WAR

НАМ,

"that if we had no authority either from Scripture, or the Abp. Cant. Writings of the Fathers, to support this practice, yet considering the universality of the custom both for place and time, together with the great benefit arising from thence; these circumstances alone," continues the king, “are plain evidences to me, that it is no human invention, but stands upon the footing of a divine warrant. For what human authority could ever persuade people to discover their most secret thoughts, bring their hidden crimes into view, and throw open the retirements of their minds? Nothing less than a divine command could put people upon such penance and confession, and make them lodge such dangerous secrets with a foreign discretion. On the other side, since there are bad priests as well as good ones, since in many cases they have not the gifts of secresy, is it not a wonder they are so just to confessions? And have we not reason to conclude from hence, that God, who instituted the sacrament, guards the administration, and secures it from scandal and inconvenience?"

Luther allows women to

receive confessions.

34, 35.

solution and

In handling this argument, it seems Luther has been somewhat singular in his assertions, and given women an authority to be men's confessors. "Women," says the king, "whom the apostle does not give the liberty of teaching, or so much as 1 Cor. xiv. speaking in the Church." From hence his majesty proceeds to show from the ancients, that confession (unless in case of necessity) is only to be made to a priest. "Let him come,” says St. Austin, "to the bishops and priests with whom the power of the keys is entrusted." And elsewhere, "let the penitent," says Giving ab this Father, "declare his sorrow by his tears; let him discover receiving his failings to the priest, and prevent the terrible sentence of the privilege the last day, by voluntary confession." And thus much we may of the priest infer from our Saviour's commanding the lepers to show themselves to the priests. His next testimony is that of Leo the Great, who tells us, that our Saviour gave the pastors of the Church an authority to state the measures, and convey the benefits of repentance to those who confess to them. Besides, what signifies confession without the advantage of absolution? But the conveyance of this blessing is lodged only with the priests and therefore, St. Austin affirms, that whoever enters upon a course of penance, without the direction of the priest, encroaches upon the privilege of the keys.

confessions

hood.

Luke xvii.

14.

Of satisfaction.

HENRY
VIII.

Luther in

tion.

The king comes now to the last branch of penance, that is, satisfaction. And here his majesty charges Luther with misrepresenting the Church: Luther, for instance, had affirmed, The Church misreprethe people were not instructed in the necessity of reforming sented by their manners. "This," says the king, "is a notorious calumny: re for what priest was ever so ignorant as to enjoin penance for of satisfacformer miscarriage, and at the same time give an indulgence for repetition? What priest, when he gives absolution, does not suggest those words of our blessed Saviour, Go and sin no more? Who does not put his penitent in mind of St. Paul's exhortation: 'as ye have yielded your members ser- Rom. vi. vants unto uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.' What confessor is unacquainted with St. Gregory's description of repentance? To repent,' says this Father, 'is to lament our faults, and not repeat them; for he that returns to the commission of what he is sorry for, either knows nothing of repentance, or else dissembles in his compunction.' Upon this head Luther makes a tragical invective upon the court of Rome, charges that see with depraving the doctrine of penance; that their canons and decrees were pernicious and fatal to Christendom: "for," says he, "they have made the world believe, the justice of God may be satisfied by good works, whereas the faith of a contrite heart is sufficient for this purpose." To this the king replies, that "this doctrine, these regulations of penance, are most of them the resolutions of the ancient Fathers they are the decrees of provincial and general councils and therefore in case they were any ways exceptionable, the court of Rome was not altogether answerable for them. 2dly, Whereas he affirms, that good works contribute nothing towards the reconciling God to a sinner: if he means, that good works without faith, are insignificant to this purpose, he disputes without an adversary: for who was ever so weak as to say, that good works without faith, are not imperfect qualifications? Who does not know, that St. Paul has declared, that whatever is not of faith is sin.' But on the Rom. xiv. other side, if he believes works superfluous, and that faith alone is sufficient for justification, then I grant he disagrees with the Church of Rome, and with the apostle St. James too, who assures us, that faith without works is dead."" The king pro

HAM,

James ii.
But then

Luther adds,
indiget
autem ut

verax in
suis pro-
missis a

tur.

ceeds and charges Luther directly with this assertion: "God," Abp. Cant. says this German divine, "neither wants our good works, nor regards them." To this the king answers, "I believe God does both regard our faith and our works too, though he wants the first no more than he does the latter. But because Luther's discourse seems only to drive at the necessity of reformation; and that there is no necessity of practising by a priest's direcnobis habea- tion, and submitting to penance for what is past: this being the scope of Luther's reasoning, let us hear what St. Austin prescribes. 'It is not enough,' says this Father, 'to manage well for the future, and break off an ill practice, unless we do something with respect to what is past and which way are we to wipe out an old stain, and relieve the conscience against former miscarriage? This is to be done by hearty sorrow, by deep contrition, by fasting and alms.' And elsewhere, this Father informs us, that 'the priests are said to bind, when they enjoin penance, and to loose when they relax in the discipline. The king concludes this article with a friendly sentence to Luther, and wishes he may practise all the parts of repentance; that he may be contrite for his malice and misbehaviour, publicly confess his errors, and submit himself to what penance the Church shall think proper to enjoin him.

