extort a confession from them, that they might wipe away by confession what they had committed by transgressing.

The second figure may be found in the 13th and 14th chap. of Leviticus, where the judgment of the leprosy is committed solely to the Priests, and the lepers were obliged to shew and present themselves to the Priests, and according to their determination either to remain out of the camp, or after their cure, to return to the same: which law our Lord also approved in Matt. chap. 8. when he said to the leper who had been healed by him: Go shew thyself to the Priest, &c.-That this was a figure of sacramental confession, St. Chrysostom lib. 3. de Sacerdotio, and St. Jerom in cap. 16. Matthæi, equally testify. For from this St. Jerom infers, that the Priests ought to know the different species of the sins; and St. Chrysostom shews, that the office of Christian Priests is far more excellent, than was formerly that of the Jews, as they had the power not to heal the leprosy, but to declare it healed: whereas ours have power not to declare the sins healed (that is, remitted ;) but to heal (to remit) them in effect.

A

The third figure is the confession which God instituted in the old law, and in addition to which he exacted as a satisfaction, the oblation of a sacrifice; of which we have a proof in Numb. chap. 5. and also in Levitic. chap. 5. For unquestionably, if figurative confession was instituted by God and necessary by the divine law, how much more ought the confession prefigured to be esteemed instituted by God, and necessary by the divine law? The words of the scripture in the book of Numbers, chap. 5. are these, and the Lord spoke to Moses saying: say to the children of Israel: when a man or woman shall have committed any of all the sins, that men are wont to commit, and by negligence shall have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and offended, they shall confess their sin. Here two things are to be observed: first, that the Hebrew word correspondent to the term confess is in the conjugation of hitpael, which augments its signification; so that it may correctly be interpreted: they shall expressly and distinctly confess. Secondly, these words: they shall confess their sin, are more clear and explicit in the Hebrew: for thus we there read; they shall confess their sin which they have done. From which we infer, that in this place, an open confession of every sin according to their different species was commanded; for if it was sufficient to confess them in general only, the scripture would not say, they shall openly confess their sin which they have done, but simply, they shall confess their sins,

In Leviticus, chap. 5, where our version has: Let him do penance for his sin; in the Hebrew we find the same expression as in the book of Numbers; for thus we there read: And it shall be, when he shall sin in any one of these things, that he shall openly confess the sin which he hath sinned.

Moreover, the testimonies of the Rabins, and the practice of the nation sufficiently shew, that this precept is to be understood of distinct confession, and according to the species of the sin, for the expiation of which, sacrifice was to be offered. Respecting the practice of the Hebrews, Thomas Walden in his second tome on the sacraments, chap. 137, writes, that he was informed in Austria of this their custom, by the Jews themselves and St. Antoninus in the third part of his sum. Theologic, tit 14, chap. 6, § 1, says, that the more learned among the Jews were always careful, before their death, to confess all their sins to some Levite, if perchance one could be had. For the testimonies of the Rabins, see Peter Galatinus, lib. 10 chap. 3. who proves from many testimonies of the Rabins, that they conceived it to be necessary in confession to make a full declaration of their sins, according to their different species and circumstances..

Add to this, that it is more than probable, that the book of Ecclesiasticus in the 4th chap. exhorts to the observance of this legal precept, when it says: Be not ashamed to confess thy sins; for there is, generally speaking, very little shame attending a confession made to God alone, or which is made in general terms only to men; but the reverse is but too often the case in a confession made to men, according to the different species of the sin, as experience sufficiently proves.

The fourth figure is found in St. Matthew, chap. 3, and St. Mark, chap. 1, where we read, that many went out to John (the baptist,) and were baptized by him confessing their sins: for as the baptism of John was a figure of the baptism of Christ, so also was the confession which was made to John a figure of the confession, which was to be made to the ministers of Christ. Here it must be also remarked, that those who went out to John, did not declare themselves in general terms, to be sinners, for this would not, in any manner, be conformable to the words of the Evangelists; but they most evidently made an open and thorough confession of all their sins according to their different species; for both Evangelists expressly say, that they went out confessing their sins, confitentes peccata sua, or as the Greek has it, ἐξομολογούμενοί τὰς αμαρτίας αυτών. Now, it is certainly one thing

to confess one's sins to a person, and another, to confess or acknowledge one's-self in general terms to be a sinner.

From which passages therefore, it is manifest, that confession was more than once enjoined even in the law of nature-that it was afterwards more clearly instituted and ordained by God in the old law that it was always considered by the Jews themselves to be of divine institution, and consequently obligatory upon them, and finally, that it was every where practised among them. Which then being the case, how strongly may we infer, that confession in the new aw is equally of divine institution and no less obligatory, when it is the thing figured, as the holy Fathers unanimously declare? I shall forbear producing other figures, confirmatory of the same, such as the resurrection of Lazarus, of which St. Ireneus (lib. 5. c. 13.) says; that this was the symbol of a man who had been fettered by the chains of his sins, and therefore our Lord said, (to his apostles, as St. Austin tract. 49. in Joan. and St. Gregory, homil. 26. in Evangel. testify) loose him and let him go, John 11, in order to proceed to shew the practice of confession in the days of the apostles, and how the texts, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, &c. and whose sins you shall forgive, &c. were understood in the primitive church.

