WAR

НАМ,

oblation? Since therefore by his own confession the priests Abp. Cant. do their duty in receiving what they consecrate, notwithstanding we have no Scripture proof that our Saviour began this custom-(I mention Scripture proof, because Luther refuses being concluded by any other evidence);—since therefore our Saviour is not said to have received himself in any part of the New Testament, why should Luther be surprised at the priests offering Christ to God the Father by way of representation, since this was actually done by our Saviour upon the cross; and for this we have full evidence from several places in Holy Scripture? For even by Luther's way of arguing, what was done upon the cross has a plain reference to our Saviour's last will and testament in the holy supper. For Luther makes no difficulty to confess, that a testament implies the death of the testator, and has its force only from that time. Besides, the mixing water with wine in the sacrament seems to have its original from hence; that is, from the blood and water issuing from our Saviour's side upon the cross for of this we meet with no resemblance at the last supper. Let Luther therefore forbear his trifling objections: let him not pretend that the priest makes no oblation in the mass, because Christ did not offer himself at the last supper: for in this sacrament, the priest not only represents what was done by our Saviour at the last supper, but what was transacted upon the cross: I say upon the cross, where our Saviour completed what was only begun in the former solemnity."

13.

Luther's last argument against the sacrifice in the mass stands thus: "How can the priest," says he, "offer that to God, which he receives himself? For how can we offer that which we keep to ourselves?" "This," replies the king, "is a mere sophism. To be short, did not the priests under the Mosaic dispensation partake of the sacrifices, and eat some portions of what was offered? Besides, if Christ was both priest and sacrifice, what repugnancy is there, that the priest who represents our Saviour's sacrifice should both offer and receive at the same time? Why might not these circumstances be enjoined in the institution ?"

From hence the king proceeds to produce the testimonies of St. Austin, St. Ambrose, and Gregory the Great, to prove the holy eucharist a sacrifice, to which he might have added St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, and several others.

VIII.

The king complains of Luther, because he would have the HENRY people at liberty to receive when they please, and not be tied to any solemnity of time, or revolution of the grand festivals. "Now what can be the consequence of this latitude ?" says his majesty. "Does not this plainly tend to withdraw the people from the frequency of communicating, and the benefit of the institution?" And here the king takes notice, that the fervour of primitive devotion was much abated; that at first, the people communicated every day; this afterwards declined to once a week, and from thence to longer intervals: insomuch that the bishops, being afraid this sacrament should be wholly omitted, declared in their canons, that those who did not communicate thrice a year, ought not to be reckoned for Christians.

The king goes on to charge Luther with mistaking the notion of faith, and laying too much weight upon that virtue : "he makes us so rich in belief," says his majesty, "that we are perfect beggars in manners. And yet St. James tells us, 'that faith without works is dead.' But Luther argues, as if James ii. a man that believed could not possibly miscarry, and that nothing but incredulity can prove one's ruin." Here the king makes a tragical exclamation: "Will nothing but unbelief destroy a man for ever? What! will not adultery and murder, will not perjury and parricide damn him?

"But Luther over-flourishes so much upon the significancy of faith, that he seems in a manner to hint as if this virtue had no need of the sacrament. For does he not assert, that the sacrament affords no benefit, and is neither sign nor conveyance of grace; and that as to the efficacy, the sacraments of the evangelical covenant are much the same with those under the law? However, in my opinion," says the king, "since Christians have that in reality, which the Jews had only in figure, it seems to follow, that the sacraments of the Church exceed those of the synagogue as much as the new law exceeds the old one; as much as the substance is better than the shadow."

Of Penance.

