CI?AP. IX.] PuNANCE--CONIPSSS!O?. 3 ! 5 s/ous unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin,"Psa. xxxii, 5. And lest any should say that this was some Pecttliar privi- lege vouchsafed to himself, the psalmist draws this general conclusion in the next verne: "For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee, in a time when thou mayest be found." Solomon, in his prayer for the people at the dedication of the temple, treads in his father's steps. "If they turn and pray unto thee in the land of their captivity, saying, We have sinned, we have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly; if they return to thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, &c., forK/re thy people, which have sinned against thee," 2 Chron. vi, 37, 39. The publican cried, "God be merciful to me a sinner," and went to his house justified. St. John assures us, "If we confess our sins, .[to C:k)d certainly,] he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins," 1 John ?, 9. Let us examine with ordinary attention the instructions given to the fn'st Christian churches in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the apostolical episfies of St. Paul, James, Peter, and John, and we shall find that the condition of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ are the terms of remission of sins; not only of those com- mitted before, but also of those committed after baptism. It appears from what has been said, and much more might be said, how litde evidence there is for saying that sacramental confession was instituted by Christ and made necessary to salvation, since from the Scriptures we see quite the contrary was the case. But the strength of the RomanisM, in this point and several others, does not lie in Scripture, but in the multitude of vouchers which they pretend to bring tram antiquity. They affirm that*this was the doctrine of the t?thers, and the practice of the primitive church. 5. We will make some remarks before we enter on the discussion of their argument for antiquity. We grant that public confession of sins in the face of the church, especially of notorious, scandalous sins, was much iu use in the primitive church; and that private confession of sins to a discreet minister, in order to obtain direction and comfort, was both frequently recommended and frequently practised in all times, but more especially after public confessions grew into disuse. But having granted thus far, we assert that this makes nothing for the popish confession. It is, furthermore, to be observed, that the dispute is not concerning the existence or lawfulhess of confession, whether general or particu- lar, but concerning the religious obligation of it on the conscience, and whether it is, as they maintain, necessary to obtain pardon and salva- tion. Having premised these things, we assert that private confession of sin8 to a priest i8 not supported at all by the earliest antiquity of the church. First, Because private confession in all cases was never thought of as a command nf God for nine hundred years after Christ; nor deter- mined to be such till the Council of Lateran in 1215 decreed it; which was the same council that established transubstantiation, and the doc- trine of depriving princes in case they were heretical, or did not extir- pate heretics. Even this council enjoined it only as an ecclesiastical constitution. But the Council of Trent, in the year 1545, decreed pri- vat? confession to a priest to be an ordinance of Christ, and necessary to oaivltion. So that whatsvat mzy be said of auricular confession as 1
�
