An answer to a challenge madeAn ansvver to a challenge made
An answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit in Ireland Wherein the judgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truly delivered, and the novelty of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By James Usher Bishop of Meath.An ansvver to a challenge made by a Iesuite in Ireland Wherein the iudgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truely delivered, and the noveltie of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By Iames Vssher Bishop of Meath.
James Ussher 1581–1656Dublin: printed by the Society of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624Dublin: printed by the Societie of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624
[24], 527, [9] p. · 153k words · STC 24542 · ESTC S118933
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Neither is it here to be omitted, that in the time of ⟨p. 94⟩the more ancient Fathers this strict discipline was not so restrained to the censure of public crimes; but that private transgressions also were sometimes drawn within the compass of it. For whereas at first, public confession was enjoined only for public offences: men afterwards, discerning what great benefit redounded to the penitents thereby, (aswell for the subduing of the stubbornness of their hard hearts, and the furthering of their deeper humiliation; as for their raising up again by those sensible comforts which they received by the public prayers of the Congregation, and the use of the keys) some men, I say, discerning this, and finding their own consciences burdened with the like sins, which being carried in secrecy, were not subject to the censures of the Church; to the end they might obtain the like consolation and quiet of mind, did voluntarily submit themselves to the Churches discipline herein, and undergo the burden of public Confession and Penance. This appeareth by Origen in his second Homily upon the 37 Psalm, Tertullian in his book de Poenitentiâ, chap. 9. S. Cyprian in his Treatise de Lapsis, sect. 23. (or 11. according to Pamelius his distinction) S. Ambrose in his first book de Poenitentiâ, chap. 16. and others. And to the end that this publication of secret faults might be performed in the best manner: some prudent Minister was first of all made acquainted therewith; by whose direction the delinquent might understand what sins were fit to be brought to the public notice of the Church, and in what manner the penance was to be performed for them. Therefore did Origen advise (as we heard) that one should use great care in making choice of a good and skilful physician, to whom he ⟨p. 95⟩should disclose his grief in this kind. and sif he understand (saith he) and foresee that thy disease is such as ought to be declared in the assembly of the whole Church, and cured there, whereby peradventure both others may be edified, and thou thy self more easily healed; with much deliberation, and by the very skilful counsel of that physician, must this be done.
Neyther is it here to be omitted, that in the time of ⟨p. 94⟩
the more ancient Fathers this strict discipline was not so restrayned to the censure of publicke crimes; but that private transgressions also were sometimes drawn within the compasse of it. For whereas at first, publike confession was enjoyned onely for publike offences: men afterwards, discerning what great benefit redounded to the penitents thereby, (aswell for the subduing of the stubburnesse of their hard hearts, and the furthering of their deeper humiliation; as for their raysing up againe by those sensible comforts which they received by the publike prayers of the Congregation, and the use of the keyes) some men, I say, discerning this, and finding their owne consciences burdened with the like sinnes, which being carried in secrecie, were not subject to the censures of the Church; to the end they might obtaine the like consolation and quiet of minde, did voluntarily submit themselves to the Churches discipline herein, and undergoe the burden of publick Confession and Penance. This appeareth by Origen in his second Homily upon the 37 Psalme, Tertullian in his booke de Poenitentiâ, chap. 9. S. Cyprian in his Treatise de Lapsis, sect. 23. (or 11. according to Pamelius his distinction) S. Ambrose in his first booke de Poenitentiâ, chap. 16. and others. And to the end that this publication of secret faults might be performed in the best maner: some prudent Minister was first of all made acquainted therewith; by whose direction the delinquent might understand what sinnes were fit to be brought to the publick notice of the Church, and in what maner the penance was to bee performed for them. Therefore did Origen advise (as wee heard) that one should use great care in making choyce of a good and skilfull physician, to whom hee
if hee understand (saith he) and foresee that thy disease is such as ought to be declared in the assembly of the whole Church, and cured there, whereby peradventure both others may be edified, and thou thy selfe more easily healed; with much deliberation, and by the very skilfull counsaile of that physician, must this be done.
sSi intellexerit, & praeviderit talem esse languorem tuū qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat, & curari, ex quo for•assis & caeteri aedificari poterunt, & tu ipse facilè sanari: multâ hoc deliberatione, & satis perito medici illius consilio procurandū est. Origen. in Psal. 37. h•mil. 2.Si intellexerit, & praeviderit talem esse languorem tuū qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat, & curari, ex quo for•assis & caeteri aedificari poterunt, & tu ipse facilè sanari: multâ hoc deliberatione, & satis perito medici illius consilio procurandū est. Origen. in Psal. 37. h•mil. 2.
But within a while (shortly after the persecution raised in the days of Decius the Emperor) it was no longer left free to the Penitent to make choice of his ghostly father: but by the general consent of the Bishops it was ordained, that in every Church one certain discreet Minister should be appointed to receive the confessions of such as relapsed into sin after Baptism. This is that addition, which tSocrates in his Ecclesiastical history noteth to have been then made unto the Penitential Canon; and to have been observed by the governors of the Church for a long time: until at length in the time of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople (which was about CXL. years after the persecution of Decius) upon occasion of an infamy drawn upon the Clergy by the confession of a Gentlewoman, defiled by a Deacon in that city, it was thought fit it should be abolished, and that uliberty should be given unto every one, upon the private examination of his own conscience, to resort to the holy Communion. Which was agreeable both to the rule of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.28. (Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup:) and to the judgement of the more ancient Fathers, as appeareth by Clemens Alexandrinus, who accounteth a mans own conscience to be his xbest directer in this case. howsoever our new Masters of ⟨p. 96⟩yTrent have not only determined that sacramental confession must necessarily be premised before the receiving of the Eucharist; but also have pronounced them to be excommunicate ipso facto, that shall presume to teach the contrary.
But within a while (shortly after the persecution raysed in the dayes of Decius the Emperour) it was no longer left free to the Penitent to make choyce of his ghostly father: but by the generall consent of the Bishops it was ordayned, that in every Church one certaine discreet Minister should be appointed to receive the confessions of such as relapsed into sinne after Baptisme. This is that addition, which tSocrates in his Ecclesiasticall historie noteth to have beene then made unto the Penitentiall Canon; and to have beene observed by the governours of the Church for a long time: untill at length in the time of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople (which was about CXL. yeares after the persecution of Decius) upon occasion of an infamy drawne upon the Clergie by the confession of a Gentlewoman, defiled by a Deacon in that citie, it was thought fit it should be abolished, and that ulibertie should be given unto everie one, upon the private examination of his owne conscience, to resort to the holy Communion. Which was agreeable both to the rule of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 11.28. (Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread and drinke of that cup:) and to the judgement of the more ancient Fathers, as appeareth by Clemens Alexandrinus, who accounteth a mans owne conscience to be his xbest directer in this case. howsoever our new Masters of ⟨p. 96⟩yTrent have not onely determined that sacramentall confession must necessarily be premised before the receyving of the Eucharist; but also have pronounced them to be excommunicate ipso facto, that shall presume to teach the contrarie.
The case then (if these mens censures were ought worth) would go hard with Nectarius, and all the Bishops that followed him; but especially with S. John Chrysostom, who was his immediate successor in the See of Constantinople. for thus doth he expound that place of the Apostle: zLet every one examine himself, and then let him come. He doth not bid one man to examine another, but every one himself; making the judgement private, and the trial without witnesses. and in the end of his second homily of Fasting (which in others is the eighth de Poenitentiâ) frameth his exhortation accordingly. aWithin thy conscience, none being present but God who seeth all things, enter thou into judgement and into a search of thy sins, and recounting thy whole life, bring thy sins unto judgement in thy mind: reform thy excesses, and so with a pure conscience draw near to that sacred Table, and partake of that holy sacrifice. Yet in another place he deeply chargeth Ministers, not to admit known offenders unto the Communion. But bif one (saith he) be ignorant that he is an evil person, after that he hath used much diligence therein, he is not to be blamed. for these things are spoken by me of such as are known. And we find both in him, and in the practise of the times following, that the order of public Penance was not wholly taken away; but according to the ancient discipline established by the Apostles in the Church, open offenders were openly censured and pressed to make public confession of ⟨p. 97⟩their faults. Whereby it is manifest, that the liberty brought in by Nectarius, of not resorting to any Penitentiary, respected the disclosing of secret sins only; such as that foul one was, from whence the public scandal arose, which gave occasion to the repeal of the former Constitution. For to suffer open and notorious crimes, committed in the Church, to pass without control, was not a mean to prevent but to augment scandals; nay the ready way, to make the house of God become a den of thieves.
