صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

sympathy, and affection, and to direct, counsel, and assist you, to consider this any thing but the most lenient, the most merciful mitigation of what is due to you, is an idea that fills the mind with pain and regret.*

2. But, in the second place, my brethren, not only is such an institution conformable to the wants of man, it is precisely in accordance with the method always pursued by God, for the forgiveness of sins. We find in the old law, that there was an institution for the forgiveness of sins, and that this institution was such as to make the manifestation of transgressions preliminary to its application. God divided the sacrifices into different classes. There were some for sins committed through ignorance, and others for voluntary transgressions of the law of God; and in the 5th chapter of Leviticus, we find it prescribed, that if any one transgressed he should confess his sin, and the priest should pray for him, and a particular sacrifice be offered, and so forgiveness be obtained. Hence it appears that the manifestation of sins to the Priests of the Temple, was a preliminary condition for their forgiveness, so far as legal sacrifice could be considered a means of pardon, that is to say, as a means of exciting faith in that great sacrifice, through which alone the forgiveness of sins could be obtained. I might further, as I have done again and again, point out analogies between the systems established by God in the Old Law, and that by our Saviour in the New. But it is not necessary to dwell longer upon this point.

3. But, finally, such an institution is exactly consistent, and analogous to the system of religion established through the new law. For there we find, as I have taken some pains to show you, that our Saviour established a kingdom, or species of dominion, in his church, consisting of an organized body, intended to minister to the wants of the faithful, with authority coming directly from him, that there was rule and command on the one side, with the obligation of learning and obeying on the other. Now, this system of authoritative government, which I also showed you, pervaded even the minor departments of the church, as established by Christ, seems to require for its completeness and perfection, that there should be also tribunals within it, to take cognizance of those transgressions which are committed against its laws, that is to say, the laws of God, to administer which it was appointed. We should naturally expect, for the complete

* Ap. Möhler, ubi sup.

organization of such a church, a collation of authority within it for the punishment of offences against its fundamental laws and precepts of morality; and as it was appointed by Christ to teach, so also should it be the judge of offences, and empowered to administer all necessary relief. Such an order, therefore, is consistent in every way, with all that belongs to such a religious constitution.

Now, after these remarks, which I trust will have prepared the way, I proceed to the reasons with which our doctrine presents itself to our belief, that there is a power of forgiving sins in the church, such as necessarily requires the manifestation even of hidden transgressions, and that it was so established by Christ himself.

The words of the text are the primary and principal foundation on which we rest. I need hardly observe, that as, in the old law, a confession or manifestation of sins was appointed among the means of obtaining forgiveness, so there are sufficient allusions, in the new, to a similar practice, sufficient to continue its recollection to the early Christians, and make them suppose that Providence had not completely broken up the system it had till then pursued. They were told to confess their sins to one another.* It is very true that this text is vague, it does not say confess your sins to the priest, nor to any private individual; although the mention of the priests of the church, in the preceding verses, might naturally suggest the idea of their being a special party to the act. And further, the words, "Confess your sins one to another," seem to command more than a general declaration of guilt, or the saying what even the most hardened sinner, when all around him are joining in it, will not refuse to repeat, "I have sinned before God." They seem to imply a more peculiar communication between one member of the church and another. At any rate, they serve to prove, that the manifestation of sin is not of modern date, and refute the objection that there is nothing in the New Testament to show this natural, obvious method of obtaining relief, to exist in the law of Christ.

But in the text, which I have prefixed to this discourse, have we not something more specific? Christ was not addressing his flock in general, but was giving a special charge to the Apostles; in other words, to the pastors of the church; because I have before shown you, that when a command was given to the apostles, not of especial privilege, such as that of working miracles, but one connected with the welfare and sal

James, v. 16.

VOL. II.-2

vation of the flock, that was a perpetual institution to be continued in the church. What does he tell them-"Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained." Here is a power in the first place, to forgive sins; and this expression "to forgive sins," in the New Testament, always signifies truly and really to clear the sinner of guilt against God. "Many sins are forgiven her," says our Saviour of Magdalen. What does he mean? Surely that she was purged, cleansed from sin. Those who heard the words so understood them. For they said "Who is this that forgiveth sins also ?"* They considered the privilege he here claimed as superior to the powers he had, till now manifested by the working of miracles. This could only be so thought of the right actually to remit or pardon an offence against God. And speaking to the penitent woman, he first said, "thy sins are forgiven thee;" and then, "go in peace,"-words of comfortable assurance, which must have led her to believe that she was fully pardoned. Again: "Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee." Those who heard him in this case went further, and "said within themselves, he blasphemeth :" they considered it an assumption of a privilege belonging to God alone; they understood his words in their primary, obvious meaning, of remitting the sins of man, committed against the Almighty; and our Saviour confirms them in this interpretation, by the words that follow:-"Which is easier to say, thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say, arise and walk; but that you may know that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," &c. So that to “ forgive sins" always signifies to pardon, to absolve, or cleanse the soul from sin. But all this reasoning is superfluous, if we treat with those who adhere to the Anglican Church. For, their service for the visitation of the sick, appoints the clergyman to say, in the very words which we use: By his (Christ's) authority, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen." The apostles, and their successors on earth, received this power; consequently, to them was given a power to absolve, or purge, and cancel the soul from its sins. There is another power also given, that of retaining sins. What is the meaning of retaining sins? Clearly the power of not forgiving them. But then this implies, of course--for the promise is annexed, that what sins they retain on earth

