the controul of the Bishops. What was suppressed, the historian has distinctly related: but that, besides the public disclosure of sins, private or auricular Confession was practised, has appeared from the Greek Fathers, whose authorities have been given ; which practice, notwithstanding the suppression in question, continued, without any change that is recorded, at Constantinople, and in the Churches of the East. Indeed, the historian, writing after the event, seems to lay it down as a principle, that, “in begging pardon, it is necessary, that sin should be confessed.”(0) And what he adds about each one being left to himself “to approach the holy mysteries,” could refer only to the controul of the Penitentiary and public Confession, which Nectarius had suppressed. The observation of Socrates, that after that event, men would no longer rebuke one another for their crimes,” manifestly regarded the same public disclosure.
But whatever be thought of this incident, which had only a partial effect, it is known, even on the state of public penances, in the East, and none on private Confession in what could it have affected Rome and the Western Churches? Having stated what, in these Churches, was the practice: “This form,” the historian says, “the Bishops of Rome, from ancient times, down to our own days, observe.”(D) Then nothing was here changed: the whole system of penitential discipline remained, as it had been established.-Was I not then authorised to say, that a stress had been laid upon this event which it did not merit?
I will, however, add, on this point, the observations of the learned Henry Valois.[1] —Having premised, that the event,
- ↑ He died at Paris, in 1676, having edited various works; partiticularly the Greek ecclesiastical historians, whom he translated into Latin, and enriched with valuable notes.
