The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, Part 7
VII. Of Confession.
1. VVE do not charge the Church of Rome, that in the power of absolving, they make Gods of Men; P. 14. as our Misrepresenter pretends.
2. We do not deny, That Christ gave to the Bishops and Priests of the Catholick Church, Authority to absolve any truly penitent Sinner from his Sins, (which he therefore needlesly proves out of Scripture) and that such Absolution is ratified in Heaven.
3. We are glad to find that our Author declares, That no Man receives benefit by Absolution, without Repentance from the bottom of his Heart, and real Intention of forsaking his Sins; P. 15. by which we hope he means more than Attrition.
But yet there are some things which stick with us, as to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome in this matter, which he takes no notice of.
1. That secret Confession of Sins to a Priest is made so necessary to Salvation, that an Anathema is S…ss. 14. Can. 6.denounced against all that deny it, when they cannot deny that God doth forgive Sins upon true Contrition. Forthe Council of Trent doth say, That Contrition, with S…ss. 14. c. 4.Charity, doth reconcile a Man to God before the Sacrament Lomb. l. 4. Dist. 17. Grat. de Poenit. Dist. 1. c. 90. Quidam.of Penance be actually received. But then it adds, That the desire of Confession is included in Contrition: Which is impossible to be proved by Scripture, Reason, or Antiquity. For so lately, as in the time of the Master of the Sentences, and Gratian (in the 12th Centurie) it was a very disputable Point, whether Confession to a Priest were necessary. And it is very hard for us to understand how that should become necessary to Salvation since, which was not then. Some of their own Writers confess, that some good Catholicks did not believe the necessity Greg. de Valentiâ de Necessit. Confess. c. 2. Maldonat. Oper. To. 2. de Poenit. c. 2, & 3.of it. I suppose the old Canonists may pass for good Catholicks; and yet Maldonat saith, That all the Interpreters of the Decrees held, that there was no Divine Precept for Confession to a Priest; and of the same Opinion he grants Scotus to have been. But he thinks it is now declared to be Heresy, or he wishes it were. And we think it is too much already, unless there were better ground for it.
2. That an Anathema is denounced against those who do not understand the words of Christ, Whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. of the Sacrament John 20. 23.of Penance, so as to imply the Necessity of Confession: Whereas there is no appearance in the words of any such Sense; and themselves grant, that in order to the Remission of Sins, by Baptism, (of whch St. Matthew and St. Mark speak in the Apostles S. Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Jansen. Concord Evang. c. 147Commission) there is no necessity of Sacramental Confession, but a General Confession is sufficient. And from hence the Elder Jansenius concludes, That the Power of Remission of Sins here granted, doth not imply Sacramental Confession. Cajetan yields, There Cajetan. in loc. Ed. Paris, 1540. Catharin. in Cajeta…. l. 5. p. 444.is no Command for Confession here. And Catharinus adds, That Cajetan would not allow any one Place of Scripture to prove Auricular Confession. And as to this particular, he denies that there is any Command for it; and he goes not about to prove it, but that Cajetan contradicts himself elsewhere, viz. when he wrote School-Divinity, before he set himself to the study of the Scriptures. Vasquez saith, That if Vasquez in 3 Part. Th. Tom. 4. Qu. 90. Art. 1. Dub. 2. Nam. 2. Greg. de Valent. in Thom. Tom. 4. Disp. 7. Qu. 9. Punct. 2. p 284.these words may be understood of Baptism, none can infer from them the Necessity of Auricular Confession. But Gregory de Valentia evidently proves, that this place doth relate to Remission of Sins in Baptism; not only from the Comparison of Places, but from the Testimonies of S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, and others.
3. That it is expressed in the same Anathema's that this hath been always the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church from the beginning. We do not deny the ancient practice, either of Canonical Confession, as part of the Discipline of the Church for publick Offences; nor of Confession, for ease and satisfaction of the perplexed Minds of doubting or dejected Penitents; but that which we say was not owned nor practised by the Church from the Beginning, was this Sacramental Confession as necessary to the Remission of Sins before God. It is therefore to no purpose to produce out of Bellarmine, and others, a great number of Citations, to prove that which we never deny; but if they hold to the Council of Trent, they must prove from the Fathers, that Sins after Baptism cannot be forgiven without Confession to Men: Which those who consider what they do, will never undertake, there being so many Testimonies of undoubted Antiquity against it. And it is observable, that Bonaventure grants, that before the Lateran Bonavent. in l. 4. Sent. Dist. 17. part. 2.Decree of Innocentius 3. it was no Heresy to deny the Necessity of Confession; and so he excuses those who in the time of Lombard and Gratian, held that Opinion. And all other Christians in the World besides those of the Church of Rome, do to this day reject the Necessity of Particular Confession to a Priest, in order to Remission, as the Writers of the Church of Rome themselves confess. So Godignus doth of the Abyssins; Godign. de rebus Abassin. l. 1. c. 28. Itinerarium Ori…ntale. l. 5. c. 8.Philippus à SS. Trinitate, of the Jacobites; Clemens Galanus of the Nestorians, who saith, 'They made a Decree against the use of Confession to any but to God alone. And Alexius Meneses of the Christians, of Galan. Concil. Eccles. Armenae To. 2. p. 605.of S. Thomas in the Indies. The Greeks believe Confession only to be of Positive and Ecclesiastical Institution, as the late Author of the Critical History of the Historie Critique de la Creance & de Coutums des Nations du Levant. ch. 8. p. 105. Ch. 1. p. 14. Resp. 1. Jer m. Patriarch. ad Theolog. Wirte…tberg. p. 87. Arcud. de Concord. Ecclesiae Occident. & Orient. in 7 Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. Goar in Eucholog. p. 681.Faith and Customs of the Eastern Nations, proves. And the very Form of their Absolution declares, that they do not think particular Confession of all known Sins, necessary to Pardon: for therein the Priest absolves the Penitent from the Sins he hath not confessed through forgetfulness, or shame. And now let any one prove this to have been a Catholick Tradition by Vincentius his Rules, viz. That it hath been always received, every where, and by All.