The case then (if these mens censures were ought worth) would goe hard with Nectarius, and all the Bishops that followed him; but especially with S. Iohn Chrysostom, who was his immediat successor in the See of Constantinople. for thus doth hee expound that place of the Apostle: zLet every one examine himselfe, and then let him come. He doth not bid one man to examine another, but every one himselfe; making the judgement private, and the tryall without witnesses. and in the end of his second homily of Fasting (which in others is the eighth de Poenitentiâ) frameth his exhortation accordingly. aWithin thy conscience, none being present but God who seeth all things, enter thou into judgement and into a search of thy sinnes, and recounting thy whole life, bring thy sinnes unto judgement in thy minde: reforme thy excesses, and so vvith a pure conscience draw neare to that sacred Table, and partake of that holy sacrifice. Yet in another place hee deepely chargeth Ministers, not to admit knowne offendors unto the Communion. But bif one (saith hee) be ignorant that hee is an evill person, after that hee hath used much diligence ther•in, he is not to be blamed. for these things are spoken by me of such as are knowne. And we finde both in him, and in the practise of the times following, that the order of publick Penance was not wholly taken away; but according to the ancient discipline established by the Apostles in the Church, open offendors were openly censured and pressed to make publick confession of ⟨p. 97⟩their faults. Whereby it is manifest, that the libertie brought in by Nectarius, of not resorting to any Penitentiarie, respected the disclosing of secret sinnes only; such as that foule one was, from whence the publick scandall arose, which gave occasion to the repeale of the former Constitution. For to suffer open and notorious crimes, committed in the Church, to passe without controule, was not a meane to prevent but to augment scandalls; nay the readie way, to make the house of God become a denne of theeves.
z[Greek or Hebrew]. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. homil. 28.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 11. homil. 28.
Two observations more I will add upon this part of the history. The one: that the abrogation of this Canon showeth, that the form of Confession used by the ancient, was Canonical, that is, appertaining to that external discipline of the Church which upon just occasion might be altered; and not Sacramental, and of perpetual right, which is that our Jesuits stand for. The other: that the course taken herein by Nectarius, was not only approved by S. Chrysostom, who succeeded him at Constantinople; but cgenerally in a manner by the Catholic Bishops of other places. howsoever the Arians, and the rest of the sectaries (the Novatians only excepted, who from the beginning would not admit the discipline used in the Church for the reconciliation of Penitents) retained still the former usage. as by the relation of Socrates and Sozomen more fully may appear. And therefore when within some XXI. years after the time wherein they finished their histories, and about LXX. after that the publication of secret offences began to be abolished by Nectarius, certain in Italy did so do their penance, that they caused a writing to be publicly read, containing a profession of their several sins: Leo, who at that time was Bishop ⟨p. 98⟩of Rome, gave order, that by all means dthat course should be broken off; forasmuch as it was sufficient, that the guilt of mens consciences should be declared in secret confession to the Priests alone. For although (saith he) the fullness of faith may seem to be laudable, which for the fear of God doth not fear to blush before men: yet because all mens sins are not of that kind, that they may not fear to publish such of them as require repentance, let so inconvenient a custom be removed; lest many be driven away from the remedies of repentance, while either they are ashamed, or afraid to disclose their deeds unto their enemies, whereby they may be drawn within the peril of the laws. For that confession is sufficient, which is offered first unto God, and then unto the Priest, who cometh as an intercessor for the sins of the penitent. For then at length more may be provoked to repentance, if that the conscience of him who confesseth be not published to the ears of the people.
Two observations more I will adde upon this part of the historie. The one: that the abrogation of this Canon sheweth, that the forme of Confession used by the ancient, was Canonical, that is, appertayning to that externall discipline of the Church which upon just occasion might be altered; and not Sacramentall, and of perpetuall right, which is that our Iesuites stand for. The other: that the course taken herein by Nectarius, was not onely approved by S. Chrysostome, who succeeded him at Constantinople; but cgenerally in a maner by the Catholick Bishops of other places. howsoever the Arrians, and the rest of the sectaries (the Novatians onely excepted, who from the beginning would not admit the discipline used in the Church for the reconciliation of Penitents) retained still the former usage. as by the relation of Socrates and Sozomen more fully may appeare. And therefore when within some XXI. yeares after the time wherein they finished their histories, and about LXX. after that the publication of secret offences began to be abolished by Nectarius, certaine in Italy did so doe their penance, that they caused a writing to be publickly read, containing a profession of their severall sinnes: Leo, who at that time was Bishop ⟨p. 98⟩of Rome, gave order, that by all meanes dthat course should be broken off; forasmuch as it was sufficient, that the guilt of mens consciences should be declared in secret confession to the Priests alone. For although (saith he) the fulnesse of faith may seeme to be laudable, vvhich for the feare of God doth not feare to blush before men: yet because all mens sinnes are not of that kinde, that they may not feare to publish such of them as require repentance, let so inconvenient a custome be removed; lest many be driven away from the remedies of repentance, vvhile eyther they are ashamed, or afraid to disclose their deedes unto their enemies, whereby they may be drawne within the perill of the lawes. For that confession is sufficient, which is offered first unto God, and then unto the Priest, who commeth as an intercessor for the sinnes of the penitent. For then at length more may be provoked to repentance, if that the conscience of him who confesseth be not published to the eares of the people.
dNe de singulorum peccatorum genere libellis scripta professio publicé recitetur: cùm reatus con scientiarum sufficiat solis sacerdotibus indicari confessione secretâ. Quamvis enim plenitudo fidei videatur esse laudabilis, quae propter Dei timorem apud homines erubescere non veretur: tamen quia non omnium hujusmodi sunt peccata, ut ea, quae poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare, removeatur tam impro babilis consuetudo; ne multi á poenitentiae remediis arceantur, dumb aut crubescunt, aut metuunt inimicis suis sua facta referare, quibus possint legum constitution percelli. Sufficit enim illa confess•o, quae primùm Deo offertur, tum etiam Sacerdoti, qui pro delictis poenitentium precator accedit. Tunc enim demùm plures ad poenitentiā poterunt provocari si populi aur•bus non publicetur conscientia confitentis. Leo, epist. 80. ad Epis•opos Campaniae, Samnij & Pi••ni.Ne de singulorum peccatorum genere libellis scripta professio publicé recitetur: cùm reatus cō scientiarum sufficiat solis sacerdotibus indicari confessione secretâ. Quamvis enim plenitudo fidei videatur esse laudabilis, quae propter Dei timorem apud homines erubescere non veretur: tamen quia non omnium hujusmodi sunt peccata, ut ea, quae poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare, removeatur tam impro babilis consuetudo; ne multi á poenitentiae remediis arceantur, dum aut crubescunt, aut metuunt inimicis suis sua facta referare, quibus possint legum constitutione percelli. Sufficit enim illa confess•o, quae primùm Deo offertur, tum etiam Sacerdoti, qui pro delictis poenitentium precator accedit. Tunc enim demùm plures ad poenitentiā poterunt provocari si populi aur•bus non publicetur conscientia confitentis. Leo, epist. 80. ad Epis•opos Campaniae, Samnij & Pi••ni.
