their Repentance; and the praying for one another, fignifies the Prayer of Faith, i. e. the Prayer of fuch, who, from fome inward Infpiration, were affured that what they had prayed for, fhould certainly come to pass. For the cafe in fhort was this:

God in the beginning of the Church was wont to punish several notorious and feandalous Sinners with bodily Sicknefs (as is manifeft from 1 Cor. 11. 30. For this caufe many are weak and fickly among you, and many fleep.) And the Apoftle St. James here directs thofe whom God had thus punished, to fend for the Elders of the Church, ver. 14. who were endued with a Power of working Miracles, (Luke 9. 1, 2. Mark 6. 13. Acts 2.43.) and to acquaint them what they had been guilty of, which might give occafion to God thus to punish them; and if the Elders of the Church, from fome inward Inspiration, understood that God, by them, would work a miraculous Cure upon fuch who were fick, they would then pray over them, anointing them with Oil, and the effect fhould immediately follow.

Now is there not a great deal of difference betwixt publickly confeffing fome particular Faults upon fuch an occafion as this was, and when there was fuch a Power of healing in the Church, and the being conftantly obliged to confefs in private to the Prieft all Sins whatsoever? But they, who, from anointing with Oil, which was nothing elfe but a Ceremony of the Gift of Healing, could fo eafily infer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, are to be excufed if they have deduced another Sacrament from what is in the fame place faid concerning Confeffion.

Thirdly,

Thirdly, That although the Words of St. James may be thus interpreted with relation to what went before; yet they may be confidered as a general Propofition, deduceable from what the Apoftle had difcourfed in the 14th and 15th Verfes, concerning thofe extraordinary Cures wrought by the Prayers of the Elders upon fuch as were fick; and tliat because,

1. Here is nothing faid concerning anointing with Oil, which was only used when any extraordinary Cure was wrought.

2. Because it is not faid, Confefs to the Elders, but to one another; which is a general term, and takes in thofe of the Laity as well as thofe of the Clergy.

3. Because there is annexed a known general Duty of praying for one another.

Now if the words contain a general Propofition, and that the Apoftle, having fhown how prevalent the Prayers of good Men are in fome cafes on the behalf of Penitents, does from thence take occafion to perfwade all Chriftians to acknowledg their Faults to one another, that fo by their mutual Advice and Prayers for one another, they may be recovered of all their fpiritual Diftempers, of what kind foever: there will ftill be lefs foundation in this Paffage for the Doctrine of Auricular Confeffion. For then Bellarmine's forced Interpretation [Confefs to one another, i. e. you who want Abfolution, to those who have power of giving it ] can never take place. But the Confeffion, here fpoken of, must be mutual, of any good Chriftian to another and it may as well be inferred from the latter Exhortation, to pray for one another, that none but the Priest

Ttt 2

is

is to put up Prayers unto God for us, as from the former, that we are only to confefs to him.

The laft Text in the New Teftament which Bellarmine does more particularly infift upon, is that of St. John, 1 Joh. 1. 9. But if we confefs our Sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins, and to cleanse us from all Unrighteousness.

To which it may be replied:

1. That he himself is fo modeft as to affert Sacramental Confeffion to be only probably inferred from this place.

2. That he grounds this Probability upon the Supposition, that in the 20th of St.John, ver. 23. Whofe-foever Sins ye remit, they are remitted, &c. Confeffion is determined to be of abfolute neceffity; and therefore that when it is here faid, that God is faithful and juft, it is with respect to the Promise by him there made, of pardoning all fuch who confeffed their Sins to the Priest, and none else; whereas it has been shown, the neceffity of Auricular Confeffion cannot be proved from that Paffage..

3. That the Confeffion, here fpoken of, is (according to the Interpretation of fome of the best Popish Commentators) to God alone, and does denote not a particular recital of all Sins whatfoever, but an humble acknowledgment (like that of the Publicans, Luk. 18.. 13.) of having offended God, in oppofition to their Prefumption, who (like the proud Pharifee, Luk. 18. I.I, 12.)

11, 12.) rely too much upon their own Merits, and (as it is expreffed in the Verse precedent) Say they have 1 Joh. 1.8. no Sin.

Having thus examined those Texts wherein Auricular Confeffion is fuppofed to be directly proved, I might with good reafon pass over fuch wherein it is declared to be only prefigured.

I

bo Dei lib. 3.

1. Because Bellarmine himself confeffeth, that Argu- Bell. de verments, which carry any force or efficacy along with can be fetched only from the literal Senfe of the

tures.

them, cap. 3. Con Scrip- venit inter

Nos & Adverfarios ex folo

cacia.

2. Because when the thing it felf is not to be found literali fenfu in the Scriptures, it is to no purpose to talk of its be- peti debere ing prefigured. If neither thofe Texts which I have argumenta effiexamined, nor any other, do clearly fhow Auricular Confeffion to be of Divine Inftitution, of what use can it be to appeal to other Scriptures for the finding out some resemblances of it?

But however, that all pretence of Argument from Scripture may be wholly removed, I fhall likewife briefly confider the feveral Figures of Auricular Confeffion fet down by Bellarmine, and from him borrowed by the Catholick Scripturist, and other Popish Writers.

The firft Figure of Auricular Confeffion is fetched Bell. de Pœn from Gen. 3. & 4. where God is faid to require a Con- lib. 3, c. 3, feffion firft of Adam, and then of Cain, by an Angel, the Representative of the Prieft under the Gospel.

I anfwer: The Confeffion, here fpoken of, was made only to God, and that the Voice of one walking in

the

the Garden (Gen. 3.) faid by Bellarmine to be the Voice of an Angel, was the Voice of God: For it was the Voice of him who gave the Commandment Corn, à Lap. about not eating of the Tree of Life (ver. 11.) and the Voice of him who gave the Woman to the Man, ver.12.

in loc.

The fecond Figure is found in the 13th and 14th Chapters of Leviticus, where the Leper coming to the Pricft to receive his Judgment, whether he were clean or no, is fuppofed to prefigure the Sinner's coming to Confeffion to the Prieft under the Gofpel. ·

But there is a great difference betwixt these two.

1. Because the Leper's coming was publick; but the Confeffion required is private.

2. Because the Leprofie was but one particular Diseafe; whereas Auricular Confeffion is an enumeration of all Sins whatsoever.

3. Because the Leprofie was visible in the outward parts of the Body; but Auricular Confeffion is not only of open and fcandalous Sins, but of the most internal and fecret Faults.

4. Because the Leper came for Judgment, whether he were clean or no; but the Sinner who comes to Confeffion, comes to be made clean, i. e. to be abfolved.

5. Because the Leper came when he himself was not certain whether he was infected with the Leprofie

or