The next sacrament, as it is called, is that of penance and here Luther declaims against the clergy for not instructing the people in the doctrine of faith: "they do not sufficiently incul

WAR

HAM,

Lib. Regis

Luth. p. 49.

cate," says he, "a reliance upon the divine promise, or put their Abp. Cant. charge in mind, that God has engaged to forgive a repenting sinner." To this the king answers, "Does the Church then press Henrici adv. Judas's repentance, and drive people upon sorrow and desperation? Did Luther ever hear any curate exhort the people to address for pardon without giving them hopes of being the better for their application? What subject is more frequently preached on than the infinite mercy of God; and that whenever a sinner repents, he shall be received? Is the instance of David's pardon for adultery and murder known to nobody but Luther? Was not paradise set open to the thief upon the cross, when he had no time to retrieve his ill life, or show his sincerity in reformation? And is this history unpreached and kept as a secret from the people? If the clergy mistake in this matter, I am afraid it is sometimes by going too far in the other extreme. I fear the terror of God's justice is sometimes forgotten, and his mercy magnified too much."

The king

argues against Luther's notion of

From hence the king proceeds to the parts of penance, and begins with contrition. In the first place he sets down Luther's opinion. "This friar affirms contrition a circumstance of great contrition. value and not easily attained. And here his advice is, that every body should rest entirely upon God's promise, and firmly believe their sins pardoned, and that God has acquitted them in heaven, when they are pronounced loosed upon earth. Now here he either falls in with the sentiment he condemns, or else runs himself upon an open absurdity. For God has either promised to forgive sin to those who are contrite, in proportion to the bulk of the crime, or to those who fall short of that proportion, or lastly, to those who have no contrition at all. If God has promised remission to none but the first sort, then Luther can never be sure of his being discharged; and if so what makes him press this confidence as a necessary condition? That he cannot be sure of his discharge upon his own doctrine, I prove thus he cannot be assured of having a right to God's promise, unless he could state the just proportion of contrition, and define how much is sufficient for every sin. But nobody, I conceive, knows what degree of compunction is required for every mortal sin. 2dly, If God has promised pardon to those who are under-contrite, and come short of the degree of contrition, then he has promised forgiveness to those who have nothing but attrition. And if so, Luther must agree with

VIII.

those he is willing to fall out with. Lastly, If God has pro- HENRY mised to extend his pardon to those who are not at all sorry for what they have done, then à fortiori to those who can plead attrition, that is, to those who have something of regret, though not the best for kind or degree. In short, he must come to this concession at last, that confession and absolution supply the defects of the sinner's repentance; and thus attrition may be said to be advanced to the benefit of contrition.

From hence the king proceeds to confession.

He endea

cular con

Upon this subject he finds fault with Luther's management. His majesty thinks it unreasonable, that Luther should insist upon a public acknowledgment of notorious miscarriages, and yet seem dubious about the necessity of auricular confession. And since Luther affirms private confession cannot be proved from Scripture, the king endeavours to make out the contrary. His first text is out of Numbers: "And the Lord spake unto Numb. v. 6. Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, when a man 14. or a woman shall commit any sin and do a trespass against the vours to Lord, and that person be guilty; then they shall confess their prove aurisin which they have done." To this we may add the command fession from given to lepers of showing themselves to the priest. Now we Levit. xiv.2. Scripture. have St. Paul's warrant for reasoning, from figures and ceremonial usages in the Law, to practice in the Gospel; and 1 Cor. ix. 9. therefore, why may not leprosy under the law, be interpreted sin under the Gospel? And since the outward blemish was to be discovered to the priests in one case, why not the inward defects in another? Farther, are we not exhorted by St. James to "confess our faults one to another?" To these texts, the king adds some authorities from the Fathers. St. Ambrose affirms, that "without confession, there is no remission of sin." St. Chrysostom speaks to the same sense; that "God's favour is not to be recovered without a previous confession." St. Austin is still more clear: "Let your repentance," says this Father, "be directed by the form practised in the Church let no man pretend that he performs this duty privately, and makes God Almighty his confessor; for we may be assured, And from that the keys are no chimerical authority, and that this senthe usefultence of our Saviour, 'Whatsoever ye shall loose upon earth,' benefit of the practice. was never spoken to no purpose." To this the king subjoins,

ness and

WAR-
HAM,

"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.

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 34, 35. 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 themLuke xvii. selves to the priests. His next testimony is that of Leo the

solution and

confessions

hood.

14.

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.