By this place of Leo we may easily understand, how upon the removal of public Confession of secret faults (together with the private made unto the Penitentiary, which was adjoined as a preparative thereunto) Auricular confession began to be substituted in the room thereof: to the end, that by this means more might be drawn on to this exercise of repentance; the impediments of shame and fear, which accompanied the former practise, being taken out of the way. for indeed the shame of this public Penance was such, that in the time of Tertullian (when this discipline was thought most needful for the Church) it was ⟨p. 99⟩strongly epresumed, that many did either shun this work as a publication of themselves, or deferred it from day to day, being more mindful (as he saith) of their shame than of their salvation. Nay S. Ambrose observed that fsome, who for fear of the punishment in the other world, being conscious to themselves of their sins, did here desire their penance, were yet for shame of their public supplication drawn back, after they had received it. Therefore the conjecture of gRhenanus is not to be contemned, that from this public confession, the private took his original: which by Stapleton, (in his Fortress, part. 2. chap. 4.) is positively delivered in this manner. Afterward this open and sharp penance was brought to the private and particular confession now used; principally for the lewdness of the common lay Christians, which in this open confession began at length to mock and insult at their brethren's simplicity and devotion. although it may seem by that which is written by hOrigen, that the seeds of this lewdness began to sprout long before; howsoever iTertullian imagined, that no member of the Church would be so ungracious as to commit such folly.
By this place of Leo we may easily understand, how upon the removeall of publick Confession of secret faults (together with the private made unto the Penitentiarie, which was adjoyned as a preparative thereunto) Auricular confession began to be substituted in the roome thereof: to the end, that by this meanes more might be drawne on to this exercise of repentance; the impediments of shame and feare, which accompanied the former practise, being taken out of the way. for indeed the shame of this publick Penance was such, that in the time of Tertullian (when this discipline was thought most needefull for the Church) it was ⟨p. 99⟩strongly epresumed, that many did eyther shunne this worke as a publication of themselves, or deferred it from day to day, being more mindefull (as hee saith) of their shame than of their salvation. Nay S. Ambrose observed that fsome, who for feare of the punishment in the other world, being conscious to themselves of their sinnes, did here desire their penance, vvere yet for shame of their publick supplication drawne back, after they had received it. Therfore the conjecture of gRhenanus is not to be contemned, that from this publick confession, the private tooke his originall: which by Stapleton, (in his Fortresse, part. 2. chap. 4.) is positively delivered in this maner. Afterward this open and sharpe penance vvas brought to the private and particular confession now used; principally for the lewdnesse of the common lay Christians, which in this open confession began at length to mocke and insult at their brethrens simplicity and devotion. although it may seeme by that which is written by hOrigen, that the seeds of this lewdnesse began to sprout long before; howsoever iTertullian imagined, that no member of the Church would be so ungracious as to commit such folly.
ePlerosque tamen hoc opus ut publicationē sui aut suffugere, aut de die in diem differ, praesumo; pudoris magis memores quàm salutis. Tertull. de Poenit cap. 9.Plerosque tamen hoc opus ut publicationē sui aut suffugere, aut de die in diem differre, praesumo; pudoris magis memores quàm salutis. Tertull. de Poenit cap. 9.
fNam plerique futuri supplicii metu, peccatorū suorum conscii, poenitentiam petunt: & cùm acceperint, publicae supplicationis r•vocantur pudore. Hi videntur malorū petisse poenitentiam, agere bonorū, Ambr. de poenitent. lib. 2. cap 9.Nam plerique futuri supplicii metu, peccatorū suorum conscii, poenitentiam petunt: & cùm acceperint, publicae supplicationis r•vocantur pudore. Hi videntur malorū petisse poenitentiam, agere bonorū, Ambr. de poenitent. lib. 2. cap 9.
gPorrò non aliam ob caussam compluriū hîc testimoniis usi sumus, quàm ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clanculariâ istâ admissorum confessione nihil locutum: quae, quantum conjicimus, nata est ex istâ Exomologesi per ultroneam hominum pietatem, ut occultorum peccatorum esset & Exomologesis occulta. Nec enim usquàm praeceptam olim legimus. B. Rhenan. argument. in lib. Tertullian. de Poenitent.Porrò non aliam ob caussam compluriū hîc testimoniis usi sumus, quàm ne quis admiretur Tertullianum de clanculariâ istâ admissorum confessione nihil locutum: quae, quantum conjicimus, nata est ex istâ Exomologesi per ultroneam hominum pietatem, ut occultorum peccatorum esset & Exomologesis occulta. Nec enim usquàm praeceptam olim legimus. B. Rhenan. argument. in lib. Tertullian. de Poenitent.
hSi ergo hujusmodi homo memor delicti sui, confitea tur quae commisit, & humanâ▪ confusione parvi pendat eos qui exprobrant eum confitentem, & notant vel irrident: &c. Origen. in Psalm. 37. homil. 2.
iCerté periculum ejus tunc si fortè onerosum est, cùm penes insultaturos in risiloquio consistit, ubi de alterius ruinâ alter attollitur, ubi prostrato superscenditur. Caeterùm inter fratres atque cons•rvos, ubi communis spes, metus, gaudium, dolor, passio: quid tuos aliud quàm te opinaris? Quid consortes casuum tuorum, ut plausores fugis? Non potest corpus de unius membri vexation laetum agere: Tertullian. de Poenitent. cap 9.
The public confession therefore of secret sins being thus abolished, by Nectarius first (for the scandal that came thereby unto others) and by the rest of the ⟨p. 100⟩Catholic Bishops after him (for the reproach and danger, whereunto the penitents by this means were laid open:) private Confession was so brought in to supply the defect thereof, that it was accounted no more sacramental, nor esteemed (at least generally) to be of more necessity for the obtaining of remission of sins, then that other. So that whatsoever order afterward was taken herein, may well be judged to have had the nature of a temporal law, which, according to the definition of S. Augustine, kalthough it be just, yet in time may be justly also changed. Nay we find that Laurence Bishop of Novaria, in his homily de Poenitentiâ, doth resolutely determine, that for obtaining remission of sins, a man needeth not to resort unto any Priest, but that his own internal repentance is sufficient for that matter: God (saith lhe) after Baptism hath appointed thy remedy within thy self, he hath put remission in thine own power, that thou needest not seek a Priest when thy necessity requireth; but thou thy self now, as a skilful and plain master, mayest amend thine error within thy self, & wash away thy sin by repentance. mHe hath given unto thee (saith another, somewhat to the same purpose) the power of binding and loosing. Thou hast bound thy self with the chain of the love of wealth; loose thy self with the injunction of the love of poverty. Thou hast bound thy self with the furious desire of pleasures; loose thy self with temperance. Thou hast bound thy self with the misbelief of Eunomius; loose thy self with the religious embracing of the right faith.
The publick confession therefore of secret sinnes being thus abolished, by Nectarius first (for the scandall that came thereby unto others) and by the rest of the ⟨p. 100⟩Catholick Bishops after him (for the reproach and danger, whereunto the penitents by this meanes were layd open:) private Confession was so brought in to supply the defect thereof, that it was accounted no more sacramentall, nor esteemed (at least generally) to be of more necessitie for the obtayning of remission of sinnes, then that other. So that whatsoever order afterward was taken herein, may well be judged to have had the nature of a temporall law, which, according to the definition of S. Augustine, kalthough it be just, yet in time may be justly also changed. Nay we finde that Laurence Bishop of Novaria, in his homily de Poenitentiâ, doth resolutely determine, that for obtayning remission of sinnes, a man needeth not to resort unto anie Priest, but that his owne internall repentance is sufficient for that matter: God (saith lhee) after Baptisme hath appoynted thy remedy within thy selfe, hee hath put remission in thine owne power, that thou needest not seeke a Priest when thy necessity requireth; but thou thy selfe now, as a skilfull and plaine master, mayest amend thine error within thy selfe, & wash away thy sin by repentance. mHe hath given unto thee (saith another, somewhat to the same purpose) the power of binding and loosing. Thou hast bound thy selfe with the chayn of the love of wealth; loose thy selfe with the injunction of the love of povertie. Thou hast bound thy selfe with the furious desire of pleasures; loose thy selfe with temperance. Thou hast bound thy selfe with the misbeleefe of Eunomius; loose thy selfe with the religious embracing of the right faith.
kAppellemus istam legem, si placet, temporalem, quae quamvis justa sit, commutari tamen per tempora justé potest. August. de lib. arbitr. lib. 1. cap. 6.
lPost Baptisma, remedium tuum in teipso statuit, remissionem in arbitrio tuo posuit, ut non quaeras Sacerdotē cùm necessitas flagitaverit: sed ipse jam acsi scitus perspicuusque magister, errorem tuum intra te emends, & peccatum tuū poenitudine abluas Lair. Novar •om. 6. Biblioth. Patr. part. 1. pag. 337. a edit. Colon.Post Baptisma, remedium tuum in teipso statuit, remissionem in arbitrio tuo posuit, ut non quaeras Sacerdotē cùm necessitas flagitaverit: sed ipse jam acsi scitus perspicuusque magister, errorem tuum intra te emendes, & peccatum tuū poenitudine abluas La•r. Nouar •om. 6. Biblioth. Patr. part. 1. pag. 337. a edit. Colon.
m[Greek or Hebrew] Author homiliae in illud; Quaecunque ligaveritis &c. inter opera Chrysostomi, tom. 7. edit. Savil. pag. 268.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Author homiliae in illud; Quaecunque ligaveritis &c. inter opera Chrysostomi, tom. 7. edit. Savil. pag. 268.
