independently of the knowledge of books and those authors who have written on confession, should have prevented them from taking a ground which they must have known to be untenable, and for which

) 3.

tended also to the Melchites in Syria, the Georgian and all those people that are of the Greek faith and communion in Asia; as also to the Russians, or muscovites in Europe, who are of the same reliligion for whose doctrine and ceremonies, see Alexander Ross. p. 486, 487, 488. in short to the Armenians, who are very much spread through Persia, Mesopotamia, both the Armenians, &c. &c.

As a further confirmation of the above, I must not omit to set down the answer of Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople in 1574, to some Protestant Divines of Wittemberg, who had presented him the confession of Ausbourg, translated into Greek, for his approbation. This confession was accompanied with a letter in which, as they knew that the Greeks highly approved of the seven first coun cils, in order to flatter them, they had inserted the following deceptive clause: "We hope, (said they) that although there may exist be tween us a difference in some ceremonies, by reason of the distance of places, you will nevertheless perceive that we have introduced no innovation in the principal things necessary to salvation; and that we embrace and hold, as far as we are able to understand, the faith which has been taught us by the Apostles, Prophets, and holy Fa thers inspired by the Holy Ghost, and by the seven councils estab lished and founded on the holy Scriptures." It was impossible for these Wittemberg divines not to see that these words written to Greeks, would naturally give them to understand and believe, that the Reformers did actually receive the seven first councils; which, however, they knew was not true, principally with regard to the se venth council. It is therefore very visible that they would not be sorry to see the Greeks led into this mistake to their advantage, and esteem them more devoted and attached to the Fathers and councils, than they were in reality, provided this deception, should render them more favourable to their doctrine.

But the Greeks were not to be so easily ensnared. Jeremias, the then Patriarch of Constantinople, saw through their design, and in his reply to their articles, expatiated at some length and with great freedom upon the novelty of their opinions, and condemned all

we reproach them with so much justice. This is one of those igno rances that may be styled voluntary and affected, fostered and maintained by passion, the spirit of party, a vicious obstinacy and a mali

their errors. This he did in three separate letters, which were after. wards published with the whole correspondence, in 1581, and in which he, at the same time, pointed out the great disagreement in their belief. In his last letter to them, he thus expresses himself, speaking of the sacraments.

"Since you admit, says he, some of them only, and even these "with errors, and reject the others as mere traditions which are not "only, not contained in the scripture, but even are contrary to it, "by corrupting the texts, as well of the old as of the new testament, "in order to accommodate them to your own sense: since you pre"tend that the divine John Chrysostom, who approves of Chrism, "suffered himself to be carried away by the torrent; and that by thus "rejecting the Fathers, you arrogate to yourselves the title of Theo"logians: since you believe the invocation of saints to be a vain and "idle notion; you despise their images, their holy relics and the "honour which is paid them, in imitation of the Jews; since you "abolish the confession of sins, which we make one to another, and "the monastic life so much resembling that of Angels; we declare "to you, that the words of the scripture which contain these truths, “have not been interpreted by such like Theologians as you, nor was St. Chrysostom, nor any of those genuine Theologians ever "carried away by the torrent. This saint, and those resembling "him, were men full of the Holy Ghost. They have wrought "miracles and wonders, both during their life-time and after their "death; and these are the men who have explained the scripture to us, and who having received these traditions as being necessary and pious, have transmitted them to us, as it were, from hand to hand, through an uninterrupted tradition: Ancient Rome observes and embraces many of them. How, therefore, could you be so bold as to believe that you have considered all these things better, than "both ancient and new Rome? And how have you dared to aban"don the sentiments of those genuine Theologians, in order to pre"fer yours to theirs?" And in order to rid himself entirely of all future importunities, he concludes his third answer, in the following

cious envy to render the most holy practices of the catholic religion contemptible; an ignorance for which there is no excuse either before God or before men,

manner: "We pray you to give us no farther trouble, and to write ❝to us no more, nor to send us any more of your writings upon these "matters. You treat those great luminaries of the church, those

