"soever sins ye remit: they therefore remit sins, because Jesus Christ "remitteth the sins through their ministry, as it was Jesus Christ who "loosened Lazarus, by the hands of his disciples.'

دو

The same minister, in the conclusion of his discourse, after naming many other ministers who had the highest esteem for confession, goes on, and says: "Another faithful pastor highly commends "and advocates this practice, and Luther himself declares, that he "would rather forfeit a thousand worlds, than consent that private "confession should be abolished and put out of the church. The "church of England," it is thus he concludes, "has therefore wisely "and justly maintained at all times, the truth of this doctrine."

The second doctor of the Episcopal church I shall cite is Bishop Andrew in his court sermon on Johu 20. 23. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. "We are not," says he, "the ordi"nance of God thus standing, to rend off one part of the sentence: "Three are here expressed; three persons: 1st. The person of the "sinner (whose sins); 2dly, Of God (they are forgiven); 3dly, Of "the priest, (you forgive). Three are expressed; and where three "are expressed, three are required; and where three are required, "two are not enough. It is St. Augustin, that thus speaketh of this ecclesiastical act in his time; (An. 400.) Let nobody say within himself, I repent in private, I repent before God: God who pardons me, knows I repent from my heart. Then to no purpose was it said, "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven: Then "to no purpose were the keys given to the church of God; we make "void the gospel, we make void the words of Christ." Thus these two Episcopalian doctors.

I could cite many other divines of the church of England to corro borate the same, but, I think, what I have already given, will suffice. If, however, more will be required, more shall be given later.

The Presbyterian church also, if we may be allowed to judge from a work printed under the inspection of a committee appointed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church of the United States, equally advocates, though in a manner somewhat different, the utility and importance of confession. In a catechism containing, as it is said in the title-page, a brief but comprehensive summary of the doctrines and duties of christianity, translated chiefly from a work of professor Osterwald, by Samuel Bayard, (printed New-York, page 99.) I read the following questions and answers:

Q. "Is confession of sin necessary?

4. "Yes; without coufession we cannot obtain pardon. 1 John 1. 9. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful aud just to forgive us our sins, " and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

Q. "In what manner are we to make confession?

A. "It is not sufficient to acknowledge in general that we are sin"ners; we ought to confess in the presence of God the particular sin " of which we are guilty.

Q." Are we to confess our sins to any but God?

A." It is our duty to confess them to our neighbour, when they "have been committed against him, to the church when they come "under its cognizance; and to our pastor when we may have need of his counsel."

What was the impression also of the celebrated Grotius, another Protestant, touching confession?" I am persuaded," says he, in annot. ad Consult. Cassandri, art. 40. tom. 4. fol. 621." that the confession, "not only of public, but also of secret sins, has its advantages, which " is also confessed by the greatest part of protestants."

But what shall I say of the Protestant ministers of Strasbourg These were so fully convinced of the advantages, importance and necessity of private confession, that they did every thing in their power to re-establish it in their churches. The history of this transaction I shall set down in a few words; it is one of the most singular and extraordinary that has perhaps ever occurred since the era of the reformation. It is to M. Scheffmacker I am indebted for it.

These protestant ministers, having it in contemplation to give a new edition of their ritual, about the year 1670, examined with the nicest care and attention what alteration it would be proper to make touching the articles contained therein, and after having made their remarks thereon, presented a written paper to the magistrate containing thirtyone articles by way of doubts and questions, respecting the changes which they judged convenient or necessary, submitting the whole, however, with great deference, as they express themselves, to the ultimate and sovereign decision of the magistrate. The sixth article of this paper spoke of communion, and they expressed a desire therein that the people should henceforth receive communion kneeling, as well to conform to the custom of the church of Saxony, whence they said they had derived the pure word of God, as to shew their bes

N

lief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist; they moreover added, that as St. Paul enjoined that every knee should bow in the name of Jesus, it was far more just every knee should bow before his person. The magistrate gave his answer to this article in these few words: Let there be no innovation.

