judged. Besides, the loosing of sins depends entirely on faith and repentance; which both elude the knowledge of man, when sentence is to be given respecting another. It follows, therefore, that the certainty of binding and loosing is not subject to the decision of an earthly judge; because a minister, in the legitimate execution of his office, can pronounce only a conditional absolution; but that the declaration, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted," is spoken for the sake of sinners, to preclude every doubt that the pardon, which is promised according to the command and word of God, will be ratified in heaven.

XIX. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if we condemn and desire the total removal of this auricular confession a thing so pestilent, and in so many respects injurious to the Church. Even if it were a thing abstractedly indifferent, yet, since it is of no use or benefit, but has occasioned so much impiety, sacrilege, and error, who can refuse to admit, that it ought to be immediately abolished? They mention, indeed, some uses, which they boast of as very beneficial; but these are mere fictions, or productive of no advantage whatever. One circumstance they state as a peculiar recommendation, that the shame of the person who confesses is a grievous punishment, by which the sinner is rendered more cautious in future, and prevents the vengeance of God by punishing himself. As though we humble not a man with a sufficient degree of shame, when we summon him to the supreme tribunal of heaven- to the cognizance of God! It is a wonderful advantage, indeed, if we cease to sin through a shame of one man, but are never ashamed of having God for a witness of our evil conscience! Though this very notion is utterly false; for it is universally observable, that nothing produces a greater confidence or licentiousness in sinning, than the idea entertained by some men, after they have made their confession to a priest, that they may "wipe their mouth and say, I have done no wickedness." (z) And they not only become more presumptuous in their sins throughout the year, but, having no concern about confession for the rest of the year, they never aspire after God, they never retire into themselves, but accumulate sins upon sins, till they disembogue them, as they imagine, all at once. But when they have done this, they conceive themselves to be exonerated of their burden, and to have transferred from God the judgment they have conferred on the priest; and that they have deprived God of remembrance, by the information they have communicated to the priest. Besides, who rejoices to see the day of confession approaching? Who goes to confess with alacrity of heart; and does not rather come with unwillingness and re

(z) Prov. xxx. 20.

luctance, as though he were forcibly dragged to a prison; except perhaps the priests, who pleasantly entertain themselves with mutual narrations of their exploits, as with humorous anecdotes? I will not soil much paper by relating the monstrous abominations with which auricular confession abounds. I only remark, if that holy man was not guilty of indiscretion, who, on account of one rumour of fornication, banished confession from his church, or rather from the memory of his people, we are thus reminded of what ought to be done in the present day, when rapes, adulteries, incests, and seductions exceed all enumeration.

XX. As the advocates of confession plead the power of the keys, and rest upon it all the merits of their cause, we must examine the weight that is due to this argument. Are the keys, then, (say they,) given without any reason? Is it without any cause that it is said, "Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven?" (a) Do we, then, frustrate the declaration of Christ? I reply, that there was an important reason why the keys should be given; as I have already stated, and shall again more explicitly show, when I come to treat of excommunication. But what if I refute the whole of their pretensions with one argument, that their priests are not vicars, or successors of the apostles? But this, also, will be discussed in another place. Now, they set up, as their principal defence, an engine by which their whole structure may be completely demolished. For Christ never conferred on his apostles the power of binding and loosing, till after he had given them the Holy Ghost. I deny, therefore, that the power of the keys belongs to any, who have not previously received the Holy Ghost. I deny that any one can use the keys, unless the Spirit guide and instruct him, and direct him how he ought to act. They impertinently pretend, that they have the Holy Ghost; but in reality they deny it; unless perhaps they imagine, as they certainly do, that the Holy Ghost is a useless and worthless thing; but they will not be believed. By this weapon they are completely vanquished. Of whatever door they pretend to have the key, they should always be asked, whether they have the Holy Ghost, who is the arbiter and governor of the keys. If they reply in the affirmative, they must be questioned again, whether it be possible for the Holy Ghost to err. This they will not dare expressly to avow, though they obliquely insinuate it in their doctrine. We may justly infer, therefore, that no priests have the power of the keys, who, without discrimination, frequently loose what the Lord had designed to be bound, and bind what he had commanded to be loosed. XXI. When they find themselves convinced, by evident

(a) Matt. xviii. 18.

