Answer to a Popish Pamphlet Called the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, Part 2 · Subpart 15 – Subpart 17
15. THat wee ought not to confeſſe our ſinnes to any man, but to God alone.
FIrſt for confeſsion of ſinnes, I will ſhowe what wee hold, and and 2. what wee oppoſe. 1. then wee hold that ordinarlie it ſufficeth to confeſſe only to God, according to that Pſal. 32. 5. I ſaid I will confeſſe my tranſgreſsions to the Lord, but if any perſons for any ſecret or hid ſinne, or his ſinnes otherwiſe, bee weyghted in conſcience, and cannot find of themſelves comfort or counſell, concerning ſuch, theſe a… the words of Calvin (lib. 3. inſtit. cap. 4. num. 12. Let every faithfull man remember that this is his dutie, if privilie he be ſo diſtreſt and afflicted in conſcienc, thorow the ſenſe of his ſins that without the help of others he cannot be comforted ſee that he neglect not the remedie that the Lord offereth to him, to wit, that for his reliefe, he uſe private confoſſion to his Paſtour, and for giving him comfo…t, he privatlie implore his help, whoſe office is both privatlie and publictlie by the doctrine of the gospell to comfort Gods people.
Wee oppoſe not then privat confeſsion altogether to man, being voluntarie, free & occaſionall, but that politick picklock of popiſh ſacramentall auricular confeſsion, whereby everie one is forced to confeſſe to a Prieſt all their ſinnes which they can remember with all the agravating circumſtances, elſe to expect no forgivenes of them from God, which (as their owne Ferus on Math. 11. 28. ſayeth) (by the confeſſion of the learned) is nihil niſi carnifi…ina conſcientiae, that is, nothing elſe but a torturing of the conſcience (ſayeth he) when men are forced to auricular confeſſion, and may not make it, but to their owne Prieſt, though he be unlearned, naughtie and inconſtant. And trulie (ſayeth their owne Caſſander, conſult. art. 11.) I believe there ſhould be no controverſie in this, if this wholſome medicine of confeſſion had not beene inſected and defyled by many unskillfull and importunat ſoule-phyſitians, whereby they hauehave laid ſnares upon their conſciences, and as it were by certaine tortures, tormented them whom otherwiſe they ſhould hauehave eaſed and relieved.
Next, to come to anſwere to his ſcripture Arguments, which hee bringeth for his popiſh auricular confeſsion, the firſt is Math. 3. where it is ſaid That Ieruſalem & all Iudea, and all the region round about Iordan went out to Iohn the Baptiſt, and …er baptiſed of him confeſſing their ſinnes. To whom I ſhall anſwere onlie in the Ieſuit Maldonats words on this place, ſaying, What Catholick was ever ſo unlearned that he would prove the ſacrament of confeſsion by this place? ſeing as Cardinall Cajetan ſhoweth on act. 19. 18. This their confeſsion was but generall and publick, any other being by all probabilitie impoſsible, that hee could heare in particular and in private, ſuch a huge multitude, as out of all the forenamed places came to him to be baptiſed of him. We ſee then by Maldonats verdict, that this Pamphleter is an unlearned dolt.
The ſecond place is, act. 19. 18. where it is ſaid, That theſe who believed came to Paull and confeſſed and ſhewe their deeds. To which place alſo I anſwer in Cajetans words, which are theſe, As they did flock together (ſayeth he) to the baptiſme of John, confeſsing their deeds, without doubt generallie, or their publick ſinnes, ſo here. For none of theſe confeſsions were Sacramentall, but a profeſsion onlie of repentance for their former life (ſayeth hee)
The third place which hee adduceth is, Numb. 5. 6. Then ſhall they confeſſe their ſinnes which they hauehave done. To which I anſwere 1. That hereby ſacramentall confeſsion cannot be proven, becauſe they hold it to be a ſacrament of the goſpell, & which was not inſtituted (as Bellarmin granteth, lib. 3. de pont. c. 20) till after Chriſts reſurrection. 2. Bonaventure (lib. 4. d. 17. art, 1) citeth Auguſtin, ſaying, That the offering of ſacrafices was the legall confeſſion of ſinnes, whence he inferreth, That it appeareth that there was no other confeſsion under the law, but the oblation of ſacrifices. 3. Their owne Lyra on Levit. 16. 21. ſhoweth, That the Prieſt did not heare in particular the confeſsion of the people, but in generall, for the other had been impoſsible (ſayeth he)
But I wonder how he omitteth that which uſuallie they object, & is Bellarmins maine argument for auricular confeſsion, to wit, Jam. 5. 16. which ſayeth, Confeſſe your ſinnes one to another. To which I can not anſwere better than in Cardinall Cajetans words, and by adducing his reaſons, ſaying, Ther is here no ſpeech of ſacramentall confeſsion, for ſacramentall confeſsion is not one to another, but to the Priest onlie (ſayeth hee] wherefore this confeſsion is that, whereby we mutuallie confeſſe our ſelves to be ſinners, that one may pray for another, or for reconciliation, where wrong is done (ſayeth he.)
