A. It is to satisfy God and our neighbour for the injury done them.

Q. How is satisfaction made to God?

A. By fulfilling our penance, by fasting, prayers, and alms-deeds, and by bearing patiently whatever crosses come in our way.-Dr. Butler's Catechism, page 23.

It is here taught to the youth of our land that the sinner can by his own performances make satisfaction to God for the injury done him! Oh, how light a matter must sin be in the estimation of your spiritual guides! Our fastings, prayers, and alms atone for our sins! These things restore the soul to life after mortal sin has killed it! The guilty soul regenerated by these bodily exercises, upon every approach to the tribunal of confession! But when one mortal sin has extinguished the vital spark in the soul, how can it be said to be killed by the next and the next? The devil, it seems, becomes an Alexander in this business :

"And thrice he slew the slain."

May I ask, is there a new-birth produced, a new-life communicated, by every penitential incubation? The Council of Trent, in substantial agreement with the Catechism just quoted, gives three conditions as essential to Penance; namely, "contrition, confession, and satisfaction." Now, if satisfaction to God be an

essential part of Penance, it follows, that the validity of the absolution is conditional on the proper performance of "the prayers, fasting, alms-deeds," &c.; so that no man can be sure that he is actually absolved; that is, that the Priest's words have taken effect, until he is certain that all the penance imposed has been perfectly fulfilled, and that the punishment has been proportioned to the guilt! A very nice inquiry, and onewhich, if properly attended to, would damp that light-heartedness which is often experienced on rising from the knee of the Priest. It is too soon to rejoice, my dear Friend. The grand essential point on which pardon is suspendednamely, satisfaction for sin-the paying of the penalty is still pending, and may, after all, never be secured.

Now is it not strange, that throughout the whole Bible, "praying, fasting, and alms-deeds" are never once mentioned as the conditions of pardon, or as modes of satisfying for sin? and is it not passing strange, that there is not even a distant allusion to the blood of Jesus, when your Church authoritatively lays down the plan by which the sinner's conscience is to be cleared of guilt? Among the laws of association, which Aristotle has adverted to as helps to the memory, are likeness and contrast. Now, Sir, if the

doctrines taught by the soi-disant successor of Peter should suggest to the mind those which were proclaimed to the world by that venerable apostle, it cannot be by their resemblance, but their opposition. Take, as an illustration of this statement, Acts x. 43, where Peter declares, "To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins." Listen, also, to Paul. "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Rom. iii. 24, 25. And again, "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb. ix. 14. Hear another apostle, the venerable John. "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins."

Again, I ask, is it not singular, that in the Roman doctrine of remission of sins there is no mention of the blood of Christ applied to the

AURICULAR CONFESSION.

1

185

heart by faith, although these things are almost perpetually coupled together in Scripture? And is it not equally singular, that the apostles in their preaching always urge the sinner simply to believe on Christ for the pardon of his sins, but never to go to confession? How is it that we have no instance of auricular confession in the New Testament; that none ever kneeled down to the apostles, except through superstitious reverence, before they understood the Christian doctrine, when they were always promptly rebuked?

But, then, I am reminded of the power conferred on the apostles concerning the keys, binding and loosing, remitting and retaining sin, and so forth. These allusions are figurative. Keys are intended for a door; and Christ is the door by which we enter into the spiritual kingdom. To receive the keys of the kingdom is to receive authority to preach Christ-an authority conferred on all real ministers as well as the apostles; and this authority Peter was the first to exercise on the day of Pentecost; and he was afterwards privileged to throw open the door to the Gentiles, against whom his Jewish prejudices would keep it perpetually locked. This is the simple meaning of this figurative language, so familiar to the sacred writers, The Scribes and

Pharisees had the "key of knowledge," which they took from the people, refusing to enter themselves and hindering others.

was this key?

Now what Something that opened the kingdom of heaven; namely, the Word of Truth, of which they had robbed the people! Does not this passage clear up the mystery about Peter's keys?

There is, however, another sense in which pastors of churches may bind and loose, and to this the terms above referred to may be understood to apply; that is, in the exercise of discipline. Take, as an illustration, 2 Cor. ii. 10: "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also." The apostle is referring to a case of church discipline. A member had acted unworthily, and had been punished by excision, which was the act of the " many;" that is, of the assembled church. The apostle now urges them to remit the punishment-to "forgive;" and he forgives, in the sight of Christ, in the very same manner that they do. Thus you perceive the manifest application of the language to church discipline. The case is perfectly in point.

Let us now refer to Matt. xviii. 15-18, a passage which we shall find, if possible, still more decisive. If your offending brother-member cannot be gained by private remonstrance