experience, that they promiscuously loose and bind the worthy and the unworthy, they arrogate to themselves the power without knowledge. And though they dare not deny that knowledge is requisite to a good use of it, yet they tell us, that the power itself is committed to improper dispensers of it. But this is the power-"Whatsoever thou bindest or loosest on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven." Either the promise of Christ must be false, or the binding and loosing is rightly performed by those who are endued with this power. there any room for them to quibble, that the declaration of Christ is limited according to the merits of the person that is bound or loosed. We also acknowledge, that none can be bound or loosed, but such as are worthy to be bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel, and the Church, have the word as the standard of this worthiness. In this word, the ministers of the gospel may promise to all remission of sins in Christ through faith; they may denounce damnation against all and upon all who receive not Christ. In this word, the Church pronounces, that fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and extortioners, have no part in the kingdom of God; and binds such with the firmest bonds. In the same word, the Church looses and comforts those who repent. (b) But what kind of power will it be, not to know what ought to be bound or loosed? and not to be able to bind or loose without this knowledge ? Why, then, do they say, that they absolve by the authority committed to them, when their absolution is uncertain? Why should we concern ourselves about this imaginary power, if it be quite useless? But I have already ascertained, either that it has no existence, or that it is too uncertain to be considered of any value. For, as they confess that there are many of the priests who make no right use of the keys, and that the power has no efficacy without a legitimate use of it, who will assure me, that he by whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he be a bad one, what else does he possess but this frivolous dispensation of them: "What ought to be bound or loosed in you, I know not, since I am destitute of the proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you ?" But as much as this might be done, I will not say by a layman, (since they could not hear that with any patience,) but by a Turk or a devil. For it is equivalent to saying, "I have not the word of God, which is the certain rule of loosing; but I am invested with authority to absolve you, on condition that your merits deserve it." We see, then, what they intended, when they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power of executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good

(b) 1 Cor. vi. 9—11.

use. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own licentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.

XXII. If it be objected, that the legitimate ministers of Christ will be equally perplexed in their office, since the absolution, which depends on faith, will ever be doubtful, and that therefore sinners will have but a slight consolation, or none at all, since the minister himself, who is not a competent judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution, — we are prepared with an answer. They say, that no sins are remitted by the priest, but those which fall under his cognizance; thus, according to them, remission depends on the judgment of the priest; and unless he sagaciously discerns who are worthy of pardon, the whole transaction is frivolous and useless. In short, the power of which they speak is a jurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are restricted. In this statement, we find no firm footing, but rather a bottomless abyss; for where the confession is deficient, the hope of pardon is also imperfect; in the next place, the priest himself must necessarily remain in suspense, while he is ignorant whether the sinner faithfully enumerates all his crimes; lastly, such is the ignorance and inexperience of priests, that the majority of them are no more qualified for the exercise of this office, than a shoemaker for cultivating the ground; and almost all the rest ought justly to be suspicious of themselves. Hence, then, the perplexity and doubtfulness of the Papal absolution, because they maintain it to be founded on the person of the priest; and not only so, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge of what he hears, examines, and ascertains. Now, should any one inquire of these good doctors, whether a sinner be reconciled to God on the remission of part of his sins, I know not what answer they can give, without being constrained to acknowledge the inefficacy of whatever the priest may pronounce concerning the remission of sins which he has heard enumerated, as long as the guilt of others still remains. What a pernicious anxiety must oppress the conscience of the person that confesses, appears from this consideration, that while he relies on the discretion of the priest, (as they express themselves,) he decides nothing by the word of God. The doctrine maintained by us, is perfectly free from all these absurdities. For absolution is conditional, in such a way, that the sinner may be confident that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seeks an atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, and relies upon the grace offered to him. Thus it is impossible for him to err, who, according to his duty as a preacher, promulgates what he has been taught by the Divine word; and the sinner may receive a certain and clear absolution, simply on

condition of embracing the grace of Christ, according to that general rule of our Lord himself, which has been impiously despised among the Papists "According to your faith be it unto you." (c)

XXIII. Their absurd confusion of the clear representations of the Scripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose in another place; and a more suitable opportunity will present itself, in discussing the government of the Church. But let the reader remember, that they preposterously pervert to auricular and secret confession, passages which are spoken by Christ, partly of the preaching of the gospel, and partly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of loosing was committed to the apostles, which is now exercised by the priests in remitting the sins confessed to them, it is evidently an assumption of a false and frivolous principle; for the absolution consequent on faith, is nothing but a declaration of pardon taken from the gracious promise of the gospel; but the other absolution, which depends on ecclesiastical discipline, relates not to secret sins, but is rather for the sake of example, that the public offence of the Church may be removed. They rake together testimonies from every quarter, to prove, that it is not sufficient to make a confession of sins to God, or to laymen, unless they are likewise submitted to the cognizance of a priest; but they ought to be ashamed of such a disgusting employment. For, if the ancient fathers sometimes persuade sinners to disburden themselves to their own pastor, it cannot be understood of a particular enumeration of sins, which was not then practised. Moreover, Lombard and others of the same class have been so unfair, that they appear to have designedly consulted spurious books, in order to use them as a pretext to deceive the unwary. They do, indeed, properly acknowledge, that since loosing always accompanies repentance, there really remains no bond where any one has experienced repentance, although he may not yet have made a confession; and, therefore, that then the priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare them to be remitted. Though in the word declare they insinuate a gross error, substituting a ceremony in the place of instruction; but by adding, that he who had already obtained pardon before God, is absolved in the view of the Church, they unseasonably apply to the particular use of every individual, what we have already asserted to have been appointed as a part of the common discipline of the Church, when the offence of some great and notorious crime requires to be removed. But they presently corrupt and destroy all the moderation they had observed, by adding another mode of remission, that is, with an injunction

(c) Matt. ix. 29.