Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/322

 ],4 PBN&NGsCONFES810N. [Boos 11. preaching, though sometimes adduced for the purpose, gives no proper ground for establishing auricular confession to a priest. Their con- ihssion was widely different from that practised now by the Church of Rome. Theirs was a confession of sins, not to John, but to God; it was not a particular but a general confession, as was frequent in the Old Testament, (Ezra ix, Neh. ix, Dan. ix,) and such as the high priest made on the day of atonement of all t iniquities of t cAildren of Irad; it was not a confession required by the Baptist, but one voluntarily made by themselvts; in all of these circumstances it differs from the auricular confession practised by the Church of Rome. The Council of Trent, indeed, makes their new doctrine depend on the words of Christ recited by St. John: "Whose sins ye remit, the)' are remitted," &c. But then we may remark, 1. The clus of doctors called the canonism, as Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cajetan, and Jansenins, do not allow that confession was instituted by Christ, and that precisely from the words of Christ confession to a priest cannot be inferred. 2. Among those who do infer their doctrine from these words, there is a great difference in the manner in which they make their inferences, thereby showing great confusion of sentiment. Therefore, since so many learned men of the Roman Catholic Church maintain that this doctrine is not contained iu this place of St. John; and others, who allow this doctrine is found there, are endlessly divided about the manner of exposition; we must conclude that this passage gives no sure ground on which to build confession. They say, however, that auricular confession is necessary in order to ascertain the disposition of sinners, for the purpose of properly ad- ministering absolution. But this argument is confuted by confuting their doctrine of absolution, which has, we think, been already done. And for administering the absolution spoken of in the gospel, via., de- elating thb terms of salvation, the dispositions of a penitent may u truly be ascertained without as with a particular confession. A rnmi my fully confess all the sins he can recollect, and express the greatest sorrow for them, with full purposes of amendment, yet in the real dis- F/itions of his heart he may be truly a hypocrite. On the other hand, may manifest the fullest sorrow for sin, without particularly detailing ]ds sins. In short, they cannot produce one text of Scripture wherein auricular sacramental confession of sins to a priest is recommended either by our Lord or his apesdes; or. one text wherein it appears that it was practised by any Christian, either of the clergy or laity, in any in- stance; or lastly, one text in which it was so much as mentioned. And therefore, to impose private confessions, as a necessary condition of repe. ntance, on the Christian world, under pain of damnation, is au excesmve assumption without any just ground. 4. As there is no command, no practice, no mention of this sacra- mental private confession in Scripture, so there is much against it. According to Scripture, we find that the confession which the peni- tent sinner makes to God alone has the promise of forgiveness annexed to it; which no priest on earth hath power to make void, ou pratenos that himself, or some one of his fellows, was not first particularly acquainted with the business. "I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have ! not hid: I said, I will confess my transgres- 1