great Theologians too much as your equals. You pretend "to honour them with your lips, but you discard them in effect; and you wish to destroy the efficacy of our arms, which are their di"vine discourses, by which we are able to combat your opinions. "Thus you will rid us of trouble. Go then your own way, and write "to us no more on the subject of dogmas, but, if you are willing, "only upon topics of mere civility and friendship." This was the last letter of the Patriarch Jeremias to the Protestants, who expected, or rather hoped, to find him a warm admirer of the doctrines of the Reformation; and in order to succeed the better, had taken care to prepare the way, (after the example of Melancthon, who had already sent an insidious letter to Joseph, his immediate predecessor in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to which he received no an swer) towards conciliating his esteem, by declaring that they received and acknowledged the seven first general councils, which they knew to be irreconcileable with their principles, and which they had already more than once publicly disclaimed and rejected. I regret that my limits will not permit me to insert the whole of this curious correspondence, which displays at once, in a manner equally clear and authentic, the great disagreement existing between the Greeks and Protestants, in almost every point in which Protestants dissent from us, and at the same time how perfectly (two points alone, as mentioned above, excepted, and one of which protestants hold as well as we) they agree and have always agreed with us: But I trust that what I have given of it, will suffice for my present purpose.

CHAP. IX.

THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF CONFESSION PROVED BY OTHER ARGUMENTS.

HAVING given the authority of the scripture, the tradition of the councils, the testimonies of the Fathers, and the practice of the church in every century and in every country, where the religion of Jesus Christ has been known or established, I shall now proceed to offer in proof of the divine institution of confession, several arguments drawn from reason which will place this truth above all doubt, and beyond the possibility of contradiction.

1. I prove it, in the first place, from its antiquity. For, all human institutions in the church are found to derive their origin either from some general council, or from the decrees of some Pope: but, that confession existed in the church before the decree of any council or of any Pope, may be seen from the testimonies cited above; since St. Ireneus, Tertulian, St. Cyprian, and Origen, lived not only before the convocation of the first general council, namely the Nicene, but before every other council, provincial not excepted, and every Pope who has issued any Bull, touching sacramental confession, as has been sufficiently proved above by the testimonies, both of the councils and Fathers and their respective dates.

Again: That confession is of divine institution, I prove from this well known axiom of law, viz: In dubio, melior est conditio possidentis: that is to say: If a man has enjoyed the quiet, and undisturbed possession of a certain property for a length of time, and it cannot be shewn, that he acquired or holds the same unjustly, the law will always support and maintain him in his possession, because it presumes always in favour of him who is in possession; and this very possession is considered by law a sufficient title: the justness of which decision, is founded upon this other maxim: Nemo presumitur malus donec robetur; i. e. no one is presumed guilty until he be proved. Now let this be applied to confession. The Catholic church has been in possession of confession, these eighteen hundred years: If not; let the contrary be proved. Let it be shewn, 1st. Who the artful impostor was, that first intruded it into the Christian world; 2dly in

what century, or age of the church this innovation took place; 3dly în what country it was first introduced; 4thly who were the chief abet tors of this strange dogma; and 5thly, who were they that opposed it. He who denies the divine institution of this sacrament, must be able to point out each of these five points: for, it is à fact well known to all who have the slightest knowledge in church history, that at the most trifling and insignificant innovations or changes that have taken place in the Christian world, every one of the above points can always be ascertained. Now as this is impossible in regard to confession; we must conclude that the author of confession, is our divine saviour Jesus Christ himself, according to the celebrated rule laid down by St. Austin, lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 6. where he says, (a) that when any doctrine is found generally received in the church, in any age what soever, whereof there is no certain author, or beginning to be found, theu it is sure, that such a doctrine comes down from Christ and his apostles.

2. I prove it, in the second place, from the difficulty of establishing such a law for if there be any thing in the Catholic church, which may be considered hard and difficult, it is most assuredly confession. What is there, in effect, more irksome and disagreeable than for an emperor, a king, or persons of the highest distinction, to be compelled to reveal to the priests, who are but sinful men like themselves, all their most hidden and shameful abominations of whatever na ture or species, or however painful the discovery may be to the feelings of the penitent, to submit to the judgment of these same priests, and to undergo the penalty enjoined by them? So great is the difficulty attending such a matter, that it may be safely pronounced incredible, that any prelate would ever dare to make, or introduce such a law; or that he would ever be able to persuade the people to receive and submit to it for so many ages; unless it were indeed established, supported and encouraged by a divine command, a divine institution, and a divine promise. Divine, therefore, must be the authority which has brought the minds of men to submit to confession, and divine the promise, that has brought them to submit to it willingly.

(a) Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec a conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, auctoritate apostolicâ traditum rectissime creditur. S. Aug. lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 6.