As for Fathers which hee citeth, they are either falſe & counterfit, as Clements Epiſtles which Bellar. in his book of Eccleſiaſticall writters, declareth and proveth to bee ſpurious, or elſe they are falſlie alleadged, as Ireneus and Tertullian, who as their Beatus Rhenanus teſtifieth ſpeaketh only of publick confeſsion, and not of private, ſaying, (in Tertul. de poenit) Let none-marvell that Tertullian speaketh nothing de clancularia illa admiſſorum confeſſione, that is, of that ſecret confeſſion of ſinnes. Neither is there any ſuch thing in Origen, or any alleadged works of Ambroſe that makes for popiſh ſacramentall and auricular forced confeſsion, nor any ſuch work of his, as, in muliere peccatrice, in all the Catalogue of his works ſet downe by Bellarmin de ſcrip eccleſ. and though there were ſuch a work and ſuch words, As confeſſe freelie to the Prieſt the hidden ſecrets of thy ſoul, this were but onlie as one ſtood in neede of comfort and counſell, upon diſtres of conſcience (as hath beene ſaid) but I wonder moſt of his citation of Chriſoſtom and Auguſtin, both of which are againſt any ſuch forced confeſsion. Chriſoſt. (conc. 4. de Lazaro) ſaying, Do I ſay confeſſe to thy fellow ſervant who may upbraid thee? No. Confeſſe unto God who can cure thee, & Auguſtin lib. 10. confeſſ. c. 3. ſayth thus, What hauehave I to do with men, that they ſhould heare my Confeſſions, as if they could heale all my diſeaſes.?
16. THat Pardons & Indulgences were not in the Apoſtles times.
VVHichWhich he ſayeth is contrary to 2. Cor. 2. 10. where the Apoſtle ſayeth, To whom yee forgive any thing, I for giuegive alſo. To which I anſwere, 1. That this ſhoweth onlie the Apoſtles conſent to the releaſing of the inceſtuous Penitent from the Church cenſure of Excommunication, formerly pronunced 1. Cor. 5. 3. and this (ſayeth Eſtius) is the expoſition of all the latine Fathers, and ſo maketh nothing for papal indulgences or pardons. Which their owne Prierias lib. cont. Cath. de indulg. and Cajetan opuſc. lib. 5. cap. 1. granteth to hauehave no ground in ſcripture, tho this Pamphleter would wreſt ſcripture for them. Yea moreover (ſayeth Cajetan) none of the ancient fathers greek or latin hauehave broght any ſuch to our knowledge. which makes that Bellarmin bringeth not one father for them. 2. Their Alfonſus a Caſtro. lib. 8. cont hereſ. Tit. indulgentia, as alſo B. Fiſher cont. Luth. art. 18. granteth that their uſe is onlie of late.
The ſecond place which he bringeth, is, 2. Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to ſuch a man is this puniſhmēt, whence he concludeth, that it lyeth in the hand of the ſpirituall Magiſtrat to meaſure the time of ſuch cenſure or puniſhment that is impoſed. To which I anſwere; That theſe his words confirmeth what wee hauehave ſaid before, ſhowing what ancient indulgences were in foro Eccleſiae, & which we practiſe in the exerciſe of our diſcipline towards pēitents, as we ſee cauſe, but this maketh nothing for papall indulgences, which they extend not onlie to the living, but alſo to the dead in purgatorie, and wherein, what is their unitie, or rather huge diviſion of tongues and pen's, we hauehave ſhowne in the anſwere to the tenth Aſſertion.
17. THat the actions and paſſions of the ſaints ſerve for nothing to the Church.
VVHichWhich he ſayeth is contrarie to Coloſſ. 1. 24. where the Apoſtle ſayeth, I now rejoyce in my ſufferings for you, and fill up that which is wanting of the afflictions of Chriſt in my fleſh, for his bodies ſake which is the Church. To which I anſwere, The true meaning of theſe words in their own Aquinas words, on this place is this, ſaying, Theſe words according to the ſuperfice might hauehave an ill ſenſe, as if Chriſts paſſion were not ſufficient for our redemption, but for filling up that which wants, the ſufferings of the ſaints wer to be added, but this is hereticall (ſayeth he) for the blood of Chriſt is ſufficient for the redemption of many worlds, himſelf being the propitiation for our ſinnes, but it is to be underſtood (ſayeth he) that Chriſt and his Church make up but one mysticall perſon, whoſe head is Christ, and all the godlie are his bodie & members thereof, this then was wanting, that as Christ had ſuffered in his naturall bodie, ſo he was to ſuffer in Pauls perſon as a member of his mysticall bodie, Christs ſufferings in his bodie, being for the redemptiō of his Church, but the ſufferings of the ſaints for the Church, being for this, that by their example the Church may be confirmed, (ſayeth he) where we ſee that the ſufferings of the ſaints ſerve to the church for cōformity & confirmation, but not (as this Pamphleter would hauehave them) to be a treaſure for papall indulgences to bring in a treaſure of money to the popes coffers.
The ſecond place which he brings is, Philip. 2. 30. wherein Paul exhorteth the Philippians to receiue Epaphroditus with all gladnes, becauſe for the work of Christ hee was neare to death, to ſupplie their work of ſervice towards him, which as Aquinas ſays, They were not able in their owne perſons to performe to him. which words of Paul no more proveth the Pamphleters point wherat he aimeth, of the benefit of popiſh indulgences, then that Rome is in Ʋtopia, but ſhoweth both his uſuall impertinencie, impudence and ignorance.