the sinner shall auricularly reveal his sins to his Priest. See how dexterously they accommodate the scriptures to prove their fallacies, Thus Calvin,

But such light and puerile calumnies scarcely deserve refutation. For, although we read but once of the Ephesians having confessed, it does not however follow, that they did not do it oftener: otherwise it might be concluded these same Ephesians, because we read no where of their having received either baptism or the Eucharist, according to Calvin's logic, had never received either baptism or the Eucharist.

As to their having gone, of their own accord, to make their confession, this ought not in the least to surprize us, as well because there was no law at that time compelling any one to confess within a given time, as because, even in our days, many go spontaneously to confession, not only at Easter, when alone they are obliged by the ecclesiastical law to go, but also repeatedly through the year. Wherefore, although there had been, even at that time, a law compelling all to confess yearly, the Ephesians could still have gone freely and spontaneously to confession.

But many came to confession, not all. What opposition has this to that law, which obliges all to confess their sins, at least once a year ? Neither does this law absolutely include all, but those only, whose consciences are defiled by mortal sin; nor does it even oblige these at all times, but only once a year. Wherefore supposing this ecclesiastical law to be in force at the time of St. Paul, still some of the Ephesians could have made their confession, when all did not make it.

Finally, as to what regards their having humbled themselves in the assembly of the faithful, I do not know whence Calvin has taken this, unless from his own brain; for St. Luke makes no mention of it: many says he, of those who believed came confessing and declaring their deeds. But whether they came before the assembly of the faithful, or in a private manner, to St. Paul, or to any one else, St. Luke does not say. Besides, do not Catholics even in our days humble themselves before the assembly of the faithful, when in our confessionals ranged in the middle of our temples, the whole congregation looking on, they cast themselves at the feet of the Priest, and secretly make their confession to him? See how dexterously Calvin accommodates his Antitheses to to weave in his calumnies.

II. The second passage I shall adduce in confirmation of this truth, is taken from the second epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, chap. 5, which is expressed in these words: He hath given to us the

ministry of reconciliation.......and hath placed in us the word of recon ciliation. We are therefore ambassadors for Christ, &c. Calvin himself, acknowledges in the fourth book of his Instit. c. 1. §. 22. that these words refer to the power of the keys, and frankly confesses, that this power is to be exercised, as well publicly, as privately, towards the faithful who have been baptised. Now certainly those who are sent as ambassadors, invested with a power to reconcile the enemies of a king, with the king himself, cannot properly discharge their ministry, unless they know from the guilty, what they have done, what the nature of the offence is, which they have committed, what satisfaction they are disposed to make, &c. &c. Wherefore this minis⚫terial power necessarily carries with it, the power of hearing the causes of the guilty, and consequently of exacting and receiving their confessions: nor is it lawful for the ministers to reconcile at pleasure any, without having previously heard them.

III. The third passage, is taken from the Epist. of St. James chap. 5. wherein St. James, exhorts the faithful to confess their sins. His words are these: Confess your sins one to another : which exhortation manifestly shows confession to have been already instituted, and that it was to be made not only to God, but also to man. And this agrees manifestly with the above words, according to the explanation which the Fathers give them. For, a little above, the Apostle St. James, had admonished the sick to bring in the priests of the church, in order to pray over them, anointing them with oil, and likewise added: that the effect of that sacred unction and of the prayers would be, to save the sick and raise them up, and if they should be in sins, to remit and deliver them from them. But in order that the reader might not conclude from these words, that those deadly or mortal sins, of which a person might be guilty, would be remitted by the sacred unction, he subjoined: Confess, therefore, your sins, one to another: for the sacred unction does not remit those mortal sins of which a man may have a knowledge, since these are to be cleansed by the sacrament of Confession; but such as are venial, or even mortal, which we have no knowledge of, and which are commonly called the remnants of sin.

But our adversaries object, and particularly Melancthon in his apolog. confess. art de confess. and satisfac. and John Calvin lib. 3. Istitut cos. 4 § 12, the words one to another, for, say they, these words compel us to say, that St. James does not speak of sacramental confession, which is made to the Priest only, but of the confession of an

injury done to an offended brother, in order to be reconciled wtih him, and to obtain his pardon or, of the confession of sins, which is made to a pious and holy man, in order that he, knowing our spiritual infirmity, may instruct us, and offer up prayers to God for us. Melancthon and Calvin.

