And for the Lutheran churches, that it is their practice, we may see it in Chemnitius, who was one of greatest fame amongst them; and he is noted to this purpose by Bellarmine; only they all consent, that it is not necessary nor of divine institution; and being but of man's invention, it ought not to pass into a doctrine; and, as the apostles said in the matter of circumcision, "a burden ought not to be put upon the necks of the disciples :" and that, "in lege gratiæ, longè difficillimum" too, as Major observes truly, by far greater than any burden in the law of grace, the time of the Gospel. Let it be commanded to all, to whom it is needful, or profitable; but let it be free, as to the conscience precisely, and bound but by the cords of a man, and as other ecclesiastical laws are, which are capable of exceptions, restrictions, cautions, dispensations, rescindings, and abolitions, by the same authority, or upon greater reasons.

k

The question then is, whether to confess all our greater sins to a priest, all that upon strict inquiry we can remember, be necessary to 'salvation? This the church of Rome now affirms; and this the church of England and all Protestant churches deny; and complain sadly, that the commandments of men are changed into the doctrines of God, by a Pharisaical empire, and superstition. Here then we join issue.

1. And in the first place, I shall represent, that the doctrine of the necessity of confession to a priest, is a new doctrine, even in the church of Rome, and was not esteemed any part of the catholic religion before the council of Trent. For first, the gloss" de Pœnit. dist. 5. c. in Pœnitentiâ," inquiring where or when oral confession was instituted, says, some say it was instituted in Paradise, others say it was instituted when Joshua called upon Achan to confess his sin: others say it was instituted in the New Testament by St. James: "it is better said, that it was instituted by a certain universal tradition of the church, and the tradition of the church is obligatory as a precept. Therefore, confession of deadly sins is necessary with us (viz. Latins) but not with the Greeks; because no such tradition hath come to them."

h2. Part. Exam. Concil. Trid. cap. 5. de Pœnit,

i Lib. 3. de Poenit. cap. 1. sect. Martinus Kemnitius.
In 4. dist. 17. q. 2. ex Scoto.

This is the full state of this affair, in the age when Semeca, who was the glossator, lived; and it is briefly this. 1. There was no resolution or agreement whence it came. 2. The glossator's opinion was, it came from the universal tradition of the church. 3. It was but a kind of universal tradition; not absolute, clear, and certain. 4. It was only a tradition in the Latin church. 5. The Greeks had no such tradition. 6. The Greeks were not obliged to it; it was not necessary to them, Concerning the Greek church, I shall afterward consider it in a more opportune place; here only I consider it as it was in the Latin church: and of this I suppose there needs no better record than the canon law itself, and the authentic glosses upon it; which glosses, although they be not law, but as far as they please, yet they are per. fect testimony as to matter of fact, and what the opinions of the doctors were at that time. And therefore, to the former, I add this; that in cap. Convertimini,' Gratian hath these words: "Unde datur intelligi, quod etiam ore tacente veniam consequi possumus ;" "Without confession of the mouth we may obtain pardon of our sins;" and this point he pursues in all that long chapter; and in the chapter Resuscitatus,' out of St. Austin's doctrine; and in the chapter 'Qui Natus,' out of the doctrine of St. John's Epistle; the conclusion of which chapter is, "Cum ergo ante confessionem (ut probatum est) sumus resuscitati per gratiam, et filii lucis facti; evidentissimè apparet quod solâ cordis contritione sine confessione oris, peccatum remittitur:" and, in the chapter Omnis qui non diligit,' he expressly concludes out of St. John's words: "Non ergo in confessione peccatum remittitur, quod jam remissum esse probatur: fit itaque confessio ad ostensionem pœnitentiæ, non ad impetrationem veniæ." And at the end of this chapter, according to his custom in such disputable things; when he says," alii è contrario testantur;" "others witness to the contrary," that, without confession oral, and works of satisfaction, no man is cleansed from his sin; the gloss upon the place, says thus: "Ab hoc loco usque ad 'Sed his auctoritatibus' pro aliâ parte allegat, quod scil. adulto peccatum non dimittitur sine oris confessione, quod tamen falsum est:" only he says, that "Confession doth cleanse, and satisfaction doth cleanse: so that though by contrition of the heart, the sin is pardoned; yet these still

cleanse more and more, as a man is more innovated" or amended. "But these authorities brought in," viz. that sin is not pardoned without confession, " if they be diligently expounded, prove but little." But friar Maurique, who by Pius V. made and published a censure upon the glosses, appointed these words, " quod tamen falsum est," to be left out; but the Roman correctors under Gregory XIII. let them alone; but put in the margent a mark of contradiction upon it; saying, "Imò verissimum est." But that was new doctrine, and although Semeca, the author of the gloss, affirmed it expressly to be false, yet Gratian himself was more reserved; but yet not of the new opinion, but left the matter indifferent: for after he had alleged Scripture, and authorities of fathers on one side, and authority of fathers on the other; he concludes, " Quibus auctoritatibus vel quibuslibet rationum firmamentis utraque sententia satisfactionis et confessionis innitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potius adhærendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Utraque enim fautores habet sapientes et religiosos viros 1." Now how well this agrees with the determination of the council of Trent ", every man, by comparing, can easily judge; only it is certain, this doctrine cannot pretend to be derived by tradition from the apostles. Of the same opinion was the Abbot of Panormo; saying, "That opinion (viz. of the gloss) does much please me: because there is no manifest authority that does intimate, that either God or Christ instituted confession to be made to a priest." But it were endless to name the sentences of the canonists in this question; once for all, the testimony of Maldonat " may secure us: "Juris pontificii periti, secuti suum primum interpretem, omnes dicunt confessionem tantum esse introductam jure ecclesiastico." But to clear the whole question, I shall, 1. prove, that the necessity of confessing our sins to a priest is not found in Scripture; but very much to disprove it. 2. That there is no reason enforcing this necessity, but very much against it. 3. That there is no ecclesiastical tradition of any such necessity; but apparently the contrary: and the consequent of these things will be, that the church of Rome.