CHAP. II.

THE SAME TRUTH IS CONFIRMED BY OTHER PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

In the preceding chapter we have shown that confession is of divine institution: we shall now prove from the most undeniable testimony, that the apostles and first disciples were impressed with this belief, and acted accordingly.

The first remarkable passage which presents itself, is found in the Acts of the Apostles chap. 19, where we read these words: And many of those who believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds: and many of those who had followed curious things, brought their books together and burnt them before all.

This text, in the first place, is to be understood of the confession of the faithful after baptism; for, they only are properly called believers, as is evident from the 2d. chap. of the Acts, v. 41. and 44; and also, 1st Epist. Thess. 1, and many other places: nor is this denied

E

by our adversaries. In the second place, the scripture unquestiona bly speaks here of the confession of sins according to their different species, as appears from these words: confessing and declaring their deeds: And lastly, of a confession made not to God alone, but also to men for they came to St. Paul, in order to confess their acts. And because there was at that time no law or constitution of the church commanding the confession of sins, it necessarily follows, that this confession must have been ordained and instituted by Christ.

Luther in his version declares, that the word deeds in the above passage signifies miracles, and is joined in this opinion by John Brentius in his commentary on this passage.

But this exposition is not only rejected by the unanimous consent of all catholics, and especially by venerable Bede, in chap. 1. of Mark; but by far the greater part of the Reformers themselves, as Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Sarcer, upon the Acts of the Apostles, Illyricus Centur. 1. Book 2. c. 4. col. 347. and Kemnitius in the 2d part of his Exam. page 987. See also the Polyglott of Walton. Besides it is unheard of, that miracles should be termed our deeds, when they are certainly works purely divine; and still more absurb to pretend, that the words confessing their deeds, signify proclaiming, or boasting of the miracles which they had wrought.

We may

also add, that the occasion of this confession, as St. Luke testifies in the same chapter, was a great fear which had fallen upon them, in consequence of the signal punishment which God had inflicted upon those, who had abused of the name of Jesus. Now the terrors of divine justice do not generally incite persons to proclaim their own praises, but rather to acknowledge and to confess their sins. In short, the Syriac edition, instead of deeds, has the word offences, which certainly does not imply miracles.

Kemnitius in his book cited above, attempts to give two solutions to our argument; viz. 1st. That the scripture in this place speaks only of general confession, wherein the Ephesians acknowledged that their deeds were not according to the law of God. 2d. That they might have confessed some sins in particular, by way of example, but not all. But this solution is most easily refuted. For, in the first place, the words their deeds evidently indicate, that the confession was here made of all sins, according to their different species: for no one can be properly said, to confess his deeds, who simply avows himself in general terms, to be a sinner. Besides, the word declare, or the Greek

word wayyfaaw, which St. Luke here makes use of, signifies, to relate, something distinctly, and in the Syriac edition, we find a word, which signifies the same as the Hebrew, Saphar; and may be properly translated, numbering their sins, which certainly imports a detailed confession. In a word, how else did St. Paul know that they had followed curious things, so as to order their books to be burnt, unless they had previously confessed their sins in detail?

The other solution, which is the same as that given by Calvin, in his Comm. Act. and Magdeburgensium Centur. 1. lib. 2. chap. 4. col. 360, is manifestly repugnant to the whole scripture. For whenever the scripture speaks of sin in general, it is, and must be understood of all sins; and should it be understood of some only, and not of all, the most absurd and ridiculous sentences might be found in holy writ. Thus for example: Daniel iv. 24. Redeem thou thy sins with alms. Math. 1. He shall save his people from their sins. Math. 9. Son, be of good heart; thy sins are forgiven thee. Luke 11. Forgive us our sins. John 1. Behold who taketh away the sins of the world. Acts 24. That they way receive forgiveness of sins, &c. In these and innumerable other places, the scripture speaks of sins in general terms only, yet it is manifest, that it intends and includes all sins; and although each one in particular be not expressed, they are nevertheless evidently understood; and no one will ever doubt, but that Redeem thy sins with alms; He shall save his people from their sins; Son be of good heart, thy sins are forgiven thee, &c. &c. means one and the same thing with, Redeem all thy sins with alms; He shall save his people from all their sins; Son be of good heart; all thy sins without exception, are forgiven thee, and so of the rest. Wherefore, according to the manner of speaking of the scripture, to confess and to declare their deeds, or sins, can mean nothing else, than to discover and to reveal all their sins.

Besides this solution, which we have briefly refuted, Calvin has thought proper to propose a few antitheses in bis commentary upon the Acts, between the confession of these Ephesians, and the confession, as it is now in use, of the catholics, in order to make it appear, that the above cited text, does not in the least favour us: We read, says he, that these confessed but once; but the Papal law commands us to confess at least once every year. These went forward of their own accord : but the Pope imposes it as a duty upon all. Luke says, that many came, not all; but under the Papal law there is no exception. These humbled themselves before the assembly of the faithful: but the Pope has issued a very different command, viz. that by secret whisperings,