And, that we may see how variable mens judgements were touching the matter of Confession in the ages following: Bede would have us nconfess our daily & light sins one unto another, but open the uncleanness of the greater leprosy to the Priest. Alcuinus, not long after him, would have us oconfess all the sins that we can remember. Others were of another mind. For some (as it appeareth by the writings of the same pAlcuinus and of qHaymo) would not confess their sins to the Priest; but rsaid, it was sufficient for them that they did confess their sins to God alone, provided always that they ceased from those sins for the time to come. Others confessed their sins unto the Priests, but not fullys: as may be seen in the Council of Cavailon, held in the days of Charles the great where, though the Fathers think that this had need to be amended: yet they freely acknowledge, that it remained still a question, whether men should only confess to God, or to the Priests also; and they themselves put this difference betwixt both those confessions, that the one did properly serve for the cure, the other for direction in what sort the repentance (and so the cure) should be performed. Their words are these. tSome ⟨p. 102⟩say, that they ought to confess their sins only unto God, and some think that they are to be confessed unto the Priests: both of which, not without great fruit, is practised within the holy Church. namely thus, that we both confess our sins unto God, who is the forgiver of sins (saying with David: I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess against my self my transgressions unto the Lord: and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.) and according to the institution of the Apostle, confess our sins one unto another, and pray one for another, that we may be healed. The Confession therefore which is made unto God, purgeth sins: but that which is made unto the Priest, teacheth in what sort those sins should be purged. For God the author and bestower of salvation and health, giveth the same sometime by the invisible administration of his power, sometime by the operation of Physicians.
And, that wee may see how variable mens judgements were touching the matter of Confession in the ages following: Bede would have us nconfesse our daily & light sinnes one unto another, but open the uncleanenesse of the greater leprosie to the Priest. Alcuinus, not long after him, would have us oconfesse all the sinnes that we can remember. Others were of another minde. For some (as it appeareth by the writings of the same pAlcuinus and of qHaymo) would not confesse their sinnes to the Priest; but rsaid, it was sufficient for them that they did confesse their sinnes to God alone, provided alwayes that they ceased from those sinnes for the time to come. Others confessed their sinnes unto the Priests, but not fullys: as may be seene in the Councell of Cauailon, held in the dayes of Charles the great where, though the Fathers thinke that this had need to be amended: yet they freely acknowledge, that it remained still a question, whether men should only confesse to God, or to the Priests also; and they themselves put this difference betwixt both those confessions, that the one did properly serve for the cure, the other for direction in what sort the repentance (and so the cure) should be performed. Their words are these. tSome ⟨p. 102⟩say, that they ought to confesse their sinnes onely unto God, and some thinke that they are to be confessed unto the Priests: both of which, not without great fruit, is practised within the holy Church. namely thus, that wee both confesse our sinnes unto God, who is the forgiver of sinnes (saying with David: I acknowledged my sinne unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confesse against my selfe my transgressions vnto the Lord: and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sinne.) and according to the institution of the Apostle, confesse our sinnes one unto another, and pray one for another, that we may be healed. The Confession therfore which is made unto God, purgeth sins: but that which is made unto the Priest, teacheth in what sort those sinnes should be purged. For God the author and bestower of salvation and health, giveth the same sometime by the invisible administration of his power, sometime by the operation of Physicians.
nIn hâc sententiâ illa debet esse discretio; ut quotidiana leviá que pecca•a alteru•um coaequalibus confiteamur, corumque quotidianâ credamus oratione salvari. Porrò gravioris leprae immunditiā juxta legem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad ejus arbitrium qualiter & quanto tempore jusserit, purificari curemus. Bed. in Jacob. 5.In hâc sententiâ illa debet esse discretio; ut quotidiana leviá que pecca•a alteru•um coaequalibus confiteamur, corumque quotidianâ credamus oratione salvari. Porrò gravioris leprae immūditiā juxta legem sacerdoti pandamus, atque ad ejus arbitrium qualiter & quanto tempore jusserit, purificari curemus. Bed. in Iacob. 5.
oVolens dimittere omnia his qui in se peccaverunt, confiteatur omnia peccata sua, quae recordari potest. Alcuin. de divin. offi•. cap 13 in capite Jejunii.Volens dimittere omnia his qui in se peccaverunt, confiteatur omnia peccata sua, quae recordari potest. Alcuin. de divin. offi•. cap 13 in capite Iejunii.
pId. epist. 26.
qHaymo in Evangel. Dominic. 15. post Pentecost. Ite ostendite vos Sacerdotib.Haymo in Evangel. Dominic. 15. post Pentecost. Ite ostēdite vos Sacerdotib.
rDicentes, sibi sussicere, ut soli Deo peccata sua confiteantur; si tantùm ab ipsis peccatis in reliquo cessent. Haymo, ut supra.Dicentes, sibi sussicere, ut soli Deo peccata sua confiteātur; si tantùm ab ipsis peccatis in reliquo cessent. Haymo, ut supra.
sSed & hoc emendatione egere perspeximus, quòd quidā dun confitentur peccata sua sacerdotibus, non plené id faciunt. Concil. C. bilo•. II. cap. 32.Sed & hoc emendatione egere perspeximus, quòd quidā dū cōfitentur peccata sua sacerdotibus, non plené id faciūt. Concil. C. bilo•. II. cap. 32.