1 De Fonit. d. 1. cap. Quamvis Plenitudo.

m Lib. 5. de Decret. de Poenit. et Rem. in cap. Omnis utriusque sexus.

hath introduced a new doctrine, false and burdensome, dan gerous and superstitious.

1. If we consider how this article is managed in Scripture, we shall find that our blessed Saviour said nothing at all concerning it; the council of Trent indeed makes their new doctrine to rely upon the words of Christ recited by St. John; "Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted," &c. But sée with what success: for, besides that all the canonists allow not, that confession was instituted by Christ; Aquinas, Scotus, Gabriel Clavasinus, the author of the Summa Angelica, Hugo de S. Victore, Bonaventure, Alensis, Tho. Waldensis, Ferus, Cajetan, Erasmus, B. Rhenanus, and Jansenius, though differing much in the particulars of this question, yet all consent that, precisely from the words of Christ, no necessity of confession to a priest can be concluded. 2. Amongst those of the Roman church, who did endeavour to found the necessity of confession upon those words, none do agree about the way of drawing their argument; as may be seen in Scotus P, Aureolus, Johannes Major, Thomas de Argentina, Richardus, Durandus Almain, Dominicus à Soto, Alphonsus à Castro, Adrianus, Petrus de Aquila, and others, before the council of Trent. 3. Though these men go several ways (which shews, as Scotus expresses it, "hoc verbum non est præcisum") yet they all agree well enough in this, that they are all equally out of the story, and none of them well performs what he undertakes; it is not mine alone, but the judgment which Vasquez makes of them, who confuted many of them by arguments of his own, and by the arguments which they use one against another, and gives this censure of them: "Inter eos, qui planè fatentur ex illis verbis Joh. xx. necessitatem confessionis (supple, elici), vix invenias qui efficaciter deducat." And therefore this place of St. John is but an infirm foundation to build so great a structure on it as the whole economy of their sacrament of penance, and the necessity of confession upon it; since so many learned and acute men, master-builders, believe nothing at all of it; and others that do, agree not well in the framing of the structure upon it, but make a Babel of it; and at last their attempts prove vain and useless, by the testimony of their fellow-labourers.

q

There are some other places of Scripture, which are pre• John, xx. 21. P In lib. 4. Sent. dist. 17. a Qu. 90. in 3. Thom. dub. 2.

tended for the necessity of confession, but they need no particular scrutiny; not only because they are rejected by their own parties as insufficient'; but because all are principally devolved upon the twentieth of St. John; and the council of Trent itself wholly relies upon it. This therefore being the foundation, if it fails them as to their pretensions, their building must needs be ruinous. But I shall consider it a little.

When Christ said to his apostles, "Whose sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to them; and whose sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" he made (says Bellarmine, and generally the latter school of Roman doctors) the apostles, and all priests, judges upon earth; that without their sentence, no man, that hath sinned after baptism, can be reconciled. But the priests, who are judges, can give no right or unerring sentence, unless they hear all the particulars they are to judge. Therefore by Christ's law they are tied to tell in confession all their particular sins to a priest.-This is the sum of all that is said in this affair. Other light skirmishes there are, but the main battle is here.

Now all the parts of this great argument must be considered: and, 1. I deny the argument; and supposing both the premises true, that Christ had made them judges, and that without particular cognizance they could not give judgment according to Christ's intention; yet it follows not, that therefore it is necessary, that the penitent shall confess all his sins to the priest. For, who shall compel the penitent to appear in judgment? Where are they obliged to come and accuse themselves before the judges? Indeed if they were before them, we will suppose the priests to have power to judge them; but how can it be hence deduced, that the penitents are bound to come to this judicatory, and not to stand alone to the divine tribunal. A physician may have power to cure diseases, yet the patients are not bound to come to him; neither, it may be, will they, if they can be cured by other means. And if a king sends a judge with

Primum istorum esset magis conveniens tenendum, si posset evidenter haberi istud præceptum ex evangelio. Nec oportet ad hoc adducere illud Matthæi xvi. 'Tibi dabo claves regni cœlorum,' quia non est nisi promissio de datione futura. Sed si aliquid in evangelio, videlicet, ad hoc videtur illud Joh. xx. Accipite Spir. S. Quorum remiseritis,' &c. dicitur quod sic, de illo verbo Jacob. v. Confitemini alterutrùm peccata,' &c. sed nec per hoc videretur mihi quod Jacobus præceptum hoc dedit, nec præceptum à Christo promulgavit. Scotus in lib. 4. dist. 17. sect. de secundo.