Thus

But this objection is easily removed. For Origen in his second homil. in Levit. St. Chrysostom, book 3d de sacerdot. St. Augustin homil. 12, ex lib. 50 hom. and St. Bernard in his book of meditations, chap. 9, all maintain that this place is simply to be understood of confession which is made to a priest; and as venerable Bede in his commentary upon this passage, and Hugue de S. Victor, book 2, on the sacraments, correctly expound, these words one to another are to be taken, as the agreement of the words of the scripture require; consequently confess your sins one to another implies the same, as, you being men, confess to men; you who stand in need of absolution, to those who have the power to absolve from these words: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. As in the first epist. of Peter chap. 4, when the Apostle says: Using hospitality towards one another without murmuring, as every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the words of God: if any man minister, let it be as from the power which God administereth, &c. he certainly does not wish to give to understand by the words uniting hospitality towards one another, that all without diserimination are to receive the rights of hospitality from all, or that all are to be taught, or all to be cured, &c. but that those who have no house, or are in need should be hospitably received by those who have, or who are in easy circumstances; that the ignorant, should be instructed by the learned; the sick should be cured by physicians; the poor supported by the rich; and not, that the rich should be supported by the poor, or the physicians should be cured by the sick, or the learned, instructed by the ignorant, or finally, those who abound in houses should receive the rights of hospitality from those who have none: So also, ought those therefore, who are bound by the chains of sin, to recur to those to whom it has been said: Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,

The succeeding words also of the same Epist. viz. Pray for one another, that you may be saved, signify, that the Priests should pray for the sick and not the sick for the Priests: for St. James manifestly alludes to what he had said before: Is any man sick among you?

Let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over him. This the Greek version clearly points out; for in the same passage where we have the words, that you may be saved, the Greek text has the word fans which refers properly to the health of the body.

CHAP. III.

CONFESSION PROVED FROM THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COUNCILS.

I shall now add the testimonies of the ancient councils of the church, which have been held at different periods, and in different countries, from which the doctrine of the Universal Church may be gathered. These testimonies of the councils which I shall adduce, although they may not go directly to establish the truth, viz. that confession is of divine institution, contain nevertheless, the ancient custom, and frequently also indicate the necessity of confessing sins to the Priests. From which it will be easy to infer, that it must therefore have been commanded by God himself, as well because the origin of this practice is no where found in any council; as, because it is by no means probable, the faithful would have consented to a precept so difficult and repugnant to nature without reclaiming against it, especially, if by confessing to God alone, by a confession or made in general terms, they could have obtained the remission of their sins.

In the first place the practice of confession is proved from the council of Laodicea, held in the East as early as the year 364. In the second Canon we read these words: To those who fall under the guilt of different sins, and who by prayer, confession, and penance shew a perfect conversion from their evil ways, a time of penance must be allotted according to the quality of the sin.

In the Canons also of the sixth Synod, held by the Greeks about the year 500; we read in the 102d Canon, these words: It is proper that those who have received from God the power of loosing and binding, should consider the quality of the sin, and exert a becoming zeal for the conversion of the sinner, and thus apply a proper remedy to the disease.

In the Latin church, in the 31st Canon of the third council of Carthage, which was held in the year 350, we find these words: The time of penance must be determined, according to to the judgment of

And we find the 10. There cer

the Bishop, agreeably to the difference of the sins. same Canon repeated in the African council, can. tainly can be no doubt, that all sins must be revealed in confession, if the time of penance, or the period during which the sinner is to do penance, is to be determined according to the difference of the sins.

We read also in the 8th Canon of the first council of Chalons, held in the year 654, these words: We judge it to be highly useful that a penance, be imposed by the Priest on the penitent, his confession having} been made.

Again in the 32d canon of the second council of Chalons held in the year 850, we read thus: We have remarked this also as requiring correction, namely, that when persons confess their sins to the Priests, they do not fully develop them. Wherefore as man is formed of two substances, viz. the soul and the body, and sometimes he sins by an act of the mind, and at other times by the frailty of the flesh, they must, by a strict enquiry examine into these sins, that a full and entire confession may be made of both; viz. that those sins may be confessed which are committed by the body, and those also which are committed simply in thought.

In the third council of Tours, which was held about the same time chap. 22. we read as follows: Bishops and Priests ought cautiously to consider, how they determine the time of abstinence with respect to those who confess their sins to them. We find a similar testimony in the council of Rheims, equally as ancient as the above, in can. 12. v. 6. and in the Parisian, chap. 32. and 46. All these councils are of the Gallican church.

If we examine the Church of Germany, we shall find testimonies equally strong. For in the council of Mentz, held under the archbishop Rabanus, in chapter 26 it is thus decreed: Particular care must be taken by the Priests, that those sick who are in danger of death, make a clear and sincere confession; the quantity of penance must not however be imposed upon them. See also chap. 27.

In the council of Worms held in the year 868, it is thus set down in the beginning of that council, chap. 25. Priests are to regulate the penance of the penitents, according to the difference of their sins. Each Priest, therefore, in prescribing the penance, ought to consider the causes of each singly, also the origin and circumstances of the sins, and diligently to examine the disposition and repentance of the delinquents, to know them thoroughly, as well as to examine into the qualities of the