greater humiliation, even yet, the use and exercise of the power gran ted them would be impossible without confession. For, as they have received the power not only to forgive but also to retain sins, a power which conformably to the intention of Christ, they are to exercise not at random, but prudently and with discretion, it must be a part of their office as judges, to discern what sins they are to bind, and what to loose, what sins to retain, and what to forgive. Now, how are they to form a just judgment, how can they make a just discernment, how can they distinguish amongst a crowd of supplicants the penitents to be absolved, from the penitents to be excluded, if they know not the sins which have been committed? And how are they to know the sins, if the penitents themselves do not declare them? How could a civil or criminal judge, ever be able to decide and determine, agreeably to the invariable rules of justice and equity, the degree of punishment proportionable to the number, quality and aggravating circumstances of the culprit's crimes, unless he be made acquainted with them? As little would it be possible for the apostles and their successors to enjoin a penance proportionate to the guilt of the sinner, without knowing the degree of this guilt. The absolute and indispensable necessity of confession, therefore, flows naturally from the above words of Christ. It is essentially connected with the power granted thereby not only to forgive, but also to retain sins, a power, the exercise of which, without sacramental confession, would manifestly be vain and useless, nay even impossible.

But it may be objected, that although Christ gave power to his Apostles to bind and to loose, to forgive and to retain sins, it does not follow that their successors have that power.

This objection is so futile in itself, that I should have deemed it unworthy of notice, had I not been assured of its being frequently urged to prop a bad argument. The power of binding and loosing was certainly given to be exercised till the end of the world, no less than the commission of preaching, baptizing, &c. which, though addressed to the Apostles, was certainly designed to continue with their successors, the Pastors of the church, for ever according to that of Christ, Matt. 28. 20. Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

But it will be farther objected, that from the doctrine contended for above, this monstrous absurdity would follow viz. that man can forgive sins, which is a prerogative belonging only to God.

To this I answer, that the Jewish scribes and Pharisees were former

ly under a similar impression, but they were severely reprehended for it, and put to confusion by our Saviour Christ; for when our Saviour (as we read in St. Matthew and St. Mark,) had told a man who was sick of the palsy, that his sins were forgiven him, some of the scribes and Pharisees who were there present, concluded immediately, in their hearts, that this was blasphemy, this man, say they, blasphemeth, for who can forgive sins except God alone? But our blessed Redeemer, who came on purpose into the world for the remission of our sins, was instantly sensible of this wrong notion of the Jews, and therefore before they could even express their thoughts, he said to them, Why do you think evil in your hearts? For, that you may see that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, he turns to the sick man saying, Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.

The Jews were here under two mistakes: In the first place, they thought our Saviour was not God; and in the second place, they thought that being man, he could not forgive sins; therefore, our Saviour Christ, for our instruction concerning the remission of sin, was pleased on this occasion to pass by (in some degree) the first mistake, and more expressly to confute the second; on which account it ought to be noticed, that he does not say, that you may see that I am God, or that you may see that in quality of God, I can forgive sins; but to let you see that in quality of man upon earth, I have power to forgive sins.

It might be said that our Saviour would have used (against the Scribes and Pharisees to prove himself God from their own principles) some such argument as this; you grant, that he who forgives sins is God; now by this miracle which I have wrought, I shew you that I can forgive sins; consequently, according to your own principles, it follows that I am God. But our blessed Redeemer did not openly make use of this argument; for although tacitly and in fact, especially in discovering to the Jews their own thoughts, he gave them sufficiently to understand that he was God, the searcher of hearts: yet in the curing of the man sick of the palsy, what he more express ly made appear was, that even in quality of man, he had power to forgive sins; this being the intention of the miraculous cure; that you may know, says he, that (not only the Son of God, but also) the son of Man has power even upon earth to forgive sins, arise sick man, take up thy bed and go into thy house. Upon this, as it is related in the chapters above cited, all the people were astonished and seized with fear, and all glorified God, not because God himself had such

power which they knew before, but because he had given such power

éven to men.

Now as from the divinity of our Saviour down to his humanity is derived and descends an unlimited power of remitting sin, so from our Saviour, who is our head, down to the ministers of his church who are his members, is also derived and descends a power of remitting all sins, of what kind soever they be, not indeed in their name, or by their own authority, but in the name and by the authority of God, As the Father hath sent me, so I send you. John 20, 21. He hath sent me to save the world; you shall also become in some sort its Saviours. He has sent me to destroy sin, to sanctify sinners, to reconeile men with him. Go, complete this great work, and to this effect, receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained. John 20. There is no absurdity therefore in saying, that man can forgive sins when empowered by God so to do. It would indeed be not only absurd but blasphemous to say, that he can forgive sins by his own power, as no man by his own power can raise the dead to life; because both the one and the other equally belong to the power of God. But as God has sometimes made men his instruments in raising the dead to life; so the Catholic believes that he has been pleased to appoint, that his ministers should in virtue of his commission, as his instruments and by his power absolve repenting sinners; and as this is evident from the texts cited above, it cannot be but false zeal, under pretext of maintaining the honour of God, to contradict this commission which he has se evidently given to his apostles and their lawful successors.