15.

Of Confirmation.

The king proceeds to the article of confirmation. And here Luther maintains, that confirmation conveys no spiritual advantage it has no promise of our Saviour to raise it to the dignity of a sacrament. "This," says the king, "is all naked affirmation without any manner of proof. Luther founds his argument upon the silence of Scripture in this matter: as if,” says the king, “every thing that was promised, spoken, or done by our Saviour, was related by the evangelists! By this The benefit reasoning, if only St. John's gospel was extant, he might of confirmation proved deny the institution of the holy eucharist; because this evanfrom Scrip- gelist writes nothing concerning it: but then in the last chapter of his gospel, we are told that Jesus did many other things which were not written, and that had every thing been written, the records would have been voluminous. Some of these things," continues the king, "were related to the faithful by the

ture.

VIII.

Apostles, and delivered down from age to age; and why should HENRY Luther not give credit to the Church in these points of tradition, since St. Austin affirms, that without the authority of the Church, we could not have known the writings of the evangelists, nor distinguished the canon from human composition. Farther, if Luther will resign to nothing but a plain text, how does he believe the perpetual virginity of our Saviour's mother? Thus Helvidius could find nothing decisive for this article in the Scripture, and therefore was so hardy as to deny it now the way of silencing this heretic, was by alleging the faith of the Catholic Church against him. This is the bottom upon which we stand in the present argument. What if we read nothing in the New Testament concerning confirmation? Might not our Saviour deliver this institution to the Apostles? Or might it not be one of those supplemental informations suggested afterwards by the Holy Ghost? concerning whose farther instruction our Saviour declared, when the Comforter comes, who is the Spirit of truth, he shall lead you into all truth."

:

John xvi.

adv. Luce

And the tes

But that we are not without the authority of Scripture, the king endeavours to prove from the testimony of St. Jerome: "If Hierom. you ask,” says this Father, this Father, "why a person baptized is brought feranos. to the bishop for confirmation, why the farther assistance of timony of the Holy Ghost is principally received by this conveyance? If the Fathers. this is your question, I answer, the Church has Divine authority for her practice; for after our Lord's ascension, the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, and it was from their precedent the custom began." The king fortifies St. Jerome by a plain instance in the Acts of the Apostles. "Here we are Acts viii. told, the people that were baptized in Samaria, had Peter and John sent to them for farther assistance;' and these converts, after the Apostle's hands laid on them, received the Holy Ghost."

Of Matrimony.

This the king endeavours to prove a sacrament, from its institution in Paradise, and particularly from the words of our Saviour, "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." From hence the king argues, that God Matt. xix. would maintain his institution, and fortify it with supernatural

assistance. But I shall translate his majesty no farther upon Abp. Cant. this article.

WAR-
HAM,

Luther's unsound opinions con

cerning orders.

The king argues

Of Holy Orders.

In treating the subject of orders, the king takes notice, that "Luther made it his business to lessen the dignity of the priesthood, that by maiming the character of those who officiate, the holy mysteries might sink in proportion. To what purpose else does he tell us, there is no difference between laity and clergy, and that all Christians are priests alike? and that priests have no authority to administer the sacraments, but by the consent and deputation from the laity. That the sacrament of orders is nothing but a certain ceremony of choosing a preacher. That whoever does not preach, is no more a priest than the picture of a man is a man; that a priest may become a layman without degradation; and that the pretended character signifies nothing, and that orders, without preaching, are a mere jest; a whimsey of people that understand nothing of the nature of priesthood, or the administration of the word and sacraments."

To prove orders a sacrament, the king argues first from the Old Testament, and then reinforces his reasoning by inferring Mosaic dis- the preference of the Evangelical to the Mosaic dispensation.

from the

pensation.

41.

And from

several

First. He observes, "that grace was conferred with the character of priesthood under the old law: the text is this, And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they minister to me in the priests Exod.xxviii. office.' Now to what purpose was all this ceremony, this outward sanctification, unless God had infused his Spirit, and sanctified them within? To proceed to the New Testament. places in the In the Acts of the Apostles, Paul and Barnabas, when ordered to be separated for the work assigned by the Holy Ghost, were not dismissed till the hands of the Apostles were laid upon them. Now I desire to know," continues the king, "to what purpose they received this imposition of hands? Was it an idle ceremony without force or signification? Was there no conveyance of grace, or communication of divine assistance? Farther, how can Luther affirm this sacrament unknown to the Church of Christ, since there is no division of Christendom, where it is not received? How can that be called new which

New Testament.

Acts xiii.