The last article of the paper treated of confession, which was far more lengthy than all the others put together. An evident demonstration that they had it most at heart, and therefore wished to defend it in the best possible manner. In fact, they alledged proofs of every description to prevail upon the magistrate to consent to the re-establishment of private confession. The same custom existed then which exists now among the protestants of Strasbourg; they confessed by bands and companies, twenty or thirty persons presenting themselves at a time, to receive the same absolution. The ministers wished to change this custom, and to exact that each one in particular should make known the state of his conscience, and be absolved separately and alone; it was with a view to induce the magistrate to sanction this alteration, that they quoted in their memorial the eighth article of the Ausbourg confession, the apology, the eighth article of Smalcad, the book of concord under the article of predestination, the agreement made with the church of Wittemberg, more than twelve Lutheran authors, the very words of the Strasbourg ritual, p. 32 and 295, the opinion of John Marbach, and John Schmidt, two ministers highly esteemed in that city, and especially the text from the 20th chap. of St. John: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, &c. after which they concluded their request by observing that from a regard they had to the oath they had taken at their ordination, not to approve of any thing which might have a tendency to taint the doctrine contained in the confessien of Ausbourg, and in the apology, they thought themselves obliged to make this remonstrance touching confession; and that they might not be suspected to be influenced in this by any temporal interest or gain, they therein declared that they would cheerfully renounce all the emoluments which might arise from it, promising to forbear receiving the piece of money which the penitents were accustomed to present in the other Lutheran churches. The magistrate, to all this mass of reasoning, proofs, citations, &c. contented himself with simply writing in the margin of the memorial these few words by way of answer: This is a novelty which must not be introduced.

It must be acknowledged that these ministers took great care to say that they were far from having any intention to re-establish the confes sion of papists, the fact is, they had already rendered it too odious to venture to recommend such a measure as this; besides, according to them, it was an insupportable burden, a cruel torture to the conscience; it is thus they represent it in their memorial. Yet it is very certain that they were far from being satisfied with the manner of confessing, as then in use among them, and which is practised still to this day; they wished for something more, and desired that each one should acquaint his confessor in private with his interior dispositions, and if he should discover himself to be guilty of any grievous sin which gave him uneasiness, he should repose so much confidence in his confessor as to open it to him; but I would fain ask of these gentlemen, whether their object was to impose on penitents an obligation to declare their secret sins, or whether, to leave them at full liberty to confess them only to God. If they pretended that there was no obligation on penitents, and that they were not in any manner obliged to declare their sins, how could they flatter themselves with the idea that these would come of their own accord and without being led to it from a principle of duty, and what effect would this new ordinance have produced upon rational minds? And if they considered it to be indeed a duty incumbent on them, was not this to re-establish the confession of papists under another name. What more do catholics contend for, than that confession is a duty imposed by God himself, and divinely instituted? However it may be, they have sufficiently manifested by this proceeding, how greatly they esteemed the confession of secret sins, and if they have not been so bold as to exact it, they have at least strongly recommended it, aud still more strongly desired to see the practice of it revived.

And as to the unfavourable opinion they had formed of our confession, and which they took so much care to foster and encourage in the mind of the magistrate, and which we see equally prevalent amongst the reformed churches in this country, this must be solely attributed to the ancient calumnies of the leaders of the reformation, (which I am sorry to be obliged so repeatedly to say, but which I shall fully make appear) and especially upon those disseminated by Kemnitius, or as he is otherwise called Chemnitz, the disciple of Melancthon, who alone upon the single article of confession, in his work published against the council of Trent, has slandered us in more than six or seven notable places.

In the first place, he charges us, tom. 1. p. 354, D. 40, with exacting a thing impossible, pretending that we require of penitents, to remember all the sins which they have committed: now, we have never said that they were obliged to remember all their sins, but only to declare those which they should remember after a diligent and reasonable examen. He lays an obligation on us, in the second place, p. 358, n. 50, to confess all sins without distinction. Now, we distinguish between mortal and venial sins, and in no manner pretend that these last named form any part of the necessary matter of confession. He accuses us, in the third place, p. 359, n. 1, with exacting a detail of all the circumstances; and we require nothing more than that the penitent should declare those which alter or change the species of the sin, or which aggravate it in a notable degree. There is certainly a wide difference between stealing one dollar, and stealing an hundred, between sinning with a single person, and sinning with one married. These are the circumstances with which it is necessary to acquaint the confessor; with regard to such as are indifferent, we not only willingly dispense penitents with declaring them, but even request and entreat them not to cumber their confession with them. In the fourth place, if Kemnitius be believed, p. 359, n. 1, we make the remission of our sins depend upon the recital we make of them, that if we should happen to omit one, all the rest would be considered as nothing worth: and we say continually that an involuntary omission which proceeds from pure forgetfulness, does not in the least prejudice or prevent the confession from being good. He charges us, in the fifth place, p. 354, n. 20, with expecting to merit the remission of our sins by the exactness and fidelity of our confession, and reproaches us for striking thereby at the root of gratuitous justification, which proceeds solely from the merits of Jesus Christ. Now, we declare with the council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 8, that nothing of what precedes justification, merits the grace of justification, and that we do not deem the confession of the sinner, to speak strictly, as a meritorious work, but as a condition which God requires, and without which he will not receive us into favour, nor apply to us the merits of his dear Son. Can we say after this that much credit is due to Kemnitius for his great fidelity and correctness in stating the doctrine of his adversaries? Or rather does it not manifestly amount to being convicted of imposture and bad faith? And does it become an honest and upright dealer to employ means so unjust and unwarrantable, to ren