The same doctrine is proved from the Fathers of the church, who unanimously expound the above cited passage of the scripture to signify, that the Priests are actually constituted judges by Christ and invested with the power truly to forgive sins, and not to declare them simply, to be forgiven. I shall forbear, (to avoid repitition) giving their testimony in this place as I intend to arrange it afterwards in different chapters according to the different centuries in which they lived.

The same is also proved by various reasons.—In the first place, if Priests be not indeed judges and have no power truly to remit sins, but simply to declare them to be remitted, it is certain, that no one would be lost from this cause alone, viz: that they could not procure a Priest to reconcile them. But St. Austin in his 180th epist. to Honoratus explicitly writes, that some desiring to be reconciled, and of course believing in Christ, were eternally lost, because (having neglected the opportunity

when it presented itself) they died before they could be absolved by the Priest. Do we never reflect, says he, when danger is extreme and when there is no possibility of escaping it, how great a concourse is usually in the church, of both sexes, and of every age; some demanding Baptism, some to be reconciled, some again the very action of penance itself, and all the consolation and completion of the sacraments and their distribution? When, should the ministers be absent, how great is the misfortune that uttends those who depart this life, either without having been regenerated (baptized) or without having been loosed? (without having their sins remitted them.) How great also is the lamentation of the faithful, their relatives, who will never have them with them in the enjoyment of eternal life? Thus far St. Austin. Nor does St. Leo write differently in his 91st epist. to Theodorus. From which places we may gather, that sacramental reconciliation, has the virtue to justify, and that it is not a simple declaration only of justification either already received, or about to be received.

In the second place, if Priests do not remit sins in any other manner than by declaring the divine promises; it would be certainly equally vain and ridiculous to absolve the deaf and those deprived by sickness of the use of their senses. Where there is no hearing, says the wise man in Ecclesiasticus, chap. 32. 6. pour not out words. But in the primitive church, not only the deaf, but also those who by violence of sickness were bereft of reason, were sometimes reconciled, as is manifest from St. Austin, lib. 1. de adulterinis conjugiis capit. ult, and from St. Leo,in his epist. cited above to Theodorus, and from the 4th council of Carthage, can. 76, and the Arausican council, can. 12.

In the third place, if absolution were merely a declaration of the remission of sins, either it would be rash, or it would be superfluous. For when the minister says, thy sins are forgiven thee, he pronounces this, either absolutely, or hypothetically, that is, provided he believe and repent as he ought. If absolutely; he pronounces it rashly, as he knows not whether he who solicits to be reconciled, be truly penitent and have faith, such as is requisite for justification, and besides although the minister may in some degree know this, yet the penitent knows it better and consequently does not stand in need of that declaration of the minister, which can add nothing to his certitude. But if the absolution be conditional, (as Calvin teaches) such an absolution can never render a penitent secure and certain, as it depends upon an uncertain condition, and yet our adversaries rarely admit any other end in the absolution, than to render the individual certain of his justi fication.

In the fourth place, if the absolution be not a judicial act, but a simple enunciation of the divine promise, which stands recorded in the gospel, any individual, a layman, nay even a woman, a child or an infidel, will be able to absolve no less than the Priest: and although our adversaries admit this, because it flows evidently from their principles, yet it is contrary to the consent of all the Fathers, contrary to the practice of every church, of every age, and even of sound reason.

Before I conclude this chapter, I must bring in confirmation of the above truth, one more proof drawn from the figures which have preceded sacramental confession; from which a two-fold argument may be formed. In the first place, if the confession which God exacted in the old law was a mere figure, as indeed it was; as all these things happened to them in figure, as St. Paul tells us in his first epist. to the Corinth, chap. 10, it is certainly necessary, that in the new law, there should be a confession of sins commanded by God, and a confession as much more perfect and exact as the thing figured is above the figure. And in the second place, if confession made before a minister of God was deemed necessary at that time, when no power was given to the Priests to remit sin; who is there that will not infer that it was far more necessary that confession should be enjoined in the new law, when we can confess with so much benefit as to obtain a certain and speedy absolution of our sins, by a worthy confession?

The first figure therefore is found in the 3d and 4th chap. of Genesis, where God first exacted from Adam and Eve, and afterwards from Cain the confession of his sin. In these places confession is exacted, not of the heart only, but also of the mouth, not in general only, but also in particular, not to God only, but also to his minister: for the interrogation was made by an angel appearing in human shape, as appears from his walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Genesis, 3. 8. From which there appears so great a similarity between that confession and the confession which is now made to a Priest, who is also an angel of the Lord, according to Malachy, chap. 2. 7. that the one may be said with reason to be the figure of the other. Wherefore, this figure is beautifully treated by Tertullian in his second book against Marcion, also by St. Ambrose, in lib. de paradiso, cap. 14. and lib. 2. de Cain and Abel, cap. 9. also by St. Greg. lib. 22. Moralium, cap. 13. and also by St. John Chrysostom, homil. 18. in Gen. who all expound these places as having a bearing upon confession and say, that God wished to