This Canon is cited by uGratian out of the Penitential of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury: but clogged with some unnecessary additions. as when in the beginning thereof it is made the xopinion of the Grecians, that sins should be confessed only unto God; and of the rest of the Church, that they should be confessed to Priests. where those words, ut Graeci, in Gratian seem unto Cardinal Bellarmine, yto have crept out of the margin into the text; and to have been a marginal annotation of some unskilful man, who gathered by the fact of Nectarius, that Sacramental Confession was wholly taken away among the Grecians. For otherwise ⟨p. 103⟩(saith he) in the Capitular it self of Theodorus, whence that Canon was transcribed, those two words [ut Graeci] are not to be had; nor are they also to be had in the second Council of Cavaillon, c. 33. whence Theodorus seemeth to have taken that chapter: neither yet doth the Master of the Sentences, in his 4. book and 17. distinction bringing in the same sentence, add those words [ut Graeci.] But the Cardinals conjecture of the translating of these words out of the margin into the text of Gratian, is of little worth: seeing we find them expressly laid down in the elder collections of the Decrees, made by zBurchardus and aIvo; from whence it is evident that Gratian borrowed this whole chapter, as he hath done many a one beside. For as for the Capitular it self of Theodorus, whence the Cardinal too too boldly affirmeth that Canon was transcribed; as if he had looked into the book himself: we are to know, that no such Capitular of Theodorus is to be found: only Burchardus and Ivo, (in whom, as we said, those controverted words are extant) setteth down this whole chapter as taken out of Theodore's Penitential, & so misguided Gratian. for indeed in Theodorus his Penitential (which I did lately transcribe out of a most ancient copy kept in Sir Robert Cottons Treasury) no part of that chapter can be seen: nor yet any thing else tending to the matter now in hand, this short sentence only excepted. Confessionem suam Deo soli, si necesse est, licebit agere. It is lawful, that Confession be made unto God alone, if need require. And to suppose as the Cardinal doth that Theodorus should take this chapter out of the second Council of Cavaillon:
This Canon is cyted by uGratian out of the Penitentiall of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury: but clogged with some unnecessarie additions. as when in the beginning thereof it is made the xopinion of the Grecians, that sinnes should be confessed onely unto God; and of the rest of the Church, that they should be confessed to Priests. where those words, ut Graeci, in Gratian seeme unto Cardinall Bellarmine, yto have crept out of the margent into the text; and to have beene a marginall annotation of some unskilfull man, who gathered by the fact of Nectarius, that Sacramentall Confession was wholly taken away among the Grecians. For otherwise ⟨p. 103⟩(saith hee) in the Capitular it selfe of Theodorus, whence that Canon was transcribed, those two words [ut Graeci] are not to be had; nor are they also to be had in the second Councell of Cauaillon, c. 33. whence Theodorus seemeth to have taken that chapter: neyther yet doth the Master of the Sentences, in his 4. booke and 17. distinction bringing in the same sentence, adde those words [ut Graeci.] But the Cardinalls conjecture of the translating of these words out of the margent into the text of Gratian, is of little worth: seeing wee finde them expressely laid downe in the elder collections of the Decrees, made by zBurchardus and aIvo; from whence it is evident that Gratian borrowed this whole chapter, as he hath done manie a one beside. For as for the Capitular it selfe of Theodorus, whence the Cardinall too too boldly affirmeth that Canon was transcribed; as if hee had looked into the booke himselfe: we are to know, that no such Capitular of Theodorus is to be found: onely Burchardus and Ivo, (in whom, as we said, those controverted words are extant) setteth downe this whole chapter as taken out of Theodors Penitentiall, & so misguided Gratian. for indeed in Theodorus his Penitentiall (which I did lately transcribe out of a most ancient copie kept in Sir Robert Cottons Threasurie) no part of that chapter can be seene: nor yet any thing else tending to the matter now in hand, this short sentence onely excepted. Confessionem suam Deo soli, si necesse est, licebit agere. It is lawfull, that Confession be made unto God alone, if need require. And to suppose as the Cardinall doth that Theodorus should take this chapter out of the second Councell of Cauaillon:
uGrat. de Poenit. distinct. 1. cap. ult. Quidā Deo.Grat. de Poenit. distinct. 1. cap. ult. Quidā Deo.
xQuidā Deo solummodò confiteri debere peccata dicunt, ut Graeci: qui dam veró Sacerdotibus cō fitenda esse percensent, ut tota feré sancta Ecclesia. Ibid.Quidā Deo solummodò cōfiteri debere peccata dicūt, ut Graeci: qui dam veró Sacerdotibus cō fitenda esse percensent, ut tota feré sancta Ecclesia. Ibid.
yVidetur irrepsisse in textum ex margine: & marginalem annotationem imperiti alicujus fuisse, qui ex facto Nectarii collegit sublatam omnino Confessionem Sacramentalem apud Graecos. Nam alioqui in ipso capitulari Theodori, unde canon ille descriptus est, non habentur duae illae voces [ut Graeci,] neque etiam habentur in Concilio II. Cabilonensi, c. 33. unde Theodorus Capitulum illud accepisse videtur: sed nec Magister Sentent. in 4. lib. dist. 17. eandem sententiam adducens, addidit illud, [ut Graeci.] Bellarmin. de Poenitent. lib. 3. cap. 5.
were an idle imagination▪ seeing it is well known that Theodore died Archbishop of Canterbury in the year of ⟨p. 104⟩our Lord 690: and the Council of Cavaillon was held in the year 813. that is, 123. years after the others death. The truth is; he who made the additions to the Capitularia of Charles the great and Ludovicus Pius, (gathered by Ansegisus and Benedict) translated this Canon out of that Council into his bCollection: which Bellarmine, as it seemeth, having someway heard of, knew not to distinguish between those Capitularia, and Theodore's Penitential. being herein as negligent, as in his allegation of the fourth book of the Sentences: where the Master doth not bring in this sentence at all, but having among other questions propounded this also for one, cWhether it be sufficient that a man confess his sins to God alone, or whether he must confess to a Priest; doth thereupon set down the diversity of mens opinions touching that matter, and saith, that unto some it seemed to suffice, if confession were made to God only without the judgement of the Priest or the confession of the Church. because David said; I said, I will confess unto the Lord: he saith not, Unto the Priest; and yet he showeth that his sin was forgiven him. For in these points, as the same author had before noted,d even the learned were found to hold diversly: because the Doctors seemed to deliver diverse and almost contrary judgement• therein.
were an idle imagination▪ seeing it is well knowne that Theodore died Archbishop of Canterbury in the yeare of ⟨p. 104⟩our Lord 690: and the Councell of Cauaillon was held in the yeare 813. that is, 123. yeares after the others death. The truth is; hee who made the additions to the Capitularia of Charles the great and Ludovicus Pius, (gathered by Ansegisus and Benedict) translated this Canon out of that Councell into his bCollection: which Bellarmine, as it seemeth, having someway heard of, knew not to distinguish between those Capitularia, and Theodors Penitentiall. being herein as negligent, as in his allegation of the fourth book of the Sentences: where the Master doth not bring in this sentence at all, but having among other questions propounded this also for one, cWhether it be sufficient that a man confesse his sinnes to God alone, or whether hee must confesse to a Priest; doth thereupon set down the diversitie of mens opinions touching that matter, and saith, that unto some it seemed to suffice, if confession vvere made to God onely without the judgement of the Priest or the confession of the Church. because David said; I said, I will confesse unto the Lord: he saith not, Vnto the Priest; and yet he sheweth that his sinne was forgiven him. For in these points, as the same author had before noted,d even the learned were found to hold diversly: because the Doctors seemed to deliver diverse and almost contrarie judgement• therein.
cUtrum sufficiat peccata confiteri soli Deo, an op•rteat confiteri Sacerdoti Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio sine judicio Sacerdotali & confessione ecclesiae. quia David dixit; Dixi Confitebor Domino, &c. non ait, Sacerdoti: & tamen remissum sibi peccatum dicit. Petr. Lombard. lib. 4. Senten• dist. 17.Vtrum sufficiat peccata confiteri soli Deo, an op•rteat confiteri Sacerdoti Quibusdam visum est sufficere, si soli Deo fiat confessio sine judicio Sacerdotali & confessione ecclesiae. quia David dixit; Dixi Confitebor Domino, &c. non ait, Sacerdoti: & tamen remissum sibi peccatum dicit. Petr. Lombard. lib. 4. Senten• dist. 17.
dIn his enim etiam docti diversa s•ntire inveniuntur: quia super his varia ac pené adversa tradidisse videntur doctores. Ibid.
The diverse sentences of the Doctors touching this question, whether external confession were necessary or not, are at large laid down by Gratian: who in the end, leaveth the matter in suspense, and concludeth in this manner. eUpon what authorities, or upon what ⟨p. 105⟩strength of reasons both these opinions are grounded, I have briefly laid open. But to whether of them we should rather cleave to, is reserved to the judgement of the reader. For both of them have for their favourers both wise and religious men. And so the matter rested undetermined 1150. years after Christ: howsoever the Roman Correctors of Gratian do tell us, that now the case is altered, and that fit is most certain, and must be held for most certain, that the sacramental confession of mortal sins is necessary, used in that manner, and at such time, as in the Council of Trent after other Councils it is appointed. But the first Council, wherein we find any thing determined touching this necessity, is that of Lateran under Innocent the III. wherein we heard that Transubstantiation was established▪ for there it was ordayned, that gOmnis utriusque sexus sidelis, every faithful one of either sex, being come to years of discretion, should by himself alone, once in the year at least, faithfully confess his sins unto his own Priest; and endeavour according to his strength to fulfil the penance enjoined unto him, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist: otherwise, that both being alive he should be kept from entering into the Church, and being dead should want Christian burial. Since which determination, Thomas Aquinas (in his exposition of the text of the fourth book of the Sentences, distinct. 17.) holdeth hthe denial of the necessity of Confession unto salvation to be heresy: which before that time (saith Bonaventure, in his disputations upon the same fourth book) was not heretical, forasmuch as many ⟨p. 106⟩Catholic Doctors did hold contrary opinions therein, as appeareth by Gratian.
