Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/333

 ,HAP. IX.] PBNAWCE.---COSFBSOOW. 3'25 bility, from which the Feuder will see how slenderly those doctrines of* the Church el  Rome are supported, by which they are distinguished alike from primitive Christianity and from sound Protestantism. (1.) They say, "the antiquity of confession proves it to be a divine institution, seeing it was used from the beginning of the Christian church." To this we answer, 1. That auricular confession has not existed from the organization of the Christian church. This they can never prove. They can give no institution of Christ for this practice, no example from him or his apostles, nor any early usage of the primi- tive church. They can produce no practice of the church for several hundred years after Christ by which it could be proved. 2. But, secondly, there was no public constitution for auricular confession before the ttod. ftA general council, which was the fourth Lateran, held in the year 1215, under Innocent III., 8o that from this it takes its commencement. (2.) It is ,rilltreed, ,' that auricular confession is so &icult, that the people would never submit to it if it were not of' divine appointment." It is acknowledged that it hath something in it grievous to be berne; nevertheless, this is no certein proof that it is of divine appointment, or even useful. It was a hard thiig that the idolatrous Israelites should sacrifice their children to idols; and that Baal*s priests should cut their flesh with knives. The Pharisees, too, laid heavy burdens, and grievous to be berne, upon the people. Neverthe]ess, none of these things were of' God. There are, indeed, many things hard in popery, such as the following: That the pope should tread on the necks of kings and make them his vassals; and that he should, with his annatea, Peter pence, and taxes, burden the people. These were hard things; and yet the people for a while submitted to them; but not by divine authority. (3.) They say, too, that auricular-confession produces good effects. To this we reply, that we have already proved that its tendency is to corrupt the clergy and people. And the practical proof of this is known and read by all men. 1

