on the ground of duty. The inconvenience was perceived, in its bringing forward of some facts, which induced great scandal on religion: of which a signal instance is on record, as happening in Constantinople, under the episcopacy of Nectarius. In consequence of this, he abolished publick confession within his diocese. Out of the ashes of that practice, arose the other of private confession, as a general duty: but it grew by degrees; and was not enjoined by any of the councils called "general," until that of the Lateran, in the thirteenth century.* Even then it rested as a matter of discipline; and was not affirmed as of divine commandment, until so declared by the council of Trent.

It would be easy to recite from ancient fathers, exhortations to repentance under a variety of circumstances; and expressed in such forms, as show that they are materially defective; if auricular confession, so evidently wanting in them, were thought universally a duty. There shall be given the instance of the Ro. man Clement-undoubtedly the person referred to in Philipp. iv. 3, as having "his name written in the book of life." In his admirable Epistle to the Corinthians, written for the express purpose of reclaiming them from a schism; after having set before them the heinousness of their offence, he exhorts them to beg God's forgiveness; enlarging on the sentiment, without any intimation of a preparatory step of auricular confession. This, if required, might also have been pertinently introduced in another place, where he admonishes those who had laid the first foundation of the schism, to submit themselves to their presbyters; and to be instructed to repentance, bending the knees of their hearts. It may be alleged, that confession was an appendage to the repentance, to which they were to be instructed. But this is the matter in question; and it is contended, that the general requisition of such a condition would naturally have introduced the men. tion of it in this place. The Corinthians, it is true, in + Chap. li. + Chap. Ivii.

Canon 21.

the very return from their schism, must have acknowledged their fault therein. But it is easy to perceive the difference between this, and the disclosure of the heart implied in the subject under consideration.

The same inference may be drawn from the second Epistle of St. Clement; if it be indeed his, and not rather, as some think, erroneously ascribed to him, although confessedly very ancient. Be this as it may, we have there an earnest exhortation to repentance; without a word concerning the necessity of confession to a minister.

But there is no reason to confine to the first three centuries, what is here affirmed of the sense of the fathers. Those of the fourth century, were equally strangers to the doctrine in question. Especial stress should be laid on the evidences of this, found in the writings of St. Chrysostome; who, succeeding Nectarius in the see of Constantinople, may be expected to have spoken with a reference to the lately abrogated confession in publick; but not without regard to the private confession, had there been any such. How far he was from this, may be perceived in the following extract from his thirty-first homily on the epistle to the Hebrews-" He who hath sinned, is certainly an ob. ject of mercy and clemency. But as for you who are not persuaded of this, how do you suppose it possible that you should obtain mercy? Why do you bear yourself with so much confidence? Let us be persuaded that we have sinned. Let us say it, not only with our tongue, but also in mind and thought. Let us not only say that we are sinners, but review our sins, numbering them especially and one by one. I do not say to you, that you are to make an ostentatious display of them, but that you should obey the prophet saying, confess your way unto the Lord. To God, to the judge, confess your sins, praying, if not with tongue, at least with the memory; and so pray that he may have mercy on you."

There might be made numerous quotations from the same father, to the same effect. But they are the

less necessary, as the fact of their being found in his works is explicitly acknowledged by Dupin; who accounts for it by the supposition, that very small offences, and such as need no confession are intended. But how does this consist with the above quoted passage; in which is enjoined the revolving of them specially and one by one in the mind, in order that they may be confessed with the same minuteness to the Lord? Much more; how does it consist with passages referred to by Dupin himself, in which Chrysostome speaks of the confession exacted, as what should be accompanied by tears, by alms, by humility, by prayer, and by other like remedies?

The historian also departs from his usual accuracy; when, in order to guard against the supposition, that private confession to God is opposed to the lately abolished publick confession before the Church, he intimates, that the places in question are in homilies delivered in Antioch, while the preacher was a priest in that Church; and before his succeeding of Nectarius, as bishop of Constantinople. The passage above given from the commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, comes not under that description. Besides, the fact of the abrogation of publick confession in the latter city, may have been prior to the delivery of the homilies in the former; and if so, could not but have been of notoriety.

The evils to which the assumed power may lead, and to which it has been confessedly abused in some places, is a matter of very serious consideration. For although legitimate power is liable to abuse; yet in proportion as any asserted right has been known to extend to the corrupting of the consciences of individuals, to the invading of domestick comforts, and to the producing of disturbances in states, the greater should be the caution of looking well to the authority, which is said to sustain a claim, so easily made the engine of ambition, and the cover of licentiousness. It is reported of the secret intercourse in question, that it has been sometimes the mean of preventing and of redressing

wrongs, which would have eluded the instructions of the pulpit. That these also have the same effect, becomes sometimes known to those who are happily the mean of accomplishing it: which gives ground of hope, that it takes place on other occasions, known only to the parties. So far however as private confession increases this good, it should be put into the balance against the immensely disproportionate mass of evils.

Among these, is the granting of indulgences, as a release from penalties inflicted in penance; and from punishment due in another world, for the non-payment of them in the present. The abuses in the issuing of indulgences, is not denied by any: and if it be pleaded, that they may be administered with discretion; it is at present to the purpose merely to state, that every Christian should look well to the foundation, on which so great a superstition has been confessedly erected.

SECTION II.

OF ASSURANCE.

In the lecture, there was but slightly touched the tenet held by some, that the test of acceptance with God, is an assurance of the fact conveyed immediately to the mind of the party, by the Holy Spirit of God. The consequent certainty is often illustrated by and compared with the saying of our Saviour to certain of his day" My son, thy sins are forgiven thee." By him it was delivered vocally, and received by the organ of the ear: but it is now supposed to be said spiritually, and to be known by an inward feeling. Concerning this tenet it is designed to show, that the texts usually urged in favour of it are irrelative; and that there are other texts in opposition.

The passage the most commonly quoted in favour of the assurance here denied, is Rom. viii. 16-"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God." These words are reasoned

from, as if the language were-"To our spirits:" and some writers have so long contemplated the passage in that sense, as incautiously to make a wrong quotation of the words. But there are evidently spoken of two witnesses, whose joint testimony is to be relied on. One of them is the Holy Spirit of God, in his miraculous effusions on the converted Gentiles of Rome; and the other refers to their own spirits, conscious of the holy dispositions suited to the Christian calling. What the said miraculous effusion was to the infant Church, the authentick record of it, and other evidences of Christianity are, to believers of the present day. When there is a consent of the possession of Christian graces with the requisitions of the word of God, there is the joint testimony recognized in the passage. Any other species of assurance, may be the result of animal sensibility.

Another passage, is Rom. v. 5-" And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." This is thought the state of mind, which must needs be accompanied by assurance. But the apostle makes it a cause of hope; although so well grounded, as to be no cause of shame. What is here meant by "the love of God?" Is it the loving of him? Or is it his love to those in question? If it be the former, there can be no doubt, that our loving of God is one of the fruits of the Spirit; and therefore enters into a test of acceptance, very different from that objected to. However, it is rather here believed, that the text means the love of God, which was poured out on the Gentile Christians, in the miraculous effusion of the gift of the Holy Ghost; the same being appealed to by the apostle, as evidence of God's receiving of them into his Church, without subjection to the Mosaick law; agreeably to the whole argument of the epistle. The Greek word translated "shed abroad"* favours this interpretation. So does the end of St. Paul in writing,