The diverse sentences of the Doctors touching this question, whether externall confession were necessarie or not, are at large layd downe by Gratian: who in the end, leaveth the matter in suspense, and concludeth in this maner. eVpon what authorities, or upon what ⟨p. 105⟩strength of reasons both these opinions are grounded, I have briefly layd open. But to whether of them wee should rather cleave to, is reserved to the judgement of the reader. For both of them have for their favourers both wise and religious men. And so the matter rested undetermined 1150. yeares after Christ: howsoever the Romane Correctors of Gratian doe tell us, that now the case is altered, and that fit is most certaine, and must be held for most certaine, that the sacramentall confession of mortall sinnes is necessary, used in that maner, and at such time, as in the Councell of Trent after other Councels it is appointed. But the first Councell, wherein we finde any thing determined touching this necessitie, is that of Lateran under Innocent the III. wherein wee heard that Transsubstantiation was established▪ for there it was ordayned, that gOmnis utriusque sexus sidelis, every faithfull one of eyther sex, being come to yeares of discretion, should by himselfe alone, once in the yeare at least, faithfully confesse his sinnes unto his owne Priest; and indevour according to his strength to fulfill the penance injoyned unto him, receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist: otherwise, that both being alive hee should be kept from entring into the Church, and being dead should want Christian buriall. Since which determination, Thomas Aquinas (in his exposition of the text of the fourth booke of the Sentences, distinct. 17.) holdeth hthe deniall of the necessitie of Confession unto salvation to be heresie: which before that time (saith Bonaventure, in his disputations upon the same fourth booke) was not hereticall, forasmuch as manie ⟨p. 106⟩Catholick Doctors did hold contrarie opinions therein, as appeareth by Gratian.
eQuibus auctoritatibus, vel quibus rationū firmamentis utraque sententia innitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potiùs adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Utraque enim fautores habet sapientes, & religiosos viros, De P••ie. dist. 1. cap. 29▪ Quamvis.Quibus auctoritatibus, vel quibus rationū firmamentis utraque sententia innitatur, in medium breviter exposuimus. Cui autem harum potiùs adhaerendum sit, lectoris judicio reservatur. Vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes, & religiosos viros, De P••ie. dist. 1. cap. 29▪ Quamvis.
fCertissimum est. & pro certissimo habendum peccati mortalis necessariam esse cō fessionem sacramentalem eo modo, ac ten pore adhibitā, quo in Concilio Tridentino post alia Concilia est constitutum. Rom. Correct. ibid.Certissimum est. & pro certissimo habendum peccati mortalis necessariam esse cō fessionem sacramentalem eo modo, ac tē pore adhibitā, quo in Concilio Tridentino post alia Concilia est constitutum. Rom. C•rrect. ibid.
gOmnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquàm ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua solus peccata confiteatur fideliter saltem semel in anno proprio sacerdoti; & injunctam sibi poenitentiam studeat pro viribus adimplere, suscipiens reverenter ad minùs in Pascha Eucharistiae sacramentum: &c. alioquin & vivens ab ingressu Ecclesiae arceatur, & moriens Christianâ careat sepulturâ. Concil. Lateran. cap 21.
hMagister & Gratianus hoc pro opinione ponunt Sed nunc post determinationem Ecclesiae sub Inn. 111. factam, haeresis reputanda est. Thom.
But Medina will not admit by any means, ithat it should be accounted strictly heresy: but would have it said, that it savours of heresy. and for this decree of Confession to be made once in the year, he saith kthat it doth not declare nor interpret any divine right of the thing, but rather appointeth the time of confessing. Durand thinketh that it may be said, that this statute containeth lan holy and wholesome exhortation of making confession, and then adjoineth a precept of the receiving of the Eucharist backed with a penalty: or if both of them be precepts, that mthe penalty respecteth only the precept of communicating (of the transgression whereof knowledge may be taken) and not the precept of confession, of the transgression whereof the Church can take no certain notice, and therefore can appoint no certain penalty for it. But howsoever; this we are sure of, that the Canonists afterward held no absolute necessity of obedience to be required therein, as unto a Sacramental institution ordained by Christ for obtaining remission of sins; but a Canonical obedience only, as unto an useful constitution of the Church. And therefore where Gratian in his first distinction de Poenitentiâ, had in the 34. chapter and the three next following, propounded the allegations which made for them who held, nthat men might obtain pardon for their sins without any oral confession of them; and then proceeded to the authorities which might ⟨p. 107⟩seem to make for the contrary opinion: Johannes Semeca at the beginning of that part, upon those words of Gratian, Alij é contrario tes•antur, putteth too this Gloss. oFrom this place until the section His auctoritatib. he allegeth for the other part, that sin is not forgiven unto such as are of years, without confession of the mouth which yet is false: saith he. But this free dealing of his did so displease Friar Manrique, who by the command of Pius Quintus, set out a censure upon the Glosses of the Canon law; that he gave direction these words, which yet is false, should be clean blotted out. which direction of his notwithstanding, the Roman Correctors under Gregory the XIII. did not follow: but letting the words still stand, give them a check only with this marginal annotation. pNay it is most true, that without confession, in desire at least, the sin is not forgiven.
But Medina will not admit by anie meanes, ithat it should be accounted strictly heresie: but would have it said, that it savours of heresie. and for this decree of Confession to be made once in the yeare, hee saith kthat it doth not declare nor interpret any divine right of the thing, but rather appointeth the time of confessing. Durand thinketh that it may be said, that this statute contayneth lan holy and wholsome exhortation of making confession, and then adjoyneth a precept of the receiving of the Eucharist backed with a penaltie: or if both of them be precepts, that mthe penaltie respecteth onely the precept of communicating (of the transgression whereof knowledge may be taken) and not the precept of confession, of the transgression whereof the Church can take no certaine notice, and therefore can appoint no certaine penaltie for it. But howsoever; this wee are sure of, that the Canonists afterward held no absolute necessitie of obedience to be required therein, as unto a Sacramentall institution ordayned by Christ for obtayning remission of sinnes; but a Canonicall obedience onely, as unto an usefull constitution of the Church. And therefore where Gratian in his first distinction de Poenitentiâ, had in the 34. chapter and the three next following, propounded the allegations which made for them who held, nthat men might obtaine pardon for their sinnes without anie orall confession of them; and then proceeded to the authorities which might ⟨p. 107⟩seeme to make for the contrarie opinion: Iohannes Semeca at the beginning of that part, upon those words of Gratian, Alij é contrario tes•antur, putteth too this Glosse. oFrom this place untill the section His auctoritatib. he alledgeth for the other part, that sinne is not forgiven unto such as are of yeares, without confession of the mouth which yet is false: saith he. But this free dealing of his did so displease Friar Manrique, who by the command of Pius Quintus, set out a censure upon the Glosses of the Canon law; that hee gave direction these words, which yet is false, should be cleane blotted out. which direction of his notwithstanding, the Romane Correctors under Gregory the XIII. did not follow: but letting the words still stand, give them a check only with this marginall annotation.
iIdeò dicendum, quòd praesata assertio non est stricté haeresis, sed sapit haeresim. Jo. Medina. tractat. 2. de Confessione, quaest. 4.Ideò dicendum, quòd praesata assertio non est stricté haeresis, sed sapit haeresim. Io. Medina. tractat. 2. de Confessione, quaest. 4.
kNam illud, quod illic dicitur de confessione semel in anno, non procedit declarando, nec divinū jus interpretā do, sed potiùs tempus confitendi instituendo. Id. ibid. quaest· 2.Nam illud, quod illic dicitur de confessione semel in anno, non procedit declarando, nec divinū jus interpretā do, sed potiùs tempus confitendi instituendo. Id. ibid. quaest· 2.
lIn quo praemittitur exhortatio sancta & salubris de cō fessione faciendâ, & subjungitur praeceptū de perceptione Eucharistiae vallatum poenâ. Durand. in lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 17. quaest. 14.In quo praemittitur exhortatio sancta & salubris de cō fessione faciendâ, & subjungitur praeceptū de perceptione Eucharistiae vallatum poenâ. Durand. in lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 17. quaest. 14.
mEt ob hoc posset rationabiliter videri alicui, quòd praedicta poena illius statuti respicit solum praeceptum de communione de cujus transgressione constare potest, & non praeceptum de confessione. Id. ibid.
nUnde datur intelligi, quòd etiam ore tacente, veniam consequi possumus. De Poenit. dist. 1. cap. 34. Convertimini. Vid. initium eiusd. distinct. & Glossam. ibid. verb. Sunt enim.Vnde datur intelligi, quòd etiam ore tacente, veniam consequi possumus. De Poenit. dist. 1. cap. 34. Convertimini. Vid. initium eiusd. distinct. & Glossam. ibid. verb. Sunt enim.
oAb hoc loco usque ad sect. His auctoritatib. pro aliâ part allegat, quòd scilicèt adulto peccati• non dimittitur sine oris confessione. quod tamen falsum est G•oss.Ab hoc loco usque ad sect. His auctoritatib. pro aliâ parte allegat, quòd scilicèt adulto peccati• non dimittitur sine oris confessione. quod tamen falsum est G•oss.
