publick Discipline declined, Persons were exhorted to make private Confession of their sins; if they could not be brought to publick Penance. Thence in the Greek Church came the Penitentials of Johannes Jejunator (who first took upon himself the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch in the time of Mauritius to the great Offence of the Bishops of Rome) and of some others after him.

Morinus grants that there was a great alteration in the Joh. Morin. Com de Poen. l. 6. c. 22, 23.Greek Church about this matter; he thinks it began with the business of the Penitentiary, but after the publick Discipline was disused, instead of that, he saith, came up a secret Confession and Penance; which was left to the c. 23. n. 1, 2.honesty, and piety of the Penitent, and not required by any Canonical Authority among them; and so he saith it continued from the time of Nectarius to this day, as to the People. So that we have a plain Confession from him, that there is no Rule in the Greek Church requiring this secret Confession of Sins in order to the forgiveness p. 145of them. But it is observable concerning the modern Greeks, that if Persons do make Confession among them, they think themselves obliged to keep to the old Penitential Canons, and blame Joh. Jejunator for receding from them; for Simeon of Thessalonica saith, they had them from the Fathers, and the Fathers by Tradition down from the Apostles. But although they are therein mistaken, yet they shew how different their Tradition is from that of the Roman Church, which thinks it self under no such obligation, but allows Absolution to be granted upon Confession, and a right of Communion without Penance performed, for which there is no colour, as to any ancient Tradition either of the Eastern or Western Church.

In the Western Church we find the publick Discipline fallen to decay in the beginning of the ninth Age, and Charles the Great summoning several Councils for putting things into as good an Order as they would then bear. In the second Council of Cavaillon, A. D. 813. we find a Complaint, Can. 25. that the old Canonical Penance was generally disused; and neither the ancient Order of Excommunicating or Absolving was observed. Which is a plain and ingenuous acknowledgment that they had gone off from the ancient Tradition of the Church; and therefore they pray the Emperor's Assistance, that the publick Discipline might be restored for publick Offenders, and the ancient Canons be brought into use again. From whence it follows, that at that time notorious Offenders escaped with private Confession and Penance; and even that was done by halves, can. 32. and some thought it not necessary to do it at all, can. 33. And upon this Occasion, they do not declare it necessary for the Remission of Sins to confess even the most secret p. 146mortal Sins to a Priest; but very fairly say, that both are useful; for Confession to God purgeth the Sin; and to the Priest, teaches men how their sins may be purged. For God who is the Author and giver of Health, giveth it often by the Inv…sible Operation of his Power, and often by the means of Physicians.

Boileau yields, that there were some then in the Roman Hist. Confess. Auric. c. 25. n. 3.Church, who denied Confession to Men to be necessary, but he saith, they were Adversaries and Rebels. This had been a good Answer, if the Council had called them so; which it doth not, but on the contrary declares, that God doth often forgive sin immediately without the Priests Interposition, or else the latter Clause signifies nothing. And the most it saith before, is, that Confession to a Priest is useful in the Church; which is not the the thing disputed by us, but the Necessity of it; and his Critical Observations of Utrumque signifie just nothing, unless he had proved that the Council had before said that both were necessary, which it doth not. He doth not deny, that the Opinion c. 29. p. 387.of the Sufficiency of Confession to God alone did continue in the Church to the time of the Council of Lateran, and that it gave Occasion to the Canon, which enforced the Necessity of Confession to a Priest; but he adds, that learned and pious Men may have false Opinions before the Judgment of the Church. So that at last we find Universal Tradition is given up, and the Necessity of Auricular Confession is resolved into the Authority of the Roman Churches Definition, or rather, the Pope's Declaration of it, either with or without the Consent of the Lateran Council. But he saith, The Fathers did not speak so exactly of the Trinity before the Council of Nice; nor the Greek Fathers of Grace and Predestination before S. Augustin. If this be true, it is impossible to prove either of those great Points merely by Tradition; p. 147for those Fathers either delivered the sense of the Church, or they did not; if they delivered the sense of the Church, then either the sense of the Church was doubtful, or they did not understand it; if the sense of the Church were doubtful, then it is plain those Doctrines could not be proved by Tradition; if the sense of the Church were not doubtful, but the Fathers did not understand it, then how is it possible that the Churches Tradition should be an Infallible Guide, when even the Fathers of the Church were mistaken about it? But I have sufficiently proved, that not only before, but even after the Council of Lateran there was no Universal Tradition for the Necessity of Auricular Confession.

FINIS.