*Luke vii. 49.

66

† Matthew ix. 2.

are retained in heaven-that there is no other means of obtaining forgiveness, save through them. For the forgiveness of heaven is made to depend upon that which those give on earth; and those are not to be pardoned there, whose sins they retain. If a judge were sent forth with a commission, that whomever he should absolve, that person should go free; but that, to whomever he should refuse pardon, he should not be forgiven; would not this imply that no forgiveness was to be obtained except through him? And would not the commission otherwise be a nullity, an insult, and a mockery? For, would it not be an insult and a mockery of his authority, if another judge was also sent with equal power to pardon or punish delinquents; if there were other means of forgiveness, over which his award had no control. Not merely, therefore, a power to forgive sins is given in our commission, but such a power as excludes every other instrument or means of forgiveness in the new law. In fact, when Christ appoints any institution, for objects solely dependant on his will, that very fact excludes all other ordinary ineans. When he instituted baptism as a means of washing away original sin, that very institution excluded any other means of obtaining that benefit. In still stronger manner, then, does the commission here given constitute the exclusive means of forgiveness, in the ordinary method of God's appointments; for not only does it leave this to be deduced by inference, but, as we have seen, it positively so enacts, by limiting forgiveness in heaven to the concession of it here below, by those to whom it is entrusted.

But what must be the character of that power? Can you suppose that a judge would be sent on a circuit with a commission, to go through the country, so that whomever he sentenced should be punished according to that sentence, and those whom he acquitted should be pardoned; and understand that this discretionary power lodged in his hands could be discharged properly by going into the prisons, and saying to one man, “ you are acquitted," to another, "you must be punished," to a third, "you I pronounce guilty," and to a fourth," you I declare innocent," without investigation into their respective cases, without having the slightest ground for passing sentence of absolution upon the one, or of condemnation upon the other? Does not this two-fold authority imply the necessity of knowing the grounds of each individual case? Does it not suppose that the entire cause must be laid before the judge, and that he must examine into it,

and pronounce sentence consistently with the evidence before him?-and can we then believe, that our Saviour gave this two-fold office as the only means of obtaining pardon, to the priests of his church, and does not hold them bound to decide according to the respective merit of each case? Does he not necessarily mean, that, if the church retain or forgive, it must have motives for so doing? And how can we suppose that to be obtained, but by the case being laid before the judge; and who is able to do that but the offender alone? Therefore, does the commission itself imply, that whoever seeks, through this only channel, forgiveness, must manifest the guilt he has committed; he must bring the whole cause under the notice of his judge, and only upon its complete hearing can we pronounce a proper sentence.

This is the basis, this is the ground-work in Scripture of the Catholic doctrine, that sin is to be forgiven by the pastors of the church, in consequence of the institution of Christ, who has appointed them as his judges, his vicegerents, and ministers, for that purpose; and that, to obtain this forgiveness, it is necessary to lay the case,-in other words, all our transgressions--before him who is entrusted with the sibility of the sentence pronounced.

[graphic]

respon.

But, my brethren, clear and simple as this reasoning may be, we perhaps might feel ourselves less secure in sanctioning it, were we not so completely supported by the conduct and authority of all antiquity. Many of you may, perhaps, have heard it repeatedly said, that auricular confession, as it is called, was not heard of in the first or second century of the church. Let it be so; let us suppose it, or rather allow it for a moment. But do those who tell you so, (for the assertion is incorrect,) tell you also the reason why it is not so much mentioned? The reason is, that instead of auricular confession, we read a great deal more of public confession; for, the sinner was obliged to manifest his hidden crimes in the presence of the whole church, and undergo a severe penance in consequence of it. And those who are such sticklers for antiquity on this head, and regret auricular confession, should surely take antiquity to its extent; and if they reject ours, why not adopt the other practice, as consistent with the usages of the ancient church? This is the fact, that as to the extent of the manifestation of sins, this may be a matter of secondary or disciplinary consideration; whether she may direct private or public confession, is altogether matter of discipline. It is sufficient to establish that there is no forgiveness except by the manifestation of crime: that

« السابقةمتابعة »