In like manner, where the same Semeca holdeth it to be the better opinion, that Confession was qordained by a certain tradition of the universal Church, rather then by the authority of the new or old Testament, and inferreth thereupon, that it is rnecessary among the Latins, but not among the Greeks, because that tradition did not spread to them: Friar Manrique commandeth all that passage to be blotted out, but the Roman Correctors clap this note upon the margin for an antidote. sNay confession was ordained by our Lord, and by Gods Law is necessary to all that fall into mortal sin after Baptism, as well Greeks as Latins. and for this they quote only the 14. Session of the Council of Trent: ⟨p. 108⟩where that opinion is accursed in us, which was held two or three hundred years ago by the men of their own religion. among whom, tMichael of Bononia (who was Prior general of the order of the Carmelites in the days of Pope Urban the sixth) doth conclude strongly out of their own received grounds; that confession is not necessary for the obtaining of the pardon of our sin: and Panormitan the great Canonist, uprofesseth that the opinion of Semeca doth much please him, which referreth the original of Confession to a general tradition of the Church: because (saith he) there is not any clear authority, which showeth that God or Christ did clearly ordain that Confession should be made unto a Priest. Yea, xall the Canonists, following their first Interpreter, say that Confession was brought in only by the law of the Church, and not by any divine precept: if we will believe Maldonat. who addeth notwithstanding, that ythis opinion is either already sufficiently declared by the Church to be heresy, or that the Church should do well if it did declare it to be heresy.
In like maner, where the same Semeca holdeth it to be the better opinion, that Confession was qordayned by a certaine tradition of the universall Church, rather then by the authoritie of the new or old Testament, and inferreth thereupon, that it is rnecessarie among the Latins, but not among the Greekes, because that tradition did not spread to them: Friar Manrique commandeth all that passage to be blotted out, but the Romane Correctors clap this note upon the margent for an antidote. sNay confession was ordayned by our Lord, and by Gods Law is necessary to all that fall into mortall sinne after Baptisme, as well Greekes as Latins. and for this they quote onely the 14. Session of the Councell of Trent: ⟨p. 108⟩where that opinion is accursed in us, which was held two or three hundred yeares ago by the men of their owne religion. among whom, tMichael of Bononia (who was Prior general of the order of the Carmelites in the dayes of Pope Vrban the sixth) doth conclude strongly out of their owne received grounds; that confession is not necessary for the obtayning of the pardon of our sinne: and Panormitan the great Canonist, uprofesseth that the opinion of Semeca doth much please him, which referreth the originall of Confession to a generall tradition of the Church: because (saith he) there is not anie cleare authority, which sheweth that God or Christ did clearely ordayne that Confession should be made unto a Priest. Yea, xall the Canonists, following their first Interpreter, say that Confession was brought in onely by the law of the Church, and not by anie divine precept: if we will beleeve Maldonat. who addeth notwithstanding, that ythis opinion is eyther alreadie sufficiently declared by the Church to be heresie, or that the Church should doe well if it did declare it to be heresie.
qMeliùs dicitur ea• institutam fuisse à quadam universalis Ecclesiae tradition, potiùs quàm ex novi v•l veteris Testamē ti auctoritate, Gloss. de Poenitent. init. distinct. 5. In poenitentia.Meliùs dicitur ea• institutam fuisse à quadam universalis Ecclesiae traditione, potiùs quàm ex novi v•l veteris Testamē ti auctoritate, Gloss. de Poenitēt. init. distinct. 5. In poenitentia.
rErgo necessaria est confessio in mortalibus apud nos, apud Graecos non: quia non emanavit apud illos traditio talis Ibid.
sImò confessio est instituta à Domino, & est omnibus post Baptismum lapsis in mortale peccatū, tam Graecis quàm Latinis, jure divino necessaria. Rom. Correct. ibid. in marg.Imò confessio est instituta à Domino, & est omnibus post Baptismum lapsis in mortale peccatū, tam Graecis quàm Latinis, jure divino necessaria. Rom. Correct. ibid. in marg.
uMultùm mihi placet illa opinio: quia nō est aliqua authoritas aperta, quae innuat Deū seu Christum aperté instituisse confessionem fiendā Sacerdoti. Panorm. in 5. Decretal. de Poenit. & remiss. cap. 12. Omnis utriusque. sect. 18.Multùm mihi placet illa opinio: quia nō est aliqua authoritas aperta, quae innuat Deū seu Christum aperté instituisse confessionem fiendā Sacerdoti. Panorm. in 5. Decretal. de Poenit. & remiss. cap. 12. Omnis utriusque. sect. 18.
xOmnes juris Pontificii periti, secuti primū suum Interpretem, dicunt Confessionem tantùm esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico. Maldonat. Disp. de Sacrament. Tom. 2. de Confess. orig. cap. 2.Omnes juris Pontificii periti, secuti primū suum Interpretem, dicunt Confessionem tantùm esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico. Maldonat. Disp. de Sacrament. Tom. 2. de Confess. orig. cap. 2.
ySed tamen haec opinio, aut jam declarata est satis tanquā haeresis ab Ecclesiâ; aut faceret Ecclesia operae pretium, si declararet esse haeresim. Id. ibid. de praecepto Confess. cap 3.
And we find indeed, that in the year of our Lord 1479. (which was 34. years after the death of Panormitan) by a special commission directed from Pope Sixtus the fourth unto Alfonsus Carillus Archbishop of Toledo, one Petrus Oxomensis, professor of Divinity in the University of Salamanca, was driven to abjure zthis conclusion, which he had before delivered as agreeable to the common opinion of the Doctors; that confession of sins in particular was grounded upon some statute of the universal Church, and not upon ⟨p. 109⟩divine right. and when learned men for all this would not take warning, but would needs be meddling again with that which the Popish Clergy could not endure should be touched, (as Johannes de Selva, among others, in the end of his treatise de Jurejurando; Erasmus in diverse of his works, and Beatus Rhenanus in his argument upon Tertullians book de Poenitentiâ:) the fathers of Trent within 72. years after that, conspired together to stop all mens mouths with *an anathema, that should deny sacramental confession to be of divine institution or to be necessary unto salvation. And so we are come to an end of that point.
And we finde indeed, that in the yeare of our Lord 1479. (which was 34. yeares after the death of Panormitan) by a speciall commission directed from Pope Sixtus the fourth unto Alfonsus Carillus Archbishop of Toledo, one Petrus Oxomensis, professor of Divinitie in the Vniversitie of Salamanca, was driven to abjure zthis conclusion, which hee had before delivered as agreeable to the common opinion of the Doctors; that confession of sinnes in particular vvas grounded upon some statute of the universall Church, and not upon ⟨p. 109⟩divine right. and when learned men for all this would not take warning, but would needs be medling againe with that which the Popish Clergie could not indure should be touched, (as Iohannes de Selva, among others, in the end of his treatise de Iurejurando; Erasmus in diverse of his workes, and Beatus Rhenanus in his argument upon Tertullians booke de Poenitentiâ:) the fathers of Trent within 72. yeares after that, conspired together to stop all mens mouthes with *an anathema, that should denie sacramentall confession to be of divine institution or to be necessarie unto salvation. And so we are come to an end of that point.
zQuòd confessio de peccatis in specie suerit ex aliquo statuto universalis Ecclesiae, non de jure divino. Congregat. Complutens. sub Alfonso Carillo: apud Ca•ranzam in Summâ Concil. sub Sixto IV.
From Confession we are now to proceed unto Absolution: which it were pity this man should receive, before he made confession of the open wrong he hath here done, in charging us to deny that Priests have power to forgive sins. whereas the very formal words, which our Church requireth to be used in the ordination of a Minister, are these: aWhose sins thou doest forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou doest retain, they are retained. And therefore if this be all the matter, the Fathers and we shall agree well enough: howsoever this make-bate would fain put friends together by the ears, where there is no occasion at all of quarrel. For we acknowledge most willingly, that the principal part of the Priests ministry is exercised in the matter of forgiveness of sins: the question only is of the manner how this part of their function is executed by them, and of the bounds and limits thereof, ⟨p. 110⟩which the Pope and his Clergy for their own advantage have enlarged beyond all measure of truth and reason.
FRom Confession we are now to proceed unto Absolution: which it were pitie this man should receive, before he made confession of the open wrong he hath here done, in charging us to denie that Priests have power to forgive sinnes. whereas the verie formall words, which our Church requireth to be used in the ordination of a Minister, are these: aWhose sinnes thou doest forgive, they are forgiven; and vvhose sinnes thou doest retaine, they are retained. And therefore if this be all the matter, the Fathers and we shal agree well enough: howsoever this make-bate would faine put friends together by the eares, where there is no occasion at all of quarrell. For wee acknowledge most willingly, that the principall part of the Priests ministerie is exercised in the matter of forgivenesse of sinnes: the question only is of the maner how this part of their function is executed by them, and of the bounds and limits thereof, ⟨p. 110⟩which the Pope and his Clergie for their owne advantage have inlarged beyond all measure of truth and reason.
aThe form of ordering of Priests.The forme of ordering of Priests.
That we may therefore give unto the Priest the things that are the Priests, and to God the things that are Gods; & not communicate unto any creature the power that properly belongeth to the Creator, who bwill not give his glory unto another: we must in the first place lay this down for a sure ground, that to forgive sins properly, directly, and absolutely, is a privilege only appertaining unto the most High. I, saith he of himself, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. (Isaiah. 43.25.) Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity? saith the Prophet, Micah 7.18. which in effect is the same with that of the Scribes: (Mark. 2.7. and Luk. 5.21.) Who can forgive sins, but God alone? And therefore when David saith unto God; Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin: (Psalm. 32.5.) Gregory surnamed the great (the first Bishop of Rome of that name) thought this to be a sound paraphrase of his words. cThou, who alone sparest, who alone forgivest sins. For who can forgive sins but God alone? He did not imagine that he had committed any great error in subscribing thus simply unto that sentence of the Scribes: and little dreamed that any petty Doctors afterwards would arise in Rome or Rhemes, who would tell us a fair tale; that dthe faithless Jews thought, as Heretics now adays, that to forgive sins was so proper to God, that it could not be communicated unto man; and that etrue believers refer this to the increase of Gods honour, which miscreant Jews and Heretics do account blasphemy against God, and injurious to his Majesty. whereas ⟨p. 111⟩in truth the faithlessness of the Jews consisted in the application of this sentence unto our Saviour Christ, whom they did not acknowledge to be God; as the senselessness of these Romanists, in denying of the axiom it self.
That wee may therefore give unto the Priest the things that are the Priests, and to God the things that are Gods; & not cōmunicate unto any creature the power that properly belongeth to the Creator, who bwill not give his glory unto another: we must in the first place lay this downe for a sure ground, that to forgive sinnes properly, directly, and absolutely, is a priviledge onely appertayning unto the most High. I, saith he of himselfe, even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine owne sake, and will not remember thy sinnes. (Esai. 43.25.) Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquitie? saith the Prophet, Micah 7.18. which in effect is the same with that of the Scribes: (Mark. 2.7. and Luk. 5.21.) Who can forgive sinnes, but God alone? And therefore when David saith unto God; Thou forgavest the iniquitie of my sinne: (Psalm. 32.5.) Gregory surnamed the great (the first Bishop of Rome of that name) thought this to be a sound paraphrase of his words. cThou, vvho alone sparest, who alone forgivest sinnes. For who can forgive sinnes but God alone? Hee did not imagine that he had committed anie great error in subscribing thus simply unto that sentence of the Scribes: and little dreamed that anie petie Doctors afterwards would arise in Rome or Rhemes, who would tell us a faire tale; that dthe faithlesse Iewes thought, as Hereticks now adayes, that to forgive sinnes was so proper to God, that it could not be communicated unto man; and that etrue beleevers referre this to the increase of Gods honour, which miscreant Iewes and Hereticks doe accompt blasphemie against God, and injurious to his Majestie. whereas ⟨p. 111⟩in truth the faithlesnesse of the Iewes consisted in the application of this sentence unto our Saviour Christ, whom they did not acknowledge to be God; as the senslesness of these Romanists, in denying of the axiom it selfe.
cTu qui solus parcis, qui solus peccata dimittis. Quis enim potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? Gregor. exposit. 2. Psalmi Penitential.Tu qui solus parcis, qui solus peccata dimittis. Quis enim potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? Gregor. exposit. 2. Psalmi Poenittential.
eRich. Hopkins, in the Memorial of a Christ. life, pag. 179. edis, an. 1612.Rich. Hopkins, in the Memoriall of a Christ. life, pag. 179. edis, ann. 1612.
Transcription key
•
an illegible letter
〈…〉
illegible words
〈non-Latin alphabet〉
Greek or Hebrew the transcribers did not key
▪
illegible punctuation
⟨p. 12⟩
a page break in the printed book
Certé periculum ejus tunc si fortè onerosum est, cùm penes insultaturos in risiloquio consistit, ubi de alterius ruinâ alter attollitur, ubi prostrato superscenditur. Caeterùm inter fratres atque cons•rvos, ubi communis spes, metus, gaudium, dolor, passio: quid tuos aliud quàm te opinaris? Quid consortes casuum tuorum, ut plausores fugis? Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere: Tertullian. de Poenitent. cap 9.
Quidā solummodò Deo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidā veró Sacerdotibus confitenda esse percensent: quod utrunque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiā ita duntaxat, ut & Deo, qui remissor est peccatorū, confiteamur peccata nostra, (& cum David dicamus: Delictū meū cognitū tibi feci, & injustitiā meam non abscondi, Dixi, Confitebor adversùm me injustitias meas Domino, & tu remisisti impietatē peccati mei.) et secundùm institutionē Apostoli, confiteamur alterutrū peccata nostra, & oremus pro invicem ut salvemur. Confessio itaque quae Deo fit, purgat peccata: ea veró quae Sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgentur peccata. Deus namque salutis & sanitatis author & largitor, plerunque hanc praebet suae potentiae invisibili administration, plerunque Medicorū operation. Ibid. cap. 33
Quidā solūmodò Deo cōfiteri debere dicūt peccata, quidā veró Sacerdotibus confitēda esse percensent: quod utrūque non sine magno fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiā ita duntaxat, ut & Deo, qui remissor est peccatorū, confiteamur peccata nostra, (& cum David dicamus: Delictū meū cognitū tibi feci, & injustitiā meam non abscōdi, Dixi, Cōfitebor adversùm me injustitias meas Domino, & tu remisisti impietatē peccati mei.) et secundùm institutionē Apostoli, cōfiteamur alterutrū peccata nostra, & oremus pro invicem ut salvemur. Confessio itaque quae Deo fit, purgat peccata: ea veró quae Sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ipsa purgētur peccata. Deus namque salutis & sanitatis author & largitor, plerūque hāc praebet suae potētiae invisibili administratione, plerūque Medicorū operatione. Ibid. cap. 33
Nay it is most true, that without confession, in desire at least, the sinne is not forgiven.
Imó verissimum sine confessione in voto non dimitti peccatum. Rom. Correct. ibid. in marg.
Sed tamen haec opinio, aut jam declarata est satis tanquā haeresis ab Ecclesiâ; aut faceret Ecclesia operae pretium, si declararet esse haeresim. Id. ibid. de praecepto Confess. cap 3.
