shall we hide it from God? Is it thus that the opinion of men and the omniscience of the Deity are placed in opposite scales? Is it better thus to remain concealed in a state of damnation, than openly to be absolved? That is truly a wretched mode of making a confession". Here Tertullian evidently speaks of confession as necessary to salvation; and, as an essential preparation, to be juridically absolved by the priest. He confines it not to the declaration of public crimes, which, by the discipline of that age, were visited with public pains and penalties; but extends to those secret transgressions, where shame prevents disclosure.

A short period after this, St. Cyprian speaks of the discipline of the same age, on this subject, in such a manner as to preclude all doubt. In his celebrated treatise On the Lapsed, he labours to induce sinners to declare not only their public and avowed crimes, but even their sins of thought, the secret designs of their hearts; and, in pursuing this direction, he says: "He (God) sees the hearts of each, and will pass sentence not only on actions, but on our words and our thoughts. He beholds the minds and wills of all mankind,

1 Tertull. de Pœnitent. c. 10. Videlicet si quid humanæ notitiæ subduxerimus, proinde et Deum celabimus? Adeone existimatio hominum et Dei conscientia comparantur? An melius est damnatum latere, quam palam absolvi. Miserum est sic ad exomologesim pervenire.

existing in the concealment of an interior receptacle. Finally, in proportion as persons are more eminent for faith, and the fear of the Lord, though they may not be chargeable with the crime of offering sacrifices to idols, or of having procured attestations to that effect, yet as they have. thought of it, they confess this circumstance with grief and simplicity to the priests of God; they make a confession of their conscience; they unload their souls; they seek a salutary remedy for their small and inconsiderable wounds, well knowing that it is written: God is not mocked 1.”

1

To this declaration of St. Cyprian in favour of private auricular confession, no rational objection can be made. For he clearly requires confession not only in the case of public crimes, which at that period were subjected to public penance, but he even demands the confession of transgressions comparatively inconsiderable, at the hazard of displeasing God. Deus non irridetur—God is not mocked. Accordingly, this and similar testimonies from the remotest antiquity, have had

1 St. Cyprian de Lapsis, versus fin: denique quanto et fide majores et timore meliores sunt, qui quamvis nullo sacrificii aut libelli facinore constricti, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes Dei dolenter et simpliciter confitentes exomologesim conscientiæ faciunt, animi sui pondus exponunt, salutarem medelam parvis licet et modicis exquirunt, scientes esse scriptum, Deus non irridetur.

such an effect among many protestant divines, that they have fairly given up the point in debate. Instead, therefore, of accumulating a mass of evidence from the holy fathers of the church, I have only to treat my opponent with a few specimens of honesty and candour, in which the fathers of the established church have acknowledged the truth.

"It is confessed," says the learned Bishop Montague, “that all priests, and none but priests, have power to forgive sins; that private confession is a very ancient practice in the church. We urge it in extremes; we require it in cases of perplexity'." This is a fair admission, but not more explicit than what is seen in the pages of Dove. "To advise," says he, "the use of private confession to the priest, is no popish innovation, but agreeable to the constant practice of this church. And if any call it auricular, because private and in the priest's ear, I know not why they should be condemned of popery." It appears from these evidences, that the doctrine of the Catholic church and that of the Protestant establishment, may be considered to be in accordance on the subject; except that the Catholic regards confession as a matter of strict and

1 Gagger Gagged, p. 78, et seq.

2 Dove's Innovations unjustly charged, p. 557.

conscientious obligation, and adopts the practice through life; while the free and high-minded Protestant treats the subject more lightly, and reserves the use of the remedy till that period, when various circumstances may render the application impracticable.

I have another quotation in store for the catechist; and possibly its very explicit and satisfactory tone may occasion, in the nerves of my opponent, an unusual degree of irritation. "Our confession," says Dr. Sparrow, "must be integra et perfecta, not by halves; all our sins must be confessed, omnia venialia, omnia mortalia. God blots out our sins; true, but there is another confessor, that should not be neglected; he who would be sure of pardon, let him find a priest, and make his humble confession to him, God having delegated priests his judges here on earth, and given them power of absolution, so that they can forgive the sins of those who humbly confess to them. Heaven awaits, and expects the priest's sentence here, and what the servant binds or looses, the Lord confirms in Heaven." After this clear and satisfactory evidence from the pens of Protestant divines of high rank and authority, what says the humble catechist? The length of the preceding observations enables me to dispatch

1 Bishop Sparrow's Sermon on Confession, p. 14, et seq.

his slender remarks in a manner altogether unceremonious.

I. The catechist says, "there is nothing in the word of God which makes the neglect of confession damnable." If the good catechist would deign to read the preceding observations with care, he will find that a power to remit sin, clearly expressed in the word of God, cannot be brought into action without confession. We are therefore constrained either to admit the practice of confession as the regular and necessary mode of ensuring the remission of sin, or openly to acknowledge that the power thus left in the church is nugatory, and to be abandoned to the caprice of the individual who seeks the remission of his sins. This latter intention the catechist assuredly will not impute to the wisdom of the Son of God. Besides, let the catechist deliberately compare the doctrine of Bishop Sparrow on this subject, with that of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, as recorded in the preceding observations, and he will probably be disposed to withdraw his groundless objections.

II. Again he says, "that the word of God says nothing about confession to a priest, but only about contrition." If the word of God says nothing about confession to a priest, where does it justify the practice of confession to a parson ? With what front, with what portion of decency,